Discussion:
Barnes question redux
Add Reply
David Teague
2017-08-07 01:06:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Can anyone confirm or disprove the following?

1. Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys
2. George Barnes (b. 1603/4) and Janetta Key
3. James Barnes, Gent. (b. c. 1635) and ?
4. Dr James Barnes of St Bride's Parish, Dublin, and Mary
5. Brinsley Barnes and Elizabeth Lindley

I know that the relationship between 1 and 2 is documented, and that the
relationship between 4 and 5 is solid as well. There is also DNA evidence
that men who trace their male-line ancestry to Brinsley Barnes are YDNA
matches for the George Barnes who married Janetta Key (generation 2), also
indicates a relationship, although not necessarily direct descent.

The major question, generation-wise, is whether the George Barnes who
married Janetta Key was the same George Barnes as the son of Sir William
Barne and Anne Sandys. Or, rather, if this claimed descent is merely
wishful thinking, the alleged connection between the first two generations
is both the most likely mistake and the easiest one to disprove.

Thanks in advance,

David Teague
wjhonson
2017-08-07 18:18:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Teague
Can anyone confirm or disprove the following?
1. Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys
2. George Barnes (b. 1603/4) and Janetta Key
3. James Barnes, Gent. (b. c. 1635) and ?
4. Dr James Barnes of St Bride's Parish, Dublin, and Mary
5. Brinsley Barnes and Elizabeth Lindley
I know that the relationship between 1 and 2 is documented, and that the
relationship between 4 and 5 is solid as well. There is also DNA evidence
that men who trace their male-line ancestry to Brinsley Barnes are YDNA
matches for the George Barnes who married Janetta Key (generation 2), also
indicates a relationship, although not necessarily direct descent.
The major question, generation-wise, is whether the George Barnes who
married Janetta Key was the same George Barnes as the son of Sir William
Barne and Anne Sandys. Or, rather, if this claimed descent is merely
wishful thinking, the alleged connection between the first two generations
is both the most likely mistake and the easiest one to disprove.
Thanks in advance,
David Teague
Contrary to that, I question whether the George who married Janetta was a son to William Barnes and Anne Sandys.

What is the source for that?
David Teague
2017-08-08 06:51:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
That is not contrary; that is precisely the question I asked. The old
"name's the same" trap is precisely what concerns me about the alleged
line.

It is established that Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys had a son
named George, who is further known to have married.

The George Barnes who married Janetta Key lived in the right time to
be the same as Sir William's son by his wife Anne, but I have yet to
see evidence for their being the same man, which is why I asked, in
the hope that someone with access to better sources than I might
remember seeing evidence one way or another.
Post by wjhonson
Post by David Teague
Can anyone confirm or disprove the following?
1. Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys
2. George Barnes (b. 1603/4) and Janetta Key
3. James Barnes, Gent. (b. c. 1635) and ?
4. Dr James Barnes of St Bride's Parish, Dublin, and Mary
5. Brinsley Barnes and Elizabeth Lindley
I know that the relationship between 1 and 2 is documented, and that the
relationship between 4 and 5 is solid as well. There is also DNA evidence
that men who trace their male-line ancestry to Brinsley Barnes are YDNA
matches for the George Barnes who married Janetta Key (generation 2), also
indicates a relationship, although not necessarily direct descent.
The major question, generation-wise, is whether the George Barnes who
married Janetta Key was the same George Barnes as the son of Sir William
Barne and Anne Sandys. Or, rather, if this claimed descent is merely
wishful thinking, the alleged connection between the first two generations
is both the most likely mistake and the easiest one to disprove.
Thanks in advance,
David Teague
Contrary to that, I question whether the George who married Janetta was a
son to William Barnes and Anne Sandys.
What is the source for that?
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
wjhonson
2017-08-08 15:31:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Teague
That is not contrary; that is precisely the question I asked. The old
"name's the same" trap is precisely what concerns me about the alleged
line.
It is established that Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys had a son
named George, who is further known to have married.
The George Barnes who married Janetta Key lived in the right time to
be the same as Sir William's son by his wife Anne, but I have yet to
see evidence for their being the same man, which is why I asked, in
the hope that someone with access to better sources than I might
remember seeing evidence one way or another.
Post by wjhonson
Post by David Teague
Can anyone confirm or disprove the following?
1. Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys
2. George Barnes (b. 1603/4) and Janetta Key
3. James Barnes, Gent. (b. c. 1635) and ?
4. Dr James Barnes of St Bride's Parish, Dublin, and Mary
5. Brinsley Barnes and Elizabeth Lindley
I know that the relationship between 1 and 2 is documented, and that the
relationship between 4 and 5 is solid as well. There is also DNA evidence
that men who trace their male-line ancestry to Brinsley Barnes are YDNA
matches for the George Barnes who married Janetta Key (generation 2), also
indicates a relationship, although not necessarily direct descent.
The major question, generation-wise, is whether the George Barnes who
married Janetta Key was the same George Barnes as the son of Sir William
Barne and Anne Sandys. Or, rather, if this claimed descent is merely
wishful thinking, the alleged connection between the first two generations
is both the most likely mistake and the easiest one to disprove.
Thanks in advance,
David Teague
Contrary to that, I question whether the George who married Janetta was a
son to William Barnes and Anne Sandys.
What is the source for that?
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Establish for me again, with sources, that they had a son named George at all.

And then that their son George married
Douglas Richardson
2017-08-08 18:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 9:31:23 AM UTC-6, wjhonson wrote:

< Establish for me again, with sources, that they had a son named George at all.

Richardson, Royal Ancestry, 1 (2013): 262(sub Barne) indicates Sir William Barne and his wife, Anne Sandys, had a son, George. He cites the following numerous sources for this family:

Cooke, Vis. of London 1568 (H.S.P. 1) (1869): 25 (Barne ped.: “William Barne his sonne and heyre. = Anne da. to Edwyn Sandes Arch Bishop of York.”) (Barne arms: Azure, three leopards’ heads argent). Cooke & St. George, Vis. of Cambridge 1575 & 1619 (H.S.P. 41) (1897): 5–7 (Sandes ped.: “Anne [Sands] ux. [Sr] Willm. Barns [Knt. sonn & heire of Sr George Barnes maoir of London].”). Misc. Gen. et Heraldica 4th Ser. 1 (1908): 178–179 (Lytton-Pulter ped.). VMHB 29 (1921): 110–124, 227–243. Cooke, Vis. of London 1568, 1569–90 (H.S.P. 109-10) (1963): 43–44. Dorman, Adventurers of Purse & Person 1 (2004): 204–205.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
wjhonson
2017-08-08 18:46:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Douglas Richardson
< Establish for me again, with sources, that they had a son named George at all.
Cooke, Vis. of London 1568 (H.S.P. 1) (1869): 25 (Barne ped.: “William Barne his sonne and heyre. = Anne da. to Edwyn Sandes Arch Bishop of York.”) (Barne arms: Azure, three leopards’ heads argent). Cooke & St. George, Vis. of Cambridge 1575 & 1619 (H.S.P. 41) (1897): 5–7 (Sandes ped.: “Anne [Sands] ux. [Sr] Willm. Barns [Knt. sonn & heire of Sr George Barnes maoir of London].”). Misc. Gen. et Heraldica 4th Ser. 1 (1908): 178–179 (Lytton-Pulter ped.). VMHB 29 (1921): 110–124, 227–243. Cooke, Vis. of London 1568, 1569–90 (H.S.P. 109-10) (1963): 43–44. Dorman, Adventurers of Purse & Person 1 (2004): 204–205.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The Visitation of London is online
Here is the particular family

https://books.google.com/books?id=W1s_AQAAMAAJ&dq=visitation%20of%20london%201568&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false

Although it's name as "taken in 1568" is clearly incorrect, since Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys did not marry until 1586 and yet they are shown here.

However on the particular question of some son named George, this book is silent, only showing children William and Anne

Which is odd since Robert, their known son, should be older than Anne who is called "youngest child of her mother". I suppose there could be two Anne.

But my point is, this source says nothing about some George.
wjhonson
2017-08-08 18:52:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Again the Vis Cambridge 1575/1619 says nothing about some George son to this couple
wjhonson
2017-08-08 18:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Again the Vis Cambridge 1575/1619 says nothing about some George son to this couple
Finally here the Lytton-Pulter pedigree

https://archive.org/stream/miscellaneagenea1190bann#page/n385/mode/2up/search/Lytton

Is there supposed to be something in this that speaks of some George Barnes?
I don't see it
taf
2017-08-08 20:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
The Visitation of London is online
Although it's name as "taken in 1568" is clearly incorrect, since Sir
William Barne and Anne Sandys did not marry until 1586 and yet they
are shown here.
As with all such published visitations, it is important to read the Introduction to determine what it is you are looking at. In this case, the Visitation was indeed taken in 1568, but the publication is a transcript from a manuscript copy made by Nicholas Charles, who died 1613, with subsequent additions by William Camden. The editor states, "It is impossible to draw the exact line between the original Visitation and the additions, . . . .

Most of the published visitations are based on such later manuscript copies, although I know of one that was based on the original notes the herald used to prepare the copy submitted to the College of Arms, and hence is a step closer to the original data than the official version.

taf
wjhonson
2017-08-08 20:14:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
The Visitation of London is online
Although it's name as "taken in 1568" is clearly incorrect, since Sir
William Barne and Anne Sandys did not marry until 1586 and yet they
are shown here.
As with all such published visitations, it is important to read the Introduction to determine what it is you are looking at. In this case, the Visitation was indeed taken in 1568, but the publication is a transcript from a manuscript copy made by Nicholas Charles, who died 1613, with subsequent additions by William Camden. The editor states, "It is impossible to draw the exact line between the original Visitation and the additions, . . . .
Most of the published visitations are based on such later manuscript copies, although I know of one that was based on the original notes the herald used to prepare the copy submitted to the College of Arms, and hence is a step closer to the original data than the official version.
taf
When I saw this Vis, I added another Anne with the supposition that William and Anne were the two eldest children, the only ones living at the time.

Now I believe what we are seeing here, is that the person who made these additions *only knew about* these two. William because he actually inherited and was knighted in 1618, a year before his father died; and Anne because she was well married to Sir William Lovelace.

He (the additor) probably didn't bother to delve into details on younger children, and was simply content with adding what was readily known.


I would still be interested if *anyone* can provide an actual good source for a woman with the peculiar name of Janetta Key.

Or that George existed, or was married to her
wjhonson
2017-08-08 21:04:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I have now removed the claim that Anne Barne was the "youngest child" of her mother as this is clearly false.

Her own child Richard Lovelace is stated to have been born 6 Dec 1617, in his father's IPM. Clearly Anne had to be older than at least her brother Miles who when he was buried in 1670 is stated to be 70, and on 30 May 1632 is stated to be then "Aged 32".

And Miles was the fourth son.
In fact it can be seen possibly, that rather than being the youngest child, Anne may very well be the oldest child.
John Higgins
2017-08-08 21:19:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
I have now removed the claim that Anne Barne was the "youngest child" of her mother as this is clearly false.
Her own child Richard Lovelace is stated to have been born 6 Dec 1617, in his father's IPM. Clearly Anne had to be older than at least her brother Miles who when he was buried in 1670 is stated to be 70, and on 30 May 1632 is stated to be then "Aged 32".
And Miles was the fourth son.
In fact it can be seen possibly, that rather than being the youngest child, Anne may very well be the oldest child.
What is your source for the "claim" that Anne was "the youngest child of her mother"?
wjhonson
2017-08-08 23:25:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
I have now removed the claim that Anne Barne was the "youngest child" of her mother as this is clearly false.
Her own child Richard Lovelace is stated to have been born 6 Dec 1617, in his father's IPM. Clearly Anne had to be older than at least her brother Miles who when he was buried in 1670 is stated to be 70, and on 30 May 1632 is stated to be then "Aged 32".
And Miles was the fourth son.
In fact it can be seen possibly, that rather than being the youngest child, Anne may very well be the oldest child.
What is your source for the "claim" that Anne was "the youngest child of her mother"?
https://books.google.com/books?id=6tQRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA242#v=onepage&q&f=false

"the youngest of whom..."
John Higgins
2017-08-08 21:09:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
The Visitation of London is online
Although it's name as "taken in 1568" is clearly incorrect, since Sir
William Barne and Anne Sandys did not marry until 1586 and yet they
are shown here.
As with all such published visitations, it is important to read the Introduction to determine what it is you are looking at. In this case, the Visitation was indeed taken in 1568, but the publication is a transcript from a manuscript copy made by Nicholas Charles, who died 1613, with subsequent additions by William Camden. The editor states, "It is impossible to draw the exact line between the original Visitation and the additions, . . . .
Most of the published visitations are based on such later manuscript copies, although I know of one that was based on the original notes the herald used to prepare the copy submitted to the College of Arms, and hence is a step closer to the original data than the official version.
taf
When I saw this Vis, I added another Anne with the supposition that William and Anne were the two eldest children, the only ones living at the time.
Now I believe what we are seeing here, is that the person who made these additions *only knew about* these two. William because he actually inherited and was knighted in 1618, a year before his father died; and Anne because she was well married to Sir William Lovelace.
He (the additor) probably didn't bother to delve into details on younger children, and was simply content with adding what was readily known.
I would still be interested if *anyone* can provide an actual good source for a woman with the peculiar name of Janetta Key.
Or that George existed, or was married to her
Apparently you haven't yet checked out the reference to the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography cited by DR, which mentions a son George "living and married 16 May 1632" on p. 123. This doesn't mention Janetta Key, but of course David Teague didn't assert that the George who was son of Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys was the George who married Janetta Key.

Of the "numerous sources" that DR provided in answer to your specific question about the son George, only two of them appear to mention George: the VMBH article and probably Dorman's Adventurers of Purse and Person (not available on-line).
wjhonson
2017-08-08 23:34:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
The Visitation of London is online
Although it's name as "taken in 1568" is clearly incorrect, since Sir
William Barne and Anne Sandys did not marry until 1586 and yet they
are shown here.
As with all such published visitations, it is important to read the Introduction to determine what it is you are looking at. In this case, the Visitation was indeed taken in 1568, but the publication is a transcript from a manuscript copy made by Nicholas Charles, who died 1613, with subsequent additions by William Camden. The editor states, "It is impossible to draw the exact line between the original Visitation and the additions, . . . .
Most of the published visitations are based on such later manuscript copies, although I know of one that was based on the original notes the herald used to prepare the copy submitted to the College of Arms, and hence is a step closer to the original data than the official version.
taf
When I saw this Vis, I added another Anne with the supposition that William and Anne were the two eldest children, the only ones living at the time.
Now I believe what we are seeing here, is that the person who made these additions *only knew about* these two. William because he actually inherited and was knighted in 1618, a year before his father died; and Anne because she was well married to Sir William Lovelace.
He (the additor) probably didn't bother to delve into details on younger children, and was simply content with adding what was readily known.
I would still be interested if *anyone* can provide an actual good source for a woman with the peculiar name of Janetta Key.
Or that George existed, or was married to her
Apparently you haven't yet checked out the reference to the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography cited by DR, which mentions a son George "living and married 16 May 1632" on p. 123. This doesn't mention Janetta Key, but of course David Teague didn't assert that the George who was son of Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys was the George who married Janetta Key.
Of the "numerous sources" that DR provided in answer to your specific question about the son George, only two of them appear to mention George: the VMBH article and probably Dorman's Adventurers of Purse and Person (not available on-line).
Actually it is.
The book is recent enough on Amazon, that you can use the Look Inside feature

It just says "George married ___________" for this son
wjhonson
2017-08-10 17:48:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
The Visitation of London is online
Although it's name as "taken in 1568" is clearly incorrect, since Sir
William Barne and Anne Sandys did not marry until 1586 and yet they
are shown here.
As with all such published visitations, it is important to read the Introduction to determine what it is you are looking at. In this case, the Visitation was indeed taken in 1568, but the publication is a transcript from a manuscript copy made by Nicholas Charles, who died 1613, with subsequent additions by William Camden. The editor states, "It is impossible to draw the exact line between the original Visitation and the additions, . . . .
Most of the published visitations are based on such later manuscript copies, although I know of one that was based on the original notes the herald used to prepare the copy submitted to the College of Arms, and hence is a step closer to the original data than the official version.
taf
When I saw this Vis, I added another Anne with the supposition that William and Anne were the two eldest children, the only ones living at the time.
Now I believe what we are seeing here, is that the person who made these additions *only knew about* these two. William because he actually inherited and was knighted in 1618, a year before his father died; and Anne because she was well married to Sir William Lovelace.
He (the additor) probably didn't bother to delve into details on younger children, and was simply content with adding what was readily known.
I would still be interested if *anyone* can provide an actual good source for a woman with the peculiar name of Janetta Key.
Or that George existed, or was married to her
Apparently you haven't yet checked out the reference to the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography cited by DR, which mentions a son George "living and married 16 May 1632" on p. 123. This doesn't mention Janetta Key, but of course David Teague didn't assert that the George who was son of Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys was the George who married Janetta Key.
Of the "numerous sources" that DR provided in answer to your specific question about the son George, only two of them appear to mention George: the VMBH article and probably Dorman's Adventurers of Purse and Person (not available on-line).
Actually it is.
The book is recent enough on Amazon, that you can use the Look Inside feature
It just says "George married ___________" for this son
I should mention that the *way* we know that he was married at all, is because of his sister's will. In it, she just says ... to my brothers... (and names them), and "to their wives" (without naming them).

That's it. That one document is the sole witness to the fact that George lived long enough to marry anyone.
David Teague
2017-08-10 17:44:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks. I suspected some such outcome.

David Teague
Post by taf
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
The Visitation of London is online
Although it's name as "taken in 1568" is clearly incorrect, since
Sir
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
William Barne and Anne Sandys did not marry until 1586 and yet they
are shown here.
As with all such published visitations, it is important to read the
Introduction to determine what it is you are looking at. In this case, the
Visitation was indeed taken in 1568, but the publication is a transcript
from a manuscript copy made by Nicholas Charles, who died 1613, with
subsequent additions by William Camden. The editor states, "It is
impossible to draw the exact line between the original Visitation and the
additions, . . . .
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Most of the published visitations are based on such later manuscript
copies, although I know of one that was based on the original notes the
herald used to prepare the copy submitted to the College of Arms, and hence
is a step closer to the original data than the official version.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
taf
When I saw this Vis, I added another Anne with the supposition that
William and Anne were the two eldest children, the only ones living at the
time.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Now I believe what we are seeing here, is that the person who made
these additions *only knew about* these two. William because he actually
inherited and was knighted in 1618, a year before his father died; and Anne
because she was well married to Sir William Lovelace.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
He (the additor) probably didn't bother to delve into details on
younger children, and was simply content with adding what was readily known.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
I would still be interested if *anyone* can provide an actual good
source for a woman with the peculiar name of Janetta Key.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Or that George existed, or was married to her
Apparently you haven't yet checked out the reference to the Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography cited by DR, which mentions a son George
"living and married 16 May 1632" on p. 123. This doesn't mention Janetta
Key, but of course David Teague didn't assert that the George who was son
of Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys was the George who married Janetta Key.
Post by John Higgins
Of the "numerous sources" that DR provided in answer to your specific
the VMBH article and probably Dorman's Adventurers of Purse and Person (not
available on-line).
Actually it is.
The book is recent enough on Amazon, that you can use the Look Inside feature
It just says "George married ___________" for this son
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
David Teague
2017-08-10 17:44:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks. I suspected some such outcome.

