Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 01 nov 2007 22:04:03

Christopher Ingham WRITES,
"The man is bullying you and others. Whether he blusters, cajoles,
or tries to impugn his critics, he will have his way. Let Mr. Arnold
have his faux genealogy, and relieve yourself of a pain in the
posterior. Meanwhile, other readers have benefitted from this discourse as an
instructive (and needlessly prolonged) excursus on the finer points
of research methodlogies."

BA: Circling the wagons, are we? I thought this was honest and forthright
debate about pedigrees? You want a bully: read DSH. His shots over
the bow of any boats approaching the wagons is piratical :) And I accept
that that is a mixed-metaphor :0 So: Sir Ingham, I have had a few more
than a few emails off-list: and a number of them read: "Hang in there; this
list is notorious for members bullying newcomers who have a personal
pedigree." So: Monsieur, I get it, you can bully on behalf of others, but
I cannot bully on behalf of myself? If you want reality: respond to
Philosophy of Genealogy 101, if you can comprehend it? And as for
NT, trust me on this, he can take care of himself: he does not need
wagons circled.

In the meantime, I will post FACTS about the Peck pedigree which was
trashed by S. Allyn Peck and others and has kept the truth and certainty
of the Peck pedigree under wraps for more than a half a century. At least
now you all know that there IS in the British Museum Library an authentic
pedigree of Peck dating from the 17th century and it was commissioned
by gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's brother Nicholas who spent a lot of
time and his own money to update the Visitations of Tonge and Flowers.
Now: it is up to genuine scholars, and not pit bulls, to deal with the FACTS
of its existence.

Bill

*************


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, The

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 01 nov 2007 22:10:52

He still wants others here to do his Genealogical Work for him.

This dog won't hunt OR play the piano.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.847.1193950995.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

In the meantime, I will post FACTS about the Peck pedigree which was
trashed by S. Allyn Peck and others and has kept the truth and certainty
of the Peck pedigree under wraps for more than a half a century. At least
now you all know that there IS in the British Museum Library an authentic
pedigree of Peck dating from the 17th century and it was commissioned
by gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's brother Nicholas who spent a lot of
time and his own money to update the Visitations of Tonge and Flowers.

Now: it is up to genuine scholars, and not pit bulls, to deal with the
FACTS of its existence.

Bill

wjhonson

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av wjhonson » 01 nov 2007 22:22:07

On Nov 1, 2:02 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In the meantime, I will post FACTS about the Peck pedigree which was
trashed by S. Allyn Peck and others and has kept the truth and certainty
of the Peck pedigree under wraps for more than a half a century. At least
now you all know that there IS in the British Museum Library an authentic
pedigree of Peck dating from the 17th century and it was commissioned
by gateway ancestor Joseph Peck's brother Nicholas who spent a lot of
time and his own money to update the Visitations of Tonge and Flowers.
Now: it is up to genuine scholars, and not pit bulls, to deal with the FACTS
of its existence.

Bill

-------------------
Bill, no one has disputed that there is, as you say "...in the British
Museum Library a pedigree of Peck which purports to date from the 17th
century and which purports to have been commissioned by gateway
ancestor Joseph Peck's brother Nicholas who, etc etc"

If there is someone disputing the above Bill, who is it?
What is being disputed is whether, in fact, the document which
purports this and that, is IN FACT this and that. That is, is there
evidence that it is, in fact, what it claims? Contrariwise, is there
evidence that it is, in fact, NOT what it claims?

Can we argue that point instead of the other one which is not
disputed?

Will Johnson

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 01 nov 2007 22:24:20

In article <mailman.847.1193950995.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:

In the meantime, I will post FACTS about the Peck pedigree which was
trashed by S. Allyn Peck and others and has kept the truth and certainty
of the Peck pedigree under wraps for more than a half a century.

If people read nothing else, they would see in these words the
antithesis of scholarship, the definitive closing of your mind. You
have a fervent belief in the truth of the pedigree in which you wish to
believe, and characterize all dissenting observations as somehow
disguising the revealed truth. This sort of unscholarly genealogical
fundamentalism is unfortunately very common. I will refrain from
drawing analogies to certain religious movements.

Since with these words you brand yourself as unable and unwilling to
learn from the remarks of more experienced genealogists on the matter of
the Peck genealogy, I am finished with this discussion.

One note in advance: do not take our silence, in response to your
(inevitable) further tirades on this subject, as agreement.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: Fw: PA Correction: Fairfax

Legg inn av Gjest » 01 nov 2007 22:53:03

Dear Will,
Any chance either was Master of the Horse to King Edward IV ?

Sincerely

James W Cummings

Dixmont ME USA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Richard Smyth at Road Run

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Richard Smyth at Road Run » 01 nov 2007 23:02:02

It is very typical, when an enthusiast encounters critics saying "you
cannot trust evidence X," to counter with a complaint of the type "you
naysayers would have us reject all early evidence, leaving us with
nothing." Sometimes this is deliberately misrepresenting or supressing
the logical basis of the criticism; usually it shows that the enthusiast
doesn't understand the basis of the criticism at all.

Nat Taylor


I do not entirely agree with this analysis of the problem. I have looked at some of the criticism offered by the experts in the field of genealogy and I must say that I am not that impressed with "the logical basis" of their criticisms. The root of the problem, in my opinion, is that the universities have not, on the whole, agreed that genealogy is a legitmate branch of the sciences of classification and that it should be cultivated and developed as a science. From the point of view of the logic of science, a classificatory judgment can be viewed as a set of virtual predictions and it has whatever epistemic value is revealed through the confirmation or disconfirmation of those predictions. In order to determine those values it is necessary to establish some estimate of the likelihood that what is predicted would occur if the judgment in question were or were not true. The robustness of the estimate should be expected to vary with the state of our knowledge of the generalizations upon which these predictions rest. As I will try to show, it typically does not.

Let me illustrate the problems I have in mind by selecting an example in which I have no personal interest and which, I assume, can also be viewed impartially by others. On pages 378 and 349 of Volume V of "The Great Migration", the most recent volume, Anderson discusses the case of a John Palmer who appears in the Boston records of March 1635/6. According to Anderson, these tells us that at that time John Palmer "was one of twenty-five persons cited by Boston selectmen as not having built on their allotment." After mentioning a case from 1637 that involved a John Palmer who might or might not have been a resident of Boston (though the other party was a Boston resident), Anderson continues "After the passage of another three years, the name John Palmer appears again in Boston records. On 30 March 1640, `John Palmer, carpenter, now dwelling here, is to be allowed an inhabitant, if he can get an house, or land to set an house upon (it being not proper to allow an inhabitant without habitation)'." After mentioning later records of this man and his family, Anderson continues: "The description in the 1640 record that John Palmer is `now dwelling here', would not seem to be appropriate for a man who had been in town continuously since 1635. Given this apparent lack of continuity. we cannot connect the John Palmer who was admitted an inhabitant of Boston with the man of the same name who was cited by the Boston selectmen in early 1636."

In discussing this example, I assume without any reservations the accuracy of Andersons's reporting. (I say this because, assuming its accuracy, his account reveals an error in Sanuel Drakes's "History and Antiquities of Boston", p. 253, which reads ". . . John Freind, carpenter, now dwelling here, allowed to remain and inhabit; John Palmer the same, if he can get a house, or land to set one on . . ." As Drake represents the matter, "John Palmer the same" could be interpreted to mean no more than that John Palmer was given conditional permission to inhabit.) Anderson makes dozens and dozens of similar judgments based upon an "apparent lack of continuity" which is supposed to be extablished by the lack of records for some period of time. The odd thing about this collection of opinions is that the judgment seems to be given with the same confidence despite large differences in the times involved---whether it is three years without a recorded presence or thirty years. Another odd thing is that the significance of the absence of the record does not seem to vary with differences in the the social status or occupation of the named individuals. In the case at hand, for example, (unless we assume the existence of three John Palmers) the length of time without records is only three years. What general expectations should one have about the sorts of records that should reasonably be expected to exist in that length of time? If a Boston carpenter were hired to work on a house in Cambridge might he be expected to find temporary lodging in Cambridge? Were some carpenters, in fact, itinerant workers in that time period and, if so, how should that fact bear on our expectations about the records? Since Anderson gives the same or greater weight to the hypothesis that there were two John Palmers as to the hypothesis of one, what do we know about the numbers of people coming to Boston in that interval. It would seem to be that the smaller the inflow the less credible the hypothesis. As I have indicated, Anderson makes dozens of arguments that have the same form, but none of them seem to be related in any way to the differences in the flow across the Atlantic or within the colonies in the different times that are involved.

I do not mean these remarks to be understood as denigration of Anderson. I selected his work because he is justly regarded with great admiration. I mean them to be understood as a comment on the under-developed state of genealogy as a science.

Regards.

Richard Smyth
smyth@nc.rr.com

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 01 nov 2007 23:58:04

IDENTITY FACT 4: Robert Peck, the Elder, is the son of John Peck of Wakefield, as IDENTIFIED
in the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library, published by the College of Heralds
in 1620:

In the introduction to the book *A Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck* author Ira B. Peck wrote:

"The following is the certificate of the heralds accompanying the pedigree and arms in the
British Museum.

20th Nov. 1620.

Visum agnitum et in munimenta Collegii Heraldoru relatum die et Anno suprascriptis.
Tesamur hoc.

Henry St. George, Richmond.
Henry Chitting, Chester.
John Philpott, Rogue Dragon.

It may be translated to mean that they had seen or examined it, acknowledged it true,
and entered it upon record, or placed it in the archives of the Heralds' College on the day
and year above written."

Submitted as *evidence* according to *rules of evidence:*

Bill

****




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

wjhonson

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av wjhonson » 02 nov 2007 00:09:28

Why do you start off by saying it's a fact, and then say it's
evidence?

A fact is only established by consensus. So far that isn't
forthcoming.

Repeating FACT over and over only makes you sound strident.

Will Johnson

wjhonson

Re: Fw: PA Correction: Fairfax

Legg inn av wjhonson » 02 nov 2007 00:10:26

On Nov 1, 2:50 pm, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Will,
Any chance either was Master of the Horse to King Edward IV ?

Sincerely

James W Cummings

Dixmont ME USA

************************************** See what's new athttp://www.aol.com


Yes it's possible.
I have no evidence of that either way.

Will

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 02 nov 2007 00:19:00

In article <1193958568.089077.62420@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:

Why do you start off by saying it's a fact, and then say it's
evidence?

A fact is only established by consensus.

Oh dear.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, The

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 02 nov 2007 00:23:06

Indeed...

DSH

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote in message
news:nltaylor-544CC5.19185901112007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

In article <1193958568.089077.62420@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:

Why do you start off by saying it's a fact, and then say it's
evidence?

A fact is only established by consensus.

Oh dear.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Gjest

Re: RULES OF EVIDENCE 101

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2007 00:54:15

On Nov 1, 3:04 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because some on gen-medieval have not the slightest understanding
of the RULES OF EVIDENCE, I will present some cogent thoughts on
*evidence* so that you all will desist in questioning fact, evidence, conclusion,
proof, truth, certainty, et al. Keeping in mind that all this is an academic
exercise, and short of DNA testing, none can swear to the truth and
certainty of a lineage/pedigree, I offer [sources unknown, for now]
the following:

"evidence: any species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the
trial of an issue, by the act of the parties and through the medium of witnesses,
records, documents, concrete objects, etc., for the purpose of inducing belief in
minds of the court or jury as to their contention."

BA: for the uninitiated: in scholarship, all the same rules apply except that
it is not in the setting of a jury or judge, but in the setting of books without
debate except by review: in the setting of forums such as this, in which the
FACTS are presented for a case, until the presentation rests, and the challengers
must meet the challenge and if they do not, then the FACTS presented are facts,


This is simply false. It is a perfect example of where the rules of
evidence in court do not compare well to those of scholarship. In
court, any statement unchallenged is granted the status of fact. In
scholarship, any statement unchallenged is simply a statement
unchallenged. Your failure to get anyone interested in your topic
does not make all you say fact.

It is flawed to present scholarship as solely a confrontational
practice, as is a courtroom argument, from which you are deriving
these 'rules of evidence'


BA: simply put, the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library is an exhibit!

"evidence: facts admitted upon trial of cause become 'evidence.'"

"evidence: facts judicially noticed are equivalent to 'evidence.'"

BA: the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library is a fact, judicially
noticed and equivalent to 'evidence.'!

THAT the Pedigree of Peck is in the British Library does appear to be
a fact. To suggest that it has been "judicially noticed" is another
story. For one thing, you are completely misapplying the above. It
says that "facts judicially noticed are equivalent to 'evidence.'"
This does not mean that evidence is the same as fact, any more than
all mammals are whales.

"evidence: inferences arising under doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' is 'evidence.'"

"evidence: opinion of expert is evidence which is to be weighed and considered
like any other evidence."

BA: under the *rules of evidence* an expert's opinion is NO MORE weighty than
any other evidence!

This has the implication that all evidence is of equal value, which is
ridiculous.

"evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove any matter in question, or to influence
the belief respecting it. Belief is produced by the consideration of something presented
to the mind. The matter thus presented, in whatever shape it may come, and through
whatever material organ it is derived, is evidence."

BA: Sheesh. How HARD is it to understand THAT?

What you are doing is playing word games. By your definition of
evidence, obviously the Peck pedigree is evidence, as is every web
page that mentions the individuals in question, and the bubblegum
wrapper on my desk that has the name Peck scribbled on the back. That
does not mean that the Peck Pedigree is _good_ evidence, or
_persuasive_ evidence, let alone _sufficient_ evidence to render the
connection fact.


PS
Acknowledgment that the forgoing *rules of evidence* are borrowed for scholarship
purposes only, I will submit the source at the proper time: admitting this is not the
proper time: this post is food for thought, free of the baggage of authority.


Yes, we wouldn't want to allow people to evaluate whether the
information is relevant to the question, would we?

taf

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: logical basis of argument (was Peck pedigree...)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 02 nov 2007 02:35:06

In article <mailman.850.1193954449.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
"Richard Smyth at Road Runner" <smyth@nc.rr.com> wrote:

It is very typical, when an enthusiast encounters critics saying "you
cannot trust evidence X," to counter with a complaint of the type "you
naysayers would have us reject all early evidence, leaving us with
nothing." Sometimes this is deliberately misrepresenting or supressing
the logical basis of the criticism; usually it shows that the enthusiast
doesn't understand the basis of the criticism at all.

Nat Taylor

I do not entirely agree with this analysis of the problem. I have looked at
some of the criticism offered by the experts in the field of genealogy and I
must say that I am not that impressed with "the logical basis" of their
criticisms. The root of the problem, in my opinion, is that the universities
have not, on the whole, agreed that genealogy is a legitmate branch of the
sciences of classification and that it should be cultivated and developed as
a science. From the point of view of the logic of science, a classificatory
judgment can be viewed as a set of virtual predictions and it has whatever
epistemic value is revealed through the confirmation or disconfirmation of
those predictions. In order to determine those values it is necessary to
establish some estimate of the likelihood that what is predicted would occur
if the judgment in question were or were not true. The robustness of the
estimate should be expected to vary with the state of our knowledge of the
generalizations upon which these predictions rest. As I will try to show,
it typically does not.

Let me illustrate the problems I have in mind by selecting an example in
which I have no personal interest and which, I assume, can also be viewed
impartially by others. On pages 378 and 349 of Volume V of "The Great
Migration", the most recent volume, Anderson discusses the case of a John
Palmer who appears in the Boston records of March 1635/6. According to
Anderson, these tells us that at that time John Palmer "was one of
twenty-five persons cited by Boston selectmen as not having built on their
allotment." After mentioning a case from 1637 that involved a John Palmer
who might or might not have been a resident of Boston (though the other party
was a Boston resident), Anderson continues "After the passage of another
three years, the name John Palmer appears again in Boston records. On 30
March 1640, `John Palmer, carpenter, now dwelling here, is to be allowed an
inhabitant, if he can get an house, or land to set an house upon (it being
not proper to allow an inhabitant without habitation)'." After mentioning
later records of this man and his family, Anderson continues: "The
description in the 1640 record that John Palmer is `now dwelling here', would
not seem to be appropriate for a man who had been in town continuously since
1635. Given this apparent lack of continuity. we cannot connect the John
Palmer who was admitted an inhabitant of Boston with the man of the same name
who was cited by the Boston selectmen in early 1636."

In discussing this example, I assume without any reservations the accuracy of
Andersons's reporting. (I say this because, assuming its accuracy, his
account reveals an error in Sanuel Drakes's "History and Antiquities of
Boston", p. 253, which reads ". . . John Freind, carpenter, now dwelling
here, allowed to remain and inhabit; John Palmer the same, if he can get a
house, or land to set one on . . ." As Drake represents the matter, "John
Palmer the same" could be interpreted to mean no more than that John Palmer
was given conditional permission to inhabit.) Anderson makes dozens and
dozens of similar judgments based upon an "apparent lack of continuity" which
is supposed to be extablished by the lack of records for some period of time.
The odd thing about this collection of opinions is that the judgment seems
to be given with the same confidence despite large differences in the times
involved---whether it is three years without a recorded presence or thirty
years. Another odd thing is that the significance of the absence of the
record does not seem to vary with differences in the the social status or
occupation of the named individuals. In the case at hand, for example,
(unless we assume the existence of three John Palmers) the length of time
without records is only three years. What general expectations should one
have about the sorts of records that should reasonably be expected to exist
in that length of time? If a Boston carpenter were hired to work on a house
in Cambridge might he be expected to find temporary lodging in Cambridge?
Were some carpenters, in fact, itinerant workers in that time period and, if
so, how should that fact bear on our expectations about the records? Since
Anderson gives the same or greater weight to the hypothesis that there were
two John Palmers as to the hypothesis of one, what do we know about the
numbers of people coming to Boston in that interval. It would seem to be
that the smaller the inflow the less credible the hypothesis. As I have
indicated, Anderson makes dozens of arguments that have the same form, but
none of them seem to be related in any way to the differences in the flow
across the Atlantic or within the colonies in the different times that are
involved.

This is an interesting case and I can understand your impatience that
the strength of the implied predictions is not assessed in advance, nor
is there any allowance for nuance based on length of time of lacunae,
occupations with likely itinerancy, etc. I do not have all volumes of
the _Great Migration_ series at hand but I wonder if any of this is
spoken to in a methodological introduction? One gets the general
impression that Anderson has been deliberately aggressive in trimming
off unproved early dates of residence for colonists: the project overall
is intended as a systematic rebuttal of early-arrival myths (and has
been very effective in this). I suspect this is why he has deliberately
privileged lacunae in the records, so that the later appearance of a
name ofter a gap would be indicated as someone's first arrival, with a
distinct namesake having appeared and vanished earlier. I think he
prefers the potential error of multiple entries for a single individual,
with a later recorded arrival date for the 'main' entry for that
individual (presumably the one with descendants), over the potential
errors of dating someone's arrival too early, and failing to distinguish
two individuals with the same name.

Perhaps Anderson has not spelled this out anywhere in the GM project's
publications, but knowing him (slightly) I suspect he *has* consciously
formulated it as a method, and is aware of its limitations.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 02 nov 2007 04:00:04

IDENTITY FACT 4: Robert Peck, the Elder, is the son of John Peck of Wakefield, as IDENTIFIED
in the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library, published by the College of Heralds
in 1620:
_____________________________________
Richard Peck, Esq.=Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Middleton, Knt.
_____________________________________
John Peck, of Wakefield, Esq.=Joan, dau. of John Anne, of Frickley
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, of Beccles, Suffolk=dau. of Norton, 2dly, dau. of Waters...sister Katherine Peck=John
Leyke/Leake/Leeke, of Normanton...brother Ralph Peck=the dau. of Leeke/Leake
_____________________________________

In the introduction to the book *A Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck* author Ira B. Peck wrote:

"The following is the certificate of the heralds accompanying the pedigree and arms in the
British Museum.

20th Nov. 1620.

Visum agnitum et in munimenta Collegii Heraldoru relatum die et Anno suprascriptis.
Tesamur hoc.

Henry St. George, Richmond.
Henry Chitting, Chester.
John Philpott, Rogue Dragon.

It may be translated to mean that they had seen or examined it, acknowledged it true,
and entered it upon record, or placed it in the archives of the Heralds' College on the day
and year above written."

Ladies and Gentlemen: in accordance with the *rules of evidence* the above pedigree is FACT and
the fact it is fact means it is *evidence* in the matter at hand: deal with it.

Bill

*****



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Gjest

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2007 04:17:39

On Nov 1, 7:37 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:


I have written a book, JESUS: The Gospel
According To Will: so please, caveat emptor, take this next thought in the context above,
and that is: in the New Testament the lineage/pedigree of Jesus from begat to begat onto
the last begat: we have the true and certain lineage/pedigree from King David to Jesus of
Nazareth, son of Joseph


Actually, in the NT there are two 'true and certain' lineages/
pedigrees from David to Jesus, and they are quite different from each
other, which means that neither is certain, and (at least) one of them
is not true. Setting aside what this says about the ancestry of
Jesus, it says a lot about how loosely you throw around the terms
"true and certain". (Always true and certain, never certain and
true? and repeated like a mantra as if you can incant reality simply
by force of repetition of a catch-phrase.)

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 02 nov 2007 04:39:02

TAF: Actually, in the NT there are two 'true and certain' lineages/
pedigrees from David to Jesus, and they are quite different from each
other, which means that neither is certain, and (at least) one of them
is not true.

BA: which proves you totally flunk Philosophy of Genealogy 101! You
gloss the main point, which is? What is the true and certain pedigree
of the daughter of Anna Nicole Smith? According to YOU: Howard Stern.

And what does that say about the academic exercise exercised in the
name of destroying forests of paper and burning email energy across the
globe in which DNA does not support these supposed paper trails of
lineages/pedigrees? It is others who have suggested I have an enthused/ardent
interest in the Peck pedigree when I am the first among us to admit all such
academic pedigree are nothing more than academic lineages/pedigrees and
do not pass the true and certain test: DNA! Or: to put it in the words of
the NT: only the Holy Spirit knows for sure!!

Bill

********

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Storm

RE: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Storm » 02 nov 2007 04:43:05

Blomefield, in his " Essay " already referred to, speaks of Robert Peck
among the rectors of the church in Hingham, England. A more particular and
candid account would be desirable, but we must remember the spirit which
moved the writer to his work,— Blomefield being a churchman and Peck a
non-conformist. He says:

1605, 7 Jan. Robert Peck, A.M. THO. MOOR, by grant of Francis Lovell, Knt.
he was "a man of a very violent schismatical spirit, he pulled down the
rails, and levelled the altar and the whole chancel a foot below the church,
as it remains to this day, but being prosecuted for it by Bishop Wren, he
fled the kingdom, and went over into New-England, with many of his
parishioners, who sold their estates for half their value, and conveyed all
their effects to that new plantation, erected a town and colonie, by the
name of HINGHAM, where many of their posterity are still remaining, he
promised never to desert them, but hearing that Bishops were deposed, he
left them all to shift for themselves, and came back to Hingliam in the year
1646, after 10 years voluntary banishment, he resumed his rectory, and died
in the year 1656."

(Horton, Edward Augustus. Discourse Delivered to the First Parish in Hingham
on the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the Opening of Its Meeting-House for
Public Worship. Hingham Parish: Hingham, 1882, p. 56)


The Nature vs. Nurture debate has finally been settled for me. . .

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of taf@clearwire.net
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:18 PM
To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101


On Nov 1, 7:37 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:


I have written a book, JESUS: The Gospel
According To Will: so please, caveat emptor, take this next thought in the
context above,
and that is: in the New Testament the lineage/pedigree of Jesus from begat
to begat onto
the last begat: we have the true and certain lineage/pedigree from King
David to Jesus of
Nazareth, son of Joseph


Actually, in the NT there are two 'true and certain' lineages/
pedigrees from David to Jesus, and they are quite different from each
other, which means that neither is certain, and (at least) one of them
is not true. Setting aside what this says about the ancestry of
Jesus, it says a lot about how loosely you throw around the terms
"true and certain". (Always true and certain, never certain and
true? and repeated like a mantra as if you can incant reality simply
by force of repetition of a catch-phrase.)

taf


-------------------------------
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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.13/1099 - Release Date: 10/30/2007
10:06 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.13/1099 - Release Date: 10/30/2007
10:06 AM

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2007 04:50:55

On Nov 1, 7:57 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
IDENTITY FACT 4: Robert Peck, the Elder, is the son of John Peck of Wakefield, as IDENTIFIED
in the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum Library, published by the College of Heralds
in 1620:


Repetition does not make it real. If you would just state that the
pedigree says this, without elevating it to the level of a fact (let
alone shouting "IDENTITY FACT"), no one could disagree with the
statement. Your insistence on calling this a fact is not too
different than someone throwing "certainly" before a tenuous
conclusion - if it really was so certain, they wouldn't feel the need
to use the word "certainly", they could just state it outright. It is
only because it isn't certain that they feel the need to artificially
strengthen the statement by claiming certainty. That you counter
factually insist on shouting that this claimed relationship is fact
only highlights that it isn't, and is the root of the entire
disagreement.


In the introduction to the book *A Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck* author Ira B. Peck wrote:

"The following is the certificate of the heralds accompanying the pedigree and arms in the
British Museum.

20th Nov. 1620.

Visum agnitum et in munimenta Collegii Heraldoru relatum die et Anno suprascriptis.
Tesamur hoc.

Henry St. George, Richmond.
Henry Chitting, Chester.
John Philpott, Rogue Dragon.

It may be translated to mean that they had seen or examined it, acknowledged it true,
and entered it upon record, or placed it in the archives of the Heralds' College on the day
and year above written."

Me thinks you are using a rather loose translation.

Ladies and Gentlemen: in accordance with the *rules of evidence* the above pedigree is FACT and
the fact it is fact means it is *evidence* in the matter at hand: deal with it.


This is, of course, ridiculous in the extreme. To argue that it is
evidence because it is fact, and therefor, since it is evidence, what
it shows is fact? It is worse than circular (which it also is), it is
completely pointless, because you start with the goal, then take
several more steps to get back to the place you started. It is all
just word-games. The pedigree is evidence (albeit of a dubious value)
of its own accord.

It is not fact. That you claim it has been approved by royal officers
has no bearing on whether it is evidence or whether it is fact. By
your silly argument, conflicting pedigrees approved by heralds (and
examples of this abound) must both be fact in spite of their mutually
exclusive reconstructions of the family.

It is simply ludicrous to misapply rules of legal (courtroom) evidence
to scholarly pursuits. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding
of scholarship, particularly its historiographic aspects, and is
nothing but an artificial high-school-debate ploy.

taf

Gjest

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2007 05:03:39

On Nov 1, 8:37 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
TAF: Actually, in the NT there are two 'true and certain' lineages/
pedigrees from David to Jesus, and they are quite different from each
other, which means that neither is certain, and (at least) one of them
is not true.

BA: which proves you totally flunk Philosophy of Genealogy 101! You
gloss the main point, which is?

My main point is that you use the term "true and certain" in any
manner that would make Noah Webster apoplectic. As to your little
philosophical exercise, it was just smoke and mirrors. Its only
relevance to the discussion was in what it revealed about you, as
opposed to what it revealed about genealogy.

What is the true and certain

"True and certain" again. You do know that "true and certain" is not
a single word, but three? and that the true flexibility of the
English language can best be revealed through the use of different
combinations of words?

pedigree
of the daughter of Anna Nicole Smith? According to YOU: Howard Stern.


Ah, yes, more juvenile debate-tricks. Tell you what - how about
leaving my opinions to me to decide, rather than telling me what they
are? I am quite capable of forming my own .


taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Philosophy Of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 02 nov 2007 05:31:07

Ah, yes, more juvenile debate-tricks. Tell you what - how about
leaving my opinions to me to decide, rather than telling me what they
are? I am quite capable of forming my own .

taf
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Juvenile Indeed...

How many of you think "Bill Arnold" is a man in his 70's?

Nat and taf have been "DEBATING" a PFK -- a pimply-faced kid having some fun
on SGM-- who has taken them for a ride.

This dog [PFK] won't hunt OR learn to play the piano. He's just interested
in mocking a couple of Mediaeval Genealogists -- and he even bagged one from
Harvard.

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

DSH

<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1193976219.522331.37690@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 1, 8:37 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

pedigree
of the daughter of Anna Nicole Smith? According to YOU: Howard Stern.

Ah, yes, more juvenile debate-tricks. Tell you what - how about
leaving my opinions to me to decide, rather than telling me what they
are? I am quite capable of forming my own .

taf

Gjest

Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2007 09:42:53

On Oct 27, 1:36 am, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Will, Jonathan Kirton has posted that the tomb of Anne (Ruskyn) Leeke has arms quartered with Bellars and Houby. Apparently the descent is as follows

Anne Ruskyn "co-heiress of her father" married John Leeke of Wyer Hall, Edmonton

she was daughter of
William Ruskyn of Melton Mowbray, co Leics who m EllenBellerssometime in the early to mid 15th century

EllenBellerswas co-heiress to her brother John who d.s.p. in 1476. He had four sisters, I'm not clear if his sister Joan was living at the time of his death, or if her inheritence was "in her issue" which she did have.

At any rate Ellen (and John) were children of JohnBellersof Eye Kettleby (also called "of KirkbyBellers) who was dead by 1420, he was the only son of Sir JamesBellersby his wife Margaret Bernake

Meanwhile the wife of JohnBellerswas Elizabeth Houby, daughter of Anthony Houby (d 1422). Anthony is turn was grandson, or apparent grandson at any rate, of another Anthony Houby, who was heir in his issue of his elder brother Gilbert whose line went extinct.

Gilbert and Anthony Houby in turn were sons of Walter de Houby "40 years old and more at IPM of his mother 5E2" who died in 1349. And then Walter de Houby's mother was that Matilda (Maud) de Kirkby, heiress of KirkbyBellers.

Will Johnson

Will mentioned that John Bellers was the only son of Sir James Bellers
and Margaret Bernake.

The helpful online National Archives catalogue, ref SC 8/23/1107A,
details two further sons of Sir James, William a Franciscan friar, and
James a man of law, who I assume to be younger brothers of John:

Petitioners: Robert Walron, executor of John Talbot of Swannington,
knight.
Addressees: King and lords and commons of parliament.
Date: Dated on the guard to? 1406, with reference to the following
writ and CPR 1405-8, pp.230, 234, both of which are dated at
Westminster, 1 April 1406. This petition must have been presented at
the parliament of March 1406.
Places mentioned: Swannington, [Leicestershire]; Snypston (Snibston),
[Leicestershire]; Sixynby (Sysonby), [Leicestershire].
Other people mentioned: John Talbot of Swannington, knight; Alan le
Souche (Zouche); James Belers, knight; John Belers, son of James
Belers; William Belers, Dominican friar, son of James Belers; James
Belers, man of law, son of James Belers.
Nature of request: Robert Walron, one of the executors of John Talbot
of Swannington, states that when he, with his co-executor Alan le
Zouche, sued a writ of debt against James Belers, knight, for £200, on
a bond made to John Talbot, James' son John came with a body of armed
men, dragged him, a sick man of eighty, away half-naked, and took him
to John Belers' manor of Sysonby, and there he and his brothers kept
him for twelve days, maltreating him until he had made an acquittance
for their father's debt, and an oath and a bond that he would not
prosecute them for what they had done. He requests a remedy, so that
he can sue the malefactors, and prosecute his action of debt, and that
they might be severely punished, as an example to others.
Endorsement: It is agreed by the king and lords in parliament that
several writs should be sent to John and James Belers, that they
should appear before the king and council in parliament on the Monday
after the feast of St Benedict next, on pain of a penalty of £100
each. And another writ is to be sent to the sheriff of Leicester, to
summon them on the same day, if they are at their houses; and if they
are not there, the writs are to be left with the inhabitants, to
deliver to them. And if they do not appear on the day, they are to
incur the penalty of £100. And this is to be good for this case only,
and not a precedent.

A number of online trees (best taken with large pinches of salt) show
Jane Belers, wife of John de St Liz, as being the daughter of William
Belers, son of Sir James Belers. Did Franciscan friars often have
(documented) children?

David

terrence White

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av terrence White » 02 nov 2007 13:20:07

It is also clearly not getting this list (newsgroup) anywhere, either. I agree with Will.

T.J. "Terry" White

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Bill this constant back and forth isn't getting you anywhere.

You are here, and Nat is there, and the rest of us are waiting for the
pissing contest to stop so we can address the issues.

Will




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peck pedigree

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 02 nov 2007 13:42:38

In article <mailman.865.1193969864.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

Bill this constant back and forth isn't getting you anywhere.

You are here, and Nat is there, and the rest of us are waiting for the
pissing contest to stop so we can address the issues.

The issues in this case? I wouldn't bother. I've signed off it, at any
rate.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

John Brandon

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av John Brandon » 02 nov 2007 15:57:47

On Nov 1, 11:43 pm, "Storm" <st...@pine-net.com> wrote:
Blomefield, in his " Essay " already referred to, speaks of Robert Peck
among the rectors of the church in Hingham, England. A more particular and
candid account would be desirable, but we must remember the spirit which
moved the writer to his work,- Blomefield being a churchman and Peck a
non-conformist. He says:

1605, 7 Jan. Robert Peck, A.M. THO. MOOR, by grant of Francis Lovell, Knt.
he was "a man of a very violent schismatical spirit, he pulled down the
rails, and levelled the altar and the whole chancel a foot below the church,
as it remains to this day, but being prosecuted for it by Bishop Wren, he
fled the kingdom, and went over into New-England, with many of his
parishioners, who sold their estates for half their value, and conveyed all
their effects to that new plantation, erected a town and colonie, by the
name of HINGHAM, where many of their posterity are still remaining, he
promised never to desert them, but hearing that Bishops were deposed, he
left them all to shift for themselves, and came back to Hingliam in the year
1646, after 10 years voluntary banishment, he resumed his rectory, and died
in the year 1656."

(Horton, Edward Augustus. Discourse Delivered to the First Parish in Hingham
on the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the Opening of Its Meeting-House for
Public Worship. Hingham Parish: Hingham, 1882, p. 56)

The Nature vs. Nurture debate has finally been settled for me. . .


I suppose this explains why *I* am so difficult as well (being
descended from the Rev. Peck).

Or maybe it's that I'm half Scots-Irish (on my dad's side), and Scots-
Irish in the matrilineal line ...

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 02 nov 2007 16:34:04

As they say in New York, if not Cambridge, Massachusetts, "too late smart".

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nltaylor@nltaylor.net> wrote in message
news:nltaylor-6C1415.08423802112007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

In article <mailman.865.1193969864.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

Bill this constant back and forth isn't getting you anywhere.

You are here, and Nat is there, and the rest of us are waiting for the
pissing contest to stop so we can address the issues.

The issues in this case? I wouldn't bother. I've signed off it, at any
rate.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Bill Arnold

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 02 nov 2007 16:37:04

BA: which proves you totally flunk Philosophy of Genealogy 101! You
gloss the main point, which is?

TAF: As to your little philosophical exercise, it was just smoke and mirrors. Its only
relevance to the discussion was in what it revealed about you, as opposed to what it
revealed about genealogy.

BA: ...pedigree of the daughter of Anna Nicole Smith? According to YOU: Howard Stern.

TAF: Tell you what - how about leaving my opinions to me to decide, rather than telling
me what they are? I am quite capable of forming my own .

BA: You have *repeated* my Philosophy of Genealogy 101, and you have flunked it
twice, now. You refuse to respond to the main question and yet you continue to sign
up for my course? Why? I will allow you a third time, as is sometimes done in some
colleges/universities here in America.

BA: once again, why is not all these lineages/pedigrees only an academic exercise
in futility, inasmuch as we know that in the case of Anna Nicole Smith, her husband
Howard K. Stern was on the birth certificate and by the standards of academics used
here, and elsewhere, he was the father of her daughter, when in fact DNA proved he
was not?

Bill

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Gjest

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2007 17:19:02

On Nov 2, 8:35 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

TAF: Tell you what - how about leaving my opinions to me to decide, rather than telling
me what they are? I am quite capable of forming my own .

BA: You have *repeated* my Philosophy of Genealogy 101,

No, I have refused to participate in your childish fantasy. You might
as well tell me to play 'Cowboys and Indians' and call it Anthropology
101.

Didn't you say you wanted to talk about the Peck pedigree? Well, talk
about the Peck pedigree. Instead you blather about Jesus (who was not
medieval) and Howard Stern (who is also not medieval). You have
spilled a lot of electrons talking about flawed rules of evidence,
flawed analogies, flawed mental masturbation, yet what you fail to
address is the flawed Peck pedigree. The reasons for doubting it have
been layed out. Your only response has been to declare it fact (or
rather FACT) by personal proclamation. You are acting more like an
evangelist or the self-delusional than a scholar.

taf

Gjest

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2007 17:58:02

In a message dated 11/2/2007 8:36:02 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
billarnoldfla@yahoo.com writes:

BA: once again, why is not all these lineages/pedigrees only an academic
exercise
in futility, inasmuch as we know that in the case of Anna Nicole Smith, her
husband
Howard K. Stern was on the birth certificate and by the standards of
academics used
here, and elsewhere, he was the father of her daughter, when in fact DNA
proved he
was not?


------------
In the statement "I am the father of this child", we may by DNA prove that
it's wrong 2 or 10 percent of the time. However in the statement "I am the
MOTHER of this child", DNA is very likely to prove it's right 99.7 percent of
the time.

Address that.

Will "Will" Johnson



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Gjest

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2007 18:01:30

On Nov 1, 7:37 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is preposterous that some who believe
they are scholars on this list will flaunt their ill will and term a house of cards someone's
pedigree as not worth the paper it is printed on when none of these pedigrees are worth
more than the paper they are printed on to true and certain scholars who have passed
the primary course with an A: Philosophy of Genealogy 101.

By the way, this group has seen various forms of genealogical
nihilism, of which this is an example, invariably paraded out as a way
to distract attention from the well-founded criticism of their beloved
pedigree. The argument our dear faux-professor is using is that "since
we can't know anything for certain, the flaws in my logic and my
misapplication of the rules of evidence become irrelevant." One
wonders what Prof. Plumb would do to an undergraduate who tried that
defense.

taf

norenxaq

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av norenxaq » 02 nov 2007 18:26:04

taf@clearwire.net wrote:

On Nov 1, 7:37 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:


It is preposterous that some who believe
they are scholars on this list will flaunt their ill will and term a house of cards someone's
pedigree as not worth the paper it is printed on when none of these pedigrees are worth
more than the paper they are printed on to true and certain scholars who have passed
the primary course with an A: Philosophy of Genealogy 101.



By the way, this group has seen various forms of genealogical
nihilism, of which this is an example, invariably paraded out as a way
to distract attention from the well-founded criticism of their beloved
pedigree. The argument our dear faux-professor is using is that "since
we can't know anything for certain, the flaws in my logic and my
misapplication of the rules of evidence become irrelevant." One
wonders what Prof. Plumb would do to an undergraduate who tried that
defense.

taf





demand that said student get a clue????

The Hodgsons' ancestor se

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1499

Legg inn av The Hodgsons' ancestor se » 02 nov 2007 18:30:22

<david11000carca@yahoo.fr> said:

A number of online trees (best taken with large pinches of salt) show Jane
Belers, wife of John de St Liz, as being the daughter of William Belers, son
of Sir James Belers.

Does this posting help at all?

http://www.talkabouteducation.com/group ... sages/1199
53.html

Richard Hodgson

Douglas Richardson

Re: Fwd: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 02 nov 2007 18:56:48

Dear Jonathan ~

You've proven your point. The new evidence which you've presented
makes it clear that Anne Ruskin was the second wife of John Kirton,
not the first wife as stated by the visitation of Northamptonshire.

Thank you for sharing your findings with the newsgroup. Your
diligence is inspiirational.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Oct 31, 2:54 am, jonathan kirton <jonathankir...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
< Douglas,
<
< Thanks for your response yesterday, and for pointing me to the
< second John Leeke will of 10 July,1508, PRO Cat. Ref.: prob/11/16,
< (Image Ref.: 24), which is indeed that ofJohnLeekeof Edmonton,
< "Edlemonton", as he repeatedly writes it in the will. It is in
< that late Latin which seems to mix in English and French words and
< will take time to read in total, however there are three mentions
of
< his wife Ann(e), and two of his son: "Jasper filius", and one of
his
< daughter "Elizabeth filia", so I believe that this is sufficient
< evidence to confirm it as being that ofJohnLeekeof Wyer Hall,
< Edmonton, Middlesex. Since he was still alive in1508, by which
time
< most ofJohnKirton and Margaret White's had to have been alive, I
< believe this does confirm that Margaret White wasJohnKirton's
first
< wife, and thatJohnLeele's widow, AnneLeeke(nee Ruskyn) wasJohn
< Kirton's second wife.
<
< Irrespectively, before the above was confirmed, you had suggested
in
< your second paragraph that AnneLeeke(nee Ruskyn) might have had
< "sufficient time to marryJohnLeekeandJohnKirton in rapid
< succession, and die before 1500". This would have made theLeeke
< children and the Kirton children half-brothers and sisters,
instead
< of step-brothers and sisters, which I feel certain would have made
< Jasper Leek and Margaret (1) Kirton, and William Kirton and
Elizabeth Leekeineligible to marry, because they would have all
shared one of
< their parents, namely Anne. Yet we have proof that these two
couples
< did indeed marry, fromJohnKirton's own will, as well as from the
< Harleian MS.
<
< I do not think that the fact that Stephen Kirton did not marry
until
< 1530, when he would have been aged about 28 or 29, is sufficient
< reason for the conclusion which you had suggested.
<
< Again I thank you very much for taking an interest in this, and
for
< helping to sort it all out.
<
< Sincerely, Jonathan

Gjest

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2007 20:21:03

Dear Douglas,

Thank you for your message.

You seem to forget that Sir William FitzWilliam (1526 -1599) of Milton spent
most of his life in Ireland

Adrian


In a message dated 02/11/2007 17:45:51 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Dear Adrian ~

Good to hear from you as always.

The first wife of Sir Thomas Browne, Knt. (died 1597), of West
Betchworth (in Dorking), Surrey was Mabel Fitz William, eldest
daughter and co-heiress of William Fitzwilliam, Knt., of Windsor,
Berkshire, gentleman of the privy chamber, lieutenant of Windor
Castle, by Jane, daughter and co-heiress of John Roberts. Mabel was
born about 1540 (age 19 in 1559).

Evidence of Mabel's parentage can be found in two different
visitations:

1. Philipot Vis. of Kent 1619-1621 (H.S.P. 42) (1898): 217 (Add'l
Peds.) (Browne pedigree: "Sir Thomas Browne of Betchworth Knight =
Mabell da. & coheire of Sir Will. Fitzwilliam of Ireland Knight").

2. Benolte et al. Vis. of Surrey 1530, 1572 & 1613 (H.S.P. 43)
(1899): 8-10 (Browne pedigree: "Sr Thomas Browne of Beechworth Knight.
[1] = Mabell d. & heire of Sr Wi'm Fitz Wi'ms of Ireland, [2] = Ellen
d. & heire of Wi'm Harding & widdow Ric. Knevett.").

As such, it seems obvious that the Sir William Fitzwilliam who wrote
the letter you posted dated 1558 was Sir William Fitzwilliam, of
Ireland, not Sir William Fitzwilliam, of Milton, Northamptonshire, as
claimed by the editor, Thomas Wright.

Those who wish to view the published transcript of Sir William
Fitzwilliam's 1558 letter may do so at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-tz3W7 ... eth+and+He
r+Times+Cawerden#PPA3,M1

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 02 nov 2007 21:12:40

Adrian ~

Sir Thomas Browne's father-in-law was definitely Sir William
Fitzwilliam, of Ireland, not Sir William Fitzwilliam, of Milton,
Northamptonshire, Deputy of Ireland. If Mr. Wright misidentifed the
author of the 1558 letter, this may explain your confusion.

I trust the added information has resolved the matter for you.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Nov 2, 12:15 pm, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
< Dear Douglas,
<
< Thank you for your message.
<
< You seem to forget that Sir William FitzWilliam (1526 -1599) of
Milton spent
< most of his life in Ireland
<
< Adrian
<

Douglas Richardson

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 02 nov 2007 21:24:49

Dear Newsgroup ~

Additional information on Mabel Fitzwilliam's correct parents, Sir
William Fitzwilliam, and his wife, Jane Roberts, can be found at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh0IAA ... ne+Roberts

This information should dispel any notion that Mabel Fitzwilliam's
father was Sir William Fitzwilliam, of Milton, Northamptonshire, as
alleged by Mr. Wright.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Bill Arnold

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 02 nov 2007 22:50:04

TAF: Tell you what - how about leaving my opinions to me to decide, rather than telling
me what they are? I am quite capable of forming my own .

BA: You have *repeated* my Philosophy of Genealogy 101,

TAF: No, I have refused to participate in your childish fantasy.

BA: for the third and *last* time: F!

Bill

******

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Bill Arnold

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 02 nov 2007 23:00:04

BA: once again, why is not all these lineages/pedigrees only an academic
exercise in futility, inasmuch as we know that in the case of Anna Nicole Smith, her
husband Howard K. Stern was on the birth certificate and by the standards of
academics used here, and elsewhere, he was the father of her daughter, when in fact DNA
proved he was not?

Will "Will" Johnson: In the statement "I am the father of this child", we may by DNA prove that
it's wrong 2 or 10 percent of the time. However in the statement "I am the
MOTHER of this child", DNA is very likely to prove it's right 99.7 percent of
the time. Address that.

BA: OK: I will, Will, from this Will's *Will*! I do not know where you come up with that
statistic?
I am not sure anyone has tested this theory of Philosophy of Genealogy 101. Understand, this
is a viable subject for gen-medieval, because I am not aware it has been addressed as yet?
Already in courts, the question of DNA-proven lineage/pedigrees is a genuine cause of action:
especially among the rich, the Hollywood set, and I am sure in Royal families. I have read of
allegations naming familiar names, which I will leave unnamed. Obviously, the maternal line
is unquestioned, agreed? Even in the case of ancient Near Eastern lineages/pedigrees, the
word *adultery* is known to have come from the concept of adulteration of the blood line.
Women have been stoned to death in ancient times, and recently in certain tribal cultures.
Why? Because they birth the child. Thus, there is an ancient tribal tradition to keep the
*woman*
sacred from the males until she is mated with a known blood line selected by a tribal leader:
re: recent events in fundamentalist sects in Utah and other cultures around the world. So, of
course, your point is well taken: although I disagree with the statistic: I would say if the woman
births the child, the statistic is 100%. But let us *not* escape Philosophy of Genealogy 101:
the academic exercise we all commit to when we do these *paper* genealogies is futile. We
know in our heart of hearts that our paper lineages/pedigrees is hollow in the sense that the
underlying truth and certainty is *really* in doubt in terms of REALITY! For the truth is
certain,
that if one grandma cheated or was assaulted sexually, and did not tell, the lineage/pedigree
is hollow at its core. Hence, with time, Charlemagne known ancestors will unearthed and tested
for
DNA as will Plantagenet known ancestors, et al., and future requirements of PROOF of
lineage/pedigree
will be DNA testing. I am sure you, and many members are aware, of the National Geographic
global DNA testing, of which my wife and I partook, and the resultant *lines* have been charted
upon a globe to show the *migration* pattern of lineages/pedigrees.

Bill

***********





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Bill Arnold

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 02 nov 2007 23:08:03

TAF: By the way, this group has seen various forms of genealogical
nihilism, of which this is an example, invariably paraded out as a way
to distract attention from the well-founded criticism of their beloved
pedigree.

BA: Monsieur, you accused me of *reading* your mind, and now you
*pretend* to read mine. I told you once, and I will now tell you twice:
I care no whit about the Peck pedigree as it concerns me, except it is
an academic exercise. I say that cold-bloodedly. I have no pretense
to test it with DNA as I have already test my DNA back to Africa, as I
know from whence we all originated via our lineages/pedigrees. So:
desist in reading my mind, Monsieur! Ask: and I will Will it to you,
via the Will of us all: < G > !

Bill

************

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Bill Arnold

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 02 nov 2007 23:30:04

DNA, the future of lineages/pedigrees:


http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adven ... raphic.com

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/gen ... urney.html

Bill

*****



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

wjhonson

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av wjhonson » 02 nov 2007 23:31:29

Bill you did not address my point. You, locked into a paternalistic
mindset, again addressed the issue of where a child was a product of
the UNION of two particular people. That wasn't my point at all.

My point is that, we can with much more certainty believe a woman who
states "my son so-and-so" as she would be in the ultimate position to
know.

Whereas a *man* must always be a bit uncertain, which was YOUR point.
However it's not my point.

RE: DNA testing, you are fixated on male-line testing, however there
is also female-line testing, which, in the modern age, where we can
actually merge and compare various lines in a rapid fashion, *may*
just allow DNA to help genealogy immensely. Perhaps even more-so than
male-line testing.

The reason why male-line testing is so large is only because documents
and *surnames* merge to form this vast pool of items to be validated
with male-line-DNA, whereas female-lines tend to be more obscure as a
*name* itself cannot be used to validate a line.

If more people did mitochondrial testing, we could actually set-up a
universal database where we could compare the results and join
families in the female line and unjoin ones who can't possibly be in
that line.

Let me be the first to predict such a thing occuring within the next
say three to five years.

As for you Bill, personally testing, for the Peck line, You are not a
Peck, your mother was not a Peck and your wife, and her mother are/
were not Peck, so you cannot.

Will Johnson

Bill Arnold

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 02 nov 2007 23:45:05

DNA, the future of lineages/pedigrees:



http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adven ... raphic.com

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/gen ... urney.html

Go there:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/gen ... sults.html

Bill

*****


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Bill Arnold

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 02 nov 2007 23:59:03

DNA, the future of lineages/pedigrees:


http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adven ... raphic.com

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/gen ... urney.html

Go there:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/gen ... sults.html

And here;

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/ ... 2/map.html

Bill

*****


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Paulo Gomes Jardim

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av Paulo Gomes Jardim » 03 nov 2007 00:20:17

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:15:22 +0100, Christopher Ingham
<christopheringham@comcast.net> wrote:

[..]
Because Alfonso VI (d. 3 June 1109) had no legitimate male

I have his death date set as 30 Jun or 1 July 1109.
Was that 3 June a typo, or do you have other information?


--
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
(Sun Tzu, The Art of War)

Paulo Gomes Jardim

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av Paulo Gomes Jardim » 03 nov 2007 00:31:31

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:45:20 +0100, <taf@clearwire.net> wrote:

[..]
was) when Alfonso married Queen Isabel, mother of his daughters, and

Hello taf,

Perhaps you can clarify me on this.
I have (references made when available):

Afonso VI = Isabel/Zaida
-Sancho
-Elvira
-Sancha = D. Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara

Afonso VI = Isabel de França (d. of Luis "Le Gros" de França)
-Sancha Afonso = Rodrigo Alvares de Asturias (from: La casa de Ron)

Are there actually 2 Sanchas?
Is there any documented evidence for this?

Regards,

Paulo

--
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
(Sun Tzu, The Art of War)

Paulo Gomes Jardim

Ancestry of the early Earls of Pembroke [Was: Zaida's backgr

Legg inn av Paulo Gomes Jardim » 03 nov 2007 01:07:31

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:53:05 +0100, <viridmontane@gmail.com> wrote:

[..]
Just out of curiousity, do you have any further details on Richard de
Clare's killing his son for attempting to flee a battle ? Richard
(Strongbow) 2nd Earl of Pembroke died in 1176 of an infected foot
while trying to suppress a rebellion against his authority in Ireland.
I think he left behind a son, Gilbert (about 3 yrs. old) and a
daughter Isabel. I think Gilbert inherited his father's title and
became 3rd Earl of Pembroke. However he died in 1185 aged about 12. I
don't know the circumstances of his death. Later on, I think around
1189, Isabel's husband inherited the Pembroke title. Thanks for any
further info you can provide.

Hello all,

I have these early Earls of Pembroke on my ancestry by way of the Madeiran
Drummond family.
I have this Robert de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, as son of Gilbert de
Clare, 1st Earl of Pembroke, and Isabel de Beaumont (d. of Robert de
Beaumont, 1st Count of Leicester, Count of Meulan, and Isabel de
Vermandois).
I am interested on any information on Gilbert de Clare ancestry, as I
don't have any for him.
The same for Sir William Marshall, 4th Earl of Pembroke by his wife Isabel
de Clare, is he of documented or otherwise presumed ancestry?

Thanks,

Paulo

--
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
(Sun Tzu, The Art of War)

Gjest

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 nov 2007 01:48:04

Dear Douglas,

Thanks, you are quite right.

By the way this William's will was proved in 1559 (PCC), not 1555 as shown
in the web page you quote, an obvious error.

I wonder if there is any connection of this to William FitzWilliam earl of
Southampton, perhaps an unknown illegitimate (besides Richard) The earl was
keeper of Great Windsor Park and had property there, the manor of Potnell
Park, whereas William (-1559) resided at The Great Park, Windsor

Regards,
Adrian

In a message dated 02/11/2007 20:25:23 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Dear Newsgroup ~

Additional information on Mabel Fitzwilliam's correct parents, Sir
William Fitzwilliam, and his wife, Jane Roberts, can be found at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh0IAA ... tzwilliam+
Jane+Roberts

This information should dispel any notion that Mabel Fitzwilliam's
father was Sir William Fitzwilliam, of Milton, Northamptonshire, as
alleged by Mr. Wright.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Gjest

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 nov 2007 03:54:28

On Nov 2, 4:31 pm, "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin+use...@spamcop.net>
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:45:20 +0100, <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:

[..]

was) when Alfonso married Queen Isabel, mother of his daughters, and

Hello taf,

Perhaps you can clarify me on this.
I have (references made when available):

Afonso VI = Isabel/Zaida
-Sancho
-Elvira
-Sancha = D. Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara

Afonso VI = Isabel de França (d. of Luis "Le Gros" de França)
-Sancha Afonso = Rodrigo Alvares de Asturias (from: La casa de Ron)

Are there actually 2 Sanchas?
Is there any documented evidence for this?

Bishop Pelayo, writing within a few years of Alfonso's death, gives an
account of his marriages and children:

wife: Agnes of Aquitaine
children: none

wife: Constance of Burgundy
children: Urraca

wife: Berta of Lombardy
children: none

wife: Isabel
children: Elvira m. Roger of Sicily
Sancha m. Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara

wife: Beatrice
children: none

mistress: Jimena Munoz
children: Elvira m. Raymond of Toulouse
Teresa m. Henry of Burgundy

mistress: Zaida, renamed Isabel
children: Sancho

Just about all of this is confirmed by other sources: contemporary
charters and the like. As we have been talking about, there is
significant disagreement over whether Alfonso married Zaida/Isabel,
either as the Queen Isabel who was mother of Sancha and Elvira, or as
a second queen of the same name.

It is the mother of Elvira and Sancha who is reputed to be of France,
daughter of Louis, but this is found in a late (by 150 years)
chronicle and a monumental inscription that was actually installed
even later and appears to be based on the chronicle. It is false,
there being no Louis who could have been her father, and the French
royals had never used the name Isabel before this time.

As to a Sancha who married Rodrigo Alvarez, I know of no evidence for
her. I strongly suspect confusion with the authentic Sancha who
married Rodrigo Gonzalez. Who is this Rodrigo Alvarez supposed to be.
There was a count of this name under Alfonso VII, but he appears too
young, and married Maria Ponce. Does your source give additional
information that would tell me where I should be looking for this
Rodrigo Alvarez?

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 03 nov 2007 05:16:02

IDENTITY FACT 5 : Robert Peck, the Elder, is the "neve" of John Leeke of Beccles, as IDENTIFIED
in the Will of John Leeke, testator of 1529, co. Suffolk, England:
_____________________________________
Richard Peck, Esq.=Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Middleton, Knt.
_____________________________________
John Peck, of Wakefield, Esq.=Joan, dau. of John Anne, of Frickley
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, of Beccles, Suffolk=dau. of Norton, 2dly, dau. of Waters...sister Katherine Peck=John
Leyke/Leake/Leeke, of Normanton...brother Ralph Peck=the dau. of Leeke/Leake
_____________________________________

THE WILL OF JOHN LEEKE OF BECCLES, co. Suffolk, England, Diocese of Norwich, dated
6 September 1529. To be buried in the Church of St. Michael the Archangel in Beccles.
To Kateryn, my daughter, and to her heirs for ever, all my lands and tenements in Gelinham,
Wyndell, Wynston, Gelston, and Alby, or elsewhere within the county of Norfolk. I will that
Alys, my wife, shall have her chamber and dwelling within the house of Robert Peck(Pecke),
my "neve", that is to say, in the "parlour" next the "mease" of Richard Craske, with sufficient
meat, etc., during her lifetime. Should she refuse to dwell there, then an annuity for life of
20s., and the said Robert Peck (Pecke) is to supply her with 10 combs of malt and 5 combs
of wheat...To my said daughter 40Pounds, to be paid on the day of her marriage. To my said
wife my land that I bought of Marsshe, for her life, and after her decease to the aforesaid
Robert Peck(Pecke) and his heirs. To my said wife and daughter and Robert Peck(Peck) all
the residue of the household goods, equally...To the said Robert Peck[sic] my "mease" that I dwell
in and all my other "measey", lands, and tenements in Beccles, co. Suffolk, as well bond as
freehold, to him and his heirs, on condition that he pay unto Robert Leeke, John Leeke, and
Richard Leeke 20 marks apiece and to Alys Leeke and Elyn Leeke 20 marks apiece. To Margaret
Leeke 40s., to be paid at the age of discretion. An obit is to be kept for me and my sons in
Beccles church yearly by Robert Peck(Pecke), if he is able. To John Waters, my godson, 20s.,
and to each other of my godchildren 12d. To the said Robert Peck(Pecke) all my pen cattle,
moveables, and apparel. If my wife troubles, vexes, or sues my executors, her legacies are
to be void. All the residue to my executors, namely, my well-beloved in Christ, the aforesaid
Robert Peck[sic], my "neve", and Kateryn, my daughter. Witnesses: John Waters, James Canne,
Richard Robards, William Robards, Osbern Dering, John Pottes, William hastings, thomas Drurye,
and others. proved 17 November 1529. (Consistory Court of Norwich [Norwich Probate Registry],
Register Attmer (1528-1537), fo. 65).

Note: the word "neve" at times translated from the Latin into "nephew" and other times "grandson"
leaves a lot of latitude for interpretation of this will. If the word nephew is applied to Robert
Peck,
the Elder, newcomer in 1525 to Beccles, it suggests that the Leekes married to his sibling brother
and sister, so identified in the Pedigree of Peck in the BML, make him so by that stated fact of
that
pedigree of 1620, within a century of this will. Much of this will is interpreted in the S. Allyn
Peck
articles in NEHGSR of the 1930s, with identifications pro and con this interpretation. It seems
clear,
however, that this Robert Peck, the Elder, is clearly identified as being associated with this
John Leeke,
testator, by family ties as so noted in the Pedigree of peck in the BML.

Bill

*****




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Gjest

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 nov 2007 05:57:57

On Nov 2, 8:25 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
IDENTITY FACT 5 : Robert Peck, the Elder, is the "neve" of John Leeke of Beccles, as IDENTIFIED
in the Will of John Leeke, testator of 1529, co. Suffolk, England:

.. . .

It seems
clear,
however, that this Robert Peck, the Elder, is clearly identified as being associated with this
John Leeke,
testator, by family ties as so noted in the Pedigree of peck in the BML.


Let's see how big a tower of flimsy conclusions (sorry, true and
certain facts) can be built upon a single dubious source.

taf

Gjest

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 nov 2007 06:01:32

On Nov 2, 2:41 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
TAF: Tell you what - how about leaving my opinions to me to decide, rather than telling
me what they are? I am quite capable of forming my own .

BA: You have *repeated* my Philosophy of Genealogy 101,

TAF: No, I have refused to participate in your childish fantasy.

BA: for the third and *last* time: F!

Ah yes. Given the choice between discussing the Peck pedigree, his
stated goal, and playing childish games, we see what he chooses.

taf

Gjest

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 nov 2007 10:05:32

On Nov 2, 3:06 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
TAF: By the way, this group has seen various forms of genealogical
nihilism, of which this is an example, invariably paraded out as a way
to distract attention from the well-founded criticism of their beloved
pedigree.

BA: Monsieur, you accused me of *reading* your mind, and now you
*pretend* to read mine. I told you once, and I will now tell you twice:
I care no whit about the Peck pedigree as it concerns me, except it is
an academic exercise.

"Except for the way I care about it, I don't care about it." More word
games.

taf

Paulo Gomes Jardim

Re: Zaida's background [was Re: Zaida in new Encyclopaedia o

Legg inn av Paulo Gomes Jardim » 03 nov 2007 12:07:57

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:54:28 -0000, <taf@clearwire.net> wrote:

On Nov 2, 4:31 pm, "Paulo Gomes Jardim" <darwin+use...@spamcop.net

[..]
Afonso VI = Isabel/Zaida
-Sancho
-Elvira
-Sancha = D. Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara

Afonso VI = Isabel de França (d. of Luis "Le Gros" de França)
-Sancha Afonso = Rodrigo Alvares de Asturias (from: La casa de
Ron)

Are there actually 2 Sanchas?
Is there any documented evidence for this?

