BLO(O)MFIELDs - Stoneham

[youngtug]

Hi GS, welcome to butt in, help us out on this. Think we accept that the rules have not been followed, all to do with education and personal interpretation, but why the L/I after the M?

[Greensleeves]

Hi YT - the reason I went on my search of the archives was to try to answer that question; I was hoping the previous posts might throw some light thereon but alas they are silent on the subject.  I think it is difficult to make a proper assessment without sight of the actual image, don't you?  It could be an inadvertent shake on the part of the writer of course!  I agree with you entirely that the 'l' in that place does not, and cannot, make sense - unless it is following rules of which we are unaware!

[Yi Win]

Thank you Greensleeves and Youngtug,

Gayle and I were thinking along the same lines her the letter I /L after the M should not be there. It is Gayle who is looking at the original document.

Also regardless of how many rules are 'broken' ie Lxxxx = 90 the letter after the M is just not right - if it was 399 making it M ICCCC = 1399 then the Lxxxx just isnt right - regardless of breaking all rules and doing all combinations the letter after the M just doesnt fit - Gayle is looking over the document again.

The reasoning of the dating being crucial is IF this Will is of Richard who died 1503 then

a) he cant BE his father who died in 1490 as some claim (ie they miss out a generation going straight Richard the father to Richard the son not Richard father to Richard son to Richard the nephew)

b) his brother Robert alive in 1503 cant be Gilbert of Stonham's father as that Robert died in 1498.

HOWEVER if you 'skip' out Richard d 1503 and say he died in 1490 then Robert d 1498, as his brother, would have been alive and would be a nice 'slot' in for Gilberts father.

Which is what some trees on ancestry have recently done.

Is it a leap of faith or are they privvy to some info we've not yet discovered - they all have seemed to have copied from one 'source' tree and that tree quotes the source of its info as Will of Richard 1503 which is why Gayle not only got it but had it translated.

Unfortunatley the tree owner hasnt come back to us with any comments.

He could be correct and the Stonham Blomfields are decendecd from Robert son of Richard and Catherine Inglosse or he could be wrong and the Stonham bloomfields are connected elsewhere and via Gilbertus Blomvyle of Stonham Will 1415.

Or we may just never answer the question.

Will keep you up to date - we have people on it researching.

Yi

[Greensleeves]

I can't say I would trust the trees on Ancestry - too many people just link in with other trees without checking their facts.  I have found the most appalling mistakes on people's trees relating to my family; and whenever I contact them to ask them to make a correction, there is silence.

[Yi Win]

Well said Greensleeves!!!!

Same here - silence but as they quoted a document we thought we'd get hold of said document and look it up.

The logic behind the theory seems sound - it looks like a valid link so its worth checking it out - just a pity they wont reply with assisting us!

However there are several contradictory bits of evidence which seem to confirm that there are indeed Richard the father, Richard the son and Richard the nephew.

The Will is refering to what looks like Richard the son in which case we have 2 brothers we didnt know about and a muddle with the sons!

I will explain more when I've delved further!

[youngtug]

Forgive me if I have posted this before, I don't think I have, it was in a pile of notes that I have taken whilst browsing;

The Manor of Blundeville's or Newton Hall
Which had it's name from it's owners.

William DeBlundeville. Bhmevyle or B/unne.
Who had it of the gift of Henry De Rhye with Blomevyles Manor in Depham.
    Left it to;-
                    Richards son, who was Lord in 1226, being nephew to Thomas De Blumville, bishop of Norwich.
                      He [Richard] was succeded byWilliam Blumvyle,
                       And he by Katherine, his widow.
     William,their son held it of the manor of Hingliam, as of the Barony of Rhye.
      In 1388, Richard Blumvyh held it.
And in 1420 William Blumvyle, Esq,  was succeded by Richard Blomevyle, Esq,
And he by Catherine, his wife.
And she by Richard their son, who died in 1514.
Whose son Edward was Lord and died in 1568.
And in 156? Thomas his son held a court Baron & Lete.

[Clemmie]

I can't say I would trust the trees on Ancestry - too many people just link in with other trees without checking their facts.  I have found the most appalling mistakes on people's trees relating to my family; and whenever I contact them to ask them to make a correction, there is silence.

Reading your post and couldn't agree more.  I have come across the same section of my tree on several sites on the net.....yes, I gave the information to the person many years ago....he then wrote me a long time later apologising because he had made an error and we weren't related after all.  I thanked him for letting me know and asked him if he would mind removing the incorrect data on ALL of his user sites as it's very misleading to other researchers and that I didn't want these errors mushrooming out of control after being used by others................like you Greensleeves, no response and the errors have multiplied. I find this terribly selfish as it's a dreadful time waster to contact a person and be lead astray - it just continues on being replicated and confusing new researchers.    Despite being asked several times to remove the data, providing sensible reasons and pointing out the pitfalls, how do others deal with this? 

[Yi Win]

youngtug,

You are a star - the copy I have from EV or Francis BLoomfield (not at own computer at min so cant look up record to see which) states Richard son of Catherine d 1503!

Would make far more sence.

Ahhhhh - will have to wait til tomorrow when i can try and put it all together!!

Hi Clemmie,

You cant deal with it - you just have to hope that if it leads people astray they get back on track.

If we could contact this person and get a responce and how he figured out the link we'd not be doing all this double checking now.

it does look like a valid link - but as youngtug has just sprung up - we have now another bit of info that discounts it.

Personally we have more info discrediting this link at the moment than we have for it being a positive but we have to sift it all through and still may not come to any firm conclusions.

My own tree states where the source info comes from ie a document or another persons trees not researched by me so I am aware fo what bits are proved or not or 'borrowed' with persmission.

As Lady Grace full well knows we have 2 sets of kids for the same parents on the tree - one set come from IGI and one from Parish - I have commented with '?' next the the IGI records on my tree and under notes it states that this is possibly in the wrong location.

On the other hand sometimes putting a suggested link on does provide evidence for its confirmation or removal if another person sees it but it is put on as "a suggested link please can anyone help with this"

All you can do is hope someoen contacts you and you can correct them.

not a lot of help I know.

Youngtug - will look into those dates and get back to you - thanks that will be a big help.

Yi

[Gayla]

Hi everyone

Sorry have only just logged on since Friday (busy weekend reached 60!)  Now going back to the date on the will.  The Ml CCCClxxxx was from the transcribed will where it says as in all wills 'in the year of our lord god .... being of whole mind etc.  On the original obviously it looks nothing like that! (Like most of it unreadable), infact it looks like four capital P's followed by a h and four lower case p's.  The Ml I really can't give any example of it's likeness in the will.  The researcher  has corresponded line endings with those of the original so I can follow the text.  But she does say that one or two of the spellings seem particularly peculiar in this will, but as she says they are from a time before standardised spellings and they are as transcribed.  She was very good and very helpful.  The will seems to have been written on xviij day of October in the above year.  It was proved in Norwich on 30 May 1503, presumably after he had died. I would love to put this up for you all to see, but I can't  due to the copyright declaration I have had to sign.   Unfortunately it  seems to have thrown up more  problems than it has solved!  Gayla