ancestral memories: Pridias Prideaux (earliest generations)

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

I am going to post the stories told by Paganus of Pridias (ancestor of the Prideaux family, which still exists) and his descendants for a total of nine generations. Paganus held a Cornish seaside hilltop at the time of the Conquest, which meant that he had to decide whether to resist or collaborate with the encroaching Normans.

Paganus's son Richard married a daughter of Robert de Montaigne, progenitor of the Burgh family of Ireland. Robert was the Norman overlord of the area, and took up residence at Paganus's fortified hilltop; hence his moniker "montaigne" (mountain).

The descent of Paganus given by the ancestors does not correspond to that given in a much later Prideaux pedigree, which was copied into Vivian's Visitations of Cornwall. The earliest generations in the later pedigree were apparently assembled from scattered references to the holders of the Pridias hilltop/estate, assuming that they formed a lineal descent. The actual descent goes through a younger branch, which inherited the estate from a cousin who didn't have a son.

The lineage as given by the ancestors is as follows:

1. Paganus

2. Richard (younger son and heir -- read the story)

3. Richard (son and heir)

4. Hector (younger son, did not hold the hilltop)

5. Richard (inherited the hilltop from his cousin Baudoin)

6. Nicholas (son and heir)

7. Richard (son and heir)

7A. Baudouin (younger son of Nicholas #6; his son Roger had a daughter Margaret who married Hillogan/Heligan and descended through Kemyell/Kemel to St Aubyn and Vivion.)

8. Richard (son and heir of Richard #7)

9. Baudouin (son and heir; his line eventually died out with an heiress, and then the Prideaux estate descended through Arvas to Herle, and a descendant married Cary, descending to the Jenney family of Plymouth Colony.)
9A. Geoffrey, younger son of Richard (#8), married Isabella, heiress of Orcharton. This couple is the root of all the continuing Prideaux descents in England, America and Australia.

The stories below go through these nine generations; I intend to add more in the future, as time permits. These stories come from the ancestors themselves. For an explanation of communicating with ancestors, see https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors

--

Paganus Pridias

(Apr. 14, 2018) Paganus Pridias was a man who owned a hilltop. This hilltop was very useful, because ships came on occasion to raid. The hilltop was a good place for defense. If the ship’s crew was unfamiliar with the neighborhood, Paganus Pridias’s hilltop was impregnable. This was the condition of Paganus Pridias. Paganus Pridias was not a wealthy man. He had a bit of land, and a family that was well respected. Paganus Pridias was expected to become one of the local leaders.

Paganus Pridias married the daughter of a leader who was steadfast in his opposition to the encroaching Normans. Paganus Pridias intended to negotiate when the Normans reached the area that Paganus Pridias lived in. Paganus Pridias intended to ensure that his sons were able to inherit. Paganus Pridias ensured that this would happen.

Paganus Pridias ensured that his sons would continue and not be cut down by Norman invaders. Paganus was able to do so because he acted against the will of his wife’s father. This cost Paganus. Paganus was unable to prevent his wife from leaving him and rejoining her father. Paganus understood that his wife would never yield. Paganus decided that the future of his sons was more important than the pride of his wife and her father. Paganus sacrificed his marriage.

Paganus did so with the knowledge that his father-in-law would raise a troop of men to counter what Paganus was trying to do. Paganus understood that, if it came to combat, Paganus would have to side with the Norman invaders. Paganus did not fight. Paganus was able to avoid open combat. Instead, Paganus was attacked in his home by his brother-in-law.

Paganus understood that he could not kill his brother-in-law. He had to defeat him, but not kill him. Paganus wanted to not have any blood on his hands. Paganus wanted his brother-in-law to accept that Paganus wasn’t inclined to kill him. Paganus wanted his brother-in-law to yield. Paganus understood that his brother-in-law was trying to kill him. Paganus wanted his brother-in-law to think. Paganus was trying to fight and not lose. Paganus’s brother-in-law was trying to fight and win.

Paganus combatted his brother-in-law for the better part of an hour. Paganus understood that he would fail if he tired. Paganus understood that his brother-in-law was in better shape than Paganus. Paganus understood that, if he was vanquished, his sons would lose their inheritance. Paganus wanted to end the fight. Paganus wanted to ensure that his brother-in-law was mercifully defeated. Paganus knew, after the fight had dragged on, that his brother-in-law didn’t have the intention of killing him. Paganus was aware that his brother-in-law was looking for an opportunity to leave.

Paganus wanted his brother-in-law to simply back off. Paganus wanted his brother-in-law to end the combat. Paganus yielded. Paganus knew that, if he stumbled, his brother-in-law would harm him. Paganus yielded, and his brother-in-law simply left.

Paganus wanted to think that this was the end of the problem. The Normans were close. Paganus understood that, if he invited the Normans to the hilltop, he would be safe. Paganus understood, if he did that without a force of men, he would be (held in contempt). Paganus ensured that men loyal to him were in the hilltop fortification. Paganus wanted the Normans to accept that he had men under his command. Paganus invited the Normans to enter, with the condition that his men be allowed to keep their weapons. Paganus knew, because of the general feelings, that his men would be inclined to attack the Normans. Paganus wanted to ensure that this wouldn’t happen. Paganus told each one of his men that, after the Normans ensured that this area was subdued, he would be remembered as one of Paganus’s men. This had the effect of making the man realize that he was already associated with the Normans. Paganus wanted his men to accept this. But the opposite happened.

Paganus was suddenly without men. All of his men left. Paganus was alone with the Normans. Paganus wanted to be treated with respect. Paganus knew, because of what he did, that he would not have the respect of his men. Paganus understood, after he gave the hilltop to the Normans, that he and his men would never have been able to defend it. Paganus had saved the lives of many men. Paganus understood that the men would not accept this. Paganus simply knew that he had done the right thing.

(Apr. 15, 2018) Paganus Pridias was able to convince five men, who had been retainers of his family, to stay with him. These five men gave Paganus the appearance of being a commander. This saved Paganus. Without these men, Paganus would have been a puppet. With the five men, Paganus had the ability to kill. And this ensured that the Normans respected Paganus, even as they made decisions about the hilltop without talking to Paganus.

Paganus knew that he was unable to challenge the Normans. Paganus knew that the Normans had targeted the hilltop. Paganus knew, because of this, he was not giving anything up. Paganus simply accepted the situation.

Paganus wanted to make sure that the Normans understood that Paganus wanted to cooperate. Paganus understood that the way for cooperation to be secured was to arrange a marriage. Paganus had three sons. Paganus understood that one of his sons was unsuited to marry. The son had a disability. Paganus also understood that, if the son who married a Norman was unfaithful, there would be a reprisal. Paganus had to choose the son who Paganus thought was most likely to be able to cooperate with the Normans.

Paganus chose his younger son. Paganus understood that the elder son already had been thinking of making a marriage alliance. Paganus knew that his elder son was inclined to question what Paganus had done. Paganus suspected that part of this was the talk from the family that Paganus’s eldest son was considering allying with.

(Apr. 15, 2018) Paganus was able to establish that he was a man with followers. He had armed men who would risk their lives to defend him. Paganus Pridias was able to demonstrate that he had a group that he could use to enforce the new order. Paganus Pridias was able to convince the Norman leader that he would be able to get the cooperation of the people. This was what the Norman leader needed. If the people didn’t cooperate, then the Normans had to leave soldiers behind. This meant that the Normans had to slow down as they brought Cornwall under their control.

Paganus was able to be reinstated as the local protector. The people accepted that the Normans were unstoppable. The people resented Paganus, because he didn’t try to fight. But because he didn’t try to fight, this area was in a better condition than nearby areas. Paganus had brought benefit, although the people didn’t feel that they had benefitted.

Paganus was able to eventually get the people of his area to accept the new way. This was not much different from the old way. Paganus was elevated. Old leaders were demoted. Pagansus’s younger son married the daughter of a Norman knight. This helped ensure that Paganus would be able to work positively with the Normans. This helped make sure that Paganus’s family continued.

Paganus was able to be in charge of his hilltop for three decades after the Normans came. Paganus saw the consequences for the leaders who had resisted. The Normans knew who they were. The Normans made sure that they were unable to get any benefits. This made the former leaders powerless. They were unable to arrange marriages for their sons or grandsons. Three of them, late in Paganus’s life, approached him. They asked him to help them find suitable wives for their grandsons. Paganus was unable to even consider this. The Normans would have been extremely irritated if Paganus had acted this way. Paganus did not say so, however. Paganus simply reminded them that Paganus had acted for the benefit of the community. This was the only response that Paganus gave them.

(Apr. 18, 2018) Paganus Pridias was of a mind to consider that he was fortunate. Paganus had not had a successful marriage. His wife never returned to him. Paganus had been separated from the leaders of the community. Paganus had been forced to make a new alliance with the victorious Normans. Paganus was able to find a Norman wife for his second son. Pagnas’s eldest son married a Cornish woman. He had three daughters. His daughters married into families of new leaders. Paganus knows that these families continued, and perhaps they still exist. Paganus ensured that his family survived, and was pleased to witness through the centuries that it occasionally flourished.

[Addition May 14, 2018: Paganus Pridias understands that later generations forgot the actual lineage. Paganus has been reminded by his descendants that his recollection was also faulty. Paganus now corrects his earlier statement. Paganus was followed by his son Richard. Richard had a son, another Richard. This Richard had two sons, Richard and Hector. Richard had a son Baldwin, and his younger brother Hector had a son Richard, who inherited the Pridias hilltop after Baldwin died without a male heir. This Richard was the father of Nicholas. This corrects the error that Baldwin was the father of Nicholas.

Paganus Pridias was able to continue honoring his ancestors when he was a man. Paganus Pridias remembered his father. Paganus Pridias was able to speak with his father’s grandfather. This was a man who gave advice, as Paganus was able to give advice to six of his descendants.]

(Apr. 19, 2018) Paganus Pridias was able to be a good leader. Paganus Pridias was able to ensure that his community was not harmed. Paganus Pridias was able to ensure that five families became leaders. This meant that Cornishmen continued to rule. This was not the case in many other areas. Cornishmen were deprived of their land. Normans were given the land. Cornishmen fought against their new rulers. Normans alone could be killed. But when Normans gathered to take revenge, Cornishmen could not survive. This meant that occasional rebellions led to leading Cornish families being exterminated. Paganus was able to avoid this in his general area. Paganus was the leader of a conquered people.

--

Richard Pridias
(Apr. 24, 2018) Richard Pridias was the son of the leader of his community. Richard Pridias knew, because of how his father became the leader, that he was in an uncertain position. Richard Pridias understood that, if he was going to be able to follow his father as a leader, he would have to balance the will of the Conqueror with the will of the community. Richard Pridias was successful, except for one terrible problem.

(Apr. 28, 2018) Richard de Pridias is the way that people would speak. But now Richard will speak in the modern way. Richard Pridias was unable to avoid the problem of how to balance his family life. Richard had an elder brother. This brother wanted to be the heir of his father. This brother was married to a Cornish woman. This woman was from a family that was under suspicion. This meant that the Norman conquerors would be opposed to his brother becoming the leader of the area around the Pridias hilltop. This meant that Richard would become his father’s heir.


Richard knew, if he wanted to have a good leadership, that he would have to eliminate his brother. Somehow, his brother would have to leave. Richard didn’t think about this problem. He simply recognized it. Richard knew, after his father had (acquiesced) to the Norman control of Cornwall, that he would have the opportunity to marry a Norman woman. Richard didn’t think that this was important. Richard simply accepted his father’s will.

Richard was given the daughter of a senior commander. This commander was not a baron. He was a fighter, who took orders. He was able to be respected because of his ability as a commander. This meant that he would be available if Richard had any difficulty. Richard was not displeased.

Richard wanted to have a good family. Richard hoped that, if he was careful, his children would be accepted by the people and by the Normans. Richard understood, because his wife was Norman, that he would not be seen as a part of the community. He would simply have to accept that. And this is what happened.

Richard wanted his wife to be happy. Richard hoped that his wife would be able to find companions in the community. Richard thought that one or two of the women might become companions of his wife. Richard helped these women. And one of them became a regular companion of his wife.

Richard had six children. Three of them lived. Richard knew that this was not as good as some families. Richard understood that, because of his position, he needed to ensure that his son was trained to be a leader. This meant that Richard was under the obligation to be present when Richard’s son made decisions. This took time, and Richard was unable to do this as much as he wanted.

Richard had two sons. The eldest was Baldwin. Baldwin was a Norman name. Baldwin was the name of Richard’s wife’s father. Baldwin was the obvious choice for the name of Richard’s first son. This was because Richard depended on Norman power. And this was approved.

Richard was able to name his second son after himself. Richard didn’t want to name his second son after his father. This would have seemed to be an act of rebellion. Richard reluctantly decided to not give his father’s name to any of his sons. This was also approved.

(Apr. 29,2018) Richard Pridias was able to follow in his father’s footsteps. Richard became the leader of the community. Richard became the lord of the hilltop. Richard knew, because the hilltop had wooden fortifications, that this was recognized as a castle. This was important to the Normans. The Normans didn’t feel secure without castles. Richard had the only castle in this area. And Richard was allied by marriage with the Normans. This meant that Richard had status and the Normans were able to count on Richard to support them.

This meant, occasionally, that Richard and his soldiers were required to help the Normans. This meant that Richard and his soldiers were able to stop everything when people wanted to rebel. Richard and his soldiers simply cut down the leader. This was different from what the Normans did. The Normans burned the villages. This meant that Richard had to impose the Norman authority. Richard did this without thinking. Richard knew, if he was able to do this, that the villages wouldn’t be burned.

(Apr. 30, 2018) Richard Pridias was able to keep the peace in his area. Richard became available to help keep the peace in neighboring areas. People eventually realized that, when Richard was involved, there was less mayhem. This helped Richard to be known as a good ruler.

Richard Pridias understood that, because of his family’s loyalty to both Cornish and Norman families, Richard had to be able to make difficult decisions. This was something that Richard did without careful thought. Richard simply acted as the situation seemed to demand. This was perhaps an advantage. There was often no good choice.

--

A word from Paganus Pridias

(May 9, 2018) Paganus Pridias was able to be in contact with his son Richard. Paganus Pridias continued to give advice as Richard Pridias became the lord of the hilltop. Paganus was able to experience the pleasure of seeing his family continue. Paganus had been worried. Paganus did not know if his son was able to continue in the way that Paganus had acted. Paganus had nothing to worry about.

--

Richard Pridias, son of Richard

Richard Pridias was the son of a man who ruled an area that had stayed peaceful. This area didn’t have any old stories of massacres. Richard Pridias understood that, because many of the old powerful families had disappeared, there was not much inclination to be rebellious. Richard Pridias was content to rule his hilltop. Richard Pridias was able to marry the daughter of a Norman lord. Richard Pridias was not in charge of many men. Richard Pridias had the responsibility of holding the hilltop and sending for help. This was something that Richard Pridias never had to do.

Richard Pridias had two sons: Hector and Richard. Richard was the elder son. Richard inherited the hilltop. Richard (who is speaking) understands that his son Richard had a son Baldwin. Baldwin had no son who lived. For this reason, Hector’s grandson Nicholas Pridias became the lord of the hilltop.
--

Hector Pridias, son of Richard

Hector Pridias was his father’s second son. Hector Pridias was unable to be important. He was the younger son, and his brother was the lord. Hector had a wife who was from a Cornish family. Her family was not one of the leading families. Her father was able to give Hector a piece of land. This is what Hector used to support his family. Hector was also one of the commanders at the hilltop. This gave Hector status, even though he had little in this world.
--

Richard Pridias, son of Hector

Richard Pridias understood, after he became thirteen years old, that he would inherit the hilltop. Richard Pridias was fortunate in his name. Richard Pridias understood that, because his father was not the son of a lord, many people would be reluctant to obey him. Richard Pridias understood, after becoming the lord, that he would have to ensure the respect of the people. Richard simply didn’t have the accumulated authority of ancestors who were lords. Richard was able to act cautiously with the help of his ancestor Paganus. Richard understood that, because of his ancestor’s advice, Richard repeatedly avoided serious errors when dealing with his subjects. Richard Pridias wasn’t able to have a large family. Richard Pridias was only able to have a single son. Richard Pridias wasn’t able to be good to his people. Richard Pridias lived during the time of a great war. The war continued for ten years, and then Richard was given leave to return to his hilltop. Richard Pridias was unable to stay away from the war. This will be the story that Richard will tell next time.

(May 12, 2018) Richard Pridias was taken in the requirements of the king. The king was unable to make the whole country accept his rule. The king had a cousin who insisted that she was the correct ruler. This made Richard unable to be close to his family. Richard was obligated to serve. Richard understood that, because of the war, he was unable to care for his hilltop. Richard understood that, because of the situation, Richard was unable to protect his family. Richard knew, if there was a terrible problem, Richard would be given leave to return. Richard also knew, if he had to leave the service of the king, he would be unable to be considered one of the king’s loyal men. Richard never left. Richard served with the king. Richard understood, because the war continued, that his son was unable to benefit from having a father. Richard understood, because he was able to communicate with his ancestor, that his son was being protected. Richard understood, because of his ability to communicate with his ancestor, that his son also had this ability. Richard didn’t hope to be able to train his son. Richard understood that his ancestor would train his son, as his ancestor had trained Richard. (This is all that Richard will say.)
--

Another word from Paganus Pridias

Paganus Pridias was unable to simply observe the proceeding of the generations of his family. A family crisis forced Paganus to be active. Paganus was the one to choose. The son and grandson of Paganus had not dealt with the time of crisis of division. They did not have the experience of balancing between two different sides. This is what Paganus taught to his descendants. Paganus was able to ensure that his descendants were able to be careful. Paganus understood that he had to be very cautious. Paganus had a descendant who was a young man in charge of his father’s hilltop. Paganus understood that, in Cornwall at that time, there was division. Paganus didn’t have the sense that the division was strong in the area that the hilltop was in. Paganus simply understood that this was a constant threat. For that reason, Paganus understood that it was important for his descendant’s son to be attentive to the wishes of leading families. If the Pridias family was able to balance the desires of the leading families, then a division would not grow in the community. And this would mean that families would be unlikely to choose opposite sides in the ongoing war.
--

Richard Pridias (continued)

Richard was able to return. After ten years of service. Richard was able to return to the hilltop. Richard understood that his son had been able to balance the families of the community. Richard had been very fortunate. He had been away from his land at a time of crisis. And his son had behaved in a worthy way.
--

Nicholas Pridias, son of Richard

(May 13, 2018) Nicholas Pridias was a man who had no father. Nicholas understood that his father existed. When Nicholas was very young, Nicholas saw his father. But then Nicholas’s father disappeared. Later, Nicholas understood that his father was fighting. Nicholas understood that his father had to be with the army of the king. Nicholas understood that the situation in England was very difficult. A war continued for many years. This made people unable to trust each other. This made people afraid to start new projects. This was the England that Nicholas grew up in.

After Nicholas became old enough to make decisions in his father’s place, Nicholas was aided by his ancestor. Nicholas understood that his ancestor wanted to ensure that Nicholas avoided very bad mistakes. Nicholas was aware that sometimes he made decisions that were not good. But his ancestor didn’t say anything. Nicholas expected his ancestor to speak only when Nicholas thought of doing something that was harmful to the future of the family.

Nicholas made a mistake. Nicholas didn’t listen to the advice of his ancestor. Nicholas understood that his ancestor didn’t have all of the information. Nicholas was arrogant. Nicholas made an enemy. Nicholas had to deal with the consequences. Ever after that, the family of Nicholas was at risk. Afterward, the enemy died. And Nicholas made a point of being conciliatory toward the enemy’s son. This did not have a good effect. The enemy’s son didn’t want to forgive. Nicholas simply had to endure the situation.

Nicholas wasn’t able to continue. Nicholas’s father returned. Nicholas had become accustomed to making decisions. Nicholas understood that the war had not ended. Nicholas understood that the king had allowed Nicholas’s father to return for a year. Nicholas was able to change his way. Nicholas had become a man with the capability of acting independently. Nicholas wanted to continue in this way. But suddenly, Nicholas had to be obedient. This was difficult. Nicholas didn’t want his father to be with the hilltop. Nicholas hoped that his father would go back to serve the king. Nicholas thought that his way of thinking wasn’t correct. Nicholas wanted his father to understand that Nicholas was able to be a good son. So Nicholas tried to make sure that he didn’t show any resentment. Nicholas hopes that he was successful.

Nicholas died before his father left. Nicholas had a young son. Nicholas didn’t know what happened. Nicholas didn’t communicate with his ancestor. Nicholas didn’t receive communication from his son. Nicholas’s son was too young. Nicholas thinks that his father never thought of communicating with Nicholas. Nicholas knew that his father could communicate with their ancestor. Nicholas expected to communicate with his father after his father died. But Nicholas died first.

Nicholas will add: Nicholas married a woman from Nicholas’s community. Nicholas understood his ancestor’s advice. Nicholas looked for the daughter of an important man who had sons. Nicholas had three brothers-in-law. This meant that Nicholas was able to give two of them positions on the hilltop. Nicholas had family members that he could trust. And Nicholas’s father-in-law became more important. This helped keep peace in the community. And this is all that Nicholas will say.
--

Richard Pridias (son of Nicholas and father of Richard)

(Oct. 11, 2018) Richard Pridias was under the understanding that his father would allow Richard to not be under his dominion. This was because Richard father had not been under the dominion of his own father. This meant that Richard father knew that Richard had the opportunity to become aware of decision making. This also meant that Richard had to be careful. Richard had the ability to make bad decisions. Richard understood that he had the ability to impress women because he was his father’s heir. Richard had the temptation to give a child to a woman who wanted to be supported. This was a constant temptation, and Richard understood that women who tried to seduce Richard wanted a lifetime of support. Richard was able to not act in this way. Richard understood that his family was unusual because it did not have bastards. Richard was able to preserve that tradition.

(Oct. 13, 2018) Richard Pridias was unable to prosper. Richard understood that it was sometimes possible for a landowner to make enough to sell in the market. This meant that a man had income. This meant that a man could buy. This was necessary. A man needed a sword. A man needed leather. A man needed to provide enough food. A man needed to ensure enough for a famine. This was all the proceed of income. Richard had enough. Richard had a bit of income. Richard had to be careful. Richard had to not indulge. Richard had to not buy things. Richard had to not spend on tapestries. Richard had to ensure that his family had enough but no more. This was the way of the country.

(Oct. 18, 2018) Richard was able to have a good life. Richard did not live during a terrible crisis. Richard did not have problems with his neighbors. Richard simply lived and cooperated with his community. Richard, as the lord of the hilltop, was in charge. Richard understood, it was Richard’s responsibility.
--

Baudouin Pridias, younger son of Nicholas, and father of Roger, had a descent through Kemyll to (1) St Aubyn; and (2) to Vivian, with a further descent to (1) Thomas Vivion (immigrant to Virginia and grandfather of Abraham I White), and (2) Carter/Roskrow/Michell of Cornwall.
--

Richard Pridias, son of Richard and father of Baudouin and Geoffrey

(Nov. 27, 2018) Richard de Pridias, son of Richard, was able to live without needing to fight. Richard was the lord of the hilltop. Richard was also the lord of the surrounding land. This meant that Richard had tenants. The tenants had to be protected. This was not difficult. The time was not a time of trouble. Richard did not get involved with problems that dealt with the kingdom. Richard simply availed himself of the opportunity to rule in peace.
--

Baudouin Pridias (elder son of Richard; Baudouin was father of the senior line that eventually passed the Prideaux estate on to Herle, with a descent to Sarah Carey, wife of Plymouth Colony leader John Jenney; there is also a descent to Polkinhorne and then to Michell of Redruth, Cornwall).

(Dec. 8, 2018) Baudouin had to be able to lead. Baudouin had think of maintaining the will of the community. Baudouin had to think that some day an attack might come. This was something that had not happened for many years. This was something that people were beginning to think would never happen. This meant that Baudouin was becoming less necessary. This meant that Baudouin and his family were not needed. This meant that Baudouin was just another landowner. This was something that Baudouin hoped to not help.
Baudouin hoped that there would be a way for the community to think of acting. But the community was made up of people with their own ideas. Baudouin did not think that the people of the community wanted to think of protecting themselves. The people did not think that was a good way to think. That was not something that was useful.

(Dec. 11, 2018) Baudouin Pridias was able to not have a problem as Baudouin became unimportant. Baudouin realized that Baudouin was from a leading family. Baudouin was able to think of finding a wife for his son without any difficulty. Baudouin was able to ensure the respect of his fellow leaders. Baudouin became one of a group of men who saw each other as equals. Baudouin had a lineage that was longer. Baudouin had the legacy of being the owner of the hilltop. The fortification on the hilltop was not kept in good repair. But its existence helped the community feel safe.
--

(Dec. 16, 2018) Elizabeth, daughter of Hugh Mortimer and wife of Baudouin Pridias: “Elizabeth, wife of Baudouin. Elizabeth was unable to preserve a sense of belonging to an important family. Elizabeth understood. Elizabeth was the daughter of a younger son. Elizabeth married. Elizabeth became one with her husband. Elizabeth brought her name. This gave additional recognition to the husband. However, the husband was a minor man and not part of an important family.” An additional thought: “Elizabeth understands that, as descendants become involved, ancestors will be inclined to speak more.”

[I will eventually continue recording the descendants through Herle to Sarah Carey (wife of John Jenney, a member of the Separatist congregation in Leyden, Holland and later one of the leaders in Plymouth Colony); and there is another descent from the end of the senior Prideaux of Prideaux line through Champernoun/Polkinhorne/Michell, to Joseph Roberts (whose mother was Michell), who married Elizabeth Rogers (whose mother’s mother’s mother was Prideaux) and emigrated to the USA in 1840, following the Prideaux-led migration of Cornish miners to the lead mining area in the southwest corner of Wisconsin.]
--

(Dec. 21, 2018) Geoffrey Pridias (younger son of Richard; Geoffrey married Isabella, heiress of Orcharton): “Geoffrey Pridias was able to endure the life of a second son. Geoffrey grew up understanding that the land that he lived on would become the possession of his elder brother. Geoffrey had an elder brother who had a clear idea that he was superior. Geoffrey had to accept his station. Geoffrey was fortunate. The father of Geoffrey was able to find an heiress. The heiress was the daughter of a man who had land. The land was in a location that was not close. This was not a big problem. Geoffrey would rather have been close to the people that he knew. Geoffrey understood that the family of his wife would be a substitute. And this is what happened. Geoffrey founded a younger branch of the Prideaux family. Geoffrey was able to extend his lineage and Geoffrey was able to observe, through the centuries, that his lineage continues.”

Isabella, wife of Geoffrey: “Isabella was an heiress. Isabella had six brothers. Isabella understood. The brothers were called. The brothers did not return. The father was distraught. The men in the family had been eliminated. This was simply the way. There was no turning from the way. A man had to serve. This was the price of holding a parcel of land. Service was unable to be without risk. The father of Isabella never imagined that all of his sons would die.”

[taf]

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 5:02:09 PM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am going to post the stories told by Paganus of Pridias
> (ancestor of the Prideaux family, which still exists) and
> his descendants for a total of nine generations. Paganus
> held a Cornish seaside hilltop at the time of the Conquest,
> which meant that he had to decide whether to resist or
> collaborate with the encroaching Normans.

Yeah, that's nonsense. As is the rest of this massive midden of electronic diarrhea.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 12:02:09 PM UTC+11, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am going to post the stories told by Paganus of Pridias (ancestor of the Prideaux family, which still exists) and his descendants for a total of nine generations. Paganus held a Cornish seaside hilltop at the time of the Conquest, which meant that he had to decide whether to resist or collaborate with the encroaching Normans.

Why didn't he just build a beautiful wall of iron slats, artistically designed, around the hill?

And while you are at it, please tell us how an Anglo-Cornishman came by the Latin name Paganus and gave his son the name Richard before the Norman conquest. Was he clairvoyant, and was this attribute inherited from his polyglot father?

The amount of energy you waste just typing out all this bilge is truly pitiful.

Peter Stewart

[Vance Mead]

Since you are talking to imaginary people, would you have a few words with Santa Claus for me? Christmas is coming soon and there are a few things I'd like.

[sba...@mindspring.com]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:10:45 AM UTC-6, Vance Mead wrote:
> Since you are talking to imaginary people, would you have a few words with Santa Claus for me? Christmas is coming soon and there are a few things I'd like.

Sounds like an idea. Let's give it a try.

Dear Santa,
Instead of sending me any toys this Christmas, I would like to have list of all pre-1550 references (including image numbers) of documents from the AALT website mentioning the Brace and Doverdale families (with alternate spellings) from Worcestershire.
Thank you and Merry Christmas,

Stewart Baldwin


[Although I am not holding my breath, it occurs to me that in the infinitely unlikely event that I should receive a valid response to this request from the above source, I will be in an ethical quandary about how to proceed. Do I invite laughter by revealing the true source, or do I falsely claim that I found the references myself, putting forward someone else's research as my own? Maybe some sort of middle ground would be best, attributing part of the research to an anonymous co-author.]

[taf]

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 9:59:46 AM UTC-8, sba...@mindspring.com wrote:

> Maybe some sort of middle ground would be best, attributing part of the
> research to an anonymous co-author.]

You could acknowledge the assistance of Nicolas de Myra and Rudolph Rangifer.

taf

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 10:34:47 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> And while you are at it, please tell us how an Anglo-Cornishman came by the Latin name Paganus and gave his son the name Richard before the Norman conquest. Was he clairvoyant, and was this attribute inherited from his polyglot father?
>

I don't know what you mean by an "Anglo-Cornishman." There is no reason to think that the Pridias family, before the Conquest, was anything other than Celtic Cornish. You seem to be unaware that, back in the day, the Romans ruled Cornwall as well as the rest of England, which could easily be how the name Paganus (which appears at the head of the published Pridias/Prideaux pedigree) became used in Cornwall before the Conquest. And for whatever it's worth, wikipedia says that the Cornish variant of the name Richard is... "RICHARD." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard#Celtic

[taf]

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 10:12:17 AM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:

> I don't know what you mean by an "Anglo-Cornishman." There is no reason to
> think that the Pridias family, before the Conquest, was anything other than
> Celtic Cornish.

Nor any reason to think he was Celtic Cornish, nor any legitimate reason to think he was in England before the Conquest.

> You seem to be unaware that, back in the day, the Romans ruled Cornwall as
> well as the rest of England,

I strongly suspect that Peter is aware of this.

> which could easily be how the name Paganus . . .

> became used in Cornwall before the Conquest.

Tell me, how many non-clergy named Paginus are documented in all of England, Cornwall included, using the name Paginus from the 8th century through the pre=-Conquest 11th century? Yeah, that's what I thought.

> And for whatever it's worth,

nothing whatsoever

> wikipedia says that the Cornish variant of the name Richard is...
> "RICHARD."

And exactly when did this Cornish variant arise? Same question as above. How many pre-Conquest Cornishmen named Richard are documented? That's what I thought.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

If you can communicate with dead ancestors then you are not confined by the "head of the published pedigree" and could augment knowledge instead of inventing crap.

Peter Stewart

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

Paganus has the following to say about his name:

"Paganus had a name that was uncommon. Paganus had an uncle. This uncle was named Paganus. This was the source of the name. Paganus understood that the name came from a family that the family of Paganus married generations before."

[Peter Stewart]

You are persuaded by your voices that one absurdity can be readily explained by another? This is simply double tripe.

Peter Stewart

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 12:33:39 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
>
> Tell me, how many non-clergy named Paginus are documented in all of England, Cornwall included, using the name Paginus from the 8th century through the pre=-Conquest 11th century?
>

One could just as easily ask how many surviving documents we have from this time period that were written by non-clergymen. Taf's surprising assertion that Paganus couldn't have been used as a given name in 11th-century Cornwall would seem to be as silly as it is presumptuous.

[P J Evans]

*You're* presuming that no one else has any valid knowledge.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

No, I'm observing that taf seems to be making a fool of himself again.

[taf]

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 12:33:39 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> >
> > Tell me, how many non-clergy named Paginus are documented in all
> > of England, Cornwall included, using the name Paginus from the
> > 8th century through the pre=-Conquest 11th century?
> >
>
> One could just as easily ask how many surviving documents we have from
> this time period that were written by non-clergymen.

And this is relevant, . . . why?

> Taf's surprising assertion that Paganus couldn't have been used as a
> given name in 11th-century Cornwall would seem to be as silly as it
> is presumptuous.

You throw out the ad hoc, making-it-up-as-you-go-along presumption that this name persisted in Cornwall from Roman times, and when asked for evidence that the name was actually used in Cornwall at any time in between all you do in response is deflect and obfuscate, yet I am the one making silly presumptions.

taf

[taf]

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:

> Taf's surprising assertion that Paganus couldn't have been used as a
> given name in 11th-century Cornwall would seem to be as silly as it is
> presumptuous.

Do, please, quote the words in which I made ANY assertion with regard to the use of the name. You are the one who asserted it was some stealth Roman holdover.

If you relate a conversation that just took place here for everyone to see with this level of inaccuracy, one can have little faith in any summary you post, whether originating with an authentic or imaginary discussion.

taf

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 7:54:57 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Taf's surprising assertion that Paganus couldn't have been used as a
> > given name in 11th-century Cornwall would seem to be as silly as it is
> > presumptuous.
>
> Do, please, quote the words in which I made ANY assertion with regard to the use of the name. You are the one who asserted it was some stealth Roman holdover.
>

In answer to taf's question, taf wrote on Dec. 24:

"Tell me, how many non-clergy named Paginus are documented in all of England, Cornwall included, using the name Paginus from the 8th century through the pre=-Conquest 11th century? Yeah, that's what I thought."

The obvious implication here ("Yeah, that's what I thought.") is that there is no documentation of the name "Paginus" (taf's misspelling) being used in Cornwall in this period. The apparent intent was to belittle me for assuming that my ancestor Paganus actually existed, as a way of diverting readers' attention away from the content of Paganus's story.

Underlying this latest bit of nit-picking is Taf's evident dedication to opposing any discussion of communicating with medieval ancestors, without any visible reason, and (apparently) without being willing to try for himself to communicate with a deceased grandparent and talk about the result. Why not?

[P J Evans]

On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 1:51:01 PM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 7:54:57 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Taf's surprising assertion that Paganus couldn't have been used as a
> > > given name in 11th-century Cornwall would seem to be as silly as it is
> > > presumptuous.
> >
> > Do, please, quote the words in which I made ANY assertion with regard to the use of the name. You are the one who asserted it was some stealth Roman holdover.
> >
> In answer to taf's question, taf wrote on Dec. 24:
>

[snipped complaints about the expertise of others]

Are you going to learn about second-person pronouns at some point, so that your comments will read as if a human wrote them?

[taf]

On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 1:51:01 PM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 7:54:57 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Taf's surprising assertion that Paganus couldn't have been used as a
> > > given name in 11th-century Cornwall would seem to be as silly as it is
> > > presumptuous.
> >
> > Do, please, quote the words in which I made ANY assertion with regard to the use of the name. You are the one who asserted it was some stealth Roman holdover.
> >
> In answer to taf's question, taf wrote on Dec. 24:
>
> "Tell me, how many non-clergy named Paginus are documented in all of England, Cornwall included, using the name Paginus from the 8th century through the pre=-Conquest 11th century? Yeah, that's what I thought."
>
> The obvious implication here ("Yeah, that's what I thought.") is that there
> is no documentation of the name "Paginus" (taf's misspelling) being used in
> Cornwall in this period.

The funny thing here is that your guilty conscience over having just outright-invented a Roman derivation without knowing a thing about pre-Conquest Cornish naming practice has you immediately assuming that your own hypothesis is groundless. I never said there were no examples, yet you are already willing to admit that the supposed Roman origin you spewed forth hasn't any basis. Maybe you should have looked for the evidence before you made up the derivation.

Anyhow, contrary to your guilty assumptions, I did not think you would fail to find evidence for the name occuring. I thought you had no clue even where to look, and so you would either obfuscate or hold another seance. And you outdid yourself by doing both.

> The apparent intent was to belittle me for assuming that my ancestor
> Paganus actually existed, as a way of diverting readers' attention
> away from the content of Paganus's story.

No, the intent was to show that you are making things up as you go, in this case a supposed descent of the name PAganus from Roman times when you in fact know absolutely nothing of early-medieval Cornish naming practice, something that becomes more evident with each deflection you make.

> Underlying this latest bit of nit-picking

Yes, terribly nit-picky to point out when you have obviously made stuff up.

taf

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 2:45:48 PM UTC-8, P J Evans wrote:
>
> Are you going to learn about second-person pronouns at some point, so that your comments will read as if a human wrote them?

PJ Evans, I wasn't talking to taf; I was commenting on what he wrote. Hence my use of the third person. Your reference to the second person and your other comments around this forum, suggest that you are feeling lonely. I wish you well.

You may have noticed that taf seems to have a compulsive desire to be insulting, going back to his repeated sneering attacks on Douglas Richardson. He seems to be tormented. I hope that whatever power is coercing or impelling him in this way lets up, and that he finds some inner peace.

Unless I am mistaken, neither you nor taf has actually tried to communicate with deceased ancestors. Neither one of you has given any reason for your arbitrary presupposition that such communication is impossible. However, Enno Borgsteede made an attempt in that direction, on this thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/byqswb4d5WA

Enno Borgsteede's attempt foundered with his mis-handling of the word "reasonable." You made a passing comment on that thread that ignored the substance of my response, so I'm going to re-post it here with an invitation to engage with my point that "verifiability" is not properly part of the definition of "reasonable."

Here is my response to Enno Borgsteede on this point:


Enno Borgsteede, I asked what was the basis for your presupposition that any and all "voices in your head" are hallucinations. You replied, "Because there is no other reasonable explanation, where reasonable means that it can be verified, albeit indirect."

I think that your statement could, with a bit of clarification, lead to the heart of our disagreement, and I suspect that you and others on this forum will agree that the general question of what can be considered a reasonable inference is central to proper evaluation of sources in genealogy, especially medieval genealogy.

Before I continue (in a later post) with other points that you recently made, I’m going to focus on the question of how to use the word “reasonable,” because if we aren't on the same page with this particular word, we'll just be talking past each other. To illustrate the question, I'm going to use an example familiar to many others on this forum:

John Machell (son of Mathew), in his 1646/7 will, left a bequest to his "cousin" (also called "kinswoman") Jane Cudworth. This is the only piece of primary source documentation supporting Douglas Richardson's published assumption that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was a sister of this John Machell (d. 1647, son of Mathew Machell) and not the daughter of Mathew's elder brother John (even though this particular Mary Machell married Ralph Cudworth in Southwark, London, far away from Mathew’s residence but less than a mile from where Mathew's elder brother John was locked up in prison as a debtor).

Richardson concludes from John Machell's 1646/7 will that Jane Cudworth [the reasonably presumed daughter of Mary (Machell) Cudworth] can only the niece of John (d. 1647, son of Mathew), and not John's first cousin once removed. Is that a "reasonable" conclusion? Can it be verified? No one around here was able to verify it, but that didn't prevent Richardson from publicly "certifying" that he was right, in a comical move that Taf later described as "humbuggery."

Why do you equate "reasonable" with "can be verified"? That would seem to be a misuse of the word "reasonable," but perhaps you have a reasonable disagreement. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, "reasonable" means "based on or using good judgment, and therefore fair and practical." Think of, when evaluating evidence, the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." Does a jury's decision about innocence or guilt equate with "verification"? Is it possible for a jury to be wrong, even though their decision was reasonable? (Think about evidence not being presented to the jury, such as with the acquittal in Aaron Burr's famous treason case.)

Here's another example: Douglas Richardson, in his self-published books (and therefore not allowed as sources at Wikipedia), puts forth the supposition that gateway ancestor and Virginia Governor Alexander Spotswood was the son of Robert Spotswood, and not of Robert's brother John (who was hanged for treason). But Richardson doesn't give any primary source documentation for that supposition. Alexander Spotswood was Scottish, and it was the prevailing Scottish custom to name the eldest son for the father's father, and Alexander Spotswood named his eldest son John -- leading to the reasonable (?) supposition that Alexander was the son of John, and not of Robert.

Furthermore, it isn't all that difficult to imagine Alexander Spotswood, as a young man, not wanting to be associated with a father who was hanged for treason, so we can imagine Alexander making a deal with Robert Spotswood's widow (that is, Alexander's aunt by marriage) to publicly present themselves as mother and son, to their mutual advantage. Could that be considered a reasonable supposition, even though there is no way to verify it?

Was it reasonable for Richardson to indicate, without any primary-source documentation, that Alexander Spotswood was the son of Robert? Is it reasonable to argue that Richardson should have had an editor?

There are other problems in Richardson's books, too, such as three of the four Kempe gateway ancestors: see https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/601228/another-broken-gateway-lineage-edmund-kempe-of-virginia . And then there’s the problem with the Woodhull descent – see https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/432975/does-this-trail-need-to-removed-from-malet-through-woodhull -- which doesn’t break the lineage (in this case, either possibility works), but it does seem (together with the Kempe example) to show that Richardson publishes conclusions that aren’t all that conclusive. Who knows how many other bloopers are lurking in his work? Is it reasonable to suspect that Richardson might be a shoddy genealogist? Is it reasonable to counter-argue that the errors are minimal, in a body of work that is overwhelmingly reliable? Can either supposition be “verified”?

[Enno Borgsteede]

Hello John,

> Enno Borgsteede, I asked what was the basis for your presupposition that any and all "voices in your head" are hallucinations. You replied, "Because there is no other reasonable explanation, where reasonable means that it can be verified, albeit indirect."
> I think that your statement could, with a bit of clarification, lead to the heart of our disagreement, and I suspect that you and others on this forum will agree that the general question of what can be considered a reasonable inference is central to proper evaluation of sources in genealogy, especially medieval genealogy.

I'm an engineer, and a scientist, and when I think of the word
reasonable, I think about being able to reason about, i.e. think and
discuss, a particular subject.

In the case of 'talking to ancestors', my reasoning is that I think that
there can be twists in a brain, a kind of shortcuts, or short circuits,
which seem to cause thoughts, often fears, being translated to voices of
relatives, or other persons, and under other circumstances faces of
people on the street being turned into pig heads, which must have been
very, very frightening for the person that told me about the experience.

The problem here is that I haven't been able to tap into the brain of
this person, so the idea of a short circuit is an assumption, based on
my knowledge of brain circuitry, and my experience as an electronic
engineer. There is no way to verify this, because it would be way too
invasive, and there is no decent way to induce the experience, and
measure things, for instance with a functional MRI.

For me, the idea of a short circuit is the most reasonable explanation,
because it requires only one twist, the short circuit, and the
alternative, meaning people on the street actually wearing pig masks, or
her aunt observing and commenting from hundreds of miles away, would be
too unlikely, knowing that there were no cameras and loudspeakers, so
the process should have been a sort of channeling, which IMO, needs a
load more twists of what I consider to be reality than the idea of a
short circuit in her brain.

For you, it seems to be the other way around. In the absence of material
connections, i.e. electrons or photons traveling through fibers, wires,
empty space, and time, connecting you with the ancestors, you assume
that everything that you hear is the result channeling, thereby
rejecting the idea of a benign short circuit in your brain.

This, I think, is the difference. For me, the idea of a 'spirit' talking
to you by channeling some unknown form of 'energy' to your brain is too
far away from my perception of reality, or physics, that I dismiss it,
knowing that, in my mind, there is a much simpler explanation for this.
That's Occam's razor, for me.

I know that in both cases, there is no other witness, so I can't dismiss
things on the number of verifiable statements, nor assume that you are
less reliable than the person I'm referring to. I do dismiss your
explanation however, meaning that I don't believe there are (spirits of)
actual ancestors talking to you.

Cheers,

Enno

[Peter Stewart]

If you wish to be reasonable, perhaps you could explain why it seems that only ancestors from the published record are getting in touch with you. Since having a common language in earthly life is no barrier to supernatural communication, why not tell the stories of pre-historic ancestors? Someone from 100,000 years ago might not expose you to such patent falsehoods as Cornishmen named Paganus and Richard before the Norman conquest.

