Katherine or Catherine de Beaumont and her parents??? 16th century
Rob
Katherine/Catherine de Beaumont of England (1532 - 1582,
Hertfordshire, England). I'm looking at RootsWeb site and several
sources are divided on three sets of her parents:
1st set of parents
Father: Richard de BEAUMONT b: 1514 in Lascelles Hall, Yorkshire,
England
Mother: Katherine de NEVILLE b: 1513 in Liversedge, Birstall, West
Riding, Yorkshire, England
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=updike&id=I37416&style=TABLE
2nd set of parents
Father: John BEAUMONT b: 1502 in Grace Dieu, Leicester, Great Britain
Mother: UNKNOWN
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=fleiner_study&id=I131996&style=TABLE
3rd set of parents
Father: RICHARD BEAUMONT b: 1514
Mother: KATHERINE GASCOIGNE b: 1520
http://worldconnect.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=:1748129&id=I80872244
Which parents were hers??!
NOTE:
Katherine's Marriage to William LAWRENCE b: 1532 in St. Albans,
Hertfordshire, England
* Married: 25 NOV 1559 in St. Albans Abbey, St. Albans,
Hertfordshire, England
Thank you for your help. :)
mj...@btinternet.com
> I'm getting confused about the origin of a possible ancestor named
> Katherine/Catherine de Beaumont of England (1532 - 1582,
> Hertfordshire, England). I'm looking at RootsWeb site and several
> sources are divided on three sets of her parents:
>
> 1st set of parents
> Father: Richard de BEAUMONT b: 1514 in Lascelles Hall, Yorkshire,
> England
> Mother: Katherine de NEVILLE b: 1513 in Liversedge, Birstall, West
>
> 2nd set of parents
> Father: John BEAUMONT b: 1502 in Grace Dieu, Leicester, Great Britain
>
> 3rd set of parents
> Father: RICHARD BEAUMONT b: 1514
>
> Which parents were hers??!
Unfortunately, don't forget option D: "none of the above".
PS The surname "de Beaumont" seems a bit anachronistic for the latter
16th century; perhaps it was just "Beaumont". I can't see anything
evident in the Visitation of Hertfordshire, and I wouldn't trust the
Rootsweb entries.
MA-R
Rob
accuracy: the Peerage.com and the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy
websites.
Beaumont is a French surname which originated from a place's name in
France, probably in or near Maine. Suppose a person named Richard de
Beaumont, he would be known as Richard from or of Beaumont, as if he
is either from Beaumont area or a Beaumont family.
What is the published year of the Visitation of Hertfordshire you've
referred to?
mj...@btinternet.com
> What is the published year of the Visitation of Hertfordshire you've
> referred to?
It was published in 1886 (Harleian Society Publication No XXII), and
is styled the Visitations of 1572 and 1634.
It may be seen online here:
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Hertfordshire/visitations/index.html
MA-R
Rob
magnification option to zoom in or out or no download option for a
closer look.
However, I did looked up the index and there's "Beaumond" (just right
above Beauchamp), which can be spelled as Beaumont.
> http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Hertfordshire/visitations/inde...
>
> MA-R
Rob
The earlier roots of the Beaumonts can be founded here:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/MAINE.htm#_Toc173478774
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORMAN%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc172613599
(start with Henry de Beaumont, earl of Warwick)
mj...@btinternet.com
(top-posting corrected)
On 19 Apr, 15:51, Rob <resh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 10:20 am, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > On 19 Apr, 15:11, Rob <resh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is the published year of the Visitation of Hertfordshire you've
> > > referred to?
>
> > It was published in 1886 (Harleian Society Publication No XXII), and
> > is styled the Visitations of 1572 and 1634.
>
> > It may be seen online here:
>
> >http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Hertfordshire/visitations/inde...
> Wow, thank you for that website. Unfortunately, there's no
> magnification option to zoom in or out or no download option for a
> closer look.
>
> However, I did looked up the index and there's "Beaumond" (just right
> above Beauchamp), which can be spelled as Beaumont.
I'm not sure that that will of any use to you though: it merely
relates to an "Ann Beaumond" who married (as his second wife) Thomas
Lewen, probably living in 1634. No details of her family are given.
There are also Lawrences, but no apparent connection with your
William.
MA-R
Rob
There were some Lawrence (or Laurence) branches living in various
places in England before the 17th century, so it's question of
searching for which branch of family this William came from, but I
wanted to focus on the family origin of this Catherine Beaumont
(Beaumond?).
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/19/2008 8:00:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
res...@gmail.com writes:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/MAINE.htm#_Toc173478774
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORMAN%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc172613599
---------------------------
References to these pages should be cited not to FMG but rather to
"Medlands, *hosted* on FMG"
Citing it only to FMG gives it an aura of enhanced credibility (in some
circles) which it shouldn't have. It should rest on it's own veracity without an
appeal to authority.
By the way, I've collated all major sources of medieval genealogy on my own
website. If you find a source which I don't list, I'd like to know what it
is.
Will Johnson
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> By the way, I've collated all major sources of medieval genealogy on my own
> website. If you find a source which I don't list, I'd like to know what it
> is.
>
> Will Johnson
>
ALL major sources of medieval genealogy? Sounds positively
Richardsonian....
Where exactly is this font of all knowledge?
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> I'm getting confused about the origin of a possible ancestor named
> Katherine/Catherine de Beaumont of England (1532 - 1582,
> Hertfordshire, England). I'm looking at RootsWeb site and several
> sources are divided on three sets of her parents:
>
> 1st set of parents
> Father: Richard de BEAUMONT b: 1514 in Lascelles Hall, Yorkshire,
> England
> Mother: Katherine de NEVILLE b: 1513 in Liversedge, Birstall, West
>
> 2nd set of parents
> Father: John BEAUMONT b: 1502 in Grace Dieu, Leicester, Great Britain
>
> 3rd set of parents
> Father: RICHARD BEAUMONT b: 1514
>
> Which parents were hers??!
>
> NOTE:
> Katherine's Marriage to William LAWRENCE b: 1532 in St. Albans,
> Hertfordshire, England
> * Married: 25 NOV 1559 in St. Albans Abbey, St. Albans,
> Hertfordshire, England
>
> Thank you for your help. :)
If you haven't already, you may want to look at www.beaumontfamily.com,
espeically its link to a downloadable version of the 1929 book "The
Beaumonts in History". I can't vouch for the total accuracy of the
latter item, but it be worth checking out.
mj...@btinternet.com
> On Apr 19, 1:14 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > By the way, I've collated all major sources of medieval genealogy on my own
> > website. If you find a source which I don't list, I'd like to know what it
> > is.
>
> > Will Johnson
>
> ALL major sources of medieval genealogy? Sounds positively
> Richardsonian....
>
There are *other* sources? :-O
MAR
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/19/2008 1:40:22 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
ALL major sources of medieval genealogy? Sounds positively
Richardsonian....
Where exactly is this font of all knowledge?>>
-------------------------
_http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources_
(http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources)
If you have a "major source of medieval genealogy" which is both online, and
doesn't appear on this list, I'd like to know what it's called and the URL.
Thanks
Rob
Lands under FMG?
And what are these major sources on your website that I would like to
look at?
Thanks.
On Apr 19, 4:14 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/19/2008 8:00:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> resh...@gmail.com writes:
>
> http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/MAINE.htm#_Toc173478774http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORMAN%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc172613599
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/19/2008 5:50:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
res...@gmail.com writes:
I do not understand what is this fuss all about the Project Medieval
Lands under FMG?
And what are these major sources on your website that I would like to
look at?
------------------------------------------
You can find much discussion about the Medlands project in the archives, it
wouldn't be prudent at this juncture for me to cause more drama onlist by
rehashing it all. I've said my piece on it.
My sources page is here
_http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources_
(http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources)
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> My sources page is here
> _http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources_
> (http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources)
As well as IV, VII and VIII, CP vol V (1893) 'L to M' is on Google
Books:
MA-R
Peter Stewart
"Rob" <res...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eeb7fc89-9bfd-4e8e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>I do not understand what is this fuss all about the Project Medieval
> Lands under FMG?
As Will Johnson advised, check the archive - this was discussed extensively
two years ago in several threads beginning here:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-06/1149443496
In so far as it is not just a rehash of ES tables, with some narrative
thrown in, the project is largely rubbish masquerading as scholarship. It is
this masquerade that does the damage, more than the innumerable errors of
fact (some small fraction of which are inevitable in a work on such a
scale).
Errors caused by incompetence and total ignorance of the source material,
_even when the compiler Charles Cawley is looking at this_ reduce it to a
waste of his time, and an unhappy if unwitting exploitation of the credulity
of readers.
To add another sidelight to the previous criticisms of the tissue of
mistakes, I looked yesterday at the early generations of the Redvers family
that someone had questioned in a private email - see Chapter 19 "Seigneur de
Reviers" in
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORMAN%20NOBILITY.htm#_ftn1506
Almost nothing is correct here. (Extracts from Medieval Lands below are
indicated by <<...>>). The lineage starts with:
<<HUGUES de Vernon, son of --- (-[1063/66]). "Hugone patre suo" is named in
the 1063 charter of "Guillelmus de Vernono", which specifies that the former
was "Sancti Wandregisili monacho" [fn 1484: Rouen Sainte-Trinité, 37, p.
440]>>
But the source clearly gives the date 1053, not 1063, so that the chronology
is out by a full decade from the opening. This is anyway not a charter of
William de Vernon as misrepresented by Cawley (and is not even on p. 440 but
rather 441). It is a summary, written in the third person, of the sale of
some meadows to the abbot of Sainte-Trinité by William and his father, who
was a monk at Saint-Wandrille, and also by William alone of a moiety of the
same domain that belonged to him by inheritance (perhaps from his mother).
The database continues:
<<He is named father of "Willelmus Vernonensis" in the latter's charter
dated 1066 [fn 1485: Rouen Sainte-Trinité, 16, p. 430]. It is assumed that
Hugues died before the date of this latter charter, although the document
does not mention this: as the earlier charter specifies that he was a monk
the omission of this fact from the latter would be surprising if he had
still been alive.>>
But this again is not a charter of William and is not dated 1066: it is the
notification of an exchange between the abbot of Sainte-Trinité and William
together with his wife, and the act is undated. All we know is that this was
tranacted some time after the Conquest (since William, king of the English,
was a signatory), making it somewhat unlikely that it was in 1066 - that is
in any case nowhere suggested in the text or in the edition cited by Cawley.
There is no particular reason for William's father to be mentioned, and we
already know that he held possessions in his own hereditary right. The value
on William's side of the transaction comprised certain rights of passage and
exemption from tolls pertaining to Vernon itself ("ad ipsum castrum
Vernonense pertinent"), but since his father Hugo of Vernon had become a
monk well before this time we have no evidence here as to whether the man
was living or dead.
Moving on to the next generation, Medieval Lands has this to say:
<<Hugues & his wife had one child: 1. GUILLAUME de Vernon . The primary
source which confirms his parentage has not yet been identified.>>
Um, no - the source identifying Hugo as father of William has already been
cited - if not actually sighted - by Cawley, as above. The document of 1053
(wrongly dated 1063 with the wrong page reference) says "Guillelmus de
Vernone cum patre suo nomine Hugone" (William of Vernon with his father
named Hugo) and, reinforcing this, their subscriptions were copied as
follows: "Signum Hugonis Vernonensis. Signum Willelmi, filii ejus" (the mark
of Hugo of Vernon, the mark of William his son).
<<"Willelmus Vernonensis" donated land belonging to the castle of Vernon to
Sainte-Trinité de Rouen jointly with his wife, dated 1066 [fn 1486: Rouen
Sainte-Trinité, 16, p. 430].>>
Wrong again, as noted above - the act cited was an exchange not a donation
and the transfer from William with his wife was of rights of passage for
goods and exemption from dues, not of land.
<<"Willelmi Vernonensi" witnessed the undated charter of "Emma mulier de
Longa Villa" [fn 1487: Rouen Sainte-Trinité, 22, p. 432].>>
Almost correct for a change, but for a typo: the subscription reads "Signum
Willelmi Vernonensis".
<<Guillaume de Vernon, his son Hugues and his wife Emma donated property to
Rouen Holy Trinity, confirmed in the charter dated to [1067] [fn 1488: Round
(1899), 82, p. 23.].>>
Hopelessly wrong - the reference is to an unusual error by Round, but there
is no excuse for Cawley's repeating this in blatant contradcition of
evidence he has already cited. Round wrote: "Notification that William de
Vernon (Vernonensis) his son Hugh and his wife Emma, receiving the
fellowship of the abbey have given Holy Trinity [freedom from] toll on all
its property, by water or by land, so far as concerns themselves or the
castle of Vernon". Round then gave the subscriptions from the same edition
cited by Cawley, and cited this with the same page reference adding "ca
1067" (_not_ in 1066) as the timing but with no rationale offered for this:
it is the same exchange of rights with Sainte-Trinité, some time after the
Conquest, described above. There is no mention of a son Hugh in the text,
and Round had evidently misread "Willelmus Vernonensis filius Hugonis
ejusque conjux Emma" (William of Vernon son of Hugo and his wife Emma) as
"WIllelmus Vernonensis filius Hugo ejusque conjux Emma" (William of Vernon,
his son Hugo and his wife Emma). This accidentally invented personage, with
all the information necessary to see through the mistake given on the same
page, seems real enough to Cawley to make a further misleading conjecture
about him later on.
<<m EMMA, daughter of OSBERN de Crépon & his wife Emma d'Ivry. [Snip of two
repeated false statements, explained above.] Her parentage is confirmed by a
charter of Carisbrooke Priory, Isle of Wight which names "Johannem et
Ricardum" as the two sons of "Willielmum filium Osberni marescallum.comitem
Herefordiæ" who predeceased their father, and records that their inheritance
went to "Ricardo de Rivers, nepoti prædicti Willielmi filii Osberni, tunc
comiti Exoniæ" [fn 1491: Dugdale Monasticon VI.2, Carisbrooke Priory, Isle
of Wight, I, p. 1041]. >>
The last claim is nonsense: the document in Monasticon is not a charter but
a note in the register of Carisbrooke priory, entered centuries later, and
it is patently false: William fitz Osbern was succeeded by his sons, by the
elder Guillaume as seigneur of Ivry and by the younger Roger as earl of
Hereford. The latter was dispossessed and imprisoned, and a fabricated
genealogical explanation was made up afterwards for the lordship of the Isle
of Wight passing to a supposed nephew of his father.
The placement of Richard de Redvers, <<His parentage is surmised by the
references to his supposed brother Hugues and the latter's parents>> is
based on nothing more than the imaginary Hugh discussed above and his
identification as a brother of Richard. But leaving aside this muddle, the
connection of the latter as a son of William de Vernon is an old hypothesis
that has been discredited in the recent literature (at least since 1970),
with this mentioned and references given in a number of works cited in the
same section of Medieval Lands by Cawley.
_Nothing_ written by Charles Cawley in this database, no matter how
plausible it may seem from the citations without checking, should be taken
on his hopelessly inadequate authority.
Peter Stewart
Rob
Lands.
While all the information on Medieval Lands is quite very impressive
and mind-boggling (for those who are unfamiliar with the issue you had
raised about Cawley), is there any current, reputable genealogist/
scholar out there who can compile, produce and deliver the same kind
of efforts that Charles Cawley had done with the Medieval Lands for
FMG?
Would or can you do the same kind of works on the Medieval Lands
without Cawley? Correcting mistakes and fixing up Medieval Lands for
clarity and veracity?
I now know there are obviously too many errors in MedLands but should
we have to discard the entire thing and start over from scratch OR do
a complete makeover on MedLands without losing crucial data in the
process and keep on improving?
Don't take it out on me, I'm still new to the whole genealogy research
stuff and I'm just learning and understanding these issues. I really
wanted to believe there are always rooms for improvement rather than
ignoring and treating the problems like nothing.
Thanks again.
On Apr 21, 8:24 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Rob" <resh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:eeb7fc89-9bfd-4e8e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I do not understand what is this fuss all about the Project Medieval
> > Lands under FMG?
>
> As Will Johnson advised, check the archive - this was discussed extensively
> two years ago in several threads beginning here:
>
> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-06/11...
Rob
The link gave out a Google server error.
On Apr 21, 6:42 am, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On 20 Apr, 09:16, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > My sources page is here
> > _http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources_
> > (http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources)
>
> As well as IV, VII and VIII, CP vol V (1893) 'L to M' is on Google
> Books:
>
> https://proxify.com/p/011010A1000110/687474703a2f2f7777772e676f6f676c...
>
> MA-R
Peter Stewart
> Thank you for the very informative post on Charles Cawley and Medieval
> Lands.
>
> While all the information on Medieval Lands is quite very impressive
> and mind-boggling (for those who are unfamiliar with the issue you had
> raised about Cawley), is there any current, reputable genealogist/
> scholar out there who can compile, produce and deliver the same kind
> of efforts that Charles Cawley had done with the Medieval Lands for
> FMG?
My point is that Charles Cawley is not at present capable of achieving
what he has set himself to do - but with appropriate redirection of
his efforts he could first work towards achieving a fair level of
competence in research and then undertake the same task more
proficiently. However, I suspect that anyone knowing enough to grasp
the complexities, and to assess the scope of reading (in Latin, Greek
and at least six modern languages) required to cover the sources and
literature, would choose not to undertake it. Far better results would
be possible for a number of specialists collaborating than for any one
individual, but such people have higher priorities for their time in
the first place. With no expertise to start with and no attempt to
prepare himself by gaining even rudimentary skills, Cawley is just
barking at the moon.
> Would or can you do the same kind of works on the Medieval Lands
> without Cawley? Correcting mistakes and fixing up Medieval Lands for
> clarity and veracity?
It is a waste of time to go through Cawley's botched work correcting
mistakes - it would be simpler and quicker to start afresh. But even
his process is flawed anyway, using ES then looking for sources to
substantiate genealogies that may be wrong. This is at least part of
what evidently went wrong with the Reviers line. A self-respecting
medieval genealogist can do his or her own work from scratch, not
depending on Detlev Schwennicke for a head start.
> I now know there are obviously too many errors in MedLands but should
> we have to discard the entire thing and start over from scratch OR do
> a complete makeover on MedLands without losing crucial data in the
> process and keep on improving?
There is nothing too valuable to lose in Medieval Lands. All that has
been done so far is to cast ES tables into a different form and then
try to fill in sources, mainly from titles available on Gallica or
Google Books. Where Cawley differs from Schwennicke he is more likely
to introduce a new error than correct an old one.
> Don't take it out on me, I'm still new to the whole genealogy research
> stuff and I'm just learning and understanding these issues. I really
> wanted to believe there are always rooms for improvement rather than
> ignoring and treating the problems like nothing.
Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project is the best attempt I know of
presently to offer a solid foundation with original scholarship in
medieval genealogy online. Its scope is attainable, and its author is
skillful and conscientious. On a larger scale, compiled mostly from
secondary works, the Genealogics and Genealogie Mittelalter databases
are more reliable than Medieval Lands.
Peter Stewart
Roger LeBlanc
and I happened across the entry for Dietrich V von Kleve. Shown as his
first wife is Mathilde von Dienslaken, and as I interpret it, she is
shown to be the daughter of the count Erbin von Dinslaken. Can someone
tell me if I have understood this correctly, as Mathilde's parentage is
not given by Leo's database or in Rauglaudre's (my two standbys). This
is the location-
http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/kleve_grafen_von/dietrich_5_nust_graf_von_kleve_+_1260.html
Roger LeBlanc
Volucris
Erbin = heiress.
No name is mentioned for her father.
I looked her up in Dieter Kasner, "Die Territorialpolitiek der Grafen
von Kleve", Düsseldorf 1972, but with him she is an ?
In his explanation he writes that the first wife was thought to have
been a Mathilde, heiress of the Lord of Dinslaken. This piece of
information goes back to a arbitrary combination and fantasy of 15 th
century Clevian court historians. The name and family of the around
1224 died first wive remains alas unknown. It seems to me that since
1972 there has been no progress on this area.
Hans Vogels
> is the location-http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/kleve_grafen_von/dietrich_5_nust...
>
> Roger LeBlanc
wjhonson
Subj: Dating Theodoric of Cleves, Seigneur of Dinslaken
Date: 11/28/06 12:52:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: WJho...@aol.com
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Some time ago I obtained a copy of American-Canadian Genealogist,
Issue 82, Volume 25, Number 4, 1999 "From Catherine Baillon to
Charlemagne", page 170, by Rene Jette, John P Dulong, Roland-Yves
Gagne and Gail F Moreau
from that article I quote the "....marriage contract of 19 March 1233
in Louvain..." (translated):
Theodoric, by the grace of God, Count of Cleves, with the Noble Man
[cum vir nobilis] Henry, Duke of Lorraine [fn: Brabant or Basse-
Lorraine], from the first and second part, whose marriage was
conveniently consummated between Theodoric, our first-born son, and
Elisabeth, daughter of the said Duke, Act dated in the year MCC.XXXIII
(1233) in the month of March, 14 (days before the) 1st of April (so
the 19th of March)"
They quote this from Butkens, 1724, Preuves, p 74: "Des Registres de
Brabant"
This Theodoric, the son, is identified in the article, and by Leo as
Theodoric (Dietrich), Seigneur de Dinslaken 1230-42 and his above-
spouse is Elisabeth, the daughter of Henry I, Duke of Lorraine
(Brabant) d 1235 by his wife Mary of France, daughter of Philip
Augustus, King of France.
This line descends to a Canadian immigrant named "Catherine Baillon"
Will Johnson
Rob
It would seem that more is seriously needed to be done about the
entire MedLands project, possible a larger collaborative effort to
establish and work on a separate genealogy project similar to the
Medieval Lands Project. Like you suggested that it would be better to
start over from scratch and work the way down on ALL documented
peoples and relations who lived and died between the 6th century AD to
1600 AD, verifying and citing relations and sources, reading up
medieval sources for confirmation and so forth. It would be impossible
for one person to do it all, even someone as unfamiliar with various
languages, comprehension of scholastic sources and citations like
Charles Cawley.
Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project look great but it hasn't been updated
since 2002 and the project is relatively limited to ancestral
relations to his families (the Baldwins and the Wilsfords), not like
the overall scope and scale of Cawley's Medieval Lands, which covered
almost everyone in Europe and the Mideast in the post-antiquity and
medieval periods. Leo van de Pas' Genealogics is quite very impressive
but his genealogy project goes straight out of the Old Testaments and
the pagan deities to the modern world. Say, aren't you descended from
Adam and Eve? ;)
The Genealogie Mittelalter website is in German and I don't see an
English version from there. :(
What I would like to see an actual collaborative project of all the
ancestors in the post-antiquity and medieval periods in one central
source, with all the recommendations as you wanted out of it, as not
to repeat the same mistakes as Charles Cawley on the MedLands project.
I'm thinking of Wikipedia-like collaborative source but I'm not sure
if anyone is eager to participate. I would be willing to do the typing
and documenting, leaving the experts to verify anything from the
sources and reach a consensus on every possible medieval ancestor of
ours.
My real concern, Peter, is that I don't wanted our current and future
descendants to look back and wonder why we spent more times bickering,
arguing, disputing or even accusing each other on every genealogical
issue with our ancestors and sources that we have in possession within
our libraries and archives (and in private holdings as well) and not
have done a serious, cooperative, collaborative effort to establish,
work and maintain a central source of all the post-antiquity and
medieval ancestors that can be easily retrieved and accessed via the
Internet.
I would like to think that we owe ourselves to our children, their
children and their descendants for providing most, if not all,
informations on our ancestors to the best of our knowledges,
understandings and abilities.
Or am I just barking up to the moon in vain, so to speak?
wjhonson
> It would seem that more is seriously needed to be done about the
> entire MedLands project, possible a larger collaborative effort to
> establish and work on a separate genealogy project similar to the
> Medieval Lands Project. Like you suggested that it would be better to
> start over from scratch and work the way down on ALL documented
> peoples and relations who lived and died between the 6th century AD to
> 1600 AD, verifying and citing relations and sources, reading up
> medieval sources for confirmation and so forth. It would be impossible
> for one person to do it all, even someone as unfamiliar with various
> languages, comprehension of scholastic sources and citations like
> Charles Cawley.
I doubt it will ever get off the ground. It's been attempted a few
times and there just isn't enough common interest or motivation for
people to join.
-----------------------------------------
>
> Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project look great but it hasn't been updated
> since 2002 and the project is relatively limited to ancestral
> relations to his families (the Baldwins and the Wilsfords), not like
> the overall scope and scale of Cawley's Medieval Lands, which covered
> almost everyone in Europe and the Mideast in the post-antiquity and
> medieval periods. Leo van de Pas' Genealogics is quite very impressive
> but his genealogy project goes straight out of the Old Testaments and
> the pagan deities to the modern world. Say, aren't you descended from
> Adam and Eve? ;)
>
---------------------------
I'm sure Stewart has updated various pages since 2002, you are
probably reviewing *a* page which hasn't been updated since 2002
because he had nothing more to say about that page. But there are
many pages on that site.
The advantage of Leo's site over say tudorplace.com.ar is that Leo
cite's his sources. So you can tell right away if a source is
probably decent, might be useful, or total poo. And you can read the
source for yourself since you now will know where exactly to check.
---------------------------------
> The Genealogie Mittelalter website is in German and I don't see an
> English version from there. :(
>
---------------------------
Pay attention!
I've already collected the ENGLISH language sources on my Sources
page.
They are all there. All of them. All. A...l....l....
I'm adding them as people tell me about them.
-------------------------
> What I would like to see an actual collaborative project of all the
> ancestors in the post-antiquity and medieval periods in one central
> source, with all the recommendations as you wanted out of it, as not
> to repeat the same mistakes as Charles Cawley on the MedLands project.
> I'm thinking of Wikipedia-like collaborative source but I'm not sure
> if anyone is eager to participate. I would be willing to do the typing
> and documenting, leaving the experts to verify anything from the
> sources and reach a consensus on every possible medieval ancestor of
> ours.
>
----------------------
Any project like this needs to be a Wiki. That is, we all have to
type into it, not just one person. My own site http://www.countyhistorian.com
to setup as a Wiki and I could set up another just for medieval
purposes, but I just don't see a great response coming.
------------------------
> My real concern, Peter, is that I don't wanted our current and future
> descendants to look back and wonder why we spent more times bickering,
> arguing, disputing or even accusing each other on every genealogical
> issue with our ancestors and sources that we have in possession within
> our libraries and archives (and in private holdings as well) and not
> have done a serious, cooperative, collaborative effort to establish,
> work and maintain a central source of all the post-antiquity and
> medieval ancestors that can be easily retrieved and accessed via the
> Internet.
>
> I would like to think that we owe ourselves to our children, their
> children and their descendants for providing most, if not all,
> informations on our ancestors to the best of our knowledges,
> understandings and abilities.
>
> Or am I just barking up to the moon in vain, so to speak?
See for example the collaborative effort we did on Lady Godiva, which
I've documented. That was one of the true collaboratoins, that
actually drew all the primary sources together onto one page.
Will Johnson
Peter Stewart
> William fitz Osbern was succeeded by his sons, by the elder Guillaume
> as seigneur of Ivry and by the younger Roger as earl of Hereford.
My apologies, this first part of this is wrong - William fitz Osbern's
elder son Guillaume inherited the lordship of Breteuil in 1071, but
Ivry was given to him later by Robert Curthose.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Thank you, Peter.
>
> It would seem that more is seriously needed to be done about the
> entire MedLands project, possible a larger collaborative effort to
> establish and work on a separate genealogy project similar to the
> Medieval Lands Project. Like you suggested that it would be better to
> start over from scratch and work the way down on ALL documented
> peoples and relations who lived and died between the 6th century AD to
> 1600 AD, verifying and citing relations and sources, reading up
> medieval sources for confirmation and so forth. It would be impossible
> for one person to do it all, even someone as unfamiliar with various
> languages, comprehension of scholastic sources and citations like
> Charles Cawley.
>
> Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project look great but it hasn't been updated
> since 2002 and the project is relatively limited to ancestral
> relations to his families (the Baldwins and the Wilsfords), not like
> the overall scope and scale of Cawley's Medieval Lands, which covered
> almost everyone in Europe and the Mideast in the post-antiquity and
> medieval periods.
I don't know where you found the Baldwins and the WIlsfords - Stewaart
Baldwin's Henry Project that I wrote about covers the ancestors of King
Henry II, see
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/henry.htm
> Leo van de Pas' Genealogics is quite very impressive
> but his genealogy project goes straight out of the Old Testaments and
> the pagan deities to the modern world. Say, aren't you descended from
> Adam and Eve? ;)
This is a mystery, I have not looked for biblical figures or pagan deities
in Leo's genealogics but I would not expect to find any of them in it.
> The Genealogie Mittelalter website is in German and I don't see an
> English version from there. :(
Well, German-speaking people have medieval ancestors too. The whole subject
cannot be studied entirely in English, as the sources & much of the
literature are not written in this language.
> What I would like to see an actual collaborative project of all the
> ancestors in the post-antiquity and medieval periods in one central
> source, with all the recommendations as you wanted out of it, as not
> to repeat the same mistakes as Charles Cawley on the MedLands project.
> I'm thinking of Wikipedia-like collaborative source but I'm not sure
> if anyone is eager to participate. I would be willing to do the typing
> and documenting, leaving the experts to verify anything from the
> sources and reach a consensus on every possible medieval ancestor of
> ours.
I suppose everyone would like to find a one-stop shop, with free produce, in
whatever area interests them. There are many people who study Italian
Renaissaince art, for example - a subject that has a much greater &
following with far more resources devoted to it than does medieval
genealogy - who would like to find a database with photos of all paintings,
sculpture and objects of vertue from that period with biographies of the
artists and craftsmen. But where is this? It doesn't exist, of cousre, and
perhaps never will.
> My real concern, Peter, is that I don't wanted our current and future
> descendants to look back and wonder why we spent more times bickering,
> arguing, disputing or even accusing each other on every genealogical
> issue with our ancestors and sources that we have in possession within
> our libraries and archives (and in private holdings as well) and not
> have done a serious, cooperative, collaborative effort to establish,
> work and maintain a central source of all the post-antiquity and
> medieval ancestors that can be easily retrieved and accessed via the
> Internet.
>
> I would like to think that we owe ourselves to our children, their
> children and their descendants for providing most, if not all,
> informations on our ancestors to the best of our knowledges,
> understandings and abilities.
>
> Or am I just barking up to the moon in vain, so to speak?
I don't understand why future descendants of medieval people should be
especially privileged to have this work done for them by an earlier
generation, or why it is incumbent on the first generations having access to
the Internet to do such an impracticable work once-and-for-all. In 50-100
years from now there will be vastly more material available in the public
domain, both sources and secondary studies. I just can't see the urgency for
spoon-feeding posterity in this way. Medieval ancestors aren't going
anywhere.
Peter Stewart
Rob
> ----------------------------------------
> I doubt it will ever get off the ground. It's been attempted a few
> times and there just isn't enough common interest or motivation for
> people to join.
>
> -----------------------------------------
That's too bad. I would be willing, on the other hand.
> The advantage of Leo's site over say tudorplace.com.ar is that Leo
> cite's his sources. So you can tell right away if a source is
> probably decent, might be useful, or total poo. And you can read the
> source for yourself since you now will know where exactly to check.
>
> Pay attention!
> I've already collected the ENGLISH language sources on my Sources
> page.
> They are all there. All of them. All. A...l....l....
> I'm adding them as people tell me about them.
Alright! I have founded one really good one:
http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cousin/html/index.htm
This guy did a really impressive work on it. He even provided the
correct name and title of William the Conqueror:
http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cousin/html/p352.htm#i5000
Still, the English version of the Genealogie Mittelalter website would
be nice, anyway.
> ----------------------
> Any project like this needs to be a Wiki. That is, we all have to
> type into it, not just one person. My own sitehttp://www.countyhistorian.com
> to setup as a Wiki and I could set up another just for medieval
> purposes, but I just don't see a great response coming.
> ------------------------
It doesn't have to be every joe and jane out there getting into it. It
would be only those who are really interesting in yours.
> See for example the collaborative effort we did on Lady Godiva, which
> I've documented. That was one of the true collaboratoins, that
> actually drew all the primary sources together onto one page.
>
> Will Johnson
If that effort on Lady Godiva has been successfully accomplished, I
don't see any reason why we should not do the rest of all other post-
antiquity to medieval ancestors likewise?
wjhonson
> If that effort on Lady Godiva has been successfully accomplished, I
> don't see any reason why we should not do the rest of all other post-
> antiquity to medieval ancestors likewise?
I agree Rob. Tell me who you (personally) would like to start working
on, and I'll set up a page for that person.
Rob
> I don't know where you found the Baldwins and the WIlsfords - Stewaart
> Baldwin's Henry Project that I wrote about covers the ancestors of King
> Henry II, see
>
> http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/henry.htm
After I posted my last name's message to Peter, I went to bed, got too
sleepy and need to get up early for work the next day.
This is where I got with the Henry Project from Mr. Baldwin's
homepage:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/
> This is a mystery, I have not looked for biblical figures or pagan deities
> in Leo's genealogics but I would not expect to find any of them in it.
My apology for the mix-up. Last summer, I was Googling for
genealogical sources and saw too many interesting things, including
the pedigree charts of Adam and Eve and the pagan deities, which a
mention of Leo van de Pas got me into his website Genealogics for the
first time and I just assumed whoever did these charts might have
gotten the information from de Pas or maybe someone else. Right now, I
do not remember which website, as there were too many genealogical
sources that I was just breezing through Google. Remember, I'm still
new to this whole genealogy research stuff, so please bear with me.
Again, sorry for the confusion.
>
> I suppose everyone would like to find a one-stop shop, with free produce, in
> whatever area interests them. There are many people who study Italian
> Renaissaince art, for example - a subject that has a much greater &
> following with far more resources devoted to it than does medieval
> genealogy - who would like to find a database with photos of all paintings,
> sculpture and objects of vertue from that period with biographies of the
> artists and craftsmen. But where is this? It doesn't exist, of cousre, and
> perhaps never will.
>
That would be a shame for some people who may never know they could be
descended from some famous Renaissance figures. It's not like they are
going to lay any claim to the artworks or literature from that period,
it's just the fact for some descendants today, it would be NICE TO
KNOW that they are descended from these famous Renaissance figures,
that's all. Ever seen the PBS' TV series, "History Detectives"? Same
idea.
>
> I don't understand why future descendants of medieval people should be
> especially privileged to have this work done for them by an earlier
> generation, or why it is incumbent on the first generations having access to
> the Internet to do such an impracticable work once-and-for-all. In 50-100
> years from now there will be vastly more material available in the public
> domain, both sources and secondary studies. I just can't see the urgency for
> spoon-feeding posterity in this way. Medieval ancestors aren't going
> anywhere.
>
> Peter Stewart
That is a cynical statement, Peter. It seems like you're dismissing
many proven genealogical sources and books already published for the
last 100-200 years, made by professional or amateur genealogists,
historians and researchers and are now either freely accessible
through the Internet or can be seen in the public libraries or
archives. I went to a main downtown public library few weeks ago and
saw so many people looking over various genealogical sources in the
Genealogy section. They would be glad that such sources have been done
by earlier generations. Otherwise, they would have been lost or
confused without them.
I was told by a public librarian working in the genealogy section that
about 95% of all the books, papers and documentations on ancestors in
the public library have not been digitized for the Internet yet!
What's up with that? The truth is that digitizing them for the
Internet is a huge amount of work and efforts, as long as these
sources are past the expiration date of copyright.
Medieval ancestors aren't going anywhere but we still need to make
sure medieval ancestors are connected to the right descendants of
today.
wjhonson
>
> I was told by a public librarian working in the genealogy section that
> about 95% of all the books, papers and documentations on ancestors in
> the public library have not been digitized for the Internet yet!
> What's up with that? The truth is that digitizing them for the
> Internet is a huge amount of work and efforts, as long as these
> sources are past the expiration date of copyright.
I hate to be the one to tell you Rob, but 95% of all *material* that
we know exists hasn't even been (widely) published, let alone
digitized. It sits rotting away in the basements of county
courthouses and libraries all over the country, in primary form,
waiting for someone to publish at least an index.
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
> I'm getting confused about the origin of a possible ancestor named
> Katherine/Catherine de Beaumont of England (1532 - 1582,
> Hertfordshire, England). I'm looking at RootsWeb site and several
> sources are divided on three sets of her parents:
>
> 1st set of parents
> Father: Richard de BEAUMONT b: 1514 in Lascelles Hall, Yorkshire,
> England
> Mother: Katherine de NEVILLE b: 1513 in Liversedge, Birstall, West
> Riding, Yorkshire, Englandhttp://worldconnect.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=u...
>
> 2nd set of parents
> Father: John BEAUMONT b: 1502 in Grace Dieu, Leicester, Great Britain
> Mother: UNKNOWNhttp://worldconnect.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=f...
>
> 3rd set of parents
> Father: RICHARD BEAUMONT b: 1514
> Mother: KATHERINE GASCOIGNE b: 1520http://worldconnect.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=:...
>
> Which parents were hers??!
>
> NOTE:
> Katherine's Marriage to William LAWRENCE b: 1532 in St. Albans,
> Hertfordshire, England
> * Married: 25 NOV 1559 in St. Albans Abbey, St. Albans,
> Hertfordshire, England
>
> Thank you for your help. :)
Rob
I'm not sure whether it will help, but I looked up the Hertford
probate indexes (published by the British Record Society in 2007);
there are no Beaumont wills at Hertford earlier than 1604.
There are two wills for men named William Lawrence of St Albans (one
in 1580, a yeoman: reference 21AW10 7AR70 1581/2 - and the other a
brewer: reference 26AW13 7AR106 inv[entory] A25/1129), but you may
already have a probate details for 'your' William.
Regards, Michael
Peter Stewart
> On Apr 22, 11:07 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know where you found the Baldwins and the WIlsfords - Stewaart
>> Baldwin's Henry Project that I wrote about covers the ancestors of King
>> Henry II, see
>>
>> http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/henry.htm
>
> After I posted my last name's message to Peter, I went to bed, got too
> sleepy and need to get up early for work the next day.
>
> This is where I got with the Henry Project from Mr. Baldwin's
> homepage:
> http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/
The Henry Project that I referred to is a specific initiative of Stewart
Baldwin's in medieval genealogy, not concentrating on his own ancestry.
<snip>
>> I don't understand why future descendants of medieval people should be
>> especially privileged to have this work done for them by an earlier
>> generation, or why it is incumbent on the first generations having access
>> to
>> the Internet to do such an impracticable work once-and-for-all. In 50-100
>> years from now there will be vastly more material available in the public
>> domain, both sources and secondary studies. I just can't see the urgency
>> for
>> spoon-feeding posterity in this way. Medieval ancestors aren't going
>> anywhere.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> That is a cynical statement, Peter. It seems like you're dismissing
> many proven genealogical sources and books already published for the
> last 100-200 years, made by professional or amateur genealogists,
> historians and researchers and are now either freely accessible
> through the Internet or can be seen in the public libraries or
> archives.
You have lost me - I was not "dismissing" anything, much less work published
more than 100 years ago. My point is that the materials for compiling the
kind of database you propose will be more readily available online in future
than these are today. This is not an adverse reflection on the material
available today, any more than saying that cars in future will be more
fuel-efficient means that you should not drive today. Just don't expect to
get as far as cheaply and cleanly as you will be able to do later on.
> I went to a main downtown public library few weeks ago and
> saw so many people looking over various genealogical sources in the
> Genealogy section. They would be glad that such sources have been done
> by earlier generations. Otherwise, they would have been lost or
> confused without them.
>
> I was told by a public librarian working in the genealogy section that
> about 95% of all the books, papers and documentations on ancestors in
> the public library have not been digitized for the Internet yet!
> What's up with that? The truth is that digitizing them for the
> Internet is a huge amount of work and efforts, as long as these
> sources are past the expiration date of copyright.
There is an immense amount of printed material in the public domain. Gallica
has made a useful start, especially for French works obviously, and Google
is more clumsily extending the accessibility, for readers in the USA at
least, although the capricious and haphazard procedure of the operatives and
the apparent lack of supervision by competent librarians are, I'm afraid,
really disgusting.
Peter Stewart
Rob
Beaumont might be a modern translation of the original surname spelled
and said differently.