Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry

Legg inn av CED » 09 jan 2006 21:41:31

Chris Phillips wrote:
Will Johnson wrote:
Why do you keep calling it a "foundation history" ?
I pointed out the exact location where it resides and even quoted the
latin
to you.
Are you disputing that its a quote from their cartulary? And instead a
forgery of some sort?


If it's any help, the VCH account of Creake Abbey, online at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=38278, includes this
footnote, which suggests that the account of the foundation dates from the
13th century:

To the Newsgroup:

It should be noted that the following is included in the document
quoted by Richardson (which is later material ):

.... "Subsequently, Robert de Nerford, who had been appointed Governor
of
Dover Castle by Lord Hubert de Burgh, then Justiciar and Regent of the
realm, on obtaining a naval victory on Saint Batholomew's Day over the
French who had attacked the English"

Where in the cartulary is this found? I cannot find any evidence that
Hubert de Burgh held the title "Regent of the Realm." What is the
basis for this statement?


CED

There are articles on this abbey by the late Mr. Carthew, F.S.A. in Norf.
Arch. (vi. 314-59; vii, 153-69), which give many interesting extracts from,
and accounts of, charters and rolls among the muniments of Christ's College,
Cambridge. The statements in this sketch, where no reference is given, are
taken from these articles. There is a short thirteenth-century chartulary of
Creake, opening with an account of the foundation, which is given, with two
early charters in the Mon. (vi, 487-8). Bishop Kennett's extracts from it
are in Lansd. MS. 1040, fols. 203-4.


The abbey does seem to have had some connection with Gedney, as earlier on
it says:

Land was also held by the abbey in Gedney, Lincolnshire, by the service of
finding a canon to celebrate daily in the chapel of St. Thomas the Martyr,
on the site of a messuage formerly belonging to Thomas Dory, and supporting
there five paupers, giving them daily a loaf of fifty shillings' weight,
broth, and beer, and a portion of either meat or fish, and a cloth tunic
every other year. This service Margaret, widow of John de Roos, alleged in
1341, had been discontinued for two years or more by the abbot.


Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - False

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jan 2006 21:44:01

First to those who sent me private emails. I am not a Crawford to my
knowledge.

Second, this chart was obtained, in part, due to professional genealogy work
I did for one particular client. I did not endeavor then, nor do I propose
endeavouring now to try to trace all these individuals :)

(big grin) OK now with *that* aside.... this tree contains literally hundreds
of names, they are *not* in any particular order, so it is impossible for me
to search for any particular person for anyone, unless of course you're paying
me. In that case, I'll dig a ditch for the right price.

Now for those who desire to see if the root of the tree is accurate, I'll
paint it's picture.

First the chart says, by way of authorship, "Compiled by Lucinda Frances
Stephens. Assisted and Drawn by Sara Stephens White. Finished 9 May 1924.
Retraced August 1933. Continued by Ethel Tennyson, Margaret Koreck. Finished
August 1977"

In the roots, or at the roots is this "John son of Earl Crawford born 1600
died 1676 Scotland"

Directly above this, so therefore on the "trunk" is the only name in this
part of the tree, "David Son of John, then 1625 .... 1710" which I presume are
his alledged birth and death years.

Then above this last, I presuming it's listing the names of his children when
it shows the following persons and their spouses:
Elizabeth - Nicholas Meriwether
Angeline - Wm McGuire
Capt David - Elizabeth Smith
David - Ann Armstrong (this one *might* be the son of Capt David rather than
his brother. The way the tree it drawn makes this obscure to me.)
Angeline
Judith - Robert Lewis

There are NO dates NOR places listed anywhere in the tree for anyone other
than what I've just described. That is, no dates or places are listed on any
branches whatsoever. Just more names.

Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

Re: C.P. Correction/Addition: Zouche

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 09 jan 2006 23:07:02

Dear Douglas and John,

Are we missing a line?

The William la Zouche son of Alice de Belmeis and Alan la Zouche took the
name de Belmeis. I am still searching for the answer to which William died
in 1199. Some sources are inclined to say it was the William la Zouche de
Belmeis. "Universis ecclesie filiis Willielmus de Belmeys filius Alan la
Zouch, salutem. Noverit, universitas vestra me dedisse, & c. canonicis de
Lillishull, pro salute mea, & anima patris mei Alani la Zouch & matris mee
Adhelize de Belmeys, & pro animabus Philipps de Belmeys senioris & Philippi
junioris, & Ranulphi fratris sui & omnium antecessorum &c. ecclesiam de
Esseby."

The children of Alan and Alice were, then, William la Zouche de Belmeis,
Roger la Zouche and possibly Philip. There is a William de Belmeis I,
archdcn. of London, prob. from before Jan. 1127 to Sept. 1152 or later.
Richard de Belmeis II, Bishop of London, 1152-1162.] Was there william de
Belmeis II to whom a death date of 1199 is assigned?

This Roger b.c. 1175 married Margaret Byset and had, at least: Alan, Eudo,
William, Lora and Alice. Several sources state that Alan had a brother Eudo
and in the 1251 PLEAS OF THE CROWN 36 HENRY III [1251­2] 15. Four unknown
malefactors encountered Richard son of the Parson on London Bridge. A
quarrel arising among them, they killed Richard and at once fled. It is not
known who they were. Richard Kyngesfeld and Ralph de Bradele were then in
company with Richard and were attached. They do not come and are not
suspected. Richard was attached by Ivor la Suche and William la Suzche
.....The 1269 confirmation by Roger la Zuche, son and heir of Sir Alan la
Zuche, to the leprous women and the prior and brethren of Maydenebradelegh
is witnessed by Sirs Ivo la Zuche, Alan la Zuche.

If the transcription in Monasticon is correct then the Willielmi la Zouche
:Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quospraesentes literae pervenerint, Willielmus
la Zouche, filius Rogeri la Zouche, salutem in Domino sempiternam. Noveritis
nos inspexisse omnes chartas et munimenta Rogeri patris nostri, ac chartaset
munimenta Alani Zouche avi nostri quondam comitis Britanniae facta priori
de Swavesey....is not the son of Alice and Alan but of Roger and Margaret
who in 1237 acquires Kings Nympton of his father, Roger. CPXII/2 p. 957 .

According to a post by Adrian from [Page 86, Vol iii] THE BATTLE ABBEY
ROLL. Alan, first Lord Zouche of Ashby was living in 1186, and is not said
on good authority to have been son of any Earl Alan, but of Geoffrey,
Vicomte of Rohan. Moreover, this Alan La Zouche of Ashby was succeeded by
his son William, William by his brother Roger, and Roger by his son Alan -
a descent not strictly identical with anything implied in the Swavesey
charter. (Nevertheless) Alan La Zouche, the undoubted founder of the family,
who in his charter to Lilleshall Priory styles himself "son of Geoffrey le
Vicomte," lived in the time of Henry II.,
And your note , John, ( 1. The first Alan la Zouche was not ’Äòsometime
count of Brittany’Äô ["quondam comes Britanniae"]) further questions the
validity of Dugdale's transcription.

Presumption then, according to Douglas, is that this William of Kings
Nympton is the same as the William of Essex b. c. 1198-1200. Is this the
same William is mentioned in Surrey and Sussex in the early 13th c.? In 1262
³Hundred of Bullingfield XXIII William la Zouche (Suche) the Sheriff, took ,
by Exchequer summons 40 s. from the vill of Cuckfield (Cokkefeld) and did
not aquit the debtors...William la Zouche was Sherrif of Sussex 1262-63.
Certainly Alan and Adeliza held interest there: date: 12th cBy (a) Alan la
Scuche and Alice de Belmeis his wife to (b) William de Alta Ripa [Dawtrey]
for homage and on remission to (a) of the right which (b) had in (a)'s woods
(nemoribus) of Forsistnd' (sic). I have a note without source that states
in 1196 William de Belmeis was charged scutage on 3 knight¹s fees in Sussex.
Most Belmeis land descended in the line of Alan-Roger-Alan, e.g.. Philip de
Belmeis, lord of the manor of Ashby (of which Blackfordby forms part), gave
the chapel of Blackfordby, with sixty acres attached, to the Abbey of
Lilleshull, in Shropshire. In 1313, the abbot of Lilleshull held half a
knight's fee in Blackfordby of Alan la Zouch who in the same year
appropriated North Molton to the monastery of Lilleshull, in Shropshire.

That a William was the father of Roger of Lubbesthorpe is accepted. In 1268
Milicent de Cantilupo de Montaldt grants William la Zouche, Lobesthorp.
"service of third of knight's fee of the gift of Millicent de Montealto in
52 Hen III." Lubbesthorpe was purchased by Sir William de Kalna (Cantilupe)
by 1253. In 1255 his heir George, brother to Milicent, is not quite 3 years
old and all rents of his 19 hides in Bedfordshire were assigned by Sir
William Cantilupo to John de Montealto, with his daughter. On Milicent's
death, her heir is her son William born ca. 1276. If in 1286, 28 Ap. Roger
la Zouche of Lubbsesthorpe "going over seas with K. he nominates attorneys,
³ then we must assume he is an adult born c.a. 1266 or before and his
father, William then before 1246. This William seems to be contemporary with
Milicent and Eudo.

Milicent's lands were tied to the de Boscos. William de Bois [Bosco]
enfeoffed Milicent in all his lands in the counties of Leicester, Warwick
and Northampton and in 1292, a suit took place between William de Bois
[Bosco}, plaintiff, and Peter Helewell and John la Zuche, defendants,
concrning the manors of Thorp Ernauld, Brentingby, Bushby, Belgrave and
Stretton and two knights fees in Great Peatling, Aylmerthorpe, Kyleby, and
Croston co. Leiocester, and divers lands in Weston, Wibtoft &c. co. Warwick;
Which ended in a settlement of the whole on William de Bois for life with
the remainder to William Zuch and Maud his wife, and their heirs; remainder
to the heirs of Maud; and then right heirs of William de Bois. Among the
settlements of Clarrell in Yorks is a document witnessed in late Hen.
III)bySir Maula Suche, Sir Ernulf de Bosco, Sir Wm. de Medburn, Sir Wm. de
Beurnais (Beaumais?) and Sir Wm. de Charneley, kts..

We have here two unidentified la Zouche men, John and Maula. Was John a son
of Milicent's and, if so, where does he fit? And, which William is the
father of Almaric?

In 1289 Emery (Almaricus) son and heir of William de la Zusche alias la
Zouche
Writ to Peter Heym and Robert de Radington, to enquire whether the said
Emery, who is in the king¹s wardship, is of full age as he says, or not 3
May 17 EI [1289]
Devon: Inq. Friday the eve of St. Barnabas 17 E I
The said Emery who was born at Toteleye and baptised in the church of
Blaktoriton
was 21 on th morrow of St. Edmund the king in the year above said.

William of Essex was dead ion 1272.

IPM of Roger la Zouche (1303) which says of his tenure in Lubbesthorpe,'The
manor (extent given) held of William la Zouche by service of third of a
knight's fee of the gift of Millicent de Montealto in 52 Hen III. ' It is
important to know who held the other 2/3?

According to Douglas, King's Nympton, Devon. was stated to be held in 1242
by William la Zouche, supposedly William la Zouche of Essex. It was
subsequently held by Robert de Morton (i.e., Mortimer), and then by
Geoffrey de Cornwall who married Robert de Mortimer's granddaughter and
heiress. [Douglas Richardson]. In 1280, Roger de Mortuomari and Milisent de
Mohaut, who was the wife of Eudo de la Zuche, were summoned to show by what
warrant they claimed a market in Bridgwater which was Milicent's inheritance
from her brother, Gorge.

There was also a Robert la Zouche of age in 1279 when Hugh Beaumis nominates
Robert la Zusch and Richard Tiffe in Ireland for four years.

Significant questions arise to remain uncertain about the Williams la
Zouche.

Look forward to observations.
Pat


----------
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: C.P. Correction/Addition: Zouche
Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2006, 2:04 AM


Dear John ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

In regards to your comments about Roger la Zouche, of Lubbesthorpe,
Leicestershire, you're quite correct that there is most likely an error
in the transcript of the charter dated 1289-1296 in which Milicent de
Mohaut, widow of Sir Eudes la Zouche, granted the manor of
Lubbesthorpe, Leicestershire to "Richard" la Zouche, son of Sir William
la Zouche. As you have noted, this manor was actually granted to Roger
la Zouche, son of Sir William la Zouche.

That Roger, not Richard, la Zouche was the grantee of Lubbesthorpe is
directly stated in another Zouche family charter that I've found
published elsewhere:

"3 May 1406. - Grant by Monsieur William la Zouche, "seigneur" de
Harringworth, to Thomas Assheby, of the custody, during the minority of
Robert, son and heir of Monsieur Marmaduke Constable, of a third part
of the Manor, it [i.e. the Manor] having been held of the grantor in
chief by Marmduke, together with Robert Seint Andrew and Thomas
Assheby, severally and in purparty, for estates in tail, by the service
of one knight - they being the heirs of Roger son of William la Zouche,
to whom the Manor had been granted for an estate tail by Milicent de
Montalt; the ultimate remainder in default of their issue belonging to
the grantor. - Dated at London, 2 May, 7 Henry IV. In French. Very
fine remains of his Seal of Arms - bezantée (ten shewing), a canton
ermine; the shield (which is perfect and fine) couchée from helm
surmounted by crest - out of a coronet a mule's head; to the dexter
side of the helm (the other side is missing), an eagle rising.
[Legend:] ............ DE HARYNGWORTH." [Reference: Report on the MSS
of Reginald Rawdon Hastings, Esq. 1 (Hist. MSS Comm. 78) (1928): 60].

There is also in print a transcript of another charter in which
Milicent de Mohaut, widow of Sir Eudes la Zouche, specifically
addresses Roger la Zouche, who she calls "her beloved and faithful":

"12 March 1280/1. - Letters Patent of Milicent de Monte Alto, widow,
acknowledging that "her beloved and faithful" Roger la Zusche had
returned his account, before her and "her beloved and faithful" Sir
John de Harigworte, chaplain, and WIlliam de Kaune, clerk, and before
Thomas la Zusche, then steward of her household, comprising all his
receipts and expenses from the first day of his employment to the feast
of the Purification, 9 Edward I; and releasing him from the said
account. Witnesses - "the said auditors, Sir Richard de Geytynton,
chaplain, William de Harigworthe, clerk, John de Houdeyng, then
bailiff, and others. - St. Gregory the Pope, 9 Edward I. Her very fine
and nearly perfect pointed oval Seal, in green wax - her full-length
figure in long Empire dress and cloak, the dress charged with rows of
roundles nearly to the bottom, the lining of the cloak charged with
vair spots; square flat head dress; in either hand she holds a shield,
that to the dexter is charged with a lion rampant, that to the sinister
defaced, but suggestive of three leopards' faces inverted jessant de
lys. Legend: S' MILISENTE .........TO. [Reference: Report on the MSS
of Reginald Rawdon Hastings, Esq. 1 (Hist. MSS Comm. 78) (1928): 143].

Birch gives a similar seal for Milicent de Montalt in his work,
Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum, 2 (1892): 393:

Pointed oval. In tightly-fitting dress, fur cloak, in each hand a
shield of arms. Standing on a carved corbel. Arms: right hand a lion
rampant, MONTALT; left hand three leopards' heads jessants-de-lis,
CANTELOWE. In the field on each side a wavy sprig of foliage).

We see above that a Thomas la Zouche was acting as Milicent de
Montalt's steward in 1281. This Thomas la Zouche is surely the same
person as Thomas son of Eudes la Zouche who in 1307 was owed a debt in
Northamptonshire. In 1313 Thomas was pardoned for his involvement in
the death of Peter de Gavaston, Earl of Cornwall. In 1324 he was
pardoned for acquiring without license of King Edward I (prior to 1307)
five messuages and lands in Basford, Nottinghamshire for life from
William la Zouche [presumably his brother] [References: J. Throsby
Thoroton's Hist. of Nottinghamshire, 2: 227; Calendar of Patent
Rolls, 1321-1324 (1904): 393; C. Moor Knights of Edward I 5: 225].

If the same Thomas la Zouche is involved in all of these records, it
seems obvious that Thomas la Zouche was very likely the step-son of
Milicent de Montalt, he being the son of Sir Eudes la Zouche (died
1279), by an unknown 1st wife or mistress. It seems possible that
Thomas la Zouche was a legitimate son of Eudes la Zouche. As best I
know, all of Eudes la Zouche's known land holdings were derived from
his wife, Milicent's Cantelowe inheritance; if Eudes had a son by a
priior marriage, it would be obscured by the passage of all of Eudes'
wife's lands to their son, William la Zouche. There appears to have
been no inquisition post mortem folliowing Eudes la Zouche's death.

With respect to the identity of Sir William la Zouche, father of Roger
la Zouche of Lubbesthorpe, he is undoubtedly the Sir William la Zouche,
Knt. (died 1272), of King's Nympton, Devon, Farleigh Wallop,
Hampshire, and Norton, Northamptonshire, which individual was the
brother of Milicent de Montalt's husband, Sir Eudes la Zouche. The
authoritative Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 957 (sub Zouche) states
that Sir William la Zouche (died 1272) was survived by a daughter and
sole heiress, Joyce la Zouche, wife of Robert de Mortimer, but this is
not correct. My research indicates that Sir William la Zouche was
actually survived by a son and heir, William la Zouche the younger.
Upon the death of the younger William, the family estates fell to his
full sister, Joyce la Zouche, widow of Ncholas de Whelton, and then
wife of Robert de Mortimer. It appears that Roger la Zouche, later of
Lubbesthorpe, was excluded from the Zouche family inheritance, he being
a brother of the half blood to William la Zouche the younger.

Furthermore, given that Milicent de Montalt addresses Roger la Zouche
of Lubbesthorpe as "her beloved and faithful," and not otherwise, I
believe this is fatal to the theory that Roger la Zouche was married to
an hitherto unknown daughter of Milicent de Montalt's 1st marriage to
John de Montalt. Had Roger la Zouche been married to Milicent de
Montalt's daughter, or contracted to marry her daughter, this would
likely have been mentioned in either the charter that I have copied
above, or the one you cited in your post.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Gjest

Re: Robert de Ros of Warke

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 jan 2006 23:53:02

Monday, 9 January, 2006


Dear Will,

It appears you have two Roberts (de Ros) conflated: the
husband of Margaret de Brus d. before 20 April 1274. It was his
son and heir Robert who was Lord Ros of Wark, and subsequently
forfeited for treason.

There is record, however, that his daughters sought restoration of
his lands due to an amnesty granted to John Comyn and his adherents
(prob. the 1304 agreement). See the refs. in the pedigree given below.

Cheers,

John

_____________________________________


1 Sir Robert de Ros
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 23 Dec 1226[1]
Birth: ca 1172[1]
Father: Everard de Ros (-1183)
Mother: Rohese Trussebut (ca1151-<1197)

of Helmsley in Holderness, co. York and Wark, Northumberland

succeeded to the Trussebut inheritance of his mother, 1196 (answered for
500m. as the eldest coheir of Robert Trussebut, 1195- Sanders, p. 56[2])

of the escort of William, King of Scots to court in England, Nov. 1200
and in 1209
Sheriff of Cumberland, 1213-1215[1]

' Robertus de Ros, ij milites ' - accounted for the service of 2 knights'
fees in Northumberland, ca. 1201-1212 [Red Book of the Exchequer
I: 179[3]]

payment received from King John of England, at Carrickfergus, 25 July 1210:
' 477. Prests to knights at Carrickfergus the day of St. James the
Apostle. Robert de Ros, 40 marks; the Earl of Winchester, 50 marks;
Earl David, 30 marks, delivered to Bartholomew de Mortuo mari; David
de Hastinges, 4 marks, for John his father; Eustace de Vescy, 30
marks; Henry son of Earl David, 2 marks (and many others). '
[Bain I:81[4], cites Prestita, 12 John, m. 5]

subsequently served King John in Ireland, August 1210:
Sean Duffy wrote, re: King John and Baldwin, count of Aumale, in Ireland:
' Baldwin spent at least part of the summer of 1210 in Ireland. The
praestita roll records payments made to Flemish knights at Dublin on
28 June and at Greenoge (in the barony of Ratoath, County Meath) two
days later, at Carlingford on 11 July, Carrickfergus on 27 July,
Drogheda on 9 August, and Fore (in County Westmeath) on 11 August.39
Within a week King John was back at Dublin, where substantial payments
were again made to the Flemings in his service, including, on 19
August, to the count of Aumale himself . [Rot. liberate, p. 214.
Baldwin's tenants Fulk and Lambert de Oyry and Robert de Ros received
prests at Dublin on 21 August (ibid., p. 225). The `knights of the earl
of Aubemarle' received further payments at Dublin two days later
(ibid., p. 226). All told, at least thirty-three Flemish knights
received prests during the expedition (Painter, King John, p. 265
n.130).] ' [Duffy[5]]

A similar letter to the following, written
' to Robert de Ros concerning the brother of Walter de Clifford '
[unidentified]
a hostage of the King of Scotland placed with Robert for safekeeping,
to be transferred to the King of England's custody, 13 June 1213 :
' 574. Concerning the K. of Scotland's hostages. The K. to S[aher] earl of
Winchester. Commands him on receipt, immediately to send the K. by
good and safe messengers, Reginald his own son, and the son of William
de Veteripont, hostages of the K. of Scotland, who are in his custody
by the K.'s order; so that they may be with the K. at Portsmouth on the
vigil of St. John Baptist instant. Beaulieu. ' [Bain I:100-101[4],
cites Foedera I:113; and Close Roll 15 John, p. 1, m. 4]

Surety for the Magna Carta, 1215;
returned to allegiance to the King, November 1217

Confirmation made by Robert de Ros [II] to Meaux abbey of the gift in
Warter made by Geoffrey Trussebut, his uncle, and of the land of Arras
called Blanchemarle given by Geoffrey Dagon; also of the gifts of
William son of Asketil in Warter, of Robert son of Osmund, of Walter
de Boynton in Arnold, of Richer de Arnold of the site of the grange
there, of Gilbert son of William de Dalton in Harlthorpe [par. Bubwith],
of Osbert de Frismarais between Beeford and Nunkeeling, and of Simon
Tuschet in Middleton on the Wolds. [1210-26] (Boynton, citing C.T.
Clay, Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. X no. 92)[6]

2nd husband of Isabel 'of Scotland'[1]

Spouse: Isabel of Scotland
Father: William 'the Lion', King of Scotland (1143-1214)
Mother: NN [probably dau. of Roger de Avenel]
Marr: 1191, Haddington, Scotland[1]

Children: Sir William (-ca1264), of Helmsley
Robert (-1269)
Peter
Alexander


1.1 Robert de Ros
----------------------------------------
Death: 1269[1]

knight, of Wark on Tweed, Northumberland and Sanquhar, Nithsdale
second son

hostage for his father, held by King John, 1206 [CP IX:92[1]]

' Lord Robert de Ros ', witness to charter of Patrick, son of Patrick
Earl of Dunbar dated at Roxburgh 3 Kal. April, 17 Alexander [30 March
1231] - Durham University Library Archives & Special Collections:
Misc. Charter 733 [Printed: Raine ND App. CXXVI][7]

Chief Justice of King's Bench, 1234; Chief Justice of the Forests North
of Trent, 1236[1]

' Robert de Ros de Werk ', knight
Arms: ' Or three water bougets sable ' [ H S London, Rolls of Arms,
Henry III, Aspilogia 2, Society of Antiquaries, London, 1967 - ca.
1252 or later, B 173 ][8]

his lands evidently included the manor of Bellester (or Bellister) in
Tynedale, originally part of the maritagium of his ancestress Isabel
of Scotland. [cf. restoration of same to his descendant Gerard Salvayn]

Spouse: NN

Children: William de Ros, of Downham
Robert (-<1274)
Isabel, m. 1) Sir Roger de Merlay,
2) Sir Adam de Everingham
Ida (->1315), m. 1) Sir Roger Bertram,
2) Sir Robert de Neville


1.1.1 Robert de Ros
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 20 Apr 1274[4],[9]

of Wark on Tweed, Northumberland and Sanquhar, Nithsdale
younger son, made heir to father[9]

his lands evidently included the manor of Bellester (or Bellister) in
Tynedale, originally part of the maritagium of his ancestress Isabel
of Scotland. [cf. restoration of same to his descendant Gerard Salvayn]

'Robert de Ros, junior', one of the sureties for William de Kyme in a
complaint by William Bardolf, 1253 [Pleas of the Crown 31-32[10]]

' Extent of the manor of Kyrkeby in Kendale, with the castle [under
writ, dated Westminster, 20 April preceding, directing the K.'s
escheator ultra Trent, to make an extent of the lands of the deceased
Robert de Ros of Werk, both of his own heritage, and that of Margaret
his wife], made of Monday next, after the quinzaine of Holy Trinity,...
The jurors say that said manor has fallen in the purparty of Margaret
de Ros, the last born daughter and one of the heirs of Peter de Brus,
and is held of the K. in capite. ' [Bain II:4-5[4], cites Inq. p. m.,
2 Edw. I. No. 26.]

______________________

re: his wife:

3rd sister and coheiress of her brother Piers de Brus
inheritance included barony of Kendal, Westmoreland [divided between her
son William and nephew Marmaduke de Thweng][9]
gave charter of the forest of Rydal and her share of Ambleside and
Loughrigg, held of her by Sir Roger de Lancaster, illeg. brother of
her mother[1]

Re: her claim as coheiress of the Earl of Aumale, see Blakely[11]

Spouse: Margaret de Brus
Death: 1307[2]
Father: Piers de Brus (-1240), of Skelton and Danby in Cleveland
Mother: Hawise de Lancaster, heiress of Kendal

Children: Robert (-<1310)
William (-<1310), of Kendal


1.1.1.1 Robert de Ros
----------------------------------------
Death: bef 5 Mar 1310, d.s.p.m. (probably in Scotland)[12],[1]
Occ: Lord Ros of Wark

of Wark on Tweed, Northumberland
summoned to Parliament from 24 June 1295 by writ directed 'Roberto de
Roos de Werke', thereby held to have become Lord Ros of Wark[13]

his lands included the manor of Bellester (or Bellister) in Tynedale,
originally part of the maritagium of his ancestress Isabel of Scotland.
Held in dower by his mother at her death, 1307 [Bain IV:381[14],
cites Chancery Miscellaneous Portfolios, No. 41/195]
[cf. restoration of same to his descendant Gerard Salvayn]

in support of Scottish cause against Edward I, resisted at Wark and
defeated forces of his brother, March 1296 (subsequently fled to
Scotland)[15] - Wark taken by forces of Edward I of England[16]

~ evidently continued in his Scots holdings, incl. the lordship of
Sanquhar, Nithsdale after his escape to Scotland in 1296

held lands in Scotland as recorded on 27 April 1296, which had been burnt:
" Robertus de Ros tenet villatam de Car ....w, quae combusta 'est' et
jacet vasta, etc. Et nemo praedictas terras tenet modo. " [Stevenson
II:43[17]]

Spouse: [CONJECTURED] Laura (de Baliol ?)[1]
Father: [CONJECTURED] Alexander de Baliol (-<1311) of Cavers
Mother: [CONJECTURED] Isabel de Chilham (-1291)
Marr: bef 1292[1]

Children: Margaret (ca1292->1321)
Isabel (ca1295-)


1.1.1.1.1 Margaret de Ros
----------------------------------------
Birth: ca 1292, Scotland[1],[12]
Death: aft 26 Dec 1321[18]

elder daughter and coheir:
' b. in Scotland ( Rolls of Parl., vol. i., p. 183). The elder
[daughter], Margaret (aet. 15 in 1307, Cal. Inq. p.m. vol. iv., no.
427) m. John Salveyn (see Surtees' Durham, vol. iv, City of Durham,
p. 118);..' [CP XI:122, note (a)[1]]

record of her petition to King Edward I for the lands of her
father Robert de Ros, 1306-07:
' 1835. (1) John Salvein and Margarete his wife, and Isabele her
sister pray the K.'s grace herein. Margarete de Ros lately held the manor
of Belethre as dower, of the heritage of Robert de Ros father of said
Margarete and Isabele, whose heirs they are. As she is dead, the
petitioners pray for the manor (notwithstanding that Robert their
father held with the Scots), under the peace with Sir John Comyn
and his adherents.
(2) Robert de Bures shews the K. that for his long service, and
in lieu of 100 marks of land, he received lately a charter of lands in
Scotland, since annulled by the peace made with John Comyn, now
dead, and begs a grant of Belestre manor escheated by Robert de
Brus [Ros ?], extended at 31l. yearly....'
(Endorsed) Rex concessit Roberto de Burs manerium de Belestre
ad totam vitam ipsius Roberti et inde habet cartam Regis. ' [Bain
IV:381[14], cites Chancery Miscellaneous Portfolios, No. 41/195]

order of King Edward II, dated at Berwick, 5 March 1310/11:
' 199. The K. to W. bishop of Worcester, the chancellor. As John de
Knockes the husband of Isabella daughter and one of the heirs of the
late Robert de Ros of Werke, has asked his wife's purparty of her
father's lands both in England and Scotland, and the K. hears that
William son of Sir William de Ros of Hamelake is in possession of the
manor of Werke, he commands that the sheriff of Northumberland be
instructed to summon William to appear before the K. on the morrow
of next Ascension Day, to shew cause why he should not resign the
lands to the claimants under the conditions granted by the late K.
to Sir John Comyn and his adherents. Berwick-on -Tweed. '
[Bain III:39-40[12], cites Privy Seals (Tower), 4 Edw. II. File 5]

order of King Edward II to give Margaret de Ros and her husband John
Salvayn seisin of half of her father's lands, dated at London, 30
July 1312:
' 292. The K., referring to the conditions on which his late father
received John Comyn of Badenagh and his Scottish adherents to his
peace - that the late Robert de Ros of Werk was among these, and
John Salvayn and John de Knoches, the husbands of Margaret the
firstborn and Isabella the younger (postnata) daughters and heirs
of said Robert, have represented that their wives were under age
and entitled to the conditions of the peace with Comyn, and were
born and baptized in Scotland, as proved before the Chancellor of
Scotland by its laws and customs, and have offerred their homage -
commands the eschaetor ultra Trent to give John Salvayn, whose homage
he has taken, and Margaret his wife, seisin of their property, being
one half of Robert's lands, retaining the other half of John de
Knoches and his wife till further instructions. London. '
[Bain III:56[12], cites Close 6 Edw. II. m. 29]

re: seeking seisin in the summer of 1312, they were thwarted: record
of John Salvain's complaint,
'His w. Margaret, d. coh. of Rob. de Ros of Werk, a Scottish rebel,
was born in Scotland, and seeks restoration of her lands, the
sub-Escheator having come to give them seisin of Belestre Manor,
Northumb., and the forester of Belestre having prevented him, 28
Sep 1312.'[18]

reported to have obtained restoration of her rights, forfeited by her
father:
' In 1367 Gerard Salveyn, kinsman and h. of Margaret, obtained an
exemplification of letters patent, said to have been dated at Clipstone,
6 Nov. 1312 [not enrolled], pardoning to her her father's forfeitures for
adhering to the Scots, under Edward I's promise to John Comyn and
his men (Cal. Patent Rolls, 1364-67, p. 41).'
[CP XI:122, sub _Ros of Wark_][1]

see also Dugdale, Baronage of England under Ros of Werke, p. 555[19]
____________________

re: her husband:

John Salvain (or Salvayn), knt., of Belestre, Northumberland (de
jure uxoris)

according to Burke, heir of his father (d.v.p.)[20]
named as husband of Margaret de Ros by Dugdale[19]

Spouse: John Salvain
Death: bef 13 Mar 1320[20],[18]
Father: Robert Salvayn (-<1297)
Mother: Sibilla Beeston (->1286)

Children: Sir Gerard (<1307-1374) Salvain, of North Duffield


1.1.1.1.2 Isabel de Ros
----------------------------------------
Birth: ca 1295, Scotland[1],[12]

coheiress of her father

record of her petition together with her sister Margaret, to
King Edward I, for the lands of her father Robert de Ros, 1306-07
[Bain IV:381[14], cites Chancery Miscellaneous Portfolios, No. 41/195]

order of King Edward II, dated at Berwick, 5 March 1310/11 [Bain
III:39-40[12], cites Privy Seals (Tower), 4 Edw. II. File 5]

she m. John de Knockes [CP XI:122 note (a)][1]

the following (in error as to the Ros/Ross family under discussion)
from The Topographical, Statistical and Historical Gazetteer of
Scotland:[21]
' The earliest proprietors of the castle and circumjacent lands, or
Lords of Sanquhar, were the Roos, Roose, or Ross family, cadets of
the Earls of Ross, Lords of the Isles. Isobel de Ross, the last of the
line, married William, the 2d son of Thomas, Lord of Crichton,
who flourished in the reign of Robert Bruce. At this epoch, Richard
Edgar, a descendant of Dunegal,... obtained possession of the
castle and half the barony. But the son of Isobel de Ross, and of
William who became Lord of Crichton, appears to have eventually
expelled the intruder, and regained the inheritance.... Sir Robert
Crichton, great-grandson of Isobel de Ross, was, in 1464, appointed
by James III, hereditary sheriff of Dumfries-shire.' (II:637)[21]

the following, cited as being from Chalmers' "Caledonia":
' During the reign of Robert Bruce the barony was divided between
Richard Edgar and William de Crichton, who held the other half in
right of his wife Isabella de Ros. '

see J. Ravilious, 'CP 'Expansion': Sanquhar, co. Dumfries and de Ros
of Wark'[22]

Spouse: John de Knockes




1. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,
1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland
Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
2. I. J. Sanders, "English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and Descent,
1086-1327," Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960.
3. "Liber Rubeus de Scaccario," "(Red Book of the Exchequer)," images
provided by Ancestry.com.
4. Joseph Bain, ed., "Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland,"
Edinburgh: Her Majesty's General Register House, 1881 (Vol. I),
full title: Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, Preserved
in Her Majesty's Public Record Office, London.
5. Seán Duffy, "King John's expedition to Ireland, 1210: the evidence
reconsidered," Irish Historical Studies v.30 n.117 (May, 1996).
http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/A ... /duffy.htm
6. "The Boyntons," Bob Boynton,
http://bob-boynton.hypermart.net/stories/partytime.html
citing Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward II, Vol. I, 1307-1313,
Printed for Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1894, p. 549, re: the
kidnapping of Lucy de Thweng, wife of Robert de Everingham,
citing C.T. Clay, Early Yorkshire Charters.
7. "Durham Cathedral Muniments: Miscellaneous Charters," Durham
University Library Archives & Special Collections,

http://flambard.dur.ac.uk:6336/dynaweb/ ... View/10523
8. Brian Timms, "Glover's Roll (B1)," H S London, Rolls of Arms,
Henry III, Aspilogia 2, Society of Antiquaries, London, 1967,
http://www.briantimms.com/rolls/
Dated c1252 or later., B1 - Cooke's version.
9. Frederick L. Weis, Th. D., "The Magna Carta Sureties, 1215,"
Baltimore: Gen Pub Co., 5th ed., 1997 (W. L. Sheppard Jr & David
Faris).
10. "Yorkshire Feet of Fines 1206," trans. by Virginia Murphy, Latin
text from Pedes Finium Ebor. Regnante Johanne, a.d. mcxcix-a.d.
mccxiv, published for the Surtees Society, vol. 94, 1987, pp.
101-109., URL :

http://bob-boynton.hypermart.net/people ... fines.html
also, records in Lincolnshire: Ingram de Boynton in Court, cites
Pleas of the Crown before the King's Council a Fortnight after
Michaelmas in the Thirty-seventh Year of the Reign of Henry III
(1253). H. G. Ricahrdson and G. O. Sayles (1941) Select Cases
of Procedure Without Writ Under Henry III, London, pp. 31-32, URL:

http://bob-boynton.hypermart.net/people ... court.html
11. Cristopher Nash, "Re: Domesday Descendants corrections: Harcourt
& Brus," June 8, 2002, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com, citing Ruth
Blakely, 'The Bruses of Skelton and William of Aumale', Yorks
Archeol. Jnl. (2001) 73:19-28.
12. Joseph Bain, ed., "Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland,"
Edinburgh: Her Majesty's General Register House, 1888 (Vol. III),
full title: Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, Preserved
in Her Majesty's Public Record Office, London.
13. "Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited and Extinct Peerages," Burke's Peerage,
from Genealogy.com Family History: Notable British Families, p. 460
(Ros).
14. Joseph Bain, ed., "Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland,"
Edinburgh: Her Majesty's General Register House, 1888 (Vol. IV),
full title: Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, Preserved
in Her Majesty's Public Record Office, London.
15. "Edward I," Michael Prestwich, New Haven: Yale University Press,
1997 [in England, originally 1988 -Methuen], Yale English Monarchs
series.
16. G. W. S. Barrow, "Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of
Scotland," Edinburgh University Press, 1976 (2nd ed.).
17. Joseph Stevenson, "Documents illustrative of the history of Scotland
from the death of King Alexander the Third to the Accession of Robert
Bruce," Edinburgh: H. M. General Register House, 1870 (Vol. I).
18. Rev. Charles Moor, D.D., F.S.A., "Knights of Edward I," Pubs. of the
Harleian Society, 1929-1930, 3 Vols. (Vols. 80-83 in series).
19. William Dugdale, Norroy King of Arms, "The Baronage of England,"
Tho. Newcomb [reprint Georg Verlag, New York], London, 1675
[reprint New York, 1977].
20. John Burke, Esq., "A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the
Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland," Genealogy.com Family
Archive Image (Notable British Families), Vol. I, pp. 533-534
(Salvain), 488 (Dugdale), part of compiled work, Burke's American
Families with British Ancestry, (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing
Company, 1975).
21. "The Topographical, Statistical and Historical Gazetteer of
Scotland," Edinburgh: A. Fullarton & Co., 1856, pp. 121-122,
concerning Rathillet 'the house and hamlet' in the parish of
Kilmany, 2 volumes, 'And an Appendix, Containing the results in
Detail of the Census of 1851'.
22. John P. Ravilious, "CP 'Expansion': Sanquhar, co. Dumfries and de
Ros of Wark," September 16, 2003, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com,
discusses identification of Isabel de Ros, daughter of Robert de
Ros of Wark, as wife of William Crichton of Sanquhar, and heiress
of her father in Scotland.

Gjest

Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - False

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jan 2006 07:54:31

Perhaps my eyes skimmed over it, but I didn't actually see a surname
given for the main stem of this family. Are they Crawfords or Lindsays
or something else? Does the chart suggest a direct male line or might
the surname have changed one or more times? I also descend from both
Crawfords and Lindsays; my Crawfords were Sheriffs of Ayrshire with no
apparent Peers and my Lindsays are Earls of Crawford, Byres, Craigie &
others, all in the13th to the 16th centuries. Best, Bronwen

James Dempster

Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - False

Legg inn av James Dempster » 10 jan 2006 08:07:49

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 20:43:06 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In the roots, or at the roots is this "John son of Earl Crawford born 1600
died 1676 Scotland"

There was a Sir John Lindsay KB, who was son of the man (Henry

Charteris, formerly Lindsay) who became 13th Earl of Crawford in 1620
on the death of his nephew. However Sir John was probably born just
after 1586 and dvp (i.e. before 1623) leaving only daughters.

Sir John Lindsay of Ballinscho KB, was son of the 10th Earl of
Crawford, but he was b before 1564 and d 1609 leaving 3 sons who dsp
(the Spynie branch becoming heirs male on the death of 16th Earl
rather than any descendant of Ballinscho).

