This came from the 2008 RD600 (if I've copied it correctly): King Louis IV of France d. 954 = Gerbera dau. Of Henry I the Fowler, German Emperor, their son: Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide; their daughter: Adelaide of Lower Lorraine = Albert I Count of Namur; their son: Albert II Count of Namur = Regelinde of Lower Lorraine; their son: Albert III, Count of Namur = Ida of Saxony; their son: Geoffrey, Count of Namur = Sybil of Chateau-Porcien: their daughter: 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; their son: Sir Guy de la Spine/Spinney = Katherine; their daughter: Eleanor Spinney = Sir John Throckmorton; their daughter: Agnes Throckmorton = Thomas Winslow; their daughter: Agnes Winslow = John Giffard; their son: Thomas Giffard = Joan Langston; their daughter: Amy Giffard = Richard Samwell; their daughter: Susanna Samwell = Peter Edwards; their son: Edward Edwards = Ursula Coles; their daughter: Margaret Edwards = Henry Freeman; their daughter: Alice Freeman (of Massachusetts and Connecticut) = (1) John Thompson; (2) Robert Parke I keep asking why the lines back from gateway Alice Freeman are no longer valid. I keep getting answers that this is everyone's understanding except for back to Ethelred II they are gone. So could someone tell me where this line breaks down? I know some of you don't care for gateways but I haven't found another newsgroup that really deals effectively going back. So here I am again. Thank you scholars, researchers, historians, for all your help. Cynthia Montgomery

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > 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: > So could someone tell me where this line breaks down? It is here in the de Camville line which is uncertain. Starting with William de Camville is not a proven son of Milicent de Rethel. Richard was twice married and his first wife is probably a better fit

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > This came from the 2008 RD600 (if I've copied it correctly): > King Louis IV of France d. 954 = Gerbera dau. Of Henry I the Fowler, German Emperor, their son: > Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide; their daughter: > Adelaide of Lower Lorraine = Albert I Count of Namur; their son: > Albert II Count of Namur = Regelinde of Lower Lorraine; their son: > Albert III, Count of Namur = Ida of Saxony; their son: > Geoffrey, Count of Namur = Sybil of Chateau-Porcien: their daughter: > 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; their son: > Sir Guy de la Spine/Spinney = Katherine; their daughter: > Eleanor Spinney = Sir John Throckmorton; their daughter: > Agnes Throckmorton = Thomas Winslow; their daughter: > Agnes Winslow = John Giffard; their son: > Thomas Giffard = Joan Langston; their daughter: > Amy Giffard = Richard Samwell; their daughter: > Susanna Samwell = Peter Edwards; their son: > Edward Edwards = Ursula Coles; their daughter: > Margaret Edwards = Henry Freeman; their daughter: > Alice Freeman (of Massachusetts and Connecticut) = (1) John Thompson; (2) Robert Parke > > I keep asking why the lines back from gateway Alice Freeman are no longer valid. I keep getting answers that this is everyone's understanding except for back to Ethelred II they are gone. > So could someone tell me where this line breaks down? > I know some of you don't care for gateways but I haven't found another newsgroup that really deals effectively going back. So here I am again. > Thank you scholars, researchers, historians, for all your help. > Cynthia Montgomery In addition to Ethelred II, Genealogics gives a line from Joan Langston to Gilbert FitzRichard/de Clare and Adeliza de Clermont and therefore Hugues Capet. Following up on its citations might be a fruitful lead for further research.

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 1:08:13 AM UTC+10, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > This came from the 2008 RD600 (if I've copied it correctly): > King Louis IV of France d. 954 = Gerbera dau. Of Henry I the Fowler, > German Emperor, their son: > Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide; their daughter: > Adelaide of Lower Lorraine = Albert I Count of Namur; their son: > Albert II Count of Namur = Regelinde of Lower Lorraine; their son: > Albert III, Count of Namur = Ida of Saxony; Ida the wife of Albert III of Namur may have belonged to the ducal family of Saxony, as often asserted, but her origin is not certain. The Medieval Lands database gives a sloppy and illiterate false impression on this point: according to Charles Cawley, 'The Genealogia ex stirpe Sancti Arnulfi names "Idam Namucensem … uxorem Angelberti marchionis et Gertrudem comitissam Flandrensem" as children of "Bernardum"'. Actually this misrepresents a highly unsatisfactory source, making it appear to provide straightforward and reliable information. The passage in question is in fact grossly garbled, either by the original writer in 1164 or more probably by a redactor in or after 1261. It purports to trace Ida and several sisters back to Heinrich the Fowler's son Heinrich of Bavaria, a younger brother of Emperor Otto I: "Henricus dux, frater Othonis primi, genuit Henricum ducem. Hic genuit Henricum imperatorem et Giselam, uxorem Stephani regis Hungrorum. Hec genuit Bernardum. Hic genuit Idam Namucensem et reginam Francorum, uxorem Angelberti marchionis et Gertrudem comitissam Flandrensem et reginam Nacorum". Actually Emperor Heinrich II's sister Gisela, wife of St Stephen of Hungary, was not the mother of Bernard II of Saxony (who is usually supposed, on no better authority than this passage, to have been Ida's father) while Ida herself was not sister to queens of France and Denmark (assuming ‘Nacorum’ should be read as ‘Dacorum’) although she may have been their maternal aunt as a sister to Bernard II's daughter Gertrude (respectively by each of the latter's marriages, the second to a count of Flanders). Ida was possibly also sister to Hadwig 'of Mossa' (whose second husband Engelbert, count of Sponheim, was perhaps the man titled ‘marchio’). Peter Stewart

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 12:06:31 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > Actually this misrepresents a highly unsatisfactory source, making it appear to provide straightforward and reliable information. The passage in question is in fact grossly garbled, either by the original writer in 1164 or more probably by a redactor in or after 1261. It purports to trace Ida and several sisters back to Heinrich the Fowler's son Heinrich of Bavaria, a younger brother of Emperor Otto I: "Henricus dux, frater Othonis primi, genuit Henricum ducem. Hic genuit Henricum imperatorem et Giselam, uxorem Stephani regis Hungrorum. Hec genuit Bernardum. Hic genuit Idam Namucensem et reginam Francorum, uxorem Angelberti marchionis et Gertrudem comitissam Flandrensem et reginam Nacorum". > > Actually Emperor Heinrich II's sister Gisela, wife of St Stephen of Hungary, was not the mother of Bernard II of Saxony (who is usually supposed, on no better authority than this passage, to have been Ida's father) while Ida herself was not sister to queens of France and Denmark (assuming ‘Nacorum’ should be read as ‘Dacorum’) At the risk a beating a dead horse, this is exactly the kind of thing that places MedLands in a bad light in the eyes of many. One need not even be an expert to know enough about the Hungarian struggle for succession to dismiss out of hand any claim that King Stephen was father of Bernard of Saxony, and conclude that any source that makes the claim must be viewed with extreme skepticism with regard to all its claims. To simply lift this one passage out of such a dubious context, with no analysis or perhaps even recognition of the problematic nature of the source from which it is drawn, demonstrates a lack of appropriate care (or else intentional selective omission) in the extraction of relational statements from sources. Worse yet, as Peter points out, with the Latin quote of the relational statement, stripped of all context, it gives the false impression of reliability to any reader unfamiliar with the entire passage. taf

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > This came from the 2008 RD600 (if I've copied it correctly): > King Louis IV of France d. 954 = Gerbera dau. Of Henry I the Fowler, German Emperor, their son: > Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide; their daughter: > Adelaide of Lower Lorraine = Albert I Count of Namur; their son: > Albert II Count of Namur = Regelinde of Lower Lorraine; their son: > Albert III, Count of Namur = Ida of Saxony; their son: > Geoffrey, Count of Namur = Sybil of Chateau-Porcien: their daughter: > 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; their son: > Sir Guy de la Spine/Spinney = Katherine; their daughter: > Eleanor Spinney = Sir John Throckmorton; their daughter: > Agnes Throckmorton = Thomas Winslow; their daughter: > Agnes Winslow = John Giffard; their son: > Thomas Giffard = Joan Langston; their daughter: > Amy Giffard = Richard Samwell; their daughter: > Susanna Samwell = Peter Edwards; their son: > Edward Edwards = Ursula Coles; their daughter: > Margaret Edwards = Henry Freeman; their daughter: > Alice Freeman (of Massachusetts and Connecticut) = (1) John Thompson; (2) Robert Parke > > I keep asking why the lines back from gateway Alice Freeman are no longer valid. I keep getting answers that this is everyone's understanding except for back to Ethelred II they are gone. > So could someone tell me where this line breaks down? > I know some of you don't care for gateways but I haven't found another newsgroup that really deals effectively going back. So here I am again. > Thank you scholars, researchers, historians, for all your help. > Cynthia Montgomery Now that I understand that the Camville line breaks down because the mother of William de Camville isn't Milicent de Rethel but instead Richard de Camville's first wife Alice, does anyone have evidence who this Alice is?

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:17:58 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > > This came from the 2008 RD600 (if I've copied it correctly): > > King Louis IV of France d. 954 = Gerbera dau. Of Henry I the Fowler, German Emperor, their son: > > Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine = Adelaide; their daughter: > > Adelaide of Lower Lorraine = Albert I Count of Namur; their son: > > Albert II Count of Namur = Regelinde of Lower Lorraine; their son: > > Albert III, Count of Namur = Ida of Saxony; their son: > > Geoffrey, Count of Namur = Sybil of Chateau-Porcien: their daughter: > > 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; their son: > > Sir Guy de la Spine/Spinney = Katherine; their daughter: > > Eleanor Spinney = Sir John Throckmorton; their daughter: > > Agnes Throckmorton = Thomas Winslow; their daughter: > > Agnes Winslow = John Giffard; their son: > > Thomas Giffard = Joan Langston; their daughter: > > Amy Giffard = Richard Samwell; their daughter: > > Susanna Samwell = Peter Edwards; their son: > > Edward Edwards = Ursula Coles; their daughter: > > Margaret Edwards = Henry Freeman; their daughter: > > Alice Freeman (of Massachusetts and Connecticut) = (1) John Thompson; (2) Robert Parke > > > > I keep asking why the lines back from gateway Alice Freeman are no longer valid. I keep getting answers that this is everyone's understanding except for back to Ethelred II they are gone. > > So could someone tell me where this line breaks down? > > I know some of you don't care for gateways but I haven't found another newsgroup that really deals effectively going back. So here I am again. > > Thank you scholars, researchers, historians, for all your help. > > Cynthia Montgomery > > Now that I understand that the Camville line breaks down because the mother of William de Camville isn't Milicent de Rethel but instead Richard de Camville's first wife Alice, does anyone have evidence who this Alice is? What is the evidence for the identity of the wives of the two William de la Spines in this pedigree?