Sir Edward Fitton

[Michael Rochester]

I am a descendant of Alice Fitton, Howard, wife of Chief Justice of common pleas Sir William Howard. Her father is usually shown as Sir Edward Fitton.

Who was the wife Sir Edward Fitton, who married and had a daughter Alice, who married Sir William Howard, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.

Many sources say Mary Harbottle, but it seems ANOTHER William Howard married a Mary Harbottle, and the two Howards were conflated and confused.

Another few sources say her name was Ellen, some say Fallabrione; but others attribute her to another generation, as the mother of Sir Edward Fitton (father shown as Richard Fitton). Any research conducted on the Fittons? Any concrete findings to construct the Fitton family and allied lines?

Alice Fitton 1246-1310
21st great-grandmother
(Sir) John I Howard of Wiggenhall 1276-1331
Son of Alice Fitton
(Sir) John II Howard Sheriff and Escheator of Norfolk and Suffolk, Admiral of the North Fleet 1310-1364
Son of (Sir) John I Howard of Wiggenhall
Joan Howard 1340-1370
Daughter of (Sir) John II Howard Sheriff and Escheator of Norfolk and Suffolk, Admiral of the North Fleet
Beatrice Braose 1366-1440
Daughter of Joan Howard
Joan Shirley 1400-1467
Daughter of Beatrice Braose
Elizabeth Newmarch 1417-1467
Daughter of Joan Shirley
Jane Neville 1432-1481
Daughter of Elizabeth Newmarch
Isabel Gascoigne 1460-1513
Daughter of Jane Neville
Margaret Pigot 1492-1531
Daughter of Isabel Gascoigne
Elizabeth Metcalfe 1528-1625
Daughter of Margaret Pigot
Charles Layton 1567-1618
Son of Elizabeth Metcalfe
(Sir) Thomas Layton 1597-1651
Son of Charles Layton
Catherine Layton 1618-1686
Daughter of (Sir) Thomas Layton
Layton (Laton) Eden Vicar of Hartburn 1645-1735
Son of Catherine Layton
Jane Eden 1710-1798
Daughter of Layton (Laton) Eden Vicar of Hartburn
Margaret Harle 1734-1818
Daughter of Jane Eden
George Eden Meggison 1756-1815
Son of Margaret Harle
Thomas Meggison 1803-1883
Son of George Eden Meggison
Thomas Cuthbert Meggison 1847-1924
Son of Thomas Meggison
Thomas Bernard Meggison 1877-1965
Son of Thomas Cuthbert Meggison
Ernest Joseph Meggison 1914-1995
Son of Thomas Bernard Meggison
Thomas Frederick Meggison 1944-
Son of Ernest Joseph Meggison
Michael Thomas Meggison

[Mark Jennings]

I hope you won't mind if I offer a couple of observations?

1. You are warmly encouraged to try some original research yourself, rather than just present random and nameless website contradictions - this risks just treating the newsgroup as a free research service, which will rapidly lead to diminishing returns for you. It also suggests that if you don't find contradictions, you are simply accepting whatever you find online (which, of course, is your prerogative). If you want to present this contradictory information, it might help to cite your sources - although there is a good chance that you will just be told to ignore them completely in future, if they are not reputable. Otherwise, it might be simpler just to as whether anyone can identify the mother/parents of Alice Fitton, wife of Sir William Howard, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (d 1308).

2. The way you present your lines is (at least to me) very hard to follow, since you interpose each generation with a repetition of the previous one. If you just present the actual names (and dates, if they are real) for each generation, line after line, we can more easily understand what your proposed tree is - as it is, I have to mentally deduct or ignore every second line, and the risk is that readers won't take the trouble to do so. it will also make your posts much more concise.

If you wish to start with a decent source, have you looked at the Oxford Dictionary of Biography (ODB), which is widely available online? This states that Sir William Howard (apparently) married twice. You are enquiring about his second wife; ODNB notes that she was Alice, "said to have been the daughter of John Fitton of Wiggenhall" [Norfolk], previously wife of Simon Constable of Burton Constable, Yorkshire, who died 1294. It also states that "his son and heir, John, was almost certainly a child of his first marriage". If this is the case - and it almost certainly must be, since Alice's first husband died in 1294, while you assert a birthdate for John Howard of 1276 - then your genealogical interest in Alice Fitton might have come to a close.

[Mark Jennings]

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 9:12:07 PM UTC, Mark Jennings wrote:
>
> If you wish to start with a decent source, have you looked at the Oxford Dictionary of Biography (ODB), which is widely available online? This states that Sir William Howard (apparently) married twice. You are enquiring about his second wife; ODNB notes that she was Alice, "said to have been the daughter of John Fitton of Wiggenhall" [Norfolk], previously wife of Simon Constable of Burton Constable, Yorkshire, who died 1294. It also states that "his son and heir, John, was almost certainly a child of his first marriage". If this is the case - and it almost certainly must be, since Alice's first husband died in 1294, while you assert a birthdate for John Howard of 1276 - then your genealogical interest in Alice Fitton might have come to a close.

ODB should of course be ODNB - Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - doh!

[Michael Rochester]

1. I have been doing genealogy since I was a teen, with over 30 years OF experience; in fact the LDS church has asked me to do lectures on my areas of expertise. I am excellent in French Canadian, Italian, PEI (Canada) and post 1500-(meaning parish register-era and forward) British research. British genealogy books almost EXCLUSIVELY start with the parish register era to the 2000s. In medieval research, I am a novice and thus I am prone to error. I cannot research when I am NOT acclimated and there are no workshops for this kind of research. I am considered a TOP NOTCH researcher in many things; in medieval not so much. In fact, for 20 years I IGNORED my pre-1600 British lines because I FEARED not knowing, asking, the "wrong" questions, and being lectured to by self-appointed (ones who back it up, and many who cannot).
2. I don't have a genealogy program. I am at least courteous enough to give a descent that ancestry specifies.
3. I do use the OED which has been "poo-poo'ed" as a source, even Cawley's database has been critiqued greatly here. Obviously I am not perfect but everyone else here is. I am willing to do original research for ANYONE here is my PROFESSED expertise areas in genealogy.
4. HAVE A GREAT DAY!

[Mark Jennings]

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 11:28:55 PM UTC, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> 1. I have been doing genealogy since I was a teen, with over 30 years OF experience; in fact the LDS church has asked me to do lectures on my areas of expertise. I am excellent in French Canadian, Italian, PEI (Canada) and post 1500-(meaning parish register-era and forward) British research. British genealogy books almost EXCLUSIVELY start with the parish register era to the 2000s. In medieval research, I am a novice and thus I am prone to error. I cannot research when I am NOT acclimated and there are no workshops for this kind of research. I am considered a TOP NOTCH researcher in many things; in medieval not so much. In fact, for 20 years I IGNORED my pre-1600 British lines because I FEARED not knowing, asking, the "wrong" questions, and being lectured to by self-appointed (ones who back it up, and many who cannot).
> 2. I don't have a genealogy program. I am at least courteous enough to give a descent that ancestry specifies.
> 3. I do use the OED which has been "poo-poo'ed" as a source, even Cawley's database has been critiqued greatly here. Obviously I am not perfect but everyone else here is. I am willing to do original research for ANYONE here is my PROFESSED expertise areas in genealogy.
> 4. HAVE A GREAT DAY!

Oh well, my comments were meant to be constructive, and came from one of the few members who invariably responds to your posts and has given you many, many hours of free research (I gave you some more here, after my comments, which you haven't acknowledged - you're welcome). If you CHOOSE to get in a HUFF about it, that's YOUR decision. Good luck with your genealogical endeavours.

[Michael Rochester]

> Oh well, my comments were meant to be constructive, and came from one of the few members who invariably responds to your posts and has given you many, many hours of free research (I gave you some more here, after my comments, which you haven't acknowledged - you're welcome). If you CHOOSE to get in a HUFF about it, that's YOUR decision. Good luck with your genealogical endeavours.

1. If you gave me advice as in a portal, a book, or another expert, that is one thing. I would have bought Doug Richardson's books, but have you checked amazon? a set of 2 for nearly 200 dollars. Very cost prohibitive in this age. You are correcting behavior and little else.
2. I thank you for the free research, which I would gladly do for MY level of expertise (post 1500-British genealogy, Canadian genealogy). I have done 1000s of hours of free research, and I have been published in several genealogical journals. I know my stuff. But not here. I am here for advice on methodology, NOT behavior.
3. "Few members"? You act like I am being ignored. Not everyone shares the same ancestors, so people will check out threads on people of whom they descend. I have responded to threads 10 years older and more. I am not concerned about popularity, unless you are a Sports Illustrated model.
Mike

[Michael Rochester]

I have profusely thanked people for their efforts: check my dePreston thread.

[wjhonson]

What is your specific credible evidence that the Isabel Gascoigne who married Thomas Pigott is the same person as one of the daughters of Jane (Neville) Gasgoigne widow of Sir William Gascoigne of Gawthorpe

[wjhonson]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 8:44:40 AM UTC-8, wjhonson wrote:
> What is your specific credible evidence that the Isabel Gascoigne who married Thomas Pigott is the same person as one of the daughters of Jane (Neville) Gasgoigne widow of Sir William Gascoigne of Gawthorpe

Here for example is Sir William's page at Genealogics

https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00108620&tree=LEO

There is an Elizabeth aka Isabel, but she is marked as "died young"

[John Higgins]

A pedigree of the Pigot family in The Genealogist, vol. 2 (1878), p. 297 identifies the wife of Thomas Pigot as "Isabell, dau. of ....Gascoyne, a younger brother of the house of Gascoyne", citing Harleian MS 1364. Nothing more specific than that....

The pedigrees I've seen of the Gascoigne family do not show a daughter of Sir William Gascoigne and Jane Neville as marrying Thomas Pigot[t]. What is your source for this connection?

[Mark Jennings]

Your over-reaction is quite remarkable. I was not "correcting" behaviour [and you act as if that is a bad thing]; I made simple, constructive suggestions to make engagement easier and produce better responses. Your genealogy is bad, and your manners are worse. Into the kill file with the other trolls you go.

HAVE A NICE DAY

[John Higgins]

[snip]

>
> 2. The way you present your lines is (at least to me) very hard to follow, since you interpose each generation with a repetition of the previous one. If you just present the actual names (and dates, if they are real) for each generation, line after line, we can more easily understand what your proposed tree is - as it is, I have to mentally deduct or ignore every second line, and the risk is that readers won't take the trouble to do so. it will also make your posts much more concise.
>

I agree with Mark's comment about the way you present your lines of descent. I too find them difficult to read, for the reasons that Mark mentions. I believe you implied in a response that you were copying the descents in that format from Ancestry, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily readable for anyone else.

Also, is it really necessary to show the ENTIRE descent all the way down to you every time? You could cut it off at the earliest Meggison, at a minimum - or even earlier. We all know that you're seeking assistance in searching for your ancestors, but we don't need to know the full connection every time.

[joseph cook]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 2:48:37 PM UTC-5, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 1:12:07 PM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 7:14:32 PM UTC, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I am a descendant of Alice Fitton, Howard, wife of Chief Justice of common pleas Sir William Howard. Her father is usually shown as Sir Edward Fitton.

> I agree with Mark's comment about the way you present your lines of descent. I too find them difficult to read, for the reasons that Mark mentions. I believe you implied in a response that you were copying the descents in that format from Ancestry, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily readable for anyone else.
>
> Also, is it really necessary to show the ENTIRE descent all the way down to you every time? You could cut it off at the earliest Meggison, at a minimum - or even earlier. We all know that you're seeking assistance in searching for your ancestors, but we don't need to know the full connection every time.

