On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:23:59 AM UTC-7, WJH wrote: > 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. 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). In this sense the proposed compilation has a value outside of the genealogy itself. If it only served as a finding aid to the primary documentation and scholarly analysis, it would be useful. taf

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 1:33:39 PM UTC-7, Matthew Langley wrote: > Just wanted to add that the idea R1b originated pre ice-age in Iberia is > outdated, the modern thoughts based on the massive amount of DNA progress > (and matching it to known and new archeology and ancient DNA) supports > R1b actually coming into Europe around the early Bronze age. Matthew makes a good point. In the earliest days of this type of analysis a simplistic assumption was applied to the origins of these haplogroups. They looked at a map to see where they were most common in the population, and assigned that was their place of origin. (It is this thinking that led Bryan Sykes to give personal names and cultural biographies to his 'Seven Daughters of Eve' - all nonsense, though popular nonsense.) It has since become clear through the study of ancient DNA that modern distribution patterns have been repeatedly altered by migration, social selection and contingency, and are poor indicators of where the haplogroup originated. In the case of the Ice-Age refugia, a recent study showed, at least in terms of mtDNA, that immediately after emerging, Europe's hunter-gatherer population was diverse, but then a single group of hunter-gatherers suddenly expanded and replaced most of that diversity. They must have come up with some sort of technological or genetic innovation that enabled them to out-compete and supplant everyone else. They were in turn were mostly replaced by the farmers from Anatolia, such that there is very little of any European hunter-gatherer types left anywhere but on the fringes, and in turn the Indo-Europeans. Any haplogroup that is currently high in western Europe will have come with these later groups and not from the refugia. Even the Basques, typically presented as 'different' from all other Europeans, are genetically derived from these later migrants and not from the native hunter-gatherers. Still these old just-so stories about where the haplogroups arose are going to be floating around the internet forever, so be careful. taf

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

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. > > On Jun 12, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Don Stone via wrote: > > > Colin, > > > > An excellent story showing the payoff for persistent, systematic work, > > utilizing all available tools. > > > > In my case, Y-chromosome DNA testing came after I had worked out my > > patrilineal pedigree. The pedigree has one link in New England for which > > I could find strong circumstantial evidence but no direct proof > > (http://donstonetech.com/StoneFamily/slides/JosStoneInBartlett.html, > > http://donstonetech.com/StoneFamily/slides/JosStoneInv3.html). The Y-DNA > > match (35/37 STR) with a well-documented descendant of the Massachusetts > > immigrant Gregory Stone supports (but doesn't prove, of course) the > > pedigree I worked out; he would be a 9th cousin. A number of earlier > > genealogists had tried to connect my ancestor Joseph Stone of > > Connecticut with the family of the brothers John and William Stone, > > immigrants to Guilford, Connecticut. (Traces of this still appear on > > the Web.) However, the Stones of Guilford are Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1a1a2 > > (R-M269), whereas I am Y-DNA haplogroup I1a3 (I-Z63). > > > > The latest presentation of my patrilineal ancestry and Y-DNA is at > > http://donstonetech.com/StoneChart. This version has some information > > about paleoclimatology, cultural developments, etc., to make it more > > interesting. For me the DNA testing was a catalyst for expanding my > > horizons backward in time. For example, I had previously mostly ignored > > information about ice ages, but now that I have some idea where my > > patrilineal ancestors were living during the Last Glacial Maximum, I > > have considerable interest in what their lives were probably like. > > > > -- Don Stone > > > > > > On 6/12/2016 6:22 AM, Colin Withers via wrote: > >> After facing a brick wall in my own family's genealogy for nearly 30 > >> years, the wall finally came down 10 years ago. Here is the link to > >> the article I wrote then on the Yorksgen group, and thankfully > >> archived by rootsweb: > >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/YORKSGEN/2006-08/1156683092 > >> Wibs > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 Just wanted to add that the idea R1b originated pre ice-age in Iberia is outdated, the modern thoughts based on the massive amount of DNA progress (and matching it to known and new archeology and ancient DNA) supports R1b actually coming into Europe around the early Bronze age. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-migration-map.jpg

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. On Jun 12, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Don Stone via wrote: > Colin, > > An excellent story showing the payoff for persistent, systematic work, > utilizing all available tools. > > In my case, Y-chromosome DNA testing came after I had worked out my > patrilineal pedigree. The pedigree has one link in New England for which > I could find strong circumstantial evidence but no direct proof > (http://donstonetech.com/StoneFamily/slides/JosStoneInBartlett.html, > http://donstonetech.com/StoneFamily/slides/JosStoneInv3.html). The Y-DNA > match (35/37 STR) with a well-documented descendant of the Massachusetts > immigrant Gregory Stone supports (but doesn't prove, of course) the > pedigree I worked out; he would be a 9th cousin. A number of earlier > genealogists had tried to connect my ancestor Joseph Stone of > Connecticut with the family of the brothers John and William Stone, > immigrants to Guilford, Connecticut. (Traces of this still appear on > the Web.) However, the Stones of Guilford are Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1a1a2 > (R-M269), whereas I am Y-DNA haplogroup I1a3 (I-Z63). > > The latest presentation of my patrilineal ancestry and Y-DNA is at > http://donstonetech.com/StoneChart. This version has some information > about paleoclimatology, cultural developments, etc., to make it more > interesting. For me the DNA testing was a catalyst for expanding my > horizons backward in time. For example, I had previously mostly ignored > information about ice ages, but now that I have some idea where my > patrilineal ancestors were living during the Last Glacial Maximum, I > have considerable interest in what their lives were probably like. > > -- Don Stone > > > On 6/12/2016 6:22 AM, Colin Withers via wrote: >> After facing a brick wall in my own family's genealogy for nearly 30 >> years, the wall finally came down 10 years ago. Here is the link to >> the article I wrote then on the Yorksgen group, and thankfully >> archived by rootsweb: >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/YORKSGEN/2006-08/1156683092 >> Wibs > > > ------------------------------- > 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 Monday, June 13, 2016 at 12:10:53 PM UTC-7, Matthew Langley wrote: > On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 6:43:29 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Thanks for the response. Is Rev Robert Peck the same as the one in the will I mentioned? > > > > No, your person is a "Sir" Robert Peake, this was a Rev. Robert Peck. Robert Peck died in the mid-1650s, I believe. > > Absolutely correct, had a brain fart. > > I'm guessing those articles reference that correlation wondering if Sir Robert Peake is somehow related to that Robert Peck. > > Here's a visitation record that some people assign to Sir Robert Peake: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=bPBMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=robert+peake+elizabeth+beckwith&source=bl&ots=cR_OaN1mru&sig=bIpMpcwQ0F2EW_YAj1r0LBaTyHY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNqc7X2aXNAhUXQVIKHfMUARAQ6AEIXjAR#v=onepage&q=robert%20peake%20elizabeth%20beckwith&f=false > > Does anyone know of any genealogies covering these Peake's our their spouses? Here's an article about Robert Peake grandfather of Sir Robert Peake, it seems to assign Elizabeth Beckwith as his wife coinciding with that Harleian Society genealogy. http://philipmould.com/browse-artists/robert-peake

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 6:43:29 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Thanks for the response. Is Rev Robert Peck the same as the one in the will I mentioned? > > No, your person is a "Sir" Robert Peake, this was a Rev. Robert Peck. Robert Peck died in the mid-1650s, I believe. Absolutely correct, had a brain fart. I'm guessing those articles reference that correlation wondering if Sir Robert Peake is somehow related to that Robert Peck. Here's a visitation record that some people assign to Sir Robert Peake: https://books.google.com/books?id=bPBMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=robert+peake+elizabeth+beckwith&source=bl&ots=cR_OaN1mru&sig=bIpMpcwQ0F2EW_YAj1r0LBaTyHY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNqc7X2aXNAhUXQVIKHfMUARAQ6AEIXjAR#v=onepage&q=robert%20peake%20elizabeth%20beckwith&f=false Does anyone know of any genealogies covering these Peake's our their spouses?

