On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:29:28 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote: > Em sábado, 18 de junho de 2016 14:17:58 UTC+1, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com escreveu: > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > > 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? > > We can´t be sure the line breaks down we don´t have enough information > to say who is the mother of William but the genealogists seem to support > Millicent. We can't be absolutely positively sure that William was not son of Millicent, but it is extremely unlikely that he was. 'The genealogists' first drew the conclusion that William the younger was son of Millicent simply because Millicent was documented as wife of William the elder. Given what they had in hand, this was a reasonable assumption - if a man only had one known wife, then the default conclusion is that his legitimate children were born to that wife, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, at the time they lacked the precise details on the pattern of inheritance of Millicent's land, which is exactly the kind of evidence to the contrary that suggests that the older sons of the elder William were not children of Millicent. This is a case where we have to be willing to reevaluate old assumptions, whatever the cost to our tree, and when we do this we find that in all likelihood the line breaks, that William was likely son of an earlier wife and not Millicent. taf

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:50:45 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 11:29:28 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote: > > Em sábado, 18 de junho de 2016 14:17:58 UTC+1, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com escreveu: > > > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 11:08:13 AM UTC-4, cynthia.ann...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > We can´t be sure the line breaks down we don´t have enough information > > to say who is the mother of William but the genealogists seem to support > > Millicent. > > We can't be absolutely positively sure that William was not son of Millicent, but it is extremely unlikely that he was. > > 'The genealogists' first drew the conclusion that William the younger was son of Millicent simply because Millicent was documented as wife of William the elder. Given what they had in hand, this was a reasonable assumption - if a man only had one known wife, then the default conclusion is that his legitimate children were born to that wife, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, at the time they lacked the precise details on the pattern of inheritance of Millicent's land, which is exactly the kind of evidence to the contrary that suggests that the older sons of the elder William were not children of Millicent. > > This is a case where we have to be willing to reevaluate old assumptions, whatever the cost to our tree, and when we do this we find that in all likelihood the line breaks, that William was likely son of an earlier wife and not Millicent. > As Peter has made clear, I left out an alternative - it is certainly possible that these genealogists were unaware that William the elder had two wives (I think we sometimes forget how easy we have it is locating obscure publications, or knowing that a not-so-obscure publication we wouldn't think to check has something relevant). That being said, it is also possible that they knew that Gerald was son of one mother and that Isabel was daughter of another, so how do they determine which one is likely mother of William? They pick the one with the better pedigree. However it arose it was an ill-informed conclusion. taf