Impoverished descendants of Edward III

[Wjhonson]

Recently it was suggested that "coal miners" could not descend from Edward III

How about corn gleaners?

http://books.google.com/books?id=u_eIrJpc_T0C&pg=RA1-PA213

If your father so encumbers the estate, you might become one who gleans in the fields like poor Bridget Roos, nine steps from Edward III.

[Steve Riggan]

Very interesting read. This probably happened to a few of the aristocratic class with hard times, bad estate management, etc. John Roos' mother Mary Strangways was the great-great granddaughter of John Greystoke, 4th Lord Greystoke whose sister Maud Greystoke, wife of Eudo de Welles, was my ancestress. Adds more colorful history to the family lineage although it's a sad story.
Steve Riggan

> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Impoverished descendants of Edward III
> From: wjho...@aol.com
> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 01:14:26 -0400

> -------------------------------
> 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

[John Higgins]

If you follow the sources specified in the HOP article (particularly
Thoroton's Notts), you'll see that the comment about "gleaning corn"
has the air of community gossip rather than established fact. But
some people will believe anything....

And if you go back to the Jan. 16 thread that is mentioned but not
specifically cited above, readers will see that it was you that
introduced the "suggestion" that coal miners could not descend from
Edward III - by distorting the comments of another poster who was
instead making the point that insufficient records existed to support
Edward III descents for coal miners (and like classes), not that such
descents could not occur.

[Wjhonson]

John that's nonsense.
*I* never said that coal miners could not descend from Edward III
You must have a reading comprehension problem.

[Ian Goddard]

And I was that other poster. My first reaction was the same as yours
but if we grant community gossip ("tradition has it") to be correct the
question arises as to how many of her fellow gleaners were her cousins.

The original problem was the existing sweeping and inherently untestable
statements that everyone in ....... (insert desired population) is
descended from Genghis Khan/Naill of the Nine Hostages/William I/Edward
III (delete as applicable).

So far two instances have been put forward. Being generous I can offer
another in that I recall reading somewhere in the depths of Google Books
that "the last of the Nevilles" had been identified as a boot closer in
Northampton. IIRC this raises the known instances by a whole 50%.
Neither separately nor as a whole do these instances present a test of
"everyone".

--
Ian

The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk

[Wjhonson]

What is a boot closer ?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 11:20 am
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III

[John Higgins]

> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> the message

No, it's you that has the reading comprehension problem. Go back and
read my post again, as well as the Jan 16 thread.

I didn't say that YOU had said coal miners could not descend from
Edward III. I said that YOU had said that the suggestion was made (by
another poster) when in fact that was a distortion of the other
poster's words. That was my point.

As to "boot closer", you could try Google. (you DO know what Google
is, don't you?)

[Ian Goddard]

Wjhonson wrote:
> What is a boot closer ?
>

http://www.familytreeservice.co.uk/census-occupations-b-Boot-Closer.html

See also http://www.trickers.com/art_shoe_make.htm

Northampton is & has been for a long time a notable centre for the
manufacture of footwear, largely because the surrounding east midlands
have historically been a rich agricultural area (Stilton cheese is
another by-product).

[Wjhonson]

I'll pass on doing your homework for you.

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

[Wjhonson]

Thank you Ian for a useful reply.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 2:45 pm
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III

[Brad Verity]

On Apr 13, 11:16 am, Ian Goddard <godda...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> And I was that other poster.  My first reaction was the same as yours
> but if we grant community gossip ("tradition has it") to be correct the
> question arises as to how many of her fellow gleaners were her cousins.

None. Bridget Roos is a one-off. She married first, 18 March 1591,
Peter Roos of Laxton Hall in Nottinghamshire, who died 15 November
1605. He was of an established landed gentry family, descended from
the barons Ros of Helmsley Castle in Yorkshire, and so distantly
related to Bridget. They had two sons, Gilbert & Peter. Bridget
quickly remarried one Hugh Clarke, as on 2 March 1606, administration
of the estate of Peter Roos of Laxton was granted to his widow Bridget
Clark alias Roos. The administration was re-granted on 9 June 1610 to
Bridget wife of Hugh Clarke.

It was apparently due to the "wicked unthriftiness" of her elder son,
Gilbert Roos of Laxton Hall, that she was supposedly reduced to
gleaning corn along with other poor villagers in Laxton, presumably
after being widowed a second time. Her misfortune did not prevent
either Gilbert or her younger son, Peter Roos of Knesale, from
marrying with minor gentry families, the Orrells of South Cave, and
Marshalls, respectively. Her descendants were still being tracked by
the heralds, at least down to 1670:
http://archive.org/stream/whitmoretractsco00whit#page/n53/mode/2up

I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I think it would be very
rare for a descendant of Edward III to be a 19th-century British coal
miner, especially a legitimate descendant. I'm going out on a limb
and saying that I would even be surprised to find a 19th-century
American descendant of Edward III as a coal miner.

Cheers, ----Brad

[Richard Carruthers]

Wasn't it the "Marquis of Ruvigny" who originated such claims?

[Wjhonson]

Ooooo a challenge.....
But without a stronger stance, you leave it wide open.
If I were to find one, you could just say "well that's the rare exception"
So it's not really the sort of challenge which can be disproven.

<<I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I think it would be very
rare for a descendant of Edward III to be a 19th-century British coal
miner, especially a legitimate descendant. I'm going out on a limb
and saying that I would even be surprised to find a 19th-century
American descendant of Edward III as a coal miner.>>

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Verity <royald...@hotmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 11:25 am
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III

[Brad Verity]

On Apr 14, 11:31 am, Richard Carruthers <leliw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wasn't it the "Marquis of Ruvigny" who originated such claims?

I believe it was John Horace Round, Richard. Round was a very
thorough researcher, and I don't remember the context around his
statement. As far as I can recall, he never said a specific monarch,
and he may have had in mind Norman or Saxon monarchs prior to the
Plantagenets. I believe he claimed if a man had English ancestors for
at least three generations, he could trace them back to royalty. Or
something to that effect. I always thought he was referring to the
subscribers of 'Notes & Queries', etc, in which case he was no doubt
correct. But apparently he was referring even to yeoman farmer class,
etc.

Thomas Hardy had a bit of fun with this in his 1891 novel 'Tess of the
d'Urbervilles', when he has the antiquarian Parson Tringham inform
peasant farmer John Durbeyfield that his surname is a corruption of
D'Urberville, a noble Norman family from whom the farmer descends.
This goes to the farmer's head, and sets in motion a series of
misfortunes for his daughter Tess.

I don't know that anyone actually took Round up on his challenge.

Cheers, ------Brad

[Wjhonson]

On exactly who the descent goes for Peter Roos of Laxton

http://books.google.com/books?id=ofsUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA111

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Verity <royald...@hotmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 11:25 am
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III

[John Watson]

Dear Brad,

My 3 x great-grandfather John Watson (1828 - 1895) was a descendant of
Edward III and worked in coal mines in South Durham.

Lines of Descendency from Edward III to John Watson

1. line:
1. Edward III m. Philippa of Hainault
2. John of Gaunt m. Katherine de Roet
3. Joan Beaufort m. Ralph de Neville
4. Eleanor Neville m. Henry Percy
5. Henry Percy m. Eleanor Poynings
6. Elizabeth Percy m. Henry Scrope
7. Ann Scrope m. John Vavasour
8. Leonard Vavasour m. Mary Hotham
9. Elizabeth Vavasour m. William Warter
10. Jane Warter m. Marmaduke Dodsworth
11. Matthew Dodsworth m. Thomasin
12. Matthew Dodsworth m. Anne
13. Henry Dodsworth m. Mary Ball
14. John Dodsworth m. Martha Smith
15. Hannah Dodsworth m. Michael Watson
16. Sarah Watson m. N.N.
17. John Watson

2. line:
1. Edward III m. Philippa of Hainault
2. Lionel of Antwerp m. Elizabeth de Burgh
3. Philippe Plantagenet m. Edmund de Mortimer
4. Elizabeth Mortimer m. Henry Percy
5. Henry Percy m. Eleanor Neville
6. Henry Percy m. Eleanor Poynings
7. Elizabeth Percy m. Henry Scrope
8. Ann Scrope m. John Vavasour
9. Leonard Vavasour m. Mary Hotham
10. Elizabeth Vavasour m. William Warter
11. Jane Warter m. Marmaduke Dodsworth
12. Matthew Dodsworth m. Thomasin
13. Matthew Dodsworth m. Anne
14. Henry Dodsworth m. Mary Ball
15. John Dodsworth m. Martha Smith
16. Hannah Dodsworth m. Michael Watson
17. Sarah Watson m. N.N.
18. John Watson

Regards,

John Waston

[Ian Goddard]

Brad Verity wrote:

>
> I don't know that anyone actually took Round up on his challenge.
>

In a similar discussion, possibly here, more likely on sgb, recalled
that he was indeed challenged. And failed.

