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. We must remember the saying: Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe. This matter deserves further study. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On 8/23/2017 6:05 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote: > See https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6631 for Richard III's y > haplogroup (G-P287). In looking at the "Supplementary Information" file at that site, I noticed the following "red flag" statement: "Tracing the lineage of those of royal or noble descent is no new field of research and much information has previously been published: important surveys include Richardson, Weir and Stuart." Weir's work is mediocre at best, and Stuart's "Royalty for Commoners" is just plain awful.  Even though the material in Stuart's book is too early to have much relevance to the matter at hand, the fact that the authors would call his work an "important survey" does not speak well for the genealogical competence of the authors. Stewart Baldwin

On 24-Aug-17 7:54 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 2:47:42 PM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote: > < It seems very unlikely that John of Gaunt would have recognized the child if he < wasn't sure it was his. > > You're assuming that a woman would not be sleeping with both her lawful husband and her lover at the same time. All we know for certain is that both John of Gaunt and Katherine de Roet were probably both guilty of adultery. What John of Gaunt thought about the child's paternity at the time is not in any way pertinent. > > As a friend used to tell me, Momma's baby, Daddy's maybe. However, the legal presumption was that the mother's husband was the father - "Pater is est quem nuptiae demonstrant". Richard II - assuming he ever said what what is reported - would surely not be considered a reliable witness in any court of law today. He undercut his own credibility on this specific point by issuing a charter recognising John Beaufort and his full siblings as legitimate offspring of John of Gaunt and Katherine, and the next day made John Beaufort (not Swynford) earl of Somerset, then a marquis twice over in the same year. Having it both ways much? I wonder if he used a teleprompter. Peter Stewart

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 8:34:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Smith wrote: > 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 Do you have a link to these IPMs ?

Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 14:17:37 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson escreveu: > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 4:20:21 AM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote: > < According to Geni Hugh Swynford died in 13 November 1371 and John was born in < 1373 if so it is impossible for them to have been father and son although it > < also says that some believed John to be Swynford's postumous child. Please > < let's stop with that wild theory. > > 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. > > If you maintain that the alleged remains of King Richard III are in fact the king's, then a scientific explanation is needed to explain why his Y Chromosome DNA fails to match the modern male descendants of John Beaufort. For reasons only they know, the historians working on this case have failed to provide that explanation. It's science we need here, Paulo, not opinion here. If the DNA of the modern Beaufort descendants is found to match modern Swynford descendants, the answer will be apparent. > > In this case, 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. Surely modern descendants can be found among the other branches. > > P.S. As far as it goes, I find Geni to be a terrible genealogical source. It is loaded with errors. I strongly recommend not using it. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Do you mean 13 or 23? Also where was his age said? I also have a research suggestion for you I suggest you read my thread The Immigrant Henry Gregory some posts debate the identity of his grandmother Dorothy that may lead to a royal descent and I think it would be a good point for your next books in royal descents.

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:17:37 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote: > > If you maintain that the alleged remains of King Richard III are in fact > the king's, then a scientific explanation is needed to explain why his Y > Chromosome DNA fails to match the modern male descendants of John Beaufort. > For reasons only they know, the historians working on this case have failed > to provide that explanation. This is simply not the case. They emphatically did provide a reason, just not with the precision you demand of them, but then, you are not the one they must satisfy. I am sure if you pony up a million pounds, they would be happy to pursue your research aims. taf

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

On Saturday, 22 March 2014 09:44:06 UTC+1, James R. Yeowell wrote: > Brad, John and Jamie, > > Thank you for forwarding on the Brode of Dunclent, Worcestershire pedigree onto me. It is very much appreciated. > > Although I have not been able to determine a proven link between the two families I have been able to determine possible research areas that might do so. There are similarities in familial names as well as the attendance of the same Oxford University College in both families. Although they could all be a coincidence, of course. > > I have also been able to determine some errors within the pedigree too after finding baptism/christening details for some of the individuals named. > > I am not sure where to look next however. > > Thank you again. > > Best regards, > > James R. Yeowell Hi James, I think we had some contact a few years ago on rootschat. I took a few years off my family research to attend to other matters, but am slowly picking it up again. You are a descendant of the Lodington line who married into the Down family of London. I am a descendant of Richard Down and Rose Neale. Do you have any information about them? Would love to hear from you if you still researching. Cheers. Dewi

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).

