Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Viking FGC23343

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

  • benowicz
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    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, 08:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    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


    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    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, 05:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    . . . Something seems off. FGC23343 definitely has an origin in France or Spain, and not local to the UK. But it seems odd to me that so many should have apparent roots in western Normandy. And they're not particularly closely related--most recent common ancestor born maybe 300 A.D., maybe even further back, maybe 200 A.D. if you count the FGC28370 group, who could plausibly have contemporary documentary evidence for an origin much further south, in Poitou or La Marche. It would have to have been a pretty large group of recruits for so many distinct lineages to survive.
    I co-administer the third FT372222 kit. Based on the info currently published for Vincent at Big Tree, our kit has a no-call on one of Vincent's private variants, suggesting to me that it's really positive, and therefore that my current estimates of TMRCA may be significantly longer than is actually the case. Still investigating this, but I've already encountered one SNP that was a false no-call across all the FGC23343 donors. A full examination of everyone's results could make the TMRCA for FT372222 significantly more recent.

    I think this may be worth pursuing. Not only did the Coleby-Vincents inherit FitzNeel estates, but the de Roullours-de Saddingtons were definitely descended from the vicomtes du Cotentin. This feels like they should have a MRCA born much later than ~300 A.D.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=5R...los%22&f=false

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

    There is a huge disparity in the currently reported number of private variants among individual donors. I'm sure that some of that is normal, but clearly some of it is not. Based on my aging calculations, even if there were no further alterations to the tree, there is still an 11% chance that all the FT372222 people have a MRCA born 800 A.D. or more recently, instead of the ~300 A.D. currently estimated at the 50% confidence level.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied

    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. 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. . . .
    I think this edition of the Baronetage linked below may be responsible for the misconception. A branch of the Barnack family did indeed inherit Great Smeaton in the 1600s--but only through marriage to an heiress of the distinct family that owned Great Smeaton in the 1400s. Agnatically, in the direct male line, the two Vincent families are completely distinct. This chronology of the Barnack family is completely incompatible with the original stock of Great Smeaton, beginning with William Vincent m. Margaret Clervaux and who died 1450.

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

    https://books.google.com/books?id=X8...ton%22&f=false


    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    . . . It may be circumstantial evidence that the Vincents came to Richmondshire along with the Lancasters from the Kendal district of Westmoreland, when John, the brother of King Henry V, became earl of both Kendal AND Richmond in 1414. . .
    Well, that theory can be dismissed. The original stock of Great Smeaton definitely owned land at Barningham, and these documents put them there at least from 1380.

    http://www.calmview.eu/SheffieldArch...d=JC%2F14%2F18

    Interestingly, from the 1330s the Scrope family had an interest in Barningham, and the Coleby family whose coat of arms were later assumed by a branch of the Vincents of Great Smeaton track these Scropes pretty closely in their migration from Barton-on-Humber to Wensleydale, as outlined in that memorandum I wrote.

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

    Swinging back to the new kids on the block, the original stock of the de Saddingtons, who, like the Vincents, are FT372222, they were from the Cotentin peninsula in western Normandy (i.e., Roullours, La Boutiere). During the Domesday book, the original lands of BOTH the Colebys AND the Scropes were owned by the Fiz Nigel/Fitz Neel vicomtes of Saint Sauver in the Cotentin.

    https://opendomesday.org/place/SE8919/coleby/

    https://opendomesday.org/place/TA032...n-upon-humber/


    So, despite the ultimate origin of the ancestral clade Z209 in the Basque country, maybe there was indeed a significant presence of FGC23343 in western Normandy before the Conquest? There is an interesting paper from 2016 by Kerrith Davies suggesting that at least some part of the original viking settlers of western Normandy belonged to the so-called Loire fleet who had a rivalry with the much better document band led by Hrolf the Ganger on the Seine. Maybe these FGC23343 people were local people recruited during a viking incursion in the south, and followed them north when they settled the Cotentin peninsula?

    https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:60...of_work=Thesis

    Maybe. Something seems off. FGC23343 definitely has an origin in France or Spain, and not local to the UK. But it seems odd to me that so many should have apparent roots in western Normandy. And they're not particularly closely related--most recent common ancestor born maybe 300 A.D., maybe even further back, maybe 200 A.D. if you count the FGC28370 group, who could plausibly have contemporary documentary evidence for an origin much further south, in Poitou or La Marche. It would have to have been a pretty large group of recruits for so many distinct lineages to survive.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    I think I closed out the "Neel de Saint Sauver" inquiry a long time ago, but it is still curious that one of the Norman fiefs of the de Rollos was at La Boutiere--immediately adjacent to La Roche in the district of La Colombe, where the Saint Sauver family had one of their principle fortresses. Map on page 18 of the Eric Van Tourhoudt article.

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



    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    So my earlier hypothesis that future British FGC23343 would be Huguenot seems to take a hit with the latest observation--another member of subclade FT372222, named Saddington. Nothing that I see remotely suggestive of a Huguenot origin.

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

    All pretty closely related per their STR profiles, and all huddled around the south Leicestershire village of Saddington, as seems always to have been the case, per this excellent write-up by the administrator of the Saddington project, Rowan Tanner.

    http://one-name.org/name_profile/saddington/

    He wrote a pretty cool blog dedicated to the name, too, but mostly focused on collecting recent documentary evidence rather than an exploration of their earliest origins.

    http://saddington.blogspot.com/

    I can't find too many references to the name before 1600, so it's not exactly like the case with the Edgeworth, Gerard and Garnetts of FGC28369. However, it is a name with a history. The most famous person of the name, Robert de Saddington, was Chancellor to King Edward III in the 1340s. His line quite definitely daughtered out.

