"Alexander Armstronge, c.1522, was one of the Mormaers, or Earls, of Scotland. Sean Armstrong, or Joe of Gateshead, can you comment?" So does this mean I'm ROYALTY?!?!? BOY am I going to milk THAT for all it's worth!! lol Thanks Dave! :D I figured there would be something I didn't know about the name, since I'd never seen it before in all my research. Then again, I've never got back further than 17-something on my Armstrong lines, sigh!! I'm off to tell hubby I'm a royal descendant and I can't possibly keep living like this anymore knowing this. No, he'll have to hire some help!! ;D Take care, Rob.

OK, I have been a asked to comment so here goes. Concerning the De Mormaers they were a distinguished family of the time. That's historical fact. As to connections with the Armstrongs, in so far as I can see, it is all on the internet. Without going to the Lord Lyon's Office and spending a great deal of time and money it is going to be very difficult to be certain whether or not there is a connection. The line "De Mormaer Armstronge" in the Sixteenth Century is not one that I have come across before - but that doesn't mean that it is a false one. Nevertheless Robin, you ought to ask for the details from your source. I've often seen references on the internet to the De Mormaers and also to one Marguerite de Dampierre, who is usually given as the daughter of Guy de Dampierre and Isabel de Luxembourg. With these particular Norman families one is talking seriously grand, as they are to be found among the ancestors of half the noble families of Europe. In places such as 'The Big Tree' they are usually down as progenitors of the Armstrongs of Mangerton, from whom I descend. But, you have to ask the questions who put them there and how did they know? Marguerite de Dampierre is often found on the internet as the either Wife or Mother of Alexander of Mangerton, b. 1264 d. 1320. Historically, Alexander was known to be living in 1300 - this being according to the records at the Ulster Herald's Office and that is how we have him in our tree but not his Father (who may also have been an Alexander) or Mother. As I noted above, the internet sources usually have him down as born 1264 and died 1320. Again, where did that information come from? It is very exact yet often one is more likely to see the qualification 'about' when dealing with birth and death dates in those the times. Internet trees are very interesting but people tend to copy what they see elsewhere and then put it down as historical truth - which is what it comes to be regarded as through repetition. It may even be true but the historical references aren't given. And here's the rub, for each time I ask for the historical references I get no answer. After seeing your post yesterday I Googled the de Mormaer name and came up with another lead, have emailed asking for factual references an am waiting for an answer. There weren't many official records then and few of the little that there were have survived. It is only by finding a reference to someone in historical and contemporary works that one can be sure that they existed. In closing, there is something else to note and be wary of. Since there is no recognised Chief there seem to be a lot of self-appointed virtual chiefs, each spending a lot of time on claiming to be the utmost authority on the genealogy of the Armstrongs and disparaging the research and claims of others. I corresponded briefly with one such "gentleman" earlier this year and received some very rude and unpleasant emails for my pains. There are even two clan associations and they are hardly on speakers. Oh yes, one other thing. Armstrong is a clan name. As was the common practise of the time, upon joining a clan one adopted the clan name, Armstrong in our case, so it is a fact that not all Armstrongs are/were related. It doesn't make your claim to be one any less valid though. Sean A And don't forget that I am as likely to be wrong as anyone else.

"After seeing your post yesterday I Googled the de Mormaer name and came up with another lead, have emailed asking for factual references an am waiting for an answer." Thanks Sean for this post, it's certainly given me a lot of info!! :D Would you let me know what you hear back please? Ta muchly! :D "And don't forget that I am as likely to be wrong as anyone else." Which has always been MY concern ... just how correct are MY details? One day I'll hit the jackpot on the Georgia Lottery and I'll be able to pay someone to find out for me! ;D Take care, Rob.

Hello Sean, My line also presumably goes back to the Armstrongs of Mangerton. The key link, however, comes from secondary sources that I have been unable to verify. If you or anyone else has any information on the correctness (or lack of) of the chart below, I would be very interested in any information. I am retired on very limited income, so it is difficult for me to do much in the way of verification. I have fairly good information on James Armstrong, my oldest proven Armstrong Ancestor, except for some uncertainty on his wife's maiden name. Thanks to you or anyone else for help on this. Ron Barnett 1 William Armstrong b: 1565 in Gilnockie, Dumfrieshire, Scotland d: 1642 in Brookboro, Fermanagh Co., Ulster, Ireland .. +Margaret Ellicot b: 1583 in Gilnockie, Dumfrieshire, Scotland ... 2 Thomas (Sir) Armstrong b: 1603 in Gilnockie, Scotland d: 1693 in Londonderry, Ireland ........ 3 Thomas Armstrong b: 1649 in Nimeguen, The Netherlands ............ +Catherine Pollexfeu b: 1658 in England ............. 4 Thomas Armstrong b: 1673 in Enniskillen, Ireland ................. +Elizabeth b: Abt. 1690 .................. 5 James Armstrong b: 1707 in Lancaster Country Pennsylvania d: 11 May 1760 in Anson County North Carolina ...................... +Jean O'Conner b: Abt. 1711 in Lancaster Country Pennsylvania d: 1760 in Anson County North Carolina ... 2 Edward Armstrong b: 1604 in Scotland ... 2 William Armstrong b: 1600 ... 2 Alexander Armstrong b: 1606 ... 2 Simon Armstrong b: 1608 ... 2 Robert Armstrong b: 1610 ... 2 John Armstrong b: 1612 ... 2 David Armstrong b: 1614 ... 2 Christopher Armstrong b: 1616 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Sean Armstrong Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ARMSTRONG] ARMSTRONGE, De Mormaer & De Dampierre OK, I have been a asked to comment so here goes. Concerning the De Mormaers they were a distinguished family of the time. That's historical fact. As to connections with the Armstrongs, in so far as I can see, it is all on the internet. Without going to the Lord Lyon's Office and spending a great deal of time and money it is going to be very difficult to be certain whether or not there is a connection. The line "De Mormaer Armstronge" in the Sixteenth Century is not one that I have come across before - but that doesn't mean that it is a false one. Nevertheless Robin, you ought to ask for the details from your source. I've often seen references on the internet to the De Mormaers and also to one Marguerite de Dampierre, who is usually given as the daughter of Guy de Dampierre and Isabel de Luxembourg. With these particular Norman families one is talking seriously grand, as they are to be found among the ancestors of half the noble families of Europe. In places such as 'The Big Tree' they are usually down as progenitors of the Armstrongs of Mangerton, from whom I descend. But, you have to ask the questions who put them there and how did they know? Marguerite de Dampierre is often found on the internet as the either Wife or Mother of Alexander of Mangerton, b. 1264 d. 1320. Historically, Alexander was known to be living in 1300 - this being according to the records at the Ulster Herald's Office and that is how we have him in our tree but not his Father (who may also have been an Alexander) or Mother. As I noted above, the internet sources usually have him down as born 1264 and died 1320. Again, where did that information come from? It is very exact yet often one is more likely to see the qualification 'about' when dealing with birth and death dates in those the times. Internet trees are very interesting but people tend to copy what they see elsewhere and then put it down as historical truth - which is what it comes to be regarded as through repetition. It may even be true but the historical references aren't given. And here's the rub, for each time I ask for the historical references I get no answer. After seeing your post yesterday I Googled the de Mormaer name and came up with another lead, have emailed asking for factual references an am waiting for an answer. There weren't many official records then and few of the little that there were have survived. It is only by finding a reference to someone in historical and contemporary works that one can be sure that they existed. In closing, there is something else to note and be wary of. Since there is no recognised Chief there seem to be a lot of self-appointed virtual chiefs, each spending a lot of time on claiming to be the utmost authority on the genealogy of the Armstrongs and disparaging the research and claims of others. I corresponded briefly with one such "gentleman" earlier this year and received some very rude and unpleasant emails for my pains. There are even two clan associations and they are hardly on speakers. Oh yes, one other thing. Armstrong is a clan name. As was the common practise of the time, upon joining a clan one adopted the clan name, Armstrong in our case, so it is a fact that not all Armstrongs are/were related. It doesn't make your claim to be one any less valid though. Sean A And don't forget that I am as likely to be wrong as anyone else. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message