When I see the lines of more than 10 generations from some individual living, say, in the 1600s, to someone like Edward I, what is the opinion of the group as to whether or not those individuals were aware of the ancestry (obviously excepting lines of succession)?
In my mother's family there was the knowledge that my g-g-g-grandmother, Caroline Butler, was proud of her heritage, but no one seemed to know why. Some spoke of a noble family in Ireland but no one spoke of the many royal descents and associations. The Butler lines included Dunboyne, Ormond, Mountgarret, and Galmoye. Likewise my mother's father said we were descended from the Campbell Clan but his only "knowledge" (or belief) was that somehow we descended from King Arthur. There was, again, no mention of the many actual royal descents on the part of the Glenorchy and Argyll Campbells. Did people in the medieval or renaissance world, when nowhere near a line of succession, keep better track?
On Oct 14, 10:49 am, Bronwen Edwards <lostcoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When I see the lines of more than 10 generations from some individual living, say, in the 1600s, to someone like Edward I, what is the opinion of the group as to whether or not those individuals were aware of the ancestry (obviously excepting lines of succession)?
I think in the medieval era, and probably up thru the English Civil
War, people were very aware - to the point they were likely tutored
and taught - their royal and noble ancestry. Pride was one factor,
but inheritance was definitely another. Male lines frequently failed,
and co-heiresses were rampant. It was important to know not just your
patrilineal ancestors, but know all your female ancestor lines as
well, for it was almost as much through those lines that property came
to you. After the Restoration, and into the Georgian era, long
dormant medieval-era baronies could be revived for politically-savvy
and ambitious gentry who could trade their way into the House of Lords
if they could submit a pedigree verified by the heralds.
Whatever pride was held in knowing you descended from a Plantagenet
king, most likely paled though, when held up to your religious &
political beliefs. Many of the Regicides were descended from Edward
III, but that didn't stop them from the execution of Charles I.
Another factor up to the Industrial Revolution, and well thru the
Victorian era, is that the class structure was much more rigid then.
I've traced most of the Edward I lines down into the Tudor era, and
some further than that (as my recent series of newsgroup posts show),
and I've found very few that trickle down below the gentry level. A
few families (the Rooses of Ingmanthorpe & the Askes of Aughton spring
to mind) sold off their estates and ended up landless, but these were
rare exceptions. The large majority of families remained landed and
married within their class. I'm eager to see how well these hold up
as I trace further down into the 17th & 18th centuries.
By that time, though, the Edward I bloodline had spread into most of
the gentry families, and a Plantagenet descent was no longer limited
to the nobility. What good was mentioning one if everyone else at the
ball could claim the same? Still, if you read peerage works written
from the late 17th century (post Restoration) to the early 19th
century (Regency period), many still stop & digress with a layout of
how this spouse or another descends from the Plantagenets. But as the
majority of these works were written by heralds, that may reflect
their bias more than that of the individuals themselves.
> In my mother's family there was the knowledge that my g-g-g-grandmother, Caroline Butler, was proud of her heritage, but no one seemed to know why. Some spoke of a noble family in Ireland but no one spoke of the many royal descents and associations. The Butler lines included Dunboyne, Ormond, Mountgarret, and Galmoye. Likewise my mother's father said we were descended from the Campbell Clan but his only "knowledge" (or belief) was that somehow we descended from King Arthur. There was, again, no mention of the many actual royal descents on the part of the Glenorchy and Argyll Campbells.
This reminds me of the TV series 'Who Do You Think You Are' (the UK
version), where many of the "celebrities" tracing their ancestry,
mention a great-aunt, or a great-grandmother, etc., whom the family
always found "posh" or "putting on airs", but with a little digging,
did indeed turn out to be from a higher class than the one they found
themselves in later in life. There was a BBC radio personality (I
forget his name), who talked of his grandparents' grand estate up in
Northumberland, which he remembered as a child, but knew nothing of
its history. Turns out, he descended from the Houghtons, a
Shropshire(?) landed gentry family from the 1700s, and so through them
could trace back to Edward III and William the Conquerer. But even
after being presented with the official pedigree from the College of
Arms, the BBC personality stated it wasn't going to get him a better
table at a London restaurant.
The Industrial Revolution began chipping away at the class structure,
and the 20th century took a sledgehammer to it. Today it is the
Almighty Dollar (or Pound, if we're talking about the other side of
the pond) that rules, not bloodline. The latter still garners a
little respect and a lot of fascination, but in a tourist-attraction
kind of way. As a history buff, I find it a little sad, but as a born-
and-bred Yankee, I know it's just as it should be. Though I still
take great exception to the claims often made today that most of
Britain's population descends from Edward I. I think it shows a
complete ignorance of demographics.