I echo this comment; I tried to read it and gave up.

Many of the posters here also have decades of experience/study and have been published in genealogical journals. But neither years of experience nor prior publication says anything about your openness to receive constructive comments. Your posts here do however, and they are telling people they should avoid helping you as you might just blow up at them or vomit your resume at them.

" I am considered a TOP NOTCH researcher"

-- All caps? Really? When I see comments like this, my first thought is always Dunning–Kruger.

I have read every single post in this newsgroup since at least 1996. And I have to tell you your response is one of the more unusually over-the-top ones yet. I mean, it is preferable to D. Spencer Hines and the guy who does genealogy through talking with dead ancestors until I reached out to his brother IRL to intercede... but it is equally unconstructive.
--Joe C

[wjhonson]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 12:10:14 PM UTC-8, joe...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> the guy who does genealogy through talking with dead ancestors until I reached out to his brother IRL to intercede... but it is equally unconstructive.
> --Joe C

And I think I speak for us all in thanking you profusely for that effort.

[Peter Stewart]

On 25-Feb-21 7:10 AM, joseph cook wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 2:48:37 PM UTC-5, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 1:12:07 PM UTC-8, mark66j...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> " I am considered a TOP NOTCH researcher"
> -- All caps? Really? When I see comments like this, my first thought is always Dunning–Kruger.
>
> I have read every single post in this newsgroup since at least 1996.

Golly - and yet you retain excellent sense and sensibility. How do you
do it? My faculties went downhill, from a low-enough starting point,
long ago, no doubt mainly due to the Dunning-Kruger effect (in myself
and others).

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Also no doubt partly due to the Tiger Woods effect, of massively
overestimating the value of some item more personally interesting than
generally important.

The celebrity-cult hysteria of US news over a traffic accident involving
one person shows why the nation was so grotesquely primed for Trump.

Peter Stewart

[joseph cook]

> Also no doubt partly due to the Tiger Woods effect, of massively
> overestimating the value of some item more personally interesting than
> generally important.
>
> The celebrity-cult hysteria of US news over a traffic accident involving
> one person shows why the nation was so grotesquely primed for Trump.
>

All too true unfortunately. It's an embarrassment that the news is more like a daily soap-opera summary of celebrity, than items that are either of historical importance, or importance to people's lives.
--Joe C

[Peter Stewart]

The British media is just as degraded in a different way - the BBC news
nowadays is a sort of daily PC social studies lecture with almost no
coverage of actual events if they can help it.

The cultural hegemony of the masses is a psychic victory of Karl Marx, I
suppose, that has been won in the richest Western nations rather than in
poorer (much less Communist) parts of the world.

Peter Stewart

[Michael Rochester]

Like this is some gossip corner. LOL I can hear you!

[Michael Rochester]

My faculties went downhill, from a low-enough starting point,
> long ago, no doubt mainly due to the Dunning-Kruger effect (in myself
> and others).
>
> Peter Stewart

Interesting! Do tell me about it. :)

[Michael Rochester]

Your genealogy is bad, and your manners are worse. Into the kill file with the other trolls you go.
>
> HAVE A NICE DAY

....and you are ugly and your momma dresses you funny. :)
Two can play at that game

[Michael Rochester]

> The celebrity-cult hysteria of US news over a traffic accident involving
> one person shows why the nation was so grotesquely primed for Trump.
>
> Peter Stewart

Usually people complaining about the celebrity-cult "hysteria" tend to covertly envy the rich and famous, using their own envy to channel their jealousy by using some remote disdain to "put your nose up" while running to get their autograph when they are found suddenly in your presence.

[Peter Stewart]

I suggest you take your inane "top-notch" opinions and see if you can
shove them a notch further up.

Newbies who are full of themselves, and of it, are another major reason
for wearing down sanity in this newsgroup.

Peter Stewart

[pj.ev...@gmail.com]

Please turn down your hostility a couple of notches. (YOU brought up celebrity culture in the US - which doesn't afflict most people.)

[John Higgins]

In an effort to bring the discussion in this thread back to genealogy, I'll ask again:

What is your source for the parentage of Isabel Gascoyne, wife of Thomas Pigot?

[pj.ev...@gmail.com]

I found the following references, the first of which says that her ancestry seems to be unknown:

https://www.gdcooke.org/ss/default.aspx/page/org2-o/p22866.htm citing these

George W. Marshall, "Pigot of Melmorby in Coverdale, and of Clotherham Near Ripon, Co. York," The Genealogist 2 (1878 (o.s.)): 294-298, at 297

George Edward Cokayne, The Complete Peerage: Or a History of the House of Lords and All Its Members From the Earliest Times: Revised and Much Enlarged, 13 in 14 vols. (London, England: The St. Catherine Press, 1910-1940), 7:32 (Hylton)

J. W. Clay, editor, Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire, with additions, 3 vols. (Exeter, England: William Pollard & Co., 1899-1917), 2:122

[pj.ev...@gmail.com]

I also found this, which doesn't mention this marriage AFAICT:
http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/20459/1/C.%20Bovis%2C%20The%20Gascoigne%20Family%20%28PhD%2C%202017%29.pdf
(It's massive.)

[John Higgins]

The first source here is the one I mentioned in my earlier post, which doesn't give parents for Isabell Gascoyne. The other two sources mention Thomas Pigot but not his wife Isabel[l].

I was hoping that Mike would provide us with the sources he has for Isabel's parentage.

[Michael Rochester]

Only one reference: Gregory’s Chronicle: 1461-1469’, in Gairdner, J. (ed.), The Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth Century(London, 1878), 210-239: it cites citing HARL MS 1364

[Michael Rochester]

If you can provide some kind of evidence that Isabel did NOT marry, or died young, or married someone else, I will gladly delete her off the pedigree. I am related to William Gascoigne and Katherine Neville many times, so "losing" her is no hurtful deletion. Ha ha

[Michael Rochester]

Make that Joan/Jane Neville...relying too much from memory here.

[pj.ev...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 10:48:56 AM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Make that Joan/Jane Neville...relying too much from memory here.
> > > I was hoping that Mike would provide us with the sources he has for Isabel's parentage.

That thesis might interest you, then.
The Gascoigne Family, c. 1309-1592 - White Rose eTheses ...
https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/20459/1/C.%20Bovis%2C%20The%20Gascoigne%20Family%20%28PhD%2C%202017%29.pdf
etheses.whiterose.ac.uk › C. Bovis, The Gascoigne Fami... [PDF]
by CM Bovis · ‎2017 · ‎Related articles
2.12a The Alabaster Effigies of William Gascoigne I and Elizabeth Mowbray. 276. 2.12b The Alabaster Effigies of William IV and Joan Neville. 277. 2.13 Stained ... [reference to figures]

[John Higgins]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 10:37:25 AM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Only one reference: Gregory’s Chronicle: 1461-1469’, in Gairdner, J. (ed.), The Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth Century(London, 1878), 210-239: it cites citing HARL MS 1364
> > I was hoping that Mike would provide us with the sources he has for Isabel's parentage.

The book cited above is available at Google Books here:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Historical_Collections_of_a_Citizen/6qAUAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Historical+Collections+of+a+Citizen+of+London&printsec=frontcover

But searching the book indicates no reference to "Pigot" or "MS 1364", and the only references to "Gascoyne" are clearly references to the French territory of Gascony (which was under English control during the 15th century). I don't see how this supports your assertion that Isabel, wife of Thomas Pigot, was the daughter of Sir William Gascoigne and Jane Neville.

Can you explain how this source supports the descent you presented? Frankly, I have to wonder if you simply copied a citation from some place (like Ancestry) without actually checking to see if the book says what you think it says... Perhaps you can prove me wrong....

And as to your request that someone "provide some kind of evidence that Isabel did NOT marry, or died young, or married someone else", it's rather hard to prove a negative - especially when you haven't yet proved that she is the daughter of the parents you claim for her.

[John Higgins]

Thanks for the reference to this Ph.D thesis - which is indeed massive. I will take a look at it - and perhaps Mike will too!!

[Michael Rochester]

You asked me if I just copied something from ancestry. I prove you erroneous in theory by showing you some of my publications (ask about me at The Genealogist or NEHGS). None of them present a knowledge of pree-1500s genealogy since it is NOT an area of expertise for me. I have said that perhaps 1000 times on this page. If you need help with your French Canadian ancestry, I am the go-to guy.

Have I "copied and pasted" from ancestry? Not a lot; since I don't have that much colonial ancestry to justify such an action, as most people do not have similar ancestry to me except for the French Canadian ancestry. But I have used secondary sources, of sometimes dubious quality. I have deleted, altered, and refined what I need to do to keep the integrity of my tree.

As for the source of the Gascoigne lineage to "Isabel," I have never read any literature that has said she is a fabrication or spurious; she was added many years ago although I forgot where. I have thoroughly documented my lines into the 1500s, where parish registers, land records, and Victorian histories can accommodate. And, Harlean and Surtees society. But until recently, not too much delving since I am an admitted novice, and there are almost NO how to books on pre-1500 British genealogy. This is a piecemeal process and since the language is too antiquated for my specific knowledge, I trust what other serious researchers have put forth earlier.

John William McCormack
publication date Sep 2017 publication description Bloomsbury Academic

publication description Written by Professor Garrison Nelson, I am acknowledged as a source on p. 71, Footnote 9, and p. 854, for my genealogical research on the ancestry of former Speaker of the House John W McCormack.
Other author
Garrison Nelson

Making a Killing: The Unofficial Story of the Sandy Hook Massacre
publication date Aug 17, 2014 publication description Amazon Digital Services, Inc.

publication description Book written by Dennis and Sabrina Phillips. I conducted extensive genealogical research for them to establish Sandy Hook murderer Adam Lanza's correct lineage and family relations, in order to dispute many press reports and establish a reason for the spreading the misinformation about the Lanza family.
See publication Making a Killing: The Unofficial Story of the Sandy Hook Massacre See publication
"Some Descendants of Timothy Bush of Connecticut, Vermont, and Western New York"

publication date Apr 2011 publication description The Genealogist
publication description Timothy Bush is the ancestor of two United States presidents, but for many years, only the direct lines to the president were well known and published. This article traces his possible ancestry in Connecticut and presents his numerous descendants, who settled across the entire United States.
Other author

Andrew Pierce

See publication "Some Descendants of Timothy Bush of Connecticut, Vermont, and Western New York" See publication
"From the Azores to Cape Cod: Manuel Spindle and His Descendants"

publication date Jan 2006 publication description The New England Historical and Genealogical Register

publication description Manuel Spindle/Espendello was an immigrant who came from the Azores to Dennis, Mass., in the late 1700s. He was one of the earliest non-Northern European immigrant to New England. His life and descendants to the mid 1900s are treated in this article.
See publication "From the Azores to Cape Cod: Manuel Spindle and His Descendants" See publication
“Descendants of Fairbanks Bush: The Bush Family that Stayed in Vermont”

publication date Jul 2005 publication description Vermont Genealogy

publication description Of Timothy and Deborah (House) Bush's large Vermont family, almost all of their children eventually settled in western NY state. Only Fairbanks Bush and his family stayed in Vermont. This article traces his descendants (covering Mass., Wisc., N.H. and N.Y.) to the mid 1900s.
See publication “Descendants of Fairbanks Bush: The Bush Family that Stayed in Vermont” See publication
"Using the Census, and Analysis, to Find the Parentage of Mount Morris Bevier Family"

publication date Mar 2005 publication description The Historian

publication description The paternal origins of James Samuel Bevier (1834-1902) were unknown to the Bevier family genealogists until the author discovered his ancestry utilizing local newspapers, the NY State census, gravestones, and onomastics (using proper names as clues in the development of a genealogical theory).
See publication "Using the Census, and Analysis, to Find the Parentage of Mount Morris Bevier Family" See publication
“Resurrecting Albert Vose (1805-1855) of Rochester: Bringing an Urban Genealogical 'Dead Branch' to Life Through Onomastics and City Directories"

publication date Jul 2004 publication description The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record

publication description Albert Vose immigrated to Rochester, NY from Massachusetts in the early 1800s, leaving very little paper trail as to his origins. Using city directories and analyzing census, newspaper, and vital record data, he was found to be the "Albert Vose" in a Vose genealogy, where the author wrote he moved to NY but "died unmarried." This article also demonstrates he indeed married and had a large family with descendants living to this day.
See publication “Resurrecting Albert Vose (1805-1855) of Rochester: Bringing an Urban Genealogical 'Dead Branch' to Life Through Onomastics and City Directories" See publication
Notable Kin #71 “Royal Descents, Notable Kin, and Printed Sources: The Immediate New England and Royal Ancestry of the Beach Boys"

publication date Jul 2003 publication description AmericanAncestors.org

publication description The ancestry of three Wilson Brothers (Brian, Dennis and Carl) and first cousin, Mike Love, of the world famous rock group, The Beach Boys, was traced to distant origins in New England, the Mid Atlantic and Southern states, Holland, Canada, and Sweden.
See publication Notable Kin #71 “Royal Descents, Notable Kin, and Printed Sources: The Immediate New England and Royal Ancestry of the Beach Boys" See publication
"The Alanson Cummingses: Solving the Ancestry of Alanson Bonapart Cummings (1812–1873?) of Herkimer and Jefferson Counties, New York"

publication date Jan 2003 publication description The American Genealogist

publication description Using several types of traditional and nontraditional genealogical sources, as well as using careful analysis, the author was able to accurately trace the lineage of a 19th century upstate New York settler to Massachusetts, and chronicle his descendants to the 20th century.
See publication "The Alanson Cummingses: Solving the Ancestry of Alanson Bonapart Cummings (1812–1873?) of Herkimer and Jefferson Counties, New York" See publication
"My 'Cousin,' Canaletto

publication date Sep 1999 publication description Lo Specchio

publication description The landscape painter Canaletto (Giovanni Antonio Canal [28 October 1697 – 19 April 1768]) was a member of the Canali family of Venice, who were well established before a branch immigrated to the Island of Lipari, in the Aeolian Islands in the 1600s. The origins of the Canali family and their relation to the famous painter are presented.

[John Higgins]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:

> As for the source of the Gascoigne lineage to "Isabel," I have never read any literature that has said she is a fabrication or spurious; she was added many years ago although I forgot where.
>

Well, I guess the two lines above represent your answer to my question. All the rest is irrelevant - and OT.

[wjhonson]

I'm sorry that all the years you're been doing genealogy have so thoroughly ill-prepared you for THIS group.

When you are asked for a citation and you argue tendentiously with an argument-from-silence, that is not a valid argument at all.

You posted a source for this marriage which does not mention this marriage.

I can however direct you to a source which at least *claims* that a daughter named Elizabeth (aka Isabel as we all know by now during this time period) did in fact exist. That is not evidence however that she ever married.

You say show me where she never married... that is a riduculous argument
Show me a citation that states that Henry VIII was NOT a shape-shifting lizard from Orion.
That's not an argument.
Buck up.

[wjhonson]

Take your lumps. Delete this spurious marriage and try to find useful citations.

[Michael Rochester]

A better way of saying it, "this marriage appears spurious. It is best to delete it to make your pedigree more accurate."

My lumps? This is genealogy, not a boxing match.

Sheesh

[Michael Rochester]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 8:07:07 PM UTC-5, wjhonson wrote:
> I'm sorry that all the years you're been doing genealogy have so thoroughly ill-prepared you for THIS group.

Buck up? I don't respond to arguments or challenges with "buck up."
Silence is because....I am doing OTHER THINGS. You know, work, hanging out with people, dating. It is what people do. Even in pandemics.

[Michael Rochester]

> Well, I guess the two lines above represent your answer to my question. All the rest is irrelevant - and OT.

Not irrelevant as I was somehow accused of copying stuff from ancestry or other pedigree sites. I only copy photos, charts, and pedigrees that may be of use to my ancestry, etc. With few exceptions, the answer is no to the intimation (accusation?) I do that. Most of my books have 1000s of citations. .I know how to document (bought the Elizabeth Shown Mills book, which I am sure some in this group will have issues with). I answered your question. I lose one of three Neville/Gascoinge lines, as Isabelle/Elizabeth is questionable as a spouse of Pigott. I am not upset. My pedigree does not collapse as a result.

[joseph cook]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:20:03 PM UTC-5, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>

> publication description The landscape painter Canaletto (Giovanni Antonio Canal [28 October 1697 – 19 April 1768]) was a member of the Canali family of Venice, who were well established before a branch immigrated to the Island of Lipari, in the Aeolian Islands in the 1600s. The origins of the Canali family and their relation to the famous painter are presented.

I am trying not to be insulting, but you really need to realize that resume vomiting is meaningless to the members of the group here. A detailed study of the Alanson Cummingses says nothing about the evidence you have or don't have on other matters.

Nobody is going to criticize you (too badly), if you just say 'no, I don't really have any evidence at all for this, wrote it down a long time ago and trying to see if anyone knows of a source before I delete the unsourced information from my notes"

--Joe C

[wjhonson]

Welcome to Medieval Genealogy
This is not your crazy aunt's genealogy
This is serious business
Get used to it.

[Michael Rochester]

> Welcome to Medieval Genealogy
> This is not your crazy aunt's genealogy
> This is serious business
> Get used to it.

Dude, I had no "crazy aunt," I am the first one in my family save for Canadian cousins who took an interest in tracking ancestry. It is indeed serious business. Where are your published works? if so, you are on my level in scholarship, albeit in different areas of genealogy. I listed my publichations (peer reviewed by genealogical scholars).

Get used to it.

[Michael Rochester]

Joe, you never read the article. Obviously, you are in no position to critique it. I assembled family groups due to other evidences where concrete vital records are lacking or non-existent. That takes years of work to vet sources and synthesize information. The late Marshall K Kirk of NEHGS a colleague of mine, used similar methodology even in his medieval genealogy.

Like the gentleman who tried to reduce my scholarship (where he has yet to produce a single article demonstrating genealogical scholarship), to "not my crazy aunt's genealogy," it is not going to fly with me. I make mistakes; I correct the mistakes and try to read as much as I can. As I stated before, ALL books I have come across on British genealogy touch on post 1500s research so I have no foundation to learn properly, and NGS conferences rarely touch on this. So I am learning. Try not to discourage. But I can give it back AS HARD as I get it. So stick to critiquing the issue at hand and not analyze how I came across information.

[John Higgins]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 9:10:29 PM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, I guess the two lines above represent your answer to my question. All the rest is irrelevant - and OT.
> Not irrelevant as I was somehow accused of copying stuff from ancestry or other pedigree sites. I only copy photos, charts, and pedigrees that may be of use to my ancestry, etc. With few exceptions, the answer is no to the intimation (accusation?) I do that. Most of my books have 1000s of citations. .I know how to document (bought the Elizabeth Shown Mills book, which I am sure some in this group will have issues with). I answered your question. I lose one of three Neville/Gascoinge lines, as Isabelle/Elizabeth is questionable as a spouse of Pigott. I am not upset. My pedigree does not collapse as a result.

So what exactly was your point when you provided this answer to my question "What is your source for the parentage of Isabel Gascoyne, wife of Thomas Pigot? "?

"Only one reference: Gregory’s Chronicle: 1461-1469’, in Gairdner, J. (ed.), The Historical Collections of a Citizen of London in the Fifteenth Century(London, 1878), 210-239: it cites citing HARL MS 1364"

Where did you get this reference, and why is it pertinent to the discussion of Isabel Gascoigne?

[Michael Rochester]

It was included on my note section where I got the reference to her. Many a moon ago. Ancestry has a pathetic system to document facts and references, so recently I have taken to just screenshotting the referencing, and annotating the reference in commentary section.

[joseph cook]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 1:00:44 PM UTC-5, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Joe, you never read the article. Obviously, you are in no position to critique it.

I can't decide if this is a strange non-sequitur, a misreading of what I wrote, or a straw man you are trying to set up. I never critiqued any of your publications.

>I assembled family groups due to other evidences where concrete vital records are lacking or non-existent. That takes years of work to >vet sources and synthesize information. The late Marshall K Kirk of NEHGS a colleague of mine, used similar methodology even in his >medieval genealogy.

Why are you telling me this? I was critiquing your insistence (now repeatedly) on harping on your resume and all the articles you have that have been published as a means of argument. You've responded by adding name dropping of collogues. This is not an improvement. It really I am also unsure why you would be so certain people here have not read articles of yours; I am a reader of most of the major genealogical journals. (including ones you mentioned TG, TAG, NEHGR). I can't say I recall any of the ones you listed however offhand.

It is unclear why you have come here and decide to become extremely argumentative from the start. Discuss facts, sources, and don't freak out when you get a criticism. Would you believe me more if I listed my genealogy publication history?
--Joe C

[John Higgins]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 11:50:39 AM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> It was included on my note section where I got the reference to her. Many a moon ago. Ancestry has a pathetic system to document facts and references, so recently I have taken to just screenshotting the referencing, and annotating the reference in commentary section.
> Where did you get this reference, and why is it pertinent to the discussion of Isabel Gascoigne?

So...the reference was in your note section for Isabel Gascoigne, and you copied it from somewhere (Ancestry or otherwise) "many a moon ago", and you never checked the reference (either originally or when you posted it in this group) to see if it was actually relevant to Isabel Gascoigne - ??? Hmm....

[Michael Rochester]

Hmmm...I have 95K people. How did it slip my mine, sir! I am so mortified. And can it be corrected? Oh yeah, it can. and you NEVER made an error in your genealogical research due to an oversight. This must have made your day. Now, drink a nice cold brew for that tell-tale "gotcha." You have to win at SOMETHING, may as well be this. :)

Get over yourself. Unless you speak at genealogical conventions and have any published works, you are in NO position to talk down to me.

[Peter Stewart]

On 27-Feb-21 10:09 AM, Michael Rochester wrote:

<blather-snip>

> Unless you speak at genealogical conventions and have any published works, you are in NO position to talk down to me.

Joe is perfectly positioned to speak critically ACROSS to you or anyone
else, since the only prerequisite is to have a legitimate and defensible
opinion. In this thread so far he has that in spades.

No-one, whatever his or her background in publications and at gab-fests,
is entitled to respectful indulgence on that basis alone.

Peter Stewart

[John Higgins]

Actually, Peter, Mike's latest intemperate blast was aimed at me, not Joe. :-)

[Michael Rochester]

No, he does not. Talking down to people, and people like YOU defending his anti social behavior, is not helpful to him or you. Just because you are in a small cluster of lonely, frustrated people does not give cyber warriors a reason or need to be obnoxious.

By the way, two sources do say Isabel Gascoigne married Thomas Pigott. Noted! https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00235198&tree=LEO

[Michael Rochester]

Actually, Peter, Mike's latest intemperate blast was aimed at me, not Joe. :-)

In his rush to be Captain America, he carelessly misread the thread. Talk about checking sources. :)

[John Higgins]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 3:36:26 PM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> No, he does not. Talking down to people, and people like YOU defending his anti social behavior, is not helpful to him or you. Just because you are in a small cluster of lonely, frustrated people does not give cyber warriors a reason or need to be obnoxious.
>
> By the way, two sources do say Isabel Gascoigne married Thomas Pigott. Noted! https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00235198&tree=LEO

Umm...no one here has questioned that Isabel Gascoigne married Thomas Pigott. The issue is whether, as stated in the descent you posted, Isabel was the daughter of Sir William Gascoigne and Jane Neville. So far you haven't presented any evidence to support that statement in that descent.

[Peter Stewart]

Apologies, John - I was paying little attention to this thread, as the
relentless attempts at talking DOWN to you and others from the imagined
eminence of publications and conference attendances was so tedious and
misplaced.

Peter Stewart

[joseph cook]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 6:10:01 PM UTC-5, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Get over yourself. Unless you speak at genealogical conventions and have any published works, you are in NO position to talk down to me.
> originally or when you posted it in this group) to see if it was actually relevant to Isabel Gascoigne - ??? Hmm....

This is tedious and off-topic, and this is my final post on it.

I have been invited to speak many times to genealogy groups over the last 25 years; I have published articles in various places including "Delaware Genealogical Society Journal" and others, most recently ""The Genealogist" journal.

But, I don't think *any* of that provides me permission to talk down to anyone. These this don't 'elevate' me in any way whatsoever. All of that is irrelevant. I hope one day you come to see the same.
--Joe Cook

[Michael Rochester]

As I said before, I had the source ages ago, and ancestry did not (and still has a terrible system) of documenting sources. I think it is more likely she was the daughter of the Lansingcroft Gascoignes, specifically of William and Joanette/Jane Beckwith Gasoigne. Checking issues and making this a tentative identification.

[Michael Rochester]

Good beans, because I don't need to be told garbage like "buck up" and "this is not your crazy aunt's genealogy." Keyboard warriors are for Facebook and Instagram. I am evern polite there...and commenting on YouTybe. People can be critiquing and discerning of evidence without pushing people into corners.

[Peter Stewart]

On 27-Feb-21 5:01 PM, Michael Rochester wrote:
> Good beans, because I don't need to be told garbage like "buck up" and "this is not your crazy aunt's genealogy."

You may find participating here less unpleasant if you don't take Will
Johnson so seriously. He fancies himself an insult comic and is never a
respecter of persons - the former can be a trial but the latter is a
redeeming feature.

Peter Stewart

[wjhonson]

You are being incredibly sloppy. You call that genealogy.
No one else here calls it genealogy.

When you're called out on your sloppiness you get defensive.
You won't last very long.

[wjhonson]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 10:01:30 PM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Good beans, because I don't need to be told garbage like "buck up" and "this is not your crazy aunt's genealogy." Keyboard warriors are for Facebook and Instagram. I am evern polite there...and commenting on YouTybe. People can be critiquing and discerning of evidence without pushing people into corners.

So you're a great genealogy expert, but only when you're not challenged.
You get a C-
Try again.

[Michael Rochester]

You get an F because you won't provide a publications list. That is for serious genealogists.

Keep trying, Billy.

Admit you have not been published, you are just a keyboard warrior who thinks he is "da sheet" at medieval genealogy.

Feed those 12 cats of yours, and then post that publication list...this is not your crazy aunt's genealogy, ya know. :)

> Try again.

[taf]

On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 1:13:49 PM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> You get an F because you won't provide a publications list. That is for serious genealogists.

Provided sources that support the genealogical claims under dispute are more persuasive than pissing matches over who has the most impressive curriculum vitae. Perhaps you could try that approach.

taf

[pj.ev...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 1:13:49 PM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:

You both sound like 13-year-olds. Find someplace else to fight.

[John Higgins]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 9:58:49 PM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> As I said before, I had the source ages ago, and ancestry did not (and still has a terrible system) of documenting sources. I think it is more likely she was the daughter of the Lansingcroft Gascoignes, specifically of William and Joanette/Jane Beckwith Gasoigne. Checking issues and making this a tentative identification.

It will be interesting to see your reasons for making this "tentative identification" - and how it proceeds to become more than just "tentative".

In the interim, I assume that you have now discarded your assertion that you have a descent from Sir Edward Fitton (the original subject of this thread) - at least via Isabel Gascoigne.

[Michael Rochester]

Wrong. :)

[Michael Rochester]

In the interim, I assume that you have now discarded your assertion that you have a descent from Sir Edward Fitton (the original subject of this thread) - at least via Isabel Gascoigne.

I hate to disappoint you, but I am a descendant of the Gascoigne-Neville marriage via two other children. :)

[John Higgins]

On Sunday, February 28, 2021 at 2:08:47 PM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> In the interim, I assume that you have now discarded your assertion that you have a descent from Sir Edward Fitton (the original subject of this thread) - at least via Isabel Gascoigne.
> I hate to disappoint you, but I am a descendant of the Gascoigne-Neville marriage via two other children. :)

Ho-hum... Multiple descents from the same couple are not unusual when you're working in medieval genealogy. You just happened to pick an erroneous one when you first posted your descent from Sir Edward Fitton. :-)

Yes, I'm aware that you descend from the Gascoigne-Neville marriage via their son Sir William and their daughter Margaret. The descents are through Catherine Layton as shown in your original post, but via her mother rather than her father.

I wouldn't waste much time trying to connect Isabel Gascoigne to the Lasingcroft Gascoignes.

[Michael Rochester]

Instead of playing with emojis, why not put your thinking cap on and suggest a line that may be more feasible?

Are you on this page to assist people, or to smirk and act superior and haughty, like wjhonson? You have a choice; use it wisely.

[pj.ev...@gmail.com]

You're not coming off as an adult.
The experts are telling you that you're doing it wrong.

[John Higgins]

On Monday, March 1, 2021 at 10:22:18 AM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:

In my judgment, there is NO line that can be proven from the Lasingcroft Gascoignes. You apparently have reached a different judgment. As I said before, I'll be interested to see your evidence and support for such a conclusion - in the hope that it's not just a conjecture on your part.

[John Higgins]

A slight correction: I meant to say "from the Lasingcroft Gascoignes to Isabel Gascoigne, wife of Thomas Pigott" - in case it wasn't sufficiently obvious.

[Michael Rochester]

Then tell me how to do it right. I am all ears. Don't give me the teaser without showing the movie

[Michael Rochester]

Arrogance won't help your cause

[pj.ev...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 1, 2021 at 6:04:25 PM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Arrogance won't help your cause
> > A slight correction: I meant to say "from the Lasingcroft Gascoignes to Isabel Gascoigne, wife of Thomas Pigott" - in case it wasn't sufficiently obvious.

Bad behavior doesn't help you.

Try asking politely, and accept that you aren't going to get all your questions answered here. Leave her as "parents unknown" - there's no shame in that.

[John Higgins]

I agree fully with this response. I think we've exhausted this topic.

[wjhonson]

On Monday, March 1, 2021 at 6:04:25 PM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Arrogance won't help your cause

Read other threads here, by other people.

LEARN what documentation is considered credible and what is considered ridiculous by the members of this group.

Spend a month or twelve learning how to do proper medieval research

[Michael Rochester]

Doing it now.

However, should we not consider ANYTHING pre-1600 as credible, as the chances of births via non-marital relationships go up exponentially? Some of the few times "base children" are mentioned are in regard to royalty, for obvious reasons. DNA only works up to some point, and becomes worthless as a tool by this time period. I am learning, but there is, I repeat, NO how to's out there for the genealogist as in regard to pre-1600 British reseach. SLC does not offer it ever at their conventions.

[Carl-Henry Geschwind]

Hi Mike:

For whatever it is worth, one site that I found to be extremely useful when I first started with medieval English genealogy is Chris Philips's site at http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk.

The section "Guide" (in the toolbar near the top of each page) has lots of really good information on the various types of records and how to use them. And the Feet of Fines section (udner "Resources") is also invaluable.

--Carl-Henry

[joseph cook]

On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 1:01:38 PM UTC-5, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Doing it now.
>
> However, should we not consider ANYTHING pre-1600 as credible, as the chances of births via non-marital relationships go up exponentially? Some of the few times "base children" are mentioned are in regard to royalty, for obvious reasons. DNA only works up to some point, and becomes worthless as a tool by this time period.

No, because you are thinking about the word 'credible' wrong.
The chances of a birth via non-marital relationship for a person born in 1300 are almost certainly the same or less than today. (studies i should cite but am too lazy too, have reached a conclusion of about 1.5% per generation in western europe)

So, if you are making a genealogical or historical argument as to who the parents of a 13th century individual are, you should endeavor to meet the genealogical standard of proof; show your evidence.

(https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Genealogical_Proof_Standard)

If your question is instead "what are the odds that I have proven that <random 10th century ancestor> is _proven_ (in the mathematical sense) to be _my_ ancestor precisely by the long line exactly I have laid out....that is a different question entirely, and completely out of scope of this group once you get more recent than 1600. All you can do is prove each link by the evidence available. It is also true of anything you are trying to prove in any context that the more assumptions you have, and the weaker they are, to make to reach your conclusion; the more likely it is that your conclusion is flawed.

But genealogy existed a long time before DNA testing, and DNA is also not perfect, it is just another piece of evidence to throw on the pile with the rest. DNA does not "prove" relationships in the genealogical sense. It just provides evidence. In modern times, it certainly provides _stronger_ evidence than things like names on birth certificates.

There been many successes using Y-DNA to provide strong evidence for medieval relationships, some rather high-profile, so your word 'worthless' is not the word I would use either though.

--Joe C

[joseph cook]

On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 2:05:29 PM UTC-5, joseph cook wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 1:01:38 PM UTC-5, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Doing it now.
> >
> > However, should we not consider ANYTHING pre-1600 as credible, as the chances of births via non-marital relationships go up exponentially?

Just to hit on this word "exponentially', a bit, it is not correct.
If you had strong rock-solid written attestation for each link in your chain, and the evidence shows that 98.5% of all believed relationships are actual (1.5% NPE) then:
Odds of 1 link being correct: 98.5%
10 generation pedigree: 87.2%
20 generation pedigree: 75%
30 generation pedigree: 65%

I hope you can see that this is clearly not degrading 'exponentially' or hopelessly in the manner you implied.
--Joe Cook

[wjhonson]

On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 10:01:38 AM UTC-8, kingofr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Doing it now.
>
> However, should we not consider ANYTHING pre-1600 as credible, as the chances of births via non-marital relationships go up exponentially? Some of the few times "base children" are mentioned are in regard to royalty, for obvious reasons. DNA only works up to some point, and becomes worthless as a tool by this time period. I am learning, but there is, I repeat, NO how to's out there for the genealogist as in regard to pre-1600 British reseach. SLC does not offer it ever at their conventions.

The problem is that random gleanings from "Ancestry" even if they are supposed to be pre-1600, are often not actually pre-1600.
They are the seismic rumblings of people trying to force two different Brian Stapleton's to be the exact same person, with no evidence except their own indigestion.

That's the problem.

[Peter Stewart]

This is a valuable post, but another aspect of the question has not been
addressed: is it sensible to raise generic suspicion based on actuarial
calculations against a specific recorded paternity?

If the people involved, father and child, believed in and lived with
certainty about their connection, and no doubt was expressed by them or
others, it seems silly to me that it should be second-guessed today on
the basis of postulated results from wider population studies.

In any event, biology is not the be-all and end-all of genealogy. The
social and cultural reality of medieval parenthood does not depend on
modern science.

Peter Stewart