Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: BUTLER OF SKELBROOK AND KIRK SANDAL

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 14. januar 2005 kl. 17.55

In message of 14 Jan, [email protected] wrote:

<snip>

There are other Butlers running about in 13th-14th cent. Yorkshire
still looking for assigned families; I wonder if country estates in
England today still have the same problem......;)

Not if the ownership has transferred in the last century or so. But if
the same family has owned some land for centuries, there is no current
public record of it. So it is entirely possible that ownership is
ambiguous. But if you have owned, or been treated as the owner of, some
land for time immemorial, then it is yours. Time immemorial is 20
years these days.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected]
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Chris Phillips

Re: BUTLER OF SKELBROOK AND KIRK SANDALDigest V05 #27

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 14. januar 2005 kl. 20.04

[email protected] wrote:
In reply to Christopher Nash's query, I believe that Rohesia, wife of
Theobald Butler, was the daughter of Nicholas de Verdon by his first wife
Joan de
Lacy. I have seen evidence in the Curia Regis Rolls (I've mislaid the
reference)
that Nicholas was indeed married to Clemencia by 1228, but I believe this
was a second marriage.
I'm sorry, but I don't have any Philip Butler on my tree as issue of
either
of these marriages.

Paul Reed posted evidence in November 2001 that Rohese was the
granddaughter, and Clemence the daughter, of one Philip le Butiller:
http://tinyurl.com/62avo

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Immigrants potentiellement royaux du Quibec

Legg inn av Gjest » 14. januar 2005 kl. 21.11

"124 HOTMAN, Pierre
m vers 1520
125 MARLE (de), Paule, fille de 250 et 251
Réf.: TG 192"

"Pierre Hotman, Sieur de Villiers-Saint-Paul and advocate in the Parlement of Paris, got a commission as lieutenant-general of waters and forests in June 1524, and continued to 1544 then he was awarded Conseiller in the Parlement of Paris. He died in 1555 leaving his widow Paule and eleven children, six sons, five daughters.

From March 1548 to Sep 1548, he was a member of the special court of Parliament called the Chambre Ardente "burning chamber" for the trial of heretics."
- "Francois Hotman: A Revolutionary's Ordeal"

His death should actually be stated as
27 Mar 1554 des Carmes,Paris,France

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: British Royals --- Uniquely Blunder- Prone ?

Legg inn av Gjest » 14. januar 2005 kl. 23.11

Dear Newsgroup,
I doubt HRH Prince Harry is any more blunder-
prone or daft then the next twenty year old youth of whatever nationality. It is
merely that when He, Wills, the daughters of the Duke of York, etc. do
something ... unfortunate. It gets seen, minutely dissected and then placed neath the
high powered microscope of public and more especially media opinion. As the
popular American Country song goes ` When You`re a celebrity, it`s adios
reality`. For Whatever reason the Jews appear to own a mortgage on the American (
and British ? ) soul as no group in history has ever done to another before. `
probably because the Old Testament makes them out to be God`s chosen people
which bit I consider to be the best bit of propaganda ever written. Through the
ages most peoples have chosen to declare Themselves to be the elect of a God.
Sincerely.

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Hadley-Audley Connection

Legg inn av Gjest » 15. januar 2005 kl. 1.38

Nothing is known beyond Simon Hadley, Sr. As traditionally listed in
the "Hadley-Audley Connections", there quite simply aren't enough
generations listed to stretch as far as figures such as Edward I.

Cristopher Nash

Re: BUTLER OF SKELBROOK AND KIRK SANDAL

Legg inn av Cristopher Nash » 15. januar 2005 kl. 11.21

Hi John - I'm afraid I knew you'd say that. At last count we had some
6 possible families, but it looks increasingly as tho Phillip's
Butlers may remain indefinitely sequestered in the cupboard!

Cheers anyway!

Cris



Dear Cris,

Sorry for not catching this and writing back sooner; you know I'd
do anything for ye in a pincerna....

The answer for better or worse is, no. It originally appeared
(both in print as Baildon noted, then later to me) that Edmund le
Boteler or Butler, of Skelbrook (d. bef 4 Jul 1333, husband of Agnes)
was the same individual as Edmund, the Justiciar of Ireland and father
of James Butler, 1st Earl of Ormond - cousins of your Theobald (d.
1230) below. However, this has been roundly disproved (but by Baildon,
not Round).

There are other Butlers running about in 13th-14th cent. Yorkshire
still looking for assigned families; I wonder if country estates in
England today still have the same problem......;)

Cheers,

John



Cristopher Nash wrote:
John, you know me, always on the lookout for any new Botelers into
which to pour the troublesome old wine of --

Phillip le Boteler
| Clemence le Boteler
| & Nicholas de Verdun
| d. 1231
| | Rohese de Verdun
| | d. 1246/7
| | & Theobald II le Boteler/Butler
| | d. 1230

-- I wonder if you've glimpsed any poss. of a connection here?

Cheers!

Cris



Wednesday, 12 January, 2005


Dear David, et al.,

Following on the posts in this thread, I presently
conjecture the following is an accurate representation of the
le Boteler (or Botiller) of Skelbrooke pedigree, down to and
including the de la Hayes. This is based largely on the
research of W. P. Baildon (provided in your earliest post),
with what added definition has been achieved to date.
Conjectured links are designated (.......).

Looking forward to hearing of your/other thoughts,
comments and criticism.

Cheers,

John *

__________________________________________



__________________________________
I I
1A> Robert le Botiller <1B> Thomas de Armthorpe
'pincerna' I
________________________________I____
I I
2A> Alan fitz Thomas <2B> Robert fitz Thomas
d. bef 1203 I
I I
I I
3A> Hugh le Botiller <3B> John de Armthorpe
Hugh 'pincerna' of Sandal
= Avice de Savile
I
___I__________________________________________
I I I I
Richard le <4A> Idonea Denise William le
Botiller Botiller <4B
aka Richard de Savile
d. bef 1267/8
I
_____I_____________
I I
Richard le Robert = Constance Hugh de
Botiller le Botiller I Langthwaite
5A> <5B> I _____I____
I d. aft 1269 I I I
I ____________I I Hawise
I I I
Hugh le Robert = Agnes William Sir Saer
Botiller le I <possibly de de Sutton
6A> Botiller I Fitz- Langthwaite d bef Jul
6B> I William ?> = Agnes 1290
I .......: = Christiane
________________I_________ : ________ I
I I : I I
Robert Edmund = Agnes William Nicholas
7A> le Botiller I <7C> de Sutton
dsp 1294 b. say 1280 I = Joan
7B> ; d. I I
bef 4 Jul 1333 I _____________I__
________I___ I I
I I I I
I William <8B> I I
I I I
John le Botiller = Joan de Sutton Elizabeth
8A> : fl. 1336 <coheir
d. bef 1347 : <coheir> = John de
: Brayton
...:
:
Thomas de la Haye = Agnes
of Spaldington I <heir
d. aft 21 Dec 1379 I
I
I
Sir Peter de la Haye
of Spaldington
d. aft 21 Sept 1398
I
I
Thomas de la Haye = 1) Elizabeth
of Spaldington Babthorpe
d. bef 6 Oct 1433 = 2) Janet <mother of Alice
_____________I_______________________
I I I
Katherine Alice Isabel
= Robert Hildyard = Thomas Thwaites
of Winestead of Thwaites and Denton
I I
V V



* John P. Ravilious


--


--

Brad Verity

Re: Hadley-Audley Connection

Legg inn av Brad Verity » 15. januar 2005 kl. 18.02

Michael Thomas wrote:

Greetings,
After listening for some time to this newsgroup, I have finally
gathered
up enough courage to place my first post.

Dear Michael,

Welcome. I have found this newsgroup to be an amazing resource and a
wealth of information.

One of the more recent branches of my family is STANFIELD. The most
complete work I have found so far that relates to me is a work by
O.C.
Stanfield published posthumously in, I believe, 1963, entitled
"History
of a Stanfield Family. In it he makes a connection for the Stanfield
family back to the HADLEYs (HADLEIGH), and from there back to the
AUDLEYs
(to COURTENAY, PLANTAGENET, etc.). The relationship according to OCS
goes
something like this:

Margaret de Bohun = Sir Philip Courtenay

As you point out below, the above is inaccurate. Margaret de Bohun
(granddaughter of Edward I) was the great-grandmother of Sir Philip
Courtenay of Powderham, father of Elizabeth by his wife Elizabeth
Hungerford.

\
Elizabeth Courtenay = Sir Humphrey Audley
\
Phillipi Audley = Richard Hadley/Hadleigh
ca.1540
\
James Hadley I = Freideswide Matthew

The above is correct (except for the estimated date), at least to James
Hadley I (c.1495-1537).

Ronny Bodine from the newsgroup has done a lot of research into this
line and has a very interesting and detailed series of posts on this
family. Search 'Humphrey Audley' in the archives and you'll find them.
The following is from one of Ronny's posts:

"3. PHILIPPA AUDLEY. Cited in 2, above, as the unnamed daughter
married to ....... Hadley. She was probably the namesake of her
grandfather, Sir Philip Courtenay, of Powderham, Devonshire.
Married before 1494/5- Richard Hadley, of Withycombe and
Heathfield, Somersetshire, who died Sept 1524. Their
great-granddaughter, Margaret Hadley, and her husband, Thomas
Luttrell, received a dispensation to marry, due to their relationship
in the 3rd and 4th degrees. Both husband and spouse were descended
from Elizabeth Courtenay, the former by her 1st husband, Sir James
Luttrell, and the latter by her 2nd husband, Sir Humphrey Audley.
The dispensation was issued by the Cardinal of St. Angelo, Papal
Penitentiary, at St. Peter's, on 28 Nov 1558. Their son, James
Hadley, was born 1494/5 and died 20 Feb 1537 leaving a will proved in
the PCC (3 Dyngeley) wherein he names his parents as Richard and
Philip Hadley and makes a donation on their behalf to Withycombe
Church."

\
James Hadley II = _____ Talbot
/
Simon Hadley I
1680-1710

You can order the will of James Hadley I through the National Archives,
and that can help you take the Hadleys a generation further. But the
last two generations of the pedigree are not looking too sound. It
would be impossible for James Hadley II, who (if he was a son of James
Hadley I) was born by 1537, to himself have a son born in 1680.

From Simon Hadley on, Quaker meeting records pretty much support the
rest
of the genealogy. My problem is in the connection between Audley and
Hadley. OCS was obviously mistaken with the Margaret De Bohun=Philip
Courtenay marriage, because she married Hugh Courtenay, 2nd E.Devon.
He
makes a point of noting Sir Philip Courtenay was a knight of
Powderham,
so he may have skipped a generation (or his editors may have), as
Hugh
had a son Philip that was indeed a knt. of Powderham. Because of the
time frame involved, it appears that he did skip a generation at one
point.


He actually skipped two generations between Margaret de Bohun and her
great-grandson Sir Philip Courtenay of Powderham.

William Harwood in his thesis "Courtenay Family in Politics of Region
and
Nation in the later 15th and Early 16th Centuries", indicates that
Hugh
and Margaret had a son Philip (I) of Powderham, who died d.v.p.,

He did not die before his parents. He survived both his father the 2nd
Earl of Devon (d. 1377) and his mother Countess Margaret (d. 1391), and
died in 1406, the last surviving child of his parents.

who had
a son Philip II, of Powderham (1404-1463) married to Elizabeth
(d.1476) dau. of Walter, Lord Hungerford (1378-1449).

Philip II was the grandson, not son, of Philip I of Powderham.

OCS states that
Humphrey de Bohun was the E. of Hungerford and Essex, rather than
Hereford and Essex. This mistake suggests again, either that he was
mistaken or bad editting occured posthumously, but it does suggest
the
connection down to Philip II.

There is a descent of Philip II of Powderham from Edward I, but
Stanfield really confused it quite a bit.

Sir Philip II and Elizabeth had a daughter, Elizabeth, married first
to
James Lutterell (att. 1461), and secondly to Sir Humphrey Audley, ex.
1471 at or following Tewkesbury. Her bad luck with marriages is the
result of the intrigue of the Courtenays in the War of the Roses.
From
there I run into a roadblock, with little or no data about the
descent
from that marriage. This is where I need assistance.

Read Ronny Bodine's newsgroup posts. He lays out all of Elizabeth
Courtenay's marriages (there were three, not two) in detail.

Other concerns I have include: Harwood says James Lutterell's
parents
were Margaret Touchet and Sir John Lutterell.

My Lutterell file is in storage, but I know that James Lutterell, the
first husband of Elizabeth Courtenay of Powderham, was also a
descendant of the 2nd Earl of Devon and Margaret de Bohun, through
their daughter Elizabeth and her second husband Andrew Luttrell.

The Complete Peerage lists
Sir Humphrey Audley's parents as James Tuchet, L.Audley and Eleanor,
dau.
of Thomas Holland, E.Kent.

Eleanor, the second wife of Lord Audley, was the illegitimate daughter
of Constance of York by Edmund Holland, Earl of Kent (son of Thomas
Holland, Earl of Kent).

Since Touchet/Tuchet is the progenitor of the
later lord Audleys, is one of these sources mistaken? or was there a
relationship between the families Lutterell and Audley?

IIRC (and perhaps someone can help out here), there was a
Lutterell/Audley marriage before that of Sir Humphrey Audley to the
widowed Elizabeth Luttrell.

The Complete Peerage says that Sir Humphrey Audley was the purported
ancestor of the Audleys of Norfolk. What information is there
regarding
this?

See Ronny Bodine's newsgroup posts.

Finally, OCS says that the Hadley/Hadleigh family is said to have
descended from FITZURSE/FITSURE. Does anyone know of this
connection?


I have no further information on the Hadleys.

I apologize for the length of the post, but I have been saving up
these
questions for some time, and felt the need to spew them all forth at
once. I appreciate any help that anyone can give.

I hope it was helpful to you, and that you can eventually find a
connection for your Simon Hadley the Quaker to the Hadleys of
Withycombe, Somerset.

David B. Boles wrote:

Eleanor Holland's parents were Edmund Holland, 4th Earl of
Kent (1382/3-1408) and Constance Plantagenet (d. 1416;
daughter of Sir Edmund, 1st Duke of York, son of Edward III).
This earlier Constance was an interesting character, and I
have often wondered whether there is an article or book about
her.

Dear David,

Brian Wainwright, a member of the Richard III Society, has researched
Constance of York in great detail, and has written a historical novel
based on her life, titled 'Within The Fetterlock'.

http://www.triviumpublishing.com/ourbooks/fetterlock/

I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I thoroughly enjoyed Brian's
first novel, in which he made up a youngest child for Lord Audley and
Eleanor Holland - Alianore Audley - and chronicled her adventures as a
spy for the House of York.
Cheers, -------Brad

Gjest

Re: Speaking for victims of Nazism [was: Re: British Royals

Legg inn av Gjest » 16. januar 2005 kl. 3.21

In a message dated 1/15/2005 5:27:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Prince Charles and anyone else should know better than to imply
that it's OK or acceptable for Harry to ignore it too.
Says a lot about UK history teaching, or its failure.

Prince Charles didn't. In fact he was "incandescent with rage".

Gjest

Re: Stefan Dragutin

Legg inn av Gjest » 16. januar 2005 kl. 16.41

Dear Leo,
According to the Search Spaniel(Google) bio of Stefan Dragutin
augmented by the Serbian Unity Congress Sebian History site, in 1282 He broke
his leg while hunting, subsequently fell ill and having deposed his father
Stefan Uros I in 1276 took this as a sign of God`s displeasure and voluntarily
abdicated the throne to Stefan Milutin Uros II, his younger brother. He only
became a monk after his mother Jelena d` Anjou died in 1314. He married
Katarina, a daughter of Stefan V of Hungary and Eryzebet of the Kumans and had four
children, a daughter Jelislaveta ( Elizabeth) who married Stjefan II
Kotromanic , Ban of Bosnia, another daughter who was married in 1300, Stefan Ladislaus
II who succeeded his uncle Stefan Milutin Uros II, who beat and imprisoned him
when He attempted to succeed to his father Stefan Dragutin`s lands when
Dragutin died in March 1316 and a 2nd son became a monk.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

lizgwalker

Re: Stewart and Plantagenet Ancestry of the Rev. Robert Rose

Legg inn av lizgwalker » 16. januar 2005 kl. 17.38

I am descended from David Rose and Isabella Rose (maiden and married name)
who emigrated from Nairn, Scotland to U.S. in 1812. I had been told that
David son of Hugh Rose (of Balacheannich) was related to the Roses of
Kilravock but I have a couple hundred year leap (in documents) from the "A
Genealogical Deduction of Rose..." to my 1812 immigrant and have been
unable to prove that. I recently received information, though, that
Isabella is the daughter of Alexander Rose 3rd of Tomnarroch. That lines
apparently goes back through the Roses of Bellivat to the Kilravock Roses.
How can I verify this? Liz Walker

lizgwalker

Re: Stewart and Plantagenet Ancestry of the Rev. Robert Rose

Legg inn av lizgwalker » 16. januar 2005 kl. 17.50

I am descended from David Rose and Isabella Rose (maiden and married name)
who emigrated from Nairn, Scotland to U.S. in 1812. I had been told that
David son of Hugh Rose (of Balacheannich) was related to the Roses of
Kilravock but I have a couple hundred year leap (in documents) from the "A
Genealogical Deduction of Rose..." to my 1812 immigrant and have been
unable to prove that. I recently received information, though, that
Isabella is the daughter of Alexander Rose 3rd of Tomnarroch. That lines
apparently goes back through the Roses of Bellivat to the Kilravock Roses.
How can I verify this? Liz Walker

Gjest

Re: Stewart and Plantagenet Ancestry of the Rev. Robert Rose

Legg inn av Gjest » 16. januar 2005 kl. 18.01

In a message dated 1/16/2005 8:53:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

I am descended from David Rose and Isabella Rose (maiden and married name)
who emigrated from Nairn, Scotland to U.S. in 1812. I had been told that
David son of Hugh Rose (of Balacheannich) was related to the Roses of
Kilravock but I have a couple hundred year leap (in documents) from the "A
Genealogical Deduction of Rose..." to my 1812 immigrant and have been
unable to prove that. I recently received information, though, that
Isabella is the daughter of Alexander Rose 3rd of Tomnarroch. That lines
apparently goes back through the Roses of Bellivat to the Kilravock Roses.
How can I verify this? Liz Walker

Liz this time period isn't Medieval. You'd probably do better posting your
request to the ROSE genform at boards.ancestry.com and at http://www.genforum.com.
Will

Doug McDonald

Re: Stewart and Plantagenet Ancestry of the Rev. Robert Rose

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 16. januar 2005 kl. 19.55

[email protected] wrote:
In a message dated 1/16/2005 8:53:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


I am descended from David Rose and Isabella Rose (maiden and married name)
who emigrated from Nairn, Scotland to U.S. in 1812.

Liz this time period isn't Medieval.

Part of her interest period is medieval; the Bellivat Roses have
prominent roles in the Register of the Great Seal and
other documents that stopped at the end of the medieval period,
or thereabouts.

I have answered her in e-mail.

Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: "Official List" of Conquerer's Companions?

