On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 at 12:59:19 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

This past week I found a published index to the Chancery and Exchequer petitions, which index was prepared many years ago separate from the online Discovery catalog. The exact title of the book is: Index of Ancient Petitions of the Chancery and the

Exchequer, preserved in the Public Record Office (Lists and Indexes No. 1) (1892). It is available at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6NEPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA16

Just for fun, I compared the published index against a few actual petitions and also against the entries in the online Discovery catalog. I found the old published index to be much more faithful to the original petitions than the Discovery catalog. For

instance, when the published indexer encountered the name Maud or Maude, he rendered the name as Maud in the index. He did not convert the name into the Latin form Matilda. Also when he encountered the petition for the Abbess of Godstow (which had no
given name or surname), he indexed it strictly as being a petition for the Abbess of Godstow. He did not insert the abbess name in Latin form without brackets as done in the Discovery catalog.

Is the old index perfect? No. In the first example below, I note that he read the name "Mald" as 'Yald." I also know of another petition which was misread.

Surely the indexers do the best job they can. Given the difficult medieval script and poor condition of some of the documents, I'm frankly amazed that they do as well as they do. I very much appreciate all of their efforts. Even so, I'm puzzled that

the Discovery team made no use whatsoever of the earlier published index.

The entries below follow the numbers I earlier assigned to individual petitions as I pulled them from the Discovery catalog.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + +

1. Actual petition: Mald de Berklem of Brabant
Discovery catalog: Matilda de Berklem of Brabant
Published index of petitions: Yald de Berklem de Brabant

2. Actual petition: Maude Boutetourt.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Bouteteurt (Buteturte).
Published index of petitions: Maud Boutetourte.

3. Actual petition: Maud widow of Richard Schakyl.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Schakyl, widow of Richard Schakyl.
Published index of petitions: Maud late the wife of Richard de Schakyl.

4. Actual petition: Maud de Morton of Coventry
Discovery catalog: Matilda de Morton of Coventry.
Published index of petitions: Maud de Morton of Coventry

6. Actual petition: Maud de Nerford
Discovery catalog: Matilda de Nerford.
Published index of petitions: Maud de Nerford

7. Actual petition: Maude widow of Thomas Fitz Johan of Wengrave.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Fitz John, widow of Thomas Fitz John of Wingrave. Published index of petitions: Maud late the wife of Thomas, son of John de Wengrave

8. Actual petition: Abbess of Godstow.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Upton, Abbess of Godstow.
Published index of petitions: Abbess of Godstow.

9. Actual petition: Maud late the wife of Robert Broun.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Broun (Brown), widow of Robert Brown.
Published index of petitions: Maud late the wife of Robert Broun.

10. Actual petition: Maude widow of William de Caryngton, knight.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Caryngton (Carrington), widow of William de Carrington, knight.
Published index of petitions: Maud late the wife of William de Caryngton.

Hello,

Coming back to this old posting, does anybody who was Matilda, the wife William Caryngton?

In some works she is identified with de Ardene, but the book is not reliable:

"History and records of the Smith-Carington family, from the conquest to the present time : with full account of...."
pp. 42 43

There she is called daughter of Peter Arderne, second son of sir John Arderne.

She can not be the Matilda who married Robert de Legh.

J. Sardina

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 11:54:02 AM UTC-8, J. Sardina wrote:

On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 at 12:59:19 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

This past week I found a published index to the Chancery and Exchequer petitions, which index was prepared many years ago separate from the online Discovery catalog. The exact title of the book is: Index of Ancient Petitions of the Chancery and the

Exchequer, preserved in the Public Record Office (Lists and Indexes No. 1) (1892). It is available at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6NEPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA16

Just for fun, I compared the published index against a few actual petitions and also against the entries in the online Discovery catalog. I found the old published index to be much more faithful to the original petitions than the Discovery catalog.

For instance, when the published indexer encountered the name Maud or Maude, he rendered the name as Maud in the index. He did not convert the name into the Latin form Matilda. Also when he encountered the petition for the Abbess of Godstow (which had no
given name or surname), he indexed it strictly as being a petition for the Abbess of Godstow. He did not insert the abbess name in Latin form without brackets as done in the Discovery catalog.

Is the old index perfect? No. In the first example below, I note that he read the name "Mald" as 'Yald." I also know of another petition which was misread.

Surely the indexers do the best job they can. Given the difficult medieval script and poor condition of some of the documents, I'm frankly amazed that they do as well as they do. I very much appreciate all of their efforts. Even so, I'm puzzled that

the Discovery team made no use whatsoever of the earlier published index.

The entries below follow the numbers I earlier assigned to individual petitions as I pulled them from the Discovery catalog.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + +

1. Actual petition: Mald de Berklem of Brabant
Discovery catalog: Matilda de Berklem of Brabant
Published index of petitions: Yald de Berklem de Brabant

2. Actual petition: Maude Boutetourt.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Bouteteurt (Buteturte).
Published index of petitions: Maud Boutetourte.

3. Actual petition: Maud widow of Richard Schakyl.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Schakyl, widow of Richard Schakyl.
Published index of petitions: Maud late the wife of Richard de Schakyl.

4. Actual petition: Maud de Morton of Coventry
Discovery catalog: Matilda de Morton of Coventry.
Published index of petitions: Maud de Morton of Coventry

6. Actual petition: Maud de Nerford
Discovery catalog: Matilda de Nerford.
Published index of petitions: Maud de Nerford

7. Actual petition: Maude widow of Thomas Fitz Johan of Wengrave. Discovery catalog: Matilda Fitz John, widow of Thomas Fitz John of Wingrave.
Published index of petitions: Maud late the wife of Thomas, son of John de Wengrave

8. Actual petition: Abbess of Godstow.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Upton, Abbess of Godstow.
Published index of petitions: Abbess of Godstow.

9. Actual petition: Maud late the wife of Robert Broun.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Broun (Brown), widow of Robert Brown.
Published index of petitions: Maud late the wife of Robert Broun.

10. Actual petition: Maude widow of William de Caryngton, knight. Discovery catalog: Matilda Caryngton (Carrington), widow of William de Carrington, knight.
Published index of petitions: Maud late the wife of William de Caryngton.

Hello,

Coming back to this old posting, does anybody who was Matilda, the wife William Caryngton?

In some works she is identified with de Ardene, but the book is not reliable:

"History and records of the Smith-Carington family, from the conquest to the present time : with full account of...."
pp. 42 43

There she is called daughter of Peter Arderne, second son of sir John Arderne.

She can not be the Matilda who married Robert de Legh.

J. Sardina

John de /Arderne/ of Aldford and Alvanley; Knt
Heir of his father, a minor in 1308, a minor in 1317
IPM 23E3

was married three times
His third and last wife was
Ellen /Wasteneys/
third and last wife; married by 20E3

and it was by this wife that they had
Maud de /Arderne/
who m
Robert /Leigh/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 10:37:29 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 11:54:02 AM UTC-8, J. Sardina wrote:

On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 at 12:59:19 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

This past week I found a published index to the Chancery and Exchequer petitions, which index was prepared many years ago separate from the online Discovery catalog. The exact title of the book is: Index of Ancient Petitions of the Chancery and the

Exchequer, preserved in the Public Record Office (Lists and Indexes No. 1) (1892). It is available at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6NEPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA16

Just for fun, I compared the published index against a few actual petitions and also against the entries in the online Discovery catalog. I found the old published index to be much more faithful to the original petitions than the Discovery catalog.

For instance, when the published indexer encountered the name Maud or Maude, he rendered the name as Maud in the index. He did not convert the name into the Latin form Matilda. Also when he encountered the petition for the Abbess of Godstow (which had no
given name or surname), he indexed it strictly as being a petition for the Abbess of Godstow. He did not insert the abbess name in Latin form without brackets as done in the Discovery catalog.

Is the old index perfect? No. In the first example below, I note that he read the name "Mald" as 'Yald." I also know of another petition which was misread.

Surely the indexers do the best job they can. Given the difficult medieval script and poor condition of some of the documents, I'm frankly amazed that they do as well as they do. I very much appreciate all of their efforts. Even so, I'm puzzled

that the Discovery team made no use whatsoever of the earlier published index.

The entries below follow the numbers I earlier assigned to individual petitions as I pulled them from the Discovery catalog.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + +

1. Actual petition: Mald de Berklem of Brabant
Discovery catalog: Matilda de Berklem of Brabant
Published index of petitions: Yald de Berklem de Brabant

2. Actual petition: Maude Boutetourt.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Bouteteurt (Buteturte).
Published index of petitions: Maud Boutetourte.

3. Actual petition: Maud widow of Richard Schakyl.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Schakyl, widow of Richard Schakyl.
Published index of petitions: Maud late the wife of Richard de Schakyl.

4. Actual petition: Maud de Morton of Coventry
Discovery catalog: Matilda de Morton of Coventry.
Published index of petitions: Maud de Morton of Coventry

6. Actual petition: Maud de Nerford
Discovery catalog: Matilda de Nerford.
Published index of petitions: Maud de Nerford

7. Actual petition: Maude widow of Thomas Fitz Johan of Wengrave. Discovery catalog: Matilda Fitz John, widow of Thomas Fitz John of Wingrave.
Published index of petitions: Maud late the wife of Thomas, son of John de Wengrave

8. Actual petition: Abbess of Godstow.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Upton, Abbess of Godstow.
Published index of petitions: Abbess of Godstow.

9. Actual petition: Maud late the wife of Robert Broun.
Discovery catalog: Matilda Broun (Brown), widow of Robert Brown. Published index of petitions: Maud late the wife of Robert Broun.

10. Actual petition: Maude widow of William de Caryngton, knight. Discovery catalog: Matilda Caryngton (Carrington), widow of William de Carrington, knight.
Published index of petitions: Maud late the wife of William de Caryngton.

Hello,

Coming back to this old posting, does anybody who was Matilda, the wife William Caryngton?

In some works she is identified with de Ardene, but the book is not reliable:

"History and records of the Smith-Carington family, from the conquest to the present time : with full account of...."
pp. 42 43

There she is called daughter of Peter Arderne, second son of sir John Arderne.

She can not be the Matilda who married Robert de Legh.

J. Sardina

John de /Arderne/ of Aldford and Alvanley; Knt
Heir of his father, a minor in 1308, a minor in 1317
IPM 23E3

was married three times
His third and last wife was
Ellen /Wasteneys/
third and last wife; married by 20E3

and it was by this wife that they had
Maud de /Arderne/
who m
Robert /Leigh/

Yes. That is the one i had in mind. I did find some information about that Maud, and her children.
Assuming that the dates given for the Caryngtons are correct, the other Maud seems to have been her contemporary. and the Caryngton she married also died not far from the date of Robert Legh. There is at least one document in the National Archives that
mentions the second Maud as being a widow of Caryngton, but I have not been able to find any sources for the identification of her family as de Arderne.

J. Sardina

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)