I haven’t been able to find any modern works on the origin of Walteri Filli Alani, (as called on his seal). Hence I have had to accepted that the latest authoritative author on the subject was Horace J. Round, who published "Studies in Peerage and Family History” in 1901. However, his interest (as seems true for later author) was the origin of the Fitzalan family (i.e. ancestors to the Earls of Arundel) and not the actual origin of Walteri Filli Alani. For he accepts that Walteri Filli Alani was a member of Fitzalan family simply because: “This was established at some length by Chalmers in his Caledonia (1807) on what he declared to be ‘the most satisfactory evidence.’” He does reference Riddell’s “Stewartiana” published in 1843, however essay just re-integrates the 1807 claims of Chalmers. Chalmers assumed that there was an associated between Walter son of Alan (who is only found in Scotland) and William son of Alan, a noble from Shropshire (whose house is the ancestor to the prominent family of the Earls of Arundel). How does Chalmers show that Walter son of Alan found only in Scotland is the brother of English Lord William son of Alan? He does so by two facts: 1. Chalmers says: “Now; Richard Fitz-Alan, the Earl of Arundel, being with Edward III., in Scotland, during the year 1335; and claiming to be Stewart of Scotland, by hereditary right, sold his title, and claim to Edward III., for a thousand marks” Hence by the Earl of Arundel claiming hereditary rights to the Stewart of Scotland he must be related to the family of Walteri filli Alani. However, I have found no modern confirmation for this hereditary claim. Instead modern author Oliver Thomson writes instead on the subject: “… Richard Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, Lord of Oswestry applied to Edward III for the vacant position of the Royal Steward of Scotland. He was turned down but did visit Scotland to lead the English siege of Dunbar in 1338” From “The Rises and Falls of the Royal Stewarts”, 2001. He nor any other author I can find reasserts Chalmers hereditary claim, suggesting that it has not been verified. Hence useless new evidence is emerges, i.e., a modern transcription to the text in question, Chalmers claim cannot be relied on thte truth of this subject. 2. Chalmers identifies that then Walteri Filli Alani founded the Cluniac priory of Paisley by arranging with Cluniac abbot of Wendlock, Shropshire, to supply the monks. This he and others have used to justify Shropshire as the origin of Walteri Filli Alani and relationship with the Fitzalan that held land elsewhere in Shropshire. This said, King Edmond of Scotland was sent to the Cluniac Abbey of Montacute in Somerset following the events of 1097. Should I assume that the Cranmores are original from Somerset? With some speculative ideas, as in the manner of Chalmers, I am sure I could associate the Royal Scottish family with a local Somerset family... . After reviewing the two reasons why Royal Stewart originate from Anglo-Norman nobility I find the justification wholly lacking. Bernard.> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:15:52 -0700 > Subject: Re: Royal DNA > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > From: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 1:39:13 PM UTC-7, Bernard Morgan via wrote: > > The Stewarts's Y-DNA emerges from a common ancestor to the Gaelic tribes > > of north Ireland and western Scotland. And the originator of the DF41 > > branch is given a age range of about 2000-2500 years ago. > > > > Given that the Stewarts claimed up to the 17th century to native Gaels > > of Scotland, is it correct that they are descended from a Anglo-Breton? > > For this idea requires them accept a rhythmer's fantasy as to their > > origin and for their ancestors to have travel to Brittany before making > > the return trip (via a circuitous route) back to the homeland of the > > their ancient relatives. The law of parsimony would suggest we that they > > never left Scotland and that the Anglo-Breton origin is a product of > > 18th century Anglicization of Scotland History? > > Genealogy doesn't always follow parsimony, or you wouldn't have a noted Scottish queen who was born to an English prince, not in England but in Hungary. > > Still, we needn't talk in generalities here. We have the pedigree, the contiguous chain of names running from the Breton nobles to the Stuart kings. Where, then, is the flaw? Which link was the erroneous creation of the those 18th century anglophiles? > > It may be that the Stuart DNA does not match the accepted Breton pedigree due to a crypto-paternity event, rather than to a conspiracy of historians from 'down there'. > > 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 Friday, June 10, 2016 at 2:38:33 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > TAF, you are HALF-way home. DNA does not support EITHER one. Yes, it does > not support my philosophy, NOR does it support evolution. This is not the place to discuss either of these, but only the first half of your concluding statement is accurate. The second part is blatant denialism - 'I don't want it to be true so it isn't'. > CONCLUSION. There is more scientific reliability in weather forecasting, > than various comic DNA fantasy projections. Again, simply wrong, see above. There is no arguing with denialism because it is either not based on evidence, or every piece of evidence is distorted and misrepresented to conform with the predetermined conclusion. All one can do is call it what it is so others are not misled, and move on. This is me moving on. taf

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 5:44:11 PM UTC-3, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Dear J.L. ~ > > Thank you for your good post. You've asked an excellent question which affects the ancestry on nearly all the newsgroup members. > > Hodgson, History of Northumberland 6 (1902): 14–75, esp. 72–73 (chart) claims that Eustace de Baliol [died c.1205] was the son and heir of Bernard de Baliol II [died c.1189–95], of Bywell, Northumberland and Barnard Castle, Durham. Mr. Hodgson was a competent historian but, in this case, he is mistaken. > > The following items copied below from the Durham University Library Special Collections Catalogue prove that it was Eustace de Hélicourt, seigneur of Hélicourt in Picardy, who was heir c.1189–95 to his cousin, Bernard de Balliol II. In 1189–95 Eustace quitclaimed the manor of Long Newton, Durham to Hugh du Puiset, Bishop of Durham, as well as all the land that Bernard de Balliol held in the vill of Newhouse. In his charter to Bishop Hugh, Eustace specifically refers to Bernard de Balliol as his "lord and kinsman," not his father. > > The exact relationship between Eustace de Hélicourt and his kinsman, Bernard de Balliol II, is not known. > > Eustace de Hélicourt subsequently adopted the surname, de Balliol, which may explain the confusion by Mr. Hodgson and other Balliol historians. This name change is proven by Catalogue of Stowe Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1 (1895): 790, which includes a confirmation charter of Eustace de Balliol to St. Mary’s Abbey dated 1199–1205. The charter was granted with consent of Hugh his son and heir. > > For the Stowe Manuscripts book, see the following weblink: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=5I0DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA790 > > For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Eustace de Hélicourt (otherwise de Balliol), died c.1200: > > Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Frances Baldwin, Charles Barnes, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William Bernard, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Thomas Bressey, Stephen Bull, Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas Butler, Christopher Calthorpe, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, William Clopton, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, William Crymes, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Edward Digges, Robert Drake, William Farrer, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Elizabeth Haynes, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Edmund, Edward, Richard & Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Henry, Jane, Nicholas, & Vincent Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Thomas Lunsford, Simon Lynde, Agnes Mackworth, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Rose Stoughton, Margaret Touteville, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Tyndall, Olive Welby, John West, Hawte Wyatt. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > > Weblink: https://www.dur.ac.uk/library/asc/collection_information/catalogues/ > > Durham University Library Special Collections Catalogue, The Cartuarium Vetus and related material, 50v–51r (Date: 1189 x 1195. Confirmation by Richard [I], king of England, to Hugh [du Puiset], bishop of Durham, of the land of Newton handed over by Bernard de Balliol in the royal court for the land of Westwick in dispute between them; and of the rest of that land, land in Newhouse and a mill, similarly handed over by Eustace de Heliscort.), 84v–85r (Date: 1189 x 1195. Quit-claim by Eustace de Heliscort to Hugh [du Puiset], bishop of Durham, of the manor of [Long] Newton, Durham and of all land that Bernard de Balliol held in the vill of Newhouse, save that held by himself, and a mill, to be held with the Bishop’s other land in Newton acquired from Eustace’s lord and kinsman, Bernard de Balliol, by final concord in King Richard [I]'s court; in return for 250 marks owed by Eustace on Bernard’s account since the Bishop cleared Bernard at King Richard’s exchequer for his debt to Aaron the Jew and recovered his charters held by Aaron, and for 100 marks owed by Eustace on his own account for the Bishop’s restoration to him of Barnard Castle and his inheritance.). Thank you very much for your thorough answer. I've found that the most recent studies about this family are those of Geoffrey Stell, mainly: a) "The Balliol Family and the Great Cause of 1291-1292." Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland. Edited by K.J. Stringer (Edinburgh, 1985), 150-65. And b) "In Search of the Balliols: 2. France." Balliol College Record (1999), 11-5. I don't have access to these works. But, according the PhD Thesis by Amanda G. Beam (of which I have a copy) "The Political Ambitions and Influences of the Balliol Dynasty, c. 1210 - 1364", University of Stirling, Department of History, 2005; a table published on page 33, following the above mentioned source in a) (quoted as page 153 from that source) shows Eustace de Hélicourt as a son of Hugues de Bailleul, seigneur de Hélicourt (+ ca. 1181), a younger brother to Bernard I, who had inherited the French Lordships, which seem to have been quite extensive. King John Balliol, after being deposed, lived in these possessions. So, whatever the relationship between Eustace and Bernard II, it's clear that the French fiefs, which were centered around Bailleul-en-Vimeu, where the family had its origins, belonged to one or, maybe two, very close related families (or two branches of the same family). What is striking, though, is that if Eustace had been in fact a first cousin to Bernard II, he would have used a different term rather than "kinsman." However, I don't know for sure how precise the terminology would have been by that time. Thanks again, JL

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 2:38:33 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 2:01:09 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:19:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > > > I agree that this discussion should discontinue, as well, because it all > > > boils down to basic philosophical differences. [The proposal that one type > > > of organism could descend from another type goes back to some of the first > > > pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.] . . > > > > Ah, and finally, finally, we see the crux of the matter. DNA cannot be reliably used for genealogy, because DNA supports evolution that is antithetical to your philosophy. > > > > > TAF, is an exceedingly learned man, . . . He does not know, however, the > > > totality of the field of research, . . . he tries to put up a smoke screen > > > of his intellectual skills, which are prodigious, when I am only simply > > > pointing out, some of the most obvious inconsistencies of what is promised > > > vs. real time similar problems, which create in my mind a "mass of > > > confusion" as to the viability of DNA use. > > > > Except these inconsistencies only exist due to your lack of familiarity with the underlying principles (both the physiological mechanisms and the testing). It is not 'putting up a smoke screen' to try to explain why the aspects you perceive to be a problem are not relevant to the application of DNA to genealogical testing. Further, you repeatedly overreach in suggesting that any problem with any aspect of our understanding of DNA invalidates all DNA-based results. This is no more valid than to suggest that the frequent indexing errors on Ancestry.com invalidate the images of primary documents found there. > > > > taf > ---------------------------------- > REPLY: > TAF, you are HALF-way home. DNA does not support EITHER one. Yes, it does not support my philosophy, NOR does it support evolution. Conjectures offer no support at all, because the sample sizes and availability over time do not exist. From a Christian standpoint, many saints' bodies from Adam on down, have already been resurrected; from a secular standpoint, mass movements, like the Syrian migrations of today, Chinatowns and pockets of ethnic groups, do not make geographic maps realistic. It is all sad, comic DNA fantasy. And yes, TAF, I have been reading over time, thousands of professional and popular articles on the subject, Googled worldwide, etc. CONCLUSION. There is more scientific reliability in weather forecasting, than various comic DNA fantasy projections. What your particular sect of Christianity believes happens to dead bodies is not connected to genealogy or DNA, which are based on facts rather than faith. (It does raise questions about whether you even understand the difference between fact and belief.)

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 2:01:09 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:19:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > I agree that this discussion should discontinue, as well, because it all > > boils down to basic philosophical differences. [The proposal that one type > > of organism could descend from another type goes back to some of the first > > pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.] . . > > Ah, and finally, finally, we see the crux of the matter. DNA cannot be reliably used for genealogy, because DNA supports evolution that is antithetical to your philosophy. > > > TAF, is an exceedingly learned man, . . . He does not know, however, the > > totality of the field of research, . . . he tries to put up a smoke screen > > of his intellectual skills, which are prodigious, when I am only simply > > pointing out, some of the most obvious inconsistencies of what is promised > > vs. real time similar problems, which create in my mind a "mass of > > confusion" as to the viability of DNA use. > > Except these inconsistencies only exist due to your lack of familiarity with the underlying principles (both the physiological mechanisms and the testing). It is not 'putting up a smoke screen' to try to explain why the aspects you perceive to be a problem are not relevant to the application of DNA to genealogical testing. Further, you repeatedly overreach in suggesting that any problem with any aspect of our understanding of DNA invalidates all DNA-based results. This is no more valid than to suggest that the frequent indexing errors on Ancestry.com invalidate the images of primary documents found there. > > taf ---------------------------------- REPLY: TAF, you are HALF-way home. DNA does not support EITHER one. Yes, it does not support my philosophy, NOR does it support evolution. Conjectures offer no support at all, because the sample sizes and availability over time do not exist. From a Christian standpoint, many saints' bodies from Adam on down, have already been resurrected; from a secular standpoint, mass movements, like the Syrian migrations of today, Chinatowns and pockets of ethnic groups, do not make geographic maps realistic. It is all sad, comic DNA fantasy. And yes, TAF, I have been reading over time, thousands of professional and popular articles on the subject, Googled worldwide, etc. CONCLUSION. There is more scientific reliability in weather forecasting, than various comic DNA fantasy projections.

Thanks Doug and Joe for the references. Will take the Visitations with the usual grain of salt, but that certainly helped. Jim+

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:19:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > I agree that this discussion should discontinue, as well, because it all > boils down to basic philosophical differences. [The proposal that one type > of organism could descend from another type goes back to some of the first > pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.] . . Ah, and finally, finally, we see the crux of the matter. DNA cannot be reliably used for genealogy, because DNA supports evolution that is antithetical to your philosophy. > TAF, is an exceedingly learned man, . . . He does not know, however, the > totality of the field of research, . . . he tries to put up a smoke screen > of his intellectual skills, which are prodigious, when I am only simply > pointing out, some of the most obvious inconsistencies of what is promised > vs. real time similar problems, which create in my mind a "mass of > confusion" as to the viability of DNA use. Except these inconsistencies only exist due to your lack of familiarity with the underlying principles (both the physiological mechanisms and the testing). It is not 'putting up a smoke screen' to try to explain why the aspects you perceive to be a problem are not relevant to the application of DNA to genealogical testing. Further, you repeatedly overreach in suggesting that any problem with any aspect of our understanding of DNA invalidates all DNA-based results. This is no more valid than to suggest that the frequent indexing errors on Ancestry.com invalidate the images of primary documents found there. taf

Have many Scottish 1st-cousin marriages been found in the early modern period? My own 18th-20th century paternal ancestors in the American South, mainly of Scottish descent, sometimes married cousins ... but no one closer than a 2nd-cousin-once-removed. I have a weird roundabout marriage that took place in Port Patrick involving first cousins. The marriage took place in 1811 between two Anglo-Irish people both from well-to-do families. The reason given for the location, as it was explained to me, was because the groom was "still in chancery" (b. 1791). His father had died at the age of 25 in a fox hunting accident in 1793. The groom was Hugh Massey Barrett of Castle Blake near Clonmel in Tipperary, son of Quintin Barrett and Amy Massy of Duntrileague, daughter of Hugh, the 1st Baron Massy. The bride was Caroline Butler (b. 1794), daughter of William Butler of Drom, Knockra & Wilford, and Caroline Massy, full sister of Amy Massy, above. Through her father, Caroline Butler was related to the Dunboyne, Ormond & Mountgarret Butler families. Nothing was passed down to me about their close kinship being part of the reason for wedding in Port Patrick and, of course, they were from Ireland, so this may not be the kind of example you are looking for.

Sir Francis Stewart (later 5th Earl of Bothwell), the legitimate son of Lord John Stewart, aka Lord Darnley, is mentioned at least twice as a reversionary heir of one of more children of Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of Orkney, in vol. 1 of _Diplomatarium Orcadense Et Hialtlandense_ (pp. 173, 188): https://books.google.com/books?id=AhchAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&dq=1615+Orkney+walls&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgxvm2op7NAhVCeCYKHevfCjM4ChDoAQgoMAI#v=onepage&q=francis&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=AhchAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA235&dq=1615+Orkney+walls&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgxvm2op7NAhVCeCYKHevfCjM4ChDoAQgoMAI#v=onepage&q=francis&f=false

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 5:01:39 AM UTC-7, peter...@yahoo.ca wrote: > I agree with TAF that this argument is getting tiresome. The longer it goes on the more irrelevant your arguments get. You are clearly grasping at straws. It is very obvious will not accept DNA as a legitimate tool for whatever reason; in part because of your Mormon faith, but a large measure, I suspect, because you fear it. I think we’d all have more respect for you if you just came out and said this. I am a Christian and DNA testing for genealogy does not bother me. I also have an interest in science and that helps to take away the fear of using DNA for genealogy. However I am very concerned about the abuse of DNA testing, but that's a very different argument from this one. > > In short it's time to move on. As I said you will never accept DNA testing for genealogy no matter what TAF and others say. And to continue the argument because you don’t want to let go, in my opinion, serves no useful purpose. > > Peter D. A. Warwick -------------------------------- REPLY: I agree that this discussion should discontinue, as well, because it all boils down to basic philosophical differences. [The proposal that one type of organism could descend from another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.] . . . [Simple organisms have therefore been the dominant form of life on Earth throughout its history and continue to be the main form of life up to the present day, with complex life only appearing more diverse because it is more noticeable.] However, experimental evolution, extrapolated in real time, does suggest that in infinite time and space, there would have developed life forms that would have become so complex as to evolve over time to the point that they could overcome death and live forever in all types of environments. In fact, that is essentially part of the objectives in current cancer research, to determine what turns off, on, or redirects the positive signals in healthy cells. Date: April 14, 2016 Source: Institute of Cancer Research Summary: Cancer cells use a mutant gene to coerce neighboring healthy tissue into helping with the disease's growth and spread, a major new study reports. Healthy cells are persuaded to release unique growth signals which cancer cells can use to multiply but cannot secrete themselves, researchers found. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160414144213.htm This is like a genetic rerun of [Dracula's attempt to move from Transylvania to England so that he may find new blood and spread the undead curse, and of the battle between Dracula and a small group of men and women led by Professor Abraham Van Helsing.] My assertions are not irrelevant. TAF, is an exceedingly learned man, whom I highly admire, and who has given great service to medieval genealogy. He does not know, however, the totality of the field of research, re: DNA; genetics, etc. Neither do I or any other man on earth; and, he knows that and I don't assert that; yet, he tries to put up a smoke screen of his intellectual skills, which are prodigious, when I am only simply pointing out, some of the most obvious inconsistencies of what is promised vs. real time similar problems, which create in my mind a "mass of confusion" as to the viability of DNA use. >From a Philosophy standpoint: [In several of Plato's dialogues, Socrates promulgates the idea that knowledge is a matter of recollection, and not of learning, observation, or study.]Baird, Forrest E.; Kaufmann, Walter, eds. (2008). Philosophic Classics: From Plato to Derrida (Fifth ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-158591-6. The Mormon faith, as you incorrectly suggest, does not cause me to fear anything. The Mormons are not Zion, they have not created Zion;, some try to live Zion, but it is not a done deal. The love of God and the Merits of Jesus Christ are the only things that sustain me, and I fear and tremble daily before Them, because of my own known imperfections, but not any man. Nevertheless, the ideas of Socrates are found in the Remarks by President Brigham Young, made in the Tabernacle, in Great Salt Lake City, March 16, 1862 [It is often remarked that we do not understand things alike, but I am of the opinion that the inhabitants of the earth understand in the spirit, or, in other words, in the intelligent portion of their organisms, nearer alike than they have power to communicate. We believe we are entitled to the gift of the Holy Ghost in extent according to the discretion and wisdom of God and our faithfulness; which gift brings all things to our remembrance, past, present, and to come, that are necessary for us to know, and as far as our minds are prepared to receive the knowledge of God revealed by that all-wise Agent. The Holy Ghost is God's minister, and is delegated to visit the sons and daughters of men. All intelligent beings pertaining to this earth are instructed from the same source.] . . . This includes TAF, who is an honorable, intelligent being. Reported By: G. D. Watt.http://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/jodhtml.php?vol=09&disc=48 For your information, I have had, in my younger years, the opportunity to read completely through every volume of the Journal of Discourses; it is compelling. I will accept DNA testing for genealogy if and when it can be properly taught.

On 6/9/2016 3:39 PM, Bernard Morgan via wrote: > The Stewarts's Y-DNA emerges from a common ancestor to the Gaelic tribes of north Ireland and western Scotland. And the originator of the DF41 branch is given a age range of about 2000-2500 years ago. > Given that the Stewarts claimed up to the 17th century to native Gaels of Scotland, is it correct that they are descended from a Anglo-Breton? > For this idea requires them accept a rhythmer's fantasy as to their origin and for their ancestors to have travel to Brittany before making the return trip (via a circuitous route) back to the homeland of the their ancient relatives. The law of parsimony would suggest we that they never left Scotland and that the Anglo-Breton origin is a product of 18th century Anglicization of Scotland History? > Any opinions? The version of the "Law of Parsimony" that you seem to be invoking here is that if a person lived in a given region and his descendant also lived in the same region, then it is more likely than not that the intervening generations did also. However, there are significant weaknesses to applying such a "law" to a specific case, particularly this one. 1. The important qualification "in the absence of evidence to the contrary" needs to be added. In this case, the strong evidence of a Breton origin of the Stewarts is clearly evidence to the contrary. Also, the Stewart claim to be "native Gaels" was politically motivated and demonstrably fraudulent. 2. The longer the intervening period, the less well this version of the Law of Parsimony" holds. 1000+ years is a LONG time. 3. Migrations from Ireland to Wales and from Wales to Brittany are well-documented during the intervening period, which included many migrations throughout the region. Stewart Baldwin

On 6/9/2016 4:24 AM, Ian Goddard via wrote: > I remember reading one of these papers (?the Moore paper) some time ago. > Firstly I was struck by the fact that twice they shied away from > claiming Niall as a historical figure and yet some of the discussion > hinged on his status apparently allowing his descendants to father > numerous children. Secondly I was struck by the absences in the list of > surnames of the subjects: there were no variants on O'Neil or MacNeil. The principle O'Neill family received its name not after Niall of the Nine Hostages, but after his much later (and definitely historical) namesake Niall Glundub (d. 911). Most of the major Irish surnames were named after individuals living between the ninth and eleventh centuries. The thing that struck me the most about this study was that it was driven mainly by the surnames of the testees, without any consideration of what documentary trail might exist between the testee and the ninth-eleventh century individual (or individuals) on whom the surname was said to be based. This was one of the points brought up by Bart Jaski in his excellent article which I cited before. Here, the (perhaps money-driven) desire to make sweeping conclusions and the insufficient input of expertise on the genealogical/historical side are leading the geneticists to make premature conclusions without sufficient preliminary groundwork. In theory, the Y-DNA results of a testee allows the approximate Y-DNA makeup of his male-line ancestors to be determined as well, but this "top-down" approach that seems so common (especially in amateur studies) can lead to erroneous conclusions which may pollute research for years to come. If two modern Irish men have traditional genealogies tracing back to two alleged third century "brothers" (well before the historical period), and their MRCA (most recent common ancestor) is estimated by the Y-DNA to have lived about 1750 years ago, that does not "prove" that their traditional genealogies are valid. On the other hand, if two or three modern men have reasonably well-documented "paper-trail" ancestries going back to two or three brothers living 300 years ago, and their Y-DNA matches with an estimated MRCA in the same time frame, then not only have their genetic ancestries been confirmed to a reasonable degree of certainty, but information about the Y-DNA of their MRCA has also been determined with a reasonable degree of certainty, so that the early man can be regarded as a "virtual testee" in his own right, making it possible to gradually work back earlier if suffucient paper-trail evidence and Y-DNA evidence is available. One of the principle obstacles to this for royal and noble lines is that the individuals with the best paper-trail evidence are often those who have the most to lose by the detection of a false-paternity event, so many of them are reluctant to give samples. (I have a probable false-paternity event in my own male-line ancestry about 300-400 years back, and I am still not crazy about the idea.) One of the things that make the massive early medieval Irish genealogical material so promising is the large number of early medieval brothers who have likely traceable male-line descendants to the present day, so that a "bottom-up" approach which identifies Y-DNA data about historical individuals by working back a few generations at a time could result in numerous "virtual testees" from the early medieval period, which then might result in a more believable test of the reliability of the Irish genealogies from the "traditional" period when there is inadequate contemporary evidence to test their reliability. An additional problem in this case is that for many Irish families, the 700-1500 period is better documented than the 1500-1800 period. Stewart Baldwin

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 10:01:54 AM UTC-7, peter...@yahoo.ca wrote: > Pardon my ignorance, but is the Walthefo being discussed here the > Walthefo Of Northumbria, who lived c1050-1076 and was executed by > William The Conqueror? No. In the original post in this thread I presented a line found in a continuation of the chronicle of John of Worcester, that ended as follows: Ossulf Aldredus Waldeophus Uitred Aldredus Elfleda=Siwardus Walteof The 'Walteof' at the bottom is the one you are talking about, executed by William I in 1076. He was son of pre-conquest Earl Siward ('Siwardus') by AElfflead ('Elfleda'), daughter of Ealdred ('Aldredus'), son of Ealdorman Uhtred ('Uitred') son of an earlier Waltheof ('Waldeophus') who held sway in Bamburgh in the 990s. This earlier Waltheof is the man I was talking about. taf

The proposed new line SHOULD read: James V, King of Scots Lord John Stewart, Commendator of Coldingham & Lord Darnley = Jean Hepburn (probably illegitimate) Christian Stewart = Adam Mudie Francis Mudie of Breckness = Margaret Stewart of Graemsay, etc. Lord John Stewart's wife was Jean HEPBURN, Jean Kennedy being wife of his brother Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney. I notice that the list of Robert of Orkney's lawful children in Balfour Paul's _SP_ includes the same Barbara Stewart, wife of Halcro, named above as a daughter of Lord Adam Stewart. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008828546;view=1up;seq=596 Barbara was more likely a daughter of Adam, not Robert, as confirmed in the NEHGR, 165 (2011): 297, from "Additions and Corrections" to a previous article: TRAILL. "Identification of Miss Bell Traill of Kirkwall, Orkney, as Isabella (Traill) Tate of Boston, Massachusetts, with a Royal Descent," by Ralph E. Wadleigh, Jr., 164 (2010): 145-52, 297. The second generation of the royal descent on p. 151 needs to be revised, as pointed out by Douglas Richardson. Barbara Stewart, wife of Henry Halcro, was the daughter of Lord Adam Stewart (died in Orkney 20 June 1575), an illegitimate son of James V, possibly by Helenor Stewart (Peter D. Anderson, _Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney, Lord of Shetland, 1533-1593_ [Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers, 1982], 80, 104, 131-32, 156-58). The wife of Lord Adam Stewart (and presumably mother of Barbara) was Janet Ruthven (Sir James Balfour Paul, _The Scots Peerage_, 9 vols. [Edinburgh: D. Douglas, 1904-14], 4:101). The original article which this blurb corrects concerned another Traill line to New England.

Pardon my ignorance, but is the Walthefo being discussed here the Walthefo Of Northumbria, who lived c1050-1076 and was executed by William The Conqueror? Peter D. A. Warwick

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 3:32:01 PM UTC-7, jmb...@albion.edu wrote: > Am also curious about this family. Maurice "de Pole," otherwise named "de la Pole" in some sources, knight, is stated to be the owner and resident of the property of Compton Castle (Marldon parish, SE Devon) in the reign of Henry II. Does anyone know of any other references to Maurice, whether he was surnamed "de Pole" or "de la Pole," or his origins? > Jim+ Devonshire parishes; or, The antiquities, heraldry and family history of twenty-four parishes in the archdeaconry of Totnes vol. II by Worthy, Charles (1883):164. I looked into the Doddiscombe family in the past, I think this is about all I had for Maurice Pole. https://www.archive.org/stream/devonshireparish02wort#page/164/mode/2up

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 2:40:47 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > The line given is: . . . > Elle > Edeldrida (daughter) > Eadulfus > Ossulf > Aldredus > Waldeophus I can now suggest what I think is going on in the pedigree connecting Waltheof back to AElla. Eadulfus is Eadwulf, documented as 'king of the North Saxons' in Irish sources, and as holding Bamburgh, dying in 913. His name later appears in references to the sons of Eadwulf submitting to Athelstan in 924 (or 920 - the entry is placed in different years in different versions of ASC). In 926, Ealdred, son of Eadwulf is reported holding Bamburgh, and likewise Simeon's Vita St Cuthberti reports that Aldred filius Eadulfi was a friend of Eadward the Elder, as his father Eadulfus had been to king Alfred (for reasons unclear to me, the PASE database calls him Ealdwulf 16 rather than Eadwulf, even though neither of the cited sources include an 'l' in the first syllable). He is given a brother Uhtred. The next we find in the primary record is Oswulf, in the 960s and then Waltheof in the 990s. Searle suggested they represented a single lineage, with Waltheof son of Oswulf, son of Ealdred, son of Eadwulf. This is reasonable, considering that all of the names, Uhtred (son), Eadwulf (gs), Ealdred (gs) and Oswulf (ggs) are repeated among the immediate descendants of Waltheof. Comparing this to the AElla pedigree, we note the exact same names, only with the middle two switched in order. Waltheof, Ealdred, Oswulf, Eadwulf. While it is possible that this source is representing an authentic tradition by which Oswulf was a much younger son of Eadwulf (he outlived him by 50 years) and named a son after his elder brother, I think it more likely that this pedigree has reversed generations, and I would point to the possible inspiration. We already know that our genealogist was more interested in making connections than in establishing a viable chronology (how else do you explain making AElla son of a man ruling 150 years earlier). There is a documented Oswulf son of Eadwulf, who succeeded when Tostig was expelled. I suspect that knowledge of the existence of this Oswulf, son of Eadwulf led the author to shift Oswulf, grandson of Eadwulf a generation up the pedigree, exchanging his position with that of his actual father Ealdred. The takehome is that, as written, the pedigree must be rejected above Waltheof, but there remains a possibility that it preserves, in a confused manner, an authentic descent from Eadwulf, that reconstructed by Searle, and hence perhaps from AElla, before which point is is of no value whatsoever with regard to the possible ancestry of Waltheof. taf

Here are some references to check: Visitation Devonshire, 1620, Pole. Visitation Nottinghamshire, 1569, Poole. BP1934 Pole, Bart of Shute. BEB1841 Poole of Poole. BP1934 Pole, Bart of Shute. Visitation Devonshire, 1620, Pole. BEB1841 Pole. Doug Smith

On Thursday, 9 June 2016 14:25:10 UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote: > Two of the great estates of N England are the Manor of Wakefield & the > Honor of Pontefract. The question arises as to what's the difference > between the two terms. > > I've noticed that although Wakefield has some sub-manors such as Emley > they don't seem to have had their own courts, Emley cases still appeared > in the Wakefield rolls. Sub-manors of Pontefract, such as Almondbury, > had their own courts. Is this the differentiating factor between the > two or was there something else involved? > > > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk Ian, The Honor of Pontefract was originally the land in Yorkshire (mainly) granted to Ilbert de Lacy after the Conquest. His holdings in Cheshire and Lancashire became known as the Honor of Clitheroe. On the death of Robert de Lacy in 1193 the honors passed to the daughter of his aunt, Albreda. The younger Albreda married before 1142 Richard fitz Eustace, constable of Chester. Their son John the Constable was succeeded by his son Roger who adopted the name of Lacy. In 1294, Henry de Lacy settled his possessions on himself for life, with remainder to Thomas son of Edmund Earl of Lancaster, who had married Henry's daughter Alice. The Honor of Pontefract thus became part of the Duchy of Lancaster. Regards, John

Being a member of the community in question, I can say that the academic papers have fallen behind the testing. in the last couple of years has seen major changes testing. Prior testing, on which the papers are based, was for to define a persons Haplotype. A collection of markers within the Y-DNA that randomly mutated over the generations. Mutation rates and difference between Haloptypes was used to suggested a time period for a common originator. What was special the "Ui Neill" population was an identifiable signature to their Halpotype allowing for easy identification of the population. A Haplogroup is a population that shares a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) , which occurred in the Y-DNA in a shared male ancestor in the direct male line. Although knowing the Haplogroups is superior to Haloptypes, however it was laborious to identify them. However two years ago new Y-DNA testing (Next Generation Sequencing - NGS) enter the market and since shaken up the world of Genealogical DNA. Now Halpogroups are being found in regard to common ancestors living with the last two millennium. Hence perfect tool for descendants of tribal societies, i.e. the Gael. I could discuss the comparison of genealogical trees of medieval pedigree and the correlation with Y-DNA trees defined by SNP in regard to Irish kingroups. However what is more interesting, especially in a email title 'Royal DNA', is the results for the 'Royal' Stewarts. Stewart NGS testing results can be seen here http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=7And the DF41 project (formerly based on Halpotypes) here: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-df-41/about/background The Stewarts's Y-DNA emerges from a common ancestor to the Gaelic tribes of north Ireland and western Scotland. And the originator of the DF41 branch is given a age range of about 2000-2500 years ago. Given that the Stewarts claimed up to the 17th century to native Gaels of Scotland, is it correct that they are descended from a Anglo-Breton? For this idea requires them accept a rhythmer's fantasy as to their origin and for their ancestors to have travel to Brittany before making the return trip (via a circuitous route) back to the homeland of the their ancient relatives. The law of parsimony would suggest we that they never left Scotland and that the Anglo-Breton origin is a product of 18th century Anglicization of Scotland History? Any opinions? Bernard.> Subject: Re: Royal DNA > Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:24:36 +0100 > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > From: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > > On 08/06/16 21:08, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > > I have recently read a number of items on the subject of using DNA to > > trace early Irish families. Not too surprisingly, there is a lot of > > junk out there on the subject, much of which seems to be jumping to > > premature conclusions based in part on the following three studies. > > > > Brian McEvoy & Daniel G. Bradley, Y-chromosomes and the extent of > > patrilineal ancestry in Irish surnames, Human Genetics 119 (2006): 212-9. > > > > Moore et al, A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in Gaelic Ireland, The > > American Journal of Human Genetics 78 (2006): 334-8. > > > > McEvoy et al, Genetic Investigation of the Patrilineal Kinship Structure > > of Early Medieval Ireland, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136 > > (2008): 415-22. > > > > Although these papers are generally well done, my main concern about > > them is that the necessary caveats about the preliminary nature of this > > research were not stated clearly enough for non-experts to understand. > > Although the presence of Katherine Simms as a co-author on two of these > > papers is encouraging, it is seems likely to me that the usual audience > > of these papers can easily misinterpret the limitations of the > > historical evidence from the descriptions given in these papers. > > Appropriately, no claim is made in these papers that there is a DNA test > > for descent from the shadowy figure of Niall of the Nine Hostages (as > > has been too often claimed), but it is certainly an easy > > misinterpretation to make. > > I remember reading one of these papers (?the Moore paper) some time ago. > Firstly I was struck by the fact that twice they shied away from > claiming Niall as a historical figure and yet some of the discussion > hinged on his status apparently allowing his descendants to father > numerous children. Secondly I was struck by the absences in the list of > surnames of the subjects: there were no variants on O'Neil or MacNeil. > > OTOH the distribution of the Y-DNA variants did fit quite nicely with > the Northern and Southern Ui Neills as understood from other sources. > > This set me thinking about an alternative origin for the findings. > Firstly what was the possible date for the MRCA? I think the estimate > was a little earlier than the supposed date for Niall but my main > consideration was the probability distribution. It clearly couldn't be > a normal distribution - any distribution which gives a non-zero > probability for the true date of a past event lying in the future must > be inappropriate. Experience of running the calculations for > radiocarbon dating reminded me that such distributions are skewed to the > past. I posted a query here and Todd confirmed that this is in fact the > case for MRCA estimates. > > This raises the possibility that the MRCA could lie earlier in the Iron > Age. Way back, I used to be a palaeoecologist. I had a site at > Gortcorbies at the N tip of the Sperrins. There were massive forest > clearances late in the Bronze Age followed by more or less complete and > sustained regeneration of the forest until gradual clearance in the last > few centuries BC. This signal was repeated at my site at Sluggan, just > N of Lough Neagh and in my wife's site at Altnahinch on the Antrim > Plateau. It also appeared to be present in other sites further S in the > Sperrins although IIRC the emphasis at those sites was in the earlier > periods. > > Once human activity is involved the level of forest cover is some sort > of inverse function of the human population. My interpretation was - > and is - that the LBA clearances were heavy exploitation, and maybe > over-exploitation, of natural resources which briefly supported the > wealth of the Irish LBA. It was followed, at least in that area, by > some sort of disaster leading to a crash of the human population on a > scale at least as great as the famine of the 1840s. > > The subsequent Iron Age population was eventually rebuilt from either > the survivors of the earlier population or from incomers. In either > event it had come through a relatively recent bottleneck and likely to > be a lot less diverse than might be expected had it developed steadily > through the previous few millennia. I'd be inclined to look for the > origins of the Ui Neills in this rebuilding. > > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk > > ------------------------------- > 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