I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).

Assuming Agnes was a “de Cantilupe” (which I am hoping is correct) I am looking for a primary source that her father was a William de Cantilupe. I am also looking for a primary source that a William de Cantilupe of the right age (estimated to have been born about 1180) had a daughter named Agnes.

Assuming Agnes de Cantilupe was the daughter of a William de Cantilupe, which William de Cantilupe? I have found no primary sources on this topic. The prevailing view of secondary sources is that her parents were William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay. While this genealogy could work time-wise, I have seen no primary source evidence of William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay having a daughter named Agnes. There are other reasons that cause me not accept this genealogy without a primary source.

My line of descent from Robert St. John and Agnes is through their younger son, William St. John, Lord of Fonmon (as he was described in a c. 1290 deed). Fonmon is a castle/manor in Glamorgan, Wales The prevailing view is that Fonmon was part of the Umfreville 4 fees of Penmark in Glamorgan, Wales, but I am in debate with another St. John researcher about this issue. In any case, the point here is somehow William St. John acquired the manor of Fonmon in Glamorgan, Wales. He may have been the original St. John owner, acquiring it from his overlord, or it may have been property that was owned by his father, Robert St. John, which was either granted to him by is father during his father’s lifetime or transferred to him by the terms of a trust created by his father during his lifetime, or was inherited by the terms of his father’s Will (if he had one) or by the laws of intestate succession. If Robert St. John, either through his marriage or by his right of inheritance owned Fonmon manor/castle during his lifetime then, although his primary residence was Basing, Hampshire, England, he had connections in Glamorgan Wales.

There is a poorly unsourced account of the St. John family entitled "Notitia St. Johanniana: or, Genealogical and Historical Memoirs of the Most Ancient, Illustrious and Noble Family of St. John . . . .", published by Richard Newcomb, sold by John Baker (1713). On pages 20 and 27, it say this Robert St. John’s younger son, William St. John had “Faumont” (i.e., Fonmon) in appendage while his eldest son, John St. John was the heir and received Basing. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Notitia_St_Johanniana_or_Genealogical_an/2UhgAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 This statement is unsourced and other parts of the St. John family account presented in this book have serious errors so it is unclear to me whether the author of this account had primary source evidence that Robert de St. John actually owned Fonmon manor/castle and gave it (by lifetime transfer or by death transfer) to his son “in appendage” or whether this was just an undocumented assumption of the author.

There is a William de Cantelo (Cantilupe) who witnessed a charter and confirmation by Roger Sturmi, son of Roger Sturmi to Margam Abbey involving land the Earl of Gloucester gave his grandfather, Geoffrey Sturmi. Other witnesses included Herbert St. Quintin, John St. Quintin, his son, Adam de Sumeri, Ingeram de Penmarch and Luke de Barri. https://archive.org/details/historyofmargama00bircuoft/page/79/mode/1up?q=Cantelo This William de Cantilupe was an adult of the right age to have parented Agnes de Cantilupe who married Robert St. John. My educated guess is that this William de Cantilupe who was connected with Margam Abbey in Glamorgan, Wales, is not the William de Cantilupe who was married to Millicent de Gournay. I realize that the story line about William de Cantilupe who was married to Millicent de Gournay says that he had a connection with the Marches of Wales, but where is the primary source evidence of this? Was this just an assumption that the two William de Cantilupes were the same person?

The William de Cantilupe with connections to Margam Abbey in Glamorgan, Wales, was almost certainly the William de Cantilupe who was once an owner, or at least an occupant, of the manor/castle of Candleston in Glamorgan, Wales, discussed in this article. https://journals.library.wales/view/2527656/2908479/64#?xywh=-391%2C2093%2C2902%2C1863 Of particular interest in this article is that account of the Cantilupe coat of arms that was said to have been in the fireplace mantle of Candleston Castle, given as “– a leopard’s face resting upon a Fleur-de-lys, the lower part of the flower issuing from the animal’s mount.” Does anybody have knowledge of the coat of arms of the of the Cantilupe family that included William de Cantilupe who married Millicent de Gournay?

My research of the Liber Niger (c. 1166) and later records of the holdings of the Earl of Gloucester in Glamorgan suggest that the Umfrevilles owned the 4 fees of Penmark that descended down their family until the later part of the 14th century of which they created sub-manors, one of which I believe was the manor/castle of Fonmon. The property to the west of the Umfreville property appears to have been the property of the Nereberts called Aberthaw who lived in a manor/castle called Castleton, not to be confused with Candleston) and they were later referred to as being located at St. Athan/Thathan., Glamorgan, Wales. While I am not certain of this, I think that Candleston manor/castle was originally owned by the St. Quintins and later came to the Cantilupe family and if it was not adjacent to the Nerebert’s property to the west, it was very close to it to the west.

There is one other dangling Cantilupe claim that I want to discuss before I close. I don’t have access to Peter Bartrum’s collection of Welsh Genealogies. From this previous discussion at this site (starting with this message) https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/VbdYy1MmCyc/m/j8lPNyvE2GAJ I gather that Peter Bartrum concluded that Sir William de Cantilupe had an unknown daughter who he apparently alleged to have some connection with Hywel Fycham ap Hywel. Someone has converted this unknown Cantilupe daughter into Agnes de Cantilupe. Based on the discussion in this thread, it appears that Bartram’s claim/assumption/speculation is distrusted. What I distrust is that Agnes, wife of Robert St. John, assuming she was the daughter of a William de Cantilupe, is connected with Hywel Fycham ap Hywel. I am not sure whether Bartram is the source to be distrusted or whether some other person who converted “unknown” de Cantilupe into Agnes de Cantilupe is the person to be distrusted., or both. A person I have been working with to sort out the St. John families and whose research and analyzing skills I have grown to trust, I think has “fallen of the deep end” on this topic. She feels she had “figured out” the ancestry of Agnes de Cantilupe, I think by reliance on this distrusted information, which I believe is greatly confusing matter. She presents her findings at her St. John website. Here is the link (you will have to navigate back from Agnes de Cantilupe). https://stjohngenealogy.com/getperson.php?personID=I104783400&tree=OSA0001 According to her presentations, Agnes de Cantilupe’s father was William ap Hopkin de Cantilupe and his father was Hywel Fycham ap Hywel. This seems incredible to me. I hope to generate a discussion in this thread that can sort out the truth of the matter.

On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
> I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
> I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).

The source cited in CP vol. xi p. 323 note (f) is probably the best you
are going to find, though it is no better than a much later history of
the foundation of Boxgrove priory in Sussex. According to this Robert
fathered John by Agnes daughter of William de Cantilupe ("Robertus
[genuit] Johannem de Agnete filia Willelmi de Cantilupo"), see
Monasticon vol. iv p. 646 no. 6.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:47:35 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
> > I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
> > I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
> The source cited in CP vol. xi p. 323 note (f) is probably the best you
> are going to find, though it is no better than a much later history of
> the foundation of Boxgrove priory in Sussex. According to this Robert
> fathered John by Agnes daughter of William de Cantilupe ("Robertus
> [genuit] Johannem de Agnete filia Willelmi de Cantilupo"), see
> Monasticon vol. iv p. 646 no. 6.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com
Thanks Peter. Your Boxwood priory reference is new to me. Hope I can find it online. I would love to have a copy of that particular record that proves Agnes, wife of Robert St. John, was a Cantilupe.

Cheers

Bob

On 14-Jul-23 11:03 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:47:35 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
>>> I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
>>> I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
>> The source cited in CP vol. xi p. 323 note (f) is probably the best you
>> are going to find, though it is no better than a much later history of
>> the foundation of Boxgrove priory in Sussex. According to this Robert
>> fathered John by Agnes daughter of William de Cantilupe ("Robertus
>> [genuit] Johannem de Agnete filia Willelmi de Cantilupo"), see
>> Monasticon vol. iv p. 646 no. 6.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>>
>>
>> --
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>> www.avg.com
> Thanks Peter. Your Boxwood priory reference is new to me. Hope I can find it online. I would love to have a copy of that particular record that proves Agnes, wife of Robert St. John, was a Cantilupe.

You can view & download Monasticon vol. iv here (see p. 646 for the
Boxgrove history): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ynAzAQAAMAAJ.

Peter Stewart

On 14-Jul-23 11:33 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 14-Jul-23 11:03 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:47:35 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>> On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
>>>> I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend
>>>> from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes.
>>>> Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various
>>>> spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary
>>>> source documentation of her given name of Agnes
>>>> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
>>>> I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and
>>>> was remarried to John Turvill.
>>>> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
>>> The source cited in CP vol. xi p. 323 note (f) is probably the best you
>>> are going to find, though it is no better than a much later history of
>>> the foundation of Boxgrove priory in Sussex. According to this Robert
>>> fathered John by Agnes daughter of William de Cantilupe ("Robertus
>>> [genuit] Johannem de Agnete filia Willelmi de Cantilupo"), see
>>> Monasticon vol. iv p. 646 no. 6.
>>>
>>> Peter Stewart
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>>> www.avg.com
>> Thanks Peter.  Your Boxwood priory reference is new to me.  Hope I can
>> find it online.  I would love to have a copy of that particular record
>> that proves Agnes, wife of Robert St. John, was a Cantilupe.
>
> You can view & download Monasticon vol. iv here (see p. 646 for the
> Boxgrove history): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ynAzAQAAMAAJ.

An English translation of this can be found here:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015072475141&view=1up&seq=237.

Peter Stewart

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:33:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 14-Jul-23 11:03 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:47:35 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> >> On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
> >>> I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
> >>> I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp..35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
> >> The source cited in CP vol. xi p. 323 note (f) is probably the best you
> >> are going to find, though it is no better than a much later history of
> >> the foundation of Boxgrove priory in Sussex. According to this Robert
> >> fathered John by Agnes daughter of William de Cantilupe ("Robertus
> >> [genuit] Johannem de Agnete filia Willelmi de Cantilupo"), see
> >> Monasticon vol. iv p. 646 no. 6.
> >>
> >> Peter Stewart
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> >> www.avg.com
> > Thanks Peter. Your Boxwood priory reference is new to me. Hope I can find it online. I would love to have a copy of that particular record that proves Agnes, wife of Robert St. John, was a Cantilupe.
> You can view & download Monasticon vol. iv here (see p. 646 for the
> Boxgrove history): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ynAzAQAAMAAJ.
>
> Peter Stewart
Hi Peter,
Thanks again. I found it. Just finished translating it. It give the genealogy down from Robert de Haia and indeed does say that Robert de St. John, son of William (de Port) St. John and Godehelda, daughter of N. Pagnell, was married to Agnes, daughter of William de Cantilupe. I am not able to understand the full context of this document. My assumption is that some land or rent money from land that was formerly Robert de Haia's and was passed down the cited genealogy and was eventually gifted to Boxgrove Priory and somebody is confirming this gift. The date 1309 is mentioned in the document, but the actual date that the document was created seems to be later in time. Is there some way to place a date on the creation of this document?

On 14-Jul-23 1:48 PM, Robert Allen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:33:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 14-Jul-23 11:03 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:47:35 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>>> On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
>>>>> I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
>>>>> I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
>>>> The source cited in CP vol. xi p. 323 note (f) is probably the best you
>>>> are going to find, though it is no better than a much later history of
>>>> the foundation of Boxgrove priory in Sussex. According to this Robert
>>>> fathered John by Agnes daughter of William de Cantilupe ("Robertus
>>>> [genuit] Johannem de Agnete filia Willelmi de Cantilupo"), see
>>>> Monasticon vol. iv p. 646 no. 6.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Stewart
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>>>> www.avg.com
>>> Thanks Peter. Your Boxwood priory reference is new to me. Hope I can find it online. I would love to have a copy of that particular record that proves Agnes, wife of Robert St. John, was a Cantilupe.
>> You can view & download Monasticon vol. iv here (see p. 646 for the
>> Boxgrove history): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ynAzAQAAMAAJ.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
> Hi Peter,
> Thanks again. I found it. Just finished translating it. It give the genealogy down from Robert de Haia and indeed does say that Robert de St. John, son of William (de Port) St. John and Godehelda, daughter of N. Pagnell, was married to Agnes, daughter of William de Cantilupe. I am not able to understand the full context of this document. My assumption is that some land or rent money from land that was formerly Robert de Haia's and was passed down the cited genealogy and was eventually gifted to Boxgrove Priory and somebody is confirming this gift. The date 1309 is mentioned in the document, but the actual date that the document was created seems to be later in time. Is there some way to place a date on the creation of this document?

Not exactly - it is on the first folio of the Boxgrove cartulary, that
was evidently compiled from roughly the mid-13th century until the
late-14th. I suspect that this history was inserted closer to the end of
this range, or perhaps even after it, than to the beginning.

Peter Stewart

On 14-Jul-23 2:23 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 14-Jul-23 1:48 PM, Robert Allen wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:33:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>> On 14-Jul-23 11:03 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:47:35 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>>>> On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
>>>>>> I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend
>>>>>> from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was
>>>>>> Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe”
>>>>>> (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have
>>>>>> a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes
>>>>>> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
>>>>>> I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband
>>>>>> and was remarried to John Turvill.
>>>>>> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
>>>>> The source cited in CP vol. xi p. 323 note (f) is probably the best
>>>>> you
>>>>> are going to find, though it is no better than a much later history of
>>>>> the foundation of Boxgrove priory in Sussex. According to this Robert
>>>>> fathered John by Agnes daughter of William de Cantilupe ("Robertus
>>>>> [genuit] Johannem de Agnete filia Willelmi de Cantilupo"), see
>>>>> Monasticon vol. iv p. 646 no. 6.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Stewart
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>>>>> www.avg.com
>>>> Thanks Peter. Your Boxwood priory reference is new to me. Hope I can
>>>> find it online. I would love to have a copy of that particular
>>>> record that proves Agnes, wife of Robert St. John, was a Cantilupe.
>>> You can view & download Monasticon vol. iv here (see p. 646 for the
>>> Boxgrove history): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ynAzAQAAMAAJ.
>>>
>>> Peter Stewart
>> Hi Peter,
>> Thanks again.  I found it.  Just finished translating it.  It give the
>> genealogy down from Robert de Haia and indeed does say that Robert de
>> St. John, son of William (de Port) St. John and Godehelda, daughter of
>> N. Pagnell, was married to Agnes, daughter of William de Cantilupe.  I
>> am not able to understand the full context of this document.  My
>> assumption is that some land or rent money from land that was formerly
>> Robert de Haia's and was passed down the cited genealogy and was
>> eventually gifted to Boxgrove Priory and somebody is confirming this
>> gift.  The date 1309 is mentioned in the document, but the actual date
>> that the document was created seems to be later in time.  Is there
>> some way to place a date on the creation of this document?
>
> Not exactly - it is on the first folio of the Boxgrove cartulary, that
> was evidently compiled from roughly the mid-13th century until the
> late-14th. I suspect that this history was inserted closer to the end of
> this range, or perhaps even after it, than to the beginning.

The original can be viewed on folio 1v here:
https://www.bl.uk/manuscript/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_claudius_a_vi_f004r.

Peter Stewart

On 14-Jul-23 2:38 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 14-Jul-23 2:23 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 14-Jul-23 1:48 PM, Robert Allen wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:33:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>>> On 14-Jul-23 11:03 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:47:35 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>>>>> On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
>>>>>>> I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend
>>>>>>> from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was
>>>>>>> Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe”
>>>>>>> (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have
>>>>>>> a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes
>>>>>>> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
>>>>>>> I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband
>>>>>>> and was remarried to John Turvill.
>>>>>>> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
>>>>>> The source cited in CP vol. xi p. 323 note (f) is probably the
>>>>>> best you
>>>>>> are going to find, though it is no better than a much later
>>>>>> history of
>>>>>> the foundation of Boxgrove priory in Sussex. According to this Robert
>>>>>> fathered John by Agnes daughter of William de Cantilupe ("Robertus
>>>>>> [genuit] Johannem de Agnete filia Willelmi de Cantilupo"), see
>>>>>> Monasticon vol. iv p. 646 no. 6.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Stewart
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>>>>>> www.avg.com
>>>>> Thanks Peter. Your Boxwood priory reference is new to me. Hope I
>>>>> can find it online. I would love to have a copy of that particular
>>>>> record that proves Agnes, wife of Robert St. John, was a Cantilupe.
>>>> You can view & download Monasticon vol. iv here (see p. 646 for the
>>>> Boxgrove history): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ynAzAQAAMAAJ.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Stewart
>>> Hi Peter,
>>> Thanks again.  I found it.  Just finished translating it.  It give
>>> the genealogy down from Robert de Haia and indeed does say that
>>> Robert de St. John, son of William (de Port) St. John and Godehelda,
>>> daughter of N. Pagnell, was married to Agnes, daughter of William de
>>> Cantilupe.  I am not able to understand the full context of this
>>> document.  My assumption is that some land or rent money from land
>>> that was formerly Robert de Haia's and was passed down the cited
>>> genealogy and was eventually gifted to Boxgrove Priory and somebody
>>> is confirming this gift.  The date 1309 is mentioned in the document,
>>> but the actual date that the document was created seems to be later
>>> in time.  Is there some way to place a date on the creation of this
>>> document?
>>
>> Not exactly - it is on the first folio of the Boxgrove cartulary, that
>> was evidently compiled from roughly the mid-13th century until the
>> late-14th. I suspect that this history was inserted closer to the end
>> of this range, or perhaps even after it, than to the beginning.
>
> The original can be viewed on folio 1v here:
> https://www.bl.uk/manuscript/Viewer.aspx?ref=cotton_ms_claudius_a_vi_f004r.

Apparently this link does not work - try instead
https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Cotton_MS_Claudius_A_VI.

Peter Stewart

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:46:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Apparently this link does not work - try instead
> https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Cotton_MS_Claudius_A_VI.
>
> Peter Stewart

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 9:46:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 14-Jul-23 2:38 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> Apparently this link does not work - try instead
> https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Cotton_MS_Claudius_A_VI.
>
> Peter Stewart
Thanks again Peter. You first link worked for me. I copied the translation. I think this is quite a bit better than the translation I did by using a Latin to English translation site online. I will have to study it in greater detail. I found this entire book very interesting. I knew about Boxgrove and the connection with the St. John family and Robert de la Haia from British History Online's account of Boxgrove, but I had not see this book before. As you say, this is the closest to a primary source for Agnes de Cantilupe being Robert de St. John's wife as probably will ever find.

Bob

On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
> I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
> I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
>
> Assuming Agnes was a “de Cantilupe” (which I am hoping is correct) I am looking for a primary source that her father was a William de Cantilupe. I am also looking for a primary source that a William de Cantilupe of the right age (estimated to have been born about 1180) had a daughter named Agnes.
>
> Assuming Agnes de Cantilupe was the daughter of a William de Cantilupe, which William de Cantilupe? I have found no primary sources on this topic. The prevailing view of secondary sources is that her parents were William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay. While this genealogy could work time-wise, I have seen no primary source evidence of William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay having a daughter named Agnes. There are other reasons that cause me not accept this genealogy without a primary source.

There is a 2015 Cardiff University doctoral thesis by Melissa
Julian-Jones that you may find useful, 'The Land of the Raven and the
Wolf: Family Power and Strategy in the Welsh March, 1199-c.1300, Corbets
and the Cantilupes', see http://orca.cf.ac.uk/69064/.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:46:24 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
> > I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
> > I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
> >
> > Assuming Agnes was a “de Cantilupe” (which I am hoping is correct) I am looking for a primary source that her father was a William de Cantilupe. I am also looking for a primary source that a William de Cantilupe of the right age (estimated to have been born about 1180) had a daughter named Agnes.
> >
> > Assuming Agnes de Cantilupe was the daughter of a William de Cantilupe, which William de Cantilupe? I have found no primary sources on this topic. The prevailing view of secondary sources is that her parents were William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay. While this genealogy could work time-wise, I have seen no primary source evidence of William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay having a daughter named Agnes. There are other reasons that cause me not accept this genealogy without a primary source.
> There is a 2015 Cardiff University doctoral thesis by Melissa
> Julian-Jones that you may find useful, 'The Land of the Raven and the
> Wolf: Family Power and Strategy in the Welsh March, 1199-c.1300, Corbets
> and the Cantilupes', see http://orca.cf.ac.uk/69064/.
> Peter Stewart
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com
My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe. I only have one name in my database, Euphemia De Cantelupe second wive of Eubrey III, De Vere, Earl of Oxford (about 1115 died 26 Dec 1194). Euphemia d about 1153.. The first wife was Beatrice De Bourbourg; the last wife was Agnes Bigod. All his children (5) were from the last wife Agnes. That's the only entry I have. Maybe, you can investigate the family from a different position.

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:03:19 AM UTC-7, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:46:24 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
> > On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
> > > I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
> > > I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp..35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
> > >
> > > Assuming Agnes was a “de Cantilupe” (which I am hoping is correct) I am looking for a primary source that her father was a William de Cantilupe. I am also looking for a primary source that a William de Cantilupe of the right age (estimated to have been born about 1180) had a daughter named Agnes.
> > >
> > > Assuming Agnes de Cantilupe was the daughter of a William de Cantilupe, which William de Cantilupe? I have found no primary sources on this topic. The prevailing view of secondary sources is that her parents were William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay. While this genealogy could work time-wise, I have seen no primary source evidence of William de Cantilupe and Millicent de Gournay having a daughter named Agnes. There are other reasons that cause me not accept this genealogy without a primary source.
> > There is a 2015 Cardiff University doctoral thesis by Melissa
> > Julian-Jones that you may find useful, 'The Land of the Raven and the
> > Wolf: Family Power and Strategy in the Welsh March, 1199-c.1300, Corbets
> > and the Cantilupes', see http://orca.cf.ac.uk/69064/.
> > Peter Stewart
> >
> >
> > --
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> > www.avg.com
> My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe. I only have one name in my database, Euphemia De Cantelupe second wive of Eubrey III, De Vere, Earl of Oxford (about 1115 died 26 Dec 1194). Euphemia d about 1153. The first wife was Beatrice De Bourbourg; the last wife was Agnes Bigod.. All his children (5) were from the last wife Agnes. That's the only entry I have. Maybe, you can investigate the family from a different position.

Although Medlands does state her name as Eupheme de Cauntelo, Cawley also states that the document confirming her parentage has not been identified. Wikipedia does not give Eupheme a surname or parentage at all.

This makes me suspect that this is a false identification, or merely a suggestion of who she might have been

As to the last wife, calling her Agnes Bigod seems to be a very odd choice
Wikipedia calls her Agnes of Essex

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 6:03:46 PM UTC-7, Robert Allen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 5:47:35 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> > On 13-Jul-23 11:16 AM, Robert Allen wrote:
> > > I need help with my Cantilupe and St. John connection. I descend from Robert (de Port) St. John (c. 1200-1269) whose wife was Agnes. Agnes’ surname is consistantly stated to be “de Cantilupe” (various spellings), the daughter of William de Cantilupe. I have a primary source documentation of her given name of Agnes https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009187690&view=1up&seq=418
> > > I have a primary source evidence that Agnes survived her husband and was remarried to John Turvill. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp..35112103127082&view=1up&seq=429 What I am searching for is a primary source that documents that Agnes’ maiden surname was “de Cantilupe” (various spellings).
> > The source cited in CP vol. xi p. 323 note (f) is probably the best you
> > are going to find, though it is no better than a much later history of
> > the foundation of Boxgrove priory in Sussex. According to this Robert
> > fathered John by Agnes daughter of William de Cantilupe ("Robertus
> > [genuit] Johannem de Agnete filia Willelmi de Cantilupo"), see
> > Monasticon vol. iv p. 646 no. 6.
> >
> > Peter Stewart
> >
> >
> > --
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> > www.avg.com
> Thanks Peter. Your Boxwood priory reference is new to me. Hope I can find it online. I would love to have a copy of that particular record that proves Agnes, wife of Robert St. John, was a Cantilupe.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bob

Familysearch has CP volume 11 full view

https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/362755/?offset=15#page=330&viewer=picture&o=&n=0&q

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:03:19 AM UTC-7, George Tsambourakis wrote:

> My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe.

There really isn't any such thing as a 'correct spelling'. There is often a typical way that historicans have come to represent a name, and there is certain a value in using these common forms for the sake of maintaining uniformity (and as bait for what would be the most common internet search terms).

Still, at the time in question, there was no concept of 'correct spelling', and one typically sees a range of phoenetic approximations, as well as attempts at Latinizing, Anglicizing, Gallicizing, etc. As a sociological phenomenon, standardization of surname spelling came only in the post-medieval era, and likewise, historiographical standardization was a later occurrence, the result either of repetition of the arbitrary personal preferences selected by the authors whose works were more broadly consulted, or anachronistic application of the much later standardized form adopted by surviving families from the historians' own time. This leads to a sort of community consensus usage among modern scholars, but that can all be changed by a single influential scholar selecting a different form they prefer. 'Typical' shouldn't be mistaken for 'correct'.

taf

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:22:22 AM UTC+10, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:03:19 AM UTC-7, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> > My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe.
> There really isn't any such thing as a 'correct spelling'. There is often a typical way that historicans have come to represent a name, and there is certain a value in using these common forms for the sake of maintaining uniformity (and as bait for what would be the most common internet search terms).
>
> Still, at the time in question, there was no concept of 'correct spelling', and one typically sees a range of phoenetic approximations, as well as attempts at Latinizing, Anglicizing, Gallicizing, etc. As a sociological phenomenon, standardization of surname spelling came only in the post-medieval era, and likewise, historiographical standardization was a later occurrence, the result either of repetition of the arbitrary personal preferences selected by the authors whose works were more broadly consulted, or anachronistic application of the much later standardized form adopted by surviving families from the historians' own time. This leads to a sort of community consensus usage among modern scholars, but that can all be changed by a single influential scholar selecting a different form they prefer. 'Typical' shouldn't be mistaken for 'correct'.
>
> taf
In English E is spelled as I and I is spelled as AI: Meny Greek names are modified to sound Greek like PETRIDIS --> PETRIDES. CANTELUPE in ENGLISH sounds CANTILUPE. Anyway I never tell people what to do or what to believe.
Saint Thomas de Cantelupe, also called Thomas Of Cantelupe, or Thomas Of Hereford, Cantelupe also spelled Cantilupe, (born c. 1218, Hambleden, Buckinghamshire, Eng.—died Aug. 25, 1282, Montefiascone, near Orvieto, Papal States; canonized 1320, feast day October 3), reformist, educator, English church prelate, bishop, and defender of episcopal jurisdiction who played an important role in the Barons’ War.

On 16-Jul-23 8:17 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:22:22 AM UTC+10, taf wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:03:19 AM UTC-7, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>>> My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe.
>> There really isn't any such thing as a 'correct spelling'. There is often a typical way that historicans have come to represent a name, and there is certain a value in using these common forms for the sake of maintaining uniformity (and as bait for what would be the most common internet search terms).
>>
>> Still, at the time in question, there was no concept of 'correct spelling', and one typically sees a range of phoenetic approximations, as well as attempts at Latinizing, Anglicizing, Gallicizing, etc. As a sociological phenomenon, standardization of surname spelling came only in the post-medieval era, and likewise, historiographical standardization was a later occurrence, the result either of repetition of the arbitrary personal preferences selected by the authors whose works were more broadly consulted, or anachronistic application of the much later standardized form adopted by surviving families from the historians' own time. This leads to a sort of community consensus usage among modern scholars, but that can all be changed by a single influential scholar selecting a different form they prefer. 'Typical' shouldn't be mistaken for 'correct'.
>>
>> taf
> In English E is spelled as I and I is spelled as AI: Meny Greek names are modified to sound Greek like PETRIDIS --> PETRIDES. CANTELUPE in ENGLISH sounds CANTILUPE. Anyway I never tell people what to do or what to believe.
>
> Saint Thomas de Cantelupe, also called Thomas Of Cantelupe, or Thomas Of Hereford, Cantelupe also spelled Cantilupe, (born c. 1218, Hambleden, Buckinghamshire, Eng.—died Aug. 25, 1282, Montefiascone, near Orvieto, Papal States; canonized 1320, feast day October 3), reformist, educator, English church prelate, bishop, and defender of episcopal jurisdiction who played an important role in the Barons’ War.

If you are keen on St Thomas, you might care to observe this note in his
Wikipedia article: "The commonly accepted modern spelling is
"Cantilupe", as used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for
all members of this family, and which is followed in this article."

ODNB actually uses the inelegant but sensibly indecisive "Cantilipe
[Cantelupe]".

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On 16-Jul-23 9:58 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 16-Jul-23 8:17 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:22:22 AM UTC+10, taf wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:03:19 AM UTC-7, George Tsambourakis
>>> wrote:
>>>> My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe.
>>> There really isn't any such thing as a 'correct spelling'. There is
>>> often a typical way that historicans have come to represent a name,
>>> and there is certain a value in using these common forms for the sake
>>> of maintaining uniformity (and as bait for what would be the most
>>> common internet search terms).
>>>
>>> Still, at the time in question, there was no concept of 'correct
>>> spelling', and one typically sees a range of phoenetic
>>> approximations, as well as attempts at Latinizing, Anglicizing,
>>> Gallicizing, etc. As a sociological phenomenon, standardization of
>>> surname spelling came only in the post-medieval era, and likewise,
>>> historiographical standardization was a later occurrence, the result
>>> either of repetition of the arbitrary personal preferences selected
>>> by the authors whose works were more broadly consulted, or
>>> anachronistic application of the much later standardized form adopted
>>> by surviving families from the historians' own time. This leads to a
>>> sort of community consensus usage among modern scholars, but that can
>>> all be changed by a single influential scholar selecting a different
>>> form they prefer. 'Typical' shouldn't be mistaken for 'correct'.
>>>
>>> taf
>> In English E is spelled as I and I is spelled as AI: Meny Greek names
>> are modified to sound Greek like PETRIDIS --> PETRIDES. CANTELUPE in
>> ENGLISH sounds CANTILUPE. Anyway  I never tell people what to do or
>> what to believe.
>> Saint Thomas de Cantelupe, also called Thomas Of Cantelupe, or Thomas
>> Of Hereford, Cantelupe also spelled Cantilupe, (born c. 1218,
>> Hambleden, Buckinghamshire, Eng.—died Aug. 25, 1282, Montefiascone,
>> near Orvieto, Papal States; canonized 1320, feast day October 3),
>> reformist, educator, English church prelate, bishop, and defender of
>> episcopal jurisdiction who played an important role in the Barons’ War.
>
> If you are keen on St Thomas, you might care to observe this note in his
> Wikipedia article: "The commonly accepted modern spelling is
> "Cantilupe", as used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for
> all members of this family, and which is followed in this article."
>
> ODNB actually uses the inelegant but sensibly indecisive "Cantilipe
> [Cantelupe]".

ODNB of course actually uses the more sensible "Cantilupe [Cantelupe]"
for other members of the family, but simply "Cantilupe" (never
"Cantilipe"!) for St Thomas.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 16-Jul-23 8:17 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:22:22 AM UTC+10, taf wrote:
> >> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:03:19 AM UTC-7, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >>> My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe.
> >> There really isn't any such thing as a 'correct spelling'. There is often a typical way that historicans have come to represent a name, and there is certain a value in using these common forms for the sake of maintaining uniformity (and as bait for what would be the most common internet search terms).
> >>
> >> Still, at the time in question, there was no concept of 'correct spelling', and one typically sees a range of phoenetic approximations, as well as attempts at Latinizing, Anglicizing, Gallicizing, etc. As a sociological phenomenon, standardization of surname spelling came only in the post-medieval era, and likewise, historiographical standardization was a later occurrence, the result either of repetition of the arbitrary personal preferences selected by the authors whose works were more broadly consulted, or anachronistic application of the much later standardized form adopted by surviving families from the historians' own time. This leads to a sort of community consensus usage among modern scholars, but that can all be changed by a single influential scholar selecting a different form they prefer. 'Typical' shouldn't be mistaken for 'correct'.
> >>
> >> taf
> > In English E is spelled as I and I is spelled as AI: Meny Greek names are modified to sound Greek like PETRIDIS --> PETRIDES. CANTELUPE in ENGLISH sounds CANTILUPE. Anyway I never tell people what to do or what to believe..
> >
> > Saint Thomas de Cantelupe, also called Thomas Of Cantelupe, or Thomas Of Hereford, Cantelupe also spelled Cantilupe, (born c. 1218, Hambleden, Buckinghamshire, Eng.—died Aug. 25, 1282, Montefiascone, near Orvieto, Papal States; canonized 1320, feast day October 3), reformist, educator, English church prelate, bishop, and defender of episcopal jurisdiction who played an important role in the Barons’ War.
> If you are keen on St Thomas, you might care to observe this note in his
> Wikipedia article: "The commonly accepted modern spelling is
> "Cantilupe", as used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for
> all members of this family, and which is followed in this article."
>
> ODNB actually uses the inelegant but sensibly indecisive "Cantilipe
> [Cantelupe]".
> Peter Stewart
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com

I'm glad that you posted this... I was confused myself between Cantelowe and Cantilupe. If Cantilupe is the standard spelling for Oxford, then it should be the standard I would hope, but then again some people I guess have to quibble!

Darrell

On 16-Jul-23 10:14 AM, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 16-Jul-23 8:17 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:22:22 AM UTC+10, taf wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:03:19 AM UTC-7, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>>>>> My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe.
>>>> There really isn't any such thing as a 'correct spelling'. There is often a typical way that historicans have come to represent a name, and there is certain a value in using these common forms for the sake of maintaining uniformity (and as bait for what would be the most common internet search terms).
>>>>
>>>> Still, at the time in question, there was no concept of 'correct spelling', and one typically sees a range of phoenetic approximations, as well as attempts at Latinizing, Anglicizing, Gallicizing, etc. As a sociological phenomenon, standardization of surname spelling came only in the post-medieval era, and likewise, historiographical standardization was a later occurrence, the result either of repetition of the arbitrary personal preferences selected by the authors whose works were more broadly consulted, or anachronistic application of the much later standardized form adopted by surviving families from the historians' own time. This leads to a sort of community consensus usage among modern scholars, but that can all be changed by a single influential scholar selecting a different form they prefer. 'Typical' shouldn't be mistaken for 'correct'.
>>>>
>>>> taf
>>> In English E is spelled as I and I is spelled as AI: Meny Greek names are modified to sound Greek like PETRIDIS --> PETRIDES. CANTELUPE in ENGLISH sounds CANTILUPE. Anyway I never tell people what to do or what to believe.
>>>
>>> Saint Thomas de Cantelupe, also called Thomas Of Cantelupe, or Thomas Of Hereford, Cantelupe also spelled Cantilupe, (born c. 1218, Hambleden, Buckinghamshire, Eng.—died Aug. 25, 1282, Montefiascone, near Orvieto, Papal States; canonized 1320, feast day October 3), reformist, educator, English church prelate, bishop, and defender of episcopal jurisdiction who played an important role in the Barons’ War.
>> If you are keen on St Thomas, you might care to observe this note in his
>> Wikipedia article: "The commonly accepted modern spelling is
>> "Cantilupe", as used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for
>> all members of this family, and which is followed in this article."
>>
>> ODNB actually uses the inelegant but sensibly indecisive "Cantilipe
>> [Cantelupe]".
>> Peter Stewart
>>
>>
>> --
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>> www.avg.com
>
> I'm glad that you posted this... I was confused myself between Cantelowe and Cantilupe. If Cantilupe is the standard spelling for Oxford, then it should be the standard I would hope, but then again some people I guess have to quibble!

Some people might include the entire population of France, where the
modern "correct" spelling of the place from which the family took its
surname is "Canteloup". Somewhere on the internet they are probably
called "de Rockmelon".

Peter Stewart

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 10:41:47 AM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 16-Jul-23 10:14 AM, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
> >> On 16-Jul-23 8:17 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:22:22 AM UTC+10, taf wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:03:19 AM UTC-7, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >>>>> My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe.
> >>>> There really isn't any such thing as a 'correct spelling'. There is often a typical way that historicans have come to represent a name, and there is certain a value in using these common forms for the sake of maintaining uniformity (and as bait for what would be the most common internet search terms).
> >>>>
> >>>> Still, at the time in question, there was no concept of 'correct spelling', and one typically sees a range of phoenetic approximations, as well as attempts at Latinizing, Anglicizing, Gallicizing, etc. As a sociological phenomenon, standardization of surname spelling came only in the post-medieval era, and likewise, historiographical standardization was a later occurrence, the result either of repetition of the arbitrary personal preferences selected by the authors whose works were more broadly consulted, or anachronistic application of the much later standardized form adopted by surviving families from the historians' own time. This leads to a sort of community consensus usage among modern scholars, but that can all be changed by a single influential scholar selecting a different form they prefer. 'Typical' shouldn't be mistaken for 'correct'.
> >>>>
> >>>> taf
> >>> In English E is spelled as I and I is spelled as AI: Meny Greek names are modified to sound Greek like PETRIDIS --> PETRIDES. CANTELUPE in ENGLISH sounds CANTILUPE. Anyway I never tell people what to do or what to believe.
> >>>
> >>> Saint Thomas de Cantelupe, also called Thomas Of Cantelupe, or Thomas Of Hereford, Cantelupe also spelled Cantilupe, (born c. 1218, Hambleden, Buckinghamshire, Eng.—died Aug. 25, 1282, Montefiascone, near Orvieto, Papal States; canonized 1320, feast day October 3), reformist, educator, English church prelate, bishop, and defender of episcopal jurisdiction who played an important role in the Barons’ War.
> >> If you are keen on St Thomas, you might care to observe this note in his
> >> Wikipedia article: "The commonly accepted modern spelling is
> >> "Cantilupe", as used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for
> >> all members of this family, and which is followed in this article."
> >>
> >> ODNB actually uses the inelegant but sensibly indecisive "Cantilipe
> >> [Cantelupe]".
> >> Peter Stewart
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> >> www.avg.com
> >
> > I'm glad that you posted this... I was confused myself between Cantelowe and Cantilupe. If Cantilupe is the standard spelling for Oxford, then it should be the standard I would hope, but then again some people I guess have to quibble!
> Some people might include the entire population of France, where the
> modern "correct" spelling of the place from which the family took its
> surname is "Canteloup". Somewhere on the internet they are probably
> called "de Rockmelon".
>
> Peter Stewart
Life is a mystery. My views are irrelevant.
London 4 Aug 1891: The marriage of Viscount Cantelupe, only surviving son of Earl and Countess De La Warr, to the Hon. Muriel Agnes, daughter of Lord Brassey, was solemnized yesterday.

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:41:47 PM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 16-Jul-23 10:14 AM, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
> >> On 16-Jul-23 8:17 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:22:22 AM UTC+10, taf wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:03:19 AM UTC-7, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >>>>> My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe.
> >>>> There really isn't any such thing as a 'correct spelling'. There is often a typical way that historicans have come to represent a name, and there is certain a value in using these common forms for the sake of maintaining uniformity (and as bait for what would be the most common internet search terms).
> >>>>
> >>>> Still, at the time in question, there was no concept of 'correct spelling', and one typically sees a range of phoenetic approximations, as well as attempts at Latinizing, Anglicizing, Gallicizing, etc. As a sociological phenomenon, standardization of surname spelling came only in the post-medieval era, and likewise, historiographical standardization was a later occurrence, the result either of repetition of the arbitrary personal preferences selected by the authors whose works were more broadly consulted, or anachronistic application of the much later standardized form adopted by surviving families from the historians' own time. This leads to a sort of community consensus usage among modern scholars, but that can all be changed by a single influential scholar selecting a different form they prefer. 'Typical' shouldn't be mistaken for 'correct'.
> >>>>
> >>>> taf
> >>> In English E is spelled as I and I is spelled as AI: Meny Greek names are modified to sound Greek like PETRIDIS --> PETRIDES. CANTELUPE in ENGLISH sounds CANTILUPE. Anyway I never tell people what to do or what to believe.
> >>>
> >>> Saint Thomas de Cantelupe, also called Thomas Of Cantelupe, or Thomas Of Hereford, Cantelupe also spelled Cantilupe, (born c. 1218, Hambleden, Buckinghamshire, Eng.—died Aug. 25, 1282, Montefiascone, near Orvieto, Papal States; canonized 1320, feast day October 3), reformist, educator, English church prelate, bishop, and defender of episcopal jurisdiction who played an important role in the Barons’ War.
> >> If you are keen on St Thomas, you might care to observe this note in his
> >> Wikipedia article: "The commonly accepted modern spelling is
> >> "Cantilupe", as used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for
> >> all members of this family, and which is followed in this article."
> >>
> >> ODNB actually uses the inelegant but sensibly indecisive "Cantilipe
> >> [Cantelupe]".
> >> Peter Stewart
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> >> www.avg.com
> >
> > I'm glad that you posted this... I was confused myself between Cantelowe and Cantilupe. If Cantilupe is the standard spelling for Oxford, then it should be the standard I would hope, but then again some people I guess have to quibble!
> Some people might include the entire population of France, where the
> modern "correct" spelling of the place from which the family took its
> surname is "Canteloup". Somewhere on the internet they are probably
> called "de Rockmelon".
>
> Peter Stewart

I fully expect that the French version would be as you said, Canteloup, as it was the point of origin for the family who happen to be my ancestors. If there is anyone who is intimately familiar with French names which became different English names, it is I!

Darrell

On 16-Jul-23 11:32 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 10:41:47 AM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 16-Jul-23 10:14 AM, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>>> On 16-Jul-23 8:17 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:22:22 AM UTC+10, taf wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:03:19 AM UTC-7, George Tsambourakis wrote:
>>>>>>> My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe.
>>>>>> There really isn't any such thing as a 'correct spelling'. There is often a typical way that historicans have come to represent a name, and there is certain a value in using these common forms for the sake of maintaining uniformity (and as bait for what would be the most common internet search terms).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still, at the time in question, there was no concept of 'correct spelling', and one typically sees a range of phoenetic approximations, as well as attempts at Latinizing, Anglicizing, Gallicizing, etc. As a sociological phenomenon, standardization of surname spelling came only in the post-medieval era, and likewise, historiographical standardization was a later occurrence, the result either of repetition of the arbitrary personal preferences selected by the authors whose works were more broadly consulted, or anachronistic application of the much later standardized form adopted by surviving families from the historians' own time. This leads to a sort of community consensus usage among modern scholars, but that can all be changed by a single influential scholar selecting a different form they prefer. 'Typical' shouldn't be mistaken for 'correct'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> taf
>>>>> In English E is spelled as I and I is spelled as AI: Meny Greek names are modified to sound Greek like PETRIDIS --> PETRIDES. CANTELUPE in ENGLISH sounds CANTILUPE. Anyway I never tell people what to do or what to believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Saint Thomas de Cantelupe, also called Thomas Of Cantelupe, or Thomas Of Hereford, Cantelupe also spelled Cantilupe, (born c. 1218, Hambleden, Buckinghamshire, Eng.—died Aug. 25, 1282, Montefiascone, near Orvieto, Papal States; canonized 1320, feast day October 3), reformist, educator, English church prelate, bishop, and defender of episcopal jurisdiction who played an important role in the Barons’ War.
>>>> If you are keen on St Thomas, you might care to observe this note in his
>>>> Wikipedia article: "The commonly accepted modern spelling is
>>>> "Cantilupe", as used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for
>>>> all members of this family, and which is followed in this article."
>>>>
>>>> ODNB actually uses the inelegant but sensibly indecisive "Cantilipe
>>>> [Cantelupe]".
>>>> Peter Stewart
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
>>>> www.avg.com
>>>
>>> I'm glad that you posted this... I was confused myself between Cantelowe and Cantilupe. If Cantilupe is the standard spelling for Oxford, then it should be the standard I would hope, but then again some people I guess have to quibble!
>> Some people might include the entire population of France, where the
>> modern "correct" spelling of the place from which the family took its
>> surname is "Canteloup". Somewhere on the internet they are probably
>> called "de Rockmelon".
>>
>> Peter Stewart
> Life is a mystery. My views are irrelevant.
> London 4 Aug 1891: The marriage of Viscount Cantelupe, only surviving son of Earl and Countess De La Warr, to the Hon. Muriel Agnes, daughter of Lord Brassey, was solemnized yesterday.

The title Viscount Cantelupe was created in March 1761 along with the
earldom of De la Warr, for John West, lord De la Warr. Not exactly a
compelling orthographic standard for the medieval family of Cantilupe.

For some reason it is no longer used as the courtesy title for the heir
to the earldom, who is known instead as Lord Buckhurst.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 12:03:02 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 16-Jul-23 11:32 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 10:41:47 AM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:
> >> On 16-Jul-23 10:14 AM, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
> >>>> On 16-Jul-23 8:17 AM, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:22:22 AM UTC+10, taf wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 2:03:19 AM UTC-7, George Tsambourakis wrote:
> >>>>>>> My understanding is that the correct spelling is De Cantelupe.
> >>>>>> There really isn't any such thing as a 'correct spelling'. There is often a typical way that historicans have come to represent a name, and there is certain a value in using these common forms for the sake of maintaining uniformity (and as bait for what would be the most common internet search terms).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Still, at the time in question, there was no concept of 'correct spelling', and one typically sees a range of phoenetic approximations, as well as attempts at Latinizing, Anglicizing, Gallicizing, etc. As a sociological phenomenon, standardization of surname spelling came only in the post-medieval era, and likewise, historiographical standardization was a later occurrence, the result either of repetition of the arbitrary personal preferences selected by the authors whose works were more broadly consulted, or anachronistic application of the much later standardized form adopted by surviving families from the historians' own time. This leads to a sort of community consensus usage among modern scholars, but that can all be changed by a single influential scholar selecting a different form they prefer. 'Typical' shouldn't be mistaken for 'correct'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> taf
> >>>>> In English E is spelled as I and I is spelled as AI: Meny Greek names are modified to sound Greek like PETRIDIS --> PETRIDES. CANTELUPE in ENGLISH sounds CANTILUPE. Anyway I never tell people what to do or what to believe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Saint Thomas de Cantelupe, also called Thomas Of Cantelupe, or Thomas Of Hereford, Cantelupe also spelled Cantilupe, (born c. 1218, Hambleden, Buckinghamshire, Eng.—died Aug. 25, 1282, Montefiascone, near Orvieto, Papal States; canonized 1320, feast day October 3), reformist, educator, English church prelate, bishop, and defender of episcopal jurisdiction who played an important role in the Barons’ War.
> >>>> If you are keen on St Thomas, you might care to observe this note in his
> >>>> Wikipedia article: "The commonly accepted modern spelling is
> >>>> "Cantilupe", as used by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for
> >>>> all members of this family, and which is followed in this article."
> >>>>
> >>>> ODNB actually uses the inelegant but sensibly indecisive "Cantilipe
> >>>> [Cantelupe]".
> >>>> Peter Stewart
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> >>>> www.avg.com
> >>>
> >>> I'm glad that you posted this... I was confused myself between Cantelowe and Cantilupe. If Cantilupe is the standard spelling for Oxford, then it should be the standard I would hope, but then again some people I guess have to quibble!
> >> Some people might include the entire population of France, where the
> >> modern "correct" spelling of the place from which the family took its
> >> surname is "Canteloup". Somewhere on the internet they are probably
> >> called "de Rockmelon".
> >>
> >> Peter Stewart
> > Life is a mystery. My views are irrelevant.
> > London 4 Aug 1891: The marriage of Viscount Cantelupe, only surviving son of Earl and Countess De La Warr, to the Hon. Muriel Agnes, daughter of Lord Brassey, was solemnized yesterday.
> The title Viscount Cantelupe was created in March 1761 along with the
> earldom of De la Warr, for John West, lord De la Warr. Not exactly a
> compelling orthographic standard for the medieval family of Cantilupe.
>
> For some reason it is no longer used as the courtesy title for the heir
> to the earldom, who is known instead as Lord Buckhurst.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
> Peter Stewart
What about Milicent De Cantelupe d 1279 married Eon De La Zouche about Dec 1273; Mother of William b 1276 Lord Zouche. It appears nobody knew the correct spelling of their own name. Thank God we have Oxford Dictionary to guide us.