On 18/06/2016 7:05 AM, robert.thecomputerman via wrote: > I am currently unable to sign in with my regular account, hence this temp. login request. > > I need clarification if the group thinks this to be one person or two or the son of so and so. > > The record is dated to between 1114 -1130 and appears in: Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores: Or, Chronicles and ..., Volume 83 > By Ramsey Abbey > > Here is a link for you to access it quickly. > > https://books.google.ca/books?id=0WlEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=fulco+aschetillus+dispensator&source=bl&ots=vZbZXWt7Ar&sig=fxdClPvg1nlu3Ub8v0xyPq0ehgY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR0aq18q_NAhUGYiYKHWI3C7MQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=fulco%20aschetillus%20dispensator&f=false > > > Is this saying? > > Fulco Aschetillus Dispensator or > > Fulco, Aschetillus Dispensator or > > Fulco & Aschetillus Dispensator. is there were two dispensators witnessing this would they state this some other way for the time period. > > How common would this be for the time period to be shown with 2 different names? Would this person be well known enough to others to warrant inclusion of both his known names, therefore both were included? > > It's difficult to know or if it is just a typo missing a comma. The author or scribe does not seem to make a mistake with any of the other many detailed names appearing in the list. This provides the evidence you are asking for - every witness is listed by his name along with some qualifier ("Ebroinus nepos Abbatis, Willelmus de Hucetona, Hugo interpres ..."). It would clearly disturb this pattern if "Fulco Aschetillus dispensator" did not refer to a single individual. Also, "Aschetillus" would not be in the nominative while "dispensator" would not be nominative and singular if Aschetil was a separate person either related to Fulco or holding the same office. It is extremely unlikely that the editor has mistaken something different in the source (for instance, Fulco filius Aschetillii, dispensator" or "Fulco filius Aschetilli dispensatoris" or Fulco et Aschetillus dispensatores"), as the contractions used for each of these alternatives would be distinct. Peter Stewart

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:17:58 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > > This came from the 2008 RD600 (if I've copied it correctly): > > King Louis IV of France d. 954 = Gerbera dau. Of Henry I the Fowler, German Emperor, their son: > > Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide; their daughter: > > Adelaide of Lower Lorraine = Albert I Count of Namur; their son: > > Albert II Count of Namur = Regelinde of Lower Lorraine; their son: > > Albert III, Count of Namur = Ida of Saxony; their son: > > Geoffrey, Count of Namur = Sybil of Chateau-Porcien: their daughter: > > 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; their son: > > Sir Guy de la Spine/Spinney = Katherine; their daughter: > > Eleanor Spinney = Sir John Throckmorton; their daughter: > > Agnes Throckmorton = Thomas Winslow; their daughter: > > Agnes Winslow = John Giffard; their son: > > Thomas Giffard = Joan Langston; their daughter: > > Amy Giffard = Richard Samwell; their daughter: > > Susanna Samwell = Peter Edwards; their son: > > Edward Edwards = Ursula Coles; their daughter: > > Margaret Edwards = Henry Freeman; their daughter: > > Alice Freeman (of Massachusetts and Connecticut) = (1) John Thompson; (2) Robert Parke > > > > I keep asking why the lines back from gateway Alice Freeman are no longer valid. I keep getting answers that this is everyone's understanding except for back to Ethelred II they are gone. > > So could someone tell me where this line breaks down? > > I know some of you don't care for gateways but I haven't found another newsgroup that really deals effectively going back. So here I am again. > > Thank you scholars, researchers, historians, for all your help. > > Cynthia Montgomery > > Now that I understand that the Camville line breaks down because the mother of William de Camville isn't Milicent de Rethel but instead Richard de Camville's first wife Alice, does anyone have evidence who this Alice is? What is the evidence for the identity of the wives of the two William de la Spines in this pedigree?

