On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:39:05 PM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:46:37 PM UTC-4, lma...@att.net wrote: > > On Sunday, October 12, 2014 at 11:07:17 AM UTC-7, Kelsey Jackson Williams wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > I'm beginning to publish my notes on Scottish immigrants of royal descent at: http://scottishgenealogy.weebly.com/scottish-immigrants.html . The process of uploading this material will take some time, but if there's any individual line or lines that people would particularly like to see now, please do let me know and I'll do my best to get them up quickly. > > > > > > Also, I should emphasise that these are merely research notes and as such full of conjecture and error. I hope, though, that they'll be of some use to many of the genealogists on s.g.m. > > > > > > All the best, > > > Kelsey > > > scotsgenealogist.com > > > > > > > > This might be of interest, since it involves Scottish royal > > descents, though not for any American immigrant. > > > > Roger Waters (formerly of Pink Floyd), has royal descents > > through Scotland, as outlined here: > > > > https://hergestgenealogy.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/roger-waters-family-tree-part-1/ > > https://hergestgenealogy.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/144/ > > https://hergestgenealogy.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/roger-waters-family-tree-the-el-cid-connection/ > > > > Leslie > > Although I don't see it mentioned in a clear way, the descent from Margaret Tudor seems to come through James V, Earl of Moray (illegit), Stewart, Innes, Brodie, Dunbar, Abercromby, Ogilvie, Turing, and Paterson. Yes, that's the correct lineage. Part of it is outlined here: http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00046226&tree=LEO and here: https://books.google.com/books?id=IC4WAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=helen+paterson+morrice&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKi_qL8vHVAhVD4GMKHT0WDUUQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=helen%20paterson%20morrice&f=false Roger Waters is thus related to early computer scientist Alan Turing. Leslie

On 24/08/17 22:18, wjhonson wrote: > At one point I enjoyed citing thepeerage.com because he actually > cited sources like "Burke's Peerage 1957 page 245" which could at > least potentially be looked up. Yes, I agree that websites like that can be useful. If I get stuck I'll often type a name into Google to see if I can find any web pages that cite a proper source. Occasionally I get lucky. > Citations should be inter-linear, specific, and accessible. > Otherwise you might as well just make stuff up and post it as fact. Totally agree. Books that only list sources at the end of a chapter, or worse the whole book, are pretty useless. Even the style used in /History of Parliament/, where each paragraph ends with a list of sources, is painful to use. It needs to be readily apparent which source or sources a particular fact derives from, and clearly citing every fact is a good way of checking that you really do have adequate sources for everything you claim. Richard

On 24/08/17 21:37, Paulo Canedo wrote: > perhaps even Genealogics can be discarded as rubbish because it is also a tree. I wouldn't discard it *as rubbish*, but I would nonetheless discard it. If you want to be considered a serious genealogist you need to be dealing with primary sources, transcribed and translated if necessary, or at the very least the sort of secondary sources that carefully discuss the primary sources. Genealogics is none of these things. It's a tertiary source, as it is derived almost entirely from secondary sources, and at times other tertiary sources. That's not to say Genealogics is not a useful resource: very much it is. But it should be used as a tool for checking the details of some family, rather than as the foundation of your research. Richard

On 24/08/17 20:44, norenxaq@san.rr.com wrote: > > ---- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > >> Maud if she every existed at all, had no royal lineage however >> Her mother is wholely unknown, and her father was a low-level nobody > > this does not automatically preclude a royal ancestry You may possibly be talking at cross purposes here. Maud may well have had royal ancestry if you were able to go back four or five centuries. In some ways it would be surprising if she didn't. But the point Will Johnson is making is that at the moment there's no sign of any surviving evidence that would allow us to determine what if any royal descent she may have. Unless and until we can document exactly how she is descended from royalty, genealogically speaking she has no royal descent. Genealogy is about specific, documented descents, not statistical (or, worse, hand-waving) arguments on the likelihood of descent. By all means keep looking. Perhaps her mother's identity can be found. Perhaps her father is less insignificant that at first it seems. But you can't simply conjure a royal descent out of nowhere. Discovering and properly documenting a new royal descent can take years of sedulous and often fruitless work. It took me thirty years and innumerable dead ends before I finally got there. Perhaps you'll be faster, but don't bank on it. Richard

---- Richard Smith <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote: > On 24/08/17 20:44, norenxaq@san.rr.com wrote: > > > > ---- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> Maud if she every existed at all, had no royal lineage however > >> Her mother is wholely unknown, and her father was a low-level nobody > > > > this does not automatically preclude a royal ancestry > > You may possibly be talking at cross purposes here. Maud may well have > had royal ancestry if you were able to go back four or five centuries. > In some ways it would be surprising if she didn't. But the point Will > Johnson is making is that at the moment there's no sign of any surviving > evidence that would allow us to determine what if any royal descent she > may have. Unless and until we can document exactly how she is descended > from royalty, genealogically speaking she has no royal descent. > Genealogy is about specific, documented descents, not statistical (or, > worse, hand-waving) arguments on the likelihood of descent. understood. however, stating an absolute based on class doesn't necessarily follow. THAT was my point > > By all means keep looking. Perhaps her mother's identity can be found. > Perhaps her father is less insignificant that at first it seems. But > you can't simply conjure a royal descent out of nowhere. true Discovering > and properly documenting a new royal descent can take years of sedulous > and often fruitless work. It took me thirty years and innumerable dead > ends before I finally got there. understood

---- Paulo Canedo <pauloricardocanedo2@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also I didn't use Geni for this I used Fabpedigree I know I am in doubtful lineages in some parts of Fabpedigree as the owner my friend James Allen says the info in his database is not to be taken as authoritive and asks us to use it as starting point and check some of the most reputable sources he uses and he does list them in his credits page I myself am mentioned there as a correspondent. > fabpedigree is even less reliable and should be avoided

On 24/08/17 15:22, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 14:17:37 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson escreveu: >>John Beaufort, however, is said to have been aged 21 in 1392. [...] > > Also where was his age said? Assuming you mean where was John Beauford's age stated, CP 2nd ed, vol 12A, p 40 cites CPR Ric II, vol 5, p 63. The patent roll entry, which is dated 7 June 1392, says: "Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de Beaufort, retained to stay with the king for life, of 100 marks a year at the Exchequer. By p.s. "Vacated by surrender and cancelled, because the king granted that sum to him from the issues and profits of the castle and lordship of Wallyngford, со. Berks, 10 September in his twenty-first year." https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008966072;view=1up;seq=77 While I'm hesitant to disagree with the editor of Complete Peerage, I'm certain this patent roll entry has been misunderstood. I think this means the grant of Wallingford was in 10 Sept 21 Ric II (1397), and says nothing about John Beaufort's age. We can readily confirm this as there is another patent roll entry on 10 Sept 1397 saying exactly this [CPR Ric II, vol 6, p 205]: "Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de Beaufort of 100 marks a year from the issues of the castle and lordship of Walyngford, co. Berks, instead of at the Exchequer, as granted to him by letters patent dated 7 June in the fifteenth year, now surrendered." https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009337604;view=1up;seq=221 If, as seems to be the case, this is the only source putting John's birth in c1371, I think we can discount it. Other modern secondary sources put the birth in c1373, after Sir Hugh Swynford's death. This seems far more likely to me, and there's a good description of this in Nathen Amin's new book on the House of Beaufort. Amin argues that, as Gaunt was open in his admission of adultery on his part and incest (as the Catholic church then regarded a liaison between a man and the mother of his goddaughter, presumably here being Blanche Swynford), he would hardly have omitted to mention adultery on the part of Katherine, had there been any, especially if John Beaufort were living proof of the adultery. Being caught in such an omission would have risked nullifying the Pope's dispensation for the marriage, something no-one concerned would have wanted. If all we have left is Richard III's statement, made more than a century after the event, that John Beaufort was born of double adultery, I think we can dismiss this as politically motivated. For the reasons just outlined, if John Beaufort were born of double adultery, the dispensation for his parents subsequent marriage was arguably invalid, which brought into question the Beauforts' legitimacy and with it the validity of Henry Tudor's (already weak) claim to be heir to the Lancastrian claim. That was clearly in Richard's interest, and it is easy to believe he would have made up this claim in an attempt to weaker Henry's position. Richard

---- Paulo Canedo <pauloricardocanedo2@gmail.com> wrote: > > I use Geni in medieval and ancient pedigrees as a starting point then through their references I can check more trustworthy sources like Medieval Lands. > one of geni.com's major problems is that most of its contributors don't source

---- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > > Maud if she every existed at all, had no royal lineage however > Her mother is wholely unknown, and her father was a low-level nobody > this does not automatically preclude a royal ancestry

Are the remains of Edward I and Edward III in Westminster Abbey identified and intact? What about those of Edward of Woodstock and Henry IV in Canterbury Cathedral? Or those of Geoffrey Plantagenet in Le Mans Cathedral? If there is interest in confirming the identity of the remains of Richard III, rather than in determining the "true" Plantagenet y-DNA, one could consider the remains of Edward IV in St George's Chapel in Windsor Castle. 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.

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:36:09 PM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Katherine through James V you have a descent from John's sister Joan so you didn't really have to worry much. That's true. Nobody has questioned the line through Cecily Neville, so we Tudor descendants would still have that line regardless.

On 24/08/17 15:22, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 14:17:37 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson escreveu: >> As per his inquisition post mortem, Sir Hugh de Swynford died as stated 23 November 1371. John Beaufort, however, is said to have been aged 21 in 1392. If John Beaufort's age in 1392 is anything close to correct, a simple math calculation tells us the obvious truth that Katherine de Roet must have had her affair with John of Gaunt during her husband's lifetime. This explains the comment that John Beaufort was "gotten" in double adultery. Double adultery indeed. > > Do you mean 13 or 23? Assuming the translation in CIPM vol 13, no 204 is correct, he died 13 Nov 1371. The IPM was taken on the Tuesday after the Feast of St Mark the Evangelist, 46 Edward III. The Feast of St Mark is 25 Apr, and in 46 Ed III (1372) it was a Sunday, so the IPM was on 27 Apr 1372. He is said to have died on the Thursday after the Feast of St Martin in the previous winter. The Feast of St Martin is 11 Nov which in 1371 was a Tuesday. He therefore died on 13 Nov 1371, per his IPM as translated. This date is given correctly in Richardson's /Royal Ancestry/ vol 3, p 492, sub Lancaster 11. Richard

On 24/08/17 16:34, Richard Smith wrote: > We know from Hugh's IPM [CIPM vol 13, no 204] that he held that manor of > Coleby, Lincs. We also know that Hugh's son and heir, William, I meant, of course, Thomas. Sorry about that. Richard

On 24/08/17 14:17, Douglas Richardson wrote: > I believe that the male line of Sir Hugh de Swynford's descendants > died out long ago. However, in the medieval time period, there were > several branches of the Swynford family in England. Has any research been published into the Swynford family in mediæval times? Looking in the modern secondary sources readily accessible, I can't even find any information about who Hugh's parents were, though that's a question I can answer. We know from Hugh's IPM [CIPM vol 13, no 204] that he held that manor of Coleby, Lincs. We also know that Hugh's son and heir, William, was only 4 and more in 1372, so Hugh was likely not very old. We might estimate Hugh to have been born in the 1340s. I've found an IPM for Sir Thomas de Swynford, who I think is almost certainly Sir Hugh Swynford's father [CIPM vol 11, 197]. It's taken the Friday after St Nicholas day, 35 Edward III (9 Dec 1361). Thomas also held the manor of Coleby, and his heir was his son, a Hugh Swynford, was aged 21 or more. That means Thomas's son Hugh was born in or before 1340. That's quite plausible for him to be Katherine de Roet's husband, but probably not enough time for there to have been two generations of Hughes, unless he was much older than 21. I'm sure this is not new information, but I don't recall seeing it presented elsewhere. > Surely modern descendants can be found among the other branches. Possibly, and there are modern Swinfords, particularly in the Gloucestershire area. I doubt it's possible to prove their descent from Sir Hugh Swynford's ancestral line, but even a DNA match without a documented descent would be circumstantial evidence. > P.S. As far as it goes, I find Geni to be a terrible genealogical source. Totally agree. I'd say it's probably the worst of the collaborative online trees, despite steep competition. Richard

Katherine through James V you have a descent from John's sister Joan so you didn't really have to worry much.

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. 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. 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. 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. I am not buying any of it! Sent from my iPhone

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:46:37 PM UTC-4, lma...@att.net wrote: > On Sunday, October 12, 2014 at 11:07:17 AM UTC-7, Kelsey Jackson Williams wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > I'm beginning to publish my notes on Scottish immigrants of royal descent at: http://scottishgenealogy.weebly.com/scottish-immigrants.html . The process of uploading this material will take some time, but if there's any individual line or lines that people would particularly like to see now, please do let me know and I'll do my best to get them up quickly. > > > > Also, I should emphasise that these are merely research notes and as such full of conjecture and error. I hope, though, that they'll be of some use to many of the genealogists on s.g.m. > > > > All the best, > > Kelsey > > scotsgenealogist.com > > > > This might be of interest, since it involves Scottish royal > descents, though not for any American immigrant. > > Roger Waters (formerly of Pink Floyd), has royal descents > through Scotland, as outlined here: > > https://hergestgenealogy.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/roger-waters-family-tree-part-1/ > https://hergestgenealogy.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/144/ > https://hergestgenealogy.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/roger-waters-family-tree-the-el-cid-connection/ > > Leslie Thanks for sharing the Roger Waters line. James V is my last documented royal ancestor also, so we're cousins.

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:05:28 PM UTC-4, Richard Smith wrote: > On 24/08/17 15:22, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 14:17:37 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson escreveu: > > >>John Beaufort, however, is said to have been aged 21 in 1392. [...] > > > > Also where was his age said? > > Assuming you mean where was John Beauford's age stated, CP 2nd ed, vol > 12A, p 40 cites CPR Ric II, vol 5, p 63. The patent roll entry, which > is dated 7 June 1392, says: > > "Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de > Beaufort, retained to stay with the king for life, of 100 marks a year > at the Exchequer. By p.s. > > "Vacated by surrender and cancelled, because the king granted that sum > to him from the issues and profits of the castle and lordship of > Wallyngford, со. Berks, 10 September in his twenty-first year." > > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008966072;view=1up;seq=77 > > While I'm hesitant to disagree with the editor of Complete Peerage, I'm > certain this patent roll entry has been misunderstood. I think this > means the grant of Wallingford was in 10 Sept 21 Ric II (1397), and says > nothing about John Beaufort's age. > > We can readily confirm this as there is another patent roll entry on 10 > Sept 1397 saying exactly this [CPR Ric II, vol 6, p 205]: > > "Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de > Beaufort of 100 marks a year from the issues of the castle and lordship > of Walyngford, co. Berks, instead of at the Exchequer, as granted to him > by letters patent dated 7 June in the fifteenth year, now surrendered." > > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009337604;view=1up;seq=221 > > If, as seems to be the case, this is the only source putting John's > birth in c1371, I think we can discount it. Other modern secondary > sources put the birth in c1373, after Sir Hugh Swynford's death. This > seems far more likely to me, and there's a good description of this in > Nathen Amin's new book on the House of Beaufort. Amin argues that, as > Gaunt was open in his admission of adultery on his part and incest (as > the Catholic church then regarded a liaison between a man and the mother > of his goddaughter, presumably here being Blanche Swynford), he would > hardly have omitted to mention adultery on the part of Katherine, had > there been any, especially if John Beaufort were living proof of the > adultery. Being caught in such an omission would have risked nullifying > the Pope's dispensation for the marriage, something no-one concerned > would have wanted. > > If all we have left is Richard III's statement, made more than a century > after the event, that John Beaufort was born of double adultery, I think > we can dismiss this as politically motivated. For the reasons just > outlined, if John Beaufort were born of double adultery, the > dispensation for his parents subsequent marriage was arguably invalid, > which brought into question the Beauforts' legitimacy and with it the > validity of Henry Tudor's (already weak) claim to be heir to the > Lancastrian claim. That was clearly in Richard's interest, and it is > easy to believe he would have made up this claim in an attempt to weaker > Henry's position. > > Richard Thank you. Given this correction and the fact the double adultery statement was by Richard III, not Richard II, I feel confident in the Beaufort line again.

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:26:01 AM UTC-4, taf wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 12:39:49 AM UTC-7, Katherine Kennedy wrote: > > > Another interesting and unexpected Middle Eastern connection is from the > > Clan Graham Y DNA group. They are largely J1 and their subclade is apparently > > very closely related to the cohen modal haplotype. I've read a suggestion of > > an auxiliary Syrian archer being their ancestor. The family is too old to > > consider a Crusader connection. > > The misnamed Cohen modal haplotype has been found across a wide swath of middle eastern and even among some African populations, and when you say 'closely related' you are expanding the potential pool even further, just identifying someone with middle eastern ancestry anytime within 5000 years. Yes, it could have been a Syrian archer, but it could have been slave from the viking raids in Al-Andalus, or a captive among the Celts, a Romanized Jewish or Carthaginian legionnaire, a trader, anything. In historical times we see individuals making some very unusual peregrinations, not linked to specific population movements, and there is no reason similar one-off instances can be excluded from a period before we have such detailed records. To think one can point to a moment of time and say 'that is when it came to Britain' is a classic example of genealogists abhorring a vacuum. > > taf Allow me to share some further information on the Graham DNA findings, so you can better put any deductions into context. A short synopsis concerning the age of their subclade, J-L1253, can be found below. https://www.familytreedna.com/public/J1c3d-with-SNP-L1253/default.aspx?section=results Eupedia states, "All three branches of J1-L858 (S640, YSC76 and FGC11) are found in Europe, principally in Spain, Italy, central and eastern Europe. Their relatively recent time of divergence with their Middle Eastern cousins (Late Bronze Age to Iron Age) suggests that they would have arrived with the Phoenicians (Sicily, Sardinia, Spain), and later in greater numbers with the Jewish diaspora. Spain and Portugal have the highest percentage of FGC12 in Europe, but this amounts to about 12% of J1 lineages, i.e. less than 0.5% of the population, suggesting that the Arabs had a much smaller genetic impact on the Iberian population than the Jews and the Phoenicians." As can be seen from the first link, the Grahams' J-L1253 stems from YSC76. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml Genealogists most certainly abhor a vacuum, and I'm sure Ancestry.com and a host of others are glad they do. It does indeed lead to some colourful theories, however.

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 2:40:16 PM UTC-7, 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. Secondary sources are fine. Just stop using unsourced online websites and online family trees. Ninety nine percent of them are completely useless and false. Each fact should have a footnote citing its primary or secondary source. That would be the ultimate useful website. All else is trash.