On Thursday, April 2, 1998 at 1:00:00 AM UTC-7, Reedpcgen wrote: > Since it is usual that people have a difficult time giving up what has so long > been familiar, I post the following to finish this thing off once and for all. > snip > > If I were a Dunham descendant, I would be grateful to have an account of the > real marriage and origin of the immigrant John Dunham in Bedfordshire as > published in TAG and a possible father, which traces the line back with real > records as far as what is left of the fake ancestry. > I am a Dunham descendant who initially got caught up in the faux Dunham lineage; however, I am now scrupulous about vetting my family tree. I believe there is a real father for the immigrant John Dunham (source and details are shown below). Source: England \u0026amp; Wales\u002C Christening Index\u002C 1530-1980 Name John Dunham Gender Male Christening Date 8 Feb 1589 Christening Place Pirton, Hertfordshire, England Phillimore Ecclesiastical Parish Map 12369 Father Richard Dunham Household Members Name Age John Dunham Richard Dunham The above information is probably old news to many Dunham-watchers, but there are still people buying into and perpetuating the glamour of knighthood and pageantry of the misdirection held sway for so long. For example, on ancestry.com someone uploaded a portrait of "Sir John Dunham" that I discovered to be Titian's Portrait of Federico II Gonzaga. Go figure. sed

I have been following with interest the on-going discussion about the Empress Gisela, and have discovered errors in the ancestry I show for another relative of hers, Bernard von Werl (c 1007-1063). He is shown as a descendant of Gerberga of Burgundy (who was the mother of Empress Gisela), but descended from her first marriage rather than the second. What should be the correct links between Bernard and Gerberga? Roger LeBlanc

On 2017-05-10 01:06:19 +0000, [email protected] said: > Rev. William and Katherine Craighead Homes of Martha's Vineyard had a > quite numerous progeny, with at least the following descendants (or > spouses) covered in entries in the _Dictionary of American Biography_. > > Henry Augustus Homes > Arthur Tappan > Benjamin Tappan > Eli Todd Tappan > John Henry Wright > Lewis Tappan > Henry Chandler Bowen > David Tappan Stoddard > Rufus Wilmot Griswold (the "frenemy" and literary executor of E.A. Poe) > William McCrillis Griswold Also Austin Tappan Wright (1883-1931), author of the posthumously-published quasi-utopian novel ISLANDIA; son of John Henry Wright and maternal grandson of Eli Todd Tappan. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden [email protected] nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng

On Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 8:51:17 AM UTC-4, Brian Hessick wrote: > > F. W. T. Attree (ed.), Notes of post mortem inquisitions taken in Sussex. 1 Henry VII to 1649 and after. Sussex Record Society, vol. 14. (1912) > > > > > It was in there and stated a will being made. Went back to TNA and bracketed the time frame. Sure enough the will populated this time around. In it he bequeaths to his eldest son Edward and youngest son Richard, and for default of issue, to the daughters of his brother Combe. I would assume this means Edward was the only male heir of Sir John Elrington. He also mentioned his brother-in-law Richard Shirley Esq. And thus in the Visitation of Sussex (HSP 53), it lists Beatrix Shirley as marrying Edward Elrington of Hoxton. Did Margaret Echingham marry a 4th time? 46. John Elryngton, the elder, Robert Forster, and Robert Kyllyngham, and Margaret, his wife, widow of Thomas Combes, "gentilman." A messuage and garden in Tryllemylstrete, next Clerkenwell. Warranty against William, abbot of the church of the Blessed Mary and St. Modwenne, of Burton upon Trent. Anno 13.

On 10/05/2017 3:46 PM, Hans Vogels wrote: > Assuming that the German scholars are right in their linking count Bruno of Brunswick to the murdered Bruno (+ <14-11-1014), it would mean that count Bruno was the first husband of Gisela since her second husband, duke Ernst I died 31 (March or May) 1015. Yes, I think the order of Gisela's marriages (1. Bruno, 2. Ernest, 3. Konrad) is widely agreed now. Ernest was killed in a hunting mishap on 31 May 1015 - Thietmar of Merseburg gave the date, here: http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000689.html?pageNo=414 ("Ernost, inclitus Alemanniae dux ... cum in silva quadam illicite venaretur, ab uno militum suimet plus ignorantia quam voluntate spontanea, ut cervam sagittare debuit, pro dolor! vulneratur ... et mox vero de luce hac II. Kal. Iunii discessit"). The year is given by Hermann of Reichenau under 1015, here: http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000872.html?pageNo=119 ("Ernust dux Alemanniae in venatu ab Adalberone comite, feram appetente, sagitta vulneratus interiit"). Peter Stewart

I disagree, there is no reason it cause to give one right over the other. You've shown no reason to came one of their I'll opinions over the other based on "reputation as a bonville expert". Their reasoning and sources are both well known in a complete way, and the is no reason to judge this matter on anything beyond the sources

On 10/05/2017 2:41 PM, Hans Vogels wrote: > The minimum marriage age for girls by medieval Canon law was 12 years with the restriction that the girl in question reached puberty. If Gisela was 14/15 at the time of her first marriage and being born at the end of the '80, a first marriage ca.1002 is not troublesome, being the year of the latest known mentioning of count Bruno. The timing of Bruno's death is a vexed issue - he is usually identified as the Bruno whose murder in his own home some time before was brought up in the context of a crime committed by Thietmar of Merseberg's nephew Werner in November 1014. Thietmar himself was present on 14 November 1014 when Heinrich II was tasking counsel on the matter. Perhaps Bruno's murder had taken place more than 5 years earlier, but I doubt if it would still have been at the front of people's minds if it was much longer ago than that. Funnily enough, the standard MGH edition of Thietmar's chronicle makes a strange blunder over this - the editor agreed that Bruno of Brunswick was the man murdered before November 1014, yet the index placed his death in 1016. Maybe he, like Banquo's ghost, needed to be dispatched a second time. Peter Stewart

Dear Jan, John, and Kelsey - Your research collaboration has been most impressive. Kudos to all of you for your collegial approach to problem solving the Heart-Mowat ancestral line. Way to go! Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 9:06:21 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: > Rev. William and Katherine Craighead Homes of Martha's Vineyard had a quite numerous progeny ... Another descendant of William and Katherine was Berkeley poet and professor Josephine Miles.

On 10/05/2017 9:47 AM, taf wrote: > In December 2014, there were reports of the rediscovery of a crude gold disc in what is now Poland, near the ancient location of the viking stronghold of Jomsborg. It's history is convoluted and accounts somewhat contradictory - it is said to have formed part of a viking hoard originally found in the crypt of a ruined church in 1841. During WWII the disc fell into the hands of a Polish army officer (I have seen different accounts of how this happened) and the value of the disc not recognized. In 2014, his great-grandchild took the interesting trinket to show her teacher and the rest, as they say, is history (perhaps). The disc has come to be called the 'Curmsun disc'. > > Why do we care? The disc contains a curious inscription, which if contemporary would be one of the oldest pieces of genealogical evidence regarding viking-era Scandinavia not found on a rune stone. > > Specifically it reads > > +ARALD > CVRMSVN+ > REX AD TAN > ER+SCON+J > VMN+CIV > ALDIN+ > > Which has been interpreted as: Harald Gormson, King of Danes, Scania, Jomsborg, and Oldenburg (there are various alternative interpretations). There is some dispute as to whether it is authentic or a later forgery, and those in the 'authentic camp' all seem to have a different interpretation of when and why the disc was cast (it is agreed it was cast and not struck). > > Is anyone aware of any published scholarly analysis of this item? (hopefully not requiring me to learn Polish or Danish to read) The following two Academia.edu deposits appear respectable, but I am intereted in what the broader scholarly community is making of it. > > https://www.academia.edu/9647410/A_unique_object_from_Harald_Bluetooth_s_time._2015_ > > https://www.academia.edu/29233334/The_Curmsun_Disc_-_Harald_Bluetooth_s_Golden_Seal > > See also: http://www.thecurmsundisc.com/ > You may have to wait a while yet - according to Karen Schousboe in November 2014 (here: http://www.medievalhistories.com/harold-bluetooths-talisman-sensational-find-fake/), "However, the field is decidedly not covered and we still lack a more detailed technical and philological examination by scholars and scientists." With something as fishy as this object, experts may be in no hurry to take a plunge. Peter Stewart

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 11:34:28 AM UTC-4, taf wrote: > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 7:32:05 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote: > > Who is to say that Professor J. S. Roskell’s conclusion that Philippa > > Bonville was the daughter of Lord William Bonville and Margaret Grey > > inaccurate? According to the Proceedings of the British Academy, “His > > insistence on never going a step beyond the evidence, his profound > > distrust of speculation, and the down-to-earth commonsense of his > > Lancashire stock, gave his conclusions a solidity that commanded assent. > > He steered to successful completion the official history of The House of > > Commons, 1386–1421, which bears the imprint of his approach.” > > > > We should trust the conclusion of Professor Roskell as it concerns the > > parentage of Philippa Bonville, because that is what all the evidence > > has ever supported. > > This appeal to authority is unconvincing. Yes, you can show us a quote in which Roskell is praised for his distrust of speculation and his common sense, but I can show you a case in which he repeated information from Vivian that was chronologically untenable on its face, and known to be false since the start of the 20th century. This doesn't mean he is wrong in any partcular case, but it does show that Roskell does not merit the benefit of the doubt (partiularly when he appears simply to be copying Vivian). > > taf Thanks for sharing your opinion regarding Vivian and Roskell. There are no claims that Roskell is 100% nor that Vivian is 100% correct all of the time. But in some cases, as I can point out, Roskell gets the benefit of the doubt over Richardson.

I know this is drudging up an old post, but I've been trying to sort out the Ferrers family recently. The older genealogies (Burkes, etc.) have numerous errors, conflating different branches of the Ferrers family, and those that don't even seem to be Ferrers. 1. fitz Walchelin line. That the fitz Walchelin line is in any way related to the Ferrers seems to be based totally on given name usage. Yes, they were prominent under tenants, of the Ferrers, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence they were anything more than that. In an 1141 charter of Robert II de Ferrers, Robert fitz Walchelin is specifically stated to be "Robertus filius Walkelini de Roburna". Monasticon Anglicanum: Tutbury NUM VII https://books.google.ca/books?id=r71LN35ZEG4C&pg=PA393&lpg=PA393&dq "Walchelinus de Raborna" was a teste to a charter under Robert I de Ferrers (1100-1139). Monasticon Anglicanum: Tutbury NUM XI https://books.google.ca/books?id=r71LN35ZEG4C&pg=PA394&lpg=PA394&dq In the Red book of the Exchequer, at the time of Henry I, a Robert and a William, both said to be sons of Walchelin, are listed, and Robert's property is said, in 1166, to be held by his son, also named Robert. William's property was apparently held by Geoffrey Marmion in 1166. At around that time (1166-1190) there is also a deed to a Henry son of Robert son of Walchelin. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5414382 The 1166 Robert is often described as the one who marries Margaret de Grendon, daughter of Ermentrude, through which more Egginton property comes his way, and whose daughters inherit in 1238/9. But, this doesn't make sense. This Robert is already an adult, by 1166. He'd have to be born before 1145. That would have him living until he's about 90, and not having his daughters until he's in his 70s. Ermentrude is often also made out to be marrying a Ferrers, or to be a Ferrers herself, which is nonsense. A Built Heritage Statement seems to make more sense, which includes a Robert III fitz Walchelin whose daughters inherit. http://planning.south-derbys.gov.uk/documents/pa/2015/9_2015_0768%20Heritage%20Statement%20(ADDITIONAL%20v2).pdf This also makes more sense, based on the dates for William de Grendon, Quintin Talbot, and Henry fitz Gerald, said to be 3 husbands of Ermentrude. Daughter Margaret de Grendon appears to be born around 1200-1202, married off and having children by the age of 15 or 16 (mother Ermentrude appears to have first married young, as well, and still having children with 3rd husband fitz Gerald at around the same time Margaret is getting married), and likewise for Margaret's own daughters. One of those daughters is also named Ermentrude, which is where the conflation with her grandmother and, in turn, conflation with the fitz Walchelins being Ferrers, comes into play. Margaret's Ermentrude, however, is not a Ferrers, and marries William de Stafford. Another possibility for a Robert III is in a reference to a Robert son of Henry son of Walchelin. Maybe a Robert, son of Henry, inherited from his uncle, Robert II. As for William fitz Walchelin, his daughter Hawise appears to be coming of age, about 1199, and he dies about 1213. He could possibly be a younger brother of the Robert and Henry generation. If he comes of age about 1171, and is born about 1150, then he'd still only be about 34, if Hawise is born about 1184. Whatever the case, there's nothing to indicate the fitz Walchelin line is actually related to the Ferrers. This line may descend from the Ascelin in Egginton, in 1086, sometimes spelled Wascelin. 2. Ferrers of Rutland/Oakham. The descent of this line comes from a William de Ferrers (1060-1131). Most accounts have him as the son of Henry, who came with the conqueror. This is problematic. Some accounts say Robert I inherits because his older brothers Engenulf and William died before their father, Henry, did. On a similar note, some accounts say Engenulf and William are the same person, and he died before his father, Henry. The problem with these theories are that the Rutland William had heirs, 3 sons, yet none of the property ever held by Henry seems to be held by this line. Engenulf is said to have been given Duffield, by his father, but that property ends up in Robert I's hands, as well, apparently skipping an older brother William, if he existed, and his heirs. On the flip side, neither Henry, nor Robert I appear to hold any of the family's ancestral property, back in Normandy. William, however, does. And, when Normandy splits with England, it is William's line that keeps their Normandy property as their main inheritance, joins France, and leaves Oakham to a younger brother, who dies, leaving it to a sister. It is William who is travelling about Normandy with Robert, duke of Normandy, and off on the first Crusade with him. In 1086, Oakham is held directly by the king, and in 1166 this line is a direct tenant to the king in Oakham. It is not part of the greater Ferrers holdings, belonging to the Derby Ferrers. Everything seems to add up to the conclusion made by Auguste Le Prevost, that William was the son of Henry's older brother, also named William. The Conqueror's army was packed with younger sons wanting to make a name for themselves. Henry appears to be one of them, while his older brother, and his descendants, inherited the ancestral lands, back in Normandy. So, if Robert I, of the Derby line, did have a brother, William, he may have died before Henry, but nothing would suggest he's the same William at the top of the Oakham and Normandy line. This line is also sometimes conflated with the Derby line through William I de Ferrers, 3rd earl of Derby, and Walchelin de Ferrers, of Normandy and Oakham, both of whom go on the 3rd Crusade. The earl dies at the Siege of Acre, but Walchelin survives, and is found on later charters in Normandy. Some accounts seem to make them the same person, or add a Walchelin brother of William in this generation. 3. Walchelin and wife Goda. This couple seems to have been forced into the Ferrers and Toeni families again based purely on their first names. Walchelin de Derby was a moneyer/minter, during the Anarchy, who leaves his property to become a school, and lists all kinds of people he purchased land from, rather than inheriting from any of the Ferrers of Derby. Educational Charters and Documents 598 to 1909, p 111-112 https://books.google.ca/books?id=YlQHi9LKefEC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq The Schools of Medieval England, p 125 https://books.google.ca/books?id=Z4EmWXn2aCMC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 7:32:05 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote: > Who is to say that Professor J. S. Roskell’s conclusion that Philippa > Bonville was the daughter of Lord William Bonville and Margaret Grey > inaccurate? According to the Proceedings of the British Academy, “His > insistence on never going a step beyond the evidence, his profound > distrust of speculation, and the down-to-earth commonsense of his > Lancashire stock, gave his conclusions a solidity that commanded assent. > He steered to successful completion the official history of The House of > Commons, 1386–1421, which bears the imprint of his approach.” > > We should trust the conclusion of Professor Roskell as it concerns the > parentage of Philippa Bonville, because that is what all the evidence > has ever supported. This appeal to authority is unconvincing. Yes, you can show us a quote in which Roskell is praised for his distrust of speculation and his common sense, but I can show you a case in which he repeated information from Vivian that was chronologically untenable on its face, and known to be false since the start of the 20th century. This doesn't mean he is wrong in any partcular case, but it does show that Roskell does not merit the benefit of the doubt (partiularly when he appears simply to be copying Vivian). taf

On 10/05/2017 5:50 AM, Hans Vogels wrote: > Op dinsdag 9 mei 2017 20:51:49 UTC+2 schreef Hans Vogels: > > Count Bruno was one of the pretenders in July 1002 when king Heinrich II was chosen. That seems to be his last mentioning. > > Dr. Wilhelm Wegener, "Genealogische Tafeln zur Mitteleuropäischen Geschichte", blz.196 > > http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/schwaben/hermann_4_herzog_von_schwaben_1039_babenberger/hermann_4_herzog_von_schwaben_+_1038.html > > suggests that Ernst I, husband (married before 1012) of Gisela, was already married before Christmas 1004 when he appears as (Schwäbischer) Pfalzgraf, which can only be explained through his marriage. This is based on an inauthentic charter from St Stephan abbey in Strasbourg, and the dating is one of the give-away elements (the charter states 1005, but with other details indicating 1004). By the way, it is unfortunate that the citation on Genealogie-Mittelalter is to Wilhelm Wegener, who was the editor, instead of Franz Tyroller who was the author. Peter Stewart

On 10/05/2017 12:22 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > On 5/8/2017 4:15 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > >> One thing we can be pretty surge of, Gisela was born before 999 since >> placing her birthdate on 999 would lead to an unbeliavable short >> chronology > > That hasn't stopped everybody from proposing that the 999 date be > accepted. Biologically, the date could be described as "not quite > impossible" and Hans Dobbertin argued in two papers that the date was > correct, using "Annalista Saxo" to claim that Ernst was Gisela's first > husband and Bruno the second. See Hans Dobbertin, "Das > Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der 'schwäbischen' Edlen Ida von Elsdorf zum > Kaiserbruder Ludolf IV. von Braunschweig (+1038) und zu Papst Leo IX. > (+1054)," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 43 (1962): 44-76; and "Neues > über Ida von Elsdorf," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 53 (1972): 49-67. > Most scholars have rejected his arguments, but he has attracted > occasional followers. This controversy has been neatly described (I think by Herwig Wolfram) as a wasps' nest, with Hans Dobbertin indefatigably buzzing around it. Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson initiated this thread back on 20 February 2017 and presents his current file on Philippa Bonville. Richardson also provided a short reasoning behind why he placed Philippa Bonville as the sister of Lord William Bonville. He also laid out his three major assumptions for this conclusion. First, he assumes that William Grenville, Esq., and Philippa Bonville were married in 1428 (any later date would push the chronology a little too much for Philippa to be borne by 1396 and to have five children after her marriage). Additionally, all we know is that William Grenville and Philippa Bonville married after 12 May 1427. Did William and Philippa marry within a few years after this? Probably yes, but that could have been in 1429, 1430, or 1431. There isn’t any evidence to confirm they married in 1428. We know that their first born son, Thomas Grenville I, married Anne Courtenay in 1447 and they had to sue in the courts to grant a tenement to Richard Ashrigge in 1449. In this same tenement, William Grenville is mentioned as still being alive. Most estimates place William Grenville’s date of death in the year 1450, which includes Charles Fitch-Northen. This would suggest that Thomas was not of age (21 years old) in 1449 because the courts were involved, thus making Thomas Grenville 20 years of age or younger in 1449. We can then conclude that Thomas Grenville was born no earlier than 1429 and assuredly could have been born in 1430 or 1431 (which would follow along with the same reasoning and original date of birth estimate for Thomas Grenville being 1430 as found in Weis’ The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 fifth ed. (1999): p. 30 [Line 22-11]). We also have a land grant from Thomas Grenville and his second wife to Richard Rede in the 31st Henry VI [21 Jan. 1453]. Since the courts were not involved, we can be quite sure that Thomas Grenville was of age (21 years old) in 1452, thus placing his date of birth around 1431. Secondly, Douglas Richardson assumes that Philippa Bonville had an unnoticed first marriage to explain why she was of such a late age (32 years old / assuming a date of birth of 1396 and a marriage date of 1428) upon her marriage to William Grenville, Esq., in the early 15th century. This is way too convenient to say in order to help fit her into the window of being Sir John Bonville and Elizabeth FitzRoger’s daughter, born between May 1393 and July 1397. Once again, since there is neither any primary nor secondary evidence to suggest a first marriage of Philippa before William Grenville, this makes it quite easy to concoct such a marriage for Philippa Bonville. We can estimate this date range (May 1393 – July 1397) given the proof of age for Lord William Bonville, which puts his date of birth at 31 Aug. 1392. We know through ipms that Sir John Bonville’s death occurred on 21 Oct. 1396. So following along the lines of this theory, if Philippa was born in 1397, Elizabeth FitzRoger would had to of conceived Philippa in the months just prior to John Bonville’s death (with John Bonville most likely being in ill-health for most of 1396 before his death in Oct. 1396). This is an unlikely scenario and thus would reduce the date range of Philippa’s birth to occur before 1397. We also know that Thomas Bonville and Isabel Bonville were also born between May 1393 and July 1397. Again, suggesting that Isabel was born before Lord William Bonville is an easy convention in order to allow more time for Philippa to be born within the time period after May 1393 and before 1397. It should also be noted that Elizabeth FitzRoger’s marriage agreement with her 2nd husband, Richard Stukeley, Gent., occurred on 6 Dec. 1396. Elizabeth FitzRoger’s ipm in 1414 gives her eldest son with Richard Stukeley a date of birth of 1398. Again, the evidence that Philippa had a marriage prior to William Grenville is as unnoticed as the invention that she did. There is zero evidence to suggest that Philippa had a prior marriage to William Grenville. Richardson’s own file account of Philippa states, “PHILIPPE BONVILLE, married (1st) after 12 May 1427 (as his 2nd wife) WILLIAM GRENVILLE!” Finally, Douglas Richardson’s third assumption is that Hugh Stukeley was the half-brother of Philippa Bonville because Hugh served as a feoffee for Philippa Bonville’s husband, William Grenville. Richardson states, “But the most likely explanation is that Hugh Stucle, Esq., was Isabel and Philippe Bonville’s half-brother.” Any student of history would know by looking at the lists of feoffees for the 15th century, just how many were the sibling-in-laws of the people involved! Was it more than likely that Hugh Stukeley was the brother-in-law or the uncle-in-law of William Grenville? It is unsupportable to use Hugh Stukeley’s feoffee status to conclude either relationship (brother-in-law or uncle-in-law) to William Grenville, other than just wanting it to be so. In Roger Granville’s book, The History of the Granville family, he states: “In the 26th Henry VI. [7 Nov 1447], being styled William Graynefild, he grants lands to James (William ?) Chuddeleigh and Hugh Stucles, Esquires. The deed is dated 7th November, and thereto is appended two seals.” There is no mention in the History of the Granville family, or in the deed itself of the exact relationship between William Grenville and Hugh Stukeley. It doesn’t say that William granted lands to his brother-in-law nor does it mention any other kind of kinship. But since we know that Elizabeth FitzRoger married Richard Stukeley after 6 Dec. 1396, we can presume there was a kinship between Hugh Stukeley and Philippa Bonville. There is nothing to say that Hugh Stukeley was not the uncle of Philippa Bonville, as we know it is fact that Hugh Stuckeley was the half-brother of Lord William Bonville. Again, Richardson wants Philippa to be the sister of Lord William Bonville, so it is more than convenient to say that Hugh Stukeley was Philippa’s half-brother. These three assumptions make it convenient for Richardson to place Philippa Bonville as the sister of Lord William Bonville and the daughter of Sir John Bonville and Elizabeth FitzRoger. What Richardson fails to achieve is to provide any concrete evidence to support or confirm his assumptions. This would make his conclusion that Philippa Bonville was the sister of Lord William Bonville very suspect. Who is to say that Professor J. S. Roskell’s conclusion that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of Lord William Bonville and Margaret Grey inaccurate? According to the Proceedings of the British Academy, “His insistence on never going a step beyond the evidence, his profound distrust of speculation, and the down-to-earth commonsense of his Lancashire stock, gave his conclusions a solidity that commanded assent. He steered to successful completion the official history of The House of Commons, 1386–1421, which bears the imprint of his approach.” We should trust the conclusion of Professor Roskell as it concerns the parentage of Philippa Bonville, because that is what all the evidence has ever supported. Those interested should also see: {Weis, Frederick Lewis "The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215" third ed. (1985): p. 16, [Line 22-10] (author states, "Sir William Grenville, of Biddeford, d. c. 1451; m. Philippa, dau. of Sir William Bonville, K.G., Lord Bonville, of Chewton-Mendip, near Wells Somerset.")}

On 9/05/2017 3:41 PM, Douglas Richardson wrote: > The Wikipedia article adds that Robert subsequently abandoned his Italian fiefdoms and left southern Italy to join his family "beyond the Alps" (probably in Normandy). This is often stated, but Robert's travels after he was expelled from Calabria are unknown. In the course of his tantrum at Montalto he reportedly threatened to decamp over the Alps. This seems to have been a ploy to get more lordships from Roger II. However, when these failed to materialise Robert did not Italy leave as promised, and instead returned to his father's possessions at Oriolo and Castrovillari, prepared for a fight. In this Roger II did oblige him, besieging his towns and forcing him to abandon them in the spring of 1130. We don't know what became of him afterwards. The idea that he was allowed liberty to seek out his dead brother's widow (if she was still alive) in order to take his niece (the proper heiress of Oriolo etc.) with him into exile is far-fetched at best. Basing genealogical conjectures on information from Wikipedia articles is hazardous at best. Peter Stewart

On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 2:36:06 AM UTC, ScholarGypsy wrote: > RE: Gabriel Ludlow, his wife Phyllis, and ___ Cogswell > > [email protected]<[email protected]> 24 March 2017 at 08:20 > To: [email protected] > > The NEGHR article I mentioned (from ca. 2008) showed that John > Cogswell and Elizabeth had a daughter who remained behind in England, > Phyllis Cogswell wife of ____ Broadhurst, I believe. > > Interesting theory about the daughter of Rev. Thompson being Gabriel > Ludlow's wife. > > I note that an old book on the Harrisons of Virginia speculates she > was a certain Phyllis Wakelyn: > > "The mother of Sarah Ludlow, who m. John Carter, appears to have been > Phillis, the wife who survived Gabriel Ludlow, and who, as far as is > known, was his only wife. Her will, leaving everything to said > Gabriel's children, each of whom she called "my son" or "my daughter," > gives no clue as to her maiden name, and the compiler of the Ludlow > pedigree mentioned in the Introduction has failed to ascertain it. > Gabriel Ludlow is mentioned as a kinsman in the will of George > Willoughby, who was a trader in the East Indies. He was son of > Albinus Willoughby whose nuncupative will, made Aug. 1, 1606, named > Gabriel Pile as an overseer, which may indicate that the relationship > between George Willoughby and Gabriel Ludlow was through the Piles > (see the Chart). The uncommonness of the names "Albinus," or "Alban," > and "Phillis" tempts us to identify Phillis Ludlow with Phillis > Wakelyn, one of the four daughters of Alban Wakelyn of Henley on > Thames, Oxfordshire, whose will was dated April 21, 1602, and probated > Feb. 10, 1602-3, but I cannot trace the family later ..." > > https://books.google.com/books?id=IeVDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA89&dq=phillis+wakelyn+harrison&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj15JSpte_SAhUFbiYKHXj-CTwQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=phillis%20wakelyn%20harrison&f=false > > I don't know that that strikes me as too likely, but I suppose someone > could check it out ... > - Show quoted text - > > Due to the foregoing ALBINUS WILLOUGHBY connexion that has arisen in > the LUDLOW investigation, I include the following research I did > nearly four years ago when the name Alban WILLOUGHBY came up on the > list: > > The following was written and saved by me on 3 Aug. 2013, but never > sent to the list or to Paulo Santos Perneta. > > In 2008, there was an exchange on gen-med about the ancestry of Robert > WILLOUGHBY otherwise Roberto Vilovi, an English merchant, who settled > in Funchal, Madeira in the late 16th century. His father was recorded > as Albano WILLOUGHBY, and Roberto's armorial tombstone was shown to > quarter the WILLOUGHBY arms with others as yet unidentified. > > There was a problem with the identity of Albano in English records. > There was no trace of any Alban Willoughby at the right period. > > Coming at the problem from the direction of my ERNLE research, I > decided to investigate the ancestry of Christopher WILLOUGHBY who > married Martha ERNLE, 3rd and youngest daughter, with five sons, of > Sir Walter ERNLE, 1st Baronet, at Chirton, Wilts. in 1692. Christopher > was the only (probably only surviving) son of Sir George WILLOUGHBY, > Knt, (b. ca 1635/36, d. 1695), by his wife, Dorothy or Dorothea, > daughter of Robert LOWTHER, alderman of London. Sir George was an M.P. > and there are biographies of him in the History of Parliament volumes > for 1660-1690, and 1690-1715. > > http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/willoughby-george-1636-95 > > http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1690-1715/member/willoughby-sir-george-1635-95 > > Sir George was the 3rd son of Robert WILLOUGHBY, a Roman Catholic > merchant of Funchal, Madeira (who d. after 1642), by his wife, Mary, > daughter of one DANDRADER. This latter name is clearly not English, > and almost looks German, though it is, in fact, a 17th century > rendition of a Portuguese surname, de Andrade. > > In 1681, Sir George WILLOUGHBY inherited his seat, Bishopstone (North) > in Wiltshire from his kinsman, Christopher WILLOUGHBY. > > http://books.google.ca/books?id=LCYVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=%22george+willoughby%22+bishopston&source=bl&ots=wzRi2INB5p&sig=A-O-kVEYAAsrdw38xces7a9BiIs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=16_9UYazFMOniAKmxoGwCA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22george%20willoughby%22%20bishopston&f=false > > The History of Parliament series says that their exact genealogical > relationship is unknown (though there are hints of it in the foregoing > will abstract). > > Both Sir George and his kinsman Christopher WILLOUGHBY recorded their > lineages and right to coat-armour in the 1664 Visitation of London > (Harleian Society Publications, vol. 92, Heraldic series, p. 150). I > am only able to see it in snippet view, but I believe I have the gist > of it. > > >From that stems Sir George WILLOUGHBY's parentage as recorded in the > 1690-1715 version of his Hist. Parl. biography. > > The 1664 Visitation cites his grandfather's name as "Albinus > WILLOUGHBY, of Knoyle, Wilts". I don't think Albinus's wife's name is > included (note of 24/3/2017: I have her name down in my research as > Mary NN, against which I have written that she was possibly a LUDLOW > or a PILE/PYLE, due to the very same excerpt ravenmaven quoted which I > came across during my 2013 research), but I cannot see that. He > [Albinus Willougby] was, however, in turn, the son of Richard > WILLOUGHBY of Fovell, Wilts., and his wife Alice, daughter of NN > Wyatt, of Knoyle, Wilts. and of Meere (now Mere, and also in Wilts.) > and grandson of George WILLOUGHBY, of Fovell, which the 1940 Harl. > Soc. editors say is probably recte Fovant, Wilts. > > Certainly Sir George's kinsman, Christopher WILLOUGHBY's will (pr. > PCC, 17 Feb. 1680/81) states that his own father, Richard WILLOUGHBY, > was born in Fovant, Wilts. (I cannot see what that part of the 1664 > Visitation of London has to say about C.W.'s parentage.). > > It would appear, then, that it is likely that Albinus WILLOUGHBY was > Christopher's brother, though the dating is somewhat extreme if indeed > I am right. For one thing, there is a PCC will for one Albinis > WILLOUGHBY, of Farleigh, Wilts. proved in 1606. Mary, wife of Albinus > WILLOUGHBY of West Knoyle, Wilts. is listed as having been buried at > Dinton, Wilts. in Oct. 1602 (Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural > History Magazine, vol. 54, 1952, p. 398). > > The WILLOUGHBY family of Knoyle (from which the Bishopstone line > sprang) is recorded in both the 1565 and 1623 Visitations of > Wiltshire, but without seeing the full version of the 1664 London > Visitation, I can only make conjectures as to the precise filiation of > the George WILLOUGHBY who heads the 1664 Visitation pedigree(s). > > The most extensive Visitation pedigree (1623) of the Wiltshire > WILLOUGHBY family only hints at where this George might fit in, by > mentioning the Knoyle branch. At the same time, it does include a > George, possibly of the same generation, but belonging to another > branch of the family, settled at Silton in Dorset. I believe this > latter to be a red-herring as far as the placement of the Madeira > branch of the WILLOUGHBY sib is concerned, though I can see how it > also ties into the ERNLE family though the marriage of Alice BLACKER > (whose mother was an ERNLE) to William WILLOUGHBY on p. 218, hence the > appearance among their children of a son named ERNLEY. > > Also belonging to the Knoyle line are Henry WILLOUGHBY of Knoyle and > his wife Jane daughter of John DANSEY normally DAUNTESEY OR DAUNTSEY > (p. 216). Her mother was another ERNLE. > > This Henry WILLOUGHBY had a younger brother, John WILLOUGHBY, of > Baverstock, Wilts. who married Michael [not a mistake] SMITH, and with > other issue had a son Roger WILLOUGHBY who m. by licence dated 1617 > (“The Genealogist” 1908, p. 276, MARRIAGE LICENCES OF SALISBURY. > Edited by the Rev. Edmund Nevill, B.A. “1617….Willoughby, Roger, of > Baverstocke, Wilts, gent., 31, and Sara Goddard, of Littleton, in West > Lavington, sp., 23. 21 Oct.”), Sarah GODDARD (GODDARD is another name > tied to ERNLE in Wilts.). The Visitation records their daughter > Elizabeth WILLOUGHBY as aged 4 in 1623. It is likely that it is to > this branch that, I think rather significantly, belonged another > Albinus WILLOUGHBIE son of Roger, bt. 28 Oct. 1623 in Upton-on-Severn, > Worcestershire (found via FamilySearch.org controlled extractions). > > This too me indicates that it is definitely the Knoyle branch rather > than the Silton branch of the WILLOUGHBY family that is likely to > yield the answer. > > The earliest instance of a CMB record that includes the unusual name > Albinus WILLOUGHBY turns up in Wiltshire, viz.: Remytt son of Albynus > WILLOBEE baptised 22 November 1606 Saint Thomas, Salisbury, Wiltshire > (found via FamilySearch.org controlled extraction batch: C15348-1). > There are further instances later that century in Worcs., when the > Albinus of the 1623 baptism appears as the father, and in London in > 1680. There are, however, references to men of this name connected to > people in New England and Bantam in Java, perhaps indicating that this > was a name popular among adventurous mercantile offshoots of the > Wiltshire WILLOUGHBY family. > > The Knoyle WILLOUGHBY sib itself was founded by Christopher WILLOUGHBY > (PCC will proved 11 May 1571), natural son of Sir William > WILLOUGHBY, Knt, of Turner's Puddle, Dorset, by an unknown mistress. > He was the younger brother of Robert, 1st Lord WILLOUGHBY de BROKE, > founder of the Silton line. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Willoughby,_1st_Baron_Willoughby_de_Broke > > N.B. Apparently the foregoing article is rather inaccurate as to the > progeny of the 1st Lord WILLOUGHBY de BROKE if the 1623 Visitation of > Wilts. contains a fuller listing of his male line issue. > > I should be interested to learn of any further indications about these > interrelated branches of the WILLOUGHBY de BROKE family particularly > as regards the Silton and Knoyle lines. > > Thank you, > > Richard (2013 and 2017) Hi Richard I was very interested to read your notes on the Ernle/Willoughby connections as I have been researching these families for some time. I'm sure I can add some further detail, especially to the Madeira branch, as I've recently visited Robert's tombstone in Funchal and identified members of his family in the cathedral registers. My notes are in a Word profile which I'd be happy to send you; I just need to know the best way to go about it. Regards, Tony Foster

Assuming that the German scholars are right in their linking count Bruno of Brunswick to the murdered Bruno (+ <14-11-1014), it would mean that count Bruno was the first husband of Gisela since her second husband, duke Ernst I died 31 (March or May) 1015. Hans Vogels Op woensdag 10 mei 2017 07:27:29 UTC+2 schreef Peter Stewart: > On 10/05/2017 2:41 PM, Hans Vogels wrote: > > The minimum marriage age for girls by medieval Canon law was 12 years with the restriction that the girl in question reached puberty. If Gisela was 14/15 at the time of her first marriage and being born at the end of the '80, a first marriage ca.1002 is not troublesome, being the year of the latest known mentioning of count Bruno. > > The timing of Bruno's death is a vexed issue - he is usually identified > as the Bruno whose murder in his own home some time before was brought > up in the context of a crime committed by Thietmar of Merseberg's nephew > Werner in November 1014. Thietmar himself was present on 14 November > 1014 when Heinrich II was tasking counsel on the matter. Perhaps Bruno's > murder had taken place more than 5 years earlier, but I doubt if it > would still have been at the front of people's minds if it was much > longer ago than that. > > Funnily enough, the standard MGH edition of Thietmar's chronicle makes a > strange blunder over this - the editor agreed that Bruno of Brunswick > was the man murdered before November 1014, yet the index placed his > death in 1016. Maybe he, like Banquo's ghost, needed to be dispatched a > second time. > > Peter Stewart

Thanks, Kelsey. Your finding in Smart's Register of Students at St Andrews, 1579-1747, that James Heart, a younger son of David Heart and Jean Mowat, had matriculated at St Andrews in 1643 was a useful clue along the way, and your gathering and organizing information about Edinburgh Hart/Hearts for us helped, too. By the way, I recently found likely parents of William Baxter, who was plausibly the father of John Heart's wife Agnes Baxter: Robert Baxter of Clerkington and Catherine Ra -- now wouldn't it be neat if we could find some medieval ancestry for them, too. And, maybe there is more to learn about Jean Mowat's Mowat and Tulloch ancestors. On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 2:29:51 PM UTC-4, Kelsey Jackson Williams wrote: > Excellent. So pleased to see that you've finally located definitive proof of this connection! > > All the best, > Kelsey > > On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 17:04:10 UTC+1, Jan Wolfe wrote: > > Document SC11/5/1644/11, held at the Orkney Archives, is the marriage agreement, dated 21 February 1644, for Margaret Heart, daughter of David Heart and Jean Mowat, and James Grahame. The NAS catalog description is here: http://catalogue.nrscotland.gov.uk/nrsonlinecatalogue/details.aspx?reference=SC11/5/1644/11 > > I recently ordered an image of this document from the Orkney Archives. > > > > The contract specifies that James Grahame's part of the agreement is to be done by the "advyse of the said Dauid Heart if he sall be on lyff And failyeing of him throw deceas be the advyse of the said [William] Heart his eldest sone and of Mr John Heart Minister his secund sone or ather of thame." > > > > With this evidence, I think that we can now confidently identify the parents of John Heart as David Heart and Jean Mowat. Jean's mother, Christian Stewart, was a daughter of Earl Robert Stewart of Orkney, and Robert was a son of King James V of Scotland by Euphame Elphinstone. > > > > John Heart, who received his M.A. at St. Andrews in May, 1637, was ordained at Crail on March 22, 1643. > > > > Agnes Heart, daughter of John Heart and Agnes Baxter, married Robert Craighead. Their children include colonial immigrants Thomas Craighead, husband of Margaret Wallace, and Katherine Craighead, wife of William Homes. Thomas and William were both Presbyterian ministers. Thomas and Margaret lived in Freetown, Bristol County, Massachusetts, and then in Pennsylvania. Katherine and William lived in Chilmark, Dukes County, Massachusetts (on Martha's Vineyard) where William was the minister from the fall of 1715 until his death in 1746. > > > > For some of the previous discussion of this topic, see > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2012-05/1337017240 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/fRZWTSsZitE/CpyCm3FfVCMJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/q6Q3xHo0oWg/Zpc5IaplG1YJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/qPH0BlVAXEs/SdFFkZMwCwAJ > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/qPH0BlVAXEs/gsh20rtICwAJ