Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Re: Eudo La Zouche m. Milicent De Cantelou

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mar 2006 15:57:26

"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
However, there was a Eudo la Zouche, brother of the below named Alan, son of
Roger and Margaret.
Pat
Lockehead wrote:
Who were the parents of Eudo La Zouche d. 1279 (married Milicent De
Cantelou)? Was it Elena De Quincy and Alan La Zouche OR was it
Roger La Zouche who married Margaret ________?
The latter. Margaret has been identified as daughter of Henry Biset.

Hi Pat,

that is I think what I said- Eudo (or Eon), d.1279, who married
Millicent de Cauntelo, was son of Roger and Margaret and younger
brother of Alan. At least I've never seen otherwise -Matthew

Patricia Junkin

Re: Eudo La Zouche m. Milicent De Cantelou

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 15 mar 2006 16:12:01

However, there was a Eudo la Zouche, brother of the below named Alan, son of
Roger and Margaret.
Pat

----------
From: mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eudo La Zouche m. Milicent De Cantelou
Date: Wed, 15, 2006, 5:01 AM



Lockehead wrote:
O.K. ladies and gentleman, you were so helpful before, I am turning to
you for help once again. This is a two part question and I will pose
the other one in another thread. Here goes:

Who were the parents of Eudo La Zouche d. 1279 (married Milicent De
Cantelou)? Was it Elena De Quincy and Alan La Zouche OR was it
Roger La Zouche who married Margaret ________?
The latter. Margaret has been identified as daughter of Henry Biset.

Gjest

Re: Eudo La Zouche m. Milicent De Cantelou

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 mar 2006 16:21:31

mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Eudo (or Eon), d.1279, who married
Millicent de Cauntelo, was son of Roger and Margaret and younger
brother of Alan. At least I've never seen otherwise
Well that's wrong, of course I've seen the other version! But CP and

new DNB both have the one as above; I know, Pat, that you have done a
lot of work on this, so if there is still doubt I'll let you take over
any discussion from here! -M

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Eudo La Zouche m. Milicent De Cantelou

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 15 mar 2006 16:43:42

In message of 15 Mar, mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Lockehead wrote:
Who were the parents of Eudo La Zouche d. 1279 (married
Milicent De Cantelou)? Was it Elena De Quincy and Alan La
Zouche OR was it Roger La Zouche who married Margaret ________?

The latter. Margaret has been identified as daughter of Henry Biset.


"Patricia Junkin" wrote:
However, there was a Eudo la Zouche, brother of the below named
Alan, son of Roger and Margaret.

Pat

Hi Pat,
that is I think what I said- Eudo (or Eon), d.1279, who married
Millicent de Cauntelo, was son of Roger and Margaret and younger
brother of Alan. At least I've never seen otherwise -Matthew

Let's do something awfully daring and give a reference or two for this,
which "I find" as:

CP XII/2, p. 937, incl note (a) citing Cal. Patent Rolls, 1258-66, p.
238

and

CP XII/2, pp. 931-2, incl note (i) on p. 932.

The business about Margaret being the son of Henry Biset: "I find" I
have a note that said that DR "found" this to be so but gave no
references on 26th March 1999. So my database merely has this as a
note. And the CP Corrigenda database has no mention of this gem.

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

Patricia Junkin

Re: Eudo La Zouche m. Milicent De Cantelou

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 15 mar 2006 19:39:02

The subject of the two Eudos is as confounding as the Lubbesthorpe line.
The following timeline presents a problem in my mind. There seems to me no
doubt that there is a Eudo la Zouche born between 1200 and 1230. If the
inheritance of land is examined, it appears that most of the inheritance in
the line of the younger (?) Eudo who married Milicent came from the
Cantilupes. Clearly, Roger and Oliver, the sons of Alan and Elena de Quincy
inherit de Quincy property. There remains a question of whether Eudo the son
of Roger and Margaret Biset was not the same who married Milicent, later in
life and perhaps as a second wife. I realize that many sources seem to
confirm Eudo as the son of Alan and Elena, however, sources also give an
estimated death of their son and heir, Roger, as 1241. If Milicent was just,
say, 15 at her marriage to John Montaldt, was she 30 years old or more
before she began to have her children? Her brother, George was born in 1251.

1253 Eudo la Zouche granted benefit of marriage of Agatha, d/o William de
Feraris. [The children of Alan and Elena de Quincy were born 1240-50. I
should think this man was an adult.]

Before 1255, Milicent Cantilupe had married John de Montaldt. Between 1255
and 1267, John de Montaldt died.

1262, 25 December ... the king is sending Alan la Zuche [s/o Roger and
Margaret], justice of the forest on this side Trent, to the said march
commands the justice [Orreby] to deliver the castles of Edward, the king's
son, to wit, Chester, Beeston and Shotwik, to Eudo la Zuche[I], brother of
the said Alan, without delay to keep in the name of the said Alan until his
arrival. [Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1258-66, p.238: 47 Henry III - Part 1,
m.19] [ Lacie strongholds on the Welsh border were Beeston, Chester and
Halton Castles. Beeston]

1263, 17 Oct. Eudo la Suche summoned to Windsor

1265 ... Battle of Evesham. As to manor of Caldecote. when Sir William la
Zuke [Zouche] seized it as being of his fee. [Hundred of Wyxstantre] While
in Berkshire concerning the Hundred of Bienershe, Henry the parson of
Sotesbrok was deprived and Sir William la Zuche, chaplain, took his
parsonage. Concerning the Hundred of Carleford, .....Nicholas de Chicel,
servant of Eudo la Zuche received the Michaelmas rent of 6 1/2d

1268 Milicent de Cantilupo de Montaldt grants William la Zouche, Lobesthorp.
"service of third of knight's fee of the gift of Millicent de Montealto .

1269-1285 E 210/1021Confirmation by Roger la Zuche, son and heir of Sir Alan
la Zuche, to the leprous women and the prior and brethren of
Maydenebradelegh....witnessed by Sirs Ivo la Zuche, Alan la Zuche.

By 1273 Milicent Montaldt had married Eudo la Zouche.

1276-6 William la Zouche of Haryngsworth born to Milicent and Eudes la
Zouche

1279, 28 April. Simple protection for Eudo la Szusche and Milicent his wife
for two years in Ireland.
----------
From: mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eudo La Zouche m. Milicent De Cantelou
Date: Wed, 15, 2006, 10:21 AM



mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Eudo (or Eon), d.1279, who married
Millicent de Cauntelo, was son of Roger and Margaret and younger
brother of Alan. At least I've never seen otherwise
Well that's wrong, of course I've seen the other version! But CP and
new DNB both have the one as above; I know, Pat, that you have done a
lot of work on this, so if there is still doubt I'll let you take over
any discussion from here! -M

Patricia Junkin

Re: Eudo La Zouche m. Milicent De Cantelou

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 15 mar 2006 19:44:02

Oops....meant the birth of Roger was 1241. Many apologies.
Pat

----------
From: "Patricia Junkin" <pajunkin@cox.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eudo La Zouche m. Milicent De Cantelou
Date: Wed, 15, 2006, 1:36 PM


The subject of the two Eudos is as confounding as the Lubbesthorpe line.
The following timeline presents a problem in my mind. There seems to me no
doubt that there is a Eudo la Zouche born between 1200 and 1230. If the
inheritance of land is examined, it appears that most of the inheritance in
the line of the younger (?) Eudo who married Milicent came from the
Cantilupes. Clearly, Roger and Oliver, the sons of Alan and Elena de Quincy
inherit de Quincy property. There remains a question of whether Eudo the son
of Roger and Margaret Biset was not the same who married Milicent, later in
life and perhaps as a second wife. I realize that many sources seem to
confirm Eudo as the son of Alan and Elena, however, sources also give an
estimated death of their son and heir, Roger, as 1241. If Milicent was just,
say, 15 at her marriage to John Montaldt, was she 30 years old or more
before she began to have her children? Her brother, George was born in 1251.

1253 Eudo la Zouche granted benefit of marriage of Agatha, d/o William de
Feraris. [The children of Alan and Elena de Quincy were born 1240-50. I
should think this man was an adult.]

Before 1255, Milicent Cantilupe had married John de Montaldt. Between 1255
and 1267, John de Montaldt died.

1262, 25 December ... the king is sending Alan la Zuche [s/o Roger and
Margaret], justice of the forest on this side Trent, to the said march
commands the justice [Orreby] to deliver the castles of Edward, the king's
son, to wit, Chester, Beeston and Shotwik, to Eudo la Zuche[I], brother of
the said Alan, without delay to keep in the name of the said Alan until his
arrival. [Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1258-66, p.238: 47 Henry III - Part 1,
m.19] [ Lacie strongholds on the Welsh border were Beeston, Chester and
Halton Castles. Beeston]

1263, 17 Oct. Eudo la Suche summoned to Windsor

1265 ... Battle of Evesham. As to manor of Caldecote. when Sir William la
Zuke [Zouche] seized it as being of his fee. [Hundred of Wyxstantre] While
in Berkshire concerning the Hundred of Bienershe, Henry the parson of
Sotesbrok was deprived and Sir William la Zuche, chaplain, took his
parsonage. Concerning the Hundred of Carleford, .....Nicholas de Chicel,
servant of Eudo la Zuche received the Michaelmas rent of 6 1/2d

1268 Milicent de Cantilupo de Montaldt grants William la Zouche, Lobesthorp.
"service of third of knight's fee of the gift of Millicent de Montealto .

1269-1285 E 210/1021Confirmation by Roger la Zuche, son and heir of Sir Alan
la Zuche, to the leprous women and the prior and brethren of
Maydenebradelegh....witnessed by Sirs Ivo la Zuche, Alan la Zuche.

By 1273 Milicent Montaldt had married Eudo la Zouche.

1276-6 William la Zouche of Haryngsworth born to Milicent and Eudes la
Zouche

1279, 28 April. Simple protection for Eudo la Szusche and Milicent his wife
for two years in Ireland.
----------
From: mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Eudo La Zouche m. Milicent De Cantelou
Date: Wed, 15, 2006, 10:21 AM



mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Eudo (or Eon), d.1279, who married
Millicent de Cauntelo, was son of Roger and Margaret and younger
brother of Alan. At least I've never seen otherwise
Well that's wrong, of course I've seen the other version! But CP and
new DNB both have the one as above; I know, Pat, that you have done a
lot of work on this, so if there is still doubt I'll let you take over
any discussion from here! -M


W David Samuelsen

Re: NEHGS Register available 20-22 March to all

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 16 mar 2006 00:35:02

Nothing new here about free access. Available free at the Family History
Centers with Internet access, anytime.

The other one is Ancestry.com

W. David Samuelsen

Gjest

Re: Iseult de Mortimer, wife of Walter de Balun and Hugh de

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mar 2006 02:00:02

In a message dated 3/15/06 12:00:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< My research further
indicates that Iseult's first husband, Sir Walter de Balun, was born
circa 1225, making him older than Sir Edmund de Mortimer's father. >>

Where does this circa date come from?
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Iseult de Mortimer, wife of Walter de Balun and Hugh de

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mar 2006 02:04:02

In a message dated 3/15/06 12:00:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< As such, I believe it makes
sense to push Iseult back a generation and make her the daughter of
Edmund's father, Sir Roger de Mortimer. >>

In fact Douglas, I pointed out the chronologic impossibly here on 10/25/05,
in a slightly different way then you, but with the same result.

To which TAF replied that same date of which I snip a quote: "This
chronological anomaly was noticed long ago, Charles Evans publishing a note on it in
1962 (see NEHGR 116: 13-17). The crux of the matter is that Isolde, married
first Walter de Balun in 1285, then Hugh de Audeley between 1286/7 and 1293, and
hence could not possibly be daughter of Edmund by Margaret de Fiennes, who he
only married about 1285 after the death of his brother caused him to be
withdrawn from the clergy. "

I had already moved her to being the daughter of Roger Mortimer and Maud
Braose.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Iseult de Mortimer, wife of Walter de Balun and Hugh de

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mar 2006 02:06:02

In a message dated 3/15/06 10:31:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< Why "say 1260" for a girl married (shortly) before 1287? Elsewhere you
have argued for significantly shorter average generation lengths for
females than 27 years - in fact, you have even argued for shorter
generation lengths for males when you wanted it to be so. I would think
"say 1270" would be more in line >>


The only date range I currently have for Iseult (Isolde) de Mortimer is
1253/1278.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Iseult de Mortimer, wife of Walter de Balun and Hugh de

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mar 2006 02:10:02

In a message dated 3/15/06 9:46:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< Iseult was born
say 1260, and thus was slightly younger than Edmund de Mortimer. She
married (1st) before 1287 Sir Walter de Balun, Knt., of Great Marcle,
Herefordshire, Eastington, Gloucestershire, and Arley, Staffordshire,
and Great Cheverel, Wiltshire. He was born about 1225 (aged 50 in
1275). Walter was heir in 1275 to his older brother, John de Balun.
He was summoned to serve against the Welsh in 1277 and 1282. Sir
Walter de Balun was living in 1287. >>

How is it that we know that the Walter, heir to his brother John in 1275 is
the same Walter who married Iseulte de Mortimer ?

Gjest

Re: Iseult de Mortimer, wife of Walter de Balun and Hugh de

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 mar 2006 02:30:03

In a message dated 3/15/06 9:46:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< As for Sir Edmund de Mortimer, his early history is well documented in
the records. He was born about 1251-4 (aged 28-30 in 1282, aged 40
in 1301). >>

This doesn't actually support your assertion.
We have A) he was aged 28-30 in 1282 and
B) he was aged 40 in 1301

So one source states he was born 1251/4 and the other states he was born in
1260/1. You appear to have chosen one source over the other, I have his age
range as 1251/61 to allow both sources equal sway.

Will Johnson

Lockehead

Re: Iseult de Mortimer, wife of Walter de Balun and Hugh de

Legg inn av Lockehead » 16 mar 2006 05:53:58

Thank you to all. Roger and Maud it is! I cannot for the life of me
figure out why I keep going back to "Living Descendats of Blood Royal
in America" for references. I guess that I am just too cheap to buy new
books.

W David Samuelsen

Re: Iseult de Mortimer, wife of Walter de Balun and Hugh de

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 16 mar 2006 07:26:37

In a message dated 3/15/06 12:00:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< My research further
indicates that Iseult's first husband, Sir Walter de Balun, was born
circa 1225, making him older than Sir Edmund de Mortimer's father. >>

Where does this circa date come from?
Thanks
Will Johnson

A search of several sites and about only 4 said 1225 while all others
(over 200) said between 1253-1268.

And not one mentioned who Walter de Balun's father was.

Wondering if Douglas is either making it up or he got information wrong?
So here's message to Douglas - come clean with that claim, please!

BTW, this lady is in my own lines, but married to Hugh de Audley. I did
have a problem with Iseult (Isolde) being daughter of Edmund Mortimer
because of age disparity.

W. David Samuelsen

Richard

RE: [PA-QUAKERS] Harmer brothers, Quakers from Wiltshire to

Legg inn av Richard » 01 apr 2006 05:49:25

Hello,

I am trying to establish contact with any Harmer descendants with knowledge
of their origins. In doing my own Wiltshire research, I have come across the
family of a likely Quaker, George Harmer, senior, tailor, of Rodbourne
Cheney, Wilts., described in the parish register there as "an heretick" by
Nicholas Adee, the rector, when his son Samuel, "of ripe years", was brought
to be baptised in 1678. Samuel's mother was Edith. During the Commonwealth,
the births of two sons of George Harmer and Edith his wife were registered
by the civil register (i.e. registrar) in 1654 and 1657, likely because
Quakers were probably unoffended by the civil authority taking note of their
births. Samuel, however, was probably born earlier, and only baptised so
that he could be married in the Church of England after the Restoration. His
daughter is baptised the next year.

Now, I find that two brothers, both Quaker, went out from Wiltshire to
Pennsylvania after 5 June 1682 according to the following website,
http://www.geocities.com/roudeng/Harmer.html (from which I take this
snippet), viz.:

"William & George Harmer were brothers who left England for Pennsylvania
after June 5, 1682. William (born ca. 1660-1731/32, Chalwily, Wiltshire,
England) was the elder of the two and was a tailor by occupation. His
certificate of removal bears the previously cited date and was granted by
the Purton Friends Monthly Meeting in Wiltshire, England. After his arrival
in Pennsylvania, William joined the Abington Meeting but did not maintain
active membership. He returned to his native England where he married
sometime after September 7, 1685, Ruth Skeat (born in Chalwily, Wiltshire,
England, daughter of John Skeat) at Foxham, Wiltshire. He and his bride
returned to Pennsylvania. William Harmer requested reinstatement at the
Abington Meeting on September 30, 1706. In 1720/21 he and Ruth and two sons
removed to the Gwynedd Monthly Meeting. He died Nov. 26, 1731, in Upper
Dublin Twp., Philadelphia, PA, and is buried at the Friends Burial Ground at
Philadelphia. Ruth (Skeat) Harmer died Dec. 25, 1748 and is buried at the
same location. William's will mentions 8 children but only Ruth and John by
name. Other children of this couple have been identified as Elizabeth who
married Joseph Townsend, Jane who married John Bradfield and William who
married Eleanor Richardson. Our connection to this family is through Jane
Harmer. I have seen this family pedigree extending back to 1537, but after
checking it out, I found a couple of discrepancies to make me unsure of the
accuracy of it. If anyone finds any proof of the ancestors of William and
George Harmer, please contact me."

I have tried without success to contact the author of the website and wonder
if there isn't someone connected with this family on this list?

One of the two sons of George Harmer, senior, tailor, of Rodbourne Cheney,
Wilts., and his wife Edith, civilly registered was George Harmer, born 8
Nov. 1657 (Old Style). He is likely to be one of the 2 brothers who went to
Pennsylvania in 1682. There is no such place as Chalwily in Wiltshire, and I
believe that it is a garbling of the second element of Rodbourne Cheney,
which was spelt in quite a variety of ways until settling on the modern
"correct" form.

I would be grateful for any assistance or contact.

Sincerely,

Richard

Richard Carruthers, M.A. (Oxon.)
OPC for Purton and Rodbourne Cheney, Wilts.
Conducting a one-place study of Purton, Wilts., with interest in adjacent or
nearby parishes, such as Rodbourne Cheney.

W David Samuelsen

Re: Nathaniel Foote followup

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 01 apr 2006 10:01:02

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-03/1143850205>

Doug,

you're right, there must be one more generation in either one. The other
one is extra 80 years.

Got to ask Gordon Remington to see if he can solve this problem. He's a
Foote like I am.

W. David Samuelsen

Pam

Re: Nathaniel Foote

Legg inn av Pam » 01 apr 2006 12:52:40

"W David Samuelsen" <dsam@sampubco.com> wrote in message
news:442D4ECC.8030202@sampubco.com...

David Samuelsen's comments:
Elizabeth wife of Nathaniel Foote is Elizabeth Deming, dau of Jonathan
Deming and Elizabeth Gilbert

The only place I saw the parentage listed for Elizabeth Deming was in a
privately published genealogy. I traced the so-called sources they gave and
none of them listed Elizabeth's parents. Elizabeth's brother, John Deming,
had a son, Jonathan, who married an Elizabeth Gilbert. Personallly I think
someone messed up the relationships. As far as I know there has been no
proof of parentage for the Demings. I've been trying to trace them for over
20 years.

Pam

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Nathaniel Foote

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 01 apr 2006 18:25:02

In message of 1 Apr, dsam@sampubco.com (W David Samuelsen) wrote:

This has me wondering about Thomas Welles' line since I saw somewhere
that he was direct descendant of John Welles and Cecily Plantagenet-York
(dau of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville). Am I mistaken about his line?

From CP XII/2 pp. 448-450 this couple dies with no surviving issue. So,
direct descendants to any Thomas Welles did not happen.

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

W David Samuelsen

Re: Nathaniel Foote

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 01 apr 2006 19:39:11

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1143892360>

Was reviewing and noticed I had 2 bits of biographies stashed in the
notes for Nathaniel Foote. The 2nd biography is more detailed...

this from the book:
Abram W. Foote, *Foote Family, Comprising the Genealogy and History
of Nathaniel Foote of Wethersfield, Conn. and His Descendants*, vol. I,
Rutland VT (Marble City Press --- The Tuttle Company) 1907, p 17-21
*passim*.

in brevity:
Mr. Foote married in England, about the year 1615, to Elizabeth Deming,
sister of Mr. John Deming, who was one of the first settlers of
Wethersfield, and for many years one of the magistrates of the Colony of
Connecticut, and one of the patentees named in its charter. His
children were all born in England, except perhaps the youngest. Mr.
Foote died in 1644, aged about 51 years, and was buried in the ancient
burying ground in the rear of the Meeting House, where are gathered
together the ashes of nine generations. He left behind him, surviving,
a widow, two sons, and five daughters. He left no will. ..... Mrs.
Foote, the widow of Nathaniel Foote, was married about the year 1646, to
"Mr. Thomas Welles, Magistrate," afterwards Governor of the Colony, whom
she likewise survived. ..... Mrs. Welles died July 28, 1683, aged about
88 years. She left a will which was exhibited to and approved by the
"Particular Court," August, 1683.

NEHGR, Vol 8, p 300, July, 1926.
On 5 July 1615, shortly before his first marriage, his father and
older brother settled on him a house and lands in Burmington, Co.
Warwick, and he proved his brother's will, as one of the executors, 7
Feb 1627/8. He owned, probably before he left England, one share in
the Piscataqua patent of lands in what is now Dover, Durham, Stratham,
and parts of Newington and Greenland, NH. Among the other owners were
Lord Say and Sele, Lord Brook, Sir Richard Saltonstall, Sir Authur
Haslerigg, Mr. Bosville, Gov. George Wyllys of Fenny Compton, Co.
Warwick, Rev. Ephriam Huit, who had been pastor at Knowle and later
Wroxall, Co. Warwick, and William Whiting (the last three Connecticut
settlers), who seem to have acquired this old Hilton patent about
1633. In 1639 Governor Welles writes that he and Mr. Whiting had the
"disposeing" of the affairs committed to them by the company in
England.

(now that is more interesting, the co-owners....)

This has me wondering about Thomas Welles' line since I saw somewhere
that he was direct descendant of John Welles and Cecily Plantagenet-York
(dau of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville). Am I mistaken about his line?

North Star

Re: English origins of Nathaniel Foote, William Hyde, and Th

Legg inn av North Star » 01 apr 2006 20:49:27

I researched the supposed Hyde ancestry several years ago. Besides
Burke, I could find nothing that concretely linked William Hyde
"Goodman" of Norwich CT to the Hydes of Norbury.


BRENT DURKEN wrote:
Hello everyone, this is my first post on this message board. I have read the FAQ's and threw the archives however I want to apologize in advance if something in this post is a repeat or not covered here. I was wondering if there has been any new research done on the English ancestry following immigrants. I have seen royal lines given for all of them but none are proven to my knowledge. Thanks for your time, Brent.

Thomas Josselyn born 1591 Roxwell, Essex Co., Eng. (I know that the direct Josselyn line was traced back to the 1200's in Vol. 71 of the NEHGR. Surnames like Neville, Braye, Cornish, De Sutton, Hide, Sudley, and Goushall are included through marriage. I was wondering if any of these families have been traced from thier marriage to the Josselyns on back?

William Hyde of Norwich, Ct. that according to Burke's American Families is believed to be a decendent of the Hydes of Norbury. He went first to Leyden Holland and then to Boston, Mass. with Rev. Peter Buckeley or Thomas Hooker . He is believed to be the same William Hyde that was a Contemperary of Rev. Peter Buckeley at Christs College in Cambridge, England. I have not found any more info on him and I was wondering if the line given in Burke's has been disproven or just not proven?

Nathaniel Foote of Wethersfield, Ct., I listed a possible ancestry below. It is taken from the following sources. Plantagenet Ancestry by Douglas Richardson (first 9 gen.), Antonia Waller, The Chequered Wallers, privately published manuscript, available in PDF from: http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/waller/index.html or by typing "The Chequered Wallers" into google, http://www.footefamily.org/i9094.htm (Final 4 gen.)

Hamline Plantgenet + Isabel De Warenne
William De Warenne + Maud Marshall
Sir John De Warenne 1231 - 1304 + Alice De Lusignan
Sir John De Warenne 1256 - 1286 + Joan De Vere
Sir John De Warenne + Maud De Nerford
Sir Edward Warren + Cecily de Eton
Sir John Warren 1344 - 1386 + Margaret De Stafford
Nicholas Warren 1373 - 1413 + Agnes Wynnington
Sir Laurence Warren 1394 - 1444 + Margery Bulkeley
John Warren + Isabel Stanley
Richard Warren + ???
William Warren als Waller + ???
Richard Warren als Waller 1501 - 1557 + Alice Jenawaye 1505
Helen Warren 1529 - + John Foote 1530 - 1558
Robert Foote 1552 - 1607/08 + Joan Brooke
Nathaniel Foote 1591 - 1644 + Elizabeth ???

Gjest

Re: English origins of Nathaniel Foote, William Hyde, and Th

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 apr 2006 00:07:48

In a message dated 4/1/2006 12:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, xxx writes:

Sir John De Warenne 1231 - 1304 + Alice De Lusignan
Sir John De Warenne 1256 - 1286 + Joan De Vere
Sir John De Warenne + Maud De Nerford


No one, including the original posted, commented on my question that the
second John above was actually named William.

Will Johnson

CED

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Philippe Auguste's kinsman, Robert

Legg inn av CED » 02 apr 2006 00:20:35

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Searching through various medieval records, I located an interesting
charter yesterday issued by Raoul son of Eudes de Déols, lord of
Château-Meillant, dated September 1209. Raoul's father, Eudes de
Déols is alleged in some sources to have died after 1214 (see, for
example,
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... 415165.htm).

To the Newsgroup:

My last post on the subject of the husband of Alix of Burgundy (24
March 2006 "More...") provided evidence from Pere Anselme that should
have conclusively set aside any question as to a second husband for
Alix.

Pere Anselme indicates that Alix of Burgundy had been a nun for 36
years at the time of her own death.Consequently, she must have taken
the veil soon after the death of her husand, Archambaud of Bourbon, in
1169. (To this Richardson has not responded.)

Richardson, who has always insisted that others (at least those who
disagree with him) cite original sources. Yet, he persists in
contending that Alix of Burgundy had a second husband, citing only
secondary sources. He seems to be willing to use any source, no matter
how unreliable, to support his argument that Alix of Burgundy was the
grandmother of Robert of Mehun, bishop of Puy (which, to be true, would
require proof of the truth of at least two hypothetical propositions,
for neither of which is there evidence).

Among these secondary sources is the chronicle of Lerins which was
compiled in the early years of the 17th Century. It is not a medieval
document. It is an uncritically collected melange of materials
intended to be a history of Lerins. Richardson should know this.
(Perhaps he does not; for he may not know much about "chonicles"
compiled on the continent during that period. A course in early modern
historiography could be helpful.) At least if he would gooolge
"Vincent Barralis" he would find that his search for proof is in vain.
(Some of the material surfaced through a gooogle search is not in
English; so that could be a problem for Richardson.)

Among the secondary sources now being thrust upon us are various
databases posted by well-intentioned people who make no claim to being
authorities. When Richardson cites those databases in support of his
claims, he invites critical review of those databases and their
compilers, review to which they ought not be subjected. Could this be
a fumbling attempt to gain allies? Richardson ought not do that to
innocent people. (Think of Weber who got caught in the middle of
another of Richardson's tiffs. Is he attempt the same with Dow?)

CED

However, judging from this charter, it appears that Eudes de Déols
died in or before September 1209, when his major land holding,
Château-Meillant, was in the hands of his son and heir, Raoul. For
interest's sake, I''ve copied the charter of Raoul son of Eudes de
Déols below.

In the meantime, hopefully someone here on the newsgroup can track down
the published Chronicle of Lérins which supposedly alleges that Raoul
de Déols' father, Eudes de Déols, married the king's kinswoman, Alix
of Burgundy, widow of Archambaud de Bourbon, as her second husband.
This information should be found in the following source:

Vincenzio Barrali, Chronologia Sanctorum et aliorum virorum illustrium
ac abbatum sacrae insulae Lerinensis, etc., sumptibus P. Rigaud.
Lugduni, 1613. 1 vol. in-4°.

The charter below suggests that Raoul son of Eudes de Déols was born
in or before 1288, which obviously would be in the lifetime of Alix of
Burgundy.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

+ + + + + + + + +
Source: Veterum Scriptorum et Monumentorum, 1 (1724): 1095.

"Ego Radulfus filius Odonis de Dolis, dominus Castri-Meliandi, notum
facio universis, quod ego continebo me omnino ad voluntatem domini
regis de omnibus, & si poterit inquirere quod sim culpabilis de
mercatoribus captis in Bituresio, super hoc faciam omnino voluntatem
suam. Si autem de his conventionibus deficerem, concedo ut quicquid ad
me pertinere debet de praedicto Castro-Meliandi, & toto feodo quod est
de feodo domini regis, sit mihi in depertitum erga dominum regem. De
castro autrem de Botaco, concedo, quod si episcopus Lemovicensis velet
eum mittere ad feodum alterius, non reciperem illud nisi de episcopo
Lemovicensi. Et si idem episcopus contrarius vellet esse in hoc domino
regi, ego super hoc ad totum posse meum effem domini regis adjutor
contra omnes homines. Actum apud Castrum-Meliandi, anno Domini MCCIX.
mense Septembri." END OF QUOTE.

W David Samuelsen

Re: English origins of Nathaniel Foote, William Hyde, and Th

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 02 apr 2006 01:07:22

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1143925661>

I tried to reply on that question but for some reason it bounced back.

I have him as William, 8th Earl of Surrey, not John.

Even Richardson, Call, Weis and others have William, 8th Earl of Surrey
as husband of Joan de Vere

W. David Samuelsen

W David Samuelsen

Re: Tuthill/Toothill and Welles/Wells

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 02 apr 2006 01:08:34

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1143927634>


Neither did I to know abnout the Meaders, myself. Found the information
while checking.

David Samuelsen

CED

Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Philippe Auguste's kinsman, Robert

Legg inn av CED » 02 apr 2006 02:38:16

Diane Sheppard wrote:
Dear Douglas & Newsgroup:
A secondary source for Alix of Burgundy's second marriage can be found
in various volumes of ES.
See the link to Bill Marshall's well sourced datebase which cites the
specific volumes of ES that Bill referred to (make sure the link is on
one line):
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi? ... &id=I14692

Although Bill does not continue this line, ES, volume XIV, tafel 68
states that Eudes and Alice (Alix's) son Raoul died about 1216 & their
son Ebbes died after 1250.

Dear Diane Sheppard:

Showing that Eudes had sons (by whatever wife) does not help
Richardson's hypothesis regarding Robert of Mehun, bishop of Puy. He
needs a mother for Bishop Robert, a mother who descends from one of the
not-so-distant ancestors of King Philip II of France, so that
Richardson can show a consanguineous relationship between the King
Philip II and the Bishop. Otherwise, Richardson must deal with the
fact that King Philip II used a term in connection with Bishop Robert
which normally connotes a consanguineous relationship where none
existed. If that be the case, Richardson's whole theory about medieval
relationships stands in jeopardy.


If you check the chronicle of La Couronne abbey at

http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?D ... UMM-209250


you will find that Alix of Burgundy, second daughter of Eudes II, duke
of Burgundy, and of Marie of Champagne, having married Archambaud VII
of Bourbon, became a widow in 1169, and a nun at Fontevrault where she
died after 36 years.

Furthermore, according to that same source, she was a nun on 26
November 1201. Consequently, she could could have been the wife of a
man who was still living as late as 1209.

Richardson refuses to recognize that his whole theory on medieval
relationships cannot be supported by the evidence. What is worse for
you is that he encourages you to charge off on a merry goose chase
when, in the end, it is you (not Richardson) who will be made to hold
the bag with no goose in it. When you deal with Richardson, beware.

CED

Hope this helps,
Diane Sheppard

CED

Correstion: Re: King's Kinsfolk: King Philippe Auguste's kin

Legg inn av CED » 02 apr 2006 04:36:50

CED wrote:
Diane Sheppard wrote:
Dear Douglas & Newsgroup:
A secondary source for Alix of Burgundy's second marriage can be found
in various volumes of ES.
See the link to Bill Marshall's well sourced datebase which cites the
specific volumes of ES that Bill referred to (make sure the link is on
one line):
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi? ... &id=I14692

Although Bill does not continue this line, ES, volume XIV, tafel 68
states that Eudes and Alice (Alix's) son Raoul died about 1216 & their
son Ebbes died after 1250.

Dear Diane Sheppard:

Showing that Eudes had sons (by whatever wife) does not help
Richardson's hypothesis regarding Robert of Mehun, bishop of Puy. He
needs a mother for Bishop Robert, a mother who descends from one of the
not-so-distant ancestors of King Philip II of France, so that
Richardson can show a consanguineous relationship between the King
Philip II and the Bishop. Otherwise, Richardson must deal with the
fact that King Philip II used a term in connection with Bishop Robert
which normally connotes a consanguineous relationship where none
existed. If that be the case, Richardson's whole theory about medieval
relationships stands in jeopardy.


If you check the chronicle of La Couronne abbey at

http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?D ... UMM-209250


you will find that Alix of Burgundy, second daughter of Eudes II, duke
of Burgundy, and of Marie of Champagne, having married Archambaud VII
of Bourbon, became a widow in 1169, and a nun at Fontevrault where she
died after 36 years.

In the following paragraph, delete the word "could" the second time it
appears and insert in lieu thereof the word "not."

Furthermore, according to that same source, she was a nun on 26
November 1201. Consequently, she could [could] not have been the wife of a
man who was still living as late as 1209.

Richardson refuses to recognize that his whole theory on medieval
relationships cannot be supported by the evidence. What is worse for
you is that he encourages you to charge off on a merry goose chase
when, in the end, it is you (not Richardson) who will be made to hold
the bag with no goose in it. When you deal with Richardson, beware.

CED

Hope this helps,
Diane Sheppard

Dennis Cunniff

Re: James Monroe

Legg inn av Dennis Cunniff » 02 apr 2006 05:45:27

Though there are lines that seem to extend back to royalty from Monroe,
apparently they are not proven.

Gary Boyd Roberts, Ancestors of American Presidents, 1995, traces
Monroe's ancestry only four generations back and doesn't indicate any
royal descents. Monroe also apparently has no known kinship with any
other president.

The following caveat applies:

"Proof that the president's great-great-grandfather, Andrew Monroe/Munro
of St. Mary's Co., Maryland. and later of Westmoreland Co., Virginia,
was not the younger "Mr. Andrew Munro, second son of David Munro of
Katewell & Agnes Munro of Durness, & rector of St. Luke's Church,
Newport Parish, Isle of Wight Co., Virginia, who died intestate in 1719
is found in Clan Munro Magazine, No. 6 (1959-60), 14-18 ("An Unsolved
Problem: President James Monroe's Scottish Ancestry" by George H. S.
King. ... Andrew Monroe/Munro of St. Mary's Co. is of unknown origin
although some affiliation with the Munros of Foulis was believed by the
president & seems likely." (Roberts, p. 144)

So unless there's some more recent research showing otherwise, Monroe's
distant ancestry has to be taken cum grano salis.

Dennis J. Cunniff
====================

I was wondering if anyone knew anything about President James Monroe's
lineage? I have a source that shows him as a descendent from both the
English and British royal houses. Is this correct?

Gjest

Re: Stephen Hopkins and wife Mary

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 apr 2006 07:29:22

It was actually Ernest Christensen who published the
apparent baptismal record for Stephen Hopkins
(in the Oct 2004 issue of TAG).

Leslie

Gjest

Re: Nathaniel Foote

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 apr 2006 07:36:51

Ive searched in Boyds Marriage Index for Essex & Suffolk.
It covers about 95%+ of the marriages in those counties.

The index shows no marriage entry for Nathaniel Foote,
so the record probably does not survive.

Ive also made an extensive search in local wills for Essex,
from the ;period 1625 to 1680 (I have the notes to prove it).

Again, I found no reference to Nathaniel Foote or his wife.

Leslie

W David Samuelsen

Re: Stephen Hopkins and wife Mary

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 02 apr 2006 07:50:54

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1143938374>

Leslie,

Caleb did find the baptism record of Stephen Hopkins, naming his parents.

It's his 1st marriage to Mary that is a big one, considering the names
of the children that are not normally found in such families unless they
come through family or maybe very closed related. Caleb agreed with me
that more searching in Hampshire county non-probate and non-vital
records are needed, particulary anything concerning the Hoby/Hobby
family (Sir Giles Hobby.)

Caleb thought it was odd to have John and Elizabeth and John is not
found in Stephen's children and only once in grandchildren. Why Giles
and not John?

Not to mention the probate record....

David Samuelsen

W David Samuelsen

Re: Tuthill/Toothill and Welles/Wells

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 02 apr 2006 08:05:05

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1143948142>

Dora,

One don't have to be of nobility to have manorial estate.

And as for screaming, you served no purpose. I already checked that
website and nothing new, nothing earthshaking, just interwoven that
don't make sense.

The basic information is no different from what I have. And as for your
statement about 60 illegimate children by William Tuttle, born 20 Dec
1607, it's probably news to many others. Only 12 named children, all by
Elizabeth his wife.

And the website got it confused about Anna daughter of William and
Elizabeth with Hannah. I corresponded with Thaddeus Hurd over 20 years
ago to be sure and he was very clear that Anna is one who was widow of
Josh Judson and married John Hurd Jr, son of Adam (the Jr and Sr was
explained in TAG article "Hurd Errors", Jan 1974 issue (Vol. 50 no. 1)

There's no mention of any article specifically about William Tuttle in
the TAG from Vol 50 to present. Just about Richard and John, that's all.

(I was in Family History Library, going through the TAG volumes and
recopied 3 articles I misplaced years ago and picked up the rest that's
revelant to the Footes and Tuttles plus a bonus.)

W. David Samuelsen

W David Samuelsen

Re: Nathaniel Foote

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 02 apr 2006 10:51:56

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1143959811>

Leslie,
Did you try London/Middlesex ? How about Cheshire? Hertfordshire
including Royston?

Does Boyd's include Colchester, Essex co., since their son Nathaniel was
baptized there 5 Mar 1619 at St. James' ?

Just fresh from reading article about Elizabeth, wife of Nathaniel Foote
by George McCracken. Inconculsive.

David Samuelsen

Renia

Re: Tuthill/Toothill and Welles/Wells

Legg inn av Renia » 02 apr 2006 16:19:04

W David Samuelsen wrote:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1143948142

Dora,

One don't have to be of nobility to have manorial estate.

No, but you did have to be lord of the manor to have manorial estate.
Dora said these were yeomen, which is not the same thing. You could, of
course, be a yeoman tenant of someone else's manorial estate.

BRENT DURKEN

Re: English origins of Nathaniel Foote, William Hyde, and Th

Legg inn av BRENT DURKEN » 02 apr 2006 17:16:21

Yes, it is William not John. Sorry, Brent.



In a message dated 4/1/2006 12:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, xxx
writes:

Sir John De Warenne 1231 - 1304 + Alice De Lusignan
Sir John De Warenne 1256 - 1286 + Joan De Vere
Sir John De Warenne + Maud De Nerford


No one, including the original posted, commented on my question that
the
second John above was actually named William.

Will Johnson



W David Samuelsen

Re: Tuthill/Toothill and Welles/Wells And ANTROBUS

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 02 apr 2006 19:51:52

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1143971592>

Joe,

John didn't stay. He returned and settled in Carrickfergus, Ireland with
his daughter, where he died.

Don't know which one, Richard or William who have more numerous descendants.

W. David Samuelsen

Gjest

Re: michael of albany - his true identity

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 apr 2006 21:37:42

In a message dated 4/2/2006 6:36:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

_http://www.sundayherald.com/54904_ (http://www.sundayherald.com/54904)

"The Stuarts last Secret" by Peter Pininski made clear that the claims of
Michael of Albany are spurious and the above newspaper article could/should
be the last we hear of a Prince Michael of Albany.


Ah ha ha ha poor Michael "Stewart" might be spending some time in prison.

I'm reminded of a certain individual who used to contribute fantastical and
even bizarre DFA's to this list who claimed to be descended from Baha'u'llah
and the Rockefellers.

After I pointed out to him that I am one of the wikipedia editors for the
Baha'i pages and have read extensively on Baha'u'llah in particular his family
squabbles, and never saw anything to indicate a Rockefeller connection, that
individual vanished as abruptly as he had appeared.

Of course, without providing one single document that backed up anything
related to his direct line.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Tuttle intelligence

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 apr 2006 23:00:51

Dear David, John , Renia and others,
I have a descent from
Richard and Sarah (Tuttle) Martyn of Portsmouth, NH, USA through their
daughter Elizabeth (Martyn) Kennard whose granddaughter Susannah Kennard married
Joshua Small, thence through Jackson, Jenkins, Carll, Condon and Cummings. I read
the post about their tendency to flip out and don`t recall anything like that
with those Martyns, but I do have a Richard Martin, Son of George and the
"witch" Susannah (North) Martin of Amesbury, MA who was hung IN 1692 who did
chase his almost eighty year old father with a axe on at least one occasion.
Richard`s daughter Anne Martin was married to Thomas Carter, the line runs through
Eliot, Swett, Delano, Miller, Condon to Cummings.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Tuthill/Toothill and Welles/Wells And ANTROBUS

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 apr 2006 10:43:46

W David Samuelsen wrote:

except John who stayed behind and died 3 Dec 1856 in Holcot.
(other claim that he died in Carrickfergus, Ireland).

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1143971592

John didn't stay. He returned and settled in Carrickfergus, Ireland with
his daughter, where he died.

Although presumably not on "3 December 1856", given a purported baptism
date of 1607.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Richardson's WIRTWL's: Method in Madness

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 apr 2006 14:17:22

CED wrote:
To the Newsgroup:

In my e-mail: "DR seems to be posting WIRTWL's with a vengeance, almost
as if he is affected by a kind of compulsive madness."
For those who do not get the acronyms:
DR = Douglas Richardson
WIRTWL's = Who is Related to Whom Lists

I do not entirely agree with the suggested diagnosis of the obvious
symptoms (starting more than 50 threads with WIRTWL's in the past two
months ). I am convinced that a method in this madness can be found.
If there is a method, the diagnosis would be different from that than
would be the case if not.

I have been tempted to post a general response, but have resisted,
waiting to see if a method does appear.

At least one set of suggestions is -

(1) that Richardson intends to provoke a discussion of his WIRTWL's in
which others in the Newsgroup cite and contibute usable sources;

(2) that Richardson is at a loss with continental original sources
(few, if any, are in English) and the secondary sources that he is now
using are generally available to those who read Latin, French, and
German (as well as Finnish and Greek - remember his recommendation that
a fellow poster get a Finnish dictionary in order to study the
descendants of Charlemagne and his apology for his "rusty" Greek); and

(3) that he has Faris' manuscripts (about which Faris himself had
doubts) and does not know how to get them published (WIRTWL's could be
used as a cover to disguise them and puff them up).

More on this subject later.

Good and substantial responses should be forth coming once a pattern
can be discerned in the WIRTWL's.

CED

Poor CED and his fellow attack dogs. At least 50 messages have now got
you frothing at the mouth. Before these message issues of kinfolk you
all were carping about his use of kinship, kinsmen etc in Royal
writings and demanded he prove his point. Now 50 kinsfolk discussions
later he has, I suggest, proved his point, and in the process has
hoisted you OCD critics by your own petards. CED why don't you
identify yourself having now come from lurker status to chief DR
critic.

Jolly good show DR!!! Cheers.

Dix Preston

John Brandon

Re: Possible royal line for Lionel Chute of Ipswich, Mass.

Legg inn av John Brandon » 03 apr 2006 16:56:46

John Brandon wrote:
The following item, from _N & Q_, which shows an association between
Lady Mary Grey, wife of Martin Keys, and one Christopher Chowte or
Chute, may tend to strengthen the claim that this Chute family has a
line from the Crispes of Birchington. (The HOP biography of Martin
Keys shows he was related to the Crispe family).

That's Thomas Keys, rather than Martin Keys.

Just noticed that Pearman's article on the Chutes (very last page)
notes in passing that Arthur and his second wife, Margaret Playters,
are buried at Ellough, Suffolk, which is very near Brampton (and
Wrentham).

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi? ... 000&addr1=

Pearman's article doesn't show a Christopher among the descendants of
Philip (d. 1566), so the Christopher Chute involved with Mary Grey may
be the one shown on the New England chart (close relative of Lionel).

Kevin Bradford

Re: Hamo Dapifer

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 03 apr 2006 18:34:55

His father was Haimo Dentatus, lord of Torigny-sur-Vire, arr. Saint Lo, a rebel killed in 1047 in Val-es-Dunes.

Refs.
CP 5:683
DD 902
DP 242

Best,
Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Junkin <pajunkin@cox.net
Sent: Apr 3, 2006 11:20 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Hamo Dapifer


Is there credible evidence to suggest that Hamo Dapifer was a St. Clair as
Thomas Sinclair suggest in the online book, The Sinclairs of England?

Thank you in advance,
Pat

W David Samuelsen

Re: Tuthill/Toothill and Welles/Wells And ANTROBUS

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 03 apr 2006 18:55:49

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1144057426>

it's 1656, just a typo

pj.evans

Re: michael of albany - his true identity

Legg inn av pj.evans » 03 apr 2006 19:25:30

There is a site called 'Fantasy Royalty' with a page on 'Prince
Michael' that does a very thorough job of debunking this claim.

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/2/2006 6:36:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

_http://www.sundayherald.com/54904_ (http://www.sundayherald.com/54904)

"The Stuarts last Secret" by Peter Pininski made clear that the claims of
Michael of Albany are spurious and the above newspaper article could/should
be the last we hear of a Prince Michael of Albany.


[snip]

Gjest

Re: Gateway ancestor? Thomas Wells

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 apr 2006 22:32:07

In a message dated 4/1/06 9:53:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dsam@sampubco.com
writes:

<< 3. Robert Welles (6 Nov 1540 - 24 Sep 1617) - Alice Hunt
4. Thomas Welles (10 Jul 1504 - 30 Aug 1558) - Elizabeth Bryan
4. Robert Welles (1484 - ?) - wife unknown >>

Who are this Alice Hunt's parents?
Thanks
Will Johnson

W David Samuelsen

Re: Gateway ancestor? Thomas Wells

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 03 apr 2006 22:45:07

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1144092707>

at least not my line.

Unknown parents.

David Samuelsen

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 apr 2006 22:52:03

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 4/3/06 2:35:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

I regard Diana Dale's use of the term "son-in-law" as ironclad proof
that Mary Dale was her daughter, and thus Elizabeth Dale, who was the
youngest daughter, was also Diana's.

There is no such thing as ironclad proof :)

Especially as terms could (and can) be used more loosely than just
literally. A "son-in-law" can sometimes be a step-son, and sometimes a
step-son-in-law.

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Richardson's WIRTWL's: Method in Madness

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 00:00:39

Oh please give it a rest. If they don't want to see what Doug write's
don't read it. It's plain and simple as that.

Best Wishes
Mike Welch

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 00:08:45

Well, I'm sure we all know of instances where a term is used in a less
common fashion. I'm not going to get into a dance as to what
"ironclad" means, or communication vs posturing.
I am saying that the usage of the term "son-in-law" as meaning "husband
of my step-daughter" is LESS common than meaning "husband of my
biological daughter." Elizabeth Dale had to be born about 1660 or a
year or two later. Her last child was born about 1704. Katherine
Dale, the oldest, was, according to the evidence cited by Ward in his
article, born in 1652. This is a pretty long age spread, which most
of the time means that a man had more than one wife, and it was for
this reason I came to the opinion that Katherine was not Skipwith's
daughter.
I am truly sorry to learn that some people believe that no genealogical
conclusions are completely reliable. I'm not going to bring up the
"adultery factor." We make a thorough search, take the records we have
(and supposedly among the ancestors of the queen is a plumber) and do
the best we can with them.
I felt the response to Joan Burdyck's post was criminal. All Nat
Taylor could think of saying was, well, it might mean "this." He
offered absolutely to evidence of any kind as to why it would mean
"this" in this specific instance. I want to see some evidence as to
why "son-in-law" means "husband of my step-daughter" in this specific
case. Apparently some posters felt it necessary to offer some evidence
in their examples, but don't thinbk they need any here. So far I
haven't seen any evidence, and that's telling me you don't know what
you're talking about.
Jeff Chipman

Gjest

Re: Principles governing sound medieval pedigrees

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 00:32:57

In a message dated 4/3/06 1:59:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jimbour@uwclub.net writes:

<< Are there any principles for resolving problems of establishing
identity. Or could members of the list suggest such principles?

Robert H >>

I myself look for several points of confirmation between the information.
If one source states that "Mary the wife of John Whyte was 19 in 1614, in
Lincolnshire, and the mother of one child Sarah"
And then another source states that
"Sarah Partridge of Lincolnshire, was the daughter of Mary and John Whyte and
was married in 1616 at the age of 20"

Then even though it seems like the same family, the chronology doesn't work.
Now if it were to say "married in 1630 at the age of 20" than I would say you
are looking at the same family.

Points of confirmation:
1) Sarah Whyte daughter of a John Whyte in both records
2) John Whyte wifes identified in both records as a Mary
3) Chronology fits to allow Mary 19 years old in 1614 [one record] to be the
mother of Sarah 20 in 1630 [second record]
4) Family is identified in both records as "of Lincolnshire"

The more common points of confirmation the sounder the pedigree. Which is
why its always useful to quote EXACTLY what the primary source says, instead of
your interpretation of what it say, or your compilation of what several
sources say. You never know when someone else will come along and say, "oh by the
way... you do know there were two John and Mary Whyte's of the same age, at the
same time, in Lincolnshire... and blow your pedigree apart.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 00:40:48

In a message dated 4/3/06 2:35:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< I regard Diana Dale's use of the term "son-in-law" as ironclad proof
that Mary Dale was her daughter, and thus Elizabeth Dale, who was the
youngest daughter, was also Diana's. >>

There is no such thing as ironclad proof :)
If you use extreme terms, people will get the impression you're trying to
posture, rather than communicate.
Will Johnson

CED

Re: Richardson's WIRTWL's: Method in Madness

Legg inn av CED » 04 apr 2006 00:49:52

mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Oh please give it a rest. If they don't want to see what Doug write's
don't read it. It's plain and simple as that.

Mike,

It is not a matter of ignoring what Richardson's posts. He is using
his posts to this Newsgroup for personal advantage. I would bring to
your attention my post of 13 March 2006, beginning the thread "Have You
Noticed?" Furthermore, I have noticed that when Richardson finds
himself hard pressed, his old "friends" (fictional, under an alias, or
otherwise) start posting in his defense. Mike, you of all people,
should have known this. So why do you now show up?

Are you suggesting that Richardson's proprietary interests be left
unchecked? Even you should see the folly in leaving him and his
interests unchecked.

You might inform Richardson, should he ask more of you, that he did not
do well in the last scuffle he kicked up.

CED


Best Wishes
Mike Welch

Gjest

Re: Richardson's WIRTWL's: Method in Madness

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 01:08:33

CED

I noticed that both sides have done this tactic. So nobody is innocent
here. This is about Genealogy it's a hobby. I posted not in his defense
he doesn't need me to defend him. I posted because everyone on this
newsgroup has a right to say whatever they want too. So let's all stop
these Second grade school antics and get back to genealogy.

Mike
CED wrote:
mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Oh please give it a rest. If they don't want to see what Doug write's
don't read it. It's plain and simple as that.

Mike,

It is not a matter of ignoring what Richardson's posts. He is using
his posts to this Newsgroup for personal advantage. I would bring to
your attention my post of 13 March 2006, beginning the thread "Have You
Noticed?" Furthermore, I have noticed that when Richardson finds
himself hard pressed, his old "friends" (fictional, under an alias, or
otherwise) start posting in his defense. Mike, you of all people,
should have known this. So why do you now show up?

Are you suggesting that Richardson's proprietary interests be left
unchecked? Even you should see the folly in leaving him and his
interests unchecked.

You might inform Richardson, should he ask more of you, that he did not
do well in the last scuffle he kicked up.

CED



Best Wishes
Mike Welch

Leo van de Pas

Re: Richardson's WIRTWL's: Method in Madness

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 04 apr 2006 01:23:13

Poor CED and his fellow attack dogs. At least 50 messages have now got
you frothing at the mouth. Before these message issues of kinfolk you
all were carping about his use of kinship, kinsmen etc in Royal
writings and demanded he prove his point. Now 50 kinsfolk discussions
later he has, I suggest, proved his point, and in the process has
hoisted you OCD critics by your own petards. CED why don't you
identify yourself having now come from lurker status to chief DR
critic.

Jolly good show DR!!! Cheers.

Dix Preston

Jolly Good show DR? Does Dix "Uriah" Preston realise that the messages of

CED and others are ignored but the messagers like CED are being attacked? I
believe the only way to refute allegations is to address the allegations,
not childlishly attack the messenger.

I still believe Richardson had done more harm to Gen-Med than anyone else.
Jolly good show CED, at least you are not driven away, like others, by
Richardson.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

CED

Re: Richardson's WIRTWL's: Method in Madness

Legg inn av CED » 04 apr 2006 01:32:12

mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
CED

I noticed that both sides have done this tactic.

Mike:

What tactic are you talking about?

You say get back to genealogy. What genalogical purpose does the
multitude of WIRTWL's accomplish? They are not genealogy. I asked
Richardson to give original sources for the so-called connections of
Rothilde, said to be the daughter of Charles the Bald. That is asking
a genealogical question. If Richardson were supply is with those
sources, that would be genealogy.

As you know a list of names without sources or proven connections is
not genealogy.

Why do you not tell Richardson to stop the WIRTWL's and get back to
genealogy?

CED

So nobody is innocent
here. This is about Genealogy it's a hobby. I posted not in his defense
he doesn't need me to defend him. I posted because everyone on this
newsgroup has a right to say whatever they want too. So let's all stop
these Second grade school antics and get back to genealogy.

Mike
CED wrote:
mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Oh please give it a rest. If they don't want to see what Doug write's
don't read it. It's plain and simple as that.

Mike,

It is not a matter of ignoring what Richardson's posts. He is using
his posts to this Newsgroup for personal advantage. I would bring to
your attention my post of 13 March 2006, beginning the thread "Have You
Noticed?" Furthermore, I have noticed that when Richardson finds
himself hard pressed, his old "friends" (fictional, under an alias, or
otherwise) start posting in his defense. Mike, you of all people,
should have known this. So why do you now show up?

Are you suggesting that Richardson's proprietary interests be left
unchecked? Even you should see the folly in leaving him and his
interests unchecked.

You might inform Richardson, should he ask more of you, that he did not
do well in the last scuffle he kicked up.

CED



Best Wishes
Mike Welch

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 01:52:40

Dear Will,
I know of at least one occurance of son-in- law and
daughter-in-law being used to denote a step-son and step-daughter as late as the 1900
Federal Census for Maine, USA.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 02:23:21

In a message dated 4/3/06 4:15:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< I want to see some evidence as to
why "son-in-law" means "husband of my step-daughter" in this specific
case. >>

There isn't any.
Are you happy now :)
Jeff you are doing the same you did on your last tirade a few months back.

You are taking *one* piece of evidence as gospel when it conflicts with
*another* piece of evidence, which you're discarding. At best we can say there is
a conflict. One doesnt outweigh the other.

Will Johnson

Patricia Junkin

Re: Latin and Latin abbrevs Domesday, Pipe Roll etc

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 04 apr 2006 02:24:53

I also found this discussion helpful.
Search Gen-Med Archives
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 23:26:37 +0000
Reply-To: GEN-MEDIEVAL <GEN-MEDIEVAL@MAIL.EWORLD.COM>
From: Edward J Schoenfeld <us015268@POP3.INTERRAMP.COM>
Subject: Re: LATIN translation



----------
From: "Ginny Wagner" <ginnywagner@austin.rr.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Latin and Latin abbrevs Domesday, Pipe Roll etc
Date: Mon, 3, 2006, 6:11 PM




Could anyone provide a reference to a good guide/crib to
the Latin/
Latin abbreviations used in Domesday and other major
medieval sources?

One place I found an excellent guide is Vol.3 of the Pipe
Rolls that was published by the Pipe Roll Society to which I
gained access through the ILL. Additionally, the dot system
of the exchequer is explained in Vol. 7 of the same series
of pipes. Studies on the Red book of the Exchequer by Round
is a nifty little book I am just beginning to take a look at
... he seems to further explain Hall's work in the pipe roll
series and explains scutage and hides, etc. therein ... let
me know if you have any specific information you need, re
the pipes or redbook. The principals of prospography gives
some excellent information about names, both place and
personal at the front of Keats-Rohan's Domesday Descendants.

And of course, the basic Latin lessons are wonderful at:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/beginners/

Best,
Ginny Wagner

"Fili, sapientia thesaurus est et cor tuum archa"
-- Hugh St. Victor


Patricia Junkin

Re: Hamo Dapifer

Legg inn av Patricia Junkin » 04 apr 2006 02:36:42

Kevin,
Thank you. Yours is the information that I also have, but when I happened on
this new-old information, I questioned it.
Pat

----------
From: Kevin Bradford <plantagenet60@earthlink.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Hamo Dapifer
Date: Mon, 3, 2006, 11:34 AM


His father was Haimo Dentatus, lord of Torigny-sur-Vire, arr. Saint Lo, a
rebel killed in 1047 in Val-es-Dunes.

Refs.
CP 5:683
DD 902
DP 242

Best,
Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Junkin <pajunkin@cox.net
Sent: Apr 3, 2006 11:20 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Hamo Dapifer


Is there credible evidence to suggest that Hamo Dapifer was a St. Clair as
Thomas Sinclair suggest in the online book, The Sinclairs of England?

Thank you in advance,
Pat


JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 02:54:09

Will, you really seem to think that because you think something is
possible, that a genealogist should run out and research your theory.
I am not going to toss common sense out the window. I am here dealing
with a clear case that my ancestor was the daughter of Diana Skipwith,
and this is the reason: Unless Elizabeth Dale was still having
children past age 44 or so, she's not the child of Edward Dale's
proposed first wife. I would have no problem investigating that
possiblity if there were some indication for it. In this instance
there isn't. Katherine Dale was proven to have been born in 1652 and
was the eldest daughter. Let's say, and this is incorrect, but that
Elizabeth was born two years later, in 1654. That would make her about
50 years old at the birth of her last child. Let's say that Elizabeth
was born in 1656. That would make her 48. Are you seriously
suggesting that's possible? Let's say she was born in 1658. That
would make her 46. Are you getting the drift, Will? This is what
caused researchers to take another look at Elizabeth's maternity after
the Ward article, which conveniently didn't mention Elizabeth or the
now-famous 1674 deed. I agree with Ward's conclusions, but I do not
respect him as a genealogist.

Note that the dates of 1656 and 1658 are after Diana Skipwith's last
public signature using her maiden name. We know by deed that she was
married to Dale by 1660. The fact of the matter is you don't know what
you're talking about, do you? Nat Taylor brushed off Joan Burdyck with
the comment that son-in-law could mean "husband of a step-daughter."
He had no evidence that it was true in this case, and he didn't bother
to find any, either. I disagree with Douglas Richardson that Katherine
Dale was Skipwith's daughter, but I have no argument about the other
two, Mary and Elizabeth.

It makes a difference how words are used, and in colonial VA, where
birth records in family bibles or prayer books are all that's
available, and there damn few of those, we use the records we do have,
and if there are enough to make an indentification, as there are in
this instance, that's what we do. I am not going to research every
theory someone proposes (and I don't think it's an accident that most
of these theories are of the "pooh-pooh" variety). I will try to make
some kind of judgement as to its probability, and go from there. If I
did otherwise I would never do anything but try to satisfy people like
you.

The fact of the matter is, you don't know how likely your idea is, you
have presented no evidence other than a "feeling" that maybe something
else is the case, and you have basically nothing to offer. Why are you
in this thread?

When Joan Burdyck questioned Preston Haynie, an expert on genealogy in
the Lancaster Co. area about the use of the term "son-in-law," Haynie
said that "the term son in law in colonial records has to be taken case
by case and all facts determined to decide exactly what it means..."

She then posted some information on Elizabeth Dale and asked Greene and
Ward for their opinion on Elizabeth's maternity. To my knowledge
neither of those men responded. In their case, I think it was because
they didn't know.

I don't think there's any doubt that Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers was the
daughter of Diana Skipwith; there's no evidence that indicates a
relationship between Vincent Stanford and a theorized first wife of
Edward Dale (Stanford did not state any relationship to Mary Dale in
his will, so any presumption of one is nothing more than
unsubstantiated speculation).

So far nobody has delivered proof or in fact any evidence at all that
Mary (Dale) Harrison was not the daughter of Diana Skipwith.

It seems that the best this group can muster is an offhand remark that
something might mean something, with absolutely no ideas as to how
often it might have meant that, or why it would have meant that in this
case, and an implicit demand that if somebody here says so, the
genealogist should run out and research their theory. I think Joan
Burdyck showed that Elizabeth Dale was Skipwith's daughter five years
ago and let some of our so-called "experts" off the hook. I am not
going to be so easy.

So, I repeat my challenge:
Specifically, how does this notion of son-in-law meaning "husband of my
step-daughter" apply in the case of the maternity of Elizabeth Dale?

Jeff Chipman

CED

Re: Richardson's WIRTWL's: Method in Madness

Legg inn av CED » 04 apr 2006 03:22:13

mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
CED

I noticed that both sides have done this tactic. So nobody is innocent
here. This is about Genealogy it's a hobby. I posted not in his defense
he doesn't need me to defend him. I posted because everyone on this
newsgroup has a right to say whatever they want too. So let's all stop
these Second grade school antics


My Dear Mike:

What in any of my posts concerning Richardson's WIRTWL's is similar to
a second grade school antic?

If you are going to make a statement such as you made in this posting,
you should be prepared to explain that statement.

(1) You defend Richardson's WIRTWL's, knowing that they are simple
unsourced lists, then ask us to get back to genealogy.

(2) you accuse me of second grade school antics without specifying
those antics.

Please explain how -

(1) Richardson's WIRTWL's are genealogy and my questions about them are
not.

(2) which of my posts to this Newsgroup, concerning WIRTWL's, are
second grade school antics (please be specific).

You will note that even Richardson does not defend his WIRTWL's as
genealogy. Why should Mike Welch, of all people, urge us to get back
to genealogy when Richardson will not do so himself? Just think about
it, Mike: why isn't Richardson doing it himself?

Best wishes to you,
knowing from our many public and private communications, that you want
only the

Best,

CED





and get back to genealogy.

Mike
CED wrote:
mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Oh please give it a rest. If they don't want to see what Doug write's
don't read it. It's plain and simple as that.

Mike,

It is not a matter of ignoring what Richardson's posts. He is using
his posts to this Newsgroup for personal advantage. I would bring to
your attention my post of 13 March 2006, beginning the thread "Have You
Noticed?" Furthermore, I have noticed that when Richardson finds
himself hard pressed, his old "friends" (fictional, under an alias, or
otherwise) start posting in his defense. Mike, you of all people,
should have known this. So why do you now show up?

Are you suggesting that Richardson's proprietary interests be left
unchecked? Even you should see the folly in leaving him and his
interests unchecked.

You might inform Richardson, should he ask more of you, that he did not
do well in the last scuffle he kicked up.

CED



Best Wishes
Mike Welch

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 03:27:22

Will, I don't think you get it. You are not familiar with research on
the family of Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers, are you? She has a large
posterity in this country. I'm not going to carry a torch for Joan
Burdyck, since I assume she can take care of herself, but you're not
going to brush me off the same way. I don't think it's possible for
Elizabeth Rogers to be the daughter of a theorized first wife of Edward
Dale. That's the issue. And I am not the first person to reach that
conclusion. What I get in return is statements that "son-in-law" can
mean "numerous" things, without a citation to anything.

In fact, the only person that consulted an authority is Joan Burdyck.
Nobody yet has supplied even a hint of a reason why "son-in-law" means
"husband of a step-daughter" in this case. I realize that some people
on this board think it's clever to suggest this kind of tripe.
Everybody makes mistakes. I've made them, and so have most of the
people who contribute to this board, but it isn't the case here. I did
not know that this topic was not resolved 5 years ago. I have not seen
Gary Boyd Roberts' new book, and it will be interesting to see how he
handles the Skipwith line.

I object to the notion that because you say the term can mean various
things, without any reference to the likeliest usage, that I am somehow
responsible to you to show what it means in this case. Anybody can
object to anything for any reason. The point is, unless we're
masochists, how likely is it? Get it? I don't think you're living in
the real world, Will. I think you need to review the chronological
evidence, which is very powerful in this case, to understand why I'm
saying that son-in-law here means "husband of my biological daughter."
You had better have a good argument to the contrary, because you've
basically told me I don't know what I'm doing. I'm going to insist
that you produce something, or otherwise you're a fraud and your
opinions are nothing more than "well it could be that....". BS.
Jeff Chipman
Jeff Chipman

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 03:38:17

And what recent research might that be? What does it say? Where might
I find this? Does it deal with 17th century Tidewater VA? And
specifically what is its relevance to this situation?

You don't know, do you? You really think you're going to be able to
break this line with that kind of crap, don't you? I'm going to see to
it that you don't.

Jeff Chipman

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 03:41:43

In a message dated 4/3/06 5:34:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< You, and nobody else on this board, has yet offered a shred of evidence
why they think that "son-in-law" means "husband of my step-daughter" in
this case. Before you get a head of steam here, I would consider the
following: >>

That is completely irrelevant. You have yet to address my point that you are
choosing to discard one piece of evidence in favor of another, for no reason
except you have to hold onto your theory at any cost.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 03:44:27

In a message dated 4/3/06 5:34:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< So, I want to see some proof that in this case "son-in-law" meant
"husband of my step-daughter." Is there a problem with that? I'm
going to hold your feet to the fire. >>

There is no proof how many times do you want to hear it?
But your case is irrelevant. Because proof of the meaning of this word is
not necessary to the counter-claim.
Will Johnson

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 03:53:31

By the way, the reason that Mary (Dale) Harrison is posited as the
middle daughter is that the evidence for her marriage (by 1674) is
after Katherine and before Elizabeth. A marriage date of 1677/8 for
Elizabeth is satisfactory because it corresponds with Dale's gift of a
500 acre tract to Elizabeth and her husband William Rogers. Are you
seriously trying to peddle the notion that this woman was having
children in her mid-40s (and evenin that case she'd still have to have
been born about 1660)? You don't find that coupled with the term
"sonne in law" applied to Daniel Harrison compelling?

I want to know what you want to see here.

Jeff Chipman

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 05:08:54

In a message dated 4/3/06 7:05:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< Unless Elizabeth Dale was still having
children past age 44 or so, she's not the child of Edward Dale's
proposed first wife. >>

Are you addressing the points raised in the recent research however?
If you are not addressing those point, then are the rest of this is
irrelevant.

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 05:39:45

In a message dated 4/3/06 7:34:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< Will, I don't think you get it. You are not familiar with research on
the family of Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers, are you? >>

You have *yet* after six or ten postings to address the arguments of the
alternate view. How can you hope to succeed unless you demolish your foes
argument? Merely fainting left and right and then dodging around the end isn't
likely to win, in my view.
Instead you should start by taking up their argument and showing in THEIR
argument why it fails. If you cannot do that, then their really isn't much
hope to go further in presenting a new argument based on apparently new? primary
material?
Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Richardson's WIRTWL's: Method in Madness

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 04 apr 2006 05:46:46

But Mike it is genealogy what it is all about.....when CED asks a specific
question it is about genealogy or the methodology of genealogy. Richardson
and his friends, being unable to address the question, attack the person and
do not address the question. And, I agree with you, that is Second grade
school antics.

If Richardson wants to be taken serious, he has to take the questions
seriously. I know the best defense is attack, and that is what Richardson
and friends do. If he would address the questions itself, each subject would
get much less attention and a shorter life span.

It is so good every now and then to admit "I don't know" or "I was wrong" or
"I apologise", and if only Richardson would say these things when warranted,
he would be regarded with more respect. I have seen the light in regards of
Richardson and have him killfiled.
Such a pity, he could have been such a positive contribution but he has
become devisive and destructive as far as gen-med is concerned.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <mwelch8442@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: Richardson's WIRTWL's: Method in Madness


CED

I noticed that both sides have done this tactic. So nobody is innocent
here. This is about Genealogy it's a hobby. I posted not in his defense
he doesn't need me to defend him. I posted because everyone on this
newsgroup has a right to say whatever they want too. So let's all stop
these Second grade school antics and get back to genealogy.

Mike
CED wrote:
mwelch8442@yahoo.com wrote:
Oh please give it a rest. If they don't want to see what Doug write's
don't read it. It's plain and simple as that.

Mike,

It is not a matter of ignoring what Richardson's posts. He is using
his posts to this Newsgroup for personal advantage. I would bring to
your attention my post of 13 March 2006, beginning the thread "Have You
Noticed?" Furthermore, I have noticed that when Richardson finds
himself hard pressed, his old "friends" (fictional, under an alias, or
otherwise) start posting in his defense. Mike, you of all people,
should have known this. So why do you now show up?

Are you suggesting that Richardson's proprietary interests be left
unchecked? Even you should see the folly in leaving him and his
interests unchecked.

You might inform Richardson, should he ask more of you, that he did not
do well in the last scuffle he kicked up.

CED



Best Wishes
Mike Welch


Renia

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Renia » 04 apr 2006 10:49:12

JeffChipman wrote:

Will, I don't think you get it. You are not familiar with research on
the family of Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers, are you? She has a large
posterity in this country. I'm not going to carry a torch for Joan
Burdyck, since I assume she can take care of herself, but you're not
going to brush me off the same way. I don't think it's possible for
Elizabeth Rogers to be the daughter of a theorized first wife of Edward
Dale. That's the issue. And I am not the first person to reach that
conclusion. What I get in return is statements that "son-in-law" can
mean "numerous" things, without a citation to anything.

What sort of citation are you after? I have seen several will and census
entries declaring someone to be a "son-in-law" when they are really a
stepson. And I can't remember the details now, but I've seen at least
one census entry where a "son-in-law" was really the stepdaughter's husband.

Kevin Bradford

Re: Hamo Dapifer

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 04 apr 2006 15:22:02

Pat,

I read the entry in question, found on pps. 40-41 of The Sinclairs of England, online at:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... 40&vq=hamo

The author of this text, written in 1887, is actually saying here that he cannot find proof to bolster what he feels is a *probability* that Haimo Dapifer is Hamo de St. Clair. Later research, published in The Complete Peerage and in Dr. Keats-Rohan's prosopographies, appears to successfully dispute this notion.

Best,
Kevin



Kevin,
Thank you. Yours is the information that I also have, but when I happened on
this new-old information, I questioned it.
Pat

----------
From: Kevin Bradford <plantagenet60@earthlink.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Hamo Dapifer
Date: Mon, 3, 2006, 11:34 AM


His father was Haimo Dentatus, lord of Torigny-sur-Vire, arr. Saint Lo, a
rebel killed in 1047 in Val-es-Dunes.

Refs.
CP 5:683
DD 902
DP 242

Best,
Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Junkin <pajunkin@cox.net
Sent: Apr 3, 2006 11:20 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Hamo Dapifer


Is there credible evidence to suggest that Hamo Dapifer was a St. Clair as
Thomas Sinclair suggest in the online book, The Sinclairs of England?

Thank you in advance,
Pat

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 15:55:51

I want to know specifically what your authority is for your statement?
You can't remember details? You expect me to take you seriously?

I have never seen "son in law" used to mean "husband of my
step-daughter." I can only think of one instance where I've seen the
term "in law" used in other than its most common way, and that was in a
will in Delaware in 1789 where the testator described his step-father
as his "father in law."

In the case of a census entry, I want to know the year, county and
state, pg number and citations to the supporting documentation which
proves your contention. That shouldn't be a problem for you since you
viewed the evidence and came to a conclusion, right?

I think you know very well what an appropriate citation is in a given
situation. So... let's see it.

JTC

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 04 apr 2006 16:28:37

My name has been taken in vain, it seems.

Jeff Chipman <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote:

I don't think there's any doubt that Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers was the
daughter of Diana Skipwith.

Incorrect. There has been doubt, raised here and elsewhere, by people
who understand this case and who understand the limitations of relying
on terms of relationship with alternative meanings, and on the partial
evidence of chronological termini.

So far nobody has delivered proof or in fact any evidence at all that
Mary (Dale) Harrison was not the daughter of Diana Skipwith.

This is what is known as a straw man. We are dealing with the temporal
recontructions of marriage relationships, with apparent
terminus-post-quem and terminus-ante-quem data only. Proof of a
mutually exclusive alternative is not required to cast the original
supposition into doubt.

OK. Let's review the case.

As some people know, the core of this is the issue of the maternity of
various children of Edward Dale of Lancaster Co., Virginia. His only
identified wife was Diana Skipwith (who happens to have documentable
noble ancestry, hence the interest and shrillness). In a short article
in TAG from 2000 (Charles Martin Ward, Jr., "A Refutation of the Alleged
Royal Ancestry of Katherine (Dale) Carter, wife of Thomas-1 Carter of
Lancaster County, Virginia," TAG 75 [2000], 27-29), it was pionted out
that Diana Skipwith used her maiden name in two documents in 1655;
therefore (Ward argued), Diana Skipwith was single as late as 17
November 1655. Ward then found that the earliest Diana Skipwith could
be *documented* as wife of Edward Dale was 9 June 1660. This is a
classic terminus issue: if we accept Ward's conclusion about the use of
the maiden name, then we have a 'terminus post quem' and a 'terminus
ante quem': we know Diana must have become Edward Dale's wife some time
between 17 November 1655 and 9 June 1660. Ward concluded that since
Diana was not Dale's wife in 1655, then Dale's eldest daughter
Katherine, who must have been born earlier than 1655, must have been by
another, previously unknown earlier wife. Taking the hypothesized
earlier wife, we also have termini for her: we know she was alive say
1653 (when Katherine, her apparent daughter, was born), and we know she
was no longer in the picture by say 1660 (to allow a decent interval
before the latest date Edward Dale could have married Diana Skipwith).

[* As an aside, I believe that a legitimate criticism might be made of
the maiden-name-use-disproving-the-marriage argument, if analogous
documents can be found, nothing has yet surfaced: the ones Douglas
Richardson discussed in 2001 differ too much from this case.]

So, given the 'terminus' or goalposts for the marriage, the logical next
step is, how does this affect our understanding of the maternity of
Edward Dale's children? Three children in question are Katherine (Dale)
Carter, Mary (Dale) Harrison, and Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers.

For good reason, Ward's article only looked at Katherine Dale Carter,
said in a contemporary document to have been the eldest daughter, who,
since she was married by 1670, appears to have been born by 1652 or 1653
and not as late as 1655 (if we take 17 as our minimum female age at
marriage here: it doesn't much matter which age we take for a customary
marriage minimum, though there is consensus that 15 is too young). Ward
argued that, accepting the Diana Skipwith documents as proving Diana was
not Edward Dale's wife in 1655, then we we must cut Katherine adrift:
she cannot have been Diana's daughter.

The next daughter, Mary, was known to have been alive on 16 Nov 1658,
when she was named as beneficiary in the will of one Vincent Stanford.
This means she was alive before Diana Skipwith was *known* to have been
married to Edward Dale. Therefore, her maternity has been cast into
doubt, though there is not enough evidence to say whether she was born
before or after 1655, which affects what category of doubt her maternity
is placed into. Years later, on 8 Dec 1674, Diana (Skipwith) Dale
called the then-husband of Mary Dale, Daniel Harrison, her
'sonne-in-law', in a power of attorney. The use of the term
'sonne-in-law' also does not prove Diana was Mary's mother. In a legal
sense, Harrison was her 'son in law' whether or not she was Mary's
biological mother.

The next daughter under discussion is Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers. If it
can be proved Elizabeth was born after 9 June 1660, then we would be
done: she would be known as a daughter of Edward Dale by his wife Diana.
Unfortunately there is no birthdate or firm terminus post quem.
Elizabeth was married by 12 Mar 1677/8. Unfortunately, this marriage
date does not prove Elizabeth was born after 9 June 1660, so one can't
be certain (by the only secure terminus we have for their marriage),
that Elizabeth was Diana's daughter. Of course, by simple chronology,
it seems more likely that Elizabeth was Diana's daughter than Mary. But
in terms of proof, both Mary and Elizabeth are in a sort of limbo
because their known and possible birthdate data *may* fall *between* the
goalposts for Diana's marriage.

Perhaps a diagram will be helpful [monospace font required].

Here I have layed out the termini for the Skipwith marriage, the
apparent approximate birthdates (or termini) for the daughters, and the
chronology of the deduced earlier wife. The only three firm dates
(marked with asterisks) are Diana's last spinster attestation, her first
married attestation, and the date when Mary was known to have been alive.


15 Nov 9 June
1655 1660
* *
Diana not | | Diana is
married | | married
to Edward | | to Edward
_________________|.....................|___________________

*
..---->..|.. ..--->| ...<-->..|..
Katherine Mary Elizabeth
m. 4 May living m. by 2 Mar
1670; hence 16 Nov 1677/8;
hence prob. 1658; m. hence prob.
by by 1653 m. by 8 b. by 1660/1
Dec 1674


----------|.........................>|
unknown previous
wife deduced;
living say 1653
dead by 1660

So, the apparent earlier wife was alive when Katherine was born, say
1653, and may have been alive anytime up to a decent interval before 9
June 1660 (which might only be a few months, for a widower to remarry).

But I would conclude from this review that:

IF we accept Ward's view of the implications of Diana's use of her
maiden name in 1655, then:

1. Katherine was not her daughter, and Edward Dale must have had another
wife.

And then:

2. We cannot be sure of the maternity of Mary Dale Harrison (Diana or
the other wife).

3. We cannot be sure of the maternity of Elizabeth Dale Rogers (Diana or
the other wife).

One can go further and say:

4. If Mary can be shown to have been daughter of Diana, then Elizabeth
is quite likely also her daughter, but we cannot be SURE that Katherine,
Mary and Elizabeth were married at the same age and in the order in
which they were born. But see #2.

The fact that no one has proved that Mary is *not* Diana's daughter is
meaningless. I happen to think it perfectly likely that both Mary and
Elizabeth are daughters of Diana, but it cannot be proved until the
goalposts can be brought much closer together or the birthdates found,
or until some unambiguous statement of maternity is found.

Elsewhere Jeff Chipman wrote:

... You really think you're going to be able to break this line
with that kind of crap, don't you? I'm going to see to it that
you don't. ...

Your intentions are quite clear. It's interesting, the lengths to which
people will go to attempt to defend cherished lines from the expression
of such doubts.

You seem to be invested in this line as a descendant. I wonder whether
you are mistaking the interest in the methodological question here for a
sort of Tonya-Harding strategy, to make one's own remote gentry ancestry
(if one has it) look better by clubbing competitors' lines in the knee.

The shrillness of the defense of this case seems rooted in the sense
that this critical attention is not fair: it is only the anomaly of
Diana Skipwith using her maiden name in 1655 that casts the date of her
marriage and the maternity of Dale's daughters into doubt. It is true
that no other evidence has been found to show that the deduced earlier
wife (who must have existed if Katherine was a legitimate daughter of
Dale and Diana was not his wife in 1655) even existed. It IS ironic
that if these families were *less* present in the surviving
documentation, the line might never have been questioned. But various
intelligent, disinterested people, who are drawn to genealogy for the
kinds of puzzles it poses, have now got drawn to this case.

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

Renia

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Renia » 04 apr 2006 16:56:19

JeffChipman wrote:

I want to know specifically what your authority is for your statement?
You can't remember details? You expect me to take you seriously?

Are you talking to me? I'm not posting on Google and have no idea to
what or whom you are responding. My authority is an honours degree in
history and 30 years' genealogical experience (mostly in Britain but
also in the States.)

I have never seen "son in law" used to mean "husband of my
step-daughter." I can only think of one instance where I've seen the
term "in law" used in other than its most common way, and that was in a
will in Delaware in 1789 where the testator described his step-father
as his "father in law."

In the case of a census entry, I want to know the year, county and
state, pg number and citations to the supporting documentation which
proves your contention. That shouldn't be a problem for you since you
viewed the evidence and came to a conclusion, right?

I'm sorry, but I charge for genealogical research.

If you subscribe to Ancestry.com, for example, you can find UK and US
censuses going right back to 1851 and beyond. Pick a few at random in
order to conduct your own statistical survey. Find some sons- and
daughters-in-law. Then look for the accompanying marriages, baptisms,
etc, and find out the true relationships and derive some statistics from
them from which you can test your own theory. Then do the same with
wills, going back as far as you can. Others cannot do it for you.

I'm making a ridiculous proposition, aren't I? That's because what you
are asking is ridiculous. In all the genealogical cases I have
undertaken, I cannot remember who and where. And why should I rack
through my files just to satisfy you?

It's your problem, not mine.


I think you know very well what an appropriate citation is in a given
situation. So... let's see it.

I think you are clutching at straws. It's rather akin to trying to prove
a negative. We are not saying you are wrong, but we are saying you
cannot prove you are right, because of this anomaly. You will have to
learn to live with it or find some other documentation.

Renia

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Renia » 04 apr 2006 17:14:14

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/4/2006 8:35:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

Years later, on 8 Dec 1674, Diana (Skipwith) Dale
called the then-husband of Mary Dale, Daniel Harrison, her
'sonne-in-law', in a power of attorney. The use of the term
'sonne-in-law' also does not prove Diana was Mary's mother. In a legal
sense, Harrison was her 'son in law' whether or not she was Mary's
biological mother.



Hearing the full case, yes I agree with this analysis. Especially in the
light of the revelation, that throughout the vast majority of her life, Mary
and Katherine, even though not Diana's daughters, would have been *raised* by
her. So not a distant step-mother, married after they were adults, but rather
a step-mother who acted as a mother to them.

In that scenario it makes perfect sense she would call them daughters, even
though step-daughters, and their husbands sons-in-law.

From my readings in documents, I have no problem acepting this possibility.

However, like in my last post, I question whether the use of a maiden name
necessarily proves a person wasn't yet married. One would have to review the
primary documents themselves, including the evidences for their dating.
Will Johnson

I don't know much about this, but Scottish wives seem to keep their
maiden names. My own g-g-mother was buried with her husband, under her
maiden name. I've also seen death register entries for other Scottish
wives, under their maiden names. I've not made a study, so perhaps it's
more common for Scottish wives to use their maiden names on documents.
Perhaps Diana Skipwith (for all hers is a Yorkshire name and papa was
from Leicestershire) had Scots ancestors. I don't know, just flinging
this in for what it's worth.

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 17:20:30

Renia wrote:

I don't know much about this, but Scottish wives seem to keep their
maiden names. My own g-g-mother was buried with her husband, under her
maiden name. I've also seen death register entries for other Scottish
wives, under their maiden names. I've not made a study, so perhaps it's
more common for Scottish wives to use their maiden names on documents.
Perhaps Diana Skipwith (for all hers is a Yorkshire name and papa was
from Leicestershire) had Scots ancestors. I don't know, just flinging
this in for what it's worth.

You are correct; Scottish women have normally kept their maiden names,
and been referred to by their married names as an "alias". This
pertains to several other cultures e.g. Manx until quite recent times,
when what we tend to think of as a modern phenomenon made it more
universal.

Michael

JeffChipman

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 17:21:55

I think I have made it clear in this and other posts that the various
regions of immigration in this country had different values. That is
the whole premise of "Albion's Seed." When you cut through the
baloney, not one person has offered a verifiable example of the use of
"son in law" as meaning "husband of my step-daughter" in 17th century
VA, let alone in Tidewater VA. Not one. Any primer on genealogy will
explain the meaning of evidence. I think it is the height of arrogance
to demand that someone's personal opinion be given much weight in a
genealogical situation. If it is more than an opinion, then I expect
to see verifiable sources, whether it is one's own research or a
journal article by somebody else. I am not going to jump through hoops
every time somebody on this board makes an unsubstantiated assertion,
and I am not going to abandon common sense. I think these people damn
well know that there are probably instances of somebody calling a "son"
in their will who was actually a "stepson." I have seen a lot of
wills, and I cannot remember one in which a woman specifically mentions
children as being of "my first marriage." Children of the first
marriage are identified by their surnames.

The fact is, not one piece of evidence has been produced to show that
"son in law" meant "husband of my step-daughter" in this case. No
examples of such usage for this place and time have been proffered.
The problem we have here is that some people think that if something is
possible, that the researcher should take it seriously. There are
multiple possibilities for anything. I think these possibilities
should be taken seriously when there is evidence that they could apply
in a given situation, but I'm not going to make a researcher examine
all such meanings and produce a treatise.

The problem we have here is that some people think their "opinions" are
evidence. I want some hard facts as to what backs up these "opinions."
I want to know how likely it is that a word means a certain thing in a
given situation, and if you can't provide that, then you are just
blowing smoke. If the odds are remote that it means a certain thing,
even though it could have that meaning I'm not going to lose any sleep
over it. None of these people have the slightest idea how often "son
in law" meant what they say it did, and I'm going to hold them
accountable for what at this point appear to be nothing more that
un-documented opinions.

I don't want to hear anymore about "many posters", various "threads"
(which weren't named) and the rest of the tripe these people are
trotting out for serious consideration. I want some hard evidence with
verifiable citations. That's my challenge. If you can't back up your
position with hard evidence, then you're just full of crap, and
everybody is going to know it.
JTC

Gjest

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 17:30:03

In a message dated 4/4/2006 7:35:13 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

I asked you what would be the frequency of use of no. 1 to no. 2? You
do not know, but through a mound of dissembling BS left the reader with
the impression that you did.


No what he did was repeat several times, that *you* do not know. It is not
a requirement of anyone arguing against a prove to show a counter-proof, only
to show where the holes in the proof lie. That's been done several times
here, but you aren't listening.
Not that it bears on "son-in-law" but we've even had threads here where a
will states "son" for someone who was actually a "son-in-law". Of course
this wasn't Virginia in 1660 so I suppose it makes no difference to you.
Again, you are picking and choosing what evidence to consider, without a
basis for that choice.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 17:42:02

In a message dated 4/4/2006 8:35:11 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

This isn't a gray area. Mary Rogers named her
children in her will and they ALL bore the surname of her first
husband. Why would there have been any necessity of stating they were
by her first husband? If she had any by Rogers they would have been
surnamed Rogers.


There are many cases where not all the children of a person are named in
their will. Short of the will actually stating how many children the woman
bore, the mere evidence of the absence of a name doesn't prove that other
children didn't exist.
Your position that she had no other children is pretty shaky if it's
based only on the fact that no others were named in her will.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 17:47:02

In a message dated 4/4/2006 8:35:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

[* As an aside, I believe that a legitimate criticism might be made of
the maiden-name-use-disproving-the-marriage argument, if analogous
documents can be found, nothing has yet surfaced: the ones Douglas
Richardson discussed in 2001 differ too much from this case.]


In fact, in my own research, I do have a primary document which names a
woman using her previous name [surname of her first husband], when other primary
documents state she was remarried already.

This situation of course is not in Virginia, nor in the 17th century.

The tentative hypothesis, which my research team is mulling over, is that
the first document is merely quoting an older document in which a life estate
was given to her by her first husband "should she continue to remain single",
which is an odd way to say "should she continue a widow".

At any rate, the possibility that your case here, is where one document is
quoting another, might be considered.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 17:50:02

In a message dated 4/4/2006 8:35:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

Years later, on 8 Dec 1674, Diana (Skipwith) Dale
called the then-husband of Mary Dale, Daniel Harrison, her
'sonne-in-law', in a power of attorney. The use of the term
'sonne-in-law' also does not prove Diana was Mary's mother. In a legal
sense, Harrison was her 'son in law' whether or not she was Mary's
biological mother.



Hearing the full case, yes I agree with this analysis. Especially in the
light of the revelation, that throughout the vast majority of her life, Mary
and Katherine, even though not Diana's daughters, would have been *raised* by
her. So not a distant step-mother, married after they were adults, but rather
a step-mother who acted as a mother to them.

In that scenario it makes perfect sense she would call them daughters, even
though step-daughters, and their husbands sons-in-law.

From my readings in documents, I have no problem acepting this possibility.

However, like in my last post, I question whether the use of a maiden name
necessarily proves a person wasn't yet married. One would have to review the
primary documents themselves, including the evidences for their dating.
Will Johnson

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 04 apr 2006 18:05:08

In article <1144167715.597336.159420@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote:

The fact is, not one piece of evidence has been produced to show that
"son in law" meant "husband of my step-daughter" in this case.

My understanding is that "son in law", in England and the colonies in
the 17th century, did have a single precise legal definition: any
'legal' parent-child relationship distinct from the most obvious one of
biological parent / biological child. This includes what we call
step-children, as well as spouses of children; by extension it also
included spouses of step-children.

No examples of such usage for this place and time have been proffered.

This is an interesting point. Where does the burden lie? One
near-contemporary example has been already been mentioned (from another
colony, though where such basic legal terminological custom is no
different).

In fact, most of the people who have posted have shared a consensus that
'in-law' had the broader meaning in the seventeenth century generally.
I believe it is up to the person bucking the consensus to make his case,
but it is essentially impossible to prove "word X NEVER meant Y in
such-and-such time and place;" while the converse can be proved with
just one example.

Maybe someone can put this thread out of its misery by looking through
any 17th-century Virginia deeds or wills that might be on hand, to see
what sort of incidents of 'son-in-law' as 'step-son' can be found.
Perhaps someone with access can even flip through Sparacio's abstracts
of Lancaster or adjacent county deeds & wills for such a thing? Or does
any genealogical research guide targeted explicitly at Virginia offer
examples of these usages of terms of kinship?

Jeff returns to this point because if he can convince anyone that he has
proved that Mary is the biological daughter of Diana, then he can
probably convince them also that this proves that Elizabeth is also
daughter of Diana, since the fact that Elizabeth married later than Mary
makes her presumptively younger.

Unfortunately, marriage order does not prove birth order, so Jeff would
still be in limbo even in the unlikely event he were to convince us of a
restrictive interpretation of 'son-in-law' in the Northern Neck of
Virginia in 1674.

Nat Taylor

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

Diane Sheppard

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Diane Sheppard » 04 apr 2006 18:15:41

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Also Renia, French wives. In the 1871 Canadian census, you will find the
wifes listed under their maiden names.

French Canadian women who remained in Quebec or a French Canadian area
such as Detroit, St Louis, etc, and who married and baptized their
children in a Catholic ceremony, retained their maiden names from
baptism through burial, including the baptisms and the marriages of
their children. That's one reason why it is so easy to trace one's
French Canadian ancestry.

Diane

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 04 apr 2006 18:45:07

In article <13f.2763298b.31640071@aol.com>, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/4/2006 9:34:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

... not one person has offered a verifiable example of the use of
"son in law" as meaning "husband of my step-daughter" in 17th century
VA, let alone in Tidewater VA. Not one. Any primer on genealogy will
explain the meaning of evidence. I think it is the height of arrogance
to demand that someone's personal opinion be given much weight in a
genealogical situation.

This argument is irrelevant.
You have two seemingly conflicting pieces of evidence.
The use of a maiden name, and the use of "son-in-law"
They conflict.

No; they DON'T conflict. There is a curious interlocking set of
goalposts here. Diana could have been single in the fall of 1655, and
biological mother to Mary who was alive in the fall of 1658.

Don't bat at the Chip on this poster's shoulder by micharacterizing the
pieces of this interesting chronological puzzle! :)

What IS irritating about the statement above is it reduces the consensus
of people who have a lot of relevant experience--and no blinding
personal investment in this case--to 'opinion', and then rages against
it. I suppose it will continue until someone comes up with a Northern
Neck example of this particular definition issue, which seems otherwise
accepted by experienced genealogists.

Step-son, son-in-law, step-son-in-law: it's not a percentage-likelihood
issue. The crux is that all these relationships were legally understood
as equivalent. A woman's husband's son was legally her son; a woman's
daughter's husband was also legally her son; similarly, a woman's
step-daughter's husband was also legally her son: all had a legal
interest in her marital property.

Nat Taylor

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

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 18:55:03

In a message dated 4/4/2006 9:15:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

I don't know much about this, but Scottish wives seem to keep their
maiden names. My own g-g-mother was buried with her husband, under her
maiden name. I've also seen death register entries for other Scottish
wives, under their maiden names


Also Renia, French wives. In the 1871 Canadian census, you will find the
wifes listed under their maiden names.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 19:03:02

In a message dated 4/4/2006 9:34:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

When you cut through the
baloney, not one person has offered a verifiable example of the use of
"son in law" as meaning "husband of my step-daughter" in 17th century
VA, let alone in Tidewater VA. Not one. Any primer on genealogy will
explain the meaning of evidence. I think it is the height of arrogance
to demand that someone's personal opinion be given much weight in a
genealogical situation.


This argument is irrelevant.
You have two seemingly conflicting pieces of evidence.
The use of a maiden name, and the use of "son-in-law"
They conflict.
You are picking one, someone else is picking another.
Instead of you seeing this, you are continuing to post over and over and
over to try to hammer your idea as the ultimate truth against which no one can
argue!!

It simply isn't. Two pieces of evidence seemingly conflict.
Your long winded postings don't and won't ever change that fact.

Now perhaps you can change your tactic and address the evidence in it's
entirety instead of the one piece onto which you are hanging for dear life

Will Johnson

Drew

Re: English origins of Nathaniel Foote, William Hyde, and Th

Legg inn av Drew » 04 apr 2006 19:05:55

Hello all!

I thought I'd chime in on the issue of Warren ancestry of the Waller
family branch descended from Edwarnd Waller alias Warren, etc. Thanks
to Paul Vogel for alerting me on this, I have not been lurking about
the soc.gen.med. group for a while. Is DSH still trolling about? He did
have some pithy statements regarding the possible connection that I
floated here about 7-8 years ago.

Hi to Doug Richardson, we had exchanged messages on this point earlier.
Thanks again for all your help, your works are extensively cited in our
website.

Regarding the DNA bit, several Wallers from my family have been tested
(personal communication from Cris Waller) revealing no connection with
other Wallers or Warrens of Poynton. Perhaps I could ask him again, we
haven't communicated for a year or more. He has a website which
mentions DNA testing (called IIRC The Chequered Wallers).
I have looked into this a bit myself over the intervening years, as you
can read on my website at the link below:
http://users.adelphia.net/~hwaller/Origins.htm (part of the website
called http://www.jocelynwaller.info).

I will say now that there is no known connection between this Waller
family to the Warrens of Poynton. In the 1634 Heraldic Visitation to
Hertfordshire, the Clarencieux king of arms documented the use of the
Waller arms for at least 60 yrs., the minimum period of use for assumed
arms, as shown in the genealogy he recorded. His genealogy did not
extend back to the Warrens. That family may well have told the herald
that they were descended from Warrens hence the arms and the alias used
in the herald's recorded genealogy. That part is conjecture. I don't
believe a bit of it, the proven genealogy only goes back to about 1499,
typical for English documentation of non-nobles.

Ormerod's History of the County Palatine and City Chester, a
well-accepted source on the Poynton Warrens does not mention any
individuals who may have sired a Waller family. There is no source I
have found to support such a claim. If there was a Warren ancestor
there is no evidence for the Poynton family. There is no available
evidence at all.

Antonia Waller's monograph mentioned in an earlier message (available
through her son Cris Waller's website) is totally undocumented, makes
no real sense, uses fallacious arguments, hypothesizes a
cloak-and-dagger war of the roses scenario to explain the Warren to
Waller name change, and (Cris I hope you're not reading this! Forgive
me!!) is absolute hogwash and must not be used as a source. She never
even gave a footnote, documented nothing, the claims are all
unsubstantiated. Unfortunately she is no longer with us to explain her
thoughts.

Another important point is that this Waller family is a small potion of
all Wallers and bears no relation to the great majority of Wallers in
America (many of whom are originally from Virginia), nor are we
descended from the Wallers of Groombridge.

Andrew Waller
http://www.jocelynwaller.info
Andrew Jocelyn Waller (andrew@jocelynwaller.info)

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 19:16:22

Look, I'm not going to hire you because I question your competence
based on your post.

Here's the situation, and it's easy to understand:

Of the various meanings of the term "son in law" prevalent in VA during
the 17th century, which was the most commonly used and how often were
other meanings employed? It is ridiculous to expect a researcher to
deal with every possible meaning of a word. In the real world, which
apparently you don't inhabit, you have to make judgements about
evidence. A definition of a word is evidence. Just because it's
evidence doesn't mean that it's the only evidence in a given situation,
or that it should acquire a lot of weight in a given situation. As
Preston Haynie, an expert in VA genealogy (which I doubt you are),
told Joan Burdyck 5 years ago, you have to evaluate the situation on a
case by case basis and look at all the evidence. Everybody makes
judgements on the relative weight given evidence. We have to. Some of
the stuff on this newsgroup borders on the neurotic. We have reached a
point that in the mind of Will Johnson, nothing means anything. That's
just rubbish.

In the case here I want to know if there is any evidence that a term
had a certain definition. Looking at this case realistically, I find
that there is no reason to think that "sonne in law" meant anything but
"husband of my biological daughter." This is not a Katherine Carter
case; there are no contra-indications and nobody here has cited any. I
do not know of a single piece of evidence supporting an alternative
meaning of this term.

Let's be honest. There are people in this newsgroup who love poking
holes in lines like this. They will raise objections or questions and
those will be discussed and in many cases no consensus is reached. A
number of people have come forward in these various threads and
expressed opinions. In absolutely every case, this was done without
verifiable citations to anything, except in the case of one late
medieval will of no particular relevance to this situation (by
verifiable, I mean pg number, book, where it can be found, etc.).
Nobody has cited a specific deed or will that shows "son in law" being
used to mean "husband of my step-daughter." So... as long as we're
talking about evidence, how much weight should we give undocumented
opinions? Some of these people seem to think simply raising a doubt
disproves a line. Where did you get that idea?

In Stratton's "Applied Genealogy" pg 246, he states that "the citation
of all the material that the genealogist relied on will allow
subsequent readers to put everything in proper perspective." In other
words, we will know how much weight to give a specific piece of
evidence. I cannot think of one statement proffered by anybody but
myself and Joan Burdyck which meets this criteria. For some people the
notion of giving different weight to various genealogical evidence is a
new concept. Anybody can raise doubt about anything (remember the
warming pan baby?). The question is, how much weight should we give
it? Since we do not know how the conclusions were reached, I'd say it
has the same weight as any other undocumented source, which is not a
whole lot. I'm not asking you to go through your files, I'm asking you
to adhere to some standard of evidence. I will then analyze your
evidence and see if it supports your conclusion. If you can say, "my
study indicates a 50/50 chance that "son in law" will mean 'X", then
that's important.

I am accusing you of being a charlatan, because you are peddling the
notion that any piece of evidence should be given the same weight
regardless of how it was derived. You are deceiving the readers of
these threads into thinking your unsubtantiated opinion is worth
anything (and to top it off, you refuse to cite any evidence to support
it!). Since you claim to be a good genealogist, I want to know much
weight do you think should be given your opinion? Do you understand
the concept of weighing evidence? (Stratton does; I suggest you get a
copy of his book; it's good). Do you really think it's fair to demand
that your undocumented musings be given equal value alongside other
evidence? Don't you think that the value of your "evidence" should be
evaluated in comparison with other evidence in the case?, and if not,
why not? Is this what you tell your clients?

You owe me an apology.

JTC

Gjest

Re: what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 19:24:02

In a message dated 4/4/2006 10:15:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:

My understanding is that "son in law", in England and the colonies in
the 17th century, did have a single precise legal definition: any
'legal' parent-child relationship distinct from the most obvious one of
biological parent / biological child.


I think the burden should be slightly shifted.
In this particular case, the use of "step-daughter" for "daughter" could be
brought up. Rather than the red herring of "son-in-law", if we conceed, as
I'm sure we would all do, that sometimes a step-daughter is called a daughter,
then, by natural extension her husband cannot be then called a
step-son-in-law but rather simply a "son-in-law".

Whether or not, this (naming a step-daughter as a daughter) has actually
occurred in this current case cannot be shown simply by the single mention of
the word. Whether or not this has actually occurred in other cases, is clear.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 19:36:40

JeffChipman schrieb:

Look, I'm not going to hire you because I question your competence
based on your post.

Well, there you go, Renia: instead of touting that old honours degree
on your genealogist's CV, all you need say is "not employed by Jeff
Chipman due to competence issues"; that should sell.

MA-R

Tony Hoskins

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 04 apr 2006 19:41:01

"That's one reason why it is so easy to trace one's
French Canadian ancestry."

Would that this were true for other ethnic groups. But,
malheureusement, this is not the case!

Tony


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

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 19:51:02

One of these idiots even went so far as to provide a chart. Another is
tending toward Douglas Richardson's opinion. My question is, how much
weight should we give any of these people's contentions that "son in
law" could have meant anything but "husband of my biological daughter?"
in this specific case. Joan Burdyck was told by Preston Haynie that
it had to be taken on a case by case basis in light of available
evidence. That means that it must be considered in light of the
evidence in a specific instance. What these people are saying is that
the available evidence does not prove the case because it does not
refute an available meaning for the term "son in law." They are saying
that the use of this term could mean something else, and while they do
not know that it's the case here, it is of sufficient weight to cast
real doubt on the validity of the line. This is the argument when you
cut through all the BS. They would further have you believe that a
woman was having children, say, around age 44 to 46 in 17th century VA.
No doubt they will say that numerous contributors to this group have
such examples.

I have yet to see a single verifiable piece of evidence that shows the
usage of the term in its alternative meaning in 17th VA. Is this
because there isn't any? What is the problem? When did these people
exempt themselves from the same standards applied to everybody else?
How much weight should be given such an undocumented assertion? 10 per
cent? Fifteen? It's subjective, isn't it? Does every piece of
evidence have the same weight? Who told you that? I am saying that
this piece of evidence (and it is evidence) is not sufficient to
disprove Elizabeth Dale's maternity when the chronology is clear.
There is no independent piece of evidence in this case that supports a
notion of the "step-daughter" meaning; there is in the Katherine Carter
situation.

I am saying this--sinmply because you have contributed to this
newsgroup for many years does not give you a pass from the same
standards of evidence as everyone else. It does not give you the right
to wreck years of research by people like John Frederick Dorman and
others with garbage. I am being polite in terming your material as
"evidence" when it's just your opinion. I think Nat brushed Joan
Burdyck off with a piece of casuistry and I'm going to demand he
deliver the goods. Anyone who tells you that all genealogical evidence
is of the same value is lying. So, Nat, how much weight do you think
we should give your "evidence?" And why?

JTC

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale...

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 04 apr 2006 19:53:09

In article <1144174582.936784.281140@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote:

Here's the situation, and it's easy to understand:

Of the various meanings of the term "son in law" prevalent in VA during
the 17th century, which was the most commonly used and how often were
other meanings employed?

If the term 'son-in-law' was used at all for 'husband of step-daughter'
in seventeenth-century Virginia, even once, then no one will accept your
categorical rejection of that meaning in the 1674 document featuring
Diana Dale and Daniel Harrison.

I have stated that if one looks at the legal concepts which underlay the
use of these terms, then a husband of one's stepdaughter was indeed
one's son-in-law. An example from Rhode Island has already been
adduced. You have rejected it, though English common law was the same
in Rhode Island as in Virginia in the 17th century, and I suspect
notarial usage differed very little as well.

But let's wait and see. It is likely that someone who has lots of
Virginia material at hand can find an example of this usage somewhere.
The problem is you have to be looking at the documents and with external
knowledge of the families as you do it.

Nat Taylor

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

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

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 19:55:58

JeffChipman schrieb:

Here's the situation, and it's easy to understand:

(snip of usual rambling)

In absolutely every case, this was done without
verifiable citations to anything, except in the case of one late
medieval will of no particular relevance to this situation (by
verifiable, I mean pg number, book, where it can be found, etc.).

The reference, which was cited fully in the original post to which I
referred you, was to the will of John Docwra of Wimpole, Ely wills,
1548 CW, Cambridgeshire Record Office. This shows that the term
"father-in-law" was used to express what we would call the testator's
step-father-in-law. In dismissing this as "irrelevant", you are, of
course, expressing an opinion, which is likely to be as useless [if not
more so, given its originator] as the other 'opinions' which you have
dismissed on the basis that they disagree with your entrenched
position. The reference is entirely relevant - except you have now
changed the goal-posts and want evidence from 17th century Tidewater,
Virginia, because the material cited thus far doesn't suit you.

You owe me an apology.

On the subject of apologies, perhaps you owe this group an apology for
the tirades you subjected us to recently while you were 'proving' your
three Sir Walters and your 'novel' interpretation of heraldry,
subsequently shown to be wrong.

The funny thing is, I agree with Nat and Will that it is most likely
that Miss Skipwith is the ancestress you so desparately crave. Happy
families!

MA-R

John Brandon

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - maiden name rather

Legg inn av John Brandon » 04 apr 2006 19:59:47

Although there is an example given in Pope's _Pioneers of
Massachusetts_ of a woman (I can't remember the name, unfortunately)
who "is married to So-and-so, but commonly goes by the name of
Such-n-such, her first husband" (a quote from a contemporary document).
She was of no special status that I could see. I think this was in
the 1660s or 70s.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Edward Dale's wife, Diana Skipwith - maiden name rather

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 04 apr 2006 20:03:14

Dear Tony ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

While it it true that English women customarily dropped their maiden
name after marriage in the early modern period, we know for a fact that
there are exceptions. I pointed out Mary Arundel just now as an
example. However, what "most" women did in this time period certainly
doesn't apply to Diana Skipwith. As the daughter and sister of a
baronet, Diana was of higher social rank than most all of her colonial
contemporaries.

As for Diana Skipwith having signed her name, as I recall, the
reference to her being called Diana Skipwith in Virginia comes from a
court record. She did not sign the record. When she signed her name
to later documents, she appears as Diana Dale.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www. royalancestry.net

"Tony Hoskins" wrote:
With all due respect, Doug, I take exception to the premise that Diana
(Skipwith) Dale would have signed herself under her maiden name after
marriage. I not claim it to be impossible, rather that it would be
highly unlikely for her to do so.

I think we Americans are prone (as notable with John Hunt in re: his
perceived gulf between "Mr." and "Yeoman" with the Winslows) to read too
much into certain "evidences" (too often misunderstood or
misinterpreted) of social rank - in this case the possession of a
baronetcy. Bottom line, the 17th century English would have almost
certainly in no way have seen Edward Dale as socially inferior to his
wife Diana Skipwith, for all her family's baronetcy. Instances abound in
my own research in England and Virginia in this period to cases of women
even more highly born than Diana nonetheless using their their husbands'
surnames. I am frankly very doubtful that Diana (Skipwith) Dale would
have signed herself any other way after marriage than "Diana Dale".

All best,

Tony

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

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale ...

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 04 apr 2006 20:15:29

In article <1144176662.194906.93290@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote:

One of these idiots even went so far as to provide a chart.

I went so far as to provide a chart. I think it is an interesting
problem. The chart might attract the attention of some of the people
who read this list for the genealogical issues involved.

If you need help understanding what I posted, I'll be happy to go
through it with you.

But ...

.... you have to ask nicely.

Nat Taylor

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

Renia

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Renia » 04 apr 2006 20:24:08

JeffChipman wrote:

Look, I'm not going to hire you because I question your competence
based on your post.

Here's the situation, and it's easy to understand:

Of the various meanings of the term "son in law" prevalent in VA during
the 17th century, which was the most commonly used and how often were
other meanings employed? It is ridiculous to expect a researcher to
deal with every possible meaning of a word. In the real world, which
apparently you don't inhabit, you have to make judgements about
evidence. A definition of a word is evidence. Just because it's
evidence doesn't mean that it's the only evidence in a given situation,
or that it should acquire a lot of weight in a given situation. As
Preston Haynie, an expert in VA genealogy (which I doubt you are),
told Joan Burdyck 5 years ago, you have to evaluate the situation on a
case by case basis and look at all the evidence. Everybody makes
judgements on the relative weight given evidence. We have to. Some of
the stuff on this newsgroup borders on the neurotic. We have reached a
point that in the mind of Will Johnson, nothing means anything. That's
just rubbish.

In the case here I want to know if there is any evidence that a term
had a certain definition. Looking at this case realistically, I find
that there is no reason to think that "sonne in law" meant anything but
"husband of my biological daughter." This is not a Katherine Carter
case; there are no contra-indications and nobody here has cited any. I
do not know of a single piece of evidence supporting an alternative
meaning of this term.

Let's be honest. There are people in this newsgroup who love poking
holes in lines like this. They will raise objections or questions and
those will be discussed and in many cases no consensus is reached. A
number of people have come forward in these various threads and
expressed opinions. In absolutely every case, this was done without
verifiable citations to anything, except in the case of one late
medieval will of no particular relevance to this situation (by
verifiable, I mean pg number, book, where it can be found, etc.).
Nobody has cited a specific deed or will that shows "son in law" being
used to mean "husband of my step-daughter." So... as long as we're
talking about evidence, how much weight should we give undocumented
opinions? Some of these people seem to think simply raising a doubt
disproves a line. Where did you get that idea?

In Stratton's "Applied Genealogy" pg 246, he states that "the citation
of all the material that the genealogist relied on will allow
subsequent readers to put everything in proper perspective." In other
words, we will know how much weight to give a specific piece of
evidence. I cannot think of one statement proffered by anybody but
myself and Joan Burdyck which meets this criteria. For some people the
notion of giving different weight to various genealogical evidence is a
new concept. Anybody can raise doubt about anything (remember the
warming pan baby?). The question is, how much weight should we give
it? Since we do not know how the conclusions were reached, I'd say it
has the same weight as any other undocumented source, which is not a
whole lot. I'm not asking you to go through your files, I'm asking you
to adhere to some standard of evidence. I will then analyze your
evidence and see if it supports your conclusion. If you can say, "my
study indicates a 50/50 chance that "son in law" will mean 'X", then
that's important.

I am accusing you of being a charlatan, because you are peddling the
notion that any piece of evidence should be given the same weight
regardless of how it was derived. You are deceiving the readers of
these threads into thinking your unsubtantiated opinion is worth
anything (and to top it off, you refuse to cite any evidence to support
it!). Since you claim to be a good genealogist, I want to know much
weight do you think should be given your opinion? Do you understand
the concept of weighing evidence? (Stratton does; I suggest you get a
copy of his book; it's good). Do you really think it's fair to demand
that your undocumented musings be given equal value alongside other
evidence? Don't you think that the value of your "evidence" should be
evaluated in comparison with other evidence in the case?, and if not,
why not? Is this what you tell your clients?

You owe me an apology.

No, I do not. I am NOT going to do your statistical research for you.
Period.

I am NOT "peddling the notion that any piece of evidence should be given
the same weight regardless of how it was derived". Far from it.

What you are doing, however, is dismissing people's genealogical
experience in order to expound your own theory. You are not discussing:
you are dictating. You call me a "charlatan" simply because I have
supported others who have said that "son-in-law" did not mean only
"husband of my daughter" in past times.

It is not for me or others to provide evidence for comments which are
designed to help you make genealogical decisions.

It is for YOU to find your own evidence. It is YOUR genealogy.

We have not said you are wrong. We have simply said, there is room for
doubt (in response to your "cast-iron" phrase) because of multiple
meanings of the phrase.

I think you owe me an apology, because you are a genealogical idiot and
whom I really cannot now take seriously. You want cites, but you want
them from secondary sources, "pg number, book, where it can be found,
etc", you say.

While secondary sources are useful, I have been giving you evidence from
primary sources, from the material written contemporaneously with
events. They do not have a book and page number. They are in records
offices and repositories. I have even given you a place where you can go
and find some and make your own statistics: Ancestry.com for 150 years
of census material from both sides of the Atlantic. Otherwise, try the
West Yorkshire Archives, the Public Record Office in London, or almost
any repository which houses wills and other legal documents.

I see absolutely no reason why I should trawl through my archives on
your behalf to root out the SEVERAL instances of "son-in-law" meaning
"stepson" I have come across in the past.

It is your problem, not mine.

Renia

Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean

Legg inn av Renia » 04 apr 2006 20:35:59

JeffChipman wrote:

I think I have made it clear in this and other posts that the various
regions of immigration in this country had different values. That is
the whole premise of "Albion's Seed." When you cut through the
baloney, not one person has offered a verifiable example of the use of
"son in law" as meaning "husband of my step-daughter" in 17th century
VA, let alone in Tidewater VA. Not one. Any primer on genealogy will
explain the meaning of evidence. I think it is the height of arrogance
to demand that someone's personal opinion be given much weight in a
genealogical situation. If it is more than an opinion, then I expect
to see verifiable sources, whether it is one's own research or a
journal article by somebody else.

Look for it yourself. If people have presented you with an alternative
meaning to the term, then it is up to you to find whether it is
pertinent to this case. If you want statistics on usage of the term,
then either find some, or create some yourself from your own research.

It is your problem.


am not going to jump through hoops
every time somebody on this board makes an unsubstantiated assertion,
and I am not going to abandon common sense.

I'm afraid you have no common sense to abandon. You have only force of
will and a need to be right.

I think these people damn
well know that there are probably instances of somebody calling a "son"
in their will who was actually a "stepson."

Fine. Well, if you accept that has happened once, then it could have
happened dozens of times and it could have happened in the Dale case.
You just don't know and you probably never will unless you find some
other documentation on this case which may help you find an answer.


I have seen a lot of
wills, and I cannot remember one in which a woman specifically mentions
children as being of "my first marriage." Children of the first
marriage are identified by their surnames.

The fact is, not one piece of evidence has been produced to show that
"son in law" meant "husband of my step-daughter" in this case. No
examples of such usage for this place and time have been proffered.
The problem we have here is that some people think that if something is
possible, that the researcher should take it seriously. There are
multiple possibilities for anything. I think these possibilities
should be taken seriously when there is evidence that they could apply
in a given situation, but I'm not going to make a researcher examine
all such meanings and produce a treatise.

The problem we have here is that some people think their "opinions" are
evidence.

No, our opinions are not "evidence". We made a simple statement which
has sent you into hysterics.

We simply said that "son-in-law" had more than one meaning and that you
have no way of knowing what the meaning is in this case. That is all.


I want some hard facts as to what backs up these "opinions."


Just our eyes and our experience. And like I said, I'm not trawling
through my archives just for you.

I want to know how likely it is that a word means a certain thing in a
given situation, and if you can't provide that, then you are just
blowing smoke. If the odds are remote that it means a certain thing,
even though it could have that meaning I'm not going to lose any sleep
over it. None of these people have the slightest idea how often "son
in law" meant what they say it did, and I'm going to hold them
accountable for what at this point appear to be nothing more that
un-documented opinions.


The odds won't make any difference. It still leaves room for doubt as to
the meaning in this case. If if you find some statistics which 95% of
the time, "son-in-law" meant "husband of my daughter", then you still
won't KNOW whether that was so in the Dale case.

I don't want to hear anymore about "many posters", various "threads"
(which weren't named) and the rest of the tripe these people are
trotting out for serious consideration. I want some hard evidence with
verifiable citations. That's my challenge. If you can't back up your
position with hard evidence, then you're just full of crap, and
everybody is going to know it.
JTC

Much as you want them, statistics won't help you.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»