Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Viking FGC23343

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

  • If the clades came to the Cotentin around the 10th century. Historically speaking, the monastery and the campaigns of Charles Martel, Pepins son, would have some affect on the clades. Martel defeated Muslim incursions into Aquitaine at this time, I suspect in a way not dissimilar to the reconquista.....Concerning Martel, Battle of Tours is a famous battle, in which he consolidated the Frankish power. Pillaging and converting Aquitaine would cause christian movements into and out of the Cotentin and Brittany. So, perhaps a formation in Aquataine is completely plausible and movement north or south does not seem out of the realm of possibility. French Basque were much more inside muslim dominated areas at the time, and subjected to the Spanish reconquista. I suspect the clergy and my last name are intertwined, as it is a very Latinized last name. The clade being refuges of this inter Abrahamic fight, would explain better the seemingly disparate regions of western Europe each grouping find themselves.

    Vincent lineage is in my findings have been erased, and attempted to be unwritten from what i can tell. The mention of a Vincent selling Smeaton to the Queens consolidated holdings lessening the power of the planters is the only definitive piece of information I can find of Vincents in early England. It is soon after a Jacobin rebellion occurred and differing lines of Vincents were either imprisioned, sent to prison colonies, or reformed as the Queens loyalists. It is also at this time the first Vincents are mentioned in the colonies, men without a country. The American Vincents of my line, were not citizens of any nation until the United States won the revolution. I speculate 2 or more generations were here without citizenship.
    Thank you for the take on Neel Viscounts, and will take more of a look on my off time. as Vincent from what I was told, was a title from the old country.
    The story of this clade is indeed intrepid.

    Have a great 2021

    Comment


    • Oh, the Vincents.

      I took all this time to investigate the family of Great Smeaton, and came up with nothing originally, only to find out that the relevant documents used the antique spellings 'Vyncent' and 'Wyncent'. A pretty well respected historian, Plantagenet Harrison, gathered notes on the origins of the Vincent family of Barningham for his history of Yorkshire in the 19th century, and when I found this it put everything into perspective.

      Charters documenting donations of the Bardolf family of Ravensworth dating from the late 1100's A.D. make it clear that the de Barningham and Vincent families were of the same stock, and that they were sub-infeudated at Barningham by the Bardolfs, whose own lords were the de Mowbray family. That other FT372222+ family, the de Saddingtons, were a branch of the de Rollos, who had many feudal relationships--and I suspect a genealogical one as well--with these same de Mowbrays. This seems like pretty valuable information to me.

      There are so many garbled online pedigrees of the various gentry Vincent families that at one point I lost all hope of making any sense of them. But with the information from Harrison--a lot of which I was able to verify by collections of transcribed church cartularies--I now believe that all the best known Vincent families come of that same Barningham stock. In fact, the single best known Vincent family, the baronets of Stoke d'Abernon, bear arms clearly derived from those of the Bardolfs. And the Stoke d'Abernon family 100% definitely had connections with colonial Virginia through their Peyton in-laws who settled there in the 17th century.

      I guess the history of Great Smeaton is that the original earls of Richmond donated it to the Abbey of St. Mary at York, who in turn leased at least part of it to the de Colby family, originally of Wappentake Manley in Lincolnshire. The Vincent family seems to have divided their holdings at Barningham through successive generations to the point that when they acquired the de Colby holdings through marriage sometime in the 15th century, their holdings at Great Smeaton were far more significant. They increased the proportion of their ownership of Great Smeaton even further by buying from the Crown the remainder of the land held by St. Mary's upon the dissolution of the monasteries in the 16th century.

      The Vincents seem to have been considered minor gentry, but they did hold some important posts in the administration of the earldom of Richmond, and one member of that family parlayed his royal connections--the earldom of Richmond eventually passed to the Crown--into a job as chief collector of revenues for Poitou in France.

      I included links to those sources in earlier posts.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
        . . . The Vincents seem to have been considered minor gentry, but they did hold some important posts in the administration of the earldom of Richmond, and one member of that family parlayed his royal connections--the earldom of Richmond eventually passed to the Crown--into a job as chief collector of revenues for Poitou in France. . . .
        You know, this fact may account for an anomaly in the heraldry of the Vincents that I discussed in some earlier posts. I am aware of at least three very distinct coats of arms borne by Vincent families who I now believe were all of the same stock, originating at Barningham in the late 12th century.

        The first, "argent two bars gules and a canton of the second charged with a trefoil of the first", seems to be a play on the arms of the Lancaster family, a branch of which migrated to Richmondshire. Maybe there was a relationship to them by marriage, or maybe it was a more abstract reference to the assumption of the earldom of Richmond by John of Lancaster, brother of king Henry V in 1414. If so, it would be a very oblique allusion, since there was absolutely no genealogical relationship between John and the family who bore the surname Lancaster, whose holdings were mainly in far western Yorkshire and in Lancashire. In any event, it's about this time that I find the first references to members of the Vincent family of Barningham/Great Smeaton holding administrative posts in the earldom of Richmond.

        The second, "azure three trefoils argent (alternatively or)", is almost identical to the family of Bardolph of Ravensworth, immediate lords to the Vincents at Barningham, became far more widely used.

        The third, bearing a cross sarcelee, was granted in the late 17th century and is a complete anomaly--the patent granting them explicitly acknowledges that these were not those normally borne by the Vincent family, and in fact were derived from those of the de Colby family through whom the Vincents acquired their original interest in Great Smeaton.

        Although I now believe that the families bearing these are now of a single stock, a distinction seems to have been made whereby only the northern branches bore the first variant.

        Comment


        • Thank you for all the inquiries and work, on behalf of my branch and to the work on the larger family lines . It was more of a daunting task the more I looked into the possible branchings and pachwork of heraldry and stories.
          with the information from (Plantagenet) Harrison--a lot of which I was able to verify by collections of transcribed church cartularies--I now believe that all the best known Vincent families come of that same Barningham stock. In fact, the single best known Vincent family, the baronets of Stoke d'Abernon, bear arms clearly derived from those of the Bardolfs. And the Stoke d'Abernon family 100% definitely had connections with colonial Virginia through their Peyton in-laws who settled there in the 17th century.
          I thank you wholeheartedly for this information, and did some fiddling with the idea of being related to the baronets Stoke d'Abernon but never could link them to my line, perhaps this is the closest I may come. I want to thank Plantagenet Harrison for your revelations of the Vyncent variations.

          Poitou, France collector of Revenues was something I had not seen, but not out of the realm of duties for viscounts. Perhaps Piotou and not Cotentin is where we originated, but i digress. Heraldry while very informative to the trained eye was always something I just thought looked interesting. Having such meaning makes sense considering the education levels of the population at the time. I never had the training for such meanings and thought that they were more just familial window dressing. again thank you. Thank you for the hours put to this. thank you for the tireless effort and thank you for providing clarity.

          Thank you and have a wonderful 2021

          Comment


          • Aha! Finally found the new FT190109 guy! Descendant of Kyryk Paryka fl. ~1691 in Lebedyn, Sumy Oblast, Ukraine.

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

            STR haplotype comparisons with the BY97678 and FT351092 guys using the MacDonald 20017 (Ferguson) rates shows an estimated MRCA about 1100 A.D. at the 50% confidence level. Sort-of-kind-of in the neighborhood of by SNP-based estimates of the TMRCA for the relevant clades. Somewhere in the 40%-30% confidence level. Maybe like 150 to 200 years earlier, per the SNP analyses. So my age estimates seem to be in the general ballpark.

            Can't say as I can find much posted online that definitely relates to this family. The surname itself seems to be an ordinary Russian or Ukrainian patronymic, with many, many alternative spellings. The only online postings specifically about genealogy I've found to date relate to a family located in the village of Kurhan near to Lebedyn.

            https://forum.vgd.ru/post/462/95241/p3169281.htm

            I'm sort of hamstrung by my complete lack of Ukrainian and Russian language skills, but Google Translate helped find some interesting possible links to this weird Basque subclade and the village of Kurhan which I never would have expected.

            https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A...B9%D0%BE%D0%BD)

            The von Koschembahr family, landlords of Kurhan, were a German or Germanized family of nobles whose main branch were seated at Oelsnica in Polish Silesia.

            https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosche...delsgeschlecht)

            I can't find enough information to unambiguously identify the connection of the Kurhan branch of the Koschembahr family to Oelsnica line, but the Oelsnica line did marry into the family of von Forcade de Biaix, also seated at Oelsnica. The Forcades were Huguenot refugees from the French Basque country. At least one member entered the Russian army before 1816, although his posterity, if any, are not continued in any report I can find.

            https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinri...ld_von_Forcade

            The English language page for this family contains an awesome amount of information about their earliest known origins. They begin in French Navarre--just across the border with Spain--in the late 15th century, called the Forcade-Lafitte family, to distinguish them from many other families in the general region.

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

            There seems to be a little pedigree-inflation with regard to this family, calling themselves Marquis de Biaix at some point, although no such title seems to have been formally or legally established. Their earliest known ancestors were lawyers and court functionaries rather than great feudal lords.

            The French language Wiki article is much shorter, but probably more to the point when they specify that there are no apparent connections between the Forcades de Biaix (originally of a fief called Lafitte), and the many other prominent families of the same name nearby.

            https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famill..._et_de_Forcade

            The inclusion of Ukraine on the FGC23343 map is unusual and requires some explanation. I wish I were able to do more than make these very weak circumstantial observations. But the homeland of the Forcade de Biaix family is exactly where I would expect to find the ultimate origins of FGC23343.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
              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. . . Maybe Thomas de Welham and John fils Richard de Saddington were brothers? Maybe the original Richard de Sadington married a Basset?
              So there is additional evidence that the lineage of the original Richard de Sadington, 'nepos' of Richard II de Rollos, survived after the branch of Lord Chancellor Robert de Saddington daughtered out after 1340.

              Quote: "Martival, Anketil (d. 1274), Anketil (fl. 1329), Joan, m. John de Weleham, Joyce, m. Rob de Saddington, Ralph, Ric., Rob., Rog. de, Bp. of Salisbury, Wal., Wm. (fl. 1130), Wm. (fl. 1220), fam.,"

              https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...vol5/pp356-366

              That's from British History Online's transcription of Vol. 5 of the 1964 history of Leicestershire. That 'Rob de Saddington', is the Lord Chancellor, who married a sister of Robert de Martival.

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


              In context Joan de Martival must be Joyce's sister, and married to John de Weleham.

              Stepping back, the modern de Saddington family must descend from the de Rollos as follows:

              1. Richard I de Rollos, fl. 1150, lord of Roullours, Cant. Vire and La Bloutiere, Cant. Villedieu-les-Poêles
              2. Godfrey [de Rollos?], referenced in 1230 novel disseisin proceedings for Saddington
              3. Richard de Saddington fl. 1195, possibly the Richard fils Godfrey from 1230 A.D.
              4. John de Saddington/de Welham m. Joan de Martival, from this notice and the charter at Mowsley ~1270 A.D. published by John Nicholls in 'History and Antiquities of Leicestershire'
              5. One of probably several sons, including an Almeric, also from the ~1270 A.D. charter, who had a son named Roger
              6. Adam de Saddington of Foxton fl. 1327

              Foxton, home of the earliest currently traceable lines of the modern Saddingtons, is in the immediate neighborhood of the Langtons and Mowsley, where the Chancellor's family held land in the 1270s. 'Adam de Sadyngton' appears at Foxton in the 1327 lay subsidy rolls.

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

              https://books.google.com/books?id=F8...39;%22&f=false

              There's a reference at about this time to an Adam de Sadynton as bailiff, so this must mark the transition of the family from feudal/legal preoccupations to the life of an ordinary family of country yeomen.

              https://archive.org/stream/indexofpl...1newy_djvu.txt

              Before the late 1300s, families seem to treat surnames rather casually, almost as ephemeral cognomina, so this switching between de Welham and de Saddington is not so unusual.
              Last edited by benowicz; 15 September 2021, 09:37 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by benowicz View Post

                So there is additional evidence that the lineage of the original Richard de Sadington, 'nepos' of Richard II de Rollos, survived after the branch of Lord Chancellor Robert de Saddington daughtered out after 1340. . . In context Joan de Martival must be Joyce's sister, and married to John de Weleham. . .
                Well, further detail shows that Joan de Martival must have been an aunt or cousin of an earlier generation to Joyce, NOT a sister. So John de Weleham/de Saddington must have been uncle to Lord Chancellor Robert de Saddington.

