Out of my 16 great-great grandparents, only 3 have traceable royal ancestry. One is to Edward III and the others to Edward I. Most of my other lines can be traced as far as immigration to this country with only 5 or 6 to Europe. I have one of these lines can be traced to a prominent landed family in England in the 1400's but no royal descents. Steve Riggan Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 4, 2017, at 8:09 PM, Hal Bradley <colonialancestors@gmail.com> wrote: > > Peter, > > Out of my 16 great-great-grandparents: > > 6 with no relationship at all nor traceable ancestry to the 14th century. > 3 with descent from Edward III (one line which has been challenged with > good arguments on both sides; if not accepted then there is traceable > ancestry to Edward I). > 7 with traceable ancestry to Henry I, Henry II, John, Henry III or Edward I > with no descent from Edward III. > > So I have 7 or 8 of 16 great-great-grandparents who have at least one line > back to mid-14th-century England without running into Edward III. > > Hal Bradley > > > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Peter Stewart <psssst@optusnet.com.au> > wrote: > >>> On 05-Sep-17 10:37 AM, joecook@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> I dont think you want to entangle the Edward III question with the >>> charlemagne question. The number of generations since Charlemagne ensures >>> that even a model with the most insanely restrictive parameters imaginable >>> still shows that he is truly the father of practically all of present day >>> Europe. >>> I have a few *trillion* spaces in my ahnentafel to fill for people >>> contemporaneous to Charlemagne, and other than a few hundred people at a >>> time, nobody in Europe knew if their, say, 21x great grandfather was >>> Charlemagne or not, so clearly they did not selectively choose a spouse >>> based on that knowledge. >>> Even in a society with a very strict caste system there would have been >>> enough people who slept with the stable boy or the local hooker to ensure >>> the same result. >>> >> >> I agree, we can never know how far illegitimacy has spread any remote >> ancestor throughout the population. >> >> The Edward III question is already tangled enough in itself anyway - the >> supposed percentage of people with substantially English ancestry who may >> be his descendants is tangled up with the percentage of lines that may be >> traceable. >> >> 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. >> >> Statistics and estimates can be a dangerous temptation: 80% is a >> proportion that is bound to encourage speculation in genealogy - as with >> name transmission, where studies are often blithely ignored that find >> somewhat less than 80% of Frankish aristocrats in the 8th and 9th centuries >> can be shown to have been given names from either parent's family (for >> instance, 77% in western Francia according to Régine Le Jan, 66% in Swabia >> according to Hans-Werner Goetz). >> >> Peter Stewart >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 03/09/17 19:48, Richard Smith wrote: > It seems frequently to be repeated that "experts say" 80% of the > population (presumably meaning the English or perhaps British > population) are likely to be descended from Edward III. I've never seen > a citation for this figure, and it smacks a little of being an off the > cuff remark by someone who hadn't a statistical model to back it up; > nevertheless I don't intrinsically find it hard to believe. > > Of course, this supposed 80% figure refers to any descents, not a > verifiable descent. All the same, my guess would be the that the > majority of verifiable descendants of Edward III were either working > class or descended through a working class ancestor. During the last, > say, 300 years, during which period it is relatively straightforward to > trace descents regardless of social class, there have been vastly more > working class people than in the gentry. The big problem with general statements along the lines that 80%, 100% or whatever are so descended, and the converse (except for the 100% case) that they aren't, is that, in practice, they aren't falsifiable. If you can't pick up such a line by the time you get to the beginning of PRs you're unlikely to get further because documentation will be lacking. Prior to that date you're mostly going to depend on property records. Manorial tenants and freeholders might have some documentation, subtenants even less and, where you can get anything at all, lines will be sketchy, uncertain and incomplete. > Let's consider the documented descendants of Edward III living 1700. > Maybe very few were working class, but a small number demonstrably were. > Over the last 300 years, low class mobility means the descendants in > the gentry, which doubtless comprised the majority of the gentry, have > married into each other's families; while the few working class > descendants are so dissipated that are unlikely to have intermarried. > The result is that the number of verifiable working class descendants > will have increased enormously much faster than those in the gentry. So > I would be astonished if it were not now the case that the majority of > verifiable descendants were working class or had descents through a > working class ancestor. The same intermarriage that causes pedigree collapse in the gentry also applied, IME, further down the scale with the same effect. I can certainly find a number of 2nd cousin marriages in my own ancestry and one far more complex set of intermarriages which leaves me with 5 lines back to the same C17th couple. An earlier line has 4 out of 5 successive generations marrying Broadhead brides; I don't have any further information about their ancestry except that the Broadhead family goes back to the late C13th century hereabouts and although they seem to have been one of the more prominent local families they were just manorial tenants. And then most of my brick walls involve one surname with, apparently, a single local ancestor who overlapped Edward III. I think the general theory behind the descents from Edward III/William I/Charlemagne is that they would have an increasing number of descendants in each generation so that after sufficient generations the theoretical number of descendants becomes greater than the actual population whilst the number of theoretical ancestors of each member of the later generation exceeds the English (or whatever) population at the time of the appropriate monarch. In practice cousin marriages of various degrees at all levels of society will have reduced this effect. The extent to which this interfered with the theory is, AFAICS untestable. So we have a bundle of hypotheses which are inherently unfalsifiable and yet we seem condemned to discuss them at fairly frequent intervals. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

Thanks. Will do. Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 4, 2017, at 3:55 PM, John Higgins <jhigginsgen@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 3:22:14 PM UTC-7, Steve Riggan wrote: >> Very interesting information! I had not seen these details before on the later lineage and it may explain a lot about the later condition of the family. Yes they were very tough survivors. I am in touch with Albert and Anne's great granddaughter so will share this with her. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Paulo Canedo <pauloricardocanedo2@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Brad Verity gives some more details on how the Buttivants became poor. The 1799 bankruptcy wasn't really the main issue since James recovered from it. In 1806, he was appointed inspector of Norwich camblets for the East India and in 1809 he and his family moved to Kennington a suburb of London. James and Anne had a great family with 10 children but in April 1824 they received the news of the death of their oldest son John Henry Buttivant in the previous summer in Macau. It was fatal to James he died a month later in May 1824. His death was registered in the Gentlemen's Magazine showing he had achieved certain social status but it was also the peak of that status. Because of the deaths of both James and John the family was left in mourning and in a precarious financial situation. The widowed Anne returned to Norwich settling in the suburb of Bracondale with her eldest daughter Sarah a spinster who was the only beneficiary and excutrix of her will. >>> Charles is the generation that starts from a mercantile middle-class family in a London suburb, and ends in the slums of Victorian London's East End he is a tragical figute. He was the third of five sons and only 19 years old when his father died. The 1827 bankruptcy of his father's trading business in East India House was actually fault of his elder brother James and of his brother-in-law Henry Illingworth husband of his sister Catherine however it still had a negative impact on Charles and his brothers with the family business lost they had to start their own careers. Charles started promisingly enough forming W. Goddard as coal merchants on Milbank Street in Westminster. In 1830 at 26 he married Mary Ann Frampton and starting in 1836 they had five surviving children but a decade after the birth of his first surviving child ie in 1846 things began becoming sour for Charles: his business partnership dissolved in 1846, and Charles went from being a coal merchant to bein! g a secretary to coal merchants. About this time, he started up an affair with Hannah Wing who was 20 years younger and who bore him the first of six children a year later ie in 1847. In 1851 they had the second. In 1861 Charles said in the Morning Post that he would not hold himself responsible for any debts of his wife Mary Ann could incur having separated more than 12 years before. That same year's census has Charles and Hannah living as a married couple in Whitechapel with their growing famiy. In that time divorce was very expensive only the upper class could afford it. Common law wifes such as Hannah could assume the surname of the man they were living with but they had no legal rights or recourse. However at this point Charles's downward spiral was far more concerning than his bigamy. Eventually he suicided in 1865. At the inquest held at the Wellington Tavern, Cannon Street Road two nights aftet that Mr. C. Emerson George testified, "I was an intimate friend of the d! eceased. He had fallen into great difficulties in consequence ! > of n! >>> ot being able to get cargoes for ships. He was a man of good ability and education, and he was always trying to get something to do, but the worst of it was that whenever a ship went in, somebody else, younger men than himself, always got hold of it. His furniture was going to be removed under a bill of sale...and the landlord had threatened to distrain for the rent. He had been summoned to the county court for one debt, and for another he had been served with a writ. He had been requested by the guardians of the poor to appear before them to show cause why he did not pay the arrears of the poor-rate...He failed through sheer misfortune" ['Suicide Through Misfortune', Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, July 16, 1865]. The physician at the inquest testified that Charles had "expired in consequence of taking a very large dose of oil of bitter almonds. He had drunk about one ounce." But the most heartbreaking testimony came from Charles and Hannah's 18-year-old eldest daught! er, Hannah Martha Buttivant "The deceased was my father. He was a shipping clerk. He had latterly been very desponding in consequence of the reduced circumstances of his family. On Monday last I found him lying upon the bed in his room, groaning. There was a smell of bitter almonds in the room, and I said, 'Father, you have taken the bitter almonds!' He said to his youngest child, who was seated on the bed near him, 'Don't cry, dear.' I again spoke to him, and said, 'I cannot remain and see you suffering thus. I will go and call ma.' He gave a groan and exclaimed, 'Oh, my God!' He died in half an hour in the presence of three doctors. He had been given the bottle of bitter almonds at the docks by a person who brought it with him to this country from a chemist in Port Adelaide". The jury at the inquest returned a verdict that the deceased took his own life in a state of temporary mental derangement. Hannah Wing kept the Buttivant surname and the public status as Charles's wi! dow for the rest of her long life. She married off all three o! > f her daught! >>> ers, and continued to hold her family together as a single mother in the East End working as a laundress. She died in the London suburb of Islington in 1909 at age 83. >>> Charles's suice would have haunted all of his children but 14 years old Albert his eldest son by his second wife seemed to be more particularly affected. Though one of Charles's sons from his first marriage -- George Edward Buttivant spent time in and out of the workhouse in his senior years, Albert was the only one of Charles's eleven surviving children to suffer the workhouse during his 30s. He married Ann Howcutt, daughter of a Mile End blacksmith in early 1871, and they had a son who died in infancy and three daughters. Records from Mile End Old Town Workhouse on Bancroft Road show that Ann Buttivant and her youngest daughter, baby Mary Ann, were admitted as paupers in 1878. In in the 1881 census, both Albert and his wife are inmates at the workhouse. There are many further workhouse admission and discharge records for Albert Buttivant's family, including Mary Ann's elder sisters Eliza and Emma, with Albert and his wife in and out of the workhouse early into the 20th! century, as late as 1920. It's not clear why poverty overcame Albert to a more devastating degree than it did his siblings. Steady work eluded him: he started off in a cigar factory, and by his forties was a general labourer. From a social status viewpoint, Albert is basically the rock bottom of this entire line of descent. But, boy, were he and his wife made of stern stuff - together they survived their living conditions, both in and outside of the workhouse, and made it to a ripe old age, each dying at 83. >>> >>> I personally note that if Ruvigny had seen this line he would probably say that Albert's illegitimacy was the reason for his fall to poverty however that is certainly not the case since Charles and Hannah had a stable relationship, lived together and he was the chief of the family and Charles was already having a very difficult life. I wonder if Albert even knew that his parents were not legally married. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 > > If you're going to pass this on to Albert and Anne's descendant, you should refer them to Brad Verity's original post. Paulo's post is simply a rather liberal paraphrase of Brad's work - and substantially a verbatim quotation of Brad, without the benefit of quotation marks and with some errors introduced. > > I gave the link to Brad's essay in an earlier post which somehow was delayed in getting to the Rootsweb side of the gateway. Here it is again: > > https://royaldescent.blogspot.com/2017/01/99-edward-iii-descent-for-danny-dyer-b.html > > ------------------------------- > 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 Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 7:01:26 AM UTC+2, Peter Stewart wrote: > I wonder how much less frequent this kind of downward social mobility is > estimated to be in European countries where 'nobility' was somewhat more > like a caste system than in England. Edward III's contemporary the Holy > Roman emperor Charles IV had 10 children, but I haven't seen estimates > that 80% of any national population are probably descended from him. I have been working on Belgium lately. I do not think you can generalize usefully about Britain versus Europe. Within Britain I think there are very big differences between say the southeastern cities like London and Norwich, and the deep countryside (with their surrounding manors). There are also differences in the countryside, with the sparsely populated marches have quite a different dynamic for example. Within Europe there also massive regional differences. I think more useful is to look for factors which make a difference nearly always. Too suggest 3: whether the clergy could have children, whether there was a substantial merchant class, such as in the free cities whether the rural work was done by a large servile class (such as in heavily populated lowlands) or by thinner clan-like kinship networks (which I think was more typical in the pastoral economies of the marches).

On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 15:45:11 UTC+12, Steve Riggan wrote: > Out of my 16 great-great grandparents, only 3 have traceable royal ancestry. One is to Edward III and the others to Edward I. Most of my other lines can be traced as far as immigration to this country with only 5 or 6 to Europe. I have one of these lines can be traced to a prominent landed family in England in the 1400's but no royal descents. > > Steve Riggan > When you say "this country", which country do you mean. This is a newsgroup with a worldwide following, not just a following from one country. Robert O'Connor

Very interesting information! I had not seen these details before on the later lineage and it may explain a lot about the later condition of the family. Yes they were very tough survivors. I am in touch with Albert and Anne's great granddaughter so will share this with her. Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Paulo Canedo <pauloricardocanedo2@gmail.com> wrote: > > Brad Verity gives some more details on how the Buttivants became poor. The 1799 bankruptcy wasn't really the main issue since James recovered from it. In 1806, he was appointed inspector of Norwich camblets for the East India and in 1809 he and his family moved to Kennington a suburb of London. James and Anne had a great family with 10 children but in April 1824 they received the news of the death of their oldest son John Henry Buttivant in the previous summer in Macau. It was fatal to James he died a month later in May 1824. His death was registered in the Gentlemen's Magazine showing he had achieved certain social status but it was also the peak of that status. Because of the deaths of both James and John the family was left in mourning and in a precarious financial situation. The widowed Anne returned to Norwich settling in the suburb of Bracondale with her eldest daughter Sarah a spinster who was the only beneficiary and excutrix of her will. > Charles is the generation that starts from a mercantile middle-class family in a London suburb, and ends in the slums of Victorian London's East End he is a tragical figute. He was the third of five sons and only 19 years old when his father died. The 1827 bankruptcy of his father's trading business in East India House was actually fault of his elder brother James and of his brother-in-law Henry Illingworth husband of his sister Catherine however it still had a negative impact on Charles and his brothers with the family business lost they had to start their own careers. Charles started promisingly enough forming W. Goddard as coal merchants on Milbank Street in Westminster. In 1830 at 26 he married Mary Ann Frampton and starting in 1836 they had five surviving children but a decade after the birth of his first surviving child ie in 1846 things began becoming sour for Charles: his business partnership dissolved in 1846, and Charles went from being a coal merchant to being ! a secretary to coal merchants. About this time, he started up an affair with Hannah Wing who was 20 years younger and who bore him the first of six children a year later ie in 1847. In 1851 they had the second. In 1861 Charles said in the Morning Post that he would not hold himself responsible for any debts of his wife Mary Ann could incur having separated more than 12 years before. That same year's census has Charles and Hannah living as a married couple in Whitechapel with their growing famiy. In that time divorce was very expensive only the upper class could afford it. Common law wifes such as Hannah could assume the surname of the man they were living with but they had no legal rights or recourse. However at this point Charles's downward spiral was far more concerning than his bigamy. Eventually he suicided in 1865. At the inquest held at the Wellington Tavern, Cannon Street Road two nights aftet that Mr. C. Emerson George testified, "I was an intimate friend of the dec! eased. He had fallen into great difficulties in consequence of! n! > ot being able to get cargoes for ships. He was a man of good ability and education, and he was always trying to get something to do, but the worst of it was that whenever a ship went in, somebody else, younger men than himself, always got hold of it. His furniture was going to be removed under a bill of sale...and the landlord had threatened to distrain for the rent. He had been summoned to the county court for one debt, and for another he had been served with a writ. He had been requested by the guardians of the poor to appear before them to show cause why he did not pay the arrears of the poor-rate...He failed through sheer misfortune" ['Suicide Through Misfortune', Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, July 16, 1865]. The physician at the inquest testified that Charles had "expired in consequence of taking a very large dose of oil of bitter almonds. He had drunk about one ounce." But the most heartbreaking testimony came from Charles and Hannah's 18-year-old eldest daughter! , Hannah Martha Buttivant "The deceased was my father. He was a shipping clerk. He had latterly been very desponding in consequence of the reduced circumstances of his family. On Monday last I found him lying upon the bed in his room, groaning. There was a smell of bitter almonds in the room, and I said, 'Father, you have taken the bitter almonds!' He said to his youngest child, who was seated on the bed near him, 'Don't cry, dear.' I again spoke to him, and said, 'I cannot remain and see you suffering thus. I will go and call ma.' He gave a groan and exclaimed, 'Oh, my God!' He died in half an hour in the presence of three doctors. He had been given the bottle of bitter almonds at the docks by a person who brought it with him to this country from a chemist in Port Adelaide". The jury at the inquest returned a verdict that the deceased took his own life in a state of temporary mental derangement. Hannah Wing kept the Buttivant surname and the public status as Charles's wido! w for the rest of her long life. She married off all three of ! her daught! > ers, and continued to hold her family together as a single mother in the East End working as a laundress. She died in the London suburb of Islington in 1909 at age 83. > Charles's suice would have haunted all of his children but 14 years old Albert his eldest son by his second wife seemed to be more particularly affected. Though one of Charles's sons from his first marriage -- George Edward Buttivant spent time in and out of the workhouse in his senior years, Albert was the only one of Charles's eleven surviving children to suffer the workhouse during his 30s. He married Ann Howcutt, daughter of a Mile End blacksmith in early 1871, and they had a son who died in infancy and three daughters. Records from Mile End Old Town Workhouse on Bancroft Road show that Ann Buttivant and her youngest daughter, baby Mary Ann, were admitted as paupers in 1878. In in the 1881 census, both Albert and his wife are inmates at the workhouse. There are many further workhouse admission and discharge records for Albert Buttivant's family, including Mary Ann's elder sisters Eliza and Emma, with Albert and his wife in and out of the workhouse early into the 20th c! entury, as late as 1920. It's not clear why poverty overcame Albert to a more devastating degree than it did his siblings. Steady work eluded him: he started off in a cigar factory, and by his forties was a general labourer. From a social status viewpoint, Albert is basically the rock bottom of this entire line of descent. But, boy, were he and his wife made of stern stuff - together they survived their living conditions, both in and outside of the workhouse, and made it to a ripe old age, each dying at 83. > > I personally note that if Ruvigny had seen this line he would probably say that Albert's illegitimacy was the reason for his fall to poverty however that is certainly not the case since Charles and Hannah had a stable relationship, lived together and he was the chief of the family and Charles was already having a very difficult life. I wonder if Albert even knew that his parents were not legally married. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 Monday, September 4, 2017 at 4:19:41 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > My post was a mix of a copy and of a retelling. It's customary - and respectful of the author - to distinguish between "copying" (or quoting) and what you refer to as "retelling" by the appropriate use of quotation marks. This is particularly true in this case when so much of what you wrote is copying and therefore a quotation. Brad Verity's careful work deserves that respect.

Peter, Out of my 16 great-great-grandparents: 6 with no relationship at all nor traceable ancestry to the 14th century. 3 with descent from Edward III (one line which has been challenged with good arguments on both sides; if not accepted then there is traceable ancestry to Edward I). 7 with traceable ancestry to Henry I, Henry II, John, Henry III or Edward I with no descent from Edward III. So I have 7 or 8 of 16 great-great-grandparents who have at least one line back to mid-14th-century England without running into Edward III. Hal Bradley On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Peter Stewart <psssst@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 05-Sep-17 10:37 AM, joecook@gmail.com wrote: > >> I dont think you want to entangle the Edward III question with the >> charlemagne question. The number of generations since Charlemagne ensures >> that even a model with the most insanely restrictive parameters imaginable >> still shows that he is truly the father of practically all of present day >> Europe. >> I have a few *trillion* spaces in my ahnentafel to fill for people >> contemporaneous to Charlemagne, and other than a few hundred people at a >> time, nobody in Europe knew if their, say, 21x great grandfather was >> Charlemagne or not, so clearly they did not selectively choose a spouse >> based on that knowledge. >> Even in a society with a very strict caste system there would have been >> enough people who slept with the stable boy or the local hooker to ensure >> the same result. >> > > I agree, we can never know how far illegitimacy has spread any remote > ancestor throughout the population. > > The Edward III question is already tangled enough in itself anyway - the > supposed percentage of people with substantially English ancestry who may > be his descendants is tangled up with the percentage of lines that may be > traceable. > > 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. > > Statistics and estimates can be a dangerous temptation: 80% is a > proportion that is bound to encourage speculation in genealogy - as with > name transmission, where studies are often blithely ignored that find > somewhat less than 80% of Frankish aristocrats in the 8th and 9th centuries > can be shown to have been given names from either parent's family (for > instance, 77% in western Francia according to Régine Le Jan, 66% in Swabia > according to Hans-Werner Goetz). > > Peter Stewart > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 dont think you want to entangle the Edward III question with the charlemagne question. The number of generations since Charlemagne ensures that even a model with the most insanely restrictive parameters imaginable still shows that he is truly the father of practically all of present day Europe. I have a few *trillion* spaces in my ahnentafel to fill for people contemporaneous to Charlemagne, and other than a few hundred people at a time, nobody in Europe knew if their, say, 21x great grandfather was Charlemagne or not, so clearly they did not selectively choose a spouse based on that knowledge. Even in a society with a very strict caste system there would have been enough people who slept with the stable boy or the local hooker to ensure the same result.

My post was a mix of a copy and of a retelling.

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 2:51:31 PM UTC-7, Bronwen Edwards wrote: > My question is on the ancestry of William Apreece of Washingley (c1505-1574) who married Elizabeth Latimer before 1522. I have found several accounts of his ancestry but little in agreement. His father and paternal grandfather seem reasonable (Robert, d. 1555, son of Isaac), but things get murky beyond that. The name Apreece seems to be derived from ap Rhys/Rhese. According to Carl Boyer, Isaac was the son of "Inon" (?Einion)or John who was b. 1325, son of Mathew who was b. c1300,and Alice Malaphant of Upton. Mathew was, acc. to Boyer, son of Thomas Wogan, b. 1270, & Isabel de Londres. Thomas was son of Walter Wogan, b. 1230, & Margaret Stanton, and so on back through Wogans to Dryffin, b. c1000, & Crisli ferch Iago, without a Rhys in sight. Stirnet at least gave me a Rhys, saying that Mathew, b.c1300, was son of Einion Sais, alive in 1271, & Lleucu? ferch Hywel. Einion was son of Rhys ap Hywel of Aberllynfi & Catrin ferch Gruffyd ap Gwyr. A lengthy pedigree is given for this Rhys, apparently to Tewdwr Mawr in the 11th C. > > Anyone? > > Bronwen Edwards In which of Carl Boyer's books does this information appear? I can't find these names in any of the three books of his of which I have copies.

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-4, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > "Cultural Chauvinism" & "Snobbish Pomposity" -- Interesting PC Labels. > > Lots Of Cultural, Ethnic, Socio-Economic & Political Baggage There... > > ...None Of It Really Useful In Conducting Mediaeval Genealogy. > > DSH > > Exitus Acta Probat We've been wondering where our Latin expert has been hiding. Glad to have you back and posting again!

My question is on the ancestry of William Apreece of Washingley (c1505-1574) who married Elizabeth Latimer before 1522. I have found several accounts of his ancestry but little in agreement. His father and paternal grandfather seem reasonable (Robert, d. 1555, son of Isaac), but things get murky beyond that. The name Apreece seems to be derived from ap Rhys/Rhese. According to Carl Boyer, Isaac was the son of "Inon" (?Einion)or John who was b. 1325, son of Mathew who was b. c1300,and Alice Malaphant of Upton. Mathew was, acc. to Boyer, son of Thomas Wogan, b. 1270, & Isabel de Londres. Thomas was son of Walter Wogan, b. 1230, & Margaret Stanton, and so on back through Wogans to Dryffin, b. c1000, & Crisli ferch Iago, without a Rhys in sight. Stirnet at least gave me a Rhys, saying that Mathew, b.c1300, was son of Einion Sais, alive in 1271, & Lleucu? ferch Hywel. Einion was son of Rhys ap Hywel of Aberllynfi & Catrin ferch Gruffyd ap Gwyr. A lengthy pedigree is given for this Rhys, apparently to Tewdwr Mawr in the 11th C. Anyone? Bronwen Edwards

Brad Verity gives some more details on how the Buttivants became poor. The 1799 bankruptcy wasn't really the main issue since James recovered from it. In 1806, he was appointed inspector of Norwich camblets for the East India and in 1809 he and his family moved to Kennington a suburb of London. James and Anne had a great family with 10 children but in April 1824 they received the news of the death of their oldest son John Henry Buttivant in the previous summer in Macau. It was fatal to James he died a month later in May 1824. His death was registered in the Gentlemen's Magazine showing he had achieved certain social status but it was also the peak of that status. Because of the deaths of both James and John the family was left in mourning and in a precarious financial situation. The widowed Anne returned to Norwich settling in the suburb of Bracondale with her eldest daughter Sarah a spinster who was the only beneficiary and excutrix of her will. Charles is the generation that starts from a mercantile middle-class family in a London suburb, and ends in the slums of Victorian London's East End he is a tragical figute. He was the third of five sons and only 19 years old when his father died. The 1827 bankruptcy of his father's trading business in East India House was actually fault of his elder brother James and of his brother-in-law Henry Illingworth husband of his sister Catherine however it still had a negative impact on Charles and his brothers with the family business lost they had to start their own careers. Charles started promisingly enough forming W. Goddard as coal merchants on Milbank Street in Westminster. In 1830 at 26 he married Mary Ann Frampton and starting in 1836 they had five surviving children but a decade after the birth of his first surviving child ie in 1846 things began becoming sour for Charles: his business partnership dissolved in 1846, and Charles went from being a coal merchant to being a secretary to coal merchants. About this time, he started up an affair with Hannah Wing who was 20 years younger and who bore him the first of six children a year later ie in 1847. In 1851 they had the second. In 1861 Charles said in the Morning Post that he would not hold himself responsible for any debts of his wife Mary Ann could incur having separated more than 12 years before. That same year's census has Charles and Hannah living as a married couple in Whitechapel with their growing famiy. In that time divorce was very expensive only the upper class could afford it. Common law wifes such as Hannah could assume the surname of the man they were living with but they had no legal rights or recourse. However at this point Charles's downward spiral was far more concerning than his bigamy. Eventually he suicided in 1865. At the inquest held at the Wellington Tavern, Cannon Street Road two nights aftet that Mr. C. Emerson George testified, "I was an intimate friend of the deceased. He had fallen into great difficulties in consequence of not being able to get cargoes for ships. He was a man of good ability and education, and he was always trying to get something to do, but the worst of it was that whenever a ship went in, somebody else, younger men than himself, always got hold of it. His furniture was going to be removed under a bill of sale...and the landlord had threatened to distrain for the rent. He had been summoned to the county court for one debt, and for another he had been served with a writ. He had been requested by the guardians of the poor to appear before them to show cause why he did not pay the arrears of the poor-rate...He failed through sheer misfortune" ['Suicide Through Misfortune', Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, July 16, 1865]. The physician at the inquest testified that Charles had "expired in consequence of taking a very large dose of oil of bitter almonds. He had drunk about one ounce." But the most heartbreaking testimony came from Charles and Hannah's 18-year-old eldest daughter, Hannah Martha Buttivant "The deceased was my father. He was a shipping clerk. He had latterly been very desponding in consequence of the reduced circumstances of his family. On Monday last I found him lying upon the bed in his room, groaning. There was a smell of bitter almonds in the room, and I said, 'Father, you have taken the bitter almonds!' He said to his youngest child, who was seated on the bed near him, 'Don't cry, dear.' I again spoke to him, and said, 'I cannot remain and see you suffering thus. I will go and call ma.' He gave a groan and exclaimed, 'Oh, my God!' He died in half an hour in the presence of three doctors. He had been given the bottle of bitter almonds at the docks by a person who brought it with him to this country from a chemist in Port Adelaide". The jury at the inquest returned a verdict that the deceased took his own life in a state of temporary mental derangement. Hannah Wing kept the Buttivant surname and the public status as Charles's widow for the rest of her long life. She married off all three of her daughters, and continued to hold her family together as a single mother in the East End working as a laundress. She died in the London suburb of Islington in 1909 at age 83. Charles's suice would have haunted all of his children but 14 years old Albert his eldest son by his second wife seemed to be more particularly affected. Though one of Charles's sons from his first marriage -- George Edward Buttivant spent time in and out of the workhouse in his senior years, Albert was the only one of Charles's eleven surviving children to suffer the workhouse during his 30s. He married Ann Howcutt, daughter of a Mile End blacksmith in early 1871, and they had a son who died in infancy and three daughters. Records from Mile End Old Town Workhouse on Bancroft Road show that Ann Buttivant and her youngest daughter, baby Mary Ann, were admitted as paupers in 1878. In in the 1881 census, both Albert and his wife are inmates at the workhouse. There are many further workhouse admission and discharge records for Albert Buttivant's family, including Mary Ann's elder sisters Eliza and Emma, with Albert and his wife in and out of the workhouse early into the 20th century, as late as 1920. It's not clear why poverty overcame Albert to a more devastating degree than it did his siblings. Steady work eluded him: he started off in a cigar factory, and by his forties was a general labourer. From a social status viewpoint, Albert is basically the rock bottom of this entire line of descent. But, boy, were he and his wife made of stern stuff - together they survived their living conditions, both in and outside of the workhouse, and made it to a ripe old age, each dying at 83. I personally note that if Ruvigny had seen this line he would probably say that Albert's illegitimacy was the reason for his fall to poverty however that is certainly not the case since Charles and Hannah had a stable relationship, lived together and he was the chief of the family and Charles was already having a very difficult life. I wonder if Albert even knew that his parents were not legally married.

My grandmother and my grandfather on my mother's side were poor. Yet unbeknownst to her she was a direct descendant of Charlemagne and French and English aristocracy.

On 04-Sep-17 6:08 AM, taf wrote: > On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 11:57:00 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > >> Ruvigny said ´with some few exceptions, [no royally descended families] have >> descended to or are at least traceable among the trading or labouring >> classes`. > While adding the 'at least traceable' in there helps, it was still just cultural chauvinism. In the US alone there would have been hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of traceable descendants of Edward III at the time he wrote this, and though this may not have applied to the majority of those who bothered do the tracing, the majority of those with a traceable descent would have been of the 'trading and labouring' classes (unless you use an arbitrary definition whereby owning any land or house made one 'gentry', despite the fact you earned your keep by labor). > > Even in England, I suspect that this represents a failure to appreciate the social mobility among the trades, military, lower-gentry and clergy that would have left traceable lines if anyone set aside their social prejudice long enough to look. The apprenticeship records of the London livery companies are full of younger sons of gentry being apprenticed into the trades, and not all of them did well enough to go back and acquire lands in the country, as some did. 'Cultural chauvinism' is a neat way to put it - snobbish pomposity would also fit. The locution itself is stilted to the point of absurdity - 'descended to or at least traceable' in view of de Ruvigny's methodology could largely mean that the great unwashed did not often present themselves to heralds making visitations. If he had actively gone looking for descents through 'gentlemen' who went bankrupt or insane (for starters) he might have had a different impression. One corrective aspect to this can be seen by glancing at Gerald Paget's work on the ancestors of Prince Charles - through his maternal grandmother, a queen-empress consort no less - he has ancestors among the 'trading or labouring classes' and/or who are untraceable. Ergo, intermarriage between social strata happened. It would be a stunning result if this could not be reflected in the obverse way, through descendants of royalty marrying 'down' the socio-economic scale rather than just their ancestors marrying 'up'. Peter Stewart

On 04/09/17 06:27, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 8:48:58 PM UTC+2, Richard Smith wrote: > >> It seems frequently to be repeated that "experts say" 80% of the >> population (presumably meaning the English or perhaps British >> population) are likely to be descended from Edward III. I've never seen >> a citation for this figure, and it smacks a little of being an off the >> cuff remark by someone who hadn't a statistical model to back it up; >> nevertheless I don't intrinsically find it hard to believe. > > One published source, but certainly not the only one, would be Ian > Mortimer's Edward III biography, which has a special appendix on this > subject. Thanks. I shall find myself a copy. Richard

It's been a while since I read it, but I think Anthony Wagner made a similar point in his "English Genealogy", that most people with mainly English ancestry are probably descended from Edward III. He also made the point that there has been a good deal more social mobility than people realize, that if you could find all of your ancestors back, say, 6 generations you would probably find a considerable social range. I'm saying this from memory so I can't quote chapter and verse.

Forget it the place usually given for William Stafford in web genealogies is wrong as shown in Plantagenet Ancestry he belonged to a completely different branch of the family.

I've deleted my previous message because I searched more and think the link through Elizabeth de Vere may fail in her maternal grandfather William Stafford his identitiy and ancestry seems debatable. Does anyone here know a good source about it?