"University of Leicester Professor Kevin Schurer has revealed a link between Cumberbatch and the king which makes them third cousins 16 times removed. It is estimated that between one million and 17 million people in the UK are connected, in some way, to Richard, whose remains were discovered buried beneath a council car park in Leicester in 2012." "But Prof Schurer said: "He (Cumberbatch) is more direct because he is a third cousin. Most other relatives would be much lower order cousins. "I think the Queen would be a third cousin several times removed as well." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11325421/Benedict-Cumberbatch-and-Richard-III-are-third-cousins.html ----------------------------------------------------- Actually, the Queen MAY be a 1st cousin, 14 times removed of Richard III... ...As well as a 7th cousin, once removed, of Benedict Cumberbatch himself. <g> DSH "The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth.... This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] _Summa Contra Gentiles_ [c. 1258-1264]

I agree with Todd. The statement from Douglas: "Whoever Alice de Saint Owen was, I can assure you that she was not the daughter of Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury. " Seems to lack the requisite proof required to make such a statement. Is there other evidence that truly rules this out that hasn't been presented? And before someone says "you can't prove a negative", the statement above is worded such that it does require proof to support. Certainly more proof than is needed to have a "working theory" that she was a daughter. It is reasonable to say that a link is not sufficiently proven, but this statement rules it out and indicates looking for more evidence would be a waste of time --Joe Cook

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 10:44:16 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote: > On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 7:45:16 AM UTC-6, wbld....@gmail.com wrote: > > < The evidence I posted earlier supports Davis’ conclusion. > < > < William Acton > > Mr. Davis has alleged that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the 1620 > Visitation of Shropshire is the same person as the well known Sir Peter > de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire, who died in 1312. Or more accurately, he hasn't proven that the “Sr. Peter vel Peers de Bruse of co. Glos.” of the 1589 Herefordshire visitation is the same as Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire. > However, his paper lacks the simple evidence to prove either this idea or > even that alleged "Pierre Bruse" had the three daughters and co-heirs named > in the Visitation. You express this like it is a prerequisite. It is not. To prove this connection he need not prove that Peter de Brewes had three daughters, just the relevant one, and she need not have been an heiress. It sort of loses track of the goal to focus only on the 1620 visitation and insist that it must be perfectly accurate for the relationship to be true. > As far as working theories go, I believe it is flawed. Yes, and he believes it is not flawed. So far, the only reason you have given is that it is that the connection is hinted at in (but not exclusively in) an imperfect 1620 visitation. That may be reason to believe the solution is unproven, but doesn't really hit the mark in explaining why it is flawed. taf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2016/05/10/benedict-cumberbatch-extraordinary-bit-of-serendipity-to-be-dres/ Perhaps, Wrong... ------------------------------------ So, IF this analysis pans out, Benedict Cumberbatch has a closer relationship to Richard III, whom he has played in "The Hollow Crown" BBC series. 15th great-grandnephew... ...Not just a 2nd or 3rd cousin, 16 times removed. DSH ----------------------------------------------------------------- "The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth.... This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] _Summa Contra Gentiles_ [c. 1258-1264]

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 7:45:16 AM UTC-6, wbld....@gmail.com wrote: < The evidence I posted earlier supports Davis’ conclusion. < < William Acton Dear William ~ Mr. Davis has alleged that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the 1620 Visitation of Shropshire is the same person as the well known Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire, who died in 1312. However, his paper lacks the simple evidence to prove either this idea or even that alleged "Pierre Bruse" had the three daughters and co-heirs named in the Visitation. Mr. Davis has put forward a working theory that is all, not a conclusion. As far as working theories go, I believe it is flawed. As I stated in my earlier message, the 1620 Visitation of Shropshire is not the most reliable visitation. I would urge you to verify everything that you find in that visitation. Mr. Davis has shown that the Saint Owen family were tenants of the senior Brewes family. That, however, does not prove the existence of "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe, or that Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, was his daughter. One other thing: In this time period, the surname is spelled Brewes, Breuse, Brehuse, Breouse, Breus, but not Braose. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 4:54:14 AM UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote: > On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-6, Robert O'Connor wrote: > > > Is this a correct interpretation? > > > > Robert O'Connor > > Dear Robert ~ > > Mr. Davis certainly has a working theory but he has failed to prove his case. In his lengthy paper on this matter, he depends heavily on what appears to be a garbled visitation pedigree prepared over three centuries after the events. That can be treacherous ground indeed. You should reread his paper. Davis marshalls several pieces of contemporary evidence to support his case, for example: “The facts that John St.Owen owed a substantial sum to Thomas de Braose, and that his son's chamber's daubing was paid by the manor of Wiston owned by Peter de Braose (of Wiston), are suggestive that he was a close relative of them.” > According to the 1620 Visitation of Shropshire (which is not the best visitation), Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, was ""da & hei to Pierre Bruse de Hochampe." Mr. Davis has been unable to identify any place named Hochampe. Regardless, he then jumps to the conclusion that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the visitation is the same person as the well known Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire [died 1312]. This is groundless. Davis identifies the 1569 visitation of Herefordshire by Robert Cooke as the earliest source for Alice’s surname and paternity. In that visitation, her father is identified as “Sr. Peter vel Peers de Bruse of co. Glos.” and the arms shown are of the Braose family. As for the Visitation of Shropshire, Davis does have a go at identifying ‘Hochampe’: “One source calls Alice's father "de Hochampe". This may be considered a clue, but only a clue. Furthermore, it is uncertain what this means. I consider the most likely meaning to be "of Horsham", but there is a Huxham it might refer to, or it might be a transcription error for "Bokham".” As Davis points out, Sir Peter’s family had links with Horsham (his grandson Thomas was buried there). > Whoever Alice de Saint Owen was, I can assure you that she was not the daughter of Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury. If her father was a real person, I assume that he was probably a cadet branch of the senior Brewes family. You have no grounds to be making assurances. You assume that Alice’s father was a cadet of the senior Brewes family; Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury was exactly that. > The 1620 Visitation identifies no less than three daughters and co-heirs for this "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe, namely Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, Maud, wife of John de Vaux, and Elizabeth, wife of William Molineux. As far as I know, there is no Peter de Bruse (or Brewes) in this time period who had such daughters. Good point about the other daughters, but this is a later visitation and it doesn’t mean Alice de Braose didn’t exist. > For what it is worth, below is a record from the Common Pleas dated 1305 which concerns this same Saint Owen family. The plaintiff Ralph son of John de Saint Owen is presumably the father of the Ralph de Saint Owen, who allegedly married Alice de Brewes. The defendant in this lawsuit, Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Owen, is not included in the pedigree of the Saint Owen family provided by Mr. Davis. Possibly Constance is the widow of the grandfather of the plaintiff. > > In 1305 Ralph son of John de Saint Audoeno sued Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Audoeno in the Court of Common Pleas regarding waste and destruction in houses, gardens, etc. which she held in dower of the inheritance of the said Ralph son of John in Burton [in Fardisland], Wymmdeston [Womaston in Old Radnor], and Berthlinghope [Burlingjobb in Old Radnor], Herefordshire. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/156, image 212f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no156/aCP40no156fronts/IMG_0212.htm). > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Davis comments that “In 1316 Ralph St.Owen's property was in the hands of his overlord, Mary, widow of William Braose and mother of this Peter Braose. She would probably have controlled his marriage as well, and either controlled or had substantial influence over the marriages of any children of her recently deceased son Peter. This provides opportunity for the marriage. Motive is that any daughters of Peter, having at least two brothers, would have had no inheritance, and Ralph held several manors in Sussex, Herefordshire and Radnorshire, which would provide a nice support for him and his wife.” The evidence I posted earlier supports Davis’ conclusion. William Acton

Thanks Douglas, I appreciate your comments on the Visitation pedigrees and on Paul Davis' thesis. However you didn't comment on the petition kindly quoted by William Acton above. This is a new piece of evidence that Paul Davis wasn't aware of. Do you have any comment on that? To repeat my question - if the St Owens held the manor of Clapham, Sussex under Mary de Braose then would this confirm the above line of descent, and more particularly that Alice de Braose, wife of Ralph St Owen was indeed the daughter of Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury (d before 1312), son of Mary de Braose (nee de Ros). Is this a correct interpretation? The 1305 Court of Common Pleas case that you have mentioned appears to refer to earlier generations of the St Owen family, and whilst interesting, is not strictly relevant to the question at issue. Robert O'Connor

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-6, Robert O'Connor wrote: > Is this a correct interpretation? > > Robert O'Connor Dear Robert ~ Mr. Davis certainly has a working theory but he has failed to prove his case. In his lengthy paper on this matter, he depends heavily on what appears to be a garbled visitation pedigree prepared over three centuries after the events. That can be treacherous ground indeed. According to the 1620 Visitation of Shropshire (which is not the best visitation), Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, was ""da & hei to Pierre Bruse de Hochampe." Mr. Davis has been unable to identify any place named Hochampe. Regardless, he then jumps to the conclusion that "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe named in the visitation is the same person as the well known Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury, Gloucestershire [died 1312]. This is groundless. Whoever Alice de Saint Owen was, I can assure you that she was not the daughter of Sir Peter de Brewes, of Tetbury. If her father was a real person, I assume that he was probably a cadet branch of the senior Brewes family. The 1620 Visitation identifies no less than three daughters and co-heirs for this "Pierre Bruse" of Hochampe, namely Alice, wife of Ralph de Saint Owen, Maud, wife of John de Vaux, and Elizabeth, wife of William Molineux. As far as I know, there is no Peter de Bruse (or Brewes) in this time period who had such daughters. For what it is worth, below is a record from the Common Pleas dated 1305 which concerns this same Saint Owen family. The plaintiff Ralph son of John de Saint Owen is presumably the father of the Ralph de Saint Owen, who allegedly married Alice de Brewes. The defendant in this lawsuit, Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Owen, is not included in the pedigree of the Saint Owen family provided by Mr. Davis. Possibly Constance is the widow of the grandfather of the plaintiff. In 1305 Ralph son of John de Saint Audoeno sued Constance widow of Ralph de Saint Audoeno in the Court of Common Pleas regarding waste and destruction in houses, gardens, etc. which she held in dower of the inheritance of the said Ralph son of John in Burton [in Fardisland], Wymmdeston [Womaston in Old Radnor], and Berthlinghope [Burlingjobb in Old Radnor], Herefordshire. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/156, image 212f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no156/aCP40no156fronts/IMG_0212.htm). Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-6, Robert O'Connor wrote: > On Saturday, 16 September 2017 22:44:53 UTC+12, wbld....@gmail.com wrote: > > I think this is a new piece of evidence: > > > > 'Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales: Thirteenth to Sixteenth Century', p. 524 (1975) > > “[327] E/840      1316 > > MARY, WIDOW OF WILLIAM DE BREWOSE, TO THE KING AND COUNCIL: > > She seeks remedy from Thomas de la Roche for what Thomas has taken (alloigne) from John, son and heir of Ralph (Rauf) de St. Owayn, being under age, which Rauf holds from Mary the manor of Clopham (Clapham) in the county of Sussex by the homage and service of a knight. Thomas had neither lands or tenements in England for which he could be a mesne tenant to [answer for] the manor and County of Kermerdyn (Carmarthen) in Wales where the writ of the King does not run. Wherefore she prays remedy. (Not dated) > > (French) (MS defective)” > > > > According to the reference charts in Paul K Davis’ article John de St Owen was the son of Ralph St Owen and Alice de Braose and the great grandson of Mary (nee de Ros), widow of William de Braose (d. 1291). > > > > > > William Acton > > Some comment from those expert in interpreting such references would be much appreciated. > > The presumed line of descent is thus: > > Mary de Ros, M William, 1st Baron Braose (d 1290). Died before 23 May 1326. She had issue: > / > Sir Peter de Braose, of Tetbury, Co. Glouc., M 1300 Agnes (M 1st Henry Hussey, of Harting, Sussex, who died 1289. She was recorded as living in 1324 & as recently dead in 1333), sister of Robert, 1st Baron Clifford, & d. of Roger de Clifford, Lord of Tenbury, Co. Worc. Died shortly before 7 Feb. 1311/2. He had issue: > / > Alice de Braose, M Ralph St Owen, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex (He was Sheriff of Sussex & Surrey). Died after 1362. She had issue: > / > John St Owen, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex., M -- . Died 15 Oct. 1362 – as recorded in his I.P.M. I.P.M., 18 Oct. 1371 – in which it was recorded as follows – "238. John Seynt Oweyn. Writ of precipimus touching the lands &c. held by the said John of the heir of Roger de Mortuo Mari, late earl of March, a minor in the king's wardship. 18 October, 44 Edward III. Hereford. Inq. (indented) taken at Hereford, 31 March, 45 Edward III. Gerneston in the fee of Webbeleye. A messuage, 60a. land, 2a. meadow & 6a. wood, held of the said heir by knight's service. He held no other lands &c. in the county. He died on 15 October, 35 Edward III. John Seynt Oweyn, his son, aged 23 years on 8 September last is his heir”. > > If the St Owens held the manor of Clapham, Sussex under Mary de Braose then this would appear to confirm the above line of descent, and more particularly that Alice de Braose, wife of Ralph St Owen was indeed the daughter of Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury (d before 1312), son of Mary de Braose (nee de Ros). > > Is this a correct interpretation? > > Robert O'Connor No. Mr.

On Saturday, 16 September 2017 22:44:53 UTC+12, wbld....@gmail.com wrote: > I think this is a new piece of evidence: > > 'Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales: Thirteenth to Sixteenth Century', p. 524 (1975) > “[327] E/840      1316 > MARY, WIDOW OF WILLIAM DE BREWOSE, TO THE KING AND COUNCIL: > She seeks remedy from Thomas de la Roche for what Thomas has taken (alloigne) from John, son and heir of Ralph (Rauf) de St. Owayn, being under age, which Rauf holds from Mary the manor of Clopham (Clapham) in the county of Sussex by the homage and service of a knight. Thomas had neither lands or tenements in England for which he could be a mesne tenant to [answer for] the manor and County of Kermerdyn (Carmarthen) in Wales where the writ of the King does not run. Wherefore she prays remedy. (Not dated) > (French) (MS defective)” > > According to the reference charts in Paul K Davis’ article John de St Owen was the son of Ralph St Owen and Alice de Braose and the great grandson of Mary (nee de Ros), widow of William de Braose (d. 1291). > > > William Acton Some comment from those expert in interpreting such references would be much appreciated. The presumed line of descent is thus: Mary de Ros, M William, 1st Baron Braose (d 1290). Died before 23 May 1326. She had issue: / Sir Peter de Braose, of Tetbury, Co. Glouc., M 1300 Agnes (M 1st Henry Hussey, of Harting, Sussex, who died 1289. She was recorded as living in 1324 & as recently dead in 1333), sister of Robert, 1st Baron Clifford, & d. of Roger de Clifford, Lord of Tenbury, Co. Worc. Died shortly before 7 Feb. 1311/2. He had issue: / Alice de Braose, M Ralph St Owen, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex (He was Sheriff of Sussex & Surrey). Died after 1362. She had issue: / John St Owen, of Burton Court, Co. Hereford & Clapham, Sussex., M -- . Died 15 Oct. 1362 – as recorded in his I.P.M. I.P.M., 18 Oct. 1371 – in which it was recorded as follows – "238. John Seynt Oweyn. Writ of precipimus touching the lands &c. held by the said John of the heir of Roger de Mortuo Mari, late earl of March, a minor in the king's wardship. 18 October, 44 Edward III. Hereford. Inq. (indented) taken at Hereford, 31 March, 45 Edward III. Gerneston in the fee of Webbeleye. A messuage, 60a. land, 2a. meadow & 6a. wood, held of the said heir by knight's service. He held no other lands &c. in the county. He died on 15 October, 35 Edward III. John Seynt Oweyn, his son, aged 23 years on 8 September last is his heir”. If the St Owens held the manor of Clapham, Sussex under Mary de Braose then this would appear to confirm the above line of descent, and more particularly that Alice de Braose, wife of Ralph St Owen was indeed the daughter of Sir Peter de Braose of Tetbury (d before 1312), son of Mary de Braose (nee de Ros). Is this a correct interpretation? Robert O'Connor

Capital! Excellent Post, Brad. I've been on a trip and just saw your post today. ...Will have more to say after I've digested all this most useful information. Aloha, Spencer "The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth.... This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] _Summa Contra Gentiles_ [c. 1258-1264] "Brad Verity" wrote in message news:a4afaa4d-ee4a-4760-a3e8-16c32f9e6e67@googlegroups.com... On Sunday, September 10, 2017 at 5:46:10 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > The Caroline Cumberbatch who was buried 21 Oct 1842 at Holy Trinity > Brampton was called "aged 54" I think it's safe to assume that the Caroline Chaloner who married Abraham Parry Cumberbatch in 1819 at Tonbridge, Kent, was the same Caroline Chaloner born at Guisborough Hall, Yorkshire in 1788. Rev. John William Clay, in his 'Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire with Additions' Vol. 2 (1907), pp. 234-235 (sub Chaloner of Guisborough), does not give any marriage for this Caroline, but as John Higgins has pointed out, Burke's Peerage 107th Edn. (2003), p. 1556 (sub Gisborough), does have: "3a Caroline; b 2 Oct 1788; m 13 April 1819 Abraham Parry Cumberbatch. He d 10 Oct 1840." Given the rarity of the name - the only Caroline Chaloner who pops up when searching the birth range 1775-1800 on Find My Past is this Guisborough lady - plus the fact that Caroline's mother Emma (Harvey) Chaloner lived in Tunbridge Wells in her widowhood and died there, all the pieces fit together nicely. In this period, age was often given as how old you would turn on your next birthday. So Caroline Cumberbatch's age at her 1842 death we would consider today to be 53, since that was how old she had turned on her previous birthday, in 1842 her age could just as well have been considered 54 (in her 54th year), since that was how old she would turn on her next birthday. What's interesting is that no notice of this Cumberbatch-Chaloner marriage appears in the newspapers, or in Gentleman's Magazine, which explains why Rev. Clay, researching the Chaloner family decades later, was unaware of it. Caroline was a 30-year-old spinster when she married Cumberbatch, a widower four years her senior, with three children, aged 12, 10 and 7, from his first wife, who had died the year before he wed Caroline. The Cumberbatch family were not established landed gentry (there's no entry for them in Burke's Family Index), but instead had made their fortune through the ownership of several sugar plantations on Barbados (which also meant they owned slaves): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549773/How-Benedict-Cumberbatchs-family-fortune-slavery-And-roles-films-like-12-Years-A-Slave-bid-atone-sins.html When the middle-aged Caroline wed Cumberbatch in 1819, the head of her family was her eldest brother Robert Chaloner (1776-1842), a prominent Yorkshire banker and M.P. We don't have enough information currently to determine whether Caroline's marriage was opposed by her family in any way, due either to the new-money status of Cumberbatch, or to political opposition to slaveowning (I cannot tell from his entry in HOP whether or not Robert Chaloner was an abolitionist). It's just as possible the marriage went under the radar due to the couple being middle-aged. There is no notice in the newspapers of the 1840 death of Abraham Parry Cumberbatch, nor of the 1842 death of his widow Caroline. But notice of the 1843 marriage of their son Robert William Cumberbatch (1822-1876) to Emily Lloyd did appear in newspapers. On Sunday, September 10, 2017 at 6:44:42 PM UTC-7, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > I'm not quite clear on what you mean by "equidistant". > I have one model that makes Anne Bowes a 7th great-granddaughter of Edward > IV -- but only a 3rd cousin, 7 times removed, of James II, King of Scots. > Perhaps you could show us the proposed direct linkage to James II, King of > Scots? Caroline (Chaloner) Cumberbatch has at least two, and probably three, lines of descent from Edward IV's illegitimate daughter Lady Margaret Lumley. She also has a line of descent from James II of Scotland through an illegitimate great-granddaughter of the monarch. Finally, Caroline should have been included in Ruvigny's 'Mortimer-Percy' volume (1911) on p. 236, alongside her parents and siblings. But since Rev. Clay was unaware of Caroline's marriage, it's no surprise that his contemporary Ruvigny was also unaware of it. So here are these five lines of descent, as I have them. Edward IV = (probably) Margaret Fitzlewis, Dame Lucy (1440-1466, descended from Edward I), and had a dau: A1) Margaret Plantagenet, illegit. (b. c.1462) m. Thomas Lumley, Heir of Lumley Castle (c.1462-1503, descended from Edward III), and had a son A2 and two daus B2 & C2 (see below) A2) Roger Lumley of Ludworth Tower m. Isabel Radcliffe (descended from Edward I), and had A3) Agnes Lumley (d. 1564) m. John Lambton of Lambton Castle (c.1505-1549), and had A4) Robert Lambton of Lambton Hall (c.1530-1583) m. Frances Eure (b. c.1530, descended from Edward III), and had A5) Jane Lambton (c.1568-1648) m. Sir William Blakistoni of Gibside Hall (1562-1641), and had A6) Sir Ralph Blakiston, 1st Baronet of Gibside (c.1589-1650) m. Margaret Fenwick (descended from Edward III), and had A7) Sir Francis Blakiston, 3rd Baronet of Gibside (c.1630-1713) m. Anne Bowes (see B7 below), and had A8) ELIZABETH BLAKISTON, b. c.1670; bur. 5 July 1736 St Mary Church, South Bailey, Durham; m. 17 Aug. 1691 St Margaret Church, Tanfield, Durham, Sir WILLIAM BOWES of Streatlam Castle (see D8 below), and had A9) ANNE BOWES, b. 24 Oct. 1695 Barnard Castle, Durham, bapt. 27 Oct. 1695 St Mary Church, Barnard Castle; bur. there 6 Nov. 1734; m. 11 June 1713 St Mary Church, Barnard Castle, EDWARD CHALONER of Guisborough Hall (see E17 below), and had A10) WILLIAM CHALONER of Guisborough Hall, b. 29 July 1714 Streatlam Castle, bap. there 1 Aug. 1714; d. 13 Feb. 1754 Guisborough Hall, bur. 18 Feb. 1754 St Nicholas Church, Guisborough; m. 1 Oct. 1741 St Edmund Church, Sedgefield, Durham, MARY FINNEY, b. c.1720; bur. 2 July 1787 St Nicholas Church, Guisborough, dau. of Dr. James Finney, Prebendary of Durham Cathedral 1706-27 (1687-1727) & Thomasine Burdon, and had A11) WILLIAM CHALONER of Guisborough Hall, b. there 14 Aug. 1745, bap. 2 Sept. 1745 St Nicholas Church, Guisborough; d. there 8 May 1793, bur. there 11 May 1793; m. 8 Aug. 1771 St James Church, Westminster, London, EMMA HARVEY, b. 29 Aug. 1753, bap. 21 Sept. 1753 St Anne Soho, London; d. 6 Aug. 1835 Tunbridge Wells, Kent, dau. of William Harvey of Rolls House, Chigwell, Essex (1714-1763, descended from Edward III) & Emma Skinner (1731-1767), and had A12) CAROLINE CHALONER, b. 2 Oct. 1788 Guisborough Hall, bap. 25 Nov. 1788 St Nicholas Church, Guisborough; d. 15 Oct. 1842 Brompton, London, bur. 21 Oct. 1842 Holy Trinity Church, Brompton; m. 13 Apr. 1819 St Peter & St Paul Church, Tonbridge, Kent, as his 2nd wife, ABRAHAM PARRY CUMBERBATCH of The Broad, Hellingly, Sussex, bap. 29 Nov. 1784 St Peter, Barbados, West Indies; d. 10 Oct. 1840 Tunbridge Wells, Kent, son of Abraham Cumberbatch of Fairwater House, Taunton, Devon, sugar planter (1754-1796) & Mary Cumberbatch Sober (b. c.1765). They are 3xgreat-grandparents of actor Benedict Cumberbatch (b. 1976). B2) Anne Lumley m. 1) Robert, 4th Baron Ogle (c.1490-1532, descended from Edward III), and had B3) Agnes Ogle* m. Sir John Delaval of Seaton Delaval Hall (by 1523-1572), and had B4) Sir Robert Delaval of Seaton Delaval Hall (by 1542-1607) m. Dorothy Gray (c.1554-bef.1600, descended from Edward III), and had B5) Sir Ralph Delaval of Seaton Delaval Hall (c.1575-1628) m. Jane Hilton (see C6 below), and had B6) Mary Delaval (b. c.1600) m. Sir George Bowes of Bradley Hall (1596-1643), and had B7) Anne Bowes (c.1635-1701) m. Sir Francis Blakiston, 3rd Baronet of Gibside Hall (see A7 above) *For the reason why I believe Agnes (Ogle) Delaval has this parentage, instead of a generation further back, which is where published Ogle pedigrees have placed her, see footnote *1 in my blogpost: https://royaldescent.blogspot.ca/2015/06/edward-iv-descents-for-agnes-mary-nee.html C2) Sybil Lumley (c.1480-by 1526) m. William, 9th Lord Hilton (d. by 1537), and had C3) William, 11th Lord Hilton (c.1508-1562) m. Margaret Metcalfe (d. 1566), and had C4) William, 12th Lord Hilton (c.1535-1600) m. Anne Yorke (descended from Edward I), and had C5) Thomas Hilton, Heir of Hilton Castle (c.1560-1598) m. Anne Bowes (c.1563-1608, descended from Edward I), and had C6) Jane Hilton (c.1584-1645) m. 1) Sir Ralph Delaval of Seaton Delaval Hall (see B5 above) James II of Scotland had a son: D1) Alexander Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany (c.1454-1485) m.(div.) 1) Lady Catherine Sinclair, and had D2) Alexander Stewart, Bishop of Moray (c.1472-1537) = unknown mistress, and had D3) Margaret Stewart, illegit. (c.1508-by 1550) m. 1) Patrick Graham/Graeme, 1st Laird of Inchbrakie Castle (c.1507-1536), and had D4) George Graeme, 2nd Laird of Inchbrakie Castle (c.1531-1576) m. Marjory Rollo (d. 1625), and had D5) Nichola Graeme (b. c.1565) m. Patrick Maxtone, 6th of Cultoquhey (d. 1618), and had D6) Rev. Anthony Maxton(e), Prebendary of Durham Cathedral (d. 1641) m. Anne Dudley of Chopwell, and had D7) ANNE MAXTON, b. c.1625; bur. 31 Dec. 1705 St Mary Church, Barnard Castle; m. by 1648, THOMAS BOWES of Streatlam Castle, Durham, bap. 23 Dec. 1607 St Mary Church, Richmond, Yorkshire; bur. 9 Sept. 1661 St Mary Church, Barnard Castle, son of Thomas Bowes of Streatlam Castle (c.1570-1636, descended from Edward I) & Anne Warcop (d. 1653), and had D8) Sir WILLIAM BOWES of Streatlam Castle, bap. 6 Jan. 1657 St Mary Church, Barnard Castle; bur. there 12 Feb. 1707; m. 17 Aug. 1691 St Margaret Church, Tanfield, Durham, ELIZABETH BLAKISTON (see A8 above) Edward III had a 2nd surviving son: E1) Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence (1338-1368) m. 1) Lady Elizabeth de Burgh (1332-1363, descended from Edward I), and had E2) Lady Philippa Plantagenet of Clarence (1355-1377) m. Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March (1352-1381), and had E3) Lady Elizabeth Mortimer (1371-1417) m. 1) Sir Henry 'Hotspur' Percy (1364-1403), and had E4) Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland (1394-1455) m. Lady Eleanor Neville (1403-1472, descended from Edward III), and had E5) Henry Percy, 3rd Earl of Northumberland (1421-1461) m. Eleanor Poynings (1428-1484, descended from Edward I), and had E6) Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland (c.1449-1489) m. Lady Maud Herbert (c.1457-by 1487), and had E7) Henry Algernon Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland (1478-1527) m. Katherine Spencer (1477-1542, descended from Edward III), and had E8) Lady Margaret Percy (c.1495-1540) m. Henry Clifford, 1st Earl of Cumberland (1493-1542, descended from Edward III), and had E9) Lady Katherine Clifford (1518-1598) m. 1) John, 8th Lord Scrope of Bolton (c.1515-1549, descended from Edward III), and had E10) Margaret Scrope m. Sir John Constable of Burton Constable (1526-1579, descended from Edward III), and had E11) Sir Henry Constable of Burton Constable (c.1559-1608) m. Margaret Dormer (1562-1637), and had E12) Katherine Constable (c.1578-1626) m. Thomas, 1st Viscount Fairfax of Emly (1577-1636, descended from Edward III), and had E13) Hon. Mary Fairfax (c.1598-1636) m. Sir Thomas Layton of Sexhow Hall (1597-1651), and had E14) Mary Layton (c.1617-1657) m. Sir Henry Foulis, 2nd Baronet of Ingleby (c.1607-1643), and had E15) Sir David Foulis, 3rd Baronet of Ingleby (1633-1695) m. Katherine Watkins (1631-1718, descended from Edward III), and had E16) HONORA FOULIS, b. c.1663; d. 3 Oct. 1755 York, bur. 8 Oct. 1755 St Nicholas Church, Guisborough; m. 15 Aug. 1682 St Andrew Church, Ingleby Greenhow, Yorkshire, WILLIAM CHALONER of Guisborough Hall, bap. 16 Oct. 1655 St Nicholas Church, Guisborough; bur. there 18 Feb. 1716, son of Sir Edward Challoner of Guisborough Hall (c.1625-1680) & Anne Ingoldsby (d. 1704, descended from Edward I), and had E17) EDWARD CHALONER of Guisborough Hall, b. 11 July 1683 Ingleby Manor, bap. 16 July 1683 St Andrew Church, Ingleby Greenhow; bur. there 8 Oct. 1737; m. 11 June 1713 St Mary Church, Barnard Castle, Durham, ANNE BOWES (see A9 above) Cheers, ----Brad

His mother Margaret de Roos according to the Visitation Pedigrees. https://archive.org/stream/pedigreesrecorde00sainrich#page/92/mode/2up Page 92 in https://archive.org/details/pedigreesrecorde00sainrich in case it doesn't load properly.

I think this is a new piece of evidence: 'Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales: Thirteenth to Sixteenth Century', p. 524 (1975) “[327] E/840      1316 MARY, WIDOW OF WILLIAM DE BREWOSE, TO THE KING AND COUNCIL: She seeks remedy from Thomas de la Roche for what Thomas has taken (alloigne) from John, son and heir of Ralph (Rauf) de St. Owayn, being under age, which Rauf holds from Mary the manor of Clopham (Clapham) in the county of Sussex by the homage and service of a knight. Thomas had neither lands or tenements in England for which he could be a mesne tenant to [answer for] the manor and County of Kermerdyn (Carmarthen) in Wales where the writ of the King does not run. Wherefore she prays remedy. (Not dated) (French) (MS defective)” According to the reference charts in Paul K Davis’ article John de St Owen was the son of Ralph St Owen and Alice de Braose and the great grandson of Mary (nee de Ros), widow of William de Braose (d. 1291). William Acton

Dear followers of the newsgroup, recently I have been searching online about Sir Thomas Musgrave son of Baron Thomas Musgrave. There are conflicting accounts about his motherhood of which of his father's two wifes he was son if he was son of Margaret de Roos or if he was son of Isabel de Berkeley. Which one is the correct one?

On Thursday, 6 May 2004 17:10:21 UTC+12, Paul K Davis wrote: > Yes, I do believe Alice, wife of Ralph St.Owen, was a daughter of Peter > Braose "of Tetbury". The evidence is substantial, but not absolutely > conclusive. Since I last corresponded on this issue, I have found two > further pieces of supporting evidence, but feel I need to continue my > search before publishing. > Alice has a great many living descendants, including ourselves and Queen > Elizabeth. Immigrant Davenport and the historian Edward Gibbon were also > her descendants. > > -- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net] > It is a while since this topic was discussed, but I wonder if any further proof has been found to confirm that Alice, wife of Ralph St Owen was indeed the daughter of Sir Peter Braose of Tetbury (Died shortly before 7 Feb. 1311/2)? Peter Davis' article on the origins of Alice may be found at https://www.academia.edu/14440889/The_St.Owen_Descent_from_Braose I note in the meantime that Douglas Richardson in his 'Royal Ancestry' does not list Alice as a daughter of Sir Peter Braose. I presume that Douglas has reviewed Paul Davis' work and concluded that she was not Sir Peter's daughter? Comments welcome Robert O'Connor

Of course. See "Raimbeaucourt" in my original post-- I've been told it has one of the highest number of variations in contemporary spellings at the time. But at the same time it can't just be ignored/dismissed unless other positively identifying documents corroborate it. And remember, owners/tenants/residents of a landholding could all have the same "surname" without being related. As far as I know, there is *nothing* other than the similar name to link Robert Latimer's father-in-law to the royally-descended Pecche family. And no other data on the man who is specifically called the father of Robert's wife. Jim+

Dear Jim, about the spelling don't worry too much. Spelling differences in a surname were common. There was one noble family whose surname could be spelled in four different ways: Sergeaux, Sergeux, Cergeaux and Cergeux.

I once asked about this also, can't remember at the moment if it was on-list, but apparently the breakdown is at the generation of William de Peche (note spelling), father of Margaret (Peche) Latimer. There is no evidence or proof of this William's parentage, being only a by-line as father of Robert Latimer's wife; no identifying places or dates connecting him to Simon and/or Gilbert Pecche. Another possibility perhaps, but no evidence as of yet. Jim+

De ar Jim, what about this royal line to Henry Samson?: Louis IV of France Charles of Laon Gerberge of Brabant Maud de Louvain Lambert of Lens Judith of Lens Matilda of Huntingdon Matilda de Senlis Walter FitzRobert de Clare Alice FitzWalter Hamon Peche Gilbert Pecche Gilbert Pecche Simon Pecche William Pecche Margaret Peche John Latimer Nicholas Latimer Edith Latimer Cicily Greene Elizabeth Page Edmund Cooper Martha Cooper Henry Samson

Of course, relevant to this thread, Mrs. Ann (Cooper) Tilley and Humility Cooper left no descendants. Henry Samson/Sampson did. Jim+