Ipstones
Robert O'Connor
Have you noticed the following line through Ipstones.
Sir Robert Corbet d 1375 = Elizabeth Strange
/
Thomas Corbet = ?
d c 1363
/
Elizabeth Corbet = Sir John de Ipstones d 1394
/
Sir William de Ipstones d 1399
/
Alice Ipstones = Randle Brereton
Sir Robert Corbet & Elizabeth Strange are listed in AR7, p 31. I think
that you may have AR7?
Regards
--
Robert O'Connor
roco...@es.co.nz
Christchurch
New Zealand
Reedpcgen
dicussion in "Another look at Joan de Harley: Will her real descednants please
rise" [_The Genealogist_, 10:1, 40-42, and appropriate footnotes, etc. (which
discussed the Corbet inheritance, descent, etc.)]. The Ipstones heiress was
excluded from some lands in entails, which remained to the Corbets in the male
line, rather than descending to the heiress of the first born son (male uncles
to the exclusion of the female heiress).
And though David Greene did not mention it, the recent discussion about the
Sears ancestry was discussed in detail in _The American Genealogist_ 74:(Jan.
1999)27-8, and footnotes 59-60. For David Botts, yes, it is entirely
fraudulent. Samuel Pearce May concluded [NEHGR 40:261-8], "the details were
not only not proven, but also incapable of proof, if not altogether wrong, and
opposed to fact." Somerby was a well versed practitioner in "placing 'the
flesh on the wrong bones.'"
PPS: And a note for Doug; it seems pompous to refer people to answers which are
supposed to appear in a book which the reader must purchase. If you're going
to mention the matter in this newsgourp (taking the time to punch the keys and
post it), discuss it in detail and give the answer. Don't just tell them to
buy the book. That get's old fast.
Tdlstrope
in turn was the daughter of Joan Stafford? I am sorry if I am displaying my
ignorance but I have been inherited the family geneology and since none of it
has been documented I am in the process of retracing everything. Any sources
cited would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
T Strope
MVon...@aol.com
Cheers, Maggie von Kempf
In a message dated 8/28/1999 3:13:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Gee Gee Hughes
>in turn was the daughter of Joan Stafford?
You may be so bold! :) Here is a brief rundown.
1. Elizabeth Bek - AR-7 32:32; T.A.G. 26:23
2. Sir Nicholas Bek - AR-7 32:32; T.A.G. 26:23
3. Jane/Joan de Stafford - AR-7 32:32; T.A.G. 26:23
6. Sir Ralph de Stafford - AR-7 55:32; T.A.G. 26:23
7. Katharine de Hastang - AR-7 55:32; T.A.G. 26:23
12. Edmund Stafford 1st. Baron Stafford - AR-7 55:31
13. Margaret Bassett - AR-7 55:31
14. Sir John Hastang of Chebsey - AR - 7 55:32
15. Eve - AR-7 55:32
16. Ralph Bassett, Lord Bassett - AR-7 55:30
17. Hawise - AR-7 55:30
32. Ralph Bassett, Baron Bassett - AR-7 55:29
33. Margaret de Somery - AR-7 55:29
66. Roger de Somery - AR-7 55:28
67. Nichole D'Aubigny - AR-7 55:28
132. Ralph de Somery - AR-7 55:27A
133. Margaret Marshal - AR-7 55:27A
264. Sir John de Somery - AR-7 55:27
265. Hawise Paynel - AR-7 55:27
266. John Marshal - AR-7 66:27
Sources:
1. AR-7 - "Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists
who came to America before 1700 - 7th. Ed." Weiss/Sheppard
Gen. Pub., Co. Bal. MD - 1992 - This is a great book to have.
2. T.A.G. - "The American Genealogist" David Green, Editor/Publisher
Demoret, GA - Published quarterly.
The above line goes "on and on", but this will give you a start. :)
Hope this helps,
Gee Gee Hughes
................snip..............
DavidBotts
Per our records, it is via Lord Basset of Drayton (32) that y'all will find the
trace up to Charlemagne. (src: Faris, Plantagenet Ancestry)
RE>The above line goes "on and on", but this will give you a start.
>32. Ralph Bassett, Baron Bassett - AR-7 55:29
Dave Botts
"BTW, we have accumulated 25,300 in our Database who descend from Charlemagne
and claim to be cousins to Bottsfolk. Anyone got a higher tally from their
Database?"
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> As I'm passing through, Ipstones is an interesting family. See a brief
> dicussion in "Another look at Joan de Harley: Will her real descednants please
> rise" [_The Genealogist_, 10:1, 40-42, and appropriate footnotes, etc. (which
> discussed the Corbet inheritance, descent, etc.)]. The Ipstones heiress was
> excluded from some lands in entails, which remained to the Corbets in the male
> line, rather than descending to the heiress of the first born son (male uncles
> to the exclusion of the female heiress).
Curiously, the Ipstones are twice incorrectly written off as not having
issue, once following the Corbet marriage, and once earlier, when they
were coheirs of a Chester family. Their pedigree is still a bit hard to
fill in, but they appear to descend in the male line from Stafford
(IIRC, after the Bagot marriage, so they were originally Bagots,
otherwise, they would be Tosnys).
taf
Robert O'Connor
"PPS: And a note for Doug; it seems pompous to refer people to answers
which are
supposed to appear in a book which the reader must purchase. If you're
going
to mention the matter in this newsgourp (taking the time to punch the keys
and
post it), discuss it in detail and give the answer. Don't just tell them
to
buy the book. That get's old fast. "
With all due respect to Paul Reed, it doesn't seem helpful to refer to Doug
Richardson as "pompous". I very recently had the pleasure of meeting Doug,
and he was kind enough to allow me to read through the manuscripts for both
the upcoming books, Plantagenet Ancestry, 2nd edition & Magna Carta
Ancestry. I must say that I did not find Doug to be "pompous" or to
possess any similar personality trait. Indeed he was kind enough to allow
me, a virtual stranger from New Zealand of all places, to read through his
manuscripts. In the time available to me, I found the manuscipts to be
hughly detailed, very well referenced and highly readable. I am sure that
anyone on the list who purchases these books when published will not be
disappointed. I certainly intend to lay my hands on copies at the very
earliest opportunity.
I can understand Doug's reticence at disclosing to the world the full
details of his research prior to publication. He has an obligation to his
publisher and to David Faris, his co-author on the Magna Carta book, which
it seems to me would be dis-served if he were to broadcast generally his
findings. Whilst I can understand that it may be frustrating to have to
wait for the publication of these two books, I am sure that the list will
not be disappointed when they appear.
Sincerely
Robert O'Connor
Robert O'Connor
"Curiously, the Ipstones are twice incorrectly written off as not having
issue, once following the Corbet marriage, and once earlier, when they
were coheirs of a Chester family. Their pedigree is still a bit hard to
fill in, but they appear to descend in the male line from Stafford
(IIRC, after the Bagot marriage, so they were originally Bagots,
otherwise, they would be Tosnys)."
Would Todd be so kind as to post the Ipstones line from Stafford/ Bagot.
Many thanks.
Robert O'Connor
Leo van de Pas
It is very kind of you to try to defend Douglas Richardson but, you
should realise, even a person with feet on the ground can make the odd
pompous remark. This does not make that person pompous and, I am sure, Paul
Reed did not intend to imply that.
Having said that, I agree with Paul Reed if he objects to Douglas
Richardson's continual 'blatant advertising'.
When he replied to that person, what did his message contain? "I have the
answer, I won't tell, you have to buy the book". If he had sent that message
to that person only, that would have been different. It would have been
better had he given that little snippet privately to that person.
What in fact Douglas Richardson did was "advertise" a book he has been
advertising, is it now for some five months? I am so glad to hear that he
has been kind to you and that you are impressed with his work. But have you
forgotten his Amy de Gaveston blunder? This was something that also was to
be kept under wraps and only revealed when that book, still no publication
date, is available. And when his opinion leaked it, quickly, it was refuted
as being wrong.
If he wanted to do the decent thing to Faris, he should have remained silent
and not responded PUBLICLY to that person. He could have made a note, waited
till the book was available and, only then, send a message to that person
ONLY. In stead, in my opinion, he has been grandstanding
"I know, I won't tell, buy my book". I agree with Paul Reed that this is not
good enough.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Todd A. Farmerie
> Would Todd be so kind as to post the Ipstones line from Stafford/ Bagot.
> Many thanks.
Unfortunately, I erred in stating that they descend from Stafford. It
is the Verdun family from which they descend. Likewise, it is not a
line, but two lines, with a gap in the middle, with good reason to think
that there is a connection between. What follows is a rough summary. I
have not looked through this material in years, and it would take me a
significant amount of time to reacquaint myself with the sources, so the
following comes without sources or dates, and with a big caveat.
Perhaps someone else familiar can fill it in. (And if this lack of
quality is not satisfactory to you, then simply ignore it.)
1. The first 'Ipstones' was a William de Verdun, grandson of Norman de
Verdun, who was given Ipstones by his father or older brother.
2. His son William de Ipstones married one of the daughters and
coheiresses of John Bagot, and the next few generations are proven by
various ipms relating to the heirs of the Bagot heiresses.
3. John de Ipstones
4. William de Ipstones
5. John de Ipstones was a minor at the time the last of the
Bagot-related ipms named him as a coheir. Some have made him d.s.p.,
with the later Ipstones descended collaterally, but this appears to be
based on a misinterpretation. From this point, the descent relies on
secondary sources, and so is not as well founded. A Shropshire history
makes him father of:
6. John de Ipstones, who married the daughter of Henry Cresswell. The
Shropshire history makes him father of John, husband of Elizabeth
Corbet, but this would make the line from John (#5) to the latter John
(#8 below) too short for the amount of time it is covering. It is
likely that he was an ancestor of that John, perhaps through John (#6),
and one could even speculate that John (#6) was father of the next-named
individual, but I have found nothing to back this up.
-----------
7. William de Ipstones, m. Elizabeth de Bek. He is named in a Wm Salt
Society Publication article focussing primarily on Bek and other
families. The specific relationship, of William as father to the next
generation, was not documented in the article. Likewise, since Maud de
Swinnerton, wife of his 'grandson' William, was daughter of another
Elizabeth de Bek, this would make them second cousins, so perhaps there
is some problem with the connection.
8. John de Ipstones, m. Elizabeth Corbet.
9. William de Ipstones, m. Maud de Swinnerton
10. Alice de Ipstones, eventual sole heiress, married William de
Brereton
taf