Since we're discussing John of Gaunt, newsgroup members might wish to read a fascinating article by Emily S. Holt entitled “Mediæval Life among the Nobles,” published in The Churchman 10 (1884): 18–36. It analyzes the income and household expenses of John of Gaunt and his son, King Henry IV. A weblink is provided below. https://books.google.com/books?id=YxgFAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA25&dq=%22John+Beaufort%22+1392&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-iszL8e_VAhUT9mMKHYtKArkQ6AEIPjAE#v=onepage&q=%22John%20Beaufort%22%201392&f=false Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 4:20:21 AM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote: < According to Geni Hugh Swynford died in 13 November 1371 and John was born in < 1373 if so it is impossible for them to have been father and son although it < also says that some believed John to be Swynford's postumous child. Please < let's stop with that wild theory. 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. If you maintain that the alleged remains of King Richard III are in fact the king's, then a scientific explanation is needed to explain why his Y Chromosome DNA fails to match the modern male descendants of John Beaufort. For reasons only they know, the historians working on this case have failed to provide that explanation. It's science we need here, Paulo, not opinion here. If the DNA of the modern Beaufort descendants is found to match modern Swynford descendants, the answer will be apparent. In this case, 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. Surely modern descendants can be found among the other branches. P.S. As far as it goes, I find Geni to be a terrible genealogical source. It is loaded with errors. I strongly recommend not using it. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

According to Geni Hugh Swynford died in 13 November 1371 and John was born in 1373 if so it is impossible for them to have been father and son although it also says that some believed John to be Swynford's postumous child. Please let's stop with that wild theory.

On Wednesday, 23 August 2017 20:29:16 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote: > On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 6:30:32 AM UTC-7, jd...@me.com wrote: > > < There is a further area of disagreement in respect of who married Philip de > < Clanvowe and who bore his children. Again reference is made to the > < Visitations of Gloucester 1623. It is shown that Phillippa is the wife of > < Philip de Clanvowe and that she is the mother of his children. There is no > < suggestion of any other wife. > > < It is the contention of Bartrum, that the first wife of Philip de Clanvowe was < the daughter of Walter de Bredwardine and he later married Phillippa de > < Baskerville. However, from feet of fines, CP 25/1//82/33 number 137 dated > < 14 May 1318, it is known that Philip de Clanvowe and Phillippa de Baskerville < were married before the date of the hearing. > > Dear John ~ > > I would never accuse Mr. Bartrum with whom I corresponded of being a great genealogist. To his credit, however, he did attempt to harmonize often conflicting statements and produce what he felt was the best solution. His contention that Philip de Clanvowe had two wives is presumably his attempt to harmonize two sources, Llyfr Baglan (which is fairly reliable) and Duncumb, Collections Towards the History and Antiquities of the County of Hereford 3 (1882): 187. > > Williams, Llyfr Baglan (1910): 193 states that Philip de Clanvowe's wife was "on of the da & coheires of Sr walter Bedwarden, knight.” That's pretty straight forward. Duncumb, on the other hand, identified Sir Philip de Clanvowe's wife Philippe as the "only surviving daughter and heiress" of Sibyl de Acton, widow," presumably by her husband, Walter de Baskerville, who Duncumb states "died in 1283 without male issue." > > As Mr. Bartrum would have it, we have two wives for Sir Philip de Clanvowe, one being the daughter and co-heiress of Sir "Walter Bedwarden," and the other being the "daughter and heiress of Sibyl de Acton," presumably by her marriage to Walter de Baskerville. > > In this matter, however, the historian Mr. Duncumb was entirely wrong, and Bartrum should have realized it. Walter de Baskerville died without issue, and his heir was his brother Richard de Baskerville. Simply put, Walter de Baskerville had no surviving issue, male or female. > > Where Duncumb got confused was that following the death of Sibyl de Acton, he alleges that Sir Philip de Clanvowe and his wife, Philippe, "made claim to Yasoure" [Herefordshire], which claim was "resisted by Richard de Baskerville." Duncumb cites as his source Fines Co. Heref., 7 Edw. II. No. 72. I haven't tried to find this fine (if it exists), but it clearly has a different regnal date than the 1318 fine which Chris Phillips has abstracted on his medieval genealogy website concerning the manor of Yazor, Herefordshire. > > Whatever the case, Duncumb got his facts wrong. In 1318, Richard de Baskerville, Walter's heir, conveyed the reversion of the manor of Yazor, Herefordshire to Sir Philip de Clanvowe and his wife, Philippe. This agreement was made during the lifetime of Sibyl de Acton, not afterwards. So Duncumb's story is wrong. > > Interested parties can view Williams, Llyfr Baglan (1910): 193 at the following weblink: > > https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE81852 > > I might point out that there is no indication in the 1318 fine that Sir Philip de Clanvowe's wife, Philippe, had any claim to the manor of Yazor by inheritance. Nor can she have had such a claim, as Richard de Baskerville was duly recognized in his lifetime as the legitimate heir of his brother, Walter de Baskerville. So much for Duncumb and Bartrum. > > Finally I should mention that there is a corresponding fine involving the fourth part of the manor of Much Cowarne, Herefordshire, which property Sibyl de Acton also held in dower of her Baskerville marriage. An abstract of this fine may be viewed at the following weblink: > > http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_82_33.shtml#136 > > In this fine dated 1318, the grantor Richard de Baskerville states that the property in question was held in dower by Sibyl de Acton. He agreed to convey the reversion of the property following Sibyl's death to John Walewayn and to John Aubrey and Alice, daughter of the said John Aubrey. > > As I indicated in an earlier post, the above fine recorded in 1318 had its origins in a Common Pleas lawsuit as far back as Hilary term 1314. Here is the reference again for the 1314 lawsuit: > > Court of Common Pleas, CP40/204, image 41f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no204/aCP40no204fronts/IMG_0041.htm). > > I would advise you to be much more careful of what you read in print. Try to document everything you see in print with primary records. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Greetings Douglas Many thanks for this explanation. There is new information for me from this round of correspondence which I wish to study. I am grateful to all those who contributed. You may rest assured, Douglas, that all my research is documented and is being backed up on iCloud. I have thousands of records to support my research. I use only source documents wherever possible. However, we have a particular problem here in Devonshire in that many of the records were destroyed in the bombing of Exeter during the Second World War. Consequently, we have to find third party sources and validate their data. You are probably aware that the South West Heritage Trust has assumed responsibility for the Devonshire archives. It is in the process of digitising the records which has brought to light records which had been buried in the archives for hundreds of years. It was this revelation that assisted me to make the Poyntz family connection in Devonshire. Regards John

That image says Dorothy ... of Beeston. Look at the ... it appears to me that who wrote that pedigree either was unsure about her identity or did not have time to research it.

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. This means that Katherine de Roet was married to Hugh de Swynford at the time John Beaufort was conceived. If John Beaufort was actually Hugh de Swynford's child, then the modern Beaufort line would obviously carry a different male Y-chromosome DNA than the original Plantagenet family. It would also be different from the alleged remains of King Richard III. > > Which brings us to the obvious: Have the results of the Y-DNA male chromosome for the alleged remains of King Richard III ever been published? If so, what are they? Enquiring minds want to know. > > Here are the Y Chromosome DNA results currently shown on the University of Leicester website: NONE. > > Here are the Y-Chromosome results available on John Ashdown-Hill's website, Richard III & DNA. NONE. > > As best I can tell, besides the original Beaufort testing misfire, in all the years the historians have been working on this, they have reportedly only attempted to match the Y chromosome of one Frenchman named Patrice de Warren to the remains of King Richard III. Yet surely there are hundreds of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive today in England and America who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any case, if such a study was done right, it should include numerous samplings, not just one person. Why just one Warren tested? > > If someone knows the exact Y Chromosome sequencing for the alleged remains of King Richard III, I'd appreciate it greatly if they would post this information here on the newsgroup. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah By "exact Y Chromosome sequencing" Do you mean the exact SNPs tested and details surrounding it? You can find most of such details here https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6631 " DNA extraction of ancient samples DNA was extracted from teeth and bone (femur) samples. All procedures were performed in dedicated ancient DNA laboratories at the University of York and the Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse with appropriate contamination precautions in place. Two extraction blanks were included and treated exactly as if they were extracts throughout the whole process. PCRs and library experiments also included further blank controls. ... SNP typing by PCR The capture approach yielded insufficient coverage for all HIrisPlex and Y-chromosome SNPs and therefore primers were designed to generate amplicons containing these SNPs as well as two SNPs, which further define Y-chromosome haplogroup G: M285 (G1) and P287 (G2) (ref. 14). These were amplified as part of multiplex reactions following Römpler et al.44 or singleplex reactions (using 40 cycles and with no secondary amplification) and sequenced on the Ion Torrent following library preparation using Ion PGM 200 Xpress Template Kit and PGM 200 Sequencing Kit. To increase coverage, singleplex PCR and sequencing of one marker (rs28777) was carried out according to Binladen et al.45 Typing of the haplogroup G defining SNPs (M201, M285 and P287) was repeated in Toulouse using singleplex PCRs. Sequencing of these PCR products was carried out using Big-Dye Terminator V3.1 cycle sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems) analysed by capillary electrophoresis on an ABI Prism 3730 Genetic Analyser (Applied Biosystems) at the genomic technical platform PlaGe (Genopole). " There are also full details of the modern samples tested. They also give many details on the mtDNA testing done, which honestly makes it amazingly likely it's Richard III's DNA or a really crazy coincidence that the mtDNA matches a descendant of his same maternal line. Not impossible but really unlikely. All of these details have been around for years, is there some reason you find any specific methodology they used questionable?

From: Joe <cochoit@gmail.com> Sent: 23 August 2017 21:46 <snip> > This brings up the 1312 IPM of John de Acton which says his heir was “John his son, aged 24 years and more” http://tinyurl.com/IPMActon1312 But apparently this is an error by the editors of the Cal. IPM. It actually says “John, son of John de Actone”. http://tinyurl.com/ycuurwhr Comparing this wording to the IPMs of the time makes it pretty clear that the heir was not his son – it was in fact his grandson. > ------------------------------- I don't think it's entirely clear, Joe. The wording given in your second reference (Abstracts of IPMs for Gloucestershire) is at best ambiguous. Even if it reproduces exactly what the original text said, with no addition or omission, I'd tend, on balance, to understand it with the meaning given in your first reference (CIPM 25-411). But it's quite likely that both references have shortened a much longer phrase in the original text. The problem is that IPMs are generally verbose and repetitive, and the published calendars and abstracts provide only a precis, not a full, word-for-word translation. If the original text uses a dozen words to say that the heir John was the son of the subject of the IPM (a typical form of words would be 'John son of the John de Acton named in the writ', for example) then one calendarer might reduce that to the equally unambiguous but terser 'John his son' - but another to 'John son of John de Actone'. To be quite sure you'd have to look at the original ipm. Matt Tompkins

Dear Jan ~ Thank you for posting a weblink to this interesting article. Your help is much appreciated. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

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

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 1:43:09 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Yet surely there are hundreds of Warren and Cornwall male descendants alive > today in England and America who should possess the Plantagenet DNA. In any > case, if such a study was done right, it should include numerous samplings, > not just one person. Why just one Warren tested? I note that Family Tree DNA has both a Warren and a Cornwall/Cornwell project, the first with 200+ tests, the latter almost 100. To date, none of them match either Richard's Y, nor that of the matching living Beaufort descendants (well, most of them - one didn't match the other three, and I didn't look for his, because as described int he paper, the Beaufort crypto-paternity event appears to be in his line). It should be said, though that with regard to the Beaufort line, a less extensive test may not turn up a precise match - they may belong to the same group as the Beauforts but didn't have theirs tested at enough sites to tell for sure. Richard's is different enough that this isn't an issue. taf

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...