1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SOC.GENEALOGY.MEDIEVAL

  • Two sons called Roger of Sir Roger Lewknor d1478 - Question

    From Gillian Mckenna@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 11 10:20:36 2022
    Hi All,

    According to Sussex Archaeological Collections vol III, Sir Roger Lewknor and Eleanor Camoys (first wife) had a son Roger the elder. Sir Roger also had a second son Roger the younger described as Sir Roger of West Dean. Looking at many trees on line,
    Roger the younger was the son of Sir Roger and Mary West.

    Sir Roger the father wrote a will in 1478 which mentions both sons Roger, described as younger and elder. All sons mentioned are: Richard, Roger the elder, Roger the younger, Edward, George, Thomas, Reynold and William.

    Roger Lewknor the elder of Tangmere had a will dated 1509 which mentions his father Sir Roger Lewknor, his brother William, sons Roger & Edmund and 4 daughters.

    Now my question, in all online trees, the younger Roger son is described as of Tangmere with a death in 1509 corresponding to the above will. Why would he describe himself as Roger the elder in his will?

    Thanks in advance for your thoughts

    Gillian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Johnny Brananas@21:1/5 to gillianm...@gmail.com on Thu Aug 11 10:48:09 2022
    On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 1:20:38 PM UTC-4, gillianm...@gmail.com wrote:
    Hi All,

    According to Sussex Archaeological Collections vol III, Sir Roger Lewknor and Eleanor Camoys (first wife) had a son Roger the elder. Sir Roger also had a second son Roger the younger described as Sir Roger of West Dean. Looking at many trees on line,
    Roger the younger was the son of Sir Roger and Mary West.

    Sir Roger the father wrote a will in 1478 which mentions both sons Roger, described as younger and elder. All sons mentioned are: Richard, Roger the elder, Roger the younger, Edward, George, Thomas, Reynold and William.

    Roger Lewknor the elder of Tangmere had a will dated 1509 which mentions his father Sir Roger Lewknor, his brother William, sons Roger & Edmund and 4 daughters.

    Now my question, in all online trees, the younger Roger son is described as of Tangmere with a death in 1509 corresponding to the above will. Why would he describe himself as Roger the elder in his will?

    Thanks in advance for your thoughts

    Gillian

    Possibly because his own son Roger would now be considered "Roger the younger." But there could be a mix-up between the brothers in those online trees.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From lancaster.boon@gmail.com@21:1/5 to ravinma...@yahoo.com on Thu Aug 11 12:04:12 2022
    On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 7:48:10 PM UTC+2, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 1:20:38 PM UTC-4, gillianm...@gmail.com wrote:
    Hi All,

    According to Sussex Archaeological Collections vol III, Sir Roger Lewknor and Eleanor Camoys (first wife) had a son Roger the elder. Sir Roger also had a second son Roger the younger described as Sir Roger of West Dean. Looking at many trees on line,
    Roger the younger was the son of Sir Roger and Mary West.

    Sir Roger the father wrote a will in 1478 which mentions both sons Roger, described as younger and elder. All sons mentioned are: Richard, Roger the elder, Roger the younger, Edward, George, Thomas, Reynold and William.

    Roger Lewknor the elder of Tangmere had a will dated 1509 which mentions his father Sir Roger Lewknor, his brother William, sons Roger & Edmund and 4 daughters.

    Now my question, in all online trees, the younger Roger son is described as of Tangmere with a death in 1509 corresponding to the above will. Why would he describe himself as Roger the elder in his will?

    Thanks in advance for your thoughts

    Gillian
    Possibly because his own son Roger would now be considered "Roger the younger." But there could be a mix-up between the brothers in those online trees.

    I think in this period you could have two sons with the same name, so that option needs to be ruled out as well?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Johnny Brananas@21:1/5 to lancast...@gmail.com on Thu Aug 11 12:35:51 2022
    On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 3:04:14 PM UTC-4, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 7:48:10 PM UTC+2, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 1:20:38 PM UTC-4, gillianm...@gmail.com wrote:
    Hi All,

    According to Sussex Archaeological Collections vol III, Sir Roger Lewknor and Eleanor Camoys (first wife) had a son Roger the elder. Sir Roger also had a second son Roger the younger described as Sir Roger of West Dean. Looking at many trees on
    line, Roger the younger was the son of Sir Roger and Mary West.

    Sir Roger the father wrote a will in 1478 which mentions both sons Roger, described as younger and elder. All sons mentioned are: Richard, Roger the elder, Roger the younger, Edward, George, Thomas, Reynold and William.

    Roger Lewknor the elder of Tangmere had a will dated 1509 which mentions his father Sir Roger Lewknor, his brother William, sons Roger & Edmund and 4 daughters.

    Now my question, in all online trees, the younger Roger son is described as of Tangmere with a death in 1509 corresponding to the above will. Why would he describe himself as Roger the elder in his will?

    Thanks in advance for your thoughts

    Gillian
    Possibly because his own son Roger would now be considered "Roger the younger." But there could be a mix-up between the brothers in those online trees.
    I think in this period you could have two sons with the same name, so that option needs to be ruled out as well?

    She's clearly stating that there were two sons both named Roger. But wondering why, when "Roger the younger" died, he called himself "Roger the elder" in his will.

    It's due to the passage of time and new additions to the family: if the brother "Roger the Elder" has died, then brother "Roger the Younger" may call himself "Roger the Elder" if he himself now has a son called Roger.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gillian Mckenna@21:1/5 to ravinma...@yahoo.com on Thu Aug 11 23:22:35 2022
    On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 21:35:52 UTC+2, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 3:04:14 PM UTC-4, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 7:48:10 PM UTC+2, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 1:20:38 PM UTC-4, gillianm...@gmail.com wrote:
    Hi All,

    According to Sussex Archaeological Collections vol III, Sir Roger Lewknor and Eleanor Camoys (first wife) had a son Roger the elder. Sir Roger also had a second son Roger the younger described as Sir Roger of West Dean. Looking at many trees on
    line, Roger the younger was the son of Sir Roger and Mary West.

    Sir Roger the father wrote a will in 1478 which mentions both sons Roger, described as younger and elder. All sons mentioned are: Richard, Roger the elder, Roger the younger, Edward, George, Thomas, Reynold and William.

    Roger Lewknor the elder of Tangmere had a will dated 1509 which mentions his father Sir Roger Lewknor, his brother William, sons Roger & Edmund and 4 daughters.

    Now my question, in all online trees, the younger Roger son is described as of Tangmere with a death in 1509 corresponding to the above will. Why would he describe himself as Roger the elder in his will?

    Thanks in advance for your thoughts

    Gillian
    Possibly because his own son Roger would now be considered "Roger the younger." But there could be a mix-up between the brothers in those online trees.
    I think in this period you could have two sons with the same name, so that option needs to be ruled out as well?
    She's clearly stating that there were two sons both named Roger. But wondering why, when "Roger the younger" died, he called himself "Roger the elder" in his will.

    It's due to the passage of time and new additions to the family: if the brother "Roger the Elder" has died, then brother "Roger the Younger" may call himself "Roger the Elder" if he himself now has a son called Roger.

    Hi
    Yes there are definitely two sons called Roger. The father's (Sir Roger Lewknor)will refers to both the younger and elder.

    Sir Roger Lewknor's eldest son Sir Thomas Lewknor had a son Sir Roger Lewknor. Maybe the Roger Lewknor the elder of Tangmere will dated 1509 was to distinguish himself from his cousin Sir Roger?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gillian Mckenna@21:1/5 to Gillian Mckenna on Thu Aug 11 23:31:33 2022
    On Friday, 12 August 2022 at 08:22:37 UTC+2, Gillian Mckenna wrote:
    On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 21:35:52 UTC+2, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 3:04:14 PM UTC-4, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 7:48:10 PM UTC+2, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 1:20:38 PM UTC-4, gillianm...@gmail.com wrote:
    Hi All,

    According to Sussex Archaeological Collections vol III, Sir Roger Lewknor and Eleanor Camoys (first wife) had a son Roger the elder. Sir Roger also had a second son Roger the younger described as Sir Roger of West Dean. Looking at many trees on
    line, Roger the younger was the son of Sir Roger and Mary West.

    Sir Roger the father wrote a will in 1478 which mentions both sons Roger, described as younger and elder. All sons mentioned are: Richard, Roger the elder, Roger the younger, Edward, George, Thomas, Reynold and William.

    Roger Lewknor the elder of Tangmere had a will dated 1509 which mentions his father Sir Roger Lewknor, his brother William, sons Roger & Edmund and 4 daughters.

    Now my question, in all online trees, the younger Roger son is described as of Tangmere with a death in 1509 corresponding to the above will. Why would he describe himself as Roger the elder in his will?

    Thanks in advance for your thoughts

    Gillian
    Possibly because his own son Roger would now be considered "Roger the younger." But there could be a mix-up between the brothers in those online trees.
    I think in this period you could have two sons with the same name, so that option needs to be ruled out as well?
    She's clearly stating that there were two sons both named Roger. But wondering why, when "Roger the younger" died, he called himself "Roger the elder" in his will.

    It's due to the passage of time and new additions to the family: if the brother "Roger the Elder" has died, then brother "Roger the Younger" may call himself "Roger the Elder" if he himself now has a son called Roger.
    Hi
    Yes there are definitely two sons called Roger. The father's (Sir Roger Lewknor)will refers to both the younger and elder.

    Sir Roger Lewknor's eldest son Sir Thomas Lewknor had a son Sir Roger Lewknor. Maybe the Roger Lewknor the elder of Tangmere will dated 1509 was to distinguish himself from his cousin Sir Roger?

    Correction nephew not cousin.

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