Blount-Ayala

[Janet Ariciu]

The Ancestral file at one time would replace the old ones. If Jane Smith
family knew the truth because they own the family Bible they would post from
it. Then here came Uncle Earl family and because Uncle Earl thought they
knew the family history because Uncle Earl said so.
The new would replace the old one even if it was wrong.

You can see the problem this cause.

Then the starting just add new ones and not replacing.

Then found this was to much and now they make CD. Now if they are going to
keep making new CD. This is question.

IGI do good information when the church goes to Church/Parish and copy of
their records.

You have to go through all IGI on line to find good one for sometimes IGI
and AF were be mix.

Now folks must look and see the source is church records or people records
or if the source is list. My worldconnect I post there with family history,
there is documents to back what I found but like said Uncle Earl was
wonderful story teller but was it truth or just family stories that were
past down with a little bit of truth.

You must take care but you might be lucky and get good facts
Like I did on my Coulter Parish records.


Janet



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 11:11:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Doug McDonald wrote:

Then what is Pedigree Resource File?

Supposed to be the new, updated version of Ancestral File.
Renia

No Renia, the PRF is not the updated AF. Rather its more akin to the updated
IGI portion that was created by Patron Sheets.

The IGI is composed of many sources. If you find a particular entry, you can
"View Source" and it will tell you the source. So you may find in the
"Source" such things as:
1) Marriages of Benton Co, AR 1851-1876. County Clerk
2) Patron submitted sheets
3) Tombstones of the Van Arkle Family

or whatever. Lots of sources.

Now the PRF is a database of any and all GEDCOMs submitted by any person who
wishes to. Member of the church or not, makes no difference. Anyone
including Renia or myself can simply go there, upload a GEDCOM and it will appear at
some short time within the PRF. So in this way it's identical to the Ancestral
World Tree (http://www.ancestry.com) or the previous incarnation of same the
WorldConnect Project (http://www.rootsweb.com), now both owned by the same company.
The Ancestral File however was a place were dedicated persons within the
LDS staff with actively merging various uploaded individuals into one person.
So John Brown 1694 of New York City who married Matilda Shavers in 1712 ...
would end up with one, single entry for himself and one for his wife, no matter
how many sources showed them. So even if there were 42 sheets from different
patrons, plus 12 land records and 18 tax records, and two marriages, and a
tomb stone and a will ... you end up with one single entry for John Brown.
On the IGI these "facts" would created individual entries for each fact,
so John Brown would appear (42 + 12 + 18 + 2 + 1 + 1) number of times in the
IGI but only once in the AF.
The PRF is more similar to the IGI but this John Brown would appear only
42 times, once for each GEDCOM submitted.
HTH
Will Johnson

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 2/27/2005 11:11:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


Doug McDonald wrote:


Then what is Pedigree Resource File?

Supposed to be the new, updated version of Ancestral File.
Renia


No Renia, the PRF is not the updated AF. Rather its more akin to the updated
IGI portion that was created by Patron Sheets.

The IGI is composed of many sources. If you find a particular entry, you can
"View Source" and it will tell you the source. So you may find in the
"Source" such things as:
1) Marriages of Benton Co, AR 1851-1876. County Clerk
2) Patron submitted sheets
3) Tombstones of the Van Arkle Family

or whatever. Lots of sources.

Now the PRF is a database of any and all GEDCOMs submitted by any person who
wishes to. Member of the church or not, makes no difference. Anyone
including Renia or myself can simply go there, upload a GEDCOM and it will appear at
some short time within the PRF. So in this way it's identical to the Ancestral
World Tree (http://www.ancestry.com) or the previous incarnation of same the
WorldConnect Project (http://www.rootsweb.com), now both owned by the same company.
The Ancestral File however was a place were dedicated persons within the
LDS staff with actively merging various uploaded individuals into one person.
So John Brown 1694 of New York City who married Matilda Shavers in 1712 ...
would end up with one, single entry for himself and one for his wife, no matter
how many sources showed them. So even if there were 42 sheets from different
patrons, plus 12 land records and 18 tax records, and two marriages, and a
tomb stone and a will ... you end up with one single entry for John Brown.
On the IGI these "facts" would created individual entries for each fact,
so John Brown would appear (42 + 12 + 18 + 2 + 1 + 1) number of times in the
IGI but only once in the AF.
The PRF is more similar to the IGI but this John Brown would appear only
42 times, once for each GEDCOM submitted.
HTH
Will Johnson

The IGI is single-generational (plus parents), but the PRF is
multi-generational. In that respect, it is nearer to AF.

Renia

[Doug McDonald]

Richard C. Browning, Jr. wrote:

My main problem with the FamilySearch site and their databases is that there appears no
way to get invalid data corrected. To me this seems hypocritical to me if the
genealogical connections are somehow related to religious ceremonies.

That's silly. The person at whom they are directed will not be
misled by mistakes, since he knows everything anyway.

Doug McDonald

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Richard C. Browning, Jr. wrote:

My main problem with the FamilySearch site and their databases is that there appears no
way to get invalid data corrected. To me this seems hypocritical to me if the
genealogical connections are somehow related to religious ceremonies. I don't know how
the LDS uses this data in thir religion, but it must mean something to them if they go
back into the past and "seal" ancestors.

This is a misunderstanding of what the data represents. Contrary
to appearances, the IGI is not a collection of genealogical
facts. It is an index. It reports, for example, that an
ordinance was performed for a person with the listed
characteristics. Unless no such ordinance was performed, this is
not an error, even if the individual was wrongly described at the
time the ordinance was performed. To "correct" the information
would make it an inaccurate index of the actual ordinace performed.

Ancestral File allowed corrections, only to find that as many
people 'corrected' right to wrong as wrong to right. Hence
Pedigree Resource File, where one can 'correct' an erroneous
entry by submitting your own verson.

taf

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 3:11:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

The IGI is single-generational (plus parents), but the PRF is
multi-generational. In that respect, it is nearer to AF.

Not quite. The IGI generations cannot be "clicked" on but that doesn't mean
they aren't there. You just have to enter the names of the "parents" as
"individuals" and they will pop up as well. So the IGI is multi-generational, its
just that the connections between those generations aren't automatically
linked for you. But the underlying sources are still present and accessible and
still link the same source documents.
And again the AF only has or is only *supposed* to have one entry per
person the PRF may have 42 entires per person as I already remarked. So in that
way there are very different.
I can agree that in some respect its like the AF and in some respect its
like the IGI, but really its identical to the AWT so why not just use that
relationship.
Oh and by the way, as far as online sources go, its also identical to the
format of the GEDCOMS presented on http://www.gencircles.com which again allows
anyone who wishes to, to upload a GEDCOM and presents all the data in seperate
files.
The interesting advantage to gencircles is that they attempt to "link"
similar or same name/date/place people to each other. So their software tries to
find "matches" in someone else's GEDCOM to information in YOUR gedcom. It's
not always right in who it matches up.
Will "I can be as stubborn as you" Johnson

[Richard C. Browning, Jr.]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd
A. Farmerie
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 18:05
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New Ancestral File


Richard C. Browning, Jr. wrote:
My main problem with the FamilySearch site and their
databases is that
there appears no way to get invalid data corrected. To me
this seems
hypocritical to me if the genealogical connections are
somehow related
to religious ceremonies. I don't know how the LDS uses
this data in
thir religion, but it must mean something to them if they
go back into
the past and "seal" ancestors.

This is a misunderstanding of what the data represents. Contrary
to appearances, the IGI is not a collection of genealogical
facts. It is an index. It reports, for example, that an
ordinance was performed for a person with the listed
characteristics. Unless no such ordinance was performed, this is
not an error, even if the individual was wrongly described at the
time the ordinance was performed. To "correct" the information
would make it an inaccurate index of the actual ordinace performed.

Ancestral File allowed corrections, only to find that as many
people 'corrected' right to wrong as wrong to right. Hence
Pedigree Resource File, where one can 'correct' an erroneous
entry by submitting your own verson.

taf

What are these ordinances that the IGI indexes, I see entries for birth, christening, and
marriage. Are these records indexes to records of these events at performed during the
life of the subject, or of events performed at a later date? This has always been
confusing to me.

I realize this is moving toward (if it hasn't already) becoming off topic, is is important
to me as I use FamilySearch and the IGIs as direction toward possible data sources.

Thanks
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX

[Mark Harry]

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

In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:56:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


In some cases it is apparent that where several differing versions of
a family pedigree exist, all the versions were put in without that
fact being made clear,

I think you are confusing the IGI with the Ancestral File. The IGI *does*
have several different versions of "facts" on the same person, and
correspondingly many entries on the same person. The Ancestral File is and should remain a
file where each *person* is represented by exactly one entry.
Will

Should be, but isn't.

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:11:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

IGI is not a collection of genealogical
facts. It is an index. It reports, for example, that an
ordinance was performed for a person with the listed
characteristics. Unless no such ordinance was performed, this is
not an error, even if the individual was wrongly described at the
time the ordinance was performed. To "correct" the information
would make it an inaccurate index of the actual ordinace performed.

Sorry but this is not accurate. You make it sound as if, looking at a record
we would see John Brown b 5 Apr 1832 and baptised in the church [an ordinance]
on 7 Jul 1996. But we don't what we see is:
John Brown b 5 Apr 1832 Source: Patron submitted sheets.

The IGI *does* allow corrections. This is how ... submit more sheets.
There is no way to correct someone else's research because there is no way in
the real world to do that either. If Susie Smith insists your grandmother
was born in 1911 and you insist she was born in 1912 then the solution is to
submit both sets of information. That's it.
Will

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 6:21:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

What are these ordinances that the IGI indexes, I see entries for birth,
christening, and marriage. Are these records indexes to records of these
events at performed during the life of the subject, or of events performed at a
later date?

The dates indexed are the dates of the individuals actual birth, chr, mar.
They are not the dates of the various ordinances.
Will

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:11:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


IGI is not a collection of genealogical
facts. It is an index. It reports, for example, that an
ordinance was performed for a person with the listed
characteristics. Unless no such ordinance was performed, this is
not an error, even if the individual was wrongly described at the
time the ordinance was performed. To "correct" the information
would make it an inaccurate index of the actual ordinace performed.


Sorry but this is not accurate.

Huh? It is perfectly accurate for the example described.

You make it sound as if, looking at a record
we would see John Brown b 5 Apr 1832 and baptised in the church [an ordinance]
on 7 Jul 1996.

That might be exactly what you see if you are logged in with your
member number.

But we don't what we see is:
John Brown b 5 Apr 1832 Source: Patron submitted sheets.

See up there where it says, "for example . . ."? That means what
followed was only an example. Patron submitted sheets are
another example, but it works the same. The IGI likewise indexes
the information reported in these, and "correcting" that IGI
record would likewise render it an inaccurate index of the
submitted record. The point is the same - an individual entry is
hoped to approximate genealogical reality, but what it actually
represents is the contents of a submitted record (ordinance,
patron sheet, extraction). As such, the only appropriate
correction to an individual record (as per the original
complaint) would be if it does not reflect what is in the record
it is supposed to be indexing - the ordinance or patron sheet,
not if it doesn't reflect historical reality. (Now, having a new
entry added with different information, that is a different story.)

taf

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 7:41:56 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

The Ancestral File is and should remain a
file where each *person* is represented by exactly one entry.
Will

Should be, but isn't.

That's because they didn't finish the job. It was their plan, but the best
laid plans of mice and LDS Staffers oft gang awry (or something like that).
Will

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Richard C. Browning, Jr. wrote:

What are these ordinances that the IGI indexes, I see entries for birth, christening, and
marriage. Are these records indexes to records of these events at performed during the
life of the subject, or of events performed at a later date? This has always been
confusing to me.

It can be confusing. The ordinances are baptism (LDS, not to be
confused with non-Mormon baptism, which the IGI calls
christening), sealing to spouse and parents, and endowment (all
performed at a later date unless the individual themselves was a
church member). Unless you are logged in with an LDS member
number, the on-line version hides from you the ordinance
information it was created to index. (Look at the old fiche
version, and you see the ordinance information over in the right
hand columns.)

What you see for these records is the biographical information
relevant to events during the life of the individual, submitted
by the person having the ordinances performed at the time the
ordinances were performed, in order to uniquely identify and
document the individual.

taf

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 2/27/2005 10:26:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

That might be exactly what you see if you are logged in with your
member number.

What are you talking about? I've never seen any ordinance dates in the IGI
at all. They *are* in the Ancestral File however.

The old fiche version had them right there to see. Using the DOS
version, there were two versions, one without, and the other with
(under the name of Ordinance Index). On the on-line version of
the IGI, as I said, if you log in with your LDS member number,
you see the ordinance information. Are you a member? Have you
ever logged in with your member number?

Ordinance information is in Ancestral File if and only if the
submitter included them, either by commission or omission, in
their upload.

taf

[Gjest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 10:26:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

That might be exactly what you see if you are logged in with your
member number.

What are you talking about? I've never seen any ordinance dates in the IGI
at all. They *are* in the Ancestral File however.

[Guy Etchells]

The ordinances are Baptism, Endowment and Sealing these appeared in the
columns B,E & F on the fiche versions of the IGI but are suppressed on
the online version.

The fiche versions are somewhat easier to follow with the arrangement of
columns being-
Name ; Father/Mother or Spouse ; Sex ; Type ; Event date ; Town, Parish
; B ; E ; S ; Source batch ; Source Serial

Cheers
Guy

Richard C. Browning, Jr. wrote:

What are these ordinances that the IGI indexes, I see entries for birth, christening, and
marriage. Are these records indexes to records of these events at performed during the
life of the subject, or of events performed at a later date? This has always been
confusing to me.

I realize this is moving toward (if it hasn't already) becoming off topic, is is important
to me as I use FamilySearch and the IGIs as direction toward possible data sources.

Thanks
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX

--
Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts
not promises!
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums ... ferrerid=7
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com ... church.htm
Churches & MIs. in the Wakefield Area

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 2/27/2005 10:26:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


That might be exactly what you see if you are logged in with your
member number.


What are you talking about? I've never seen any ordinance dates in the IGI
at all. They *are* in the Ancestral File however.

Then you are confusing the IGI and AF.

Renia

[Gordon Johnson]

Renia wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

Dolly wrote: "The oldest of these huge LDS Church databases, the
International Genealogical Index (IGI), is an index to church
ordinances. "

Dolly the IGI includes church ordinances, but that is not all it
includes. The IGI also includes Patron submitted sheets, extracts
from county marriage ledgers, and extract from county history books
among other things.
Will


It also includes some Parish Registers, but much of it is from Bishop's
Transcripts (which often vary from the Parish Registers).

Renia
***** Everybody is correct in some way! The IGI is correctly an index to

Mormon church ordinances which have been performed on the data
collected, but there are literally millions of entries for which this
task has not been done, and is unlikely EVER to be done. These "extras"
are what is now published in the "Vital Records Index" series of cd-roms
by country. Some of the content of these also appears in the IGI, but
much is unique to these cds, with data drawn from many sources.
Gordon.

[charlotte Smith]

Pat Junkin: Margery Hurst was married to John
devinish(Dnyshe) and her mother was Margaret St.
Cleere(St. Clarie) so I would imagine that the
connection is there with the St. Claire family. Charlotte

[Gordon Banks]

On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 20:22 -0600, Richard C. Browning, Jr. wrote:

What are these ordinances that the IGI indexes, I see entries for birth, christening, and
marriage. Are these records indexes to records of these events at performed during the
life of the subject, or of events performed at a later date? This has always been
confusing to me.

They may be either. In order to see the actual ordinance information,
you have to login as a member of the church using a number that is akin
to a social security number that each member has. Once you do that, all
the ordinance information is shown on each IGI entry.

The church reportedly is working on a method to prevent duplication of
ordinances. Unfortunately, this is not easy. Currently, submitters of
names for ordinances are supposed to run the names through a program and
affirm that their ancestor is not the same as ones already done, but
obviously that doesn't always work. Most colonial American immigrants
have had the ordinances performed by proxy a score of times or more. It
would take a staff of thousands of genealogists probably to prevent the
duplications.

[Patricia Junkin]

Thank you, Charlotte. Do you know who the Divinish/Denysshe family was?
Pat

----------

From: charlotte Smith <[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: GEN-MEDIEVAL-D Digest V05 #198 Pat Junkin
Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2005, 11:29 AM



Pat Junkin: Margery Hurst was married to John
devinish(Dnyshe) and her mother was Margaret St.
Cleere(St. Clarie) so I would imagine that the
connection is there with the St. Claire family. Charlotte

[Gjest]

Taf wrote: "Unless you are logged in with an LDS member number, . . ."


Is it possible to obtain such a number without being a member of the Mormon
church?

MLM

[Gjest]

Chris wrote: "Even indiviual transcripts sent in privately (so long as they don't add wild ABT. guesses) are generally less subject to inaccuracy than are submitted pedigrees."

This is because you are assuming that the IGI is only composed of "individual transcripts". However "Patron submitted sheets" might be pedigree charts as well. And as such is identical to "submitted pedigrees"
Will

[Gjest]

Will wrote : > What are you talking about? I've never seen any ordinance dates in the IGI

at all. They *are* in the Ancestral File however.

Renia wrote: "Then you are confusing the IGI and AF."

OK I just checked again and the AF does include ordinance data. I'm looking right at it. However the *online* version of the AF does not include ordinance data. Only the CD version available in FHC's includes it. I don't know why.
Will

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

Taf wrote: "Unless you are logged in with an LDS member number, . . ."


Is it possible to obtain such a number without being a member of the Mormon
church?

Absolutely not (well, I guess you could beat a member with wet noodle
until they give up theirs). This login is intended to restrict the
ordinance information (and some other areas of the site) to church members.

taf

[Debbi]

Should be, but often is not. The initial version of the AF was taken
directly from the IGI, with all of its errors. Sometimes there is
duplication stemming from the fact that one individual may have submitted a
name in the format "Simon of Montfort" and another in the format "Simon
Montfort." Other duplications stem from one individual submitting a place
in the format "Alton, Staffordshire, England," and another in the format
"Alton Parish, Staff, Eng.", and still another in the format "Alton,
England." Some of these errors have been cleaned out of the system, but
with over 100K names (not counting the duplicates) it will take some doing
to clear them all. It took me over a month to clear out the duplications
when I first downloaded a geed.com from AF in 1994 to get the obvious
duplications weeded in my database. I occasionally still find a duplicate
Now that I have learned more about the individuals and how they were
referred to in contemporary documents.

Debbi
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: New Ancestral File

In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:56:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


In some cases it is apparent that where several differing versions of
a family pedigree exist, all the versions were put in without that
fact being made clear,

I think you are confusing the IGI with the Ancestral File. The IGI *does*
have several different versions of "facts" on the same person, and
correspondingly many entries on the same person. The Ancestral File is
and should remain a
file where each *person* is represented by exactly one entry.
Will

[JF Blanc]

Renia a écrit :

JF Blanc wrote:
Hello all,

It's a true disappointment to be forced to read out of topic
messages about today's british royals or about historiography.

Are there not specialized newsgroup on these topics?

For my part, I have (probably) said all I am going to say on the matter.
But I do not see how you can think this topic (historiography and the role
of sources) is off-topic for a medieval genealogy newsgroup. It isn't
genealogy itself, but it is central to the field of genealogy.

Renia

But what would you write if I begin arguing we should discuss
for one month about handwritten trees and the most suitable ink
to do so?

Jean-François BLANC - Genealogia
[email protected]
http://blanc.mfoudi.online.fr et
http://gw.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=bln

[Douglas Richardson royala]

"Tony Hoskins" wrote:

But I do not see how you can think this topic (historiography and the

role of sources) is off-topic for a medieval genealogy newsgroup. It
isn't genealogy itself, but it is central to the field of genealogy.

Renia
--
I have come round to Renia's way of thinking on this. In a group
where
the most *unlikely* and out of scope discussions occasionally take
place, what could be more germane or useful than discussion of the
factual, interpretive underpinnings of history/genealogy?

Tony Hoskins

I agree with you and Renia. This is a great topic. By all means,
please continue.

DR

[D. Spencer Hines]

Nonsense.

No one is FORCING anyone else to read anything.

DSH

""JF Blanc"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| Renia a écrit :
|
| > JF Blanc wrote:
| >> Hello all,
| >>
| >> It's a true disappointment to be forced to read out of topic
| >> messages about today's british royals or about historiography.
| >>
| >> Are there not specialized newsgroup on these topics?
| >
| > For my part, I have (probably) said all I am going to say on the
matter.
| > But I do not see how you can think this topic (historiography and
the role
| > of sources) is off-topic for a medieval genealogy newsgroup. It
isn't
| > genealogy itself, but it is central to the field of genealogy.
| >
| > Renia
| >
|
| But what would you write if I begin arguing we should discuss
| for one month about handwritten trees and the most suitable ink
| to do so?
|
| Jean-François BLANC - Genealogia
| [email protected]
| http://blanc.mfoudi.online.fr et
| http://gw.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=bln

[Tony Hoskins]

For my part, I have (probably) said all I am going to say on the
matter.
But I do not see how you can think this topic (historiography and the
role
of sources) is off-topic for a medieval genealogy newsgroup. It isn't

genealogy itself, but it is central to the field of genealogy.

Again, I couldn't agree more. As far as I'm concerned, keep it coming!



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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

[Gjest]

It seems to me that there are less public lists for people who are
locked in ivory towers (speaking as one who was so locked at one time
but eventually stole the key). There are academic journals with
enormously high subscription costs and so on. While I and others have
gone seriously off-topic at times, it does seem that a public list
serving academics and non-academics should have more liberal criteria
for determining what is on or off topic. I agree that this current
discussion is on-topic and, further, that it is a valuable one for
non-academics to follow. It should be helpful for them to learn about
the nature of sources and documentation. A quick glance at genealogy
websites proves the point! Bronwen

[Tony Hoskins]

I agree that this current discussion is on-topic and, further, that it
is a valuable one for non-academics to follow. It should be >>helpful

for them to learn about the nature of sources and documentation. A quick
glance at genealogy websites proves the >>point! Bronwen

Well said. I've been mulling over the subject of OT and non-OT, and
more and more agree that there must be *some* flexibility - but not
abuse - in our latitude for relevant discussion. Of course, such
judgements are non-quantifiable, slippery, and highly subjective. Still,
it should be clear that methodological musings and discussions of
evidence and interpretation most definitely *should* be more-or-less OT.
But, for instance, I find the recent copyright discussion (though on
occasion interesting) quite un-OT. Anyway, thanks to Ms. Edward for her
good points, with which I concur.


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

[Douglas Richardson royala]

[email protected] wrote:

It seems to me that there are less public lists for people who are
locked in ivory towers (speaking as one who was so locked at one time
but eventually stole the key). There are academic journals with
enormously high subscription costs and so on. While I and others have
gone seriously off-topic at times, it does seem that a public list
serving academics and non-academics should have more liberal criteria
for determining what is on or off topic. I agree that this current
discussion is on-topic and, further, that it is a valuable one for
non-academics to follow. It should be helpful for them to learn about
the nature of sources and documentation. A quick glance at genealogy
websites proves the point! Bronwen

Exactly! Bingo! Well put.

Cheers, Douglas Richardson

[[email protected]]

Tony Hoskins wrote:

For my part, I have (probably) said all I am going to say on the

matter.

But I do not see how you can think this topic (historiography and the

role

of sources) is off-topic for a medieval genealogy newsgroup. It isn't


genealogy itself, but it is central to the field of genealogy.




Again, I couldn't agree more. As far as I'm concerned, keep it coming!

Well, this and other posts have only just turned up on my newsreader.
(Changed newsreaders today.) Thought there hadn't been much traffic lately.

Renia

[John Brandon]

There's also a "Will'm Audlum" mentioned in the Lane pedigree on p. 62
of the 1623 Dorset Visitation:

http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/ ... s/p70.html

[Luke Potter]

Matthew,

Further to your questions concerning the Vernons, I can offer the
following pieces of evidence:

For the marriage of William de Vernon and Alice de Bamville see
Stewart-Brown (ed.) _The Domesday Roll of Chester_ (Chester, 1924),
p.10. This refers to a cast in the Chester County Court in 1233
between Robert de Alwaldeleya (Audley?) and lord William de Vernon,
Alice his wife and Fulk de Orreby concerning a tenement in
Alwaldeleya.

For the marriage of the fourteenth century William de Vernon to a
Joan, see Staffordshire Historical Collections, Vol.12, p.58. This
details a case in the Common Pleas from Michaelmas 1347 between Henry
de la Pole and 'Joan, formerly wife of William de Vernon' of Nether
Haddon. It also makes mention of their son Richard who was a minor. I
have found very little out about William who appears to have died very
young.

Regarding Hawisa de Brailsford see M.Clancy (ed) _The Roll and Writ
File of the Berkshire Eyre of 1248_ (Selden Society, Vol.90, 1973),
pp. 202, 232. This records the appointment by Richard de Vernon of
Walter de Walhull or Adam Maunadelet as an attorney against Hawisia
late the wife of Robert de Vernon over a plea of wardship. It also
records a separate entry of the case in which Richard presented
himself by his attorney against Hawise de Brailsford on a pleas that
she render to him Hawise, daughter and heir of Robert de Vernon, who
pertained to him as Robert had held his land from him by knight's
service.

Whether Hawise was a Brailsford before she married Robert, or if she
remarried a Brailsford after Robert;s death, I do not know.

Luke

[Gjest]

Luke,

Wow! Thanks for your detailed response. Was it actually you who
provided the new Burke's account?! I saw some good work you did on the
Shipbrook family back in 1997, and you are obviously far advanced on
the Haddon lot (any thoughts on early links?); are you interested in
the Vernons in particular or just as part of a wider picture? Burke's
has William born 1312/3, died by 1329; which is certainly a lot earlier
than I've found (if it isn't a misprint).

Matthew

[Luke Potter]

Matthew,

No connection to Burkes I'm afraid. I don't actually think I've even
seen their latest version of the pedigree but would be interested to
know what they suggest.

As for the connection between the Shipbrook and Haddon Vernons, I
suspect that this lies in Walter de Vernon who was restored Harlaston
and the other lands which he held of the Earl of Chester in around
1155. Pym Yeatman had thought that this was a forged charter, and
Barraclough stated that the original was lost, but I managed to find
it last year in the British Library.

I suspect that Richard de Vernon of Harlaston was Walter's younger
son, and inherited Harlaston as well as Churchill in Oxfordshire,
whilst his eldest son was Warin de Vernon who inherited Vernon lands
in Cheshire, Warwickshire and Lincolnshire.

I've seen a number of Cheshire charters from the last quarter of the
twelfth century which mention Warin and state that he had a brother
Richard. One also mentions land in Lincolnshire which Richard held
from Warin which had come from his mothers dower. It becomes more
complicated though as Warin also had sons, amongst others, named Warin
and Richard. It is thus difficult to deduce whether charters dating
from the early years of the thirteenth century refer to this Warin and
Richard or the Warin and Richard of the previous generation.

This younger Warin was the one who married Alda Malbank in about 1201.
The elder Warin was still alive by 1205 (both Warins appear as
witnesses to a charter also witnessed by Philip de Orreby as justice
of Chester - hence my interest in the dates of his tenure). The
younger Richard was father of a Matthew, and also probably a Robert.
The later relationship however also makes identifying them difficult
as Richard de Vernon of Harlaston also had a son named Robert.

Ormerod's pedigree makes a Richard de Vernon son of Warin the father
of Warin de Vernon who married Alda Malbank, but I do not think that
this was the case. I am fairly sure that this Richard was a younger
brother of Warin and that the confusion perhaps arrises from the
charter of Gilbert de Bostock renouncing his fishing rights in
Davenham to Warin de Vernon in the 1190s. This mentions Richard
brother of Warin de Vernon, as well as Richard son of Warin, and
Ralph, William and Robert his brothers. This does not mention a Warin
son of Warin, and the assumption based on this charter alone would
therefore be that Richard was the elder Warin's heir. This I think was
Ormerod's conclusion. However other information does point to there
being a Warin son of Warin, and his absence from the witnesses of this
charter could simply have been due to him being away at that time;
generally ambitious medieval knights did not spend all their time
hanging around at home!

As for the origin of Walter de Vernon of 1155 that's a whole other
kettle of fish!

Sorry I can't cite specific sources for all of the above at the moment
- I am not at home and writing from memory. If you wish however I can
arrange to send more over to you.

Luke Potter

[maria emma escobar]

In spanish and portuguese the word for brother is "hermano-germano".This word comes form the expresion which was used in Rome for the brother of father and mother: "frater germanicus" because the germans people only took as a brother the one of the same father and mother.
In the medieval Spain, the documents say "congermano" to the cousin in the first grade and today is used in Spain the expression "primo hermano" for this type of cousins.
Mee






---------------------------------

[Gordon Johnson]

charlotte Smith wrote:

Pat Junkin: Margery Hurst was married to John
devinish(Dnyshe) and her mother was Margaret St.
Cleere(St. Clarie) so I would imagine that the
connection is there with the St. Claire family. Charlotte

** Such a statement by itself is insufficient as evidence. Please

remember to quote the source of your information, so that it can be
verified by anyone, now or in the future.
Gordon Johnson

[Gjest]

Luke,

Thankyou again for this. You have obviously given a lot of thought to
the Vernon problem to be able to produce all this from memory... It's
tantalising how the same names proliferate in all the lines, both
suggesting affiliations and yet obscuring positive identifications.
There is also a Robert contemporary with the early brothers Warin and
Richard in Cheshire charters, isn't there; about the same time a Robert
is supposed to found the church at Horningsham in Wiltshire, although I
don't know much about that family. Walter of c1155 must be pivotal as
you say, but I guess from your comment about his ancestry that it may
not be as simple as him being grandson of the Domesday Walter
(presumably the original you found of that important charter states the
relationship as in the transcript). It would be ironic if it turned out
that the Domesday Richard's line failed and not Walter's. But as with
the others, there are more Walters than expected (eg the Chinnor
one).Burke's still follows Ormerod and has Warine (m Alda)and William
(Justice)as sons of Richard. It's from William on that it has been
updated. I expect I will have a lot to discuss with you so may go
off-list to spare the others.

Matthew

Luke Potter wrote:

Matthew,

No connection to Burkes I'm afraid. I don't actually think I've even
seen their latest version of the pedigree but would be interested to
know what they suggest.

As for the connection between the Shipbrook and Haddon Vernons, I
suspect that this lies in Walter de Vernon who was restored Harlaston
and the other lands which he held of the Earl of Chester in around
1155. Pym Yeatman had thought that this was a forged charter, and
Barraclough stated that the original was lost, but I managed to find
it last year in the British Library.

I suspect that Richard de Vernon of Harlaston was Walter's younger
son, and inherited Harlaston as well as Churchill in Oxfordshire,
whilst his eldest son was Warin de Vernon who inherited Vernon lands
in Cheshire, Warwickshire and Lincolnshire.

I've seen a number of Cheshire charters from the last quarter of the
twelfth century which mention Warin and state that he had a brother
Richard. One also mentions land in Lincolnshire which Richard held
from Warin which had come from his mothers dower. It becomes more
complicated though as Warin also had sons, amongst others, named
Warin
and Richard. It is thus difficult to deduce whether charters dating
from the early years of the thirteenth century refer to this Warin
and
Richard or the Warin and Richard of the previous generation.

This younger Warin was the one who married Alda Malbank in about
1201.
The elder Warin was still alive by 1205 (both Warins appear as
witnesses to a charter also witnessed by Philip de Orreby as justice
of Chester - hence my interest in the dates of his tenure). The
younger Richard was father of a Matthew, and also probably a Robert.
The later relationship however also makes identifying them difficult
as Richard de Vernon of Harlaston also had a son named Robert.

Ormerod's pedigree makes a Richard de Vernon son of Warin the father
of Warin de Vernon who married Alda Malbank, but I do not think that
this was the case. I am fairly sure that this Richard was a younger
brother of Warin and that the confusion perhaps arrises from the
charter of Gilbert de Bostock renouncing his fishing rights in
Davenham to Warin de Vernon in the 1190s. This mentions Richard
brother of Warin de Vernon, as well as Richard son of Warin, and
Ralph, William and Robert his brothers. This does not mention a Warin
son of Warin, and the assumption based on this charter alone would
therefore be that Richard was the elder Warin's heir. This I think
was
Ormerod's conclusion. However other information does point to there
being a Warin son of Warin, and his absence from the witnesses of
this
charter could simply have been due to him being away at that time;
generally ambitious medieval knights did not spend all their time
hanging around at home!

As for the origin of Walter de Vernon of 1155 that's a whole other
kettle of fish!

Sorry I can't cite specific sources for all of the above at the
moment
- I am not at home and writing from memory. If you wish however I can
arrange to send more over to you.

Luke Potter

[Gjest]

This phrase is also used in France
Cousin Germain =1st cousin
Cousin issu de Germain = 1st cousin once removed

But, in some old wills in my family dated 1436, 1454 and 1492 respectively
'cousin' I have found can also mean 'friend ' or 'ally' as well as an
unspecified kinsman, in these cases 2nd cousin, brother-in law......brother-in-law's
brother......and it goes on!
regards
peter de Loriol

[Gjest]

In a message dated 3/4/2005 11:00:51 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

But, in some old wills in my family dated 1436, 1454 and 1492 respectively

'cousin' I have found can also mean 'friend ' or 'ally' as well as an
unspecified kinsman, in these cases 2nd cousin, brother-in law

Thank you for confirming, per my previous message, that it can also mean 2nd
cousin. I have a marriage contract from 1574 Paris, where the phrase is used
and specifically applied to two men who specify by way of clarification that
their "grandmothers were sisters". I'm not assuming that bit, it is specified
in the document.
There is no reason to assume that the persons involved used the phrase
without regard to it's meaning, so we can only surmise that it's meaning was
wider than merely "1st cousin" in this time period.
Will Johnson

[Ginny Wagner]

From what I've read of the 11-12c, they would have been quite careful of how
they wrote things since there was an almost reverential quality assigned to
the written word. At the same time, Aristotle's, _The Categories_ was being
studied, in an effort to classify the world around them.

With those points in mind, it is hard for me to believe that they would use
'germanus' willy-nilly. It is probably a *predicable of the subject, kin*
since, at the time, there were two methods of adoption we know about.
Sending a noble younger sibling to another manor for training and upbringing
was a fairly common practice.

So, how would the early genealogists track a blood kin vs an adopted or step
kin? Since the term 'germanus' (in my Latin dictionary) carries the meaning
of 'genuine, real, actual, true' (as well as own/full brother/sister),
perhaps the term was used to differentiate between the 'true' blood family
and the 'step' or 'adopted' child.

Ginny Wagner

'Child, knowledge is a treasure and your heart is its strongbox'
--Hugh St. Victor

[Peter A. Kincaid]

So, how would the early genealogists track a blood kin vs an adopted or step
kin? Since the term 'germanus' (in my Latin dictionary) carries the meaning
of 'genuine, real, actual, true' (as well as own/full brother/sister),
perhaps the term was used to differentiate between the 'true' blood family
and the 'step' or 'adopted' child.

Stating that a person was a brother or sister germane was
very significant from a legal point of view in Scotland. Under
Scots law persons were heirs of siblings of the full blood
but not of the half blood. For example, say a lord of an
estate had two daughters by a first wife and two daughters
by a second wife. He dies and each of his daughters is
entitled to 1/4 interest with the oldest daughter having the
right to the demesne. Let's say the second daughter then
dies unmarried and without children. Her oldest sister
would get her share as the other sisters are excluded by
half blood. The interest in the estate is then 1/2 interest
to the oldest sister and 1/4 interest each to the remaining
two sisters. Thus, there was great care in stating the
relationship in official documents in case interests have to
be allocated at a later point.

Best wishes!

Peter

[D. Spencer Hines]

Keep in mind the English word ---- GERMANE.

DSH

[Gjest]

In a message dated 04/03/2005 21:13:24 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Keep in mind the English word ---- GERMANE.

Jackson?

PG

[Rick Eaton]

In addition to the rec.heraldry discussion list, what are some of the other
lists that members here consider essential to their work in genealogy?

[D. Spencer Hines]

GERMANE

Look up the meaning in Middle English and Anglo-French -- rather than
making a fool of yourself.

Your choice of course....

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

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

| In a message dated 04/03/2005 21:13:24 GMT Standard Time,
| [email protected] writes:
|
| Keep in mind the English word ---- GERMANE.
|
| Jackson?
|
| PG

[[email protected]]

I beg to differ, the Ancestral File was originally submissions from LDS
members and
other interested parties. The IGI is erroneous when it comes to many of the
member
submissions; but is much more accurate when it comes to extractions, which
are
extracted from records, usually, but not always, primary.

Kay Allen AG

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Debbi [email protected]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:24:33 -0600
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New Ancestral File


Should be, but often is not. The initial version of the AF was taken
directly from the IGI, with all of its errors. Sometimes there is
duplication stemming from the fact that one individual may have submitted a
name in the format "Simon of Montfort" and another in the format "Simon
Montfort." Other duplications stem from one individual submitting a place
in the format "Alton, Staffordshire, England," and another in the format
"Alton Parish, Staff, Eng.", and still another in the format "Alton,
England." Some of these errors have been cleaned out of the system, but
with over 100K names (not counting the duplicates) it will take some doing
to clear them all. It took me over a month to clear out the duplications
when I first downloaded a geed.com from AF in 1994 to get the obvious
duplications weeded in my database. I occasionally still find a duplicate
Now that I have learned more about the individuals and how they were
referred to in contemporary documents.

Debbi
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: New Ancestral File

In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:56:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


In some cases it is apparent that where several differing versions of
a family pedigree exist, all the versions were put in without that
fact being made clear,

I think you are confusing the IGI with the Ancestral File. The IGI *does*
have several different versions of "facts" on the same person, and
correspondingly many entries on the same person. The Ancestral File is
and should remain a
file where each *person* is represented by exactly one entry.
Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

[Peter A. Kincaid]

At 02:59 PM 04/03/2005, you wrote:

This phrase is also used in France
Cousin Germain =1st cousin
Cousin issu de Germain = 1st cousin once removed

But, in some old wills in my family dated 1436, 1454 and 1492 respectively
'cousin' I have found can also mean 'friend ' or 'ally' as well as an
unspecified kinsman, in these cases 2nd cousin,
brother-in law......brother-in-law's
brother......and it goes on!
regards
peter de Loriol

In the cases you cite, does the problem lie with the word used
or with a translation? The reason I ask is your reference to
in-laws. In the later case it was accepted that when two people
got married the relatives (ie. cousins, uncles, etc.) of one became
the relatives of the other. Hence the need for dispensations for
marriages withing the 4th degree of affinity. This concept does
not seem to be appreciated by modern researchers (not to say
that this applies to you).

