UPDATED VERSION - Ignorance, False Promises and Pseudoscience: Is This Profit Promotion of DNA Fiction by Senior Genealogists? https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10154293905191424&id=261975771423

On Thursday, December 11, 2003 at 7:48:51 PM UTC-7, Kevan Barton wrote: > Folks, > > Is there a list of known medieval connections to early New France (Quebec) > settlers? If so, would you be so kind as to share it, or let me know > where it is? > > Cheers, > Kevan Hi Kevan, I have 2 leads in my family. My grandmother on my father's side is a Courville dite De Billy. I have the generations back into france with them. I was always told there was a connection there to a king. Which one, I'm not too sure. Antoine De Billy, s/o Jean De Billy and Jeanne De Puiseux, married on Feb. 21, 1402/03 to Pernelle De Villiers, d/o Jean de Villiers and Jeanne de Vallengoujart. Pernelle was supposed to be the cousin to a king... I have been trying to find the cousin link, but still do not know where it is exactly. On the other hand, my great grandmother on my mother's side was a Beauchamp who married into the Belanger line. I have gone back down the Beauchamp line to 1560, and from there I hit a wall. So I tried coming back from the first Beauchamp in France. One went to fight in England with William duke of Normandy. He and his family became very wealthy. The daughter of Thomas Beauchamp, the then Earl of Warwick, married 3 times her name was Marguerite Beauchamp. She had children with her first husband, and a daughter with the last one. The daughter was Margaret Beaufort, her father was the earl of Beaufort. She became the mother of King Henry VII and the grandmother to Henry VIII. I am looking to see who came back to france to form my great grandmother's line, but I have been hitting walls for a long time. So, now you know of at least 2 families that came west. I also have Abraham Martin's line since his daughter married a "Ratie"(Rate) and a son of hers Pierre Rate had a daughter who married into my mother's line the Paradis. I have the Paradis line, back into France in 1575, and the Martin line to about 1451 in Germany with Viet Martin. My father's line is the "Dubois" line. I go back to 1645 in St.Hilaire-Foissac in what is now Bas-Limousin. So, if you wish you can contact me at... madlady6250@gmail.com. I will help all I can. Good luck with your searches. Nicole Dubois

On 27/06/2016 6:40 AM, Jeanie Roberts via wrote: > Hello to all, > > My name is Jeanie Roberts and this is my first message to this list. I have just begun researching my ancestors in this era and the learning curve is very steep. I have done a lot of research on my Great Migration ancestors from the 16th and 17th centuries, but have not ventured to far back until know. I am hoping this list can help me. > > I am currently researching William de Say the husband of Beatrix de Mandeville, sister of Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex. I am looking for any solid evidence of his ancestry. I have seen multiple sites that have Geoffrey de Say and Hawise de Lucy as his parents. I also found a book called Early Yorkshire Charters Vol. 7 The Honor of Skipton, which suggests that his parents were Jordan de Say and his wife Lucy de Rumilly. > > Does anyone have any information, one way or the other? > I don't know of any new information that has come to light since this puzzle was discussed in *Early Yorkshire Charters* - the early history of the seigneurs of Say is very uncertain. Katherine Keats-Rohan in *Domesday Descendants* asserts that William was the son of Jordan and Lucy de Rumilly, but she did not cite any source to prove this beyond question: she seems to have assumed as definite that the Jordan de Say who made a grant to Eynsham on the day his son William was buried there must have been the man married to Lucy, though this is not established. Peter Stewart

Cameron has illegitimate descendancy while Johnson has legitimate descendancy. David Samuelsen On 6/26/2016 10:16 AM, Olivier wrote: > Royal link between Cameron and Johnson : > > http://geneanjou.blog.lemonde.fr/2016/06/24/grande-bretagne-dun-premier-ministre-au-suivant/ >

On 28/06/2016 10:56 AM, taf via wrote: > On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:02:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > >>> 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. Any time it becomes a question of the >>> genealogists rather than of the evidence, we are making it about >>> modern people 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. >> > I was just using Ed as a proxy for the general issue - which is the more important question: 1) what has a past genealogist concluded (whoever that may be) and are they to be believed, or 2) what do the data say? What I want to impress on paulorica is that one is better off focusing on the evidence rather than what others in the past have concluded, perhaps with less information, perhaps with less current information, perhaps with a poor understanding of the underlying principles. > > Here we have discussed the evidence, so it is a backwards step to turn focus away from the evidence and instead look to what genealogists have concluded, whether they be hunters or gatherers. > This is the point up to which I agree - and the same applies to primary sources: what matters is all the available evidence (direct and circumstantial), rather than just what any person (including a medieval one) has written. Most primary sources only record what was believed or concluded by someone at a point closer to the facts than we are today, while not necessarily knowing these facts as thoroughly or examining them as carefully as may be possible today. Peter Stewart

To my knowledge, no new evidence has surfaced regarding the parentage of Anne du Hérisson since the publication of our article “Les Le Neuf: état des connaissances” in 2000. A review of the available evidence at that time suggested that she was probably the illegitimate daughter of Michel Le Neuf, sieur du Hérisson. I would say that is where the case still lies.

No, both are via descents "on the wrong side of the blanket." http://vademecumgenealogy.blogspot.ca/2012/02/london.html On 28/06/2016, W David Samuelsen via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Cameron has illegitimate descendancy while Johnson has legitimate > descendancy. > > David Samuelsen > > On 6/26/2016 10:16 AM, Olivier wrote: >> Royal link between Cameron and Johnson : >> >> http://geneanjou.blog.lemonde.fr/2016/06/24/grande-bretagne-dun-premier-ministre-au-suivant/ >> > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Hello Group I am new to this group and have both of the ladies above in my lines through the Yeo family. I see there have been previous discussions on the parentage of both these ladies but the messages I have seen were posted quite a few years ago and I have been unable to find whether the matters were ever resolved If anyone can advise me on this I would be most grateful.

Yah, it didn't necessarily look right. I think I got confused by the two Robert Marmions with wives Millicent.

On Tuesday, 28 June 2016 06:11:41 UTC+1, Bradley Johnson wrote: > Hello to the members within the Google Medieval Group. I am searching for some information about the ancestors of Baroness Elizabeth Berkeley Betteshorne. Baroness Elizabeth Berkeley Betteshorne was married to John Saint Owen. Her husband John Saint Owen was the son of John Saint Owen and Joan Tyrell. > > Any information and sources about Elizabeth Berkeley Betteshorne's ancestors and I will appreciate it. Hello Bradley, There was no such person as "Baroness Elizabeth Berkeley Betteshorne". No one in the medieval period was ever referred to as a baroness. The wife of a knight was known as Dame or Lady (domina). A) Do you mean Elizabeth Bettesthorne the first wife of Sir John Berkeley, of Beverstone, Gloucestershire (died 5 March 1428). She was the daughter and sole heir of Sir John de Bettesthorne of Sopley, Hampshire, who died on 6 February 1399 by his wife Goda (died after 1399), widow of John de de Cormeilles. Sir John de Bettesthorne was the son of Roger de Bettesthorne (died before 1349) and his wife Margaret, daughter of John de Mere and Eleanor his wife. Margaret died on 9 June 1349. Roger de Bettesthorne was the son of Walter de Bettesthorne. B) or, do you mean, Elizabeth Berkeley, daughter of Sir John Berkeley, of Beverstone, Gloucestershire and his first wife Elizabeth Bettesthorne. She married firstly, as his second wife, before 1408, Edward Cherleton, Lord Cherleton who died s.p.m. on 14 March 1421. She married secondly John Sutton, Lord Dudley, who died on 30 September 1497. She died in December 1478. (CP, iii, 162, & iv, 480). There is no connection with a family of St. Owen, whoever they are. You should stop believing this rubbish that you find in internet pedigrees. Regards, John See: 'Parishes: Minstead', in A History of the County of Hampshire: Volume 4, ed. William Page (London, 1911), pp. 635-638. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/hants/vol4/pp635-638 [but note that there was only one John de Bettesthorne, not two] M. C. B. Dawes, H. C. Johnson, M. M. Condon, C. A. Cook and H. E. Jones, 'Inquisitions Post Mortem, Richard II, File 102', in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Volume 17, Richard II (London, 1988), pp. 402-417. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol17/pp402-417 J. E. E. S. Sharp, E. G. Atkinson, J. J. O'Reilly and G. J. Morris, 'Inquisitions Post Mortem, Edward III, Files 100 and 101', in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Volume 9, Edward III (London, 1916), pp. 248-275 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol9/pp248-275 'Parishes: Thruxton', in A History of the County of Hampshire: Volume 4, ed. William Page (London, 1911), pp. 387-391. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/hants/vol4/pp387-391

This post reconsiders the Aucher family of Losenham, Kent, of interest, not least, because the Auchers are ancestors of Jeremy Clarke of Newport RI and a goodly number of Virginia families. Over the past hundred-odd years, accounts of the Aucher family in journals and handbooks have relied upon the 1619 visitation of Kent [Harleian Society 42: 180-181] which starts the pedigree with Nicholas Aucher; the 1574 visitation [Harleian Society 74: 24-25] offers a shorter tree starting at Henry Aucher and his two wives Isabell Towne and Mary Saint Leger. The pedigrees are spare on dates till later generations. Here is the standard pedigree: 1. Nicholas Aucher of Losenham [in Newenden], Kent Nicholas Aucher married -----: ----- Oxenbridge, daughter of ----- Oxenbridge of Brede, Sussex 2. Henry Aucher of Losenham [in Newenden], Kent Henry Aucher married -----: Elizabeth Digges, daughter of John Digges and Juliane de Northwode 3. Henry Aucher of Losenham [in Newenden], Kent Henry Aucher married first -----: Isabel atte Towne Henry Aucher married second -----: Joan Saint Leger, daughter of Thomas Saint Leger of Otterden, Kent 4. Thomas Aucher of Losenham [in Newenden], Kent; son of father’s first marriage Recent research offers grounds for substantial revision of the pedigrees. It has been placed on the web [http://knightlyfamilies.com/intro3.htm] by Ana Luppertz. Her industry has turned up most of the records that follow. I have taken much from her website, expanded her short citations, and added several comments. This tentative new pedigree seriously calls into question the Oxenbridge and Digges marriages, and, with the Digges marriage, the Aucher descent from the Magna Carta surety Geoffrey de Say. The connections between the generations are not invariably self-evident in the records. I hope others will offer evidence which will confirm or disprove each step of the pedigree. It adds several generations. While there is further research to be done on earlier generations, I have tackled the pedigree from Nicholas onward. 1. Nicholas Aucher; fl 1301/2; alive 1336 Nicholas Aucher married -----: Petronilla de Cassingham, son of Ralph de Cassingham 2. Henry Aucher; son of Nicholas Aucher and Petronilla de Cassingham; born -----; fl 1317; dead 5 October 1330; dvp Henry Aucher married -----: Isabella Alard, daughter of Henry Alard of Winchelsea, dead 1348 3. Henry Aucher; son of Henry Aucher and Isabel Alard; born -----; fl 1339-1340; died -----; dead 1373 Henry Aucher married -----: Elizabeth -----, born -----, died -----, alive 1390 4. Henry Aucher; son of Henry Aucher and Elizabeth -----; born -----; fl 1375 Henry Aucher married [1362-1367] -----: Alice -----, daughter of ----- and Margaret de Knelle 5. Henry Aucher son of Henry Aucher and Alice -----: born -----, died -----, dead 1422 Henry Aucher married first -----: Isabel atte Towne Henry Aucher married second -----: Joan de St Leger who married by 1422 Robert Capys 6. Thomas Aucher; son of Henry Aucher and Isabel atte Towne; born -----; fl 1424; died ca 1450 Thomas Aucher married -----: ----- **Generation 1** I have found no evidence other than the visitation that Nicholas Aucher married an Oxenbridge. A century later, around 1400, Auchers and Oxenbridges show up together in a fair number of records, but not a century before. The evidence that Nicholas Aucher married Petronilla de Cassingham was printed in Robert Furley, A History of the Weald of Kent, two volumes in three, (London and Ashford, 1871-1874): 2/1: 201-205. (Unfortunately the crucial page 203 is blurred in the internet archive copy.) Those pages cite a quo warranto proceeding of 3 Edward II [1309-1310] concerning Archbishop Winchelsea’s trees in Kent: “And the Archbishop by his attorney says that before the aforesaid grant of the aforesaid St. Edmund, his predecessor, and afterwards, the trees growing in the said land always belonged to the predecessors of him, the Archbishop, and likewise to himself, to be felled at their pleasure....The jurors say upon their oath that the oaks and beeches growing in the aforesaid 120 acres of land are the trees of him, the Archbishop, and that he and his predecessors from time immemorial were wont to fell trees growing in the aforesaid land, and to sell [them] at their pleasure, without impedime! nt of complaint from the aforesaid Nicholas and Petronilla, Bertram and Benedicta, or their ancestors. And if any trespass has been done in the aforesaid woods by the aforesaid Nicholas and Bertram, or by any others, the same Archbishop and his predecessors received amends therefor.....They say also, that the aforesaid defendants have by force and arms felled 362 oaks and beeches in the aforesaid land to the damage of him, the Archbishop, in 118 marks, 6 shillings, and 8 pence. They say also that the aforesaid Nicholas, Bertram, and the others have cut down no other trees of his, the Archbishop’s elsewhere than in the afroesaid 120 acres of land.” Nicholas’ marriage to the Cassingham co-heiress explains how the Aucher came to hold the Cassingham manor of Keinsham in Rolveden. Nicholas was likely of age 1301/2 when he witnessed a quitclaim of Sir Robert de Passeleye and his son Edmund to Richard le Waleys III 24 February 1301/2 [TNA, GLY/1339]. Nicholas was alive in 1336 when he complained that he had been assaulted by Edmund son of Edmund Haclut, knight, John son of Henry Tyks of Rochester, and others, which led to a commission of oyer and terminer 4 May 1336 [Calendar of the Patent Rolls; Edward III; 1334-1338: 290] This would also give the Aucher family a descent from a folk hero of the war against Prince Louis 1216-1217: See G. R. Stephens, “A Note on William of Cassingham”, Speculum 16/2 (April 1941): 216-223. **Generation 2** Henry was born, say, 1290-1300. The marriage of Henry to Isabel Alard is set out in a number of fines: 1) Henry son of Nicholas Aucher and Isabell daughter of Henry Alard of Winchelsea [by Martin German her guardian), plaintiffs, and Robert son of John Alard, efendant of one messuage, 500 acres land, 100 acres meadow, 100 acres wood in Newenden; right of Robert, who grants to Henry and Isabella and to his heirs by her; quinzaine of St Martin 11 Edward II [25 November 1317] [Archaeologia Cantiana 14 (1882): 246 #555] Henry son of Nicholas Aucher [Auchier] and Isabel daughter of Henry Alard of Winchelsea (by Martin German her keeper), plaintiffs, Robert son of John Alard defendant; for one messuage, 140 acres of land, 22 acres of meadow, 6 acres of wood, etc, in Waltham Holy Cross, which Richard de Forsham holds for life of the demise of the defendant; Henry acknolwedged the tenement to be the right of the defendant; the defendant granted the reversion to the plaintiff and the heirs of Henry of the body of Isabel to hold of the chief lords, remainder to the right heirs of Henry; this agreement was made in the presence of Richard and he did fealty; Michaelmas term 11 Edward II [1317] [R. Kirk, Feet of Fines for Essex, seven volumes, (Colchester, 1913-1928) 2 (1272-1326): 180 #641] Henry and Isabelle Aucher [Augier] conveyed land of some sosrt to Priory of St Barbe in Normandy [Amadée Louis Léchaudé d’Anisy, Extrait des Chartes et autres actes Normands ou Anglo-Normands qui se trouvent dans les archives de Calvados, two volumes, (Caen, 1834-1835) 1: 138] Henry was dead 5 October 1330 when his widow and sister made a fine: Isabella, who was the wife of Henry Aucher, of Lossenhamme, plaintiff, and Agnes daughter of Nicholas Aucher, defendant; one messuage, one garden, 115 acres land 11 acres wood, etc, in Rolveden; right of Agnes who grants to Isabella for her life; after death of Isabella to remain to her son Henry and the heirs of his body; Octave of St Michael 4 Edward III [5 October 1330] [Archaeologia Cantiana 20 (1893): 161-162 #97 Isabel died shortly before 10 August 1348. She and her neighbor had rallied support for dikes and water works in their neighborhood since 1336. In keeping with ongoing work on those project, she was reported dead. [Calendar of patent rolls; Edward III; 8 (1348-1350): 177-178] **Generation 3** Henry was born 1317-1330. He was dead 1373. It’s hard to tell whether he was of full age or not when he was required, for 40 shillings of land he held in Gosetrow, to find an archer to defend against invasion. The record refers to him, not by name, but as “The heire of Henry Auchere” [“Muster Roll for the Rape of Hastings 13 Edward III [1339-1340], [Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica 7 (1841): 118-128 at 120.] By 1346-1347 he was given his name in the assessments to knight the Black Prince. He held land in the hundred of Tenterden, half a knight’s fee with Stephen de Forsham in Maytham which William Barry had held; another quarter knight’s fee in Maytham Nichlas had held of John Malmains [presumably part of the Cassingham inheritance]; and quarter knight’s fee in Losenham which Nicholas Aucher had held of Ralph Saint Leger; [James Greenstreet, “Assessments in Kent for the Aid to Knight the Black Prince, Anno 20 Edward III, Archeologia Cantiana 10 (1876): 99-162 at 139-140]. He was alive 14 October 1367 when Sir Piers de Brewes, knight, Henry Auger, William Stantton clerk, William Olmestede, and Robert Covert, chaplain, made acquittance to William Taillour of Rye; [East Sussex Record Office RYE/137/5]. He was dead 1373-1374 when his widow Elizabeth, late the wife of Henry Auchier of co. Kent, conveyed lands in Waltham Holy Cross to John Hokkele and Matthew Langrich of London; [TNA, E/210/1942 and E/210/3288 = Ancient Deeds, series D] She was alive 25 November 1390 when she leased her dower rights to her son Henry: “Elizabeth who was wife of Henry Auchier to Henry son and heir of Henry Auchier. Indenture of lease of her estate in the manors of Lossenham, Godenne and Cassyngham and lands, rents, and services in Kent which the said Elizabeth and her husband held to them and thei heirs of their bodies, the manor of Lovedale (by them likeswise held) excepted, rendering to her and her assigns for term of her life £40 a year in the cathedral church of St Paul London, power being reserved to enter and hold all the premises in her first estate if the rent shall be one month in arrear, or in case the lessee shall without her assent alien the same or any parcel thereof to any man in fee or for life, or make waste therein, or shall die in her life time, or shall allege in bar of her or her assigns any acquittance or release save on under her seal; dated London 25 November 14 Richard II [1390]; 25 November 1390"; [C! alendar of the Fine Rolls; Richard II; 4 (1389-1392): 297] Luppertz concludes that Henry Aucher married Elizabeth Talbot because, on 10 July 1372, Gilbert Talbot, knight, gave his sister Elizabeth Aucher, William Mulscho clerk, and William de Halden a yearly rent of £10 of his lands in Upton and Denton in Huntingdonshire [Calender of Close Rolls; Edward II; 13 (1369-1374): 452]. It strikes me as unlikely that Gilbert Talbot’s sister was the wife of Henry Aucher. If so, it would have been the only time in generations before and after that an Aucher had married outside his neighborhood in Kent and Sussex. Possibly the Talbots of Richard’s Castle had interests in west Kent, but, if so, the records do not show any association with the Aucher family. Nor is it clear that Elizabeth was Gilbert’s own sister. Douglas Richard, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005): 694 notes that John Talbot of Richard’s Castle had three children: John, Gilbert, and Joan wife of Ralph Parles. Possibly Elizabeth was a fourth. Possibly a sister-in-law? In any case she could hardly have been Elizabeth Digges. This Elizabeth’s son was of age in 1390, so born by 1369. This meant that Elizabeth herself was born by, say, 1353. This would make her of an age with Elizabeth Digges' parents. According to Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005): 282, Elizabeth Digges’ grandparents John de Northwode and Joan Hert married ca 1350, so again this Elizabeth would have been the age of Elizabeth Digges’ mother. **Generation 4** Since he was married by 1375, Henry Aucher was born by 1360 and possibly as early as the 1340s. It is unclear when he died. He married -----: Alice -----, daughter of ----- and Margaret de Knelle His brother John married -----: Joan -----, daughter of ----- and Margaret de Knelle A pedigree in the pleas rolls show that Henry married Alice and his brother John married Joan, both daughter of Margaret de Knelle, granddaughters of Edmund de Knelle, great-granddaughters of Matthew de Knelle and his wife Margaret. Their father’s name was not given, but they were half-sisters of William de Welles, party to their suit. Their mother Margaret de Knelle had married as her second husband his father William de Welles; [George Wrottesley, Pedigrees from the plea rolls (-----, 1905): 120 [quote De Banco roll. Hilary term 49 Edward III, m.314]] In 1389, both Henry, as heir of his father, and his brother John conveyed land in Waltham Holy Cross to Matthew Langridge and his wife Margaret: John Aucher, son of Henry Aucher esquire (armigeri) to Matthew Langrich and his wife Margaret; quitclaim with warranty of a moiety of all lands etc in Waltham Holy Cross late of Henry his father, and sometime of Robert son of John Allarde, which moiety came by inheritance to the said Margaret after the death of William Hatfeld her father, who purchased the same of John Bradegate and his wife Joan sister and one of the heirs of Thomas de Bradegate, and is in possession of the said Matthew and margaret by a partition dated the feast of Trinity 6 Richard II, made between them on the one part and Joan Bradegate, Alice Bradegate, Robert Catour and his wife Amice, the daughters and heirs of Margaret sister and the other heir of Thomas Bradegate; dated 12 May 12 Richard II [1389]; Henry Aucher, son and heir of Henry Aucher esquire to Matt! hew Langrich and Margaret his wife, their heirs and assigns, quitclaim and warranty, dated 4 April 12 Richard II [1389]; [Calendar of Close Rolls; Richard II; 3 (1385-1389): 672] **Generation 5** Here the records blur. There is no clear proof when Henry husband of Alice died and his son Henry husband of Isabel and Joan came into the family land. This Henry was dead 9 July 1422 when his second wife had remarried: There is no clear record, other than the visitation pedigrees, of his marriage to Isabel atte Towne. Joan Saint Leger’s son Henry Aucher confirmed an estate to his step-father Robert Capys in 1438, which record refers to an earlier charter to Capys and his wife Joan, mother of Henry, dated 9 July 1422: Henry Aucher esquire to Robert Capys and his assigns; confirmation indented of their estate in the manor of Esthalle and the island of Elmele, whereof among other things Robert Capys and Joan his wife, mother of the said Henry whose heir he is, were seised by charter dated 9 July 1 Henry VI [1422] as their freehold for their lives and the life of the longest liver, by demise of John Wodehous esquire, etc, by name of a messuage and 400 acres of marsh in Elmeley co. Kent.; dated Friday after Midsummer 16 Henry VI [ca 29 June 1438]; [Calendar of the Close Rolls; Henry VI; 3 (1435-1441): 452] His son Thomas was recorded as holding land in 18 June 1424 [East Sussex Record Office FRE/6969]. That record does not indicate whether Thomas had attained his majority or just his inheritance. A final concord in 1429 between John More and Thomas Aucher, and Simon Burdon and his wife Johanna, shows that he had come of age [TNA, CP 25/1/114], so Thomas was born by 1408. Happy to know of other records that confirm, enhance, disprove, or cast doubt upon the puzzle pieces above. Scott Swanson sswanson@butler.edu

On 27/06/2016 10:41 PM, pauloricardocanedo2 via wrote: > Em terça-feira, 21 de junho de 2016 01:10:54 UTC+1, Peter Stewart escreveu: >> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 4:29:28 AM UTC+10, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> We can´t be sure the line breaks down we don´t have enough information >>> to say who is the mother of William but the genealogists seem to >>> support Millicent. >> Who are the genealogists whose support for Millicent impresses you? >> >> For at least 100 years there has been direct evidence in print that Richard de Camville married twice (his own charter for Jumièges, dated 1170, naming both wives). >> >> This supplemented indirect evidence long known that at least his eldest son Gerard was apparently too old to have been Millicent's son (her first husband was killed in 1143/44 according to William of Newburgh, whereas Richard founded Combe abbey in 1150 with the assent of his son and heir Gerard ("quod et feci concessu et favore ... filii mei et hæredis Gerardi"). The same charter refers to Richard's children ("pro salute animæ meæ et uxoris meæ, liberorumque meorum") but the only family members witnessing the donation were his son Gerard and his brother Hugo - from this it could be arguable that Gerard's younger brother William was perhaps Millicent's son, still a child in 1150, but any genealogist working after the publication of Dugdale's Monasticon who failed to consider the alternative is probably not a reliable authority. >> >> Peter Stewart > Well the genealogist seems to be Edd Man do you ever heard of him. > > Ed Mann used to participate in Gen-Med discussions - as far as I recollect, he was a diligent "gatherer" of information from secondary works rather than a "hunter" investigating primary sources. A search of the newsgroup archive should tell you if the question was ever explicitly raised when he was active in the newsgroup. If it was, I would be surprised if Ed had argued in support of Millicent as the mother of William beyond acknowledging this as an unlikely possibility on the available evidence. Peter Stewart

Hello to the members within the Google Medieval Group. I am searching for some information about the ancestors of Baroness Elizabeth Berkeley Betteshorne. Baroness Elizabeth Berkeley Betteshorne was married to John Saint Owen. Her husband John Saint Owen was the son of John Saint Owen and Joan Tyrell. Any information and sources about Elizabeth Berkeley Betteshorne's ancestors and I will appreciate it.

Hello to the members in the Medieval Group. I am searching for information regarding about Margaret Lingen. Margaret Lingen, She was married to Thomas Downton. Thomas Downton, He was the son of Roger Downton and Joan Saint Owen. I have seen many entries about Margaret Lingen's ancestors and also about of how that she is related to Thurstin "The Fleming" Wigmore. However, I do not know if this is correct. However, any information and sources regarding about the ancestors of Margaret Lingen and I will appreciate it.

Dear Newsgroup ~ Complete Peerage 12(1) (1953): 773–775 (sub Tony) includes an account of Robert de Tony, Knt., Lord Tony, who died in 1309. Regarding his widow, Maud of Strathearn, the following information is provided: "His widow, who was assigned dower, 30 May 1310, was living, 1339-40, and died before 1348." END OF QUOTE. The following Common Pleas lawsuit indicates that Maud, widow of Robert de Tony, died testate sometime before Easter term 1342: In Easter term 1342 Edmund de Gonevill, parson of the church of Rushworth, Norfolk, and William Peterk [Patryke], parson of the church of Little Cressingham, Norfolk, executors of the will of Maud, widow of Robert de Tony, sued John Hersyk, Knt. in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £10. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/330, image 563f (available at http://‌aalt.law.uh.edu/‌AALT1/‌E3/‌CP40no330/‌aCP40no330fronts/‌IMG_0563.htm). + + + + + + + + + + Sir Robert de Tony, Lord Tony, and his wife, Maud of Strathearn, had no children. However, Sir Robert de Tony's sister and heiress, Alice de Tony, has many modern descendants. For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Alice de Tony and her 2nd husband, Guy de Beauchamp, Knt., 10th Earl of Warwick: Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey, Charles Barnes, Christopher Batt, Anne Baynton, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William Bernard, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Joseph Bolles, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Giles, George & Robert Brent, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, Matthew Clarkson, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, James Cudworth, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, William Farrer, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Thomas Greene, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Edmund, Edward, Richard, & Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Nathaniel Littleton, Anne Lovelace, Henry, Nicholas and Jane Lowe, Percival Lowell, Thomas Lunsford, Simon Lynde, Agnes Mackworth, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, John West, Hawte Wyatt. The following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Alice de Tony and her 3rd husband, William la Zouche Mortimer, Knt., 1st Lord Zouche of Richard's Castle: Dannett Abney, Walter Aston, Nathaniel Browne, Charles Calvert, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, Henry Corbin, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Katherine Hamby, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Elizabeth Marshall, Thomas Owsley, Mary Johanna Somerset, Samuel & William Torrey, Olive Welby. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:02:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > > 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. Any time it becomes a question of the > > genealogists rather than of the evidence, we are making it about > > modern people 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. > I was just using Ed as a proxy for the general issue - which is the more important question: 1) what has a past genealogist concluded (whoever that may be) and are they to be believed, or 2) what do the data say? What I want to impress on paulorica is that one is better off focusing on the evidence rather than what others in the past have concluded, perhaps with less information, perhaps with less current information, perhaps with a poor understanding of the underlying principles. Here we have discussed the evidence, so it is a backwards step to turn focus away from the evidence and instead look to what genealogists have concluded, whether they be hunters or gatherers. taf

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

On 27/06/16 10:08, Matt Tompkins wrote: > > Yes, those early 14C pledgors do sound like part-time low-level village lawyers. I'll send the article direct. Thanks. A most interesting read. John Kay, the man I'm most interested in in the years about 1300, was also a burgess of Wakefield and in a number of cases, sued, apparently on his own behalf, others. In fact he was the creditor for a stone and 2lb of wool at 5s a stone in the case where another pledgor lost because his principal didn't turn up (having checked the original the unfortunate victim was surety which presumably was distinct from being a pledge in court). On the other hand he was, like many other tenants, fined for offences such as having his pigs in the parks of Alverthorpe. It's clear he held customary land. He was fined for not attending the election of the grave of Wakefield being a tenant of villein [nativa] land (the office seems to have gone in strict rotation amongst certain holders of villein land despite the formality of an election). He was elected and refused the office, his land was then seised into the lord's hand. He eventually fined to retain his land, relieved of some of his services including the graveship, at an increased rent. His refusal might have been a consequence of his age and possible infirmity as he was probably aged about 70 by then and died not long afterwards. There were other land deals one of which went sour about the time of his death which enabled me to identify his heir, and presumably son, who had to make good. In short, he was a man of varied business dealings as well as holding villein land and acting as a kind of proto-solicitor was one of the several strings to his bow. There's a much later sidelight on the drafting of documents for the court. The C18th diary of Arthur Jessop mentions a meeting with someone who brought the surrender and someone else was then to court it. Presumably "the surrender" was such a draft. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 10:46:20 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 1:08:16 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > How does this reconstruction compare to the original (see second section, below)? > > > > Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter: > > Milicent of Rethel = (1) Robert Marmion; their son: > > [possible additional Marmion generation] > > Geoffrey Marmion = _______; > > Albreda or Aubrey de Marmion = William de Camville; their son: > > William de Camville = Iseuda; their son: > > Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter: > > Milicent of Rethel = (2) Richard de Camville; their son: > > William de Camville = Aubree de Marmion; their son: > > William de Camville = Iseuda; their son: > > I assume this is also incorrect, but thought I would throw it out there, with these links as "sources" (loosely so called): > > Yes, proven incorrect. Millicent of Rethel was not the mother of William de Camville. As I understood it, the question was about the first descent as a replacement for the second. I have two observations. First, there is no way one would expect another generation in the Marmion descent. It would mean that William de Camville would be marrying the granddaughter of his step-brother. Second, while using a strict generational framework can sometimes lead to the wrong result, it can tell you if your reconstruction may be skewed. In this case, Isabel de Camville would be of the same generation as her half-brother William, and likewise of her Marmion half-brothers If William's wife Aubrey was of his generation, then she would be daughter of someone of the generation before his - of the generation of Millicent and not her child. I can't find any detailed study of the family but I find several references to Sir Robert Marmion (d.ca. 1181, son of Millicent) granting Llanstephan to his "uncle" Geoffrey, from whom it passed to Aubrey, wife of William de Camville. Thus it looks like no descent because Aubrey's line branches in the generation before the Rethel marriage. taf

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 1:08:16 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > How does this reconstruction compare to the original (see second section, below)? > > Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter: > Milicent of Rethel = (1) Robert Marmion; their son: > [possible additional Marmion generation] > Geoffrey Marmion = _______; > Albreda or Aubrey de Marmion = William de Camville; their son: > William de Camville = Iseuda; their son: > Thomas = Agnes; their daughter: > Felicia de Camville = Phillip Durvassal; their son: > Thomas Durvassal= Margery; their daughter: > Margery Durvassal = William de la Spine; their son: > William de la Spine = Alice de Bruley; > > Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter: > Milicent of Rethel = (2) Richard de Camville; their son: > William de Camville = Aubree de Marmion; their son: > William de Camville = Iseuda; their son: > Thomas = Agnes; their daughter: > Felicia de Camville = Phillip Durvassal; their son: > Thomas Durvassal= Margery; their daughter: > Margery Durvassal = William de la Spine; their son: > William de la Spine = Alice de Bruley; > > I assume this is also incorrect, but thought I would throw it out there, with these links as "sources" (loosely so called): Yes, proven incorrect. Millicent of Rethel was not the mother of William de Camville.