Fwd: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift b Ma

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Fwd: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift b Ma

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2005 20:09:01

--part1_f7.5bf8ea4b.308fce85_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




--part1_f7.5bf8ea4b.308fce85_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: <WJhonson@aol.com>
From: WJhonson@aol.com
Full-name: WJhonson
Message-ID: <e3.1ef021f5.308eaee7@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:40:55 EDT
Subject: re: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift b Mar 1574
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL=L@rootsweb.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 103

Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Titcomb", pg 772, Count
d'Angerville; World Nobility, London. 1962

Gives, in part, this line
Elizabeth Whitgift b Mar 1574
dau of
William Whitgift will made 13 June 1615 proved 8 Nov 1615 and Margaret Bell
dau of
Margaret Barley
dau of
Philippa Bradbury
dau of
William Bradbury / Jane FitzWilliam
dau of
John FitzWilliam d 1417 and Eleanor Greene

Attempting to assign birth ranges to these individuals we get the following
results.
Jane FitzWilliam b 1396/1418
Phillipa Bradbury b 1435/65
Margaret Barley b 1480/1512
Margaret Bell b1528/60
Elizabeth Whitgift b 1574

We have to surmise that we have four generations of women, each giving birth
in their 40s for this line to hold.
This is simply not tenable in my opinion, and I wonder if anyone has a
correction for this line that could re-establish it on more secure ground.
Thanks
Will Johnson

--part1_f7.5bf8ea4b.308fce85_boundary--

Gjest

Re: Fwd: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2005 20:09:02

It will be published soon in the New England Historical & Genealogical
Register as a posthumous article by Marshall K. Kirk.

Even in "The Ancestry of Thomas Bradbury (1611-1695) and His Wife Mary
(Perkins) Bradbury (1615-1700) of Salisbury, Massachusetts" by John
Brooks Threfall (1988), the parents of William Whitgift are given as
Henry Whitgift and Anne Dynewell and not Margaret Barley. So that line
is incorrect anyway. Kirk's article gives a royal line for Anne
Dynewell via the Fulnetbys, Dymokes to Lionel de Welles thence back to
Edward I.

See Kirk's earlier article: "Loose Ends in the Bradbury Ahnentafel"
by Kenneth W. Kirkpatrick NEHGR 153 (1999): 259-277.

Gjest

Re: Fwd: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 okt 2005 21:24:44

Additionally your dates are a bit off from Threfall's dates.

Elizabeth Whitgift was born in 1574.

Her mother was possibly Margaret Bell who married William Whitgift who
was born abt 1538. So Margaret was born say 1540-1550.

Her mother, according to Threlfall, was Philippa Bradbury who was born
1505-1510. She (Philippa) was married four times: (i) John Bowler;
(ii) Michael Wilbore; (iii) John Barley; and (iv) William Rutter.
Michael Wilbore died tesate in 1551, so if this identification is
correct, Margaret was born say 1552 or so.

The father of Philippa Bradbury was William Bradbury born about 1480
and aged 30 years or more in 1510 at the IPM of his uncle. So his
Fitzwilliam/Bendysshe bride was born say 1485 or so. She died on 13
august 1536. And her name was Elizabeth or Isabella.

Gjest

Re: Fwd: the destruction of the royal of Elizabeth Whitgift

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 okt 2005 17:46:47

This new descent for Bradbury is a very important discovery
(especially if its not conjectural).
Certainly its more impressive than most
of the discoveries we hear about on this newsgroup.

Leslie


mhollick@mac.com wrote:
It will be published soon in the New England Historical & Genealogical
Register as a posthumous article by Marshall K. Kirk.

Even in "The Ancestry of Thomas Bradbury (1611-1695) and His Wife Mary
(Perkins) Bradbury (1615-1700) of Salisbury, Massachusetts" by John
Brooks Threfall (1988), the parents of William Whitgift are given as
Henry Whitgift and Anne Dynewell and not Margaret Barley. So that line
is incorrect anyway. Kirk's article gives a royal line for Anne
Dynewell via the Fulnetbys, Dymokes to Lionel de Welles thence back to
Edward I.

See Kirk's earlier article: "Loose Ends in the Bradbury Ahnentafel"
by Kenneth W. Kirkpatrick NEHGR 153 (1999): 259-277.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»