Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-08 > 1061604203

From: (Reedpcgen)
Subject: Re: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster's cousin, John de St. John
Date: 23 Aug 2003 02:03:23 GMT
References: <bi4r0d$di7$>

>I'm still a bit puzzled why Roger should have identified himself in terms of
>his mother Margaret in the three charters cited. Was it simply because of
>her status as the daughter of an earl, or is there some other consideration
>that's relevant?

I wonder if it is a combination of factors. One might be that his mother had
Walthamstow in dower, and it was a main property concerned in the grants.
Another factor might be to differentiate him from the other Rogers in the
family. He was Roger son of Ralph, but so was his grandfather. There was also
a Roger de Toenio, bastardo, who was associated with the family ca. 1198, and
his cousin Baldwin de Toeni's son and heir Roger de Toeni, who eventually
assumed the surname de Akeny/d'Acquigny.

It's a good thing for us that he did style himself that way, or we'd be
perplexed about the witnesses.

Dr. Butterill was going to try to go through all of the material I sent this
weekend, and possibly get back to us next week. Since who the founder was is
important, she'll probably be concerned with that (rather than being as
concerned with Geoffrey Peverel).

It is still quite possible that Godeheut, wife of William de St. John the
younger was a daughter of Roger de Teoni by Constance de Beaumont, given that
the elder Godeheut who married the elder William de St. John was almost
certainly Roger's sister, but as the elder Godeheut. is known to have had two
daughters, one of them might also have been named Godeheut.

As one of hardly over a dozen women, and a close relation to the 'founder' and
patron, I'd think her life there might have been pleasant, by medieval


This thread: