Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: OT When did it become legal to marry one's sister-in-law
In a message dated 2/7/2006 9:15:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,
katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com writes:
In Katherine's own lifetime people were still burned for the offense of
marrying a dead spouse's sibling, so it would seem that it really
wasn't considered universally cricket.
Can you explain then how it was that Henry VIII got away with it?
Thanks
Will Johnson
katheryn_swynford@yahoo.com writes:
In Katherine's own lifetime people were still burned for the offense of
marrying a dead spouse's sibling, so it would seem that it really
wasn't considered universally cricket.
Can you explain then how it was that Henry VIII got away with it?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name
In a message dated 2/7/2006 9:10:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
This is certainly a sensible (but not historically accurate) way to refer to
him since that's what he's commonly known as now, regardless of what his
contemporaries called him.
What did his contemporaries call him?
Should we continue to use nomenclature invented by Victorian, patriarchal
snobs when we could just call someone Geoffrey, Count of Anjou (or whatever he
was called)?
Will Johnson
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
This is certainly a sensible (but not historically accurate) way to refer to
him since that's what he's commonly known as now, regardless of what his
contemporaries called him.
What did his contemporaries call him?
Should we continue to use nomenclature invented by Victorian, patriarchal
snobs when we could just call someone Geoffrey, Count of Anjou (or whatever he
was called)?
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Hudleston [was: Clifford Confusion: Daughters of the 1st
In a message dated 2/7/2006 9:29:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
confuse the various John Hudlestons
and their wives. It lists the brothers Richard, John and William, but says
that they are sons of Sir John and Jane Stapleton. The younger Sir John
(one of the three brothers) is said to have mar. a FitzHugh daughter,
Whether this confuses or corrects would be a matter of presenting the
primary documents. We now see that the secondary references are in conflict.
Thanks for bringing this reference to our attention. I didn't source where I got
my information from.
Will Johnson
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
confuse the various John Hudlestons
and their wives. It lists the brothers Richard, John and William, but says
that they are sons of Sir John and Jane Stapleton. The younger Sir John
(one of the three brothers) is said to have mar. a FitzHugh daughter,
Whether this confuses or corrects would be a matter of presenting the
primary documents. We now see that the secondary references are in conflict.
Thanks for bringing this reference to our attention. I didn't source where I got
my information from.
Will Johnson
-
Brad Verity
Re: Hudleston [was: Clifford Confusion: Daughters of the 1st
Dear Will,
I've tried to send this to you privately, but it keeps coming back as
undeliverable. So I'll post it to the newsgroup.
Dear Will,
Not primary ones, which is why I'm seeking out further information on
the family. My main sources have been CP and various Huddleston family
websites.
CP, Vol. 7, p. 65, sub Ingham: "(2) Joan [Stapleton], who m. 1stly, Sir
Christopher Harcourt, s. of Sir Richard Harcourt (her stepfather), by
his 1st wife, Edith, da. and coh. of Thomas Seint Clere, of Legham and
Chalgrove; and 2ndly, Sir John Huddelstone, of Millom, Cumberland, who
d. 1 Jan. 1511/2. She, who left issue by both husbands, d. in May 1519
[footnote: Chart pedigree under FITZALAN, Barony by writ, and 'The
Stapletons of Yorkshire', p. 116.]
I haven't been able to find a death date for Sir Christopher Harcourt.
Anthony Huddleston, grandson of Sir John and Joan Stapleton, has this
to back him up (taken from a Huddleston Family Message Board posting):
C 1/1437/8-11 John HARCOURT and Francis STONER, knights, v. Anthony
HUDDELSTON, Mary his wife, and others.: Reviver of a suit on a
counterbond for a debt of Francis Barentyne, deceased, whose goods have
come to complainant's hands.: LONDON. 1556-1558
The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, (formerly PROCAT)
ANTHY HUDLESTONE Spouse: MARIE BARRANTINE Marriage: 1541 Great Haseley,
Oxford, England Record extracted from Oxfordshire Marriage Transcripts,
1538-1837, compiled by J. S. W. Gibson. (The index was based on the
groom index, film numbers 54,396 to 54,397.)
The other information in the post I made is taken from the research of
Annette Hudleston Harwood, which can be accessed here:
http://www.huddleston.bravepages.com/history/lines.html
She has done an impressive job in correcting some errors in the
pedigree that appear to have started as far back as the 1700s, but
there are a couple chronological complications, such as the Sir John
Huddleston of Millom/Joan Clifford first wife one I posted on.
So I want to verify her pedigree as much as possible with original
documents.
Cheers, ---------Brad
I've tried to send this to you privately, but it keeps coming back as
undeliverable. So I'll post it to the newsgroup.
Dear Will,
Not primary ones, which is why I'm seeking out further information on
the family. My main sources have been CP and various Huddleston family
websites.
CP, Vol. 7, p. 65, sub Ingham: "(2) Joan [Stapleton], who m. 1stly, Sir
Christopher Harcourt, s. of Sir Richard Harcourt (her stepfather), by
his 1st wife, Edith, da. and coh. of Thomas Seint Clere, of Legham and
Chalgrove; and 2ndly, Sir John Huddelstone, of Millom, Cumberland, who
d. 1 Jan. 1511/2. She, who left issue by both husbands, d. in May 1519
[footnote: Chart pedigree under FITZALAN, Barony by writ, and 'The
Stapletons of Yorkshire', p. 116.]
I haven't been able to find a death date for Sir Christopher Harcourt.
Anthony Huddleston, grandson of Sir John and Joan Stapleton, has this
to back him up (taken from a Huddleston Family Message Board posting):
C 1/1437/8-11 John HARCOURT and Francis STONER, knights, v. Anthony
HUDDELSTON, Mary his wife, and others.: Reviver of a suit on a
counterbond for a debt of Francis Barentyne, deceased, whose goods have
come to complainant's hands.: LONDON. 1556-1558
The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, (formerly PROCAT)
ANTHY HUDLESTONE Spouse: MARIE BARRANTINE Marriage: 1541 Great Haseley,
Oxford, England Record extracted from Oxfordshire Marriage Transcripts,
1538-1837, compiled by J. S. W. Gibson. (The index was based on the
groom index, film numbers 54,396 to 54,397.)
The other information in the post I made is taken from the research of
Annette Hudleston Harwood, which can be accessed here:
http://www.huddleston.bravepages.com/history/lines.html
She has done an impressive job in correcting some errors in the
pedigree that appear to have started as far back as the 1700s, but
there are a couple chronological complications, such as the Sir John
Huddleston of Millom/Joan Clifford first wife one I posted on.
So I want to verify her pedigree as much as possible with original
documents.
Cheers, ---------Brad
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Excellent question, Wil..
However, the Victorians did not create the problem. Difficulties with
nomenclature have existed as long as there have been historians and
genealogists interpreting primary records.
DR
Should we continue to use nomenclature invented by Victorian, patriarchal
snobs when we could just call someone Geoffrey, Count of Anjou (or whatever he
was called)?
Will Johnson
Excellent question, Wil..
However, the Victorians did not create the problem. Difficulties with
nomenclature have existed as long as there have been historians and
genealogists interpreting primary records.
DR
-
CED
Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Will:
The question I raised was not about Geoffrey, count of Anjou, the
father of Henry II. It was about Geoffrey, duke of Brittany, the son
of Henry II, whom Richardson calls "Geoffrey Plantagenet."
In normal parlance, the use of a surname where none ever existed maybe
acceptable; but in using an anachronistic surname as part of a source
reference (without explanation) is unprofessional and misleading. That
was the reason for raising the question.
Best wishes
CED
In a message dated 2/7/2006 9:10:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jthiggins@sbcglobal.net writes:
This is certainly a sensible (but not historically accurate) way to refer to
him since that's what he's commonly known as now, regardless of what his
contemporaries called him.
What did his contemporaries call him?
Should we continue to use nomenclature invented by Victorian, patriarchal
snobs when we could just call someone Geoffrey, Count of Anjou (or whatever he
was called)?
Will:
The question I raised was not about Geoffrey, count of Anjou, the
father of Henry II. It was about Geoffrey, duke of Brittany, the son
of Henry II, whom Richardson calls "Geoffrey Plantagenet."
In normal parlance, the use of a surname where none ever existed maybe
acceptable; but in using an anachronistic surname as part of a source
reference (without explanation) is unprofessional and misleading. That
was the reason for raising the question.
Best wishes
CED
Will Johnson
-
Brad Verity
Re: Death Date of Sir Ralph Bowes of Streatlam
Maytree4@aol.com wrote:
Thank you for this, Rose. Is this work on the Bowes by Ms. Newman
available to purchase?
Cheers, ---------Brad
According to "The Bowes of Streatlam" by Christine M Newman, Durham County
Local History Society 1999 - its 1512
Thank you for this, Rose. Is this work on the Bowes by Ms. Newman
available to purchase?
Cheers, ---------Brad
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: Hudleston [was: Clifford Confusion: Daughters of the 1st
Another possibility is to look at the papers of C. Roy Hudleston which are
deposited at Durham University - they might, at least, contain a list of
primary sources.
Chris
deposited at Durham University - they might, at least, contain a list of
primary sources.
Chris
-
Gjest
Re: Hudleston [was: Clifford Confusion: Daughters of the 1st
Brad Verity wrote:
Dear Brad,
This rang a bell, although perhaps it's slightly irrelevent... The
pedigree of the Bennet(t)s, later Earls of Arlington, includes the
marriage of Thomas Bennet of Clapcot, Wallingford, Berks to Anne,
'daughter of Sir Michael Molines of Mackney' in the same county. This
Sir Michael Molines married, as his first wife, Frances, daughter of
the above Anthony Hudleston (1518-1598: supposedly) by Mary, daughter
of Sir William Barentyne of Hasely, Oxon. They had a son, Barentyne
Molines (fl.1625), and other issue (see visitation of Berks). However,
looking at the Bennett pedigree as a whole, it seems chronologically
impossible that Thomas Bennet could have married a daughter of this
union- just possibly it was a sister of Sir Michael instead. In case it
is of use later!
-Matthew
Anthony Huddleston, grandson of Sir John and Joan Stapleton, has this
to back him up (taken from a Huddleston Family Message Board posting):
C 1/1437/8-11 John HARCOURT and Francis STONER, knights, v. Anthony
HUDDELSTON, Mary his wife, and others.: Reviver of a suit on a
counterbond for a debt of Francis Barentyne, deceased, whose goods have
come to complainant's hands.: LONDON. 1556-1558
The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, (formerly PROCAT)
ANTHY HUDLESTONE Spouse: MARIE BARRANTINE Marriage: 1541 Great Haseley,
Oxford, England Record extracted from Oxfordshire Marriage Transcripts,
1538-1837, compiled by J. S. W. Gibson. (The index was based on the
groom index, film numbers 54,396 to 54,397.)
Dear Brad,
This rang a bell, although perhaps it's slightly irrelevent... The
pedigree of the Bennet(t)s, later Earls of Arlington, includes the
marriage of Thomas Bennet of Clapcot, Wallingford, Berks to Anne,
'daughter of Sir Michael Molines of Mackney' in the same county. This
Sir Michael Molines married, as his first wife, Frances, daughter of
the above Anthony Hudleston (1518-1598: supposedly) by Mary, daughter
of Sir William Barentyne of Hasely, Oxon. They had a son, Barentyne
Molines (fl.1625), and other issue (see visitation of Berks). However,
looking at the Bennett pedigree as a whole, it seems chronologically
impossible that Thomas Bennet could have married a daughter of this
union- just possibly it was a sister of Sir Michael instead. In case it
is of use later!
-Matthew
-
Gjest
Re: OT When did it become legal to marry one's sister-in-law
Katheryn_Swynford schrieb:
At the risk of prolonging what had become a rather OT thread, let's get
the basics right.
Marriages between closely related parties were actually *prohibited*
under so-called Levitical law, as enunciated in the Old Testament book
of Leviticus. In particular, Leviticus Chapter 18, verse 16 prohibited
a relationship with "thy brother's wife". This is repeated in Chapter
20, verse 21 which states "If a man shall take his brother's wife, it
is an unclean thing...; they shall be childless." This applied to all,
not just to the tribe of Levi or the priesthood - it was a general
prohibition. This (particularly the second text, which you will note
threatens such relationships with barrenness) formed the basis of Henry
VIII's scriptural objection to his marriage with Catherine of Aragon.
This is to be contrasted with a second text, which supported
Catherine's position; it relates to an exhortation that a man marry the
widow of his childless brother, known (confusingly) as a "levirate
marriage". The text is Deuteronomy, Chapter 25, verse 5:
"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child,
the wife of the dead [man] shall not marry without [i.e. outside the
family] unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her,
and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's
brother unto her".
These positions appear mutually exclusive, giving plenty of room for
the arguing that went on between 1527 and 1533.
MAR
But that's only for Levites, not all of humanity. The intention is the
continuity of the Levitical line IIRC. It is to continue the dead
brother's religious patrimony. The children are to be raised as those
of the dead brother's rather than your own.
And, yes, the law was almost certainly known at the time: Katharine of
Aragon I believe noted in her response to the divorce court that the
Levitical law didn't apply to Christians.
Anybody?
At the risk of prolonging what had become a rather OT thread, let's get
the basics right.
Marriages between closely related parties were actually *prohibited*
under so-called Levitical law, as enunciated in the Old Testament book
of Leviticus. In particular, Leviticus Chapter 18, verse 16 prohibited
a relationship with "thy brother's wife". This is repeated in Chapter
20, verse 21 which states "If a man shall take his brother's wife, it
is an unclean thing...; they shall be childless." This applied to all,
not just to the tribe of Levi or the priesthood - it was a general
prohibition. This (particularly the second text, which you will note
threatens such relationships with barrenness) formed the basis of Henry
VIII's scriptural objection to his marriage with Catherine of Aragon.
This is to be contrasted with a second text, which supported
Catherine's position; it relates to an exhortation that a man marry the
widow of his childless brother, known (confusingly) as a "levirate
marriage". The text is Deuteronomy, Chapter 25, verse 5:
"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child,
the wife of the dead [man] shall not marry without [i.e. outside the
family] unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her,
and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's
brother unto her".
These positions appear mutually exclusive, giving plenty of room for
the arguing that went on between 1527 and 1533.
MAR
-
John Higgins
Re: Death Date of Sir Ralph Bowes of Streatlam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Death Date of Sir Ralph Bowes of Streatlam
Check out http://www.durhamweb.org.uk/dclhs/OCCAS ... APERS.HTML
From: "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Death Date of Sir Ralph Bowes of Streatlam
Maytree4@aol.com wrote:
According to "The Bowes of Streatlam" by Christine M Newman, Durham
County
Local History Society 1999 - its 1512
Thank you for this, Rose. Is this work on the Bowes by Ms. Newman
available to purchase?
Cheers, ---------Brad
Check out http://www.durhamweb.org.uk/dclhs/OCCAS ... APERS.HTML
-
Denis Beauregard
Re: Triboulet and Ruspini families
Le Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:30:27 +0000 (UTC), cannalonga@email.it ("MLS")
écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:
What time ? If not medieval, the relevant newsgroup is
news:soc.genealogy.french if you don't speak French.
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)
écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:
Did someone can help me on researching about the
TRIBOULET family, from Reims, France
And also the RUSPINI family, Italian, but also originated from France?
What time ? If not medieval, the relevant newsgroup is
news:soc.genealogy.french if you don't speak French.
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)
-
Gjest
Re: Eudes, Count/Duke of Brittany & his son, Eudes Fitz Coun
In a message dated 2/7/06 12:05:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, leesmyth@cox.net
writes:
<< If Richardson has private e-mails which threaten him, these are
probably actionable at law. >>
The only problem being that you have to show that a reasonable person would
have a reasonable apprehension of the possibility that the threat could be
carried out.
If I say I'm going to kill you with a plastic soup spoon or by uttering a
curse, a reasonable person should not be afraid. At least I would hope not.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< If Richardson has private e-mails which threaten him, these are
probably actionable at law. >>
The only problem being that you have to show that a reasonable person would
have a reasonable apprehension of the possibility that the threat could be
carried out.
If I say I'm going to kill you with a plastic soup spoon or by uttering a
curse, a reasonable person should not be afraid. At least I would hope not.
Will Johnson
-
CED
Re: Eudes, Count/Duke of Brittany & his son, Eudes Fitz Coun
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Will:
The Congress has made new law concerning the internet. I do not know
what those politicians have done; but I understand that threats of
bodily harm are covered. At any rate, if a "reasonable person would
have a reasonable apprehension of the possibility that the threat could
be carried out," may disqualify any threat because Richardson's being a
reasonable person would have to be proved. I do not think, that after
his actions of the past few weeks, one could prove him to be
reasonable.
CED
In a message dated 2/7/06 12:05:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, leesmyth@cox.net
writes:
If Richardson has private e-mails which threaten him, these are
probably actionable at law.
The only problem being that you have to show that a .
If I say I'm going to kill you with a plastic soup spoon or by uttering a
curse, a reasonable person should not be afraid. At least I would hope not.
Will:
The Congress has made new law concerning the internet. I do not know
what those politicians have done; but I understand that threats of
bodily harm are covered. At any rate, if a "reasonable person would
have a reasonable apprehension of the possibility that the threat could
be carried out," may disqualify any threat because Richardson's being a
reasonable person would have to be proved. I do not think, that after
his actions of the past few weeks, one could prove him to be
reasonable.
CED
Will Johnson
-
W David Samuelsen
Re: Removed Posts
<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-02/1139357334>
Tim Powys-Lybbe,
The only posts Rootsweb will remove are the ones that are truly
offending or truly sp*ams.
W. David Samuelsen, owner of more than 17 lists (some dating back to 1995).
Tim Powys-Lybbe,
The only posts Rootsweb will remove are the ones that are truly
offending or truly sp*ams.
W. David Samuelsen, owner of more than 17 lists (some dating back to 1995).
-
Katheryn_Swynford
Re: OT When did it become legal to marry one's sister-in-law
A much better explication than that which I offered!
Thanks!
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
Thanks!
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
-
Katheryn_Swynford
Re: OT When did it become legal to marry one's sister-in-law
This is an entirely different question, although I would love to hear
the input of those more learned, especially with relevant case studies
from which we may learn.
Henry VIII "got away with" rather alot that was not canonical but still
(in modern eyes at least) illegal/unusual/unfortunate... (married
repeatedly, even while previous spouses were alive, judicially murdered
non-producing spouses, had his legal heiresses, one at a time
sometimes, disinherited, etc.)
H A Kelly argues persuasively that marriage to one's dead spouse's
sibling was canonically uncool in the medieval period.
Did you read the article? Do you find fault with it? I'd be
interested in how you'd contest the findings of the article.
The other article I cited shows that people were indeed burned for the
offense. It cites contemporary language of the judicial authority that
would seem to indicate that such unions were socially abhorent. I found
it entirely by accident but found the story compelling.
Did you read the article? Is this an unusual circumstance?
It's not that exceptions didn't exist (for instance, I found an
intriguing case -- for me at least -- of a brother, long separated
from a much-younger sister, returning to the fold only to initiate a
long-term sexual relationship with that sister that he repeatedly
sought to have legitimized (it is from a title that is, if not exactly,
something like: Tales from the Marriage Bed).
But when influential men like John of Gaunt seriously worried about the
possibility of eternal damnation of his soul because he neglected to
mention that he was the godfather to a daughter of Katherine Swynford,
the women he finally wished to marry, and have their previous offspring
legitimated, because it was a prohibited degree of relationship, it
would seem that H A Kelly may be on the right track when he notes that
an even closer degree of being related to the sibling of one's dead
spouse may have been considered similarly, if not more damnably,
related.
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
the input of those more learned, especially with relevant case studies
from which we may learn.
Henry VIII "got away with" rather alot that was not canonical but still
(in modern eyes at least) illegal/unusual/unfortunate... (married
repeatedly, even while previous spouses were alive, judicially murdered
non-producing spouses, had his legal heiresses, one at a time
sometimes, disinherited, etc.)
H A Kelly argues persuasively that marriage to one's dead spouse's
sibling was canonically uncool in the medieval period.
Did you read the article? Do you find fault with it? I'd be
interested in how you'd contest the findings of the article.
The other article I cited shows that people were indeed burned for the
offense. It cites contemporary language of the judicial authority that
would seem to indicate that such unions were socially abhorent. I found
it entirely by accident but found the story compelling.
Did you read the article? Is this an unusual circumstance?
It's not that exceptions didn't exist (for instance, I found an
intriguing case -- for me at least -- of a brother, long separated
from a much-younger sister, returning to the fold only to initiate a
long-term sexual relationship with that sister that he repeatedly
sought to have legitimized (it is from a title that is, if not exactly,
something like: Tales from the Marriage Bed).
But when influential men like John of Gaunt seriously worried about the
possibility of eternal damnation of his soul because he neglected to
mention that he was the godfather to a daughter of Katherine Swynford,
the women he finally wished to marry, and have their previous offspring
legitimated, because it was a prohibited degree of relationship, it
would seem that H A Kelly may be on the right track when he notes that
an even closer degree of being related to the sibling of one's dead
spouse may have been considered similarly, if not more damnably,
related.
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
-
Gjest
Re: OT When did it become legal to marry one's sister-in-law
Katheryn_Swynford wrote:
You are very welcome.
A much better explication than that which I offered!
Thanks!
Judy
You are very welcome.
-
MLS
RE: Triboulet and Ruspini families
Dear Denis, thanks for your suggestions.
I'm not so sure that can be "medieval" families, to be honest.. I'll
post on the newsgroop you told me. Je parle français aussi. Est que il y
à d'autres groupes ou je pourrais essayer? Merci
Many thanks
Marco
-----Original Message-----
From: Denis Beauregard [mailto:no@nospam.com.invalid]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:21 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Triboulet and Ruspini families
Le Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:30:27 +0000 (UTC), cannalonga@email.it ("MLS")
écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:
What time ? If not medieval, the relevant newsgroup is
news:soc.genealogy.french if you don't speak French.
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:
Prestiti Online. Scopri subito se sei finanziabile. in 24 ore senza spese né anticipi, clicca qui
*
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid)08&d‚
I'm not so sure that can be "medieval" families, to be honest.. I'll
post on the newsgroop you told me. Je parle français aussi. Est que il y
à d'autres groupes ou je pourrais essayer? Merci
Many thanks
Marco
-----Original Message-----
From: Denis Beauregard [mailto:no@nospam.com.invalid]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 4:21 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Triboulet and Ruspini families
Le Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:30:27 +0000 (UTC), cannalonga@email.it ("MLS")
écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:
Did someone can help me on researching about the
TRIBOULET family, from Reims, France
And also the RUSPINI family, Italian, but also originated from France?
What time ? If not medieval, the relevant newsgroup is
news:soc.genealogy.french if you don't speak French.
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:
Prestiti Online. Scopri subito se sei finanziabile. in 24 ore senza spese né anticipi, clicca qui
*
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid)08&d‚
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Removed Posts
W David Samuelsen wrote:
Incorrect. They will ruthlessly remove even the most innocuous
posts containing the dread and feared acronym "DNA" from surname
lists. Of course, that does not apply to newsgroup gateways.
Doug McDonald
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1139357334
Tim Powys-Lybbe,
The only posts Rootsweb will remove are the ones that are truly
offending or truly sp*ams.
Incorrect. They will ruthlessly remove even the most innocuous
posts containing the dread and feared acronym "DNA" from surname
lists. Of course, that does not apply to newsgroup gateways.
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: Removed Posts
In a message dated 2/8/2006 6:51:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
Incorrect. They will ruthlessly remove even the most innocuous
posts containing the dread and feared acronym "DNA" from surname
lists. Of course, that does not apply to newsgroup gateways.
And Rootsweb's zealous commitment to own laziness means their admins are
givin virtually unchallenged power to remove any post they want, and/or to
screen any post they want. The policing of this fascictic power is non-existent,
which makes *this* list many times better than any other I'm a member and not
an admin on.
Will Johnson
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
Incorrect. They will ruthlessly remove even the most innocuous
posts containing the dread and feared acronym "DNA" from surname
lists. Of course, that does not apply to newsgroup gateways.
And Rootsweb's zealous commitment to own laziness means their admins are
givin virtually unchallenged power to remove any post they want, and/or to
screen any post they want. The policing of this fascictic power is non-existent,
which makes *this* list many times better than any other I'm a member and not
an admin on.
Will Johnson
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Removed Posts
In message of 8 Feb, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
Does it look like I wrote the sentence before this? Possibly. Anyway
I didn't!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1139357334
Tim Powys-Lybbe,
The only posts Rootsweb will remove are the ones that are truly
offending or truly sp*ams.
Does it look like I wrote the sentence before this? Possibly. Anyway
I didn't!
Incorrect. They will ruthlessly remove even the most innocuous
posts containing the dread and feared acronym "DNA" from surname
lists. Of course, that does not apply to newsgroup gateways.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
W David Samuelsen
Re: Removed Posts
<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-02/1139412405>
Will Johnson,
No post can be removed by Rootsweb staff beyond offensive and spammer ones.
Only the original posters can authorize removal of their own
non-compliant posts. It's a two-step procedure. I have been there and
done that.
DNA posts as a general rule aren't removed. Of course, there are few
overzealous list-admins including one I've clashed with because of her
steadyfast refuse to let any discussion concerning anything NOT related
to HER website (not the mailing list, ok?). Not even negative ones. It
is a wonder her list is a "dead" list. DNA discussions are up to each
list-admin.
W. David Samuelsen
Will Johnson,
No post can be removed by Rootsweb staff beyond offensive and spammer ones.
Only the original posters can authorize removal of their own
non-compliant posts. It's a two-step procedure. I have been there and
done that.
DNA posts as a general rule aren't removed. Of course, there are few
overzealous list-admins including one I've clashed with because of her
steadyfast refuse to let any discussion concerning anything NOT related
to HER website (not the mailing list, ok?). Not even negative ones. It
is a wonder her list is a "dead" list. DNA discussions are up to each
list-admin.
W. David Samuelsen
-
W David Samuelsen
Re: Removed Posts
<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-02/1139409900>
I admin several Surname lists and they aren't removed by Rootsweb. Only
by the overzealous list-admins who are uptight about their own rules for
their lists.
I allow the discussion of DNA matters on MY lists I admin. I have YET to
receive any request from Rootsweb to curb it if any. The discussions if
they show up, they had been very polite and civil. Rootsweb has been
very clear about ONE thing - don't let it blow up.
W. David Samuelsen
I admin several Surname lists and they aren't removed by Rootsweb. Only
by the overzealous list-admins who are uptight about their own rules for
their lists.
I allow the discussion of DNA matters on MY lists I admin. I have YET to
receive any request from Rootsweb to curb it if any. The discussions if
they show up, they had been very polite and civil. Rootsweb has been
very clear about ONE thing - don't let it blow up.
W. David Samuelsen
-
W David Samuelsen
Re: Gournay or Gournai
<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-02/1139395710>
Found my answer elsewhere. It is Gournay in French
Gournay, Indre, Centre, France
Gournay-en-Bray, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-le-Guérin, Eure, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-Loize, Deux-Sevres, Poitou-Charentes, France
Gournay-sur-Aronde, Oise, Picardy, France
Gournay-sur-Marne, Seine-Saint-Denis, Ile-de-France, France
Gournay, Pas-de-Calais, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France
Gournay, Seine-Maritime, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-sur-Aronde, Oise, Picardy, France
The only question remaining, which one of these did Hugues de Gournay
came from?
W. David Samuelsen
Found my answer elsewhere. It is Gournay in French
Gournay, Indre, Centre, France
Gournay-en-Bray, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-le-Guérin, Eure, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-Loize, Deux-Sevres, Poitou-Charentes, France
Gournay-sur-Aronde, Oise, Picardy, France
Gournay-sur-Marne, Seine-Saint-Denis, Ile-de-France, France
Gournay, Pas-de-Calais, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France
Gournay, Seine-Maritime, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-sur-Aronde, Oise, Picardy, France
The only question remaining, which one of these did Hugues de Gournay
came from?
W. David Samuelsen
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Gournay or Gournai
Dear David,
Assuming you are referring to the family that held Caister in
Norfolk, and Mapledurham in Oxfordshire, the answer is:
Gournay-en-Bray.
As to the department, I have seen it listed as
"Seine-Inferieure", so am not certain that 'Haut-Normandie" would be
correct.
Cheers,
John
W David Samuelsen wrote:
Assuming you are referring to the family that held Caister in
Norfolk, and Mapledurham in Oxfordshire, the answer is:
Gournay-en-Bray.
As to the department, I have seen it listed as
"Seine-Inferieure", so am not certain that 'Haut-Normandie" would be
correct.
Cheers,
John
W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-02/1139395710
Found my answer elsewhere. It is Gournay in French
Gournay, Indre, Centre, France
Gournay-en-Bray, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-le-Guérin, Eure, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-Loize, Deux-Sevres, Poitou-Charentes, France
Gournay-sur-Aronde, Oise, Picardy, France
Gournay-sur-Marne, Seine-Saint-Denis, Ile-de-France, France
Gournay, Pas-de-Calais, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France
Gournay, Seine-Maritime, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-sur-Aronde, Oise, Picardy, France
The only question remaining, which one of these did Hugues de Gournay
came from?
W. David Samuelsen
-
Gjest
Re: Removed Posts
In a message dated 2/8/2006 9:17:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dsam@sampubco.com writes:
I admin several Surname lists and they aren't removed by Rootsweb. Only
by the overzealous list-admins who are uptight about their own rules for
their lists.
But that is what I'm saying. Rootsweb *staff* is so utterly lazy and
complacent that we basically have to launch a full-scale war to get them to do
anything about Nazi admins. As you can tell, I can be outspoken and too many
admins take *ANY* conflict at all, about anything, as a reason to suppress you.
Is this America or a Soviet Gulag? That's what I ask you. Rootsweb are you
listening?
nope.
Will Johnson
dsam@sampubco.com writes:
I admin several Surname lists and they aren't removed by Rootsweb. Only
by the overzealous list-admins who are uptight about their own rules for
their lists.
But that is what I'm saying. Rootsweb *staff* is so utterly lazy and
complacent that we basically have to launch a full-scale war to get them to do
anything about Nazi admins. As you can tell, I can be outspoken and too many
admins take *ANY* conflict at all, about anything, as a reason to suppress you.
Is this America or a Soviet Gulag? That's what I ask you. Rootsweb are you
listening?
Will Johnson
-
Kelly
Re: Gournay or Gournai
Gournay-en-Bray is in Seine-Maritime (used to be Seine-Inférieure)
http://www.gournay-en-bray.fr/
--
Kelly
"John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1139420383.024868.281250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear David,
Assuming you are referring to the family that held Caister in
Norfolk, and Mapledurham in Oxfordshire, the answer is:
Gournay-en-Bray.
As to the department, I have seen it listed as
"Seine-Inferieure", so am not certain that 'Haut-Normandie" would be
correct.
Cheers,
John
W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://www.gournay-en-bray.fr/
--
Kelly
"John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1139420383.024868.281250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear David,
Assuming you are referring to the family that held Caister in
Norfolk, and Mapledurham in Oxfordshire, the answer is:
Gournay-en-Bray.
As to the department, I have seen it listed as
"Seine-Inferieure", so am not certain that 'Haut-Normandie" would be
correct.
Cheers,
John
W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-02/1139395710
Found my answer elsewhere. It is Gournay in French
Gournay, Indre, Centre, France
Gournay-en-Bray, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-le-Guérin, Eure, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-Loize, Deux-Sevres, Poitou-Charentes, France
Gournay-sur-Aronde, Oise, Picardy, France
Gournay-sur-Marne, Seine-Saint-Denis, Ile-de-France, France
Gournay, Pas-de-Calais, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France
Gournay, Seine-Maritime, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-sur-Aronde, Oise, Picardy, France
The only question remaining, which one of these did Hugues de Gournay
came from?
W. David Samuelsen
-
Concetta
Re: John Needham, b. 1575 of Syston, Leicestershire
Matt,
That does bring up some interesting news. Perhaps there were 2 John
Needhams and they are getting entertwined. The family I have moving to
Queniborough in 1733, so its possible.
I shall have to start searching for the books you recommended and
laying it out from there.
Thanks!
Concetta
That does bring up some interesting news. Perhaps there were 2 John
Needhams and they are getting entertwined. The family I have moving to
Queniborough in 1733, so its possible.
I shall have to start searching for the books you recommended and
laying it out from there.
Thanks!
Concetta
-
CE Wood
Re: Gournay or Gournai
Per Getty Thesaurus of Geographical Names Online:
Hierarchical Position:
World (facet)
Europe (continent)
France (nation)
Haute-Normandie (region)
Seine-Maritime, Département de la (department)
Gournay-en-Bray (inhabited place)
CE Wood
Kelly wrote:
Hierarchical Position:
World (facet)
Europe (continent)
France (nation)
Haute-Normandie (region)
Seine-Maritime, Département de la (department)
Gournay-en-Bray (inhabited place)
CE Wood
Kelly wrote:
Gournay-en-Bray is in Seine-Maritime (used to be Seine-Inférieure)
http://www.gournay-en-bray.fr/
--
Kelly
"John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1139420383.024868.281250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dear David,
Assuming you are referring to the family that held Caister in
Norfolk, and Mapledurham in Oxfordshire, the answer is:
Gournay-en-Bray.
As to the department, I have seen it listed as
"Seine-Inferieure", so am not certain that 'Haut-Normandie" would be
correct.
Cheers,
John
W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1139395710
Found my answer elsewhere. It is Gournay in French
Gournay, Indre, Centre, France
Gournay-en-Bray, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-le-Guérin, Eure, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-Loize, Deux-Sevres, Poitou-Charentes, France
Gournay-sur-Aronde, Oise, Picardy, France
Gournay-sur-Marne, Seine-Saint-Denis, Ile-de-France, France
Gournay, Pas-de-Calais, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France
Gournay, Seine-Maritime, Haut-Normandie, France
Gournay-sur-Aronde, Oise, Picardy, France
The only question remaining, which one of these did Hugues de Gournay
came from?
W. David Samuelsen
-
Gjest
Re: the era of medieval
In a message dated 2/8/06 12:35:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
chris@dickinson.uk.net writes:
<< I think a good date for Europe is 1453 (Fall of Constantinople, printing
press, end of 100 Years War). English historians and text books might put it
at the start of the Tudors.
You mean when did it start Chris?
Since I presume "late medieval" is the last phase of "medieval" than it would
start in 1450 and end about 1660 at the restoration ?
Will
chris@dickinson.uk.net writes:
<< I think a good date for Europe is 1453 (Fall of Constantinople, printing
press, end of 100 Years War). English historians and text books might put it
at the start of the Tudors.
You mean when did it start Chris?
Since I presume "late medieval" is the last phase of "medieval" than it would
start in 1450 and end about 1660 at the restoration ?
Will
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Removed Posts
W David Samuelsen wrote:
Absolutely incorrect. They can and DO ruthlessly remove posts
containing the word "DNA" from mailing lists and discussion groups
without permission and indeed with the emphatic disapproval of
the list owner.
Not entirely.
Doug McDonald
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1139412405
Will Johnson,
No post can be removed by Rootsweb staff beyond offensive and spammer ones.
Absolutely incorrect. They can and DO ruthlessly remove posts
containing the word "DNA" from mailing lists and discussion groups
without permission and indeed with the emphatic disapproval of
the list owner.
DNA posts as a general rule aren't removed. Of course, there are few
overzealous list-admins including one I've clashed with because of her
steadyfast refuse to let any discussion concerning anything NOT related
to HER website (not the mailing list, ok?). Not even negative ones. It
is a wonder her list is a "dead" list. DNA discussions are up to each
list-admin.
Not entirely.
Doug McDonald
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Removed Posts
W David Samuelsen wrote:
They are less picky about mailing lists than about discussion
groups. (Non-gatewayed, of course.)
Doug McDonald
I admin several Surname lists and they aren't removed by Rootsweb. Only
by the overzealous list-admins who are uptight about their own rules for
their lists.
I allow the discussion of DNA matters on MY lists I admin.
They are less picky about mailing lists than about discussion
groups. (Non-gatewayed, of course.)
Doug McDonald
-
the_verminator@comcast.ne
Re: Removed Posts
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Freedom of Speech does NOT mean others are required to give you a
platform and a microphone.
Individual list admins can enforce whatever rules they like - as can
Rootsweb itself.
--
The Verminator
In a message dated 2/8/2006 9:17:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dsam@sampubco.com writes:
I admin several Surname lists and they aren't removed by Rootsweb. Only
by the overzealous list-admins who are uptight about their own rules for
their lists.
But that is what I'm saying. Rootsweb *staff* is so utterly lazy and
complacent that we basically have to launch a full-scale war to get them to do
anything about Nazi admins. As you can tell, I can be outspoken and too many
admins take *ANY* conflict at all, about anything, as a reason to suppress you.
Is this America or a Soviet Gulag? That's what I ask you. Rootsweb are you
listening?nope.
Will Johnson
Freedom of Speech does NOT mean others are required to give you a
platform and a microphone.
Individual list admins can enforce whatever rules they like - as can
Rootsweb itself.
--
The Verminator
-
Gjest
Re: Removed Posts
In a message dated 2/8/06 4:20:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
the_verminator@comcast.net writes:
<< Freedom of Speech does NOT mean others are required to give you a
platform and a microphone.
Individual list admins can enforce whatever rules they like - as can
Rootsweb itself. >>
So you're saying an individual admin can say ban someone because they are
black? Or Jewish? The admins have free reign to ban anyone for any reason and
rootsweb does nothing to stop it.
the_verminator@comcast.net writes:
<< Freedom of Speech does NOT mean others are required to give you a
platform and a microphone.
Individual list admins can enforce whatever rules they like - as can
Rootsweb itself. >>
So you're saying an individual admin can say ban someone because they are
black? Or Jewish? The admins have free reign to ban anyone for any reason and
rootsweb does nothing to stop it.
-
the_verminator@comcast.ne
Re: Removed Posts
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
More or less. When you join Rootsweb you agree to their terms of
service- one of which is to abide by the rules of the list-admins.
Freedom of Speech does NOT give a person the right to mouth off
anywhere they want at any time they want on any subject they want - and
it never has.
--
The Verminator
In a message dated 2/8/06 4:20:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
the_verminator@comcast.net writes:
Freedom of Speech does NOT mean others are required to give you a
platform and a microphone.
Individual list admins can enforce whatever rules they like - as can
Rootsweb itself.
So you're saying an individual admin can say ban someone because they are
black? Or Jewish? The admins have free reign to ban anyone for any reason and
rootsweb does nothing to stop it.
More or less. When you join Rootsweb you agree to their terms of
service- one of which is to abide by the rules of the list-admins.
Freedom of Speech does NOT give a person the right to mouth off
anywhere they want at any time they want on any subject they want - and
it never has.
--
The Verminator
-
Gjest
Re: Removed Posts
In a message dated 2/8/06 6:35:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
the_verminator@comcast.net writes:
<< More or less. When you join Rootsweb you agree to their terms of
service- one of which is to abide by the rules of the list-admins.
Freedom of Speech does NOT give a person the right to mouth off
anywhere they want at any time they want on any subject they want - and
it never has. >>
What rules? Rootsweb doesn't and never had tried to make the admins obey the
rules.
Basically they wait until we start a war before they will do anything at all.
Will Johnson
the_verminator@comcast.net writes:
<< More or less. When you join Rootsweb you agree to their terms of
service- one of which is to abide by the rules of the list-admins.
Freedom of Speech does NOT give a person the right to mouth off
anywhere they want at any time they want on any subject they want - and
it never has. >>
What rules? Rootsweb doesn't and never had tried to make the admins obey the
rules.
Basically they wait until we start a war before they will do anything at all.
Will Johnson
-
the_verminator@comcast.ne
Re: Removed Posts
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
These rules:
http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html
Also see the application for Admin of mailinglists (bottom of form
where Admin agrees to abide by the AUP.
--
The Verminator
In a message dated 2/8/06 6:35:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
the_verminator@comcast.net writes:
More or less. When you join Rootsweb you agree to their terms of
service- one of which is to abide by the rules of the list-admins.
Freedom of Speech does NOT give a person the right to mouth off
anywhere they want at any time they want on any subject they want - and
it never has.
What rules? Rootsweb doesn't and never had tried to make the admins obey the
rules.
Basically they wait until we start a war before they will do anything at all.
Will Johnson
These rules:
http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html
Also see the application for Admin of mailinglists (bottom of form
where Admin agrees to abide by the AUP.
--
The Verminator
-
Gjest
Re: Removed Posts
In a message dated 2/8/06 7:35:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
the_verminator@comcast.net writes:
<< Also see the application for Admin of mailinglists (bottom of form
where Admin agrees to abide by the AUP. >>
You're not paying any attention.
My question was rhetorical. Rootsweb never has tried to determine whether
their admins are actually obeying any rules or not. The point isn't whether
Rootsweb has rules, the point is they make little attempt to enforce them. If
any sort of egregious behaviour is brought to their attention, they ignore it,
or they pooh-pooh it until an all-out war is launched.
Will Johnson
the_verminator@comcast.net writes:
<< Also see the application for Admin of mailinglists (bottom of form
where Admin agrees to abide by the AUP. >>
You're not paying any attention.
My question was rhetorical. Rootsweb never has tried to determine whether
their admins are actually obeying any rules or not. The point isn't whether
Rootsweb has rules, the point is they make little attempt to enforce them. If
any sort of egregious behaviour is brought to their attention, they ignore it,
or they pooh-pooh it until an all-out war is launched.
Will Johnson
-
Ford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: Removed Posts
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Removed Posts
|
| What rules? Rootsweb doesn't and never had tried to make the admins obey the
| rules.
| Basically they wait until we start a war before they will do anything at all.
| Will Johnson
|
Witness the fiasco that occured when that-woman-whose-name-I've'forgotten was put in charge of Gen-Ancient. It took two months of complaints from several sources, and the withdrawal of a good chunk of the subscribers, (many of whom have since returned), plus the formation of an alternate list at Yahoo. Unfortunately, the list at Yahoo has drained most of the participation from Gen-Ancient, and divided the communal discussion to the point, (since RootsWeb will not gate the two, [four, actually]), of asking RW to dissolve the list.
The other two lists which I set-up at RW are, for all intents and purposes, dead.
They seem to have slit their own PR throats.
Ford MB
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: Removed Posts
|
| What rules? Rootsweb doesn't and never had tried to make the admins obey the
| rules.
| Basically they wait until we start a war before they will do anything at all.
| Will Johnson
|
Witness the fiasco that occured when that-woman-whose-name-I've'forgotten was put in charge of Gen-Ancient. It took two months of complaints from several sources, and the withdrawal of a good chunk of the subscribers, (many of whom have since returned), plus the formation of an alternate list at Yahoo. Unfortunately, the list at Yahoo has drained most of the participation from Gen-Ancient, and divided the communal discussion to the point, (since RootsWeb will not gate the two, [four, actually]), of asking RW to dissolve the list.
The other two lists which I set-up at RW are, for all intents and purposes, dead.
They seem to have slit their own PR throats.
Ford MB
-
Tompkins, M.L.
RE: the era of medieval
<<Since I presume "late medieval" is the last phase of "medieval" than
it would start in 1450 and end about 1660 at the restoration ?
Will>>
1660?!! Not in this universe.
The middle ages didn't come to a sudden end in any year, of course, but
they are conventionally reckoned to have ended some time around 1500 (in
the context of English history - on the Continent earlier dates are
often used). 1485 has often been used as a convenient date (Bosworth,
end of the Wars of the Roses, advent of the Tudors), though recently it
has become common among social and economic historians, if not political
ones, to see the medieval period as extending into the early 16C - the
1520s are often mentioned.
The late medieval period is generally regarded as covering broadly the
14th and 15th centuries.
1660 is closer to the end of the early modern period, which is generally
taken as being roughly the 16th and 17th centuries.
Matt Tompkins
it would start in 1450 and end about 1660 at the restoration ?
Will>>
1660?!! Not in this universe.
The middle ages didn't come to a sudden end in any year, of course, but
they are conventionally reckoned to have ended some time around 1500 (in
the context of English history - on the Continent earlier dates are
often used). 1485 has often been used as a convenient date (Bosworth,
end of the Wars of the Roses, advent of the Tudors), though recently it
has become common among social and economic historians, if not political
ones, to see the medieval period as extending into the early 16C - the
1520s are often mentioned.
The late medieval period is generally regarded as covering broadly the
14th and 15th centuries.
1660 is closer to the end of the early modern period, which is generally
taken as being roughly the 16th and 17th centuries.
Matt Tompkins
-
Gjest
Re: the era of medieval
In a message dated 2/9/2006 12:39:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mllt1@leicester.ac.uk writes:
1660?!! Not in this universe.
The middle ages didn't come to a sudden end in any year, of course, but
they are conventionally reckoned to have ended some time around 1500 (in
the context of English history - on the Continent earlier dates are
often used). 1485
In fact we had this discussion on this list a short while ago. And are we
to read "Medieval" as "Middle Ages"? If your date is used, than 50% of the
genealogy we actually discuss on this list would be OT.
Will Johnson
mllt1@leicester.ac.uk writes:
1660?!! Not in this universe.
The middle ages didn't come to a sudden end in any year, of course, but
they are conventionally reckoned to have ended some time around 1500 (in
the context of English history - on the Continent earlier dates are
often used). 1485
In fact we had this discussion on this list a short while ago. And are we
to read "Medieval" as "Middle Ages"? If your date is used, than 50% of the
genealogy we actually discuss on this list would be OT.
Will Johnson
-
Chris Phillips
Re: the era of medieval
Will Johnson wrote:
Only 50%?
The FAQ of the group/list specify roughly 500-1600, but as others have said
1453, 1485 or 1500 are more conventional choices.
According to the FAQ, this end date is based on "the time public records
(such as church, tax, and census records) relating to the general population
began to be kept", but in England, at least, two of these began much earlier
than 1600, particularly if one counts the poll taxes of the 1370s. On the
other hand, "census records" would bring the end of the medieval era forward
to 1801, somewhat later than generally reckoned (!).
Chris Phillips
In fact we had this discussion on this list a short while ago. And are
we
to read "Medieval" as "Middle Ages"? If your date is used, than 50% of
the
genealogy we actually discuss on this list would be OT.
Only 50%?
The FAQ of the group/list specify roughly 500-1600, but as others have said
1453, 1485 or 1500 are more conventional choices.
According to the FAQ, this end date is based on "the time public records
(such as church, tax, and census records) relating to the general population
began to be kept", but in England, at least, two of these began much earlier
than 1600, particularly if one counts the poll taxes of the 1370s. On the
other hand, "census records" would bring the end of the medieval era forward
to 1801, somewhat later than generally reckoned (!).
Chris Phillips
-
Tompkins, M.L.
RE: the era of medieval
<<The FAQ of the group/list specify roughly 500-1600, but as others have
said 1453, 1485 or 1500 are more conventional choices.
According to the FAQ, this end date is based on "the time public records
(such as church, tax, and census records) relating to the general
population began to be kept", but in England, at least, two of these
began much earlier than 1600, particularly if one counts the poll taxes
of the 1370s.>>
Or indeed the lay subsidy rolls of 1290 to 1334, which recorded by name
nearly as large a proportion of the population as the Poll Tax returns.
And there are many tax lists from the 16C, notably the Lay Subsidy of
1524/5 and (if we look at their concealed purpose of inducing taxpayers
to reveal their wealth) the Muster Rolls of 1522.
Matt
said 1453, 1485 or 1500 are more conventional choices.
According to the FAQ, this end date is based on "the time public records
(such as church, tax, and census records) relating to the general
population began to be kept", but in England, at least, two of these
began much earlier than 1600, particularly if one counts the poll taxes
of the 1370s.>>
Or indeed the lay subsidy rolls of 1290 to 1334, which recorded by name
nearly as large a proportion of the population as the Poll Tax returns.
And there are many tax lists from the 16C, notably the Lay Subsidy of
1524/5 and (if we look at their concealed purpose of inducing taxpayers
to reveal their wealth) the Muster Rolls of 1522.
Matt
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: the era of medieval
LeGoff's Medieval Civilization is 400-1500.
Norman F. Cantor on page 11 of his 1969 Medieval History
says:
"Nor does the period itself hang together in complete unity;
it can be readily divided into at least three distinct
periods. Hence historians today talk not about the middle
age but about the 'middle ages,' and while they do talk
about 'medieval civilization,' they tend to divide the
development of medieval civilization into three distinct
periods. This division has now become universally accepted
and traditional among historians.
"The first of these periods is the very long era from the
decline of the Roman Empire, let us say 300, to the middle
of the eleventh century [1050]. It is the era in which a
distinctive western civilization emerged out of the
background, one might almost say the clash, of Christian,
Graeco-Roman, and Germanic institutions and ideas.
Depending on the metaphor preferred, the early middle ages
is the infancy and youth, or the springtime, of western
civilization."
The middle part is a flowering of European art, literature
and philosophy during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
called the high middle ages. Colin Morris calls it The
Discovery of the Individual 1050-1200. From Cantor: "More
and more research discloses that this extremely fruitful,
mature, and stable period was very short-lived, and
certainly by the second half of the thirteenth century the
conflict betweeen old ideals and new practices -- which
gives evidence of a disintegrating civilization -- had made
its appearance."
"The result of the dichotomy between ideals and actuality is
shown in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries which
historians today call the later middle ages ... In this
period western Europe is racked by disorder, pessimism,
economic and political decline, until finally at the end of
the fifteenth century the characteristic ideals and
institutions of the modern world, based upon the sovereign
state, nationalism, and individualism, pushes to the fore."
Most view the Renaissance as the end of the Medieval period.
Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 9:30 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: the era of medieval
In a message dated 2/9/2006 12:39:01 AM Pacific Standard
Time,
mllt1@leicester.ac.uk writes:
1660?!! Not in this universe.
The middle ages didn't come to a sudden end in any year, of
course, but
they are conventionally reckoned to have ended some time
around 1500 (in
the context of English history - on the Continent earlier
dates are
often used). 1485
In fact we had this discussion on this list a short while
ago. And are we
to read "Medieval" as "Middle Ages"? If your date is used,
than 50% of the
genealogy we actually discuss on this list would be OT.
Will Johnson
Norman F. Cantor on page 11 of his 1969 Medieval History
says:
"Nor does the period itself hang together in complete unity;
it can be readily divided into at least three distinct
periods. Hence historians today talk not about the middle
age but about the 'middle ages,' and while they do talk
about 'medieval civilization,' they tend to divide the
development of medieval civilization into three distinct
periods. This division has now become universally accepted
and traditional among historians.
"The first of these periods is the very long era from the
decline of the Roman Empire, let us say 300, to the middle
of the eleventh century [1050]. It is the era in which a
distinctive western civilization emerged out of the
background, one might almost say the clash, of Christian,
Graeco-Roman, and Germanic institutions and ideas.
Depending on the metaphor preferred, the early middle ages
is the infancy and youth, or the springtime, of western
civilization."
The middle part is a flowering of European art, literature
and philosophy during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
called the high middle ages. Colin Morris calls it The
Discovery of the Individual 1050-1200. From Cantor: "More
and more research discloses that this extremely fruitful,
mature, and stable period was very short-lived, and
certainly by the second half of the thirteenth century the
conflict betweeen old ideals and new practices -- which
gives evidence of a disintegrating civilization -- had made
its appearance."
"The result of the dichotomy between ideals and actuality is
shown in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries which
historians today call the later middle ages ... In this
period western Europe is racked by disorder, pessimism,
economic and political decline, until finally at the end of
the fifteenth century the characteristic ideals and
institutions of the modern world, based upon the sovereign
state, nationalism, and individualism, pushes to the fore."
Most view the Renaissance as the end of the Medieval period.
Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 9:30 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: the era of medieval
In a message dated 2/9/2006 12:39:01 AM Pacific Standard
Time,
mllt1@leicester.ac.uk writes:
1660?!! Not in this universe.
The middle ages didn't come to a sudden end in any year, of
course, but
they are conventionally reckoned to have ended some time
around 1500 (in
the context of English history - on the Continent earlier
dates are
often used). 1485
In fact we had this discussion on this list a short while
ago. And are we
to read "Medieval" as "Middle Ages"? If your date is used,
than 50% of the
genealogy we actually discuss on this list would be OT.
Will Johnson
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard
Hello Ian,
Thanks so much on the info on the 58 descents you count from Rohese
Giffard to my 9 greats grandmother Jane Deighton. Amazing. And, that
number is very likely lots higher when you include Jane Dieghton's
almost certain descent form Henry Cardinal Beaufort. Again, many
thanks.
Tony
Following this recent topic, I prepared a special output for
Genealogics
data to display in a compact format all the lines between two
nominated
people. An example for the lines from Jane Deighton to Rohese display
as
follows:
58 paths from Jane Deighton to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
19 516817 S MM MMMF FFMF MMFM FFFM
19 516865 S MM MMMF FFMM FFFF FFFM
19 516913 S MM MMMF FFMM FFMM FFFM
20 983537 S MMM FFFF FFFM MMMM FFFM
20 1032689 S MMM MMFF FFFM MMMM FFFM
20 1032817 S MMM MMFF FFMF FMMM FFFM
20 1033037 S MMM MMFF FFMM FMFF MMFM
20 1033629 S MMM MMFF FMFM MFFM MMFM
20 1033677 S MMM MMFF FMFM MMFF MMFM
20 1033713 S MMM MMFF FMFM MMMM FFFM
20 1034179 S MMM MMFF FMMM MMFF FFMM
20 1034669 S MMM MMFF MFFM MFMF MMFM
20 1036417 S MMM MMFM FFFF MFFF FFFM
20 1036465 S MMM MMFM FFFF MFMM FFFM
20 1037265 S MMM MMFM FFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1038641 S MMM MMFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
20 1038725 S MMM MMFM MFFM MFFF FMFM
20 1039313 S MMM MMFM MFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1039473 S MMM MMFM MMFF FMMM FFFM
20 1039523 S MMM MMFM MMFF MFMF FFMM
20 1039811 S MMM MMFM MMFM MMFF FFMM
20 1040129 S MMM MMFM MMMM FFFF FFFM
20 1040177 S MMM MMFM MMMM FFMM FFFM
21 1876209 S MMFF MFMF FFFF MMMM FFFM
21 1877761 S MMFF MFMF FMMM FFFF FFFM
21 1877809 S MMFF MFMF FMMM FFMM FFFM
21 1878225 S MMFF MFMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
21 1878273 S MMFF MFMF MFFM FFFF FFFM
21 1878321 S MMFF MFMF MFFM FFMM FFFM
21 2065699 S MMMM MFFF FMFM FFMF FFMM
21 2066125 S MMMM MFFF FMMF MMFF MMFM
21 2066161 S MMMM MFFF FMMF MMMM FFFM
21 2069489 S MMMM MFFM FFMM MMMM FFFM
21 2073121 S MMMM MFMF FFMF FFMF FFFM
21 2074525 S MMMM MFMF FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2074573 S MMMM MFMF FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2074609 S MMMM MFMF FMMM MMMM FFFM
21 2075377 S MMMM MFMF MFMF MMMM FFFM
21 2076913 S MMMM MFMM FFFF MMMM FFFM
21 2078621 S MMMM MFMM FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2078669 S MMMM MFMM FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2078705 S MMMM MFMM FMMM MMMM FFFM
22 3755377 S M MFFM FMFF MMFM FMMM FFFM
22 3755971 S M MFFM FMFF MMMM MMFF FFMM
22 3756445 S M MFFM FMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
22 3756493 S M MFFM FMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
22 3756529 S M MFFM FMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
22 3756995 S M MFFM FMFM FFMM MMFF FFMM
22 3758669 S M MFFM FMFM MFMF FMFF MMFM
22 3758833 S M MFFM FMFM MFMF MMMM FFFM
22 3758961 S M MFFM FMFM MFMM FMMM FFFM
22 3759393 S M MFFM FMFM MMFM FFMF FFFM
22 4157533 S M MMMM FMMM FFFF FMFM MMFM
23 7504477 S MM FFMF MFFF FFMF FMFM MMFM
23 7517389 S MM FFMF MFMM FMFF MMFF MMFM
23 7517425 S MM FFMF MFMM FMFF MMMM FFFM
23 7517987 S MM FFMF MFMM FMMM FFMF FFMM
24 15034973 S MMF FMFM FMMF MFMF FMFM MMFM
The interpretation of this is that S is the subject, M is the mother
and F
is the father. Using this data, one can easily run through both one's
own
genealogy database to see where lines fail from the subject, then do a
comparison with Genealogics to pick up the new people. This option is
not
available on the website due to the computational load.
I do not mind doing a *few* of these extracts for people from time to
time
if it is of general interest to the group and on topic.
Cheers,
Ian
Thanks so much on the info on the 58 descents you count from Rohese
Giffard to my 9 greats grandmother Jane Deighton. Amazing. And, that
number is very likely lots higher when you include Jane Dieghton's
almost certain descent form Henry Cardinal Beaufort. Again, many
thanks.
Tony
"Ian Fettes" <fettesi@st.net.au> 02/09/06 02:42AM
Hi All,
Following this recent topic, I prepared a special output for
Genealogics
data to display in a compact format all the lines between two
nominated
people. An example for the lines from Jane Deighton to Rohese display
as
follows:
58 paths from Jane Deighton to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
19 516817 S MM MMMF FFMF MMFM FFFM
19 516865 S MM MMMF FFMM FFFF FFFM
19 516913 S MM MMMF FFMM FFMM FFFM
20 983537 S MMM FFFF FFFM MMMM FFFM
20 1032689 S MMM MMFF FFFM MMMM FFFM
20 1032817 S MMM MMFF FFMF FMMM FFFM
20 1033037 S MMM MMFF FFMM FMFF MMFM
20 1033629 S MMM MMFF FMFM MFFM MMFM
20 1033677 S MMM MMFF FMFM MMFF MMFM
20 1033713 S MMM MMFF FMFM MMMM FFFM
20 1034179 S MMM MMFF FMMM MMFF FFMM
20 1034669 S MMM MMFF MFFM MFMF MMFM
20 1036417 S MMM MMFM FFFF MFFF FFFM
20 1036465 S MMM MMFM FFFF MFMM FFFM
20 1037265 S MMM MMFM FFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1038641 S MMM MMFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
20 1038725 S MMM MMFM MFFM MFFF FMFM
20 1039313 S MMM MMFM MFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1039473 S MMM MMFM MMFF FMMM FFFM
20 1039523 S MMM MMFM MMFF MFMF FFMM
20 1039811 S MMM MMFM MMFM MMFF FFMM
20 1040129 S MMM MMFM MMMM FFFF FFFM
20 1040177 S MMM MMFM MMMM FFMM FFFM
21 1876209 S MMFF MFMF FFFF MMMM FFFM
21 1877761 S MMFF MFMF FMMM FFFF FFFM
21 1877809 S MMFF MFMF FMMM FFMM FFFM
21 1878225 S MMFF MFMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
21 1878273 S MMFF MFMF MFFM FFFF FFFM
21 1878321 S MMFF MFMF MFFM FFMM FFFM
21 2065699 S MMMM MFFF FMFM FFMF FFMM
21 2066125 S MMMM MFFF FMMF MMFF MMFM
21 2066161 S MMMM MFFF FMMF MMMM FFFM
21 2069489 S MMMM MFFM FFMM MMMM FFFM
21 2073121 S MMMM MFMF FFMF FFMF FFFM
21 2074525 S MMMM MFMF FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2074573 S MMMM MFMF FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2074609 S MMMM MFMF FMMM MMMM FFFM
21 2075377 S MMMM MFMF MFMF MMMM FFFM
21 2076913 S MMMM MFMM FFFF MMMM FFFM
21 2078621 S MMMM MFMM FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2078669 S MMMM MFMM FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2078705 S MMMM MFMM FMMM MMMM FFFM
22 3755377 S M MFFM FMFF MMFM FMMM FFFM
22 3755971 S M MFFM FMFF MMMM MMFF FFMM
22 3756445 S M MFFM FMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
22 3756493 S M MFFM FMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
22 3756529 S M MFFM FMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
22 3756995 S M MFFM FMFM FFMM MMFF FFMM
22 3758669 S M MFFM FMFM MFMF FMFF MMFM
22 3758833 S M MFFM FMFM MFMF MMMM FFFM
22 3758961 S M MFFM FMFM MFMM FMMM FFFM
22 3759393 S M MFFM FMFM MMFM FFMF FFFM
22 4157533 S M MMMM FMMM FFFF FMFM MMFM
23 7504477 S MM FFMF MFFF FFMF FMFM MMFM
23 7517389 S MM FFMF MFMM FMFF MMFF MMFM
23 7517425 S MM FFMF MFMM FMFF MMMM FFFM
23 7517987 S MM FFMF MFMM FMMM FFMF FFMM
24 15034973 S MMF FMFM FMMF MFMF FMFM MMFM
The interpretation of this is that S is the subject, M is the mother
and F
is the father. Using this data, one can easily run through both one's
own
genealogy database to see where lines fail from the subject, then do a
comparison with Genealogics to pick up the new people. This option is
not
available on the website due to the computational load.
I do not mind doing a *few* of these extracts for people from time to
time
if it is of general interest to the group and on topic.
Cheers,
Ian
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard
Dear Ian ~
Thanks for posting the various "paths" of descent from Rohese Giffard
down to Jane Deighton. It was most interesting.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Thanks for posting the various "paths" of descent from Rohese Giffard
down to Jane Deighton. It was most interesting.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Gjest
Re: the era of medieval
In a message dated 2/9/2006 9:15:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
Most view the Renaissance as the end of the Medieval period.
The problem being, that there does not appear to be a "GEN-Renaissance-L".
So we have to make do with this one.
Will Johnson
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
Most view the Renaissance as the end of the Medieval period.
The problem being, that there does not appear to be a "GEN-Renaissance-L".
So we have to make do with this one.
Will Johnson
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: the era of medieval
Will Johnson wrote:
<<The problem being, that there does not appear to be a "GEN-Renaissance-L".
So we have to make do with this one.>>
Why isn't there one? Are the genealogies of that period already pretty well
documented? I personally don't care if there is ancient and/or renaissance
here. It all flows together and I have a delete key. But I am surprised
nobody has started a list for them.
Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
<<The problem being, that there does not appear to be a "GEN-Renaissance-L".
So we have to make do with this one.>>
Why isn't there one? Are the genealogies of that period already pretty well
documented? I personally don't care if there is ancient and/or renaissance
here. It all flows together and I have a delete key. But I am surprised
nobody has started a list for them.
Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
-
Gjest
Re: the era of medieval
In a message dated 2/9/2006 9:43:31 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
Why isn't there one? Are the genealogies of that period already pretty well
documented? I personally don't care if there is ancient and/or renaissance
here. It all flows together and I have a delete key. But I am surprised
nobody has started a list for them.
No, rather, it's because those people come here.
Will Johnson
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
Why isn't there one? Are the genealogies of that period already pretty well
documented? I personally don't care if there is ancient and/or renaissance
here. It all flows together and I have a delete key. But I am surprised
nobody has started a list for them.
No, rather, it's because those people come here.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard
In a message dated 2/9/06 10:05:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< My files show that Rohese Giffard's daughter, Rohese, married Eudes the
Steward (often called Eudo Dapifer), by whom she has descendents.
However, I don't show a second marriage for Rohese, widow of Eudes the
Steward, to Hugues I de Montdidier, Count of Dammartin. >>
This would have to be a first marriage.
Leo is showing the Hugh died abt 1100 and Rohese in 1121
And their son Hugh also Bef 25 Feb 1084
Which.... hmm that doesn't make any sense.
Maybe the one who d Bef 25 Feb 1084 is the father of the one who d 1100 ...
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< My files show that Rohese Giffard's daughter, Rohese, married Eudes the
Steward (often called Eudo Dapifer), by whom she has descendents.
However, I don't show a second marriage for Rohese, widow of Eudes the
Steward, to Hugues I de Montdidier, Count of Dammartin. >>
This would have to be a first marriage.
Leo is showing the Hugh died abt 1100 and Rohese in 1121
And their son Hugh also Bef 25 Feb 1084
Which.... hmm that doesn't make any sense.
Maybe the one who d Bef 25 Feb 1084 is the father of the one who d 1100 ...
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Eudes, Count/Duke of Brittany & his son, Eudes Fitz Coun
In a message dated 2/8/06 3:19:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< Conan IV acknowledged Henry II's overlordship at Avranches
at Michaelmas 1158, was at council of Clarendon in 1164,
1160 he married Marguerite, sister of Malcolm IV of Scotland
and their daughter, Constance, was arranged to marry Henry
II's fourth son, Geoffrey; Conan gave the administration of
most of Brittany to Henry II to hold for the child couple. >>
Because he died.
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< Conan IV acknowledged Henry II's overlordship at Avranches
at Michaelmas 1158, was at council of Clarendon in 1164,
1160 he married Marguerite, sister of Malcolm IV of Scotland
and their daughter, Constance, was arranged to marry Henry
II's fourth son, Geoffrey; Conan gave the administration of
most of Brittany to Henry II to hold for the child couple. >>
Because he died.
-
Gjest
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard
In a message dated 2/9/06 11:17:05 AM Central Standard Time,
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
Hello Ian,
Thanks so much on the info on the 58 descents you count from Rohese
Giffard to my 9 greats grandmother Jane Deighton. Amazing. And, that
number is very likely lots higher when you include Jane Dieghton's
almost certain descent form Henry Cardinal Beaufort. Again, many
thanks.
Tony
Following this recent topic, I prepared a special output for
Genealogics
data to display in a compact format all the lines between two
nominated
people. An example for the lines from Jane Deighton to Rohese display
as
follows:
58 paths from Jane Deighton to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
19 516817 S MM MMMF FFMF MMFM FFFM
19 516865 S MM MMMF FFMM FFFF FFFM
19 516913 S MM MMMF FFMM FFMM FFFM
20 983537 S MMM FFFF FFFM MMMM FFFM
20 1032689 S MMM MMFF FFFM MMMM FFFM
20 1032817 S MMM MMFF FFMF FMMM FFFM
20 1033037 S MMM MMFF FFMM FMFF MMFM
20 1033629 S MMM MMFF FMFM MFFM MMFM
20 1033677 S MMM MMFF FMFM MMFF MMFM
20 1033713 S MMM MMFF FMFM MMMM FFFM
20 1034179 S MMM MMFF FMMM MMFF FFMM
20 1034669 S MMM MMFF MFFM MFMF MMFM
20 1036417 S MMM MMFM FFFF MFFF FFFM
20 1036465 S MMM MMFM FFFF MFMM FFFM
20 1037265 S MMM MMFM FFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1038641 S MMM MMFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
20 1038725 S MMM MMFM MFFM MFFF FMFM
20 1039313 S MMM MMFM MFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1039473 S MMM MMFM MMFF FMMM FFFM
20 1039523 S MMM MMFM MMFF MFMF FFMM
20 1039811 S MMM MMFM MMFM MMFF FFMM
20 1040129 S MMM MMFM MMMM FFFF FFFM
20 1040177 S MMM MMFM MMMM FFMM FFFM
21 1876209 S MMFF MFMF FFFF MMMM FFFM
21 1877761 S MMFF MFMF FMMM FFFF FFFM
21 1877809 S MMFF MFMF FMMM FFMM FFFM
21 1878225 S MMFF MFMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
21 1878273 S MMFF MFMF MFFM FFFF FFFM
21 1878321 S MMFF MFMF MFFM FFMM FFFM
21 2065699 S MMMM MFFF FMFM FFMF FFMM
21 2066125 S MMMM MFFF FMMF MMFF MMFM
21 2066161 S MMMM MFFF FMMF MMMM FFFM
21 2069489 S MMMM MFFM FFMM MMMM FFFM
21 2073121 S MMMM MFMF FFMF FFMF FFFM
21 2074525 S MMMM MFMF FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2074573 S MMMM MFMF FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2074609 S MMMM MFMF FMMM MMMM FFFM
21 2075377 S MMMM MFMF MFMF MMMM FFFM
21 2076913 S MMMM MFMM FFFF MMMM FFFM
21 2078621 S MMMM MFMM FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2078669 S MMMM MFMM FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2078705 S MMMM MFMM FMMM MMMM FFFM
22 3755377 S M MFFM FMFF MMFM FMMM FFFM
22 3755971 S M MFFM FMFF MMMM MMFF FFMM
22 3756445 S M MFFM FMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
22 3756493 S M MFFM FMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
22 3756529 S M MFFM FMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
22 3756995 S M MFFM FMFM FFMM MMFF FFMM
22 3758669 S M MFFM FMFM MFMF FMFF MMFM
22 3758833 S M MFFM FMFM MFMF MMMM FFFM
22 3758961 S M MFFM FMFM MFMM FMMM FFFM
22 3759393 S M MFFM FMFM MMFM FFMF FFFM
22 4157533 S M MMMM FMMM FFFF FMFM MMFM
23 7504477 S MM FFMF MFFF FFMF FMFM MMFM
23 7517389 S MM FFMF MFMM FMFF MMFF MMFM
23 7517425 S MM FFMF MFMM FMFF MMMM FFFM
23 7517987 S MM FFMF MFMM FMMM FFMF FFMM
24 15034973 S MMF FMFM FMMF MFMF FMFM MMFM
I also want to express my appreciation to Ian for his ability to show the 58
descents from Rohese to Jane. I checked my database and was surprised to
find I had 39 of the descents. Most of my misses were caused by not having the
parentage of Aubrey de Mello or Maud, wife of Hugh de Boclande.
Your offer to do this analysis occasionally is appreciated and I look
forward to the next report. Thanks again Ian.
Always optimistic--Dave
hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
Hello Ian,
Thanks so much on the info on the 58 descents you count from Rohese
Giffard to my 9 greats grandmother Jane Deighton. Amazing. And, that
number is very likely lots higher when you include Jane Dieghton's
almost certain descent form Henry Cardinal Beaufort. Again, many
thanks.
Tony
"Ian Fettes" <fettesi@st.net.au> 02/09/06 02:42AM
Hi All,
Following this recent topic, I prepared a special output for
Genealogics
data to display in a compact format all the lines between two
nominated
people. An example for the lines from Jane Deighton to Rohese display
as
follows:
58 paths from Jane Deighton to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
19 516817 S MM MMMF FFMF MMFM FFFM
19 516865 S MM MMMF FFMM FFFF FFFM
19 516913 S MM MMMF FFMM FFMM FFFM
20 983537 S MMM FFFF FFFM MMMM FFFM
20 1032689 S MMM MMFF FFFM MMMM FFFM
20 1032817 S MMM MMFF FFMF FMMM FFFM
20 1033037 S MMM MMFF FFMM FMFF MMFM
20 1033629 S MMM MMFF FMFM MFFM MMFM
20 1033677 S MMM MMFF FMFM MMFF MMFM
20 1033713 S MMM MMFF FMFM MMMM FFFM
20 1034179 S MMM MMFF FMMM MMFF FFMM
20 1034669 S MMM MMFF MFFM MFMF MMFM
20 1036417 S MMM MMFM FFFF MFFF FFFM
20 1036465 S MMM MMFM FFFF MFMM FFFM
20 1037265 S MMM MMFM FFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1038641 S MMM MMFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
20 1038725 S MMM MMFM MFFM MFFF FMFM
20 1039313 S MMM MMFM MFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1039473 S MMM MMFM MMFF FMMM FFFM
20 1039523 S MMM MMFM MMFF MFMF FFMM
20 1039811 S MMM MMFM MMFM MMFF FFMM
20 1040129 S MMM MMFM MMMM FFFF FFFM
20 1040177 S MMM MMFM MMMM FFMM FFFM
21 1876209 S MMFF MFMF FFFF MMMM FFFM
21 1877761 S MMFF MFMF FMMM FFFF FFFM
21 1877809 S MMFF MFMF FMMM FFMM FFFM
21 1878225 S MMFF MFMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
21 1878273 S MMFF MFMF MFFM FFFF FFFM
21 1878321 S MMFF MFMF MFFM FFMM FFFM
21 2065699 S MMMM MFFF FMFM FFMF FFMM
21 2066125 S MMMM MFFF FMMF MMFF MMFM
21 2066161 S MMMM MFFF FMMF MMMM FFFM
21 2069489 S MMMM MFFM FFMM MMMM FFFM
21 2073121 S MMMM MFMF FFMF FFMF FFFM
21 2074525 S MMMM MFMF FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2074573 S MMMM MFMF FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2074609 S MMMM MFMF FMMM MMMM FFFM
21 2075377 S MMMM MFMF MFMF MMMM FFFM
21 2076913 S MMMM MFMM FFFF MMMM FFFM
21 2078621 S MMMM MFMM FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2078669 S MMMM MFMM FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2078705 S MMMM MFMM FMMM MMMM FFFM
22 3755377 S M MFFM FMFF MMFM FMMM FFFM
22 3755971 S M MFFM FMFF MMMM MMFF FFMM
22 3756445 S M MFFM FMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
22 3756493 S M MFFM FMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
22 3756529 S M MFFM FMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
22 3756995 S M MFFM FMFM FFMM MMFF FFMM
22 3758669 S M MFFM FMFM MFMF FMFF MMFM
22 3758833 S M MFFM FMFM MFMF MMMM FFFM
22 3758961 S M MFFM FMFM MFMM FMMM FFFM
22 3759393 S M MFFM FMFM MMFM FFMF FFFM
22 4157533 S M MMMM FMMM FFFF FMFM MMFM
23 7504477 S MM FFMF MFFF FFMF FMFM MMFM
23 7517389 S MM FFMF MFMM FMFF MMFF MMFM
23 7517425 S MM FFMF MFMM FMFF MMMM FFFM
23 7517987 S MM FFMF MFMM FMMM FFMF FFMM
24 15034973 S MMF FMFM FMMF MFMF FMFM MMFM
I also want to express my appreciation to Ian for his ability to show the 58
descents from Rohese to Jane. I checked my database and was surprised to
find I had 39 of the descents. Most of my misses were caused by not having the
parentage of Aubrey de Mello or Maud, wife of Hugh de Boclande.
Your offer to do this analysis occasionally is appreciated and I look
forward to the next report. Thanks again Ian.
Always optimistic--Dave
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Eudes, Count/Duke of Brittany & his son, Eudes Fitz Coun
<Conan gave the administration of
most of Brittany to Henry II to hold for the child couple.
Because he died.>
Well, I certainly messed that one up! LOL. Yes, When Conan
died, Henry II held the land for the children!
Sorry about that. Too much typing.
Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
most of Brittany to Henry II to hold for the child couple.
Because he died.>
Well, I certainly messed that one up! LOL. Yes, When Conan
died, Henry II held the land for the children!
Sorry about that. Too much typing.
Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
-
Gjest
Re: Magna Carta Ancestry page 508
In a message dated 2/9/06 3:47:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< I would say this is not correct as Alice Batisford was deceased before
1401 when William married 2nd Joan Fitzalan. Alice is the first wife and the
mother of Joan Echyngham who married John Rykhill, not William Rykhill, and
Elizabeth who married first Thomas Hoo and 2nd Thomas Lewknor. >>
Charlotte what source do you have that states that they married in 1401 ? I
only have between 1394 and 1401
Also what is your source on who Joan and Elizabeth's mother was ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< I would say this is not correct as Alice Batisford was deceased before
1401 when William married 2nd Joan Fitzalan. Alice is the first wife and the
mother of Joan Echyngham who married John Rykhill, not William Rykhill, and
Elizabeth who married first Thomas Hoo and 2nd Thomas Lewknor. >>
Charlotte what source do you have that states that they married in 1401 ? I
only have between 1394 and 1401
Also what is your source on who Joan and Elizabeth's mother was ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard
Dear Newsgroup,
Another probable link between Rohese de Giffard,
wife of Richard Fitzgilbert de Clare and the sisters Jane , Frances, and
Katherine Deighton through their son Gilbert Fitzrichard, Lord of Clare and Adeliz of
Clermont, Gilbert Fitzgilbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke and Isabel de Beaumont,
Richard "Strongbow" de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke and Eva of Leinster, Isabel
de Clare and William Marshal, jure Uxoris Earl of Pembroke, Isabel Marshal
(note that the Deightons also descended from three of her four sisters Maud,
Sibyl and Eva) and her husband Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Clare and Hertford ,
MCS, Isabel de Clare married Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale, Mary (quite
probably Brus and so Aunt of Robert I, King of Scots) married Ralph VII de Toeni,
Lord of Flamstead (which identification was put forward by Douglas Richardson
and supported and amplified on this list by John Ravilious) Alice de Toeni
married Guy, 10th Earl of Warwick, Maud Beauchamp m Geoffrey de Say, Lord Say,
Idoine de Say married John de Clinton, Lord Clinton, Margaret de Clinton married
Baldwin de Montfort, Kt, William Montfort, Kt. married Margaret Pecche, Ellen
Montfort married Maurice Berkeley, Kt of Stoke Giffard and Uley, Gloucester,
William Berkeley, Kt of Stoke Giffard and Uley, KB married Anne Stafford (of
Grafton), Richard Berkeley, Kt of Stoke Giffard and Uley married Elizabeth
Coningsby, John Berkeley, Kt. of Stoke Giffard and Uley married Isabel Dennis,
Elizabeth Berkeley married Henry Ligon, Gentleman, Elizabeth Ligon married
Edward Basset, Gentleman, Jane Basset married John Deighton, Gentleman, daughters
Jane Deighton, wife of John Lugg and Jonathan Negus, Katherine Deighton, wife
of Samuel Hackburne, Governor Thomas Dudley and Reverend John Allin and
Frances Deighton, wife of Richard Williams
(sources SGM Rohese de Giffard posts, MCA subjects Beauchamp, Say, Clinton,
Montfort and Deighton)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Another probable link between Rohese de Giffard,
wife of Richard Fitzgilbert de Clare and the sisters Jane , Frances, and
Katherine Deighton through their son Gilbert Fitzrichard, Lord of Clare and Adeliz of
Clermont, Gilbert Fitzgilbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke and Isabel de Beaumont,
Richard "Strongbow" de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke and Eva of Leinster, Isabel
de Clare and William Marshal, jure Uxoris Earl of Pembroke, Isabel Marshal
(note that the Deightons also descended from three of her four sisters Maud,
Sibyl and Eva) and her husband Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Clare and Hertford ,
MCS, Isabel de Clare married Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale, Mary (quite
probably Brus and so Aunt of Robert I, King of Scots) married Ralph VII de Toeni,
Lord of Flamstead (which identification was put forward by Douglas Richardson
and supported and amplified on this list by John Ravilious) Alice de Toeni
married Guy, 10th Earl of Warwick, Maud Beauchamp m Geoffrey de Say, Lord Say,
Idoine de Say married John de Clinton, Lord Clinton, Margaret de Clinton married
Baldwin de Montfort, Kt, William Montfort, Kt. married Margaret Pecche, Ellen
Montfort married Maurice Berkeley, Kt of Stoke Giffard and Uley, Gloucester,
William Berkeley, Kt of Stoke Giffard and Uley, KB married Anne Stafford (of
Grafton), Richard Berkeley, Kt of Stoke Giffard and Uley married Elizabeth
Coningsby, John Berkeley, Kt. of Stoke Giffard and Uley married Isabel Dennis,
Elizabeth Berkeley married Henry Ligon, Gentleman, Elizabeth Ligon married
Edward Basset, Gentleman, Jane Basset married John Deighton, Gentleman, daughters
Jane Deighton, wife of John Lugg and Jonathan Negus, Katherine Deighton, wife
of Samuel Hackburne, Governor Thomas Dudley and Reverend John Allin and
Frances Deighton, wife of Richard Williams
(sources SGM Rohese de Giffard posts, MCA subjects Beauchamp, Say, Clinton,
Montfort and Deighton)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard
In a message dated 2/9/06 5:28:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:
<< Isabel de Clare married Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale, Mary (quite
probably Brus and so Aunt of Robert I, King of Scots) married Ralph VII de
Toeni, >>
What's the source for this "probable" connection?
Thanks
Will Johnson
writes:
<< Isabel de Clare married Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale, Mary (quite
probably Brus and so Aunt of Robert I, King of Scots) married Ralph VII de
Toeni, >>
What's the source for this "probable" connection?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Eudes, Count/Duke of Brittany & his son, Eudes Fitz Coun
In a message dated 2/9/06 5:35:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< As I've been going through the works by Morice, I've located a document
dated 1334 in which Count/Duke Eudes (husband of Bertha of Brittany) >>
This confuses me. I thought we had been talking about Eudes and Bertha from
the 12th century not the 14th !
Will Johnson
royalancestry@msn.com writes:
<< As I've been going through the works by Morice, I've located a document
dated 1334 in which Count/Duke Eudes (husband of Bertha of Brittany) >>
This confuses me. I thought we had been talking about Eudes and Bertha from
the 12th century not the 14th !
Will Johnson
-
Ian Fettes
Descendants of Rohese Giffard = Elizabeth Alsop
Hi Tony, Dave, Doug, et al
As there is interest, I will post the other lines of interest that have been
mentioned.
65 paths from Elizabeth Alsop to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
20 966225 S MMF MFMM MMMF FMFM FFFM
20 968497 S MMF MMFF FMMM FFMM FFFM
20 968581 S MMF MMFF FMMM MFFF FMFM
20 971045 S MMF MMFM FFFM FFMF FMFM
21 1925873 S MMFM FMMF FFMF MMMM FFFM
21 1928709 S MMFM FMMF MMMF FFFF FMFM
21 1932033 S MMFM FMMM MFMM FFFF FFFM
21 1932081 S MMFM FMMM MFMM FFMM FFFM
21 1932445 S MMFM FMMM MMFF MFFM MMFM
21 1932493 S MMFM FMMM MMFF MMFF MMFM
21 1932529 S MMFM FMMM MMFF MMMM FFFM
21 1932589 S MMFM FMMM MMFM FFMF MMFM
21 1932913 S MMFM FMMM MMMF FMMM FFFM
21 1933133 S MMFM FMMM MMMM FMFF MMFM
21 1936625 S MMFM MFFF MMFF MMMM FFFM
21 1945169 S MMFM MFMF MMMF FMFM FFFM
22 3852529 S M MFMF MMFF MFFF MMMM FFFM
22 3852753 S M MFMF MMFF MFFM MMFM FFFM
22 3857361 S M MFMF MMFM MFMM MMFM FFFM
22 3858177 S M MFMF MMFM MMMM FFFF FFFM
22 3858225 S M MFMF MMFM MMMM FFMM FFFM
22 3863921 S M MFMF MMMM FMFM FMMM FFFM
22 3864515 S M MFMF MMMM FMMM MMFF FFMM
22 3865891 S M MFMF MMMM MMFM FFMF FFMM
22 3866317 S M MFMF MMMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
22 3866353 S M MFMF MMMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
22 3883761 S M MFMM FMFF FFMF MMMM FFFM
22 3884141 S M MFMM FMFF FMFF FMMF MMFM
22 3884801 S M MFMM FMFF FMMM FFFF FFFM
22 3884849 S M MFMM FMFF FMMM FFMM FFFM
22 3885185 S M MFMM FMFF MFFF MFFF FFFM
22 3885233 S M MFMM FMFF MFFF MFMM FFFM
22 3886033 S M MFMM FMFF MFMM MMFM FFFM
22 3887985 S M MFMM FMFM FFMM FMMM FFFM
22 3889361 S M MFMM FMFM MFFF MMFM FFFM
22 3889409 S M MFMM FMFM MFFM FFFF FFFM
22 3889457 S M MFMM FMFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
22 3890161 S M MFMM FMFM MFMM MMMM FFFM
22 3890333 S M MFMM FMFM MMFF MFFM MMFM
22 3890381 S M MFMM FMFM MMFF MMFF MMFM
22 3890417 S M MFMM FMFM MMFF MMMM FFFM
22 3890477 S M MFMM FMFM MMFM FFMF MMFM
22 3890801 S M MFMM FMFM MMMF FMMM FFFM
22 3891021 S M MFMM FMFM MMMM FMFF MMFM
23 7705501 S MM FMFM MFFM FFMM MFFM MMFM
23 7705549 S MM FMFM MFFM FFMM MMFF MMFM
23 7705585 S MM FMFM MFFM FFMM MMMM FFFM
23 7706145 S MM FMFM MFFM FMMF FFMF FFFM
23 7714717 S MM FMFM MFMM FMMM MFFM MMFM
23 7714765 S MM FMFM MFMM FMMM MMFF MMFM
23 7714801 S MM FMFM MFMM FMMM MMMM FFFM
23 7730525 S MM FMFM MMMM FMFM FMFM MMFM
23 7770657 S MM FMMF MFFM FFMF FFMF FFFM
23 7772061 S MM FMMF MFFM FMMM MFFM MMFM
23 7772109 S MM FMMF MFFM FMMM MMFF MMFM
23 7772145 S MM FMMF MFFM FMMM MMMM FFFM
23 7772913 S MM FMMF MFFM MFMF MMMM FFFM
23 7778617 S MM FMMF MFMM FFFM FFMM MFFM
23 7778717 S MM FMMF MFMM FFFM MFFM MMFM
23 7778765 S MM FMMF MFMM FFFM MMFF MMFM
23 7778801 S MM FMMF MFMM FFFM MMMM FFFM
23 7781667 S MM FMMF MFMM MMFM FFMF FFMM
23 7782093 S MM FMMF MFMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
23 7782129 S MM FMMF MFMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
24 15562077 S MMF MMFM FMMM FMFM FMFM MMFM
Cheers,
Ian
As there is interest, I will post the other lines of interest that have been
mentioned.
65 paths from Elizabeth Alsop to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
20 966225 S MMF MFMM MMMF FMFM FFFM
20 968497 S MMF MMFF FMMM FFMM FFFM
20 968581 S MMF MMFF FMMM MFFF FMFM
20 971045 S MMF MMFM FFFM FFMF FMFM
21 1925873 S MMFM FMMF FFMF MMMM FFFM
21 1928709 S MMFM FMMF MMMF FFFF FMFM
21 1932033 S MMFM FMMM MFMM FFFF FFFM
21 1932081 S MMFM FMMM MFMM FFMM FFFM
21 1932445 S MMFM FMMM MMFF MFFM MMFM
21 1932493 S MMFM FMMM MMFF MMFF MMFM
21 1932529 S MMFM FMMM MMFF MMMM FFFM
21 1932589 S MMFM FMMM MMFM FFMF MMFM
21 1932913 S MMFM FMMM MMMF FMMM FFFM
21 1933133 S MMFM FMMM MMMM FMFF MMFM
21 1936625 S MMFM MFFF MMFF MMMM FFFM
21 1945169 S MMFM MFMF MMMF FMFM FFFM
22 3852529 S M MFMF MMFF MFFF MMMM FFFM
22 3852753 S M MFMF MMFF MFFM MMFM FFFM
22 3857361 S M MFMF MMFM MFMM MMFM FFFM
22 3858177 S M MFMF MMFM MMMM FFFF FFFM
22 3858225 S M MFMF MMFM MMMM FFMM FFFM
22 3863921 S M MFMF MMMM FMFM FMMM FFFM
22 3864515 S M MFMF MMMM FMMM MMFF FFMM
22 3865891 S M MFMF MMMM MMFM FFMF FFMM
22 3866317 S M MFMF MMMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
22 3866353 S M MFMF MMMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
22 3883761 S M MFMM FMFF FFMF MMMM FFFM
22 3884141 S M MFMM FMFF FMFF FMMF MMFM
22 3884801 S M MFMM FMFF FMMM FFFF FFFM
22 3884849 S M MFMM FMFF FMMM FFMM FFFM
22 3885185 S M MFMM FMFF MFFF MFFF FFFM
22 3885233 S M MFMM FMFF MFFF MFMM FFFM
22 3886033 S M MFMM FMFF MFMM MMFM FFFM
22 3887985 S M MFMM FMFM FFMM FMMM FFFM
22 3889361 S M MFMM FMFM MFFF MMFM FFFM
22 3889409 S M MFMM FMFM MFFM FFFF FFFM
22 3889457 S M MFMM FMFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
22 3890161 S M MFMM FMFM MFMM MMMM FFFM
22 3890333 S M MFMM FMFM MMFF MFFM MMFM
22 3890381 S M MFMM FMFM MMFF MMFF MMFM
22 3890417 S M MFMM FMFM MMFF MMMM FFFM
22 3890477 S M MFMM FMFM MMFM FFMF MMFM
22 3890801 S M MFMM FMFM MMMF FMMM FFFM
22 3891021 S M MFMM FMFM MMMM FMFF MMFM
23 7705501 S MM FMFM MFFM FFMM MFFM MMFM
23 7705549 S MM FMFM MFFM FFMM MMFF MMFM
23 7705585 S MM FMFM MFFM FFMM MMMM FFFM
23 7706145 S MM FMFM MFFM FMMF FFMF FFFM
23 7714717 S MM FMFM MFMM FMMM MFFM MMFM
23 7714765 S MM FMFM MFMM FMMM MMFF MMFM
23 7714801 S MM FMFM MFMM FMMM MMMM FFFM
23 7730525 S MM FMFM MMMM FMFM FMFM MMFM
23 7770657 S MM FMMF MFFM FFMF FFMF FFFM
23 7772061 S MM FMMF MFFM FMMM MFFM MMFM
23 7772109 S MM FMMF MFFM FMMM MMFF MMFM
23 7772145 S MM FMMF MFFM FMMM MMMM FFFM
23 7772913 S MM FMMF MFFM MFMF MMMM FFFM
23 7778617 S MM FMMF MFMM FFFM FFMM MFFM
23 7778717 S MM FMMF MFMM FFFM MFFM MMFM
23 7778765 S MM FMMF MFMM FFFM MMFF MMFM
23 7778801 S MM FMMF MFMM FFFM MMMM FFFM
23 7781667 S MM FMMF MFMM MMFM FFMF FFMM
23 7782093 S MM FMMF MFMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
23 7782129 S MM FMMF MFMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
24 15562077 S MMF MMFM FMMM FMFM FMFM MMFM
Cheers,
Ian
-
Ian Fettes
Descendants of Rohese Giffard = William Asfordby
Hi All,
Here is another:
163 paths from William Asfordby to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
20 741669 S FMM FMFM FFFM FFMF FMFM
21 1486417 S FMMF MFMF MMMF FMFM FFFM
21 1980965 S MMMF FFMM MFMF FFMF FMFM
22 2966257 S F MMFM FMFF FFMF MMMM FFFM
22 2966637 S F MMFM FMFF FMFF FMMF MMFM
22 2967297 S F MMFM FMFF FMMM FFFF FFFM
22 2967345 S F MMFM FMFF FMMM FFMM FFFM
22 2967681 S F MMFM FMFF MFFF MFFF FFFM
22 2967729 S F MMFM FMFF MFFF MFMM FFFM
22 2968529 S F MMFM FMFF MFMM MMFM FFFM
22 2970481 S F MMFM FMFM FFMM FMMM FFFM
22 2971857 S F MMFM FMFM MFFF MMFM FFFM
22 2971905 S F MMFM FMFM MFFM FFFF FFFM
22 2971953 S F MMFM FMFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
22 2972657 S F MMFM FMFM MFMM MMMM FFFM
22 2972829 S F MMFM FMFM MMFF MFFM MMFM
22 2972877 S F MMFM FMFM MMFF MMFF MMFM
22 2972913 S F MMFM FMFM MMFF MMMM FFFM
22 2972973 S F MMFM FMFM MMFM FFMF MMFM
22 2973297 S F MMFM FMFM MMMF FMMM FFFM
22 2973517 S F MMFM FMFM MMMM FMFF MMFM
22 3959973 S M MMFF FMMF MMFF MFMF FMFM
22 3961425 S M MMFF FMMM FFMF FMFM FFFM
22 3997265 S M MMFF MMMM MMMF FMFM FFFM
23 5935649 S FM MFMF MFFM FFMF FFMF FFFM
23 5937053 S FM MFMF MFFM FMMM MFFM MMFM
23 5937101 S FM MFMF MFFM FMMM MMFF MMFM
23 5937137 S FM MFMF MFFM FMMM MMMM FFFM
23 5937905 S FM MFMF MFFM MFMF MMMM FFFM
23 5943609 S FM MFMF MFMM FFFM FFMM MFFM
23 5943709 S FM MFMF MFMM FFFM MFFM MMFM
23 5943757 S FM MFMF MFMM FFFM MMFF MMFM
23 5943793 S FM MFMF MFMM FFFM MMMM FFFM
23 5946659 S FM MFMF MFMM MMFM FFMF FFMM
23 5947085 S FM MFMF MFMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
23 5947121 S FM MFMF MFMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
23 7917777 S MM MFFF MMFM FFFF MMFM FFFM
23 7920385 S MM MFFF MMFM MFMM FFFF FFFM
23 7920433 S MM MFFF MMFM MFMM FFMM FFFM
23 7920881 S MM MFFF MMFM MMFF MMMM FFFM
23 7921393 S MM MFFF MMFM MMMF MMMM FFFM
23 7921873 S MM MFFF MMMF FFFF MMFM FFFM
23 7921921 S MM MFFF MMMF FFFM FFFF FFFM
23 7921969 S MM MFFF MMMF FFFM FFMM FFFM
23 7922673 S MM MFFF MMMF FFMM MMMM FFFM
23 7922845 S MM MFFF MMMF FMFF MFFM MMFM
23 7922893 S MM MFFF MMMF FMFF MMFF MMFM
23 7922929 S MM MFFF MMMF FMFF MMMM FFFM
23 7922989 S MM MFFF MMMF FMFM FFMF MMFM
23 7923313 S MM MFFF MMMF FMMF FMMM FFFM
23 7923533 S MM MFFF MMMF FMMM FMFF MMFM
23 7923821 S MM MFFF MMMF MFFF FMMF MMFM
23 7924481 S MM MFFF MMMF MFMM FFFF FFFM
23 7924529 S MM MFFF MMMF MFMM FFMM FFFM
23 7925505 S MM MFFF MMMF MMMM FFFF FFFM
23 7925553 S MM MFFF MMMF MMMM FFMM FFFM
23 7925773 S MM MFFF MMMM FFFF FFFF MMFM
23 7926737 S MM MFFF MMMM FFMM MMFM FFFM
23 7926957 S MM MFFF MMMM FMFF MFMF MMFM
23 7926989 S MM MFFF MMMM FMFF MMFF MMFM
23 7927053 S MM MFFF MMMM FMFM FFFF MMFM
23 7927665 S MM MFFF MMMM FMMM FMMM FFFM
23 7979249 S MM MFFM MMFF FFFF MMMM FFFM
23 7979473 S MM MFFM MMFF FFFM MMFM FFFM
23 7981265 S MM MFFM MMFF MFFF MMFM FFFM
23 7981313 S MM MFFM MMFF MFFM FFFF FFFM
23 7981361 S MM MFFM MMFF MFFM FFMM FFFM
23 7984197 S MM MFFM MMFM FMFF FMFF FMFM
23 7984557 S MM MFFM MMFM FMFM MFMF MMFM
23 7986627 S MM MFFM MMFM MMFM MMFF FFMM
23 7987953 S MM MFFM MMMF FFMF MMMM FFFM
23 7990789 S MM MFFM MMMF MMMF FFFF FMFM
23 7994113 S MM MFFM MMMM MFMM FFFF FFFM
23 7994161 S MM MFFM MMMM MFMM FFMM FFFM
23 7994525 S MM MFFM MMMM MMFF MFFM MMFM
23 7994573 S MM MFFM MMMM MMFF MMFF MMFM
23 7994609 S MM MFFM MMMM MMFF MMMM FFFM
23 7994669 S MM MFFM MMMM MMFM FFMF MMFM
23 7994993 S MM MFFM MMMM MMMF FMMM FFFM
23 7995213 S MM MFFM MMMM MMMM FMFF MMFM
24 11892061 S FMM FMFM FMMM FMFM FMFM MMFM
24 15835549 S MMM FFFM MFMF FFFM MFFM MMFM
24 15835597 S MMM FFFM MFMF FFFM MMFF MMFM
24 15835633 S MMM FFFM MFMF FFFM MMMM FFFM
24 15836013 S MMM FFFM MFMF FFMM FMMF MMFM
24 15839853 S MMM FFFM MFMM FFMF FMMF MMFM
24 15843641 S MMM FFFM MMFF FFFM FFMM MFFM
24 15843741 S MMM FFFM MMFF FFFM MFFM MMFM
24 15843789 S MMM FFFM MMFF FFFM MMFF MMFM
24 15843825 S MMM FFFM MMFF FFFM MMMM FFFM
24 15846691 S MMM FFFM MMFF MMFM FFMF FFMM
24 15847117 S MMM FFFM MMFF MMMF MMFF MMFM
24 15847153 S MMM FFFM MMFF MMMF MMMM FFFM
24 15850865 S MMM FFFM MMFM MMFM FMMM FFFM
24 15851459 S MMM FFFM MMFM MMMM MMFF FFMM
24 15851697 S MMM FFFM MMMF FFFF MFMM FFFM
24 15852241 S MMM FFFM MMMF FFMF MMFM FFFM
24 15852289 S MMM FFFM MMMF FFMM FFFF FFFM
24 15852337 S MMM FFFM MMMF FFMM FFMM FFFM
24 15853469 S MMM FFFM MMMF FMMM MFFM MMFM
24 15853517 S MMM FFFM MMMF FMMM MMFF MMFM
24 15853553 S MMM FFFM MMMF FMMM MMMM FFFM
24 15855729 S MMM FFFM MMMM FFFF FMMM FFFM
24 15855949 S MMM FFFM MMMM FFFM FMFF MMFM
24 15856385 S MMM FFFM MMMM FFMM FFFF FFFM
24 15856433 S MMM FFFM MMMM FFMM FFMM FFFM
24 15857859 S MMM FFFM MMMM MFFF MMFF FFMM
24 15858733 S MMM FFFM MMMM MMFF FFMF MMFM
24 15858769 S MMM FFFM MMMM MMFF FMFM FFFM
24 15858945 S MMM FFFM MMMM MMFM FFFF FFFM
24 15858993 S MMM FFFM MMMM MMFM FFMM FFFM
24 15859665 S MMM FFFM MMMM MMMM MMFM FFFM
24 15958941 S MMM FFMM MFFF FFMM MFFM MMFM
24 15958989 S MMM FFMM MFFF FFMM MMFF MMFM
24 15959025 S MMM FFMM MFFF FFMM MMMM FFFM
24 15959585 S MMM FFMM MFFF FMMF FFMF FFFM
24 15962525 S MMM FFMM MFFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
24 15962573 S MMM FFMM MFFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
24 15962609 S MMM FFMM MFFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
24 15963075 S MMM FFMM MFFM FFMM MMFF FFMM
24 15964749 S MMM FFMM MFFM MFMF FMFF MMFM
24 15964913 S MMM FFMM MFFM MFMF MMMM FFFM
24 15965041 S MMM FFMM MFFM MFMM FMMM FFFM
24 15965473 S MMM FFMM MFFM MMFM FFMF FFFM
24 15976689 S MMM FFMM MMFF MFFF MMMM FFFM
24 15976913 S MMM FFMM MMFF MFFM MMFM FFFM
24 15981521 S MMM FFMM MMFM MFMM MMFM FFFM
24 15982337 S MMM FFMM MMFM MMMM FFFF FFFM
24 15982385 S MMM FFMM MMFM MMMM FFMM FFFM
24 15988081 S MMM FFMM MMMM FMFM FMMM FFFM
24 15988675 S MMM FFMM MMMM FMMM MMFF FFMM
24 15990051 S MMM FFMM MMMM MMFM FFMF FFMM
24 15990477 S MMM FFMM MMMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
24 15990513 S MMM FFMM MMMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
25 31692125 S MMMF FFMM MFFM FMFM FMFM MMFM
25 31703793 S MMMF FFMM MMFF FFMF MMMM FFFM
25 31704377 S MMMF FFMM MMFF FMFM FFMM MFFM
25 31704477 S MMMF FFMM MMFF FMFM MFFM MMFM
25 31704525 S MMMF FFMM MMFF FMFM MMFF MMFM
25 31704561 S MMMF FFMM MMFF FMFM MMMM FFFM
25 31711523 S MMMF FFMM MMMF FFFM FFMF FFMM
25 31711949 S MMMF FFMM MMMF FFMF MMFF MMFM
25 31711985 S MMMF FFMM MMMF FFMF MMMM FFFM
25 31717533 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MFFF MFFM MMFM
25 31717581 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MFFF MMFF MMFM
25 31717617 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MFFF MMMM FFFM
25 31717731 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MFFM FMMF FFMM
25 31718339 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MFMM MMFF FFMM
25 31719325 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MMMM MFFM MMFM
25 31719373 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MMMM MMFF MMFM
25 31719409 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MMMM MMMM FFFM
25 31929549 S MMMF FMMM FFMM FMFF MMFF MMFM
25 31929585 S MMMF FMMM FFMM FMFF MMMM FFFM
25 31930147 S MMMF FMMM FFMM FMMM FFMF FFMM
25 31953821 S MMMF FMMM MFFM FFMM MFFM MMFM
25 31953869 S MMMF FMMM MFFM FFMM MMFF MMFM
25 31953905 S MMMF FMMM MFFM FFMM MMMM FFFM
25 31954465 S MMMF FMMM MFFM FMMF FFMF FFFM
25 31963037 S MMMF FMMM MFMM FMMM MFFM MMFM
25 31963085 S MMMF FMMM MFMM FMMM MMFF MMFM
25 31963121 S MMMF FMMM MFMM FMMM MMMM FFFM
25 31978845 S MMMF FMMM MMMM FMFM FMFM MMFM
26 63859293 S M MMFF MMMF FMMF MFMF FMFM MMFM
Cheers,
Ian
Here is another:
163 paths from William Asfordby to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
20 741669 S FMM FMFM FFFM FFMF FMFM
21 1486417 S FMMF MFMF MMMF FMFM FFFM
21 1980965 S MMMF FFMM MFMF FFMF FMFM
22 2966257 S F MMFM FMFF FFMF MMMM FFFM
22 2966637 S F MMFM FMFF FMFF FMMF MMFM
22 2967297 S F MMFM FMFF FMMM FFFF FFFM
22 2967345 S F MMFM FMFF FMMM FFMM FFFM
22 2967681 S F MMFM FMFF MFFF MFFF FFFM
22 2967729 S F MMFM FMFF MFFF MFMM FFFM
22 2968529 S F MMFM FMFF MFMM MMFM FFFM
22 2970481 S F MMFM FMFM FFMM FMMM FFFM
22 2971857 S F MMFM FMFM MFFF MMFM FFFM
22 2971905 S F MMFM FMFM MFFM FFFF FFFM
22 2971953 S F MMFM FMFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
22 2972657 S F MMFM FMFM MFMM MMMM FFFM
22 2972829 S F MMFM FMFM MMFF MFFM MMFM
22 2972877 S F MMFM FMFM MMFF MMFF MMFM
22 2972913 S F MMFM FMFM MMFF MMMM FFFM
22 2972973 S F MMFM FMFM MMFM FFMF MMFM
22 2973297 S F MMFM FMFM MMMF FMMM FFFM
22 2973517 S F MMFM FMFM MMMM FMFF MMFM
22 3959973 S M MMFF FMMF MMFF MFMF FMFM
22 3961425 S M MMFF FMMM FFMF FMFM FFFM
22 3997265 S M MMFF MMMM MMMF FMFM FFFM
23 5935649 S FM MFMF MFFM FFMF FFMF FFFM
23 5937053 S FM MFMF MFFM FMMM MFFM MMFM
23 5937101 S FM MFMF MFFM FMMM MMFF MMFM
23 5937137 S FM MFMF MFFM FMMM MMMM FFFM
23 5937905 S FM MFMF MFFM MFMF MMMM FFFM
23 5943609 S FM MFMF MFMM FFFM FFMM MFFM
23 5943709 S FM MFMF MFMM FFFM MFFM MMFM
23 5943757 S FM MFMF MFMM FFFM MMFF MMFM
23 5943793 S FM MFMF MFMM FFFM MMMM FFFM
23 5946659 S FM MFMF MFMM MMFM FFMF FFMM
23 5947085 S FM MFMF MFMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
23 5947121 S FM MFMF MFMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
23 7917777 S MM MFFF MMFM FFFF MMFM FFFM
23 7920385 S MM MFFF MMFM MFMM FFFF FFFM
23 7920433 S MM MFFF MMFM MFMM FFMM FFFM
23 7920881 S MM MFFF MMFM MMFF MMMM FFFM
23 7921393 S MM MFFF MMFM MMMF MMMM FFFM
23 7921873 S MM MFFF MMMF FFFF MMFM FFFM
23 7921921 S MM MFFF MMMF FFFM FFFF FFFM
23 7921969 S MM MFFF MMMF FFFM FFMM FFFM
23 7922673 S MM MFFF MMMF FFMM MMMM FFFM
23 7922845 S MM MFFF MMMF FMFF MFFM MMFM
23 7922893 S MM MFFF MMMF FMFF MMFF MMFM
23 7922929 S MM MFFF MMMF FMFF MMMM FFFM
23 7922989 S MM MFFF MMMF FMFM FFMF MMFM
23 7923313 S MM MFFF MMMF FMMF FMMM FFFM
23 7923533 S MM MFFF MMMF FMMM FMFF MMFM
23 7923821 S MM MFFF MMMF MFFF FMMF MMFM
23 7924481 S MM MFFF MMMF MFMM FFFF FFFM
23 7924529 S MM MFFF MMMF MFMM FFMM FFFM
23 7925505 S MM MFFF MMMF MMMM FFFF FFFM
23 7925553 S MM MFFF MMMF MMMM FFMM FFFM
23 7925773 S MM MFFF MMMM FFFF FFFF MMFM
23 7926737 S MM MFFF MMMM FFMM MMFM FFFM
23 7926957 S MM MFFF MMMM FMFF MFMF MMFM
23 7926989 S MM MFFF MMMM FMFF MMFF MMFM
23 7927053 S MM MFFF MMMM FMFM FFFF MMFM
23 7927665 S MM MFFF MMMM FMMM FMMM FFFM
23 7979249 S MM MFFM MMFF FFFF MMMM FFFM
23 7979473 S MM MFFM MMFF FFFM MMFM FFFM
23 7981265 S MM MFFM MMFF MFFF MMFM FFFM
23 7981313 S MM MFFM MMFF MFFM FFFF FFFM
23 7981361 S MM MFFM MMFF MFFM FFMM FFFM
23 7984197 S MM MFFM MMFM FMFF FMFF FMFM
23 7984557 S MM MFFM MMFM FMFM MFMF MMFM
23 7986627 S MM MFFM MMFM MMFM MMFF FFMM
23 7987953 S MM MFFM MMMF FFMF MMMM FFFM
23 7990789 S MM MFFM MMMF MMMF FFFF FMFM
23 7994113 S MM MFFM MMMM MFMM FFFF FFFM
23 7994161 S MM MFFM MMMM MFMM FFMM FFFM
23 7994525 S MM MFFM MMMM MMFF MFFM MMFM
23 7994573 S MM MFFM MMMM MMFF MMFF MMFM
23 7994609 S MM MFFM MMMM MMFF MMMM FFFM
23 7994669 S MM MFFM MMMM MMFM FFMF MMFM
23 7994993 S MM MFFM MMMM MMMF FMMM FFFM
23 7995213 S MM MFFM MMMM MMMM FMFF MMFM
24 11892061 S FMM FMFM FMMM FMFM FMFM MMFM
24 15835549 S MMM FFFM MFMF FFFM MFFM MMFM
24 15835597 S MMM FFFM MFMF FFFM MMFF MMFM
24 15835633 S MMM FFFM MFMF FFFM MMMM FFFM
24 15836013 S MMM FFFM MFMF FFMM FMMF MMFM
24 15839853 S MMM FFFM MFMM FFMF FMMF MMFM
24 15843641 S MMM FFFM MMFF FFFM FFMM MFFM
24 15843741 S MMM FFFM MMFF FFFM MFFM MMFM
24 15843789 S MMM FFFM MMFF FFFM MMFF MMFM
24 15843825 S MMM FFFM MMFF FFFM MMMM FFFM
24 15846691 S MMM FFFM MMFF MMFM FFMF FFMM
24 15847117 S MMM FFFM MMFF MMMF MMFF MMFM
24 15847153 S MMM FFFM MMFF MMMF MMMM FFFM
24 15850865 S MMM FFFM MMFM MMFM FMMM FFFM
24 15851459 S MMM FFFM MMFM MMMM MMFF FFMM
24 15851697 S MMM FFFM MMMF FFFF MFMM FFFM
24 15852241 S MMM FFFM MMMF FFMF MMFM FFFM
24 15852289 S MMM FFFM MMMF FFMM FFFF FFFM
24 15852337 S MMM FFFM MMMF FFMM FFMM FFFM
24 15853469 S MMM FFFM MMMF FMMM MFFM MMFM
24 15853517 S MMM FFFM MMMF FMMM MMFF MMFM
24 15853553 S MMM FFFM MMMF FMMM MMMM FFFM
24 15855729 S MMM FFFM MMMM FFFF FMMM FFFM
24 15855949 S MMM FFFM MMMM FFFM FMFF MMFM
24 15856385 S MMM FFFM MMMM FFMM FFFF FFFM
24 15856433 S MMM FFFM MMMM FFMM FFMM FFFM
24 15857859 S MMM FFFM MMMM MFFF MMFF FFMM
24 15858733 S MMM FFFM MMMM MMFF FFMF MMFM
24 15858769 S MMM FFFM MMMM MMFF FMFM FFFM
24 15858945 S MMM FFFM MMMM MMFM FFFF FFFM
24 15858993 S MMM FFFM MMMM MMFM FFMM FFFM
24 15859665 S MMM FFFM MMMM MMMM MMFM FFFM
24 15958941 S MMM FFMM MFFF FFMM MFFM MMFM
24 15958989 S MMM FFMM MFFF FFMM MMFF MMFM
24 15959025 S MMM FFMM MFFF FFMM MMMM FFFM
24 15959585 S MMM FFMM MFFF FMMF FFMF FFFM
24 15962525 S MMM FFMM MFFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
24 15962573 S MMM FFMM MFFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
24 15962609 S MMM FFMM MFFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
24 15963075 S MMM FFMM MFFM FFMM MMFF FFMM
24 15964749 S MMM FFMM MFFM MFMF FMFF MMFM
24 15964913 S MMM FFMM MFFM MFMF MMMM FFFM
24 15965041 S MMM FFMM MFFM MFMM FMMM FFFM
24 15965473 S MMM FFMM MFFM MMFM FFMF FFFM
24 15976689 S MMM FFMM MMFF MFFF MMMM FFFM
24 15976913 S MMM FFMM MMFF MFFM MMFM FFFM
24 15981521 S MMM FFMM MMFM MFMM MMFM FFFM
24 15982337 S MMM FFMM MMFM MMMM FFFF FFFM
24 15982385 S MMM FFMM MMFM MMMM FFMM FFFM
24 15988081 S MMM FFMM MMMM FMFM FMMM FFFM
24 15988675 S MMM FFMM MMMM FMMM MMFF FFMM
24 15990051 S MMM FFMM MMMM MMFM FFMF FFMM
24 15990477 S MMM FFMM MMMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
24 15990513 S MMM FFMM MMMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
25 31692125 S MMMF FFMM MFFM FMFM FMFM MMFM
25 31703793 S MMMF FFMM MMFF FFMF MMMM FFFM
25 31704377 S MMMF FFMM MMFF FMFM FFMM MFFM
25 31704477 S MMMF FFMM MMFF FMFM MFFM MMFM
25 31704525 S MMMF FFMM MMFF FMFM MMFF MMFM
25 31704561 S MMMF FFMM MMFF FMFM MMMM FFFM
25 31711523 S MMMF FFMM MMMF FFFM FFMF FFMM
25 31711949 S MMMF FFMM MMMF FFMF MMFF MMFM
25 31711985 S MMMF FFMM MMMF FFMF MMMM FFFM
25 31717533 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MFFF MFFM MMFM
25 31717581 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MFFF MMFF MMFM
25 31717617 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MFFF MMMM FFFM
25 31717731 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MFFM FMMF FFMM
25 31718339 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MFMM MMFF FFMM
25 31719325 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MMMM MFFM MMFM
25 31719373 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MMMM MMFF MMFM
25 31719409 S MMMF FFMM MMMM MMMM MMMM FFFM
25 31929549 S MMMF FMMM FFMM FMFF MMFF MMFM
25 31929585 S MMMF FMMM FFMM FMFF MMMM FFFM
25 31930147 S MMMF FMMM FFMM FMMM FFMF FFMM
25 31953821 S MMMF FMMM MFFM FFMM MFFM MMFM
25 31953869 S MMMF FMMM MFFM FFMM MMFF MMFM
25 31953905 S MMMF FMMM MFFM FFMM MMMM FFFM
25 31954465 S MMMF FMMM MFFM FMMF FFMF FFFM
25 31963037 S MMMF FMMM MFMM FMMM MFFM MMFM
25 31963085 S MMMF FMMM MFMM FMMM MMFF MMFM
25 31963121 S MMMF FMMM MFMM FMMM MMMM FFFM
25 31978845 S MMMF FMMM MMMM FMFM FMFM MMFM
26 63859293 S M MMFF MMMF FMMF MFMF FMFM MMFM
Cheers,
Ian
-
Ian Fettes
Descendants of Rohese Giffard = Robert Rose
Hi All,
Here is the last on the request lists:
252 paths from Robert Rose to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
21 1147757 S FFFM MFFF FFMM FMMF MMFM
21 1169325 S FFFM MMFM FMMM MFMF MMFM
21 1178253 S FFFM MMMM MFMF MFFF MMFM
22 2121025 S F FFFF FMFM MMFM FMFF FFFM
22 2121073 S F FFFF FMFM MMFM FMMM FFFM
22 2140333 S F FFFF MFMF MFFF MFMF MMFM
22 2140369 S F FFFF MFMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
22 2271405 S F FFMF MFMF MFFF MFMF MMFM
22 2271441 S F FFMF MFMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
22 2327873 S F FFMM MFFF FMFM FMFF FFFM
22 2327921 S F FFMM MFFF FMFM FMMM FFFM
22 2331981 S F FFMM MFFM FMFM FMFF MMFM
22 2337965 S F FFMM MFMF MMFF MFMF MMFM
22 2338001 S F FFMM MFMF MMFF MMFM FFFM
22 3229549 S M FFFM FMFF FMMM FMMF MMFM
22 3241901 S M FFFM FMMM FMMM MFMF MMFM
22 3250093 S M FFFM MFFM FMMM MFMF MMFM
23 4259917 S FF FFFM FFFF FFFF FMFF MMFM
23 4261037 S FF FFFM FFFF FMFF MFMF MMFM
23 4261073 S FF FFFM FFFF FMFF MMFM FFFM
23 4280733 S FF FFFM FMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
23 4280781 S FF FFFM FMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
23 4280817 S FF FFFM FMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
23 4280897 S FF FFFM FMFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
23 4280945 S FF FFFM FMFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
23 4522061 S FF FMFM FFFF FFFF FMFF MMFM
23 4523181 S FF FMFM FFFF FMFF MFMF MMFM
23 4523217 S FF FMFM FFFF FMFF MMFM FFFM
23 4542877 S FF FMFM FMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
23 4542925 S FF FMFM FMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
23 4542961 S FF FMFM FMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
23 4543041 S FF FMFM FMFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
23 4543089 S FF FMFM FMFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
23 4589741 S FF FMMF FFFF MFFF MFMF MMFM
23 4589777 S FF FMMF FFFF MFFF MMFM FFFM
23 4594861 S FF FMMF FFFM MMFF MFMF MMFM
23 4594897 S FF FMMF FFFM MMFF MMFM FFFM
23 4664397 S FF FMMM FFMF MMFF FMFF MMFM
23 4673345 S FF FMMM FMFF MMMM FMFF FFFM
23 4673393 S FF FMMM FMFF MMMM FMMM FFFM
23 4675997 S FF FMMM FMFM MFFM MFFM MMFM
23 4676045 S FF FMMM FMFM MFFM MMFF MMFM
23 4676081 S FF FMMM FMFM MFFM MMMM FFFM
23 4676161 S FF FMMM FMFM MFMF FMFF FFFM
23 4676209 S FF FMMM FMFM MFMF FMMM FFFM
23 4693313 S FF FMMM MFFM MMFM FMFF FFFM
23 4693361 S FF FMMM MFFM MMFM FMMM FFFM
23 4703405 S FF FMMM MMFF FMFF MFMF MMFM
23 4703441 S FF FMMM MMFF FMFF MMFM FFFM
23 4709549 S FF FMMM MMFM MMFF MFMF MMFM
23 4709585 S FF FMMM MMFM MMFF MMFM FFFM
23 6475329 S MF FFMF MMFF MMMF FMFF FFFM
23 6475377 S MF FFMF MMFF MMMF FMMM FFFM
23 6475565 S MF FFMF MMFF MMMM FFMF MMFM
23 6475601 S MF FFMF MMFF MMMM FMFM FFFM
23 6475971 S MF FFMF MMFM FFFF MMFF FFMM
23 6479153 S MF FFMF MMFM MMFM FFMM FFFM
23 6479237 S MF FFMF MMFM MMFM MFFF FMFM
23 6479825 S MF FFMF MMFM MMMM MMFM FFFM
23 6480397 S MF FFMF MMMF FFMF FFFF MMFM
23 6483117 S MF FFMF MMMF MMFF MFMF MMFM
23 6483153 S MF FFMF MMMF MMFF MMFM FFFM
23 6491713 S MF FFMM FFFF MMMF FMFF FFFM
23 6491761 S MF FFMM FFFF MMMF FMMM FFFM
23 6491949 S MF FFMM FFFF MMMM FFMF MMFM
23 6491985 S MF FFMM FFFF MMMM FMFM FFFM
23 6492355 S MF FFMM FFFM FFFF MMFF FFMM
23 6495537 S MF FFMM FFFM MMFM FFMM FFFM
23 6495621 S MF FFMM FFFM MMFM MFFF FMFM
23 6496209 S MF FFMM FFFM MMMM MMFM FFFM
23 6496781 S MF FFMM FFMF FFMF FFFF MMFM
23 6499501 S MF FFMM FFMF MMFF MFMF MMFM
23 6499537 S MF FFMM FFMF MMFF MMFM FFFM
23 6517709 S MF FFMM FMMM FFMM MMFF MMFM
23 6525101 S MF FFMM MFFM FFFF MFMF MMFM
23 6525137 S MF FFMM MFFM FFFF MMFM FFFM
23 6527405 S MF FFMM MFFM MFFM MFMF MMFM
23 6527441 S MF FFMM MFFM MFFM MMFM FFFM
24 8522141 S FFF FFMF FFFF MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 8522189 S FFF FFMF FFFF MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 8522225 S FFF FFMF FFFF MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 8522305 S FFF FFMF FFFF MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 8522353 S FFF FFMF FFFF MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 9046429 S FFF MFMF FFFF MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 9046477 S FFF MFMF FFFF MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 9046513 S FFF MFMF FFFF MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 9046593 S FFF MFMF FFFF MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 9046641 S FFF MFMF FFFF MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 9179549 S FFF MMFF FFFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
24 9179597 S FFF MMFF FFFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
24 9179633 S FFF MMFF FFFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
24 9179713 S FFF MMFF FFFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
24 9179761 S FFF MMFF FFFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
24 9189789 S FFF MMFF FFMM MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 9189837 S FFF MMFF FFMM MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 9189873 S FFF MMFF FFMM MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 9189953 S FFF MMFF FFMM MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 9190001 S FFF MMFF FFMM MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 9323841 S FFF MMMF FMFF FMFM FMFF FFFM
24 9323889 S FFF MMMF FMFF FMFM FMMM FFFM
24 9406877 S FFF MMMM MFFF MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 9406925 S FFF MMMM MFFF MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 9406961 S FFF MMMM MFFF MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 9407041 S FFF MMMM MFFF MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 9407089 S FFF MMMM MFFF MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 9419165 S FFF MMMM MFMM MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 9419213 S FFF MMMM MFMM MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 9419249 S FFF MMMM MFMM MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 9419329 S FFF MMMM MFMM MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 9419377 S FFF MMMM MFMM MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 12916909 S MFF FMFM FFFM MFFF MFMF MMFM
24 12916945 S MFF FMFM FFFM MFFF MMFM FFFM
24 12924845 S MFF FMFM FFMM FMMM MFMF MMFM
24 12934465 S MFF FMFM FMFM MMFM FMFF FFFM
24 12934513 S MFF FMFM FMFM MMFM FMMM FFFM
24 12951197 S MFF FMFM MFFM MMMF MFFM MMFM
24 12951245 S MFF FMFM MFFM MMMF MMFF MMFM
24 12951281 S MFF FMFM MFFM MMMF MMMM FFFM
24 12951395 S MFF FMFM MFFM MMMM FMMF FFMM
24 12957475 S MFF FMFM MFMM FMMM FFMF FFMM
24 12957937 S MFF FMFM MFMM MFFF MMMM FFFM
24 12959645 S MFF FMFM MFMM MMMM MFFM MMFM
24 12959693 S MFF FMFM MFMM MMMM MMFF MMFM
24 12959729 S MFF FMFM MFMM MMMM MMMM FFFM
24 12961601 S MFF FMFM MMFF FMMM FMFF FFFM
24 12961649 S MFF FMFM MMFF FMMM FMMM FFFM
24 12966301 S MFF FMFM MMFM MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 12966349 S MFF FMFM MMFM MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 12966385 S MFF FMFM MMFM MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 12966465 S MFF FMFM MMFM MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 12966513 S MFF FMFM MMFM MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 12970157 S MFF FMFM MMMF MFFF MFMF MMFM
24 12970193 S MFF FMFM MMMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
24 12973229 S MFF FMFM MMMM FMFF MFMF MMFM
24 12973265 S MFF FMFM MMMM FMFF MMFM FFFM
24 12975425 S MFF FMFM MMMM MMFM FMFF FFFM
24 12975473 S MFF FMFM MMMM MMFM FMMM FFFM
24 12983965 S MFF FMMF FFFM MMMF MFFM MMFM
24 12984013 S MFF FMMF FFFM MMMF MMFF MMFM
24 12984049 S MFF FMMF FFFM MMMF MMMM FFFM
24 12984163 S MFF FMMF FFFM MMMM FMMF FFMM
24 12990243 S MFF FMMF FFMM FMMM FFMF FFMM
24 12990705 S MFF FMMF FFMM MFFF MMMM FFFM
24 12992413 S MFF FMMF FFMM MMMM MFFM MMFM
24 12992461 S MFF FMMF FFMM MMMM MMFF MMFM
24 12992497 S MFF FMMF FFMM MMMM MMMM FFFM
24 12994369 S MFF FMMF FMFF FMMM FMFF FFFM
24 12994417 S MFF FMMF FMFF FMMM FMMM FFFM
24 12999069 S MFF FMMF FMFM MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 12999117 S MFF FMMF FMFM MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 12999153 S MFF FMMF FMFM MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 12999233 S MFF FMMF FMFM MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 12999281 S MFF FMMF FMFM MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 13002925 S MFF FMMF FMMF MFFF MFMF MMFM
24 13002961 S MFF FMMF FMMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
24 13005997 S MFF FMMF FMMM FMFF MFMF MMFM
24 13006033 S MFF FMMF FMMM FMFF MMFM FFFM
24 13008193 S MFF FMMF FMMM MMFM FMFF FFFM
24 13008241 S MFF FMMF FMMM MMFM FMMM FFFM
24 13011117 S MFF FMMF MFFF MFFF MFMF MMFM
24 13011153 S MFF FMMF MFFF MFFF MMFM FFFM
24 13019309 S MFF FMMF MFMF MFFF MFMF MMFM
24 13019345 S MFF FMMF MFMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
24 13035181 S MFF FMMF MMMF FMMF MFMF MMFM
24 13035217 S MFF FMMF MMMF FMMF MMFM FFFM
24 13050269 S MFF FMMM FFMF FFFM MFFM MMFM
24 13050317 S MFF FMMM FFMF FFFM MMFF MMFM
24 13050353 S MFF FMMM FFMF FFFM MMMM FFFM
24 13050433 S MFF FMMM FFMF FFMF FMFF FFFM
24 13050481 S MFF FMMM FFMF FFMF FMMM FFFM
24 13054877 S MFF FMMM FFMM FFMM MFFM MMFM
24 13054925 S MFF FMMM FFMM FFMM MMFF MMFM
24 13054961 S MFF FMMM FFMM FFMM MMMM FFFM
25 18677313 S FFFM MMFF MMMM MMMF FMFF FFFM
25 18677361 S FFFM MMFF MMMM MMMF FMMM FFFM
25 18677549 S FFFM MMFF MMMM MMMM FFMF MMFM
25 18677585 S FFFM MMFF MMMM MMMM FMFM FFFM
25 25833885 S MFFF MFMF FFMM FFFM MFFM MMFM
25 25833933 S MFFF MFMF FFMM FFFM MMFF MMFM
25 25833969 S MFFF MFMF FFMM FFFM MMMM FFFM
25 25834049 S MFFF MFMF FFMM FFMF FMFF FFFM
25 25834097 S MFFF MFMF FFMM FFMF FMMM FFFM
25 25838913 S MFFF MFMF FMFF FMFM FMFF FFFM
25 25838961 S MFFF MFMF FMFF FMFM FMMM FFFM
25 25843021 S MFFF MFMF FMFM FMFM FMFF MMFM
25 25849005 S MFFF MFMF FMMF MMFF MFMF MMFM
25 25849041 S MFFF MFMF FMMF MMFF MMFM FFFM
25 25940381 S MFFF MFMM MMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
25 25940429 S MFFF MFMM MMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
25 25940465 S MFFF MFMM MMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
25 25940545 S MFFF MFMM MMFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
25 25940593 S MFFF MFMM MMFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
25 25946525 S MFFF MFMM MMMF MFFM MFFM MMFM
25 25946573 S MFFF MFMM MMMF MFFM MMFF MMFM
25 25946609 S MFFF MFMM MMMF MFFM MMMM FFFM
25 25946689 S MFFF MFMM MMMF MFMF FMFF FFFM
25 25946737 S MFFF MFMM MMMF MFMF FMMM FFFM
25 26005917 S MFFF MMFF MMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
25 26005965 S MFFF MMFF MMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
25 26006001 S MFFF MMFF MMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
25 26006081 S MFFF MMFF MMFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
25 26006129 S MFFF MMFF MMFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
25 26012061 S MFFF MMFF MMMF MFFM MFFM MMFM
25 26012109 S MFFF MMFF MMMF MFFM MMFF MMFM
25 26012145 S MFFF MMFF MMMF MFFM MMMM FFFM
25 26012225 S MFFF MMFF MMMF MFMF FMFF FFFM
25 26012273 S MFFF MMFF MMMF MFMF FMMM FFFM
25 26022301 S MFFF MMFM FFFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
25 26022349 S MFFF MMFM FFFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
25 26022385 S MFFF MMFM FFFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
25 26022465 S MFFF MMFM FFFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
25 26022513 S MFFF MMFM FFFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
25 26025281 S MFFF MMFM FFFM MMFM FMFF FFFM
25 26025329 S MFFF MMFM FFFM MMFM FMMM FFFM
25 26037825 S MFFF MMFM FMFF MMMF FMFF FFFM
25 26037873 S MFFF MMFM FMFF MMMF FMMM FFFM
25 26038061 S MFFF MMFM FMFF MMMM FFMF MMFM
25 26038097 S MFFF MMFM FMFF MMMM FMFM FFFM
25 26038685 S MFFF MMFM FMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
25 26038733 S MFFF MMFM FMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
25 26038769 S MFFF MMFM FMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
25 26038849 S MFFF MMFM FMFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
25 26038897 S MFFF MMFM FMFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
25 26070429 S MFFF MMFM MMFF MMFM MFFM MMFM
25 26070477 S MFFF MMFM MMFF MMFM MMFF MMFM
25 26070513 S MFFF MMFM MMFF MMFM MMMM FFFM
26 37355165 S F FFMM MFFM MMMM MMMF MFFM MMFM
26 37355213 S F FFMM MFFM MMMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
26 37355249 S F FFMM MFFM MMMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
26 37355363 S F FFMM MFFM MMMM MMMM FMMF FFMM
26 51686477 S M FFFM FMFF MFMF MMFF FMFF MMFM
26 51695425 S M FFFM FMFF MMFF MMMM FMFF FFFM
26 51695473 S M FFFM FMFF MMFF MMMM FMMM FFFM
26 51698077 S M FFFM FMFF MMFM MFFM MFFM MMFM
26 51698125 S M FFFM FMFF MMFM MFFM MMFF MMFM
26 51698161 S M FFFM FMFF MMFM MFFM MMMM FFFM
26 51698241 S M FFFM FMFF MMFM MFMF FMFF FFFM
26 51698289 S M FFFM FMFF MMFM MFMF FMMM FFFM
26 52076189 S M FFFM MFMF MFFM MMMF MFFM MMFM
26 52076237 S M FFFM MFMF MFFM MMMF MMFF MMFM
26 52076273 S M FFFM MFMF MFFM MMMF MMMM FFFM
26 52076387 S M FFFM MFMF MFFM MMMM FMMF FFMM
27 103368001 S MF FFMF MFFM FMFF FMFM FMFF FFFM
27 103368049 S MF FFMF MFFM FMFF FMFM FMMM FFFM
28 206765633 S MFF FMFM FFMF MMMM MMMF FMFF FFFM
28 206765681 S MFF FMFM FFMF MMMM MMMF FMMM FFFM
28 206765869 S MFF FMFM FFMF MMMM MMMM FFMF MMFM
28 206765905 S MFF FMFM FFMF MMMM MMMM FMFM FFFM
29 413531805 S MFFF MFMF FMFM MMMM MMMF MFFM MMFM
29 413531853 S MFFF MFMF FMFM MMMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
29 413531889 S MFFF MFMF FMFM MMMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
29 413532003 S MFFF MFMF FMFM MMMM MMMM FMMF FFMM
Cheers,
Ian
Here is the last on the request lists:
252 paths from Robert Rose to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
21 1147757 S FFFM MFFF FFMM FMMF MMFM
21 1169325 S FFFM MMFM FMMM MFMF MMFM
21 1178253 S FFFM MMMM MFMF MFFF MMFM
22 2121025 S F FFFF FMFM MMFM FMFF FFFM
22 2121073 S F FFFF FMFM MMFM FMMM FFFM
22 2140333 S F FFFF MFMF MFFF MFMF MMFM
22 2140369 S F FFFF MFMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
22 2271405 S F FFMF MFMF MFFF MFMF MMFM
22 2271441 S F FFMF MFMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
22 2327873 S F FFMM MFFF FMFM FMFF FFFM
22 2327921 S F FFMM MFFF FMFM FMMM FFFM
22 2331981 S F FFMM MFFM FMFM FMFF MMFM
22 2337965 S F FFMM MFMF MMFF MFMF MMFM
22 2338001 S F FFMM MFMF MMFF MMFM FFFM
22 3229549 S M FFFM FMFF FMMM FMMF MMFM
22 3241901 S M FFFM FMMM FMMM MFMF MMFM
22 3250093 S M FFFM MFFM FMMM MFMF MMFM
23 4259917 S FF FFFM FFFF FFFF FMFF MMFM
23 4261037 S FF FFFM FFFF FMFF MFMF MMFM
23 4261073 S FF FFFM FFFF FMFF MMFM FFFM
23 4280733 S FF FFFM FMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
23 4280781 S FF FFFM FMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
23 4280817 S FF FFFM FMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
23 4280897 S FF FFFM FMFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
23 4280945 S FF FFFM FMFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
23 4522061 S FF FMFM FFFF FFFF FMFF MMFM
23 4523181 S FF FMFM FFFF FMFF MFMF MMFM
23 4523217 S FF FMFM FFFF FMFF MMFM FFFM
23 4542877 S FF FMFM FMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
23 4542925 S FF FMFM FMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
23 4542961 S FF FMFM FMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
23 4543041 S FF FMFM FMFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
23 4543089 S FF FMFM FMFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
23 4589741 S FF FMMF FFFF MFFF MFMF MMFM
23 4589777 S FF FMMF FFFF MFFF MMFM FFFM
23 4594861 S FF FMMF FFFM MMFF MFMF MMFM
23 4594897 S FF FMMF FFFM MMFF MMFM FFFM
23 4664397 S FF FMMM FFMF MMFF FMFF MMFM
23 4673345 S FF FMMM FMFF MMMM FMFF FFFM
23 4673393 S FF FMMM FMFF MMMM FMMM FFFM
23 4675997 S FF FMMM FMFM MFFM MFFM MMFM
23 4676045 S FF FMMM FMFM MFFM MMFF MMFM
23 4676081 S FF FMMM FMFM MFFM MMMM FFFM
23 4676161 S FF FMMM FMFM MFMF FMFF FFFM
23 4676209 S FF FMMM FMFM MFMF FMMM FFFM
23 4693313 S FF FMMM MFFM MMFM FMFF FFFM
23 4693361 S FF FMMM MFFM MMFM FMMM FFFM
23 4703405 S FF FMMM MMFF FMFF MFMF MMFM
23 4703441 S FF FMMM MMFF FMFF MMFM FFFM
23 4709549 S FF FMMM MMFM MMFF MFMF MMFM
23 4709585 S FF FMMM MMFM MMFF MMFM FFFM
23 6475329 S MF FFMF MMFF MMMF FMFF FFFM
23 6475377 S MF FFMF MMFF MMMF FMMM FFFM
23 6475565 S MF FFMF MMFF MMMM FFMF MMFM
23 6475601 S MF FFMF MMFF MMMM FMFM FFFM
23 6475971 S MF FFMF MMFM FFFF MMFF FFMM
23 6479153 S MF FFMF MMFM MMFM FFMM FFFM
23 6479237 S MF FFMF MMFM MMFM MFFF FMFM
23 6479825 S MF FFMF MMFM MMMM MMFM FFFM
23 6480397 S MF FFMF MMMF FFMF FFFF MMFM
23 6483117 S MF FFMF MMMF MMFF MFMF MMFM
23 6483153 S MF FFMF MMMF MMFF MMFM FFFM
23 6491713 S MF FFMM FFFF MMMF FMFF FFFM
23 6491761 S MF FFMM FFFF MMMF FMMM FFFM
23 6491949 S MF FFMM FFFF MMMM FFMF MMFM
23 6491985 S MF FFMM FFFF MMMM FMFM FFFM
23 6492355 S MF FFMM FFFM FFFF MMFF FFMM
23 6495537 S MF FFMM FFFM MMFM FFMM FFFM
23 6495621 S MF FFMM FFFM MMFM MFFF FMFM
23 6496209 S MF FFMM FFFM MMMM MMFM FFFM
23 6496781 S MF FFMM FFMF FFMF FFFF MMFM
23 6499501 S MF FFMM FFMF MMFF MFMF MMFM
23 6499537 S MF FFMM FFMF MMFF MMFM FFFM
23 6517709 S MF FFMM FMMM FFMM MMFF MMFM
23 6525101 S MF FFMM MFFM FFFF MFMF MMFM
23 6525137 S MF FFMM MFFM FFFF MMFM FFFM
23 6527405 S MF FFMM MFFM MFFM MFMF MMFM
23 6527441 S MF FFMM MFFM MFFM MMFM FFFM
24 8522141 S FFF FFMF FFFF MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 8522189 S FFF FFMF FFFF MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 8522225 S FFF FFMF FFFF MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 8522305 S FFF FFMF FFFF MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 8522353 S FFF FFMF FFFF MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 9046429 S FFF MFMF FFFF MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 9046477 S FFF MFMF FFFF MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 9046513 S FFF MFMF FFFF MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 9046593 S FFF MFMF FFFF MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 9046641 S FFF MFMF FFFF MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 9179549 S FFF MMFF FFFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
24 9179597 S FFF MMFF FFFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
24 9179633 S FFF MMFF FFFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
24 9179713 S FFF MMFF FFFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
24 9179761 S FFF MMFF FFFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
24 9189789 S FFF MMFF FFMM MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 9189837 S FFF MMFF FFMM MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 9189873 S FFF MMFF FFMM MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 9189953 S FFF MMFF FFMM MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 9190001 S FFF MMFF FFMM MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 9323841 S FFF MMMF FMFF FMFM FMFF FFFM
24 9323889 S FFF MMMF FMFF FMFM FMMM FFFM
24 9406877 S FFF MMMM MFFF MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 9406925 S FFF MMMM MFFF MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 9406961 S FFF MMMM MFFF MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 9407041 S FFF MMMM MFFF MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 9407089 S FFF MMMM MFFF MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 9419165 S FFF MMMM MFMM MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 9419213 S FFF MMMM MFMM MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 9419249 S FFF MMMM MFMM MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 9419329 S FFF MMMM MFMM MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 9419377 S FFF MMMM MFMM MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 12916909 S MFF FMFM FFFM MFFF MFMF MMFM
24 12916945 S MFF FMFM FFFM MFFF MMFM FFFM
24 12924845 S MFF FMFM FFMM FMMM MFMF MMFM
24 12934465 S MFF FMFM FMFM MMFM FMFF FFFM
24 12934513 S MFF FMFM FMFM MMFM FMMM FFFM
24 12951197 S MFF FMFM MFFM MMMF MFFM MMFM
24 12951245 S MFF FMFM MFFM MMMF MMFF MMFM
24 12951281 S MFF FMFM MFFM MMMF MMMM FFFM
24 12951395 S MFF FMFM MFFM MMMM FMMF FFMM
24 12957475 S MFF FMFM MFMM FMMM FFMF FFMM
24 12957937 S MFF FMFM MFMM MFFF MMMM FFFM
24 12959645 S MFF FMFM MFMM MMMM MFFM MMFM
24 12959693 S MFF FMFM MFMM MMMM MMFF MMFM
24 12959729 S MFF FMFM MFMM MMMM MMMM FFFM
24 12961601 S MFF FMFM MMFF FMMM FMFF FFFM
24 12961649 S MFF FMFM MMFF FMMM FMMM FFFM
24 12966301 S MFF FMFM MMFM MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 12966349 S MFF FMFM MMFM MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 12966385 S MFF FMFM MMFM MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 12966465 S MFF FMFM MMFM MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 12966513 S MFF FMFM MMFM MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 12970157 S MFF FMFM MMMF MFFF MFMF MMFM
24 12970193 S MFF FMFM MMMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
24 12973229 S MFF FMFM MMMM FMFF MFMF MMFM
24 12973265 S MFF FMFM MMMM FMFF MMFM FFFM
24 12975425 S MFF FMFM MMMM MMFM FMFF FFFM
24 12975473 S MFF FMFM MMMM MMFM FMMM FFFM
24 12983965 S MFF FMMF FFFM MMMF MFFM MMFM
24 12984013 S MFF FMMF FFFM MMMF MMFF MMFM
24 12984049 S MFF FMMF FFFM MMMF MMMM FFFM
24 12984163 S MFF FMMF FFFM MMMM FMMF FFMM
24 12990243 S MFF FMMF FFMM FMMM FFMF FFMM
24 12990705 S MFF FMMF FFMM MFFF MMMM FFFM
24 12992413 S MFF FMMF FFMM MMMM MFFM MMFM
24 12992461 S MFF FMMF FFMM MMMM MMFF MMFM
24 12992497 S MFF FMMF FFMM MMMM MMMM FFFM
24 12994369 S MFF FMMF FMFF FMMM FMFF FFFM
24 12994417 S MFF FMMF FMFF FMMM FMMM FFFM
24 12999069 S MFF FMMF FMFM MFFM MFFM MMFM
24 12999117 S MFF FMMF FMFM MFFM MMFF MMFM
24 12999153 S MFF FMMF FMFM MFFM MMMM FFFM
24 12999233 S MFF FMMF FMFM MFMF FMFF FFFM
24 12999281 S MFF FMMF FMFM MFMF FMMM FFFM
24 13002925 S MFF FMMF FMMF MFFF MFMF MMFM
24 13002961 S MFF FMMF FMMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
24 13005997 S MFF FMMF FMMM FMFF MFMF MMFM
24 13006033 S MFF FMMF FMMM FMFF MMFM FFFM
24 13008193 S MFF FMMF FMMM MMFM FMFF FFFM
24 13008241 S MFF FMMF FMMM MMFM FMMM FFFM
24 13011117 S MFF FMMF MFFF MFFF MFMF MMFM
24 13011153 S MFF FMMF MFFF MFFF MMFM FFFM
24 13019309 S MFF FMMF MFMF MFFF MFMF MMFM
24 13019345 S MFF FMMF MFMF MFFF MMFM FFFM
24 13035181 S MFF FMMF MMMF FMMF MFMF MMFM
24 13035217 S MFF FMMF MMMF FMMF MMFM FFFM
24 13050269 S MFF FMMM FFMF FFFM MFFM MMFM
24 13050317 S MFF FMMM FFMF FFFM MMFF MMFM
24 13050353 S MFF FMMM FFMF FFFM MMMM FFFM
24 13050433 S MFF FMMM FFMF FFMF FMFF FFFM
24 13050481 S MFF FMMM FFMF FFMF FMMM FFFM
24 13054877 S MFF FMMM FFMM FFMM MFFM MMFM
24 13054925 S MFF FMMM FFMM FFMM MMFF MMFM
24 13054961 S MFF FMMM FFMM FFMM MMMM FFFM
25 18677313 S FFFM MMFF MMMM MMMF FMFF FFFM
25 18677361 S FFFM MMFF MMMM MMMF FMMM FFFM
25 18677549 S FFFM MMFF MMMM MMMM FFMF MMFM
25 18677585 S FFFM MMFF MMMM MMMM FMFM FFFM
25 25833885 S MFFF MFMF FFMM FFFM MFFM MMFM
25 25833933 S MFFF MFMF FFMM FFFM MMFF MMFM
25 25833969 S MFFF MFMF FFMM FFFM MMMM FFFM
25 25834049 S MFFF MFMF FFMM FFMF FMFF FFFM
25 25834097 S MFFF MFMF FFMM FFMF FMMM FFFM
25 25838913 S MFFF MFMF FMFF FMFM FMFF FFFM
25 25838961 S MFFF MFMF FMFF FMFM FMMM FFFM
25 25843021 S MFFF MFMF FMFM FMFM FMFF MMFM
25 25849005 S MFFF MFMF FMMF MMFF MFMF MMFM
25 25849041 S MFFF MFMF FMMF MMFF MMFM FFFM
25 25940381 S MFFF MFMM MMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
25 25940429 S MFFF MFMM MMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
25 25940465 S MFFF MFMM MMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
25 25940545 S MFFF MFMM MMFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
25 25940593 S MFFF MFMM MMFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
25 25946525 S MFFF MFMM MMMF MFFM MFFM MMFM
25 25946573 S MFFF MFMM MMMF MFFM MMFF MMFM
25 25946609 S MFFF MFMM MMMF MFFM MMMM FFFM
25 25946689 S MFFF MFMM MMMF MFMF FMFF FFFM
25 25946737 S MFFF MFMM MMMF MFMF FMMM FFFM
25 26005917 S MFFF MMFF MMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
25 26005965 S MFFF MMFF MMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
25 26006001 S MFFF MMFF MMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
25 26006081 S MFFF MMFF MMFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
25 26006129 S MFFF MMFF MMFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
25 26012061 S MFFF MMFF MMMF MFFM MFFM MMFM
25 26012109 S MFFF MMFF MMMF MFFM MMFF MMFM
25 26012145 S MFFF MMFF MMMF MFFM MMMM FFFM
25 26012225 S MFFF MMFF MMMF MFMF FMFF FFFM
25 26012273 S MFFF MMFF MMMF MFMF FMMM FFFM
25 26022301 S MFFF MMFM FFFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
25 26022349 S MFFF MMFM FFFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
25 26022385 S MFFF MMFM FFFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
25 26022465 S MFFF MMFM FFFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
25 26022513 S MFFF MMFM FFFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
25 26025281 S MFFF MMFM FFFM MMFM FMFF FFFM
25 26025329 S MFFF MMFM FFFM MMFM FMMM FFFM
25 26037825 S MFFF MMFM FMFF MMMF FMFF FFFM
25 26037873 S MFFF MMFM FMFF MMMF FMMM FFFM
25 26038061 S MFFF MMFM FMFF MMMM FFMF MMFM
25 26038097 S MFFF MMFM FMFF MMMM FMFM FFFM
25 26038685 S MFFF MMFM FMFM FFFM MFFM MMFM
25 26038733 S MFFF MMFM FMFM FFFM MMFF MMFM
25 26038769 S MFFF MMFM FMFM FFFM MMMM FFFM
25 26038849 S MFFF MMFM FMFM FFMF FMFF FFFM
25 26038897 S MFFF MMFM FMFM FFMF FMMM FFFM
25 26070429 S MFFF MMFM MMFF MMFM MFFM MMFM
25 26070477 S MFFF MMFM MMFF MMFM MMFF MMFM
25 26070513 S MFFF MMFM MMFF MMFM MMMM FFFM
26 37355165 S F FFMM MFFM MMMM MMMF MFFM MMFM
26 37355213 S F FFMM MFFM MMMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
26 37355249 S F FFMM MFFM MMMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
26 37355363 S F FFMM MFFM MMMM MMMM FMMF FFMM
26 51686477 S M FFFM FMFF MFMF MMFF FMFF MMFM
26 51695425 S M FFFM FMFF MMFF MMMM FMFF FFFM
26 51695473 S M FFFM FMFF MMFF MMMM FMMM FFFM
26 51698077 S M FFFM FMFF MMFM MFFM MFFM MMFM
26 51698125 S M FFFM FMFF MMFM MFFM MMFF MMFM
26 51698161 S M FFFM FMFF MMFM MFFM MMMM FFFM
26 51698241 S M FFFM FMFF MMFM MFMF FMFF FFFM
26 51698289 S M FFFM FMFF MMFM MFMF FMMM FFFM
26 52076189 S M FFFM MFMF MFFM MMMF MFFM MMFM
26 52076237 S M FFFM MFMF MFFM MMMF MMFF MMFM
26 52076273 S M FFFM MFMF MFFM MMMF MMMM FFFM
26 52076387 S M FFFM MFMF MFFM MMMM FMMF FFMM
27 103368001 S MF FFMF MFFM FMFF FMFM FMFF FFFM
27 103368049 S MF FFMF MFFM FMFF FMFM FMMM FFFM
28 206765633 S MFF FMFM FFMF MMMM MMMF FMFF FFFM
28 206765681 S MFF FMFM FFMF MMMM MMMF FMMM FFFM
28 206765869 S MFF FMFM FFMF MMMM MMMM FFMF MMFM
28 206765905 S MFF FMFM FFMF MMMM MMMM FMFM FFFM
29 413531805 S MFFF MFMF FMFM MMMM MMMF MFFM MMFM
29 413531853 S MFFF MFMF FMFM MMMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
29 413531889 S MFFF MFMF FMFM MMMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
29 413532003 S MFFF MFMF FMFM MMMM MMMM FMMF FFMM
Cheers,
Ian
-
Ian Fettes
Descendants of Rohese Giffard = John West
Hi All,
Here is another:
186 paths from John West to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
18 240141 S M MFMF MFMF FFFF MMFM
18 250661 S M MMFM FFMM FFMF FMFM
18 250961 S M MMFM FMFF FMFM FFFM
19 264633 S FF FFFF MFFM MFMM MFFM
19 265345 S FF FFFF MMFF MFFF FFFM
19 265393 S FF FFFF MMFF MFMM FFFM
19 266193 S FF FFFF MMMM MMFM FFFM
19 273477 S FF FFMF MMFF FMFF FMFM
19 273837 S FF FFMF MMFM MFMF MMFM
19 276997 S FF FFMM MFMF FFFF FMFM
19 291109 S FF FMMM FFFM FFMF FMFM
19 467139 S MM FFMF FFFF MMFF FFMM
19 470321 S MM FFMF MMFM FFMM FFFM
19 470405 S MM FFMF MMFM MFFF FMFM
19 470993 S MM FFMF MMMM MMFM FFFM
19 475331 S MM FMFF FFFF MMFF FFMM
19 479405 S MM FMFM FFFF MFMF MMFM
19 479437 S MM FMFM FFFF MMFF MMFM
19 479501 S MM FMFM FFFM FFFF MMFM
19 480113 S MM FMFM FFMM FMMM FFFM
19 480433 S MM FMFM FMFF MFMM FFFM
19 480977 S MM FMFM FMMF MMFM FFFM
19 481025 S MM FMFM FMMM FFFF FFFM
19 481073 S MM FMFM FMMM FFMM FFFM
19 481475 S MM FMFM MFFF MMFF FFMM
19 486513 S MM FMMF MMFF FMMM FFFM
19 499793 S MM MFMF FFFF FMFM FFFM
19 500525 S MM MFMF FFMM FFMF MMFM
19 500561 S MM MFMF FFMM FMFM FFFM
19 501917 S MM MFMF MFFF MFFM MMFM
19 501965 S MM MFMF MFFF MMFF MMFM
19 502001 S MM MFMF MFFF MMMM FFFM
19 502061 S MM MFMF MFFM FFMF MMFM
19 502385 S MM MFMF MFMF FMMM FFFM
19 502605 S MM MFMF MFMM FMFF MMFM
19 523761 S MM MMMM MMFM MMMM FFFM
20 530977 S FFF FFFM MFMF FFMF FFFM
20 532381 S FFF FFFM MMMM MFFM MMFM
20 532429 S FFF FFFM MMMM MMFF MMFM
20 532465 S FFF FFFM MMMM MMMM FFFM
20 553937 S FFF FMMM FFMM MMFM FFFM
20 554753 S FFF FMMM FMMM FFFF FFFM
20 554801 S FFF FMMM FMMM FFMM FFFM
20 585297 S FFF MMMF MMMF FMFM FFFM
20 939811 S MMF FMFM FMMM FFMF FFMM
20 940273 S MMF FMFM MFFF MMMM FFFM
20 941981 S MMF FMFM MMMM MFFM MMFM
20 942029 S MMF FMFM MMMM MMFF MMFM
20 942065 S MMF FMFM MMMM MMMM FFFM
20 957745 S MMF MFFM MMFM FFMM FFFM
20 957829 S MMF MFFM MMFM MFFF FMFM
20 958417 S MMF MFFM MMMM MMFM FFFM
20 961265 S MMF MFMF MFMF MMMM FFFM
20 961849 S MMF MFMF MMFM FFMM MFFM
20 961949 S MMF MFMF MMFM MFFM MMFM
20 961997 S MMF MFMF MMFM MMFF MMFM
20 962033 S MMF MFMF MMFM MMMM FFFM
20 973021 S MMF MMFM MFFF MMFM MMFM
20 976419 S MMF MMMF FMMF FFMF FFMM
20 999533 S MMM FMFF FFFF FMMF MMFM
20 999581 S MMM FMFF FFFF MFFM MMFM
20 999629 S MMM FMFF FFFF MMFF MMFM
20 999665 S MMM FMFF FFFF MMMM FFFM
20 1000049 S MMM FMFF FFMF FMMM FFFM
20 1000099 S MMM FMFF FFMF MFMF FFMM
20 1000387 S MMM FMFF FFMM MMFF FFMM
20 1001117 S MMM FMFF FMMF MFFM MMFM
20 1001165 S MMM FMFF FMMF MMFF MMFM
20 1001201 S MMM FMFF FMMF MMMM FFFM
20 1001315 S MMM FMFF FMMM FMMF FFMM
20 1002225 S MMM FMFF MFMF MMMM FFFM
20 1002605 S MMM FMFF MMFF FMMF MMFM
20 1003265 S MMM FMFF MMMM FFFF FFFM
20 1003313 S MMM FMFF MMMM FFMM FFFM
20 1004835 S MMM FMFM FMFM FFMF FFMM
20 1005261 S MMM FMFM FMMF MMFF MMFM
20 1005297 S MMM FMFM FMMF MMMM FFFM
20 1005873 S MMM FMFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
20 1005957 S MMM FMFM MFFM MFFF FMFM
20 1006545 S MMM FMFM MFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1006705 S MMM FMFM MMFF FMMM FFFM
20 1006755 S MMM FMFM MMFF MFMF FFMM
20 1007043 S MMM FMFM MMFM MMFF FFMM
20 1007361 S MMM FMFM MMMM FFFF FFFM
20 1007409 S MMM FMFM MMMM FFMM FFFM
20 1013187 S MMM FMMM FMFM MMFF FFMM
20 1020033 S MMM MFFM FFFF MFFF FFFM
20 1020081 S MMM MFFM FFFF MFMM FFFM
20 1020881 S MMM MFFM FFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1022257 S MMM MFFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
20 1022341 S MMM MFFM MFFM MFFF FMFM
20 1022929 S MMM MFFM MFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1023089 S MMM MFFM MMFF FMMM FFFM
20 1023139 S MMM MFFM MMFF MFMF FFMM
20 1023427 S MMM MFFM MMFM MMFF FFMM
20 1023745 S MMM MFFM MMMM FFFF FFFM
20 1023793 S MMM MFFM MMMM FFMM FFFM
20 1025541 S MMM MFMF FMMF FFFF FMFM
20 1047281 S MMM MMMM MFMF MMMM FFFM
20 1048369 S MMM MMMM MMMM FFMM FFFM
20 1048453 S MMM MMMM MMMM MFFF FMFM
21 1058493 S FFFF FFMF FMMF MFMM MMFM
21 1107869 S FFFF MMMF FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 1107917 S FFFF MMMF FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 1107953 S FFFF MMMF FMMM MMMM FFFM
21 1164017 S FFFM MMFF FFMF MMMM FFFM
21 1164397 S FFFM MMFF FMFF FMMF MMFM
21 1165057 S FFFM MMFF FMMM FFFF FFFM
21 1165105 S FFFM MMFF FMMM FFMM FFFM
21 1165441 S FFFM MMFF MFFF MFFF FFFM
21 1165489 S FFFM MMFF MFFF MFMM FFFM
21 1166289 S FFFM MMFF MFMM MMFM FFFM
21 1168241 S FFFM MMFM FFMM FMMM FFFM
21 1169617 S FFFM MMFM MFFF MMFM FFFM
21 1169665 S FFFM MMFM MFFM FFFF FFFM
21 1169713 S FFFM MMFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
21 1170417 S FFFM MMFM MFMM MMMM FFFM
21 1170589 S FFFM MMFM MMFF MFFM MMFM
21 1170637 S FFFM MMFM MMFF MMFF MMFM
21 1170673 S FFFM MMFM MMFF MMMM FFFM
21 1170733 S FFFM MMFM MMFM FFMF MMFM
21 1171057 S FFFM MMFM MMMF FMMM FFFM
21 1171277 S FFFM MMFM MMMM FMFF MMFM
21 1908849 S MMFM FFMF FFFF FMMM FFFM
21 1909069 S MMFM FFMF FFFM FMFF MMFM
21 1909505 S MMFM FFMF FFMM FFFF FFFM
21 1909553 S MMFM FFMF FFMM FFMM FFFM
21 1910979 S MMFM FFMF MFFF MMFF FFMM
21 1911853 S MMFM FFMF MMFF FFMF MMFM
21 1911889 S MMFM FFMF MMFF FMFM FFFM
21 1912065 S MMFM FFMF MMFM FFFF FFFM
21 1912113 S MMFM FFMF MMFM FFMM FFFM
21 1912785 S MMFM FFMF MMMM MMFM FFFM
21 1914659 S MMFM FFMM FMMM FFMF FFMM
21 1915121 S MMFM FFMM MFFF MMMM FFFM
21 1916829 S MMFM FFMM MMMM MFFM MMFM
21 1916877 S MMFM FFMM MMMM MMFF MMFM
21 1916913 S MMFM FFMM MMMM MMMM FFFM
21 2008413 S MMMF MFMF FMFM FMFM MMFM
21 2011377 S MMMF MFMM FFFF MMMM FFFM
21 2013085 S MMMF MFMM FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2013133 S MMMF MFMM FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2013169 S MMMF MFMM FMMM MMMM FFFM
21 2040353 S MMMM FFMF FFMF FFMF FFFM
21 2041757 S MMMM FFMF FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2041805 S MMMM FFMF FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2041841 S MMMM FFMF FMMM MMMM FFFM
21 2042609 S MMMM FFMF MFMF MMMM FFFM
21 2044145 S MMMM FFMM FFFF MMMM FFFM
21 2045853 S MMMM FFMM FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2045901 S MMMM FFMM FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2045937 S MMMM FFMM FMMM MMMM FFFM
21 2051025 S MMMM FMFF MFMM MMFM FFFM
21 2051841 S MMMM FMFF MMMM FFFF FFFM
21 2051889 S MMMM FMFF MMMM FFMM FFFM
21 2096369 S MMMM MMMM MMFF MMMM FFFM
22 2331169 S F FFMM MFFM FFMF FFMF FFFM
22 2332573 S F FFMM MFFM FMMM MFFM MMFM
22 2332621 S F FFMM MFFM FMMM MMFF MMFM
22 2332657 S F FFMM MFFM FMMM MMMM FFFM
22 2333425 S F FFMM MFFM MFMF MMMM FFFM
22 2339129 S F FFMM MFMM FFFM FFMM MFFM
22 2339229 S F FFMM MFMM FFFM MFFM MMFM
22 2339277 S F FFMM MFMM FFFM MMFF MMFM
22 2339313 S F FFMM MFMM FFFM MMMM FFFM
22 2342179 S F FFMM MFMM MMFM FFMF FFMM
22 2342605 S F FFMM MFMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
22 2342641 S F FFMM MFMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
22 3817763 S M MFMF FMFF FFFM FFMF FFMM
22 3818189 S M MFMF FMFF FFMF MMFF MMFM
22 3818225 S M MFMF FMFF FFMF MMMM FFFM
22 3823773 S M MFMF FMFM MFFF MFFM MMFM
22 3823821 S M MFMF FMFM MFFF MMFF MMFM
22 3823857 S M MFMF FMFM MFFF MMMM FFFM
22 3823971 S M MFMF FMFM MFFM FMMF FFMM
22 3824579 S M MFMF FMFM MFMM MMFF FFMM
22 3825565 S M MFMF FMFM MMMM MFFM MMFM
22 3825613 S M MFMF FMFM MMMM MMFF MMFM
22 3825649 S M MFMF FMFM MMMM MMMM FFFM
22 3999837 S M MMFM FFFF MFFF FMFM MMFM
22 4026461 S M MMFM FMMM FFFF FMFM MMFM
22 4091997 S M MMMF FMMM FFFF FMFM MMFM
22 4102045 S M MMMF MFFM FMMM MFFM MMFM
22 4102093 S M MMMF MFFM FMMM MMFF MMFM
22 4102129 S M MMMF MFFM FMMM MMMM FFFM
23 4683101 S FF FMMM FMMM FMFM FMFM MMFM
Cheers,
Ian
Here is another:
186 paths from John West to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
18 240141 S M MFMF MFMF FFFF MMFM
18 250661 S M MMFM FFMM FFMF FMFM
18 250961 S M MMFM FMFF FMFM FFFM
19 264633 S FF FFFF MFFM MFMM MFFM
19 265345 S FF FFFF MMFF MFFF FFFM
19 265393 S FF FFFF MMFF MFMM FFFM
19 266193 S FF FFFF MMMM MMFM FFFM
19 273477 S FF FFMF MMFF FMFF FMFM
19 273837 S FF FFMF MMFM MFMF MMFM
19 276997 S FF FFMM MFMF FFFF FMFM
19 291109 S FF FMMM FFFM FFMF FMFM
19 467139 S MM FFMF FFFF MMFF FFMM
19 470321 S MM FFMF MMFM FFMM FFFM
19 470405 S MM FFMF MMFM MFFF FMFM
19 470993 S MM FFMF MMMM MMFM FFFM
19 475331 S MM FMFF FFFF MMFF FFMM
19 479405 S MM FMFM FFFF MFMF MMFM
19 479437 S MM FMFM FFFF MMFF MMFM
19 479501 S MM FMFM FFFM FFFF MMFM
19 480113 S MM FMFM FFMM FMMM FFFM
19 480433 S MM FMFM FMFF MFMM FFFM
19 480977 S MM FMFM FMMF MMFM FFFM
19 481025 S MM FMFM FMMM FFFF FFFM
19 481073 S MM FMFM FMMM FFMM FFFM
19 481475 S MM FMFM MFFF MMFF FFMM
19 486513 S MM FMMF MMFF FMMM FFFM
19 499793 S MM MFMF FFFF FMFM FFFM
19 500525 S MM MFMF FFMM FFMF MMFM
19 500561 S MM MFMF FFMM FMFM FFFM
19 501917 S MM MFMF MFFF MFFM MMFM
19 501965 S MM MFMF MFFF MMFF MMFM
19 502001 S MM MFMF MFFF MMMM FFFM
19 502061 S MM MFMF MFFM FFMF MMFM
19 502385 S MM MFMF MFMF FMMM FFFM
19 502605 S MM MFMF MFMM FMFF MMFM
19 523761 S MM MMMM MMFM MMMM FFFM
20 530977 S FFF FFFM MFMF FFMF FFFM
20 532381 S FFF FFFM MMMM MFFM MMFM
20 532429 S FFF FFFM MMMM MMFF MMFM
20 532465 S FFF FFFM MMMM MMMM FFFM
20 553937 S FFF FMMM FFMM MMFM FFFM
20 554753 S FFF FMMM FMMM FFFF FFFM
20 554801 S FFF FMMM FMMM FFMM FFFM
20 585297 S FFF MMMF MMMF FMFM FFFM
20 939811 S MMF FMFM FMMM FFMF FFMM
20 940273 S MMF FMFM MFFF MMMM FFFM
20 941981 S MMF FMFM MMMM MFFM MMFM
20 942029 S MMF FMFM MMMM MMFF MMFM
20 942065 S MMF FMFM MMMM MMMM FFFM
20 957745 S MMF MFFM MMFM FFMM FFFM
20 957829 S MMF MFFM MMFM MFFF FMFM
20 958417 S MMF MFFM MMMM MMFM FFFM
20 961265 S MMF MFMF MFMF MMMM FFFM
20 961849 S MMF MFMF MMFM FFMM MFFM
20 961949 S MMF MFMF MMFM MFFM MMFM
20 961997 S MMF MFMF MMFM MMFF MMFM
20 962033 S MMF MFMF MMFM MMMM FFFM
20 973021 S MMF MMFM MFFF MMFM MMFM
20 976419 S MMF MMMF FMMF FFMF FFMM
20 999533 S MMM FMFF FFFF FMMF MMFM
20 999581 S MMM FMFF FFFF MFFM MMFM
20 999629 S MMM FMFF FFFF MMFF MMFM
20 999665 S MMM FMFF FFFF MMMM FFFM
20 1000049 S MMM FMFF FFMF FMMM FFFM
20 1000099 S MMM FMFF FFMF MFMF FFMM
20 1000387 S MMM FMFF FFMM MMFF FFMM
20 1001117 S MMM FMFF FMMF MFFM MMFM
20 1001165 S MMM FMFF FMMF MMFF MMFM
20 1001201 S MMM FMFF FMMF MMMM FFFM
20 1001315 S MMM FMFF FMMM FMMF FFMM
20 1002225 S MMM FMFF MFMF MMMM FFFM
20 1002605 S MMM FMFF MMFF FMMF MMFM
20 1003265 S MMM FMFF MMMM FFFF FFFM
20 1003313 S MMM FMFF MMMM FFMM FFFM
20 1004835 S MMM FMFM FMFM FFMF FFMM
20 1005261 S MMM FMFM FMMF MMFF MMFM
20 1005297 S MMM FMFM FMMF MMMM FFFM
20 1005873 S MMM FMFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
20 1005957 S MMM FMFM MFFM MFFF FMFM
20 1006545 S MMM FMFM MFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1006705 S MMM FMFM MMFF FMMM FFFM
20 1006755 S MMM FMFM MMFF MFMF FFMM
20 1007043 S MMM FMFM MMFM MMFF FFMM
20 1007361 S MMM FMFM MMMM FFFF FFFM
20 1007409 S MMM FMFM MMMM FFMM FFFM
20 1013187 S MMM FMMM FMFM MMFF FFMM
20 1020033 S MMM MFFM FFFF MFFF FFFM
20 1020081 S MMM MFFM FFFF MFMM FFFM
20 1020881 S MMM MFFM FFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1022257 S MMM MFFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
20 1022341 S MMM MFFM MFFM MFFF FMFM
20 1022929 S MMM MFFM MFMM MMFM FFFM
20 1023089 S MMM MFFM MMFF FMMM FFFM
20 1023139 S MMM MFFM MMFF MFMF FFMM
20 1023427 S MMM MFFM MMFM MMFF FFMM
20 1023745 S MMM MFFM MMMM FFFF FFFM
20 1023793 S MMM MFFM MMMM FFMM FFFM
20 1025541 S MMM MFMF FMMF FFFF FMFM
20 1047281 S MMM MMMM MFMF MMMM FFFM
20 1048369 S MMM MMMM MMMM FFMM FFFM
20 1048453 S MMM MMMM MMMM MFFF FMFM
21 1058493 S FFFF FFMF FMMF MFMM MMFM
21 1107869 S FFFF MMMF FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 1107917 S FFFF MMMF FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 1107953 S FFFF MMMF FMMM MMMM FFFM
21 1164017 S FFFM MMFF FFMF MMMM FFFM
21 1164397 S FFFM MMFF FMFF FMMF MMFM
21 1165057 S FFFM MMFF FMMM FFFF FFFM
21 1165105 S FFFM MMFF FMMM FFMM FFFM
21 1165441 S FFFM MMFF MFFF MFFF FFFM
21 1165489 S FFFM MMFF MFFF MFMM FFFM
21 1166289 S FFFM MMFF MFMM MMFM FFFM
21 1168241 S FFFM MMFM FFMM FMMM FFFM
21 1169617 S FFFM MMFM MFFF MMFM FFFM
21 1169665 S FFFM MMFM MFFM FFFF FFFM
21 1169713 S FFFM MMFM MFFM FFMM FFFM
21 1170417 S FFFM MMFM MFMM MMMM FFFM
21 1170589 S FFFM MMFM MMFF MFFM MMFM
21 1170637 S FFFM MMFM MMFF MMFF MMFM
21 1170673 S FFFM MMFM MMFF MMMM FFFM
21 1170733 S FFFM MMFM MMFM FFMF MMFM
21 1171057 S FFFM MMFM MMMF FMMM FFFM
21 1171277 S FFFM MMFM MMMM FMFF MMFM
21 1908849 S MMFM FFMF FFFF FMMM FFFM
21 1909069 S MMFM FFMF FFFM FMFF MMFM
21 1909505 S MMFM FFMF FFMM FFFF FFFM
21 1909553 S MMFM FFMF FFMM FFMM FFFM
21 1910979 S MMFM FFMF MFFF MMFF FFMM
21 1911853 S MMFM FFMF MMFF FFMF MMFM
21 1911889 S MMFM FFMF MMFF FMFM FFFM
21 1912065 S MMFM FFMF MMFM FFFF FFFM
21 1912113 S MMFM FFMF MMFM FFMM FFFM
21 1912785 S MMFM FFMF MMMM MMFM FFFM
21 1914659 S MMFM FFMM FMMM FFMF FFMM
21 1915121 S MMFM FFMM MFFF MMMM FFFM
21 1916829 S MMFM FFMM MMMM MFFM MMFM
21 1916877 S MMFM FFMM MMMM MMFF MMFM
21 1916913 S MMFM FFMM MMMM MMMM FFFM
21 2008413 S MMMF MFMF FMFM FMFM MMFM
21 2011377 S MMMF MFMM FFFF MMMM FFFM
21 2013085 S MMMF MFMM FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2013133 S MMMF MFMM FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2013169 S MMMF MFMM FMMM MMMM FFFM
21 2040353 S MMMM FFMF FFMF FFMF FFFM
21 2041757 S MMMM FFMF FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2041805 S MMMM FFMF FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2041841 S MMMM FFMF FMMM MMMM FFFM
21 2042609 S MMMM FFMF MFMF MMMM FFFM
21 2044145 S MMMM FFMM FFFF MMMM FFFM
21 2045853 S MMMM FFMM FMMM MFFM MMFM
21 2045901 S MMMM FFMM FMMM MMFF MMFM
21 2045937 S MMMM FFMM FMMM MMMM FFFM
21 2051025 S MMMM FMFF MFMM MMFM FFFM
21 2051841 S MMMM FMFF MMMM FFFF FFFM
21 2051889 S MMMM FMFF MMMM FFMM FFFM
21 2096369 S MMMM MMMM MMFF MMMM FFFM
22 2331169 S F FFMM MFFM FFMF FFMF FFFM
22 2332573 S F FFMM MFFM FMMM MFFM MMFM
22 2332621 S F FFMM MFFM FMMM MMFF MMFM
22 2332657 S F FFMM MFFM FMMM MMMM FFFM
22 2333425 S F FFMM MFFM MFMF MMMM FFFM
22 2339129 S F FFMM MFMM FFFM FFMM MFFM
22 2339229 S F FFMM MFMM FFFM MFFM MMFM
22 2339277 S F FFMM MFMM FFFM MMFF MMFM
22 2339313 S F FFMM MFMM FFFM MMMM FFFM
22 2342179 S F FFMM MFMM MMFM FFMF FFMM
22 2342605 S F FFMM MFMM MMMF MMFF MMFM
22 2342641 S F FFMM MFMM MMMF MMMM FFFM
22 3817763 S M MFMF FMFF FFFM FFMF FFMM
22 3818189 S M MFMF FMFF FFMF MMFF MMFM
22 3818225 S M MFMF FMFF FFMF MMMM FFFM
22 3823773 S M MFMF FMFM MFFF MFFM MMFM
22 3823821 S M MFMF FMFM MFFF MMFF MMFM
22 3823857 S M MFMF FMFM MFFF MMMM FFFM
22 3823971 S M MFMF FMFM MFFM FMMF FFMM
22 3824579 S M MFMF FMFM MFMM MMFF FFMM
22 3825565 S M MFMF FMFM MMMM MFFM MMFM
22 3825613 S M MFMF FMFM MMMM MMFF MMFM
22 3825649 S M MFMF FMFM MMMM MMMM FFFM
22 3999837 S M MMFM FFFF MFFF FMFM MMFM
22 4026461 S M MMFM FMMM FFFF FMFM MMFM
22 4091997 S M MMMF FMMM FFFF FMFM MMFM
22 4102045 S M MMMF MFFM FMMM MFFM MMFM
22 4102093 S M MMMF MFFM FMMM MMFF MMFM
22 4102129 S M MMMF MFFM FMMM MMMM FFFM
23 4683101 S FF FMMM FMMM FMFM FMFM MMFM
Cheers,
Ian
-
Ian Fettes
Descendants of Rohese Giffard = Obadiah Bruen
Hi All,
Here is another:
7 paths from Obadiah Bruen, of Connecticut to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
18 184929 S F MMFM FFMF FMMF FFFM
19 370513 S FM MFMF FMMM FMFM FFFM
20 741021 S FMM FMFF MMMF MFFM MMFM
20 741069 S FMM FMFF MMMF MMFF MMFM
20 741105 S FMM FMFF MMMF MMMM FFFM
20 741165 S FMM FMFF MMMM FFMF MMFM
22 2964829 S F MMFM FFMM MMFM FMFM MMFM
Cheers,
Ian
Here is another:
7 paths from Obadiah Bruen, of Connecticut to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
18 184929 S F MMFM FFMF FMMF FFFM
19 370513 S FM MFMF FMMM FMFM FFFM
20 741021 S FMM FMFF MMMF MFFM MMFM
20 741069 S FMM FMFF MMMF MMFF MMFM
20 741105 S FMM FMFF MMMF MMMM FFFM
20 741165 S FMM FMFF MMMM FFMF MMFM
22 2964829 S F MMFM FFMM MMFM FMFM MMFM
Cheers,
Ian
-
Tompkins, M.L.
RE: Dispensation versus generations
<<Since I wrote that I've seen more examples (from 13th but more often
from 14th c.) where a text specifies that two people are related in the
'3d and 4th degree' (for example), which means two different
generational lengths from a common ancestor, rather than two separate
common ancestors. But in any case, I think the longer line would still
be the determining factor in measuring against a consanguinity or
affinity threshold, though I would like to this confirmed by example or
statute / commentary.>>
It is definitely the case that the longer line is used. I assume the
logic is that: consanguinity is not a measure of the relationship
between two people, but of the relationship from one person to another,
so that between two people there will always be two degrees of
consanguinity - A to B and B to A - and if they are of different
generations then those degrees will be different (since each measure is
from the individual back to their common ancestor), sometimes with the
result that it is lawful for A to marry B but not for B to marry A - and
thus prohibiting marriage between them.
For authority for the rule, there is the following statement of it in
the Extravagantes of John XXII (1322), Title VI, chapter I, Rules for
Calculating Consanguinity:
"II. For collaterals of different generations, there are as many degrees
as persons between the common ancestor and the person most distant from
him."
(This can be found in 'Marriage Canons from the Decretum of Gratian and
the Decretals, Sext, Clementines and Extravagantes', translated by John
T. Noonan (University of California, Berkeley) and Augustine Thompson
(University of Oregon), 1993 at
http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Canon ... agelaw.htm).
There is also Pollock and Maitland's History of English Law, ii, p 387,
which says:
'To meet the more difficult case in which the two lines are unequal,
another rule was slowly evolved:- Measure the longer line'.
The footnote refers to c. 9, X4.14, which I think is a reference to the
Extravagantes and the above decretal of John XXII.
Incidentally references to relationships in the third and fourth degree
can be found in the 15th century as well: here is the text of an
application for a papal dispensation to a 1472 marriage which everyone
will recognise:
'Rome, at St Peter's, 22 April 1472. Richard, Duke of Gloucester,
layman, Lincoln dioc., and Anne Nevile, York dioc. wish to marry, but
since they are related in the third and fourth degrees of affinity, they
may not do so without a papal dispensation, hence they request one and a
littera declaratoria for the third and fourth degrees.'
This and other similar 15th century cases are discussed in an article by
Peter D. Clarke (University of Wales, Bangor), 'English Royal Marriages
and the Papal Penitentiary in the Fifteenth Century' English Historical
Review 120 (2005), pp 1014-1029 (on-line at
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... 0/488/1014).
Matt Tompkins
from 14th c.) where a text specifies that two people are related in the
'3d and 4th degree' (for example), which means two different
generational lengths from a common ancestor, rather than two separate
common ancestors. But in any case, I think the longer line would still
be the determining factor in measuring against a consanguinity or
affinity threshold, though I would like to this confirmed by example or
statute / commentary.>>
It is definitely the case that the longer line is used. I assume the
logic is that: consanguinity is not a measure of the relationship
between two people, but of the relationship from one person to another,
so that between two people there will always be two degrees of
consanguinity - A to B and B to A - and if they are of different
generations then those degrees will be different (since each measure is
from the individual back to their common ancestor), sometimes with the
result that it is lawful for A to marry B but not for B to marry A - and
thus prohibiting marriage between them.
For authority for the rule, there is the following statement of it in
the Extravagantes of John XXII (1322), Title VI, chapter I, Rules for
Calculating Consanguinity:
"II. For collaterals of different generations, there are as many degrees
as persons between the common ancestor and the person most distant from
him."
(This can be found in 'Marriage Canons from the Decretum of Gratian and
the Decretals, Sext, Clementines and Extravagantes', translated by John
T. Noonan (University of California, Berkeley) and Augustine Thompson
(University of Oregon), 1993 at
http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Canon ... agelaw.htm).
There is also Pollock and Maitland's History of English Law, ii, p 387,
which says:
'To meet the more difficult case in which the two lines are unequal,
another rule was slowly evolved:- Measure the longer line'.
The footnote refers to c. 9, X4.14, which I think is a reference to the
Extravagantes and the above decretal of John XXII.
Incidentally references to relationships in the third and fourth degree
can be found in the 15th century as well: here is the text of an
application for a papal dispensation to a 1472 marriage which everyone
will recognise:
'Rome, at St Peter's, 22 April 1472. Richard, Duke of Gloucester,
layman, Lincoln dioc., and Anne Nevile, York dioc. wish to marry, but
since they are related in the third and fourth degrees of affinity, they
may not do so without a papal dispensation, hence they request one and a
littera declaratoria for the third and fourth degrees.'
This and other similar 15th century cases are discussed in an article by
Peter D. Clarke (University of Wales, Bangor), 'English Royal Marriages
and the Papal Penitentiary in the Fifteenth Century' English Historical
Review 120 (2005), pp 1014-1029 (on-line at
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte ... 0/488/1014).
Matt Tompkins
-
Gjest
Re: Corrected St. John ancestry - Sources
In my notes, I have Fonterabia, Spain (from Burkes, 1938 ed) perhaps on the
way to or back from a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela, which was so
popular in Medieval times. (I think it is where St James is supposed to have
been buried)
Adrian
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
1. Oliver St. John of Lydiard Tregoz, Wiltshire d. 3 Apr 1497 in
Fontarabia (wherever that is) m. Elizabeth le Scrope daughter of Henry le
Scrope and Elizabeth le Scrope of Masham.
<<<
way to or back from a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela, which was so
popular in Medieval times. (I think it is where St James is supposed to have
been buried)
Adrian
In a message dated 10/02/2006 01:43:27 GMT Standard Time,
pedricks@ozemail.com.au writes:
1. Oliver St. John of Lydiard Tregoz, Wiltshire d. 3 Apr 1497 in
Fontarabia (wherever that is) m. Elizabeth le Scrope daughter of Henry le
Scrope and Elizabeth le Scrope of Masham.
<<<
-
Gjest
Re: Corrected St. John ancestry - Sources
In a message dated 2/10/2006 5:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
In my notes, I have Fonterabia, Spain (from Burkes, 1938 ed) perhaps on the
way to or back from a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela, which was so
popular in Medieval times. (I think it is where St James is supposed to
have
been buried)
Here is a link that describes the legend of St James and Compostela
_http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Saint_James_the_Great_
(http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Sa ... _the_Great)
Will Johnson
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com writes:
In my notes, I have Fonterabia, Spain (from Burkes, 1938 ed) perhaps on the
way to or back from a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela, which was so
popular in Medieval times. (I think it is where St James is supposed to
have
been buried)
Here is a link that describes the legend of St James and Compostela
_http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Saint_James_the_Great_
(http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Sa ... _the_Great)
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard = John West
In a message dated 2/9/2006 11:36:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fettesi@st.net.au writes:
186 paths from John West to Rohese Giffard
Which John West ?
fettesi@st.net.au writes:
186 paths from John West to Rohese Giffard
Which John West ?
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Dispensation versus generations
In article
<93EC899E92A38749B4B93AC4319D25B6085F4E3A@Saffron.cfs.le.ac.uk>,
mllt1@leicester.ac.uk ("Tompkins, M.L.") wrote:
[I had written earlier:]
Thanks for these, Matt. I knew the longer line to be determinant, but
was thinking of Pollock and Maitland's 'slow evolution' since it implies
some difference of opinion--and would like to see contrary examples
somewhere. But since the measurement was 'degrees', theoretically an
ancestor could marry a direct descendant or niece /nephew who was
removed by more than four degrees (though essentially impossible in
practice), and the 'longer line' should always have been made the
determination, since the issue was the closeness of two persons to each
other, not to the common ancestor.
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
<93EC899E92A38749B4B93AC4319D25B6085F4E3A@Saffron.cfs.le.ac.uk>,
mllt1@leicester.ac.uk ("Tompkins, M.L.") wrote:
[I had written earlier:]
Since I wrote that I've seen more examples (from 13th but more often
from 14th c.) where a text specifies that two people are related in the
'3d and 4th degree' (for example), which means two different
generational lengths from a common ancestor, rather than two separate
common ancestors. But in any case, I think the longer line would still
be the determining factor in measuring against a consanguinity or
affinity threshold, though I would like to this confirmed by example or
statute / commentary.
It is definitely the case that the longer line is used. I assume the
logic is that: consanguinity is not a measure of the relationship
between two people, but of the relationship from one person to another,
so that between two people there will always be two degrees of
consanguinity - A to B and B to A - and if they are of different
generations then those degrees will be different (since each measure is
from the individual back to their common ancestor), sometimes with the
result that it is lawful for A to marry B but not for B to marry A - and
thus prohibiting marriage between them.
For authority for the rule, there is the following statement of it in
the Extravagantes of John XXII (1322), Title VI, chapter I, Rules for
Calculating Consanguinity:
"II. For collaterals of different generations, there are as many degrees
as persons between the common ancestor and the person most distant from
him."
(This can be found in 'Marriage Canons from the Decretum of Gratian and
the Decretals, Sext, Clementines and Extravagantes', translated by John
T. Noonan (University of California, Berkeley) and Augustine Thompson
(University of Oregon), 1993 at
http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Canon ... agelaw.htm).
There is also Pollock and Maitland's History of English Law, ii, p 387,
which says:
'To meet the more difficult case in which the two lines are unequal,
another rule was slowly evolved:- Measure the longer line'.
Thanks for these, Matt. I knew the longer line to be determinant, but
was thinking of Pollock and Maitland's 'slow evolution' since it implies
some difference of opinion--and would like to see contrary examples
somewhere. But since the measurement was 'degrees', theoretically an
ancestor could marry a direct descendant or niece /nephew who was
removed by more than four degrees (though essentially impossible in
practice), and the 'longer line' should always have been made the
determination, since the issue was the closeness of two persons to each
other, not to the common ancestor.
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
-
Tony Hoskins
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard = John West
"Which John West?"
The only "gateway" John West. Born 1590, came to VA in 1618, died in VA
in 1659. 4th son of the 2nd Lord DeLaWarr, Governor of Virginia in
1635.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
The only "gateway" John West. Born 1590, came to VA in 1618, died in VA
in 1659. 4th son of the 2nd Lord DeLaWarr, Governor of Virginia in
1635.
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
707/545-0831, ext. 562
-
Gjest
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard = John West
In a message dated 2/9/06 11:36:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fettesi@st.net.au writes:
<< 186 paths from John West to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
18 240141 S M MFMF MFMF FFFF MMFM >>
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this. Using Leo's site:
S Capt John West
M Thomas West, 2nd Lord Delaware
M William West, 1st Baron Delaware
F Elizabeth Morton
M Sir Robert Morton of Lechlade
but at this point Leo has no ancestor's to connect the path back any further.
Thanks.
Will Johnson
fettesi@st.net.au writes:
<< 186 paths from John West to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
18 240141 S M MFMF MFMF FFFF MMFM >>
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this. Using Leo's site:
S Capt John West
M Thomas West, 2nd Lord Delaware
M William West, 1st Baron Delaware
F Elizabeth Morton
M Sir Robert Morton of Lechlade
but at this point Leo has no ancestor's to connect the path back any further.
Thanks.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Dispensation versus generations
Chris, Nat, Matt,
Thanks for your input. There were a lot of newsgroup posts. Some
infered but no one was as clear on the subject as was needed by me.
Hans Vogels
Thanks for your input. There were a lot of newsgroup posts. Some
infered but no one was as clear on the subject as was needed by me.
Hans Vogels
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard
Dear Dave ~
The parentage of Maud, wife successively of Peter de Ludgershall (alias
Peter the Forester), of Cherhill, Wiltshire, and Hugh de Buckland (died
c. 1185), of Buckland near Faringdon, Berkshire, is unknown. Thus, she
is not a proven descendant of Rohese Giffard.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
The parentage of Maud, wife successively of Peter de Ludgershall (alias
Peter the Forester), of Cherhill, Wiltshire, and Hugh de Buckland (died
c. 1185), of Buckland near Faringdon, Berkshire, is unknown. Thus, she
is not a proven descendant of Rohese Giffard.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
norenxaq
Re: Removed Posts
Doug McDonald wrote:
why would these posts be removed?
W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1139412405
Will Johnson,
No post can be removed by Rootsweb staff beyond offensive and spammer ones.
Absolutely incorrect. They can and DO ruthlessly remove posts
containing the word "DNA" from mailing lists and discussion groups
without permission and indeed with the emphatic disapproval of
the list owner.
why would these posts be removed?
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Removed Posts
norenxaq wrote:
Certain sections of Rootsweb have a bee in the bonnet
concerning DNA. This icnludes certain list or discussion
group managers, as well as some of Rootsweb support staff themselves.
They have set up certain groups, of which genealogy-dna-l is
the prime or original example, where DNA is explictly on-topic.
For reasons known only to them, they (rootsweb staff) ban
mention of DNA from certain other things. How ruthless they
are depends on whether it is a mailing list or a dsicussion
group.
The rules that are enforced by the rootsweb managers themselves
are supposedly to avoid "commercial" considerations. The rules
enforced by individual list or group managers are for any reason
whatsoever, but frequently simply "genealogy is the paper
trail, PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION".
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald wrote:
W David Samuelsen wrote:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1139412405
Will Johnson,
No post can be removed by Rootsweb staff beyond offensive and spammer ones.
Absolutely incorrect. They can and DO ruthlessly remove posts
containing the word "DNA" from mailing lists and discussion groups
without permission and indeed with the emphatic disapproval of
the list owner.
why would these posts be removed?
Certain sections of Rootsweb have a bee in the bonnet
concerning DNA. This icnludes certain list or discussion
group managers, as well as some of Rootsweb support staff themselves.
They have set up certain groups, of which genealogy-dna-l is
the prime or original example, where DNA is explictly on-topic.
For reasons known only to them, they (rootsweb staff) ban
mention of DNA from certain other things. How ruthless they
are depends on whether it is a mailing list or a dsicussion
group.
The rules that are enforced by the rootsweb managers themselves
are supposedly to avoid "commercial" considerations. The rules
enforced by individual list or group managers are for any reason
whatsoever, but frequently simply "genealogy is the paper
trail, PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION".
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: William of England (d. 1120) and his children
In a message dated 2/3/06 9:24:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:
<< I have found - not to mention the eventual succession
crisis between their aunt Matilda (of England) and Stephen
of Blois (later King Stephen) - it is apparent that they
died very young. If one, or more, of the children of
William were his by his wife Matilda of Anjou, >>
That's odd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Adelin
states that the wife was named Isabella d'Anjou
Is there conflict on her name? I haven't seen Matilda as a synonym for
Isabella
Thanks
Will Johnson
<< I have found - not to mention the eventual succession
crisis between their aunt Matilda (of England) and Stephen
of Blois (later King Stephen) - it is apparent that they
died very young. If one, or more, of the children of
William were his by his wife Matilda of Anjou, >>
That's odd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Adelin
states that the wife was named Isabella d'Anjou
Is there conflict on her name? I haven't seen Matilda as a synonym for
Isabella
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Ian Fettes
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard = John West
Hi Will,
I have adjusted my report output for any future requests to show as:
186 paths from Genealogics #00113950 John West to Rohese Giffard
Similarly, the Robert Rose listing should have read:
252 paths from Genealogics #00383009 Robert Rose to Rohese Giffard
Cheers,
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard = John West
I have adjusted my report output for any future requests to show as:
186 paths from Genealogics #00113950 John West to Rohese Giffard
Similarly, the Robert Rose listing should have read:
252 paths from Genealogics #00383009 Robert Rose to Rohese Giffard
Cheers,
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard = John West
In a message dated 2/9/2006 11:36:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fettesi@st.net.au writes:
186 paths from John West to Rohese Giffard
Which John West ?
______________________________
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: William of England (d. 1120) and his children
Dear Will,
The Wikipedia entry would be wrong, if it is concerning the
Angevin wife of William of England (son of King Henry I). William's
wife was definitely Maud (aka Matilda in Latin, elsewhere may be given
as Mahaut), daughter of Count Fulk of Anjou and sister of Geoffrey
'Plantagenet'.
See for one scholarly souce, C. Warren Hollister's " Henry I "
, p. 291. This is shown on GoogleBooks:
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... cIenDYretA
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The Wikipedia entry would be wrong, if it is concerning the
Angevin wife of William of England (son of King Henry I). William's
wife was definitely Maud (aka Matilda in Latin, elsewhere may be given
as Mahaut), daughter of Count Fulk of Anjou and sister of Geoffrey
'Plantagenet'.
See for one scholarly souce, C. Warren Hollister's " Henry I "
, p. 291. This is shown on GoogleBooks:
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... cIenDYretA
Cheers,
John
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/3/06 9:24:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, Therav3 writes:
I have found - not to mention the eventual succession
crisis between their aunt Matilda (of England) and Stephen
of Blois (later King Stephen) - it is apparent that they
died very young. If one, or more, of the children of
William were his by his wife Matilda of Anjou,
That's odd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Adelin
states that the wife was named Isabella d'Anjou
Is there conflict on her name? I haven't seen Matilda as a synonym for
Isabella
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: cudworth/lewknor/echyngham
In a message dated 2/2/06 12:42:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< In reference to the post by Mr Cummings, I would like to state that Alice
Batisford was the first wife of William Echyngham and he married 2n Joan
Fitzalan Arundel before 1400. She the widow of Wm de Brienne(Brien) who died 1395.
Thomas Echyngham son of William and Joan Fitzalan calls Elizabeth Echyngham
Hoo Lewknor his sister in his will. >>
This is suggestive but not confirmatory, imho.
"Sister" for "Half-sister" I believe was a common alteration.
If this is the only indication that Joan and Elizabeth were daughters of Joan
instead of Alice, it's not sufficient in my opinion to make that conclusion.
Will Johnson
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< In reference to the post by Mr Cummings, I would like to state that Alice
Batisford was the first wife of William Echyngham and he married 2n Joan
Fitzalan Arundel before 1400. She the widow of Wm de Brienne(Brien) who died 1395.
Thomas Echyngham son of William and Joan Fitzalan calls Elizabeth Echyngham
Hoo Lewknor his sister in his will. >>
This is suggestive but not confirmatory, imho.
"Sister" for "Half-sister" I believe was a common alteration.
If this is the only indication that Joan and Elizabeth were daughters of Joan
instead of Alice, it's not sufficient in my opinion to make that conclusion.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: William of England (d. 1120) and his children
In a message dated 2/10/06 1:52:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Wikepedia should not be used as a hallmark, it is littered with errors. It
needs an enormous amount of fine-tuning (I think). >>
Well get to work! I myself have made over 1300 edits
We could always use more editors to fix things up. And behind each and every
article is a "talk" page for discussion about that very article.
So for example Isabel of Anjou has a talk page. Someone could post "How do
we know her name was Isabel? so and so says it was matilda?" And then it
starts a discussion possibly and leads to a correction with a source citation.
That's how it improves by small accretions over time.
Will Johnson
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Wikepedia should not be used as a hallmark, it is littered with errors. It
needs an enormous amount of fine-tuning (I think). >>
Well get to work! I myself have made over 1300 edits
We could always use more editors to fix things up. And behind each and every
article is a "talk" page for discussion about that very article.
So for example Isabel of Anjou has a talk page. Someone could post "How do
we know her name was Isabel? so and so says it was matilda?" And then it
starts a discussion possibly and leads to a correction with a source citation.
That's how it improves by small accretions over time.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: William of England (d. 1120) and his children
In a message dated 2/10/06 2:20:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:
<< The Wikipedia entry would be wrong, if it is concerning the
Angevin wife of William of England (son of King Henry I). William's
wife was definitely Maud (aka Matilda in Latin, elsewhere may be given
as Mahaut), daughter of Count Fulk of Anjou and sister of Geoffrey
'Plantagenet'. >>
See the beauty of wikipedia is, anyone at all, not even needing an account,
can go to that page, click on Edit, make the change, add a note to the TALK
page, etc post the source and the like. If other's don't think its right they
can revert it, or post more discussion.
It's similar to a message boards with threads, except the front page is the
"summary" of all the opinions on the topic essentially.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< The Wikipedia entry would be wrong, if it is concerning the
Angevin wife of William of England (son of King Henry I). William's
wife was definitely Maud (aka Matilda in Latin, elsewhere may be given
as Mahaut), daughter of Count Fulk of Anjou and sister of Geoffrey
'Plantagenet'. >>
See the beauty of wikipedia is, anyone at all, not even needing an account,
can go to that page, click on Edit, make the change, add a note to the TALK
page, etc post the source and the like. If other's don't think its right they
can revert it, or post more discussion.
It's similar to a message boards with threads, except the front page is the
"summary" of all the opinions on the topic essentially.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Richard Fitzalan Arundel/son Henry
In a message dated 1/19/06 5:44:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
charlotsmith@prodigy.net writes:
<< I have an article title Descendants of Alan Flaald Senescal(Fitzalan
family)
Here is the way it lists the fitzalan Arundel family
children ofJohn Fitzalan Arundel and eleanor Maltravers
1. John born 30 Nov 1364 d 14 Aug 1390
2, William Fitalan KG died 1 Aug 1400 William married Agnes
3. Thomas Edward Fitzalan
4. Henry Fitzalan Arundel living 1375
5. Richard Ftitzalan Arundel d 1436 mentioned in will of brother Wm and
grandfather Lord Maltravers
6. Joan fitzlan died 1401 (md first William Bryan d 1395 2nd married
William Echyngham d 1412
7. Margaret Fitzalan Arundel d 3 July 1438 (Margaraet md William de
Rose KG >>
William, 6th Lord of /Ros/ , Treasurer of England 1403-4 d 1 Sep 1414 at
Belvoir
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Edward III", pg xix
Will Johnson
charlotsmith@prodigy.net writes:
<< I have an article title Descendants of Alan Flaald Senescal(Fitzalan
family)
Here is the way it lists the fitzalan Arundel family
children ofJohn Fitzalan Arundel and eleanor Maltravers
1. John born 30 Nov 1364 d 14 Aug 1390
2, William Fitalan KG died 1 Aug 1400 William married Agnes
3. Thomas Edward Fitzalan
4. Henry Fitzalan Arundel living 1375
5. Richard Ftitzalan Arundel d 1436 mentioned in will of brother Wm and
grandfather Lord Maltravers
6. Joan fitzlan died 1401 (md first William Bryan d 1395 2nd married
William Echyngham d 1412
7. Margaret Fitzalan Arundel d 3 July 1438 (Margaraet md William de
Rose KG >>
William, 6th Lord of /Ros/ , Treasurer of England 1403-4 d 1 Sep 1414 at
Belvoir
Living Descendents of Blood Royal, Vol 2, "Edward III", pg xix
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard
Dear Will,
I checked the archives for the thread Mary ( ) de Toeni and
discovered only one post dated 25 January 2005 at 21:15 EST which
unfortunately , I authored , in it I mentioned that Douglas and John had postulated this
Brus identity based upon the fact that Mary gave birth to the de Toeni heir
Robert in 1276 at Turnby ( which unless I was halocinating John Ravilious
concluded was Turnberry Castle, then a possession of the Brus family since about
1271 and seat of the Earl of Carrick) Ralph VII de Toeni`s wardship and marriage
had been granted to Sir Richard de Brus, a younger brother of Robert de Brus
who married Margaret, Countess of Carrick. I learned that Neil, Earl of Carrick
, had four daughters , three, (now two: remember Aufrica,wife of Colin Mor
Campbell , whom John Ravilious postulated as a daughter of Neil last year ?
Note to Douglas and John... please let me know if I imagined this entire thread.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
I checked the archives for the thread Mary ( ) de Toeni and
discovered only one post dated 25 January 2005 at 21:15 EST which
unfortunately , I authored , in it I mentioned that Douglas and John had postulated this
Brus identity based upon the fact that Mary gave birth to the de Toeni heir
Robert in 1276 at Turnby ( which unless I was halocinating John Ravilious
concluded was Turnberry Castle, then a possession of the Brus family since about
1271 and seat of the Earl of Carrick) Ralph VII de Toeni`s wardship and marriage
had been granted to Sir Richard de Brus, a younger brother of Robert de Brus
who married Margaret, Countess of Carrick. I learned that Neil, Earl of Carrick
, had four daughters , three, (now two: remember Aufrica,wife of Colin Mor
Campbell , whom John Ravilious postulated as a daughter of Neil last year ?
Note to Douglas and John... please let me know if I imagined this entire thread.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Robert, brother of Thomas, Lord Morley (was Re:...Margar
In a message dated 2/1/06 12:21:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, therav3@aol.com
writes:
<< This Robert Morley would appear to be a younger brother of Thomas,
Lord Morley, who died before Thomas had any issue by his marriage. He
must therefore have died between 20 March 1417/8 and 20 Nov 1418.
Further, this means that Ann Morley (future wife of John Hastings,
Esq., of Elsing and Gressenhall) and her sister Elizabeth (future wife
of Sir John Arundell of Lanherne, Cornwall) - whose birthdates are
otherwise unknown - were both born after 1418. >>
Is it possible that whatever was to be inherited (by Robert) was somehow only
to go to male relatives? So the two daughters, if they had already been born,
would not have been heirs?
Thanks
Will Johnson
writes:
<< This Robert Morley would appear to be a younger brother of Thomas,
Lord Morley, who died before Thomas had any issue by his marriage. He
must therefore have died between 20 March 1417/8 and 20 Nov 1418.
Further, this means that Ann Morley (future wife of John Hastings,
Esq., of Elsing and Gressenhall) and her sister Elizabeth (future wife
of Sir John Arundell of Lanherne, Cornwall) - whose birthdates are
otherwise unknown - were both born after 1418. >>
Is it possible that whatever was to be inherited (by Robert) was somehow only
to go to male relatives? So the two daughters, if they had already been born,
would not have been heirs?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway
In a message dated 2/1/06 12:23:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:
<< SIR GUY DE VYTIENTSON was born in Normandy, and died in England.
Sir Guy de Vytientson is the earliest member of his family found in old
English records, (The Doomsday Book). He is said to be descended from a very
ancient family of Normandy. He emigrated to England with William the
Conqueror c1070.
SIR GUY DE WITINTON
SIR WILLIAM WHITTINGTON married MAUD DE SOLERS, daughter of JOHN DE SOLERS.
She died 1284. >>
This part does not work.
William and Maud had a son born in 1304/6 named William as well.
You only show three generations to take us back to William the Conqueror.
There should be more like perhaps 8 to 12
Will Johnson
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:
<< SIR GUY DE VYTIENTSON was born in Normandy, and died in England.
Sir Guy de Vytientson is the earliest member of his family found in old
English records, (The Doomsday Book). He is said to be descended from a very
ancient family of Normandy. He emigrated to England with William the
Conqueror c1070.
SIR GUY DE WITINTON
SIR WILLIAM WHITTINGTON married MAUD DE SOLERS, daughter of JOHN DE SOLERS.
She died 1284. >>
This part does not work.
William and Maud had a son born in 1304/6 named William as well.
You only show three generations to take us back to William the Conqueror.
There should be more like perhaps 8 to 12
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway
In a message dated 2/1/06 12:23:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:
<< SIR WILLIAM WHITTINGTON was born Abt. 1280 in Pauntley, Gloucestersghire,
England, and died 1359. Sir William became Lord of Pauntley. He was
declared, by the Inquisition of 1311, >>
This Inquisition of 1311 was not "the Inquisition" but rather the IPM of
Maud's brother John de Solers of Wytington. His death s.p. is supposed to be the
way the Whittington's got that property.
Will Johnson
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:
<< SIR WILLIAM WHITTINGTON was born Abt. 1280 in Pauntley, Gloucestersghire,
England, and died 1359. Sir William became Lord of Pauntley. He was
declared, by the Inquisition of 1311, >>
This Inquisition of 1311 was not "the Inquisition" but rather the IPM of
Maud's brother John de Solers of Wytington. His death s.p. is supposed to be the
way the Whittington's got that property.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway
In a message dated 2/1/06 12:23:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:
<< SIR WILLIAM WHITTINGTON was born Abt. 1280 in Pauntley, Gloucestersghire,
England, and died 1359. Sir William became Lord of Pauntley. He was
declared, by the Inquisition of 1311, to be the son of William Whittington
and Maud de Solers, and the next heir to John, son of Thomas de Solers. In
William Whittington, the Manor and Estate of Pauntley were reunited. >>
Another note, I think this is confused. The elder William b 1304/6 died abt
1334 and had married Joan Linet. Their son, also William Whittington b 1321/7
is the one who died 1359 and married Joan Mansell. And this last couple were
the parents of Dick Whittington "Thrice Lord Mayor of London" (although it
was really four)
Will Johnson
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:
<< SIR WILLIAM WHITTINGTON was born Abt. 1280 in Pauntley, Gloucestersghire,
England, and died 1359. Sir William became Lord of Pauntley. He was
declared, by the Inquisition of 1311, to be the son of William Whittington
and Maud de Solers, and the next heir to John, son of Thomas de Solers. In
William Whittington, the Manor and Estate of Pauntley were reunited. >>
Another note, I think this is confused. The elder William b 1304/6 died abt
1334 and had married Joan Linet. Their son, also William Whittington b 1321/7
is the one who died 1359 and married Joan Mansell. And this last couple were
the parents of Dick Whittington "Thrice Lord Mayor of London" (although it
was really four)
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: William Whittington of Early VA Gateway
In a message dated 2/1/06 12:23:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:
<< ROBERT WHITTINGTON married ELIZABETH ROUSE, daughter of BALDWYN ROUSE.
WILLIAM WHITTINGTON was born Abt. 1451 in Gloucestershire, England. He
married ELIZABETH ARUNDEL, daughter of HUMPHREY ARUNDEL. >>
This abt 1451 date seems to me to be too late. I'm thinking that Robert died
v.p. and William was heir to his grandfather when Guy died 1442. I have
Robert dead in 1437
Will Johnson
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:
<< ROBERT WHITTINGTON married ELIZABETH ROUSE, daughter of BALDWYN ROUSE.
WILLIAM WHITTINGTON was born Abt. 1451 in Gloucestershire, England. He
married ELIZABETH ARUNDEL, daughter of HUMPHREY ARUNDEL. >>
This abt 1451 date seems to me to be too late. I'm thinking that Robert died
v.p. and William was heir to his grandfather when Guy died 1442. I have
Robert dead in 1437
Will Johnson
-
Ian Fettes
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard = John West
Hi Will,
I just realised your problrm. The M and F represent mother and father not
male and female. Many genealogy programs allow you to step through the data
using keystrokes like M, F or C, being mother, father or child.
Cheers,
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard = John West
I just realised your problrm. The M and F represent mother and father not
male and female. Many genealogy programs allow you to step through the data
using keystrokes like M, F or C, being mother, father or child.
Cheers,
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard = John West
In a message dated 2/9/06 11:36:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fettesi@st.net.au writes:
186 paths from John West to Rohese Giffard
Gen AT No Ancestral path
18 240141 S M MFMF MFMF FFFF MMFM
I'm not sure if I'm understanding this. Using Leo's site:
S Capt John West
M Thomas West, 2nd Lord Delaware
M William West, 1st Baron Delaware
F Elizabeth Morton
M Sir Robert Morton of Lechlade
but at this point Leo has no ancestor's to connect the path back any
further.
Thanks.
Will Johnson
______________________________
-
Gjest
Re: Descendants of Rohese Giffard = John West
In a message dated 2/10/2006 9:12:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fettesi@st.net.au writes:
I just realised your problrm. The M and F represent mother and father not
male and female. Many genealogy programs allow you to step through the data
using keystrokes like M, F or C, being mother, father or child.
Oh how bizarre! That MF, male female would be exactly reversed in MF mother
father
That's really odd. At least to me
Will
fettesi@st.net.au writes:
I just realised your problrm. The M and F represent mother and father not
male and female. Many genealogy programs allow you to step through the data
using keystrokes like M, F or C, being mother, father or child.
Oh how bizarre! That MF, male female would be exactly reversed in MF mother
father
That's really odd. At least to me
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Daughters of the 10th Lord Clifford
Dear Douglas,
Might We not consider a third possibility, that this
thirty year old Henry Clifford actually married someone prior to 1485 in his
little village who had this Elizabeth and perhaps another child or children and
died.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Might We not consider a third possibility, that this
thirty year old Henry Clifford actually married someone prior to 1485 in his
little village who had this Elizabeth and perhaps another child or children and
died.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: another more than dubious italian line
In a message dated 2/11/2006 8:20:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,
DRNewcomb@NOT.attglobal.net writes:
Perhaps I'm too much of a newbie to medieval genealogy. Wouldn't it be
interesting? Just pick a random mother of undetermined parentage and build
her an ancestry that runs back through the late Roman Empire, through
Greece, to the King of Gondor and Rohan and, after a few hundred
generations, ending up somewhere in the First Age of Middle Earth. You could
even cite the "Red Book of the Westmarch" as your source
I would also add "Red Book of the Westmarch", folio said to be in the Secret
Archives of the Illuminati, cited by Prof. U. R. Fictional, Brandywine
University [apparently destroyed by a fire in 1229]
Will Johnson
DRNewcomb@NOT.attglobal.net writes:
Perhaps I'm too much of a newbie to medieval genealogy. Wouldn't it be
interesting? Just pick a random mother of undetermined parentage and build
her an ancestry that runs back through the late Roman Empire, through
Greece, to the King of Gondor and Rohan and, after a few hundred
generations, ending up somewhere in the First Age of Middle Earth. You could
even cite the "Red Book of the Westmarch" as your source
I would also add "Red Book of the Westmarch", folio said to be in the Secret
Archives of the Illuminati, cited by Prof. U. R. Fictional, Brandywine
University [apparently destroyed by a fire in 1229]
Will Johnson
-
Frank
ap Einion and ap Gwirfaeth
First many thanks to the two members who corrected my Medieval Welsh.
Because of them I now believe I now have a father for my ancestor Ralph ap
(or ab) Einion born 1306 in Clearwell, Newland, Forest of Dean.
His father rejoiced in the name Einion 'Llwyd' ap Gwirfaeth and was also
born in Clearwell c. 1280.
His grandfather Gwirfaeth was born c. 1260 at Ergyng (now Archenfield)
between Hay on Wye and Hereford, and that is the sum total of my current
knowledge and belief on the matter.
I would be grateful if anyone could corroborate this and/or add anything.
Frank Baynham
Forest of Dean
Because of them I now believe I now have a father for my ancestor Ralph ap
(or ab) Einion born 1306 in Clearwell, Newland, Forest of Dean.
His father rejoiced in the name Einion 'Llwyd' ap Gwirfaeth and was also
born in Clearwell c. 1280.
His grandfather Gwirfaeth was born c. 1260 at Ergyng (now Archenfield)
between Hay on Wye and Hereford, and that is the sum total of my current
knowledge and belief on the matter.
I would be grateful if anyone could corroborate this and/or add anything.
Frank Baynham
Forest of Dean
-
Ford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: another more than dubious italian line
"Donald Newcomb" <DRNewcomb@NOT.attglobal.net> wrote in message news:43ee0eeb@kcnews01...
You fool! You've completely forgotten that the only links from Greece to Gondor run through the Atreides, Harkonens, Corrinos & the Butlers. This can all be verified through the Bene Geserit breeding books.
Perhaps I'm too much of a newbie to medieval genealogy. Wouldn't it be
interesting? Just pick a random mother of undetermined parentage and build
her an ancestry that runs back through the late Roman Empire, through
Greece, to the King of Gondor and Rohan and, after a few hundred
generations, ending up somewhere in the First Age of Middle Earth. You could
even cite the "Red Book of the Westmarch" as your source. Then post it on
the Internet, preferably using a system that only shows one generation at a
time. I wonder how long it would take for it to show up in the IGI?
You fool! You've completely forgotten that the only links from Greece to Gondor run through the Atreides, Harkonens, Corrinos & the Butlers. This can all be verified through the Bene Geserit breeding books.
-
Donald Newcomb
Re: another more than dubious italian line
""Ford Mommaerts-Browne"" <FordMommaerts@Cox.net> wrote in message
news:006201c62f74$55384260$c4870d44@om.cox.net...
can all be verified through the Bene Geserit breeding books.
Doh! (Slapping forehead) Think about it. How many ancestors could be wired
into 100+ generations? To do it right, you'd have to first catalog every
crackpot theory (descent from Jesus and Mary Magdalene) and fictional
character (Julius Caesar's son by Gaelic mistress) then figure out how
"document" their connection to the "gateway" ancestor.
--
Donald R. Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
news:006201c62f74$55384260$c4870d44@om.cox.net...
You fool! You've completely forgotten that the only links from Greece to
Gondor run through the Atreides, Harkonens, Corrinos & the Butlers. This
can all be verified through the Bene Geserit breeding books.
Doh! (Slapping forehead) Think about it. How many ancestors could be wired
into 100+ generations? To do it right, you'd have to first catalog every
crackpot theory (descent from Jesus and Mary Magdalene) and fictional
character (Julius Caesar's son by Gaelic mistress) then figure out how
"document" their connection to the "gateway" ancestor.
--
Donald R. Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
-
Gjest
Re: echyngham/batisford/lewknore
In a message dated 2/11/2006 5:31:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
Evidently this "sister" was used to mean half sister. We have a court case
in which Joan Echyngham Rykill and Elizabeth Echyngham Hoo Lewknor are
involved with their cousin Richard Fiennes over Batisford land in Buckholt. It is
stated in the case that they are the daughters of alice, sister of
elizabeth(Isabell) Batisford who married Wm fiennes. They say that Richard is the
grandson of elizbeth Batisford. Strong evidence of the relationship and that
they were indeed daughters of Alice Batisford Echyngham.
can you quote the exact wording and with a citation that i can verify it?
thanks
will
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
Evidently this "sister" was used to mean half sister. We have a court case
in which Joan Echyngham Rykill and Elizabeth Echyngham Hoo Lewknor are
involved with their cousin Richard Fiennes over Batisford land in Buckholt. It is
stated in the case that they are the daughters of alice, sister of
elizabeth(Isabell) Batisford who married Wm fiennes. They say that Richard is the
grandson of elizbeth Batisford. Strong evidence of the relationship and that
they were indeed daughters of Alice Batisford Echyngham.
can you quote the exact wording and with a citation that i can verify it?
thanks
will
-
Gjest
Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Crao
BTW, "Brewer's Dictionary of Phrases & Fable" states that it was a Sir
William Blackstone (1723-80) showed that Henry IV, being related or allied to
every Earl in the kingdom, artfully and constantly acknowledged this connection
in all public acts.
Adrian
Douglas Richardson wrote;
It has been claimed more than once here on the newsgroup that it is
customary for the king/queen of England to address all peers as his (or
her) cousin. This custom may well be true today. However, I know for
certain it was not true as late as 1600. My research indicates that
until at least 1600, those individuals addressed in public records as
king's or queen's kinsfolk in England were related to the monach within
the 5th degree on at least one side (that is, 4th cousins). I only
have a handful of exceptions which run greater than 5th degree. Those
individuals not related to the monarch were not addressed as kinsfolk.
It's that simple.
Since you've raised the question of French customs, I should ask you
what evidence do you have that the practice of addressing "each peer of
France" as cousin was the rule in the 1300's? Or, is this a later
custom as seems to be the case in England?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
William Blackstone (1723-80) showed that Henry IV, being related or allied to
every Earl in the kingdom, artfully and constantly acknowledged this connection
in all public acts.
Adrian
Douglas Richardson wrote;
It has been claimed more than once here on the newsgroup that it is
customary for the king/queen of England to address all peers as his (or
her) cousin. This custom may well be true today. However, I know for
certain it was not true as late as 1600. My research indicates that
until at least 1600, those individuals addressed in public records as
king's or queen's kinsfolk in England were related to the monach within
the 5th degree on at least one side (that is, 4th cousins). I only
have a handful of exceptions which run greater than 5th degree. Those
individuals not related to the monarch were not addressed as kinsfolk.
It's that simple.
Since you've raised the question of French customs, I should ask you
what evidence do you have that the practice of addressing "each peer of
France" as cousin was the rule in the 1300's? Or, is this a later
custom as seems to be the case in England?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
CED
Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Crao
ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com wrote:
Dear Adrian;
I note that Brewer's Dictionary continues with "[t] usage has descended
to his [Henry IV's] successors, and in royal writs and commissions an
earl is addressed...."
Does not this mean that the form of address became custom at least at
the time of Henry IV, some two hundred years before the earliest date
allowed by Richardson?
CED
BTW, "Brewer's Dictionary of Phrases & Fable" states that it was a Sir
William Blackstone (1723-80) showed that Henry IV, being related or allied to
every Earl in the kingdom, artfully and constantly acknowledged this connection
in all public acts.
Dear Adrian;
I note that Brewer's Dictionary continues with "[t] usage has descended
to his [Henry IV's] successors, and in royal writs and commissions an
earl is addressed...."
Does not this mean that the form of address became custom at least at
the time of Henry IV, some two hundred years before the earliest date
allowed by Richardson?
CED
Adrian
Douglas Richardson wrote;
It has been claimed more than once here on the newsgroup that it is
customary for the king/queen of England to address all peers as his (or
her) cousin. This custom may well be true today. However, I know for
certain it was not true as late as 1600. My research indicates that
until at least 1600, those individuals addressed in public records as
king's or queen's kinsfolk in England were related to the monach within
the 5th degree on at least one side (that is, 4th cousins). I only
have a handful of exceptions which run greater than 5th degree. Those
individuals not related to the monarch were not addressed as kinsfolk.
It's that simple.
Since you've raised the question of French customs, I should ask you
what evidence do you have that the practice of addressing "each peer of
France" as cousin was the rule in the 1300's? Or, is this a later
custom as seems to be the case in England?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Gjest
Re: lewknor/echyngham
In a message dated 2/12/2006 11:38:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
c1/19/280-290 has the chancery case regarding property asbunham-batisford
and they give names of Joan Echyngham Rykill and Elizabeth Echygnham Hoo
,Lewknor as in dispute over Buckholt , which belonged to wm Batisford. They are in
dispute with their cousin Richard Fiennes whose mother was Isabell
Batisford, daughter of Wm Batisford who married Wm Fiennes, and sister to Alice
Batisford who is the mother of Joan and Elizabeth.\\
But this is not the exact wording. We cannot tell from this whether the
document uses the expressions "cousin", "mother", "daughter", "sister" or
whether these are editorial insertions. Can you quote the exact wording that this
document uses, in itself?
Thanks
Will Johnson
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
c1/19/280-290 has the chancery case regarding property asbunham-batisford
and they give names of Joan Echyngham Rykill and Elizabeth Echygnham Hoo
,Lewknor as in dispute over Buckholt , which belonged to wm Batisford. They are in
dispute with their cousin Richard Fiennes whose mother was Isabell
Batisford, daughter of Wm Batisford who married Wm Fiennes, and sister to Alice
Batisford who is the mother of Joan and Elizabeth.\\
But this is not the exact wording. We cannot tell from this whether the
document uses the expressions "cousin", "mother", "daughter", "sister" or
whether these are editorial insertions. Can you quote the exact wording that this
document uses, in itself?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Crao
Brewer's was giving the origin of when the king refereed to earls, viscounts
and dukes as cousins, although I don't know if this tradition occurred
continuously from this time.
Brewer's further remarks (immediately following my earlier extract) is "The
usage has descended to his successors, and in royal writs and commissions an
earl is addressed 'Our right trusty and wall-beloved cousin', a Marquess 'Our
right trusty and entirely beloved cousin' and a Duke 'Our right trusty and
right entirely beloved cousin'".
As to "allied", I take this, in this context, to mean related by marriage.
Adrian
In a message dated 12/02/2006 20:01:00 GMT Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
BTW this covers the period of 1399 to 1413 only, what about the other kings?
Having taken the crown by force, Henry IV may well have had motives to
pander to the nobility.
"Being related or allied"----? Allied how? Political alliance? Doesn't make
them necessarily "cousins" within a close range.
"Artfully" he dodged offending them by calling them all "cousin"?
This still leaves quite a number of other kings over a very ling time span.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Craon,
Archbishop of ...
and dukes as cousins, although I don't know if this tradition occurred
continuously from this time.
Brewer's further remarks (immediately following my earlier extract) is "The
usage has descended to his successors, and in royal writs and commissions an
earl is addressed 'Our right trusty and wall-beloved cousin', a Marquess 'Our
right trusty and entirely beloved cousin' and a Duke 'Our right trusty and
right entirely beloved cousin'".
As to "allied", I take this, in this context, to mean related by marriage.
Adrian
In a message dated 12/02/2006 20:01:00 GMT Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
BTW this covers the period of 1399 to 1413 only, what about the other kings?
Having taken the crown by force, Henry IV may well have had motives to
pander to the nobility.
"Being related or allied"----? Allied how? Political alliance? Doesn't make
them necessarily "cousins" within a close range.
"Artfully" he dodged offending them by calling them all "cousin"?
This still leaves quite a number of other kings over a very ling time span.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANCHANNING@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Charles V of France & Jean de Craon,
Archbishop of ...
BTW, "Brewer's Dictionary of Phrases & Fable" states that it was a Sir
William Blackstone (1723-80) showed that Henry IV, being related or allied
to
every Earl in the kingdom, artfully and constantly acknowledged this
connection
in all public acts.
Adrian
Douglas Richardson wrote;
It has been claimed more than once here on the newsgroup that it is
customary for the king/queen of England to address all peers as his (or
her) cousin. This custom may well be true today. However, I know for
certain it was not true as late as 1600. My research indicates that
until at least 1600, those individuals addressed in public records as
king's or queen's kinsfolk in England were related to the monach within
the 5th degree on at least one side (that is, 4th cousins). I only
have a handful of exceptions which run greater than 5th degree. Those
individuals not related to the monarch were not addressed as kinsfolk.
It's that simple.
Since you've raised the question of French customs, I should ask you
what evidence do you have that the practice of addressing "each peer of
France" as cousin was the rule in the 1300's? Or, is this a later
custom as seems to be the case in England?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net