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > This came from the 2008 RD600 (if I've copied it correctly): > King Louis IV of France d. 954 = Gerbera dau. Of Henry I the Fowler, German Emperor, their son: > Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide; their daughter: > Adelaide of Lower Lorraine = Albert I Count of Namur; their son: > Albert II Count of Namur = Regelinde of Lower Lorraine; their son: > Albert III, Count of Namur = Ida of Saxony; their son: > Geoffrey, Count of Namur = Sybil of Chateau-Porcien: their daughter: > 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; their son: > Sir Guy de la Spine/Spinney = Katherine; their daughter: > Eleanor Spinney = Sir John Throckmorton; their daughter: > Agnes Throckmorton = Thomas Winslow; their daughter: > Agnes Winslow = John Giffard; their son: > Thomas Giffard = Joan Langston; their daughter: > Amy Giffard = Richard Samwell; their daughter: > Susanna Samwell = Peter Edwards; their son: > Edward Edwards = Ursula Coles; their daughter: > Margaret Edwards = Henry Freeman; their daughter: > Alice Freeman (of Massachusetts and Connecticut) = (1) John Thompson; (2) Robert Parke > > I keep asking why the lines back from gateway Alice Freeman are no longer valid. I keep getting answers that this is everyone's understanding except for back to Ethelred II they are gone. > So could someone tell me where this line breaks down? > I know some of you don't care for gateways but I haven't found another newsgroup that really deals effectively going back. So here I am again. > Thank you scholars, researchers, historians, for all your help. > Cynthia Montgomery Now that I understand that the Camville line breaks down because the mother of William de Camville isn't Milicent de Rethel but instead Richard de Camville's first wife Alice, does anyone have evidence who this Alice is?

> It looks to me that in this timeframe (and other periodes elsewhere) when it was not frowned upon being illegitimate or being a natural child or a bastard (some were even proud), for the person concerning it did not matter what he/she did or what became of him/her because he/she was not a legal child of his parents. > > Some were lucky and found a marriage partner on the same social (illegitimate of noble descent level) or a marriage partner with a commoner or stayed unmarried with or without illegitimate offspring. Their outlook stayed the same, they were less then their legal kinsman. Maybe my Dutch outlook is tainted on this Scottish period. The status and prospects of the illegitimate depended too on the status of the mother. Some fathers really cared about their offspring and others are only known to have fathered an child that gets mentioned once or twice and disappears from records. > > Hans Vogels

Op vrijdag 17 juni 2016 18:22:12 UTC+2 schreef ravinma...@yahoo.com: > (2) Christian Stewart was in fact a daughter of the Earl of Orkney, older than her half-sister Christian Stewart, spouse of John Mouat/ Mowat. It is possible that the 1564 reference to Grizel Stewart, dau. of Robert, feuar, "apparent spouse" to Adam Mudie, is a mistake for CHRISTIAN Stewart. Could it be that Christian alias "Grizel" and Adam were unmarried but living together? Perhaps there was a marriage impediment that prevented them getting married. That could explain the "apparent". Being "unmarried" Christian Stewart could later, when her relation with Adam failed, have married John Mowat. It looks to me that in this timeframe (and other periodes elsewhere) when it was not frowned upon being illegitimate or being a natural child or a bastard (some were even proud), for the person concerning it did not matter what he/she did or what became of him/her because he/she was not a legal child of his parents. Some were lucky and found a marriage partner on the same social (illegitimate of noble descent level) or a marriage partner with a commoner or stayed unmarried with or without illegitimate offspring. Their outlook stayed the same, they were less then their legal kinsman. Hans Vogels

Dear James >In that case, why not agree that "experts" will use one of them (after a suitable debate) and focus on that. If you are saying it is is inevitable that all of them will, which I doubt, then of course that is probably being a bit extreme. If you are saying some will then of course no one would disagree. :) >People can still work in small teams and needn't publish their results online until they feel they're ready. Of course. But the question of software is not the same as the question of publishing. You can even have a private wiki, or if you prefer, just use google docs. The point of mentioning that software choice for online collaboration is a relevant question is that I know for a fact that multi-editor collaboration has gotten stuck every time anyone has tried it so far. I believe that things like version control and concern for quality control are often the reasons. Best Regards Andrew

I wrote about this back in February 2003. In any case, it can be found by searching for Alice Freeman. When I talked with Gary Boyd Roberts, he said that the stained-glass windows weren't good evidence,The only stained-glass evidence I can remember are those of the church at Thame, Oxfordshire which related to the Quartermaine family, and didn't as I remember, touch on the Duston issue at all.But I have seen the identical line used for others.  So…….. I would recommend writing a Letter to Gary Boyd Roberts ℅ the New England Historical and Genealogical Society in Boston. He has retired, but they would probably forward it. If I get a chance, I will see if I can dig my notebooks on this line out of storage. Kay Allen    On Thursday, June 16, 2016 4:00 AM, Patrick Nielsen Hayden via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: On 2016-06-15 21:47:47 +0000, Matt A said: > In addition to Ethelred II, Genealogics gives a line from Joan Langston > to Gilbert FitzRichard/de Clare and Adeliza de Clermont and therefore > Hugues Capet. Following up on its citations might be a fruitful lead > for further research. The line from Alice Freeman to Hugues Capet in Genealogics appears to depend on the proposition that William de Duston, paternal grandfather of the Isabel de Duston who married Walter de Grey of Rotherfield, was married to an unknown daughter of Geoffrey Wake, son of Emma de Clare and Hugh Wake. The citation van de Pas gives for this is American Ancestors and Cousins of the Princess of Wales by Gary Boyd Roberts and William Adams Reitwiesner (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1984), where it appears on page 143. However, in the 68th installment of his "Royal Descents, Notable Kin, and Printed Sources" column, subtitled "Notable Descendants of Mrs. Alice Freeman Thompson Parke, RD" (http://www.americanancestors.org/StaticContent/articles?searchby=author&subquery=Gary%20Boyd%20Roberts&id=641), Roberts himself states that Freeman's "Capetian line via, among other families, Wake and Duston, first posited by George Andrews Moriarty, Jr., and dependent on a stained-glass window inscription, is no longer tenable." I don't have references for either Moriarty's original proposition or for its disproof. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden pnh@panix.com about.me/patricknh http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/index.php ------------------------------- 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

Further to my querry, I see in the index, on page 444 the composer of the index seems to indicate this is one person, however I see on page 254 of the same record appearing as an (Ansketillus Dispensator only appears without the "Fulco")and on page 436 described as Aschetilus, or Ansketillus, fulk, the Steward (dispensator). Any thoughts anyone?? Thanks Robert Spencer

I am currently unable to sign in with my regular account, hence this temp. login request. I need clarification if the group thinks this to be one person or two or the son of so and so. The record is dated to between 1114 -1130 and appears in: Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores: Or, Chronicles and ..., Volume 83 By Ramsey Abbey Here is a link for you to access it quickly. https://books.google.ca/books?id=0WlEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=fulco+aschetillus+dispensator&source=bl&ots=vZbZXWt7Ar&sig=fxdClPvg1nlu3Ub8v0xyPq0ehgY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR0aq18q_NAhUGYiYKHWI3C7MQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=fulco%20aschetillus%20dispensator&f=false Is this saying? Fulco Aschetillus Dispensator or Fulco, Aschetillus Dispensator or Fulco & Aschetillus Dispensator. is there were two dispensators witnessing this would they state this some other way for the time period. How common would this be for the time period to be shown with 2 different names? Would this person be well known enough to others to warrant inclusion of both his known names, therefore both were included? It's difficult to know or if it is just a typo missing a comma. The author or scribe does not seem to make a mistake with any of the other many detailed names appearing in the list. Any comments are welcome, your help is appreciated as always. Thanks Robert Spencer

On 6/17/2016 10:35 AM, taf via wrote: > On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 9:10:13 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > >> (With full respect to MEDLANDS, I do think it is wrongly understood by >> many people, and used as a fixed point when it is actually a work in >> progress. > The entire internet is a work in progress, but putting something out there is also 'publishing' it, in this case, publishing it under the auspices of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, which gives the false impression that some sort of editing or fact-checking is taking place or at least that the material has been formally approved by the Foundation. (Many of the citations to Medieval Lands on Wikipedia used to credit it to FMG alone, not even naming Cawley.) There is nothing on your average page view that gives anyone the impression that it is anything but fully elaborated and confirmed genealogy, rather than some kind of preliminary compilation. It is no wonder many people misunderstand it. In addition, the descriptions of the project appearing on the Medieval Lands site itself (abbreviated "ML" here for convenience) seem to actively encourage this type of misunderstanding. In the following comments, quotes preceded by "MLH:" are from the ML Home page and those indicated by "MLI:" are from the ML Inroduction page. MLH: "The approach is to verify information against primary source material, quoting relevant extracts in the original language." In fact, many of the "quotes" appearing in ML are just snippets of Latin which have been inserted (often ungrammatically) into English sentences in a way which obscures or eliminates their original context, and far too often misinterpreting the original statement. MLH: "This has enabled many traditionally accepted relationships to be challenged." Is this really true? If so, it would be interesting to see examples. In reference to the frequent copy-pastes of material from ML appearing on other sites, MLH states: "Please be aware that such unauthorised copies are not updated and may therefore be factually incomplete or inaccurate." I'm not defending the common unauthorized large scale copy-pasting of material by others into their websites, which is a form of plagiarism used only by rank amateurs (of which the "Henry Project" has also been a target), but wouldn't the "factually incomplete or inaccurate" comment also apply to the source from which the material was copy-pasted? MLI: "In this work, the families of rulers and nobility in more than 180 geographical and political entities in medieval Europe, North Africa and western Asia are being reconstructed from scratch. Outline tables on royal and noble families presented in published secondary works, such as the Europäische Stammtafeln series, have provided the basic informational framework into which data from primary sources has been incorporated." Here, we have two mutually contradictory statements about the methodology. If "outline tables" from secondary sources are being used as a framework, then the families are not being reconstructed from scratch. MLI: "The ultimate objective is to verify and correct all secondary source data against primary source material and supplement it with accurate historical background information. The project is on-going, but the eventual result will be a complete encyclopaedia of accurate and reliable historical information which will benefit all medieval historians, professional and amateur." This statement at least contains a rather weak acknowledgement that the project is not complete, but still attempts to portray it as leading to a "complete encyclopaedia of accurate and reliable historical information" without any acknowledgement that the project has in fact introduced many inaccuracies which were not present before it started. MLI (following a heading entitled "New Approach"): "Medieval Lands represents a new approach to the presentation of royal and noble families, and the historical context in which they lived. Most existing published works in the field have two important drawbacks. Firstly, the information, even if complete, is usually limited to dates and outline relationships. Secondly, information is copied from previously published secondary works without adequate verification against primary sources: connections which started life as speculative have been transformed into apparent certainty and errors perpetuated." These statements are misleading in more ways than one. Of course, there are a lot of sources out there which have the drawbacks mentioned in this quote, but the careful verification of genealogical and historical information against primary sources had been around for a long time before Mr. Cawley started his work, at least among the more qualified genealogists and historians, so the claim that this is a "new approach" is troubling. Is the insinuation that this approach is "new" some sort of claim to be THE authority in the field, or was Mr. Cawley simply unaware of the large amount of high-quality scholarship in the field (admittedly often hard to notice among the mass of lesser material)? Also, ML has exactly the same problems as those which were criticized in the above quote. In addition to outright misinterpretations, there are far too many places where unreliable "primary" sources have been quoted, and the almost complete lack of reference to the scholarly literature is not a virtue. MLI: "Medieval Lands aims to present full background material and arguments to explain the basis for postulating relationships. Where a connection is doubtful, the reasoning is discussed in the context of the available source material. Doubtful connections are shown in square brackets." Yet another misleading statement that encourages misinterpretation. Many doubtful claims are not discussed at all, and discussions that do appear are often insufficient. For a source whose goal is to lead individuals to correct information, conventions such as putting doubtful connections in brackets are insufficient without further discussion of the problem. Those who are not aware of the meaning of material in brackets will often misinterpret the reference, and those that are will assume that the absence of brackets means that the information is correct (and there are far too many errors for this assumption to be correct). MLI: "It must be emphasised that many areas still remain to be checked as the research is still incomplete. When consulting the documents, it should be assumed that any information which does not include references to primary source material falls into this category and should therefore be treated with the appropriate caution. One further point is important to emphasise: what Medieval Lands provides is a record that "source X" says "Y". The project is not necessarily taking the next step of concluding that "Y" is therefore factually correct. Given the nature of the sources with which we are dealing in the medieval period, and the various different purposes for which those sources were compiled, the drawing of such conclusions would not always be appropriate." Finally, toward the end of an Introduction which most users are never going to read in full, a few caveats are given. However, it still invites the user to believe that if a reference to a primary source has been included, then the information is correct. It seems to me that both ML and the wiki procedure fall within a flawed methodology which is used by far too many amateur genealogists. What happens is that what is essentially "scratch paper" containing various tidbits about a family is assembled, gradually becoming a "rough draft" which then evolves into what the author believes to be a "finished product." If the author eventually checks each individual "fact" carefully against good primary sources, then this can turn out OK, as long as the original "scratch paper" outline did not contain errors that are easily overlooked (such as the misidentification of individuals). Virtually all genealogists use "scratch paper" (or a digital equivalent) of some sort, but the most proficient ones know that the best approach in making a "rough draft" is to try to avoid errors in the first place, rather than starting with a rough draft full of errors and then trying to remove them all. Of course, the least competent never bother with any kind of fact-checking or documentation, and copy from each other indiscriminantly. The digital sharing of databases and automatic merges have made this even worse, but this is not all of the problem. A large part of the collective genealogical mess is contributed by very intelligent individuals who would make very good (or even outstanding) genealogists if they just bothered to educate themselves on the basics (or realized that they needed to educate themselves), and limited their research to manageable projects. Many such enthusiasts are unaware of the extent to which much of the available material is in fact "scratch paper" disguised as finished product, and help to perpetuate this material, and many of them who might otherwise contribute something useful fall into the lure of having a "large database" which spreads their talents too thin to provide much of use on the difficult earlier periods. That, in my opinion, is the problem with Medieval Lands and with the wikis I have seen. Stewart Baldwin

