GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2009-09 > 1251916344
Subject: Re: Zouche dates
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:32:24 EDT
You are mis-reading it Pat. That's why it's so important to have the
actual source to review.
He states that he was aged sixty-seven *in* the deposition which was taken
That is why the *author* (not he) states that he was born about 1319.
So the next step would be to examine again what the claim that his elder
brother was born *in* 1321 is based upon.
Perhaps this should have been merely a "BEF 25 Dec 1321" as I see W.A.R.
making the statement this way.
So it's possible somebody merely munged it, turning a Bef into a "shortly
before" when maybe it's not at all.
In a message dated 9/2/2009 10:22:44 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
This is the resource. If from the Latin date we have 12 March 1397;
the transcription October 1398. Sir Richard died 23 April 1397. On
further examination, if he was aged "sixty-seven" at the time of the
testimony, then the math says he was born in 1330, four years after
his father, Eudo, died in Paris (1326).