New Royal Ancestry for Richard More of the Mayflower
Douglas Richardson
Some years ago, Sir Anthony Wagner, Richmond Herald, published a short
piece in the New England Gen. Hist. Register in which he set forth two
royal lines for the Mayflower passenger, Richard More. The first
lineage was a meandering descent back to the ancient Kings of Scotland
by way of Richard More's Corbet-Lucy ancestry. The second lineage was
a descent from King Edward I through Richard More's Hopton-Burley
ancestry [Reference: NEHGR, 124 (1970): 85-87].
In the intervening years, the first descent has stood the test of time
and is still considered perfectly valid. The evidence for the second
descent has always been shaky at best and has never been fully
documented. As such, until now, Richard More's best royal line has
been the meandering descent from the Scottish kings set forth by Sir
Anthony Wagner's article [Note: Gary Boyd Roberts' book, Royal
Descents of 500 Immigrants, published 1999, pg. 350, sets forth a
third lineage for Richard More from King Henry II by way of the
Gresley and Swinnerton families. However, that descent has since been
disproven].
In recent weeks, I've posted several new discoveries on the newsgroup,
among them new ancestry for Ela de Herdeburgh and Margaret Mowbray,
both of which women are found in Richard More's ancestry. Through
Ela de Herdeburgh and Margaret Mowbray, Richard More possesses two
improved descents from King Henry II, which lines are much superior
than the meandering Scottish descent first provided by Sir Wagner.
Beyond the new Herdeburgh and Mowbray descents, however, Richard More
also possesses fabulous royal ancestry through his descent from the
Cressett family. Recently, while I was reviewing Sir Anthony
Wagner's sources, I realized that he had inadvertedly overlooked that
Richard More's ancestress, Joan/Jane Wrottesley, wife of Richard
Cressett, was the daughter of Richard Wrottesley, Esq., by his wife,
Dorothy Sutton. Dorothy Sutton in turn possesses one descent from
King Edward III and three descents from King Edward I [see David
Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry, 2nd ed., (1999): 233, et al.].
In this case, the evidence for Joan/Jane Wrottesley's parentage is
actually quite good. In her father-in-law, Thomas Cressett's will
dated 26 August 12 Henry VIII, he specifically stipulates that his son
and heir apparent, Richard Cressett, is to marry Joan daughter of
Richard Wrottesley, Esquire. He further states that Edward Burton
and Richard Lane as "standing bounden" to the said Richard Wrottesley
"in 300 marks for the performance of covenants of marriage" between
his son, Richard, and Richard Wrottesley's daughter, Joan [Reference:
Trans. Shropshire Archaeological Society. 4th ser., 6 (1916-17):
215-216]. Likewise, Joan/Jane Wrottesley is mentioned in her father,
Richard Wrottesley's will dated 1518 [Reference: William Salt Arch.
Soc., n.s., 6 (1903): 254-255].
With the Cressett-Wrottesley-Sutton connection in place, Richard
More's best royal descent now runs as follows:
1. Edward III, King of England, married Philippe of Hainaut.
2. Lionel of Antwerp, married Elizabeth de Burgh.
3. Philippe of Clarence, married Edmund de Mortimer.
4. Elizabeth Mortimer, married Henry Percy, Knt.
5. Elizabeth Percy, married John Clifford, 7th Lord Clifford.
6. Thomas Clifford, 8th Lord Clifford, married Joan Dacre.
7. Maud Clifford, married Edmund Sutton, Knt.
8. Dorothy Sutton, married Richard Wrottesley, Esq., died 1521.
9. Joan/Jane Wrottesley, married Richard Cressett.
10. Margaret Cressett, married Thomas More, of Larden.
11. Jasper More, of Larden, married Elizabeth Smalley.
12. Katherine More, married Samuel More. By her husband, Samuel
More, or a lover, Jacob Blakeway, she had the following child:
13. Richard More, immigrant on the ship, the Mayflower.
So, in short order, we've upgraded Richard More's ancestry from a
meandering descent, to better, then to best.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Nathaniel Taylor
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> ... [Note: Gary Boyd Roberts' book, Royal
>Descents of 500 Immigrants, published 1999, pg. 350, sets forth a
>third lineage for Richard More from King Henry II by way of the
>Gresley and Swinnerton families. However, that descent has since been
>disproven].
Has such disproof was published? I am aware that the Gresley Swinnerton
marriage was not as in Bridgman & the other sources given in RD500 (the
sources point to an earlier-generation Swinnerton connection, lacking the
Holand / Zouche ancestry), but I had not seen it discussed in print.
Nat Taylor
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. I disproved the Gresley-Swinnerton
connection last year. Dr. Faris and I subsequently removed the line
from the draft of the Magna Carta Ancestry book. I've since advised
Gary Roberts of the problem with the connection and he readily agreed
to remove that descent from the next edition of RD500. Gary hasn't
yet seen the new Edward III descent for Richard More, however. Since
that is Richard More's best descent, I'm sure he will want to go with
that. All three new royal descents for Richard More outlined in my
post yesterday will be found in the forthcoming 3rd edition of
Plantagenet Ancestry.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
nta...@post.harvard.edu (Nathaniel Taylor) wrote in message news:<ntaylor-1410...@mid-tgn-ngk-vty30.as.wcom.net>...
D. Spencer Hines
solid, critical investigation ---- a genealogical critique.
Folks have been saying for years here on SGM that *any* Royal Ancestry
for Richard More of _Mayflower_ is problematic.
In particular, the descent from Edward III for Richard More should be a
source of great joy for his descendants ---- and there are many.
Douglas Richardson is certainly doing some heavy lifting with these
Royal Ascents.
New Subject [1]:
Whatever happened to that project to list on the WWW all the GARD's
[Gateway Ancestors of Royal Descent] who immigrated to the British
colonies in the New World, with full particulars? Has it come a
cropper? It was promised in February and little has been heard since.
New Subject [2]:
Also, whatever happened to the project to post 10 generations of the
ancestors of King Henry II of England?
Deus Vult.
"Genealogy is an infinite binary series ---- both regressively and
progressively ---- propagated by means of a terminal, sexually
transmitted disease, producing a 100% death rate ---- which we call
Life." [DSH] -- 4 June 1997
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5cf47a19.01101...@posting.google.com...
Nathaniel Taylor
>nta...@post.harvard.edu (Nathaniel Taylor) wrote...
>
>> Douglas Richardson wrote:
>>
>> > ... [Note: Gary Boyd Roberts' book, Royal
>> >Descents of 500 Immigrants, published 1999, pg. 350, sets forth a
>> >third lineage for Richard More from King Henry II by way of the
>> >Gresley and Swinnerton families. However, that descent has since been
>> >disproven].
>>
>> Has such disproof been published? I am aware that the Gresley Swinnerton
>> marriage was not as in Bridgman & the other sources given in RD500 (the
>> sources point to an earlier-generation Swinnerton connection, lacking the
>> Holand / Zouche ancestry), but I had not seen it discussed in print.
>
>Thank you for your good post. I disproved the Gresley-Swinnerton
>connection last year...
Yes, of course. Since you're a fairly new reader of the forum, you might
not have seen the disproof which I posted to the group on February 20,
1998, which can be viewed on google at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=ntaylor-2102982047530001%40ntaylor.student.harvard.edu
I guess we all indulge in some reinvention of the wheel in this field!
Nat Taylor
Dewayne E. Perry
intent of the message below is concerning the re-invention of the
wheel in this field. from your earlier question asking whether
the disproof had been published i must conclude that you thought
it has not been published (by anyone, yourself included).
doug richardson indicated where his work will appear in published
form ("soon to appear" in the jargon we all use on our resumes :-)
it seems to me that, at worst, doug richardson worked independently,
not having seen an email post to some obscure usenet news group
that can hardly be considered publication in any way shape or form,
to arrive at his result.
a much nicer way of approaching this would have been to say something
on the order of: by the way, i too had reached this conclusions (see
my post ....) and my results are to appear in journal x on date y.
i am sure most of us would respond with a note acknowledging
the independent work etc ..... independent results are common in all
fields, as are their acknowledgments.
cheers - dewayne
Kay Allen AG
Kay Allen AG
"Dewayne E. Perry" wrote:
> consider me a bit dense if you must, but i am not sure what the
> intent of the message below is concerning the re-invention of the
> wheel in this field. from your earlier question asking whether
> the disproof had been published i must conclude that you thought
> it has not been published (by anyone, yourself included).
>
> doug richardson indicated where his work will appear in published
> form ("soon to appear" in the jargon we all use on our resumes :-)
>
> it seems to me that, at worst, doug richardson worked independently,
> not having seen an email post to some obscure usenet news group
> that can hardly be considered publication in any way shape or form,
> to arrive at his result.
>
> a much nicer way of approaching this would have been to say something
> on the order of: by the way, i too had reached this conclusions (see
> my post ....) and my results are to appear in journal x on date y.
>
> i am sure most of us would respond with a note acknowledging
> the independent work etc ..... independent results are common in all
> fields, as are their acknowledgments.
>
> cheers - dewayne
>
> Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
> >
> > In article <5cf47a19.01101...@posting.google.com>,
> > royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
> >
> > >nta...@post.harvard.edu (Nathaniel Taylor) wrote...
> > >
> > >> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > ... [Note: Gary Boyd Roberts' book, Royal
> > >> >Descents of 500 Immigrants, published 1999, pg. 350, sets forth a
> > >> >third lineage for Richard More from King Henry II by way of the
> > >> >Gresley and Swinnerton families. However, that descent has since been
> > >> >disproven].
> > >>
> > >> Has such disproof been published? I am aware that the Gresley Swinnerton
> > >> marriage was not as in Bridgman & the other sources given in RD500 (the
> > >> sources point to an earlier-generation Swinnerton connection, lacking the
> > >> Holand / Zouche ancestry), but I had not seen it discussed in print.
> > >
Nathaniel Taylor
>consider me a bit dense if you must, but i am not sure what the
>intent of the message below is concerning the re-invention of the
>wheel in this field. from your earlier question asking whether
>the disproof had been published i must conclude that you thought
>it has not been published (by anyone, yourself included).
Correct (pace Kay, I don't equate Usenet posting with 'publishing'): I
didn't think it had been published, but Doug's posts made it sound like it
had ("... that descent has since been disproven." ... "I disproved the
Gresley-Swinnerton
connection last year.") I was hoping to learn of a fuller discussion, in
print, than what I had posted to the ng, because I am interested in
learning more about the *real* Gresley-Swinnerton marriage (the bride
being from the previous generation of the imperfectly-known Swinnerton
family).
>doug richardson indicated where his work will appear in published
>form ("soon to appear" in the jargon we all use on our resumes :-)
Actually, disproofs of earlier posited lines are not a customary feature
of compilations like Faris' _AR_ or _Plantagenet Ancestry_; and anyhow,
descents from Henry II (as was the alleged Swinnerton line for More) are
outside the purview of _Plantagenet Ancestry_.
>it seems to me that, at worst, doug richardson worked independently...
I wasn't implying otherwise, or that this was somehow ethically
bad--merely inefficient. Such disproofs may be overlooked because they
don't often appear in print, and aren't gathered in any good central
depository. We've had discussions in the ng several times before about
the need for a clearinghouse, in the form of a website or published
handlist, of disproven royal descents and invalidated 'gateway' ancestors.
>a much nicer way of approaching this would have been to say something
>on the order of: by the way, i too had reached this conclusions (see
>my post ....) and my results are to appear in journal x on date y.
I did not intend my post not to be nice (or to be 'less nice' than some
other potential way of putting the same thing). I did not mean to imply
that I felt that "my" work had been in any way misused, or even unjustly
ignored. The lesson is simply this (and it's not pointed at Doug or
anyone in particular): SGM is hardly "some obscure usenet news group" for
those interested in medieval genealogy. Everybody doing serious work in
medieval genealogy should be checking the list's archives as a natural
part of investigative work, particularly on known problem lines from
ubiquitous compiled works such as AR or RD500.
>consider me a bit dense if you must, but i am not sure what the
>intent of the message ... is concerning the re-invention of the
>wheel in this field
I do not; I hope this sufficiently contextualizes the earlier post.
Nat Taylor
D. Spencer Hines
Yes, Nat ---- that earlier post of yours was a bit ---- shall we
say ---- "grotty" ---- or "pinked" and "nettled", if you prefer.
I, for one, am most happy to see you have backed away from it and
"contextualized it" for us [N.B. What an incredible barbarism, old
chap ---- DSH] ---- as you say.
Fight Fiercely Harvard and all that.
Lux et Veritas et Libertas ---- Old Rugger.
Deus Vult.
"Genealogy is an infinite binary series ---- both regressively and
progressively ---- propagated by means of a terminal, sexually
transmitted disease, producing a 100% death rate ---- which we call
Life." [DSH] -- 4 June 1997
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:ntaylor-1410...@mid-tgn-ngt-vty11.as.wcom.net...
D. Spencer Hines
word, a transitive verb ---- since at least 1934.
I did not say that it is WRONG.
I said that it is a BARBARISM. <g>
Fortem Posce Animum.
"Genealogy is an infinite binary series ---- both regressively and
progressively ---- propagated by means of a terminal, sexually
transmitted disease, producing a 100% death rate ---- which we call
Life." [DSH] -- 4 June 1997
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
| Hmmmmmmm.
|
| Yes, Nat ---- that earlier post of yours was a bit ---- shall we
| say ---- "grotty" ---- or "pinked" and "nettled", if you prefer.
|
| I, for one, am most happy to see you have backed away from it and
| "contextualized it" for us [N.B. What an incredible barbarism, old
| chap ---- DSH] ---- as you say.
|
| Fight Fiercely Harvard and all that.
|
| Lux et Veritas et Libertas ---- Old Rugger.
|
| Deus Vult.
William Addams Reitwiesner
>Hi Nat:
>
>Thank you for your good post. I disproved the Gresley-Swinnerton
>connection last year. Dr. Faris and I subsequently removed the line
>from the draft of the Magna Carta Ancestry book. I've since advised
>Gary Roberts of the problem with the connection and he readily agreed
>to remove that descent from the next edition of RD500. Gary hasn't
>yet seen the new Edward III descent for Richard More, however. Since
>that is Richard More's best descent, I'm sure he will want to go with
>that. All three new royal descents for Richard More outlined in my
>post yesterday will be found in the forthcoming 3rd edition of
>Plantagenet Ancestry.
I'd like to make explicit something that was only touched on in passing by
Mr. Richardson, and that is the concept of the "best" Royal descent, at
least how that concept is used by many of the researchers in the field of
Royally descended Colonial immigrants to America.
Simply put, the idea is that the "best" Royal descent is the descent from
the most recent Monarch. In other words, a descent from a younget son of
Edward III of England (d. 1377) is considered "better" than a descent from
a daughter of Edward I of England (d. 1307).
One wrinkle in the idea of "best" is when the person is descended from
Monarchs of two different countries. In the past, several researchers in
this field would hold that a descent from any English king (such as Edward
I, d. 1307) was "better" than a descent from any Scottish king (such as
Robert III, d. 1406), but from what I can tell, all of the major
researchers in this field have switched over to the strictly chronological
definition.
Gary Boyd Roberts has some further words on what constitutes a "best" Royal
descent on pp. xx-xxi of the introduction to his *Royal Descents of 500
Immigrants* [1993].
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Nathaniel Taylor
reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org (William Addams Reitwiesner) wrote:
>I'd like to make explicit something that was only touched on in passing by
>Mr. Richardson, and that is the concept of the "best" Royal descent, at
>least how that concept is used by many of the researchers in the field of
>Royally descended Colonial immigrants to America.
>
>Simply put, the idea is that the "best" Royal descent is the descent from
>the most recent Monarch. In other words, a descent from a younget son of
>Edward III of England (d. 1377) is considered "better" than a descent from
>a daughter of Edward I of England (d. 1307).
>
>One wrinkle in the idea of "best" is when the person is descended from
>Monarchs of two different countries. In the past, several researchers in
>this field would hold that a descent from any English king (such as Edward
>I, d. 1307) was "better" than a descent from any Scottish king (such as
>Robert III, d. 1406), but from what I can tell, all of the major
>researchers in this field have switched over to the strictly chronological
>definition.
>
>Gary Boyd Roberts has some further words on what constitutes a "best" Royal
>descent on pp. xx-xxi of the introduction to his *Royal Descents of 500
>Immigrants* [1993].
This is a good point to raise. Some journal editors are careful to avoid
confusion with implied historical judgment, or the possible
misinterpretation of a 'better' or 'best' descent as having elitist
implications, by sticking to a more neutral phrase, like 'nearest royal
descent', which implies chronology.
But even a 'nearest' royal descent this can be interpreted in two ways:
number of generations of a descent from a monarch, or number of years
since the death of the monarch in question. Sometimes using the two
different methods give widely divergent results for a 'nearest' or 'best'
royal descent.
Nat Taylor
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your useful comments. As you pointed out, better versus
best is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. Personally I like them
all, be they English, Scottish or whatever.
Again, thanks for your comments.
As ever, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org (William Addams Reitwiesner) wrote in message news:<3bcc9f2c...@news.erols.com>...
Douglas Richardson
Scholars often worked along parallel lines. This has happened many
times in my career as a genealogist. When I have a chance, I'll be
sure to look up your post on the Gresley-Swinnerton matter in the
archives. I hadn't seen your post and am glad to know about it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
nta...@post.harvard.edu (Nathaniel Taylor) wrote in message news:<ntaylor-1410...@mid-tgn-ngt-vty11.as.wcom.net>...
CMW12635
The lineage you outlined for Mayflower Pilgrim Richard More from
Edward III will be of great interest to the General Society of Mayflower
Descendants. As far as representation in the Society, More has the smallest
number of descendants.
Charles Ward
CMW1...@aol.com
D. Spencer Hines
A descent from, say, Henry VII, is "better" than a descent from Edward
III ---- because it means that one is descended from some of those
monarchs in between [Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV] ---- giving
a greater overall count of Total Overall Royal Descents [TORD]. By the
same token, a descent from Queen Victoria would be far better.
The more, the merrier ---- giving the happy descendant more Royal
Ancestors to Ponder and Enjoy [RAPE].
Deus Vult.
"Genealogy is an infinite binary series ---- both regressively and
progressively ---- propagated by means of a terminal, sexually
transmitted disease, producing a 100% death rate ---- which we call
Life." [DSH] -- 4 June 1997
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"William Addams Reitwiesner" <reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org> wrote in
message news:3bcc9f2c...@news.erols.com...
D. Spencer Hines
More has?
"Genealogy is an infinite binary series ---- both regressively and
progressively ---- propagated by means of a terminal, sexually
transmitted disease, producing a 100% death rate ---- which we call
Life." [DSH] -- 4 June 1997
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"CMW12635" <cmw1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011015134346...@mb-fh.aol.com...
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: Best Royal Descents
> This all makes excellent sense of course.
>
> A descent from, say, Henry VII, is "better" than a descent from Edward
> III ---- because it means that one is descended from some of those
> monarchs in between [Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV] ---- giving
> a greater overall count of Total Overall Royal Descents [TORD]. By the
> same token, a descent from Queen Victoria would be far better.
>
> The more, the merrier ---- giving the happy descendant more Royal
> Ancestors to Ponder and Enjoy [RAPE].
>
I think that descending from Victoria is "better" simply because then more
ancestors can be established.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
Including more Nobles and Royals ---- and other Quite Interesting Folks
in the History Books.
"Genealogy is an infinite binary series ---- both regressively and
progressively ---- propagated by means of a terminal, sexually
transmitted disease, producing a 100% death rate ---- which we call
Life." [DSH] -- 4 June 1997
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Leo van de Pas" <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:007201c155b5$a5884fa0$949f3bcb@leo...
Violamolesworth
More
(he who was executed
by orders of Henry VIII) ?
Many thanks
Viola
Renia
Renia
Gryphon801
attempted to send this as an e-mail but it "bounced".]