Will I'd say it depends in the country you are.

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 2:28:58 PM UTC-7, 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 This link go to "No Ebook available" How were you able to read it

Some corrections and additions to My original post. Cecilia's motherhood was indeed also questioned but my main points remain. Also http://forum.genealogi.se/index.php?topic=64887.0 mentions that a comtemporany chronicle says that Canute was in love the exact opposite of his father which indicates that he had little if any involvement with other women besides his wife and that a document indicates that Adele had at least one daughter.

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 5:28:58 PM UTC-4, 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 It should read "Folke, an aristocrat of Swedish descent", my apologies.

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

Some years ago there were a few discussions in this newsgroup about the maternity of Ingegerd Knudsatter if she was legitimate daughter of Canute IV and Adele de Flanders or if she was illegimate daughter of Canute IV. This particular question is important because Ingegerd is ancestress of many people in modern Scandinavia and if she was Adele's daughter then she would have descents from Charlemagne giving Charlemagne descents for many people in modern Scandinavia. The discussions said the doubts over her maternity emerged because she didn't went with Adele back to Flanders after her father's murder. However this point is very questionable because her sister Cecilia whose status as daughter of Adele doesn't seem to have being brought into question in the discussions also didn't went with Adele back to Flanders and besides in the political view a boy was certainly more important to take care of than two girls. Also in support for Ingegerd's status as daughter of Adele is the testimony of Saxo Grammaticus mentioned in http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/DENMARK.htm#_Toc360005000. Saxo was writing about a century after the facts so I think we can consider his testimony about it as trustworthy and he certainly had acess to sources that don't exist anymore. Saxo says that after Canute IV's murder Adele run to Flanders with her baby son Charles whereas she left her twin daughters Ingegerd and Cecilia in Denmark and then they went to Sweden with their uncle Erik I. In conclusion I don't think there is any reason to doubt Ingegerd's motherhood and so Scandinavian members of the newgroup descendants of Ingegerd you can get rested. As usual comments on the matter are welcome.

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 10:46:53 AM UTC-7, Jan Wolfe wrote: > When I mentioned overcoming objections, I had the DNA analysis of King Tut > and his relatives in mind. The distinction between Ancient and Medieval, while solely one of degree rather than kind, carries great weight. You can do all kinds of things at an ancient site that typically would not be allowed at a medieval one. Indeed, most of the research subjects are no longer in situ, having been looted a century ago, and this changes things. Further, Europeans and Euro-Americans are often much more willing to dig up someone else's ancestors than their own. Plus with Tut, there was a nationalistic and personal impetus behind many of the decisions made by the Egyptian head of antiquities that made it a unique case. taf

On 25-Aug-17 10:38 AM, Richard Smith wrote: > On 25/08/17 00:58, Peter Stewart wrote: > >> It should be noted in this context that John of Gaunt was a widower, not >> a married man, between the death of his first wife on 12 September 1269 >> and his second marriage on 21 September 1371. If John Beaufort had been >> conceived in the lifetime of Sir Hugh Swynford, it would have to have >> been in the brief interval between the latter date and Swynford's death >> on 13 November in the same year in order to have been double adultery. >> The notion that a century later Richard III could arrive at such >> precision, narrowing an unwitnessed act to within a two-month period, is >> absurd enough even if we ignore his very obvious motive for fabrication. > > To an extent I'm playing Devil's Advocate by replying, as I don't > believe double adultery was at all likely.  But I'd question your > assertion that the notion that Richard III could have reached that > decision is absurd. > > He and his courtiers would have had access to sources that don't > survive today, and it's not implausible he could have found out John > Beaufort's date of birth.  Suppose that Richard discovered that > Beaufort had been born in late June 1372.  In this scenario, Beaufort > would have to have been born several weeks beyond term to pre-date > Gaunt's second marriage, and we have Gaunt's own word that this was > not the case; but equally Beaufort would have to have been nearly two > months premature for him to have been conceived after Swnyford's > death, and I very much doubt a baby that premature would have lived > before the advent of modern medicine. Double adultery would be the > natural conclusion. Doubt on what basis? I don't know whether or not a baby could naturally survive premature birth after seven months gestation, then or now. But if that was the evidence Richard III relied on he would have had the same obvious motive to publicise this fact rather than to lose it in a broad-brush allegation. Who was convinced? And what was Richard III's ulterior motive in unnecessarily failing to convince anyone? Peter Stewart

On 25-Aug-17 7:40 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > What now even interested amateur genealogists like me have to go to primary sources? This is starting to worry me. I never pretended or intended to be a profesional genealogist. No-one has to go to primary sources, but it needs to be recognised that these are the actual 'sources' of knowledge, i.e. the original evidence we have for it - secondary works are only a medium through which this may be learned without directly consulting primary materials, or at best 'sources' of collation and analysis of the information found in them. I think it is better to describe secondary works as such, rather than calling published studies, online databases - or even translations, calendars and extracts rather than scholarly editions of the original texts - 'sources'. Peter Stewart

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 10:35:06 AM UTC-4, taf wrote: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 5:46:36 PM UTC-7, Jan Wolfe wrote: > > > I suppose there may be objections to disinterring any of the above remains, > > but researchers have overcome objections to disinterring more ancient > > remains and extracting DNA. > > It is one thing to test remains found under a car park, or to test a grave discovered during renovations. It is another to disinter a cathedral tomb of a monarch, just to satisfy someone's curiosity. While there have been examples of such studies (the flawed analysis of the Leopolding Austrians comes to mind), a proposal to disinter a tomb that late and apocryphal alternative history makes out to be that of Harold II in England has already been rejected out of hand. And that even assumes some of these tombs haven't already been pillaged, like that of the supposed Princes in the Tower, found to contain mismatched bones, including those of animals, presumably from someone thinking it wouldn't be noticed if they removed a bone as long as they replaced it with another bone. > > taf When I mentioned overcoming objections, I had the DNA analysis of King Tut and his relatives in mind.

On 25/08/17 09:28, Peter Stewart wrote: > However, I don't agree that Richard III could have been in a > privileged position a century after the fact to know when John Beaufort > was born, if this was especially compromising to his mother and yet the > court, the pope and others at the time did not realise it. > > I'm not sure that the birthdays of bastards were much celebrated in the > 14th century, certainly not so much as to leave a record that would be > suppressed for a hundred years until falling into the hands of someone > with a flagrant motive to invent such a problem anyway. I'm sure birthdays of bastards weren't celebrated, at least not in a way to leave record. But it doesn't preclude the date of his birth occurring somewhere in a court record. Not being an heir, there wouldn't be a proof of age or mention of his age in an IPM, I don't recall seeing dates of birth in patent or close rolls, and he was no where near important enough to attract the attention of a monastic chronicler. But he may have been mentioned in someone else's proof of age. More than once I've read entries in CIPM saying something like "Joe Bloggs knows X was born on [date] because he was at the baptism of Y that day and a servant came to tell X his wife had just given birth". I imagine there must be lots of manorial court rolls that have not survived containing similar things. I don't for a moment believe Richard would have been trawling through court records looking for such an entry, but if someone else happened to come across something of that nature, they may well have brought it to Richard's attention in the hope of currying favour with the king. Of course the same detail could have come to light in earlier years, but it was only after the death of Henry VI that the question of the Beauforts' legitimacy became a hot political topic. Richard

On 25-Aug-17 2:58 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > The allegation that Katherine de Roet, was still married to Sir Hugh de Swynford > when she commenced her affair with John of Gaunt was made by King Richard III, not King Richard II as I posted earlier. In a letter of King Richard III dated 1483, the king alleged that John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset, was “son unto Dame Katherine Swynford, and of their indouble avoutry gotten.” [i.e., implying that John Beaufort’s mother was still married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when he was conceived]). > > A full transcript of the letter in question was published many years ago in Fenn, Paston Letters (1849): 152–153, and may be viewed at the following weblink: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=nCwXAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA152 > > Considering its source, the charge is probably baseless. Even so, the fact that the DNA of the alleged remains of King Richard II doesn't match the DNA of modern Beaufort descendants does raise the possibility that King Richard III had his facts right and that Sir Hugh de Swynford could be the father of John Beaufort. Presumably you mean the alleged remains of King Richard III, not II. It should be noted in this context that John of Gaunt was a widower, not a married man, between the death of his first wife on 12 September 1269 and his second marriage on 21 September 1371. If John Beaufort had been conceived in the lifetime of Sir Hugh Swynford, it would have to have been in the brief interval between the latter date and Swynford's death on 13 November in the same year in order to have been double adultery. The notion that a century later Richard III could arrive at such precision, narrowing an unwitnessed act to within a two-month period, is absurd enough even if we ignore his very obvious motive for fabrication. Peter Stewart

On 25/08/17 08:33, Peter Stewart wrote: >> Based on the fact that before about week 31, a foetus's lungs are >> still poorly developed, generally to the point that the baby can't >> breath unaided. [...] I'm sure there were instances of mediæval >> babies born thispremature who survived nonetheless, but it must >> have been very rare. > > But probably not as rare as someone a century later knowing for certain > when the baby was conceived, It wouldn't require anyone a century later to know exactly when the baby was conceived, only to within a two months, and anyone with knowledge of the date of birth could have done that, though there's no reason to suppose many people would have known the date of birth. In that respect Richard could have been in a privileged position. In any case, the point is moot. I've already said I don't believe Beaufort was born of double adultery. Had he been, Gaunt had a strong incentive to say so during his petition for dispensation to marry Katherine. He didn't and that speaks volumes. I think it is quite possibly that, if so minded, he could have covered up Katherine's side of the double adultery had it occurred, as I don't image dates of birth, marriage and death would have have been known outside a small circle of family and close acquaintances who, back in the 1390s, may not have had reason to rock the boat. But doing so would have been risky and I can't see any motive for him to do so. Richard

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 12:55:32 AM UTC-7, jd...@me.com wrote: > On Thursday, 24 August 2017 14:36:43 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote: > > Dear John ~ > > > > Like you, I'm also a descendant of Humphrey Poyntz, Esq., who died in 1487. For your interest, I've copied below my current file account of him. This is an expanded account of what I previously published in my Royal Ancestry book (5 volume set) or my Magna Carta Ancestry book (4 volume set). > > > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > > > > + + + + + + + + + + > > > > HUMPHREY POYNTZ, Esq., of Langley (in High Bickington) and Umberleigh, Devon, Elkstone, Gloucestershire, and, in right of his wife, of East Anstey (or Ansty Cruse) and Over Woolacombe (in Mortehoe), Devon, Escheator of Devonshire, 1460–61, younger son by his father’s 1st marriage. He married before Hilary term 1458 (date of lawsuit) ELIZABETH POLLARD, daughter and heiress of Richard Pollard, of Langley (in High Bickington), Devon, and, in right of his wife, of East Anstey and Over Woolacombe (in Mortehoe), Devon, by Thomasine, daughter and co-heiress of Robert Cruse (or Cruys). They had two sons, Nicholas and William, and one daughter, Katherine (wife of Fulk Prideaux). In 1458 he sued Dennis Moppe, of West Worcombe, Devon, husbandman, and three others in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass at Mortehoe, Devon. In 1472 he sued Henry Dunslegh, of East Anstey, Devon, husbandman in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £8. In 1474 John Cruys sued Humphrey and his wife, Elizabeth, for an illegal entry into the manors of Cruwys Morchard and Rackenford, Devon. In 1480 he leased messuages, lands, etc. in Northcote and Codlemore (in Bittadon), Devon from Walter Halle. The same year he and his wife, Elizabeth, John Prous, and John Chalvedon sued John Cruys for an unjust disseisin in Woolacombe, Anstey Cruwys [East Anstey], Cruys Sydeham, and Little Rackenford, Devon. On 23 April 1486 he and his wife, Elizabeth, settled a moiety of the manor of Over Woolacombe (in Mortehoe), Devon on themselves for life, with remainder to Fulk Prideaux, Esq., and his wife, Katherine (daughter of the said Humphrey and Elizabeth) and the heirs of Katherine. HUMPHREY POYNTZ, Esq., died 10 October 1487. In 1510 John Forde and Robert Loty, executors of the will of Elizabeth Poyntz, sued Richard Reigne [Reigny], John Berry, of Collaton, Devon, and Patrick Pollard in the Court of Common Pleas regarding replevin. > > > > References: Pole, Colls. towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 420 (East Ansty, a Pollard & Cruse fam. property). Fosbrooke, Abstracts of Recs. & MSS respecting the County of Gloucester 2 (1807): 525–526. Berry, County Gens.: Sussex Fams. (1830): 351–353 (Poyntz ped.). Burke, Hist. of the Commoners 3 (1836): 537–540 (sub Poyntz). St. George & Lennard, Vis. of Devon 1620 (H.S.P. 6) (1872): 215 (Pollard ped.) (Pollard arms: Argent, a chevron sable, charged with a mullet for difference, between three escallops gules). Fourth Rpt. (Hist. MSS Comm. 3) (1874): 378. Colby, Vis. of Devon 1564 (1881): 175–176 (Pridieulx ped.). Chitting & Phillipot, Vis. of Gloucester 1623, 1569 & 1582–3 (H.S.P. 21) (1885): 128–129 (Poyntz ped.: “Humffrey Pointes m. to …. Pollard.”), 130–135 (Poyntz ped.: “Humfridus Poyntz ob. Ao 3. H. 7. = …. filia et heires …. Pollard.”). Maclean, Hist. & Gen. Mem. of the Fam. of Poyntz (1886): 94–95, 256. Trans. Bristol & Gloucs. Arch. Soc. 12 (1888): 123–169. Vivian, Vis. of Devon 1531, 1564 & 1620 (1895): 59 (Beare ped.): 597–599 (Pollard ped.). Feudal Aids 1 (1899): 467, 468. Procs. Bath Natural Hist. & Antiq. Field Club 9 (1901): 62. Wrottesley Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 408–409, 435, 452. Papal Regs.: Letters 9 (1912): 242. Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries 13 (1925): 134–137. C.F.R. 19 1452–1461 (1939): 39–40; 22 1485–1509 (1963): 69, 84. Lacy, Reg. of Edmund Lacy 3 (Devon & Cornwall Rec. Soc. n.s. 13) (1967): 207–208. List of Escheators for England & Wales (List & Index Soc. 72) (1971): 36. Richardson, Agnes [Harris] Spencer Edwards (1987). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/788, image 1509d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no788/bCP40no788dorses/IMG_1509.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/841, image 427f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no841/aCP40no841fronts/IMG_0427.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/852, image 844f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no852/aCP40no852fronts/IMG_0844.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/853, image 290f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no853/aCP40no853fronts/IMG_0290.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/874, image 773f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/E4/CP40no874/aCP40no874fronts/IMG_0773.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/990, image 433f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H8/CP40no990/aCP40no990fronts/IMG_0433.htm). National Archives, CP 25/1/46/93, #1 (fine dated 23 April 1486 — Humphrey Poyntz, Esq., and Elizabeth, his wife, deforciants) [see abstract of fine at http:// www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html]. North Devon Rec. Office: Barnstaple Borough, B1/A63; B1/A68 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). > > Greetings Douglas > > Many thanks for the notes concerning our mutual ancestor, Humphrey. I will read these with interest. > > Your publications have been frequently quoted to me. However, they are not available in the UK and the nearest library copy is in Baltimore, USA. Whilst many Hitchins/Richins etc family members emigrated to the USofA, particularly with the Church of Latter Day Saints, I do not have any US ancestors. It has been suggested that one family member, a Hitchens, in c16 emigrated to Delaware and married a local Nantichoke woman. > > The experts at WikiTree advised me that we do have at least one area of difference in the Poyntz ancestry. I do not know whether this is so as these experts did not produce any evidence. The upshot of the claim was that I was banned from WikiTree for disagreeing with you. This was, for me, an event producing such trauma that it is unlikely that I will ever recover. > > I am a hobby genealogist since 1972, so I am not so well organised as your goodself. I am well behind in documenting the recent Poyntz work by myself and another family member. I will get that up to date and respond to your notes. It is probably most appropriate that I do so directly to your e-mail address as above? > > Regards > > > > John https://www.amazon.com/Royal-Ancestry-Colonial-Medieval-Families/dp/1463561687

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 5:46:36 PM UTC-7, Jan Wolfe wrote: > I suppose there may be objections to disinterring any of the above remains, > but researchers have overcome objections to disinterring more ancient > remains and extracting DNA. It is one thing to test remains found under a car park, or to test a grave discovered during renovations. It is another to disinter a cathedral tomb of a monarch, just to satisfy someone's curiosity. While there have been examples of such studies (the flawed analysis of the Leopolding Austrians comes to mind), a proposal to disinter a tomb that late and apocryphal alternative history makes out to be that of Harold II in England has already been rejected out of hand. And that even assumes some of these tombs haven't already been pillaged, like that of the supposed Princes in the Tower, found to contain mismatched bones, including those of animals, presumably from someone thinking it wouldn't be noticed if they removed a bone as long as they replaced it with another bone. taf

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 2:31:36 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn wrote: > Again you seem to be missing the point of what I discussed earlier. > > The Plantagenet Y-DNA is going back to Richard is uniquely type G. Not unique, but uncommon for Western Europe. > This is also common in Alania (modern day Ossetia) from which the Alan's > settled in Gaul as mercenaries to the Romans about the 4th or 5th century. Picking one favorite group and deciding they must represent the avenue by which the haplotype turned up 1000 years later, an entire continent away, may make for a pleasing game of connect-the-dots what-if hypothesizing, but in this case it has little validity. When you brought this up before I showed that the prevalence of G in western Europe does not correspond well at all with where the Alans are thought to have settled - there can be no presumption of correlation between G haplogroup and Alans. That doesn't mean that there weren't Alans in Eastern Europe and the Eurasian steppe who were G, but it looks like most G in Western Europe has no link to them. > The location of the Plantagenet in Gaul corresponds with Alan settlement in > Roman times. They are also likely to be the upstart kings for historical > reasons which I will not delve into here. The location of Plantagenet in Gaul also corresponds to that of the Celts, the Bell Beaker culture, the first farmers spreading out of Anatolia, and the Western European hunter-gatherers, just to name a few. > Of course, it is also possible that the Type G DNA *just happened* to pre- > exist in pre-Roman times, and that this *just happened* to be passed down > to the Plantagenet kings, or alternatively, that Richard's uncharacteristic > DNA was actually the product of an out of wedlock union. Neat rhetorical trick, begging the question by presenting the pet theory as an obvious historical progression, and every alternative as something that 'just happened'. taf

On 25/08/17 02:04, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 25-Aug-17 10:38 AM, Richard Smith wrote: >> In this scenario, [...] Beaufort would have to have been nearly two >> months premature for him to have been conceived after Swnyford's >> death, and I very much doubt a baby that premature would have lived >> before the advent of modern medicine. > > Doubt on what basis? I don't know whether or not a baby could naturally > survive premature birth after seven months gestation, then or now. Based on the fact that before about week 31, a foetus's lungs are still poorly developed, generally to the point that the baby can't breath unaided. Nowadays a surfactant injection is often given, either to the mother immediately prior to giving birth, or to the baby immediately after birth, which is often enough to prevent the lungs from collapsing, though even then a respirator is sometimes needed. These were not options even a century ago, far less in the 14th century. I'm sure there were instances of mediæval babies born this premature who survived nonetheless, but it must have been very rare. Richard

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 9:58:01 AM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Dear Deca ~ > > You probably would be interested in a Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1314 involving Sir Bartholomew de Grenville, Knt., and his wife, Anne. As you are probably aware, Bartholomew and his wife are the grandparents of your Sir Thebaud de Grenville, Knt. Below is a brief abstract of this lawsuit. > > In Hilary term 1314 Bartholomew de Greynvill and Anne his wife sued Geoffrey Dabitot in the Common of Common Pleas in a Gloucestershire plea regarding a tenement in Compton Greynvill, Gloucestershire. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/204, image 217f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no204/aCP40no204fronts/IMG_0217.htm). > > I should point out that Vivian, Visitations of Cornwall (1887): 190–197 (Grenvile ped.) identifies the wife of Bartholomew de Grenville as "Johanna, fil. Sr. Viell Vivion, militis [She is called Anne in some pedigrees]." > > As we can see, Bartholomew's wife is clearly called Anne, not Joan, in the 1314 lawsuit. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Douglas, Thank you for sharing this reference. Kindly, LE (aka Deca)

On 25/08/17 00:58, Peter Stewart wrote: > It should be noted in this context that John of Gaunt was a widower, not > a married man, between the death of his first wife on 12 September 1269 > and his second marriage on 21 September 1371. If John Beaufort had been > conceived in the lifetime of Sir Hugh Swynford, it would have to have > been in the brief interval between the latter date and Swynford's death > on 13 November in the same year in order to have been double adultery. > The notion that a century later Richard III could arrive at such > precision, narrowing an unwitnessed act to within a two-month period, is > absurd enough even if we ignore his very obvious motive for fabrication. To an extent I'm playing Devil's Advocate by replying, as I don't believe double adultery was at all likely. But I'd question your assertion that the notion that Richard III could have reached that decision is absurd. He and his courtiers would have had access to sources that don't survive today, and it's not implausible he could have found out John Beaufort's date of birth. Suppose that Richard discovered that Beaufort had been born in late June 1372. In this scenario, Beaufort would have to have been born several weeks beyond term to pre-date Gaunt's second marriage, and we have Gaunt's own word that this was not the case; but equally Beaufort would have to have been nearly two months premature for him to have been conceived after Swnyford's death, and I very much doubt a baby that premature would have lived before the advent of modern medicine. Double adultery would be the natural conclusion. For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think is likely. For the reasons I gave before, I think it far more likely that Beaufort was conceived after Swynford's death, and the notion of double adultery was a fabrication for political gain. But were it not for the obvious motive for fabrication, I think Richard's assertion could be credible. Richard

On Thursday, 24 August 2017 14:36:43 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Dear John ~ > > Like you, I'm also a descendant of Humphrey Poyntz, Esq., who died in 1487. For your interest, I've copied below my current file account of him. This is an expanded account of what I previously published in my Royal Ancestry book (5 volume set) or my Magna Carta Ancestry book (4 volume set). > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > > + + + + + + + + + + > > HUMPHREY POYNTZ, Esq., of Langley (in High Bickington) and Umberleigh, Devon, Elkstone, Gloucestershire, and, in right of his wife, of East Anstey (or Ansty Cruse) and Over Woolacombe (in Mortehoe), Devon, Escheator of Devonshire, 1460–61, younger son by his father’s 1st marriage. He married before Hilary term 1458 (date of lawsuit) ELIZABETH POLLARD, daughter and heiress of Richard Pollard, of Langley (in High Bickington), Devon, and, in right of his wife, of East Anstey and Over Woolacombe (in Mortehoe), Devon, by Thomasine, daughter and co-heiress of Robert Cruse (or Cruys). They had two sons, Nicholas and William, and one daughter, Katherine (wife of Fulk Prideaux). In 1458 he sued Dennis Moppe, of West Worcombe, Devon, husbandman, and three others in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass at Mortehoe, Devon. In 1472 he sued Henry Dunslegh, of East Anstey, Devon, husbandman in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £8. In 1474 John Cruys sued Humphrey and his wife, Elizabeth, for an illegal entry into the manors of Cruwys Morchard and Rackenford, Devon. In 1480 he leased messuages, lands, etc. in Northcote and Codlemore (in Bittadon), Devon from Walter Halle. The same year he and his wife, Elizabeth, John Prous, and John Chalvedon sued John Cruys for an unjust disseisin in Woolacombe, Anstey Cruwys [East Anstey], Cruys Sydeham, and Little Rackenford, Devon. On 23 April 1486 he and his wife, Elizabeth, settled a moiety of the manor of Over Woolacombe (in Mortehoe), Devon on themselves for life, with remainder to Fulk Prideaux, Esq., and his wife, Katherine (daughter of the said Humphrey and Elizabeth) and the heirs of Katherine. HUMPHREY POYNTZ, Esq., died 10 October 1487. In 1510 John Forde and Robert Loty, executors of the will of Elizabeth Poyntz, sued Richard Reigne [Reigny], John Berry, of Collaton, Devon, and Patrick Pollard in the Court of Common Pleas regarding replevin. > > References: Pole, Colls. towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 420 (East Ansty, a Pollard & Cruse fam. property). Fosbrooke, Abstracts of Recs. & MSS respecting the County of Gloucester 2 (1807): 525–526. Berry, County Gens.: Sussex Fams. (1830): 351–353 (Poyntz ped.). Burke, Hist. of the Commoners 3 (1836): 537–540 (sub Poyntz). St. George & Lennard, Vis. of Devon 1620 (H.S.P. 6) (1872): 215 (Pollard ped.) (Pollard arms: Argent, a chevron sable, charged with a mullet for difference, between three escallops gules). Fourth Rpt. (Hist. MSS Comm. 3) (1874): 378. Colby, Vis. of Devon 1564 (1881): 175–176 (Pridieulx ped.). Chitting & Phillipot, Vis. of Gloucester 1623, 1569 & 1582–3 (H.S.P. 21) (1885): 128–129 (Poyntz ped.: “Humffrey Pointes m. to …. Pollard.”), 130–135 (Poyntz ped.: “Humfridus Poyntz ob. Ao 3. H. 7. = …. filia et heires …. Pollard.”). Maclean, Hist. & Gen. Mem. of the Fam. of Poyntz (1886): 94–95, 256. Trans. Bristol & Gloucs. Arch. Soc. 12 (1888): 123–169. Vivian, Vis. of Devon 1531, 1564 & 1620 (1895): 59 (Beare ped.): 597–599 (Pollard ped.). Feudal Aids 1 (1899): 467, 468. Procs. Bath Natural Hist. & Antiq. Field Club 9 (1901): 62. Wrottesley Peds. from the Plea Rolls (1905): 408–409, 435, 452. Papal Regs.: Letters 9 (1912): 242. Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries 13 (1925): 134–137. C.F.R. 19 1452–1461 (1939): 39–40; 22 1485–1509 (1963): 69, 84. Lacy, Reg. of Edmund Lacy 3 (Devon & Cornwall Rec. Soc. n.s. 13) (1967): 207–208. List of Escheators for England & Wales (List & Index Soc. 72) (1971): 36. Richardson, Agnes [Harris] Spencer Edwards (1987). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/788, image 1509d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no788/bCP40no788dorses/IMG_1509.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/841, image 427f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no841/aCP40no841fronts/IMG_0427.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/852, image 844f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no852/aCP40no852fronts/IMG_0844.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/853, image 290f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/E4/CP40no853/aCP40no853fronts/IMG_0290.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/874, image 773f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/E4/CP40no874/aCP40no874fronts/IMG_0773.htm). Court of Common Pleas, CP40/990, image 433f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H8/CP40no990/aCP40no990fronts/IMG_0433.htm). National Archives, CP 25/1/46/93, #1 (fine dated 23 April 1486 — Humphrey Poyntz, Esq., and Elizabeth, his wife, deforciants) [see abstract of fine at http:// www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/index.html]. North Devon Rec. Office: Barnstaple Borough, B1/A63; B1/A68 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk). Greetings Douglas Many thanks for the notes concerning our mutual ancestor, Humphrey. I will read these with interest. Your publications have been frequently quoted to me. However, they are not available in the UK and the nearest library copy is in Baltimore, USA. Whilst many Hitchins/Richins etc family members emigrated to the USofA, particularly with the Church of Latter Day Saints, I do not have any US ancestors. It has been suggested that one family member, a Hitchens, in c16 emigrated to Delaware and married a local Nantichoke woman. The experts at WikiTree advised me that we do have at least one area of difference in the Poyntz ancestry. I do not know whether this is so as these experts did not produce any evidence. The upshot of the claim was that I was banned from WikiTree for disagreeing with you. This was, for me, an event producing such trauma that it is unlikely that I will ever recover. I am a hobby genealogist since 1972, so I am not so well organised as your goodself. I am well behind in documenting the recent Poyntz work by myself and another family member. I will get that up to date and respond to your notes. It is probably most appropriate that I do so directly to your e-mail address as above? Regards John