On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 10:53:39 AM UTC-4, Joe wrote: > This line should be broken for both of them here. There are several discussions in the archives regarding Milicent of Rethel. > See this one from earlier this year: > Re: Ancestry of Jeffrey Amherst http://tinyurl.com/glu62ow > > Douglas Richardson wrote then: "Of these children, it would appear that the son Richard and the daughter Isabel (wife of Robert de Harcourt) were the only children by Richard de Camville's 2nd wife, Milicent de Rethel. This is deduced by the fact that Milicent de Rethel's lands at Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire (which she had by grant of her kinswoman, Queen Alice) were held after Milicent's death by the younger Richard de Camville. When the younger Richard de Camville died in 1191, he was succeeded briefly by his son and heir, John. It appears that John de Camville soon died without issue, and the lands at Stanton Harcourt reverted to his father Richard's sister, Isabel de Harcourt or her representative. Had Milicent de Rethel been the mother of the elder Richard de Camville's other sons, Stanton Harcourt would have fallen to them, ahead of Isabel Harcourt. The succession at Stanton Harcourt suggests that the younger Richard de Camville and Isabel de Harcourt were full sublings, and the only children of Milicent de Rethel by the elder Richard de Camville. " > > Joe > > > > >> Someone posted maybe William Camville was son of Richard Camville and his first wife which would negate the Rethel line back. Of course if that would negate it for Alice it should have negated it for Jeffrey Amherst whose line still shows up going through the same son William de Camville (m. Aubree Marmion)of the same couple Milicent of Rethel = Richard de Camville. Thank you. Especially for the plain English explanation and also for the tiny url.