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

    It seems, though, that Robert's was not likely the sole remaining branch of the original stock of the name in the 1300s. A generation earlier, a number of family members were members of the household of Queen Isabella--the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says that Robert's father, John was among them, but two other academic sources also list a Nicholas and a Richard de Saddington as members of the queen's household in the year 1311-12. Richard and possibly two distinct Roger de Saddingtons appear in charters concerning nearby Mowsley, Leicestershire in the 1270s or 1280s.

    The village of Saddington seems to have left the hands of the family quite early. By the late 1200s it had been given by the King to one Almaric de St. Armand, apparently no relation.

    Although I can't draw a documentary line of continuity to any branch of today's Saddington's, the earliest use of the surname seems to belong to a branch of the de Rollos family from Roullours in western Normandy.

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

    The Saddingtons would be only extremely remotely related to any of the other FGC23343+ folks identified to date (i.e., FT372222 founded maybe around 300 A.D.). But it's still interesting that, like the Gerards and the Norman Doreys, they were vassals of the earls of Chester. And like the also FT372222+ Vincent family, there was a connection to the Richmond area of Yorkshire.
    Last edited by benowicz; 28 September 2020, 06:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Yet another family in the Kendal neighborhood sharing the identical coat of arms of the Vincents of Richmondshire is the Preston family of Preston Richard and Preston Patrick. The Prestons were definitely owned by Roger the Poitevin de Montgomery during the Domesday survey. So this explanation acquires a documentary plausibility.

    http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Lan...0Heraldry.html

    https://opendomesday.org/place/SD5384/preston-richard/


    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Maybe a new line of inquiry into the origins of the Vincents.

    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    . . .There is a curious editor's note in the a Massachusetts Historical Society publication that may suggest that there was a known NPE in the line of the Great Smeaton Vincents . . .

    https://books.google.com/books?id=jn...incent&f=false

    Page 88 describes a formal grant of arms to a member of the Braithwell branch of the Vincent family. It directly cites the curious fact that the arms he was granted do NOT match those of the established Braithwell family (i.e., argent two bars gules, a canton of the 2nd charged with a trefoil of the first). Rather, they are supposed to be those of a Coleby family. . .
    I settled some of these questions to my satisfaction when I researched the attached paper, and others raised in the paper have since also been settled--the Vincents belong to an entirely different subclade of FGC23343 than the FGC28370 group, and their common ancestor most likely lived as far ago as 250 A.D. Coincidentally, the Colebys whose arms were later granted to a branch of the Great Smeaton Vincents were indeed successors to some of the Lincolnshire estates of the FitzNigel family of Halton, Lancashire, but the Vincents' connection to them seems to be by marriage, and the FGC28370 group don't seem to have any direct connection to FitzNigel at all.

    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. 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

    But recently I noticed something that may eventually point to the origin of the Richmondshire Vincents--their coat of arms is IDENTICAL to those borne by a family named Lancaster, also living in Richmondshire.

    http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Lan...0Heraldry.html

    This excellent paper by Andrew Lancaster, who I believe is a co-administrator of the Lancaster DNA project, speculates that there may be strong circumstantial evidence linking the Richmondshire Lancasters to the main line in Kendal through branches located at Hartsop, Sockbridge and Howgill.

    https://fmg.ac/publications/journal/...ory/49-fnd-2-4

    The connection to the Vincents may be a bit complicated by the fact that what currently appears to me to be the genetic signature of the main stock of the Lancaster family belongs to an entirely different haplogroup: E-M35.

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

    So perhaps once again the Richmondshire Vincents had adopted the coat of arms of a family to whom they were connected only by marriage or other alliance.

    However, that might still be useful information. It may be circumstantial evidence that the Vincents came to Richmondshire along with the Lancasters from the Kendal district of Westmoreland, when John, the brother of King Henry V, became earl of both Kendal AND Richmond in 1414. And perhaps the Vincents were, like the FG28370 de Garnets, brought to England from South Western France by Roger the Poitevin Montgomery after the Conquest. There are some gaps in the early records for the Kendal area, but it is generally believed that Roger held much of this area before his forfeiture in 1102.

    And who knows? The Vincents may equally have come to England with the de Lancasters themselves. Their earliest known ancestor was a fellow named Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid. Nothing is known of his origins, but the first records of the de Lancasters in England date to the reign of Henry II--whose queen was Eleanor of Aquitaine. FT372222 probably originated there.

    But again, this is all speculative. Unless there has been a major new development I know nothing about, there is no direct evidence linking the FT372222+ Vincent families to any of the historical families of England. Still stuck in colonial Virginia.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Originally posted by woolfie View Post
    You're absolutely right, it would've been news all over Shetland and I'm sure the Spaniards would've been met with trepidation and probably made to quarantine indeed.
    Dunrossness is to the south end of the mainland of Shetland (where the airport is now) and would've probably been the first place the Spaniards made landfall.
    It isn't densely populated and I doubt if it ever has been. The main towns in Shetland are Lerwick and Scalloway (pronounced locally as Lerrick and Scallowa') and they are a lot further north.
    The Earl would've had the land rented out to tenant farmers so wouldn't have been around there much himself, if at all.
    Thanks for that detail. The reports described by Anderson show officials meeting with the Spaniards at the Earl's estate in the south of the island before continuing on with them to Fife for repatriation proceedings. So I assumed that this was his caput, but I guess that isn't the case. An important detail. I still have the impression of a lot of the Earl's men escorting them during their stay around Dunrossness, but if so they were probably strangers to the place themselves, arrived only for the occasion.

    Leave a comment:


  • woolfie
    replied
    There's mention of Shetland in this site (mostly Orkney though).

    ​​​​​​http://www.orkneybalfours.com/HTM/spanish.htm

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X