Looking at the line of Lindsay of the Byres, who became Earls of
Crawford afther the 16th Earl's novodamus, John 8th Lord Lindsay of
the Byres had only daughters, being succeeded by his brother. That
brother Robert, 9th Lord had a son John (1596-1678) who became 1st
Earl of Lindsay and succeeded as 17th Earl of Crawford. His sons were
William, 2nd/18th Earl and Patrick, who married the heiress of
Crawford of Kilbirnie and whose descendants took the surname
Lindsay-Crawford and who later succeeded as 5th/21st and 6th/22nd
Earls on the death of the latter of which in 1808 the Earldom of
Crawford and Earldom of Lindsay separated out again.

Therefore no John son of an Earl of Crawford meets the criteria of
b1600 and d1676 leaving a son David.

The nearest is the 1st/17th Earl and since there was a peerage case to
decide who was the heir of the 6th Earl of Lindsay (the title passing
to a line descended from the second son of the 4th Lord Lindsay of the
Byres) I would have thought that any potentially more senior line
would have been investigated.

James
James Dempster (remove nospam to reply by email)

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.

Gjest

Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jan 2006 17:13:02

In a message dated 1/9/2006 12:37:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leesmyth@cox.net writes:

It is what it says it is a "foundation history."

It begins as follows, (to quote Richardson - see his original post of
02 January):

"This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:


But this means you did *not* read the link that was posted that recites the
Latin of the foundation charter, at least alledgedly. This charter was not
writen in the 18th century or whatever you're proposing. It is possible the
translation was done then, but again, the original Latin document is there
transcribed and you can read it yourself.

I posted the relevant phrase from it, earlier in this thread, where the word
"nepos" is used as Richardson pointed out.
Will Johnson

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry

Legg inn av CED » 10 jan 2006 17:48:04

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/9/2006 12:37:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leesmyth@cox.net writes:

It is what it says it is a "foundation history."

It begins as follows, (to quote Richardson - see his original post of
02 January):

"This account of the foundation of Creake Abbey reads as follows:


But this means you did *not* read the link that was posted that recites the
Latin of the foundation charter, at least alledgedly. This charter was not
writen in the 18th century or whatever you're proposing.

Will:

The documment is not a charter. It is a history written after the
fact. I did not see a link to a charter. Would you post it again? (I
did see a link posted by Chris and followed it. That is not the same
as that which was posted by Richardson.)

If you read through the foundation history posted by Richardson, you
will find references to Hubert de Burgh, specifically to the Battle of
Dover. This is not charter language.

CED


It is possible the
translation was done then, but again, the original Latin document is there
transcribed and you can read it yourself.

I posted the relevant phrase from it, earlier in this thread, where the word
"nepos" is used as Richardson pointed out.
Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

Re: Latin Help Please

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 10 jan 2006 18:08:01

Dear Nat,
I do appreciate the background you have generously shared. It is most
helpful.
Pat

----------
From: Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Latin Help Please
Date: Tue, Jan 10, 2006, 9:46 AM


In article <dpuq5s$crk$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:

Patricia Junkin wrote:
Johannes de La Bisse petit Willelmum le Marchant et Estrilda sororem eius
ut
nativos et fugitivos suos etc., unde dicunt (error for dicit) quod quidam
Ord(g)arus fuit villanus cuisdam Petri de Talewurth tempore H. Regis, avi
domini regis, et Johannes de la Bisse, avus predicti (altered from idem)
Johannes, emit eundem Ordgarum de predicto Petro. Et de ipso Ordaro
descendit quidam Willelmus, et de Willelmo descendunt isti Willelmus et
Estrilda et quidam Richardus. Set nullam producit sectam nec aliquem de
parenteia ipsius Ordgari.
Post venerunt et concordati sunt per licenciam; et est concordia talis,
quod
Johannes quietos clamat eos imperpetuum pro xx s.

I am in question on the use of "nativos" and "fugitivos" and who this
Ordgar
might have been. I find an Ordgar, earl of Devon in 961 but this is much
later


A "native" was an unfree tenant, and I presume in this context a "fugitive"
would be a tenant who had left the manor without permission.

John is claiming that a certain Ordgar was a villein of a certain Peter de
Talewurth in the time of King Henry [II], and that John de la Bisse, his
(John's) grandfather had bought Ordgar from Peter. And that from Ordgar
descended a certain William, and from William descended William (le
Marchant) and Estrilda and a certain Richard. Afterwards John agreed to drop
his claim for a payment of 20 shillings.

Chris is right; 'nativus' is used here for 'villein' or serf, and the
assumption was that a serf who denied his status was by definition a
fugutive from his manorial master. This type of suit--to force
recognition of the servile status of one's villein--is relatively common
in the curia regis rolls from about 1200 onward. This suit notes that
the claimant lost because he failed to produce any descendants of the
alleged Ordgar ("set nullam producit sectam nec aliquem de parenteia
ipsius Ordgari") who were also villeins. These suits were proved by
producing a group of kin, called a "secta," who acknowledged their
villein status, serving essentially both as witnesses and as exhibits
(the fact that they were villeins, and kin to the defendant, made them
material evidence). Often defendants would produce other free kin to
attempt to reject the claim, or would deny that the claimant's 'secta'
were kin to the defendant, or would admit kinship but deny that the
witnesses' villeinage was hereditary in the defendant's own line as
well. Therefore these villeinage suits are full of micro-genealogies of
serfs--a very interesting legal use of genealogical information. Paul
Hyams wrote a good article on this type of suit in the English
Historical Review for around 1973; I also have a short article on them,
forthcoming in this spring's volume of the Haskins Society Journal.

There has been no systematic study of the onomastics, but the names of
villeins culled from these suits would probably show a far higher
incidence of old Anglo-Saxon names than typical 13th-century suits and
charters (which would concern freemen and propertyholders), so it is not
surprising that the alleged villein ancestor of this suit, Ordgar, has
the same name as a 10th-century Saxon earl. But here the villein
Ordgar's grandson is called 'William the merchant', suggesting a bit of
a social rise, as well as a turning away from Saxon anthroponymy. I'm
not so sure about the name of his sister Estrilda.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Chris Phillips

Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 10 jan 2006 18:22:39

Will Johnson wrote:
But this means you did *not* read the link that was posted that recites
the
Latin of the foundation charter, at least alledgedly. This charter was
not
writen in the 18th century or whatever you're proposing.


I suspect there may have been a gateway problem that stopped this message
getting through to the newsgroup. For me, using Google Groups, it shows up
only because someone accidentally reposted a whole digest of the mailing
list.

You quoted:
"Et dicta capella, cum toto loco praedicto circumjacente, dedicata fuit anno
Domini M.CC.XXI. per dominum Galfridum Eliensem episcopum, nepotem dictae
Aliciae, et fratrem Huberti de Burgo praedicti, suffraganeum episcopi
Randulfi praedicti;...."

I think there's no doubt that, as CED says (as did Douglas Richardson and
the VCH account), this is an excerpt from a narrative account of the
foundation rather than a quotation from a foundation charter. On the other
hand, if VCH is correct, it at least comes from the same century as the
foundation, so the statement about Geoffrey's relationship to Alice may be
correct.

I note that the statement is that Geoffrey was the "nepos" of Alice, and
that Geoffrey was the brother of Hubert. This doesn't quite imply that
Hubert was the "nepos" of Alice, as they may have been only half brothers.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - False

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jan 2006 18:25:30

In a message dated 1/9/2006 10:55:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:

Perhaps my eyes skimmed over it, but I didn't actually see a surname
given for the main stem of this family. Are they Crawfords or Lindsays
or something else? Does the chart suggest a direct male line or might
the surname have changed one or more times? I also descend from both
Crawfords and Lindsays; my Crawfords were Sheriffs of Ayrshire with no
apparent Peers and my Lindsays are Earls of Crawford, Byres, Craigie &
others, all in the13th to the 16th centuries. Best, Bronwen


Sorry, at the bottom of this chart, in very large lettering running across
the chart it says "CRAWFORD".

Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

Re: Latin Help Please

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 10 jan 2006 18:26:41

Dear Chris and John,
Thank you very much for your assistance in clarifying this for me,
especially the translation of the two terms.
Pat

----------
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Latin Help Please
Date: Mon, Jan 9, 2006, 6:03 PM


Patricia Junkin wrote:
Johannes de La Bisse petit Willelmum le Marchant et Estrilda sororem eius
ut
nativos et fugitivos suos etc., unde dicunt (error for dicit) quod quidam
Ord(g)arus fuit villanus cuisdam Petri de Talewurth tempore H. Regis, avi
domini regis, et Johannes de la Bisse, avus predicti (altered from idem)
Johannes, emit eundem Ordgarum de predicto Petro. Et de ipso Ordaro
descendit quidam Willelmus, et de Willelmo descendunt isti Willelmus et
Estrilda et quidam Richardus. Set nullam producit sectam nec aliquem de
parenteia ipsius Ordgari.
Post venerunt et concordati sunt per licenciam; et est concordia talis,
quod
Johannes quietos clamat eos imperpetuum pro xx s.

I am in question on the use of "nativos" and "fugitivos" and who this
Ordgar
might have been. I find an Ordgar, earl of Devon in 961 but this is much
later


A "native" was an unfree tenant, and I presume in this context a "fugitive"
would be a tenant who had left the manor without permission.

John is claiming that a certain Ordgar was a villein of a certain Peter de
Talewurth in the time of King Henry [II], and that John de la Bisse, his
(John's) grandfather had bought Ordgar from Peter. And that from Ordgar
descended a certain William, and from William descended William (le
Marchant) and Estrilda and a certain Richard. Afterwards John agreed to drop
his claim for a payment of 20 shillings.

Chris Phillips





Patricia Junkin

Re: Bisset with dilemmas: Manasser and his descendants

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 10 jan 2006 18:27:02

Is it possible that there is confusion with William, brother to Manasser.
Henry Byset witnessed a charter with his father William (Carpentarius) Byset
and Manasser Byset prior to 1177 according to Phil Moody's 12 Jul 2003 post.
Margaret who married Roger la Zouche also had brothers John and William. It
appears that Manasser's land was at Burgate and Rockburne.
This Bartholomew may have been Manasser's brother. E 210/7311 Bartholomew
Biset to Maiden Bradley Priory: Grant of 10s. rent from the mill of
Cirencester, confirmed by Henry Biset his nephew, and by William Biset his
nephew and heir. (Glouc) [1170-1173]? Henry Biset confirmed his fathers
interest in Maiden¹s Bradely. E 210/7313 Henry Biset (Maiden) Bradley
Priory: Grant of land in his manor of Burgate and a rent of 100s. from
Burgate after the death of Margery his sister.
Pat

----------
From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Bisset with dilemmas: Manasser and his descendants
Date: Tue, Jan 10, 2006, 8:21 AM


In message of 10 Jan, Therav3@aol.com wrote:

Manasser Bisset, of Kidderminster, co. Worcs. & c., is given
in Sanders as being succeeded by his son Henry: Henry then in
turn by sons William (allegedly d.s.p. 1220) and John (d. bef
24 Aug 1241) [1].

Contrary to this descent is the following pedigree:


' Curia Regis Roll. No. 111. 17. Hen. 3. m. 3.

Glouc. - John Bisset sued the Abbot of Cirencester for
land in Wigewant.

Manasser Biset, seised temp. H. 2.
I
Henry.
I
William.
I
John Biset, the plaintiff. ' [2]


Assuming no transcription error, certainly John Biset (or
Bisset) knew who his father was. The chronology concerning the
immediate descendants of John Bisset would not conflict with
this, as far as I see it. The chronology concerning John
Bisset's marriage to Alice Basset (as 2nd husband) would appear
to tighten things a bit, but not problematically. Further,
the assignment of Margaret, wife of Sir Roger la Zouche, as
a daughter of Henry Bisset might also be assigned to William
('did not dsp') Bisset his son instead: this would held
explain a son William la Zouche, vs. a 'missing' Henry.....

I wonder if the Curia Roll was reciting the order of the holders of the
fief?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 jan 2006 19:15:03

In a message dated 1/10/2006 9:28:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:

think there's no doubt that, as CED says (as did Douglas Richardson and
the VCH account), this is an excerpt from a narrative account of the
foundation rather than a quotation from a foundation charter


What is the basis for your "no doubt" that this is an excerpt from a
narrative account of the foundation? Rather than a quotation from a charter? I'm
curious about why you think it's so obvious?
Will Johnson

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry

Legg inn av CED » 10 jan 2006 19:38:42

Chris Phillips wrote:
Will Johnson wrote:
But this means you did *not* read the link that was posted that recites
the
Latin of the foundation charter, at least alledgedly. This charter was
not
writen in the 18th century or whatever you're proposing.


I suspect there may have been a gateway problem that stopped this message
getting through to the newsgroup. For me, using Google Groups, it shows up
only because someone accidentally reposted a whole digest of the mailing
list.

You quoted:
"Et dicta capella, cum toto loco praedicto circumjacente, dedicata fuit anno
Domini M.CC.XXI. per dominum Galfridum Eliensem episcopum, nepotem dictae
Aliciae, et fratrem Huberti de Burgo praedicti, suffraganeum episcopi
Randulfi praedicti;...."

I think there's no doubt that, as CED says (as did Douglas Richardson and
the VCH account), this is an excerpt from a narrative account of the
foundation rather than a quotation from a foundation charter. On the other
hand, if VCH is correct, it at least comes from the same century as the
foundation, so the statement about Geoffrey's relationship to Alice may be
correct.

I note that the statement is that Geoffrey was the "nepos" of Alice, and
that Geoffrey was the brother of Hubert. This doesn't quite imply that
Hubert was the "nepos" of Alice, as they may have been only half brothers.

Chris:

The style is such that the references to Hubert de Burgh were possibly
later insertions, added after Hubert's exploits at the Battle of Dover
were made famous by Matthew Paris. (The awkward inclusion of Hubert de
Burgh as a brother of Bishop Geoffrey and the inclusion of Hubert and
governorship of Dover Castle - for which I would like to a
verification.)

Why would the writer (and I do not concede the date until the writer is
known) use the references to Hubert in each case to elevate the status
of a grantor unless it was after Hubert had been rehabilitated, in
part, by Matthew Paris? More probably is was written after Henry III
became very unpopular in the 1260's, with a "touch-up" later.

In any case, even if the entire history were written in the late 13th
Century, it is not a primary source as to Hubert de Burgh (much less as
to his parentage), the references to whom are obviously second hand, if
not total hearsay based on Matthew Paris.

CED

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 10 jan 2006 20:29:35

Will Johnson wrote:
What is the basis for your "no doubt" that this is an excerpt from a
narrative account of the foundation? Rather than a quotation from a
charter? I'm
curious about why you think it's so obvious?


It's essentially that this seems clearly to be a chunk of narrative history,
of a kind that I've never seen in a charter.

You have the advantage of having seen the context of the part you quoted (I
tried to download the PDF from "Monastic Matrix" but it was too large to be
practicable over a narrowband connection), but from the English translation
posted earlier by Douglas Richardson, this is part of a narrative account
going at least from 1206 to the dedication of the chapel in 1221. (Does
Dugdale give it a title? This kind of thing would often be known as
"Historia Fundatorum" or something similar.)

I am not an expert on the wording of charters, but it seems to me that this
just wouldn't fit into one at all.

Chris Phillips

Patricia Junkin

Re: Thomas Hastings

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 11 jan 2006 01:07:01

A Thomas Hastings was a descendant of Uhtred of Allerston through Torphin to
Alan whose daughter, Helen, married 1) Hugh de Hastings by whom Thomas and
2) Robert de Vipont.
1207 King John Feb. 1207/1208 gave the marriage of the widow, Helen of
Allerston Hastings, to Robert Vipont. Helen¹s father was Alan of Allerston
of Crosby-Ravensworth. Under age in 1189, she married 1)Hugh Hastings, son
of Thomas, who d. bef. 1204. By Hugh she had Thomas Hastings of Gissing,
Allerston & Crosby Ravensworth.
Of course, I cannot say that this is the same Uhtred called "bold".
Pat
----------
From: "Le Bateman" <LeBateman@att.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Thomas Hastings
Date: Tue, Jan 10, 2006, 6:21 PM


On page 370 of Round's Feudal England says the Hastings was descended
from Uhtred the Bold.
How would this line go? Would it be through Ursula Neville's male ancestors?

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Thomas Hastings

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 11 jan 2006 01:22:44

In message of 11 Jan, pajunkin@cox.net ("Patricia Junkin") wrote:


From: "Le Bateman" <LeBateman@att.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Thomas Hastings
Date: Tue, Jan 10, 2006, 6:21 PM


On page 370 of Round's Feudal England says the Hastings was
descended from Uhtred the Bold.
How would this line go? Would it be through Ursula Neville's male
ancestors?


A Thomas Hastings was a descendant of Uhtred of Allerston through
Torphin to Alan whose daughter, Helen, married 1) Hugh de Hastings by
whom Thomas and 2) Robert de Vipont.

1207 King John Feb. 1207/1208 gave the marriage of the widow, Helen of
Allerston Hastings, to Robert Vipont. Helen¹s father was Alan of
Allerston of Crosby-Ravensworth. Under age in 1189, she married
1)Hugh Hastings, son of Thomas, who d. bef. 1204. By Hugh she had
Thomas Hastings of Gissing, Allerston & Crosby Ravensworth.

Of course, I cannot say that this is the same Uhtred called "bold".
Pat
----------

I think I've found the account in Round's "Feudal Britain". It is on
page 490 and after quite a mild tirade on Dolfin father of Maldred,
Round slips in, as an aside on common names:

"The Whitby cartularly, for instance, proves that Thomas de Hastings
was (maternal) grandson of Alan, son of Thorphin de Alverstain", son
of Uchtred (son of Cospatric) which Uchtred gave the Church of Crosby
Ravensworth to the abbey in the time, it would seem, of William Rufus.
But who Cospatric, his father, was, has not been clearly ascertained.
The skilled genealogists of the north may be able to decide these
points, and to tell us the true-descent of "Dolphin, the son of
Uchtred"."

Round's point was that there were many people called Uchtred and
Cospatric and they weren't all the one person.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: Robert de Ros of Warke

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jan 2006 01:23:43

John,

John Salvain (or Salvayn), knt., of Belestre, Northumberland (de
jure uxoris)

according to Burke, heir of his father (d.v.p.)[20]
named as husband of Margaret de Ros by Dugdale[19]

Spouse: John Salvain
Death: bef 13 Mar 1320[20],[18]
Father: Robert Salvayn (-<1297)
Mother: Sibilla Beeston (->1286)

Children: Sir Gerard (<1307-1374) Salvain, of North Duffield

I believe John Salvain was the son of Gerard Salvain of No. Duffield
and his wife Margerie.
This Gerard in turn, was the son of Robert S. and Sibilla Beeston.
(Burke Commoners, Surtees' Durham).

Thanks for your recap of the Ros family of Werke.

Mardi

Gjest

Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jan 2006 02:24:01

In a message dated 1/10/06 10:44:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
leesmyth@cox.net writes:

<< Why would the writer (and I do not concede the date until the writer is
known) >>

Go here
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... als/Creke/
and you can read all four pages very quickly without needing to download a
humungous pdf.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Dorothy Beresford, wife of Major John Brodna

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jan 2006 02:59:02

In a message dated 1/10/06 3:24:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< It would be nice to give some back-up to this information, even if only
for
generations 10 to 14. And if Dorothy Beresford and John Brodnax are
ancestors of the Presidents Bush, this also should be established. >>

For generation 10 and 11 see
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/JohnGuildford.htm
Which quotes HOP

Will Johnson

CED

Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry

Legg inn av CED » 11 jan 2006 04:36:55

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/10/06 10:44:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
leesmyth@cox.net writes:

Why would the writer (and I do not concede the date until the writer is
known)

Go here
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... als/Creke/
and you can read all four pages very quickly without needing to download a
humungous pdf.

Will:

Thanks! We now have the Latin from which Richardson's document was
translated (with a quibble or two on that). We know that it is a
history, written as a preface to a folio of the 13th Century charters.
It is not a charter itself. The date of the charters of the folio does
not necessarily date the foundation history. On a quick reading, the
latest document is 1231. I'll take some time looking at what you have
been so kind to share with us.

CED
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: update to genealogics.org linking Hesketh of Rufford to

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 jan 2006 05:37:01

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L update to genealogics.org linking Hesketh of
Rufford to a Royal descent_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1136583353)

Will~

I have the following on the lineage of Mary (Stanley) Hesketh in my notes on
the Stanley family of Ormskirk Parish, if it interests you:

George Stanley, K.B., K.G., Lord of Knockyn (ca. 1460-1503)
m. by 1481 Lady Joan Strange of Knockyn (d. 1513/4).
Their second son:

James Stanley, Knt., Marshall of Wars in Ireland; of Cross Hall (in Lathom),
Lancashire
alive as late as 21 Apr. 1548 when he served as a commissioner at an
inquisition held at Ormskirk.
m. Anne Hart, second daughter of John Hart (d. 1507), Esq., of Lullingstone
Castle, Kent, by his wife Elizabeth Peche (d. 1544).
Their elder surviving son:

George Stanley, Knt., Marshall of Wars in Ireland; of Cross Hall, Burscough
Manor, and Shevington, Lancashire.
buried 8 Dec. 1570 High Chancel, Ormskirk Church, Lancashire.
m. [Dame] Isabel Duckinfield (buried 25 May 1582 High Chancel, Ormskirk).
Their children:

1. Edward Stanley (d.s.p. 1576)

2. [Mr.] Henry Stanley of Cross Hall and Burscough
buried 20 Sep. 1590 High Chancel, Ormskirk Church, Lancashire.
I.P.M. 26 Mar. 1591
m. Jane Clifton (alive 1592)

3. Mary Stanley
d. by 1592
m. [contract dated 1567] Robert Hesketh of Rufford (d. 1620)

4. Anne Stanley
alive 1592
m. ---------- Salisburie

Chris Phillips

Re: Hubert de Burgh's alleged Pouchard ancestry

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 11 jan 2006 11:56:41

Will Johnson wrote:
Go here
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... als/Creke/
and you can read all four pages very quickly without needing to download a
humungous pdf.


Thank you for providing these images, which are much more convenient to look
at than the Monastic Matrixix PDF.

I see that Dugdale does entitle this "Fundationis Historia" - "History of
the Foundation".

Chris Phillips

Dolly Ziegler

Crawford family tree; microfilm fee increase

Legg inn av Dolly Ziegler » 11 jan 2006 18:18:02

Hello to the list. Will's description of this chart made me curious, and
apparently a lot of people are interested in the Crawfords, so I checked
the surname at http://www.familysearch.org. Will's chart may be the same as in
the FHL catalog, or a later version (1977) of it.

I do suspect that Will's reading of the dates, 1600-1676, is correct and
that "1660-1676" in the catalog entry is wrong.

Anyway, it's on microfilm as described.

FYI: FHC microfilm rental fees will increase, from US$3.25 to US$5.50,
"effective Jan. 15." Fees in Canada, UK, etc. will also increase, but I
don't know the numbers. First increase in nine years, and apparently film
prices and shipping costs have gone up substantially. I'm reading lots of
worries from FHC librarians who fear the increases will alienate patrons.

If you are annoyed, please don't take it out on the librarian -- we're all
volunteers. Cheers, Dolly in Maryland

======================================================
Title
Crawford : family tree

Stmnt.Resp.
compiled by Lucinda Frances Stephens ; assisted and drawn
by Sara Stephens White

Authors
Stephens, Lucinda Frances, 1849- (Main Author)
White, Sara Stephens (Added Author)

Notes
Family tree of John Crawford (1660-1676) of Scotland.
In: Genealogical loose papers / [collected by] Department of Archives and
History.

Subjects
Crawford

Format
Manuscript (On Film)

Language
English

Physical
on 2 microfilm reels ; 35 mm.

Film Notes
Note - Location [Film]
41st (last) family on film. - FHL US/CAN Film [ 288184 ]
1st family on film. - FHL US/CAN Film [ 288185 ]

2002 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.
===========================================================

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

First to those who sent me private emails. I am not a Crawford to my
knowledge.

Second, this chart was obtained, in part, due to professional genealogy work
I did for one particular client. I did not endeavor then, nor do I propose
endeavouring now to try to trace all these individuals :)

(big grin) OK now with *that* aside.... this tree contains literally hundreds
of names, they are *not* in any particular order, so it is impossible for me
to search for any particular person for anyone, unless of course you're paying
me. In that case, I'll dig a ditch for the right price.

Now for those who desire to see if the root of the tree is accurate, I'll
paint it's picture.

First the chart says, by way of authorship, "Compiled by Lucinda Frances
Stephens. Assisted and Drawn by Sara Stephens White. Finished 9 May 1924.
Retraced August 1933. Continued by Ethel Tennyson, Margaret Koreck. Finished
August 1977"

In the roots, or at the roots is this "John son of Earl Crawford born 1600
died 1676 Scotland"

Directly above this, so therefore on the "trunk" is the only name in this
part of the tree, "David Son of John, then 1625 .... 1710" which I presume are
his alledged birth and death years.

Then above this last, I presuming it's listing the names of his children when
it shows the following persons and their spouses:
Elizabeth - Nicholas Meriwether
Angeline - Wm McGuire
Capt David - Elizabeth Smith
David - Ann Armstrong (this one *might* be the son of Capt David rather than
his brother. The way the tree it drawn makes this obscure to me.)
Angeline
Judith - Robert Lewis

There are NO dates NOR places listed anywhere in the tree for anyone other
than what I've just described. That is, no dates or places are listed on any
branches whatsoever. Just more names.

Will Johnson


Terry

Re: Crawford family tree; microfilm fee increase

Legg inn av Terry » 11 jan 2006 18:38:01

Dolly
Isn't the $5.50 the cost to make the film a permanent part of the library,
rather then just getting it for a specified time? I know I always paid the
extra when I ordered a film so it could stay at the library in my area
permanently, trying to build my small local library a bit.
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dolly Ziegler" <dsz@bcpl.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: Crawford family tree; microfilm fee increase


Hello to the list. Will's description of this chart made me curious, and
apparently a lot of people are interested in the Crawfords, so I checked
the surname at http://www.familysearch.org. Will's chart may be the same as in
the FHL catalog, or a later version (1977) of it.

I do suspect that Will's reading of the dates, 1600-1676, is correct and
that "1660-1676" in the catalog entry is wrong.

Anyway, it's on microfilm as described.

FYI: FHC microfilm rental fees will increase, from US$3.25 to US$5.50,
"effective Jan. 15." Fees in Canada, UK, etc. will also increase, but I
don't know the numbers. First increase in nine years, and apparently film
prices and shipping costs have gone up substantially. I'm reading lots of
worries from FHC librarians who fear the increases will alienate patrons.

If you are annoyed, please don't take it out on the librarian -- we're all
volunteers. Cheers, Dolly in Maryland

======================================================
Title
Crawford : family tree

Stmnt.Resp.
compiled by Lucinda Frances Stephens ; assisted and drawn
by Sara Stephens White

Authors
Stephens, Lucinda Frances, 1849- (Main Author)
White, Sara Stephens (Added Author)

Notes
Family tree of John Crawford (1660-1676) of Scotland.
In: Genealogical loose papers / [collected by] Department of Archives and
History.

Subjects
Crawford

Format
Manuscript (On Film)

Language
English

Physical
on 2 microfilm reels ; 35 mm.

Film Notes
Note - Location [Film]
41st (last) family on film. - FHL US/CAN Film [ 288184 ]
1st family on film. - FHL US/CAN Film [ 288185 ]

2002 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.
===========================================================

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

First to those who sent me private emails. I am not a Crawford to my
knowledge.

Second, this chart was obtained, in part, due to professional genealogy
work
I did for one particular client. I did not endeavor then, nor do I
propose
endeavouring now to try to trace all these individuals :)

(big grin) OK now with *that* aside.... this tree contains literally
hundreds
of names, they are *not* in any particular order, so it is impossible for
me
to search for any particular person for anyone, unless of course you're
paying
me. In that case, I'll dig a ditch for the right price.

Now for those who desire to see if the root of the tree is accurate, I'll
paint it's picture.

First the chart says, by way of authorship, "Compiled by Lucinda Frances
Stephens. Assisted and Drawn by Sara Stephens White. Finished 9 May
1924.
Retraced August 1933. Continued by Ethel Tennyson, Margaret Koreck.
Finished
August 1977"

In the roots, or at the roots is this "John son of Earl Crawford born
1600
died 1676 Scotland"

Directly above this, so therefore on the "trunk" is the only name in this
part of the tree, "David Son of John, then 1625 .... 1710" which I
presume are
his alledged birth and death years.

Then above this last, I presuming it's listing the names of his children
when
it shows the following persons and their spouses:
Elizabeth - Nicholas Meriwether
Angeline - Wm McGuire
Capt David - Elizabeth Smith
David - Ann Armstrong (this one *might* be the son of Capt David rather
than
his brother. The way the tree it drawn makes this obscure to me.)
Angeline
Judith - Robert Lewis

There are NO dates NOR places listed anywhere in the tree for anyone
other
than what I've just described. That is, no dates or places are listed on
any
branches whatsoever. Just more names.

Will Johnson




Dolly Ziegler

Re: Crawford family tree; microfilm fee increase

Legg inn av Dolly Ziegler » 11 jan 2006 18:59:02

Hello, Terry. Sorry to say, the $5.50 is the initial fee for about a
4-week rental, and a "first renewal" (2 more months) will also be $5.50;
then a "second renewal" (to become indefinite loan) will be yet another
$5.50. Yes, total $16.50.

These renewal fees may be revised, but that's what the instructions say
now. Cheers, Dolly

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Terry wrote:

Dolly
Isn't the $5.50 the cost to make the film a permanent part of the library,
rather then just getting it for a specified time? I know I always paid the
extra when I ordered a film so it could stay at the library in my area
permanently, trying to build my small local library a bit.
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dolly Ziegler" <dsz@bcpl.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: Crawford family tree; microfilm fee increase


Hello to the list. Will's description of this chart made me curious, and
apparently a lot of people are interested in the Crawfords, so I checked
the surname at http://www.familysearch.org. Will's chart may be the same as in the
FHL catalog, or a later version (1977) of it.

I do suspect that Will's reading of the dates, 1600-1676, is correct and
that "1660-1676" in the catalog entry is wrong.

Anyway, it's on microfilm as described.

FYI: FHC microfilm rental fees will increase, from US$3.25 to US$5.50,
"effective Jan. 15." Fees in Canada, UK, etc. will also increase, but I
don't know the numbers. First increase in nine years, and apparently film
prices and shipping costs have gone up substantially. I'm reading lots of
worries from FHC librarians who fear the increases will alienate patrons.

If you are annoyed, please don't take it out on the librarian -- we're all
volunteers. Cheers, Dolly in Maryland

(prior posts snipped)

Gjest

Re: de Hereford, of Wrestlingham, Beds, etc

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jan 2006 01:01:22

In the thread begun 20 Oct 2005 by MAR is written the descent from
Elias Tailbois to Katherine Asplion who m. Thomas Manningham, as
derived from VCH Beds vol. 2 pp 256-7 and Hunts vol 3 p 333. In
reading through that thread and others that resulted from the
discussion of the Maningham family I did not see the following from
Roskell v 3 p 679 note 3 (my apologies if it has already been posted).
Thought you might interested:

"The VCH is both wrong and inconsistent in its various accounts of
the pedigree of Manningham's wife, Katherine. According to VCH Hunts
(ii. 276), her mother was the daughter of Oliver Raghton of
Wrestllingworth, while elsewhere in the volume (p 334) and in VCH Beds.
(ii. 257) she is described as Oliver's sister. It is, however, clear
from CFR, xiv. 209, that Katherine's mother was the only surviving
child of Eleanor Hereford and her second husband, John Brown, Oliver
being the issue of Eleanor's earlier marriage to John Raghton."

I do not have access to CFR at this time. It would be interesting to
read if convenient for someone to pick this up.

Mardi

Gjest

Re: de Hereford, of Wrestlingham, Beds, etc

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jan 2006 01:04:31

Sorry Michael, I did find that you alluded to this on 22 Oct in your
recap of the line after I posted. Oh well! Still would like to see
the CFR reference.

Mardi

Gjest

Re: Crawford family tree; microfilm fee increase

Legg inn av Gjest » 12 jan 2006 09:11:04

The film prices here in California are going up to $6.25.
It might be because the films stay for five weeks, instead of four,
at the branch I go to.

I guess I'll just be ordering fewer films.

Leslie


Dolly Ziegler wrote:
Hello, Terry. Sorry to say, the $5.50 is the initial fee for about a
4-week rental, and a "first renewal" (2 more months) will also be $5.50;
then a "second renewal" (to become indefinite loan) will be yet another
$5.50. Yes, total $16.50.

These renewal fees may be revised, but that's what the instructions say
now. Cheers, Dolly

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Terry wrote:

Dolly
Isn't the $5.50 the cost to make the film a permanent part of the library,
rather then just getting it for a specified time? I know I always paid the
extra when I ordered a film so it could stay at the library in my area
permanently, trying to build my small local library a bit.
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dolly Ziegler" <dsz@bcpl.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: Crawford family tree; microfilm fee increase


Hello to the list. Will's description of this chart made me curious, and
apparently a lot of people are interested in the Crawfords, so I checked
the surname at http://www.familysearch.org. Will's chart may be the same as in the
FHL catalog, or a later version (1977) of it.

I do suspect that Will's reading of the dates, 1600-1676, is correct and
that "1660-1676" in the catalog entry is wrong.

Anyway, it's on microfilm as described.

FYI: FHC microfilm rental fees will increase, from US$3.25 to US$5.50,
"effective Jan. 15." Fees in Canada, UK, etc. will also increase, but I
don't know the numbers. First increase in nine years, and apparently film
prices and shipping costs have gone up substantially. I'm reading lots of
worries from FHC librarians who fear the increases will alienate patrons.

If you are annoyed, please don't take it out on the librarian -- we're all
volunteers. Cheers, Dolly in Maryland

(prior posts snipped)

Nathaniel Taylor

re: modern descents from Boabdil (Muslim rulers of Granada)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 14 jan 2006 05:24:22

At 2:44 PM +1100 1/14/06, Leo van de Pas wrote:

With many thanks to Jose Luis Fernandez Blanco, James Cummings and Norenxaq
(and ES and Zambour) I have now all the Emirs of Granada in my own system.
They will become visible on my website in about a months time after the
February update.

Thanks to Jose Luis Fernandez Blanco I had a link from Boabdil, (Muhammad XI)
the last Emir of Granada, to the House of Lancastre, an illegitimate branch
of the Portuguese Royal family and through them links to the present, and so
I (think/hope) to have a line from a medieval Spanish Muslim family to the
present. I have made a file and anyone interested can receive it. I do hope
people will look at it and even if my link is broken, I do not mind as long
as the information is correct. But I think we have here a chance to get a
Muslim family all the way to the present.

Leo, I think there will be general interest if you would post a synopsis
of this line as you now have it. I am interested, at any rate.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Gjest

Re: modern descents from Boabdil (Muslim rulers of Granada)

Legg inn av Gjest » 14 jan 2006 05:46:52

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
At 2:44 PM +1100 1/14/06, Leo van de Pas wrote:

With many thanks to Jose Luis Fernandez Blanco, James Cummings and Norenxaq
(and ES and Zambour) I have now all the Emirs of Granada in my own system.
They will become visible on my website in about a months time after the
February update.

Thanks to Jose Luis Fernandez Blanco I had a link from Boabdil, (Muhammad XI)
the last Emir of Granada, to the House of Lancastre, an illegitimate branch
of the Portuguese Royal family and through them links to the present, and so
I (think/hope) to have a line from a medieval Spanish Muslim family to the
present. I have made a file and anyone interested can receive it. I do hope
people will look at it and even if my link is broken, I do not mind as long
as the information is correct. But I think we have here a chance to get a
Muslim family all the way to the present.

Leo, I think there will be general interest if you would post a synopsis
of this line as you now have it. I am interested, at any rate.

Nat Taylor

Yes, please! Would very much like to see that. Thanks, Bronwen
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Brad Verity

Re: Pashley and Sergeaux lines for comment and criticism

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 14 jan 2006 12:23:52

Dear Kelly,

I've had a little time to look again at the question of the parentage
of Anne, wife of John Bassingbourne, of Manuden Hall, Essex, then wife
of Edward Tyrell, of Downham, Essex.

Unfortunately for us, the Victoria County History of Essex series has
not yet covered Manuden, Downham or Takeley (another parish where the
Bassingbournes held a manor). So we have to fumble about on our own.

Comments interspersed.

"Kelly Leighton" wrote:

As for Brown's reasoning, I am aware that he cites Edward's will (you are correct that that is who I was referring to), but Edward's will does not state the father of Anne.

Very true. Nor does it mention the two Pashley brothers, Sir John and
Edmund, esq., who were both alive in 1433, with Sir John Pasheley dying
on 8 June 1453, well after Edward Tyrell in 1443 and Anne Tyrell in
1444.

Even Brown, himself, on page 89 refers to him as "the presumed father of Anne". He also mentions a writ following Anne's death on 26 May 1444. I do not, unfortunately, have the endnote data which supports this yet so am unable to see if this might provide any illumination.

The writ was one of diem clausit extremum, which followed shortly after
an individual's death. The entry for it is in CFR 1437-1445, p. 276:
"26 May 1444, Westminster. [Writ of diem clausit extremum for] Anne
late the wife of Edward Tyrell; Essex." The escheator of Essex would
then conduct an inquisition post mortem on Anne to determine when she
died, which lands she held at the time of her death, who was her
heir(s) to those lands, and the age(s) of the heir(s). The Calendar of
IPMs has not yet reached the 1440s, so any IPM for Anne, if it has
survived, would be unpublished in the National Archives.

I only have a few pages of Brown's work copied from a not-so-local library. I intend to copy this also on my next trip.


It will be great if you could share what further Brown had to say.

The full text for a copy of Edward's will is related in an article by Moriarty "The Early Tyrrels of Heron In East Herndon" in NEHGR Vol. 109 Jan 1955 pp. 26. Brad Verity's post of 10 Apr 2004 captures the argument nicely, I believe.

Just to sum up the evidence in the will: no mention of Pashleys. The
parish church of Downham is asked to pray for Edward Tyrell, his wife,
his parents, and Tyrell brothers. Included with these Tyrells are John
Bassingbourne and Sir William Lysle. Earlier, Edward refers to Sir
William Lysle as "my brother" and charges his executors to pay off
Lysle's outstanding debts, along with the outstanding debts of "my
modur dame Alianore Haulte". Among many bequests to his wife Anne of
plate and silver are two "saltsalers of sylver that I bought of Sir
William Lysle".

Sir William Lysle was apparently seated in Cambridgeshire and died
shortly before Edward Tyrell. A writ of diem clausit extremum for
"William Lyle, knight" was issued to the escheator of Cambridgeshire on
30 April 1442.

The following documents from the A2A Catalogue online database show
that Edward Tyrell and Sir William Lysle were involved together in
various properties, chiefly the manor of Wilbraham Lisles in Great
Wilbraham, Cambridgeshire.

