On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 7:11:17 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > Todd, I don't disagree with what you are saying, but don't forget that > you are one of those rare individuals who is an expert in both fields. Just to be clear, I wasn't being all that specific in my criticism, such that it applies to my specific area of overlap. For some reason you put a microphone in front of a scientist, all sense of self-restraint disappears and they will tell you what they really think, as opposed to in research papers where they are limited to what the data supports. It makes for fascinating journalism, often twice over: first in reporting the overreach, then again in reporting how the next study clearly showed it was an overreach. taf

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+

On 09/06/16 14:41, Richard Smith wrote: > What role did the sub-manors of Wakefield serve if they didn't have > their own courts? Or were they simply divisions of convenience to ease > the administration of the manor? They seem to have been split off as knight's fees or parts thereof. This certainly applies to some townships which had been part of the free chase of Cartworth TRE. Three extra townships were added to the remnant which then became the forest of Holne by the time we see it in the manorial rolls. It may well have been that the reconfiguration gave them a more readily manageable forest whilst getting better value from the slightly less elevated and hence more fertile parts. From an administrative point of view they remained within the graveship of Holne (Holme) until the Dukes of Leeds acquired the manor in the early C18th; they are absent from the survey made after the acquisition so I assume they were sold off separately. I doubt the graves were sorry to see them go. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

From: Ian Goddard via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 09 June 2016 14:25 > > 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? > ------------------------------- An honour was a collection of manors, whereas a manor was the basic building block at the bottom of the seigneurial hierarchy. The tenants of an honour were mostly lords of manors, whereas the tenants of a manor were mostly non-lordly agriculturalists. That's a gross over-simplification, of course, and there were complications and exceptions and blurring at the extremes of each category. The manor of Wakefield seems to have been somewhat exceptional, but I don't know enough about it to say whether it was different from other manors in nature or just in size. One way in which the distinction between honours and manors was sometimes blurred was the later medieval habit of describing an honour by reference to the manor which was its caput, so that one sees the manor of X, which was parcel of the honour of Y, being described as 'parcel of the manor of Y'. Matt Tompkins

On 09/06/16 14:25, 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? The Honor of Pontefract was originally a feudal barony, and probably retained much of the character of that. I'm not sure the origin of the Manor of Wakefield, but I can find no mention of it having been a feudal barony under that name. Is that perhaps the difference? What role did the sub-manors of Wakefield serve if they didn't have their own courts? Or were they simply divisions of convenience to ease the administration of the manor? Richard

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

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

In a NEXUS column from 1992, Gary Boyd Roberts presented the following James V descent for the Scotsman Robert1 Traill who settled in New Hampshire in the 18th century (this same line has also appeared in editions of _The Royal Descents of 500 [600] Immigrants_ by Roberts): James V, King of Scots (illegitimate) Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney = Jean Kennedy (illegitimate) James Stewart of Graemsay = __________ Margaret Stewart = Francis Moodie/ Mudie of Breckness Barbara Moodie = Patrick Balfour George Balfour = Marjorie Baikie Barbara Balfour = William Traill William Traill = Isabel Fea Robert Traill (post 1715-1785), of N. H. http://www.americanancestors.org/Browse/articles?searchby=author&subquery=Gary%20Boyd%20Roberts&id=1066 I would like to suggest that the Moodie or Mudie family had their own separate line of descent from King James V through their ancestress Christian Stewart, wife of Adam Mudie of Breckness. Barbara Mudie, wife of Patrick Balfour of Gairth and Pharay, is shown on p. 23 of Ruvigny's _Moodie Book: Being an Account of the Families of Melsetter, Muir, Cocklaw ..._, placed immediately above at least three illegitimate sons of her father Francis Mudie. https://books.google.com/books?id=4Q0XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA23&dq=%22patrick+balfour+of+gairth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0t8zyzpvNAhXH4SYKHYeiD4wQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=%22patrick%20balfour%20of%20gairth%22&f=false Tracing backwards a few pages, we encounter the highly chequered career of her father, Francis Mudie, stated variously to be "too great a libertine ... [who] kept more concubines than was convenient, for which Bishop Graham of Orkney did summon him ..." and "'wanton Francis,' from the number of his children." In addition to the three illegitimate children of Francis, listed below Barbara, "James Mudie, who was in Sanday with his son, Edward in 1657, is also sometimes said to have been a natural son of this Francis." Barbara, however, was certainly legitimate, and Ruvigny clearly states that Francis Mudie of Breckness married "First [? his cousin], Margaret, daughter of James Stewart of Graemsay," and, second, in 1626, to Marion Tulloch, the widow Sinclair. The reason for Ruvigny's statement about Margaret Stewart as cousin, as well as wife, of Francis occurs on p. 15, in the discussion of Francis' father Adam Mudie, rector of Walls and Flotta, who is stated by Ruvigny to have married "Christian Stewart, probably a sister of James Stewart of Graemsay, and a natural daughter of Robert (Stewart), first Earl of Orkney." Adam, though a minister of some sort, and son of "Mr." William Mudie, the rector of Breckness, was not himself entitled to the "MR.," not having his university degree. Several years back, I thought I had found clear proof that Adam Mudie's wife was Grizel Stewart, not Christian Stewart. A grant from 1564 from Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney, seemed to necessitate this correction of names (J. Storer Clouston, _Records of the Earldom of Orkney, 1299-1615_, p. 271): "Robert Stewart, feuar, etc., grants to Mr. William Mudy of Breknes for his life, and to Adam Mudye his eldest lawful son and Grizel Stewart, daughter of the said Robert Stewart, apparent spouse to the said Adam, and the survivor of them in conjunct fee ... [certain lands]. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.319510022429312;view=1up;seq=377 Notice that Grizel is called the "apparent spouse" to Adam Mudy, indicating that the marriage had not yet happened at this time (it seems they were children who were intended for each other). In another wrinkle, the standard scholarly biography of Earl Robert indicates that his daughter Grizel (? another Grizel) married around 1577 to Hugh Sinclair of Strome, citing a tack dated July 1577 "by Robert [Stewart] to Grizel, his illegitimate daughter, and Hugh Sinclair of Strome her prospective spouse. ..." https://books.google.com/books?id=l5RnAAAAMAAJ&q=%22grizel+stewart%22+sinclair&dq=%22grizel+stewart%22+sinclair&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRnpqf2fXMAhUIgj4KHTieAxMQ6AEIMzAE While it is possible that there were two illegitimate daughters of Robert called "Grizel," three facts make it probable that the Adam Mudie-GRIZEL Stewart union did not occur, and that the same Grizel in the 1564 document later married Hugh Sinclair around 1577: the word "apparent spouse" in the 1564 document; the knowledge that Adam Mudie had a wife called Christine or Christiane Stewart in documents from 1598 and 1609; and the statement in _The Scots Peerage_, by Balfour-Paul, that one of Robert of Orkney's illegitimate daughters was a Grizel, who married by 1591 to "Hugh Sinclair of Brugh." https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008828546;view=1up;seq=597 The list of bastards in Balfour-Paul, to which we have just turned, mentions, following Grizel, wife of Hugh Sinclair, another illegitimate sister "Christian [Stewart], married to John Mouat of Hougaland in Shetland, and, as his widow, was living, and in feud with her brother-in-law, in 1634" (citing _Reg.Mag.Sig._). Meanwhile, it is clear from two contemporary documents, that Adam Mudie of Breckness also had a wife Christine, Christian, or Christiane Stewart, NOT Grizel Stewart: Snelsetter (Snaillsetter), Walls, 11 April 1598 Instrument of sasine in favour of Patrick, earl of Orkney, following upon charter, dated at Kirkwall, 9 March 1597-8, by Adam Mudie of Breckness and Cristine Stewart, his spouse, of the house and manor place of Snelsetter (Snailsetter), 'with the gairding thairof, barnis, byris, cornyairds, peatrowmes', etc., in the isle of Walls (Wais). David King, bailie in that part. Magnus Inkster (Inksetter) in Orphir, procurator for the said earl. Witnesses to the charter: Malcolm Groat (Grote) of Tankerness, Edward Scollay of Strynie, Henry Sinclair of Tuquoy (Towquoy), and Thomas Auchinleck (Auchinlek), notary public, with Mr Andrew Dishington (Dischingtoun) and James Rattray (Rattrey) also subscribing as witnesses. Witnesses to the sasine: Thomas Yule in Walls (Wais), Magnus Chalmer in Seatter (Setter) in Wais, Henry Fidlar in Wais, Robert Scollay (Skollaw), and Alexander Bruce and Thomas Auchinlek, conotaries. NRS NP1/36, ff. 63r-64v _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Edinburgh, [between 1 and 10 January 1609] Discharge by William Carmichael, merchant, citizen in Kirkwall, to James Stewart of Gramsay, for £40, in name and behalf of Cristiane Stewart, relict of the deceased Adam Mudie of Braknes, and Francis Mudie, her son, for 13 meills and 2 settings malt, good and sufficient stuff, fresh and merchant ware, contained in obligation, dated 30 December 1602 (reg. in books of council on 10 March 1603). William consents that Cristiane and Francis be relaxed from the process of horning. Witnesses: Mr William Henderson, William Bannatyne of Gairsay, and John Makkie, burgess of Edinburgh, writer hereof. NRS, RD11, reg. 10 January 1609. (I located both of these documents in the following internet discussion: http://www.disnorge.no/slektsforum/viewtopic.php?t=109316 .) In the first, she is called Cristine and, in the second, Christiane Stewart. Neither reference states any relationship to Robert, Earl of Orkney, though the second one shows her dealing with Robert's illegitimate son, James Stewart of Graemsay (whose daughter her son Francis was to marry). On the other hand, Christian Stewart who married John Mowat is clearly stated at least twice to have been a natural, or illegitimate, daughter of Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney: Robert S. Barclay, ed., _The Court Books of Orkney and Shetland 1614-1615_ pp. 113-116, prints a 1615 "charter of confirmation to the late Andro Mowat, father of the plaintiff [John Mowat], of most of his lands in Yetland; the instrument of sasine following the confirmation; the marriage contract between the late Robert, earl of Orkney, for himself and his natural daughter Christiane Stewart, now spouse of the plaintiff, on the one part, and the late Andro Mowat and the plaintiff, on the other part; the charter of alienation made by the late Andro to the plaintiff, his son, whereby Andro granted to his son John, the plaintiff, all his lands in the marriage contract; etc." Furthermore, _The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland_ 5:219-220, prints Christian's own petition from ca. 1634, identifying her as "Christian Stewart, widow of John Mowat of Huguland and daughter of the deceased Robert, Earl of Orkney," as well as plainly stating her brother-in-law Mr. Gilbert Mowat had attacked her "'without respect to her age and parentage [and] patt violent hands in her person, gave her manie bauche straikes in diverse parts of her bodie, strake her to the ground where she being lying swowning in pitifull maner the saids persons verie barbarouslie tred and tramped upon her with thair feit and thereafter violentlie reft frome her servants the dewteis quhilks they had receaved frome her tennents.’" The _Court Books of Orkney_ reference clearly implies the marriage contract of John Mowat-Christian Stewart was made before the death of Robert, Earl of Orkney, which occurred in 1593. There is also firm evidence as early as 1597 that John Mowat's wife was one Christian Stewart at that time: _Shetland Documents 1580-1611_, pg 117-8, item 264: 264. Skea, 21 November 1597 Disposition by Andro Mowatt of Howgoland; with consent of Johne Mowatt; his eldest son and apparent heir; and of Cristian Stewartt; spouse of Johne, to James Mowatt and his heirs male; whom failing to Gilbertt Mowatt and his heirs male; whom failing to the said Johne Mowatt and his heirs; .... The disposition is in fulfilment of a contract between Andro; on the one part, and Johne and Cristiane; his spouse; on the other part, dated 20 and 21 November 1597 at Collafirth and Skea. Precept of sasine. Witnesses: Barrold Mowat, Donald Williamson; Magnus Tullo; Magnus Cogill; Andro Mowat; Archibald Sinclair; and William Fermour, notary public; with divers others. Cristiane Stewartt subscribes with her hand held at the pen. ... See also: http://mowatfamilyhistory.ca/ps02/ps02_255.htm . Thus, John Mowat was married to a woman identified as Christian, daughter of Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney, in the precise period during which we find "Cristine/ Christiane Stewart, spouse of Adam Mudie"; therefore, they could not be the same Christian Stewart, though Robert, Earl of Orkney, might have had two illegitimate daughters named Christian. Seeing, however, that Adam Mudie's spouse is never identified in contemporary documents specifically as "daughter of the Earl of Orkney," I propose she might have been a daughter of Robert of Orkney's brother Lord John Stewart. Lord John is covered in the [new] _Complete Peerage_, 4: 82A, sub "DARNLEY": John Stewart, illegit. s. of KING James V, by Catherine, da. of Sir John Carmichael, was b. about 1532, and usually called Lord John till he was cr. a peer; Commendator of the Priory of Coldingham 1541. He obtained letters of legitimation under the Great Seal 7 Feb. 1550/1. He joined the Reformers in 1560. Shortly after he had a grant of the forfeited lands of Matthew (Stewart), Earl of Lennos [S.], and was cr., between 21 Jan. 1561/2 and 7 Feb. 1562/3, LORD DARNLEY [S.]. As "Dominus Dernlie" he had a grant of lands 22 June 1563. He m., 11 Jan. 1561/2, at Crichton Castle, Jean, sister and ultimately h. of her br. James, 4th Earl of Bothwell, da. of Patrick (Hepburn), 3rd Earl of Bothwell [S.], by Agnes, da. of Henry, 3rd Lord Sinclair [S]. He d. Oct. or Nov. 1563, at Inverness. His widow m., betwen 10 Dec. 1565 and 16 Jan. 1566/7, John Sinclair, Master of Caithness, who d. v.p. Sep. 1575. She m., 3rdly, Archibald Douglas, Rector of Douglas, a Senator of the College of Justice, who was outlawed 1581. Lord John Stewart and his wife, Jean Hepburn, were the parents of the infamous Francis Stewart, 5th Earl of Bothwell, whose title came from his maternal ancestors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Stewart,_5th_Earl_of_Bothwell Page 20 of Amy Juhala, _The Household and Court of King James VI of Scotland, 1567-1603_ discusses the rockers chosen to tend the cradle of the infant James VI (James I of England) in 1567: "In order to provide additional functions necessary for any infant, the king [James VI] was assigned, at this date, five rockers who would have served alternating terms. It appears that all five young women were chosen from the nobility, and included Christiane Stewart, daughter of the late Lord Coldingham and sister of the future Earl Bothwell." https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/6909/1/495835.pdf See also this list of the king's "rockers," from the original records of the king's household: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101072876251;view=1up;seq=140 Robert, Earl of Orkney, appears to have made Orkney matches for at least two daughters of another brother, Lord Adam Stewart (i.e., Mary Stewart, who married John Sinclair of Tohop/ Tolhop/ Toab, and Barbara Stewart, who married Henry or Hugh Halcro). http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2012-07/1341615443 I think it is also quite possible that he (Robert) may have arranged the marriage of this Christiane, daughter of Lord John Stewart, to Adam Mudie. Mr. Archibald Douglas, the last husband of Jean Hepburn, Lord John's widow, was a disgraceful person involved in many court intrigues and in and out of trouble with the law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Douglas,_Parson_of_Douglas Thus he may not have been in a position to provide for his wife's daughter. It is very possible, maybe indeed PROBABLE, that Christian Stewart was not even daughter of Jean Hepburn, wife of Archibald Douglas, but an illegitimate child of Lord John, who is known to have fathered an illegitimate son Hercules Stewart, called in several places a "natural" or "base" brother to the Earl of Bothwell: https://books.google.com/books?id=eeVBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA604&dq=%22hercules+stewart%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiknqKYyZnNAhUB5CYKHSKiBFcQ6AEIQTAF#v=onepage&q=%22hercules%20stewart%22&f=false Unless she was a very young child when made the King's "rocker" in 1567, it is perhaps doubtful that this daughter Christian was the child of Jean Hepburn (married 1561/2), ... although maybe someone can weigh in on the possibility that the station of "rocker" was merely honorary, and intended as a source of monetary support, and, as such, could have gone to a young child who was the King's near kinswoman. I think it is very possible that Christian Stewart's uncle, Earl Robert, might have stepped into this chaotic situation to arrange her marriage to Adam Mudie, a minister in Orkney whom he had earlier tried to match with his own daughter Grizel Stewart. Note that Christian Stewart, wife of Adam Mudie, was the mother of a son called FRANCIS, quite possibly in honor of her brother (? half-brother) Francis Stewart, 5th Earl of Bothwell. Perhaps knowledge that he was closely allied to the Earl of Bothwell fed the narcissistic sense of importance which spurred Francis Mudie to keep "an inconvenient number of concubines" on Orkney and otherwise flout convention. The "new" James V line for the Traills of New Hampshire would be, in this reconstruction: James V, King of Scots (illegitimate) Lord John Stewart, Lord Darnley = Jean Kennedy (prob. illegitimate) Christian Stewart = Adam Mudie, rector of Walls and Flotta Francis Moodie/ Mudie of Breckness = Margaret Stewart of Graemsay, etc. Francis Mudie and Margaret Stewart would have been 1st cousins had Christian Stewart been daughter of the Earl of Orkney, but only 2nd cousins if she were daughter of Lord John Stewart. 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.

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.).

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

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

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 10:00:21 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > ------------------------------------- > REPLY: No, it is not a reply, just more irrelevant papers you don't understand. I tire of this game. This time, both papers had to do with coalescence date estimates from very large populations - time spans of <10s of thousands of years, and hence completely irrelevant, YET AGAIN. > DNA is not the problem. Wait, so we ave spent the last week with you complaining about DNA being a big problem, and now DNA isn't the problem? > As of 2015 and 2016 era papers, full public admission is made that models > used in the past are going to be readjusted to "efficiently compute > genealogical quantities". All this is bad news to the family history > community. Only if they are doing population genetics on the side, since that is what the papers were talking about, not genealogy. > They have been led to believe that as the size of their genetic sample > base increases, via $$$ transfers to various sampling companies, they will > have further stunning improvements in pedigree accuracy. Oranges, meet apples. Nothing whatsoever to do with the studies you are citing. > The scientific community needs the genealogy community to give it the > parameters it needs to figure out future approximate estimates on what > its independently (so called) derived assumptions and mathematical > calculations are based. It doesn't work this way - unless you want to endow a research program dedicated to satisfying your whims. Only then do you get to decide what scientists (the ones you employ) need to do. > Dollars $$$ will thus continuously flow from "widows pockets", Oh, the humanity! All those poor widows being provided with the exact service they desire, for the market cost! The government should put a stop to such blatant (gasp) capitalism. > genealogists and family historians, since with every new future > adjustment, past assessments will all be ancient history. This is an > ideal economic and business model; a fabulous way to keep coffers full! And while you are at it, let's condemn Apple. I mean, really, they are always coming out with a new phone and all of those desperate 30-somethings have to run right out and buy it even though they have a perfectly good phone already, the poor bastards. Isn't progress terrible! If you prefer to wait for the next better thing coming down the pike, hold onto your money until then. If you don't want to pay for an improved product, don't buy it. taf

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 12:34:37 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:24:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > > REPLY: > > No, this is not a reply, it is just another misapplied Google search result. > > > > --------------------------- > > ADDENDUM: (pdf)from Cornell University Library; > > Open access to 1,154,307 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer > > Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics > > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.08183.pdf > > > Except is is not from Cornell University Library, except that they host a server that lets anyone dump a paper there ArXiv.org, intended to allow a crowd-sourced pre-review of a paper the author intends to submit for publication, but has not yet. The papers on ArXiv are not (or have yet to be) peer reviewed when they are deposited there, and that is the case with this paper. > > The author did give an oral presentation with this title at the 2012 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Bioinformatics Research and Applications, but again, no peer review (and a long lag time after the presentation before this paper was put forward, so there might be some problems there). > > > > > Non-Identafible Pedigrees and a Bayesian Solution dated 26 Feb 2016 > > > . . . > > > Abstract. > > > "Some methods aim to correct or test for relationships or to reconstruct > > > the pedigree, or family tree. We show that these methods cannot resolve > > > ties for correct relationships due to identifiability of the pedigree > > > likelihood which is the probability of inheriting the data under the > > etc. > > > > In suggesting a potential solution, mention is made that: > > > "As yet, all these details are an open problem." > > Did you notice the paper is talking about forensics - determining the precise relationship of a DNA sample of an unknown person left at a crime scene to a single individual in a database, if they are more distant that siblings or parent-child when looking at multiple unlinked loci (i.e. a grandfather, and uncle and a half-brother all have the potential to show similar degrees of shared markers). This is not something that genetic genealogy has ever promised or aimed at accomplishing. > > Further, the fact that you are reading a paper saying that this is something DNA analysis cannot do tells you it is not a dirty little secret, but recognized as something that DNA analysis cannot do. Every professional American genealogist who has worked with the record knows that the 1850 US census cannot be used to determine the precise relationship between two individuals because it does not contain the necessary detail. It would be ridiculous to claim that all censuses are worthless because of this, but that is essentially what you are doing - suggesting that because there is a question it cannot answer, and practicing professionals know it cannot answer, and suggesting it negates DNA not only for addressing that question, but all applications of DNA to any question. It is absolutely ludicrous. > > > > That "The origins, effects and frequency of mutations has already > > > been fully integrated into our understanding" falls into the category > > > of comic DNA fantasy. > > On what basis do you conclude this. To be able to reach this conclusion you you must either be an expert on DNA, or comic fantasy. You have demonstrated that DNA is not a direction in which your expertise lies. > > So far, excluding all of the red herrings and straw-man fallacies, your entire argument has boiled down to, "Because DNA!" and that has proven underwhelming in its power of persuasion. > > taf ------------------------------------- REPLY: (1) Distortion of genealogical properties when the sample is very large . . . "We will soon enter an era in which it will become routine to analyze samples with hundreds of thousands if not millions of individuals. For these large sample sizes, the standard coalescent will no longer serve as an adequate model for evolution. The DTWF model is mathematically cumbersome to work with, which was one of the original motivations for adopting the coalescent for modern population genetics analyses. However, for these very large sample sizes, we will need to develop new mathematically and computationally tractable stochastic processes that better approximate realistic models of human population evolution, and under which we can efficiently compute genealogical quantities like we have been able to under the coalescent." http://www.pnas.org/content/111/6/2385.long (2) Fundamental limits on the accuracy of demographic inference based on the sample frequency spectrum Significance "Numerous empirical studies in population genetics have used a summary statistic called the sample frequency spectrum (SFS), which summarizes the information in a sample of DNA sequences. Despite their popularity, the accuracy of inference methods based on the SFS is difficult to characterize theoretically, and it is currently unknown how the estimation accuracy improves as more sites in the genome are used. Here, we establish information theoretic limits on the accuracy of all estimators that use the SFS to infer population size histories. We study the rate of convergence to the true answer as the amount of data increases, and obtain the surprising result that it is exponentially worse than known convergence rates for many classical estimation problems in statistics." http://www.pnas.org/content/112/25/7677 As I stated heretofore, promises, promises, promises, as larger databases become available, reveal more complexity in the systems proposed analysis, and for which "we will need to develop new mathematically and computationally tractable stochastic processes that better approximate realistic models of human population evolution". DNA is not the problem. As of 2015 and 2016 era papers, full public admission is made that models used in the past are going to be readjusted to "efficiently compute genealogical quantities". All this is bad news to the family history community. They have been led to believe that as the size of their genetic sample base increases, via $$$ transfers to various sampling companies, they will have further stunning improvements in pedigree accuracy. NOT SO! And so the cat is out of the bag, finally, finally! The scientific community needs the genealogy community to give it the parameters it needs to figure out future approximate estimates on what its independently (so called) derived assumptions and mathematical calculations are based. Dollars $$$ will thus continuously flow from "widows pockets", genealogists and family historians, since with every new future adjustment, past assessments will all be ancient history. This is an ideal economic and business model; a fabulous way to keep coffers full!

On 6/8/2016 4:57 PM, taf via wrote: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 1:08:13 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > >> 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. > Unfortunately, to a degree this is a double-game they are playing, reminiscent of the mullet - business in front, party in back. In the scientific literature, they are very careful about never even hinting that it is Niall. However, when they gave interviews for the popular media (and even for commentary in the scientific media, they were a lot less reserved. For example, the respected science journalist Carl Zimmer, writing for Forbes.com said, ". . . the Ua Neill dynasty is traditionally thought to have been founded by a fifth-century warrior known as Niall of the Nine Hostages. Recent genetic studies suggest that Niall bequeathed his Y chromosome to over 2 million Irish men alive today." Now, Zimmer likely didn't make this up or research it himself - it was fed to him by the people who did the study. The popular media does not like nuance so if you can allow them to put a name to the mysterious common ancestor, you will get more publicity. Todd, I don't disagree with what you are saying, but don't forget that you are one of those rare individuals who is an expert in both fields. To a scientist who doesn't really understand the genealogical and historical evidence, the statement probably seemed like a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the results. It might very well be that Zimmer was unaware of how much he was distorting the statement, and it is a pretty good bet that it was "fed" to him by one of the scientists (who might not have understood the distinction as well as he thought) and not by the historian involved in the research. One of the problems in interdisciplinary studies involving two fields as widely separated as these is the difficulty in communication between members of the different fields. > That being said, the McEvoy paper came out and said it, "The IMH is significantly associated with surnames derived from the early medieval Ui´ Neill kingdom and this haplotype structure represents the signature or legacy of its founder (‘‘Niall of the Nine hostages’’) and his clan." That statement rubs me the wrong way too, although the quotes around "Niall of the Nine Hostages" and the words "significantly associated" make the statement technically correct. It would be interesting to know how much input Katharine Simms (the historian involved) had with regard to the statements like this made in the paper. Not as much as she would have liked, I would guess. To those who prefer to see things in black and white, it is difficult to explain the degree of "fuzziness" which "Niall of the Nine Hostages" has as an allegedly "historical" figure, and the fact that the vast majority of novices (and also many who believe themselves to be "experts") in Irish genealogy don't understand this doesn't help matters. One of the points I was trying to make is that those working in "genetic genealogy" need to make more of an effort to include qualified genealogists, and the difficulty that non-genealogists have in recognizing which genealogists know what they are doing is a good part of the problem. Stewart Baldwin

Thanks for your feedback Brad. I've found keeping a calculator handy helps with genealogy. The math wasn't adding up with the claimed descent from Edward III. I got a laugh out of one royal ancestry for Thomas Lawrence going through the Lawrences. One person used a scan from a published genealogy to show that one Lawrence descended from another. Unfortunately the person never bothered to read the genealogy as it clearly said that this one Lawrence did not have children. I do agree that John Lawrence's parents were probably William Lawrence and Katherine Beaumont/Katerine Beawmond. Greene didn't think so and had said back in 1989 that he was preparing an article on the Lawrence genealogy, but, so far as I know, he has not published this. Peter D. A. Warwick

I find that in general, families with a good paper trail are less likely to use DNA testing to support the documentation than families who lack any records to prove or to find any family history. Darrel Hockley From: peter1623a via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 10:27 AM Subject: Re: Ignorance, False Promises and Pseudoscience: Is This Profit Promotion of DNA Fiction by Senior Genealogists? > An example of DNA overturning last century's historical-record based genealogy is Archibald Bennett's conclusion about the origin of the North Carolina Allred family (now known to be ancestral to Pres. Obama). Bennett's theories were overturned by YDNA evidence. Patchy records have been discovered, which Allred missed that corroborate the migrations revealed by YDNA analysis. > > Archibald Bennett is considered to be one of the top Mormon genealogists of the twentieth century. If his conclusions can be invalidated by DNA evidence, anyone's can. > > I summed up this discovery by the Allred Family Organization on FamilySearch's Blog "DNA vs. 1940s Professional Genealogist" https://familysearch.org/blog/en/dna-1940s-professional-genealogist/ > > Nathan I believe this is exactly the sort of thing Thomas Tinney is afraid of and why he is so anti-DNA. So far his arguments have sounded more like someone grasping at straws and trying desperately to suppress the use of DNA rather than making a real, evidence-based, case against it. As an amateur genealogist and historian I'm interested in going where the evidence leads, not to where I want it to lead. I'm not always crazy about where it leads, but  I'd rather know the truth. I see DNA as a tool to assist me in my genealogical and historical research. It is not THE tool, but A tool to be used in conjunction with other, more traditional, tools. Peter D. A. Warwick ------------------------------- 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

Here are links to a couple of the items that have been mentioned recently, which seem to me to be of higher quality than much of what I have seen. King et al, Identification of the remains of King Richard III, Nature Communications, 2014 (ncomms6631) http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/pdf/ncomms6631.pdf Larmuseau et al, Genetic genealogy reveals the true Y haplogroup of House of Bourbon contradicting recent identification of the presumed remains of two French Kings, European Journal of Human Genetics 22 (2014):681-7. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v22/n5/pdf/ejhg2013211a.pdf 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. The two best papers that I have seen on the subject of using DNA to trace the genealogy of early Irish families are the following papers by Bart Jaski and Catherine Swift. Bart Jaski, Medieval Irish genealogies and genetics, in Duffy (ed.), Princes, prelates and poets in medieval Ireland: essays in honour of Katherine Simms (2013), 3-17. Catherine Swift, Interlaced scholarship: genealogies and genetics in twenty-first century Ireland, in Duffy (ed.), Princes, prelates and poets in medieval Ireland: essays in honour of Katharine Simms (2013), 18–31. I am glad to hear that the Journal of Genetic Genealogy is going to resume publication, but I hope that the opportunity will be taken to raise the standards of research on the genealogical/historical side of the aisle. To see what I am talking about, I list below three papers on the subject of early Irish families which appeared in the Journal of Genetic Genealogy. Edwin B. O'Neill & John D. McLaughlin, Insights Into the O'Neills of Ireland from DNA Testing, Journal of Genetic Genealogy 2 (2006): 18-26. Dennis M. Wright, A Set of Distinctive Marker Values Defines a Y-STR Signature for Gaelic Dalcassian Families. Journal of Genetic Genealogy 5(1) (2009): 1-7. Bradley T. Larkin, Larkin DNA Project - Ancestral Parish Sampling on the Shannon River, Journal of Genetic Genealogy 6(1) (2010): 1-29. In my opinion, none of these three articles are up to the standards which ought to be observed by a peer review journal. Although I do not have the necessary expertise to judge the DNA aspect of these articles, they are all very deficient with regard to their use of the historical and genealogical evidence. For example, the O'Neill-McLaughlin paper refers to Niall of the Nine Hostages as the "127th king of Ireland," and the Wright paper cites O'Hart's Irish Genealogies as its principle genealogical source, a clear indication that the authors lack familiarity with modern scholarship on the subject. The Larkin paper states that "... an emerging view is that Maine was the last son of ... Niall of the Nine Hostages," citing as a source an e-mail which was sent to the author, hardly the kind of statement or citation which ought to appear in a scholarly paper. The author has already been mentioned in this thread with regard to an absurd statement about the Tudor surname. I'm not suggesting that these three papers have no value. There could be worthwhile results there despite the problems that I have mentioned, but this type of material is best suited for amateur publications. In my opinion, a peer-review journal ought to set the bar higher, and this requires ensuring that sufficient expertise is available on both the genetic/scientific and genealogical/historical sides. Stewart Baldwin

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 1:08:13 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > 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. Unfortunately, to a degree this is a double-game they are playing, reminiscent of the mullet - business in front, party in back. In the scientific literature, they are very careful about never even hinting that it is Niall. However, when they gave interviews for the popular media (and even for commentary in the scientific media, they were a lot less reserved. For example, the respected science journalist Carl Zimmer, writing for Forbes.com said, ". . . the Ua Neill dynasty is traditionally thought to have been founded by a fifth-century warrior known as Niall of the Nine Hostages. Recent genetic studies suggest that Niall bequeathed his Y chromosome to over 2 million Irish men alive today." Now, Zimmer likely didn't make this up or research it himself - it was fed to him by the people who did the study. The popular media does not like nuance so if you can allow them to put a name to the mysterious common ancestor, you will get more publicity. That being said, the McEvoy paper came out and said it, "The IMH is significantly associated with surnames derived from the early medieval Ui´ Neill kingdom and this haplotype structure represents the signature or legacy of its founder (‘‘Niall of the Nine hostages’’) and his clan." taf

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:37:25 PM UTC-7, peter...@yahoo.ca wrote: > I've just come across a claim of descent for Thomas Lawrence, husband of Joan Antrobus, from Edward III. It is claimed that Gary Boyd Roberts. Here are links to the person who made the original claim: http://nutfieldgenealogy.blogspot.ca/2013/08/tombstone-tuesday-cathedral-at-toledo.html The person making this claim (Heather Wilkinson Rojo) said (in August 2013) that she had Gary Boyd Roberts review her ancestry and he pointed out to her that some of her ancestors had royal ancestry: "I am also lucky enough to live near the New England Historic Genealogical Society, where Gary Boyd Roberts has checked my family tree several times and pointed out ancestors who descend from the Plantagenets and other royal and noble families. William Adams Reitwiesner's website is valuable, too." We aren't informed which of Ms. Rojo's ancestors were pointed out to her as Plantagenet descendants by Gary Boyd Roberts, as opposed to the ones whose royal ancestry she worked out using the late William Adams Reitwiesner's site (or other sources), but the list she provides is: "The immigrant I have who descended from John of Gaunt is Thomas Lawrence (1585-1629) who married Joan Antrobus. I descend from two of their six children. He is a descendant of Mary de Ferrers described above [daughter of Joan Beaufort]. Some other ancestors with royal lineages are Reverend Peter Bulkeley (1583-1659) as well as his wife Olyff Irby (about 1547-1615), Judith Lewis (1626-1688) wife of James Gibbons, and Eleanor Slingsby (died 1647) wife of Arthur Ingraham." I can confirm that Eleanor Slingsby (b. c.1600; bur. 25 May 1647 St Giles in the Fields, London), m. 1622, as his 1st wife, Sir Arthur Ingram of Temple Newsam (c.1596-1655), is indeed descended from Edward III thru not just Joan Beaufort but also thru Lionel Duke of Clarence. You can find Eleanor in Table IV (p. 5) of Ruvigny's 1911 Mortimer-Percy volume, as well as on pp. 120-121: https://archive.org/stream/plantagenetrollo01ruvi#page/120/mode/2up I can't speak to the accuracy of Plantagenet ancestry for Rev. Peter Bulkeley and his wife Olive Irby, or to Judith Lewis wife of James Gibbons. > and to the person who reported it: http://todmar.net/ancestry/lawrence_main.htm I know the line from Thomas Lawrence to Charlemagne has been proven by Greene, but am skeptical of this claim. You have good reason, Peter, to be skeptical of this claim of an Edward III descent for Thomas Lawrence, for it is indeed inaccurate. It originated in a 1911 pedigree by Charles Browning in his 'Americans of Royal Descent'. Browning's line can be viewed online here: http://todmar.net/ancestry/Lawrence-to-Royalty.jpg The first red flag of course is that Browning (accurately) has Dorothy Mauleverer married to John Kaye on 21 Jan. 1543 [The couple were married at All Saints Church, Bardsey, Yorkshire, per the entry in the surviving parish register], but then with a great-grandson William Lawrence who married Frances Beaumont 25 Nov. 1559 - just 13 years later than his supposed great-grandparents! This of course is so chronologically impossible I have to wonder whether Browning had a kind of dyslexia when it came to dates. You can use a blogpost I made last January - 'Edward III Descents for Elizabeth (née Kaye), Viscountess Lewisham (1707-1745)' - to work out the various lines of descent from Edward III for Dorothy Mauleverer (c.1527-1591), wife of John Kaye of Woodsome Hall (c.1527-1594): http://royaldescent.blogspot.ca/2016/01/edward-iii-descents-for-elizabeth-nee.html Dorothy (Mauleverer) Kaye did have a younger son named Edward, but he did not marry Ann Tirwhitt as in Browning's pedigree. He was Rev. Edward Kaye (bap. 11 May 1558 All Saints Church, Almondbury, Yorkshire), rector of Staveley, Derbyshire, married by 1586, Beatrix Neville of Ragnall (bur. 13 Nov. 1623 St John the Baptist Church, Staveley), as traced by Rev. John William Clay in the Kaye of Woodsome pedigree in his 1899 first volume of 'Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire With Additions': https://archive.org/stream/dugdalesvisitati01dugd#page/74/mode/2up Hope this helps! Cheers, ----Brad

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:24:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > REPLY: No, this is not a reply, it is just another misapplied Google search result. > --------------------------- > ADDENDUM: (pdf)from Cornell University Library; > Open access to 1,154,307 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer > Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics > https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.08183.pdf Except is is not from Cornell University Library, except that they host a server that lets anyone dump a paper there ArXiv.org, intended to allow a crowd-sourced pre-review of a paper the author intends to submit for publication, but has not yet. The papers on ArXiv are not (or have yet to be) peer reviewed when they are deposited there, and that is the case with this paper. The author did give an oral presentation with this title at the 2012 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Bioinformatics Research and Applications, but again, no peer review (and a long lag time after the presentation before this paper was put forward, so there might be some problems there). > > Non-Identafible Pedigrees and a Bayesian Solution dated 26 Feb 2016 > > . . . > > Abstract. > > "Some methods aim to correct or test for relationships or to reconstruct > > the pedigree, or family tree. We show that these methods cannot resolve > > ties for correct relationships due to identifiability of the pedigree > > likelihood which is the probability of inheriting the data under the etc. > > In suggesting a potential solution, mention is made that: > > "As yet, all these details are an open problem." Did you notice the paper is talking about forensics - determining the precise relationship of a DNA sample of an unknown person left at a crime scene to a single individual in a database, if they are more distant that siblings or parent-child when looking at multiple unlinked loci (i.e. a grandfather, and uncle and a half-brother all have the potential to show similar degrees of shared markers). This is not something that genetic genealogy has ever promised or aimed at accomplishing. Further, the fact that you are reading a paper saying that this is something DNA analysis cannot do tells you it is not a dirty little secret, but recognized as something that DNA analysis cannot do. Every professional American genealogist who has worked with the record knows that the 1850 US census cannot be used to determine the precise relationship between two individuals because it does not contain the necessary detail. It would be ridiculous to claim that all censuses are worthless because of this, but that is essentially what you are doing - suggesting that because there is a question it cannot answer, and practicing professionals know it cannot answer, and suggesting it negates DNA not only for addressing that question, but all applications of DNA to any question. It is absolutely ludicrous. > > That "The origins, effects and frequency of mutations has already > > been fully integrated into our understanding" falls into the category > > of comic DNA fantasy. On what basis do you conclude this. To be able to reach this conclusion you you must either be an expert on DNA, or comic fantasy. You have demonstrated that DNA is not a direction in which your expertise lies. So far, excluding all of the red herrings and straw-man fallacies, your entire argument has boiled down to, "Because DNA!" and that has proven underwhelming in its power of persuasion. taf