Fitz-Pons

[KRot...@aol.com]

While I can't comment on the other three lines, the CLIFFORD family DID
descend from the FITZ-PONS line. The first of the family recorded (in the
DOMESDAY book), were the four sons of PONS. It is unknown whether PONS was at
the battle, or came over afterwards, or ever came over at all!! The name
changed later to POYNTZ, and they made quite a name for themselves in their
time. The first Earl SPENCER, ancestor of the late Lady DI, married Georgiana
POYNTZ. The POYNTZ family, while spreading out to other counties...held quite
a bit of land in Gloucestershire. If you use RICHARD CILFFORD as a search
name, you should be able to find quite a bit. He is the one that changed his
name from Fitzpons to CLIFFORD. The "infamous" ROSAMUND was a CLIFFORD
descendant.
Ken in humid, but dry, VA

[Renia Simmonds]

I have today received an email which states the following:

"According to English genealogists, the families of Clifford, Vesey,
Bury, and Burke are descended from the four sons of Fitz-Pons, a Norman
knight who accompanied William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings.
.. In the Domesday Book, Michael de Bury (on of the Fitz-Pons sons) is
named as the holder of two manors in Somerset and one in Hertfordshire."

Can anyone please comment on this?

And, could anyone comment on the idea, that a coat of arms bearing
cross-crosslets might originate from an ancestor who was in the
crusades, a statement also made in the same email?

Thanks

Renia

[Richard Borthwick]

At 02:37 PM 29/06/99 +0800, you wrote:
>>X-From_: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com Tue Jun 29 08:11:20 1999
>>Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
>>X-Authentication-Warning: bl-1.rootsweb.com: news set sender to
>use...@rootsweb.com using -f
>>Old-To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>>Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:58:20 +0000
>>From: Renia Simmonds <PSim...@cwcom.net>
>>Organization: -
>>Sender: use...@rootsweb.com
>>Subject: Fitz-Pons
>>X-Gateway: news2mail for RootsWeb
>>Resent-Message-ID: <NqR3VC.A....@bl-11.rootsweb.com>
>>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>>Resent-From: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>>X-Mailing-List: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/26599
>>X-Loop: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>>Resent-Sender: GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com

The picture one gets from the sources and commentators is a bit confusing -
to me at least!

Drogo fitz Pons and his brother Walter held at Domesday in Gloucestershire
and both were succeeded in the early C12th by their nephew Richard fitz
Pons [Keats-Rohan *Domesday People* I:180-181, 455-456]. This suggests that
(1) that Drogo and Walter probably died without legitimate offspring and
(2) there were at least three original brothers, Drogo, Walter and Pons
(II) - all sons of Pons (I). Pons (II) had two sons, Richard fitz Pons (II)
(heir of his uncles and ancestor of the Cliffords). On this picture Simon
ancestor of the Poyntz family was probably a son of Pons (II) i.e. a
brother of Richard.

Sanders and CP indicate that Richard fitz Pons was the brother (not the
nephew) of Drogo and Walter. CP also seems to indicate that there was
another brother Osbert (alive in 1130) who had a son Ralph. By inference CP
seems to suggest that Simon fitz Pons was yet another brother. [Sanders
*English Baronies* 35 and note 6; CP X:669 and note (g)]

Can anyone clear up my confusion?