On 23/05/16 23:31, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > I wonder if there has been any attempt to create a web-based listing, > more or less comprehensive, of all the Landed, Manorial, or Gentry > Families in England, Wales, and the Irish Pale, on a county by county > basis for the period, say, 1066-1688 (taking the Conquest and the end > of Heraldic Visitations to be reasonable rough dates for coverage)? > > If not, is anyone else interested in the creation of such a list, > and/or contributing to it? > > It might be useful to create such a listing as a group project so that > registered people can add to it (with some kind of justification based > on at least one primary source for such a claim). This could be a good > opportunity for a lot of expertise that might otherwise not get > recorded to be preserved and made more widely available to serious > researchers. > > To it could be added various kinds of information such as whether > there has been anything scholarly (or not) published on a given > family, or whether anyone is known to be engaged in a study of a given > family. > > Enthusiasts of a given area or surname or group of families could link > to it other resources that may be useful for the study of that family, > area, or grouping. Firstly we need to decide what an item on such a list might be. A direct quote from a source is one thing. Go beyond that and you start to mix analysis and interpretation. Take, for instance, a mention in a will of "my daughter"; is it the testator's biological and legitimate daughter, a daughter-in-law (to use the modern term), a step-daughter, a god-daughter or even an illegitimate daughter? As soon as we list her as "daughter of X" rather than "named in his will as daughter of X" we have, however unwittingly, made an analysis of the source rather than leaving the original there for others to decide on for themselves. If, after looking at various sources we decide that various pieces of evidence are all pointing to the same person and that decision is what we list we're putting forward our interpretation, or reconstruction. Such reconstructions are likely to change with time as more evidence becomes available. None of these are wrong things to do but it needs to be made clear to the reader what's being presented, and the reasoning behind it. Failure to provide for this is the huge weakness of GEDCOM and leads to some massive howlers of misreadings being propagated through to databases built with its aid[sic]. Secondly I see no reason to set lower limits on the status of families. Partly this is because of reasons I cited in another post - a family who might have made it over the threshold in a later period might not have been so prominent earlier or in other geographical areas. The Wordsworths, for instance became lords of the manor of Penistone in the C18th when, as Hey says, it didn't count for much but a more geographically distant branch produced one of our more significant poets. Or prominent in other significant respects - the Bearsell family goes back locally to the 1330s or thereabouts but their real local importance is in their role in the transition of the textile industry from the domestic to the factory system. Another is that I think that there may be geographical limits to the concept of landed gentry. It's one that fits nicely into Rackham's planned countryside, not so well into the Pennine countryside I'm familiar with and probably not into much of the rest of England's highland zone. I can think of a number of local houses dating back to the C17th or probably earlier which in size and style might match manor houses elsewhere but, because of the history of the area are simply the largest houses of their particular townships within a much larger manor. In other areas the Greens, Broadheads and Woodheads of such houses might well have been regarded as gentry. Also, especially when we take a look at things from a local perspective, there may be as much detail for the tenantry as for the gentry. From the Wakefield manorial rolls for instance I can pinpoint the origin of the surname Hinchliffe to within 10 years. Littlewoods are more difficult as that name is present in the earliest records. Such families may never have been ranked as gentry anywhere, nevertheless they were as real as any who were and they are as important as any other family to their descendants. It's as well to remember that genealogy is about more than working out how many lines of descent one has from Edward III or Charlemagne (zero is a perfectly acceptable number). However humble the family, they all count. Thirdly, as to organisation, the open source concept of a maintainer is something to look at. Here a few, maybe even one, individual has posting rights for a particular area or interest but others submit changes. Maybe even some of the technology might be applicable - genealogy on Github? Finally, can I suggest "collaborative" rather than "collegial"? -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > 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: > So could someone tell me where this line breaks down? It is here in the de Camville line which is uncertain. Starting with William de Camville is not a proven son of Milicent de Rethel. Richard was twice married and his first wife is probably a better fit

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

Well, it seems to me then that the question remains how to create an online medium which has editorial groups and some degree of careful consensus required, for slow editing. We've had many similar discussions over the years. I guess most of us love the Henry project, but wish a few more people could help so it could move forward. Many of us respect Charles Cawley's ambitions and effort, but wish also that he would have a way of not moving ahead sometimes too quickly. I am a big admirer of Richardson's books which contain new tweaks every edition also. It still seems to me that a wiki server is probably the most obvious medium to help small-scale structured team-work, even though they are most famously used for larger scale projects with little editorial control. Anyway, I am surprised to see so little talk about that practical aspect: the medium. I think that until someone ssomething up we do have this forum at least for registering our doubts and new discoveries and comparing them to standard works like CP, Keats-Rohan, Richardson, VCH, HOP, and so on. At least that helps us cover well-known families in a way we can find back reasonably easily. I applaud the "Corrections" pages on FMG and on Chris Phillips' website as very helpful for keeping track of such things. But it is obvious that better is possible with the internet and more will happen eventually. If this idea about manorial histories gets concrete maybe it will be great, and can rapidly make VCH irrelevant. I am thinking the devil is in the details and it will be interesting to see how to make it work in practice. I suppose most people active on this forum have worked on bits of a few manorial histories and probably also found errors in references works while doing it. Regards Andrew Stewart Baldwin wrote: >Although this is better than most sources on this topic, it is still an example of too few people trying to do too much. I haven't examined that many VCH accounts in great detail, but those that I have checked carefully suggest caution. taf wrote: >This is a pervasive problem with History of Parliament. It is simply not practicable for a single editor or small group of editors to independently research the thousands of people whose biographies they must compile.

