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. What about the contention that Lady Elizabeth Percy may not have had daughters and that Mary de Clifford could not, then, be her daughter? See See the truth. It affects my lines, too. https://royaldescent.blogspot.com/2010/02/weakest-link-in-jane-seymours-royal.html

Em quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 19:01:50 UTC+1, thmsn...@gmail.com escreveu: > 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. > > What about the contention that Lady Elizabeth Percy may not have had daughters and that Mary de Clifford could not, then, be her daughter? See > See the truth. It affects my lines, too. > https://royaldescent.blogspot.com/2010/02/weakest-link-in-jane-seymours-royal.html That affirmation given by some is completely spurious. The so called ancient heralds NEVER said Elizabeth Percy didn't have daughter they just didn't mention any neither for her neither for her husband.