Bishop Pelayo, writing within a few years of Alfonso's death, gives an
account of his marriages and children:

I tried to search for the primary source for this account by Opispo
Pelayo, and I guess I found it - Liber Chronicorum - though I was not able
to find the actual text online by a simple search on Google.

Nevertheless, I found the following:

"la obra histórica del obispo Pelayo de Oviedo (Liber Chronicorum, Li-
ber Itacii), que habría modificado o creado ex novo este docu-
mento, con el objetivo de salir favorecido en sus disputas entre su sede y
la de Lugo"

From:
LA PERVIVENCIA DE LA CIUDAD ROMANA
Celia Fernández Corral
http://www.educa.jcyl.es/educacyl/cm/im ... edia=40011

"en esta época, el poder feudal de los monarcas leoneses, desencadena en
Asturias la idea secesionista ( primera mitad del siglo XII), siendo el
máximo exponente el obispo Pelayo. A él se debe el Liber.
Testamentorum con el que pretende fortalecer la sede ovetense frente a la
hegemónica iglesia toledana.El obispo Pelayo, no duda en falsear
donaciones o diplomas para aumentar el prestigio de su territorio, en una
obra donde se recogen hermosos dibujos de los monarcas asturianos."
http://www.el-caminoreal.com/historia/h ... dieval.htm

And this as well:

"El hipercriticismo de diversos autores (i.e. Lucien Barrau-Dihigo) ha
cargado las tintas contra la labor historiográfica de Pelayo, tachándole
de falsario, fabuloso e interpolador, de forma no siempre justificada. La
obra que ha hecho más célebre al obispo Pelayo ha sido el Libro de los
Testamentos donde el prelado ovetense recogió todos los documentos
relacionados con la situación jurídica, la historia y las posesiones de su
diócesis."
http://www.oviedodocesiglos.es/index.ph ... &Itemid=29

This seems to cast some doubts about the mentioned Chronicle, parts of it
allegedly being a forgery to favour the Obispado de Oviedo over Lugo
and/or Toledo.

In this case, however, (and, plese, note that I've not read the original
text) possibly there is no reason to believe this passage of the Chronicle
is biased or forged.

wife: Agnes of Aquitaine
children: none

Have her as Inés de Poitou, which is the same.

wife: Constance of Burgundy
children: Urraca

Ok

wife: Berta of Lombardy
children: none

Have her as Berta da Borgonha?
But certainly not the same house of Borgonha Constança belongs to.
Have it as Condado Palatino de Borgonha.

wife: Isabel
children: Elvira m. Roger of Sicily

Strangely enough, I do not have this marriage.
Do you know who were the parents of Rogerio, and if there was sucession
from this marriage?


Sancha m. Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara

Yes.

wife: Beatrice
children: none

Beatriz de Aquitania, ok.

mistress: Jimena Munoz
children: Elvira m. Raymond of Toulouse
Teresa m. Henry of Burgundy

The mother of Portugal. :)

mistress: Zaida, renamed Isabel
children: Sancho

Now this is more clear to me. I had both his daughters Sancha and Elvira
assigned to Zaida, which I understand from the discussion going on is not
clear at all.
What is known is that they are children of "Isabel, Regina", correct?

BTW, I also have this, according to the author of "Os Braganções", José C.
Lourinho Soares (page 63):

Fernão Mendes de Bragança, o Velho (d. after Aug. 1117) married an
unnamed, illegitimate daughter of Afonso VI de Castela, by an unnamed
mother.

"Documenta-se como governador de Chaves por D. Afonso VI, com cuja filha
(certamente uma bastarda) parece que casou, segundo o Livro Velho."

This refers to the Livro Velho, which I presume is the Nobiliary of Count
D. Pedro (now online, as I posted), which I have not cheched yet. It's not
a primary source, and must be taken with care.

Just about all of this is confirmed by other sources: contemporary
charters and the like. As we have been talking about, there is
significant disagreement over whether Alfonso married Zaida/Isabel,
either as the Queen Isabel who was mother of Sancha and Elvira, or as
a second queen of the same name.

It is the mother of Elvira and Sancha who is reputed to be of France,
daughter of Louis, but this is found in a late (by 150 years)
chronicle and a monumental inscription that was actually installed
even later and appears to be based on the chronicle. It is false,
there being no Louis who could have been her father, and the French
royals had never used the name Isabel before this time.

Yes. I've checked the chronology, and it's impossible that she was
daughter of Louis Le Gros, b. 1081.
I apologize if I'm asking something obvious, but could you please
summarise why did it appear the hypotesis of the 2 Isabel? Why can't we
merge them at once? Is there any documental evidence to oppose this?

As to a Sancha who married Rodrigo Alvarez, I know of no evidence for
her. I strongly suspect confusion with the authentic Sancha who
married Rodrigo Gonzalez. Who is this Rodrigo Alvarez supposed to be.

Son of Alvaro Rodriguez de Asturias and Maria Pelaez de Cisneros.
G-son of Rodrigo Diaz de Asturias and Jimena Gomez (this couple is
documented)
Gdaughter of Pelayo Pelaez de Cisneros and Mayor Gonzalez.

I have Maria Pelaez de Cisneros also married to Diego Ansurez de Monzon.

There was a count of this name under Alfonso VII, but he appears too
young, and married Maria Ponce.

Can you provide me more info on this Rodrigo Alvarez married to Maria
Ponce?

Does your source give additional
information that would tell me where I should be looking for this
Rodrigo Alvarez?

"Era ALVAR DÍAZ, como queda dicho, hijo de RODRIGO ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS,
3&ordm; de este nombre, el que sirvió al Rey San Fernando en la conquista
de Sevilla con sus hermanos ALVAR PÉREZ DE QUIÑONES, tronco de la familia
de QUIÑONES y RUI PÉREZ DE AVILÉS, maestro de Calatrava, que figura tan
brillantemente en la toma de Sevilla, los cuales eran hijos de otro
RODRIGO ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS, 2&ordm;de este nombre, que se casara con la
Infanta DOÑA SANCHA ALFONSO, hija del Rey ALFONSO VI DE CASTILLA y de LEÓN
y de la Infanta DOÑA ISABEL, hija de LUIS VI Rey de Francia. Era RODRIGO
ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS, el 2&ordm; de este nombre, Gobernador de Asturias y
en una escritura que otorgaron a favor de la Iglesia de Burgos, el Rey
Alfonso VII y su mujer Doña Berenguela, le llama Conde de Asturias y aún
solían darle el título de Rey de Gozón y Pravia por haber dado el Rey
ALFONSO VI a su hija DOÑA SANCHA mujer de DON RODRIGO estos lugares sin
sujeción alguna a la jurisdicción Real.

RODRIGO ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS, el segundo de este nombre, era hijo de ÁLVARO
RODRÍGUEZ DE ASTURIAS y de su mujer MARÍA PELÁEZ y nieto de RODRIGO
ÁLVAREZ DE ASTURIAS, el primero, y de su mujer XIMENA GÓMEZ hija de DON
GÓMEZ DÍAZ DE GORMAZ a quien los romances antiguos llaman El Conde Lozano
y de DOÑA TERESA PELÁEZ, Condes de Carrión, hija esta señora de la Condesa
DOÑA ALDONZA ORDÓÑEZ y del INFANTE DON PELAYO FLÓREZ nieto del Rey FRUELA
II."

From:
"La casa de Ron y sus agregadas: Ibias, Quirós, Valcarce Caballero y
otras. Estudio genealógico y heráldico", Antonio de Ron, 1932

Available online at:
http://www.ghg.net/albertron/LA%20CASA%20DE%20RON.html


--
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
(Sun Tzu, The Art of War)

John Brandon

Re: Philosophy of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av John Brandon » 03 nov 2007 16:03:33

BA: OK: I will, Will, from this Will's *Will*! I do not know where you come up with that
statistic?
I am not sure anyone has tested this theory of Philosophy of Genealogy 101. Understand, this
is a viable subject for gen-medieval, because I am not aware it has been addressed as yet?
Already in courts, the question of DNA-proven lineage/pedigrees is a genuine cause of action:
especially among the rich, the Hollywood set, and I am sure in Royal families. I have read of
allegations naming familiar names, which I will leave unnamed. Obviously, the maternal line
is unquestioned, agreed? Even in the case of ancient Near Eastern lineages/pedigrees, the
word *adultery* is known to have come from the concept of adulteration of the blood line.
Women have been stoned to death in ancient times, and recently in certain tribal cultures.
Why? Because they birth the child. Thus, there is an ancient tribal tradition to keep the
*woman*
sacred from the males until she is mated with a known blood line selected by a tribal leader:
re: recent events in fundamentalist sects in Utah and other cultures around the world. So, of
course, your point is well taken: although I disagree with the statistic: I would say if the woman
births the child, the statistic is 100%. But let us *not* escape Philosophy of Genealogy 101:
the academic exercise we all commit to when we do these *paper* genealogies is futile. We
know in our heart of hearts that our paper lineages/pedigrees is hollow in the sense that the
underlying truth and certainty is *really* in doubt in terms of REALITY! For the truth is
certain,
that if one grandma cheated or was assaulted sexually, and did not tell, the lineage/pedigree
is hollow at its core. Hence, with time, Charlemagne known ancestors will unearthed and tested
for
DNA as will Plantagenet known ancestors, et al., and future requirements of PROOF of
lineage/pedigree
will be DNA testing. I am sure you, and many members are aware, of the National Geographic
global DNA testing, of which my wife and I partook, and the resultant *lines* have been charted
upon a globe to show the *migration* pattern of lineages/pedigrees.

Bill


Don't you ever get tired of communicating in this flighty pseudo-
Shakespearean lingo?

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Philosophy Of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 nov 2007 16:07:06

"Except for the way I care about it, I don't care about it." More word
games.

taf
------------------------------------------------------------------------


PFK [Pimply-Faced Kid] Word Games...

Which had Nat and taf totally bollixed and wrapped around the axle for a
LONG Time.

They thought they were dealing with a befuddled 70-year-old-man who was
serious about Genealogy -- and who just needed to be coached, prodded and
"educated".

But he turned out to be a PFK looking for a bit of fun and games on the
Mediaeval Genealogy mailing list/newsgroup who tricked them, led them down
the primrose path and made them look like fools.

So, now, too late smart, they are angry with him.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

<taf@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:1194048588.061869.316360@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 2, 3:06 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

TAF: By the way, this group has seen various forms of genealogical
nihilism, of which this is an example, invariably paraded out as a way
to distract attention from the well-founded criticism of their beloved
pedigree.

BA: Monsieur, you accused me of *reading* your mind, and now you
*pretend* to read mine. I told you once, and I will now tell you twice:
I care no whit about the Peck pedigree as it concerns me, except it is
an academic exercise.

"Except for the way I care about it, I don't care about it." More word
games.

taf

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Philosophy Of Genealogy 101

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 03 nov 2007 16:10:17

Don't you ever get tired of communicating in this flighty pseudo-
Shakespearean lingo?

It's PFK Patois.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194102213.836723.320500@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

BA: OK: I will, Will, from this Will's *Will*! I do not know where you
come up with that
statistic?
I am not sure anyone has tested this theory of Philosophy of Genealogy
101. Understand, this
is a viable subject for gen-medieval, because I am not aware it has been
addressed as yet?
Already in courts, the question of DNA-proven lineage/pedigrees is a
genuine cause of action:
especially among the rich, the Hollywood set, and I am sure in Royal
families. I have read of
allegations naming familiar names, which I will leave unnamed.
Obviously, the maternal line
is unquestioned, agreed? Even in the case of ancient Near Eastern
lineages/pedigrees, the
word *adultery* is known to have come from the concept of adulteration of
the blood line.
Women have been stoned to death in ancient times, and recently in certain
tribal cultures.
Why? Because they birth the child. Thus, there is an ancient tribal
tradition to keep the
*woman*
sacred from the males until she is mated with a known blood line selected
by a tribal leader:
re: recent events in fundamentalist sects in Utah and other cultures
around the world. So, of
course, your point is well taken: although I disagree with the statistic:
I would say if the woman
births the child, the statistic is 100%. But let us *not* escape
Philosophy of Genealogy 101:
the academic exercise we all commit to when we do these *paper*
genealogies is futile. We
know in our heart of hearts that our paper lineages/pedigrees is hollow
in the sense that the
underlying truth and certainty is *really* in doubt in terms of REALITY!
For the truth is
certain,
that if one grandma cheated or was assaulted sexually, and did not tell,
the lineage/pedigree
is hollow at its core. Hence, with time, Charlemagne known ancestors
will unearthed and tested
for
DNA as will Plantagenet known ancestors, et al., and future requirements
of PROOF of
lineage/pedigree
will be DNA testing. I am sure you, and many members are aware, of the
National Geographic
global DNA testing, of which my wife and I partook, and the resultant
*lines* have been charted
upon a globe to show the *migration* pattern of lineages/pedigrees.

Bill


Don't you ever get tired of communicating in this flighty pseudo-
Shakespearean lingo?

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 04 nov 2007 01:36:12

On Nov 2, 8:44 pm, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Douglas,

Thanks, you are quite right.

By the way this William's will was proved in 1559 (PCC), not 1555 as shown
in the web page you quote, an obvious error.

I wonder if there is any connection of this to William FitzWilliam earl of
Southampton, perhaps an unknown illegitimate (besides Richard) The earl was
keeper of Great Windsor Park and had property there, the manor of Potnell
Park, whereas William (-1559) resided at The Great Park, Windsor

Regards,
Adrian

In a message dated 02/11/2007 20:25:23 GMT Standard Time,

royalances...@msn.com writes:

Dear Newsgroup ~

Additional information on Mabel Fitzwilliam's correct parents, Sir
William Fitzwilliam, and his wife, Jane Roberts, can be found at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh0IAA ... liam+Fit...
Jane+Roberts

This information should dispel any notion that Mabel Fitzwilliam's
father was Sir William Fitzwilliam, of Milton, Northamptonshire, as
alleged by Mr. Wright.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah.

And is the ancestry of William FitzWilliam of Ireland known?

Doug Smith

Gjest

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 nov 2007 12:56:05

In a message dated 04/11/2007 00:40:11 GMT Standard Time,
alden@mindspring.com writes:

And is the ancestry of William FitzWilliam of Ireland known?

Doug Smith





Doug,

I'm not sure if it is known. Perhaps there is a clue in his PCC Will of
1559 (or his wife, IIRC 1575), neither of which I have read. I checked through
my digitised copies of The Irish Genealogist to 1976, but can find no mention
of him. I'm not sure that he was in Ireland much, except perhaps during q
Mary's reign, but he is said to be descended from the "Irish" FitWilliams.
The Browne family of Cowdrey (Viscount Montagues) and, I think, their cousins,
the Betchworth Brownes were staunch RC's so it is a little strange to see
this marriage into a staunch Protestant family. Did Douglas state he had an
entry in DNB, or have I imagined this.

Adrian

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 04 nov 2007 14:31:55

On Nov 4, 6:50 am, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 04/11/2007 00:40:11 GMT Standard Time,

al...@mindspring.com writes:

And is the ancestry of William FitzWilliam of Ireland known?

Doug Smith

Doug,

I'm not sure if it is known. Perhaps there is a clue in his PCC Will of
1559 (or his wife, IIRC 1575), neither of which I have read. I checked through
my digitised copies of The Irish Genealogist to 1976, but can find no mention
of him. I'm not sure that he was in Ireland much, except perhaps during q
Mary's reign, but he is said to be descended from the "Irish" FitWilliams.
The Browne family of Cowdrey (Viscount Montagues) and, I think, their cousins,
the Betchworth Brownes were staunch RC's so it is a little strange to see
this marriage into a staunch Protestant family. Did Douglas state he had an
entry in DNB, or have I imagined this.

Adrian

Will posted DNB entry for Sir William FitzWilliam of Milton.

Doug

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 04 nov 2007 15:19:35

On Nov 2, 7:44 pm, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Douglas,

Thanks, you are quite right.

By the way this William's will was proved in 1559 (PCC), not 1555 as shown
in the web page you quote, an obvious error.

I wonder if there is any connection of this to William FitzWilliam earl of
Southampton, perhaps an unknown illegitimate (besides Richard) The earl was
keeper of Great Windsor Park and had property there, the manor of Potnell
Park, whereas William (-1559) resided at The Great Park, Windsor

Regards,
Adrian

According to CP XII/1:118-122, the first Earl of Southampton refers to one illeg. son in his will - Thomas FitzWilliam alias Fysher.

Doug Smith

Ian Goddard

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Ian Goddard » 04 nov 2007 17:14:53

alden@mindspring.com wrote:
And is the ancestry of William FitzWilliam of Ireland known?

Doug Smith


See
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/FITZWILLIA ... r%20Knight)1

This connects him back to the FitzWilliams of Sprotborough & Emley.

--
Ian

Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk

Ian Goddard

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Ian Goddard » 04 nov 2007 17:25:52

Ian Goddard wrote:
alden@mindspring.com wrote:

And is the ancestry of William FitzWilliam of Ireland known?

Doug Smith


See
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/FITZWILLIA ... r%20Knight)1


This connects him back to the FitzWilliams of Sprotborough & Emley.

Having had a further look at that entry there's clearly a bit of a

problem. John FitzWilliam of Milton & John FitzWilliam of Sprotborough
are listed as brothers.

--
Ian

Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk

Gjest

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 nov 2007 19:45:06

In a message dated 04/11/2007 16:38:53 GMT Standard Time,
alden@mindspring.com writes:

On Nov 2, 7:44 pm, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
Dear Douglas,

Thanks, you are quite right.

By the way this William's will was proved in 1559 (PCC), not 1555 as shown
in the web page you quote, an obvious error.

I wonder if there is any connection of this to William FitzWilliam earl of
Southampton, perhaps an unknown illegitimate (besides Richard) The earl
was
keeper of Great Windsor Park and had property there, the manor of Potnell
Park, whereas William (-1559) resided at The Great Park, Windsor

Regards,
Adrian

According to CP XII/1:118-122, the first Earl of Southampton refers to one
illeg. son in his will - Thomas FitzWilliam alias Fysher.


Doug Smith


Sorry, I should have said (besides Thomas)

Adrian

John Higgins

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av John Higgins » 04 nov 2007 20:05:06

No, the Tudorplace entry is for the OTHER Sir William Fitzwilliam, of
Milton, who did serve in Ireland, but was not the Sir William whose daughter
married into the family of Browne of Betchworth. Sir William F. of
"Ireland" was of the family of Fitzwilliam of Merrion, for which see Burke's
Dormant and Extinct Peerages.

But Tudorplace is apparently correct in showing two brothers named John in
the same generation of the family of Fitzwilliam of Milton and Sprotborough.
All the standard pedigrees for this family show this, unusual as it may
seem.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Goddard" <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, Sir
ThomasBrowne


Ian Goddard wrote:
alden@mindspring.com wrote:

And is the ancestry of William FitzWilliam of Ireland known?

Doug Smith


See

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/FITZWILLIA ... %20of%20Mi

lton%20(Sir%20Knight)1

This connects him back to the FitzWilliams of Sprotborough & Emley.

Having had a further look at that entry there's clearly a bit of a
problem. John FitzWilliam of Milton & John FitzWilliam of Sprotborough
are listed as brothers.

--
Ian

Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk

-------------------------------
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

terrence White

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av terrence White » 04 nov 2007 20:31:05

My ancestor Thomas Woodward (already mentioned as the Assay Master of the Mint in 1649) had two separate sons named John Woodward--

(a) one who stayed behind in England, and served in his father's old post of Assay Master from 1661 to c.1665, and

(b) another (much younger) one who was born in Virginia (most likely Isle of Wight County).

Such things--though perhaps uncommon--did happen nonetheless.

T.J. (Terry) White

John Higgins <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
No, the Tudorplace entry is for the OTHER Sir William Fitzwilliam, of
Milton, who did serve in Ireland, but was not the Sir William whose daughter
married into the family of Browne of Betchworth. Sir William F. of
"Ireland" was of the family of Fitzwilliam of Merrion, for which see Burke's
Dormant and Extinct Peerages.

But Tudorplace is apparently correct in showing two brothers named John in
the same generation of the family of Fitzwilliam of Milton and Sprotborough.
All the standard pedigrees for this family show this, unusual as it may
seem.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Goddard"
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To:
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, Sir
ThomasBrowne


Ian Goddard wrote:
alden@mindspring.com wrote:

And is the ancestry of William FitzWilliam of Ireland known?

Doug Smith


See

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/FITZWILLIA ... %20of%20Mi

lton%20(Sir%20Knight)1

This connects him back to the FitzWilliams of Sprotborough & Emley.

Having had a further look at that entry there's clearly a bit of a
problem. John FitzWilliam of Milton & John FitzWilliam of Sprotborough
are listed as brothers.

--
Ian

Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk

-------------------------------
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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Gjest

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 nov 2007 21:51:02

Thanks for that, I had also just traced the connection to the Fitzwilliam of
Merrion.

There are few more letters in the PRO A2A referring to William Fitzwilliam
(-1559) and his wife set out below. One of them seems to infer that he was
servant to Sir William Fitzwilliam (c.1490-1542), earl of Southampton?

Adrian

Reference: 6729/1/45/2
Letter from Sir William Fitzwilliam, Windsor Great Park, to William More,
Sheriff of Surrey and Sussex. Despite a 'doubtful letter' from Fitzwilliam's
'son [Thomas] Browne' to More, he asks the latter to wait until the following
Sunday for Browne to clarify whether he intends to stand for election as
knight of the shire. The weather is foul but he and his wife are both improved 'so
that I hope we shall be yet again oft merry together'. They and their
'daughter Browne' commend themselves to More and his 'gentle bedfellow'. [See also
6729/1/12 and 16-17]
Creation dates: 16 Dec [1558]
Surrey History Centre: MORE MOLYNEUX FAMILY OF LOSELEY PARK, HISTORICAL
CORRESPONDENCE VOLUMES

Reference: 6729/2/32
Letter from Edward Tyle, manor house of Great Windsor, to William More. Lady
Fitzwilliam asks Tyle to report that Sir William Fitzwilliam is detained at
Court by the Queen's wishes until today. They are still unsure whether he
will return today, but he has sent home all his apparel, so will return soon as
he has 'not... a shirt there to shift him'. Lady Fitzwilliam would be glad to
see More and his wife during the holidays. Tyle is pleased to hear More has
obtained some Rhenish wine, and asks him to keep it well for Tyle's 'part...
therein'. [HMC p.614a; Kempe pp.184-185]
Creation dates: 26 Dec 1558
Surrey History Centre: MORE MOLYNEUX FAMILY OF LOSELEY PARK, HISTORICAL
CORRESPONDENCE VOLUMES


Reference: 6729/2/33
Letter from Sir William Fitzwilliam to William More, sheriff of Surrey and
Sussex. He describes rivalry in the forthcoming election, in which he hopes
for More's support for his 'son' Brown [Thomas Browne] to stand with Sir Thomas
Cawarden. The Lord Chamberlain [William, Lord Howard of Effingham] is
rumoured to want his son [Charles Howard] to be one of the county MPs [see
6729/1/16-17], but Cawarden insists he will only stand with Browne. Mr Saunders has
attempted to canvas support in the Kingston area, but the freeholders told him
'they had promised their goodwill before'. Fitzwilliams is hopeful of
victory 'with the good help of you and other good friends'. He has returned home
late from London. The news at Court is that the Queen avoided 'mass in the old
form' by leaving the Christmas service after the gospel, returning to her
chamber before communion. [HMC p.614a; Kempe pp.183-184; Cawarden and Browne
were returned for Surrey in 1559; it is not known whether the opposing
candidates stood down before a poll]
Creation dates: 26 Dec 1558 [Not 31 Dec 1558 as I incorrectly stated]
Surrey History Centre: MORE MOLYNEUX FAMILY OF LOSELEY PARK, HISTORICAL
CORRESPONDENCE VOLUMES


Reference: 6729/10/133
Letter from Sir William Fitzwilliam, the Manor of Guildford, to Master
[?William] More. He asks More to give such money as he shall receive on
Fitzwilliam's behalf to Sir John his priest who will send it on to Sir William. Dated
14 May. [The letter may be addressed either to Christopher or William More;
the author must either be Sir William Fitzwilliam (c.1490-1542), who was keeper
of Guildford Park from 1511 and was created Earl of Southampton in 1542 or
his servant Sir William Fitzwilliam (by 1506-1559]
Creation dates: nd [before 1559]
Surrey History Centre: MORE MOLYNEUX FAMILY OF LOSELEY PARK, HISTORICAL
CORRESPONDENCE VOLUMES

FILE - Letter from Jane, Lady Fitzwilliam, Chertsey, to William More and Mr
Amersham [Agmondesham].... She requests that More grant permission for the
bearer's wife to keep an alehouse in Chertsey.... Dated 14 Jan. - ref.
LM/COR/3/206 - date: nd [before May 1576]
Surrey History Centre: MORE, LATER MORE MOLYNEUX FAMILY OF LOSELEY PARK,
GUILDFORD, LOOSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PAPERS, PART I

FILE - Letter from Lady Jane Fitzwilliam, Chertsey, to William More.... She
recommends Nicholas Bannister's wife for a licence to keep an alehouse, on
account of her honesty and skill in surgery, 'to heal sore eyes and mouths'....
Dated 12 Nov. - ref. LM/COR/3/234 - date: nd [before May 1576]
Surrey History Centre: MORE, LATER MORE MOLYNEUX FAMILY OF LOSELEY PARK,
GUILDFORD, LOOSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PAPERS, PART I


[ac: The following could be from either Wm Fitz Wm. It was the earl who was
had the appointments set out below]
FILE - Letter from William Fitzwilliam, Windsor Great Park, to Henry Polsted
and William More.... He sends the King's pardon for certain 'poor men'
awaiting execution and urges secrecy: the men are not to know until they come to
the place of execution.... He asks if More and Polsted will send a warrant to
Windsor Castle for the men and what day they have appointed for their
'session': 'if you will sit on your commission in these parts I pray you with the
rest of the gents to take a bed with me'.... Damaged.... Dated 9 Dec.
[Fitzwilliam was appointed lieutentant of Windsor Castle and keeper of the Great Park
in c.1552] - ref. LM/COR/3/235 - date: [?9 Dec 1552]
Surrey History Centre: MORE, LATER MORE MOLYNEUX FAMILY OF LOSELEY PARK,
GUILDFORD, LOOSE CORRESPONDENCE AND PAPERS, PART I




In a message dated 04/11/2007 19:00:55 GMT Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:

No, the Tudorplace entry is for the OTHER Sir William Fitzwilliam, of
Milton, who did serve in Ireland, but was not the Sir William whose daughter
married into the family of Browne of Betchworth. Sir William F. of
"Ireland" was of the family of Fitzwilliam of Merrion, for which see Burke's
Dormant and Extinct Peerages.

But Tudorplace is apparently correct in showing two brothers named John in
the same generation of the family of Fitzwilliam of Milton and Sprotborough.
All the standard pedigrees for this family show this, unusual as it may
seem.

Gjest

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 nov 2007 21:55:05

In a message dated 11/4/2007 11:29:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
revenant1963@yahoo.com writes:

My ancestor Thomas Woodward (already mentioned as the Assay Master of the
Mint in 1649) had two separate sons named John Woodward--

(a) one who stayed behind in England, and served in his father's old post of
Assay Master from 1661 to c.1665, and

(b) another (much younger) one who was born in Virginia (most likely Isle of
Wight County).

Such things--though perhaps uncommon--did happen nonetheless.


===================
What is the source for saying that Thomas Woodward had two sons named John?
Thanks
Will Johnson



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 04 nov 2007 22:48:45

On Nov 4, 2:59 pm, "John Higgins" <jthigg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
No, the Tudorplace entry is for the OTHER Sir William Fitzwilliam, of
Milton, who did serve in Ireland, but was not the Sir William whose daughter
married into the family of Browne of Betchworth. Sir William F. of
"Ireland" was of the family of Fitzwilliam of Merrion, for which see Burke's
Dormant and Extinct Peerages.

But Tudorplace is apparently correct in showing two brothers named John in
the same generation of the family of Fitzwilliam of Milton and Sprotborough.
All the standard pedigrees for this family show this, unusual as it may
seem.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Goddard" <godda...@hotmail.co.uk

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, Sir
ThomasBrowne

Ian Goddard wrote:
al...@mindspring.com wrote:

And is the ancestry of William FitzWilliam of Ireland known?

Doug Smith

See

http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/FITZWILLIA ... LLIAM%20...
lton%20(Sir%20Knight)1

This connects him back to the FitzWilliams of Sprotborough & Emley.

Having had a further look at that entry there's clearly a bit of a
problem. John FitzWilliam of Milton & John FitzWilliam of Sprotborough
are listed as brothers.

--
Ian

Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk

-------------------------------
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

So, given the chronology William FitzWilliam of "Ireland" would appear
to be one of the two unnamed sons of the Thomas FitzWilliam who died
in 1529 (Burke's Dormant and Extinct Peerages, sub Fitzwilliam of
Merrion, p 478).

Doug Smith

John Higgins

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av John Higgins » 04 nov 2007 23:33:36

In my copy of the cited Burke's volume, Fitzwilliam of Merrion occurs on p.
214, and the three sons of Sir Thomas (d. 1529) are all named, with the Sir
William of interest being the middle one and having daughters Mabel,
Catherine, Elizabeth, and (again) Elizabeth. This agrees with the
information in "The Topogragher and Genealogist" cited earlier in this
thread, as seen at Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh0IAA ... Fitzwillia
m+Jane+Roberts

----- Original Message -----
From: <alden@mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law,Sir
ThomasBrowne


On Nov 4, 2:59 pm, "John Higgins" <jthigg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
No, the Tudorplace entry is for the OTHER Sir William Fitzwilliam, of
Milton, who did serve in Ireland, but was not the Sir William whose
daughter
married into the family of Browne of Betchworth. Sir William F. of
"Ireland" was of the family of Fitzwilliam of Merrion, for which see
Burke's
Dormant and Extinct Peerages.

But Tudorplace is apparently correct in showing two brothers named John
in
the same generation of the family of Fitzwilliam of Milton and
Sprotborough.
All the standard pedigrees for this family show this, unusual as it may
seem.

[snip]

So, given the chronology William FitzWilliam of "Ireland" would appear
to be one of the two unnamed sons of the Thomas FitzWilliam who died
in 1529 (Burke's Dormant and Extinct Peerages, sub Fitzwilliam of
Merrion, p 478).

Doug Smith

Gjest

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 nov 2007 01:00:06

In a message dated 04/11/2007 22:35:09 GMT Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
In my copy of the cited Burke's volume, Fitzwilliam of Merrion occurs on p.
214, and the three sons of Sir Thomas (d. 1529) are all named, with the Sir
William of interest being the middle one and having daughters Mabel,
Catherine, Elizabeth, and (again) Elizabeth. This agrees with the
information in "The Topogragher and Genealogist" cited earlier in this
thread, as seen at Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh0IAA ... Fitzwillia
m+Jane+Roberts


===

Yes, and also note that the above web page gave William FitzWilliam's arms
including a quartering for Dowdall which ties in with William's father's
marriage to Eleanor d of John Dowdall.

I found this marriage in "The Irish Genealogist" under a detailed pedigree
of the Dowdall family:

"3. Eleanor Dowdall, wife of Thomas FitzWilliam of Merrion. She and her
husband were among those pardoned for intrusion in 1507. She died on 10 May 1522,
seised of Kilclogher, Co. Louth (part of the Dartas lands), which descended
to her son and heir, Richard FitzWilliam {fn Cal. of Pembroke Deeds, p.
60}. On 28 April 1526 the latter conveyed all his lands in Lecale and Ulster
(presumably his interest in the Dartas lands there) to the earl of Kildare".
The Irish Genealogist Vol. 4, No. 5. November 1972

Adrian

Gjest

Re: Raghead propaganda in action

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 nov 2007 01:05:05

In a message dated 11/4/2007 3:45:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pmjwhoward@gmail.com writes:

This stupid raghead tries to exploit what he thinks still exists (anti-
semitism in Europeans) by posting some bullshit against those whom
ragheads consider their enemies.


-----------------------
Fighting anti-Semitism with anti-Arabism isn't really very effective.



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 05 nov 2007 01:14:00

On Nov 4, 6:56 pm, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 04/11/2007 22:35:09 GMT Standard Time, jthigg...@sbcglobal.net writes:

In my copy of the cited Burke's volume, Fitzwilliam of Merrion occurs on p.
214, and the three sons of Sir Thomas (d. 1529) are all named, with the Sir
William of interest being the middle one and having daughters Mabel,
Catherine, Elizabeth, and (again) Elizabeth. This agrees with the
information in "The Topogragher and Genealogist" cited earlier in this
thread, as seen at Google Books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh0IAA ... liam+Fit...
m+Jane+Roberts

===

Yes, and also note that the above web page gave William FitzWilliam's arms
including a quartering for Dowdall which ties in with William's father's
marriage to Eleanor d of John Dowdall.

I found this marriage in "The Irish Genealogist" under a detailed pedigree
of the Dowdall family:

"3. Eleanor Dowdall, wife of Thomas FitzWilliam of Merrion. She and her
husband were among those pardoned for intrusion in 1507. She died on 10 May 1522,
seised of Kilclogher, Co. Louth (part of the Dartas lands), which descended
to her son and heir, Richard FitzWilliam {fn Cal. of Pembroke Deeds, p.
60}. On 28 April 1526 the latter conveyed all his lands in Lecale and Ulster
(presumably his interest in the Dartas lands there) to the earl of Kildare".
The Irish Genealogist Vol. 4, No. 5. November 1972

Adrian

mea culpa

Burke, A General and Heraldic History of the Baronage and Peerage of
the British Empire, sub Fitzwilliam of Merrion, p 478 has similar but
not as complete info.

Doug

Gjest

Re: Fw: Jewish Dynasty: Bush, Churchill, Roosevelt, royal fa

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 nov 2007 01:55:05

Clinton has no proven royal descent.
Has he.



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Douglas Richardson

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 05 nov 2007 03:49:32

There is a useful biography of Mabel (Fitzwilliam) Browne's father,
Sir William Fitz William, of Windsor, Berkshire, Burghclere and
Highclere, Hampshire, etc., in Bindoff, House of Commons 1509-1558 2
(1982): 141-142. Sir William Fitzwilliam and his family are also
discussed in VCH Hampshire, 4 (1911): 277-281.

In an article in Notes & Queries 190(2) (1946): 25-28, the author
suggests the possibility that Mabel Fitzwilliam may have been the
daughter of Sir William Fitzwilliam's 1st wife, _____, sister of Sir
John Travers, rather than his 2nd wife, Jane Roberts.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Gjest

Re: Fw: Jewish Dynasty: Bush, Churchill, Roosevelt, royal fa

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 nov 2007 04:27:53

On Nov 4, 7:53 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Clinton has no proven royal descent.
Has he.

************************************** See what's new athttp://www.aol.com

I think that George Bush's ethnic background is mostly New England
Yankee, mainly wealthy families tracing back to colonial New England.
Bill Clinton (whose birth surname was Blythe) I'm guessing probably
comes from poorer working-class Southern stock, possibly of Scotch-
Irish descent. The Scotch-Irish immigrated to America from Ulster
province in northern Ireland, and were the descendants of Scottish
colonists who moved to Ulster in Elizabethan times. Moving to America,
they settled especially in the Middle-Atlantic and Southern (Dixie)
states. Both the New England Yankees (many of them of Puritan or
Pilgrim descent) and the Scotch-Irish moved westward and helped to
settle the new nation. It would be interesting to see if there is any
variation in royal descent between the colonial New Englanders and the
Scotch-Irish, as they both originated in the British Isles, but
possibly from different social backgrounds. All of this is
theoretical, I don't really know what Clinton's ethnic background is.

Gjest

Re: Fw: Jewish Dynasty: Bush, Churchill, Roosevelt, royal fa

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 nov 2007 05:16:02

You're basing that however on his strictly paternal line "Blythe".

What I was saying is that I don't believe Bill Clinton has *any* proven
royal lineage through any of his ancestors.

Will Johnson



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck, the

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 05 nov 2007 22:41:04

IDENTITY FACT 6 : Robert Peck, the Elder, the "neve" of John Leeke of Beccles, as IDENTIFIED
in the Will of John Leeke, testator of 1529, co. Suffolk, England, deeds same land deeded to him:
_____________________________________
Richard Peck, Esq.=Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Middleton, Knt.
_____________________________________
John Peck, of Wakefield, Esq.=Joan, dau. of John Anne, of Frickley
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, of Beccles, Suffolk=dau. of Norton, 2dly, dau. of Waters...sister Katherine Peck=John
Leyke/Leake/Leeke, of Normanton...brother Ralph Peck=the dau. of Leeke/Leake
_____________________________________
WILL OF ROBERT PECK OF BECCLES, CO. SUFFOLK, ENGLAND: "My body to be buried
in the churchyard of Beccles, near unto the grave of Joan, my wife. To every one of my household
servants 12d. To John Peck my son, my messuage wherein I dwell and my tenement "late Mayster
Rede" and the two meadows lying next the meadow in the tenor of Mathew Prynte and my little
garden "late Philippe Doddes," my close "sometyme Helyn Churches," my "fryttlell as the further
Wynde Myll late Richard Tyde," and three acres of land "late William Marshes" upon condition that

he shall pay to Thomas Pecke, my sons, and to my three daughters Margaret, Olyve, and Anne. To
Robard Pecke, my son, my other two meadows in Barstun "late Churchmans" and the
meadows late "Doctor Rede sometyme Baldewyns," my close at Ingate church, one acre of land
"late Tyde at Ingatefelds" and the "three roode acres called Bells acre." To Thomas Pecke, my
son,
my two tenements I purchased of John Walter and my tenter yard. To my daughters Margaret, Olyve,
and Anne, to each £6.13s.4d. To every one of John Water's and William Water's children 4d. To
every
one of my godchildren 4d. Executors: Richard Crampton and Thomas Hagas. Supervisors: John Waters
and Robert Bradley. My little "pyctell called Caves pyctell" lying in Ingate shall be sold. To
Joan Meriman,
my daughter, a gown and a petticoat that were her mother's and the worser paire of Corall beads."

Witnesses: Sir John Bymbyn, Robert Tower, Robert Grene, Thomas Goodwyn, and John Waters.
Proved 20 November 1556."

Note: Robert Peck, the Elder, the "neve" of John Leeke of Beccles, as IDENTIFIED in the Will
of John Leeke, testator of 1529, co. Suffolk, England, deeds same land deeded to him:
John Leeke of Beccles had bequeathed land bought of Marsh to his "neve" Robert Peck in
his will dated 6 September 1529. This land is later bequeathed by Robert Peck in his will.
In this instance, given the IDENTITIES established for Robert Peck, the Elder, John Leeke
of Beccles was his uncle, and the siblings of Robert Peck, the Elder, married children of
John Leeke of Beccles, as per the Pedigree of Peck in the British Museum.

Bill

*****





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Gjest

Re: Fw: Jewish Dynasty: Bush, Churchill, Roosevelt, royal fa

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 nov 2007 22:55:06

Dear Listers,
Let`s see , Captain Michael Peirce, Thomas Holbrook,
John Washburn, Captain Andrew Newcomb , Thomas Pierce, Reverend Edward Bulkeley,
et cetera. there is a certain amount of political prominence to a few of the
descendants of these individuals and others in Bush`s ancestry but few were
too terribly wealthy until the mid nineteenth century and later. I believe
Barbara`s father was a successful stock broker and George`s grandfather George
Herbert Walker did very well for himself. the actual money in the connection is
fairly new.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Gjest

Re: Fw: Stafford Barlow (? ancestor of Almy family of Rhode

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 nov 2007 23:40:03

Dear Leo,
Rutherford Birchard Hayes is a William the lion descendant by
way of Roos, Sherburne, Rishton, Worthington and the immigrant Peter Worden.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Leo van de Pas

Re: Fw: Stafford Barlow (? ancestor of Almy family of Rhode

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 06 nov 2007 00:34:57

He has a lot more interesting ancestors, but they are mainly medieval and so
a long way removed from him.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Cc: <Jwc1870@AOL..com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Stafford Barlow (? ancestor of Almy family of Rhode Island)


Dear Leo,
Rutherford Birchard Hayes is a William the lion descendant
by
way of Roos, Sherburne, Rishton, Worthington and the immigrant Peter
Worden.
Sincerely,
James
W
Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's new at
http://www.aol.com

-------------------------------
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

Gjest

Re: Sir William Fitzwilliam of Ireland and his son-in-law, S

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2007 15:06:03

In a message dated 05/11/2007 02:50:26 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

There is a useful biography of Mabel (Fitzwilliam) Browne's father,

Sir William Fitz William, of Windsor, Berkshire, Burghclere and
Highclere, Hampshire, etc., in Bindoff, House of Commons 1509-1558 2
(1982): 141-142. Sir William Fitzwilliam and his family are also
discussed in VCH Hampshire, 4 (1911): 277-281.

In an article in Notes & Queries 190(2) (1946): 25-28, the author
suggests the possibility that Mabel Fitzwilliam may have been the
daughter of Sir William Fitzwilliam's 1st wife, _____, sister of Sir
John Travers, rather than his 2nd wife, Jane Roberts.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


Thanks for those refs, I must case them up

Further to my mention of

3. Eleanor Dowdall, wife of Thomas FitzWilliam of Merrion

She was dau of Margaret dau of Jenico Dartas. Margaret m1 Thomas Barnwall
m2 John "glus" Dowdall of Brownstown and m3 Roland Eustace Ld Portlester and
as such is mentioned in CP X p 599 (l), but note that The Irish Genealogist
(Vol 4 No 5 (1972) p 392 et seq. article gives a number of corrections to the
CP article, in particular to Roland Eustace earlier marriages.

Adrian

Gjest

Re: BABINGTON/BAVINGTON

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 nov 2007 17:40:05

In a message dated 11/6/2007 8:15:37 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
lorraine@astspace.demon.co.uk writes:

JOHN BAVINGTON born around 1521 living East Barkwith
/
Humphrey BAVINGTON
/
Humphrey Bavington living Benniworth (nr East Barkwith)
/
John Babington
/
Christopher Babington etc
(tree can be found on our website http://www.astrospace.co.uk)


One idea had our branch descended from Thomas Babington and Isabel
Dethick.


----------------------
The only way to help would be if you could add in all the missing detail
above.
Right now we have no way to know when and where these people lived, nor what
your sources were.



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: A Proposed Descent For Alice (Freeman) Thompson From Kin

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 nov 2007 20:48:11

Good Show, Douglas.

Alice Freeman is also a descendant of Crinan The Thane and Gospatrick I as
well as an ancestor of Kingman Brewster.

It's allegedly yet another bastard descent for Diana and the boys as well --
this one from Henry I -- who reportedly sired more bastards than any other
English King -- and his mistress, Sybilla Corbet.

Let's hope this ascent to Henry I pans out -- if not it's a Jolly Good Show
anyway -- and perhaps a skillful fraud.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1194374327.909811.10380@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

Dear Newsgroup ~

Until now, the immigrant, Alice (Freeman) Thompson, has been thought
only to possess a long meandering descent from King Alfred the Great
of England. However, I recently developed a new line of descent for
Alice Freeman from King Henry I of England. Some of the generations
below come from an article on the Vaux family in Misc. Gen. et
Heraldica, 5th ser. vol. 5 (1925): 277-279. This same Vaux family is
ancestral to the Lords Vaux of Harrowden, which family is ancestral to
another colonial immigrant, Rev. John Oxenbridge.

Interestingly, this new line would also represent an all new royal
descent for Diana Spencer, late Princess of Wales, and her sons,
Princes William and Harry, as Princess Diana is a known descendant of
Alice (Freeman) Thompson.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Proposed Line of Descent

1. King Henry I of England, died 1135.
2. Robert Fitz Roy, Earl of Gloucester.
3. William, Earl of Gloucester.
4. Amice of Gloucester, married Richard de Clare, Knt., Earl of
Hertford, died 1217, Magna Carta baron.
5. Hawise de Clare, married Geoffrey de Say, Knt., died 1230, Magna
Carta baron.
6. William de Say, Knt., of Edmonton, Middlesex, died 1272, married
Sibyl (allegedly Marshal).
7. William de Say, Knt., of Edmonton, Middlesex, died 1295, married
Elizabeth _____.
8. Mary de Say, married in or before 1290 (as his 1st wife) John de
Northwode, who died in or before 1317. He married (2nd) before 1307
Agnes de Grandison, daughter of William de Grandison, Knt., 1st Lord
Grandison.
9. Elizabeth de Northwode, married (1st) John Joce; of Essex; married
(2nd) c.1322 Elias (or Ellis) de Vaux, of Bottisham, Cambridgeshire,
died c.1330.
10. William de Vaux, of Boittisham, Cambridgeshire, living 1367, died
before 1373, married Joan _____.
11. William de Vaux, of Bottisham, Cambridgeshire, living 1380-1,
married Joan Thirning.
12. William Vaux, of Northampton, Northamptonshire and Bottisham,
Cambridgeshire, died 1405, married Eleanor Drakelowe.
13. Eleanor Vaux, married Thomas Giffard, died 1468, of Twyford,
Buckinghamshire.
14. John Giffard, of Twyford, Buckinghamshire, died 1506, married
Agnes Winslow.
15. Thomas Giffard, of Twyford, Buckinghamshire, died 1511, married
Jane (or Joan) Langston.
16. Amy Giffard, married Richard Samwell, of Edgecote,
Northamptonshire, died 1519.
17. Susanna Samwell, born c.1510, married Peter Edwards, died 1552.
18. Edward Edwards, of Altwalton, Huntingdonshire, died 1592, married
Ursula Coles.
19. Margaret Edwards, married Henry Freeman, of Cranford,
Northamptonshire.
20. Alice Freeman, died 1664, married John Thompson.

Gordon Banks

Re: Fw: Stafford Barlow (? ancestor of Almy family of Rhode

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 06 nov 2007 21:04:31

Mitt Romney probably won't be elected president, but he is a distant
cousin of mine, and we are also Almy descendants.

I would also like to thank John and Leslie, as this is only the 2nd
Plantagenet connection for me, although Mitt has others through other
lines we don't share.

On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 07:29 +1100, Leo van de Pas wrote:
Congratulations to the apparent combined efforts of Leslie Mahler and John
Brandon. A great find!!

Bob Graham, Governor of Florida 1979-1987 is also a descendant.

Having added a few Presidents, here is a list of Presidents now known to
have a Plantagenet ancestry. If I left anyone out, please let me know.

1.George Washington
3.Thomas Jefferson
4.James Madison
6.John Quincy Adams
9.William Henry Harrison
12.Zachary Taylor
18.Ulysses S. Grant
22-24 Stephen Grover Cleveland
23.Benjamin Harrison
26. Theodore Roosevelt
27.William Howard Taft
29.Warren Harding
30.Calvin Coolidge
32.Franklin Delano Roosevelt
37.Richard Nixon
38.Gerald Ford
39.Jimmy Carter
41.George Herbert Walker Bush
43.George Walker Bush

That is 19 out of 43, fascinating.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <lmahler@att.net
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Stafford Barlow (? ancestor of Almy family of Rhode Island)


On Nov 5, 8:28 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xAwV58 ... barlow&q...


And heres one line of royal descent.
Most of the details can be found at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=p_yzpu ... 1-PA383,M1


Henry II = Ida
|
William Longespee = Ela of Salisbury
|
Ida Longespee = William Beauchamp
|
Beatrice Beauchamp = Thomas Fitz Otes
|
Maud Fitz Thomas = John Botetourt
|
Ada Botetourt = John de St Philibert
|
Maud St Philibert = Warin Trussell
|
Maud Trussell = John Hastang
|
Maud Hastang = Ralph Stafford
|
Humphrey Stafford = Elizabeth Burdett
|
Humphrey Stafford = Eleanor Aylesford
|
Humphrey Stafford = Catherine Fray
|
Humphrey Stafford = Margaret Fogge
|
Humphrey Stafford = Margaret Tame
|
Eleanor Stafford = Thomas Barlow
|
Stafford Barlow
|
Audrey Barlow, wife of William Almey of Rhode Island

Gary Roberts' book, Ancestors of American Presidents,
shows the emigrant couple as being ancestral to presidents
Warren Harding, Richard Nixon & Jimmy Carter.
I believe the latter two had no previously noted royal descent.
Ive already passed on a message about this to Gary.

Leslie


-------------------------------
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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Terrible British Food

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 nov 2007 21:12:10

Horsefeathers!

Pogue Linthicum is obviously as dumb as a sack of hammers.

Furthermore, I'll bet he just LOVES that Terrible British Food.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1194379697.683013.224040@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> Hines forgot where the thread was so he starts another.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Terrible British Food

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 nov 2007 23:08:18

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:0emdnULEF5Lgfq3aRVnyjwA@bt.com...

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

Weren't we talking about bacon butties? - or was that another thread. In
any case a faggot (meat (usually liver), herbs, bread) would be a near
substitute.

Aye! But when faggots are loupin ower dydkes ye stert tae fash.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
--------------------------------------


Hilarious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Lorraine M Money

Re: BABINGTON/BAVINGTON

Legg inn av Lorraine M Money » 06 nov 2007 23:13:53

The sources were from Bishops Transcripts from Lincolnshire, including
East Barkwith and Benniworth, which showed as can be seen the different
spelling. The wifes names were not shown just the father, this /
showing the direct descendant, of each branch namely John having
Humphrey in East Barkwith, Humphrey of Benniworth having John and John
having Christopher also in Benniworth.

My research from Topographical Genealogica shows that they believed the
Lincolnshire branch coming via Ferdinando Babington in London!!, and
some 200 years later than 1521. The College of Arms Babington tree
doesn't show a Lincolnshire line. All books that I have read on
Babington's mention that they too cannot find a definite link to any
lines to the Lincolnshire line. Mine would have to be the odd one out.

From names like Humphrey coming down the Lincolnshire line, it was
myself who decided to see whether the wall could be knocked down, and to
see which line they came from. Rampton, Nottinghamshire is just over
the border, there was a set of BABINGTONs there, but as shown by College
of Arms, the John there died dsp. Though the name Humphry does come up
in the Rothley, Leicestershire branch.

I do know after over 30 years of genealogical research, that brick walls
are hard to knock down. I have traced ISABEL DETHICK line (she it was
who married Thomas Babington in Derbyshire, and whose father,
grandfather and brother were killed in the battle of Shrewsbury), as I
believed she was part of the line.

I look forward for any information, and help you may be able to give me.
Kind regards
Lorraine
http://www.astrospace.co.uk
JOHN BAVINGTON born around 1521 living East Barkwith
/
Humphrey BAVINGTON
/
Humphrey Bavington living Benniworth (nr East Barkwith)
/
John Babington
/
Christopher Babington etc
(tree can be found on our website http://www.astrospace.co.uk)


One idea had our branch descended from Thomas Babington and Isabel
Dethick.


----------------------
The only way to help would be if you could add in all the missing detail
above.
Right now we have no way to know when and where these people lived, nor what
your sources were.

wjhonson

Re: BABINGTON/BAVINGTON

Legg inn av wjhonson » 07 nov 2007 10:43:15

Lorraine if you could provide the exact citations to your sources that
would be helpful.
Thanks
Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: A Proposed Descent For Alice (Freeman) Thompson From Kin

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 07 nov 2007 18:27:53

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.123.1194436672.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Mike Welch,

Trying to find _facts_ and asking questions is not hurling stones.
Richardson has already indicated that the line for Alice Freeman _might_
be wrong. I don't care one way or the other, what I care for is _that an
effort_ is made to come to the correct conclusion. Throwing out red
herrings and then hiding in the tall grass, as someone we know would
describe it, is not helpful in the process of finding out what the
situation is.

Not Really True...

Douglas Richardson HAS initiated a discussion and debate on this issue.

And I am the one Leo is referring to who uses those idioms of "throwing out
red herrings and then hiding in the tall grass".

They do not pertain in the instant case.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Gjest

Re: Lacy of Pontefract

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 nov 2007 18:59:03

In a message dated 11/7/2007 9:25:47 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
designeconomic@yahoo.com writes:

One matter is certain - they were not types to be
written off as suggested by Wil Johnson - their
services were too valuable to the kings in power.



--------------------------
That isn't what I suggested. I offered a citation and quote stating that he
lived in exile for the entire remainder of the reign. The author of that
work is who is suggesting.

Will Johnson



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Kay Allen

Re: Beatrix (---) (Bassingbourne) Besford

Legg inn av Kay Allen » 07 nov 2007 22:45:06

I haven't been able to open everything you listed, but
I did not see any specific relationship noted between
Joan Harley and Alexander Besford.

Kay Allen AG

--- John Brandon <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

It looks to me like the link below might actually
support the Corbet-
Harley-Besford line dismissed in _Ancestral Roots_,
but what do I
know ...


http://books.google.com/books?id=GeArAA ... r+besforde


-------------------------------
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

Gjest

Re: Fw: Stafford Barlow (? ancestor of Almy family of Rhode

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2007 02:30:03

Dear Spencer,
The Point is that We don`t trace millions of
signifigant royal descendants by discussing little else but those who possesss
Plantagenet bloodlines.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Fw: Stafford Barlow (? ancestor of Almy family of Rhode

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 nov 2007 02:51:40

Because that's what most of us have -- or hope to have.

If someone wants to start a thread on descents from Genghis Khan or Ivan The
Terrible they are perfectly free to do so.

Cheers,

DSH

<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.163.1194485318.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Spencer,

The Point is that We don`t trace millions of
signifigant royal descendants by discussing little else but those who
possesss Plantagenet bloodlines.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

The Highlander

Re: Terrible British Food

Legg inn av The Highlander » 08 nov 2007 09:18:37

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:08:18 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:0emdnULEF5Lgfq3aRVnyjwA@bt.com...

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

Weren't we talking about bacon butties? - or was that another thread. In
any case a faggot (meat (usually liver), herbs, bread) would be a near
substitute.

Aye! But when faggots are loupin ower dydkes ye stert tae fash.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
--------------------------------------

Hilarious!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Oh please! You didn't understand anything he said, did you?


A Hines quote: "Pretentious? Moi?"

Ken Ozanne

Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1525

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 08 nov 2007 13:02:33

Leo,
Yes, please.

Best,
Ken

On 8/11/07 19:00, "gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com"
<gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com> wrote:

From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 16:01:44 +1100
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Alfred the Great

It is interesting to see how the House of Normandy replaced the House of
Wessex but how the House of Wessex pretty quickly had descendants on the
thrones of several European countries, including England. William the
Conqueror's wife was a descendant of Alfred the Great and their son Henry I
married a daughter of St. Margaret of Wessex. It is interesting to make lists
of groups of descendants, I will make two:

Magna Carta Sureties who descend from Alfred the Great
Henry de Bohun, 1st Earl of Hereford
Gilbert de Clare, 5th Earl of Hertford
Robert FitzWalter, Baron of Little Dunmow
Saher de Quincy, 1st Earl of Winchester
William d'Aubeney of Belvoir
William de Huntingfield
Guillaume de Forz, Count d'Aumale
Hugh Bigod, 3rd Earl of Norfolk
if there are more, I would love to hear,

Saints
St.Margaret of Wessex
St.Hedwig von Meran
St. Louis IX, King of France
St. Elisabeth of Hungary
St. Isabel of Portugal
St. Stephan Brankovic
St. Francisco de Borja y de Aragon
St. Aloysius Gonzaga
St. Philip Howard

I have made a file with descendants over 12 generations, reaching the 13th
century. If anyone is interested I gladly send it on.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

terrence White

Re: Alfred the Great

Legg inn av terrence White » 08 nov 2007 15:20:04

Dear Leo--

Please forgive a contribution from an amateur and ignoramus like myself, but I believe the standard explanation has been that the Normans, realising their political illegitimacy (due to the conquest), legitimised themselves and their descendants the only other way they could--by incorporating the royal genes through intermarriage with the previous ruling house.

I believe the same thing is now thought to have occurred when the Carolingians began gradually assuming more and more actual power from the fast-fading Merovingians.

And perhaps even the Merovingians may have done the same thing when they took power from the Gallo-Roman families who previously ruled Gaul. A lot shadier there--since the documentation is so shaky.

Again, please forgive me if I'm only restating the obvious.

Perhaps Douglas Richardson can weigh in on this ...

T.J. (Terry) White

Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
It is interesting to see how the House of Normandy replaced the House of Wessex but how the House of Wessex pretty quickly had descendants on the thrones of several European countries, including England. William the Conqueror's wife was a descendant of Alfred the Great and their son Henry I married a daughter of St. Margaret of Wessex. It is interesting to make lists of groups of descendants, I will make two:

Magna Carta Sureties who descend from Alfred the Great
Henry de Bohun, 1st Earl of Hereford
Gilbert de Clare, 5th Earl of Hertford
Robert FitzWalter, Baron of Little Dunmow
Saher de Quincy, 1st Earl of Winchester
William d'Aubeney of Belvoir
William de Huntingfield
Guillaume de Forz, Count d'Aumale
Hugh Bigod, 3rd Earl of Norfolk
if there are more, I would love to hear,

Saints
St.Margaret of Wessex
St.Hedwig von Meran
St. Louis IX, King of France
St. Elisabeth of Hungary
St. Isabel of Portugal
St. Stephan Brankovic
St. Francisco de Borja y de Aragon
St. Aloysius Gonzaga
St. Philip Howard

I have made a file with descendants over 12 generations, reaching the 13th century. If anyone is interested I gladly send it on.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia


-------------------------------
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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Gjest

Re: Terrible British Food

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2007 16:46:03

Dear Spencer,
As It happens, Winston Sprencer- Churchill was half
American. his mother was Jennie Jerome who descended from a number of New
England families including Jerome , Ball , Chase, Frothingham and Sherman amongst
others so like the late Princess of Wales a number of us are fairly distant
(or not so distant) relatives. I have a next door neighbor whose mother was a
fourth cousin of his.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Gjest

Re: Alfred the Great

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2007 17:00:04

Dear Leo,
An additional saint with descendant for your list, though
I`m certain he`s in your file.
Saint David I, King of Scots
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

PS Don`t ask Me how he gained sainthood beyond
endowing various holy orders with land and building them churches and monastaries.



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

rainbow.

Re: Smoke and Mirrors ?

Legg inn av rainbow. » 08 nov 2007 17:45:43

Hello Listers
Does this add any fuel to the fire??


*Matilda de Clare B 1184? in Lincolnshire, England
d/o *Richard M.C. de Clare = *C/ss Amice Fitzrobert de
Gloucester 1180?
m/d
(1) Bn of Halton Roger de Lacy

(2)*William deBraose, 1200?
A son
*John deBraose born 1200? in Bramber, Sussex, England

(3) *Bn Geoffrey Gaufridus M.C. de Say
A son
*Sir William Berling de Say born 1205? in Sussex, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hawise de Clare
d/o *"Earl Gillbert 11 de Clare = *"Adeliza de Clermont.
B 1089 in Clare, Risbridge, Suffolk, England.
m/d
*Sir Geoffrey Sawbridge de SAY B 1085? - Sawbridgeworth,
Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire, England.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


First he dismisses the wives of Geoffrey de Say, then
replaces them with Hawise de Clare, then takes for granted

she is a daughter of Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford, and
Amice of Gloucester.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Terrible British Food

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 08 nov 2007 19:33:27

Yes, James...

I'm quite familiar with the details on that.

I'm related to Diana, Jennie and Winston too.

See Below...

Cheers,

DSH

<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.190.1194536618.7651.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Spencer

As It happens, Winston [Leonard Spencer] Sprencer [sic]- [no hyphen --
DSH] Churchill was half American. his mother was Jennie Jerome who
descended from a number of New England families including Jerome,
Ball , Chase, Frothingham and Sherman amongst others so like the late
Princess of Wales a number of us are fairly distant (or not so distant)
relatives. I have a next door neighbor whose mother was a fourth
cousin of his.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Smoke and Mirrors ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 nov 2007 20:15:05

In a message dated 11/8/2007 8:46:47 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
"rainbow."@clear.net.nz writes:

*Matilda de Clare B 1184? in Lincolnshire, England
d/o *Richard M.C. de Clare = *C/ss Amice Fitzrobert de
Gloucester 1180?
m/d
(1) Bn of Halton Roger de Lacy

(2)*William deBraose, 1200?
A son
*John deBraose born 1200? in Bramber, Sussex, England

(3) *Bn Geoffrey Gaufridus M.C. de Say
A son
*Sir William Berling de Say born 1205? in Sussex, England


--------------
So Matilda b 1184? has a grandson born 1200?
These sort of lists are not helpful, if you add sources with quotes that
would be helpful.



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»