Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Brad Verity
Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
Paul Beilby Lawley Thompson, 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852) has several
descents from Edward I through his paternal line, the Lawleys,
Baronets of Spoonhill, Shropshire. The paternal line of his mother
Jane Thompson goes back to Sir Henry Thompson (c.1625-1683), a wealthy
wine merchant from York who served as Lord Mayor of that city in 1663
and 1672. But through his Beilby ancestry he has some descents from
Edward III. Three of them from Joan Beaufort are given below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Thomp ... on_Wenlock
Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland (c.1379-1440) had a son (C1)
and 2 daughters (A1 & B1)
A1) Elizabeth Ferrers, Lady Greystoke (1393-1434), who had
A2) Ralph, 5th Lord Greystoke (c.1414-1487), who had
A3) Sir Robert Greystoke (d. 1483) m. 1) Elizabeth Grey (see B3
below), and had
A4) Elizabeth Greystoke (1471-1516) m. Thomas, 3rd Lord Dacre
(1467-1525), and had
A5) Elizabeth Dacre m. Thomas Musgrave of Hayton Castle (d. 1532), and
had
A6) William Musgrave of Hayton (c.1521-1597) m. Isabel Martindale, and
had
A7) Eleanor Musgrave (c.1560-1597) m. 1576 Sir Christopher Lowther of
Lowther (1557-1617, descended from Edward III but not thru Joan
Beaufort), and had
A8) Sir John Lowther of Lowther (1582-1637) m. Eleanor Fleming (see C7
below), and had
A9) Sir John Lowther, 1st Baronet (1606-1675) m. 1) 1626 Mary Fletcher
(d. 1648), and had
A10) Barbara Lowther (1634-1705) m. 1661 John Beilby of Micklethwaite
Grange, Yorks. (1637-1702), and had
A11) Mary Beilby of Micklethwaite Grange (1662-17--) m. 1685 Henry
Thompson of Escrick Hall, Yorks. (1659-1700), and had
A12) Beilby Thompson of Escrick (1686-1750) m. 2) 17-Sarah Roundell
(d. 1773), and had
A13) Jane Thompson (1743-1816) m. 1764 Sir Robert Lawley, 5th Baronet
(1736-1793), and had
A14) Paul Beilby Lawley Thompson, 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
B1) Eleanor Nevill, Countess of Northumberland (d. 1473), who had
B2) Katherine Percy , Countess of Kent (1423-1504), who had
B3) Elizabeth Grey (d. 1472) m. Sir Robert Greystoke (see A3 above)
C1) Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury (1400-1460), who had
C2) Richard Nevill 'The Kingmaker' (1428-1471), who had
C3) Margaret Nevill (illeg.) (d.1498) m. 1) 1465 Sir Richard
Huddleston (c.1440-1485), and had
C4) Joan Huddleston (c.1480-1538) m. Hugh Fleming of Rydal (d. 1558),
and had
C5) Anthony Fleming of Rydal (d. 1537/8) m. 2) 1532 Elizabeth Hutton
(d.c.1534), and had
C6) William Fleming of Rydal (c.1534-1598) m. 2) by 1575 Agnes
Bindloss (d. 1631), and had
C7) Eleanor Fleming (c.1583-1659) m. 1602 Sir John Lowther of Lowther
(see A8 above)
Cheers, ------Brad
descents from Edward I through his paternal line, the Lawleys,
Baronets of Spoonhill, Shropshire. The paternal line of his mother
Jane Thompson goes back to Sir Henry Thompson (c.1625-1683), a wealthy
wine merchant from York who served as Lord Mayor of that city in 1663
and 1672. But through his Beilby ancestry he has some descents from
Edward III. Three of them from Joan Beaufort are given below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Thomp ... on_Wenlock
Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland (c.1379-1440) had a son (C1)
and 2 daughters (A1 & B1)
A1) Elizabeth Ferrers, Lady Greystoke (1393-1434), who had
A2) Ralph, 5th Lord Greystoke (c.1414-1487), who had
A3) Sir Robert Greystoke (d. 1483) m. 1) Elizabeth Grey (see B3
below), and had
A4) Elizabeth Greystoke (1471-1516) m. Thomas, 3rd Lord Dacre
(1467-1525), and had
A5) Elizabeth Dacre m. Thomas Musgrave of Hayton Castle (d. 1532), and
had
A6) William Musgrave of Hayton (c.1521-1597) m. Isabel Martindale, and
had
A7) Eleanor Musgrave (c.1560-1597) m. 1576 Sir Christopher Lowther of
Lowther (1557-1617, descended from Edward III but not thru Joan
Beaufort), and had
A8) Sir John Lowther of Lowther (1582-1637) m. Eleanor Fleming (see C7
below), and had
A9) Sir John Lowther, 1st Baronet (1606-1675) m. 1) 1626 Mary Fletcher
(d. 1648), and had
A10) Barbara Lowther (1634-1705) m. 1661 John Beilby of Micklethwaite
Grange, Yorks. (1637-1702), and had
A11) Mary Beilby of Micklethwaite Grange (1662-17--) m. 1685 Henry
Thompson of Escrick Hall, Yorks. (1659-1700), and had
A12) Beilby Thompson of Escrick (1686-1750) m. 2) 17-Sarah Roundell
(d. 1773), and had
A13) Jane Thompson (1743-1816) m. 1764 Sir Robert Lawley, 5th Baronet
(1736-1793), and had
A14) Paul Beilby Lawley Thompson, 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
B1) Eleanor Nevill, Countess of Northumberland (d. 1473), who had
B2) Katherine Percy , Countess of Kent (1423-1504), who had
B3) Elizabeth Grey (d. 1472) m. Sir Robert Greystoke (see A3 above)
C1) Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury (1400-1460), who had
C2) Richard Nevill 'The Kingmaker' (1428-1471), who had
C3) Margaret Nevill (illeg.) (d.1498) m. 1) 1465 Sir Richard
Huddleston (c.1440-1485), and had
C4) Joan Huddleston (c.1480-1538) m. Hugh Fleming of Rydal (d. 1558),
and had
C5) Anthony Fleming of Rydal (d. 1537/8) m. 2) 1532 Elizabeth Hutton
(d.c.1534), and had
C6) William Fleming of Rydal (c.1534-1598) m. 2) by 1575 Agnes
Bindloss (d. 1631), and had
C7) Eleanor Fleming (c.1583-1659) m. 1602 Sir John Lowther of Lowther
(see A8 above)
Cheers, ------Brad
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-185
Dear Brad,
I think this is a very interesting ancestry, but have a look
below..............
