Welsh traditions of male-line descent from Henry II

[Hickory]

In response to an interest earlier expressed in passing in this Usenet
group, today, at the Institute of Historical Research of the
University of London, I searched for references to male-line descents
from Henry II in Wales, something I had previously seen, but, not
being a part of my research interest, had not taken notes of. I
referred to volume one of the two volume "The Heraldic Visitation of
Wales" (by Lewis Down and edited by Samuel Rush Meyrick in 1846).
Specifically, I found mention of Henry II as a progenitor on pages
196, 293, and 293. A footnote indicated yet another pedigree, but did
not specify the page, so, not wishing to use up too much time
confirming whether I had correctly understood things, I let it pass.
The pedigrees showed a good degree of consistency with each other, but
whether this translates into historical reliability is quite another
matter. As they presently exist, barring the existence of contemporary
evidence for the earlier generations, even a DNA study (assuming, of
course, that appropriate male-line representatives could be found)
could only confirm or disconfirm relatedness to sometime perhaps in
the late 13th century at the earliest and, even a disconfirmation
among lines, could not prove or disprove, merely by means of DNA
testing alone (and in the absolute sense of the term), a descent from
Henry II.

All lines seem to begin with either a Henry or a Herbert who was
stated to be the son or grandson of Henry II. They all seem to affirm
that, whoever this man was, he was married to Julian, the daughter of
Sir Robert Corbett, the Lord of Pontsbury. From that point on, they
agree with each other, going from Julian to Herbert to Peter to
Raynold. From one son of Raynold, the Herbert family who were
represented by the Earls of Pembroke of the first and second creation
claimed descent (Reynald to Adam to Jenkin to William to Thomas to Sir
William to William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke). Another descent claimed
from Raynold was from another son, Peter, going from Peter to Herbert
to Adam to Jenkin to William to Howel to Jankin to David to Thomas to
Joh to Richard Johns (the first appearance of a true family name used
in the English manner) to William Johns to Thomas Johns to John Johns
who would have lived, based on a very rough estimate coming from the
number of generations involved, perhaps sometime in the mid 16th
century.

I am not prepared to take any position concerning the above
information, as this is an area of genealogy which I have never made a
serious attempt to study. If someone finds it interesting and wants to
work with it, even if the result would be to illustrate how wrong the
book's pedigrees are, that, too, could eventually benefit genealogical
work done elsewhere by others.

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article
<b4a7a460-417d-43c4-969b-8715616b149f@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Hickory <[email protected]> wrote:

In response to an interest earlier expressed in passing in this Usenet
group, today, at the Institute of Historical Research of the
University of London, I searched for references to male-line descents
from Henry II in Wales, something I had previously seen, but, not
being a part of my research interest, had not taken notes of. I
referred to volume one of the two volume "The Heraldic Visitation of
Wales" (by Lewis Down and edited by Samuel Rush Meyrick in 1846).
Specifically, I found mention of Henry II as a progenitor on pages
196, 293, and 293. A footnote indicated yet another pedigree, but did
not specify the page, so, not wishing to use up too much time
confirming whether I had correctly understood things, I let it pass.
The pedigrees showed a good degree of consistency with each other, but
whether this translates into historical reliability is quite another
matter. As they presently exist, barring the existence of contemporary
evidence for the earlier generations, even a DNA study (assuming, of
course, that appropriate male-line representatives could be found)
could only confirm or disconfirm relatedness to sometime perhaps in
the late 13th century at the earliest and, even a disconfirmation
among lines, could not prove or disprove, merely by means of DNA
testing alone (and in the absolute sense of the term), a descent from
Henry II.

All lines seem to begin with either a Henry or a Herbert who was
stated to be the son or grandson of Henry II. They all seem to affirm
that, whoever this man was, he was married to Julian, the daughter of
Sir Robert Corbett, the Lord of Pontsbury. From that point on, they
agree with each other, going from Julian to Herbert to Peter to
Raynold. From one son of Raynold, the Herbert family who were
represented by the Earls of Pembroke of the first and second creation
claimed descent (Reynald to Adam to Jenkin to William to Thomas to Sir
William to William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke). Another descent claimed
from Raynold was from another son, Peter, going from Peter to Herbert
to Adam to Jenkin to William to Howel to Jankin to David to Thomas to
Joh to Richard Johns (the first appearance of a true family name used
in the English manner) to William Johns to Thomas Johns to John Johns
who would have lived, based on a very rough estimate coming from the
number of generations involved, perhaps sometime in the mid 16th
century.

Since there is supposedly at least one male-line descent right to a
peerage, this should be addressed in CP (presumably there are Burke's
vols. on these Herberts which repeat this descent in full). What does
CP say on the Herberts, earls of Pembroke? Leo's genealogics site
begins a male-line ancestry with Gwillim ap Jenkin, citing CP X:400.

Does Bartrum have any alleged lines from this Henry or Herbert figure?

Among the well-combed terrain of potential royal bastards, if it is
found in a Tudor visitation this tradition has probably long ago been
investigated and discarded.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[wjhonson]

Sir Thomas Herbert died 1438 was the son of

William (Guillem) Herbert of Monmouthshire by his wife Gwenlian verch
Howell

William in turn was the son of Jenken Herbert by his wife Gwenlian
verch Aron

Then the line back is supposed to go

Jenken is the son of Adam FitzHerbert by Christiana verch Gwaring

Adam is the son of Herbert FitzPiers by Margaret Walsh

Herbert is the son of Peter FitzReynold by Alice Broadspear

Peter is the son of Sir Reynold FitzPiers, Knt of Blaen Llyfni by Joan
de Vivonne

I don't show any English royalty behind Reynold (but I do show Welsh),
but Joan ascends in seven steps to Henry I, King of England.

That could explain how someone writing this down several hundred years
later could confuse it.

Will Johnson

[Gjest]

On Dec 18, 7:21 pm, wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote:

Sir Thomas Herbert died 1438 was the son of

William (Guillem) Herbert of Monmouthshire by his wife Gwenlian verch
Howell

William in turn was the son of Jenken Herbert by his wife Gwenlian
verch Aron

Then the line back is supposed to go

Jenken is the son of Adam FitzHerbert by Christiana verch Gwaring

Adam is the son of Herbert FitzPiers by Margaret Walsh

Herbert is the son of Peter FitzReynold by Alice Broadspear

Peter is the son of Sir Reynold FitzPiers, Knt of Blaen Llyfni by Joan
de Vivonne

I don't show any English royalty behind Reynold (but I do show Welsh),
but Joan ascends in seven steps to Henry I, King of England.

That could explain how someone writing this down several hundred years
later could confuse it.

Will Johnson

This looks suspiciously like a part of the sequence that CP 10:400
note b [sub Pembroke] describes as "a spurious pedigree from Herbert
the Chamberlain [of Henry I], who is given an equally spurious false
descent from Herbert, Count of Vermandois".

BP has a considerably different sequence for the earlier generations
of the Herbert family, as do published works that cite Bartrum as
their source.

You failed to indicate a source for this, ummhh, concoction - do you
have a credible source for it?

[You might also check Stirnet, under Herbert and Fitzherbert]

[wjhonson]

On Dec 18, 8:43 pm, [email protected] wrote:

This looks suspiciously like a part of the sequence that CP 10:400
note b [sub Pembroke] describes as "a spurious pedigree from Herbert
the Chamberlain [of Henry I], who is given an equally spurious false
descent from Herbert, Count of Vermandois".

BP has a considerably different sequence for the earlier generations
of the Herbert family, as do published works that cite Bartrum as
their source.

You failed to indicate a source for this, ummhh, concoction - do you
have a credible source for it?

Are you questioning me? ME!!!!

Okay well anyway.
William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke has a DNB article which
evidently names his parents and paternal grandfather.

But then I connected back the next few generations using.... One World
Tree...

WHAT! *Slaps myself*

Once we get back to Peter FitzReynold then I have a note that just
says "Stirnet". Not very helpful am I?

So let that be a lesson to me!

Will Johnson