GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2010-07 > 1279779405
From: "Leo" <>
Subject: Re: Nicholas Harrington and Nicholas Harington and IsabelLoringand/or Engl...
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:16:45 +1000
References: <7c60e.756a03ad.3978da58@aol.com>
Dear Will,
Thomas outliving his father by 80 years is so easy as he was about 3 years
old when his father died.
Thomas' son died in 1358, lets start saying the son was 20 years old when
he died, then he was born about 1338 when Thomas was about 31. Now change
this and say Thomas became a father aged 20, then John the son could be born
about 1327, gives us a period from 1327 to 1338 for John to be born and grow
up enough to be married and have a child. What do you think?
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>; <>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Nicholas Harrington and Nicholas Harington and Isabel
Loringand/or Engl...
> In a message dated 7/21/2010 4:00:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> writes:
>
>
>> 4. WILLIAM de ROS, of Kendal Castle, d. bef. 9 May 1310. (Clay, 185).
>> 5. SIR THOMAS de ROS, of Kendal, b. C. 1307, d. c. l390/1; m. a dau.
>> of Sir John Preston of Westmorland. (Clay, 157).
>> 6. JOHN de ROS, of Kendal, d. 1358; m. Katherine, dau. of Sir Thomas
>> Latimer. (Generations 5 to 10: Clay, 157). >>
>
> Not certain we should favor a construction that makes a man outlast his
> son
> by 33 years and his own father by 80.
> Sounds pretty suspicious.
>
> Will Johnson
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
This thread: