On 2016-06-18 14:39:43 +0000, Jan Wolfe said: > 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? I'd like to know that myself. The two secondary sources I have handy which assert these marriages are Henry James Young's _The Blackmans of Knight's Creek_ and Gary Boyd Roberts' _The Royal Descent of 600 Immigrants_ etc (2008 edition), the source cited by Cynthia Ann Montgomery in starting this thread. Both are works that concatenate their citations in such a way that makes it a bit challenging to establish which source confirms which piece of information. Young's references for the Bruley family are _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_ by William F. Carter (1936) and _Memorials of the Danvers Family_ by F. N. Macnamara (1895). For the Durvassals, he cites Dugdale's _Antiquities of Warwickshire_, page 757, and _The Genealogist_ n.s., volume 10, page 31. And for the Spinney/Spine/Spineto family, he cites only Charles Wickliffe Throckmorton's 1930 _A Genealogical and Historical Account of the Throckmorton Family in England and the United States_. I don't have immediate access to _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_. But the other sources are easy to find online. The Bruley discussion in _Memorials of the Danvers Family_ doesn't mention an "Alice de Bruley", let alone anyone named de la Spine (or variants). _Antiquities of Warwickshire_ doesn't anywhere, as best as I can tell, mention a Margery Durvassal marrying a William de Spineto/Spine/etc. And the _Genealogist_ page referred to shows merely a brief Durvassal pedigree from a pipe roll which, again, makes no mention of a Margery. Gary Boyd Roberts' list of references on page 559 of the 2008 edition of his _Royal Descent of 600 Immigrants_, following his presentation of the pedigree under discussion, includes, for the generations in question, Young's _Blackmans of Knight's Creek_, Dugdale's _Antiquities of Warwickshire_, _The Wallop Family_ (which doesn't mention any Spinetos/Spynes/Spinneys prior to the Sir Guy Spiney of Coughton whose daughter married a Throckmorton), an ancestor table by Brice McAdoo Clagett in the _Maryland Genealogical Society Bulletin 31 (1989-90): 136:53, "corrected in part in [McAdoo's] forthcoming _Seven Centuries: Ancestors for Twenty Generations of John Brice de Treville Clagett and Ann Calvert Brooke Clagett_" (neither of which I have access to), and ... Charles Wickliffe Throckmorton's book. So unless William F. Carter's 1936 _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_, and/or the two works by Brice McAdoo Clagett (one of them unpublished, as far as I know) contain evidence for the marriages of William de Spineto (etc, d. bef. 1317) of Coughton, Warwickshire to Margary Durvassal, daughter of Thomas Durvassal (d. bef. 1329) of Spernore, Warwickshire, and of his son William Spyne (etc) to Alice de Bruley, daughter of William Bruley of Aston Bruley, Warwickshire, himself a son of Sir Henry de Bruley and Katherine Foliot ... I think we have to conclude that both Young's and Roberts's main source for these marriages was Col. Charles Wickliffe Throckmorton's 1930 _A Genealogical and Historical Account of the Throckmorton Family in England and the United States_. Which does indeed show these marriages. Let's look at what the Colonel has to say. "Alice=William de Spine" appears at the bottom of Col. Throckmorton's "Bruley Pedigree" facing page 64, and both marriages are shown on the "Spine and Durvassal Pedigree" facing page 68. In the latter pedigree, the marriage of William to Margery Durvassal is footnoted "In 26 Edw. I. (1300) he bought the de Bruley interest in Cocton from Sir Wm. Tuchet, knt., who had inherited them from the Bishop of Ely. (Coughton Records and Dugdale.) In Ireland 1291-3, and in 1294 in Wales with the king for the war. (Chancery Warrants, 1294-1326, p. 47.)" The marriage of the younger William to "Alice, dau. of William de Bruley" is footnoted "In 22 Edw. III., William de Espinge, lord of Cocton, lets farm to Wm. de Bruley, son of the former Henry le Bruley, knt., a messuage in Cocton. In 36 Edw. III., William Spine quitclaimed to Sybil, who was formerly the wife of John Durvassal, and heirs of her body all right in the manor of Spernore. He was living 44 Edw. III. Commissioner for arraying of Archers for French wars, 19 Edw. III. (Dugdale and Coughton Records.)" Regarding the first of these two footnotes, it's worth pointing out that 26 Edward I was 20 Nov 1297 to 19 Nov 1298, not "1300" as Throckmorton says. The Colonel's shaky grasp of reignal dating has been noted elsewhere. Col. Throckmorton's actual narrative of the Spine family runs from pages 64 to 66, following a discussion of the de Coctons, a daughter of whom, Throckmorton says, married the William de la Spine who was father to the elder of the two Williams being discussed in this post. Interestingly, this narrative passage doesn't mention any marriages to de Bruleys or Durvassals. Following his discussion of Guy de la Spine, knight of the shire, whose daughter Alianore married John Throckmorton, Col. Throckmorton says "I have given above nearly verbatim the account of the Cocton and Spine families from Wrottesley of Wrottesley by the Right Honorable Major General Sir George Wrottesley and from the Antiquities of Warwickshire by Sir William Dugdale". It's notable that George Wrottesley's _History of the Family of Wrottesley of Wrottesley, Co. Stafford_ (1903) doesn't mention the Spines at all, and Dugdale's _Antiquities of Warwickshire_, while it does discuss the Spines (volume 2, p. 748-49), makes (as noted previously) no mention of a marriage to a Margary Durvassal, and the name given for the wife of the younger William Spine is merely "Alicia." In other words, the evidence presented by Throckmorton for the Bruley and Durvassal marriages consists entirely of his entries on two pedigree charts, accompanied by footnotes which -- and I acknowledge that I'm merely an interested amateur; I'd be delighted to be shown wrong here -- don't seem to me to present information demonstrating that these marriages actually happened. I admit that I'm predisposed to be suspicious of Colonel Throckmorton's book, because I've read John G. Hunt and Henry J. Young's article "Ravens or Pelicans: Who was Joan de Harley?" (_The Genealogist_, even newer series, 1:27, Spring 1980), which entertainly demolished Col. Throckmorton's claim that Alexander Besford, a Worcestershire knight of the shire who died about 1400 and who was an ancestor to (among other early New England immigrants) Alice Freeman of Connecticut and John Throckmorton of Rhode Island, was son to a Joan de Harley who was herself daughter of Joan Corbet, dau. of Sir Robert Corbet, and thus descended from Louis IV of France, Henry "the Fowler", Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, the dukes of Normandy, and various other medieval eminences. In the process, Hunt and Young (the latter of whom I assume to be the same individual that compiled _The Blackmans of Knight's Creek_) make some observations about Col. Throckmorton's methods: "In the scholarly articles of [G. Andrews] Moriarty the pedigree emerges inevitably from the original documents consulted; by contrast, the Colonel uses his documents for verisimilitude and ornamentation, almost as a smoke screen, relying ultimately on his hunch. [...] Even his citations are lifted, not always accurately, without acknowledgement of the immediate source." "Using documents for verisimilitude and ornamentation, almost as a smoke screen" looks to me very much like a description of Throckmorton's two footnotes transcribed above, and it really doesn't encourage me to give much credibility to a pair of marriages for which his pedigrees appear to be the only actual source. Further destruction of the Colonel's credibility can be found in Paul C. Reed's article nine years later, again in _The Genealogist_ (10:1, Spring 1989), "Another Look at Joan de Harley: Will Her Real Descendants Please Rise?", which in the process of bouncing the rubble made a good case that the Colonel's methodological problems were not occasional or intermittent. Again, I'm merely an interested amateur; I'd be happy to learn that I'm wrong about any of this. It seems to me likely that many of the people reading this are far more familiar with this material than I am. (I certainly suspect that Jan Wolfe is.) I'm basically trying to reason as best I can from the materials available to me, and within the limitations of my knowledge. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden pnh@panix.com about.me/patricknh http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/

Dear Patrick and all, VCH Warwickshire is available at British History Online.  This might throw some light on the Durvassal-Spiney=plus perhaps Holt issues.  The archives may have some discussion also. Kay Allen On Sunday, June 19, 2016 7:40 AM, Patrick Nielsen Hayden via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: On 2016-06-18 14:39:43 +0000, Jan Wolfe said: > 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? I'd like to know that myself. The two secondary sources I have handy which assert these marriages are Henry James Young's _The Blackmans of Knight's Creek_ and Gary Boyd Roberts' _The Royal Descent of 600 Immigrants_ etc (2008 edition), the source cited by Cynthia Ann Montgomery in starting this thread. Both are works that concatenate their citations in such a way that makes it a bit challenging to establish which source confirms which piece of information. Young's references for the Bruley family are _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_ by William F. Carter (1936) and _Memorials of the Danvers Family_ by F. N. Macnamara (1895). For the Durvassals, he cites Dugdale's _Antiquities of Warwickshire_, page 757, and _The Genealogist_ n.s., volume 10, page 31. And for the Spinney/Spine/Spineto family, he cites only Charles Wickliffe Throckmorton's 1930 _A Genealogical and Historical Account of the Throckmorton Family in England and the United States_. I don't have immediate access to _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_. But the other sources are easy to find online. The Bruley discussion in _Memorials of the Danvers Family_ doesn't mention an "Alice de Bruley", let alone anyone named de la Spine (or variants). _Antiquities of Warwickshire_ doesn't anywhere, as best as I can tell, mention a Margery Durvassal marrying a William de Spineto/Spine/etc. And the _Genealogist_ page referred to shows merely a brief Durvassal pedigree from a pipe roll which, again, makes no mention of a Margery. Gary Boyd Roberts' list of references on page 559 of the 2008 edition of his _Royal Descent of 600 Immigrants_, following his presentation of the pedigree under discussion, includes, for the generations in question, Young's _Blackmans of Knight's Creek_, Dugdale's _Antiquities of Warwickshire_, _The Wallop Family_ (which doesn't mention any Spinetos/Spynes/Spinneys prior to the Sir Guy Spiney of Coughton whose daughter married a Throckmorton), an ancestor table by Brice McAdoo Clagett in the _Maryland Genealogical Society Bulletin 31 (1989-90): 136:53, "corrected in part in [McAdoo's] forthcoming _Seven Centuries: Ancestors for Twenty Generations of John Brice de Treville Clagett and Ann Calvert Brooke Clagett_" (neither of which I have access to), and ... Charles Wickliffe Throckmorton's book. So unless William F. Carter's 1936 _The Quatremains of Oxfordshire_, and/or the two works by Brice McAdoo Clagett (one of them unpublished, as far as I know) contain evidence for the marriages of William de Spineto (etc, d. bef. 1317) of Coughton, Warwickshire to Margary Durvassal, daughter of Thomas Durvassal (d. bef. 1329) of Spernore, Warwickshire, and of his son William Spyne (etc) to Alice de Bruley, daughter of William Bruley of Aston Bruley, Warwickshire, himself a son of Sir Henry de Bruley and Katherine Foliot ... I think we have to conclude that both Young's and Roberts's main source for these marriages was Col. Charles Wickliffe Throckmorton's 1930 _A Genealogical and Historical Account of the Throckmorton Family in England and the United States_. Which does indeed show these marriages. Let's look at what the Colonel has to say. "Alice=William de Spine" appears at the bottom of Col. Throckmorton's "Bruley Pedigree" facing page 64, and both marriages are shown on the "Spine and Durvassal Pedigree" facing page 68. In the latter pedigree, the marriage of William to Margery Durvassal is footnoted "In 26 Edw. I. (1300) he bought the de Bruley interest in Cocton from Sir Wm. Tuchet, knt., who had inherited them from the Bishop of Ely. (Coughton Records and Dugdale.) In Ireland 1291-3, and in 1294 in Wales with the king for the war. (Chancery Warrants, 1294-1326, p. 47.)" The marriage of the younger William to "Alice, dau. of William de Bruley" is footnoted "In 22 Edw. III., William de Espinge, lord of Cocton, lets farm to Wm. de Bruley, son of the former Henry le Bruley, knt., a messuage in Cocton. In 36 Edw. III., William Spine quitclaimed to Sybil, who was formerly the wife of John Durvassal, and heirs of her body all right in the manor of Spernore. He was living 44 Edw. III. Commissioner for arraying of Archers for French wars, 19 Edw. III. (Dugdale and Coughton Records.)" Regarding the first of these two footnotes, it's worth pointing out that 26 Edward I was 20 Nov 1297 to 19 Nov 1298, not "1300" as Throckmorton says. The Colonel's shaky grasp of reignal dating has been noted elsewhere. Col. Throckmorton's actual narrative of the Spine family runs from pages 64 to 66, following a discussion of the de Coctons, a daughter of whom, Throckmorton says, married the William de la Spine who was father to the elder of the two Williams being discussed in this post. Interestingly, this narrative passage doesn't mention any marriages to de Bruleys or Durvassals. Following his discussion of Guy de la Spine, knight of the shire, whose daughter Alianore married John Throckmorton, Col. Throckmorton says "I have given above nearly verbatim the account of the Cocton and Spine families from Wrottesley of Wrottesley by the Right Honorable Major General Sir George Wrottesley and from the Antiquities of Warwickshire by Sir William Dugdale". It's notable that George Wrottesley's _History of the Family of Wrottesley of Wrottesley, Co. Stafford_ (1903) doesn't mention the Spines at all, and Dugdale's _Antiquities of Warwickshire_, while it does discuss the Spines (volume 2, p. 748-49), makes (as noted previously) no mention of a marriage to a Margary Durvassal, and the name given for the wife of the younger William Spine is merely "Alicia." In other words, the evidence presented by Throckmorton for the Bruley and Durvassal marriages consists entirely of his entries on two pedigree charts, accompanied by footnotes which -- and I acknowledge that I'm merely an interested amateur; I'd be delighted to be shown wrong here -- don't seem to me to present information demonstrating that these marriages actually happened. I admit that I'm predisposed to be suspicious of Colonel Throckmorton's book, because I've read John G. Hunt and Henry J. Young's article "Ravens or Pelicans: Who was Joan de Harley?" (_The Genealogist_, even newer series, 1:27, Spring 1980), which entertainly demolished Col. Throckmorton's claim that Alexander Besford, a Worcestershire knight of the shire who died about 1400 and who was an ancestor to (among other early New England immigrants) Alice Freeman of Connecticut and John Throckmorton of Rhode Island, was son to a Joan de Harley who was herself daughter of Joan Corbet, dau. of Sir Robert Corbet, and thus descended from Louis IV of France, Henry "the Fowler", Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, the dukes of Normandy, and various other medieval eminences. In the process, Hunt and Young (the latter of whom I assume to be the same individual that compiled _The Blackmans of Knight's Creek_) make some observations about Col. Throckmorton's methods: "In the scholarly articles of [G. Andrews] Moriarty the pedigree emerges inevitably from the original documents consulted; by contrast, the Colonel uses his documents for verisimilitude and ornamentation, almost as a smoke screen, relying ultimately on his hunch. [...] Even his citations are lifted, not always accurately, without acknowledgement of the immediate source." "Using documents for verisimilitude and ornamentation, almost as a smoke screen" looks to me very much like a description of Throckmorton's two footnotes transcribed above, and it really doesn't encourage me to give much credibility to a pair of marriages for which his pedigrees appear to be the only actual source. Further destruction of the Colonel's credibility can be found in Paul C. Reed's article nine years later, again in _The Genealogist_ (10:1, Spring 1989), "Another Look at Joan de Harley: Will Her Real Descendants Please Rise?", which in the process of bouncing the rubble made a good case that the Colonel's methodological problems were not occasional or intermittent. Again, I'm merely an interested amateur; I'd be happy to learn that I'm wrong about any of this. It seems to me likely that many of the people reading this are far more familiar with this material than I am. (I certainly suspect that Jan Wolfe is.) I'm basically trying to reason as best I can from the materials available to me, and within the limitations of my knowledge. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden pnh@panix.com about.me/patricknh http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message