GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1025684255
From: "Chris Phillips" <>
Subject: Re: Another puzzle: Faucomberge and Felton
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 09:17:35 +0100
References: <000b01c22151$299cba80$540286d9@oemcomputer> <email@example.com>
Rosie Bevan wrote:
> I am beginning to wonder whether Eustantia and Constantia are actually the
> same person. The letters of the names would look very similar in
> contemporary handwriting and I am wondering whether there has been a
> transcription error somewhere along the line. It doesn't make an awful lot
> of sense for John to have named his daughter after his father's first
That's an interesting idea. The same question about why these later
Constances appear among Eustantia's decendants occurred to me.
It would certainly explain those fines I saw, mentioning Constance, from a
date later than the marriage to Eustantia. I have a note to go back and
check whether Constance is described as living in these fines, and whether
she is really William's wife, as the index indicates (I haven't had a chance
The big problem is the appearance of Margaret, Elizabeth and Constance, as
daughters and coheirs of Constance, in the pedigree in History of
Northumerland, vol.7, p.121. The authorities cited are various refs in
Dodsworth's manuscripts, and "Rev. John Hodgson's Collection", and Cal.
Close Rolls, 2 Edw III, p.335.
|Re: Another puzzle: Faucomberge and Felton by "Chris Phillips" <>|