Legg inn av Gjest » 16. januar 2005 kl. 22.21

In a message dated 1/16/2005 1:04:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<snip>
7. Anquetil de Grai
8. Anquetil de Ros**

</snip>

Rick can you specify the meaning of the "**" in the list you extracted?
Maybe it means "possible" or "hard-to-read" or "variant spelling" .... but what?
Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: Dicton, Stainton and Popeley

Legg inn av Gjest » 16. januar 2005 kl. 23.41

Dear MichaelAnne et als,
I notice in your post of 1/14/2005 on
these families that You include Agnes (Dransfield )Wentworth among the
children of John and Joan (Stainton) Dransfield rather then as the daughter of
William Dransfield whom You give as Agnes` brother. I further noticed you say He
(William ) was married to Grace Gascoigne. In earlier posts his wife was
unindentified. please correct me if I misinterpeted your table.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Dicton, Stainton and Popeley

Legg inn av Gjest » 17. januar 2005 kl. 0.01

Dear James,

I am sorry that I forgot but Grace Gascoigne comes from the Yorkshire
pedigrees.

Regards,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: Dicton, Stainton and Popeley

Legg inn av Gjest » 17. januar 2005 kl. 0.01

Dear James,

Agnes Dronsfeld was one of the sisters of William Dronsfeld. The other was
Isabel that married John Bosville of Ardsley, co. York. Here is the will of
William Dronsfeld:

Tesatamenta Ebor. Vol. I, Surtees Society, Pages 344-345.

CCXLVII. TESTAMENTUM DOMINI WILLIELMI DRONSFELD MILITIS *

In Dei nomine, Amen. Die lunae in vigilia S. Bartholomei Apostoli, Anno
Domini MCCCVI, Ego Willielmus Dronsfeld de Westbretton, chivaler, condo testamentum
meum in hume modum. In primis lego animam meam Deo, et beatae Mariae
Virgini, et corpus meum ad sepeliendum in ecclesia Omnium Sanctorum de Silkeston, cum
melioim averio meo cum tota sequela pertinente ad hominem armatum nomine
mortuarii mei. Item lego, die sepulturae meae, lumini circa corpus meum ardenti
XX s. Item lego in distribucione pauperum eodem die XX s. Item lego ecclesiae
de Silkeston pro decimis oblitis XIII s. IIII d. Item lego ecclesiae de Sandall
pro decimis oblitis XIII s. IIII d. Item lego fabricae ecclesiae Ebor. XX s.
Item Ricardo Kesburgh filio meo I [one] lectum cum tapeto, [et] II [two] paria
linthiaminum [et] II [two] par blankettes. Item lego Johanni Calthorn,
personae ecclesiae de Huland, VI s. VIII d. ad celebrandum I [ one] trentale pro
anima mea. Item lego Ricardo cappelano, moranti ad cappellam S. Elenae, [blank]
ad celebrandum I [ one] trentale pro anima mea. Item Johanni Walker
cappellano VI s. VIII d. ad celebrandum I [one] trentale pro anima mea. item lego
Conventui de Kyrkleghes XIII s. IIII d. ad rogandum pro anima mea. Item lego
Conventui de Wallanwelles XX s. ad rogandum pro anima mea. Item lego dominae
Alicae de Totehill moniali I [one] vaccam. Item lego dominae Margaretae de
Barneby moniali I [one] vaccam. Item lego Johanni Hyne pauperi I [one] vaccam.
Item lego Johannae Wyllewyff de Westbretton [ blank]. Item lego Rectori
eccelesiae de Heton I [one] togam de scarlet cum furura. Item lego Thomae Wynteworth I
[one] equum gray, aetatis trium annorum. Item lego eidem Thomae residuum
armorum meorum. Item lego cuilibet valette manenti in hospicio meo VI s. Viiid.
Item lego cuilibet garcioni manenti in hospicio meo III s. IIIId. Item volo
quod XL s. quos nuper cepi de domino Adam Wordelworth pro morte Johannis de
Staynton dentur uni capellano ad celebrandum pro anima predicti Johannis Staynton
in capella S. Bartholomei de Westbretton, si predictus Adam hoc facere
voluerit. Item lego principalem lectum meum, cum III [three] curtellis de worsted
blodio, Manerio de Westbretton imperpetuum. Residuum bonorum meorum sit
bipartitum inter me [et] Graciam uxorem meam, et quod pars mea vendatur ad
inveniendum umum capellanum ad celebrandum pro anima mea in capella S. Bartolomei de
Westbretton. Executores Johannem Dronsfeld de Stubbes, Ricardum Dronsfeld
personam ecclesiae de Heton, Willielmum Mirfeld personam ecclesiae de Swylyngton,
Robertum Mauleverer [et] Robertum Corff de Wakefeld. Datum apum Westbretton.

* See Mr. Hunter's South Yorkshire, II. p. 243 for particulars of the
testator, his settlement of his estates & c. His heirs were, eventually, his two
sisters, Agnes wife of John Wentworth, of North Emsal, and Isabel, who married
John Bosvile, of Ardsley. The former is represented by Thomas Wentworth Beaumont,
Esq. M.P. for South Northumberland.

Hunter went into a lengthy discourse on this and states William Dronesfeld
died sp.

Regards,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: "Official List" of Conquerer's Companions?

Legg inn av Gjest » 17. januar 2005 kl. 0.21

Attempting to source this document I present the following additional
information. From the website http://www.geocities.com/cleopatrascove/History.htm

we find
<quote>
"In Halinshed’s copy of the Battel Abbey Roll, which is in English, appears
the name of Hamelin.A companion record is found in France in the roll in the
church in Dives, a copy of which is found in "The Driver Family," page 497:"The
Roll in the Church of Dives, Normandy" Of the Companions of William in the
Conquest of England, in 1066 by M. Leopold Delisle, Member of the French Society
of Archaeology, as found in Burke’s "Vicissitudes of Families," Vol.III.
p.423.Dives, a small town close to the sea-coast, in the Department of Calvados, in
Normandy. This town of Dives is of high note in French and English history,
for it was nigh to it, at the mouth of the Dive, that William the Conqueror and
his companions in arms met for the subjugation of England. Dives, in the
eleventh century, was one of the chief ports of the Duchy of Normandy. A fete was
here given. In August, 1862, to affix in the old church there a new and
carefully compiled list of the companions of William the Conqueror, in his conquest
of England, in 1066, - a companion record to that of the Battle Abbey, with
this difference; the latter being the roll of those who actually fought at
Hastings, while the one at Dives is that of those who actually fought at Hastings,
while the one at Dives is that of those who assembled for the expidition, and
were otherwise engaged in furthering the zConquest. This Roll was erected by
the French Society of Archaelogy in August, 1862, with permission of Mgr.
Didiot, Bishop of Bayeus, M. de Caumont being Director of the Society, M. the Abbe
Renier, Vicar of Dives, and M. le Comte Foucher de Cariel, Member of the
Conseil-General for the Canton."
"

</quote>

Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: "Official List" of Conquerer's Companions?

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 17. januar 2005 kl. 8.01

Yes, indeed. And talk about "on topic"!

Tony

"Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> 01/16/05 02:07PM
Why do you see this as unrelated? Unrelated to what? We do discuss

history
as well as genealogy. I would love to have an acceptable list of
William the
Q's companions at Hastings.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C. Brandon aka starbuck95" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: "Official List" of Conquerer's Companions?


Was this really the best place to insert this (unrelated) topic?



Ginny Wagner

GORRAM, AVERTON, ST. LO, ORTA, of Breton

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 17. januar 2005 kl. 18.16

From Collectanea Topographica Genealogica, Vol. VI, (London: John Bowyer
Nichols and Son), 1840, pp. 284-289:

_____________________________________________________________
I I I
*William == Oliva **Guido == Mary Sir Hugh == de Gorram
de Gorram I de St. Loup I de Gorram de Orta I
liv. 1199 I I 1178 liv.1238 I
I I single d. 1239 I
_________________________ I I
*** I **** I I I
Sir Ralph == Aaliz Sir Robert I Sir Fulk de Orta
de Gorram de Averton de Gorram I co-heir of Sir Robert
liv. 1237 I de Gorram,Lord of Livare
d. ca 1238 I 1239, living 1255
_____________________________________
I I I
Gervaise Groiet Sir Giles de St. Loup [St. Lo]
hostage for co-heir of Sir Robert de Gorram and
William deGorram Lord of la Tanniere 1239
King John 1199

*Lord of la Tanniere
**[St. Lo, Chart. Rolls 1 Jo. m. 25.]
***of la Tanniere and Livare, died about 1227?
****living 1235, then married to Sir Henry de Gastines

In an undated grant to Savigny Abbey of "the tolls of Feuguerolles," William
son of Ralph de Gorram is a witness; this charter is supposed to be of the
early part of century XII.

In a Charter, dated 1114 (being a grant to Vitalis first Abbot of Savigny of
wood-land between the streams Urda and Chamberon), Henry de Gorram as a
witness.

Charters [not all listed here]:
1. Giles de Gorram ... wife, children, son William ca 1180
2. William de Gorram, brother Henry, Oliva wife, Ralph and Robert sons,
witnessed by Henry de Gorram, ca 1190
3. Guido de St. Loup and Mary de Gorrann his wife
4. Guido de St. Loup, Mary his wife, Gervase his eldest son, all other
children
5. Sir Ralph de Gorran, disputed rent, about 1215
6. Sir Ralph de Gorran, Lord of Thaonere and of Livare, 1227
7. Sir Dreux de Mellot,# Lord of Mayenne, consent of Isabella his wife,
confirms grant made in 1235 by Sir Robert de Gorram still living 1237
8. Agreement by Sir Giles de St. Loup and Foqueth son of Hugh Lord of Orta,
the heirs of Sir Robert de Goron of Thaonere, that they will observe the
Convention between the said Robert and the Abbot and Convent of Savigny,
1239.
9. Sir Fulch de Oeta, Lord of Livare, with consent of Johanna his wife, ...
Savigny Abbey. 1255
10. Inspeximus, by Ralph, Bishop of Avranches, of the following Savigny
Charters:
a. Grant by Robert de Gorran, Lord of Thaonere and Livare
b. Confirmation by Robert de Gorran of grants by his ancestors
c. Confirmation by Giles de St. Loup [St. Lo] and Floqueth [Fulch] son of
Hugh Lord of Orta, heirs of Sir Robert de Gorran, of the Convention, dated
12 Feb. 1282-3.

#In 1237, Sir Dreux de Mellot, Lord of Mayenne, (in right of his wife
Isabella, eldest daughter and coheiress of Juhel III Lord of Mayenne)
confirmed the grant of La Doree made by Sir Robert de Gorram in 1235 to
Mount St. Michael. Seal on brown wax: round, about two inches and a half
in diameter and exhibits part of a shield charged with two bars between
(six?) birds (3,2,1?); to which a label of four points is added by Dom
Morice from a mutilated seal to a deed dated 1219. The counterseal is
round, one inch in diameter,
cross SECRETVM EST hOC ....;
surrounding a bird.

Seals on green wax on original grant, in 1235 by Sir Robert de Gorram to the
Monks of Mount St. Michael, of an estate in La Doree:

cross S': P : DECANI : DE: ERNEIA
Oval, one and a half by three quarters of an inch. Two birds perched on a
fleur-de-lis.

cross S' ROBERTTI DE GORAN.
The S reversed. Round, one inch and a half diameter. On a shield, three
lions rampant.

cross S' : HENRICI: DE: GASTINET.
The S reversed. Round, one inch and a half diameter. On a shield, a bar
(gemel?) beneath a chief.

Ginny Wagner

Ginny Wagner

GORRAM of Gorhambury, Hertfordshire MUNPINCON RUNGGETHON

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 17. januar 2005 kl. 18.49

From Collectanea Topographica Genealogica, Vol. VI, (London: John Bowyer
Nichols and Son), 1840, pp. 288-289:

"4. Geoffrey de Gorham. The property which he held under the Abbot of St.
Alban's is mentioned (without date, but probably temp. Ric. I) as being
two-thirds of a knight's feet; Fulc de Munpincon holding the remaining
one-third. (MSS. Cott. Nero D.I.f.171)"

Is this the same as Descendants Corrigenda:

de Gorham, Gaufrid
Geoffrey de Gorham held, with Agnes de Montpincon or her son Ralph, one fee
of St Albans abbey in 1166. Kinsman of abbots Geoffrey and Robert de Gorron.
Abbot Geoffrey de Goron of St Albans built a hall at Westwick for his
brother-in-law Hugh fitz Humbold, whose successors Ivo and Geoffrey used the
name de Gorham (GASA i, p. 95). Geoffrey brother of Abbot Robert and Henry
son of Geoffrey de Goram attested a charter of Archdeacon John of Durham c.
1163/6 (Kemp, Archidiaconal Acta, 31). Geoffrey's successor Henry de Gorhan
of Westwick (now Gorhambury) held in 1210 (RBE 558). VCH ii, 393.

Gjest

Re: George Douglas, 1st Earl Angus was Ancestry of Beatrice,

Legg inn av Gjest » 18. januar 2005 kl. 4.11

MichaelAnne wrote: "The 1st Earl of Douglas was William Douglas the son of Archibald Douglas, son of William 'le Hardi' Douglas by his second wife Eleanor de Louvaine. He
married Margaret de Mar. He also had an illegitimate son George Douglas, by Margaret, Countess of Angus, who came into his mother's lands. "

First I would like to thank you for your excellent post.

Second I seem to have a problem where for some reason I have placed this George Douglas, 1st Earl Angus as husband to Lady Mary Stewart d/o Robert III, K. Scotland. Married 24 May 1397

Is it really true that Mary Stewart married a man who did not have legitimate birth? Was it common for such a high-born person to marry like that? Or do I have this family hopelessly confused?
Thanks
Will

Gjest

Re: George Douglas, 1st Earl Angus was Ancestry of Beatrice,

Legg inn av Gjest » 18. januar 2005 kl. 18.31

There seems to be another problem with the Countess of Angus ...

Some people have a claim that George was "made Earl of Angus BECAUSE he was
about to marry the King's daughter". However they then say that his mother was
alive until about 1412 or so. It seems like that would mean there was both a
"Countess" of Angus (as found) and an "Earl" of Angus at the same time,
mother and son.

Other's have her, the "Countess" dying about 1392 and the marriage taking
place after this which could mean he had already been granted the title Earl of
Angus or it went into abeyance for a period of about 5 years.

In general the sources I've found appear confused on this issue.
Will

Gjest

Re: George Douglas, 1st Earl Angus was Ancestry of Beatrice,

Legg inn av Gjest » 18. januar 2005 kl. 23.41

Dear Will et als,
Margaret (Stewart) Mar,suo jure Countess of Angus
and widow of Thomas, 9th Earl of Mar may have opted to resign her title in her
son George`s favor. I don`t believe his father William Douglas, 1st Earl of
Douglas ever troubled to acknowledge him as his son.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Sir James Douglas ~1286 - 1330

Legg inn av Gjest » 19. januar 2005 kl. 3.21

Trotting over to Leo's excellent website http://www.genealogics.org I was able to link this Douglas line forward to some other Douglas' I have in my database.

I noticed a few things. The extracts recently posted appear to show James' father William as dying 1297/9 in the Tower of London ? Brittanica shows c 1298. I think Leo's cite states BEF 1296 iirc.

Also Leo's site did not have a specific date for the date of Sir James Douglas in 1330. Brittanica states it was 25 Aug 1330 and that he was slain in Spain.

It also says this James was called "the black", another cite calls him "the Good", and one of the extracts calls him "Lord of Douglas".

Brittanica says this James was educated in Paris, I thought that was interesting. Doesn't say WHY.

Source:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9031046

http://www.wikipedia.com does NOT yet have a biography on this James, just in case one of your interprid individuals want to offer one up (sans copyright of course) since it's a GNU project.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Matthew's ancestry was Re: Sassanid Emperors of Persia

Legg inn av Gjest » 19. januar 2005 kl. 7.20

In a message dated 1/18/2005 10:15:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

I was talking to Arkadiusz Bugaj in the Sassanid Emperors of
Persia thread when he asked about my royal connections

I remember the post, just not sure everyone does.
Since you brought it up, which Persian ancestor of yours married which
Rockefeller ? And wouldn't your surname be something other than Rockefeller if the
Rockefeller was a maternal line?
Will

Paul K Davis

Re: Matthew's ancestry was Re: Sassanid Emperors of Persia

Legg inn av Paul K Davis » 19. januar 2005 kl. 7.41

Sometimes a child is given the mother's surname. I gave my daughter my
wife's surname, rather than mine.

In medieval England, surnames weren't very fixed, and among the nobility
your property served as surname. If that came from your mother, then the
records looked like you got your surname from your mother.

Among the status conscious Byzantines they seem to have taken whichever
surname had higher standing, or combined both if they were both of rank.

When Welsh, who did not have surnames, entered English society, they took
any available surname, from either parent or from their property.

-- PKD [Paul K Davis, [email protected]]


[Original Message]
From: <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Date: 1/18/2005 10:18:40 PM
Subject: Re: Matthew's ancestry was Re: Sassanid Emperors of Persia

In a message dated 1/18/2005 10:15:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

I was talking to Arkadiusz Bugaj in the Sassanid Emperors of
Persia thread when he asked about my royal connections

I remember the post, just not sure everyone does.
Since you brought it up, which Persian ancestor of yours married which
Rockefeller ? And wouldn't your surname be something other than
Rockefeller if the
Rockefeller was a maternal line?
Will

Tony Hoskins

RE: AMERICANS

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 19. januar 2005 kl. 18.31

I join Ms. Robbins is dismay at the political/ideological diatribes too
frequently appearing herein. I am, however, sticking around though
because, at the moment, the excellent *on topic* postings and occasional
brilliance of many in the group make it worthwhile. Still, Ms. Robbins'
posting ought to serve as a wake-up call.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California

"JOY ROBBINS" <[email protected]> 01/19/05 03:34AM
Sorry list...this message was NOT from me...it was to me. I don't

appreciate being used for political purposes and am signing off from
the
list. Other than this sort of mental retardation I've enjoyed being
with
you all.

-----Original Message-----
From: JOY ROBBINS [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: AMERICANS


American ideals are:
- to be chauvinist (and you are a good example. Try to understand why
other
people may have a different opinion).

The Americans attacked Iraq under the false pretext that Iraq had
weapons of
mass-destruction, what (at that moment) of course was a bloody lie.

The Americans continue to support a country, ISRAEL, condemned by the
UN for
their war against the Palestines. This totally biased support of that
Zionist State by your people has been the primary reason for the
present
killing situation in the Midddle East.

The present attacks of the occopied and terrorised Iraq people, is the
result of the American war on innocent people. (which YOU call:
ideals.
Typical American.
It is time you start adhering to the International rules for prisoners
of
war (and NOT humiliating them). Unfortunately international rules do
not
allways apply to the selfish American people, looking (for decades)
only
after their OWN interest.

Americans continue to kill innocent women and children for over half a
century (and maybe even longer, (ask the surviving Indians), but that I
do
not know from OWN experience!!)

America is in a complete financial mass (due to the INCOMPETENT
president)
and is rapidly going to a recession, which now -at last- can be read by
all
Americans on the front page of the Wall Street Journal of to-day.

That is MY opinion (and of many others) of the Americans.

L. Akershoek,
(Yes, contrary to you, I put my name under my E-mail. You are not so
polite)
and moreover, you use a mailing list for a purpose it is NOT intended.
(But
you are an American, so you could not care less).

BTW. I worked for over 25 years (as a Financial Manager) for
US-transnationals and visited (the dirty town of) New York many times,
before retiring.

----- Original Message -----
From: JOY ROBBINS


It smacks of ignorance and a total lack of knowledge of what the US
was
founded on, her ideals and her people. You need to play with your mind
a
little more on this one and tell whoever
convinced you of that to go back to school on their history lessons.

______________________________

Chris Phillips

Re: George Douglas, 1st Earl Angus was Ancestry of Beatrice,

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 20. januar 2005 kl. 13.44

[email protected] wrote:
There seems to be another problem with the Countess of Angus ...

Some people have a claim that George was "made Earl of Angus BECAUSE he
was
about to marry the King's daughter". However they then say that his
mother was
alive until about 1412 or so. It seems like that would mean there was
both a
"Countess" of Angus (as found) and an "Earl" of Angus at the same time,
mother and son.

Other's have her, the "Countess" dying about 1392 and the marriage taking
place after this which could mean he had already been granted the title
Earl of
Angus or it went into abeyance for a period of about 5 years.

According to the Complete Peerage (i 154) Margaret resigned the earldom to
her son on 9 April 1389, "reserving for herself the frank tenement thereof
for life". It's added that she was living in 1417, being styled "Countess of
Angus and Mar" then, but died before 23 March 1417/8.

On this account, George became Earl of Mar some years before his marriage,
for which the contract was dated 24 May 1397.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Thierry d'Alsace, Count of Flanders

Legg inn av Gjest » 21. januar 2005 kl. 1.21

"name, Francais: Thierry d'Alsace
name, Nederlans: Diederik van den Elzas"

I also saw a reference that said that Thierry is the same as Dirk. Is Dirk a diminuative for Diederik? Or is Dirk in some other language like English? Or ....
Thanks
Will

Tony Hoskins

Re: Thierry d'Alsace, Count of Flanders

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 21. januar 2005 kl. 1.31

Dirk (Dutch) = Dietrich [et var.] (German).




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

Tony Hoskins

Re: Thierry d'Alsace, Count of Flanders

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 21. januar 2005 kl. 1.31

http://www.geocities.com/edgarbook/name ... doric.html

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

Leo van de Pas

Re: Thierry d'Alsace, Count of Flanders

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 21. januar 2005 kl. 10.41

Dirk is a Dutch name, not a deminuative. Diederik is basically the same,
also Dutch and then there is the German Dietrich.
Just to confuse you :-)
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Thierry d'Alsace, Count of Flanders


"name, Francais: Thierry d'Alsace
name, Nederlans: Diederik van den Elzas"

I also saw a reference that said that Thierry is the same as Dirk. Is
Dirk a diminuative for Diederik? Or is Dirk in some other language like

English? Or ....
Thanks
Will



D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sources For Family History

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21. januar 2005 kl. 23.20

| Even the Monarchy with all their written history is stretched to find
| a line back to William. [The Conqueror -- DSH]
| Thur

You also wrote THAT piece of unabashed gibberish.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sources For Family History

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 21. januar 2005 kl. 23.20

| As far as I know less [sic] than 10 families can show documents that
| prove descent from a Norman of any sort. [Thur -- DSH]

MORE Twaddle!

Normans who are known to have been with William at Hastings ["Companions
of the Conqueror"], about 20 or so, does not equate to ALL Normans, "of
any sort".

Check the Archives and CP XII/1, Appendix L:
------------------------------

CP Vol. XII/1, postscript to Appendix L (regarding the 1066 Battle of
Hastings), "Companions of the Conqueror," pp. 47-48:

1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.

(# 1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, # 13 portrayed in the
battle scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, # 14-15 named by Orderic.)

Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost
certainly at the battle:

16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.

(# 16 named by William of Poitiers, # 17-19 portrayed in the
Bayeux Tapestry, # 20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the English
War before William became King of England.)
-------------------------------------

| As far as I know less [sic] than 10 families can show documents that
| prove descent from a Norman of any sort.

THAT is what you wrote -- quite blissfully stupid.

Don't try to move the goalposts.

DSH

"Thur" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| I have just found the source for my quote:
|
| Extract from
| soc.genealogy.medieval
|
| Extract:
| The question of the handful of Normans for whom evidence exists of
presence
| at Hastings is discussed by A.J. Camp, in "My ancestors came with the
| Conqueror" (1988), who also gives a long list of the names in
different
| versions of the "Roll". He gives "Drury" as appearing in Raphael
Holinshed's
| version, and "Diury" in Andre Duchesne's. He also gives a reference to
the
| Duchess of Cleveland's "The Battle Abbey Roll: with some Account of
the
| Norman Lineages" (1889), vol.1, pp.345-349. This must be the book
you've
| seen photocopies from - note that Camp cautions that it "mixes fact
with
| much fiction".
|
| So A.J.Camp being a respected writer on Genealogy for many years,
| and many publications in his name, mostly printed by Society of
| Genealogists (SOG).
|
| My number "below 10" is from memory. I would be interested is you
| found out exactly how many names he says it is.
|
| THur

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sources For Family History

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 22. januar 2005 kl. 5.06

Renia Simmonds Wrote:

DSH
----------------------

Piggybacking on several posts.

Thur wrote:

"Dallas Patterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


Thur wrote:


"Dallas Patterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


Thur wrote:



"Julian Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...



On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:35:25 GMT, "Rick B" <[email protected]
wrote:




The Uk's Class system has shaped our politics and society for
generations.
The selection of people who take up ruling jobs, and those who
make
up
the governments and the so-called Lords are from a very narrow
section
of
society, or have been for generations.

Not always. That is something of a fallacy. The British class system has
always been more fluid than it is given credit for. The lowly always had
a chance of joining the upper classes and taking high office, and many
did. When they did, they had to behave according to upper-class mores.
It is social behaviour which is class-ridden, not the members of the
classes.

The thing with the British class system is that has its roots in
the
Battle of Hastings. Much of the upper class is of Norman descent
(though by no means exclusively).

Rubbish. It may have been the case in medieval times, but not for
centuries has that been the case.

The division of British society is
actually by original nationality, as is the Indian caste system.

Complete rubbish.

At
the annual enactment at Battle, the crowd shout at those playing
the
Normans like an American would at a WWF match.

That's because they are Anglo-Saxon supporters. It's a partisan day at
Battle. You have to pick one side or the other, or the enactment loses
its excitement.

--

Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk


The Class system is sustained by exclusiveness of education,
regional
accent,
mannerisms,

All patterns of behaviour according to what the class system expects.
But it says nothing of who belongs to which class.

ownership of property that is handed down over generations,

Aristocratic families have come and gone. They change over time, with
marriages brining in new blood, new property, and new names.

and as a totem has the prestige of the Monarchy and it's Grace and
Favour
dependants and the allocation of hereditary titles.

Not so much grace and favour, really. They gave much of their land back
to the country. For which they receive an income from the Civil List in
return.

Most people who are Class-concious have little connection with the
above,
but fantasise that they do.
I see as an example "Mrs.Hyacynth Bucket" from the soap "Keeping up
Appearances" as a particularly well observed example.

No, that's not class. It's just snobbery, based on what Mrs Bucket
perceives to be aristocratic behaviour. But it's not even aristocratic
behaviour which she emulates, but the worst kind - bourgeois wannabe
middle class behaviour.

I have heard this theory about Norman roots before, but have never
seen
a proper explanation. I suppose that our "Upper Crust" have been
the
inheritors in a direct line from our Norman Conquerors?

Only one family goes back that far in the male line. The Percys, Dukes
of Northumberland. All other families can only claim decent through
female lines and name-changes.

I always look at the family trees when I look round the many "Great
Houses"
I have been to. I cannot remember one that has such a direct line.
Even the Monarchy with all their written history is stretched to
find a
line
back to William.

It does, but not in the male line.

Thur


Descent from William I and his family is quite common.

Through female lines and intermarriage.

Many of their
descendants lived in the area of Essex and were among the early
colonists
of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The extraordinarily large families
of
Colonial America resulted in a very large number of William's
descendants
proliferating and inter-marrying throughout American society.

I have often argued against this. They always disagree with my theory of
"the name's the same" and proclaim that the USA had a small gene pool
at its outset. Maybe so, but it still doesn't guarantee descent from
William the Conqueror. Few Brits can make that claim. So why should
Americans?

After I posted, I realised I would be corrected.
What I had failed to communicate is that an upper class would be
able to demonstrate their lineage,

Only so far.

and I suppose their conviction
that they carried a different social "flag" as a result.

Most aristocratic families today descend from yesterday's nouveau
riches.

The possibilities of people being descended from William are very
high IF his descendants did survive.

Through intermarriage and bastardy. So what. Doesn't make you an
aristocrat if you can claim such descent.

That far back, we all share a line or two.
The Upper Crust would be able to demonstrate that their property,
titles,
and their assumptions of grandeur were inherited unbroken from the
Conqueror. As far as I know less than 10 families can show documents
that
prove descent from a Norman of any sort.

People can claim such descent, but very, very few families, if you class
a family as a group of descendants sharing the same surname.

Trying to prove you are a Norman without a Norman name gets to be
difficult
for starters. Only a few of English names are actually Norman.

Norman surnames were usually derived from the place from whence they
came. Hugh d'Avranches, for example, came from Avranches. Few families
had surnames at that time. These developed later, from place names,
(Kirby, Essex, etc), occupations (smith, cooper, etc), or personal
characteristics (redhead, whitehead, etc).

The attempt to prove a lineage via a female line - which aristocrats
do -
is
only
significant if the titles and property followed the line.

All documented ancestry is significant, regardless of property
inheritance. However, if you had a claim to property, then your proven
lineage might be useful.

I have come accross one which claimed a lineage via an ancient
bastard
son.

Bastard inheritance had no claim in law, so while the bastard's
descendant could claim a lineage, he had no claim to any property,
unless the bastard had been specifically written into a will.

The importance of the inheritance overcoming any possible predudice.
If I remember correctly, USA has it's own equivalent of our Upper
Crust.
The daughters of the American Revolution use their claimed lineage to
bolster
their prestige.

And America claims to have no class system. The DAR are not aristocrats,
firstly, because they are not British and secondly, because any
aristocratic lineage is far removed.

Now I've really gon off topic!
Thur






I wouldn't characterize the members of the DAR as the "Upper Crust",
but
you could characterize them as the descendants of an Old Crust <grin>.
The
DAR and the Church of the Latter Day Saints have large bodies of
useful
genealogical data; BUT, the data is chock full of erroneous
information
and must be used with a great deal of care. They should only be used
as a
tool for identifying and finding reliable primary and secondary
sources.


Quite so, but in defence of the LDS, it is useful to know the source for
the information. If the named source was a parish register or Bishop's
Transcript, then there is a high liklihood the data is reasonably
accurate and useful (though better checked against the original where
possible). What is useless, are all thouse boundless lists of names of
Thomas Smith married to Mrs Smith in England. What is also equally
useless, are those multitudes of family trees on the LDS which are all
copied from each other, errors and all. I've even seen one of my own
ancestors on Rootsweb Worldconnect born 200 years after his father. I
wrote to the owner of that particular database to point it out, and he
replied that he couldn't be bothered to change it as it wasn't one of
his ancestors. So why include such info. (Rootsweb Worldconnect can be
very useful, but as with everything, should be used with care and
sometimes with a pinch of salt.)


There is a considerable body of English records which may be useful in
finding information about ancestors living in England during the
period
from 1066 to 1537. Examples of some of thse records include: Probate
Records before 1858, Manorial Record; Quarter Sessions, Inquisitions
Postmortem, Occupational Records, Biographies, Family Histories,
Church
Monuments; Land Records, Visitations, School and Alumni Records,
Chancery
Court Records, Church Records, and other Court Records. Members of
royalty
and the nobility tend to be represented more frequently in these
records,
but people from the middle and lower classes do appear in some of
these
records as well on a less frequent basis.

There are also various tax lists, such as the 14th century Poll Tax and
the Hearth Taxes, which list the butcher, the baker and the
candlestickmaker.
I don't understand why you would say, "As far as I know less than 10
families can show documents that prove descent from a Norman of any
sort."


The erroneous word, here, is "families". Few families can prove such
descent. But descendants can prove such descent.

I was quoting roughly A.J.Camp, although I cant give you the document
it
came from.

Anthony Camp was director of the Society of Genealogists for years. He
retired a couple of years ago and was the author of "My Ancestor Came
With The Conqueror". After consulting various primary sources, his
conclusion was there were only about 20 Normans who accompanied the
Conqueror who could actually be named with any certainty. Yes, thousands
came with the conqueror, but there names are not known. (For the list,
see DSH's post.)

All of the sources deplete the further back you go.
Only those records which had to be kept to prove heritage via lineage
were
liable to have survived.

None of the documents survive as a whole, but are fragmentary.
Few of them have much before 1400.

Justice of The Peace (also known as magistrates) were appointed from
the
13th Century. The first Quarter Session appears to have been in 1331.
Coronors records started in the 12th Century and many have been lost.
Manorial Court Rolls survive from the early 13th Century.

These are extremely useful documents, but are fragmentary, in many
cases.

I haven't checked out all the sources you quote but am confident that
you
will have great difficulty in chasing down records earlier than 1200.
Finding any unbroken, documentated line before 1500 is likely to prove
extremely difficult. Proving anything with something called a Family
History
is impossible.
There is just a chance than someone will get lucky at the PRO or
whatever
they call it now, ask for some roll of documents to be unpacked and
straightened, and find an enriching source, previously unknown.
Never take on trust any statement that claims to have proved a
descent.
Always ask for sources. Usually somewhere there has been guesswork.
Thur

Thur knows what he is talking about.

Renia

Gjest

Re: Sources For Family History

Legg inn av Gjest » 22. januar 2005 kl. 9.13

<major snippage>

---I have often argued against this. They always disagree with my
theory of
--- "the name's the same" and proclaim that the USA had a small gene
pool
---at its outset. Maybe so, but it still doesn't guarantee descent from
----William the Conqueror. Few Brits can make that claim. So why should
----Americans?



This quote shows a great ignorance regarding the English origins of
American colonists.

I would recommend viewing
Henry F Waters "Genealogical Gleanings in England".
The work in question consists of transcriptions of many English wills
relating to American colonists.

For example, the will of Jane Chetwood of West Felton, Shropshire
proved in the PCC in 1648, mentions sister Grace wife of Peter Bulkeley
in New England.
Working back through English records, Jane and Grace have a royal
descent - unless perhaps you can disprove it!

Another example is the 1671 PCC will of Matthew Haviland of Shoreditch,
Middlesex, which mentions the children of his sister Jane wife of
Wiliam Torry in New England.
The Havilands also have gentry ancestry, and a royal descent.

Theres a very good reason why Americans are able to trace back to
colonists
of royal descent, as given in this quote from _English Genealogy_
by Sir Anthony Wagner, Garter King of Arms (2nd edition, 1972),
p. 282:

"We have, for instance, an unequalled knowledge of the personal
antecedents of the New England settlers owing to the labours of
New England genealogists in the past century. These genealogists
have had the advantage of a wealthy, intelligent and keenly
interested clientele. Indeed few problems of genealogy anywhere
have had closer and more extensive study than those of the New
England settlers' origins. "

Leslie

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Sources For Family History

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 22. januar 2005 kl. 9.31

| >I have heard this theory about Norman roots before, but have never
| >seen a proper explanation. I suppose that our "Upper Crust" have
| >been the inheritors in a direct line from our Norman Conquerors?
|
| Only one family goes back that far in the male line. The Percys, Dukes
| of Northumberland. All other families can only claim decent through
| female lines and name-changes. [Renia]
|
| >I always look at the family trees when I look round the many "Great
| >Houses" I have been to. I cannot remember one that has such a
| >direct line. Even the Monarchy with all their written history is
| >stretched to find a line back to William.
|
| It does, but not in the male line.
|
| >Thur

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: C.P. Correction: Robert Willoughby's alleged wife, Alice

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 22. januar 2005 kl. 21.16

Dear Newsgroup ~

Several months ago, I posted the message below which detailed evidence
indicating that the mother of William de Willoughby, 5th Lord
Willoughby was Margery la Zouche, daughter of William la Zouche, 2nd
Lord Zouche of Harringworth. On the whole, this seems to be a rather
straight forward genealogical problem. The evidence shows that
William's parents, Robert and Margery, were married before 1 October
1369. From his father's inquisition post mortem, it appears that
William was born about 1372, a full three years afer the date we know
his parents were married. Onomastic, heraldic, and visitation evidence
also support this conclusion.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 660-661 (sub Willoughby) has a good
account of the life of Robert de Willoughby, Knt. (died 1396), 4th
Lord Willoughby of Eresby. The author of Complete Peerage has the
following to say about Sir Robert de Willoughby's alleged three
marriages:

"He married, 1stly, in or before 1370, Alice. He married, 2ndly,
before 29 March 1372, Margery, daughter of William (la Zouche), 2nd
Lord Zouche (of Haryngworth), by Elizabeth, daughter of William (de
Ros), 2nd Lord Ros (of Helmsley). She died 18 Oct. 1391 and was
buried at Spilsby aforesaid (M.I.). [Her] will dated 11 Oct. at
Eresby, proved 7 Nov. 1391 at Stowe Park (Lincoln Reg.). He married,
3rdly, Elizabeth, de jure suo jure (according to modern doctrine)
Baroness Latimer, widow of John (de Neville), 3rd Lord Neville (of
Raby), daughter and heiress of William (de Latimer), 4th Lord
Latimer,
by his wife Elizabeth. She died 5 Nov. 1395, and was probably buried
at Spilsby. [Her] will dated 18 Oct. at Eresby, directing burial at
Spilsby, proved 10 Nov. 1395 at Lincoln."

Complete Peerage assigns the first wife, Alice, as the mother of Sir
Robert's son and heir, William; his middle children, Robert, Thomas,
John, and Brian, are assigned as children of the second wife, Margery
la Zouche; and the last child, Margaret, is assigned as a child of
the
third wife, Elizabeth Latimer.

This seems very straightforward. However, what evidence does
Complete
Peerage provide for the first wife, Alice Skipwith? Here is what the
author says in footnote c on page 661:

"She [Alice] is said to have been a daughter of Sir William de
Skipwith, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, by Alice, daughter and
heiress
of Sir William de Hiltoft, of Ingoldmells, Lincolnshire. See
Nichols,
Hist. and Antiq. of co. Leicester, vol. iii, p. 369; Massingberd,
Hist. of Ormsby, pp.68-69, 92. The alleged descent of Skipwith from
Stuteville is discussed by C.T. Clay in Early Yorkshire Charters,
vol.
ix, p.138."

I examined the first two sources given by the author of Complete
Peerage as evidence for Alice Skipwith's existence and marriage.
Both sources state without any documentation that Sir William de
Skipwith had a daughter, Alice, who married Robert de Willoughby, 4th
Lord Willoughby of Eresby. But did she exist?

These same two sources also indicate that Sir William de Skipwith had
a grandson, Thomas Skipwith, who married Margaret Willoughby of the
Eresby family. As best I can determine, if Alice Skipwith really was
the mother of Sir Robert de Willoughby's son and heir, William, this
would make Thomas Skipwith and Margaret Willoughby related in the 2nd
and 3rd degrees of kindred, too closely related to obtain a
dispensation to marry. If the marriage of Thomas and Margaret took
place (as I believe it did), it makes it extremely doubtful that
Margaret was the granddaughter of Alice Skipwith.

Regarding the chronology of the Willoughby family, Complete Peerage
states that Sir Robert de Willoughby and Margery la Zouche were
married before 29 March 1372. Actually, I have elsewhere located a
document in the helpful online A2A Catalogue
(http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp) which proves that this
couple
were married before 1 October 1369:

Lincolnshire Archives: Holywell, Reference: Holywell 87/53
Creation dates: 1 October 1369

Grant by Thomas de Hynton, parson, of a mediety of the church of St.
Elena of Theddlethorp, John de Fulstow of Keddington and John de
Irland of Bessby, to Margery wife of sir Robert de Wilughby kt., son
of John de Wilughby and after her death to John de Wilughby lord of
Eresby, of all the lands and tenements which John de Newerk of
Fulstow
holds for the term of his life, and which after his death return to
Thomas, John and John.

Witnesses:- William de Skipwith kt., Robert de Hernak, William at
Halle of Beesby, Robert de Beeseby Robert Seryveyn of Fulstow John de
Markby of the same.

Endorsed:- Fulstow. Johannes Will. dns. de Eresby Roberti uxor
Margareia (16th century).

Two seals. END OF A2A CATALOGUE ITEM.

So, when was Sir Robert Willoughby's son and heir, William, born?
Complete Peerage states that he was born about 1370 (citing Ch. Inq.
p.m., 20 Ric. II, no. 54). If so, it would make William the child of
Margery la Zouche.

The document cited by Complete Peerage as evidence of William
Willoughby's birthdate is the inquisition post mortem for his father,
Sir Robert de Willoughby, taken in 1396. Modern abstracts of the
inquests which make up this record are printed in Calender of
Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. 17 (1988): 340-344. Following Sir
Robert de Willoughby's death, inquests were taken in various counties
as follows: Buckingham, Bedford, London, Leicester, Norfolk, Suffolk,
York, Cambridge, Northampton, and Lincoln. These various inquests
indicate that Sir Robert's son and heir, William, was then aged 30,
not stated, 24, 24, 28, 28, 24, 26, 24, 24.

As we can see, a range in dates is provided for William Willougby's
age from 24 to 30 years. However, the most common age given is 24
years (this age was given in four different inquests). Age 24 is
also
the age provided by the jurors in Lincolnshire, who seemingly would
have been in the best position to provide the correct answer as to
the
heir's age. Lincolnshire was the chief seat of residence of the
Willoughby family. Assuming 24 is correct age, it would place
William
Willoughby's birth at about 1372, three years after his father
married
Margery la Zouche [Note: I assume that the author of Complete Peerage
moved William's birthdate back to 1370, to accomodate the traditional
view that Alice Skipwith was his mother].

This date may be a little on the short side, as elsewhere I find that
William Willoughby had license to marry Lucy le Strange at Middle,
Shropshire shortly after 3 Jan. 1382/3 [Reference: R. Stretton Regs.
of Bishops of Coventry & Lichfield (Colls. Hist. Staffs. n.s. 8)
(1905): 84. This marriage license was overlooked by Complete
Peerage]. Inasmuch as marriages of high born English nobles were
usually performed at around the age of 13 or 14, this would put
William Willoughby's birth at around 1369/70. Please see my post of
earlier this week which indicate that Robert de Willoughby's parents
were seemingly married when his father was aged 8; also please see
the
marriage settlement of Humphrey Bourgchier and Elizabeth Tilney which
implies that their marriage is to take place before Humphrey reached
his 14th year of age.

Is there any further evidence that Margery la Zouche was the mother
of
William Willoughby? Yes, there is. I find that the 1623 Visitation
of Wiltshire states that Robert de Willoughby married Margery la
Zouche. The visitation further indicates that Margery la Zouche was
the mother of Robert's son and heir, William, and his second son, Sir
Thomas. Alice Skipwith is not mentioned at all.

"Robtus Dns Willoughbie de Eresbie ob: Anno 20: Ri:. 2 = Dau of the
Lo
Zouch" [Reference: H. St. George, Wiltshire Vis. Peds. 1623 (H.S.P.
105-106) (1954): 216-218 (Willoughbie pedigree)].

Is there any heraldic evidence that Margery la Zouche is the mother
of
William Willoughby? Yes, there is. Gervase Holles published a
record
of the Willoughby effigies and stained glass windows in the church at
Spilsby, Lincolnshire [Reference: Gervase Holles, Lincolnshire Church
Notes (Lincoln Rec. Soc. 1) (1911): 84-90]. This is the church where
the early Lords Willoughby lie buried. Among numerous shields and
coats of arms in the church, Mr. Holles records a series of windows
in
the north isle of the Spilsby church, which windows appear to
represent various marriages of the early Lords Willoughby. These
windows include one for Robert Willoughby's marriage to Margery la
Zouche, and one for Robert's son and heir, William's marriage to Lucy
le Strange. The arrangement of these windows suggests to me that
Margery la Zouche was the mother of William Willoughby, otherwise one
should find a window commemorating the supposed marriage of Robert
Willoughby to Alice Skipwith. I might note that the Skipwith arms
are
no where to be found in the Spilsby church. The Latimer arms for Sir
Robert Willoughby's 3rd wife are found in this church, however.

What about onomastic evidence? Did William Willoughby name a
daughter
Alice or Margery. The answer: He named a daughter, Margery. He
named no daughter, Alice.

So, then what is the source which states that Alice Skipwith was the
first wife of Sir Robert de Willoughby? Collins' Peerage of England
6
(1812): 591-619 contains an account of the early Willoughby family.
Reviewing this account, I find that the author states that Sir Robert
de Willoughby married "first, Alice, daughter of Sir William
Skipwith,
by whom he had William, his son and heir." The author gives as his
source: Segar's MS. Baronage, which work I have not seen. The author
adds that Alice Skipwith was "according to my MS. [mother of] "four
other sons," viz., Robert, Thomas, John, and Bryan. The latter
statement is definitely erroneous.

The author adds: "Sir William Dugdale says, the four youngest [sons]
were "by his second wife, Elizabeth, sister and heir to John Nevill,
Lord Latimer ... His second wife, according to several MSS. was
Margaret, or Margery, daughter of William, Lord Zouch, of
Harringworth, by whom he had no issue." Again, Dugdale is in error
as
to the order of Sir Robert de Willoughby's marriages, as well as
which
wife was the mother of Sir Robert Willoughby's children. Confusion
abounds in these early sources!

Did Alice Skipwith exist? I have found no evidence that such a woman
existed. If she did exist, she can't have been the mother of Robert
Willoughby's son and heir, William, otherwise the later intermarriage
between the Skipwith and Willoughby families would have been
disallowed as I have noted above.

Reviewing the evidence, I find every single piece of evidence
pointing
to the fact that Margery la Zouche was the mother of William
Willoughby. This is based on chronology, heraldic evidence,
onomastics, and the later Skipwith-Willoughby intermarriage. The
traditional view that Alice Skipwith was the mother of William
Willoughby appears to be erroneous.

Interested parties can find representations of the monumental brass
of
Margery la Zouche, wife of Sir Robert de Willoughby, at the following
two websites:

http://www.mbs-brasses.co.uk/pic_lib/Spilsby_Brass.htm

http://www.gothiceye.com/popup.asp?Ref=L019

The brass displays the arms of Zouche and Roos for her parents, as
well as those of Mortimer, Bohun, Beaumont, and Welles. I'm unable
to
explain the latter four arms on this brass, unless they are intended
for Margery's relatives of these surnames.

For interest sake, I've listed below the names of the New World
immigrants who descend from Sir William Willoughby, son and heir of
Sir Robert de Willoughby, by his wife, Margery la Zouche:

Elizabeth Alsop, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, George & Nehemiah
Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Edward
Carleton,
Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth
&
John Mansfield, Elizabeth Marshall, Anne Mauleverer, Philip & Thomas
Nelson, Ellen Newton, John Oxenbridge, Thomas Rudyard.

Sir William Willoughby is also in the ancestry of H.R.H Charles,
Prince of Wales.

If anyone has any further particulars on this matter, I would
appreciate hearing from them.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Leo van de Pas

Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another C

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23. januar 2005 kl. 1.51

Dear John,

I am so glad you mentioned McNaughton's book "The Book of Kings" Volume I
page xii
The main paragraph I am referring to starts with
The descendants of George I married and intermarried for many years etc.
Then it starts counting

.....Elizabeth II also descends eight times from George I. Prince Philip,
Duke of Edinburgh, can claim nine lines of descent(snip). As a result Prince
Charles the Prince of Wales, his brothers Prince Andrew and Prince Edward
and their sister Princess Anne, have seventeen lines of descent from George
I of England.

I hope you can find the one more you mentioned.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]>
To: "John Higgins" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another C.P.
Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern


Can you supply the numbers in the ancestor list? I like to see which ones
I
am missing out on.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another C.P.
Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern


According to the data that I have, Prince William has 22 descents from
George I of England - all of them via his father Prince Charles. This
is
one more than the figure stated by Arnold McNaughton in 1973 in his "The
Book of Kings", which was at the time the most comprehensive
documentation
of the descendants of George I. I don't know why I have one more line
than
McNaughton (and I don't propose to try to find out - although I suspect
I'm
right), but interested parties may want to check this out using Paul
Theroff's files on the web.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 4:17 PM
Subject: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another C.P.
Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern


When you deal with specifics you shouldn't guess on the top of your
head.
Ian Fettes and John Higgins are probably the two people who know most
about
the ancestors of Prince William.
I called up in my own system and ancestor list of Prince William of 15
generations.
Then I looked for George I for the first time (nr.1044) and then I
could
ask
in my system whether that number was repeated (1052=1044) and I found
that
George I does appear 17 times in the ancestor list of Prince William,
in
fact the numbers are :
1044 - 1052 - 1060 - 1376 - 1396 - 2206 - 2210 - 2286 - 2300 - 2466 -
2528 -
2592 - 2644 - 2652 - 2660 - 2702 - 2716

Hope this clarifies?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Yet another C.P. Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her
daughter, Sibyl Osbern


I think that's a low number. The princes descend twice from Queen
Victoria and have an additional line to George III through Queen
Mary.
They descend twice from Christian IX of Denmark and his wife, Louis
of
Hesse-Cassel, both descendants of George I, twice over (a total of
eight descents there). They descend from George I of Greece, whose
wife, Olga, was a Russian Grand Duchess. She descends from George I
at
least once through the Prussian royal family. And there's a another
Prussian descent. So, off the top of my head there's 13 lines.
Then
there's the lines from the House of Nassau. I remember reading that
were over 20 lines from George I. How far back and complete do you
have the princes' ancestry?

All the George I descents are from Charles, so see:
http://genroy.free.fr/asccharles.htm







D. Spencer Hines

Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another C

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23. januar 2005 kl. 2.11

Nope.

He said he had 22 lines -- five more -- not just one.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:000801c500e5$f90fcc00$c3b4fea9@email...
| Dear John,
|
| I am so glad you mentioned McNaughton's book "The Book of Kings"
Volume I
| page xii
| The main paragraph I am referring to starts with
| The descendants of George I married and intermarried for many years
etc.
| Then it starts counting
|
| ....Elizabeth II also descends eight times from George I. Prince
Philip,
| Duke of Edinburgh, can claim nine lines of descent(snip). As a result
Prince
| Charles the Prince of Wales, his brothers Prince Andrew and Prince
Edward
| and their sister Princess Anne, have seventeen lines of descent from
George
| I of England.
|
| I hope you can find the one more you mentioned.
| Leo
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]>
| To: "John Higgins" <[email protected]>
| Cc: <[email protected]>
| Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:44 AM
| Subject: Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another
C.P.
| Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern
|
|
| > Can you supply the numbers in the ancestor list? I like to see which
ones
| I
| > am missing out on.
| > Leo
| > ----- Original Message -----
| > From: "John Higgins" <[email protected]>
| > To: <[email protected]>
| > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:32 AM
| > Subject: Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another
C.P.
| > Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern
| >
| >
| > > According to the data that I have, Prince William has 22 descents
from
| > > George I of England - all of them via his father Prince Charles.
This
| is
| > > one more than the figure stated by Arnold McNaughton in 1973 in
his "The
| > > Book of Kings", which was at the time the most comprehensive
| documentation
| > > of the descendants of George I. I don't know why I have one more
line
| > than
| > > McNaughton (and I don't propose to try to find out - although I
suspect
| > I'm
| > > right), but interested parties may want to check this out using
Paul
| > > Theroff's files on the web.
| > >
| > > ----- Original Message -----
| > > From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]>
| > > To: <[email protected]>
| > > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 4:17 PM
| > > Subject: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another
C.P.
| > > Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern
| > >
| > >
| > > > When you deal with specifics you shouldn't guess on the top of
your
| > head.
| > > > Ian Fettes and John Higgins are probably the two people who know
most
| > > about
| > > > the ancestors of Prince William.
| > > > I called up in my own system and ancestor list of Prince William
of 15
| > > > generations.
| > > > Then I looked for George I for the first time (nr.1044) and then
I
| could
| > > ask
| > > > in my system whether that number was repeated (1052=1044) and I
found
| > that
| > > > George I does appear 17 times in the ancestor list of Prince
William,
| in
| > > > fact the numbers are :
| > > > 1044 - 1052 - 1060 - 1376 - 1396 - 2206 - 2210 - 2286 - 2300 -
2466 -
| > > 2528 -
| > > > 2592 - 2644 - 2652 - 2660 - 2702 - 2716
| > > >
| > > > Hope this clarifies?
| > > > Best wishes
| > > > Leo van de Pas
| > > > Canberra, Australia
| > > > ----- Original Message -----
| > > > From: <[email protected]>
| > > > To: <[email protected]>
| > > > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 10:51 AM
| > > > Subject: Re: Yet another C.P. Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford
and her
| > > > daughter, Sibyl Osbern
| > > >
| > > >
| > > > > I think that's a low number. The princes descend twice from
Queen
| > > > > Victoria and have an additional line to George III through
Queen
| Mary.
| > > > > They descend twice from Christian IX of Denmark and his wife,
Louis
| of
| > > > > Hesse-Cassel, both descendants of George I, twice over (a
total of
| > > > > eight descents there). They descend from George I of Greece,
whose
| > > > > wife, Olga, was a Russian Grand Duchess. She descends from
George I
| > at
| > > > > least once through the Prussian royal family. And there's a
another
| > > > > Prussian descent. So, off the top of my head there's 13
lines.
| Then
| > > > > there's the lines from the House of Nassau. I remember
reading that
| > > > > were over 20 lines from George I. How far back and complete
do you
| > > > > have the princes' ancestry?
| > > > >
| > > > > All the George I descents are from Charles, so see:
| > > > > http://genroy.free.fr/asccharles.htm

Leo van de Pas

Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another C

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23. januar 2005 kl. 2.21

John Higgins said he had one more than McNaughton, McNaughton as I have
already quoted gives 17 (as do I) and so I am curious about one more.

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another C.P.
Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern


Nope.

He said he had 22 lines -- five more -- not just one.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:000801c500e5$f90fcc00$c3b4fea9@email...
| Dear John,
|
| I am so glad you mentioned McNaughton's book "The Book of Kings"
Volume I
| page xii
| The main paragraph I am referring to starts with
| The descendants of George I married and intermarried for many years
etc.
| Then it starts counting
|
| ....Elizabeth II also descends eight times from George I. Prince
Philip,
| Duke of Edinburgh, can claim nine lines of descent(snip). As a result
Prince
| Charles the Prince of Wales, his brothers Prince Andrew and Prince
Edward
| and their sister Princess Anne, have seventeen lines of descent from
George
| I of England.
|
| I hope you can find the one more you mentioned.
| Leo
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]
| To: "John Higgins" <[email protected]
| Cc: <[email protected]
| Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:44 AM
| Subject: Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another
C.P.
| Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern
|
|
| > Can you supply the numbers in the ancestor list? I like to see which
ones
| I
| > am missing out on.
| > Leo
| > ----- Original Message -----
| > From: "John Higgins" <[email protected]
| > To: <[email protected]
| > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:32 AM
| > Subject: Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another
C.P.
| > Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern
|
|
| > > According to the data that I have, Prince William has 22 descents
from
| > > George I of England - all of them via his father Prince Charles.
This
| is
| > > one more than the figure stated by Arnold McNaughton in 1973 in
his "The
| > > Book of Kings", which was at the time the most comprehensive
| documentation
| > > of the descendants of George I. I don't know why I have one more
line
| > than
| > > McNaughton (and I don't propose to try to find out - although I
suspect
| > I'm
| > > right), but interested parties may want to check this out using
Paul
| > > Theroff's files on the web.
|
| > > ----- Original Message -----
| > > From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]
| > > To: <[email protected]
| > > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 4:17 PM
| > > Subject: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another
C.P.
| > > Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern
|
|
| > > > When you deal with specifics you shouldn't guess on the top of
your
| > head.
| > > > Ian Fettes and John Higgins are probably the two people who know
most
| > > about
| > > > the ancestors of Prince William.
| > > > I called up in my own system and ancestor list of Prince William
of 15
| > > > generations.
| > > > Then I looked for George I for the first time (nr.1044) and then
I
| could
| > > ask
| > > > in my system whether that number was repeated (1052=1044) and I
found
| > that
| > > > George I does appear 17 times in the ancestor list of Prince
William,
| in
| > > > fact the numbers are :
| > > > 1044 - 1052 - 1060 - 1376 - 1396 - 2206 - 2210 - 2286 - 2300 -
2466 -
| > > 2528 -
| > > > 2592 - 2644 - 2652 - 2660 - 2702 - 2716
|
| > > > Hope this clarifies?
| > > > Best wishes
| > > > Leo van de Pas
| > > > Canberra, Australia
| > > > ----- Original Message -----
| > > > From: <[email protected]
| > > > To: <[email protected]
| > > > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 10:51 AM
| > > > Subject: Re: Yet another C.P. Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford
and her
| > > > daughter, Sibyl Osbern
|
|
| > > > > I think that's a low number. The princes descend twice from
Queen
| > > > > Victoria and have an additional line to George III through
Queen
| Mary.
| > > > > They descend twice from Christian IX of Denmark and his wife,
Louis
| of
| > > > > Hesse-Cassel, both descendants of George I, twice over (a
total of
| > > > > eight descents there). They descend from George I of Greece,
whose
| > > > > wife, Olga, was a Russian Grand Duchess. She descends from
George I
| > at
| > > > > least once through the Prussian royal family. And there's a
another
| > > > > Prussian descent. So, off the top of my head there's 13
lines.
| Then
| > > > > there's the lines from the House of Nassau. I remember
reading that
| > > > > were over 20 lines from George I. How far back and complete
do you
| > > > > have the princes' ancestry?
|
| > > > > All the George I descents are from Charles, so see:
| > > > > http://genroy.free.fr/asccharles.htm


D. Spencer Hines

Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another C

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23. januar 2005 kl. 2.31

Nope.

John Higgins says he has 22 descents from King George I to Prince
William.

22 is the mark -- not 18.

Vide infra.

DSH

""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:000401c500ea$3f2ba7a0$c3b4fea9@email...

| John Higgins said he had one more than McNaughton, McNaughton as I
have
| already quoted gives 17 (as do I) and so I am curious about one more.
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
| To: <[email protected]>
| Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 12:13 PM
| Subject: Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another
C.P.
| Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern
|
|
| > Nope.
| >
| > He said he had 22 lines -- five more -- not just one.
| >
| > DSH
| >
| > ""Leo van de Pas"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:000801c500e5$f90fcc00$c3b4fea9@email...
| > | Dear John,
| > |
| > | I am so glad you mentioned McNaughton's book "The Book of Kings"
| > Volume I
| > | page xii
| > | The main paragraph I am referring to starts with
| > | The descendants of George I married and intermarried for many
years
| > etc.
| > | Then it starts counting
| > |
| > | ....Elizabeth II also descends eight times from George I. Prince
| > Philip,
| > | Duke of Edinburgh, can claim nine lines of descent(snip). As a
result
| > Prince
| > | Charles the Prince of Wales, his brothers Prince Andrew and Prince
| > Edward
| > | and their sister Princess Anne, have seventeen lines of descent
from
| > George
| > | I of England.
| > |
| > | I hope you can find the one more you mentioned.
| > | Leo
| > |
| > | ----- Original Message -----
| > | From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]>
| > | To: "John Higgins" <[email protected]>
| > | Cc: <[email protected]>
| > | Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:44 AM
| > | Subject: Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet
another
| > C.P.
| > | Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern
| > |
| > |
| > | > Can you supply the numbers in the ancestor list? I like to see
which
| > ones
| > | I
| > | > am missing out on.
| > | > Leo
| > | > ----- Original Message -----
| > | > From: "John Higgins" <[email protected]>
| > | > To: <[email protected]>
| > | > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:32 AM
| > | > Subject: Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet
another
| > C.P.
| > | > Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > > According to the data that I have, Prince William has 22
descents
| > from
| > | > > George I of England - all of them via his father Prince
Charles.
| > This
| > | is
| > | > > one more than the figure stated by Arnold McNaughton in 1973
in
| > his "The
| > | > > Book of Kings", which was at the time the most comprehensive
| > | documentation
| > | > > of the descendants of George I. I don't know why I have one
more
| > line
| > | > than
| > | > > McNaughton (and I don't propose to try to find out - although
I
| > suspect
| > | > I'm
| > | > > right), but interested parties may want to check this out
using
| > Paul
| > | > > Theroff's files on the web.
| > | > >
| > | > > ----- Original Message -----
| > | > > From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]>
| > | > > To: <[email protected]>
| > | > > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 4:17 PM
| > | > > Subject: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet
another
| > C.P.
| > | > > Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern
| > | > >
| > | > >
| > | > > > When you deal with specifics you shouldn't guess on the top
of
| > your
| > | > head.
| > | > > > Ian Fettes and John Higgins are probably the two people who
know
| > most
| > | > > about
| > | > > > the ancestors of Prince William.
| > | > > > I called up in my own system and ancestor list of Prince
William
| > of 15
| > | > > > generations.
| > | > > > Then I looked for George I for the first time (nr.1044) and
then
| > I
| > | could
| > | > > ask
| > | > > > in my system whether that number was repeated (1052=1044)
and I
| > found
| > | > that
| > | > > > George I does appear 17 times in the ancestor list of Prince
| > William,
| > | in
| > | > > > fact the numbers are :
| > | > > > 1044 - 1052 - 1060 - 1376 - 1396 - 2206 - 2210 - 2286 -
2300 -
| > 2466 -
| > | > > 2528 -
| > | > > > 2592 - 2644 - 2652 - 2660 - 2702 - 2716
| > | > > >
| > | > > > Hope this clarifies?
| > | > > > Best wishes
| > | > > > Leo van de Pas
| > | > > > Canberra, Australia
| > | > > > ----- Original Message -----
| > | > > > From: <[email protected]>
| > | > > > To: <[email protected]>
| > | > > > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 10:51 AM
| > | > > > Subject: Re: Yet another C.P. Correction: Amy not Joan
Ufford
| > and her
| > | > > > daughter, Sibyl Osbern
| > | > > >
| > | > > >
| > | > > > > I think that's a low number. The princes descend twice
from
| > Queen
| > | > > > > Victoria and have an additional line to George III through
| > Queen
| > | Mary.
| > | > > > > They descend twice from Christian IX of Denmark and his
wife,
| > Louis
| > | of
| > | > > > > Hesse-Cassel, both descendants of George I, twice over (a
| > total of
| > | > > > > eight descents there). They descend from George I of
Greece,
| > whose
| > | > > > > wife, Olga, was a Russian Grand Duchess. She descends
from
| > George I
| > | > at
| > | > > > > least once through the Prussian royal family. And there's
a
| > another
| > | > > > > Prussian descent. So, off the top of my head there's 13
| > lines.
| > | Then
| > | > > > > there's the lines from the House of Nassau. I remember
| > reading that
| > | > > > > were over 20 lines from George I. How far back and
complete
| > do you
| > | > > > > have the princes' ancestry?
| > | > > > >
| > | > > > > All the George I descents are from Charles, so see:
| > | > > > > http://genroy.free.fr/asccharles.htm

Leo van de Pas

Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another C

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23. januar 2005 kl. 3.01

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet another C.P.
Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern


Nope.

John Higgins says he has 22 descents from King George I to Prince
William.

22 is the mark -- not 18.

Vide infra.

DSH
snip

Read the message below by John Higgins carefully he says that he has 22
lines, he says he has one more than McNaughton, implying McNaughton has 21.
I have McNaughton's book and it says clearly McNaughton has 17.

Also Ian Fettes gives 17. In a private message John Higgins told me he has
the same information as Ian Fettes. I think John Higgins should start to
count seriously. I ignore his slip of 22 and concentrate on the one line he
has more than McNaughton, I would like to know whether there is one.
Leo

| > |
| > | > > According to the data that I have, Prince William has 22
descents
| > from
| > | > > George I of England - all of them via his father Prince
Charles.
| > This
| > | is
| > | > > one more than the figure stated by Arnold McNaughton in 1973
in
| > his "The
| > | > > Book of Kings", which was at the time the most comprehensive
| > | documentation
| > | > > of the descendants of George I. I don't know why I have one
more
| > line
| > | > than
| > | > > McNaughton (and I don't propose to try to find out - although
I
| > suspect
| > | > I'm
| > | > > right), but interested parties may want to check this out
using
| > Paul
| > | > > Theroff's files on the web.
| > |
| > | > > ----- Original Message -----
| > | > > From: "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]
| > | > > To: <[email protected]
| > | > > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 4:17 PM
| > | > > Subject: William of Wales lines to George I was Re: Yet
another
| > C.P.
| > | > > Correction: Amy not Joan Ufford and her daughter, Sibyl Osbern
| > |
| > |
| > | > > > When you deal with specifics you shouldn't guess on the top
of
| > your
| > | > head.
| > | > > > Ian Fettes and John Higgins are probably the two people who
know
| > most
| > | > > about
| > | > > > the ancestors of Prince William.
| > | > > > I called up in my own system and ancestor list of Prince
William
| > of 15
| > | > > > generations.
| > | > > > Then I looked for George I for the first time (nr.1044) and
then
| > I
| > | could
| > | > > ask
| > | > > > in my system whether that number was repeated (1052=1044)
and I
| > found
| > | > that
| > | > > > George I does appear 17 times in the ancestor list of Prince
| > William,
| > | in
| > | > > > fact the numbers are :
| > | > > > 1044 - 1052 - 1060 - 1376 - 1396 - 2206 - 2210 - 2286 -
2300 -
| > 2466 -
| > | > > 2528 -
| > | > > > 2592 - 2644 - 2652 - 2660 - 2702 - 2716
| > |
| > | > > > Hope this clarifies?
| > | > > > Best wishes
| > | > > > Leo van de Pas
| > | > > > Canberra, Australia
| > | > > > ----- Original Message -----
| > | > > > From: <[email protected]
| > | > > > To: <[email protected]
| > | > > > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 10:51 AM
| > | > > > Subject: Re: Yet another C.P. Correction: Amy not Joan
Ufford
| > and her
| > | > > > daughter, Sibyl Osbern
| > |
| > |
| > | > > > > I think that's a low number. The princes descend twice
from
| > Queen
| > | > > > > Victoria and have an additional line to George III through
| > Queen
| > | Mary.
| > | > > > > They descend twice from Christian IX of Denmark and his
wife,
| > Louis
| > | of
| > | > > > > Hesse-Cassel, both descendants of George I, twice over (a
| > total of
| > | > > > > eight descents there). They descend from George I of
Greece,
| > whose
| > | > > > > wife, Olga, was a Russian Grand Duchess. She descends
from
| > George I
| > | > at
| > | > > > > least once through the Prussian royal family. And there's
a
| > another
| > | > > > > Prussian descent. So, off the top of my head there's 13
| > lines.
| > | Then
| > | > > > > there's the lines from the House of Nassau. I remember
| > reading that
| > | > > > > were over 20 lines from George I. How far back and
complete
| > do you
| > | > > > > have the princes' ancestry?
| > |
| > | > > > > All the George I descents are from Charles, so see:
| > | > > > > http://genroy.free.fr/asccharles.htm


Gjest

Re: Otto de Grandson

Legg inn av Gjest » 23. januar 2005 kl. 12.01

So how well defined were National borders? How would Otto be presented to
others, Otto sire de Grandson, proche de Lausanne, Feudataire et cousin du
comte de Savoie?
regards
peter de Loriol

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Raymond, count of Toulouse

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 23. januar 2005 kl. 21.26

Markus Welschhoff wrote:
Hello,

I found the following ancestors of Raymond, count of Toulouse. Is this right?

1. de Toulouse, Raymond, * c. 967, oo Adelaide de Anjou
2. de Toulouse, Raymond III Pons, * c. 900, + c. 950
3. de Gascogne, Garsinde, * c. 923
4. de Toulouse, Raymond II, * c. 860, + c. 923
5. d'Urgell, Gunhilde, * c. 880
6. de Gascogne, Garcia Sanchez (le Courbe), * c. 870, + c. 924
7. de Bordeaux, Aminiane
8. de Toulouse, Eudes (Odo), * c. 832, + c. 919
9. d'Albi, Garsinde, * c. 850
10. de Barcelona, Wifredo (el Velloso), * c. 847, + c. 897
11. van Flandern, Winidilde, * c. 865

The question is much confused - there are only a small number of
sources, and their interpretation is ambiguous. It does appear
that the Raymond who married Adelaide was grandson of Raymond
Pons. I have seen two strong conflicting identifications for
Garsinde - Settipani attempts to harmonize them separating
Garsinde from the daughter of Garcia Sanchez, and having the two
marry sequential Counts. As to 'Gunhilde', there in nothing but
speculation regarding her origins, and I have to say, I don't
think a Barcelona origin is the most likely. Nat. has already
commented on Winidilde (evidence that she is from Flanders is
late and unreliable). Spanish historians have speculated that
she was daughter of a local Count Sunifred (obviosly distinct
from her father-in-law of the same name).

taf

Gjest

Re: d'Auvergne -> Toulouse or Arles

Legg inn av Gjest » 25. januar 2005 kl. 0.56

I'm not understanding this. Are you saying Robert was born 1010/16 and then married about 990/5 ? Or are you saying 1010/6 was the date he was Count ?
Thanks

"1. Ermengarde d’Auvergne (+ 1042), m. 1005, Eudes II, comte de Blois, Chartres, Tours, Troyes, Meaux et Sancerre (+ 1037)

2. Robert I, comte d’Auvergne 1010/16 (+ 1022/43)

3. m. c. 990/95, Ermengarde de Gevaudan (+ after 1010), half-sister of
Constance d’Arles, queen of France

4. Guillaume, vicomte de Clermont, comte d’Auvergne 989 (+ 1003/13)"

Markus Welschhoff

Re: d'Auvergne -> Toulouse or Arles

Legg inn av Markus Welschhoff » 25. januar 2005 kl. 0.56

Thank you all for your answers.

Isn't it possible, that No. 3 was a daughter "de Toulouse", as I found in the net?

MW


"JBunot" <[email protected]> schrieb am 24.01.05 21:15:50:

In his recent La Noblesse du Midi Carolingien,Christian Settipani has a
slightly different version for the ancestry of Ermengarde d’Auvergne,
comtesse of Blois. You will notice that Settipani proposes the existence
of another new daughter of Guillaume le Pieux, comte d’Auvergne and duc
d’Aquitaine, an Engelberge, married to Dalmatius, vicomte et abbe de
Brioude. I am not summarizing his (rather convincing though
circumstancial) argument in favor of this hypothesis because of its
exceptional density and invite you simply to read it and make yourself an
opinion. It is based (as usual) on onomastics and also the transmission of
important properties in Auvergne. Jean Bunot.

It goes like this :

1. Ermengarde d’Auvergne (+ 1042), m. 1005, Eudes II, comte de Blois,
Chartres, Tours, Troyes, Meaux et Sancerre (+ 1037)

2. Robert I, comte d’Auvergne 1010/16 (+ 1022/43)

3. m. c. 990/95, Ermengarde de Gevaudan (+ after 1010), half-sister of
Constance d’Arles, queen of France

4. Guillaume, vicomte de Clermont, comte d’Auvergne 989 (+ 1003/13)

5. Humberge (+ 1016)

6. Etienne, comte de Gevaudan, vicomte-abbé de Brioude (+ c. 975)

7. m. c. 970, Adelaide d’Anjou (+ after 1026)

8. Robert II, vicomte de Clermont 962 (+ 962/74)

9. Engelberge de Brioude, dame en partie de Beaumont (+ after 962)

12. Bertrand, vicomte de Gevaudan 925/39 (+939/54)

13. Emilgarde de Brioude

14. Foulques II le Bon, comte d’Anjou (+ 958)

15. m. 937, Gerberge de Gatinais (+ c. 952)

16. Robert I, vicomte de Clermont 915/62

17. Adalgarde/Aldearde

18. Dalmatius, vicomte-abbe de Brioude 922/47 (+ 947/54)

19. Engelberge (possibly d’Auvergne) (+ after 962)

24. Heraclius, seigneur d’Antoing 892/926

25. Goda

26. Etienne, vicomte-abbe de Brioude 903

27. Ermengarde, sister of a Dalmatius, noble d’Auvergne

32. Eustorge, noble d’Auvergne

33. Arsinde de Velay

34. Hubert, noble d’Auvergne

35. ép. Ermengarde

36. Etienne, vicomte-abbe de Brioude 903

37. Ermengarde, sister of a Dalmatius, noble d’Auvergne

38. possibly Guillaume le Pieux, comte d’Auvergne et de Macon, duc
d’Aquitaine, abbe laique de Brioude (+ 918)

39. possibly Engelberge de Provence

48. Vivien, seigneur d’Antoing (+ after 898)

52. Rigaud, noble d’Auvergne (+ before 903)

53. Ne... de Velay

66. Armand, vicomte de Velay 895 (+ c. 913)

67. Bertilde d’Antoing 895 (+ 913/26)

72. Rigaud, noble d’Auvergne (+ before 903)

73. Ne... de Velay

76. Bernard II Plantevelue, comte d’Auvergne et de Toulouse, marquis de
Gothie (+ after 883)

77. ép. Ermengarde d’Auvergne

78. Boson, roi de Provence

79. Ermengarde d’Italie

96. Berteland, noble d’Auvergne

97. Viviana

106. Claudius, vicomte de Velay 877/900 (+ c. 900)

107. Engelmode

132. Claudius, vicomte de Velay 877/900 (+ c. 900)

133. Engelmode

134. Berteland, noble d’Auvergne

135. Viviana

146. Claudius, vicomte de Velay 977/900 (+ c. 900)

147. Engelmode

152. Bernard, comte d’Auvergne, marquis de Gothie 824/44, s/o saint
Guillaume, comte et duc de Toulouse and Cunegonde

153. Dhuoda/Doda de Gascogne

154. Bernard, comte d’Auvergne (+ 868)

155. Liedgarde (+ after 868)

156. Buvinus, comte de Metz, abbe laique de Gorze 842/62

157. Ne... d/o Boson le Vieux, comte d’Arles et en Italie

158. Louis II, roi d’Italie, empereur

159. Engelberge





______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193

Gjest

Re: d'Auvergne -> Toulouse or Arles

Legg inn av Gjest » 25. januar 2005 kl. 5.12

Are you really not understanding this ? Anyway, he was attested "as
count" between 1010-1016 and died anytime between 1022-1043. He was
described as count of Clermont or Auvergne and sometimes even viscount.
Jean Bunot

Gjest

Re: Addition to genealogics

Legg inn av Gjest » 25. januar 2005 kl. 21.10

Thank you Leo for providing such a great site.

On the page for Mary Berkeley wife of Malcolm, Earl Angus (d bef 1242) there are no parents shown for Mary.

In "Living Descendents of Blood Royal" by Count d'Angerville, World Nobility and Peerage, ed. [1962?], p 449 in the article on Hunt-Kelly he states:

"11 Elizabeth Comyn, d bef 17 Feb 1328/9; m Gilbert de Umfreville, b 1244, d bef 13 oct 1307, Baron Umfreville, Earl of Angus, M.P., 1296-1307, son of Gilbert de Umfreville and Maud, dau of Malcolm, Earl of Angus by Mary, dau. of Sir Humphrey Berkeley."

Unfortunately, 11 has no particular citation to the underlying source.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Angus

Legg inn av Gjest » 25. januar 2005 kl. 21.50

I was trying to bridge the gap from the dispossessed Umfrevilles Earl of Angus to the new title holder John Stewart of Bonkyl who here
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?nod ... of%20Angus
is said to have been named Earl of Angus in a charter dated 15th June 1329

That source also gives me the missing link that he was eldest son of John Stewart of Bonkyl who had died at the battle of Falkirk in 1298. It doesn't specify however why Angus in particular.

After I had entered that data I can see that this John Stewart of Bonkyl's 2nd great-grandfather was Gilchrist, 4th Earl Angus (d abt 1204 ?)

Maybe there is even a closer connection to this John Stewart of Bonkyl that somebody knows.

Will Johnson

Chris Phillips

Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Angus

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 25. januar 2005 kl. 21.59

Will Johnson wrote:
I was trying to bridge the gap from the dispossessed Umfrevilles Earl of
Angus to the new title holder John Stewart of Bonkyl who here
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?nod ... of%20Angus
is said to have been named Earl of Angus in a charter dated 15th June 1329

That source also gives me the missing link that he was eldest son of John
Stewart of Bonkyl who had died at the battle of Falkirk in 1298. It doesn't

specify however why Angus in particular.


This may be incorrect. CP i 153 says that he was the son and heir of Sir
Alexander Stewart of Bonkyl, whom he succeeded in 1319.

The online account you refer to gives a list of online sources at the end.
As far as I can see, the only one of these that gives John Stewart's
parentage is this one
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/briti ... wart03.htm
which agrees with CP (and makes Alexander's father the John who d. at
Falkirk). But I can imagine its layout may have confused the compiler into
omitting Alexander's generation.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Angus

Legg inn av Gjest » 25. januar 2005 kl. 23.50

Tuesday, 25 January, 2005


Dear Will, Chris, et al.,

The creation of John Stewart as Earl of Angus was one of the
events made possible by the forfeiture ca. 1314-1329 of various lords
and nobles in Scotland for adhering to the English King (Edward II
during most of that time). Such was the cause of the last of the
Umfreville Earls losing his earldom [at least so far as the adherents
of the Bruce monarchy were concerned].

A similar case can be seen after David de Strathbogie's defection
to the English side in 1314; his earldom was declared forfeit [1] and
John Campbell, a nephew of King Robert (his mother being Mary Bruce)
was created Earl of Athol. This creation was of short duration, as
Earl John was slain at Halidon Hill on 19 July 1333 (he died without
legitimate issue).

Just as in the Campbell tenure in Athol, there is no need to look
for a hereditary basis for John Stewart of Bonkil becoming Earl of
Angus, for two reasons:

1) If there was a hereditary claim, the senior Stewart claimant
would have been John Stewart's cousin Robert the Stewart,
next heir to the throne and eventually King of Scots (as
Robert II) 1371-1390.

2) There is no proven descent of the Stewarts from the earlier
Earls of Angus. Walter the Stewart (d. 1241) married a
woman named Bethoc, whom the account in Scots Peerage
states was 'probably Beatrix of Angus' [2]; there is no
documentary evidence concerning Bethoc's parentage.

Cheers,

John


NOTES

[1] Note that summons to the Parliaments in England still were
addressed to David's grandson David (d. 1369) as 'David Strabolgi
comiti Athol'.

[2] SP I:12.

==========================================

Will wrote:

I was trying to bridge the gap from the dispossessed Umfrevilles Earl of
Angus to the new title holder John Stewart of Bonkyl who here
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?nod ... of%20Angus
is said to have been named Earl of Angus in a charter dated 15th June 1329


That source also gives me the missing link that he was eldest son of John
Stewart of Bonkyl who had died at the battle of Falkirk in 1298. It doesn't
specify however why Angus in particular.


After I had entered that data I can see that this John Stewart of Bonkyl's
2nd great-grandfather was Gilchrist, 4th Earl Angus (d abt 1204 ?)


Maybe there is even a closer connection to this John Stewart of Bonkyl that
somebody knows.


Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Angus

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 26. januar 2005 kl. 0.00

Dear Wil,
Your messages confuses me in several ways (not difficult to do :-) But
muddling through it, I think I understand what you are saying. Chris
Phillips is correct in saying that a generation (Alexnader) was skipped. But
maybe my mutterings can help.

You say that John the son of John (killed at Falkirk) was the eldest son? I
have him as a fifth son. Which already indicates that something is wrong.
This John is the 5th son, your John is a grandson.

But lets start, on my website for John Stewart of Bonkyl killed at Falkirk,
I have four sources and you may not have access to those. I have in all four
sources this John as son of Alexander 4th Great Steward of Scotland. I have
as children (probably, hopefully in the right order) Alexander, Alan,
Walter, James, John and Isabel.

I don't know whether you have access to Gerald Paget's two volumes in
regards to ancestors and relatives of the Prince of Wales? In the volume
with the families on page 511, John's son John is marked off as of Pearston,
ancestor of the Castlemilk Line, killed at Halidon Hill, 19 July 1333.
Burke's Peerage 1938 page 1065 has a nasty remark, this John (-1333) "dsp
according to Lord Hailes".

Burke's Extinct Peerage, 1866, Page 511 gives John (died 1298) as eldest son
Alexander Stewart, of Bonkyl, ancestor of the Stewart Earls of Angus. (You
have son John as Earl of Angus). I have this Alexander as father of John
Stewart, 1st Earl of Angus (obviously a new creation)., but you are on the
right track.

Landed Gentry 1972 page 859. This tells that John (died 1298) had a 4th son
James, ancestor of the Stewarts of Appin.

Hope this helps a little?
Best wishes
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Angus


I was trying to bridge the gap from the dispossessed Umfrevilles Earl of
Angus to the new title holder John Stewart of Bonkyl who here
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?nod ... of%20Angus
is said to have been named Earl of Angus in a charter dated 15th June 1329

That source also gives me the missing link that he was eldest son of John
Stewart of Bonkyl who had died at the battle of Falkirk in 1298. It doesn't

specify however why Angus in particular.
After I had entered that data I can see that this John Stewart of Bonkyl's
2nd great-grandfather was Gilchrist, 4th Earl Angus (d abt 1204 ?)

Maybe there is even a closer connection to this John Stewart of Bonkyl
that somebody knows.

Will Johnson


Gjest

Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Angus

Legg inn av Gjest » 26. januar 2005 kl. 1.10

Tuesday, 25 January, 2005


Dear Will,

The creation of John Stewart of Bonkyl as Earl of Angus in or
before 1329 (he was likely so created prior to the 15 June 1329 date,
given King Robert had just died earlier that month and 6 year old David
II was unlikely to be granting many requests) was out of his service,
and that of his family, to the Kingdom; also, due to the prior
forfeiture of the young Umfreville Earl, Gilbert, for adhering to the
English king [see G. W. S. Barrow, Robert the Bruce, p. 386].

Many creations during this period were possible due to the
availability of lands and titles after similar forfeitures. For
example, John Campbell, son of Sir Neil Campbell and Mary Bruce (and
thereby nephew of King Robert) was created Earl of Athol, following the
forfeiture after June 1314 of David de Strathbogie. *This creation did
not last, as John Campbell died at Halidon Hill in 1333, sine prole.

By the bye, just as John Campbell had no hereditary claim to the
Earldom of Athol, the same applies to John Stewart of Bonkyl:

1) If there was such a claim, the senior claimant of the House of
Stewart in 1329 would have been
Robert the Stewart, grandson of King Robert and later King
Robert II of Scots.

2) The alleged marriage of Walter the Steward (who d. in 1241
according to Scots Peerage) to a
daughter of an Earl of Angus is unproven; as the account
states, she was " probably Beatrix of
Angus " [SP I:12]. Her name was Bethoc, which has been
'anglicized' to Beatrix, but her
parentage is unknown.
Cheers,

John

Gjest

Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Angus

Legg inn av Gjest » 26. januar 2005 kl. 2.51

Dear John and Will,

There was a reason that John Stewart of Bonkyll was made earl of Angus. John
is correct in stating that the Umfraville's had their lands forfeited but John
Stewart of Bonkyll was a descendant of Gilchrist, Earl of Angus from whom the
Umfraville family also had a descent.

1. Gilchrist, earl of Angus living 1207
+ Maud de Huntingdon
2. Duncan of Angus
2. Maud of Angus
+Gilbert de Umfraville [died 1245] lord of Resedale, jure uxoris earl of
Angus
3. Gilbert de Umfraville, earl of Angus [1244-Bef. Oct. 13, 1307]
+Elizabeth Comyn [died February 1327/8]
4. Thomas de Umfraville
4. Gilbert de Umfraville
+ Maud de Clare
4. Robert de Umfraville, earl of Angus [1277-April 12, 1325]
+ Lucy de Kyme
5. Sir Gilbert de Umfraville, Earl of Angus
5. Sir Thomas de Umfraville
5. Elizabeth Umfraville
+ Daughter of Harold Maddason, Earl of Caithness by his 2nd wife Gormflaeth
MacHeth
2. Beatrix of Angus, Countess of Angus
+Walter Stewart, 3rd High Steward of Scotland [died 1241]
3. John Stewart [died 1249 Battle of Damietta, on Crusade]
3. Walter Stewart, Earl of Menteith [jure uxoris] [died bef. April
28, 1286]
+ Mary of Menteith
4. Alexander Stewart, earl of Menteith [died 1306]
+ Matilda of Strathearn
4. Sir John Menteith [died 1323]
3. Elizabeth Stewart
+ Maldouen, 3rd Earl of Lennox
3. Margaret Stewart
+ Neil de Carrick, earl of Carrick [died 1256]
3. Alexander Stewart, 4th High Steward of Scotland [1214-1283]
+ Jean MacRory
4. James Stewart, 5th High Steward of Scotland [ca. 1243-July 16,
1309]
+ Gille de Burgh
4. Elizabeth Stewart [1244-bef. 1288]
+ Sir William Douglas [1235-Bef. Jan. 24, 1298]
4. Sir John Stewart [1250-July 22, 1298]
+ Margaret Bonkyll
5. Sir Alexander Stewart, lord of Dreghorn [1319]
6. Isabel Stewart [died bet. June 14, 1347-Jan. 15, 1348]
+ Donald de Mar, Regent of Scotland [died Aug, 12, 1332]
6. John Stewart, earl of Angus [died Dec. 9, 1331]
+ Margaret de Abernathy
7. Thomas Stewart, earl of Angus [died 1361]
+ Margaret Sinclair

In this case it appears that after the Umfraville's lands were confiscated
they were returned to the near relation of the Earl of Angus who had adhered to
the Scottish cause. He was also related to Robert the Bruce through the
Carrick descent above.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Gjest

Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Angus

Legg inn av Gjest » 26. januar 2005 kl. 3.51

MichaelAnne thank you for this post. Can you tell us the source for making
Maud the wife of Gilbert, into Maud the daughter of Gilchrist ?
I had posted previously that this same Maud is called by "Living
descendents of Blood Royal" the daughter of Malcom Earl of Angus 1242 and his wife Mary
of Berkeley daughter of Sir Humphrey Berkeley.
Thanks
Will


In a message dated 1/26/05 1:43:23 AM GMT Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

<< 1. Gilchrist, earl of Angus living 1207
+ Maud de Huntingdon
2. Duncan of Angus
2. Maud of Angus
+Gilbert de Umfraville [died 1245] lord of Resedale, jure uxoris earl of
Angus
3. Gilbert de Umfraville, earl of Angus [1244-Bef. Oct. 13, 1307]
+Elizabeth Comyn [died February 1327/8] >>

Gjest

Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Angus

Legg inn av Gjest » 26. januar 2005 kl. 4.11

"You say that John the son of John (killed at Falkirk) was the eldest son? I have him as a fifth son. Which already indicates that something is wrong. This John is the 5th son, your John is a grandson."

Leo, the website I posted declared that the John Stewart of Bonkyl, 1st Earl Angus was the eldest son of the John Stewart, Knight who died at Falkirk 1298. Chris posted a CP reference that that was not correct.

However this John WAS the fifth son of Alexander Stewart of Scotland 1214-83. So the descent would go like this:

Alexander Stewart of Scotland 1214-83
+ Jean Heiress of Butte-Arran
-- John Stewart, Knight d 1298 Falkirk
-- + Margaret, heiress of Bonkil d abt Sep 1304
---- Alexander Stewart of Bonkil d 1319
---- + unknown partner
------ John Stewart of Bonkil, Earl of Angus d 1331
------ + Margaret of Abernathy

The dates seem a little tight but possible
Will

Gjest

Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Angus

Legg inn av Gjest » 26. januar 2005 kl. 6.31

Dear Will,

I stand corrected on this line. I have two different ancestries for Maud of
Angus and CP verifies the line you have presented which was in my notes. Maud
of Angus married three times and had issue by two of her husbands. Here is
the corrected AT:

1. Gilchrist, earl of Angus living 1207
+ Maud de Huntingdon
2. Duncan, Earl of Angus
3. Malcolm, earl of Angus [died bef. 1242]
+ Mary de Berkley
4. Maud of Angus
+Gilbert de Umfraville [died 1245] lord of Resedale, jure uxoris
earl of Angus
5. Gilbert de Umfraville, earl of Angus [1244-Bef. Oct. 13,
1307]
+Elizabeth Comyn [died February 1327/8]
6. Thomas de Umfraville
6. Gilbert de Umfraville
+ Maud de Clare
6. Robert de Umfraville, earl of Angus [1277-April 12,
1325]
+ Lucy de Kyme
6. Sir Gilbert de Umfraville, Earl of Angus
6. Sir Thomas de Umfraville
6. Elizabeth Umfraville
+John Comyn, Earl of Buchan [died 1242 in France s.p.]
+Richard de Dover
5. Isabella de Dover [died March 18, 1292]
+ David de Strabolgi, earl of Athol [died Aug, 6, 1270]
6. John de Strabolgi, earl of Athol [died Nov. 7, 1306
-executed for treason]
+Alexander de Baliol of Cavers [died bef. 1311]
6. Thomas de Baliol
6. Alexander de Baliol
+ Daughter of Harold Maddason, Earl of Caithness by his 2nd wife Gormflaeth
MacHeth
2. Beatrix of Angus, Countess of Angus
+Walter Stewart, 3rd High Steward of Scotland [died 1241]
3. John Stewart [died 1249 Battle of Damietta, on Crusade]
3. Walter Stewart, Earl of Menteith [jure uxoris] [died bef. April
28, 1286]
+ Mary of Menteith
4. Alexander Stewart, earl of Menteith [died 1306]
+ Matilda of Strathearn
4. Sir John Menteith [died 1323]
3. Elizabeth Stewart
+ Maldouen, 3rd Earl of Lennox
3. Margaret Stewart
+ Neil de Carrick, earl of Carrick [died 1256]
3. Alexander Stewart, 4th High Steward of Scotland [1214-1283]
+ Jean MacRory
4. James Stewart, 5th High Steward of Scotland [ca. 1243-July 16,
1309]
+ Gille de Burgh
4. Elizabeth Stewart [1244-bef. 1288]
+ Sir William Douglas [1235-Bef. Jan. 24, 1298]
4. Sir John Stewart [1250-July 22, 1298-Battle of Falkirk]
+ Margaret Bonkyll
5. Sir Alexander Stewart, lord of Dreghorn [1319]
6. Isabel Stewart [died bet. June 14, 1347-Jan. 15, 1348]
+ Donald de Mar, Regent of Scotland [died Aug, 12, 1332]
6. John Stewart, earl of Angus [died Dec. 9, 1331]
+ Margaret de Abernathy
7. Thomas Stewart, earl of Angus [died 1361]
+ Margaret Sinclair

Notes:
1. Malcolm, Earl of Angus, son and heir [of Duncan], witnessed a charter as
Earl of Angus (simply) 22 Apr 1231, and is called Earl of Angus and Caithness
in 1232, most probably from having the last named Earldom in ward. He m. Mary,
daughter and heir of Sir Humphrey Berkeley. He was living 1237, when he took
part in the Convention of York, but d. before 1242. [Complete Peerage I:146]

2. MAUD, suo jure Countess of Angus, daughter and heir [of Malcolm, Earl of
Angus & Mary de Berkeley], m. John Comyn, who in her right, became Earl of
Angus, and dsp. in France 1242. She m. 2ndly, in 1243, Gilbert de Umfreville, Lord
of Prudhoe and Redesdale in Northumberland, who may, in her right, have
become Earl of Angus [SCT]. He was son and heir of Richard de Umfreville, of the
same, and did homage for his father's lands 8 Jan 1226/7. He d. shortly bef. 13
Mar 1244/5 and was buried in Hexham Priory. His widow m. before 2 Dec 1247,
Richard de Douvres, of Chilham, Kent, son and heir of Richard fitz Roy, and
illegitimate son of King John. [Complete Peerage I:146, XIV:25]

3. Calendar of Documents Pertaining to Scotland preserved in her majestys
public record office London, Vol. I 1108-1272 edited by Joseph Bain, H.M. General
Register House, Edinburgh, 1881:

#2100. 1257-1258.
Kent:---Reginald de Cobeham (Roger de Norwode and other executors of his will
for him) for the first half year, and Nicholas de Molis (Walter de Berstede
for him) for the second render their accounts. Discharged of scutage by the
king's writs: William de Wilton who married Roesia de Dover, widow of Richard de
Chileham; for fourteen fees of Robert de Dover. [Interlined above this entry,
Alexander de Baillol who has to wife Isabella daughter and heiress of Richard
de Dovor who was the heir of said Roesia; in a later hand and paler ink] [Pipe
Rolls, 42 Henry III, m.13 dorso].

4. Calendar of documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesties
public record office, London, Vol. III 1307-1357, edited by Joseph Bain,
Edinburgh, 1887:

#128. March 18, 1310
Indenture bearing that whereas the king had granted to Bartholomew de
Badlesmere and Margaret his wife the castle and manor of Chilham with all its manors
in Kent and elsewhere -- which Alexander de Balliol held for life by courtesy
of the heritage of Isabella his wife, whose son and heir John, late earl of
Athol, has been hanged for treason. Whereby the fee reverted to the king as an
escheat after Alexander's death and had commanded Alexander to do fealty to
Bartholomew and Margaret, that he had done so on this day, and moreover,
delivered to them the said castle and manor appurtenant and others in Canterbury and
Kent, with £40 rent from the manor of Chilingford in Essex, and all else he had
by courtesy, for which they had paid down 100 marks and granted him an
annuity of 230 marks. The parties seals appended at Westminster, 18th March 3rd
year. [Close Rolls, 3 Edw. II m. 9, dorso]

#863. Feb. 25, 1325
Writ commanding the treasurer and barons to exonerate David de Strabolgi earl
of Athol, to whom he had granted the castle, manor and honour of Chilham on
28th November 1321, from the debts of Rose de Dovorre, Alexander de Balliol and
Isabella his wife, or Bartholomew de Badlesmere the last holder before the
earl. Westminster. [Exchequer, Q.R. Memoranda, 18 Edw. II, m. 44] On 11th April
following the earl is discharged of all his debts at Exchequer, as he is going
to Gascony on the king's service. Beauly [New Forest]. [M. 48]

#865. Feb. 26, 1325
The king supercedes all demands in Exchequer against the castle and honour of
Chilham, for the debts of Rose de Dovor, Alexander de Balliol and Isabella
his wife, and Bartholomew de Badlesmere, its' successive owners prior to 28th
November 1321, when he granted the castle and honour to David de Strabolgy earl
of Athol, grandson of Isabella de Dover. Westminster. [ Close Rolls, 18 Edw.
II, m. 16]

5. I.J. Sanders, _English Baronies_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), p.73:
"Prudhoe, Northumberland.

6. Calendar of documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesties
public record office, London, Vol. III 1307-1357, edited by Joseph Bain,
Edinburgh, 1887:

#19. Oct. 24, 1307.
Inquisition [Underwrit of diem clausit extremum Gildesburghe, 13th October],
at Welpyngton, on Tuesday next before the Feast of the Apostles Symon and
Jude, I Edw. II. The jury find that the deceased Gilbert de Umfraville earl of
Angus, held the castle of Prudhowe, with park, woods, mills, fishings, and
Hirlawe and Birteley manors and park, woods &c.. as two knight's fees; also the
valley and liberty of Rede with Hirbotell castle (in great disrepair) park burgh
&c., Osterbourne, Ellesdon &c.; total £238 5 s. 4d. He held Redesdale by
defending it from wolf and robber. He also held of the heirs of Vesci, in chief of
the barony of Alnewick, as two knight's fees, the lordship of 10 vills, paying h
im nothing but military service and suit at Hirbotell. Robert de Umfraville
is his son and next heir, and 30 years of age and more. [Inq. p.m. 1 Edw. II.
no. 48]

7. Calendar of documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesties
public record office, London, Vol. III 1307-1357, edited by Joseph Bain,
Edinburgh, 1887:

#968. Nov. 3, 1328
Warrant to the chancellor to issue letters in favour of Gilbert de Umfraville
son and heir of the late Robert de Umfraville, though only 19 years of age,
as the king has granted him all the lands on account of the losses of his
ancestors in 'abatement' of their castles and destruction of their lands, in the
service of the state; except the dower lands of Elizabeth, late countess of
Angus in Northumberland and the franchise of Redesdale held by Sir Robert Mauduyt
till Gilbert's majority. Winchester. [Privy Seals (tower), 2 Edw. III, File
14; and Patent Rolls, 2 Edw. III, p.2,m.16]

#978. March 31, 1329
Inquisition [Writ lost] taken by John de Bolingbroke the escheator, at Biwell
on Friday next after the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 3 Edw. III,
by Gilbert de Babington, Hugh de Whelpington [and 10 others] jurors who found
that Elizabeth widow of Gilbert de Umfraville held the manor of Hirlawe for
her life of the heritage of Gilbert son and heir of Robert de Umfraville. The
chief messuage with ____; 200 acres arable at 3d. each, 15 acres meadow at 15d.
each; grazing 8s. She also held Butely manor of said heritage for her life,
the site worth 12d, 74 acres arable at 3d. each; 4 of meadow at 6d. each. The
park is worth nothing in adjustment, being unenclosed.....She also held
Osterburn manor for life, the site of the manor worth 2s. [the remainder is much
defaced. Many of the lands are waste and uncultivated on account of the Scottish
ravages.][No seals][Inq. p.m., 3 Edw. III no. 30]

#1037. Oct. 3, 1331
The king commands Roger Mauduyt to deliver to Gilbert de Umfraville son and
heir of Robert de Umfraville, late earl of Angus, the dower lands of Elizabeth
the said Robert's mother in Roger's custody by the late king's commission),
with their issues since 6th July last, on which day the king had taken Gilbert's
homage though he had not proved his age, and commanded his escheator ultra
Trent to give him seisin of his father's and grandmother's lands. Westminster.
[Close Rolls, 5 Edw. III, p.1,m.2]

8. Calendar of documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesties
public record office, London, Vol. III 1307-1357, edited by Joseph Bain,
Edinburgh, 1887:

#46. June 21, 1308.
The king appoints Robert de Umfraville, earl of Angus and William de Ros of
Hamelake conjointly, his Lieutenants and Guardians of Scotland. Stanleigh.
[Patent Rolls 1 Edw. II p. 2 m. 5]

#53. Michaelmas [Sept. 29] 1308. Northumberland.
The sheriff accounts for £10 levied from Robert de Umfraville, who holds the
lands which were William Duglas's (of a fine of £100 which William made with
the late king for licence to marry Aleanora de Ferrars), by writ returnable on
the morrow of the last Easter. [Exchequer. L.T.R. memoranda I Edw. II].

#873. July 10, 1325
The king commands his escheator in the border counties to Alianora widow of
Robert de Umfraville earl of Angus, her dower lands, viz. in Ovingham, with a
fishery in the Tyne [and others in Northumberland]. Westminster. Likewise
certain knight's fees and advowsons, in the same county. [Close Rolls, 19 Edw. II,
m. 34]

Best regards,
MichaelAnne

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Addition to genealogics

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 26. januar 2005 kl. 8.37

In message of 25 Jan, [email protected] wrote:

Thank you Leo for providing such a great site.

On the page for Mary Berkeley wife of Malcolm, Earl Angus (d bef 1242) there are no parents shown for Mary.

In "Living Descendents of Blood Royal" by Count d'Angerville, World Nobility and Peerage, ed. [1962?], p 449 in the article on Hunt-Kelly he states:

"11 Elizabeth Comyn, d bef 17 Feb 1328/9; m Gilbert de Umfreville, b 1244, d bef 13 oct 1307, Baron Umfreville, Earl of Angus, M.P., 1296-1307, son of Gilbert de Umfreville and Maud, dau of Malcolm, Earl of Angus by Mary, dau. of Sir Humphrey Berkeley."

Unfortunately, 11 has no particular citation to the underlying source.

CP I, 146-8

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected]
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Angus

Legg inn av Gjest » 26. januar 2005 kl. 21.20

MichaelAnne wrote:<snip>" 5. Gilbert de Umfraville, earl of Angus [1244-Bef. Oct. 13,1307] +Elizabeth Comyn [died February 1327/8] 6. Thomas de Umfraville 6. Gilbert de Umfraville + Maud de Clare 6. Robert de Umfraville, earl of Angus [1277-April 12,1325] + Lucy de Kyme 6. Sir Gilbert de Umfraville, Earl of Angus"</snip>
On this last Sir Gilbert de Umfraville I have this note:"After having defied the victor of Bannockburn, Robert was deprived of his Scottish estates and title although naturally Robert de Umfraville would not have recognised the acts of his Bruce namesake as legitimate and continued to assert his right to the earldom. Thus it was not until after Robert de Umfraville's death in 1325 that Robert the Bruce finally awarded Angus to a John Stewart. Robert de Umfraville's son and heir, Gilbert de Umfraville thus became one of the Disinherited who joined with Edward Balliol in his attempt to win the Scottish crown in 133 The attempt ultimately failed and Gilbert was never able to make good his claim to Angus, and he died without issue in 1381 when his estates were divided between his niece, Eleanor and his half-brother Thomas de Umfraville and the Umfraville's gave up on the idea of recovering their lands in Angus. John Stewart is certainly named as the Earl of Angus in a charter da!
ted 15th June 1329 although circumstances indicate that he was likely to have been granted the dignity a year or so before that date. He was the eldest son of a John Stewart of Bonkyl who had died at the battle of Falkirk in 1298 and thus from a family of trusted Scottish loyalists."
So it seems there is disagreement on whether he was actually styled "Earl of Angus" at any point. Is there a generally used moniker to style someone something like "titular Earl of Angus" ? or maybe "usurper of Angus" ? :)ThanksWill

D. Spencer Hines

Re: God Bless The Brazilians!

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 27. januar 2005 kl. 22.51

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... /r10858018
69.jpg&e=2&ncid=1756

These styles are for WOMEN only.

May she have many descendants.

'Nuff Said.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Gjest

Re: Which year was the first one choosen to standardize the

Legg inn av Gjest » 28. januar 2005 kl. 7.11

In a message dated 1/27/2005 9:54:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

How about the pilgrims of the Mayflower; Did they know
it was the year 1620? Did the Duke of Wellington and Napoleon Bonaparte knew
it was June 18th. 1815 when they met at Waterloo?
It is quite intriguing. Can you comment please?
Regards Florent Coache Napierville

I can tell you that I have personally seen documents that state "In the year
of our Lord Sixteen hundred and eighty four" ... so at least that gives you a
bound on one side.
Will

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: God Bless The Brazilians!

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 28. januar 2005 kl. 16.51

I saw a similar show a few days ago while staying on
line at the local Banco do Brasil branch. The girl in
front of me was the, hum, top model ;-))

This is rather common. When you see the strings of the
underlying G-string - as it is fashionable to exhibit
them, it is called in Portuguese ``pagando calcinha.''
(Impossible to translate.)

fa

--- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... /r10858018
69.jpg&e=2&ncid=1756

These styles are for WOMEN only.

May she have many descendants.

'Nuff Said.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

D. Spencer Hines

Re: God Bless The Brazilians!

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28. januar 2005 kl. 19.11

Hmmmmm...

"pagando calcinha.''

Please try to translate it, Chico.

Muchas Gracias,

Spencer

"Francisco Antonio Doria" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...

| I saw a similar show a few days ago while staying on
| line at the local Banco do Brasil branch. The girl in
| front of me was the, hum, top model ;-))
|
| This is rather common. When you see the strings of the
| underlying G-string - as it is fashionable to exhibit
| them, it is called in Portuguese ``pagando calcinha.''
| (Impossible to translate.)
|
| fa
|
| --- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
| >
|
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... /r10858018
| > 69.jpg&e=2&ncid=1756
| >
| > These styles are for WOMEN only.
| >
| > May she have many descendants.
| >
| > 'Nuff Said.
| >
| > D. Spencer Hines
| >
| > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| >
| > Vires et Honor

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: God Bless The Brazilians!

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 28. januar 2005 kl. 21.01

Really impossible, Spencer, not because of the
malicious content, but because it is so idiomatic...

chico

--- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Hmmmmm...

"pagando calcinha.''

Please try to translate it, Chico.

Muchas Gracias,

Spencer

"Francisco Antonio Doria"
[email protected]> wrote in
message

news:[email protected]...

| I saw a similar show a few days ago while staying
on
| line at the local Banco do Brasil branch. The girl
in
| front of me was the, hum, top model ;-))
|
| This is rather common. When you see the strings of
the
| underlying G-string - as it is fashionable to
exhibit
| them, it is called in Portuguese ``pagando
calcinha.''
| (Impossible to translate.)
|
| fa
|
| --- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]
| wrote:
|
|
|

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... /r10858018
| > 69.jpg&e=2&ncid=1756
|
| > These styles are for WOMEN only.
|
| > May she have many descendants.
|
| > 'Nuff Said.
|
| > D. Spencer Hines
|
| > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
|
| > Vires et Honor





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com

Doug McDonald

Re: God Bless The Brazilians!

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 28. januar 2005 kl. 21.04

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Hmmmmm...

"pagando calcinha.''

Please try to translate it, Chico.

Muchas Gracias,



David, David, dear David!!!!!

LEARN!!! Learn!!! the web is a wonderful place!

babelfish.altavista.com:

"paying panty"

(though a plural noun would be more appropriate in English)

It that clear enough? Chico was clearly being disengenuous
when he said it was untranslatable.

Chuckle Chuckle Chuckle big Chuckle

Doug McDonald

D. Spencer Hines

Re: God Bless The Brazilians!

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28. januar 2005 kl. 21.50

Oh, come now, Chico.

Surely you can do better than Doug McDonald, who just poked an on-line
Portuguese dictionary.

Anyone can do that.

How does the idiom come out in Portuguese?

Do you think this style will catch on with the Cariocas on your lovely
beaches?...

Or perhaps it already has.

Surely the lovely you saw was the top bottom model -- not just the top
model.

DSH

"Francisco Antonio Doria" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
|
| Really impossible, Spencer, not because of the
| malicious content, but because it is so idiomatic...
|
| chico
|
| --- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
| > Hmmmmm...
| >
| > "pagando calcinha.''
| >
| > Please try to translate it, Chico.
| >
| > Muchas Gracias,
| >
| > Spencer
| >
| > "Francisco Antonio Doria"
| > <[email protected]> wrote in
| > message
| >
| news:[email protected]...
| >
| > | I saw a similar show a few days ago while staying
| > on
| > | line at the local Banco do Brasil branch. The girl
| > in
| > | front of me was the, hum, top model ;-))
| > |
| > | This is rather common. When you see the strings of
| > the
| > | underlying G-string - as it is fashionable to
| > exhibit
| > | them, it is called in Portuguese ``pagando
| > calcinha.''
| > | (Impossible to translate.)
| > |
| > | fa
| > |
| > | --- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
| > | wrote:
| > |
| > | >
| > |
| >
|
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... /r10858018
| > | > 69.jpg&e=2&ncid=1756
| > | >
| > | > These styles are for WOMEN only.
| > | >
| > | > May she have many descendants.
| > | >
| > | > 'Nuff Said.
| > | >
| > | > D. Spencer Hines
| > | >
| > | > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| > | >
| > | > Vires et Honor

D. Spencer Hines

Re: God Bless The Brazilians!

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 28. januar 2005 kl. 22.51

Would a "hardened pagan" or "hardened heathen" have anything to do with
this?

DSH

"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:...

| Oh, come now, Chico.
|
| Surely you can do better than Doug McDonald, who just poked an on-line
| Portuguese dictionary.
|
| Anyone can do that.
|
| How does the idiom come out in Portuguese?
|
| Do you think this style will catch on with the Cariocas on your lovely
| beaches?...
|
| Or perhaps it already has.
|
| Surely the lovely you saw was the top bottom model -- not just the top
| model.
|
| DSH
|
| "Francisco Antonio Doria" <[email protected]> wrote
in
| message news:[email protected]...
| |
| | Really impossible, Spencer, not because of the
| | malicious content, but because it is so idiomatic...
| |
| | chico
| |
| | --- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
| | wrote:
| |
| | > Hmmmmm...
| | >
| | > "pagando calcinha.''
| | >
| | > Please try to translate it, Chico.
| | >
| | > Muchas Gracias,
| | >
| | > Spencer
| | >
| | > "Francisco Antonio Doria"
| | > <[email protected]> wrote in
| | > message
| | >
| | news:[email protected]...
| | >
| | > | I saw a similar show a few days ago while staying
| | > on
| | > | line at the local Banco do Brasil branch. The girl
| | > in
| | > | front of me was the, hum, top model ;-))
| | > |
| | > | This is rather common. When you see the strings of
| | > the
| | > | underlying G-string - as it is fashionable to
| | > exhibit
| | > | them, it is called in Portuguese ``pagando
| | > calcinha.''
| | > | (Impossible to translate.)
| | > |
| | > | fa
| | > |
| | > | --- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
| | > | wrote:
| | > |
| | > | >
| | > |
| | >
| |
|
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... /r10858018
| | > | > 69.jpg&e=2&ncid=1756
| | > | >
| | > | > These styles are for WOMEN only.
| | > | >
| | > | > May she have many descendants.
| | > | >
| | > | > 'Nuff Said.
| | > | >
| | > | > D. Spencer Hines
| | > | >
| | > | > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| | > | >
| | > | > Vires et Honor

Gjest

Re: Anne Boleyn`s reputation during Elizabeth`s reign

Legg inn av Gjest » 29. januar 2005 kl. 3.41

Dear Newsgroup,
I have no idea how Elizabeth actually felt about
her mother ... or her father. It was probably rather low on her list of things
to think about and rather on on her courtier`s lists of things not to mention
near the Queen. Mary I and Elizabeth I had a very uneasy relationship,
sometimes cordial, others cool or cruel as Mary I became more and more certain of
the knowledge that She and her odious cousin-husband Felipe II, King of Spain
and King Consort of England were never going to have a living heir of their
bodies. Felipe II approached Elizabeth about marrying him before her sister`s
body was much more than cold and She repulsed his advances. When It became clear
She had chosen protestantism rather than catholicism the Pope granted him
permission to attempt a conquest of England. his massive Armada was sunk, largely
through luck and the plan was abandoned. Had Elizabeth died before Mary, in
all likelihood She would have attempted to cede her rights to her husband.
Genealogically speaking Mary I, Queen of Scots was next in line for the English
throne, her son James VI, King of Scots eventually did succeed Elizabeth I on
the throne.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Anne Boleyn`s reputation during Elizabeth`s reign

Legg inn av Gjest » 29. januar 2005 kl. 3.51

"She would have attempted to cede her rights to her husband.
Genealogically speaking Mary I, Queen of Scots was next in line for the English
throne,"

Didn't Mary (Queen of Scots) actually claim the throne of England within her lifetime? I thought that was a part of the bad-feeling that Elizabeth had for her.
Will

Gjest

Re: Anne Boleyn's reputation during Elizabeth's reign

Legg inn av Gjest » 29. januar 2005 kl. 4.11

"How was Anne's execution explained to her daughter during her reign? Did Elizabeth resurect her mother's reputation? Did Elizabeth hate her father for killing her mother?"

On the second question I submit the following website and quotation
http://www.geocities.com/boleynfamily/elizabeth/

"...unlike her sister Mary, she [Elizabeth I] never reopened the question of her mother's marriage or attempted officially to vindicate her"

Will

Gjest

Re: Anne Boleyn`s reputation during Elizabeth`s reign

Legg inn av Gjest » 29. januar 2005 kl. 5.14

Dear Will et als,
I`m not sure that She ever actually attempted to
claim it, being Queen Elizabeth`s `guest ` as She was for a number of years
after She had to flee Scotland shortly after her son James` birth because it was
widely believed She had had her not very much loved husband Henry Stuart, Lord
Darnley murdered by her secretary Rizzio, then married her lover James
Hepburn who also fled. Mary was declared deposed and her infant son crowned King of
Scots. Mary was approached by certain Catholics in England to lead them in
revolt and Mary was caught communicating with them, summoned into Elizabeth`s
presence and committed to the Tower of London. Elizabeth who rather liked Mary
reluctantly had her executed. King James displayed very little emotion at the
death of the mother He barely knew.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Leo van de Pas

Maud de Huntingdon was Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Ang

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29. januar 2005 kl. 7.11

MichaelAnne recorded :

1. Gilchrist, earl of Angus living 1207
+ Maud de Huntingdon

On my website I have a story how this Gilchrist married a sister of William
the Lion and had her killed because she had been unfaithful. CP does not
give any wife to this Gilchrist.
In Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, William the Lion has a sister Matilda
of Huntingdon and marks her off as having died in 1152 but unmarried. Can
anyone confirm that this Maud and Matilda are one and the same?
Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



2. Duncan, Earl of Angus
3. Malcolm, earl of Angus [died bef. 1242]
+ Mary de Berkley
4. Maud of Angus
+Gilbert de Umfraville [died 1245] lord of Resedale, jure
uxoris
earl of Angus

Katheryn_Swynford

Re: Anne Boleyn`s reputation during Elizabeth`s reign

Legg inn av Katheryn_Swynford » 29. januar 2005 kl. 8.58

While I don't believe she ever is known to have uttered her mother's
name, one of Elizabeth's recent biographers has indicated that a
dual-portrait ring was commissioned within Elizabeth's queenhood which
depicted Anne on one side and Elizabeth on the other. I believe it is
called 'the Exchequer's Jewel' or some such thing.

I could probably track down the reference if it is important.
Judy
http://www.katherineswynford.net

Peter Stewart

Re: Anne Boleyn`s reputation during Elizabeth`s reign

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29. januar 2005 kl. 9.12

"Katheryn_Swynford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
While I don't believe she ever is known to have uttered her mother's
name, one of Elizabeth's recent biographers has indicated that a
dual-portrait ring was commissioned within Elizabeth's queenhood which
depicted Anne on one side and Elizabeth on the other. I believe it is
called 'the Exchequer's Jewel' or some such thing.

There was no attempt to deny her mother, and her maternal relatives were
welcome at court - but of course Elizabeth was bound to respect justice as
it had been administered in the reign of her father, so that she could not
have contemplated a posthumous pardon or any kind of retrospective honour
for Anne Boleyn.

The queen was the soul of courtesy, and avoided subjects that might cause
embarrassment to others - as witness her splendid & celebrated riposte to
the earl who had once farted in her presence. But of course we don't know
what she might have thought or indeed said about her mother in private.

Peter Stewart

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: God Bless The Brazilians!

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 29. januar 2005 kl. 10.41

Spencer:

Literally : ``pagando calcinha'' : paying for the
panties. But this is meaningless, or nearly so; it's a
rather malicious way of saying, showing off one's
panties (which are suposed to be a thong or a
g-string).

As I've said, it's quite common in Copacabana or
Ipanema, not to mention when you go to the beaches.

fa

--- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Would a "hardened pagan" or "hardened heathen" have
anything to do with
this?

DSH

"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:...

| Oh, come now, Chico.
|
| Surely you can do better than Doug McDonald, who
just poked an on-line
| Portuguese dictionary.
|
| Anyone can do that.
|
| How does the idiom come out in Portuguese?
|
| Do you think this style will catch on with the
Cariocas on your lovely
| beaches?...
|
| Or perhaps it already has.
|
| Surely the lovely you saw was the top bottom model
-- not just the top
| model.
|
| DSH
|
| "Francisco Antonio Doria"
[email protected]> wrote
in
| message

news:[email protected]...
| |
| | Really impossible, Spencer, not because of the
| | malicious content, but because it is so
idiomatic...
| |
| | chico
| |
| | --- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]
| | wrote:
| |
| | > Hmmmmm...
| |
| | > "pagando calcinha.''
| |
| | > Please try to translate it, Chico.
| |
| | > Muchas Gracias,
| |
| | > Spencer
| |
| | > "Francisco Antonio Doria"
| | > <[email protected]> wrote in
| | > message
| |
| |

news:[email protected]...
| |
| | > | I saw a similar show a few days ago while
staying
| | > on
| | > | line at the local Banco do Brasil branch.
The girl
| | > in
| | > | front of me was the, hum, top model ;-))
| | > |
| | > | This is rather common. When you see the
strings of
| | > the
| | > | underlying G-string - as it is fashionable
to
| | > exhibit
| | > | them, it is called in Portuguese ``pagando
| | > calcinha.''
| | > | (Impossible to translate.)
| | > |
| | > | fa
| | > |
| | > | --- "D. Spencer Hines"
[email protected]
| | > | wrote:
| | > |
| | > |
| | > |
| |
| |
|

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... /r10858018
| | > | > 69.jpg&e=2&ncid=1756
| | > |
| | > | > These styles are for WOMEN only.
| | > |
| | > | > May she have many descendants.
| | > |
| | > | > 'Nuff Said.
| | > |
| | > | > D. Spencer Hines
| | > |
| | > | > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| | > |
| | > | > Vires et Honor





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Peter Stewart

Re: God Bless The Brazilians!

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29. januar 2005 kl. 10.50

"Francisco Antonio Doria" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
Spencer:

Literally : ``pagando calcinha'' : paying for the
panties. But this is meaningless, or nearly so; it's a
rather malicious way of saying, showing off one's
panties (which are suposed to be a thong or a
g-string).

As I've said, it's quite common in Copacabana or
Ipanema, not to mention when you go to the beaches.

Maybe a slightly more idiomatic way of phrasing this in English is "the
pay-off panty".

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Anne Boleyn's reputation during Elizabeth's reign

Legg inn av Gjest » 29. januar 2005 kl. 12.10

Elizabeth was known to have worn a jewell with a portrait of her mother.
This was on show at the Elizabeth I exhibition at Greenwich which ran through the
summer of 2003.

Rose

Dolly Ziegler

Re: Anne Boleyn`s reputation during Elizabeth`s reign

Legg inn av Dolly Ziegler » 29. januar 2005 kl. 16.31

Mary was approached by certain Catholics in England to lead them in
revolt and Mary was caught communicating with them, summoned into
Elizabeth`s presence and committed to the Tower of London.

Mary of Scotland and Elizabeth never met, I believe. Correct me if I'm
mistaken.

Maxwell Anderson's play, "Mary of Scotland," climaxes with a
scene when Elizabeth visits Mary, held in Carlisle Castle. Splendid
drama, but fiction. I played Elizabeth in a college production,
mumble-mumble years ago.

Cheers, Dolly in Maryland USA

Brant Gibbard

Re: Re: Anne Boleyn`s reputation during Elizabeth`s reign

Legg inn av Brant Gibbard » 29. januar 2005 kl. 17.31

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:29:50 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Dolly Ziegler)
wrote:


Mary of Scotland and Elizabeth never met, I believe. Correct me if I'm
mistaken.


That is correct. And Mary was not brought to the Tower. As far as I
can remember she was never in London at any time in her life.
Certainly all of her imprisonment was well away from the city.


Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Brant Gibbard

Re: Anne Boleyn`s reputation during Elizabeth`s reign

Legg inn av Brant Gibbard » 29. januar 2005 kl. 17.34

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 03:14:45 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] wrote:

Dear Will et als,
I`m not sure that She ever actually attempted to
claim it, being Queen Elizabeth`s `guest `

The claims (I seem to remember them as being expressed armorially
rather than in words) were from long before, when she was living at
the French court when very young. Again going from memory (which is
disctinctly fallible), this was done more by her French hosts than by
any particular choice of Mary's herself.
Brant Gibbard
Toronto, ON


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[email protected]

Re: Anne Boleyn`s reputation during Elizabeth`s reign

Legg inn av [email protected] » 29. januar 2005 kl. 18.42

I also was involved in a production of "Mary of Scotland", in high
school. Jane Dunn's _Elizabeth and Mary_ is an interesting conflation
of the two lives, and it is correct that they never met.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: God Bless The Brazilians!

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 29. januar 2005 kl. 19.11

Deeeeelightful! [As Theodore Roosevelt would say.]

But it's not really the panties per se which show.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... /r10858018
69.jpg&e=2&ncid=1756

Spencer

"Francisco Antonio Doria" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...

| Spencer:
|
| Literally : ``pagando calcinha'' : paying for the
| panties. But this is meaningless, or nearly so; it's a
| rather malicious way of saying, showing off one's
| panties (which are suposed to be a thong or a
| g-string).
|
| As I've said, it's quite common in Copacabana or
| Ipanema, not to mention when you go to the beaches.
|
| fa

Tony Hoskins

Re: Anne Boleyn`s reputation during Elizabeth`s reign

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 29. januar 2005 kl. 19.31

In re: Queen Elizabeth I's apparent reluctance to attempt the redemption
of her mother's character.

As Peter Stewart has said: "There was no attempt to deny her mother,
and her maternal relatives were welcome at court - but of course
Elizabeth was bound to respect justice as it had been administered in
the reign of her father, so that she could not have contemplated a
posthumous pardon or any kind of retrospective honour for Anne
Boleyn."

This is true and makes an excellent point.

In fact, examination of her mother's past, so intricately and
dangerously intermixed with issues of her own legitimacy, were for
eminently pragmatic reasons to be avoided.

If I might be allowed to quote myself, from the conclusion of my 1997
article, "Mary Boleyn's Carey Children: offspring of King Henry VIII?"
(_The Genealogists' Magazine_ 25 (9):345-352), I wrote:

"The justification for Henry VIII's divorce was entirely the 'first
degree affinity' of Henry VIII to Katherine of Aragon, his brother's
widow. He had severed the English church's ties with Rome (he
maintained) so that, by divorce, he could right the incestuous wrong he
had committed: "And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an
unclean thing.' How hypocritical (not to mention depraved and
ridiculous) would he have appeared had the extenuating circumstances of
his supposedly canonically sanctioned and justified marriage to Anne
Boleyn been acknowledged? Most important of all, Henry VIII's legitimacy
as King and Defender of the Faith would have been at least seriously
compromised, very possibly destroyed."

"For Queen Elizabeth I, the truth about her half-siblings/first cousins
the Careys would have been, at the very least, a major domestic and
European embarrassment and almost certainly a serious impediment to the
full establishment and maintenance of her legitimacy, compromising her
claim to the throne. Not only would acknowledgment of the Careys [as
Henry VIII's illegitimate offspring] never have occurred, the very
utterance of the Careys' royal paternity would have been absolutely
proscribed."

And a corollary, a propos this thread: the attempt to redeem her mother
Anne Boleyn would have raised issues the great Queen would much rather
leave dead, buried, and unremembered.





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

Chris Phillips

Re: Maud de Huntingdon was Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 29. januar 2005 kl. 22.56

Leo van de Pas wrote:
On my website I have a story how this Gilchrist married a sister of
William
the Lion and had her killed because she had been unfaithful. CP does not
give any wife to this Gilchrist.

However, the author of the CP had heard the story, and commented:
"It has been said, but this is doubtful, that his wife was Maud, or Marjory,
sister of King William the Lion."
[vol. 1, p. 146, note a]

Chris Phillips

Leo van de Pas

Re: Maud de Huntingdon was Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29. januar 2005 kl. 23.21

Dear Chris
But who then is the wife of Gilchrist to be referred to as de Huntingdon?
Hope someone knows.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Maud de Huntingdon was Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of Angus


Leo van de Pas wrote:
On my website I have a story how this Gilchrist married a sister of
William
the Lion and had her killed because she had been unfaithful. CP does not
give any wife to this Gilchrist.

However, the author of the CP had heard the story, and commented:
"It has been said, but this is doubtful, that his wife was Maud, or
Marjory,
sister of King William the Lion."
[vol. 1, p. 146, note a]

Chris Phillips




Chris Phillips

Re: Maud de Huntingdon was Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 29. januar 2005 kl. 23.34

Leo van de Pas wrote:
On my website I have a story how this Gilchrist married a sister of
William
the Lion and had her killed because she had been unfaithful. CP does not
give any wife to this Gilchrist.
In Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, William the Lion has a sister
Matilda
of Huntingdon and marks her off as having died in 1152 but unmarried. Can
anyone confirm that this Maud and Matilda are one and the same?

[and later]

But who then is the wife of Gilchrist to be referred to as de Huntingdon?


I should have checked previously, but this Maud does seem to be supported -
though only as a sister of William, not as the wife of Gilchrist - she is
referred to by CP vi 642 note m: "Maud, d. unm. in 1152 (Fordun
[Scotichronicon (ed. Hearne)], p. 451)."

She will have been called Matilda "of Huntingdon" by Burke because her
father was Earl of Huntingdon (although he died in the lifetime of his
father, David I of Scotland, his father had in 1136 resigned the earldom in
his favour when he made peace with King Stephen).

Chris Phillips

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Maud de Huntingdon was Re: Umfreville, Stewart, Earls of

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 30. januar 2005 kl. 0.31

Bower actually wrote,

"Genuit eciam dictus Henricus de Hontingdona terciam filiam nominee
Matildam que eodem anno quo frater suus rex Malcolmus obiit et eciam
ipsa decessit."

Francisco Antonio Doria

Re: God Bless The Brazilians!

Legg inn av Francisco Antonio Doria » 30. januar 2005 kl. 10.21

They do... Panties & cleavage, in hip hugging jeans
;-))

--- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Deeeeelightful! [As Theodore Roosevelt would say.]

But it's not really the panties per se which show.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... /r10858018
69.jpg&e=2&ncid=1756

Spencer

"Francisco Antonio Doria"
[email protected]> wrote in
message

news:[email protected]...

| Spencer:
|
| Literally : ``pagando calcinha'' : paying for the
| panties. But this is meaningless, or nearly so;
it's a
| rather malicious way of saying, showing off one's
| panties (which are suposed to be a thong or a
| g-string).
|
| As I've said, it's quite common in Copacabana or
| Ipanema, not to mention when you go to the
beaches.
|
| fa



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

D. Spencer Hines

Re: God Bless The Brazilians!

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30. januar 2005 kl. 20.41

Indeed....

But the cleavage is much more important than the panties.

Be Creative! Was The Cry....

And The Brazilians did just that.

Hurrah!

DSH

"Francisco Antonio Doria" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
|
| They do... Panties & cleavage, in hip hugging jeans
| ;-))
|
| --- "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
| > Deeeeelightful! [As Theodore Roosevelt would say.]
| >
| > But it's not really the panties per se which show.
| >
| >
|
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... /r10858018
| > 69.jpg&e=2&ncid=1756
| >
| > Spencer
| >
| > "Francisco Antonio Doria"
| > <[email protected]> wrote in
| > message
| >
| news:[email protected]...
| >
| > | Spencer:
| > |
| > | Literally : ``pagando calcinha'' : paying for the
| > | panties. But this is meaningless, or nearly so;
| > it's a
| > | rather malicious way of saying, showing off one's
| > | panties (which are suposed to be a thong or a
| > | g-string).
| > |
| > | As I've said, it's quite common in Copacabana or
| > | Ipanema, not to mention when you go to the
| > beaches.
| > |
| > | fa

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Barry Humphries Is Incapable Of Being Dreary

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 31. januar 2005 kl. 5.31

Hilarious!

Peter Stewart The Illiterate Strikes Again!

Lightning Bug = Firefly.

No one will be so simple-minded as to accuse Peter Stewart of being in
"literary mode" -- rest assured of that.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| ...and that compared to any other this is like lightening [sic] vs a
| lightening [sic] bug. "Humphries in literary mode is merely a
| lightening [sic] bug. Humphries in literary mode is merely a
| lightening [sic] bug.

Peter Stewart

Re: Barry Humphries Is Incapable Of Being Dreary

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31. januar 2005 kl. 7.53

I'm sure Spencer is right, though he is more to be pitied than censured if
he really finds this error on my part "hilarious".

Happily for me, there are sub-editors to worry about stray letters & pesky
spelling - apart from fussy schoolma'ams of course and, less happily,
pettifogging creeps on the internet.

As to whether or not it is "simple-minded" to think that received spelling
has nothing whatsoever to do with literary prowess, perhaps Spencer wishes
us all to know that he has never encountered the works of William Shaxsper.
Those oif us who have been better educated or who are less foolish know that
he did quite well in the literary line without ever so much as knowing there
might be a "correct" spelling of his name.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hilarious!

Peter Stewart The Illiterate Strikes Again!

Lightning Bug = Firefly.

No one will be so simple-minded as to accuse Peter Stewart of being in
"literary mode" -- rest assured of that.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| ...and that compared to any other this is like lightening [sic] vs a
| lightening [sic] bug. "Humphries in literary mode is merely a
| lightening [sic] bug. Humphries in literary mode is merely a
| lightening [sic] bug.

Gjest

Re: Barry Humphries Is Incapable Of Being Dreary

Legg inn av Gjest » 31. januar 2005 kl. 13.38

­Spencer wishes us all to know that he has never >>encountered the
works of Wi­lliam Shaxsper. >>Those oif us who have been better

educated or >>who are less f­oolish know that he did quite well >>in
the literary line without ever so much ­as >>knowing there might be a
"correct" spelling of >>his name.

There wasn't (at the time). But that was then, and this is now.

Happily for me, there are sub-editors to worry >>about stray
l­etters & pesky spelling


How Marie Antoinette of you.

Peter Stewart

Re: Barry Humphries Is Incapable Of Being Dreary

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31. januar 2005 kl. 22.49

"<starbuck95>" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
­ Spencer wishes us all to know that he has never >>encountered the
works of Wi­lliam Shaxsper. >>Those oif us who have been better
educated or >>who are less f­oolish know that he did quite well >>in
the literary line without ever so much ­as >>knowing there might be a
"correct" spelling of >>his name.

There wasn't (at the time). But that was then, and this is now.

You are - deliberately perhaps - missing the point, which is just that
literature doesn't depend (now or ever) on perfect spelling or sub-editorial
skills.

Happily for me, there are sub-editors to worry
about stray l­etters & pesky spelling

How Marie Antoinette of you.

If this is a reference to "Let them eat cake", it's misconceived anyway -
but Marie Antoinette never said it, this was a remark made by Louis XIV's
outstandingly stupid Spanish consort, Maria Teresa.

Peter Stewart

starbuck95

Re: Barry Humphries Is Incapable Of Being Dreary

Legg inn av starbuck95 » 31. januar 2005 kl. 22.53

Well, one of them dumb Maries ...

Peter Stewart

Re: Barry Humphries Is Incapable Of Being Dreary

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31. januar 2005 kl. 23.00

"starbuck95" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Well, one of them dumb Maries ...


I supopose it's fair to call them both dumb, but not remotely equal in
degree or really in kind.

Marie Antoinette was much better as a queen and as a person than she is yet
given credit for, not least in the heroic grace that she maintained through
her appalling last years.

She was "Born to honours as the sparks fly upwards", and in the end was
worthy of them.

Peter Stewart

starbuck95

Re: Barry Humphries Is Incapable Of Being Dreary

Legg inn av starbuck95 » 31. januar 2005 kl. 23.09

She was "Born to honours as the sparks fly upwards", and in the end
was
worthy of them.

Wow. Lofty.

Peter Stewart

Re: Barry Humphries Is Incapable Of Being Dreary

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 1. februar 2005 kl. 0.43

John Brandon wrote:

[Peter Stewart wrote:]
She was "Born to honours as the sparks fly upwards", and i­n the
end was worthy of them.

Wow. Lofty.

It seems from this goonish response that you have failed to recognise
the reference to a very famous passage written about Marie Antoinette,
one of the most admired in the English language. And all of it spelled
correctly, so that it won't offend your precious sensibilities in that
respect. Maybe you can work out for yourself whose writing I mean.

And kindly spare us all more of your convulsive attempts at wit &
brevity. This has never once worked for you yet.

Peter Stewart

minnman

Re: Poyntz/Clanvowe/Talbot connection

Legg inn av minnman » 1. februar 2005 kl. 1.20

Here is a possible construction that would explain the use of
"nepos" as near kinsman.

1. Rhys Mechyll
2. Rhys Vaughan (brother of Gwenllian)
3. Howell (Hywell) died 1282
4. William ap Hywell
5. Philip Clanvowe
6. Elizabeth Clanvowe (sister of John)

Generations 1-3 from Welsh Founders of Pennsylvania, by Thomas Allen
Glenn
Generation 4-6 from AR 7 line 84B
Connection between generations 3 and 4 is not documented.

mn

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Cris ~

I believe John de Clanvowe, brother of Elizabeth (de Clanvowe)
Poyntz,
is styled "nepos" of Lord Talbot in a papal letter. When I prepared
the Clanvowe-Poyntz line for AR7 some years ago, I was under the
impression that the Latin word "nepos" in the medieval period meant
only nephew or grandson. On that basis, I assumed that John de
Clanvowe was the "nephew" of Lord Talbot. However, I've since
learned
that on rare occasions "nepos" can also refer to a near kinsman.
I've
posted a couple of examples of "nepos/neptis" as kinsman/kinswoman
here on the newsgroup this past year.

Inasmuch as Welsh pedigrees identify John de Clanvowe's mother as
being a Bredwardine (not a Talbot), it seems a good possibility that
the word "nepos" as used in this papal letter means that John de
Clanvowe was "near kinsman" rather than "nephew" of Lord Talbot. If
so, we would expect to find that John de Clanvowe was closely related
to Lord Talbot's Welsh ancestress, Gwenllian, daughter of Rhys
Mechyll
ap Rhys Grig, lord of Dynevor, South Wales. Gwenllian ferch Rhys
Mechyll was heiress to her nephew, Llywelyn ap Rhys Vaughan (occurs
1277/85), by which she inherited Keyrkenny Castle and the commote of
Iskenny [see L.O. Pike Year Books of the Reign of King Edward the
Third: Years XVIII and XIX (Rolls Ser., vol. 31, no. 12) (1905), pp.
420-425].

Have you explored the possibility that the Clanvowes are related to
Gwenllian ferch Rhys Mechyll? If the Clanvowe family were near kin
to
Gwenllian, I believe that would be the basis for John de Clanvowe
being styled "nepos" of Lord Talbot in the papal letter. This matter
deserves further study.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected] (Cristopher Nash) wrote in message
news:<a05100300bc0b262f1082@[195.102.205.226]>...
Douglas wrote --

I estimate that John Poyntz was born about
1310. If correct, this would mean that Margery's first
husband, Ralph
Bluet, was born say 1309, and her second husband, John
Poyntz, was
born say 1310. So far, so good.

Was this John Poyntz also married to Elizabeth de Clanove?

Jay

Dear Jay ~

Yes, this is the same Sir John Poyntz. He died in 1376.

Douglas, in your valuable Agnes Harris genealogy you gave (e.g.in
AR7) --

| Philippa Talbot
| & Sir Philip de Clanvowe
| d. ca 1347
| | Elizabeth de Clanvowe
| | & Sir John Poyntz
| | d. 24 Feb 1376

-- but subsequently you posted here that this line <needs more
evidence. The weak link in the descent is the Clanvowe-Talbot
connection.... more documentation is needed before this part of the

line can be accepted> (17 Oct 2001)

Just to bring things up to date, do you happen to have found any
further data supporting or disposing of your Talbot/Clanvowe
sequence? Sorry to be asking this again, but I know you've done a
lot of work since 2001, and 'hope springs eternal'!

Cheers!

Cris

--

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»