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
daughter of Thomas Dacre, 2nd Lord Dacre 1467-1525 by an unknown mistress.
Obviously his 2nd Lord Dacre and your 3rd are one and the same person.
Leo
I think this is a very interesting ancestry, but have a look
below..............
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
Paul Beilby Lawley Thompson, 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852) has several
descents from Edward I through his paternal line, the Lawleys,
Baronets of Spoonhill, Shropshire. The paternal line of his mother
Jane Thompson goes back to Sir Henry Thompson (c.1625-1683), a wealthy
wine merchant from York who served as Lord Mayor of that city in 1663
and 1672. But through his Beilby ancestry he has some descents from
Edward III. Three of them from Joan Beaufort are given below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Thomp ... on_Wenlock
Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland (c.1379-1440) had a son (C1)
and 2 daughters (A1 & B1)
A1) Elizabeth Ferrers, Lady Greystoke (1393-1434), who had
A2) Ralph, 5th Lord Greystoke (c.1414-1487), who had
A3) Sir Robert Greystoke (d. 1483) m. 1) Elizabeth Grey (see B3
below), and had
A4) Elizabeth Greystoke (1471-1516) m. Thomas, 3rd Lord Dacre
(1467-1525), and had
A5) Elizabeth Dacre m. Thomas Musgrave of Hayton Castle (d. 1532), and
had
-------------------Gerald Paget has this Elizabeth as the illegitimate
daughter of Thomas Dacre, 2nd Lord Dacre 1467-1525 by an unknown mistress.
Obviously his 2nd Lord Dacre and your 3rd are one and the same person.
Leo
A6) William Musgrave of Hayton (c.1521-1597) m. Isabel Martindale, and
had
A7) Eleanor Musgrave (c.1560-1597) m. 1576 Sir Christopher Lowther of
Lowther (1557-1617, descended from Edward III but not thru Joan
Beaufort), and had
A8) Sir John Lowther of Lowther (1582-1637) m. Eleanor Fleming (see C7
below), and had
A9) Sir John Lowther, 1st Baronet (1606-1675) m. 1) 1626 Mary Fletcher
(d. 1648), and had
A10) Barbara Lowther (1634-1705) m. 1661 John Beilby of Micklethwaite
Grange, Yorks. (1637-1702), and had
A11) Mary Beilby of Micklethwaite Grange (1662-17--) m. 1685 Henry
Thompson of Escrick Hall, Yorks. (1659-1700), and had
A12) Beilby Thompson of Escrick (1686-1750) m. 2) 17-Sarah Roundell
(d. 1773), and had
A13) Jane Thompson (1743-1816) m. 1764 Sir Robert Lawley, 5th Baronet
(1736-1793), and had
A14) Paul Beilby Lawley Thompson, 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
B1) Eleanor Nevill, Countess of Northumberland (d. 1473), who had
B2) Katherine Percy , Countess of Kent (1423-1504), who had
B3) Elizabeth Grey (d. 1472) m. Sir Robert Greystoke (see A3 above)
C1) Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury (1400-1460), who had
C2) Richard Nevill 'The Kingmaker' (1428-1471), who had
C3) Margaret Nevill (illeg.) (d.1498) m. 1) 1465 Sir Richard
Huddleston (c.1440-1485), and had
C4) Joan Huddleston (c.1480-1538) m. Hugh Fleming of Rydal (d. 1558),
and had
C5) Anthony Fleming of Rydal (d. 1537/8) m. 2) 1532 Elizabeth Hutton
(d.c.1534), and had
C6) William Fleming of Rydal (c.1534-1598) m. 2) by 1575 Agnes
Bindloss (d. 1631), and had
C7) Eleanor Fleming (c.1583-1659) m. 1602 Sir John Lowther of Lowther
(see A8 above)
Cheers, ------Brad
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-185
See below
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
to Edward III and at least one via Joan Beaufort.
Edward III in the ancestor list of Sir John Lowther takes the following
numbers 1636, 2468 and 1636
Hope this helps
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
Paul Beilby Lawley Thompson, 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852) has several
descents from Edward I through his paternal line, the Lawleys,
Baronets of Spoonhill, Shropshire. The paternal line of his mother
Jane Thompson goes back to Sir Henry Thompson (c.1625-1683), a wealthy
wine merchant from York who served as Lord Mayor of that city in 1663
and 1672. But through his Beilby ancestry he has some descents from
Edward III. Three of them from Joan Beaufort are given below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Thomp ... on_Wenlock
Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland (c.1379-1440) had a son (C1)
and 2 daughters (A1 & B1)
A1) Elizabeth Ferrers, Lady Greystoke (1393-1434), who had
A2) Ralph, 5th Lord Greystoke (c.1414-1487), who had
A3) Sir Robert Greystoke (d. 1483) m. 1) Elizabeth Grey (see B3
below), and had
A4) Elizabeth Greystoke (1471-1516) m. Thomas, 3rd Lord Dacre
(1467-1525), and had
A5) Elizabeth Dacre m. Thomas Musgrave of Hayton Castle (d. 1532), and
had
A6) William Musgrave of Hayton (c.1521-1597) m. Isabel Martindale, and
had
A7) Eleanor Musgrave (c.1560-1597) m. 1576 Sir Christopher Lowther of
Lowther (1557-1617, descended from Edward III but not thru Joan
Beaufort), and had
A8) Sir John Lowther of Lowther (1582-1637) m. Eleanor Fleming (see C7
below), and had
A9) Sir John Lowther, 1st Baronet (1606-1675)
------------------------------This sir John Lowther has at least three lines
to Edward III and at least one via Joan Beaufort.
Edward III in the ancestor list of Sir John Lowther takes the following
numbers 1636, 2468 and 1636
Hope this helps
Leo van de Pas
-
Brad Verity
Re: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-185
On Apr 4, 5:54 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
Dear Leo,
Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, Paget's Lord Dacre is the same
one. Does he provide any source for making this Elizabeth, wife of
Thomas Musgrave of Hayton, an illegitimate daughter?
It's curious that Lord Dacre would give an illegitimate daughter the
same first name as his wife. Lord Thomas did have an illegitimate
son, Sir Thomas Dacre of Lanercost, Cumberland, who founded that
branch of the family that continued in the male line until James Dacre
of Lanercost (1686-1716). If there was a bastard son, there could
just as easily have been a bastard daughter. Elizabeth Dacre's
marriage to Musgrave of Hayton Castle was not quite on the social
level as the marriages of her sisters, but I chalked that up to her
being the youngest daughter.
OTOH, the Dacres were the most powerful family in Cumberland in the
early 16th century, even more so than the Cliffords, and there were
quite serious quarrels between them and the Musgraves of Hartley
(senior branch to the Musgraves of Hayton) that began about 1530, and
grew bad enough that the Duke of Norfolk finally, in 1534, suggested
to Sir William Musgrave of Hartley (c.1506-1544) that he marry his son
and heir to the daughter of William, 4th Lord Dacre (1500-1563) (see
the bio of Sir William Musgrave of Hartley in HOP). The marriage of
Elizabeth Dacre to Thomas Musgrave of Hayton would have taken place
well before this - likely by 1520 - and may have been an attempt by
the 2nd Lord Dacre to woo the Musgraves away from Clifford influence
(Sir Edward Musgrave of Hartley, the head of the family until 1542,
was the son of a Clifford). In other words, Elizabeth Dacre's
marriage to a Musgrave, though lower in status to other Dacre
daughters, does not mean she HAD to be illegitimate, since there were
strong political factors for the Dacres to unite with the Musgraves.
Wikipedia and Tudor Place make Elizabeth a legitimate daughter of
Thomas, Lord Dacre, by Elizabeth Greystoke, though neither one can be
considered an authoritative source. PA3 makes no mention of a
daughter Elizabeth to Thomas, Lord Dacre, legitimate or otherwise.
If Elizabeth does prove to have been Dacre's illegitimate daughter,
then she loses her descent from Edward III (though she has several
from Edward I thru her father). That would leave only Line C (the one
through the Flemings of Rydal) as a descent from Joan Beaufort for
Mary Beilby Thompson of Micklethwaite Grange. The Lowthers of course
have an additional descent from Edward III through the Cliffords which
has nothing to do with Joan Beaufort.
Cheers, ---------Brad
I think this is a very interesting ancestry, but have a look
below..............
A1) Elizabeth Ferrers, Lady Greystoke (1393-1434), who had
A2) Ralph, 5th Lord Greystoke (c.1414-1487), who had
A3) Sir Robert Greystoke (d. 1483) m. 1) Elizabeth Grey (see B3
below), and had
A4) Elizabeth Greystoke (1471-1516) m. Thomas, 3rd Lord Dacre
(1467-1525), and had
A5) Elizabeth Dacre m. Thomas Musgrave of Hayton Castle (d. 1532), and
had
-------------------Gerald Paget has this Elizabeth as the illegitimate
daughter of Thomas Dacre, 2nd Lord Dacre 1467-1525 by an unknown mistress.
Obviously his 2nd Lord Dacre and your 3rd are one and the same person.
Dear Leo,
Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, Paget's Lord Dacre is the same
one. Does he provide any source for making this Elizabeth, wife of
Thomas Musgrave of Hayton, an illegitimate daughter?
It's curious that Lord Dacre would give an illegitimate daughter the
same first name as his wife. Lord Thomas did have an illegitimate
son, Sir Thomas Dacre of Lanercost, Cumberland, who founded that
branch of the family that continued in the male line until James Dacre
of Lanercost (1686-1716). If there was a bastard son, there could
just as easily have been a bastard daughter. Elizabeth Dacre's
marriage to Musgrave of Hayton Castle was not quite on the social
level as the marriages of her sisters, but I chalked that up to her
being the youngest daughter.
OTOH, the Dacres were the most powerful family in Cumberland in the
early 16th century, even more so than the Cliffords, and there were
quite serious quarrels between them and the Musgraves of Hartley
(senior branch to the Musgraves of Hayton) that began about 1530, and
grew bad enough that the Duke of Norfolk finally, in 1534, suggested
to Sir William Musgrave of Hartley (c.1506-1544) that he marry his son
and heir to the daughter of William, 4th Lord Dacre (1500-1563) (see
the bio of Sir William Musgrave of Hartley in HOP). The marriage of
Elizabeth Dacre to Thomas Musgrave of Hayton would have taken place
well before this - likely by 1520 - and may have been an attempt by
the 2nd Lord Dacre to woo the Musgraves away from Clifford influence
(Sir Edward Musgrave of Hartley, the head of the family until 1542,
was the son of a Clifford). In other words, Elizabeth Dacre's
marriage to a Musgrave, though lower in status to other Dacre
daughters, does not mean she HAD to be illegitimate, since there were
strong political factors for the Dacres to unite with the Musgraves.
Wikipedia and Tudor Place make Elizabeth a legitimate daughter of
Thomas, Lord Dacre, by Elizabeth Greystoke, though neither one can be
considered an authoritative source. PA3 makes no mention of a
daughter Elizabeth to Thomas, Lord Dacre, legitimate or otherwise.
If Elizabeth does prove to have been Dacre's illegitimate daughter,
then she loses her descent from Edward III (though she has several
from Edward I thru her father). That would leave only Line C (the one
through the Flemings of Rydal) as a descent from Joan Beaufort for
Mary Beilby Thompson of Micklethwaite Grange. The Lowthers of course
have an additional descent from Edward III through the Cliffords which
has nothing to do with Joan Beaufort.
Cheers, ---------Brad
-
John Higgins
Re: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-185
Paget's source for Elizabeth Dacre as an illegitmate daughter of Lord Dacre
may be Percy Musgrave, "Collectanea Musgraviana: Notes on the Ancient
Family of Musgrave" (1911), which says "Thomas Musgrave....married
Elizabeth, matural daughter of Thomas, Lord Dacre." This was apparently
based on Beetham's Baronetage.
Presumably someone in the Musgrave family was in a position to know this,
and they probably would have had more reason to call Elizabeth legitmate
rather than illegitimate, so I suspect this is valid.
As Brad noted, the Lowthers have an Edward III descent through the
Cliffords, but they also have another one (in this case via Joan Beaufort)
through the families of Middleton and Tunstall - if it's accepted that the
Tunstalls are descended from an illegitimate daughter of George Nevill,
Archbishop of York and grandson of Joan Beaufort.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
may be Percy Musgrave, "Collectanea Musgraviana: Notes on the Ancient
Family of Musgrave" (1911), which says "Thomas Musgrave....married
Elizabeth, matural daughter of Thomas, Lord Dacre." This was apparently
based on Beetham's Baronetage.
Presumably someone in the Musgrave family was in a position to know this,
and they probably would have had more reason to call Elizabeth legitmate
rather than illegitimate, so I suspect this is valid.
As Brad noted, the Lowthers have an Edward III descent through the
Cliffords, but they also have another one (in this case via Joan Beaufort)
through the families of Middleton and Tunstall - if it's accepted that the
Tunstalls are descended from an illegitimate daughter of George Nevill,
Archbishop of York and grandson of Joan Beaufort.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
On Apr 4, 5:54 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
I think this is a very interesting ancestry, but have a look
below..............
A1) Elizabeth Ferrers, Lady Greystoke (1393-1434), who had
A2) Ralph, 5th Lord Greystoke (c.1414-1487), who had
A3) Sir Robert Greystoke (d. 1483) m. 1) Elizabeth Grey (see B3
below), and had
A4) Elizabeth Greystoke (1471-1516) m. Thomas, 3rd Lord Dacre
(1467-1525), and had
A5) Elizabeth Dacre m. Thomas Musgrave of Hayton Castle (d. 1532), and
had
-------------------Gerald Paget has this Elizabeth as the illegitimate
daughter of Thomas Dacre, 2nd Lord Dacre 1467-1525 by an unknown
mistress.
Obviously his 2nd Lord Dacre and your 3rd are one and the same person.
Dear Leo,
Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, Paget's Lord Dacre is the same
one. Does he provide any source for making this Elizabeth, wife of
Thomas Musgrave of Hayton, an illegitimate daughter?
It's curious that Lord Dacre would give an illegitimate daughter the
same first name as his wife. Lord Thomas did have an illegitimate
son, Sir Thomas Dacre of Lanercost, Cumberland, who founded that
branch of the family that continued in the male line until James Dacre
of Lanercost (1686-1716). If there was a bastard son, there could
just as easily have been a bastard daughter. Elizabeth Dacre's
marriage to Musgrave of Hayton Castle was not quite on the social
level as the marriages of her sisters, but I chalked that up to her
being the youngest daughter.
OTOH, the Dacres were the most powerful family in Cumberland in the
early 16th century, even more so than the Cliffords, and there were
quite serious quarrels between them and the Musgraves of Hartley
(senior branch to the Musgraves of Hayton) that began about 1530, and
grew bad enough that the Duke of Norfolk finally, in 1534, suggested
to Sir William Musgrave of Hartley (c.1506-1544) that he marry his son
and heir to the daughter of William, 4th Lord Dacre (1500-1563) (see
the bio of Sir William Musgrave of Hartley in HOP). The marriage of
Elizabeth Dacre to Thomas Musgrave of Hayton would have taken place
well before this - likely by 1520 - and may have been an attempt by
the 2nd Lord Dacre to woo the Musgraves away from Clifford influence
(Sir Edward Musgrave of Hartley, the head of the family until 1542,
was the son of a Clifford). In other words, Elizabeth Dacre's
marriage to a Musgrave, though lower in status to other Dacre
daughters, does not mean she HAD to be illegitimate, since there were
strong political factors for the Dacres to unite with the Musgraves.
Wikipedia and Tudor Place make Elizabeth a legitimate daughter of
Thomas, Lord Dacre, by Elizabeth Greystoke, though neither one can be
considered an authoritative source. PA3 makes no mention of a
daughter Elizabeth to Thomas, Lord Dacre, legitimate or otherwise.
If Elizabeth does prove to have been Dacre's illegitimate daughter,
then she loses her descent from Edward III (though she has several
from Edward I thru her father). That would leave only Line C (the one
through the Flemings of Rydal) as a descent from Joan Beaufort for
Mary Beilby Thompson of Micklethwaite Grange. The Lowthers of course
have an additional descent from Edward III through the Cliffords which
has nothing to do with Joan Beaufort.
Cheers, ---------Brad
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Louise
Ralph de Aalst/Ralph de Gand
Hello Peter,
I have Ralph as being the son of Adalbert,who was son of Wichman II of
Hamaland & Leutgarde of Flanders
I tried to post to list as well but my email playing up
Louise
I have Ralph as being the son of Adalbert,who was son of Wichman II of
Hamaland & Leutgarde of Flanders
I tried to post to list as well but my email playing up
Louise
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Ralph de Aalst/Ralph de Gand
"Louise" <louiseg82@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.451.1175821005.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Again, I'm not sure where this connection came from but anyway it is not
supported by contemporary evidence.
Leutgarde of Flanders and Wichman II of Hamaland did not have a recorded son
named Adalbert - their sons who both died young were Meinhard (died 963/64)
and Wichman (died 967/before 973).
They also had two daughters, Leutgarde who was abbess of Elten and the
famous Adela who married first Imad IV, diocesan count in Utrecht, and
secondly Balderich, count of Drente & Salland, along with whom she brought
about the murder of her elder son from her first marriage, Count Dietrich.
The probable source of confusion between this family and that of Ralph of
Aalst is the designation "Gandensis" (of Ghent) sometimes given to the
latter. In the late 13th century Jean de Thielrode stated that Wichman II
was count of Ghent, and this used to be accepted until Joseph Depoin
corrected the apparent error, in 1907. Wichman took his wife Letgarde to St
Peter's abbey at Ghent to seek intercession from the saint when she was
close to death; at this time the countship definitely belonged to her
brother, held from the king of Franks, and not to Wichman who was a vassal
of the (German) emperor.
The advocates of St Peter's, including Ralph of Aalst, were called "of
Ghent" simply because the abbey was there, not because their family
possessed the place.
Peter Stewart
news:mailman.451.1175821005.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Hello Peter,
I have Ralph as being the son of Adalbert,who was son of Wichman II of
Hamaland & Leutgarde of Flanders
I tried to post to list as well but my email playing up
Again, I'm not sure where this connection came from but anyway it is not
supported by contemporary evidence.
Leutgarde of Flanders and Wichman II of Hamaland did not have a recorded son
named Adalbert - their sons who both died young were Meinhard (died 963/64)
and Wichman (died 967/before 973).
They also had two daughters, Leutgarde who was abbess of Elten and the
famous Adela who married first Imad IV, diocesan count in Utrecht, and
secondly Balderich, count of Drente & Salland, along with whom she brought
about the murder of her elder son from her first marriage, Count Dietrich.
The probable source of confusion between this family and that of Ralph of
Aalst is the designation "Gandensis" (of Ghent) sometimes given to the
latter. In the late 13th century Jean de Thielrode stated that Wichman II
was count of Ghent, and this used to be accepted until Joseph Depoin
corrected the apparent error, in 1907. Wichman took his wife Letgarde to St
Peter's abbey at Ghent to seek intercession from the saint when she was
close to death; at this time the countship definitely belonged to her
brother, held from the king of Franks, and not to Wichman who was a vassal
of the (German) emperor.
The advocates of St Peter's, including Ralph of Aalst, were called "of
Ghent" simply because the abbey was there, not because their family
possessed the place.
Peter Stewart
-
CE Wood
Re: Ralph de Aalst/Ralph de Gand
The other circulating ascent is that Ralph, who married Gisele of
Luxembourg, was the son of Adalbert de Gand, d abt 1032, and
Ermengarde of Flanders, daughter of Baldwin Fair Beard and Ogiva.
This Adalbert was son of Arnulf II of Holland and Luitgarde of
Luxembourg.
I believe the source cited is Turton's Plantagenet Ancestry.
CE Wood
On Apr 5, 6:33 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Luxembourg, was the son of Adalbert de Gand, d abt 1032, and
Ermengarde of Flanders, daughter of Baldwin Fair Beard and Ogiva.
This Adalbert was son of Arnulf II of Holland and Luitgarde of
Luxembourg.
I believe the source cited is Turton's Plantagenet Ancestry.
CE Wood
On Apr 5, 6:33 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Louise" <louise...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.451.1175821005.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Hello Peter,
I have Ralph as being the son of Adalbert,who was son of Wichman II of
Hamaland & Leutgarde of Flanders
I tried to post to list as well but my email playing up
Again, I'm not sure where this connection came from but anyway it is not
supported by contemporary evidence.
Leutgarde of Flanders and Wichman II of Hamaland did not have a recorded son
named Adalbert - their sons who both died young were Meinhard (died 963/64)
and Wichman (died 967/before 973).
They also had two daughters, Leutgarde who was abbess of Elten and the
famous Adela who married first Imad IV, diocesan count in Utrecht, and
secondly Balderich, count of Drente & Salland, along with whom she brought
about the murder of her elder son from her first marriage, Count Dietrich.
The probable source of confusion between this family and that of Ralph of
Aalst is the designation "Gandensis" (of Ghent) sometimes given to the
latter. In the late 13th century Jean de Thielrode stated that Wichman II
was count of Ghent, and this used to be accepted until Joseph Depoin
corrected the apparent error, in 1907. Wichman took his wife Letgarde to St
Peter's abbey at Ghent to seek intercession from the saint when she was
close to death; at this time the countship definitely belonged to her
brother, held from the king of Franks, and not to Wichman who was a vassal
of the (German) emperor.
The advocates of St Peter's, including Ralph of Aalst, were called "of
Ghent" simply because the abbey was there, not because their family
possessed the place.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Ralph de Aalst/Ralph de Gand
"CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1175824069.452935.141270@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
This is doubly imaginary - as far as contemporary evidence goes, Baldwin IV
of Flanders and Ogiva did not have a daughter named Ermentrude, while Arnulf
II of Holland and Luitgarde did not have a son named Adalbert.
Lt-Col Turton was no more reliable on medieval genealogy than British
sailors and marines are nowadays on their whereabouts.
Peter Stewart
news:1175824069.452935.141270@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The other circulating ascent is that Ralph, who married Gisele of
Luxembourg, was the son of Adalbert de Gand, d abt 1032, and
Ermengarde of Flanders, daughter of Baldwin Fair Beard and Ogiva.
This Adalbert was son of Arnulf II of Holland and Luitgarde of
Luxembourg.
I believe the source cited is Turton's Plantagenet Ancestry.
This is doubly imaginary - as far as contemporary evidence goes, Baldwin IV
of Flanders and Ogiva did not have a daughter named Ermentrude, while Arnulf
II of Holland and Luitgarde did not have a son named Adalbert.
Lt-Col Turton was no more reliable on medieval genealogy than British
sailors and marines are nowadays on their whereabouts.
Peter Stewart
-
Brad Verity
Re: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-185
On Apr 5, 4:35 pm, "John Higgins" <jthigg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thanks for tracking this down, John. I won't have access to Betham
until I get to Los Angeles, but the 2nd edition (1771) of Wotton's
Baronetage is available thru Google Books.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0-wy4 ... +of+Hayton
Unfortunately, that pedigree is very confused. It gives:
1) Thomas Musgrave of Hayton (d. 1506) m. "Elizabeth, daughter of the
lord Dacre, of Gillesland", and had
2) William Musgrave of Hayton (d. 1532) m. Isabel Martindale, and had
3) Sir Edward Musgrave (d. 1597) m. Catharine Penruddock, and had
4) William Musgrave m. Catherine Sherburne, and had a son & dau,
5A) Eleanor Musgrave m. Sir Christopher Lowther
5B) Sir Edward Musgrave of Hayton, Baronet of Nova Scotia, living
during the Civil Wars
That Eleanor has been assigned to the wrong William Musgrave of Hayton
is clear, and the death dates for the first 3 generations are off, and
should be moved up a generation. At any rate a pedigree that doesn't
inspire confidence.
I look forward to seeing Betham's pedigree - he often was able to get
better information from the families that wished to correct the
published Wotton versions. I agree with you so far.
It's interesting, if Elizabeth Dacre was indeed the illegitimate
daughter of the 2nd Lord, that she was married to an important gentry
family. It makes me wonder again if the two daughters, Elizabeth and
Margaret, of the 10th 'Shepherd' Lord Clifford, a contemporary and
rival of the 2nd Lord Dacre, were also illegitimate, as they too were
married into prominent Northern gentry families.
Thanks for locating this descent, John. For the record, here it is
laid out.
Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland (c.1379-1440), who had
C1) Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury (1400-1460), who had (with C2
above)
D2) George Nevill, Archbishop of York (1432-1476), who had
D3) Alice Nevill, illeg., m. c.1475, Thomas Tunstall (d. 1494/99), and
had
D4) Sir Brian Tunstall of Thurland, Lancs. (c.1480/85-1513) m. Isabel
Boynton (d. aft. 1539), and had
D5) Anne Tunstall (1510-15--) m. John Middleton of Middleton Hall,
Westmorland, and had
D6) Frances Middleton (d. 1597) m. 1553 Sir Richard Lowther of Lowther
(1532-1608, descendant of Edward III but not thru Joan Beaufort), and
had
D7) Sir Christopher Lowther of Lowther (1557-1617) m. Eleanor Musgrave
(see A7 above)
Do you happen to have death dates for John Middleton and Anne
Tunstall? I know they were buried in Kirkby Lonsdale church.
Thanks and Cheers, -------Brad
Paget's source for Elizabeth Dacre as an illegitmate daughter of Lord Dacre
may be Percy Musgrave, "Collectanea Musgraviana: Notes on the Ancient
Family of Musgrave" (1911), which says "Thomas Musgrave....married
Elizabeth, matural daughter of Thomas, Lord Dacre." This was apparently
based on Beetham's Baronetage.
Thanks for tracking this down, John. I won't have access to Betham
until I get to Los Angeles, but the 2nd edition (1771) of Wotton's
Baronetage is available thru Google Books.
http://books.google.com/books?vid=0-wy4 ... +of+Hayton
Unfortunately, that pedigree is very confused. It gives:
1) Thomas Musgrave of Hayton (d. 1506) m. "Elizabeth, daughter of the
lord Dacre, of Gillesland", and had
2) William Musgrave of Hayton (d. 1532) m. Isabel Martindale, and had
3) Sir Edward Musgrave (d. 1597) m. Catharine Penruddock, and had
4) William Musgrave m. Catherine Sherburne, and had a son & dau,
5A) Eleanor Musgrave m. Sir Christopher Lowther
5B) Sir Edward Musgrave of Hayton, Baronet of Nova Scotia, living
during the Civil Wars
That Eleanor has been assigned to the wrong William Musgrave of Hayton
is clear, and the death dates for the first 3 generations are off, and
should be moved up a generation. At any rate a pedigree that doesn't
inspire confidence.
Presumably someone in the Musgrave family was in a position to know this,
and they probably would have had more reason to call Elizabeth legitmate
rather than illegitimate, so I suspect this is valid.
I look forward to seeing Betham's pedigree - he often was able to get
better information from the families that wished to correct the
published Wotton versions. I agree with you so far.
It's interesting, if Elizabeth Dacre was indeed the illegitimate
daughter of the 2nd Lord, that she was married to an important gentry
family. It makes me wonder again if the two daughters, Elizabeth and
Margaret, of the 10th 'Shepherd' Lord Clifford, a contemporary and
rival of the 2nd Lord Dacre, were also illegitimate, as they too were
married into prominent Northern gentry families.
As Brad noted, the Lowthers have an Edward III descent through the
Cliffords, but they also have another one (in this case via Joan Beaufort)
through the families of Middleton and Tunstall - if it's accepted that the
Tunstalls are descended from an illegitimate daughter of George Nevill,
Archbishop of York and grandson of Joan Beaufort.
Thanks for locating this descent, John. For the record, here it is
laid out.
Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland (c.1379-1440), who had
C1) Richard Nevill, Earl of Salisbury (1400-1460), who had (with C2
above)
D2) George Nevill, Archbishop of York (1432-1476), who had
D3) Alice Nevill, illeg., m. c.1475, Thomas Tunstall (d. 1494/99), and
had
D4) Sir Brian Tunstall of Thurland, Lancs. (c.1480/85-1513) m. Isabel
Boynton (d. aft. 1539), and had
D5) Anne Tunstall (1510-15--) m. John Middleton of Middleton Hall,
Westmorland, and had
D6) Frances Middleton (d. 1597) m. 1553 Sir Richard Lowther of Lowther
(1532-1608, descendant of Edward III but not thru Joan Beaufort), and
had
D7) Sir Christopher Lowther of Lowther (1557-1617) m. Eleanor Musgrave
(see A7 above)
Do you happen to have death dates for John Middleton and Anne
Tunstall? I know they were buried in Kirkby Lonsdale church.
Thanks and Cheers, -------Brad
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ralph de Aalst/Ralph de Gand
In message of 6 Apr, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
Will we ever know as both sides say differently?
Anyhow Ray Phair has written on Ralph and Gisele in the MEDIEVAL-L site:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/gant.htm
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
"CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1175824069.452935.141270@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The other circulating ascent is that Ralph, who married Gisele of
Luxembourg, was the son of Adalbert de Gand, d abt 1032, and
Ermengarde of Flanders, daughter of Baldwin Fair Beard and Ogiva.
This Adalbert was son of Arnulf II of Holland and Luitgarde of
Luxembourg.
I believe the source cited is Turton's Plantagenet Ancestry.
This is doubly imaginary - as far as contemporary evidence goes, Baldwin IV
of Flanders and Ogiva did not have a daughter named Ermentrude, while Arnulf
II of Holland and Luitgarde did not have a son named Adalbert.
Lt-Col Turton was no more reliable on medieval genealogy than British
sailors and marines are nowadays on their whereabouts.
Will we ever know as both sides say differently?
Anyhow Ray Phair has written on Ralph and Gisele in the MEDIEVAL-L site:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/gant.htm
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Ralph de Aalst/Ralph de Gand
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:36382fcf4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
At all events we will know that the British service personnel are not to be
relied upon, for self-discipline and/or for information, as if they really
were seized in Iranian waters they should have said nothing about it so far.
If - as seems quite likely - even they didn't know the truth about this,
ditto.
The "Stockholm" syndrome should take at least a while, and some serious
duress, before setting in. I doubt that any of them will last long in
uniform after this tacky episode.
Peter Stewart
news:36382fcf4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 6 Apr, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1175824069.452935.141270@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The other circulating ascent is that Ralph, who married Gisele of
Luxembourg, was the son of Adalbert de Gand, d abt 1032, and
Ermengarde of Flanders, daughter of Baldwin Fair Beard and Ogiva.
This Adalbert was son of Arnulf II of Holland and Luitgarde of
Luxembourg.
I believe the source cited is Turton's Plantagenet Ancestry.
This is doubly imaginary - as far as contemporary evidence goes, Baldwin
IV
of Flanders and Ogiva did not have a daughter named Ermentrude, while
Arnulf
II of Holland and Luitgarde did not have a son named Adalbert.
Lt-Col Turton was no more reliable on medieval genealogy than British
sailors and marines are nowadays on their whereabouts.
Will we ever know as both sides say differently?
At all events we will know that the British service personnel are not to be
relied upon, for self-discipline and/or for information, as if they really
were seized in Iranian waters they should have said nothing about it so far.
If - as seems quite likely - even they didn't know the truth about this,
ditto.
The "Stockholm" syndrome should take at least a while, and some serious
duress, before setting in. I doubt that any of them will last long in
uniform after this tacky episode.
Peter Stewart
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ralph de Aalst/Ralph de Gand
In message of 6 Apr, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
But again we do not know what happened nor what training the captives
were given. This was, unless it was deliberately set up, a kidnapping
and one feature of modern day kidnappings is that it has been found that
sympathetic negotiation is the best course of action to get the captives
to be released.
As long as the captors see their captives as either hate-objects or as
suckers who deserve no kindness, they will not feel scruples about
treating them badly or even about killing them. If the captors can be
persuaded to see their captives as helpful people, they may regard them
as friends and be more likely to release them. It is just possible that
this is the elemental training that service people are given, to
befriend their captors and try to get on their side. If this is the
case, it seems here to have been very successful, though doubtless the
ensuing days and weeks will reveal more.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:36382fcf4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 6 Apr, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1175824069.452935.141270@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The other circulating ascent is that Ralph, who married Gisele of
Luxembourg, was the son of Adalbert de Gand, d abt 1032, and
Ermengarde of Flanders, daughter of Baldwin Fair Beard and Ogiva.
This Adalbert was son of Arnulf II of Holland and Luitgarde of
Luxembourg.
I believe the source cited is Turton's Plantagenet Ancestry.
This is doubly imaginary - as far as contemporary evidence goes,
Baldwin IV of Flanders and Ogiva did not have a daughter named
Ermentrude, while Arnulf II of Holland and Luitgarde did not have a
son named Adalbert.
Lt-Col Turton was no more reliable on medieval genealogy than British
sailors and marines are nowadays on their whereabouts.
Will we ever know as both sides say differently?
At all events we will know that the British service personnel are not
to be relied upon, for self-discipline and/or for information, as if
they really were seized in Iranian waters they should have said
nothing about it so far. If - as seems quite likely - even they didn't
know the truth about this, ditto.
The "Stockholm" syndrome should take at least a while, and some
serious duress, before setting in. I doubt that any of them will last
long in uniform after this tacky episode.
But again we do not know what happened nor what training the captives
were given. This was, unless it was deliberately set up, a kidnapping
and one feature of modern day kidnappings is that it has been found that
sympathetic negotiation is the best course of action to get the captives
to be released.
As long as the captors see their captives as either hate-objects or as
suckers who deserve no kindness, they will not feel scruples about
treating them badly or even about killing them. If the captors can be
persuaded to see their captives as helpful people, they may regard them
as friends and be more likely to release them. It is just possible that
this is the elemental training that service people are given, to
befriend their captors and try to get on their side. If this is the
case, it seems here to have been very successful, though doubtless the
ensuing days and weeks will reveal more.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Ralph de Aalst/Ralph de Gand
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:611040cf4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
Perhaps, Tim, we can agree about one thing: Ahmedinejad let them go because
they had given him all the propaganda value he could have hoped for, and
then some. By an act of apparent generosity he actually managed to eke out a
fraction more.
But the service of Britain is not embarrassing its government abroad, no
matter what the outcome. Officers like Lt Carman shouldn't need special
training to know better than he evidently does, and nor should enlisted men
& women in these circumstances. Clearly they were manipulated, all too
readily, not forced into smiling and blabbing for the cameras - their
Iranian captors are not nearly stupid enough to let them go only to be
discredited before the world for having mistreated them.
Peter Stewart
news:611040cf4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 6 Apr, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:36382fcf4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 6 Apr, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"CE Wood" <wood_ce@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1175824069.452935.141270@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
The other circulating ascent is that Ralph, who married Gisele of
Luxembourg, was the son of Adalbert de Gand, d abt 1032, and
Ermengarde of Flanders, daughter of Baldwin Fair Beard and Ogiva.
This Adalbert was son of Arnulf II of Holland and Luitgarde of
Luxembourg.
I believe the source cited is Turton's Plantagenet Ancestry.
This is doubly imaginary - as far as contemporary evidence goes,
Baldwin IV of Flanders and Ogiva did not have a daughter named
Ermentrude, while Arnulf II of Holland and Luitgarde did not have a
son named Adalbert.
Lt-Col Turton was no more reliable on medieval genealogy than British
sailors and marines are nowadays on their whereabouts.
Will we ever know as both sides say differently?
At all events we will know that the British service personnel are not
to be relied upon, for self-discipline and/or for information, as if
they really were seized in Iranian waters they should have said
nothing about it so far. If - as seems quite likely - even they didn't
know the truth about this, ditto.
The "Stockholm" syndrome should take at least a while, and some
serious duress, before setting in. I doubt that any of them will last
long in uniform after this tacky episode.
But again we do not know what happened nor what training the captives
were given. This was, unless it was deliberately set up, a kidnapping
and one feature of modern day kidnappings is that it has been found that
sympathetic negotiation is the best course of action to get the captives
to be released.
As long as the captors see their captives as either hate-objects or as
suckers who deserve no kindness, they will not feel scruples about
treating them badly or even about killing them. If the captors can be
persuaded to see their captives as helpful people, they may regard them
as friends and be more likely to release them. It is just possible that
this is the elemental training that service people are given, to
befriend their captors and try to get on their side. If this is the
case, it seems here to have been very successful, though doubtless the
ensuing days and weeks will reveal more.
Perhaps, Tim, we can agree about one thing: Ahmedinejad let them go because
they had given him all the propaganda value he could have hoped for, and
then some. By an act of apparent generosity he actually managed to eke out a
fraction more.
But the service of Britain is not embarrassing its government abroad, no
matter what the outcome. Officers like Lt Carman shouldn't need special
training to know better than he evidently does, and nor should enlisted men
& women in these circumstances. Clearly they were manipulated, all too
readily, not forced into smiling and blabbing for the cameras - their
Iranian captors are not nearly stupid enough to let them go only to be
discredited before the world for having mistreated them.
Peter Stewart
-
John Higgins
Re: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-185
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
[snip
No, I have no dates for these two. Does the record of their burial in the
church you indicate give dates for the burials? (Always a possibility....)
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-1852)
On Apr 5, 4:35 pm, "John Higgins" <jthigg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[snip
Do you happen to have death dates for John Middleton and Anne
Tunstall? I know they were buried in Kirkby Lonsdale church.
Thanks and Cheers, -------Brad
No, I have no dates for these two. Does the record of their burial in the
church you indicate give dates for the burials? (Always a possibility....)
-
Brad Verity
Re: Descents From Edward III For 1st Baron Wenlock (1784-185
On Apr 6, 8:30 am, "John Higgins" <jthigg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Unfortunately no. My source is a modern book on the Lowthers, one of
the best genealogy books on a specific family that I have ever seen.
It mentions there is a monument tomb to John Middleton and Anne
Tunstall in Kirkby Lonsdale church, but nothing further.
Cheers, -----Brad
No, I have no dates for these two. Does the record of their burial in the
church you indicate give dates for the burials? (Always a possibility....)
Unfortunately no. My source is a modern book on the Lowthers, one of
the best genealogy books on a specific family that I have ever seen.
It mentions there is a monument tomb to John Middleton and Anne
Tunstall in Kirkby Lonsdale church, but nothing further.
Cheers, -----Brad