Just got word from FTDNA confirms that several of my mtDNA SNPs are consistent with type U. They are investigating the results. The relevance of a Q finding obviously rules out any descent from the aforementioned Bourbon or Czarist monarchs on the direct maternal line, not that I ever supposed there was any connection, or with St. Luke for that matter. Sent from my iPhone

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 8:56:57 AM UTC+1, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > > Further... > > I'm not clear as to who would use this database... > > ...People trying to penetrate ancestral chains through Tudor?... > > ...That is folks trying to work from commoners, through landed gentry and > then hopefully into nobility and ultimately Royalty... > > ---Genealogists working for clients to do just that -- "Penetrate Through > Tudor"? > > DSH > > Fortem Posce Animum Mortis Terrore Carentem > > Decimus Junius Juvenalis [Juvenal] (ca. 60 A.D. Aquino, Italy - ca. 127 > A.D.] Satire X > wrote in message > news:cef0171e-9beb-4013-b558-c46e13cbd838@googlegroups.com... > 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. 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. 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. With apologies for having the temerity to interrupt what seems like a discussion between old friends Regards James James Haddock

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 8:01:10 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > ============================ > REPLY: > There is vast difference between expressing a religion from a missionary standpoint to "convert" individuals, versus necessary studies of religious values and systems, Both are off topic in this group. Stop. Stop now. taf

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 8:13:35 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 7:53:35 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > SECOND REPLY and CONCLUSION: > > It is not my interest to delve into others religious beliefs, as they are out of the scope of this group; > > So are yours. > > taf ============================ REPLY: There is vast difference between expressing a religion from a missionary standpoint to "convert" individuals, versus necessary studies of religious values and systems, to determine what effect a particular religion has on the preservation of records and genealogies, and accuracy within record systems. TAF, the World Will Get More Religious by 2050; re: Live Science, April 3, 2015. . . .[People who don't believe in any gods as well as agnostics and those not associated with a particular religion will become a smaller slice of the world's population. Though this unaffiliated group will increase in numbers from 1.1 billion to 1.2 billion, it will account for a lower percentage of the population (16 versus 13 percent) in 2050. That won't be the case in the United States, however, where agnostics, atheists and other unaffiliated individuals will increase from 16 percent to 26 percent of the population by 2050, Pew found. Christians in the United States are predicted to decline from 2010's 78 percent to 66 percent by the middle of the 21st century. By that same date, Muslims (2.1 percent of population) are expected to outnumber Jews (1.4 percent) in the United States.] . . . http://www.livescience.com/50370-worlds-religious-population-will-grow.html I like viewing things from a historical perspective, to prove a record factual, rather than to present things in a contentious manner. For example, and I again hope, in conclusion, there is a heated secular versus religious viewpoint, as well as within the LDS community, as to the exact location of the Hill Cumorah. This is well within the medieval time frame of this forum. [In this hill, a Book of Mormon figure, Mormon, deposited a number of metal plates containing the record of his nation of Nephites, just prior to their final battle with the Lamanites in which at least 230,000 people were killed.] This is a very low estimate, as more than likely, at least another 230,000 Lamanites were also terminated, in the process of Nephites self defense for their own lives and families. So, the secular scientists say not so, their are no remains or artifacts, and some LDS professional experts, protect themselves in a secular manner, by saying, Well, we really don't know where this hill is located, yet. Yet, reading the record itself, we find the answer to all the missing remains and artifacts. ". . . the Lamanites . . . feed the women upon the flesh of their husbands, and the children upon the flesh of their fathers . . .] The Nephites, on the other hand, [murder them (Lamanites) in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.] From my clearly historical standpoint, IF there had been remains left around the New York location of the Hill Cumorah, and a multitude of artifacts; indeed, it would have DISPROVED the inner contents of the book itself; since, the last battle of all would have been followed by a massive cannibalistic eating frenzy, as well as a complete, total pillaging of all personal and all military equipment and possessions left at the site, over time. Why else would the Lamanite Kings have allowed a gathering of all Nephites together in one single military setting? Answer: Because it was the easiest way for the Lamanites to acquire all of the Nephite treasures, and then eat them up as well, before they has a chance to decompose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumorah Cannibalism does affect available DNA sample size; etc.; re: comic DNA fantasy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_cannibalism#Middle_Ages

All, There seems to be quite a lot of confusion concerning the marriage to Osbert de Cailly to Emma Tattershale. I tend to support the conclusion that it was Osbert that she married but many sources say it was Adam de Cailly. The castle and manor of Buckenham Norfolk came to the Tattershals through the marriage of Robert Tattershale to Mabel de Albini. Osbert, through his marriage to Emma, daughter and heir of Robert Tatteshall[PJ1] , acquired Buckenham Castle built by William de Arundel in the time of Henry I. [1] [1]Sir Bernard Burke. Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionaryof the Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire. Harrison and Sons, Pall Mall, London. 1868. P. 199-200. https://books.google.com/books?id=NiVNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA857&dq=%22de+Kaily%22+wiltshire&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFns-JxqfLAhXI4CYKHYfyDbYQ6AEIIzAB#v=snippet&q=cailly&f=false In 1244, Osbert de Cailly had respite from knighthood until Christmas and in 1257 was excused from being put on assizes. This would place the birth of Osbert in about 1220, 20 years before the date of birth I can find for Emma which may be speculation. There is some record that Osbert's son Adam was by a first wife. HIL/1/6,869X8 Grant in pure alms by Osbert de Kaylly to Hervey de Brokedis chaplain and his successors. To sustain a chaplain for ever to celebrate the divine mystery in the church of Hilborough on the altar of Blessed Mary for his own soul and those of Adam de Kally and (?Maud) and Mary, his brothers and sisters, and his benefactors and all other faithful departed, of a messuage that Simon his brother quitclaimed to him with land at Flutewong in the vill and fields of Hilborough, the chaplain not to be forced to receive any other chaplain or brother into his house, nor to be part of the grantor's household (ospicium), nor keep horse, hound or bird for him, Endorsed de-Capella Sancte Margarete. (mid-late 13th century). 1240 -1260 Norfolk Record Office HIL/1/2,869X8 Grant by Pernella daughter of Osbert de Cally to Adam de Cally of one third part of a meadow held of him near the water running from Fulmore. (mid-late 13th century) 1250 - 1299 Hare 2163 194 x 3 Inspeximus by Adam son of Osbert de Cailly of two charters of feoffment and confirmation from Clement de Tefford and Isabella his sister to Osbert his father of land and liberty of faldage in Hildeburgworge. Undated c1200-1299 Osbert, then had a son, Adam who seems to have married a Joan, a daughter Pernella and perhaps others. I believe that Thomas de Cailli was the son of this Adam, grandson of Osbert. By 1263, Osbert is holding of the de Plaiz family in Wivelsfield (Wyvelesfelde), Worth[PJ1] , Iford, Mitching, Ovingdean and Wychcenden Sussex which he conveys to Walter de Bersted. [PJ1]Inter Alic. que fuit uxor Hug. de Playz pet' et Ricm. de Playz ten':—De tercia parte Maneriorum de Worthe Chageleye Kingeston Bercamp Iford Wanighore et Werplesburn in com' Sussex et manerii de Leye in com' Kanc et maneriorum de Wetynge Feltewell Toftes et Briseleye in com' Norff' quas tercias partes Alic. clamabat esse racionabilem dotem suam; unde placitum fuit inter eos:—Alic. remisit &c.:—Pro hoc fine Rics. concessit Alic. advocacionem ecclesie de Worth in com' Sussex et predicta maneria de Toftes et Feltewell et advocacionem ecclesie Beate Marie de Weting in com' Norff' et manerium de Leye in com' Kanc excepta advocacione ecclesie ejusdem manerii, tenenda tota vita sua. [40° Henry III. Westm' Oct' Sci. Michis. (Divers Counties: File 14. No. 322). Sussex, Kanc', Norff'.] http://w01.bhocms.wf.ulcc.ac.uk/feet-of-fines-sussex/vol2/pp4-26 Does anyone have information that would dispute the marriage of Osbert to Emma Tattershale? Thank you. Pat

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:02:04 AM UTC+10, taf wrote: > On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 10:34:15 AM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > > > The closest relationship I found was that they were fourth cousins once > > removed, as follows: > > > > 1. Richard I of Normandy, d. 996. > : > > 7. Geoffroy V, d. 1151, count of Anjou, duke of Normandy. > > > > 1. Richard I of Normandy, d. 996. > : > > 6. Matilda of England, d. 1167. > > There is the same degree of kinship in a descent from Geoffrey I of Anjou: > > 1. Geoffrey I, Count of Anjou > 2. Foulques III, Count of Anjou > 3. Ermengarde m. Geoffrey of Gatinais > 4. Foulques IV, Count of Anjou > 5. Foulques V, Count of Anjou > 6. Geoffrey V > > 1. Geoffrey I > 2. Ermengarde, m. Conan I of Brittany > 3. Judith m. Richard II of Normandy > 4. Robert I of Normandy > 5. William I of England > 6. Henry I of England > 7. Matilda of England > > It should be noted that all of this was previously worked out - > Matilda's brother William AEtheling had been affianced to Geoffrey's > sister so the relationships would already have been investigated. This relationship must have been very carefully scrutinised - William and Geoffrey's sister Matilda were betrothed as children in February 1113, then married in June 1119 when the bride had reached the age of 12. In this long interval the French had every motive to interfere with the alliance between their fathers sealed by their betrothal, if consanguinity had allowed that possibility. But as far as we know from the sources no such argument was ever proposed. Peter Stewart

After facing a brick wall in my own family's genealogy for nearly 30 years, the wall finally came down 10 years ago. Here is the link to the article I wrote then on the Yorksgen group, and thankfully archived by rootsweb: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/YORKSGEN/2006-08/1156683092 Wibs --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Colin, An excellent story showing the payoff for persistent, systematic work, utilizing all available tools. In my case, Y-chromosome DNA testing came after I had worked out my patrilineal pedigree. The pedigree has one link in New England for which I could find strong circumstantial evidence but no direct proof (http://donstonetech.com/StoneFamily/slides/JosStoneInBartlett.html, http://donstonetech.com/StoneFamily/slides/JosStoneInv3.html). The Y-DNA match (35/37 STR) with a well-documented descendant of the Massachusetts immigrant Gregory Stone supports (but doesn't prove, of course) the pedigree I worked out; he would be a 9th cousin. A number of earlier genealogists had tried to connect my ancestor Joseph Stone of Connecticut with the family of the brothers John and William Stone, immigrants to Guilford, Connecticut. (Traces of this still appear on the Web.) However, the Stones of Guilford are Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1a1a2 (R-M269), whereas I am Y-DNA haplogroup I1a3 (I-Z63). The latest presentation of my patrilineal ancestry and Y-DNA is at http://donstonetech.com/StoneChart. This version has some information about paleoclimatology, cultural developments, etc., to make it more interesting. For me the DNA testing was a catalyst for expanding my horizons backward in time. For example, I had previously mostly ignored information about ice ages, but now that I have some idea where my patrilineal ancestors were living during the Last Glacial Maximum, I have considerable interest in what their lives were probably like. -- Don Stone On 6/12/2016 6:22 AM, Colin Withers via wrote: > After facing a brick wall in my own family's genealogy for nearly 30 > years, the wall finally came down 10 years ago. Here is the link to > the article I wrote then on the Yorksgen group, and thankfully > archived by rootsweb: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/YORKSGEN/2006-08/1156683092 > Wibs

So, Don Stone is allegedly a 5th cousin, twice removed, of Sir Winston Churchill. Good Show... DSH "A vaincre sans peril, on triomphe sans gloire." -- Pierre Corneille [1606-1684] "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr. "Don Stone via" wrote in message news:mailman.1.1465757605.18605.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com... Colin, An excellent story showing the payoff for persistent, systematic work, utilizing all available tools. In my case, Y-chromosome DNA testing came after I had worked out my patrilineal pedigree. The pedigree has one link in New England for which I could find strong circumstantial evidence but no direct proof (http://donstonetech.com/StoneFamily/slides/JosStoneInBartlett.html, http://donstonetech.com/StoneFamily/slides/JosStoneInv3.html). The Y-DNA match (35/37 STR) with a well-documented descendant of the Massachusetts immigrant Gregory Stone supports (but doesn't prove, of course) the pedigree I worked out; he would be a 9th cousin. A number of earlier genealogists had tried to connect my ancestor Joseph Stone of Connecticut with the family of the brothers John and William Stone, immigrants to Guilford, Connecticut. (Traces of this still appear on the Web.) However, the Stones of Guilford are Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1a1a2 (R-M269), whereas I am Y-DNA haplogroup I1a3 (I-Z63). The latest presentation of my patrilineal ancestry and Y-DNA is at http://donstonetech.com/StoneChart. This version has some information about paleoclimatology, cultural developments, etc., to make it more interesting. For me the DNA testing was a catalyst for expanding my horizons backward in time. For example, I had previously mostly ignored information about ice ages, but now that I have some idea where my patrilineal ancestors were living during the Last Glacial Maximum, I have considerable interest in what their lives were probably like. -- Don Stone On 6/12/2016 6:22 AM, Colin Withers via wrote: > After facing a brick wall in my own family's genealogy for nearly 30 > years, the wall finally came down 10 years ago. Here is the link to the > article I wrote then on the Yorksgen group, and thankfully archived by > rootsweb: > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/YORKSGEN/2006-08/1156683092 > Wibs

On 6/12/2016 8:44 AM, kerica via wrote: > On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:32:04 UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: >> Anyone reading the article by Andrew MacEwan that was cited in the thread 'Re: Christine, natural daughter of King William the Lion of Scotland ?' will find this on p. 19: >> >> 'Matilda’s first marriage to Henry V, which did not require a dispensation, was in marked contrast to her second, to Geoffrey le Bel, count of Anjou, which did, as Chibnall shows in her biography of the Empress: “Whatever her personal wishes she finally acquiesced in her duty. In May 1127 she was escorted to Rouen by her brother Robert of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count for formal betrothal to Geoffrey of Anjou. Bishop Roger of Salisbury later complained that only they and John, bishop of Lisieux, were consulted about the marriage.” ... Only later in the book does Chibnall refer to the dispensation, “She had married into the house of Anjou, but she had also married a kinsman so close that papal dispensation had been necessary for the marriage to be valid.” [para] Neither Hollister in his *Henry I* nor Warren in his *Henry II* mentioned the dispensation, and Chibnall neglected to cite her source. Does any reader know its terms?' >> >> I'm not sure what MacEwan meant by 'Chibnall shows', since clearly he did not have proof from her work, but in any event there was no papal dispensation. > Sorry if this is obvious to everyone, but how was Matilda related to > Geoffrey of Anjou? I assume these historians thought she was, and so needed > papal dispensation. If there wasnt dispensation given, maybe its cos > they wernt closely related? The closest relationship I found was that they were fourth cousins once removed, as follows: 1. Richard I of Normandy, d. 996. 2. Robert, d. 1037, archbishop of Rouen and count of Evreux. 3. Richard, d. 1067, count of Evreux. 4. Agnes d'Evreux, m. Simon I de Montfort, d. ca. 1087. 5. Bertrade de Montfort, d. after 1115, m. Foulques IV, d. 1109, count of Anjou. 6. Foulques V, d. 1143, count of Anjou, king of Jerusalem. 7. Geoffroy V, d. 1151, count of Anjou, duke of Normandy. 1. Richard I of Normandy, d. 996. 2. Richard II, d. 1026, duke of Normandy. 3. Robert I, d. 1035, duke of Normandy. 4. William the Conqueror, d. 1087, duke of Normandy and king of England. 5. Henry I, d. 1135, king of England. 6. Matilda of England, d. 1167. There were other more distant relationships. For example, they were also fifth cousins through a common descent from Foulques II, count of Anjou. The identities of all of their great-grandparents are known, and they could not have been third cousins or closer. A closer relationship than the one shown above seems unlikely, although not impossible, given a couple of gaps in their known ancestry. See the ancestor table of their son Henry II at http://home.earthlink.net/~henryproject/hproject/prov/at.htm Stewart Baldwin

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 10:34:15 AM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > The closest relationship I found was that they were fourth cousins once > removed, as follows: > > 1. Richard I of Normandy, d. 996. : > 7. Geoffroy V, d. 1151, count of Anjou, duke of Normandy. > > 1. Richard I of Normandy, d. 996. : > 6. Matilda of England, d. 1167. There is the same degree of kinship in a descent from Geoffrey I of Anjou: 1. Geoffrey I, Count of Anjou 2. Foulques III, Count of Anjou 3. Ermengarde m. Geoffrey of Gatinais 4. Foulques IV, Count of Anjou 5. Foulques V, Count of Anjou 6. Geoffrey V 1. Geoffrey I 2. Ermengarde, m. Conan I of Brittany 3. Judith m. Richard II of Normandy 4. Robert I of Normandy 5. William I of England 6. Henry I of England 7. Matilda of England It should be noted that all of this was previously worked out - Matilda's brother William AEtheling had been affianced to Geoffrey's sister so the relationships would already have been investigated. taf

Perhaps they are also 4th cousins, once removed, by this relationship. DSH -------------------------------------------------------- MATILDA 'The Empress' is the 4th cousin once removed * of Geoffrey V Comte d'Anjou, Touraine et Maine Common Ancestor * Geoffroy I 'Grisegonelle' d'Anjou Seneschal de France (0950-0987) * Adelais de Vermandois (0950-Between 0975/0978) | ---------------------------------------- | | | | * Foulques III 'Nerra' Comte d'Anjou Conan I 'le Tort' de Bretagne Duc de Bretagne (Abt 0970-1040) ( -0992) Hildegarde de Lorraine * Ermengarde d' Anjou (Between 0964/0974-1046) | | | | Geoffrey II 'Ferreol' de Gatinais Comte de Gastinois Richard II 'le Bon' 4th Duke of Normandy (Abt 1000-1046) (Abt 0959-1026) * Ermengarde d'Anjou * Judith de Bretagne (Abt 1018-1076) (0982-1017) | | | | * Foulques IV 'le Rechin' Comte d'Anjou * Robert II 'le Diable' 6th Duke of Normandy (1043-1109) (Abt 1008-1035) Bertrade de Montfort Harlette de Falaise Officier du Palais (Abt 1060-1117) (Abt 1003-Abt 1050) | | | | * Foulques V 'le Jeune' Comte d'Anjou * WILLIAM I 'The Conqueror' King of England (1092-1144) (1027-1087) Ermengarde du Maine Comtesse and Heiress of Maine Matilda of Flanders (Abt 1096-1126) (Abt 1032-1083) | | | | * Geoffrey V Comte d'Anjou, Touraine et Maine * HENRY I 'Beauclerc' King of England (1113-1151) (Abt 1068-1135) Matilda (Edith) of Scotland (1079/1080-1118) | | * MATILDA 'The Empress' (1102-1167) "A vaincre sans peril, on triomphe sans gloire." -- Pierre Corneille [1606-1684] "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr. "Stewart Baldwin via" wrote in message news:mailman.0.1465752854.18605.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com... On 6/12/2016 8:44 AM, kerica via wrote: > On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:32:04 UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: >> Anyone reading the article by Andrew MacEwan that was cited in the thread >> 'Re: Christine, natural daughter of King William the Lion of Scotland ?' >> will find this on p. 19: >> >> 'Matilda's first marriage to Henry V, which did not require a >> dispensation, was in marked contrast to her second, to Geoffrey le Bel, >> count of Anjou, which did, as Chibnall shows in her biography of the >> Empress: "Whatever her personal wishes she finally acquiesced in her >> duty. In May 1127 she was escorted to Rouen by her brother Robert of >> Gloucester and Brian fitz Count for formal betrothal to Geoffrey of >> Anjou. Bishop Roger of Salisbury later complained that only they and >> John, bishop of Lisieux, were consulted about the marriage." ... Only >> later in the book does Chibnall refer to the dispensation, "She had >> married into the house of Anjou, but she had also married a kinsman so >> close that papal dispensation had been necessary for the marriage to be >> valid." [para] Neither Hollister in his *Henry I* nor Warren in his >> *Henry II* mentioned the dispensation, and Chibnall neglected to cite her >> source. Does any reader know its terms?' >> >> I'm not sure what MacEwan meant by 'Chibnall shows', since clearly he did >> not have proof from her work, but in any event there was no papal >> dispensation. > Sorry if this is obvious to everyone, but how was Matilda related to > Geoffrey of Anjou? I assume these historians thought she was, and so > needed > papal dispensation. If there wasnt dispensation given, maybe its cos > they wernt closely related? The closest relationship I found was that they were fourth cousins once removed, as follows: 1. Richard I of Normandy, d. 996. 2. Robert, d. 1037, archbishop of Rouen and count of Evreux. 3. Richard, d. 1067, count of Evreux. 4. Agnes d'Evreux, m. Simon I de Montfort, d. ca. 1087. 5. Bertrade de Montfort, d. after 1115, m. Foulques IV, d. 1109, count of Anjou. 6. Foulques V, d. 1143, count of Anjou, king of Jerusalem. 7. Geoffroy V, d. 1151, count of Anjou, duke of Normandy. 1. Richard I of Normandy, d. 996. 2. Richard II, d. 1026, duke of Normandy. 3. Robert I, d. 1035, duke of Normandy. 4. William the Conqueror, d. 1087, duke of Normandy and king of England. 5. Henry I, d. 1135, king of England. 6. Matilda of England, d. 1167. There were other more distant relationships. For example, they were also fifth cousins through a common descent from Foulques II, count of Anjou. The identities of all of their great-grandparents are known, and they could not have been third cousins or closer. A closer relationship than the one shown above seems unlikely, although not impossible, given a couple of gaps in their known ancestry. See the ancestor table of their son Henry II at http://home.earthlink.net/~henryproject/hproject/prov/at.htm Stewart Baldwin

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 11:06:52 AM UTC-4, Jordan Vandenberg wrote: > On Monday, April 30, 2012 at 8:07:38 PM UTC-4, Brad Verity wrote: > > On Apr 30, 3:29 pm, "mholl...@mac.com" <hollic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Jasper was the son of William Tyrrell and Philipa Thornbury. > > > > Martin, thank you for the reply (and thank you to Douglas for > > contacting you). Jasper may not have been the son of the couple > > above. The William Tyrrell who was father of Jasper is said by HOP to > > have died 28 September 1543, when he was succeeded by his grandson, > > Edmund Tyrrell, who must have been returned as age 30 and more, so > > born by 1513. HOP's source for this is William Tyrrell's IPM > > (C142/71/98). > > > > > William > > > in turn is the son of John Tyrrell and Alice Coggeshall.  The Tyrrells > > > are outlined in “The Tyrells of England” by Oliver F. Brown > > > (Phillimore, Chicester, Sussex, 1982). > > > > Sir John Tyrrell, Speaker of the House of Commons, was born about 1382 > > and died in 1437. His first wife Alice Coggeshall died in 1422. The > > youngest of their five sons was William Tyrrell of Beeches in > > Rawreth. The latest date he could be born is 1422. He may be the > > William Tyrrell who married Philippa Thornbury, but he most definitely > > could not be the William Tyrrell (d. 1543) who was the father of James > > (d. 1539), and grandfather of Edmund (c.1513-1576) and your Joan > > Tyrrell, wife of Edmund Lewkenor (d. 1545) above. > > > > Cheers, -----Brad > > Brad, Martin, Douglas, others > > I came across this website which includes transcripts of a number of documents relating to EDWARD DE VERE, 17TH EARL OF OXFORD. A number of the documents pertain to the Tyrrell's and three wills in particular seem to cornfirm the parentage of Jasper Tyrrell was William Tyrrell and Philippa Thornbury unless I am interpreting them incorrectly. They are linked below and are present after some commentary by the author of the pages. > > The first is the will dated 16 March 1471, of Sir William > Tyrrell of Beeches > http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Probate/PROB_11-5-167.pdf > > The second is the will dated 6 November 1576 and proved 29 > November 1576, of Edmund Tyrrell of Ramsden Barrington, the son of Jasper Tyrrell and Anne Goring > http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Probate/PROB_11-58-499.pdf > > The third is the will dated 20 December 1493 and proved 28 > November 1494, of John Tyrrell of Beeches, eldest son and heir of Sir William Tyrrell > http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Probate/PROB_11-10-311.pdf > > There are a number of other documents on this site that may be useful to researchers on the newsgroup. > > Regards, > Jordan Vandenberg Sorry I neglected to post the link to the page containing the descriptions and links to the documents pertaining to EDWARD DE VERE, 17TH EARL OF OXFORD housed on the Oxford Authorship Site. http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/documents.html