Mr. Verity seems to be unaware that besides of his descent from Edward I Robert Gosnold himself has 2 descents from Edward III through his father another Robert Gosnold himself son of yet another Robert Gosnold and Ursula Naunton daughter of William Naunton and Elizabeth Wingefield daughter of Anthony Wingfield and Elizabeth de Vere. Elizabeth has two well know descents from Edward III.

I think Danny Dyer's line was briefly presented to the newsgroup after it first aired but I'm not sure what date. I saw a discussion about it by Brad Verity on his blog page as well and he broke down each generation. As it happens, the Tollemache/Cromwell and Gosnold families are both related to my lines. Sir Henry Wentworth of Nettlestead (in the Cromwell/Tollemache pedigree) had a sister who was ancestral to William Farrar of Virginia in my father's line. The Gosnolds were descended from the Wingfields at Letheringham who were ancestral to another Virginia gateway, Diana Dale (née Skipwith) in my mother's line. I had the privilege of visiting Suffolk this past June and seeing the old Wingfield and Gosnold residences. The Tollemache family still lives in the area and even some Wingfields. You might google search Brad Verity's blog page and see if you can find the discussion about Danny Dyer. He did a thorough overview of each generation. Steve Riggan Sent from my iPad > On Sep 3, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Andrew Lancaster <lancaster.boon@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 4:25:39 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote: >> >> I would like to know did the Marquis de Ruvigny who was contemporany of Mary Ann Buttivant and said almost no one in the working classes were descendants from Edward III trace this line? If not I would say his studies were not as good as many say. Or did Ruvigny find some illegitimacy in the line to exclude it from his publications? > > As already said by someone else, a single exception would not prove de Ruvigny wrong, but I think more can be said. The probably of an Edward III descent goes up enormously every generation. > > As it happens my one Edward III descent is from a family who had a bankruptcy in Norfolk in about the same period. I think this is no coincidence. > > By the 16th century most of the higher level aristocracy had an Edward III descent, and the case of Cromwell shows how it was spreading into a wider group. By the 18th century the gentry, a growing class, had a lot of Edward III descents. > > But then we get to 1800. We only have to read Dickens to know that bankruptcies and social chaos was a big issue during and after the Napoleonic wars, sending many of the gentry into the working class, masses of people to the colonies and cities, and thoroughly mixing Britains's genes. > > By now, chances are that anyone of British ancestry on all side will have an Edward III descent. > > ------------------------------- > 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 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.

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 4:15:32 PM UTC-7, Steve Riggan wrote: > I think Danny Dyer's line was briefly presented to the newsgroup after it first aired but I'm not sure what date. I saw a discussion about it by Brad Verity on his blog page as well and he broke down each generation. As it happens, the Tollemache/Cromwell and Gosnold families are both related to my lines. Sir Henry Wentworth of Nettlestead (in the Cromwell/Tollemache pedigree) had a sister who was ancestral to William Farrar of Virginia in my father's line. The Gosnolds were descended from the Wingfields at Letheringham who were ancestral to another Virginia gateway, Diana Dale (née Skipwith) in my mother's line. I had the privilege of visiting Suffolk this past June and seeing the old Wingfield and Gosnold residences. The Tollemache family still lives in the area and even some Wingfields. You might google search Brad Verity's blog page and see if you can find the discussion about Danny Dyer. He did a thorough overview of each generation. > > Steve Riggan > I can't see that the Danny Dyer royal descent has ever been discussed in this group. But here is Brad Verity' blog post on the subject. As Steve says, it's very thorough - well worth a read. https://royaldescent.blogspot.com/2017/01/99-edward-iii-descent-for-danny-dyer-b.html

On 03/09/17 15:25, Paulo Canedo wrote: > I would like to know did the Marquis de Ruvigny who was contemporany > of Mary Ann Buttivant and said almost no one in the working classes > were descendants from Edward III trace this line? If not I would say > his studies were not as good as many say. Or did Ruvigny find some > illegitimacy in the line to exclude it from his publications? I have no idea whether de Ruvigny knew of this line, but I would be interested to know exactly what he said about working class descendants of Edward III. 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. 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. But perhaps that's not what de Ruvigny meant. If what he meant was that only a small proportion of the working classes had a verifiable descent, I would agree. And I would absolutely agree if he meant that only a small proportion were aware that they had a verifiable descent from Edward III. We also need to remember that a century has elapsed since de Ruvigny's time, during which there has been a further century of social mobility, of population expansion, and most importantly, interest in genealogy has really taken off outside the gentry. Richard

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. taf

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 10:11:11 AM UTC-7, johnba...@gmail.com wrote: > It's speculation of a different kind but of almost equally certainty of proof that Marshall was murdered. A conspiracy . . . . No. Just NO! It is rare when I step into a discussion in my role as administrator of the GEN-MED mailing list, but here we go. Let this serve as notice - as GEN-MED administrator, I will come down hard on any discussion of the sexual orientation of a modern person, let alone a murder conspiracy theory predicated on it or generalizations about homosexuals as a group. Whether or not the subject is or was a medieval genealogist, whether the comment is sympathetic or condemnatory, such material will invariably cause offense and can only lead to places we don't want the list to go. I can't stop posting to soc.gen.med, but if you ever want any of your material crossing the gateway and being seen by the list, ever again, you will not participate in this or similar discussion. Any concerns with this policy should be raised in private by email, not on the list/group. GEN-MEDIEVAL Administrator gen.medieval - at - gmail.com

On 8/30/2017 8:14 PM, taf wrote: > Without a paper trail (and that is after all why we are doing this) > you would have to compare all 7 billion genomes on the planet to every > other one, a 50 septillion-fold matrix with a million sites in each > genome to compare. If you have a supercomputer that can do a > million-site comparison in a millionth of a second, it would still > take about 37 million years to complete the comparisons. Once you > start matching sibling genomes and reconstructing hypothetical > parental genomes, each of those would then have to be compared to all > 7 billion. It is ludicrous to suggest such an analysis would take > place, even were the data all to be collected. (and this doesn't even > take the data-loss problem into account) Although the problem would still be daunting, the data would not be entirely random, and there are mathematical and statistical tricks which would make the analysis less extreme than what you suggest. My guess is that if that part of the present thought experiment is not possible with current technology, then it will be before long. On the other hand, getting the necessary samples from every living person on the planet would be orders of magnitude more difficult, and obviously impossible in today's world. Assuming for the sake of argument that the samples were obtained and the analysis were done, and the no-paper-trail genealogy of all of humanity was traced back as far as reasonable confidence would allow, the data loss you have been discussing would cause the tree to fade away to virtually nothing by medieval times.  That much seems clear, but how far back could you get by such methods?  For a given individual, this would depend on numerous factors, and the results would obviously vary.  Based on my experience, I am throwing out what I consider to be reasonable GUESSES, backed up by no evidence whatsoever, as to what would be possible: For individuals with no close living relatives: 0 generations. For individuals with some, but fewer than average, close living relatives: 1-2 generations. For individuals with an average number of close living relatives: 3-4 generations. For individuals with several living siblings and a large number of living cousins on all sides: 5-6 generations. In lucky cases, 7-10 generations in some lines. For populations with significant inbreeding, I would expect these numbers to be smaller. Am I in the right ball park?  Has this "thought experiment" even been studied in any detail? Stewart Baldwin

Em domingo, 3 de setembro de 2017 19:48:58 UTC+1, Richard Smith escreveu: > On 03/09/17 15:25, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > I would like to know did the Marquis de Ruvigny who was contemporany > > of Mary Ann Buttivant and said almost no one in the working classes > > were descendants from Edward III trace this line? If not I would say > > his studies were not as good as many say. Or did Ruvigny find some > > illegitimacy in the line to exclude it from his publications? > > I have no idea whether de Ruvigny knew of this line, but I would be > interested to know exactly what he said about working class descendants > of Edward III. > > 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. > > 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. > > But perhaps that's not what de Ruvigny meant. If what he meant was that > only a small proportion of the working classes had a verifiable descent, > I would agree. And I would absolutely agree if he meant that only a > small proportion were aware that they had a verifiable descent from > Edward III. > > We also need to remember that a century has elapsed since de Ruvigny's > time, during which there has been a further century of social mobility, > of population expansion, and most importantly, interest in genealogy has > really taken off outside the gentry. > > Richard Ruvigny said ´with some few exceptions, [no royally descended families] have descended to or are at least traceable among the trading or labouring classes`.

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 4:25:39 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote: > I would like to know did the Marquis de Ruvigny who was contemporany of Mary Ann Buttivant and said almost no one in the working classes were descendants from Edward III trace this line? If not I would say his studies were not as good as many say. Or did Ruvigny find some illegitimacy in the line to exclude it from his publications? As already said by someone else, a single exception would not prove de Ruvigny wrong, but I think more can be said. The probably of an Edward III descent goes up enormously every generation. As it happens my one Edward III descent is from a family who had a bankruptcy in Norfolk in about the same period. I think this is no coincidence. By the 16th century most of the higher level aristocracy had an Edward III descent, and the case of Cromwell shows how it was spreading into a wider group. By the 18th century the gentry, a growing class, had a lot of Edward III descents. But then we get to 1800. We only have to read Dickens to know that bankruptcies and social chaos was a big issue during and after the Napoleonic wars, sending many of the gentry into the working class, masses of people to the colonies and cities, and thoroughly mixing Britains's genes. By now, chances are that anyone of British ancestry on all side will have an Edward III descent.

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 10:25:39 AM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote: > I am surprised this was never brought to the newsgroup in episode 1 of the series 13 of the famous BBC programme Who Do You Think You Are? originally aired in 24 November 2016 Danny Dyer traced its roots through working class people in the East End of London who in the victorian day even worked at the infamous workhouse back to the famous Thomas Cromwell and his daughter in law Elizabeth Seymour sister of Queen Jane Seymour third wife of King Henry VIII and then back to King Edward III. It is pretty much given in https://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/featuredarticles/2016/who-do-you-think-you-are/danny-dyers-cockney-and-royal-roots-371/. This video http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p052k2jt is also useful. I'll post the line the show showed from Edward III to Danny Dyer but there are others. > > King Edward III > Lionel of Antwerp > Philippa Plantagenet married Edmund Mortimer > Elizabeth Mortimer married Sir Henry Percy > Elizabeth Percy married Lord John Clifford > Mary Clifford married Sir Philip Wentworth > Sir Henry Wentworth > Margery Wentworth married John Seymour > Elizabeth Seymour married Gregory Cromwell > Lord Henry Cromwell > Catherine Cromwell married Baronet Lionel Tolemache > Anne Tollemache married Robert Gosnold V > Robert Gosnold VI > Lionel Gosnold > Walter Gosnold > Tendring Gosnold > Charles Gosnold > Ann Gosnold married James Buttivant (It is mainly in this generation where the huge fall in the social realm ocurrs James was a manufacturer in Norwich that was declared bankrupt in 1799.) > Charles Buttivant (Charles was a cargo clerk who was employed in the Victualling Office that provided food to keep the Royal Navy fed.) > Albert Buttivant (Fall in the social realm also ocurrs in this generation Albert was a cigar maker who fell into such hard times that in 1881 as recorded in that year's census he and his wife were inmates at the Old Town Workhouse in Bracoft Road in the next census they were out of the workhouse he was a china picker and his wife was a washerwoman.) > Mary Ann Buttivant married John Wallace > Joyce Rudd married John Dyer > Anthony Dyer > Danny Dyer > > I would like to know did the Marquis de Ruvigny who was contemporany of Mary Ann Buttivant and said almost no one in the working classes were descendants from Edward III trace this line? If not I would say his studies were not as good as many say. Or did Ruvigny find some illegitimacy in the line to exclude it from his publications? > As usual comments are welcome. If he said almost, then this could simply have been one of the exceptions. It makes for a fascinating story regardless. I've wondered before if there was a connection between the number of people today with early medieval royal ancestry and how many people died during the Black Death. If those of the upper class were less likely to be exposed, because of living in fortifications, then it would make sense that those alive today of European ancestry would be their descendants.

I was introduced to Marshall in about 1989 by a mutual friend. A fellow Dudley descendant, he shared his research with me. I wish he'd survived into the age of DNA tests; I expect he'd have been a tireless advocate of exhuming John, 3rd Baron Dudley from St. Margaret's, Westminster, to confirm his (painstakingly supported but still speculative) theory that Roger Dudley (Governor Thomas's father) was the Baron's grandson. It's speculation of a different kind but of almost equally certainty of proof that Marshall was murdered. A conspiracy of right wing religious zealots, striking a blow, as they surely saw it, against "organized sodomy", sent a volunteer to seduce and kill our friend. 'After the Ball' was incredibly important to the success of the gay rights movement and his high-profile involvement in the project painted a big, pink target on his back. He wouldn't be the first gay man killed by a trick or the first one assasinated for his beliefs, his activism or for merely being. He may be one of the only ones done in by a combination of the two.

I am surprised this was never brought to the newsgroup in episode 1 of the series 13 of the famous BBC programme Who Do You Think You Are? originally aired in 24 November 2016 Danny Dyer traced its roots through working class people in the East End of London who in the victorian day even worked at the infamous workhouse back to the famous Thomas Cromwell and his daughter in law Elizabeth Seymour sister of Queen Jane Seymour third wife of King Henry VIII and then back to King Edward III. It is pretty much given in https://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/featuredarticles/2016/who-do-you-think-you-are/danny-dyers-cockney-and-royal-roots-371/. This video http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p052k2jt is also useful. I'll post the line the show showed from Edward III to Danny Dyer but there are others. King Edward III Lionel of Antwerp Philippa Plantagenet married Edmund Mortimer Elizabeth Mortimer married Sir Henry Percy Elizabeth Percy married Lord John Clifford Mary Clifford married Sir Philip Wentworth Sir Henry Wentworth Margery Wentworth married John Seymour Elizabeth Seymour married Gregory Cromwell Lord Henry Cromwell Catherine Cromwell married Baronet Lionel Tolemache Anne Tollemache married Robert Gosnold V Robert Gosnold VI Lionel Gosnold Walter Gosnold Tendring Gosnold Charles Gosnold Ann Gosnold married James Buttivant (It is mainly in this generation where the huge fall in the social realm ocurrs James was a manufacturer in Norwich that was declared bankrupt in 1799.) Charles Buttivant (Charles was a cargo clerk who was employed in the Victualling Office that provided food to keep the Royal Navy fed.) Albert Buttivant (Fall in the social realm also ocurrs in this generation Albert was a cigar maker who fell into such hard times that in 1881 as recorded in that year's census he and his wife were inmates at the Old Town Workhouse in Bracoft Road in the next census they were out of the workhouse he was a china picker and his wife was a washerwoman.) Mary Ann Buttivant married John Wallace Joyce Rudd married John Dyer Anthony Dyer Danny Dyer I would like to know did the Marquis de Ruvigny who was contemporany of Mary Ann Buttivant and said almost no one in the working classes were descendants from Edward III trace this line? If not I would say his studies were not as good as many say. Or did Ruvigny find some illegitimacy in the line to exclude it from his publications? As usual comments are welcome.

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 9:47:01 AM UTC-6, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 581-582 (sub Furnivallle) includes a good biography of Sir Thomas de Furnival, 1st Lord Furnival, who died in 1332. Regarding his first marriage, the following information is given: > > "He married, 1stly, before Jan. 1272/3 (at which date he was a minor), Joan, daughter of Sir Hugh le Despenser, of Ryhall, Rutland, Loughborough, co. Leicester, Parlington, co. York, &c., sometime Justiciar of England, by Aline, daughter and heiress of Sir Philip Basset, of Wycombe, Bucks, &c., also Justiciar of England." END OF QUOTE. > > The following documentation is provided for this marriage on page 581, footnote g, which reads: > > "Close Roll, 1 Edward I, m. 10 d." > > The modern printed reference to the above citation is Calendar of Close Rolls, 1272–1279 (1900): 41. This record is an agreement dated 13 Jan. 1272/3 regarding the already contracted marriage of Thomas, son of Thomas de Furnival, and Joan, daughter of Hugh le Despenser. > > The above record may be viewed at the following weblink: > > https://www.archive.org/stream/calendarclosero03changoog#page/n51/mode/2up > > This marriage surely took place, as among the children of Thomas de Furnival is a daughter named Aline, which daughter was doubtless named for Joan le Despenser's mother, Aline Basset, Countess of Norfolk. > > As we can see, Complete Peerage gives no indication as to when Joan le Despenser died. Nor have I seen her death date is any other published source. However, recently I located a Common Pleas lawsuit which indicates that Joan died testate sometime before Hilary term 1314. The lawsuit in question is abstracted below. > > In Hilary term 1314 Stephen de Stanham sued Thomas de Furnivall, Adam de Brom, and John, parson of the church of Whistan, Yorkshire, executors of the will of Joan late the wife of Thomas de Furnivall, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 100s. > > Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/204, image 229f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no204/aCP40no204fronts/IMG_0229.htm). > > For interest's sake, below is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Thomas de Furnival, 1st Lord Furnival (died 1332), and his 1st wife, Joan le Despenser: > > Robert Abell, William Asfordby, Christopher Batt, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Thomas Bressey, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Henry Corbin, Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Gerard Fowke, Thomas Greene, Muriel Gurdon, John Ireland, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, Joseph & Mary Need, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Thomas Rudyard, Richard Saltonstall, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, James Taylor, Margaret Touteville. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Thanks. I did find that Obadiah does descend from Peter Montfort, but that was through a mistress, not the granddaughter of Lord Furnival. Perhaps the confusion lies there. I did find that the daughter Maud (m. John Marmion) is ancestral to my St. Quintin line. If you care to, follow the green trees from here: http://gdcooke.org/ss/default.aspx/page/org2-o/p20762.htm Greg

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:57:35 AM UTC-6, gdco...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 9:47:01 AM UTC-6, Douglas Richardson wrote: > > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > > > Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 581-582 (sub Furnivallle) includes a good biography of Sir Thomas de Furnival, 1st Lord Furnival, who died in 1332. Regarding his first marriage, the following information is given: > > > > "He married, 1stly, before Jan. 1272/3 (at which date he was a minor), Joan, daughter of Sir Hugh le Despenser, of Ryhall, Rutland, Loughborough, co. Leicester, Parlington, co. York, &c., sometime Justiciar of England, by Aline, daughter and heiress of Sir Philip Basset, of Wycombe, Bucks, &c., also Justiciar of England." END OF QUOTE. > > > > The following documentation is provided for this marriage on page 581, footnote g, which reads: > > > > "Close Roll, 1 Edward I, m. 10 d." > > > > The modern printed reference to the above citation is Calendar of Close Rolls, 1272–1279 (1900): 41. This record is an agreement dated 13 Jan. 1272/3 regarding the already contracted marriage of Thomas, son of Thomas de Furnival, and Joan, daughter of Hugh le Despenser. > > > > The above record may be viewed at the following weblink: > > > > https://www.archive.org/stream/calendarclosero03changoog#page/n51/mode/2up > > > > This marriage surely took place, as among the children of Thomas de Furnival is a daughter named Aline, which daughter was doubtless named for Joan le Despenser's mother, Aline Basset, Countess of Norfolk. > > > > As we can see, Complete Peerage gives no indication as to when Joan le Despenser died. Nor have I seen her death date is any other published source. However, recently I located a Common Pleas lawsuit which indicates that Joan died testate sometime before Hilary term 1314. The lawsuit in question is abstracted below. > > > > In Hilary term 1314 Stephen de Stanham sued Thomas de Furnivall, Adam de Brom, and John, parson of the church of Whistan, Yorkshire, executors of the will of Joan late the wife of Thomas de Furnivall, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 100s. > > > > Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/204, image 229f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no204/aCP40no204fronts/IMG_0229.htm). > > > > For interest's sake, below is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Thomas de Furnival, 1st Lord Furnival (died 1332), and his 1st wife, Joan le Despenser: > > > > Robert Abell, William Asfordby, Christopher Batt, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Thomas Bressey, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Henry Corbin, Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Gerard Fowke, Thomas Greene, Muriel Gurdon, John Ireland, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, Joseph & Mary Need, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Thomas Rudyard, Richard Saltonstall, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, James Taylor, Margaret Touteville. > > > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > > Thanks for that tidbit. Could you give the line to Obadiah Bruen? I'm not seeing it. > > Thanks, > > Greg Cooke I checked my files. I'm not seeing the descent for Obadiah Bruen either. If I find it later, I'll be sure to let you know. DR

Dear Nicola ~ You've asked an interesting question. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 4 (1846): 89 includes the following person in his list of prioress of Wroxall: "Isabella, widow of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, knight" was a Prioress of Wroxall. She died in A.D. 1300." END OF QUOTE. The additional information is added in a footnote on this page: "So Dugdale, in the first edition of his History, from Chron. de Wroxhall, ut supr. fol. 9 a ... Dr. Thomas .... adds "Isabella de Clinton, injunctiones ab epis. missae fuere et monialibus reformare scandala, A.D. 1323." .... According to Willis's MSS. Notes in a copy of his Mitred Abbies, she died in 1330." END OF QUOTE. The above material can be found at the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=ynAzAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA89 You're correct that VCH Warwick 2 (1908): 70-73 refers to the abbess Isabel (not Ida) de Clinton as Prioress of Wroxall. Here is what is said in that source: "Bishop Cobham visited this nunnery in 1323, when he found grave discord existing between the prioress and Lady Isabel Clinton, some of the sisters adhering to the one and some to the other. He also found that cups and other vessels and utensils intended for hospitality had been sold, that hospitality and almsgiving were insufficient, and that there were scarcely enough necessaries for the sisters ... It would seem that the party of Isabel de Clinton obtained the victory, for Agnes was succeeded by Isabel, widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke, patron of the house. On the death of Isabel the temporalities were seized by the too great zeal of the county escheator. On 13 November, 1325, John de Bolingbrok, escheator for Warwickshire, was ordered to meddle no further with the priory of Wroxall or any of its possessions, which he had taken into the king's hands at the late voidance." END OF QUOTE. Reviewing the above, it would appear that we have no less than three different death dates for Isabel the prioress, 1300, 1330, and 1325. Likewise this prioress is identified by both Dugdale and VCH Warwick as the widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke. If she was the widow of Sir John de Clinton of Maxstoke, "patron" of Wroxall, she can only have been his known widow, Ida de Oddingseles. However, Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 312–313 (sub Clinton) makes no mention that Ida was a Prioress, only that she was living 1 March 1321/2. Elsewhere Smith and London, Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, II. 1216–1377 (2001): 624 merely adds to the confusion. They make no mention of either Ida or Isabel de Clinton as prioress. Rather they say an Isabel de Fokeram occurs as prioress 13 March 1328 (Records of Wroxall, no. 44) and 2 Oct. 1328 (PRO, E326/5500). They list a second and apparently separate Isabel de Fokerham who served as prioress in 1339-1352. See the following weblink for this source: https://books.google.com/books?id=aRDqqGWj3ikC&pg=PA624 If you're shaking your head and say you don't understand, join the club. Here's what I know about the later life of Ida de Oddingseles, widow of Sir John de Clinton, of Maxstoke: In 1319 Ida, widow of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, was summoned to answer William la Zouche [Mortimer] concerning a plea that she surrender to him [her son] John son and heir of John de Clinton of Maxstoke, whose wardship belonged to the said William, for reason that John de Clinton held his land of him by knight’s service. The said Ida came by William de Coleshill her attorney and said that she held the aforesaid wardship by the lease of William la Zouche [Mortimer], lord of Ashby, Alice the widow of Sir Guy de Beauchamp, Simon de Sutton, and William de Wellesbourne, executors of the will of Guy de Beauchamp, late earl of Warwick; she vouched to warranty the said William, Alice, etc. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/229, image 299f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no229/aCP40no229fronts/IMG_0299.htm)]. On 1 March 1321/2 the king ordered John de Walewayn, escheator this side Trent, to permit her to have the easement of houses in the manor of La Grove until further order. In Feb. 1322 she was granted protection for one year. On 8 April 1325 John Pecche the elder and John Murdak acknowledged in court that they owed Ida, widow of John de Clynton, a debt of £100; in Trinity term 1328, Ida then being deceased, her executors, John de Clynton, William de Clynton, and Henry de Lisle, were suing the said parties in the Court of Common Pleas for payment of the debt. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/274, image 49d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no274/bCP40no274dorses/IMG_0049.htm)]. In Trinity term 1328 Thomas de Hastang sued John de Clynton, William de Clynton, and Henry del Idle, executors of the will of Ida late the wife of John de Clynton, of Maxstoke, and John son of John de Clynton in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £200. [Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/274, image 378d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E3/CP40no274/bCP40no274dorses/IMG_0378.htm). In summary, I can accept that Ida de Oddingseles is the Lady "Isabel" de Clinton" who was found to be in grave discord with Agnes, Prioress of Wroxall, in 1323. Although Dugdale and VCH Warwick 2 suggest otherwise, Ida was surely not a prioress on 8 April 1325 when John Pecche and John Murdak acknowledged that they owed her a debt. Likewise Ida de Oddingseles is not styled prioress of Maxstoke in the last two legal matters in 1328 which immediately follow her death. Given these facts and that Smith and London do not include Ida as a prioress of Wroxall, I conclude that she was not prioress of Wroxall as alleged by Dugdale and VCH Warwick 2. Possibly new information may be found which sheds additional light on this confusing matter. I see VCH Warwick 2 cites the Register of Walter Reynolds, Bishop of Worcester (which is in print), which source I haven't yet examined. To be thorough, this source should be checked. If you have access to the bishops's register, please let me know. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 4:59:20 AM UTC-6, Nicola Lowe wrote: > On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 8:11:50 PM UTC+1, Peter Howarth wrote: > > On Monday, 24 July 2017 18:02:33 UTC+1, Nicola Lowe wrote: > > > > > Dear Peter, > > > > > > Thank you very much for your help and pointers to resources, particularly your reference to the shield of Ralph de Grey which is described but not identified in Blair's article. If Ralph had a shield of his own, what conclusion can I draw? Does it mean that he lived to 21? Thank you again, Nicola > > > > The only extant copy of the Carlisle Roll says that it is a list of earls, bannerets and knights present in the vanguard of Edward III's host at Carlisle on 12 July 1334. At this time each knight would be expected to bear arms as identification, not in battle as the old books claim, but in order to help with the organising of each banneret's group of knights. The earls and bannerets appear at the beginning of the roll. At number 218, Ralph Grey was well down the list, not too far from the end, where numbers 241-275 were German knights serving under William, Count of Jülich and Earl of Cambridge. This suggests that he was not one of the more experienced knights. In the case of Scrope v Grosvenor in 1389, several of the witnesses claimed to have been on campaign, one or two in actual battle, from their early or mid teens onwards. Edward of Carnarvon (later Edward II), born 1284, went on campaign in Scotland with his father from 1300 onwards. There can therefore be no guarantee that Ralph Grey would be of age in 1334. > > > > One other point. Younger sons were often discouraged from marrying unless they had found themselves an heiress. I have a few times found an unmarried younger son in one generation followed by another unmarried younger son in the next generation both of whom held the same manor for life and bore the same differenced coat of arms. The arms attributed to Ralph Grey appear in three windows in Cogges church, more often than any other arms apart from those for Grey of Rothermere itself. That could mean something -- or nothing. > > > > Peter Howarth > > > Dear all, > > Can anyone help me sort out the following please? > Margaret Oddingsell's eldest sister was Ida who as Douglas Richardson shows in Plantagenet Ancestry (p 545-6) married first Roger de Herdebergh and then John Clinton (d. 1311). He goes on to say that some time after John's death Ida entered the convent at Wroxall and became prioress, dying in office in 1325. > > This is partly confirmed in the 'Records of Wroxall Abbey and Manor', J.W. Ryland, 1903, xix, 17-18; and in VCH Warks 2, 70-73, except that both these sources call the woman Dame Isabella de Clinton, not Ida. Are they the same person? Could it be Ida's daughter-in-law? Her first son was called John (d. 1335). This wiki entry says he married Isabella de Beauchamp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_de_Beauchamp,_10th_Earl_of_Warwick. > > Any help much appreciated, thank you > Nicola

On 01/09/17 16:26, taf wrote: > It is not surprising that people with this surname claim descent from the Dukes of Norfolk, but if FT-DNA's Howard project is any indication, there is an extreme amount of variation, was would be expected with a patroymic. Patronymic? I'm not even convinced there's a single etymology of the name. Certainly here in the Holmfirth area the Howard spelling gradually replaced an earlier Heward. This may have been in response to the exemplar of the Howard ownership of Glossop with which there's always been a certain amount of communication. There were, however, Hewards here before there were supposedly any of the Howard family resident in Glossop. However Heward name itself only goes back to about 1700. Was it previously Hayward. Heyward, Heywood or Haywood, all of which are known locally, the first two apparently being occupational and the others place names? There was even an instance of Howood which could be a variation on Hoowood which only ceased to be an inhabited local place in the C20th. Howard is just one of a number of similar names which can easily morph into each other. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

From: Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> Sent: 02 September 2017 01:41 <snip> > Mr. Denholm-Young gives the following documentation for this pedigree: > > "This portion of the Delaware tree, not known to Farrer (Fees, iii. 354), is derived from A.R. 233, m. 6d. In the case there found against John and Olimpia his wife (in 1256) for land of her inheritance, as she asserted, in Leaden Roding, of the Warenne fee in Essex, this pedigree was produced." END OF QUOTE. > > We see that Complete Peerage cited as its source, Assize Roll, no 237, m. 6 or 7, whereas Denholm-Young has cited Assize Roll 233, m. 6d. Which is correct? > > So far I haven't been able to find either of the Assize documents, but it would seem that Denholm-Young is more likely correct as he appear to quote the exact pedigree found in his document. ... <snip> Here it is, Douglas: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no233/bJUST1no233dorses/IMG_7066.htm Matt Tompkins

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 6:53:15 PM UTC+2, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > On 8/30/2017 11:36 AM, wjhonson wrote: > > > Like I said, relying on Y matches *with* a "strong paper trail" is the > > quest of fools and old sponges. > > If you have not used Autosomal DNA to even show that you are related to your own "relatives", than you need to start from scratch. > > Repeating such statements over and over again does not make them true.  > You seem to offer no justification for these statements beyond some > general concerns that maybe some combination of unlikely events has > caused the evidence to be misinterpreted.  Indeed, and to point to another problem with this logic, you can be a perfectly good genealogist without actually knowing even your own parents, so you can also be a perfectly good medieval genealogist without knowing any medieval ancestors that you have. When we work on the family tree of a spouse, or a famous person or whoever, it is not worthless genealogy just because we know we will not match the people we are studying in an autosomal test. It is also not value-less because we know it might contain mistakes. >From that perspective any family tree that POTENTIALLY contains a mistake somewhere is still a real family tree with real genealogical value. You should assume every family tree has mistakes, even after thorough autosomal testing, which is very occasionally helpful in a limited number of relationships it can help check. The aim is to find and correct them when new information including DNA is available, but you will never complete this task perfectly. Judging things as value-less unless they attain an impossible level of perfection leads to impractical logical absurdity.

Dear Newsgroup ~ Complete Peerage 4 (1916): 139–140 (sub De La Warr) has a good account of Sir Roger la Warre, 1st Lord la Warre, who died in 1320. Regarding his parentage, the following information is provided: "Sir Roger la Warre ... son and heir of Sir John la Warre (living 27 May 1277), of Wickwar [co. Gloucester] and Brislington [Somerset], by Olimpia, daughter of Sir Hugh de Fokinton, of Folkington, Isfield, etc." END OF QUOTE. On page 140, footnote a, the following information is given regarding Sir Roger la Warre's mother Olimpia de Folkington: "Olimpia was married before 20 Jan. 1242/3, and was living in August 1265. Her father, Hugh (whose widow, Margaret, married William Englefield, and was living in April 1252), was son and heir of Hugh de Fokinton, of Folkington, Isfield, Tarring, Exceat, and Cholington, who died before 1 June 1214, leaving a widow, Egeline. (Feet of Fines, case 233, file 5, no. 23, file 15, no. 7; case 234, file 18, no. 12: Assize Roll, no 237, m. 6 or 7). The elder Hugh, proavus of Roger la Warre kt., gave one-third of the advowson of Tarring to the monks of Lewes (Ancient Deeds, A, no. 13131). Cf. Cartulary of Lewes, Cotton MSS., Vesp., F 15, ff. 65, 70 v, 79 v." END OF QUOTE. The Folkington pedigree seems pretty straight foward and well documented. VCH Sussex 7 (1940): 223-227 follows the Complete Peerage version of the Folkington family. However, both sources are wrong. The historian Noel Denholm-Young in his book, Seignorial Administration in England, published in 1963, gives a different Folkington pedigree. On page 178, he gives the following descent: 1. Hugh de Folkington (1) = Constance = (2) Roger 2. Hugh, kt. [He had two sons, Geoffrey and Hugh]. 3. Geoffrey 4. Olimpia = John la Ware 5. Roger, first Lord Delaware = Clarice The above pedigree may be viewed at the following weblink: https://books.google.com/books?id=3LuURx_QBbwC&pg=PA178 Mr. Denholm-Young gives the following documentation for this pedigree: "This portion of the Delaware tree, not known to Farrer (Fees, iii. 354), is derived from A.R. 233, m. 6d. In the case there found against John and Olimpia his wife (in 1256) for land of her inheritance, as she asserted, in Leaden Roding, of the Warenne fee in Essex, this pedigree was produced." END OF QUOTE. We see that Complete Peerage cited as its source, Assize Roll, no 237, m. 6 or 7, whereas Denholm-Young has cited Assize Roll 233, m. 6d. Which is correct? So far I haven't been able to find either of the Assize documents, but it would seem that Denholm-Young is more likely correct as he appear to quote the exact pedigree found in his document. Be that as it may, elsewhere I've managed to locate a Common Pleas lawsuit dated Hilary term 1283 in which Sir Roger la Warre, 1st Lord la Warre, set forth his own pedigree going back to his 3rd great-grandmother named Levene, sister of a certain Maud, of Norfolk, living in the reign of King John. Here is the arrangement of Folkington pedigree from that record, with an attendant list of successive heirs. Material is brackets has been added by me for clarification. l. Maud, lady of Heye Weasenham and Ingham, Norfolk temp. King John. Her heir was her son: 2. Richard, who died without issue. His heir was his brother: 3. Ralph, who died without issue. His heir was his brother: 4. William, who died without issue. His heir was his aunt: 5. Levene. Her heir was her son and heir, Hugh [de Folkington]. 6. Hugh [de Folkington]. His heir was his son and heir, Hugh. 7. Hugh [de Folington]. His heir was his son and heir, Geoffrey. 8. Geoffrey [de Folkington]. His heir was his son and heir, Ralph. 9. Ralph [de Folkington]. He died without issue. His heir was his sister, Olimpia. 10. Olimpia [de Folkington, wife of John la Warre]. Her successive heirs were her six sons, Jordan, John, Ralph, James, Laurence, and Roger [la Warre]. The above lawsuit dated 1283 is in complete agreement with pedigree in the Assize Roll document cited by Mr. Denholm-Young. As such, it would appear that Mr. Denholm-Young's pedigree is correct. The 1283 lawsuit may be viewed at the following weblink: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E1/CP40no48/CP40no48afr/IMG_6912.htm I note that Blomefield, Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, Volume 10 (1809): 75-81 adds the following information regarding Sir Roger la Warre: "Roger de la Ware impleaded several persons in the 10th of Edward I. [1281-2] for lands in Hey Wesenham, Rugham Magna and Parva, and Fransham, as his right, whereof his ancestors were seized in the time of King John, and before this, in the 3d of the said reign, when a Quo Warranto was issued out, the lord of this manor claimed assise, &c." In summary, it appears from the 1283 Common Pleas lawsuit and the pedigree provided by Mr. Denholm-Young from an Assize Roll that Olimpia, the mother of Sir Roger la Warre, was the daughter of Geoffrey de Folkington (not Hugh) and that she was the sister and heiress of Ralph de Folkington. For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Roger la Warre, 1st Lord Warre [died 1320], and his wife, Clarice de Tregoz: Frances Baldwin, Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen, Thomas Bressey, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas Butler, Francis Dade, Anne Humphrey, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Simon Lynde, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, John Stockman, Rose Stoughton, John West. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah