Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their resources? Or
did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

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

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:01:23 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their resources? Or

did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

It is always unwise to overgeneralize, but I would think that the vast majority of the gentry of this era were litereate, and that the most likely cause in this case would be a stroke or just general weekness, or an injury or amputation.

Note that there were some cultural contexts in medieval times where a mark was not used due to illiteracy, or inability, but it was just the style. For example, before the deveopment of attachable wax seals, the Iberian monarchs would sign documents
with elaborate artistic 'marks' that served a similar purpose, and you also see the gentry using less elaborate marks in the same period.

taf

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

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 16:08:52 UTC+1, taf wrote:

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:01:23 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their resources?

Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

It is always unwise to overgeneralize, but I would think that the vast majority of the gentry of this era were litereate, and that the most likely cause in this case would be a stroke or just general weekness, or an injury or amputation.

Note that there were some cultural contexts in medieval times where a mark was not used due to illiteracy, or inability, but it was just the style. For example, before the deveopment of attachable wax seals, the Iberian monarchs would sign documents

with elaborate artistic 'marks' that served a similar purpose, and you also see the gentry using less elaborate marks in the same period.

taf

In M T Clanchy's book 'From Memory to Written Record', 3rd edn, 2013, plate 1 shows a charter of Ilbert de Lacy, one of William Rufus's barons, where Ilbert uses a seal. But the charter is also witnessed by the king himself, Ilbert and his wife Hawise,
with the sign of the cross. In this charter, the witnesses also drew their autograph crosses (+ rather than x), with the scribe adding their names next to the crosses. In another charter where the witnesses made the sign of the cross, the scribe who
wrote out the charter also drew the crosses with their names. In all these cases the sign of the cross represented a sacred action rather than a substitute for a signature.

Peter Howarth

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

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:51:12 PM UTC-4, Peter Howarth wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 16:08:52 UTC+1, taf wrote:

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:01:23 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their resources?

Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

It is always unwise to overgeneralize, but I would think that the vast majority of the gentry of this era were litereate, and that the most likely cause in this case would be a stroke or just general weekness, or an injury or amputation.

Note that there were some cultural contexts in medieval times where a mark was not used due to illiteracy, or inability, but it was just the style. For example, before the deveopment of attachable wax seals, the Iberian monarchs would sign documents

with elaborate artistic 'marks' that served a similar purpose, and you also see the gentry using less elaborate marks in the same period.

taf

In M T Clanchy's book 'From Memory to Written Record', 3rd edn, 2013, plate 1 shows a charter of Ilbert de Lacy, one of William Rufus's barons, where Ilbert uses a seal. But the charter is also witnessed by the king himself, Ilbert and his wife Hawise,

with the sign of the cross. In this charter, the witnesses also drew their autograph crosses (+ rather than x), with the scribe adding their names next to the crosses. In another charter where the witnesses made the sign of the cross, the scribe who
wrote out the charter also drew the crosses with their names. In all these cases the sign of the cross represented a sacred action rather than a substitute for a signature.

Peter Howarth

Peter, thanks for this. It makes complete sense. Yesterday, I finally found a microfilmed copy of ancestor's will -- not just relying on a transcription -- and noticed in the record set of wills from same time and place that virtually all of the wills
were signed with a mark...Thought that, among people with enough resources to want to make a will at all, that many of them couldn't be unable to read/write. Am learning so much. Thank you again.

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

A segunda-feira, 28 de março de 2022 à(s) 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their resources? Or

did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

If you don't mind me asking, who is that gentleman ancestor? Also, do you have any royal descent? If so, could you, please, share it?

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

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 8:44:55 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

A segunda-feira, 28 de março de 2022 à(s) 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their resources?

Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

If you don't mind me asking, who is that gentleman ancestor? Also, do you have any royal descent? If so, could you, please, share it?

Paulo, I am descended from the "pilgrim" Edward FitzRandolph, who came to America about 1630 from Nottinghamshire, England. The will I cited was his father's -- also an Edward FitzRandolph. The family's line back to a Magna Carta baron used to appear in
Douglas Richardson's work, "Magna Carta Ancestry," but no longer does, as there is one thought-but-not-proven link between Edward pilgrim's great-grandfather, John FitzRandolph, and his presumed father, Sir Ralph FizrRandolph/FitzRandall. The evidence is
strong, I think, that Edward pilgrim was descended from the FitzRandolphs of Spennithorne, Yorkshire, but concrete proof is lacking between those two generations. Douglas Richardson left a brief note here recently, saying he personally thinks Edward's
descent from the line in question is quite likely but remains a theory without hard proof.

About a year and a half ago, I discovered that I'm also descended from Anne Couvent (ca 1604-1675), a Frenchwoman, for whom evidence suggests she might have descended from King Henry III of England. I found her among my many French Canadian ancestors,
with originally no idea I might discover a royal connection, and with no intent to do so. We had a lengthy exchange about her line on this forum -- you were part of that -- but I am not knowledgeable enough and don't read enough French or Latin to
evaluate the evidence for myself. As I think Denis Beauregard pointed out, this (possible/likely) royal descent was discovered incidentally during a project that focused on something else. I also don't know whether any further evidence has emerged or
study done. For now, I am having fun thinking that Eleanor of Aquitaine might have been my 27th great-grandmother!

Do you have a noble or royal ancestor?

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

Le dimanche 3 avril 2022 à 15:48:17 UTC+2, Girl57 a écrit :

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 8:44:55 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

A segunda-feira, 28 de março de 2022 à(s) 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their resources?

Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

If you don't mind me asking, who is that gentleman ancestor? Also, do you have any royal descent? If so, could you, please, share it?

Paulo, I am descended from the "pilgrim" Edward FitzRandolph, who came to America about 1630 from Nottinghamshire, England. The will I cited was his father's -- also an Edward FitzRandolph. The family's line back to a Magna Carta baron used to appear

in Douglas Richardson's work, "Magna Carta Ancestry," but no longer does, as there is one thought-but-not-proven link between Edward pilgrim's great-grandfather, John FitzRandolph, and his presumed father, Sir Ralph FizrRandolph/FitzRandall. The evidence
is strong, I think, that Edward pilgrim was descended from the FitzRandolphs of Spennithorne, Yorkshire, but concrete proof is lacking between those two generations. Douglas Richardson left a brief note here recently, saying he personally thinks Edward's
descent from the line in question is quite likely but remains a theory without hard proof.

About a year and a half ago, I discovered that I'm also descended from Anne Couvent (ca 1604-1675), a Frenchwoman, for whom evidence suggests she might have descended from King Henry III of England. I found her among my many French Canadian ancestors,

with originally no idea I might discover a royal connection, and with no intent to do so. We had a lengthy exchange about her line on this forum -- you were part of that -- but I am not knowledgeable enough and don't read enough French or Latin to
evaluate the evidence for myself. As I think Denis Beauregard pointed out, this (possible/likely) royal descent was discovered incidentally during a project that focused on something else. I also don't know whether any further evidence has emerged or
study done. For now, I am having fun thinking that Eleanor of Aquitaine might have been my 27th great-grandmother!

Do you have a noble or royal ancestor?

Anne Couvent ca 1604-1675

Génération 2

Sosa 3 - Antoinette de Longueval ca 1580-

Génération 3

Sosa 7 - Louise de Joyeuse 1565-1616

Génération 4

Sosa 14 - Jean de Joyeuse, seigneur de Champigneulle

Génération 5

Sosa 28 - François de Joyeuse, seigneur de Campigneulle

Génération 6

Sosa 56 - Robert de Joyeuse, comte de Grandpré †1556/
Sosa 57 - Marguerite de Barbançon

Génération 7

Sosa 113 - Isabelle van Halewijn ca 1467-1497/
Sosa 114 - François de Barbançon †1501/

Génération 8

Sosa 227 - Jeanne de La Clyte ca 1445-1512
Sosa 229 - Jeanne de Sarrebruck

Génération 9

Sosa 454 - Jean de La Clyte, seigneur de Comines †1475
Sosa 458 - Robert de Sarrebruck, seigneur de Commercy †1460
Sosa 459 - Jeanne de Pierrepont 1406-1459

Génération 10

Sosa 909 - Jeanne de Ghistelles †1431
Sosa 917 - Marie de Châteauvillain †1423/
Sosa 918 - Jean, comte de Roucy ca 1378-1415

Génération 11

Sosa 1 819 - Jeanne de Châtillon
Sosa 1 835 - Jeanne, dame de Grancey †?1423
Sosa 1 837 - Blanche de Coucy †1394

Génération 12

Sosa 3 639 - Jeanne de Coucy ca 1320-1380
Sosa 3 671 - Yolande de Bar †ca 1410
Sosa 3 674 - Raoul de Coucy †1389/
Sosa 3 675 - Jeanne d'Harcourt

Génération 13

Sosa 7 279 - Isabeau de Châtillon †1360
Sosa 7 343 - Marie de Dampierre 1322-1354
Sosa 7 351 - Blanche de Ponthieu, comtesse d'Aumale †1387

Génération 14

Sosa 14 559 - Marie de Dreux 1268-1339
Sosa 14 687 - Marie d'Artois ca 1291-1365
Sosa 14 703 - Catherine d'Artois †1368

Génération 15

Sosa 29 119 - Beatrice, princess of England 1242-1275
Sosa 29 375 - Blanche de Dreux, dame de Brie-Comte-Robert 1270-1327

Génération 16

Sosa 58 238 - Henry III, King of England 1207-1272

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

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 11:11:48 AM UTC-4, Olivier wrote:

Le dimanche 3 avril 2022 à 15:48:17 UTC+2, Girl57 a écrit :

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 8:44:55 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

A segunda-feira, 28 de março de 2022 à(s) 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their

resources? Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

If you don't mind me asking, who is that gentleman ancestor? Also, do you have any royal descent? If so, could you, please, share it?

Paulo, I am descended from the "pilgrim" Edward FitzRandolph, who came to America about 1630 from Nottinghamshire, England. The will I cited was his father's -- also an Edward FitzRandolph. The family's line back to a Magna Carta baron used to appear

in Douglas Richardson's work, "Magna Carta Ancestry," but no longer does, as there is one thought-but-not-proven link between Edward pilgrim's great-grandfather, John FitzRandolph, and his presumed father, Sir Ralph FizrRandolph/FitzRandall. The evidence
is strong, I think, that Edward pilgrim was descended from the FitzRandolphs of Spennithorne, Yorkshire, but concrete proof is lacking between those two generations. Douglas Richardson left a brief note here recently, saying he personally thinks Edward's
descent from the line in question is quite likely but remains a theory without hard proof.

About a year and a half ago, I discovered that I'm also descended from Anne Couvent (ca 1604-1675), a Frenchwoman, for whom evidence suggests she might have descended from King Henry III of England. I found her among my many French Canadian ancestors,

with originally no idea I might discover a royal connection, and with no intent to do so. We had a lengthy exchange about her line on this forum -- you were part of that -- but I am not knowledgeable enough and don't read enough French or Latin to
evaluate the evidence for myself. As I think Denis Beauregard pointed out, this (possible/likely) royal descent was discovered incidentally during a project that focused on something else. I also don't know whether any further evidence has emerged or
study done. For now, I am having fun thinking that Eleanor of Aquitaine might have been my 27th great-grandmother!

Do you have a noble or royal ancestor?

Anne Couvent ca 1604-1675

Génération 2

Sosa 3 - Antoinette de Longueval ca 1580-

Génération 3

Sosa 7 - Louise de Joyeuse 1565-1616

Génération 4

Sosa 14 - Jean de Joyeuse, seigneur de Champigneulle

Génération 5

Sosa 28 - François de Joyeuse, seigneur de Campigneulle

Génération 6

Sosa 56 - Robert de Joyeuse, comte de Grandpré †1556/
Sosa 57 - Marguerite de Barbançon

Génération 7

Sosa 113 - Isabelle van Halewijn ca 1467-1497/
Sosa 114 - François de Barbançon †1501/

Génération 8

Sosa 227 - Jeanne de La Clyte ca 1445-1512
Sosa 229 - Jeanne de Sarrebruck

Génération 9

Sosa 454 - Jean de La Clyte, seigneur de Comines †1475
Sosa 458 - Robert de Sarrebruck, seigneur de Commercy †1460
Sosa 459 - Jeanne de Pierrepont 1406-1459

Génération 10

Sosa 909 - Jeanne de Ghistelles †1431
Sosa 917 - Marie de Châteauvillain †1423/
Sosa 918 - Jean, comte de Roucy ca 1378-1415

Génération 11

Sosa 1 819 - Jeanne de Châtillon
Sosa 1 835 - Jeanne, dame de Grancey †?1423
Sosa 1 837 - Blanche de Coucy †1394

Génération 12

Sosa 3 639 - Jeanne de Coucy ca 1320-1380
Sosa 3 671 - Yolande de Bar †ca 1410
Sosa 3 674 - Raoul de Coucy †1389/
Sosa 3 675 - Jeanne d'Harcourt

Génération 13

Sosa 7 279 - Isabeau de Châtillon †1360
Sosa 7 343 - Marie de Dampierre 1322-1354
Sosa 7 351 - Blanche de Ponthieu, comtesse d'Aumale †1387

Génération 14

Sosa 14 559 - Marie de Dreux 1268-1339
Sosa 14 687 - Marie d'Artois ca 1291-1365
Sosa 14 703 - Catherine d'Artois †1368

Génération 15

Sosa 29 119 - Beatrice, princess of England 1242-1275
Sosa 29 375 - Blanche de Dreux, dame de Brie-Comte-Robert 1270-1327

Génération 16

Sosa 58 238 - Henry III, King of England 1207-1272

Olivier, Thanks so much for this...I appreciate. I'm not sure whether any questions on this line have been further addressed or resolved since the conversation here about a year ago. The Gagne article sounded very good to me, and trusted by many, but I
am not an expert nor experienced. Would love any insight you might have on this line. A possible royal connection was a fun surprise for me...I had traced myself all the way back to Anne (fortunately not very hard, given the enormous number of Catholic
Church records available for Quebec) and thought that was a real accomplishment LOL. Are you a descendant of Anne's?

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

A segunda-feira, 4 de abril de 2022 à(s) 01:35:24 UTC+1, Paulo Ricardo Canedo escreveu:

A domingo, 3 de abril de 2022 à(s) 14:48:17 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 8:44:55 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

A segunda-feira, 28 de março de 2022 à(s) 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their

resources? Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

If you don't mind me asking, who is that gentleman ancestor? Also, do you have any royal descent? If so, could you, please, share it?

Paulo, I am descended from the "pilgrim" Edward FitzRandolph, who came to America about 1630 from Nottinghamshire, England. The will I cited was his father's -- also an Edward FitzRandolph. The family's line back to a Magna Carta baron used to appear

in Douglas Richardson's work, "Magna Carta Ancestry," but no longer does, as there is one thought-but-not-proven link between Edward pilgrim's great-grandfather, John FitzRandolph, and his presumed father, Sir Ralph FizrRandolph/FitzRandall. The evidence
is strong, I think, that Edward pilgrim was descended from the FitzRandolphs of Spennithorne, Yorkshire, but concrete proof is lacking between those two generations. Douglas Richardson left a brief note here recently, saying he personally thinks Edward's
descent from the line in question is quite likely but remains a theory without hard proof.

About a year and a half ago, I discovered that I'm also descended from Anne Couvent (ca 1604-1675), a Frenchwoman, for whom evidence suggests she might have descended from King Henry III of England. I found her among my many French Canadian ancestors,

with originally no idea I might discover a royal connection, and with no intent to do so. We had a lengthy exchange about her line on this forum -- you were part of that -- but I am not knowledgeable enough and don't read enough French or Latin to
evaluate the evidence for myself. As I think Denis Beauregard pointed out, this (possible/likely) royal descent was discovered incidentally during a project that focused on something else. I also don't know whether any further evidence has emerged or
study done. For now, I am having fun thinking that Eleanor of Aquitaine might have been my 27th great-grandmother!

Do you have a noble or royal ancestor?

I didn't remember it had been you who posted the Anne Couvent thread. As I said there, I find it solid. Both her and Edward FitzRandolph are accepted as gateway ancestors by the Order of the Crown of Charmemagne.

I still don't even know all of my greatgreatgrandparents though I made progress last year as part of an university assignment.

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

A domingo, 3 de abril de 2022 à(s) 14:48:17 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 8:44:55 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

A segunda-feira, 28 de março de 2022 à(s) 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their resources?

Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

If you don't mind me asking, who is that gentleman ancestor? Also, do you have any royal descent? If so, could you, please, share it?

Paulo, I am descended from the "pilgrim" Edward FitzRandolph, who came to America about 1630 from Nottinghamshire, England. The will I cited was his father's -- also an Edward FitzRandolph. The family's line back to a Magna Carta baron used to appear

in Douglas Richardson's work, "Magna Carta Ancestry," but no longer does, as there is one thought-but-not-proven link between Edward pilgrim's great-grandfather, John FitzRandolph, and his presumed father, Sir Ralph FizrRandolph/FitzRandall. The evidence
is strong, I think, that Edward pilgrim was descended from the FitzRandolphs of Spennithorne, Yorkshire, but concrete proof is lacking between those two generations. Douglas Richardson left a brief note here recently, saying he personally thinks Edward's
descent from the line in question is quite likely but remains a theory without hard proof.

About a year and a half ago, I discovered that I'm also descended from Anne Couvent (ca 1604-1675), a Frenchwoman, for whom evidence suggests she might have descended from King Henry III of England. I found her among my many French Canadian ancestors,

with originally no idea I might discover a royal connection, and with no intent to do so. We had a lengthy exchange about her line on this forum -- you were part of that -- but I am not knowledgeable enough and don't read enough French or Latin to
evaluate the evidence for myself. As I think Denis Beauregard pointed out, this (possible/likely) royal descent was discovered incidentally during a project that focused on something else. I also don't know whether any further evidence has emerged or
study done. For now, I am having fun thinking that Eleanor of Aquitaine might have been my 27th great-grandmother!