[Brad Verity]

On Apr 14, 1:40 pm, John Watson <watsonjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>       15. Hannah Dodsworth m. Michael Watson
>       16. Sarah Watson m. N.N.
>       17. John Watson

Well, here we go. Here is a valid example of a 19th-century British
coal miner descended from Edward III. Very interesting, John. I
notice your ancestor was illegitimate. Have you uncovered what led
him into the mines? What was the profession of his maternal
grandfather, Michael Watson?

Thanks & Cheers, -----Brad

[John Watson]

Dear Brad,

The Dodsworth family, from whom I descend, were stewards of the manor
of Settrington in the 1500's and early 1600s and minor local gentry,
but became impoverished over the next few generations. Michael Watson
(1779-1851), a wheelwright and carpenter, married Hannah
Dodsworth,daughter of John Dodswoth a labourer who left less than 10
pounds in his will. Matthew's grandson, John Watson (1828 - 1895)
appears as an agricultural labourer in Kirk Deighton, Yorkshire in the
1851 census. In the 1850s agricultural wages were falling and food
prices were increasing, so like tens of thousands of others, to avoid
starvation, John Watson moved away from the land in search of other
work. Around 1854 the family were in the rapidly expanding coal mining
districts in south Durham. In 1861 John was working at North Bedburn
colliery (Howden-le-Wear). By 1871 the family had moved to New Marske
in north Yorkshire, where the Pease family had established an iron
mine, and being good Quakers, provided the workers with decent housing
and other facilities (although no pub). I am the 5th John Watson in
descent from that John Watson. Our fortunes have improved a bit over
the years.

Regards,

John

[Matt Tompkins]

> On Apr 13, 11:16 am, Ian Goddard <godda...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > And I was that other poster.  My first reaction was the same as yours
> > but if we grant community gossip ("tradition has it") to be correct the
> > question arises as to how many of her fellow gleaners were her cousins.
>

On Apr 14, 7:23 pm, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> None. Bridget Roos is a one-off.  She married first, 18 March 1591,
> Peter Roos of Laxton Hall in Nottinghamshire, who died 15 November
> 1605. He was of an established landed gentry family, descended from
> the barons Ros of Helmsley Castle in Yorkshire, and so distantly
> related to Bridget. They had two sons, Gilbert & Peter. Bridget
> quickly remarried one Hugh Clarke, as on 2 March 1606, administration
> of the estate of Peter Roos of Laxton was granted to his widow Bridget
> Clark alias Roos. The administration was re-granted on 9 June 1610 to
> Bridget wife of Hugh Clarke.
>
> It was apparently due to the "wicked unthriftiness" of her elder son,
> Gilbert Roos of Laxton Hall, that she was supposedly reduced to
> gleaning corn along with other poor villagers in Laxton, presumably
> after being widowed a second time. Her misfortune did not prevent
> either Gilbert or her younger son, Peter Roos of Knesale, from
> marrying with minor gentry families, the Orrells of South Cave, and
> Marshalls, respectively. Her descendants were still being tracked by
> the heralds, at least down to 1670:http://archive.org/stream/whitmoretractsco00whit#page/n53/mode/2up
>
> I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I think it would be very
> rare for a descendant of Edward III to be a 19th-century British coal
> miner, especially a legitimate descendant.  I'm going out on a limb
> and saying that I would even be surprised to find a 19th-century
> American descendant of Edward III as a coal miner.
>

Historians who study social mobility would not think such a thing so
improbable - it is something of a truism in that field that mobility
has always been downwards as well as upwards, but that downwards
movement tends to be much less well documented and consequently
difficult to assess quantitatively. It is argued that we know there
has always been a great deal of upwards mobility, and if that were not
balanced by at least equal downwards movement then the social pyramid
would quickly have become an inverted one. It therefore seems logical
that the 19th-century labouring classes would have contained quite a
few direct male-line descendants of medieval or early-modern
aristocratic and gentry families, and many more female-line
descendants. Most of those descents would no doubt also connect back
through female lines to medieval kings.

A couple of quotes from Lawrence Stone’s well-known Past & Present
article, ‘Social Mobility in England, 1500-1700’, P&P, no. 33 (Apr
1966), pp. 16-55, at pp. 35, 37:

‘Downward mobility was the lot of those who were improvident or
incompetent, extravagant or unlucky. History, however, rarely
records, and even more rarely pays attention to, such tragedies. The
victims sink without trace.’

[Younger sons, who received only a modest share of the family lands
or income, often only for life] ‘were therefore downwardly mobile from
the very beginning of their careers, and were obliged to feed into the
professional and business groups if they were to make their way in the
world. If they failed, their children were liable to sink still
further down the scale and disappear into the great mass of labourers
and small tradesmen. Examples can be found of this downward process,
but the paucity of the evidence makes it virtually impossible to
demonstrate the trend in statistical terms.’

Matt Tompkins

[Chris Dickinson]

Matt Tomkins wrote, with my inserts:

 
> Historians who study social mobility would not think such a thing so
> improbable - it is something of a truism in that field that mobility
> has always been downwards as well as upwards, but that downwards
> movement tends to be much less well documented and consequently
> difficult to assess quantitatively.  It is argued that we know there
> has always been a great deal of upwards mobility, and if that were not
> balanced by at least equal downwards movement then the social pyramid
> would quickly have become an inverted one.  It therefore seems logical
> that the 19th-century labouring classes would have contained quite a
> few direct male-line descendants of medieval or early-modern
> aristocratic and gentry families, and many more female-line
> descendants.  Most of those descents would no doubt also connect back
> through female lines to medieval kings.
 
 

Quite.
 
The vague sort of figure quoted to me in my student days was a 20% mobility per generation (whatever that might mean!).
 
FML Thompson in his work 'English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century' emphasised the difficulty for landed families in providing for younger children (whether in physical assets or job opportunities], making that a key difference between 'aristocracy' and 'gentry'. There is a hell of a lot of difference between having a source of income that is 'safe' (income from land and other ownership) and income that is reliant on your own efforts. Once the safety rope goes you can plunge very fast - and it won't be recorded in Visitations or Burkes.

 
 
 
> A couple of quotes from Lawrence Stone’s well-known Past & Present
> article, ‘Social Mobility in England, 1500-1700’, P&P, no. 33 (Apr
> 1966), pp. 16-55, at pp. 35, 37:
 

That was the first serious academic article I read when I was doing my History A-level in the late sixties. Ah memories!

 
 
> ‘Downward mobility was the lot of those who were improvident or
> incompetent, extravagant or unlucky.  History, however, rarely
> records, and even more rarely pays attention to, such tragedies.  The
> victims sink without trace.’
 
 

Or perhaps he should have written: 'Downward mobility was the lot of those who were improvident or incompetent, extravagant or unlucky - or normal'.
 
 
'It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!” [the Red Queen]
 
and
 
'There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to
fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in
miseries.'
[Brutus]
 
 
Entropy.
 
 

 
 
 
 > [Younger sons, who received only a modest share of the family lands
> or income, often only for life] ‘were therefore downwardly mobile from
> the very beginning of their careers, and were obliged to feed into the
> professional and business groups if they were to make their way in the
> world.  If they failed, their children were liable to sink still
> further down the scale and disappear into the great mass of labourers
> and small tradesmen.  Examples can be found of this downward process,
> but the paucity of the evidence makes it virtually impossible to
> demonstrate the trend in statistical terms.’
 
 
 

Chris

[Brad Verity]

On Apr 14, 8:05 pm, John Watson <watsonjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

> Around 1854 the family were in the rapidly expanding coal mining
> districts in south Durham. In 1861 John was working at North Bedburn
> colliery (Howden-le-Wear). By 1871 the family had moved to New Marske
> in north Yorkshire, where the Pease family had established an iron
> mine, and being good Quakers, provided the workers with decent housing
> and other facilities (although no pub).

Thank you for the brief history, John. I find it very interesting. I
cannot find North Bedburn, Durham in GENUKI, but I did find
neighbouring Witton-le-Wear, where in 1894 "in all there are 700 men
and boys employed", in association with the colliery. If North
Bedburn Colliery employed a similar number, we now have a documented
Edward III descent of one out of 700 coal workers in a Durham village:
http://joinermarriageindex.co.uk/pjoiner/genuki/DUR/WittonleWear/index.html

Rev. Clay's pedigree of Vavasour in his 'Additions to Dugdale's
Visitation of Yorkshire' shows Elizabeth, daughter of Leonard Vavasour
of Addingham, married to "Wm. Warter, of Cranswick on the Wold".
Burke's LG says that William Warter was of Wandsworth, Surrey:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=0NEKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1527&dq=William+Warter+of+Wandsworth&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SoBsUfDKO4zqiwKg1IGICA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=William%20Warter%20of%20Wandsworth&f=false

In the 1612 Visitation of Yorkshire, there is a pedigree of "Warter of
Wansworth" [I don't believe there is a Wansworth/Wandsworth in
Yorkshire, so I presume Wandsworth in Surrey is meant, though it seems
far away for a Yorkshireman to be living], where William himself was
the informant. His dauhter Jane, your ancestor, was not yet married.
No arms are given, the family being of mercantile status from York,
apparently having done well enough for William to marry a daughter of
a younger son from the established gentry family of Vavasour, the
great-granddaughter of a baron. William's nephew Robert Warter did
even better, becoming Lord Mayor of York, and receiving a knighthood
from James I, also being the first of the family to receive a grant of
arms.

The Warter/Vavasour marriage, which occurred by 1580, the year their
eldest son Thomas was born, is one of a lady from an armigerous
Yorkshire gentry family with a non-armigerous gentleman. It would be
interesting to also track how many of these types of marriages
occurred in the 16th-century among Edward III's descendants.

On Apr 15, 2:27 pm, Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk> wrote:
> Historians who study social mobility would not think such a thing so
> improbable - it is something of a truism in that field that mobility
> has always been downwards as well as upwards, but that downwards
> movement tends to be much less well documented and consequently
> difficult to assess quantitatively.

Which is where I hope that massive databases like Leo's Genealogics,
and Olivier's, and the one I'm in the process of building of Edward
I's descendants, will prove useful not just to genealogista, but also
for historians & sociologists, who can use them to obtain better
quantitative data for their theories of social mobility.

> It is argued that we know there
> has always been a great deal of upwards mobility, and if that were not
> balanced by at least equal downwards movement then the social pyramid
> would quickly have become an inverted one.

Yes - the Warter/Vavasour ancestors of John Watson above are a good
example of upward mobility - a Yorkshire merchant family rising far
enough to marry into an armigerous gentry family. I don't see it
though as an example of downward mobility. Elizabeth Vavasour was the
niece, not the daughter, of the head of the family living in Hazlewood
Castle. Today, over four hundred years later, I don't see how the
Vavasours would have lost any status over it. It would be very
interesting, though of course we can never know now, what was thought
of the marriage back in 1580 - whether Elizabeth Vavasour was viewed
by her social peers as having married "down".

> It therefore seems logical
> that the 19th-century labouring classes would have contained quite a
> few direct male-line descendants of medieval or early-modern
> aristocratic and gentry families,

I don't know that I agree with this - we'd have to find a Scrope or a
Vavasour working in a coal mine in the 1800s, for example, for me to
readily believe it. Those families still exist in patrilineal lines
today, but I've not yet heard of one having done so.

> and many more female-line
> descendants.  Most of those descents would no doubt also connect back
> through female lines to medieval kings.

This I agree with.

> A couple of quotes from Lawrence Stone’s well-known Past & Present
> article, ‘Social Mobility in England, 1500-1700’, P&P, no. 33 (Apr
> 1966), pp. 16-55, at pp. 35, 37:
>
> ‘Downward mobility was the lot of those who were improvident or
> incompetent, extravagant or unlucky.  History, however, rarely
> records, and even more rarely pays attention to, such tragedies.  The
> victims sink without trace.’

I don't know that Stone's statement is true when it comes to peerage
families. Those were tracked well by the heralds throughout the
centuries, and we've seen examples of how they call attention and
remark when those families fall into hard times.

>  [Younger sons, who received only a modest share of the family lands
> or income, often only for life] ‘were therefore downwardly mobile from
> the very beginning of their careers, and were obliged to feed into the
> professional and business groups if they were to make their way in the
> world.  If they failed, their children were liable to sink still
> further down the scale and disappear into the great mass of labourers
> and small tradesmen.  Examples can be found of this downward process,
> but the paucity of the evidence makes it virtually impossible to
> demonstrate the trend in statistical terms.’

That was very true in 1966, long before personal computers and
digitized databases. But today, and certainly in the future, there
will be enough data compiled about the upper levels of British society
to determine how often downward mobility occurred among those
families.

On Apr 14, 12:08 pm, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I always thought he was referring to the
> subscribers of 'Notes & Queries', etc, in which case he was no doubt
> correct.

I actually think that even if John Horace Round had taken the list of
subscribers to Notes & Queries (or Collectanea Topographica &
Genealogica, etc) and attempted to trace them back to medieval
royalty, he would have encountered difficulty. For example, I've just
finished entering into my database the sisters of Chandos Leigh, 1st
Baron Leigh of Stoneleigh (1791-1850), and their spouses. Chandos and
his sisters were descendants of Henry VII & Elizabeth of York. Here
are their spouses:

1) Margarette Willes (1798-1860), daughter of Rev. William Shippen
Willes of Astrop House & Margarette Vandewall Williams.*

2) Gen. Robert Henry Colvile of Kempsey House (1795-1875), son of
Robert Colvile of Hemingstone Hall & Amelia Angeline Asgill.

3) Sir James Buller East, 2nd Baronet of Calcutta (1789-1878), son of
Sir Edward Hyde East, 1st Baronet of Calcutta & Jane Isabella Hankey.

4) Frederick Charles Acton Colvile of Barton Villa (1792-1872), elder
brother of #2 above.

5) Grenville Charles Lennox Berkeley of Hanover Square (1806-1896),
son of Sir George Cranfield Berkeley & Hon. Emilia Charlotte Lennox.

Of the five individuals above, all of whom fall into the category of
the upper class in 19th century Britain, I can find lines back to
Edward I for only one of them, Granville Berkeley (#5 above), who has
Charles II as the most recent monarch in his ancestry, which can be
found in Leo's database, here:
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00019812&tree=LEO

[Note: it's possible that Margarette Willes (#1 above) descends from
Edward I thru her maternal family, Williams of Panthowell,
Carmarthenshire, but I've yet to find a decent pedigree for them.]

I just don't feel that Edward III descents, for example, are as
widespread throughout the population as we've been led to believe
today, in part because of statements such as the one made by John
Horace Round.

Cheers, -----
Brad

[John Watson]

On Apr 16, 6:44 am, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

>
> Thank you for the brief history, John.  I find it very interesting.  I
> cannot find North Bedburn, Durham in GENUKI, but I did find
> neighbouring Witton-le-Wear, where in 1894 "in all there are 700 men
> and boys employed", in association with the colliery.  If North
> Bedburn Colliery employed a similar number, we now have a documented

> Edward III descent of one out of 700 coal workers in a Durham village:http://joinermarriageindex.co.uk/pjoiner/genuki/DUR/WittonleWear/inde...

For North Bedburn colliery see Durham Mining Museum website dmm.org.uk
[although it does not seem to be working at the moment].

> Rev. Clay's pedigree of Vavasour in his 'Additions to Dugdale's
> Visitation of Yorkshire' shows Elizabeth, daughter of Leonard Vavasour
> of Addingham, married to "Wm. Warter, of Cranswick on the Wold".
> Burke's LG says that William Warter was of Wandsworth, Surrey

What Burke has to say about the family of Warter is mostly rubbish. Mr
Burke has found several different people called Warter, including the
Bishop of Dromore and made them all into one family. The particular
Warter family we are talking about lived in Hutton Cranswick and
Nafferton, Yorkshire. The pedigree of the family given by Foster in
the 1612 Visitation of Yorkshire, p. 237 is quite accurate and can be
verified against contemporary records.

> In the 1612 Visitation of Yorkshire, there is a pedigree of "Warter of
> Wansworth" [I don't believe there is a Wansworth/Wandsworth in

> Yorkshire, so I presume Wandsworth in Surrey is meant, [snip]

Not Wandsworth, Surrey, but Wansford in the parish of Nafferton, East
Riding of Yorkshire, see: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Nafferton

Jane Warter of Nafferton married Marmaduke Dodsworth of Settrington in
1614.
Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, Vol XIII (London: 1895) p. 371:
Paver's Marriage Licences

> The Warter/Vavasour marriage, which occurred by 1580, the year their
> eldest son Thomas was born, is one of a lady from an armigerous
> Yorkshire gentry family with a non-armigerous gentleman.  It would be
> interesting to also track how many of these types of marriages
> occurred in the 16th-century among Edward III's descendants.

William Warter and Elizabeth Vavasour were married before Easter 1578,
when William Warter and Elizabeth his wife are mentioned in a fine
concerning property.
Feet of Fines of the Tudor period [Yorks]: part 2: 1571-83 (1888), pp.
112-24

The Vavasours may have been an armigerous family, but judging from the
will of Leonard Vavasour, who was a third or fourth son, he was not
prosperous. He was a tenant of Vavasour family lands in Addingham,
Yorkshire, but does not seem to have owned any other property:

The will of Leonard Vavasor of Addingham, gentleman, dated 25 December
1597, was proved on 19 May 1598. He wishes to be buried in the chancel
of Addingham church. He gives his household goods in his house in
Addingham to his son William Vavasor. He leaves his gold ring and 55
marks to his daughter Elizabeth Warter and leaves 20 marks to be
divided among her children; William Warter, Marie Warter, Jane Warter
and Elizabeth Warter. He leaves a bequest to his daughter Ellen Porter
and fifteen pounds, 13 shillings and four pence to be divided among
her children; John Porter, Thomas Porter, Francis Porter, Anne Porter
and Bebecia Porter. He leaves his black mare to his son-in-law Porter
(no first name) and forgives him the money which he owes "for the
meate & wine for himself his wief and children for the space of two
years and a half and all other money which he oweth me forgonne so
that he make no further demand or clame of or to any man or to of my
goods whatsoe and other wares he to stand charged to paie the said sum
and other money forborne unto my executor". He leaves a gold angel
each to his nephew John Vavasour, his nephew William Vavasour and his
brother Christofer Vavasour. He makes his son William his executor.
Wills in the York Registry, Vol. 27, Fo. 286

Regards,
John

[Wjhonson]

Matthew /Dodsworth/
bap 14 May 1615 Settrington, co York (Batch P007771 wj)
father Marmaduci

-----Original Message-----
From: John Watson <watso...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 1:45 pm
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III

[Wjhonson]

Is not Marmaduke's father this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Dodsworth

-----Original Message-----
From: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
To: watsonjohnm <watso...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 4:21 am
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III


Matthew /Dodsworth/
bap 14 May 1615 Settrington, co York (Batch P007771 wj)
father Marmaduci








-----Original Message-----
From: John Watson <watso...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 1:45 pm
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III

[Wjhonson]

Recte: *Marmaduke's* father was George...

-----Original Message-----
From: watsonjohnm <watso...@gmail.com>
To: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 4:41 am
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III

Matthew's father was George Dodsworth, son of Simon Dodsworth and elder brother of the Matthew Dodsworth in the Wikipedia page (which incidentally was originally contributed by me).

Regards,
John
Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Apr 2013, at 18:31, Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:



Is not Marmaduke's father this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Dodsworth









-----Original Message-----
From: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
To: watsonjohnm <watso...@gmail.com>; gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 4:21 am
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III


Matthew /Dodsworth/
bap 14 May 1615 Settrington, co York (Batch P007771 wj)
father Marmaduci








-----Original Message-----
From: John Watson <watso...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sun, Apr 14, 2013 1:45 pm
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III

[Wjhonson]

But who was "Sigimund" in this family ?

That name comes up a few times. I can't imagine it's possible that 'Simon' turns into 'Sigimundus' in Latin ???

[kelsey.jack...@googlemail.com]

Dear all,

First of all, thank you for a fascinating discussion and one that has raised some issues central to the sort of research many of us are engaged in. My sense is that dramatic downward social mobility has been quite common even in the most aristocratic of Scottish families, not necessarily overnight, but perhaps over five or six generations as younger sons of younger sons decline from barons to lairds to tacksmen to tenants and, perhaps, emigrate to still harsher lives in the colonies. As an example, I thought I would give one easily verifiable, *patrilineal* descent from James V, King of Scots, to a cooper in antebellum Louisiana:

1. James V, King of Scots had, by Euphemia Elphinstone,
2. Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney, who had, by Marjorie Sandilands,
3. Edward Stewart, 1st of Brugh = [uncertain]
4. Robert Stewart, 2nd of Brugh = Agnes Wemyss
5. John Stewart, 3rd of Brugh = [uncertain]
6. Archibald Stewart, 4th of Brugh = Isabel Balfour
7. Archibald Stewart = Barbara Baikie [immigrated to New York]
8. Thomas Stewart = Hannah Black
9. Archibald Douglas Stewart, a cooper in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, who married (1) 13 April 1836 in St. Mary Parish, Catherine Westner, and (2) 15 October 1866 in St. Mary Parish, Catherine Bethune.

The backbone of this pedigree is presented in Francis J. Grant, _The County Families of the Zetland Islands_ (Lerwick, 1893), 290-291, and I see no obvious reason to doubt its authenticity.

This is, of course, also a descent from Edward III and, while not the bench-mark coal miner, still seems to suggest that relatively rapid downward social mobility in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries can easily lead a family to go from being minor gentry to working class over the course of only a few generations.

If anyone is aware of comparable Scottish (as opposed to English) examples, I'd be very curious to see them.

All the best,
Kelsey

[Volucris]

Hello Brad,

Are there perhaps younger Roos siblings known to have gone abroad in the 17th century, for instance to The Netherlands?

With regards,
Hans Vogels


Op zondag 14 april 2013 20:23:55 UTC+2 schreef Brad Verity het volgende:

[hoove...@yahoo.com]

Mr. Brandon,

I don't know if this means I have a great mind, because in this case we think alike since the Duchess of Cambridge example is what first came to my mind when this discussion began. Your reference to Roberts' and Childs' article prompted me to re-read it.

An excellent title: _A Gratifying Discovery, Connecting Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge to Sir Thomas Conyers, 9th Bt. of Horden, Durham_ given the fascinating passage by Robert Surtees that's included later in the article, (from Sir Bernard Burke, Vicissitudes of Families, Second Series ...)

"A time may yet come, perchance, when a descendant of one of these simple artizans may arise, not unworthy of the Conyers' ancient renown; and it will be _a gratifying discovery_ to some future genealogist, when he succeeds in tracing in the quarterings of such a descendant the unsullied bearings of Conyers of Durham."

Awesome!

I'm wondering if you could advise me on a completely different matter. Mr. Roberts' most recent AAP update article (May 2012) doesn't provide specific contact information for providing "update information" and I can't find an e-mail address for Mr. Child on the NEHGS website. I'd like to run a descent for Betty Ford from an American RD immigrant ancestor by either of both of them. There's certainly no urgency, and I realize this is the least concern for anyone in Boston at the moment. In fact, no one would be any worse off if I just put it in the mail. I was just wondering.

Best wishes,
Marc

[Bronwen Edwards]

In the case of my own ancestors with Edward III descents, they lived comfortable upper and middle class lives in England, Scotland and Ireland (one of them, for instance, being killed in 1793 when he fell from his horse in a fox hunt) but had changes in circumstances either just before or just after their emigration to North America.

One set, the Barretts of Castle Blake, co. Tipperary, had an estate marked as such on old maps "Castle Blake, Barrett, Esq.", indicating a comfortable life. But by 1830 they were unable to pay taxes on the estate and sold it. With the money, they took their entire family to Canada (including servants!) where each took his or her own way down the class-slope. My particular ancestor decided to join the California Gold Rush. He did quite well for himself in that way, established a ranch and quasi-banking business, and had many children. One of his daughters, my great-grandmother, married the son of a Prussian immigrant who was a minor administrator at the county level and his wife, the daughter of an innkeeper from Darmstadt. Their daughter then married another Edward III descendant who had immigrated from England in 1909. He came from a comfortable family as well, mostly stock brokers, with an uncle who was a famed barrister.
Maybe just for adventure, he attempted an egg farm in southern California - which failed. Going north in the same state, he learned how to use a camera from a friend and set up a photography studio which he had for the rest of his life. His daughter, to his horror, married a "Welshman", who was a country boy from a long line of farmers and had an affair with, horrors, a "Red Indian". Her children, myself and my brother, kept working our way down the ladder. I did better than my brother, earning my degree and teaching at the college level. My brother was a night janitor in local theaters and died at 65.

While no one, so far as I know, was working in a coal mine, the slide was gentle but definite from Edward III to peer to gentry to professional to merchant to craftsman to American middle class to poverty. I think my story is probably of the commonest sort when you take into the consideration the great number of people who descend from immigrants and do not know they also descend from Edward III.

[Matt Tompkins]

Stone’s 1966 article was not the last word on the subject, even by him
- plenty more work has been done since then, and it has generally
confirmed his views. For very recent examples, see:

N. Boberg-Fazlic, P. Sharp and J. Weisdorf, ‘Survival of the richest?
Social status, fertility and social mobility in England 1541-1824’,
European Review of Economic History 15 (3) (2011), pp. 365-392.
http://www.collective-action.info/sites/default/files/webmaster/_PUB_SurvivalRichest_EREH_15_3.pdf

or Gregory Clark’s paper, "Regression to Mediocrity?: Surnames and
Social Mobility in England, 1200-2009"
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/seminars/ModernAndComparative/papers2011-12/Papers/gregclark.pdf

or his draft book, Ruling Classes and Under Classes: 1,000 Years of
Social Mobility (2011) http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh11/clark-111024b.pdf

I have the impression that you may be seeing downward mobility as only
significant if it affected the senior line of a family. Even the
senior lines did sometimes decay and slip down through the social
classes, but the great preponderance of downward mobility would have
been experienced by cadet lines. Many families managed to maintain
the wealth and status of its senior representative over the centuries,
but in most generations threw off junior branches of lesser wealth and
status, each of which itself created further cadet lines in every
generation. It was impossible for every younger son of a younger son
to avoid the slippery slope, and the lower they fell the more
invisible they became to the heralds and antiquarians. Plus of course
one should not disregard downward mobility as experienced by daughters
and their descendants.

T.H. Hollingsworth, The Demography of the British Peerage, Supplement
to Population Studies, xviii (1965) found that some two thirds to
three quarters of the younger sons and daughters of peers were obliged
to marry below them. They presumably mostly married into the greater
squirearchy, but not all their descendants would have been able to
maintain even that status, especially younger sons and daughters. The
2011 study by Boberg-Fazlic, Sharp and Weisdorf mentioned above found
that one quarter of Gentry/Independent children dropped into a lower
social group, becoming Merchants/Professionals, Farmers, Traders,
Craftsmen and even Husbandmen (see table 8 on p. 382). In a few more
generations some of those would certainly have fallen further still,
into the labouring classes.

Matt Tompkins

[Brad Verity]

On Apr 16, 8:35 am, Volucris <jcp.vog...@bbhmail.nl> wrote:
> Hello Brad,
> Are there perhaps younger Roos siblings known to have gone abroad in the 17th century, for instance to The Netherlands?

Dear Hans,

None that I'm aware of. By the 17th century, the male lines of the
baronial Ros family of Helmsley Castle and the Roos of Ingmanthorpe
had become extinct. The line Roos of Laxton Hall in Nottinghamshire
may have continued to that century, or there may be other Roos
families who made it to that timeframe that I haven't researched.
Sorry I'm not of any real help here.

On Apr 16, 12:28 am, John Watson <watsonjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not Wandsworth, Surrey, but Wansford in the parish of Nafferton, East
> Riding of Yorkshire, see:  http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ERY/Nafferton

[snip]

> The Vavasours may have been an armigerous family, but judging from the
> will of Leonard Vavasour, who was a third or fourth son, he was not
> prosperous. He was a tenant of Vavasour family lands in Addingham,
> Yorkshire, but does not seem to have owned any other property:

John, thank you for the further information on your ancestor Leonard
Vavasour of Addingham. And thanks especially for the correction of
Wansford, Yorkshire from Wandsworth, Surrey. Wandsworth wasn't making
any sense to me at all!

On Apr 16, 7:28 am, Johnny Brananas <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Remember that Gary Boyd Roberts and Chris Child have recently pointed
> out that the Duchess of Cambridge decends from a Conyers baronet,
> living in the late 1700s, whose daughters all married coal miners.  I
> think the story was that Sir Conyers originally began life as a
> minister, and was only a somewhat distant cousin to the previous
> baronet, who, unfortunately, ran through all the money.  When the
> minister succeeded to the title, he was elderly, and his three
> daughters all married "down" ... far down.

Thanks for pointing this out, John. I wasn't aware of this baronet,
or that the Duchess of Cambridge's ancestry had been traced back to
him. Has there been an article published with the details? I also
enjoyed your link to Robert Surtees's write-up. I found it a bit
heartwarming that the antiquarian had started up a collection for the
children of the Conyers sisters.

> There would certainly be patrilineal descendantsin places in the
> nineteenth century through illegitimacies ... an illegitimate son is
> still the son of his father, with the same patrilineal line, even if
> he has a different surname, etc.

Yes. Illegitimacy definitely greases up the downward slope, as
Kelsey's line demonstrates:

On Apr 16, 7:34 am, kelsey.jackson.willi...@googlemail.com wrote:
> 1. James V, King of Scots had, by Euphemia Elphinstone,
> 2. Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney, who had, by Marjorie Sandilands,
> 3. Edward Stewart, 1st of Brugh = [uncertain]
> 4. Robert Stewart, 2nd of Brugh = Agnes Wemyss
> 5. John Stewart, 3rd of Brugh = [uncertain]
> 6. Archibald Stewart, 4th of Brugh = Isabel Balfour
> 7. Archibald Stewart = Barbara Baikie [immigrated to New York]
> 8. Thomas Stewart = Hannah Black
> 9. Archibald Douglas Stewart, a cooper in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, who married (1) 13 April 1836 in St. Mary Parish, Catherine Westner, and (2) 15 October 1866 in St. Mary Parish, Catherine Bethune.

This is another very interesting line. Thanks for sharing it,
Kelsey. It's not surprising of course that the descendants of a
bastard son of an earl, himself the bastard son of a king, fell into
hard times and obscurity. Where in Scotland is Brugh? Was it a manor/
landed estate?

> The backbone of this pedigree is presented in Francis J. Grant, _The County Families of the Zetland Islands_ (Lerwick, 1893), 290-291, and I see no obvious reason to doubt its authenticity.

It could use a little more support - the identity of the wives of
Generations 3 & 5, for example. But other than that, I agree that it
looks solid. The ODNB bio of Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney, doesn't
mention Edward of Brugh by name, but does mention he had 3 sons & 2
daughters with his mistress Marjorie Sandilands, as well as additional
bastard children with two other mistresses. The Earl of Orkney was so
impoverished by the end of his life he couldn't provide a marriage
portion for his wife, who was suing him for divorce. So he seems a
gateway ancestor for a lot of rapid downward mobility.

On Apr 16, 8:50 pm, Bronwen Edwards <lostcoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]

> While no one, so far as I know, was working in a coal mine, the slide was gentle but definite from Edward III to peer to gentry to professional to merchant to craftsman to American middle class to poverty. I think my story is probably of the commonest sort when you take into the consideration the great number of people who descend from immigrants and do not know they also descend from Edward III.

Very interesting, Bronwen!

On Apr 17, 7:17 am, Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk> wrote:
> I have the impression that you may be seeing downward mobility as only
> significant if it affected the senior line of a family.  Even the
> senior lines did sometimes decay and slip down through the social
> classes, but the great preponderance of downward mobility would have
> been experienced by cadet lines.

I agree here, Matt, but want to read through all the material you've
provided links for, before I respond in detail. Many thanks for
taking the time to do that. I'm enjoying this discussion and look
forward to reading through the studies over the next couple days.

Cheers, -----Brad

[Wjhonson]

As to whether Roos of Laxton existed in the 17th century

http://books.google.com/books?id=nysBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR9

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Verity <royald...@hotmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 8:40 am
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III

[Matt Tompkins]

On Apr 17, 4:39 pm, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 7:17 am, Matt Tompkins <ml...@le.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > I have the impression that you may be seeing downward mobility as only
> > significant if it affected the senior line of a family.  Even the
> > senior lines did sometimes decay and slip down through the social
> > classes, but the great preponderance of downward mobility would have
> > been experienced by cadet lines.
>
> I agree here, Matt, but want to read through all the material you've
> provided links for, before I respond in detail.  Many thanks for
> taking the time to do that.  I'm enjoying this discussion and look
> forward to reading through the studies over the next couple days.
>
> Cheers,                            -----Brad

I'll be interested to hear what you think of Greg Clark's
methodology.

I hope that link to the European Review of Economic History article
works for you - if not email me off-list. And while checking that it
opens from here at least, I've noticed that I got one statistic from
it wrong - it is not one quarter but one fifth (or slightly under -
18.92%) of gentry/independent sons who fall out of that group. Sorry.

Matt

[Don Stone]

On 4/17/2013 9:39 AM, Brad Verity wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:28 am, Johnny Brananas <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Remember that Gary Boyd Roberts and Chris Child have recently pointed
>> out that the Duchess of Cambridge decends from a Conyers baronet,
>> living in the late 1700s, whose daughters all married coal miners. I
>> think the story was that Sir Conyers originally began life as a
>> minister, and was only a somewhat distant cousin to the previous
>> baronet, who, unfortunately, ran through all the money. When the
>> minister succeeded to the title, he was elderly, and his three
>> daughters all married "down" ... far down.
> Thanks for pointing this out, John. I wasn't aware of this baronet,
> or that the Duchess of Cambridge's ancestry had been traced back to
> him. Has there been an article published with the details? I also
> enjoyed your link to Robert Surtees's write-up. I found it a bit
> heartwarming that the antiquarian had started up a collection for the
> children of the Conyers sisters.

"Connecting Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, to Sir Thomas Conyers, 9th
Bt. of Horden, Durham," by Christopher Challender Child, /American
Ancestors/, Fall 2011, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 35-6. Accessible online to
NEHGS members.

-- Don Stone

[kelsey.jack...@googlemail.com]

Dear Brad (et al.),

Yes, illegitimacy offers a short cut, as it were, in downward social mobility. I can certainly think of numerous examples in colonial America where the illegitimate children of wealthy and prominent planters faded into the non-landowning, labouring class (and of course when the mothers of these children were slaves that was an additional complicating factor). Since the planting fathers of such children often had royal descents this would seem to open up another field where numerous members of the 18, 19, and 20c southern US working-classes might have a descent from Edward III or more recent monarchs.

Regarding the ancestry of Archibald Douglas Stewart more particularly, Brugh was a (presumably quite small) estate in Orkney. I indicated uncertainty as to the wives in generations three and five as both men married twice, but it's unclear which was the mother of their children. Edward, 1st of Brugh, married (1) Janet Douglas and (2) Isabel Craigie, relict of George Traill and Hugh Halcro of that Ilk. John, 3rd of Brugh, married (1) Margaret Bellenden, daughter of George Bellenden of Stennis, and (2) Janet Nisbet (all this from the pedigree in _Zetland County Families_ as cited in my previous post).

You're also completely right to look carefully at the claim that Edward, 1st of Brugh, was really a son of the Earl of Orkney. I've not examined the primary documentation myself, but the _Scots Peerage_ (vi. 575) makes what seems to be a convincing case: Edward was retoured heir to his brother George in the tenandry of Brugh, 30 March 1616, while George was legitimated, as son of Robert, Earl of Orkney, 29 November 1586.

My sense -- and I make no claims to any particular experience with Orkney and Shetland families -- is that Earl Robert's bastards married predominantly into the local gentry community, which was small and impoverished in comparison with that of wealthier counties on the mainland. By 1800 I would guess that most of the gentry of Orkney and Shetland would have a descent from James V via Earl Robert and given the scarcity of resources on the islands for younger sons, etc., I suspect the same probably goes for many of the farmers and craftsmen at that time as well. Is there anyone on the group with more detailed knowledge of the northern isles who might be able to corroborate or refute this?

All the best,
Kelsey

[Wjhonson]

Thanks.
If they wanted to keep these hidden, they should have hired me :)
I hide documents all the time behind pass walls.
Evidently their web developer didn't understand the idea.

-----Original Message-----
From: Johnny Brananas <ravinma...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 9:50 am
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III

> Thanks for pointing this out, John. I wasn't aware of this baronet,
> or that the Duchess of Cambridge's ancestry had been traced back to
> him. Has there been an article published with the details? I also
> enjoyed your link to Robert Surtees's write-up. I found it a bit
> heartwarming that the antiquarian had started up a collection for the
> children of the Conyers sisters.

http://www.americanancestors.org/uploadedFiles/American_Ancestors/Content/Publications/American_Ancestors_Magazine/Magazine_PDFs/12-4_lores.pdf

(I can access this without signing into the website, but I'm not
guaranteeing anything).

> > 1. James V, King of Scots had, by Euphemia Elphinstone,
> > 2. Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney, who had, by Marjorie Sandilands,
> > 3. Edward Stewart, 1st of Brugh = [uncertain]
> > 4. Robert Stewart, 2nd of Brugh = Agnes Wemyss
> > 5. John Stewart, 3rd of Brugh = [uncertain]
> > 6. Archibald Stewart, 4th of Brugh = Isabel Balfour
> > 7. Archibald Stewart = Barbara Baikie [immigrated to New York]
> > 8. Thomas Stewart = Hannah Black
> > 9. Archibald Douglas Stewart, a cooper in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana, who
married (1) 13 April 1836 in St. Mary Parish, Catherine Westner, and (2) 15
October 1866 in St. Mary Parish, Catherine Bethune.
>
> This is another very interesting line. Thanks for sharing it,
> Kelsey. It's not surprising of course that the descendants of a
> bastard son of an earl, himself the bastard son of a king, fell into
> hard times and obscurity. Where in Scotland is Brugh? Was it a manor/
> landed estate?

Brugh is local (somewhere in Zetland or Orkney). These particular
Stewarts, despite descending from two illegitimacies, were still quite
prominent. However, that is the point ... all families, no matter how
well-respected or "worshipful," COULD suffer sudden reverses and
precipitous declines, in some of their branches at least.

Debts incurred probably caused the quickest and sharpest decline in
status. People felt they had to honor their debts, and even close
family members maintained the same line (i.e., they did not readily
pay off the debts of cousins or even siblings).

[Chris Dickinson]

Matt Tomkins wrote:
 
 
<snip>

> Stone’s 1966 article was not the last word on the subject, even by him
> - plenty more work has been done since then, and it has generally
> confirmed his views. For very recent examples, see:

> N. Boberg-Fazlic, P. Sharp and J. Weisdorf, ‘Survival of the richest?
> Social status, fertility and social mobility in England 1541-1824’,
> European Review of Economic History 15 (3) (2011), pp. 365-392.
> http://www.collective-action.info/sites/default/files/webmaster/_PUB_SurvivalRichest_EREH_15_3.pdf

> or Gregory Clark’s paper,  "Regression to Mediocrity?: Surnames and
> Social Mobility in England, 1200-2009"
> http://www2.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/seminars/ModernAndComparative/papers2011-12/Papers/gregclark.pdf

> or his draft book, Ruling Classes and Under Classes: 1,000 Years of
> Social Mobility (2011) http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh11/clark-111024b.pdf

 
 
 
Thank you very much for these, Matt. I shall look them up (when my energy levels improve!).

 
 
> I have the impression that you may be seeing downward mobility as only
> significant if it affected the senior line of a family.  Even the
> senior lines did sometimes decay and slip down through the social
> classes, but the great preponderance of downward mobility would have
> been experienced by cadet lines. 
 
 

Yes, senior landed lines are very different. They tend to survive, and tend to be documented because they survive. The discussion here, I've assumed, has been about sibling lines - male and female.
 
 
<snip>

> T.H. Hollingsworth, The Demography of the British Peerage, Supplement
> to Population Studies, xviii (1965) found that some two thirds to
> three quarters of the younger sons and daughters of peers were obliged
> to marry below them. 
 
 

Ah ... but what is meant by 'below them'? For instance, the top echelons of City of London money aren't usually seen as 'below' the aristocracy.

 
 
> They presumably mostly married into the greater
> squirearchy, but not all their descendants would have been able to
> maintain even that status, especially younger sons and daughters. 
 
 

I'm tempted to question that presumption. Peers would be seeking money for younger children rather than social status, which they already had. Squirearchy, however great, wouldn't have cut the mustard - new money would be preferable. Better a very rich son-in-law that you could sneer at, than a relatively poor gentleman.

 
 
> The
> 2011 study by Boberg-Fazlic, Sharp and Weisdorf mentioned above found
> that one quarter of Gentry/Independent children dropped into a lower
> social group, becoming Merchants/Professionals, Farmers, Traders,
> Craftsmen and even Husbandmen (see table 8 on p. 382).  In a few more
> generations some of those would certainly have fallen further still,
> into the labouring classes.
 
 

I wouldn't agree at all on the separation of gentry/independent from merchant/professional/farmer/trader. The need and social abilty of the gentry to take up suitable 'professions' (law, etc.) is the standard model for the English class system, as is their ability to enter into trade and to farm actively (after all, the peerage traditionally employed the gentry to manage their estates).
 
 
 
Chris

[Richard Carruthers]

On Apr 16, 8:50 pm, Bronwen Edwards <lostcoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> While no one, so far as I know, was working in a coal mine, the slide was gentle >but definite from Edward III to peer to gentry to professional to merchant to >craftsman to American middle class to poverty. I think my story is probably of the >commonest sort when you take into the consideration the great number of people >who descend from immigrants and do not know they also descend from Edward III.

Yesterday, at the West Van Memorial Library, to obtain David Waddell's
"Blood Atonement" which was kindly recommended by a lister (sorry, but
I failed to note who), I looked over the April number of "Family Tree
Magazine". There, in an article on the relevance of social
designations to genealogical research by Edward Dutton, Assistant
Professor of History at Oulu University (Finland), I came across the
following assertion which is relevant to this thread, and echoes
Bronwen's remarks:

"In a world of primogeniture, a feckless line could easily descend
from prince to pauper in nine generations."

I shall now have to review my own pedigree!

Best,

Richard

On 17/04/2013, Chris Dickinson <ch...@dickinson.uk.net> wrote:
> Matt Tomkins wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> Stone�s 1966 article was not the last word on the subject, even by him

>> - plenty more work has been done since then, and it has generally
>> confirmed his views. For very recent examples, see:
>

>> N. Boberg-Fazlic, P. Sharp and J. Weisdorf, �Survival of the richest?
>> Social status, fertility and social mobility in England 1541-1824�,

>> European Review of Economic History 15 (3) (2011), pp. 365-392.
>> http://www.collective-action.info/sites/default/files/webmaster/_PUB_SurvivalRichest_EREH_15_3.pdf
>

>> or Gregory Clark�s paper,� "Regression to Mediocrity?: Surnames and

>> Social Mobility in England, 1200-2009"
>> http://www2.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/seminars/ModernAndComparative/papers2011-12/Papers/gregclark.pdf
>
>> or his draft book, Ruling Classes and Under Classes: 1,000 Years of
>> Social Mobility (2011)
>> http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh11/clark-111024b.pdf
>
>
>
>

> Thank you very much for these, Matt. I shall look them up (when my energy
> levels improve!).
>
>

>> I have the impression that you may be seeing downward mobility as only

>> significant if it affected the senior line of a family.� Even the

>> senior lines did sometimes decay and slip down through the social
>> classes, but the great preponderance of downward mobility would have
>> been experienced by cadet lines.
>
>

> Yes, senior�landed lines are very different. They tend to survive, and
> tend�to be documented because they survive. The discussion here, I've

> assumed, has been about sibling lines - male and female.
>
>
> <snip>

>> T.H. Hollingsworth, The Demography of the British Peerage, Supplement
>> to Population Studies, xviii (1965) found that some two thirds to
>> three quarters of the younger sons and daughters of peers were obliged
>> to marry below them.
>
>

> Ah ... but what is meant by 'below them'? For instance, the top echelons of
> City of London money aren't usually seen as 'below' the aristocracy.
>
>

>> They presumably mostly married into the greater
>> squirearchy, but not all their descendants would have been able to
>> maintain even that status, especially younger sons and daughters.
>
>

> I'm tempted to question that presumption. Peers would be seeking money for
> younger children rather than social status, which they already had.
> Squirearchy, however great, wouldn't have cut the mustard - new money would
> be preferable. Better a very rich son-in-law that you could sneer at, than a
> relatively poor gentleman.
>
>

>> The
>> 2011 study by Boberg-Fazlic, Sharp and Weisdorf mentioned above found
>> that one quarter of Gentry/Independent children dropped into a lower
>> social group, becoming Merchants/Professionals, Farmers, Traders,

>> Craftsmen and even Husbandmen (see table 8 on p. 382).� In a few more

>> generations some of those would certainly have fallen further still,
>> into the labouring classes.
>
>

> I wouldn't agree�at all on the separation of gentry/independent from

> merchant/professional/farmer/trader. The need and social abilty of the
> gentry to take up suitable 'professions' (law, etc.) is the standard model
> for the English class system, as is their ability to enter into trade and to
> farm actively (after all, the peerage traditionally employed the gentry to
> manage their estates).
>
>
>
> Chris
>

[Renia]

On 17/04/2013 21:50, Richard Carruthers wrote:
> On Apr 16, 8:50 pm, Bronwen Edwards <lostcoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> While no one, so far as I know, was working in a coal mine, the
>> slide was gentle >but definite from Edward III to peer to gentry to
>> professional to merchant to >craftsman to American middle class to
>> poverty. I think my story is probably of the >commonest sort when
>> you take into the consideration the great number of people >who
>> descend from immigrants and do not know they also descend from
>> Edward III.
>
> Yesterday, at the West Van Memorial Library, to obtain David
> Waddell's "Blood Atonement" which was kindly recommended by a lister
> (sorry, but I failed to note who), I looked over the April number of
> "Family Tree Magazine". There, in an article on the relevance of
> social designations to genealogical research by Edward Dutton,
> Assistant Professor of History at Oulu University (Finland), I came
> across the following assertion which is relevant to this thread, and
> echoes Bronwen's remarks:
>
> "In a world of primogeniture, a feckless line could easily descend
> from prince to pauper in nine generations."

It can happen in far fewer generations than that. What's the old saying?
It takes three generations to climb the social ladder, but only one
generation to fall.

[Doug McDonald]

My Edward III connection is through Scotland, the (first) Grants of
Ballindalloch. The connection is the 5th of the first line, d. about
1679. They were still a well to do landed family then. My connection is
through a rather obscure later son, who apparently was not "landed"
himself in the usual sense, though he owned property at times. He
apparently was modestly well to do.

His daughter married a Rose, the great grandson of Rose of Bellivat,
a cadet of Kilravock. He was not a farm hand or miner, just well off
enough to get his son educated. This person we we know a bit about
through his son's diary, the son being the immigrant and a well to do
and well-known preacher in Virginia.

But what's interesting is the 7th of Ballindalloch, grandson of my
ancestor. He was an infamous wastrel and bankrupt, losing Ballindaloch
itself to a relative, thus ending the "first line". But ... he was a
Henry VIII descendant because the 6th of Ballindalloch married above his
class. If my connection were one generation later, I would be a Henry
VIII descendant too.

Doug McDonald

[Steve Riggan]

This has been a really interesting discussion for the last few days. Marc and I have had a couple conversations aside from the group on this as we both, besides sharing a common Wingfield ancestry, are interested in descendant families from RD immigrants. From the emails flying back and forth on this subject, it would seem that a vast majority of us, with the exception of Bronwen and a few others, are descendants of cadet lines that slowly declined in the social realm. My paternal grandmother (from William Farrar) and my maternal grandmother (from Diana Skipwith Dale, Thomas Warren, and Charles Barham) both were farming women in Arkansas with less than 8th grade educations, had large families, worked in the fields with their families, etc. My father's mother took in washing from the local doctors and lawyers of the county seat and, funny as it is, her pedigree was probably better than theirs in a sense if you look at it snobbishly :) At any rate, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on this thread and truly respect the level of insight and knowledge about it, not to mention all the interesting sources to refer back to later.
Steve Riggan

> From: jdmc...@illinois.edu
> Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III

[kelsey.jack...@googlemail.com]

Likewise, Steve -- this has been a very fascinating discussion. I get the sense that a good many people of humble southern ancestry in recent times are quite likely to have at least one or two royally descended seventeenth-century immigrants in their ancestry. Something that has been nagging at the back of my mind, though, during the course of this thread, is the question of how much our understanding of these trends is skewed by the nature of the secondary literature. The vast majority of royally descended immigrants to the colonies or the early Republic whose ancestry has been published are those who became part of the elites of Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, New England, and perhaps to a lesser extent the Carolinas, New Jersey, etc. They were mostly English in origin with some Scots and a handful of others. Some of my own research has been on royally descended Scottish immigrants to the western hemisphere before 1800 and I know that there are at least a good several hundred -- probably many more -- not known to any published work, but I also suspect that the real untapped mine of royally descended immigrants is amongst the eighteenth-century Scots-Irish migrants who settled in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and elsewhere. Whether the documentation exists to prove such descents is another matter, but I'd be terrifically surprised if the more well-to-do members of that particular migration -- many of whom probably have thousands, if not millions of present day descendants -- didn't have at least a descent from Robert II. If we could prove even a handful of such descents, the number of royally descended but socially humble southerners would surely increase exponentially. Food for thought?

All the best,
Kelsey

[kelsey.jack...@googlemail.com]

I realise I should have offered some examples. These three have all cropped up in my own research for various reasons and offer tantalising hints of gentry ancestry in Ireland, but resist any satisfying proof:

1. Alexander Johnston, Esq., of New London, Chester County, Pennsylvania, c.1706-1790. A magistrate and owner of a 900 acre estate in Chester County. His descendants were officers, doctors, clergymen, and other professional occupations in Pennsylvania. I find it very tempting to identify him with Alexander, younger son of James Johnston of Tremont, co. Down, Minister of Donaghmore, by his wife Elizabeth Wilson, daughter of Robert Wilson of Tully, co. Longford, but this is mere speculation based on similar onomastic funds.

2. Annabella Montgomery, c.1700-1759, wife of David Kennedy of Chester County, Pennsylvania, yeoman. Several of her sons were doctors and the family was closely associated with the early history of Princeton. It is just possible that she might be a daughter of James Montgomery, merchant in Campbeltown, Argyllshire, and later in Ballymena, co. Antrim, by his wife Annabel(la) McNeill, daughter of John McNeill of Tirfergus, Argyllshire, but again evidence is lacking.

3. William Fleming, 1717-1784, of Kent County, Delaware. Founder of a family of substantial farmers and politicians in West Virginia. The names of his brothers -- who were also resident in Kent County -- strongly echo those of the children of Robert Fleming of Achonry, co. Sligo -- and it seems possible that the extended Fleming family which immigrated to Delaware about 1740 may be made up of younger sons of the younger sons of that Robert. If so, some or all of them would be descended from the Phibbs', Gores, and other Anglo-Irish gentry families.

Many more such immigrants could easily be located, but making the crucial links from America back to Ireland and from Ireland to Scotland or England is another matter entirely.

All the best,
Kelsey

[Bronwen Edwards]

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:02:18 AM UTC-7, kelsey.jack...@googlemail.com

but I also suspect that the real untapped mine of royally descended immigrants is amongst the eighteenth-century Scots-Irish migrants who settled in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and elsewhere. Whether the documentation exists to prove such descents is another matter, but I'd be terrifically surprised if the more well-to-do members of that particular migration -- many of whom probably have thousands, if not millions of present day descendants -- didn't have at least a descent from Robert II. If we could prove even a handful of such descents, the number of royally descended but socially humble southerners would surely increase exponentially. Food for thought?

I would not find it surprising at all if many Scots-Irish families in North America have royal descents. When their forebears were sent to Ulster to work the plantations of the Irish (from whom the land was being stolen), their bosses on-site were hand-picked from among the "better" families, many of which were probably of royal descent. That descent may have faded by then into a cadet line, but just as Tacksmen were frequently close relatives of the lairds on whose land they lived, the Ulster plantation overseers and managers had good connections. Almost every American southerner of Scots-Irish ancestry with whom I have discussed genealogy has claimed royal descent. Even if untrue for those particular individuals, such claims may have arisen from a general knowledge that *someone* in their history had such a descent. Not all of these people became impoverished in the South; they also made up the planter classes by the early 19th century. By extension, history tells us that their genes further spread among the slave populations, resulting in royal descents from Britain for many modern African Americans. Colin Powell, for example, claims royal descent and has published the claim; if true, he is also my distant cousin.

[Steve Riggan]

This could very well be true regarding the Scots-Irish. My great-great grandmother on my mother's side was from the Porterfield family of Northern Ireland who settled in Pennsylvania in the 1740's. Although we don't have documented proof, there were a lot of Porterfields in the Ulster plantation who seem to be related to the Porterfields of Renfrewshire, Scotland. They were the lairds of Duchall beginning in the 1500's and there were several members of that family who did settle in Ulster but I don't have documented proof of the connection. One John Porterfield of Duchall came to New Jersey and left a will but I don't remember the year. Some researchers on my family line tried to link us to him but he mentioned no children in his will. He did mention a nephew at Duchall Castle in Scotland. So we know he belongs to that family but there is no provable connection to mine. The Porterfield family at Duchall does have provable royal descent.

Another line I have that I strongly suspect has royal descent is also on my mother's side through the Hoge and White families who came from Scotland in the early to mid-1700s and settled the Frederick County, Virginia. My ancestor Dr. Robert White b. 1688-94, evidently was a surgeon in the British Navy and married Margaret Hoge and settled down in Frederick County. His home is still present there today. From what records on Dr. White that I can find he evidently owned property called White Park in Renfrewshire, Scotland. There is record of this property in Edinburgh but one of the librarians that I corresponded with told me that the document is in Latin but doesn't reveal connections outside the Whites on this property. Not having seen a copy of the document myself I have no idea if this was a purchased property or inherited. Some recent research that I have seen seems to place Dr. Robert White as a possible son of John Whyte, apothecary, in the Renfrewshire. John Whyte, according to what I have been able to learn, supposedly was related to John Shaw, laird of Begarran who became famous because his young daughter Christian was reportedly "hexed" by one of the maidservants in the household who was accused of witchcraft. There is a lot of information by googling on the subject and a book, but I forget the title, something to the effect of "the witches of Renfrewshire."I may not have that quite right so I will ask everyone's pardon. I believe that the Shaws were of royal descent but I would have to review my notes on that. More work remains to be done on the White family and proving that Dr. Robert White is truly the son of John Whyte apothecary.

Regarding the discussion of royal descent in the Scots-Irish, these are just two examples in my own Scots-Irish heritage where I do suspect royal descent but, at this point, is not provable with documentation.

Steve Riggan

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 18, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Bronwen Edwards" <lostc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:02:18 AM UTC-7, kelsey.jack...@googlemail.com
> but I also suspect that the real untapped mine of royally descended immigrants is amongst the eighteenth-century Scots-Irish migrants who settled in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and elsewhere. Whether the documentation exists to prove such descents is another matter, but I'd be terrifically surprised if the more well-to-do members of that particular migration -- many of whom probably have thousands, if not millions of present day descendants -- didn't have at least a descent from Robert II. If we could prove even a handful of such descents, the number of royally descended but socially humble southerners would surely increase exponentially. Food for thought?
>

> I would not find it surprising at all if many Scots-Irish families in North America have royal descents. When their forebears were sent to Ulster to work the plantations of the Irish (from whom the land was being stolen), their bosses on-site were hand-picked from among the "better" families, many of which were probably of royal descent. That descent may have faded by then into a cadet line, but just as Tacksmen were frequently close relatives of the lairds on whose land they lived, the Ulster plantation overseers and managers had good connections. Almost every American southerner of Scots-Irish ancestry with whom I have discussed genealogy has claimed royal descent. Even if untrue for those particular individuals, such claims may have arisen from a general knowledge that *someone* in their history had such a descent. Not all of these people became impoverished in the South; they also made up the planter classes by the early 19th century. By extension, history tells us that !

> their genes further spread among the slave populations, resulting in royal descents from Britain for many modern African Americans. Colin Powell, for example, claims royal descent and has published the claim; if true, he is also my distant cousin.
>

[Wjhonson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisley_witches

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Riggan <sri...@hotmail.com>
To: Bronwen Edwards <lostc...@yahoo.com>
Cc: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>; Doug McDonald <jdmc...@illinois.edu>
Sent: Thu, Apr 18, 2013 12:27 pm
Subject: Re: Impoverished descendants of Edward III

apothecary, in the Renfrewshire. John Whyte, acc!

ording to what I have been able to learn, supposedly was related to John Shaw,
laird of Begarran who became famous because his young daughter Christian was
reportedly "hexed" by one of the maidservants in the household who was accused
of witchcraft. There is a lot of information by googling on the subject and a
book, but I forget the title, something to the effect of "the witches of
Renfrewshire."I may not have that quite right so I will ask everyone's pardon. I
believe that the Shaws were of royal descent but I would have to review my notes
on that. More work remains to be done on the White family and proving that Dr.
Robert White is truly the son of John Whyte apothecary.

Regarding the discussion of royal descent in the Scots-Irish, these are just two
examples in my own Scots-Irish heritage where I do suspect royal descent but, at
this point, is not provable with documentation.

Steve Riggan

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 18, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Bronwen Edwards" <lostc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:02:18 AM UTC-7, kelsey.jack...@googlemail.com
> but I also suspect that the real untapped mine of royally descended immigrants
is amongst the eighteenth-century Scots-Irish migrants who settled in
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and elsewhere. Whether the documentation exists to
prove such descents is another matter, but I'd be terrifically surprised if the
more well-to-do members of that particular migration -- many of whom probably
have thousands, if not millions of present day descendants -- didn't have at
least a descent from Robert II. If we could prove even a handful of such
descents, the number of royally descended but socially humble southerners would
surely increase exponentially. Food for thought?
>
> I would not find it surprising at all if many Scots-Irish families in North
America have royal descents. When their forebears were sent to Ulster to work
the plantations of the Irish (from whom the land was being stolen), their bosses
on-site were hand-picked from among the "better" families, many of which were
probably of royal descent. That descent may have faded by then into a cadet
line, but just as Tacksmen were frequently close relatives of the lairds on
whose land they lived, the Ulster plantation overseers and managers had good
connections. Almost every American southerner of Scots-Irish ancestry with whom
I have discussed genealogy has claimed royal descent. Even if untrue for those
particular individuals, such claims may have arisen from a general knowledge
that *someone* in their history had such a descent. Not all of these people
became impoverished in the South; they also made up the planter classes by the

early 19th century. By extension, history tells us tha!
t !

> their genes further spread among the slave populations, resulting in royal
descents from Britain for many modern African Americans. Colin Powell, for
example, claims royal descent and has published the claim; if true, he is also
my distant cousin.
>