Best wishes!

Peter

[Gjest]

In a message dated 05/03/2005 12:02:01 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

In the cases you cite, does the problem lie with the word used
or with a translation? The reason I ask is your reference to
in-laws. In the later case it was accepted that when two people
got married the relatives (ie. cousins, uncles, etc.) of one became
the relatives of the other. Hence the need for dispensations for
marriages withing the 4th degree of affinity. This concept does
not seem to be appreciated by modern researchers (not to say
that this applies to you).




All these documents are in French and are very legible. The 'problem' if
there is any, is what the word 'Cousin' and 'cousin Germain' have come to
mean...maybe we have changed the meaning to suit our needs, as one is wont to do!
Having said that, my family refer to brothers of spouses as 'brothers' which
some, nay, many people find rather oldfashioned!


regards
Peter

[Peter A. Kincaid]

At 08:08 AM 05/03/2005, you wrote:

In a message dated 05/03/2005 12:02:01 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
In the cases you cite, does the problem lie with the word used
or with a translation? The reason I ask is your reference to
in-laws. In the later case it was accepted that when two people
got married the relatives (ie. cousins, uncles, etc.) of one became
the relatives of the other. Hence the need for dispensations for
marriages withing the 4th degree of affinity. This concept does
not seem to be appreciated by modern researchers (not to say
that this applies to you).

All these documents are in French and are very legible. The 'problem' if
there is any, is what the word 'Cousin' and 'cousin Germain' have come to
mean...maybe we have changed the meaning to suit our needs, as one is wont
to do!
Having said that, my family refer to brothers of spouses as 'brothers'
which some, nay, many people find rather oldfashioned!


regards
Peter

Excellent point. The meaning is relative (;-)) to the time and
the language of the document in question. In checking an old
French dictionary the word was used as a general term by
the French to denote a relative or kinsman.

Best wishes!

Peter

[Tony Hoskins]

Of course, there is overlap, involving such cases
as "did such and such a war going on cause King Doe to claim falsely

he
fathered a child by Queen Doe when in fact his chamber pot emptier
was the real father?"

Well, exactly. That is just the point. I think your posting was
self-contradictory.

I think history and genealogy both must 1) seek facts *and* 2)
interpret them.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, Clifornia

[Doug McDonald]

Tony Hoskins wrote:

Of course, there is overlap, involving such cases

as "did such and such a war going on cause King Doe to claim falsely
he
fathered a child by Queen Doe when in fact his chamber pot emptier
was the real father?"

Well, exactly. That is just the point. I think your posting was
self-contradictory.

I think history and genealogy both must 1) seek facts *and* 2)
interpret them.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, Clifornia

But there is no quibble in genealogy about "why". It either was the king
or it wasn't. It is in actual fact immaterial
whether a war was going on, for genealogy. It is most
emphatically NOT immaterial for history.

Doug

[Tony Hoskins]

But there is no quibble in genealogy about "why". It either was the
king

or it wasn't. It is in actual fact immaterial
whether a war was going on, for genealogy. It is most
emphatically NOT immaterial for history.

Doug

---

Actually, don't we agree?

As I ought perhaps to have stated more clearly: 1) facts (are
preeminent), but such as they are (in their occasional
non-definitiveness), are often subject to 2) interpretation.

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

[Patricia Junkin]

Failing dates, is there any possibility that your William Hilton is akin to
the Hiltons of Hilton Castle, Barons of the Bishopric of Durham...Cumb,
Westm. and Northumb.
Thanks,
pat

----------

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: William Hilton of Northwich, county Chester, father of the immigrants
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2005, 11:58 AM


Dear Newsgroup,
Does Anyone on the list know of any post
Genealogical History of Maine and New Hampshire discoveries relating to
the families
of William Hilton or his sons William, Edward, Richard and Arthur Hilton. One
or two websites list his wife as Ellen Mainwaring. Any truth to that or just
another blue blooded herring someone concocted ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

Dear Pat,
In light of what was written about the Hilton Chancery fraud
case, It seems unlikely there was such a connection. Perhaps They were related
further back, though not the heirs to the barony.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Tony Hoskins]

"Write an article for a genealogy magazine"

Best advice you could follow. Arguably (barely), the finest
genealogical journals world-wide are American: _National Genealogical
Society Quarterly_, _The American Genealogist_, _New England Historical
and Genealogical Register_, _The Genealogist_.

Each has its own specialties, but all maintain the highest standards.

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

707/545-0831, ext. 562

[Gjest]

Dear Todd,
There are many knowledgable, helpful people on this list and
Douglas Richardson can occasionally be one of them. Just now He is preoccupied
as He ought to be by the culmination of his second major work, Magna Carta
Ancestry. Leo van de Pas is very good at helping as are Todd Farmerie, Peter
Stewart, Renia, Rosie Bevan, John Ravilious, David Hepworth, Nathaniel Taylor,
Chico, Pierre, Robert Battle, Peter de Loriol, Peter Kinkaid, Gordon Hale,
Doug MacDonald and Rose. Kate Allen, William Addams Reitweisner and Paul C Reed
also are on occasionally. There are also a number of us, much like yourself who
are somewhat knowledgable and who occasionally find things of great interest
to even the most knowledgable scholar who frequents this list. So keep
posting, keep hunting and keep asking questions. Apologies to All I should have
mentioned and did not.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

In a message dated 3/5/2005 10:10:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:


There are many knowledgable, helpful people on this list





Truer words were never spoken. Unfortunately some of them seem to get their
greatest enjoyment from putting down their fellows. I have been on the list
for five or six years and it has always been this way. Hasn't gotten any
worse, hasn't gotten any better. I think it will continue into the future.
You just have to learn to roll with the punches and look over the list of your
messages before you open any of them. You can often determine when a rant is
going on and delete those messages without opening. Of course you may miss
something brilliant that one of the "GREAT ONES" write, but I can live with
that, I guess.

And by the way, they do switch alliances from time to time and that makes it
a little more interesting.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[Gjest]

I, once contacted the College of Arms in London with reference to a pedigree
which had been lodged with them back in the 1890s and which was well known to
be incorrect - I never even received an acknowlegement or reponse from them!

I just published the correct version on my web site.

Rose

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 6 Mar, [email protected] wrote:

I, once contacted the College of Arms in London with reference to a
pedigree which had been lodged with them back in the 1890s and which
was well known to be incorrect - I never even received an
acknowlegement or reponse from them!

The problem with this is that the members of the college, the heralds,
are not publicly funded. If they do some work, someone has to pay for
it. And that will not be cheap! Who is prepared to pay?

By the way, do you know if the lodging of the pedigree led to formal
updating of their records books? (And if you can ever get in to have a
look at their records books, they are an artistic feast for sore eyes:
exquisitely produced.)

I just published the correct version on my web site.

And the site is?

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

[Gjest]

In a message dated 06/03/05 10:43:54 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

By the way, do you know if the lodging of the pedigree led to formal
updating of their records books?

Tim,

No, I don't think it did. I have a copy of the original pedigree which has
a completely wrong lineage.

I agree, someone has to pay. I would have thought that the College of Arms
would have been interested in having pedigrees corrected. I would not have
minded paying a fee.
The original pedigree is signed and authenticated by the Herald - but, in
this case he has 'authenticaed' a completely incorrect lineage. Are we right to
believe pedigrees that are held by the College? In this instance, I think
not.

Rose

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 6 Mar, [email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 06/03/05 10:43:54 GMT Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:

By the way, do you know if the lodging of the pedigree led to formal
updating of their records books?

No, I don't think it did. I have a copy of the original pedigree
which has a completely wrong lineage.

I agree, someone has to pay. I would have thought that the College
of Arms would have been interested in having pedigrees corrected. I
would not have minded paying a fee.

The answer perhaps is to find a herald who has the time to deal with
this. Each job is done by a person, not by the college, so you might be
better off finding a junior herald who is looking out for work, rather
than a senior one who is snowed under. Ask to speak to someone
by name? Find the names from the CoA's site?
(http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk)

The original pedigree is signed and authenticated by the Herald -
but, in this case he has 'authenticaed' a completely incorrect
lineage.

Did this actually have that spelling error? Might it just be a forgery?

Are we right to believe pedigrees that are held by the College? In
this instance, I think not.

J H Round is trenchant and amusing and perceptive about the heralds of
old: he found that some had cooked up some real monsters and accused
them of doing so in order to justify extra fees for all the work. Try
his "Studies in Peerage and Family History", it was reprinted in 1996.

The long standing official method of a herald for gaining pedigree
information is to accept the word of an interviewee (scholar and
gentleman of course) about his family as as far back as his grandparents
but to ask for good evidence for earlier generations. The heralds used
to be heavily involved in the claims for peerages in abeyance before the
House of Lord Privileges Committee. Some of the reports of these cases
can still be obtained (Heraldry Today have a few) and they are both
informative and instructive about the sorts of proof that was expected
and produced.

But if a chap(ess) wished to pull the wool over a herald's eyes, he
could easily have done so.

Finally it would be interesting to find out what is actually in the
College's records though even for this you will have to pay a modest
amount.

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

[Gjest]

In a message dated 06/03/05 10:43:54 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

The problem with this is that the members of the college, the heralds,
are not publicly funded. If they do some work, someone has to pay for
it. And that will not be cheap! Who is prepared to pay?

By the way, do you know if the lodging of the pedigree led to formal
updating of their records books? (And if you can ever get in to have a
look at their records books, they are an artistic feast for sore eyes:
exquisitely produced.)

I just published the correct version on my web site.

And the site is?

Sorry, yes my site can be found at :

http://www.genealogy.com/users/s/t/l/Ro ... ay-Surrey/

Rose

[Renia]

[email protected] wrote:

I just published the correct version on my web site.

And the site is?



Sorry, yes my site can be found at :

http://www.genealogy.com/users/s/t/l/Ro ... ay-Surrey/

Rose

I notice the name Phineas Bury on your web site.

You have Phineas Bury (who married Jane Aldworth) as son of Richard
Bury. This is incorrect. He was the son of an earlier Phineas Bury and
wife Hester Moland.

Renia

[Gjest]

In a message dated 06/03/05 13:43:54 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

The original pedigree is signed and authenticated by the Herald -
but, in this case he has 'authenticaed' a completely incorrect
lineage.

Did this actually have that spelling error? Might it just be a forgery?

Oh, dear. I'm sorry, that 'typo' is down to me. Must put my glasses on in
future.

Rose

[Gjest]

Renia,

Thanks for picking that up - I will double check the entry and amend.

Rose

[Doug McDonald]

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 6 Mar, [email protected] wrote:


I, once contacted the College of Arms in London with reference to a
pedigree which had been lodged with them back in the 1890s and which
was well known to be incorrect - I never even received an
acknowlegement or reponse from them!


The problem with this is that the members of the college, the heralds,
are not publicly funded. If they do some work, someone has to pay for
it. And that will not be cheap! Who is prepared to pay?

Interestingly, last year I wrote to the Lord Lyons office about
a certain grant of arms, asking about another one quoted in it.
They promptly wrote back at no cost saying that they had checked
the older one and the newer one had the exact same info, so
I need not pay for a copy of the old one.

Doug McDonald

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 6 Mar, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 6 Mar, [email protected] wrote:

I, once contacted the College of Arms in London with reference to
a pedigree which had been lodged with them back in the 1890s and
which was well known to be incorrect - I never even received an
acknowlegement or reponse from them!

The problem with this is that the members of the college, the
heralds, are not publicly funded. If they do some work, someone
has to pay for it. And that will not be cheap! Who is prepared to
pay?

Interestingly, last year I wrote to the Lord Lyons office about
a certain grant of arms, asking about another one quoted in it.
They promptly wrote back at no cost saying that they had checked
the older one and the newer one had the exact same info, so
I need not pay for a copy of the old one.

The difference is the the Lyon king of arms and his court are publicly
funded, they are all civil servants.

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

[Gjest]

On a related note, I just corresponded with the Chester Herald
regarding a lookup. He wrote back and told me that the record I wanted
him to detail for me contained no pedigree, only an ink drawing of a
CoA that I already had.

He said that for a fee he would be happy to make an extensive search
elsewhere for related information, but he looked-up and gave me the
info (or lack thereof) on my query for free.

I suppose that the moral of the story is that one ought not be afraid
to ask! Sometimes, short answers cost less than expected, or even
nothing at all!

Cheers,
Jon

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 12:56:02 -0600, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 6 Mar, [email protected] wrote:


I, once contacted the College of Arms in London with reference to a
pedigree which had been lodged with them back in the 1890s and which
was well known to be incorrect - I never even received an
acknowlegement or reponse from them!


The problem with this is that the members of the college, the heralds,
are not publicly funded. If they do some work, someone has to pay for
it. And that will not be cheap! Who is prepared to pay?



Interestingly, last year I wrote to the Lord Lyons office about
a certain grant of arms, asking about another one quoted in it.
They promptly wrote back at no cost saying that they had checked
the older one and the newer one had the exact same info, so
I need not pay for a copy of the old one.

Doug McDonald

[Gjest]

Dear Douglas, Peter, Todd, Nathaniel et als,
I`m probably
a generation too far out for it to have made any difference in this
despensation, but does anyone know the identity of Jeanne`s great grandfather Comte
Alberic I de Dammartin `s wife or if Alberic I were in fact the father of Comte
Alberic II de Dammartin whose wife at least in AR7 line 109 generation 29 is
known only as Maud, but in line 144 generation 26 She is called a daughter of
Renaud Il, Comte de Clermont by his wife Clemence of Bar le Duc.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

Dear Douglas, Peter, Todd, Nathaniel et als,
I`m probably
a generation too far out for it to have made any difference in this
despensation, but does anyone know the identity of Jeanne`s great grandfather Comte
Alberic I de Dammartin `s wife

No.

or if Alberic I were in fact the father of Comte
Alberic II de Dammartin

Yes.

whose wife at least in AR7 line 109 generation 29 is
known only as Maud, but in line 144 generation 26 She is called a daughter of
Renaud Il, Comte de Clermont by his wife Clemence of Bar le Duc.

This is correct.

taf

[Gjest]

Dear Will, Ginny et als,
With regard to the probable historicity of
Cadwallendyr d 689 according to Geoffrey of Monmouth, The ASC part 1 1-738
mentions that in the year 633 Edwin, King of the Northumberians was slain at
Hatfield Moor by the forces of Peanda, King of Mercia and his ally Cadwalla ,
King of the Welsh who proceeded to ravage Northumbria. under 688 King Caedwalla
went to Rome and there was baptized by Pope Sergius, recieving the name Peter.
seven days later, twelve days before the kalends of May, He died still
wearing his baptismal garments.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine

[Francisco Antonio Doria]

as you've just said: primo irmão, in Portuguese.

fa

--- maria emma escobar <[email protected]> wrote:

In spanish and portuguese the word for brother is
"hermano-germano".This word comes form the
expresion which was used in Rome for the brother of
father and mother: "frater germanicus" because the
germans people only took as a brother the one of
the same father and mother.
In the medieval Spain, the documents say
"congermano" to the cousin in the first grade and
today is used in Spain the expression "primo
hermano" for this type of cousins.
Mee






---------------------------------

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

[Gjest]

I was under the impression that American English became an official language
some years ago, thus previous statements are wrong.
Peter

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message of 11 Mar, [email protected] wrote:

I was under the impression that American English became an official
language some years ago,

But not in medieval times so hardly germane.

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

[Glyn Jones]

According to Brut y Tywysogion, Cadwallon son of Cadfan was killed by
Oswald. Cadwaladr the Blessed was the son of Cadwallon. Whether ASC and Brut
were independently written or one came first seems unknown. (There is a
stone in the wall of the church of Llangadwaladr, the church of the Princes
of Gwynedd, referring to Cadfan).
I thought Caedwalla was from Wessex and nothing to do with Gwynedd. Geoffrey
seems to have stuck him on.

Glyn

Glyn Jones FRPS
Join the Royal Photographic Society,
Remember Tryweryn
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: Siblings of Owain Gwynedd

Dear Will, Ginny et als,
With regard to the probable historicity
of
Cadwallendyr d 689 according to Geoffrey of Monmouth, The ASC part 1 1-738
mentions that in the year 633 Edwin, King of the Northumberians was slain
at
Hatfield Moor by the forces of Peanda, King of Mercia and his ally
Cadwalla ,
King of the Welsh who proceeded to ravage Northumbria. under 688 King
Caedwalla
went to Rome and there was baptized by Pope Sergius, recieving the name
Peter.
seven days later, twelve days before the kalends of May, He died still
wearing his baptismal garments.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine

[D. Spencer Hines]

However, an equally valid avenue of approach may lead to an even more
fruitful solution to the problem.

Investigate FRENCH roots and compounds rather than LATIN ones in order
to coin your female equivalent of AVUNCULAR.

Ergo, you take TANTE [which is much closer to our English AUNT than any
of the Latin forms discussed below] and form:

TANTESQUE.

Now we have:

AVUNCULAR is to UNCLE

As TANTESQUE is to AUNT.

Clear, Euphonious, Brief, Easy To Remember, Closer to the Sound of
English, Flowing, Piquant and with Panache.

Problem Solved....

TANTESQUE.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor
----------------------------

COIN your own word if you see the need to do so.

That's the way a language grows.

COIN it, DEFINE it, USE it....

English is far from being a slave to the imagined prerogatives of mere
Englishmen SPEAKING their form of English.

The WRITTEN language offers much more latitude for improvisation with
respect to some intriguing and sophisticated matters in English.

One can easily CREATE an adjective to deal with things typical of an
AUNT.

AMITAN ---- referring to a father's sister.

MATERTERAN ---- referring to a mother's sister.

Or, simply choose one over the other and use it all the time --
MATERTERAN will do.

That's what we have already done with AVUNCULAR -- from AVUNCULUS, a
mother's brother.

If we wanted to be more precise and sticklers we should probably be
saying:

PATRUUSAN when referring to a father's brother -- from PATRUUS.

But English takes liberties and simplifies -- which is one of its
geniuses.
-------------

DSH

[Gjest]

In a message dated 3/11/2005 1:29:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Do not forget a language is a communication tool: if nobody uses the
same words, there is no way to communicate.

Joan Francés BLANC




This is very true, but (and there is always a but), a language that does not
grow to fit the needs of the populace which uses it will die out. Example:
Latin. The rules of Latin are set in concrete it seems. It is also true
that no one uses Latin in daily communication except perhaps some Catholic
priestly persons.

A language must change and grow with the people who use it.

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas

[David Webb]

No American English is not an official language at the federal level. But 27
of the 50 states have made it official.


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

I was under the impression that American English became an official
language
some years ago, thus previous statements are wrong.
Peter

[Jean-François BLANC]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:47:00 EST, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

Do not forget a language is a communication tool: if nobody uses the
same words, there is no way to communicate.

Joan Francés BLANC

This is very true, but (and there is always a but), a language that does not
grow to fit the needs of the populace which uses it will die out. Example:
Latin. The rules of Latin are set in concrete it seems. It is also true
that no one uses Latin in daily communication except perhaps some Catholic
priestly persons.

A language must change and grow with the people who use it.

The origin of grammar (aka language rules) is the need to teach
foreigners to speak properly a language. IIRC the first ancient Greek
grammar was written in the multicultural city of Alexandria.

Latin is still in use in Europe among students, as some countries
teach it as a living language. There is even a latin radio broadcast
in Finland.

The roman catholic administration has abandoned it for Italian.

Joan Frances Blanc
nationis occitanicae

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

Dear Todd,
A much belated thank you for the information You provided
concerning Comte Alberic I and II of Dammartin. to recap, Alberic i was father
of Alberic II by an unknown spouse and Comte Alberic II married Maud, daughter

I should add to this that RFC shows AII to be son of AI by Joan
Basset. While there appears to be evidence that this marriage
took place, it was at a date too late for her to be mother of
AII. Likewise AI is said to have married Clemence, Countess of
Dammartin. This woman was, in fact, the mother-in-law of his son
(CLemence of Bar-le-Duc).

of Comte Renaud II of Clermont by Clemence of Bar-le- Duc.
Comte Simon de Dammartin, their son married Marie, daughter and heiress of
Guillaume III, Comte de Ponthieu by Alix de France, daughter of Louis VII, Roi
De France AR 7 Line 109 generations 27-29 says Comte Guillaume III de Ponthieu
was a son of Comte Jean I de Ponthieu by Beatrice de St Pol, daughter of
Anselme Candavaine, Comte de St Pol and Eustache, supposedly a natural daughter
of Eustace IV, Comte de Boulogne, d 1153 as heir apparent to his father King
Stephen of England by Maud of Boulogne (see AR 7 Line 169A; has this
identification fallen by the wayside?

Yes, it has. IIRC (check the archives) someone has questioned
the chronology of the marriage of Anselme and Eustache with
respect to the birth of Beatrice - that Beatrice was daughter of
an earlier marriage. Likewise, that Eustache was daughter of
Eustace is unsupported. It was a hypothesis based on her being a
kinswoman of Henry II, that she is sometimes called "Eustache of
Champagne" and her name. However, I have yet to see an
indication of her being called "of Champagne" in anything near
contemporary, and have come to suspect that there was some
confusion with her husband's nickname, Campdevaine. If that is
the case, then there is no reason to hypothesize a relationship
to Stephen, and at least one author has suggested a Gouet
illegitimate descent from Henry I instead. This too has been
questioned, though.

taf

[Gjest]

Dear Todd,
A much belated thank you for the information You provided
concerning Comte Alberic I and II of Dammartin. to recap, Alberic i was father
of Alberic II by an unknown spouse and Comte Alberic II married Maud, daughter
of Comte Renaud II of Clermont by Clemence of Bar-le- Duc.
Comte Simon de Dammartin, their son married Marie, daughter and heiress of
Guillaume III, Comte de Ponthieu by Alix de France, daughter of Louis VII, Roi
De France AR 7 Line 109 generations 27-29 says Comte Guillaume III de Ponthieu
was a son of Comte Jean I de Ponthieu by Beatrice de St Pol, daughter of
Anselme Candavaine, Comte de St Pol and Eustache, supposedly a natural daughter
of Eustace IV, Comte de Boulogne, d 1153 as heir apparent to his father King
Stephen of England by Maud of Boulogne (see AR 7 Line 169A; has this
identification fallen by the wayside? If not, Eleanor of Castile was a descendant of
King Stephen of England.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear James,

You have a nice little surprise hidden in your message
AR 7 was published in 1976.

In ES III/4 Tafel 622 Anselme Candavaine was married three times, his first
wife is marked off as NN not Eustacie. ES III/4 was published in 1989.
Perhaps this does mean that Eustacie is fallen by the wayside?
Best wishes
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: Despensation of Fernando III and Jeanne de Dammartin

Dear Todd,
A much belated thank you for the information You provided
concerning Comte Alberic I and II of Dammartin. to recap, Alberic i was
father
of Alberic II by an unknown spouse and Comte Alberic II married Maud,
daughter
of Comte Renaud II of Clermont by Clemence of Bar-le- Duc.
Comte Simon de Dammartin, their son married Marie, daughter and heiress of
Guillaume III, Comte de Ponthieu by Alix de France, daughter of Louis VII,
Roi
De France AR 7 Line 109 generations 27-29 says Comte Guillaume III de
Ponthieu
was a son of Comte Jean I de Ponthieu by Beatrice de St Pol, daughter of
Anselme Candavaine, Comte de St Pol and Eustache, supposedly a natural
daughter
of Eustace IV, Comte de Boulogne, d 1153 as heir apparent to his father
King
Stephen of England by Maud of Boulogne (see AR 7 Line 169A; has this
identification fallen by the wayside? If not, Eleanor of Castile was a
descendant of
King Stephen of England.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

Dear Todd and Leo,
Thank You for the additional information
concerning Beatrice of St Pol not being a daughter of Eustache whomever She may have
been by Anselme, Comte de St Pol. I thought I had read that either here on
list or elsewhere. Likewise thank you for confirming the marriage of Alberic I,
Comte de Dammartin and Joan Basset of Wallingford, though at such a date as to
preclude her being the mother of Comte Alberic II.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

Dear Todd, Nathaniel, et als,
Could this dispensation arisen
from a worldlier concern, namely to show his nobles, the church and other Kings
this daughter of a Count actually possessed a certain amount of royal blood.
Apart from which, how exactly was the lady in question a close relative of King
Henry III of England ? I think Douglas made a reference to an attempt by that
monarch to recieve a dispensation to marry this same lady which was rejected
as being too close by the Church or did I merely dream such a post in this
thread ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Cristopher Nash]

Dear Charlotte -

Yes, I know, it's been a teaser to me for years! It needs local
Clare research, I think, no? I've just never found ther time for it
.... ! You?

Have you seen this file?

Who is this Thomas Echyngham who is a Parson..could he be our missing one.

File Link:
http://itsnt121.iowa.uiowa.edu/vss-bin/ ... set_id=343


The Hoo genealogy shows Eleanor Hoo b abt 1450 to
Thomas Hoo and eleanor Wells marrying first Thomas
Echyngham who died s.p. She married 2nd Sir James
Carew. Can anyone identify this Thomas Echyngahm.

This one's intriguing too - tho of course (claiming him to have died
s.p.) it wouldn't yield the fa. of Elizabeth who m. John Lunsford!

Early Chancery proceedings bundle 29 No 41 as found in
Genealogist xxi p 136. Thomas Echyngham leaves his
estate to wife Margaret, widow of Robert de Tye and
the remainder to his son "Richard" and his male heirs.
Thomas also gave Richard land in Kent that had
belonged to THOMAS ECHYNGHAM(Who is this Thomas)
Richard was asked to give the land in Kent to his
BROTHER Thomas Echyngham, esquire, squire. (who is
this) Can someone identify all the Thomas Echygham's
here.

I think Suckling's article itself makes these clear, no? (It still
leaves untouched my previous reservations about the Thomas / Margaret
Knyvett connection, on which Suckling leans so heavily!) Or do you
see something missing there?

I'm with you - any uncertainties here need resolving! Cheers!

Cris

--

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:
..

Apart from which, how exactly was the lady in question a close relative of King
Henry III of England ? I think Douglas made a reference to an attempt by that
monarch to recieve a dispensation to marry this same lady which was rejected
as being too close by the Church or did I merely dream such a post in this
thread ?

Henry's mother Isabelle of Angouleme, was great-granddaughter of
Louis VI, while Joan was likewise great-great-granddaughter,
granddaughter of Alice, daughter of Louis VII.

taf

[Gjest]

Dear Todd,
Thank You.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

[Gjest]

Todd Farmerie:

In December 2003, posted a genealogical line that supposedly had been
verified from Charlemagne through the Neuhard family. I know several issues about
the legitimacy of this line were raised by a few people, including one by
you. I'm hoping you are amenable to following up at this time with more
specificity.

My original post (lengthy) can be viewed in the archives at:
_http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2003-12/1070877817_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1070877817)

Your response is here:
_http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2003-12/1070956495_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1070956495)

Would you be so kind as to be more specific about the "growing body of
recent speculation that suggests alternative reconstructions" concerning that
portion of the descent from Charlemagne to Count Ramnulf/Ranulf II of Poitou
(c855-890)?

Regards,
Mardi L. Mason

[Todd A. Farmerie]

[email protected] wrote:

Would you be so kind as to be more specific about the "growing body of
recent speculation that suggests alternative reconstructions" concerning that
portion of the descent from Charlemagne to Count Ramnulf/Ranulf II of Poitou
(c855-890)?

I don't have time right now to dig out the cites, but two
(mutually exclusive) alternatives immediately come to mind.
First, it has been suggested that the wife of Gerhard of Auvergne
was granddaughter (daughter of Pepin of Aquitaine) and not
daughter of Louis the Pious. The second suggests that Gerhard's
wife was granddaughter of Louis in a differentt manner. It
suggests that he married the woman usually given son Ranulf I -
the daughter of Rorgon I, Count of Maine, but by his Carolingian
wife (Ranulf is usually married to Rorgon's daughter by a second,
non-Carolingian spouse). The author then speculated that the
cryptic but evident link to the family of William of Gellone
could then have come through the newly available marriage of
Ranulf I.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Todd Farmerie wrote:

First, it has been suggested that the wife of Gerhard
of Auvergne was granddaughter (daughter of Pepin of
Aquitaine) and not daughter of Louis the Pious.

Isn't this the other way round? It used to be accepted that Adhemar de
Chabannes intended the normal sense ("son-in-law") when he described
Gerhard as "gener" to Pippin I, king of Aquitaine, until 1934 when
Léonce Auzias [in "L'origine carolingienne des ducs féodaux
d'Aquitaine et des rois capétiens", _Revue historique_ 173] showed
on chronological grounds how this could not provide a Carolingian
ancestry for the later rulers of Aquitaine descended from Gerhard's son
Ramnulf I, since Pippin was married in 822, while Ramnulf became count
of Poitou in 839 according to Adhemar, and more definitely by 852.
Either date makes it impossible for his mother to have been born after
822, because governing Poitou in troubled times was not a position
likely to be accorded to a youth who could not have been more than 15
years old by 852 (thirty years after his grandparents' marriage) much
less only an infant by 839.

Auzias suggested that "gener" could have meant "brother-in-law"
instead, making Gerhard's wife (& in this scheme perhaps Ramnulf's
mother) a daughter of Louis the Pious and sister of Pippin I. However,
the case for this was far from strong - it was an ungainly scramble to
retain some credibility for a probable confusion on Adhemar's part,
that if so was definitely not uncommon for him.

The second suggests that Gerhard's wife was
granddaughter of Louis in a differentt manner. It
suggests that he married the woman usually given
son Ranulf I - the daughter of Rorgon I, Count of
Maine, but by his Carolingian wife (Ranulf is usually
married to Rorgon's daughter by a second,
non-Carolingian spouse).

This doesn't help the credibility of Adhemar, as Rorgon I's wife was a
sister of Louis the Pious making her putative son-in-law a cousin by
marriage to Pippin I of Aquitaine, a relationship that "gener" could
not encompass.

The author then speculated that the cryptic but evident
link to the family of William of Gellone could then have
come through the newly available marriage of Ranulf I.

If such a link is evident, maybe it should have come at least two
generations earlier - Adhemar says that Ramnulf I was nephew to a
William, brother of Gerhard, suggesting onomastic support for a
relationship to William of Gellone that had led to Ramnulf's becoming
count of Poitou in the first place.

As far as I remember (and I cannot spare time to research the details
at present) the rationale for connecting Ramnulf and his descendants to
the Carolingian dynasty is hardly imperative anyway, based only on two
later bits of incidental, and somewhat unsatisfactory, evidence.

Peter Stewart

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Peter Stewart wrote:

Todd Farmerie wrote:

First, it has been suggested that the wife of Gerhard
of Auvergne was granddaughter (daughter of Pepin of
Aquitaine) and not daughter of Louis the Pious.


Isn't this the other way round? It used to be accepted that Adhemar de
Chabannes intended the normal sense ("son-in-law") when he described
Gerhard as "gener" to Pippin I, king of Aquitaine, until 1934 when
Léonce Auzias [in "L'origine carolingienne des ducs féodaux
d'Aquitaine et des rois capétiens", _Revue historique_ 173] showed
on chronological grounds how this could not provide a Carolingian

Then it's back to the future. I don't recall the source off the
top of my head (a quick look failed to turn up either), but
within the past 5 years someone was pushing Pepin as
father-in-law, replacing what had been a consensus (since, I
guess, 1934).

The point was not so much that either of these alternatives was
right, but that the line strewn across the secondary literature
(even the better compilations) is not as solid as its nearly
universal acceptance might lead one to expect.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

"Todd A. Farmerie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Peter Stewart wrote:
Todd Farmerie wrote:

First, it has been suggested that the wife of Gerhard
of Auvergne was granddaughter (daughter of Pepin of
Aquitaine) and not daughter of Louis the Pious.


Isn't this the other way round? It used to be accepted that Adhemar de
Chabannes intended the normal sense ("son-in-law") when he described
Gerhard as "gener" to Pippin I, king of Aquitaine, until 1934 when
Léonce Auzias [in "L'origine carolingienne des ducs féodaux
d'Aquitaine et des rois capétiens", _Revue historique_ 173] showed
on chronological grounds how this could not provide a Carolingian

Then it's back to the future. I don't recall the source off the top of my
head (a quick look failed to turn up either), but within the past 5 years
someone was pushing Pepin as father-in-law, replacing what had been a
consensus (since, I guess, 1934).

It occurs to me that this filiation has been published recently, by
Christian Settipani in a table on p. 97 of his 'Les origines des comtes de
Nevers: nouveaux documents', _Onomastique et parenté dans l'Occident
médiéval_ (Oxford, 2000). But the position of Count Ramnulf I as grandson
of King Pippin I of Aquitaine was only given to illustrate the supposition
of Léon Levillain, not as Chrisitan's own opinion.

The point was not so much that either of these alternatives was right, but
that the line strewn across the secondary literature (even the better
compilations) is not as solid as its nearly universal acceptance might
lead one to expect.

Agreed - I'm not convinced that there's a sound rationale even to start
looking for a Carolingian ancestry of Ramnulf, much less to settle on one.

Peter Stewart

[jean bunot]

In his recent la Noblesse du Midi Carolingien (p. 189), Settipani
proposes another possible carolingian link for Ramnulf I de Poitiers
in 852 :

Gerard, comte of Auvergne (c. 795-841) married (1) Ne... (possibly
Adaltrude) du Maine, d/o Rorico, comte de Rennes et du Maine (+ c.
840), and Rotrude (+ 810) d/o Charlemagne, therefore niece of emperor
Louis le Pieux; married (2) Ne... d/o Pepin, king of Aquitaine, a
g-daughter of emperor Louis le Pieux. All children by first marriage,
including Ramnulf I de Poitiers. Best regards. Jean Bunot




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

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

First, it has been suggested that the wife of Gerhard
of Auvergne was granddaughter (daughter of Pepin of
Aquitaine) and not daughter of Louis the Pious.


Isn't this the other way round? It used to be accepted that Adhemar de
Chabannes intended the normal sense ("son-in-law") when he described
Gerhard as "gener" to Pippin I, king of Aquitaine, until 1934 when
Léonce Auzias [in "L'origine carolingienne des ducs féodaux
d'Aquitaine et des rois capétiens", _Revue historique_ 173] showed
on chronological grounds how this could not provide a Carolingian

Then it's back to the future. I don't recall the source off the top of my
head (a quick look failed to turn up either), but within the past 5 years
someone was pushing Pepin as father-in-law, replacing what had been a
consensus (since, I guess, 1934).

It occurs to me that this filiation has been published recently, by
Christian Settipani in a table on p. 97 of his 'Les origines des comtes de
Nevers: nouveaux documents', _Onomastique et parenté dans l'Occident
médiéval_ (Oxford, 2000). But the position of Count Ramnulf I as grandson
of King Pippin I of Aquitaine was only given to illustrate the supposition
of Léon Levillain, not as Chrisitan's own opinion.

The point was not so much that either of these alternatives was right, but
that the line strewn across the secondary literature (even the better
compilations) is not as solid as its nearly universal acceptance might
lead one to expect.

Agreed - I'm not convinced that there's a sound rationale even to start
looking for a Carolingian ancestry of Ramnulf, much less to settle on one.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Jean Bunot wrote:

In his recent la Noblesse du Midi Carolingien (p. 189),
Settipani proposes another possible carolingian link for
Ramnulf I de Poitiers in 852 :

Gerard, comte of Auvergne (c. 795-841) married (1) Ne...
(possibly Adaltrude) du Maine, d/o Rorico, comte de
Rennes et du Maine (+ c. 840), and Rotrude (+ 810) d/o
Charlemagne, therefore niece of emperor Louis le Pieux;
married (2) Ne... d/o Pepin, king of Aquitaine, a
g-daughter of emperor Louis le Pieux. All children by
first marriage, including Ramnulf I de Poitiers.

This conjecture was given by Christian in the paper published in 2000,
cited earlier (see table on p. 100).

However, it is just one of several permutations of identities that may
be equally plausible, or otherwise, depending on presumptions from
onomastics & other assumptions that cannot be proved.

Such relationship schemes may be magnificent, but for all that they are
not necessarily genealogy.

Peter Stewart

[Gjest]

_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Thomas Bulkeley (d. 1591) and his grandfather
William Hyll (d. 1561)_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1110858545)


I have received a couple of responses away from this list regarding this
post and thought it convenient to respond to them here.

In D.N.B., v. 9 on pp.861-2 appears a short biography of the Sir Rowland
Hyll mentioned in the previous post. He left a will and I intend to obtain a
copy from the P.R.O. in England and will share any pertinent information that I
can.

Also, the parish registers from Drayton, Shropshire from this time period
survive and are available on microfilm from the L.D.S. library. It will be
some time before searching these myself will be possible, so if they or anyone
else has immediate access to this, that would be a great boon to all of the
descendants of Thomas Bulkeley (d. 1591).

Also, to answer their question, I am a Bulkeley descendant as follows:

Thomas Bulkeley, Gent. (d. 1591) of Woore, Shropshire
m. Elizabeth Grosvenor

Dr. Edward Bulkeley, D.D., rector of Odell, Bedfordshire 1571-1609.
buried 5 Jan 1620/21 Odell, Bedfordshire
m. Olyve Irby (bur. 10 Mar 1614/15)

Dorcas Bulkeley
born ca. 1577 likely at Odell, Bedfordshire
buried 21 Oct 1616 Fishtoft, Lincolnshire
m. 10 Dec 1598 Anthony Ingoldsby, M.A., rector of Fishtoft, Lincolnshire
(bur. 26 Apr 1627)

Olyve Ingoldsby
christened 24 June 1602 Fishtoft, Lincolnshire
m. 20 Apr 1620 Thomas James, M.A., of Needham Market, Suffolk (chr. 5 Oct
1595 - bur. 16 Feb 1682/83)

Thomas James, minister of East Hampton, Long Island 1651-1696
christened 13 Feb 1620/21 Moulton, Lincolnshire
died 14 June 1696 East Hampton, Suffolk Co, New York
m. ca. 1647 likely in Fairfield, Connecticut to Ruth Jones (chr. 23 Oct 1628
- d. 1668-69)

and so on...

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Peter Stewart wrote:

If such a link is evident, maybe it should have come at least two
generations earlier - Adhemar says that Ramnulf I was nephew to a
William, brother of Gerhard, suggesting onomastic support for a
relationship to William of Gellone that had led to Ramnulf's becoming
count of Poitou in the first place.

Hmmm.

The use of the names Eudes and William remind one of the
brothers, Counts of Orleans and Blois respectively, of the
generation of Louis the Pious.

taf