> Did people in the medieval or renaissance world, when nowhere near a line of succession, keep better track?
You forgot to mention Brad, that once a person's entire estate could be and often was willed to whomever they wished, that knocked the bottom out of the urge to keep track of all your childless cousins for hope of inheriting under ancient entails
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Oct 14, 2012 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: somewhat OT question
On Oct 14, 10:49 am, Bronwen Edwards <lostcoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When I see the lines of more than 10 generations from some individual living, say, in the 1600s, to someone like Edward I, what is the opinion of the group as to whether or not those individuals were aware of the ancestry (obviously excepting lines of succession)?
I think in the medieval era, and probably up thru the English Civil
War, people were very aware - to the point they were likely tutored
and taught - their royal and noble ancestry. Pride was one factor,
but inheritance was definitely another. Male lines frequently failed,
and co-heiresses were rampant. It was important to know not just your
patrilineal ancestors, but know all your female ancestor lines as
well, for it was almost as much through those lines that property came
to you. After the Restoration, and into the Georgian era, long
dormant medieval-era baronies could be revived for politically-savvy
and ambitious gentry who could trade their way into the House of Lords
if they could submit a pedigree verified by the heralds.
Whatever pride was held in knowing you descended from a Plantagenet
king, most likely paled though, when held up to your religious &
political beliefs. Many of the Regicides were descended from Edward
III, but that didn't stop them from the execution of Charles I.
Another factor up to the Industrial Revolution, and well thru the
Victorian era, is that the class structure was much more rigid then.
I've traced most of the Edward I lines down into the Tudor era, and
some further than that (as my recent series of newsgroup posts show),
and I've found very few that trickle down below the gentry level. A
few families (the Rooses of Ingmanthorpe & the Askes of Aughton spring
to mind) sold off their estates and ended up landless, but these were
rare exceptions. The large majority of families remained landed and
married within their class. I'm eager to see how well these hold up
as I trace further down into the 17th & 18th centuries.
By that time, though, the Edward I bloodline had spread into most of
the gentry families, and a Plantagenet descent was no longer limited
to the nobility. What good was mentioning one if everyone else at the
ball could claim the same? Still, if you read peerage works written
from the late 17th century (post Restoration) to the early 19th
century (Regency period), many still stop & digress with a layout of
how this spouse or another descends from the Plantagenets. But as the
majority of these works were written by heralds, that may reflect
their bias more than that of the individuals themselves.
> In my mother's family there was the knowledge that my g-g-g-grandmother, Caroline Butler, was proud of her heritage, but no one seemed to know why. Some spoke of a noble family in Ireland but no one spoke of the many royal descents and associations. The Butler lines included Dunboyne, Ormond, Mountgarret, and Galmoye. Likewise my mother's father said we were descended from the Campbell Clan but his only "knowledge" (or belief) was that somehow we descended from King Arthur. There was, again, no mention of the many actual royal descents on the part of the Glenorchy and Argyll Campbells.
This reminds me of the TV series 'Who Do You Think You Are' (the UK
version), where many of the "celebrities" tracing their ancestry,
mention a great-aunt, or a great-grandmother, etc., whom the family
always found "posh" or "putting on airs", but with a little digging,
did indeed turn out to be from a higher class than the one they found
themselves in later in life. There was a BBC radio personality (I
forget his name), who talked of his grandparents' grand estate up in
Northumberland, which he remembered as a child, but knew nothing of
its history. Turns out, he descended from the Houghtons, a
Shropshire(?) landed gentry family from the 1700s, and so through them
could trace back to Edward III and William the Conquerer. But even
after being presented with the official pedigree from the College of
Arms, the BBC personality stated it wasn't going to get him a better
table at a London restaurant.
The Industrial Revolution began chipping away at the class structure,
and the 20th century took a sledgehammer to it. Today it is the
Almighty Dollar (or Pound, if we're talking about the other side of
the pond) that rules, not bloodline. The latter still garners a
little respect and a lot of fascination, but in a tourist-attraction
kind of way. As a history buff, I find it a little sad, but as a born-
and-bred Yankee, I know it's just as it should be. Though I still
take great exception to the claims often made today that most of
Britain's population descends from Edward I. I think it shows a
complete ignorance of demographics.
> Did people in the medieval or renaissance world, when nowhere near a line of succession, keep better track?
The short answer is: yes.
> Irrelevantly, Bronwen
Cheers, ---------Brad
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
On Oct 14, 1:15 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> You forgot to mention Brad, that once a person's entire estate could be and often was willed to whomever they wished, that knocked the bottom out of the urge to keep track of all your childless cousins for hope of inheriting under ancient entails
I think that took place in the 19th century, but I'm not an expert in
British inheritance law. Good point, though!
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:02:46 PM UTC-4, Brad Verity wrote:
> Though I still
> take great exception to the claims often made today that most of
> Britain's population descends from Edward I. I think it shows a
> complete ignorance of demographics.
From a mathmatical standpoint, I find this statement to be very interesting. However, I can't say that my own research has proven what you say wrong. I find it interesting that, on the contrary to actual Britains, most Americans with colonial ancestry _are_ in fact descendeded from King Edward I. 17th Century American culture was ripe for the frequent inter-class marriages. With so many of those early families having 9,10,11 children living to adulthood and having children themselves who then had a limited pool of folks to marry, I suppose it is no surprise.
I'd be interested to data churn the data you have at some point to see what sort of selection bias is creeping in, being that obviously the poorer or illegitimate offspring would be less documented, or not documented at all. Consider that it would only take Thomas of Brotherton one undocumented drunk night with the maid to ensure that almost all the UK lower class would be Edward I descendents by now, and I'm sure there was more than one such incident among more than one of Edward's immediate descendants.
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:30:35 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
I find it interesting that, on the contrary to actual Britains, most Americans with colonial ancestry _are_ in fact descendeded from King Edward I.
Thanks, all, for your thoughts. I do, however, rather doubt that "most" Americans with colonial-era ancestors in North America have descents from Edward I. Obviously an old issue of all genealogy is the matter of proof. Albeit there is very limited success with modern DNA tests, one only has the official record of an ancestor's life from which to draw information. There have always been "drunk nights", overly-"helpful" staff, bigamous relations, romances outside of marriage, etc. But we rarely find documents of them. There must be at least ten that I am working on from time to time, including the one about Bishop Henry Compton's possible descendants in North America (speaking of colonial era ancestors). Others that I have found are quite possibly true but powerful forces in Parliament or the courts made official rulings that claimed otherwise (what is the true relationship between the 7th and 8th Earls of Ormond? Was there a third heiress to Gartmore?). I think that most Americans with colonial ancestors come from soldiers and sailors, prisoners, minority religious groups, and a few wealthy, "well-bred" adventurers. When I am asked what I get out of finding royal or noble or famous ancestors, the simple truth is that I get the satisfaction of having found them, with the added advantage that it is easier than finding the many ancestors who were not royal, noble or famous.
> > You forgot to mention Brad, that once a person's entire estate could be and often was willed to whomever they wished, that knocked the bottom out of the urge to keep track of all your childless cousins for hope of inheriting under ancient entails
Are you aware of the case of the Quintin Dick fortune? Quintin Dick was wealthy and hobnobbed with people like Disraeli, but never married and died intestate. A search was conducted for the most likely heir and it was found thatQuintin's aunt, Mary Dick, was the individual on whom the inheritance fell. She was dead, so the search began for the oldest of her male descendants. I don't exactly know who did it, but an enormous pedigree involving several families that intermarried with the Dicks was produced looking almost like an architectural blueprint; I am told that some part of the British government did the genealogical work. It took 70 years to finally find one Harry Bemister Barrett living in Canada who was eligible to inherit the fortune. It was advertised there in the farming magazines and apparently that is where he saw it. If anyone is interested in the story, he wrote a book of memoirs called MURRAY AND ME: MEMORIES OF MURRAY HAMMOND AND HARRY B. BARRETT WHILE GROWING UP IN WOODHOUSE TOWNSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO WORLD WARS. It is copyrighted by Patterson's Creek Press, H.B. Barrett, Box 29, Port Dover, Ontario, N0A 1NO Canada. Several people who follow this list are related to these folks. But not as WELL related as Harry is to Mary Dick! Bronwen
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 6:39:50 PM UTC-4, Bronwen Edwards wrote:
> On Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:30:35 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> I find it interesting that, on the contrary to actual Britains, most Americans with colonial ancestry _are_ in fact descendeded from King Edward I. > Thanks, all, for your thoughts. I do, however, rather doubt that "most" Americans with colonial-era ancestors in North America have descents from Edward I.
While demographics may have limited this significantly in England, there were not the same barriers in the United States. This, along with the American population bottleneck in the 1600s cause the majority of Americans to share many many ancestors in that century.
Not only are most Americans descended from Edward I; Of those lines I've researched, I'd say for a good quarter of those with New England colonial ancestors, I've been able to actually trace the line to Edward I without much difficulty at all, even if those intervening ancestors were illiterate laborers of the lowest class.
For reference, approximately 60% of all Americans today have American ancestors who lived in the colonies prior to the Revoluationary War.
For myself personally I have found seven different lines so far.
I just read your reference but, frankly, I do not believe that you can use a mathematical formula to establish genealogical connections specific enough to account for the descendants of a named individual (as opposed to entire populations and subgroups). What are the chances that 99% of all modern English people who have ancestors that were in England during the medieval period, are descended from a particularly handsome blacksmith in a certain village? Sure, I suppose it's fun to say that anyone with any European ancestry is a descendant of Charlemagne or anyone with central Asian blood is a descendant of Genghis Khan, but that doesn't mean that they really are. It means someone had fun playing around with numbers.
> Not only are most Americans descended from Edward I; Of those lines I've researched, I'd say for a good quarter of those with New England colonial ancestors, I've been able to actually trace the line to Edward I without much difficulty at all, even if those intervening ancestors were illiterate laborers of the lowest class.
What lines have you researched? Are these lines that have already been published as royal descents among gateway ancestors? Or are these a whole new set of lines? My stepfather had several lines that went back to colonial Maryland and Virginia, even to Jamestown. On-line pedigrees had them linked up to all sorts of interesting people of the same surname in England and Ireland, all of them ending up with a Plantagenet. But no matter how many people had dutifully copied these pedigrees and repeated them on ancestry.com and elsewhere, there was always a fatal flaw or at least a very big question.
> For reference, approximately 60% of all Americans today have American ancestors who lived in the colonies prior to the Revoluationary War.
> For myself personally I have found seven different lines so far.
I would be interested in knowing which ones, if you don't mind sharing. My issue is not so much on the details of any one pedigree as it is on the broad sweeping statements about "most Americans" or "60% of all Americans" etc. This last part, the 60% statement about ancestors living in the [English I assume?] colonies prior to the revolutionary war, strikes me as being at odds with the most recent census. Taken together as a whole and led by the various Hispanic groups, non-English, non-European people are no longer a numerical minority. So you are, first, taking what is now approximately half of the American population ("white people"), from which you can take the largest percentage (English ancestors), from which you can take the percentage whose ancestors were in North America before the 1770s. If you are leaving out the Irish, the Scottish, the Welsh, and the Scots-Irish, you may finally come up with a demographic for whom that 60% colonial ancestry is meaningful.
Actually, if you did genealogical research on descendants of the colonial Spanish, you would probably come up with a greater percentage of royal descents, even if you focused only on North America (Mexico, including the American Southwest before 1848). - Bronwen
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bronwen Edwards wrote:
> I would be interested in knowing which ones, if you don't mind sharing.
They are all lines whose earlier branches have previously been researched, including the American "gateway ancestors" Percivall Lowle, Thomas Dudley, Joseph Bolles, Thomas Bradbury, as documented in RD600, and others.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bronwen Edwards <lostcoo...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Oct 14, 2012 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: somewhat OT question
> > You forgot to mention Brad, that once a person's entire estate could be and
often was willed to whomever they wished, that knocked the bottom out of the urge to keep track of all your childless cousins for hope of inheriting under ancient entails
Are you aware of the case of the Quintin Dick fortune? Quintin Dick was wealthy and hobnobbed with people like Disraeli, but never married and died intestate. A search was conducted for the most likely heir and it was found thatQuintin's aunt, Mary Dick, was the individual on whom the inheritance fell. She was dead, so the search began for the oldest of her male descendants. I don't exactly know who did it, but an enormous pedigree involving several families that intermarried with the Dicks was produced looking almost like an architectural blueprint; I am told that some part of the British government did the genealogical work. It took 70 years to finally find one Harry Bemister Barrett living in Canada who was eligible to inherit the fortune. It was advertised there in the farming magazines and apparently that is where he saw it. If anyone is interested in the story, he wrote a book of memoirs called MURRAY AND ME: MEMORIES OF MURRAY HAMMOND AND HARRY B. BARRETT WHILE GROWIN!
G UP IN WOODHOUSE TOWNSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO WORLD WARS. It is copyrighted by Patterson's Creek Press, H.B. Barrett, Box 29, Port Dover, Ontario, N0A 1NO Canada. Several people who follow this list are related to these folks. But not as WELL related as Harry is to Mary Dick! Bronwen
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bronwen Edwards <lostcoo...@yahoo.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Sun, Oct 14, 2012 3:55 pm
> Subject: Re: somewhat OT question
> > > You forgot to mention Brad, that once a person's entire estate could be and
> often was willed to whomever they wished, that knocked the bottom out of the
> urge to keep track of all your childless cousins for hope of inheriting under
> ancient entails
> Are you aware of the case of the Quintin Dick fortune? Quintin Dick was wealthy
> and hobnobbed with people like Disraeli, but never married and died intestate. A
> search was conducted for the most likely heir and it was found thatQuintin's
> aunt, Mary Dick, was the individual on whom the inheritance fell. She was dead,
> so the search began for the oldest of her male descendants. I don't exactly know
> who did it, but an enormous pedigree involving several families that
> intermarried with the Dicks was produced looking almost like an architectural
> blueprint; I am told that some part of the British government did the
> genealogical work. It took 70 years to finally find one Harry Bemister Barrett
> living in Canada who was eligible to inherit the fortune. It was advertised
> there in the farming magazines and apparently that is where he saw it. If anyone
> is interested in the story, he wrote a book of memoirs called MURRAY AND ME:
> MEMORIES OF MURRAY HAMMOND AND HARRY B. BARRETT WHILE GROWIN!
> G UP IN WOODHOUSE TOWNSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO WORLD WARS. It is copyrighted by
> Patterson's Creek Press, H.B. Barrett, Box 29, Port Dover, Ontario, N0A 1NO
> Canada. Several people who follow this list are related to these folks. But not
> as WELL related as Harry is to Mary Dick! Bronwen
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> the message
Try spelling the name right. Don't look for "Quentin" but "Quintin",
which is what Bronwen specified - and include "Barrett" in your search
terms.
> if they could submit a pedigree verified by the heralds.
...who weren't above a little genealogical gardening, grafting one tree onto another, at least if nothing more than a baronetcy was involved.
%><
> This reminds me of the TV series 'Who Do You Think You Are'
%><
> There was a BBC radio personality (I
> forget his name), who talked of his grandparents' grand estate up in
> Northumberland, which he remembered as a child, but knew nothing of
> its history. Turns out, he descended from the Houghtons, a
> Shropshire(?) landed gentry family from the 1700s, and so through them
> could trace back to Edward III and William the Conquerer. But even
> after being presented with the official pedigree from the College of
> Arms, the BBC personality stated it wasn't going to get him a better
> table at a London restaurant.
AFAICR there've been at least 3 subjects with a royal descent none of whom would expect to have the slightest difficulty with a London head waiter who knew his job but I think you're referring to Alexander Armstrong who grew up in Northumberland, as the son of the local GP IIRC. The remembered estate was that of the McCauslands near Limavady Co Derry. That may have surprised many of the N Ireland viewers who probably associated the name with a local car hire company. I remember visiting the estate to gain permission to bore holes in a local bog which became one of my palaeoecological sites.
%><
> Though I still
> take great exception to the claims often made today that most of
> Britain's population descends from Edward I. I think it shows a
> complete ignorance of demographics.
Seconded.
-- Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 5:49:20 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:38:58 PM UTC-4, Bronwen Edwards wrote:
> > I would be interested in knowing which ones, if you don't mind sharing.
> They are all lines whose earlier branches have previously been researched, including the American "gateway ancestors" Percivall Lowle, Thomas Dudley, Joseph Bolles, Thomas Bradbury, as documented in RD600, and others.
---------- Thomas Dudley & Thomas Bradbury do not have PROVEN descents
from Edward I. Both cases are theories, and sometimes, theories are disproved.
That is why persons are sometimes deleted from newer editions of RD600.
Yes, I find marshall kirk's work convincing. That aside, leaving joseph bolles and percival lowle as edward i connections, my larger point is that I've hardly scratched the surface and many such lines are easilly found in these colonial american families. It is not rare or unusual.
On Monday, October 15, 2012 9:31:02 AM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote:
> My issue isn't really what *Barrett* said or didn't say, it's what Quintin said or didn't say.
> What evidence is there, independent of Barrett.
For what? The existence of Quintin Dick? His wealth? What happened to his wealth? Finding a descendant of his aunt Mary? Exactly what IS your issue with the story?
The existence of Canada? Actually try *reading* the Google hits. This is not a story dependent on one person's telling; it involved many people, some of whom, like Harry himself, are still living. Finally, why NOT accept Barrett evidence? Do you know who they were/are in relation to the Dicks? Are you familiar with Castle Blake? With the family's ties to the Dunboyne Butlers? Before spouting off, find the evidence for yourself - as you endlessly tell everyone else. Bronwen
-----Original Message-----
From: Bronwen Edwards <lostcoo...@yahoo.com>
To: soc.genealogy.medieval <soc.genealogy.medieval@googlegroups.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 15, 2012 8:21 pm
Subject: Re: somewhat OT question
On Monday, October 15, 2012 9:31:02 AM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote:
> My issue isn't really what *Barrett* said or didn't say, it's what Quintin said or didn't say.
> What evidence is there, independent of Barrett.
For what? The existence of Quintin Dick? His wealth? What happened to his wealth? Finding a descendant of his aunt Mary? Exactly what IS your issue with the story?
The existence of Canada? Actually try *reading* the Google hits. This is not a story dependent on one person's telling; it involved many people, some of whom, like Harry himself, are still living. Finally, why NOT accept Barrett evidence? Do you know who they were/are in relation to the Dicks? Are you familiar with Castle Blake? With the family's ties to the Dunboyne Butlers? Before spouting off, find the evidence for yourself - as you endlessly tell everyone else. Bronwen
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:44:52 AM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote:
> Because there are sources which state that he left his wealth to the son of his sister.
> That's why.
> Why are you so hostile on this point?
> Sacred cow?
Hostile? No more hostile than usual, Will. Sacred cow? Well, Quintin Dick produced neither milk nor prodigy, so I would say at best a steer :)
I was, in fact, wrong about one thing: Quintin Dick was not intestate; his will is dated 30 Aug 1844; he actually died in 1858. At which point, apparently, a massive fight ensued among various "tenants for life" named in the will. I can't begin to interpret what the House of Lords said, but I would direct you to a volume that you will find in its entirely on Googlebooks: THE LAW JOURNAL REPORTS, Courts of Chancery before the House of Lords, Vol. 31, pp. 713-719, "Hume v. Richardson', 1862. I would assume that this decision, apparently in favor of the executors rather than the plaintiffs (if I read their Lordships correctly) led to various twists and turns. I remind you of my original statement: there was a 70 year (actually about 66 year) search for an heir.
The will was 1844. The death was 1858. This case before the House of Lords was 1862. The following notice appeared in 1928 - 66 years later:
"BARRETT - Any male descendant of the sons, grandsons or more remote issue of Mary Dick who married William Barrett, and any male issue of Hugh Massey Barrett who was believed to be living in Montreal in 1846 are requested to communicate with Messrs. Arnold and Henry White, 12 Great Marlborough Street, London, W.I." (CANADIAN NATIONAL FARM MAGAZINE, 1928.)
Whether the courts threw out all of the would-be heirs or what - I don't know. But by 1928 there was a search for the rightful heir who was thought to be a Barrett.
In regard to my being emotional over this issue, I am not. I have corresponded with my cousins who are still in Canada, including Harry, but I don't really know them, have never met them. I have no special warm and fuzzy feeling for old Quintin; his aunt is my ancestor, not him. As I said in naming this thread, it is OT and as was pointed out by another poster, it is rapidly getting more so. If I have misunderstood some of the legal subtleties, I am not at all surprised. But I can tell you where you can find them and, if you understand them, translate them for me. I just know who eventually got the money, or at least a large portion of it. Over the decades some of it must have been skimmed off for various things, like the life tenancies or payment for lawyers or whatever.
Hi Ian,
Alexander Armstrong of the "Armstrong and Miller" TV series went back through the
THOMPSON-MCCAUSLAND via his mother Emma whose mother was Helen McCAUSLAND
then through her Paternal line to Maurice McCAUSLAND then onto his Maternal Laura ST JOHN (aka Sinjen)
then the Paternal line to St. Andrew ST.JOHN line then his Maternal line of Louisa ROUSE-BOUGHTON
then her Paternal line through to Father Charles eventually through the Paternal line getting to her
grandfather Shuckborough BOUGHTON who married Mary (nee Greville)
daughter of Algernon G. GREVILLE and his wife Mary nee RUSSELL.
Then they went up Mary Greviille's line to her father Algernon G. Greville (5th Baron Brooke of Beauchamps Court )
and his wife Lady Mary Somerset daughter of Lord Arthur Somerset,
Fifth child and 3rd son of Henry 1st Duke of Beaufort (1629-1700) and wife Mary Capell and
that Henry was son of Edward SOMERSET, 2nd marquess of Worcester (1601-1667)
who was son of Henry SOMERSET 1st Marquess and naturally because the Somerset line
went to "A Marquess" off WDYTYA went back along that line to Henry Somerset the 1st Marquess and an inventor.
As always WDTYA tends to twist and turn for the best TV story, especially if they can find a few high level titles somewhere.
Thus they kept swapping from Paternal to Maternal lines, just to get somewhere there was someone with a title.
They could have just done the St. John line for a reasonable story OR have quite easily gone on Algernon Greville's line
and gone sideways and down to the 8th Baron Brooke who became the Earl of Warwick.
There were multitudes of titles floating around the various families, they could have had "a field day" with any of them. <big grin>.
The part I liked was when he admitted that on his comedy show they had "taken off" WDYTYA
and done a skit on his ancestry and the researcher in the skit kept coming up
with his female ancestors in the censii all as occupation "WHORE".
He commented that he hoped he didnt get many of those when doing his actual family WDYTYA segment.
I guess the series has a reasonable entertainment value, but they do stretch things around a bit to get their best data for the show
John H
"Ian Goddard" <godda...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> Brad Verity wrote:
> %><
>> if they could submit a pedigree verified by the heralds.
> ...who weren't above a little genealogical gardening, grafting one tree > onto another, at least if nothing more than a baronetcy was involved.
> %><
>> This reminds me of the TV series 'Who Do You Think You Are'
> %><
>> There was a BBC radio personality (I
>> forget his name), who talked of his grandparents' grand estate up in
>> Northumberland, which he remembered as a child, but knew nothing of
>> its history. Turns out, he descended from the Houghtons, a
>> Shropshire(?) landed gentry family from the 1700s, and so through them
>> could trace back to Edward III and William the Conquerer. But even
>> after being presented with the official pedigree from the College of
>> Arms, the BBC personality stated it wasn't going to get him a better
>> table at a London restaurant.
> AFAICR there've been at least 3 subjects with a royal descent none of whom > would expect to have the slightest difficulty with a London head waiter > who knew his job but I think you're referring to Alexander Armstrong who > grew up in Northumberland, as the son of the local GP IIRC. The > remembered estate was that of the McCauslands near Limavady Co Derry. > That may have surprised many of the N Ireland viewers who probably > associated the name with a local car hire company. I remember visiting > the estate to gain permission to bore holes in a local bog which became > one of my palaeoecological sites.
> %><
>> Though I still
>> take great exception to the claims often made today that most of
>> Britain's population descends from Edward I. I think it shows a
>> complete ignorance of demographics.
> Seconded.
> -- > Ian
> The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
> at austonley org uk
-----Original Message-----
From: John H <JohnH4...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Oct 16, 2012 10:40 pm
Subject: Re: somewhat OT question
Hi Ian,
Alexander Armstrong of the "Armstrong and Miller" TV series went back through the
THOMPSON-MCCAUSLAND via his mother Emma whose mother was Helen McCAUSLAND
then through her Paternal line to Maurice McCAUSLAND then onto his Maternal Laura ST JOHN (aka Sinjen)
then the Paternal line to St. Andrew ST.JOHN line then his Maternal line of Louisa ROUSE-BOUGHTON
then her Paternal line through to Father Charles eventually through the Paternal line getting to her
grandfather Shuckborough BOUGHTON who married Mary (nee Greville)
daughter of Algernon G. GREVILLE and his wife Mary nee RUSSELL.
Then they went up Mary Greviille's line to her father Algernon G. Greville (5th Baron Brooke of Beauchamps Court )
and his wife Lady Mary Somerset daughter of Lord Arthur Somerset,
Fifth child and 3rd son of Henry 1st Duke of Beaufort (1629-1700) and wife Mary Capell and
that Henry was son of Edward SOMERSET, 2nd marquess of Worcester (1601-1667)
who was son of Henry SOMERSET 1st Marquess and naturally because the Somerset line
went to "A Marquess" off WDYTYA went back along that line to Henry Somerset the 1st Marquess and an inventor.
As always WDTYA tends to twist and turn for the best TV story, especially if they can find a few high level titles somewhere.
Thus they kept swapping from Paternal to Maternal lines, just to get somewhere there was someone with a title.
They could have just done the St. John line for a reasonable story OR have quite easily gone on Algernon Greville's line
and gone sideways and down to the 8th Baron Brooke who became the Earl of Warwick.
There were multitudes of titles floating around the various families, they could have had "a field day" with any of them. <big grin>.
The part I liked was when he admitted that on his comedy show they had "taken off" WDYTYA
and done a skit on his ancestry and the researcher in the skit kept coming up
with his female ancestors in the censii all as occupation "WHORE".
He commented that he hoped he didnt get many of those when doing his actual family WDYTYA segment.
I guess the series has a reasonable entertainment value, but they do stretch things around a bit to get their best data for the show
John H
"Ian Goddard" <godda...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:ae2ie7Fgh12U1@mid.individual.net...
> Brad Verity wrote:
> %><
>> if they could submit a pedigree verified by the heralds.
> ...who weren't above a little genealogical gardening, grafting one tree > onto another, at least if nothing more than a baronetcy was involved.
> %><
>> This reminds me of the TV series 'Who Do You Think You Are'
> %><
>> There was a BBC radio personality (I
>> forget his name), who talked of his grandparents' grand estate up in
>> Northumberland, which he remembered as a child, but knew nothing of
>> its history. Turns out, he descended from the Houghtons, a
>> Shropshire(?) landed gentry family from the 1700s, and so through them
>> could trace back to Edward III and William the Conquerer. But even
>> after being presented with the official pedigree from the College of
>> Arms, the BBC personality stated it wasn't going to get him a better
>> table at a London restaurant.
> AFAICR there've been at least 3 subjects with a royal descent none of whom > would expect to have the slightest difficulty with a London head waiter > who knew his job but I think you're referring to Alexander Armstrong who > grew up in Northumberland, as the son of the local GP IIRC. The > remembered estate was that of the McCauslands near Limavady Co Derry. > That may have surprised many of the N Ireland viewers who probably > associated the name with a local car hire company. I remember visiting > the estate to gain permission to bore holes in a local bog which became > one of my palaeoecological sites.
> %><
>> Though I still
>> take great exception to the claims often made today that most of
>> Britain's population descends from Edward I. I think it shows a
>> complete ignorance of demographics.
> Seconded.
> -- > Ian
> The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
> at austonley org uk
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:28:30 PM UTC-5, Brad Verity wrote:
> On Oct 14, 1:15 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> > You forgot to mention Brad, that once a person's entire estate could be and often was willed to whomever they wished, that knocked the bottom out of the urge to keep track of all your childless cousins for hope of inheriting under ancient entails
> I think that took place in the 19th century, but I'm not an expert in
> British inheritance law. Good point, though!
> Cheers, -----Brad
I think the primogeniture laws changed c. 1927; Dorothy Sayers used it in the plot of one of her Wimsey "whodunnits." So ended the ability of the novelist's deus ex machina of the unknown uncle leaving somebody a fortune.
An oversight on "fee tail" is to be found under that heading in Wikipedia. It is fairly comprehensive; although one would not choose to use it in a court of law, it suffices for most genealogical purposes.
As to uncles leaving fortunes: "William Farrer Ecroyd was born on the 28th February, 1861, being the second son of the late William Farrer Ecroyd of Lomeshaye, Lancashire, and Credenhill, Herefordshire. He was educated at Rugby and entered business as a textile manufacturer, from which he retired in 1896 when, owing to the will of his great uncle, he took by royal licence the surname of Farrer, the name by which he is best known."
His great-uncle's fortune allowed him to become on of the great authorities on Early Yorkshire Charters &c. &c.........
Robert Bank [note: I write this e-mail about 5 miles from Lomeshaye, Lancashire]
-----Original Message----- From: awwood...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 2:16 AM
To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: somewhat OT question
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 4:28:30 PM UTC-5, Brad Verity wrote:
> On Oct 14, 1:15 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> > You forgot to mention Brad, that once a person's entire estate could be > > and often was willed to whomever they wished, that knocked the bottom > > out of the urge to keep track of all your childless cousins for hope of > > inheriting under ancient entails
> I think that took place in the 19th century, but I'm not an expert in
> British inheritance law. Good point, though!
> Cheers, -----Brad
I think the primogeniture laws changed c. 1927; Dorothy Sayers used it in the plot of one of her Wimsey "whodunnits." So ended the ability of the novelist's deus ex machina of the unknown uncle leaving somebody a fortune.
