Anyone know if the Delano family (mother of FDR) has medieval ancestry? Adrian Benjamin Burke

A simple 20 minute interview over Skype can dismiss flakes. Dabblers will not show up and flakes will be more obvious. I once was given a job (volunteer, mind you) copy-editing for a multi-lingual database, where I had to interview so I do not think it unreasonable in 2016. Dina On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Stewart Baldwin via < gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On 6/30/2016 5:02 AM, WJH via wrote: > > > I think we can all agree that most Wikis are rubbish in the medieval > period, that this is due to poor "management" and too many "copiers without > understanding and "importers of gedcoms". > > This statement is very misleading, unless you replace the word "most" by > "all". If you disagree, it would be interesting to know of a genealogy > Wiki that is not rubbish for the medieval period. Personally, I would be > unable to identify an example even if the qualifying words "in the > medieval period" were removed. > > > The question is whether the response is to create a new "pure" wiki > project or to try and improve one or all of those already available (in > which case there's the question of "which one?"). > > > > My basic hypothesis is that for those who are interested in sharing what > they know (i.e. not Denis by the sound of it), the second route makes more > sense. > > In my opinion, it is unlikely that the second route will ever lead to > anything better than "not quite as bad as it used to be." Even if it > were possible (which would require a method that corrects errors faster > than they are being introduced), the labor involved in cleaning up these > messes would be much more than just starting from scratch. > > Of course, no large project could ever be error-free. However, the only > reasonable way of producing something of real value is to keep the > number of errors to a minimum from the very beginning. Whether a new > VERY strictly managed "wiki" or something else is the best way of doing > this is unclear. > > As has been pointed out, any such project would need to attract > knowledgeable genealogists. In my experience, the better genealogists > do not particularly care for the "cleaning up other people's messes" > approach to genealogical research. > > > This is not to denigrate those who want to retain control / ownership of > "their" work, merely saying that almost by definition, they are not likely > to find the wiki ethos of "intellectual commons" congenial. > > > > Having said that, the history of trade and intellectual property rights > shows that generally knowledge expands fastest when barriers are lowest, > which brings the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. > > > > I assumed when I joined the group that its main reason for existing was > to share knowledge: something I'm all for. In that regard it's ironic that > the two posts I've made asking for information / guidance on specifics have > not received a single post in reply... However, this thread seems to be > generating more heat than light. > > > > So, to turn Denis' question round: why would anyone outside its existing > "community" want to contribute to this board? > > Its not just about "ownership" rights, but also (and more important to > me) in taking pride in one's work. I have already seen too many cases > where someone has copy-pasted my work and then butchered it in various > ways. People doing higher quality work might be less reluctant to > contribute material to a project managed by individuals competent to > deal with such material. > > Stewart > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On 29/06/2016 10:47 PM, Patrick Nielsen Hayden via wrote: > Another question from a "gatherer". > > Denis Beauregard, in his _Genealogy of the French in North America_ > (www.francogene.com/genealogy/gfna.php, the full version of which is an > excellent purchase for any monolingual English-speaker with extensive > Quebec ancestry in their or their spouse's background), says of > Baudouin/Baldwin de Toulouse (murdered 1214) who, in abt. 1196, married > Alix de Lautrec -- said to be ancestors of the famous 19th-century > painter and illustrator Henri Toulouse-Lautrec -- that "depending on > the source, many parents are possible", and refers us to a debate in > the La Chesnaye-Desbois 1867 <i>Dictionare de la Noblesse</i>, volume > 11, pages 750-51. > > I've looked at this > (gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5424948p/f384.image), but of course I > don't speak or read French, more's the pity. Anyone who felt like > offering a translation would certainly bask in my appreciation. > > What I do note from a fairly simple Google search is that lots of > modern historians appear to take it as established that Baldwin de > Toulouse was a son of Raymond V de Toulouse by his wife Constance, > daughter of Louis VI, and thus a brother to the Raymond VI who had him > murdered. Example: > https://books.google.com/books?id=eTEj0T6u7zUC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=baldwin+of+toulouse+executed+1212&source=bl&ots=UbCjULBP5r&sig=SlTXBa-fgZKXj1wKKS_OVF5AAwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjswbnHgcvNAhWJ2D4KHYPJApQQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=baldwin%20of%20toulouse%20executed%201212&f=false > > > Is this a case of something that was an open question in 1867 having > been resolved in more modern times? Or is it a case of historians > simply not paying attention to genealogists, and continuing to > propagate a centuries-old assumption regardless of lack of evidence, or > even evidence discrediting it? > > There is a misunderstanding somewhere in this: Baudouin who was killed at Montauban in 1214 was definitely a brother of Raimond of Toulouse whose parents were Raimond of Toulouse (numbering these men now is practically worthless) and Constance of France. Whether Baudouin was Raimond's full-brother or a paternal half-brother is less definite (he was certainly not a maternal half-brother). However, it is highly questionable that Baudouin married Alix of Lautrec, and even more so that they had any offspring. Philippe Zalmen Ben-Nathan in *Annales du Midi* 114 (2002) cogently proposed that the brothers Bertrand I and Sicard VI of Lautrec were actually sons of Frotard III, and that Alix may have been the latter's sister with no known posterity from a possible marriage to Baudouin of Toulouse. You can read or download his article here (and copy-paste from it into an online French-English translator), http://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-4398_2002_num_114_239_2777. Peter Stewart

Leo's site gives Jean de FIENNES as married once to Isabelle de DAMPIERRE (aka FLANDERS), From somewhere I also have him 2m to a Joan JORDAIN with a son John, b. c. 1300, d. 5 Apr 1351 - True or false? Leon has Jean having two daughters by Isabelle named Jeanne. 1. Jeanne 1m. to Jean I de CHATILLON, 2m. to Jean de LANDAS - ( http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00027526&tree=LEO) 2. Jeanne m. to Jean d'ESTOUTEVILLE - ( http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00106896&tree=LEO) Is this correct that he had two daughters with the same name? Thank you for any help. Jim

If the Bures line is correct there might be the following: Henry I, King of England (illegit.) Robert "of Caen," Earl of Gloucester = Mabel FitzHamon Maud of Gloucester = Ranulph, 2nd Earl of Chester Hugh, 3rd Earl of Chester = Bertrada de Montfort Agnes of Chester = William de Ferrers, 4th Earl of Derby William de Ferrers, 5th Earl of Derby = Sibyl Marshal Joan de Ferrers = Sir Robert Aguillon Isabel Aguillon = Hugh, Lord Bardolf Margery Bardolf = Sir Michael Poynings Thomas, Baron Poynings = Agnes de Rokesle Michael, Baron Poynings = Joan ___, widow of Sir John Molyns Alice Poynings = Sir Andrew Bures Andrew Bures = Alice Spencer Andrew Bures = Catherine Shiltenne William Bures = Elizabeth Rowse William Bures = Joan ____ (? Markham) Robert Bures = Joan Bucke [daughter] Bures = Robert or Thomas King (Or William King?) Judith King = Bishop Aylmer

Do I presume correctly that Neil McGuinan suggests an Irish descent for Crínán, (lay-)abbot of Dunkeld? Hans Vogels Op maandag 27 juni 2016 04:53:50 UTC+2 schreef taf: > A few weeks ago I mentioned here an article presenting a curious pedigree of the Earls of Northumbria, by Neil McGuigan. I have since found his 2015 St. Andrews thesis, which covers the 'kings' and earls of Northumbria between the Viking deluge and the post-Norman-Conquest pacification. > > In addition to Northumbria itself, he addresses some peripheral aspects, notably including an appendix on Maldred MacCrinan, father of earl Gospatric. Among other things, he addressed the lack of an explicit statement that his father Crinan is the same as the Crinan, father of king Duncan. He makes the observation that Crinan is not that common of a name, and that it would be a big coincidence of one Crinan was well enough placed to marry the daughter of the king of Scotland, while a completely different Crinan was well enough placed to marry his son to the granddaughter of the king of England. > > At any rate, if anyone is interested here is a link to the pdf: > > https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/7829/NeilMcGuiganPhDThesis.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y

Thank you for the clarification. I am also reminded that I forgot to include the link to the Google Books preview of AR: https://books.google.com/books?id=XLqEWwa7fT8C&pg=PA211&dq=Thomas+heigham+catherine+cotton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz9PuTu9DNAhWK1B4KHcRoC7EQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Thomas%20heigham%20catherine%20cotton&f=false J.B. Threlfall discussed the Cottons, including Thomas Heigham and Margaret Cotton, in his 1970 "The Ancestry of My Children" and then in greater detail in his 1988 "The Ancestry of Thomas Bradbury (1611-1695) and His Wife Mary (Perkins) Bradbury (of Salisbury" (again, I have no access to these).

On 6/30/2016 5:02 AM, WJH via wrote: > I think we can all agree that most Wikis are rubbish in the medieval period, that this is due to poor "management" and too many "copiers without understanding and "importers of gedcoms". This statement is very misleading, unless you replace the word "most" by "all". If you disagree, it would be interesting to know of a genealogy Wiki that is not rubbish for the medieval period. Personally, I would be unable to identify an example even if the qualifying words "in the medieval period" were removed. > The question is whether the response is to create a new "pure" wiki project or to try and improve one or all of those already available (in which case there's the question of "which one?"). > > My basic hypothesis is that for those who are interested in sharing what they know (i.e. not Denis by the sound of it), the second route makes more sense. In my opinion, it is unlikely that the second route will ever lead to anything better than "not quite as bad as it used to be." Even if it were possible (which would require a method that corrects errors faster than they are being introduced), the labor involved in cleaning up these messes would be much more than just starting from scratch. Of course, no large project could ever be error-free. However, the only reasonable way of producing something of real value is to keep the number of errors to a minimum from the very beginning. Whether a new VERY strictly managed "wiki" or something else is the best way of doing this is unclear. As has been pointed out, any such project would need to attract knowledgeable genealogists. In my experience, the better genealogists do not particularly care for the "cleaning up other people's messes" approach to genealogical research. > This is not to denigrate those who want to retain control / ownership of "their" work, merely saying that almost by definition, they are not likely to find the wiki ethos of "intellectual commons" congenial. > > Having said that, the history of trade and intellectual property rights shows that generally knowledge expands fastest when barriers are lowest, which brings the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. > > I assumed when I joined the group that its main reason for existing was to share knowledge: something I'm all for. In that regard it's ironic that the two posts I've made asking for information / guidance on specifics have not received a single post in reply... However, this thread seems to be generating more heat than light. > > So, to turn Denis' question round: why would anyone outside its existing "community" want to contribute to this board? Its not just about "ownership" rights, but also (and more important to me) in taking pride in one's work. I have already seen too many cases where someone has copy-pasted my work and then butchered it in various ways. People doing higher quality work might be less reluctant to contribute material to a project managed by individuals competent to deal with such material. Stewart

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 10:13:28 AM UTC-7, Matt A wrote: > On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > This will be brief and down-and-dirty, as I can't devote much time to it. > > > > The 5th Annual Supplement to the NEHGR, entitled, rather pompously, the "American Ancestors Journal," 167 (2013): 366-79, discusses the Aylmer ancestry behind Mr. Theophilus1 Hone, an immigrant to Virginia. The wife of his ancestor, John Aylmer (1521-1594), Bishop of London, is stated to be "JUDITH (KING) TREHERON, born about 1541, died 17 December 1618, aged 77. ... She was the daughter of Robert King of Audley End, Essex, and widow of Nathaniel Treheron/ Treherne." The footnote to this gives the following: "_Oxford Dictionary of National Biography_, 3:22, says she was 'Judith Bures alias King of Suffolk, daughter of Robert King.' Metcalfe, _Visitations of Hertfordshire_, 141, says she was 'Judeth, da. of Robert King of Audley End, co. Essex,' ..." > > > > John Strype's biography of Bishop Aylmer gives another variation: "He married Judith, the daughter of Bures, or Buers, a good house in Suffolk, being entitled the Bures of Bures. Joan, a daughter of Robert Bures, Esq. was married to Thomas King, a good family in the same county; and after to Sir John Buck, Knight, about the year 1530." > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=eg-D_I0Y6SkC&pg=PA114&dq=%22sir+john+buck%22+bures&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQsYq0_s_NAhUI4CYKHQl1AHsQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22sir%20john%20buck%22%20bures&f=false > > > > The mention of Joan Bures is a bit confusing, but my feeling is that Strype thinks she was a sister of Judith Bures who married Bishop Aylmer. Note however, the names King and Buck, said to be husbands of Joan Bures. > > > > _Miscellanea genealogica et heraldica and the British Archivist_, ser. 3, v.4 (1902), 164-66, is a long and confusingly constructed pedigree which seems to be the basis for the claims about Judith Bures or Judith King: > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=l1tIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA166&dq=%22buers+a+nonne%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0u6G-gdDNAhXBNiYKHY-RAJcQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=%22buers%20a%20nonne%22&f=false > > > > It shows a daughter of Robert de Buers, ".... Buers, a nonne [nun], after ye Suppression of ye howse mar' to .... Kinge, late Abbot of Walden. [His arms are given, then a statement about their child ...] (by whom ..., dr [ie., a daughter], mar' to John Aylmer, bishop of London)." Below this is a recap which is a little easier to read: "A dau', mar' to John Elmer, late B.B. [? Bishop] of London." > > > > I read this as stating Robert Buers or Bures had a daughter who was a nun, who, after the Suppression of the monasteries, married to ___ King, also an ex-religious, by whom she had a daughter who married Bishop John Elmer/ Aylmer. > > > > Note that the pedigree shows the nun's mother as "Jane, dau' of ... Bucke." > > > > Thus it is looking like Strype's Joan Bures, the wife of Thomas King and Sir John Bucke, was actually the mother of Judith King alias Bures, not her sister. > > > > The placement of Bucke is wrong, anyway. I found a source in Spanish which spells it out the clearest: "Robert Bures caso con Joan, hija de Robert Buck de Moryeves Manor, Suffolk, Gentilhombre, y Johan nacida Heigham, su mujer." > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=gcllAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22robert+bures%22+stourton&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=buck > > > > It also seems Sir John Bucke was two generations further back in the pedigree, not the second husband of Joan Bures who married Robert or Thomas King, as this old book implies: > > > > These Buckes residing for the moft part at West-Stanton, and Herthill in Yorkshire, and match'd into the Families of Strelley or Stirely of Woodhall, Thorpe, Tilney (then of Lincolnshire), and Savill, by which we have much noble Kindred; Sir John Bucke for his Service to the House of York, especially at Bosworth, lost his head at Leicester; He married the Daughter of Henry Savill, by whom he had Robert Bucke and other Children, who were brought into the Southern Parts by Thomas Duke of Norfolk, where they have remain'd ever fince; for the Children (being Orphans) were left in miserable Estate by the Attainder of their Father; But the Duke bestow'd two Daughters [of Sir John Bucke] in Marriage, one with the Heir of Bucke, the Other, with the Heir of Fitz-Lewis, very ancient Families, from which Matches divers Honourable and Noble Persons are descended. The Sons [of John Bucke] were, one a Souldier, the other a Courtier, the third, a Priest; afterward the Duke bestow'd Robert Bucke, the Eldest Son at Melford-Hall in Suffolk, and married him into the Families of Higham and Cotton ... > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=Gn5cAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA545&dq=%22john+bucke%22+1485&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTgPWKs87NAhVLziYKHfXfB6UQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=%22john%20bucke%22%201485&f=false > > > > Once again, mention of a Robert Bucke married to Heigham or Higham, the Heighams being kin of the Cotton family > > > > So it looks like the actual descent of Judith _may_ run, subject, of course, to further proof: > > > > Sir John Bucke, d. 1485 = ----- Saville > > > > Robert Bucke = Joan Heigham > > > > Joan Bucke = Robert Bures > > > > [daughter] Bures = Robert or Thomas King > > > > Judith King = Bishop Aylmer > > Joan Heigham's parents are Clement Heigham and Joan Cotton, according to Burke's Landed Gentry, 1850, vol.3, p.159 (https://books.google.com/books?id=9NDTAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA159&dq=Robert+Bucke+Joan+Heigham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPkoHVjtDNAhVImx4KHQADBOIQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Robert%20Bucke%20Joan%20Heigham&f=false). Similarly, in a discussion of the ancestry and American immigrant kinships of Sophie, Countess of Wessex in Nexus, Vol. 16 (1999) (https://books.google.com/books?id=SAQQAQAAMAAJ&dq=clement+heigham+joan+cotton&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22clement+heigham%22), Clement Heigham and Joan Cotton are said to be siblings of the Thomas Heigham and Catherine Cotton of Roberts' RD500, p.461. Though I don't have access to RD500, Weis' Ancestral Roots (1992), p.211, sets forth a descent from the Counts of Namur (and therefore Charlemagne) through Milicent of Rethel and Robert Marmion. RD600 cites AR as its source for the descent through Milicent of Rethel.

On 30/06/16 11:02, WJH wrote: > I think we can all agree that most Wikis are rubbish in the medieval period, that this is due to poor "management" and too many "copiers without understanding and "importers of gedcoms". > > The question is whether the response is to create a new "pure" wiki project or to try and improve one or all of those already available (in which case there's the question of "which one?"). > This is jumping to a conclusion that a wiki is the best format. The original proposal was for a fairly simple list of people. Wiki is no longer alone as a means of building collaborative data structures and for something which is essentially a list, of even a collection of lists of related data from different types of document, it might not be the most appropriate, it's simply that it's the one which is probably most familiar to those in this group. It might be a boring, old-fashioned ITer's approach to development but it might be best to start out deciding on scope, then on requirements, then on the data format that the requirements dictate and finally work out how to put it on line. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > This will be brief and down-and-dirty, as I can't devote much time to it. > > The 5th Annual Supplement to the NEHGR, entitled, rather pompously, the "American Ancestors Journal," 167 (2013): 366-79, discusses the Aylmer ancestry behind Mr. Theophilus1 Hone, an immigrant to Virginia. The wife of his ancestor, John Aylmer (1521-1594), Bishop of London, is stated to be "JUDITH (KING) TREHERON, born about 1541, died 17 December 1618, aged 77. ... She was the daughter of Robert King of Audley End, Essex, and widow of Nathaniel Treheron/ Treherne." The footnote to this gives the following: "_Oxford Dictionary of National Biography_, 3:22, says she was 'Judith Bures alias King of Suffolk, daughter of Robert King.' Metcalfe, _Visitations of Hertfordshire_, 141, says she was 'Judeth, da. of Robert King of Audley End, co. Essex,' ..." > > John Strype's biography of Bishop Aylmer gives another variation: "He married Judith, the daughter of Bures, or Buers, a good house in Suffolk, being entitled the Bures of Bures. Joan, a daughter of Robert Bures, Esq. was married to Thomas King, a good family in the same county; and after to Sir John Buck, Knight, about the year 1530." > > https://books.google.com/books?id=eg-D_I0Y6SkC&pg=PA114&dq=%22sir+john+buck%22+bures&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQsYq0_s_NAhUI4CYKHQl1AHsQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22sir%20john%20buck%22%20bures&f=false > > The mention of Joan Bures is a bit confusing, but my feeling is that Strype thinks she was a sister of Judith Bures who married Bishop Aylmer. Note however, the names King and Buck, said to be husbands of Joan Bures. > > _Miscellanea genealogica et heraldica and the British Archivist_, ser. 3, v.4 (1902), 164-66, is a long and confusingly constructed pedigree which seems to be the basis for the claims about Judith Bures or Judith King: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=l1tIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA166&dq=%22buers+a+nonne%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0u6G-gdDNAhXBNiYKHY-RAJcQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=%22buers%20a%20nonne%22&f=false > > It shows a daughter of Robert de Buers, ".... Buers, a nonne [nun], after ye Suppression of ye howse mar' to .... Kinge, late Abbot of Walden. [His arms are given, then a statement about their child ...] (by whom ..., dr [ie., a daughter], mar' to John Aylmer, bishop of London)." Below this is a recap which is a little easier to read: "A dau', mar' to John Elmer, late B.B. [? Bishop] of London." > > I read this as stating Robert Buers or Bures had a daughter who was a nun, who, after the Suppression of the monasteries, married to ___ King, also an ex-religious, by whom she had a daughter who married Bishop John Elmer/ Aylmer. > > Note that the pedigree shows the nun's mother as "Jane, dau' of ... Bucke." > > Thus it is looking like Strype's Joan Bures, the wife of Thomas King and Sir John Bucke, was actually the mother of Judith King alias Bures, not her sister. > > The placement of Bucke is wrong, anyway. I found a source in Spanish which spells it out the clearest: "Robert Bures caso con Joan, hija de Robert Buck de Moryeves Manor, Suffolk, Gentilhombre, y Johan nacida Heigham, su mujer." > > https://books.google.com/books?id=gcllAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22robert+bures%22+stourton&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=buck > > It also seems Sir John Bucke was two generations further back in the pedigree, not the second husband of Joan Bures who married Robert or Thomas King, as this old book implies: > > These Buckes residing for the moft part at West-Stanton, and Herthill in Yorkshire, and match'd into the Families of Strelley or Stirely of Woodhall, Thorpe, Tilney (then of Lincolnshire), and Savill, by which we have much noble Kindred; Sir John Bucke for his Service to the House of York, especially at Bosworth, lost his head at Leicester; He married the Daughter of Henry Savill, by whom he had Robert Bucke and other Children, who were brought into the Southern Parts by Thomas Duke of Norfolk, where they have remain'd ever fince; for the Children (being Orphans) were left in miserable Estate by the Attainder of their Father; But the Duke bestow'd two Daughters [of Sir John Bucke] in Marriage, one with the Heir of Bucke, the Other, with the Heir of Fitz-Lewis, very ancient Families, from which Matches divers Honourable and Noble Persons are descended. The Sons [of John Bucke] were, one a Souldier, the other a Courtier, the third, a Priest; afterward the Duke bestow'd Robert Bucke, the Eldest Son at Melford-Hall in Suffolk, and married him into the Families of Higham and Cotton ... > > https://books.google.com/books?id=Gn5cAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA545&dq=%22john+bucke%22+1485&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTgPWKs87NAhVLziYKHfXfB6UQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=%22john%20bucke%22%201485&f=false > > Once again, mention of a Robert Bucke married to Heigham or Higham, the Heighams being kin of the Cotton family > > So it looks like the actual descent of Judith _may_ run, subject, of course, to further proof: > > Sir John Bucke, d. 1485 = ----- Saville > > Robert Bucke = Joan Heigham > > Joan Bucke = Robert Bures > > [daughter] Bures = Robert or Thomas King > > Judith King = Bishop Aylmer Joan Heigham's parents are Clement Heigham and Joan Cotton, according to Burke's Landed Gentry, 1850, vol.3, p.159 (https://books.google.com/books?id=9NDTAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA159&dq=Robert+Bucke+Joan+Heigham&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPkoHVjtDNAhVImx4KHQADBOIQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Robert%20Bucke%20Joan%20Heigham&f=false). Similarly, in a discussion of the ancestry and American immigrant kinships of Sophie, Countess of Wessex in Nexus, Vol. 16 (1999) (https://books.google.com/books?id=SAQQAQAAMAAJ&dq=clement+heigham+joan+cotton&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22clement+heigham%22), Clement Heigham and Joan Cotton are said to be siblings of the Thomas Heigham and Catherine Cotton of Roberts' RD500, p.461. Though I don't have access to RD500, Weis' Ancestral Roots (1992), p.211, sets forth a descent from the Counts of Namur (and therefore Charlemagne) through Milicent of Rethel and Robert Marmion.

Also in the same source: "El Obispo Aylmer se habia casado con su prima hermana Judith King, hija del religioso y la monja como se dijo anteriormente. La primera funcion del Rev. Isaiah Bures fue en Isleworth, de donde fue vicario desde 1577 hasta 1586-7." So, apparently, _Revista de estudios históricos_ from around 1985 should have more on this topic.

The Spanish source appears to contain this sentence: "William King, su futuro esposo, era en ese tiempo religioso de la Abadía de Walden, Essex, suprimida en 1537." https://books.google.com/books?id=gcllAAAAMAAJ&q=%22william+king+su+futuro+esposo%22&dq=%22william+king+su+futuro+esposo%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE1762m9DNAhXJFz4KHQUvC8wQ6AEIHDAA So perhaps the King father of Judith was William King.

This will be brief and down-and-dirty, as I can't devote much time to it. The 5th Annual Supplement to the NEHGR, entitled, rather pompously, the "American Ancestors Journal," 167 (2013): 366-79, discusses the Aylmer ancestry behind Mr. Theophilus1 Hone, an immigrant to Virginia. The wife of his ancestor, John Aylmer (1521-1594), Bishop of London, is stated to be "JUDITH (KING) TREHERON, born about 1541, died 17 December 1618, aged 77. ... She was the daughter of Robert King of Audley End, Essex, and widow of Nathaniel Treheron/ Treherne." The footnote to this gives the following: "_Oxford Dictionary of National Biography_, 3:22, says she was 'Judith Bures alias King of Suffolk, daughter of Robert King.' Metcalfe, _Visitations of Hertfordshire_, 141, says she was 'Judeth, da. of Robert King of Audley End, co. Essex,' ..." John Strype's biography of Bishop Aylmer gives another variation: "He married Judith, the daughter of Bures, or Buers, a good house in Suffolk, being entitled the Bures of Bures. Joan, a daughter of Robert Bures, Esq. was married to Thomas King, a good family in the same county; and after to Sir John Buck, Knight, about the year 1530." https://books.google.com/books?id=eg-D_I0Y6SkC&pg=PA114&dq=%22sir+john+buck%22+bures&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQsYq0_s_NAhUI4CYKHQl1AHsQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22sir%20john%20buck%22%20bures&f=false The mention of Joan Bures is a bit confusing, but my feeling is that Strype thinks she was a sister of Judith Bures who married Bishop Aylmer. Note however, the names King and Buck, said to be husbands of Joan Bures. _Miscellanea genealogica et heraldica and the British Archivist_, ser. 3, v.4 (1902), 164-66, is a long and confusingly constructed pedigree which seems to be the basis for the claims about Judith Bures or Judith King: https://books.google.com/books?id=l1tIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA166&dq=%22buers+a+nonne%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0u6G-gdDNAhXBNiYKHY-RAJcQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=%22buers%20a%20nonne%22&f=false It shows a daughter of Robert de Buers, ".... Buers, a nonne [nun], after ye Suppression of ye howse mar' to .... Kinge, late Abbot of Walden. [His arms are given, then a statement about their child ...] (by whom ..., dr [ie., a daughter], mar' to John Aylmer, bishop of London)." Below this is a recap which is a little easier to read: "A dau', mar' to John Elmer, late B.B. [? Bishop] of London." I read this as stating Robert Buers or Bures had a daughter who was a nun, who, after the Suppression of the monasteries, married to ___ King, also an ex-religious, by whom she had a daughter who married Bishop John Elmer/ Aylmer. Note that the pedigree shows the nun's mother as "Jane, dau' of ... Bucke." Thus it is looking like Strype's Joan Bures, the wife of Thomas King and Sir John Bucke, was actually the mother of Judith King alias Bures, not her sister. The placement of Bucke is wrong, anyway. I found a source in Spanish which spells it out the clearest: "Robert Bures caso con Joan, hija de Robert Buck de Moryeves Manor, Suffolk, Gentilhombre, y Johan nacida Heigham, su mujer." https://books.google.com/books?id=gcllAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22robert+bures%22+stourton&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=buck It also seems Sir John Bucke was two generations further back in the pedigree, not the second husband of Joan Bures who married Robert or Thomas King, as this old book implies: These Buckes residing for the moft part at West-Stanton, and Herthill in Yorkshire, and match'd into the Families of Strelley or Stirely of Woodhall, Thorpe, Tilney (then of Lincolnshire), and Savill, by which we have much noble Kindred; Sir John Bucke for his Service to the House of York, especially at Bosworth, lost his head at Leicester; He married the Daughter of Henry Savill, by whom he had Robert Bucke and other Children, who were brought into the Southern Parts by Thomas Duke of Norfolk, where they have remain'd ever fince; for the Children (being Orphans) were left in miserable Estate by the Attainder of their Father; But the Duke bestow'd two Daughters [of Sir John Bucke] in Marriage, one with the Heir of Bucke, the Other, with the Heir of Fitz-Lewis, very ancient Families, from which Matches divers Honourable and Noble Persons are descended. The Sons [of John Bucke] were, one a Souldier, the other a Courtier, the third, a Priest; afterward the Duke bestow'd Robert Bucke, the Eldest Son at Melford-Hall in Suffolk, and married him into the Families of Higham and Cotton ... https://books.google.com/books?id=Gn5cAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA545&dq=%22john+bucke%22+1485&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTgPWKs87NAhVLziYKHfXfB6UQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=%22john%20bucke%22%201485&f=false Once again, mention of a Robert Bucke married to Heigham or Higham, the Heighams being kin of the Cotton family So it looks like the actual descent of Judith _may_ run, subject, of course, to further proof: Sir John Bucke, d. 1485 = ----- Saville Robert Bucke = Joan Heigham Joan Bucke = Robert Bures [daughter] Bures = Robert or Thomas King Judith King = Bishop Aylmer

On 30/06/2016 4:30 AM, pauloricardocanedo2 via wrote: > Em terça-feira, 28 de junho de 2016 01:02:30 UTC+1, Peter Stewart escreveu: >> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 11:40:20 PM UTC+10, taf wrote: >>> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:41:59 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Well the genealogist seems to be Edd Man do you ever heard of him. >>> Let's go at this a different way. Addressing whether Ed Mann is >>> competent to reach a definitive conclusion on the question takes us a >>> step away from the issue. Ay time it becomes a question of the >>> genealogists rather than of the evidence, we are making it about >>> modern peope rather than about medieval people. >> Though I agree with this up to a point, I don't think Ed Mann's competence has been put at issue in this thread. >> >> The poster apparently found the information in a post from Ed and asked if he was a known authority, not whether he was definitively right on the specific matter. >> >> I replied that Ed was a diligent "gatherer", reflecting on his methodology but not implying anything about his competence. >> >> In my view a "gatherer" may be as capable as a "hunter" of resolving such a problem as this - the "gatherer" may know the primary evidence quite adequately at second hand, and may also know more about differing analyses of it than a "hunter" who has found it directly and thought about it from only one perspective. >> >> The secondary literature of medieval genealogy (including the archive of this newsgroup) has plenty of examples where old errors have been made anew by "hunter" researchers who did not gather that someone else had already corrected a mistake. >> >> Peter Stewart > Well I know Ed Mann uses in some of his genealogical notes the connection William the Conqueror-Gundreda that is much more unlikely than the connection Millicent de Rethel-William de Camville.. Maintaining the William the Conqueror-Gundreda connection is not just unlikely - it is positively foolish. If this appears as fact in Ed Mann's notes, why do you need to wonder in public how useful these may be to you as an authority on any other question? I suggest you might try carting out your own rubbish bins without asking your neighbours for moral support. Peter Stewart

Em quarta-feira, 29 de junho de 2016 22:55:54 UTC+1, Peter Stewart via escreveu: > On 30/06/2016 4:30 AM, pauloricardocanedo2 via wrote: > > Em terça-feira, 28 de junho de 2016 01:02:30 UTC+1, Peter Stewart escreveu: > >> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 11:40:20 PM UTC+10, taf wrote: > >>> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:41:59 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Well the genealogist seems to be Edd Man do you ever heard of him. > >>> Let's go at this a different way. Addressing whether Ed Mann is > >>> competent to reach a definitive conclusion on the question takes us a > >>> step away from the issue. Ay time it becomes a question of the > >>> genealogists rather than of the evidence, we are making it about > >>> modern peope rather than about medieval people. > >> Though I agree with this up to a point, I don't think Ed Mann's competence has been put at issue in this thread. > >> > >> The poster apparently found the information in a post from Ed and asked if he was a known authority, not whether he was definitively right on the specific matter. > >> > >> I replied that Ed was a diligent "gatherer", reflecting on his methodology but not implying anything about his competence. > >> > >> In my view a "gatherer" may be as capable as a "hunter" of resolving such a problem as this - the "gatherer" may know the primary evidence quite adequately at second hand, and may also know more about differing analyses of it than a "hunter" who has found it directly and thought about it from only one perspective. > >> > >> The secondary literature of medieval genealogy (including the archive of this newsgroup) has plenty of examples where old errors have been made anew by "hunter" researchers who did not gather that someone else had already corrected a mistake. > >> > >> Peter Stewart > > Well I know Ed Mann uses in some of his genealogical notes the connection William the Conqueror-Gundreda that is much more unlikely than the connection Millicent de Rethel-William de Camville.. > > Maintaining the William the Conqueror-Gundreda connection is not just > unlikely - it is positively foolish. > > If this appears as fact in Ed Mann's notes, why do you need to wonder in > public how useful these may be to you as an authority on any other > question? I suggest you might try carting out your own rubbish bins > without asking your neighbours for moral support. Well even if Ed Mann uses some false connections in some of his works it doesn´t mean the other works he does are wrong.

I think we can all agree that most Wikis are rubbish in the medieval period, that this is due to poor "management" and too many "copiers without understanding and "importers of gedcoms". The question is whether the response is to create a new "pure" wiki project or to try and improve one or all of those already available (in which case there's the question of "which one?"). My basic hypothesis is that for those who are interested in sharing what they know (i.e. not Denis by the sound of it), the second route makes more sense. This is not to denigrate those who want to retain control / ownership of "their" work, merely saying that almost by definition, they are not likely to find the wiki ethos of "intellectual commons" congenial. Having said that, the history of trade and intellectual property rights shows that generally knowledge expands fastest when barriers are lowest, which brings the greatest benefit to the largest number of people. I assumed when I joined the group that its main reason for existing was to share knowledge: something I'm all for. In that regard it's ironic that the two posts I've made asking for information / guidance on specifics have not received a single post in reply... However, this thread seems to be generating more heat than light. So, to turn Denis' question round: why would anyone outside its existing "community" want to contribute to this board? Regards James

On Thursday, 30 June 2016 08:01:41 UTC+1, John Watson wrote: > On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 16:47:38 UTC+1, neilmo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 1:35:34 AM UTC, John Watson wrote: > > > Dear Robert, > > > > > > Here is a brief overview of the Mowbray family of Easby, Yorkshire as > > > I have it at the moment. If you need any specific sources, I'd be > > > happy to oblige. If you have any sources for Joan Wateby and her third > > > husband William Newsome of York, I'd be interested to see them. Their > > > daughter Maud (d. 1457), who married firstly Sir John Hotham (d. 30 > > > Sep 1419) is one of my ancestors. > > > > > > 1. William Mowbray of Easby in the parish of Stokesley, Yorkshire (ca. > > > 1275 - ca. 1320) > > > William de Mowbray married before 1310 Agnes, widow of Alan Baudewyne > > > [Baldwin]. On 1 April 1312, Alan Romund came before the king, on > > > Saturday in Easter week, and sought to replevy to William de Moubray > > > and Agnes his wife their land in Brunton-on-Swale, taken into the > > > king's hands for their default against against Olive, late the wife of > > > Walter Gill. On 20 November 1316, William de Moubray and Ralph de > > > Lestre were appointed to levy and take to York the 80 quarters of > > > wheat and 120 of oats which they were ordered to purvey in the > > > wapentake of Langebergh, Yorkshire. William was dead by 1320 and had > > > been succeeded by his elder son Thomas de Mowbray of Easby to whom a > > > debt was acknowledged on 13 January 1320. > > > > > > William Mowbray and Agnes had two sons, Thomas and John. > > > > > > 2a. Thomas Mowbray of Easby (ca. 1310 - 1377) first son of William > > > Mowbray and Agnes, married Alice. > > > On 1 May 1329, he described himself as a great-grandson of William de > > > Mowbray in a gift to Guisborough Priory "Willelmi de Moubray, proavi > > > ipsius Thomae, cujus haeres ipse est". The deed also names his wife as > > > Alice, "Thomam de Moubray et Alicia uxor ejus". In 1330 Thomas, son of > > > John de Hertford sued Thomas, son of William de Moubray for a messuage > > > and 140 acres of land and six acres of meadow and half a mill in > > > Barton near Melsamby. In 1348, the Prior of Guisbrough claimed against > > > Thomas de Moubray that he should acquit him of the service which the > > > Bishop of Durham requires for the free tenement which the Prior holds > > > of Thomas in Kepewyk. The will of Thomas Mubray of Esby in Cleveland > > > is dated 15 November 1377 and was proved on 21 November 1377. > > > John, son of Thomas was the ancestor of the later Mowbrays of Easby, > > > who seem to have died out in the late 1400s. > > > > > > 2b. Sir John Mowbray, (ca. 1315 - ca. 1373) second son of William > > > Mowbray and Agnes, married Margaret, daughter of Sir Alexander Percy > > > of Ormesby and Sneaton and his wife Julian. > > > "Johanne filio Willelmi de Moubray" was witness to a gift to > > > Guisborough Priory in 1347. In 1352, William, son of Sir Ivo de > > > Aldeburgh, gave to John, son of William de Moubray and Margaret, his > > > wife, his manor of Aldeburgh, in Richmondshire. On 11 July 1359 John > > > Moubray was appointed as a justice of the Bench. > > > > > > Sir John Mowbray and Margaret Percy had three sons, Alexander, William > > > and John (a clergyman). > > > > > > 3a. Sir Alexander Mowbray, (ca. 1330 - 1370) first son of John Mowbray > > > and Margaret Percy married Elizabeth de Musters, daughter of Henry de > > > Musters of Treswell, Nottinghamshire and Kirklington, Yorkshire and > > > his second wife, Elizabeth Thornhill. > > > > > > On 20 August 1355, Sir John de Musters (grandfather of Elizabeth) > > > granted by charter to John son of William Moubray and Alexander his > > > son and to Elizabeth daughter of Henry de Musters, now Alexander's > > > wife, all his manor of Kirtelyngton and all his lands in Syndreby. In > > > September 1367, Alexander son of John Moubray and Elizabeth his wife, > > > granted the manor of Kirklington to Sir John Moubray his father, for > > > life. On 6 February 1370, a commission of oyer and terminer was > > > ordered on information that many evildoers came to Kirtlyngton co,. > > > York, in array of war, broke the manse of the manor of John de Moubray > > > one of the justices of the Bench, while he was in the king's > > > protection, ravished and carried away Elizabeth late the wife of > > > Alexander Moubray, 'chivaler,' his son, took away goods of the said > > > John, and assaulted, wounded and imprisoned his men and servants. > > > Elizabeth later married the man who had abducted her - John de > > > Wandesford of Westwick, Yorkshire. > > > > > > Alexander Mowbray and Elizabeth Musters had two children, Alexander > > > and Elizabeth (see below). > > > > > > 3b. Sir William Mowbray, (ca. 1335 - 1391) second son of John Mowbray > > > and Margaret Percy married firstly, Ellen and secondly Margaret > > > Chaumont, daughter of John Chaumont, esq. of Colton in Ainsty, > > > Yorkshire and his wife Joan, daughter of Richard Wateby of York. > > > > > > William Mowbray died in 1391, seised of the manor of Barton, > > > Yorkshire, leaving a daughter Eleanor, afterwards wife of Thomas > > > Ingleby, and a widow Margaret. Margaret held the manor in dower until > > > her death in 1419, when it descended to William son of Thomas and > > > Eleanor Ingleby. In the will of William Mowbray of Colton, dated at > > > York on "le dymangue prouchayn avant le fest de Saynt Petre ad > > > vincula, la'n le Roy Richard le secound quynzesme" [26 July 1391] he > > > leaves alms to pray for the souls of his father John Mowbray, Master > > > John Mowbray his brother and Ellen once his wife. He also mentions > > > dame Margaret, his wife, dame Jane Chaumon, her sister, and Elizabeth > > > Gascoigne (daughter of his brother Alexander). > > > > > > William Mowbray and Margaret Chaumont had an only daughter Eleanor, > > > who married Thomas Ingleby of Ripley, Yorkshire. > > > > > > Margaret married secondly, before 25 June 1396, Walter Dallingridge > > > and thirdly William Cheyne. She died before 3 November 1419. > > > > > > 4a. Alexander Mowbray (ca. 1355 - 1380), son of Sir Alexander Mowbray > > > and Elizabeth Musters. > > > Alexander Mowbray married Eleanor in or before 1373. He died childless > > > about 1380 and his heir was his sister Elizabeth. > > > > > > 4b. Elizabeth Mowbray (ca. 1350 - 1396), daughter of Sir Alexander > > > Mowbray and Elizabeth Musters married Sir William Gascoigne of > > > Gawthorpe, Yorkshire, Chief Justice. > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > John > > > > Hello John, after Alice de mowbray/ware died in 1530 england maybe york,yorkshire,would you know (working towards 1600s) I found ursla mowbray married william smthby in 1535. then Nicolas mowbray born 1545 leciestershire (Father) he also had a son John mowbray born 26th august 1565 in birstall,york, yorkshire. Nicolas was lord of easby, york, yorkshire ? after this found a john mowbray in 1580 leciester died 1639 his father and mother was john mowbray 1550-1634, elizabeth emerson 1520-1590, rutland leciester, if you know any more, thanks Neil Mowbray. > > Hi Neil, > > I'm afraid I can't help you very much. I have nothing on the Mowbrays of Easby after Christopher Mowbray 'gentleman' who died in January 1482. I doubt that they have any connection with Mowbrays in Leicestershire, but you never know. > > Regards, > John Dear Neil, I was wondering where you got your information from. It it appears to be a very badly garbled version of the Visitation of London, 1663-5, pedigree of Smithsby, which shows William Smithby of Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire marrying Ursula, daughter of Nicholas Browne of Melton [Mowbray]. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NvwUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA247 Also the will of Roland Emmerson of Stanhope, co. Durham, dated 15 March 1560, which mentions his son-in-law John Mowbray. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6msS60oOxrgC&pg=RA1-PR7&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false Still can't help you. Regards, John

On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 16:47:38 UTC+1, neilmo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 1:35:34 AM UTC, John Watson wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > > Here is a brief overview of the Mowbray family of Easby, Yorkshire as > > I have it at the moment. If you need any specific sources, I'd be > > happy to oblige. If you have any sources for Joan Wateby and her third > > husband William Newsome of York, I'd be interested to see them. Their > > daughter Maud (d. 1457), who married firstly Sir John Hotham (d. 30 > > Sep 1419) is one of my ancestors. > > > > 1. William Mowbray of Easby in the parish of Stokesley, Yorkshire (ca. > > 1275 - ca. 1320) > > William de Mowbray married before 1310 Agnes, widow of Alan Baudewyne > > [Baldwin]. On 1 April 1312, Alan Romund came before the king, on > > Saturday in Easter week, and sought to replevy to William de Moubray > > and Agnes his wife their land in Brunton-on-Swale, taken into the > > king's hands for their default against against Olive, late the wife of > > Walter Gill. On 20 November 1316, William de Moubray and Ralph de > > Lestre were appointed to levy and take to York the 80 quarters of > > wheat and 120 of oats which they were ordered to purvey in the > > wapentake of Langebergh, Yorkshire. William was dead by 1320 and had > > been succeeded by his elder son Thomas de Mowbray of Easby to whom a > > debt was acknowledged on 13 January 1320. > > > > William Mowbray and Agnes had two sons, Thomas and John. > > > > 2a. Thomas Mowbray of Easby (ca. 1310 - 1377) first son of William > > Mowbray and Agnes, married Alice. > > On 1 May 1329, he described himself as a great-grandson of William de > > Mowbray in a gift to Guisborough Priory "Willelmi de Moubray, proavi > > ipsius Thomae, cujus haeres ipse est". The deed also names his wife as > > Alice, "Thomam de Moubray et Alicia uxor ejus". In 1330 Thomas, son of > > John de Hertford sued Thomas, son of William de Moubray for a messuage > > and 140 acres of land and six acres of meadow and half a mill in > > Barton near Melsamby. In 1348, the Prior of Guisbrough claimed against > > Thomas de Moubray that he should acquit him of the service which the > > Bishop of Durham requires for the free tenement which the Prior holds > > of Thomas in Kepewyk. The will of Thomas Mubray of Esby in Cleveland > > is dated 15 November 1377 and was proved on 21 November 1377. > > John, son of Thomas was the ancestor of the later Mowbrays of Easby, > > who seem to have died out in the late 1400s. > > > > 2b. Sir John Mowbray, (ca. 1315 - ca. 1373) second son of William > > Mowbray and Agnes, married Margaret, daughter of Sir Alexander Percy > > of Ormesby and Sneaton and his wife Julian. > > "Johanne filio Willelmi de Moubray" was witness to a gift to > > Guisborough Priory in 1347. In 1352, William, son of Sir Ivo de > > Aldeburgh, gave to John, son of William de Moubray and Margaret, his > > wife, his manor of Aldeburgh, in Richmondshire. On 11 July 1359 John > > Moubray was appointed as a justice of the Bench. > > > > Sir John Mowbray and Margaret Percy had three sons, Alexander, William > > and John (a clergyman). > > > > 3a. Sir Alexander Mowbray, (ca. 1330 - 1370) first son of John Mowbray > > and Margaret Percy married Elizabeth de Musters, daughter of Henry de > > Musters of Treswell, Nottinghamshire and Kirklington, Yorkshire and > > his second wife, Elizabeth Thornhill. > > > > On 20 August 1355, Sir John de Musters (grandfather of Elizabeth) > > granted by charter to John son of William Moubray and Alexander his > > son and to Elizabeth daughter of Henry de Musters, now Alexander's > > wife, all his manor of Kirtelyngton and all his lands in Syndreby. In > > September 1367, Alexander son of John Moubray and Elizabeth his wife, > > granted the manor of Kirklington to Sir John Moubray his father, for > > life. On 6 February 1370, a commission of oyer and terminer was > > ordered on information that many evildoers came to Kirtlyngton co,. > > York, in array of war, broke the manse of the manor of John de Moubray > > one of the justices of the Bench, while he was in the king's > > protection, ravished and carried away Elizabeth late the wife of > > Alexander Moubray, 'chivaler,' his son, took away goods of the said > > John, and assaulted, wounded and imprisoned his men and servants. > > Elizabeth later married the man who had abducted her - John de > > Wandesford of Westwick, Yorkshire. > > > > Alexander Mowbray and Elizabeth Musters had two children, Alexander > > and Elizabeth (see below). > > > > 3b. Sir William Mowbray, (ca. 1335 - 1391) second son of John Mowbray > > and Margaret Percy married firstly, Ellen and secondly Margaret > > Chaumont, daughter of John Chaumont, esq. of Colton in Ainsty, > > Yorkshire and his wife Joan, daughter of Richard Wateby of York. > > > > William Mowbray died in 1391, seised of the manor of Barton, > > Yorkshire, leaving a daughter Eleanor, afterwards wife of Thomas > > Ingleby, and a widow Margaret. Margaret held the manor in dower until > > her death in 1419, when it descended to William son of Thomas and > > Eleanor Ingleby. In the will of William Mowbray of Colton, dated at > > York on "le dymangue prouchayn avant le fest de Saynt Petre ad > > vincula, la'n le Roy Richard le secound quynzesme" [26 July 1391] he > > leaves alms to pray for the souls of his father John Mowbray, Master > > John Mowbray his brother and Ellen once his wife. He also mentions > > dame Margaret, his wife, dame Jane Chaumon, her sister, and Elizabeth > > Gascoigne (daughter of his brother Alexander). > > > > William Mowbray and Margaret Chaumont had an only daughter Eleanor, > > who married Thomas Ingleby of Ripley, Yorkshire. > > > > Margaret married secondly, before 25 June 1396, Walter Dallingridge > > and thirdly William Cheyne. She died before 3 November 1419. > > > > 4a. Alexander Mowbray (ca. 1355 - 1380), son of Sir Alexander Mowbray > > and Elizabeth Musters. > > Alexander Mowbray married Eleanor in or before 1373. He died childless > > about 1380 and his heir was his sister Elizabeth. > > > > 4b. Elizabeth Mowbray (ca. 1350 - 1396), daughter of Sir Alexander > > Mowbray and Elizabeth Musters married Sir William Gascoigne of > > Gawthorpe, Yorkshire, Chief Justice. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > John > > Hello John, after Alice de mowbray/ware died in 1530 england maybe york,yorkshire,would you know (working towards 1600s) I found ursla mowbray married william smthby in 1535. then Nicolas mowbray born 1545 leciestershire (Father) he also had a son John mowbray born 26th august 1565 in birstall,york, yorkshire. Nicolas was lord of easby, york, yorkshire ? after this found a john mowbray in 1580 leciester died 1639 his father and mother was john mowbray 1550-1634, elizabeth emerson 1520-1590, rutland leciester, if you know any more, thanks Neil Mowbray. Hi Neil, I'm afraid I can't help you very much. I have nothing on the Mowbrays of Easby after Christopher Mowbray 'gentleman' who died in January 1482. I doubt that they have any connection with Mowbrays in Leicestershire, but you never know. Regards, John

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 8:30:31 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart via wrote: > Philippe Zalmen Ben-Nathan in *Annales du Midi* 114 (2002) cogently > proposed that the brothers Bertrand I and Sicard VI of Lautrec were > actually sons of Frotard III, . . . > http://www.persee.fr/doc/anami_0003-4398_2002_num_114_239_2777. Thanks for this - I was unaware that Persee has almost the entire run of Annales de Midi available. (For those unfamiliar with it, there have been numerous influential genealogical studies in this periodical over the course of its 100+ years of publication - although the first one I lit upon, working backwards, has a blatant error in its concluding chart, giving Raymond I of Ribagorza and Pallars two wives that he did not marry: one married his son, the other was invented by Levi Provencal through the misdating of a reference to brothers-in-law in an Al-Andalus chronicle.) taf