On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 1:08:16 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > How does this reconstruction compare to the original (see second section, below)? > > Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter: > Milicent of Rethel = (1) Robert Marmion; their son: > [possible additional Marmion generation] > Geoffrey Marmion = _______; > Albreda or Aubrey de Marmion = William de Camville; their son: > William de Camville = Iseuda; their son: > Thomas = Agnes; their daughter: > Felicia de Camville = Phillip Durvassal; their son: > Thomas Durvassal= Margery; their daughter: > Margery Durvassal = William de la Spine; their son: > William de la Spine = Alice de Bruley; > > Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter: > Milicent of Rethel = (2) Richard de Camville; their son: > William de Camville = Aubree de Marmion; their son: > William de Camville = Iseuda; their son: > Thomas = Agnes; their daughter: > Felicia de Camville = Phillip Durvassal; their son: > Thomas Durvassal= Margery; their daughter: > Margery Durvassal = William de la Spine; their son: > William de la Spine = Alice de Bruley; > > I assume this is also incorrect, but thought I would throw it out there, with these links as "sources" (loosely so called): Yes, proven incorrect. Millicent of Rethel was not the mother of William de Camville.

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 10:46:20 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 1:08:16 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > > How does this reconstruction compare to the original (see second section, below)? > > > > Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter: > > Milicent of Rethel = (1) Robert Marmion; their son: > > [possible additional Marmion generation] > > Geoffrey Marmion = _______; > > Albreda or Aubrey de Marmion = William de Camville; their son: > > William de Camville = Iseuda; their son: > > Elizabeth of Namur = Gervais, Count of Rethel; their daughter: > > Milicent of Rethel = (2) Richard de Camville; their son: > > William de Camville = Aubree de Marmion; their son: > > William de Camville = Iseuda; their son: > > I assume this is also incorrect, but thought I would throw it out there, with these links as "sources" (loosely so called): > > Yes, proven incorrect. Millicent of Rethel was not the mother of William de Camville. As I understood it, the question was about the first descent as a replacement for the second. I have two observations. First, there is no way one would expect another generation in the Marmion descent. It would mean that William de Camville would be marrying the granddaughter of his step-brother. Second, while using a strict generational framework can sometimes lead to the wrong result, it can tell you if your reconstruction may be skewed. In this case, Isabel de Camville would be of the same generation as her half-brother William, and likewise of her Marmion half-brothers If William's wife Aubrey was of his generation, then she would be daughter of someone of the generation before his - of the generation of Millicent and not her child. I can't find any detailed study of the family but I find several references to Sir Robert Marmion (d.ca. 1181, son of Millicent) granting Llanstephan to his "uncle" Geoffrey, from whom it passed to Aubrey, wife of William de Camville. Thus it looks like no descent because Aubrey's line branches in the generation before the Rethel marriage. taf