DD/P/6/1/1/22 Lease, John Sturgeon [Metteons?] Thomas Reymond,
taylor, of London and William Southwynd, chaplain, demise to Sir
William Lysle, and Elizabeth his wife the manor of Wylburgham (Ca)
formerly leased to Thomas Chanter, John Bolosie, John Cotesmore and
William Fulburne and William Lysle, for the life of William and
Elizabeth for their lives with reversion to Sir John Tyrell, Edward
Tyrell, esq, John Cotesmore, Arthur Ormesby, esq., Richard Hargate and
John Percy. 10 Sep [1434]

KIM 2H/24a Conveyance by John Wodehous, Esq., to William Lyle,
Simon Felbrygge, Kt., Edward Tyrell, John durward, William Haut, Oliver
Gros, William Clyppesby, John Heydon and William Stapulton, of the
manors of Esthalle and Stanhoeshalle and Feltons alias Nethirhalle in
Litcham. 9 July 15 Henry VI [1437]

DD/P/6/1/1/23 Lease, Edward Tyrell, (Essex) esq., and Arthur
Ormesby, esq. lease to Sir William Lysle (recites DD/P6/1/1/22 above),
the manor of Wilburgham (Ca) for his life to remain to his son
[Orngtorn?] Lysle, and his wife Alice for their lives to remain to
William Lord Lovell and of Holand, for ever. 16 Jul [1441]

Luckily, the Victoria County History of Cambridgeshire is complete, and
the manors of Great Wilbraham can actually be found online at:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=18887

It seems Sir William Lysle was the illegitimate son of Robert Lisle,
son of John, Lord Lisle (d. 1355). Our William was knighted by 1392,
established himself in Oxfordshire, and settled Wilbraham Lisles on his
own son, Drew Lisle, in 1441 (see the third entry above).

It is, of course, possible that O. F. Brown is correct and Moriarty and Richardson wrong, but it does seem time to "solve" this one way or another, if possible.

For that, chronology can be useful. If William Lisle (d. 1442) was
knighted by 1392, he had to have been born by 1375. His father Robert
Lisle died in the late 1390s, so if Anne Tyrell was William Lisle's
sister, she had to have been born by 1395 or so. A range of 1375-95
for her birth seems workable.

If Anne Tyrell was daughter of Philippa Sergeaux Pashley, when could
she have been born? The 1397 Oxfordshire IPM for Sir Richard Sergeaux,
Philippa's father, returned Philippa as "then [in summer 1395] aged 22
years", so born in 1372/3. Yet this same IPM is off on the age of
Philippa's siblings Richard and Elizabeth by a few years. The Cornwall
(where the family was seated) IPMs taken in the summer of 1400, after
the deaths of Philippa's mother and younger sister Joan Sergeaux are
more accurate, and also provide a proof of age for Philippa's sister
Alice (later countess of Oxford). In those, Philippa is returned as
"18 years and more" on 24 January and 16 July 1400, and as "19" on 20
September, so she was likely born late summer 1381.

So Philippa's childbearing could not have begun before 1395. A very
thorough article on the Pashleys by N. H. MacMichael - 'The Descent of
the Manor of Evegate in Smeeth with Some Account of Its Lords' - is in
'Archaeologia Cantiana' Volume 74 (1960), pp. 1-47. It has Philippa
married to Robert Pashley, esquire, by June 1397, citing CCR 1396-9, p.
192, as his source. And Philippa's elder son Sir John Pashley was
returned as age 22 and more in her November 1420 IPMs, so born about
1398. These dates match nicely with a birthdate in 1381 for Philippa.
It's not known when Robert Pashley died, but he was certainly dead by
1407, when Philippa married William Swinbourne. So a birth range of
1395-1405 seems reasonable for Anne Tyrell if she was Philippa's
daughter, basically taking up where the Lisle birthrange for her ends.

It should be noted that MacMichael in his article makes no reference to
Anne Tyrell as a daughter of Robert Pashley and Philippa Sergeaux,
though it is presumably her he is talking about when he states (p. 34):
"Robert Passhele had by Philippa two sons, John and Edmund, and,
perhaps, a daughter". It is G. Andrews Moriarty, in his article 'The
Passhele or Passelew Family of Sussex' in 'The Genealogists Magazine',
Volume 11 (1954), who states his certainty of the parentage (p. 543):
"Robert and Philippa had issue Sir John, Edmund Esq. and Anne, who
married 1st John Bassingbourne and 2ndly, Edward Tyrel Esq. of Downham,
co. Essex ... The marriage of Philippa {Tyrell] and Sir Thomas
Cornwallis is given in the great Cornwallis pedigree drawn up in 1560
for Sir Thomas Cornwallis [great-grandson of Thomas Cornwallis and
Philippa Tyrell], who died in 1604, which gives her descent from Sir
Richard Sergeaux and Philippa d'Arundel. This pedigree appears to be
remarkably accurate in the descent there set forth, with the exception
of making Philippa d'Arundel the daughter of Richard Earl of Arundel
instead of making her his granddaughter and in the writer's opinion it
is to be trusted."

Only one of Anne Tyrell's four children - Margaret Tyrell - was married
when Edward made his will in 1442. And the husband, Robert Mounteney,
was not yet age 21. This favors a later than 1395 birthdate for Anne,
though of course a 1385 birthdate is also biologically possible. The
manor of Mountnessing that Edward conveyed to his daughter and her
husband has also not yet been covered in the VCH Essex series.

The evidence for Anne Tyrell as daughter of Robert Pashley and Philippa
Sergeaux thus boils down to two facts: 1) Anne named a daughter
Philippa, perhaps after her mother, who had died in 1420, likely before
Philippa Tyrell was born (though Philippa was a very common name among
15th century East Anglian gentry); 2) a 1560 Cornwallis pedigree gives
Anne Tyrell a Sergeaux/Arundel ancestry (though the 1561 Visitation
pedigree only states that the wife of Thomas Cornwallis of Brome was
"Phyllyp Dawghter and one of theyres of Edwarde Tyrrell of Downeham in
the counte of Essex esquyre".

The key to cementing the parentage of Anne Tyrell (d. 1444) could be
through her first marriage. Little has been said about John
Bassingbourne, but the entries below from the National Archives and A2A
online databases allow a more detailed picture to emerge. Anne's first
husband John was apparently the son and heir of John Bassingbourne and
Katherine his wife. The Bassingbournes held the manor of Manuden Hall,
Essex, as well as a manor in Takeley, Essex (later called Bassingbourne
Hall), and lands in Berden, Stansted Montfichet, and Ugley - all in
Essex - as well as lands in Hertfordshire, which, if they can be
narrowed down, can prove useful as the VCH Hertfordshire series is
complete. Certainly VCH Hertfordshire Volume 3, covering Broxbourne
with Hoddesdon, would be a great source to track next.

Anne Tyrell's son John Bassingbourne also married a woman named
Katherine, and his heir was his son Thomas Bassingbourne, who in turn
married a Katherine. Thomas Bassingbourne was involving John
Cornwallis in a May 1491 land transaction - so apparently the two first
cousins were close.

SAL/MS/585 Grant by Robert Yve, clerk, to Robert Braybrooke, Bp of
London, and others, of lands in Stansted Mountfitchet and Takeley,
Essex, held by gift and feoffment of John Bassingbourne and Katherine,
his wife, and John Bassingbourne, their heir; Armorial seal of grantor.
3 Sept. 1394

E 326/2548 Grant by John Bassyngbourne, esquire, and Katherine hs
wife, to William Say, clerk, and others, of the manors of Manewden and
Wodehall, and of all lands, tenements, &c., in Manewden, Stanstede
Mountfichet, Uggeley, and Beerden: Essex. 20 March, 35 Henry VI.

E 326/9077 Parties: Thomas Bassyngbourne, Esq & Thomas Essex, Esq.
Place or Subject: The manor of Manawden (Maneden). The manor of Westhey
[in Higham Gobion] and appurtenances in Higham Gobion, Barton in the
Clay (Berton) Pulloxhill (Pullokhill) and Silsoe (Shelesho). 2 Ric.
III

E 210/800 Grant by Thomas Bassyngbourne of Bishops Hatfield co.
Hertford, esquire, to Thomas Kebeel, serjeant-at-law, John Cornewaleys,
esquire, John Broun, 'gentilman,' Reginald Pegge, and Robert Ellyngton,
of the manor of Manuden Hall, and of a tenement called 'Wodehall' in
Ogeley, and of all his lands and tenements &c. 28 May, 6 Henry VII.

E 210/769 Demise in tail by Guy Fairfax, knight, one of the justices
of the king's Bench, John Butler, esquire, and Thomas Saye,
'gentilman,' to Thomas Basyngbourne, esquire, and Katherine his wife,
of their manor of Hoddesdonbury, with its appurtenances in Hoddesden,
Great and Little Brokesbourne, Brekenden, Wermeley, and Amwell; with
further demise of all their other lands &c. in the said places,
formerly belonging to John Basingbourne, father of the said Thomas, or
to any others to his use, with remainder to the right heirs of the said
Thomas Basyngbourne; with letter of attorney authorising Thomas
Frankeshe, gentleman, and William Branburgh, to deliver seisin : Herts.
26 November, 9 Henry VII.

C 1/116/31 John, son of Thomas Bassingbourne, of Bishop's Hatfield,
gentleman. v. Sir William Say, of Hertfordshire, knight.: Detention of
deeds relating to the manor of Hydehall.: Essex. 1486-1529

C 1/258/19 John Bassyngbourne and Thomas Bassyngbourne, of Byschop
Hatfeld. v. The sheriffs of London: Action of debt by Rauffe Lyeche for
a loan. Certiorari.: Hertford. 1500-1515

C 1/315/22 John Gardyner, gentleman. v. William Say, knight, feoffee
to uses.: The manor of Manewden called `Manewden Hall,' bought of
Thomas and John Bassyngbourne, of Bishop's Hatfield, and William
Capell, knight.: Essex. 1500-1515

Hope this helps, Kelly. Please keep us informed as you dig more up.

Cheers, --------Brad Verity

Gjest

Re: St Katharines Docks

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jan 2006 15:18:02

St. Katherines Dock is in Central London adjacent to the Tower of London and
is still there today. Now it is a marina and tourist area although the docks
as we know them today were, I believe not built until the early 19th century.
Queen Anne reigned from 1702-1714. There was a parish called St. Katherines
by the Tower.

Rose
Epsom Downs/UK

Gjest

Re: St Katharines Docks

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jan 2006 16:07:02

I have just checked in the book "London's River" and St. Katherine's Dock was
built in the 1820's and opened in 1828. It was built on a highly populated
site and no less than 11,300 people were evicted to make way for the dock, only
those of any substance receiving compensation. It was named after the most
celebrated building it did away with, the St. Katerine's Hospital which had
been founded 700 years earlier. So, even if ships did tie-up in the area in the
early 18th century it would not have been known as St. Katherine's Dock
then.

Hope this helps.


Rose
Epsom Downs/UK

Robert Forrest

Re: Reinbuedcurt

Legg inn av Robert Forrest » 16 jan 2006 19:06:01

More belated thanks for a reply to my query of 23 Dec 2005 on
Margery/Margaret Foliot and her paternal grandmother Margery/Margaret de
Reinbuedcurt. Somehow I missed Gordon Kirkemo's original response and just
found it while pawing through the SGM archives. Thanks, Gordon.

Gjest

Re: St Katharines Docks

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jan 2006 19:47:01

Where is St Katharines Docks? Is this area that ship came into? Was this
area that person who live in and who would meet the Queen? I know that date
I am asking about is not Medieval but I need your help. date 1709.

The folks I am seeking information on are Ferree family who are
Huguenots-Walloons. Said to have land at St. Katharines Docks 6 May 1709

As others have said St Katherine's Dock was built on 23 acres between London

Docks and the Tower of London; after two and a half years of building the
docks were opened in 1828, designer Thomas Telford, company's architect was
Philip Hardwick who later designed the portico at Euston Station

Before development the site contained 1250 insanitary small houses, a
brewery, the old foundation of St Katharine's Hospital, and a 12th century
church.


The Royal Foundation of St Katharine was founded 1148 and since the 13th
century has been under the patronage of the Queens of England. In the 17th
and 18th centuries numerous foreigners, who were not allowed within the City
Walls, were admitted by the chapter into their extensive precencts where
many of them worked in brew houses and glass works

so although the Docks were not there for another 100 odd years, it is
plausible that your ancestors were in the area in 1709 even if they didn't
land there

Source: "The London Encyclopedia" ed Ben Weinreb and Christopher Hibbert
revised edition 1993 MacMillan

cheers

Simon

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jan 2006 21:56:02

In a message dated 1/16/06 8:54:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

<< Historically speaking, is fully proved that individuals coming from some
upper classes EVER married between his same class, like aristocrats
married others aristocrats etc. >>

This claim is false. There are plenty of examples of "nobility" fathering
(or *mothering* for that matter) children upon the non-noble.

Catherine of Valois the dowager Queen of England was not the first person to
think her low-born servant attractive enough to get children by and society be
damned.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Aylesbury and Impossible Dates

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jan 2006 22:03:01

In a message dated 1/16/06 9:42:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< > Thomas Aylesbury = Katherine Pebenham
became bef 1361-1418 abt 1372-1436
(was b:1369) |
suggest (abt 1341-1418) |
Roger Aylesbury
1359-?


So now Roger was born 13 years before his own mother?

Maybe what we really have is that Roger was *not* the child of Thomas and
Katherine whatsoever.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jan 2006 22:14:01

In a message dated 1/16/06 8:13:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

<< In fact, it is
so small that in many people today there would not even be any
DNA derived from the common ancestor, >>

I think this is an overstatement. However I'd say there are probably
examples of people where the portion of DNA contributed by that original parent is
"vanishingly small". And when you have a snippet of say, only 10 base pairs,
can you really be sure it came from the original parent?
That is why, DNA studies, must be combined with other types of research,
and not used alone to prove hypothesis. In my opinion.

Will Johnson

jlucsoler

for mls Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av jlucsoler » 16 jan 2006 22:20:22

my little exemple all these marriages are proven by marriage or notarial
acts in archives of bouches du rhone. i am not "proud" of it... i just think
it is a wonderful way to build up further one's genealogy

my grand parents were poor peasant and workers....
social mobility were greater than you think.... my "team mates" in my
genealogy group have thousands of such examples...

so yes i think for europeans people ... first common ancestor is very near
.... even for asia and africa....

a.. 7 636 - Jean "Piemoure" BERTRAND +1668 (peasant)
a.. 7 637 - Anne DE REMERVILLE 1603-1670 (to charlemagne)

a.. 7 962 - Jean POINTAVIN 1565 peasant
a.. 7 963 - Isabeau DE TAMARLET (to charlemagne)

a.. 14 088 - Charles "Gay" LATIL "cow-boy"
a.. 14 089 - Honnorade DE REGINA to charlemagne

a.. Pierre "Curet" GIRARD +1700 peasant
a.. Marguerite D'ISNARD 1638-1702 to charlemagne

a.. 15 348 - Antoine SEGUIN 1569-1624 peasant
a.. 15 349 - Suzanne DE PONTEVES + to charlemagne

a.. 15 394 - Antoine RICHAUD peasant
a.. 15 395 - Peyronne DE DAMIAN to charlemagne

a.. Marc MERINDOL 1510- owner
a.. Laudune de SABRAN 1520- to charlemagne

a.. 30 390 - Pierre GARNIER
a.. 30 391 - Marguerite DE SABRAN to charlemagne

a.. 30 696 - Nicolas SEGUIN +1591 owner
a.. 30 697 - Lucrece DE LAURIS +1595 to charlemagne

a.. 32 426 - Jean MICHEL peasant
a.. 32 427 - Sibille DE CADENET to charlemagne

a.. Louis MERINDOL owner
a.. Laure DE BOULIER + to charlemagne

a.. 107 854 - Antoine DE CLAVARIA owner
a.. 107 855 - Catherine D'ALBE to charlemagne

a.. Brancay MAURIN peasant
a.. Jaumette FLOTTE to charlemagne

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jan 2006 22:37:02

In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

<< As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages exist.
But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example like this... >>

It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction, peter-out
pretty quickly.
We *just* had an example posted where Queen Elizabeth herself has this
problem in a very short time period. She had commoner ancestors as well as royal
ones. How do you explain this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one was a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.

Will Johnson

MLS

RE: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av MLS » 16 jan 2006 22:40:02

As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages exist.
But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example like this...

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:46 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 8:54:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

<< Historically speaking, is fully proved that individuals coming from
some upper classes EVER married between his same class, like
aristocrats married others aristocrats etc. >>

This claim is false. There are plenty of examples of "nobility"
fathering
(or *mothering* for that matter) children upon the non-noble.

Catherine of Valois the dowager Queen of England was not the first
person to
think her low-born servant attractive enough to get children by and
society be
damned.
Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Sei in cerca dell’amore? Non perdere tempo, iscriviti gratis a Meetic! Potrai chattare con migliaia di single in linea.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4052&d=16-1

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jan 2006 22:50:03

In a message dated 1/16/06 1:28:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
madbadrob@robburns.wanadoo.co.uk writes:

<< As for Alaska and Siberia they were at one time all European the Americans
buying Alaska from the Russians for one Dollar. >>

Alaska was at one time all European?
So no Eskimos lived there at all?

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jan 2006 23:01:02

In a message dated 1/16/06 1:23:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

<< Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner ancestors
in there tree .... instead of the opposite! >>

OK now let's turn that upside-down.
There are plenty of examples of the descendents of persons, temporarily or
permanently "out-of-favor" who are today... commoners. That is, in fact, why
everyone on this list, for the most part, has at least one royal ancestor.
Right?

And of course if you have one, you probably have dozens.
When you start subdividing property among heirs, or when you have a lot of
heirs, there is a high chance that the runt of the litter got ... nothing. And
when you start with nothing, it's much easier to go down than up.

Not every child, inherited a title either as you seem to suggest. In fact,
in many cases, none of them did :)

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Muhammed's DNA

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jan 2006 23:13:01

<<
<< I've argued at http://explorers.whyte.com/muhammad.htm that most of us
are descended from the Prophet Muhammad. >>


I'm not sure the link to Muhammed at this generation is as strong as it needs
to be.

"Alphonso, King of Leon and Castile d 1109
married
Zaida, baptised as Isabella, "de Seville"
and by her had
Sancha who married the Count de Lara"

I believe that the number of "wives" of this Alphonso, their order, and which
child was off who, is still a matter of controversy.

Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 16 jan 2006 23:18:51

Dear Leo,

Prince Charles..........<g>

And perhaps a few others; but likely, from say 17th century and
earlier, I agree there would likely be none (except those who ob.s.p.,
or whose lines of descent ended in a few generations).

Cheers,

John



"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to know.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner ancestors
in there tree .... instead of the opposite!

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages exist.
But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example like this...


It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction, peter-out
pretty quickly.
We *just* had an example posted where Queen Elizabeth herself has this
problem in a very short time period. She had commoner ancestors as well
as royal
ones. How do you explain this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one was
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.

Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1


MLS

RE: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av MLS » 16 jan 2006 23:21:02

Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner ancestors
in there tree .... instead of the opposite!

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

<< As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages exist.
But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example like this...

It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction, peter-out
pretty quickly.
We *just* had an example posted where Queen Elizabeth herself has this
problem in a very short time period. She had commoner ancestors as well
as royal
ones. How do you explain this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one was
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.

Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1

Leo van de Pas

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 16 jan 2006 23:37:48

I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to know.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner ancestors
in there tree .... instead of the opposite!

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages exist.
But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example like this...


It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction, peter-out
pretty quickly.
We *just* had an example posted where Queen Elizabeth herself has this
problem in a very short time period. She had commoner ancestors as well
as royal
ones. How do you explain this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one was
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.

Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1


MLS

RE: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av MLS » 16 jan 2006 23:44:02

Hi Leo!
I agreed whit you. It could be difficult to mention one royal or noble
who does not have any commoners as ancestor.... But I think the
discussion here is the opposite: exists trillions of living commoners
WHIT royal or noble ancestor...? Very different assert don't think?

One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least) as
noble. The opposite if is a female noble that marry a commoner. So, this
immediately cut 50 por cent of (possibly) inter class marriages...


-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:38 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to
know. Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner
ancestors in there tree .... instead of the opposite!

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages
exist. But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example
like this...


It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction,
peter-out pretty quickly. We *just* had an example posted where Queen
Elizabeth herself has this problem in a very short time period. She
had commoner ancestors as well as royal
ones. How do you explain this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one
was
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.

Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:
http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1





--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
America, Africa, Australia, Asia...con Email Phone Card chiami ovunque spendendo meno di una telefonata interurbana
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2688&d=16-1

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 jan 2006 23:47:01

In a message dated 1/16/06 1:57:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

<< One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least) as
noble. >>

But you see, *that* is a very big caveat.
If you can explain why most people on this list have royal ancestors, and yet
have no title, that would be helpful.
Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 16 jan 2006 23:54:01

----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Hi Leo!
I agreed whit you. It could be difficult to mention one royal or noble
who does not have any commoners as ancestor.... But I think the
discussion here is the opposite: exists trillions of living commoners
WHIT royal or noble ancestor...? Very different assert don't think?

One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least) as
noble. The opposite if is a female noble that marry a commoner. So, this
immediately cut 50 por cent of (possibly) inter class marriages...

============ I think you are moving into hot water :-) there are no
identical rules that apply to _all_ cases. What is happening in the 20th
and 21st century is too recent to consider (I think). Can you mention one
royal family before 1900 where they could marry a commoner and the children
still be regarded as royal?. I can think of only one, Greece, where only
marriages to Greeks were prohibited and in the first generation they still
married within the royal/noble caste. .

Especially in the Holy Roman Empire they were very strict about marrying
within one's own class. Offspring from unequal marriages received a title
and rank lower than that of the father.

But when talking about DNA and descend from Royalty, forget marriage as
there are too many illegitimate offspring passing on DNA and Royal descents
to their offspring, often the knowledge about royal ancestors are not even
recorded, or passed on to their offspring.

David Starr Jordan and Sarah Louise Kimball published in 1929 a book with a
dreary title "Your Family Tree". It has a fascinating introduction, too long
to repeat, but I will quote a small part:

"Factors in the tangled lineage of the English people give a clew (sic) to
the origin and persistence of racial traits in general. They are the
stigmata of "blood relationship." Moreover, all, noble and peasant alike,
are really of one blood, the caste distinctions of the present being due to
Nurture rather than to Nature. To quote from a recent statement by Dr. E. M.
Best of McGill University, Montreal: "Every one of us is descended from
William the Conqueror, and Anglo-Saxons are, all of us, at least thirtieth
cousins to each other."

Also is said : ....the total population of England in 1100 did not exceed
two millions, and that probably not one-tenth of these, beset as they were
by war and pestilence, left permanent lines of descendants. Saying that
(roughly) 200,000 people in England around 1100 are jointly the ancestors
of every one with Anglo-Saxon blood today. This covers an awful lot of
people, Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, USA, South Africa, Australia and New
Zealand, just to begin with.

According to Burke's Extinct Peerages, 1866 edition, page 501, in 1637 in
Newport, Shropshire lived a cobbler and his name is not even given. The
question is, who did he marry, how many children and further descendants did
he have? Did he have siblings with descendants?

What is the significance of this mender of old shoes? His mother was a Jane
Stafford and within about 21 generations she has at least 433 lines of
descent from William the Conqueror and I would not like to guess how many to
Charlemagne. This Jane Stafford also is a descendant of Llwylyn the Great
Prince of Wales, the Arpad Kings of Hungary, and descends at least in 29
lines from Isaac II Angelos, Emperor of Byzantium and is also a 15th cousin
once removed of the Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan, the reputed builder of the
Taj Mahal.

This makes many Indian descendants having common ancestors with many
Europeans whether Anglo-saxons or not. Then it would be a simple matter to
see to which Gateway Ancestors this Jane Stafford is related to and we have
MANY Americans today who are her cousins as well as, no doubt, many in India
and Pakistan.

I think we still have to come to grasp to how "close" we all are related to
each other, that sadly the paperwork does not exist to prove it, doesn't
matter, we are closely related.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia




-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:38 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to
know. Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner
ancestors in there tree .... instead of the opposite!

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages
exist. But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example
like this...


It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction,
peter-out pretty quickly. We *just* had an example posted where Queen
Elizabeth herself has this problem in a very short time period. She
had commoner ancestors as well as royal
ones. How do you explain this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one
was
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.

Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:
http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1





--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
America, Africa, Australia, Asia...con Email Phone Card chiami ovunque
spendendo meno di una telefonata interurbana
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2688&d=16-1


Leo van de Pas

Re: Muhammed's DNA

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 17 jan 2006 00:08:02

Dear Will,

Forget Zaida-----her first husband was mostly likely a descendant of
Muhammad, and her second (were they married ?) most likely not. As far as I
understand we know very little about Zaida, not even her parents are known
(as far as I know). In any case she does not pass on any "likely" direct
links to Muhammad.

I too would love to find a link from Muhammad, preferably in medieval times,
but we have to look much wider than just Spain. Having said that, I doubt
records exists that would confirm those lines----lines that most probably
exist. I think Muslim genealogy is fraught with problems as apparently so
little is recorded in, for us, accessible records. Then in many cases only
fathers are recorded. I am hoping and waiting but think it really belongs in
the too hard basket.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Muhammed's DNA


I've argued at http://explorers.whyte.com/muhammad.htm that most of us
are descended from the Prophet Muhammad.



I'm not sure the link to Muhammed at this generation is as strong as it
needs
to be.

"Alphonso, King of Leon and Castile d 1109
married
Zaida, baptised as Isabella, "de Seville"
and by her had
Sancha who married the Count de Lara"

I believe that the number of "wives" of this Alphonso, their order, and
which
child was off who, is still a matter of controversy.

Will Johnson


Gjest

Re: Muhammed's DNA

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 00:09:27

WJhonson@aol.com escreveu:
[ I've argued at http://explorers.whyte.com/muhammad.htm that] most of us
are descended from the Prophet Muhammad.


Probably so, but not by that line.
I looked "a vol d'oiseau" to the lines to Abd Manaf and I have no
immediate objection to the line at the right side. The one at the left
side seems to me one of several common fakes to give some ruler of
el-Andaluz a descent from Muhammad, essential to legitimate strong
political power according to shiite's beliefs.
I disbelieve any muslim line at that epoch that is not strictly agnatic
with the only exception of Muhammad's dau Fathma. And I don't think
that any such line is accepted by muslim scholars.
Beeing a descendent of Muhammad is of utmost importance to muslims in
general and shiites in particular and even nowadays an iman descendent
of Muhammad uses a black turban while all the others use white. The
shiites, where most of Muhammad's descendents can be found, are usually
the poorest but, for instance in Lebanon, if they descend from Muhammad
they have the right to the treatment of sayyid in their official
Identity Cards (Carte d' Identité) and passports.

I'm not sure the link to Muhammed at this generation is as strong as it needs
to be.

"Alphonso, King of Leon and Castile d 1109
married
Zaida, baptised as Isabella, "de Seville"
and by her had
Sancha who married the Count de Lara"

I believe that the number of "wives" of this Alphonso, their order, and which
child was off who, is still a matter of controversy.


This has been discussed several times. It is not proved that Isabella
was Zaida and who was Sancha's mother is doubtfull.

Will Johnson

Best regards,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)

MLS

RE: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av MLS » 17 jan 2006 00:32:01

You wrote: "If you can explain why most people on this list have royal
ancestors, and yet
have no title, that would be helpful."

It is because people on this list represent MOST of the FEW people whit
No title but whit Royal Ancestors...! And I think this is proved for
there interest on genealogy.

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:07 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 1:57:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

<< One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least) as
noble. >>

But you see, *that* is a very big caveat.
If you can explain why most people on this list have royal ancestors,
and yet
have no title, that would be helpful.
Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=17-1

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 00:34:02

Dear Leo,

How could I indeed......!

You wrote:
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to
know.

I read (or was thinking, so to speak, at the time):
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as DESCENDANT? I would love to
know.

This proves the power of positive thinking. I am
thinking I positively made an error.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try to minimize the
number of opportunities from here out......

Cheers,

John

MLS

RE: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av MLS » 17 jan 2006 00:37:02

Dear Leo, thanks for your fascinating citations.. But I kepp my opinio.
How many people live in the world today? 4 bilions, more or less..
And How many CAN trace there (credible!) line from ancient royal or
noble dinasty.... 1milion, 5 milions, 10 milions?

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:53 PM
To: mlupis@netvigator.com; GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors



----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Hi Leo!
I agreed whit you. It could be difficult to mention one royal or noble

who does not have any commoners as ancestor.... But I think the
discussion here is the opposite: exists trillions of living commoners

WHIT royal or noble ancestor...? Very different assert don't think?

One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least)
as noble. The opposite if is a female noble that marry a commoner. So,

this immediately cut 50 por cent of (possibly) inter class
marriages...

============ I think you are moving into hot water :-) there are no
identical rules that apply to _all_ cases. What is happening in the
20th
and 21st century is too recent to consider (I think). Can you mention
one
royal family before 1900 where they could marry a commoner and the
children
still be regarded as royal?. I can think of only one, Greece, where only

marriages to Greeks were prohibited and in the first generation they
still
married within the royal/noble caste. .

Especially in the Holy Roman Empire they were very strict about
marrying
within one's own class. Offspring from unequal marriages received a
title
and rank lower than that of the father.

But when talking about DNA and descend from Royalty, forget marriage as
there are too many illegitimate offspring passing on DNA and Royal
descents
to their offspring, often the knowledge about royal ancestors are not
even
recorded, or passed on to their offspring.

David Starr Jordan and Sarah Louise Kimball published in 1929 a book
with a
dreary title "Your Family Tree". It has a fascinating introduction, too
long
to repeat, but I will quote a small part:

"Factors in the tangled lineage of the English people give a clew (sic)
to
the origin and persistence of racial traits in general. They are the
stigmata of "blood relationship." Moreover, all, noble and peasant
alike,
are really of one blood, the caste distinctions of the present being due
to
Nurture rather than to Nature. To quote from a recent statement by Dr.
E. M.
Best of McGill University, Montreal: "Every one of us is descended from
William the Conqueror, and Anglo-Saxons are, all of us, at least
thirtieth
cousins to each other."

Also is said : ....the total population of England in 1100 did not
exceed
two millions, and that probably not one-tenth of these, beset as they
were
by war and pestilence, left permanent lines of descendants. Saying that
(roughly) 200,000 people in England around 1100 are jointly the
ancestors
of every one with Anglo-Saxon blood today. This covers an awful lot of
people, Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, USA, South Africa, Australia and
New
Zealand, just to begin with.

According to Burke's Extinct Peerages, 1866 edition, page 501, in 1637
in
Newport, Shropshire lived a cobbler and his name is not even given. The
question is, who did he marry, how many children and further descendants
did
he have? Did he have siblings with descendants?

What is the significance of this mender of old shoes? His mother was a
Jane
Stafford and within about 21 generations she has at least 433 lines of
descent from William the Conqueror and I would not like to guess how
many to
Charlemagne. This Jane Stafford also is a descendant of Llwylyn the
Great
Prince of Wales, the Arpad Kings of Hungary, and descends at least in 29

lines from Isaac II Angelos, Emperor of Byzantium and is also a 15th
cousin
once removed of the Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan, the reputed builder of
the
Taj Mahal.

This makes many Indian descendants having common ancestors with many
Europeans whether Anglo-saxons or not. Then it would be a simple matter
to
see to which Gateway Ancestors this Jane Stafford is related to and we
have
MANY Americans today who are her cousins as well as, no doubt, many in
India
and Pakistan.

I think we still have to come to grasp to how "close" we all are related
to
each other, that sadly the paperwork does not exist to prove it, doesn't

matter, we are closely related.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia




-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:38 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would
love to know. Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner
ancestors in there tree .... instead of the opposite!

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages
exist. But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example
like this...


It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction,
peter-out pretty quickly. We *just* had an example posted where Queen

Elizabeth herself has this problem in a very short time period. She
had commoner ancestors as well as royal ones. How do you explain
this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one
was
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.

Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:
http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1





--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:
http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
America, Africa, Australia, Asia...con Email Phone Card chiami ovunque
spendendo meno di una telefonata interurbana
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2688&d=16-1





--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Telefonare all'estero risparmiando fino all'80%? Con Email.it Phone Card puoi, clicca e scopri tutti i vantaggi
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2683&d=17-1

Gjest

Re: Granada Find!!!!!

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 00:45:02

Dear Leo,
Quite possibly Beatriz de Sandoval was a patralineal
descendant of Don Diego Gomez de Sandoval who became Count of Castrogeriz in 1426
according to one of the Sandoval websites and husband of Dona Beatriz
Avellaneda. The Counts of Castrogeriz are a curious group and around the time or a
little after Beatriz de Sandoval`s marriage to Don Juan de Granada (say between
1492 and 1510) it passed to a Don Alvaro de Mendoza. I give this estimate as
Prince Nasr ibn Muhammad ibn Abul Hasan `Ali ibn Saad al Musta`in (orig.
Isma`il) ibn `Ali ibn Yusuf IV ibn Muhammad al Mawl ibn Abu Said Muhammad VI was
baptized in 1492 and given that Madalena de Granada was the couple`s 4th child
and married to Dom Luiz d`Alencastre in 1540 it seems likely.
Abu Said Muhammad VI was not a Nasirid , rather brother in law to Isma`il II
ibn Yusuf I ibn Isma`il I ibn Muhammad II ibn Muhammad I ibn Yusuf ibn Alhamar
ibn Nasr whom He deposed and succeeded.unsure of who married whom` s sister,
or if each married one (or more) of the others.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Leo van de Pas

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 17 jan 2006 00:49:01

Well, that is the crunch----as I have said that records fail us. But now a
new record has emerged in DNA and this may help but only a little.

I have heard of a place proclaiming we descend from nine Eves. And by
submitting your DNA they tell you from which one you descend. How much does
this add to the knowledge of _your_ ancestors? I do not know. Do they know
when or where those nine Eves lived? Were they contemporary with each other?
and what about _their_ ancestors? A lots of new questions, but interesting
ones.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it>
To: "'Leo van de Pas'" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:36 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Dear Leo, thanks for your fascinating citations.. But I kepp my opinio.
How many people live in the world today? 4 bilions, more or less..
And How many CAN trace there (credible!) line from ancient royal or
noble dinasty.... 1milion, 5 milions, 10 milions?

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:53 PM
To: mlupis@netvigator.com; GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors



----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Hi Leo!
I agreed whit you. It could be difficult to mention one royal or noble

who does not have any commoners as ancestor.... But I think the
discussion here is the opposite: exists trillions of living commoners

WHIT royal or noble ancestor...? Very different assert don't think?

One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least)
as noble. The opposite if is a female noble that marry a commoner. So,

this immediately cut 50 por cent of (possibly) inter class
marriages...

============ I think you are moving into hot water :-) there are no
identical rules that apply to _all_ cases. What is happening in the
20th
and 21st century is too recent to consider (I think). Can you mention
one
royal family before 1900 where they could marry a commoner and the
children
still be regarded as royal?. I can think of only one, Greece, where only

marriages to Greeks were prohibited and in the first generation they
still
married within the royal/noble caste. .

Especially in the Holy Roman Empire they were very strict about
marrying
within one's own class. Offspring from unequal marriages received a
title
and rank lower than that of the father.

But when talking about DNA and descend from Royalty, forget marriage as
there are too many illegitimate offspring passing on DNA and Royal
descents
to their offspring, often the knowledge about royal ancestors are not
even
recorded, or passed on to their offspring.

David Starr Jordan and Sarah Louise Kimball published in 1929 a book
with a
dreary title "Your Family Tree". It has a fascinating introduction, too
long
to repeat, but I will quote a small part:

"Factors in the tangled lineage of the English people give a clew (sic)
to
the origin and persistence of racial traits in general. They are the
stigmata of "blood relationship." Moreover, all, noble and peasant
alike,
are really of one blood, the caste distinctions of the present being due
to
Nurture rather than to Nature. To quote from a recent statement by Dr.
E. M.
Best of McGill University, Montreal: "Every one of us is descended from
William the Conqueror, and Anglo-Saxons are, all of us, at least
thirtieth
cousins to each other."

Also is said : ....the total population of England in 1100 did not
exceed
two millions, and that probably not one-tenth of these, beset as they
were
by war and pestilence, left permanent lines of descendants. Saying that
(roughly) 200,000 people in England around 1100 are jointly the
ancestors
of every one with Anglo-Saxon blood today. This covers an awful lot of
people, Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, USA, South Africa, Australia and
New
Zealand, just to begin with.

According to Burke's Extinct Peerages, 1866 edition, page 501, in 1637
in
Newport, Shropshire lived a cobbler and his name is not even given. The
question is, who did he marry, how many children and further descendants
did
he have? Did he have siblings with descendants?

What is the significance of this mender of old shoes? His mother was a
Jane
Stafford and within about 21 generations she has at least 433 lines of
descent from William the Conqueror and I would not like to guess how
many to
Charlemagne. This Jane Stafford also is a descendant of Llwylyn the
Great
Prince of Wales, the Arpad Kings of Hungary, and descends at least in 29

lines from Isaac II Angelos, Emperor of Byzantium and is also a 15th
cousin
once removed of the Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan, the reputed builder of
the
Taj Mahal.

This makes many Indian descendants having common ancestors with many
Europeans whether Anglo-saxons or not. Then it would be a simple matter
to
see to which Gateway Ancestors this Jane Stafford is related to and we
have
MANY Americans today who are her cousins as well as, no doubt, many in
India
and Pakistan.

I think we still have to come to grasp to how "close" we all are related
to
each other, that sadly the paperwork does not exist to prove it, doesn't

matter, we are closely related.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia





-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:38 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would
love to know. Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner
ancestors in there tree .... instead of the opposite!

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages
exist. But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example
like this...


It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction,
peter-out pretty quickly. We *just* had an example posted where Queen

Elizabeth herself has this problem in a very short time period. She
had commoner ancestors as well as royal ones. How do you explain
this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one
was
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.

Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:
http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1





--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:
http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
America, Africa, Australia, Asia...con Email Phone Card chiami ovunque
spendendo meno di una telefonata interurbana
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2688&d=16-1





--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Sono aperte le iscrizioni per il corso Nazionale di Web Marketing
* Imparerai come promuoverti sui motori di ricerca - clicca qui
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3215&d=17-1

Leo van de Pas

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 17 jan 2006 00:51:01

Knowing you, I doubt you made a mistake----you were just testing :-) I
know.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <Therav3@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


Dear Leo,

How could I indeed......!

You wrote:
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to
know.

I read (or was thinking, so to speak, at the time):
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as DESCENDANT? I would love to
know.

This proves the power of positive thinking. I am
thinking I positively made an error.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try to minimize the
number of opportunities from here out......

Cheers,

John



Denis Beauregard

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 17 jan 2006 00:52:02

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:36:21 +0000 (UTC), cannalonga@email.it ("MLS")
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

Dear Leo, thanks for your fascinating citations.. But I kepp my opinio.
How many people live in the world today? 4 bilions, more or less..
And How many CAN trace there (credible!) line from ancient royal or
noble dinasty.... 1milion, 5 milions, 10 milions?

Only in Quebec, population 7 millions, the estimate is about
500,000 to 1 million with the current known lines. And this
will probably grow to 3 millions with current works. You can
probably link any one of French stock (6 millions) to someone
claiming nobility. And after the conquest of 1763, many
people with close links to high nobility went back to France
(the militaries follow the army).

You can probably extend that to USA to reach maybe 100 millions
of people likely with a royal line.

By the way, earth population is about 7 billions, not 4.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1716 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mes associations de généalogie: http://www.SGCF.com/ (soc. gén. can.-fr.)
oo oo http://www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La Jemmerais)

MLS

RE: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av MLS » 17 jan 2006 01:05:02

Thanks
So, 100 millions on 7 billions are ... Less than 2 per cent....

-----Original Message-----
From: Denis Beauregard [mailto:no@nospam.com.invalid]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:55 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:36:21 +0000 (UTC), cannalonga@email.it ("MLS")
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

Dear Leo, thanks for your fascinating citations.. But I kepp my opinio.

How many people live in the world today? 4 bilions, more or less.. And
How many CAN trace there (credible!) line from ancient royal or noble
dinasty.... 1milion, 5 milions, 10 milions?

Only in Quebec, population 7 millions, the estimate is about
500,000 to 1 million with the current known lines. And this will
probably grow to 3 millions with current works. You can probably link
any one of French stock (6 millions) to someone claiming nobility. And
after the conquest of 1763, many
people with close links to high nobility went back to France (the
militaries follow the army).

You can probably extend that to USA to reach maybe 100 millions of
people likely with a royal line.

By the way, earth population is about 7 billions, not 4.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1716 -
http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mes associations de généalogie: http://www.SGCF.com/ (soc. gén.
can.-fr.)
oo oo http://www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La
Jemmerais)



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Acquista ora Email.it Phone Card e comincia a risparmiare sulle tue telefonate! Clicca e scopri l'offerta
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid&84&d-1

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Muhammed's DNA

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 17 jan 2006 01:20:27

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I've argued at http://explorers.whyte.com/muhammad.htm that most of us
are descended from the Prophet Muhammad.



I'm not sure the link to Muhammed at this generation is as strong as it needs
to be.

"Alphonso, King of Leon and Castile d 1109
married
Zaida, baptised as Isabella, "de Seville"
and by her had
Sancha who married the Count de Lara"

I believe that the number of "wives" of this Alphonso, their order, and which
child was off who, is still a matter of controversy.

To a degree, yes. There is agreement as to which Queen or mistress was
mother of which child, the only disagreement being whether the mistress
Zaida/Isabel, motehr of Sancho, was identical to the Queen Isabel who
was mother of Sancha and Elvira. That being said, the Matamid descent
from Muhammad is problematic (probably invented); Zaida was
daughter-in-law of the Mutamid ruler of Seville, not his daughter; AND
all of the descents tracing from this daughter Sancha are bogus (she had
no son Rodrigo Rodriguez de Lara - he was invented by a late-17th
century genealogist to fill a chronological gap between Sancha's husband
Rodrigo Gonzalez and two Rodriguez siblings erroneously thought to have
been granddaughters). There are, however, valid descents from her full
sister.

taf

Kelly Gray

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Kelly Gray » 17 jan 2006 02:27:01

is this where that phrase "six degrees of separation" comes in.....and where
did that phrase originate?

kelly

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm0 ... direct/01/

bistritz

Re:Thomas Stanton's ancestry

Legg inn av bistritz » 17 jan 2006 02:27:08

Michael Andrews-Reading said:

bistritz schrieb:
However, Bernard Stanton the President of The Thomas Stanton
Society (1999) wrote in April 1999 that "the root of the problem lies
with two Stanton brothers having the same name. The reason for our opinion
lies on the Stanton memorials found on the wall of Wolverton's Church,
St. Mary the Virgin. Here Thomas Stanton, Lord of the Manor, was born
in 1621 and died in 1664. His birth was two years after the visitation.

But his MI states he died in 1664 _aged 47_, i.e. born in 1617, not
1621. This 1621 birthdate appears to be a fabrication.

"Oxford records as quoted by Terry, tell of Thomas Stanton Sr.
born in 1595, enrolling in Jan. 1610 at age 15. He was the father of
Thomas Stanton (Staunton) Jr., 1st son of Thomas of Wolverton, enrolled
July 1634 at age 17."

Indeed, thus excluding the emigrant.

"We now have two Thomas Stantons born of Thomas and Katherine
(Washington) Stanton.

Except we don't have any such thing: we have one: born c1617; recorded
in the Visitation of 1619; admitted to Oxford, 1634 aged 17; died 1664
aged 47."

I have asked Mr. Bernard Stanton, President of the Thomas Stanton
Society, to respond. He says "The author of 'Thomas Stanton of
Connecticut" (1890) made a trip to England in 1915 and found that
Katherine Washington Stanton had 3 children: Thomas, Walter, and Alicia
(Alice). Walter named after Katherine's husband Walter Washington. The
Thomas born 1621 was a relative but it is impossible to name his father
with sureity. However his great grandfather named two of his sons
Thomas while both were alive". For affirmation of "our" Thomas'
birthdate Mr. Stanton suggests reading the "Visitation of Warwickshire"
in Latin, and for reinforcement of his arguments suggests reading
"Alumni Oxonienses" (or Oxford Alumni) 1500-1714 page 1412. He also
indicates Thomas Stanton's tombstone says born 1616.

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 02:46:02

In a message dated 1/16/06 4:04:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

<< So, 100 millions on 7 billions are ... Less than 2 per cent.... >>

I disagree with how you characterize what Denis said. Denis was referring to
people who we *know* have at least semi-credible descent. However what you
are failing to take into consideration (for some unknown reason) is that a very
small percentage of the population cares about genealogy enough to do the
work.

Those of us who have done the work *to* trace ourselves back are the few who
care. That does not mean the rest of the population doesn't have an ascent to
royalty. It means they haven't looked for it, or haven't found it yet.

Perhaps you feel like you want to be a member of some sort of elite clan of
royal descendents :) However I'm fairly confident that anyone who puts in the
twenty years or so that I have tracing my own line, will, like me, find a
royal ascent somewhere.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Thomas Stanton's ancestry

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 03:03:27

In a message dated 1/16/06 5:27:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, gvonstud@aol.com
writes:

<< For affirmation of "our" Thomas'
birthdate Mr. Stanton suggests reading the "Visitation of Warwickshire"
in Latin, and for reinforcement of his arguments suggests reading
"Alumni Oxonienses" (or Oxford Alumni) 1500-1714 page 1412. He also
indicates Thomas Stanton's tombstone says born 1616. >>

This is circular reasoning however.
The problem is not whether *some* Thomas Stanton went to Oxford, or whether
*some* Thomas Staton was in the Visitation. The problem is whether *this*
Thomas Stanton is identical to the Thomas Stanton who died in Stonington,
Connecticut in 1677.

Will Johnson

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 17 jan 2006 03:11:02

Dear Leo
There were "Seven Daughter of Eve" which is the title of the book written
several years ago by Prof. Bryan Sykes, a geneticist from Oxford University.
These so called daughters lived from between 15,000 and 45,000 years ago in
various parts of Europe and the Middle East.
I had my DNA tested by Oxford Ancestors (birthday present from my son) and
found that I descended from the daughter he named Helena, who lived about 20
000 years ago, probably in the Pyranees at the end of the last ice age.
According to the book, her descendants migrated North as the ice receded.
It hasn't given me any difinitive information of course, but it has
stimulate my interest in following my maternal line as far as possible.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia

-------Original Message-------

From: Leo van de Pas
Date: 01/17/06 10:22:15
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors

Well, that is the crunch----as I have said that records fail us. But now a
new record has emerged in DNA and this may help but only a little.

I have heard of a place proclaiming we descend from nine Eves. And by
submitting your DNA they tell you from which one you descend. How much does
this add to the knowledge of _your_ ancestors? I do not know. Do they know
when or where those nine Eves lived? Were they contemporary with each other?
and what about _their_ ancestors? A lots of new questions, but interesting
ones.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it>
To: "'Leo van de Pas'" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:36 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Dear Leo, thanks for your fascinating citations.. But I kepp my opinio.
How many people live in the world today? 4 bilions, more or less..
And How many CAN trace there (credible!) line from ancient royal or
noble dinasty.... 1milion, 5 milions, 10 milions?

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:53 PM
To: mlupis@netvigator.com; GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors



----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Hi Leo!
I agreed whit you. It could be difficult to mention one royal or noble

who does not have any commoners as ancestor.... But I think the
discussion here is the opposite: exists trillions of living commoners

WHIT royal or noble ancestor...? Very different assert don't think?

One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least)
as noble. The opposite if is a female noble that marry a commoner. So,

this immediately cut 50 por cent of (possibly) inter class
marriages...

============ I think you are moving into hot water :-) there are no
identical rules that apply to _all_ cases. What is happening in the
20th
and 21st century is too recent to consider (I think). Can you mention
one
royal family before 1900 where they could marry a commoner and the
children
still be regarded as royal?. I can think of only one, Greece, where only

marriages to Greeks were prohibited and in the first generation they
still
married within the royal/noble caste. .

Especially in the Holy Roman Empire they were very strict about
marrying
within one's own class. Offspring from unequal marriages received a
title
and rank lower than that of the father.

But when talking about DNA and descend from Royalty, forget marriage as
there are too many illegitimate offspring passing on DNA and Royal
descents
to their offspring, often the knowledge about royal ancestors are not
even
recorded, or passed on to their offspring.

David Starr Jordan and Sarah Louise Kimball published in 1929 a book
with a
dreary title "Your Family Tree". It has a fascinating introduction, too
long
to repeat, but I will quote a small part:

"Factors in the tangled lineage of the English people give a clew (sic)
to
the origin and persistence of racial traits in general. They are the
stigmata of "blood relationship." Moreover, all, noble and peasant
alike,
are really of one blood, the caste distinctions of the present being due
to
Nurture rather than to Nature. To quote from a recent statement by Dr.
E. M.
Best of McGill University, Montreal: "Every one of us is descended from
William the Conqueror, and Anglo-Saxons are, all of us, at least
thirtieth
cousins to each other."

Also is said : ....the total population of England in 1100 did not
exceed
two millions, and that probably not one-tenth of these, beset as they
were
by war and pestilence, left permanent lines of descendants. Saying that
(roughly) 200,000 people in England around 1100 are jointly the
ancestors
of every one with Anglo-Saxon blood today. This covers an awful lot of
people, Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, USA, South Africa, Australia and
New
Zealand, just to begin with.

According to Burke's Extinct Peerages, 1866 edition, page 501, in 1637
in
Newport, Shropshire lived a cobbler and his name is not even given. The
question is, who did he marry, how many children and further descendants
did
he have? Did he have siblings with descendants?

What is the significance of this mender of old shoes? His mother was a
Jane
Stafford and within about 21 generations she has at least 433 lines of
descent from William the Conqueror and I would not like to guess how
many to
Charlemagne. This Jane Stafford also is a descendant of Llwylyn the
Great
Prince of Wales, the Arpad Kings of Hungary, and descends at least in 29

lines from Isaac II Angelos, Emperor of Byzantium and is also a 15th
cousin
once removed of the Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan, the reputed builder of
the
Taj Mahal.

This makes many Indian descendants having common ancestors with many
Europeans whether Anglo-saxons or not. Then it would be a simple matter
to
see to which Gateway Ancestors this Jane Stafford is related to and we
have
MANY Americans today who are her cousins as well as, no doubt, many in
India
and Pakistan.

I think we still have to come to grasp to how "close" we all are related
to
each other, that sadly the paperwork does not exist to prove it, doesn't

matter, we are closely related.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia





-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:leovdpas@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:38 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would
love to know. Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <cannalonga@email.it
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner
ancestors in there tree .... instead of the opposite!

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com">mailto:WJhonson@aol.com
WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages
exist. But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example
like this...


It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction,
peter-out pretty quickly. We *just* had an example posted where Queen

Elizabeth herself has this problem in a very short time period. She
had commoner ancestors as well as royal ones. How do you explain
this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one
was
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.

Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:
http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1





--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te:
http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
America, Africa, Australia, Asia...con Email Phone Card chiami ovunque
spendendo meno di una telefonata interurbana
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2688&d=16-1





--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Sono aperte le iscrizioni per il corso Nazionale di Web Marketing
* Imparerai come promuoverti sui motori di ricerca - clicca qui
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3215&d=17-1

Rex Hotchkiss

Re: Aylesbury and Impossible Dates

Legg inn av Rex Hotchkiss » 17 jan 2006 03:25:02

Will, the original postings said he was born 10 year before his mother.
I'm suggesting that if the names portion of the data was good, the
only solution is that the approximate dates weren't. As children were
married off by their parents at that time, perhaps having children at
13 was a possibility, and the estimate didn't take that into account.
Otherwise, this couple generations in the middle, about the
Aylesbury's, don't make sense.

I have only seen what's on the websites I named, and what is on this
list. I only found this on ancestry.com's OneWorldTree,and other
websites including this one, this weekend. The earlier records, which
match my grandmother's line, check out. The older records, I don't
know the source for. What I think I am seeing is a lot of "about" date
estimates, which may be very far off. What I am asking is, if anyone
knows what the evidence was for those dates. Without knowing better,
it sort of sounds like the people in this genealogy came from a list in
a visitation document, and someone penned approximate dates on them,
and they weren't correct, but have stuck anyway. Isn't that one of the
possibilities for "about" on dates - that someone knows some of the
information, like grand-parents and children, and their dates, but just
has the names in the middle, so they write down their best guess for
the unknown dates and say "about"? These couple generations of records
sound like they might come in between contemporary records and say a
visitation record, so I am thinking that might be what they are.

Thank you Douglas. If I figure out what the sources are, I'll try to
find them, and let you know. As yet I'm unsure where this information
came from. Actually one of the biggest sources at the moment is the
postings on this site, so I am hoping the folks here might tell us
where the information came from.

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of Sir Hugh le Despenser (d. 1238)

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 03:28:02

In a message dated 1/16/06 8:25:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

<< " Hugo Dispensar' ", inherited Arnesby and Loughborough, co. Leics. on
death
of brother Thomas, before Oct 1218[6]:
' " Hugo Dispensar' " gave the lord King 25 solidi for his relief due for
1 knight's fee in Arnesby [Erendebi], which he acquired by the death
of Thomas le Despenser [ "Thome Dispensar' "] his firstborn brother,
whose heir he is.' Excerpta e Rotulis Finium I:18[17] >>

Do you read this "firstborn brother" to mean that Thomas was the eldest
brother?
That is that he is older than Geoffrey ["the Elder"] who d.v.p. ? [bef 1191]

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Aylesbury and Impossible Dates

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 03:49:01

In a message dated 1/16/06 6:27:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
rexjhotchkiss@comcast.net writes:

<< The earlier records, which
match my grandmother's line, check out. The older records, I don't
know the source for. What I think I am seeing is a lot of "about" date
estimates, which may be very far off. What I am asking is, if anyone
knows what the evidence was for those dates. >>

OneWorldTree is for-the-most-part derived directly from the seperate tree
submitted by me, you, and your crazy aunt to the Ancestral World Tree. They just
took all those and tried to smush them together. Smushing is a very
technical procedure.

However, although AWT allows dates like BEF 1600 and AFT 1600 and 1600/1630,
OWT doesn't allow those dates yet. I submitted a suggestion to allow them,
but so far they don't :)

So, the short version is, you can check out the underlying databases
directly. Just go into OWT, go to a person's individual record, click on EDIT this
person and you will see, on the right side of the details a little snip that
says something like "19 user submitted trees". You can then click over there and
view each tree one-by-one.

This way you can see if they have notes, sources, ABT or AFT dates or
whatever, and try to see if you can make better sense out of the details than what
OWT is giving you.

Will Johnson

John P. Ravilious

Re: Ancestry of Sir Hugh le Despenser (d. 1238)

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 17 jan 2006 04:00:14

Dear Will,

No, I don't ascribe that definition in this case.

Assuming the original document was in Latin, we can assume the
term "primogenitus" was used. However, I think it far more likely that
Thomas le Despenser would have named his first-born son Geoffrey, after
his own father. When Geoffrey was born, and how old he was when he
died, we don't know - other than that he died in 1190 or before, given
one of the witnesses was Robert de Beaumont, Earl of Leicester who died
in 1190.

It may well be that Thomas was the eldest brother whom Hugh knew
in growing up; if this was the case, using the term "primogenitus" in
the grant would be somewhat natural. For that matter, Thomas may have
been the oldest Despenser sibling known to the clerk who drew up the
fine, who then called him 'primogenitus' based on his own
misunderstanding. Likely we will never know for sure......

Cheers,

John



WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/16/06 8:25:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:

" Hugo Dispensar' ", inherited Arnesby and Loughborough, co. Leics. on
death
of brother Thomas, before Oct 1218[6]:
' " Hugo Dispensar' " gave the lord King 25 solidi for his relief due for
1 knight's fee in Arnesby [Erendebi], which he acquired by the death
of Thomas le Despenser [ "Thome Dispensar' "] his firstborn brother,
whose heir he is.' Excerpta e Rotulis Finium I:18[17]

Do you read this "firstborn brother" to mean that Thomas was the eldest
brother?
That is that he is older than Geoffrey ["the Elder"] who d.v.p. ? [bef 1191]

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Turn again Dick Whittington

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 05:45:02

In a message dated 1/9/06 10:10:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< You might wish to consult the various charters regarding Whittington's
College and Hospital which are published in William Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 2 (1830): 738-747. Among the documents is a charter which
specifically names the parents of Sir Richard Whittington of London as Sir William
Whittington and Joan his wife, and those of Sir Richard's wife, Alice, as Sir Ives
Fitz Waryn and Maud his wife. >>


Thank you Douglas. There seems to be a problem Millerfairfield@aol.com on
1/5/06 posted that William de Whittington, Lord of Pauntley in 1371 died s.p.
This would then leave William Whittington who d 1358
(http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/MOLsit ... ing_1.html) as the father of
"Dick" Whittington

But in speaking of Pauntley on 12/31/05 Millerfairfield@aol.com said "In
1267 it had been held by this Thomas de Solers, according to Duncomb's History
of Herefordshire, and when his son John died childless William Whittington
inherited in right of his wife, John Solers's sister Maud."

So either
1) William de Whittington, Lord of Pauntley d 1358 had two wives, Maud de
Solers and Joan
or
2) William de Whittington, Lord of Pauntley in 1371/2 did not die s.p.
or
3) There is yet a third William de Whittington with a wife Joan.

I would be grateful if someone could straighten this out for me.
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Muhammed's DNA

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 08:36:35

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I've argued at http://explorers.whyte.com/muhammad.htm that most of us
are descended from the Prophet Muhammad.



I'm not sure the link to Muhammed at this generation is as strong as it needs
to be.

If you actually read what I wrote, you'll find that I agree.

Nicholas

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 10:07:21

Several different "kinds" of Inuit people, along with the Aleut and
dozens of non-Inuit "Indians"...

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 10:11:08

There are a great many examples in medieval history throughout Europe
when a son of the sovereign married a non-royal woman and the children
assumed the family name of the mother.
- Bronwen

Rex Hotchkiss

Re: Aylesbury and Impossible Dates

Legg inn av Rex Hotchkiss » 17 jan 2006 10:24:43

It appears that Roger Aylesbury (born abt 1369) may be one of my
18G-grandfathers. Part of the reason I got excited about this was that
I previously had this particular line out only to my GG-grandparents.
I decided to check them out, again, on ancestry.com, and immediately
found the references up to my 5G-grandparents, followed by an
excellent, huge, 1000 plus page book on that 5G-grandfather's
ancesters, and all these tree entries on that 5G-grandmother's
ancesters, leading up to this Roger Aylesbury (abt 1369). This was on
Friday, and I ended up spending the weekend reviewing this new
material, including previous discussions on this list.

I have now gone back looking for notes, and reviewed the 157
OneWorldTree entries and skimmed through the 399 Ancestry World tree
entries which contain a reference to Roger Aylesbury. Of those, most
were duplicating the entry which I have already mentioned for this
individual. The most usual reference was to:

Weis, Frederick Lewis, "Ancestral Roots of Certain American
Colonists Who Came to America before 1760", 7th ed
Genealogical Publishing, Baltimore 1992, line 187 p 160.

I learned that Roger was known to be the King's minstrel.

I also learned that Inventor Thomas Edison is claimed as a descendant.

The entries were unanimous in that Roger's birthdate was about 1359 or
60, and his birthplace was Oterarsfee, Buckinghamshire, England. Most
of those who showed his parents, showed them as Thomas Aylesbury (abt
1369) and Katherine De Pabenham (abt 1372). A small handful showed his
parents as Thomas Aylesbury (abt 1314) and Joan Basset (abt 1326), the
grandparents of the other Thomas (abt 1369). This would actually make
a great deal more sense given the dates involve, if there is any
evidence for it.

By the way, on the records for Thomas (abt 1369) there were numerous
source references. These included:

Leo van de Pas, "The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles,
Prince of Wales Edinburgh, 1977".
Gerald Paget, Reference: Q 116508.

and

Leo van de Pas' Web Site, "Leo's Genealogics Website", Url:
http://www.genealogics.org/index.php.

Which I enjoyed browsing, as well as such standards as:

Burke's Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited & Extinct Peerages, p. 26.

In all of this I found no references to true primary sources. I would
truly appreciate if anyone with access to such sources regarding this
material would check them, and let me know what they find.

Gjest

Re: Turn again Dick Whittington

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 10:35:02

Will Jhonson asked for help concerning the family of Dick Whittington, the
Whittingtons of Pauntley. Here goes:-
-Dick's elder brother was William W, who married but died sp: MP 1377
-Their father was William W, married to Joan Mansell, MP 1348, died 1358
-Their grandfather was William W, married to Joan Linet, MP 1327, died c1334
-Their great-grandfather was William W, married to Maud Solers, living 1267

Will concluded his query by posing the following:-

<So either
<1) William de Whittington, Lord of Pauntley d 1358 had two wives, Maud de
<Solers and Joan
<or
<2) William de Whittington, Lord of Pauntley in 1371/2 did not die s.p.
<or
<3) There is yet a third William de Whittington with a wife Joan.

As to these propositions:-
1) is false: Maud de Solers was his grandmother, not his wife
2) is false: Dick's eldest brother did die sp - which is why the second
brother Robert inherited Pauntley, Solers and Upton Haselor
3) is true (though in fact there were many more William Ws: Maud Soler's
husband was at least the fourth William in a direct line of male descent)

Hope that helps, Will
MM

Gjest

Re: Ancestry of John, 2nd Lord Segrave (was Re: Ancestry of

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 12:01:01

In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,

royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:
<<<

Warwicks. is a perfectly good and recognised abbreviation, in fact most of
the shire counties can be abbreviated with an "s", although Hampshire becomes
Hants (as with Northampton), Oxfordshire is Oxon.

Adrian

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Ancestry of John, 2nd Lord Segrave (was Re: Ancestry of

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 17 jan 2006 13:55:07

In message of 17 Jan, ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 17/01/2006 05:27:40 GMT Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
Third, in one place, you refer to "co. Warwicks." This should either
be "co. Warwick" or "Warwickshire." For a list of the preferred
county designations, e.g., Warwickshire, see the GENUKI list at the
following website:


Warwicks. is a perfectly good and recognised abbreviation, in fact
most of the shire counties can be abbreviated with an "s", although
Hampshire becomes Hants (as with Northampton), Oxfordshire is Oxon.

Agreed.

But the history of this is more complicated. I have noticed that by
the 15th and 16th centuries the more common abbreviation was "com."
followed by the County name. This as Chris Phillips explained to us
some years ago was short for the Latin "Comitatus" (or was it
"Comitatu"?) or, in English, "County of". This term was needed
particularly for counties with a county town of the same name as the
county, to distinguish them. For instance how do you know what is being
referred to by "Stafford"? Or "York"? It was sensible to make it
totally clear by using the word "com." in front of such county names.

Certainly by the 17th century I have seen documents where the suffix of
"shire" for such cases is not uncommon.

In the 18th century, Collins' Peerage uses "com." as well as "County of"
and mostly "...shire". But no "Co." that I have seen.

But the real change came when that Irishman Burke started his various
commoners, landed gentry and peerage volumes. Burke clearly used "Co."
and not "Com.". To me this is probably due to his Irish upbringing
where nearly every county is (now at least) prefixed by "Co.". I do
not think is was previously English practice and it certainly is not
English practice now, save for Durham, to use "Co.".

Then Complete Peerage followed Burke's practice but I notice that the
more modern writings have reverted to "...shire".

And "s" is a perfectly acceptable and normal abbreviation of "shire";
it saves on the keyboard, too. And for some Home counties with "sex" on
the end, they get a total abbreviation to "Mx" for Middlesex and "Sx"
for Sussex, though I have never seen Essex shortened to "Ex".

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Bob Turcott

RE: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 17 jan 2006 15:46:01

Leo,

my answers below


From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:59:31 +1100
Dear Todd,

Like many, DNA is a very mysterious world to me. The discussion at the
moment is very interesting. There is one aspect I wonder about, but more
wonder whether I am wrong.

A person gets 50% of DNA from his/her father and 50% from his/her mother.
the percentages can vary, however your direct male line (Father to son)can

be traced by a stran of DNA CALLED "Y" DNA the "y' comes from the male van
de pas line. as I understand it the y dna can be traced and go back several
1000 years dependinging on the number of dna markers (test points)
are utilizid. The dna you get from your mother is called mtdna and that can
be traced for your directed female line more about this subject can be found
on http://www.familytreedna.com

Now that 50% from the father, where did that come from? Does he pass on
half of _his_ father and half of _his_ mother? So that the grandchild would
have 25% from each grandparent?

I read somewhere that a person could have an ancestor, many generations
ago, and not have any DNA from that ancestor, is that correct? this is not
true!!! You carry dna from all of your ancestors!!! The thing is the
technology isnt there yet to discover all those inside strands of dna yet
and were they came from but we will get there sooner or later...

I think, I am not the only one wondering about this.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Leo van de Pas


_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm ... direct/01/

Gjest

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 16:53:01

In a message dated 1/17/2006 6:42:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:<<

The dna you get from your mother is called mtdna and that can
be traced for your directed female line more about this subject can be found
on http://www.familytreedna.com>>



*Part* of the DNA you get from your mother is called "mtDNA".
This sentence seems to imply all of it is so called, and that's not so.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 16:56:02

In a message dated 1/17/2006 7:24:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
terry@mairsphotography.com writes:

so would DNA prove his decent
from Somerled or maybe not, assuming we had DNA from Somerled?


The only people that can currently be tested with any degree of reliability
are those who are male-line or female-line descendents of a person. So if
your line goes Somerled-male-male-male-female-male-female-female-female-male...
that won't work.

You need it to go Somerled-male-male-male-male-male-male-......

Gjest

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 17:03:02

In a message dated 1/16/2006 11:12:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

If that is
your male line, then the undiluted Y would be distinctive. If it is any
other line, the distinctive 'Gael" DNA (if there is any such thing),
would be diluted with the Saxon


Is this right? The undiluted Y would still be undiluted regardless of
marriages.
It just wouldn't be "Gael". It would be something else. Say "Jewish" or
"African" or "Chinese" who knows. But the point is, the Y is the male-line
marker, and no matter how many women married into the line, it's still the
male-line marker. It's point to who your male-line ancestor (ancestral-line) was.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 17:06:01

In a message dated 1/16/2006 10:25:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

A man-at-arms was created a knight by being dubbed (struck on both
shoulders
with a sword), which could be done in haste on the battlefield or with
great
ceremony in church. In return for a grant of land or money, the knight did
military service for his lord on a set number of days.


This quote implies that there were knights who did not do "knight service".
Otherwise why express it this way? Why not say, that people were knighted
and *at the same time* given land from which they could pay/support their
knight service ?
Are we supposed to believe that after being hastily dubbed a knight on
the battlefield, that *knights* then were either forced into bankruptcy or
equally hastily had to scurry about trying to find a lord to bestow some bit of
dirt on them as well?
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 17:07:01

In a message dated 1/16/2006 9:42:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

< Of couse, the Irish genealogies show all of the rulers of all of the
< dynasties to be descended from the same male line . . . .
<
< taf

Maybe they were.

dr


Yes and we know all the Saxons are descendents of Odin and Thor.
So that settles it.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: knights and nobles

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 17:12:02

In a message dated 1/17/2006 1:24:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:

3. Knight. At twenty-one the boy was knighted, and of this
the Church made an impressive ceremonial.


Huh?? If this is true it would throw us all into a tizzy.
But then perhaps "Ellwood Cuberly" is here being just a tad anachronistic or
hyperbolic or other polysyllabic words.
Will Johnson

Tompkins, M.L.

RE: Who was the Sheriff of Nottingham?

Legg inn av Tompkins, M.L. » 17 jan 2006 17:17:02

Just a quick question (which has probably been asked before), but
who(m) held the position(s) of the Sheriff of Nottingham at the time
of King Richard / Prince John circ 1190s+ and the 3rd Crusade

I think it's been pointed out that the office didn't actually exist
at the time, it's part of the later Robin Hood fiction. It's not
something I've looked into, however, so may itself be a 'factoid'.


No, it's correct that there was no Sheriff of Nottingham at that time,
though only in the utltra-pedantic sense that he was the sheriff of the
county, not town.

The town didn't get a sheriff until the 16th century (and then it got
two - because legally the town was two separate boroughs, the French and
the English Boroughs, with separate governments until the 19th century).
Though throughout the medieval period it did have a reeve, who performed
a not-dissimilar function. For at least part of Richard I's reign the
Reeve of Nottingham was Orm the Baker (they don't tell you that in the
Robin Hood stories!).

But strictly speaking there wasn't a Sheriff of Nottinghamshire either,
because until 1567 one sheriff covered both that county and Derbyshire -
so he was really the Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.

Who was the sheriff at the time of Richard I's absence on crusade and in
captivity? Unfortunately, I don't think we know. I've just had a look
in Turbutt's History of Derbyshire, which has a list of all the known
sheriffs, and it has a gap in 1190-94. It seems that from 1180 until
1190 the sheriff was one Ralph Murdoch, and that in 1194 an adherent of
King Richard, William, Earl Ferrers, occupied the office briefly before
being replaced in the same year by William Brewer, another Richard
loyalist (though in John's reign he became one of John's leading
henchmen). I suppose between 1190 and 1194 John must have intruded one
of his own supporters into the shrievalty (certainly his supporters had
taken over the town and castle of Nottingham during those years).

This information comes from 'A Centenary History of Nottingham', edited
by John Beckett (Manchester University Press, 1997),
at page 66, and Gladwyn Turbutt's A History of Derbyshire, vol II
(Merton Priory Press, 1999), at pp 609-610 and 903.

Matt Tompkins

Gjest

Re: Aylesbury and Impossible Dates

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 17:21:02

In a message dated 1/17/2006 1:27:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rexjhotchkiss@comcast.net writes:

Leo van de Pas, "The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles,
Prince of Wales Edinburgh, 1977".
Gerald Paget, Reference: Q 116508.

and

Leo van de Pas' Web Site, "Leo's Genealogics Website", Url:
http://www.genealogics.org/index.php.

Which I enjoyed browsing, as well as such standards as:

Burke's Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited & Extinct Peerages, p. 26.

In all of this I found no references to true primary sources. I would
truly appreciate if anyone with access to such sources regarding this
material would check them, and let me know what they find.


It is unlikely that you will. What these are telling you is what secondary
sources to follow up with.
Now you have to actually *consult* those secondary sources to see what
sources *they* used.
Which tells you, in part, why we have such colorful discussions here.
Once you find the list of underlying sources, you then have to consult
*those* sources.
And so on, and so on.
Will Johnson

MLS

RE: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av MLS » 17 jan 2006 17:26:02

YOU WROTE:
"Perhaps you feel like you want to be a member of some sort of elite
clan of
royal descendents :)"

Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"

If not, what's the definition of those words?

Marco


-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:45 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 4:04:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

<< So, 100 millions on 7 billions are ... Less than 2 per cent.... >>

I disagree with how you characterize what Denis said. Denis was
referring to
people who we *know* have at least semi-credible descent. However what
you
are failing to take into consideration (for some unknown reason) is that
a very
small percentage of the population cares about genealogy enough to do
the
work.

Those of us who have done the work *to* trace ourselves back are the few
who
care. That does not mean the rest of the population doesn't have an
ascent to
royalty. It means they haven't looked for it, or haven't found it yet.

Perhaps you feel like you want to be a member of some sort of elite clan
of
royal descendents :) However I'm fairly confident that anyone who puts
in the
twenty years or so that I have tracing my own line, will, like me, find
a
royal ascent somewhere.

Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Polizza auto Zuritel. Scopri il risparmio in 7 click. Cosa aspetti? Clicca qui
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4097&d=17-1

Gjest

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 17:28:01

In a message dated 1/17/2006 8:24:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"


Ridiculous. So I am aristocracy because I have an ascent to Edward I ?
You're spinning wildly off into outer space now.
Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

Re: Who was the Sheriff of Nottingham?

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 17 jan 2006 17:47:01

According to Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland:
1205/6 Robert de Veteripont [with Richard de Beauchamp] has Custody of
Nottingham and Derby shires. Later sheriff of both until 1210,
Pat

----------
From: "Tompkins, M.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Who was the Sheriff of Nottingham?
Date: Tue, 17, 2006, 11:16 AM


Just a quick question (which has probably been asked before), but
who(m) held the position(s) of the Sheriff of Nottingham at the time
of King Richard / Prince John circ 1190s+ and the 3rd Crusade

I think it's been pointed out that the office didn't actually exist
at the time, it's part of the later Robin Hood fiction. It's not
something I've looked into, however, so may itself be a 'factoid'.


No, it's correct that there was no Sheriff of Nottingham at that time,
though only in the utltra-pedantic sense that he was the sheriff of the
county, not town.

The town didn't get a sheriff until the 16th century (and then it got
two - because legally the town was two separate boroughs, the French and
the English Boroughs, with separate governments until the 19th century).
Though throughout the medieval period it did have a reeve, who performed
a not-dissimilar function. For at least part of Richard I's reign the
Reeve of Nottingham was Orm the Baker (they don't tell you that in the
Robin Hood stories!).

But strictly speaking there wasn't a Sheriff of Nottinghamshire either,
because until 1567 one sheriff covered both that county and Derbyshire -
so he was really the Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.

Who was the sheriff at the time of Richard I's absence on crusade and in
captivity? Unfortunately, I don't think we know. I've just had a look
in Turbutt's History of Derbyshire, which has a list of all the known
sheriffs, and it has a gap in 1190-94. It seems that from 1180 until
1190 the sheriff was one Ralph Murdoch, and that in 1194 an adherent of
King Richard, William, Earl Ferrers, occupied the office briefly before
being replaced in the same year by William Brewer, another Richard
loyalist (though in John's reign he became one of John's leading
henchmen). I suppose between 1190 and 1194 John must have intruded one
of his own supporters into the shrievalty (certainly his supporters had
taken over the town and castle of Nottingham during those years).

This information comes from 'A Centenary History of Nottingham', edited
by John Beckett (Manchester University Press, 1997),
at page 66, and Gladwyn Turbutt's A History of Derbyshire, vol II
(Merton Priory Press, 1999), at pp 609-610 and 903.

Matt Tompkins

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 17 jan 2006 17:50:39

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/16/2006 11:12:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

If that is
your male line, then the undiluted Y would be distinctive. If it is any
other line, the distinctive 'Gael" DNA (if there is any such thing),
would be diluted with the Saxon


Is this right? The undiluted Y would still be undiluted regardless of
marriages.


Sorry - I was unclear. The thought I compressed into the above sentence
was: "If it is any other than the male line, the distinctive 'Gael' DNA
wouldn't be represented by the Y, but by the autosomal chromosomes, and
hence it would be diluted with the 'Saxon' in each generation and become
unrecognizable." As you indicate, the Y would still pass unchanged, but
it wouldn't be that of the 'Gael' non-paternal ancestor.

taf

Kelly Gray

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten? ireland/vikings..

Legg inn av Kelly Gray » 17 jan 2006 18:02:02

this seems somewhat a silly question amidst the scientific discussion...but
what about the idea that those in ireland that have red hair are of viking
descent?

kbg

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Most recent common ancestors

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 17 jan 2006 18:02:50

In message of 17 Jan, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

<snip of a very cogent account about female line DNA>

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

What about men? Well, exactly the same thing applies, except that
it is more exact. A particular man produces a particular sperm
cell with a particular mutation. The resulting son is a new
haplogroup or subhaplogroup, or at least a "family group". His brothers
remain the haplogroup of the father, his sons are also the new
group he became. I have maps on my web site for this too. For example,
as is well known, I am "R1a1" male haplogroup, which, in Scotland,
where my ancestor came from, basically means "descended from a Viking".
The mutation which defins R1a is called SRY10831, and that which
defines R1a1 is M17. In my case, from other types of mutations we know
that I'm from a Norwegian rather than Danish Viking, and that in fact I
descend from a particular man, or his relatively close cousins, named
Somerled, who died in 1164.

I'm not quite clear what you are asserting here. Presumably some of
Somerled's male line ancestor's (whoever they might be) also are of
this R1a1 haplogroup? If so, then you might be descended from one of
them and their descendants and not from Somerled?

It might be that your male line descent of this haplogroup is from
another male who happened to have coupled with one of your ancestresses
(no disrespect of course but the evidence of occasional extra-marital
couplings in most families is becoming stronger than many genealogists
would like to believe).

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten? ireland/vikings..

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jan 2006 18:04:02

In a message dated 1/17/2006 9:01:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
kelly6424@hotmail.com writes:

this seems somewhat a silly question amidst the scientific discussion...but
what about the idea that those in ireland that have red hair are of viking
descent?


What makes you think Vikings were the only persons with red hair?

Tompkins, M.L.

RE: Who was the Sheriff of Nottingham?

Legg inn av Tompkins, M.L. » 17 jan 2006 18:05:02

<<According to Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland:
1205/6 Robert de Veteripont [with Richard de Beauchamp] has Custody of
Nottingham and Derby shires. Later sheriff of both until 1210, Pat>>


But aren't the Robin Hood stories set in the years 1190-94, when Richard
I was away on crusade or locked up in Austria and John was in rebellion
against his government in England (basing himself in Nottingham castle
much of the time)? I seem to remember that the stories usually end with
the deus ex machina of Richard returning and putting everything right.

Matt

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten? ireland/vikings..

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 17 jan 2006 18:19:12

Kelly Gray wrote:

this seems somewhat a silly question amidst the scientific
discussion...but what about the idea that those in ireland that have red
hair are of viking descent?

At best simply a correlation - a gradient of red hair prevalence
corresponding to the pattern of viking settlement. At worst, simply a
'Just So' Story. I don't know which is the case.

taf

Guy Etchells

Re: Who was the Sheriff of Nottingham?

Legg inn av Guy Etchells » 17 jan 2006 18:23:02

Robin Hood was not simply one man but the generic term for someone
outside the law. Practically ever county the length and breadth of
England had their own Robin Hood with the timespan of more than two
centuries.
Cheers
Guy

Tompkins, M.L. wrote:

According to Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland:
1205/6 Robert de Veteripont [with Richard de Beauchamp] has Custody of
Nottingham and Derby shires. Later sheriff of both until 1210, Pat


But aren't the Robin Hood stories set in the years 1190-94, when Richard
I was away on crusade or locked up in Austria and John was in rebellion
against his government in England (basing himself in Nottingham castle
much of the time)? I seem to remember that the stories usually end with
the deus ex machina of Richard returning and putting everything right.

Matt






--
Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts
not promises!
http://anguline.co.uk/ An organisation dedicated to bring rare books on CD, at an affordable price, to the local history researcher and to the family history researcher.

Bob Turcott

Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 17 jan 2006 18:27:02

see responce embedded below


From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: DNA - Can you enlighten?
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:51:18 EST


In a message dated 1/17/2006 6:42:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bobturcott@msn.com writes:

The dna you get from your mother is called mtdna and that can
be traced for your directed female line more about this subject can be
found
on http://www.familytreedna.com



*Part* of the DNA you get from your mother is called "mtDNA".
This sentence seems to imply all of it is so called, and that's not so.

"ok maybe part that can be identified to the female line, but perhaps
a referance to support your claim would help clarify further"?
Will Johnson


_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»