Peter Stewart

[Les A Cox]

Is this Prideaux family linked to the families that lived in the 'bronze-age round houses'.. as bit further up the 'headland' to the modern Prideaux Place?

[taf]

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 2:11:43 PM UTC-8, Les A Cox wrote:
> Is this Prideaux family linked to the families that lived in the 'bronze-age
> round houses'.. as bit further up the 'headland' to the modern Prideaux Place?

Not genealogically linked. The Prideauxs only were introduced to the site where they would build Prideaux Place in the 16th century, when Thomas Mundy, Prior of Bodmin, granted them priory land in order to keep it out of thhhe hands of Henry VIII (and it must have been just a coincidence that the recipient of this act of self-sacrifice was none other than the husband of the prior's niece, with similar grants being made to his brother and another niece's husband). There is every reason to think the family was not native to Cornwall.

taf

[deca...@aol.com]

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 8:30:41 AM UTC-5, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Before I continue (in a later post) with other points that you recently made, I’m going to focus on the question of how to use the word “reasonable,” because if we aren't on the same page with this particular word, we'll just be talking past each other. To illustrate the question, I'm going to use an example familiar to many others on this forum:
>
> John Machell (son of Mathew), in his 1646/7 will, left a bequest to his "cousin" (also called "kinswoman") Jane Cudworth. This is the only piece of primary source documentation supporting Douglas Richardson's published assumption that Mary (Machell) Cudworth was a sister of this John Machell (d. 1647, son of Mathew Machell) and not the daughter of Mathew's elder brother John (even though this particular Mary Machell married Ralph Cudworth in Southwark, London, far away from Mathew’s residence but less than a mile from where Mathew's elder brother John was locked up in prison as a debtor).
>
> Richardson concludes from John Machell's 1646/7 will that Jane Cudworth [the reasonably presumed daughter of Mary (Machell) Cudworth] can only the niece of John (d. 1647, son of Mathew), and not John's first cousin once removed. Is that a "reasonable" conclusion? Can it be verified? No one around here was able to verify it, but that didn't prevent Richardson from publicly "certifying" that he was right, in a comical move that Taf later described as "humbuggery."
>
> Why do you equate "reasonable" with "can be verified"? That would seem to be a misuse of the word "reasonable," but perhaps you have a reasonable disagreement. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, "reasonable" means "based on or using good judgment, and therefore fair and practical." Think of, when evaluating evidence, the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." Does a jury's decision about innocence or guilt equate with "verification"? Is it possible for a jury to be wrong, even though their decision was reasonable? (Think about evidence not being presented to the jury, such as with the acquittal in Aaron Burr's famous treason case.)
>
> Here's another example: Douglas Richardson, in his self-published books (and therefore not allowed as sources at Wikipedia), puts forth the supposition that gateway ancestor and Virginia Governor Alexander Spotswood was the son of Robert Spotswood, and not of Robert's brother John (who was hanged for treason). But Richardson doesn't give any primary source documentation for that supposition. Alexander Spotswood was Scottish, and it was the prevailing Scottish custom to name the eldest son for the father's father, and Alexander Spotswood named his eldest son John -- leading to the reasonable (?) supposition that Alexander was the son of John, and not of Robert.
>
> Furthermore, it isn't all that difficult to imagine Alexander Spotswood, as a young man, not wanting to be associated with a father who was hanged for treason, so we can imagine Alexander making a deal with Robert Spotswood's widow (that is, Alexander's aunt by marriage) to publicly present themselves as mother and son, to their mutual advantage. Could that be considered a reasonable supposition, even though there is no way to verify it?
>
> Was it reasonable for Richardson to indicate, without any primary-source documentation, that Alexander Spotswood was the son of Robert? Is it reasonable to argue that Richardson should have had an editor?
>
> There are other problems in Richardson's books, too, such as three of the four Kempe gateway ancestors: see https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/601228/another-broken-gateway-lineage-edmund-kempe-of-virginia . And then there’s the problem with the Woodhull descent – see https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/432975/does-this-trail-need-to-removed-from-malet-through-woodhull -- which doesn’t break the lineage (in this case, either possibility works), but it does seem (together with the Kempe example) to show that Richardson publishes conclusions that aren’t all that conclusive. Who knows how many other bloopers are lurking in his work? Is it reasonable to suspect that Richardson might be a shoddy genealogist? Is it reasonable to counter-argue that the errors are minimal, in a body of work that is overwhelmingly reliable? Can either supposition be “verified”?

Mr. Schmeeckle, in my opinion, the most valid point you make in this entire thread is the fact that Douglas Richardson's conclusions regarding the lines of these gateway ancestors is quite suspect at a minimum. Richardson should definitely revisit several, if not many, of these lines before publishing his next royal ancestry series. Which would include formulating different conclusions to the familial relationships you previously pointed out.

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

A member of the Prideaux family requested that I post the following.

SEVENTH GENERATION

Richard of Pridias (elder son of Nicholas and father of Richard)
(Oct. 11, 2018) Richard of Pridias had the understanding that his father would allow Richard to not be under his dominion. This was because Richard father [Richard’s father] had not been under the dominion of his own father. This meant that Richard father knew that Richard had the opportunity to become aware of decision making.

This also meant that Richard had to be careful. Richard had the ability to make bad decisions. Richard understood that he had the ability to impress women because he was his father’s heir. Richard had the temptation to give a child to a woman who wanted to be supported. This was a constant temptation, and Richard understood that women who tried to seduce Richard wanted a lifetime of support. Richard was able to not act in this way. Richard understood that his family was unusual because it did not have bastards. Richard was able to preserve that tradition.

(Oct. 13, 2018) Richard of Pridias was unable to prosper. Richard understood that it was sometimes possible for a landowner to make enough to sell in the market. This meant that a man had income. This meant that a man could buy. This was necessary. A man needed a sword. A man needed leather. A man needed to provide enough food. A man needed to ensure enough for a famine. This was all the proceed of income. Richard had enough. Richard had a bit of income. Richard had to be careful. Richard had to not indulge. Richard had to not buy things. Richard had to not spend on tapestries. Richard had to ensure that his family had enough but no more. This was the way of the country.

(Oct. 18, 2018) Richard was able to have a good life. Richard did not live during a terrible crisis. Richard did not have problems with his neighbors. Richard simply lived and cooperated with his community. Richard, as the lord of the hilltop, was in charge. Richard understood, it was Richard’s responsibility.

--

[Baudouin Pridias, younger son of Nicholas, and father of Roger, had a descent through Kemyll to (1) St Aubyn; and (2) Vivian, with a further descent to (1) Thomas Vivion (immigrant to Virginia and grandfather of Abraham I White), and (2) Carter/Roskrow/Michell of Cornwall.]

--

EIGHTH GENERATION

Richard de Pridias, son of Richard and father of Baudoin and Geoffrey

(Nov. 27, 2018) Richard of Pridias, son of Richard, was able to live without needing to fight. Richard was the lord of the hilltop. Richard was also the lord of the surrounding land. This meant that Richard had tenants. The tenants had to be protected. This was not difficult. The time was not a time of trouble. Richard did not get involved with problems that dealt with the kingdom. Richard simply availed himself of the opportunity to rule in peace.

--

NINTH GENERATION

Baudoin of Pridias (elder son of Richard)

(Dec. 8, 2018) Baudoin had to be able to lead. Baudoin had think of maintaining the will of the community. Baudouin had to think that some day an attack might come. This was something that had not happened for many years. This was something that people were beginning to think would never happen. This meant that Baudouin was becoming less necessary. This meant that Baudouin and his family were not needed. This meant that Baudouin was just another landowner. This was something that Baudouin hoped to not help.

Baudouin hoped that there would be a way for the community to think of acting. But the community was made up of people with their own ideas. Baudouin did not think that the people of the community wanted to think of protecting themselves. The people did not think that was a good way to think. That was not something that was useful.

(Dec. 11, 2018) Baudouin of Pridias was able to not have a problem as Baudouin became unimportant. Baudouin realized that Baudouin was from a leading family. Baudouin was able to think of finding a wife for his son without any difficulty. Baudouin was able to ensure the respect of his fellow leaders. Baudouin became one of a group of men who saw each other as equals. Baudouin had a lineage that was longer. Baudouin had the legacy of being the owner of the hilltop. The fortification on the hilltop was not kept in good repair. But its existence helped the community feel safe.

--

(Dec. 16, 2018) Elizabeth, daughter of Hugh Mortimer and wife of Baudouin de Pridias: “Elizabeth, wife of Baudouin. Elizabeth was unable to preserve a sense of belonging to an important family. Elizabeth understood. Elizabeth was the daughter of a younger son. Elizabeth married. Elizabeth became one with her husband. Elizabeth brought her name. This gave additional recognition to the husband. However, the husband was a minor man and not part of an important family.”

An additional thought: “Elizabeth understands that, as descendants become involved, ancestors will be inclined to speak more.”

[I intend to eventually continue recording the senior Prideaux lineage through Herle to Sarah Carey (wife of John Jenney, a member of the Separatist congregation in Leyden, Holland and later one of the leaders in Plymouth Colony); and there is another descent from the end of the senior Prideaux of Prideaux line through Champernoun/Polkinhorne/Michell, to Joseph Roberts (whose mother was Michell), who married Elizabeth Rogers (whose mother’s mother’s mother was Prideaux) and emigrated to the USA in 1840, following the Prideaux-led migration of Cornish miners to the lead mining area in the southwest corner of Wisconsin.]

--

(Dec. 21, 2018) Geoffrey Pridias (younger son of Richard), married Isabella, heiress of Orcharton

Geoffrey Pridias was able to endure the life of a second son. Geoffrey grew up understanding that the land that he lived on would become the possession of his elder brother. Geoffrey had an elder brother who had a clear idea that he was superior. Geoffrey had to accept his station.

Geoffrey was fortunate. The father of Geoffrey was able to find an heiress. The heiress was the daughter of a man who had land. The land was in a location that was not close. This was not a big problem. Geoffrey would rather have been close to the people that he knew. Geoffrey understood that the family of his wife would be a substitute. And this is what happened. Geoffrey founded a younger branch of the Prideaux family. Geoffrey was able to extend his lineage and Geoffrey was able to observe, through the centuries, that his lineage continues.

--

Isabella, wife of Geoffrey:

Isabella was an heiress. Isabella had six brothers. Isabella understood. The brothers were called. The brothers did not return. The father was distraught. The men in the family had been eliminated. This was simply the way. There was no turning from the way. A knight had to serve. This was the price of being a knight. Service was unable to be without risk. The father of Isabella never imagined that all of his sons would die.

(Jan. 13, 2018) Isabella did not have any thought of having a difficult life. Isabella understood that, because Isabella was an heiress, a husband would be grateful to live on her land. Isabella thought that her father would find a man with land. But her father did not. Isabella understood. Her father wanted to have another son. This meant that he chose a second son. The second son had no land.

(Feb. 17, 2019) Isabella had a good marriage. Isabella had her share of responsibility. It was understood that Isabella would manage the household. It was understood that Isabella would not work with her hands. Isabella was proud.

(Feb. 18, 2019) Isabella married a man who had the ambition to increase. Isabella understood. If the family of his elder brother failed, he would inherit. However, Isabella had little hope of this. Isabella knew that the brother already had a son.

Isabella understood that, if Isabella had a son, the son would inherit the land of Isabella’s father. The son might inherit the land of his father’s brother. Isabella thought that this was a good future. Isabella was reconciled to marrying a second son.

--

John of Orcharton, father of Isabella
(Mar. 3, 2019) John was from a family with a lineage. John understands that his lineage is not remembered. John was descended from a soldier who came to England after the Conquest. Records were not kept. John was proud of his lineage. John accepted his fate. Orcharton would no longer exist. John hoped that his daughter would bring her coat to that of her husband. John was very happy when the husband accepted Orcharton in the place of Pridias. This meant that Orcharton would always be remembered, as long as Pridias continued.

--

TENTH GENERATION

Roger de Pridias (d. aft. 1290, son of Geoffrey), m. Gilda.

(Feb. 18, 2019) Roger of Pridias was the son of a man who gave his name to his wife’s property. Roger knew that he would be a landowner. Roger knew that his land would come from his mother. Roger did not think that this was a normal situation. Roger understood. There was no other way for his father to be a father. Roger decided that Roger would not have any problem with this. Roger simply accepted.

Roger understood. There was a way for people to act. Roger also understood. The mother was higher than the father. Roger felt uncomfortable living in the home of his mother. Roger understood. His father had to accept. Roger also understood. His father had to think about the future of the family. Roger thought that, because of this, his father did not have a problem with living in the house of his wife. Roger thought, if Roger had the opportunity to be in his own house, Roger would be able to pass the house on to his son.

(Feb. 21, 2019) Roger of Pridias was able to have a good family. Roger married the daughter of a man who had a lineage that was illustrious. Roger was very fortunate in his marriage. This helped Roger to be remembered. This also gave his descendants the opportunity to marry for land. Roger understands that the name of his wife has been forgotten. Roger hopes that his wife will be able to tell of her lineage.

(Feb. 22, 2019) Roger understands that the descendants of Roger still exist. Roger knows that his name was used. Roger has to think that this was not an accident. Roger hopes that the name will continue.

--

Gilda, wife of Roger de Pridias

(Feb. 23, 2019) Gilda was able to have a family with a man from a lineage that was not the best. Gilda understood that Pridias was Cornish. Gilda also understood that Pridias had intermarried with Norman families. This was good enough for the father of Gilda. This was not good enough for Gilda. Gilda hoped to be the wife of a Norman nobleman. Of course that is what every girl hoped for. Gilda had the expectation that her father would find a suitable husband. Gilda had three older sisters. Gilda had to settle for the man her father found. Gilda was not disappointed. [Gilda had a royal descent, through the family of her father’s mother.]

(Feb. 24, 2019) Gilda was of the family of Treverbyn. Gilda understands that her grandson also married a daughter of this family. Gilda was not closely related. Gilda thought, after her death, that her family had a connection that led to the marriage. This is what Gilda assumed. Gilda had to think without talking. Gilda was not remembered. Now Gilda has the ability to communicate with descendants and hopefully with other members of the Treverbyn family.

--

ELEVENTH GENERATION

Peter de Pridias (d. 1316, son of Roger), m. Clarice.

(Feb. 24, 2019) Peter of Pridias was able to think of himself as a gentleman. This word was not used. Peter understands that this word means someone who had education and who did not work with his hands. Peter also understands that a gentleman usually had a lineage. Peter understood that his lineage was not important. Peter had two parents with lineages. This meant that Peter had the ability to present himself as a man with a coat. A man with a coat whose mother did not have a coat was not accepted. Peter understood that this was able to be presented at proper moments. Peter did not display the Treverybn arms. Peter understood that would be inappropriate. Treverbyn existed, so they should be the ones to decide whether to display their arms. Peter simply had the arms on a piece of paper. This was enough.

Peter of Pridias did not think that Peter was a significant member of the community. Peter had enough. Peter had a lineage and a coat. This made Peter welcome in councils where community decisions were made. This meant that Peter was respected. Peter did not think of not attending councils. This was where men observed each other. This was where men improved their reputations.

Peter was not able to have a big family. Peter had two sons. The eldest son was buried at the age of fifteen. The second son inherited. Peter was not a knight. Peter hoped that his son would not become a knight. This was because knights got killed. Peter understood that his son was the only heir in his branch of the family. Peter hoped that his son would take seriously his responsibility to continue the family. This meant his son should avoid becoming a knight. Peter understood that sometimes this was impossible. Peter himself was given the opportunity. Peter declined. Peter wanted to think that his family’s survival was more important. This was what Peter decided. Peter had no regrets.

--

Clarice, wife of Peter de Pridias

(Feb. 24, 2019) Clarice was from a family of knights. Clarice knew that her father needed a husband for Clarice. Clarice understood that her sister had to accept a man who was not a knight. This was because a knight expected a dowry. This made Clarice aware of the thought of being the mother of knights. Clarice knew that knights were called. Clarice understood that sometimes knights did not return. This made Clarice think of the benefit of having a son who was not a knight. This is what Clarice did.

(Feb. 26, 2019) Clarice will not be offended if descendants do not think of Clarice. Clarice was not an important person. Clarice was the wife of one man in a long lineage. Clarice hopes that one or two people will talk to Clarice. Clarice thinks that, occasionally, people look at ancestors that they do not think much about. Clarice is one of those ancestors.

--

TWELFTH GENERATION

Roger de Pridias/Prideaux (d. aft. 1343, son of Peter), m. Elizabeth, co-heiress of Walter de Treverbyn.

(Feb. 26, 2019) Roger of Pridias changed his name. Pridias became Prideaux. “Priddy” was the pronunciation. Roger understood that Roger needed to have a name that appeared Norman. Roger had to have this to give Roger the appearance of having a legitimate connection to France. Roger, because of his wife, had the authority to import. This was a special privilege. Roger knew, if he did not use the privilege, it would be lost. Roger had to find a way to import something. Roger had to find a partner. Roger had to think of how he could act for a profit. This was the beginning of Prideaux. Roger thinks, because of this challenge, Prideaux was able to be autonomous. Prideaux developed the ability to trade. Prideaux had to maintain this ability or Prideaux would lose the privilege. This is something that Roger assumes the family maintained. Roger thinks, if the family had this advantage, it would show in the lives of the descendants. Roger thinks, because of the lives of the descendants, that the advantage was worth maintaining.

(Feb. 28, 2019) Roger was a man who did not think of his sister. Roger had a sister who had a family. The family was not from a noble house. The family was not of the gentry. This was something that Roger regretted. Roger was unable to be kind. The sister married a man who was able to give her a child. This was something that should not have happened. Roger has to think that there were descendants. Roger has no idea if descendants are in a good position today.

--

Walter de Treverbyn, father-in-law of Roger de Pridias

(Feb. 26, 2019) Walter of Treverbyn was a man with an estate that was modest but well-maintained. Walter had the privilege of trading. Walter had the privilege as a result of an agreement between his father and the Earl. This meant that Walter had the benefit of a connection with the royal family. This meant, after a time, that Walter was regarded. This meant that Walter had the ability to speak and be heard. This was important. Many men sought to be heard. Walter only had to speak.

--

Elizabeth, daughter of Walter of Treverbyn and wife of Roger of Prideaux

(Feb. 26, 2019) Elizabeth knew, when she was young, that Elizabeth would bring land to her marriage. This meant that Elizabeth had more suitors than most women. This meant that Elizabeth had the ability to choose. This meant that the father of Elizabeth had to think of his daughter and her decision. This meant that Elizabeth had more freedom than many women. Elizabeth understood, after she chose, Elizabeth would not have the freedom that she had while deciding. This meant that Elizabeth had the opportunity to delay her choice. This meant that Elizabeth had the temptation to not choose. That would have meant that Elizabeth had to enter a convent. Elizabeth had no thought of that. Elizabeth understood that Elizabeth must not delay too much.
Elizabeth had to think, because of her sister, that Elizabeth should consider marrying a man who was allied to the husband of her sister. That would make each man stronger. Elizabeth was able to consider limiting her choice, but her sister chose a man who was not near. That meant that Elizabeth had to choose to live away from her family, or she had to choose to not choose together with her sister. That is the choice that Elizabeth made.

--

THIRTEENTH GENERATION

John of Prideaux (d. c. 1357, son of Roger), m. Joan, daughter and heir of Gilbert of Adeston.

(Feb. 27, 2019) John of Prideaux knew that John was able to continue. John saw families that had a deep fear of not. This was never a problem. John knew, because of the time, that people were not able to plan. John was able. John thought, because of the time, he was extremely fortunate. John had to decide if he was going to rebel. The King was not with the Queen. The Queen was with a consort. This was a scandal. This was something that Jesus would have condemned. John expected that the King was going to be murdered. The King was a bad king. There was no order. People preserved what they could. There was no safety. John had to think of being allied with men who had arms.

John had enough money to persuade men to ally with him. This was easy in a time of great insecurity. John had the ability to travel. John had the privilege of trading with France. This gave John a reason to leave with armed men. This gave men a reason to become friendly with John and his servants. This was surprisingly useful. John began organizing ships to trade. The purpose was to discipline men to be able to act as a militia. This was very well received in the community. John had to think of his survival. John’s survival became the survival of the community. John never drew a sword. The men that John employed drew many.

(Feb. 28, 2019) John had the ability to live as a man independently. This was unusual. Most men were knights or servitors. John had an independent way of earning the livelihood of his family. John had his estate. John had trade. The trade gave men who were able to help defend the estate. John understood that men who wanted to be part of a crew would apply at the estate. These men would be given a position temporarily. This gave men to the estate as if they were soldiers. Most of the men were not trained. However, three or four soldiers were always present. This is how John survived.

--

Gilbert d’Adeston, father-in-law of John Prideaux of Orcharton

(Feb. 28, 2019) Gilbert d’Adeston was the son of a knight. The father obtained a small estate. This was enough to give Gilbert a modest income. Gilbert did not become a knight. Gilbert understood that Gilbert had to observe the rule of the local landlord. This gave protection to Gilbert. Gilbert had the privilege of selling wheat to the landlord. This was enough. Gilbert did not ever think of rising.

--

Joan, daughter of Gilbert d’Adeston and wife of John Prideaux

(Feb. 28, 2019) Joan was the daughter of a man who did not have a son. Joan thought, because of her situation, Joan was fortunate. However, Joan realized that her father was afraid. Joan knew that a man with no son was vulnerable. This meant that Joan had to marry quickly. Joan had to be the wife of a man with an estate. Joan was given as a wife to a man who had a sufficient estate but not a large one. This helped Joan decide that John Prideaux of Orcharton would be a proper husband. This is what happened.

--

FOURTEENTH GENERATION

Giles Prideaux of Orcharton (d. c. 1410), m. Isabella, daughter of Simon Gunstone of Shilston.

(Mar. 2, 2019) Giles of Pridias did not think that he was a successful man. Giles was the son of a man who made an agreement. The agreement was to trade. In exchange, Giles’s father was unable to be a family man. Giles grew up without much contact with his father. However, after Giles was twelve, his father began to bring him on trading journeys. This made Giles aware of the world beyond his home. This was helpful. Giles had a better education than most. Giles had to do arithmetic. Giles read enough to become proficient. This meant that Giles was better educated than many country gentlemen. This term was not used. Giles simply accepts a term from the future. Giles did not think of himself as especially fortunate. The trade brought in enough for Giles to withstand when there was a crisis. This made Giles a better neighbor. Giles did not have to beg from neighbors. Giles was able to help two neighbors at a time when the land was full of uncertainty. This meant that Giles had two allies. This was very helpful. Giles did not fear for the well-being of his family.

--

Simon Gunstone of Shilston

(Feb. 17, 2019) Gunstone was a man who had a small estate. Gunstone did not think that he was a well-established man. Gunstone knew that his father was a knight. The father earned land. This was enough. Gunstone had to think that he had little opportunity to increase. Gunstone had a daughter. Gunstone found a husband. This was enough.

(Feb. 26, 2019) Gunstone understood, toward the end of his life, that his understanding of his situation was different from the truth. Gunstone knew, because of his son-in-law, that he would continue. Gunstone also knew, because of his son-in-law, that his descendants would not be knights. That meant a lot. Gunstone was disappointed. Gunstone expressed his disappointment. Gunstone was not able to continue in good fellowship with his son-in-law. This was something that Gunstone regretted.

--

Isabella, daughter of Simon Gunstone and wife of Giles of Pridias

(Mar. 3, 2019) Isabella knew, after her marriage, that her family would continue without being involved in disputes of the realm. Isabella was comfortable knowing that her husband was of a family that did its best to stay away from this type of problem.

--

FIFTEENTH GENERATION

John Prideaux (d. c. 1443, son of Giles), m. (3) Anne, daughter of John of Shapton.

(Mar. 2, 2019) John Pridias of Orcharton and Adeston wanted to be able to rise. John was able to marry the daughter of Chief Justice John Fortescue. This was going to be the foundation of his family and its increased social position. This was not to be the case. The wife of John died while giving birth.

John married a third wife. This was an heiress. The estate that she brought to the marriage was modest. This was not a problem. John had a family that had enough. John thought, because his wife was an heiress, the ability to quarter his shield was a delight. John thought, if he quartered, people would think that his mother was from the family of Shapton. Quartering had specific rules.

(Mar. 3, 2019) John knew, because of his ancestry, that John had a lineage that was older than most people. John was aware of the claim that John had royal blood. John knew that this was from the mother of an ancestor. John suspected that this claim was not true. However, John mentioned the claim and was asked to give details. John had to admit that he had no details. John knew, because of what he had heard, that John could communicate with ancestors. John decided to do that. John discovered, to his surprise, that Paganus was following the life of John. John realized that Paganus had decided to focus on John as the elder branch died. This was what John heard. John suspects that Paganus had paid a bit of attention to John as the heir of the younger branch. With the disappearance of the elder branch, John and his descendants became much more important.

--

John of Shapton (father-in-law of John Prideaux)

(Feb. 19, 2019) John of Shapton had a daughter. John knew that he would not have a son. John thought, if he was able to find a good husband for his daughter, his line would continue. John decided that Prideaux was a good husband. Prideaux had a daughter from a first wife. Prideaux did not have a son. This meant, if the daughter of Shapton had a son, he would inherit. Shapton was from a family that had a small estate. Shapton did not think that his family would be remembered.

(added shortly afterward) Shapton had a son. Shapton understood. The son was called. Shapton knew that many families disappeared when the son did not come back. The son of Shapton did not come back.

(Feb. 23, 2019) Shapton had the ability to think of how his family would survive. Shapton understands that Prideaux is all that Shapton has. Shapton is now able to think of himself together with Prideaux ancestors as interested in the well being of the lineage.

(Feb. 26, 2019) Shapton had the experience of knowing that his line would end. This was not uncommon. A man with this experience had a thought of ending. A man with this experience had a special interest in the husband of his daughter. This was what preoccupied Shapton. Shapton found an established man. The man was a widower. This was not a problem. Shapton understood, because of the man, that the family would continue if there was a son. Shapton also understood, if there was only a daughter, the daughter would be able to marry well. Shapton was pleased with his choice. Shapton was disappointed when he son-in-law chose to not raise his son as a knight.
Shapton was a knight. Shapton thought of insisting that any grandson be raised as a knight when the decision was made for the marriage of his daughter. Shapton thought, if this was resisted, the marriage would not happen. Shapton held his peace. Shapton expressed the thought of raising a grandson as a knight. This was politely considered. Shapton understood. The grandson, when he arrived, would not be raised as a knight.

--

Anne, daughter of John of Shapton and wife of John Prideaux

(Mar. 3, 2019) Anne was the daughter and heir of a man with a small estate. Anne had the opportunity to marry a widower who needed an heir. Anne didn’t think of the age being a problem. Anne knew that this was not uncommon. Anne also knew that a son or daughter would have a good inheritance. This is what Anne thought. Anne was pleased with her husband. Anne understood that, because of the age, Anne would be a widow. Anne was not a comfortable widow. Anne had no man to protect her. This meant that a neighbor began to look for a way to claim land. This was a common problem. Neighbors often argued. Sometimes these arguments led to blood being shed. Anne had no way of protecting her land unless Anne remarried. Anne’s reluctance was noted. Anne was also noted for being the widow of one of the leading men in the community. Anne was able to encourage others to support her. Anne was able to resist the need to remarry.

--

SIXTEENTH GENERATION

William Prideaux (c. 1424-1472, son of John), m. Alice (d. 1511), daughter of Stephen Giffard and heir of Spencercombe (and descended through Hody from Robin Hood).

(Feb. 15, 2019) William Prideaux was a farmer. William was the owner of enough land to rent. William also had to enjoy the privilege of working. William had no qualm about working. William had a feeling that to do so was what God intended. This meant that William was not of the gentry. William had a lineage. William understood. The lineage demonstrated the worth of the family. William had the privilege of trading. William exercised that privilege enough to ensure that his son would also have that privilege. William understood. There was no independent wealth. It must be cultivated. This is what William did.

(Feb. 16, 2019) William had three separate estates. William had the ability to live as a gentleman. William understood, if William did that, he would have to spend. William chose to live as a farmer. This saved money. This cost in reputation. William was not offended by the attitude of a neighbor. The neighbor had an estate. The neighbor knew that the family of William had lived as gentry. This was not a problem. The neighbor had a little estate and struggled to maintain his status. William had a bigger estate and was comfortable as he strove to maintain his estate. William thought that he would never have a problem finding a wife for his son. William thought, because of his estate, he would attract a family. But William was mistaken. Because William lived as a farmer, gentry families did not approach him. William had to choose among daughters who were unsuitable in one way or another. This is why William found a wife for his son who was not agreeable. This was all that William could do, if William wanted to ensure that the son of his son had a lineage from his mother.

(Feb. 17, 2019) William Prideaux knew, as he died, that his son would need to be guided. William lost his elder son. William had a younger son shortly before he died. William understood that the wife that he planned for his son could become the wife of his younger son. This was not objected to. The woman was very young. She would be a year older than her husband. She had little prospect of finding a husband unless she was willing to marry a man who was from a lower class. Prideaux was not from a lower class. Prideaux simply stopped spending on the status of the gentry. William hoped that this would not be disagreeable to his son. William had no other choice. If this was disagreeable, the son would have to find his own wife. This was not impossible. This usually meant finding a widow.

(Feb. 18, 2019) William understood that, because of his early death, Fulk would not have a good chance to be trained to behave appropriately. An heir without a father is always the target of temptation. William thought, if this was resisted, Fulk would preserve the reputation of the family for not having bastards. William was very disappointed. William was unable to resist telling his son. This led to William not talking a long time.

William waited. William knew that his son would have a son by his wife. This happened. William was able to observe that his son was eager to share his satisfaction. William was pleased to be informed.

--

Stephen Giffard of Theuborough (father-in-law of William Prideaux)

(Feb. 23, 2019) Stephen Giffard was able to be a landowner. Stephen was from a line that descended from a respected family. Stephen was fortunate in his marriage. Stephen inherited Theuborough. This was not a substantial estate. This was enough to give a modicum of respectability. Spencercombe was near Theuborough. This made Stephen a landowner of respect. Stephen was able to increase. But Stephen did not have a son.

(Feb. 28, 2019) Stephen Giffard had two wives. The second wife was an heiress. This meant that her daughter would receive her land. Stephen thought, if he had a son, his son would receive less than his daughter. This was simply the way of the time.

Stephen had a small estate. The grandfather of Stephen was not a proper son. He married a woman with a small estate because his father was a well-known nobleman. This meant that the family kept the name without having any land. This was not common. Stephen had to accept that all knew that he was descended from a bastard. This was not a big concern. Stephen simply had to be a good man and he would be accepted. However, Stephen had to understand that his name gave strangers an impression that changed when they understood his origin. This was unfortunate. Stephen had to be careful when presenting himself. Stephen learned to present himself humbly. This meant much when strangers discovered that he was not a legitimate descendant of Giffard.

--

Alice, daughter of Stephen Giffard and wife of William Prideaux

(Feb. 28, 2019) Alice had a sister. The sister was the daughter of a woman that Alice never knew. Alice was the daughter of a second wife. Alice knew, because Alice was going to inherit the land of her mother, the sister of Alice would inherit the land of her father. Alice knew that Alice was going to inherit more than her sister. Alice also knew, if the sister was modest and proper, that the sister would marry a man with an estate. Alice did not know if Alice would marry a man with an estate. The father of Alice had the obligation of finding a proper husband. However, sometimes a second daughter had to settle for a man from a lower station. But Alice would inherit land from her mother. This gave Alice hope of being able to maintain her social position. Alice was not unfortunate in her marriage. Alice married a man who had enough and more. This was as her father.

--

SEVENTEENTH GENERATION

Fulk Prideaux (bef. 1471-1531, son of William), m. Katherine Poyntz

(Feb. 10, 2019) Fulk Prideaux was known as Prideaux. Fulk had a marriage with a woman from a family with a lineage. This was something that Fulk knew was not common among his ancestors. Fulk understood that his family made a point of marrying for land. This made Prideaux independent. This did not make Prideaux prominent. Fulk hoped to change that.

Fulk Prideaux knew, as he became a man, that Fulk had the ability to find a wife from a family with an ancient lineage. Fulk was from a family that had established itself. Fulk lived in a time where men with money might hope to marry women of ancient lineage. Fulk had a family with good business connections. And Fulk had an ancient lineage. Fulk was able to find a wife with a similar lineage. However, the woman was not of a temperament that was becoming. This meant that Fulk had to endure. This also meant, after Fulk had an heir, that Fulk was tempted. This did not result in a sin. Fulk was faithful. However, the temptation was enough for the wife to feel threatened.

The wife did not have a good recollection. She was inclined to tell the way she felt. This meant, if she was angry, she would remember in a way that was not faithful to the truth. This meant that Fulk had to endure accusations. Fulk had to be calm. Fulk understood, because of his choice, his family had a lineage from their mother and father. This was desirable. This would help the family in the future.

