Dear Newsgroup ~ Complete Peerage 6 (1926): 12 (sub Gorges) includes an account of the life of Ralph de Gorges, 2nd Lord Gorges. Regarding his marriage and death, the following information is provided: "Ralph (de Gorges), Lord Gorges, only son and heir, was born in 1308 ... He married, in or before 1330, Elizabeth ... In 1334 he was a party to an agreement concerning the marriage of his sister Joan. He died without issue before 28 August 1344. His widow was living in 1356/7." END OF QUOTE. As to the source cited for the statement that Ralph de Gorges died before 28 August 1344, the following information is given in footnote i on page 12: "When there is mention of Elizabeth late the wife of Ralph de Gorges (Close Roll)." Recently I located a Common Pleas lawsuit which proves that Ralph de Gorges died sometime before Easter term 1342, on which date Elizabeth, widow of Ralph de Gorges, sued John de Upheye in the Court of Common Pleas in a Somerset plea regarding a reasonable account of the time he was her receiver of money. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/330, image 118f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/E3/CP40no330/aCP40no330fronts/IMG_0118.htm). While Ralph de Gorges left no issue, his sisters, Eleanor (de Gorges) Russell and Joan (de Gorges) Cheyne have modern descendants. The following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Eleanor (de Gorges) Russell: Barbara Aubrey, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Foliot, Muriel Gurdon, Thomas Ligon. The following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Joan (de Gorges) Cheyne: Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert Brent. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 2:43:30 PM UTC-4, taf wrote: > On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 11:23:26 AM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > > On 6/3/2016 10:00 PM, nathanwmurphy via wrote: > > > Here is a 2013 article Dr. Brian Swann pointed out to me in the past when I asked that question on ISOGG's Facebook page: Bradley T. Larkin, "Y-DNA of the British Monarchy," Surname DNA Journal (2013). > > > > > > http://www.surnamedna.com/?articles=y-dna-of-the-british-monarchy > > > > I had already seen that article, which has some "red flags" that > > bothered me. > > Here is one that bothers me:"A Tudor Y-DNA signature has not been identified and there are no documented descendants after the 17th century. If a signature can be identified, however, there may be numerous living matches because the ‘Tudor’ surname is still common where the royal Tudors originated on the Isle of Angelsey in Wales. " In fact, the very first lines I would eliminate as possible direct lines to Tudor Kings would be people who somehow have carried the surname Tudor but yet 'forgotten' their connection to the royal and very notable Tudors. :)

Dear List Concerning the parentage of Hawise, the wife of Sir Philip Basset there seem to be two accounts and I would like to call for opinions. I note from a quick archives search that her descendancy if interest to many followers of this list. Well known sources such as Weis (Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists) and ODNB say that her father must have been Mathew de Louvain (giving her interesting Carolingian ancestry!). But I became aware of another interpretation of what I think is the only evidence being used for both positions. The excellent article by Clarence-Smith used very detailed analysis of the records to resolve many of the questions about the difficult Hastings family of Little Easton in Essex, of whom Matthew was an heir, especially concerning the property involved in this record. Following through what became of that family he notes that Matthew's Hastings mother still had an uncle, Ralph de Hastings, holding the manor of Wix - a manor which had special importance to the family it seems. Ralph was very active in official affairs of the family, continuing into the times of Mathew's father, Geoffrey de Louvain. 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'." Her heir was Aline who married twice, to Hugh le Dispencer and to Roger Bigod Earl of Norfolk, and Aline's heir, also named Hugh le Dispencer, was a famous favourite to King Edward II, and "Wix was forfeited with the rest of his possessions on his execution in 1326". Source: Clarence Smith J. A., (1966), "Hastings of Little Easton (part 1)", Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society. Vol. 2, Part 1. As far as I can see, all sources which claim Mathew as the father of Hawise are taking the same document and presuming that the father must be the overlord of Wix, ignoring the possibility that the family had enfeoffed a cadet branch which evidently was expected to inherit. Am I missing anything or should standard pedigrees be corrected or at least considered uncertain? Are there any other documents relevant to the case? Best Regards Andrew Lancaster

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. taf

On 6/3/2016 10:00 PM, nathanwmurphy 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. Most of my >> attempts to find such sites have led me to too much junk and too little >> useful material. >> >> Stewart Baldwin > Here is a 2013 article Dr. Brian Swann pointed out to me in the past when I asked that question on ISOGG's Facebook page: Bradley T. Larkin, "Y-DNA of the British Monarchy," Surname DNA Journal (2013). > > http://www.surnamedna.com/?articles=y-dna-of-the-british-monarchy I had already seen that article, which has some "red flags" that bothered me. For example, the author gave a birth date of 846 for Rollo of Normandy, which is absurdly early, and shows apparent ignorance that some such dates are undocumentable, as for example, the strangely spelled (and hardly well documented) "Harthacnu I, King of Denmark (880-936)." The fact that Wikipedia is a major source is also a big red flag. Some of the videos you pointed out in your other response look interesting, but they are time-consuming. I am hoping to find more material of this type in peer-review journals (or at least something approaching that quality). Stewart Baldwin

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.

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 11:23:26 AM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > On 6/3/2016 10:00 PM, nathanwmurphy via wrote: > > Here is a 2013 article Dr. Brian Swann pointed out to me in the past when I asked that question on ISOGG's Facebook page: Bradley T. Larkin, "Y-DNA of the British Monarchy," Surname DNA Journal (2013). > > > > http://www.surnamedna.com/?articles=y-dna-of-the-british-monarchy > > I had already seen that article, which has some "red flags" that > bothered me. Here is one that bothers me:"A Tudor Y-DNA signature has not been identified and there are no documented descendants after the 17th century. If a signature can be identified, however, there may be numerous living matches because the ‘Tudor’ surname is still common where the royal Tudors originated on the Isle of Angelsey in Wales. " Given the nature and dating of Welsh surname adoption, why would you expect someone with the surname of Tudor to be related to the royal line, no matter where they were living? taf

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 5:24:26 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster via wrote: > As far as I can see, all sources which claim Mathew as the father of > Hawise are taking the same document and presuming that the father must > be the overlord of Wix, ignoring the possibility that the family had > enfeoffed a cadet branch which evidently was expected to inherit. This has always been sort of a pet peeve of mine - it is all too common to see genealogical connections made based solely on the holding of land, under the supposition that it must have been directly inherited. With trusts, fines, leases and enfeoffments, this simply cannot be assumed. That these frequently involve relatives of the primary landholder makes it all the harder to sort out. > Am I missing anything or should standard pedigrees be corrected or at > least considered uncertain? Are there any other documents relevant to > the case? I wish I could help, but I find nothing useful. taf

On 4/06/2016 12:08 AM, Tompkins@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote: > On 3/06/2016 6:16 PM, Matt Tompkins via wrote: >>> Thank you, Rosie. Derek Barrie, who wrote a 1991 thesis on the baronage under Edward I, also dated the letter to 1302, though for reasons more suggestive than conclusive: Derek A. Barrie, The 'Maiores Barones' in the second half of the reign of Edward I, (1290-1307), PhD thesis, university of St Andrews (1991), p. 143. >>> >>> https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/4594 >>> > ------------------------- > From: Peter Stewart via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] > Sent: 03 June 2016 11:19 >> I think the case for 1302 over the alternatives set out before by Matt > is a bit stronger than Derek Barrie suggested - he wrote: 'The reference > to his [John de St John's] illness, given his death later that year, > points to 1302 as the correct date.' >> St. John was appointed warden of Galloway on 5 January 1300, not long > after he had been released from imprisonment in France apparently after > 10 September 1299. As posted before, he died at Lochmaber castle on > Thursday 6 September 1302, just eight days after the meeting he was too > ill to attend, which would have taken place on Wednesday 29 August in > that year. >> We don't have to rely only on Annales Londonienses for the timing of St > John's death - news of this had reached the king by 14 September, > *Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland* vol. v, p. 173 no. 292: > '[1302] ... [Draft of 9 privy seal writs of Edward I.] (iii) 14 Sept. To > Walter de Glouc', escheator south of Trent. Sir John de St John, the > elder, is dead'. The writ for St John's IPM was issued on 12 October, > *Calendar of IPMs* vol. iv p. 61 no. 96. >> Peter Stewart >> > ------------------------------- > Surely we only know that the meeting he was too ill to attend was a few days before his death if we assume that the letter referring to the meeting was written in 1302. Isn't that circular logic? > > The illness referred to in the letter might well have been the one which finished him off in 1302, but equally people can fall ill at several points in their lives, and not die until years later. > > Obviously - that's why I wrote that the case is "a bit stronger" than implied by "death later that year". I don't think you need to teach SGM readers to suck circumstantial eggs. Peter Stewart

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.

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 7:14:33 PM UTC, Patricia A. Junkin via wrote: > Monica, > I also have a reference that Nicholas by his wife, Joanna was the father of Thomas Slyfield b. 1370 who married Elizabeth St. John Brewes. The earliest Slifield I have is Geoffrey b. 1230 of Great Bookham. It seems probable that Edward St. John is the son of John St. John of Lagham by Katherine de Say. I believe the marriage of John and Katherine was contracted when they were minors, hence the date of 1320 for a marriage to be consummated would probably be 1330 when children would have been born. Some sources state that Edward St. John of Godstone (Lagham) was born about 1344. I am a bit troubled by the date of birth of Nicholas Slifield as 1320. > The de la Bisse family were joined to the Wintershull family when William Bysshe born 1510, married Sarah Wintershull. In 1207 William de Sandes and his wife Lucy sued Stephen de Turneham and his wife Edlina in Stlifield [Slifield].In 1261 John de Wyntereshull sued William Godalming and his wife Joania in Great Bocham [Bookham] and Wyntershull. > By 1409, Thomas de Wyntreshulle by his custos sued George Brewes for a carucate of land in Bromlegh, which Philippa de Neville had given to William de Wyntershulle and Beatrice, his wife, and heirs of their bodies in the reign of Henry III[1] In 1435, Robert Wintershull, Thomas Slyfield [Bruce Jun1]and Thomas Elyot sued Thomas Waller and Johanna of Guildford and Stoke. Chivington or Bysshe Court in was held by the d'Abernons of de Clare. > John Bisse married by 1466, Joan the daughter and heir of John Redinghurst in Cranley and his brother William married a daughter of Thomas Slyfield. There is of record in 6 Henry IV [1405] Special assize roll and file, Nicholas Slyfield and John Redinghurst v. Roger Alexander in Surrey (Just 1/863-869), from the records of itinerant justices and other court records. > Pat > > > On Nov 7, 2015, at 11:36 AM, mk via wrote: > > > Thanks Vance! I was curious as they were both the fathers-in-law of > > Elizabeth St. John Breuse Slyfield. > > > > best > > > > Monica > > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Vance Mead via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Nicholas is a previous sheriff, Edward is the current sheriff of Surrey > >> and Sussex. > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> 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 > >> > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 Hi I am a descendant of Nicholas Slyfield and wonder if you have a surname for his wife Joanna. regards steve brunsden

Is there any website linking to DNA studies of royal and/or noble families that limits itself to work of reasonable quality. Most of my attempts to find such sites have led me to too much junk and too little useful material. Stewart Baldwin

On 5/31/2016 2:18 PM, taf via wrote: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 9:53:17 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: >> Perhaps, but both have been useful. Y-DNA testing has been useful to connect individuals genealogically back 10,11, maybe 15 generations back or more. >> >> autosomal DNA testing has been useful to me to prove/connect to individuals on a must more recent timescale (5 or 6 generations back with confidence). >> >> So, Y-DNA has a lot more depth on the chart, but autosomal has much more bredth in lieu of depth. >> >> Both useful, but in different ways. > I think Andrew was talking about a different type of autosomal analysis than you are. He was talking about SNP analysis used to determine ethnic proportions - basically useless for genealogy unless you don't know if your grandfather was a Finn or an Italian and you know everyone else is neither. What is more useful is the autosomal SNP clustering analysis that looks at conserved islands of contiguous DNA and can tell you someone is related to you within about a half-dozen generations. While it has limits, that can be useful data, though it proves no specific connection. The generation estimates given by the testing companies can be very misleading, and I sometimes wonder if they are making the results sound as good as they can possibly justify. I had my autosomal DNA tested by FamilyTreeDNA, and I have not been fortunate to find many matches close enough to be easily traceable, but when I got my results, I at least thought that the relationship ranges would be close enough that a significant percentage would fall within the range specified. My closest match, and the only one over 100 centimorgans total, was estimated to be in the 2nd-3rd cousin range, but I have no genealogical information on the testee to check the accuracy of that range. I have 26 matches that are estimated by FTDNA to be in the 2nd-4th cousin range. Of these, I have no genealogical information at all on five of them. Of the remaining 21, I have traced the paper-trail relationships for nine of them, which include one third cousin, one third cousin once removed, one double fourth cousin, four fourth cousins (one with very probable but unconfirmed additional matches further back), one fourth cousin once-removed, and one fifth cousin once removed. For two of the remaining "2nd-4th" matches, I have only very limited genealogical data, enough to rule out any second cousin or closer relation and no reason to expect a relationship as close as fourth cousin. For the remaining ten allegedly 2nd-4th cousin matches, I have enough information on their ancestry to rule out any relationship closer than fifth cousin with reasonable confidence (assuming acceptable accuracy in the information the testees reported), and no reason to suspect that any of them are even that closely related. (I have a paper-trail tenth cousin relationship with one of them, and a plausible conjecture for a sixth cousin relationship with another.) One or two of them might have a closer relationship due to a paper trail mistake or a "non-paternal event" but it is improbable that all of them do. Based on my confirmed matches so far, my own paper trail ancestry appears to be genetically accurate for at least 7 out of 8 great-grandparents (including all four great-grandfathers) and at least 11 out of 16 g-g-grandparents (including 5 g-g-grandfathers), making a "non-paternal event" on my end rather unlikely in this time frame. (Also, I saw no geographical or surname matches that looked promising in the appropriate time frame.) Thus, if the seven cases where I have inadequate information are left out, only seven out of nineteen of my supposed "2nd-4th" cousin matches lie within the estimated range, and not a single one lies within the lower part of that range. I never expected ALL of the matches to lie withing the estimated range, but I assumed that the ranges would at least be reported accurately enough that over 50% would fall within the reported range. When I read some of the more careful mathematical analyses available on the Internet, it was clear that given the total number of matching centimorgans in these cases, it was expected that a significant number of the relationships would be well beyond the fourth cousin range. Needless to say, I found this very annoying, as I did a significant amount of digging looking for paper trail matches which I would not have done if the probable relationship ranges had been more accurately reported. Are the testing companies deliberately using a simplistic mathematical model which makes the matches look closer than they really are? Stewart Baldwin

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 9:00:20 PM UTC-6, nathan...@gmail.com 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. Most of my > > attempts to find such sites have led me to too much junk and too little > > useful material. > > > > Stewart Baldwin Katherine Borges, Director of the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG), presented "Famous British DNA" at WDYTYA 2015. A recording is available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EQC8oy1nJc See also YouTube Channels: 1. DNA Lectures - Who Do You Think You Are https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7HQSiSkiy7ujlkgQER1FYw *I especially enjoyed the lecture by Chris Pomery, though it's not about royalty 2. Genetic Genealogy Ireland https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnW2NAfPIA2KUipZ_PlUlw Nathan

On 3/06/2016 6:16 PM, Matt Tompkins via wrote: > On Thursday, 2 June 2016 00:36:06 UTC+1, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote: >> Thanks Matt >> >> Yes, I’ve come round to your conclusion that the letter must have been written in 1302, as John de St John of Basing was still a prisoner in Paris in 1298. The context of the letter then makes perfect sense in all other aspects. The “Langham” location is possibly Lochmaben abbreviated to something like L’maben, or “Loumaban” as I’ve seen it, but as you say it can only be determined by examining the original. >> > <snip> >> Cheers >> Rosie >> > ------------------------- > > Thank you, Rosie. Derek Barrie, who wrote a 1991 thesis on the baronage under Edward I, also dated the letter to 1302, though for reasons for suggestive than conclusive: Derek A. Barrie, The 'Maiores Barones' in the second half of the reign of Edward I, (1290-1307), PhD thesis, university of St Andrews (1991), p. 143. > > https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/4594 > > I think the case for 1302 over the alternatives set out before by Matt is a bit stronger than Derek Barrie suggested - he wrote: 'The reference to his [John de St John's] illness, given his death later that year, points to 1302 as the correct date.' St. John was appointed warden of Galloway on 5 January 1300, not long after he had been released from imprisonment in France apparently after 10 September 1299. As posted before, he died at Lochmaber castle on Thursday 6 September 1302, just eight days after the meeting he was too ill to attend, which would have taken place on Wednesday 29 August in that year. We don't have to rely only on Annales Londonienses for the timing of St John's death - news of this had reached the king by 14 September, *Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland* vol. v, p. 173 no. 292: '[1302] ... [Draft of 9 privy seal writs of Edward I.] (iii) 14 Sept. To Walter de Glouc', escheator south of Trent. Sir John de St John, the elder, is dead'. The writ for St John's IPM was issued on 12 October, *Calendar of IPMs* vol. iv p. 61 no. 96. Peter Stewart

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. Most of my > attempts to find such sites have led me to too much junk and too little > useful material. > > Stewart Baldwin Here is a 2013 article Dr. Brian Swann pointed out to me in the past when I asked that question on ISOGG's Facebook page: Bradley T. Larkin, "Y-DNA of the British Monarchy," Surname DNA Journal (2013). http://www.surnamedna.com/?articles=y-dna-of-the-british-monarchy Nathan

On 6/3/2016 4:40 PM, taf via wrote: > I just came across an article that cites a 12th or 13th century continuation of John of Worcester's Chronicon ex Chronicis (CCCC 92 - this is sometimes referred to as the third continuation) that shows a descent from king AElla of Northumbria (d. 867), and on beyond Woden. ... > [Neil McGuigan, "AElla and the Descendants of Ivar: Politics and Legend in the Viking Age", Northern History, 52:20-34.] Thanks for pointing this paper out. As you noted, the pre-AElla part is clearly fiction, but the part after him is not obviously false. It is surprising that this genealogy has not been discussed more. Years ago, I noticed a similar genealogy (lacking the earliest part, and with significant differences between AElla and Waltheof) in the Collected Historical Works of Sir Francis Palgrave (Table XXIV), but I never trusted Palgrave's work enough to investigate it further. Stewart Baldwin

I have found (very) low resolution scans of the original manuscript here: http://dms.stanford.edu/catalog/CCC092_keywords f. 197R and 197V Apparently high-res scans are available to subscribers. taf

taf wrote: "It is an monstrous overstatement to call this a marker of descent from Robert III. The mutation could have happened in any generation between Robert and Archie - it may have first arisen in Archie himself. Assuming the facts stated are true (that Archie descends from Robert, that Archie has a mutation not shared by descendants of Robert's brothers), then anyone who has it must share the same line as Archie and descend from Robert, but that doesn't mean that all descendants of Robert must have it. Any branch that split off before the mutation happened would still have the 'ancestral' Stewart subtype, even though they also descends from Robert." Well if the claim is to be taken seriously it could mean that they could actually triangulate and test several lines descended from siblings in several generations. If several sons of Robert have male lines still existing, it would show that Robert almost certainly did. If Robert also had siblings himself with surviving male lines, and these could be shown NOT to have it... that would be pretty convincing. And of course this should involve a good SNP marker that does not jump back and forth. Whether they really did that... we shall have to see. Would be a surprise to see such a thorough study, but that SHOULD be how they are done. Triangulation is often the key to really good genetic genealogy. :)

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 5:45:02 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > It is surprising that this genealogy has not been discussed more. I see passing reference in various 19th century accounts - just search Google Books for "Hyring" Northumbria, which has to be in quotes or it will show you hiring=jobs. I see it mentioned in a recent book of correspondence between John Mitchell Kemble and Jacob Grimm, but I only get to see one page so I can't tell the context. I see in my original post I missed commenting on Ermering, and as I look, it opens up an interesting possibility. There is a Goth king Eormenric who appears in Beowulf and Widsith, but also Eormenric, King of Kent, and this last points to the probable origin of this man in the pedigree. Kent Descent: Woden Wicta Witta Wihtgils Hengest Octa Ossa Eormenric This pedigree: Woden ----------- Wihtgils Horsa Uppa Eppa Eormenric I think the pedigree creator has taken the Kent pedigree and swapped Hengest for his brother Horsa, then spliced on the Bernicians by changing Ossa to Eoppa, Ida's father, and then attaching Ida at the end after Eormenric. However, someone needed to make sure that everyone understood the situation, so inserted the eponym Bernoc right before Isa. I don't know if this is relevant or not: the edition of Chronicon ex Chronicis published in the 1840s does not include Bernoc in the pedigree. Does these represent different manuscripts that preserve the 'before and after' for that last addition? taf