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

Dear Peter and Stewart, >I don't understand what you are getting at - tasks can be delegated in writing with a quill on parchment, you don't need a digital medium in order to keep control over input on a collaborative project. I will give a quick answer without too much thought. For better or worse my comments are partly based on the dual experience of keeping a website of my own, and being a wiki editor over many years (on big and small wikis), so it is one of those moments where you have to try to convert what you believe from experience into an explanation for people who have not necessarily experienced the same thing. First of all, and perhaps most obviously, a wiki is live and can have any number of editors working live. There is no uploading step, and no needing to contact the administrator to keep working on something, and no confusions about what the latest version of a particular text is in your e-mails. If you have more than about 1 editor, this can be life saving. Coming back from a weekend away need not make everything impossible. Connected to this, when your website has many articles, certain types of change become very difficult to do at a certain point because of a cascade effect: if you change the link where something is, every other page will be wrong. You need to be constantly reminding yourself about it, which makes editing slower. You can of course try to set yourself a policy to stick to, but then you can basically never again change. The ability to set up editing rights is a particular concern, I feel, in discussions about a quality wiki. The tendency in these discussions, the way I read it, is to fear having even a handful of editors. It would just get out of control. With a wiki you can set-up policies, and go away for the week without needing to fear destruction of the wiki. Writing text in a wiki of course takes the same time as in any other editing software. The short cuts during editing come in various ways: templates and various forms of pre-saved work that can be used often are one way. Some wikis keep their Bibliography in one place and create templates that allow short references to them. Others do this within one article, allowing, if you prefer it, things like Harvard referencing (Smith 2001, p.1 would link to a place telling you what Smith 2001 is for example). Something I like, but which wikitree deliberately removed from the standard wiki software, are "talk pages" which record past discussions about what an article should say. I think this is important for any complicated subject. Whereas you say that hypertext writing is easy, and I think I know what you mean, it is easier in a wiki. In the editing box, a link to another wiki article simply need double square brackets around that term to become a link. There is more that could be discussed. The way that category setting in wikis helps to structure all the work, helping editors to all be able to jump in quickly without thinking too hard about where and how, and helping readers get to the right place, is hard to explain quickly for example. It can allow the wiki some flexibility in what it covers also, such as having articles of different types (some on people, some on manors for example). Regards Andrew

On 16/06/2016 3:01 AM, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > Dear Stewart > > I think the most important thing to note in this discussion is that as > far as I can tell, Charles has in fact long been struggling with ideas > about how to delegate properly to a bigger team without making the > quality worse. In other words, although the project is different in many > ways from the Henry project, it is a similar dilemma which it faces. > > To me it is interesting that the Henry project and MEDLANDS both > apparently suffer from issues to do with the time consumed by trying to > keep all the files in order, and to me this seems in both cases to be > connected to the old style media being used - essentially in both cases > just documents turned into webpages. (I can talk. That is also what my > website looks like. But then again who looks at that? For small scale > work this is ok.) > > That is why I wonder if a sort of controlled wiki is the solution. That > could automate many tasks, and allow tasks to be delegated in a > controlled way using log-ins with different permissions. I know I am > getting repetitive but I repeat the point now in this interesting > context, because maybe it helps someone in the community find a way. I don't understand what you are getting at - tasks can be delegated in writing with a quill on parchment, you don't need a digital medium in order to keep control over input on a collaborative project. As for tasks that can be automated, I don't follow how these would be matters of substance rather than merely of style. The main value of IT in genealogical scholarship seems to me in providing access and in the speed and comprehensiveness of data analysis. Can you explain with specific instances how the wiki process would add value to the old-fashioned scholarly ways of researching sources and assembling information? For my purposes as a reader, a document is a document is a document, whatever the format or novelty of its presentation. Peter Stewart

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 8:36:35 AM UTC-7, jmb...@albion.edu wrote: > Hans was just noticing an apparent typo in your dates for #3 Gonzalo Trastamires, that's all. He's presuming you meant 11th century (fl.1034-38) instead of 12th century as you wrote (fl.1134-38) for the father of Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) (fl.1071-2). > J+ Ah, yes, good catch, Hans. taf

Hans was just noticing an apparent typo in your dates for #3 Gonzalo Trastamires, that's all. He's presuming you meant 11th century (fl.1034-38) instead of 12th century as you wrote (fl.1134-38) for the father of Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) (fl.1071-2). J+

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.

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

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 6:59:16 AM UTC-4, Patrick Nielsen Hayden 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 Well, okay, I've read all about the Wake Duston business. The line I posted, as far as I am aware, doesn't go through or depend on Wake or Duston. As I said, I'm working from the latest RD600 and there is a line from Louis IV through Sir John Throckmorton that extends down through John Neale and onto Jeffrey Amherst. If you stop at Sir John Throckmorton in that line then follow Sir John Throckmorton and wife Eleanor Spinney down through their daughter Agnes Throckmorton who married Thomas Winslow to their daughter Agnes Winslow who married John Giffard you continue to trace down to Alice Freeman. So if that line is not good, it must break down somewhere. But Wake and Duston isn't the break in this line because they aren't in it at all. So I'm asking where that line breaks down. 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.

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 10:29:17 PM UTC-7, Hans Vogels wrote: > > 4.Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) fl. 1071-2 > > 3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1134-38 > > ? 3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1034-38? > > > 2.Trastemiro Aboazar > > 1.Alboazar Lovesendes > > Hans Vogels Sorry, what's your question? taf

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 1:29:17 AM UTC-4, Hans Vogels wrote: > > 6.Chamoa de Sousa m. Gomez Mendes Guedeo fl. 1121-30 > > 5.Mem Viegas (de Sousa) fl.1094-1112 > > 4.Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) fl. 1071-2 > > 3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1134-38 > > ? 3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1034-38? > > > 2.Trastemiro Aboazar > > 1.Alboazar Lovesendes > > Hans Vogels ? Hans Vogels? Joe C

Wiki or not-wiki Guys In the long-run, I think any multi-individual, multi-subject project is going to end up using a wiki approach for reasons of speed, transparancy and so on. I think it's also worth saying that the big commercial or LDS sites have yet to achieve stability, which they will do once all the big datasets have been uploaded and "processed", at which point the more esoteric, genealogical skills will come back to the fore, albeit with an expectation that supporting documents will be scanned and available on-line. Looking at the progress made by Family search in the last year or so, I would see this point being reached in the next ten years - a mere blink in the genealogical process. 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. 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. Regards James

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 11:53:10 PM UTC-7, lma...@att.net wrote: > There are about a dozen user submitted pedigrees on > Ancestry.com with David Winter (died 1767) and his wife > Alice (died 1783), residents of Tysoe, Warwickshire (England). > > I have searched the surrounding parish registers for their marriage, > without success. > A search in local wills has found Alice's parentage. > > The will of Richard Wilcox of Lower Tysoe, gentleman, proved > in 1742, mentions several of his children, and gave ten pounds > each to son in law David Winter and his wife, and to their five > children ten pounds each. > > Richard's widow, Alice Wilcox, left a will proved in 1743, which > mentions most of her husband's children, but makes it clear that > she was not their mother. > A grand daughter Alice Winter is briefly noted - > certainly this is an error, she was probably a god daughter. > > Richard Wilcox & Alice Bury had been married at nearby Whichford in 1719. > > The parish registers of Tysoe show that the mother of Richard > Wilcox's children was Miriam, who was buried in 1709. > Their daughter Alice was baptized 13 September 1700. > > Richard is mentioned in the wills of his father, Richard Wilcox of > Temple Tysoe, gentleman (proved 1673) and Ursula Wilcox of > Temple Tysoe, widow (proved 1680). > > Richard Wilcox, died 1673, was the eldest son of Ralph Wilcox of > Temple Tysoe gentleman, PCC will proved 1659. > > The 1600/1 marriage of Ralph Wilcockes & Margaret Appletree was > recorded at Tysoe & also at Banbury, Oxfordshire. > > Their son Richard was baptized at Tysoe 21 May 1604. > It is not certain as to how many of Ralph's children were by > Margaret, since her burial record is not found at Tysoe. > > The will of John Appletree of Dedington,co. Oxford, gentleman, > dated February 1615, mentions his brother in law Ralph Willcox. > > A pedigree of the Appletree family of Deddington, taken from the > 1634 Heralds Visitation of Oxfordshire, and published in Miscellanea > Genealogica et Heraldica, series 4, volume 5, pages 97,8, shows > Thomas Apletree, and his wife Jane, daughter of Robert Warner of > Radcliff co. Warwick, with several children, including a son John, > and a daughter Margaret wife of "ffrase" Willcocks of Tiso co. Warwick. > > One of the Heralds' Visitations for Warwickshire, available on archive.org, > records Robert Warner of Radcliff and his wife Dorothy Blencoe, with a daughter > Jane wife of Thomas Appletree. > > Leslie David Winter of Tysoe was probably the person of that name baptized at Adlestrop, Gloucestershire in July 1694. His son Thomas (PCC will proved 1798) lived at Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, about 5 miles from Adlestrop. Leslie

Dear Stewart >Although the Henry Project has its flaws, I do not believe that this comparison to "Medieval Lands" is fair. This was not meant to be a comparison in all aspects, but only a comparison about one dilemma. The results, aims and efforts have clearly been very different in many ways. >You are certainly wrong about how the pages in the Henry Project were compiled. They are not "just documents turned into webpages" but have in every case been composed as webpages from the very beginning. Similarly, this was not meant to be a comment about an "unpolished look" but about the software and the amount of work which is manual, and therefore difficult to get done. This is a statement not only based on looking at the websites, but also reading the comments of the authors involved. Wikis simplify the writing of hypertext and footnotes etc and make an integrated website more or less automatically. >The problem with the wiki approach is that there are too many examples (like wikitree) where this has been a spectacular failure (viewed from quality of content, not degree of interest), which makes qualified individuals hesitate to get involved. In my opinion, any system which uses the approach of letting a lot of stuff in and then removing the bad part is doomed to fail. Whether or not that is true, that is not a necessary characteristic of a Wiki. Wikis are also used in these days by small organizations and companies just to store small amounts of knowledge. The most famous ones are in many ways extreme cases. There is nothing stopping a wiki being a "quality first" small project with a strict constitution. You would need a server. How many people do you need? Even if you just moved the current Henry project to a wiki and set rules so strict that every new edit required 100% consensus by all current editors, it would possibly be a set-up that would be more encouraging of incremental improvement than what you have now? I am playing Devil's Advocate of course. I suppose the idea is too shocking. :) Regards Andrew

> 6.Chamoa de Sousa m. Gomez Mendes Guedeo fl. 1121-30 > 5.Mem Viegas (de Sousa) fl.1094-1112 > 4.Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) fl. 1071-2 > 3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1134-38 ? 3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1034-38? > 2.Trastemiro Aboazar > 1.Alboazar Lovesendes Hans Vogels Op woensdag 15 juni 2016 21:21:34 UTC+2 schreef taf: > On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 2:20:32 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > I recently got hold of an article from a Portuguese journal by Antonio Rei that presents a novel alternative to the reconstruction of the Maia/Maya origin legend. > > > > Let me just add that Sancha de Ayala, who serves as an Iberian gateway for several colonial American immigrants, has a descent from this family: > > 14.Sancha de Ayala m. Walter Blount > 13.Ines Alfonso de Ayala m. Diego Gomes (de Toledo) > 12.Fernan Perez de Ayala > 11.Sancha Fernandez Barroso m. Pedro Lopez de Ayala > 10.Fernan Perez Barroso > 9.Pedro Gomes Barroso > 8.Gomes Viegas de Basto > 7.Egas Gomes de Basto/Barroso fl. 1169-83 > 6.Chamoa de Sousa m. Gomez Mendes Guedeo fl. 1121-30 > 5.Mem Viegas (de Sousa) fl.1094-1112 > 4.Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) fl. 1071-2 > 3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1134-38 > 2.Trastemiro Aboazar > 1.Alboazar Lovesendes > > I took a quick look, and the daughters of Pedro I who married the sons of Edward III of England may not descend from her - I eliminated most of the possible routes, but there are still a small number back behind the wife of Alfonso de Molina that I haven't been able to totally eliminate. > > taf

On 6/15/2016 4:28 PM, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > Wikis simplify the writing of hypertext and footnotes etc and > make an integrated website more or less automatically. Writing hypertext, etc. is pretty easy without using a wiki. All you need is a reasonable html editor. And the word "automatic" bothers me. In my experience, doing things automatically in genealogy without the intervention of a human brain leads to mistakes. Also, I confess to having no idea what an "integrated" website is. The only sites I could find after doing an Internet search which claimed to give a definition of "integrated website" were commercial sites giving "definitions" so incomprehensible that all I could figure out was that I needed to buy their product if I wanted to have an "integrated website." (I didn't bite.) :-) So, briefly, what is an "integrated website" (as opposed to just a "website") and why is that a good thing? Stewart Baldwin

Dear Stewart I think the most important thing to note in this discussion is that as far as I can tell, Charles has in fact long been struggling with ideas about how to delegate properly to a bigger team without making the quality worse. In other words, although the project is different in many ways from the Henry project, it is a similar dilemma which it faces. To me it is interesting that the Henry project and MEDLANDS both apparently suffer from issues to do with the time consumed by trying to keep all the files in order, and to me this seems in both cases to be connected to the old style media being used - essentially in both cases just documents turned into webpages. (I can talk. That is also what my website looks like. But then again who looks at that? For small scale work this is ok.) That is why I wonder if a sort of controlled wiki is the solution. That could automate many tasks, and allow tasks to be delegated in a controlled way using log-ins with different permissions. I know I am getting repetitive but I repeat the point now in this interesting context, because maybe it helps someone in the community find a way. A moderated medieval genealogy wiki could allow articles/pages for not only individuals but also manors and titles. It could have projects with it such as Henry II ancestry, Manors of Cambridgeshire, Carolingians, Dal Riada, CP plus corrections, registering Domesday folk, Magna Carta descents or whatever. Key profiles could be locked up and require special permissions to change from specific people or groups even. I suppose someone might now say that this could all be done within an existing wiki like wikitree, if enough good people were allowed to have enough authority and that is also true, but I see big wikis scare everyone off for obvious reasons of larger scale negotiation and politics. But the good news for genealogy is also that within wikitree, the more good sources exist online, the more it can be dragged by its better editors to follow those leads. Does anyone know a university or something with a bit of server space and interest in making a quality-controlled medieval wiki project? Regards Andrew Stewart Baldwin wrote: >Unfortunately, in my opinion, Charles Cawley's "Medieval Lands" is a sad example of how NOT to do a medieval genealogy database. I say "sad" for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Mr. Cawley is apparently unwilling to admit to himself the extent to which he is in far over his head, despite his apparent original good intentions.

On 6/15/2016 12:01 PM, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > Dear Stewart > > I think the most important thing to note in this discussion is that as > far as I can tell, Charles has in fact long been struggling with ideas > about how to delegate properly to a bigger team without making the > quality worse. In other words, although the project is different in many > ways from the Henry project, it is a similar dilemma which it faces. > > To me it is interesting that the Henry project and MEDLANDS both > apparently suffer from issues to do with the time consumed by trying to > keep all the files in order, and to me this seems in both cases to be > connected to the old style media being used - essentially in both cases > just documents turned into webpages. (I can talk. That is also what my > website looks like. But then again who looks at that? For small scale > work this is ok.) Although the Henry Project has its flaws, I do not believe that this comparison to "Medieval Lands" is fair. You are certainly wrong about how the pages in the Henry Project were compiled. They are not "just documents turned into webpages" but have in every case been composed as webpages from the very beginning. Their perhaps unpolished look is due to the fact that I consider careful documentation to be more important than frills like background colors or special fonts. The one change I would seriously consider if I were starting over is numbered footnotes. Automatically numbered footnotes were not that easy to do when I started back in 2001, but I still feel that there are at least some advantages to making citations harder to ignore by placing them immediately after the statements. Every page of the Henry Project has been compiled with careful reference to both the primary sources and the scholarly literature. In some cases where I did not have access to the relevant sources, I delayed partly finished pages for more than a year until I could get access to them. This is in stark contrast to Medieval Lands, which is littered with undocumented statements (some true, some false) with no citation followed by a statement that the primary source has not yet been found. A large part of Medieval Lands has apparently been compiled with little or no reference to the scholarly literature, and there are far too many errors in interpreting the sources that have been consulted, showing an extreme lack of attention to detail. I also believe that I have given more careful thought to organization than what is shown in Medieval Lands. I compiled closely related pages at the same time, cross-referencing discussions that were relevant to more than one individual, sometimes expanding the scope of the project to individuals who were not ancestors of Henry II (for example, the page on Otto William of Burgundy) when I felt that the necessary discussions could not be made without having that information to refer to. In contrast, the file structure of Medieval Lands seems very awkward to me. For one thing, the individual files are way too large. Also, the pages seem to be indecisively ordered, with the list of office holders and genealogical segments (given awkwardly two generations at a time) strangely interspersed. If you think that I am being petty about this, then so be it. I admire the tremendous effort that Mr. Cawley has put into this work, and I wish that I could comment more positively on it than I have, but it would be dishonest of me to do so. Unfortunately, it would take a small army of qualified genealogists to turn Medieval Lands into what it claims to be. A more realistic (and more honest) goal would be to convert the format so that it is more accurately presented as a FINDING AID which helps to locate primary sources, but avoids misleading the unwary into believing that it is a finished product. By the way, I am not necessarily claiming that I would do any better than Mr. Cawley if I attempted the same project, only that I am aware enough of my own limitations not to try. > That is why I wonder if a sort of controlled wiki is the solution. That > could automate many tasks, and allow tasks to be delegated in a > controlled way using log-ins with different permissions. I know I am > getting repetitive but I repeat the point now in this interesting > context, because maybe it helps someone in the community find a way. > > A moderated medieval genealogy wiki could allow articles/pages for not > only individuals but also manors and titles. It could have projects with > it such as Henry II ancestry, Manors of Cambridgeshire, Carolingians, > Dal Riada, CP plus corrections, registering Domesday folk, Magna Carta > descents or whatever. Key profiles could be locked up and require > special permissions to change from specific people or groups even. > > I suppose someone might now say that this could all be done within an > existing wiki like wikitree, if enough good people were allowed to have > enough authority and that is also true, but I see big wikis scare > everyone off for obvious reasons of larger scale negotiation and > politics. But the good news for genealogy is also that within wikitree, > the more good sources exist online, the more it can be dragged by its > better editors to follow those leads. > > Does anyone know a university or something with a bit of server space > and interest in making a quality-controlled medieval wiki project? The problem with the wiki approach is that there are too many examples (like wikitree) where this has been a spectacular failure (viewed from quality of content, not degree of interest), which makes qualified individuals hesitate to get involved. In my opinion, any system which uses the approach of letting a lot of stuff in and then removing the bad part is doomed to fail. Ultimately, the results are going to be of acceptable quality only if the amount bad material is small from the very beginning. Also, when dealing with the uncertain situations which are so common in medieval genealogy where several alternative scenarios have been proposed, the "fill-in-the-blank" format that is so common with databases sometimes has to be abandoned. The accurate presentation of such issues has to be carefully thought out, and this is one place where it will be difficult to find enough qualified genealogists unless the project has a realistic size from the very beginning. Stewart Baldwin

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 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.

Any ideas who this might be? Manor was held by his son-in-law was John Chaloner from 1496 or earlier who is said to have married the daughter of Sir Edward Mortimer of Holmsted. Best, Monica

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 2:20:32 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > I recently got hold of an article from a Portuguese journal by Antonio Rei that presents a novel alternative to the reconstruction of the Maia/Maya origin legend. > Let me just add that Sancha de Ayala, who serves as an Iberian gateway for several colonial American immigrants, has a descent from this family: 14.Sancha de Ayala m. Walter Blount 13.Ines Alfonso de Ayala m. Diego Gomes (de Toledo) 12.Fernan Perez de Ayala 11.Sancha Fernandez Barroso m. Pedro Lopez de Ayala 10.Fernan Perez Barroso 9.Pedro Gomes Barroso 8.Gomes Viegas de Basto 7.Egas Gomes de Basto/Barroso fl. 1169-83 6.Chamoa de Sousa m. Gomez Mendes Guedeo fl. 1121-30 5.Mem Viegas (de Sousa) fl.1094-1112 4.Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) fl. 1071-2 3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1134-38 2.Trastemiro Aboazar 1.Alboazar Lovesendes I took a quick look, and the daughters of Pedro I who married the sons of Edward III of England may not descend from her - I eliminated most of the possible routes, but there are still a small number back behind the wife of Alfonso de Molina that I haven't been able to totally eliminate. taf