Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 18:43:02

I decided to look for usages of "step-son-in-law" and actually found
something that could widely expand our horizons.

_http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=0XSJPGUGvqP049&id=KyFksArdnIgC&pg=
RA1-PA195&lpg=RA1-PA195&dq=%22step-son-in-law%22_
(http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... -PA195&dq="
step-son-in-law")

Thomas Carlyle writing about an event in Jan 1741 in Petersburg states:
"Winterfield was Munnich's Son-in-law (properly step-son-in-law, having
married Munnich's step-daughter)..."

I believe that Thomas here is probably quoting some document for
"son-in-law" and then editorially correcting it to *modern* (of his time) usage. This
should show that the usage where "step" was dropped in "step-son-in-law" was
quite common and widespread, and possibly the exclusive usage.

That is until one of you slackers posts Iron-Clad Proof that anyone before
1800 actually used "step-son-in-law" in any document and any country!!!!! Now
get busy ....

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 18:46:02

Here is another possibility for pre-modern usage.

Rev Hugh Peter had as his step son-in-law John Winthrop Jr the son of the
Massachusetts Bay governor. Hugh Peter persuaded John Jr to become governor of
the Saybrook colony.

If someone can find an actual document, in which Peter addresses Winthrop
with some relational term, perhaps we can show that he called him "son-in-law"
without the "step"

Will Johnson

JDUVALL

RE: Standards of Evidence/Rutman Article & the Dale Imbrogli

Legg inn av JDUVALL » 07 apr 2006 18:54:01

I've not been paying strict attention to this -- I've no personal interest in either the Dale daughters or their mother (or mothers, as the case may be), but I do have a great many 17th century English immigrant ancestors who settled in the Chesapeake (both Maryland and Virginia) Region and have studied U.S. colonial history (as an undergraduate, a master's student, and a doctoral student), so I thought I could (perhaps) at least settle the question of the what the Rutmans did or did not say in regards to the question of step-children. Hopefully, I'm on the right track -- after a certain point I kind of stopped paying close attention to this "debate" -- and have correctly remembered the article that was being discussed. Here's all the Rutmans have to say in their chapter,"Now-Wives, and Sons-in-Law" : Parental death in a Seventeenth-Century County," which appeared in Tate and Ammerman''s *The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society" (1979)!
, pp. 168-169.

"In the years to and after 1700 the cementing and recementing of kinship by cousin marriages, the marriages of stepbrothers and stepsisters, of wards and natural children, the extension of kinship through godparentage and by virtue of sequential marriages that made quasi-kin of unrelated children, proceeded at such a pace as to leave the best genealogists far behind. That such relationships were meaningful is attested to by the regularity of bequests to godchildren, to sons- and daughters-in-law (the seventeenth century's dual expression for stepsons and daughters as well as for children's spouses), to nephews, nieces, and cousins."

There are no footnotes to this passage, but the Rutmans (Darrett B. and Anita H.) go into great detail in analyzing a number of 17th century families (all of whom resided in Middlesex Co., Virginia), and all their various kin-networks, so it appears that Middlesex County is fairly rich (relatively speaking anyway) in contemporary documents, such as wills and deeds, so that might be a place to start if one wants to dig for examples of the use of step-son in such contexts.

Jeff Duvall
Indianapolis, IN
jeffery@iquest.net
and/or
jduvall@iupui.edu


________________________________

From: Todd A. Farmerie [mailto:farmerie@interfold.com]
Sent: Thu 4/6/2006 3:32 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Standards of Evidence



JeffChipman wrote:
To me, your notion that nothing can be proved, and at best we can only
arrive at a probability, sucks the life out of genealogy.

big cut...
There must be many thousands of VA/MD documents


and another big cut...

Have you read the article yet that specifically addresses the term
son-in-law in the Middle-Atlantic Tidewater? No? I thought not, even
though you are not letting that stand in your way.

taf

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 20:10:03

Dear Vickie,

You may have answered the question of when Elizabeth Dale and William Rogers
were married. We certainly now have a range on the dates as I just went back
through my copies of the Prayer book [ I updated the language so it could be
easily read by everyone]:

Thomas Carter son of Thomas was Born on the 4th day of June 1672 between 3
and 4 a Clock in ye morning and was baptized att ye new church August 5th.
Capt. John Lee, Mr. Th: Hayne, ye Lady Ann Skipworth and Elizabeth Dale
Godparents.

Elizabeth 2nd Daughter was borned 4th day of February 1680 about Sunrise and
weighed 11 lbs. Baptized at St. Marys Sunday 15 May Mrs. Margaret Ball, Mrs.
Elizabeth Rogers and Capt. Ball standing for her.

So between June 4, 1672 and Feb. 4, 1680 we assume she married William
Rogers. The Skipworth spelling is actually in the Prayer Book and Ann is the
widow of Sir Grey Skipwith, 3rd Baronet, [Diana Skipwith's brother] for those on
the list that need identification of her.

I can't answer your question about age required to be a Godparent in the
17th century Church of England.

Best Regards,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 20:26:02

Hi Everyone:


In a message dated 4/7/2006 11:49:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
WJhonson@aol.com writes:

In a message dated 4/7/2006 8:43:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Joemaryjoa@aol.com writes:

Deed dated, July 20, 1654, Written and recorded the same day. "Katherine-a

calf, Elizabeth-a calf, John-a calf. Thos. Wilsford, clerk of the court.

Northumberland County Record Book 1652-1658, page 47.


Other than this one piece of primary documentation. Do you have anything
else with which to estimate the age of either William or Elizabeth?
Thanks
Will Johnson

There is no record of any kind that gives the age of William Rogers. He
was not listed as having tithables on the 1668 Northumberland County tithable
list. His father, John is listed with 9 tithables and his brother, John Jr.
with 3. William is listed in the 1679 tithable list and by then he was
married to Elizabeth.

Joan Burdyck

Chris Dickinson

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 07 apr 2006 20:37:49

MichaelAnne wrote:


<snip>
In most of the cases I have seen in Tidewater families the usual age was
18.
In the will of Edward Feilding Esq. of Northumberland County, Virginia,
dated 10 March 1695/6, he makes this comment about his daughter Anne
Feilding who
is then 14 years of age:
snip



This seems to be a touch younger than the age of marriage generally expected
among yeomen in the area of England that I study (a few parishes in west
Cumberland). Is this possibly because a tradition (that required fast
breeding) survived from early settlement?

Chris

Gjest

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

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 20:42:02

Hi Vicky:
In a message dated 4/7/2006 1:50:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com writes:

Am I correct in assuming that godparents had to be at least 14 in
the Anglican Church of that time? Does anyone know for sure?
Anyway, that would make her birthdate no later than 1658,
probably earlier.

I think that I read somewhere that it was 12 years of age, but I can't
find my reference on that. We have to also keep in mind that Elizabeth is
believed to have given birth to three children after 1700, Edward, George and
Joseph, in that order.

Joan Burdyck

John Brandon

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av John Brandon » 07 apr 2006 20:42:37

It's because of the heat down here.

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 20:43:01

In a message dated 4/7/2006 5:15:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

Interesting that both daughters were married in the same year. Mary,
if born after Katherine, could only have been, at the most, age 16 or
17 in 1670. Any evidence of other women in Virginia at the time
marrying at that age?



Dear Brad,

In most of the cases I have seen in Tidewater families the usual age was 18.
In the will of Edward Feilding Esq. of Northumberland County, Virginia,
dated 10 March 1695/6, he makes this comment about his daughter Anne Feilding who
is then 14 years of age:

Item - I have refused my consent to the present marriage of my daughter Ann
to Mr. Dennis Conaway Junr. If they wait the four years till she arrive at
the age of eighteen years and Mr. Conaway is more settled I hereby give my
consent and direct my executors to pay to my daughter Ann Fielding £100 Sterling.
If she ____ to her mother [and obtains her] mother's consent before the said
time she shall have but fifty pounds from my estate.

This is not an ironclad rule as many women married between 14-16 in this
period.

MichaelAnne

Tony Hoskins

Re: Does Nat Taylor ...

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 07 apr 2006 20:55:03

"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:

By the way, what makes you think any of us are friends of Nat - that
we
could even stand to be in the same room with the tosser?

Dear Todd,

..... widda rubba hose. Nyah.

Oh, by the way, everyone's invited over to another barbecue as soon as

this guy's out the door.

Nat
--
I'll bring my famous Tuna Surpise, as usual.
Tony

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 21:01:04

In a message dated 4/7/2006 5:15:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

So Mary's only known surviving child was born when she was at least age
25, and possibly as old as age 30, if she was born after sister
Katherine. Nothing amiss here, biologically or chronologically.



Dear Brad,

Just to clarify I posted this a couple of days ago:

There is a question as to the maternity of the three known children of
Daniel Harrison.

Eleanor Harrison married John Pinckard and on March 11, 1690/1 her husband
sued Major Edward Dale for his wife's portion of her father's estate which was
in Edward Dale's possession.

Joseph Harrison married Frances Hazelwood on November 11, 1692 in Middlesex
County, Virginia. He was named as guardian to his step-brother [or
half-brother] Humphrey Jones on 3 September 1693 when Humphrey Jones paternal
half-sister Mary Jones Seagar died. Joseph Harrison wrote his will on 23 December 1699
and it was probated 8 May 1700 in Lancaster County, Virginia. He named his
wife Frances and his son Daniel and daughter Mary.

Hannah Harrison was probably the youngest child of Daniel Harrison. She
married Richard Stephens who was one of the witnesses to Capt. Thomas Carter's
will in 1700. They had one son Daniel Stephens who was the executor of his
mother's will probated 10 April 1741.

It is not obvious if any, one of all of these children may be by Mary Dale.
Chronologically Hannah Harrison seems almost certain as she was married by
1700 when her husband witnessed Capt. Thomas Carter's will and she lived until
just before April 1741. As Mary was probably married to Daniel Harrison in
late 1670 this seems highly probable.

There is also a possibility that Joseph Harrison may be a child of Mary Dale
as he didn't marry Frances Hazelwood until November 11, 1692 in Middlesex
County, Virginia. she was his first wife and they had two children a son Daniel
and a daughter Mary both named in Joseph's will in 1699. Joseph also became
guardian of Humphrey Jones who was probably his half-brother not
step-brother.

The case for Eleanor Harrison seems the weakest but if she married John
Pinckard shortly before March 10, 1690/1 she may well too be in the chronological
possibility of having Mary Dale as her mother. She is probably the eldest as
she was named for her paternal grandmother and was the first married of the
three children, but we have no definite birth order on these three
individuals.

Humphrey Jones is definitely the son of Mary Dale as the Court Orders state:

3 Feb. 1684/5 Middlesex, Virginia deed Book 2, page 177:

To ye Worshipfull his Majts: Justices ffor ye County of Middlesex. Sheweth
the humble petition of Ed: Dale sheweth that Mr. Humphrey Jones of this county
lately deced did intermarry with youre petitioners daughter desed by whom he
had only one sone ye proetection of kine and ye ffurthes ffrom enjoymente of
ye sd estate ffor whiche ye petitioner praye the order of this court which
order a competente alowance for the keeping and education of ye said child till
he shall come to full age according to the law and your petitioner shall
pray that this petition may be recorded and cert. granted that the same was
presented to this County Court ffebury 3d 1684 which is corted by ye courte.

So there may well be four children of Mary Dale and I believe there are
descendants from the Stephens marriage also.

MichaelAnne

Chris Dickinson

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 07 apr 2006 21:04:52

John Brandon wrote in reply to my:


This seems to be a touch younger than the age of marriage generally
expected
among yeomen in the area of England that I study (a few parishes in west
Cumberland). Is this possibly because a tradition (that required fast
breeding) survived from early settlement?

It's because of the heat down here.


Ah! All that seventeenth-century clothing would have been an encumbrance.

Cumbrian yoemen had a very strong tradition of sex before marriage - this
worked in a cold climate where comfortable opportunity was limited, but
maybe practical wisdom met adolescent.needs in a hot climate to reduce the
age of marriage contract somewhat.

Chris

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 21:07:01

In a message dated 4/7/2006 5:15:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

Is there any reason to suppose Elizabeth was the youngest daughter?



Dear Brad,

Vickie or Joan could answer this better than I could. I believe this is
based on the death date of Elizabeth Rogers and the birth dates of her children.

MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 21:29:37

From Albion's Seed pp.284-286

"Male Virginians married at nearly the same age as in New England,
twenty-five or twenty-six on the average. But brides in the Chesapeake
colonies were much younger than in Puritan Massachusetts. Before 1700,
most Virginia girls found a husband by the age of seventeen. Mean age
at marriage was a little higher-eighteen to twenty-but below the
Massachusetts average.

Another consequence was a large difference in the ages of husbands and
wives. In Virginia's Middlesex County before 1670, grooms tended to be
nearly ten years older than brides: 28.4 against 18.7. That disparity
diminished to about five years in the mid-eighteenth century, but it
remained much greater than in Massachusetts, where only a year or two
seprated the average ages of men and women at first marriage."

There is a nice chart with Maryland counties as well.

Fred Chalfant

ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/7/2006 5:15:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

Interesting that both daughters were married in the same year. Mary,
if born after Katherine, could only have been, at the most, age 16 or
17 in 1670. Any evidence of other women in Virginia at the time
marrying at that age?



Dear Brad,

In most of the cases I have seen in Tidewater families the usual age was 18.
In the will of Edward Feilding Esq. of Northumberland County, Virginia,
dated 10 March 1695/6, he makes this comment about his daughter Anne Feilding who
is then 14 years of age:

Item - I have refused my consent to the present marriage of my daughter Ann
to Mr. Dennis Conaway Junr. If they wait the four years till she arrive at
the age of eighteen years and Mr. Conaway is more settled I hereby give my
consent and direct my executors to pay to my daughter Ann Fielding £100 Sterling.
If she ____ to her mother [and obtains her] mother's consent before the said
time she shall have but fifty pounds from my estate.

This is not an ironclad rule as many women married between 14-16 in this
period.

MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 21:44:16

Gordon Banks schrieb:

The Mayflower Society still lists one of my ancestors, Charles
Dickinson, as a Tilley descendant despite an article published in TAG to
the contrary in 1966! Marston Watson's recent book on Marbury
descendants had the error, and when I called him about it, he said he
had checked it with the Society and they claimed it was valid. I think
the TAG article pretty well proved it wasn't valid and wasn't even
plausible. Perhaps there are too many members dependent on that
descent, I don't know.

You Americans have it tough!!

When I wrote to the Society of the Descendants of the Knights of the
Order of the Garter (based at Windsor Castle; Patron: HM The Queen) to
ask about membership and what proofs were required, they responded by
sending me a membership badge...

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Samuel Desborough

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 22:24:02

Thanks John and Alex, I've also found some old discussion in the archives.

Alex I think you mean not that Sarah died Mar 1649, but rather she was born
then.

The DNB entry for Samuel Desborough, which appears as a sub-article, within
and at the end of John Desborough, doesn't mention anything further on her.

But John Brandon seems to have shown convincingly that she married
Christopher Milles of Herne and had at least three children Christopher, Samuel and
James Miller all of whom are mention as "grandchildren" in the will of Samuel
Desborough.

And one of whom Samuel Milles is mentioned in the will of his
step-grandmother Rose (Hobson) Desborough as her "grandson".

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 22:35:02

In a message dated 4/7/06 1:15:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< In the Skipwith case there is
not a shred of evidence that "sonne in law" meant anything but , even
though Dale was a wealthy man and large amounts of property were
involved. >>


Not technically because son-in-law included the idea of step-son-in-law
within it.
As to whether there is evidence that this relationship was step not
biological, yes there is evidence. You just don't want it to exist. And you have yet
to acknowledge that it exists.
So again, once you do that, and change "iron-clad" to possible, probable
or likely, you'll never win this discussion.
Will Johnson

Gordon Banks

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gordon Banks » 07 apr 2006 22:41:05

The Mayflower Society still lists one of my ancestors, Charles
Dickinson, as a Tilley descendant despite an article published in TAG to
the contrary in 1966! Marston Watson's recent book on Marbury
descendants had the error, and when I called him about it, he said he
had checked it with the Society and they claimed it was valid. I think
the TAG article pretty well proved it wasn't valid and wasn't even
plausible. Perhaps there are too many members dependent on that
descent, I don't know.

On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 16:28 -0600, Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

Unforunately, the nature of the hardcover-publications of the DAR, just like
Burke's means we will have to revisit these same spurious lines over and over
and over and over probably for a hundred years or more. Each person who newly
*finds* their line will claim that its a *proven* line because it's in the
DAR lineage books. However proof is such an elusive creature she sometimes
flits just a step beyond our grasp.

Just an aside for those interested, when the DAR produced their reissue
of their Patriot Index a few years back, they (supposedly) went back
through the 100 years of lineage papers and reevaluated all submitted
evidence for each soldier, striking from the volumes any ancestor who
could not have been traced to using modern standards (resulting in the
purging of two of mine - one which traced to a documented soldier, but
via a line that was missing a generation as was documented in 1915 with
nothing more than a personal testimonial, the other tracing to a
'soldier' who was 4 years old when an individual of his name first
appears on the militia rolls 100 miles away). If a soldier appears in
the Lineage Books, and not in the Patriot Index, then the conclusion is
obvious (although this does not mean that if he does appear in the PI,
that the line in the Lineage Books is valid).

The Mayflower Society has also made significant improvement in recent
decades - they used to allow membership based on documenting only back
to another member or any individual appearing in the lineage papers of
another member (ignoring whether that prior member's lineage was valid
or not) but now require every generation to be documented. (Further,
with the MFFG project, and particularly the latter generations, they
have made a major step toward documenting all known-valid lines down to
the time of the American Revolution.)

Still, the system is not foolproof. I once exchanged email with someone
who had put together a lineage, tracing through a family I had worked
on. He had not one but two cases of picking the wrong person of the
given name. No one other than I had ever dug into the issue to the
degree that the problem became evident - there being, I found, six men
of the same name about at the same time in the same town, all to a
greater or lesser degree conflated into each other. I told him that he
had selected the wrong one (and that the right one did not share the
descent), and documented it fully with probate and land records. He
simply told me that they (the Mayflower Society) wouldn't know any
better, so he was going to give it a try anyhow and hopefully they
wouldn't know the difference. Note that this is not a case of differing
standards. No representative of the Society could possibly have seen
the flaw in his papers without repeating my decades-worth of research.
Just because a lineage is accepted by a society doesn't mean it meets
their own standards - it may just slip through, innocently or fraudulently.

taf

Bob Turcott

RE: Unknown Crests

Legg inn av Bob Turcott » 07 apr 2006 23:00:03

William,

I am looking into this, I believe the Lions are decorative "like a support
of the shield"

What is important is the actual crest in the middle or center with the
markings, those I believe
are the true elements of the arms.

However, I have never seen oval or eliptical shaped shield before that is
shown on the right!!!

Caution to all in this forum: the colors may not be correct as it was
repainted
recently without regard of original colors!!!!!


From: "William L Gammage" <wgammage@sbcglobal.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Unknown Crests
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 21:45:03 -0500

I had seen the below site some years ago, and was wondering if anyone
knows the answer to the crests in question. I don't know if they have
ever been identified. If so, can someone lead me to where they are
identified? I have copied the original posting done in the
Belgium-roots-L list

"From: "Sandra Muys" < <mailto:toots@zeelandnet.nl
toots@zeelandnet.nl
Subject: Unknown family crests / Coats of arms
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:07:07 +0100
Hello,

At the end of the Leeuwenlaan here in Terneuzen, The Netherlands are two
stone lions with family crests carved into them. We are trying to find
out to who these crests belong. These lions could date from the late
1500's or from the 1800's. It is at this point unknown.

We have made an informative webpage, including photo's of the lions
here:
http://people.zeelandnet.nl/ehamelink/l ... wtjes.html
http://people.zeelandnet.nl/ehamelink/l ... wtjes.html

A search in many books with family crests has not found them (including
Rietstap).

If you have any idea to which family these crests could belong, please
contact us.

Thank you very much.

Sandra Muys & Edwin Hamelink"


William L Gammage



_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/

Leo van de Pas

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 07 apr 2006 23:13:04

See at the bottom

----- Original Message -----
From: <mjcar@btinternet.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: Standards of Evidence


Gordon Banks schrieb:

The Mayflower Society still lists one of my ancestors, Charles
Dickinson, as a Tilley descendant despite an article published in TAG to
the contrary in 1966! Marston Watson's recent book on Marbury
descendants had the error, and when I called him about it, he said he
had checked it with the Society and they claimed it was valid. I think
the TAG article pretty well proved it wasn't valid and wasn't even
plausible. Perhaps there are too many members dependent on that
descent, I don't know.

You Americans have it tough!!

When I wrote to the Society of the Descendants of the Knights of the
Order of the Garter (based at Windsor Castle; Patron: HM The Queen) to
ask about membership and what proofs were required, they responded by
sending me a membership badge...

MA-R

What do you expect? They did know you :-)

Leo

Gjest

Re: Samuel Desborough

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 23:20:04

In a message dated 4/7/06 2:11:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
AlexStewart17@aol.com writes:

<< The article does actually say Sarah died in Mar 1649, >>

Alex either you are misreading it or there is a typographical error.
The old DNB says "By her, who died in 1654, he had a daughter Sarah, born in
March 1649 and a son James...."

"Her who died" referring to his wife Dorothy, not his daughter Sarah.

Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 07 apr 2006 23:25:18

Gordon Banks wrote:
The Mayflower Society still lists one of my ancestors, Charles
Dickinson, as a Tilley descendant despite an article published in TAG to
the contrary in 1966! Marston Watson's recent book on Marbury
descendants had the error, and when I called him about it, he said he
had checked it with the Society and they claimed it was valid. I think
the TAG article pretty well proved it wasn't valid and wasn't even
plausible. Perhaps there are too many members dependent on that
descent, I don't know.

It is a little hard making general statements about the MS. Some of
their leadership are very strict. Others . . . . (A couple of years
ago, I was there, trying to get the lineage papers that proved through a
particular connection. I had already produced a circumstantial argument
that it was wrong, but wanted to see the actual documentation originally
used to 'prove' the line. When I explained that I thought an accepted
line was wrong, the librarian told me that it couldn't be wrong, since
it was accepted - silly me. To add insult to injury, the papers are not
filed by ancestor, but by member, and so unless I could give the name of
the member, they couldn't find the papers. I used the old lineage index
to trace the line down to the member, whose name I then recognized, but
the librarian told me there was no way you could use the index to trace
down a line, only up, and refused to get the papers I had identified.

I really don't think the Society has taken a position on any particular
relationship, although the Silver Books have become a de facto position.
Lineage papers are given to a checker, and evaluated based on the
skill and standards of that checker. Unlike the DAR, which in the
process of compiling their new Patriot Index reevaluated all lines
submitted, this has not been done for the MS, except for the MFFG
generations. To say they "still have it as valid" just means that it is
in their files without any annotation that it has been nixed, and it
would not get that annotation unless someone brought it to their
attention - they have not gone back to review old lines.

taf

John Brandon

Re: Is Guthlake [...]rston actually Guthlake Overton?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 07 apr 2006 23:55:12

I believe Guthlac Overton was ancestral to Peter Bulkeley. See Jacobus', _Bulkeley_, where there is a "Cutler" [Guthlac?] Overton.

Thanks-- I thought it was either Welby or Bulkeley ...

Gjest

Re: Samuel Desborough

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2006 23:57:02

In a message dated 4/7/06 2:31:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
AlexStewart17@aol.com writes:

<< "The couple had at least one daughter, Sarah, who died in March
1649, and a son James who married Abigail Marsh...." >>

Hillarious. Evidently the copy-editor's eye skipped a line and shortened the
original sentence, changing it's intent entirely.

Gjest

Re: Samuel Desborough

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 00:38:02

In a message dated 4/7/06 3:15:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
AlexStewart17@aol.com writes:

<< Quite right, Will. I am glad we have reached a note of humorous agreement.
I
know it is late here in the UK but I knew I had read it carefully and
correctly! Perhaps we should write to the Editor. >>

Hey wasn't there someone collecting and posting corrections to the DNB?
Oh wait... that was me. Never mind.

Tony Hoskins

Re: Is Guthlake [...]rston actually Guthlake Overton?

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 08 apr 2006 00:53:02

I believe Guthlac Overton was ancestral to Peter Bulkeley. See Jacobus',
_Bulkeley_, where there is a "Cutler" [Guthlac?] Overton.

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

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 08 apr 2006 01:07:20

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/7/06 4:50:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com writes:

that Mary was no younger
than 16 when she married by 1671, and that Diana Skipworth was still
single in Nov 1655.

You just destroyed your own evidence.
If Diana was single in Nov 1655
Let's say she married in Dec 1655 even, then she could not have had a
daughter until at least Aug of 1656
In 1671 said-daughter would be not 16 as you need, but 14 to 15.

Umm, Vickie said that she thought Mary was not daughter of Diana, ("I
think that Mary was probably not Diana's daughter") so why does this
destroy her evidence?

taf

Gjest

Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 01:22:02

In a message dated 4/7/06 4:15:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< The "old guard" of this newsgroup are peddling the notions that their
genealogical standards are "better" than mine, >>

Yes. When you willfully ignore and still refuse to respond to the point that
started this in the first place.

Yes. When you ignore counter-evidence and can not even bring yourself to
mention the counter-evidence.

I am still waiting for your opinion on Diana Dale's use of her maiden name.
Are we going to have it yet after a hundred or a thousand posts on this
secondary point?

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Is Guthlake [...]rston actually Guthlake Overton?

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 01:37:01

Thanks for posting this. This Robert Browne, who died 1506, was the first
husband of Isabell Sharp, daughter of Christopher Sharpe, the brother of John
Sharpe. Robert Browne was the g-grandfather of Sir Robert Browne (-1623) who
was created 1st baronet of Walcot. Some time ago I raised a query about
Robert Browne (-1506) being described, by Burkes I expect, as Chancellor of the
Exchequer, but it transpired that he was actually the Auditor for the Duchy
of Lancashire for the cos of Lincs, Norfolk, Warwicks and Leicestershire, so
your message about him being taught audership fits in well.

regards,
Adrian


MA-R wrote,

There is a third PRO document dated 1518-1529 which provides an extra
snippet of information, presumably about this same gentleman (C
1/551/49):

"Guthlac Overton. v. John Turnour and George Quarles, auditors, and
Hugh Edwardes, executors of John Sharpe, knight.: Money due to
complainant as solicitor of the said Sir John, and for bread and
lodging of Robert Browne, his nephew, and teaching him the `faculte of
audytoriship.': London."

MA-R

Gjest

Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 02:04:01

In a message dated 4/7/06 4:50:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com writes:

<< that Mary was no younger
than 16 when she married by 1671, and that Diana Skipworth was still
single in Nov 1655. >>

You just destroyed your own evidence.
If Diana was single in Nov 1655
Let's say she married in Dec 1655 even, then she could not have had a
daughter until at least Aug of 1656
In 1671 said-daughter would be not 16 as you need, but 14 to 15.

Will Johnson

Brad Verity

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 08 apr 2006 02:06:29

ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:

There is a question as to the maternity of the three known children of
Daniel Harrison.

[snip of very interesting details on the Harrison children]

So there may well be four children of Mary Dale and I believe there are
descendants from the Stephens marriage also.

Dear MichaelAnne,

Thank you for the post - I had overlooked your previous post on the
Harrison children in all the myriad threads on this topic.

These Virginia individuals seemed to be serial spouses! As soon as one
was dead, take another. Good for them, but it makes it complicated for
genealogists today.

You and Joan are doing a great job of sorting out all of these
Dale/Skipwith kin. Thank you for helping the rest of us to keep them
all straight.

And thanks also for your reply on the ages of 17th century Virginia
girls at first marriage.

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

Gjest

Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 03:15:02

In a message dated 4/7/06 4:50:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
VEWhite@nycap.rr.com writes:

<< I think that Mary was probably not Diana's daughter, >>

Mea culpa.
I hate it when I trip over the foot I have in my mouth....

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Is Guthlake [...]rston actually Guthlake Overton?

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 03:19:01

Dear John and others,
According to Henry Waters " Genealogical
Gleanings in England, part II p 1049 (please note page numbers begin with page
845 in this volume) pg 1040 has the will of Rose Beawe, widow, made 30 April
1579 and naming her as widow of Richard Beawe, gent. of London deceased names
first daughter Oliff Bulkeley`s children by Edward Bulkeley Doctor of Divinity
and Preacher at Odell, Bedfordshire fifty pounds of mine now being in the
care and custody of my brother Dr Overton. Daughter Phebe Kiddall, wife of Thomas
Kiddall to have all the goods of her house and if She did before her husband,
the goods to go to Oliff Bulkley to keep for her own use, I make and ordain
my executor Mr William Le Gris, Esq. who was to recieve a bond on a debt of
three score pounds owed her by Walter Buckland, gent for redeeming her thirds
which She then had out of his Somersetshire and Wiltshire lands which He now
enjoyeth and hath as next heir of Richard Buckland his father deceased.
Sincerely,
James
W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

JeffChipman

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 08 apr 2006 03:40:00

I'm glad you pointed that out, Will, because that's exactly what I did
with the "sonne in law" comment. Vickie thought this was a great joke
on me and actually used this "grandson" business as support for her
case. When I pointed out that this also supported me, she decided it
was "scribal error." I think what she was saying was that when the
will was copied into the will book or whatever repository, the person
copying the will made a mistake; that's the party line.

"They aren't saying it means 'one thing' they are saying it doesn't
mean one thing." That's great. Of course they're saying it means one
thing: they're saying it means "scribal error." Why do you think
that's different? These people got pretty pushy and tried to tell me
that I had to do this or that and if I didn't I wasn't a good
genealogist. I think you were among those people.

I think what people will take away from this series of posts, if they
can get past the character assassinations, etc., is that people like
Nat Taylor and Vickie Elam want their standards, which are actually
subjective (that's not a problem, you cannot do otherwise) accepted as
some kind of "objective" standards for all genealogists to follow. Why
they think thei standards are better than anybody else's, I have no
idea. Why would I think Vickie Elam's standards are any better than
mine? She switched horses in the middle of the stream! As far as I
can tell, she doesn't have any standards.

I am not going to fight city hall. I am saying that I reject the
notion that just because something IS possible in a few cases (and I'm
not going to get in an argument about what makes a statistical sample,
how questions should be phrased, rule out possibilites, etc.) and
furthermore, that if I DON'T see evidence that that it is the truth in
a certain case, I'm not going to hound somebody for not researching
that angle, when considering the devestation caused by the Civil War in
VA, we're lucky to have the records we do. If that scandalizes Nat and
Vickie, well, I'll live with it. But I'm going to make sure that the
people who monitor this newsgroup and use the archives are going to see
the other side. If you don't like that, it's your problem. So now
instead of Nat's flip remark, we have Vickie abruptly switiching
direction (now that she realizes she actually flubbed), and on top of
it, she refuses to post additional evidence. In my mind, that make's
Vickie's value to me absolutely zero.

If you people want to listen to her, you have a perfect right to do so.

JTC

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 08 apr 2006 04:00:22

JeffChipman wrote:

[a lot of drivel, but also:

I think what people will take away from this series of posts, if they
can get past the character assassinations, etc., . . .

and then, in the same paragraph:

Why would I think Vickie Elam's standards are any better than
mine? She switched horses in the middle of the stream! As far as I
can tell, she doesn't have any standards.

and later:

In my mind, that make's
Vickie's value to me absolutely zero.



Yes, if they can get past those character assassinations . . . .

taf

Vickie Elam White

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 08 apr 2006 04:02:55

Jeff,

Actually, my main point was about son in law being used to mean
husband of my step-daughter, which is what you asked. The grandson
and step-grandson bit was a bonus.

And by scribal error I meant the person who wrote the will originally
not the person who copied it into the will book. But, I suppose it could
be either instance.

BTW, my name is Vickie Elam White. See how easily it can happen? <G>

I descend from the Elams, a long line of Yorkshire merchants who
came to VA in the 1630s. Showing maiden name helps me make the
acquaintance of many other Elam researchers.


Vickie Elam White

"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144464000.593922.200100@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm glad you pointed that out, Will, because that's exactly what I did
with the "sonne in law" comment. Vickie thought this was a great joke
on me and actually used this "grandson" business as support for her
case. When I pointed out that this also supported me, she decided it
was "scribal error." I think what she was saying was that when the
will was copied into the will book or whatever repository, the person
copying the will made a mistake; that's the party line.

"They aren't saying it means 'one thing' they are saying it doesn't
mean one thing." That's great. Of course they're saying it means one
thing: they're saying it means "scribal error." Why do you think
that's different? These people got pretty pushy and tried to tell me
that I had to do this or that and if I didn't I wasn't a good
genealogist. I think you were among those people.

I think what people will take away from this series of posts, if they
can get past the character assassinations, etc., is that people like
Nat Taylor and Vickie Elam want their standards, which are actually
subjective (that's not a problem, you cannot do otherwise) accepted as
some kind of "objective" standards for all genealogists to follow. Why
they think thei standards are better than anybody else's, I have no
idea. Why would I think Vickie Elam's standards are any better than
mine? She switched horses in the middle of the stream! As far as I
can tell, she doesn't have any standards.

I am not going to fight city hall. I am saying that I reject the
notion that just because something IS possible in a few cases (and I'm
not going to get in an argument about what makes a statistical sample,
how questions should be phrased, rule out possibilites, etc.) and
furthermore, that if I DON'T see evidence that that it is the truth in
a certain case, I'm not going to hound somebody for not researching
that angle, when considering the devestation caused by the Civil War in
VA, we're lucky to have the records we do. If that scandalizes Nat and
Vickie, well, I'll live with it. But I'm going to make sure that the
people who monitor this newsgroup and use the archives are going to see
the other side. If you don't like that, it's your problem. So now
instead of Nat's flip remark, we have Vickie abruptly switiching
direction (now that she realizes she actually flubbed), and on top of
it, she refuses to post additional evidence. In my mind, that make's
Vickie's value to me absolutely zero.

If you people want to listen to her, you have a perfect right to do so.

JTC

Gjest

Re: Is Guthlake [...]rston actually Guthlake Overton?

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 04:09:02

Dear John and Others,
In Henry Waters" Genealogical Gleanings in
England part II p 1049 We have the will of Rose`s husband Richard Buckland, of
Clerkenwell, Middlesex , Esq 28 August 1558, Proved 12 October 1558 to be
buried in the parish Church of Clerkenwell as nigh unto the grave where my wife
Mary lieth buried as may be conveniently be. To the high altar of said church.
To the High Altar of the church of Westham forv my tithes forgotten, The Poor
of Shepton Mallet in the co. of Somerset whereas I was born. To Roose my wife
two hundred pounds and all such implements and household stuff as were her own
proper goods at the time of the spousals and marriage had and solemnized
between her and me (and other bequests). My Mansion house at Clerkenwell. My
children Richard and Margaret Buckland. The said Rose my wife shall have and enjoy
the third part and portion of my manor of Shipton Mallet for term of her life
natural as in full recompense of her dowry that She may claim &c. To my son
Mathie Buckland and his heirs male all my manors of Melston als Bagmerston als
Brightmtson in Wiltshire &c &c and my manor of Shipton Mallet &c which I have
charged with my wife`s dowry. My son Walter Buckland, my house at Westham,
Essex. Mathie Buckland my son and heir apparent and also my sole executor. my
sister Alice Bithisie, to daughter Bridget Buckland a cross of gold her mother
gave her &c. She not to affye, marry and take to husband one William Overton
or Anthony Overton or any other of their brothers, being the sons of Goodlake
Overton, late of St John`s street, gentleman deceased. To daughter Margaret
Buckland, the beads of gold that were her mother`s &c, Item I give and bequeath
to either Peter Kellam Erbye or Edward Ireby, my wife`s children a black
gown.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 08 apr 2006 04:29:16

JeffChipman wrote:

I think what people will take away from this series of posts, if they
can get past the character assassinations, etc., is that people like
Nat Taylor and Vickie Elam want their standards, which are actually
subjective (that's not a problem, you cannot do otherwise) accepted as
some kind of "objective" standards for all genealogists to follow. Why
they think thei standards are better than anybody else's, I have no
idea.

No, you wouldn't, but I do - their standards are logically consistent.
They apply the same standards to all evidence, rather than applying a
higher standard to others than to themselves, as _someone_ in this
discussion hypocritically does. They apply the same standards equally
to England, New England, and Virginia, unlike _someone_ in this
discussion hypocritically does. I can easily understand why they would
apply this criterion to evaluating which standards are better, but given
your posts, I can see why you would have no idea.

Why would I think Vickie Elam's standards are any better than
mine?

You wouldn't, as you are always right.

I think what people will take from this is that some people will do
anything: lie, distort, bluff, bluster, insult, demand, build so many
strawmen that the commodities markets are put into an uproar, etc.
anything, just so they can avoid facing the fact that their cherished
pedigree isn't as strong as they want it to be.

I am not going to fight city hall. I am saying that I reject the
notion that just because something IS possible in a few cases (and I'm
not going to get in an argument about what makes a statistical sample,
how questions should be phrased, rule out possibilites, etc.) and
furthermore, that if I DON'T see evidence that that it is the truth in
a certain case, I'm not going to hound somebody for not researching
that angle, when considering the devestation caused by the Civil War in
VA, we're lucky to have the records we do.

So, rather than formally excluding a possibility, or simply describing a
connection with a qualifier appropriate to the fact that such a
possibility has not been excluded, you would instead blame it all on
Gen. Grant, toss back a toast to the hallowed memory of John Wilkes
Booth, and call it "iron-clad" proven. Is that what you are saying?

But I'm going to make sure that the
people who monitor this newsgroup and use the archives are going to see
the other side.

Oh, they have certainly seen where you are coming from.

If you don't like that, it's your problem. So now
instead of Nat's flip remark, we have Vickie abruptly switiching
direction (now that she realizes she actually flubbed), and on top of
it, she refuses to post additional evidence. In my mind, that make's
Vickie's value to me absolutely zero.

Does this come as a surprise to _anyone_? that after deciding you could
ignore references to step-son-in-law from other places and times, and
Virginia references to a range of uses of -in-law, you now have
concluded that you can ignore evidence from the place and time under
consideration of the exact relationship under consideration?

If you people want to listen to her, you have a perfect right to do so.

Thanks for clarifying. I was wondering about that.

taf

Gjest

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 05:14:47

In a message dated 4/7/06 6:50:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< Unfortunately, we have a double standard here. If Vickie or Nat says
something means something, then their opinion, regardless of how it was
formed, is more important than mine. >>

But they aren't saying it means "one thing" they are saying it doesn't mean
"one thing". That's entirely different.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 05:16:02

In a message dated 4/7/06 7:50:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< I am saying that I reject the
notion that just because something IS possible in a few cases >>

But see part of the problem is you keep insisting that this usage was some
sort of exception, and it wasn't. My point of view is that they had no notion
of a sufficient distinction.

An analogy today would be to "uncle" which can mean "mother's brother" or
"father's brother" equally. There is no way to distinguish which, and statistics
won't help you figure out which in a particular case.

At some point perhaps English will come up with a new word "muncle" for
"mother's brother'" and we will gradually change to calling them muncles and the
other type just plain uncles. And there will be a period of time when there is
the terms will be interchangeable. Even within the same document.

I don't think it's a scribal error, I think the two terms were
interchangeable, just like uncle and muncle will be in a hundred years.

However a hundred years *later* than that, they won't be interchangeable any
longer, and the language will, in this case again, be *fixed* (that is "in
place" not "corrected of error").

There are plenty of examples showing that both "step" and "in-law" were
sometimes discarded. The reason in my opinion, being because the people using the
terms didn't see the need for such new-fangled language.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 05:16:22

In a message dated 4/7/06 6:50:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

<< I just don't think these relatively uncommon things are enough to
reject somebody's evidence. If there is evidence that the term meant
something else, I will ask for additional documentation. >>

But it wasn't an "uncommon" usage, it was their normal everyday usage.
It's only you who can't see that this was common in that time.
Will Johnson

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Peter Breouse, donsel, of the diocese of Norfolk.

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 08 apr 2006 06:11:02

In article <75.57ee5874.31689e27@aol.com>, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:05:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:

1345
Indults to the underwritten persons to choose confessors, who shall give
them, being penitent, plenary remission at the hour of death, with the
usual safeguards:---

Indulgences ?

Indults. See:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07789a.htm

Nat Taylor

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

Gjest

Re: Peter Breouse, donsel, of the diocese of Norfolk.

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 07:05:02

In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:05:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:

1345
Indults to the underwritten persons to choose confessors, who shall give
them, being penitent, plenary remission at the hour of death, with the
usual safeguards:---


Indulgences ?
Will Johnson

Robert Forrest

Re: Guthlake Overton

Legg inn av Robert Forrest » 08 apr 2006 07:47:01

See also comments by Kay Allen in Jun 1997 and Dec 2000 SGM archives.

Ken Ozanne

Re: Doddiscombe

Legg inn av Ken Ozanne » 08 apr 2006 08:27:02

Dear List,
I'm not sure anyone is interested, but I did turn up a bit more
about this family.

There was one reference in A2A:

FILE - PAIGNTON - ref. 50/11/43/5  - date: 19 March 1304 32 Edward I

Scope and Content

Quitclaim
William de Aleborne
to
Philip Rurde of Dertemue
Lands and tenements of Aleborne in the manor of Peyngton', of which the said
Philip was seised by virtue of the King's Statute of Merchants issued at
Acton' Burnel for £8 owing him by said William; To hold for ever of the
chief lords of the fee.
Witnesses: Ralph de Doddescomb', William de Peneylles, John de Hakeworthy,
Henry de Lappeflode, John de Bynnelegh'.
Date: Exeter, Thursday next after the feast of St. Gregory the Pope, 32
Edward.
Seals: All five witnesses, as well as William de Aleborne, appended their
seals. Only four seals, and the fragment of a fifth, remain.


In absence of another candidate, I'd be inclined to put that Ralph
Doddiscombe as father of John. I have lots of dates for John from various
websites but they are mostly contradictory. Most sheriffs of Devon seem to
have died soon after being appointed so I don't believe this one could be
the Ralph who was sheriff 44 Hen III. Possibly his son.

It appears that John had 5 daughters - Emma, Cicely, Alice, Joan and one
whose name I don't know. Cicely married Simon Newnham, son of John de
Plympton and he apparently adopted the Doddiscombe arms. Joan married
Nicholas Tremayne about 1400. Both of those marriages come from Ancient West
Country Families. Emma married John Pollard of Waye according to both the
1564 and 1620 Devon Visitations. Alice married William Bykeberry according
to an undocumented website that also gives John Doddiscombe's wife as Cecily
and has both of them living 1326. It is possible that the 5th daughter was
the Agnes mentioned in my earlier post.

It seems odd to me that we know so little about a family who produced a
sheriff of Devon. Also one that appears among the ancestry of Oliver
Mainwaring (Manwaring).

Best,
Ken


I wrote:
Dear List,
It seems to be agreed that Emma (Emne) Doddiscombe married John
Pollard of Waye sometime in the early 1400s. It is also known that her
father was Sir John Doddiscombe. I've seen a couple of attempts at his wife,
one of them Cecilia unknown, the other Joanna Peveril. No source worth
noting for either.

That much has appeared here before (in 1996) as has an Agnes
Doddescombe who married a Branscombe (from memory) but not clear where she
fits in otherwise.

It doesn't seem to have been mentioned that there was a Sir Ralph
Doddescombe sheriff of Devon 44 Hen III. (I took that from Tristram Risdon's
list, given that the Chorographic Survey of Devon is currently available for
free viewing.) Back in 1996 Todd mentioned that a Ralph Doddescombe was
alive in 1241, presumably the same man.

Does anyone know any more?

Renia

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Renia » 08 apr 2006 08:29:54

JeffChipman wrote:


But I'm going to make sure that the
people who monitor this newsgroup and use the archives are going to see
the other side.


Most of the people who monitor this newsgroup seem to have joined in and
and given you evidence for the meaning of "stepson", but you have
disagreed with all of them, flying off at all sorts of tangents. Now you
have moved the goalpoasts again and criticised Vickie for presenting
evidence which contained alternate meanings for "grandson". Many of the
people you are criticising are experienced and very careful
genealogists. You appear to be new at the game and very inexperienced.

It also apppears you haven't read the post on the article you cited
which you haven't read, but which I won't bother repeating, because you
will criticise that, too.

You suffer from verbal diahorrea which you use to veil the fact that you
don't know what you are talking about but hate to be proved wrong.

As Becky suggested, you are nothing more than a stirrer who likes to argue.

That comes under the sub-heading of TROLL.

Gjest

Re: Standards of Evidence

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 08:45:37

"Leo van de Pas" schrieb:

See at the bottom

----- Original Message -----
From: <mjcar@btinternet.com

When I wrote to the Society of the Descendants of the Knights of the
Order of the Garter (based at Windsor Castle; Patron: HM The Queen) to
ask about membership and what proofs were required, they responded by
sending me a membership badge...

MA-R

What do you expect? They did know you :-)
Leo

Indeed they do, which makes it all the more surprising that I was
accepted! ;-)

MAR

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 18:01:02

Hi Brad:
In a message dated 4/7/2006 9:15:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

And thanks also for your reply on the ages of 17th century Virginia
girls at first marriage.

I have come across many records of girls marrying for the first time
before the age of 12 in 17th and 18th century Virginia. At first I thought that
this had to have been an error. I carefully check the St. Stephen's Parish
Birth and Death Records. The dates of birth were correct, so I went back to the
deeds, wills, etc., that mentioned them as wives of so and so. Again,
everything checked out. I spoke to Preston Haynie at the Northumberland County
Historical Society about this and he said that it wasn't unusual for a girl to
marry before the age of 12. He said that there was a provision that when the
girl turned 12, she could ask to have the marriage made null and void. Two of
these underage girls are my ancestors. One was 11 and married her next door
neighbor who was about 23/24. She was pregnant at the time. She died before her
father wrote his will. He bequeath money to the child that she bore and one
schilling to the father of the child. He referred to him as his son-in-law,
but it was quite plain that he didn't care of him.

Last night, I checked all of my issues of the Northumberland County
Historical Society Bulletin (yearly publication), and did not find an article on
the marriage ages of 17th and 18 century girl. The information might be
contained in one of the articles, but since I have over 30 issues, I didn't read
through the issues page by page.

Something that might be of interest is that one of the founders of the
Northumberland County Historical, the late Dr. James Motley Booker, an
outstanding genealogist, wrote a book about his ancestry. He included a charter on
the Rogers family, as he was also descended from William Rogers and Elizabeth
Dale. The charter does not have any additional information than what was
already posted to the newsgroup.

Thanks for your kind words.

Joan Burdyck


Gjest

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 19:35:03

In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:59:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sysite@swbell.net writes:

it seems probable that in 17thC Virginia, there was a legal
difference between common law rights of "grandchildren" v.
"grandchildren in law" that could be altered by a will.


Well the most straightforward one being that grandchildren were heirs of the
body.

Would grandchildren, not normally inherit their deceased parents portion of
the estate ?

If a person wants their goods to be divided-in-equal-parts to their natural
heirs, there is no need to make a will at all. So apparently this will is
trying to circumvent the natural descent. Perhaps there was more than one
child who would have received, or other dead children, with living children of
their own (thus grandchildren "of the body").

I didn't see the part where someone claimed this family has been thoroughly
and methodically reconstructed to test these theories.

Will

Chris Dickinson

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 08 apr 2006 19:38:57

Will Johnson wrote:


Well the most straightforward one being that grandchildren were heirs of
the
body.

Would grandchildren, not normally inherit their deceased parents portion of
the estate ?


If a person wants their goods to be divided-in-equal-parts to their
natural
heirs, there is no need to make a will at all.


The problem is that inheritance wasn't a straightforward
one-rule-applies-to-all. In England it would depend on a number of things,
not the least of which were the customs of the local manor. I have
absolutely no idea how the English manorial system was adapted in the
American colonies, if at all; but suspect that Americans had more recourse
to 'in-law' as local custom 'time out of mind' wasn't established.

The other point is, of course, that propertied families (then as now) made
arrangements throughout the lifetime of the parents. These would involve,
for instance, providing suitable sums for daughters to attract husbands, the
passing on of grandparent settlements to their grandchildren (held in trust
by the parents), and the setting up of independent properties for their
sons. These sorts of calculations were complicated for parents who wanted to
make equitable arrangements - or who held legacies that they had invested
and couldn't easily convert into cash for the heirs.

It was normal, therefore, for wills to include standard portions ('I give my
son William two shillings in satisfaction of his child's portion') to
prevent anyone from challenging and upsetting the applecart. Such phrases
are good indications that the will is merely setting a seal on a whole
cartload of complicated arrangements.

When stepchildren get involved (either because property has been inherited
from grandparents; or the step-siblings can't stand each other; or the heir
is likely to want to chuck his stepmother out of the home), the situation
gets complicated. So, yes, you get more complicated clauses threatening
disinheritance, etc..

Here, it looks to me as though the 'grandchildren in law' is playing a
role a little like the tiny 'child's portion'. It's saying - these people
have a legal relationship to me that has already been settled - tough folks,
you can't challenge it, however greedy you are.

Chris

JeffChipman

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 08 apr 2006 19:55:14

What do you want me to tell, you Will? You've gone from saying one
example discards evidence, to "plenty of examples" illustrate your
point, if you even know what your point is anymore. You now
acknowledge that this "grandson" business is not "scribal
error," and I think that an even bigger possibility is that a man
could call a child "daughter," when in fact there was no blood
connection at all, and we will never know it! Genealogy isn't about
being 100 per cent sure of anything. It's about establishing
relationships using documents of the period as diligently as we can.
"Nit-picking" over every possibility doesn't mean the person
doing that has better standards than I do.

I don't remember all the details of the "warming pan baby"
incident, but I think it involved an allegation that James II's queen
had had an infant smuggled into her chambers in a warming pan, and was
passing it off as the royal couple's biological offspring. James II
was unpopular because of his religious beliefs, and the politics of the
day demanded that he have no legitimate heir, so they "challenged"
the parentage of this son. (I don't remember exactly who "they"
were, but maybe parliament.) At least that's how I remember the
story from my college days. The point is, they didn't have DNA in
those days, so how seriously are you going to take the allegation that
James II's son wasn't really his?

I think at this point, the discussion is more political than
genealogical. I think I have fairly stated Nat's argument. When he
made his comment to Joan, he gave the reader the impression that he
knew what he was talking about, and that it was a serious objection.
Somebody using the Gaines will cannot really say how much of a problem
the two meanings of "grandson" are, they've just showed it can
happen. I think anybody telling somebody to re-do their research in
lines that use "grandson" is a "nuisance."

A challenge to a lineage based on speculation doesn't meet my
standard of "reasonable doubt." At best, it raises a possibility
of unknown proportions. If MichaelAnne thinks she has to respond to
every challenge to her ancestry, no matter what it is, that's her
decision. If she thinks this kind of "evidence" invalidates a
line, that's her business, too. Rattling off some possilities
without any notion how they would apply in a specific instance
doesn't cut it for me. Many people reading these threads probably
don't realize that in actuality there are only two meanings for
"sonne in law" that would apply in the Skipwith case:

a. husband of my natural daughter
b. husband of my step-daughter

They probably don't realize that, unlike the Katherine Carter case,
the lines of Mary Dale and Elizabeth Dale have not been "broken."
They have been called into question based upon possible definitions of
a term. I said it didn't happen often enough to raise "reasonable
doubt," but if I thought that any evidence indicated its use was
ambiguous in a given case, then I would want to see more evidence.

And now we have "scribal error." Vickie and Brad thought it was
hilarious when they had produced one (!) example and claimed it was a
complete refutation of my position, but when I pointed out that it also
supported my position, it suddenly became "scribal error." And
this from people who think I'm probably right that Elizabeth Dale was
Skipwith's daughter. I have actually had some very upset people
email me privately and harass me.

I want to see some indication that this term "sonne in law" or
"grandson" IS unreliable or ambiguous in a given case, while Nat
wants to see proof that the term DIDN'T mean some other definition.
That's the subjective nature of standards. As long as you know what
they are, you can decide for yourself how valuable they are. Now we
have proof that the terms "grandson" and "grandson in law"
could be used interchangeably in 17th century VA. I'm not going to
have little old ladies re-write their Colonial Dames applications. How
much of a problem do you think it is that "sonne in law" and
"grandson", both very common terms, can have more than one meaning,
taking into account an observation (made in a different thread) that
there probably aren't enough records left in VA to come to any kind
of "scientific" conclusion? I think we all need to have our cages
rattled from every now and then.

Five minutes ago Brad and Vickie thought their evidence was a complete
refutation of my position (and this based on one example), and now
it's "scribal error

"Scribal error." That's just brilliant. That's one for the
books.

JTC

BTW, my internet connection has been down, so please don't huff and
puff and blow my house down.

Gjest

Re: Peter Breouse, donsel, of the diocese of Norfolk.

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 20:12:02

In a message dated 4/8/2006 7:05:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au writes:

1354
Id. Dec
Indults to the underwritten persons to choose confessors, who shall give
them, being penitent, plenary remission at the hour of death, with the
usual safeguards:---
John de Brewes, knight, and Eva his wife of the diocese of Norwich
Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and
Ireland.: Papal.
REGESTA, VOL CCXXVI p528


1354
4 Non. Aug.
Indults to the underwritten persons to choose confessors, who shall give
them, being penitent, plenary remission at the hour of death, with the
usual safeguards:---
John de Wyngefeld, knight, and Eleanor his wife, of the diocese of Norwich.
Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and
Ireland.: Papal.
REGESTA, VOL CCXXVI p528





Dear Paul,

Thank you for posting these transcriptions. I am sure you are aware of who
they are but for those on the list who may be wondering the above respectively
are:

1) John de Brewes [Aug. 10, 1306-1370] and his wife Eve de Ufford [-aft. May
1370] daughter of Robert de Ufford [June 12, 1268-Bef. Sept. 9, 1316] by his
wife Cecily de Valognes [1284-June 16, 1325]. John de Brewes was son of Sir
Giles de Brewes by his wife Joan de Beaumont. Sir Giles de Brewes had a
brother Sir Richard de Brewes who married Eleanor Shelton and they had a son Sir
Richard de Brewes [1301-aft. 1357] who by his wife Katherine had a daughter
Eleanor de Brewes [-1376]

2) Sir John de Wingfield [-Bef. Oct. 18, 1361] and his wife Eleanor de
Brewes [see above]. They were the parents of Katherine Wingfield [1350-bef. Oct.
1, 1386] who married Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk [-Sept. 5, 1389].

This is a great resource. Thanks.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Chris Dickinson

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 08 apr 2006 20:21:54

Will Johnson wrote:

I don't think we're in the right era here.
Remembering that the colonies didn't get a start until around the time of
James I (more or less), are you suggesting that at that time (1600-1650ish)
,
the law governing inheritence was still topsy-tursy in England with each
manor
doing as they pleased?


Yes.

The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw a whole series of legal
challenges to manorial custom, with differing outcomes.

One of the obvious customary rights that differed from place to place was
that that of the widow - one-third, one-half?

Chris

Symonds

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Symonds » 08 apr 2006 20:43:02

Yes, I agree that grandchildren would normally inherit their deceased
parent's portion of the estate and this is my only personal meetup with
the term "grandchildren in law" in a Virginia document.

And I agree that this will was almost certainly drafted to circumvent
claims based upon descent either by blood or by law. I have not seen
this language before in a will, and it seems evident that Wood, the
testator, had in mind someone or some who, he anticipated, might try to
contest the provision for the Jones grandchildren in law. I believe only
those heirs of the body or those with claims dependent upon that
relationship would have had standing to contest the provision, and, as
you say, those persons could have been children of Wood's known daughter
or children of his own children who predeceased him or those who were
spouses of the blood descendants.

Many researchers have combed records for additional information about
Abraham Wood, his wife, and Peter Jones, the father of the four boys,
and his wife Margaret. However, I do not know of any clear and
convincing evidence which has been found to explicate the relationship
of Abraham Wood to the Jones. Abraham Wood and Peter Jones worked
closely together to manage the defense and affairs of Charles City County.

Marilyn



WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/8/2006 4:59:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sysite@swbell.net writes:

it seems probable that in 17thC Virginia, there was a legal
difference between common law rights of "grandchildren" v.
"grandchildren in law" that could be altered by a will.


Well the most straightforward one being that grandchildren were heirs of the
body.

Would grandchildren, not normally inherit their deceased parents portion of
the estate ?

If a person wants their goods to be divided-in-equal-parts to their natural
heirs, there is no need to make a will at all. So apparently this will is
trying to circumvent the natural descent. Perhaps there was more than one
child who would have received, or other dead children, with living children of
their own (thus grandchildren "of the body").

I didn't see the part where someone claimed this family has been thoroughly
and methodically reconstructed to test these theories.

Will


Gjest

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 21:01:02

In a message dated 4/8/2006 11:52:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
chris@dickinson.uk.net writes:

I have
absolutely no idea how the English manorial system was adapted in the
American colonies, if at all; but suspect that Americans had more recourse
to 'in-law' as local custom 'time out of mind' wasn't established.



I don't think we're in the right era here.
Remembering that the colonies didn't get a start until around the time of
James I (more or less), are you suggesting that at that time (1600-1650ish) ,
the law governing inheritence was still topsy-tursy in England with each manor
doing as they pleased?

Will

Gjest

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 21:15:02

In a message dated 4/8/2006 12:05:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jeffchip9@hotmail.com writes:

What do you want me to tell, you Will? You've gone from saying one
example discards evidence


Jeff you continue to mischaracterize the argument in the most extreme terms.
I never said "one example discards evidence"
I have consistently said, you must examine *all* the evidence, including
that which works against you.

So if you want to support your theory you need to state clearly and without
equivocation what your view is, of the evidence that Diana Dale used her
maiden name as late as late 1655.

And then what your view is, of the evidence that her alleged daughter was
married in 1671.

And then what your view is, of the possibility that she might have been a
second wife.

And then what your view is, of the possibililty that if she was, that
perhaps other daughters were by the first wife as well.

It's a line of argument. So far you have been attacking a point that,
without the rest of the argument being laid-out, applied, and counter-argued...
will get you exactly nowhere.

That's my opinion.
I'm not saying your evidence is faulty. I'm saying it's incomplete.
That's what I've been saying all along. You can't counter an argument,
unless you actually address it on-its-face, not through the side-door. (To
mangle a maxim).

Will Johnson

Renia

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Renia » 08 apr 2006 22:07:16

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/8/2006 11:52:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
chris@dickinson.uk.net writes:

I have
absolutely no idea how the English manorial system was adapted in the
American colonies, if at all; but suspect that Americans had more recourse
to 'in-law' as local custom 'time out of mind' wasn't established.



I don't think we're in the right era here.
Remembering that the colonies didn't get a start until around the time of
James I (more or less), are you suggesting that at that time (1600-1650ish) ,
the law governing inheritence was still topsy-tursy in England with each manor
doing as they pleased?

Many of the English manors followed primogeniture: viz - eldest son was
heir. But other manors followed other customs: viz - in Kent, the eldest
daughter inherited (or was it the youngest son? - either way, it wasn't
like the rest of the country).

Gjest

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2006 22:51:08

Renia schrieb:

Many of the English manors followed primogeniture: viz - eldest son was
heir. But other manors followed other customs: viz - in Kent, the eldest
daughter inherited (or was it the youngest son? - either way, it wasn't
like the rest of the country).

Kentish practice included "gavelkind" (give-all-children) whereby
inheritances were split.

The custom by which the youngest son inherited was the curiously named
"borough English".

MA-R

JohnR

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av JohnR » 08 apr 2006 23:32:16

With Gavelkind a tenant could devise lands by will but on intestacy
land descended to all sons equally, failing that to all daughters
equally. It was not abolished till 1925.
In Borough-English ultimogeniture was common in English boroughs
compared with neighbouring French boroughs where primogniture ran.

JohnR

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 09 apr 2006 00:20:44

JeffChipman wrote:

I think at this point, the discussion is more political than
genealogical. I think I have fairly stated Nat's argument.

The number of participants who would agree with you on this can probably
be counted on one finger.

When he
made his comment to Joan, he gave the reader the impression that he
knew what he was talking about,

And he does know what he is talking about. You on the other hand
_admit_ that you don't, which not only means your own conclusions
regarding the use of "son-in-law" are worthless, but also that you have
no basis for evaluating anyone else's comments. That is how arguing
from a position of ignorance works: if you don't know, you don't know
_and_ you don't have any idea whether the statements of others are true
or not. [Of course, true ignorance also implies ignorance of your
ignorance - there is no one so sure of themselves as the truly
astoundingly gut-wrenchingly ignorant, so I guess we shouldn't be
surprised.]

A challenge to a lineage based on speculation doesn't meet my
standard of "reasonable doubt."

Of course, you are more than willing to speculate that it is nothing but
speculation. With no knowledge whatsoever of the contemporary language
usage, you conclude it meant one thing and only one thing and dismiss
all of the references to just such alternative usages as speculation.
Basically, "I don't have a clue, but I don't want what you say to be
true, so it must be speculation, and as such I can ignore it."

They probably don't realize that, unlike the Katherine Carter case,
the lines of Mary Dale and Elizabeth Dale have not been "broken."

No, they have not, because they were never legitimately forged. They
were never iron-clad, no matter how much you want to lie to yourself.

They have been called into question based upon possible definitions of
a term.

They have been called iron-clad based on the misunderstanding of the
breadth encompassed by a term.

I said it didn't happen often enough to raise "reasonable
doubt,"

And you said this in the same breath as you admitted you didn't have a
clue how frequently it was used with these other meanings.

but if I thought that any evidence indicated its use was
ambiguous in a given case, then I would want to see more evidence.

Considering that you have dismissed out of hand all such evidence, this
is just lip-service.

And now we have "scribal error." Vickie and Brad thought it was
hilarious when they had produced one (!) example and claimed it was a
complete refutation of my position, but when I pointed out that it also
supported my position,

Only in your mind.

And
this from people who think I'm probably right that Elizabeth Dale was
Skipwith's daughter.

Funny that, sticking to one's standards. Believing that, even if your
gut tells you it's probably right, the connection must either be proven
or expressed with the appropriate indication of uncertainty. I can
understand how consistent application of standards would come as a
surprise to you, it being a novel concept.

I have actually had some very upset people
email me privately and harass me.

[Finally, one who the lurkers do _not_ support in email.]

I want to see some indication that this term "sonne in law" or
"grandson" IS unreliable or ambiguous in a given case, while Nat
wants to see proof that the term DIDN'T mean some other definition.

Which is a novel way of recasting your refusal to back up your own
conclusions. The voices I have seen here want you to have iron-clad
evidence for a connection before proclaiming it iron-clad. You want to
proclaim it iron-clad, and then leave it to others to provide evidence
one way or the other. We have a word with numerous definitions. You
choose one based on ignorance, then maintain it at all costs based on
nothing but personal desire, and then say it is to everyone else to
prove it doesn't mean what you want - in a context where you have
already declared that the evidence probably doesn't exist to prove it
either way (and even if they found the smoking gun, you have given clear
indication that you will simply explain it away anyhow). You have given
yourself a blank check to invent your way all the way back to Adam.


That's the subjective nature of standards.

No, that is the hypocritical nature of _your_ standards - that they
require of others what you claim you yourself have no responsibility to
fulfill.

I'm not going to
have little old ladies re-write their Colonial Dames applications.

Not even if they're wrong?

How
much of a problem do you think it is that "sonne in law" and
"grandson", both very common terms, can have more than one meaning,
taking into account an observation (made in a different thread) that
there probably aren't enough records left in VA to come to any kind
of "scientific" conclusion?

So given that there are not enough records to prove relationships, then
we create whatever pedigree we want and proclaim it iron-clad because
disproof is impossible with the scant records. That is no standard at all.


taf

R. Battle

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av R. Battle » 09 apr 2006 01:32:17

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, JeffChipman wrote:

<snip>
Many people reading these threads probably
don't realize that in actuality there are only two meanings for
"sonne in law" that would apply in the Skipwith case:

a. husband of my natural daughter
b. husband of my step-daughter

They probably don't realize that, unlike the Katherine Carter case,
the lines of Mary Dale and Elizabeth Dale have not been "broken."
They have been called into question based upon possible definitions of
a term.
snip


No, they have been called into question based on the apparent existence of
a previous wife who had issue. The fact that two applicable definitions
of "son-in-law" existed is not the thing that calls the line into
question; it merely means that Diana's use of that term cannot be used to
resolve the question.

-Robert Battle

Brad Verity

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 09 apr 2006 03:23:04

Dear Jeff,

Comments interspersed.

JeffChipman wrote:

[snip]

They probably don't realize that, unlike the Katherine Carter case,
the lines of Mary Dale and Elizabeth Dale have not been "broken."
They have been called into question based upon possible definitions of
a term.

The term 'son-in-law' is not the reason the maternity of Mary and
Elizabeth Dale has been called into question, chronology is. If Diana
Skipwith did not marry Edward Dale until 1655 or later, it calls into
question the maternity of all the Dale daughters. For Diana could not
have been the mother (unless she was Dale's mistress before she was his
wife) of Katherine Dale, born 1652, and likely Mary Dale, who was
married in 1670, and thus more than likely born before 1655 as well.
As for Elizabeth Dale's birthdate, she was apparently at least 12 when
she stood as godmother to her nephew Thomas Carter Jr. in 1672, so born
by 1660.

In 1655, Diana Skipwith was age 34, so Elizabeth being her daughter
requires Diana to marry Dale and have a child quickly by 1660, in her
mid-to-late 30s. That is certainly possible, chronologically and
biologically. One could also argue, from a social and chronological
standpoint, that a spinster in the second half of her 30s, transplanted
to a New World, on the run from Cromwell, with the family estate back
in England not looking easily recoverable, could deem to marry a local
attorney with three young daughters and have an instant family.

So, very vital for establishing that Diana was the biolgical mother of
any, or all, of these daughters, is working out a marriage date for her
and Dale, which many competent folks are trying to do.

I said it didn't happen often enough to raise "reasonable
doubt," but if I thought that any evidence indicated its use was
ambiguous in a given case, then I would want to see more evidence.

And Vickie provided you with more evidence.

And now we have "scribal error." Vickie and Brad thought it was
hilarious when they had produced one (!) example and claimed it was a
complete refutation of my position,

Neither Vickie or I claimed any such thing, assuming by "your position"
you mean "Elizabeth Dale was biolgical daughter of Diana Skipwith".
What Vickie did do, and I cheered her on for doing so, was provide a
17th-century Virginia example of 'son-in-law' meaning 'husband of my
step-daughter'. You had been asking over and over for such an example,
and stating Nat Taylor was talking without being able to provide one,
etc.

That the same document also provided an example of 'son-in-law' meaning
'son of my spouse' or 'stepson' within the same sentence was just icing
on the cake, since you had already acknowledged being aware of that use
of the term.

but when I pointed out that it also
supported my position, it suddenly became "scribal error."

Now I've completely lost the plot. When did the use of 'son-in-law' in
the Gaines will become written off as "scribal error"?

Here is the relevant passage from the will:

& the rest to be devided between them equally by my loveing Kinsman,
John Catlett & Sons in Law John Smyth and Ralph Rowzey and not to go to Law
one with the other

John Smyth was 'son-in-law' to Gaines as husband of his stepdaughter
Sarah Rouzey, while Ralph Rouzey was 'son-in-law' to Gaines as the
biological son of Gaines' spouse Margaret Rouzey Gaines, or 'step-son'
to Gaines, as we call it today.

There is no scribal error.

And
this from people who think I'm probably right that Elizabeth Dale was
Skipwith's daughter. I have actually had some very upset people
email me privately and harass me.

I wasn't one of them. I don't find any of this upsetting at all.

I want to see some indication that this term "sonne in law" or
"grandson" IS unreliable or ambiguous in a given case, while Nat
wants to see proof that the term DIDN'T mean some other definition.
That's the subjective nature of standards. As long as you know what
they are, you can decide for yourself how valuable they are.

Which is why standards need to be as objective as possible - otherwise
studying anything becomes craziness.

Now we
have proof that the terms "grandson" and "grandson in law"
could be used interchangeably in 17th century VA.

You know, you keep going on about 'grandson' and 'grandson-in-law' and
I have to admit to being at a complete loss as to your point. They
have nothing to do with the evidence you asked be provided, namely a
17th-century Virginia document where 'son-in-law' is used to describe
the husband of a step-daughter.

I'm not going to
have little old ladies re-write their Colonial Dames applications.

Who asked you to do that? Though I would hope if a little old lady
ever asked you for help with her pedigree that you would hold her line
up to accepted genealogical standards.

How
much of a problem do you think it is that "sonne in law" and
"grandson", both very common terms, can have more than one meaning,

It's only a problem if the ONLY hard-line evidence for a relationship
is that one term. Apparently, there is no document where Diana
Skipwith calls any of the Dale girls "my daughter", so is that one term
the only evidence that they were?

taking into account an observation (made in a different thread) that
there probably aren't enough records left in VA to come to any kind
of "scientific" conclusion?

I made that observation, not having researched a single thing from
colonial Virginia. But since then several folks have posted from 17th
century Virginia documents, so quite a bit does seem to have survived,
thank goodness.

I think we all need to have our cages
rattled from every now and then.

Fine, but don't get angry if you don't get the expected reactions.

Five minutes ago Brad and Vickie thought their evidence was a complete
refutation of my position (and this based on one example), and now
it's "scribal error

I, for the record, never thought it was "a complete refutation of your
position", nor do I think it is a "scribal error" at all.

"Scribal error." That's just brilliant. That's one for the
books.

I don't even know which book it comes from - not any I've read!

BTW, my internet connection has been down, so please don't huff and
puff and blow my house down.

I don't have the time or inclination to huff and puff.

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

Gjest

Re: Marguerite of France, Queen of England 4th cousin to Jea

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 apr 2006 05:09:01

Dear John,
Oops ! Thank You for pointing that out. Yolande, daughter
of Peter was ancestral through Lusignan to Jeanne de Geneville while Yolande,
daughter of Robert III was ancestral to Queen Marguerite through the Duke of
Burgundy.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 09 apr 2006 07:44:36

Brad Verity wrote:

Now we
have proof that the terms "grandson" and "grandson in law"
could be used interchangeably in 17th century VA.

You know, you keep going on about 'grandson' and 'grandson-in-law' and
I have to admit to being at a complete loss as to your point. They
have nothing to do with the evidence you asked be provided, namely a
17th-century Virginia document where 'son-in-law' is used to describe
the husband of a step-daughter.

He made the accusation when son-in-law was being discussed that if you
actually consider all of the possible meanings of a word, you can't
reach any iron-clad conclusions as to what is meant (he failed to
explain why this is a problem, other than that genealogy is no fun if
you can't trace past the point that honest evaluation permits). Now that
we have another term that could mean more than one thing, it 'proves his
point'. His argument is basically that if "son" could mean son-in-law
and "grandson" could mean grandson-in-law, then by our standards no
relational statements can be used because there is no telling what they
mean. He trying to discredit his opponents by portraying them as
genealogical nihilists.

That being said, if, as he claims, he is giving what he considers to be
an honest rendering of the opinions of the other side, then we have all
failed miserably in explaining our points, because his 'honest
assessment' is out in left field. This explanation becomes harder to
accept with each progressive post. Of course there are alternative
explanations: that he is knowingly giving a dishonest rendering, or that
he has so blinkered himself that we couldn't get the point through with
a clue-by-four (i.e that he has basically so strongly embraced his own
strawman version of what we have been trying to say that he interprets
every post through that distorted lens). One way or another, I suspect
that further attempts at getting him to accurately portray the opposing
opinion are doomed to abysmal failure.

taf

Gjest

Re: Hon. Lady?

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 apr 2006 08:16:36

W David Samuelsen schrieb:

I understand about the male side of the title but female side?

Male Hon. Josceline Percy - Margaret Frost

Female Hon. Alice Camoys - Sir Leonard Hastings

What would "Hon." be spelled out in full?

The Honourable.

Gjest

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 apr 2006 08:24:15

Todd A. Farmerie schrieb:

One way or another, I suspect
that further attempts at getting him to accurately portray the opposing
opinion are doomed to abysmal failure.

Amen.

To which observation I would add further attempts to assist Jeff in
seeing reason or applying logic and consistency.

Gjest

Re: Hubbard/Knapp marriage

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 apr 2006 10:50:47

The problem is, we dont know if Judith was mother to all of William
Hubbard's children.
(This is mentioned in the Great Migration sketch of the family, which
somehow missed the information about Judith's ancestry).

Leslie

Gjest

Re: Guthlake Overton

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 apr 2006 15:13:02

Dear Forrest,
Thank You. I had seen the Rootsweb.com Ancestry World
tree had a few websites identifying Guthlake Overton and Olive Browne`s parents
but was unsure of how much faith could be placed in them.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA

Kevin Bradford

Re: BRERETON family

Legg inn av Kevin Bradford » 09 apr 2006 18:08:02

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk

To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 6:36 AM
Subject: BRERETON family

<Can I please ask if any of the Brereton family researchers have any details
<on Randle Bruerton/Brereton who has a will listed in Moreton (Cheshire Indexes) in 1608


Helmsby's 2nd ed. [1882] of George Ormerod's History of Cheshire contains a chart of the Hockenhull family of Prenton. Margaret is listed as having 2 husbands, "Edward Martyn, afterwards of John Jones." [2:532]. Ormerod is almost enccylopedic in his details, but there are some significant gaps in his work.

There are several families of Brereton treated in this same work. I spent a few minutes perusing it for your Randle, and didn't find him, which is not to say that the book will not be of some value to you down the road. For lack of time, I didn't comb through it exhaustively.

I have a descent from the Breretons of Cheshire. William, Knt. [ob. 1484] & Philippa Hulse of Egerton and Brereton, had two sons who are direct ancestors of mine: Andrew and Hugh.

Best,
Kevin

Gjest

Re: Captain William Whittington of Virginia

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 apr 2006 19:32:02

In a message dated 4/9/2006 9:29:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
judith.taylor@planet.nl writes:

live near to where "Cappeteyn Willem Wittinton uyt de Verginjes" (d. 28
September 1659) is buried here in the Netherlands. I have tied him to
Captain William Whittington who fl. 1641-1659 as a commissioner of the court
and militia captain in Accomack County, Virginia, but I have not been able
to tie him to his English ancestors


How exactly have you done this? If you could post the proof text that would
be great.
Thanks
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Captain William Whittington of Virginia

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 apr 2006 19:35:03

Dear Judith and Will,

This may be of interest:

William Whittington of Ackamack in Virginia, merchant, aged 40, William
Melling of the same, merchant, aged 49, and James Cade of London, merchant, aged
52, depose 1 Sept., 1659, that in July last, at Amsterdam, they bought the
ship called the Christina Regina, now the Northampton, on behalf of the
aforesaid William Whittington, Lieut.-Col. William Randall and John Michell of
Ackamack

William Whittington of Northampton county in Virginia, mariner, master of
the ship formerly called the Shepherd, now the Northampton, deposes 19 Aug.,
1657, aged 40.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: Invitation to join the NEW gen-med group about the GENE

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 apr 2006 21:11:01

In a message dated 4/9/2006 12:07:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

A new group to discuss about the genealogies of BOTH sides of the
Mditerranean sea


The Mediterrean has sides?

MLS

RE: Invitation to join the NEW gen-med group about the GENE

Legg inn av MLS » 09 apr 2006 21:15:02

Both Coasts...?

Better?

M

-----Original Message-----
From: WJhonson@aol.com [mailto:WJhonson@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 9:10 PM
To: mlupis@netvigator.com; GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Invitation to join the NEW gen-med group about the
GENEALOGY of MEDITERR...



In a message dated 4/9/2006 12:07:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

A new group to discuss about the genealogies of BOTH sides of the
Mditerranean sea

The Mediterrean has sides?




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

Sponsor:
Cassine di Pietra: vini veneti di qualità subito a casa Sua
* da un’azienda famigliare al servizio di clienti selezionati
*
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3919&d=9-4

Renia

Re: Invitation to join the NEW gen-med group about the GENE

Legg inn av Renia » 09 apr 2006 21:27:42

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/9/2006 12:07:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cannalonga@email.it writes:

A new group to discuss about the genealogies of BOTH sides of the
Mditerranean sea


The Mediterrean has sides?

European side and African side, not forgetting the Asian side.

Gjest

Re: Family of Sir John Hawkwood

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 apr 2006 22:54:44

mjcar@btinternet.com schrieb:

I have been reading "Hawkwood: Diabolical Englishman" by Frances Stonor
Saunders, a well-researched and enjoyable biography of the 14th century
soldier of fortune, Sir John Hawkwood - recommended on the list last
year by Hap and Adrian.

In addition to detailing his Italian second marriage, and making
reference to the daughter of the first marriage, wife of Sir William de
Coggeshall, the author also provides some information about Sir John's
family in Essex.

I drove over to Sible Hedingham this afternoon; it is, for the most
part, a pretty little town, with many well-preserved mediaeval and
Tudor buildings, an Old Rectory, town mill etc. The local signs
feature a representation of Sir John Hawkwood and his arms. The
church, dedicated to St Peter, stands on the summit of hill at the
back of the town. I had intended to view Hawkwood's chantry tomb, for
which the church is noted, but the door was locked and no keyholders'
details were displayed. I telephoned the Vicarage, and was informed
that I "could not be trusted with the key": a sad indictment of modern
life and today's Church of England.

There is still a property named Hawkwood's Manor (I don't not know if
it is of ancient or recent origin), and next to the church stands
Prayors Manor House, the property that the 1st Lord Bourchier obtained
my marriage with the daughter of Sir Thomas Prayors in the early 14th
century.

I went on to Castle Hedingham, hoping to see something of the Norman
castle which formerly belonged to the de Veres, but I only arrived 20
minutes before closing time; they wanted the full £4.50 admittance
fee, and declined my offer of £2 to walk up the drive to take a
photograph.

When the roof of Sible Hedingham church rots and starts to fall in, and
the Castle crumbles and begins to collapse, I hope they won't come
begging to me for a donation.

The moral of the story: when history-hunting in England, plan and - if
possible - 'phone ahead...

Judith Taylor

Re: Captain William Whittington of Virginia

Legg inn av Judith Taylor » 09 apr 2006 23:30:03

Will Johnson wrote:

If you could post the proof text that would be great.

Gladly. This is not exactly medieval, and I should stress that I'm more
interested in tracing this William's origins than anything else, but here is
the text you ask for.

The memorial stone to "Cappeteyn Willem Wittinton" in Graft, Holland reads
as follows: "Hier leyt Begrave Cappeteyn Willem Wittinton uyt de Verginjes
sterf den 28 september 1659" (Here lies buried W.W. from Virginia who died
28 September 1659).

From burial records we know the grave's owners in the period 1652-1693 to be
an Abraham Janszoon "Bestevaer" and his son Jacob, and there are several
family members buried there. Other records in Holland, which I have not
consulted personally, show this same Abraham Janszoon Bestevaer to be a
prominent local merchant and link him with the tobacco trade. This led local
historians to suppose that "Wittinton" was perhaps a ship's captain who
transported tobacco from Virginia to Holland and that he died here after
such a voyage.

Captain William Whittington of Virginia was not a ship's captain though.
According to Northampton, VA county records he was a captain in the militia,
as well as a landowner, tobacco planter, attorney, and commissioner.
Evidence for the fact that this is one and the same person comes in a will
made in 1659 in which he refers to his upcoming voyage to Holland. This is
in Northampton County records.

"In the Name of God Amen Whereas I Capt Wm Whittington of ye County of
Northampton in Virginia am intended by Gods Assistance to take a Voyage very
shortly for Holland & not Knowing how it Shall please God to dispose of me I
do therefore make & ordain this my last Will & Testment ... All my Land I
have in Virginia I give unto my loving son Wm Whittington excepting three
hundred Acres of Land upon ye Branch lying where Mr Edw: Gunter liveth ... &
all ye Land yt I have lying & being in ye province of Maryland I give &
bequeath unto ye Child [torn] Wife now goeth wthall be it Boy or Girl and as
for the three hundred before excepted.I give & bequeath unto my loving
Daughter Ursula Whittington...Also I give unto ye Use of a free School If it
go forward in Northampton Cunty two thousand pounds of Tobacco & as for all
ye rest of my Estate wheresoever it is or Shall be found I give & bequeath
it unto my welbeloved Wife Mrs Ursulie Whittington & ye Child that my Wife
now goetheth with ...Witness my hand & Seal this 4th day of May 1659 Wm
Whittington" (Mackay, H. and Perry, C.M., Northampton County Virginia
Record Book - Deeds, Wills &C Volume 7 1657-1666, Picton Press, Maine)

There is no burial record for Captain William Whittington in Northampton
County records. There is, though a record of the marriage of his widow, Mrs
Eliza Whittington, to a Mr William Spencer, on 14 June 1660, and there is a
notarised statement by "Elizabeth Spencer ye former Wife of Capn William
Whittington deceased" dated 31 December 1660.

To further support this connection, there are a number of references to an
Abraham and John Johnson "bestevare" and to other traders from Graft,
Holland in the Northampton County records. I'm still going through these,
but include a couple here:

"Teste Wm Whittington, Cornelius Corneliuson Be it known unto all men by
these presents that I Skipper Abrham Johnson of Graft in Holland have made
ordained, deputed, and in my stead and place and constituted my truly friend
Skipper John Johnson bestevare, to be my lawful attorney for me..In witness
whereof I have here unto set my hand and seal dated in Amsterdam the seventh
of September anno dem 1651[snip]"

"Teste Wm Whittington, Cornelius Coreliuson Recorded vicesimo secundo
December 1652 per me Edm. Mathews cur clk. Be it known unto all men by these
presents that I Syvert Derrickson of Graft in Holland late steersman in the
good ship called the "Honey Barrell" have mae, ordained, deputed and in my
stead and place put and constituted Skipper John Johnson bestevar of Graft
to be my true and lawful attorney.[snip]"

These records clearly support the belief that Captain William Whittington of
the Virginia militia, and Cappeteyn Willem Wittinton who is buried in Graft,
are one and the same, although we can do no more than speculate why he was
visiting Graft and how he came to be buried there.

Now, is anyone researching the Whittingtons of Pauntley, Groucestershire and
can you point me in the direction of any sources that might prove/disprove a
connection?

Thanks,
Judith (in Holland)

Tony Hoskins

Re: Invitation to join the NEW gen-med group about the GENE

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 09 apr 2006 23:44:02

Delighted to learn this! Looking forward to discussions of many families
apparently "out of scope" in our heavily English-centric (though
excellent) GEN-MEDIEVAL.

Tony Hoskins

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562

Judith Taylor

Re: Captain William Whittington of Virginia

Legg inn av Judith Taylor » 09 apr 2006 23:47:01

MichaelAnne wrote:

William Whittington of Ackamack in Virginia, merchant, aged 40, William
Melling of the same, merchant, aged 49, and James Cade of London,
merchant, aged 52, depose 1 Sept., 1659, that in July last, at Amsterdam,
they bought the ship called the Christina Regina, now the Northampton, on
behalf of the aforesaid William Whittington, Lieut.-Col. William Randall
and John Michell of Ackamack

William Whittington of Northampton county in Virginia, mariner, master of
the ship formerly called the Shepherd, now the Northampton, deposes 19
Aug., 1657, aged 40.

Thanks - yes I do have these. They are abstracted in a work entitled
English Origins of American Colonists and I am hoping to get an opportunity
to look up the original source when I'm next in London.

Judith

MLS

RE: Invitation to join the NEW gen-med group about theGENEA

Legg inn av MLS » 10 apr 2006 01:17:01

I'm very glad to read this from you!
Thanks
Marco

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Hoskins [mailto:hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us]
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 11:42 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Invitation to join the NEW gen-med group about theGENEALOGY
of MEDITERRANEAN FAMILIES


Delighted to learn this! Looking forward to discussions of many families
apparently "out of scope" in our heavily English-centric (though
excellent) GEN-MEDIEVAL.

Tony Hoskins

Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562



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

Sponsor:
Se stai pensando di cambiare o acquistare la tua auto, la soluzione è richiedere un Credito Auto Findomestic, facile e senza anticipi
*
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4968&d=10-4

redwillow

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

Legg inn av redwillow » 10 apr 2006 02:28:02

Looking through W.A. Copinger's County of Suffolk....Its History as
Disclosed by Existing Records and Other Documents, being Materials
for....The History of Suffolk, 2:63:
"Churchill of Woodbridge, Churchyard and Chute, Chewte al.
Chowte. Pedigrees. Add. 19123."
Apparently "Add." is Additional MSS., British Museum.
Hope this adds a small clue to your Chute study, John.

Yvonne Purdy

RE: BRERETON family

Legg inn av Yvonne Purdy » 10 apr 2006 10:21:02

Dear Kevin,

Many thanks for your reply. I've looked at George Ormerod's Prenton
Hockenhull pedigree. Margaret seems to be just hanging there, as though he
wasn't quite sure where to put her:-( Based on early Hockenhull wills and a
later funeral certificate, I think she was the daughter of William
Hockenhull and Margaret Hurleston, born about 1560. She was married to my
ancestor William Fells by 1595, possibly earlier, as certainly her third,
possibly fourth husband.

I'm trying to find out more about the Brereton family to see if it was
actually her daughter Katherine, (Martyn or Jones?), who married into the
Brereton family. Hopefully the 1608 will of Randle Bruerton/Brereton of
Moreton will shed some light, but there seem to be many Breretons who carry
the name Randle. I've looked at the 1613 visitations without success, but
many avenues to explore yet.

I appreciate your help.

Regards, Yvonne

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Bradford [mailto:plantagenet60@earthlink.net]
Sent: 09 April 2006 17:06
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: BRERETON family


----- Original Message -----
From: "Yvonne Purdy" <von@yvonnepurdy.free-online.co.uk

To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 6:36 AM
Subject: BRERETON family

<Can I please ask if any of the Brereton family researchers have any details
<on Randle Bruerton/Brereton who has a will listed in Moreton (Cheshire
Indexes) in 1608


Helmsby's 2nd ed. [1882] of George Ormerod's History of Cheshire contains a
chart of the Hockenhull family of Prenton. Margaret is listed as having 2
husbands, "Edward Martyn, afterwards of John Jones." [2:532]. Ormerod is
almost enccylopedic in his details, but there are some significant gaps in
his work.

There are several families of Brereton treated in this same work. I spent a
few minutes perusing it for your Randle, and didn't find him, which is not
to say that the book will not be of some value to you down the road. For
lack of time, I didn't comb through it exhaustively.

I have a descent from the Breretons of Cheshire. William, Knt. [ob. 1484] &
Philippa Hulse of Egerton and Brereton, had two sons who are direct
ancestors of mine: Andrew and Hugh.

Best,
Kevin
<<

______________________________

Douglas Richardson

Re: Agnes d'Aumale / Peter de Brus

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 10 apr 2006 20:48:04

Dear Will ~

The mother of Peter de Brus (died 1221), of Skelton, was Ivette (or
Juetta) de Arches. This is proven by a record cited on page 245,
footnote 30, at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... 4&pg=PA245

That Agnes of Aumale is in this Peter's ancestry is indicated by a
lawsuit dated 1276, cited by this same source on page 244, footnote 26.
Agnes of Aumale has been alternatively assigned as the wife of Adam I
de Brus and Adam II de Brus. In the new proposed pedigree, Agnes of
Aumale would become the wife of Peter de Brus, who witnessed a charter
for King David I of Scotland in or before 1151, and who was still
living in 1155. Agnes of Aumale and her husband, Peter de Brus, would
thus be the paternal grandparents of Peter de Brus, of Skelton, who
died 1221. This harmonizes all the known facts and the chronology, and
allow the insertion of Lucy, wife of Guillaume du Hommet, into the
pedigree as the daughter of Peter de Brus and Agnes of Aumale. This
arrangement places Lucy du Hommet as the granddaughter of Adam I de
Brus (died 1144). This agrees with the charter dated 1232 cited by
Gerville, in which Adam I de Brus is specifically called Lucy's
grandfather.

As far as I can tell, the chronology simply does not permit Agnes of
Aumale to be the wife of Adam I de Brus, and also the grandmother of
Lucy du Hommet. Agnes of Aumale must therefore be the wife of the
"extra" Peter de Brus, who was living in 1155. If my memory serves me
correctly, there are no contemporary charters which identify the Brus
husband of Agnes of Aumale. Her Brus marriage has been deduced solely
from the 1276 lawsuit.

My one concern with this arrangement is that Lucy du Hommet can have
been born no early than 1152, yet her grandson, Baldwin Wake, was born
c. 1180/83. That makes for a short set of generations. We might
suppose, however, that the generations are running short in this
family, as the historian Powicke indicates that Lucy's husband,
Guillaume du Hommet, was living as late as 1220, he having outlived
their grandson, Baldwin Wake, who died in 1213. And, if Gerville has
dated the 1232 charter correctly, then Guillaume du Hommet was still
living in 1230, when his great-grandson, Hugh Wake, was of age. Thus
can only happen in a family where the generations run short.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry. net

WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/10/06 10:06:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

In a related vein, I might note that Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 670
(sub Lincoln) states that Agnes of Aumale married (2nd) Piers de Brus.
The source it cites is Bowles, Lacock Abbey, pg. 77 (from T.
Stapleton). Having Agnes of Aumale married to Peter de Brus, living
1155, makes sense chronologically. I guesstimate that Agnes of Aumale
was born say 1115/20, whereas Lucy du Hommet's grandson, Baldwin Wake,
was born about 1180.

Peter d'Brus, Lord of Skelton b 1200 (http://www.genealogics.org) is not a son of
Agnes and Peter ?
If he is, and his birthyear is sure, then Agnes couldn't be this old.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Agnes d'Aumale / Peter de Brus

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 apr 2006 20:56:02

In a message dated 4/10/06 10:06:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

<< In a related vein, I might note that Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 670
(sub Lincoln) states that Agnes of Aumale married (2nd) Piers de Brus.
The source it cites is Bowles, Lacock Abbey, pg. 77 (from T.
Stapleton). Having Agnes of Aumale married to Peter de Brus, living
1155, makes sense chronologically. I guesstimate that Agnes of Aumale
was born say 1115/20, whereas Lucy du Hommet's grandson, Baldwin Wake,
was born about 1180. >>

Peter d'Brus, Lord of Skelton b 1200 (http://www.genealogics.org) is not a son of
Agnes and Peter ?
If he is, and his birthyear is sure, then Agnes couldn't be this old.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Hugh de Poyntz - John de Newburgh

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 apr 2006 21:05:49

In a message dated 4/9/06 6:35:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jrfortier@centurytel.net writes:

<< John de Newburgh=Margaret Poyntz
Nicholas de Poyntz=Eleanor said to be Erleigh>>

Nicholas b abt 1320 d abt 1376 (http://www.genealogics.org)

<<Hugh de Poyntz=Margaret said to be Pavelly>>

Hugh, 3rd Lord Poyntz b 1295/1308 d bef 2 May 1337. His wife may be a Paynel

<< Nicholas Poyntz=Elizabeth de la Zouche>>

Nicholas, 2nd Lord Poyntz d 1309/11, also married Matilda d'Acton

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: RD600 - request for George Percy

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 apr 2006 21:25:02

In a message dated 4/9/06 4:58:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dsam@sampubco.com
writes:

<< Will somebody check to see if Hon. George Percy (Governor of Virginia)
is listed in the RD600 or not (He was son of Henry Percy, 8th Earl of
Northumberland and katherine Nevill) >>


"Deputy" Governor.
As I understand it from his DNB (1922) entry, John Smith was recall to answer
some charges or questions, and in his absence Percy was sort-of an interim or
acting governor from Sep 1609 to May 1610 when Lord De la Warr took over as
governor.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: RD600 - request for George Percy

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 apr 2006 21:40:02

In a message dated 4/9/06 4:58:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dsam@sampubco.com
writes:

<< He had a daughter named Anne Percy who married Capt. John West (son of
Thomas West, 2nd Lord De La Warr and Lady Anne Knollys) >>

The DNB (1922) entry says that this George Percy died unmarried and does not
mention any descendents, legitimate or the other.

http://www.genealogics.org and "Living Descendents" both state that the wife of Capt
John West was named "Anne" but other nothing further on her.

Can you clarify your sources for calling her Anne Percy, and for stating she
was dau of this George Percy, Deputy-Governor of Virginia?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Hugh de Poyntz - John de Newburgh

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 10 apr 2006 21:55:20

In message of 10 Apr, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/9/06 6:35:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jrfortier@centurytel.net writes:

<snip>

Hugh de Poyntz=Margaret said to be Pavelly

Hugh, 3rd Lord Poyntz b 1295/1308 d bef 2 May 1337. His wife may be
a Paynel

Indeed John Maclean in his "Memoirs of the Family of Poyntz", p. 29,
says that Hugh's wife was Margaret, dau. of Sir Walter Paynel of Brook,
Wilts.

However 59 years later, CP, Vol X, p. 676, merely says she was Margaret
(--). In a footmote on the same page it says:

"see inq.p.m. of Sir John Typfor (Ch. Ing. p.m. 21 Hen VI, no 45) for
her being the da. of William Paveley of Brooke (in Westbury) Wilts.
Westbury and Broke were Paveley manors..."

Finally 51 years after that, CP has an amendment in Vol XIV, p. 536 in
which it says:

"for '(--)' read 'da. of Sir Walter Pavole, co. Wilts."

So she was Margaret Pavole.

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

Gjest

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 apr 2006 21:56:02

In a message dated 4/8/06 7:35:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

<< As for Elizabeth Dale's birthdate, she was apparently at least 12 when
she stood as godmother to her nephew Thomas Carter Jr. in 1672, so born
by 1660. >>

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... w3tAC&pg=P
A6&lpg=PA6&dq=catholic+godmother&sig=ki1NMDYarhxgUfaznmNDHutBT2Y

Albeit a modern reference, tells us that a godmother must have already been
confirmed. If this can be shown to have been the case in 1672 as well, than
that puts an serious restriction on her possible age.

Will Johnson

Renia

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Renia » 10 apr 2006 23:21:59

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/8/06 7:35:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

As for Elizabeth Dale's birthdate, she was apparently at least 12 when
she stood as godmother to her nephew Thomas Carter Jr. in 1672, so born
by 1660.

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... w3tAC&pg=P
A6&lpg=PA6&dq=catholic+godmother&sig=ki1NMDYarhxgUfaznmNDHutBT2Y

Albeit a modern reference, tells us that a godmother must have already been
confirmed. If this can be shown to have been the case in 1672 as well, than
that puts an serious restriction on her possible age.

Not really. I was confirmed at about 7 or 8.

This, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that the sacrament can be
administered to all persons after baptism, but that this is not
expedient before the use of reason; and adds that it is most fitting
that the sacrament be deferred until the child is seven years old . . .
In the Greek Church and in Spain, infants are now, as in earlier times,
confirmed immediately after baptism. Leo XIII, writing 22 June, 1897, to
the Bishop of Marseilles, commends most heartily the practice of
confirming children before their first communion as being more in accord
with the ancient usage of the Church.

and

Sponsors must themselves be baptized persons having the use of reason
and they must have been designated as sponsors by the priest or parents.
During the baptism they must physically touch the child either
personally or by proxy. They are required, moreover, to have the
intention of really assuming the obligations of godparents. It is
desirable that they should have been confirmed, but this is not
absolutely necessary. They are never necessary in private baptism.

Renia

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Renia » 10 apr 2006 23:55:20

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

The link also says that godparents must have already taken their first
communion, so at what age did you do that?


Also about 7 or 8 or thereabouts.

Diane Sheppard

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Diane Sheppard » 11 apr 2006 00:15:33

Dear Will & Group,
I received my first communion in the second grade (about age 7 for most
children). I was the godmother of my youngest sister at the age of 14.
I can't remember the exact age that I was confirmed, but it was prior
to the age of 13 & could have been about the age of 12 (while attending
a Catholic grade school).

Hope this helps,

Diane Sheppard

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 11 apr 2006 00:17:07

Renia wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

The link also says that godparents must have already taken their first
communion, so at what age did you do that?



Also about 7 or 8 or thereabouts.


I am not sure modern practice is the best indicator. Unfortunately, I
don't have any references that would give an idea at that time and
place. (18th century German Lutherans would be confirmed at 13-14 in
most cases, but this would not be any closer to what a 17th century
Virginian would have done.)

taf

Douglas Richardson

Re: Parentage of Lucy, wife of William du Hommet, Constable

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 apr 2006 01:20:21

Dear James ~

There are several possibilities, none very good:

(1) Adam II de Brus married after 1151 to Agnes of Aumale as her second
husband, and she (not Ivette de Arches) was the mother of his son and
heir, Peter de Brus. This explains why Adam II de Brus' marriage to
Ivette de Arches was so late, as Adam II was married previously to
Agnes of Aumale.

(2) Agnes of Aumale did not marry a member of the Brus family at all.

(3) The Brus families in England and France were possibly already
separated by the 1140's, but, using the same given names, they are
easily confused. I understand that this situation exists for the
Courcy family in England and France, which reportedly has been a mess
for historians to straighten out.

(4) Agnes of Aumale married Peter de Brus, living 1155, as her second
husband, and she is the mother of Lucy du Hommet. This Peter was the
brother of Adam II de Brus, who first witnesses a charter c. 1150.

(5) The charter involving Adam II de Brus dated c. 1150 has been
misdated. He actually came of age in the mid-1160's. This would
permit Agnes of Aumale to be his mother. However, it would still be
near impossible for Agnes to be the grandmother of Lucy du Hommet. The
earliest Agnes of Aumale might have had children is say 1130, and Lucy
du Hommet her supposed granddaughter was born no later than 1152, as
Lucy's own grandson, Baldwin Wake, was born c. 1180/3. This gives us
at most 68 years for four generations, which is near impossible.

(6) Adam I de Brus, died 1144, had two wives. By his first unknown
wife, he had a son, Peter, who received his French lands. By his 2nd
wife, Agnes of Aumale, he had a son, Adam II de Brus, who received his
English lands. This would permit Lucy du Hommet to be Adam I de Brus'
granddaughter and heiress to his French lands. It would also put Agnes
of Aumale in the ancestry of Adam II de Brus as his mother, but leave
her out of the ancestry of Lucy du Hommet. On the surface, this seems
like the best scenario. It also explains why no extra Peter is
mentioned in the ancient Brus family pedigrees in England.

Comments, anyone?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry. net


Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Douglas,
If Agnes of Aumale were married to William de Roumare
who died about 1151 it is a chronologic impossibility for her to have been the
mother of Adam II de Brus who witnessed a charter in 1150 unless She married
and divorced Adam de Brus I prior to this de Roumare marriage except if
either the Brus family paid out money to the next heir of the property which
served as Agnes` dower (remember the terms Aline, Lady le Strange of Knockyn and
Philip le DeSpencer put forth on Lucy le Strange dowry to William Willoughby de
Eresby. iT went something like if Lucy shhould die without issue within two
years of the marriage (or perhaps it was 5 years) then Willoughby was either to
return the dower lands to Lady Le Strange and le DeSpencer to pay them a set
sum of money instead. The other possiblity is that Agnes was the mother through
another marriage of Juetta de Arches. A final idea is that She was not the
Agnes who married a Brus and the lands were an outright purchase.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
James W Cumm9ings

Gjest

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 apr 2006 01:32:02

The link also says that godparents must have already taken their first
communion, so at what age did you do that?

Douglas Richardson

Re: Agnes d'Aumale / Peter de Brus [Revised Post]

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 apr 2006 01:32:55

Dear Will ~

The mother of Peter de Brus (died 1221), of Skelton, was Ivette (or
Juetta) de Arches. This is proven by a record cited on page 245,
footnote 30, at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... &id=5pxQ...

That Agnes of Aumale is also in this Peter's ancestry is indicated by a
lawsuit dated 1276, cited by this same source on page 244, footnote 26.
Agnes of Aumale has been alternatively assigned as the wife of Adam I
de Brus (as per Blakely) and Adam II de Brus (as per Dalton). In the
pedigree proposed by Mr. Sharp, Agnes of Aumale would become the wife
of Peter de Brus, who I believe is the individual who witnessed a
charter for King David I of Scotland in or before 1151, and who was
still living in 1155. Agnes of Aumale and her husband, Peter de Brus,
would thus be the paternal grandparents of Peter de Brus, of Skelton,
who died 1221. This arrangement places Lucy du Hommet as the
granddaughter of Adam I de Brus (died 1144). This would agree with the
charter dated 1232 cited by Gerville, in which Adam I de Brus is
specifically called Lucy's grandfather.

As far as I can tell, the chronology simply does not permit Agnes of
Aumale to be the wife of Adam I de Brus, and also the grandmother of
Lucy du Hommet. Also, if my memory serves me correctly, there are no
contemporary charters which identify the Brus husband of Agnes of
Aumale. Her Brus marriage has been deduced solely from the 1276
lawsuit.

My one concern with this arrangement is that Lucy du Hommet can have
been born no early than 1152, yet her grandson, Baldwin Wake, was born
c. 1180/83. That makes for a short set of generations. We might
suppose, however, that the generations are running short in this
family, as the historian Powicke indicates that Lucy's husband,
Guillaume du Hommet, was living as late as 1220, he having outlived
their grandson, Baldwin Wake, who died in 1213. And, if Gerville has
dated the 1232 charter correctly, then Guillaume du Hommet was still
living in 1230, when his great-grandson, Hugh Wake, was evidently of
age. Thus can happen in a family where the generations run short.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry. net
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/10/06 10:06:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
royalancestry@msn.com writes:

In a related vein, I might note that Complete Peerage, 7 (1929): 670
(sub Lincoln) states that Agnes of Aumale married (2nd) Piers de Brus.
The source it cites is Bowles, Lacock Abbey, pg. 77 (from T.
Stapleton). Having Agnes of Aumale married to Peter de Brus, living
1155, makes sense chronologically. I guesstimate that Agnes of Aumale
was born say 1115/20, whereas Lucy du Hommet's grandson, Baldwin Wake,
was born about 1180.

Peter d'Brus, Lord of Skelton b 1200 (http://www.genealogics.org) is not a son of
Agnes and Peter ?
If he is, and his birthyear is sure, then Agnes couldn't be this old.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Parentage of Lucy, wife of William du Hommet, Constable

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 apr 2006 02:20:03

Dear Douglas,
If Agnes of Aumale were married to William de Roumare
who died about 1151 it is a chronologic impossibility for her to have been the
mother of Adam II de Brus who witnessed a charter in 1150 unless She married
and divorced Adam de Brus I prior to this de Roumare marriage except if
either the Brus family paid out money to the next heir of the property which
served as Agnes` dower (remember the terms Aline, Lady le Strange of Knockyn and
Philip le DeSpencer put forth on Lucy le Strange dowry to William Willoughby de
Eresby. iT went something like if Lucy shhould die without issue within two
years of the marriage (or perhaps it was 5 years) then Willoughby was either to
return the dower lands to Lady Le Strange and le DeSpencer to pay them a set
sum of money instead. The other possiblity is that Agnes was the mother through
another marriage of Juetta de Arches. A final idea is that She was not the
Agnes who married a Brus and the lands were an outright purchase.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
James W Cumm9ings

Vickie Elam White

Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 11 apr 2006 03:14:32

The Church of England's 1662 Book of Common Prayer (online at
http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/ ... Godparents)
says:
"For every child to be baptized there shall be not fewer than three
godparents, of whom at least two shall be of the same sex as the child and
of whom at least one shall be of the opposite sex; save that, when three
cannot be conveniently had, one godfather and one godmother shall suffice.
Parents may be godparents for their own children provided that the child
shall have at least one other godparent. The godparents shall be persons who
have been baptized and confirmed and will faithfully fulfil their
responsibilities both by their care for the child committed to their charge
and by the example of their own godly living. Nevertheless the Minister
shall have power to dispense with the requirement of confirmation in any
case in which in his judgement need so requires."

As for age at confirmation, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (online at
http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/ ... ml#Preface) says:

"To the end that Confirmation may be ministered to the more edifying of such
as shall receive it, the Church hath thought good to order, That none
hereafter shall be Confirmed, but such as can say the Creed, the Lord's
Prayer, and the Ten Commandments; and can also answer to such other
Questions, as in the short Catechism are contained; which order is very
convenient to be observed; to the end, that children, being now come to the
years of discretion, and having learned what their Godfathers and Godmothers
promised for them in Baptism, they may themselves, with their own mouth and
consent, openly before the Church, ratify and confirm the same; and also
promise, that by the grace of God they will evermore endeavour themselves
faithfully to observe such things, as they, by their own confession, have
assented unto. ...

And there shall none be admitted to the holy Communion, until such time as
he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed."

So, doesn't seem that there was an age requirement in 1662, and they were
confirmed and then received their First Communion. No changes were made to
the 1662 Book of Common Prayer until 1689, so this definitely covers the
period we need.

Doesn't help us much, does it? <G>



Vickie Elam White

<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:363.1db408e.316c1212@aol.com...

In a message dated 4/8/06 7:35:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
royaldescent@hotmail.com writes:

As for Elizabeth Dale's birthdate, she was apparently at least 12 when
she stood as godmother to her nephew Thomas Carter Jr. in 1672, so born
by 1660.


http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8& ... w3tAC&pg=P
A6&lpg=PA6&dq=catholic+godmother&sig=ki1NMDYarhxgUfaznmNDHutBT2Y

Albeit a modern reference, tells us that a godmother must have already
been
confirmed. If this can be shown to have been the case in 1672 as well,
than
that puts an serious restriction on her possible age.

Will Johnson

W David Samuelsen

Re: RD600 - request for George Percy

Legg inn av W David Samuelsen » 11 apr 2006 05:10:12

<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-04/1144697862>

Leo has full reply message from me. This does warrant a closer look.

Blood Royal - Mortimer-Percy volume - Table 3 - 2nd line mentioned "Hon.
George Percy of Virginia:

and I did a search elsewhere and showed only one child, named Anne Percy
who married Capt. John West, son of Thomas West, 2d Lord De la Warr and
Lady Anne Knollys (I see I neglected to mention who George Percy's
alleged wife is - Ann Floyd - may be Ann Claiborne)

bit more about George Percy and Thomas West, 3rd Baron De la Warr - both
were Colonial Governors of Virginia (In 2006, recent research had
concluded that his body was brought to Jamestown for burial. A gravesite
thought by researchers to contain the remains of Captain Bartholomew
Gosnold may instead contain those of Baron De La Warr. see:
http://www.vagazette.com/news/va-news1_ ... ll=va-news
Thomas wrote this
The Relation of the Right Honourable the Lord De-La-Warre, of the
Colonie, Planted in Virginia, in 1611

George Percy went back to England in 1611 and died 1631. Wrote two books
He then wrote 2 books called "A True Virginian" and "Discourse of the
Plantation of Virginia".

5th governor, George Percy, 1609-1610
7th governor, Thomas West, 1610-1611, 2nd son of Thomas Leighton West,
2nd Lord De la Warr and Lady Anne Knollys
8th governor, George Percy, again 1611

Francis West, Crown Governor, 1627-1629 (brother of John)
John West was Crown Governor, 1635-1637

George Percy went back to England in 1612. Remember that Jamestown was
founded in 1607. He came with the first group. This does raise
possiblity his wife and/or daughter did come to Jamestown in the
intervening years.

State of Delaware was named after Thomas Leighton West, 2nd Lord De la
Ware. He died in 1618.

It is possible he brought his sons and wives to Jamestown in 1610,
raising the possibility his son John West may have married George
Percy's daughter Anne in Virginia (added- soon afterwards) since John
West and Ann stayed and have illustratious descendants. There is one
item that should be checked and investigated throughly - was there Ann
Claiborne instead of Ann Floyd?

a review of several databases claiming this....
Seems John West and Anne Percy were married around 1629 in Hants,
England (I presume Hampshire co.)

Found this comment entry in one of the Worldconnect databases

Subj: WorldConnect: Post-em posted
Date: 5/14/2003 11:06:14 AM Central Standard Time
Link: http://worldconnect.genealo
gy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=2385963&id=I591
Name: Susan Moore Email: sue377@aol.com

This woman's name is listed as Anne, probably PERCY in the book "The
Noble Lineage of the Delaware-West family of Virginia through Colonel
John West, his sons and his daughter Anne West, who married Henry Fox"
by Anne Woodward Fox.

Source: The Genealogy of the West Family, published in The Critic,
Richmond, VA Feb. 3, 17 and June 2, 1889.

I quote: "Governor John West married Ann, whose surname is unknown,
though it is believed by many of her descendants that she was the only
child of George Percy (1580-1632), youngest son of Sir Henry de Percy,
eighth earl of Northumberland, and his wife, Ann Floyd, daughter of
Nathaniel Floyd of Jamestown. George Percy came to Virginia in 1607 and
returned in 1612, leaving his wife in Virginia. (...he was ordered to
return, had no choice but to leave, and never came back. He died in the
Netherlands, in military service for England, and is listed in many
sources as having never married. Percy records in England do show a
colonial marriage. The Percy family in England has commented "if she was
a Percy, she was a child of George Percy." This is the source of
descendants belief that her last name was Percy.

another comment entry in different database:
m. Gov. John West. [Ancestral Roots, p. 23]

m. Hon. John West; mother of John West, Jr. who m. Unity Cr oshow.
[Roberts, the Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants, p. 1 15]

m. John West; mother of Thomas, Nathaniel, Anne and John. [ WFT Vol 14
Ped 850]

m. John West; surname unknown, but many of her descendant s believe she
was the only child of George Percy and his wife Ann Floyd. George Percy
came to VA in 1607 and returne d to England in 1612, leaving his wife in
Virginia. [The Noble Lineage of the Delaware West Family, p. 185]

Leo, there is one thing that is hard to ignore, the first governors of
Virginia were all of nobility. Percy (if claimed), West and others are
usually found intermarried. The governor after George Percy (1611) is
none other than Thomas Dale - as in this latest quarrel about Elizabeth
Dale.

Since the above message was sent, I have since learned there are at
least 2 more sources needing to be checked out. They should be read
throughly to be absolute sure.

David

Gjest

Re: RD600 - request for George Percy

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 apr 2006 05:31:49

Maybe somebody would be so good to check the new DNB to see if it still
maintains that George Percy, the Deputy-Governor of Virginia "died unmarried".

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: RD600 - request for George Percy

Legg inn av Gjest » 11 apr 2006 06:10:15

In a message dated 4/10/06 7:10:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dsam@sampubco.com writes:

<< George Percy went back to England in 1612. Remember that Jamestown was
founded in 1607. He came with the first group. This does raise
possiblity his wife and/or daughter did come to Jamestown in the
intervening years. >>

The new DNB states "there is no contemporary evidence that he ever married".
This rather reminds me of that large, beautiful, wall chart I have which
shows how all the Crawfords in America are descended from the "Earl of Crawford",
except of course, that they aren't. Or at least there is no evidence of it.

Except a family legend. Like this one.
Which is probably why it's not in RD600.

Will Johnson

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»