David Teague
Post by taf
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
The Visitation of London is online
Although it's name as "taken in 1568" is clearly incorrect, since
Sir
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
William Barne and Anne Sandys did not marry until 1586 and yet they
are shown here.
As with all such published visitations, it is important to read the
Introduction to determine what it is you are looking at. In this case, the
Visitation was indeed taken in 1568, but the publication is a transcript
from a manuscript copy made by Nicholas Charles, who died 1613, with
subsequent additions by William Camden. The editor states, "It is
impossible to draw the exact line between the original Visitation and the
additions, . . . .
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Most of the published visitations are based on such later manuscript
copies, although I know of one that was based on the original notes the
herald used to prepare the copy submitted to the College of Arms, and hence
is a step closer to the original data than the official version.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
taf
When I saw this Vis, I added another Anne with the supposition that
William and Anne were the two eldest children, the only ones living at the
time.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Now I believe what we are seeing here, is that the person who made
these additions *only knew about* these two. William because he actually
inherited and was knighted in 1618, a year before his father died; and Anne
because she was well married to Sir William Lovelace.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
He (the additor) probably didn't bother to delve into details on
younger children, and was simply content with adding what was readily known.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
I would still be interested if *anyone* can provide an actual good
source for a woman with the peculiar name of Janetta Key.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Or that George existed, or was married to her
Apparently you haven't yet checked out the reference to the Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography cited by DR, which mentions a son George
"living and married 16 May 1632" on p. 123. This doesn't mention Janetta
Key, but of course David Teague didn't assert that the George who was son
of Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys was the George who married Janetta Key.
Post by John Higgins
Of the "numerous sources" that DR provided in answer to your specific
the VMBH article and probably Dorman's Adventurers of Purse and Person (not
available on-line).
Actually it is.
The book is recent enough on Amazon, that you can use the Look Inside feature
It just says "George married ___________" for this son
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
David Teague
2017-08-10 17:44:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks. I suspected some such outcome.

David Teague
Post by taf
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
The Visitation of London is online
Although it's name as "taken in 1568" is clearly incorrect, since
Sir
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
William Barne and Anne Sandys did not marry until 1586 and yet they
are shown here.
As with all such published visitations, it is important to read the
Introduction to determine what it is you are looking at. In this case, the
Visitation was indeed taken in 1568, but the publication is a transcript
from a manuscript copy made by Nicholas Charles, who died 1613, with
subsequent additions by William Camden. The editor states, "It is
impossible to draw the exact line between the original Visitation and the
additions, . . . .
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
Most of the published visitations are based on such later manuscript
copies, although I know of one that was based on the original notes the
herald used to prepare the copy submitted to the College of Arms, and hence
is a step closer to the original data than the official version.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Post by taf
taf
When I saw this Vis, I added another Anne with the supposition that
William and Anne were the two eldest children, the only ones living at the
time.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Now I believe what we are seeing here, is that the person who made
these additions *only knew about* these two. William because he actually
inherited and was knighted in 1618, a year before his father died; and Anne
because she was well married to Sir William Lovelace.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
He (the additor) probably didn't bother to delve into details on
younger children, and was simply content with adding what was readily known.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
I would still be interested if *anyone* can provide an actual good
source for a woman with the peculiar name of Janetta Key.
Post by John Higgins
Post by wjhonson
Or that George existed, or was married to her
Apparently you haven't yet checked out the reference to the Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography cited by DR, which mentions a son George
"living and married 16 May 1632" on p. 123. This doesn't mention Janetta
Key, but of course David Teague didn't assert that the George who was son
of Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys was the George who married Janetta Key.
Post by John Higgins
Of the "numerous sources" that DR provided in answer to your specific
the VMBH article and probably Dorman's Adventurers of Purse and Person (not
available on-line).
Actually it is.
The book is recent enough on Amazon, that you can use the Look Inside feature
It just says "George married ___________" for this son
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-10 19:22:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Teague
Can anyone confirm or disprove the following?
1. Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys
2. George Barnes (b. 1603/4) and Janetta Key
3. James Barnes, Gent. (b. c. 1635) and ?
4. Dr James Barnes of St Bride's Parish, Dublin, and Mary
5. Brinsley Barnes and Elizabeth Lindley
I know that the relationship between 1 and 2 is documented, and that the
relationship between 4 and 5 is solid as well. There is also DNA evidence
that men who trace their male-line ancestry to Brinsley Barnes are YDNA
matches for the George Barnes who married Janetta Key (generation 2), also
indicates a relationship, although not necessarily direct descent.
The major question, generation-wise, is whether the George Barnes who
married Janetta Key was the same George Barnes as the son of Sir William
Barne and Anne Sandys. Or, rather, if this claimed descent is merely
wishful thinking, the alleged connection between the first two generations
is both the most likely mistake and the easiest one to disprove.
Thanks in advance,
David Teague
Maybe DNA test will be a good solution you just have to find a male line descendant of one of William Barne's other sons and compare his DNA with the DNA of one male line descendant of George Barnes. What do you think?
wjhonson
2017-08-10 19:37:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by David Teague
Can anyone confirm or disprove the following?
1. Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys
2. George Barnes (b. 1603/4) and Janetta Key
3. James Barnes, Gent. (b. c. 1635) and ?
4. Dr James Barnes of St Bride's Parish, Dublin, and Mary
5. Brinsley Barnes and Elizabeth Lindley
I know that the relationship between 1 and 2 is documented, and that the
relationship between 4 and 5 is solid as well. There is also DNA evidence
that men who trace their male-line ancestry to Brinsley Barnes are YDNA
matches for the George Barnes who married Janetta Key (generation 2), also
indicates a relationship, although not necessarily direct descent.
The major question, generation-wise, is whether the George Barnes who
married Janetta Key was the same George Barnes as the son of Sir William
Barne and Anne Sandys. Or, rather, if this claimed descent is merely
wishful thinking, the alleged connection between the first two generations
is both the most likely mistake and the easiest one to disprove.
Thanks in advance,
David Teague
Maybe DNA test will be a good solution you just have to find a male line descendant of one of William Barne's other sons and compare his DNA with the DNA of one male line descendant of George Barnes. What do you think?
There are no known good paper-trail ascents in the male line to this couple
None.
David Teague
2017-08-10 21:12:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks for the suggestion, Paulo, but even if there had been
well-documented ascents to Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys, access to
them might well have been complicated by a number of factors e.g.,
(differences of nationality, status, attitudes toward DNA testing, etc.).
Post by David Teague
Em segunda-feira, 7 de agosto de 2017 02:06:55 UTC+1, David Teague
Post by David Teague
Can anyone confirm or disprove the following?
1. Sir William Barne and Anne Sandys
2. George Barnes (b. 1603/4) and Janetta Key
3. James Barnes, Gent. (b. c. 1635) and ?
4. Dr James Barnes of St Bride's Parish, Dublin, and Mary
5. Brinsley Barnes and Elizabeth Lindley
I know that the relationship between 1 and 2 is documented, and that
the
Post by David Teague
relationship between 4 and 5 is solid as well. There is also DNA
evidence
Post by David Teague
that men who trace their male-line ancestry to Brinsley Barnes are YDNA
matches for the George Barnes who married Janetta Key (generation 2),
also
Post by David Teague
indicates a relationship, although not necessarily direct descent.
The major question, generation-wise, is whether the George Barnes who
married Janetta Key was the same George Barnes as the son of Sir
William
Post by David Teague
Barne and Anne Sandys. Or, rather, if this claimed descent is merely
wishful thinking, the alleged connection between the first two
generations
Post by David Teague
is both the most likely mistake and the easiest one to disprove.
Thanks in advance,
David Teague
Maybe DNA test will be a good solution you just have to find a male line
descendant of one of William Barne's other sons and compare his DNA with
the DNA of one male line descendant of George Barnes. What do you think?
There are no known good paper-trail ascents in the male line to this couple
None.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Loading...