More proof of Knighthood Comments on Roger Puttenham

Question

On 3 Mar 2022 Joseph Putnam wrote on Puttenham-42:

The Calendar of Close Rolls (Ed. III, 1354-1360, No. 1358) gives the names of Sir Reynold de Grey and John Arderne as witnesses to an enrolment of release by Roger de Puttenham, knight of the manor of Wylye, co. Warwick.] https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/ArderneFistula/1:18?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

Comments

https://books.google.com/books/about/Public_Order_and_Law_Enforcement.html?id=Y7h4NrGMANYC#v=onepage&q=Belted%20Knights%20and%20Lawyers%20in%20Parliament&f=false

Page 136. He was a knight no common man. He was in that Parliament because he was a Knight.

---

No one can read this it isn't in print.  He was sent from his shire therefore he had to be a respected member of his community.  Elected members to parliament were known as Knights of the shire they represented and he has a long history of representing his area.   

I am still looking for him listed in the 100 years war, do you have a source for that?  Or as a belted knight?  It would be nice to have a source and actual proof.

---

according to the issue of the book I found Two other men served in Molyns' retinue in both 1338-39 and 1340: John Fitz Bernard and Roger de Puttenham (Treaty Rolls 1337-39,

I have proof of his Knighthood I've provided link. People seem to want to split hires. I can read it so I don't know what you mean.

You are right not all Knights of the Shire where Kingts. However during his time in parlament the king summoned Knights men who knew about war. So I don't really know what more proof anyone needs.

My 17th great grandfather fought in the 100 years war for Edward III who happens to be another great great of mine. I've dug an dug an read anything and everything I can find.

I don't know the date he became a Knight but more than likely because of his service in the 100 years war.

An obviously he was a Knight or he would not be in the Parliament he was summoned to.

---

They were looking for people who were knights, rather then lawyers because knights could be lords of manors or have knights fee which was a piece of land that was transferred to them and they had to pay taxes and owe allegience to the king.  The knights fee could be sold or given to others and was known as kings fee/kings land, as we have crown land.  The word knight can mean a lot of things.

I have found this quite interesting.  https://archive.org/stream/putnamlineagehis00putn/putnamlineagehis00putn_djvu.txt

Good luck

---

That is Eben Putnams work very detailed. It used to be accepted by the College but dealing with them you have to be made of money an I don't have Ancestral wealth. The only thing I have is a name and a right to defrenced arms even if I can't pay ten thousand plus so they can be satisfied.

---

Noun. belted knight (plural belted knights) A man who has been knighted and received a belt and sword as the tokens of his knighthood.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org › wiki

belted knight - Wiktionary

---

There is no proof he was a belted knight, he is not in the records.  The only proof there is that he was a Knight of the Shire many times, that he held a knights fee piece of land that was transferred to him,  such as government land but when you took this land you had to have a alligence to the King and pay taxes to the King.  

I will from time to time keep going through records for his name however, he is well documented.

---

Yes there is an yes he is. His several times it's stated he was a Knight. An on top of that you had to be a Knight to be in the parlment of his time. Any many different documents.

---

https://core.ac.uk › pdfPDF Web results The Fourteenth-Century Sheriff: English Local Administration in ... This names Sir Roger de Puttenham as a Knight Bachelor. The lowest rank of Knighthood

---

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

Search for a word

knight bach·e·lor

/nīt ˈbaCH(ə)lər/

Learn to pronounce

noun

a knight not belonging to any particular order.