Do you have a noble or royal ancestor?

If you don't mind me asking, who was the gentleman you originally asked about?

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

A domingo, 3 de abril de 2022 à(s) 14:48:17 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 8:44:55 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

A segunda-feira, 28 de março de 2022 à(s) 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their resources?

Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

If you don't mind me asking, who is that gentleman ancestor? Also, do you have any royal descent? If so, could you, please, share it?

Paulo, I am descended from the "pilgrim" Edward FitzRandolph, who came to America about 1630 from Nottinghamshire, England. The will I cited was his father's -- also an Edward FitzRandolph. The family's line back to a Magna Carta baron used to appear

in Douglas Richardson's work, "Magna Carta Ancestry," but no longer does, as there is one thought-but-not-proven link between Edward pilgrim's great-grandfather, John FitzRandolph, and his presumed father, Sir Ralph FizrRandolph/FitzRandall. The evidence
is strong, I think, that Edward pilgrim was descended from the FitzRandolphs of Spennithorne, Yorkshire, but concrete proof is lacking between those two generations. Douglas Richardson left a brief note here recently, saying he personally thinks Edward's
descent from the line in question is quite likely but remains a theory without hard proof.

About a year and a half ago, I discovered that I'm also descended from Anne Couvent (ca 1604-1675), a Frenchwoman, for whom evidence suggests she might have descended from King Henry III of England. I found her among my many French Canadian ancestors,

with originally no idea I might discover a royal connection, and with no intent to do so. We had a lengthy exchange about her line on this forum -- you were part of that -- but I am not knowledgeable enough and don't read enough French or Latin to
evaluate the evidence for myself. As I think Denis Beauregard pointed out, this (possible/likely) royal descent was discovered incidentally during a project that focused on something else. I also don't know whether any further evidence has emerged or
study done. For now, I am having fun thinking that Eleanor of Aquitaine might have been my 27th great-grandmother!

Do you have a noble or royal ancestor?

I didn't remember it had been you who posted the Anne Couvent thread. As I said there, I find it solid. Both her and Edward FitzRandolph are accepted as gateway ancestors by the Order of the Crown of Charmemagne.

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

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their resources? Or

did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.


This does depend on rather a lot of factors. In general, yes, I would think that by this time, most male gentry would have been educated enough to sign; but there could have been, as you imply, many reasons why that wasn't possible. I remember sadly my
late father (a double first at Oxford in Lit. Hum.), in his 80s on his deathbed having to sign a power of attorney with a cross - not only was he blind from glaucoma but also physically very weak. I don't think that you can take a cross/mark (people were
more inclined then to use elaborate marks, maybe smit) as proof of illiteracy (especially in 1647 in a period of civil war). You can, to some extent, take a signature as a sign of 'literacy', but perhaps that was the only thing that they could do. It
doesn't necessarily mean that they could read a book or keep accounts.

I would also be slightly wary about the use of the term 'gentleman'. A 'gentleman' was not necessarily 'gentry', merely someone who could carry off the appearance. Especially as the century progressed.

Female signatures are somewhat different. In the area I study, they don't really become common until the 1690s.

We still do, sometimes, sign with an X or something equivalent (a hasty scrawl). Increasingly (in the UK anyway), 'proof' of delivery is a matter of taking a photo of the package with the recipient's fingers curled around it!

Chris

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

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 16:41:26 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their resources?

Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

This does depend on rather a lot of factors. In general, yes, I would think that by this time, most male gentry would have been educated enough to sign; but there could have been, as you imply, many reasons why that wasn't possible. I remember sadly my

late father (a double first at Oxford in Lit. Hum.), in his 80s on his deathbed having to sign a power of attorney with a cross - not only was he blind from glaucoma but also physically very weak. I don't think that you can take a cross/mark (people were
more inclined then to use elaborate marks, maybe smit) as proof of illiteracy (especially in 1647 in a period of civil war). You can, to some extent, take a signature as a sign of 'literacy', but perhaps that was the only thing that they could do. It
doesn't necessarily mean that they could read a book or keep accounts.

I would also be slightly wary about the use of the term 'gentleman'. A 'gentleman' was not necessarily 'gentry', merely someone who could carry off the appearance. Especially as the century progressed.

Female signatures are somewhat different. In the area I study, they don't really become common until the 1690s.

We still do, sometimes, sign with an X or something equivalent (a hasty scrawl). Increasingly (in the UK anyway), 'proof' of delivery is a matter of taking a photo of the package with the recipient's fingers curled around it!

Chris

By the way, is the will proved by the PCC or was it handled by some other ecclesiastical court? This can make a lot of difference when it comes to examining signatures/marks or getting additional information.

Chrid

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

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:07:03 PM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 16:41:26 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their resources?

Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

This does depend on rather a lot of factors. In general, yes, I would think that by this time, most male gentry would have been educated enough to sign; but there could have been, as you imply, many reasons why that wasn't possible. I remember sadly

my late father (a double first at Oxford in Lit. Hum.), in his 80s on his deathbed having to sign a power of attorney with a cross - not only was he blind from glaucoma but also physically very weak. I don't think that you can take a cross/mark (people
were more inclined then to use elaborate marks, maybe smit) as proof of illiteracy (especially in 1647 in a period of civil war). You can, to some extent, take a signature as a sign of 'literacy', but perhaps that was the only thing that they could do.
It doesn't necessarily mean that they could read a book or keep accounts.

I would also be slightly wary about the use of the term 'gentleman'. A 'gentleman' was not necessarily 'gentry', merely someone who could carry off the appearance. Especially as the century progressed.

Female signatures are somewhat different. In the area I study, they don't really become common until the 1690s.

We still do, sometimes, sign with an X or something equivalent (a hasty scrawl). Increasingly (in the UK anyway), 'proof' of delivery is a matter of taking a photo of the package with the recipient's fingers curled around it!

Chris

By the way, is the will proved by the PCC or was it handled by some other ecclesiastical court? This can make a lot of difference when it comes to examining signatures/marks or getting additional information.

Chrid

Chris, thank you for the great insights. I'm sorry this happened to your dad. Oxford! I recently lost my lovely and erudite father-in-law at age 99, and he wouldn't have been able to sign his name near the end.

The will I found for "gentleman" (I'll be wary) ancestor was on FamilySearch.org, in a record set marked, "Archdeaconry wills for the deaneries of Retford, Newark, Nottingham and Bingham, 1466-1858." I have also ordered a copy from the Nottinghamshire
archives, and that item is marked "Deanery of Newark." I'm just beginning to learn about the complex probate procedures of medieval and early modern England. Yikes! (There's some sophisticated vocabulary!) The will on FamilySearch has, near the bottom,
some writing I can't make out. The marks for my ancestor are two slightly curved lines that look a bit like parentheses marks separated by a little space; the witnesses' marks are distinctive, though -- one looks like a tiny umbrella and the other like a
miniature inkpot.

My ancestor's uncle of the same name matriculated at Oxford 19 Jun 1587...no degrees listed. My man was one generation farther removed from his lower-level gentry grandfather, and was also not his father's eldest son, if I recall. There do seem to be a
lot of factors.

While I love looking at centuries-old documents that may contain hasty scrawls, I'm getting fond of the pictures of my fingers curled around the package! Jinny

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

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 23:35:07 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:07:03 PM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 16:41:26 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their

resources? Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

This does depend on rather a lot of factors. In general, yes, I would think that by this time, most male gentry would have been educated enough to sign; but there could have been, as you imply, many reasons why that wasn't possible. I remember

sadly my late father (a double first at Oxford in Lit. Hum.), in his 80s on his deathbed having to sign a power of attorney with a cross - not only was he blind from glaucoma but also physically very weak. I don't think that you can take a cross/mark (
people were more inclined then to use elaborate marks, maybe smit) as proof of illiteracy (especially in 1647 in a period of civil war). You can, to some extent, take a signature as a sign of 'literacy', but perhaps that was the only thing that they
could do. It doesn't necessarily mean that they could read a book or keep accounts.

I would also be slightly wary about the use of the term 'gentleman'. A 'gentleman' was not necessarily 'gentry', merely someone who could carry off the appearance. Especially as the century progressed.

Female signatures are somewhat different. In the area I study, they don't really become common until the 1690s.

We still do, sometimes, sign with an X or something equivalent (a hasty scrawl). Increasingly (in the UK anyway), 'proof' of delivery is a matter of taking a photo of the package with the recipient's fingers curled around it!

Chris

By the way, is the will proved by the PCC or was it handled by some other ecclesiastical court? This can make a lot of difference when it comes to examining signatures/marks or getting additional information.

Chrid

Chris, thank you for the great insights. I'm sorry this happened to your dad. Oxford! I recently lost my lovely and erudite father-in-law at age 99, and he wouldn't have been able to sign his name near the end.

The will I found for "gentleman" (I'll be wary) ancestor was on FamilySearch.org, in a record set marked, "Archdeaconry wills for the deaneries of Retford, Newark, Nottingham and Bingham, 1466-1858." I have also ordered a copy from the Nottinghamshire

archives, and that item is marked "Deanery of Newark." I'm just beginning to learn about the complex probate procedures of medieval and early modern England. Yikes! (There's some sophisticated vocabulary!) The will on FamilySearch has, near the bottom,
some writing I can't make out. The marks for my ancestor are two slightly curved lines that look a bit like parentheses marks separated by a little space; the witnesses' marks are distinctive, though -- one looks like a tiny umbrella and the other like a
miniature inkpot.

My ancestor's uncle of the same name matriculated at Oxford 19 Jun 1587...no degrees listed. My man was one generation farther removed from his lower-level gentry grandfather, and was also not his father's eldest son, if I recall. There do seem to be a

lot of factors.

While I love looking at centuries-old documents that may contain hasty scrawls, I'm getting fond of the pictures of my fingers curled around the package! Jinny

There may possibly be more material in the probate. Wills aren't always indexed together with other probate documents. Worth checking if you haven't already.

Chris

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

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 7:04:27 PM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 23:35:07 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:07:03 PM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 16:41:26 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their

resources? Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

This does depend on rather a lot of factors. In general, yes, I would think that by this time, most male gentry would have been educated enough to sign; but there could have been, as you imply, many reasons why that wasn't possible. I remember

sadly my late father (a double first at Oxford in Lit. Hum.), in his 80s on his deathbed having to sign a power of attorney with a cross - not only was he blind from glaucoma but also physically very weak. I don't think that you can take a cross/mark (
people were more inclined then to use elaborate marks, maybe smit) as proof of illiteracy (especially in 1647 in a period of civil war). You can, to some extent, take a signature as a sign of 'literacy', but perhaps that was the only thing that they
could do. It doesn't necessarily mean that they could read a book or keep accounts.

I would also be slightly wary about the use of the term 'gentleman'. A 'gentleman' was not necessarily 'gentry', merely someone who could carry off the appearance. Especially as the century progressed.

Female signatures are somewhat different. In the area I study, they don't really become common until the 1690s.

We still do, sometimes, sign with an X or something equivalent (a hasty scrawl). Increasingly (in the UK anyway), 'proof' of delivery is a matter of taking a photo of the package with the recipient's fingers curled around it!

Chris

By the way, is the will proved by the PCC or was it handled by some other ecclesiastical court? This can make a lot of difference when it comes to examining signatures/marks or getting additional information.

Chrid

Chris, thank you for the great insights. I'm sorry this happened to your dad. Oxford! I recently lost my lovely and erudite father-in-law at age 99, and he wouldn't have been able to sign his name near the end.

The will I found for "gentleman" (I'll be wary) ancestor was on FamilySearch.org, in a record set marked, "Archdeaconry wills for the deaneries of Retford, Newark, Nottingham and Bingham, 1466-1858." I have also ordered a copy from the

Nottinghamshire archives, and that item is marked "Deanery of Newark." I'm just beginning to learn about the complex probate procedures of medieval and early modern England. Yikes! (There's some sophisticated vocabulary!) The will on FamilySearch has,
near the bottom, some writing I can't make out. The marks for my ancestor are two slightly curved lines that look a bit like parentheses marks separated by a little space; the witnesses' marks are distinctive, though -- one looks like a tiny umbrella and
the other like a miniature inkpot.

My ancestor's uncle of the same name matriculated at Oxford 19 Jun 1587...no degrees listed. My man was one generation farther removed from his lower-level gentry grandfather, and was also not his father's eldest son, if I recall. There do seem to be

a lot of factors.

While I love looking at centuries-old documents that may contain hasty scrawls, I'm getting fond of the pictures of my fingers curled around the package! Jinny

There may possibly be more material in the probate. Wills aren't always indexed together with other probate documents. Worth checking if you haven't already.

Chris

Thanks, Chris. I'll figure out the best way to check this. One more quick question: If older, published works cite letters of admin, e.g., "...letters of administration issued 26 Apr 1570 ...to eldest son...and relict of the deceased. (Archdiocesan
Registry of Probate, York. Deanery of Newark, Administration Act Book.)"...is it safe to assume there was no will? Re: letters -- and records of subsequent action by administrators -- do these maybe survive to be accessed, or am I likely limited to the
reference in the Act Book?

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

On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 17:52:45 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 7:04:27 PM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 23:35:07 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:07:03 PM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 16:41:26 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their

resources? Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

This does depend on rather a lot of factors. In general, yes, I would think that by this time, most male gentry would have been educated enough to sign; but there could have been, as you imply, many reasons why that wasn't possible. I remember

sadly my late father (a double first at Oxford in Lit. Hum.), in his 80s on his deathbed having to sign a power of attorney with a cross - not only was he blind from glaucoma but also physically very weak. I don't think that you can take a cross/mark (
people were more inclined then to use elaborate marks, maybe smit) as proof of illiteracy (especially in 1647 in a period of civil war). You can, to some extent, take a signature as a sign of 'literacy', but perhaps that was the only thing that they
could do. It doesn't necessarily mean that they could read a book or keep accounts.

I would also be slightly wary about the use of the term 'gentleman'. A 'gentleman' was not necessarily 'gentry', merely someone who could carry off the appearance. Especially as the century progressed.

Female signatures are somewhat different. In the area I study, they don't really become common until the 1690s.

We still do, sometimes, sign with an X or something equivalent (a hasty scrawl). Increasingly (in the UK anyway), 'proof' of delivery is a matter of taking a photo of the package with the recipient's fingers curled around it!

Chris

By the way, is the will proved by the PCC or was it handled by some other ecclesiastical court? This can make a lot of difference when it comes to examining signatures/marks or getting additional information.

Chrid

Chris, thank you for the great insights. I'm sorry this happened to your dad. Oxford! I recently lost my lovely and erudite father-in-law at age 99, and he wouldn't have been able to sign his name near the end.

The will I found for "gentleman" (I'll be wary) ancestor was on FamilySearch.org, in a record set marked, "Archdeaconry wills for the deaneries of Retford, Newark, Nottingham and Bingham, 1466-1858." I have also ordered a copy from the

Nottinghamshire archives, and that item is marked "Deanery of Newark." I'm just beginning to learn about the complex probate procedures of medieval and early modern England. Yikes! (There's some sophisticated vocabulary!) The will on FamilySearch has,
near the bottom, some writing I can't make out. The marks for my ancestor are two slightly curved lines that look a bit like parentheses marks separated by a little space; the witnesses' marks are distinctive, though -- one looks like a tiny umbrella and
the other like a miniature inkpot.

My ancestor's uncle of the same name matriculated at Oxford 19 Jun 1587...no degrees listed. My man was one generation farther removed from his lower-level gentry grandfather, and was also not his father's eldest son, if I recall. There do seem to

be a lot of factors.

While I love looking at centuries-old documents that may contain hasty scrawls, I'm getting fond of the pictures of my fingers curled around the package! Jinny

There may possibly be more material in the probate. Wills aren't always indexed together with other probate documents. Worth checking if you haven't already.

Chris

Thanks, Chris. I'll figure out the best way to check this. One more quick question: If older, published works cite letters of admin, e.g., "...letters of administration issued 26 Apr 1570 ...to eldest son...and relict of the deceased. (Archdiocesan

Registry of Probate, York. Deanery of Newark, Administration Act Book.)"...is it safe to assume there was no will? Re: letters -- and records of subsequent action by administrators -- do these maybe survive to be accessed, or am I likely limited to the
reference in the Act Book?


I suppose that the best reply is to assume nothing! But, yes, as a general principle 'letters of administration' do imply the lack of a will as such.

There used to be three parts to the probate process: the will, the inventory, and the bond(s). Even without the will, the other two can be hugely informative. For instance, I found a whole list of the Dickinson children of my ancestress Annas Stanwix in
the 1590s in the probate inventory of her second husband (they were listed as being owed inheritances from her first husband). The inventory used to be mainly prized [appraised] by neighbours (which is interesting in itself, let alone the contents), and
the bondsmen in the bond(s) usually were relatives - so indicating further possible research routes. But these ancillary documents haven't survived in many areas.

Chris

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

A segunda-feira, 4 de abril de 2022 à(s) 23:35:07 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:07:03 PM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 16:41:26 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their

resources? Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

This does depend on rather a lot of factors. In general, yes, I would think that by this time, most male gentry would have been educated enough to sign; but there could have been, as you imply, many reasons why that wasn't possible. I remember

sadly my late father (a double first at Oxford in Lit. Hum.), in his 80s on his deathbed having to sign a power of attorney with a cross - not only was he blind from glaucoma but also physically very weak. I don't think that you can take a cross/mark (
people were more inclined then to use elaborate marks, maybe smit) as proof of illiteracy (especially in 1647 in a period of civil war). You can, to some extent, take a signature as a sign of 'literacy', but perhaps that was the only thing that they
could do. It doesn't necessarily mean that they could read a book or keep accounts.

I would also be slightly wary about the use of the term 'gentleman'. A 'gentleman' was not necessarily 'gentry', merely someone who could carry off the appearance. Especially as the century progressed.

Female signatures are somewhat different. In the area I study, they don't really become common until the 1690s.

We still do, sometimes, sign with an X or something equivalent (a hasty scrawl). Increasingly (in the UK anyway), 'proof' of delivery is a matter of taking a photo of the package with the recipient's fingers curled around it!

Chris

By the way, is the will proved by the PCC or was it handled by some other ecclesiastical court? This can make a lot of difference when it comes to examining signatures/marks or getting additional information.

Chrid

Chris, thank you for the great insights. I'm sorry this happened to your dad. Oxford! I recently lost my lovely and erudite father-in-law at age 99, and he wouldn't have been able to sign his name near the end.

The will I found for "gentleman" (I'll be wary) ancestor was on FamilySearch.org, in a record set marked, "Archdeaconry wills for the deaneries of Retford, Newark, Nottingham and Bingham, 1466-1858." I have also ordered a copy from the Nottinghamshire

archives, and that item is marked "Deanery of Newark." I'm just beginning to learn about the complex probate procedures of medieval and early modern England. Yikes! (There's some sophisticated vocabulary!) The will on FamilySearch has, near the bottom,
some writing I can't make out. The marks for my ancestor are two slightly curved lines that look a bit like parentheses marks separated by a little space; the witnesses' marks are distinctive, though -- one looks like a tiny umbrella and the other like a
miniature inkpot.

My ancestor's uncle of the same name matriculated at Oxford 19 Jun 1587...no degrees listed. My man was one generation farther removed from his lower-level gentry grandfather, and was also not his father's eldest son, if I recall. There do seem to be a

lot of factors.

While I love looking at centuries-old documents that may contain hasty scrawls, I'm getting fond of the pictures of my fingers curled around the package! Jinny

Dear Jinny, my apologies if you disliked my questioning about your gentleman ancestor. You have a right to your privacy.

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

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 7:46:27 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

A segunda-feira, 4 de abril de 2022 à(s) 23:35:07 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:07:03 PM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 16:41:26 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their

resources? Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

This does depend on rather a lot of factors. In general, yes, I would think that by this time, most male gentry would have been educated enough to sign; but there could have been, as you imply, many reasons why that wasn't possible. I remember

sadly my late father (a double first at Oxford in Lit. Hum.), in his 80s on his deathbed having to sign a power of attorney with a cross - not only was he blind from glaucoma but also physically very weak. I don't think that you can take a cross/mark (
people were more inclined then to use elaborate marks, maybe smit) as proof of illiteracy (especially in 1647 in a period of civil war). You can, to some extent, take a signature as a sign of 'literacy', but perhaps that was the only thing that they
could do. It doesn't necessarily mean that they could read a book or keep accounts.

I would also be slightly wary about the use of the term 'gentleman'. A 'gentleman' was not necessarily 'gentry', merely someone who could carry off the appearance. Especially as the century progressed.

Female signatures are somewhat different. In the area I study, they don't really become common until the 1690s.

We still do, sometimes, sign with an X or something equivalent (a hasty scrawl). Increasingly (in the UK anyway), 'proof' of delivery is a matter of taking a photo of the package with the recipient's fingers curled around it!

Chris

By the way, is the will proved by the PCC or was it handled by some other ecclesiastical court? This can make a lot of difference when it comes to examining signatures/marks or getting additional information.

Chrid

Chris, thank you for the great insights. I'm sorry this happened to your dad. Oxford! I recently lost my lovely and erudite father-in-law at age 99, and he wouldn't have been able to sign his name near the end.

The will I found for "gentleman" (I'll be wary) ancestor was on FamilySearch.org, in a record set marked, "Archdeaconry wills for the deaneries of Retford, Newark, Nottingham and Bingham, 1466-1858." I have also ordered a copy from the

Nottinghamshire archives, and that item is marked "Deanery of Newark." I'm just beginning to learn about the complex probate procedures of medieval and early modern England. Yikes! (There's some sophisticated vocabulary!) The will on FamilySearch has,
near the bottom, some writing I can't make out. The marks for my ancestor are two slightly curved lines that look a bit like parentheses marks separated by a little space; the witnesses' marks are distinctive, though -- one looks like a tiny umbrella and
the other like a miniature inkpot.

My ancestor's uncle of the same name matriculated at Oxford 19 Jun 1587...no degrees listed. My man was one generation farther removed from his lower-level gentry grandfather, and was also not his father's eldest son, if I recall. There do seem to be

a lot of factors.

While I love looking at centuries-old documents that may contain hasty scrawls, I'm getting fond of the pictures of my fingers curled around the package! Jinny

Dear Jinny, my apologies if you disliked my questioning about your gentleman ancestor. You have a right to your privacy.

Paulo, not at all! I thought I'd posted a reply to your question...So sorry. My "gentleman" ancestor was Edward FitzRandolph (d. 1647, Kersall, Kneesall, Notts), father of "pilgrim" Edward FitzRandolph.

I've been interested for a long time in delving into the weak link in the FitzRandolph line -- the one that got the line removed from Douglas Richardson's "Magna Carta Ancestry," and the one without which it's hard to prove that the Notts and Derby
FitzRandolphs of Edward's family descended from the FitzRandolphs of Spennithorne, Yorkshire. There are known links between these families, but no proof yet.

Though I've carefully read the FitzRandolph line (and notes) as presented in "The Magna Carta Sureties" (line 164), I can't nail down the specific evidence gathered so far and by whom, and when this problem was last focused on. There's evidence that
Christopher FitzRandolph of Codnor, Derby, who married Joan Langton, had a father John ("Sureties" says that a family pedigree at British Museum starts with John...this manuscript is held now by the British Library). I have ordered a digitisation of it
so I can look at it myself. I'm also in touch with the College of Arms about getting a photo of the full version of Christopher's marriage contract. Even if these shed no extra light, exploring them will be exciting and help me learn.

Douglas Richardson left a brief note here a week or two ago saying he personally thinks it's very likely that Christopher was descended from the Spennithorne FitzRandolphs, but it remains a theory if it can't be proved.

On another subject, was just reading today about the "Middleham Jewel," which some experts think was probably lost by a family member of Richard III, who spent time at Middleham Castle -- not far from Spennithorne -- as a youth. I don't think it belonged
to the FitzRandolphs!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middleham_Jewel






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

A quarta-feira, 6 de abril de 2022 à(s) 04:14:04 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 7:46:27 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

A segunda-feira, 4 de abril de 2022 à(s) 23:35:07 UTC+1, Girl57 escreveu:

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 1:07:03 PM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 16:41:26 UTC+1, Chris Dickinson wrote:

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 14:01:23 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:

Recently found the transcribed 1647 will of a "gentleman" ancestor, and it indicated that the document had been signed with two "x." I assumed that gentlemen could very likely read and write. Some could, some couldn't, depending on their

resources? Or did literate people sometimes sign a document this way for some reason other than writing ability (illness, etc.)? Thank you.

This does depend on rather a lot of factors. In general, yes, I would think that by this time, most male gentry would have been educated enough to sign; but there could have been, as you imply, many reasons why that wasn't possible. I remember

sadly my late father (a double first at Oxford in Lit. Hum.), in his 80s on his deathbed having to sign a power of attorney with a cross - not only was he blind from glaucoma but also physically very weak. I don't think that you can take a cross/mark (
people were more inclined then to use elaborate marks, maybe smit) as proof of illiteracy (especially in 1647 in a period of civil war). You can, to some extent, take a signature as a sign of 'literacy', but perhaps that was the only thing that they
could do. It doesn't necessarily mean that they could read a book or keep accounts.

I would also be slightly wary about the use of the term 'gentleman'. A 'gentleman' was not necessarily 'gentry', merely someone who could carry off the appearance. Especially as the century progressed.

Female signatures are somewhat different. In the area I study, they don't really become common until the 1690s.

We still do, sometimes, sign with an X or something equivalent (a hasty scrawl). Increasingly (in the UK anyway), 'proof' of delivery is a matter of taking a photo of the package with the recipient's fingers curled around it!

Chris

By the way, is the will proved by the PCC or was it handled by some other ecclesiastical court? This can make a lot of difference when it comes to examining signatures/marks or getting additional information.

Chrid

Chris, thank you for the great insights. I'm sorry this happened to your dad. Oxford! I recently lost my lovely and erudite father-in-law at age 99, and he wouldn't have been able to sign his name near the end.

The will I found for "gentleman" (I'll be wary) ancestor was on FamilySearch.org, in a record set marked, "Archdeaconry wills for the deaneries of Retford, Newark, Nottingham and Bingham, 1466-1858." I have also ordered a copy from the

Nottinghamshire archives, and that item is marked "Deanery of Newark." I'm just beginning to learn about the complex probate procedures of medieval and early modern England. Yikes! (There's some sophisticated vocabulary!) The will on FamilySearch has,
near the bottom, some writing I can't make out. The marks for my ancestor are two slightly curved lines that look a bit like parentheses marks separated by a little space; the witnesses' marks are distinctive, though -- one looks like a tiny umbrella and
the other like a miniature inkpot.

My ancestor's uncle of the same name matriculated at Oxford 19 Jun 1587...no degrees listed. My man was one generation farther removed from his lower-level gentry grandfather, and was also not his father's eldest son, if I recall. There do seem to

be a lot of factors.

While I love looking at centuries-old documents that may contain hasty scrawls, I'm getting fond of the pictures of my fingers curled around the package! Jinny

Dear Jinny, my apologies if you disliked my questioning about your gentleman ancestor. You have a right to your privacy.

Paulo, not at all! I thought I'd posted a reply to your question...So sorry. My "gentleman" ancestor was Edward FitzRandolph (d. 1647, Kersall, Kneesall, Notts), father of "pilgrim" Edward FitzRandolph.

I've been interested for a long time in delving into the weak link in the FitzRandolph line -- the one that got the line removed from Douglas Richardson's "Magna Carta Ancestry," and the one without which it's hard to prove that the Notts and Derby

FitzRandolphs of Edward's family descended from the FitzRandolphs of Spennithorne, Yorkshire. There are known links between these families, but no proof yet.

Though I've carefully read the FitzRandolph line (and notes) as presented in "The Magna Carta Sureties" (line 164), I can't nail down the specific evidence gathered so far and by whom, and when this problem was last focused on. There's evidence that

Christopher FitzRandolph of Codnor, Derby, who married Joan Langton, had a father John ("Sureties" says that a family pedigree at British Museum starts with John...this manuscript is held now by the British Library). I have ordered a digitisation of it
so I can look at it myself. I'm also in touch with the College of Arms about getting a photo of the full version of Christopher's marriage contract. Even if these shed no extra light, exploring them will be exciting and help me learn.

Douglas Richardson left a brief note here a week or two ago saying he personally thinks it's very likely that Christopher was descended from the Spennithorne FitzRandolphs, but it remains a theory if it can't be proved.

On another subject, was just reading today about the "Middleham Jewel," which some experts think was probably lost by a family member of Richard III, who spent time at Middleham Castle -- not far from Spennithorne -- as a youth. I don't think it

belonged to the FitzRandolphs!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middleham_Jewel

Thanks for the reply. The wording in your first reply didn't explicitly identify EdwardFitzRandolph as your gentleman ancestor. You said " I am descended from the "pilgrim" Edward FitzRandolph" but didn't explicitly say he was the gentleman ancestor you
originally asked about.
The Order of the Crown of Charlemagne accepts Edward FitzRandolph as a gateway ancestor.

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