On 13/06/2016, Richard Smith via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On 03/06/16 00:22, Richard Carruthers via wrote: >> On 02/06/2016, Richard Smith via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: >>> On 02/06/16 08:02, Richard Carruthers via wrote: >>> >>>> The List or Index to the Landed, Manorial, or Gentry Families (LMGF) >>>> is the first thing I think needs to be established. >>> >>> What purpose do you see this list or index having? I am to some extent >>> playing Devil's Advocate here, but it is a key point to which to have >>> agreement. >>> >>> I see several possible purposes: >>> >>> 1. To provide information on the demographics of the upper levels >>> of mediaeval society. >>> >>> 2. As an index to help researchers locate primary sources on >>> particular families or individuals. >>> >>> 3. As the index to a large-scale collaborative genealogy (and/or >>> biographical dictionary) of the mediaeval landed gentry. >>> >>> Probably there are other possibilities I've not considered. >> >> primarily 2 with a possibility of 3, but closer to >> >> 4. To provide a List of LMG Families to enable researchers to locate >> individual families in the catchment area and discover other parties >> interested in a given family to facilitate research, and, if desired, >> engage in solo or collaborative research into LGM Families in a >> scholarly manner, with evidence-based and peer-reviewed findings >> available online through a potential series of linked pages, but at >> least one Master List page for each county showing the details I >> listed in my first mock-up. > > You give locating individual families with the catchment area as a use > for the list. Is there a big requirement for this? When researching > the mediaeval landed gentry, typically I either know fairly precisely > where the family is from because they were referred to as of some place; > or I can do no better than the vaguest of guesses as to the region of > the country they may be from. I rarely have a situation where I want to > know, say, where the Eayre families were in Wiltshire in the 15th > century. And if I did, many (most?) areas have a 18th or 19th century > county history that I would trust to answer questions on the general > whereabouts of families, if not on the particulars of their genealogy. Territoriality is as Dr Coss has written one of the several prerequisites of the gentry, hence my emphasis on it. Moreover, as you rightly point out, this is normally how such families file themselves (as it were), so I am simply following suit. As researchers we rely heavily on such territorial identifications to locate which family we are investigating, further underlining the necessary linkage. > > As for discovering other researchers interested in a family, assuming > they wish to be discovered, I've found Google searches to be a pretty > good way of finding them. Is what you're proposing going to serve that > purpose better than a few carefully crafted searches? I believe so. The method you propose can, in fact, be an extremely time consuming process as one is by no means sure of its yielding a satisfactory result. Moreover, one is not assured of obtaining contact information, much less an idea of whether or not that research is still active. Of course, any listing would need updating, but the advantage of creating a link between families and researchers in an Index or List is akin to that of the old Genealogical Research Directories of the 1980s and 1990s. > > Where I think your suggestion gets more interesting is when you talk > about "evidence-based and peer-reviewed findings available online > through a series of linked pages". This is something I think could > potentially be of genuine value, but this then is getting closer to my > third purpose, above. I think one has to lay the groundwork of creating an Index or Listing of LMG Families that is seeks to be reasonably comprehensive before one can get down to the more in-depth aspects of such an undertaking. I think that creating the List first would serve to stimulate the deeper aspects of the List when its uses are expanded for various of the families listed. Moreover, seeing where there are blanks for deeper coverage might serve to encourage researchers to cover those neglected families of which there are bound to be many (indeed, they are quite likely to be the vast majority). If that's to be the main purpose, then it should > be the focus from the very start. I don't see how it can be. One needs the framework first. The List or Index is the initial framework, on to which the deeper aspects can added as the project gets further along or as individual contributors desire. >>> However I'm not sure which, if either, of the latter two suggested >>> purposes you intended. I initially thought it was a collaborative >>> genealogy, but now I'm not wondering whether you are more focused on the >>> second. Either way, I'm not sure the list, as per your mock up, is >>> doing it. >> >> How would you suggest its deficiencies ought to be made up? > > It's not that I don't think the list you propose is potentially useful; > rather, my concern is that if it's to be useful, then it is as a small > part of a bigger project, but I've yet to fully understand the nature of > that larger project (if indeed there is to be one). I can't help but > feel that this thread is becoming the equivalent of having a detailed > discussion about the format of the index of a book, without first > establishing what its contents are and at whom it is targeted. Hence the title I proposed at the beginning of the thread: "Toward a List..." I don't think that compiling in advance a list or index of the territory one wishes to see covered in any way vitiates against the secondary or tertiary purposes of the List. Indeed, I think it essential to lay the groundwork/framework first. Then one can see what the next stage will be more clearly. So, in the end, I see the creation of the List of LMG Families as being Stage 1 of what could become a larger project. That said, I think the List (Stage 1) could still stand on its own as something useful that did not depend on the success of later stages, however many there may ultimately prove to be. That is also why I remain open to ideas about how other stages may take shape. After all, if one is to have a collegial and scholarly project one must be open to considering the scope of the input. > >>> When it comes to genealogical details, I think either you need a much >>> clearer policy on what you want and how, or you should drop it entirely >>> until such time as you do. Ahem, I do have ideas about genealogical details, but I am trying to encourage others to expand on this before I necessarily jump in as the initiator of these aspects of the later stages of a potentially multi-stage ongoing project of interlinked stages. That's an aspect of the collegiality I am striving for. Moreover, if serious researchers are to be encouraged to participate or contribute, I think it desirable that they be given the incentive of having their ideas considered. For one thing, I feel sure that there are plenty of members of soc-gen-medieval who are much more knowledgeable about what they much envisage as useful to include in the project's later stages than I. >> >> What sort of genealogical details do you think it desirable that such a >> List lead to on deeper linked pages? > > It's not so much the details, as how they are presented. You need a > consistent style from the beginning. I have no problem with striving for consistency. I think we need to see who would be willing to form a consultative board re that very matter lest it all be left a committee of one with all the deficiencies that that would occasion unless that one were a truly great genealogist and mediaevalist. Moreover, I am hoping to encourage the cooperation, involvement, and contributions of many within the scholarly community of mediaeval genealogy rather than just one or two. > >> I think, however, that such a List and linked pages should provide >> facilities >> for comment areas linked to all pages, > > That's sensible. It's the Wikipedia model: every page has a "Talk page" > distinct from the page itself where the page can be discussed. Yes, it seems to be one of the advantages that doing this on-line as a group project would afford us. > >> This would, for example, allow one to critique an entry that cobbled >> together findings in such a way that a given entry amounted to >> something erroneous. In the end, this could be a could [sic, good] way of >> providing consistent scholarly criticism for otherwise unreviewed >> information of the "Fab Pedigree" kind. > > I would hope that if you intend this to be a serious scholarly work, > descents such as that on the "Fab Pedigree" site would be deleted pretty > quickly. That's not to say you shouldn't have sections discussing > incorrect aspects of the genealogy of real people when such errors are > prevalent on-line, and explaining why they are erroneous. I certainly don't want rubbish to appear save for the purpose of debunking it and keeping a record of such for posterity to facilitate the work of other scholars and, yes, tyros. >> [...] This is all part of the Verified Genealogy idea I referred to >> earlier. > > Your idea of verified genealogies is perhaps worth pursuing > independently of this project. I take your point, but what I was trying to get at here was the notion of striving for a high standard of genealogical and historical scholarship in any and all aspects of the project. > > Richard [Smith] Thank you, Richard C-Z

On 13/06/2016, WJH via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 8:56:57 AM UTC+1, D. Spencer Hines wrote: >> I'm not clear as to who would use this database... James Haddock wrote: > > I think the simple answer is "people like me". I've been researching my own > family and have discovered a possible link into the Bowes family of Barnes > and Durham / Yorkshire more generally and whose descendants include the > current royal family via the Bowes Lyons. In exploring that link I've > identified that Surtees (who effectively tried to create the same sort of > comprehensive list for Durham in the early 19th century) propagated some > errors that are still quoted as gospel today, including by "definitive" > publications such as the online history of members of parliament. Thank you for your supportive contribution on this topic. Richard > At present I don't know if my researches are repeating work done many times > by others or are breaking new ground, so having both a definitive source to > refer to and subsequently to submit information to, would greatly reduce the > waste of time and speed up the dissemination of new findings. Indeed > > As to where to do this, I would recommend choosing one of the free / general > purpose genealogical platforms (I use Family search*) and then making full > use of their functionality for posting explanations. holding discussions > etc. so that casual users think twice about over-writing or amending the > information. After all for most people the knowledge that their ancestry > links into an "important family" that can be traced back before the start of > registers brings enough of a warm glow, without then trying to muck up the > work of others. > > *Family search seems to be cleaning up its database so that medieval > individuals who had existed in multiple genealogies are rapidly being boiled > down to one profile or in some cases a handful of "rivals" where frequently > the issue is a lack of clarity over generations etc. As such it is crying > out for people who really know the position to get involved so as to achieve > the level of stability envisaged by some of the posters on this topic. FamilySearch might be willing to do this sort of thing, but I would not recommend getting involved with any organisation whose genealogical agenda may differ from that of the creators of such a List as I am proposing, however tempting that may be. > > With apologies for having the temerity to interrupt what seems like a > discussion between old friends > James Haddock Scarcely necessary, really, as I for one do not know all these folk and we are all members of the same List so your contributions are very welcome. Richard C-Z

I did find a distant relative at the 12 marker level with Family Tree DNA by looking at who on the list was looking for what families and we found our common Lightfoot surname ancestor of about 1650. Whether that Lightfoot DNA was a factor or not in the matching, I do not know. Darrel Hockley From: taf via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:59 PM Subject: Re: DNA - My Story from 10 years ago On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 12:36:31 PM UTC-7, Gordon Banks via wrote: > It seems like they shouldn't report 12 marker matches at all, if it serves > no genealogical purpose.  It just confuses those who don't understand the > significance of it to be given the email of one of their relatives to > contact when the relationship is so distant. You won't find me arguing, at least with regard to giving out completely useless email addresses, but from a marketing perspective you paid for a test to identify cousins so they are going to give you cousins, and most happy customers will never even figure out it is meaningless. taf ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 6/14/2016 5:21 PM, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > ... Many of us respect Charles Cawley's ambitions and > effort, but wish also that he would have a way of not moving ahead > sometimes too quickly. 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. It is also sad because it is clear that this is a "labor of love" for Mr. Cawley, who has spent an enormous amount of time producing a work whose whole is so much less than the sum of its parts. Another unfortunate point is the lack of any significant improvement in quality after ten years, despite significant increases in quantity. Although it is hard to be sure about this, Mr. Cawley appears to be very sensitive to the (sometimes severe) criticism that he has received regarding Medieval Lands, and I have seen no indication that any significant attempt has been made to address the very real problems that have been present from the very beginning. Throughout its ten year history, Medieval Lands has essentially been a (very) rough draft in a continual state of revision. There is a tremendous amount of valuable "finding aid" type of material there (mainly citations to original sources), but it is so intermingled with so many citations to unreliable sources and erroneous conclusions that it is of little practical value to those genealogists lacking the familiarity with the primary sources to separate the good from the bad. So, while the genealogists who knows what he/she is doing can sometimes use Medieval Lands to track down an original source, there are an abundance of pitfalls awaiting the unwary amateur, not the least of which is the fact that Medieval Lands contains just enough "window dressing" to look like a finished product to those who are not that familiar with the material. In some cases, Mr. Cawley's lack of familiarity with the scholarly literature is astonishing, as is his apparent lack of effort to become familiar with it. For example, the pages on early medieval Ireland are atrocious, consisting of his attempts to reconstruct material based on the annals and little else, roughly comparable to a novice genealogist who tries to compile a genealogy using only birth, death, and marriage records. Throught Medieval Lands, his mistakes involving Latin are numerous, and would often be laughable if people weren't being misled by his misinterpretations. A good deal of the blame for this should be placed on the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, which sponsors Medieval Lands. The fact that such severe problems have persisted for so long without any reasonable improvement does not speak well for the FMG. Stewart Baldwin

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 4:20:05 PM UTC-7, Darrel Hockley via wrote: > I did find a distant relative at the 12 marker level with Family Tree DNA > by looking at who on the list was looking for what families and we found > our common Lightfoot surname ancestor of about 1650. Whether that > Lightfoot DNA was a factor or not in the matching, I do not know. I didn't want to leave the impression that a 12-marker match wouldn't match a close cousin. It is just that a 12-marker match may match a million people, including close cousins but also including people descended from brothers who butchered a mammoth together. taf

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 12:36:31 PM UTC-7, Gordon Banks via wrote: > It seems like they shouldn't report 12 marker matches at all, if it serves > no genealogical purpose. It just confuses those who don't understand the > significance of it to be given the email of one of their relatives to > contact when the relationship is so distant. You won't find me arguing, at least with regard to giving out completely useless email addresses, but from a marketing perspective you paid for a test to identify cousins so they are going to give you cousins, and most happy customers will never even figure out it is meaningless. taf

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. As a reminder, the Livro Velho de Linhagens is a collection of accounts of the noble families of Portugal, thought to have first been compiled in a preliminary form in the latter half of the 13th century, and finalized by Pedro, Count of Barcelos, in the mid 14th century. In its account of the origin of the Maia, it presents what is referred to as the Lenda de Gaia (the Legend of Gaia, also called the Miragaia), which relates that king Ramiro II of Leon, while campaigning in what is now Portugal, fell in love with the sister of the local lord, Alboazar Albocadam. He kidnapped her, planning to divorce his wife and marry her, only to have Alboazar kidnap his wife and when he tried to sneak in and rescue his wife, she revealed his presence to Alboazar out of revenge for Ramiro's infidelity. However, Ramiro's son Ordono stormed the castle, killing Alboazar, and Ramiro took the sister, baptized as Artiga, back to Leon, where he married her and had children (he having murdered his prior wife for her role in the affair). The Livro Velho then makes Alboazar (soemtimes called Cid - lord) the founder of the Maia, the son of Ramiro by Artiga. This connection has provided the basis for many claims of Muslim descent, but there have long been flaws observed in the connection. Notably, none of this finds any mention in the historical record of Leon. While one could argue that the christian chroniclers of the Reconquest may have purged a Muslim connection, it seems inexplicable that they would not at least have condemned Ramiro for murdering his wife. Likewise we are not restricted to histories, as there are surviving (as copies) charters from Ramiro's reign, and again no indication of this wife. Likewise, the account in problematic on the Maia side of the descent, for the Maia founder appears in contemporary documents, not as Alboazar Ramires as he is named in the Livro Velho, but as Alboazar Lovesendes - Alboazar, son of Lovesendo. Still when there is a desirable descent at stake, it rarely stops the enthusiast to find contradictory evidence. A decade ago there was extensive discussion of this connection. Notably, Chico Doria presented his thoughts that culminated in a self-published book, Uma hipotese sobre a origem dos senhores de Maia, seculo X. I have not seen this but have seen a preliminary manuscript, and the crux of his argument comes from finding several of the names from the legend in the contemporary documents of the region, and notably he finds a Lovesendo whom he identifies as father of Alboazar Lovesendes - basically, he would argue that Ramiro was interposed into an authentic account of the Muslim origin for the Maia, but that it was Lovesendo who married a Muslim princess (as well as himself having Muslim descent). While he mention's Doria's work as an inspiration for his own, Rei takes a different tack, one that effectively arises out of an evaluation of the name forms found in the Lenda and the Maia pedigree. Rei first presents come cultural background and documents that Ramiro II was active in the region in question. However, the crux of his argument comes from an evaluation of name forms. He starts with that of the Maia founder, Cid Alboazar. Doria had interpreted Cid as an honorific, 'lord', and Alboazar as coming via a garbled intermediate, Abouazar, from the name Abu Nazar, a common Arab name. Rei instead interprets it as Abu l-'Asar, which effectively means 'Founder of the Lineage'. He interprets this along with Cid (from the Arabic Sayyid) as being an honorific. This allows him to conclude that the name Cid Alboazar Lovesendes does not mean 'Lord' Alboazar, son of Lovesendo, but rather that it means 'Lord Founder' Lovesendo, and by so doing, removes the impediment that the patronymic represented in making the Maia founder the son of Ramiro. Rei likewise analyzes Artiga (Ortiga in later versions of the pedigree). In this name he sees a corruption of Ariqa. (The two would be quite similar, bearing in mind that the guttural Q is often represented as a G in the Latin alphabet, and that soft vowels are omitted in older written Arabic, makign the two Artqa vs Aryqa, with 't' and 'y' differing in the placement of two dots above vs. below the letter.) Ariqa, he tells us, means 'she of a noble lineage', so that this name likewise is honorific in nature. I will add here that just because it was honorific does not mean it was not being used as a given name, although it can be hard to tell sometimes - the Codice de Roda refers to a daughter of Muhammad al-Tawil as Velasquita, while in Muslim sources she is Sayyida - the feminine form of Sayyid and a name also familiar to genealogists in the form of Zaida, Alfonso VI's mistress. With this then Rei concludes that, lost within the honorific name forms found within the Livro Velho account is an authentic pedigree, in which the Maia founder was Cid (honorific) Abu l-'Asar (honorific) Lovesendo Ramires, the son of king Ramiro by the lady of most noble lineage (Ariqa), daughter of (and this part is not explained, simply shown in a chart referencing Ibn Hazm's collection of Al-Andalus pedigrees) Sa'd (Abu Sa'dun), brother of Umayya, governor of Santarem in 937, both in turn sons of Ishaq, an Umayyad descendant of founder Marwan al-Umawi, who married the great-granddaughter of Muhammad. So, is this a viable solution? I say no. The interpretation of Alboazar as Abu l-A'sar is certainly possible, but it cannot be a literal honorific, because it appears in documents from the man's own time. It is the rare man who is called founder of a lineage during his own life, and as I mentioned above, these honorifics were used as actual literal names (Abu Nazar is also such an honorific). The format used at the time was name/patronymic, and while there are cases where an honorific is used, it replaces the name, rather than displacing it at the expense of the honorific. Were Lovesendo Ramires to be called instead by his honorifics, we would expect Cid Ramires or Abu l-A'sar Ramires. This is particularly the case given that the patronymic in question was the highest claim the man could make - being a lord is one thing, and being the (prospective) founder of a lineage is another, but this man was (we are told) son of the king and the patronymic would have been a continual reminder to everyone that this was the case - I can't see him forgoing it just so he could be called 'lord' Lovesendo. No, as much as some want it to be otherwise, this man was lord Abu Nazar (or Abu l-A'sar) Lovesendes, son of a Lovesendo and the royal connection (and the Muslim connection along with it) is just a myth like so many 'my ancestor was secret lovechild of the king' myths. taf

Thank you, Doug. The document you cite concerning Sussex is the reason I am pursuing this line. Certainly, Osbert had a brother,Adam and a son, Adam. If Osbert married Emma Tattershale , he was much older, yet he is found responsible of property that would have come from the Albinis. Would this have been if either his brother or son had married Emma? > On Jun 14, 2016, at 1:02 PM, alden via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Couple docs: > > > FILE-[no title] - ref.BCM/A/3/7/1 - date:[27 April 1309] > > Adam de Cailly, knight, and John de Cailly his brother. Sun. after St. Mark, 2 Edw. II > Adam informs John that, whereas he granted to John a messuage and 2 carucates of land in Glos. called la Walles within the manor of Giffardesstoke for life, he has now enfeoffed Lady Margaret, widow of Sir John Giffard of Brymesfeld, and John Giffard, Sir John's son and heir, and John de Cailly must now do them fealty. > At: 'Grauntebrugg'. > On 28th of April 1309, just one day later, Sir Adam de Cailly died and the property was owned by John de Cailly > > > and > > Norfolk Archaelogy: Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to the Antiquities of the county of Norfolk, Norwich, Norwich and Norfolk Archaelogical Society, (1847), vol. 3, pps 126-127. http://www.leshaigh.co.uk/kellawaymed/norfolktree.html. > > Inter Waltm. de Bersted quer' et Osbertum de Kaylly deforc'--De decem libratis et sexdecim denar' redditus in Wyuelesfeud, Wrth, Yfford, Meschyng, Ouingeden et Wychcenden; unde placitumconvencionis sum' fuit inter eos:--Osbertus recognovit predictum redditum cum pertientiis scil' homagium et totam servicium Johis. de la Bysse et heredum suorum de omnibus > tenementis que Johes. prius tenuit de Osberto in eisdem villis sine aliquo retinemento esse jus Walti.,tenendum &c., faciendo as scutagium quando evenerit servitum feodi unius militis pro omni servitio:--Pro hoc fine Walts. dedit Osberto quater viginti et decem libras. Et hec concordia facta fuit in eadem curis Walto. homogium fecit. 47 H. III--1263 > > Doug Smith > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 2016-06-13 21:39:51 +0000, taf said: > This is a pervasive problem with History of Parliament. It is simply > not practicable for a single editor or small group of editors to > independently research the thousands of people whose biographies they > must compile. As a result, they fall back on the 19th and 20th century > compilations, and all too often propagate errors they contain, > sometimes at the expense of later publications that would not have been > that much harder to access (for example using Vivian for material long > since corrected in D&CN&Q and TDA). I can't count the number of times > I have found the genealogical blurb at the start of entries in HoP to > be wrong or incomplete (or incompletely referenced so you can't tell). They also, as a matter of policy, don't correct errors that are pointed out to them. I was told by Dr. Emma Peplow, their outreach officer, that "we currently do not correct or add to the original text on our website in order to keep the online text consistent with the published text." I would myself think that not perpetrating false information is a higher scholarly value than keeping your web text synchronized with your printed text, but what do I know? Dr. Peplow did add (this was in email a couple of years ago) that they're planning a facility that would allow corrections to appear alongside the main text. These remarks were prompted by my emailing to point out that their entry on Sir Thomas Gresley (d. 1445) garbles the account of his daughters, "Joan and Margaret, [who] did equally well for themselves, becoming the wives, respectively, of Sir Thomas Blount (d.1456), treasurer of Normandy, and Thomas Astley of Patshull, who was related to the Beauchamp earls of Warwick." In fact Margaret married Sir Thomas Blount and Joan married Thomas Astley. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden pnh@panix.com about.me/patricknh http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/index.php

It seems like they shouldn't report 12 marker matches at all, if it serves no genealogical purpose. It just confuses those who don't understand the significance of it to be given the email of one of their relatives to contact when the relationship is so distant. On Jun 13, 2016, at 2:08 PM, taf via wrote: > On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 12:40:46 PM UTC-7, Gordon Banks via wrote: >> My yDNA is the common British Isles R1b. Supposedly these ancestors >> sheltered during the Ice Age on the Iberian Peninsula. The DNA testing >> company offers connections with others who match you at 12, 25, 37, 64, >> etc markers. You also list your birthplace, which in my case, was New >> Mexico. I was interested to find that most of my 12 marker matches (none >> of the higher matches) were with Hispanic people. I was contacted by >> several of my Hispanic "cousins" from New Mexico with 12 marker matches >> who picked up that I was from the same area (New Mexico was settled by >> Spanish colonists 400 years ago, for those who didn't know). >> Unfortunately, I had to inform them that 12 marker matches were not all >> that close and that our yDNA relationship was probably 12000 years old. > > Yeah, 12 markers are only good enough for deep-ancestry typing, not genealogy. Telling you they found relatives that were 12-marker matches is just a fancy way of telling you they found no genealogically-relevant relatives. The match to Hispanics is indicative of the fact that the majority of Hispanics have European Y-chromosomes (including the broadly distributed European R1b), and there are just a lot of Hispanics in New Mexico. If you looked in West Virginia, you would probably have a lot of matches with WASPs, if you looked in Maine or Louisiana, then the matches would be with French. > > taf > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 6/14/2016 2:20 AM, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > Isn't what is being proposed somewhat similar to, or compatible with, > the Victoria County Histories? I believe that in a sense this is also an > active but slow project? Although this is better than most sources on this topic, it is still an example of too few people trying to do too much. I haven't examined that many VCH accounts in great detail, but those that I have checked carefully suggest caution. The one that I have checked most carefully is the account of the descent of the manor and advowson of Doverdale in Worcestershire, because of my descent from the Braces of Droitwich, who held the advowson and a moiety of the manor. The accounts given for the descent of the manor, the descent of the advowson, and the descent of the related manor of Sodington are not even consistent with each other, and show a carelessness with chronology that would not have been present with more detailed research. (I still haven't figured out how it all fits together, just that the account in VCH cannot be correct as it stands.) Despite the reasonably good overall quality of the VCH histories, they still strike me as having too few resources spread too thin. Stewart Baldwin

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 10:48:53 AM UTC-7, Patrick Nielsen Hayden wrote: > They also, as a matter of policy, don't correct errors that are pointed > out to them. I was told by Dr. Emma Peplow, their outreach officer, > that "we currently do not correct or add to the original text on our > website in order to keep the online text consistent with the published > text." Well, thanks for that. Now I know not to bother sending in corrections. There is certainly a place for the integrity of the original, but not when it comes at the expense of the target audience. In a trivial example, I remember having to use two parallel card indexes at the Portsmouth Record Office. They had two people doing their indexing, and one would go as far as they had time, then put in a marker and the other would progress from that point, back and forth. Rather than interspersing the two batches of entries from the same set of records into a single index, they kept them apart to protect the discrete integrity of the two people's work. It meant the user had to look everything up twice, when they could have just put a distinctive mark on one set of cards and then mixed them if they wanted to distinguish the work of one from the other, and it would have halved the time spent by researchers. taf

Couple docs: FILE-[no title] - ref.BCM/A/3/7/1 - date:[27 April 1309] Adam de Cailly, knight, and John de Cailly his brother. Sun. after St. Mark, 2 Edw. II Adam informs John that, whereas he granted to John a messuage and 2 carucates of land in Glos. called la Walles within the manor of Giffardesstoke for life, he has now enfeoffed Lady Margaret, widow of Sir John Giffard of Brymesfeld, and John Giffard, Sir John's son and heir, and John de Cailly must now do them fealty. At: 'Grauntebrugg'. On 28th of April 1309, just one day later, Sir Adam de Cailly died and the property was owned by John de Cailly and Norfolk Archaelogy: Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to the Antiquities of the county of Norfolk, Norwich, Norwich and Norfolk Archaelogical Society, (1847), vol. 3, pps 126-127. http://www.leshaigh.co.uk/kellawaymed/norfolktree.html. Inter Waltm. de Bersted quer' et Osbertum de Kaylly deforc'--De decem libratis et sexdecim denar' redditus in Wyuelesfeud, Wrth, Yfford, Meschyng, Ouingeden et Wychcenden; unde placitumconvencionis sum' fuit inter eos:--Osbertus recognovit predictum redditum cum pertientiis scil' homagium et totam servicium Johis. de la Bysse et heredum suorum de omnibus tenementis que Johes. prius tenuit de Osberto in eisdem villis sine aliquo retinemento esse jus Walti.,tenendum &c., faciendo as scutagium quando evenerit servitum feodi unius militis pro omni servitio:--Pro hoc fine Walts. dedit Osberto quater viginti et decem libras. Et hec concordia facta fuit in eadem curis Walto. homogium fecit. 47 H. III--1263 Doug Smith

Isn't what is being proposed somewhat similar to, or compatible with, the Victoria County Histories? I believe that in a sense this is also an active but slow project? Regards Andrew

On 03/06/16 00:22, Richard Carruthers via wrote: > On 02/06/2016, Richard Smith via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> On 02/06/16 08:02, Richard Carruthers via wrote: >> >>> The List or Index to the Landed, Manorial, or Gentry Families (LMGF) >>> is the first thing I think needs to be established. >> >> What purpose do you see this list or index having? I am to some extent >> playing Devil's Advocate here, but it is a key point to which to have >> agreement. >> >> I see several possible purposes: >> >> 1. To provide information on the demographics of the upper levels >> of mediaeval society. >> >> 2. As an index to help researchers locate primary sources on >> particular families or individuals. >> >> 3. As the index to a large-scale collaborative genealogy (and/or >> biographical dictionary) of the mediaeval landed gentry. >> >> Probably there are other possibilities I've not considered. > > primarily 2 with a possibility of 3, but closer to > > 4. To provide a List of LMG Families to enable researchers to locate > individual families in the catchment area and discover other parties > interested in a given family to facilitate research, and, if desired, > engage in solo or collaborative research into LGM Families in a > scholarly manner, with evidence-based and peer-reviewed findings > available online through a potential series of linked pages, but at > least one Master List page for each county showing the details I > listed in my first mock-up. You give locating individual families with the catchment area as a use for the list. Is there a big requirement for this? When researching the mediaeval landed gentry, typically I either know fairly precisely where the family is from because they were referred to as of some place; or I can do no better than the vaguest of guesses as to the region of the country they may be from. I rarely have a situation where I want to know, say, where the Eayre families were in Wiltshire in the 15th century. And if I did, many (most?) areas have a 18th or 19th century county history that I would trust to answer questions on the general whereabouts of families, if not on the particulars of their genealogy. As for discovering other researchers interested in a family, assuming they wish to be discovered, I've found Google searches to be a pretty good way of finding them. Is what you're proposing going to serve that purpose better than a few carefully crafted searches? Where I think your suggestion gets more interesting is when you talk about "evidence-based and peer-reviewed findings available online through a series of linked pages". This is something I think could potentially be of genuine value, but this then is getting closer to my third purpose, above. If that's to be the main purpose, then it should be the focus from the very start. >> However I'm not sure which, if either, of the latter two suggested >> purposes you intended. I initially thought it was a collaborative >> genealogy, but now I'm not wondering whether you are more focused on the >> second. Either way, I'm not sure the list, as per your mock up, is >> doing it. > > How would you suggest its deficiencies ought to be made up? It's not that I don't think the list you propose is potentially useful; rather, my concern is that if it's to be useful, then it is as a small part of a bigger project, but I've yet to fully understand the nature of that larger project (if indeed there is to be one). I can't help but feel that this thread is becoming the equivalent of having a detailed discussion about the format of the index of a book, without first establishing what its contents are and at whom it is targeted. >> When it comes to genealogical details, I think either you need a much >> clearer policy on what you want and how, or you should drop it entirely >> until such time as you do. > > What sort of genealogical details do you think it desirable that such a > List lead to on deeper linked pages? It's not so much the details, as how they are presented. You need a consistent style from the beginning. > I think, however, that such a List and linked pages should provide facilities > for comment areas linked to all pages, That's sensible. It's the Wikipedia model: every page has a "Talk page" distinct from the page itself where the page can be discussed. > This would, for example, allow one to critique an entry that cobbled > together findings in such a way that a given entry amounted to > something erroneous. In the end, this could be a could way of > providing consistent scholarly criticism for otherwise unreviewed > information of the "Fab Pedigree" kind. I would hope that if you intend this to be a serious scholarly work, descents such as that on the "Fab Pedigree" site would be deleted pretty quickly. That's not to say you shouldn't have sections discussing incorrect aspects of the genealogy of real people when such errors are prevalent on-line, and explaining why they are erroneous. > [...] This is all part of the Verified Genealogy idea I referred to earlier. Your idea of verified genealogies is perhaps worth pursuing independently of this project. Richard

On 6/13/2016 6:23 AM, WJH via wrote: > At present I don't know if my researches are repeating work done many > times by others or are breaking new ground, so having both a > definitive source to refer to and subsequently to submit information > to, would greatly reduce the waste of time and speed up the > dissemination of new findings. Unfortunately, in any situation where the available sources are thin, there are simply going to be too many cases where being definitive is not realistic. The rigid format taken on by most databases exacerbates this problem. The "fill-in-the-blank" mentality of most genealogical databases often forces people to enter data which is either misleading or incomplete. Far too many "genealogists" want to just copy THE ANSWER without exercising their brain cells in any way, and some apparently consider "unknown" to be an unacceptable conclusion. Given a choice between a well-researched article stating that no conclusion is possible on the available evidence and an undocumented article containing obvious fantasy, some will enter the fantasy into their databases. > As to where to do this, I would recommend choosing one of the free / general purpose genealogical platforms (I use Family search*) and then making full use of their functionality for posting explanations. holding discussions etc. so that casual users think twice about over-writing or amending the information. After all for most people the knowledge that their ancestry links into an "important family" that can be traced back before the start of registers brings enough of a warm glow, without then trying to muck up the work of others. The problem, as for all such endeavors, is quality control. There has to be enough qualified individuals participating to keep the "dreamers" in check, and I have never seen any evidence that the percentage of qualified people is anywhere close to critical mass. Also, too many enthusiasts lack the critical skills to distinguish good research from bad research, even when the two are set side-by-side. > *Family search seems to be cleaning up its database so that medieval individuals who had existed in multiple genealogies are rapidly being boiled down to one profile or in some cases a handful of "rivals" where frequently the issue is a lack of clarity over generations etc. As such it is crying out for people who really know the position to get involved so as to achieve the level of stability envisaged by some of the posters on this topic. Without the necessary critical mass of qualified individuals, it is unclear that such time would be well spent, when a valid correction can be changed back to the incorrect information by someone else. To give an example, I had a couple of articles published some years back in a good journal which established that the commonly stated (but undocumented) maiden name of a certain woman was false, and gave proof of her correct maiden name and parentage. Some individuals summarized my evidence and conclusions online (with reasonable accuracy at first), but a few stages of various copy-pastes led to abbreviated versions being combined with erroneous research by others on the same family. A year or two ago, while doing an online search, I found material posted during the previous couple of years to various sites like Find-a-Grave and Family Search by an individual (whom I will call "NN" to keep the person as anonymous as possible) who was very critical of my research, stating that the maiden name and parentage given by me was false. Before composing any response, I searched the web for anything I could find written by NN on the subject, and checked over my research very carefully to make sure it was correct (which it was). In addition to some serious errors, NN accused me of certain false statements which I had in fact never made, and it became clear that NN had not even read my articles, and was looking only at one of the above outlines that also contained various errors copy-pasted from material written by others. I made long reply to the Rootsweb mailing list which I thought was most appropriate (not this one), with a couple of short postings to other appropriate lists pointing them to the long one, giving a complete outline of the evidence (including additional evidence since discovered), trying to be as gracious as possible in pointing out NN's errors. I also e-mailed a courtesy copy to NN, so that NN would have the opportunity to respond. The responses on the list (none from NN) were generally positive, and I went onto other things for a while. After a while, seeing nothing on Rootsweb, I did more searches and saw that NN (who had clearly seen my response) was still at it, making false statements about what appeared in my articles, still with no indication of having actually read them. One thing I will concede: NN clearly has much more energy and more determination about this matter than I do, and I would never be able to compete in the VOLUME of material posted on the subject, even if I thought that it was worthwhile to try. Doing so would only increase my stress levels, and possibly make me write something in the heat of the moment that I would later regret. For that reason, I believe that any project designed to assess the relative quality of different theories is doomed to fail unless the scope of the project is small enough so that those qualified to work on it are not overwhelmed, and "contributions" from those lacking the necessary skills are checked with sufficient thoroughness before being entered into the database. If a larger scope is desired, then a more realistic project, in my opinion, would be something intended more as a finding aid, like a more detailed version of Marshall's Genealogist's Guide, which indicated more clearly which families of the surname were being covered in the sources (location, time frame, etc.), without trying to evaluate the "correct" version in cases of disagreement. Such a resource might help keep genealogists from overlooking important sources. Stewart Baldwin