GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2008-01 > 1199417233
From: "" <>
Subject: Re: Joan de Clinton, widow of John de Montfort, John de Clinton, and Henry ap Griffith
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 19:27:13 -0800 (PST)
References: <871ff485-6f06-4a87-b5c7-478a36e9312f@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com><c0771d7a-575e-496e-be2f-ee7bbcb1b79e@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <d6dd0060-5b20-490c-a1dc-25d13c663051@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <a8f2e673-c837-46a2-bb88-1307c586fae6@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <9c22a73d-4bb0-427f-8546-f4687ffb0657@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <32cd8e3f-5a51-49cd-8ad1-161e06b945e3@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <d03cdc01-b2f8-4374-899b-ecaa54df660d@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <f73eea5e-1633-48e7-9b4c-17f8fe8ac792@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com> <1beb2886-42f9-40e8-bc45-e26e21aa861b@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 3, 4:45 pm, Brad Verity <> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 8:57 am, Douglas Richardson <> wrote:
>
> > All newsgroup posters should know that ages given in medieval proofs
> > of age and in inquisitions post mortem are subject to gross error.
>
> Hear ye, medieval newsgroup members - our trained historian hath
> spoke! This is now a Richardson Rule, to sit alongside such dictums:
>
> 1) All medieval English persons had to be at least age 7 to be
> betrothed.
> 2) No medieval English divorce records have survived, so we cannot be
> sure how many 'missing marriages' there are.
> And now
> 3) Ages in medieval proofs of age and in IPMs are subject to gross
> error.
>
> Mark it well in your notebooks! Pop Quiz tomorrow.
>
> > Although they are often quite accurate,
>
> Oh wait, an amendment:
> 3) Ages in medieval proofs of age and in IPMs are often quite
> accurate, but are subject to gross error.
>
> Which ages (the jurors, the heirs)? "Details, details, one mustn't be
> bothered by details".
>
> > they are not at all like a
> > modern birth certificate, and should not be taken as such.
>
> Just in case any of us thought we should.
>
> > If the person said that John de Sutton was born in December NEXT AFTER
> > the Middle Plague,
>
> The "person" (juror) said that and more. Perhaps you should track
> down the original Proof of Age, or at least the transcription of it in
> the 1882 Ormerod/Helsby (thank you, Jophn Higgins, for clarifying that
> source).
>
> > he appears to have meant December 1362,
>
> Nope, he appears to not have meant that.
>
> > which is
> > the nearest December date AFTER the plague. Grazebrook establish this
> > fact years ago.
>
> Nope, Grazebook pointed out how two modern (19th century - modern for
> him) secondary sources differ as to the timeframe for the plague. He
> does not state that the juror meant December 1362.
>
> > Yet it was overlooked by at least three newsgroup
> > posters this week, all of whom had access to the Grazebrook article.
>
> "Overlooked" presumably because these other three newsgroup posters
> read Grazebook properly.
>
> > So we have three birth years for John de Sutton in his so called Proof
> > of Age: 1360, 1361, and 1362.
>
> Ummm, juries impaneled for a proof of age arrived at one conclusive
> verdict as a whole, just as juries in trials today arrive at one
> conclusive verdict. The verdict in the proof of age that they arrived
> at is the leading statement in the proof, such as "Douglas, son and
> heir of Joe Schmoe, was age twenty and one at the feast of St.
> Nicholas last, and was baptized at Salt Lake City in the church."
>
> The escheator then asked the jury "foreman" who provided this
> statement how he can know this conclusion, and wrote down the reason
> the juror provided, followed by the reason the next juror provided for
> knowing the aforesaid conclusion, followed by the third juror, etc,
> all the way to the twelfth.
>
> The jurors were not cross-examined, nor were they polled as to the age
> each one thought the heir was. How many Proof of Ages have you come
> across that run along the lines of:
>
> Juror 1: "He is 21 and more on the feast of St. Nicholas last because
> I raised him from the font on that day which was 21 years ago."
> Juror 2: "I know it to be true because I had a daughter born the same
> week and she is 20."
> Juror 3: "I broke my leg the day he was born, 23 years ago."
> Escheator [throws up his hands]: "Enough! I'm outta here! I'm
> putting in for a transfer to Devon!"
>
> > I say take your pick, or, if you
> > prefer, throw a dart.
>
> This from a trained historian. But, hey, that's a great idea for what
> I can do with my copied pages from PA3 - throw a dart!
>
> > Either way the Proof of Age is not the best
> > piece of evidence,
>
> Because it doesn't agree with your conclusion.
>
> > except perhaps for revealing that John de Sutton
> > was born at Coleshill, Warwickshire, which was the chief estate of
> > Joan de Clinton.
>
> Which does agree with your conclusion, so don't throw darts at that
> part.
>
> > Whatever the case, Inconsistencies in medieval records are a simple
> > fact of medieval life. They are what they are. That is why it is
> > especially important to look at the whole picture, instead of one
> > little piece.
>
> Yep. "Pay no attention to the Proof of Age over there - those things
> are not always accurate. Look at this over here. Trust me, I'm a
> trained historian, and I say look at this over here."
>
> Cheers, -------Brad
Brad you're such a Bore,
Your Royal Indecent ReDress,
Your Slips showing, Son,
Your John Brandon Branded Sass,
You're Royal Pain in Da @$$
persiflage, persiflage, persiflage
~Bret, scion of Charle de Magne
http://Back-stabbing Ancestral Descendants ASSoc.genealogy.medieval
This thread: