GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2009-05 > 1241688018
From: "" <>
Subject: Re: Armiger means Esquire
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 02:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 6 May, 18:07, wrote:
> On May 6, 8:00 am, ""
> <> wrote:
> < Can we go back to the beginning? The summons of 1296 (24 Edw. I)
> < a distinction between those addressed as 'Dominus' and those
> < by name only. These latter are clearly knights since the summons is
> < military summons and would have been to those holding by military
> < service. So if those summoned by name must be knights, who are those
> < summoned as 'Dominus'? They can ONLY be barons, there is no other
> < explanation.
> Post the entire list. Let's review it.
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The list is at:
I would welcome your comments.
|Re: Armiger means Esquire by "" <>|