To: wideawake
Thomas de Mowbray, the first Duke of Norfolk, was stripped of his lands and title in 1399 - if he was "late" as of this inscription, it can only be 1400 at the earliest if legitimate. The text doesn't refer to Thomas de Mowbray. It refers to a much later Duke of Norfolk. In the 16th Century, there were no less than three Thomas Howards who were Dukes of Norfolk. There were two more Thomas Dukes of Nofolk in the 17th century, but my guess is that this is 16th century.
26 posted on
05/22/2008 11:29:46 AM PDT by
Alter Kaker
(Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
To: Alter Kaker
I agree with your dating. I was simply pointing out that it could not possibly have been earlier than 1400 - in other words, long after Old English had ceased.
28 posted on
05/22/2008 11:32:07 AM PDT by
wideawake
(Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
To: Alter Kaker
The text doesn't refer to Thomas de Mowbray. It refers to a much later Duke of Norfolk. In the 16th Century, there were no less than three Thomas Howards who were Dukes of Norfolk. There were two more Thomas Dukes of Nofolk in the 17th century, but my guess is that this is 16th century.I believe the William Cantrell buried in this church (Hemingstone, in Suffolk, UK) was interred in 1585. I won't be home for a couple of hours but I can verify it then. My wife was staying in Ipswich, only a few miles from the church, and she went there to do a rubbing for one of my coworkers.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson