When my grandson, Tyler Hunt, were doing a painting together, Patrice Hanson, looked on with disgust. This goes back to our conversation at the ruins of Jack London’s Wolf House where I told my wife to be my families creative legacy was falling into the hands of outsiders the same way London’s legacy came to be owned by hostile outsiders. I told Patrice I am authoring a biography, and my rivals are inventing lies in their biogrphy of my famous sister, Rosamond. All of a sudden, Patrice says;

“Are you saying our daughter get all her talent from you?”

I got angry, for this woman, who had two sons by two fathers, did not allow me to be a father for sixteen years, and did her damnedest to have Heather believe she got all her gufts from her utterly un-gifted mother, who never was an artist, poet, or, writer. Patrice and her family are the people the Seer saw that come into my being and take – via my newborn daughter who Patrice put in the arms of famous parasite convicted of impersonating Bob Weir – twice!

The Rosemondts owned Wolf House in Brambant, and were part of a restoration of Frankish rule in theat area, which suggests they might be descended from Merovingians.

Jon Presco

The Wolf House
“Jack and his second wife Charmian’s dream home was planned even before their marriage. Actual work on it began April 1911. Albert Farr of San Francisco was the architect who transferred Jack’s ideas into blueprints. For earthquake protection, the building was put on a huge floating slab large enough to support a forty-story building. Redwood trees, fully clothed in their own bark, deep chocolate-maroon volcanic rocks, blue slate, boulders and cement were chosen for primary building materials. The roof was of Spanish tile and came from the N. Clark and Sons Pottery, built on the old Davenport place in Alameda. Large redwood trees, with the bark still intact, formed the carriage entrance, the pergolas, and porches. The rafters were of rough-hewn, natural logs. Tree trunks in the gables and balconies were interlaced with fruit twigs for a beautiful effect.”

“Wolf House was not a castle in any sense of the term, though Jack and others referred to it as that. It was big, unpretentious, open, natural, and inviting, just like its builder. It was designed as a busy author’s workshop, and as a home big enough for the many needs of the Londons, and for the entertainment of their friends.

The Wolfswinkelse Water Mill was a watermill on the Dommel. The watermill is located in the municipality of Sint-Oedenrode Breugel Nijnselbetween and. This mill Shop mill may have ever known.

Content
[hide]
1 Etymology
2 History
2.1 Glory Wolfswinkel until 1604
2.2 from 1604 until 1795
2.3 Of 1795 to the present
3 Nearby watermills
4 external link
[Edit] Etymology
In the name means Wolfswinkel Shop an angle. The element can be in multiple ways, however, Wolf explained. Many think it first to the animal name, but it can also save on a field curvature . That seems like a meaningful declaration because such terrain shape in the environment explicitly to designate falls (namely a strikingly high steep banks along the Dommel, half a kilometre to the North).
[Edit] History
[Edit] Glory Wolfswinkel until 1604
The mill was around 1200 by Duke Henry I of Brabant donated to the Priory of Postel. Later it became a little glory, consisting of a omgrachte hofstede (the Water hoof), a farm and water mill. This area was by the Ducal couple Johanna van Brabant and Wenceslas I of Luxembourg in 1381 in leen issued to the nobleman Edmund d’Aquis. There would then also a padlock are built. The oldest known occupant, after which her son would Agnes van Wolfswinkel Colen of Dijnter has inherited the property, after which the owners were Emont of Geerke and Dijnter. In 1450 the glory was in possession of the family of Rosemont, and afterwards the families Coensborgh and Molenpas. The lock was already gone. In the 15th and 16th century followed by the families mentioned families, The Huyoel, Of Broekhoven, Bogaers Cocq and Thielemans.
[Edit] From 1604 to 1795
The mill was In 1604 , los of the estate, as a separate fief sold to Coenraedt Jan Adriaens. In 1628 the mill was in the possession of Jhr. Jeger 1650 a oil mill with the original corn mill had built. We Around 1720 was the mill in the possession of Lord Lambert, count of Berlo, and after his death the mill was sold to Johan Carel de Jeger, who was Lord of Eckart .
During the French period, at the end of the 18th century, the mill was burned by the English and German troops, in order in this way, the English army, that was contracted on the Nistelrooise Heide, to warn of the approaching French. The remnants were then sold in 1795 to Widow of schalkwijk, which the mill Raon 50 metres upstream left a rebuild.
[Edit] From 1795 to the present
After the rebuilding the mill has known many owners. She was under during the 19th century more used as the volmolen by Geldropse and the Tilburg textile manufacturers. Although the mill was still in operation in 1878 , she hit soon afterwards in decline. In 1928 the Dommel and fell the lock in the water mill was sold to waterboard De Dommel. After 1945 the watermill was demolished, despite efforts to preserve it.
Nowadays rest on this picturesque place only the Mill House. In addition, reminds the Water farm to the former glory. Furthermore, reminds a small monumentje to the water mill, as well as the path that leads there, which still bears the name Watermolen Street . The cycle path network along The Peel performs there.

Gerlach de Roovere, Knight, Lord of Waalwijk, Drunen, Vlijmen, “Honsoirde” (Onsenoort) Rixtel, Someren, Lierop and Wets. According to a manuscript of the genealogy of 1266 is Gerlach Arnold Son de Roovere (genus of Red) married Oda, daughter of Jan van Megen. One of their many children was Willem de Roovere.
The Brabantse noble genera that the 3 are all descendants of the mill irons, counts of Red. These old genera are named after the name of villages, Hamlets, neighbourhoods or estates under the old Taxandrie such as Asdonck, Stackenburgh, Van der van Vlierden, van Lierop, of Vladeracken, of, of, of Hove, Hersel, Breugel of Wette, Rinckveld, van Lieshout, of IJllingen, of veenhuizen, van den, van Wolfswinkel, Bolck of Broekhoven. But also Straeten, Kuysten, van Loon, of Orthen, van Mierlo, at Heerenhoven, of the fields, van den Heuvel and to d Boirschot ´ Erp.

When one wants to demonstrate that it has the right to a particular good or right, we need evidence. If they are missing, one can resort to falsifying or fabricating evidence itself that. Forgery is, however, not something today or yesterday. Certainly in times, which by war or fire more often than now, as in the middle ages pieces were lost, grabbed one to this medium.
We see, therefore, that ordinary people, noble families but also monasteries and abbeys not schroomden for den day to come up with the finest “evidence” of own fabrications. Such a collection of false or falsified documents can put a contemporary historian on the wrong leg and that is done repeatedly. The medieval family Stakenborch is an eloquent example. Purpose of the following is not to write a history of this interesting and for Lierop, Asten and Someren extremely important family, but to an old misunderstanding about to eliminate her.

Historical is of the family of Stakenborch the following known with certainty. Circa 1350 was Willem van Someren Stakenborch substantial man in inter alia, Asten and Lierop. He and his family owned, as owner or tenant, as many real estate throughout Brabant, including the good Vladeracken or Vlerken under Someren. William was also lessee of important goods of the Priory of Postel, namely the Windmill in Someren and water mill of Strip donk under Lierop. A mill was a huge source of income and Willem van Stakenborch and his brothers Henry I, Jan and Mathijs also to great success and brought it great prestige. Henry was even prior or prosiver (head) of the godshuis in Postel. Because this monastery with financial problems faced, borrowed it from the Stakenborch family of considerable sums of money. Postel gave them tithes and goods as collateral. For any goods it went, evidenced by a document from 1401. It says that Henry II of Stakenborch, son of William, inherited from his father all the rights on the goods pledged by the Priory of Postel to William, namely four farms in Someren, the tithes and the Windmill van Someren and goods Moorsel, Dot donk and Lierop.

In addition, did Henry I of Stakenborch, prior of Postel, some donations to the monastery. However, when he died in or before 1359 there arose a conflict. The only remaining brother, Willem, apparently, found that he was disadvantaged by Hendriks donations. Recalling also the large debts which Postel had to the family. There was, however, a referee and enabled 1359 legden Willem van Stakenborch on 10 January and the Priory of Postel in their dispute. Mathijs van Asten ceased In 1364 of Boescot, also of William of Stakenborch, for its part, intensify the process nephews against the then prior of Postel.

The descendants of the Brothers Of Stakenborch however showed sit at. Because according to them had not repaid the loan Postel and they therefore still entitled to the pledged goods, flared again in 1426 the fight in all vehemence. Jan van Stakenborch meeting and threatened to strip the possessions of the monastery in Postel even fire. The Duke of Brabant issued an arrest warrant against him and Jan had to leave the country. Thirty years later, in 1456, it came to a process, when John’s heir, weather of a claim made on all Mathijs Bois shot, Someren, tithing, the Windmill to van Someren in Someren and the mill law and four hooves to Someren Lierop. He did this on the basis of old usage rights, arising from the pecuniary obligations (debts) which Postel had towards the family. Mathijs claimed goods and rights that were around 1350 by the Priory of pledged to his ancestor William of Postel Stakenborch.

The Priory had been clean enough of Postel. Around 1360 the had acknowledged that all goods and rights of Stakenborchs still in Someren Postel were, but one nutrok and Lierop this fact again in doubt! The monks therefore decided to manufacture a number of effective evidence. A cumbersome procedure, but not directly on the basis of real instruments would always weather can lead to evidentiary again in doubt pull of the ownership rights of Priory Postel. Therefore the monks arrived in 1456 up with three instruments from 1243, 1266 and false 1311. These were to prove that the early Stakenborchs Of all their rights on tithes, a mill and four farms in Someren and the mill law in Lierop Postel to the monastery had donated and that they therefore had no rights more on. In the three forged charters is a very sex to emerge of the aforementioned brothers William, Henry trooped, Jan and Mathijs. Apparently it was the family of Stakenborch, formerly leaseholders of the monastery, in the fifteenth century the Premonstratensians grown above the head, such that even the clergy saw no other way out than Postel more counterfeiting. In the pedigree of the family of Stakenborch we come in the forged charters as forefathers souped-up Gerlach and Willem de Rover often against. It is quite possible that the fact of them descended but the false Stakenborchs Of instruments should not serve as proof. Also, Gerlach and Willem instruments in the “Lord of Stakenborch in Someren” and that is in the real pieces never the case.

The Stakenborchs Of their pretensions towards Postel gave after 1456 on but the story is not yet out. A smart descendant has the counterfeits of Postel in the seventeenth century once used and even supplemented with still a forgery. In 1656 namely claimed French of Bois shot of noble descent. He wanted to prove this by pointing to his descent from the chivalrous Of the noble Stakenborchs and the robbers. But he had not enough to the false Postelse charters. That is why a Charter, which was produced from 1308, on the one hand, the relationship between Of Bois shot and Of the Lords of Stakenborch and of Stakenborchs to Asten and Lierop and escharen were promoted. Names of actual gentlemen of Asten (and Lierop?), members of the family of Cuijk, were incorporated in the pedigree. All this was, of course, completely false, but like Postel in 1456, reached the forger also this time the desired result: his claims to nobility was recognized.

Later chroniclers made the matter still further complicated by the pedigree to fill in fanciful. Result, interesting but volsterkt unhistorical pedigrees. So Stakenborchs on the basis of the counterfeits were Of considerable leaseholders in Someren, Lierop and upgraded from Asten to gentlemen of Asten and Lierop, which they never been. Coppens and Schutjes know even to report that Henry of Stakenborch, before if Postel “Norbertijner the white habit” provisor, the Lordships Lierop, Stakenborch, Someren, Asten and escharen sold to the Duke of Brabant. It has therefore thought that his municipality weapon, the three mill Lierop irons, to the identical coat of arms of this family. The Priory would have this weapon also postel inherited from Henry of Stakenborch, which was around 1350 prior Postel. Whom the weapon is now the question of whom took over to the chicken and the egg. The most obvious, however, that it is and that it is both the oldest Postelse weapon by Lierop if by Stakenborchs is inherited.

NUTS

Source: “Lierop ‘n image of a village”

1. the following is almost entirely based on the diplomatic considerations of H.P.H. in the instruments at the Camps Camps on ONB, ONB, nr 199 d.d. p. 277; No. 305 pp. 917-920 dated; No. 863 dated 1052-1055 pp.
2. a. j. stakenburg Teychiné, “The Brabantse genus stakenburg in the XIVe – XVIIIth century”, Yearbook of the Centraal Bureau voor Genealogie 15 (1961) 118-146, m.n. 120-121 (= idem, the family stakenburg (Rotterdam1961). See for his further studies on this family the footnotes 4 and 7
3. Henry amused in 1401 these goods in turn to his sister Margriet (the archives of Th.L.Welvaarts, Zomeren Postel’s Abbey (Helmond/Turnhout 1892) 65-66)
4. Notarized deed dated 1364 July 20 (RANB, old inv.nr.Aanwinsten 1885/27bis/g, temporarily: dossier Church Asten deed g), mentioned in Camps, ONB p. 1054; Teychiné stakenburg facsmile: A.J., the oldest generations der family stakenburg (Rotterdam 1980) 15.
5. In the beginning of the 17th century one manufactured a false deed in Postel, yet supposedly from the year 1357, which a defence work recorded against the so-called claims of Willem van Lierop and Stakenborch on the mills of Someren (Someren 9bis Abbey-archive Postel, charters; see Camps, ONB, p. 1054 and n. 1)
6. J.A. Coppens, New description of the Diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch in response to the Meijerijsch in his book of a. Kath Pleading van Gils, (4 din; “s-Hertogenbosch 1840-1844) III. 1 302-303: Schutjes, history of the Diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch l.h.c., (5din; St. Michiels-Gestel 1870-1876) III, 144; IV, 669; A.F.O. Sasse van Ysselt, of “the glory Asten”, Taxandria 22 (1915) 3-9, 65-73, 121-129.
7. Unfortunately is also the serious researcher of the family of Teychiné, Stakenborch, A.J. stakenburg in this trap cases. This is the case in his study from 1961, “The Brabantse genus stakenburg”, pp. 118-122, in which he mainly based on a manuscript of the nineteenth-century Archivist of Postel, Th.L.Welvaarts, “the family of Stakenborch 1343-1626 to the archives of the Abbey of Postel” still vooert “Willem de Rovere in 1980 he Stakenborch, Lord of Asten and escharen (and Lierop?)”, which therefore never existed, as ancestor of the genus (see Teychiné, “the oldest generations stakenburg”, 5; and idem “The Brabantse genus stakenburg” complements the genealogy, the Brabant Lion 31 (1982) 85-86
8. see e.g. f. Prince, the onze-Lieve-Vrouwe-Norbertine Postel Abbey der to (Antwerp 1935) 46-47.