A descent from Edward III to working class people and Danny Dyer

[Paulo Canedo]

I am surprised this was never brought to the newsgroup in episode 1 of the series 13 of the famous BBC programme Who Do You Think You Are? originally aired in 24 November 2016 Danny Dyer traced its roots through working class people in the East End of London who in the victorian day even worked at the infamous workhouse back to the famous Thomas Cromwell and his daughter in law Elizabeth Seymour sister of Queen Jane Seymour third wife of King Henry VIII and then back to King Edward III. It is pretty much given in https://www.thegenealogist.co.uk/featuredarticles/2016/who-do-you-think-you-are/danny-dyers-cockney-and-royal-roots-371/. This video http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p052k2jt is also useful. I'll post the line the show showed from Edward III to Danny Dyer but there are others.

King Edward III
Lionel of Antwerp
Philippa Plantagenet married Edmund Mortimer
Elizabeth Mortimer married Sir Henry Percy
Elizabeth Percy married Lord John Clifford
Mary Clifford married Sir Philip Wentworth
Sir Henry Wentworth
Margery Wentworth married John Seymour
Elizabeth Seymour married Gregory Cromwell
Lord Henry Cromwell
Catherine Cromwell married Baronet Lionel Tolemache
Anne Tollemache married Robert Gosnold V
Robert Gosnold VI
Lionel Gosnold
Walter Gosnold
Tendring Gosnold
Charles Gosnold
Ann Gosnold married James Buttivant (It is mainly in this generation where the huge fall in the social realm ocurrs James was a manufacturer in Norwich that was declared bankrupt in 1799.)
Charles Buttivant (Charles was a cargo clerk who was employed in the Victualling Office that provided food to keep the Royal Navy fed.)
Albert Buttivant (Fall in the social realm also ocurrs in this generation Albert was a cigar maker who fell into such hard times that in 1881 as recorded in that year's census he and his wife were inmates at the Old Town Workhouse in Bracoft Road in the next census they were out of the workhouse he was a china picker and his wife was a washerwoman.)
Mary Ann Buttivant married John Wallace
Joyce Rudd married John Dyer
Anthony Dyer
Danny Dyer

I would like to know did the Marquis de Ruvigny who was contemporany of Mary Ann Buttivant and said almost no one in the working classes were descendants from Edward III trace this line? If not I would say his studies were not as good as many say. Or did Ruvigny find some illegitimacy in the line to exclude it from his publications?
As usual comments are welcome.

[Katherine Kennedy]

If he said almost, then this could simply have been one of the exceptions. It makes for a fascinating story regardless.

I've wondered before if there was a connection between the number of people today with early medieval royal ancestry and how many people died during the Black Death. If those of the upper class were less likely to be exposed, because of living in fortifications, then it would make sense that those alive today of European ancestry would be their descendants.

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 4:25:39 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> I would like to know did the Marquis de Ruvigny who was contemporany of Mary Ann Buttivant and said almost no one in the working classes were descendants from Edward III trace this line? If not I would say his studies were not as good as many say. Or did Ruvigny find some illegitimacy in the line to exclude it from his publications?

As already said by someone else, a single exception would not prove de Ruvigny wrong, but I think more can be said. The probably of an Edward III descent goes up enormously every generation.

As it happens my one Edward III descent is from a family who had a bankruptcy in Norfolk in about the same period. I think this is no coincidence.

By the 16th century most of the higher level aristocracy had an Edward III descent, and the case of Cromwell shows how it was spreading into a wider group. By the 18th century the gentry, a growing class, had a lot of Edward III descents.

But then we get to 1800. We only have to read Dickens to know that bankruptcies and social chaos was a big issue during and after the Napoleonic wars, sending many of the gentry into the working class, masses of people to the colonies and cities, and thoroughly mixing Britains's genes.

By now, chances are that anyone of British ancestry on all side will have an Edward III descent.

[Richard Smith]

On 03/09/17 15:25, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> I would like to know did the Marquis de Ruvigny who was contemporany
> of Mary Ann Buttivant and said almost no one in the working classes
> were descendants from Edward III trace this line? If not I would say
> his studies were not as good as many say. Or did Ruvigny find some
> illegitimacy in the line to exclude it from his publications?

I have no idea whether de Ruvigny knew of this line, but I would be
interested to know exactly what he said about working class descendants
of Edward III.

It seems frequently to be repeated that "experts say" 80% of the
population (presumably meaning the English or perhaps British
population) are likely to be descended from Edward III. I've never seen
a citation for this figure, and it smacks a little of being an off the
cuff remark by someone who hadn't a statistical model to back it up;
nevertheless I don't intrinsically find it hard to believe.

Of course, this supposed 80% figure refers to any descents, not a
verifiable descent. All the same, my guess would be the that the
majority of verifiable descendants of Edward III were either working
class or descended through a working class ancestor. During the last,
say, 300 years, during which period it is relatively straightforward to
trace descents regardless of social class, there have been vastly more
working class people than in the gentry.

Let's consider the documented descendants of Edward III living 1700.
Maybe very few were working class, but a small number demonstrably were.
Over the last 300 years, low class mobility means the descendants in
the gentry, which doubtless comprised the majority of the gentry, have
married into each other's families; while the few working class
descendants are so dissipated that are unlikely to have intermarried.
The result is that the number of verifiable working class descendants
will have increased enormously much faster than those in the gentry. So
I would be astonished if it were not now the case that the majority of
verifiable descendants were working class or had descents through a
working class ancestor.

But perhaps that's not what de Ruvigny meant. If what he meant was that
only a small proportion of the working classes had a verifiable descent,
I would agree. And I would absolutely agree if he meant that only a
small proportion were aware that they had a verifiable descent from
Edward III.

We also need to remember that a century has elapsed since de Ruvigny's
time, during which there has been a further century of social mobility,
of population expansion, and most importantly, interest in genealogy has
really taken off outside the gentry.

Richard

[Paulo Canedo]

Ruvigny said ´with some few exceptions, [no royally descended families] have descended to or are at least traceable among the trading or labouring classes`.

[taf]

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 11:57:00 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> Ruvigny said ´with some few exceptions, [no royally descended families] have
> descended to or are at least traceable among the trading or labouring
> classes`.

While adding the 'at least traceable' in there helps, it was still just cultural chauvinism. In the US alone there would have been hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of traceable descendants of Edward III at the time he wrote this, and though this may not have applied to the majority of those who bothered do the tracing, the majority of those with a traceable descent would have been of the 'trading and labouring' classes (unless you use an arbitrary definition whereby owning any land or house made one 'gentry', despite the fact you earned your keep by labor).

Even in England, I suspect that this represents a failure to appreciate the social mobility among the trades, military, lower-gentry and clergy that would have left traceable lines if anyone set aside their social prejudice long enough to look. The apprenticeship records of the London livery companies are full of younger sons of gentry being apprenticed into the trades, and not all of them did well enough to go back and acquire lands in the country, as some did.

taf

[Steve Riggan]

I think Danny Dyer's line was briefly presented to the newsgroup after it first aired but I'm not sure what date. I saw a discussion about it by Brad Verity on his blog page as well and he broke down each generation. As it happens, the Tollemache/Cromwell and Gosnold families are both related to my lines. Sir Henry Wentworth of Nettlestead (in the Cromwell/Tollemache pedigree) had a sister who was ancestral to William Farrar of Virginia in my father's line. The Gosnolds were descended from the Wingfields at Letheringham who were ancestral to another Virginia gateway, Diana Dale (née Skipwith) in my mother's line. I had the privilege of visiting Suffolk this past June and seeing the old Wingfield and Gosnold residences. The Tollemache family still lives in the area and even some Wingfields. You might google search Brad Verity's blog page and see if you can find the discussion about Danny Dyer. He did a thorough overview of each generation.

Steve Riggan

Sent from my iPad

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Peter Stewart]

'Cultural chauvinism' is a neat way to put it - snobbish pomposity would
also fit.

The locution itself is stilted to the point of absurdity - 'descended to
or at least traceable' in view of de Ruvigny's methodology could largely
mean that the great unwashed did not often present themselves to heralds
making visitations. If he had actively gone looking for descents through
'gentlemen' who went bankrupt or insane (for starters) he might have had
a different impression.

One corrective aspect to this can be seen by glancing at Gerald Paget's
work on the ancestors of Prince Charles - through his maternal
grandmother, a queen-empress consort no less - he has ancestors among
the 'trading or labouring classes' and/or who are untraceable. Ergo,
intermarriage between social strata happened. It would be a stunning
result if this could not be reflected in the obverse way, through
descendants of royalty marrying 'down' the socio-economic scale rather
than just their ancestors marrying 'up'.

Peter Stewart

[John Higgins]

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 4:15:32 PM UTC-7, Steve Riggan wrote:
> I think Danny Dyer's line was briefly presented to the newsgroup after it first aired but I'm not sure what date. I saw a discussion about it by Brad Verity on his blog page as well and he broke down each generation. As it happens, the Tollemache/Cromwell and Gosnold families are both related to my lines. Sir Henry Wentworth of Nettlestead (in the Cromwell/Tollemache pedigree) had a sister who was ancestral to William Farrar of Virginia in my father's line. The Gosnolds were descended from the Wingfields at Letheringham who were ancestral to another Virginia gateway, Diana Dale (née Skipwith) in my mother's line. I had the privilege of visiting Suffolk this past June and seeing the old Wingfield and Gosnold residences. The Tollemache family still lives in the area and even some Wingfields. You might google search Brad Verity's blog page and see if you can find the discussion about Danny Dyer. He did a thorough overview of each generation.
>
> Steve Riggan
>

I can't see that the Danny Dyer royal descent has ever been discussed in this group. But here is Brad Verity' blog post on the subject. As Steve says, it's very thorough - well worth a read.
https://royaldescent.blogspot.com/2017/01/99-edward-iii-descent-for-danny-dyer-b.html

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 8:48:58 PM UTC+2, Richard Smith wrote:

> It seems frequently to be repeated that "experts say" 80% of the
> population (presumably meaning the English or perhaps British
> population) are likely to be descended from Edward III. I've never seen
> a citation for this figure, and it smacks a little of being an off the
> cuff remark by someone who hadn't a statistical model to back it up;
> nevertheless I don't intrinsically find it hard to believe.

One published source, but certainly not the only one, would be Ian Mortimer's Edward III biography, which has a special appendix on this subject.

[Richard Smith]

Thanks. I shall find myself a copy.

Richard

[Paulo Canedo]

I've deleted my previous message because I searched more and think the link through Elizabeth de Vere may fail in her maternal grandfather William Stafford his identitiy and ancestry seems debatable. Does anyone here know a good source about it?

[Paulo Canedo]

Forget it the place usually given for William Stafford in web genealogies is wrong as shown in Plantagenet Ancestry he belonged to a completely different branch of the family.

[Vance Mead]

It's been a while since I read it, but I think Anthony Wagner made a similar point in his "English Genealogy", that most people with mainly English ancestry are probably descended from Edward III. He also made the point that there has been a good deal more social mobility than people realize, that if you could find all of your ancestors back, say, 6 generations you would probably find a considerable social range.

I'm saying this from memory so I can't quote chapter and verse.

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

My grandmother and my grandfather on my mother's side were poor. Yet unbeknownst to her she was a direct descendant of Charlemagne and French and English aristocracy.

[Paulo Canedo]

Brad Verity gives some more details on how the Buttivants became poor. The 1799 bankruptcy wasn't really the main issue since James recovered from it. In 1806, he was appointed inspector of Norwich camblets for the East India and in 1809 he and his family moved to Kennington a suburb of London. James and Anne had a great family with 10 children but in April 1824 they received the news of the death of their oldest son John Henry Buttivant in the previous summer in Macau. It was fatal to James he died a month later in May 1824. His death was registered in the Gentlemen's Magazine showing he had achieved certain social status but it was also the peak of that status. Because of the deaths of both James and John the family was left in mourning and in a precarious financial situation. The widowed Anne returned to Norwich settling in the suburb of Bracondale with her eldest daughter Sarah a spinster who was the only beneficiary and excutrix of her will.
Charles is the generation that starts from a mercantile middle-class family in a London suburb, and ends in the slums of Victorian London's East End he is a tragical figute. He was the third of five sons and only 19 years old when his father died. The 1827 bankruptcy of his father's trading business in East India House was actually fault of his elder brother James and of his brother-in-law Henry Illingworth husband of his sister Catherine however it still had a negative impact on Charles and his brothers with the family business lost they had to start their own careers. Charles started promisingly enough forming W. Goddard as coal merchants on Milbank Street in Westminster. In 1830 at 26 he married Mary Ann Frampton and starting in 1836 they had five surviving children but a decade after the birth of his first surviving child ie in 1846 things began becoming sour for Charles: his business partnership dissolved in 1846, and Charles went from being a coal merchant to being a secretary to coal merchants. About this time, he started up an affair with Hannah Wing who was 20 years younger and who bore him the first of six children a year later ie in 1847. In 1851 they had the second. In 1861 Charles said in the Morning Post that he would not hold himself responsible for any debts of his wife Mary Ann could incur having separated more than 12 years before. That same year's census has Charles and Hannah living as a married couple in Whitechapel with their growing famiy. In that time divorce was very expensive only the upper class could afford it. Common law wifes such as Hannah could assume the surname of the man they were living with but they had no legal rights or recourse. However at this point Charles's downward spiral was far more concerning than his bigamy. Eventually he suicided in 1865. At the inquest held at the Wellington Tavern, Cannon Street Road two nights aftet that Mr. C. Emerson George testified, "I was an intimate friend of the deceased. He had fallen into great difficulties in consequence of not being able to get cargoes for ships. He was a man of good ability and education, and he was always trying to get something to do, but the worst of it was that whenever a ship went in, somebody else, younger men than himself, always got hold of it. His furniture was going to be removed under a bill of sale...and the landlord had threatened to distrain for the rent. He had been summoned to the county court for one debt, and for another he had been served with a writ. He had been requested by the guardians of the poor to appear before them to show cause why he did not pay the arrears of the poor-rate...He failed through sheer misfortune" ['Suicide Through Misfortune', Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, July 16, 1865]. The physician at the inquest testified that Charles had "expired in consequence of taking a very large dose of oil of bitter almonds. He had drunk about one ounce." But the most heartbreaking testimony came from Charles and Hannah's 18-year-old eldest daughter, Hannah Martha Buttivant "The deceased was my father. He was a shipping clerk. He had latterly been very desponding in consequence of the reduced circumstances of his family. On Monday last I found him lying upon the bed in his room, groaning. There was a smell of bitter almonds in the room, and I said, 'Father, you have taken the bitter almonds!' He said to his youngest child, who was seated on the bed near him, 'Don't cry, dear.' I again spoke to him, and said, 'I cannot remain and see you suffering thus. I will go and call ma.' He gave a groan and exclaimed, 'Oh, my God!' He died in half an hour in the presence of three doctors. He had been given the bottle of bitter almonds at the docks by a person who brought it with him to this country from a chemist in Port Adelaide". The jury at the inquest returned a verdict that the deceased took his own life in a state of temporary mental derangement. Hannah Wing kept the Buttivant surname and the public status as Charles's widow for the rest of her long life. She married off all three of her daughters, and continued to hold her family together as a single mother in the East End working as a laundress. She died in the London suburb of Islington in 1909 at age 83.
Charles's suice would have haunted all of his children but 14 years old Albert his eldest son by his second wife seemed to be more particularly affected. Though one of Charles's sons from his first marriage -- George Edward Buttivant spent time in and out of the workhouse in his senior years, Albert was the only one of Charles's eleven surviving children to suffer the workhouse during his 30s. He married Ann Howcutt, daughter of a Mile End blacksmith in early 1871, and they had a son who died in infancy and three daughters. Records from Mile End Old Town Workhouse on Bancroft Road show that Ann Buttivant and her youngest daughter, baby Mary Ann, were admitted as paupers in 1878. In in the 1881 census, both Albert and his wife are inmates at the workhouse. There are many further workhouse admission and discharge records for Albert Buttivant's family, including Mary Ann's elder sisters Eliza and Emma, with Albert and his wife in and out of the workhouse early into the 20th century, as late as 1920. It's not clear why poverty overcame Albert to a more devastating degree than it did his siblings. Steady work eluded him: he started off in a cigar factory, and by his forties was a general labourer. From a social status viewpoint, Albert is basically the rock bottom of this entire line of descent. But, boy, were he and his wife made of stern stuff - together they survived their living conditions, both in and outside of the workhouse, and made it to a ripe old age, each dying at 83.

I personally note that if Ruvigny had seen this line he would probably say that Albert's illegitimacy was the reason for his fall to poverty however that is certainly not the case since Charles and Hannah had a stable relationship, lived together and he was the chief of the family and Charles was already having a very difficult life. I wonder if Albert even knew that his parents were not legally married.

[Steve Riggan]

Very interesting information! I had not seen these details before on the later lineage and it may explain a lot about the later condition of the family. Yes they were very tough survivors. I am in touch with Albert and Anne's great granddaughter so will share this with her.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Paulo Canedo <paulorica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Brad Verity gives some more details on how the Buttivants became poor. The 1799 bankruptcy wasn't really the main issue since James recovered from it. In 1806, he was appointed inspector of Norwich camblets for the East India and in 1809 he and his family moved to Kennington a suburb of London. James and Anne had a great family with 10 children but in April 1824 they received the news of the death of their oldest son John Henry Buttivant in the previous summer in Macau. It was fatal to James he died a month later in May 1824. His death was registered in the Gentlemen's Magazine showing he had achieved certain social status but it was also the peak of that status. Because of the deaths of both James and John the family was left in mourning and in a precarious financial situation. The widowed Anne returned to Norwich settling in the suburb of Bracondale with her eldest daughter Sarah a spinster who was the only beneficiary and excutrix of her will.

> Charles is the generation that starts from a mercantile middle-class family in a London suburb, and ends in the slums of Victorian London's East End he is a tragical figute. He was the third of five sons and only 19 years old when his father died. The 1827 bankruptcy of his father's trading business in East India House was actually fault of his elder brother James and of his brother-in-law Henry Illingworth husband of his sister Catherine however it still had a negative impact on Charles and his brothers with the family business lost they had to start their own careers. Charles started promisingly enough forming W. Goddard as coal merchants on Milbank Street in Westminster. In 1830 at 26 he married Mary Ann Frampton and starting in 1836 they had five surviving children but a decade after the birth of his first surviving child ie in 1846 things began becoming sour for Charles: his business partnership dissolved in 1846, and Charles went from being a coal merchant to being a secretary to coal merchants. About this time, he started up an affair with Hannah Wing who was 20 years younger and who bore him the first of six children a year later ie in 1847. In 1851 they had the second. In 1861 Charles said in the Morning Post that he would not hold himself responsible for any debts of his wife Mary Ann could incur having separated more than 12 years before. That same year's census has Charles and Hannah living as a married couple in Whitechapel with their growing famiy. In that time divorce was very expensive only the upper class could afford it. Common law wifes such as Hannah could assume the surname of the man they were living with but they had no legal rights or recourse. However at this point Charles's downward spiral was far more concerning than his bigamy. Eventually he suicided in 1865. At the inquest held at the Wellington Tavern, Cannon Street Road two nights aftet that Mr. C. Emerson George testified, "I was an intimate friend of the deceased. He had fallen into great difficulties in consequence of n!
> ot being able to get cargoes for ships. He was a man of good ability and education, and he was always trying to get something to do, but the worst of it was that whenever a ship went in, somebody else, younger men than himself, always got hold of it. His furniture was going to be removed under a bill of sale...and the landlord had threatened to distrain for the rent. He had been summoned to the county court for one debt, and for another he had been served with a writ. He had been requested by the guardians of the poor to appear before them to show cause why he did not pay the arrears of the poor-rate...He failed through sheer misfortune" ['Suicide Through Misfortune', Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, July 16, 1865]. The physician at the inquest testified that Charles had "expired in consequence of taking a very large dose of oil of bitter almonds. He had drunk about one ounce." But the most heartbreaking testimony came from Charles and Hannah's 18-year-old eldest daughter, Hannah Martha Buttivant "The deceased was my father. He was a shipping clerk. He had latterly been very desponding in consequence of the reduced circumstances of his family. On Monday last I found him lying upon the bed in his room, groaning. There was a smell of bitter almonds in the room, and I said, 'Father, you have taken the bitter almonds!' He said to his youngest child, who was seated on the bed near him, 'Don't cry, dear.' I again spoke to him, and said, 'I cannot remain and see you suffering thus. I will go and call ma.' He gave a groan and exclaimed, 'Oh, my God!' He died in half an hour in the presence of three doctors. He had been given the bottle of bitter almonds at the docks by a person who brought it with him to this country from a chemist in Port Adelaide". The jury at the inquest returned a verdict that the deceased took his own life in a state of temporary mental derangement. Hannah Wing kept the Buttivant surname and the public status as Charles's widow for the rest of her long life. She married off all three of her daught!

> ers, and continued to hold her family together as a single mother in the East End working as a laundress. She died in the London suburb of Islington in 1909 at age 83.
> Charles's suice would have haunted all of his children but 14 years old Albert his eldest son by his second wife seemed to be more particularly affected. Though one of Charles's sons from his first marriage -- George Edward Buttivant spent time in and out of the workhouse in his senior years, Albert was the only one of Charles's eleven surviving children to suffer the workhouse during his 30s. He married Ann Howcutt, daughter of a Mile End blacksmith in early 1871, and they had a son who died in infancy and three daughters. Records from Mile End Old Town Workhouse on Bancroft Road show that Ann Buttivant and her youngest daughter, baby Mary Ann, were admitted as paupers in 1878. In in the 1881 census, both Albert and his wife are inmates at the workhouse. There are many further workhouse admission and discharge records for Albert Buttivant's family, including Mary Ann's elder sisters Eliza and Emma, with Albert and his wife in and out of the workhouse early into the 20th century, as late as 1920. It's not clear why poverty overcame Albert to a more devastating degree than it did his siblings. Steady work eluded him: he started off in a cigar factory, and by his forties was a general labourer. From a social status viewpoint, Albert is basically the rock bottom of this entire line of descent. But, boy, were he and his wife made of stern stuff - together they survived their living conditions, both in and outside of the workhouse, and made it to a ripe old age, each dying at 83.
>
> I personally note that if Ruvigny had seen this line he would probably say that Albert's illegitimacy was the reason for his fall to poverty however that is certainly not the case since Charles and Hannah had a stable relationship, lived together and he was the chief of the family and Charles was already having a very difficult life. I wonder if Albert even knew that his parents were not legally married.
>
>
>
>
>

[John Higgins]

If you're going to pass this on to Albert and Anne's descendant, you should refer them to Brad Verity's original post. Paulo's post is simply a rather liberal paraphrase of Brad's work - and substantially a verbatim quotation of Brad, without the benefit of quotation marks and with some errors introduced.

I gave the link to Brad's essay in an earlier post which somehow was delayed in getting to the Rootsweb side of the gateway. Here it is again:

https://royaldescent.blogspot.com/2017/01/99-edward-iii-descent-for-danny-dyer-b.html

[Paulo Canedo]

My post was a mix of a copy and of a retelling.

[Steve Riggan]

Thanks. Will do.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 4, 2017, at 3:55 PM, John Higgins <jhigg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 3:22:14 PM UTC-7, Steve Riggan wrote:
>> Very interesting information! I had not seen these details before on the later lineage and it may explain a lot about the later condition of the family. Yes they were very tough survivors. I am in touch with Albert and Anne's great granddaughter so will share this with her.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Paulo Canedo <paulorica...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Brad Verity gives some more details on how the Buttivants became poor. The 1799 bankruptcy wasn't really the main issue since James recovered from it. In 1806, he was appointed inspector of Norwich camblets for the East India and in 1809 he and his family moved to Kennington a suburb of London. James and Anne had a great family with 10 children but in April 1824 they received the news of the death of their oldest son John Henry Buttivant in the previous summer in Macau. It was fatal to James he died a month later in May 1824. His death was registered in the Gentlemen's Magazine showing he had achieved certain social status but it was also the peak of that status. Because of the deaths of both James and John the family was left in mourning and in a precarious financial situation. The widowed Anne returned to Norwich settling in the suburb of Bracondale with her eldest daughter Sarah a spinster who was the only beneficiary and excutrix of her will.

>>> Charles is the generation that starts from a mercantile middle-class family in a London suburb, and ends in the slums of Victorian London's East End he is a tragical figute. He was the third of five sons and only 19 years old when his father died. The 1827 bankruptcy of his father's trading business in East India House was actually fault of his elder brother James and of his brother-in-law Henry Illingworth husband of his sister Catherine however it still had a negative impact on Charles and his brothers with the family business lost they had to start their own careers. Charles started promisingly enough forming W. Goddard as coal merchants on Milbank Street in Westminster. In 1830 at 26 he married Mary Ann Frampton and starting in 1836 they had five surviving children but a decade after the birth of his first surviving child ie in 1846 things began becoming sour for Charles: his business partnership dissolved in 1846, and Charles went from being a coal merchant to being a secretary to coal merchants. About this time, he started up an affair with Hannah Wing who was 20 years younger and who bore him the first of six children a year later ie in 1847. In 1851 they had the second. In 1861 Charles said in the Morning Post that he would not hold himself responsible for any debts of his wife Mary Ann could incur having separated more than 12 years before. That same year's census has Charles and Hannah living as a married couple in Whitechapel with their growing famiy. In that time divorce was very expensive only the upper class could afford it. Common law wifes such as Hannah could assume the surname of the man they were living with but they had no legal rights or recourse. However at this point Charles's downward spiral was far more concerning than his bigamy. Eventually he suicided in 1865. At the inquest held at the Wellington Tavern, Cannon Street Road two nights aftet that Mr. C. Emerson George testified, "I was an intimate friend of the deceased. He had fallen into great difficulties in consequence !
> of n!
>>> ot being able to get cargoes for ships. He was a man of good ability and education, and he was always trying to get something to do, but the worst of it was that whenever a ship went in, somebody else, younger men than himself, always got hold of it. His furniture was going to be removed under a bill of sale...and the landlord had threatened to distrain for the rent. He had been summoned to the county court for one debt, and for another he had been served with a writ. He had been requested by the guardians of the poor to appear before them to show cause why he did not pay the arrears of the poor-rate...He failed through sheer misfortune" ['Suicide Through Misfortune', Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, July 16, 1865]. The physician at the inquest testified that Charles had "expired in consequence of taking a very large dose of oil of bitter almonds. He had drunk about one ounce." But the most heartbreaking testimony came from Charles and Hannah's 18-year-old eldest daughter, Hannah Martha Buttivant "The deceased was my father. He was a shipping clerk. He had latterly been very desponding in consequence of the reduced circumstances of his family. On Monday last I found him lying upon the bed in his room, groaning. There was a smell of bitter almonds in the room, and I said, 'Father, you have taken the bitter almonds!' He said to his youngest child, who was seated on the bed near him, 'Don't cry, dear.' I again spoke to him, and said, 'I cannot remain and see you suffering thus. I will go and call ma.' He gave a groan and exclaimed, 'Oh, my God!' He died in half an hour in the presence of three doctors. He had been given the bottle of bitter almonds at the docks by a person who brought it with him to this country from a chemist in Port Adelaide". The jury at the inquest returned a verdict that the deceased took his own life in a state of temporary mental derangement. Hannah Wing kept the Buttivant surname and the public status as Charles's widow for the rest of her long life. She married off all three o!

[Ian Goddard]

On 03/09/17 19:48, Richard Smith wrote:
> It seems frequently to be repeated that "experts say" 80% of the
> population (presumably meaning the English or perhaps British
> population) are likely to be descended from Edward III. I've never seen
> a citation for this figure, and it smacks a little of being an off the
> cuff remark by someone who hadn't a statistical model to back it up;
> nevertheless I don't intrinsically find it hard to believe.
>
> Of course, this supposed 80% figure refers to any descents, not a
> verifiable descent. All the same, my guess would be the that the
> majority of verifiable descendants of Edward III were either working
> class or descended through a working class ancestor. During the last,
> say, 300 years, during which period it is relatively straightforward to
> trace descents regardless of social class, there have been vastly more
> working class people than in the gentry.

The big problem with general statements along the lines that 80%, 100%
or whatever are so descended, and the converse (except for the 100%
case) that they aren't, is that, in practice, they aren't falsifiable.

If you can't pick up such a line by the time you get to the beginning of
PRs you're unlikely to get further because documentation will be
lacking. Prior to that date you're mostly going to depend on property
records. Manorial tenants and freeholders might have some
documentation, subtenants even less and, where you can get anything at
all, lines will be sketchy, uncertain and incomplete.

> Let's consider the documented descendants of Edward III living 1700.
> Maybe very few were working class, but a small number demonstrably were.
> Over the last 300 years, low class mobility means the descendants in
> the gentry, which doubtless comprised the majority of the gentry, have
> married into each other's families; while the few working class
> descendants are so dissipated that are unlikely to have intermarried.
> The result is that the number of verifiable working class descendants
> will have increased enormously much faster than those in the gentry. So
> I would be astonished if it were not now the case that the majority of
> verifiable descendants were working class or had descents through a
> working class ancestor.

The same intermarriage that causes pedigree collapse in the gentry also
applied, IME, further down the scale with the same effect. I can
certainly find a number of 2nd cousin marriages in my own ancestry and
one far more complex set of intermarriages which leaves me with 5 lines
back to the same C17th couple. An earlier line has 4 out of 5
successive generations marrying Broadhead brides; I don't have any
further information about their ancestry except that the Broadhead
family goes back to the late C13th century hereabouts and although they
seem to have been one of the more prominent local families they were
just manorial tenants. And then most of my brick walls involve one
surname with, apparently, a single local ancestor who overlapped Edward III.

I think the general theory behind the descents from Edward III/William
I/Charlemagne is that they would have an increasing number of
descendants in each generation so that after sufficient generations the
theoretical number of descendants becomes greater than the actual
population whilst the number of theoretical ancestors of each member of
the later generation exceeds the English (or whatever) population at the
time of the appropriate monarch.

In practice cousin marriages of various degrees at all levels of society
will have reduced this effect. The extent to which this interfered with
the theory is, AFAICS untestable. So we have a bundle of hypotheses
which are inherently unfalsifiable and yet we seem condemned to discuss
them at fairly frequent intervals.

--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk

[joe...@gmail.com]

I dont think you want to entangle the Edward III question with the charlemagne question. The number of generations since Charlemagne ensures that even a model with the most insanely restrictive parameters imaginable still shows that he is truly the father of practically all of present day Europe.
I have a few *trillion* spaces in my ahnentafel to fill for people contemporaneous to Charlemagne, and other than a few hundred people at a time, nobody in Europe knew if their, say, 21x great grandfather was Charlemagne or not, so clearly they did not selectively choose a spouse based on that knowledge.
Even in a society with a very strict caste system there would have been enough people who slept with the stable boy or the local hooker to ensure the same result.

[Peter Stewart]

I agree, we can never know how far illegitimacy has spread any remote
ancestor throughout the population.

The Edward III question is already tangled enough in itself anyway - the
supposed percentage of people with substantially English ancestry who
may be his descendants is tangled up with the percentage of lines that
may be traceable.

It would be interesting to know if anyone in this group can trace at
least one line each for 20% of their great-great-grandparents (say 3 of
the 16, assuming these are three different people) back to
mid-14th-century England without running into Edward III.

Statistics and estimates can be a dangerous temptation: 80% is a
proportion that is bound to encourage speculation in genealogy - as with
name transmission, where studies are often blithely ignored that find
somewhat less than 80% of Frankish aristocrats in the 8th and 9th
centuries can be shown to have been given names from either parent's
family (for instance, 77% in western Francia according to Régine Le Jan,
66% in Swabia according to Hans-Werner Goetz).

Peter Stewart

[Hal Bradley]

Peter,

Out of my 16 great-great-grandparents:

6 with no relationship at all nor traceable ancestry to the 14th century.
3 with descent from Edward III (one line which has been challenged with
good arguments on both sides; if not accepted then there is traceable
ancestry to Edward I).
7 with traceable ancestry to Henry I, Henry II, John, Henry III or Edward I
with no descent from Edward III.

So I have 7 or 8 of 16 great-great-grandparents who have at least one line

back to mid-14th-century England without running into Edward III.

Hal Bradley



On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

> On 05-Sep-17 10:37 AM, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> I agree, we can never know how far illegitimacy has spread any remote
> ancestor throughout the population.
>
> The Edward III question is already tangled enough in itself anyway - the
> supposed percentage of people with substantially English ancestry who may
> be his descendants is tangled up with the percentage of lines that may be
> traceable.
>
> It would be interesting to know if anyone in this group can trace at least
> one line each for 20% of their great-great-grandparents (say 3 of the 16,
> assuming these are three different people) back to mid-14th-century England
> without running into Edward III.
>
> Statistics and estimates can be a dangerous temptation: 80% is a
> proportion that is bound to encourage speculation in genealogy - as with
> name transmission, where studies are often blithely ignored that find
> somewhat less than 80% of Frankish aristocrats in the 8th and 9th centuries
> can be shown to have been given names from either parent's family (for
> instance, 77% in western Francia according to Régine Le Jan, 66% in Swabia
> according to Hans-Werner Goetz).
>
> Peter Stewart
>
>
>
>

[John Higgins]

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 4:19:41 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> My post was a mix of a copy and of a retelling.

It's customary - and respectful of the author - to distinguish between "copying" (or quoting) and what you refer to as "retelling" by the appropriate use of quotation marks. This is particularly true in this case when so much of what you wrote is copying and therefore a quotation. Brad Verity's careful work deserves that respect.

[Steve Riggan]

Out of my 16 great-great grandparents, only 3 have traceable royal ancestry. One is to Edward III and the others to Edward I. Most of my other lines can be traced as far as immigration to this country with only 5 or 6 to Europe. I have one of these lines can be traced to a prominent landed family in England in the 1400's but no royal descents.

Steve Riggan

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 4, 2017, at 8:09 PM, Hal Bradley <colonial...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> Out of my 16 great-great-grandparents:
>
> 6 with no relationship at all nor traceable ancestry to the 14th century.
> 3 with descent from Edward III (one line which has been challenged with
> good arguments on both sides; if not accepted then there is traceable
> ancestry to Edward I).
> 7 with traceable ancestry to Henry I, Henry II, John, Henry III or Edward I
> with no descent from Edward III.
>
> So I have 7 or 8 of 16 great-great-grandparents who have at least one line
> back to mid-14th-century England without running into Edward III.
>
> Hal Bradley
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>> On 05-Sep-17 10:37 AM, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>

[Peter Stewart]

On 05-Sep-17 10:37 AM, joe...@gmail.com wrote:

I wonder how much less frequent this kind of downward social mobility is
estimated to be in European countries where 'nobility' was somewhat more
like a caste system than in England. Edward III's contemporary the Holy
Roman emperor Charles IV had 10 children, but I haven't seen estimates
that 80% of any national population are probably descended from him.

In the English system all children of a peer were commoners (even if
they had courtesy titles), whereas in other places they would all have
enjoyed the privileges of 'noble' rank and their descendants had this to
lose by their marrying 'down'.

But even where a more rigid social stratification was established, as in
Germany, there were parvenus - such as the Thurn und Taxis family - who
made their way through trade to the status of 'ebenbürtig' with the
older ruling families.

Peter Stewart

[Robert O'Connor]

On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 15:45:11 UTC+12, Steve Riggan wrote:
> Out of my 16 great-great grandparents, only 3 have traceable royal ancestry. One is to Edward III and the others to Edward I. Most of my other lines can be traced as far as immigration to this country with only 5 or 6 to Europe. I have one of these lines can be traced to a prominent landed family in England in the 1400's but no royal descents.
>
> Steve Riggan
>

When you say "this country", which country do you mean. This is a newsgroup with a worldwide following, not just a following from one country.

Robert O'Connor

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 7:01:26 AM UTC+2, Peter Stewart wrote:

> I wonder how much less frequent this kind of downward social mobility is
> estimated to be in European countries where 'nobility' was somewhat more
> like a caste system than in England. Edward III's contemporary the Holy
> Roman emperor Charles IV had 10 children, but I haven't seen estimates
> that 80% of any national population are probably descended from him.

