Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Viking FGC23343

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The only 100% definite reference to those de Rollos-descended Saddingtons that I have seen to date is a charter, likely dating from 1195 (i.e., 7 Richard I), being a quitclaim on land in Richmondshire.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=xH...los%22&f=false

    British History Online's transcription of a 1964 history of Leicestershire says that the de Saddingtons held land in Mowsley from the reign of Richard I to 1286 (i.e., 14 Edward I).

    https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...vol5/pp248-256

    I think this is a transcription of the document in question, just one year off (i.e., 1285, or 13 Edward I).

    http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/...1_123_36.shtml

    British History refers obliquely to an undated charter which I believe, in context, can be reasonably be interpreted to take the early Leicestershire Saddingtons back to the de Rollos family.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

    In context, the Almeric, son of John, son of Richard de Saddington from this document must be a brother to the Roger de Saddington of the 1285 document. Being adults as of say the 1270s, they were probably born around 1240. John, then, would probably have been born around 1210, and Richard around 1180, using a 30 year average generation interval.

    Two Richard de Saddingtons alive in the reign of Richard I? It doesn't seem a huge leap to conclude they are likely the same person, or at least close relatives, like father and son. I think this is most likely the case, although it is a question well worth asking, especially since there is no direct evidence of de Rollos tenure in Saddington after the death of Richard de Rollos II in 1195. Apparently de Rollos family members attempted to revive their claims to Saddington through the 1230s, but by that time it had been granted by the king to Almeric de St. Amand. In this light, it seems fair to question whether the nature and extent of de Rollos holdings warranted the de Saddington branch of their family remaining in this neighborhood.

    Comment


    • One little knot in the early de Saddington story that I wish I could work out: The de Welham connection.

      It may not have an impact on the possible continuity of this name into modern times--the branch that seems most numerous is that of the Richard de Saddington of the reign of Richard I, and therefore likely of de Rollos stock--but one Roger de Saddington is mentioned as the son of an Adam de Welham in this document, probably dating from about 1270.

      http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

      Quite possibly de Welham was just another ephemeral cognomen assumed by a branch of the same de Rollos stock--three apparent de Rollos Saddingtons are witnesses to that same document.

      But then there is this confirmation of the royal grant of land in Saddington to Almeric de Saint Amand dated 1229 A.D.

      https://books.google.com/books?id=Mu...page&q&f=false

      It's a little confusing. It mentions specifically one portion of Saddington, 1 1/2 virgates (something like 45 square acres) which had originally been owned by Richard de Rollos, and then passed into possession of William de Lucy. British History Online alludes to the fact that the main branch of the de Rollos family lost their English lands in 1204 when they adhered to the French king Philip II after the conquest of Normandy, and that the first record of de Lucy's interest in Saddington was about 1210.

      The 1229 grant mentions that Thomas de Welham had received this property in free grant from de Lucy, but I don't understand how the king was then able to re-grant the same land to St. Amand. I believe that contemporary law required the confirmation of certain grants from heirs and feudal superiors. Is the king saying in 1229 that he is voiding de Lucy's grant to Thomas de Welham? If that is correct, and the grant to Thomas de Welham was voided, does the later appearance of the name Almeric in the de Saddington family indicate that any ill will had somehow been patched up by say 1270? Maybe through a family connection?

      Again, this Thomas de Welham seems to have been a contemporary of the John, son of Richard de Saddington who served as a witness to the ~1270 grant by Roger de Saddington in Mowsley. So there does seem to be a continuity of the de Saddington name in at least one branch of the family. It doesn't seem as if the old stock of de Saddingtons was simply replaced by a new family founded by a de Welham.

      One point that seems worth following up on is that Welham, like Thorpe Langton and West Langton, where the Saddingtons are later recorded, was held in fee by the Basset family. In fact, there is a record dated 1246 (i.e., 31 Henry III) from Staffordshire, where Ralph Basset of Weldon, Staffordshire (the same family the held the Leicestershire lands) names Thomas de Welham as his legal representative in a court case (i.e., "put in his [Ralph's] place") .

      https://en.geneanet.org/archives/ouv...d632c7029bb043

      Don't know whether this is necessarily significant, but William Basset appears twice in the household accounts of Queen Isabella for the year 1311/12 alongside one Richard de Saddington as a sumpter man, which I guess is a type of horse driver.

      https://books.google.com/books?id=x5...Basset&f=false

      Maybe Thomas de Welham and John fils Richard de Saddington were brothers? Maybe the original Richard de Sadington married a Basset?
      Last edited by benowicz; 1 October 2020, 06:25 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
        . . . [O]ne Roger de Saddington is mentioned as the son of an Adam de Welham in this document, probably dating from about 1270.

        http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

        Quite possibly de Welham was just another ephemeral cognomen assumed by a branch of the same de Rollos stock--three apparent de Rollos Saddingtons are witnesses to that same document. . . .
        That transcription is probably in error. This series of acquisitions in Bruntingthorpe around 1249 A.D. makes it clear that Roger Saddington was the son of THOMAS de Welham--most likely the same guy from the grant of Saddington to Almeric de St Amand in 1229.

        https://books.google.com/books?id=UR...page&q&f=false


        Comment


        • I guess I've made a couple mistakes of my own in this account. Most of them are trivial typos or over-generalizations with no real consequence. But my error here is interesting:

          Originally posted by benowicz View Post
          . . . But then there is this confirmation of the royal grant of land in Saddington to Almeric de Saint Amand dated 1229 A.D.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=Mu...page&q&f=false

          It's a little confusing. . . . Is the king saying in 1229 that he is voiding de Lucy's grant to Thomas de Welham? . . .
          I had interpreted the exception given to Thomas de Welham, "salvis bladis et catallis", to mean that the king was exempting only de Welham's moveable property from the grant to Saint Amand, based on interpreting the Latin "catallis" as the equivalent of the modern "chattel". Etymologically they are indeed connected, but I guess Medieval law added some twists to the idea of chattel that don't exist in modern law, at least in America. Historically, there had been a thing called "chattel real", which included any interest in real estate that did not automatically pass to the holder's heirs upon their death--such as would be the case in a reversionary gift.

          So that's interesting. Why would William de Lucy gift a life interest to Thomas de Welham? The specific word used is 'dono', ablative case of 'donum'--specifically a "free" gift, and not one made in contemplation of some other event, like a marriage, etc., which is referred to as "munus". If the grant really means what it says, and is not simple bureaucratic sloppiness, it raises questions about the specific type of relationship and circumstances surrounding the gift. People generally don't just give valuable property to strangers, but the language seems to preclude the gift commemorating anything like a marriage between the families. From what we've seen elsewhere, Thomas de Welham seems to have had some legal training, so he probably would have wanted to make sure the language of this grant accurately described his tenure with some specificity.

          Also, one of the Bruntingthorpe transactions calls Thomas Welham "de [S]adington". It's not one of the dated transactions, but it suggests that he may also have been known by that name in his lifetime. If the "John de Weleham" from the 1276 Leicester Hundred Rolls was the witness John, son of Richard de Sadington from the ~1270 transaction by Roger de Sadington at Mowsley, it could reinforce the idea that he was the brother of Thomas, and therefore making the equation of Richard de Sadington w/ Richard de Rollos "nepos" more likely, especially in light of the 1229 grant to Saint Amand.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=0A...rshire&f=false

          Comment


          • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
            . . . Why would William de Lucy gift a life interest to Thomas de Welham? The specific word used is 'dono', ablative case of 'donum'--specifically a "free" gift, and not one made in contemplation of some other event, like a marriage, etc., which is referred to as "munus". If the grant really means what it says, and is not simple bureaucratic sloppiness, it raises questions about the specific type of relationship and circumstances surrounding the gift. People generally don't just give valuable property to strangers, but the language seems to preclude the gift commemorating anything like a marriage between the families. From what we've seen elsewhere, Thomas de Welham seems to have had some legal training, so he probably would have wanted to make sure the language of this grant accurately described his tenure with some specificity. . . .]
            Haha! I think this just about proves that the old stock of de Saddingtons were indeed de Rollos descendants.

            An academic paper by Rosie Bevan and Peter G M Dale:

            https://www.academia.edu/27992920/Re...w_perspectives

            And page 92 of Early Yorkshire Charters, Vol. 5, part 2:

            https://books.google.com/books?id=xH...arters&f=false

            This particular William de Lucy was of Charlecote, Warwickshire and died in 1250. He was the son of Walter de Lucy who died about 1193. His second wife was Maud de Cotele of Frampton Cotterell in Gloucestershire. I haven't found her exact ancestry, but according to Early Yorkshire Charters, Robert de Cotele was a grandson of Richard I de Rollos, in 1208 claiming several of his manors--including Brompton-on-Swale,which Richard de Saddington issued a quitclaim upon around 1195, as discussed in a previous post.

            So this is why de Lucy made a free gift of valuable property to Thomas de Welham, most likely of a life interest in Saddington. They were related after all, even if only indirectly and by marriage. And to reinforce the point, here is this transcription of a waiver issued by Henry III in 1230, Calendar of the Close Rolls, Vol. I, page 452:

            https://books.google.com/books?id=Mu...page&q&f=false

            Almeric de St Amand was fined one mark for infringing on the property rights of Thomas de Welham in Saddington, at hearings held at Coventry where Thomas was represented by Richard, son of Godfrey and Roger "de Saddington". We've seen many records related to this Roger before specifically noting that he is son of Thomas de Welham, but this Richard must be the same fellow from the 1195 quitclaim at Brompton-on-Swale. Richard may have been rather old at this period, explaining why de Lucy would have made the gift out to Thomas--lengthen the period of the life interest and avoid any inheritance taxes. Although these proceedings would have been at least symbolically important to Thomas, given his apparent successful career as a lawyer himself, it's easy to see how his busy schedule could have conflicted with this court date.

            I'm not a formally trained historian, least of all with any specialty in Medieval law, but I think the circumstances here tell a pretty clear story. If I somehow got it wrong, I'd like to have it explained to me.
            Last edited by benowicz; 2 October 2020, 09:48 AM.

            Comment


            • It keeps bugging me that so many of the Anglo-FGC23343 people have clear Norman connections rather than origins in Aquitaine or Gascony, as would be suggested by the Basque Country origins of the ancestral clade Z209. I've seen plenty of casual references to parts of the Cotentin and Avranchin being settled by the remains of the Loire viking band after their defeat at the Battle of Trans-la-Forêt in 939, but nobody offering any tangible proof. This is probably pretty close.

              http://www.cndp.fr/crdp-rennes/crdp/...occupation.htm

              It's an interesting discussion of a viking camp near St. Malo in Brittany, very near the border with Normandy, including archaeology and its implications for interpreting historical texts. One credible interpretation in play is that this camp belonged to the leader called Incon (or "Aiquin"), succesor to Rognavaldr, leader of the viking bands previously active further south in the Loire valley.

              https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incon_de_Nantes

              Réseau Canopé has a pretty impressive site, focused on all aspects of art and culture. It feels like a state sponsored thing with input from tenured professionals, rather than a tourist board thing, so it seems pretty legit.

              Here's this unsourced map from wikipedia showing the St. Malo camp, among others in the area, suggesting that although historiography has focused mainly on the Loire vikings' base at Nantes, this area bordering Normandy also had a significant, enduring biking presence. Twenty years, at least, according to that one archaeological survey.

              https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loire-...retagne-fr.svg

              So I guess this makes some sense. Maybe the de Garnets weren't directly from Poitou after all, as suggested by their service to Roger de Montgomery. Maybe they were from Carnet, on the Norman-Breton border.

              https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Carn...965!2d48.54969


              Taken collectively, maybe all these Anglo-Norman FGC23343+ lineages will turn out to be an important indicator of the extent of viking recruitment of locals while on campaign. Certainly they all seem to be coming from the extreme west of Normandy.

              Comment


              • After an extensive search, I was unable to find any contemporary documentation of the de Rollos ancestors of the Saddington family before their arrival in England, although subsequent events do make it clear that their roots lay in western Normandy.

                The oldest accounts of the family are incidental comments in two histories of the priory at La Boutiere which was founded by Richard II de Rollos in 1189--one in 1371, written by a prior Guillaume le Gros, and another written in the 18th century. Neither of them appear to be based on contemporary sources, but describe the de Rollos as inheriting La Boutiere (and Bricqueville-la-Boutiere) through a daughter of the family of the Earls of Chester, who had earlier been Viscounts of Avranches and the Bessin. A third, 19th century account states, somewhat speculatively, I think, that the de Rollos acquired those properties through an heiress of the Bloet family.

                As I've said, none of these accounts seems to be based on contemporary documents, but there are other problems, too. For starters, the editors of Early Yorkshire Charters believe the chronology of a marriage to a daughter of one of the earls of Chester is impossible. Also, there is no evidence of those properties being ever belonging to the Earls or their predecessors. The Bloet-heiress theory may be more plausible, but the authors seem to make a mistake by saying this is the family of Robert Bloet, Bishop of Lincoln, d. 1123. All the connections of that family take them back to the opposite end of Normandy. They are known to relate in some way to the Counts of Ivry whose earliest known ancestor was from Pitres, Department of Eure, and the feudal superior of Ralph Bloiet in Gloucestershire, the Bishop's brother, was Durand the Sheriff, also from Pitres. No mention of western Normandy at all.

                Etymologically, the surname Bloet emerged as a personal nickname, either from some derivative of the French word Bleu, implying a person of a pale complexion, or as some say, a Norse epithet derived from the same source as the modern English word 'blood'. Either way, it was and still is very widespread, presumably with many independent origins.

                There was a notable family named Bloet, members of whom appear in charters in the late 11th century as holding interests in properties which the de Rollos came to own in the next century, including Bricqueville-la-Bloutiere, Fleury, and Creances. Their earliest members include Nigel, Guillaume and Richard Bloet, who appear next to a member of the Neel family, Nigel 'vicomes', in a 1080 A.D. donation to the abbey at Lessay. After 1084, I can't find any mention of Bloets in this part of Normandy until 1258, so I can't discover the specific connection to the de Rollos, or even whether the ancient stock survived in the male line.

                Given the connection of the Vincent family of Great Smeaton in Yorkshire to the Neel Viscounts, through the de Coleby family of Manley, Lincolnshire, I think this might be the key. The Saddingtons and Vincents are likely either direct descendants of the same family as the Neel Viscounts, or some important tenants of theirs. Perhaps the de Rollos were, patrilineally speaking, a branch of the Bloets who adopted a new surname after acquiring that fief, Roullours.

                Comment


                • Finally found the unaffiliated FGC28383 person hanging out there.

                  https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

                  After a casual search through online resources, I didn't definitively connect him, through documentary sources, even to his very close STR matches, but there seems little reasonable doubt that like the rest of them, he descends from Thomas Hubbard (1693-1745) and Mary Yerby of Lancaster County, Virginia, on the Northern Neck.

                  https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/...thomas-hubbard

                  Attempts to go further back than that seem, at least on the basis of the pedigrees I've seen, completely speculative with no documentary basis. Some hypotheses seem directly contradicted by other entries in the Hubbard DNA project itself.

                  Approaching the matter from the other end, investigating the early origins of some prominent Hubbard families for plausible connections to that other FGC28383+ lineage, the de Garnets of Lancashire, who I currently think came to England after the Conquest along with Roger of Poitou, proved difficult. Hubbard is an incredibly common surname, being a patronymic, completely untethered to any kind of stable geographic references. I can find only a couple families of this name with a documentary record extending back to the 1300's--and even that is far too late to make any hypotheses better than a wild speculation.

                  But there is one kind of interesting finding. There is one possible mention of a member of the Hobart, alias Hubbard, family of Plumstead Parva emigrating to Virginia at precisely this time: "1697, September 20, Thomas Hubbard late of Virginia beyond the seas . . . " Page 150 of the 1895 edition of the 1563 Visitation of Norfolk.

                  https://www.google.com/books/edition...0the%20seas%22

                  They're an interesting family because several of its members were very prominent in the legal history of England.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hobart

                  But that Thomas of 1697 is described as a bachelor, so he can't be the donor's ancestor. Maybe some close relative also emigrated to Virginia, but if so I've not seen any proof of it, let alone proof that he would connect to the donor's family. In fact, that Virginia reference is part of a massive dump of transcripts from contemporary documents by the editors, almost none of which contain inline citations to connect them to the pedigree of the Plumstead family.

                  Generally speaking, though, it doesn't seem improbable. There's lots of proof that the Lancaster County Hubbards' nearest relatives and neighbors came from London, like the Yerbys, Doggetts, and the Carters of Barford. The Hobart/Hubbard family's professional commitments obliged them to reside for extended periods in London. And while I have seen no reference to them any earlier than 1389 at Tye Hall, Margaretting, Essex, this social milieu would be perfectly consistent with a Poitevin or Aquitanian merchant immigrant ancestor.

                  Until there are some additional branches opened up along that line of FGC28383, that's probably the most that can be said.
                  Last edited by benowicz; 30 October 2020, 12:23 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Still think this.

                    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                    . . . But there is one incredibly important point that I don't think I made very clear: The Vincents of Great Smeaton in Richmondshire appear to be of completely different stock of the much more prominent family of Barnacke, Northamptonshire, despite their later intermarriage. . .


                    But I couldn't have been more wrong about this.

                    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                    . . .The earliest contemporary record I could find of any of the Richmondshire Vincents was of the William Vincent who married Margaret Clervaux (as his 2nd wife), and who died in 1450.

                    There have been many efforts to take the line of the Richmondshire Vincents back further, but none of the information I've seen to date seems convincing. In all of these internet pedigrees, I can't find so much as a reference to the earlier generations from any of the standard genealogical authorities, much less quotation from a contemporary document. Although the aforementioned William Vincent's will mentioned an interest in land at Barningham, from what I can tell the attempts to make the Vincents a branch of the de Barninghams appear to be based on nothing more than a single instance of the forename Vincent among the de Barningham family. British History Online's account of the manor of Barningham makes no mention of the Vincent family, so their holdings there must not have been significant. Indeed, the heraldry of the two families is completely different.

                    https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...h/vol1/pp39-42 . . .

                    I should have extended my search to weird variant spellings like "Vyncent". Plantagenet Harrison's 1885 History of Yorkshire:

                    https://archive.org/stream/historyof...0harr_djvu.txt

                    This lists the earliest Vyncent of the Great Smeaton line as Stephen, son of Vyncent de "Berningham" (s/b "Barningham" in modern spelling), living in 1188 (i.e., 33 Henry II). This 2012 academic paper by Mike Kipling gives the de Berningham coat of arms as "argent, a bear passant sable", whereas the crest of the Vincents of Great Smeaton is "out of a ducal coronet, a bear's head".

                    http://kipling.one-name.net/KIPLING.Mike_M3-D3A.pdf

                    https://anyflip.com/qbni/riyt/basic/251-300

                    The interesting part, given the findings on the other FT372222 family, Saddington: The Vincent family's overlords at Barningham were the families of Roald the Constable and Roger de Mowbray. Recall that Roald was the brother-in-law of Richard I de Rollos, ancestor of the de Saddingtons, and that when Richard II de Rollos escheated in 1195, one of the men his estate at Saddington was awarded to was Roger de Mowbray.

                    There's nothing specific in any of these contemporary documents to suggest a kinship between the Vincents and the de Mowbrays or Roald's family, but it would be totally normal for there to be one in this feudal context.

                    Camille Cautru, in "La patricipation du bocage normand a la conquete de l'Angleterre", does mention that back in Normandy, the de Mowbrays and the de Rollos shared an interest in the fiefs of Viessoix and Vaudry, both adjacent to Roullours. There are caveats--Barningham does not appear to have been one of the original de Mowbray fiefs in England, and although there was indeed a blood relation between the original de Mowbrays and the d'Aubigny family that assumed their name and estates after 1095, nobody knows precisely what it was. One thought that occurs to me, though, is that the Blouet family of the Cotentin, ancestors of the de Rollos through some unknown path, appeared alongside the d'Aubigny ancestors in several charters in the 1080's A.D. back in Normandy.

                    111 marker STR comparisons make the center of the curve describing their most likely MRCA born about 840 A.D., which could be consistent with using either the Adamov (2015) or Xue (2009) SNP mutation rate distribution--26% and 69% one-sided confidence levels, respectively.

                    Also noting that, as far as I know, there is no contemporary documentary evidence regarding the Vincent donor's European origins. But still, the coincidences here are at least interesting.
                    Last edited by benowicz; 1 November 2020, 01:07 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                      . . . But there is one incredibly important point that I don't think I made very clear: The Vincents of Great Smeaton in Richmondshire appear to be of completely different stock of the much more prominent family of Barnacke, Northamptonshire, despite their later intermarriage. . . .
                      That seems like that could be wrong, too.

