Margaret Puleston's Descent From Edward I
Links4two
In "Merion In The Welsh Tract" it is mentioned that Margaret Puleston is
descended from King Edward I. I cannot figure out this descent. I checked Lewis
Dwnn's "Heraldic Visitation To Wales and Part of the Marches", as much info in
"Merion" is taken from this book, but I still do not know how Margaret ties
into Edward I. Margaret lived in the 1400's. Her parents were John Puleston
(died about 1444) son of Lowri verch Griffith (sister of Owen Glendower) and
Robert Puleston of Emral, Flintshire, and Angarad Hanmer, daughter of Griffith
Hanmer of Hanmer, Fintshire.Margaret Puleston married David ap Evan ap Enion
who was Constable of Harlech Castle 1461-1468.Would anyone be able to help me
with this genealogy?
Leo van de Pas
Dear Hello (what's your name again?)
My reply is going to be the good news and the bad news.
The bad news is I cannot find Edward I either, the good news is I can find
Henry I.
Henry I, King of England
1068-1135
I
Robert de Caen, Earl of Gloucester
1090-1147
I
Maud of Gloucester
I
Hugh, 3rd Earl of Chester
I
Mabel de Meschines
I
Nicole d'Aubigny
I
Joan de Somery
I
John Le Strange, 1st Baron Strange
I
Elizabeth Le Strange
I
Gruffyd Fychan
I
Gruffyd Fychan, Lord of Glyndyfrdwy
I
Lowri Ferch Gruffyd Fychan
I
Margaret Puleston
If you need sources I can supply those but hopefully someone will find
Edward I for you.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Gee Gee Hughes
While you and I are in direct contact with this family, I will also post it
here on the Gen-Medieval list, as there are others also interested.
Here is what I found on WFT CD # 11. While the CD is used only for hints
because they are often very wrong, this looks like it might be correct. It
will need to be verified as there are no sources listed.
Henry III, king of England x Eleanor of Provence
\
Edward I, king of England x Eleanor of Castille
\
Eleanor of Eng. b. 1264 d. 1297 x Henri, Count of Bar d. 1302.
\
Eleanor of Bar x Llwelyn ap Owen Lord of South Wales
\
Thomas ap Llwelyn Lord of Iscoed x Eleanor
\
Helen of Iscoed x Gruffyd Fychen
\
Lowry x Robert Puleston
Gee Gee Hughes
gee...@sure.net
John Carmi Parsons
On 28 Nov 1998, Gee Gee Hughes wrote:
> Here is what I found on WFT CD # 11. While the CD is used only for hints
> because they are often very wrong, this looks like it might be correct. It
> will need to be verified as there are no sources listed.
> Henry III, king of England x Eleanor of Provence
> \
> Edward I, king of England x Eleanor of Castille
> \
> Eleanor of Eng. b. 1264 d. 1297 x Henri, Count of Bar d. 1302.
> \
> Eleanor of Bar x Llwelyn ap Owen Lord of South Wales
From this point on the descent given here is worthless. Eleanor of England,
countess of Bar, did not have a daughter Eleanor. Her only daughter was Joan,
the childless wife of the last de Warrenne earl of Surrey. This fabricated
descent through a non-existent daughter also leads to the Tudors, and was
evidently originally concocted to give that family a drop of Plantagenet blood
of their own even before Edmund Tudor married Margaret Beaufort.
John Parsons
D. Spencer Hines
Tree [WFT] Broderbund CD's are rubbish, whale feces and balderdash and
should never be cited as a source?
Use them as a "Finding Aid" if some will --- that probably cannot be
stopped --- but what one often "finds" --- not surprisingly --- is
rubbish, whale feces and balderdash --- that's dreck for the New
Yorkers among us, who may be linguistically challenged.
People [some people] tend to think "if it's ACTUALLY on CD [or in
print, they don't know about vanity presses] it must be good stuff,
otherwise why would they be ALLOWED to put it there?" Yes, Gentle
Readers, I've actually heard reasonably intelligent folks [well, they
walk and talk] say that --- many folks.
Of course, Broderbund has just taken in a lot of rubbish, _____ and
_____ --- then --- sliced and diced it through the electronic byte
chopper and shoveled it onto the CD's. Intelligent analysis of the
data, in accordance with standard Thucydidean Rules of History and
Genealogy [Vide infra] there was not. Careful vetting and checking,
coupled with triangulation of data points went by the board --- in the
rush to get the rubbish, _____ and _____ to market.
Caveat Emptor et Lector.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Copyright @ 1998 D. Spencer Hines --- All Rights Reserved
--
D. Spencer Hines ---- "Heavier than air flying machines are
impossible." Lord Kelvin, President Royal Society [c.1895]
-----------------
"With reference to the narrative of events, far from permitting myself
to derive it from the first source that came to hand, I did not even
trust my own impressions, but it rests partly on what I saw myself,
partly on what others saw for me, the accuracy of the report being
always tried by the most severe and detailed tests possible.
My conclusions have cost me some labour from the want of coincidence
between accounts of the same occurrences by different eyewitnesses,
arising sometime from imperfect memory, sometimes from undue
partiality for one side or the other.
Absence of romance in my History will, I fear, detract somewhat from
its interest; but I shall be content if it is judged useful by those
inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the
interpretation of the future which in the course of things must
resemble if it does not reflect it. My History has been composed to
be an everlasting possession, not the showpiece of an hour.”
Thucydides, The Athenian (c. 460 — c. 400 B.C.) The History of the
Peloponnesian War [431— 413 B. C.] Book 1, Section 22
-----------------------------------
John Carmi Parsons wrote in message ...
KRot...@aol.com
computers, then a lot of us have our lineage back to Adam and Eve. I believe
that anything before the year 1000 is not to be relied on, unless there is
documented proof, such as baptisms, death records, etc, which the monks seemed
to have a lot of times. The Irish have a long line of genealogies, but most
with no dates or anything, just names, at least that is all I have seen. When
I first found a line back to nobility, and the royalty, I did not believe it
to be true, until I found the Fine, Patent, Close Rolls, and the Post-Mortem
Inquiry books, which I take as firm proof of ancestry. They were written then
and there, not 200 years later. The Visitations have to be taken with a grain
of salt, since they were written long after the fact in a lot of cases ( I am
talking abt the earlier generations in them) While I am makeing my database, I
am trying to include as much proof as I can in the notes area, stating where I
got my info from.
Gee Gee Hughes
Thanks for your posting. You will save me many hours, from going on a
"wild goose chase". I apprecaite it.
Gee Gee Hughes
gee...@sure.net
ray montgomery
Why or what evidence do you have that this is not correct???
Post your source!
Ray
On 28 Nov 1998 12:25:20 -0800 jpar...@chass.utoronto.ca (John Carmi
Parsons) writes:
>
>On 28 Nov 1998, Gee Gee Hughes wrote:
>
>> Here is what I found on WFT CD # 11. While the CD is used only for
>hints
>> because they are often very wrong, this looks like it might be
>correct. It
>> will need to be verified as there are no sources listed.
>
>> Henry III, king of England x Eleanor of Provence
>> \
>> Edward I, king of England x Eleanor of Castille
>> \
>> Eleanor of Eng. b. 1264 d. 1297 x Henri, Count of Bar d. 1302.
>> \
>> Eleanor of Bar x Llwelyn ap Owen Lord of South Wales
>
>>From this point on the descent given here is worthless. Eleanor of
>England,
>countess of Bar, did not have a daughter Eleanor. Her only daughter
>was Joan,
>the childless wife of the last de Warrenne earl of Surrey. This
>fabricated
>descent through a non-existent daughter also leads to the Tudors, and
>was
>evidently originally concocted to give that family a drop of
>Plantagenet blood
>of their own even before Edmund Tudor married Margaret Beaufort.
>
>John Parsons
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
ED MANN
>
> My reply is going to be the good news and the bad news.
> The bad news is I cannot find Edward I either, the good news is I can find
> Henry I.
>
> Henry I, King of England
> 1068-1135
<edited>
> Margaret Puleston
>
> If you need sources I can supply those but hopefully someone will find
> Edward I for you.
I can get John:
Direct Descendants of John of England
1 King John of England aka: "Lackland" b: 24 Dec 1167 d: 19 Oct 1216
ref #: F223:16
2 Joan b: Bef. 1200 d: 30 Mar 1236 ref #: Ä27-27
+Prince Llewelyn ap Iorwerth aka: "Llewellyn the Great" b: Abt.
1164 d: 11 Apr 1240 ref #: Ä176-7
3 Angharad verch Llewellyn ref #: Ä254-29
+Maelgwn Fychan d: 1257 ref #: (Ä254-29)
4 Elena ferch Maelgwn Fychan ref #: Ä254-30
+Maredudd ap Owain aka: Lord of Cardigan Uch Ayron d: 1265 ref #:
(Ä254-30)
5 Owain ap Maredudd d: 1275 ref #: Ä254-31
+Angharad ferch Owain ap Maredudd ref #: (Ä254-31)
6 Llywelyn ap Owain aka: Lord of South Wales d: 1309 ref #: Ä254-32
*2nd Wife of Llywelyn ap Owain:
+ ref #: (Ä254-32)
7 Sir Thomas ap Llewellyn aka: Lord of Iscoed d: Bef. 14 Aug 1343
ref #: Ä254-33
+Eleanor ferch Philip ap Ifor ref #: Ä260-33
8 Elen verch Thomas ref #: Ä254-34
+Gruffudd Fychan II ap Gruffydd aka: Lord of Glyndyfrdwy ref #:
W137-6
9 Lowry verch Gruffudd Fychan ref #: W137-7
+Robert Puleston b: Abt. 1358 d: Aft. 1399 ref #: (Ä249-35)
10 John Puleston d: Bef. 17 Apr 1444 ref #: EC3:191
+Angharad Hanmer ref #: (EC3:191)
11 Margaret Puleston ref #: EC3:191
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
Π= Hardy, _Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America_,
[page].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat emptor.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat emptor.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page]
Leo van de Pas
>
>Direct Descendants of John of England
>
> 1 King John of England aka: "Lackland" b: 24 Dec 1167 d: 19 Oct 1216
>ref #: F223:16
> 2 Joan b: Bef. 1200 d: 30 Mar 1236 ref #: Ä27-27
> +Prince Llewelyn ap Iorwerth aka: "Llewellyn the Great" b: Abt.
>1164 d: 11 Apr 1240 ref #: Ä176-7
verch Llewellyn an unknown mistress, not the English Joan. Perhaps there
are better sources establishing this link?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Leo van de Pas
>Some time ago Ed man posted some info on this list that this is correct.
>Why or what evidence do you have that this is not correct???
>Post your source!
>Ray
Dear Ray,
One source which does not give Eleanor of Bar-x-Llwelyn
is Schwennicke Volume VI page 147. However, this page gives only one child,
a son. In Burke's Guide to the Royal Family
page 197 is a telling note by Princess Eleanor, she left issue, one son and
one (or possibly two) daughters. One daughter, Jeanne, has already been
mentioned. The same book,
page 325, gives Llywelyn ap Owain as dying in 1309, leaving issue but no
record of a wife. Are we back to square one?
It is still possible but so far we have not seen anything
substantial (I have not seen Ed Mann's) sources positively
promoting this link. Personally, and I may well be wrong,
I doubt very much that a girl with an English royal princess for mother
would marry an obscure Welshman.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
>
Robert O'Connor
1480) married Ralph Dutton of Chester?
Thanks
Reedpcgen
Princess of North Wales," in The Genealogist, v. 1. This topic was also
discussed on this group 10/96, etc. I suggest you check www.dejanews.com and
start with what has already been discussed before rehashing it again.
pcr
ED MANN
>
> Mr. Mann,
> Thank you for your information on Margaret Puleston's descent from Edward
> I (or lack therof). I already had this descent from John for Margaret, but I
> was wondering whether Joanna has been proven to be the mother of Angharad? I
> have seen sources which say Tangywyst or an unknow mistress was the mother of
> Angharad and her twin, Tegwared. Other sources (like Dwnn) don't even mention
> Tegwared. If I'm reading it correctly, your source on Joanna was Weiss, right?
Yes. See Ä27-27.
ED MANN
>
> >I can get John:
> >
> >Direct Descendants of John of England
> >
> > 1 King John of England aka: "Lackland" b: 24 Dec 1167 d: 19 Oct 1216
> >ref #: F223:16
> > 2 Joan b: Bef. 1200 d: 30 Mar 1236 ref #: Ä27-27
> > +Prince Llewelyn ap Iorwerth aka: "Llewellyn the Great" b: Abt.
> >1164 d: 11 Apr 1240 ref #: Ä176-7
> ............Dear Ed, here is a weak spot. I have as mother for Angharad
> verch Llewellyn an unknown mistress, not the English Joan. Perhaps there
> are better sources establishing this link?
Weis cites TAG 38:180; Bridgeman, _Princes_of_South_Wales_, pp. 203-204,
209; _The_Genealogist_ 5:166 (1881), none of which I have available to
check.
ED MANN
>
> >Some time ago Ed man posted some info on this list that this is correct.
> >Why or what evidence do you have that this is not correct???
> >Post your source!
> >Ray
>
> Dear Ray,
> One source which does not give Eleanor of Bar-x-Llwelyn
> is Schwennicke Volume VI page 147. However, this page gives only one child,
> a son. In Burke's Guide to the Royal Family
> page 197 is a telling note by Princess Eleanor, she left issue, one son and
> one (or possibly two) daughters. One daughter, Jeanne, has already been
> mentioned. The same book,
> page 325, gives Llywelyn ap Owain as dying in 1309, leaving issue but no
> record of a wife. Are we back to square one?
> It is still possible but so far we have not seen anything
> substantial (I have not seen Ed Mann's) sources positively
> promoting this link. Personally, and I may well be wrong,
> I doubt very much that a girl with an English royal princess for mother
> would marry an obscure Welshman.
Alison Weir lists this marriage as "said to have", but calls it
doubtful. See BRF:82. I show the marriage in my db, but with no issue.
John Carmi Parsons
Conquest_, 7 vols (London, 1849-55), i, pp. 275-317, discusses in detail
the documentary and chronicle evidence for the life of Edward I's eldest
surviving daughter Eleanor. Green includes the references in the king's
wardrobe accounts to the gifts given to messengers who brought Edward the
news of the births of Eleanor's children. Eleanor had only two, Edward
and Joan or Jeanne of Bar. Her conjugal life was cut short because her
husband, Henry III of Bar, whom she married in 1293, had the bad luck to
fall foul of Philip IV of France and wound up in a Capetian prison for
the last year and a half of Eleanor's short life (she died in 1297 at the
age of 28). She had barely had time to have the two children she did
have. Furthermore, the descent alleging that she had a second daughter is
unknown to history before the 16th century, when it suddenly surfaces in
the heralds' visitations. To my knowledge, no one has ever succeeded in
documenting the link through the supposed "Eleanor of Bar"; it can only be
"substantiated" through the works that can be traced back to those 16th
century heraldic pedigress. As I posted earlier, it is very likely that
the descent was confected to give the Tudors some claim to distinction through
a descent from the Plantagenets that pre-dated Edmund Tudor's marriage to
Margaret Beaufort.
And...
On 28 Nov 1998, Leo van de Pas wrote:
> I may well be wrong, [but] I doubt very much that a girl with an English
> royal princess for mother would marry an obscure Welshman.
Precisely. Given Edward I's well-attested efforts to ensure the virtual
extinction of the Welsh princely lines (including enclosing in a convent for
life the infant only offspring of his cousin Eleanor de Montfort by the last
reigning Welsh prince), it is next to impossible to believe that he would
have allowed one of his own granddaughters to make such a marriage. We
possess fairly comprehensive wardrobe and household documentation for the
late years of Edward's life, moreover, and the first years of the reign of
his son Edward II, and there are no indications in this mass of material
that a royal kinswoman married a Welsh lord in this period--no kingly
gifts to the couple, no food provided for the wedding feast, no money for
offerings at the nuptial mass as was customary when the king or queen
attended such a wedding or wished to indicate their approval, etc. Nothing.
John Parsons
ray montgomery
Thank you
young raymond
On 29 Nov 1998 06:20:50 -0800 jpar...@chass.utoronto.ca (John Carmi
___________________________________________________________________