 |
 |
> > Dear Jim, > > No, I do not "have any suggestions as to how Wasson made the one > identification over the other," but I shall ask Professor Wasson when I > go home tonight to cook his dinner. Lionel, Lord Welles, his first wife, > Lady Cecily Waterton Welles, her Waterton forebears, and the Welles > daughters are buried or commemorated in Methley's Church of St. Oswald, > a few miles east of where you are in Leeds. On surface it seems unlikely > that the Yorkshire Welles' minstrels were in King's Lynn; the West Riding > records, to the best of my memory at present, did not yield any evidence > that Lionel, Lord Welles had household minstrels but I'll check tonight > to make sure. Thank you very much for your kind help. The reason I ask is that I'm just finishing up a paper for Peter Meredith, on the social context for a range of the King's Lynn records. The paper is all finished, and I'm just tidying up an appendix to my translation of the records which lists the basic information (Name, Birth, creation of title, death) of the nobles listed. It was when I was cross-referencing your husband's Appendix II and the 'complete peerage' that I noticed that 'Welles' could really be either person. (I had assumed also that it was the Bishop). In fact, I _still_ think it was the Bishop, but wanted to ask in case there was an obvious reason for it I was missing. (Insecure as always). Since it appears (without having seen the MSS) that it is a compiled account, then I'd guess that it is more likely to be the Bishop, since it is lumped in with the Bishop of Salisbury, but that is a slim reason at best. Thank you again for all your help, present and past, if you are going to be at SITM then I look forward to meeting you there. Cheers, James Cummings <[log in to unmask]>