The Immigrant Henry Gregory

[Paulo Canedo]

In 2015 there was a discussion in this newsgroup that started with a question about the validity of immigrant Henry Gregory as a Gateway Ancestor to Royalty. I saw it a few days ago and today I saw a post of 2000 in www.genealogy.com it is http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/gregory/2742/ that affirms that the immigrant Henry being son of John Gregory of Nottinghamshire is not proven however the evidence they say there seems to me enough to make a good case. John's son William who was styled Gentleman in his will dated 18 June 1650 and proved on 5 February 1651, gave a legacy to his brother Henry Gregory "now in New England." There is no other known Henry Gregory in New England at the time. Henry of Nottingham son of John is known to have been a shoemaker and Henry the Immigrant was also one. Henry the Immigrant named his eldest son John that was the name of Henry of Nottingham's father and Henry of Nottingham is known to have had a daughter named Anne who has the correct age to be Henry the Immigrant's daughter Anne.

I think this is convincing enough but comments on the topic are welcome.

[gdco...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:25:54 PM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> In 2015 there was a discussion in this newsgroup that started with a question about the validity of immigrant Henry Gregory as a Gateway Ancestor to Royalty. I saw it a few days ago and today I saw a post of 2000 in www.genealogy.com it is http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/gregory/2742/ that affirms that the immigrant Henry being son of John Gregory of Nottinghamshire is not proven however the evidence they say there seems to me enough to make a good case. John's son William who was styled Gentleman in his will dated 18 June 1650 and proved on 5 February 1651, gave a legacy to his brother Henry Gregory "now in New England." There is no other known Henry Gregory in New England at the time. Henry of Nottingham son of John is known to have been a shoemaker and Henry the Immigrant was also one. Henry the Immigrant named his eldest son John that was the name of Henry of Nottingham's father and Henry of Nottingham is known to have had a daughter named Anne who has the correct age to be Henry the Immigrant's daughter Anne.
>
> I think this is convincing enough but comments on the topic are welcome.

I can't speak to any descent from royalty, but the evidence for Henry's origins in Nottingham was sufficient for John Coddington. See TAG 38:171-174 (1962), also sources cited therein. Coddington also gives the Parr descent of Dorothy Parr, originally published by Walter Davis in _Mary Isaac_. More recent research may of course supercede or add to Coddington's summary.

Greg Cooke

[gdco...@gmail.com]

An update/correction: Davis did not publish the Parr line, just the Worsely line to Ellen, wife of Richard de Parr, and Ellen was not Davis'is main focus--Mary Isaac was mother of Samuel Appleton, and has a line to Henry I, as given in RD600 (2004) 487, AR8 #249, though this line is not in the List of Colonial Immigrants given in Richardson's RA (2013) 1:xv.

Coddington points out that Richard de Parr's ancestry is given in one pedigree, but he is not shown in others. See Topographer & Genealogist 3:359, 354, 356, 357, & Clay, Extinct & Dormant Peerages of No. Counties of Eng (1913) 156.

T&G is available on FMG

Greg

[Paulo Canedo]

Did the article mention Dorothy Beeston? She is the key link in the royal descent online genealogies say she was daughter of Sir George Beeston and Alice Davenport and that she married Thomas Gregory.

[wjhonson]

This Dorothy married John Croxton in 1574

https://books.google.com/books?id=dIY1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA272

[Paulo Canedo]

That Dorothy married Gregrory comes from Gregory Family Origins: Stories of the Gregory Families of Colonial Virginia and their moves to Kentucky, Missouri and Points West.

[Paulo Canedo]

Finally something useful about Dorothy http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/gregory/5836/ says that it is know that Thomas Gregory was married with a Dorothy Beeston daughter of a George Beeston of Cheshire and that it seems very unlikely that there were two Dorothys Beeston and two Georges Beeston of Cheshire at the same time so it is likely that Dorothy daughter of George and Alice married twice.

[wjhonson]

And that marriage has been repeated often in various sources, all of which do not state their own source for it.

That is the general problem with works of this nature which are dedicated to showing a special descent.

So you may toss it on the heap of all other books of this nature, of which there are hundreds, and focus on credible works which cite sources.

