On Saturday, January 15, 2000 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, John Ravilious wrote: > Sat., 15 January, 2000 > > > Hello Paul (et al.): > > [This query/comment is directed in part to you as I see reference to your > assistance in Mr. James Hansen's article on _The Ancestry of Joan Legard_, TAG > 69:129-139] > > I have received my copy of PA, 2nd edition, and noticed an item which may > be an editorial loose end: it does have relevance to an earlier post I had > made re: Sir Martin de la See [under a previous ISP and e-mail address]. > > In the footnotes at the bottom of pages 57 and 288, PA refers to > Elizabeth de Burgh and Lionel of Clarence (p. 57), and Elizabeth Mortimer and > Henry Percy (p. 288) as _Ancestors of [amongst others] William Farrar_. > Following these entries, however [from Henry _Hotspur_ Percy on] this thread > disappears. The PA ancestry for William Farrar, p. 135 reflects his descent > through Cecily Kelke from Edward I, but there is no trace of any ancestral > connection to Edward III. > > It would appear that the disconnect occurs in the Kelke family, where (on > pp. 198-199) PA shows the union of Isabel Girlington and Christopher Kelke, > ancestors of William Farrar and others. The note appended to the entry for > Isabel Girlington and Christopher Kelke (p. 198) references an 1880 article > from _The Genealogist_, citing an entry in the Visitation of Lincolnshire > stating: _Roger Kelke of Barnetby = Elizabeth, da. and coheir of Sir Martin de > Lacy_. I have referred directly to the printed Lincolnshire Pedigrees in the > Harleian series, and find the entry (p. 556) to state: _Roger Kelke of > Barnetby = Elizabeth, dau. and coheir of Sir Martin de la See_. > > In the article in TAG mentioned above, which was a source for the > ancestral lines in PA for John Harleston (pp. 173-176) and Rev. William > Skepper (pp. 328-330), Mr. Hansen referenced among other documents the will of > Sir Martin de la See, which does not either reference or disprove the > existence of a daughter Elizabeth. Several possibilities exist to explain > this situation, including: > > 1. A daughter Elizabeth was born after 1480 (subsequent to the > Yorkshire Visitation, dated by Hansen as ca. 1480/81) - this > would infer that she had died and given birth to her son before > her father wrote his will in 1494, which while not impossible is > considered unlikely. > > 2. Elizabeth was the daughter and heiress of Sir Martin's son, Martin > de la See (referenced by Hansen as possibly being married in 1480 > to one Elizabeth Hawley). > > 3. Some disproof of Elizabeth, wife of Roger Kelke, being the > daughter of either Martin or his father Sir Martin, of which I > am not aware. > > The second possibility shown above has a great deal to commend itself, as > (given Martin's having predeceased his father) it would certainly fit better > with the circumstances of Sir Martin's will of 1494. The fact that no > provision was apparently made in the will for any grandchildren [at least > based on information extracted by Mr. Hansen] does not disprove the existence > of one or more grandchildren. > > If anyone is aware of any facts relating to the above, including > disproving or proving this _de la See connection_ with the Kelke family, I and > others in the group would be grateful to hear of them. > > Good luck and good hunting. > > > John > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.