Discussion:
Tree Leads to Alfred the Great
Add Reply
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-14 21:42:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hello, I was directed here from Reddit. I started my tree for fun using Ancestry, WikiTree, genealot(something like that), and google for county records. My family has mostly lived in the US since the 1600’s. I somehow linked my tree all the way to Alfred the Great, and from my understanding that doesn’t really happen so I figure someone somewhere connected some dots without any real source for their info. It’s beginning to give me a migraine so I’m hoping someone can give me a hand! 3 lines through my paternal side leads there bc of intermarrying. I’m currently rebuilding my chart but I found out on FamilyTree if you accept a match it automatically builds your chart for you so I’m going to have to do it again. I’m hoping if I can find where the inaccuracy is, I can remove it without redoing the whole chart completely (it’s becoming less fun and more work). Here is one particular line starting at the top:

Henry II - mistress Ida de Tosny — William Longespée

William Longespée -married- Ela of Salisbury -had- Ida Lon gespee

Ida Lon gespee - Walter FitzRobert — Ela FitzWalter

Ela FitzWalter - William de Oddingseles — Ida de Oddingseles

Ida de Oddingseles - John de Clinton — John de Clinton II

John de Clinton II - Margery Corbet — John de Clinton III

John de Clinton III - Idione de Say — Margaret de Clinton

Margaret de Clinton - Baldwin de Montfort — William Montfort

William Montfort - Margaret Pecche — Baldwin Montfort

Baldwin Montfort - Joan Vernon — Robert Montfort

Robert Montfort - Mary Stapleton — Katherine Montfort

Katherine Montfort - George booth — William booth

William booth - Ellen Montgomery — Jane/Joan booth

Jane/Joan booth - Thomas holford — Dorothy holford

Dorothy holford - John bruen — John bruen

Sorry if this isn’t the right place to post this!
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-14 22:12:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Henry II - mistress Ida de Tosny — William Longespée
William Longespée -married- Ela of Salisbury -had- Ida Lon gespee
Ida Lon gespee - Walter FitzRobert — Ela FitzWalter
Ela FitzWalter - William de Oddingseles — Ida de Oddingseles
Ida de Oddingseles - John de Clinton — John de Clinton II
John de Clinton II - Margery Corbet — John de Clinton III
John de Clinton III - Idione de Say — Margaret de Clinton
Margaret de Clinton - Baldwin de Montfort — William Montfort
William Montfort - Margaret Pecche — Baldwin Montfort
Baldwin Montfort - Joan Vernon — Robert Montfort
Robert Montfort - Mary Stapleton — Katherine Montfort
Katherine Montfort - George booth — William booth
William booth - Ellen Montgomery — Jane/Joan booth
Jane/Joan booth - Thomas holford — Dorothy holford
Dorothy holford - John bruen — John bruen
Sorry if this isn’t the right place to post this!
This line is good except for the very last election. That John Bruen did not immigrate to the colonies. However, his brother, Obadiah, did. Are you descended from him, instead?
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-14 22:13:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Henry II - mistress Ida de Tosny — William Longespée
William Longespée -married- Ela of Salisbury -had- Ida Lon gespee
Ida Lon gespee - Walter FitzRobert — Ela FitzWalter
Ela FitzWalter - William de Oddingseles — Ida de Oddingseles
Ida de Oddingseles - John de Clinton — John de Clinton II
John de Clinton II - Margery Corbet — John de Clinton III
John de Clinton III - Idione de Say — Margaret de Clinton
Margaret de Clinton - Baldwin de Montfort — William Montfort
William Montfort - Margaret Pecche — Baldwin Montfort
Baldwin Montfort - Joan Vernon — Robert Montfort
Robert Montfort - Mary Stapleton — Katherine Montfort
Katherine Montfort - George booth — William booth
William booth - Ellen Montgomery — Jane/Joan booth
Jane/Joan booth - Thomas holford — Dorothy holford
Dorothy holford - John bruen — John bruen
Sorry if this isn’t the right place to post this!
This line is good except for the very last election. That John Bruen did not immigrate to the colonies. However, his brother, Obadiah, did. Are you descended from him, instead?
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-14 22:13:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Henry II - mistress Ida de Tosny — William Longespée
William Longespée -married- Ela of Salisbury -had- Ida Lon gespee
Ida Lon gespee - Walter FitzRobert — Ela FitzWalter
Ela FitzWalter - William de Oddingseles — Ida de Oddingseles
Ida de Oddingseles - John de Clinton — John de Clinton II
John de Clinton II - Margery Corbet — John de Clinton III
John de Clinton III - Idione de Say — Margaret de Clinton
Margaret de Clinton - Baldwin de Montfort — William Montfort
William Montfort - Margaret Pecche — Baldwin Montfort
Baldwin Montfort - Joan Vernon — Robert Montfort
Robert Montfort - Mary Stapleton — Katherine Montfort
Katherine Montfort - George booth — William booth
William booth - Ellen Montgomery — Jane/Joan booth
Jane/Joan booth - Thomas holford — Dorothy holford
Dorothy holford - John bruen — John bruen
Sorry if this isn’t the right place to post this!
This line is good except for the very last generation. That John Bruen did not immigrate to the colonies. However, his brother, Obadiah, did. Are you descended from him, instead?
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-14 22:20:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Henry II - mistress Ida de Tosny — William Longespée
William Longespée -married- Ela of Salisbury -had- Ida Lon gespee
Ida Lon gespee - Walter FitzRobert — Ela FitzWalter
Ela FitzWalter - William de Oddingseles — Ida de Oddingseles
Ida de Oddingseles - John de Clinton — John de Clinton II
John de Clinton II - Margery Corbet — John de Clinton III
John de Clinton III - Idione de Say — Margaret de Clinton
Margaret de Clinton - Baldwin de Montfort — William Montfort
William Montfort - Margaret Pecche — Baldwin Montfort
Baldwin Montfort - Joan Vernon — Robert Montfort
Robert Montfort - Mary Stapleton — Katherine Montfort
Katherine Montfort - George booth — William booth
William booth - Ellen Montgomery — Jane/Joan booth
Jane/Joan booth - Thomas holford — Dorothy holford
Dorothy holford - John bruen — John bruen
Sorry if this isn’t the right place to post this!
This line is correct. Obadiah Bruen, son of the John Bruen in your last generation, immigrated to the colonies. His royal descent is shown in Douglas Richardson and Gary Boyd Roberts's books.
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-15 03:30:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Richardson’s book is where this list is from. After I posted this I started researching from the top and I’m uncertain about Ida Longespée’s parentage. Apparently she *could* be William and Ela’s child or Their grandchild. I guess it’s still somewhat accurate.. apparently another line stems from their son, Stephen, as well
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-15 18:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The line of descent you have set forth is fine. I've extensively researched the question of the two Ida Longespees. After a deep dive into contemporary medieval records, I'm convinced that the two Ida's were full sisters. I descend from their brother Stephen Longespee, so I have a personal interest in this family.

The one weak generation in your line of descent is Margaret de Clinton, wife of Baldwin de Montfort. While I am satisfied that her parents are as stated, I'd still like to see better evidence. But that is a minor concern.

Best always, Douglas Richardson
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-15 18:40:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I also have a line from Stephen, along with apparently about 3ish other lines from the other side (my fathers paternal great grandfathers side, and his maternal great grandmothers side). If I post those, do you think you could have a look at them as well? The more I look into it, the more confused I get lol I am not familiar with basically any of this
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-15 18:49:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'd very much like to see your other lines of descent. Please post what you have.

DR
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-15 20:22:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is #2 which is very similar to the first one but it Leads down to Thomas Holford, father of Dorothy Holford, rather than Jane Booth, mother of Dorothy Holford.

Henry II - mistress Ida de Tosny — William Longespée

William Longespée - Ela (Fitzpatrick) of Salisbury — Stephen Lon gespee

Stephen Lon gespee - emeline de ridelisfort — Ela** Longespée

Eva/Ela* Longespée - roger la Zouche — alan la Zouche

Alan la Zouche - Eleanor segrave — Maud la Zouche

Maud la Zouche - Robert de holland — maud de holland

Maud de holland - Thomas de swinnerton — Robert swinnerton

Roger swinnerton - Elizabeth de beke — maud swinnerton

Maud swinnerton - William ipstones — Alice ipstones

Alice ipstones - Randall Brereton — Randall brereton

Randall brereton - Katherine bulkley — Randal brereton III

Richard brereton III - Emma carrington — Ralph brereton

Ralph brereton - Jane __ — Margaret brereton

Margaret brereton - John holford — Thomas holford

Thomas holford - Jane Booth — Dorothy holford


I’m working on the third one I’ve seen. I decided to just edit the chart as I go instead of restarting it (and creating duplicates)
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-15 20:37:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Here is #2 which is very similar to the first one but it Leads down to Thomas Holford, father of Dorothy Holford, rather than Jane Booth, mother of Dorothy Holford.
Henry II - mistress Ida de Tosny — William Longespée
William Longespée - Ela (Fitzpatrick) of Salisbury — Stephen Lon gespee
Stephen Lon gespee - emeline de ridelisfort — Ela** Longespée
Eva/Ela* Longespée - roger la Zouche — alan la Zouche
Alan la Zouche - Eleanor segrave — Maud la Zouche
Maud la Zouche - Robert de holland — maud de holland
Maud de holland - Thomas de swinnerton — Robert swinnerton
Roger swinnerton - Elizabeth de beke — maud swinnerton
Maud swinnerton - William ipstones — Alice ipstones
Alice ipstones - Randall Brereton — Randall brereton
Randall brereton - Katherine bulkley — Randal brereton III
Richard brereton III - Emma carrington — Ralph brereton
Ralph brereton - Jane __ — Margaret brereton
Margaret brereton - John holford — Thomas holford
Thomas holford - Jane Booth — Dorothy holford
I’m working on the third one I’ve seen. I decided to just edit the chart as I go instead of restarting it (and creating duplicates)
This line is also correct but there are a couple of wrong names.
First, the husband of Elizabeth de Beke was named Robert, not Roger.
Second, the husband of Emma Carrington was named Randall, not Richard.
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-15 20:41:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thank you!
Matt A
2020-07-15 21:23:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The Swinnerton-Holland connection is very weak. I’m not aware of any evidence predating the 19th century compilations, I think. I can’t recall exactly but I’ve been party to one of the discussions on the newsgroup previously about this, so you can search the archives.
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-15 21:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Noted. I’ll research and see what I can find
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-15 21:53:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matt A
The Swinnerton-Holland connection is very weak. I’m not aware of any evidence predating the 19th century compilations, I think. I can’t recall exactly but I’ve been party to one of the discussions on the newsgroup previously about this, so you can search the archives.
You're wrong. You're confused with the Swinnerton-Gresley connection, read http://www.nltaylor.net/pdfs/a_Gresley.pdf. The earliest account of the Holland-Swinnerton connection is, actually, a 1580 visitation and it's supported by earlier evidence. Both Richardson and Roberts have accepted it.
Matt A
2020-07-16 00:47:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Okay, so reading the article, it appears that the claim derives from a 1580 Visitation, and was given exaggerated credence by a 19th-century historian who made claims that exceeded the limits of the evidence before him. Not exactly what I said, but still not the same as evidenced by contemporary documentation (within 200 years is a decent standard, not met in this case). And no, the fact that modern genealogists Douglas Richardson and Gary Boyd Roberts accept the connection does not mean that it is true. After all, one could easily argue that it is not true because Nathaniel Taylor, in the article you just provided, no less, says that the evidence is ultimately no better than the 1580 Visitation of Cheshire.
paulorica...@gmail.com
2020-07-16 00:58:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matt A
Okay, so reading the article, it appears that the claim derives from a 1580 Visitation, and was given exaggerated credence by a 19th-century historian who made claims that exceeded the limits of the evidence before him. Not exactly what I said, but still not the same as evidenced by contemporary documentation (within 200 years is a decent standard, not met in this case). And no, the fact that modern genealogists Douglas Richardson and Gary Boyd Roberts accept the connection does not mean that it is true. After all, one could easily argue that it is not true because Nathaniel Taylor, in the article you just provided, no less, says that the evidence is ultimately no better than the 1580 Visitation of Cheshire.
No offense, but I didn't say that their acceptance meant it was true. However, it does show two present day experts supporting the connection.
taf
2020-07-16 01:06:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
No offense, but I didn't say that their acceptance meant it was true. However, it does show two present day experts supporting the connection.
GBR is really more of a collator - he does not independently research the lines, but simply collects them based on the publications of 'experts', so the inclusion of a line only means it has been published and no expert has communicated to him that it is flawed. Thus his inclusion does not indicate an independent expert opinion.

taf
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-16 02:37:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Actually you're quite wrong. The Holand-Swinnerton connection is based on actual contemporary medieval evidence, not simply a late date visitation.

I recommend you consult my Royal Ancestry book.

DR
taf
2020-07-16 02:57:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Actually you're quite wrong. The Holand-Swinnerton
connection is based on actual contemporary medieval
evidence, not simply a late date visitation.
Actually, unless you present the actual contemporary evidence ghere, we just have your word for it, not 200 years after the fact, but 700 years after the fact.
Post by c***@gmail.com
I recommend you consult my Royal Ancestry book.
I recommend that you just be collegial and tell us what the evidence is.


But I will not hold my breath.

taf
John Higgins
2020-07-16 04:56:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Actually you're quite wrong. The Holand-Swinnerton connection is based on actual contemporary medieval evidence, not simply a late date visitation.
I recommend you consult my Royal Ancestry book.
DR
Why are so many of the messages in this thread appearing without indicating the message that they're responding to? Is this perhaps a feature of the "new" Google Groups which some participants have perhaps switched to? If, so, it's NOT a good feature - it makes the thread much more confusing.
John Higgins
2020-07-17 00:51:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Matt A
The Swinnerton-Holland connection is very weak. I’m not aware of any evidence predating the 19th century compilations, I think. I can’t recall exactly but I’ve been party to one of the discussions on the newsgroup previously about this, so you can search the archives.
You're wrong. You're confused with the Swinnerton-Gresley connection, read http://www.nltaylor.net/pdfs/a_Gresley.pdf. The earliest account of the Holland-Swinnerton connection is, actually, a 1580 visitation and it's supported by earlier evidence. Both Richardson and Roberts have accepted it.
Paulo, you evidently didn't read (or chose to ignore) the line at the top of the article you cite here: "do not redistribute or cite without permission". Did you ask permission from Mr. Taylor before you cited his article? Do you even know who "Nathaniel L. Taylor" is? Here's a hint: check the masthead of a recent issue of TAG.

And you clearly didn't read the article very carefully, as he ends by questioning BOTH the Swinnerton-Gresley connection and the Holland-Swinnerton connection. And it's careless to simply cite the 1580 visitation of Cheshire in support of the Holland-Swinnerton connection and leave it at that.

With respect to the Holland-Swinnerton connection, it basically comes down to whether you support the Taylor position or the Richardson position. The Taylor position is made clear in his article (as of 2002). Richardson has told us in this thread to "read my book Royal Ancestry". But you can read his position in his earlier books, and even earlier in line 32 of AR7, published in 1993. To cut to the chase, it depends on your interpretation of an article on the Swinnerton family by Canon Bridgeman in vol. 7 (1886) of Collections for a History of Staffordshire. Each of us can make our own judgment...
paulorica...@gmail.com
2020-07-17 01:24:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Matt A
The Swinnerton-Holland connection is very weak. I’m not aware of any evidence predating the 19th century compilations, I think. I can’t recall exactly but I’ve been party to one of the discussions on the newsgroup previously about this, so you can search the archives.
You're wrong. You're confused with the Swinnerton-Gresley connection, read http://www.nltaylor.net/pdfs/a_Gresley.pdf. The earliest account of the Holland-Swinnerton connection is, actually, a 1580 visitation and it's supported by earlier evidence. Both Richardson and Roberts have accepted it.
Paulo, you evidently didn't read (or chose to ignore) the line at the top of the article you cite here: "do not redistribute or cite without permission". Did you ask permission from Mr. Taylor before you cited his article? Do you even know who "Nathaniel L. Taylor" is? Here's a hint: check the masthead of a recent issue of TAG.
And you clearly didn't read the article very carefully, as he ends by questioning BOTH the Swinnerton-Gresley connection and the Holland-Swinnerton connection. And it's careless to simply cite the 1580 visitation of Cheshire in support of the Holland-Swinnerton connection and leave it at that.
With respect to the Holland-Swinnerton connection, it basically comes down to whether you support the Taylor position or the Richardson position. The Taylor position is made clear in his article (as of 2002). Richardson has told us in this thread to "read my book Royal Ancestry". But you can read his position in his earlier books, and even earlier in line 32 of AR7, published in 1993. To cut to the chase, it depends on your interpretation of an article on the Swinnerton family by Canon Bridgeman in vol. 7 (1886) of Collections for a History of Staffordshire. Each of us can make our own judgment...
I know very well who Nathaniel Lane Taylor is. He used to participate here.
I'm not sure if his request to ask for permission to cite this applies to mere online posts and it has been cited here before. I'm not sure if the other people who cited it here asked for permission. I didn't. If I did wrong, I apologize
Regardless, Taylor is far more optimistic about the Holland-Swinnerton connection than about the Swinnerton-Gresley one, though, as you say, he does express doubt.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-16 02:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The Swinnerton-Holand connection is actually quite sound.

By the way, it's Holand, not Holland. Holland is the country. Holand is the medieval English family.

Douglas Richardson, a Holand descendant
Peter Stewart
2020-07-16 09:51:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
The Swinnerton-Holand connection is actually quite sound.
By the way, it's Holand, not Holland. Holland is the country. Holand is the medieval English family.
Up Holland in Lancashire is the place they took their surname from - see
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Up+Holland.

Better tell the inhabitants, Google, the Ordnance Survey and the world
at large that you have the gen on correct spelling. Or should that be
speling?

Peter Stewart
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-16 13:47:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Anyway, here’s #3. I don’t hold much confidence in it. I had to change Baldwin IV’s mother

Awlfthryth - Baldwin II — Arnulf I

Arnulf I - Adele of Vermandois — Baldwin III

Baldwin III - Matilda Billung of Saxony — baudouin IV

Baudouin IV - ogive — Baudouin V

Baudouin V - Adele of France — Matilda of Flanders

Matilda - William the conqueror — Henry I

Henry I - Sybilla Corbet — Robert FitzRoy

Robert - Mabel FitzHammon — William FitzRobert

William - Hawise — Amice FitzRobert

Amice - Richard de Clare III — Gilbert de Clare IV

Gilbert - Isabel Marshall — Richard de Clare

Richard - Maud de Lucy — Thomas de Clare

Thomas - juliana FitzMaurice — Matilda de Clare

Matilda - Robert de Clifford — Idonea de Clifford

Idonea - Henry Percy — maud Percy

Maud - John Neville — Ralph Neville

Ralph Neville - Margaret Stafford — Phillippa Neville

Philippa - Thomas dacre — Margaret dacre

(Son Thomas -> Margaret??)

Margaret - John le Scrope — Margaret le Scrope

Margaret - Thomas Spencer** — William FitzJohn II

William FitzJohn II - Agnes Heritage — Thomas Spencer ???

Thomas - Dorothy Hills — Mary Margerie Spencer

Mary - Thomas Durant — Mary Durant

Mary Durant - William Ring — Elizabeth ring

Elizabeth ring - stephen deane — Elizabeth deane

Elizabeth deane - Will Twining III — Mehetable Twining

Mehetable - Daniel Doane Jr. — Elijah Doan

Elijah Doan - Catherine Crippen — Titus Doan

Titus - Deborah Wilson — Elijah Doan
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-16 14:24:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is #4. I haven’t reviewed this one at all or checked references. #3 leads to Mehetable Twining and #4 leads to her husband in the chart, Daniel Doane Jr.

Edmund the elder - eadgifu — Edmund the magnificent

Edmund - Aelgifu — Edgar the peaceful

Edgar - aelfthryth — aethelred the unready

Aethelred - Emma of Normandy — Aelgifu of Northumbria

Aelgifu - Uhtred the Bold — Ealdgyth of Northumbria

Ealdgyth - Maldred — Gospatric of Dunbar

Gospatrick - Aethelreda of Dunbar — Gunhilda

Gunhilda - Orm de Workington — Orm FitzGospatrick

Orm - Grace de Ireby — Eleanor Ada

Eleanor - William Flemming — Catherine le Flemming

Catherine - Reginald de Aldwark — Galfrid de Aldwarke

Galfrid - Matilda _ — Roger de Aldwarke

Roger - Joan de Normanville — Robert de Aldwarke

Robert - Johanna Clarrell - william Clarrell

William - Agnes Waleries — Thomas Clarrell

Thomas - Isabella St. Philbert — William Clarrell

William - Elizabeth de Reygate — Thomas Clarrell II

Thomas - Elizabeth de Scrope — Richard Clarrell

Richard - Margaret Whittingham — Joan Margaret Clarrell

Joan - Thomas Andrews — Mary Andrews

Mary - James Hopkins — Stephen Hopkins

Stephen - Agnes Norfolk — Stephen Hopkins

Stephen - Katherine Weldon — John Hopkins

John Hopkins - Elizabeth Williams — Stephen Hopkins

Steven - Mary Kent — Constance Hopkins

Constance - Nicholas snow — Constance snow

Constance - Daniel Doane — Daniel Doane Jr.

Daniel - Mehatable Twinning — Elijah Doane
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-16 15:31:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Looking into this, I found Stephen Hopkins was a passenger on the Mayflower, which lines up with info I vaguely knew. My great grandmother hired a genealogist about 30 years ago and that was pretty much the only thing my dad remembers and has told me. I *believe* my great uncle has that info so I’ll have my dad ask him for it (but it’ll be awhile).

Where I’m stuck now is on Stephen’s ancestors. What I’m seeing is that there isn’t much known about them?
Johnny Brananas
2020-07-16 15:57:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Looking into this, I found Stephen Hopkins was a passenger on the Mayflower, which lines up with info I vaguely knew. My great grandmother hired a genealogist about 30 years ago and that was pretty much the only thing my dad remembers and has told me. I *believe* my great uncle has that info so I’ll have my dad ask him for it (but it’ll be awhile).
Where I’m stuck now is on Stephen’s ancestors. What I’m seeing is that there isn’t much known about them?
I don't think the evidence on Stephen Hopkins's ancestry is very strong. There was another Stephen Hopkins, I think, who went to Connecticut (he isn't the same Mayflower person). Maybe this line is for him?
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-16 19:24:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks! Everything I saw stated that there was no relation, so I removed the parents and the line itself. There are actually many lines that lead up to some form of King/Queen through Denmark, Germany, England, etc. and it’s a bit frustrating if it isn’t legitimately accurate, but rather wishful thinking
Johnny Brananas
2020-07-16 20:32:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Thanks! Everything I saw stated that there was no relation, so I removed the parents and the line itself. There are actually many lines that lead up to some form of King/Queen through Denmark, Germany, England, etc. and it’s a bit frustrating if it isn’t legitimately accurate, but rather wishful thinking
"Wishful thinking" is a big problem in genealogy, as in some other areas of life (Ronnie and Nancy probably had wishful delusions about an effective Alzheimer's med). [I just rediscovered the Genesis "Land of Confusion" music video.]

But accuracy is always good to strive for ...
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-16 21:40:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I would like to the option to mark people as “potentials” rather than being forced to add them or not. I like FamilyTree bc I can search easier but I dislike it bc if you find a match you’ll suddenly have 50 generations attached to it, whether or not it’s accurate.
P J Evans
2020-07-14 22:41:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Henry II - mistress Ida de Tosny — William Longespée
William Longespée -married- Ela of Salisbury -had- Ida Lon gespee
Ida Lon gespee - Walter FitzRobert — Ela FitzWalter
Ela FitzWalter - William de Oddingseles — Ida de Oddingseles
Ida de Oddingseles - John de Clinton — John de Clinton II
John de Clinton II - Margery Corbet — John de Clinton III
John de Clinton III - Idione de Say — Margaret de Clinton
Margaret de Clinton - Baldwin de Montfort — William Montfort
William Montfort - Margaret Pecche — Baldwin Montfort
Baldwin Montfort - Joan Vernon — Robert Montfort
Robert Montfort - Mary Stapleton — Katherine Montfort
Katherine Montfort - George booth — William booth
William booth - Ellen Montgomery — Jane/Joan booth
Jane/Joan booth - Thomas holford — Dorothy holford
Dorothy holford - John bruen — John bruen
Sorry if this isn’t the right place to post this!
If you have one of about 900 known ancestors, it certainly *does* happen.
Congratulations, and welcome to the mess that's medieval genealogy. (I keep mine in a separate file. The "medieval" and modern files overlap by a couple of centuries, but it makes my files easier to manage.)
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-15 03:27:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It’s very confusing and hard to follow! There’s so many relatives marrying each other lol I get confused and spend a lot of time backtracking
P J Evans
2020-07-15 04:17:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
It’s very confusing and hard to follow! There’s so many relatives marrying each other lol I get confused and spend a lot of time backtracking
Easier to start at the bottom and work backwards - that way the stuff that's more certain will go in first. The farther back you go, the more fuzzy things get, and way back, everything is fuzzy.
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-15 14:03:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Well I went from the bottom to the top, and I’m trying to go from the top back down and verify each person is accurate. One line begins here with Ida, but then another begins with Stephen. So I confused myself and thought I was following the wrong line and backtracked just to find I was spending too much time staring at this lol
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-15 18:44:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by P J Evans
Post by s***@gmail.com
Henry II - mistress Ida de Tosny — William Longespée
William Longespée -married- Ela of Salisbury -had- Ida Lon gespee
Ida Lon gespee - Walter FitzRobert — Ela FitzWalter
Ela FitzWalter - William de Oddingseles — Ida de Oddingseles
Ida de Oddingseles - John de Clinton — John de Clinton II
John de Clinton II - Margery Corbet — John de Clinton III
John de Clinton III - Idione de Say — Margaret de Clinton
Margaret de Clinton - Baldwin de Montfort — William Montfort
William Montfort - Margaret Pecche — Baldwin Montfort
Baldwin Montfort - Joan Vernon — Robert Montfort
Robert Montfort - Mary Stapleton — Katherine Montfort
Katherine Montfort - George booth — William booth
William booth - Ellen Montgomery — Jane/Joan booth
Jane/Joan booth - Thomas holford — Dorothy holford
Dorothy holford - John bruen — John bruen
Sorry if this isn’t the right place to post this!
If you have one of about 900 known ancestors, it certainly *does* happen.
Congratulations, and welcome to the mess that's medieval genealogy. (I keep mine in a separate file. The "medieval" and modern files overlap by a couple of centuries, but it makes my files easier to manage.)
No offense, but there are many people, especially outside of the Americas, who can trace their ancestry to medieval times, through people other than the 900 immigrants in Roberts's most recent book.
Johnny Brananas
2020-07-15 19:47:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by P J Evans
Post by s***@gmail.com
Henry II - mistress Ida de Tosny — William Longespée
William Longespée -married- Ela of Salisbury -had- Ida Lon gespee
Ida Lon gespee - Walter FitzRobert — Ela FitzWalter
Ela FitzWalter - William de Oddingseles — Ida de Oddingseles
Ida de Oddingseles - John de Clinton — John de Clinton II
John de Clinton II - Margery Corbet — John de Clinton III
John de Clinton III - Idione de Say — Margaret de Clinton
Margaret de Clinton - Baldwin de Montfort — William Montfort
William Montfort - Margaret Pecche — Baldwin Montfort
Baldwin Montfort - Joan Vernon — Robert Montfort
Robert Montfort - Mary Stapleton — Katherine Montfort
Katherine Montfort - George booth — William booth
William booth - Ellen Montgomery — Jane/Joan booth
Jane/Joan booth - Thomas holford — Dorothy holford
Dorothy holford - John bruen — John bruen
Sorry if this isn’t the right place to post this!
If you have one of about 900 known ancestors, it certainly *does* happen.
Congratulations, and welcome to the mess that's medieval genealogy. (I keep mine in a separate file. The "medieval" and modern files overlap by a couple of centuries, but it makes my files easier to manage.)
No offense, but there are many people, especially outside of the Americas, who can trace their ancestry to medieval times, through people other than the 900 immigrants in Roberts's most recent book.
The Bruen line is well-accepted and shared by some famous people (think George W. Bush through his mother). There might be a small quibble about the exact number of Longespee generations near the top, but it is basically solid.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-15 20:03:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny Brananas
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by P J Evans
Post by s***@gmail.com
Henry II - mistress Ida de Tosny — William Longespée
William Longespée -married- Ela of Salisbury -had- Ida Lon gespee
Ida Lon gespee - Walter FitzRobert — Ela FitzWalter
Ela FitzWalter - William de Oddingseles — Ida de Oddingseles
Ida de Oddingseles - John de Clinton — John de Clinton II
John de Clinton II - Margery Corbet — John de Clinton III
John de Clinton III - Idione de Say — Margaret de Clinton
Margaret de Clinton - Baldwin de Montfort — William Montfort
William Montfort - Margaret Pecche — Baldwin Montfort
Baldwin Montfort - Joan Vernon — Robert Montfort
Robert Montfort - Mary Stapleton — Katherine Montfort
Katherine Montfort - George booth — William booth
William booth - Ellen Montgomery — Jane/Joan booth
Jane/Joan booth - Thomas holford — Dorothy holford
Dorothy holford - John bruen — John bruen
Sorry if this isn’t the right place to post this!
If you have one of about 900 known ancestors, it certainly *does* happen.
Congratulations, and welcome to the mess that's medieval genealogy. (I keep mine in a separate file. The "medieval" and modern files overlap by a couple of centuries, but it makes my files easier to manage.)
No offense, but there are many people, especially outside of the Americas, who can trace their ancestry to medieval times, through people other than the 900 immigrants in Roberts's most recent book.
The Bruen line is well-accepted and shared by some famous people (think George W. Bush through his mother). There might be a small quibble about the exact number of Longespee generations near the top, but it is basically solid.
No offense, but I think you replied to the wrong reply. My reply wasn't even about this line.
Johnny Brananas
2020-07-15 20:12:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Johnny Brananas
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by P J Evans
Post by s***@gmail.com
Henry II - mistress Ida de Tosny — William Longespée
William Longespée -married- Ela of Salisbury -had- Ida Lon gespee
Ida Lon gespee - Walter FitzRobert — Ela FitzWalter
Ela FitzWalter - William de Oddingseles — Ida de Oddingseles
Ida de Oddingseles - John de Clinton — John de Clinton II
John de Clinton II - Margery Corbet — John de Clinton III
John de Clinton III - Idione de Say — Margaret de Clinton
Margaret de Clinton - Baldwin de Montfort — William Montfort
William Montfort - Margaret Pecche — Baldwin Montfort
Baldwin Montfort - Joan Vernon — Robert Montfort
Robert Montfort - Mary Stapleton — Katherine Montfort
Katherine Montfort - George booth — William booth
William booth - Ellen Montgomery — Jane/Joan booth
Jane/Joan booth - Thomas holford — Dorothy holford
Dorothy holford - John bruen — John bruen
Sorry if this isn’t the right place to post this!
If you have one of about 900 known ancestors, it certainly *does* happen.
Congratulations, and welcome to the mess that's medieval genealogy. (I keep mine in a separate file. The "medieval" and modern files overlap by a couple of centuries, but it makes my files easier to manage.)
No offense, but there are many people, especially outside of the Americas, who can trace their ancestry to medieval times, through people other than the 900 immigrants in Roberts's most recent book.
The Bruen line is well-accepted and shared by some famous people (think George W. Bush through his mother). There might be a small quibble about the exact number of Longespee generations near the top, but it is basically solid.
No offense, but I think you replied to the wrong reply. My reply wasn't even about this line.
Sorry, I didn't mean to poke the Bruen (get it, "bruin" means "bear"?). Corny humor. But anyway, the way I view the newsgroup just puts the messages in a straight descending list, so it doesn't matter whose post you reply to.
wjhonson
2020-07-15 03:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Ida the daughter of William "Longespee" Earl of Salisbury, married William de Beauchamp

Meanwhile, her brother William *second* Earl of Salisbury, also had a daughter named Ida who married Walter FitzRobert Lord of Dunmow
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-15 09:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Ida the daughter of William "Longespee" Earl of Salisbury, married William de Beauchamp
Meanwhile, her brother William *second* Earl of Salisbury, also had a daughter named Ida who married Walter FitzRobert Lord of Dunmow
Actually, there's a dispute regarding that, read https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/R7GPv7bJv2s. Douglas Richardson believes Walter FitzRobert's wife was a younger sister of William de Beauchamp's wife. However, some disagree and believe she was her niece, being daughter of William Longespee II and Idonea de Camville.
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-15 13:58:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
That is both helpful and confusing lol I’m going to make a note about it. Thank you
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-15 13:54:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thank you! I’ll change that
wjhonson
2020-07-16 00:45:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What Visitation specifically?
Matt A
2020-07-16 01:05:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is the 1580 Visitation pedigree in question, of Savage of Clifton. Notably, the very prominent family of Holland does not appear as one of the 17 coats of arms displayed and explained in the pedigree.

https://archive.org/details/visitationofches00glov/page/202/mode/2up
taf
2020-07-16 01:48:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Matt A
Here is the 1580 Visitation pedigree in question, of Savage of Clifton.
Notably, the very prominent family of Holland does not appear as one of
the 17 coats of arms displayed and explained in the pedigree.
While these elaborate coats always have to be taken with a grain of salt, they also don't quarter the coat of the Stanley earls, nor of Brereton. They seem to have conscientiously limited their quarterings to the families to whom they were heirs (or at least had convinced themselves they were heirs) and that would not have been the case with Holand. I don't think anything at all should be read into the absence of Holand arms here.

taf
wjhonson
2020-07-16 01:55:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I would however note, again on the no side of the ledger, that a specific visitation of this family does not even give the wife here a first name let alone a surname.

Also we have to remember that these are *remembrances* of an event that occurred two hundred years before it was finally written down.
wjhonson
2020-07-17 00:45:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Gunhilda - Orm de Workington — Orm FitzGospatrick

Orm - Grace de Ireby — Eleanor Ada

Eleanor - William Flemming — Catherine le Flemming

Catherine - Reginald de Aldwark — Galfrid de Aldwarke

Galfrid - Matilda _ — Roger de Aldwarke

Roger - Joan de Normanville — Robert de Aldwarke

Robert - Johanna Clarrell - william Clarrell "


What are the sources that have created this part ?
Seems suspicious to me
s***@gmail.com
2020-07-17 00:59:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have since disconnected this part of the tree. Looking into it further, the parents of John Hopkins isn’t known. I believe this particular line was from a record of a John Hopkins who died 3 days after his baptism
Loading...