[wjhonson]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 2:19:34 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Finally something useful about Dorothy http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/gregory/5836/ says that it is know that Thomas Gregory was married with a Dorothy Beeston daughter of a George Beeston of Cheshire and that it seems very unlikely that there were two Dorothys Beeston and two Georges Beeston of Cheshire at the same time so it is likely that Dorothy daughter of George and Alice married twice.

How exactly is it *more* credible, that one modern newsgroup member is waiting their hands in the air, at another modern newsgroup member?

They are both wrong and unable to comprehend the sources in the first place.

No one is suggesting that *some* Dorothy might have, or have not, married *some* Thomas Gregory.

Just not this one.

[wjhonson]

*waving their hands*, not waiting their hands....

[Paulo Canedo]

But Beeston is a really rare surname.

[wjhonson]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 2:37:00 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> But Beeston is a really rare surname.

All you need is two Dorothy's and wham you have a problem that cannot be solved in this hand waving manner.

I can demonstrate that contrary to stupid assertions, there were many Dorothy Beestons in the 16th century.

[Paulo Canedo]

The post also mentions that if there were two Georges Beeston of Cheshire at the same time how did the one that was father in law of Gregory disappear from the records. Also if you take a look Beeston Gregory online there will appear an ancient image that mentions the marriage of Gregory and a Dorothy Beeston.

[wjhonson]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 3:15:21 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> The post also mentions that if there were two Georges Beeston of Cheshire at the same time how did the one that was father in law of Gregory disappear from the records. Also if you take a look Beeston Gregory online there will appear an ancient image that mentions the marriage of Gregory and a Dorothy Beeston.

There were not two George Beestons of Cheshire who were fathers of two Dorothy Beestons, and father-in-laws of Gregory That's the problem.

*First* you have to assume that everything is wrong.
*Second* you have to find *reputable* sources that say anything useful at all about anything.

*Then* you can point out the discrepancies.

You are putting things in the wrong order.

Instead of asking people to google out the errors, why don't you take time to find good sources, and post the links to those sources.

[Richard Smith]

On 22/08/17 22:36, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> But Beeston is a really rare surname.

Time and time again I've found people whose first names and surnames
were both really rare, to the point where I might have expected them to
be the only person of that name ever, and then found a contemporary with
an identical name living within a few miles. It shouldn't be
surprisingly: surnames run in families, and first names often do too.

Richard

[Paulo Canedo]

http://ketchcetera.com/28833.dorothy_beeston.html

[wjhonson]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 3:42:32 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> http://ketchcetera.com/28833.dorothy_beeston.html


The problem with sources like this, is that appear to be reasonable, while at the same time, masking their flaws at a deeper level.

The Vis Nott 1662 does not state who the father of Dorothy was.
Claiming that she had perhaps three different husbands, at widely separated times, seems to speak more clearly to the point that she was not the same person at all.

That a *child* named Dorothy appears in one Vis, and then thirty years later, some person named Dorothy also appears, and married to someone, says nothing at all about the unsupported claim that they were the same person.

If you really want to prove this, you need to get dirty, and start looking at wills and other things of that nature, and stop trying to force together two jigsaw pieces, with *no* evidence that the two Dorothy's even lived within a hundred miles of each other.

[Paulo Canedo]

https://books.google.pt/books?redir_esc=y&hl=pt-PT&id=SFRmAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Beeston

[wjhonson]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 4:19:54 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> https://books.google.pt/books?redir_esc=y&hl=pt-PT&id=SFRmAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Beeston

This book cannot be viewed (in the US)

https://www.amazon.com/visitation-Nottinghamshire-finished-Publications-Harleian/dp/095002077X

[John Higgins]

You should be less hasty in posting before completely reading this source, Will.

At the foot of the page (and continuing into the next page), Thomas Helsby, the editor of the 2nd edition of Ormerod's Cheshire, makes a correction to the pedigree indicating that the Dorothy Beeston in question married John Copleston[e] [not Croxton] of Edgford, Devon. This is confirmed in Vivian's edition of the visitations of Devon.

There were two John Coplestones, father and son. The sister, Thomasine, of the younger John Coplestone was the third wife of Dorothy Beeston's borther Hugh - at least per Helsby's edition of Ormerod.

[John Higgins]

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 3:56:04 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 3:42:32 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> > http://ketchcetera.com/28833.dorothy_beeston.html
>
>
> The problem with sources like this, is that appear to be reasonable, while at the same time, masking their flaws at a deeper level.
>
> The Vis Nott 1662 does not state who the father of Dorothy was.

You're wrong, Will. The 1662 Visitation of Nottingham DOES state who the father of Dorothy was - although the accuracy of its statement is another matter entirely.

The book in question CAN be viewed in the US - in libraries, for those of us who don't restrict ourselves only to online sources. It states that Dorothy the wife of William Gregory was "daughter of George Beeston of Beeston in Comm. Cestr." - not SIR George.

BTW Helsby's edition of Ormerod's Cheshire indicates that there was another George Beeston of Beeston - a younger brother of the father of Sir George Beeston. The pedigree doesn't give any issue for this other George, but it's not impossible that he could be the father of the Dorothy who married William Gregory. Probably no royal descent here, however.

[wjhonson]

I find that actually citing sources others can read for themselves is more important than waving your hands in the air crying "library! library!"

https://books.google.com/books?id=GmqlIibS95IC&dq=dorothy%20beeston%20john%20coplestone&pg=PA233#v=onepage&q&f=true

[Paulo Canedo]

If we considered that Dorothy Beeston wife of Thomas Gregory was daughter of the older George there would still be a few descents from Henry I through his illegitimate son Robert de Caen.

[j.jo...@gmail.com]

[John Higgins]

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 10:04:57 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This book claims that Dorothy merely "came from Beeston" (a place in Nottinghamshire, not Cheshire). It cites "Major Lawson Lowe's" manuscripts at the University of Nottingham (apparently).
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=qYFnAAAAMAAJ&q=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&dq=broughton+beston+%22hugh+gregory%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidy43E6u3VAhUJQSYKHUeUDQIQ6AEILTAB

A useful find... This would indicate that the pedigree in the 1662 Notts visitation confused Beeston, Notts, with Beeston, Cheshire, and then just assumed that Dorothy was of the Beeston family. Of course any royal descent for Henry Gregory would go away.

[Paulo Canedo]

That image says Dorothy ... of Beeston. Look at the ... it appears to me that who wrote that pedigree either was unsure about her identity or did not have time to research it.

[Paulo Canedo]

Also perhaps there would still be a royal descent through Maud Moton wife of John Gregory and daughter of Roger Moton.

[wjhonson]

Maud if she every existed at all, had no royal lineage however
Her mother is wholely unknown, and her father was a low-level nobody

[Paulo Canedo]

Wasn't Roger maternal grandson of Baron Ralph Basset?

[wjhonson]

No

[Paulo Canedo]

Could you please tell me your sources and reasons for that?

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> Maud if she every existed at all, had no royal lineage however
> Her mother is wholely unknown, and her father was a low-level nobody
>

this does not automatically preclude a royal ancestry

[wjhonson]

There are no sources which state it, and therefore it is false.
Geni is not a source. Online trees created by mad idiots, are not sources.

If you insist on continuing with your silly crusade you're going to get more of the same remarks. Stop Posting Garbage From Worthless Sources.

Thank you.

[Paulo Canedo]

I use Geni in medieval and ancient pedigrees as a starting point then through their references I can check more trustworthy sources like Medieval Lands.

[wjhonson]

It also doesn't preclude Maud from spontaneously appearing born from the union of an alligator egg and a moonbeam. But that didn't happen either.

[wjhonson]

And in this case, you used Geni and realized that the person who posted that nonsense was completely nuts.

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- Paulo Canedo <paulorica...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I use Geni in medieval and ancient pedigrees as a starting point then through their references I can check more trustworthy sources like Medieval Lands.
>

one of geni.com's major problems is that most of its contributors don't source

[wjhonson]

I would say that Geni's largest problem is that they do not properly vet their contributions against the slightly attempt at consistency.

It is just a hotch potch of fable nonsense outrageous ridiculously, with a sprinkling of logic.

[Paulo Canedo]

Also I didn't use Geni for this I used Fabpedigree I know I am in doubtful lineages in some parts of Fabpedigree as the owner my friend James Allen says the info in his database is not to be taken as authoritive and asks us to use it as starting point and check some of the most reputable sources he uses and he does list them in his credits page I myself am mentioned there as a correspondent.

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- Paulo Canedo <paulorica...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Also I didn't use Geni for this I used Fabpedigree I know I am in doubtful lineages in some parts of Fabpedigree as the owner my friend James Allen says the info in his database is not to be taken as authoritive and asks us to use it as starting point and check some of the most reputable sources he uses and he does list them in his credits page I myself am mentioned there as a correspondent.
>

fabpedigree is even less reliable and should be avoided

[wjhonson]

James Allen is one of the more credulous creators of piles of mythical nonsense.

Why can't you just take my advice and STOP USING ONLINE TREES to do ANY research whatsoever. The vast majority of information in online trees is utter and complete rubbish

There is really *zero* need for you to use *any* of it.
Throw it all out, purge yourself, and start from useful books

[Paulo Canedo]

Please read what I said in the whole sentence it is not to be taken as authoritive. Also I personally believe sometimes Geni is the less reliable one I think that instead of permanently criticizing the websistes we should send them corrections in order to help clean them.

[Paulo Canedo]

No offense but now you are starting to look like an extremist. Then perhaps even Genealogics can be discarded as rubbish because it is also a tree.

[wjhonson]

FabPedigree is so hopelessly full of nonsense that there is *no way* to clean it. It should be completely discarded and started from zero.

Same with Geni.

If you continue to post their rubbish, I will continue to point out that you are posting rubbish.

[Richard Smith]

You may possibly be talking at cross purposes here. Maud may well have
had royal ancestry if you were able to go back four or five centuries.
In some ways it would be surprising if she didn't. But the point Will
Johnson is making is that at the moment there's no sign of any surviving
evidence that would allow us to determine what if any royal descent she
may have. Unless and until we can document exactly how she is descended
from royalty, genealogically speaking she has no royal descent.
Genealogy is about specific, documented descents, not statistical (or,
worse, hand-waving) arguments on the likelihood of descent.

By all means keep looking. Perhaps her mother's identity can be found.
Perhaps her father is less insignificant that at first it seems. But
you can't simply conjure a royal descent out of nowhere. Discovering
and properly documenting a new royal descent can take years of sedulous
and often fruitless work. It took me thirty years and innumerable dead
ends before I finally got there. Perhaps you'll be faster, but don't
bank on it.

Richard

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com> wrote:
> On 24/08/17 20:44, nore...@san.rr.com wrote:
> >
> > ---- wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Maud if she every existed at all, had no royal lineage however
> >> Her mother is wholely unknown, and her father was a low-level nobody
> >
> > this does not automatically preclude a royal ancestry
>
> You may possibly be talking at cross purposes here. Maud may well have
> had royal ancestry if you were able to go back four or five centuries.
> In some ways it would be surprising if she didn't. But the point Will
> Johnson is making is that at the moment there's no sign of any surviving
> evidence that would allow us to determine what if any royal descent she
> may have. Unless and until we can document exactly how she is descended
> from royalty, genealogically speaking she has no royal descent.
> Genealogy is about specific, documented descents, not statistical (or,
> worse, hand-waving) arguments on the likelihood of descent.

understood. however, stating an absolute based on class doesn't necessarily follow. THAT was my point

>
> By all means keep looking. Perhaps her mother's identity can be found.
> Perhaps her father is less insignificant that at first it seems. But
> you can't simply conjure a royal descent out of nowhere.

true

Discovering
> and properly documenting a new royal descent can take years of sedulous
> and often fruitless work. It took me thirty years and innumerable dead
> ends before I finally got there.

understood

[Richard Smith]

On 24/08/17 21:37, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> perhaps even Genealogics can be discarded as rubbish because it is also a tree.

I wouldn't discard it *as rubbish*, but I would nonetheless discard it.
If you want to be considered a serious genealogist you need to be
dealing with primary sources, transcribed and translated if necessary,
or at the very least the sort of secondary sources that carefully
discuss the primary sources. Genealogics is none of these things. It's
a tertiary source, as it is derived almost entirely from secondary
sources, and at times other tertiary sources. That's not to say
Genealogics is not a useful resource: very much it is. But it should be
used as a tool for checking the details of some family, rather than as
the foundation of your research.

Richard

[wjhonson]

> On 24/08/17 21:37, Paulo Canedo wrote:
>
> > perhaps even Genealogics can be discarded as rubbish because it is also a tree.
>

At one point I enjoyed citing thepeerage.com because he actually cited sources like "Burke's Peerage 1957 page 245" which could at least potentially be looked up. But then he started using sources such as "Email from John Brown 2017" which is such an utterly worthless citation that he would be better off not even citing it. Because it made me realize the Daryl and I live in utterly different universes.

Citations should be inter-linear, specific, and accessible.
Otherwise you might as well just make stuff up and post it as fact.

In addition to that, because I enjoy flogging dead horses, if you are *not* a member of this group, you have no business creating medieval genealogy websites at all.

[Richard Smith]

On 24/08/17 22:18, wjhonson wrote:

> At one point I enjoyed citing thepeerage.com because he actually
> cited sources like "Burke's Peerage 1957 page 245" which could at
> least potentially be looked up.

Yes, I agree that websites like that can be useful. If I get stuck I'll
often type a name into Google to see if I can find any web pages that
cite a proper source. Occasionally I get lucky.

> Citations should be inter-linear, specific, and accessible.
> Otherwise you might as well just make stuff up and post it as fact.

Totally agree. Books that only list sources at the end of a chapter, or
worse the whole book, are pretty useless. Even the style used in
/History of Parliament/, where each paragraph ends with a list of
sources, is painful to use. It needs to be readily apparent which
source or sources a particular fact derives from, and clearly citing
every fact is a good way of checking that you really do have adequate
sources for everything you claim.

Richard

[Paulo Canedo]

What now even interested amateur genealogists like me have to go to primary sources? This is starting to worry me. I never pretended or intended to be a profesional genealogist.

[wjhonson]

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 2:40:16 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> What now even interested amateur genealogists like me have to go to primary sources? This is starting to worry me. I never pretended or intended to be a profesional genealogist.

Secondary sources are fine.
Just stop using unsourced online websites and online family trees.
Ninety nine percent of them are completely useless and false.

Each fact should have a footnote citing its primary or secondary source.
That would be the ultimate useful website.

All else is trash.

[Peter Stewart]

On 25-Aug-17 7:40 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> What now even interested amateur genealogists like me have to go to primary sources? This is starting to worry me. I never pretended or intended to be a profesional genealogist.

No-one has to go to primary sources, but it needs to be recognised that
these are the actual 'sources' of knowledge, i.e. the original evidence
we have for it - secondary works are only a medium through which this
may be learned without directly consulting primary materials, or at best
'sources' of collation and analysis of the information found in them.

I think it is better to describe secondary works as such, rather than
calling published studies, online databases - or even translations,
calendars and extracts rather than scholarly editions of the original
texts - 'sources'.

Peter Stewart

[gdco...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:25:54 PM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> In 2015 there was a discussion in this newsgroup that started with a question about the validity of immigrant Henry Gregory as a Gateway Ancestor to Royalty. I saw it a few days ago and today I saw a post of 2000 in www.genealogy.com it is http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/gregory/2742/ that affirms that the immigrant Henry being son of John Gregory of Nottinghamshire is not proven however the evidence they say there seems to me enough to make a good case. John's son William who was styled Gentleman in his will dated 18 June 1650 and proved on 5 February 1651, gave a legacy to his brother Henry Gregory "now in New England." There is no other known Henry Gregory in New England at the time. Henry of Nottingham son of John is known to have been a shoemaker and Henry the Immigrant was also one. Henry the Immigrant named his eldest son John that was the name of Henry of Nottingham's father and Henry of Nottingham is known to have had a daughter named Anne who has the correct age to be Henry the Immigrant's daughter Anne.
>
> I think this is convincing enough but comments on the topic are welcome.

With some trepidation, I'll offer this:
Coddington (TAG 38:173) at gen 9 mentions that Richard Parr m. "Emme Hulton, daughter of Roger Hulton, of Hulton, co. Lancaster by his wife Katherine Harrington, daughter and heiress of Sir James Harrington of Wolfedge, Co Lancaster." The two sources given by Coddington do not mention the wife of Roger Hulton, but it is found in Foster's Lancashire Pedigrees. With more credibility, there is a thread from 2008 (search on "roger hulton") that explains that Katherine Harrington had two husbands, Roger being not mentioned in her mother's IPM, and not given in other published sources that I could find (see also Anc John Barber White, 1913). This apparently leads to pre-conquest royalty for Henry Gregory. See Anc Roots line #34-37.

Corrections? Comments? New Gateway?

Thanks

Greg Cooke

[gdco...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:25:54 PM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> In 2015 there was a discussion in this newsgroup that started with a question about the validity of immigrant Henry Gregory as a Gateway Ancestor to Royalty. I saw it a few days ago and today I saw a post of 2000 in www.genealogy.com it is http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/gregory/2742/ that affirms that the immigrant Henry being son of John Gregory of Nottinghamshire is not proven however the evidence they say there seems to me enough to make a good case. John's son William who was styled Gentleman in his will dated 18 June 1650 and proved on 5 February 1651, gave a legacy to his brother Henry Gregory "now in New England." There is no other known Henry Gregory in New England at the time. Henry of Nottingham son of John is known to have been a shoemaker and Henry the Immigrant was also one. Henry the Immigrant named his eldest son John that was the name of Henry of Nottingham's father and Henry of Nottingham is known to have had a daughter named Anne who has the correct age to be Henry the Immigrant's daughter Anne.
>
> I think this is convincing enough but comments on the topic are welcome.

I should add, see also Royal Ancestry (2013), 1:560 (Brixworth 18) which does not give Katherine's m. to Hulton. If Henry Gregory's descent from James Harrington is valid, it appears this would give him a descent from William the Conqueror.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Greg ~

My research indicates that Katherine Harington, daughter and co-heiress of Sir James Harington, of Brixworth, Northamptonshire, Westleigh (in Leigh), Lancashire, etc., married (1st) William Mirfield/Myrfeld (born c. 1486-1520) and (2nd) Thomas Burgh (or Brugh), Knt. (died by 1537).

See Yorkshire Notes & Queries 1 (1888): 105–120 (re. Mirfield fam.), which is available at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=8PQvAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA3-PA115

Also see the following Chancery Proceedings available at the online Discovery catalogue:

C 1/421/4; C 1/421/7; C 1/467/55; C 1/467/56; C 1/498/47 (available at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk).

Benolte, Vis. of Lancashire 1533 2 (Chetham Soc. 110) (1882): 190 includes the following editorial note:

“Adam Hulton was eldest son of Roger Hulton of the Park, who had married Katherine, one of the daughters and coheirs of Sir James Harington. She was his widow in 16 Henry VII. (1500), as appears by an indenture quoted by Mr. Hulton. This alliance has been overlooked by the Editor in previous notices of the heiresses of Sir James Harington and of his wife Isabella - Katherine being, at the time of her mother’s death, named in her will as one of her heirs, and wife of William Mirfyld.” END OF QUOTE.

There is a discussion of the daughters of Sir James Harington, including Katherine, published in Benolte, Vis. of Lancashire 1533 1 (Chetham Soc. 98) (1876): xii–xv. This material may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=SwEVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR12

The editor identifies of only one husband for Katherine Harington, namely William Mirfyld, whereas the evidence I have cited above proves had two husbands. No mention is made of a marriage to Roger Hulton.

It seems that a certain Katherine Harington did marry a Roger Hulton. See, for example, St. George Vis. of London 1633–5 1 (H.S.P. 15) (1880): 400 (Hulton ped.) which reads as following:

"Roger Hulton of the Parke = Katherin da. of Sir James Harington Kt."

However, I doubt that she was the same person as the Katherine Harington who married William Mirfield and Sir Thomas Burgh. I say that because Roger Hulton's wife, Katherine, is known to have been a widow with at least four children in 1500 [see Benolte, Vis. of Lancashire 1533 2 (Chetham Soc. 110) (1882): 189–190], whereas the other Katherine Harington's first husband, William Mirfield, was born about 1486 (aged 22 in 1508). Without doing more research, my guess is that there is a generation difference between the two Katherine Harington's.

Lastly, I might mention that Benolte, Vis. of Lancashire 1533 1 (Chetham Soc. 98) (1876): xii–xv states that Katherine Harington's sister, Margaret Harington, married (1st) Christopher Hulton and (2nd) Thomas Pilkington. Benolte, Vis. of Lancashire 1533 2 (Chetham Soc. 110) (1882): 189–190 specifically quotes a record dated 1517 which mentions "the last wyll of Margett Pylkenton sumtyme 1ife of Cristoffe Hulton of ffarnworthe." The latter source pg. 190 adds that "it seems clear"that "there were two Margaret Haringtons, in different generations, each married to a Pilkington."

But Benolte, Vis. of Lancashire 1533 1 (Chetham Soc. 98) (1876): xiii-xiv appears to dispute that there were two Harington-Pilkington marriages, saying that "Margaret wife of Sir Thomas Pilkington was therefore Aunt to Margaret who married Christopher Hulton."

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[j.jo...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 11:25:54 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> In 2015 there was a discussion in this newsgroup that started with a question about the validity of immigrant Henry Gregory as a Gateway Ancestor to Royalty. I saw it a few days ago and today I saw a post of 2000 in www.genealogy.com it is http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/gregory/2742/ that affirms that the immigrant Henry being son of John Gregory of Nottinghamshire is not proven however the evidence they say there seems to me enough to make a good case. John's son William who was styled Gentleman in his will dated 18 June 1650 and proved on 5 February 1651, gave a legacy to his brother Henry Gregory "now in New England." There is no other known Henry Gregory in New England at the time. Henry of Nottingham son of John is known to have been a shoemaker and Henry the Immigrant was also one. Henry the Immigrant named his eldest son John that was the name of Henry of Nottingham's father and Henry of Nottingham is known to have had a daughter named Anne who has the correct age to be Henry the Immigrant's daughter Anne.
>
> I think this is convincing enough but comments on the topic are welcome.

Douglas Richardson,
From Victoria County History: " A disposition for the marriage of Roger Hulton and Katherine Harrington related in the fourth degree was granted by Paul 11 and issued by the Bishop of Litchfield in August 1467." This date of 1467 makes me doubt that the Emma Hulton, daughter of Roger and Katherine Harrington, married Richard Parr. The Emma Hulton who married Richard Parr was probably the daughter of and earlier Roger Hulton.

[gdco...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:25:54 PM UTC-6, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> In 2015 there was a discussion in this newsgroup that started with a question about the validity of immigrant Henry Gregory as a Gateway Ancestor to Royalty. I saw it a few days ago and today I saw a post of 2000 in www.genealogy.com it is http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/gregory/2742/ that affirms that the immigrant Henry being son of John Gregory of Nottinghamshire is not proven however the evidence they say there seems to me enough to make a good case. John's son William who was styled Gentleman in his will dated 18 June 1650 and proved on 5 February 1651, gave a legacy to his brother Henry Gregory "now in New England." There is no other known Henry Gregory in New England at the time. Henry of Nottingham son of John is known to have been a shoemaker and Henry the Immigrant was also one. Henry the Immigrant named his eldest son John that was the name of Henry of Nottingham's father and Henry of Nottingham is known to have had a daughter named Anne who has the correct age to be Henry the Immigrant's daughter Anne.
>
> I think this is convincing enough but comments on the topic are welcome.

Yes, I was fast coming to the realization that it's chronologically impossible for Hugh Gregory (Coddington's gen 13), b 1490-95, to be a 5th generation descendant of a couple m. ca 1469 (per their dispensation). It appears something is seriously amiss in the published pedigrees.

Greg

[Douglas Richardson]

On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:56:12 AM UTC-6, gdco...@gmail.com wrote:

< Yes, I was fast coming to the realization that it's chronologically impossible < for Hugh Gregory (Coddington's gen 13), b 1490-95, to be a 5th generation
< descendant of a couple m. ca 1469 (per their dispensation). It appears
< something is seriously amiss in the published pedigrees.

< Greg

Indeed.

DR

[Paulo Canedo]

Maud Moton did exist see https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Moton-2 and https://books.google.pt/books?id=pRdYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA269&dq=Maud+daughter+of+sir+Roger+Moton&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Maud%20daughter%20of%20sir%20Roger%20Moton&f=false.
The Moton-Bassett connection is also correct see https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Basset-252 and https://archive.org/stream/visitationscoun00britgoog#page/n143/mode/1up.
Also Willl, Roger was hardly a nobody he was knight of Peckleton, Leiceshire see https://books.google.pt/books?id=pRdYAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA269&dq=Maud+daughter+of+sir+Roger+Moton&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Maud%20daughter%20of%20sir%20Roger%20Moton&f=false.

[wjhonson]

Stop. Citing. Wikitree.

Wikitree is *crap* (mostly)

[Paulo Canedo]

Did you happen to see the other reference I gave besides Wikitree?

[wjhonson]

Paulo, you seem confused about what credible sources are, and aren't.

Sources written down four hundred years later, are not credible about things four hundred years earlier.

Try again.

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Will, I'm noting some hypocrisy on your part. In one side you hate Fabpedigree but in the other side in your webpage http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Jacquetta_de_Luxembourg_to_Michael_Taronites you give a link to Fabpedigree.

[Wjhonson]

I've now deleted that link

-------------------------------
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

[Paulo Canedo]

The book I cited is by Evelyn Philip Shirley his biography is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Shirley_(1812-1882) he certainly had acess to excellent documents.

[wjhonson]

Your "appeals to authority" are too profound.
One of the principal points of this group is to discuss the false authority of some claims.

When someone points out, that *no other source* mentions the existence of a person except one source, that is cause for concern, not cause for standing in the same spot claiming that someone had greater access to now missing sources.

[Paulo Canedo]

Em segunda-feira, 30 de outubro de 2017 18:26:53 UTC, wjhonson escreveu:

It certainly is one or two levels above Geni mainly because it has better editors and a better interface.

[wjhonson]

And the *problem* with sites like this, which completely destroys their credibility, is that any particular individual page, is visited by a tiny percentage of truly knowledgeable people to fix errors, while truly ignorant people are busing creating new errors in a willy-nilly fashion all over it.

There is virtually no actual vetting of the mass of ridiculous nonsense posted there.

[Richard Smith]

On 30/10/17 20:20, Paulo Canedo wrote:

>> Wikitree is *crap* (mostly)
>
> It certainly is one or two levels above Geni mainly because it has better editors and a better interface.

Yes, Wikitree is considerably better than Geni, and as such Wikitree can
very occasionally be useful for locating sources or informed discussions
on a person, which I have never found to be true of Geni. But this does
not make Wikitree a credible source. It is not, and the majority of
pages on it are unsourced crap, even if this is situation is allegedly
improving. If you want to be taken seriously you need to learn what
constitutes a credible source and how to find them.

Richard

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Richard, as I already said several times I am just an amateur and I acess many types of sources and then I make my own ideas from what I see. I reject or regard as doubtful info that either has been rejected by experts or seems to be too fantastical to be true.

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Will, back in August you said that if one is not a member of this newsgroup you have no business in creating medieval genealogy websites at all. I don't agree because since this newsgroup is so focused on the British Isles that genealogists whose interests is in other countries may decide that it isn't worth the effort.

[wjhonson]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 3:32:58 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Dear Will, back in August you said that if one is not a member of this newsgroup you have no business in creating medieval genealogy websites at all. I don't agree because since this newsgroup is so focused on the British Isles that genealogists whose interests is in other countries may decide that it isn't worth the effort.

The British Isles focus is driven by who posts.
If you want to discuss medieval Swiss families, than do so, no one is stopping you

[j.jo...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 10:36:06 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:

Paulo Canedo,
Grant Gregory, in his book about the ancestors of Henry Gregory, states that there were two Adam Gregorys living at the same time. One was the grandson of John and Maud Moton, and this one was not an ancestor of Henry of Connecticut. The other Adam Gregory , who married Ada Ormeston,and whose parents he didn't know, he calls the ancestor of the Highurst Gregorys, and the ancestor of our Henry.