                "Fine, Mich., 52 Henry III, 1267. Between Anketin de Martivall, plaintiff, and John de Weleham and Joan his wife, defendants, of 4 selions of land and the advowsou of a mediety of the church of Halghton. N.B.—" The heir of Walter de Martival is patron of the northern mediety of the church of Haleton." [Matriculus of Hugh Welles, Cant, and York Soc.I., p. 261.] The advowson of this mediety had descended to Joan as daughter and heir of Richard de Martivall; by the above fine she and her husband sold this advowson to Anketin de Martivall, father of Roger de Martivall (afterwards bishop of Salisbury) who presented to the mediety in 1290 and 1324. [Lincoln registers I f. 280 and IV f. 119 d.]"

                https://www.le.ac.uk/lahs/downloads/...%20Farnham.pdf


                I think this actually gives my hypothesis of the descent of the modern Saddington family more coherence. Nicholls' charter at Mowsley is dated around 1270 A.D., and this lends weight to the inference that the John fils Richard de Saddington appearing as witness therein was the brother of Roger de Saddington's father, whose surname is given as de Weleham. This Richard de Saddington must have been the 'nepos' of Richard II de Rollos, and the inclusion of a Richard fils Godfrey in the 1230 A.D. novel disseisin proceedings completes the pedigree.

                Godfrey's surname isn't explicitly stated as de Rollos, but his given name is clearly of Norman in origin. It seems like an important piece of information, because Richard II de Rollos left Skeeby, Yorkshire (which in an unlikely coincidence wound its way to the Vincents of Barningham in the 14th century) to a different 'nepos', Harold, son of Aldred, and both of those names are of Saxon origin. So Harold was apparently related to the de Rollos through a female ancestor, while it seems likely, or at least possible, that Godfrey was a direct agnatic relation. I feel that if Godfrey's father belonged to a different Norman lineage, that would have been reflected in his surname and that we'd be able to trace that lineage through other property transactions.

                These documents are pretty spare in details, but I get the feeling that Godfrey was an illegitimate son of Richard I de Rollos. There isn't a ton of literature specific to this time frame, but what I have seen suggests that the type of transactions involved here, small individual bequests of life interests, like that at Saddington, and under-tenancies arranged through church donations, like at Brompton-on-Swale, were typical of the way feudal lords provided for their illegitimate sons later on, from the 13th century onwards. Primogeniture was only gradually being introduced at this time, but experience was showing that the status of a family did tend to decline precipitously unless steps were taken to protect the integrity of the chief heir's estates.

                I guess the contrast with Skeeby also supports the conclusion that Godfrey was a de Rollos. I believe Skeeby was the only property Harold son of Alred received from Richard II de Rollos, and it was an under-tenancy. The grant to Richard fils Godfrey at Saddington was qualitatively, different as its description as a direct 'donum' (gift) in 1229 A.D. show. Plus, the fact that Saddington in Leicestershire was a part of lands acquired in his own right by Richard II de Rollos through purchase, rather than a part of his mother's inheritance in Yorkshire which was subject to reversionary interests in the Constable's Fee, must mean something.
                Last edited by benowicz; 16 September 2021, 09:52 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                  . . . Foxton, home of the earliest currently traceable lines of the modern Saddingtons, is in the immediate neighborhood of the Langtons and Mowsley, where the Chancellor's family held land in the 1270s. 'Adam de Sadyngton' appears at Foxton in the 1327 lay subsidy rolls. . . .
                  Some interesting additional color about the early tenure of the de Saddingtons at Foxton: This 1374 Fine:
                  CP 25/1/125/67, number 306.
                  Link: Image of document at AALT
                  County: Leicestershire.
                  Place: Westminster.
                  Date: Two weeks from Holy Trinity, 48 Edward III [11 June 1374].
                  Parties: Richard de Foxton', querent, and William de Sadyngton' of Foxton' and Maud, his wife, deforciants.
                  Property: 1 messuage, 34 acres of land, 6 acres of meadow and a moiety of 1 virgate of pasture in Foxton'.
                  Action: Plea of covenant.
                  Agreement: William and Maud have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of Richard, as those which he has of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of William to him and his heirs for ever.
                  Warranty: Warranty.
                  For this: Richard has given them 20 marks of silver.
                  Standardised forms of names. (These are tentative suggestions, intended only as a finding aid.)
                  Persons: Richard de Foxton, William de Saddington, Maud de Saddington
                  Places: Foxton
                  http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/...1_125_67.shtml

                  There were some odd wrinkles in early English real estate law because during the feudal period there wasn't really an open market for land. Sales and other transfers had to move through the court of record structured as fines, just a weird bureaucratic convention. What this document really records is the sale of some mixed residential/agricultural property in Foxton to Richard de Foxton by William de Saddington and his wife, Maude. It seems significant that there is no mention of any obligations owed to a superior feudal lord or the usual approval for the transfer that would be required from such a lord, suggesting that William de Saddington may have held it directly from the Crown. A little unusual, I think, for the families of simple tenant farmers.

                  Some more background on the early property interests at Foxton:

                  https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...s/vol5/pp90-96

                  I think this might support my hypothesis, mentioned in an earlier post here, that Thomas de Weleham/de Saddington, father of the Roger de Saddington of Nicholls' charter of ~1270 A.D. was related to the Bassets of Weldon by marriage. Part of Foxton seems to have descended through an heiress to Alan Basset by 1224 A.D., and Thomas was mentioned as attorney for Ralph Basset of Weldon in a 1246 A.D. case from Staffordshire.

                  An alternative explanation might be that this portion of Foxton was a direct inheritance of the de Saddingtons from Richard I de Rollos but that the records documenting its transfer may have been lost.

                  Foxton, Welham and part of Smeeton (this last held by Richard I de Rollos in 1130 A.D.) were all properties of Robert de Bucy during the Domesday Survey of 1086 A.D. While the de Bucy family seems to have forfeited this property soon thereafter, most of it was transferred to the family of Hugh of Avranches, earl of Chester--from whom de Rollos's family also held land in and around the Wirral peninsula. It might also reflect the de Rollos' deep ties to western Normandy--de Bucy seems to have derived his surname from Boucey, near Pontorson, and the de Rollos were neighbors of the Viscounts of Avranches at La Bloutiere, if not direct vassals there. Whenever there is some kind of forfeiture in this period, relatives or feudal superiors of the outgoing lord always seem to have gotten first bite at the apple when the king re-granted it.

                  In any event, I'm pretty sure that any ordinary peasant tenure would have required this 1374 A.D. transfer to mention homage owed to any feudal lord other than the king and explicit mention of the lord's approval. That all land was ultimately held from the king was a universally understood fact that didn't need to be spelled out in so many words, but any intermediate lords really should have been mentioned in any properly constructed transfer.
                  Last edited by benowicz; 16 September 2021, 03:00 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                    . . . In any event, I'm pretty sure that any ordinary peasant tenure would have required this 1374 A.D. transfer to mention homage owed to any feudal lord other than the king and explicit mention of the lord's approval. . . .
                    It just occurs to me that if de Foxton was the feudal lord over the land originally held by William de Saddington, no explicit mention of homage might be required either. In such a case, this transaction would essentially represent the early surrender of a long term lease before maturity, and the price quoted--20 marks of silver (i.e., 13 pounds 6 shillings 8 pence in pre-decimalization denomination)--would represent the residual, unexpired value originally paid up front by de Saddington or his predecessor in tenure. To put that in today's context, it would be like a mortgage lender forgiving the outstanding balance of a home equity loan after taking title back from the mortgagor.

                    I'm used to calculating targeted property prices based on estimates of the future value of associated revenue streams, so as of today 16 September 2021, this transaction would be around 292,000 British Pounds or 403,000 U.S. Dollars. A pretty hefty sum for a Medieval peasant, I think, considering that rents were usually denominated in kind at this period, as hard cash was rather scarce.

                    https://www.measuringworth.com/calcu...ar_result=2021

                    I do know that the earliest known ancestors of the Saddington DNA donors lived at Foxton in the 17th century, so I'm assuming their residence there was been continuous since the 14th century, although I guess there's no particular reason it must have been. It seems that if this document of 1374 A.D. represented only a portion of land they held from de Foxton, a competent legal clerk would have been careful to note that, in order to prevent confusion over any amounts still owing on property that de Saddington may have continued to hold from de Foxton.

                    All in all, I think William de Saddington probably did not hold this land originally from de Foxton, but even if he did, the magnitude of cash involved puts de Saddington solidly in the upper echelons of the yeoman class.
                    Last edited by benowicz; 16 September 2021, 04:11 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                      . . . I do know that the earliest known ancestors of the Saddington DNA donors lived at Foxton in the 17th century, so I'm assuming their residence there was been continuous since the 14th century, although I guess there's no particular reason it must have been. . .
                      Well, the Saddingtons didn't clear out of Foxton after that 1374 transaction. Three Saddingtons--Henry, Roger and William--appear at Foxton in the poll tax records for 1379 and 1381.

                      https://books.google.com/books?id=zh...ton%22&f=false

                      It was a pretty regressive flat tax, so not too much to be learned about the type or size of their holdings.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_of_1379

                      Comment


                      • A couple of additional charters with circumstantial evidence that allows us to further fill out the pedigree:

                        1. Richard I de Rollos, fl. 1150, lord of Roullours, Cant. Vire and La Bloutiere, Cant. Villedieu-les-Poêles
                        2. Godfrey [de Rollos?], referenced in 1230 novel disseisin proceedings for Saddington
                        3. Richard de Saddington fl. 1195, possibly identical with the Richard fils Godfrey from the 1229/30 A.D. novel disseisin proceedings
                        4. a. John 'fils Richard' de Saddington/de Welham m. Joan de Martival, from this notice and the charter at Mowsley ~1270 A.D. published by John Nicholls in 'History and Antiquities of Leicestershire'
                        4. a. 1.) Almeric de Saddington, ditto
                        4. a. 2.) Roger de Saddington, from a different charter at Mowsley dated 1285 A.D.
                        4. a. 3.) Sir Richard de Saddington, vicar of Weldon, Northamptonshire (a Basset property) from a charter dated 1303 A.D., w/ his grandfather perhaps erroneously given as 'Robert', unless Sir Richard should be reclassed as 4. c. 1.)
                        4. b. Thomas de Welham, protagonist of the 1229/1230 A.D. proceedings and referred to once as "de Saddington" in an undated charter near Bruntingthorpe
                        4. b. 1.) Roger de Saddington, in the Bruntingthorpe charters and Nicholl's ~1270 A.D. charter at Mowsley
                        4. b. 2.) William de Saddington
                        4. b. 2.) a.) William de Saddington, from a charter at Bruntingthorpe dated 1285 A.D., possibly identical with a clergyman of this same name mentioned in several Northamptonshire documents around this time
                        4. b. 2.) b.) John de Saddington ?, ditto
                        4. b. 2.) b.) i.) Lord Chancellor Robert de Saddington? d. after 1347 A.D.; some of the lands held by this branch of the family seem to have passed through Robert's daughter to the Hastings family
                        4. b. 2.) c.) Thomas de Saddington, from a charter dated 1312 A.D. at Weldon, Northamptonshire? Not sure of his placement in this pedigree, but I believe that 4. b. 2.) a.) William had a brother named Thomas, also a clergyman

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

                        https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us

                        Not really sure which of these specifically leads to Adam de Saddington of Foxton from the 1327 A.D. lay subsidy rolls, but it's clear that there are multiple candidates contemporary with Lord Chancellor Robert. Based on the passage of the Bruntingthorpe estates to the Hastings family, maybe one of the sons of John 4. a. is more likely; they seem to be the junior, or at least less prominent lines.
                        Last edited by benowicz; 17 September 2021, 10:42 AM.

                        Comment


                        • I've been reading your thread for several days now with great interest. I'm especially interested in the Viking-Basque connection. You see, I am a New Mexico Hispano; and most of my ancestry goes back to colonial New Mexico, colonial New Spain, and to the Iberian Peninsula. I do have a great great grandfather that was French. His surname was Morel.

                          When I first tested with FTDNA (Family Finder), My Origins showed me having 3% British Isles. In a more recent My Origins version, the British Isles disappeared and seems to have been replaced by 4% Scandinavian. I attributed that to my Morel ancestor (maybe Norman, I thought?) But with the current version of My Origins, the Scandinavian disappeared also, and now my European breakdown is 61% Iberian Peninsula and 8% Basque.

                          I have several Family Finder matches that are 100% Irish and several that are high percentage British Isles and/or Scandinavian. Before this most recent version of My Origins, I attributed those matches to my Morel ancestor as well, but now that I read your thread and knowing that I have Basque ancestry, it all makes a lot more sense to me. Thank you.
                          Last edited by Tomero; 21 September 2021, 12:24 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Thanks.

                            Most of the histories consulted in the course of genealogical work seem to focus on 18th and 19th century migration or myths of nation building. They're typically sparse or biased towards a projecting a specific image, and so ignore a lot of the real-world complexity our ancestors actually lived through. The history of FGC23343 probably isn't representative of its ancestral clade, Z209, but it certainly is an interesting chapter.

                            One thing I've noticed is that almost every little coastal town in Ireland, Brittany and Normandy seems to have some oral legends of Basque settlers. I haven't spent too much time on those as their lack of documentary basis makes them impossible to adequately contextualize. Most of them are probably empty talk or exaggeration of a very brief contact without any deep, systemic impact on the community's history. But, as the evolving history of that Shetland FT351092 family seems to show, some of the more romantic legends like stranded Armada sailors just might have some factual basis after all.

                            Comment


                            • From way back, the first post in this thread:

                              Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                              . . . Y Search has a profile for a person last-name Dorey who matches the project participants. DEAGD. . . .
                              To my knowledge that guy never tested for FGC23343. But he certainly matched the modal STR haplotype closely, and given his recent origins in Jersey, Channel Islands, it offered an explanation for the Norman origins of some other FGC23343+ people. Now I've found some contemporary documents that might point to a connection between the Doreys and the FT372222 people, Saddington specifically.

                              https://www.theislandwiki.org/index....s_Larbalestier

                              The deal is that the earliest documented Doreys in the islands were connected to a family named de Gruchy who derived their name from a fief once owned by the de Rollos ancestors of the Saddington family. Gruchy (Latin: Groceio) is a subdivision of Rosel, in the neighborhood of Caen.

                              https://www.theislandwiki.org/index.php/De_Gruchy

                              https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gr...88!4d-0.435777

                              To date, the only direct evidence I've found for de Rollos involvement in this neighborhood is an abstract of a charter dating from the 1180's A.D., confirming a donation made to the Abbey of St. Stephen at Caen by Richard I de Rollos, husband of Emma Musard of the Constable's Fee in Richmondshire and founder of the priory at La Bloutiere, near Villedieu-les-Proles.

                              https://www.british-history.ac.uk/ca...1206/pp141-163

                              It only specifies a quantity of wheat at Rosel, rather than some more substantial asset like a church or its tithes, so maybe the connection seems thin on the surface, but there are some other connections worth noting. That same charter mentions Roger de Mowbray--brother of the bishop Geoffrey--making a donation of land at Grainville-sur-Odon to Saint Stephen's. As we've seen previously, later de Mowbrays shared interests with the de Rollos family in Saddington, Leicestershire as well as Vaudry and Viessoix near Vire in Normandy and the Vincent family at Barningham in Richmondshire.

                              Rosel or Rozel is still the name of a fief in Jersey, part of the historical division originally held from the Earls of Chester. It seems to be named after a family called de Rosel who owned property in Jersey in the 13th century, although there isn't much evidence that they actually resided there.

                              There's a lot of confusion among unrelated families with similar names, but in context I think the evidence supporting this connection to the Rosel near Caen rather than the much better known Le Rozel near Bricquebec-Cotentin, although the latter place is much closer to Jersey geographically. Points in support of this view are:

                              1. Ranulf, Earl of Chester, confirmed a later donation to the priory at Le Plessis-Grimoult by the Caen-based de Rosel family as their overlord. Date must be the mid-to-late 1100's A.D. Page 88. Both the de Mowbrays and the de Rollos were also patrons of the Le Plessis priory, and an earlier Earl of Chester was overlord of the de Rollos's three small fiefs during the Domesday survey.

                              https://books.google.pl/books?id=kzl...sel%22&f=false


                              2. The Caen-based de Rosel family seem to have been closely intermarried with the Tesson and La Lande Patry families that William de Rollos, son of Richard II, locked horns with around 1200 A.D.

                              https://www.jstor.org/stable/43015263

                              https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=pl

                              The dispute was over ownership of an hereditary interest in Chênedollé near Vire, implying that William de Rollos shared some ancestry with that particular Raoul Tesson or his wife, who as one of the La Lande Patrys. The connections among these old aristocratic families are dense and complex, so I can't vouch for the completeness or accuracy of any of the online pedigrees, but that second link must be somewhere near the truth because an abstract of yet another donation charter of the Caen-based de Rosel family mentions the marriage with a Robert Patry/Patrix in this same time frame. Page 87.

                              https://books.google.pl/books?id=kzl...sel%22&f=false

                              3. Evidence from the Liber Niger of the English Exchequer, dated around 1166 A.D. also hints at this relationship of the La Lande Patry family with the Caen-based de Rosels specifically.

                              https://books.google.pl/books?id=i7U...sel%22&f=false

                              This entry from Nottinghamshire shows a Patricus de Rosel as a vassal of Roger de Burun.

                              The La Lande Patry family is well studied, and it seems pretty uncontroversial that they derived their name from either a place or a person named Patrick, a pretty rare name at that date in Normandy. The standard line is that this family were one of those Hiberno-Norse lineages that migrated to Normandy in the late 900's A.D., although I don't know if this name is the sole piece of evidence in support.

                              Also uncontroversial is the origin of Roger de Burun from Buron, less than 2 miles away from the Rosel near Caen.

                              https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Buro...d49.228332!4e1


                              4. The Caen-based de Rosel family, like the de Mowbray overlords of the de Rollos family, held land at Grainville-sur-Odon. Here's yet another charter showing the de Rosel family donating to the Abbey of St. Stephen, specifically mentioning both Gruchy (i.e., Groceio) and Grainville. I'm not sure of the time frame, but I think it has to be before the donations of Philippina de Rosel/Hamar/Patry discussed earlier. Either during the time of her father Hugues or maybe a grandfather of the same name. Before the mid 1100s A.D.

                              https://books.google.pl/books?id=r3h...roceio&f=false

                              https://books.google.pl/books?id=kzl...sel%22&f=false



                              On top of this all, there is also record of a Geoffrey Dore at this Rosel near Caen in 1289, shortly before the de Gruchys are supposed to have arrived in Jersey. Page 144.

                              https://books.google.pl/books?id=6_V...sel%22&f=false

                              I don't put too much faith in this Dore reference--the name Dorey and all its variants seem to have many independent origins, and so little is known about the first Doreys in Jersey. But in context of all this Saddington/de Rollos/de Rosel/de Gruchy stuff, it seems worth bookmarking.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                                . . . 2. The Caen-based de Rosel family seem to have been closely intermarried with the Tesson and La Lande Patry families that William de Rollos, son of Richard II, locked horns with around 1200 A.D.

                                https://www.jstor.org/stable/43015263

                                https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=pl

                                The dispute was over ownership of an hereditary interest in Chênedollé near Vire, implying that William de Rollos shared some ancestry with that particular Raoul Tesson or his wife, who as one of the La Lande Patrys. The connections among these old aristocratic families are dense and complex, so I can't vouch for the completeness or accuracy of any of the online pedigrees, but that second link must be somewhere near the truth because an abstract of yet another donation charter of the Caen-based de Rosel family mentions the marriage with a Robert Patry/Patrix in this same time frame. Page 87.

                                https://books.google.pl/books?id=kzl...sel%22&f=false

                                . . .
                                Okay, NOW I feel I'm getting a little more clarity over this situation. The deal seems to be that around the earl/mid-1100s A.D., before the de Rollos interest in Rosel near Caen was recorded (i.e., 1180 A.D., Hugues de Clinchamps married Alix de Rosel, who must have been an heiress. True to the casual approach to surname usage at this time, Hugues and his descendants seem to have occasionally called themselves de Rosel instead.

                                https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=pl

                                https://books.google.pl/books?id=ixQ...mps%22&f=false

                                http://www.corpusetampois.com/che-20...destange11.pdf

                                https://archives.calvados.fr/ark:/52329/ns5pg769xljt

                                The date of Hugues de Clinchamp's confirmation to the Abbey of St. Stephen isn't clear from the face of the document, but given the clear mid-1100s A.D. dates of the many donations at Rosel by Phillipine, daughter of Huges "de Rosel", I'm guessing it was the early/mid-1100s A.D., which would be consistent with that pedigree. Phillipine must have had a life interest only, as a dowry.

                                So maybe score one for an internet pedigree having some factual basis after all.

                                Beyond that there's all this totally unsupported speculation about whether the ultimate origin of the de Clinchamps was Normandy, Maine, Touraine or somewhere else. Clinchamps seems to be an infrequent but none the less widespread toponym, basically meaning "sloping field".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X