On Sunday, September 10, 2017 at 1:24:02 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > On Sunday, September 10, 2017 at 12:19:09 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 11:27:37 PM UTC-7, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > > > By some on-line accounts, the superb British actor, Benedict Cumberbatch, > > > has a descent from Edward IV and Edward's mistress, Elizabeth Waite -- > > > making him a 15th great-grandson of Edward IV -- and, of course, a 15th > > > great-grandnephew of Richard III -- rather than just a 2nd cousin, 16 times > > > removed of Richard III. > > > > > > Can anyone here verify that? > > > > > > DSH > > > > > > > > > The line back from Anne Bowes is equidistant from both Edward IV of England and James II of Scotland > > > > The issue then becomes the connecting link from Benedict's known ancestor Caroline Chaloner, back to that specific William Chaloner who is known to have married Mary Finney > > > > If that hundred year gap can be filled with supporting documents, the connection is made > > > I have confirmed that William Chaloner, by his wife Mary Finney, did have a son William Chaloner born 14 Aug 1745, who married Emma Harvey daughter of William Harvey of Chigwell. They married 8 Aug 1771 > > One of their children was a Caroline Chaloner baptised 25 Nov 1788 at Guisborough York > > And then a seperate fact that Abraham Parry Cumberbatch married a woman named Caroline Chaloner. > > However the gap is now the question of whether there is actual documentation which evidences that this Caroline is the same person as that Caroline The Caroline Cumberbatch who was buried 21 Oct 1842 at Holy Trinity Brampton was called "aged 54"

On 10-Sep-17 4:02 PM, Peter Stewart wrote: > > Thompson went on to state that 'The whole problem begins to recede, > however, when we take into account the proceedings of the Council of > Reims in 1049'. This is very dubious in my view: Enguerrand of > Ponthieu and Eustace II of Boulogne were both excommunicated by Pope > Leo IX for consanguineous marriages ('Excommunicavit etiam comites > Angilra[mm]i, et Eustachium propter incestum'). Actually it's more dubious than I supposed - Enguerrand II of Ponthieu who married Adeliza of Normandy was not yet a count by the time of the council of Reims in October 1049 (his father did not die until November 1052), and so the man excommunicated by Leo IX for an illicit union was presumably his grandfather Enguerrand I, whose second wife, Adeliva, was the widow of Balduin of Boulogne - her parentage is unknown. Peter Stewart

Dear Greg ~ My research indicates that Katherine Harington, daughter and co-heiress of Sir James Harington, of Brixworth, Northamptonshire, Westleigh (in Leigh), Lancashire, etc., married (1st) William Mirfield/Myrfeld (born c. 1486-1520) and (2nd) Thomas Burgh (or Brugh), Knt. (died by 1537). See Yorkshire Notes & Queries 1 (1888): 105–120 (re. Mirfield fam.), which is available at the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=8PQvAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA3-PA115 Also see the following Chancery Proceedings available at the online Discovery catalogue: C 1/421/4; C 1/421/7; C 1/467/55; C 1/467/56; C 1/498/47 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). Benolte, Vis. of Lancashire 1533 2 (Chetham Soc. 110) (1882): 190 includes the following editorial note: “Adam Hulton was eldest son of Roger Hulton of the Park, who had married Katherine, one of the daughters and coheirs of Sir James Harington. She was his widow in 16 Henry VII. (1500), as appears by an indenture quoted by Mr. Hulton. This alliance has been overlooked by the Editor in previous notices of the heiresses of Sir James Harington and of his wife Isabella - Katherine being, at the time of her mother’s death, named in her will as one of her heirs, and wife of William Mirfyld.” END OF QUOTE. There is a discussion of the daughters of Sir James Harington, including Katherine, published in Benolte, Vis. of Lancashire 1533 1 (Chetham Soc. 98) (1876): xii–xv. This material may be viewed at the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=SwEVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR12 The editor identifies of only one husband for Katherine Harington, namely William Mirfyld, whereas the evidence I have cited above proves had two husbands. No mention is made of a marriage to Roger Hulton. It seems that a certain Katherine Harington did marry a Roger Hulton. See, for example, St. George Vis. of London 1633–5 1 (H.S.P. 15) (1880): 400 (Hulton ped.) which reads as following: "Roger Hulton of the Parke = Katherin da. of Sir James Harington Kt." However, I doubt that she was the same person as the Katherine Harington who married William Mirfield and Sir Thomas Burgh. I say that because Roger Hulton's wife, Katherine, is known to have been a widow with at least four children in 1500 [see Benolte, Vis. of Lancashire 1533 2 (Chetham Soc. 110) (1882): 189–190], whereas the other Katherine Harington's first husband, William Mirfield, was born about 1486 (aged 22 in 1508). Without doing more research, my guess is that there is a generation difference between the two Katherine Harington's. Lastly, I might mention that Benolte, Vis. of Lancashire 1533 1 (Chetham Soc. 98) (1876): xii–xv states that Katherine Harington's sister, Margaret Harington, married (1st) Christopher Hulton and (2nd) Thomas Pilkington. Benolte, Vis. of Lancashire 1533 2 (Chetham Soc. 110) (1882): 189–190 specifically quotes a record dated 1517 which mentions "the last wyll of Margett Pylkenton sumtyme 1ife of Cristoffe Hulton of ffarnworthe." The latter source pg. 190 adds that "it seems clear"that "there were two Margaret Haringtons, in different generations, each married to a Pilkington." But Benolte, Vis. of Lancashire 1533 1 (Chetham Soc. 98) (1876): xiii-xiv appears to dispute that there were two Harington-Pilkington marriages, saying that "Margaret wife of Sir Thomas Pilkington was therefore Aunt to Margaret who married Christopher Hulton." Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On 09-Sep-17 5:48 PM, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 07-Sep-17 8:54 AM, Peter Stewart wrote: >> >> On 06-Sep-17 11:14 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: >>> Em quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 13:06:19 UTC+1, Peter >>> Stewart  escreveu: >>>> On 06-Sep-17 7:22 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: >>>>> Judith's paternity is not controversial. The Life of Walteof >>>>> affirms it was Lambert. See >>>>> http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/rober000.htm. >>>> This is the earliest source stating that Lambert was Judith's father - >>>> it is a 13th-century work following Orderic and containing errors. >>>> >>>> The controversy is real, based on the unreliability of the source and >>>> its derivatives and the problem that Judith was not Lambert's heiress. >>>> >>>> Peter Stewart >>> There is a very good reason to explain Judith not being Lambert's >>> heiress. When Lambert died Judith was a baby. >> >> So babies forfeited hereditary rights? Judith may have been born >> posthumously for all we know, but if she was Lambert's child she was >> the only one. The assumption that her father's brother would have the >> temerity to usurp the inheritance of a niece of William of Normandy >> is just a speculative scenario, not a 'very good reason' to explain >> this. Other heirs and heiresses who were displaced as children, and >> their own subsequent offspring, did not always accept dispossession >> quietly: it is far from highly credible to me that Judith and then >> her daughters (both of them married to powerful men) would have done >> this without so much as a peep over the countship of Lens. > > If Judith was Lambert's child she was almost certainly born > posthumously: her mother was first married to Enguerrand of Ponthieu, > who was killed on 25 October 1053 fighting against one brother-in-law > (William of Normandy) in support of another (William's namesake uncle, > count of Arques). Lambert was killed in late July or early August > 1054, just nine months or a very little more later. These datings are > not in any doubt at all, and the suggestion that Adeliza was divorced > from Enguerrand in order to have married Lambert before 1053 is a > non-starter - as Enguerrand of Ponthieu's widow she was countess of > Aumale, that was inherited by Enguerrand from his mother. This is set > out in charters of two of her children, in one of which she is > described as having been young when Enguerrand died;  she evidently > did not remarry immediately, since at that time she turned for > protection of the collegiate church of Saint-Martin d'Auchy that she > had founded to the archbishop of Rouen ('Engerranno marito suo mortuo > ... et cum esset adhuc in juvenili etate, fecit eam dedicare dumnum > Marilium Rotomagensem archiepiscopum qui etiam excommunicavit omnes > qui aliquid detraherent vel aliquod dampnum eidem ecclesie inferrent', > see http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte4551/.) Maurilius did not > become archbishop until 1055, so if Adeliza was married to Lambert and > widowed a second time before she had the church dedicated and defended > with his archiepiscopal fulminations it is strange that this was not > mentioned. In both of her children's charters her daughter Judith is > mentioned as a donor to Saint-Martin d'Auchy, but there is no > indication of who her father was. > > In any case, Adeliza could not have had a child by Lambert before his > own death in the summer of 1054 unless she had married him within days > of her first husband's death in October 1053. This is extremely > unlikely, as then it would be not have been certain whose child it > was. And if Judith was not conceived until some months after > Enguerrand's death, then it could not have been known at the time of > Lambert's death whether his widow was carrying a boy or a girl. I > think it highly unlikely that Lambert's brother would have > disinherited an unborn child was would be the nephew or niece of > William. It is possible that some arrangement was made so that rights > to Lens belonged to Eustace of Boulogne rather than to his brother's > widow and her unborn child, but given the geographic position of > Aumale in relation to Normandy it is hard to see what interest William > would have had in alienating control from his close family. > > Given these circumstances, I think it would need a better source than > an otherwise unreliable 13th century hagiography of Judith's husband > to conclude that she was definitely Lambert's daughter. Kathleen Thompson has added a few red herrings to this in her article 'Being the ducal sister: the role of Adelaide of Aumale', *Normandy and its Neighbours, 900-1250: Essays for David Bates* (2011), where she wrote (p 69): 'The chronology seems scarcely credible: widowhood on 25 October 1053, followed by a second marriage to a husband who died at the latest ten months later and the birth of what can only have been a posthumous daughter, Judith. Our evidence is a thirteenth-century life of Waltheof, which tells us that Lambert of Lens was the father of Waltheof's wife, and some modern commentators have found it hard to accept; Morton and Munz [sic, recte Muntz] cannot countenance it. They firmly attribute Adelaide's second daughter to Enguerrand of Ponthieu, despite the fact that the child's name quite clearly links her to the Flandro-Boulonnais dynasty to which Lambert belonged, while a charter by Adelaide's other daughter, a younger Adelaide, specifically indicates that Judith was the daughter of the younger Adelaide's mother, but not her father.' The last two points are specious. First: the name Judith famously belonged to a countess of Flanders in the 9th century, daughter of Charles the Bald, but as far as we know it was not given to any female in that family except for a daughter of Balduin IV by his second wife, a Norman princess whose mother was named Judith. This name was not used in the comital family of Boulogne either, unless earl Waltheof's wife belonged to it as a daughter of Lambert of Lens. However, even so it should be noted that Adeliza of Aumale had an aunt named Adeliza who (in a charter of her husband) was also called Judith, a daughter of Balduin IV's mother-in-law. Consequently there is no clear link from onomastics to the 'Flandro-Boulonnais dynasty', but rather to the ducal family of Normandy. Secondly, the charter of Adeliza's namesake daughter does not specifically indicate that she and Judith were only half-sisters. I gave a link to this charter (above), where it can be seen that the younger Adeliza is described both as 'Addelidis comitissa supradicti Engerranni et supradicte Addelidis filia' and as 'cometissa Addelidis filia supradicte cometisse', while Judith is described as 'Julita cometissa domine supradicte filia'. If naming her only as her mother's daughter specifically precludes her having been a full-sister, then the younger Adeliza must have been conflicted about her own parentage in order to describe herself in the same way. The corresponding charter of their maternal half-brother Stephen (http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte4557/) also describes Judith as 'Julita cometissa filia domine supradicte', but does not mention the younger Adeliza at all. Presumably these charters were issued at the request of the chapter of Saint-Martin d'Auchy in order to have a bet each way with their foundation confirmed both by Enguerrand's daughter Adeliza and by her half-brother Stephen who did not share her hereditary claim. Judith was incidental to this as a middle child, whether her father was Enguerrand or Lambert. It is notable that in the list of donations to the church there is no mention of any by Lambert, who if he had been Adeliza's second husband would have been count of Aumale by her right: his resulting patronage of Saint-Martin d'Auchy, however brief, would most likely have been signalled in this document. Thompson went on to state that 'The whole problem begins to recede, however, when we take into account the proceedings of the Council of Reims in 1049'. This is very dubious in my view: Enguerrand of Ponthieu and Eustace II of Boulogne were both excommunicated by Pope Leo IX for consanguineous marriages ('Excommunicavit etiam comites Angilra[mm]i, et Eustachium propter incestum'). At the same time William of Normandy was forbidden to marry Matilda of Flanders. We know what came of that - their marriage went ahead. We do not know if either Enguerrand or Eustace repudiated their illicit unions, or for that matter whether Adeliza of Normandy was already married to Enguerrand at the time in order to be the irregular wife in question. Thompson reported (p 71) that Eustace's fist wife, the English princess Goda, 'bore her new husband no surviving male heir, and by the late 1040s she must have been nearing forty years of age. It was now perhaps convenient to dissolve the marriage. The existence of a common ancestor in King Alfred of England allowed Eustace and Goda to part, and the researches of Dr Christopher Lewis suggest that from 1051 Countess Goda lived in her brother’s kingdom, probably at Lambeth, close to his chosen residence of Westminster'. The reference given for this (ibid note 42) is not very illuminating: 'C. P. Lewis, personal communication, based on Goda's holdings in Domesday Book, in particular at Lambeth, DB, I, fol. 34. Using material from Rochester Cathedral priory's fourteenth century Registrum Temporalium, Dr Lewis has deduced that Goda's property at Lambeth was subsequently given to Rochester. Rochester later asserted that it had the treasures of the Countess Goda in its possession, and it also had an interest in what it referred to as 'Countess Goda's former soke' in London, probably a survival of the nineteen burgesses recorded under Lambeth in Domesday.' It is not clear from this what basis Dr Lewis has for identifying the Goda in Domesday book and the 'Countess Goda' in the much later Rochester record with the countess of Boulogne. If she was nearing 40 in the late 1040s she must have been nearing 80 at the time of the Domesday survey, and you might expect that we would hear something besides this about a daughter of Ætheldred II who lived for at least 20 years under the reign of William the Conqueror. By the way, Timothy Bolton in 'Was the family of Earl Siward and Earl Waltheof a lost line of the ancestors of the Danish royal family?', *Nottingham Medieval Studies* 51 (2007) thought that the extant text of 'Vita Waldevi comitis' naming Lambert as Judith's father is a 13th-century revision of a work perhaps written in the 12th century (p.49): 'The vita is closely based, in part, on accounts written in the 1120s (those of Orderic Vitalis, William of Malmesbury and John of Worcester), and so must post-date these accounts. An imprecise terminus ad quem can only be established by the observation that in 1219 this vita was old enough to warrant revisions in prose and verse by William of Ramsey.' There is of course no way to know when the detail about Lambert was included. Peter Stewart

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? 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] "wjhonson" wrote in message news:46865d9f-fcf5-4f68-b312-beee63eb8d4e@googlegroups.com... On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 11:27:37 PM UTC-7, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > By some on-line accounts, the superb British actor, Benedict Cumberbatch, > has a descent from Edward IV and Edward's mistress, Elizabeth Waite -- > making him a 15th great-grandson of Edward IV -- and, of course, a 15th > great-grandnephew of Richard III -- rather than just a 2nd cousin, 16 > times > removed of Richard III. > > Can anyone here verify that? > > DSH The line back from Anne Bowes is equidistant from both Edward IV of England and James II of Scotland The issue then becomes the connecting link from Benedict's known ancestor Caroline Chaloner, back to that specific William Chaloner who is known to have married Mary Finney If that hundred year gap can be filled with supporting documents, the connection is made

On Sunday, September 10, 2017 at 1:24:02 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > On Sunday, September 10, 2017 at 12:19:09 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 11:27:37 PM UTC-7, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > > > By some on-line accounts, the superb British actor, Benedict Cumberbatch, > > > has a descent from Edward IV and Edward's mistress, Elizabeth Waite -- > > > making him a 15th great-grandson of Edward IV -- and, of course, a 15th > > > great-grandnephew of Richard III -- rather than just a 2nd cousin, 16 times > > > removed of Richard III. > > > > > > Can anyone here verify that? > > > > > > DSH > > > > > > > > > The line back from Anne Bowes is equidistant from both Edward IV of England and James II of Scotland > > > > The issue then becomes the connecting link from Benedict's known ancestor Caroline Chaloner, back to that specific William Chaloner who is known to have married Mary Finney > > > > If that hundred year gap can be filled with supporting documents, the connection is made > > > I have confirmed that William Chaloner, by his wife Mary Finney, did have a son William Chaloner born 14 Aug 1745, who married Emma Harvey daughter of William Harvey of Chigwell. They married 8 Aug 1771 > > One of their children was a Caroline Chaloner baptised 25 Nov 1788 at Guisborough York > > And then a seperate fact that Abraham Parry Cumberbatch married a woman named Caroline Chaloner. > > However the gap is now the question of whether there is actual documentation which evidences that this Caroline is the same person as that Caroline See the article on the Chaloner family in recent editions of BP.

Actually Llewellyn, Ruler of North /Wales/ 1194-1240 Olive Welby is 13 from him, while being 16 from E1 -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Nielsen Hayden <pnh@panix.com> To: gen-medieval <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wed, Sep 6, 2017 4:50 pm Subject: Re: A descent from Edward III to working class people and Danny Dyer On 2017-09-05 01:32:01 +0000, Peter Stewart said: > It would be interesting to know if anyone in this group can trace at > least one line each for 20% of their great-great-grandparents (say 3 of > the 16, assuming these are three different people) back to > mid-14th-century England without running into Edward III. Yes, my wife. Great-great grandmother Mary Elizabeth Bingham (1853-1933), descendant of Olive Welby (1604-1692), most recent royal ancestor Edward I. Great-great grandfather Hyrum Smith Phelps (1846-1926), descendant of Margaret Wyatt (1595-1675), most recent royal ancestor Henry I. Great-great grandfather Charles Hopkins Allen (1830-1922), descendant of William Wentworth (1616-1697), most recent royal ancestor Henry I. Great-great grandfather Alonzo Hamilton Packer (1841-1917), descendant of Alice Freeman (~1595-1658), most recent royal ancestor Aethelred II (d. 1016). No known descents from Edward III. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Sunday, September 10, 2017 at 12:19:09 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 11:27:37 PM UTC-7, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > > By some on-line accounts, the superb British actor, Benedict Cumberbatch, > > has a descent from Edward IV and Edward's mistress, Elizabeth Waite -- > > making him a 15th great-grandson of Edward IV -- and, of course, a 15th > > great-grandnephew of Richard III -- rather than just a 2nd cousin, 16 times > > removed of Richard III. > > > > Can anyone here verify that? > > > > DSH > > > > > The line back from Anne Bowes is equidistant from both Edward IV of England and James II of Scotland > > The issue then becomes the connecting link from Benedict's known ancestor Caroline Chaloner, back to that specific William Chaloner who is known to have married Mary Finney > > If that hundred year gap can be filled with supporting documents, the connection is made I have confirmed that William Chaloner, by his wife Mary Finney, did have a son William Chaloner born 14 Aug 1745, who married Emma Harvey daughter of William Harvey of Chigwell. They married 8 Aug 1771 One of their children was a Caroline Chaloner baptised 25 Nov 1788 at Guisborough York And then a seperate fact that Abraham Parry Cumberbatch married a woman named Caroline Chaloner. However the gap is now the question of whether there is actual documentation which evidences that this Caroline is the same person as that Caroline

On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 11:27:37 PM UTC-7, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > By some on-line accounts, the superb British actor, Benedict Cumberbatch, > has a descent from Edward IV and Edward's mistress, Elizabeth Waite -- > making him a 15th great-grandson of Edward IV -- and, of course, a 15th > great-grandnephew of Richard III -- rather than just a 2nd cousin, 16 times > removed of Richard III. > > Can anyone here verify that? > > DSH > The line back from Anne Bowes is equidistant from both Edward IV of England and James II of Scotland The issue then becomes the connecting link from Benedict's known ancestor Caroline Chaloner, back to that specific William Chaloner who is known to have married Mary Finney If that hundred year gap can be filled with supporting documents, the connection is made

The paternity of John the Banker or Cashier was in fact before the Lord Lyon King of Arms recently regarding who was the head of the Breadalbane Campbells. Some sources state Colin died without issue and others give John as a son. I'm uncertain if the issue was ever resolved. Either Lachlan Campbell, John's heir, or Huba Campbell, who is otherwise heir of the family, would be an earl. Here is an online reference that addresses the issue of John's parentage: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CAMPBELL/2001-02/0981125769

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:25:54 PM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote: > In 2015 there was a discussion in this newsgroup that started with a question about the validity of immigrant Henry Gregory as a Gateway Ancestor to Royalty. I saw it a few days ago and today I saw a post of 2000 in www.genealogy.com it is http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/gregory/2742/ that affirms that the immigrant Henry being son of John Gregory of Nottinghamshire is not proven however the evidence they say there seems to me enough to make a good case. John's son William who was styled Gentleman in his will dated 18 June 1650 and proved on 5 February 1651, gave a legacy to his brother Henry Gregory "now in New England." There is no other known Henry Gregory in New England at the time. Henry of Nottingham son of John is known to have been a shoemaker and Henry the Immigrant was also one. Henry the Immigrant named his eldest son John that was the name of Henry of Nottingham's father and Henry of Nottingham is known to have had a daughter named Anne who has the correct age to be Henry the Immigrant's daughter Anne. > > I think this is convincing enough but comments on the topic are welcome. I should add, see also Royal Ancestry (2013), 1:560 (Brixworth 18) which does not give Katherine's m. to Hulton. If Henry Gregory's descent from James Harrington is valid, it appears this would give him a descent from William the Conqueror.

Jan, did you get anywhere with your problems? I am in the same boat :) Regarding the Willoughby link - it may be worth starting with the families of the Patrons of Martin Hill and his son Francis: Lord Willoughby of Eresby and Sir Percival Willoughby of Wolloton knt Cheers, Jay

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:25:54 PM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote: > In 2015 there was a discussion in this newsgroup that started with a question about the validity of immigrant Henry Gregory as a Gateway Ancestor to Royalty. I saw it a few days ago and today I saw a post of 2000 in www.genealogy.com it is http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/gregory/2742/ that affirms that the immigrant Henry being son of John Gregory of Nottinghamshire is not proven however the evidence they say there seems to me enough to make a good case. John's son William who was styled Gentleman in his will dated 18 June 1650 and proved on 5 February 1651, gave a legacy to his brother Henry Gregory "now in New England." There is no other known Henry Gregory in New England at the time. Henry of Nottingham son of John is known to have been a shoemaker and Henry the Immigrant was also one. Henry the Immigrant named his eldest son John that was the name of Henry of Nottingham's father and Henry of Nottingham is known to have had a daughter named Anne who has the correct age to be Henry the Immigrant's daughter Anne. > > I think this is convincing enough but comments on the topic are welcome. With some trepidation, I'll offer this: Coddington (TAG 38:173) at gen 9 mentions that Richard Parr m. "Emme Hulton, daughter of Roger Hulton, of Hulton, co. Lancaster by his wife Katherine Harrington, daughter and heiress of Sir James Harrington of Wolfedge, Co Lancaster." The two sources given by Coddington do not mention the wife of Roger Hulton, but it is found in Foster's Lancashire Pedigrees. With more credibility, there is a thread from 2008 (search on "roger hulton") that explains that Katherine Harrington had two husbands, Roger being not mentioned in her mother's IPM, and not given in other published sources that I could find (see also Anc John Barber White, 1913). This apparently leads to pre-conquest royalty for Henry Gregory. See Anc Roots line #34-37. Corrections? Comments? New Gateway? Thanks Greg Cooke

On 09-Sep-17 5:48 PM, Peter Stewart wrote: > > By the way, Heather Tanner has made a peculiar mistake in her > *Families, Friends and Allies: Boulogne and Politics in Northern > France and England, c. 879-1160* (2004) - she thinks there were two > Lamberts of Lens, father and son. According to her Eustace I's brother > Lambert I died in 1047 Apologies again, my brain has shut for the day - I should have written 'Eustace II's brother ...' Peter Stewart

On 09-Sep-17 5:48 PM, Peter Stewart wrote: > It is possible that some arrangement was made so that rights to Lens > belonged to Eustace of Boulogne rather than to his brother's widow and > her unborn child, but given the geographic position of Aumale in > relation to Normandy it is hard to see what interest William would > have had in alienating control from his close family. Apologies, I meant to write: 'given the geographic position of Lens in relation to Normandy ...' Peter Stewart

On 07-Sep-17 8:54 AM, Peter Stewart wrote: > > On 06-Sep-17 11:14 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: >> Em quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 13:06:19 UTC+1, Peter Stewart  >> escreveu: >>> On 06-Sep-17 7:22 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: >>>> Judith's paternity is not controversial. The Life of Walteof >>>> affirms it was Lambert. See >>>> http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/rober000.htm. >>> This is the earliest source stating that Lambert was Judith's father - >>> it is a 13th-century work following Orderic and containing errors. >>> >>> The controversy is real, based on the unreliability of the source and >>> its derivatives and the problem that Judith was not Lambert's heiress. >>> >>> Peter Stewart >> There is a very good reason to explain Judith not being Lambert's >> heiress. When Lambert died Judith was a baby. > > So babies forfeited hereditary rights? Judith may have been born > posthumously for all we know, but if she was Lambert's child she was > the only one. The assumption that her father's brother would have the > temerity to usurp the inheritance of a niece of William of Normandy is > just a speculative scenario, not a 'very good reason' to explain this. > Other heirs and heiresses who were displaced as children, and their > own subsequent offspring, did not always accept dispossession quietly: > it is far from highly credible to me that Judith and then her > daughters (both of them married to powerful men) would have done this > without so much as a peep over the countship of Lens. If Judith was Lambert's child she was almost certainly born posthumously: her mother was first married to Enguerrand of Ponthieu, who was killed on 25 October 1053 fighting against one brother-in-law (William of Normandy) in support of another (William's namesake uncle, count of Arques). Lambert was killed in late July or early August 1054, just nine months or a very little more later. These datings are not in any doubt at all, and the suggestion that Adeliza was divorced from Enguerrand in order to have married Lambert before 1053 is a non-starter - as Enguerrand of Ponthieu's widow she was countess of Aumale, that was inherited by Enguerrand from his mother. This is set out in charters of two of her children, in one of which she is described as having been young when Enguerrand died;  she evidently did not remarry immediately, since at that time she turned for protection of the collegiate church of Saint-Martin d'Auchy that she had founded to the archbishop of Rouen ('Engerranno marito suo mortuo ... et cum esset adhuc in juvenili etate, fecit eam dedicare dumnum Marilium Rotomagensem archiepiscopum qui etiam excommunicavit omnes qui aliquid detraherent vel aliquod dampnum eidem ecclesie inferrent', see http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte4551/.) Maurilius did not become archbishop until 1055, so if Adeliza was married to Lambert and widowed a second time before she had the church dedicated and defended with his archiepiscopal fulminations it is strange that this was not mentioned. In both of her children's charters her daughter Judith is mentioned as a donor to Saint-Martin d'Auchy, but there is no indication of who her father was. In any case, Adeliza could not have had a child by Lambert before his own death in the summer of 1054 unless she had married him within days of her first husband's death in October 1053. This is extremely unlikely, as then it would be not have been certain whose child it was. And if Judith was not conceived until some months after Enguerrand's death, then it could not have been known at the time of Lambert's death whether his widow was carrying a boy or a girl. I think it highly unlikely that Lambert's brother would have disinherited an unborn child was would be the nephew or niece of William. It is possible that some arrangement was made so that rights to Lens belonged to Eustace of Boulogne rather than to his brother's widow and her unborn child, but given the geographic position of Aumale in relation to Normandy it is hard to see what interest William would have had in alienating control from his close family. Given these circumstances, I think it would need a better source than an otherwise unreliable 13th century hagiography of Judith's husband to conclude that she was definitely Lambert's daughter. By the way, Heather Tanner has made a peculiar mistake in her *Families, Friends and Allies: Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England, c. 879-1160* (2004) - she thinks there were two Lamberts of Lens, father and son. According to her Eustace I's brother Lambert I died in 1047 and the husband of Adeliza of Normandy was his son Lambert II who died in 1054. This is ill-founded. Tanner relied on her misinterpretation of a charter dated 13 November 1047 in which Lambert is twice named as 'memoratus comes', which she took to mean he was deceased at the time. However, she had not understood the context, as 'memoratus comes' here means only 'the said count': the first of these mentions is when the residents of Harnes (near Lens) are to owe Lambert and his successors 50 solidi at Easter in every third year ('Sed semper post tercium annum homines de ipsa uilla Harnes tam ipsi quam posteri eorum soluent quinquaginta solidos in pascha Domini memorato comiti Lantberto et successoribus suis'); and the second is his own subscription ('S. Lantberti comitis memorati'). Clearly he was not dead at the time. (This charter was once thought a forgery, as a falsified version had been printed from a copy in Ghent, until the original charter was discovered in Paris and published for the first time in 1950.) Peter Stewart

On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 9:20:40 AM UTC+1, John Watson wrote: > On Friday, 8 September 2017 15:46:02 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 8:45:22 AM UTC+1, John Watson wrote: > > > On Thursday, 7 September 2017 21:45:31 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:17:55 PM UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > > > Dear Newsgroup, > > > > > I am trying to confirm the dates of Margaret Oddingsel, daughter and co-heir of William Oddingsel and Ela Fitzwalter, who married first John Grey (d. 1311) and then Robert Moreby (d. 1335). > > > > > Richardson (Magna Carta Ancestry, 2011, p 269) gives her birth date as c. 1277. Is this because she had to have been 18 to inherit in 1295? > > > > > As for the date of her death, she last appears in the records on 21 April 1330, when the king granted free warren to her, her second husband Robert Moreby and her heir John Grey (1300-1359), on her manors of Cogges, Oxfordshire, Opton and Sculcoates, Yorkshire and Weford, Staffordshire, for her lifetime and to John and his heirs after her death. (Cal. Charter Rolls, v 4, 1327-1341, p 168.) > > > > > Her son John Grey appears again four months later, on his own account. On 1 August 1330 he and his heirs are granted free warren on all his demesne lands, Shobynton, Estclaydon, Botilclaydon, co. Bucks, Cogges, Herdwyk, Stanlak, Feringford and Somerton, co. Oxford, Wynterburn, co. Berks, Duston, co. Northampton, and Upton, Stillingflete, Moreby, Drynghous, Sculcoates and Ketelwell, co. York. (Cal. Charter Rolls, v 4, 1327-1341, p 189.) > > > > > There is no mention of Margaret in this entry. Does this mean she was dead and John had inherited her lands, as suggested by the Church Monuments Society article on Margaret’s effigy? http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/Monument%20of%20the%20Month%20Archive/2012-01.html > > > > > The places mentioned don’t quite tally. Margaret’s manor of Weford was in the first grant but not the second and there are manors in the second which were Grey properties already inherited by John from his father (d.1311). Moreby belonged to his step father who was still alive. Could there be another reason? Was John granted these privileges, some of which seem to be new, some confirmation of existing rights, to mark his knighthood? Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says he was knighted by 1330 ( http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/view/article/11544?docPos=4). > > > > > > > > > > If so, this means there is no date for Margaret’s death and she may have lived on after 1330. > > > > > Any thoughts would be much appreciated, > > > > > Thank you > > > > > Nicola Lowe > > > > > > > > Thank you both, that is really helpful. > > > > With best wishes > > > > Nicola > > > > > > Dear Nicola, > > > > > > But that still leaves the question of who was the lady Isabel de Clinton? From the text provided by Matt, it appears that she was a widow, and living in the Priory, it is said, for her recreation and as a place to entertain her friends (she definitely was not the prioress in 1323). Hers was not such an unusual situation, and I have come across other cases of noble widows taking up residence in nunneries, without becoming nuns. > > > > > > Was Isabel really Ida? - it seems doubtful. Isabel must have been the widow of another Clinton. A possible candidate would be the widow of John de Clinton 'the elder' of Coleshill, Warwickshire who died in 1315/6. See CP, vol. 3, p. 312-3, note (c). > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > John > > > > Yes, that does seem much more likely, doesn't it. The same CP note goes on to say that your John Clinton had a son also John who died in 1353 leaving a widow, Alice. Alice de Clynton is listed as prioress at Wroxall in 1353-6 which fits very well. > > Does this make your John Clinton of Coleshill the cousin of John Clinton of Maxstoke? > > Very many thanks for this > > Nicola > > Hi Nicola, > > John de Clinton 'the elder' of Coleshill who died in 1316, was the uncle of John de Clinton of Maxstoke (d. 1310). The elder John was the younger brother of Thomas de Clinton, father of John de Clinton of Maxstoke. > > I've had a search through the Feet of Fines for Warwickshire, but the name of John de Clinton 'the elder's' wife does not appear in any fine. > > Regards, > > John Again, many thanks. I think I am getting a clearer picture. I am an art historian and all this genealogy is tying me in knots!

On Friday, 8 September 2017 15:46:02 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 8:45:22 AM UTC+1, John Watson wrote: > > On Thursday, 7 September 2017 21:45:31 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 12:17:55 PM UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > > Dear Newsgroup, > > > > I am trying to confirm the dates of Margaret Oddingsel, daughter and co-heir of William Oddingsel and Ela Fitzwalter, who married first John Grey (d. 1311) and then Robert Moreby (d. 1335). > > > > Richardson (Magna Carta Ancestry, 2011, p 269) gives her birth date as c. 1277. Is this because she had to have been 18 to inherit in 1295? > > > > As for the date of her death, she last appears in the records on 21 April 1330, when the king granted free warren to her, her second husband Robert Moreby and her heir John Grey (1300-1359), on her manors of Cogges, Oxfordshire, Opton and Sculcoates, Yorkshire and Weford, Staffordshire, for her lifetime and to John and his heirs after her death. (Cal. Charter Rolls, v 4, 1327-1341, p 168.) > > > > Her son John Grey appears again four months later, on his own account. On 1 August 1330 he and his heirs are granted free warren on all his demesne lands, Shobynton, Estclaydon, Botilclaydon, co. Bucks, Cogges, Herdwyk, Stanlak, Feringford and Somerton, co. Oxford, Wynterburn, co. Berks, Duston, co. Northampton, and Upton, Stillingflete, Moreby, Drynghous, Sculcoates and Ketelwell, co. York. (Cal. Charter Rolls, v 4, 1327-1341, p 189.) > > > > There is no mention of Margaret in this entry. Does this mean she was dead and John had inherited her lands, as suggested by the Church Monuments Society article on Margaret’s effigy? http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/Monument%20of%20the%20Month%20Archive/2012-01.html > > > > The places mentioned don’t quite tally. Margaret’s manor of Weford was in the first grant but not the second and there are manors in the second which were Grey properties already inherited by John from his father (d.1311). Moreby belonged to his step father who was still alive. Could there be another reason? Was John granted these privileges, some of which seem to be new, some confirmation of existing rights, to mark his knighthood? Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says he was knighted by 1330 ( http://0-www.oxforddnb.com.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/view/article/11544?docPos=4). > > > > > > > > If so, this means there is no date for Margaret’s death and she may have lived on after 1330. > > > > Any thoughts would be much appreciated, > > > > Thank you > > > > Nicola Lowe > > > > > > Thank you both, that is really helpful. > > > With best wishes > > > Nicola > > > > Dear Nicola, > > > > But that still leaves the question of who was the lady Isabel de Clinton? From the text provided by Matt, it appears that she was a widow, and living in the Priory, it is said, for her recreation and as a place to entertain her friends (she definitely was not the prioress in 1323). Hers was not such an unusual situation, and I have come across other cases of noble widows taking up residence in nunneries, without becoming nuns. > > > > Was Isabel really Ida? - it seems doubtful. Isabel must have been the widow of another Clinton. A possible candidate would be the widow of John de Clinton 'the elder' of Coleshill, Warwickshire who died in 1315/6. See CP, vol. 3, p. 312-3, note (c). > > > > Regards, > > > > John > > Yes, that does seem much more likely, doesn't it. The same CP note goes on to say that your John Clinton had a son also John who died in 1353 leaving a widow, Alice. Alice de Clynton is listed as prioress at Wroxall in 1353-6 which fits very well. > Does this make your John Clinton of Coleshill the cousin of John Clinton of Maxstoke? > Very many thanks for this > Nicola Hi Nicola, John de Clinton 'the elder' of Coleshill who died in 1316, was the uncle of John de Clinton of Maxstoke (d. 1310). The elder John was the younger brother of Thomas de Clinton, father of John de Clinton of Maxstoke. I've had a search through the Feet of Fines for Warwickshire, but the name of John de Clinton 'the elder's' wife does not appear in any fine. Regards, John

By some on-line accounts, the superb British actor, Benedict Cumberbatch, has a descent from Edward IV and Edward's mistress, Elizabeth Waite -- making him a 15th great-grandson of Edward IV -- and, of course, a 15th great-grandnephew of Richard III -- rather than just a 2nd cousin, 16 times removed of Richard III. Can anyone here verify that? 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, 23 April 2000 17:00:00 UTC+10, GD Ingram wrote: > I have an Agnes Bruce m. ca.1526 John Traill, laird of Blebo, Co.Fife. > She is given as a dau of Sir Alexander Bruce, of Earlshall, and Janet > Stewart. > (still trying to extricate the source details from my contact - > apparently a charter of sassine? in favour of John Traill) > > Can anyone tell me who this Alexander Bruce and his spouse may be - > &/or their ancestry? > Thanks - Guy > -- > please remove the '.obvious' from my reply-to address when replying by > e-mail Hi Guy email me direct and I will give you the information. They are my Ancestors. Cheers Lyn