On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:33:23 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:16:18 AM UTC-4, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > (3)Cannabis is . . . the most commonly used illegal drug both in the world and the United States. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug) > > > > CONCLUSION: Drug use causing additional unnatural cell mutations over time in various population groups, effectively destroys using DNA analysis, as a tool in professional genealogical research applications, past, present or future. > > I needed a good laugh. Now I am sure you are trolling us. > > Natural animals (humans) ingesting natural substances cannot cause "unnatural" DNA mutations. REPLY: I actually stated "Drug use causing additional unnatural cell mutations" "The scientists, from the University of West Australia, conducted an extensive review of scientific literature. They discovered that THC - the active chemical compound in cannabis - interferes with the segregation of chromosomes during cell division" http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/marijuana-thc-alters-dna-potentially-leading-mutations-that-can-be-passed-children-1561910

I stopped reading when I saw he was using Newsmax as a source. On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 6:33:23 PM UTC+3, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:16:18 AM UTC-4, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > (3)Cannabis is . . . the most commonly used illegal drug both in the world and the United States. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug) > > > > CONCLUSION: Drug use causing additional unnatural cell mutations over time in various population groups, effectively destroys using DNA analysis, as a tool in professional genealogical research applications, past, present or future. > > I needed a good laugh. Now I am sure you are trolling us. > > Natural animals (humans) ingesting natural substances cannot cause "unnatural" DNA mutations.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 10:16:18 AM UTC-4, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > (3)Cannabis is . . . the most commonly used illegal drug both in the world and the United States. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug) > > CONCLUSION: Drug use causing additional unnatural cell mutations over time in various population groups, effectively destroys using DNA analysis, as a tool in professional genealogical research applications, past, present or future. I needed a good laugh. Now I am sure you are trolling us. Natural animals (humans) ingesting natural substances cannot cause "unnatural" DNA mutations.

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 4:47:56 PM UTC-7, Matthew Langley wrote: > You lost all potential credibility of your argument when you said: > > "Well, from a Biblical standpoint, this is indeed true. We are all related as descending posterity of the prophet Noah..." ------------------- REPLY: I believe you have a distorted perception. "Isaac Newton’s discoveries were so numerous and varied that many consider him to be the father of modern science." . . . "Newton was knighted in 1705 and upon his death in 1727 was the first scientist given the honor of burial in Westminster Abbey." http://www.who2.com/bio/sir-isaac-newton/ Newton's study of biblical chronology did not make him less credible. Newton and Leibniz both invented calculus, which includes "limits, functions, derivatives, integrals, and infinite series." Unfortunately, there is no way to invent a genetic genealogy mapping calculus, that can consistently and accurately close the uncertainty gaps between DNA sample inference points and professionally established pedigree node points. It is all a matter of biased conjecture, as you have so eloquently demonstrated by your above comment. As far as medieval records go, followers of John Wycliffe "undertook the first complete English translations of the Christian scriptures in the 14th century." I, however, use the KJV, though I know of some who consider the German a better translation. From a professional genealogical research specialist standpoint, I can state I have read the said Bible from cover to cover, verbally, out-loud, a study undertaken from childhood, which expanded later into all world religious beliefs in various library settings in the United States. Reading out-loud all names in the pedigrees, and in comparison with the textual thrust of ideas presented therein, led me to the conclusion, (with a study of family behaviors and historical events, plus parallel artifacts discovered), that it was indeed historical, and in particular, a handed down record. Biblical text is a family centric written ancestry; not contrived, postulated, and not DNA comic fantasy. On the other hand, as mentioned heretofore, for which I am most hotly contested: I think DNA research applications for genealogical research are directly related and equivalent to fingerprinting. [Even identical twins (who share their DNA) do not have identical fingerprints.] It is all a matter of assigning a degree of confidence. [Since the early 20th century, fingerprint detection and analysis has been one of the most common and important forms of crime scene forensic investigation. More crimes have been solved with fingerprint evidence than for any other reason.] Dermatoglyphics is the science by which we can [determine whether these impressions could have come from the same individual. The flexibility of friction ridge skin means that no two finger or palm prints are ever exactly alike in every detail; even two impressions recorded immediately after each other from the same hand may be slightly different.] So if we want an ancestry background check, we should gather all the family fingerprints and put them all together and compare them, both for the father's side and the mother's side. Then, with the same degree of confidence of determining DNA "matches", we should be able to directly trace back all our ancestry. Yes, No, Maybe? Biometric [identification utilizing a physical attribute that is unique to every human] includes [iris recognition, the use of dental records in forensic dentistry, the tongue and DNA profiling, also known as genetic fingerprinting.] The problem I have with all of this is the logic behind the big story, because I am told that DNA is the "engine" that creates all of this unique identification in every human being. That, however, says to me, that over generations of time, every person, father, son, mother daughter, brother, sister, relative, each had a former DNA "engine" creator that produced another individual that in and of itself, starts off life with its own altered DNA "record"(it must be so to produce individuality); this then produces other altered DNA "records" in its posterity. So, the issue is not with the continuous replication process which is so nicely discussed exactingly in family history DNA related venues, it is with the very fact that everyone who is a human being is individually genetically altered. And unless you can trace genealogy created patterns in fingerprints, iris recognition, or some other form of biometric identification, you certainly cannot with confidence, trace back with any degree of certainty, unique DNA profiling, which ever so minutely changes from one person to another, over all generations of time. This is of course my own personal opinion on the matter, fortified by my own experience of seeing enthusiastic DNA potential "matches" that are in professional research, directly contradicted by written record sources. http://www.academic-genealogy.com/medicalhealthgenealogygenetics.htm#Genetics

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 7:16:18 AM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > CONCLUSION: Drug use causing additional unnatural cell mutations > over time in various population groups, effectively destroys using > DNA analysis, as a tool in professional genealogical research > applications, past, present or future. {smirk} You are punking us, aren't you? Saying the the existence of mutation invalidates all DNA analysis is like saying that one scribe who makes spelling mistakes invalidates the use of all manuscripts as genealogical sources. Actually, it's more ridiculous than that. Random mutation, whether caused by normal spontaneous biochemical processes or by mutagens, is not a deficit of DNA analysis, it is a feature of it. Without random mutation everyone would have exactly the same DNA, and it would indeed be useless. Anyhow, had you read the scientific paper that the news features you cited were referring to (a common feature of this conversation - you not reading material you are using for your arguments) you would see that this report is not about mutation, per se, but about chromosome shattering and epigenetic effects, neither of which is going to affect genealogical DNA testing in the slightest. taf

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:25:35 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 10:01:34 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > Nathan, I respectfully disagree. The current firestorm on the Internet, > > The internet? Really? You use 'firestorm on the internet' as your standard for scientific relevance? > > > > from what I have evaluated, shows that even the Forensic DNA evidence is > > being highly challenged. I refer to, for example: Forensic DNA evidence > > is not infallible > > Infallibility is a standard NO forensic evidence can meet, not fingerprints, not confessions, not eyewitness testimony. Certainly it is a standard that the genealogical documentary record can't meet. The thing is, though, the procedures and practices of of forensic and genealogical DNA collection and testing are different, and the challenges entirely distinct. > > > > As DNA analysis techniques become more sensitive, we must be careful to > > reassess the probabilities of error, argues Cynthia M. Cale. > > http://www.nature.com/news/forensic-dna-evidence-is-not-infallible-1.18654 > > Stop being dishonest! You are citing an article that has no relevance whatsoever to the type of DNA testing done for genealogical purposes. You would know this if you actually read the essay and understood it, so I am forced to conclude one of three things: you never read it and are just harvesting quotes; you read it but it was so far over your head that you didn't understand it but that isn't stopping you from passing it on; or you know it is irrelevant but you are citing it anyhow, hoping that nobody else will notice. Each of these is dishonest. > > > > Earlier this month, the Texas Forensic Science Commission raised concerns > > about the accuracy of the statistical interpretation of DNA evidence, and > > it is now checking whether convictions going back more than a decade are > > safe. > > Again, not relevant. > > > > Note in particular: "The term 'touch DNA' conveys to a courtroom that > > biological material found on an object is the result of direct contact. > > I don't even want to think about a scenario where you could take a swab of your cheek and get more of someone else's DNA than your own, without knowing it. > > > > How, then can anyone convey with any degree of honesty, > > The irony in that is truly monumental. > > taf ------------------------------------ REPLY: In reference to the Internet, I would suggest the following: {1} Cannabis use linked to gene mutation; dated 24 May 2016 "Scientists from The University of Western Australia have identified how using cannabis can alter a person's DNA structure, causing mutations which can expose them to serious illnesses, and be passed on to their children and several future generations." http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-05-cannabis-linked-gene-mutation.html "In the study published in the journal Mutation Research – Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, researchers assert they've been able to show for the first time how marijuana can be linked to serious illnesses and the implications for future generations, the International Business Times in Australia reports." http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pot-marijuana-changes-dna/2016/05/24/id/730531/ (2) From Drug Enforcement Administration Museum & Visitors Center - Cannabis, Coca, & Poppy: Nature’s Addictive Plants The oldest known written record on cannabis use comes from the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung in 2727 B.C. Ancient Greeks and Romans were also familiar with cannabis, while in the Middle East, use spread throughout the Islamic empire to North Africa. In 1545 cannabis spread to the western hemisphere where Spaniards imported it to Chile for its use as fiber. https://www.deamuseum.org/ccp/cannabis/history.html (3)Cannabis is . . . the most commonly used illegal drug both in the world and the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug) CONCLUSION: Drug use causing additional unnatural cell mutations over time in various population groups, effectively destroys using DNA analysis, as a tool in professional genealogical research applications, past, present or future.

Nathan: I am one of the founders and a member of the editorial board of The Journal of Genetic Genealogy, http://jogg.info Originally published by a group of volunteers, The JoGG has resumed publication under the auspices of the International Society of Genetic Genealogy, ISOGG. Articles from JOGG have been cited in other journals and it is indexed by EBSCO and the Directory of Open Access Journals, DOAJ. Once we can make some coding changes to meet PubMed standards, we will attempt to get indexed in MEDLINE and PubMed. A new Editor, Dr. Leah Larkin, PhD, has been appointed and a Call for Reviewers and Papers is out. There is no subscription charge. Correspondence should go to jogg@isogg.org Steven ================ The Journal of Genetic Genealogy (JoGG) will resume publication later this year. The journal is a community service for both the citizen scientists and academics among us. As such, its success depends on the volunteer efforts of people like you. Right now, we are actively seeking associate editors, reviewers, copy editors, and layout people (described below). If you are interested in one or more roles, please let me know your area(s) of expertise, level of experience, and how much time you might be able to commit. You can also nominate someone. - ASSOCIATE EDITORS work beside the Editor to shepherd individual manuscripts through the review process. If a manuscript is considered appropriate for JoGG, it will be assigned to an Associate Editor (or the Editor), who will solicit peer reviews, summarize the reviewers' comments, outline any revisions necessary, and make a final determination regarding publication. Associate Editors should have experience with scientific publishing and expertise in one or more areas of genetic genealogy. - REVIEWERS are the heart of the peer review process. They evaluate manuscripts within their area of expertise for scientific merit. Reviewers help to determine whether a paper is publishable and, if so, suggest improvements before it appears in final form. They are anonymous to the authors of the papers but acknowledged as a group in the final issue of each year. - COPY EDITORS are good writers with a thing for proper punctuation and a recent version of Microsoft Word. - LAYOUT ensures that the edited manuscript is properly formatted for publication. Of course, we are also accepting new manuscripts for consideration. Until the website is updated, you can request a copy of the Instructions for Authors by emailing me at jogg@isogg.org. Pre-publication copies of accepted papers will appear on the web site immediately after the review process is complete. Best wishes, Leah Larkin, Ph.D. Editor, Journal of Genetic Genealogy ================ > On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 1:18:51 PM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: >> I think the genetic genealogy community has tried on several occasions to >> establish a peer-reviewed journal, but for some reason or another, the idea >> always seems to fizzle. -- Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com http://stevencperkins.com/ Indigenous Peoples' Rights http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html Indigenous & Ethnic Minority Legal News http://iemlnews.blogspot.com/ Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/ S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Page http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Blog http://scpgen.blogspot.com/

On 04/06/16 22:05, taf wrote: > On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 1:18:51 PM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: >> I think the genetic genealogy community has tried on several occasions to >> establish a peer-reviewed journal, but for some reason or another, the idea >> always seems to fizzle. > > This is the fate of much of the publishing industry. Anything esoteric enough that they can't demand exorbitant subscription charges from libraries or publication fees from authors (paid out of research grants) is struggling in a market where they are being seen as progressively less relevant to a generation that thinks that everything should be free on the internet. It's difficult to see how these subscriptions can be justified. Authors, academic editors and reviewers normally contribute for free (unless things have changed). Back when I was on the committee of an archaeological society we produced a journal which was one of the main publication vehicles for our area and didn't need to resort to this sort of thing. What's more, at that time contributors wouldn't be able to produce electronic copy ready to print, everything had to be typeset by a professional typesetter. With the availability of PDF as a format there's no need for the costs of print, nor for maintaining a back-catalogue of printed material. Costs could be reduced to the cost of hosting. I can't see the current model surviving much longer, in fact I suspect current subscriptions are so high because the publishers are trying to milk what's still left, largely facilitated by the prestige of their print titles. Where no existing print journal exists there ought to be an opportunity to set up an on-line journal that could build its own reputation. Maybe this is a route whereby the old model could be superseded. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On Monday, 6 June 2016 16:48:02 UTC+1, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > My thanks to taf and John Watson for their posts. > > Can I take it that both of you agree that at least the standard > genealogy needs to be considered as less likely to be correct than the > one proposed by Clarence-Smith? > > (Most common position on the internet is that Aline is daughter to > Matthew de Louvaine, lord of the Barony of Little Easton which included Wix. > > Clarence-Smith says she was daughter to Matthew's uncle and tenant Ralph > de Hastings of Wix, who was known to have had an heiress who had been > bought by the Bassets.) > > Or maybe I should ask if anyone can think of an objection to that position? > > By the way I do agree that the Wix manor had parts. If anyone wants to > read a copy of the Clarence Smith two part article let me know, because > it covers many Wix records. > > Regards > > Andrew > > > On 4/06/2016 18:22, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > > > "G. W. Watson in the article on Despenser in the Complete Peerage, IV, > > p.261, says that Sir Hugh Despenser married "Aline, da. & h. of Sir > > Philip Basset of Wycombe, Bucks.... by his first wife Wawise, da. of > > Sir Matthew de Lonavine of Little Easton, Essex," to which is appended > > a footnote: "She had, in free marriage, the manor of Wix, Essex, by > > the service of 20s. a year. Some genealogists say that she was da. of > > John de Grey of Eaton, Bucks." Her fathering on Sir Matthew de Lovaine > > has no other support than the quite unwarranted assumption that she > > held Wix in free marriage: in fact she held it by inheritance as the > > Inquisition specifies, and Sir Matthew was her overlord but not her > > father." > > > > So having noticed this footnote, I suppose this is also a discussion > > about a potential correction to CP. (I had not noticed this footnote > > when writing my original post.) > > > > Best Regards > > Andrew > > > > > > On 4/06/2016 14:24, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > >> > >> Clarence-Smith then said that: "He was dead by Michaelmas 1210, > >> leaving a daughter under age whose custody and marriage had been > >> granted to Alan Bassett for 100 marks. It is not therefore surprising > >> to find at the death of Sir Philip Basset of Wycombe, younger son of > >> this Alan, in 1271, that he held under Sir Matthew de Lovaine the > >> manor of Wix 'by courtesy of England of the inheritance of Helewisia > >> his wife'." > >> > >> Source: Clarence Smith J. A., (1966), "Hastings of Little Easton > >> (part 1)", Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society. Vol. 2, > >> Part 1. > >> Dear Andrew, Clarence Smith's evidence that Ralph de Hastings was dead in 1210 and that his heiress was in the custody of Alan Basset is presumably taken from the Pipe Rolls of 12 John: 1209-1210, to which I have no access at the moment. (There is nothing in the fine rolls, close rolls, patent rolls, etc.) If anyone can confirm this, then I think it is a reasonable assumption that Hawise, first wife of Philip Basset was the daughter of Ralph de Hastings and not a daughter of Matthew de Louvain. She was presumably named after her grandmother, Hawise wife of William fitz Robert. Regards, John

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 9:33:40 PM UTC-6, steven perkins via wrote: > Nathan: > > I am one of the founders and a member of the editorial board of The Journal > of Genetic Genealogy, http://jogg.info Originally published by a group of > volunteers, The JoGG has resumed publication under the auspices of the > International Society of Genetic Genealogy, ISOGG. Excellent news! Nathan

Over the last few weeks I have been engaged in researching the ancestry of Mary Nightingale (1650-1718), the wife of John Redshaw, of Layston, Herts. 'Nightingale' has been used multiple times between 1674 and the modern day as a Christian name in the Redshaw (which morphed phonetically over time into 'Racher' over time) family. The origin of the use of 'Nightingale' as a Christian name in this family has long been a mystery, and I believe that I may be the first to have found the answer. In so doing I have pieced together the following pedigree of the Nightingale family. I post it here to make it available to others, but also to seek any comments or corrections from any interested party. Best wishes Robert O'Connor roconnor@es.co.nz __________________________________ NIGHTINGALE OF YELLING & CAMBRIDGE REV. LEONARD NIGHTINGALE, M.A., of Yelling, Co. Hunts., Born c. 1545. That the Nightingales of Yelling & Cambridge were related to the Nightingales of Newport is evidenced by Leonard Nightingale (d 1660) of Yelling, due to his having no surviving children, devising all his lands at Yelling & Graveley, Co. Hunts. to Geoffrey Nightingale (d 1681) of Kneesworth, in the Parish of Bassingbourn, Co. Cambs. Educ. Clare College, Cambridge University. His entry in ‘Alumni Cantabrigienses’, Part 1, Earliest Times to 1751’ reads as follows – “Nightingale, Leonard. Matric[ulated] pens[ioner] from Clare, Easter, 1563. B.A., 1566/7; M.A., 1570. Ord[ained] deacon (Ely) Aug 24, 1566; priest, March 23, 1566/7. V[icar] of Stapleford, Cambs., 1567. R[ector] of Little Barford, Beds., 1571. R[ector] of Yelling, Hunts., 1585-1612”. He was ordained a priest by Richard Cox, Bishop of Ely, 23 March 1566/7. Appointed Rector of Little Barford, Co. Beds., 20 June 1571. M before 13 Jan. 1584/5 Mary (Born c. 1555. She was mentioned in the will of her maternal uncle Rev. Thomas Parkinson (d 1586) with her mother & siblings as follows – “I give & bequeath to Margaret Slater my natural sister & her children viz Henry Ridley, Mark Ridley, Marye [sic] Nightingale, Susan Cranforth & Elizabeth Cole all such sume [sic[ or sumes [sic] of money as Robert Siston of Hemingforth do at present instant owe unto me to be distributed unto them at the discretion of George Slater Doctor of Divinity & my cozen [sic] Christopher Parkinson”, which will was witnessed by her husband Leonard Nightingale, 13 Jan. 1584/5), d. of Rev. Dr. Lancelot Ridley, D.D., M.A., of Stretham, Co. Cambs. & his wife Margaret Parkinson. He was recorded as acting as a witness to the will of his wife’s maternal uncle Rev. Thomas Parkinson (d 1586), of Willingham, Co. Cambs., 13 Jan. 1584/5. Appointed Rector of Yelling, Co. Hunts., 22 Sept. 1585. At the baptism of his son Mark he was recorded in the Yelling baptismal register as “Leonardi [sic] Nightingale”, 20 Feb. 1587/8. At the baptism of his son Roger he was recorded in the Yelling baptismal register as “Leonardi [sic] Nightingale”, 12 Feb. 1589/90. At the baptism of his daughter Katherine he was recorded in the Yelling baptismal register as “Leonardi [sic] Nightingale”, 9 Jan. 1591/2. Recorded as “Mr Leonard Nightingale, Rector of Yelling”, 27 Sept. 1597. At the baptism of his son Luke he was recorded in the Yelling baptismal register as “Leonardi [sic] Nightingale”, 18 Oct. 1597. Died 1625. Admon. Granted at the Archdeaconry Court of Huntingdon, 1625. He had issue: 1.John, of Yelling., Born c. 1585. M Magdalene (She was mentioned in her husband’s will as “my lovinge [sic] wife Magdalene”, 19 May 1626). Will dated 19 May 1626 – in which he was described as “John Nightingale of Yelinge [sic] in the County of Hunts Gent[leman]” & provided “I doe [sic] give & grant unto my said wife duringe [sic] her natural life one annuity or yearlie [sic] rent of tenn [sic] pounds of lawful money of England to be charged out of my farme [sic] in Yellinge [sic] aforesaid which was my fathers towards the bringinge [sic] up of my children William & Magdalene until [sic] they shall attaine [sic] to their several ages of one & twentie [sic] yeares”, & “I give & bequeath unto my sonne [sic] Leonard & his heirs my farme [sic] in Yellinge [sic] which was my fathers with all the lands meadows pastures profitts [sic] commofities & appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belonginge [sic] called by the name of Osburnes, upon condition that my sonne [sic] Leonard pay unto my said wife the said annuity or yearly payment of tenn [sic] pounds as aforesaid…” & “I give & bequeath to my brothers Roger & Luke to either of them tenn [sic] poundes [sic] to be paid within tenn [sic] years next after my decease”. Died 1626. Will Proved at P.C.C., 7 July 1626. He had issue: 1a.Leonard, of Yelling, Co. Hunts & Graveley, Co. Cambs., Born c. 1610. Educ. Magdalene College, Cambridge University. His entry in ‘Alumni Cantabrigienses’, Part 1, Earliest Times to 1751’ reads as follows – “Nightingale, Leonard. Matric[ulated] sizar from Magdalene, Easter 1625”. M Parradine. In ‘The Victoria County History of Cambridgeshire’ article for the Parish of Graveley it was recorded as follows – “In the 16th & early 17th century the Wiseman family held c. 200 acreas, divided & sold c. 1650. Half passed through Robert Pepys (d. 1661), an uncle of the diarist, to the Brookes. Leonard Nightingale of Yelling (Hunts.), who bought the other half in 1650, devised it in 1660 to his kinsman Geoffrey Nightingale of Kneesworth. The estate, 157 acres after 1660, descended in that family until Sir Charles E. Nightingale, Bt., in 1807 sold the 175 acres allotted at inclosure to the Londoner Richard Haighton (d. 1813)…”. Will dated 13 Jan. 1659/60 – in which he was described as “Leonard Nightingale of Yelling in the County of Huntington [sic] Esquire”, mentioned “my daughter Anne” to whom he devised all his lands at Yelling & Graveley, but provided that if she did not survive him & attain the age of 21 years they were to pass to his kinsman “Jefferie [sic] Nightingale of Kneesworth in the County of Cambridge Esquire” provided that “he shall paye [sic] or cause to be paid unto Roger Nightingale the eldest sonne [sic] of Roger Nightingale of Cambridge in the Countie [sic] of Cambridge & servant in King’s College the full summe [sic] of Twentie [sic] pounds of lawfull [sic] money of England when he attaine [sic] to his full age of Thirtie [sic] years”. Died 1660. Will Proved at P.C.C., 27 March 1660. He had issue: 1b.Anne, Bapt. 10 May 1654 at Yelling – recorded in the baptismal register as “Anne daughter of Leonard & Parradine Nightingale”. She was mentioned in her father’s will as “my daughter Anne”, 13 Jan. 1659/60. As her father’s lands at Yelling & Graveley passed to Geoffrey Nightingale (d 1681), of Kneesworth, she must have died young. 2a.William, He & her sister were recorded in their father’s will as “my children William & Magdalene”, 19 May 1626. 3a.Magdalene, She & her brother were recorded in their father’s will as “my children William & Magdalene”, 19 May 1626. 2.MARK, of whom we presently. 3.Roger (Rev.), of the Chapel Royal, St. James’s Palace, London., Bapt. 12 Feb. 1589/90 at Yelling – recorded in the baptismal register as “Rogerus [sic] son of Leonardi [sic] Nightingale”. In Church of England clergy records he was recorded as being ordained as a deacon, 20 Jan. 1616/7, & as a priest, 22 March 1616/7, by John Overall, Bishop of Lichfield & Coventry. He was a Gentleman [priest] of the Chapel Royal, St. James’s Palace, London – initially appointed in extraordinary [on a temporary basis], 29 June 1619, & then in ordinary [on a permanent basis] 20 July 1620. He was mentioned with his brother Luke in the will of his brother John who provided “I give & bequeath to my brothers Roger & Luke to either of them tenn [sic] poundes [sic] to be paid within tenn [sic] years next after my decease”, 19 May 1626. M 1st 1631 (marriage settlement dated 9 June 1631) Margaret (Born at Glaston), d. of Richard Bedoe, of the Parish of St John, Glaston, Somerset. It was recorded in the ‘Report of the Commissioners for inquiring concerning charities’ made in 1825 concerning the Parish of Glastonbury in Somerset as follows – “It appears also, by an indenture, dated 20th February 1634, an abstract of which is subjoined, that one Roger Nightingale, & his wife, granted an annuity of £6 8s 6d for the benefit of the poor people in the said alms houses. By indenture of this date, made between John Wrinkmore, the elder, of Glaston, in the county of Somerset, yeoman, & Mary, his wife, of the first part; Roger Nightingale, clerk, one of the gentlemen of his Majesty's chapel royal, & Margaret, his wife, born at Glaston aforesaid, daughter of Richard Bedoe, then late of the parish of St. John, there deceased, of the second part; & Edward Dyer, esq. Thomas Brooke, esq. Christopher Preston, gentleman, Christopher Hopkins, mercer, John Gutch, mercer, Nicholas Mapson, clothier, John Wrintmore, the younger, clothier, John Poode, yeoman, Richard Hall, yeoman, Richard Bound, yeoman, Thomas Jenkins, white-baker, & John King, yeoman, of the third part; It is witnessed, that said Wrinkmore & wife, for themselves, & the heirs of the said John, in consideration of £120 paid to the said Wrinkmore by the said Nightingale, at the entreaty of his wife, according to a covenant or agreement contained in certain articles made on the marriage of the said Nightingale & wife, dated 9th June, 6th Charles [1631], did give, grant & confirm unto the said Edward Dyer, &c. one annuity, or yearly rent-charge of 6 l.2s. 6d. issuing & going forth out of all that tenement or inn in Glaston aforesaid, called or known by the name or sign of the Crown, & out of all the lands, tenements, feedings, &c. &c. to the said tenement or inn belonging, or in anywise appertaining; to hold the said annuity or yearly rent-charge unto the said Dyer, &c. their heirs and assigns, for ever; to be paid at or upon the High Cross in Glaston aforesaid, at two of the most usual feasts or terms of the year, viz. at the feasts of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, & St. Michael the Archangel, by even & equal portions, the first payment to be made and to begin at the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, then next ensuing..”. It was recorded in ‘The History of the English Dramatic Poetry to the time of Shakespeare’ as follows – “By a similar warrant, of the 20th of April 1641, we find that the following was the establishment of the Chapel Royal. Subdean – Stephen Broughton. Chaplains – Anthony Kirby, Richard Cotton, Ezechiel Wade, Edmond Nelham, Roger Nightingale, & John Frost…” In ‘The Musical World’ it was recorded that “During the civil wars & the interregnum which followed, the members of the chapel were dispersed throughout the country, seeking protection from those who were often ill able to afford it to them…” According to Sir John Hawkins in his ‘A General History of the Science & Practice of Music’ – “Roger Nightingale, a clergyman, & one of the chapel at the restoration, was then an old man. He had been of the chapel to Charles I, & even before the commencement of that King’s reign, distinguished as a singer. He dwelt with Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, at Budgen in Huntingdonshire, the episcopal seat: & when that prelate was translated to York, he took Nightingale with his to Cawood Castle, & as a mark of his favour, gave him a lease worth £500 to be sold”. It was recorded in the ‘The Marriage, Baptismal & Burial Registers of the Collegiate Church or Abbey of St Peter, Westminster’ as follows – “He was sworn as a Gentleman of the Chapel Royal in ordinary 29 June 1619, & succeeded to the next vacancy 20 July 1620. In the Cheque Book he is described as “a Base from St. Paul’s”, & as in holy orders. He was sworn Confessor to His Majesty’s Household in June 1660, & died 25 Nov. 1661, being succeeded in that office by Rev Philip Tynchare, the preserve of the old Abbey Register”. It was recorded in Rembault’s ‘The Old Cheque Book, or Book of Remembrance, of the Chapel Royal. From 1561-1744’ as follows – “1661. Roger Nightingale, one of the Gentlemen of His Majesties Chappell [sic] & Confessor to his Majesties Household, died November 25, 1661, into whose place as gentleman was admitted Roger Hill, as Confessor Philip Tucker, one of the Gentlemen of His Majesties Chappell [sic]”. Died 25 Nov. 1661. Bur. 28 Nov. 1661 in the East Cloister, Westminster Abbey, London – recorded in the burial register as “Mr Roger Nightingale, one of the Gentlemen of His Majesty’s Chapel Royal, & Confessor of His Majesty’s Household”. 4.Katherine, Bapt. 9 Jan. 1591/2 at Yelling – recorded in the baptismal register as “Katherina [sic] daughter of Leonardi [sic] Nightingale”. 5.Luke, of Cambridge., Bapt. 18 Oct. 1597 at Yelling – recorded in the baptismal register as “Lucas [sic] son of Leonardi [sic] Nightingale”. He was mentioned with his brother Luke in the will of his brother John who provided “I give & bequeath to my brothers Roger & Luke to either of them tenn [sic] poundes [sic] to be paid within tenn [sic] years next after my decease”, 19 May 1626. M -- . At the burial of his son Luke he was recorded in the St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge burial register as “Luke Nightingale”, 2 June 1643. He had issue: 1a.Luke, M.A., Educ. Trinity College, Cambridge University. His entry in ‘Alumni Cantabrigienses’, Part 1, Earliest Times to 1751’ reads as follows – “Nightingale, Luke. Adm[itted] pens[ioner] at Trinity, July 9, 1635. Matric[ulated], 1635. B.A., 1639/40. M.A., 1643. Fellow, 1640”. At the burial of his son Luke he was recorded in the St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge burial register as “Luke Nightingale, M.A”, 2 June 1643. Bur. 2 June 1643 at St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge – recorded in the burial register as “Luke Nightingale, M.A., son of Luke Nightingale” MARK NIGHTINGALE, of Cambridge, Co. Cambs., Bapt. 20 Feb. 1587/8 at Yelling – recorded in the baptismal register as “Marcus [sic] son of Leonardi [sic] Nightingale”. M 1st c. 1620 Elizabeth (Bur. 11 May 1639 at St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge – recorded in the burial register as “Elizabeth the wife of Marke [sic] Nightingale, Gent”). At the baptism of his son Roger he was recorded in the Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge baptismal register as “Marke [sic] Nightingale”, 21 Oct. 1621. At the burial of his 1st wife Elizabeth he was recorded in the St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge burial register as “Marke [sic] Nightingale, Gent”, 11 May 1639. M 2nd 1640 at Barton, Co. Cambs., Ann Aspland (Died 9 Nov. 1645 – as recorded in the burial register. Bur. 10 Nov. 1645 at St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge – recorded in the burial register as “Ann the wife of Mark Nightingale, gent, died 9 Nov.”). At the baptism of his son Benjamin he was recorded in the St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge baptismal register as “Marke [sic] Nightingale”, 18 May 1641. At the burial of his 2nd wife Ann he was recorded in the St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge burial register as “Mark Nightingale, Gent”, 10 Nov. 1645. Bur. 26 Nov. 1649 at St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge – recorded in the burial register as “Marke [sic] Nightingale”. Admon Granted at P.C.C., 1649. He had issue by his 1st wife: 1.ROGER, of whom we presently. Mark Nightingale (1588-1649) had further issue by his 2nd wife: 2.Benjamin, Bapt. 18 May 1641 at St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge – recorded in the baptismal register as “Benjamin, son of Marke [sic] Nightingale”. ROGER NIGHTINGALE, of King’s College, Cambridge, Co. Cambs., Bapt. 21 Oct. 1621 at Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge – recorded in the baptismal register as “Roger, son of Marke [sic] Nightingale”. M Mary (At the burial of her son Roger she & her husband were recorded in the St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge burial register as “Roger & Mary Nightingale”, 6 June 1649). He was granted administration of the estate of his father Mark Nightingale, 1649. At the burial of his son Roger he & his wife were recorded in the St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge burial register as “Roger & Mary Nightingale”, 6 June 1649. At the baptism of his daughter Mary he was recorded in the St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge baptismal register as “Roger Nightingale”, 28 May 1650. At the baptism of his son Roger he was recorded in the St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge baptismal register as “Roger Nightingale”, 28 April 1652. He & his son Roger were mentioned in the will of his 1st cousin Leonard Nightingale (d 1660), of Yelling, Co. Hunts., who devised all his lands at Yelling & Graveley to his daughter Anne, but provided that if Anne did not survive him & attain the age of 21 years that those lands were to pass to his kinsman “Jefferie [sic] Nightingale of Kneesworth in the County of Cambridge Esquire” subject to Geoffrey Nightingale being required to “…paye [sic] or cause to be paid unto Roger Nightingale the eldest sonne [sic] of Roger Nightingale of Cambridge in the Countie [sic] of Cambridge & servant in King’s College the full summe [sic] of Twentie pounds of lawfull [sic] money of England when he attaine [sic] to his full age of Thirtie [sic] years”, 13 Jan. 1659/60. He was sued in the Court of Chancery by his kinsman Geoffrey Nightingale (d 1681), of Kneesworth, in the Parish of Bsssingbourn, Co. Cambs. in respect of “property in Yelling & Hemingford, Co. Hunts.”, 1660. When his son Roger was apprenticed to Robert Thodey, Vintner [Wine Merchant], of London his son was recorded as “Roger Nightingale, son of Roger Nightingale, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, Gentleman, deceased”, 3 Sept. 1667. Died before 3 Sept. 1667. He had issue: 1.Roger, Bur. 6 June 1649 at St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge – recorded in the burial register as “Roger, son of Roger & Mary Nightingale”. 2.MARY, of whom we presently. 3.Roger, of London., Bapt. 28 April 1652 at St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge – recorded in the baptismal register as “Roger, son of Roger Nightingale”. He & his father were mentioned in the will of his 1st cousin once removed Leonard Nightingale (d 1660), of Yelling, Co. Hunts., who devised all his lands at Yelling & Graveley to his daughter Anne, but provided that if Anne did not survive him & attain the age of 21 years that those lands were to pass to Leonard’s kinsman “Jefferie [sic] Nightingale of Kneesworth in the County of Cambridge Esquire” subject to Geoffrey Nightingale being required to “…paye [sic] or cause to be paid unto Roger Nightingale the eldest sonne [sic] of Roger Nightingale of Cambridge in the Countie [sic] of Cambridge & servant in King’s College the full summe [sic] of Twentie pounds of lawfull [sic] money of England when he attaine [sic] to his full age of Thirtie [sic] years”, 13 Jan. 1659/60. In the ‘London Apprenticeship Abstracts, 1442-1850’ it was recorded as follows – “Name – Roger Nightingale, Livery Company – Vintners’ Company, Details – Roger Nightingale, son of Roger Nightingale, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, Gentleman, deceased, apprenticed to Robert Thodey, Vintners’ Company, London”, 3 Sept. 1667. Bur. 29 May 1687 at Layston, Co. Herts. – recorded in the burial register as “Roger Nightingale, Citizen of London”. MARY NIGHTINGALE, Bapt. 28 May 1650 at St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge – recorded in the baptismal register as “Mary, daughter of Roger Nightingale”. That Mary, the wife of John Redshaw (d 1721), of Layston, was the daughter of Roger Nightingale, of Cambridge, is evidenced by (1) her naming her eldest son “Roger” & her second son “Nightingale”, (2) Roger Nightingale (described in the burial register as “Roger Nightingale, Citizen of London”, which indicates that he was a member of one of the London Livery Companies) being buried at Layston in 1687, where she was then living with her husband & children, (3) Roger Nightingale (d 1687) being described at the time that he was apprenticed to Robert Thodey, of the Vintners’ Company, London, as “Roger Nightingale, son of Roger Nightingale, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, Gentleman, deceased”, & (4) baptisms being recorded at St. Benedict’s Church, Cambridge in 1650 & 1652 for Mary & her brother Roger respectively, & they being therein recorded as children of Roger Nightingale. M c. 1669 JOHN REDSHAW, of Layston (near Buntingford), Co. Herts. (Born c. 1645. Bur. 3 Sept. 1721 at Layston, Co. Herts. – recorded in the burial register as “John Redsher [sic], Wooll-comber [sic]”). At the baptism of her son Roger she & her husband were recorded in the Layston baptismal register as “John Redsher [sic] husbandman & Mary his wife”, 19 Feb. 1669/70. At the baptism of her son Nightingale she & her husband were recorded in the Layston baptismal register as “John Redshower [sic] & Mary his wife”, 13 Feb. 1673/4. At the baptism of her son John she & her husband were recorded in the Layston baptismal register as “John Redshaw & Mary his wife”, 3 July 1677. At the baptism of her daughter Mary she & her husband were recorded in the Layston baptismal register as “John Reedshaw [sic] & Mary his wife”, 2 Nov. 1679. At the baptism of her son Nightingale she & her husband were recorded in the Layston baptismal register as “John Radshaw [sic] & Mary his wife”, 8 June 1682. At the baptism of her son Joseph she & her husband were recorded in the Layston baptismal register as “John Redshear [sic] & Mary his wife”, 7 Nov. 1686. Bur. 20 June 1718 at Layston – recorded in the burial register as “Mary the wife of John Redshere [sic]”. She had issue.

On 6/6/2016 4:13 PM, taf via wrote: > I have a folder, clearly incomplete, of peer reviewed papers analyzing the DNA of historical individuals. > > Sven Estridsen and 'Estrid' (results suggest 'Estrid' skeleton is not mother of Sven, but its identification is dubious) > Francesco Petrarca > Copernicus > Romanovs (several papers, one specifically identifying the hemophilia mutation in Alexei) > St. Leopold III (poor quality, mixing poorly identified skeletons with an uncertain pedigree gives you worthless conclusions) > Napoleon > Jefferson (descendant/cousin testing) > Zierdt family > Basarabs (assumes living people with this surname are genetic relatives of dynasty) > Nso' dynasty of Cameroon > Niall (testing of people with surnames traditionally linked to O'Niall) > Genghis Khan (based solely on how widespread the haplogroup is within the former Mongol Empire) > Ching Dynasty (same as with the Khan, I have seen it said that this was confirmed by direct testing of a descendant, but I never saw that in peer reviewed paper) > The 'Dark Counts' - early 19th century couple claiming to be escaped Bourbons but really just posers > French Bourbons - (several papers, the first ones based on a couple of dubious artifacts, subsequent work used pedigree analysis and disagreed with first) > 'St. Luke' - identification is obviously a big problem here > St. Birgita > Jesse James > Emperor Cao Cao > Sayyid Ajjal Shams al-Din Omar (male line ancestor of Admiral Zheng He) - in Mandarin, although an English version has been distributed > English Hanoverians looking for porphyria > Richard III/Dukes of Somerset > > There have been a number of studies that have been published in the popular media - Adolph Hitler, Leonardo, Diana's cousin to show she was part Indian, but you never know what to make of these. Then there is also a book on the royal porphyria that did some DNA testing - I do know what to make of it: the author didn't understand what he was doing and his evaluation of the results borders on ridiculous, but that doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion isn't right, if only by coincidence. [begin sarcasm warning] I think you forgot to mention the following three books by Elizabeth Caldwell Hirschman and Donald N. Yates: "Jews and Muslims in British Colonial America: A Genealogical History" (2013), "When Scotland Was Jewish: DNA Evidence, Archeology, Analysis of Migrations, and Public and Family Records Show Twelfth Century Semitic Roots" (2013), "The Early Jews and Muslims of England and Wales: A Genetic and Genealogical History" (2014). :-) [end sarcasm warning] I found these while I was searching for DNA genealogy related publications. Just in case my "sarcasm warning" above was not clear enough, I am definitely NOT recommending the above books. I guess every decade has its own version of "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" (this time with DNA "evidence"). Stewart Baldwin

My thanks to taf and John Watson for their posts. Can I take it that both of you agree that at least the standard genealogy needs to be considered as less likely to be correct than the one proposed by Clarence-Smith? (Most common position on the internet is that Aline is daughter to Matthew de Louvaine, lord of the Barony of Little Easton which included Wix. Clarence-Smith says she was daughter to Matthew's uncle and tenant Ralph de Hastings of Wix, who was known to have had an heiress who had been bought by the Bassets.) Or maybe I should ask if anyone can think of an objection to that position? By the way I do agree that the Wix manor had parts. If anyone wants to read a copy of the Clarence Smith two part article let me know, because it covers many Wix records. Regards Andrew On 4/06/2016 18:22, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > "G. W. Watson in the article on Despenser in the Complete Peerage, IV, > p.261, says that Sir Hugh Despenser married "Aline, da. & h. of Sir > Philip Basset of Wycombe, Bucks.... by his first wife Wawise, da. of > Sir Matthew de Lonavine of Little Easton, Essex," to which is appended > a footnote: "She had, in free marriage, the manor of Wix, Essex, by > the service of 20s. a year. Some genealogists say that she was da. of > John de Grey of Eaton, Bucks." Her fathering on Sir Matthew de Lovaine > has no other support than the quite unwarranted assumption that she > held Wix in free marriage: in fact she held it by inheritance as the > Inquisition specifies, and Sir Matthew was her overlord but not her > father." > > So having noticed this footnote, I suppose this is also a discussion > about a potential correction to CP. (I had not noticed this footnote > when writing my original post.) > > Best Regards > Andrew > > > On 4/06/2016 14:24, Andrew Lancaster wrote: >> >> Clarence-Smith then said that: "He was dead by Michaelmas 1210, >> leaving a daughter under age whose custody and marriage had been >> granted to Alan Bassett for 100 marks. It is not therefore surprising >> to find at the death of Sir Philip Basset of Wycombe, younger son of >> this Alan, in 1271, that he held under Sir Matthew de Lovaine the >> manor of Wix 'by courtesy of England of the inheritance of Helewisia >> his wife'." >> >> Source: Clarence Smith J. A., (1966), "Hastings of Little Easton >> (part 1)", Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society. Vol. 2, >> Part 1. >>

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 3:23:32 PM UTC-6, taf wrote: > On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 2:13:46 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > > I have a folder, clearly incomplete, of peer reviewed papers analyzing the DNA of historical individuals. I'd love to see that bibliography. Nathan nathanwmurphy-at-gmail.com

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 2:13:46 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > I have a folder, clearly incomplete, of peer reviewed papers analyzing the DNA of historical individuals. Oops, missed one: King Tut (the scholarly community is split on this work - it was the product of a newly formed national[istic] lab set up specifically so the work would be done by Egyptians and there is a large degree of discomfort over the lack of expertise and hence greater risk of all of the problems, notably contamination, that plague ancient DNA studies) taf

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 11:23:26 AM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > > On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 8:39:45 PM UTC-6, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > >> Is there any website linking to DNA studies of royal and/or noble > >> families that limits itself to work of reasonable quality. > I am hoping to find more > material of this type in peer-review journals (or at least something > approaching that quality). I have a folder, clearly incomplete, of peer reviewed papers analyzing the DNA of historical individuals. Sven Estridsen and 'Estrid' (results suggest 'Estrid' skeleton is not mother of Sven, but its identification is dubious) Francesco Petrarca Copernicus Romanovs (several papers, one specifically identifying the hemophilia mutation in Alexei) St. Leopold III (poor quality, mixing poorly identified skeletons with an uncertain pedigree gives you worthless conclusions) Napoleon Jefferson (descendant/cousin testing) Zierdt family Basarabs (assumes living people with this surname are genetic relatives of dynasty) Nso' dynasty of Cameroon Niall (testing of people with surnames traditionally linked to O'Niall) Genghis Khan (based solely on how widespread the haplogroup is within the former Mongol Empire) Ching Dynasty (same as with the Khan, I have seen it said that this was confirmed by direct testing of a descendant, but I never saw that in peer reviewed paper) The 'Dark Counts' - early 19th century couple claiming to be escaped Bourbons but really just posers French Bourbons - (several papers, the first ones based on a couple of dubious artifacts, subsequent work used pedigree analysis and disagreed with first) 'St. Luke' - identification is obviously a big problem here St. Birgita Jesse James Emperor Cao Cao Sayyid Ajjal Shams al-Din Omar (male line ancestor of Admiral Zheng He) - in Mandarin, although an English version has been distributed English Hanoverians looking for porphyria Richard III/Dukes of Somerset There have been a number of studies that have been published in the popular media - Adolph Hitler, Leonardo, Diana's cousin to show she was part Indian, but you never know what to make of these. Then there is also a book on the royal porphyria that did some DNA testing - I do know what to make of it: the author didn't understand what he was doing and his evaluation of the results borders on ridiculous, but that doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion isn't right, if only by coincidence. Let me know if you want details on any of this. taf

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 8:48:02 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > My thanks to taf and John Watson for their posts. > > Can I take it that both of you agree that at least the standard > genealogy needs to be considered as less likely to be correct than the > one proposed by Clarence-Smith? I would not put my position that strong without reading or rereading the scholarly underpinnings of the 'preferred' version and C-S's alternative. I would say that anyone who draws a conclusion based solely on landholding (as opposed to documented inheritance) without taking the possibility of enfeoffment into account, has left a noteworthy gap in their analysis. taf

Thank you to all who replied for the great information! Cheers, ------Brad

From: geraldrm via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 05 June 2016 23:09 > > I've heard that men were able to take care of their favorite illicitly- begotten children, but how did they do it when the laws gave bastards no rights of inheritance? An interesting case is where Sir Thomas Martin eventually married the children's mother and allotted them their due inheritances, but a kinsman successfully overturned the inheritances in court on the grounds that they were born bastards regardless of the father eventually marrying the mother. > http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/martin-william > > Are you familiar with cases of bastards inheriting? How did they do it? > ------------------------------- Late medieval English law distinguished between, on the one hand, the person who inherited under the common law rules of descent, who was 'the heir', and, on the other hand, a person who was entitled to property under an entail or by virtue of a provision in a will, who was technically not an 'heir' and did not 'inherit'. Nowadays we loosely use 'heir' and 'inheritance' to describe both sets of circumstances. The late medieval law was quite clear - bastards could not inherit (in the technical sense). If a man died without having taken any special steps ensure that his property went to a bastard then the bastard could not inherit - some more distant relative would be the heir at law and would inherit. But it was also perfectly lawful for a man to make arrangements during his lifetime which would ensure that his bastard offspring inherited (in the loose colloquial sense). For example, he could transfer property to the bastard in his lifetime, or entail it on him, or transfer it to feoffees and then in his will instruct the feoffees to transfer it to the bastard. It seems that Sir Robert Martin took the necessary steps before his death to ensure that at least some of his lands should go to his three bastard sons, and it is difficult to understand how his heir at law John Gouitz was nevertheless able to inherit. I suspect the answer is that Gouvitz somehow managed to pervert the course of justice, perhaps by bribery or intimidation of officials or jurors or the influence of powerful friends - all common features of inheritance disputes in this period. Three lawsuits between two of Sir Robert Martin's sons and Gouvitz (footnoted by that HoP biography) can be found here: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no1502/aJUST1no1502fronts/IMG_2528.htm http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no1519/bJUST1no1519dorses/IMG_6546.htm In the first two Robert Martin fils successfully brings assizes of novel disseisin against Gouvitz and his own brother William concerning two landholdings in Westwood and Winterbourne Martin in Dorset - surprisingly the jury declares him to be his father's the next heir and he recovers the properties (not technically correct, as the common law did not accept that subsequent marriage could retrospectively legitimise previously born bastard children). In the third one, an assize of novel disseisin brought by Gouvitz against Richard Martyn for the manor of Brown in Somerset, Richard alleges that the jury has been packed with Gouvitz's supporters by a corrupt sheriff's deputy and successfully applies for it to be discharged and a new one arraigned (the ultimate outcome is not known). Matt Tompkins

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 12:17:16 PM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > I've been lurking on and off and wonder if there is anything new on the ancestry of Alice Freeman of Preston Capes and later New London CT, wife of John Thompson and later Robert Parke. Seems she had royal lines, then she didn't, then she did, then she didn't again. > Are any of her lines still valid? > I have the RD600 published in 2004 that takes her back to Ethelred II but in that same book there's a line from among others John Throckmorton - Eleanor Spinney that goes back to Louis IV of France. > It appears that Alice Freeman has John Throckmorton - Eleanor Spinney in her direct ancestry too, so does the line from her back to Louis IV King of France work as well? > And if she has any lines that are valid back to royalty, might anyone who knows what they are doing suggest some reasonably available sources to document the line? RD600 is great for seeing the whole line, but not so great when it comes to dates and sources. > Thank you for any direction regarding Alice Freeman's ancestry. Thanks all. I did have this line but not with all the detailed dates etc. I appreciate it.