BLO(O)MFIELDs - Stoneham

[Yi Win]

Hi Lady Grace,

(some reason not getting email notifications sorry)

yes it's a complete muddle - there seems to be 2 branches - the Parish Records one and the IGI one and both a completely different .

When in doubt leave it be with a '?' next to it and someone helpful may come along with more info in the end.

(modified due to my typo errors)

[Yi Win]

In regard to the common link on ancestry to Robert father of Gilbert Blomvyle and Elizabeth English being the same Robert of the Newton Flotman line who is the son of William and Elizabeth de Bosville.

As far as I can tell the 1st one died in 1498 Stonham and the 2nd was still alive in 1503 (according to Will 1503 of brother Richard) so they can not be the same person.

However the Will has opened a  small can of worms which I am going through so will keep you updated.

[Lady Grace]

Firstly many grateful thanks to Gail...secondly I'll join you  in that glass of Brandy..phew as you say a pretty pickle !!!!! I would say off the top of my head that the parish records 'should ' be the most authentic?I have also seen where two sons of the same family have been christened with the same name if one has died earlier ,maybe that was  an inheritance thing in those days re lineage & the eldest surviving son? lol anyone got a working crystal ball! um?
 curiouser and curiouser said Alice:>)

[Yi Win]

Hi Lady Grace,

The Will 1503 is throwing up a few queries

if anyoine can translate this date...

Ml CCCClxxxx

I'd be very grateful!

This could be a key factor (and re-open the worms i'm afraid)

It was common to name a 2nd child after the one who previously died - in my family my grandfather had a bit of a shock one day to find his own death certificate!

He always thought that he was named after an older brother who had died .

However when I looked more closely I noticed the age at death was an inconsitancy if he were indeed my grandfathers elder brother - there wasnt enough time between the 2 births for a 2nd child to have been born.

I looked into the mystery further and discoverd a sad tale.

My grandfathers older brother was 21 years older then he was - he signed up to fight in WW! and just before he left for the front he married.

While he was fighting on the front his new wife gave birth to a son, this son had my grtandfathers name. The soldier was killed in action on the last day of the battle of Messines Ridge and never saw his son.

The wife then gave the child to my grt grandmother to be brought up and I havent found out anything further about her.

The child died some months later when my grt grandmother was pregnant with her youngest (of 13) son - this son was my grandfather and was named after his nephew who died.

I did not discover this until after my grandfathers death so he never knew his 'older' brother was actually his nephew.

Let me know if anyone has any ideas about the date - it is quite literally the key.

Yi
 

[youngtug]

If it wasn't for the L after the M  I would say 1373.  Are there any other lines over the numerals, or any other marks?

[Yi Win]

Hi Youngtug,

The 1st time I got 1392.

Then I worked out the end bit as 90 if it's an l (lower case L)

lxxxx = 90

the CCCC = 400

but the Ml (lower case L) = 1050

or MI = 1001

as far as I know there's no upper or lower marks - I am going to double check - I am not viewing the document - my cousin Gayle is but she cant copy it as it's copyrighted.

Gayle came up with the initial translation of the date (not me!! so give her the credit please) as a possible 1490 this would put the Will dated 1503 in doubt as the Roman numerals seem to indicate a different date.

This sheds doubt into Roberts dates!

Currently we have Robert who died in Stonham in 1498 as the father of Gilbert who married Elizabeth English.

As the Robert son of William and Elizabeth de Bosville was alive at his brothers Will in 1503 this made the Roberts be separate people.

IF the Will is 1490 (which would match in with other documents and a church engraving) then this puts this Robert alive in 1490 and he could have died in Stonham in 1498.

It IS a very weak link but never the less one to be looked into.

The date is crucial here.

[Yi Win]

Hi,

Just a little snippet...

The Will was proved at Norwich on 30 May 1503.

hmmm.... of course does this mean Robert as an executor would be alive in 1503?

Is this possible if his brother Richard died in 1490 for it to be proved 13 years later?

Any one got any ideas?

Yi

[youngtug]

400 should be CD
90 should be XC
You should not have a run of four numerals the same. If, as it looks, this is not complying with the rules then it is going to be nearly impossible to get a correct interpretation.
It looks like my first try was wrong anyhow.

So, M=1000.
L=50 or I=1 ?
CCC=300
So could be; CCC-L=250 or CCC-I=299.Either one dosn't really work because of the following numerals.
or;-  CCCC=400
So could be CCCC-L=350 or CCCC-I=399. Same problem as above.
Then if CCC=300 the following CL=150
Then we have the problem of the Xs, there should not be four in  a row, three would be 30 but 40 should be XL
LX would be 60 so we could have LX+XXX=90 but that should read XC
If it was MCCCCLXXXX without the  L/l after the M then it could be 1490 if you take the the run of four Cs=400 and the L=50 + 40[four Xs]=90. The l is in the wrong place to deduct from XXXX and leave 39 making 1439. Although it is not correctly done so?
The problem is the L/I after the M. I cannot bsee why it's there.

[Greensleeves]

Evening all, and may I butt in for a moment, as a fellow Blo(o)mfield hunter? 

The discussion about Roman numerals reminded me that there was a similar discussion way back on these boards relating to rules not being followed.  So I did a search on Roman numerals and found the thread in Nov/Dec 2009.    One contributor to this thread stated that the accepted rules for Roman numerals were not always followed in the 16th century: thus it would be quite usual to see iiij for 4,  or cccc for 400.

Regards,
GS