Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Viking FGC23343

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

  • More on the Patry family.

    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

    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. . . .

    This seems like it could be on the right track. Patrick was a pretty unusual name for Medieval Normandy, but so was Vincent. In 1141 A.D., Guillaume "William" II Patry founded a priory at La Lande-Patry that was a satellite of the Abbey of Saint Vincent at Le Mans.

    https://books.google.pl/books?id=mjt...0Patry&f=false

    https://books.google.pl/books?id=_Ks...141%22&f=false


    Of course I'm trying to draw a connection of some kind to that other FT372222+ family, the Vincents of Virginia, USA. That's kind of rough because as far as I'm aware, there is no contemporary documentation clearly stating their European home, but their common SNP status with the Saddington family, and the early association in England of the Vincent surname, as well as the Saddingtons, with the de Mowbrays and de Vassys at Barningham, Richmondshire seems like it could mean something. The earliest known ancestor of the Barningham Vincents was a Stephen, son of Vincent, who flourished some time before 1200 A.D.

    The affiliation of the Patry family with Le Mans, which is outside of the borders of Normandy, is kind of mysterious. The deep roots of FGC23343 almost certainly lie in France, but much further south than Le Mans, on the border with Spain. So it's difficult to know which scenario would be *less* improbable for the Patrys--Basques being recruited by the so-called Loire viking bands and retreating with them to Ireland before settling in Western Normandy in the late 900s A.D., or Basques wandering up to Le Mans during this same time frame without any clear historical context encouraging to do so, and only coincidentally adopting an Irish name along the way.

    As far as I can tell, the earliest known Patry was a semi-famous fellow who puts in a brief appearance during the drama that led to the Norman Conquest of England. According to the historian Wace, Guillaume "William" I Patry met Harold Godwinson when his ship crashed on the Norman coast.

    https://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/R...002/06/114.htm

    Guillaume I Patry was a close follower of William the Conqueror, and there are several contemporary charters corroborating this fact. So the idea that the Patrys first became acquainted with Le Mans in the decade of the 1070s A.D., when the Conqueror led a punitive expedition there seems very plausible.

    I'm not really aware of any confirmed use of the names Vincent or Stephen in the Patry family, so this is maybe kind of speculative. But in theory, the relative infrequency of the name Vincent, the Patry's associations with that Abbey at Le Mans, as well as the de Rollos landed interest at Rosel, Caen could mean something. The time frame works out.

    http://racineshistoire.free.fr/LGN/PDF/Patry.pdf

    The coat of arms attributed to the Patry family here is nearly identical to the primary form of the Vincent family arms--three quatrefoils argent, only on a background of gules instead of azure.

    https://archive.org/details/generala.../1058/mode/2up

    Elsewhere I've suggested that the Stoke d'Abernon Vincents may have derived their heraldry from the Bardolf family of Richmondshire, who were among the earliest overlords of the Vincent family at Barningham. Heraldic practice doesn't seem to have been very standardized at this point in history, so maybe this is reading too much into what is essentially a coincidence. But it's still a very interesting coincidence.

    Also there is the Patry fief of "Groci" mentioned on page 261 of that book discussing the St. Vincent satellite established at La Lande. Could it be another version of Gruchy, Rosel, Latinized as "Groceio", as discussed a couple posts back?

    https://books.google.pl/books?id=_Ks...141%22&f=false

    There seems to have been an extended scholarly article written about the origins of the Patry family in 1996, but so far I've not been able to access a copy. I've only seen some passing citations.

    Les Patry de la Lande: un lignage celto-scandinave (XIe-XIIIe s.) Louise, Gérard. (1996) - In: Le pays bas-normand vol. 222/223 (1996) p. 5-27
    Last edited by benowicz; 12 October 2021, 03:14 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
      . . . There seems to have been an extended scholarly article written about the origins of the Patry family in 1996, but so far I've not been able to access a copy. I've only seen some passing citations.

      Les Patry de la Lande: un lignage celto-scandinave (XIe-XIIIe s.) Louise, Gérard. (1996) - In: Le pays bas-normand vol. 222/223 (1996) p. 5-27
      Found a summary of the genealogical findings of this paper.

      http://www.geneacaux.net/RGNcd2/85-2003.pdf

      Nothing super-amazing in there, but there is a useful reminder that the Patry family were patrons of the abbaye at Savigny-le-vieux, on the border between Normandy and Brittany. Found a couple on-line abstracts of relevant charters, dated roughly to the 2nd half of the 12th century--shortly before the ancestors of the Vincent family appear in Richmondshire. Nothing special in the content.

      But it may be useful to remember that among the founders of that Abbey were the family of the Earls of Richmond, and that the Earls made frequent, large donations to the abbey. So did the Earls' kinsmen, the Bardolph family of Ravensworth, who were the immediate overlords of the Vincent family at Barningham.

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

      https://books.google.pl/books?id=xHs...gny%22&f=false

      The Bardolphs were also patrons of the church of St. Patrick at Patrick Brompton, so there's maybe another oblique reference to the Patry family.

      https://books.google.pl/books?id=xHs...ulf%22&f=false

      So I guess there is a line of historical continuity to be drawn between the Hiberno-Norse families of the Cotentin and the FT372222 families of Vincent and Saddington whose early ancestors are documented in Richmondshire. The Bardolph and de Rollos families crossed paths many times, including the witness of Richard I de Rollos to the wedding of Ralph, son of Ribald to Agatha de Brus, kinsman of Acaris Bardolph in the 1150s A.D.

      Comment


      • If this is true, it could be very powerful evidence--circumstantial though it may be--that the FT372222+ Vincent family represent a branch of the Patry family of La Lande, near Flers in Normandy, and Patrixbourne in Kent.

        http://www.durobrivis.net/articles/landowners.pdf

        http://www.durobrivis.net/survey/db-ke/09-baronies.pdf

        The deal is that historian Colin Flight believes the ownership history of the estates of Banstead, Co. Surrey and Ash and Ryarsh, Co. Kent provide convincing evidence that Mabel, the wife of Nigel de Mowbray was a member of this specific Patry family. Remember, Roger de Mowbray, son of this same Nigel, held an interest in Saddington, Leicestershire and Barningham, Richmondshire (where the most prominent family named Vincent was first recorded) around the turn of the 13th century. The de Rollos ancestors of the FT372222+ Saddington family were definitely neighbors of this particular branch of the Patry family in Normandy, and even became involved in some property disputes with them. Flight believes that there is sufficient documentary evidence to show that the Banstead, Ash and Ryarsh estates, which most definitely belonged to the de Mowbrays in the early 1200s, were acquired by the Patry family after their former owner, Tirel de Manieres, forfeited during the rebellion of William Clito, around 1124 A.D.

        Unfortunately, I wasn't able to independently confirm the details regarding Tirel de Manieres. None of the sources I was able to find online go into such granular detail. They basically gloss over the period between Domesday and the de Mowbray's ownership. But Flight's work is extensively footnoted, and has been published in the journal of the Kent Archaeological Society, so on that basis alone it inspires more confidence than the numerous online pedigrees I've seen for this family, which continue to cite now-debunked theories involving the families of the Earls of Clare and Salisbury. So while I'm excited about this, it's not exactly a done deal.

        Still, it can't be denied that the pattern of associations with the ancestors of FT372222+ surnames with the de Mowbrays and Patrys grows considerably tighter and denser.
        Last edited by benowicz; 13 October 2021, 10:54 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
          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.
          Elsewhere I hypothesized that the de Saddington presence at Welham might be attributable to Richard I de Saddington (i.e., # 3) marrying into the Basset family who became sole tenants-in-chiefs before the mid-13th century. Certainly Thomas de Welham/Saddigton (#4.b.) served as legal representative of one of the Bassets. That may be, but there is another possibility that ties in closely to the hypothesis that the Vincent family of Barningham, Yorkshire was a branch of the family of Patry de La Lande Patry, near Flers in Normandy.

          In the Leicestershire Survey of 1130 A.D., Henry de Port of Basing, sheriff of Hampshire, held 2 of the ~8 carucates reported at Welham from the Archbishop of York. It seems a bit mysterious, breaking a pretty strong geographic pattern vis-a-vis the distribution of his estates, but it is a fact.

          https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...vol5/pp330-336

          The de Port family were an integral party of that clannish network of Lower Norman families that included the Patrys, the de Rollos ancestors of the de Saddingtons, and their de Mowbray overlords. I just noticed now that the report of historian Colin Flight that I posted earlier indicates that a daughter of sheriff Henry de Port's brother, Hugh de Port of Kent, married as his 2nd wife, William IV Patry, who was the father of both Mabel, mother of Roger de Mowbray of Thirsk ( and at least temporarily, Saddington and Barningham) and Matilda/Maude, mother of the Raoul V Tesson who was involved in a property dispute with William de Rollos around 1204 A.D.

          http://www.durobrivis.net/survey/db-ke/09-baronies.pdf

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

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

          Maybe significant to the over-arcing narrative of FT372222 as a Basque clade arriving in Normandy in the late 900s A.D. along with the vikings based in Ireland who raided Aquitaine in the 800s A.D., the de Ports also married into the family of the Neel viscounts of St. Sauveur. Pretty surprising to me, because prior to their English property acquisitions after the Conquest, the de Ports were kind of a nothing sort of family, holding only a few small fiefs near Bayeux under the bishop.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=ck...gomery&f=false

          The de Rollos were in some way descended from the Bloet family whose estates clustered very near the Neel viscounts on the west coast of the Cotentin, where local toponymy suggests Hiberno-Norse colonization was most dense. And their members included a "Nigellus" or Neel Bloet, before they disappear from Norman records in the late 11th century. So maybe the Patrys and the Neels descended from a common viking settler ancestor? And that the de Rollos and Bloets before them were just a cadet branch of the Neels? STR and SNP mutation rates are still kind of controversial, so although my estimates of a MRCA born sometimes between 850 and 950 A.D. are a little more recent than those resulting from most proposed rates, they would fit in with this scenario pretty nicely.

          Maybe significant for future research, should that Channel Island Dorey guy ever confirm my projection of his SNP status, one branch of the de Ports assumed the surname St. John and became involved in Jersey politics. The St. Johns remained settled in Hampshire, but I imagine that's where a majority of English migration to the Channel Islands came from, so that could form the basis for a decent, historically grounded hypothesis of the Doreys' ancestry.

          https://www.theislandwiki.org/index....iam_de_St_Jean
          Last edited by benowicz; 15 October 2021, 07:44 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
            . . . The de Rollos were in some way descended from the Bloet family whose estates clustered very near the Neel viscounts on the west coast of the Cotentin, where local toponymy suggests Hiberno-Norse colonization was most dense. And their members included a "Nigellus" or Neel Bloet, before they disappear from Norman records in the late 11th century. So maybe the Patrys and the Neels descended from a common viking settler ancestor? And that the de Rollos and Bloets before them were just a cadet branch of the Neels? STR and SNP mutation rates are still kind of controversial, so although my estimates of a MRCA born sometimes between 850 and 950 A.D. are a little more recent than those resulting from most proposed rates, they would fit in with this scenario pretty nicely. . . .
            I may have stumbled on some Y DNA data for the de Ports--including their match with a Swedish fellow who provides some context for the aging of the SNP defining the de Port clade, I-FT221948. The common ancestor with the Swede was I-Y44935.

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

            An overview of my SNP aging method is discussed incidentally here:

            https://forums.familytreedna.com/for...nce#post331465

            Unlike most aging methods that use a simple average of mutations for the calculation's base, my calculation uses a number that is derived from a binomial analysis of the observed donor array. I think it's theoretically correct, but I suppose just grabbing the simple median value might good enough for a rough calculation.

            Anyhow, the deal is that TMRCA between the de Ports and that Swedish fellow turned out to be almost identical to the TMRCA I calculated for FT372222--MRCA born about 920 A.D. at the 50% confidence level, using an assumed mutation rate of once in 57 1/3 years at the BigY700 resolution level. I inferred from that linked scientific paper that McDonald uses a rate of about 74.7 years at that resolution level, yielding a MRCA birth year estimate of about 550 A.D. The ante-quem date must be somewhere around 1000 A.D., based on the history of Western Normandy, but I don't suppose there really is any reference for a post-quem date.

            The data from the 111 STR marker analyses was a little more ambiguous. I don't have any clear basis to sort the de Port data for a multi-tiered aggregation, but throwing in a single tier anyone with at least 111 markers shows an average GD of 13 vs. the Swede, which is significantly less than the GD of 21 within the FT37222 people. On the other hand, comparing the Swede against the de Port modal haplotype, which may be more appropriate given the heighted risk of convergent mutations at this age, returns a GD of 13, whereas the FT372222 analysis returned 12.5.

            There are problems with direct comparability between the I-Y44935 and R-FT372222 analyses, but I still think it suggests that the hypothesized Neel-de Rollos-Patry explanation for FT372222 is plausible. It would be great to have a post-quem date, but the STR data suggests it's probably not too much before the beginning of the Viking age, even using Ferguson's conservative reading of McDonald's suggested rates.




            Comment


            • I just completed a pilot study of another Z209+ family found among the post-Conquest nobility of England, the de Burgh or Burke family who rose to eminence in Ireland.

              https://forums.familytreedna.com/for...575#post331781

              My hypothesis there was that both the Burkes and the FGC28369 Garnets were brought to England through the Aquitanian connections of Rogert le Poitevin de Montgomery. Then I noticed a couple of coincidences that might provide viable clues to the origin of the (currently) undifferentiated FGC28383 family, the Hubbards of early Lancaster County, VA.

              First was the fact that the forename Hubert, so common among the early de Burghs, is actually the original form of the name transformed into Hobart, baronets of Intwood, Co. Norfolk, who definitely had kin in Virginia about the time of the first known ancestor of the FGC28383 Hubbards. That may not directly relate to their regional origins in France--the Burke pedigree begins only in the late 1100's, by which time they had probably become completely acculturated to the local gentry, whose own origins seem to have lain between Caen and Le Havre. But judging by surname frequencies in the 1881 census, the forename Hubert was probably particularly common there during the Middle Ages. Certainly there were some local magnets, like the de Monte Canisio family who used it quite often.

              https://forebears.io/surnames/hubbard


              Second was the fact that Roger le Poitevin also held lands very near the earliest known home of the Hobart baronets at Monk's Eleigh Tye, Co. Suffolk. For instance Preston and Thorpe Morieux, about 2 miles away.

              https://opendomesday.org/name/roger-of-poitou/

              In an earlier post [see below] I had described the Hobarts' earliest home as "Tye Hall, Co. Essex", based on the repetition of this information in numerous pedigrees. However, on closer inspection, I see that there was much disagreement about this attribution, and in fact the most specific citation of supporting contemporary documents (i.e., 1389 A.D.) specifies this place to be Tye near Monk's Eleigh, Co. Suffolk, which appears to be more consistent with the early history of the family spelled out in Volume 2, page 60 of William Harvey's 1895 edition of the Norfolk visitations of 1563.

              https://books.google.com/books?id=dT...tye%22&f=false

              https://books.google.com/books?id=IP...orfolk&f=false

              This association is kind of weak and indirect, but interesting. Local magnates in this area of Norfolk/Suffolk did have surprisingly strong connections to Aquitaine at a very early period, so even though FGC28383 and BY32575 appear to be separated by at least 2,000 years, their shared Z209+ status, so anomalous in early England, suggests that the Burke, Hubbard and Garnet ancestors may have at least known one another and possibly have been related, if only cognatically rather than agnatically.

              https://www.academia.edu/552480/Dome...e_Lincolnshire

              I guess I'm saying that I believe this materially increases the odds that the FGC28383 Hubbard family actually do connect to the Hobart baronets after all. Probably not just a coincidence.

              Originally posted by benowicz View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                I just completed a pilot study of another Z209+ family found among the post-Conquest nobility of England, the de Burgh or Burke family who rose to eminence in Ireland.

                https://forums.familytreedna.com/for...575#post331781

                My hypothesis there was that both the Burkes and the FGC28369 Garnets were brought to England through the Aquitanian connections of Rogert le Poitevin de Montgomery. Then I noticed a couple of coincidences that might provide viable clues to the origin of the (currently) undifferentiated FGC28383 family, the Hubbards of early Lancaster County, VA. . . .

                Second was the fact that Roger le Poitevin also held lands very near the earliest known home of the Hobart baronets at Monk's Eleigh Tye, Co. Suffolk. For instance Preston and Thorpe Morieux, about 2 miles away.

                https://opendomesday.org/name/roger-of-poitou/

                In an earlier post [see below] I had described the Hobarts' earliest home as "Tye Hall, Co. Essex", based on the repetition of this information in numerous pedigrees. However, on closer inspection, I see that there was much disagreement about this attribution, and in fact the most specific citation of supporting contemporary documents (i.e., 1389 A.D.) specifies this place to be Tye near Monk's Eleigh, Co. Suffolk, which appears to be more consistent with the early history of the family spelled out in Volume 2, page 60 of William Harvey's 1895 edition of the Norfolk visitations of 1563.

                https://books.google.com/books?id=dT...tye%22&f=false

                https://books.google.com/books?id=IP...orfolk&f=false

                . . .
                Just remembered that there is solid documentary evidence placing the FGC28369 Garnets of Lancashire in Suffolk at least as early as 1094 A.D.


                "Notification that earl Roger, called "of Poitou" (Pictaviensis), in the year 1094, gave to God and St. Martin and the brethren at Sees, in alms for ever, the church of Lancaster with all its appurtenances, and part of the land of that town, from the old wall to Godfrey's orchard, and as far as Prestequet, and the two manors (mansiones) near Lancaster, Andeduva and Neutons, and Ansfrid de Montegommerici with all that he held of the said earl, and the churches of Hessan and Prestetona, and Estanesberia, and Cotegrava, and Crophil[le]e, and Wichelai, and Calisei, and the churches of St. Peter of Lincoln, and Walinguore and Navzebeia, and Bodebeia, with their appurtenances and the tithes of Hales, and Derbeium, and Salfort, and Risebeia, and Bissepephen; and the tithes of all his mares, cows, and swine when they come to the larderer; and Hervey the priest of Torp and Benedict of Eia, and all that he holds of the earl, and the tithes of the churches of all the land of Albert Greslet, and the tithe of Warin Boissel at Brestona, and the tithe of the land of Roger de Monte Begonis at Calisei and Tablesbeia and Tit and all his demesne between Rible and Mersey; and four men of Ralf Grenet in Sulfoc." - from "Calendar of Documents Preserved in France"

                https://shissem.com/Hissem_Gernets_i...%20de%20Gernet

                FGC28383 is the grandfather to FGC28369, so again, the web of connections seems to draw the Hubbards of early Lancaster Co., VA closer to the Hobart baronets. Wonder if anyone with a traceable connection to them has ever tested. Seems like there ought to be some qualified candidates here and there.

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

                Then again, an upgrade to Big Y 700 for Hubbard (who I'm pretty sure is Big Y 500 based on private variant count) would be very interesting, too. He might actually share some SNPs with FGC28370, which would support this line of speculation a lot.
                Last edited by benowicz; 2 December 2021, 10:55 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                  . . .Second was the fact that Roger le Poitevin also held lands very near the earliest known home of the Hobart baronets at Monk's Eleigh Tye, Co. Suffolk. For instance Preston and Thorpe Morieux, about 2 miles away.

                  https://opendomesday.org/name/roger-of-poitou/

                  In an earlier post [see below] I had described the Hobarts' earliest home as "Tye Hall, Co. Essex", based on the repetition of this information in numerous pedigrees. However, on closer inspection, I see that there was much disagreement about this attribution, and in fact the most specific citation of supporting contemporary documents (i.e., 1389 A.D.) specifies this place to be Tye near Monk's Eleigh, Co. Suffolk, which appears to be more consistent with the early history of the family spelled out in Volume 2, page 60 of William Harvey's 1895 edition of the Norfolk visitations of 1563.

                  https://books.google.com/books?id=dT...tye%22&f=false

                  https://books.google.com/books?id=IP...orfolk&f=false

                  . . .
                  Actually, note # 35 of "The wives of Sir James Hobart (1440-1515), Attorney General 1486-1507", by John B. Weller, states that the ancestor of the Hobart baronets owned land at both Tye, Monk's Eleigh AND Preston St. Mary in 1350 A.D.

                  http://www.thericardian.online/downl.../12-152/04.pdf

                  Preston St. Mary was owned by Roger of Poitou de Montgomery in 1086 A.D.

                  https://opendomesday.org/place/TL9450/preston/

                  Of course there's a nearly 300 year gap, but on the surface it seems promising. There's some speculation that some earlier records, dating from 1327 A.D., might show ancestors of these Hobarts somewhat further east, at Dennington, Norfolk, which was a Malet property (and presumably in the temporary possession of Roger of Poitou between 1087-1100, like the rest of Malet's Norfolk holdings). So far, nothing more than that.

                  There's an excellent book detailing the known history of Suffolk's manors by a fellow named Copinger, but there are substantial gaps. For Monk's Eleigh itself, for example, the account jumps from 991 A.D. to 1534 A.D. All that can be said of the interim is that it was held by the Abbey at Bury St. Edmund's.

                  https://books.google.com/books?id=6T...q=Monk&f=false

                  So if these Hobarts did originate at Preston St. Mary or Monk's Eleigh, they must have been very minor under tenants. But still, the possibility that they were FGC28383+ and the connection to Roger of Poitou, just like the FGC28369+ Garnets, is suggestive.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X