                      Most internet pedigrees don't even bother to cite sources for their information, and almost all of them that mention the Vincents of Barningham/Great Smeaton at all make them a cadet branch of the family of Barnacke, Northamptonshire whose best known branch became the Vincent baronets of Stoke d'Abernon in Surrey. But their coats of arms are completely different, so I assumed that my failure to find any contemporary documentary evidence linking the Barningham/Great Smeaton family to Barnacke meant that these were simply unrelated families sharing a common patronymic. Just another internet fail.

                      But they both use a bear's head issuing from a ducal coronet as their crest.

                      And then I noticed before posting the last set of notes that Plantagenet Harrison makes the Rothwell, Northamptonshire Vincents a branch of the Barningham family, whereas they are usually made a branch of the Barnacke family.

                      https://archive.org/stream/historyof...0harr_djvu.txt

                      https://books.google.com/books?id=Ll...ord%22&f=false

                      I didn't really care to iron out this discrepancy because the MRCA for FT372222 is obviously centuries before that point, and so the point is largely irrelevant. I had independently confirmed the records of the Vincents at Barningham to the reign of Henry II through charters included in Early Yorkshire Charters and a collection of charters relating to Guisborough Abbey, so the earliest generations of Harrison's pedigree seem very well founded, and that's all that mattered to me.

                      Now I see that the coat of arms recorded for the Barnacke family and verified cadets is essentially identical with those of the Bardolph family, ancestors of the Fitzhughs of Ravensworth, Yorkshire--azure, three quatrefoils or cinquefoils argent or or. For a short time, at least, the Bardolphs were the immediate overlords between the Vincents/ de Barningham family and the de Mowbrays.

                      https://books.google.com/books?id=jE...page&q&f=false

                      https://books.google.com/books?id=fS...ent%22&f=false


                      https://books.google.com/books?id=LZ...ice%22&f=false

                      The Bardolphs themselves were an illegitimate branch of the counts of Rennes who became the first earls of Richmond after the Norman Conquest. The d'Aubigny/de Mowbray family had many Breton ties even before the conquest, using Breton names like Rivallon and Rualoc for their children. So it's easy to imagine how they and the de Rollos came to own land in Richmondshire. Perhaps the Vincents and de Rollos were both of the same stock as the d'Aubignys, who themselves are often theorized to descend from a son of Neel II, vicomte du Cotentin. Neel shared patronage of Mont Saint-Michel with the counts of Rennes, and are supposed to have stayed at Rennes in exile after Val-es-Dunes in 1047.

                      Anyhow, the immediate point here is that most internet pedigrees probably have it backwards--the Barnacke family was probably a branch of the Barningham family instead of the other way around. If and when documentary evidence is found for the European origins of the FT372222 Vincent family, they probably will be a cadet of the much more numerous Barnacke family. Who, after all, did have ties to colonial Virginia through their Peyton in-laws.
                      Last edited by benowicz; 3 November 2020, 07:37 PM.

                      Comment


                      • It's a little hard to parse the witness list from these two entries (# 22 and 23) from Vol. 7 of Yorkshire deeds, but it looks as if they could be indicating one member of the de Barningham (aka Vincent) family was known as Nigel the forester. The man immediately before him in entry # 23 is given as John, son of Adam with no surname, but entry # 22 is a grant by John son of Adam de Barningham. Anyhow, although I can't find any indication of the deeds' date, Nigel certainly was one of the characteristic given names in the d'Aubigny/de Mowbray dynasty. Certainly a mark of respect, if not a mark of consanguinity.

                        https://books.google.com/books?id=yJ...ham%22&f=false

                        Also, the seal of William de Berningham from deed # 23 is blazoned as a bow and arrow pointing downwards between two estoiles and a crescent in chief. This doesn't jibe with any account I've seen of these families' arms, so the deed must date before the standardization of heraldic practice, say 1250 A.D. or so. That type of inconsistency is ordinary enough, but the bow-and-arrow charges, seem to me very like an indication of office for a forester. Like the more standard hunting horn.
                        Last edited by benowicz; 3 November 2020, 08:29 PM.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X