Fulk wanted to have a family that would be a good role for the community. Fulk was not able. Fulk had to accept that his wife would not be a good wife. Fulk did not think of this. Fulk had to manage his estate. Fulk had to be careful. The estate was well-endowed, but Fulk understood that the estate must be constantly maintained. Otherwise, the value would deteriorate. This meant that Fulk was busy. This meant that Fulk had little time to spend with his family. His wife was not a person to encourage Fulk to spend more time.

(Feb. 15, 2019) Fulk Prideaux did not have a good relationship with his father. Fulk knew that his father hoped that Fulk would have a good reputation. Fulk had to admit that he failed. This disappointed his father. Fulk was the father of a son. The son was not of his wife. Fulk knew, because of the family, that the son would not be accepted. The family did not have a line of a bastard. This was unusual. Most families had a relative who was descended from a bastard. Fulk knew that his mother was from such a line. Perhaps this was related to Fulk and his action.

Fulk understood. He had to know how to raise a bastard. Fulk had to know how to think of maintaining a son who would not be part of his family. This was not difficult, although it required spending money. This was not a great problem. Fulk realized, because of what he had done, that the family name was tarnished. Fulk was from a family with a reputation for not having bastards. Now that reputation was changed. Fulk realized, if Fulk and his son had no more bastards, the reputation would be intact. However, Fulk thought that he had caused a change. This was to Fulk’s discredit. Fulk had to find a way to restore his reputation. Fulk hoped, if he was of good character, this would be recognized. This was never the case. Fulk and his wife were known to not be one.

(Feb. 18, 2019) Fulk had to preserve the reputation of the family. Fulk knew, because of his error, that the family reputation was at risk. Fulk had to ensure that his son understood this. Fulk had to ensure that his son was motivated to not act in a way that harmed the family. This is what Fulk had to achieve. This is what Fulk thinks that he achieved.

--

Katherine, daughter of Poyntz and wife of Fulk Prideaux

(Feb. 18, 2019) Katherine, daughter of Humphrey Poyntz, was unable to be a good wife. Katherine understood that Katherine was the daughter of a man with a lineage. The lineage descended from royalty. Katherine understood that her father was not an important man. Katherine also understood that Katherine could expect to be the wife of a man with a similar lineage.

Katherine did not approve of the choice that her father made. Katherine was unhappy with this husband. Katherine understood that her husband had land and a good family. Katherine also understood, if Katherine was able to be as a good wife, that her husband would be one of the leaders. This was not something that Katherine cared about. Katherine felt resentment. Katherine also felt that Katherine had no prospect of a comfortable life. Katherine was unaware of how her husband was. Katherine did not understand how her husband intended to save. This made Katherine unwilling to be his wife, after Katherine found out. Katherine did not want to be the wife of a farmer.

Katherine insisted that her husband maintain the customary way of acting of a gentleman. Katherine was disagreeable about this. Katherine regrets what Katherine did. Katherine hoped to make her husband feel ashamed. Katherine, instead, made her husband dislike her.

Katherine was able to be a good mother. Katherine understood. Because of her status, combined with the status of her husband, the children had a better chance to marry well. Katherine was able to ensure that her son married the daughter of a respected family.

(Feb. 21, 2019) Katherine was able to think of herself in a different way at the end. Katherine understood that Katherine had failed to make a good marriage. Katherine also understood that, if Katherine had acted differently, her family would have had a different future. Katherine had to think that this wouldn’t be a terrible thing. Katherine simply regrets.

(Feb. 28, 2019) Katherine was unable to be thought of. After the death of Katherine, Katherine was simply not remembered. Katherine has to think that her way did not allow other people to give a good thought. This meant that Katherine was accepted out of duty, and not out of love. Katherine has to think, because of this, that Katherine was unwilling to consider the feelings of others. This was a terrible flaw.

--

EIGHTEENTH GENERATION

Humphrey Prideaux (c. 1487-1550), m. Joan Fowell (d. 1523)

(Feb. 21, 2019) Humphrey Prideaux was able to live in comfort. Humphrey was the heir of a man who had conserved. Humphrey was the son of parents who both had lineages. Humphrey was well regarded. Humphrey had little to complain about. Humphrey did not think of the greater situation. Humphrey was simply involved in his own affairs. Humphrey is aware of how the history of the time is understood. At the time, there was no clarity. There was simply change and threat of change again. Humphrey did not think of these things. Humphrey simply took care of his estate. Humphrey was able to profit from the decision of the King to change the government of the monasteries. This was a great gift, which made possible the settlement of an estate on the second son of Humphrey. Humphrey did not think that the community thought badly of what Humphrey gained. Humphrey was aware of others who gained in similar ways. Humphrey was able to think that his family was good to the community. This good continued and Humphrey was pleased to be able to provide for a younger son.

(Feb. 24, 2019) Humphrey Prideaux was a member of a group. This group had the objective of making sure that the town of Padstow was carefully defended. Humphrey did not live in Padstow. Humpnrey was aware that this was a way for Humpfrey to help his son William. William had to ensure that he became a respected member of the community. Humphrey was a respected member of his own community. Humphrey knew that William would not be accepted unless the family was presented before. This is how Humphrey did what was necessary.

Humphrey wanted to think of himself as one of the leading men of his community. Humphrey was able to think that way. Humphrey does not think that many others agreed. Humphrey did not offend, if Humphrey is not mistaken. Humphrey was active and Humphrey decided with others.

(Feb. 28, 2019) Humphrey Prideaux was unable to not be a good husband. Humphrey knew, because of his father, that being a good husband was important to maintain the family. Humphrey had to show the community that Humphrey was a model to be followed. Humphrey had position and needed to maintain the good reputation of the family.

Humphrey was blessed with a wife who was able to assist in this necessary obligation. Humphrey married the daughter of a man with an estate similar to that of Humphrey. Fowell had enough and some, but not much. This was as Humphrey. This was not anything more than Humphrey hoped for. Humphrey was blessed when his father was able to find a wife from a family that had more than a simple plot of land. Fowell was established. Fowell knew the community. Humphrey was aware that Prideaux had few connections with other families. Poyntz was going to fail, with a daughter. Humphrey regretted. Poyntz was a valuable ally. Fowell was more distant. Humphrey profited from the knowledge that a family of worth was allied to Prideaux.

Humphrey was unable to think of how his descendants would think of their ancestors. Humphrey knew, because of his ability to talk with the progenitor of the Prideaux, that Humphrey might not be remembered. Humphrey understood, if there was continuing ability to to talk to the progenitor, others in the lineage would not be heard. Humphrey was not unhappy. Humphrey understood that others in the lineage would be aware of the progenitor and of the living descendants. Humphrey was able to think that his son would communicate. This did not happen. Humphrey was able to think that his son would continue as a good Catholic. Humphrey was opposed to any change. This was not what the King wanted. This led to a deep division between Humpfrey and his son. This is why the progenitor and Humphrey and the other ancestors became forgotten.

--

Joan, daughter of Richard Fowell and wife of Humphrey Prideaux

(Feb. 28, 2019) Joan was unable to live in a way that was appropriate. Appropriate changed. This meant that appropriate could not be understood. The attempt to be appropriate was a futile effort. The religion changed. Joan believes that after Joan died, the religion changed back and changed again. This was simply not appropriate.

(Mar. 3, 2019) Joan was able to live in peace with her family. Joan and her family were able to weather the storm of the changing religion. Joan thinks that the Prideaux family lost something of their name with the change. Joan never thought carefully about this. Joan simply understands that Prideaux gained at the expense of the King.

--

Paganus de Pridias (the progenitor)

(Mar. 3, 2019) Paganus was able to follow both lines of his descendants. Paganus was much more concerned with the senior line. Paganus understood that this line was unable to establish itself as simply another of the leading families. The hilltop was no longer a source of wealth. The land surrounding the hilltop was not good farmland. Prideaux in the senior line was unable to prosper. Paganus was insistent that his descendants live frugally. This was not always obeyed. This led to debt. Paganus was able to help one descendant escape from the threat of losing the hilltop. However, the lineage eventually failed. Paganus encouraged the final descendant to try to have a son with a woman who was not his wife. Paganus was very reluctant. Paganus hoped that the lineage, if it continued, would be able to claim respectability. Paganus was disappointed with the birth of a daughter. Paganus understands that this daughter descends to people in Cornwall who were the ancestors of John. Paganus thinks that this should be recorded when time permits.

Paganus focused on the younger branch after the elder branch of the family disappeared. Paganus was able to maintain communication until the great controversy over the religion of the kingdom. After that, the descendants failed to think of their progenitor. The descendants were less inclined to think of their ancestors. Paganus thinks, now, descendants are inclined to look back and want to know the story of their family. Paganus understands that descendants include families of worth, and also common families. Paganus understands that the common ancestry of these families has been shared. Paganus hoped to think of himself as the revered progenitor of the Prideaux. Paganus continues to have this hope.

[P J Evans]

have you considered posting your fan-fiction on your own site?

[zglorgy]

Paganus talked to me this night
(Mar. 13, 2019)

Paganus said his name was not Paganus
Paganus Said he never existed
Paganus said his son was not name Richard
Paganus want to add he had no son
Paganus said he never talks to living people


why do you lie about Paganus Says .. or is he lying to you ??? or to me ?

Btw apganus speaks a really awful french with anglo cornish roman accent

JL

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I, just, found out, that, in his website, Schmeeckle has a section claiming to have spoken with an "ancient demon". This is even more ridiculous. I wonder: Is he, actually, having delusions or is he deliberately making up those stories?

[Enno Borgsteede]

Op 19-03-19 om 22:54 schreef Paulo Ricardo Canedo:

> I, just, found out, that, in his website, Schmeeckle has a section claiming to have spoken with an "ancient demon". This is even more ridiculous. I wonder: Is he, actually, having delusions or is he deliberately making up those stories?
>

Although it's difficult to diagnose a person from a distance, I see
clear signs of delusions, because of the patterns followed. All stories
come to him in English, and a creative person making things up would put
some effort in making things more realistic, by adding real characters,
and other things that a good fiction author would use.

I know two persons who had similar delusions of people 'talking' to
them, or showing movies, which could always be connected to these
persons' fears, thoughts, or experiences, and that's what I read here
too. These ancient ancestors, the demon, and the earth, all talk about
the obvious stuff, that any 'psychic' can duplicate.

Cheers,

Enno

[ps bumppo]

I can't help but note that Gary Boyd Roberts has recently continued, in his "Royal Descent of 900 Immigrants", Douglas Richardson's identification of Ralph Cudworth's wife, Mary Machell, as the daughter of Mary Lewknor and Matthew Machell and not John Machell. Have I missed anything in this identifation or is GBR just taking Richardson at his word and likely unaware of the "controversy?"

[taf]

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 2:26:56 PM UTC-7, ps bumppo wrote:

> I can't help but note that Gary Boyd Roberts has recently continued,
> in his "Royal Descent of 900 Immigrants", Douglas Richardson's
> identification of Ralph Cudworth's wife, Mary Machell, as the daughter
> of Mary Lewknor and Matthew Machell and not John Machell. Have I
> missed anything in this identifation or is GBR just taking Richardson
> at his word and likely unaware of the "controversy?"

Probably the latter. Roberts bases his work on what has appeared in 'reliable' publications, not on internet discussions. He may just not be aware that a question has been raised online, and I don't believe Mr. Schmeeckle has ever published on the topic.

taf