Who Really Came With William The Conqueror In 1066?

[D. Spencer Hines]

We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.

Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------

When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the Conqueror in
1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well, whose ancestors
didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming majority of claims that an
ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror are completely unproven.

To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists must
be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of Battle Abbey" is
known only from copies made hundreds of years later — copies which do not
agree with one another — of a supposed original that may, in fact, never
have existed. Having an ancestor's name listed on copies of the Roll no
doubt had more to do with making a donation to the Abbey than the ancestor
having accompanied William. In any case, its lack of contemporaneity — by
hundreds of years — makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.

The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage, rev.
ed., vol. XII, postscript to Appendix L, pp. 47-48: "Companions of the
Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings). These are the proven
companions of William.

1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the battle
scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)

Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost certainly
at the battle:

16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.

(#16 named by William of Poitiers, #17-19 portrayed in the Bayeux
Tapestry, #20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the English War before
William became King of England.)

<http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/0/Others/Misc/Companions.shtml>

[David]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.
Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the Conqueror in
1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well, whose ancestors
didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming majority of claims that an
ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror are completely unproven.
To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists must
be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of Battle Abbey" is
known only from copies made hundreds of years later - copies which do not
agree with one another - of a supposed original that may, in fact, never
have existed. Having an ancestor's name listed on copies of the Roll no
doubt had more to do with making a donation to the Abbey than the ancestor
having accompanied William. In any case, its lack of contemporaneity - by
hundreds of years - makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.
The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage, rev.
ed., vol. XII, postscript to Appendix L, pp. 47-48: "Companions of the
Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings). These are the proven
companions of William.
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the battle
scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost certainly
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
(#16 named by William of Poitiers, #17-19 portrayed in the Bayeux
Tapestry, #20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the English War before
William became King of England.)
<http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/0/Others/Misc/Companions.shtml>

I have to wonder how reliable the Bayeux Tapestry is at that level of
detail, being made some time after the fact. Probably there were
several of William's followers who were not actually at the battle,
but who were otherwise occupied during the invasion or joined their
duke in the days or months after the battle, who could later have been
supposed, or have been remembered by their descendants, as being
present at Hastings (with more honesty than accuracy).

[Normandy]

Post by David

Post by D. Spencer Hines
We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.
Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the Conqueror in
1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well, whose ancestors
didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming majority of claims that an
ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror are completely unproven.
To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists must
be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of Battle Abbey" is
known only from copies made hundreds of years later - copies which do not
agree with one another - of a supposed original that may, in fact, never
have existed. Having an ancestor's name listed on copies of the Roll no
doubt had more to do with making a donation to the Abbey than the ancestor
having accompanied William. In any case, its lack of contemporaneity - by
hundreds of years - makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.
The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage, rev.
ed., vol. XII, postscript to Appendix L, pp. 47-48: "Companions of the
Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings). These are the proven
companions of William.
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the battle
scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost certainly
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
(#16 named by William of Poitiers, #17-19 portrayed in the Bayeux
Tapestry, #20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the English War before
William became King of England.)
<http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/0/Others/Misc/Companions.shtml>

I have to wonder how reliable the Bayeux Tapestry is at that level of
detail, being made some time after the fact. Probably there were
several of William's followers who were not actually at the battle,
but who were otherwise occupied during the invasion or joined their
duke in the days or months after the battle, who could later have been
supposed, or have been remembered by their descendants, as being
present at Hastings (with more honesty than accuracy).

There are also rolls in Caen and Falaise that differ from the Battle Abby
rolls

[Séimí mac Liam]

Post by Normandy

Post by David

Post by D. Spencer Hines
We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.
Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the Conqueror in
1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well, whose ancestors
didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming majority of claims that
an ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror are completely unproven.
To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists
must be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of
Battle Abbey" is
known only from copies made hundreds of years later - copies which
do not agree with one another - of a supposed original that may, in
fact, never have existed. Having an ancestor's name listed on
copies of the Roll no doubt had more to do with making a donation to
the Abbey than the ancestor
having accompanied William. In any case, its lack of
contemporaneity - by
hundreds of years - makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.
The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage,
"Companions of the Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of
Hastings). These are the proven companions of William.
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the battle
scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost certainly
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of
Cornwall. 18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop
of Bayeux. 19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop
of Bayeux. 20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
(#16 named by William of Poitiers, #17-19 portrayed in the Bayeux
Tapestry, #20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the English War before
William became King of England.)
<http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/0/Others/Misc/Companions.shtml>

I have to wonder how reliable the Bayeux Tapestry is at that level of
detail, being made some time after the fact. Probably there were
several of William's followers who were not actually at the battle,
but who were otherwise occupied during the invasion or joined their
duke in the days or months after the battle, who could later have
been supposed, or have been remembered by their descendants, as being
present at Hastings (with more honesty than accuracy).

There are also rolls in Caen and Falaise that differ from the Battle
Abby rolls

Do either date to the period?

[Normandy]

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Normandy

Post by David

Post by D. Spencer Hines
We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.
Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the Conqueror in
1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well, whose ancestors
didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming majority of claims that
an ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror are completely unproven.
To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists
must be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of
Battle Abbey" is
known only from copies made hundreds of years later - copies which
do not agree with one another - of a supposed original that may, in
fact, never have existed. Having an ancestor's name listed on
copies of the Roll no doubt had more to do with making a donation to
the Abbey than the ancestor
having accompanied William. In any case, its lack of
contemporaneity - by
hundreds of years - makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.
The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage,
"Companions of the Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of
Hastings). These are the proven companions of William.
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the battle
scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost certainly
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of
Cornwall. 18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop
of Bayeux. 19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop
of Bayeux. 20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
(#16 named by William of Poitiers, #17-19 portrayed in the Bayeux
Tapestry, #20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the English War before
William became King of England.)
<http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/0/Others/Misc/Companions.shtml>

I have to wonder how reliable the Bayeux Tapestry is at that level of
detail, being made some time after the fact. Probably there were
several of William's followers who were not actually at the battle,
but who were otherwise occupied during the invasion or joined their
duke in the days or months after the battle, who could later have
been supposed, or have been remembered by their descendants, as being
present at Hastings (with more honesty than accuracy).

There are also rolls in Caen and Falaise that differ from the Battle
Abby rolls

Do either date to the period?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

No!

[Séimí mac Liam]

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Normandy

Post by David

Post by D. Spencer Hines
We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.
Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the Conqueror in
1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well, whose

ancestors

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Normandy

Post by David

Post by D. Spencer Hines
didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming majority of claims that
an ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror are completely unproven.
To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists
must be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of
Battle Abbey" is
known only from copies made hundreds of years later - copies which
do not agree with one another - of a supposed original that may, in
fact, never have existed. Having an ancestor's name listed on
copies of the Roll no doubt had more to do with making a donation to
the Abbey than the ancestor
having accompanied William. In any case, its lack of
contemporaneity - by
hundreds of years - makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.
The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage,
"Companions of the Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of
Hastings). These are the proven companions of William.
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the battle
scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost certainly
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of
Cornwall. 18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop
of Bayeux. 19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop
of Bayeux. 20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
(#16 named by William of Poitiers, #17-19 portrayed in the Bayeux
Tapestry, #20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the English War before
William became King of England.)
<http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/0/Others/Misc/Companions.shtml>

I have to wonder how reliable the Bayeux Tapestry is at that level of
detail, being made some time after the fact. Probably there were
several of William's followers who were not actually at the battle,
but who were otherwise occupied during the invasion or joined their
duke in the days or months after the battle, who could later have
been supposed, or have been remembered by their descendants, as being
present at Hastings (with more honesty than accuracy).

There are also rolls in Caen and Falaise that differ from the Battle
Abby rolls

Do either date to the period?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

No!

How far off?

[Normandy]

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Séimí mac Liam
Do either date to the period?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

No!

How far off?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

About 600 and 900 years

Liste de l'abbaye de la Bataille XVIe siècle, probablement compilées à
partir d'une version du XIVe siècle (Battle Abby)

La liste de Dives-sur-Mer 475 names complied 17 août 1862
La liste de Falaise 1938

Caen plaque about 1880

Le Roman de Rou is probably most accurate written by Wace a poète
anglo-normand. commissioned by Henry II of England to write of the conques
of England in 1160 Wace abandon the work arounf 1170 before bringing it up
to date and says in the final lines of Part III that the king had entrusted
the same task to a Maistre Beneeit (believed to be Benoît de
Sainte-More).Wace has 116 complete names 38 first names and 77 others by
place of origin

Normandy

[Séimí mac Liam]

Post by Normandy

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Séimí mac Liam
Do either date to the period?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

No!

How far off?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

About 600 and 900 years
Liste de l'abbaye de la Bataille XVIe siècle, probablement compilées
à partir d'une version du XIVe siècle (Battle Abby)
La liste de Dives-sur-Mer 475 names complied 17 août 1862
La liste de Falaise 1938
Caen plaque about 1880
Le Roman de Rou is probably most accurate written by Wace a poète
anglo-normand. commissioned by Henry II of England to write of the
conques of England in 1160 Wace abandon the work arounf 1170 before
bringing it up to date and says in the final lines of Part III that
the king had entrusted the same task to a Maistre Beneeit (believed to
be Benoît de Sainte-More).Wace has 116 complete names 38 first names
and 77 others by place of origin
Normandy

Are all the names Hines posted on that final list?

[Normandy]

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Normandy

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Séimí mac Liam
Do either date to the period?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

No!

How far off?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

About 600 and 900 years
Liste de l'abbaye de la Bataille XVIe siècle, probablement compilées
à partir d'une version du XIVe siècle (Battle Abby)
La liste de Dives-sur-Mer 475 names complied 17 août 1862
La liste de Falaise 1938
Caen plaque about 1880
Le Roman de Rou is probably most accurate written by Wace a poète
anglo-normand. commissioned by Henry II of England to write of the
conques of England in 1160 Wace abandon the work arounf 1170 before
bringing it up to date and says in the final lines of Part III that
the king had entrusted the same task to a Maistre Beneeit (believed to
be Benoît de Sainte-More).Wace has 116 complete names 38 first names
and 77 others by place of origin
Normandy

Are all the names Hines posted on that final list?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

Loaded question ask the bearer of the name.

"The name Hines, which dates back to the 17th century, is of English origin.
Surnames generally have three basic sources of origin: 1) occupation, 2)
location, and 3) physical or individual characteristic. In the case of our
name, Hines, it is a surname derived from occupation. It was derived from
the English root word hine, which means servant.1 Most commonly it denoted a
domestic servant."
http://hinesfamilyreunion.com/name.htm

Normandy

[Séimí mac Liam]

Post by Normandy

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Normandy

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Séimí mac Liam
Do either date to the period?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

No!

How far off?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

About 600 and 900 years
Liste de l'abbaye de la Bataille XVIe siècle, probablement
compilées à partir d'une version du XIVe siècle (Battle Abby)
La liste de Dives-sur-Mer 475 names complied 17 août 1862
La liste de Falaise 1938
Caen plaque about 1880
Le Roman de Rou is probably most accurate written by Wace a poète
anglo-normand. commissioned by Henry II of England to write of the
conques of England in 1160 Wace abandon the work arounf 1170 before
bringing it up to date and says in the final lines of Part III that
the king had entrusted the same task to a Maistre Beneeit (believed
to be Benoît de Sainte-More).Wace has 116 complete names 38 first
names and 77 others by place of origin
Normandy

Are all the names Hines posted on that final list?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

Loaded question ask the bearer of the name.
"The name Hines, which dates back to the 17th century, is of English
origin. Surnames generally have three basic sources of origin: 1)
occupation, 2) location, and 3) physical or individual characteristic.
In the case of our name, Hines, it is a surname derived from
occupation. It was derived from the English root word hine, which
means servant.1 Most commonly it denoted a domestic servant."
http://hinesfamilyreunion.com/name.htm
Normandy

What I was asking was whether the names on the list which Hines posted
are on the list you cited as being closet in time to 1066. I, and
probably you and a myriad number of other people, claim at least a half
dozen of the folks on the list posted by Hines as ancestors.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, six or eight of them are my ancestors -- probably more -- perhaps even
a dozen or so.

How many of them are ancestors of Henry VII?

Or of Edward III -- or even Edward I?

Leo and Douglas should be able to tell us.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Séimí mac Liam
What I was asking was whether the names on the list which Hines posted
are on the list you cited as being closet in time to 1066. I, and
probably you and a myriad number of other people, claim at least a half
dozen of the folks on the list posted by Hines as ancestors.

[Séimí mac Liam]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, six or eight of them are my ancestors -- probably more -- perhaps
even a dozen or so.
How many of them are ancestors of Henry VII?
Or of Edward III -- or even Edward I?
Leo and Douglas should be able to tell us.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Séimí mac Liam
What I was asking was whether the names on the list which Hines
posted are on the list you cited as being closet in time to 1066. I,
and probably you and a myriad number of other people, claim at least
a half dozen of the folks on the list posted by Hines as ancestors.

Wikipedia has a much shorter list and includes some names I haven't seen
listed before or in different form than I have seen them before. One
wonders why Leo hasn't written up the definitive answer and put it on the
wiki.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Right.

I did a quick check and about 12 of them seem to be my ancestors, mostly
26th Great-Grandfathers or so -- and the ancestors of tens of millions of
other folks.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, six or eight of them are my ancestors -- probably more -- perhaps
even a dozen or so.
How many of them are ancestors of Henry VII?
Or of Edward III -- or even Edward I?
Leo and Douglas should be able to tell us.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Séimí mac Liam
What I was asking was whether the names on the list which Hines
posted are on the list you cited as being closet in time to 1066. I,
and probably you and a myriad number of other people, claim at least
a half dozen of the folks on the list posted by Hines as ancestors.

Wikipedia has a much shorter list and includes some names I haven't seen
listed before or in different form than I have seen them before. One
wonders why Leo hasn't written up the definitive answer and put it on the
wiki.

[Normandy]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Right.
I did a quick check and about 12 of them seem to be my ancestors, mostly
26th Great-Grandfathers or so -- and the ancestors of tens of millions of
other folks.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, six or eight of them are my ancestors -- probably more -- perhaps
even a dozen or so.
How many of them are ancestors of Henry VII?
Or of Edward III -- or even Edward I?
Leo and Douglas should be able to tell us.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Séimí mac Liam
What I was asking was whether the names on the list which Hines
posted are on the list you cited as being closet in time to 1066. I,
and probably you and a myriad number of other people, claim at least
a half dozen of the folks on the list posted by Hines as ancestors.

Wikipedia has a much shorter list and includes some names I haven't seen
listed before or in different form than I have seen them before. One
wonders why Leo hasn't written up the definitive answer and put it on the
wiki.

Most reputable geologists will tell you that it is almost impossible to
identify your ancestors with any reliability in Europe before the mid 13th
century.

None of the lists compiled on William's companions should be treated with
out suspicion. I have a list of 18 generations of my family, including my
children, but how can anyone say with certainty that it is valid? A man is
only sure of his mother.

Normandy

[a.spencer3]

Post by Normandy

Post by Normandy
Most reputable geologists will tell you that it is almost impossible to

identify your ancestors with any reliability in Europe before the mid 13th
century.

Well, geologists might well have a problem! :-))

Surreyman

[Normandy]

Post by a.spencer3

Post by Normandy

Post by Normandy
Most reputable geologists will tell you that it is almost impossible to

identify your ancestors with any reliability in Europe before the mid 13th
century.

Well, geologists might well have a problem! :-))
Surreyman

Even if you have the names of your ancestors and they were prominent enough
for something more that an entry in the parish registry how can we be
certain of the purity of the blood lines? How many contributors to this NG
can put their hands in a fire for their own fidelity? In case my wife is
reading this NG, except me of course. To assume, if your tree is 17
generations, you are assuming the fidelity of 34 people.

"The facts about marital infidelity (sexual unfaithfulness to a spouse) are
astounding. Polls show that although 90% of married people disapprove of
extramarital relationships, statistics from a national survey indicate that
15% of wives and 25% of husbands have experienced extramarital intercourse.
These numbers increase by 20% when emotional affairs and sexual
relationships without intercourse are included. Another source, The Monogamy
Myth, authored by Peggy Vaughan, approximates that 60% of husbands and 40%
of wives will have an affair at some time in their marriage."
http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/Marital-Infidelity.htm

The Heraldic and Genealogical Studies institute in Canterbury is only 50
years old.

"But, what of the claim of descent from the conquerors? Of course, in one
way or another it is true that most of us could show blood in out veins
derived from the Norman invaders. It matters, however, what can be proved by
documentary evidence and what do those documents tell us about the lives of
those ancestors. Certainly, that information is not available on the
Internet! Very few families can trace their true lineage back to the
eleventh century, and comparatively not many more back to the sixteenth."
http://www.britishancestry.org/articles.php?year=2006&month=10&id=45

"In Europe family names were unknown before the 11th century (although some
clan names existed, which later became family names, for example in
Ireland). Within about 250 years, i.e. by the beginning of the 14th century,
surnames were established in most of the countries of central and western
Europe.

By 1300, hereditary surnames were the norm and patronymics were the
exception. However, they were less stable than they are today. A person
might adopt or acquire a new and different surname at any time."
http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/oxford/Oxford_DAFN/preface.html

Normandy

[Doug McDonald]

Post by Normandy
Even if you have the names of your ancestors and they were prominent enough
for something more that an entry in the parish registry how can we be
certain of the purity of the blood lines?

Well, for the agnatic and uterine lines, some of us can show that DNA
shows that if there were some bedroom hanky-panky, it was with
the spouse's very close relative.

Post by Normandy
"The facts about marital infidelity (sexual unfaithfulness to a spouse) are
astounding. Polls show that although 90% of married people disapprove of
extramarital relationships, statistics from a national survey indicate that
15% of wives and 25% of husbands have experienced extramarital intercourse.

However, that says nothing about past practices, especially for
the ancestors of long, well-documented lines.

I am the DNA custodian for the largest and longest of those lines,
that of the chiefs of the Clan Donald. There is not a single case
in over 200 events of a clear undocumented case of infidelity. There
is one case where there is a documented possibility of infidelity,
and indeed the DNA doesn't match.

Post by Normandy
The Heraldic and Genealogical Studies institute in Canterbury is only 50
years old.
"But, what of the claim of descent from the conquerors? Of course, in one
way or another it is true that most of us could show blood in out veins
derived from the Norman invaders. It matters, however, what can be proved by
documentary evidence and what do those documents tell us about the lives of
those ancestors. Certainly, that information is not available on the
Internet!

In some cases, it really actually IS available, at least up to the
middle of the 19th century. From then to now is frequently not on the Internet.
I say in some cases. It's hit or miss whether you can actually find all
the documents such as birth, marriage, and land records, etc., to prove
a given line, but sometimes, indeed, for Americans with extensive
East Coast ancestry, it's really easy to fine each and every document
online, for many many generations.

Post by Normandy
Very few families can trace their true lineage back to the
eleventh century, and comparatively not many more back to the sixteenth."
http://www.britishancestry.org/articles.php?year=2006&month=10&id=45

That's only true if you mean the "family" line, i.e. agnatic. Then it really
is true. But if you include mixed lines, there are vast numbers of people
who can do a good job.

Doug McDonald

[D. Spencer Hines]

Most reputable geologists [sic] will tell you that it is almost impossible
to identify your ancestors with any reliability in Europe before the mid
13th century.

Hilarious!

Most geologists know damned little about GENEALOGY and are generally
rock-headed when it comes to dealing with Royal & Noble European Genealogy.

None of the lists compiled on William's companions should be treated with
out suspicion. I have a list of 18 generations of my family, including my
children, but how can anyone say with certainty that it is valid? A man
is only sure of his mother.
Normandy

Worthless, Tongue-Flapping Bromide...

And Untrue...

NO, a man cannot be CERTAIN he knows who his mother is.

Only Death & Taxes are "certain".

As to the list I posted, many of us have MULTIPLE descents from 12 or so of
those 20.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Right.
I did a quick check and about 12 of them seem to be my ancestors, mostly
26th Great-Grandfathers or so -- and the ancestors of tens of millions of
other folks.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, six or eight of them are my ancestors -- probably more -- perhaps
even a dozen or so.
How many of them are ancestors of Henry VII?
Or of Edward III -- or even Edward I?
Leo and Douglas should be able to tell us.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Séimí mac Liam
What I was asking was whether the names on the list which Hines
posted are on the list you cited as being closet in time to 1066. I,
and probably you and a myriad number of other people, claim at least
a half dozen of the folks on the list posted by Hines as ancestors.

Wikipedia has a much shorter list and includes some names I haven't seen
listed before or in different form than I have seen them before. One
wonders why Leo hasn't written up the definitive answer and put it on the
wiki.

Most reputable geologists will tell you that it is almost impossible to
identify your ancestors with any reliability in Europe before the mid 13th
century.
None of the lists compiled on William's companions should be treated with
out suspicion. I have a list of 18 generations of my family, including my
children, but how can anyone say with certainty that it is valid? A man
is only sure of his mother.
Normandy

[Normandy]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Worthless, Tongue-Flapping Bromide...
And Untrue...
NO, a man cannot be CERTAIN he knows who his mother is.
Only Death & Taxes are "certain".
As to the list I posted, many of us have MULTIPLE descents from 12 or so of
those 20.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

You are hilarious. Are you a caricature? it appears as if you are living
proof of the theory of decent from the apes, only problem is you did not
descend.

Normandy

[Doug McDonald]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Worthless, Tongue-Flapping Bromide...

Would you please give us your descent? We can guess it,
of course, short as it is: from the fair soil of the earth to the
sock factory, and thence here.

Doug McDonald

[Normandy]

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Worthless, Tongue-Flapping Bromide...

Would you please give us your descent? We can guess it,
of course, short as it is: from the fair soil of the earth to the
sock factory, and thence here.
Doug McDonald

Mine traces back to Hasting the Pirate on the paternal side and Charles
Martel on the maternal side. Having said that I share a grandfather with my
cousin but my cousin's listed grandfather is not his grandfather. My Clan is
an ancient one in Scotland dating to the 12th century. My ancestor allegedly
went with William to Hasting, his name is listed on the roll at Caen, and
then his descendants followed Dabíd mac Maíl Choluim to Scotland.

"Lords of the Isles"begins your Clan and The Clan Donald is one of the
largest Scottish clans, dates to 1200rds.My genealogy would hold up against
yours but you have more fait in fidelity than I do.

Normandy

[William Black]

Post by Normandy

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Worthless, Tongue-Flapping Bromide...

Would you please give us your descent? We can guess it,
of course, short as it is: from the fair soil of the earth to the
sock factory, and thence here.
Doug McDonald

Mine traces back to Hasting the Pirate on the paternal side and Charles
Martel on the maternal side. Having said that I share a grandfather with
my cousin but my cousin's listed grandfather is not his grandfather. My
Clan is an ancient one in Scotland dating to the 12th century. My ancestor
allegedly went with William to Hasting, his name is listed on the roll at
Caen, and then his descendants followed Dabíd mac Maíl Choluim to
Scotland.
"Lords of the Isles"begins your Clan and The Clan Donald is one of the
largest Scottish clans, dates to 1200rds.My genealogy would hold up
against yours but you have more fait in fidelity than I do.

I'm always astonished at people who can claim their lines back with such
certainty over such a long period in a country (England) where no real
records were kept.

They must all be descended from a few aristocrats.

Or pretending to be...

Anyone who claims to be related via a bastard is really pushing the boat out
though...

[D. Spencer Hines]

It really makes you angry and jealous too -- doesn't it?

Particularly since you are a Recreator of that Past Era.

DSH

Post by William Black
I'm always astonished at people who can claim their lines back with such
certainty over such a long period in a country (England) where no real
records were kept.
They must all be descended from a few aristocrats.

[William Black]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
It really makes you angry and jealous too -- doesn't it?
Particularly since you are a Recreator of that Past Era.

What?

1066?

Not a chance.

Way too uncivilised...

No comfy chairs for a start, except for the king.

[norenxaq]

Post by William Black

Post by D. Spencer Hines
It really makes you angry and jealous too -- doesn't it?
Particularly since you are a Recreator of that Past Era.

What?
1066?
Not a chance.
Way too uncivilised...
No comfy chairs for a start, except for the king.

sends for the Spanish Inquisition!

[Séimí mac Liam]

Post by Normandy
Mine traces back to Hasting the Pirate on the paternal side

I'd certaily like to see about 10 generations of that line from Haesten
forward.

[Normandy]

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Normandy
Mine traces back to Hasting the Pirate on the paternal side

I'd certaily like to see about 10 generations of that line from Haesten
forward.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

7 generations bring you to the battlefield at Hastings. If you are
interested email me privately

Normandy

[Séimí mac Liam]

Post by Normandy

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Normandy
Mine traces back to Hasting the Pirate on the paternal side

I'd certaily like to see about 10 generations of that line from Haesten
forward.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

7 generations bring you to the battlefield at Hastings. If you are
interested email me privately
Normandy

I'll certaily do so, but as we are posting this to
soc.genealogy.medieval, it would be most topical on that group and, I'm
sure, of interest to many there. Can I not prevail upon you to post the
first 10 generations?

[D. Spencer Hines]

He probably doesn't know the first 10 generations very well -- much less the
last 10 -- or the five or six in between.

DSH

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Normandy

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Normandy
Mine traces back to Hasting the Pirate on the paternal side

I'd certaily like to see about 10 generations of that line from
Haesten forward.
--

7 generations bring you to the battlefield at Hastings. If you are
interested email me privately
Normandy

I'll certaily do so, but as we are posting this to
soc.genealogy.medieval, it would be most topical on that group and, I'm
sure, of interest to many there. Can I not prevail upon you to post the
first 10 generations?

[Normandy]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
He probably doesn't know the first 10 generations very well -- much less
the last 10 -- or the five or six in between.
DSH

Better shape than you. You not ever sure of your father. Cousin Diana,
Cousin Wills and Cousin Harry, get real.

Normandy

[Paul J Gans]

Post by Normandy

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Worthless, Tongue-Flapping Bromide...

Would you please give us your descent? We can guess it,
of course, short as it is: from the fair soil of the earth to the
sock factory, and thence here.
Doug McDonald

Mine traces back to Hasting the Pirate on the paternal side and Charles
Martel on the maternal side.

Ghod, I hope not. There is no real evidence that "Hasting"
ever existed.

Yes, I know he has listed descendents, etc., but then, so does
Adam.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Leo and Peter can tell us how many of the 20 on the list are ancestors of
Henry VII, Edward IV, Edward III and Edward I.

Then we will easily be able to determine how many are OUR ancestors as well.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[John P. Ravilious]

Dear Spencer, et al.,

The subject of known descents from the 'Hastings 20' has been
discussed before. A review of my database indicates that 13 have
known descendants beyond one generation, as indicated below (note
are given only re: those with no extended descents known).

1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.

No known descendants. An extensive known career, but
he died s.p. 18 Apr 1118. There are descents from his
sister (half-sister acc. to my notes) Agnes, wife of
Simon de Montfort and mother of (among others) Amaury
de Montfort-l'Amaury, count of Evreux, and of Bertrade
de Montfort, wife of Fulk IV of Anjou and ancestress of
King Henry II of England, among others.

4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.

Eudes, or Odo, bishop of Bayeux is identified as having
an illegitimate son John (see David Crouch, The Normans,
(2002) p. 31; also Doug Richardson's post to SGM,
<King's Kinsfolk: King Henry I of England's kinsman,
John>, 10 April 2006). There is evidently no known
descent from John, or at least none proven to date.

14. Turstin Fitz Rou.

No known descendants.

15. Engenulf de L'aigle, seigneur of L'aigle.
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.

No known descendants.

17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.

Alleged ancestor of numerous (Cheshire ?) families; no
known descent proven.

19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.

No known descent.

20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.

No known descent. His sister Ada was married to
Geoffrey de Neufmarche, and numerous marcher families
(de Bohun, FitzHerbert and de Braose among others) are
descended from them.


As stated above, of the 20, I find 13 have extant lines of
descent. Some have interesting descendants in relatively short
order - for example, Isabella of Angouleme, descended from
Geoffrey, count of Perche, and Berengaria (wife of Richard the
Lionheart) descended from Engenulf de L'aigle.

Likely, Leo and Ian (and possible others) can answer your
questions concerning late medieval and Tudor monarchs.

Cheers,

John

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Leo and Peter can tell us how many of the 20 on the list are ancestors of
Henry VII, Edward IV, Edward III and Edward I.
Then we will easily be able to determine how many are OUR ancestors as well.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[D. Spencer Hines]

Damned Good Post!

Yes, your 13 are the ones I was pointed at.

They seem to be the ancestors of tens of millions of us.

Could you please post lines to an English Monarch, or some other key figure,
for these two.

I'm not sure Leo has either of them in his database. But his search engine
is so primitive it's difficult to tell.

12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville. ****

15. Engenulf de L'aigle, seigneur of L'aigle. ****

The four stars below after the 13 identify them as winners in the
genealogical competition.

Cheers,

DSH

Post by John P. Ravilious
Dear Spencer, et al.,
The subject of known descents from the 'Hastings 20' has been
discussed before. A review of my database indicates that 13 have
known descendants beyond one generation, as indicated below (note
are given only re: those with no extended descents known).
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester. ****
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne. ****
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
No known descendants. An extensive known career, but
he died s.p. 18 Apr 1118. There are descents from his
sister (half-sister acc. to my notes) Agnes, wife of
Simon de Montfort and mother of (among others) Amaury
de Montfort-l'Amaury, count of Evreux, and of Bertrade
de Montfort, wife of Fulk IV of Anjou and ancestress of
King Henry II of England, among others.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche. ****
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford. ****
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars. ****
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle. ****
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville. ****
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches. ****
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil. ****
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey. ****
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville. ****
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
Eudes, or Odo, bishop of Bayeux is identified as having
an illegitimate son John (see David Crouch, The Normans,
(2002) p. 31; also Doug Richardson's post to SGM,
<King's Kinsfolk: King Henry I of England's kinsman,
John>, 10 April 2006). There is evidently no known
descent from John, or at least none proven to date.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
No known descendants.
15. Engenulf de L'aigle, seigneur of L'aigle. ****
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
No known descendants.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall. ****
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
Alleged ancestor of numerous (Cheshire ?) families; no
known descent proven.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
No known descent.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
No known descent. His sister Ada was married to
Geoffrey de Neufmarche, and numerous marcher families
(de Bohun, FitzHerbert and de Braose among others) are
descended from them.
As stated above, of the 20, I find 13 have extant lines of
descent. Some have interesting descendants in relatively short
order - for example, Isabella of Angouleme, descended from
Geoffrey, count of Perche, and Berengaria (wife of Richard the
Lionheart) descended from Engenulf de L'aigle.
Likely, Leo and Ian (and possible others) can answer your
questions concerning late medieval and Tudor monarchs.

Yep, they can shed all sorts of light on this.

DSH

Post by John P. Ravilious
Cheers,
John

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Leo and Peter can tell us how many of the 20 on the list are ancestors of
Henry VII, Edward IV, Edward III and Edward I.
Then we will easily be able to determine how many are OUR ancestors as well.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[John P. Ravilious]

Dear Spencer,

The William Malet line may be finished tomorrow, but following is
the descent I show from Ingenulf/Engenulf de L'Aigle to Edward II,
King of England.

As always, if anyone should note any defect in the following,
please advise.

Cheers,

John

____________________________________________


1 Engenulf de L'Aigle
----------------------------------------
Death: 14 Oct 1066, Battle of Hastings[1]
Occ: seigneur de L'Aigle

seigneur de L'Aigle
companion of the Conqueror; fought at Battle of Hastings (slain)

Spouse: NN

Children: Richard (-1085)


1.1 Richard de L'Aigle
----------------------------------------
Death: 18 Nov 1085, St-Suzanne in Maine[1]
Occ: seigneur de L'Aigle

Spouse: Judith of the Avranchin
Father: Richard of the Avranchin (->1074)
Mother: Emma de Conteville

Children: Gilbert (-1118)
Matilda


1.1.1 Gilbert de L'Aigle
----------------------------------------
Death: 1118[1],[2]
Occ: seigneur de L'Aigle

of Pevensey, Sussex

'Gislebert De Aquila', tenant in chief in Surrey, Domesday Book (1086)
[DP 209][3]

supporter of Henry I against William of Mortain and Robert of
Normandy, 1104
(received grant from Henry I of Pevensey, Sussex after forfeiture of
William of Mortain)[4]

ES III, Tafel 689[2] ]

Spouse: Juliana of Perche[5]
Death: aft 1108[1]
Father: Geoffrey II, count of Perche (-1100)
Mother: Beatrice de Roucy (->1129)

Children: Marguerite (-1141)
Richer (-1176)
Geoffrey (-1120)
Gilbert (-1120)
Engenulf


1.1.1.1 Marguerite de L'Aigle[5]
----------------------------------------
Death: 25 May 1141

1st wife[6]

Spouse: Garcia IV Ramirez, King of Navarre
Death: 21 Nov 1150
Father: Ramiro Sanchez, lord of Monzon (-1116)
Mother: Christina Ruiz

Children: Sancho V, King of Navarre (-1194)
Blanca (-1156)
Margarita


1.1.1.1.1 Blanca of Navarre[5]
----------------------------------------
Death: 12 Aug 1156[7]

cf. Chronicle 8:16[7]

Spouse: Sancho II, King of Castile
Birth: ca 1133[7]
Death: 31 Aug 1158[7],[8]
Father: Alfonso VII Raimundez, King of Castile (-1157)
Mother: Berengaria of Catalonia (-1149)
Marr: 30 Jan 1150, Calahorra[7]

Children: Alfonso VIII (1155-1214)


1.1.1.1.1.1 Alfonso VIII of Castile[5]
----------------------------------------
Birth: 11 Nov 1155[7]
Death: 6 Oct 1214, Burgos, Castile[9]
Burial: Monastery of Las Huelgas, Castile[7]
Occ: King of Castile 1158-1214

King of Castile 1158-1214
achieved his majority and assumed control of the throne of Castile,
Nov 1169
besieged Cuenca together with Alfonso II of Aragon - captured 14 Sept
1177

defeated the Almohads at Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, 1214 in
alliance with Peter (Pere) II of Aragon[10]

Spouse: Eleanor of England
Birth: 13 Oct 1162, Domfront, Normandy[11]
Death: 31 Oct 1214, Burgos, Castile[11]
Father: Henry II, King of England (1132-1189)
Mother: Eleanor of Aquitaine (~1122-1204)
Marr: Sep 1177, Tarragona

Children: Berengaria (ca1179-1246)
Sancho (1181-)
Blanche (1188-1252)
Fernando (1189-1211)
Urraca
Eleanor (ca1200-1244)
Enrique (1204-1217)
Constanza


1.1.1.1.1.1.1a Berengaria of Castile*
----------------------------------------
Birth: ca 1179[12]
Death: 8 Nov 1246[12]
Occ: Queen of Castile, 1217

nicknamed Berenguela[9]

married to Conrad of Swabia (contract at Seligenstadt, 23 April 1188;
betrothal at Carrion de los Condes, castile, July 1188)
marriage annulled in or before 1196 [Chronicle 11:22-23[7]]

m. at Valladolid, Dec 1197 to Alfonso IX

Queen of Leon until her divorce in 1203-04 (Berman, p. 187[8])
regent of Castile on her mother's death, for her brother, 1214-1217[8]

Queen of Castile in succession to brother Enrique I, 26 May 1217;
abdicated throne 21 Aug 1217[12][Chronicle 35:76-77[7]]
she then retired to the monastery of Las Huelgas de Burgos [Chronicle
32:72[7]]

she m. lstly Conrad II of Swabia (annulled),[12]
2ndly Alfonso IX of Leon (div. 1203/4)[8]

Spouse: Conrad II of the Empire [1st husband]
Birth: bef Apr 1172[13]
Death: 15 Aug 1196, d.s.p.[12],[13]
Father: Frederick 'Barbarossa', Emperor of the HRE(-1190)
Mother: Beatrix of the Franche-Comte (1145-1184)
Marr: Jul 1188[7]



1.1.1.1.1.1.1b Berengaria of Castile* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Alfonso IX of Leon [2nd husband]
Birth: 15 Aug 1171[12]
Death: 24 Sep 1230, Villaneuva de Sarria[7],[12]
Father: Ferdinand II of Leon (-1187)
Mother: Urraca of Portugal (ca1150-1188)
Marr: Oct 1197, Valladolid, Castile[7],[9]

Children: Leonor (ca1198-1202)
Constanza (ca1199-)
Ferdinand III (<1201-1252)
Alfonso (1202-)
Berenguela (1204-1237)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1a Ferdinand III of Castile*
----------------------------------------
Birth: bef 20 Aug 1201[12]
Death: 30 May 1252, Seville, Castile[13],[9],[14]
Burial: Cathedral of Santa Maria, Seville[14]
Occ: King of Castile 1217-1252

King of Castile 1217-1252:
succeeded upon his mother's abdication and popular acclamation
at Valladolid, 31 Aug 1217[12][Chronicle 35:76-77[7]]
a truce with his father King Alfonso of Leon was concluded, 26 Nov
1217[7]
knighted at Las Huelgas, 27 Nov 1219
married to Beatrix of Swabia at Burgos, 30 Nov 1219 [Chronicle
40:85[7]]

invaded Leon following his father's death in 1230:
consented to the concord of Benavente with his half-sisters Sancha
and
Dulcia de Leon, 11 Dec 1230, by which
' the king assigned to his two sisters 30,000 maravedis to be
collected
annually in certain places for as long as they lived. Many
additional
conditions are contained in the charters drawn up concerning this.
The sisters renounced their rights to the kingdom [of Leon], if they
had any, and their father's charters given to them concerning the
succession and donation of the kingdom were destroyed.' [Chronicle
61:120[7]]

King of Leon 1230-1252

besieged Cordoba, April 1236; capitulation by Ibn-Hud, and entrance
into the city by King Ferdinand on 30 June 1236 [Chronicle 73:141[7]]

'St. Fernando' (canonized 1671 by Pope Clement X)[14]

he m. 1stly Beatrix of Swabia,
2ndly Joan of Ponthieu

Spouse: Beatrix (Elizabeth) of Swabia
Birth: bef Jul 1205[13]
Death: 5 Nov 1235, Toro[13],[14]
Father: Philip of Swabia (<1177-1208)
Mother: Irene Angelina (1181-1208)
Marr: 30 Nov 1219, Burgos, Castile[7],[12],[13]

Children: Alfonso X (1221-1284)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1b Ferdinand III of Castile* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Joan, Countess of Ponthieu
Death: 15 Mar 1278, Abbeville[15],[14]
Father: Simon de Dammartin, count of Aumale (-1239)
Mother: Marie, Countess of Ponthieu (1198-1251)
Marr: bef Aug 1237, Burgos[14]

Children: Eleanor (1241-1290)
Ferdinand (-<1269)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1b.1 Eleanor of Castile
----------------------------------------
Birth: 1241, Castile[16]
Death: 28 Nov 1290, Harby, Lincolnshire[16]
Burial: Westminster Abbey

inherited County of Ponthieu on her mother's death, 1279[15]

accompanied her husband in the Crusade of 1270
(her daughter Joan born at Acre, hence her name)[17]

Spouse: Edward I 'Longshanks' of England
Birth: 17 Jun 1239, Westminster Palace[16]
Death: 7 Jul 1307, Burgh-on-the-Sands, England[16]
Father: Henry III of England (1207-1272)
Mother: Eleanor of Provence (1223-1291)
Marr: Oct 1254, Las Huelgas, Castile[16]

Children: Katherine (<1264-1264)
Joan (1265-<1265)
John (1266-1271)
Henry (1268-1274)
Eleanor (~1269-)
NN (1271-)
Joan 'of Acre' (1272-1307)
Alphonso (1273-1284)
Margaret (1275-1318)
Berengaria (1276-1278)
NN (1278-)
Mary (1279-1332)
Elizabeth (1282-1316)
Edward II 'of Caernarvon' (1284-1327)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1b.1.1 Edward II 'of Caernarvon' of England
----------------------------------------
Birth: 25 Apr 1284, prob. Caernarvon, Wales[16]
Death: 1327, murdered (instigation of wife Isabella & Roger de
Mortimer)[16]
Occ: King of England 1307-1327

King of England 1307-1327
favoritism towards Piers de Gaveston (executed 1306) and the
Despensers led to continual struggles with the English baronage
lost the battle of Bannockburn against the Scots under Robert I
(Bruce), 24-5 June 1314[17],[18]
won the battle of Boroughbridge against forces of his cousin Thomas,
Earl of Lancaster (executed following the battle at Pontefract, 22 Mar
1321/2)
captured by forces of his wife Isabella and her paramour Roger de
Mortimer, 1326; deposed by act of Parliament 7 January 1326/7
probably murdered at Berkeley castle, 1327

Spouse: Isabella of France
Birth: 1295[16]
Death: 22 Aug 1358, Castle Rising, Norfolk
Father: Philip IV 'le Bel' of France (1268-1314)
Mother: Jeanne I of Navarre (1272-1305)
Marr: 25 Jan 1308[16]

Children: Edward III (1312-1377)
John (1316-1336)
Eleanor (1318-1355)
Joan (1321-1362)


1. Alan B. Wilson, "Marguerite de l'Aigle," Jul 22, 1996, GEN-
MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com.
2. Detlev Schewennicke, "Europ�ische Stammtafeln: Stammtafeln zur
Geschichte der Europ�ischen Staaten, Neue Folge," [ " European Family
Trees: Family Trees for the History of European States, New Series
" ], Marburg, Germany: Verlag von J. A. Stargardt, 1978-1995 [3rd
series], First series by Wilhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg, continued
second series by Frank, Baron Freytag von Loringhoven.
3. Katherine S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Domesday People," The Boydell Press,
1999, Vol. I: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English
Documents 1066-1166, cites Robert de Torigni, Interpolations to Gesta
Normannorum Ducum of Guillaume of Jumieges, (ed. van Houts, ii, 270)
and identification of Gilbert fitzRichard as uncle of Meen, seigneur
de Fougeres (Rouleau Mortuaire du B. Vital abbe de Savigni, edition
phototypique par L. Delisle Paris (1909), titre no. 182).
4. C. Warren Hollister, "Henry I," New Haven: Yale University Press,
2001, [English Monarchs Series].
5. Stewart Baldwin, "Oldest Female Line?," Nov 20, 1996, GEN-MEDIEVAL-
***@rootsweb.com.
6. Todd A. Farmerie, "Re: Wife of Garc�a Ramirez IV/V of Navarre,"
June 17, 2000, GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com, refers to Espana del Cid
by Menendez Pidal.
7. Joseph F. O'Callaghan, "The Latin Chronicle of the Kings of
Castile," Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies,
2002, Volume 236, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies.
8. Miriam Shadis and Constance Hoffman Berman, "A Taste of the Feast:
Reconsidering Eleanor of Aquitaine's Female Descendants," Bonnie
Wheeler and John Carmi Parsons, eds., "Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and
Lady," New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, Chapter 8 (pp. 177-211).
9. "Blanche of Castile," Regine Pernoud (translated by Henry Noel),
New York: Coward, McCann & Geogheghan, Inc., 1975 (orig. 1972,
Editions Albin Michel).
10. T. N. Bisson, "The Medieval Crown of Aragon," Oxford University
Press (Clarendon), 1986 (1991 Paperback).
11. David Faris, "Plantagenet Ancestry of 17th Century Colonists,"
Baltimore: the Genealogical Pub. Company, 1st ed.
12. Douglas Richardson, "Plantagenet," Jan 20, 2003, email
***@msn.com.
13. Detlev Schewennicke, "Europ�ische Stammtafeln: Neue Folge," [ "
European Family Trees: Family Trees for the History of European
States, New Series " ], Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1998
[4th series], Band I.1 [Tafel 3 - Die Arnulfinger -751-771 Konige der
Franken ], First series by Wilhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg, continued
second series by Frank, Baron Freytag von Loringhoven.
14. Douglas Richardson, "Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and
Medieval Families," Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2004.
15. John Carmi Parsons, "Alais of France," Feb 19, 1999, GEN-MEDIEVAL-
***@rootsweb.com.
16. David Faris, "Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth-Century
Colonists," Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1999,
(2nd edition, 1999).
17. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,
1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland
Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
18. G. W. S. Barrow, "Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of
Scotland," Edinburgh University Press, 1976 (2nd ed.).

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Damned Good Post!
Yes, your 13 are the ones I was pointed at.
They seem to be the ancestors of tens of millions of us.
Could you please post lines to an English Monarch, or some other key figure,
for these two.
I'm not sure Leo has either of them in his database. �But his search engine
is so primitive it's difficult to tell.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville. � �****
15. Engenulf de L'aigle, seigneur of L'aigle. �****
The four stars below after the 13 identify them as winners in the
genealogical competition.
Cheers,
DSH

Post by John P. Ravilious
Dear Spencer, et al.,
� � The subject of known descents from the 'Hastings 20' has been
discussed before. �A review of my database indicates that 13 have
known descendants beyond one generation, as indicated below (note
are given only re: those with no extended descents known).
� �1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester. �****
� �2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne. ****
� �3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
� � � No known descendants. �An extensive known career, but
� � � he died s.p. 18 Apr 1118. �There are descents from his
� � � sister (half-sister acc. to my notes) Agnes, wife of
� � � Simon de Montfort and mother of (among others) Amaury
� � de Montfort-l'Amaury, count of Evreux, and of Bertrade
� � � de Montfort, wife of Fulk IV of Anjou and ancestress of
� � � King Henry II of England, among others.
� �4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche. �****
� �5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford. �****
� �6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars. �****
� �7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle. �****
� �8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville. �****
� �9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches. �****
� 10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil. � �****
� 11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey. �****
� 12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville. � �****
� 13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
� � � Eudes, or Odo, bishop of Bayeux is identified as having
� � � an illegitimate son John (see David Crouch, The Normans,
� � � (2002) p. 31; also Doug Richardson's post to SGM,
� � � <King's Kinsfolk: King Henry I of England's kinsman,
� � � John>, 10 April 2006). �There is evidently no known
� � � descent from John, or at least none proven to date.
� 14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
� � � No known descendants.
� 15. Engenulf de L'aigle, seigneur of L'aigle. �****
� 16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
� � � No known descendants.
� 17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall. �****
� 18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
� � � Alleged ancestor of numerous (Cheshire ?) families; no
� � � known descent proven.
� 19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
� � � No known descent.
� 20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
� � � No known descent. �His sister Ada was married to
� � � Geoffrey de Neufmarche, and numerous marcher families
� � � (de Bohun, FitzHerbert and de Braose among others) are
� � � descended from them.
�As stated above, of the 20, I find 13 have extant lines of
descent. �Some have interesting descendants in relatively short
order - for example, Isabella of Angouleme, descended from
Geoffrey, count of Perche, and Berengaria (wife of Richard the
Lionheart) descended from Engenulf de L'aigle.
�Likely, Leo and Ian (and possible others) can answer your
questions concerning late medieval and Tudor monarchs.

Yep, they can shed all sorts of light on this.
DSH

Post by John P. Ravilious
� � Cheers,
� � � � � � � � � � �John

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Leo and Peter can tell us how many of the 20 on the list are ancestors of
Henry VII, Edward IV, Edward III and Edward I.
Then we will easily be able to determine how many are OUR ancestors as well.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[D. Spencer Hines]

Smashing!

So, anyone descended from Edward I and Eleanor of Castile has Engenulf de
L'Aigle as an ancestor.

Tens of millions of us.

Cheers,

Spencer

"John P. Ravilious" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

Dear Spencer,

The William Malet line may be finished tomorrow, but following is
the descent I show from Ingenulf/Engenulf de L'Aigle to Edward II,
King of England.

As always, if anyone should note any defect in the following,
please advise.

Cheers,

John
____________________________________________


1 Engenulf de L'Aigle
----------------------------------------
Death: 14 Oct 1066, Battle of Hastings[1]
Occ: seigneur de L'Aigle

seigneur de L'Aigle
companion of the Conqueror; fought at Battle of Hastings (slain)

Spouse: NN

Children: Richard (-1085)


1.1 Richard de L'Aigle
----------------------------------------
Death: 18 Nov 1085, St-Suzanne in Maine[1]
Occ: seigneur de L'Aigle

Spouse: Judith of the Avranchin
Father: Richard of the Avranchin (->1074)
Mother: Emma de Conteville

Children: Gilbert (-1118)
Matilda


1.1.1 Gilbert de L'Aigle
----------------------------------------
Death: 1118[1],[2]
Occ: seigneur de L'Aigle

of Pevensey, Sussex

'Gislebert De Aquila', tenant in chief in Surrey, Domesday Book (1086)
[DP 209][3]

supporter of Henry I against William of Mortain and Robert of
Normandy, 1104
(received grant from Henry I of Pevensey, Sussex after forfeiture of
William of Mortain)[4]

ES III, Tafel 689[2] ]

Spouse: Juliana of Perche[5]
Death: aft 1108[1]
Father: Geoffrey II, count of Perche (-1100)
Mother: Beatrice de Roucy (->1129)

Children: Marguerite (-1141)
Richer (-1176)
Geoffrey (-1120)
Gilbert (-1120)
Engenulf


1.1.1.1 Marguerite de L'Aigle[5]
----------------------------------------
Death: 25 May 1141

1st wife[6]

Spouse: Garcia IV Ramirez, King of Navarre
Death: 21 Nov 1150
Father: Ramiro Sanchez, lord of Monzon (-1116)
Mother: Christina Ruiz

Children: Sancho V, King of Navarre (-1194)
Blanca (-1156)
Margarita


1.1.1.1.1 Blanca of Navarre[5]
----------------------------------------
Death: 12 Aug 1156[7]

cf. Chronicle 8:16[7]

Spouse: Sancho II, King of Castile
Birth: ca 1133[7]
Death: 31 Aug 1158[7],[8]
Father: Alfonso VII Raimundez, King of Castile (-1157)
Mother: Berengaria of Catalonia (-1149)
Marr: 30 Jan 1150, Calahorra[7]

Children: Alfonso VIII (1155-1214)


1.1.1.1.1.1 Alfonso VIII of Castile[5]
----------------------------------------
Birth: 11 Nov 1155[7]
Death: 6 Oct 1214, Burgos, Castile[9]
Burial: Monastery of Las Huelgas, Castile[7]
Occ: King of Castile 1158-1214

King of Castile 1158-1214
achieved his majority and assumed control of the throne of Castile,
Nov 1169
besieged Cuenca together with Alfonso II of Aragon - captured 14 Sept
1177

defeated the Almohads at Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, 1214 in
alliance with Peter (Pere) II of Aragon[10]

Spouse: Eleanor of England
Birth: 13 Oct 1162, Domfront, Normandy[11]
Death: 31 Oct 1214, Burgos, Castile[11]
Father: Henry II, King of England (1132-1189)
Mother: Eleanor of Aquitaine (~1122-1204)
Marr: Sep 1177, Tarragona

Children: Berengaria (ca1179-1246)
Sancho (1181-)
Blanche (1188-1252)
Fernando (1189-1211)
Urraca
Eleanor (ca1200-1244)
Enrique (1204-1217)
Constanza


1.1.1.1.1.1.1a Berengaria of Castile*
----------------------------------------
Birth: ca 1179[12]
Death: 8 Nov 1246[12]
Occ: Queen of Castile, 1217

nicknamed Berenguela[9]

married to Conrad of Swabia (contract at Seligenstadt, 23 April 1188;
betrothal at Carrion de los Condes, castile, July 1188)
marriage annulled in or before 1196 [Chronicle 11:22-23[7]]

m. at Valladolid, Dec 1197 to Alfonso IX

Queen of Leon until her divorce in 1203-04 (Berman, p. 187[8])
regent of Castile on her mother's death, for her brother, 1214-1217[8]

Queen of Castile in succession to brother Enrique I, 26 May 1217;
abdicated throne 21 Aug 1217[12][Chronicle 35:76-77[7]]
she then retired to the monastery of Las Huelgas de Burgos [Chronicle
32:72[7]]

she m. lstly Conrad II of Swabia (annulled),[12]
2ndly Alfonso IX of Leon (div. 1203/4)[8]

Spouse: Conrad II of the Empire [1st husband]
Birth: bef Apr 1172[13]
Death: 15 Aug 1196, d.s.p.[12],[13]
Father: Frederick 'Barbarossa', Emperor of the HRE(-1190)
Mother: Beatrix of the Franche-Comte (1145-1184)
Marr: Jul 1188[7]



1.1.1.1.1.1.1b Berengaria of Castile* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Alfonso IX of Leon [2nd husband]
Birth: 15 Aug 1171[12]
Death: 24 Sep 1230, Villaneuva de Sarria[7],[12]
Father: Ferdinand II of Leon (-1187)
Mother: Urraca of Portugal (ca1150-1188)
Marr: Oct 1197, Valladolid, Castile[7],[9]

Children: Leonor (ca1198-1202)
Constanza (ca1199-)
Ferdinand III (<1201-1252)
Alfonso (1202-)
Berenguela (1204-1237)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1a Ferdinand III of Castile*
----------------------------------------
Birth: bef 20 Aug 1201[12]
Death: 30 May 1252, Seville, Castile[13],[9],[14]
Burial: Cathedral of Santa Maria, Seville[14]
Occ: King of Castile 1217-1252

King of Castile 1217-1252:
succeeded upon his mother's abdication and popular acclamation
at Valladolid, 31 Aug 1217[12][Chronicle 35:76-77[7]]
a truce with his father King Alfonso of Leon was concluded, 26 Nov
1217[7]
knighted at Las Huelgas, 27 Nov 1219
married to Beatrix of Swabia at Burgos, 30 Nov 1219 [Chronicle
40:85[7]]

invaded Leon following his father's death in 1230:
consented to the concord of Benavente with his half-sisters Sancha
and
Dulcia de Leon, 11 Dec 1230, by which
' the king assigned to his two sisters 30,000 maravedis to be
collected
annually in certain places for as long as they lived. Many
additional
conditions are contained in the charters drawn up concerning this.
The sisters renounced their rights to the kingdom [of Leon], if they
had any, and their father's charters given to them concerning the
succession and donation of the kingdom were destroyed.' [Chronicle
61:120[7]]

King of Leon 1230-1252

besieged Cordoba, April 1236; capitulation by Ibn-Hud, and entrance
into the city by King Ferdinand on 30 June 1236 [Chronicle 73:141[7]]

'St. Fernando' (canonized 1671 by Pope Clement X)[14]

he m. 1stly Beatrix of Swabia,
2ndly Joan of Ponthieu

Spouse: Beatrix (Elizabeth) of Swabia
Birth: bef Jul 1205[13]
Death: 5 Nov 1235, Toro[13],[14]
Father: Philip of Swabia (<1177-1208)
Mother: Irene Angelina (1181-1208)
Marr: 30 Nov 1219, Burgos, Castile[7],[12],[13]

Children: Alfonso X (1221-1284)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1b Ferdinand III of Castile* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Joan, Countess of Ponthieu
Death: 15 Mar 1278, Abbeville[15],[14]
Father: Simon de Dammartin, count of Aumale (-1239)
Mother: Marie, Countess of Ponthieu (1198-1251)
Marr: bef Aug 1237, Burgos[14]

Children: Eleanor (1241-1290)
Ferdinand (-<1269)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1b.1 Eleanor of Castile
----------------------------------------
Birth: 1241, Castile[16]
Death: 28 Nov 1290, Harby, Lincolnshire[16]
Burial: Westminster Abbey

inherited County of Ponthieu on her mother's death, 1279[15]

accompanied her husband in the Crusade of 1270
(her daughter Joan born at Acre, hence her name)[17]

Spouse: Edward I 'Longshanks' of England
Birth: 17 Jun 1239, Westminster Palace[16]
Death: 7 Jul 1307, Burgh-on-the-Sands, England[16]
Father: Henry III of England (1207-1272)
Mother: Eleanor of Provence (1223-1291)
Marr: Oct 1254, Las Huelgas, Castile[16]

Children: Katherine (<1264-1264)
Joan (1265-<1265)
John (1266-1271)
Henry (1268-1274)
Eleanor (~1269-)
NN (1271-)
Joan 'of Acre' (1272-1307)
Alphonso (1273-1284)
Margaret (1275-1318)
Berengaria (1276-1278)
NN (1278-)
Mary (1279-1332)
Elizabeth (1282-1316)
Edward II 'of Caernarvon' (1284-1327)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1b.1.1 Edward II 'of Caernarvon' of England
----------------------------------------
Birth: 25 Apr 1284, prob. Caernarvon, Wales[16]
Death: 1327, murdered (instigation of wife Isabella & Roger de
Mortimer)[16]
Occ: King of England 1307-1327

King of England 1307-1327
favoritism towards Piers de Gaveston (executed 1306) and the
Despensers led to continual struggles with the English baronage
lost the battle of Bannockburn against the Scots under Robert I
(Bruce), 24-5 June 1314[17],[18]
won the battle of Boroughbridge against forces of his cousin Thomas,
Earl of Lancaster (executed following the battle at Pontefract, 22 Mar
1321/2)
captured by forces of his wife Isabella and her paramour Roger de
Mortimer, 1326; deposed by act of Parliament 7 January 1326/7
probably murdered at Berkeley castle, 1327

Spouse: Isabella of France
Birth: 1295[16]
Death: 22 Aug 1358, Castle Rising, Norfolk
Father: Philip IV 'le Bel' of France (1268-1314)
Mother: Jeanne I of Navarre (1272-1305)
Marr: 25 Jan 1308[16]

Children: Edward III (1312-1377)
John (1316-1336)
Eleanor (1318-1355)
Joan (1321-1362)


1. Alan B. Wilson, "Marguerite de l'Aigle," Jul 22, 1996, GEN-
MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com.
2. Detlev Schewennicke, "Europ?ische Stammtafeln: Stammtafeln zur
Geschichte der Europ?ischen Staaten, Neue Folge," [ " European Family
Trees: Family Trees for the History of European States, New Series
" ], Marburg, Germany: Verlag von J. A. Stargardt, 1978-1995 [3rd
series], First series by Wilhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg, continued
second series by Frank, Baron Freytag von Loringhoven.
3. Katherine S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Domesday People," The Boydell Press,
1999, Vol. I: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English
Documents 1066-1166, cites Robert de Torigni, Interpolations to Gesta
Normannorum Ducum of Guillaume of Jumieges, (ed. van Houts, ii, 270)
and identification of Gilbert fitzRichard as uncle of Meen, seigneur
de Fougeres (Rouleau Mortuaire du B. Vital abbe de Savigni, edition
phototypique par L. Delisle Paris (1909), titre no. 182).
4. C. Warren Hollister, "Henry I," New Haven: Yale University Press,
2001, [English Monarchs Series].
5. Stewart Baldwin, "Oldest Female Line?," Nov 20, 1996, GEN-MEDIEVAL-
***@rootsweb.com.
6. Todd A. Farmerie, "Re: Wife of Garc?a Ramirez IV/V of Navarre,"
June 17, 2000, GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com, refers to Espana del Cid
by Menendez Pidal.
7. Joseph F. O'Callaghan, "The Latin Chronicle of the Kings of
Castile," Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies,
2002, Volume 236, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies.
8. Miriam Shadis and Constance Hoffman Berman, "A Taste of the Feast:
Reconsidering Eleanor of Aquitaine's Female Descendants," Bonnie
Wheeler and John Carmi Parsons, eds., "Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and
Lady," New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, Chapter 8 (pp. 177-211).
9. "Blanche of Castile," Regine Pernoud (translated by Henry Noel),
New York: Coward, McCann & Geogheghan, Inc., 1975 (orig. 1972,
Editions Albin Michel).
10. T. N. Bisson, "The Medieval Crown of Aragon," Oxford University
Press (Clarendon), 1986 (1991 Paperback).
11. David Faris, "Plantagenet Ancestry of 17th Century Colonists,"
Baltimore: the Genealogical Pub. Company, 1st ed.
12. Douglas Richardson, "Plantagenet," Jan 20, 2003, email
***@msn.com.
13. Detlev Schewennicke, "Europ?ische Stammtafeln: Neue Folge," [ "
European Family Trees: Family Trees for the History of European
States, New Series " ], Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1998
[4th series], Band I.1 [Tafel 3 - Die Arnulfinger -751-771 Konige der
Franken ], First series by Wilhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg, continued
second series by Frank, Baron Freytag von Loringhoven.
14. Douglas Richardson, "Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and
Medieval Families," Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2004.
15. John Carmi Parsons, "Alais of France," Feb 19, 1999, GEN-MEDIEVAL-
***@rootsweb.com.
16. David Faris, "Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth-Century
Colonists," Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1999,
(2nd edition, 1999).
17. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,
1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland
Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
18. G. W. S. Barrow, "Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of
Scotland," Edinburgh University Press, 1976 (2nd ed.).

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Damned Good Post!
Yes, your 13 are the ones I was pointed at.
They seem to be the ancestors of tens of millions of us.
Could you please post lines to an English Monarch, or some other key figure,
for these two.
I'm not sure Leo has either of them in his database. But his search engine
is so primitive it's difficult to tell.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville. ****
15. Engenulf de L'aigle, seigneur of L'aigle. ****
The four stars below after the 13 identify them as winners in the
genealogical competition.
Cheers,
DSH

Post by John P. Ravilious
Dear Spencer, et al.,
The subject of known descents from the 'Hastings 20' has been
discussed before. A review of my database indicates that 13 have
known descendants beyond one generation, as indicated below (note
are given only re: those with no extended descents known).
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester. ****
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne. ****
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
No known descendants. An extensive known career, but
he died s.p. 18 Apr 1118. There are descents from his
sister (half-sister acc. to my notes) Agnes, wife of
Simon de Montfort and mother of (among others) Amaury
de Montfort-l'Amaury, count of Evreux, and of Bertrade
de Montfort, wife of Fulk IV of Anjou and ancestress of
King Henry II of England, among others.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche. ****
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford. ****
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars. ****
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle. ****
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville. ****
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches. ****
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil. ****
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey. ****
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville. ****
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
Eudes, or Odo, bishop of Bayeux is identified as having
an illegitimate son John (see David Crouch, The Normans,
(2002) p. 31; also Doug Richardson's post to SGM,
<King's Kinsfolk: King Henry I of England's kinsman,
John>, 10 April 2006). There is evidently no known
descent from John, or at least none proven to date.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
No known descendants.
15. Engenulf de L'aigle, seigneur of L'aigle. ****
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
No known descendants.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall. ****
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
Alleged ancestor of numerous (Cheshire ?) families; no
known descent proven.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
No known descent.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
No known descent. His sister Ada was married to
Geoffrey de Neufmarche, and numerous marcher families
(de Bohun, FitzHerbert and de Braose among others) are
descended from them.
As stated above, of the 20, I find 13 have extant lines of
descent. Some have interesting descendants in relatively short
order - for example, Isabella of Angouleme, descended from
Geoffrey, count of Perche, and Berengaria (wife of Richard the
Lionheart) descended from Engenulf de L'aigle.
Likely, Leo and Ian (and possible others) can answer your
questions concerning late medieval and Tudor monarchs.

Yep, they can shed all sorts of light on this.
DSH

Post by John P. Ravilious
Cheers,
John

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Leo and Peter can tell us how many of the 20 on the list are ancestors of
Henry VII, Edward IV, Edward III and Edward I.
Then we will easily be able to determine how many are OUR ancestors as well.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[D. Spencer Hines]

Smashing!

So, anyone descended from Edward I and Eleanor of Castile has Engenulf de
L'Aigle as an ancestor.

Tens of millions of us.

He was killed in the Battle of Hastings as you note -- perhaps at The
Malfosse -- which was part of the battle.

Egmoud de l’Aigle: Per Orderic: William the Conqueror gave Engenulf
“the lands of his father, to the harm of his older brother.” The Norman
Chronicle of the Mégissier named EGMOUD de l’Aigle.

Engenulf de l’Aigle, 2nd baron de l’Aigle, is well document as a companion
of the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings. He was gouverneur de l'Aigle
and probably one of the knights in the service of Robert, Comte de Mortain.
Very briefly, he was born in the town of "Laigle" in ca 1005, was one of the
32 people proven to have been at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. ** By
Engenulf's time the lordship was prospering and its lord could make a number
of religious benefactions. He gave property to Saint-Evroul, for example,
and also endowed the church of Saint-Sulpice-sur-Risle, which lay some three
kilometres from Laigle, in prospectu...castri sitam, as a priory of
Saint-Laumer of Blois. “Our earliest evidence of the family in ducal
service is Engenulf's attestation of a ducal charter at Fécamp in the summer
of 1066.” According to minstrel songs about his bravery, he died after the
Battle whilst pursuing the Saxons that ran from the battle and he was one of
many who died in what the French call "Malfosse" as depicted at the end of
the Bayeau Tapestry and he is the man on horseback between the letters DERVN
and SIMVL and to the left is a saxon with a hatchet. From Puck's Tales by
Rudyard Kipling: 'At Santlache, over the hill yonder'- he pointed
south-eastward towards Fairlight - 'we found Harold's men. We fought. At the
day's end they ran. My men went with De Aquila's to chase and plunder, and
in that chase ENGERRARD of the EAGLE was slain, and his son GILBERT took his
banner and his men forward." In the words of G.H. White Engenulf was 'the
only prominent Norman who lost his life in the battle'. Engenulf married
Richerede, and “by her had several children.”

** Overstated -- DSH

<http://www.oursoutherncousins.com/normandelaigles.html>

Cheers,

Spencer

"John P. Ravilious" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

Dear Spencer,

The William Malet line may be finished tomorrow, but following is
the descent I show from Ingenulf/Engenulf de L'Aigle to Edward II,
King of England.

As always, if anyone should note any defect in the following,
please advise.

Cheers,

John
____________________________________________


1 Engenulf de L'Aigle
----------------------------------------
Death: 14 Oct 1066, Battle of Hastings[1]
Occ: seigneur de L'Aigle

seigneur de L'Aigle
companion of the Conqueror; fought at Battle of Hastings (slain)

Spouse: NN

Children: Richard (-1085)


1.1 Richard de L'Aigle
----------------------------------------
Death: 18 Nov 1085, St-Suzanne in Maine[1]
Occ: seigneur de L'Aigle

Spouse: Judith of the Avranchin
Father: Richard of the Avranchin (->1074)
Mother: Emma de Conteville

Children: Gilbert (-1118)
Matilda


1.1.1 Gilbert de L'Aigle
----------------------------------------
Death: 1118[1],[2]
Occ: seigneur de L'Aigle

of Pevensey, Sussex

'Gislebert De Aquila', tenant in chief in Surrey, Domesday Book (1086)
[DP 209][3]

supporter of Henry I against William of Mortain and Robert of
Normandy, 1104
(received grant from Henry I of Pevensey, Sussex after forfeiture of
William of Mortain)[4]

ES III, Tafel 689[2] ]

Spouse: Juliana of Perche[5]
Death: aft 1108[1]
Father: Geoffrey II, count of Perche (-1100)
Mother: Beatrice de Roucy (->1129)

Children: Marguerite (-1141)
Richer (-1176)
Geoffrey (-1120)
Gilbert (-1120)
Engenulf


1.1.1.1 Marguerite de L'Aigle[5]
----------------------------------------
Death: 25 May 1141

1st wife[6]

Spouse: Garcia IV Ramirez, King of Navarre
Death: 21 Nov 1150
Father: Ramiro Sanchez, lord of Monzon (-1116)
Mother: Christina Ruiz

Children: Sancho V, King of Navarre (-1194)
Blanca (-1156)
Margarita


1.1.1.1.1 Blanca of Navarre[5]
----------------------------------------
Death: 12 Aug 1156[7]

cf. Chronicle 8:16[7]

Spouse: Sancho II, King of Castile
Birth: ca 1133[7]
Death: 31 Aug 1158[7],[8]
Father: Alfonso VII Raimundez, King of Castile (-1157)
Mother: Berengaria of Catalonia (-1149)
Marr: 30 Jan 1150, Calahorra[7]

Children: Alfonso VIII (1155-1214)


1.1.1.1.1.1 Alfonso VIII of Castile[5]
----------------------------------------
Birth: 11 Nov 1155[7]
Death: 6 Oct 1214, Burgos, Castile[9]
Burial: Monastery of Las Huelgas, Castile[7]
Occ: King of Castile 1158-1214

King of Castile 1158-1214
achieved his majority and assumed control of the throne of Castile,
Nov 1169
besieged Cuenca together with Alfonso II of Aragon - captured 14 Sept
1177

defeated the Almohads at Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, 1214 in
alliance with Peter (Pere) II of Aragon[10]

Spouse: Eleanor of England
Birth: 13 Oct 1162, Domfront, Normandy[11]
Death: 31 Oct 1214, Burgos, Castile[11]
Father: Henry II, King of England (1132-1189)
Mother: Eleanor of Aquitaine (~1122-1204)
Marr: Sep 1177, Tarragona

Children: Berengaria (ca1179-1246)
Sancho (1181-)
Blanche (1188-1252)
Fernando (1189-1211)
Urraca
Eleanor (ca1200-1244)
Enrique (1204-1217)
Constanza


1.1.1.1.1.1.1a Berengaria of Castile*
----------------------------------------
Birth: ca 1179[12]
Death: 8 Nov 1246[12]
Occ: Queen of Castile, 1217

nicknamed Berenguela[9]

married to Conrad of Swabia (contract at Seligenstadt, 23 April 1188;
betrothal at Carrion de los Condes, castile, July 1188)
marriage annulled in or before 1196 [Chronicle 11:22-23[7]]

m. at Valladolid, Dec 1197 to Alfonso IX

Queen of Leon until her divorce in 1203-04 (Berman, p. 187[8])
regent of Castile on her mother's death, for her brother, 1214-1217[8]

Queen of Castile in succession to brother Enrique I, 26 May 1217;
abdicated throne 21 Aug 1217[12][Chronicle 35:76-77[7]]
she then retired to the monastery of Las Huelgas de Burgos [Chronicle
32:72[7]]

she m. lstly Conrad II of Swabia (annulled),[12]
2ndly Alfonso IX of Leon (div. 1203/4)[8]

Spouse: Conrad II of the Empire [1st husband]
Birth: bef Apr 1172[13]
Death: 15 Aug 1196, d.s.p.[12],[13]
Father: Frederick 'Barbarossa', Emperor of the HRE(-1190)
Mother: Beatrix of the Franche-Comte (1145-1184)
Marr: Jul 1188[7]



1.1.1.1.1.1.1b Berengaria of Castile* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Alfonso IX of Leon [2nd husband]
Birth: 15 Aug 1171[12]
Death: 24 Sep 1230, Villaneuva de Sarria[7],[12]
Father: Ferdinand II of Leon (-1187)
Mother: Urraca of Portugal (ca1150-1188)
Marr: Oct 1197, Valladolid, Castile[7],[9]

Children: Leonor (ca1198-1202)
Constanza (ca1199-)
Ferdinand III (<1201-1252)
Alfonso (1202-)
Berenguela (1204-1237)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1a Ferdinand III of Castile*
----------------------------------------
Birth: bef 20 Aug 1201[12]
Death: 30 May 1252, Seville, Castile[13],[9],[14]
Burial: Cathedral of Santa Maria, Seville[14]
Occ: King of Castile 1217-1252

King of Castile 1217-1252:
succeeded upon his mother's abdication and popular acclamation
at Valladolid, 31 Aug 1217[12][Chronicle 35:76-77[7]]
a truce with his father King Alfonso of Leon was concluded, 26 Nov
1217[7]
knighted at Las Huelgas, 27 Nov 1219
married to Beatrix of Swabia at Burgos, 30 Nov 1219 [Chronicle
40:85[7]]

invaded Leon following his father's death in 1230:
consented to the concord of Benavente with his half-sisters Sancha
and
Dulcia de Leon, 11 Dec 1230, by which
' the king assigned to his two sisters 30,000 maravedis to be
collected
annually in certain places for as long as they lived. Many
additional
conditions are contained in the charters drawn up concerning this.
The sisters renounced their rights to the kingdom [of Leon], if they
had any, and their father's charters given to them concerning the
succession and donation of the kingdom were destroyed.' [Chronicle
61:120[7]]

King of Leon 1230-1252

besieged Cordoba, April 1236; capitulation by Ibn-Hud, and entrance
into the city by King Ferdinand on 30 June 1236 [Chronicle 73:141[7]]

'St. Fernando' (canonized 1671 by Pope Clement X)[14]

he m. 1stly Beatrix of Swabia,
2ndly Joan of Ponthieu

Spouse: Beatrix (Elizabeth) of Swabia
Birth: bef Jul 1205[13]
Death: 5 Nov 1235, Toro[13],[14]
Father: Philip of Swabia (<1177-1208)
Mother: Irene Angelina (1181-1208)
Marr: 30 Nov 1219, Burgos, Castile[7],[12],[13]

Children: Alfonso X (1221-1284)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1b Ferdinand III of Castile* (See above)
----------------------------------------

Spouse: Joan, Countess of Ponthieu
Death: 15 Mar 1278, Abbeville[15],[14]
Father: Simon de Dammartin, count of Aumale (-1239)
Mother: Marie, Countess of Ponthieu (1198-1251)
Marr: bef Aug 1237, Burgos[14]

Children: Eleanor (1241-1290)
Ferdinand (-<1269)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1b.1 Eleanor of Castile
----------------------------------------
Birth: 1241, Castile[16]
Death: 28 Nov 1290, Harby, Lincolnshire[16]
Burial: Westminster Abbey

inherited County of Ponthieu on her mother's death, 1279[15]

accompanied her husband in the Crusade of 1270
(her daughter Joan born at Acre, hence her name)[17]

Spouse: Edward I 'Longshanks' of England
Birth: 17 Jun 1239, Westminster Palace[16]
Death: 7 Jul 1307, Burgh-on-the-Sands, England[16]
Father: Henry III of England (1207-1272)
Mother: Eleanor of Provence (1223-1291)
Marr: Oct 1254, Las Huelgas, Castile[16]

Children: Katherine (<1264-1264)
Joan (1265-<1265)
John (1266-1271)
Henry (1268-1274)
Eleanor (~1269-)
NN (1271-)
Joan 'of Acre' (1272-1307)
Alphonso (1273-1284)
Margaret (1275-1318)
Berengaria (1276-1278)
NN (1278-)
Mary (1279-1332)
Elizabeth (1282-1316)
Edward II 'of Caernarvon' (1284-1327)


1.1.1.1.1.1.1b.1b.1.1 Edward II 'of Caernarvon' of England
----------------------------------------
Birth: 25 Apr 1284, prob. Caernarvon, Wales[16]
Death: 1327, murdered (instigation of wife Isabella & Roger de
Mortimer)[16]
Occ: King of England 1307-1327

King of England 1307-1327
favoritism towards Piers de Gaveston (executed 1306) and the
Despensers led to continual struggles with the English baronage
lost the battle of Bannockburn against the Scots under Robert I
(Bruce), 24-5 June 1314[17],[18]
won the battle of Boroughbridge against forces of his cousin Thomas,
Earl of Lancaster (executed following the battle at Pontefract, 22 Mar
1321/2)
captured by forces of his wife Isabella and her paramour Roger de
Mortimer, 1326; deposed by act of Parliament 7 January 1326/7
probably murdered at Berkeley castle, 1327

Spouse: Isabella of France
Birth: 1295[16]
Death: 22 Aug 1358, Castle Rising, Norfolk
Father: Philip IV 'le Bel' of France (1268-1314)
Mother: Jeanne I of Navarre (1272-1305)
Marr: 25 Jan 1308[16]

Children: Edward III (1312-1377)
John (1316-1336)
Eleanor (1318-1355)
Joan (1321-1362)


1. Alan B. Wilson, "Marguerite de l'Aigle," Jul 22, 1996, GEN-
MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com.
2. Detlev Schewennicke, "Europ?ische Stammtafeln: Stammtafeln zur
Geschichte der Europ?ischen Staaten, Neue Folge," [ " European Family
Trees: Family Trees for the History of European States, New Series
" ], Marburg, Germany: Verlag von J. A. Stargardt, 1978-1995 [3rd
series], First series by Wilhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg, continued
second series by Frank, Baron Freytag von Loringhoven.
3. Katherine S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Domesday People," The Boydell Press,
1999, Vol. I: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English
Documents 1066-1166, cites Robert de Torigni, Interpolations to Gesta
Normannorum Ducum of Guillaume of Jumieges, (ed. van Houts, ii, 270)
and identification of Gilbert fitzRichard as uncle of Meen, seigneur
de Fougeres (Rouleau Mortuaire du B. Vital abbe de Savigni, edition
phototypique par L. Delisle Paris (1909), titre no. 182).
4. C. Warren Hollister, "Henry I," New Haven: Yale University Press,
2001, [English Monarchs Series].
5. Stewart Baldwin, "Oldest Female Line?," Nov 20, 1996, GEN-MEDIEVAL-
***@rootsweb.com.
6. Todd A. Farmerie, "Re: Wife of Garc?a Ramirez IV/V of Navarre,"
June 17, 2000, GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com, refers to Espana del Cid
by Menendez Pidal.
7. Joseph F. O'Callaghan, "The Latin Chronicle of the Kings of
Castile," Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies,
2002, Volume 236, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies.
8. Miriam Shadis and Constance Hoffman Berman, "A Taste of the Feast:
Reconsidering Eleanor of Aquitaine's Female Descendants," Bonnie
Wheeler and John Carmi Parsons, eds., "Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and
Lady," New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, Chapter 8 (pp. 177-211).
9. "Blanche of Castile," Regine Pernoud (translated by Henry Noel),
New York: Coward, McCann & Geogheghan, Inc., 1975 (orig. 1972,
Editions Albin Michel).
10. T. N. Bisson, "The Medieval Crown of Aragon," Oxford University
Press (Clarendon), 1986 (1991 Paperback).
11. David Faris, "Plantagenet Ancestry of 17th Century Colonists,"
Baltimore: the Genealogical Pub. Company, 1st ed.
12. Douglas Richardson, "Plantagenet," Jan 20, 2003, email
***@msn.com.
13. Detlev Schewennicke, "Europ?ische Stammtafeln: Neue Folge," [ "
European Family Trees: Family Trees for the History of European
States, New Series " ], Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1998
[4th series], Band I.1 [Tafel 3 - Die Arnulfinger -751-771 Konige der
Franken ], First series by Wilhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg, continued
second series by Frank, Baron Freytag von Loringhoven.
14. Douglas Richardson, "Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and
Medieval Families," Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2004.
15. John Carmi Parsons, "Alais of France," Feb 19, 1999, GEN-MEDIEVAL-
***@rootsweb.com.
16. David Faris, "Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth-Century
Colonists," Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1999,
(2nd edition, 1999).
17. G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - [microprint,
1982 (Alan Sutton) ], The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland
Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
18. G. W. S. Barrow, "Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of
Scotland," Edinburgh University Press, 1976 (2nd ed.).

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Damned Good Post!
Yes, your 13 are the ones I was pointed at.
They seem to be the ancestors of tens of millions of us.
Could you please post lines to an English Monarch, or some other key figure,
for these two.
I'm not sure Leo has either of them in his database. But his search engine
is so primitive it's difficult to tell.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville. ****
15. Engenulf de L'aigle, seigneur of L'aigle. ****
The four stars below after the 13 identify them as winners in the
genealogical competition.
Cheers,
DSH

Post by John P. Ravilious
Dear Spencer, et al.,
The subject of known descents from the 'Hastings 20' has been
discussed before. A review of my database indicates that 13 have
known descendants beyond one generation, as indicated below (note
are given only re: those with no extended descents known).
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester. ****
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne. ****
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
No known descendants. An extensive known career, but
he died s.p. 18 Apr 1118. There are descents from his
sister (half-sister acc. to my notes) Agnes, wife of
Simon de Montfort and mother of (among others) Amaury
de Montfort-l'Amaury, count of Evreux, and of Bertrade
de Montfort, wife of Fulk IV of Anjou and ancestress of
King Henry II of England, among others.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche. ****
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford. ****
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars. ****
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle. ****
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville. ****
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches. ****
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil. ****
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey. ****
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville. ****
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
Eudes, or Odo, bishop of Bayeux is identified as having
an illegitimate son John (see David Crouch, The Normans,
(2002) p. 31; also Doug Richardson's post to SGM,
<King's Kinsfolk: King Henry I of England's kinsman,
John>, 10 April 2006). There is evidently no known
descent from John, or at least none proven to date.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
No known descendants.
15. Engenulf de L'aigle, seigneur of L'aigle. ****
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
No known descendants.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall. ****
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
Alleged ancestor of numerous (Cheshire ?) families; no
known descent proven.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
No known descent.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
No known descent. His sister Ada was married to
Geoffrey de Neufmarche, and numerous marcher families
(de Bohun, FitzHerbert and de Braose among others) are
descended from them.
As stated above, of the 20, I find 13 have extant lines of
descent. Some have interesting descendants in relatively short
order - for example, Isabella of Angouleme, descended from
Geoffrey, count of Perche, and Berengaria (wife of Richard the
Lionheart) descended from Engenulf de L'aigle.
Likely, Leo and Ian (and possible others) can answer your
questions concerning late medieval and Tudor monarchs.

Yep, they can shed all sorts of light on this.
DSH

Post by John P. Ravilious
Cheers,
John

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Leo and Peter can tell us how many of the 20 on the list are ancestors of
Henry VII, Edward IV, Edward III and Edward I.
Then we will easily be able to determine how many are OUR ancestors as well.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[taf]

Post by John P. Ravilious
1.1.1.1 Marguerite de L'Aigle[5]
----------------------------------------
Death: 25 May 1141
1st wife[6]
Spouse: Garcia IV Ramirez, King of Navarre

I know this numbering is sometimes seen, but I have difficulty
justifying it. It requires leaving a king, undisputed in his
authenticity, uncounted due to a change of dynasty, yet just as Henry
VII solidified his position by marrying the heiress of the previous
line, so did Sancho Garces, and his son (Garcia I under this scheme)
was great-grandson of Garcia Iniguez, and certainly would have
considered himself to be the lineal inheritor of the title. The real
problem is that the Kings of Navarre never numbered themselves, the
later kings were culturally distinct, using distinct names, and so had
no need of giving them numbers after the fact, and the local
historical tradition preferred identifying the kings by nickname
rather than by number.

Post by John P. Ravilious
Death: 21 Nov 1150
Father: Ramiro Sanchez, lord of Monzon (-1116)
Mother: Christina Ruiz
Children: Sancho V, King of Navarre (-1194)

That being said (and why I really brought this up) there is uniformity
in the numbering of Sanchos. Garcia's son was Sancho VI, with Sancho
Ramirez of Aragon being Sancho V of Navarre.

taf

[John P. Ravilious]

Dear Todd,

Thanks for your post this morning.

Methinks my numeration re: Castile and Navarre needs
reexamination, as was the case some time ago with the counts of
Barcelona. With regard to this particular issue, is there one or more
printed source(s) you would recommend? The best Spanish medieval work
in my collection is probably O'Callaghan's A History of Medieval
Spain, but I have not used this extensively as yet in re: the
numeration of Spanish kings, counts & c.

Cheers,

John

Post by taf

Post by John P. Ravilious
1.1.1.1 Marguerite de L'Aigle[5]
----------------------------------------
Death: �25 May 1141
1st wife[6]
Spouse: Garcia IV Ramirez, King of Navarre

I know this numbering is sometimes seen, but I have difficulty
justifying it. It requires leaving a king, undisputed in his
authenticity, uncounted due to a change of dynasty, yet just as Henry
VII solidified his position by marrying the heiress of the previous
line, so did Sancho Garces, and his son (Garcia I under this scheme)
was great-grandson of Garcia Iniguez, and certainly would have
considered himself to be the lineal inheritor of the title. The real
problem is that the Kings of Navarre never numbered themselves, the
later kings were culturally distinct, using distinct names, and so had
no need of giving them numbers after the fact, and the local
historical tradition preferred identifying the kings by nickname
rather than by number.

Post by John P. Ravilious
Death: �21 Nov 1150
Father: Ramiro Sanchez, lord of Monzon (-1116)
Mother: Christina Ruiz
Children: � � � Sancho V, King of Navarre (-1194)

That being said (and why I really brought this up) there is uniformity
in the numbering of Sanchos. Garcia's son was Sancho VI, with Sancho
Ramirez of Aragon being Sancho V of Navarre.
taf

[taf]

Post by John P. Ravilious
Dear Todd,
Thanks for your post this morning.
Methinks my numeration re: Castile and Navarre needs
reexamination, as was the case some time ago with the counts of
Barcelona. With regard to this particular issue, is there one or more
printed source(s) you would recommend? The best Spanish medieval work
in my collection is probably O'Callaghan's A History of Medieval
Spain, but I have not used this extensively as yet in re: the
numeration of Spanish kings, counts & c.

Part of the problem is that there is no consensus with Navarre, so no
one book is going to be up to the task. That being said, there is
uniformity with regard to Asturias/Leon/Castile kings. With the counts
of Castile, most Spanish historians refer to them by name and
patronymic only (Fernan Gonzalez, Garci Fernandez, Sancho Garces [or
Sancho Garcia], Garcia Sanchez). With Navarre, it is all over the
place, with debate even on what constitutes a king (vs. a subking). As
I said, nicknames (e.g. Garcia, "el de Penalen", Sancho Abarca) tended
to be preferred, but these aren't uniform either. Numbering has
followed any of four systems - count all Garcias:

Garcia I Iniguez, G II Jimenez, G III Sanchez, G IV Sanchez, G V
Sanchez, G VI Ramirez

exclude the first, as he is of a different dynasty (which, I would
argue, is unsupportable:

G I J, G II S, G III S, G IV S, G V R

excluding Garcia Jimenez, as a subking:

G I I, G II S, G III S, G IV S, G V R

number based on both given and patronymic:

Garcia Iniguez, Garcia Jimenez, Garcia Sanchez I, G S II, G S III,
Garcia Ramirez

Rarely you see people excluding Garcia Iniguez AND Garcia Jimenez
which would give (again I have argued this can't be supported):

Garcia Iniguez, Garcia Sanchez I, G S II, G S III, Garcia IV Ramirez

(I think a lot of people who use this numbering do so, not actively,
but passively - they don't realize that a patronymic-based system is
being used, and assign to the great-grandson of Garcia Sanchez III the
number Garcia IV Ramirez because IV comes after III, not understanding
why the predecessor is called III.)

When you switch to the Sanchos, there is uniformity:

Sancho I Garces, S II G, S III G, S IV G, Sancho V Ramirez, S VI G,
Sancho VI Sanchez

A system could be used numbering by patronymic

Sancho Garces I, S G II, S G III, S G IV, Sancho Ramirez, S G V,
Sancho Sanchez

However, I don't recall ever having seen this used. Note that if you
use patronymic, the number should come at the end, not after the given
name.

For Aragon, again, it is mostly uniform, counting Aznar I, Galindo I,
Aznar II, Galindo II, but I have also seen sources that count Galindo
Valasquez, making the two Aznarez II and III.

For Viguera, I would use name and patronymic (Ramiro Garces, Sancho
Ramirez, Garcia Ramirez).

For Barcelona, it is a real mess, because of the changing use of
bynames. These started as alias names, then were used as patronymics,
for about three generations, then became entire name/byname units. Any
system developed to address one of these periods proves inadequate for
the other times. Two add insult to injury, the in and pout behavior of
Provence causes different numbers to be applicable depending on which
title you are talking about. I guess I would prefer not to number the
early counts:

Wifred, Wifred Borell, Sunyer, Borell, Ramon Borell, Berenger Ramon I,
Ramon Berenger I, Ramon Berenger II & Berenger Ramon II, Ramon
Berenger III, Ramon Berenger IV, Alfonso (I in Barcelona, but I would
give his number as king, II precedence).

Alternative systems number both names through Ramon Borell, then go to
numbering first name only:

W I, W II B I, S, B II, R I B III, B I R, R II B, R III B & B II R,
etc.

Perhaps Nat has a better idea what is currently preferred in scholarly
circles.

taf

[Nathaniel Taylor]

... Numbering has
Garcia I Iniguez, G II Jimenez, G III Sanchez, G IV Sanchez, G V
Sanchez, G VI Ramirez
exclude the first, as he is of a different dynasty (which, I would
G I J, G II S, G III S, G IV S, G V R
G I I, G II S, G III S, G IV S, G V R
Garcia Iniguez, Garcia Jimenez, Garcia Sanchez I, G S II, G S III,
Garcia Ramirez
Rarely you see people excluding Garcia Iniguez AND Garcia Jimenez
Garcia Iniguez, Garcia Sanchez I, G S II, G S III, Garcia IV Ramirez
(I think a lot of people who use this numbering do so, not actively,
but passively - they don't realize that a patronymic-based system is
being used, and assign to the great-grandson of Garcia Sanchez III the
number Garcia IV Ramirez because IV comes after III, not understanding
why the predecessor is called III.)
Sancho I Garces, S II G, S III G, S IV G, Sancho V Ramirez, S VI G,
Sancho VI Sanchez
A system could be used numbering by patronymic
Sancho Garces I, S G II, S G III, S G IV, Sancho Ramirez, S G V,
Sancho Sanchez
However, I don't recall ever having seen this used. Note that if you
use patronymic, the number should come at the end, not after the given
name.
For Aragon, again, it is mostly uniform, counting Aznar I, Galindo I,
Aznar II, Galindo II, but I have also seen sources that count Galindo
Valasquez, making the two Aznarez II and III.
For Viguera, I would use name and patronymic (Ramiro Garces, Sancho
Ramirez, Garcia Ramirez).
For Barcelona, it is a real mess, because of the changing use of
bynames. These started as alias names, then were used as patronymics,
for about three generations, then became entire name/byname units. Any
system developed to address one of these periods proves inadequate for
the other times. Two add insult to injury, the in and pout behavior of
Provence causes different numbers to be applicable depending on which
title you are talking about. I guess I would prefer not to number the
Wifred, Wifred Borell, Sunyer, Borell, Ramon Borell, Berenger Ramon I,
Ramon Berenger I, Ramon Berenger II & Berenger Ramon II, Ramon
Berenger III, Ramon Berenger IV, Alfonso (I in Barcelona, but I would
give his number as king, II precedence).
Alternative systems number both names through Ramon Borell, then go to
W I, W II B I, S, B II, R I B III, B I R, R II B, R III B & B II R,
etc.
Perhaps Nat has a better idea what is currently preferred in scholarly
circles.

Among the Catalan historians the consensus is certainly to number only
repeated name / byname pairs for the counts of Barcelona, as above: so
essentially only the Ramon Berenguers and Berenguer Ramons are numbered.
The problem becomes the confusion over order of succession to different
territories, e.g. Provence (held by a branch of this family with the
same names). For numbering the count-kings after the union with Aragon,
whether or not you call Alfonso I or II, or something like Alfons I (II)
varies with use of the Catalan or Castilian (Aragonese) versions of the
names. Usage on this follows cultural / political inclination (Catalans
and catalanofils versus non-Catalans).

I have not been systematically keeping track of scholarship on Navarre
to see whether one system has gained traction as a consensus. I would
apply the Catalan custom, using names & patronymics, then using ordinals
only for those whose two names are repeated together, and only after the
patronymic, but don't know how widely this is used for those guys.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

[Bryn]

Post by Paul J Gans

Post by Normandy

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Worthless, Tongue-Flapping Bromide...

Would you please give us your descent? We can guess it,
of course, short as it is: from the fair soil of the earth to the
sock factory, and thence here.
Doug McDonald

Mine traces back to Hasting the Pirate on the paternal side and Charles
Martel on the maternal side.

Ghod, I hope not. There is no real evidence that "Hasting"
ever existed.

My God! I hope so. He had a base at Appledore. Why, they've even got his
toothbrush in a glass case in the local Pub.

Post by Paul J Gans
Yes, I know he has listed descendents, etc., but then, so does
Adam.

[Paul J Gans]

Post by Bryn

Post by Paul J Gans

Post by Normandy

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Worthless, Tongue-Flapping Bromide...

Would you please give us your descent? We can guess it,
of course, short as it is: from the fair soil of the earth to the
sock factory, and thence here.
Doug McDonald

Mine traces back to Hasting the Pirate on the paternal side and Charles
Martel on the maternal side.

Ghod, I hope not. There is no real evidence that "Hasting"
ever existed.

My God! I hope so. He had a base at Appledore. Why, they've even got his
toothbrush in a glass case in the local Pub.

There is that, of course.

Post by Bryn

Post by Paul J Gans
Yes, I know he has listed descendents, etc., but then, so does
Adam.

[Normandy]

Post by Paul J Gans

Post by Normandy

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Worthless, Tongue-Flapping Bromide...

Would you please give us your descent? We can guess it,
of course, short as it is: from the fair soil of the earth to the
sock factory, and thence here.
Doug McDonald

Mine traces back to Hasting the Pirate on the paternal side and Charles
Martel on the maternal side.

Ghod, I hope not. There is no real evidence that "Hasting"
ever existed.
Yes, I know he has listed descendents, etc., but then, so does
Adam.
--
--- Paul J. Gans

Dudo of St-Quentin speaks of him in his 'De moribus'. In another Dudo work,
'Historia Norrmannorum', he says that when Charles the Simple demanded that
Rollon kiss his foot as a sign of fealty Rollon (Rollo or HRolf) refused. He
sent Hasting to do the job. According to Dudo Hasting instead of bending
down brought the king's foot to his mouth pitching the king in the mud. my
ancestor listed on the Caen roll was allegedly descended from Hasting. True
or a Norman myth, I do not know.

Normandy

[Doug McDonald]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Right.
I did a quick check and about 12 of them seem to be my ancestors, mostly
26th Great-Grandfathers or so -- and the ancestors of tens of millions of
other folks.

The ones I list are

Eustace II of Boulogne
Robert de Beaumont Earl of Leicester
Robert de Mortain Count of Mortain
William de Warenne Earl or Surrey
William FitzOsbern Earl of Hereford
Walter Gifford Lord of Longueville
and of course
William the Conqueror himself

Doug McDonald

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, those are perennial favorites.

DSH

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Right.
I did a quick check and about 12 of them seem to be my ancestors, mostly
26th Great-Grandfathers or so -- and the ancestors of tens of millions of
other folks.

The ones I list are
Eustace II of Boulogne
Robert de Beaumont Earl of Leicester
Robert de Mortain Count of Mortain
William de Warenne Earl or Surrey
William FitzOsbern Earl of Hereford
Walter Gifford Lord of Longueville
and of course
William the Conqueror himself
Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, those are perennial favorites.
DSH

Post by Doug McDonald
The ones I list are
Eustace II of Boulogne
Robert de Beaumont Earl of Leicester
Robert de Mortain Count of Mortain
William de Warenne Earl or Surrey
William FitzOsbern Earl of Hereford
Walter Gifford Lord of Longueville
and of course
William the Conqueror himself
Doug McDonald

I should have said that those are MY listed ancestors,
all very common ones.

Doug McDonald

[D. Spencer Hines]

Right!

You were clear enough the first time.

Six more can probably be added easily.

DSH

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Yes, those are perennial favorites.
DSH

Post by Doug McDonald
The ones I list are
Eustace II of Boulogne
Robert de Beaumont Earl of Leicester
Robert de Mortain Count of Mortain
William de Warenne Earl or Surrey
William FitzOsbern Earl of Hereford
Walter Gifford Lord of Longueville
and of course
William the Conqueror himself
Doug McDonald

I should have said that those are MY listed ancestors,
all very common ones.
Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Right!
You were clear enough the first time.
Six more can probably be added easily.
DSH

Post by Doug McDonald
The ones I list are
Eustace II of Boulogne
Robert de Beaumont Earl of Leicester
Robert de Mortain Count of Mortain
William de Warenne Earl or Surrey
William FitzOsbern Earl of Hereford
Walter Gifford Lord of Longueville
and of course
William the Conqueror himself

"Easily" is probably inaccurate. But with your hint, I have
found some more lines. It is odd that some of these are not on Genealogics,
or rather were not last time I checked. I found them using
both Genealogics and Tim Powys-Lybbe's excellent Gedcom file.
A possible reason for them not being so easily found and put in
my file is that older tertiary sources have no primary or
secondary sources: but now I find references to Domesday People
or Domesday Descendants, which are slowly being digested
well by the tertiary references.


They are:

Hugh de Grantmesnil
Hugh de Montfort Count of Montfort sur Risle
Ralph de Toeni
Aimery Vicompte de Thours
Geoffrey of Mortagne, Count of Perche
Engenulf de Laigle


That makes, with William himself, and of course Harold,
who was not a "companion" of his Conqueror, 14. That beats
by quite a number the 8 ancestors of mine who
were at the signing of the Magna Carta.

Thanks for the pointer that I was missing six.

It's a pity that we don't have descendants from "companions
of the Loser" and lucky that we have that Ukrainian miracle
that gives descents from the Loser himself.

Doug McDonald

[D. Spencer Hines]

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Right!
You were clear enough the first time.
Six more can probably be added easily.
DSH

Post by Doug McDonald
The ones I list are
Eustace II of Boulogne
Robert de Beaumont Earl of Leicester
Robert de Mortain Count of Mortain
William de Warenne Earl or Surrey
William FitzOsbern Earl of Hereford
Walter Gifford Lord of Longueville
and of course
William the Conqueror himself

"Easily" is probably inaccurate.

Well, you rounded up and roped the SIX pretty quickly and easily.

You probably owe it all to Texican grit, good common sense, persistence,
can-do American Spirit and a Good Mother.

Post by Doug McDonald
But with your hint, I have
found some more lines.

Wunderbar...

Post by Doug McDonald
It is odd that some of these are not on Genealogics,
or rather were not last time I checked.

Yes, I discovered the same thing. Perhaps Leo can tell us some more about
that.

Post by Doug McDonald
I found them using
both Genealogics and Tim Powys-Lybbe's excellent Gedcom file.

Where is that? Probably lots of folks could profit from it.

Post by Doug McDonald
A possible reason for them not being so easily found and put in
my file is that older tertiary sources have no primary or
secondary sources: but now I find references to Domesday People
or Domesday Descendants, which are slowly being digested
well by the tertiary references.

Yes.

Post by Doug McDonald
Hugh de Grantmesnil
Hugh de Montfort Count of Montfort sur Risle
Ralph de Toeni
Aimery Vicompte de Thours
Geoffrey of Mortagne, Count of Perche
Engenulf de Laigle

Yes, those are precisely the ones I have too.

Post by Doug McDonald
That makes, with William himself, and of course Harold,
who was not a "companion" of his Conqueror, 14. That beats
by quite a number the 8 ancestors of mine who
were at the signing of the Magna Carta.

So just give your ancestors and yourself credit for winning the Battle of
Hastings. <g>

Post by Doug McDonald
Thanks for the pointer that I was missing six.

You're quite welcome.

Post by Doug McDonald
It's a pity that we don't have descendants from "companions
of the Loser" and lucky that we have that Ukrainian miracle
that gives descents from the Loser himself.

Right!

Post by Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald

What are the Texican greetings and farewells to people in daily life?

Cheers,

Spence

[Doug McDonald]

Post by D. Spencer Hines

Post by Doug McDonald
It is odd that some of these are not on Genealogics,
or rather were not last time I checked.

Yes, I discovered the same thing. Perhaps Leo can tell us some more about
that.

Post by Doug McDonald
I found them using
both Genealogics and Tim Powys-Lybbe's excellent Gedcom file.

Where is that? Probably lots of folks could profit from it.

www.powys.org

This is as close to a "gold standard" as things get. It is
much less complete than Genealogics because it's much more
picky. Genealogics has inarguable actual errors as opposed
to lines that stretch on too long into myth. Tim's file
has, in my opinion, essentially zero of those. Arguable ones,
arguing with me, yes, inarguable ones, no.

Post by D. Spencer Hines
What are the Texican greetings and farewells to people in daily life?

Hayah and guh'bye.


Doug McDonald

[D. Spencer Hines]

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines

Post by Doug McDonald
It is odd that some of these are not on Genealogics,
or rather were not last time I checked.

Yes, I discovered the same thing. Perhaps Leo can tell us some more
about that.

Post by Doug McDonald
I found them using
both Genealogics and Tim Powys-Lybbe's excellent Gedcom file.

Where is that? Probably lots of folks could profit from it.

www.powys.org

Thank you kindly.

Post by Doug McDonald
This is as close to a "gold standard" as things get. It is
much less complete than Genealogics because it's much more
picky. Genealogics has inarguable actual errors as opposed
to lines that stretch on too long into myth. Tim's file
has, in my opinion, essentially zero of those. Arguable ones,
arguing with me, yes, inarguable ones, no.

"Picky" in what senses, other than the ones you note above?

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
What are the Texican greetings and farewells to people in daily life?

Hayah and guh'bye.

Thank you kindly.

DSH

[Doug McDonald]

Post by D. Spencer Hines

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines

Post by Doug McDonald
I found them using
both Genealogics and Tim Powys-Lybbe's excellent Gedcom file.

Where is that? Probably lots of folks could profit from it.

www.powys.org

Thank you kindly.

Post by Doug McDonald
This is as close to a "gold standard" as things get. It is
much less complete than Genealogics because it's much more
picky.

"Picky" in what senses, other than the ones you note above?

none

Tim is just a careful person. Look at his coat of arms ...
amazing, and given the Royal stamp of approval ...
in the 20th [sic] century!

Doug McDonald

[D. Spencer Hines]

Post by Doug McDonald
Tim is just a careful person. Look at his coat of arms ...
amazing, and given the Royal stamp of approval ...
in the 20th [sic] century!
Doug McDonald

Good, I like careful people. <g>

New Subject:

If you go grouse hunting again I feel confident you will be able to bag well
more than EIGHT of the Magna Carta Sureties. Douglas Richardson's book
_Magna Carta Ancestry_ is also useful.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[Turenne]

Post by Doug McDonald
Tim is just a careful person. Look at his coat of arms ...
amazing, and given the Royal stamp of approval ...
in the 20th [sic] century!

What's wrong with Tim's coat of arms and what royal stamp of approval
is neccessary?

Richard Lichten

[Paul J Gans]

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Normandy

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Séimí mac Liam
Do either date to the period?
--
Saint S?im? mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

No!

How far off?
--
Saint S?im? mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

About 600 and 900 years
Liste de l'abbaye de la Bataille XVIe si?cle, probablement compil?es
? partir d'une version du XIVe si?cle (Battle Abby)
La liste de Dives-sur-Mer 475 names complied 17 ao?t 1862
La liste de Falaise 1938
Caen plaque about 1880
Le Roman de Rou is probably most accurate written by Wace a po?te
anglo-normand. commissioned by Henry II of England to write of the
conques of England in 1160 Wace abandon the work arounf 1170 before
bringing it up to date and says in the final lines of Part III that
the king had entrusted the same task to a Maistre Beneeit (believed to
be Beno?t de Sainte-More).Wace has 116 complete names 38 first names
and 77 others by place of origin
Normandy

Are all the names Hines posted on that final list?

Look at the dates on those lists. 14th century, 19th century,
and 20th century. Even Wace is 100 years after the battle.

[Paul J Gans]

Post by Normandy

Post by Séimí mac Liam

Post by Séimí mac Liam
Do either date to the period?
--
Saint S?im? mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

No!

How far off?
--
Saint S?im? mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99

About 600 and 900 years
Liste de l'abbaye de la Bataille XVIe si?cle, probablement compil?es ?
partir d'une version du XIVe si?cle (Battle Abby)
La liste de Dives-sur-Mer 475 names complied 17 ao?t 1862
La liste de Falaise 1938
Caen plaque about 1880
Le Roman de Rou is probably most accurate written by Wace a po?te
anglo-normand. commissioned by Henry II of England to write of the conques
of England in 1160 Wace abandon the work arounf 1170 before bringing it up
to date and says in the final lines of Part III that the king had entrusted
the same task to a Maistre Beneeit (believed to be Beno?t de
Sainte-More).Wace has 116 complete names 38 first names and 77 others by
place of origin

Wace wrote over 100 years after the event. He had access to
the chronicles and records that we have, and very likely a
few more to boot. But that doesn't make his list accurate.

By his time folks understood the importance of being a "companion"
of William I and so all sorts of inventions were being bandied
about.

This can be seen even in the more contemporary stories. They
agree on very little, particularly who was where. Indeed, they
differ on how Harold died and what happened both during and
after the battle.

I'm afraid that there is little joy in lists, especially late
ones.

[l***@yahoo.com]

Post by David

Post by D. Spencer Hines
We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.
Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the Conqueror in
1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well, whose ancestors
didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming majority of claims that an
ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror are completely unproven.
To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists must
be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of Battle Abbey" is
known only from copies made hundreds of years later - copies which do not
agree with one another - of a supposed original that may, in fact, never
have existed. Having an ancestor's name listed on copies of the Roll no
doubt had more to do with making a donation to the Abbey than the ancestor
having accompanied William. In any case, its lack of contemporaneity - by
hundreds of years - makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.
The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage, rev.
ed., vol. XII, postscript to Appendix L, pp. 47-48: "Companions of the
Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings). These are the proven
companions of William.
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the battle
scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost certainly
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
(#16 named by William of Poitiers, #17-19 portrayed in the Bayeux
Tapestry, #20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the English War before
William became King of England.)
<http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/0/Others/Misc/Companions.shtml>

I have to wonder how reliable the Bayeux Tapestry is at that level of
detail, being made some time after the fact. Probably there were
several of William's followers who were not actually at the battle,
but who were otherwise occupied during the invasion or joined their
duke in the days or months after the battle, who could later have been
supposed, or have been remembered by their descendants, as being
present at Hastings (with more honesty than accuracy).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I would assume that it shows heraldic devices accurately.

[John Briggs]

Post by l***@yahoo.com

Post by David

Post by D. Spencer Hines
We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.
Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the
Conqueror in 1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well,
whose ancestors didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming
majority of claims that an ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror
are completely unproven.
To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists must
be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of Battle
Abbey" is known only from copies made hundreds of years later -
copies which do not agree with one another - of a supposed original
that may, in fact, never have existed. Having an ancestor's name
listed on copies of the Roll no doubt had more to do with making a
donation to the Abbey than the ancestor having accompanied William.
In any case, its lack of contemporaneity - by hundreds of years -
makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.
The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage, rev.
ed., vol. XII, postscript to Appendix L, pp. 47-48: "Companions of
the Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings). These are
the proven companions of William.
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the
battle scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
(#16 named by William of Poitiers, #17-19 portrayed in the
Bayeux Tapestry, #20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the
English War before William became King of England.)
<http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/0/Others/Misc/Companions.shtml>

I have to wonder how reliable the Bayeux Tapestry is at that level of
detail, being made some time after the fact. Probably there were
several of William's followers who were not actually at the battle,
but who were otherwise occupied during the invasion or joined their
duke in the days or months after the battle, who could later have
been supposed, or have been remembered by their descendants, as being
present at Hastings (with more honesty than accuracy).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I would assume that it shows heraldic devices accurately.

Except that they hadn't been invented yet...

[David]

Post by John Briggs

Post by l***@yahoo.com

Post by David

Post by D. Spencer Hines
We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.
Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the
Conqueror in 1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well,
whose ancestors didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming
majority of claims that an ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror
are completely unproven.
To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists must
be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of Battle
Abbey" is known only from copies made hundreds of years later -
copies which do not agree with one another - of a supposed original
that may, in fact, never have existed. Having an ancestor's name
listed on copies of the Roll no doubt had more to do with making a
donation to the Abbey than the ancestor having accompanied William.
In any case, its lack of contemporaneity - by hundreds of years -
makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.
The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage, rev.
ed., vol. XII, postscript to Appendix L, pp. 47-48: "Companions of
the Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings). These are
the proven companions of William.
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the
battle scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
(#16 named by William of Poitiers, #17-19 portrayed in the
Bayeux Tapestry, #20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the
English War before William became King of England.)
<http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/0/Others/Misc/Companions.shtml>

I have to wonder how reliable the Bayeux Tapestry is at that level of
detail, being made some time after the fact. Probably there were
several of William's followers who were not actually at the battle,
but who were otherwise occupied during the invasion or joined their
duke in the days or months after the battle, who could later have
been supposed, or have been remembered by their descendants, as being
present at Hastings (with more honesty than accuracy).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I would assume that it shows heraldic devices accurately.

Except that they hadn't been invented yet...
--
John Briggs

Shield decorations are quite old, and were certainly used at the
battle of Hastings; the idea of individually distinctive and
persistent decorations, used likewise on shields, surcoats, and
banners, dates from the the last two or three decades of the twelfth
century; and the idea that such devices were heritable properties
dates from the immediately following generation, that is c. 1200. The
first English king to inherit arms was John (taking over his brother
Richard's three leopards); but those arms were only used for the last
few years of Richard's reign. Old families, such as the Capetians,
who had several diverse branches, each took up *different* devices in
the 12th century, which in no manner showed their relationship to each
other. Thus, about the same time that the Kings of France were
adopting the device Azure, semy-de-lis Or, their cousins of Courtenay
were using three torteaux, of Dreux checky with a bordure, of
Vermandois just plain checky, of Burgundy bendy with a bordure, of
Viennois the Dauphiny dolphin, and the Counts of Portugal the famous
five inescutcheons.

[Paul J Gans]

Post by David

Post by John Briggs

Post by l***@yahoo.com

Post by David

Post by D. Spencer Hines
We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.
Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the
Conqueror in 1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well,
whose ancestors didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming
majority of claims that an ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror
are completely unproven.
To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists must
be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of Battle
Abbey" is known only from copies made hundreds of years later -
copies which do not agree with one another - of a supposed original
that may, in fact, never have existed. Having an ancestor's name
listed on copies of the Roll no doubt had more to do with making a
donation to the Abbey than the ancestor having accompanied William.
In any case, its lack of contemporaneity - by hundreds of years -
makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.
The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage, rev.
ed., vol. XII, postscript to Appendix L, pp. 47-48: "Companions of
the Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings). These are
the proven companions of William.
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the
battle scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
(#16 named by William of Poitiers, #17-19 portrayed in the
Bayeux Tapestry, #20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the
English War before William became King of England.)
<http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/0/Others/Misc/Companions.shtml>

I have to wonder how reliable the Bayeux Tapestry is at that level of
detail, being made some time after the fact. Probably there were
several of William's followers who were not actually at the battle,
but who were otherwise occupied during the invasion or joined their
duke in the days or months after the battle, who could later have
been supposed, or have been remembered by their descendants, as being
present at Hastings (with more honesty than accuracy).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I would assume that it shows heraldic devices accurately.

Except that they hadn't been invented yet...
--
John Briggs

Shield decorations are quite old, and were certainly used at the
battle of Hastings; the idea of individually distinctive and
persistent decorations, used likewise on shields, surcoats, and
banners, dates from the the last two or three decades of the twelfth
century; and the idea that such devices were heritable properties
dates from the immediately following generation, that is c. 1200. The
first English king to inherit arms was John (taking over his brother
Richard's three leopards); but those arms were only used for the last
few years of Richard's reign. Old families, such as the Capetians,
who had several diverse branches, each took up *different* devices in
the 12th century, which in no manner showed their relationship to each
other. Thus, about the same time that the Kings of France were
adopting the device Azure, semy-de-lis Or, their cousins of Courtenay
were using three torteaux, of Dreux checky with a bordure, of
Vermandois just plain checky, of Burgundy bendy with a bordure, of
Viennois the Dauphiny dolphin, and the Counts of Portugal the famous
five inescutcheons.

Very true. But the original question was about the
veracity of the supposed heraldic devices on the
Bayeux Tapestry. The answer is, as you indicate,
that we can tell nothing genealogic from the sheild
devices on the Bayeux Tapestry.

[Paul J Gans]

Post by l***@yahoo.com

Post by David

Post by D. Spencer Hines
We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.
Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the Conqueror in
1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well, whose ancestors
didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming majority of claims that an
ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror are completely unproven.
To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists must
be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of Battle Abbey" is
known only from copies made hundreds of years later - copies which do not
agree with one another - of a supposed original that may, in fact, never
have existed. Having an ancestor's name listed on copies of the Roll no
doubt had more to do with making a donation to the Abbey than the ancestor
having accompanied William. In any case, its lack of contemporaneity - by
hundreds of years - makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.
The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage, rev.
ed., vol. XII, postscript to Appendix L, pp. 47-48: "Companions of the
Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings). These are the proven
companions of William.
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the battle
scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost certainly
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
(#16 named by William of Poitiers, #17-19 portrayed in the Bayeux
Tapestry, #20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the English War before
William became King of England.)
<http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/0/Others/Misc/Companions.shtml>

I have to wonder how reliable the Bayeux Tapestry is at that level of
detail, being made some time after the fact. Probably there were
several of William's followers who were not actually at the battle,
but who were otherwise occupied during the invasion or joined their
duke in the days or months after the battle, who could later have been
supposed, or have been remembered by their descendants, as being
present at Hastings (with more honesty than accuracy).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I would assume that it shows heraldic devices accurately.

Actually no. Heraldry, in the sense I think you mean it,
wasn't invented until later.

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

Post by David

Post by D. Spencer Hines
We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.
Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the Conqueror in
1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well, whose ancestors
didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming majority of claims that an
ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror are completely unproven.
To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists must
be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of Battle Abbey" is
known only from copies made hundreds of years later - copies which do not
agree with one another - of a supposed original that may, in fact, never
have existed. Having an ancestor's name listed on copies of the Roll no
doubt had more to do with making a donation to the Abbey than the ancestor
having accompanied William. In any case, its lack of contemporaneity - by
hundreds of years - makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.
The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage, rev.
ed., vol. XII, postscript to Appendix L, pp. 47-48: "Companions of the
Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings). These are the proven
companions of William.
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the battle
scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost certainly
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
(#16 named by William of Poitiers, #17-19 portrayed in the Bayeux
Tapestry, #20 said by Orderic to have taken part in the English War before
William became King of England.)
<http://dgmweb.net/genealogy/0/Others/Misc/Companions.shtml>

I have to wonder how reliable the Bayeux Tapestry is at that level of
detail, being made some time after the fact. Probably there were
several of William's followers who were not actually at the battle,
but who were otherwise occupied during the invasion or joined their
duke in the days or months after the battle, who could later have been
supposed, or have been remembered by their descendants, as being
present at Hastings (with more honesty than accuracy).

This is a good point. It is only following my own research that I
found that my mother had a male-line descent from the progenitor of
the baronial family of de Welles. This was a gentleman by the name of
Ragemer, who was a Domesday Book tenant in 1086. To my untutored ear
the name sounds Norse rather than Anglo-Saxon, but as Lincolnshire was
part of the Danelaw it would be wrong to assume automatically that he
was part of the Conqueror's army.

Patrick


Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

[D. Spencer Hines]

Nope...

No Sale.

A Companion of the Conqueror has to have made the crossing with Guillaume,
duc de Normandie and been present somewhere at the Battle of Hastings,
Saturday, 14 October 1066 -- where he became Guillaume le Conquerant.

Someone who shared the extreme risks with the Conqueror at this World
Historical Event that sounds echoes to this very day.

Sorry you can't find at least one CoC of your own. Emphasis on CONQUERING
those ruddy English at Hastings.

Of course, as we have discovered, if you have one Companion of the Conqueror
you probably have a dozen or so in your grouse bag, after a successful hunt.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Probably there were several of William's followers who were not
actually at the battle, but who were otherwise occupied during the
invasion or joined their duke in the days or months after the battle, who
could later have been supposed, or have been remembered by their
descendants, as being present at Hastings (with more honesty than
accuracy).

[Doug McDonald]

According to my file .... which is NOT guaranteed complete ...
Edward III will get you 6 of the Companions (Thuors, Boulogne,
Perche, Laigle, Mourtain, and Gifford) while the Bruce will
get you Beaumont, Warenne, FitzOsbern, and Gifford. This leaves three,
Grantmesnil, Montfort, and Conches (Tosni). I get those three
through Ironmonger, a not very common gateway. How do others get them?

And what Malet?

Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

Post by Doug McDonald
And what Malet?

I found it, right there in Tim Powys-Lybbe's file!

As expected, he is ancestor of the Malets of Curry Malet.

However, note a posting here [s.g.m.] on May 18, 2006 by John
Ravilious which confirms an iffy connection noted by Tim.

I get him through Ironmonger, not Edward III or the Scots line.
I had always though of Ironmonger as an "extra" line, as the
last (British, and apparently there are no later continental ones)
interesting.


Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

Post by Doug McDonald
I get him through Ironmonger, not Edward III or the Scots line.
I had always though of Ironmonger as an "extra" line, as the
last (British, and apparently there are no later continental ones)
interesting.

damn Microsoft user interface ... last sentence got ctrl-Z'd
out of existance in the same move as the post was sent! It should be

last (British, and apparently there are no later continental ones)
Royal is Henry I. These Companions make Ironmonger more interesting.

Doug

[D. Spencer Hines]

Pease tell us more about Ironmonger.

DSH

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by Doug McDonald
I get him through Ironmonger, not Edward III or the Scots line.
I had always though of Ironmonger as an "extra" line, as the
last (British, and apparently there are no later continental ones)
interesting.

damn Microsoft user interface ... last sentence got ctrl-Z'd
out of existance in the same move as the post was sent! It should be
last (British, and apparently there are no later continental ones)
Royal is Henry I. These Companions make Ironmonger more interesting.
Doug

[Patrick Cracroft-Brennan]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:08:51 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Nope...
No Sale.
A Companion of the Conqueror has to have made the crossing with Guillaume,
duc de Normandie and been present somewhere at the Battle of Hastings,
Saturday, 14 October 1066 -- where he became Guillaume le Conquerant.
Someone who shared the extreme risks with the Conqueror at this World
Historical Event that sounds echoes to this very day.
Sorry you can't find at least one CoC of your own. Emphasis on CONQUERING
those ruddy English at Hastings.
Of course, as we have discovered, if you have one Companion of the Conqueror
you probably have a dozen or so in your grouse bag, after a successful hunt.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Probably there were several of William's followers who were not
actually at the battle, but who were otherwise occupied during the
invasion or joined their duke in the days or months after the battle, who
could later have been supposed, or have been remembered by their
descendants, as being present at Hastings (with more honesty than
accuracy).

I really do not understand where you guys are coming from. A descent
from William I and many of the so-called "Companions of the Conqueror"
is pretty easy to prove if you have any English ancestors above the
"ag lab" class . It is no big deal.

In my book a descent from Edward I is pretty common, from Edward III
not unusual, from Henry VII starts to get warm, from Charles II or
James II distinctly interesting and from William IV somewhere
approaching very interesting.

But at the end of the day, does any of this really matter. There is
something distinctly sad about a genealogist who spends hours trying
to prove his or her own descent from ancient royalty. OK, these
things are nice fripperies, but to those who are saying "I've got more
descents from the Companions of the Conqueror than you!", I have only
one thing to say - get a life!

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

[D. Spencer Hines]

Twaddle!

None of us have SAID it was any Big Deal.

Read My Posts...

Tens of millions of us have these descents...

Of course PROVING them is another matter entirely.

Aye, There's The Fun.

My Advice To You...

Get A Brain...

Buy, Borrow Or Steal One...

Posthaste.

Then take a Reading Comprehension 101 Course For Boneheads.

Report Grade...

Await Further Instructions.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
I really do not understand where you guys are coming from. A descent
from William I and many of the so-called "Companions of the Conqueror"
is pretty easy to prove if you have any English ancestors above the
"ag lab" class . It is no big deal.

[...]

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
I have only one thing to say - get a life!

[David]

On Sep 10, 3:27 pm, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan

Post by Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:08:51 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Nope...
No Sale.
A Companion of the Conqueror has to have made the crossing with Guillaume,
duc de Normandie and been present somewhere at the Battle of Hastings,
Saturday, 14 October 1066 -- where he became Guillaume le Conquerant.
Someone who shared the extreme risks with the Conqueror at this World
Historical Event that sounds echoes to this very day.
Sorry you can't find at least one CoC of your own. Emphasis on CONQUERING
those ruddy English at Hastings.
Of course, as we have discovered, if you have one Companion of the Conqueror
you probably have a dozen or so in your grouse bag, after a successful hunt.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Probably there were several of William's followers who were not
actually at the battle, but who were otherwise occupied during the
invasion or joined their duke in the days or months after the battle, who
could later have been supposed, or have been remembered by their
descendants, as being present at Hastings (with more honesty than
accuracy).

I really do not understand where you guys are coming from. A descent
from William I and many of the so-called "Companions of the Conqueror"
is pretty easy to prove if you have any English ancestors above the
"ag lab" class . It is no big deal.
In my book a descent from Edward I is pretty common, from Edward III
not unusual, from Henry VII starts to get warm, from Charles II or
James II distinctly interesting and from William IV somewhere
approaching very interesting.
But at the end of the day, does any of this really matter. There is
something distinctly sad about a genealogist who spends hours trying
to prove his or her own descent from ancient royalty. OK, these
things are nice fripperies, but to those who are saying "I've got more
descents from the Companions of the Conqueror than you!", I have only
one thing to say - get a life!
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetagewww.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================

Hurrah for good sense.

[William Black]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
We've see a lot of bafflegab and rubbish on this subject recently.
Here is a more intelligent approach and answer.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the Conqueror
in 1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well, whose ancestors
didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming majority of claims that an
ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror are completely unproven.
To begin with, no contemporary list was made, so all later lists must
be suspect. Even such an imposing document as the "Roll of Battle Abbey" is
known only from copies made hundreds of years later - copies which do not
agree with one another - of a supposed original that may, in fact, never
have existed. Having an ancestor's name listed on copies of the Roll no
doubt had more to do with making a donation to the Abbey than the ancestor
having accompanied William. In any case, its lack of contemporaneity - by
hundreds of years - makes the Roll of Battle Abbey mythology, not history.
The following is an excerpt from Cokayne's The Complete Peerage, rev.
ed., vol. XII, postscript to Appendix L, pp. 47-48: "Companions of the
Conqueror" (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings). These are the proven
companions of William.
1. Robert de Beaumont, later first Earl of Leicester.
2. Eustace, Count of Boulogne.
3. William, afterwards third Count of Evreux.
4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, afterwards Count of Perche.
5. William Fitz Osbern, afterwards first Earl of Hereford.
6. Aimeri, Vicomte of Thouars.
7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle.
8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville.
9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches.
10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur de Grandmesnil.
11. William de Warenne, afterwards first Earl of Surrey.
12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville.
13. Eudes, Bishop of Bayeux, afterwards Earl of Kent.
14. Turstin Fitz Rou.
15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle.
(#1-12 recorded by William of Poitiers, #13 portrayed in the battle
scene on the Bayeux Tapestry, #14-15 named by Orderic.)
Five more who were certainly in the Duke's army and almost certainly
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
17. Robert, Count of Mortain, afterwards first Earl of Cornwall.
18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.

It doesn't seem nearly enough.

There must have been more than twenty of them.

For a start, it's a big battlefield....

[Doug McDonald]

Post by William Black

Post by D. Spencer Hines
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.

It doesn't seem nearly enough.
There must have been more than twenty of them.
For a start, it's a big battlefield....

Of course it's not enough for the folks in William's
army at Hastings! The problem is, who were the rest?
We know they were there ... but proving who they were is
likely to remain impossible.

Doug McDonald

[William Black]

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by William Black

Post by D. Spencer Hines
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.

It doesn't seem nearly enough.
There must have been more than twenty of them.
For a start, it's a big battlefield....

Of course it's not enough for the folks in William's
army at Hastings! The problem is, who were the rest?
We know they were there ... but proving who they were is
likely to remain impossible.

Well there's a load of Breton mercenary archers for a start.

I assume they got paid and went home.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Bingo!

Most of the "rest" in Guillaume's Army and Entourage cannot be proven.

So, those 20 or so are what we have -- with an occasional scholarly defense
of one or two additionals.

Live With It...

Many of the others are wishful thinking on pogues' and poguettes' part.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by William Black

Post by D. Spencer Hines
20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.

It doesn't seem nearly enough.
There must have been more than twenty of them.
For a start, it's a big battlefield....

Of course it's not enough for the folks in William's
army at Hastings! The problem is, who were the rest?
We know they were there ... but proving who they were is
likely to remain impossible.
Doug McDonald

[Julian Richards]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 12:26:42 +0100, "William Black"

Post by William Black
It doesn't seem nearly enough.
There must have been more than twenty of them.
For a start, it's a big battlefield....

How many Saxons were there? Harold and his brothers + ? 20 vs 20 is a
fairly sane way to have wars.
--

Julian Richards

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL

[Normandy]

Post by Julian Richards
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 12:26:42 +0100, "William Black"

Post by William Black
It doesn't seem nearly enough.
There must have been more than twenty of them.
For a start, it's a big battlefield....

How many Saxons were there? Harold and his brothers + ? 20 vs 20 is a
fairly sane way to have wars.
--
Julian Richards
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL

No one know for sure but historians estimate about 4,000 each side

Normandy

[Julian Richards]

Post by Normandy

Post by Julian Richards
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 12:26:42 +0100, "William Black"

Post by William Black
It doesn't seem nearly enough.
There must have been more than twenty of them.
For a start, it's a big battlefield....

How many Saxons were there? Harold and his brothers + ? 20 vs 20 is a
fairly sane way to have wars.
--
Julian Richards
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL

No one know for sure but historians estimate about 4,000 each side

But it seems that regarding proof of actually who was there, it was 20
a side. That's a full football (soccer for you Am. Eng. types) squad.
--

Julian Richards

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL

[Turenne]

Post by Séimí mac Liam
Wikipedia has a much shorter list and includes some names I haven't seen
listed before or in different form than I have seen them before. One
wonders why Leo hasn't written up the definitive answer and put it on the
wiki.

I don't think there is a definitive list. Apparently there was a list
once which resided at Cowdray, I understand it was destroyed in a fire
in 1793. I was there a few weeks ago and didn't think to ask if there
was a copy.

Richard

[D. Spencer Hines]

I've already posted "The Definitive List"...

Work With Those.

Anything beyond those 20 names involves speculation, "logical analysis", of
the "He Must Have Been There" sort of thinking, thoroughly soaked with
prejudice ---- and wishful hopes -- with an exception or two.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Turenne

Post by Séimí mac Liam
Wikipedia has a much shorter list and includes some names I haven't seen
listed before or in different form than I have seen them before. One
wonders why Leo hasn't written up the definitive answer and put it on the
wiki.

I don't think there is a definitive list. Apparently there was a list
once which resided at Cowdray, I understand it was destroyed in a fire
in 1793. I was there a few weeks ago and didn't think to ask if there
was a copy.
Richard

[Séimí mac Liam]

Post by Turenne

Post by Séimí mac Liam
Wikipedia has a much shorter list and includes some names I haven't seen
listed before or in different form than I have seen them before. One
wonders why Leo hasn't written up the definitive answer and put it on the
wiki.

I don't think there is a definitive list. Apparently there was a list
once which resided at Cowdray, I understand it was destroyed in a fire
in 1793. I was there a few weeks ago and didn't think to ask if there
was a copy.
Richard

Thanks for the information.

[Doug McDonald]

Do any of the known people have living all-male
line descendants? I tried finding some on Genealogics and
gave up with no success. Of course there are legions of
mixed-line descendants.

Doug McDonald

[D. Spencer Hines]

Why is a "mixed-line" descendancy less desirable than an agnatic
descendancy?

Primogeniture, Paternalism, Salic Law and Male Chauvinism all went out in
most civilized places a long time ago.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Doug McDonald
Do any of the known people have living all-male
line descendants? I tried finding some on Genealogics and
gave up with no success. Of course there are legions of
mixed-line descendants.
Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Why is a "mixed-line" descendancy less desirable than an agnatic
descendancy?

Rarity! Why is a Michaelangelo oil painting worth more
than a Dali print?

Doug McDonald

[D. Spencer Hines]

Do you give the same priority to an All-Female, Uterine, Line?...

Which is even rarer.

Admit it, McDonald...

You are a First-Rate Male Chauvinist Pig -- born, bred and educated in
Texas.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Why is a "mixed-line" descendancy less desirable than an agnatic
descendancy?

Rarity! Why is a Michaelangelo oil painting worth more
than a Dali print?
Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Do you give the same priority to an All-Female, Uterine, Line?...
Which is even rarer.

yes, of course

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Admit it, McDonald...
You are a First-Rate Male Chauvinist Pig -- born, bred and educated in
Texas.

In this case, I'm afraid you have got it right! And that's even
though my paper trail ... NO ... make that BECAUSE my paper
trail ... poops out well later (fewer generations back) than
any other of my lines. So I must make do with my DNA connection to
the famous progenitor of the chiefly line (i.e. line of the Clan chiefs).

I've got a bad case of the agnatic line length envy :-) :-) :-)

The uterine line goes back a bit farther, though the farthest back
lady (one Sarah Clawson) seems quite uninteresting.

Doug McDonald

[D. Spencer Hines]

<G>

Fair Enough.

For parallel structure, we should probably call it the Scrotal Line -- and
the Uterine Line.

So, you have an advanced case of Scrotal Line Length Envy...

OR, Penile Line Length Envy -- if you insist.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Exitus Acta Probat

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Do you give the same priority to an All-Female, Uterine, Line?...
Which is even rarer.

yes, of course

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Admit it, McDonald...
You are a First-Rate Male Chauvinist Pig -- born, bred and educated in
Texas.

In this case, I'm afraid you have got it right! And that's even
though my paper trail ... NO ... make that BECAUSE my paper
trail ... poops out well later (fewer generations back) than
any other of my lines. So I must make do with my DNA connection to
the famous progenitor of the chiefly line (i.e. line of the Clan chiefs).
I've got a bad case of the agnatic line length envy :-) :-) :-)
The uterine line goes back a bit farther, though the farthest back
lady (one Sarah Clawson) seems quite uninteresting.
Doug McDonald

[pj.evans]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
<G>
Fair Enough.
For parallel structure, we should probably call it the Scrotal Line -- and
the Uterine Line.
So, you have an advanced case of Scrotal Line Length Envy...
OR, Penile Line Length Envy -- if you insist.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Do you give the same priority to an All-Female, Uterine, Line?...
Which is even rarer.

yes, of course

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Admit it, McDonald...
You are a First-Rate Male Chauvinist Pig -- born, bred and educated in
Texas.

In this case, I'm afraid you have got it right! And that's even
though my paper trail ... NO ... make that BECAUSE my paper
trail ... poops out well later (fewer generations back) than
any other of my lines. So I must make do with my DNA connection to
the famous progenitor of the chiefly line (i.e. line of the Clan chiefs).
I've got a bad case of the agnatic line length envy :-) :-) :-)
The uterine line goes back a bit farther, though the farthest back
lady (one Sarah Clawson) seems quite uninteresting.
Doug McDonald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And any one of these lines will, with a few dollars, get you a cup of
coffee at the sign of the green mermaid.

[Bryn]

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Do you give the same priority to an All-Female, Uterine, Line?...
Which is even rarer.
Admit it, McDonald...
You are a First-Rate Male Chauvinist Pig -- born, bred and educated in
Texas.

But still a McDonald...

Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by Doug McDonald

Post by D. Spencer Hines
Why is a "mixed-line" descendancy less desirable than an agnatic
descendancy?

Rarity! Why is a Michaelangelo oil painting worth more
than a Dali print?
Doug McDonald

[D. Spencer Hines]

Most reputable geologists [sic] will tell you that it is almost impossible
to identify your ancestors with any reliability in Europe before the mid
13th century.

Hilarious!

Most geologists know damned little about GENEALOGY and are generally
rock-headed when it comes to dealing with Royal & Noble European Genealogy.

None of the lists compiled on William's companions should be treated with
out suspicion. I have a list of 18 generations of my family, including my
children, but how can anyone say with certainty that it is valid? A man
is only sure of his mother.
Normandy

Worthless, Tongue-Flapping Bromide...

And Untrue...

NO, a man cannot be CERTAIN he knows who his mother is.

Only Death & Taxes are "certain".

As to the list I posted, many of us have MULTIPLE descents from 12 or so of
those 20.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

[J***@aol.com]

The Problem with deciding who was and was not present at Senlac for the
October battle is the people who would have been present who didn`t rate a mention,
such as Sailors, Men- at- arms, Followers of ignoble blood whose names were
they even known wouldn`t be recorded. Robert de Comines probably owed his
Earldom of Northumbria to being Queen Maud of Flanders` chief bodyguard rather than
any deeds accomplished at Senlac as He doesn`t appear to have been present.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

[W***@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/9/2007 12:10:24 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
***@excelsior.com writes:

He probably doesn't know the first 10 generations very well -- much less the

last 10 -- or the five or six in between.



-----------------------------
Frodo son of Gandulf son of Hobbita "of the Owl People"

daughter of Gundlehobitalekwinxletra "who was 250 cubits tall"

etc.



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

[D. Spencer Hines]

Bingo!

DSH

Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 9/9/2007 12:10:24 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

Re: "Normandy"

Post by W***@aol.com
He probably doesn't know the first 10 generations very well -- much less
the last 10 -- or the five or six in between. [DSH]
-----------------------------
Frodo son of Gandulf son of Hobbita "of the Owl People">
daughter of Gundlehobitalekwinxletra "who was 250 cubits tall"
etc.

[D. Spencer Hines]

More Grist For The Mill...
DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Companions of the Conqueror
(person) by aneurin Thu Aug 26 2004 at 20:08:08
C! info: 1 C! given by: legbagede
10 ¶, 38 s, 646 w, 4273 c

The 'Companions of the Conqueror' is the collective name given to those individuals who joined with William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy in the great adventure of the invasion of England in 1066, fought at the Duke's side at the battle of Hastings, and later shared in the spoils of victory.

It later became the case that almost every family of note in England were to claim that one of their ancestors was there at Hastings with the Conqueror and a matter of pride that they could trace their origins back to the founding year of 1066. As time went by the list of alleged companions grew larger and larger with many authenticating their claim by citing as evidence various lists of the 'companions' that had appeared.

The first of these was the Battle Abbey Roll originating from Battle Abbey built by William I on the site of his victory at Hastings. This was as scroll tablet bearing the names of sundry counts, viscounts, barons and knights which was later interpretated as a list of William the Conqueror's companions. The original of this document is no longer extant and it is only known through various sixteenth century copies which often differ in content. (The longest version has 629 names although several of these are believed to be duplicates.)

There was also the similar Falaise Roll originating from Falaise in Normandy which existed in about eight versions and which also listed the names of those hardy souls who set sail with Duke William in 1066. In 1931 the French Government produced an 'authorised' version of the Falaise Roll listing some 315 names which were engraved on the bronze tablet and erected in the Chapel of Falaise Castle in Normandy.

Unfortunately as a guide to identifying the true Companions of the Conqueror neither of these two sources are now regarded as of any value. The Battle Abbey Roll is now believed to be a much later list of families of a generally 'French' origin, and the Falaise Roll is similarly regarded as medieval concoction.

The actual list of names of those undoubted companions who where present with William at the Battle of Hastings is actually quite short and consists of only fifteen names as follows;

a.. 1. Robert de Beaumont, later Earl of Leicester
b.. 2. Eustace of Boulogne, Count of Boulogne
c.. 3. William of Evreux, later Count of Evreux
d.. 4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, later Count of Perche
e.. 5. William Fitz Osbern, later Earl of Hereford
f.. 6. Aimeri de Thouars, Vicomte of Thouars
g.. 7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle
h.. 8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville
i.. 9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches
j.. 10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur of Grandmesnil
k.. 11. William de Warenne, later Earl of Surrey
l.. 12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville
m.. 13. Odo of Bayeux, Bishop of Bayeux, later Earl of Kent
n.. 14. Turstin Fitz Rou
o.. 15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle
To this list can be added the names of five more of individuals who where in the Norman invasion force and were therefore very probably at Hastings;

a.. 16. Geoffrey de Montbray, Bishop of Coutances.
b.. 17. Robert of Mortain, Count of Mortain, later Earl of Cornwall.
c.. 18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
d.. 19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
e.. 20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
All these names are derived from contemporary or near contemporary records as follows; Numbers 1-12, and 16 were named by William of Poitiers, numbers 13, and 17-19 were portrayed in the Bayeux Tapestry, numbers 14, 15 and 20 were named by Orderic Vitalis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES

The list of twenty names originates from "The Complete Peerage" by George Cockrayne et al, specifically in Volume XII, in the postscript to Appendix L (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings), "Companions of the Conqueror," pp. 47-48

[D. Spencer Hines]

More Grist For The Mill...
DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----------------------------------------------
Companions of the Conqueror (person)
(person) by aneurin Thu Aug 26 2004 at 20:08:08
C! info: 1 C! given by: legbagede
10 ¶, 38 s, 646 w, 4273 c

The 'Companions of the Conqueror' is the collective name given to those individuals who joined with William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy in the great adventure of the invasion of England in 1066, fought at the Duke's side at the battle of Hastings, and later shared in the spoils of victory.

It later became the case that almost every family of note in England were to claim that one of their ancestors was there at Hastings with the Conqueror and a matter of pride that they could trace their origins back to the founding year of 1066. As time went by the list of alleged companions grew larger and larger with many authenticating their claim by citing as evidence various lists of the 'companions' that had appeared.

The first of these was the Battle Abbey Roll originating from Battle Abbey built by William I on the site of his victory at Hastings. This was as scroll tablet bearing the names of sundry counts, viscounts, barons and knights which was later interpretated as a list of William the Conqueror's companions. The original of this document is no longer extant and it is only known through various sixteenth century copies which often differ in content. (The longest version has 629 names although several of these are believed to be duplicates.)

There was also the similar Falaise Roll originating from Falaise in Normandy which existed in about eight versions and which also listed the names of those hardy souls who set sail with Duke William in 1066. In 1931 the French Government produced an 'authorised' version of the Falaise Roll listing some 315 names which were engraved on the bronze tablet and erected in the Chapel of Falaise Castle in Normandy.

Unfortunately as a guide to identifying the true Companions of the Conqueror neither of these two sources are now regarded as of any value. The Battle Abbey Roll is now believed to be a much later list of families of a generally 'French' origin, and the Falaise Roll is similarly regarded as medieval concoction.

The actual list of names of those undoubted companions who where present with William at the Battle of Hastings is actually quite short and consists of only fifteen names as follows;

a.. 1. Robert de Beaumont, later Earl of Leicester
b.. 2. Eustace of Boulogne, Count of Boulogne
c.. 3. William of Evreux, later Count of Evreux
d.. 4. Geoffrey of Mortagne, later Count of Perche
e.. 5. William Fitz Osbern, later Earl of Hereford
f.. 6. Aimeri de Thouars, Vicomte of Thouars
g.. 7. Hugh de Montfort, seigneur of Montfort-sur-Risle
h.. 8. Walter Giffard, seigneur of Longueville
i.. 9. Ralph de Toeni, seigneur of Conches
j.. 10. Hugh de Grandmesil, seigneur of Grandmesnil
k.. 11. William de Warenne, later Earl of Surrey
l.. 12. William Malet, seigneur of Graville
m.. 13. Odo of Bayeux, Bishop of Bayeux, later Earl of Kent
n.. 14. Turstin Fitz Rou
o.. 15. Engenulf de Laigle, seigneur of Laigle
To this list can be added the names of five more of individuals who where in the Norman invasion force and were therefore very probably at Hastings;

a.. 16. Geoffrey de Montbray, Bishop of Coutances.
b.. 17. Robert of Mortain, Count of Mortain, later Earl of Cornwall.
c.. 18. Wadard, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
d.. 19. Vital, believed to be a follower of the Bishop of Bayeux.
e.. 20. Goubert d'Auffay, seigneur of Auffay.
All these names are derived from contemporary or near contemporary records as follows; Numbers 1-12, and 16 were named by William of Poitiers, numbers 13, and 17-19 were portrayed in the Bayeux Tapestry, numbers 14, 15 and 20 were named by Orderic Vitalis.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES

The list of twenty names originates from "The Complete Peerage" by George Cockrayne et al, specifically in Volume XII, in the postscript to Appendix L (regarding the 1066 Battle of Hastings), "Companions of the Conqueror," pp. 47-48

<http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1672719&displaytype=printable>

DSH

[Bob Joesting]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 13:30:40 +1000, "D. Spencer Hines"

Post by D. Spencer Hines
When I hear someone say their ancestor accompanied William the Conqueror in
1066, you will see me roll my eyes and reply, "Well, whose ancestors
didn't?!" The fact is that the overwhelming majority of claims that an
ancestor was Companion To The Conqueror are completely unproven.

While I think it is safe to say that more than twenty came with
William, we can do the math for only twenty. If we are conservative
and guess that, as an average, each of those twenty and each of
their descendants had only two children, that means the entire
population of the UK would be descended from them in less than
35 generations. Of course after about 25 generations most of the
people these descendants are mating with are also among the
descendants. That means there are probably a few people who
do not carry the blood of William's followers. There are also some
bloodlines that have probably stayed to themselves enough to
avoid it. I would guess that anyone who has had many of their
ancestors in the last century or so come from the general UK
population would have well over a 90 % chance of being part of
this exclusive group. It wouldn't shock me if it were more than
99 %.

[Turenne]

John Ravilious wrote:

16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.

No known descendants.

Aren't there any collaterals of this bishop still knocking about? The
Duke of Norfork for example.

Richard

[John P. Ravilious]

Dear Richard,

Robert de Mowbray, a nephew of the bishop (as I recall) was the
bishop's heir, but he died without issue after being forfeited during
the reign of William II of England (i.e. William 'Rufus').

Nigel d'Aubigny, or de Albini, acquired Robert's widow and
estates, and changed his name to de Mowbray (see CP IX:366-7, sub
Mowbray). Nigel is the ancestor of the later Mowbrays, Lords Mowbray,
Dukes of Norfolk (ancestors of the Howards), etc.

I've seen it put about that Nigel's mother was a Mowbray, but I'm
not aware of any validity to this claim. The near relationship to
Robert de Mowbray's widow (in terms of affinity) appears to speak
against this, unless there's a convoluted relationship that would not
have irritated ecclesiastic nerves of the day.

Cheers,

John

Post by D. Spencer Hines
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
�No known descendants.
Aren't there any collaterals of this bishop still knocking about? The
Duke of Norfork for example.
Richard

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Collaterals" are not descendants of Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of
Coutances.

Leo gets confused about this point too.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Post by D. Spencer Hines
16. Geoffrey de Mowbray, Bishop of Coutances.
No known descendants.
Aren't there any collaterals of this bishop still knocking about? The
Duke of Norfork for example.
Richard

[D. Spencer Hines]

Probably there were several of William's followers who were not
actually at the battle, but who were otherwise occupied during the
invasion or joined their duke in the days or months after the battle, who
could later have been supposed, or have been remembered by their
descendants, as being present at Hastings (with more honesty than
accuracy). -- ???? -- DSH

---------------------------------------------

Nope...

No Sale.

A Companion of the Conqueror has to have made the crossing with Guillaume,
duc de Normandie and been present somewhere at the Battle of Hastings,
Saturday, 14 October 1066 -- where he became Guillaume le Conquerant.

Someone who shared the extreme risks with the Conqueror at this World
Historical Event that sounds echoes to this very day.

Sorry you can't find at least one CoC of your own. Emphasis on CONQUERING
those ruddy English at Hastings.

Of course, as we have discovered, if you have one Companion of the Conqueror
you probably have a dozen or so in your bag, after a successful grouse hunt.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum