Jim - Absolutely correct! I guess that is the beauty of this board is to be able to get others info, input and opinions. I suppose the key word in the birth date is "Abt.". Now that you have brought that mis-aligned date to my attention, I have since seen other "Abt." dates of 1455, 65, 81, 90, 95. Of course, none have definitive sources so, as we have all learned, this info serves as a "pointer" only. The year that "may" fit in the best may be 1481 or '89 (maybe Margaret was known to be the baby of the family.thus '89 would seem likely). It seems (based on all the "Abt."s, I have in the info I was looking at which gave her birth in '93) that Ann & Roger were in a heavy production mode for the last 20 years Roger's life.turning out a kid every odd year. The only years that seem to be vacant are '81 and '89. A possibility. Don't know how to go about finding more definitive information in that even Faris has his "Abt."s.:) I have, which I am sure people probably know about, since found another (and I am sure there are more) direct link to a Plantagenet King, Henry III. This still requires the same Hoo-Copley connection as it takes place further up the line, branching off of Elizabeth Seagrave and Sir John III de Mowbry, whose mother was Joan Plantagenet.sister to Margaret Plantagenet on my lineage posting earlier. Her g-grandfather was Henry III. Also found other lineages to the Stewarts and John de Normandie.and obviously many more! Thanks.

Jim, Jim wrote: >Jim - > >Absolutely correct! I guess that is the beauty of this board is to be >able to get others info, input and opinions. > We seem to have a lot of very good resources here. > >I suppose the key word in the birth date is "Abt.". Now that you have >brought that mis-aligned date to my attention, I have since seen other >"Abt." dates of 1455, 65, 81, 90, 95. Of course, none have definitive >sources so, as we have all learned, this info serves as a "pointer" >only. The year that "may" fit in the best may be 1481 or '89 (maybe >Margaret was known to be the baby of the family.thus '89 would seem >likely). It seems (based on all the "Abt."s, I have in the info I was >looking at which gave her birth in '93) that Ann & Roger were in a >heavy production mode for the last 20 years Roger's life.turning out a >kid every odd year. The only years that seem to be vacant are '81 and >'89. A possibility. Don't know how to go about finding more definitive >information in that even Faris has his "Abt."s.:) > Sometimes when there is no information I just leave it blank. But there's nothing inherently wrong with "abt.", "c." or "ca." (circa), it that's what you have. >I have, which I am sure people probably know about, since found another >(and I am sure there are more) direct link to a Plantagenet King, Henry >III. This still requires the same Hoo-Copley connection as it takes >place further up the line, branching off of Elizabeth Seagrave and Sir >John III de Mowbry, whose mother was Joan Plantagenet.sister to Margaret >Plantagenet on my lineage posting earlier. Her g-grandfather was Henry >III. > I looked and I have this line also in my database (Joan of Lancaster and John, 3rd Lord Mowbray). > Also found other lineages to the Stewarts and John de Normandie.and >obviously many more! > I'm a Stewart descendant as well, my Plantagenet connections stemming mainly from the marriage of James I to Lady Joan Beaufort. BTW, I noticed several earlier Plantagenet family connections through Eleanor de Wells besides the one through Thomas "of Brotherton" (son of Edward I). She is also a descendant of Hamlin, Earl of Surrey (illegitimate son of Geoffrey V); Robert de Caen, Constance, and Maud (all illegitimate children of Henry I); Eleanor of England, Queen Consort of Castile (daughter of Henry II); William Longspee (illegitimate son of Henry II); as well as Edmund "Crouchback" (son of Henry III). I just took a quick look so there could be others as well, but she has quite a collection. BTW, I'm not immediately placing John de Normandie, who was he again? Thanks Jim