Dear John ~ Many thanks for sharing these items with me and the newsgroup. Much appreciated. Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:39:10 PM UTC-6, John Watson wrote: < Hi Douglas, < < Here's a couple more references for you: < < 15 July 1290, Notification that William de Vescy and Isabella, late the wife < of John de Vescy, in the king's presence, by their letters patent gave in fee < simple to Collinus de Pruley all the right in the lands and ovens (furnis), in > Arboneires, which came to them by the death of the said John, brother of the < said William. Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward I, vol. 2: 1281-1292 (1893), < 375. < < 22 August 1290, Notification that William de Vescy and Isabella, late the wife < of John de Vescy, have given to Collinus de Pruley, in fee simple, their < interest in the lands and ovens (fornis) in Arboneyres, to hold of Agnes de < Hamel and her heirs for ever. Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward I, vol. 2: < 1281-1292 (1893), 382. < < 26 April 1318, Grant by Louis, bishop of Durham, to Aimery de Trew, his < kinsman, of the manor of Felling, which came to the bishop by forfeiture of < Walter de Selby, who had placed himself in the fealty of Robert Bruce; to be < held by Aimery and his heirs of the lord of the fee in perpetuity. Witnesses: < Henry Beaumont, Philip Darcy, Robert Breton', John de Lymbiri, knights; Mr < Richard de Eryom, Mr John del Isle; Thomas de Hessewell', Thomas de Sunbyri, < clerks. Date: Somerton', 26 April 1318. < Durham Cathedral Muniments, Register II, f.102r. < < 27 January 1332, Inspeximus and confirmation of the confirmation by William, < prior, and the convent of Durham; dated 10 January 1332, of letters of Lewis < bishop of Durham, dated Alverton, 27 December 1331, reciting that he had < granted to Americus de Trew, his kinsman, the manor of Fellyng, in the < bishopric of Durham, an escheat by the forfeiture of Walter de Selby who put < himself in the fealty of Robert de Bruys, to hold to him and his heirs by the < same services as the said Walter held by, and that Americus had since granted < the same to Thomas Surteyse, his heirs and assigns; and, in consideration of < services rendered by the said Thomas to the bishop and his church, ratifying < his estate in the said manor. Calendar of Patent Rolls, Edward III, vol. 2: < 1330-1334 (1893), 240. < < Pruley, or Prulay, would appear to be in France, possibly in Perche. < < Regards, < < John

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 11:47:34 AM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > In actuality the statistics on this point is not correct. > Or rather it's both correct and not correct. > > The genes do not half. You don't inherit a half-gene. Actually, they sometimes do, and you sometimes do. There are two types of crossovers that drive the 'halving', and one of them takes no notice whatsoever of where gene boundaries are - it is completely random. The other is not random, having hotspots and deserts, but it isn't entirely clear what defines these - it is not boundaries between individual genes, which for the most part don't exist, with the possibility of the same DNA being part of two different genes, but may be the boundaries of 'regulatory blocks' that include several full genes - that is just a guess, but it may be a valid one. > The segments, on average, and viewed globally, can be inherited in half > pieces, however there is a limit to that. There is not going to be a case > where you inherit, in a string of ten base pairs, one base pair from > randomly disconnected ancestors. In fact, the smallest divisible segments are probably in the 10s to 100s of thousands of bases, which is what puts a definite limit on the number of generations over which autosomal is likely to be informative without a huge amount of luck (for every ancestor from 1600 from whom you have a detectable preserved block, you have many more ancestors from whom you inherit no DNA whatsoever). These blocks pass intact for an incredibly long time, the block that includes the gene determining the most common form of blue eyes is about 150,000bp long and to have passed largely intact for more than 12,000 years. This presents a problem on two sides - relatively close relative may not share the block at all. If two people do share the block, it shows they are related, but perhaps too distantly to be genealogically relevant. taf

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 11:11:59 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > To Andrews point, the technology can't help you go further back since mathematically you can only halve a finite number of genes so many times. > > To Paulo's point, no,.it is not a flaw of adna that you can only go back so far anymore that a hammer is flawed because it can't brush your teeth > > Joe c In actuality the statistics on this point is not correct. Or rather it's both correct and not correct. The genes do not half. You don't inherit a half-gene. The segments, on average, and viewed globally, can be inherited in half pieces, however there is a limit to that. There is not going to be a case where you inherit, in a string of ten base pairs, one base pair from randomly disconnected ancestors. That's the problem with this viewpoint. What is actually seen, is segments being based down, sometimes for three generations, completely intact, while others are broken up. These sticky segments, which are different for each person, can point at a ancestral pair three hundred years in the past. Perhaps even six hundred years. The actual situation is murky at present. That we don't know who they are just yet, is not the same as saying they don't exist.

To Andrews point, the technology can't help you go further back since mathematically you can only halve a finite number of genes so many times. To Paulo's point, no,.it is not a flaw of adna that you can only go back so far anymore that a hammer is flawed because it can't brush your teeth Joe c

Em sábado, 26 de agosto de 2017 19:00:18 UTC+1, Andrew Lancaster escreveu: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:24:02 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > > Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't. > > > > The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule. > > The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story. > > No one in this discussion is dedicated to said quest. Y DNA is not useful for defining who you are, but then again MOST genealogy, of any type, is not useful for this. Sorry, but do you insanely think that tests other than Y DNA give an indication of you are personally? That's nuts. Great that it is less "patriarchal" though! :) > > Y DNA is especially potentially useful in genealogy if it is used to construct family trees of male lines. It can do it in a very clean way sometimes that you do not yet see with any other testing method. We have discussed many times on this list that the problem is that this requires triangulation of multiple results from families who sit in different branches of the tree. So if the promotional values of testing companies means that new tests are not coming any more then new results are also not coming any more. > > > Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists. > > No one is arguing otherwise. I said so. The question was about the merits of Y DNA which is currently not being much tested anymore, leading to less progress. (Like Steven I have long administered several projects.) > > > If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family. > > I have been involved in such testing for a long time, and had some interesting progress from it. I do not deny the genealogical value of autosomal testing. Wrong Y DNA is still much tested today.

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:24:02 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't. > > The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule. > The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story. No one in this discussion is dedicated to said quest. Y DNA is not useful for defining who you are, but then again MOST genealogy, of any type, is not useful for this. Sorry, but do you insanely think that tests other than Y DNA give an indication of you are personally? That's nuts. Great that it is less "patriarchal" though! :) Y DNA is especially potentially useful in genealogy if it is used to construct family trees of male lines. It can do it in a very clean way sometimes that you do not yet see with any other testing method. We have discussed many times on this list that the problem is that this requires triangulation of multiple results from families who sit in different branches of the tree. So if the promotional values of testing companies means that new tests are not coming any more then new results are also not coming any more. > Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists. No one is arguing otherwise. I said so. The question was about the merits of Y DNA which is currently not being much tested anymore, leading to less progress. (Like Steven I have long administered several projects.) > If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family. I have been involved in such testing for a long time, and had some interesting progress from it. I do not deny the genealogical value of autosomal testing.

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 10:52:27 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > The problem of autosomal DNA is that it becomes unreliable after some generations. > > To be honest I think that step by step the technology will allow analyses further back. Right now I think back to 1800 or so is not uncommon. It is a question of parsing the data, and also of having tests which will give more data. But for now... I think you're giving atDNA the short shrift. I have many cases where I'm matching sixth cousins, back to 1750, with 50cm matching. If I can just get other matches to load to gedmatch, that could be extended to seventh cousins. Personally I'm surprised to have such large segments survive two hundred years. DNA is spiky like that. It doesn't also half itself in every generation exactly cleanly. You can have sticky pieces that survive intact

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 10:36:20 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em sábado, 26 de agosto de 2017 18:24:02 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:20:55 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:17:51 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > > > There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA > > > > > > The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are available for comparison. > > > > > > Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries. > > > > > > (Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few centuries back.) > > > > > > We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use neutral methodologies. > > > > > > The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines. > > > > > > Contrary to your dismissal, almost every month I find new information of a genealogical nature. > > > > Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't. > > > > The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule. > > The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story. > > > > I have been doing my own genealogy for over thirty years, and yet just this year, I was able to fill in a missing maiden name for a 3rd great-grandmother. > > > > This was *only* possible because of my hunt among the slew of odd matches I was getting to the HARDING surname, which was not previously in my tree. > > > > Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists. > > > > In addition to that, at least three times in the *past year* I have had people, who had quite good trees, realize through Autosomal DNA that part of their tree is completely mythical, since an NPE occurred, recently. > > > > If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family. > > The problem of autosomal DNA is that it becomes unreliable after some generations. My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy. Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out they are not even related to them

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:36:20 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote: > The problem of autosomal DNA is that it becomes unreliable after some generations. To be honest I think that step by step the technology will allow analyses further back. Right now I think back to 1800 or so is not uncommon. It is a question of parsing the data, and also of having tests which will give more data. But for now...

Em sábado, 26 de agosto de 2017 18:24:02 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:20:55 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:17:51 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA > > > > The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are available for comparison. > > > > Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries. > > > > (Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few centuries back.) > > > > We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use neutral methodologies. > > > > The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines. > > > Contrary to your dismissal, almost every month I find new information of a genealogical nature. > > Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't. > > The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule. > The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story. > > I have been doing my own genealogy for over thirty years, and yet just this year, I was able to fill in a missing maiden name for a 3rd great-grandmother. > > This was *only* possible because of my hunt among the slew of odd matches I was getting to the HARDING surname, which was not previously in my tree. > > Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists. > > In addition to that, at least three times in the *past year* I have had people, who had quite good trees, realize through Autosomal DNA that part of their tree is completely mythical, since an NPE occurred, recently. > > If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family. The problem of autosomal DNA is that it becomes unreliable after some generations.

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:20:55 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:17:51 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA > > The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are available for comparison. > > Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries. > > (Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few centuries back.) > > We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use neutral methodologies. > > The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines. Contrary to your dismissal, almost every month I find new information of a genealogical nature. Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't. The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is minuscule. The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That women are not important to your own personal story. I have been doing my own genealogy for over thirty years, and yet just this year, I was able to fill in a missing maiden name for a 3rd great-grandmother. This was *only* possible because of my hunt among the slew of odd matches I was getting to the HARDING surname, which was not previously in my tree. Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists. In addition to that, at least three times in the *past year* I have had people, who had quite good trees, realize through Autosomal DNA that part of their tree is completely mythical, since an NPE occurred, recently. If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in mythology, in your own family.

Andrew and All: Family Tree DNA is having a sale this month on all of it's Y DNA, mtDNA, and autosomal DNA (Family Finder) tests: https://www.familytreedna.com/?c=1 23andMe used to give a decent indication of one's main mtDNA haplogroup, and for males, the Y DNA haplogroup. They have switched to a new SNP chip which has reduced their resolution for those tests: http://www.23andme.com/ Hopefully FTDNA comes through the current hurricane without damage to their facilities or personnel. Full disclosure: I am a volunteer admin for 12 Y DNA projects at FTDNA: Brashear, Creekmore, Kidd, Manning, Mowthrope/Maulthrop, Parkins-Perkins, Phipps, Strunk, Swain, Tunnell-Tonellier, Whitecotton, Wyatt. Steven On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 3:20 AM, Andrew Lancaster <lancaster.boon@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:17:51 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to > Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA > > The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those tests > are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data collecting for > estimating family trees increases depending upon how many samples are > available for comparison. > > Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is that this > is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for commercial > reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this for a > mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, the > tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of difficult-to-dismiss > matches, freeing the imagination to come up with satisfying narratives in a > style that the testing companies also successfully manage to promote in > newspapers etc as if they were scientific discoveries. > > (Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming from > autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are rarely > the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical success > stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a few > centuries back.) > > We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, are > driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's attraction to > certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us to use > neutral methodologies. > > The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to be on > software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear > methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such > algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler > in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic > genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines. > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins@gmail.com http://stevencperkins.com/ Indigenous Peoples' Rights http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html Indigenous & Ethnic Minority Legal News http://iemlnews.blogspot.com/ Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/ S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Page http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Blog http://scpgen.blogspot.com/

On 26-Aug-17 7:28 AM, Katherine Kennedy wrote: > I looked up the source and the translation of Saxo says specifically, "Once she had learnt of this, the queen ((Adela)) returned to her own country with her young son, leaving behind twin daughters: one of them, Ingerd, married Folke, an aristocrat of Swedish, and bore him sons, Bengt and Cnut;", so unless that translation is horribly flawed the text seems clear that Adela was their mother also. > https://books.google.com/books?id=MbK6BwAAQBAJ The translation is accurate - the Latin text (on the preceding page, vol ii p. 858) reads: 'Hec audiens [Adela] regina patriam cum filio impubere repetit, geminis post se relictis filiabus. Ex quibus Ingertha Folconi, Suetice gentis nobilissimo, nupta Benedictum Kanutumque filios habuit ...'. Saxo went on to report that the other twin, Cecilia, married Erik, prefect of Gotland, and had sons named Cnut and Karl from whom there were many descendants of this distinguished lineage ('Verum ex Caecilie matrimonio Ericus, Gothorum prefectus, Kanutum cum Karolo procreauit. Ex quibus generosissimarum imaginum numerosa posteritas clara propinquitatis serie coherens emersit.') Since they were twins and one of them had a son named Karl, it is more than highly likely that they were full-sisters to Charles the Good of Flanders. Also one of them, probably Cecilia, was mother of Arnold who was a contender to succeed as count of Flanders after the murder of Charles. Peter Stewart

On 26-Aug-17 8:56 AM, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 26-Aug-17 8:20 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote: >> Impressive work, Richard.  Nicely done. >> >> As far as any other indications of John Beaufort's approximate age >> are concerned, I know that in 1390, as Monseigneur Jehon de Biaufort >> [Sir John de Beaufort], bastart de Lancastre, he bore himself with >> credit at the jousts of Saint Inglevert.  The same year he joined the >> Crusade of Louis II, Duke of Bourbon, to Barbary, and was present at >> the futile Siege of El Mahadia southeast of Tunis. >> >> While men are known to have commenced military service as young as 16 >> in medieval times, my guess is that he was at least 17 or 18 in 1390, >> when these events took place.  That would place his birth as circa >> 1372 or 1373, which former date still allows for the possibility that >> his mother was married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when he was conceived. >> >> In which case, I think a review of Swynford DNA would be desirable to >> rule out any possibility that he was Sir Hugh de Swynford's son.  >> This shouldn't be too difficult to do. > > If you apply your caution of "Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe" to John > Beaufort with regard to John of Gaunt, you must apply it also with > regard to Hugh Swynford on the supposition that he was living at the > time of conception, and then to every generation in descent from both > men. Just because a modern person's DNA matches that of some medieval > remains does not prove either that those remains belong to whomever > you think was the modern person's ancestor, or that non-paternity of > the legal father did occur any number of times in the intervening > generations. Apologies, I meant "or that non-paternity of the legal father did not occur ..." Peter Stewart

On 26-Aug-17 8:20 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Impressive work, Richard. Nicely done. > > As far as any other indications of John Beaufort's approximate age are concerned, I know that in 1390, as Monseigneur Jehon de Biaufort [Sir John de Beaufort], bastart de Lancastre, he bore himself with credit at the jousts of Saint Inglevert. The same year he joined the Crusade of Louis II, Duke of Bourbon, to Barbary, and was present at the futile Siege of El Mahadia southeast of Tunis. > > While men are known to have commenced military service as young as 16 in medieval times, my guess is that he was at least 17 or 18 in 1390, when these events took place. That would place his birth as circa 1372 or 1373, which former date still allows for the possibility that his mother was married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when he was conceived. > > In which case, I think a review of Swynford DNA would be desirable to rule out any possibility that he was Sir Hugh de Swynford's son. This shouldn't be too difficult to do. If you apply your caution of "Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe" to John Beaufort with regard to John of Gaunt, you must apply it also with regard to Hugh Swynford on the supposition that he was living at the time of conception, and then to every generation in descent from both men. Just because a modern person's DNA matches that of some medieval remains does not prove either that those remains belong to whomever you think was the modern person's ancestor, or that non-paternity of the legal father did occur any number of times in the intervening generations. The last such event might provide a false 'positive' match: there is no rule of nature to prevent a Swynford or Somerset wife from committing adultery at any point, including with a Swynford or Somerset other than her husband. Peter Stewart

It would show nothing of the sort. My father has five matches at less than five generations that show no match with me.

Em sábado, 26 de agosto de 2017 12:56:13 UTC+1, MaraGM escreveu: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 1:17:31 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Em sábado, 26 de agosto de 2017 11:35:09 UTC+1, MaraGM escreveu: > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 5:20:21 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > Dear followers of the neswgroup, recently while searching through spanish medieval genealogy I found a problem involving the second marriage of Lopo Fernandez Pacheco most sources all based in the Nobiliario of Count Pedro of Barcelos, Tit. XVIII, Villalobos, 9, p. 108, and 7 p. 297 say his second wife was Maria Rodriguez de Villalobos daughter of Rui Gil de Villalobos and his wife Teresa Sanchez daughter of King Sancho IV of Leon and Castille and this is the consensus of modern spanish academy however some sources of the 17th sources like https://books.google.pt/books?id=sM0WAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA69-IA16&lpg=PA69-IA16&dq=Brafila+Sanchez&source=bl&ots=jmsa66vpKh&sig=skPE2mxlHdmxHWQOF7bCUB_8pkw&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu2uvf0u3VAhXK1hoKHXXWDmgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=Brafila%20Sanchez&f=false say his second wife was a certain Brafila Sanchez daughter of the King Sancho IV of Leon and Castille giving as source the epitaph of Lopo the spanish scholars of today seem to ignore this. On a related matter those sources also say Lopo and Brafila had a daughter named Maria that married Juan Fernandez Yanez de Saavedra. What is the truth in this? > > > > > > Do not pay attention to Pellicer. That is incorrect. See article in en.wiki > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lopo_Fernandes_Pacheco > > > > > > or in es.wiki > > > > > > https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Fern%C3%A1ndez_Pacheco_(m._1349) > > > > > > which has the epitath, the correct genealogy, and online sources, most by modern scholars, that you can check to confirm. Sancho IV did not have any daughter with that very strange name. > > > Regards, > > > Mara > > > > On the other matter did Maria exist? And if so was she his daughter? > > I don't find her documented as his daughter. Pellicer appears to implie in the same book search in it Maria Rodriguez de Villalobos and click in the first result that Pedro de Barcelos said Maria was daughter of Lopo and Teresa and I've found Maria listed in Pedro's book inhttps://books.google.pt/books?id=EdJPAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT123&lpg=PT123&dq=Brafila+Sanchez&source=bl&ots=xLsS0AqZoX&sig=cIiqKdILhKnEua3Ii9dnGg-b7YI&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw48C60u3VAhVDrRoKHVD_Bs8Q6AEINzAD#v=onepage&q=Maria%20Rodriguez%20de%20Villalobos&f=false however I'm now questioning what did Pedro believe he also mentions Brafila Sanchez in https://books.google.pt/books?id=EdJPAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT123&lpg=PT123&dq=Brafila+Sanchez&source=bl&ots=xLsS0AqZoX&sig=cIiqKdILhKnEua3Ii9dnGg-b7YI&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw48C60u3VAhVDrRoKHVD_Bs8Q6AEINzAD#v=onepage&q=Brafila%20Sanchez&f=false.

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 1:17:31 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em sábado, 26 de agosto de 2017 11:35:09 UTC+1, MaraGM escreveu: > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 5:20:21 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > Dear followers of the neswgroup, recently while searching through spanish medieval genealogy I found a problem involving the second marriage of Lopo Fernandez Pacheco most sources all based in the Nobiliario of Count Pedro of Barcelos, Tit. XVIII, Villalobos, 9, p. 108, and 7 p. 297 say his second wife was Maria Rodriguez de Villalobos daughter of Rui Gil de Villalobos and his wife Teresa Sanchez daughter of King Sancho IV of Leon and Castille and this is the consensus of modern spanish academy however some sources of the 17th sources like https://books.google.pt/books?id=sM0WAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA69-IA16&lpg=PA69-IA16&dq=Brafila+Sanchez&source=bl&ots=jmsa66vpKh&sig=skPE2mxlHdmxHWQOF7bCUB_8pkw&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu2uvf0u3VAhXK1hoKHXXWDmgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=Brafila%20Sanchez&f=false say his second wife was a certain Brafila Sanchez daughter of the King Sancho IV of Leon and Castille giving as source the epitaph of Lopo the spanish scholars of today seem to ignore this. On a related matter those sources also say Lopo and Brafila had a daughter named Maria that married Juan Fernandez Yanez de Saavedra. What is the truth in this? > > > > Do not pay attention to Pellicer. That is incorrect. See article in en.wiki > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lopo_Fernandes_Pacheco > > > > or in es.wiki > > > > https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Fern%C3%A1ndez_Pacheco_(m._1349) > > > > which has the epitath, the correct genealogy, and online sources, most by modern scholars, that you can check to confirm. Sancho IV did not have any daughter with that very strange name. > > Regards, > > Mara > > On the other matter did Maria exist? And if so was she his daughter? I don't find her documented as his daughter.

Em sábado, 26 de agosto de 2017 11:35:09 UTC+1, MaraGM escreveu: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 5:20:21 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Dear followers of the neswgroup, recently while searching through spanish medieval genealogy I found a problem involving the second marriage of Lopo Fernandez Pacheco most sources all based in the Nobiliario of Count Pedro of Barcelos, Tit. XVIII, Villalobos, 9, p. 108, and 7 p. 297 say his second wife was Maria Rodriguez de Villalobos daughter of Rui Gil de Villalobos and his wife Teresa Sanchez daughter of King Sancho IV of Leon and Castille and this is the consensus of modern spanish academy however some sources of the 17th sources like https://books.google.pt/books?id=sM0WAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA69-IA16&lpg=PA69-IA16&dq=Brafila+Sanchez&source=bl&ots=jmsa66vpKh&sig=skPE2mxlHdmxHWQOF7bCUB_8pkw&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu2uvf0u3VAhXK1hoKHXXWDmgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=Brafila%20Sanchez&f=false say his second wife was a certain Brafila Sanchez daughter of the King Sancho IV of Leon and Castille giving as source the epitaph of Lopo the spanish scholars of today seem to ignore this. On a related matter those sources also say Lopo and Brafila had a daughter named Maria that married Juan Fernandez Yanez de Saavedra. What is the truth in this? > > Do not pay attention to Pellicer. That is incorrect. See article in en.wiki > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lopo_Fernandes_Pacheco > > or in es.wiki > > https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Fern%C3%A1ndez_Pacheco_(m._1349) > > which has the epitath, the correct genealogy, and online sources, most by modern scholars, that you can check to confirm. Sancho IV did not have any daughter with that very strange name. > Regards, > Mara On the other matter did Maria exist? And if so was she his daughter?

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 5:20:21 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Dear followers of the neswgroup, recently while searching through spanish medieval genealogy I found a problem involving the second marriage of Lopo Fernandez Pacheco most sources all based in the Nobiliario of Count Pedro of Barcelos, Tit. XVIII, Villalobos, 9, p. 108, and 7 p. 297 say his second wife was Maria Rodriguez de Villalobos daughter of Rui Gil de Villalobos and his wife Teresa Sanchez daughter of King Sancho IV of Leon and Castille and this is the consensus of modern spanish academy however some sources of the 17th sources like https://books.google.pt/books?id=sM0WAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA69-IA16&lpg=PA69-IA16&dq=Brafila+Sanchez&source=bl&ots=jmsa66vpKh&sig=skPE2mxlHdmxHWQOF7bCUB_8pkw&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu2uvf0u3VAhXK1hoKHXXWDmgQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=Brafila%20Sanchez&f=false say his second wife was a certain Brafila Sanchez daughter of the King Sancho IV of Leon and Castille giving as source the epitaph of Lopo the spanish scholars of today seem to ignore this. On a related matter those sources also say Lopo and Brafila had a daughter named Maria that married Juan Fernandez Yanez de Saavedra. What is the truth in this? Do not pay attention to Pellicer. That is incorrect. See article in en.wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lopo_Fernandes_Pacheco or in es.wiki https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lope_Fern%C3%A1ndez_Pacheco_(m._1349) which has the epitath, the correct genealogy, and online sources, most by modern scholars, that you can check to confirm. Sancho IV did not have any daughter with that very strange name. Regards, Mara