I have been working on Belgium lately. I do not think you can generalize usefully about Britain versus Europe. Within Britain I think there are very big differences between say the southeastern cities like London and Norwich, and the deep countryside (with their surrounding manors). There are also differences in the countryside, with the sparsely populated marches have quite a different dynamic for example. Within Europe there also massive regional differences.

I think more useful is to look for factors which make a difference nearly always. Too suggest 3:
whether the clergy could have children,
whether there was a substantial merchant class, such as in the free cities
whether the rural work was done by a large servile class (such as in heavily populated lowlands) or by thinner clan-like kinship networks (which I think was more typical in the pastoral economies of the marches).

[Steve Riggan]

The American colonies. Sorry, I didn't clarify.

Sent from my iPad

[Ian Goddard]

On 05/09/17 01:37, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> The number of generations since Charlemagne ensures that even a model with the most insanely restrictive parameters imaginable still shows that he is truly the father of practically all of present day Europe.

It is not a falsifiable hypothesis. How does it "show" anything?

[joe...@gmail.com]

My children have a complete solid 7 generation tree, and some of those 7th generation ancestors have a complete 7 generation solid tree. Most of the 7 generations have been backed up via DNA.

I am an American at the bottom of the social ladder.

Out of these 64 ancestors which are all over Europe: (England, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands,Poland,Ireland):

1 of them can be traced, probably, to Edward 3.
2 more can be traced to mid 14th C but are not E3 descendants.

None of the rest can be traced back to 14th C, but many of them back to c1550 which is good enough to tell me that a E3 descent of any kind is highly, highly, highly unlikely. Anyone born in 1550 would only have 128 ancestors in edward3's generation and there is no reason to think that tiny sample set would include a king.

Three of these 64 probably get close enough to titled folks that a E1 descent would not be a total shock,but more likely than not there is not one of those either that will ever be traceable.

Joe c

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Joe, could you please give the likely descent from Edward III? I would like to check it.

[P J Evans]

Your tree sounds like mine - except that mine includes one line that goes to New Jersey about 1800 and stops there, and several families from the north of England in the 19th century that can't be traced back before the mid-17/mid-18th centuries. Most of them were farmers, some were craftsmen.

I have ONE person who can be traced to Edward I on multiple lines (Audrey Barlow and Jeremy Clarke (twice) through both of her parents).

[Paulo Canedo]

Hello, Mr. Evans, through Jeremy Clarke you may have descent from Edward III however that rests on a connection not accepeted by all scholars that is the Neville-Weston connection. Some scholars accept it others do not.

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 2:43:27 PM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> Dear Joe, could you please give the likely descent from Edward III? I would like to check it.

The descent is through Thomas Dudley governor of Massachusetts. I believe it is "probable", meaning, more likely than not, but others might say "possible" or less.

Certainly it is not 'solid' by any means. Which, if it is not proven in the future would leave 64 4x-great grandparents well traced with none leading back to Edward III.

I am hopeful that a current book in progress will help to clear up some of those issues.

--Joe C

[Paulo Canedo]

So like many you descend from Thomas Dudley. About Thomas Dudley's descent from Edward III. Thomas Dudley's use of the Sutton-Dudley heralds in his will proves he was descended from them the College of Arms confirmed that Thomas Dudley had right to use them. To me the question is where exactly he belonged in the Sutton-Dudleys. As you know Marshall Kirk made a very good case he was paternal grandson of Henry Dudley and it appears that H. Allen Curtis proved it see http://www.familypage.org/mystdud.pdf and https://web.archive.org/web/20110726045518/http://www.familypage.org/RogerSonoHenry.pdf.

[joe...@gmail.com]

Some corrections to your statements are in order:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 3:52:23 PM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote:
"> So like many you descend from Thomas Dudley. About Thomas Dudley's descent from Edward III. Thomas Dudley's use of the Sutton-Dudley heralds in his will proves he was descended from them"

-> No, it proves merely that 1) he wanted people to think he was OR 2) he just liked the way they looked OR 3) he was descended from them.

"the College of Arms confirmed that Thomas Dudley had right to use them. "

-> The College of Arms did no such thing, and anyway statement is as useful as if your uncle Bob had confirmed it.

"To me the question is where exactly he belonged in the Sutton-Dudleys. As you know Marshall Kirk made a very good case he was paternal grandson of Henry Dudley and it appears that H. Allen Curtis proved it see http://www.familypage.org/mystdud.pdf and https://web.archive.org/web/20110726045518/http://www.familypage.org/RogerSonoHenry.pdf."

As I said, I think it is a very good case, and I think he is probably right on target, but falls short of an absolute 'proof' because it fails (in my opinion) to resolve the conflicting evidence sufficiently to rule out alternatives.
--Joe C

[Paulo Canedo]

That he wanted people to believe he was can be easily discarded if he wanted so he would have put it in many if not all of his documents not only in his will that I'm sure that most of the colony did not see. About the College of Arms. From H.Allen Curtis ´In a letter dated 9 February 1953, Captain de La Lanne-Mirrlees, then Rouge
Dragon pursuivant, of the College of Arms agreed that Thomas Dudley was entitled to
the use of the Sutton-Dudley coat of arms, and that his seal provides “reasonable, though
inferential proof” of Thomas Dudley’s paternal lineage.`

[Jan Wolfe]

On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 9:34:36 PM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
...

> It would be interesting to know if anyone in this group can trace at
> least one line each for 20% of their great-great-grandparents (say 3 of
> the 16, assuming these are three different people) back to
> mid-14th-century England without running into Edward III.

...
> Peter Stewart

Of my 16 great-great-grandparents, four have British ancestry. One of them can be traced to Henry VII (and James V). One of them can be traced to Edward I but not, to my knowledge, to Edward III. The third can be traced to the 1300s (10 of his ancestors), but not, to my knowledge, to Edward III (or any of the post conquest English kings). Of the fourth, I know his birth date and birth place in Ireland and the names of his parents, but nothing more.

Eight of my great-great-grandparents were Swiss. Of them, two have been traced to ordinary people living in the mid 1400s (all but one of the others, via parish registers, to ancestors in the 1500s or 1600s). Four of my great-great-grandparents lived near Stuttgart. Three of them have been traced to ordinary people living in the mid 1400s (all three to the same people).

Five of my spouse's great-great-grandparents have British ancestry. One of them can be traced to Henry II, but not, to our knowledge, to Edward III. (This ancestor may also be a descendant of John, but that line is not completely documented).

[joe...@gmail.com]

> That he wanted people to believe he was can be easily discarded if he wanted so he would have put it in many if not all of his documents not only in his will that I'm sure that most of the colony did not see. About the College of Arms. From H.Allen Curtis ´In a letter dated 9 February 1953, Captain de La Lanne-Mirrlees, then Rouge
> Dragon pursuivant, of the College of Arms agreed that Thomas Dudley was entitled to
> the use of the Sutton-Dudley coat of arms, and that his seal provides “reasonable, though
> inferential proof” of Thomas Dudley’s paternal lineage.`

I will refer you to the archives and not rehash this here again, but aside from the college at arms in 1953 having as much ability to declare these things as your uncle Bob, the statement is internally contradictory to say that he both "was entitled" but that the lineage is only "inferential".
--Joe C

[Peter Stewart]

On 06-Sep-17 4:35 AM, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> My children have a complete solid 7 generation tree, and some of those 7th generation ancestors have a complete 7 generation solid tree. Most of the 7 generations have been backed up via DNA.
>
> I am an American at the bottom of the social ladder.
>
> Out of these 64 ancestors which are all over Europe: (England, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands,Poland,Ireland):
>
> 1 of them can be traced, probably, to Edward 3.
> 2 more can be traced to mid 14th C but are not E3 descendants.
>
> None of the rest can be traced back to 14th C, but many of them back to c1550 which is good enough to tell me that a E3 descent of any kind is highly, highly, highly unlikely. Anyone born in 1550 would only have 128 ancestors in edward3's generation and there is no reason to think that tiny sample set would include a king.

This is an example of what I meant by the entanglement of Edward III
descent with traceability - likelihood and what is known may be at odds,
and in any case likelihood in human affairs (not least reproductive
ones) may be as unsafe a guide as ignorance. 'Downward' socio-economic
mobility can be a very rapid spiral, and going from top to bottom within
7 generations is hardly unexampled. Nor is the reverse, as the ancestry
of Prince Charles shows.

My impression of the frequency of Edward III is based on the family
lines I know best, that all remained in England until at least the
mid-19th century. The chances of intermarriage between people with
traceable 14th-century ancestry including and not including Edward III
was perhaps higher in these circumstances than with earlier emigrant groups.

In view of this, it would be interesting to know what proportion of
American 'gateway' ancestors traced at least to the mid-14th century did
not have a known line to Edward III.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:25:00 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> In view of this, it would be interesting to know what proportion of
> American 'gateway' ancestors traced at least to the mid-14th century did
> not have a known line to Edward III.

I have four that I can trace that early, one has a line from Edward III, two only trace to Edward I, and one has a reasonably broad pedigree but no royalty whatsoever, though with numerous 'near misses, where the royal-derived marriage came a generation after, i.e. involved a sibling of the immigrant's ancestor.

I have to think that the timing of the emigration established an artificial barrier, removing immigrants of this class from proximity to the pool of families with traceable royal descent just as it was in the process of permeating the lower gentry, and instead presenting them with a new marriage pool that was largely untraceable, due to a combination of representing a different class distribution than their likely marriage pool in England, and the poor documentation regarding the pre-immigration origin of the majority of immigrants.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

These are the effects I had in mind, but still I am surprised at the
frequency of descents from earlier kings that apparently bypass Edward III.

I wonder how many contemporaries of his are traced in these cases - if
only a small proportion of ancestors living in his time are known, then
the exercise is not very illuminating and we are left with hunches as to
likelihood.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:38:56 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> These are the effects I had in mind, but still I am surprised at the
> frequency of descents from earlier kings that apparently bypass Edward III.
>
> I wonder how many contemporaries of his are traced in these cases - if
> only a small proportion of ancestors living in his time are known, then
> the exercise is not very illuminating and we are left with hunches as to
> likelihood.

Entirely incidental, but one of my Edward I-only immigrants has (I think I am counting this right) 9 different lines from Edward I. About 2/3 of my 15 immigrant-Edward I lines involve just two conduits, through Margaret de Audley (m. Ralph, Earl Stafford), or Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk (m. Robert Goushill). This is probably a distorted picture, though, since two of the three immigrants (with relatively broad pedigrees) happen to converge very quickly on the same small group of intermarrying families. The third is more a stick back to the Goushill/Wingfield marriage, and though there are more lines known before that for both husband and wife, by that point the opportunities were pretty limited. The one without royals is pretty broad from the early 1500s to the 1300s, just unlucky (if that is the word for it).

When I last looked a couple of decades ago, those New England colonial immigrants whose most-recent royal was Edward I were disproportionate in number to either Edward III or Henry III, the next two highest.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On 06-Sep-17 12:05 PM, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:38:56 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> These are the effects I had in mind, but still I am surprised at the
>> frequency of descents from earlier kings that apparently bypass Edward III.
>>
>> I wonder how many contemporaries of his are traced in these cases - if
>> only a small proportion of ancestors living in his time are known, then
>> the exercise is not very illuminating and we are left with hunches as to
>> likelihood.
> Entirely incidental, but one of my Edward I-only immigrants has (I think I am counting this right) 9 different lines from Edward I. About 2/3 of my 15 immigrant-Edward I lines involve just two conduits, through Margaret de Audley (m. Ralph, Earl Stafford), or Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk (m. Robert Goushill). This is probably a distorted picture, though, since two of the three immigrants (with relatively broad pedigrees) happen to converge very quickly on the same small group of intermarrying families. The third is more a stick back to the Goushill/Wingfield marriage, and though there are more lines known before that for both husband and wife, by that point the opportunities were pretty limited. The one without royals is pretty broad from the early 1500s to the 1300s, just unlucky (if that is the word for it).

I would say lucky - the offspring of Edward III are not exactly
ancestors to be proud of, unless your criteria are focused on birth rank
as taking priority over moral character or political achievement. Edward
III himself, who initiated the French pretendership that led to the 100
Years' war, was not much better than his brood of failures. Malevolent
Plantagenet nincompoops are not my idea of desirable ancestors.

Peter Stewart

[Chuck Owens]

I have one Great Great Grandparent with an Edward III descent and another Great Great Grandparent with a Henry I descent. It's quite the coincidence that they were married to each other.

[Patrick Nielsen Hayden]

On 2017-09-05 01:32:01 +0000, Peter Stewart said:

> It would be interesting to know if anyone in this group can trace at
> least one line each for 20% of their great-great-grandparents (say 3 of
> the 16, assuming these are three different people) back to
> mid-14th-century England without running into Edward III.

Yes, my wife.

Great-great grandmother Mary Elizabeth Bingham (1853-1933), descendant
of Olive Welby (1604-1692), most recent royal ancestor Edward I.

Great-great grandfather Hyrum Smith Phelps (1846-1926), descendant of
Margaret Wyatt (1595-1675), most recent royal ancestor Henry I.

Great-great grandfather Charles Hopkins Allen (1830-1922), descendant
of William Wentworth (1616-1697), most recent royal ancestor Henry I.

Great-great grandfather Alonzo Hamilton Packer (1841-1917), descendant
of Alice Freeman (~1595-1658), most recent royal ancestor Aethelred II
(d. 1016).

No known descents from Edward III.

[Paulo Canedo]

Em quarta-feira, 6 de setembro de 2017 00:25:00 UTC+1, Peter Stewart escreveu:


> In view of this, it would be interesting to know what proportion of
> American 'gateway' ancestors traced at least to the mid-14th century did
> not have a known line to Edward III.
>
> Peter Stewart

There is one I can tell Agnes Harris.

[John Higgins]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:25:00 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> In view of this, it would be interesting to know what proportion of
> American 'gateway' ancestors traced at least to the mid-14th century did
> not have a known line to Edward III.
>
> Peter Stewart

One possible answer to Peter's question might be provided by Douglas Richardson's "Plantagenet Ancestry". Of the roughly 150 surnames of gateway ancestors (excluding siblings) covered in at least the 1st edition of that work, only slightly more than half have descents from Edward III. The remainder derive their Plantagenet descents from an earlier monarch - or from a non-monarch Plantagenet descendant (e.g., Hamelin Plantagenet). Make of that what you will... :-)

[Peter Stewart]

Thank you, John - 50%+ in a sample with no more than a few lines traced
over an interval of 4+ centuries suggests to me that the 80% claim
overall for descendants of non-emigrant English stock is probably not
far from the mark.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 08-Sep-17 9:11 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 08-Sep-17 8:06 AM, John Higgins wrote:

> Thank you, John - 50%+ in a sample with no more than a few lines
> traced over an interval of 4+ centuries suggests to me that the 80%
> claim overall for descendants of non-emigrant English stock is
> probably not far from the mark.

And I should add the following question then occurs: What factors
(socio-economic, geographic or other) might cause some Americans to have
a disproportionately high representation of the 50%- non-Edward III
gateways in their ancestry?

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:19:17 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> And I should add the following question then occurs: What factors
> (socio-economic, geographic or other) might cause some Americans to have
> a disproportionately high representation of the 50%- non-Edward III
> gateways in their ancestry?

Given that the overall number of immigrants during the period is in the 10s of thousands and we have 150 who are traced to any Plantagenet, most are not going to have a large number of royal-descended immigrant ancestors, and those that do are going to be subject to some pretty large 'sampling' variation. I suspect that if more than one of my grandparents derived from this immigrant stock, I would have several additional royal immigrants and the proportions would tend to converge on the average.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

The question of whether or not the small 'gateway' group is a
representative sample of all immigrants from England is certainly beyond
my ken. Since there were strong confessional factors causing many people
to cross the Atlantic until the 19th century, I suppose the emigrants
represented somewhat tighter socio-economic groupings than a random
sample of the English population (Methodists tended to intermarry with
other Methodists, Quakers with Quakers, and so on, for an indeterminate
time before and after arrival in America).

This is the kind of complexity that leads to modelling rather than
direct statistical analysis, so that the study is almost as open to art
as to science.

Peter Stewart

[Wjhonson]

Actually Llewellyn, Ruler of North /Wales/ 1194-1240

Olive Welby is 13 from him, while being 16 from E1

[Patrick Nielsen Hayden]

Good point! There's a tendency to deprecate the "royal" status of
medieval Welsh rulers, and you're right to call me on it.

[Brad Verity]

On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 3:06:47 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
> One possible answer to Peter's question might be provided by Douglas Richardson's "Plantagenet Ancestry". Of the roughly 150 surnames of gateway ancestors (excluding siblings) covered in at least the 1st edition of that work, only slightly more than half have descents from Edward III. The remainder derive their Plantagenet descents from an earlier monarch - or from a non-monarch Plantagenet descendant (e.g., Hamelin Plantagenet). Make of that what you will... :-)

Let's take one of those Edward III New England immigrants from Plantagenet Ancestry: the Mayflower passenger Capt. Richard More of Salem, Mass. (1614-by 1696).

Per the Mayflower Society, there are 31 Mayflower passengers known to have descendants living today. The list is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mayflower_Society

Is Capt. More the only one on the list with a traceable line of descent from Edward III?

How many descendants of Capt. More are living today? Hundreds? Thousands? What percentage of the total number of Mayflower descendants living today (which the Mayflower Society claims is in the tens of millions) are descended from Capt. More?

Cheers, ----Brad

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 7:11:31 PM UTC-4, Brad Verity wrote:
> On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 3:06:47 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
> > One possible answer to Peter's question might be provided by Douglas Richardson's "Plantagenet Ancestry". Of the roughly 150 surnames of gateway ancestors (excluding siblings) covered in at least the 1st edition of that work, only slightly more than half have descents from Edward III. The remainder derive their Plantagenet descents from an earlier monarch - or from a non-monarch Plantagenet descendant (e.g., Hamelin Plantagenet). Make of that what you will... :-)
>
> Let's take one of those Edward III New England immigrants from Plantagenet Ancestry: the Mayflower passenger Capt. Richard More of Salem, Mass. (1614-by 1696).
>
> Per the Mayflower Society, there are 31 Mayflower passengers known to have descendants living today. The list is here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mayflower_Society
>
> Is Capt. More the only one on the list with a traceable line of descent from Edward III?

He is the only one with any royal ancestry proven whatsoever (although don't know if the pending TAG article has something new)

>
> How many descendants of Capt. More are living today? Hundreds? Thousands? What percentage of the total number of Mayflower descendants living today (which the Mayflower Society claims is in the tens of millions) are descended from Capt. More?

Anecdotally, the number is not in the millions as it is for some other mayflower passengers I've never met or heard of one despite the onslaught of John Alden, Richard Warren, Francis Cooke descendants out there.

As far as I can tell he only has 10 known grandchildren.

[Paulo Canedo]

Capt. Richard More is the only one with a proved line from royalty he is the Mayflower passenger with less descendants in the Mayflower Society. There are also conjectures of royal descent for the Winslows.

[jmb...@albion.edu]

Some conjectures for Henry Samson (of Henlow, Bedfordshire) and his maternal aunt, Mrs. Ann Tilley, as well -- they have proven medieval ancestry (Latimer), but no documented connection to royalty yet. See Robert Leigh Ward's article, "The Baronial Ancestry of Henry Sampson, Humility Cooper, and Ann (Cooper) Tilley," TG 6:166. Last time I checked, most speculation centered on their Greene ancestry being derived from the family of Greene's Norton, Northampton.

1. Henry Samson
2. James Samson & Martha Cooper (sister of Ann Tilley)
3. Edmund Cooper & Mary Wyne
4. Michael Cooper & Elizabeth Page
5. Robert Page & Cicily Greene
6. John Greene (of uncertain parentage) & Edith Latimer
Earliest proven ancestors for Edith go back to circa Norman Conquest (Raimbeaucourt, Langetot, etc.)

Jim+

[jmb...@albion.edu]

Of course, relevant to this thread, Mrs. Ann (Cooper) Tilley and Humility Cooper left no descendants. Henry Samson/Sampson did.
Jim+

[Paulo Canedo]

De ar Jim, what about this royal line to Henry Samson?:
Louis IV of France
Charles of Laon
Gerberge of Brabant
Maud de Louvain
Lambert of Lens
Judith of Lens
Matilda of Huntingdon
Matilda de Senlis
Walter FitzRobert de Clare
Alice FitzWalter
Hamon Peche
Gilbert Pecche
Gilbert Pecche
Simon Pecche
William Pecche
Margaret Peche
John Latimer
Nicholas Latimer
Edith Latimer
Cicily Greene
Elizabeth Page
Edmund Cooper
Martha Cooper
Henry Samson

[jmb...@albion.edu]

I once asked about this also, can't remember at the moment if it was on-list, but apparently the breakdown is at the generation of William de Peche (note spelling), father of Margaret (Peche) Latimer. There is no evidence or proof of this William's parentage, being only a by-line as father of Robert Latimer's wife; no identifying places or dates connecting him to Simon and/or Gilbert Pecche. Another possibility perhaps, but no evidence as of yet.
Jim+

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Jim, about the spelling don't worry too much. Spelling differences in a surname were common. There was one noble family whose surname could be spelled in four different ways: Sergeaux, Sergeux, Cergeaux and Cergeux.

[jmb...@albion.edu]

Of course. See "Raimbeaucourt" in my original post-- I've been told it has one of the highest number of variations in contemporary spellings at the time. But at the same time it can't just be ignored/dismissed unless other positively identifying documents corroborate it. And remember, owners/tenants/residents of a landholding could all have the same "surname" without being related. As far as I know, there is *nothing* other than the similar name to link Robert Latimer's father-in-law to the royally-descended Pecche family. And no other data on the man who is specifically called the father of Robert's wife.
Jim+