Ancestorium Family Tree Collaboration



Matches 1 to 50 of 35,802

      1 2 3 4 5 ... 717» Next»

 #   Notes   Linked to 

"Burke called him Marquis d'Ivree and Roi d'Italie, also Margrave of Ivrea, count of Milan"
Directory of Royal Genealogical Data
Author: Brian Tompsett

For the sources of information, see in this file under "INFORMATION, Sources of" and also "INFORMATION, General Clan Genealogy ". See also "History" for a range of historical information.

Berengar II of Italy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Berengar of Ivrea (?-966), sometimes also referred to as Berengar II of Italy, was margrave of Ivrea. He was of Lombard descent.

Following the uprising he led became the effective King of Italy upon the withdrawal to Provence of Hugh of Arles, who left his young son Lothar as titular king. At the death of Lothar a few years later, in 950, Berengar seized the opportunity and declared himself king, with his son as co-king. He tried to legitimize his rule by forcing Adelaide, the respective daughter, daughter-in-law, and widow of the last three kings of Italy, into marriage with his son Adalbert. Adelaide's requests for intervention resulted in Otto I's invasion in 951, where Berengar was forced to pay homage to the Emperor (952). Otto, a widower, subsequently married Adelaide himself. Berengar was deposed by Otto, and Northern Italy came under direct control of the Holy Roman Empire.

Berengar continued in his position as a vassal of the Empire. Later (from 960) Berengar and his son Adalbert attacked Pope John XII, on whose appeal Otto marched into Rome and was crowned emperor (962). John's subsequent negotiations with Berengar caused Otto to depose the pope and capture and imprison Berengar in Germany (963).

His consort was Willa, the daughter of Boso, count of Arles and Avignon and margrave of Tuscany; she mistreated Adelaide when Berengar held her captive for several months in 951. The chronicler Liutprand of Cremona, raised at his court at Pavia, gives several particularly vivid accounts of Willa's character.[1] She was held captive in a German nunnery.
Italy, Berenger II of Ivrea King of (I041269)

William Borden
Gender: Male
Birth: 1450 of Headcorn, Kent, England (United Kingdom)
Death: circa February 10, 1531 (76-85) Headcorn, Kent, England (United Kingdom)
Place of Burial: the Church of Our Lady between his wives Joan and Thamasine., Kent, England (United Kingdom)

Immediate Family:
Son of Under sheriff John Borden and Benedicta Turner / Tornor
Husband of Thomasine or Joan NN
Father of Elizabeth borden; Katharine borden; Thomas borden; William Borden and Edmund Borden
Brother of Alice Borden; Isabella Borden; Roger Borden; Joan Borden; Roberga Borden; and John Brode « less
Added by: Charles Dollins on March 28, 2007
Managed by: Henrik Nissen Sætness and 34 others
Curated by: Angus Wood-Salomon

William BORDEN, of Headcorn, can also be found on the list of those paying taxes to King Henry VIII. He was born after 1450. He died at Headcorn between 10 February 1530/1 and 25 September 1531.
In his will he requested to be buried within the Church of Our Lady between his wives Joan and Thamasine. His will mentioned his living wife Ros
Not all researchers agree, but he appears to have been the father of Edmund BORDEN, who many think was the son of Thamasine -----. William's other children were: Edward BORDEN, Thomas BORDEN, Elizabeth BORDEN, Anne BORDEN, and Katharine BORDEN.
1.ID: I28161
2.Name: William Borden
3.Sex: M
4.Birth: ABT 1450 in Headcorn, Kent Co., England
5.Death: 1531 in Headcorn, Kent Co., England
Father: John Borden b: 1425 in Headcorn, Kent Co., England
Mother: Bennet Turnor b: 1427 in Headcorn, Kent Co., England
Marriage 1 Thamasine ?...? b: ABT 1452 in Headcorn, Kent Co., England
1. Has Children Edmund Borden b: 1480 in Headcorn, Kent Co., England
1.ID: I01076
2.Name: William BORDEN
3.Sex: M
4.Birth: ABT 1450 in Headcorn, Kent, England
5.Death: BEF 25 SEP 1531 in Headcorn, Kent, England
6.Burial: Church of Our Lady
7.Change Date: 3 FEB 2005
8.Will: 10 FEB 1531
9.Note: Will dated 10 Feb 1530/1, proved 25 Sep 1531, asked to be buried between his two wives Joan and Thamasine. Mentioned in his uncle Richard's will. Mentioned in his mother's will.
Father: John BORDEN b: 1425 in Headcorn, Kent, England
Mother: Benett TOMAR b: 1427 in Headcorn, Kent, England
Other Spouses: Rose
Marriage 1 Thomasine b: ABT 1452 in Headcorn, Kent, England
1. Has No Children Edward BORDEN b: 1468 in Headcorn, Kent, England
2. Has No Children Thomas BORDEN b: 1470 in Hedcorn, Kent, England
3. Has No Children Elizabeth BORDEN b: 1472 in Headcorn Churchyard, Headcorn, Kent, England
4. Has No Children Anne BORDEN b: 1474 in Headcorn Churchyard, Headcorn, Kent, England
5. Has No Children Katherine BORDEN b: 1476 in Headcorn, Kent, England
6. Has Children Edmund BORDEN b: ABT 1480 in Headcorn, Kent, England
7. Has No Children William BORDEN b: 1490
Marriage 2 Rose b: 1454 in Headcorn, Kent, England
Marriage 3 Joan b: 1454 in Headcorn, Kent, England
Borden, William (I135933)

Eon la Zouche1
M, #652, d. 1279
Last Edited=18 Apr 2012
Consanguinity Index=0.0%
Eon la Zouche was the son of Roger la Zouche and Margaret (?).2 He married Millicent de Cauntelo, daughter of William de Cauntelo and Eve de Briouze, before 13 December 1273.3,4 He died in 1279.
He lived at Harringworth, Northamptonshire, EnglandG.5 He was also known as Eudes la Zouche.6

Children of Eon la Zouche and Millicent de Cauntelo
1.Eva la Zouche+7 d. 6 Dec 1314
2.Elizabeth la Zouche+6
3.William la Zouche, 1st Lord Zouche (of Haryngworth)+4 b. 18 Dec 1276, d. 11 Mar 1351/52
1.[S2] Peter W. Hammond, editor, The Complete Peerage or a History of the House of Lords and All its Members From the Earliest Times, Volume XIV: Addenda & Corrigenda (Stroud, Gloucestershire, U.K.: Sutton Publishing, 1998), page 87. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage, Volume XIV.
2.[S37] BP2003 volume 3, page 4289. See link for full details for this source. Hereinafter cited as. [S37]
3.[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 I, page 23. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage.
4.[S37] BP2003. [S37]
5.[S35] BLG1965 volume 1, page 580. See link for full details for this source. Hereinafter cited as. [S35]
6.[S35] BLG1965. [S35]
7.[S6] Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume II, page
Eudo la Zouche, Lord of Cantelou
Gender: Male
Birth: before circa 1238 Ashby la Zouche, Leicestershire, England (United Kingdom)
Death: June 25, 1279 Ashby de la Zouche, Leicestershire, England (United Kingdom)

Immediate Family:
Son of Sir Roger La Zouche and Margaret Annora Bisset
Husband of Milicent de Cantelou and N.N. wife of Eon la Zouche
Father of Eleanor de Harcourt; Sir William la Zouche, 1st Baron (of Harringworth); Elizabeth la Zouche, Lady; Eva la Zouche, Baroness Berkeley and Elizabeth la Zouche
Brother of Sir Alan la Zouche, I; Loretta de Saunford; Alice la Zouche and William la Zouche
Half brother of William de Ashby
Added by: Robert Johan Belien on May 10, 2007
Managed by: James Fred Patin, Jr. and 177 others
Curated by: Pam Wilson

The question of Eudo's parentage has been much debated, particularly as to whether he was the brother of Alan de la Zouche (and thus the son of Roger) or if was the son of Alan, since he is much younger and his birth falls between generations.

At this time, both Cawley of the Medieval Lands Project and Douglas Richardson on soc.gen-medieval position him as a son of Roger and brother of Alan. See sources below.

soc.genealogy.medieval › C.P. Affirmation: Eudes la Zouche was not the son of Alan la Zouche and Ellen de Quincy
Douglas Richardson 8/17/10
Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 12 (2) (1959): 937–938 (sub Zouche) has a good account of the life of Sir Eudes la Zouche, of Harringworth, Nothamptonshire (died 1279) and his ever popular wife, Milicent de Cantelowe, commonly known as Milicent de Mohaut. Complete Peerage identifies Sir Eudes' parentage as follows:

"younger brother of Alan la Zouche (d. 1270), of Ashby, co. Leicester, etc., both being sons of Roger la Zouche, of the same, by his wife Margaret ..." END OF QUOTE.

In making this statement, Complete Peerage curiously upended all previous historical works including Dugdale, which works placed Eudes la Zouche one generation later in the the Zouche family tree, that is, as a younger son of Sir Alan la Zouche and his wife, Ellen de Quincy. Here is just a few sources which adopted the position that Eudes la Zouche was the son of Sir Alan la Zouche:

1. Kennett, Parochial Antiq. Attempted in the Hist. of Ambrosden, Burcester & other adjacent Parts 2 (1818): 465–466 (identifies Eudes la Zouche as son of Alan la Zouche, by his wife, Hellen de Quincy).

2. Baker Hist. & Antiq. of Northampton 1 (1822–30): 563 (Beaumont- Quincy-Zouch ped.) (Eudes la Zouch of Harringworth identified as son of Alan la Zouch and Ellen de Quincy).

3. Desc. & Hist. Guide to Ashby-de-la-Zouch & the Neighbourhood? (1831): 7–12 (author identifies Eudo [Eudes] la Zouche, ancestor of the Zouches of Harringworth, as a younger son of Alan la Zouche, lord of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, and his wife, daughter of Roger de Quincy, Earl of Winchester).

4. Burke, Hist. of the Commoners 4 (1838): 227 (sub Whatton) (author identifies Eudes la Zouche, husband of Milicent de Cantelowe, as “the second son of Sir Alan de la Zouch, baron of Ashby de la Zouch, constable of the Tower, and Helen his wife, daughter and co-heiress of Roger de Quincie, Earl of Winchester).

5. Banks, Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 469 (sub Zouche of Ashby), 469–471 (sub Zouche of Haryngworth) (identifies Eudes la Zouche as son of Alan la Zouche and Ellen de Quincy).

6. Foss, Biographical Dictionary of the Judges of England (1870): 791 (biog. of William la Zouche) (identifies Eudes la Zouche as son of Alan la Zouche).

7. D.N.B. 63 (1900): 414–415 (biog. of Alan la Zouche) (identifies Eudes la Zouche [died 1279] as younger son of Alan la Zouche and Ellen de Quincy).

8. Procs. of the Suffolk Institute of Arch. 29(1) (1962): 34–66 (Naunton ped. dated 18th Cent.) (Eudes la Zouche, husband of Milicent de Cantelowe, identified as son of Alan la Zouche and his wife, Ellen de Quincy).

Besides the above sources, I've elsewhere found that the Quincy arms were included among the quarterings of Sir Eudes la Zouche's later day descendants by at least three different sources. The Quincy arms were presumably included in the belief that Sir Eudes la Zouche's mother was Ellen de Quincy, who was an heiress.

1. Topographer 1 (1789): 197–204 (list of heraldic quarterings for Zouche family of Harringworth taken from Glover’s Barona e, No. 1160, Harleian MSS in the British Library includes the arms of Quincy, Leicester, Grandmesnil, Galloway, Chester, etc., which set of arms respresents the ancestry of Eudes la Zouche’s mother, Ellen de Quincy).

2. Clive, Documents connected with the Hist. of Ludlow & the Lords Marchers (1841): 305 (list of heraldic quarterings of Edward, Lord Zouche of Harringworth dated temp. Queen Elizabeth includes the arms of Quincy and Leicester).

3. Miscellanea Gen. et Heraldica 1 (1868): 158–159 (Saunders ped. dated ?1618 which includes the quarterings of Saunders family arms, including Zouche of Harringworth, Quincy, Cantelowe, Brewes, etc.).

Reviewing the above, it appears that before 1900, it was commonly believed that Sir Eudes la Zouche was the son of Sir Alan la Zouche (died 1270).

The question thus arises: Was Complete Peerage correct in 1959 to place Sir Eudes la Zouche as the son of Sir Roger la Zouche (died 1238), or were all the other earlier sources correct in placing Sir Eudes one generation later in the Zouche family tree as the son of Sir Alan la Zouche (died 1270).

The answer to that question is not as easy to find as one might assume. After sifting through a lot of sources, I've finally determined that Complete Peerage's version is correct and all the earlier sources are in error.

Here is the evidence:
Cal. Patent Rolls, 1258-1266 (1910): 238 specifically states that Eudes la Zouche was the brother, not son, of Alan la Zouche:

Date: 1262. 25 Dec.
"... the king is sending Alan la Zouche, justice of the forest on this side of Trent, to the said march for the preservation of the peace and the defence of those parts, he commands the justice to deliver the castles of Edward, the king's son, to wit, Chester, Beeston and Shotwik to Eudo la Zouche, brother of the said Alan, without delay ..." END OF QUOTE.
The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:
Complete Peerage shows that Eudes la Zouche was continuously active from 1251 to 1279. This chronology would not permit him to be a younger son of Sir Alan la Zouche (died 1270).

As for Eudes la Zouche's wife, Milicent de Cantelowe, Complete Peerage tells us very little about her first marriage to John de Mohaut, except to say that she married (1st) John de Mohaut before 1254 [see Cal. IPM 1 (1904): 92].

Elsewhere in a note in G. Herbert Fowler "Tractatus de Dunstaple and de Hocton" in Publications of the Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, vol. 19 (1937): 92, John de Mohaut [husband of Milicent de Cantelowe] is identified as the son [probably eldest] of Roger de Mohaut, by his wife, Cecily, daughter of William d'Aubeney, 3rd Earl of Arundel. John de Mohaut was living in 1257 [see Cal. Close Rolls, 1256-1259, pg. 157], and is recorded to have died in 1258 [see Ann. Cestr., 77, 78].

I assume therefore Milicent de Cantelowe married (2nd) Eudes la Zouche about 1260. They were definitely married by 1273.

Mr. Fowler further notes that at Milicent de Cantelowe's death in 1299, she held the manor of Foleshill, Warwickshire of her former brother-in-law, Robert de Mohaut. The above author assumes this property was probably Milicent's dower of the Mohaut marriage. However, Foleshill was held by the Bois family as subtenants under the Mohaut family [see VCH Warwick 8 (1969): 57-70]. Before Milicent died, various Bois manors were transferred to her on the marriage of her son, William la Zouche, to Maud Lovel, then heiress apparent of the Bois family. As such, the possibility exists that Milicent was holding Foleshill in trust at the time of her death for her son and daughter-in-law and that she had no dower rights at all to this property.

In summary, it is clear that both Eudes la Zouche and his wife, Milicent de Cantelowe, were of the age to be contemporaries to Sir Alan la Zouche (died 1270). As such, it is absoutely impossible that Sir Eudes la Zouche was a younger son of Sir Alan la Zouche. Moreover, there is no evidence that there were two Eudes la Zouche's in successive generations in the Zouche family. Rather, there appears to have been one Eudes la Zouche at this time. He occurs continuously in contemporary records from 1251 to 1279. His wife, Milicent de Cantelowe, similarly occurs continuously in the records from 1254 to 1299.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
ROGER [I] la Zouche (-before 14 May 1238). "Rog La Zuche" made a fine for "terra que fuit Wille fratris sui" in Devonshire, dated 1199[1143]. The Rotulus Cancellarii records "Rogerus la Zuche…pro terra Willelmi fratris sui" owing in Devonshire, dated [27 May 1201/26 May 1202][1144]. “Willielmus la Zouche, filius Rogeri la Zouche” confirmed donations to Swavesey Abbey, Cambridgeshire by “Rogeri patris nostri ac…Alani Zouche avi nostri quondam comitis Britanniæ” by undated charter[1145]. The Red Book of the Exchequer records "Rogerus la Zuche" holding "Normanitone" in Devonshire in [1210/12][1146]. Henry III King of England granted "maneriis de Mapeldureham et Petrefeld" to "Rogero la Szuche", as granted by King John except for the dower of "Milesentie que fuit uxor comitis Ebroici", dated 14 Mar 1217[1147]. The Testa de Nevill includes a list of landholdings in Devon, dated 1219, which includes "Rogerus de la Suche" holding "Blaketorrintun…in hundredo de Blaketorrintun" in Devonshire[1148]. A document dated 15 May 1227 records, among thirteen other donations, the donation “of Roger la Suche, a half-virgate in Tudeuurth...” to Maiden Bradley priory[1149]. An order dated 14 May 1238 ordered inquisitions into “terre Rogerus de la Zusch” to identify “propinquor heres eius”[1150]. m (before 6 Aug 1220) MARGARET, daughter of --- (-[after Aug 1232]). Henry III King of England granted letters of conduct to "Rogero la Zuche eundi peregre ad Sanctum Jacobum" [Santiago de Compostela], noting that he had agreed to donate revenue from his lands for one year, except that from "Margarete uxori ipsius Rogeri maritagio et dote sua", dated 6 Aug 1220[1151]. No primary source has been identified which confirms Margaret’s family origin. [The wife of Roger was alive 15 Aug 1232 when “uxori Rogeri la Suche” was granted two deer “in foresta de Wauberg”[1152]. It is not known whether this was a Margaret or an otherwise unrecorded second wife.] Roger [I] & his wife had five children:

a) ALAN [II] la Zouche (-killed in battle London 10 Aug 1270). An order dated 16 Jun 1238 records the homage of “Alani filii et heredis Rogeri la Zuch” for lands in Devonshire and Shropshire[1153].
- see below.
b) WILLIAM la Zouche (-before 3 Feb 1272). “Willielmus la Zouche, filius Rogeri la Zouche” confirmed donations to Swavesey Abbey, Cambridgeshire by “Rogeri patris nostri ac…Alani Zouche avi nostri quondam comitis Britanniæ” by undated charter[1154]. A writ dated 3 Feb "56 Hen III", after the death of "William le Zuch", confirmed that "the manor of Hobrugg" was held by him "of the inheritance of Maud sometime his wife" the mother of "Sir John de Trailly [who] is the next heir of the said Maud"[1155]. m as her second husband, MAUD, widow of --- de Trailly, daughter of ---. William & his wife had one child:

i) JOYCE (-bur 13 Mar 1290). Her parentage and marriage are recorded in the Complete Peerage, which does not cite the relevant primary source[1156]. Eyton says that William Zouche was "alleged" ancestor of "Zouche of Mortimer", which suggests there is some doubt about Joyce’s parentage, but does not explain his comment[1157]. On the other hand, the Complete Peerage states that "William’s identity is proved by the descent of the manor of King’s Nympton, Devon, which was granted to him by Roger his father in 1237/38 and was held by his grandson and representative Hugh Lord Mortimer…at his death in 1304"[1158]. m ROBERT de Mortimer of Richard’s Castle, Herefordshire, son of HUGH de Mortimer & his wife --- ([1251/52]-7 Apr 1287, bur Worcester Cathedral).

c) ALICE la Zouche (-before early 1256). A manuscript relating to Ranton Priory, Staffordshire records that “Willielmo de Harecourt” married firstly “Aliciam la Zouche”[1159]. Her parentage and marriage are confirmed by a writ dated 18 Feb "7 Edw I", after the death of [her son-in-law] "Henry de Penebrigg" which notes Tong manor (Shropshire) “held by Alan la Souche of the honour of Brecheynoc without service because it was of free marriage, and he gave it to William de Harcourt with Alice his sister in free marriage...”[1160]. m as his first wife, WILLIAM [II] de Harcourt, son of RICHARD [I] de Harcourt & his wife Orabilis de Quincy (-[1270/19 Apr 1271]).

d) LORA la Zouche (-after 18 Feb 1279). Her parentage and marriage are confirmed by a writ dated 18 Feb "7 Edw I", after the death of [her sister’s son-in-law] "Henry de Penebrigg" which notes Tudeworth manor (Wiltshire) “held by Roger la Suche of John Biset, and he gave it to Gilbert de Stanford with Lora his daughter in free marriage, and the said Gilbert being dead, the said Lora gave the same to [her niece] Arrabilia late the wife of the said Henry and to Fulk their son”, and “Northtudewrthe” (North Tidworth, Wiltshire) held of “Lora de Saunford”[1161]. Her daughter married Robert de Vere Earl of Oxford[1162]. m (before 1238) GILBERT de Sanford [Saunford/Stanford], son of JOHN de Sanford of Great Hormead [Hertfordshire][1163] & his wife --- (-[1250]).

e) EON la Zouche (-[28 Apr/25 Jun] 1279). m (before 13 Dec 1273) as her second husband, MILLICENT de Cauntelo, widow of JOHN de Mohaut, daughter of WILLIAM [IV] de Cauntelo of Calne, Wiltshire & his wife Eva de Briouse (-before 7 Jan 1299). The Chronicle of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire names "Georgius" who died childless and "Johanna nupta Henrico de Hastings et Milisannt de Monte-alto…uxor Ivonis de la Zouch" as the children of "Willielmo de Cantilupo" and his wife[1164]. Inquisitions following a writ dated 4 Nov "1 Edw I" after the death of "George de Cantilupo" name “Milisanda the wife of Eudo la Zuche of full age and John son of Henry and Joan de Hastinges who is under age and in the king’s wardship are his next heirs...the said Milisanda and Joan being sisters of the said George”[1165]. Eon & his wife had three children:

i) WILLIAM la Zouche (Harringworth 18 or 21 Dec 1276-11/12 Mar 1352). He was summoned to parliament in 1323 whereby he is held to have become Lord Zouche (of Harringworth).


ii) EVE la Zouche (-5 Dec 1314, bur Portbury, Somerset). m (1289) as his first wife, MAURICE de Berkeley Lord Berkeley, son of THOMAS de Berkeley Lord Berkeley & his wife Joan de Ferrers of the Earls of Derby ([Apr 1281]-31 May 1326, bur Wallingford, transferred to Bristol St Augustine’s).

iii) ELEANOR la Zouche . A manuscript relating to Ranton Priory, Staffordshire records that “Johanni de Harecourt” married firstly “Elianoram la Souche”[1166]. Her parentage is confirmed by Kirkby’s Inquest for Yorkshire, probably dated to [1284/85], which records Bingley as held by “Stephanus Waleys”, who held it from “Elienora de Zuche” who held it from “Milisanta de Monte Alto matre sua”[1167]. m as his first wife, JOHN de Harcourt, son of RICHARD [II] de Harcourt & his first wife Margaret Beke (-before 2 May 1330).

Eudo (Eon) la ZOUCHE (1244-1279) [Pedigree]
b. ABT 1244
r. Ashby, Leicester, Eng.
r. Haryngworth, Eng.
d. Jun 1279
d. 1279
Married Millicent de CANTILUPE (1250-1298)
Eva la ZOUCHE Baroness Berkeley (-1314) m. Maurice "The Magnanimous" BERKELEY 3rd? Lord Berkeley (1271-1326)
Ellen la ZOUCHE (1273-1344) m. John de HARCOURT (1277-1330)
William la ZOUCHE 1st Lord Zouche of Harringworth (1276-1351) m. Maud LOVEL (-1346)
Lucy la ZOUCHE (1279-) m. Thomas de GREENE (1292-)

References: [GENSERV],[AR7],[MCS5]
Born: ABT 1244, Ashby, Leicestershire, England
Died: AFT 1273
Father: Alan La ZOUCHE (Sir Knight)
Mother: Ela De QUINCY
Married 1: ¿?
1. Elizabeth La ZOUCHE
Married 2: Millicent De CANTELUPE (b. ABT 1250, Calne, Wiltshire - d. BEF 7 Jan 1298/99) (dau. of William De Cantilupe and Eva Braose - sister and heiress of George De Cantilupe) (w. of John De Montalt) BEF 1273

2. Eleanor La ZOUCHE
3. Elizabeth La ZOUCHE
4. William La ZOUCHE (1º B. Zouche of Harryngworth)
5. Roger La ZOUCHE of Lubbesthorpe
6. Lucy La ZOUCHE
7. Eve La ZOUCHE
8. Joan La ZOUCHE (b. ABT 1281)
9. George La ZOUCHE (b. ABT 1283)
10. Eudo La ZOUCHE (b. ABT 1284)
11. Emery La ZOUCHE (b. ABT 1286, Winchester, Hampshire, England)
12. Phillip La ZOUCHE (b. ABT 1290)
13. Thomas La ZOUCHE (b. ABT 1292)

Married 3: Aghata De FERRERS Lic 1254
Son of Margaret and Roger
la Zouche, Eudo\Eon Lord of Cantelou (I043217)

William Devereux (1219 to 1265)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William Devereux
Born 1219
Died 4 August 1265 Battle of Evesham
(1) Daughter of Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk
(2) Maud de Giffard
William Devereux
Margery Devereux
Maud Devereux
John Devereux
Thomas Devereux
Sibilla Devereux
Father Stephen Devereux
Mother Isabel de Cantelupe
William Devereux (1219 to 1265), was an important Marcher Lord, and held Lyonshall Castle controlling a strategically vital approach to the border of Wales. The castle’s significance was heightened by the rebellion of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales. With strong family ties to the politically powerful families of Cantilupe and Giffard, his support was strongly sought after by Henry III and Simon de Montfort throughout the Second Barons' War.

Birth and Ancestry[edit]
William Devereux was born in 1219,[1] the son of Stephen Devereux and Isabel de Cantilupe.[2] She was the daughter of William de Cantilupe (died 1239) and Mazilia Braci.[3][4] His father had risen to be a powerful member of the inner circle of William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke, which led to a prominent role during the regency of Henry III. The Devereux family had been prominent along the Welsh Marches since the conquest, and William was a descendent of the Domesday land holder, William Devereux. The coat of arms for Devereux portrayed on his mother's grant in 1242 was 'a fess and in chief three torteauxes.'[5] His coat of arms was described as "argent, fess and three roundels in chief gules" or "gules od un fesse d'argent ove turteaus d'argent en le chief."[6]
Early life[edit]
At his father’s death, William was only 8 years old,[7] and came under the sway of his maternal relatives including William de Cantelupe (died 1254), Lord of Abergavenny; Walter de Cantilupe, Bishop of Worcester; and Thomas de Cantilupe, Bishop of Hereford. His interests on the Welsh Marches were further guarded by his paternal uncles: John Devereux of Bodenham and Decies and Nicholas Devereux of Chanston. The close relationship of the Cantelupe family with Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester would later influence Devereux’s decisions during the Second Barons' War.
William Devereux’s lands were taken into the King’s hands on 17 March 1228[a] (excluding the dower of his mother, Isabel)[8][b] and initially placed under the control of Gilbert de Lacy, Lord of Weobley. De Lacy was summoned to mediate a dispute in 1229 over rent due the Prior of Leonard in Pyon (Wormsley) from the lands granted them by William’s father, Stephen. When Gilbert de Lacy died about 1230, Devereux’s estates were placed under the direct guardianship of Gilbert’s father, Walter de Lacy, Lord of Meath.[c]
Gilbert de Lacy also was involved in an ongoing dispute that began in 1221 with the Abbot of Saint Peter’s in Gloucester over the appointment of a priest for the Church of Stoke Lacy. Following his father’s death, William Devereux became embroiled in this controversy, and ultimately yielded the right to the Abbots in 1261 (45 Henry III).[9] This would later be confirmed by his son, William Devereux, Baron Devereux of Lyonshall, after his death.
His lands at Lower Hayton were held from him by Giles de Clifford, and Giles was in the service of Richard Marshal, 3rd Earl of Pembroke.[10] Following Marshal’s death at the Battle of the Curragh in 1234 the King had Lower Hayton seized by the sheriff of Salop, and it was not returned to William Devereux’s control until he came of age in 1240.
Principal landholdings[edit]
As William Devereux came of age he directed his efforts at re-establishing control over his father’s estates and his position as a powerful Marcher Lord. The Testa de Nevill showed him holding at least four and a half fees in Herefordshire, and a half fee at Lower Hayton, county Shropshire.[11] The center of his lordship was his castle at Lyonshall in Herefordshire. He possessed the manors of Ballingham, Frome Haymond (Halmond), Holme Lacy, Luntley, Lawton, Stoke Lacy, La Fenne (Bodenham), and Whitchurch maund in Herefordshire; Oxenhall and Guleing in Gloucestershire; Cheddrehole in Somersetshire; Lower Hayton in Shropshire; and Trumpeton (Trumpington) in Cambridgeshire. He held additional lands at Cattelegh (Cattelee), Clehonger, Heregast (Hergest Ridge), and Staunton-on Wye in Herefordshire; and Stanton in Worcestershire.
In 1237 William Devereux released the wardship and marriage of Robert de Barewe to Alice de Mynors.[12] A proclamation was made about 29 Sep 1244 following the death of Robert de la Berwe that any Jew who had claim to the estate needed to come forward before 28 Nov 1244. On that day the sheriff indicated claims only from Sampson, son of Moses, and Meyr le Petiti. They were instructed to appear on 29 Jan 1245 to account with William Devereux, guardian of Robert’s lands.[13] On 20 April 1248 Richard of Juveny, steward of Richard de la Bere, submitted to the king’s court a request to recover the lands of Richard de la Bere which are in the kings hands following a default on a plea of warranty against William Devereux.[14]
William Devereux brought an assize de morte d’ancestor in 1238 against Walter de la Hide for back rent in Hyde (part of Putley), Hereford. He withdrew his claim following the gift of a sparrowhawk.
About 1240 William was mentioned in Walter de Lacy’s charter describing the grant of L30 rent in Holme Lacy (Herefordshire) and the village of Hay (Ireland) to Simon de Clifford[d] for the manor of Yarkhill (Herefordshire).[15] Devereux also witnessed the grant of Katherine, daughter of Walter Lacy of Land in Cofham[e] to Acornbury Priory.[16] During Easter 1244 Margery, widow of Walter de Lacy, sued William Devereux for one third of 2 mills in Hereford, which she claimed as part of her dower.[17][18]
He confirmed in 1240 his father, Stephen’s grant to Wormsley Priory that had required mediation by Gilbert de Lacy in 1229.[19][f] In 1241 William forgave 10 marks of rent owed by Wormsley for the use of Holme Lacy in exchange for the blessings of the church for him and his heirs. There would be further disagreemet in 1242 over a pond and alder grove in Hereford with Thomas de Fauconburg, Canon of Hereford, that had been disputed by his father, Stephen Devereux, in 1221;[20] and estover in his woods of Lyonshall in 1243. The dispute was finally settled in 1248. In a final concord William conceded 2 acres of woods in Kingswood in frank almoin; common pasture in his warrens at Lyonshall and his fields; and two mills in Lyonshall, for which he also granted wood for their construction and rights of ingress and egress, along with the suit his men owed to the mills. He also remitted and quitclaimed 6 shillings rent, which he drew from the prior, and gave the prior 2 marks. In return, the Prior remitted and quitclaimed any other rights of estover he might have in William’s woods; agreed to move a certain mill to a new location and quitclaim it to William; as well as renouncing some ways and paths and right of pannage for fifty pigs, all in the wood of ‘Kerdeslg’ (Eardsly?). On 24 June 1249 the church of Hereford confirmed their acceptance of the concord.[21] On 14 April 1256 William Devereux again confirmed the charters and grants of his father, Stephen Devereux, to the church of Saint Leonard of Wormsley (de Pyon).[22] This was witnessed by his cousin, Walter Devereux.
He secured a writ from the King in 1244 restoring Wilby manor, Norfolk, which had been seized as Terra Normannorum.[23][g] Frome Herbert (Halmond) was returned to his mother, Isabel de Cantilupe, as part of her dower that same year. On 2 October 1251 William de Nucemaigne filed a writ of novel disseisin against William Devereux for tenements in Frome Halmond.[24]
In summer 1242 the inheritance of 2 hides of land in Erdicot (Gloucester) valued at 100 shillings was disputed, and the possession was shown to be held of the Prior of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem by warranty of Nicholas Pointz through charter of William Devereux.[25] Devereux claimed that this should revert to him based on the terms of inheritance. [h][i] About 1243 William Devereux was again called to answer why the 100 shillings of this land had not been paid, and the Prior called to answer why he withheld William’s charter. On 25 March 1244 the Hospitallers attorned Robert le Deveneis and William Joindre in the ongoing dispute over the unjust withholding of the charter.[26] On 11 February 1255 further disputes regarding Oxenhall required the King to grant William peace from the sheriffs of the county until they were settled.[27]
On 12 November 1251 the King granted to ‘William de Ebroicis and his heirs’ free warren in his demesne lands in Oxenhall of county Gloucester; Lenhales (Lyonshall), Frome Haymund (Halmond), Hamme (Holme Lacy), Stoke Lacy, La… (Lawton), Baldingham (Ballingham), Luntelegh (Luntley), Cattelegh (Cattelee), and Heregast of county Hereford.[28]
Following William Devereux’s marriage to Maud de Giffard about 1258, Lady Sibyl de Giffard transferred the wardship of Robert de Beysin to him.[29] In October 1258 John Chete sued William Devereux and others about damaging his fish-pond and stealing his fish in Brosely, county Salop. A few months later Ralph de Coven and Roger de Eyton sued William (and his wife Maud), and the Bishop of Hereford over the advowson of the Church of Broseley. On 10 July 1260 Robert de Beysin’s had a suit of novel disseisin against William Devereux and his wife, Matilda, concerning the manor of Billingsly. Robert de Beysin took advantage of the political upheavel occurring in England during this time to use armed men to seize and hold the manor of Billingsly, which remained in the custody of William Devereux, and on 20 March 1261 the king commanded the sheriff of Shropshire to remove Robert and restore the manor to Devereux.[30] Beysin came of age in 1263, and on 22 September an Inquiry Post-mortem was made into his father, Adam de Beysin’s estates which identified his wardship with William Devereux.[31] In 1284 Maud de Giffard, now a widow, pursued a suit of novel disseisin against Robert’s heir, Walter de Beysin, concerning a tenement in Billingsly.[32]
Following the death of Llywelyn the Great on 11 April 1240, he was succeeded by his son, Dafydd ap Llywelyn. Henry III called the Welsh and Marcher Lords including William Devereux to gather at Gloucester on 15 May 1240. The Welsh continued to resist, and the king invaded Gwynedd forcing Dafydd to sign the Treaty of Gwerneigron on 29 August 1241.
In late 1244, following the death of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr on 1 March 1244 at the Tower of London, the king granted estates in Powys to Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn triggering a revolt in Wales requiring the king to send an army, which included Devereux. The English army defeated the Welsh at the Battle of Montgomery in late February 1245. On 6 September 1245 the king gave William Devereux 10 oaks from the Haye in Hereford for his use as reward for his faithful service.[33]
Dafydd died on 25 February 1246, and was succeeded by Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. In 1247 Henry III intervened again and came to terms with the Welsh with the Treaty of Woodstock.
William Devereux accompanied King Henry III on his expedition to suppress a rebellion in Gascony. The king arrived in August 1253, and remained there until a treaty was signed with Alphonso X in April 1254. On 2 October 1254 the King ordered that William Devereux was to receive the equivalent of 100 shillings sterling in cloth or other goods as payment towards wages earned by his service.[34]
On 24 July 1256 William Devereux was summoned to serve on a jury. The itinerant justices of Somerset were investigating the accusation by William fitzGeoffrey and Roger fitzWilliam that Alexander de Montfort had a role in the death of William Wympel.[35] Due to his involvement with the trial he was granted quittance of the common summons in the county of Lincoln on 12 August 1256.[36]
In February 1257 Llewelyn invaded South Wales. On 10 May 1257 a counsel was ordered to aid Sir John de Grey who had been appointed by Prince Edward to defend the Welsh Marches between county Cheshire and South Wales. The counsel was to include the marcher lords Humphrey (IV) de Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex; Humphrey (V) de Bohun the Younger; Reynold fitzPeter; Roger Mortimer (1st Baron Mortimer); William Devereux; Walter de Clifford; William de Stuteville; Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn (Lord of Powys Wenwynwyn), Thomas Corbet (Baron of Caus); John l’Estrange (of Ellesmere and Knockin); John fitzAlan (Lord of Clun and Oswestry); Fulk (IV) fitzWarin; Gruffydd ap Madog (Lord of Dinas Bran); and Ralph le Botiller.[37] In June an English army was wiped out at the Battle of Cadfan. In August Henry III raised a new army at Chester and invaded North Wales, but withdrew in September. For his quick response to the general summons, Devereux was released from 40 shillings that he had been fined by justices sitting in county Norfolk on 27 October 1257.[38] Henry III, unable to campaign further that season, released his army for the winter, and sent Roger Clifford to stock the castle at Carmarthen. On 14 March 1258 orders were given to William Devereux and the other lords to gather again on 16 June at Chester with horse and arms.[39] Llywelin advanced into South Wales and on his return desolated the lands of Gruffydd ap Madog at Bromfield.
Another crisis gripped England in 1258. The barons revolted in anger over the way the King was raising funds and the influence of the Poitevins at court. In April Montfort and other major barons formed an alliance, and Hugh Bigod marched on parliament and carried out a coup d’etat. This led to the Provisions of Oxford being passed on 22 June placing greater power in the hands of the barons, and enacting governmental reforms. As disagreements arose among the barons, further reforms were passed as the Provisions of Westminster in October 1259.
In January 1260 Llywelyn broke the truce and attacked the lands of Roger de Mortimer, and Builth Castle. The king summoned William Devereux and the other Marcher Lords to gather without delay.[40] On 29 March 1260 Devereux and the other Lords were further directed to appear at London on 4 April 1260.[41] During the Fall Llywelyn captured castle Builth, and on 1 August 1260 William Devereux and the other lords were instructed to come with horse and arms to Shrewsbury on 8 September.[42]
During this period England slipped into the Second Barons' War as the struggle for power between the crown and rebellious barons, led by Simon de Montfort, reasserted itself. Devereux remained loyal to Henry III until the very end of the conflict. On 3 February 1261 the King pardoned William Devereux for permitting the escape of Adam le Provost. Provost had been arrested for the felony of fleeing to the church and renouncing the realm.[43]
When the King obtained absolution from the Pope for his oath to uphold the Provisions of Oxford, he sent a communication on 17 February 1261 to William Devereux instructing him to come to London immediately with his men, horses and arms to be in place before the assembly of Parliament.[44] On 12 June 1261, the King announced his absolution, and launched a counter coup against the baronial forces. He purged disloyal sheriffs, and seized control of many royal castles. On 26 August 1261 the king commanded William Devereux to be ready by 29 September 1261 to support the king is his efforts to throw off the restrictions placed on him.[45] William Devereux was rewarded on 16 September 1261 with four live bucks and six live does from the stock in the royal park at St Briavels Castle.[46] Over the next two years the country teetered on the edge of civil war.
In 1262 Llywelyn ap Gruffyd attacked the Welsh Marches again. On 22 December 1262 the king commanded William Devereux to appear with arms and horses on 9 January 1263 at Hereford to counter this invasion.[47] On 24 January 1263 William Devereux was further commanded to come on 5 February 1263 to Hereford.[48] Once there William and the other lords summoned were to divide the gathered forces for the defense of their castles and lands, and to insure that their castles were kept in good repair. On 3 March 1263 the English fought the Welsh at the Battle of Abergavenny. On 15 April 1263 Prince Edward specifically begs his father to command Will d’Evereus’ to “quod in castro suo de le Hales” and “moram faciet ac partes suas viriliter defendat.“ This translates to say, “that in his castle of Lyonshall he should stay and vigorously defend his estates.”[49] On 25 May 1263 the king again commanded William Devereux to appear with horses and arms on 1 August 1263 at Worcester for a campaign against Llywelyn.[50] For his ongoing faithful service the King ordered William be given a gift of 2 deer from the forests of Salop on 13 September 1263.[51]
Henry III’s unpopular policies finally brought out open conflict, and the de Montfort led revolt began on the Welsh marches. On 20 January 1264 the king proclaimed that Hugh Bigod and Rogert Aguyllun would insure on behalf of the king that Roger Clifford; Roger Leyburn; John de Vaulx; Ralph Basset; John Giffard; Hamo l’Estrange; Hugh de Turbeville; William de Huntingfield; and William Devereux would make appropriate amends to the Archbishop of Canterbury for damages and violence committed against the church in the province of Canterbury.[52] Fighting broke out in earnest when the King marched into the midlands in April 1264. Devereux was present with the king’s forces on 6 April when Prince Edward captured Northampton Castle in the Battle of Northampton. Following the battle William Devereux pledged his manors of Stoke Lacy and Lawton to Roger de Mortimer, 1st Baron Wigmore to ransom Adam le Despencer. The ransom was to be 1000 marks to be paid as 100 marks a year beginning on 1 August 1264.
William Devereux fought on the King’s behalf at the Battle of Lewes on 14 May 1264. Henry III, his brother Richard of Cornwall, and Prince Edward were all captured, and by imprisoning the King, Montfort became the de facto ruler of England.
At the Council of Worcester it was agreed that all prisoners who had been captured up to this point in the conflict were to be delivered without any consideration of redemption. Part of the negotiation specifically provided for the release of the Marcher Lords who had supported Prince Edward.
On 7 July 1264 letters of safe conduct were granted through 25 July to William Devereux and other knights of the Welsh Marches to come to the king.[53] It is probably at this time that Devereux switched his allegiance from the king to Simon de Montfort. The decision was probably influenced by his cousin, Thomas de Cantilupe, who had been appointed Lord Chancellor on 25 February 1264. By December 1264 Montfort had dealt with the Marcher Lords, and on 20 January 1265 Parliament is assembled at Westminster including the knight’s of the shire, and representatives of the cities and boroughs.
On 8 February 1265 William Devereux and John de Balun were commissioned to inquire as to what appurtenances belonged to the office of gatekeeper for Hereford castle, which had been granted to Philip de Leominster.[54] They also were commissioned along with Roger de Chandos to investigate robberies and other trespasses committed in the city of Hereford.[55]
On 6 March 1265 the King commanded Roger de Mortimer to return the lands pledged by William Devereux for the ransom of Adam le Despencer as this obligation had been voided following the Council of Worcester.[56] Furthermore, on 2 April Devereux was instructed to return to Despencer the manor of Stanley, which he had received as collateral for the same ransom.[57] On 29 April the king ordered the Prior of Leominster to release the charter he was holding in which William Devereux granted his manors to Mortimer until Despencer’s redemption had been paid. On 17 May the Prior came to the king at Hereford and in his presence restored the charter to William Devereux.[58]
On 15 May 1265 the Exchequer was instructed by the king to release William Devereux of 20 pounds he owed on behalf of Robert de Grendon in payment for a horse taken from him when the king was at Lewes.[59] On 17 May Henry III gave William Devereux three deer from Feckenham Forest, and on 3 June four bucks and four does from the forests of Shropshire.[60][61]
When hostilities resumed with the escape of Prince Edward from captivity on 28 May 1265, the Welsh Marches erupted in rebellion and William Devereux now marched with Simon de Montfort. The two sides met at the Battle of Evesham on 4 August 1265, and William Devereux died while fighting for the baronial cause.
He first married a daughter of Hugh Bigod, 3rd Earl of Norfolk, and Maud Marshal about 1240, and they had children:[j]
William Devereux, Baron Devereux of Lyonshall (~1244) his heir[62]
Probably Roger Devereux of Bishopstone (Hereford).[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][k]
Margery Devereux(~1250)[70][l]
William Devereux’s first wife died about 1254, and he married a second time about 1258 to Maud de Giffard as her second husband.[2][m] She was the daughter of Hugh de Giffard[2] and Sibyl de Cormeilles. Maud de Giffard’s brothers were the politically powerful Godfrey de Giffard (Bishop of Worcester), and Walter de Giffard (Archbishop of York, and Bishop of Bath and Wells).[2] Both brothers would later become Chancellors of England. Her sister was Mabel de Giffard, Abbess of Shaftesbury Abbey. William Devereux and Maud de Giffard had children:
Maud Devereux (~1259)[n]
Archdeacon John Devereux (~1261)[71][o]
Master Thomas Devereux (~ 1263)[71][p]
Sibyl Devereux (~1265)[q]
William Devereux was killed during the Battle of Evesham on 4 August 1265. His wife, Maud, applied to the King for a jeweled harness, which had been deposited in the treasury of the church at Hereford by her deceased husband. She obtained from the king a precept to the treasurer of the cathedral for their deliverance to her on 12 October 1265 at the request of her brother, Walter de Giffard, Bishop of Bath and Wells and the Chancellor of England.[72]
William Devereux’s lands were forfeited following this battle with exception by writ of the King on 3 October 1265 of Frome (Halmond), Ham (Holme Lacy), Wileby (Wilby), Oxonhal (Oxenhall), and 15 pounds of revenue in Heiton (Lower Hayton) for the maintenance of his widow, Maud. Sir John Giffard had been granted the lands of Gutinges (Guleing) and Oxenhale (Oxenhall) in Gloucester, and Maud de Giffard to hold of him.[73] On 12 October Maud’s brother, Walter de Giffard, further granted her for life the manors of Frome (Halmond), Hamme (Holme Lacy), Oxenhall, Wilby, Trompiton (Trumpington), and La Fenne (Bodenham); and the rents of Ballingham, Guting (Guleing), and Heynton (Hayton); and the meadow of Jarchull to hold to the value of 60 pounds of land a year.[74] Bishop Giffard’s position as Chancellor of England would continue to facilitate the recovery of the Devereux estates. Roger de Mortimer was granted the forfeited lands of William Devereux on 20 November 1265 with the exception of Lyonshall castle, which would be held by his son, Ralph de Mortimer (died 10 August 1274). William Devereux’s lands would later be redeemed by his son according to the Dictum of Kenilworth. These terms are described in an entry of the plea rolls from 1266 (51 Henry III, membrane 32):
Whereas because of the trespasses which William de Evereus who stood with the King in the Battle of Lewes, was said to have done afterwards against the King and Edward his son, the King after his death gave his lands as he gave the lands of other adversaries in the time of the disturbance in the realm, and by the form of the award of Kenilworth, the King has power of making ordinances upon the state of such disinherited persons; he ordains that, as William the son and heir of the said William is prepared to stand to the said award to have his lands back, he shall pay within three years the ransom thereof to those to whom it belongs, to wit, the extent thereof for three years, so that according to the quantity of money he pays he shall have restitution of the said lands; saving to Maud late the wife of the said William for her life the assignment made to her of the said lands for the maintenance of herself and her children.
William Devereux’s widow, Maud de Giffard, died in late August 1297. On 3 September 1297 Maud (de Giffard) Devereux was buried in Worcester Cathedral in a place arranged by her brother, Bishop Godfrey de Giffard, near his burial site.
Jump up
^ Stephen Devereux's principal seat was at Lyonshall Castle in Hereford. His manors included Ballingham, Frome Halmond (Herbert), Stoke Lacy, Holme Lacy, La Fenne (Bodenham), and Whitchurch maund in Herefordshire; (Cheddrehole) in Somerset; Lower Hayton in Salop; and Wilby in Norfolk. Additional lands included Clehonger, and Staunton-on-Wye in Herefordshire; Crowle in the Royal Forest of Feckham, and Staunton in Worcester; Guiting and Oxenhall in Gloucestershire; and Trumpington in Cambridgeshire.
Jump up
^ Isabel de Cantelupe’s dower included Oxenhall, Trumpington, Frome Halmond and Whitchurch maund
Jump up
^ On 2 May 1234 (Reading, Close, 18 Hen III, membrane 25) indicates that as Walter de Lacy was on the King’s service in Ireland, the Sheriff of Hereford was commanded to respite till the Quizaine of Michaelmas the plaint in his county by the King’s writ between Walter de Baskerville, complainant, and the said Walter deforcient, touching the daughters of Stephen Devereux.
Jump up
^ Son of Walter II de Clifford
Jump up
^ probably Corsham, County Wiltshire, or Corsham, county Hampshire
Jump up
^ Know (etc.) that we, William de Ebroicis and my heirs, will from this hour forward shall keep and hold to all of the gifts, concessions and alms to the Priory and Convent of Wormsley which our father, Stephen of Ebroicis, gave to the said Priory and Convent, that he bequeathed or granted in the Testament including the lands, possessions, tithes, alms, pastures in so far as can be clearly understood and as witnessed (etc.), both for the benefit of the said Priory and Convent and as more fully contained in the Charter or Charters, seal or seals, or our father, Stephen, as mentioned (etc) as given this date at ‘Wike’ in Worcester, in the year of the Lord M.CC.XL. (1240)
Jump up
^ Terra Normannorum was land so called in the reign of Henry III being such as had been lately held by some noble Norman, who, by adhering to the French king or dauphin, had forfeited his estate in England, which by this means became an escheat to the crown. Definition from “A Law Dictionary and Glossary” by Alexander Mansfield Burrill (New York; Baker, Voorhis & Co., Law Publishers, 1870: vol. 2, page 521)
Jump up
^ They had originally been granted this church by William’s great-grandfather, John Devereux, who gave them the church of Oxenhall with lands, tithes, and observances, and others, and the right of the patronage of the church, in the year of our Lord 1186 on the Kalends in April, and the time of King Henry the second, and brother Garner, of Naples, prior of the Hospital of St. John in England.
Jump up
^ Curia Regis Roll: One month of St. Michael, 6 Richard I, 27 Oct 1194. The grant of the deceased ancestors of Walter Devereux to the brothers of the Hospital of Jerusalem of 2 marks rents in Oxenhall as gifted in the present written Charter, the justiciar is directed to insure you receive them…
Jump up
^ William Devereux and his first wife may have had another son, Simon Devereux of Staunton (Herefordshire).
Jump up
^ Roger Devereux was summoned by the king to join him at the Battle of Evesham, and probably did so as there is no record of him forfeiting his estates. He married a woman named Katherine who held Bishopstone in dower as a widow in 1316. They had children: Nicholas, Thomas, and John. Thomas Devereux inherited his estates, and was identified as being of Bishopstone in 1334. On his death Bishopstone passed to his son, Roger II of Bishopstone, and then to his grandson, Roger III of Bishopstone. Roger III Devereux is not recorded to have had an heir, and the lands appear to have passed back into the main Devereux line upon his death.
Jump up
^ Margery married Sir John de Pycheford before 1272. On 4 Nov 1272 (1 Edward I), Inquiry Post-Mortem of George de Cantilupo. …John de Pycheford (knight) agrees, adding that he espoused a kinswoman of the said George, viz. the daughter of William de Ebroicis, and diligently enquired the age of the said George from Sir Adam de Gurdun and Sir Robert de Tregoz and others of the said household…
Jump up
^ Her first husband, Baldwin de Freville had died about 1256, and wardship of his lands and the marriage of her and their sons, Baldwin and Alexander, was granted to Eleanor, Queen of England. Maud de Giffard had married Baldwin de Freville as his second wife around 1254. Baldwin‘s first wife Lucia (married about 1240), daughter of Richard de Scalers, had died in 1253 after giving him a son, Richard de Freville (born ~1241; died 1299). Baldwin de Freville and Maud had four children, Baldwin (born ~1254; died 1289), Margaret (~1255), Sibilla (~1256), and Alexander (born ~1257; died 1328) before he died about 1257. On the Patent Rolls for 10 July 1253 Baldwin de Freville sold to Sibyl Giffard the marriage of his son and heir (Richard). An inquiry in 1299 at Tadington described a messuage and 2 carucates land, and 64 s rent held of the King in chief by service of 1/3 knight’s fee of the Barony of Cormailes; and 12 acres of land which he bought of fee of Monseleye. Lady Maud de Ebroicis, and Baldwin her son, and Alexander brother of the said Baldwin were jointly enfeoffed by a charter of the said land etc, excepting the 12 acres. The said Alexander is his next heir and of full age.
Jump up
^ Maud Devereux married Richard de Boylande who served as an itinerant justice in a dispute over land in Somerset in the year 1279, and for another dispute in 1288. In 1278, her mother and brother, William, gave reversion of Wilby in Norfolk to Maud and her husband, Richard de Boylande with a charter of free-warren for all his lands here and in Brisingham. By 1295 Richard de Boylande had a new wife, Ellen, suggesting Maud had died (probably before 1290), and William claimed an advowson on the property against Simon, Abbot of York, but lost the suit and was forced to abandon his claim.
Jump up
^ John de Ebroicis entered the Church as was common for younger sons, and advanced under the patronage of his uncles: Godfrey de Giffard (Bishop of Worcester), and Walter de Giffard (Archbishop of York). He would hold the post of Canon of Ripon and Southwell by 1281 and Prebend of Oxton. His career would peak when he obtained the position of Archdeacon of Gloucester in 1288. In 1295 he also was inducted and resigned from the Benefice of Tredington in Worcester. In 1301 Bishop Godfrey de Giffard died, and identified his nephew, John de Ebroicis in his Will. He bequeathed him a mitre covered over with pearls, which had once belonged to his uncle the Northern primate (Walter de Giffard, Archbishop of York) in the hope, perhaps, that it might sometime rest upon his brow.
Jump up
^ Probably the Thomas de Ebroicis who was Rector of the Doncaster Deanery which was part of the Church of St. Elene’s of Treatton belonging to the patronage of the Lords of Furnival. Treeton was part of the manor of Whiston. Thomas Devereux, clerk, also was collated to the Benefice of Tredington in Worcester following the resignation of his brother in 1295
Jump up
^ Sibilla is reported to have married Walter de Baskerville who died dsp. 1282. In the 1280’s, Matilda, the widow of William de Ebroicis (and Sibilla’s mother), contested William de Ebroicis (Sibilla’s half brother) over 8 pounds of rent in Guleing (Gloucester) and Trumpeton (Cambridgeshire). William Devereux granted the right to the said rent to Matilda, and Baldwin de Frevil (son of Matilda). The remainder to Alexander de Freville (brother of Baldwin), and Margaret and Sibilla (and heirs of Sibilla) the daughters of Matilda. Sibilla married a second time to John de Acton. On Nov 11, 6 Edward II (1312), an IPM was done for John de Acton in regards to the manors of Couerne and Yausore, both in Herefordshire. The Couerne listing leads as follows: 10 d. yearly rent held of Richard Baskerville by service of ½ d. yearly; and a fourth part of the manor held, as the dower of Sybil his wife, of Richard de Baskerville by service of a ¼ knights fee: she was dowered by Walter de Baskerville, her first husband. Yausore was held as above, by service of ¼ knights fee. On November 20 of the same inquisition regarding Somerset, there is reference to the property of Ceddre Manor, a capital messuage of 40 acres arable land, 10 acres meadow, water-mill, rents, etc. held jointly by John de Acton with Sibyl, his wife, of a gift of William de Ebroycis of the Bishop of Bath. This was held by service of ½ knight’s fee, and was to go to his heir.
Biographical References[edit]
Brock, Holden. "Lords of the Central Marches: English Aristocracy and Frontier Society, 1087–1265." (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Pages 46 to 136
Brydges, Sir Egerton. "Collins's Peerage of England; Genealogical, Biographical, and Historical. Greatly Augmented, and Continued to the Present Time." (London: F.C. and J. Rivington, Otridge and Son; J. Nichols and Co.; T. Payne, Wilkie and Robinson; J. Walker, Clarke and Sons; W. Lowndes, R. Lea, J. Cuthell, Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Co.; White, Cochrane, and Co.; C. Law, Cadell and Davies; J. Booth, Crosby and Co.; J. Murray, J. Mawman, J. Booker, R. Scholey, J. Hatchard, R. Baldwin, Craddock and Joy; J. Fauldner, Gale, Curtis and Co.; Johnson and Co.; and G. Robinson, 1812). Volume VI, pages 1 to 22, Devereux, Viscount Hereford
Burke, Sir Bernard. A Genealogical History of the Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages of the British Empire. (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1978). page 169, Devereux-Barons Devereux
Cokayne, G.E. Complete Baronetage. (New York; St. Martin's Press, 1984). Volume IV, page 296 to 302, Devereux or Deverose (article by G.W. Watson)
Duncumb, John. "Collections Towards the History and Antiquities of the County of Hereford." (Hereford: E.G. Wright, 1812). Part I of Volume II, pages36 to 41, 166 to 168, Broxash Hundred
Redmond, Gabriel O'C. "An Account of the Anglo-Norman Family of Devereux, of Balmagir, County Wexford." (Dublin: Office of "The Irish Builder," 1891). Pages 1 to 5
Robinson, Charles J. "A History of the Castles of Herefordshire and their Lords." (Woonton: Logaston Press, 2002). pages 125 to 129, Lyonshall Castle
Specific References[edit]
Jump up
^ Morgan G. Watkins. Collections Towards the History and Antiquities of the County of Hereford in continuation of Duncumb’s History, Hundred of Radlow. (High Town [Hereford]: Jakeman & Carver, 1902). Page 42 to 49. Parish of Castle Frome, Genealogy contributed by Lord Hereford
Jump up to:
a b c d Evelyn Philip Shirley. Stemmata Shirleiana. (Westminster: Nichols and Sons, 1873). page 103
Jump up
^ Lyte, HC Maxwell, ed. (1902). "Close Rolls, March 1228: membrane 11". Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III (1227-1231). 1. British History Online.
Jump up
^ Sharp, J.E.E.S., ed. (1906). "George de Cantilupo, 4 Nov, 1 Edward I". Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem Edward I, File 2. 2. British History Online. pp. 11–23.
Jump up
^ John Gough Nichols (editor). Collectanea Topographica & Genealogica, Volume II. (London: John Bowyer Nichols and Son, 1835). Page 250
Jump up
^ Thomas D. Tremlett, Hugh Stanford London, and Sir Anthony Wagner. Rolls of Arms, Henry III. (Oxford, The University Press, 1957). page 123
Jump up
^ [1], Calendar of Close Rolls, Volume 2. HC Maxwell (editor). 1905. 9 November 1233
Jump up
^ Rotuli Selecti ad Res Anglicas et Hibernicas Spectantes. Joseph hunter (editor). (London: 1834). Page 259
Jump up
^ William Henry Hart. Historia et Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriæ, Vol. 2. (London: Public Record Office, 1865). Pages 287-289.
Jump up
^ H C Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 2, 1231-1234. (London, 1905), pp. 330-348 [2] accessed 16 February 2016.
Jump up
^ Liber Feodorum. The Book of Fees Commonly Called Testa de Nevill, Reformed From the Earliest Mss. By The Deputy Keeper of the Records. Part 1, AD 1198 -1242. (London: Public Record Office, 1920). Pages 631-2
Jump up
^ Collections Towards the History and Antiquities of the County of Hereford in continuation of Duncumb’s History. Hundred of Grimsworth. By William Henry Cooke. London: John Murray, Albermarle Street. 1892, Page 48, Grimsworth Hundred
Jump up
^ James MacMullen Rigg, Sir Hilary Enkinson (editors). Calendar of the Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews Preserved in the Public Record Office, Volume 1, Henry III, AD 1218-1272. (London: MacMillan & Company, 1905). 1244-5, Pleas of Michaelmas Term, 28 & 29 Henry III
Jump up
^ H C Maxwell Lyte. Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 6, 1247-1251. (London, 1922), pages 111-113 [3] accessed 17 February 2016.
Jump up
^ Holden Brock. "Lords of the Central Marches: English Aristocracy and Frontier Society, 1087–1265." (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Pages 78
Jump up
^ John Caley, Henry Ellis, and Bulkeley Bandinel (editors). Monasticon Anglicanum, A History of the Abbies and other Monasteries, Hospitals, Frieries, and Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, Volume 6, Part 1. (London: Thomas Davison, 1830). Page 490
Jump up
^ Curia Regis Rolls, volume XVIII, 1243-1245. (London: Boydell Press, 1999). Entry 447
Jump up
^ Curia Regis Rolls, volume XVIII, 1243-1245. (London: Boydell Press, 1999). Easter Term, 28 henry III (1244), Entry 1518
Jump up
^ John Caley, Henry Ellis, and Bulkeley Bandinel (editors). Monasticon Anglicanum, A History of the Abbies and other Monasteries, Hospitals, Frieries, and Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, Volume 6, Part 1. (London: James Bohn, 1846). Page 400
Jump up
^ 'Prebendaries: Bartonsham', Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066-1300: volume 8: Hereford (2002), pp. 29-31. URL: [4] Date accessed: 16 July 2014.
Jump up
^ Charter Number: 03380119; Cartulary Title: Hereford 1234-1275; Date: 1249; University of Toronto, [5]
Jump up
^ The Manuscripts of the Earl of Westmoreland, Captain Stewart, Lord Stafford, Lord Muncaster, And Others. (London: Public Records Office, 1885). Page 416
Jump up
^ HC Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, Volume 5, 1242 to 1247. (London: Public Record Office, 1916). Page 165
Jump up
^ HC Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, Volume 7, 1251 to 1253. (London: 1927). 2 Oct 1251
Jump up
^ Curia Regis Rolls, volume XVIII, 1243-1245. (London: Boydell Press, 1999). Entry 36, Entry 703, Entry 790, and Entry 886
Jump up
^ HC Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, Volume 5, 1242 to 1247. (London: Public Record Office, 1916). Page 238
Jump up
^ HC Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, Volume 9, 1254 to 1256. (London: 1931). 11 Feb 1255
Jump up
^ Calendar of the Charter Rolls, Volume 1, Henry III, 1226-1257. (London: Mackie and Co, 1908). Page 369
Jump up
^ Robert William Eyton. Antiquities of Shropshire, Volume 1. (London: JR Smith, 1854). Page 64 to 66
Jump up
^ A.E. Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 11, 1259-1261. (London, 1934). pp. 459-468 [6] accessed 22 February 2016.
Jump up
^ J. E. E. S. Sharp (editor). Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Volume 1: Henry III. (London: Institute of Historical Research, 1904). Pages: 165-171
Jump up
^ Major General Hon. George Wrottesley (editor). Collections for a History of Staffordshire, Volume 4. (London: Harrison and Sons, 1883). page 103-114
Jump up
^ H C Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 5, 1242-1247. (London, 1916), pages 337-343 [7] accessed 17 February 2016.
Jump up
^ HC Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, Volume 8, 1253 to 1254. Published 1929. Page 230, membrane 9, 2 Oct 1254
Jump up
^ HC Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, Volume 9, 1254 to 1256. (London: 1931). 24 Jul 1256
Jump up
^ HC Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, Volume 9, 1254 to 1256. (London: 1931). 12 Aug 1256
Jump up
^ Calendar of Patent Rolls, Henry III, volume 4. University of Iowa digital library. Page 553, 10 May 1257, Merton, membrane 9. [8]
Jump up
^ H.C. Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Henry III, 1247 to 1258. (London: Mackie and Co., 1908). Page 553
Jump up
^ HC Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, Volume 10, 1256 to 1259. (London: 1932). 14 Mar 1258, membrane 11d
Jump up
^ A.E. Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 11, 1259-1261. (London, 1934), pp. 20-27 [9] accessed 22 February 2016.
Jump up
^ A.E. Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 11, 1259-1261. (London, 1934). pp. 154-159 [10] accessed 22 February 2016.
Jump up
^ A.E. Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 11, 1259-1261. (London, 1934). pages 190-202 [11] accessed 22 February 2016.
Jump up
^ A.E. Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 11, 1259-1261. (London, 1934). pp. 341-353 [12] accessed 22 February 2016.
Jump up
^ A.E. Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 11, 1259-1261. (London, 1934). pp. 457-459 [13] accessed 22 February 2016.
Jump up
^ A.E. Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 11, 1259-1261. (London, 1934). pp. 484-490 [14] accessed 22 February 2016.
Jump up
^ A.E. Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 11, 1259-1261, (London, 1934), pp. 429-442 [15] accessed 22 February 2016.
Jump up
^ A.E. Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 12, 1261-1264. (London, 1936), pp. 269-273 [16] accessed 22 February 2016.
Jump up
^ A.E. Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 12, 1261-1264. (London, 1936). pp. 273-278 [17] accessed 22 February 2016.
Jump up
^ The National Archives, United Kingdom. Kew. 15 April 1263, Reference: SC 1/3/76
Jump up
^ A.E. Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 12, 1261-1264. (London, 1936). pp. 299-307 [18] accessed 22 February 2016.
Jump up
^ A.E. Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 12, 1261-1264. (London, 1936). pp. 257-266 [19] accessed 22 February 2016.
Jump up
^ H.C. Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Henry III. (London: Mackie and Co., 1910). Volume 5, page 378
Jump up
^ H.C. Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Henry III, Volume 5. (London: Mackie and Co., 1910). 1264, July 7, St. Paul’s, London, membrane 9
Jump up
^ Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous (Chancery) Preserved in the Public Record Office, Volume I. (London:Hereford Times Limited, 1916). 289 and 291. Writs to the sheriff of Hereford. 8 February 49 Henry III
Jump up
^ H.C. Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Henry III. (London: Mackie and Co., 1910). Volume 5, page 478
Jump up
^ A E Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 13, 1264-1268. (London, 1937). pages 26-42 [20] accessed 17 February 2016.
Jump up
^ A E Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 13, 1264-1268. (London, 1937). pages 42-53 [21] accessed 17 February 2016.
Jump up
^ H.C. Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Henry III. (London: Mackie and Co., 1910). Volume 5, 17 May 1265, membrane 16
Jump up
^ Calendar of the Libertate Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, Volume V, 1260-1267 49 Henry III. (London: Public Record Office, 1961). Page 175
Jump up
^ A E Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 13, 1264-1268. (London, 1937). Pages 53-64 [22] accessed 17 February 2016.
Jump up
^ A E Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 13, 1264-1268. (London, 1937), pages 64-68 [23] accessed 17 February 2016.
Jump up
^ James Conway Davies (editor). The Welsh Assize Roll, 1277-1284. (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1940). Page 341
Jump up
^ HC Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III, Volume 13, 1264 to 1268. (London: Public Record Office, 1937). 1 Jul 1265
Jump up
^ James MacMullen Rigg, Sir Hilary Enkinson (editors). Calendar of the Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews Preserved in the Public Record Office, Volume 1, Henry III, AD 1218-1272. (London: MacMillan & Company, 1905). Page 237-38
Jump up
^ HC Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Edward II, Volume 1, 1307-1313. 15 November 1308, Westminster
Jump up
^ Anthony Story. Inquisitions and Assessments Relating to Feudal Aids: 1284-1431, Volume II: Dorset to Huntingdon. (London: Public Record Office, 1900). Page 386
Jump up
^ Collections Towards the History and Antiquities of the County of Hereford in continuation of Duncumb’s History. Hundred of Grimsworth. By William Henry Cooke. (London: John Murray, Albermarle Street, 1892). Page 2, Parish of Bishopstone
Jump up
^ Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, 1330 to 1334. (London: Public Record Office, 1893). Volume 2, page 579. [24]
Jump up
^ [25], Medieval Genealogy Website. Abstracts of Feet of Fines. CP 25/1/286/34, Various Counties 14.
Jump up
^ Robert William Eyton. Antiquities of Shropshire, Volume 6. (London: JR Smith, 1858). Pages 273-5
Jump up to:
a b JW Willis Bund (editor). Episcopal Registers, Diocese of Worcester: Register of Bishop Godfrey Giffard, Volume 1. (Oxford, James Parker and Co, 1902). Appendix IV
Jump up
^ A E Stamp (editor). Calendar of Close Rolls, Henry III: Volume 13, 1264-1268. (London, 1937), pages 73-78. [26] accessed 17 February 2016.
Jump up
^ Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous (Chancery) Preserved in the Public Record Office, Volume I. (London:Hereford Times Limited, 1916). Entry 675, Hundred of Bottelawe (Gloucester)
Jump up
^ H.C. Maxwell Lyte (editor). Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Henry III. (London: Mackie and Co., 1910). Volume 5, 12 October 1265, Westminster, membrane 5
Preceded by
Stephen Devereux
Lord of Lyonshall
Succeeded by
Roger Mortimer, 1st Baron Mortimer
Devereux, William (I055501)

18.6 Marriage – Frances Rose Bomford & Samuel Pratt Winter 20th July 1812
Most of the details of the following come from the diary of John Pratt Winter [in the National Library of Ireland?]. Chapter 20 concerns the Winter family; this chapter includes this marriage and the children of the marriage.

From Winter’s diary
“Frances Rose (or Rosetta) Bomford was born c1792 at Rahinstown, the younger daughter of Trevor Bomford (and Mary McDonnell, widow of John Bateman), orphaned, and brought up under the guardianship of her uncle, George Bomford of Drumlargan. She was sent to Rome in 1810 (aged 18) under the care of her spinster aunt, Anna Maria (Winter), to study singing and composition under a Dr Sanctis. On her return to Dublin she gave public singing performances and had her songs published.”

Samuel Pratt Winter was the youngest child of Samuel Winter (1741- 1811) (20.4) and Margaret Robbins (1735 - 1814). He was born on 25th February 1779 at Agher. In June 1795 he entered Trinity where he got his BA in 1800, but he showed little interest in a professional career. In 1802 his father gave him £3,000 and sent him off “as an assistant to learn business” to a firm at Aldershot. Six years later he was back “having been forced by illness to give up business and having lost every last shilling

18.7 The Children of Samuel Pratt Winter & Frances Rose Bomford _The_Children_of_Samuel_Pratt_Winter_&_Frances_Rose_Bomford_ 
Winter, Samuel Pratt (I095617)

Gesche Kruse (born Harder), 1689 - 1765
Gesche Kruse (born Harder) was born on May 2 1689, in Kölln, to Hans Harder and Metje Harder (born tho Aspern).
Hans was born in 1633, in Bokholt.
Metje was born on December 19 1658, in Bokholt.
Gesche had 3 siblings: Hans Harder, Gerdt Harder and Maria Tietjen (born Harder).
Gesche married Hans Kruse on August 24 1713, at age 24.
Hans was born on October 1 1681, in Kölln.
They had 6 children: Abel Kruse, Metta Fehrs (born Kruse), Margaretha Kruse, Anna Kruse, Hans Kruse and Hinrich Kruse.
Gesche passed away on May 11 1765, at age 76 in Kölln, Schleswig-Holstein, Prussia.
She was buried in Barmstedt, Pinneberg, Schleswig-Holstein, Preußen, Deutschland. 
Harder, Gesche (I116929)

"A" Coy. 5th Bn., Leicestershire Regiment
who died on Wednesday, 13th October 1915. Age 25.
Additional Information: Son of the
late Hon. Paulyn F. C. Rawdon-Hastings and
Maud Rawdon-Hastings, of 14, Stafford Mansions,
Buckingham Gate, London.
Commemorative Information
Memorial: LOOS MEMORIAL, Pas de Calais, France

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Rawdon-Hastings, Paulyn Charles James Reginald (I000849)

Kitchin argues - Seti's aim was to combine examples set by Thutmose II as a conqueror and Amenhotep III as a builder. Also that Seti's name is a combination of the throne names of Thutmose III and Amenhotep III.
Seti embarked on a ambitious building program and military campaigns to demonstrate his legitimacy through his deeds. Seti tried to emulate Thutmose III in the battle field.
Seti needed to legitimize his family to the throne and he did this by a spectacular building program
He also restored names, titles and figures of gods that had been hacked out by Akhenaten
EVIDENCE- reliefs restored by Seti show underlying traces of the earlier figures hacked out by Akhenaten.

Military campaigns
Seti's objective was to conquer Kadesh and Amurru by;
gaining a firm hold of Palestine
gaining control of the seaports on the Phoenician coast
attacking central and northern Syria from the coast.
He undertook this in the first six years of his reign
He put down a Bedouion rebellion and erected a victory stela at Beth-Shan
He also established control over the Phoenician coast. The next three years he extended control, and was ready to attach Amurru, Kadesh and face the Hittites.
At home in Egypt, they were being threatened by the Libyans. Seti dealt with this and was able to return to the north.
Year 5 of 6 he attacked Amurru and Kadesh, gaining control.
Hittite king was not prepared and he signed a treaty, giving Egypt control over Palestine and the coast, to stop Egypt from attacking Hittites.
At Nubia rock inscription show Seti ordered an attack on the nomadic Irem people who were planning raids in Year 8.
Overall the results of Seti's military action were
He showed his military ability
He revived the warrior pharaoh image
He secured Egypt's borders and regained much lost territory
He made Egypt a powerful country once more]

Building Program
Buildings were extensive and high quality, dedicated to different gods.
He attempted to legitimize the rule of the new Ramesside dynasty
He attempted to get his name "recognized" through use of "renewal text" and buildings early in his reign
Shows piety/dedication to the gods. particular shown by the unusual bowing position of the pharaoh in relation to the gods
He usurped buildings of previous pharaohs by replacing their names with his.
Built at Karnak in an attempt to legitimize reign by building in the place where past pharaohs built on an even grander scale
Building program was beneficial to all the gods in an attempt to preserve maat.
Seti's building program included;
a white limestone temple at Abydos
columned hypostyle hall at karnak
summer palace at Avaris
a mortuary temple and tomb at Western Thebes
Embarking on such a large building program required large supplies of gold and stone. Seti sent expeditions to locate these materials.
It appears Seti took personal interest in the conditions of his workers
EVIDENCE - quarry inscription records how Seti increased the rations of quarrymen to allow the work to be easier. He also ordered a new well, as they were working in hot conditions.
Seti may have taken an interest as he came from non royal background.
Seti was assisted in his building by Vizier Nebamun, Paser (vizier of the south) and Amen-em-ope ( viceroy of Nubia)
Temple of Osiris at Abydos
Abydos was a holy site associated with Osiris, it was L shaped, rather than rectangular, it was made of white limestone, it has 7 chapels behind columned hall, had beautiful reliefs of Seti offering to the gods and reliefs of the legend of Osiris.
Seti also wrote an edict to ensure the temple and its estates continued undisturbed. This Temple was finished by Rameses II
Mortuary Temple and Tomb at Western Thebes
This temple was built of white sandstone with cedar doors. His tomb was extremely long and beautifully decorated with quality raised reliefs
Building in lower Egypt
a summer palace at Thebes
added to Temple of Ptah
Added to temple of Re

Seti's Death
Died at age 50
Egypt was prosperous
Well administered
Had reestablished its empire
Had buildings to rival even Amenhotep 's best
The new dynasty had therefore started positively and the pharaoh had reestablished his superhuman image.
Seti's reign was highly successful and through his vast building program he secured his legitimacy and that of a dynasty, Ramesses II was the beneficiary of his fathers legacy.
Egypt, Sety I Pharaoh of (I062930)

Prestwidge, James (I065118)

George Ashburnham, 3rd Earl of Ashburnham was born on 25 December 1760.1 He was the son of John Ashburnham, 2nd Earl of Ashburnham and Elizabeth Crowley.1 He was baptised on 29 January 1761 at St. George's Church, St. George Street, Hanover Square, London, England, with King George III of Great Britain and Ireland, 1st Duke of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Princess Dowager Auguste of Wales as his sponsor.1 He married, firstly, Sophia Thynne, daughter of Thomas Thynne, 1st Marquess of Bath and Lady Elizabeth Cavendish-Bentinck, on 28 August 1784 at Arlington Street, St. George Hanover Square, London, England.1 He married, secondly, Lady Charlotte Percy, daughter of Algernon Percy, 1st Earl of Beverley and Susan Isabella Burrell, on 25 July 1795 at Orwell Park, Ipswich, Suffolk, England.1 He died on 27 October 1830 at age 69 at Ashburnham, Sussex, England.2
He was styled as Viscount St. Asaph between 1760 and 1812.1 He graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge University, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England, in 1780 with a Master of Arts (M.A.).1 He held the office of Lord of the Bedchamber to the Prince of Wales between 1784 and 1795.1 He succeeded to the title of 5th Baron Ashburnham, of Ashburnham, Sussex [E., 1689] on 23 March 1803, in the lifetime of his father.1 He held the office of Trustee of the British Museum between 1810 and 1830.1 He succeeded to the title of 3rd Earl of Ashburnham [G.B., 1730] on 8 April 1812.1 He succeeded to the title of 3rd Viscount St. Asaph, of the principality of Wales [G.B., 1730] on 8 April 1812.1 He was invested as a Fellow, Society of Antiquaries (F.S.A.) in 1827.1,3 He was invested as a Knight Commander, Hanoverian Order (K.C.H.) in 1827.1 He was invested as a Knight, Order of the Garter (K.G.) on 22 June 1829.1 He wrote the book A Narrative by John Ashburnham of his Attendance on King Charles the First &c. To which is prefixed a vindication of his character and conduct from the misrepresentations of Lord Clarendon, by his lineal descendant and present representative, published 1830, (editor, in two volumes).2

Children of George Ashburnham, 3rd Earl of Ashburnham and Sophia Thynne
1.George Ashburnham, Viscount St. Asaph2 b. 9 Oct 1785, d. 7 Jun 1813
2.Lady Elizabeth Sophia Ashburnham3 b. 16 Sep 1786, d. 13 Mar 1879
3.Hon. John Ashburnham3 b. 3 Jun 1789, d. 1810

Children of George Ashburnham, 3rd Earl of Ashburnham and Lady Charlotte Percy
1.Bertram Ashburnham, 4th Earl of Ashburnham+2 b. 23 Nov 1797, d. 22 Jun 1878
2.Hon. Percy Ashburnham+3 b. 22 Nov 1799, d. 25 Jan 1881
3.Lady Charlotte Susan Ashburnham3 b. 23 Feb 1801, d. 26 Apr 1865
4.Lady Theodosia Julia Ashburnham3 b. 27 Mar 1802, d. 22 Aug 1887
5.Hon. Charles Ashburnham3 b. 23 Mar 1803, d. 22 Dec 1848
6.Lady Georgiana Jemima Ashburnham+3 b. 11 May 1805, d. May 1882
7.Lady Jane Henrietta Ashburnham+1 b. 19 Jul 1809, d. 26 Nov 1896
8.Lady Katherine Frances Ashburnham+3 b. 31 Mar 1812, d. 6 Apr 1839
9.Lady Eleanor Isabel Bridget Ashburnham+3 b. 28 Jul 1814, d. 6 Mar 1895
10.General Hon. Thomas Ashburnham3 b. 1816, d. 2 Mar 1872
11.Lady Mary Agnes Blanche Ashburnham+3 b. 23 Jan 1816, d. 22 Apr 1899
12.Hon. Reginald Ashburnham3 b. 1819, d. 5 Mar 1830 
Ashburnham, George 3rd Earl of Ashburnham (I064544)

Families covered: Lauder of Hatton

Lauder, William (Sir) of Hatton (I040810)

Arnulf of Metz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Arnulf of Metz (August 13, 582 – August 16, 640) was a Frankish noble who had great influence in the Merovingian kingdoms as a bishop and was later canonized as a saint. He is also known by his anglicized name, Arnold.

Arnulf gave distinguished service at the Austrasian court under Theudebert II (595-612). About 611 he was made bishop of Metz. In 613, Arnulf and Pippin of Landen, whose daughter Begga, had married Arnulf's son Ansegisel , he led the aristocratic opposition to Queen Brunhilda of Austrasia. The revolt led to her overthrow, torture, and eventual execution, and the reunification of Frankish lands under Clotaire II, the old queen's nephew. Though Arnulf wanted to retreat to the Vosges mountains as a hermit, he was persuaded to stay and became the bishop of Metz.

From 623 (with Pippin of Landen, then the Mayor of the Palace), Arnulf was an adviser to Dagobert I. With his friend Romaric, he retired in 627 to a mountain site in the Vosges, to implement his lifelong resolution to become a hermit.

Before he was consecrated, he had two sons by his wife Doda: Ansegisel and Chlodulf. Ansegisel married Pippin's daughter Begga, and their child was Pippin the Middle, one of Charlemagne's great-grandfathers. Chlodulf, like his father, became bishop of Metz. The existence of third son called Martin is considered dubious.

Arnulf was canonized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church and is known as the patron saint of brewing. His feast day is either July 18 or August 16. In iconography, he is portrayed with a rake in his hand. He is often confused in legend with Arnold of Soissons, who is another patron saint of brewing.

Saint Arnold Brewery, Houston, Texas, named after the saint, lists itself as the state's oldest microbrewery.

Uncertain ancestry
While Arnulf is recognised as one of the earliest documented ancestors of Charlemagne and thereby most modern European royal families, Arnulf's own parentage is both uncertain and undocumented. Some have claimed that Arnulf's father was Arnoldus (c.535–600), and that his mother was Ada of Swabia. According to Frankish legends, Arnulf was the son of Bodigisel. Others have claimed that Arnulf's mother was Bertha, Princess of Paris (539–640).

Still others hold that Arnulf descended from Mellobaude:

Mellobaude (320-376)
Richemir (350-384) married Ascyla (d.352)
Theodemir Magnus (370-414) married Valentina Justina (d.414)
Clovis the Ripuarian (398-448) married Ildegonde de Cologne (399-450)
Childebert of Cologne (430-483) married Amalaberge (435-478)
Siegbert the Lame (d.509)
Cloderic of Cologne (477-509) married Parricide
Munderic (500-532) married Arthenia (500)
Bodegisel I married Palatina
Bodegisel II (d.588) married Oda of Suevian
Arnulf (582-641) married Dode (586-612)

St. Arnulf of Metz
Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROM

Contains 11,632 articles. Browse off-line, ad-free, printer-friendly.
Get it here for only $33 plus FREE shipping worldwide

Statesman, bishop under the Merovingians, born c. 580; died c. 640. His parents belonged to a distinguished Frankish family, and lived in Austrasia, the eastern section of the kingdom founded by Clovis. In the school in which he was placed during his boyhood he excelled through his talent and his good behaviour. According to the custom of the age, he was sent in due time to the court of Theodebert II, King of Austrasia (595-612), to be initiated in the various branches of the government. Under the guidance of Gundulf, the Mayor of the Palace, he soon became so proficient that he was placed on the regular list of royal officers, and among the first of the kings ministers. He distinguished himself both as a military commander and in the civil administration; at one time he had under his care six distinct provinces. In due course Arnulf was married to a Frankish woman of noble lineage, by whom he had two sons, Anseghisel and Clodulf. While Arnulf was enjoying worldly emoluments and honours he did not forget higher and spiritual things. His thoughts dwelled often on monasteries, and with his friend Romaricus, likewise an officer of the court, he planned to make a pilgrimage to the Abbey of Lérins, evidently for the purpose of devoting his life to God. But in the meantime the Episcopal See of Metz became vacant. Arnulf was universally designated as a worthy candidate for the office, and he was consecrated bishop of that see about 611. In his new position he set the example of a virtuous life to his subjects, and attended to matters of ecclesiastical government. In 625 he took part in a council held by the Frankish bishops at Reims. With all this Arnulf retained his station at the court of the king, and took a prominent part in the national life of his people. In 613, after the death of Theodebert, he, with Pepin of Landen and other nobles, called to Austrasia Clothaire II, King of Neustria. When, in 625, the realm of Austrasia was entrusted to the kings son Dagobert, Arnulf became not only the tutor, but also the chief minister, of the young king. At the time of the estrangement between the two kings, and 625, Arnulf with other bishops and nobles tried to effect a reconciliation. But Arnulf dreaded the responsibilities of the episcopal office and grew weary of court life. About the year 626 he obtained the appointment of a successor to the Episcopal See of Metz; he himself and his friend Romaricus withdrew to a solitary place in the mountains of the Vosges. There he lived in communion with God until his death. His remains, interred by Romaricus, were transferred about a year afterwards, by Bishop Goeric, to the basilica of the Holy Apostles in Metz.

Of the two sons of Arnulf, Clodulf became his third successor in the See of Metz. Anseghisel remained in the service of the State; from his union with Begga, a daughter of Pepin of Landen, was born Pepin of Heristal, the founder of the Carlovingian dynasty. In this manner Arnulf was the ancestor of the mighty rulers of that house. The life or Arnulf exhibits to a certain extent the episcopal office and career in the Merovingian State. The bishops were much considered at court; their advice was listened to; they took part in the dispensation of justice by the courts; they had a voice in the appointment of royal officers; they were often used as the king's ambassadors, and held high administrative positions. For the people under their care, they were the protectors of their rights, their spokesmen before the king and the link uniting royalty with its subjects. The opportunities for good were thus unlimited; and Arnulf used them to good advantage.

Haren-Anderson / Brownlees of Torfoot / Wilcox to Charlemagne
Entries: 105300 Updated: 2007-02-06 18:46:00 UTC (Tue) Contact: Kim Home Page: Kim Brownlee Myspace Music page
ID: I041280
Name: St. Arnulf (Arnoul) of Metz 1
Sex: M
Birth: ABT 13 AUG 582 in Of, Heristal, Austrasia, France 1
Death: 16 AUG 641 in Horenberg, Monastery, Wasenwald 1
Burial: , Metz, Austrasia, France 1
Change Date: 26 FEB 2006
[De La Pole.FTW]

Sources: RC 53, 171, 358; AF; Kraentzler 1635; Collins; Pfafman; "The Franks;" The Carolingian Ancestry of Edmond Hawes, Alice Freeman and Thomas James by Henry James Young.
Along with Pepin, the Mayor of the Palace in Austrasia, Arnoul (Arnulf) was a chief advisor of Dagobert. RC calls him a tutor of Dagobert. Bishop of Metz.
K: St. Arnuld, the Holy, Majordomo and Bishop of Metz. Born after 13 June 562. Buried Habendum an der Mozel, later at St. Arnulf's Church at Metz.
Carolingian: St Arnulph, died 641, mayor of the palace of Austrasia, later bishop of Metz. No wife listed.
Collins (or Smallwood) mixes up St. Arnold, Bishop of Metz. with Arnoaldus, Bishop of Metz.

Father: Arnoaldus Mar de Schelde de Heristal b: ABT 540
Mother: Oda of Savoy b: ABT 562

Marriage 1 Oda (Doda or Clothilde) de Heristal b: 580 in Old Saxony
Change Date: 26 FEB 2006
St. Clodolf Bishop of Metz b: 596 in Of, Austrasia, France
Ansguise (Ansigise) of Metz b: 602 in , Austrasia, France
Walchigise Comte de Verdun b: ABT 610

Title: De La Pole.FTW
Note: ABBR De La Pole.FTWTITL De La Pole.FTW
Source Media Type: Other
NAME Not Given
Not Given
Metz, Arnold "St Arnulf" Bishop of (I072646)

Second Lieutenant
2nd Bn., Black Watch (Royal Highlanders)
who died on Wednesday, 15th September 1915. Age 20.
Additional Information: Hastings. Son of the Hon. Paulyn
F. C. Rawdon-Hastings and Maud Rawdon-Hastings.
Coronation Medal, George V., as page to his uncle,
the Earl of Loudoun.
Commemorative Information
Cemetery: WIMEREUX COMMUNAL CEMETERY, Pas de Calais, France

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Hastings, Edward Hugh (I000850)

Edward Marris in entry for William Marris, "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975"
William Marris
Christening Date:
24 Feb 1786
Christening Place:
Birth Date:
Death Date:
Name Note:
Father's Name:
Edward Marris
Father's Birthplace:
Father's Age:
Mother's Name:
Mother's Birthplace:
Mother's Age:
Indexing Project (Batch) Number:
System Origin:
GS Film number:
504255, 507837
Marris, William (I2984)

From Neferchichi's Tomb, Pharaohs

Tuthmosis II
Birth name: Tuthmosis ("Born of the God Thoth")
Throne name: Akheperenre ("Great is the form of Re")
Rule: 1518 - 1504 BC (4th king of the 18th dynasty, New Kingdom)
Noteworthy relatives: Tuthmosis I (father), Hatshepsut (half-sister/wife), Tuthmosis III (son)

Tuthmosis II was the half-royal son of Tuthmosis I and a lesser queen named Mutnefert. He had two half-brothers (Wadjmose and Amenmose) whose mother was Queen Ahmose, the "great royal wife." It was Wadjmose and Amenmose who were in line to inherit the throne, not Tuthmosis II. But they both died before getting a turn, leaving him as the only male heir.

He also had a half-sister, Hatshepsut, whose parents were Tuthmosis I and Queen Ahmose. Hatshepsut was therefore 100% royal. Since Tuthmosis II was only half as royal, he married her to strengthen his connection to the throne. Tuthmosis II and Hatshepsut had a daughter (Neferure) but no sons, although he did have a son (Tuthmosis III) with a harem girl.

Tuthmosis II was nowhere near as great a king as his father. He was frail and sickly and died when he was in his early thirties. What a disappointment!

During the New Kingdom, royal tombs were built high in the cliffs of Upper Egypt in a spot commonly called "The Valley of the Kings." The intention was to make the tombs as inaccessible to grave robbers as possible... although they got robbed anyway. Around 1000 BC, a group of priests gathered up all the royal mummies and stored them in two secret "mummy caches" (one near Deir el-Bahari, and the other in the tomb of Amenhotep II) to keep them safe. These hidden royals were nowhere to be found for almost 2,000 years: in 1881, the 40 mummies in the Deir el-Bahari location were found; then in 1898 the tomb of Amenhotep II with its additional 16 mummies was discovered. Tuthmosis II was in the 1881 cache, and although his mummy has been found, his own original tomb is still undiscovered!
Egypt, Thutmosis II (Akheperenre) King of (I032658)

Geoffrey fitz Piers, 3rd Earl of Essex1
M, #4615, b. before 1170, d. 14 October 1213
Last Edited=5 Oct 2017

Geoffrey fitz Piers, 3rd Earl of Essex was born before 1170. He was the son of Piers de Lutegareshale and Maud de Mandeville.2 He married, firstly, Beatrice de Say, daughter of William de Say and unknown wife (?), on 25 January 1184/85.3 He married, secondly, Aveline de Clare, daughter of Roger de Clare, 2nd Earl of Hertford, before 29 May 1205. He died on 14 October 1213.1
He gained the title of 3rd Earl of Essex in 1199.
Child of Geoffrey fitz Piers, 3rd Earl of Essex
1.Matilda fitz Geoffrey+4 d. 1236
Child of Geoffrey fitz Piers, 3rd Earl of Essex and Beatrice de Say
1.Geoffrey de Mandeville, 4th Earl of Essex1 d. 23 Feb 1216
Children of Geoffrey fitz Piers, 3rd Earl of Essex and Aveline de Clare
1.John fitz Geoffrey, Lord of Shere+ d. 23 Nov 1258
2.Cecily fitz Geoffrey+5
1.[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 V, page 125. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage.
2.[S6] Cokayne, and others, The Complete Peerage, volume V, page 122.
3.[S37] BP2003 volume 3, page 3531. See link for full details for this source. Hereinafter cited as. [S37]
4.[S11] Alison Weir, Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy (London, U.K.: The Bodley Head, 1999), page 195. Hereinafter cited as Britain's Royal Families.
5.[S443] Rootsweb, online unknown url.


Geoffrey Fitz Peter, 1st Earl of Essex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geoffrey Fitz Peter
Chief Justiciar of England
In office July 11, 1198 – October 14, 1213
Monarch Richard I
Justiciar of England
In office 1189 – July 11, 1198
Monarch Richard I
sheriff of Northamptonshire
In office 1184 – 1189
Monarch Henry II
Born c 1162
Died October 14, 1213

Spouse (1) Beatrice de Say
(2) Aveline de Clare
Children Geoffrey de Mandeville
William de Mandeville
Maud Fitzgeoffrey
John Fitzgeoffrey
Cecily Fitzgeoffrey
Hawise Fitzgeoffrey
Occupation Earl of Essex
Profession Noble
Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Earl of Essex, (Piers de Lutegareshale), (c. 1162 – 1213), was a prominent member of the government of England during the reigns of Richard I and John. The patronymic is sometimes rendered Fitz Piers.

1 Life
2 Marriage and issue
2.1 Spouses
2.2 Children of Beatrice
2.3 Children of Aveline
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links

He was from a modest landowning family that had a tradition of service in mid-ranking posts under Henry II. Geoffrey's elder brother Simon was at various times sheriff of Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire, and Bedfordshire. Geoffrey, too, got his start in this way, as sheriff of Northamptonshire for the last five years of Henry II's reign.

Around this time Geoffrey married Beatrice de Say, daughter and eventual co-heiress of William de Say II. This William was the son of William de Say I and Beatrice, sister of Geoffrey de Mandeville, 1st Earl of Essex. This connection with the Mandeville family was later to prove unexpectedly important. In 1184 Geoffrey's father-in-law died, and he received a share of the de Say inheritance by right of his wife, co-heiress to her father. He also eventually gained the title of earl of Essex by right of his wife, becoming the 4th earl.

When Richard I left on crusade, he appointed Geoffrey one of the five judges of the king's court, and thus a principal advisor to Hugh de Puiset, Bishop of Durham, who, as Chief Justiciar, was one of the regents during the king's absence. Late in 1189, Geoffrey's wife's cousin William de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex died, leaving no direct heirs. His wife's inheritance was disputed between Geoffrey and his in-laws, but Geoffrey used his political influence to eventually obtain the Mandeville lands (but not the earldom, which was left open) for himself.

On July 11, 1198, King Richard appointed Geoffrey Chief Justiciar, which at that time effectively made him the king's principal minister. He continued in this capacity after the accession of king John until his death on October 14, 1213.[1] On his coronation day the new king also recognized Geoffrey as Earl of Essex.

Marriage and issue
m1. Beatrice de Say, daughter of William de Say[2].
m2. Aveline, daughter of Roger de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hertford, Earl of Hertford.

Children of Beatrice
Note that his sons by this marriage took the de Mandeville surname.

Geoffrey de Mandeville, 2nd Earl of Essex.
William FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, 3rd Earl of Essex.
Henry, Dean of Wolverhampton.
Maud Fitzgeoffrey, who married Henry de Bohun, 1st Earl of Hereford.

Children of Aveline
John Fitzgeoffrey, Lord of Shere and Justiciar of Ireland.
Cecily Fitzgeoffrey.
Hawise Fitzgeoffrey.
Geoffrey's first two sons died without issue. Apparently the earldom was associated with their mother's Mandeville heritage, for the earldom was inherited by the husband of their sister Maud, instead of their half-brother John.

^ Powicke Handbook of British Chronology p. 70

Powicke, F. Maurice and E. B. Fryde Handbook of British Chronology 2nd. ed. London:Royal Historical Society 1961  
FitzPiers, Geoffrey 4th Earl of Essex (I006178)

George Neish, "Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950"

Name: George Neish
Gender: Male
Christening Date: 12 Feb 1761
Birth Date:
Death Date:
Name Note:
Father's Name: James Neish
Father's Birthplace:
Father's Age:
Mother's Name: Janet Cram
Mother's Birthplace:
Mother's Age:
Indexing Project (Batch) Number: C11383-2
System Origin: Scotland-ODM
GS Film number: 1040335
Reference ID:

James Neish in entry for George Neish, "Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950"

Name: George Neish
Gender: Male
Christening Date: 12 Feb 1761
Birth Date:
Death Date:
Name Note:
Father's Name: James Neish
Father's Birthplace:
Father's Age:
Mother's Name: Janet Cram
Mother's Birthplace:
Mother's Age:
Indexing Project (Batch) Number: C11383-2
System Origin: Scotland-ODM
GS Film number: 1040335
Reference ID:
Neish, George (I998)

Henry Nish, "Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950"

Name: Henry Nish
Gender: Male
Christening Date: 01 Feb 1756
Birth Date:
Death Date:
Name Note:
Father's Name: James Nish
Father's Birthplace:
Father's Age:
Mother's Name: Janet Cram
Mother's Birthplace:
Mother's Age:
Indexing Project (Batch) Number: C11383-2
System Origin: Scotland-ODM
GS Film number: 1040335
Reference ID:

Henry Neish, "Scotland, Marriages, 1561-1910"

Name: Henry Neish
Birth Date:
Spouse's Name: Jean Anderson
Spouse's Birth Date:
Spouse's Birthplace:
Spouse's Age:
Event Date: 06 Jul 1783
Event Place: Monzievaird And Strowan,Perth,Scotland
Father's Name:
Mother's Name:
Spouse's Father's Name:
Spouse's Mother's Name:
Marital Status:
Previous Wife's Name:
Spouse's Race:
Spouse's Marital Status:
Spouse's Previous Husband's Name:
Indexing Project (Batch) Number: M11383-2
System Origin: Scotland-ODM
GS Film number: 1040335
Reference ID:
Neish, Henry (I327)

Henry Nish, "Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950"

Name: Henry Nish
Gender: Male
Christening Date: 12 May 1799
Birth Date:
Death Date:
Name Note:
Father's Name: James Nish
Father's Birthplace:
Father's Age:
Mother's Name: Mary Mc Laren
Mother's Birthplace:
Mother's Age:
Indexing Project (Batch) Number: C11383-2
System Origin: Scotland-ODM
GS Film number: 1040335
Reference ID:
Neish, Henry (I905)

10th Bn., Parachute Regiment, A.A.C.
who died on Tuesday, 19th September 1944. Age 21.
Additional Information: Son of John Radcliff and the Hon. Mrs. I. Radcliff, of Cape Town, South Africa.
Commemorative Information

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Radcliff, Herbert Charles Noel (I001689)

5th Bn., Leinster Regiment
who died on Monday, 15th March 1915. Age 32.
Additional Information: Son of George E. and Emma Radcliff, of Wilmount,
Kells, Co. Meath.
Commemorative Information
Memorial: YPRES (MENIN GATE) MEMORIAL, Ieper, West-Vlaanderen, Belgium

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Radcliff, Herbert Graves (I001837)

William Bentinck, 4th Duke of Portland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William Henry Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck, 4th Duke of Portland KG FRS FSA (24 June 1768 – 27 March 1854), styled Marquess of Titchfield until 1809, was a British politician who served in various positions in the governments of George Canning and Lord Goderich.

1 Background and education
2 Political career
3 Family
4 Titles
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

Background and education[--

Portland was the eldest son of Prime Minister William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland and Lady Dorothy, daughter of William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire and Charlotte Boyle, Baroness Clifford. He was the elder brother of Lord William Bentinck and Lord Charles Bentinck. He was educated at Westminster School and Christ Church, Oxford.[1]

Political career[--

Portland was Member of Parliament for Petersfield between 1790 and 1791[1][2] and for Buckinghamshire between 1791 and 1809.[1][3] and served under his father as a Lord of the Treasury between March and September 1807.[1] He remained out of office until April 1827 when he was appointed Lord Privy Seal by his brother-in-law George Canning.[4] He was sworn of the Privy Council the same year.[4] When Lord Goderich became Prime Minister in August 1827, Portland became Lord President of the Council,[5] an office he retained until the government fell in January 1828.[1]

Portland also held the honorary post of Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex between 1794 and 1841.[1]


Portland married Henrietta, daughter of General John Scott and his wife Margaret (née Dundas), in London on 4 August 1795. At the time of his marriage he obtained Royal Licence to take the name "Scott" in addition to that of Bentinck. They were parents of nine children:
##William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Marquess of Titchfield (21 August 1796 – 4 March 1824). His birth was commemorated by his paternal grandfather's commissioning of the Portland Font.[6]
##Lady Margaret Harriet (21 April 1798 – 9 April 1882)
##Lady Caroline (6 July 1799 – 23 January 1828)
##William John Cavendish, Marquess of Titchfield, later 5th Duke of Portland (12 September 1800 – 6 December 1879).
##Lord (William) George Frederick (27 February 1802 – 21 September 1848).
##Lord Henry William Bentinck (9 June 1804 – 31 December 1870).
##Lady Charlotte (14 Jan 1806 – 30 September 1889). Married John Evelyn Denison, 1st Viscount Ossington.
##Lady Lucy Joan (27 August 1807 – 29 July 1899) Married Charles Ellis, 6th Baron Howard de Walden.
##Lady Mary (8 July 1809 – 20 July 1874). Married Sir William Topham.

The Duchess of Portland died in April 1844. Portland survived her by ten years and died in March 1854, aged 85. He was succeeded in the dukedom by his second but eldest surviving son, William.[1]

The department of Manuscripts and Special Collections, The University of Nottingham holds a number of papers relating to Portland: His personal and political papers (Pw H) are part of the Portland (Welbeck) Collection while the Portland (London) Collection (Pl) contains papers relating to his estate business. The Portland Estate Papers held at Nottinghamshire Archives also contain items relating to Portland's properties.

##William Bentinck, Marquess of Titchfield (1768–1795)
##William Scott-Bentinck, Marquess of Titchfield (1795–1801)
##William Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck, Marquess of Titchfield (1801–1809)
##William Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck, 4th Duke of Portland (1809–1854)

William Bentinck, 4th Duke of Portland 
Cavendish, William Henry 4th Duke of Portland (I016273)
"The first of these is Mac Mahons whose chiefs were lords of Oriel. They reputedly descend from Cairbre an Daimh Airgid (the learned and wealthy), grandfather to the Three Collas. Cairbre was of the line of Kings of Oriel who descended from Conn of the Hundred Battles."

"The last chieftain of the Ulster MacMahons of Oriel, Hugh Oge MacMahon (1606 - 44), was a lieutenant-colonel in the Spanish army. He inherited a rich estate in County Monaghan and when he returned home in 1641 he became involved with Conor Maguire in the conspiracy to capture Dublin Castle. They were betrayed by Owen O Connolly who had won their confidence. For several years they were imprisoned in the Tower of London. Making a brief escape, they were discovered hiding in Drury Lane and were charged with high treason and executed in 1644." 
MacMahons, Bernard of Oriel, (of Rekane) (I103255)

Hamish S E Maclaren

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 12:34 AM
Subject: WorldConnect: Post-em posted
Name: joe c

Adding Gov(SC) Thos Broughton to Izard

1 Thomas Broughton b: 1658 d: 22 NOV 1737
+ Ann Johnson d: 25 JUN 1733
2 Ann Broughton b: 1697 d: 1708
+ John Gibbes b: 1706
3 Elizabeth Gibbes b: 1723
+ Walter Izard b: 13 MAR 1713/14 d: 1759
4 Mary Izard b: 31 JUL 1747 d: ABT JUL 1814
+ Arthur Middleton b: 26 JUN 1742 d: 1 JAN 1787
5 Nancy Middleton
+ Joel Jones b: ABT 1764 d: ABT 1832
6 Molly Jones b: 25 DEC 1795 d: 10 JAN 1856
+ William Clifton Green b: 6 AUG 1791 d: 7 JAN 1862
7 William Clifton Green b: 10 AUG 1836
+ Julie Calder
8 Sarah Ann Clifton Green b: 2 JUL 1856
+ Edward Oliver Kitchens b: 4 MAR 1859 d: 9 JAN 1940
9 Emma Ophelia Kitchens b: 26 JUN 1880 d: 23 MAR 1957
+ John Frank Cooper b: 28 FEB 1877 d: 22 MAY 1960

then to etc
LE Cooper Sr
Living Cooper Jr 
Izard, Gov(SC) Thos Broughton to (I028192)

In Memory of
2nd Bn., Scots Guards
who died on Sunday, 19th July 1942.
Additional Information: Son of Colonel Colin (Sir) William MacRae of Feoirlinn, C.V.O., C.B.E., D.L., J.P., and of Margaret MacRae, O.B.E., J.P. (nee Crichton-Stuart), of Rothesay, Buteshire. B.A., Hons. (Cantab.).
Commemorative Information
MacRae, John Donald Christopher Stuart (I002252)

In Memory of
Royal Flying Corps
who died on Friday, 15th September 1916. Age 23.
Additional Information: Son of Arthur James and Christina Maria Dundas Preston.
Commemorative Information

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Preston, Rudolph Arthur (I001888)

James Neish in entry for Isabel Neish, "Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950"

Name: Isabel Neish
Gender: Female
Christening Date: 20 Jan 1760
Birth Date:
Death Date:
Name Note:
Father's Name: James Neish
Father's Birthplace:
Father's Age:
Mother's Name: Janet Cram
Mother's Birthplace:
Mother's Age:
Indexing Project (Batch) Number: C11383-2
System Origin: Scotland-ODM
GS Film number: 1040335
Reference ID:
Neish, Isabel (I733)

James Neish in entry for Janet Neish, "Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950"

Name: Janet Neish
Gender: Female
Christening Date: 24 May 1795
Birth Date:
Death Date:
Name Note:
Father's Name: James Neish
Father's Birthplace:
Father's Age:
Mother's Name: Mary Mc Laron
Mother's Birthplace:
Mother's Age:
Indexing Project (Batch) Number: C11383-2
System Origin: Scotland-ODM
GS Film number: 1040335
Reference ID:
Neish, Janet (I1267)

James Neish in entry for John Neish, "Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950"

Name: John Neish
Gender: Male
Christening Date: 07 Mar 1765
Birth Date:
Death Date:
Name Note:
Father's Name: James Neish
Father's Birthplace:
Father's Age:
Mother's Name: Janet Cram
Mother's Birthplace:
Mother's Age:
Indexing Project (Batch) Number: C11383-2
System Origin: Scotland-ODM
GS Film number: 1040335
Reference ID:
Neish, John (I806)

2/4th Bn., King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry
who died on Sunday, 9th June 1940. Age 25.
Additional Information: 16th Viscount Gormanston. Son of the late Jenico Edward Joseph Preston, 15th Viscount Gormanston, and of Eileen Alice, Viscountess Gormanston (nee Butler); husband of the Viscountess Gormanston (nee Hanley), of Naas, Co. Kildare, Irish Republic.
Commemorative Information
Memorial: DUNKIRK MEMORIAL, Nord, France

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Preston, Jenico William Richard 16th Viscount (I001979)

JOHN de CLAYTON was the eldest son and was born in 1419. In 1440, John married Mary Mainwaring, daughter of William Mainwaring and Amica de Leycester. John and Mary had two sons, Thomas and William, and three daughters before she died in 1445. John remarried shortly thereafter to Jane Clifton by whom he had two more sons, Robert and Richard

John Clayton or Cleayton 15GG 1405–1445
BIRTH 1405 • Overpeover, Cheshire, , England
DEATH 1445 • , , , England
gearries-amstutz. -jenniferrockhold6850

The Clayton Family.
Read before the Historical Society of Delaware, Feb. 15, 1904.

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
John de Clayton, who married Mar}^ Mainwaring of Cheshire, had by her two sons, first: Thomas, who was afterwards disinherited for disobeying his parents, (2) William and also three daughters. His first wife died in 1445 and he married secondly Jane Clifton, by whom he had two sons Robert and Richard. Robert the eldest son, by the second wife, died in Paris in 1471 without issue, and Richard Clayton, the 3'oungest son by the second wife succeeded to the estate, but dying without issue, he was succeeded by William de Clayton, a son of Thomas de Clayton and he dying without issue was succeeded by Robert Clayton, third son of Thomas who was disinherited. Robert Clayton as above, married Jane Farrington, by whom he had four sons: — Thomas, born in 1498; John born in 1499; Edward born in 1505; and Richard born in 1506, and

three daughters. He died 15 lo and was buried at Leyland and was succeeded by his eldest son Thomas Clayton who married, in 1561-3, Anne Jackson, of Bocking in Essex, and had two sons, Robert and WiUiam, and died in 1580. Robert, the eldest son, was of St. John's College and Vice- Chancellor of Cambridge. He married and had one son, John Clayton. This John Clayton had a son, Richard, and two daughters, Dorothy and Elizabet

He died December 20, 1623, aged twenty-seven years and was succeeded by Richard Clayton, his eldest and only son, who died by a fall from his horse, without issue.

The family estates of Clayton and Crook went by virtue of the settlement to Dorothy, his eldest sister, who was the wife of George Leycester, of Toft in Cheshire, Esquire. Whereupon the Lordship of Clayton, granted by William the Conqueror, went with this Dorothy Clayton, to her hus- band, and was afterward sold. This must have occurred about 1650 or 1660.

The line was continued by William Clayton, second son of Thomas Clayton and Anne Jackson. He had five sons (i) Thomas, born in 1585, (2) WiUiam, born in 1587, (3) John, born in 1588, (4) Ralph, born in 1589, (5) Richard, born in 1592 and was succeeded by his eldest son, Thomas Clayton, who had the estates in Fulwood in Lancashire settled upon him and his issue.
de Clayton, John of Overpower (I127527)

H.M. Submarine Spearfish, Royal Navy
who died on Friday, 2nd August 1940. Age 33.
Additional Information: Husband of Edith Sheilah Forbes.
Commemorative Information
Memorial: PORTSMOUTH NAVAL MEMORIAL, Hampshire, United Kingdom

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Forbes, John Hay (I002051)

Lincoln and Welland Regiment, R.C.I.C.
Royal Canadian Artillery
who died on
Friday, 26th January 1945. Age 21.
Additional Information: Son of Lt.-Col. Francis M. Stanton and Mary Preston Stanton, of Quebec City.
Commemorative Information

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Stanton, John Preston (I001873)


Col. Osmun Latrobe, born April 12, 1835, was the son of John Hazlehurst Boneval Latrobe by his second wife, Charlotte Virginia Claiborne, who was the daughter of Gen. Ferdinand Leigh Claiborne of Natchez, Miss. He practiced law until the breaking out of the war in 1861, then joined the Confederate Army as a volunteer aide, on the staff of Major-Gen. Jones, commanding a division of the army at Manassas. He took part in all the battles of the Army of Northern Virginia (army of Gen. Robert E. Lee) and after the death of Gen. Jones joined, in 1862, the staff of Gen. Longstreet, who commanded the 1st Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia. Col. Latrobe eventually became the Adjutant-General and Chief of Staff of the Corps. Besides all the Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania campaigns, this corps fought at Chickamauga, and made the East Tennessee and Suffolk campaigns. After the surrender at Appomattox, Col. Latrobe went to Europe and became engaged with the Messrs. Winans in their Russian railway concerns, etc. (The above facts given to Mrs. Hotchkiss by Col. Latrobe, at her request.)

Col. Osmun Latrobe is the son of John Hazlehurst Boneval Latrobe, a distinguished lawyer, the grandson of Benjamin Henry Latrobe, born in Yorkshire, England, May 1, 1764, came to the United States, reaching Norfolk, Va., May 20, 1796. He was a prominent architect.

(Gen. VII) Samuel Dana, youngest child of Samuel and Nancy (Winchester) Dana, born in Boston, Mass., Nov. 4, 1838; died in San Francisco, Cal., Sept. 27, 1870.

The following from Col. George E. Glenn, Paymaster U. S. A., stationed March, 1898, at Governor's Island, N. Y.:

"Major Samuel Dana, paymaster Regular Army; died at San Francisco, Cal., Sept. 27, 1870. Military history: Corporal 7th N. Y. Militia, April 26 to June 3, 1861. Captain, 17th Reg. Infantry, Aug. 5, 1861. Major and Paymaster, March 7, 1867."

During the summer of 1863 Capt. Samuel Dana was wounded at the battle of Gettysburg, and returned home Sept. 17, 1863.

Mrs. Osmun Latrobe. Vie Miss Eliza Bradlee Winchester Dana.

Winchester Notes
By Fanny Winchester Hotchkiss 
Latrobe, Osmun Colonel (I107341)

Lieutenant Colonel
Commanding 6th Bn., Welsh Regiment
formerly Lt., Reserve of Officers,, Scots Guards
who died on Saturday, 2nd October 1915. Age 32.
Additional Information: Second son of John Patrick, 3rd Marquess of Bute, K.T., and Gwendoline, Marchioness of Bute; husband of Ninian Crichton-Stuart (now the Hon. Mrs. A. H. M. Ramsay), of 87, Lancaster Gate, London. Member of Parliament for Cardiff 1910-1915 and Justice of the Peace for County Fife.
Commemorative Information
Cemetery: BETHUNE TOWN CEMETERY, Pas de Calais, France

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Edward (I001969)

Luxembourg Sovereigns
since 963
edited by Gary Little

Years of ReignSovereignDate of BirthDate of DeathRelationship

House of the Ardennes (963-1136)
963- 998Sigefroid???998
998-1026Henri I96427-Feb-1026son of Sigefroid
1026-1047Henri II99014-Oct-1047nephew of Henri I
1047-1059Giselbert99514-Aug-1059brother of Henri II
1059-1086Conrad I
(first Count of Luxembourg)10408-Aug-1086son of Giselbert
1086-1096Henri III10701096son of Conrad I
1096-1129Guillaume10701129brother of Henri III
1129-1136Conrad II11061136son of Guillaume

House of Namur (1136-1247)
1136-1196Henri IV the Blind11131196cousin of Conrad II
1196-1247Ermesinde118613-Feb-1247daughter of Henri IV

House of Luxembourg-Limbourg (1247-1443)
1247-1281Henri V the Blond12211281son of Ermesinde
1281-1288Henri VI12525-May-1288son of Henri V
1288-1310Henri VII1274, Valenciennes24-Aug-1313son of Henri VI
1310-1346Jean the Blind129626-Aug-1346son of Henri VII
1346-1353Charles IV14-May-1316, Prague29-Nov-1378son of Jean the Blind
1353-1383Wenceslas I
(first Duke of Luxembourg)25-Feb-1337, Prague7-Dec-1383half-brother of Charles IV
1383-1419Wenceslas II26-Feb-1361, Nuremburg16-Aug-1419son of Charles IV
1419-1437Sigismond15-Feb-1368, Nuremburg9-Dec-1437half-brother of Wenceslas II
1437-1439Albert II of Austria10-Aug-139727-Oct-1439son-in-law of Sigismond
1439-1443Guillaume of Saxony??????son-in-law of Albert of Austria

Burgundian Dominion (1443-1506)
1443-1467Philip the Good31-Jul-1396, Dijon15-Jun-1467
1467-1477Charles the Bold10-Nov-1433, Dijon5-Jan-1477son of Philip the Good
1477-1482Marie of Burgundy
( Maximilian I of Austria)13-Feb-1457
(22-Mar-1459, Weiner Neustadt)27-Mar-1482
(12-Jan-1519)daughter of Charles the Bold
1482-1506Philip the Fair
(Juana of Spain)22-Jul-1478
(6-Nov-1479, Toledo)25-Sep-1506
(12-Apr-1555)son of Marie of Burgundy

First Spanish Dominion (1506-1684)
1506-1555Charles V25-Feb-1500, Ghent19-Sep-1558son of Philip the Fair
1555-1598Philip II21-May-1527, Valladolid13-Sep-1598son of Charles V
(Albert of Austria)12-Aug-1566
(1621)daughter of Philip II
1621-1665Philip IV8-Apr-160517-Sep-1665grandson of Philip II
1665-1684Charles II11-Nov-16611-Nov-1700son of Philip IV

First French Dominion (1684-1698)
1684-1698Louis XIV5-Sep-16381-Sep-1715

Second Spanish Dominion (1698-1715)
1698-1700Charles II11-Nov-16611-Nov-1700son of Philip IV
1700-1711Philip V19-Dec-1683, Versailles9-Jul-1746great-nephew of Charles II
1711-1714Maximilian Emanuel of Bavaria??????

Austrian Dominion (1715-1795)
1715-1740Charles VI1-Oct-168520-Oct-1740
1740-1780Maria Theresa13-May-1717, Vienna29-Nov-1780daughter of Charles VI
1780-1790Joseph II13-Mar-174120-Feb-1790son of Maria Theresa
1790-1792Leopold II5-May-17471-Mar-1792brother of Joseph II
1792-1795Francis II12-Feb-1768, Florence2-Mar-1835son of Leopold II

Second French Dominion (1795-1815)
1795-1804[French Republic]------
1804-1814Napoleon I15-Aug-1769, Ajaccio5-May-1821
Orange-Nassau Dynasty (1815-1890)
1815-1840Guillaume I
(first Grand Duke of Luxembourg)24-Aug-1772, The Hague12-Dec-1843
1840-1849Guillaume II6-Dec-1792, The Hague17-Mar-1849son of Guillaume I
1849-1890Guillaume III19-Feb-1817, Brussels23-Nov-1890son of Guillaume II

Nassau-Weilburg Dynasty (from 1890)
(Regent from 10-Apr-1889 to 3-May-1890)
(Regent from 6-Nov-1890 to 23-Nov-1890)24-Jul-1817, Biebrich17-Nov-1905
1905-1912Guillaume IV22-Apr-1852, Biebrich25-Feb-1912son of Adolphe
(Regent from 13-Nov-1908 to 14-Jun-1912)13-Jul-1861, Brönnbach31-Jul-1942wife of Guillaume IV
1912-1919Marie-Adélaïde14-Jun-1894, Berg24-Jan-1924daughter of Guillaume IV
1919-1964Charlotte23-Jan-1896, Berg9-Jul-1985sister of Marie-Adélaïde
1964-2000Jean5-Jan-1921, Berg son of Charlotte
2000-Henri16-Apr-1955, Betzdorf son of Jean
Guillaume, heriditary Grand Duke11-Nov-1981, Luxembourg City son of Henri

= Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire

Note: Guillaume I, Guillaume II, and Guillaume III were also Kings of the Netherlands. 
Luxemburg, Adolphe I Grand Duke of (I045303)

Luxembourg Sovereigns
since 963
edited by Gary Little

Years of ReignSovereignDate of BirthDate of DeathRelationship

House of the Ardennes (963-1136)
963- 998Sigefroid???998
998-1026Henri I96427-Feb-1026son of Sigefroid
1026-1047Henri II99014-Oct-1047nephew of Henri I
1047-1059Giselbert99514-Aug-1059brother of Henri II
1059-1086Conrad I
(first Count of Luxembourg)10408-Aug-1086son of Giselbert
1086-1096Henri III10701096son of Conrad I
1096-1129Guillaume10701129brother of Henri III
1129-1136Conrad II11061136son of Guillaume

House of Namur (1136-1247)
1136-1196Henri IV the Blind11131196cousin of Conrad II
1196-1247Ermesinde118613-Feb-1247daughter of Henri IV

House of Luxembourg-Limbourg (1247-1443)
1247-1281Henri V the Blond12211281son of Ermesinde
1281-1288Henri VI12525-May-1288son of Henri V
1288-1310Henri VII1274, Valenciennes24-Aug-1313son of Henri VI
1310-1346Jean the Blind129626-Aug-1346son of Henri VII
1346-1353Charles IV14-May-1316, Prague29-Nov-1378son of Jean the Blind
1353-1383Wenceslas I
(first Duke of Luxembourg)25-Feb-1337, Prague7-Dec-1383half-brother of Charles IV
1383-1419Wenceslas II26-Feb-1361, Nuremburg16-Aug-1419son of Charles IV
1419-1437Sigismond15-Feb-1368, Nuremburg9-Dec-1437half-brother of Wenceslas II
1437-1439Albert II of Austria10-Aug-139727-Oct-1439son-in-law of Sigismond
1439-1443Guillaume of Saxony??????son-in-law of Albert of Austria

Burgundian Dominion (1443-1506)
1443-1467Philip the Good31-Jul-1396, Dijon15-Jun-1467
1467-1477Charles the Bold10-Nov-1433, Dijon5-Jan-1477son of Philip the Good
1477-1482Marie of Burgundy
( Maximilian I of Austria)13-Feb-1457
(22-Mar-1459, Weiner Neustadt)27-Mar-1482
(12-Jan-1519)daughter of Charles the Bold
1482-1506Philip the Fair
(Juana of Spain)22-Jul-1478
(6-Nov-1479, Toledo)25-Sep-1506
(12-Apr-1555)son of Marie of Burgundy

First Spanish Dominion (1506-1684)
1506-1555Charles V25-Feb-1500, Ghent19-Sep-1558son of Philip the Fair
1555-1598Philip II21-May-1527, Valladolid13-Sep-1598son of Charles V
(Albert of Austria)12-Aug-1566
(1621)daughter of Philip II
1621-1665Philip IV8-Apr-160517-Sep-1665grandson of Philip II
1665-1684Charles II11-Nov-16611-Nov-1700son of Philip IV

First French Dominion (1684-1698)
1684-1698Louis XIV5-Sep-16381-Sep-1715

Second Spanish Dominion (1698-1715)
1698-1700Charles II11-Nov-16611-Nov-1700son of Philip IV
1700-1711Philip V19-Dec-1683, Versailles9-Jul-1746great-nephew of Charles II
1711-1714Maximilian Emanuel of Bavaria??????

Austrian Dominion (1715-1795)
1715-1740Charles VI1-Oct-168520-Oct-1740
1740-1780Maria Theresa13-May-1717, Vienna29-Nov-1780daughter of Charles VI
1780-1790Joseph II13-Mar-174120-Feb-1790son of Maria Theresa
1790-1792Leopold II5-May-17471-Mar-1792brother of Joseph II
1792-1795Francis II12-Feb-1768, Florence2-Mar-1835son of Leopold II

Second French Dominion (1795-1815)
1795-1804[French Republic]------
1804-1814Napoleon I15-Aug-1769, Ajaccio5-May-1821
Orange-Nassau Dynasty (1815-1890)
1815-1840Guillaume I
(first Grand Duke of Luxembourg)24-Aug-1772, The Hague12-Dec-1843
1840-1849Guillaume II6-Dec-1792, The Hague17-Mar-1849son of Guillaume I
1849-1890Guillaume III19-Feb-1817, Brussels23-Nov-1890son of Guillaume II

Nassau-Weilburg Dynasty (from 1890)
(Regent from 10-Apr-1889 to 3-May-1890)
(Regent from 6-Nov-1890 to 23-Nov-1890)24-Jul-1817, Biebrich17-Nov-1905
1905-1912Guillaume IV22-Apr-1852, Biebrich25-Feb-1912son of Adolphe
(Regent from 13-Nov-1908 to 14-Jun-1912)13-Jul-1861, Brönnbach31-Jul-1942wife of Guillaume IV
1912-1919Marie-Adélaïde14-Jun-1894, Berg24-Jan-1924daughter of Guillaume IV
1919-1964Charlotte23-Jan-1896, Berg9-Jul-1985sister of Marie-Adélaïde
1964-2000Jean5-Jan-1921, Berg son of Charlotte
2000-Henri16-Apr-1955, Betzdorf son of Jean
Guillaume, heriditary Grand Duke11-Nov-1981, Luxembourg City son of Henri

= Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire

Note: Guillaume I, Guillaume II, and Guillaume III were also Kings of the Netherlands. 
Luxemburg, Conrad I Count of (I035817)

El Rafidhain Order (Iraq.). 31 Field Regt., Royal Artillery
who died on Saturday, 2nd August 1941. Age 41.
Additional Information: Son of John and Violet Renton; husband of Barbara Renton, of Fulford, Yorkshire. Awarded the Sword of Honour at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, 1919. Barrister-at-Law (Inner Temple).
Commemorative Information

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Renton, Mervyn John (I001635)

2nd Bn., York and Lancaster Regiment
who died on Thursday, 22nd October 1914. Age 30.
Additional Information: Younger twin son of the late Lt.-Col. Edwin Del Sandys (Northamptonshire Regt.) and Mrs. Sandys, of Belmont Lodge, Bognor, Sussex.
Commemorative Information
Memorial: PLOEGSTEERT MEMORIAL, Comines-Warneton, Hainaut, Belgium

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Sandys, Mervyn Keats (I001537)

Previuos showed him as marrying Margaret Whale (b10 May 1590) with a son John More Moore 
Moore, Thomas William (I059280)

Provisions of Oxford Westminster Kenilworth etc
(A) Henry III: Letters Agreeing to Reform (1258)
(B) The Provisions of Oxford (1258)
(C) The Provisions of Westminster (1259)
(D) The Decision of Louis IX (1264)
(E) The Dictum of Kenilworth (1266)[11]

(A) Henry III: Letters Agreeing to Reform (1258)
The king to all, etc. You are to know that, through an oath given on our behalf[1] by Robert Waleran, we have granted to the nobles and magnates of our kingdom that, by twelve faithful men of our council already elected and by twelve other faithful men of ours elected on the part of those nobles, who are to convene at Oxford one month after the feast of Pentecost next, the state of our kingdom shall be ordered, rectified, and reformed according to what they shall think best to enact for the honour of God and our faith and the good of our kingdom. And if, perchance, any of those elected on our part are absent, those who are present shall be permitted to substitutothers in place of the absentees; and the same shall be done [with regard to those elected] on the part of the aforesaid nobles and faithful men of ours. And whatever is ordained in this matter by the twenty-four elected by both sides and sworn to the undertaking, or by the majority of them, we will inviolably observe, wishing and henceforth straitly enjoining that their ordinance be inviolably observed by all. And whatever security those men, or the majority of them, may provide for the observance of this matter we will fully grant and cause to be granted. We also attest that Edward, our first-born son, through an oath personally taken, has by his letters granted that he will faithfully and inviolably observe, and will cause ever to be observed, all that has been expressed and granted above, so far as in him lies. Furthermore, the said earls and barons have promised that, on the completion of the business noted above, they will strive in good faith to see that a common aid is rendered to us by the community of our kingdom. In testimony whereof, etc.... Given at Westminster, May 2.
(Latin) Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 372.
(B) The Provisions of Oxford (1258)
It has been provided that from each county there shall be elected four discreet and lawful knights who, on every day that the county [court] is held, shall assemble to hear all complaints touching any wrongs and injuries inflicted on any persons by sheriffs, bailiffs, or any other men, and to make the attachments that pertain to the said complaints [for keeping] until the first arrival of the chief justiciar in those parts: so that they shall take from the plaintiff adequate pledges for his prosecution [of the case], and from the defendant for his coming and standing trial before the said justiciar on his first arrival; and that the four knights aforesaid shall have all the said complaints enrolled, together with their attachments, in proper order and sequence — namely, for each hundred separately and by itself — so that the said justiciar, on his first arrival, can hear and settle the aforesaid complaints singly from each hundred. And they shall inform the sheriff that they are summoning all his hundredmen and bailiffs before the said justiciar on his next arrival, for a day and a place which he will make known to them: so that every hundredman shall cause all plaintiffs and defendants of his bailiwick to come in succession, according to what the aforesaid justiciar shall bring to trial from the aforesaid hundred; also as many men and such men — both knights and other free and lawful men — as may be required for best proving the truth of the matter. [This, however, is to be done] in such a way that all are not troubled at one and the same time; rather let [only] as many come as can be [used in cases to be] tried and concluded in one day.
Likewise it is provided that no knight of the aforesaid counties, by virtue of an assurance that he is not to be placed on juries or assizes, shall be excused by a charter of the lord king or be exempt from [the obligations of] this provision thus made for the common good of the whole kingdom.
Elected on the part of the lord king: the lord bishop of London; the lord bishop elect of Winchester; the lord H[enry], son of the king of Germany; the lord J[ohn], earl de Warenne; the lord Guy de Lusignan; the lord W[illiam] de Valence; the lord J[ohn], earl of Warwick; the lord John Mansel; Brother J[ohn] of Darlington; the abbot of Westminster; the lord H[enry] of Hengham.
Elected on the part of the earls and barons: the lord bishop of Worcester; the lord Simon, earl of Leicester; the lord Richard, earl of Gloucester; the lord Humphrey, earl of Hereford; the lord Roger Marshal; the lord Roger de Mortimer; the lord J[ohn] Fitz-Geoffrey; the lord Hugh le Bigot; the lord Richard de Gray; the lord W[illiam] Bardulf; the lord P[eter] de Montfort; the lord Hugh le Despenser. And if it should happen that of necessity any one of these cannot be present, the rest of them shall elect whom they please in place of the absentee, namely, another person needful for carrying on that business.
Thus swore the community[2] of England at Oxford....
This is the oath [administered] to the twenty-four....
Thus swore the chief justice of England....
Thus swore the chancellor of England....
This is the oath taken by the wardens of the castles....
These are the men sworn [to be] of the king's council.[3] ...
The twelve on the king's side have chosen from the twelve on the side of the community the earl Roger Marshal and Hugh le Bigot. And the party of the community has chosen from the twelve who are on the side of the king the earl of Warwick and John Mansel. And these four have power to elect the council of the king; and when they have made the election, they shall designate those [elected] to the twenty-four. And that shall hold on which the majority of these [four] agree.
These are the twelve who have been elected by the barons, on behalf of the whole community of the land, to consider common needs along with the king's council at the three annual parliaments....
These are the twenty-four appointed by the community to consider aid for the king.... And if any one of these cannot or will not be present, those who are present shall have power to elect another in his place.
Concerning the state of Holy Church: — It should be remembered that the state of Holy Church is to be amended by the twenty-four chosen to reform the state of the kingdom of England — at what time and place they think best, according to the powers that they hold by writ of the king of England.[4]
Concerning the chief justice: — [It has been decided] furthermore that a chief justice — or two [chief justices] — shall be appointed; also what power he shall have; and that he shall be [in office] for only one year, so that at the end of the year he shall render account of his term before the king and the royal council and before the man who is to follow him [in office].
Concerning the treasurer and the exchequer: — The same [has been decided] with regard to the treasurer; so that he shall render account at the end of the year. And according to the ordinance of the said twenty-four, other good men are to be appointed to the exchequer, whither all the issues of the land are to come, and not elsewhere. And let that be amended which seems in need of amendment.
Concerning the chancellor: — The same [has been decided] with regard to the chancellor; so that he shall render account of his term at the end of the year, and that merely by the king's will he shall seal nothing out of course,[5] but shall do so by [the advice of] the council that surrounds the king.
Concerning the power of the justice and of the bailiffs: — The chief justice has power to redress the misdeeds of all other justices, of bailiffs, of earls, of barons, and of all other people, according to the rightful law of the land. And writs are to be pleaded according to the law of the land in the proper places. And [it has been decided] that the justices shall accept nothing unless it is a present of bread and wine and like things: namely, such meat and drink as have been customarily brought for the day to the tables of the chief men. And this same regulation shall be understood [to hold] for all the king's councillors and all his bailiffs. And [it has been ordered] that no bailiff, by virtue of his office or of some plea, shall take any fee, either by his own hand or in any manner through another person. And if he is convicted [of so doing], let him be punished; likewise the man who gives [the fee]. And the king, if it is suitable, shall give [fees] to his justices and to his people who serve him, so that they shall have no need of taking anything from others.
Concerning the sheriffs: — As sheriffs there shall be appointed loyal persons, good men who are landholders; so that in each county there shall be as sheriff a feudal tenant of the same county, who shall well, loyally, and justly treat the people of the county. And [it is ordered] that he shall take no fee; that he shall be sheriff for no more than a year in all; that during the year he shall render his accounts at the exchequer and be responsible for his term [of office]; that the king, from the royal income, shall make [allowance] to him in proportion to his receipts, so that he may rightly keep the county; and that he shall take no fees, neither he nor his bailiffs. And if they are convicted [of such wrongdoing], let them be punished. It should be remembered that, with regard to the Jewry and the wardens of the Jewry, such reforms are to be established as shall carry out the oath in this respect.
Concerning the escheators: — Good escheators are to be appointed. And [it is ordered] that they shall take nothing from goods of deceased persons whose lands ought to be in the king's hands; but that, if a debt is owing to him, the escheators shall have free administration of the goods until they have carried out the king's wishes — and this according to the provision in the charter of liberties.[6] Also [it is ordered] that inquiry shall be made concerning the misdeeds committed there by escheators, and that redress shall be made for such [wrongs]. Nor shall tallage or anything else be taken, except as it should be according to the charter of liberties. The charter of liberties is to be strictly observed.
Concerning the exchange of London: — It should be remembered to establish reforms touching the exchange of London; also touching the city of London and all the other cities of the king, which have been brought to shame and ruin by tallages and other oppressions.
Concerning the household of the king and queen: — It should be remembered to reform the household of the king and queen.
Concerning the parliaments, as to how many shall be held annually and in what manner: — It should be remembered that the twenty-four have ordained that there are to be three parliaments a year: the first on the octave of St. Michael, the second on the morrow of Candlemas, and the third on the first day of June, that is to say, three weeks before [the feast of] St. John. To these three parliaments the chosen councillors of the king shall come, even if they are not summoned, in order to examine the state of the kingdom and to consider the common needs of the kingdom and likewise of the king; and by the king's command [they shall come] also at other times, whenever it is necessary. So too it should be remembered that the community is to elect twelve good men, who shall come to the three parliaments and at other times, when there is need and when the king and his council summon them to consider the affairs of the king and the kingdom. And [it has been decided] that the community shall hold as established whatever these twelve shall do — and this is to reduce the cost to the community. Fifteen are to be named by these four men — that is to say, by the earl Marshal, the earl of Warwick, Hugh le Bigot, and John Mansel — who have been elected by the twenty-four to name the aforesaid fifteen, who are to form the king's council. And they are to be confirmed by the aforesaid twenty-four, or by the majority of those men. And they shall have the power of advising the king in good faith concerning the government of the kingdom and concerning all matters that pertain to the king or the kingdom; and of amending and redressing everything that they shall consider in need of amendment or redress. And [they shall have authority] over the chief justice and over all other people. And if they cannot all be present, that shall be firm and established which the majority of them shall enact.
These are the names of the principal castles of the king, and of those who have charge of them....
(Latin and French) Ibid., pp. 378 f.
(C) The Provisions of Westminster (1259)
In the year 1259 from the Incarnation of the Lord, the forty-third of the reign of King Henry, son of King John, at a meeting of the lord king and his magnates at Westminster on Michaelmas fortnight, the provisions hereinunder written, by the common counsel and consent of the said king and his magnates, were enacted and published by the same king and his magnates in this form: —
1. With regard to the performance of suit to the courts of the magnates and of other lords who have such courts, it is provided and established by general agreement that no one who is enfeoffed by charter shall henceforth be distrained to perform suit to his lord's court, unless he is specifically obliged by the tenor of his charter to perform the suit; with the sole exception of those whose ancestors were accustomed to perform suit of this kind, or who themselves [were accustomed so to do], before the first crossing of the said lord king into Brittany — after the time of which crossing twenty-nine and a half years had elapsed down to the time that this constitution was made. And likewise no one enfeoffed without charter since the time of the Conquest, or by other ancient enfeoffment, shall be distrained to perform suit of this kind, unless he or his ancestors were accustomed to perform it before the first crossing of the lord king into Brittany....
4. With regard to the sheriff's tourn,[7] it is provided that, unless their presence is specially demanded, archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, and barons, or other men of religion, or women, shall not of necessity come thither.... And the tourns shall be held according to the form of the king's Great Charter, and as they were customarily held in the time of the kings John and Richard.
5. It is also provided that neither on the eyres of the justices nor in the [courts of the] counties nor in the courts of barons shall fines henceforth be taken from anybody for miskenning,[8] or for avoidance of trouble on that score....
8. Moreover, with regard to charters of exemption and liberty, [to the effect] that those securing them are not to be put on assizes, juries, or recognitions, it is provided that, if their oath is so essential that without it justice cannot be administered ... , they shall be forced to swear, saving to them their aforesaid liberty and exemption in other respects....
11. Henceforth no one except the lord king and his ministers shall be permitted, for any cause whatsoever, to levy distraints outside his fief, or on a royal or a common highway....
16. Hereafter no one but the king shall hold in his court a plea concerning false judgment rendered in a court of his tenant; for pleas of this sort especially pertain to the crown and dignity of the king....
18. Without the king's writ, no one may henceforth distrain his free tenants to respond concerning their free tenements or anything that pertains to their free tenements. Nor may he cause his free tenants against their will to take oaths; so that no one may do this without the king's precept....
21. Hereafter itinerant justices shall not amerce vills on their eyres because particular twelve-year-old persons do not come before sheriffs and coroners for inquests concerning a man's death or other matters pertaining to the crown; so long as, nevertheless, enough men come from those vills for satisfactorily carrying out such inquests.
22. No judgment of murder[9] shall henceforth be rendered before the justices in a case that is adjudged merely one of accident; but [a judgment of] murder shall be proper in the case of a man feloniously slain, and not otherwise....
(Latin) Ibid., pp. 390 f.
(D) The Decision of Louis IX (1264)
... In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. By our [present] decision or ordinance we quash and annul all the aforesaid provisions, ordinances, statutes, and obligations,[10] however called, and whatever has followed from them or by occasion of them, especially since it appears that the supreme pontiff by his letters has proclaimed them quashed and annulled; ordaining that as well the said king as all the barons and others who have consented to the present arbitration, and who in any way have bound themselves to observe the aforesaid [provisions], shall be utterly quit and absolved of the same. We likewise add that, by virtue or force of the aforesaid provisions or obligations or ordinances, or of any authority already granted by the king on that account, no one shall make new statutes or hold or observe those already made; nor ought any one, through non-observance of the aforesaid [provisions], to be held the enemy, either principal or otherwise, of any one else, or for that reason incur any penalty.... We also decree and ordain that the aforesaid king at his own volition may freely appoint, dismiss, and remove the chief justice, chancellor, treasurer, counsellors, lesser justices, sheriffs, and any other officials and ministers of his kingdom and his household, as he was used and able to do before the time of the provisions aforesaid. Furthermore, we repeal and quash the statute made to the effect that the kingdom of England should henceforth be governed by natives and that all aliens should leave the kingdom, never to return, except those whose residence the faithful men of the kingdom commonly agreed to, ordaining by our decision that aliens may safely remain in the said kingdom, and that the king may safely call to his counsel such aliens and natives as shall seem to him useful and loyal, just as he was able to do before the time aforesaid. Likewise we declare and ordain that the said king shall have full power and unrestricted rule within his kingdom and its appurtenances, and shall in all things and in every way enjoy such status and such full power as he enjoyed before the time aforesaid. By the present ordinance, however, we do not wish or intend in any way to derogate from royal privileges, charters, liberties, establishments, and praiseworthy customs of the kingdom of England existing before the time of the same provisions....
Now this our ordinance or decision we have promulgated at Amiens on the morrow of the blessed Vincent the Martyr, a.d. 1263, in the month of January. In testimony whereof we have caused our seal to be attached to the present letters.
(Latin) Ibid., pp. 396 f.
(E) The Dictum of Kenilworth (1266)[11]
... I. We declare and provide that the most serene lord prince Henry, illustrious king of England, shall have, fully receive, and freely exercise his dominion, authority, and royal power without impediment or contradiction of any one, whereby, contrary to the approved rights and laws and the long established customs of the kingdom, the regal dignity might be offended; and that to the same lord king and to his lawful mandates and precepts full obedience and humble attention shall be given by all and singular the men of the same kingdom, both greater and lesser. And all and singular shall through writs seek justice in the court of the lord king and shall [there] be answerable for justice, as was accustomed to be done up to the time of the recent disorders.
2. Furthermore, we ask the same lord king and reverently urge his piety that, for doing and rendering justice, he will nominate such men as, seeking not their own [interests] but those of God and the right, shall justly settle the affairs of subjects according to the praiseworthy laws and customs of the kingdom, and shall thereby strengthen with justice and restore the throne of royal majesty.
3. We likewise ask and urge the same lord king fully to guard and observe the liberties of the Church and the charters of liberties and of the forest, to keep and hold which he is expressly bound by his own oath.
4. Also the lord king shall provide that grants which up to the present he has made of his free will, and not under compulsion, shall be observed; and that he will firmly establish other necessary [measures] determined by his men and at his own pleasure. And furthermore the English Church shall be fully restored to its liberties and customs, which it had and rightly held before the time of such disorders, and shall be permitted to enjoy them freely....[12]
37. All henceforth shall maintain firm peace, and none shall commit homicide, arson, robbery, or other transgression against the peace. And if any one does so and is convicted, let him have judgment and law according to the custom of the kingdom.
38. Likewise all interested persons shall swear on the Holy Gospels that, on account of the disorders, no one will take private revenge, nor will he procure or consent or tolerate that private revenge should be taken. And if any one takes private revenge, let him be punished by the court of the lord king, and let those who have injured the Church make satisfaction to it.
39. Also, if any one is unwilling to observe this decision, or to undergo judgment by his peers in the court of the lord king, such persons as thus declare themselves, and are accordingly disinherited, shall have no right of recovering their lands. And if any one holding lands of disinherited men rebels against the decision, he is to have no just claim, by the gift of the lord king, either to the land or to what is paid for redeeming it. Moreover, if any person does not consent to this decision, he is to be a public enemy of the lord king and of his sons and of the community; the people and clergy, in so far as is permitted by canon law, shall prosecute him as an enemy to the peace of the Church and of the kingdom....
Given and published in the castle of Kenilworth on the day before the Kalends of November in the year of grace 1266, the fifty-first year of the reign of the lord Henry, king of England.
(Latin) Ibid., pp. 407 f.

[1] In animam nostram; kings very commonly named proxies to swear for them.
[2] Le commun — a phrase which is shown by the context to have meant parliament or the baronial party. The oaths, which are here omitted, add nothing to the information given in the following articles.
[3] Fifteen men, of whom eleven were of the twenty-four named above.
[4] No. 47A, preceding.
[5] That is to say, nothing but routine documents.
[6] Art. 26 of Magna Carta, above, p. 119.
[7] See above, p. 123, n. 45.
[8] See above, p. 62, no. 10.
[9] Cf. nos. 40B, 54D.
[10] The Provisions of Oxford, concerning which the French king had been called upon to arbitrate the quarrel between Henry III and the opposing party of the baronage.
[11] The final settlement of the Barons' War, dictated by a commission of four bishops, two earls, and six other barons appointed for that purpose.
[12] The omitted articles take up in detail the restoration of lawful rights, the cancellation of Simon de Montfort's acts, and the rehabilitation, on various conditions, of those who had been disinherited.
etc, Provisions of Oxford Westminster Kenilworth (I070425)

Rasso X Heer van Gaveren 1225-1291

Sir Rasso VII von Gavre, Seigneur de Chievres, Herr zu Gavre, Cellarmaster of Flanders1,2,3
M, #28794, d. 4 July 1253
Father Rasso 'the Elder', Seigneur de Chievres2,4 d. 1214
Mother Alice von Boulaere2,4 d. a 1240
Sir Rasso VII von Gavre, Seigneur de Chievres, Herr zu Gavre, Cellarmaster of Flanders married Jeanne de Wavrin, daughter of Sir Robert II de Wavrin, Seneschal of Flanders and Eustache de Chatillon.2,3 Sir Rasso VII von Gavre, Seigneur de Chievres, Herr zu Gavre, Cellarmaster of Flanders died on 4 July 1253 at Walcheren, Zeeland, Netherlands.2

Jeanne de Wavrin d. a 1263
Children ?Rasso VIII, Seigneur de Gavre & Chievres, Heer zu Liederkerke, Breda, Boelaere, & Aspelaere+2,3 d. bt 1 Apr 1300 - 27 May 1301
?Isabella von Gavre+2 d. a 1290

1.[S8975] Unknown author, Europaische Stammtafeln by Isenburg, chart 89.
2.[S2] Detlev Schwennicke, Europaische Stammtafeln, New Series, Vol. XXVII, Tafel 40.
3.[S11600] 40000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris, 26-296.
4.[S11600] 40000 Ancestors of the Counts of Paris, 27-355.

Sir Rasso VII von Gavre, Herr zu Liedekerke & Breda1,2,3,4
M, #63345, d. 27 February 1291
Father Sir Rasso VI, Herr zu Gavre, Chievre, & Liedekerke, Cellarmaster of Flanders1,3 d. bt 1 Jan 1241 - 9 Nov 1241
Mother Sophia von Breda1,3 d. a 1232
Sir Rasso VII von Gavre, Herr zu Liedekerke & Breda married Marguerite d' Enghien, daughter of Sir Siger II d' Enghien, Herr zu Zotteghem and Alice (Aleidis) de Zottenghem, before 1248.1,5,2,3 Sir Rasso VII von Gavre, Herr zu Liedekerke & Breda died on 27 February 1291.2,3,4

Marguerite d' Enghien d. c 1291
Children ?Rasso VIII van Gavre, Herr zu Liedekerke, Breda, Aspelare, & Boelare+1,4 d. 23 Nov 1306
?Sir Siger de Beaufort, Heer zu Kruibeke+4 d. a 1296

1.[S11569] Europaische Stammtafeln, by Wilhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg, Vol. VII, Tafel 89.
2.[S2] Detlev Schwennicke, Europaische Stammtafeln, New Series, Vol. XXVII, Tafel 39.
3.[S2] Detlev Schwennicke, Europaische Stammtafeln, New Series, Vol. XXVII, Tafel 40.
4.[S2] Detlev Schwennicke, Europaische Stammtafeln, New Series, Vol. XXVII, Tafel 41.
5.[S11569] Europaische Stammtafeln, by Wilhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg, Vol. VII, Tafel 91. 
de Gavre, Rasso VII \Rasso XI Sire de Chièvres (I089143)

1st Bn., The Queen's (Royal West Surrey Regt.)
who died on Monday, 14th September 1914. Age 29.
Additional Information: Son of the late Robert Brown Pringle, of Ardmore, Guildford.
Commemorative Information

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Pringel, Robert S (I002046)

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: WorldConnect: Post-em posted

Name: joe c

Adding from Isabel Lincoln to LE Cooper
via Bonner as follows:

1 Isabel Lincoln
+ Henry De Spencer d: 1476
2 John De Spencer
+ Warsread
3 Thomas De Spencer
+ Margaret
4 Alice De Spencer b: 1506
+ Edmund Belcher b: 1506
5 Gregory Belcher b: 1548 d: 20 MAR 1619
+ Joan
6 Isabel Blecher b: 1505
+ John Bonner b: 1500 d: 1556
7 Anthony Bonner d: 15 NOV 1579
+ Bridget Savage b: 1540 d: 1608
8 Anthony Bonner b: 1564
+ Marian Vaughn b: 1589
9 Anthony Bonner
10 Richard Bonner b: 1615
10 Thomas Bonner b: 1617 d: 1689
+ Mary Heath

1 Thomas Bonner b: 1617 d: 1689
+ Mary Heath
2 Henry Bonner b: ABT 1650 d: 1725
3 Henry Bonner b: 1679 d: 1 SEP 1739
+ Debra Whedbee
4 William Henry Bonner b: 1716 d: 7 JUL 1766
+ Sarah Luten b: 1722 d: 1760
5 Thomas Bonner b: ABT 1744 d: 30 DEC 1804
+ Margaret Jones b: 1744 d: 1828
6 Whitmal Bonner b: 1775 d: 1821
+ Alice Selman b: 1779
7 Josiah Martin Bonner b: 25 JAN 1796 d: 1870
+ Martha Caroline King b: 30 SEP 1799 d: 1880
8 James Whitmall Bonner b: 8 APR 1827 d: 17 JUL 1911
+ Flora Ann Rushton b: 19 AUG 1836 d: 26 APR 1906
9 Samuel Lester Bonner b: 14 FEB 1873 d: 4 MAR 1947
+ Ila Princess Meachum b: 16 SEP 1881 d: 20 JAN 1973
10 Flora Evelyn Bonner b: 26 AUG 1908 d: 24 SEP 1984
+ Leon E Cooper b: 2 MAR 1911 d: 2 OCT 2000 
Bonner, Thomas (I066906)

Sir Patrick Maxwell, 5th of Newark[1, 2, 3]
Male Abt 1520 - Abt 1593 (~ 73 years)
Name Patrick Maxwell [4]
Prefix Sir
Suffix 5th of Newark
Born Abt 1520
Gender Male
Died Abt 1593
Person ID I88 Clan current
Last Modified 3 May 2019

Father George Maxwell, 4th of Newark, b. Abt 1490, d. Yes, date unknown
Mother Marion Cuninghame [Cunningham], b. Abt 1480, Scotland , d. Yes, date unknown
Family ID F1377 Group Sheet | Family Chart

Family 1 Margaret Mure, d. Yes, date unknown
+ 1. Agnes Maxwell, b. Abt 1545, Scotland , d. Yes, date unknown

Last Modified 24 Aug 2015 14:03:00
Family ID F1678 Group Sheet | Family Chart

Family 2 Margaret Craufurd [Crawford], of Kerse [family], d. Yes, date unknown
+ 1. George Maxwell, younger of Newark, & of Tealing, d. Dvp - Predeceased His Father
+ 2. Margaret Maxwell, d. Yes, date unknown
+ 3. Jean Maxwell, d. Yes, date unknown

Last Modified 24 Aug 2015 14:03:00
Family ID F1679 Group Sheet | Family Chart

Newark Castle Newark Castle
The castle has been drawn from the river side looking downstream. In the foreground is the last remaining corner tower of the old barmkin wall. The tall square edifice is the George Maxwell's original tower of of the 15th century. To the right is the mansion block of Sir Patrick Maxwell built in the 1590s. In the distance on the right are the ships and warehouses of New-port Glasgow.

Notes ?1 - The Maxwell's were a large and powerful Border family, emanating originally from Nithdale in Dumfriesshire. During the 14th and 15th centuries they expanded northwards and occupied castles in the Glasgow area at Cadder, Calderwood, Haggs, Mearns, Pollock and Stanley.
In 1402 the marriages of two heiresses – daughters of Sir Robert Denniston of Finlaystone – brought two important families into the lands south of the Clyde.
Elizabeth, the younger daughter, married Sir Robert Maxwell of Calderwood and, when she inherited the barony of Newark (now Port Glasgow) He changed his name to Maxwell of Newark.
Patrick Maxwell, great grandson of the first Maxwell of Newark, in 1516 obtained, from the Earl of Lennox, the Grant of the lands of Dargavel and became the first Maxwell of Dargavel.
Patrick Maxwell, son and heir of George Maxwell of Newark, and grandson of John Maxwell of Calderwood, was the first of the name who held the lands of Dargavel. These he obtained by charter from John, Earl of Lennox, previous to July, 1516, as appears from a discharge from him for "120 merks, due to him by the said Earl, in consideration of the latter having infeft him heritably in the lands of Dargavell."
Patrick Maxwell was married in 1499 to his second wife, Mariote Crawfurd, and their eldest son, John, succeeded to Dargavel. James Maxwell, the son of the latter, was the next laird; and he was followed by his son Patrick,
George Lokart (son of John Lokart, elder, of Bar and Jonet Mure, eldest daughter of John Mure of Rowallan and Margaret Boyd); named in the will of John Lokart, elder, of Bar, dated 8 July 1528, to receive "72 merks money owing in the hands of Patrick Maxwell of Newark,"
Tealing in Angus, some ten miles north of Dundee, was acquired through the marriage of Eustace Maxwell, uncle of the first Lord Maxwell in 1425 to Mary, youngest daughter and co-heiress of Sir Hugh Giffard of Yester. The Tealing Maxwell were very prolific in the area and held the barony for ten generations. Helen Maxwell heiress of Sir Hew Maxwell of Tealing married George Maxwell of Newark in 1610 and the two baronies were joined in the ownership of their son Sir Patrick Maxwell of Newark and Tealing. Sir Patrick was reputed to have been created a Baronet for lending large sums of money to King Charles at the defense of Oxford during the Civil War although there are no surviving records of the creation. Sir Patrick's grandson George Maxwell sold Tealing to the Scrymgeour family of Dundee in 1704. The line of Newark and Tealing failed late in the eighteenth century. Some armorial gravestones of the Maxwell family are present in the Tealing churchyard and a dovecot built in the sixteenth century by Sir David Maxwell still stands. The current Tealing House is built around the core of the earlier Maxwell house. The Maxwell families of Lackiebank and Strathmartine are scions of the Maxwells of Tealing.

2 - The Maxwells of Newark were much involved in local feuds especially the one between the Montgomerys and the Cunninghams. Siding with the latter, Sir Patrick Maxwell with several Cunninghams, ambushed and murdered Hugh Montgomery of Skelmorlie in 1586. This notorious ruffian was not above outrages within his own family and was accused of murdering his own cousin and namesake, Patrick Maxwell of Stainley. He was present at the Battle of Dryfe Sands in 1593 and the raid on Lockerbie two years later when he was "mortally wounded". However, not mortally enough to kill him as he lived on for another thirty years. It was he who built the splendid Renaissance three-story central range between the tower and gatehouse in 1597, a date announced by the carved lintels over the dormer windows.

3 - Newark Castle
Built by George Maxwell in the 15th century this elegant and still virtually intact castle was enlarged by his descendent Patrick Maxwell in the 16th century. Patrick was infamous for murdering two of his neighbours and beating his wife of 44 years who bore him 16 children.

1.[S473] History of Clan Macfarlane Vol I pub.1922, James Macfarlane, (published 1922 by David J. Clarke of Glasgow).
2.[S491], Elizabeth M Main, MA, JP.
4.[S2] Barons of Arrochar, Chevalier Terrance Gach MacFarlane, Chapt 1. 
Maxwell, Patrick (Sir) 5th of Newark (I048260)

The Declation of Arbroath 1320

The Declaration of Arbroath 1320 by John Prebble
The Declaration of Arbroath was and has been unequalled in its eloquent plea for the liberty of man. From the darkness of medieval minds it shone a torch upon future struggles which its signatories could not have foreseen or understood.The author of this noble Latin address is unknown, though it is assumed to have been composed by Bernard de Linton, Abbot of Arbroath and Chancellor of Scotland. Above the seals of eight earls and forty-five barons, it asked for the Pope's dispassionate intervention in the bloody quarrel between the Scots and the English, and so that he might understand the difference between the two its preamble gave him a brief history of the former. The laughable fiction of this is irrelevant. What is important is the passionate sincerity of the men who believed it, who were placing a new and heady nationalism above the feudal obligations that had divided their loyalties less than a quarter of a century before. In its mixture of defiance and supplication, nonsensical history and noble thought, two things make the Declaration of Arbroath the most important document in Scottish history. Firstly it set the will and the wishes of the people above the King. Though they were bound to him 'both by law and by his merits' it was so that their freedom might be maintained. If he betrayed them he would be removed and replaced. This remarkable obligation placed upon a feudal monarch by his feudal subjects may be explained in part by the fact that Bruce was still a heather king to many of them, still a wild claimant ruling upon sufferance and success. But the roots of his kingship were Celtic, and a Celtic tradition was here invoked, the memory of the Seven Earls, the Seven Sons of Cruithne the Pict in who, it was believed, had rested the ancient right of tanistry, the elevation of kings by selection. This unique relationship of king and people would influence their history henceforward, and would reach its climax in the Reformation and the century following, when a people's Church would declare and maintain its superiority over earthly crowns. Secondly, the manifesto affirmed the nation's independence in a way no battle could, and justified it with a truth that is beyond nation and race. Man has a right to freedom and a duty to defend it with his life. The natural qualifications put upon this by a medieval baron are irrelevant, as are the reservations which slave-owning Americans placed upon their declaration of independence. The truth once spoken cannot be checked, the seed once planted controls its own growth, and the liberty which men secure for themselves must be given by them to others, or it will be taken as they took it. Freedom is a hardy plant and must flower in equality and brotherhood.
Letter from Arbroath - A translation by Agnus Mure MacKenzie
To our Lord and Very Holy Father in Christ, Lord John, the Supreme Pontiff, by God’s Providence, of the Most Holy Roman and Catholic Church, his humble and devoted sons here follow the names of the Nobles and Commons in Parliament assembled and other barons and freeholders, with the whole Commons of the Kingdom of Scotland. With all filial reverence devoutly do we kiss your blessed feet.
From the deeds alike and the books of our forefathers, we understand, Most Holy Lord and Father. that among other noble nations our own, the Scottish, grows famous for many men of wide renown. The which Scottish nation, journeying from Greater Scythia by the Tyrrhene Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, could not in any place or time or manner be overcome by the barbarians, though long dwelling in Spain among the fiercest of them. Coming thence, twelve hundred years after the transit of Israel, with many victories and many toils they won that habitation in the West, which though the Britons have been driven out, the Picts effaced, and the Norwegians, Danes and English have often assailed it, they hold now, in freedom from all vassalage; and as the old historians bear witness, have ever so held it. In this kingdom have reigned a hundred and thirteen kings of their own Blood Royal, and no man foreign has been among them. Of their merits and their noble qualities we need say no more, for they are bright enough by this alone, that though they were placed in the furthest ends of the earth, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the King of’ Kings. called them among the first to His most firm faith, after His Passion and Resurrection. Nor did He choose to confirm them in the Lord’s Faith by any one less than His own first Apostle (although he stands second or third in order of rank) the most gracious Andrew, brother of Peter’s self, whom ever since He has established their Patron.
Bearing all these things carefully in mind, those holiest of fathers, your predecessors, adorned and fortified this kingdom and people, as belonging especially to Peter’s brother, with many favours and many privileges. Thus our nation till now has lived under their protection in peace and quiet, till the Magnificent Prince, Edward King of the English, the father of the Edward that now is, did, under cover of alliance and friendship, invade and occupy as an enemy our kingdom and people, who then had no head, who had in mind no evil towards him, and who then were unused to war or sudden invasion. What that king has done in wrongs and slaughter and violence, in imprisonings of the leaders of the Church, in burning and looting of religious houses and the massacres of their communities, with his other outrages on the Scottish people (sparing nor sex nor age nor priestly orders) is something that is not to be comprehended save by those who know these things from their own experience.
Yet, at last, by His help Who heals and sains the wounded, we are freed from these innumerable evils by our most valiant Sovereign, King, and Lord, King Robert, who to set free his heritage and his people faced, like a new Maccabeus or Joshua, with joyful heart, toil, weariness, hardship, and dangers. By the Providence of God, the right of succession, those laws and customs which we are resolved to defend even with our lives, and by our own just consent, he is our King: and to him who has brought salvation to his people through the safeguarding of our liberties, as much by his own deserving as by his own rights, we hold and choose in all things to adhere. Yet Robert himself, should he turn aside from the task that he has begun, and yield Scotland or us to the English King and people, we should cast out as the enemy of us all, as subverter of our rights and of his own, and should choose another king to defend our freedom: for so long as a hundred of us are left alive, we will yield in no least way to English dominion. We fight not for glory nor for wealth nor honours; but only and alone we fight for freedom, which no good man surrenders but with his life.
Because of these things, most reverend Father and Lord, praying earnestly from our hearts that before Him as Whose Vicar on Earth you reign, before Him to Whom there is but a single weight, Who has but one law for Jew and Greek and for Scots and English — before Him will with honesty consider the manifest anguish and tribulation which we and the Church have suffered through the English, and will look upon us with a father’s eyes. We pray you to admonish this King of England (to whom his own possessions may well suffice, since England of old was enough for seven kings or more) that he should leave us in peace in our little Scotland, since we desire no more than is our own, and have no dwelling place beyond our own borders: and we on our part, for the sake of peace, are willing to do all within our power.
Most Holy Father, it is your part to do this, or surrender to the barbarity of the heathen, let loose for the sins of Christians on the Faithful, and daily forcing the bounds of Christendom, and you know it would mar the security of your fame if you looked unmoved on anything which in your time should bring dishonour on any part of the Church. May your Holiness therefore admonish those Christian princes who falsely claim that their own wars with their neighbours now hinder them from relieving the Holy Land: though indeed they are hindered only by their belief that they will find more profit and less toil in crushing neighbours smaller than themselves, who appear to them also weaker than themselves. He Who knows all knows that if the King of the English would leave us in peace, we and our own Lord King would go joyfully thither: which thing we solemnly testify and declare to the Vicar of Christ and to all Christian people. But if too readily, or insincerely, you put your faith in what the English have told you, and continue to favour them, to our confounding, then indeed shall the slaying of bodies, yea and of souls, and all those evils which they shall do to us, or we to them, be charged to your account by the Most High.
We are always bound to you, as God’s Viceregent, to please you by a son’s obedience in all things. We remit our cause to the Highest King and Judge, casting our care on Him, in the hope and faith that He will grant to us both strength and valour, and bring about our enemies’ overthrow.

May the Most High preserve for many years Your Serene Highness to His Holy Church.
Given at the Monastery of Arbroath in Scotland the sixth day of April in the year of Grace one thousand three hundred and twenty, and in the fifteenth year of the King named above.

Declaration of Arbroath (English Translation)

To the most Holy Father and Lord in Christ, the Lord John, by divine providence Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman and Universal Church, his humble and devout sons Duncan, Earl of Fife, Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray, Lord of Man and of Annandale, Patrick Dunbar, Earl of March, Malise, Earl of Strathearn, Malcolm, Earl of Lennox, William, Earl of Ross, Magnus, Earl of Caithness and Orkney, and William, Earl of Sutherland; Walter, Steward of Scotland, William Soules, Butler of Scotland, James, Lord of Douglas, Roger Mowbray, David, Lord of Brechin, David Graham, Ingram Umfraville, John Menteith, guardian of the earldom of Menteith, Alexander Fraser, Gilbert Hay, Constable of Scotland, Robert Keith, Marischal of Scotland, Henry St Clair, John Graham, David Lindsay, William Oliphant, Patrick Graham, John Fenton, William Abernethy, David Wemyss, William Mushet, Fergus of Ardrossan, Eustace Maxwell, William Ramsay, William Mowat, Alan Murray, Donald Campbell, John Cameron, Reginald Cheyne, Alexander Seton, Andrew Leslie, and Alexander Straiton, and the other barons and freeholders and the whole community of the realm of Scotland send all manner of filial reverence, with devout kisses of his blessed feet.
Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner.
The high qualities and deserts of these people, were they not otherwise manifest, gain glory enough from this: that the King of kings and Lord of lords, our Lord Jesus Christ, after His Passion and Resurrection, called them, even though settled in the uttermost parts of the earth, almost the first to His most holy faith. Nor would He have them confirmed in that faith by merely anyone but by the first of His Apostles -- by calling, though second or third in rank -- the most gentle Saint Andrew, the Blessed Peter's brother, and desired him to keep them under his protection as their patron forever.
The Most Holy Fathers your predecessors gave careful heed to these things and bestowed many favours and numerous privileges on this same kingdom and people, as being the special charge of the Blessed Peter's brother. Thus our nation under their protection did indeed live in freedom and peace up to the time when that mighty prince the King of the English, Edward, the father of the one who reigns today, when our kingdom had no head and our people harboured no malice or treachery and were then unused to wars or invasions, came in the guise of a friend and ally to harass them as an enemy. The deeds of cruelty, massacre, violence, pillage, arson, imprisoning prelates, burning down monasteries, robbing and killing monks and nuns, and yet other outrages without number which he committed against our people, sparing neither age nor sex, religion nor rank, no one could describe nor fully imagine unless he had seen them with his own eyes.
But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand.
Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
Therefore it is, Reverend Father and Lord, that we beseech your Holiness with our most earnest prayers and suppliant hearts, inasmuch as you will in your sincerity and goodness consider all this, that, since with Him Whose Vice-Regent on earth you are there is neither weighing nor distinction of Jew and Greek, Scotsman or Englishman, you will look with the eyes of a father on the troubles and privation brought by the English upon us and upon the Church of God. May it please you to admonish and exhort the King of the English, who ought to be satisfied with what belongs to him since England used once to be enough for seven kings or more, to leave us Scots in peace, who live in this poor little Scotland, beyond which there is no dwelling-place at all, and covet nothing but our own. We are sincerely willing to do anything for him, having regard to our condition, that we can, to win peace for ourselves.
This truly concerns you, Holy Father, since you see the savagery of the heathen raging against the Christians, as the sins of Christians have indeed deserved, and the frontiers of Christendom being pressed inward every day; and how much it will tarnish your Holiness's memory if (which God forbid) the Church suffers eclipse or scandal in any branch of it during your time, you must perceive. Then rouse the Christian princes who for false reasons pretend that they cannot go to help of the Holy Land because of wars they have on hand with their neighbours. The real reason that prevents them is that in making war on their smaller neighbours they find quicker profit and weaker resistance. But how cheerfully our Lord the King and we too would go there if the King of the English would leave us in peace, He from Whom nothing is hidden well knows; and we profess and declare it to you as the Vicar of Christ and to all Christendom.
But if your Holiness puts too much faith in the tales the English tell and will not give sincere belief to all this, nor refrain from favouring them to our prejudice, then the slaughter of bodies, the perdition of souls, and all the other misfortunes that will follow, inflicted by them on us and by us on them, will, we believe, be surely laid by the Most High to your charge.
To conclude, we are and shall ever be, as far as duty calls us, ready to do your will in all things, as obedient sons to you as His Vicar; and to Him as the Supreme King and Judge we commit the maintenance of our cause, csating our cares upon Him and firmly trusting that He will inspire us with courage and bring our enemies to nought.
May the Most High preserve you to his Holy Church in holiness and health and grant you length of days.
Given at the monastery of Arbroath in Scotland on the sixth day of the month of April in the year of grace thirteen hundred and twenty and the fifteenth year of the reign of our King aforesaid.

Endorsed: Letter directed to our Lord the Supreme Pontiff by the community of Scotland.

Additional names written on some of the seal tags: Alexander Lamberton, Edward Keith, John Inchmartin, Thomas Menzies, John Durrant, Thomas Morham (and one illegible).

Declaration of Arbroath (English Translation) is from

See also:
The Declaration of Arbroath [in the Original Latin]

The Declaration of Arbroath 1320 by John Prebble
Commentary on & a translation of the text of the Declaration

A Letter from Arbroath (by NIGEL TRANTER)
"The following article was written in early 1970 when Scotland was about to celebrate the 650th anniversary of a critical moment in her fortunes." 
Arbroath, Declaration of 1320 (I070388)

The Highland Clearances, and their causes, effects, and results
Chapter One
More than any single battle; more than any one event in Scottish history that I've had numerous requests for -- is a realistic look at the Highland Clearances.
Being of Highland descent myself, I have always had an interest in finding as much of the truth of this tragic event as possible. But there is a danger for a historian writing about ones own ancestors, who were, literally, purged from their own country as the Highlanders were. I accept this danger -- the danger of presenting a personal, but historically accurate, look at the Highland Clearances -- rather than a cut, dry and brittle year by year accounting of numbers of emigrants, evicted tenants and statutes.
In this work, we shall look at the awful truths of the Highland Clearances, if ocassionally from a Highlanders perspective. I don't apologise for this approach -- rather, it is one that is sorely needed.
If readers find a perspective look at history objectionable, then they are forwarned ahead of time. If, however, one falsely deduces that a perspective is subjective and thus flawed by its very nature, then I invite those readers, and all others, to read the story of the Highland Clearances and the truths of the matters.
This account will always stay true to historical facts and conventions, even if ocassionally, given from a Highland point of view. After all, I owe this much to my own Highland ancestors, most of whom were forcibly expelled from their picturesque, ancient Highland glens and lochs by unsympathetic and uncaring eighthteenth and nineteenth century "Improvers". The only thing the 'Improvers', improved, were their own greedy pocketbooks. To tell this emotional and terrible story of our ancestors sufferings -- unknown or dismissed by careless historians for centuries -- I shall willingly endure the slings and arrows of the history critic. After all I am one and I know how critical we can be. Many of these historians and history story tellers' preferred versions, until fairly recently, have been the uncaring and excuse-making perspectives of the 'improver' southrons and sheep fattened Clan Chiefs. In the end, I know I have told the truth of it, and my Highland soul is no longer bound to the revisionist and 'blameless' historians, who would have you believe it was simply a tragic circumstance -- no-one's fault. It simply isn't that simple, nor is it blameless. It was, however, inevitable.
Part One:

Before any words can even begin to attempt to describe the 'ethnic cleansing' of the Highlands of Scotland, one must be aware of the circumstances that occured prior to the atrocities of the Clearances. This is especially true for understanding the two nations of Scots and their relationship; the clan systems; the Jacobite wars and most especially that event that led directly to the Clearances. That event is the anti-climatic destruction of the great and proud Highland army, the very last Highland army -- under the command of a young Prince Charles Edward Stuart or "Bonnie Prince Charlie" at Culloden in 1746.
End of the Clan System

Cleared Highlander

The 'pacification' of the Highland clans which followed the disaster of Culloden destroyed the ancient life of the glens. The 'pacification' of the Highlanders and the Clearances which followed a generation later, completed the ruin of that once proud and ancient tribal society known as the Highland Clan System.
Before 1745, the bulk of Scottish Regiments (a relatively new idea), mostly the Blackwatch, had been drawn almost entirely from the Lowlands, where hatred of the Gael ran deep. Aside from the independent companies raised by General Wade, later in the 18th century, Highlanders were viewed as barbarians or called "wild Irish" and seen with about as much compassion, sympathy or understanding as the Zulu's were a century later.
Yes, today Scots, both Highlander (the few that are truly of Highland blood) and Lowlander are equals and get along smashingly. But we are looking now at mid-eighteenth century Scotland and England. One must keep this in mind throughout this history. Indeed, at the time there were in truth two distinct Scotlands. One, the ancient Gael, descended from Celtic origins with dashes of Norse, Flemish and even some Norman blood. Whereas the Lowlander had been a more Germanic-English (genetically speaking) or Saxon, Angle, Norman, Celtic, Dane, Flemish and other European blooded racial mix since before the days of William Wallace. The kings of Scotland since MacBeth were more in line with English beliefs than the older Celtic ones -- and the kings of Scotland now ruled from the Lowlands. Therefore, what evolved in Scotland were two different peoples, using the same name and Nationality, but being fundamentally different both racially and linguistically. The Highlander had retained his native Irish tongue (Gaelic), manner of clothing and was by every aspect, very Gael and very Celtic. The Lowlander had adopted many Anglo customs since the days and arrival of Malcolm Canmore (Cean more), Malcolm III, and early Lothian English had become the primary tongue of Edinburgh and other great cities of the Lowlands in the 11-12th centuries.
The Highlander saw the Lowland Scot as a 'foreigner' and more (in their early view) like the English than any Scot. This in itself was offensive to the Lowland Scot who was anything but English!
However, the Lowlander, of this time, saw the Highlanders even worse; as tribal barbarians -- not the 'noble savage' painted in words by Sir Walter Scott in the 19th century. Highlanders were odd, barbaric and 'clannish' to the city dwelling Lowlander, who naturally saw them as more like 'wild Irish' (as they called them), more than Scottish.
Even had there been common ground for both, it seems as if a tragic barrier of mutual incomprehensibility was built between them -- they could not, and did not really ever attempt to understand each other. Is it all the fault of the Lowlander? No, of course not. That would obviously be too simplistic an answer. The tragedies that would occur in the Highlands between Scots, Lowlander and Highlander, were long in the blood of these uneasy allies. A clash of cultures was inevitable at some point. It had flared in some cases before, as in the battle of Harlaw, or "Red Harlaw". But the disasterous depths of the clash coming could never had been predicted by the two races of Scots who never truly understood the other to begin with. Yet, the Highland leaders, the Chiefs, are as much to blame, if not moreso, for the calamity of the Highland Clearances once the horrible process had begun.
Scots-English and Gaelic
Throughout the centuries, Scotland acquired a rich mixture of races through both invasion and immigration. The newcomers were always absorbed into a fairly homogeneous breed. The forms of speech varied widely between Lowland Scots cities, but they were all forms of the English, or the sub-division known as Scots-English, and that is partially the situation even today. Auld Scots is and has been spoken in Lowland Scotland for centuries, but when they write, it is generally in English. Why? This dichotomy is largely due to the translation of the Bible which was carried out in the south of England. It was carried out in that majestic 17th century style, and this helped to introduce, or rather, impose, 'Standard' English as the written language.
There have been periods between then and now when Scots have tried to eradicate the 'Scottishness' of their speech, feeling (under heavy pressure from England) it inferior or somehow lower-class than Standard, even whilst they revered the Scots poetry of Robert Burns, usually very briefly, once per year on the celebration of his birthday on 25 Janurary.
Lately, Auld Scots is enjoying something of a revival and a new respectability. An event this author is pleased to see and promote. The nature and history of old Scots is emotional, turbulent and complex, changing even faster than the history of those who use it.
One group of Scots, those Northern Scots, stubbornly remained outside the homogenizing process; the Gaels. Their ancient language and its cousin languages in Ireland, Wales, Isle of Man, Brittany in France, and to a lesser extent in Cornwall, are descended from the lost tongue of the ancient Indo-European. It tended to move, or be driven, to the Western extremities of Europe, and, much like its people, has regularly been under threat.
Some estimates show that Gaelic is spoken by perhaps as few as 100,000 Scots, out of a population of over four million. Although attempts are underway to revitalise this ancient tongue of the Gael, it is still a very small minority.
But the language divide has always been there, and remains. Children in the Highlands and Islands today learn English as well -- Standard English rather than Scots-English. Thus, the country is still partially separated by language and culture, into English speaking Lowlands and Gaelic-speaking Highlands and Islands, though this division is not nearly as extreme as it was in the mid-eighteenth century.
The language gap or division was much more profound in older times, and played a bleak part in the great tragedy of the Highland Clearances, which left the Highlands void of most, possibly 85-90%, of its people, trees and forests...leaving vast areas bare and deserted even today.
But language was only another part of the great jigsaw puzzle of Scottish division. The Jacobite wars figure greatly in this story and we shall look at them briefly next.
A Brief History of the Jacobite Wars
Although to attempt to view the devastation of the Highlanders and their life-style as a sole result of Culloden and the Jacobite Wars is a vast oversimplification, it is still a very important factor in the end of the Highland Clan System. No attempt is or will be made to make the Clearances solely linked to Jacobitism. This is a large part of British history that did effect all of Scotland, especially the Highlands. It should be seen as another of many factors, albeit an important one, alongside language and cultural differences. These then, hastened the end of the Gael's way of life.
Lowland Covenant (a predominantly Lowland religious belief) failure of the 17th century was also marked by the loyalty of the Scottish Clans to the Royal House of Stewart, a loyalty remarkable for surviving 25 years of neglect from London after the Restoration of the Monarchy. The last of the Catholic Stewart Kings, James VII and II of Scotland and England respectively, was forced into exile in 1688. It was from his former realm of Scotland (the Highlands), that the 'King Over the Water' and his heirs drew most support. In fact the word 'Jacobite' may be the most lasting (and only real) success of James VII and II. He gave his name -- James -- converted to Jacob -- to the Stewart loyalists -- the Jacobites.
In the "Great Civil War', the prowess of the clans under the great Montrose were stirred in the first real Jacobite war of 1688-89, when Montrose's descendant John Graham, 'Bonnie Dundee', led Jacobite Highland clansmen to victory over the army of Dutch William at Killecrankie (1689). Dundee added immeasurably to his and the Jacobite cause and legend by getting himself killed in the monent of his greatest victory.
Nor did the Highlanders forget - ever - the appalling iniquity of the Glencoe Massacre of 1692: the treacherous, government ordered slaughterous attack by forces led by the Campbells on thier MacDonald hosts.
This first Jacobite defeat did no more to weaken the pro-Stewart loyalties than had the defeat of Montrose at Philipbaugh back in 1645.
Increasing Lowland pressure for full Union with England, was indeed fertile soil for Jacobitism in Scotland as the 18th century opened. The effects of this Union (1707) are still being debated today, but clearly it was the will of a few powerful merchants, bankers and buisnesmen in the Lowlands that eventually pushed the Union of Parliaments to fruition. You will often find a much different explanation in most of Scottish and English history books -- even today -- suggesting that all Scots wanted this Union, when in fact it caused riots in Glasgow and Edinburgh and the Highlands were never in favour of any sort of Union with England....but then the Highlands were never asked. It, in turn, nearly destroyed Scottish independence and was the death-knell for the Highland way of life.
One important but often overlooked aspect of Jacobitism was that it was far more than a sustained nostalgia on the part of a few Highland Chiefs for the return of their 'real' king. In reality, Jacobitism was the ONLY 'opposition party' in Britain. The very idea of a party of opposition, sounded, to many British of the time, like treason in itself. The Stewarts were often Catholic, unpredictable and quick to draw on Highland support when in dire need of an ally. Unfortunately, the Highlanders, or many of them, seemed all to willing to go to their graves for the ungrateful Stewart Regime. This truly frightened England and many Lowland Scots. Nor was Jacobitism limited to Scotland. English Catholics, in particular, shut out from religious office, oppressed and yearning for religious toleration in a non-tolerant era, looked to the exiled Stewarts to restore some balance in their favour. They were seen as natural Jacobites (although, as in Elizabeth I's time, most preferred to argue their case as loyal subjects 'from within the system', rather than resort to outright rebellion). One must keep this in mind: in the Jacobite rebellions (wars, really) of 1715 and 1745, Prince James Edward and Price Charles Edward Stewart were not merely seeking to establish themselves in Scotland; their eyes went past Edinburgh to London.
One of the great ironies of the Jacobite rebellions is the tremendous starts only to be followed by sputtering and sometimes disasterous endings. The clans who rallied to the Royal Standard of the Stewarts in the 'Fifteen' and the 'Forty-Five' had uncannily similar runs of fortune to their forebears who had fought for Montrose and Dundee. After intial successes from Tippermuir to Kilsyth in 1644-45, and Killiecrankie in 1689, so there were initial Jacobite victories at Sheriffmuir in 1715 and Prestonpans in 1745 before the inevitable turning of the tide.

"Bonnie" Prince Charlie
The Bonnie Prince lost miserably on that awful day in 1746 at Culloden Moor. But more than men of war and soldiers were entire race and culture were about to be 'improved' for sheep and money. Even though the would-be Prince lost that battle, and ended his life in 1788, an exiled drunken embarrassment to all, he had, in his great days, succeeded where even the mighty Montrose had failed, and led a Highland army south into England. It got as far as Derby, and had King George packing and fleeing south, before the Prince came to the realisation that NO English uprising in his favour was going to happen. It was during the ill-fated retreat back to Scotland that Cumberland caught up with the Bonnie Prince and his Highland army near Drumoisse Moor -- Culloden.
The clan system as it had been for perhaps 1,000 years ended on the afternoon of 16 April, 1746, when the attenuated battalions of half-starved clansmen composing the army of Prince Charles Edward Stewart suffered their first and final defeat at the hands of the troops of the Duke of Cumberland on the disasterous fields of Culloden.
The Prince, after much hiding and sheltering, finally made his escape back to France to become on of histories forgotten men, forgotten except for the fact that he was "Bonnie" and that Flora MacDonald helped him escape, which gave a misleading air of 'romance' to his escape.
Pacification of the Highlands

Memorial Marker at Culloden
But the final bill was footed by the unfortunate Highlanders. Cumberland rightly earned his name "the Butcher" for his post-battlefield atrocities. He ordered his Red Coats to kill every surviving clansman on the field, even burying some of the wounded Highlanders alive in hugh pits of death and suffocation. He also earned the flower 'Sweet William' named after him by the English and 'Stinking Willy' in Scotland.
The scare that the 'Forty-Five' had given the British Hanoverian Regime may be measured by the subsequent Governmental attempt to root out the Highland clan tradition forever. In this, they were determined. Banning Highland dress, Highland music and language; executing and exiling clan leaders, and finally driving roads into the heart of the Highlands -- but none of these ploys were entirely successful.
Immediately after Culloden, and in the years to follow, great numbers of people in the Highlands, men, women and children, were killed on mere suspicion of disloyalty to the Government, or even on general principle that the 'only good Highlander was a dead Highlander'. Their outlandish language and their alien customs made it possible to regard them as 'Other', as less than full human beings. The Irish were to suffer this same treatment in the next half-century in the Great Potato Blight, which also affected Scotland badly, and which was allowed to fall the hardest on the landless Highlanders.
The powers of the Clan Chiefs were taken from them. Although it has been said it was not the Clan System that died at Culloden, for it still exists today, it is a fool who believes that the surviving Clan Chiefs hold any power as their predecessors had held before Culloden. Modern Clan Societies now are more formal and social organisations existing out of desire and contribution, rather than by any necessity. Indeed, the old clan system did die at Culloden. More so than any factor it was the powers of the Chiefs, Chieftains and their place as 'fathers', the leaders, of their people that died. The clans were left without anyone to direct them and became easy prey to grim missionaries determined to teach them a relentless Lowland Presbyterianism which would bind them forever to the Government. These missionaries from the Lowlands had such names as 'Society for the propagation of Christian Knowledge' and came to the Highlands in 1791 (seeking Godlessness in the Highlands, but finding something more alarming). They sent a message back stating:
"The secretary was assured upon authority which appeared to him conclusive that since the year 1772 no less than sixteen vessels full of emigrants have sailed from the western parts of the counties of Inverness and Ross alone, containing, it is supposed, 6,400 souls, and carrying with them in specie at least 38,000 pound Sterling."

From that point onward, few Highlanders ever left Scotland with their monies, possessions, or their dignities intact. If they were to emigrate, apparently they would be forced to do so as penniless indentured servants, slaves or beggars.
The numbers of landless men increased as the merging of small holdings into large single units under one tenant increased. The clansmen were now destitute of the only possession they'd ever had...the land. But for these men and women, "Improvement" in the Highlands had no sympathy. Compassion makes expensive calls on the conscience, and thus it seemed a comfort to find compassion undeserved. Said one great 'Improver', Sir George MacKenzie of Coul,
"They [the landess Highlanders] live in the midst of filth and smoke. That is their choice. They will yet find themselves happier and more comfortable in the capacity of servants to substantial tenants than in their present situation."

To exploit the land, the chiefs and leaders of the clans had first to remove his tacksmen, or bring them to heel as tenants, for they, not he, held most of his property.
The Tacksman, simply put, was a man of the clan who held 'tacks', or leases, granted to him by the chief in the old clan tradition and on his property. Thus these tacksmen were the key to all the land. Many tried to help their fellow clansmen and clanswomen, but could not make it themselves. Unfortunately, many did as the chief was now doing and treated his tenants (like the chief often treated the tacksmen) as annoying children who should be encouraged to move off the land so that he could sell it for profit. What they were supposed to do...or where they were supposed to go seems to have been given little care or thought by many of the chiefs and tacksmen. time, would become the evictors that sent hundreds of thousands of Highlanders to the New World or to death.
Immediately after Culloden, the roads were policed; tartans, weapons and even the bagpipes were all made illegal. Even speaking Gaelic was disallowed and made punishable by death or imprisonment. Highlanders were subjected to every imaginable savagery whilst being encouraged to emigrate (penniless) to another country. It is a psychological twist that has justified the the British urge to Colonise. The American Indians also suffered from it. In the case of the Highlands it has an even blacker tinge since the victims, inspite of their language, were compatriots of the killers, and that the killers had no intention of taking over the rather forbiding land and settling it; they were merely engaged in an act of violence for its own sake and an act of greed and rape of all the Highlands and Islands.
1746 has often been described as the end of the separate history of the Highlands. And in many ways it was. But for more than a century afterwards, history went on, and became even blacker.
It was, on the other hand, the end of the Jacobite cause, the end of all hope for that legitimate but unfortunately Catholic Royal family and all those Highlanders who remainded loyal to her, to the end (and even those who did not suffered the same fate).
It was also the beginning of legends of the great smoke-screen of nonsense, of high flown sentiment and downright bad history. The Highlands were romanticised whilst at the same time the Highlanders were being forced into dreadful exile or death. What follows in the next several sections, is history that most everyone would prefer to forget -- and why we must remember.

Scotweb's Scottish History Magazine
is edited by
Robert M. Gunn

Please email comments and suggestions to

All original material © Robert M. Gunn 1997-2003 unless stated
No parts to be reproduced without prior written consent
When it became clear to the "Butcher" Cumberland the Jacobites were giving ground at Culloden, he gave the "no quarter" order. Now, the most hated phrase in the Highlands. Hundreds of fallen soldiers, not dead, were shot where they lay, others were burned alive in human fire pits. Many were taken prisoner only to be summarily shot, one after the other.
Memorial Cairn at Culloden
According to authors Somerst Fry. "Over 100 were taken across the Border to England, tried and executed in defiance of the 1707 act of Union. Those not killed were jailed in the Tolbooth (a gaol {jail} or prison), many with their wives and children and left to suffer from starvation and disease, some to the point of death. Over 1,000 were SOLD outright as slaves to the American Colony plantations. Cattle, sheep and deer were butchered, crops ravaged and burned. More cattle were driven into Inverness and given away or offered at ludicrously low prices to Lowland farmers, some were even given to English farmers in the Northern counties." Cottages, farms and houses were burned down in every district of the Highlands. Some Scots, who were not Jacobites, protested their treatment and that of their Highland neighbours -- but they were ignored, dismissed or insulted. The provost of Inverness was kicked down a flight of stairs for questioning the cruelties.
Later, the Duke of Cumberland, (the son of Britains King, Geroge II), would complain that he'd actually been asked to show no humanity. He did a good job of following those orders, as the "harrying of the Glens", as it came to be known, was carried out with Teutonic brutality and thoroughness by the Hanoverian Regime.
The atrocities that occurred immediately after Culloden in the "Pacification" -- such a horrifying devastation of the Highlands -- was backed by the London Government and applauded by many Lowland and Presbyterian Scots who hated the Highlanders as much for their stubborn adherence to the Roman Catholic Faith as much as their loyalty to the Stewarts. Not all Highlanders were Catholics at this time, some being Episcopalian and some recently turned to the Lowland Presbyterian Faith. But enough were still of the Catholic belief to cause much religious hatred. In the Government zeal to root out once and for all time the Highland clans power, they not only took powers away from the Clan Chiefs but also hereditary sherriff-doms and other jurisdictions were abolished - in doing so the Government bracketed the jurisdictions of clans who had not supported the Jacobites. This infuriated everyone. With all its faults, the clan relationship of its Barons courts and clan councils, "formed the whole basis of Scottish law and order as well as local government", the act of Union had validified the integrity of that Scottish law. Or so it was assumed. But now that the British Government had removed it's power, nothing was put in its place, and this led to near anarchy in the Highlands. Not only were the clan chiefs now without powers, they no longer commanded the respect they once did, or so they imagined, and were without pride or purpose. The ban of tartan, wearing of kilts and Highland dress, weapons and even the writing of Gaelic was a systematic attempt to "obliterate the Celtic mode of life", a policy also followed by England in Ireland and Wales. The lands of the fallen chiefs were eventually turned over to factors, special managers, who although efficient, were ruthless in their running of the lands and farms.
Scottish Highlander

As already mentioned in the previous chapter, the clan chiefs had leased much of their land to middlemen, called tacksmen, because tack meant lease. Some tacksmen worked the land, others sublet to tenants, often getting more rent than the chiefs received from the tacksmen. One of the roles of the tacksmen had been to call up the clansmen into military service when the need arose. But by the 1740's and especially after Culloden (1746), some chiefs had stopped leasing to tacksmen and began to collect rents and dues through their agents (often factors) who only earned commission.
Many chiefs also began to see that more money was needed to support their ever increasingly lavish life-style, and subsequently began to sell the land to sheep-farming, as the Lowland and Border lairds had already begun.
But Lowland and Border folk were not subjected to the same degree of evictions and brutalisation that their Highland counterparts were about to receive. Yes, many Lowland and Border folk were removed from the land too, but it was not generally enforced by press gangs and police swinging truncheons and clubs as occurred in the Highlands later on.
The Lowlanders and Borderers moved into other areas of Scotland or England and many willingly emigrated to the colonies.
The chief no longer protected the clansmen and had no idea what to do -- what they did do was appalling. Accustomed to loyalty and power, they were now drawn to the 'good living' in Edinburgh, fine homes, expensive and lavish life-styles. They became a new class of wealthy merchants and bankers, investors and gamblers, and left their clansmen to fend for themselves.
Post Culloden -- The Highland Regiments
After Culloden there was no immediate danger from the clans, who were leaderless. The great dream of Gaeldom was shattered and many clansmen found themselves bewildered and broken in spirit. However, on the Continent, Bonnie Prince Charlie was still alive and the Government was well aware that the Prince was still a rightful heir to the throne of Britain on grounds of primogeniture and that the Highlands still contained many thousands of fit men who still held Jacobite sympathies.
Prince Charles
Although the threat posed by the Prince after Culloden was changed, and the political climate of Europe had helped to diminish his chances of ever being a threat, it was not a situation the British Government wanted to allow to remain static for long.
In truth, the Scots and the English were still not the best of friends and the "Butcher" Cumberland had left behind a bitter legacy which disgusted many Scots, even those who had no love of Jacobites. Cumberland, of course, didn't like any Scotsman and he didn't care who knew it.
In 1738, (prior to Culloden), Lord President Forbes of Culloden had put up the proposal to the Government for the raising of Highland regiments to be officered by 'loyal Englishmen'. His aim was to channel the energies of possible Jacobite supporters into activities of working hard for the government, leaving them with little time for plotting. The scheme was vetoed by the Cabinet, but out of it came into being the Black Watch Regiment in 1739. Initially filled with Lowland Scots and some Highlanders of unquestionable Government loyalty, such as the Campbells and Munros, it was led by English officers to "watch" or police the Highlands secretly -- thus "Black Watch". It really had little to do with colour of their tartan.
Just prior to Culloden, in 1745, the Blackwatch had fought with Cumberland at Fontenoy, and he'd been impressed -- he was not easily impressed.
The Black Watch experiment had been successful enough to warrant raising another regiment in 1745, Loudoun's Highlanders who also formed part of the Government army during the "45". They were routed at Moy by the Highland Macintoshes who frightened them into believing a great force was lying in wait for them. The Loudoun's Highlanders ran. They were disbaned in 1748.
But a man named William Pitt proposed the raising of regiments (after Culloden) from the 'disaffected' clans, to serve British armies overseas. What better use could they put to the strong, proud and determined enemy than to convince him that fighting, in full Highland garb (currently it was only allowed if you joined the regiment), for the British government was in his best service to 'his' country? They were sent directly to the front lines of every British foreign war and took the brunt of almost all initial combat in the British army.
Regiments served in North America against the rebellious colonists, and in the West Indies. Between 1757 and 1761 ten Highland regiments were raised and disbanded: the Fraser Highlanders; Montgomery's Highlanders' the Duke of Gordons Highlanders; The 100th Regiment; The Queens Highlanders; the Royal Highland volunteers; Johnstone's Highlanders and the Maclean's Highlanders.
After such a resounding success, in 1766 William Pitt gave a rousing speech to parliament about the quality and gallantry of "his" Highland Regiments. It was stirring stuff indeed. What he left out of that 1766 speech was what he said back in 1757 about the Scots Highlanders. He, when he first commanded his scheme in 1757, had been at pains to point out the obvious advantage that, in sending these Highlanders off to war for Britain, "Not many" of the troublesome Gaels would return. But by 1766 the Highland regiments had indeed proven themselves in combat, and with their blood, to be among Britian's best units.
One wonders why such hated enemies would, considering the atrocites after Culloden, want to fight for the British army? There were several reasons.
One factor was the Monarchy itself. The new House of Hanover was a protestant branch of the old House of Stuart, and, supposedly, ruled by virtue of its Stuart blood rather than its Hanoverian connection. Of course one can make a strong dissenting argument here, but the thinking goes that since Dutch William (William of Orange) married a Stuart (Mary Stuart) they ruled co-jointly as William and Mary. A more realistic view might actually show that it was all William who ruled and Mary stayed very much behind the Royal scenes. But accepting the Stuart bloodline theory, it was one factor.
Another, more tangible reason, was that the Highland Chiefs, who might have opposed the regiment idea, were either in exile or dead, and those who remained on their clan lands had no desire to repeat the futile performance of 1745 and its savage repercussions. Then again, the power of the Campbells no longer threatened the other clans. The days of feuding and fighting amongst themselves were now over.
Scottish Highland Officer
But the largest reason played directly to the warrior heart of the Gaelic Highlander. The only way he could gain honour in battle, legally wear his Highland dress, carry weapons as his forefathers had done for over 1,000 years and play his beloved bagpipes was to join a Highland regiment. This was a subtle but powerful incentive to the Gael, who had for centuries been a warrior and had his kilt, bagpipes and weapons at all times. All these things were 'proscribed' by the Hanoverian Regime after Culloden and only by joining the regiments and fighting in British wars could he obtain these long cherished cultural practises and traditions.
The Government in London wanted to extinguish everything that made the Gaels different and distinctive. In the "Proscription Act, or the 'Black Act' of 1746, as it was known to the Highlanders and Islanders, Scottish Highlanders were forbidden to own arms, which might be reasonable so soon after a war, but also to wear the kilt or any garments of tartan cloth. Offenders could and were transported to Botany Bay or imprisoned.
So the Highlander joined. And since many of the new Regiments were officered by men he knew and included men forn his own glens, it must have seemed like the old clan days all over again -- except that now the British Government fed and clothed and paid them money, instead of a chief, and they had no retribution to fear. And, of course, mostly now they were not Catholics, (or no longer Catholics); they had no religios loyalty to the Stewarts.
All these considerations added together to make the prospect of army service attractive to fit men -- the very men, left to their own devices, might just conceivably become the spearhead for another Jacobite attempt. Unlikely as it was, the government preferred to pre-empt the possibility. It worked remarkably well. Highland men flocked to the Union Jack standard to fight for the Hanoverian king, so long as the could wear the garb and be among their own kind. It was a brilliant masterstroke of English thinking -- and the Regiments, as much as any other reason -- put the final seal of the fate of the Stewarts.
Not only did these Highlanders do good service, but they provided good hardy settlers for America and Canada with a strong loyalty to Britain. In the Clearances soon to come, however, they were joined by tens of thousands more who had no such British allegiance.
Scottish Regimental Soldiers (later)

The Highland regiment went on to fame and glory and have a proud and undisputed valorous record, but it is too extensive to cover in this work on the Clearances, so that must be another story.
The Highland Clearances Begin
There is something typically British about the fact that the misery of the Highland Clearances was in full swing whilst the much needed restoration of Scottish national pride was being achieved.
This began with the prowess on the battlefield of the first Highland Regiments; it was sustained, at least in Lowland and English eyes, by the prevailing Romantic Movement with a growing worship of all things 'Scotch', (under the guiding pen of Sir Walter Scott). Please let me make a personal note here regarding Sir Walter: I think he is one of the most important and influential authors ever to put ink on paper. But, like Shakespeare, he intentionally or not, has created a myth of Scottish Highlanders, as did Shakespeare with MacBeth, that although wonderful literature, is not good history. That being said, Sir Walter Scott, despite his terrific works, his 'Highland' writings have given a false image of the Highlander that prevails to this day.
All the while the Romance with the Scottish Highlands were in full bloom, the people whom they professed to adore, the Gaels, were being killed, beaten, imprisoned or sent to the New World in the most cruel and extreme conditions imaginable. What follows in the next chapter (and the end of this one) will shock, surprise and horrify most who are unaware of this injustice.
After about 1746, the Highlander, due to the Regiments, becomes for possibly the first time a Scotsman rather than a Highlander, no longer one of a different race to be hated, feared and consequentially despised, in turn hating and despising others.
It is therefore even more the great tragedy the Highlanders (except in the regiments) should have fallen prey to the greatest savagery, the most humiliating indignities that has ever been inflicted upon them -- and this in their present times by their fellow Scots, even by their own erstwhile chiefs.
Highlanders soon found oppression among them in the shape of their own chieftains or sometimes landlords to whom the chieftains sold out. There were edicts in some areas actually forbidding marriages among estate tenants! In the parish of Clyne in Sutherland a few years later, there were 75 bachelors aged 35 to 75.
Had the Highland story truly ended on the fields of Culloden in 1746, to be followed by the stirring history of the Highland Regiments over the next two and one-half centuries, it might be easy to overlook much of the hypocrisy that lurks menacingly behind the tartan smoke screen raised by Sir Walter Scott, fanned by King George IV and finally given Royal Warrant by Queen Victoria. But it did not end then.
Evictions in the Highlands prior to 1745 were rare, In 1739, both MacDonald of Sleat and MacLeod of Dunvegan, the principle Skye chiefs, SOLD some of their clansmen and women as indentured servants in the Carolina's. But these extremes were rare and have no connection to the cruelty known as the Highland Clearances.
Perhaps the final blow to Scottish land ownership, thus the clan system itself, ended with the "Heritable Jurisdictions Act" of 1747, which stated, essentially, that those who did not accede to English jurisdiction (British Government) were to have their lands forfeited and given over to the government. This may have been the final straw that broke the clan systems back.
Two Main Eras of Highland Clearances.
The Clearances proper fall into two main periods: A long period from 1785 to 1820, and a shorter one from 1842 to 1854.
Ironically during the entire period covered by the Clearances from 1785-1854, Highland military Regiments were serving with distinction in foreign wars.
Also during the late stages of this shameful period, Queen Victorian and Prince Albert, from 1848 onwards, were living in a Highland sentimental dream at Balmoral Castle, talking about their beloved Highlanders, covering the floors, walls, windows and even a few ceilings with tartan in some bizarre type of 'tartan hell' that seems Graceland-like in its obsession and indulgencies. This genuine but perhaps misplaced love for the Highlanders continues in the Monarchy to this day.
Highland Despair

Yet not a hundred miles away, these same Highlanders were being evicted, reduced to poverty and cruelly beaten and murdered by police constables acting for the factors of landlords who placed the value of sheep, especially the 'Cheviot' sheep, over men.
In the next, and perhaps most shocking chapter, we shall look directly at the crimes and injustices committed against the Highlanders, as the evictions become greater and the landless and destitute are subjected to the most unimaginable inhumanity ever experienced by the Gael of the Scottish Highlands.

Scotweb's Scottish History Magazine
is edited by
Robert M. Gunn

Please email comments and suggestions to

All original material © Robert M. Gunn 1997-2003 unless stated
No parts to be reproduced without prior written consent

Clearances, Highland (I070404)

1st Bn., Irish Guards
who died on Sunday, 30th January 1944. Age 23.
Additional Information: Son of Jenico Edward Joseph Preston, 15th Viscount Gormanston, and of Eileen, Viscountess Gormanston, of Gormanston Castle, Co. Meath, Irish Republic.
Commemorative Information

Debt of Honour Register
Commonwealth War Graves Commission web site at
(2 Marlow Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 7DX, United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1628 634221 Fax: +44 1628 771208) 
Preston, Stephen Edward Thomas (I001981)

Translation © by T.H.Weeks
Commentary © by A.Weeks
There are several versions of the Pictish Chronicle. This the so-called `A' text, which is probably the oldest, and also the fullest. It also seems to have fewer errors than other versions.
A facsimile of part of the manuscript, and other information, can be found on this page here belonging to Tony Spurlock.
The text seems to date from the reign of Kenneth II (971-995) (since he is the last king mentioned and the chronicler does not know the length of his reign), and I would say probably from the early part of that reign. The manuscript itself is however a 14th century copy.

It is in three parts:
1.An account of the origins of the Picts
Most of this is taken from books 9 and 14 of the Etymologies of Isidore of Seville (560-636). It is rather confused, and mostly quite irrelevant for Scottish history. In ancient times there were two peoples called the Albani and the Iberi who lived in the Caucasus. Later geographers confused the Albani with Albany (i.e. Scotland) and the Iberi with Hibernia.
2.A list of Pictish kings from the earliest times up until the conquest by Kenneth Mac Alpín in the 9th Century.
3.A list of kings of the combined kingdom of Picts and Scots until the reign of Kenneth II (971-995), with some notes about events during each reign.

It is evident that the latter two sections were originally written in Gaelic, since a few Gaelic words have not been translated into Latin.

The text is based on that of W.F.Skene: Chronicles of the Picts and Scots (1867), but has been adjusted in places. I have gone back to Isidore for parts of the first section.

I have added some notes to explain the text and also added additional infomation about some of the kings, notably dates, mostly derived from Irish sources (like the Annals of Ulster and Annals of Tigernach)

•Commentary and additions in the text are in red.
•Letters removed from the Latin text are in round brackets (...)
•Doubtful translations are in curly brackets {...}
•A.O.Anderson: Early Sources of Scottish History (Vol. I) (1922)
•M.O.Anderson: Kings & Kingship in Early Scotland (ISBN 0-7011-1930-6) (1973)
•H.M.Chadwick: Early Scotland (1949)
•B.T.Hudson: Kings of Celtic Scotland (ISBN 0-313-29087-3) (1994)
Some Links:-
•Medieval Sources at Manchester University
•Online Medieval and Classical Library
•Internet Medieval Sourcebook
•Online Reference Book for Medieval Studies
•CELT - Corpus of Electronic Texts (Irish sources)
•Coed Celyddon
•Our Pictish Heritage
•A genealogy of Kings of Scots from 501 to 1296

If you have any comments on this translation, click here

Picti propria lingua nomen habent a picto corpore; eo quod, aculeis ferreis cum atramento, variarum figurarum sti(n)gmate annotantur. Scotti qui nunc corrupte vocantur Hiberniensis quasi Sciti, quia a Scithia regione venerunt, et inde originem duxerunt; siue a Scotta filia Pharaonis regis Egypti, quae fuit ut fertur regina Scottorum. Sciendum vero est quod Britones in tertia mundi aetate ad Britanniam venerunt. Scitae autem, id est, Scotti, in quarta aetate Scociam, siue Hiberniam obtinuerunt.
The Picts take their name in their own tongue from their painted bodies; this is because, using sharp iron tools and ink, they are marked by tattoos of various shapes. The Scots, who now are incorrectly called Irish, are {as it were} Sciti, because they came from the Scythian region, and had their origin there; or else they take their name from Scotta the daughter of Pharaoh the king of Egypt, who as the story goes was the queen of the Scots. It is known for a fact that the Britons arrived in Britain in the third age of the world1. However the Sciti, that is, the Scots took possession of Scocia, or Ireland, in the fourth age2.

Gentes Scitiae albo crine nascuntur ab assiduis nivibus; et ipsius capilli color genti nomen dedit, et inde dicuntur Albani: de quibus originem duxerunt Scoti et Picti. Horum glauca oculis, id est, picta inest pupilla, adeo ut nocte plusquam die cernant. Albani autem vicini Amazonibus fuerunt. Gothi a Magog filio Japheth nominati putantur, de similitudine ultimae sillabae; quos veteres Graeci magis Gethas, quam Gothos, vocaverunt. Gens fortis et potentissima, corporum mole ardua, armorum genere terribilis. De quibus Lucanus,
The Scythian people are born with white hair due to the continuous snow; and the colour of that same hair gives a name to the people, and hence they are called Albani: from them the Scots and Picts trace their origin. In their eyes, there is a bright, that is coloured, pupil, to such an extent that they can see better at night than by day. Moreover the Albani3 were neighbours to the Amazons. The Goths are thought to be named after Magog the son of Japheth4, from the similarity of the final syllable; they whom the ancient Greeks called Getae5, rather than Goths. They were a courageous and most powerful race, lofty, with massive bodies and striking terror with their kind of armour.

About them Lucan6 wrote:

Hinc Dacus premat, inde Gethi (in)occurrant Hiberis.
Let the Dacian press from this side, let the Gethi attack the Spanish on that side.

Daci autem Gottorum soboles fuerunt: et dictos putant Dacos quasi Dagos, quia de Gottorum stirpe creati sunt: de quibus ille, T
The Dacians however were offspring of the Goths: and it is thought they are called Dacians or perhaps Dagians, because they were created from the stock of the Goths: he7 wrote about them:

Ibis arctos procul usque Dacos. You will go north all the way to the Dacians.

1.The third age was from Abraham to David
2.The fourth age was from David to Daniel
3.The ancient Albani lived in what is now Azerbaijan
4.Genesis 10:2
5.In fact there is no connection between the Getae (a Dacian tribe) and the Goths, this has confused countless ancient historians.
6.Civil War: 2:54. This is from a poem about the war between Caesar and Pompey.
7.Although the context suggests this too is from Lucan, in fact it is by Bishop Paulinus of Nola (353-431) in a letter to Nicetas of Remisiana.

Scithae et Gothi a Magog originem traxerunt. Scithia, quoque et Gothia, ab eodem Magog filio Japhet fertur congnominata: cujus terra olim ingens fuit; nam ab oriente Indie, a septentrione, per paludes Meotidas, inter Danubium et oceanum, usque ad Germaniae fines porrigebatur. Postea minor effecta est a dextra orientis parte qua(i) oceanus Sericus (co)tenditur, usque ad mare Caspium, quod est ad occasum. De hinc a meridie usque ad Caucasi jugum deducta est; cui subjacet Hircania ab occasu: habens pariter gentes multas, propter terrarum infecunditatem, late vagantes, ex quibus quaedam agros incolunt; quaedam portent(u)osae ac truces, carnibus humanis, et eorum sanguine, vivunt.
The Scythians and Goths derive their origin from Magog. Scythia, and also Gothia, is said to be named from that same Magog son of Japheth: its land was once vast; for it stretched from India in the East, to the North, through the marshlands of Meotidas1, between the Danube and the Ocean, as far as the borders of Germany. Afterwards it became smaller from the part of the East where the Siricus Ocean starts, as far as the Caspian Sea, which is to the West. From thence on the South there was removed a region right up to the Caucasian Range; which Hircania2 lies beneath in the West: it had at the same time many tribes, who, because of the infertility of the land, wandered far afield, of whom some cultivated the land; while others lived unnaturally and as savages, on the flesh and blood of humans.

Scithiae plures terrae sunt locupletes, inhabitabiles tamen(tum) plures. Nam(que) dum in plerisque locis auro et gemmis affluant; griphorum immanitate accessus hominum rarus est. Smaragdis autem optimis haec patria est. Cianeus quoque lapis, et cristallus purissimus Scithiae est. Habent et flumina magna, Oscorim, Phasiden, et Araxen. Prima Europae regio Scithia inferior(um), quae a(e) Meotidis paludibus incipiens inter Danubium et oceanum septentrionalem, usque ad Germaniam porrigitur: quae terra generaliter propter barbaras gentes quibus inhabitatur(a) barbarica dicitur. Hujus pars prima Alania est, quae ad Meotidas paludes pertingit. Post hanc Dacia, ubi et Gothia. Deinde Germania, ubi plurimam partem Suevi incoluerunt. In partes Asiaticae Scithiae (sunt) gentes quae posteros se Jasonis credunt: albo crine nascuntur ab assiduis nivibus. De his ista sufficiunt.
Many regions of Scythia are opulent, many are however uninhabitable. For while in most places gold and gems are abundant; but because of the frightfulness of the griffins people rarely go there. However this is source of the very best emeralds. Scythia also has Cyaneus stones3, and the purest of crystals. There are also great rivers, the Oscorim4, Phasis5, and Araxes6. Lower Scythia is the first region of Europe, which stretches from the marshes of Meotidis beginning between the Danube and the Northern Ocean, as far as Germany: this land is generally said to be barbaric, on account of the savage tribes inhabiting it. The first part of it is Alania7, which extends to the Meotidas marshes. After that comes Dacia, where there is also Gothia. Then Germany, where the Suevi8 inhabit a very large region. In some regions of Asiatic Scythia there are people who believe they are descendants of Jason: they are born with white hair due to the continuous snow. This is enough about these things.
1.The Sea of Azov
2.Southern end of the Caspian
3.Dark blue gems. (lapis-lazuli ??)
4.Isidore has Moschorum here, which I cannot find on the map, but the Moschi were a tribe living in Georgia.
5.In Georgia
6.On the border between Iran and Azerbaijan.
7.The Alans lived between the Volga/Don and the Caucasus
8.The Suevi were a German tribe, although some of them had migrated to Spain, where Isidore lived.

List of Kings of the Picts
Cruidne filius Cinge, pater Pictorum habitantium in hac insula, c. annis regnavit. Vij. filios habuit. Haec sunt nomina eorum: Fib, Fidach, Floclaid, Fortrenn, Got, Ce, Circinn. Cruidne1 the son of Cinge, father of the Picts living in this island, ruled for 100 years. He had 7 sons. These are their names2: Fib, Fidach, Floclaid, Fortrenn, Got, Ce, Circinn.
1.Cruidne (or rather Cruithne) is the Gaelic for `Pict'.
2.These are in fact the names of 7 provinces of the Picts.
Circin lx. regnavit.
Fidach xl.
Fortrenn lxx.
Floclaid xxx.
Got xij.
Ce xv.
Fibaid xxiiij.

Circin reigned 40
Fidach 40
Fortrenn 70
Floclaid 30
Got 12
Ce 15
Fibaid 24

Gede olgudach lxxx.
Denbecan c.
Olfinecta lx.
Guidid gaed brechach l.
Gest gurcich xl.
Wurgest xxx.

Gede olgudach 80
Denbecan (or Oenbecan) 100
Olfinecta 60
Guidid gaed brechach 50
Gest gurcich 40
Wurgest 30

Brude bont, a quo xxx. Brude regnaverunt Hiberniam et Albaniam per centum l. annorum spacium, xlviij. annis regnavit. Id est
Brude bont, from whom 30 Brudes ruled Ireland and Albany for the space of 150 years, himself ruled for 48 years. They were:
Brude pant.Brude urpant.Brude leo.Brude uleo.
Brude gant.Brude urgant.Brude gnith.Brude urgnith.
Brude fecir.Brude urfecir.Brude cal.Brude urcal.
Brude cint.Brude urcint.Brude fet.Brude urfet.
Brude ru.Brude eru.Brude gart et urgart.
Brude cinid.Brude urcnid.Brude uip.Brude uruip.
Brude grid.Brude urgrid.Brude mund.Brude urmund.
It will be observed that there are 28, not 30, Brudes.

Gilgidi c. l. annis regnavit. Gilgidi ruled for 150 years.
Tharain c.
Morleo xv.
Deocilunon xl.
Cimoiod filius Arcois vij.
Deoord l.
Bliesblituth v.
Dectotr'ic frater Diu xl.
Usconbuts xxx.
Carvorst xl.
Deo ardivois xx.
Vist l.
Ru c.

Tharain 100 years
Morleo 15
Deocilunon 40
Cimoiod son of Arcois 7
Deoord 50
Bliesbltituth 5
Dectotric brother of Diu 40
Usconbuts 30
Carvorst 40
Deo Ardivois 20
Vist 50
Ru 100

Gartnaith loc, a quo Garnart iii. regnavere, ix annis regnavit. Gartnaith loc, from whom 3 Garnarts ruled, himself ruled for 9 years.

Breth filius Buthut vij.
Vipoig namet xxx. annis regnavit.
Canutulachama iiij. annis regnavit.
Wradech uecla ii. annis regnavit.
Gartnaich diuberr lx. annis regnavit.
Talore filius Achivir lxxv. annis regnavit.

Breth son of Buthut 7
Vipoig namet reigned 30 years
Canutulachama reigned 4 years
Vuradech vecla reigned 2 years
Gartnait diuberr reigned 40 years
Talorc son of Achivir reigned 75 years

Drust filius Erp c. annis regnavit et c. bella peregit; ix decimo anno regni ejus Patricius episcopus sanctus ad Hiberniam pervenit insulam. Drust the son of Erp ruled for 100 years and fought 100 battles; in the 19th year of his rule Saint Patrick the Bishop arrived in the island of Ireland.
St. Patrick arrived in 432.
Talore filius Aniel iiij. annis regnavit. Talorc son of Aniel reigned 4 years

Necton morbet filius Erip xxiiij. regnavit. Tertio anno regni ejus Darlugdach abbatissa Cilledara de Hibernia exulat pro Christo ad Britanniam. Secundo anno adventus sui immolavit Nectonius Aburnethige Deo et Sanctae Brigidae presente Diarlugdach quae cantavit alleluia super istam hostiam.
Necton morbet the son of Erip reigned for 24 years. In the third year of his rule Darlugdach the abbess of Kildare went into exile from Ireland to Britain for the sake of Christ. In the second year after her arrival Necton consecrated Abernethy to God and Saint Brigid in the presence of Darlugdach who sang alleluia over that offering.

Optulit igitur Nectonius magnus filius Wirp, rex omnium provinciarum Pictorum, Apurnethige Sanctae Brigidae, usque ad diem judicii, cum suis finibus, quae positae sunt a lapide in Apurfeirt usque ad lapidem juxta Ceirfuill, id est, Lethfoss, et inde in altum usque ad Athan. Causa autem oblationis haec est. Nectonius in vita exilii (julie) vivens fratre suo Drusto expulsante se usque ad Hiberniam Brigidam sanctam petivit ut postulasset Deum pro se. Orans autem pro illo dixit: Si pervenies ad patriam tuam Dominus miserebitur tui: regnum Pictorum in pace possidebis.
And so Necton the great, son of Wirp, king of all the Pictish provinces, offered Abernethy to Saint Brigid, until the day of judgement, together with its territories, which are positioned from the stone in Apurfeirt as far as the stone near to Ceirfuill, that is, Lethfoss, and from there onto the high ground as far as Athan. This is the reason for his gift. Necton living in a life of exile, when his brother Drust expelled him, went all the way to Ireland and beseeched Saint Brigid to make a request to God on his behalf. However, as she prayed for him she said: If you return to your homeland the Lord will have pity on you: you will take over the kingdom of the Picts in peace.

This whole story is chronologically impossible, since counting the reign lengths back puts it before the time of St. Brigid. Perhaps it happened to a later Nechtan (see below). The fact that this story has been put into the chronicle suggests it was originally written at Abernethy.
Drest Gurthinmoch xxx. annis regnavit. Drest Gurthinmoch reigned 30 years
Galanan erilich xij. annis regnavit. Galanan Erilich reigned 12 years

Da Drest, id est, Drest filius Gyrom, id est, Drest filius Vudrost v. annis conregnaverunt. Two Drests, that is, Drest the son of Girom and Drest the son of Vudrost co-ruled for 5 years.
Drest filius Girom solus v. annis regnavit. Drest the son of Girom ruled on his own for 5 years.
Garthnach filius Girom vij. annis regnavit. Gartnart son of Girom reigned 7 years
Cailtram filius Girom uno anno regnavit. Cailtram son of Girom reigned 1 year
Talorg filius Muircholaich xi. annis regnavit. Talorc son of Muircholaich reigned 11 years
Drest filius Munait uno anno regnavit. Drest son of Munait reigned 1 year
Galam cennaleph uno anno regnavit. Galam cennaleph reigned 1 year
He is reported as dying in 580.
Cum Briduo i. anno. With Brude 1 year
Bridei filius Mailcon xxx. annis regnavit. In octavo anno regni eius baptizatus est sancto a Columba. Brude the son of Mailcon ruled for 30 years. In the eighth year of his rule he was baptised by Saint Columba.
According to Bede Columba arrived in Scotland in 565, this being the 9th year of Brude's reign.
Mailcon may be the Maelgwn who was the ruler of Gwynedd condemned by Gildas and who died in 547.
Gartnart filius Dolmech xi. annis regnavit. Gartnart son of Dolmech reigned 11 years
Died circa 597
Nectu nepos Uerb xx. annis regnavit. Nechtan grandson of Uerb reigned 20 years
Possibly the Nechtan son of Cano who died in 620.
Cinioch filius Lutrin xix. annis regnavit. Kenneth son of Lutrin reigned 19 years Died 633
Garnard filius Wid iiij. annis regnavit. Gartnart son of Wid reigned 4 years
Died 637
Breidei filius Wid v. annis regnavit. Brude son of Wid reigned 5 years
Died 642
Talore frater eorum xii. annis regnavit. Talorc, their brother reigned 12 years
Died 653
Tallorcen filius Enfret iiij. annis regnavit. Talorcan son of Eanfrith reigned 4 years
Fought against Dál Riata in 654.
Died 657.
Eanfrith was King of Bernicia 632-3.
Gartnait filius Donnel vj. annis regnavit et dimidium. Gartnait the son of Donald ruled for 6½ years.
Died 663
Drest frater ejus vij. annis regnavit. Drest his brother reigned 7 yea
Expelled in 672
Bredei filius Bili xxi. annis regnavit. Brude son of Beli reigned 21 years
He attacked the Orkneys in 682 and defeated a Northumbrian invasion led by Ecgfrith at Nechtanesmere (near Forfar) on 20th May 685.
Beli is said to have been the king of Strathclyde
Brude died in 693.
Taran filius Entifidich iiij. annis regnavit. Tarain son of Entfidich reigned 4 years
Expelled in 697 and went to Ireland
Bredei filius Derelei xi. annis regnavit. Brude son of Derelei reigned 11 years
Died 706
Necthon filius Derelei xv. annis regnavit. Nechtan son of Derelei reigned 15 years

Other lists give a reign length of 18 years, which is a better fit. Abdicated to enter a monastery in 724. Imprisoned by Drest 726, returned (see below) in 728 and died in 732.
Drest et Elpin con(g)regnaverunt v. annis. Drest and Alpín reigned together 5 years
According to the Irish Annals, Drest reigned 724-726, when he was expelled and replaced by Alpín. In 727 Drest attempted to regain the crown, but was defeated in 3 battles. In 728 Alpín, Angus (below) and Nechtan fought another civil war, Angus was victorious in 729, Alpín being killed in battle.
Onnist filius Urguist xxx. annis regnavit. Angus son of Fergus reigned 30 years
Probably the greatest of Pictish kings. In 736 his brother Talorcan invaded Dál Riata and in 741 Angus conquered it. He attacked Strathclyde in 744. However in 750 he lost another battle against Strathclyde, in which his brother Talorcan, and his son were killed. After this he seems to have lost control of Dál Riata
Angus died in 761.
Bredei filius Vuirguist ij. annis regnavit. Brude son of Fergus reigned 2 years
Died in 763
Ciniod filius Vuredech xij. annis regnavit. Kenneth son of Vuredech reigned 12 years
In 768 Pictavia was attacked by Áed Find of Dál Riata. Died in 775
Elpin filius Vuroid iij. annis regnavit et dimidium. Elpin son of Vuroid reigned 3½ years
Died in 780 probably, the Annals of Ulster call him King of Saxons, although no Saxon king of this name is known.
Drest filius Talorgen iiij. vel v. annis regnavit. Drest son of Talorcan reigned 4 or 5 years
Other lists give Drest 1 year, and add after him a Talorcan son of Drest, who reigned 4 or 5 years. A Dubtalorc (i.e. Black Talorc), King of Picts is reported to have died in 782.
Talorgen filius Onnist ij. annis et dimidium regnavit. Talorcan son of Angus reigned 2½ years
Canaul filius Tarl'a v. annis regnavit. Conall son of Tarla reigned 5 years
Probably the same as the Conall son of Tadg (Teague) who fled after losing a battle against Constantine in 789. He later became King of Dál Riata and was killed by Conall son of Áedán in 807.
Castantin filius Vurguist xxxv. annis regnavit. Constantine son of Fergus reigned 35 years
He was probably the son of Fergus who ruled Dál Riata from 778 to 781.

In 811 Constantine himself succeeded to Dál Riata.
Died 820.
Unuist filius Vurguist xij. annis regnavit. Angus son of Fergus reigned 12 years
Also King of Dál Riata. Died 834.
Drest filius Constantini, et Talorgen filius Vuthoil iij annis con(g)regnaverunt. Drest son of Constantine and Talorcan son of Vuthoil reigned together 3 years
Uven filius Unuist iij. annis regnavit. Owen son of Angus reigned 3 years
Killed in a great battle against the Vikings in 839.
Vurad filius Bargoit iii. et, Bred uno anno regnaverunt. Vurad son of Bargoit reigned 3 years and Bred one year.
Other lists add 3 more kings:
•Kenneth son of Vurad - 1 year
•Brude son of Vuthoil - 2 years
•Drust son of Vurad - 3 years
It would appear that Kenneth Mac Alpín conquered most of Pictavia around 843, but these 3 ruled some areas for a few more years until finally defeated.

List of kings of the combined kingdom of Picts and Scots

Kenneth I 843-858
Kinadius igitur filius Alpini, primus Scottorum, rexit feliciter istam annis xvi. Pictaviam. Pictavia autem a Pictis est nominata; quos, ut diximus, Cinadius delevit. Deus enim eos pro merito suae malitiae alienos ac otiosos hereditate dignitatus est facere: quia illi non solum Domini missam ac preceptum spreverunt; sed et in jure aequitatis aliis aequi parari (n)voluerunt. Iste vero, biennio antequam veniret Pictaviam, Dalrietae regnum suscepit. Septimo anno regni sui, reliquias Sancti Columbae transportavit ad ecclesiam quam construxit, et invasit sexies Saxoniam; et concremavit Dunbarre atque Marlos usurpata. Britanni autem concremaverunt Dubblain, atque Danari vastaverunt Pictaviam, ad Cluanan et Duncalden. Mortuus est tandem tumore ante diem ? idus Februarii feria tertia in palacio Fothuirtabaicht.
And so Kenneth1, the son of Alpín, the foremost of the Scots, ruled that kingdom of Pictavia successfully for 16 years. However Pictavia was named after the Picts; whom, as we said2, Kenneth destroyed. For God, to punish them for the fault of their malice, deigned to make them estranged and indifferent to their heritage: because they not only scorned the Lord's mass and injunctions; but also were unwilling to be reckoned equal to others in the law of impartiality. Indeed, two years before he came to Pictavia, he took over the kingdom of Dál Riata. In the seventh year of his rule, he transferred the remains of Saint Columba to the church which he built, and he attacked Saxonia six times; and he burnt down Dunbar and captured Melrose. However the Britons3 burnt down Dunblane, and the Danes laid waste to Pictavia, as far as Clunie and Dunkeld. He finally died of a tumour, before the Ides of February on the third day of the week4 in the palace of Forteviot.

1.Or Cináed
2.No he didn't actually. Perhaps part of the chronicle has been lost.
3.of Strathclyde
4.Kenneth died in 858, probably 8th February.
Kenneth probably ruled Dál Riata from 839 (or perhaps slightly later) and Pictavia from 842 or 843. It is sometimes said that Kenneth was the heir to Pictavia by its matrilineal rules, but there is no real evidence for this.

Donald I 858-862
Dunevaldus, frater ejus, tenuit idem regnum iiii. annis. In hujus tempore, jura ac leges regni Edi filii Ecdach fecerunt Goedeli cum rege suo in Fothiurthabaicth. Obiit in palacio Cinn Belachior idus Aprilis. Donald1, his brother, held the same kingdom for 4 years. In his time, the Gaels established the rights and laws of the kingdom of Áed the son of Eochaid2, with their own king at Forteviot. He died in the palace of Cinn Belachior 3 on the Ides of April4.
1.Or Domnall
2.Áed Find son of Eochaid was king of Dál Riata approximately 750-778. The meaning of this seems to be that the laws of Dál Riata were now to be enforced in Pictavia.
3.Probably Scone, or near there.
4.Died 13th April 862

Constantine I 862-877
Constantinus filius Cinadi regnavit annis xvi. Primo ejus anno Maelsechnaill rex Hibernensium obiit; et Aed filius Niel tenuit regnum; ac post duos annos vastavit Amlaib, cum gentibus suis, Pictaviam, et habitauit eam, a kalendis Januarii usque ad festum Sancti Patricii. Tercio iterum anno Amlaib, trahens centum, a Constantino occisus est. Paulo post ab eo bello in xiiij. ejus facto in Dolair inter Danarios et Scottos, occisi sunt Scoti co Achcochlam. Normanni annum integrum degerunt in Pictavia. Constantine the son of Kenneth ruled for 16 years. During his first year Máel Sechnaill1 the king of the Irish died; and Áed the son of Niall2 took over his kingdom; and after two years Olaf3, with his foreigners4, laid waste to Pictavia, and dwelt there, from the Kalends of January until the feast of Saint Patrick. Again in the third5 year Olaf, {leading a hundred}6, was killed by Constantine. In his 14th year, {A little while after a battle was fought} at Dollar between the Danes and the Scots, the Scots were annihilated at Atholl7. The Norsemen spent a whole year in Pictavia.
1.Máel Sechnaill, High-King, died in 862
2.Áed Findliath, King of Ailech (see later)
3.Olaf son of Guthfrith, King of Dublin 856-871
4.By `foreigners', Vikings are usually meant.
5.or perhaps 13th
6.text is corrupt, could instead mean `while collecting tribute'
7.In 875
Constantine died in 877, probably killed by Vikings at Inverdovat or the `Black Cave'.

Áed 877-878
Edus tenuit idem i. anno. Ejus etiam brevitas nil historiae memorabile commendavit; sed in civitate Nrurim est occisus. Áed held the throne for 1 year. The shortness of his rule has left nothing memorable to history; but he was killed1 in the town of Nrurim2. battle against Giric in 878.
2.The location of Nrurim is uncertain, but was probably in Strathallan (north of Stirling).

Eochaid & Giric 878-889
Eochodius autem filius Run regis Britannorum, nepos Cinadei ex filia, regnavit annis xi. Licet Ciricium filium alii dicunt hic regnasse; eo quod alum(p)nus ordinatorque Eochodio fiebat. Cujus secundo anno Aed filius Neil moritur; ac in ix. ejus anno, in ipso die Cirici, eclipsis solis facta est. Eochodius, cum alum(p)no suo, expulsus est nunc de regno.
On the other hand Eochaid the son of Rhun the king of the Britons1, grandson of Kenneth by his daughter 2, ruled for 11 years. Admittedly others say that Giric the son of ?3 ruled at that time; because he became teacher4 and "prime minister"5 to Eochaid. In his second year Áed the son of Niall died 6; and in his 9th., on the very day of St. Ciricius, there was an eclipse of the sun7. Eochaid, with his "foster-son", was then thrown out of the kingdom.
1.i.e. of Strathclyde.
2.Her name is unknown
3.Name omitted, but we know from other sources that Giric's father was called Dungal, or perhaps Donald.
4.`alumnus' could here mean `tutor' or `guardian'
5.`ordinator' is probably the translation of the gaelic `taoiseach'
6.Áed Findliath son of Niall Caille, High-King of Ireland, in 879
7.16th June 885
Some other chronicles say that Giric was king. Probably Giric was not of royal blood, so he used Eochaid as a puppet.

Donald II 889-900
Donivaldus filius Constantini tenuit regnum xi. annos. Normanni tunc vastaverunt Pictaviam. In hujus regno bellum est factum Innisibsolian, inter Danarios et Scottos: Scotti habuerunt victoriam. Oppidum Fother occisum est a gentibus. Donald the son of Constantine held the throne for 11 years. At that time the Norsemen laid waste to Pictavia. During his rule a battle was fought at Innisibsolian, between the Danes and the Scots: the Scots were the winners. Dunottar 1 was destroyed by the foreigners.
1.Dunottar is just south of Stonehaven.
Donald died in 900.

Constantine II 900-943
Constantinus filius Edii tenuit regnum xl. annos. Cujus tertio anno Normanni praedaverunt Duncalden, omnemque Albaniam. In sequenti utique anno occisi sunt in Sraith Herenn Normanni, ac in vi. anno Constantinus rex, et Celachus episcopus, leges disciplinasque fidei, atque jura ecclesiarum ewangeliorumque, pariter cum Scottis in colle credulitatis, prope regali civitati Scoan devoverunt custodiri. Ab hoc die collis hoc meruit nomen, id est, collis credulitatis. Et in suo octavo anno cecidit excelsissimus rex Hibernensium et archiepiscopus, apud Laignechos, id est, Cormace filius Culennan. Et mortui sunt in tempore hujus, Doneualdus rex Britannorum, et Duuenaldus filius Ede rex eligitur; et Flann filius Maelsethnaill, et Niall filius Ede, qui regnavit tribus annis post Flann, etc.
Constantine the son of Áed held the throne for 40 years. In his third year the Norsemen raided Dunkeld, and all of Albany 1. Certainly in the following year the Norsemen were beaten in Strathearn2, and in his 6th. year king Constantine, and bishop Cellach, vowed that the laws and teachings of the faith, and the rights of the churches and gospels, to be protected equally with the Scots on the hill of Credulity, near to the royal city of Scone. From that day the hill earned its name, that is, the Hill of Credulity. And in his eighth year there perished the most excellent King and Archbishop of the Irish, among the Laigin, that is, Cormac the son of Cuilennán 3. There also died during his rule Donald the king of the Britons, and Donald the son of Áed was chosen as king 4; and Flann the son of Máel Sechnaill 5 died, and Niall the son of Áed 6, who ruled for three years after Flann, etc.
1.In 903
2.In 904
3.Cormac, King of Munster was killed fighting in Leinster on 13th September 908
4.Domnall son of Áed Findliath, King of Ailech in Ireland, died 915
5.Flann Sinna, High-King of Ireland, died 25th May 916.
6.Niall Glúndub, son of Áed Findliath, High-King of Ireland, killed 15 September 919
Bellum Tinemore factum est in xviii. anno inter Constantinum et Regnall, et Scotti habuerunt victoriam. Et bellum Duinbrunde in xxxiiij. ejus anno ubi cecidit filius Constantini. Et post unum annum mortuus est Dubucan filius Indrechtaig, mormair Oengusa. Adalstan filius Advar rig Saxan, et Eochaid filius Alpini, mortui sunt. Et in senectute decrepitus baculum cepit, et Domino servivit: et regnum mandavit Maelcolaim filio Domnail.
In his 18th. year a battle was fought at Tinemore between Constantine and Rægnald 7, and the Scots won. There was also the battle of Duinbrunde in his 34th8 year when the son of Constantine fell. And after one year Dubucan the son of Indrechtaig died, mormaer of Angus. Æthelstan the son of Edward King of Saxons 9, and Eochaid the son of Alpín, died. And infirm in his old age he took the staff 10, and was devoted to the Lord: and he entrusted the kingdom to Malcolm the son of Donald11.
7.In 918, Rægnald was a Viking chief, later king of York 919-921
8.If this was the famous battle of Brunanburgh, it was in 937, i.e. the 37th year.
9.In 940
10.i.e. entered a monastery (in fact St. Andrews)
11.The year of Constantine's abdication is unknown, 943 seems probable. He died in 952.

Malcolm I 943-954
Maelcolaim filius Domnaill xi. annis regnavit. Cum exercitu suo Maelcolaim perrexit in Moreb, et occidit Cellach. In vii. anno regni sui praedavit Anglicos ad amnem Thesis, et multitudinem rapuit hominum, et multa armenta pecorum: quam praedam vocaverunt Scotti praedam Albidosorum idem Nainndisi. Alii autem dicunt Constantinum fecisse hanc praedam quaerens a rege, id est, Maelcolaim, regnum dari sibi ad tempus hebdomadis, ut visitaret Anglicos. Verum tamen non Maelcolam fecit praedam, sed instigavit eum Constantinus, ut dixi. Mortuus est autem Constantinus in x. ejus anno sub corona penitenti in senectute bona. Et occiderunt viri na Moerne Malcolaim in Fodresach id est in Claideom.
Malcolm1, the son of Donald ruled for 112 years. With his army Malcolm proceeded to Moray, and slew Cellach. In the seventh year of his rule he raided the English as far as the River Tees 3, and siezed a great number of men, and many herds of cattle: The Scots called that plunder the plunder of the Albidi or the Nainndisi. However others say that Constantine had made that raid, demanding of the king, that is, Malcolm, that he should give command of the army to him for a week, so he could visit the English. For all that, the truth is that it was not Malcolm who made the raid, but Constantine instigated it, as I said. However Constantine died in the tenth year of the rule (of Malcolm) under the crown of repentance in good old age. And men of Mearns killed Malcolm in Fodresach4, that is in Claideom.
1.Or Máel Coluim
2.The other king lists all say 9 years, but 11 is more likely to be correct.
3.In 945 Edmund of Wessex conquered Strathclyde and handed it over to Malcolm in exchange for an alliance against the Vikings, who at that time ruled Northumbria. These raids may have been connected with this alliance.
4.Fodresach is Fetteresso near Stonehaven. This was in 954.

Indulf 954-962
Indulfus tenuit regnum viii. annis. In hujus tempore oppidum Eden vacuatum est, ac relictum est Scottis usque in hodiernum diem. Classis Somarlidiorum occisi sunt in Buchain.
Indulf 1 held the throne for 8 years. In his time the Edinburgh was evacuated, and abandoned to the Scots right up to the present day. A Viking fleet was destroyed off Buchan.
1.son of Constantine son of Áed
Indulf was killed by Vikings at Invercullen in 962

Dubh 962-966
Niger filius Maelcolaim regnavit v. annis. Fothach episcopus pausavit. Bellum inter Nigerum et Caniculum super Dorsum Crup, in quo Niger habuit victoriam: ubi cecidit Duchaid abbas Duncalden et Dubdon satrapas Athochlach. Expulsus est Niger de regno, et tenuit Caniculus brevi tempore. Domnal filius Cairill mortuus est.
Niger 1 the son of Malcolm ruled for 5 years. Bishop Fothach 2 was laid to rest. There was a battle between Niger and Caniculus 3 above Crup ridge 4, in which Niger had the victory: at which Duncan the abbot of Dunkeld and Dubdon the governor of Atholl both fell. Niger was driven from the throne, and Caniculus held it for a short time. Donald the son of Cairill died.

1.i.e. Dubh or Duff, which is the Gaelic for black.
2.Bishop of the Hebrides, died in 963
3."Small Dog", i.e. Cuilén, his successor Duncrub in Perthshire. This battle took place in 965
Dubh was killed at Forres on 20th July 966, when there was a solar eclipse.

Cuilén 966-971
Culenring v. annis regnavit. Marcan filius Breodalaig occisus est in ecclesia Sancti Michaelis. Leot et Sluagadach exierunt ad Romam. Maelbrigde episcopus pausavit. Cellach filius Ferdalaig regnavit. Maelbrigde filius Dubican obiit. Culen et frater ejus Eochodius occisi sunt a Britonibus.
Cuilén1 ruled for 5 years. Marcan the son of Breodalaig was killed in the Church of Saint Michael. Leot and Sluagadach left for Rome. Bishop Máel Brigte 2 rested. Cellach the son of Ferdalaig ruled 3. Máel Brigte the son of Dubican died. Cuilén and his brother Eochaid were killed by the Britons4.

1.son of Indulf
2.Bishop of St. Andrews
3.i.e. succeeded him.
4.Apparently Cuilén had carried off the daughter of a British noble named Rhydderch, and was killed by them in revenge. This was in 971.

Kenneth II 971-995
Cinadius filius Maelcolaim regnavit annis. Statim praedavit Britanniam ex parte. Pedestres Cinadi occisi sunt maxima caede in Moin Vacornar. Scotti praedaverunt Saxoniam ad Stanmoir, et ad Cluiam, et ad Stangna Deranni. Cinadius autem vallavit ripas vadorum Forthin. Post annum perrexit Cinadius, et praedavit Saxoniam, et traduxit filium regis Saxonum. Hic est qui tribuit magnam civitatem Brechne Domino.
Kenneth the son of Malcolm ruled for 1 years. He regularly raided Britain in part. Kenneth's infantry were killed with the greatest of carnage at Moin Vacornar. The Scots plundered Saxonia as far as Stainmore, and Cluiam, and Stangna Dera'm 2. Kenneth however fortified the banks of the shallows at Forthin 3. After a year Kenneth went forth, and raided Saxonia, and brought back as a prisoner4 the son of the King of the Saxons. He it was who yielded up the great city of Brechin to the Lord.
1.There is a gap in the manuscript, so that the chronicler could enter in the reign length when Kenneth died, but he never did. Kenneth in fact reigned for 24 years.
3.Possibly the crossings of the river Forth
4.Or perhaps received as an hostage during Kenneth's visit to Edgar, King of Wessex, in 973, when he was said to have been one of 8 kings who rowed Edgar across the Dee at Chester.
In 995 Kenneth was lured to a house in Fettercairn by Finella (daughter of Cunthar, mormaer of Angus) and there killed in fantastic fashion, in revenge for the death of her son.

If you have any comments on this translation, click here


Thomas Romilly had six sons and three daughters; his fifth son, Rev. Joseph Romilly, late Registrar of Cambridge University, was accustomed, when he rode past the late Mr. Delahaize’s house at Tottenham High Cross, to take ofi’ his hat out of respect to the memory of the bountiful and judicious benefactor of his kindred.

James Ouvri, or Ouvry,1 was naturalized 24th March 1685 ; he settled at Spitalfields, and prospered ; he was admitted a member of the Weavers’ Company in 171 l, as was his son in 1738. Peter Ouvry, only son of John, married Francisca Garnault, daughter of Aimé Gamault, jun., and niece of Mrs. P. Romilly ; he was Treasurer of the New River Company; his eldest son was Peter Aimé Ouvry, Esq., who married Sarah Amelia Delamain; his heir is the Rev. Peter Thomas Ouvry, M.A., Vicar of \Ving and Rector of Grove, in Buckinghamshire, whose eldest son is Arthur Garnault Ouvry. The brothers of the Rev. P. T. Ouvry are Colonel Henry Aimé Ouvry, C.B., the late Frederic Ouvry, Esq., President of the Society of Antiquarics, and the late Rev. John North Ouvry North, M.A. The daughters are the late Francisca Ingram Ouvry, and Sarah Mary, widow of Francis Sibson, Esq., M.D., F.R.S. Miss Ouvry was the author of three historical tales, founded on Huguenot annals. The first two are a pair, viz., “Arnold Delahaize, or the Huguenot Pastor ” (i863); and “ Henri de Rohan, or the Huguenot Refugee” (1865); the former is dedicated “To my nieces and nephews, and also to the other youthful descendants of THE HUGUENOT REFUGEES, who, though scattered throughout the nations, are all united by the common possession of a glorious heritage, which will prove to them an eternal nobility, if they claim and act up to their birthright." The third tale, which was published in 1873, is entitled, “Hubert Montreuil, or the Huguenot and the Dragoon." To the tale is prefixed this inscription :—“ To the memory of Louis de Marolles and Isaac Le Fevre, true comrades in the noble band of French martyrs who died for their faith in the reign of Louis XIV., this book is dedicated, as a chaplet twined by unskilled but reverent hands, and laid on their nameless graves."

The Vautier refugee embraced poverty in England rather than apostasy in France. and brought no pedigree papers with him. But he is the fountain of the tradition in England that he sprang from the French noblesse, and the French genealogical writers have a tradition that a cadet of the family, being a Huguenot, fled to England. The Vautiers in old France were a noble and influential family, Princes

‘ The surname Ouvry occurs in the registers under the various spellings of Oufre , Oufry, Ovré, Ouvrés, Overy. _On 5th June 1708, the Duke of Marlborough writes to the Earl of Pembro e, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in favour of Major Ovray, who, having served the crown for thirty-six years, was about to retire from the army, in order to settle in Ireland, and “always behaved himself, as his ofiicers inform me, with honour and reputation.” The purport of the Duke’s request to the Earl is, “ Bestow upon him some mark of your fa_vour and goodness. Enable him to support himself and his family with comfort, and in a manner some way suitable to t e character he has borne."

of Yvetot and Comtes Du Bellay, from whom descended, in the reign of Henri IV., Gilles Vautier, ecuyer, Sieur De la Granderie ; he was the grandfather of Gilles, Sieur Des Essards, and his son, Jean Jacques Vautier, has been conjectured to be the father of Daniel Vautier, the refugee. Daniel, with his wife, Margaret, and a daughter, Rachel, was naturalized 0n zlst March 1688 (see List xv.). I would call the attention of the representatives of the family to the naturalization, on 5th March 1691, of Margaret and Mary Des Essarts, and John Des Essarts (see List xix.). The refugee, Daniel, was relieved at the French Hospital, of which Daniel Vautier, said to be his son, became a Director. There were two brothers, Daniel (the Director), and Louis. Isaac and Daniel, two sons of Daniel (the former married in 1739 Marianne Dalbiac) left no descendants, but the line was continued by Louis, whose eldest surviving son was Isaac. This was the Isaac Vautier (110m 1735, died 1767), who married Elizabeth Garnault, daughter of Daniel, granddaughter of Aime Garnault, sen., and his son was Lieutenant Daniel Vautier, R.N. (born 1760, died 1813), whose death was announced thus :—“Died at Stilton, Daniel Vautier, Esq., R.N., cousin to Sir Samuel Romilly." His surviving daughter, Harriet, was married to Samuel Golding, Esq., and his surviving son, Daniel Vautier, Esq. (bum 1795, died 1831), married Susannah, daughter of J. Golding, Esq. Two of his sons are heads of families, namely, Rev. Richard Vautier, M.A., Rector of St. Mabyn and Canon of Truro (born 1821), and Joseph Garnault Vautier, Esq. (born 1824).

The only sister of Sir Samuel Romilly was Catherine. wife of Rev. John Roget, a native of Geneva; but we claim her distinguished son as a descendant of French refugees, namely, Peter Mark Roget, M.D., F.R.S., F.S.A. (born 1778, died 1869). Though ninety years of age, Dr. Roget was preparing a twentieth edition of his “ Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases " at the time of his death; he was the author of one of the Bridgewater Treatises. 
Romilly, Thomas (I105014)

      1 2 3 4 5 ... 717» Next»