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.

> On 24/08/17 21:37, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > perhaps even Genealogics can be discarded as rubbish because it is also a tree. > 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. But then he started using sources such as "Email from John Brown 2017" which is such an utterly worthless citation that he would be better off not even citing it. Because it made me realize the Daryl and I live in utterly different universes. Citations should be inter-linear, specific, and accessible. Otherwise you might as well just make stuff up and post it as fact. In addition to that, because I enjoy flogging dead horses, if you are *not* a member of this group, you have no business creating medieval genealogy websites at all.

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:31:23 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 21:26:23 UTC+1, nore...@san.rr.com escreveu: > > ---- 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 > > Please read what I said in the whole sentence it is not to be taken as authoritive. Also I personally believe sometimes Geni is the less reliable one I think that instead of permanently criticizing the websistes we should send them corrections in order to help clean them. FabPedigree is so hopelessly full of nonsense that there is *no way* to clean it. It should be completely discarded and started from zero. Same with Geni. If you continue to post their rubbish, I will continue to point out that you are posting rubbish.

Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 21:31:07 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:15:38 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:54:16 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:48:08 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:45:08 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:36:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:30:49 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 19:55:36 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wasn't Roger maternal grandson of Baron Ralph Basset? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please tell me your sources and reasons for that? > > > > > > > > > > There are no sources which state it, and therefore it is false. > > > > > Geni is not a source. Online trees created by mad idiots, are not sources. > > > > > > > > > > If you insist on continuing with your silly crusade you're going to get more of the same remarks. Stop Posting Garbage From Worthless Sources. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > And in this case, you used Geni and realized that the person who posted that nonsense was completely nuts. > > > > 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. > > James Allen is one of the more credulous creators of piles of mythical nonsense. > > Why can't you just take my advice and STOP USING ONLINE TREES to do ANY research whatsoever. The vast majority of information in online trees is utter and complete rubbish > > There is really *zero* need for you to use *any* of it. > Throw it all out, purge yourself, and start from useful books No offense but now you are starting to look like an extremist. Then perhaps even Genealogics can be discarded as rubbish because it is also a tree.

Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 21:26:23 UTC+1, nore...@san.rr.com escreveu: > ---- 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 Please read what I said in the whole sentence it is not to be taken as authoritive. Also I personally believe sometimes Geni is the less reliable one I think that instead of permanently criticizing the websistes we should send them corrections in order to help clean them.

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:15:38 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:54:16 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:48:08 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:45:08 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:36:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:30:49 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 19:55:36 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wasn't Roger maternal grandson of Baron Ralph Basset? > > > > > > > > > > > > No > > > > > > > > > > Could you please tell me your sources and reasons for that? > > > > > > > > There are no sources which state it, and therefore it is false. > > > > Geni is not a source. Online trees created by mad idiots, are not sources. > > > > > > > > If you insist on continuing with your silly crusade you're going to get more of the same remarks. Stop Posting Garbage From Worthless Sources. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > 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. > > > > And in this case, you used Geni and realized that the person who posted that nonsense was completely nuts. > > 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. James Allen is one of the more credulous creators of piles of mythical nonsense. Why can't you just take my advice and STOP USING ONLINE TREES to do ANY research whatsoever. The vast majority of information in online trees is utter and complete rubbish There is really *zero* need for you to use *any* of it. Throw it all out, purge yourself, and start from useful books

Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:54:16 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:48:08 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:45:08 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:36:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:30:49 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 19:55:36 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > Wasn't Roger maternal grandson of Baron Ralph Basset? > > > > > > > > > > No > > > > > > > > Could you please tell me your sources and reasons for that? > > > > > > There are no sources which state it, and therefore it is false. > > > Geni is not a source. Online trees created by mad idiots, are not sources. > > > > > > If you insist on continuing with your silly crusade you're going to get more of the same remarks. Stop Posting Garbage From Worthless Sources. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > 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. > > And in this case, you used Geni and realized that the person who posted that nonsense was completely nuts. 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.

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:55:10 PM UTC-7, nore...@san.rr.com wrote: > ---- 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 I would say that Geni's largest problem is that they do not properly vet their contributions against the slightly attempt at consistency. It is just a hotch potch of fable nonsense outrageous ridiculously, with a sprinkling of logic.

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:48:08 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:45:08 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:36:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:30:49 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 19:55:36 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > Wasn't Roger maternal grandson of Baron Ralph Basset? > > > > > > > > No > > > > > > Could you please tell me your sources and reasons for that? > > > > There are no sources which state it, and therefore it is false. > > Geni is not a source. Online trees created by mad idiots, are not sources. > > > > If you insist on continuing with your silly crusade you're going to get more of the same remarks. Stop Posting Garbage From Worthless Sources. > > > > Thank you. > > 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. And in this case, you used Geni and realized that the person who posted that nonsense was completely nuts.

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:44:42 PM UTC-7, nore...@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 It also doesn't preclude Maud from spontaneously appearing born from the union of an alligator egg and a moonbeam. But that didn't happen either.

Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:45:08 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:36:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:30:49 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 19:55:36 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton. > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > Wasn't Roger maternal grandson of Baron Ralph Basset? > > > > > > No > > > > Could you please tell me your sources and reasons for that? > > There are no sources which state it, and therefore it is false. > Geni is not a source. Online trees created by mad idiots, are not sources. > > If you insist on continuing with your silly crusade you're going to get more of the same remarks. Stop Posting Garbage From Worthless Sources. > > Thank you. 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.

>>You have to look further into the subclades. J2 is of course older than J2a1. J2a1 seems to be more common around the Mediterranean, so we could expect an Italian or Greek origin for them. My O'Brien ancestry connects with Montgomery by way of marriage with a MacCarthy. This traces back to Arnulf "Cimbricius" Montgomery, supposedly of Calvados in Normandy. Assuming the Y-DNA is of Greek origin, my guess is that it was transferred to La Tene Celts in Gaul before the arrival of the Romans in Gaul. Sent from my iPhone

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:36:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:30:49 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 19:55:36 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > > > > > > > > > > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. > > > > > > > > > > Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > Wasn't Roger maternal grandson of Baron Ralph Basset? > > > > No > > Could you please tell me your sources and reasons for that? There are no sources which state it, and therefore it is false. Geni is not a source. Online trees created by mad idiots, are not sources. If you insist on continuing with your silly crusade you're going to get more of the same remarks. Stop Posting Garbage From Worthless Sources. Thank you.

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.

Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 20:30:49 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 19:55:36 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > > > > > > > > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. > > > > > > > > Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton. > > > > > > 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 > > > > Wasn't Roger maternal grandson of Baron Ralph Basset? > > No Could you please tell me your sources and reasons for that?

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:14:57 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 19:55:36 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > > > > > > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. > > > > > > Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton. > > > > 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 > > Wasn't Roger maternal grandson of Baron Ralph Basset? No

Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 19:55:36 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > > > > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. > > > > Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton. > > 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 Wasn't Roger maternal grandson of Baron Ralph Basset?

On 24-Aug-17 10:47 AM, John Higgins wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:43:09 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote: >> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:13:37 PM UTC-6, Katherine Kennedy wrote: >> < I would hardly think it endangers the validity of the entire line. The de >> < Warren family has not been proven by documentation to be of Plantagenet >> < origin. It was only a possibility, so that proves nothing. >> < >> < The lack of a connection between the Somerset family and the believed remains < of Richard III is more problematic, but the break could have occurred at any >> < time. There is no reason to believe it effected John of Gaunt's children >> < directly. >> >> Actually you're wrong. King Richard II allegedly claimed that John of Gaunt's bastard son, John Beaufort, was "gotten" in double adultery. >> >> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > What is your source that Richard II "allegedly claimed" this? That's a pretty weak statement... I look forward to Douglas Richardson's answer, but from memory it was Richard III, not II, who was supposed to have said this. An even less reliable witness... Peter Stewart

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 11:43:28 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. > > Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton. 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

Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 00:14:17 UTC+1, John Higgins escreveu: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently). > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB > > A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away. Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton.