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.

> On Sep 5, 2017, at 7:13 PM, gen-medieval-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > From: peter1623a@yahoo.ca <mailto:peter1623a@yahoo.ca> > Subject: Re: Edward III --> Gateway Ancestors > Date: September 5, 2017 at 7:06:59 PM CDT > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com <mailto:gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> > > The most recent royal ancestor for the Lawrence family of Hertfordshire is Louis IV of France 936-954. Peter, You are correct. I neglected to specify English/British royalty. Bill

Sorry, it was William Mortimer, page 34 *https://tinyurl.com/yd3qqssj <https://tinyurl.com/yd3qqssj>* On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:53 PM, taf <taf.medieval@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 2:08:35 PM UTC-7, mk wrote: > > *https://tinyurl.com/yas3vvog <https://tinyurl.com/yas3vvog>* > > > > > > Can anyone place for me who the William Mortimer of the above inquisition > > is? > > Your URL is pointing to a page of 61 snippets - perhaps you could be more > specific which page you have in mind. > > taf > > ------------------------------- > 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 Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 2:08:35 PM UTC-7, mk wrote: > *https://tinyurl.com/yas3vvog <https://tinyurl.com/yas3vvog>* > > > Can anyone place for me who the William Mortimer of the above inquisition > is? Your URL is pointing to a page of 61 snippets - perhaps you could be more specific which page you have in mind. taf

On 06-Sep-17 12:05 PM, taf wrote: > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:38:56 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: >> These are the effects I had in mind, but still I am surprised at the >> frequency of descents from earlier kings that apparently bypass Edward III. >> >> I wonder how many contemporaries of his are traced in these cases - if >> only a small proportion of ancestors living in his time are known, then >> the exercise is not very illuminating and we are left with hunches as to >> likelihood. > Entirely incidental, but one of my Edward I-only immigrants has (I think I am counting this right) 9 different lines from Edward I. About 2/3 of my 15 immigrant-Edward I lines involve just two conduits, through Margaret de Audley (m. Ralph, Earl Stafford), or Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk (m. Robert Goushill). This is probably a distorted picture, though, since two of the three immigrants (with relatively broad pedigrees) happen to converge very quickly on the same small group of intermarrying families. The third is more a stick back to the Goushill/Wingfield marriage, and though there are more lines known before that for both husband and wife, by that point the opportunities were pretty limited. The one without royals is pretty broad from the early 1500s to the 1300s, just unlucky (if that is the word for it). I would say lucky - the offspring of Edward III are not exactly ancestors to be proud of, unless your criteria are focused on birth rank as taking priority over moral character or political achievement. Edward III himself, who initiated the French pretendership that led to the 100 Years' war, was not much better than his brood of failures. Malevolent Plantagenet nincompoops are not my idea of desirable ancestors. Peter Stewart

Em quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 19:01:50 UTC+1, thmsn...@gmail.com escreveu: > On Saturday, January 15, 2000 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, John Ravilious wrote: > > Sat., 15 January, 2000 > > > > > > Hello Paul (et al.): > > > > [This query/comment is directed in part to you as I see reference to your > > assistance in Mr. James Hansen's article on _The Ancestry of Joan Legard_, TAG > > 69:129-139] > > > > I have received my copy of PA, 2nd edition, and noticed an item which may > > be an editorial loose end: it does have relevance to an earlier post I had > > made re: Sir Martin de la See [under a previous ISP and e-mail address]. > > > > In the footnotes at the bottom of pages 57 and 288, PA refers to > > Elizabeth de Burgh and Lionel of Clarence (p. 57), and Elizabeth Mortimer and > > Henry Percy (p. 288) as _Ancestors of [amongst others] William Farrar_. > > Following these entries, however [from Henry _Hotspur_ Percy on] this thread > > disappears. The PA ancestry for William Farrar, p. 135 reflects his descent > > through Cecily Kelke from Edward I, but there is no trace of any ancestral > > connection to Edward III. > > > > It would appear that the disconnect occurs in the Kelke family, where (on > > pp. 198-199) PA shows the union of Isabel Girlington and Christopher Kelke, > > ancestors of William Farrar and others. The note appended to the entry for > > Isabel Girlington and Christopher Kelke (p. 198) references an 1880 article > > from _The Genealogist_, citing an entry in the Visitation of Lincolnshire > > stating: _Roger Kelke of Barnetby = Elizabeth, da. and coheir of Sir Martin de > > Lacy_. I have referred directly to the printed Lincolnshire Pedigrees in the > > Harleian series, and find the entry (p. 556) to state: _Roger Kelke of > > Barnetby = Elizabeth, dau. and coheir of Sir Martin de la See_. > > > > In the article in TAG mentioned above, which was a source for the > > ancestral lines in PA for John Harleston (pp. 173-176) and Rev. William > > Skepper (pp. 328-330), Mr. Hansen referenced among other documents the will of > > Sir Martin de la See, which does not either reference or disprove the > > existence of a daughter Elizabeth. Several possibilities exist to explain > > this situation, including: > > > > 1. A daughter Elizabeth was born after 1480 (subsequent to the > > Yorkshire Visitation, dated by Hansen as ca. 1480/81) - this > > would infer that she had died and given birth to her son before > > her father wrote his will in 1494, which while not impossible is > > considered unlikely. > > > > 2. Elizabeth was the daughter and heiress of Sir Martin's son, Martin > > de la See (referenced by Hansen as possibly being married in 1480 > > to one Elizabeth Hawley). > > > > 3. Some disproof of Elizabeth, wife of Roger Kelke, being the > > daughter of either Martin or his father Sir Martin, of which I > > am not aware. > > > > The second possibility shown above has a great deal to commend itself, as > > (given Martin's having predeceased his father) it would certainly fit better > > with the circumstances of Sir Martin's will of 1494. The fact that no > > provision was apparently made in the will for any grandchildren [at least > > based on information extracted by Mr. Hansen] does not disprove the existence > > of one or more grandchildren. > > > > If anyone is aware of any facts relating to the above, including > > disproving or proving this _de la See connection_ with the Kelke family, I and > > others in the group would be grateful to hear of them. > > > > Good luck and good hunting. > > > > > > John > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. > > What about the contention that Lady Elizabeth Percy may not have had daughters and that Mary de Clifford could not, then, be her daughter? See > See the truth. It affects my lines, too. > https://royaldescent.blogspot.com/2010/02/weakest-link-in-jane-seymours-royal.html That affirmation given by some is completely spurious. The so called ancient heralds NEVER said Elizabeth Percy didn't have daughter they just didn't mention any neither for her neither for her husband.

On 06-Sep-17 10:19 AM, Steve Riggan wrote: > Correction, that was Lambert of Lens. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Steve Riggan <sriggan@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Bill, your ancestor is in Genealogics here: >> >> http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00624570&tree=LEO >> >> The line does have some royal descents, one being through Judith of Lens, daughter of Adele of Normandy who was the sister of William the Conqueror. I believe Judith's paternity is in question due to her mother's two marriages and the uncertainty of which one produced Judith. If she is descended from Lambert of Louvain, the line on that side goes to Louis IV of France. Through Adele, the line goes back to Charlemagne in one or two lines, maybe more as I didn't look at all of them. I didn't see Edward the Elder on this pedigree, but maybe Leo didn't have that information when he posted the line. Your first post was correct already, even if your thinking was otherwise - Lambert of Lens was a grandson of Lambert of Louvain, so if Judith was daughter of the former she was descended from the latter. Peter Stewart

On Saturday, January 15, 2000 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, John Ravilious wrote: > Sat., 15 January, 2000 > > > Hello Paul (et al.): > > [This query/comment is directed in part to you as I see reference to your > assistance in Mr. James Hansen's article on _The Ancestry of Joan Legard_, TAG > 69:129-139] > > I have received my copy of PA, 2nd edition, and noticed an item which may > be an editorial loose end: it does have relevance to an earlier post I had > made re: Sir Martin de la See [under a previous ISP and e-mail address]. > > In the footnotes at the bottom of pages 57 and 288, PA refers to > Elizabeth de Burgh and Lionel of Clarence (p. 57), and Elizabeth Mortimer and > Henry Percy (p. 288) as _Ancestors of [amongst others] William Farrar_. > Following these entries, however [from Henry _Hotspur_ Percy on] this thread > disappears. The PA ancestry for William Farrar, p. 135 reflects his descent > through Cecily Kelke from Edward I, but there is no trace of any ancestral > connection to Edward III. > > It would appear that the disconnect occurs in the Kelke family, where (on > pp. 198-199) PA shows the union of Isabel Girlington and Christopher Kelke, > ancestors of William Farrar and others. The note appended to the entry for > Isabel Girlington and Christopher Kelke (p. 198) references an 1880 article > from _The Genealogist_, citing an entry in the Visitation of Lincolnshire > stating: _Roger Kelke of Barnetby = Elizabeth, da. and coheir of Sir Martin de > Lacy_. I have referred directly to the printed Lincolnshire Pedigrees in the > Harleian series, and find the entry (p. 556) to state: _Roger Kelke of > Barnetby = Elizabeth, dau. and coheir of Sir Martin de la See_. > > In the article in TAG mentioned above, which was a source for the > ancestral lines in PA for John Harleston (pp. 173-176) and Rev. William > Skepper (pp. 328-330), Mr. Hansen referenced among other documents the will of > Sir Martin de la See, which does not either reference or disprove the > existence of a daughter Elizabeth. Several possibilities exist to explain > this situation, including: > > 1. A daughter Elizabeth was born after 1480 (subsequent to the > Yorkshire Visitation, dated by Hansen as ca. 1480/81) - this > would infer that she had died and given birth to her son before > her father wrote his will in 1494, which while not impossible is > considered unlikely. > > 2. Elizabeth was the daughter and heiress of Sir Martin's son, Martin > de la See (referenced by Hansen as possibly being married in 1480 > to one Elizabeth Hawley). > > 3. Some disproof of Elizabeth, wife of Roger Kelke, being the > daughter of either Martin or his father Sir Martin, of which I > am not aware. > > The second possibility shown above has a great deal to commend itself, as > (given Martin's having predeceased his father) it would certainly fit better > with the circumstances of Sir Martin's will of 1494. The fact that no > provision was apparently made in the will for any grandchildren [at least > based on information extracted by Mr. Hansen] does not disprove the existence > of one or more grandchildren. > > If anyone is aware of any facts relating to the above, including > disproving or proving this _de la See connection_ with the Kelke family, I and > others in the group would be grateful to hear of them. > > Good luck and good hunting. > > > John > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. What about the contention that Lady Elizabeth Percy may not have had daughters and that Mary de Clifford could not, then, be her daughter? See See the truth. It affects my lines, too. https://royaldescent.blogspot.com/2010/02/weakest-link-in-jane-seymours-royal.html

On 06-Sep-17 9:55 AM, taf wrote: > On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:25:00 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: >> In view of this, it would be interesting to know what proportion of >> American 'gateway' ancestors traced at least to the mid-14th century did >> not have a known line to Edward III. > I have four that I can trace that early, one has a line from Edward III, two only trace to Edward I, and one has a reasonably broad pedigree but no royalty whatsoever, though with numerous 'near misses, where the royal-derived marriage came a generation after, i.e. involved a sibling of the immigrant's ancestor. > > I have to think that the timing of the emigration established an artificial barrier, removing immigrants of this class from proximity to the pool of families with traceable royal descent just as it was in the process of permeating the lower gentry, and instead presenting them with a new marriage pool that was largely untraceable, due to a combination of representing a different class distribution than their likely marriage pool in England, and the poor documentation regarding the pre-immigration origin of the majority of immigrants. These are the effects I had in mind, but still I am surprised at the frequency of descents from earlier kings that apparently bypass Edward III. I wonder how many contemporaries of his are traced in these cases - if only a small proportion of ancestors living in his time are known, then the exercise is not very illuminating and we are left with hunches as to likelihood. Peter Stewart

On 06-Sep-17 4:35 AM, joecook@gmail.com wrote: > My children have a complete solid 7 generation tree, and some of those 7th generation ancestors have a complete 7 generation solid tree. Most of the 7 generations have been backed up via DNA. > > I am an American at the bottom of the social ladder. > > Out of these 64 ancestors which are all over Europe: (England, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands,Poland,Ireland): > > 1 of them can be traced, probably, to Edward 3. > 2 more can be traced to mid 14th C but are not E3 descendants. > > None of the rest can be traced back to 14th C, but many of them back to c1550 which is good enough to tell me that a E3 descent of any kind is highly, highly, highly unlikely. Anyone born in 1550 would only have 128 ancestors in edward3's generation and there is no reason to think that tiny sample set would include a king. This is an example of what I meant by the entanglement of Edward III descent with traceability - likelihood and what is known may be at odds, and in any case likelihood in human affairs (not least reproductive ones) may be as unsafe a guide as ignorance. 'Downward' socio-economic mobility can be a very rapid spiral, and going from top to bottom within 7 generations is hardly unexampled. Nor is the reverse, as the ancestry of Prince Charles shows. My impression of the frequency of Edward III is based on the family lines I know best, that all remained in England until at least the mid-19th century. The chances of intermarriage between people with traceable 14th-century ancestry including and not including Edward III was perhaps higher in these circumstances than with earlier emigrant groups. In view of this, it would be interesting to know what proportion of American 'gateway' ancestors traced at least to the mid-14th century did not have a known line to Edward III. Peter Stewart

On Saturday, January 15, 2000 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, John Ravilious wrote: > Sat., 15 January, 2000 > > > Hello Paul (et al.): > > [This query/comment is directed in part to you as I see reference to your > assistance in Mr. James Hansen's article on _The Ancestry of Joan Legard_, TAG > 69:129-139] > > I have received my copy of PA, 2nd edition, and noticed an item which may > be an editorial loose end: it does have relevance to an earlier post I had > made re: Sir Martin de la See [under a previous ISP and e-mail address]. > > In the footnotes at the bottom of pages 57 and 288, PA refers to > Elizabeth de Burgh and Lionel of Clarence (p. 57), and Elizabeth Mortimer and > Henry Percy (p. 288) as _Ancestors of [amongst others] William Farrar_. > Following these entries, however [from Henry _Hotspur_ Percy on] this thread > disappears. The PA ancestry for William Farrar, p. 135 reflects his descent > through Cecily Kelke from Edward I, but there is no trace of any ancestral > connection to Edward III. > > It would appear that the disconnect occurs in the Kelke family, where (on > pp. 198-199) PA shows the union of Isabel Girlington and Christopher Kelke, > ancestors of William Farrar and others. The note appended to the entry for > Isabel Girlington and Christopher Kelke (p. 198) references an 1880 article > from _The Genealogist_, citing an entry in the Visitation of Lincolnshire > stating: _Roger Kelke of Barnetby = Elizabeth, da. and coheir of Sir Martin de > Lacy_. I have referred directly to the printed Lincolnshire Pedigrees in the > Harleian series, and find the entry (p. 556) to state: _Roger Kelke of > Barnetby = Elizabeth, dau. and coheir of Sir Martin de la See_. > > In the article in TAG mentioned above, which was a source for the > ancestral lines in PA for John Harleston (pp. 173-176) and Rev. William > Skepper (pp. 328-330), Mr. Hansen referenced among other documents the will of > Sir Martin de la See, which does not either reference or disprove the > existence of a daughter Elizabeth. Several possibilities exist to explain > this situation, including: > > 1. A daughter Elizabeth was born after 1480 (subsequent to the > Yorkshire Visitation, dated by Hansen as ca. 1480/81) - this > would infer that she had died and given birth to her son before > her father wrote his will in 1494, which while not impossible is > considered unlikely. > > 2. Elizabeth was the daughter and heiress of Sir Martin's son, Martin > de la See (referenced by Hansen as possibly being married in 1480 > to one Elizabeth Hawley). > > 3. Some disproof of Elizabeth, wife of Roger Kelke, being the > daughter of either Martin or his father Sir Martin, of which I > am not aware. > > The second possibility shown above has a great deal to commend itself, as > (given Martin's having predeceased his father) it would certainly fit better > with the circumstances of Sir Martin's will of 1494. The fact that no > provision was apparently made in the will for any grandchildren [at least > based on information extracted by Mr. Hansen] does not disprove the existence > of one or more grandchildren. > > If anyone is aware of any facts relating to the above, including > disproving or proving this _de la See connection_ with the Kelke family, I and > others in the group would be grateful to hear of them. > > Good luck and good hunting. > > > John > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.

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.

On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 8:06:19 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote: > 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 Below is a post by Douglas Richardson from 2009 that addresses the issue concerning the correct parentage of Countess Judith, niece of William the Conqueror. Hopefully it will help in this discussion. I personally believe that Richardson got this one correct. {“Dear Newsgroup ~ I have this sinking feeling of déjà vu. The same objection that is being raised regarding Edgar the Atheling having had a daughter, Margaret (as per the Chronicle of the Canons of Huntingdon) is the VERY SAME objection raised sometime in the past regarding the parentage of Countess Judith, the niece of William the Conqueror. In Huntingdon chronicle, Judith is named as the daughter of Lambert of Lens [see Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History, 2 (1922): 28, which specifically reads: "Ivetta, who was the daughter of Lambert, the count of Lens."]. A snippet view of this text may be viewed at the following weblink: http://books.google.com/books?id=6X5nAAAAMAAJ&dq=Early+Sources+ofScottish+History&q=Lambert&pgis=1#search_anchor Elsewhere, Countess Judith is likewise styled "Ivettam, filliam comitis Lamberti de Lens, sororem nobilis viri Stephani comitis de Albemarlia" in a 13th Century account of the life of her husband, Earl Waltheof [see Vita et passio venerabilis viri Gualdevi comitis Huntendonie et Norhantonie, in Chron. Anglo-Normandes, vol. 2, pg. 112]. Regardless some genealogists scratched their heads and even a few historians doubted that Judith was the daughter of Lambert of Lens. Regardless, after verifying that Lambert of Lens existed and that the chronology permitted him to be the father of Countess Judith, the Huntingdon Chronicle is now accepted as accurate by all reliable historians. In any case, it would be highly unlikely that the Canons of Huntingdon would make up a phony story that Countess Judith was Lambert's daughter. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah"}

I didn't check all the lines so good to know. Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:20 PM, taf <taf.medieval@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:13:27 PM UTC-7, Steve Riggan wrote: >> Bill, your ancestor is in Genealogics here: >> >> http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00624570&tree=LEO >> >> If she is descended from Lambert of Louvain, the line on that side goes to >> Louis IV of France. . . . . I didn't see Edward the Elder on this pedigree, >> but maybe Leo didn't have that information when he posted the line. > > He was maternal grandfather of Louis IV. > > taf > > ------------------------------- > 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

Judith's paternity is not controversial. The Life of Walteof affirms it was Lambert. See http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/rober000.htm.

Correction, that was Lambert of Lens. Sent from my iPad > On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Steve Riggan <sriggan@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Bill, your ancestor is in Genealogics here: > > http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00624570&tree=LEO > > The line does have some royal descents, one being through Judith of Lens, daughter of Adele of Normandy who was the sister of William the Conqueror. I believe Judith's paternity is in question due to her mother's two marriages and the uncertainty of which one produced Judith. If she is descended from Lambert of Louvain, the line on that side goes to Louis IV of France. Through Adele, the line goes back to Charlemagne in one or two lines, maybe more as I didn't look at all of them. I didn't see Edward the Elder on this pedigree, but maybe Leo didn't have that information when he posted the line. > > Steve Riggan > > Sent from my iPad > >>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:05 PM, taf <taf.medieval@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, William T. Erbes wrote: >>> Regrettably, my gateway ancestor William Lawrence (bapt. 28 Jul 1622, St. Albans Abbey, Hertfordshire, England; d. bef 25 Mar 1680, Flushing, Long Island, New York) does not have a line extending back to Edward III. >>> His most recent royal ancestor appears to have been Edward the Elder. >>> >> >> OK, this does have me curious - how do you get to Edward the Elder without having any more recent royal connections? What line does that follow? >> >> taf >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

Bill, your ancestor is in Genealogics here: http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00624570&tree=LEO The line does have some royal descents, one being through Judith of Lens, daughter of Adele of Normandy who was the sister of William the Conqueror. I believe Judith's paternity is in question due to her mother's two marriages and the uncertainty of which one produced Judith. If she is descended from Lambert of Louvain, the line on that side goes to Louis IV of France. Through Adele, the line goes back to Charlemagne in one or two lines, maybe more as I didn't look at all of them. I didn't see Edward the Elder on this pedigree, but maybe Leo didn't have that information when he posted the line. Steve Riggan Sent from my iPad > On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:05 PM, taf <taf.medieval@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, William T. Erbes wrote: >> Regrettably, my gateway ancestor William Lawrence (bapt. 28 Jul 1622, St. Albans Abbey, Hertfordshire, England; d. bef 25 Mar 1680, Flushing, Long Island, New York) does not have a line extending back to Edward III. >> His most recent royal ancestor appears to have been Edward the Elder. >> > > OK, this does have me curious - how do you get to Edward the Elder without having any more recent royal connections? What line does that follow? > > taf > > ------------------------------- > 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

I have one Great Great Grandparent with an Edward III descent and another Great Great Grandparent with a Henry I descent. It's quite the coincidence that they were married to each other.

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:38:56 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > These are the effects I had in mind, but still I am surprised at the > frequency of descents from earlier kings that apparently bypass Edward III. > > I wonder how many contemporaries of his are traced in these cases - if > only a small proportion of ancestors living in his time are known, then > the exercise is not very illuminating and we are left with hunches as to > likelihood. Entirely incidental, but one of my Edward I-only immigrants has (I think I am counting this right) 9 different lines from Edward I. About 2/3 of my 15 immigrant-Edward I lines involve just two conduits, through Margaret de Audley (m. Ralph, Earl Stafford), or Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk (m. Robert Goushill). This is probably a distorted picture, though, since two of the three immigrants (with relatively broad pedigrees) happen to converge very quickly on the same small group of intermarrying families. The third is more a stick back to the Goushill/Wingfield marriage, and though there are more lines known before that for both husband and wife, by that point the opportunities were pretty limited. The one without royals is pretty broad from the early 1500s to the 1300s, just unlucky (if that is the word for it). When I last looked a couple of decades ago, those New England colonial immigrants whose most-recent royal was Edward I were disproportionate in number to either Edward III or Henry III, the next two highest. taf

Regrettably, my gateway ancestor William Lawrence (bapt. 28 Jul 1622, St. Albans Abbey, Hertfordshire, England; d. bef 25 Mar 1680, Flushing, Long Island, New York) does not have a line extending back to Edward III. His most recent royal ancestor appears to have been Edward the Elder. Bill Erbes