Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
WJhonson
Re: Mr Weston a kinsman of Michael Lowe of Lichfield
Thanks for these postings. Yes chronologically I find it more likely that Sir Simon Weston, Knt of Lichfield as you said "aet 43" in 1608 would be the half-uncle of Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland.
There are also these references I've collected on the Earl
Main article here http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/View ... hy.We-.278
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... .htm#link1
<a href = "http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/BookView.aspx?dbid=10231&iid=dvm_GenMono000052-00017-1">"Ancestry of Jeremy Clarke", pg 27</a>
Mary CAVE herself was born 1 Nov 1556.
The Earl's father Jerome was a son of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas 1559-71. This Simon may fit as a son by Richard's second marriage to Margaret Burnaby who was buried at Writtle, Essex 10 Apr 1565.
Both Richard and his third wife Elizabeth Lovett left wills by the way, but I'm not sure what those wills state.
It's interesting that Sir Simon is at Lichfield, as there is a question as to the ascent of Richard Weston, whether to Prested Hall or whether to Lichfield (and then Rugeley).
Will Johnson
There are also these references I've collected on the Earl
Main article here http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/View ... hy.We-.278
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... .htm#link1
<a href = "http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/BookView.aspx?dbid=10231&iid=dvm_GenMono000052-00017-1">"Ancestry of Jeremy Clarke", pg 27</a>
Mary CAVE herself was born 1 Nov 1556.
The Earl's father Jerome was a son of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas 1559-71. This Simon may fit as a son by Richard's second marriage to Margaret Burnaby who was buried at Writtle, Essex 10 Apr 1565.
Both Richard and his third wife Elizabeth Lovett left wills by the way, but I'm not sure what those wills state.
It's interesting that Sir Simon is at Lichfield, as there is a question as to the ascent of Richard Weston, whether to Prested Hall or whether to Lichfield (and then Rugeley).
Will Johnson
-
wjhonson
Re: Mr Weston a kinsman of Michael Lowe of Lichfield
The below seems to press on the issue of who was Sir Simon Weston
Norfolk Record Office: Gillingham Estate
GILLINGHAM ESTATE
Catalogue Ref. GIL
Creator(s): Gillingham Estate
FAMILY AND PERSONAL
James Weston of Mildenhall, Suffolk, and Castle Camps, Cambridge,
baron of the Exchequer
FILE - Appointment by the Archbishop of Canterbury - ref. GIL/4/164,
718 x 7 - date: 1634
[from Scope and Content] To Richard Peapis and seven others to examine
the goods at Castle Camps of the late Sir James Weston baron of the
Exchequer, concerning which a suit was pending between Nicholas Bacon
his executor and Sir Simon Weston and others
The Nicholas Bacon here mentioned must be that same one who died 1642,
married Anne Weston daughter of "Sir James Weston". Nicholas and Anne
had a daughter Anne who dsp after marrying in 1636 to John Rous of
Henhan Hall, Bart 1660-
This Nicholas Bacon was of Gillingham, Bart 1616- and son of Sir
Nicholas Bacon 1540-1624 by his wife Anne Butts. This Nicholas
(Senior) was son of the Keeper of the Seal.
At any rate, I would expect that it must be that Sir James Weston,
Baron of the Exchequer was of close relationship to Sir Simon, perhaps
his brother ?
Will Johnson
Norfolk Record Office: Gillingham Estate
GILLINGHAM ESTATE
Catalogue Ref. GIL
Creator(s): Gillingham Estate
FAMILY AND PERSONAL
James Weston of Mildenhall, Suffolk, and Castle Camps, Cambridge,
baron of the Exchequer
FILE - Appointment by the Archbishop of Canterbury - ref. GIL/4/164,
718 x 7 - date: 1634
[from Scope and Content] To Richard Peapis and seven others to examine
the goods at Castle Camps of the late Sir James Weston baron of the
Exchequer, concerning which a suit was pending between Nicholas Bacon
his executor and Sir Simon Weston and others
The Nicholas Bacon here mentioned must be that same one who died 1642,
married Anne Weston daughter of "Sir James Weston". Nicholas and Anne
had a daughter Anne who dsp after marrying in 1636 to John Rous of
Henhan Hall, Bart 1660-
This Nicholas Bacon was of Gillingham, Bart 1616- and son of Sir
Nicholas Bacon 1540-1624 by his wife Anne Butts. This Nicholas
(Senior) was son of the Keeper of the Seal.
At any rate, I would expect that it must be that Sir James Weston,
Baron of the Exchequer was of close relationship to Sir Simon, perhaps
his brother ?
Will Johnson
-
Dora Smith
Re: New DNA Tests done on the Hemings-Jefferson Controversy
Thomas Jefferson is a mass delusion.
OK.
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: New DNA Tests done on the Hemings-Jefferson Controversy
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.465 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 11:56 AM
OK.
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "WJhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: New DNA Tests done on the Hemings-Jefferson Controversy
In a message dated 05/15/07 17:00:53 Pacific Standard Time,
samhsloan@gmail.com writes:
2. To determine the origin of Thomas Jefferson and to determine
whether his ancestry originated from European, African, Middle
Eastern, Native American or Space Invaders.
I will be shortly posting my analysis for why Thomas Jefferson is most
likely a mass delusion created by collective repression of guilt
associated with post-Renaissance religious mania.
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
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
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.465 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 11:56 AM
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: New DNA Tests done on the Hemings-Jefferson Controversy
In article <mailman.2266.1179345347.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
More on-topic for this group, why don't you post an analysis, a la
Heribert Illig, of why Charlemagne did not exist?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 05/15/07 17:00:53 Pacific Standard Time,
samhsloan@gmail.com writes:
2. To determine the origin of Thomas Jefferson and to determine
whether his ancestry originated from European, African, Middle
Eastern, Native American or Space Invaders.
I will be shortly posting my analysis for why Thomas Jefferson is most likely
a mass delusion created by collective repression of guilt associated with
post-Renaissance religious mania.
More on-topic for this group, why don't you post an analysis, a la
Heribert Illig, of why Charlemagne did not exist?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Gjest
Re: New DNA Tests done on the Hemings-Jefferson Controversy
On May 16, 10:14 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Why, Whatever do you mean? I AM Charlemagne. Bronwen
wrote:
In article <mailman.2266.1179345347.5576.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 05/15/07 17:00:53 Pacific Standard Time,
samhsl...@gmail.com writes:
2. To determine the origin of Thomas Jefferson and to determine
whether his ancestry originated from European, African, Middle
Eastern, Native American or Space Invaders.
I will be shortly posting my analysis for why Thomas Jefferson is most likely
a mass delusion created by collective repression of guilt associated with
post-Renaissance religious mania.
More on-topic for this group, why don't you post an analysis, a la
Heribert Illig, of why Charlemagne did not exist?
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
Why, Whatever do you mean? I AM Charlemagne. Bronwen
-
Bernard Schulmann
Re: Leo van de Pas - Speedy Recovery
Get well quickly Leo
Bernard Schulmann
Victoria BC
Bernard Schulmann
Victoria BC
-
Larsy
Re: Mr Weston a kinsman of Michael Lowe of Lichfield
On May 15, 10:59 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Intersting. Does the venerated Folger Library let just anybody off
the street (information superhighway, if you will) "edit" their
papers??
Today I've been editing the collection of Bagot family papers athttp://shakespeare.folger.edu/other/h ... html#N1720
Intersting. Does the venerated Folger Library let just anybody off
the street (information superhighway, if you will) "edit" their
papers??
-
WJhonson
Re: Mr Weston a kinsman of Michael Lowe of Lichfield
<<In a message dated 05/17/07 15:35:46 Pacific Standard Time, ravinmaven2001@yahoo.com writes:
Intersting. Does the venerated Folger Library let just anybody off
the street (information superhighway, if you will) "edit" their
papers?? >>
I wasn't "editing" in any sort of official capacity. The word "edit" can be used in a variety of ways.
Will Johnson
Intersting. Does the venerated Folger Library let just anybody off
the street (information superhighway, if you will) "edit" their
papers?? >>
I wasn't "editing" in any sort of official capacity. The word "edit" can be used in a variety of ways.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Normandy & St.Clair
Dear Laurel,
Emma of Normandy wasn`t the Aethelings` grandmother. She
was the mother of Alfred ,Edward the Confessor and Godiva, wife of Drogo, Count
of Mantes by Aethelraed II, King of England whosr 2nd wife. She was.
His 1st wife was Elgiva , mother of Edmund II, King of England who by Edith
had Edward Aetheling the Exile who died 1057 and married Agatha of elusive
parentage.
Source{ David Williamson " Kings and Queens of Britain" Appendix
B Genealogical Tables p 219 Table 9 Kings of Wessex and all England
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Emma of Normandy wasn`t the Aethelings` grandmother. She
was the mother of Alfred ,Edward the Confessor and Godiva, wife of Drogo, Count
of Mantes by Aethelraed II, King of England whosr 2nd wife. She was.
His 1st wife was Elgiva , mother of Edmund II, King of England who by Edith
had Edward Aetheling the Exile who died 1057 and married Agatha of elusive
parentage.
Source{ David Williamson " Kings and Queens of Britain" Appendix
B Genealogical Tables p 219 Table 9 Kings of Wessex and all England
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-
WJhonson
Re: CARY of Cockington
Cutter in his "... Families of Massachusetts..." also has this
http://books.google.com/books?id=kmujIJ ... n&as_brr=1
http://books.google.com/books?id=kmujIJ ... n&as_brr=1
-
WJhonson
Re: Descents From Edward III For Sir Marmaduke Beckwith, 3rd
<<In a message dated 05/17/07 20:05:50 Pacific Standard Time, royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:
The second wife of Francis, whom
he married in August 1615, was Grace (no parentage given). She
married 2nd, before 1634, Ingleby Huddleston, 6th son of Ferdinando
Huddleston of Millom. I'll have to dig out my Huddleston file and see
if I have anything further on her. >>
I had not previously had Ingleby. He is a descendent of Edward III.
Ingleby was son of Jane Grey
daughter of Sir Ralph Grey of Chillingham
son of Isabel Grey of Horton
daughter of Dorothy Ogle
Can you connect Ferdinando to his immediate ancestry?
Will Johnson
The second wife of Francis, whom
he married in August 1615, was Grace (no parentage given). She
married 2nd, before 1634, Ingleby Huddleston, 6th son of Ferdinando
Huddleston of Millom. I'll have to dig out my Huddleston file and see
if I have anything further on her. >>
I had not previously had Ingleby. He is a descendent of Edward III.
Ingleby was son of Jane Grey
daughter of Sir Ralph Grey of Chillingham
son of Isabel Grey of Horton
daughter of Dorothy Ogle
Can you connect Ferdinando to his immediate ancestry?
Will Johnson
-
Larsy
Re: Mr Weston a kinsman of Michael Lowe of Lichfield
On May 17, 7:25 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Oh, okay. Shows what I know.
In a message dated 05/17/07 15:35:46 Pacific Standard Time, ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com writes:
Intersting. Does the venerated Folger Library let just anybody off
the street (information superhighway, if you will) "edit" their
papers??
I wasn't "editing" in any sort of official capacity. The word "edit" can be used in a variety of ways.
Will Johnson
Oh, okay. Shows what I know.
-
John Brandon
Re: Normandy & St.Clair
On May 17, 6:38 pm, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now *this* is rude. And, believe me, I know rude.
Dear Laurel,
Laurel, Carole, its all the same in the dark.
Now *this* is rude. And, believe me, I know rude.
-
Larsy
Re: Normandy & St.Clair
On May 18, 11:21 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sorry I wrote that. (Whew, Don't wan't to get on this one's bad side.)
On May 17, 6:38 pm, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Laurel,
Laurel, Carole, its all the same in the dark.
Now *this* is rude. And, believe me, I know rude.
Sorry I wrote that. (Whew, Don't wan't to get on this one's bad side.)
-
Cesare Patrignani
Re: Leo van de Pas - Speedy Recovery
Best wishes and get well soon !
Cesare Patrignani
Italy
"Bernard Schulmann" <bernard@shama.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:mailman.2320.1179426961.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Cesare Patrignani
Italy
"Bernard Schulmann" <bernard@shama.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:mailman.2320.1179426961.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Get well quickly Leo
Bernard Schulmann
Victoria BC
-
MLS
RE: Leo van de Pas - Speedy Recovery
Dear Leo, came back soon whit us. We miss you!
Marco
Italy
-------------------------------
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
Marco
Italy
-------------------------------
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
-
WJhonson
Re: Descents From Edward III For Sir Marmaduke Beckwith, 3rd
What was the connection between this Ferdinando Huddlestone of Millom Castle and
Romaldkirk, Yorkshire?
I find that ten of his children were baptised at Romaldkirk.
Will
Romaldkirk, Yorkshire?
I find that ten of his children were baptised at Romaldkirk.
Will
-
reatty
Re: New DNA Tests done on the Hemings-Jefferson Controversy
Dear Sam- as a stupid person, I eagerly await your analysis (no irony or
sarcasm intended). Aside from the Hemings/Jefferson controversy, this whole
DNA ancestry thing is interesting. I have one off topic question. What's the
purpose of this type of testing of individuals? It's interesting to know the
answer, but does it advance knowledge of human evolution or what?
Stupidly yours, Stultus Americanus
"samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179273525.317124.179110@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
sarcasm intended). Aside from the Hemings/Jefferson controversy, this whole
DNA ancestry thing is interesting. I have one off topic question. What's the
purpose of this type of testing of individuals? It's interesting to know the
answer, but does it advance knowledge of human evolution or what?
Stupidly yours, Stultus Americanus
"samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179273525.317124.179110@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
New DNA Tests done on the Hemings-Jefferson Controversy
Because of the controversies surrounding the 1998 DNA tests that were
made on one descendant of Sally Hemings and on five relatives of
Thomas Jefferson, a new set of DNA tests have been done in 2007.
In 1998 when the first tests were made, DNA testing of this sort was
still in its infancy. The tests were only done on eight alleles. Some
of these alleles are no longer considered to be useful for testing.
Nowadays, as many as 67 alleles are tested. Thus, new tests were in
order.
In the original 1998 tests, five descendants of Field Jefferson, the
uncle of Thomas Jefferson, were tested along with one descendant of
Eston Hemings Jefferson, the youngest son of Sally Hemings, plus five
descendants of Tom Woodson and three descendants of the Carr Brothers.
The five Woodson descendants were tested because the family of Minnie
Shumate Woodson claimed that Tom Woodson was the son of Thomas
Jefferson and that he was the "Yellow Tom" who, according to James
Thompson Callender, bore "a striking though sable resemblance to the
president himself".
Descendants of the Carr Brothers were tested because it had long been
alleged that the Carr Brothers were the real fathers of Sally's
children. The basis for this was that their father, Dabney Carr, was
the brother-in-law of Thomas Jefferson, being married to Jefferson's
sister. After Dabney Carr died at an early age, Thomas Jefferson
helped care for the Carr Brothers and they grew up at or near
Monticello. Thus, they had the opportunity of access to Sally at the
time that she bore her five children.
The relatives of Thomas Jefferson and the descendant of Eston Hemings
were tested to achieve resolution of the controversy that has been
burning since 1802 concerning allegations that Sally Hemings was the
concubine of Thomas Jefferson and that he was the father of her five
children.
The result of the tests were that the five Woodson descendants and the
three Carr descendants were completely excluded from being the
relatives of Eston Hemings. Their DNA types were completely different,
excluding any possibility of a relationship with Jefferson.
On the other hand, the DNA of the descendant of Eston Hemings was a
perfect match with all five of the Jefferson descendants, except that
one Jefferson descendant had a mutation of one digit, a change from 15
to 16, on DYS392 . Such small changes are well within the normal range
of mutation over the passage of time.
The result of these tests was the publication of an article in Nature
magazine entitled "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child".
This article set off a tremendous firestorm of controversy, as
detractors pointed out that the tests did not prove that Jefferson was
the father. They simply failed to eliminate Jefferson as a possible
father. Somebody else with the same DNA, such as his brother Randolph,
could also be the father.
However, the DNA tests revealed something completely unexpected, which
was that Thomas Jefferson did not have a DNA type typical of white
Americans or Europeans. His DNA was something completely different,
something that had never been encountered before. Something totally
unknown.
A new DNA type was created just for the purpose of classifying Thomas
Jefferson's DNA. He was assigned DNA haplotype K2. Since type K is
deemed to be close to one of the original haplotypes, this means that
Thomas Jefferson was considered to have DNA close to that of the
original modern man, from whom all men alive today are descended. That
so called Y-Chromosome Adam is believed to have lived 60,000 to 90,000
years ago in Africa.
New DNA tests have been done in 2007 for two purposes:
1. To confirm using modern methods the results of the 1998 tests which
found a DNA match between male relatives of Thomas Jefferson and one
descendant of Sally Hemings and
2. To determine the origin of Thomas Jefferson and to determine
whether his ancestry originated from European, African, Middle
Eastern, Native American or Space Invaders.
I have the results of these new DNA tests and I am in the process of
translating them into layman's terms so that stupid people can
understand them.
Sam Sloan
-
Carole
Re: Normandy & St.Clair - Thank You
To Denis, Taf, James and Larsy
Thank you for answering my query.
I was puzzled, but not now.
It was the architecture I was mainly interested in, but knowing another of my interests
being medieval history the books owner thought I would be interested.
Thank you.
Carole
|
Thank you for answering my query.
I was puzzled, but not now.
It was the architecture I was mainly interested in, but knowing another of my interests
being medieval history the books owner thought I would be interested.
Thank you.
Carole
|
-
John Brandon
Re: Normandy & St.Clair - Thank You
To Denis, Taf, James and Larsy
Thank you for answering my query.
I was puzzled, but not now.
It was the architecture I was mainly interested in, but knowing another of my interests
being medieval history the books owner thought I would be interested.
Thank you.
Carole
T.A.F. deserves most of the credit on this one. That Larsy--in
particular--added little of value.
-
Gjest
Re: Saltre Abbey
Dear Ralph,
I have come across references to Salre Abbey in
Gloucestershire or in Huntingdonshire. in any case Robert de Brus and his wife Isabel,
daughter of David de Scotia, Earl of Huntingdon seem to have been buried there
as was her father and mother.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
I have come across references to Salre Abbey in
Gloucestershire or in Huntingdonshire. in any case Robert de Brus and his wife Isabel,
daughter of David de Scotia, Earl of Huntingdon seem to have been buried there
as was her father and mother.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-
Roger LeBlanc
Re: Fw: Adalbert Comte de Longwy, Duke of Upper-Lorraine
What a pleasant surprise to see your emails again Leo. I would also like
to wish you a speedy recovery.
I recall this question coming up several years ago in the group, and in
checking the archives I found a thread from April 2001 "Etiennette
Longwy-NOT" initiated by Todd Farmerie. To this posting, I had
specifically asked if Etiennette (Stephanie) and Ermesinde were thought
to be sisters, to which Todd replied it was not known but that neither
had a known connection to Adalbert.
I don't recall if there has been any subsequent familial reconstruction
for either of the above women, none known to me at least.
Roger LeBlanc
Leo van de Pas wrote:
to wish you a speedy recovery.
I recall this question coming up several years ago in the group, and in
checking the archives I found a thread from April 2001 "Etiennette
Longwy-NOT" initiated by Todd Farmerie. To this posting, I had
specifically asked if Etiennette (Stephanie) and Ermesinde were thought
to be sisters, to which Todd replied it was not known but that neither
had a known connection to Adalbert.
I don't recall if there has been any subsequent familial reconstruction
for either of the above women, none known to me at least.
Roger LeBlanc
Leo van de Pas wrote:
I received this message before I went to hospital and I do not know where I stand. Are Ermesinde and Stephanie sisters? And Adalbert was he both Count of Longwy and Duke of Upper-Lorraine?
Leo van de Pas
-
Dora Smith
Re: New DNA Tests done on the Hemings-Jefferson Controversy
I got the article from its author. It doesn't really present any new
evidence on Thomas Jefferson's DNA, like the desperately needed more
markers, or anything like that, nor on his relationship to Sally Hemings'
descendants.
The new study uses both newly gathered and previously published K2
haplotypes to try to place Jefferson's haplotype among the old and diverse
K2 haplogroup. The authors developed a set of data based on genetic
distances between the haplotypes, and used this to construct a phylogenetic
network of the K2 haplogroup and show where Jefferson fits in that tree.
Some of the haplotypes they used are in a table; teh previously published
ones are available in Excel format from the author.
I have both the table and the article if anyone wants them.
At the same time, the authors recruited a good sized sample of people named
Jefferson in England. Two among the sample whose grandfathers came from
variously central and Northern England matched Jefferson's haplotype
exactly. This proves that Jefferson came from England (and substantially
weakens the idea that he came from Wales).
But Jefferson is descended from Charlemagne via Welsh royalty only if
Charlemagne had Jewish or maybe Moorish paternal line blood. LOL. Of
course we know that all European royalty are descended from Jesus through
Charlemagne and then the Merovingians - but that is through female lines.
However, Jefferson and the two Jefferson matches in England proved to be far
more closely related to Middle Eastern and Sephardic and North African
Jewish men than to the two other K2 haplotypes from England. He was
actually very closely matched to them. The text reads identical matches,
but my eyes looking at the haplotype tables read, close matches. But they
don't even resemble the other northern and western European K2 haplotypes,
taking into account haplotypes in Y Search and the K2 haplogroup DNA project
as well. If you eyeball Jefferson's haplotype, the haplotypes in the
table in the article, and the haplotypes in the separate table, you can
plainly see without needing to do network analysis that Jefferson's
haplotype is far more like the North African and Sephardic Jewish haplotypes
than to anything else.
The available data does not prove that Jefferson's paternal line ancestry is
not Moorish or picked up by Romans or Germanic peoples on their way through
North Africa. It is necessary to explain how the line subsequently got to
England. Long ago Romans is possible. Moors from Spain is unlikely -
unless the name "Jefferson" had actually been picked up in the Netherlands
and carried from there to England by Protestants running around Europe in
circles. It is an odd way to say "Jeffery's son", though that could be
exactly what it is; and it gets funnier when you start trying to explain the
name Jaffrey. Jewish ancestry is the most likely explanation, even if the
name Jefferson did not come from England. It is hardly necessarily true
that the ancestor who went to England was still Jewish.
The K2 project is at
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-Haplogroup-K2/
He developed a breakdown of haplogroup K2 into several subclades based only
on the STR haplotypes. (Usually subclades are developed from single
nucleotide polymorphisms and then associated with the standard DYS markers
on which they more easily count repeats, but not always.) He places
Jefferson's haplotype "probably" in one particular set of haplotypes. It
is not possible to be certain Jefferson's haplotype belongs there, however,
because so little of Jefferson's haplotype is known.
The original 1998 article on Jefferson and the Hemings clan examined a
highly quixotic set of markers, only a few of which correspond to the
markers that are typically collected in genealogical testing, only eight of
which are among the 12 standard markers that are always measured even if
nothing else is. Both articles compare people and develop an entire
phylogenetic network on only eight markers, which gives weak, possibly
wrong, results. For instance, to exactly match Jefferson to Jewish
haplotypes you need preferably 37 markers.
FTDNA filled in several of the missing markers from somewhere but gave no
source information for it, and I'm having trouble extracting it from them.
In 1998, genealogical DNA was in its infancy. The large number of
Jefferson and related Hemings descendants who have been tested should
definitely have given rise by now to a proper analysis of 25 or 37 standard
genealogical markers. But I can't find more than what was in the 1998
article and what FTDNA added anywhere.
Y Search, a big Y DNA database, has just one Jefferson listed and no
Hemings, and only the 8 markers.
No Jefferson or HEmings is represented in teh K2 DNA project.
The Jefferson DNA project is currently hiding its data from the public.
Most DNA projects make their data public in embedded Excel tables.
No Jefferson or Hemings is represented in the SMGF (Mormon) genealogical DNA
database. This database has shortcomings but getting tested for that
project is absolutely free. It attempts to link families by DNA.
I've been writing to all sorts of people who purport to be connected to this
testing asking for the rest of the markers. So far only one person has
responded and he didn't have this data. He referred me to two other
people. It is possible that some people won't get their e-mail until the
weekend is over.
Spencer Wells has published a new book on the Jefferson and Hemings
controversy. The review at Amazon tells us little more than that. Spencer
Wells evidently has some kind of knowledge about Jefferson's haplotype but
there is no clue how much of it is in his book, and Spencer Wells is not
known for his intellectual quality and for providing richness of detail on
his data in his books. Spencer Wells is director of the Geneographic
Project, probably for no other reason than that most people know who he is.
I e-mailed them, but that e-mail address is apparently extremely busy. I
don't know if he'll ever get my e-mail.
I smell fishes. Either the Jefferson's and Hemings' know better than we do
that Jefferson's paternal line is Jewish and don't want that fact known, or
don't want to know it themselves, or they looked at the handwriting on the
wall and decided to know no more. I would expect the Hemings clan to be
less subject to that kind of prejudice than the aristocratic Monticello
folks, particularly after their long fight against the Monticello operation
for recognition, but we're talkign about relations between American Blacks
and Jews; they could be even more prejudiced than the Monticello folks.
I'll wait and see what information I get back in the next few days. Failing
taht I get any, I'll just conclude that the fact that the Monticello outfit
don't want any more information to come out confirms that Jefferson's roots
are Jewish.
I must say that the Edmund Rice family association is being almost as
bizarre over the fact that his DNA confirms that he is not descended from
Welsh royalty. Not only did he come from East Anglia, but his paternal
line ancestor was a Norse Viking. But shhh... don't start none of them
rumors! Fortunately they prefer extreme nastiness to the suppression of
all knowledge of the haplotype.
It does actually take more than 8 markers to be able to say that Jefferson's
DNA is an exact match to people named JEfferson in England. 12 markers
aren't enough, though on the rare and highly variable K2 haplogroup it would
make a strong case. Actually, it takes a minimum of 25 markers to be able
to say that, and since even closely related people don't usually match
perfectly, it actually takes 37 markers minimum and a computation of genetic
distance. Now, getting and publishing more than 8 markers could well
undermine the link to the two "identical" haplotypes in England, and either
the Monticello clan know it remains a close match and don't want to admit
it, or they fear that more information will confirm the match and disconfirm
the Welsh royalty theory.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"reatty" <reatty@cox.net> wrote in message
news:I6D3i.238841$2Q1.156881@newsfe16.lga...
evidence on Thomas Jefferson's DNA, like the desperately needed more
markers, or anything like that, nor on his relationship to Sally Hemings'
descendants.
The new study uses both newly gathered and previously published K2
haplotypes to try to place Jefferson's haplotype among the old and diverse
K2 haplogroup. The authors developed a set of data based on genetic
distances between the haplotypes, and used this to construct a phylogenetic
network of the K2 haplogroup and show where Jefferson fits in that tree.
Some of the haplotypes they used are in a table; teh previously published
ones are available in Excel format from the author.
I have both the table and the article if anyone wants them.
At the same time, the authors recruited a good sized sample of people named
Jefferson in England. Two among the sample whose grandfathers came from
variously central and Northern England matched Jefferson's haplotype
exactly. This proves that Jefferson came from England (and substantially
weakens the idea that he came from Wales).
But Jefferson is descended from Charlemagne via Welsh royalty only if
Charlemagne had Jewish or maybe Moorish paternal line blood. LOL. Of
course we know that all European royalty are descended from Jesus through
Charlemagne and then the Merovingians - but that is through female lines.
However, Jefferson and the two Jefferson matches in England proved to be far
more closely related to Middle Eastern and Sephardic and North African
Jewish men than to the two other K2 haplotypes from England. He was
actually very closely matched to them. The text reads identical matches,
but my eyes looking at the haplotype tables read, close matches. But they
don't even resemble the other northern and western European K2 haplotypes,
taking into account haplotypes in Y Search and the K2 haplogroup DNA project
as well. If you eyeball Jefferson's haplotype, the haplotypes in the
table in the article, and the haplotypes in the separate table, you can
plainly see without needing to do network analysis that Jefferson's
haplotype is far more like the North African and Sephardic Jewish haplotypes
than to anything else.
The available data does not prove that Jefferson's paternal line ancestry is
not Moorish or picked up by Romans or Germanic peoples on their way through
North Africa. It is necessary to explain how the line subsequently got to
England. Long ago Romans is possible. Moors from Spain is unlikely -
unless the name "Jefferson" had actually been picked up in the Netherlands
and carried from there to England by Protestants running around Europe in
circles. It is an odd way to say "Jeffery's son", though that could be
exactly what it is; and it gets funnier when you start trying to explain the
name Jaffrey. Jewish ancestry is the most likely explanation, even if the
name Jefferson did not come from England. It is hardly necessarily true
that the ancestor who went to England was still Jewish.
The K2 project is at
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-Haplogroup-K2/
He developed a breakdown of haplogroup K2 into several subclades based only
on the STR haplotypes. (Usually subclades are developed from single
nucleotide polymorphisms and then associated with the standard DYS markers
on which they more easily count repeats, but not always.) He places
Jefferson's haplotype "probably" in one particular set of haplotypes. It
is not possible to be certain Jefferson's haplotype belongs there, however,
because so little of Jefferson's haplotype is known.
The original 1998 article on Jefferson and the Hemings clan examined a
highly quixotic set of markers, only a few of which correspond to the
markers that are typically collected in genealogical testing, only eight of
which are among the 12 standard markers that are always measured even if
nothing else is. Both articles compare people and develop an entire
phylogenetic network on only eight markers, which gives weak, possibly
wrong, results. For instance, to exactly match Jefferson to Jewish
haplotypes you need preferably 37 markers.
FTDNA filled in several of the missing markers from somewhere but gave no
source information for it, and I'm having trouble extracting it from them.
In 1998, genealogical DNA was in its infancy. The large number of
Jefferson and related Hemings descendants who have been tested should
definitely have given rise by now to a proper analysis of 25 or 37 standard
genealogical markers. But I can't find more than what was in the 1998
article and what FTDNA added anywhere.
Y Search, a big Y DNA database, has just one Jefferson listed and no
Hemings, and only the 8 markers.
No Jefferson or HEmings is represented in teh K2 DNA project.
The Jefferson DNA project is currently hiding its data from the public.
Most DNA projects make their data public in embedded Excel tables.
No Jefferson or Hemings is represented in the SMGF (Mormon) genealogical DNA
database. This database has shortcomings but getting tested for that
project is absolutely free. It attempts to link families by DNA.
I've been writing to all sorts of people who purport to be connected to this
testing asking for the rest of the markers. So far only one person has
responded and he didn't have this data. He referred me to two other
people. It is possible that some people won't get their e-mail until the
weekend is over.
Spencer Wells has published a new book on the Jefferson and Hemings
controversy. The review at Amazon tells us little more than that. Spencer
Wells evidently has some kind of knowledge about Jefferson's haplotype but
there is no clue how much of it is in his book, and Spencer Wells is not
known for his intellectual quality and for providing richness of detail on
his data in his books. Spencer Wells is director of the Geneographic
Project, probably for no other reason than that most people know who he is.
I e-mailed them, but that e-mail address is apparently extremely busy. I
don't know if he'll ever get my e-mail.
I smell fishes. Either the Jefferson's and Hemings' know better than we do
that Jefferson's paternal line is Jewish and don't want that fact known, or
don't want to know it themselves, or they looked at the handwriting on the
wall and decided to know no more. I would expect the Hemings clan to be
less subject to that kind of prejudice than the aristocratic Monticello
folks, particularly after their long fight against the Monticello operation
for recognition, but we're talkign about relations between American Blacks
and Jews; they could be even more prejudiced than the Monticello folks.
I'll wait and see what information I get back in the next few days. Failing
taht I get any, I'll just conclude that the fact that the Monticello outfit
don't want any more information to come out confirms that Jefferson's roots
are Jewish.
I must say that the Edmund Rice family association is being almost as
bizarre over the fact that his DNA confirms that he is not descended from
Welsh royalty. Not only did he come from East Anglia, but his paternal
line ancestor was a Norse Viking. But shhh... don't start none of them
rumors! Fortunately they prefer extreme nastiness to the suppression of
all knowledge of the haplotype.
It does actually take more than 8 markers to be able to say that Jefferson's
DNA is an exact match to people named JEfferson in England. 12 markers
aren't enough, though on the rare and highly variable K2 haplogroup it would
make a strong case. Actually, it takes a minimum of 25 markers to be able
to say that, and since even closely related people don't usually match
perfectly, it actually takes 37 markers minimum and a computation of genetic
distance. Now, getting and publishing more than 8 markers could well
undermine the link to the two "identical" haplotypes in England, and either
the Monticello clan know it remains a close match and don't want to admit
it, or they fear that more information will confirm the match and disconfirm
the Welsh royalty theory.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"reatty" <reatty@cox.net> wrote in message
news:I6D3i.238841$2Q1.156881@newsfe16.lga...
Dear Sam- as a stupid person, I eagerly await your analysis (no irony or
sarcasm intended). Aside from the Hemings/Jefferson controversy, this
whole DNA ancestry thing is interesting. I have one off topic question.
What's the purpose of this type of testing of individuals? It's
interesting to know the answer, but does it advance knowledge of human
evolution or what?
Stupidly yours, Stultus Americanus
-
Dora Smith
Re: New DNA Tests done on the Hemings-Jefferson Controversy
Do you think maybe someone should send this link to the Monticello folks?
LOL!
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html
It argues that Charlemagne had Phoenician DNA, however we know this. As
well as Thomas Jefferson.
I appear to have gotten what Spencer Wells has published wrong - he did not
recently publish a book about Jefferson and the Hemings controversy. That
book was written by someone else, and an article that discussed Wells
talking about it took me to that book, which coincidentally has a cover that
makes it look like one of Wells' books.
The article above discusses what Wells IS working on, but I'm unclear at
this point on what that is, or was. It might be a film called "Search for
Adam", and there was or will be some publication, which might be the film or
might be an article. However, it becomes clear that Wells must be the
source of FTDNA's 12-marker haplotype for Thomas Jefferson. He is not a
co-author of the recent Jobling et al study, though his quote makes him
sound as if he is.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4650ab48$0$19401$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
LOL!
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html
It argues that Charlemagne had Phoenician DNA, however we know this. As
well as Thomas Jefferson.
I appear to have gotten what Spencer Wells has published wrong - he did not
recently publish a book about Jefferson and the Hemings controversy. That
book was written by someone else, and an article that discussed Wells
talking about it took me to that book, which coincidentally has a cover that
makes it look like one of Wells' books.
The article above discusses what Wells IS working on, but I'm unclear at
this point on what that is, or was. It might be a film called "Search for
Adam", and there was or will be some publication, which might be the film or
might be an article. However, it becomes clear that Wells must be the
source of FTDNA's 12-marker haplotype for Thomas Jefferson. He is not a
co-author of the recent Jobling et al study, though his quote makes him
sound as if he is.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4650ab48$0$19401$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
I got the article from its author. It doesn't really present any new
evidence on Thomas Jefferson's DNA, like the desperately needed more
markers, or anything like that, nor on his relationship to Sally Hemings'
descendants.
The new study uses both newly gathered and previously published K2
haplotypes to try to place Jefferson's haplotype among the old and diverse
K2 haplogroup. The authors developed a set of data based on genetic
distances between the haplotypes, and used this to construct a
phylogenetic network of the K2 haplogroup and show where Jefferson fits in
that tree. Some of the haplotypes they used are in a table; teh previously
published ones are available in Excel format from the author.
I have both the table and the article if anyone wants them.
At the same time, the authors recruited a good sized sample of people
named Jefferson in England. Two among the sample whose grandfathers came
from variously central and Northern England matched Jefferson's haplotype
exactly. This proves that Jefferson came from England (and substantially
weakens the idea that he came from Wales).
But Jefferson is descended from Charlemagne via Welsh royalty only if
Charlemagne had Jewish or maybe Moorish paternal line blood. LOL. Of
course we know that all European royalty are descended from Jesus through
Charlemagne and then the Merovingians - but that is through female lines.
However, Jefferson and the two Jefferson matches in England proved to be
far more closely related to Middle Eastern and Sephardic and North African
Jewish men than to the two other K2 haplotypes from England. He was
actually very closely matched to them. The text reads identical matches,
but my eyes looking at the haplotype tables read, close matches. But
they don't even resemble the other northern and western European K2
haplotypes, taking into account haplotypes in Y Search and the K2
haplogroup DNA project as well. If you eyeball Jefferson's haplotype,
the haplotypes in the table in the article, and the haplotypes in the
separate table, you can plainly see without needing to do network analysis
that Jefferson's haplotype is far more like the North African and
Sephardic Jewish haplotypes than to anything else.
The available data does not prove that Jefferson's paternal line ancestry
is not Moorish or picked up by Romans or Germanic peoples on their way
through North Africa. It is necessary to explain how the line
subsequently got to England. Long ago Romans is possible. Moors from
Spain is unlikely - unless the name "Jefferson" had actually been picked
up in the Netherlands and carried from there to England by Protestants
running around Europe in circles. It is an odd way to say "Jeffery's
son", though that could be exactly what it is; and it gets funnier when
you start trying to explain the name Jaffrey. Jewish ancestry is the
most likely explanation, even if the name Jefferson did not come from
England. It is hardly necessarily true that the ancestor who went to
England was still Jewish.
The K2 project is at
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-Haplogroup-K2/
He developed a breakdown of haplogroup K2 into several subclades based
only on the STR haplotypes. (Usually subclades are developed from single
nucleotide polymorphisms and then associated with the standard DYS markers
on which they more easily count repeats, but not always.) He places
Jefferson's haplotype "probably" in one particular set of haplotypes. It
is not possible to be certain Jefferson's haplotype belongs there,
however, because so little of Jefferson's haplotype is known.
The original 1998 article on Jefferson and the Hemings clan examined a
highly quixotic set of markers, only a few of which correspond to the
markers that are typically collected in genealogical testing, only eight
of which are among the 12 standard markers that are always measured even
if nothing else is. Both articles compare people and develop an entire
phylogenetic network on only eight markers, which gives weak, possibly
wrong, results. For instance, to exactly match Jefferson to Jewish
haplotypes you need preferably 37 markers.
FTDNA filled in several of the missing markers from somewhere but gave no
source information for it, and I'm having trouble extracting it from them.
In 1998, genealogical DNA was in its infancy. The large number of
Jefferson and related Hemings descendants who have been tested should
definitely have given rise by now to a proper analysis of 25 or 37
standard genealogical markers. But I can't find more than what was in
the 1998 article and what FTDNA added anywhere.
Y Search, a big Y DNA database, has just one Jefferson listed and no
Hemings, and only the 8 markers.
No Jefferson or HEmings is represented in teh K2 DNA project.
The Jefferson DNA project is currently hiding its data from the public.
Most DNA projects make their data public in embedded Excel tables.
No Jefferson or Hemings is represented in the SMGF (Mormon) genealogical
DNA database. This database has shortcomings but getting tested for that
project is absolutely free. It attempts to link families by DNA.
I've been writing to all sorts of people who purport to be connected to
this testing asking for the rest of the markers. So far only one
person has responded and he didn't have this data. He referred me to two
other people. It is possible that some people won't get their e-mail
until the weekend is over.
Spencer Wells has published a new book on the Jefferson and Hemings
controversy. The review at Amazon tells us little more than that.
Spencer Wells evidently has some kind of knowledge about Jefferson's
haplotype but there is no clue how much of it is in his book, and Spencer
Wells is not known for his intellectual quality and for providing richness
of detail on his data in his books. Spencer Wells is director of the
Geneographic Project, probably for no other reason than that most people
know who he is. I e-mailed them, but that e-mail address is apparently
extremely busy. I don't know if he'll ever get my e-mail.
I smell fishes. Either the Jefferson's and Hemings' know better than we
do that Jefferson's paternal line is Jewish and don't want that fact
known, or don't want to know it themselves, or they looked at the
handwriting on the wall and decided to know no more. I would expect the
Hemings clan to be less subject to that kind of prejudice than the
aristocratic Monticello folks, particularly after their long fight against
the Monticello operation for recognition, but we're talkign about
relations between American Blacks and Jews; they could be even more
prejudiced than the Monticello folks.
I'll wait and see what information I get back in the next few days.
Failing taht I get any, I'll just conclude that the fact that the
Monticello outfit don't want any more information to come out confirms
that Jefferson's roots are Jewish.
I must say that the Edmund Rice family association is being almost as
bizarre over the fact that his DNA confirms that he is not descended from
Welsh royalty. Not only did he come from East Anglia, but his paternal
line ancestor was a Norse Viking. But shhh... don't start none of them
rumors! Fortunately they prefer extreme nastiness to the suppression
of all knowledge of the haplotype.
It does actually take more than 8 markers to be able to say that
Jefferson's DNA is an exact match to people named JEfferson in England.
12 markers aren't enough, though on the rare and highly variable K2
haplogroup it would make a strong case. Actually, it takes a minimum of
25 markers to be able to say that, and since even closely related people
don't usually match perfectly, it actually takes 37 markers minimum and a
computation of genetic distance. Now, getting and publishing more than
8 markers could well undermine the link to the two "identical" haplotypes
in England, and either the Monticello clan know it remains a close match
and don't want to admit it, or they fear that more information will
confirm the match and disconfirm the Welsh royalty theory.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"reatty" <reatty@cox.net> wrote in message
news:I6D3i.238841$2Q1.156881@newsfe16.lga...
Dear Sam- as a stupid person, I eagerly await your analysis (no irony or
sarcasm intended). Aside from the Hemings/Jefferson controversy, this
whole DNA ancestry thing is interesting. I have one off topic question.
What's the purpose of this type of testing of individuals? It's
interesting to know the answer, but does it advance knowledge of human
evolution or what?
Stupidly yours, Stultus Americanus
-
Dora Smith
Re: New DNA Tests done on the Hemings-Jefferson Controversy
Oh, well, I needed to read it to discover what evidence supports the idea
that Charlemagne is descended from Phoenicians. Some ideas die hard.
Quote follows:
------------------------
"Because the Y-Chromosome is passed from father to son, genealogies that are
based on a direct male line may be used to conclude the genetic identifiers
of forefathers based on their descendents, many generations later.
The hypothesis of this exercise is suggest that Emperor Charlemagne must
have had Phoenician blood identifiers or have come from Phoenician
bloodline, simply because his direct male descendent, Thomas Jefferson has
been proven to have the same identifiers.
"Phoenician" Thomas Jefferson's patrilineal origin
Spencer Wells, the geneticist that heads the Genographic Project in search
of the scientific "Adam" and the National Geographic study "Who were the
Phoenicians," revealed that Thomas Jefferson, one of the "founding fathers"
of the United States belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup K2. The quote from
Wells that follows is the scientific explanation of what was discovered in
studying Jefferson's DNA.
"As part of our genetic analyses for the film Search for Adam, we
analyzed additional markers on Jefferson's Y-chromosome in an effort to
determine why it is so unusual. If you recall the original Hemmings paper in
Nature by Foster et al., the haplotype was 'rare', which is what enabled
them to implicate Jefferson as the source rather than another European. At
the time there were no matches among the 607 European men (Jefferson's
father claimed Welsh ancestry) who had been genotyped for the same 11
microsatellites. Recent searches of more comprehensive databases have turned
up related haplotypes belonging to haplogroups O, K and Q. We investigated
the 12 microsatellites routinely typed by FTDNA, which did not add to the
haplogroup resolution. SNP testing, however, revealed that Jefferson's Y is
positive for M70, which places him in haplogroup K2. K2 is rare in northern
Europe (only one K was found among 1772 British men surveyed by Capelli et
al., but it wasn't typed for M70) but quite common in the Middle East and
northeast Africa, where it reaches frequencies of 10% or more...We are
currently looking at potential source populations for Jefferson's K2 as part
of a broader survey of Y-chromosome variation in the Middle East and North
Africa, and expect to submit a publication by the end of the year. I'm sure
that all of you will appreciate the amount of effort that has gone into
launching The Genographic Project, and hope that you will understand that
our publication schedule has been somewhat delayed as a result.
Spencer Wells
Mission Programs
National Geographic Society""
-- --------------
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4650ab48$0$19401$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
that Charlemagne is descended from Phoenicians. Some ideas die hard.
Quote follows:
------------------------
"Because the Y-Chromosome is passed from father to son, genealogies that are
based on a direct male line may be used to conclude the genetic identifiers
of forefathers based on their descendents, many generations later.
The hypothesis of this exercise is suggest that Emperor Charlemagne must
have had Phoenician blood identifiers or have come from Phoenician
bloodline, simply because his direct male descendent, Thomas Jefferson has
been proven to have the same identifiers.
"Phoenician" Thomas Jefferson's patrilineal origin
Spencer Wells, the geneticist that heads the Genographic Project in search
of the scientific "Adam" and the National Geographic study "Who were the
Phoenicians," revealed that Thomas Jefferson, one of the "founding fathers"
of the United States belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup K2. The quote from
Wells that follows is the scientific explanation of what was discovered in
studying Jefferson's DNA.
"As part of our genetic analyses for the film Search for Adam, we
analyzed additional markers on Jefferson's Y-chromosome in an effort to
determine why it is so unusual. If you recall the original Hemmings paper in
Nature by Foster et al., the haplotype was 'rare', which is what enabled
them to implicate Jefferson as the source rather than another European. At
the time there were no matches among the 607 European men (Jefferson's
father claimed Welsh ancestry) who had been genotyped for the same 11
microsatellites. Recent searches of more comprehensive databases have turned
up related haplotypes belonging to haplogroups O, K and Q. We investigated
the 12 microsatellites routinely typed by FTDNA, which did not add to the
haplogroup resolution. SNP testing, however, revealed that Jefferson's Y is
positive for M70, which places him in haplogroup K2. K2 is rare in northern
Europe (only one K was found among 1772 British men surveyed by Capelli et
al., but it wasn't typed for M70) but quite common in the Middle East and
northeast Africa, where it reaches frequencies of 10% or more...We are
currently looking at potential source populations for Jefferson's K2 as part
of a broader survey of Y-chromosome variation in the Middle East and North
Africa, and expect to submit a publication by the end of the year. I'm sure
that all of you will appreciate the amount of effort that has gone into
launching The Genographic Project, and hope that you will understand that
our publication schedule has been somewhat delayed as a result.
Spencer Wells
Mission Programs
National Geographic Society""
-- --------------
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4650ab48$0$19401$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
I got the article from its author. It doesn't really present any new
evidence on Thomas Jefferson's DNA, like the desperately needed more
markers, or anything like that, nor on his relationship to Sally Hemings'
descendants.
The new study uses both newly gathered and previously published K2
haplotypes to try to place Jefferson's haplotype among the old and diverse
K2 haplogroup. The authors developed a set of data based on genetic
distances between the haplotypes, and used this to construct a
phylogenetic network of the K2 haplogroup and show where Jefferson fits in
that tree. Some of the haplotypes they used are in a table; teh previously
published ones are available in Excel format from the author.
I have both the table and the article if anyone wants them.
At the same time, the authors recruited a good sized sample of people
named Jefferson in England. Two among the sample whose grandfathers came
from variously central and Northern England matched Jefferson's haplotype
exactly. This proves that Jefferson came from England (and substantially
weakens the idea that he came from Wales).
But Jefferson is descended from Charlemagne via Welsh royalty only if
Charlemagne had Jewish or maybe Moorish paternal line blood. LOL. Of
course we know that all European royalty are descended from Jesus through
Charlemagne and then the Merovingians - but that is through female lines.
However, Jefferson and the two Jefferson matches in England proved to be
far more closely related to Middle Eastern and Sephardic and North African
Jewish men than to the two other K2 haplotypes from England. He was
actually very closely matched to them. The text reads identical matches,
but my eyes looking at the haplotype tables read, close matches. But
they don't even resemble the other northern and western European K2
haplotypes, taking into account haplotypes in Y Search and the K2
haplogroup DNA project as well. If you eyeball Jefferson's haplotype,
the haplotypes in the table in the article, and the haplotypes in the
separate table, you can plainly see without needing to do network analysis
that Jefferson's haplotype is far more like the North African and
Sephardic Jewish haplotypes than to anything else.
The available data does not prove that Jefferson's paternal line ancestry
is not Moorish or picked up by Romans or Germanic peoples on their way
through North Africa. It is necessary to explain how the line
subsequently got to England. Long ago Romans is possible. Moors from
Spain is unlikely - unless the name "Jefferson" had actually been picked
up in the Netherlands and carried from there to England by Protestants
running around Europe in circles. It is an odd way to say "Jeffery's
son", though that could be exactly what it is; and it gets funnier when
you start trying to explain the name Jaffrey. Jewish ancestry is the
most likely explanation, even if the name Jefferson did not come from
England. It is hardly necessarily true that the ancestor who went to
England was still Jewish.
The K2 project is at
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-Haplogroup-K2/
He developed a breakdown of haplogroup K2 into several subclades based
only on the STR haplotypes. (Usually subclades are developed from single
nucleotide polymorphisms and then associated with the standard DYS markers
on which they more easily count repeats, but not always.) He places
Jefferson's haplotype "probably" in one particular set of haplotypes. It
is not possible to be certain Jefferson's haplotype belongs there,
however, because so little of Jefferson's haplotype is known.
The original 1998 article on Jefferson and the Hemings clan examined a
highly quixotic set of markers, only a few of which correspond to the
markers that are typically collected in genealogical testing, only eight
of which are among the 12 standard markers that are always measured even
if nothing else is. Both articles compare people and develop an entire
phylogenetic network on only eight markers, which gives weak, possibly
wrong, results. For instance, to exactly match Jefferson to Jewish
haplotypes you need preferably 37 markers.
FTDNA filled in several of the missing markers from somewhere but gave no
source information for it, and I'm having trouble extracting it from them.
In 1998, genealogical DNA was in its infancy. The large number of
Jefferson and related Hemings descendants who have been tested should
definitely have given rise by now to a proper analysis of 25 or 37
standard genealogical markers. But I can't find more than what was in
the 1998 article and what FTDNA added anywhere.
Y Search, a big Y DNA database, has just one Jefferson listed and no
Hemings, and only the 8 markers.
No Jefferson or HEmings is represented in teh K2 DNA project.
The Jefferson DNA project is currently hiding its data from the public.
Most DNA projects make their data public in embedded Excel tables.
No Jefferson or Hemings is represented in the SMGF (Mormon) genealogical
DNA database. This database has shortcomings but getting tested for that
project is absolutely free. It attempts to link families by DNA.
I've been writing to all sorts of people who purport to be connected to
this testing asking for the rest of the markers. So far only one
person has responded and he didn't have this data. He referred me to two
other people. It is possible that some people won't get their e-mail
until the weekend is over.
Spencer Wells has published a new book on the Jefferson and Hemings
controversy. The review at Amazon tells us little more than that.
Spencer Wells evidently has some kind of knowledge about Jefferson's
haplotype but there is no clue how much of it is in his book, and Spencer
Wells is not known for his intellectual quality and for providing richness
of detail on his data in his books. Spencer Wells is director of the
Geneographic Project, probably for no other reason than that most people
know who he is. I e-mailed them, but that e-mail address is apparently
extremely busy. I don't know if he'll ever get my e-mail.
I smell fishes. Either the Jefferson's and Hemings' know better than we
do that Jefferson's paternal line is Jewish and don't want that fact
known, or don't want to know it themselves, or they looked at the
handwriting on the wall and decided to know no more. I would expect the
Hemings clan to be less subject to that kind of prejudice than the
aristocratic Monticello folks, particularly after their long fight against
the Monticello operation for recognition, but we're talkign about
relations between American Blacks and Jews; they could be even more
prejudiced than the Monticello folks.
I'll wait and see what information I get back in the next few days.
Failing taht I get any, I'll just conclude that the fact that the
Monticello outfit don't want any more information to come out confirms
that Jefferson's roots are Jewish.
I must say that the Edmund Rice family association is being almost as
bizarre over the fact that his DNA confirms that he is not descended from
Welsh royalty. Not only did he come from East Anglia, but his paternal
line ancestor was a Norse Viking. But shhh... don't start none of them
rumors! Fortunately they prefer extreme nastiness to the suppression
of all knowledge of the haplotype.
It does actually take more than 8 markers to be able to say that
Jefferson's DNA is an exact match to people named JEfferson in England.
12 markers aren't enough, though on the rare and highly variable K2
haplogroup it would make a strong case. Actually, it takes a minimum of
25 markers to be able to say that, and since even closely related people
don't usually match perfectly, it actually takes 37 markers minimum and a
computation of genetic distance. Now, getting and publishing more than
8 markers could well undermine the link to the two "identical" haplotypes
in England, and either the Monticello clan know it remains a close match
and don't want to admit it, or they fear that more information will
confirm the match and disconfirm the Welsh royalty theory.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"reatty" <reatty@cox.net> wrote in message
news:I6D3i.238841$2Q1.156881@newsfe16.lga...
Dear Sam- as a stupid person, I eagerly await your analysis (no irony or
sarcasm intended). Aside from the Hemings/Jefferson controversy, this
whole DNA ancestry thing is interesting. I have one off topic question.
What's the purpose of this type of testing of individuals? It's
interesting to know the answer, but does it advance knowledge of human
evolution or what?
Stupidly yours, Stultus Americanus
-
Andrew and Inge
RE: Jefferson & DNA
My suggestion is to start at:
http://www.isogg.org
....which now has a very good reference section on at least the Y
haplogroups...
amd
http://www.worldfamilies.net
Regards
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: lostcooper@yahoo.com [mailto:lostcooper@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, 20 May 2007 8:31 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Jefferson & DNA
Thank you for an informative post. Do you know if there is a
publication or website that simply lists the known haplogroups, both
mitochondrial and Y, with explanations of where they are found and
their time depth in given areas - in well-translated "lay"? I see bits
and pieces but not the total picture (as far as it is known). It would
be great to see an actual map. I did see the article in National
Geographic; it was good as far as it went, but it may have been too
simplified. As another poster noted, we know that we all started out
from Africa (acc. to current theory) but the more we can fill in the
historical periods, the more fun it will be. Best, Bronwen
http://www.isogg.org
....which now has a very good reference section on at least the Y
haplogroups...
amd
http://www.worldfamilies.net
Regards
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: lostcooper@yahoo.com [mailto:lostcooper@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, 20 May 2007 8:31 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Jefferson & DNA
Thank you for an informative post. Do you know if there is a
publication or website that simply lists the known haplogroups, both
mitochondrial and Y, with explanations of where they are found and
their time depth in given areas - in well-translated "lay"? I see bits
and pieces but not the total picture (as far as it is known). It would
be great to see an actual map. I did see the article in National
Geographic; it was good as far as it went, but it may have been too
simplified. As another poster noted, we know that we all started out
from Africa (acc. to current theory) but the more we can fill in the
historical periods, the more fun it will be. Best, Bronwen
-
Dora Smith
Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
To start with, LOL.
See http://phoenicia.org/genetics.html, and
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html Jefferson's DNA proves that
Charlemagne was descended from the Phoenicians, because Jefferson was
descended from the Phoenicians, and we know he was descended from
Charlemagne. The Lebanese have somehow been proven to have "Phoenician"
genetic markers. The Phoenicians are a very mysterious people who are the
granddaddies of us all. Eyes rolling! They cursed, and everything!
These people have Phoenicians on the brain. However, apparently Spencer
Wells picked up on it. I get the idea the he apparently thinks Jefferson's
DNA has something to do with Phoenicians. Though I've yet to actually
verify that he thinks such a thing, and clearly the people who quote him
here are over the edge off the deep end. Wells is not the most
intellectually rigorous person in the world, but .... ?
So I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.
Phoenicia was a little state in the northwestern corner of Palestine, where
Lebanon is now. Only Lebanon covers more territory. Vuhhy mysterious why
the Lebanese should be genetically similar to "Phoenicians", however we know
what sort of DNA they had.
But we can make some pretty good guesses what sort of DNA Phoenicians would
ahve had. THe people of Palestine at that time, and particularly
northwestern Palestine, were a mixture of northwest Semitic,
proto-Indo-European, Hurrian (Asiatic), and Indo-Aryan.
The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean. Ummm, that
would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of proto-Indo-European
and Indo-European people, and by the time they'd spread around enough some
Middle Eastern as well. The Sea Peoples took over parts of Anatolia, and
parts of southwestern Palestine, and they included the Myceneans.
I honestly don't think the Phoenicians got very far in very large numbers.
Not impossible they traded with Spain and Britain, as they were merchants
and traders and trade networks went all over in their time; but they sure
didn't supplant the local populations or whatever.
On the other hand, Joblin et al present clear evidence of a genetic trail
leading through Egypt and North Africa to Spain, of people who are close
genetic matches (atleast with 8 markers), of Thomas Jefferson.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-.net
See http://phoenicia.org/genetics.html, and
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html Jefferson's DNA proves that
Charlemagne was descended from the Phoenicians, because Jefferson was
descended from the Phoenicians, and we know he was descended from
Charlemagne. The Lebanese have somehow been proven to have "Phoenician"
genetic markers. The Phoenicians are a very mysterious people who are the
granddaddies of us all. Eyes rolling! They cursed, and everything!
These people have Phoenicians on the brain. However, apparently Spencer
Wells picked up on it. I get the idea the he apparently thinks Jefferson's
DNA has something to do with Phoenicians. Though I've yet to actually
verify that he thinks such a thing, and clearly the people who quote him
here are over the edge off the deep end. Wells is not the most
intellectually rigorous person in the world, but .... ?
So I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.
Phoenicia was a little state in the northwestern corner of Palestine, where
Lebanon is now. Only Lebanon covers more territory. Vuhhy mysterious why
the Lebanese should be genetically similar to "Phoenicians", however we know
what sort of DNA they had.
But we can make some pretty good guesses what sort of DNA Phoenicians would
ahve had. THe people of Palestine at that time, and particularly
northwestern Palestine, were a mixture of northwest Semitic,
proto-Indo-European, Hurrian (Asiatic), and Indo-Aryan.
The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean. Ummm, that
would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of proto-Indo-European
and Indo-European people, and by the time they'd spread around enough some
Middle Eastern as well. The Sea Peoples took over parts of Anatolia, and
parts of southwestern Palestine, and they included the Myceneans.
I honestly don't think the Phoenicians got very far in very large numbers.
Not impossible they traded with Spain and Britain, as they were merchants
and traders and trade networks went all over in their time; but they sure
didn't supplant the local populations or whatever.
On the other hand, Joblin et al present clear evidence of a genetic trail
leading through Egypt and North Africa to Spain, of people who are close
genetic matches (atleast with 8 markers), of Thomas Jefferson.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-.net
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
What? Because Jefferson was descended from the Phoenicians, Charlemagne must
also be? Since when is Jefferson's male line Carolingian?
Has that been established?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history,
alt.history.colonial,alt.history, soc.history.war.us-revolution
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
also be? Since when is Jefferson's male line Carolingian?
Has that been established?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history,
alt.history.colonial,alt.history, soc.history.war.us-revolution
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
To start with, LOL.
See http://phoenicia.org/genetics.html, and
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html Jefferson's DNA proves that
Charlemagne was descended from the Phoenicians, because Jefferson was
descended from the Phoenicians, and we know he was descended from
Charlemagne. The Lebanese have somehow been proven to have "Phoenician"
genetic markers. The Phoenicians are a very mysterious people who are the
granddaddies of us all. Eyes rolling! They cursed, and everything!
These people have Phoenicians on the brain. However, apparently Spencer
Wells picked up on it. I get the idea the he apparently thinks
Jefferson's DNA has something to do with Phoenicians. Though I've yet to
actually verify that he thinks such a thing, and clearly the people who
quote him here are over the edge off the deep end. Wells is not the
most intellectually rigorous person in the world, but .... ?
So I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.
Phoenicia was a little state in the northwestern corner of Palestine,
where Lebanon is now. Only Lebanon covers more territory. Vuhhy
mysterious why the Lebanese should be genetically similar to
"Phoenicians", however we know what sort of DNA they had.
But we can make some pretty good guesses what sort of DNA Phoenicians
would ahve had. THe people of Palestine at that time, and particularly
northwestern Palestine, were a mixture of northwest Semitic,
proto-Indo-European, Hurrian (Asiatic), and Indo-Aryan.
The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean. Ummm,
that would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of
proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people, and by the time they'd
spread around enough some Middle Eastern as well. The Sea Peoples took
over parts of Anatolia, and parts of southwestern Palestine, and they
included the Myceneans.
I honestly don't think the Phoenicians got very far in very large numbers.
Not impossible they traded with Spain and Britain, as they were merchants
and traders and trade networks went all over in their time; but they sure
didn't supplant the local populations or whatever.
On the other hand, Joblin et al present clear evidence of a genetic trail
leading through Egypt and North Africa to Spain, of people who are close
genetic matches (atleast with 8 markers), of Thomas Jefferson.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-.net
-------------------------------
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
-
John W. Kennedy
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
Dora Smith wrote:
Really? "A mixture of proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people"? Is
this related to the theory that eastern North America was settled by a
mixture of Anglo-Saxon and English colonists?
By the way, ever hear of Carthage?
Or the alphabet?
--
John W. Kennedy
A proud member of the reality-based community.
* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean. Ummm, that
would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of proto-Indo-European
and Indo-European people,
Really? "A mixture of proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people"? Is
this related to the theory that eastern North America was settled by a
mixture of Anglo-Saxon and English colonists?
By the way, ever hear of Carthage?
Or the alphabet?
--
John W. Kennedy
A proud member of the reality-based community.
* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
-
Gjest
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
On May 20, 5:48 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
Maybe I missed something but I was under the impression that there are
no male lines to Charlemagne that would have lived during Jefferson's
time. Anyway, back to bed, Leo! You need your rest. Best, Bronwen
What? Because Jefferson was descended from the Phoenicians, Charlemagne must
also be? Since when is Jefferson's male line Carolingian?
Has that been established?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villan...@austin.rr.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history,
alt.history.colonial,alt.history, soc.history.war.us-revolution
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
To start with, LOL.
Seehttp://phoenicia.org/genetics.html, and
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html Jefferson's DNA proves that
Charlemagne was descended from the Phoenicians, because Jefferson was
descended from the Phoenicians, and we know he was descended from
Charlemagne. The Lebanese have somehow been proven to have "Phoenician"
genetic markers. The Phoenicians are a very mysterious people who are the
granddaddies of us all. Eyes rolling! They cursed, and everything!
These people have Phoenicians on the brain. However, apparently Spencer
Wells picked up on it. I get the idea the he apparently thinks
Jefferson's DNA has something to do with Phoenicians. Though I've yet to
actually verify that he thinks such a thing, and clearly the people who
quote him here are over the edge off the deep end. Wells is not the
most intellectually rigorous person in the world, but .... ?
So I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.
Phoenicia was a little state in the northwestern corner of Palestine,
where Lebanon is now. Only Lebanon covers more territory. Vuhhy
mysterious why the Lebanese should be genetically similar to
"Phoenicians", however we know what sort of DNA they had.
But we can make some pretty good guesses what sort of DNA Phoenicians
would ahve had. THe people of Palestine at that time, and particularly
northwestern Palestine, were a mixture of northwest Semitic,
proto-Indo-European, Hurrian (Asiatic), and Indo-Aryan.
The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean. Ummm,
that would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of
proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people, and by the time they'd
spread around enough some Middle Eastern as well. The Sea Peoples took
over parts of Anatolia, and parts of southwestern Palestine, and they
included the Myceneans.
I honestly don't think the Phoenicians got very far in very large numbers.
Not impossible they traded with Spain and Britain, as they were merchants
and traders and trade networks went all over in their time; but they sure
didn't supplant the local populations or whatever.
On the other hand, Joblin et al present clear evidence of a genetic trail
leading through Egypt and North Africa to Spain, of people who are close
genetic matches (atleast with 8 markers), of Thomas Jefferson.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernu...@yahoo.com
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-.net
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Maybe I missed something but I was under the impression that there are
no male lines to Charlemagne that would have lived during Jefferson's
time. Anyway, back to bed, Leo! You need your rest. Best, Bronwen
-
Dora Smith
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
Exactly. You have the idea, Leo. LOL!
Apparently Thomas Jefferson knew who his grandfather was but noone has ever
proven how the family got to Virginia. He related a family tradition that
his family came to this country from Wales. So the way I understand it,
noone has any documentation as to who Thomas Jefferson's emigrant ancestor
was, and a weak tradition about coming from Wales.
I didn't follow it exactly because of course it's speculative genealogy.
The listowner of the DNA-genealogy list, who is one of the most intelligent
and objective people I know, except for a slight tendency to get completely
carried away about those Phoenicians, did follow it, closely, and she
reported that the link of the first known Thomas Jefferson ancestor with the
royal lineage is completely undocumented. No surprise there.
But the Monticello people are convinced the royal ancestry is genuine.
Since Thomas Jefferson is descended from Charlemagne, and we "know" that his
male line was Phoenician, which is of course nonsense, we now know that
Charlemagne's male line was Phoenician.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.2431.1179708522.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
Apparently Thomas Jefferson knew who his grandfather was but noone has ever
proven how the family got to Virginia. He related a family tradition that
his family came to this country from Wales. So the way I understand it,
noone has any documentation as to who Thomas Jefferson's emigrant ancestor
was, and a weak tradition about coming from Wales.
I didn't follow it exactly because of course it's speculative genealogy.
The listowner of the DNA-genealogy list, who is one of the most intelligent
and objective people I know, except for a slight tendency to get completely
carried away about those Phoenicians, did follow it, closely, and she
reported that the link of the first known Thomas Jefferson ancestor with the
royal lineage is completely undocumented. No surprise there.
But the Monticello people are convinced the royal ancestry is genuine.
Since Thomas Jefferson is descended from Charlemagne, and we "know" that his
male line was Phoenician, which is of course nonsense, we now know that
Charlemagne's male line was Phoenician.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.2431.1179708522.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
What? Because Jefferson was descended from the Phoenicians, Charlemagne
must also be? Since when is Jefferson's male line Carolingian?
Has that been established?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history,
alt.history.colonial,alt.history, soc.history.war.us-revolution
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
To start with, LOL.
See http://phoenicia.org/genetics.html, and
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html Jefferson's DNA proves that
Charlemagne was descended from the Phoenicians, because Jefferson was
descended from the Phoenicians, and we know he was descended from
Charlemagne. The Lebanese have somehow been proven to have "Phoenician"
genetic markers. The Phoenicians are a very mysterious people who are
the granddaddies of us all. Eyes rolling! They cursed, and
everything!
These people have Phoenicians on the brain. However, apparently Spencer
Wells picked up on it. I get the idea the he apparently thinks
Jefferson's DNA has something to do with Phoenicians. Though I've yet
to actually verify that he thinks such a thing, and clearly the people
who quote him here are over the edge off the deep end. Wells is not
the most intellectually rigorous person in the world, but .... ?
So I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.
Phoenicia was a little state in the northwestern corner of Palestine,
where Lebanon is now. Only Lebanon covers more territory. Vuhhy
mysterious why the Lebanese should be genetically similar to
"Phoenicians", however we know what sort of DNA they had.
But we can make some pretty good guesses what sort of DNA Phoenicians
would ahve had. THe people of Palestine at that time, and particularly
northwestern Palestine, were a mixture of northwest Semitic,
proto-Indo-European, Hurrian (Asiatic), and Indo-Aryan.
The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean. Ummm,
that would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of
proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people, and by the time they'd
spread around enough some Middle Eastern as well. The Sea Peoples took
over parts of Anatolia, and parts of southwestern Palestine, and they
included the Myceneans.
I honestly don't think the Phoenicians got very far in very large
numbers. Not impossible they traded with Spain and Britain, as they were
merchants and traders and trade networks went all over in their time; but
they sure didn't supplant the local populations or whatever.
On the other hand, Joblin et al present clear evidence of a genetic trail
leading through Egypt and North Africa to Spain, of people who are close
genetic matches (atleast with 8 markers), of Thomas Jefferson.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-.net
-------------------------------
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
-
Dora Smith
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
Alphabet, yes. Alphabet spread through trade, specifically among the
merchants and traders who needed to use it. Not genetic takeover.
Proto Indo-Europeans and Indo-Europeans were concentrated around the Black
Sea region and teh area immediately north of the Taurus Mountains, eastward
toward Khoristan. Not on the Atlantic seaboard.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:AL64i.40$tc1.9@newsfe12.lga...
merchants and traders who needed to use it. Not genetic takeover.
Proto Indo-Europeans and Indo-Europeans were concentrated around the Black
Sea region and teh area immediately north of the Taurus Mountains, eastward
toward Khoristan. Not on the Atlantic seaboard.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:AL64i.40$tc1.9@newsfe12.lga...
Dora Smith wrote:
The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean. Ummm,
that would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of
proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people,
Really? "A mixture of proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people"? Is
this related to the theory that eastern North America was settled by a
mixture of Anglo-Saxon and English colonists?
By the way, ever hear of Carthage?
Or the alphabet?
--
John W. Kennedy
A proud member of the reality-based community.
* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
-
Dora Smith
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
I'd be astounded if no male lines to Charlemagne. All modern royalty are
descended from him many times over. But it's possible. Most medieval
royal lines arose as warlords who married females from earlier noble lines
to establish legitmacy. But did noone have younger sons?
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
<lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179714117.017345.281070@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
descended from him many times over. But it's possible. Most medieval
royal lines arose as warlords who married females from earlier noble lines
to establish legitmacy. But did noone have younger sons?
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
<lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179714117.017345.281070@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 5:48 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
What? Because Jefferson was descended from the Phoenicians, Charlemagne
must
also be? Since when is Jefferson's male line Carolingian?
Has that been established?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villan...@austin.rr.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history,
alt.history.colonial,alt.history, soc.history.war.us-revolution
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
To start with, LOL.
Seehttp://phoenicia.org/genetics.html, and
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html Jefferson's DNA proves that
Charlemagne was descended from the Phoenicians, because Jefferson was
descended from the Phoenicians, and we know he was descended from
Charlemagne. The Lebanese have somehow been proven to have
"Phoenician"
genetic markers. The Phoenicians are a very mysterious people who are
the
granddaddies of us all. Eyes rolling! They cursed, and everything!
These people have Phoenicians on the brain. However, apparently
Spencer
Wells picked up on it. I get the idea the he apparently thinks
Jefferson's DNA has something to do with Phoenicians. Though I've yet
to
actually verify that he thinks such a thing, and clearly the people who
quote him here are over the edge off the deep end. Wells is not the
most intellectually rigorous person in the world, but .... ?
So I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.
Phoenicia was a little state in the northwestern corner of Palestine,
where Lebanon is now. Only Lebanon covers more territory. Vuhhy
mysterious why the Lebanese should be genetically similar to
"Phoenicians", however we know what sort of DNA they had.
But we can make some pretty good guesses what sort of DNA Phoenicians
would ahve had. THe people of Palestine at that time, and
particularly
northwestern Palestine, were a mixture of northwest Semitic,
proto-Indo-European, Hurrian (Asiatic), and Indo-Aryan.
The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean. Ummm,
that would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of
proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people, and by the time they'd
spread around enough some Middle Eastern as well. The Sea Peoples
took
over parts of Anatolia, and parts of southwestern Palestine, and they
included the Myceneans.
I honestly don't think the Phoenicians got very far in very large
numbers.
Not impossible they traded with Spain and Britain, as they were
merchants
and traders and trade networks went all over in their time; but they
sure
didn't supplant the local populations or whatever.
On the other hand, Joblin et al present clear evidence of a genetic
trail
leading through Egypt and North Africa to Spain, of people who are
close
genetic matches (atleast with 8 markers), of Thomas Jefferson.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernu...@yahoo.com
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-.net
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Maybe I missed something but I was under the impression that there are
no male lines to Charlemagne that would have lived during Jefferson's
time. Anyway, back to bed, Leo! You need your rest. Best, Bronwen
-
Denis Beauregard
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
On Sun, 20 May 2007 23:14:41 -0500, "Dora Smith"
<villandra@austin.rr.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
No, modern royalty (the Bourbon actually) are derived from the
Capetians, not the Carolingians. While some authors may believe
the Capetians are sons of the Carolingians, there is nothing to
support that.
It is important to keep in mind that the DNA studies can be made
only on a totally male line or a totally female line (except the
last generation). Because after 10 or 15 generations, you have
10,000s of ancestors, you have no idea about who supplied the
original markers. But with a male or female line, there is only
one ancestor after 10 or 15 generations.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1765
<villandra@austin.rr.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
I'd be astounded if no male lines to Charlemagne. All modern royalty are
descended from him many times over. But it's possible. Most medieval
royal lines arose as warlords who married females from earlier noble lines
to establish legitmacy. But did noone have younger sons?
No, modern royalty (the Bourbon actually) are derived from the
Capetians, not the Carolingians. While some authors may believe
the Capetians are sons of the Carolingians, there is nothing to
support that.
It is important to keep in mind that the DNA studies can be made
only on a totally male line or a totally female line (except the
last generation). Because after 10 or 15 generations, you have
10,000s of ancestors, you have no idea about who supplied the
original markers. But with a male or female line, there is only
one ancestor after 10 or 15 generations.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1765
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
The Carolingians were a very special family and even illegitimate children
and the lines of younger sons were recorded.
As far as I know the last Carolingian was a woman ten generations removed
from Charlemagne, Adelaide Countess of Vermandois and Valois who died about
1120/1124. If you go to my website call up Charlemagne and ask for his male
line descendants, you will see what happened to his male line descendants.
I would say all modern royalty are descended from Charlemagne---many times
over----but none are in the male line.
Who established that Thomas Jefferson descends from Charlemagne in a strict
male line? Burke's Presidential Families starts the Jefferson line with
Samuel Jeaffreson---died after 23 October 1590
/
John Jeaffreon
/
Samuel Jeaffreson, who emigrated to the West-Indies
/
Samuel Jeaffreson
/
Thomas JEFFERSON
/
Thomas Jefferson born 1679 or 1680 died after 1725 (probably 1731)
/
Peter Jefferson
/
President Thomas Jefferson
Jeaffreson is how they give the first generations, Jeaffre and Jeffrey to
sound very different.. I do not know when Thomas Jefferson (son of Samuel
Jeaffreson) changed the spelling of his suyrname, but I guess if would be
after 1650 and he was the third generation in the West Indies and USA,
according to Burke's the first of the male line lived in Pettistree near
Woodbridge, Suffolk Then to find Jeffersons in England with the same DNA as
the American Jeaffresons is quite a find.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
and the lines of younger sons were recorded.
As far as I know the last Carolingian was a woman ten generations removed
from Charlemagne, Adelaide Countess of Vermandois and Valois who died about
1120/1124. If you go to my website call up Charlemagne and ask for his male
line descendants, you will see what happened to his male line descendants.
I would say all modern royalty are descended from Charlemagne---many times
over----but none are in the male line.
Who established that Thomas Jefferson descends from Charlemagne in a strict
male line? Burke's Presidential Families starts the Jefferson line with
Samuel Jeaffreson---died after 23 October 1590
/
John Jeaffreon
/
Samuel Jeaffreson, who emigrated to the West-Indies
/
Samuel Jeaffreson
/
Thomas JEFFERSON
/
Thomas Jefferson born 1679 or 1680 died after 1725 (probably 1731)
/
Peter Jefferson
/
President Thomas Jefferson
Jeaffreson is how they give the first generations, Jeaffre and Jeffrey to
sound very different.. I do not know when Thomas Jefferson (son of Samuel
Jeaffreson) changed the spelling of his suyrname, but I guess if would be
after 1650 and he was the third generation in the West Indies and USA,
according to Burke's the first of the male line lived in Pettistree near
Woodbridge, Suffolk Then to find Jeffersons in England with the same DNA as
the American Jeaffresons is quite a find.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
I'd be astounded if no male lines to Charlemagne. All modern royalty are
descended from him many times over. But it's possible. Most medieval
royal lines arose as warlords who married females from earlier noble lines
to establish legitmacy. But did noone have younger sons?
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179714117.017345.281070@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 5:48 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
What? Because Jefferson was descended from the Phoenicians, Charlemagne
must
also be? Since when is Jefferson's male line Carolingian?
Has that been established?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villan...@austin.rr.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history,
alt.history.colonial,alt.history, soc.history.war.us-revolution
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
To start with, LOL.
Seehttp://phoenicia.org/genetics.html, and
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html Jefferson's DNA proves that
Charlemagne was descended from the Phoenicians, because Jefferson was
descended from the Phoenicians, and we know he was descended from
Charlemagne. The Lebanese have somehow been proven to have
"Phoenician"
genetic markers. The Phoenicians are a very mysterious people who are
the
granddaddies of us all. Eyes rolling! They cursed, and everything!
These people have Phoenicians on the brain. However, apparently
Spencer
Wells picked up on it. I get the idea the he apparently thinks
Jefferson's DNA has something to do with Phoenicians. Though I've
yet to
actually verify that he thinks such a thing, and clearly the people
who
quote him here are over the edge off the deep end. Wells is not the
most intellectually rigorous person in the world, but .... ?
So I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.
Phoenicia was a little state in the northwestern corner of Palestine,
where Lebanon is now. Only Lebanon covers more territory. Vuhhy
mysterious why the Lebanese should be genetically similar to
"Phoenicians", however we know what sort of DNA they had.
But we can make some pretty good guesses what sort of DNA Phoenicians
would ahve had. THe people of Palestine at that time, and
particularly
northwestern Palestine, were a mixture of northwest Semitic,
proto-Indo-European, Hurrian (Asiatic), and Indo-Aryan.
The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean.
Ummm,
that would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of
proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people, and by the time they'd
spread around enough some Middle Eastern as well. The Sea Peoples
took
over parts of Anatolia, and parts of southwestern Palestine, and they
included the Myceneans.
I honestly don't think the Phoenicians got very far in very large
numbers.
Not impossible they traded with Spain and Britain, as they were
merchants
and traders and trade networks went all over in their time; but they
sure
didn't supplant the local populations or whatever.
On the other hand, Joblin et al present clear evidence of a genetic
trail
leading through Egypt and North Africa to Spain, of people who are
close
genetic matches (atleast with 8 markers), of Thomas Jefferson.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernu...@yahoo.com
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-.net
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Maybe I missed something but I was under the impression that there are
no male lines to Charlemagne that would have lived during Jefferson's
time. Anyway, back to bed, Leo! You need your rest. Best, Bronwen
-------------------------------
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: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
See in between
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
----I do not know how reliable Burke's are with the male line ancestry of
President Thomas Jefferson but they maintained that
Samuelo Jeaffreson, who migrated to the West Indies, died died at St.Kitts
12 December 1649
his son
Samuel Jeaffreson went with his father to the West Indies but moved to
Antigua ca.1669
his son
Thomas Jefferson moved to Virginia
Gary Boyd Roberts does not give the early generations as displayed by
Burke's. Who is correct?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
He related a family tradition that
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
Exactly. You have the idea, Leo. LOL!
Apparently Thomas Jefferson knew who his grandfather was but noone has
ever proven how the family got to Virginia.
----I do not know how reliable Burke's are with the male line ancestry of
President Thomas Jefferson but they maintained that
Samuelo Jeaffreson, who migrated to the West Indies, died died at St.Kitts
12 December 1649
his son
Samuel Jeaffreson went with his father to the West Indies but moved to
Antigua ca.1669
his son
Thomas Jefferson moved to Virginia
Gary Boyd Roberts does not give the early generations as displayed by
Burke's. Who is correct?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
He related a family tradition that
his family came to this country from Wales. So the way I understand it,
noone has any documentation as to who Thomas Jefferson's emigrant ancestor
was, and a weak tradition about coming from Wales.
I didn't follow it exactly because of course it's speculative genealogy.
The listowner of the DNA-genealogy list, who is one of the most
intelligent and objective people I know, except for a slight tendency to
get completely carried away about those Phoenicians, did follow it,
closely, and she reported that the link of the first known Thomas
Jefferson ancestor with the royal lineage is completely undocumented.
No surprise there.
But the Monticello people are convinced the royal ancestry is genuine.
Since Thomas Jefferson is descended from Charlemagne, and we "know" that
his male line was Phoenician, which is of course nonsense, we now know
that Charlemagne's male line was Phoenician.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.2431.1179708522.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
What? Because Jefferson was descended from the Phoenicians, Charlemagne
must also be? Since when is Jefferson's male line Carolingian?
Has that been established?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history,
alt.history.colonial,alt.history, soc.history.war.us-revolution
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
To start with, LOL.
See http://phoenicia.org/genetics.html, and
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html Jefferson's DNA proves that
Charlemagne was descended from the Phoenicians, because Jefferson was
descended from the Phoenicians, and we know he was descended from
Charlemagne. The Lebanese have somehow been proven to have
"Phoenician" genetic markers. The Phoenicians are a very mysterious
people who are the granddaddies of us all. Eyes rolling! They
cursed, and everything!
These people have Phoenicians on the brain. However, apparently
Spencer Wells picked up on it. I get the idea the he apparently thinks
Jefferson's DNA has something to do with Phoenicians. Though I've yet
to actually verify that he thinks such a thing, and clearly the people
who quote him here are over the edge off the deep end. Wells is not
the most intellectually rigorous person in the world, but .... ?
So I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.
Phoenicia was a little state in the northwestern corner of Palestine,
where Lebanon is now. Only Lebanon covers more territory. Vuhhy
mysterious why the Lebanese should be genetically similar to
"Phoenicians", however we know what sort of DNA they had.
But we can make some pretty good guesses what sort of DNA Phoenicians
would ahve had. THe people of Palestine at that time, and particularly
northwestern Palestine, were a mixture of northwest Semitic,
proto-Indo-European, Hurrian (Asiatic), and Indo-Aryan.
The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean. Ummm,
that would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of
proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people, and by the time they'd
spread around enough some Middle Eastern as well. The Sea Peoples
took over parts of Anatolia, and parts of southwestern Palestine, and
they included the Myceneans.
I honestly don't think the Phoenicians got very far in very large
numbers. Not impossible they traded with Spain and Britain, as they were
merchants and traders and trade networks went all over in their time;
but they sure didn't supplant the local populations or whatever.
On the other hand, Joblin et al present clear evidence of a genetic
trail leading through Egypt and North Africa to Spain, of people who are
close genetic matches (atleast with 8 markers), of Thomas Jefferson.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-.net
-------------------------------
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
-------------------------------
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
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Jefferson & DNA
Andrew and Inge wrote:
I have prepared maps of where they are today. These are getting
a bit old in terms of modern data ... but in fact much of that new
data is far too localized to be usable on a worldwide scale. Hopefully
the Genographic project will do better.
They are just maps of where haplogroups were 500 years ago ...
no discussion. They are at
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/World ... psMaps.pdf
Doug McDonald
Thank you for an informative post. Do you know if there is a
publication or website that simply lists the known haplogroups, both
mitochondrial and Y, with explanations of where they are found and
their time depth in given areas - in well-translated "lay"?
I have prepared maps of where they are today. These are getting
a bit old in terms of modern data ... but in fact much of that new
data is far too localized to be usable on a worldwide scale. Hopefully
the Genographic project will do better.
They are just maps of where haplogroups were 500 years ago ...
no discussion. They are at
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/World ... psMaps.pdf
Doug McDonald
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
Dora Smith wrote:
I would be too. He had several generations of male line
descendants ... and these folks tended to spread their
seed rather farther than their wife's bed. BUT ... we have
no documentation of any of these bastards with lines to today.
And it is very clear that all the legitimate male lines died out.
It is also true that there are no known all male lines from
his oldest known male line ancestor, St. Arnulf, Bishop of Metz.
Just to note for the DNA people, St. Arnulf is in fact the
earliest truly proven continental/English (as opposed to
Scottish or Welsh) person with gapless lines to today.
This is s.g.m. .... everybody here should know this
by heart!! If it were a DNA mailing list, this explanation might
be new news ... not here.
Doug McDonald
I'd be astounded if no male lines to Charlemagne.
I would be too. He had several generations of male line
descendants ... and these folks tended to spread their
seed rather farther than their wife's bed. BUT ... we have
no documentation of any of these bastards with lines to today.
And it is very clear that all the legitimate male lines died out.
It is also true that there are no known all male lines from
his oldest known male line ancestor, St. Arnulf, Bishop of Metz.
Just to note for the DNA people, St. Arnulf is in fact the
earliest truly proven continental/English (as opposed to
Scottish or Welsh) person with gapless lines to today.
This is s.g.m. .... everybody here should know this
by heart!! If it were a DNA mailing list, this explanation might
be new news ... not here.
Doug McDonald
-
Andrew and Inge
RE: Jefferson & DNA
Hi Doug
Nice to hear from you in a different forum. Just for form's sake I note that
the post you respond to was one I also responded to, not one I wrote.
Concerning your map, is K really so common in New Guinea or am I reading it
wrong?
Regards
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug McDonald [mailto:mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu]
Sent: Monday, 21 May 2007 3:17 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Jefferson & DNA
Andrew and Inge wrote:
I have prepared maps of where they are today. T...
Nice to hear from you in a different forum. Just for form's sake I note that
the post you respond to was one I also responded to, not one I wrote.
Concerning your map, is K really so common in New Guinea or am I reading it
wrong?
Regards
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug McDonald [mailto:mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu]
Sent: Monday, 21 May 2007 3:17 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Jefferson & DNA
Andrew and Inge wrote:
Thank you for an informative post. Do you know if there is a
publication or website that simply lists the known haplogroups, both
mitochondrial and Y, with explanations of where they are found and
their time depth in given areas - in well-translated "lay"?
I have prepared maps of where they are today. T...
-
Gjest
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
On May 21, 6:27 am, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
wrote:
Most of the male bastard lines from Charlemagne are known as well
since descent from Charlemagne has always been a matter of status. It
is, of course, probable that some bastard lines are not presently
known but what are the chances that any one of them has been
paternally maintained? Not very good, I would think. In any case, how
would anyone in Jefferson's time be knowledgeable about obscure
bastard lines from Charlemagne that have since been lost? Bronwen
wrote:
Dora Smith wrote:
I'd be astounded if no male lines to Charlemagne.
I would be too. He had several generations of male line
descendants ... and these folks tended to spread their
seed rather farther than their wife's bed. BUT ... we have
no documentation of any of these bastards with lines to today.
And it is very clear that all the legitimate male lines died out.
Most of the male bastard lines from Charlemagne are known as well
since descent from Charlemagne has always been a matter of status. It
is, of course, probable that some bastard lines are not presently
known but what are the chances that any one of them has been
paternally maintained? Not very good, I would think. In any case, how
would anyone in Jefferson's time be knowledgeable about obscure
bastard lines from Charlemagne that have since been lost? Bronwen
-
WJhonson
Re: Fw: Adalbert Comte de Longwy, Duke of Upper-Lorraine
In a message dated 05/20/07 15:25:47 Pacific Standard Time, farmerie@interfold.com writes:
Then in 2000, he published a brief note in which he admitted that he
had misinterpreted the sources, and that there is no evidence to
suggest that either had a connection to Lorraine.
At first I simply placed a {{fact}} tag in the article for Adalbert. But then I reviewed what AR8 says about Stepanie and quoted and cited the full conflict.
Todd, if you could give a citation to where he retracts his identification of Stephanies' parents I'll update the Wikipedia article with that as well.
Thanks
Will Johnson
Then in 2000, he published a brief note in which he admitted that he
had misinterpreted the sources, and that there is no evidence to
suggest that either had a connection to Lorraine.
At first I simply placed a {{fact}} tag in the article for Adalbert. But then I reviewed what AR8 says about Stepanie and quoted and cited the full conflict.
Todd, if you could give a citation to where he retracts his identification of Stephanies' parents I'll update the Wikipedia article with that as well.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Keith's of Inverugie
As we know, the mere issue that a person is married, does not prove that they are an adult. However if the charter was issued by his own hand, that should prove at least that he was an adult at that time (1476). That doesn't show that Gilbert his father was married by 1420 however.
Rather if William was an adult by 1476, then he could have been born as late as 1455. So the line still works as stated.
Will Johnson
Rather if William was an adult by 1476, then he could have been born as late as 1455. So the line still works as stated.
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Fw: Adalbert Comte de Longwy, Duke of Upper-Lorraine
<<In a message dated 05/21/07 15:50:49 Pacific Standard Time, farmerie@interfold.com writes:
While you are at it, how about putting this in (and taking my name out
of) the William I, Count of Burgundy article. >>
Done! I updated both articles, Adalbert, Duke of Lorraine and William, Count of Burgundy with Szabolics retraction, and I removed your name.
Will
While you are at it, how about putting this in (and taking my name out
of) the William I, Count of Burgundy article. >>
Done! I updated both articles, Adalbert, Duke of Lorraine and William, Count of Burgundy with Szabolics retraction, and I removed your name.
Will
-
Dora Smith
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
I don't know who was first to establish this, but apparently the Monticello
people are quite hooked on the idea.
Idea is at face value silly, so I'm not right up on its roots.
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.465 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 11:56 AM
people are quite hooked on the idea.
Idea is at face value silly, so I'm not right up on its roots.
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
The Carolingians were a very special family and even illegitimate children
and the lines of younger sons were recorded.
As far as I know the last Carolingian was a woman ten generations removed
from Charlemagne, Adelaide Countess of Vermandois and Valois who died
about 1120/1124. If you go to my website call up Charlemagne and ask for
his male line descendants, you will see what happened to his male line
descendants.
I would say all modern royalty are descended from Charlemagne---many times
over----but none are in the male line.
Who established that Thomas Jefferson descends from Charlemagne in a
strict male line? Burke's Presidential Families starts the Jefferson line
with
Samuel Jeaffreson---died after 23 October 1590
/
John Jeaffreon
/
Samuel Jeaffreson, who emigrated to the West-Indies
/
Samuel Jeaffreson
/
Thomas JEFFERSON
/
Thomas Jefferson born 1679 or 1680 died after 1725 (probably 1731)
/
Peter Jefferson
/
President Thomas Jefferson
Jeaffreson is how they give the first generations, Jeaffre and Jeffrey to
sound very different.. I do not know when Thomas Jefferson (son of Samuel
Jeaffreson) changed the spelling of his suyrname, but I guess if would be
after 1650 and he was the third generation in the West Indies and USA,
according to Burke's the first of the male line lived in Pettistree near
Woodbridge, Suffolk Then to find Jeffersons in England with the same DNA
as the American Jeaffresons is quite a find.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
I'd be astounded if no male lines to Charlemagne. All modern royalty
are descended from him many times over. But it's possible. Most
medieval royal lines arose as warlords who married females from earlier
noble lines to establish legitmacy. But did noone have younger sons?
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
lostcooper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179714117.017345.281070@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 5:48 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
What? Because Jefferson was descended from the Phoenicians, Charlemagne
must
also be? Since when is Jefferson's male line Carolingian?
Has that been established?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villan...@austin.rr.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history,
alt.history.colonial,alt.history, soc.history.war.us-revolution
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
To start with, LOL.
Seehttp://phoenicia.org/genetics.html, and
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html Jefferson's DNA proves that
Charlemagne was descended from the Phoenicians, because Jefferson was
descended from the Phoenicians, and we know he was descended from
Charlemagne. The Lebanese have somehow been proven to have
"Phoenician"
genetic markers. The Phoenicians are a very mysterious people who
are the
granddaddies of us all. Eyes rolling! They cursed, and
everything!
These people have Phoenicians on the brain. However, apparently
Spencer
Wells picked up on it. I get the idea the he apparently thinks
Jefferson's DNA has something to do with Phoenicians. Though I've
yet to
actually verify that he thinks such a thing, and clearly the people
who
quote him here are over the edge off the deep end. Wells is not
the
most intellectually rigorous person in the world, but .... ?
So I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.
Phoenicia was a little state in the northwestern corner of Palestine,
where Lebanon is now. Only Lebanon covers more territory. Vuhhy
mysterious why the Lebanese should be genetically similar to
"Phoenicians", however we know what sort of DNA they had.
But we can make some pretty good guesses what sort of DNA Phoenicians
would ahve had. THe people of Palestine at that time, and
particularly
northwestern Palestine, were a mixture of northwest Semitic,
proto-Indo-European, Hurrian (Asiatic), and Indo-Aryan.
The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean. Ummm,
that would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of
proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people, and by the time they'd
spread around enough some Middle Eastern as well. The Sea Peoples
took
over parts of Anatolia, and parts of southwestern Palestine, and they
included the Myceneans.
I honestly don't think the Phoenicians got very far in very large
numbers.
Not impossible they traded with Spain and Britain, as they were
merchants
and traders and trade networks went all over in their time; but they
sure
didn't supplant the local populations or whatever.
On the other hand, Joblin et al present clear evidence of a genetic
trail
leading through Egypt and North Africa to Spain, of people who are
close
genetic matches (atleast with 8 markers), of Thomas Jefferson.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernu...@yahoo.com
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-.net
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Maybe I missed something but I was under the impression that there are
no male lines to Charlemagne that would have lived during Jefferson's
time. Anyway, back to bed, Leo! You need your rest. Best, Bronwen
-------------------------------
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
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.465 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 11:56 AM
-
Dora Smith
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
Probably the correct version doesn't have Thomas JEfferson's male line going
through Welsh royalty to Charlemagne.
LOL!
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.465 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 11:56 AM
through Welsh royalty to Charlemagne.
LOL!
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
See in between
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
Exactly. You have the idea, Leo. LOL!
Apparently Thomas Jefferson knew who his grandfather was but noone has
ever proven how the family got to Virginia.
----I do not know how reliable Burke's are with the male line ancestry of
President Thomas Jefferson but they maintained that
Samuelo Jeaffreson, who migrated to the West Indies, died died at St.Kitts
12 December 1649
his son
Samuel Jeaffreson went with his father to the West Indies but moved to
Antigua ca.1669
his son
Thomas Jefferson moved to Virginia
Gary Boyd Roberts does not give the early generations as displayed by
Burke's. Who is correct?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
He related a family tradition that
his family came to this country from Wales. So the way I understand it,
noone has any documentation as to who Thomas Jefferson's emigrant
ancestor was, and a weak tradition about coming from Wales.
I didn't follow it exactly because of course it's speculative genealogy.
The listowner of the DNA-genealogy list, who is one of the most
intelligent and objective people I know, except for a slight tendency to
get completely carried away about those Phoenicians, did follow it,
closely, and she reported that the link of the first known Thomas
Jefferson ancestor with the royal lineage is completely undocumented. No
surprise there.
But the Monticello people are convinced the royal ancestry is genuine.
Since Thomas Jefferson is descended from Charlemagne, and we "know" that
his male line was Phoenician, which is of course nonsense, we now know
that Charlemagne's male line was Phoenician.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.2431.1179708522.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
What? Because Jefferson was descended from the Phoenicians, Charlemagne
must also be? Since when is Jefferson's male line Carolingian?
Has that been established?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history,
alt.history.colonial,alt.history, soc.history.war.us-revolution
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
To start with, LOL.
See http://phoenicia.org/genetics.html, and
http://phoenicia.org/jefferson.html Jefferson's DNA proves that
Charlemagne was descended from the Phoenicians, because Jefferson was
descended from the Phoenicians, and we know he was descended from
Charlemagne. The Lebanese have somehow been proven to have
"Phoenician" genetic markers. The Phoenicians are a very mysterious
people who are the granddaddies of us all. Eyes rolling! They
cursed, and everything!
These people have Phoenicians on the brain. However, apparently
Spencer Wells picked up on it. I get the idea the he apparently
thinks Jefferson's DNA has something to do with Phoenicians. Though
I've yet to actually verify that he thinks such a thing, and clearly
the people who quote him here are over the edge off the deep end.
Wells is not the most intellectually rigorous person in the world, but
.... ?
So I thought I'd better point out a couple of things.
Phoenicia was a little state in the northwestern corner of Palestine,
where Lebanon is now. Only Lebanon covers more territory. Vuhhy
mysterious why the Lebanese should be genetically similar to
"Phoenicians", however we know what sort of DNA they had.
But we can make some pretty good guesses what sort of DNA Phoenicians
would ahve had. THe people of Palestine at that time, and
particularly northwestern Palestine, were a mixture of northwest
Semitic, proto-Indo-European, Hurrian (Asiatic), and Indo-Aryan.
The genetic mythology seems to be that Phoenicians formed large
Indo-European or whatever colonies all along the Mediterranean. Ummm,
that would have been the Sea Peoples, who were a mixture of
proto-Indo-European and Indo-European people, and by the time they'd
spread around enough some Middle Eastern as well. The Sea Peoples
took over parts of Anatolia, and parts of southwestern Palestine, and
they included the Myceneans.
I honestly don't think the Phoenicians got very far in very large
numbers. Not impossible they traded with Spain and Britain, as they
were merchants and traders and trade networks went all over in their
time; but they sure didn't supplant the local populations or whatever.
On the other hand, Joblin et al present clear evidence of a genetic
trail leading through Egypt and North Africa to Spain, of people who
are close genetic matches (atleast with 8 markers), of Thomas
Jefferson.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
tiggernut24@yahoo.com
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-.net
-------------------------------
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
-------------------------------
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
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.465 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release Date: 4/21/2007 11:56 AM
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
On May 22, 11:17 am, "Dora Smith" <villan...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
The Monticello Association does not appear to maintain that Jefferson
was an agnatic descendant of Charlemagne - see the article by the
official historian Robert Coolidge at
http://www.monticello-assoc.org/articles/medieval.html
Note that he says "It is a summary account of researches into this
subject which were not intended to be exhaustive, since the author
claims no expertise in genealogy" and later "The Jefferson line of
T. .J.'s ancestors has been traced back to the thirteenth century ,
but not with certainty, in the _Collected Papers_, ch. 3. There are
however at least five lines which can be traced with far more
certainty from two of their wives, Jane Randolph (T .J. 's mother) and
Mary Brinch (his great-grandmother )".
The descent from Charlemange through the counts of Vermandois is not
agnatic and indeed not remarkable at all for an 18th-century
individual of European ancestry.
Peter Stewart
I don't know who was first to establish this, but apparently the Monticello
people are quite hooked on the idea.
Idea is at face value silly, so I'm not right up on its roots.
The Monticello Association does not appear to maintain that Jefferson
was an agnatic descendant of Charlemagne - see the article by the
official historian Robert Coolidge at
http://www.monticello-assoc.org/articles/medieval.html
Note that he says "It is a summary account of researches into this
subject which were not intended to be exhaustive, since the author
claims no expertise in genealogy" and later "The Jefferson line of
T. .J.'s ancestors has been traced back to the thirteenth century ,
but not with certainty, in the _Collected Papers_, ch. 3. There are
however at least five lines which can be traced with far more
certainty from two of their wives, Jane Randolph (T .J. 's mother) and
Mary Brinch (his great-grandmother )".
The descent from Charlemange through the counts of Vermandois is not
agnatic and indeed not remarkable at all for an 18th-century
individual of European ancestry.
Peter Stewart
-
WJhonson
Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh h
This thread got me interested to see how many descents *I* have from Charlemagne, so I made this page
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... harlemagne
today, which shows that just in the first four generations I have 30 unique descents.
I didn't go beyond four generations because the page is already a bit long just with this much. Maybe at some point I'll make separate pages for each descent.
Will Johnson
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... harlemagne
today, which shows that just in the first four generations I have 30 unique descents.
I didn't go beyond four generations because the page is already a bit long just with this much. Maybe at some point I'll make separate pages for each descent.
Will Johnson
-
Ken Ozanne
Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 547
On 22/5/07 17:05, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:
Will,
I went through that exercise a year or so back. I have over 45000
distinct descents from Charlemagne and the game really wasn't worth the
candle.
Best,
Ken
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:
From: WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 19:32:55 -0700
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Jefferson and Charlemagne, Phoenician descendants - uh huh
This thread got me interested to see how many descents *I* have from
Charlemagne, so I made this page
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... harlemagne
today, which shows that just in the first four generations I have 30 unique
descents.
I didn't go beyond four generations because the page is already a bit long
just with this much. Maybe at some point I'll make separate pages for each
descent.
Will Johnson
Will,
I went through that exercise a year or so back. I have over 45000
distinct descents from Charlemagne and the game really wasn't worth the
candle.
Best,
Ken
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Jefferson & DNA
Andrew and Inge wrote:
Y Chromosome group K is common in New Guinea. mtDNA group K
is not (the tannish-yellowish mtDNA pie slice in New Guinea
is Q, not K).
Note that the Y chromosome K in New Guinea is not K2.
Doug McDonald
Hi Doug
Nice to hear from you in a different forum. Just for form's sake I note that
the post you respond to was one I also responded to, not one I wrote.
Concerning your map, is K really so common in New Guinea or am I reading it
wrong?
Y Chromosome group K is common in New Guinea. mtDNA group K
is not (the tannish-yellowish mtDNA pie slice in New Guinea
is Q, not K).
Note that the Y chromosome K in New Guinea is not K2.
Doug McDonald
-
WJhonson
Re: FW: DNA question
<<In a message dated 05/22/07 13:08:17 Pacific Standard Time, bclagett@cov.com writes:
You inherit genetic material from each parent, each grandparent, each great-grandparent.
Not knowing *how to seperate* the material is quite different from not having any of it.
The only reason the pure-male and pure-female lines are used is because they are easy to seperate, not because the rest of the line doesn't exist in your DNA. All the lines exist in you.
Will Johnson
Doesn't it follow that of our 62 great-great-great grandparents other
than the
pure male and pure female lines, there are least 18 from whom we can
inherit no DNA whatever, and that we cannot know which ancestors these
are?
You inherit genetic material from each parent, each grandparent, each great-grandparent.
Not knowing *how to seperate* the material is quite different from not having any of it.
The only reason the pure-male and pure-female lines are used is because they are easy to seperate, not because the rest of the line doesn't exist in your DNA. All the lines exist in you.
Will Johnson
-
John Watson
Re: Sir John FitzWilliam, son of Isabel Deincourt
On May 23, 10:19 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
He wasn't once a knight, but three times a knight, lucky feller
Regards,
John
Tuesday, 22 May, 2007
"Demise by John son of Sir William, Knt. Knt., Knt."
He wasn't once a knight, but three times a knight, lucky feller
Regards,
John
-
John Watson
Re: Sir John FitzWilliam, son of Isabel Deincourt
On May 23, 10:19 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
He wasn't once a knight, but three times a knight, lucky feller
Regards,
John
Tuesday, 22 May, 2007
"Demise by John son of Sir William, Knt. Knt., Knt."
He wasn't once a knight, but three times a knight, lucky feller
Regards,
John
-
John Watson
Re: Sir John FitzWilliam, son of Isabel Deincourt
On May 23, 10:19 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
He wasn't once a knight, but three times a knight, lucky feller
Regards,
John
Tuesday, 22 May, 2007
"Demise by John son of Sir William, Knt. Knt., Knt."
He wasn't once a knight, but three times a knight, lucky feller
Regards,
John
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Sir John FitzWilliam, son of Isabel Deincourt
Dear John,
The text in fact gives 'Knt., Knt.' - I added one more in error.
Perhaps it is in fact a little late.....
At the same time, perhaps he was the gentleman Lionel Richie once
had in mind - assuming Jane de Reresby was three times a lady......
Cheers,
John
On May 22, 10:40?pm, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
The text in fact gives 'Knt., Knt.' - I added one more in error.
Perhaps it is in fact a little late.....
At the same time, perhaps he was the gentleman Lionel Richie once
had in mind - assuming Jane de Reresby was three times a lady......
Cheers,
John
On May 22, 10:40?pm, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 10:19 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:> Tuesday, 22 May, 2007
"Demise by John son of Sir William, Knt. Knt., Knt."
He wasn't once a knight, but three times a knight, lucky feller
Regards,
John
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Sir John FitzWilliam, son of Isabel Deincourt
Dear John,
The text in fact gives 'Knt., Knt.' - I added one more in error.
Perhaps it is in fact a little late.....
At the same time, perhaps he was the gentleman Lionel Richie once
had in mind - assuming Jane de Reresby was three times a lady......
Cheers,
John
On May 22, 10:40?pm, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
The text in fact gives 'Knt., Knt.' - I added one more in error.
Perhaps it is in fact a little late.....
At the same time, perhaps he was the gentleman Lionel Richie once
had in mind - assuming Jane de Reresby was three times a lady......
Cheers,
John
On May 22, 10:40?pm, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 23, 10:19 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:> Tuesday, 22 May, 2007
"Demise by John son of Sir William, Knt. Knt., Knt."
He wasn't once a knight, but three times a knight, lucky feller
Regards,
John
-
John Watson
Re: Sir John FitzWilliam, son of Isabel Deincourt
On May 23, 10:19 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
He wasn't once a knight, but three times a knight, lucky feller
Regards,
John
Tuesday, 22 May, 2007
"Demise by John son of Sir William, Knt. Knt., Knt."
He wasn't once a knight, but three times a knight, lucky feller
Regards,
John
-
John Watson
Re: Sir John FitzWilliam, son of Isabel Deincourt
On May 23, 10:19 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
He wasn't once a knight, but three times a knight, lucky feller
Regards,
John
Tuesday, 22 May, 2007
Demise by John son of Sir William, Knt. Knt., Knt.
He wasn't once a knight, but three times a knight, lucky feller
Regards,
John
-
Andrew and Inge
RE: DNA question
Except in the case of the Y chromosome (if you are male), and the
mitochondria, we do not inherit whole chromosomes, and therefore we inherit
bits and pieces from ancestors much further back than a few generations.
Instead the chromosomes recombine and you end up with chromosomes which are
mixed versions of those of your parents.
So we have 22 pairs of automsomal chromosomes, plus a pair of X chromosomes
if you are female or a single X and a single Y if you are male.
Best Regards
Andrew Lancaster
-----Original Message-----
From: Clagett, Brice [mailto:bclagett@cov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2007 9:41 PM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: FW: DNA question
mitochondria, we do not inherit whole chromosomes, and therefore we inherit
bits and pieces from ancestors much further back than a few generations.
Instead the chromosomes recombine and you end up with chromosomes which are
mixed versions of those of your parents.
So we have 22 pairs of automsomal chromosomes, plus a pair of X chromosomes
if you are female or a single X and a single Y if you are male.
Best Regards
Andrew Lancaster
-----Original Message-----
From: Clagett, Brice [mailto:bclagett@cov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2007 9:41 PM
To: gen-medieval-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: FW: DNA question
Each of us has 46 chromosomes, 23 from the father and 23 from the
mother.
We also get mitochondrial DNA from our mothers.
Six generations back, we had 64 ancestors, assuming no intermarriages.
Doesn't it follow that of our 62 great-great-great grandparents other
than the
pure male and pure female lines, there are least 18 from whom we can
inherit no DNA whatever, and that we cannot know which ancestors these
are?
And of the 1,022 ancestors four generations farther back other than
the
pure male and female lines, there are at
least 976 from whom we can inherit no genetic material whatever, with
a similar lack of knowledge as to which?
-
Andrew and Inge
RE: FW: DNA question
Hello Will
I don't think you can say that you inherit DNA from all your ancestors no
matter how far back you go. There are a finite number of snippets of genetic
material passed on each generation, although that number is of course much
larger than 46. It is a matter of probability but eventually if you go back
far enough there'll be someone in the family tree from whom nothing got down
as far as you. On the other hand as most of the genome is identical between
different people you'll still share most of your genome with that person.
Countering this effect though I suppose is the fact that as you go back many
generations you inevitably also start to have some people appearing multiple
times in your family tree. Because if you go back far enough, ALL the people
in your family tree will appear many times over. You'd think there'd be
something from everyone in this founder or bottleneck population.
Best Regards
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson [mailto:wjhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2007 10:18 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: FW: DNA question
You inherit genetic material from each parent, each grandparent, each
great-grandparent.
Not knowing *how to seperate* the material is quite different from not
having any of it.
The only reason the pure-male and pure-female lines are used is because they
are easy to seperate, not because the rest of the line doesn't exist in your
DNA. All the lines exist in you.
I don't think you can say that you inherit DNA from all your ancestors no
matter how far back you go. There are a finite number of snippets of genetic
material passed on each generation, although that number is of course much
larger than 46. It is a matter of probability but eventually if you go back
far enough there'll be someone in the family tree from whom nothing got down
as far as you. On the other hand as most of the genome is identical between
different people you'll still share most of your genome with that person.
Countering this effect though I suppose is the fact that as you go back many
generations you inevitably also start to have some people appearing multiple
times in your family tree. Because if you go back far enough, ALL the people
in your family tree will appear many times over. You'd think there'd be
something from everyone in this founder or bottleneck population.
Best Regards
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson [mailto:wjhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2007 10:18 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: FW: DNA question
You inherit genetic material from each parent, each grandparent, each
great-grandparent.
Not knowing *how to seperate* the material is quite different from not
having any of it.
The only reason the pure-male and pure-female lines are used is because they
are easy to seperate, not because the rest of the line doesn't exist in your
DNA. All the lines exist in you.
-
Gjest
Re: FW: DNA question
<<In a message dated 5/22/2007 10:46:37 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
andrew.en.inge@skynet.be writes:
I don't think you can say that you inherit DNA from all your ancestors no
matter how far back you go.>>
You're correct, we probably can only have recognizable characteristics for a
small number of generations. Say 4 perhaps. You have the eyes of your
grandmother, the nose of your great-grandfather... Or the inherited
predisposition to serial murder of your ... um that person we don't discuss.
I overreached in trying to counter the argument.
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
andrew.en.inge@skynet.be writes:
I don't think you can say that you inherit DNA from all your ancestors no
matter how far back you go.>>
You're correct, we probably can only have recognizable characteristics for a
small number of generations. Say 4 perhaps. You have the eyes of your
grandmother, the nose of your great-grandfather... Or the inherited
predisposition to serial murder of your ... um that person we don't discuss.
I overreached in trying to counter the argument.
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-
Gjest
Re: Bluet marriage of Isabel de Beaumont
On May 15, 6:48�am, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
Hello Newsgroup and Douglas,
Douglas have you been able to locate any further record or evidence
showing a possible marriage between Ralph Bloet II and Isabe de
Beaumont, the widow of Gilbert fitz Gilbert de Clare, if so I would
greatly appreciate your posting it. Thank you
Cheers,
Karen
Have you looked at the Public Records Office A2A Web pages?
Have a look at the bottom of the page at:
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/documentxs ... 1&styles...
A2A_com.xsl&keyword=bluet&properties=0601
Also their file
"SANFORD FAMILY OF NYMEHEAD, PERSONAL AND ESTATE PAPERS
Catalogue Ref. DD\SF"
Has quite a fewBluethits which may be of interest, although I have not
studied this page.
By the way, you may find these pages easier to follow by clicking the
Catalogue if full option at the top of the page.
Adrian
In a message dated 15/05/2007 04:02:09 GMT Standard Time, j...@millcomm.com
writes:
Do you know if theBluetfamily has been thoroughly researched? I have been
able to find only one record of a WilliamBluet, father of Elizabeth. The
History of Parliament (Wedgwood) says Elizabeth married John FitzJames (1443
- 1510, the son of John FitzJames and Alice Newburgh), but gives nothing
further on William, nor on hisBluetconnections.
Any suggestions?
Thank you.
Thomas Hertzel
Hello Newsgroup and Douglas,
Douglas have you been able to locate any further record or evidence
showing a possible marriage between Ralph Bloet II and Isabe de
Beaumont, the widow of Gilbert fitz Gilbert de Clare, if so I would
greatly appreciate your posting it. Thank you
Cheers,
Karen
-
John Brandon
Re: Contents of April _Register_
Muriel Brooks was the daughter of William and Ella (Shaw) Brooks of
Northside [i.e., Waterford], New York, and Enfield, Connecticut.
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 23 Mai, 16:04, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Douglas
Great find - I presume it was also somehow overlooked by the author of
PA3?
As was discussed here in detail when this was first raised some years
ago, it is at least as (if not more) likely that Ida the wife of
Walter Fitz Robert was the daughter of the younger William Longespee,
rather than his sister. This supposition has the added benefits of
(1) not having two sisters of the same name and (2) allowing for the
interpolation of the de Camville name on the basis of its having been
her mothers. The rule of thumb about years per generation can only
ever be at best a general guide, not a determinant for each case: my
father's oldest nephew, for instance, who bears the same surname as he
does, is nearly two years his senior; the consequent generational
matches would lead you to conclude (wrongly) he was my father's
brother.
In any case, this was dealt with very ably in 2002 by Rosie Bevan and
others here:
http://groups.google.de/group/soc.genea ... c3fe6a3aff
Best wishes, Michael
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 472 (sub FitzWalter) identified Ida, wife
of Walter Fitz Robert, as "daughter of William (Longespée), Earl of
Salisbury." Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 381-382 footnote k (sub
Salisbury) confuses Walter Fitz Robert's wife Ida with her sister of
the same name who married William de Beauchamp; it also misidentifies
Walter Fitz Robert's parentage.
The identification of Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, has
traditionally rested on a pedigree of the Longespée family found in
Lacock Priory cartulary. This pedigree lists the various children of
William Longespée I, Earl of Salisbury, and his wife, Ela of
Salisbury, including:
"Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem Walterus fil. Roberti, de qua
genuit Catherinam et Loricam, quæ velatæ erant apud Lacok; Elam, quam
duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua genuit Robertum")
[Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6(1) (1830): 501].
It is not known exactly why Ida Longespée is styled Ida de Camyle in
this record. I've assumed, however, that Ida may have had a brief
Camville marriage previous to her known marriage to Walter Fitz
Robert. If so, a previous Camvillle marriage would explain her use of
the Camville surname as a grown adult. Ida's older brother, William
Longespée II, is known, for example, to have married a member of the
Camville family.
Dear Douglas
Great find - I presume it was also somehow overlooked by the author of
PA3?
As was discussed here in detail when this was first raised some years
ago, it is at least as (if not more) likely that Ida the wife of
Walter Fitz Robert was the daughter of the younger William Longespee,
rather than his sister. This supposition has the added benefits of
(1) not having two sisters of the same name and (2) allowing for the
interpolation of the de Camville name on the basis of its having been
her mothers. The rule of thumb about years per generation can only
ever be at best a general guide, not a determinant for each case: my
father's oldest nephew, for instance, who bears the same surname as he
does, is nearly two years his senior; the consequent generational
matches would lead you to conclude (wrongly) he was my father's
brother.
In any case, this was dealt with very ably in 2002 by Rosie Bevan and
others here:
http://groups.google.de/group/soc.genea ... c3fe6a3aff
Best wishes, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 23 Mai, 16:04, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Douglas
Great find - I presume it was also somehow overlooked by the author of
PA3?
As was discussed here in detail when this was first raised some years
ago, it is at least as (if not more) likely that Ida the wife of
Walter Fitz Robert was the daughter of the younger William Longespee,
rather than his sister. This supposition has the added benefits of
(1) not having two sisters of the same name and (2) allowing for the
interpolation of the de Camville name on the basis of its having been
her mothers. The rule of thumb about years per generation can only
ever be at best a general guide, not a determinant for each case: my
father's oldest nephew, for instance, who bears the same surname as he
does, is nearly two years his senior; the consequent generational
matches would lead you to conclude (wrongly) he was my father's
brother.
In any case, this was dealt with very ably in 2002 by Rosie Bevan and
others here:
http://groups.google.de/group/soc.genea ... c3fe6a3aff
Best wishes, Michael
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 472 (sub FitzWalter) identified Ida, wife
of Walter Fitz Robert, as "daughter of William (Longespée), Earl of
Salisbury." Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 381-382 footnote k (sub
Salisbury) confuses Walter Fitz Robert's wife Ida with her sister of
the same name who married William de Beauchamp; it also misidentifies
Walter Fitz Robert's parentage.
The identification of Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, has
traditionally rested on a pedigree of the Longespée family found in
Lacock Priory cartulary. This pedigree lists the various children of
William Longespée I, Earl of Salisbury, and his wife, Ela of
Salisbury, including:
"Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem Walterus fil. Roberti, de qua
genuit Catherinam et Loricam, quæ velatæ erant apud Lacok; Elam, quam
duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua genuit Robertum")
[Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6(1) (1830): 501].
It is not known exactly why Ida Longespée is styled Ida de Camyle in
this record. I've assumed, however, that Ida may have had a brief
Camville marriage previous to her known marriage to Walter Fitz
Robert. If so, a previous Camvillle marriage would explain her use of
the Camville surname as a grown adult. Ida's older brother, William
Longespée II, is known, for example, to have married a member of the
Camville family.
Dear Douglas
Great find - I presume it was also somehow overlooked by the author of
PA3?
As was discussed here in detail when this was first raised some years
ago, it is at least as (if not more) likely that Ida the wife of
Walter Fitz Robert was the daughter of the younger William Longespee,
rather than his sister. This supposition has the added benefits of
(1) not having two sisters of the same name and (2) allowing for the
interpolation of the de Camville name on the basis of its having been
her mothers. The rule of thumb about years per generation can only
ever be at best a general guide, not a determinant for each case: my
father's oldest nephew, for instance, who bears the same surname as he
does, is nearly two years his senior; the consequent generational
matches would lead you to conclude (wrongly) he was my father's
brother.
In any case, this was dealt with very ably in 2002 by Rosie Bevan and
others here:
http://groups.google.de/group/soc.genea ... c3fe6a3aff
Best wishes, Michael
-
Larsy
Re: Elena Poniatowska, candidate for future ed. of RD600
But do you have anything mediaeval to contribute?
Of course not <laughs maniacally>.
-
Larsy
Re: Elena Poniatowska, candidate for future ed. of RD600
But do you have anything mediaeval to contribute?
Of course not <laughs maniacally>.
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Elena Poniatowska, candidate for future ed. of RD600
Larsy <ravinmaven2001@yahoo.com> 05/23/07 01:07PM
Who was that actress supposedly descended from a Polish King? Was it
Leelee Sobieski? She might be a candidate as well."
-----
Rula Lenska?
http://www.genealogics.org/ahnentafel.p ... erations=8
Tony Hoskins
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Roseing
"Roseing"
Must refer to Queen Isabella's longtime home, Castle *Rising*, in
Norfolk.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
Must refer to Queen Isabella's longtime home, Castle *Rising*, in
Norfolk.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Larsy
Re: Elena Poniatowska, candidate for future ed. of RD600
Hi Tony,
No I'm fairly sure it was Leelee Sobieski (see the webpage below where
she says her *ggg-uncle* was the king of Poland).
http://www.leeleesobieski.com/info/biography.html
So she may not be descended from a recent king any more than Elena P.,
but they were both from aristocratic families, and may well have some
remote royal line. Would be worth checking into, at least.
No I'm fairly sure it was Leelee Sobieski (see the webpage below where
she says her *ggg-uncle* was the king of Poland).
http://www.leeleesobieski.com/info/biography.html
So she may not be descended from a recent king any more than Elena P.,
but they were both from aristocratic families, and may well have some
remote royal line. Would be worth checking into, at least.
-
Gjest
Re: Say hello to Larsy Boy
On May 20, 12:28 am, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This, of course, was the fake name you adopted back in June, when you
posted material pretending to be someone who'd just popped in to the
group to offer some support for Douglas Richardson in the Echingham/
Baynton thread (18.6.2006, remember - you told us about how your
"mother-in-law" was descended from Peter Worden, and that your
genealogy books were all packed up for a move, and how "pretty darn
useful Richardson's books can be" &c &c). I wonder how many other
trolls and fly-bys you have been?
I am sure Douglas, who does not stoop to such subterfuge, will agree
that was a very poor show.
MA-R
Dear Listers,
I case some of y'all folks had not figured it out, Larsy is actually
John Brandon posting under another name. (Do people really check the
"NNTP-Posting-Host numbers" very much, or not? I was unsure about
that.)
But anyway, I'll be using the Larsy persona to post URL-only (content
free, as some would say) items.
This, of course, was the fake name you adopted back in June, when you
posted material pretending to be someone who'd just popped in to the
group to offer some support for Douglas Richardson in the Echingham/
Baynton thread (18.6.2006, remember - you told us about how your
"mother-in-law" was descended from Peter Worden, and that your
genealogy books were all packed up for a move, and how "pretty darn
useful Richardson's books can be" &c &c). I wonder how many other
trolls and fly-bys you have been?
I am sure Douglas, who does not stoop to such subterfuge, will agree
that was a very poor show.
MA-R
-
John Brandon
Re: Say hello to Larsy Boy
This, of course, was the fake name you adopted back in June, when you
posted material pretending to be someone who'd just popped in to the
group to offer some support for Douglas Richardson in the Echingham/
Baynton thread (18.6.2006, remember - you told us about how your
"mother-in-law" was descended from Peter Worden, and that your
genealogy books were all packed up for a move, and how "pretty darn
useful Richardson's books can be" &c &c). I wonder how many other
trolls and fly-bys you have been?
At least I am not a complete rogue who takes infinite pains to hide
all traces of my double or triple identity. How about you, Micheal?
I am sure Douglas, who does not stoop to such subterfuge, will agree
that was a very poor show.
I am sure that Douglas doesn't really care, if he ever even noticed or
knew.
-
Larsy
Re: Say hello to Larsy Boy
At least I am not a complete rogue who takes infinite pains to hide
all traces of my double or triple identity. How about you, Micheal?
In the interest of transparency, I'll list all the email addresses
I've used to post to this group:
1. MRGIFFORD@msn.com
2. starbuck95@hotmail.com
3. johnb@gwm.sc.edu
4. ravinmaven2001@yahoo.com (i.e., L'arsy)
There may have been one other (? something like "GiffordTemple") which
I used a few times in ca. 1999 or 2000.
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Taliaferro
See: Sir Anthony Wagner and F.S. Andrus, , "The Origin of the family of
Taliaferro," _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_ 77 (1969):
22-25.
The ancestor of the Virginia family, "Bartholomew Tallafer, Taliaferra,
Taliaferro, etc., a subject of the Duke of Venice, paid 20 shillings fir
Letters of Denization in England March 4, 1562."
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
Taliaferro," _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_ 77 (1969):
22-25.
The ancestor of the Virginia family, "Bartholomew Tallafer, Taliaferra,
Taliaferro, etc., a subject of the Duke of Venice, paid 20 shillings fir
Letters of Denization in England March 4, 1562."
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Meta
Re: Taliaferro
On May 24, 3:48 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
Thank you! However, on my second search just now I found the name
spelled Taliafarro. I'm assuming that it was anglicized?
See: Sir Anthony Wagner and F.S. Andrus, , "The Origin of the family of
Taliaferro," _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_ 77 (1969):
22-25.
The ancestor of the Virginia family, "Bartholomew Tallafer, Taliaferra,
Taliaferro, etc., a subject of the Duke of Venice, paid 20 shillings fir
Letters of Denization in England March 4, 1562."
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
Thank you! However, on my second search just now I found the name
spelled Taliafarro. I'm assuming that it was anglicized?
-
WJhonson
Re: Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walte
But Alan you neglected to point out the additional problem that Ida is supposd to have married William de Beauchamp, Lord of Bedford.
There is just a sole problem with the Lacock document, there are at least two problems.
There is just a sole problem with the Lacock document, there are at least two problems.
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Taliaferro
Yes, that was anglicized. The correct Italian would be "Tagliaferro".
Best wishes,
Tony
Thank you! However, on my second search just now I found the name
spelled Taliafarro. I'm assuming that it was anglicized?
-------------------------------
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
Best wishes,
Tony
Meta <metarella59@yahoo.com> 05/24/07 07:15PM
On May 24, 3:48 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
See: Sir Anthony Wagner and F.S. Andrus, , "The Origin of the family
of
Taliaferro," _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_ 77 (1969):
22-25.
The ancestor of the Virginia family, "Bartholomew Tallafer,
Taliaferra,
Taliaferro, etc., a subject of the Duke of Venice, paid 20 shillings
fir
Letters of Denization in England March 4, 1562."
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
Thank you! However, on my second search just now I found the name
spelled Taliafarro. I'm assuming that it was anglicized?
-------------------------------
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
-
Alan Grey
Re: Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walt
WJhonson wrote:
True, on both counts.
There was an Ida that married William de Beauchamp (being the widow of
Ralph de Somery, who d.s.p.). This could only be another Ida and
daughter of William (I) Longespee, as discussed on earlier threads, and
her omission from the Lacock document is usually explicable in terms of
compiler ignorance. To be fair to the compiler, though, he never
claimed that he was providing an exhaustive list of William's children
(or William and Ela's children, for that matter). Besides, I am unclear
as to the specific evidence that this Ida was Countess Ela's daughter
anyway ... perhaps she was an illegitimate(!?) daughter of William. The
fine of 1220 whereby William, Earl of Salisbury, granted the manor of
Belchamp, Essex to William de Beauchamp in marriage with his daughter,
Ida, who was the widow of Ralph de Somery [Essex Fines, Vol. 1 (1899),
pg. 58] simply proves that Ida was the daughter of William, not that she
was the daughter of William and Ela (depending, of course, on the right
by which William held Belchamp). Illegitimacy was no barrier to
receiving gifts (e.g., Richard I's "magnificent" gift of Countess Ela to
his bastard brother William Longespee in the first place). Besides, a
scenario whereby Ida is William's but not Ela's daughter has the
advantage of more easily explaining her early (first) marriage (compared
with her siblings), skirting the consanguinity problem with Ralph de
Somery (which only arises by relationship with Countess Ela), gives a
good reason for there being potentially two daughters of William (I)
named Ida, and helps explain how William managed to have so many
surviving children in the space of 20 child-bearing years of marriage to
a woman 12 years his junior while being overseas at war much of the time
(including being a prisoner). This is pure speculation ... I'm not
saying that any of this is "true". I tend to accept the interpretation
that Ida is a legitimate daughter, but just wish to emphasise that there
can be many explanations for the same facts.
Anyway, I digress. Naturally, there are other problems with the Lacock
document, among them the identification of the Countess Ela's ancestry
to the earls of "Rosmar". The problem really is the document's late
date, apparently mid-14th century (see VCH, Wilts, Vol. III, p.303) or
at least after 1291, since it names Nicholas Longespee as being Bishop
of Sarum, and he was not that until 1291. Nevertheless, even though the
compiler was not dealing with first-hand knowledge (so omissions and
mistakes could be expected), the information that is there is seems to
be, on the whole, quite robust.
Alan R Grey
But Alan you neglected to point out the additional problem that Ida is supposd to have married William de Beauchamp, Lord of Bedford.
There is just a sole problem with the Lacock document, there are at least two problems.
True, on both counts.
There was an Ida that married William de Beauchamp (being the widow of
Ralph de Somery, who d.s.p.). This could only be another Ida and
daughter of William (I) Longespee, as discussed on earlier threads, and
her omission from the Lacock document is usually explicable in terms of
compiler ignorance. To be fair to the compiler, though, he never
claimed that he was providing an exhaustive list of William's children
(or William and Ela's children, for that matter). Besides, I am unclear
as to the specific evidence that this Ida was Countess Ela's daughter
anyway ... perhaps she was an illegitimate(!?) daughter of William. The
fine of 1220 whereby William, Earl of Salisbury, granted the manor of
Belchamp, Essex to William de Beauchamp in marriage with his daughter,
Ida, who was the widow of Ralph de Somery [Essex Fines, Vol. 1 (1899),
pg. 58] simply proves that Ida was the daughter of William, not that she
was the daughter of William and Ela (depending, of course, on the right
by which William held Belchamp). Illegitimacy was no barrier to
receiving gifts (e.g., Richard I's "magnificent" gift of Countess Ela to
his bastard brother William Longespee in the first place). Besides, a
scenario whereby Ida is William's but not Ela's daughter has the
advantage of more easily explaining her early (first) marriage (compared
with her siblings), skirting the consanguinity problem with Ralph de
Somery (which only arises by relationship with Countess Ela), gives a
good reason for there being potentially two daughters of William (I)
named Ida, and helps explain how William managed to have so many
surviving children in the space of 20 child-bearing years of marriage to
a woman 12 years his junior while being overseas at war much of the time
(including being a prisoner). This is pure speculation ... I'm not
saying that any of this is "true". I tend to accept the interpretation
that Ida is a legitimate daughter, but just wish to emphasise that there
can be many explanations for the same facts.
Anyway, I digress. Naturally, there are other problems with the Lacock
document, among them the identification of the Countess Ela's ancestry
to the earls of "Rosmar". The problem really is the document's late
date, apparently mid-14th century (see VCH, Wilts, Vol. III, p.303) or
at least after 1291, since it names Nicholas Longespee as being Bishop
of Sarum, and he was not that until 1291. Nevertheless, even though the
compiler was not dealing with first-hand knowledge (so omissions and
mistakes could be expected), the information that is there is seems to
be, on the whole, quite robust.
Alan R Grey
-
Meta
Re: Taliaferro
Ah, yes, that did come up in one of my searches (Tagliaferro), just
wasn't sure how much truth there was to it and needed a second opinion
(or third). Once again, thank you! --Margaret
On May 24, 5:29 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
wasn't sure how much truth there was to it and needed a second opinion
(or third). Once again, thank you! --Margaret
On May 24, 5:29 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
Yes, that was anglicized. The correct Italian would be "Tagliaferro".
Best wishes,
Tony
Meta <metarell...@yahoo.com> 05/24/07 07:15PM
On May 24, 3:48 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
See: Sir Anthony Wagner and F.S. Andrus, , "The Origin of the family
of
Taliaferro," _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_ 77 (1969):
22-25.
The ancestor of the Virginia family, "Bartholomew Tallafer,
Taliaferra,
Taliaferro, etc., a subject of the Duke of Venice, paid 20 shillings
fir
Letters of Denization in England March 4, 1562."
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
Thank you! However, on my second search just now I found the name
spelled Taliafarro. I'm assuming that it was anglicized?
-
WJhonson
Re: Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Wal
I received a rather remarkable email privately from Mr Richardson in which among other remarks he chides me for not "thanking" him for his find. And stating, in conjuction that he "doesn't like freeloaders."
Now one might, like the document from the Lacock Priory, interpret that in various ways, but that way I choose to interpret it, is that Douglas, not content with addressing the logic of the argument, wishes to attack the persons in opposition instead.
The matter of the Lacock Priory document and it's problem was discussed *many years ago* and Douglas, has ignored that discussion entirely in this new thread, and keeps pounding the drum of *firm authority* on this issue, which, such authority, certainly does not exist in this document, nor in the purported *new* find he has made.
Not yet ready to admit the error he most recently made in not recognizing the word "mal", and then vanishing for a few months to appear later, again with no acknowledgement for that glaring error in one who lectures others on Latin, French, Spanish or Sanskrit as he will.
And now lecturing on internet-manners.
I will point out that Douglas is that same person who, par the course also tread by the interpid author of MedLands and his ilk, refuses to acknowledge the contributions of other authors on this list. This was pointed out some time ago, neither Douglas nor Charles Cawley nor their supporters EVER addressed the issue.
I'm sure those authors who've had their contributions *lifted* would appreciate acknowledgement of that along with a sincere effort to acknowledge those contributions in future works. That is what scholars do.
Douglas thank you for pointing out my lapse in manners for not *thanking* you for this *new* discovery, perhaps you could also thank all those people whose work has directly contributed to yours.
Will Johnson
Now one might, like the document from the Lacock Priory, interpret that in various ways, but that way I choose to interpret it, is that Douglas, not content with addressing the logic of the argument, wishes to attack the persons in opposition instead.
The matter of the Lacock Priory document and it's problem was discussed *many years ago* and Douglas, has ignored that discussion entirely in this new thread, and keeps pounding the drum of *firm authority* on this issue, which, such authority, certainly does not exist in this document, nor in the purported *new* find he has made.
Not yet ready to admit the error he most recently made in not recognizing the word "mal", and then vanishing for a few months to appear later, again with no acknowledgement for that glaring error in one who lectures others on Latin, French, Spanish or Sanskrit as he will.
And now lecturing on internet-manners.
I will point out that Douglas is that same person who, par the course also tread by the interpid author of MedLands and his ilk, refuses to acknowledge the contributions of other authors on this list. This was pointed out some time ago, neither Douglas nor Charles Cawley nor their supporters EVER addressed the issue.
I'm sure those authors who've had their contributions *lifted* would appreciate acknowledgement of that along with a sincere effort to acknowledge those contributions in future works. That is what scholars do.
Douglas thank you for pointing out my lapse in manners for not *thanking* you for this *new* discovery, perhaps you could also thank all those people whose work has directly contributed to yours.
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walte
<<In a message dated 05/25/07 07:35:52 Pacific Standard Time, royalancestry@msn.com writes:
As such, it is is highly unlikely
that Ela de Oddingseles was a daughter of William Longespée I and his
wife, Ela of Salisbury. It is fairly certain that Ela of Salisbury
was born c.1191. >>
Gerald Paget as quoted by Leo here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO
seems to think your date is wrong.
Maybe it's based on something or maybe not.
Will Johnson
As such, it is is highly unlikely
that Ela de Oddingseles was a daughter of William Longespée I and his
wife, Ela of Salisbury. It is fairly certain that Ela of Salisbury
was born c.1191. >>
Gerald Paget as quoted by Leo here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO
seems to think your date is wrong.
Maybe it's based on something or maybe not.
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: RPA correction: Alice, wife of Maurice de Caunton
On another note, in a tribute to DR I've moved my jumppage for the "Corrections and Additions to [his edition of] PA" to my new[er] wiki-style workspace here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... t_Ancestry
I've added your Oddingseles family correction, but as I do not myself own a copy of PA I don't know on which page it sits. If anyone has that, if you could let me know I'll update the jumppage with that page number.
Thanks
Will Johnson
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... t_Ancestry
I've added your Oddingseles family correction, but as I do not myself own a copy of PA I don't know on which page it sits. If anyone has that, if you could let me know I'll update the jumppage with that page number.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Gilbert Keith and Janet Graham
In a thread
Subj: Re: SP Correction: Sir William Douglas and his Lindsay wife [II of II]
Date: 5/13/06
John Ravilous in discussing the Patrick, Lord Graham and his wife Christian Erskine gives their children but without dates for all but the son William who he states died in 1472.
Here is another document which dates Patrick and Christian's daughter Janet
"Keith: Sintoun, Inverugy, Ludquhon, Ravinscraig", by Donald M Mackintosh, FSA Scot. 1998. McCormick, SC
page 13 "An obligation was made at Edinburgh on 16 June 1455 in which Patrick, Lord Graham promised to pay to his 'well belovit Gilbert of Keith of Inrugy in seven hundreth merks of usuall money of Scotland for band of mariage treatit betuixt the said Gilbert and Janet my dochter.' His cautioners were stated as being Sir Wm., Earl of Erroll and Sir Patrick Lyoun, Lord Glammis." (citing Ant A & B, II, 401)
Will Johnson
Subj: Re: SP Correction: Sir William Douglas and his Lindsay wife [II of II]
Date: 5/13/06
John Ravilous in discussing the Patrick, Lord Graham and his wife Christian Erskine gives their children but without dates for all but the son William who he states died in 1472.
Here is another document which dates Patrick and Christian's daughter Janet
"Keith: Sintoun, Inverugy, Ludquhon, Ravinscraig", by Donald M Mackintosh, FSA Scot. 1998. McCormick, SC
page 13 "An obligation was made at Edinburgh on 16 June 1455 in which Patrick, Lord Graham promised to pay to his 'well belovit Gilbert of Keith of Inrugy in seven hundreth merks of usuall money of Scotland for band of mariage treatit betuixt the said Gilbert and Janet my dochter.' His cautioners were stated as being Sir Wm., Earl of Erroll and Sir Patrick Lyoun, Lord Glammis." (citing Ant A & B, II, 401)
Will Johnson
-
WJhonson
Re: Gilbert Keith and Janet Graham
On Leo's excellent site here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO
we see that Burke's Peerage 1938 has assigned as the father of that
Mary Keith who married William Sinclair, 2nd earl of Caithness
as one Sir William Keith
No date is there given for the marriage. I now present it.
"Keith: Sintoun, Inverugy, Ludquhon, Ravinscraig", by Donald M Mackintosh, FSA Scot. 1998. McCormick, SC
page 14 "An indenture was made 14 Jul 1477 between Sir Gilbert, William Earl of Caithness and William Sinclair his son concerning the marriage of William Sinclair and Mary Keith, with 800 merks of tocher." (citing GD 54/1/22)
Will Johnson
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 6&tree=LEO
we see that Burke's Peerage 1938 has assigned as the father of that
Mary Keith who married William Sinclair, 2nd earl of Caithness
as one Sir William Keith
No date is there given for the marriage. I now present it.
"Keith: Sintoun, Inverugy, Ludquhon, Ravinscraig", by Donald M Mackintosh, FSA Scot. 1998. McCormick, SC
page 14 "An indenture was made 14 Jul 1477 between Sir Gilbert, William Earl of Caithness and William Sinclair his son concerning the marriage of William Sinclair and Mary Keith, with 800 merks of tocher." (citing GD 54/1/22)
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Lihou & associated families of Guernsey
<<In a message dated 5/26/2007 11:22:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
Bertrane is my 7th great grandmother, and I descend from her thus:
Esther Bonamy b. 1703 in Guernsey m. Thomas Ollivier
Many of these Guernsey ancestors were Huguenot refugees who fled France
after the revocation of the edict of Nantes>>
Can you take the line back to France for us?
Thanks
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
Bertrane is my 7th great grandmother, and I descend from her thus:
Esther Bonamy b. 1703 in Guernsey m. Thomas Ollivier
Many of these Guernsey ancestors were Huguenot refugees who fled France
after the revocation of the edict of Nantes>>
Can you take the line back to France for us?
Thanks
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-
Gjest
Re: RPA addition: Margery, wife of William Moleyns (d 1425)
On 27 Mai, 22:21, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
Recte: p 504
Recte: an addition, not a correction.
MA-R
This is an addition to RPA, p 507, where she is called "Margery ____".
Recte: p 504
(It would also, I think, be a correction to CP sub Moleyns, although I
haven't yet checked this).
Recte: an addition, not a correction.
MA-R
-
taf
Re: Kings of Vestfold & Jutland
On May 27, 9:28 am, Thomas Benjamin Hertzel <j...@millcomm.com> wrote:
Almost certainly not. ES is far afield here, while Moriarty
represents a synthesis of skaldic poetry, 12th and 13th century (and
later) Icelandic histories, and modern hypotheses with regard to these
sources.
The Ynglingatal was a skaldic poem attributed to Þjóðólfr of Hvinir, a
court poet of Ragnvald, King of Vestfold. The original has been lost,
but its parts have been summarized and quoted by later sources, in
particular Ynglingasaga. It Links king Ragnvald to the founders of
Vestfold, and before that to the Ynglinga kings of Sweden, and on back
to Njord, adopted son of Odin. The early part is typical of the heroic
age genealogy - intent of telling a story, linking the subject to
heroic ancestors (as opposed to authentic ancestry), with alliteration
and even numbers of generations (30, in this case, broken into 10s).
However, it is generally accepted that Ragnvald's immediate ancestry
would have been authentically presented (for legal reasons, it is
argued, 5 generations would have been accurately recorded). The
proximate generations are:
Olaf Treefeller (founder of Vestfold)
Halfdan Whiteleg, son of Olaf
Eystein son of Halfdan (who also had a son Godrod)
Halfdan, son of Eystein
Godrod the Magnificent, son of Halfdan
Olaf Girstedalf, son of Godrod
Ragnvald, son of Olaf
About 1900, a scholar suggested that the mention of Godrod, son of
Halfdan Whiteleg, seems out of place, there being no further
information provided. He speculated that the Ynglingasaga author has
confused Ynglingatal, and that Godrod the Magnificent was actually
this named son of Whiteleg, not his great grandson.
This is the reconstruction that Moriarty followed, although
specialists tend to maintain the original pedigree (although they
dismiss all of the marriages as being formulaic). Before moving on, I
should address several other points. Your Harald in the first list
seems out of place - I am guessing that it comes from an attempt to
harmonize two distinct theories. Likewise, none of these ruled at
"Haithabu". This is Hedeby, the center of the earliest documented
Danish state. The linkage comes from an attempt by a modern author to
identify Godrod the Magnificent with a Danish king Godfried who
appears in the Frankish annals, and hence uniting that kingdom with
the Norwegian Vestfold principality. (Note that even this unifying
theory makes Godred/Godfried an interloper, so calling his father a
king of Haithabu (Hedeby) is nonsense.) This theory is problematic, as
Godrod and Godfried are distinct names. As to Geva, this is from
Frankish sources that tell of Widukind taking refuge in the north, and
marrying the sister of the king. Where she fits is simply a matter of
chronological speculation. In the second list, Olaf did not rule at
Jutland (again, this comes from trying to identify two people named
Olaf in different places as the same individual).
Finally, the link between king Ragnvald and jarl Ragnvald. The former
was patron of Þjóðólfr, but (according to modern historians reading
between the lines in some of the Icelandic histories) was displaced by
a new group, represented by his contemporary (and in later histories,
his first cousin) Harald Fairhair (for whom Þjóðólfr later wrote). The
latter, as son of Eystein Glumra, comes from Orkneyingasaga. No
mention is made of his wife. He was a contemporary of Fairhair, and
his sons and Fairhair's sons are said to have carried out a private
war in the Hebrides (as told in Heimskringla). I know of nothing other
than recent work that suggest Eystein married a daughter of king
Ragnvald, or that Ragnvald had any descendants, for that matter. It
looks to me like someone wanted to tie the Norman rulers (who the
Orkneyingasaga connects to jarl Ragnvald) into the Ynglingatal kings.
taf
Hello Group,
Can anyone tell me if these two lines are correct:
Almost certainly not. ES is far afield here, while Moriarty
represents a synthesis of skaldic poetry, 12th and 13th century (and
later) Icelandic histories, and modern hypotheses with regard to these
sources.
1.
Halfdan "White Leg"
Eystein
Harold, King of Haithabu
Halfdan, King of Haithabu
Moriarity (170) gives the first two lines of this descent. ES (II 104)
starts with #3, but without parents. Moriarity shows a sister Geva to
Halfdan (#3). ES also gives a sister Geva to Harold, but again, without
linking them to the earlier generations.
2.
Halfdan "White Leg"
Gudröd, King of Vestfold
Olaf II, King of Jutland
Ragenwald
Aseda, married Eystein Glumra
Ragenwald "the Wise"
I know I'm on shakier ground here. Again, Moriarity 170 gives the first two
in this descent, and ES only confirms that Ragenwald (#6) was the son of
Eystein Glumra, but not of Aseda of this descent. The intervening
generations come from Turton and Royalty for Commoners... Is there a more
reliable source that can confirm or refute this?
The Ynglingatal was a skaldic poem attributed to Þjóðólfr of Hvinir, a
court poet of Ragnvald, King of Vestfold. The original has been lost,
but its parts have been summarized and quoted by later sources, in
particular Ynglingasaga. It Links king Ragnvald to the founders of
Vestfold, and before that to the Ynglinga kings of Sweden, and on back
to Njord, adopted son of Odin. The early part is typical of the heroic
age genealogy - intent of telling a story, linking the subject to
heroic ancestors (as opposed to authentic ancestry), with alliteration
and even numbers of generations (30, in this case, broken into 10s).
However, it is generally accepted that Ragnvald's immediate ancestry
would have been authentically presented (for legal reasons, it is
argued, 5 generations would have been accurately recorded). The
proximate generations are:
Olaf Treefeller (founder of Vestfold)
Halfdan Whiteleg, son of Olaf
Eystein son of Halfdan (who also had a son Godrod)
Halfdan, son of Eystein
Godrod the Magnificent, son of Halfdan
Olaf Girstedalf, son of Godrod
Ragnvald, son of Olaf
About 1900, a scholar suggested that the mention of Godrod, son of
Halfdan Whiteleg, seems out of place, there being no further
information provided. He speculated that the Ynglingasaga author has
confused Ynglingatal, and that Godrod the Magnificent was actually
this named son of Whiteleg, not his great grandson.
This is the reconstruction that Moriarty followed, although
specialists tend to maintain the original pedigree (although they
dismiss all of the marriages as being formulaic). Before moving on, I
should address several other points. Your Harald in the first list
seems out of place - I am guessing that it comes from an attempt to
harmonize two distinct theories. Likewise, none of these ruled at
"Haithabu". This is Hedeby, the center of the earliest documented
Danish state. The linkage comes from an attempt by a modern author to
identify Godrod the Magnificent with a Danish king Godfried who
appears in the Frankish annals, and hence uniting that kingdom with
the Norwegian Vestfold principality. (Note that even this unifying
theory makes Godred/Godfried an interloper, so calling his father a
king of Haithabu (Hedeby) is nonsense.) This theory is problematic, as
Godrod and Godfried are distinct names. As to Geva, this is from
Frankish sources that tell of Widukind taking refuge in the north, and
marrying the sister of the king. Where she fits is simply a matter of
chronological speculation. In the second list, Olaf did not rule at
Jutland (again, this comes from trying to identify two people named
Olaf in different places as the same individual).
Finally, the link between king Ragnvald and jarl Ragnvald. The former
was patron of Þjóðólfr, but (according to modern historians reading
between the lines in some of the Icelandic histories) was displaced by
a new group, represented by his contemporary (and in later histories,
his first cousin) Harald Fairhair (for whom Þjóðólfr later wrote). The
latter, as son of Eystein Glumra, comes from Orkneyingasaga. No
mention is made of his wife. He was a contemporary of Fairhair, and
his sons and Fairhair's sons are said to have carried out a private
war in the Hebrides (as told in Heimskringla). I know of nothing other
than recent work that suggest Eystein married a daughter of king
Ragnvald, or that Ragnvald had any descendants, for that matter. It
looks to me like someone wanted to tie the Norman rulers (who the
Orkneyingasaga connects to jarl Ragnvald) into the Ynglingatal kings.
taf
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Streatlam, co. Durham and the de la Hayes of Spaldington
Monday, 28 May, 2007
Hello All,
Last year I posted information and a query to the list
concerning Streatlam, co. Durham and the de la Hay[e] family
of Spaldington, Yorks.[1]. In the meantime, additional
information has come to my attention which provides further
detail to this relationship, largely from Hand-Lists of
Charters and Deeds in the Possession of the John Rylands
Library. One particular record abstracted therein provides
the following:
' 251. - Grant by John Traynet, son of John Traynet, knt.,
of Streatlam, to Peter de la Haye of Spaldington,
his cousin, of his manor of Streatlam.
March 25th, 1311.
Seal missing. ' [2]
Exactly how Peter de la Haye was related to the younger
John Traynet is unclear, although it would seem most likely
that Peter had a maternal or other descent from the Traynet
family. Peter de la Hay was involved with John's brother
(possibly elder brother) as early as January 1305/06, when
there was record of a debt owed by Robert, son of John Traynz,
and Peter del Hay to a deceased merchant of York [3].
The younger John Traynet succeeded his father in his lands
in Yorkshire and co. Durham [either directly, or possibly from
his brother Robert], but did not long survive his grant to his
cousin Peter de la Hay. He died before 25 July 1311, with a
minor (evidently not his child) as his heir: there is the
following record of a grant of custody of the lands and
marriage of the heir on that date, at Berwick-on-Tweed:
' Grant, at the instance of queen Isabella, to Nicholas de
Chilham, king's yeoman, of the custody, during the minority
of the heir, of the lands of John son of John Traynez,
deceased, who held of the bishopric of Durham, lately void,
by knight's service, together with the marriage of his
heir.' [4]
The heir was one John Traynet, son of Thomas Traynet and
his wife Idoine. The claim of Peter de la Hay to Streatlam
was disputed by the guardians of John Traynet, with de la Hay
taking steps to recover seisin through an assize of novel
disseisin. This process dragged on for some time, with Peter
evidently reacquiring the manor of Streatlam following an
order of King Edward II on 25 August 1316. He certainly
held the manor on 17 July 1317, when his manor was
assigned as part of the dower of Alice, dowager Countess
of Warwick [5].
This 'situation' was evidently not acceptable to the young
John Traynet. His father-in-law, John le Sturmy, enlisted the
persuasive power of the younger Hugh le Despenser to force Peter
de la Hay to grant the manor of Streatlam to John Traynet and
his wife Margaret (daughter of le Sturmy). In exchange, Traynet
"enfeoffed Haye in his lands in Yorkshire which were not of a
third of the value," but Peter de la Hay evidently did not seek
redress until Traynet had died ca. 1324 [6]. The claims of
Peter and his family to Streatlam were eventually resolved by
his grandson and namesake Peter de la Hay, who quitclaimed same
to Thomas de Bowes on 21 Dec. 1379 [7].
The exact nature of the (probable) de la Hay descent from
Traynet might possibly be found in Surtees' 'The History of the
County Palatine of Durham', where I understand there is a pedigree
of the Traynet or Trayne family. Should anyone have ready access
to same, any information provided concerning that family would be
of great interest.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] J. Ravilious, <Streatlam, co. Durham and the de la Hayes of
Spaldington>, SGM, 16 Sept. 2006.
[2] Robert Fawtier, Hand-Lists of Charters and Deeds in the
Possession of the John Rylands Library, p. 256. The salient
portion of the text is available online,
http://dspace.man.ac.uk:8080/dspace/bit ... 48_285.pdf
[3] National Archives, Chancery: Certificates of Statute
Merchant and Statute Staple :
' C 241/49
Debtor: Robert, son of John Traynz, and Peter del Hay.
Creditor: Thomas de Carlisle [citizen and merchant of York]
recently deceased.
Amount: 45m.
Before whom: John le Spicer, Mayor of York; Robert de
Seizevaux, Clerk.
First term: 30/11/1303
Last term: 30/11/1306
Writ to: Sheriff of Yorks
Sent by: Andrew de Bolingbroke, Mayor of York; Robert de
Seizevaux, Clerk.
Covering dates 1306 Jan 5 ' [National Archives,
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp
[4] CPR 5 Edw II, p. 379, mem. 23.
[5] Concerning the actions taken from the death of John Traynet
until 25 Aug 1316, we have the following records:
Order dated at Windsor, 6 Sept 1313:
' To R. bishop of Durham. Order to cause the taking of the
assizes of novel disseisin instituted by Alan de Tesdale and
by Peter de la Haye against Guy de Bello Campo, earl of
Warwick, concerning certain tenements within the bishop's
liberty, to be superseded until after the parliament summoned
to be held at Westminster on Sunday after St. Matthew, which
the king has ordered the earl to attend, the assizes having
been already superseded by virtue of the king's order until
Friday after the said feast, on account of the parliament
summoned to be held at Westminster in the quinzaine of the
Navitity of St. John the Baptist last. [Parl. Writs.] '
[CCR 7 Edw II, p. 70, mem. 25d]
order dated at Lincoln, 1 Sept 1315:
' To Robert de Cliderhou, escheator beyond Trent. Order to
deliver to Idonia, late the wife of Thomas Traynez, as nearest
[friend] of her son John son of the said Thomas, kinsman and
heir of John Traynez, the lands of the said John in
Pynelthorp, Stokbrigge, Kilpyn, Skelton, Neubaud, Linton,
Benetland, Estrington, Thorp, Houeden and Barneby, held by
the deceased of the bishopric of Durham, lately void and in
the king's hands, by homage and service of 103s. 10d. of
free ferm yearly, which the king ordered Robert de Wodehowse,
late escheator beyond Trent, to deliver to Idonia in
accordance with the finding of an inquisition taken by him,
by which it was found that the heir was then nine years and
that the deceased held no lands of the king or the bishopric
by knight service; which lands the afterwards ordered the
said Robert de Wodehowse to resume into his hands because it
was found by another inquisition taken by him that the
bishops of Durham always had in times past the custody of the
lands of other men in those parts holding by like service,
and the king ordered him to deliver the said lands to
Nicholas de Chilleham, to whom the king had committed the
custody of the lands and the heir, to hold in tenencia until
the parliament summoned to meet at Lincoln on Sunday after
St. Mary Magdalene, in the fifth year of the king's reign,
Nicholas having asserted that he would prove that the
custody pertained to the king: it now appearing by an
inquisition taken by the present escheator, in accordance
with the king's order issued because Idonia by petition in
the last parliament at Westminster gave the king to
understand that the lands are held of the bishopric in
socage, that the lands are held of the bishopric of Durham
as of the manor of Houeden by the service above-named and
not by knight service nor socage, and that the bishops of
Durham never had the custody of any of the heir's ancestors
by reason of the said lands, and that they had not of right
the custody of other men holding of them by like service
in those parts. ' [CCR 9 Edw III, pp. 247-8, mem. 25]
order dated at York, 25 Aug. 1316:
' To Henry son of Hugh, keeper of Bernard's Castle. Order
not to intermeddle further with the manor of Stretelam, and
to restore the issues of the same to Peter de la Haye, who
lately shewed to the king that, although he lately recovered
the manor in the bishopric of Durham by assize of novel
disseisin against John son of Thomas Traynes and others, and
obtained seisin thereof, the said Henry took the manor into
the king's hands; whereupon the king ordered Henry to
certify to him concerning the taking into his hands; and he
returned that Peter brought a writ of novel disseisin
against the above-named John, Robert de Neyvill, and John
le Ires, concerning a tenement in Stretlam, and he was
answered that the tenement was in the king's seisin,
wherefore the justices refused to proceed in the assize,
until Peter obtained the king's writ in parliament at
Lincoln directed to the bishop of Durham ordering that
the justices should proceed in the assize notwithstanding
the above answer; by reason whereof they proceeded, and
Peter recovered his seisin by consideration of that court,
and that he was peaceably seized for one day, and that the
said Henry expelled him from the tenement because he was
not advertised of the judgment and because Peter brought
him no writ from the king. By K. and C. '
[CCR 10 Edw II, p. 360, mem. 27]
order dated at Nottingham, 27 July 1317:
' To Robert de Sapy, escheator this side Trent. Order to
deliver to William la Zouche and Alice his wife, late the
wife of Guy de Bello Campo, earl of Warwick, tenant in
chief, the following of the earl's knights' fees, which
the king has assigned to her as dower: a fee in Stretlem,
in the said (sic) bishopric, which Peter del Haye holds,
of the yearly value of 40l.;....; a twenty-fourth of a
fee in Quernynton, in the said bishopric, which Adam de
Bowes holds, of the yearly value of 100s.'
[CCR 11 Edw II, p. 489, mem. 24]
[6] National Archives, Petitions to the King and Council:
' SC 8/14/669
Petitioners: Peter de la Haye
Addresses: King and council
Places mentioned: Streatlam [County Durham]; Barnard Castle,
[County Durham]; Yorkshire
Other people mentioned: [Thomas Beauchamp], Earl of Warwick; John
Lesturmy; John [Treynete] son of Thomas Treynete;
Hugh le Despenser the son; Margaret [Lesturmy]
daughter of John Lesturmy.
Nature of request: Haye shows that he was enfeoffed of the manor
of Streatlam. John Lesturmy who had the custody
of John Treynete came and threatened Haye and forced
him by the authority of Hugh le Despenser to give
the manor by his charter jointly to John Treynete,
the next heir of Haye's feoffor, and to Margaret,
Lesturmy's daughter who had married Treynete.
Treynete enfeoffed Haye in his lands in Yorkshire
which were not of a third of the value, and
Treynete is now dead and Margaret is tenant. Haye
for his hardship requests remedy.
Endorsement: He should sue in the court of the
bishop of Durham.
Covering dates [c. 1324]
Note The petition seems to date to c. 1324, as the dating
evidence within the petition is not supported by
much additional evidence. The earl of Warwick came
into the keeping of the king on 12 August 1315, and
did not do homage to the king until 1329. The king
visited Barnard Castle in early October 1322, and
from around 5 Sept. to 16 Sept. 1323. As the
petition post dates the royal visit when Despenser was
in the company of the king, the petition must be
after this, and c. 1324 offers suitable flexibility.'
[7] record dated 21 Dec 1379, courtesy Access to Archives:
' Grant and quitclaim made before the Corporation of the city
of York, by Peter, son and heir of Thomas de la Haye of
Spaldington, to William de Bowes, of his rights on the manor of
Streatlam and Stainton. ' [Seals missing.] - A2A, Manchester
University, John Rylands Library: Phillips Charters -
STAINTON-WITH-STREATLAM (Co. Durham), PHC/254
* John P. Ravilious
Hello All,
Last year I posted information and a query to the list
concerning Streatlam, co. Durham and the de la Hay[e] family
of Spaldington, Yorks.[1]. In the meantime, additional
information has come to my attention which provides further
detail to this relationship, largely from Hand-Lists of
Charters and Deeds in the Possession of the John Rylands
Library. One particular record abstracted therein provides
the following:
' 251. - Grant by John Traynet, son of John Traynet, knt.,
of Streatlam, to Peter de la Haye of Spaldington,
his cousin, of his manor of Streatlam.
March 25th, 1311.
Seal missing. ' [2]
Exactly how Peter de la Haye was related to the younger
John Traynet is unclear, although it would seem most likely
that Peter had a maternal or other descent from the Traynet
family. Peter de la Hay was involved with John's brother
(possibly elder brother) as early as January 1305/06, when
there was record of a debt owed by Robert, son of John Traynz,
and Peter del Hay to a deceased merchant of York [3].
The younger John Traynet succeeded his father in his lands
in Yorkshire and co. Durham [either directly, or possibly from
his brother Robert], but did not long survive his grant to his
cousin Peter de la Hay. He died before 25 July 1311, with a
minor (evidently not his child) as his heir: there is the
following record of a grant of custody of the lands and
marriage of the heir on that date, at Berwick-on-Tweed:
' Grant, at the instance of queen Isabella, to Nicholas de
Chilham, king's yeoman, of the custody, during the minority
of the heir, of the lands of John son of John Traynez,
deceased, who held of the bishopric of Durham, lately void,
by knight's service, together with the marriage of his
heir.' [4]
The heir was one John Traynet, son of Thomas Traynet and
his wife Idoine. The claim of Peter de la Hay to Streatlam
was disputed by the guardians of John Traynet, with de la Hay
taking steps to recover seisin through an assize of novel
disseisin. This process dragged on for some time, with Peter
evidently reacquiring the manor of Streatlam following an
order of King Edward II on 25 August 1316. He certainly
held the manor on 17 July 1317, when his manor was
assigned as part of the dower of Alice, dowager Countess
of Warwick [5].
This 'situation' was evidently not acceptable to the young
John Traynet. His father-in-law, John le Sturmy, enlisted the
persuasive power of the younger Hugh le Despenser to force Peter
de la Hay to grant the manor of Streatlam to John Traynet and
his wife Margaret (daughter of le Sturmy). In exchange, Traynet
"enfeoffed Haye in his lands in Yorkshire which were not of a
third of the value," but Peter de la Hay evidently did not seek
redress until Traynet had died ca. 1324 [6]. The claims of
Peter and his family to Streatlam were eventually resolved by
his grandson and namesake Peter de la Hay, who quitclaimed same
to Thomas de Bowes on 21 Dec. 1379 [7].
The exact nature of the (probable) de la Hay descent from
Traynet might possibly be found in Surtees' 'The History of the
County Palatine of Durham', where I understand there is a pedigree
of the Traynet or Trayne family. Should anyone have ready access
to same, any information provided concerning that family would be
of great interest.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] J. Ravilious, <Streatlam, co. Durham and the de la Hayes of
Spaldington>, SGM, 16 Sept. 2006.
[2] Robert Fawtier, Hand-Lists of Charters and Deeds in the
Possession of the John Rylands Library, p. 256. The salient
portion of the text is available online,
http://dspace.man.ac.uk:8080/dspace/bit ... 48_285.pdf
[3] National Archives, Chancery: Certificates of Statute
Merchant and Statute Staple :
' C 241/49
Debtor: Robert, son of John Traynz, and Peter del Hay.
Creditor: Thomas de Carlisle [citizen and merchant of York]
recently deceased.
Amount: 45m.
Before whom: John le Spicer, Mayor of York; Robert de
Seizevaux, Clerk.
First term: 30/11/1303
Last term: 30/11/1306
Writ to: Sheriff of Yorks
Sent by: Andrew de Bolingbroke, Mayor of York; Robert de
Seizevaux, Clerk.
Covering dates 1306 Jan 5 ' [National Archives,
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp
[4] CPR 5 Edw II, p. 379, mem. 23.
[5] Concerning the actions taken from the death of John Traynet
until 25 Aug 1316, we have the following records:
Order dated at Windsor, 6 Sept 1313:
' To R. bishop of Durham. Order to cause the taking of the
assizes of novel disseisin instituted by Alan de Tesdale and
by Peter de la Haye against Guy de Bello Campo, earl of
Warwick, concerning certain tenements within the bishop's
liberty, to be superseded until after the parliament summoned
to be held at Westminster on Sunday after St. Matthew, which
the king has ordered the earl to attend, the assizes having
been already superseded by virtue of the king's order until
Friday after the said feast, on account of the parliament
summoned to be held at Westminster in the quinzaine of the
Navitity of St. John the Baptist last. [Parl. Writs.] '
[CCR 7 Edw II, p. 70, mem. 25d]
order dated at Lincoln, 1 Sept 1315:
' To Robert de Cliderhou, escheator beyond Trent. Order to
deliver to Idonia, late the wife of Thomas Traynez, as nearest
[friend] of her son John son of the said Thomas, kinsman and
heir of John Traynez, the lands of the said John in
Pynelthorp, Stokbrigge, Kilpyn, Skelton, Neubaud, Linton,
Benetland, Estrington, Thorp, Houeden and Barneby, held by
the deceased of the bishopric of Durham, lately void and in
the king's hands, by homage and service of 103s. 10d. of
free ferm yearly, which the king ordered Robert de Wodehowse,
late escheator beyond Trent, to deliver to Idonia in
accordance with the finding of an inquisition taken by him,
by which it was found that the heir was then nine years and
that the deceased held no lands of the king or the bishopric
by knight service; which lands the afterwards ordered the
said Robert de Wodehowse to resume into his hands because it
was found by another inquisition taken by him that the
bishops of Durham always had in times past the custody of the
lands of other men in those parts holding by like service,
and the king ordered him to deliver the said lands to
Nicholas de Chilleham, to whom the king had committed the
custody of the lands and the heir, to hold in tenencia until
the parliament summoned to meet at Lincoln on Sunday after
St. Mary Magdalene, in the fifth year of the king's reign,
Nicholas having asserted that he would prove that the
custody pertained to the king: it now appearing by an
inquisition taken by the present escheator, in accordance
with the king's order issued because Idonia by petition in
the last parliament at Westminster gave the king to
understand that the lands are held of the bishopric in
socage, that the lands are held of the bishopric of Durham
as of the manor of Houeden by the service above-named and
not by knight service nor socage, and that the bishops of
Durham never had the custody of any of the heir's ancestors
by reason of the said lands, and that they had not of right
the custody of other men holding of them by like service
in those parts. ' [CCR 9 Edw III, pp. 247-8, mem. 25]
order dated at York, 25 Aug. 1316:
' To Henry son of Hugh, keeper of Bernard's Castle. Order
not to intermeddle further with the manor of Stretelam, and
to restore the issues of the same to Peter de la Haye, who
lately shewed to the king that, although he lately recovered
the manor in the bishopric of Durham by assize of novel
disseisin against John son of Thomas Traynes and others, and
obtained seisin thereof, the said Henry took the manor into
the king's hands; whereupon the king ordered Henry to
certify to him concerning the taking into his hands; and he
returned that Peter brought a writ of novel disseisin
against the above-named John, Robert de Neyvill, and John
le Ires, concerning a tenement in Stretlam, and he was
answered that the tenement was in the king's seisin,
wherefore the justices refused to proceed in the assize,
until Peter obtained the king's writ in parliament at
Lincoln directed to the bishop of Durham ordering that
the justices should proceed in the assize notwithstanding
the above answer; by reason whereof they proceeded, and
Peter recovered his seisin by consideration of that court,
and that he was peaceably seized for one day, and that the
said Henry expelled him from the tenement because he was
not advertised of the judgment and because Peter brought
him no writ from the king. By K. and C. '
[CCR 10 Edw II, p. 360, mem. 27]
order dated at Nottingham, 27 July 1317:
' To Robert de Sapy, escheator this side Trent. Order to
deliver to William la Zouche and Alice his wife, late the
wife of Guy de Bello Campo, earl of Warwick, tenant in
chief, the following of the earl's knights' fees, which
the king has assigned to her as dower: a fee in Stretlem,
in the said (sic) bishopric, which Peter del Haye holds,
of the yearly value of 40l.;....; a twenty-fourth of a
fee in Quernynton, in the said bishopric, which Adam de
Bowes holds, of the yearly value of 100s.'
[CCR 11 Edw II, p. 489, mem. 24]
[6] National Archives, Petitions to the King and Council:
' SC 8/14/669
Petitioners: Peter de la Haye
Addresses: King and council
Places mentioned: Streatlam [County Durham]; Barnard Castle,
[County Durham]; Yorkshire
Other people mentioned: [Thomas Beauchamp], Earl of Warwick; John
Lesturmy; John [Treynete] son of Thomas Treynete;
Hugh le Despenser the son; Margaret [Lesturmy]
daughter of John Lesturmy.
Nature of request: Haye shows that he was enfeoffed of the manor
of Streatlam. John Lesturmy who had the custody
of John Treynete came and threatened Haye and forced
him by the authority of Hugh le Despenser to give
the manor by his charter jointly to John Treynete,
the next heir of Haye's feoffor, and to Margaret,
Lesturmy's daughter who had married Treynete.
Treynete enfeoffed Haye in his lands in Yorkshire
which were not of a third of the value, and
Treynete is now dead and Margaret is tenant. Haye
for his hardship requests remedy.
Endorsement: He should sue in the court of the
bishop of Durham.
Covering dates [c. 1324]
Note The petition seems to date to c. 1324, as the dating
evidence within the petition is not supported by
much additional evidence. The earl of Warwick came
into the keeping of the king on 12 August 1315, and
did not do homage to the king until 1329. The king
visited Barnard Castle in early October 1322, and
from around 5 Sept. to 16 Sept. 1323. As the
petition post dates the royal visit when Despenser was
in the company of the king, the petition must be
after this, and c. 1324 offers suitable flexibility.'
[7] record dated 21 Dec 1379, courtesy Access to Archives:
' Grant and quitclaim made before the Corporation of the city
of York, by Peter, son and heir of Thomas de la Haye of
Spaldington, to William de Bowes, of his rights on the manor of
Streatlam and Stainton. ' [Seals missing.] - A2A, Manchester
University, John Rylands Library: Phillips Charters -
STAINTON-WITH-STREATLAM (Co. Durham), PHC/254
* John P. Ravilious
-
John Watson
Re: Streatlam, co. Durham and the de la Hayes of Spaldington
On May 29, 6:16 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Hi John,
I am not so familiar with these families, but the connection between
the de la Hayes and the Traynets is shown in the Pedigree of Bowes of
Streatlam, in the County of Durham (Extracted from the family papers),
in Hutchinson's History and Antiquities of Durham, where he says:
"Sir Adam Bowes, Knt. Justice in Oyer of the liberties of Durham and
Steward of Richmondshire. - Living 1345, married Alice, sole heiress
of Sir John Trayne, Knt. Lord of Streatlam, by his wife Agnes, heiress
of Ralph de la Haye, Lord Percy of Stainton le Strata, to whom Barnard
Baliol gave with his said neice, Agnes, the lordships of Streatlam,
and lands in Stainton, Bromylaw, Barforth, Cleatam, Osmondcroft, and
Hullerbush." [The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine, of
Durham, William Hutchinson, Vol III, Carlisle, 1794, p 253]
Hope this helps sort out the connections,
Regards,
John
Monday, 28 May, 2007
Hello All,
Last year I posted information and a query to the list
concerning Streatlam, co. Durham and the de la Hay[e] family
of Spaldington, Yorks.[1]. In the meantime, additional
information has come to my attention which provides further
detail to this relationship, largely from Hand-Lists of
Charters and Deeds in the Possession of the John Rylands
Library. One particular record abstracted therein provides
the following:
' 251. - Grant by John Traynet, son of John Traynet, knt.,
of Streatlam, to Peter de la Haye of Spaldington,
his cousin, of his manor of Streatlam.
March 25th, 1311.
Seal missing. ' [2]
Exactly how Peter de la Haye was related to the younger
John Traynet is unclear, although it would seem most likely
that Peter had a maternal or other descent from the Traynet
family. Peter de la Hay was involved with John's brother
(possibly elder brother) as early as January 1305/06, when
there was record of a debt owed by Robert, son of John Traynz,
and Peter del Hay to a deceased merchant of York [3].
The younger John Traynet succeeded his father in his lands
in Yorkshire and co. Durham [either directly, or possibly from
his brother Robert], but did not long survive his grant to his
cousin Peter de la Hay. He died before 25 July 1311, with a
minor (evidently not his child) as his heir: there is the
following record of a grant of custody of the lands and
marriage of the heir on that date, at Berwick-on-Tweed:
' Grant, at the instance of queen Isabella, to Nicholas de
Chilham, king's yeoman, of the custody, during the minority
of the heir, of the lands of John son of John Traynez,
deceased, who held of the bishopric of Durham, lately void,
by knight's service, together with the marriage of his
heir.' [4]
The heir was one John Traynet, son of Thomas Traynet and
his wife Idoine. The claim of Peter de la Hay to Streatlam
was disputed by the guardians of John Traynet, with de la Hay
taking steps to recover seisin through an assize of novel
disseisin. This process dragged on for some time, with Peter
evidently reacquiring the manor of Streatlam following an
order of King Edward II on 25 August 1316. He certainly
held the manor on 17 July 1317, when his manor was
assigned as part of the dower of Alice, dowager Countess
of Warwick [5].
This 'situation' was evidently not acceptable to the young
John Traynet. His father-in-law, John le Sturmy, enlisted the
persuasive power of the younger Hugh le Despenser to force Peter
de la Hay to grant the manor of Streatlam to John Traynet and
his wife Margaret (daughter of le Sturmy). In exchange, Traynet
"enfeoffed Haye in his lands in Yorkshire which were not of a
third of the value," but Peter de la Hay evidently did not seek
redress until Traynet had died ca. 1324 [6]. The claims of
Peter and his family to Streatlam were eventually resolved by
his grandson and namesake Peter de la Hay, who quitclaimed same
to Thomas de Bowes on 21 Dec. 1379 [7].
The exact nature of the (probable) de la Hay descent from
Traynet might possibly be found in Surtees' 'The History of the
County Palatine of Durham', where I understand there is a pedigree
of the Traynet or Trayne family. Should anyone have ready access
to same, any information provided concerning that family would be
of great interest.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] J. Ravilious, <Streatlam, co. Durham and the de la Hayes of
Spaldington>, SGM, 16 Sept. 2006.
[2] Robert Fawtier, Hand-Lists of Charters and Deeds in the
Possession of the John Rylands Library, p. 256. The salient
portion of the text is available online,
http://dspace.man.ac.uk:8080/dspace/bit ... _v9_248_...
[3] National Archives, Chancery: Certificates of Statute
Merchant and Statute Staple :
' C 241/49
Debtor: Robert, son of John Traynz, and Peter del Hay.
Creditor: Thomas de Carlisle [citizen and merchant of York]
recently deceased.
Amount: 45m.
Before whom: John le Spicer, Mayor of York; Robert de
Seizevaux, Clerk.
First term: 30/11/1303
Last term: 30/11/1306
Writ to: Sheriff of Yorks
Sent by: Andrew de Bolingbroke, Mayor of York; Robert de
Seizevaux, Clerk.
Covering dates 1306 Jan 5 ' [National Archives,
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp
[4] CPR 5 Edw II, p. 379, mem. 23.
[5] Concerning the actions taken from the death of John Traynet
until 25 Aug 1316, we have the following records:
Order dated at Windsor, 6 Sept 1313:
' To R. bishop of Durham. Order to cause the taking of the
assizes of novel disseisin instituted by Alan de Tesdale and
by Peter de la Haye against Guy de Bello Campo, earl of
Warwick, concerning certain tenements within the bishop's
liberty, to be superseded until after the parliament summoned
to be held at Westminster on Sunday after St. Matthew, which
the king has ordered the earl to attend, the assizes having
been already superseded by virtue of the king's order until
Friday after the said feast, on account of the parliament
summoned to be held at Westminster in the quinzaine of the
Navitity of St. John the Baptist last. [Parl. Writs.] '
[CCR 7 Edw II, p. 70, mem. 25d]
order dated at Lincoln, 1 Sept 1315:
' To Robert de Cliderhou, escheator beyond Trent. Order to
deliver to Idonia, late the wife of Thomas Traynez, as nearest
[friend] of her son John son of the said Thomas, kinsman and
heir of John Traynez, the lands of the said John in
Pynelthorp, Stokbrigge, Kilpyn, Skelton, Neubaud, Linton,
Benetland, Estrington, Thorp, Houeden and Barneby, held by
the deceased of the bishopric of Durham, lately void and in
the king's hands, by homage and service of 103s. 10d. of
free ferm yearly, which the king ordered Robert de Wodehowse,
late escheator beyond Trent, to deliver to Idonia in
accordance with the finding of an inquisition taken by him,
by which it was found that the heir was then nine years and
that the deceased held no lands of the king or the bishopric
by knight service; which lands the afterwards ordered the
said Robert de Wodehowse to resume into his hands because it
was found by another inquisition taken by him that the
bishops of Durham always had in times past the custody of the
lands of other men in those parts holding by like service,
and the king ordered him to deliver the said lands to
Nicholas de Chilleham, to whom the king had committed the
custody of the lands and the heir, to hold in tenencia until
the parliament summoned to meet at Lincoln on Sunday after
St. Mary Magdalene, in the fifth year of the king's reign,
Nicholas having asserted that he would prove that the
custody pertained to the king: it now appearing by an
inquisition taken by the present escheator, in accordance
with the king's order issued because Idonia by petition in
the last parliament at Westminster gave the king to
understand that the lands are held of the bishopric in
socage, that the lands are held of the bishopric of Durham
as of the manor of Houeden by the service above-named and
not by knight service nor socage, and that the bishops of
Durham never had the custody of any of the heir's ancestors
by reason of the said lands, and that they had not of right
the custody of other men holding of them by like service
in those parts. ' [CCR 9 Edw III, pp. 247-8, mem. 25]
order dated at York, 25 Aug. 1316:
' To Henry son of Hugh, keeper of Bernard's Castle. Order
not to intermeddle further with the manor of Stretelam, and
to restore the issues of the same to Peter de la Haye, who
lately shewed to the king that, although he lately recovered
the manor in the bishopric of Durham by assize of novel
disseisin against John son of Thomas Traynes and others, and
obtained seisin thereof, the said Henry took the manor into
the king's hands; whereupon the king ordered Henry to
certify to him concerning the taking into his hands; and he
returned that Peter brought a writ of novel disseisin
against the above-named John, Robert de Neyvill, and John
le Ires, concerning a tenement in Stretlam, and he was
answered that the tenement was in the king's seisin,
wherefore the justices refused to proceed in the assize,
until Peter obtained the king's writ in parliament at
Lincoln directed to the bishop of Durham ordering that
the justices should proceed in the assize notwithstanding
the above answer; by reason whereof they proceeded, and
Peter recovered his seisin by consideration of that court,
and that he was peaceably seized for one day, and that the
said Henry expelled him from the tenement because he was
not advertised of the judgment and because Peter brought
him no writ from the king. By K. and C. '
[CCR 10 Edw II, p. 360, mem. 27]
order dated at Nottingham, 27 July 1317:
' To Robert de Sapy, escheator this side Trent. Order to
deliver to William la Zouche and Alice his wife, late the
wife of Guy de Bello Campo, earl of Warwick, tenant in
chief, the following of the earl's knights' fees, which
the king has assigned to her as dower: a fee in Stretlem,
in the said (sic) bishopric, which Peter del Haye holds,
of the yearly value of 40l.;....; a twenty-fourth of a
fee in Quernynton, in the said bishopric, which Adam de
Bowes holds, of the yearly value of 100s.'
[CCR 11 Edw II, p. 489, mem. 24]
[6] National Archives, Petitions to the King and Council:
' SC 8/14/669
Petitioners: Peter de la Haye
Addresses: King and council
Places mentioned: Streatlam [County Durham]; Barnard Castle,
[County Durham]; Yorkshire
Other people mentioned: [Thomas Beauchamp], Earl of Warwick; John
Lesturmy; John [Treynete] son of Thomas Treynete;
Hugh le Despenser the son; Margaret [Lesturmy]
daughter of John Lesturmy.
Nature of request: Haye shows that he was enfeoffed of the manor
of Streatlam. John Lesturmy who had the custody
of John Treynete came and threatened Haye and forced
him by the authority of Hugh le Despenser to give
the manor by his charter jointly to John Treynete,
the next heir of Haye's feoffor, and to Margaret,
Lesturmy's daughter who had married Treynete.
Treynete enfeoffed Haye in his lands in Yorkshire
which were not of a third of the value, and
Treynete is now dead and Margaret is tenant. Haye
for his hardship requests remedy.
Endorsement: He should sue in the court of the
bishop of Durham.
Covering dates [c. 1324]
Note The petition seems to date to c. 1324, as the dating
evidence within the petition is not supported by
much additional evidence. The earl of Warwick came
into the keeping of the king on 12 August 1315, and
did not do homage to the king until 1329. The king
visited Barnard Castle in early October 1322, and
from around 5 Sept. to 16 Sept. 1323. As the
petition post dates the royal visit when Despenser was
in the company of the king, the petition must be
after this, and c. 1324 offers suitable flexibility.'
[7] record dated 21 Dec 1379, courtesy Access to Archives:
' Grant and quitclaim made before the Corporation of the city
of York, by Peter, son and heir of Thomas de la Haye of
Spaldington, to William de Bowes, of his rights on the manor of
Streatlam and Stainton. ' [Seals missing.] - A2A, Manchester
University, John Rylands Library: Phillips Charters -
STAINTON-WITH-STREATLAM (Co. Durham), PHC/254
* John P. Ravilious
Hi John,
I am not so familiar with these families, but the connection between
the de la Hayes and the Traynets is shown in the Pedigree of Bowes of
Streatlam, in the County of Durham (Extracted from the family papers),
in Hutchinson's History and Antiquities of Durham, where he says:
"Sir Adam Bowes, Knt. Justice in Oyer of the liberties of Durham and
Steward of Richmondshire. - Living 1345, married Alice, sole heiress
of Sir John Trayne, Knt. Lord of Streatlam, by his wife Agnes, heiress
of Ralph de la Haye, Lord Percy of Stainton le Strata, to whom Barnard
Baliol gave with his said neice, Agnes, the lordships of Streatlam,
and lands in Stainton, Bromylaw, Barforth, Cleatam, Osmondcroft, and
Hullerbush." [The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine, of
Durham, William Hutchinson, Vol III, Carlisle, 1794, p 253]
Hope this helps sort out the connections,
Regards,
John
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Streatlam, co. Durham and the de la Hayes of Spaldington
Monday, 28 Mayh, 2007
Dear John,
Thanks for your reply, and the details from Hutchinson. From my
review, the same outline is given in one of the Bowes pedigrees by
Burke's [Bowes of Bradley, in A Genealogical and Heraldic History of
the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland (1835), I:182].
Unfortunately, it is full on anachronisms and errors.
Adam de Bowes was in fact living ca. 1317-1339 from my own notes,
and very possibly married a de la Haye - certainly the de la Haye and
Bowes families maintained a close relationship in the succeeding
generations, judging by the will of Peter de la Hay of Spaldington (d.
after 8 Aug 1426; will proved 11 Apr 1431). This Peter's grandfather
Peter was the one called cousin by John Traynet (d. 1311), and the one
in dispute with John's heir John (son of Thomas) Traynet - evidently
the one claimed by Hutchinson as the husband of 'the heiress Agnes
Hay' - which seems somewhat unlikely, and not documented to date.
Aside from a Ralph de la Hay for whom I've seen no evidence, this
individual surely was never Lord Percy - Sir Henry de Percy of
Alnwick, Northumberland (d. 26 Feb 1351/2) held that title during this
period, and was successor to, and succeeded by, Henries (de Percy)
without any introduction of a de la Hay into the picture (see CP sub
Percy).
A major anachronism is introduced by bringing Bernard de Baliol
into the picture. Bernard 'II' de Baliol d. ca. 1187, and was
succeeded by his eldest son Eustace de Baliol (d. ca. 1208) - great-
grandfather of John de Baliol, king of Scots (1292-1296). Eustace de
Baliol had a younger son Bernard, the last of that name I am aware of
- the last trace of whom is found in an entry in the Durham Liber
Vitae. The introduction of "Barnard Baliol" into the Bowes pedigree,
allegedly making a grant to the in-laws of Adam de Bowes (fl. early
14th century) must, I think, render the entire description of Adam de
Bowes wife and her ancestry, and claim to Streatlam, as unacceptable.
Cheers,
John
On May 28, 7:44 pm, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear John,
Thanks for your reply, and the details from Hutchinson. From my
review, the same outline is given in one of the Bowes pedigrees by
Burke's [Bowes of Bradley, in A Genealogical and Heraldic History of
the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland (1835), I:182].
Unfortunately, it is full on anachronisms and errors.
Adam de Bowes was in fact living ca. 1317-1339 from my own notes,
and very possibly married a de la Haye - certainly the de la Haye and
Bowes families maintained a close relationship in the succeeding
generations, judging by the will of Peter de la Hay of Spaldington (d.
after 8 Aug 1426; will proved 11 Apr 1431). This Peter's grandfather
Peter was the one called cousin by John Traynet (d. 1311), and the one
in dispute with John's heir John (son of Thomas) Traynet - evidently
the one claimed by Hutchinson as the husband of 'the heiress Agnes
Hay' - which seems somewhat unlikely, and not documented to date.
Aside from a Ralph de la Hay for whom I've seen no evidence, this
individual surely was never Lord Percy - Sir Henry de Percy of
Alnwick, Northumberland (d. 26 Feb 1351/2) held that title during this
period, and was successor to, and succeeded by, Henries (de Percy)
without any introduction of a de la Hay into the picture (see CP sub
Percy).
A major anachronism is introduced by bringing Bernard de Baliol
into the picture. Bernard 'II' de Baliol d. ca. 1187, and was
succeeded by his eldest son Eustace de Baliol (d. ca. 1208) - great-
grandfather of John de Baliol, king of Scots (1292-1296). Eustace de
Baliol had a younger son Bernard, the last of that name I am aware of
- the last trace of whom is found in an entry in the Durham Liber
Vitae. The introduction of "Barnard Baliol" into the Bowes pedigree,
allegedly making a grant to the in-laws of Adam de Bowes (fl. early
14th century) must, I think, render the entire description of Adam de
Bowes wife and her ancestry, and claim to Streatlam, as unacceptable.
Cheers,
John
On May 28, 7:44 pm, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi John,
I am not so familiar with these families, but the connection between
the de la Hayes and the Traynets is shown in the Pedigree of Bowes of
Streatlam, in the County of Durham (Extracted from the family papers),
in Hutchinson's History and Antiquities of Durham, where he says:
"Sir Adam Bowes, Knt. Justice in Oyer of the liberties of Durham and
Steward of Richmondshire. - Living 1345, married Alice, sole heiress
of Sir John Trayne, Knt. Lord of Streatlam, by his wife Agnes, heiress
of Ralph de la Haye, Lord Percy of Stainton le Strata, to whom Barnard
Baliol gave with his said neice, Agnes, the lordships of Streatlam,
and lands in Stainton, Bromylaw, Barforth, Cleatam, Osmondcroft, and
Hullerbush." [The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine, of
Durham, William Hutchinson, Vol III, Carlisle, 1794, p 253]
Hope this helps sort out the connections,
Regards,
John
-
John Watson
Re: Streatlam, co. Durham and the de la Hayes of Spaldington
On May 29, 8:38 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Hi John,
It looks like Burke just lifted the text verbatim from Hutchinson.
It seems to me that one of the early Bowes decided to concoct a
pedigree and threw in a few names such as Balliol and Percy. However,
there might just be something in it. There is a mention of Stainton le
Strata, otherwise Stainton in le Street, otherwise Great Stainton.
The British History Online page for the parish of Great Stainton,
Durham gives some details a family of de la Hayes who were living
there starting from a Richard de la Hay, a burgess of Newcastle, who
had his grant of the manor confirmed to him in 1279 by John Balliol.
Is this Richard de la Haye of Stainton, the same as "Ralph de la Haye,
Lord Percy of Stainton le Strata" in the concocted pedigree?
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=42639
Regards,
John
Monday, 28 Mayh, 2007
Dear John,
Thanks for your reply, and the details from Hutchinson. From my
review, the same outline is given in one of the Bowes pedigrees by
Burke's [Bowes of Bradley, in A Genealogical and Heraldic History of
the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland (1835), I:182].
Unfortunately, it is full on anachronisms and errors.
Adam de Bowes was in fact living ca. 1317-1339 from my own notes,
and very possibly married a de la Haye - certainly the de la Haye and
Bowes families maintained a close relationship in the succeeding
generations, judging by the will of Peter de la Hay of Spaldington (d.
after 8 Aug 1426; will proved 11 Apr 1431). This Peter's grandfather
Peter was the one called cousin by John Traynet (d. 1311), and the one
in dispute with John's heir John (son of Thomas) Traynet - evidently
the one claimed by Hutchinson as the husband of 'the heiress Agnes
Hay' - which seems somewhat unlikely, and not documented to date.
Aside from a Ralph de la Hay for whom I've seen no evidence, this
individual surely was never Lord Percy - Sir Henry de Percy of
Alnwick, Northumberland (d. 26 Feb 1351/2) held that title during this
period, and was successor to, and succeeded by, Henries (de Percy)
without any introduction of a de la Hay into the picture (see CP sub
Percy).
A major anachronism is introduced by bringing Bernard de Baliol
into the picture. Bernard 'II' de Baliol d. ca. 1187, and was
succeeded by his eldest son Eustace de Baliol (d. ca. 1208) - great-
grandfather of John de Baliol, king of Scots (1292-1296). Eustace de
Baliol had a younger son Bernard, the last of that name I am aware of
- the last trace of whom is found in an entry in the Durham Liber
Vitae. The introduction of "Barnard Baliol" into the Bowes pedigree,
allegedly making a grant to the in-laws of Adam de Bowes (fl. early
14th century) must, I think, render the entire description of Adam de
Bowes wife and her ancestry, and claim to Streatlam, as unacceptable.
Cheers,
John
On May 28, 7:44 pm, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi John,
I am not so familiar with these families, but the connection between
the de la Hayes and the Traynets is shown in the Pedigree of Bowes of
Streatlam, in the County of Durham (Extracted from the family papers),
in Hutchinson's History and Antiquities of Durham, where he says:
"Sir Adam Bowes, Knt. Justice in Oyer of the liberties of Durham and
Steward of Richmondshire. - Living 1345, married Alice, sole heiress
of Sir John Trayne, Knt. Lord of Streatlam, by his wife Agnes, heiress
of Ralph de la Haye, Lord Percy of Stainton le Strata, to whom Barnard
Baliol gave with his said neice, Agnes, the lordships of Streatlam,
and lands in Stainton, Bromylaw, Barforth, Cleatam, Osmondcroft, and
Hullerbush." [The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine, of
Durham, William Hutchinson, Vol III, Carlisle, 1794, p 253]
Hope this helps sort out the connections,
Regards,
John
Hi John,
It looks like Burke just lifted the text verbatim from Hutchinson.
It seems to me that one of the early Bowes decided to concoct a
pedigree and threw in a few names such as Balliol and Percy. However,
there might just be something in it. There is a mention of Stainton le
Strata, otherwise Stainton in le Street, otherwise Great Stainton.
The British History Online page for the parish of Great Stainton,
Durham gives some details a family of de la Hayes who were living
there starting from a Richard de la Hay, a burgess of Newcastle, who
had his grant of the manor confirmed to him in 1279 by John Balliol.
Is this Richard de la Haye of Stainton, the same as "Ralph de la Haye,
Lord Percy of Stainton le Strata" in the concocted pedigree?
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=42639
Regards,
John
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Streatlam, co. Durham and the de la Hayes of Spaldington
Dear John,
Thanks for your reply, and the information and URL re: Stainton.
The information concerning the varied holdings in Stainton, co.
Durham does indicate a de la Hay family holding there, but the details
indicate it was either an unrelated group, or a branch other than the
Spaldington family. There is a Baliol overlordship indicated; at the
same time, there is no evidence of this manor having passed to the
Bowes family.
If the Stainton referred to by Hutchinson is a valid lead, it may
be located in Yorkshire. However, this is very likely a red herring.
Cheers,
John
On May 29, 12:42 am, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for your reply, and the information and URL re: Stainton.
The information concerning the varied holdings in Stainton, co.
Durham does indicate a de la Hay family holding there, but the details
indicate it was either an unrelated group, or a branch other than the
Spaldington family. There is a Baliol overlordship indicated; at the
same time, there is no evidence of this manor having passed to the
Bowes family.
If the Stainton referred to by Hutchinson is a valid lead, it may
be located in Yorkshire. However, this is very likely a red herring.
Cheers,
John
On May 29, 12:42 am, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 29, 8:38 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Monday, 28 Mayh, 2007
Dear John,
Thanks for your reply, and the details from Hutchinson. From my
review, the same outline is given in one of the Bowes pedigrees by
Burke's [Bowes of Bradley, in A Genealogical and Heraldic History of
the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland (1835), I:182].
Unfortunately, it is full on anachronisms and errors.
Adam de Bowes was in fact living ca. 1317-1339 from my own notes,
and very possibly married a de la Haye - certainly the de la Haye and
Bowes families maintained a close relationship in the succeeding
generations, judging by the will of Peter de la Hay of Spaldington (d.
after 8 Aug 1426; will proved 11 Apr 1431). This Peter's grandfather
Peter was the one called cousin by John Traynet (d. 1311), and the one
in dispute with John's heir John (son of Thomas) Traynet - evidently
the one claimed by Hutchinson as the husband of 'the heiress Agnes
Hay' - which seems somewhat unlikely, and not documented to date.
Aside from a Ralph de la Hay for whom I've seen no evidence, this
individual surely was never Lord Percy - Sir Henry de Percy of
Alnwick, Northumberland (d. 26 Feb 1351/2) held that title during this
period, and was successor to, and succeeded by, Henries (de Percy)
without any introduction of a de la Hay into the picture (see CP sub
Percy).
A major anachronism is introduced by bringing Bernard de Baliol
into the picture. Bernard 'II' de Baliol d. ca. 1187, and was
succeeded by his eldest son Eustace de Baliol (d. ca. 1208) - great-
grandfather of John de Baliol, king of Scots (1292-1296). Eustace de
Baliol had a younger son Bernard, the last of that name I am aware of
- the last trace of whom is found in an entry in the Durham Liber
Vitae. The introduction of "Barnard Baliol" into the Bowes pedigree,
allegedly making a grant to the in-laws of Adam de Bowes (fl. early
14th century) must, I think, render the entire description of Adam de
Bowes wife and her ancestry, and claim to Streatlam, as unacceptable.
Cheers,
John
On May 28, 7:44 pm, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi John,
I am not so familiar with these families, but the connection between
the de la Hayes and the Traynets is shown in the Pedigree of Bowes of
Streatlam, in the County of Durham (Extracted from the family papers),
in Hutchinson's History and Antiquities of Durham, where he says:
"Sir Adam Bowes, Knt. Justice in Oyer of the liberties of Durham and
Steward of Richmondshire. - Living 1345, married Alice, sole heiress
of Sir John Trayne, Knt. Lord of Streatlam, by his wife Agnes, heiress
of Ralph de la Haye, Lord Percy of Stainton le Strata, to whom Barnard
Baliol gave with his said neice, Agnes, the lordships of Streatlam,
and lands in Stainton, Bromylaw, Barforth, Cleatam, Osmondcroft, and
Hullerbush." [The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine, of
Durham, William Hutchinson, Vol III, Carlisle, 1794, p 253]
Hope this helps sort out the connections,
Regards,
John
Hi John,
It looks like Burke just lifted the text verbatim from Hutchinson.
It seems to me that one of the early Bowes decided to concoct a
pedigree and threw in a few names such as Balliol and Percy. However,
there might just be something in it. There is a mention of Stainton le
Strata, otherwise Stainton in le Street, otherwise Great Stainton.
The British History Online page for the parish of Great Stainton,
Durham gives some details a family of de la Hayes who were living
there starting from a Richard de la Hay, a burgess of Newcastle, who
had his grant of the manor confirmed to him in 1279 by John Balliol.
Is this Richard de la Haye of Stainton, the same as "Ralph de la Haye,
Lord Percy of Stainton le Strata" in the concocted pedigree?
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=42639
Regards,
John
-
John Brandon
Re: C.P. Addition: Clue to Origin of Ralph de Monthermer, Ea
There are no "airs" to be had over it, I am just stating the facts.
"Facts," my behind. It's just you imagining that you're important.
about him, persisting in his bad habits here when everyone else can
plainly see he is on a hiding to nothing.
I had never heard this expression--"on a hiding to nothing"--but it
seems it must have something to do with being flayed to pieces or
flayed apart.
What unpleasant/ violent fantasies you have. What a strange little
man you must be.
-
Gjest
Re: LIBERATI
In a message dated 5/29/2007 6:04:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
patdellapiana@yahoo.com writes:
Once again, I am trying to determine whether any mention exists within the
confines of what we now call Italy, of the surname LIBERATI, before the
seventeenth century.
The simplest way to accomplish this is to go to the WorldConnect Project
(also called the Ancestry World Tree), type in Liberati as the surname and Italy
as the birthplace and click submit.
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
patdellapiana@yahoo.com writes:
Once again, I am trying to determine whether any mention exists within the
confines of what we now call Italy, of the surname LIBERATI, before the
seventeenth century.
The simplest way to accomplish this is to go to the WorldConnect Project
(also called the Ancestry World Tree), type in Liberati as the surname and Italy
as the birthplace and click submit.
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-
Gjest
Re: Sir William Browne of Flushing marries a Huguenot
Perhaps you are correct but NEHGR Vol 48 p 267-70 (1894) states that
"(I) Sir Wm. Browne, b. in 1558 at Snelston, [Derbs] served for several
years in the Low Countries and d. there in 1610, August: was Lieut Governor of
Flushing m Mary Savage, b. in Germany, naturalized in 1600"
Could be she was a French women born in Germany and moved to Flushing?
As she was a Huguenot, she would have been a Protestant (Calvinist). I
don't think they were entirely confined to France, but were also in the low
countries. No doubt someone here could be more authoritative.
Adrian
In a message dated 29/05/2007 16:55:37 GMT Standard Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
A while back, I posted the following information --
_Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth_,
vol. 21, part 4, (January-June 1588), p. 37:
[Jan. 28, 1588.] WILLIAM BROWNE to his master, SIR FRAS. WALSINGHAM.
Asks approval for his marriage in those parts, to a Frenchwoman of
small substance, and no great lineage, being forced to it by
constraint of commanding accidents.---Flushing, 28 January, 1588.
As I posted a couple years ago, his wife was related to people named
"de Blocq" and "de Calvaert."
* * * * *
Nigel Goose's _Immigrants in Tudor and Early Stewart England_ states
she was a Huguenot.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PO5HeR ... +browne%22
+flushing&sig=9Lma_YnCg_VXKQ6dVaILpipIF28#PPA217,M1
Is this the only possibility for a Frenchwoman? I suppose so, as she
probably would not have been Catholic. Or were the Walloons a
Protestant sect?
"(I) Sir Wm. Browne, b. in 1558 at Snelston, [Derbs] served for several
years in the Low Countries and d. there in 1610, August: was Lieut Governor of
Flushing m Mary Savage, b. in Germany, naturalized in 1600"
Could be she was a French women born in Germany and moved to Flushing?
As she was a Huguenot, she would have been a Protestant (Calvinist). I
don't think they were entirely confined to France, but were also in the low
countries. No doubt someone here could be more authoritative.
Adrian
In a message dated 29/05/2007 16:55:37 GMT Standard Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
A while back, I posted the following information --
_Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth_,
vol. 21, part 4, (January-June 1588), p. 37:
[Jan. 28, 1588.] WILLIAM BROWNE to his master, SIR FRAS. WALSINGHAM.
Asks approval for his marriage in those parts, to a Frenchwoman of
small substance, and no great lineage, being forced to it by
constraint of commanding accidents.---Flushing, 28 January, 1588.
As I posted a couple years ago, his wife was related to people named
"de Blocq" and "de Calvaert."
* * * * *
Nigel Goose's _Immigrants in Tudor and Early Stewart England_ states
she was a Huguenot.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PO5HeR ... +browne%22
+flushing&sig=9Lma_YnCg_VXKQ6dVaILpipIF28#PPA217,M1
Is this the only possibility for a Frenchwoman? I suppose so, as she
probably would not have been Catholic. Or were the Walloons a
Protestant sect?
-
WJhonson
Re: Sir William Browne of Flushing marries a Huguenot
So there were two separate families of Browne's at Snelston?
Or should there be some kind of connection between these two, and if so what is it?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Or should there be some kind of connection between these two, and if so what is it?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Sir William Browne of Flushing marries a Huguenot
I have:
Brownes of Snelston, Derbs - Summary
Thomas Browne of Snelston, Derbs m Margaret Chetham of Chetham, nr
Manchester left
(A) Rudolphus/Ralph Browne (-?1577)
(B) Nicholas Browne (-bur 18 Jan 1587) of Snelston m Ellanor (-28 Apr 1595)
d&h of Ralph Shirley of Shirley, Derbs and wdw (m 1545) of Thomas Vernon of
Clifton & Harleston, Derbs and left
(I) William Browne (Snelston 1558-1610 Low Countries) Lt gen of Flushing,
Low Countries and of Atherington, Sussex; knt (1603/4) m Mary Savage of
Germany, naturalized 1600 and left (i) William Browne (bap 10 Nov 1594->1604);
naturalized 1604 (ii) Anne Browne (->1604 young) naturalized 1604 (iii) Barbara
(-infant) naturalized 1604 (iv) Percy Browne (c1602-<1635) naturalized 1622
m dau of Col Nathaniel Rich(e) of Standon, Essex and left (1) Nathaniel
Browne of New England (Connecticut) m and left issue (2) Robert Browne (-1660
Burmuda als Somers Island) of Somers Island, ordained (3) Samuel Browne (4)
?William Browne of Providence Island (v) Mary Browne naturalized 1622
(II) Gertrude Browne
(C) Thomas Browne dsp
Main source: NEHGR Vol 48 p 267-70 (1894)
The John Browne of the mint who m Anne Montgomery of Cubley (his m2), was
the son of William Browne (1467-Will 1514) Lord Mayor in 1513 by his m2 Alice
Kebyll. I think Pym Yeatman in his Brownes of Betchworth Castle tried to
connect this family to the above Brownes of Snelston, but I could not see that
he had proved a link, let alone how it worked.
Regards,
Adrian
In a message dated 29/05/2007 20:18:50 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com
writes:
Sir William Browne was son of Nicholas Browne of Snelston, Derbyshire by his
wife Eleanor Shirley, heiress of her father Ralph Shirley of Shirley,
Derbyshire
Was Nicholas a son of Sir William Browne of Flambard's Hall? by his wife
Alice Kebyll ?
Or was Nicholas a son of John Browne of Snelston by his wife Anne Montgomery
?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Brownes of Snelston, Derbs - Summary
Thomas Browne of Snelston, Derbs m Margaret Chetham of Chetham, nr
Manchester left
(A) Rudolphus/Ralph Browne (-?1577)
(B) Nicholas Browne (-bur 18 Jan 1587) of Snelston m Ellanor (-28 Apr 1595)
d&h of Ralph Shirley of Shirley, Derbs and wdw (m 1545) of Thomas Vernon of
Clifton & Harleston, Derbs and left
(I) William Browne (Snelston 1558-1610 Low Countries) Lt gen of Flushing,
Low Countries and of Atherington, Sussex; knt (1603/4) m Mary Savage of
Germany, naturalized 1600 and left (i) William Browne (bap 10 Nov 1594->1604);
naturalized 1604 (ii) Anne Browne (->1604 young) naturalized 1604 (iii) Barbara
(-infant) naturalized 1604 (iv) Percy Browne (c1602-<1635) naturalized 1622
m dau of Col Nathaniel Rich(e) of Standon, Essex and left (1) Nathaniel
Browne of New England (Connecticut) m and left issue (2) Robert Browne (-1660
Burmuda als Somers Island) of Somers Island, ordained (3) Samuel Browne (4)
?William Browne of Providence Island (v) Mary Browne naturalized 1622
(II) Gertrude Browne
(C) Thomas Browne dsp
Main source: NEHGR Vol 48 p 267-70 (1894)
The John Browne of the mint who m Anne Montgomery of Cubley (his m2), was
the son of William Browne (1467-Will 1514) Lord Mayor in 1513 by his m2 Alice
Kebyll. I think Pym Yeatman in his Brownes of Betchworth Castle tried to
connect this family to the above Brownes of Snelston, but I could not see that
he had proved a link, let alone how it worked.
Regards,
Adrian
In a message dated 29/05/2007 20:18:50 GMT Standard Time, wjhonson@aol.com
writes:
Sir William Browne was son of Nicholas Browne of Snelston, Derbyshire by his
wife Eleanor Shirley, heiress of her father Ralph Shirley of Shirley,
Derbyshire
Was Nicholas a son of Sir William Browne of Flambard's Hall? by his wife
Alice Kebyll ?
Or was Nicholas a son of John Browne of Snelston by his wife Anne Montgomery
?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: C.P. Addition: Clue to Origin of Ralph de Monthermer, Ea
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180447469.471668.314960@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Another baseless assertion on your part - I repeat, there is nothing
"important" about this. Trolls like yourself are a nuisance, but not of any
moment. Dealing with them is a chore, not a "noble campaign" or a matter for
any kind of pride - these are your own cheap-jack fantasies projected onto
me.
Nothing so extreme - it is a common enough phrase that most people would
know & that you could easily have found for yourself with a Google search
that you are so fond of boring us with when it suits you, meaning "a
situation in which a favourable outcome is impossible", see
http://www.allwords.com/word-be%20on%20 ... thing.html
Another of your fantasies: "little" is pure imagination, as baseless and
self-serving to a deformed ego as your other opinions.
Peter Stewart
news:1180447469.471668.314960@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
There are no "airs" to be had over it, I am just stating the facts.
"Facts," my behind. It's just you imagining that you're important.
Another baseless assertion on your part - I repeat, there is nothing
"important" about this. Trolls like yourself are a nuisance, but not of any
moment. Dealing with them is a chore, not a "noble campaign" or a matter for
any kind of pride - these are your own cheap-jack fantasies projected onto
me.
about him, persisting in his bad habits here when everyone else can
plainly see he is on a hiding to nothing.
I had never heard this expression--"on a hiding to nothing"--but it
seems it must have something to do with being flayed to pieces or
flayed apart.
Nothing so extreme - it is a common enough phrase that most people would
know & that you could easily have found for yourself with a Google search
that you are so fond of boring us with when it suits you, meaning "a
situation in which a favourable outcome is impossible", see
http://www.allwords.com/word-be%20on%20 ... thing.html
What unpleasant/ violent fantasies you have. What a strange little
man you must be.
Another of your fantasies: "little" is pure imagination, as baseless and
self-serving to a deformed ego as your other opinions.
Peter Stewart