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 10:53:39 AM UTC-4, Joe wrote: > This line should be broken for both of them here. There are several discussions in the archives regarding Milicent of Rethel. > See this one from earlier this year: > Re: Ancestry of Jeffrey Amherst http://tinyurl.com/glu62ow > > Douglas Richardson wrote then: "Of these children, it would appear that the son Richard and the daughter Isabel (wife of Robert de Harcourt) were the only children by Richard de Camville's 2nd wife, Milicent de Rethel. This is deduced by the fact that Milicent de Rethel's lands at Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire (which she had by grant of her kinswoman, Queen Alice) were held after Milicent's death by the younger Richard de Camville. When the younger Richard de Camville died in 1191, he was succeeded briefly by his son and heir, John. It appears that John de Camville soon died without issue, and the lands at Stanton Harcourt reverted to his father Richard's sister, Isabel de Harcourt or her representative. Had Milicent de Rethel been the mother of the elder Richard de Camville's other sons, Stanton Harcourt would have fallen to them, ahead of Isabel Harcourt. The succession at Stanton Harcourt suggests that the younger Richard de Camville and Isabel de Harcourt were full sublings, and the only children of Milicent de Rethel by the elder Richard de Camville. " > > Joe > > > > >> Someone posted maybe William Camville was son of Richard Camville and his first wife which would negate the Rethel line back. Of course if that would negate it for Alice it should have negated it for Jeffrey Amherst whose line still shows up going through the same son William de Camville (m. Aubree Marmion)of the same couple Milicent of Rethel = Richard de Camville. Thank you. Especially for the plain English explanation and also for the tiny url.

Hi Brad, As you note, there are still two other possibilities in the absence of proof of my suggestion: (1) Christian Stewart, wife of Adam Mudie, was a member of a different Stewart family. (2) Christian Stewart was in fact a daughter of the Earl of Orkney, older than her half-sister Christian Stewart, spouse of John Mouat/ Mowat. It is possible that the 1564 reference to Grizel Stewart, dau. of Robert, feuar, "apparent spouse" to Adam Mudie, is a mistake for CHRISTIAN Stewart. I'm uneasy with the last solution for a number of reasons, including the fact that Adam Mudie did not have his first ecclesiastical appointment until 1577, thirteen years later. There is also the inclusion of the important words "apparent spouse" in the grant. It really does seem as those this was some kind of pre-contract between children or teenagers. Then, the fact that a Grizel, daughter of Robert, was mentioned as engaged to Hugh Sinclair in 1577, makes me feel that this could indeed be the same Grizel from 1564, and that her name was probably correctly stated in 1564. Ruvigny doesn't actually state that Christian Stewart herself was associated with Graemsay properties, just that her son Francis was: "Francis, ... [Adam's] son and heir, is constantly associated and acting with the Stewarts of Graemsay, and appears to have possessed some interest in that property; and, as will be noted later, he married a daughter of the above-named James." Well, yes, there's THAT ...., i.e., his wife was a daughter of James Stewart of Graemsay, hence the possible interest in certain Graemsay properties. While it's not probative in any way, we could note the extreme feud that existed between Patrick, Earl of Orkney (the legit. son of Robert) and Francis Mudie and his mother Christian Stewart. While we don't have any proof that Christian the rocker, daughter of "Lord Coldingham" survived beyond 1567, if she was indeed "a young woman," as assumed by Amy Juhala, she could well be a youthful indiscretion (b. ca. 1550-55) of Lord Darnley (b. ca. 1532). And if she survived to become a "young woman" that means she had escaped the most lethal period of life in this era (early childhood). I agree, she was almost certainly NOT a legitimate child of Lord Darnley and his wife Lady Jean Hepburn. I would say we probably have to assign two illegitimate children to Lord Darnley; (1) Hercules Stewart, executed for "treasonable practices" in 1595, known "base" brother to the Earl of Bothwell; (2) Christiane Stewart, made a rocker of the infant king in 1567. The Bellenden charter of 1568, printed in _Diplomatarium Orcadense Et Hialtlandense_ 1:162-178, concerned property to go to Robert of Orkney and Jean Kennedy's legitimate daughter Mary Stewart. The structure of the reversionary clauses indicates that Robert of Orkney was well-aware of the illegitimate progeny of his father, King James V. On the decease of this Mary Stewart of Orkney, the property went to her brothers-german, Henry and Thomas Stewart, children of Robert, Earl of Orkney, by his spouse Jean Kennedy. Failing these two, it went to Robert and James Stewart, their base brothers, illegitimate sons of Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of Orkney. Failing these, to the Regent James Stewart, Earl of Moray, elder illegitmate brother of said Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of Orkney. Failing the Earl of Moray and heirs legitimate, then to Sir Francis Stewart, only a young child, "son and heir of the deceased John, Lord Darnley." Failing Sir Francis Stewart and heirs, then to Robert Stewart, "natural brother" to Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of Orkney (i.e., another illegitimate son of James V). https://books.google.com/books?id=AhchAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA173&dq=%22Francis+Stewart+son+and+heir+of+the+deceased%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvo9axtq_NAhWIOCYKHXXmD8oQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=%22Francis%20Stewart%20son%20and%20heir%20of%20the%20deceased%22&f=false The structure of the reversionary grants implies an intimate knowledge of the existence of these heirs and (probably) of their ages respective to one another. It seems Robert of Orkney would have known of Sir Francis Stewart's natural brother Hercules and natural sister Christiane, as well. John P.S. The reason for assigning Barbara Stewart, wife of Henry Halcro, to Lord Adam Stewart is that his tombstone in St. Magnus, Kirkwall, Orkney, is stated to have been built by "domina de Halcro," ie., this same Barbara: https://books.google.com/books?id=l5RnAAAAMAAJ&q=%22henry+halcro%22+barbara&dq=%22henry+halcro%22+barbara&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt09L6kJ7NAhWHOCYKHTOFCLMQ6AEIRDAH If she raised his tomb, she was likely his daughter, not daughter of his brother, the Earl of Orkney.

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 9:10:13 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > (With full respect to MEDLANDS, I do think it is wrongly understood by > many people, and used as a fixed point when it is actually a work in > progress. The entire internet is a work in progress, but putting something out there is also 'publishing' it, in this case, publishing it under the auspices of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, which gives the false impression that some sort of editing or fact-checking is taking place or at least that the material has been formally approved by the Foundation. (Many of the citations to Medieval Lands on Wikipedia used to credit it to FMG alone, not even naming Cawley.) There is nothing on your average page view that gives anyone the impression that it is anything but fully elaborated and confirmed genealogy, rather than some kind of preliminary compilation. It is no wonder many people misunderstand it. taf

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 5:10:13 PM UTC+1, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > Thanks Andrew > On Wikitree it happens every day and I think in recent times I have seen > no pre 1700 profiles get worse. In post 1700 profiles, not so much our > topic, people still upload their gedcoms, do crazy merges living in > different countries, and so on. > To some extent I feel that proves my point. On Familysearch the medieval families are still in flux although much better than they were (a few months ago you'd have >100 versions of the same person) but the natural tendency is for improvements to gradually spread. > But in the medieval profiles the initial chaos is now definitely > trending towards better. And it should be said that anyone who wants to > put better medieval genealogy somewhere on the internet, can already > work on one of the big sites, like you mention, but not all require a fee. In that case, why not agree that "experts" will use one of them (after a suitable debate) and focus on that. > > I do also respect the fact that some of best people don't want to do > that, though they do want to work in small teams. It is a win-win if > they do it as well as possible because the big sites work better when > their are better sources online such as the Henry project. People can still work in small teams and needn't publish their results online until they feel they're ready. > > (With full respect to MEDLANDS, I do think it is wrongly understood by > many people, and used as a fixed point when it is actually a work in > progress. So it has not been perfect for wikitree people to use. A > better way to see it is as a structured collection of sources to help > work on genealogy. The genealogy itself provides structure but is > constantly changing and full of problems, and Charles does not defend it > himself any time I've contacted him.) > > All the best James

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 12:06:31 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > Actually this misrepresents a highly unsatisfactory source, making it appear to provide straightforward and reliable information. The passage in question is in fact grossly garbled, either by the original writer in 1164 or more probably by a redactor in or after 1261. It purports to trace Ida and several sisters back to Heinrich the Fowler's son Heinrich of Bavaria, a younger brother of Emperor Otto I: "Henricus dux, frater Othonis primi, genuit Henricum ducem. Hic genuit Henricum imperatorem et Giselam, uxorem Stephani regis Hungrorum. Hec genuit Bernardum. Hic genuit Idam Namucensem et reginam Francorum, uxorem Angelberti marchionis et Gertrudem comitissam Flandrensem et reginam Nacorum". > > Actually Emperor Heinrich II's sister Gisela, wife of St Stephen of Hungary, was not the mother of Bernard II of Saxony (who is usually supposed, on no better authority than this passage, to have been Ida's father) while Ida herself was not sister to queens of France and Denmark (assuming ‘Nacorum’ should be read as ‘Dacorum’) At the risk a beating a dead horse, this is exactly the kind of thing that places MedLands in a bad light in the eyes of many. One need not even be an expert to know enough about the Hungarian struggle for succession to dismiss out of hand any claim that King Stephen was father of Bernard of Saxony, and conclude that any source that makes the claim must be viewed with extreme skepticism with regard to all its claims. To simply lift this one passage out of such a dubious context, with no analysis or perhaps even recognition of the problematic nature of the source from which it is drawn, demonstrates a lack of appropriate care (or else intentional selective omission) in the extraction of relational statements from sources. Worse yet, as Peter points out, with the Latin quote of the relational statement, stripped of all context, it gives the false impression of reliability to any reader unfamiliar with the entire passage. taf

Dear John, Thanks for this! I was only objecting to the image quality in Göttingen's online viewer. I'd had trouble downloading a PDF before and had erroneously supposed that wasn't an option, but have now gone back and successfully pulled a copy which is satisfyingly high resolution. Of course, Buttlar isn't without his faults, but it's still nice to have access . . . . All the best, Kelsey On Thursday, 16 June 2016 23:51:32 UTC+1, John Higgins wrote: > On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:52:44 AM UTC-7, Kelsey Jackson Williams wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Is anyone aware of a digitised and readable version of Rudolf von Buttlar-Elberberg's _Stammbuch der Althessischen Ritterschaft_ (Kassel, 1888) online? The copy digitised by the University of Göttingen at http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/load/img/?PID=PPN513401067|LOG_0005&physid=PHYS_0045 seems to be so low resolution that the individual pedigrees are entirely illegible. > > > > All the best, > > Kelsey > > I have a copy of that volume, downloaded from the site you mention. As downloaded, the images are indeed quite small and need to be blown up with Acrobat (or whatever PDF reader you're using) to be readable. But once they're enlarged, the images are quite legible. Admittedly the pedigrees are so big that (when enlarged) you have to do a lot of scrolling around to read them. But it's manageable, and I certainly wouldn't cconsider them illegible. Of course, you also have to be comfortable reading fraktur type, which can be a bigger obstacle than the size or legibility of the pedigrees IMO.... :-)

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 1:08:13 AM UTC+10, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > This came from the 2008 RD600 (if I've copied it correctly): > King Louis IV of France d. 954 = Gerbera dau. Of Henry I the Fowler, > German Emperor, their son: > Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide; their daughter: > Adelaide of Lower Lorraine = Albert I Count of Namur; their son: > Albert II Count of Namur = Regelinde of Lower Lorraine; their son: > Albert III, Count of Namur = Ida of Saxony; Ida the wife of Albert III of Namur may have belonged to the ducal family of Saxony, as often asserted, but her origin is not certain. The Medieval Lands database gives a sloppy and illiterate false impression on this point: according to Charles Cawley, 'The Genealogia ex stirpe Sancti Arnulfi names "Idam Namucensem … uxorem Angelberti marchionis et Gertrudem comitissam Flandrensem" as children of "Bernardum"'. Actually this misrepresents a highly unsatisfactory source, making it appear to provide straightforward and reliable information. The passage in question is in fact grossly garbled, either by the original writer in 1164 or more probably by a redactor in or after 1261. It purports to trace Ida and several sisters back to Heinrich the Fowler's son Heinrich of Bavaria, a younger brother of Emperor Otto I: "Henricus dux, frater Othonis primi, genuit Henricum ducem. Hic genuit Henricum imperatorem et Giselam, uxorem Stephani regis Hungrorum. Hec genuit Bernardum. Hic genuit Idam Namucensem et reginam Francorum, uxorem Angelberti marchionis et Gertrudem comitissam Flandrensem et reginam Nacorum". Actually Emperor Heinrich II's sister Gisela, wife of St Stephen of Hungary, was not the mother of Bernard II of Saxony (who is usually supposed, on no better authority than this passage, to have been Ida's father) while Ida herself was not sister to queens of France and Denmark (assuming ‘Nacorum’ should be read as ‘Dacorum’) although she may have been their maternal aunt as a sister to Bernard II's daughter Gertrude (respectively by each of the latter's marriages, the second to a count of Flanders). Ida was possibly also sister to Hadwig 'of Mossa' (whose second husband Engelbert, count of Sponheim, was perhaps the man titled ‘marchio’). Peter Stewart

Dear James >More practically, one of the advantages of the big sites is that they charge a subscription which does act as a de facto filter for idiots, although I agree not all of them. Wikitree.com seems to be the "big-site" with the momentum right now and it does not charge. It has over recent years brought in various barrier and impediments to editing in certain ways. >What I was wondering was whether someone who has a small well-documented tree might be persuaded to upload that info on one / all of the big sites in a deliberate experiment to see how quickly the info became degraded, or putting it the other way round, how heavy the workload was to keep it accurate. On Wikitree it happens every day and I think in recent times I have seen no pre 1700 profiles get worse. In post 1700 profiles, not so much our topic, people still upload their gedcoms, do crazy merges living in different countries, and so on. But in the medieval profiles the initial chaos is now definitely trending towards better. And it should be said that anyone who wants to put better medieval genealogy somewhere on the internet, can already work on one of the big sites, like you mention, but not all require a fee. I do also respect the fact that some of best people don't want to do that, though they do want to work in small teams. It is a win-win if they do it as well as possible because the big sites work better when their are better sources online such as the Henry project. (With full respect to MEDLANDS, I do think it is wrongly understood by many people, and used as a fixed point when it is actually a work in progress. So it has not been perfect for wikitree people to use. A better way to see it is as a structured collection of sources to help work on genealogy. The genealogy itself provides structure but is constantly changing and full of problems, and Charles does not defend it himself any time I've contacted him.) Regards Andrew

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:52:44 AM UTC-7, Kelsey Jackson Williams wrote: > Dear all, > > Is anyone aware of a digitised and readable version of Rudolf von Buttlar-Elberberg's _Stammbuch der Althessischen Ritterschaft_ (Kassel, 1888) online? The copy digitised by the University of Göttingen at http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/load/img/?PID=PPN513401067|LOG_0005&physid=PHYS_0045 seems to be so low resolution that the individual pedigrees are entirely illegible. > > All the best, > Kelsey I have a copy of that volume, downloaded from the site you mention. As downloaded, the images are indeed quite small and need to be blown up with Acrobat (or whatever PDF reader you're using) to be readable. But once they're enlarged, the images are quite legible. Admittedly the pedigrees are so big that (when enlarged) you have to do a lot of scrolling around to read them. But it's manageable, and I certainly wouldn't cconsider them illegible. Of course, you also have to be comfortable reading fraktur type, which can be a bigger obstacle than the size or legibility of the pedigrees IMO.... :-)

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:30:15 PM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > Sir Francis Stewart (later 5th Earl of Bothwell), the legitimate son of Lord John Stewart, aka Lord Darnley, is mentioned at least twice as a reversionary heir of one of more children of Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of Orkney, in vol. 1 of _Diplomatarium Orcadense Et Hialtlandense_ (pp. 173, 188): Dear John, Excellent research job - my hat off to you. The illegitimate sons of James V, and their children, are not easy trees to assemble, and I'm impressed with your level of knowledge and compilation of sources. I ended up on this line last year when I traced the ancestry of a spouse of a late-Victorian British officer, and so waded through Ruvigny's book on the Mudie family. Your solution to the identity of Christian Stewart, wife of Adam Mudie - that she was Christian Stewart, daughter of Lord John Stewart, a rocker in the nursery of King James VI in 1567, whose further history is otherwise unknown - works perfectly chronologically. I find it preferable to Ruvigny's conjecture of her as sister to James Stewart of Graemsay solely because of her later association with some land holdings of that family. Of course this is still far from proved. How strong is the possibility that Christian Stewart was not a daughter of any of the sons of James V? Were there other branches of the widespread Stewart family who were prominent in Orkney at this time, and who could claim Christian as one of them? If so, then the new question arises of what became of the Christian Stewart who rocked James VI in 1567? I think you are well on the right track. I've adjusted my database, and my blogpost that looked into this line: http://royaldescent.blogspot.ca/2015/05/james-v-descents-for-maj-charles-mt.html Thank you for sharing your research. Cheers, -----Brad