Descendants of Sir William Marshall and Isabel de Clare

[Dee]

Hello all. Can anyone refer me to a listing of all known descendants of Sir
William Marshall and his wife, Countess Isabel de Clare? I'm aware of the
Wikipedia listing of their 10 sons and daughters with their spouses.
Thanks, Dolly in Maryland USA
--

[joe...@gmail.com]

There are over 1 billion known descendants of this couple. Can you narrow your query down a bit?

Thanks,
Joe C

[Stewart Baldwin]

Aw, come on, Joe, can't you be a good sport and just list them? :-)

Stewart Baldwin

[Dee]

Joe, more than one billion known descendants? I apologize, I had no idea.
(Blushing) Dolly
--

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

> On 4/18/2017 11:33 PM, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> Aw, come on, Joe, can't you be a good sport and just list them? :-)
>
> Stewart Baldwin
>
>
>

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

[taf]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 6:45:28 PM UTC-7, Dee wrote:
> Joe, more than one billion known descendants? I apologize, I had no idea.

Not literally one billion (I doubt 1/7 of the global population can trace their ancestry before 1500), but there would be an awful lot.

> (Blushing) Dolly

Is there some specific question you have? A particular line you are interested in?

Well, I will ask one. The Wikipedia page list a granddaughter Isabel Marshal, married to Rhys ap Maeldon Fychan, as illegitimate daughter of his son Geoffrey Marshall, Earl of Pembroke. I presume this is coming from a Welsh pedigree source, but is there anything close to contemporary that supports it?

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On 20/04/2017 11:57 AM, taf wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 6:45:28 PM UTC-7, Dee wrote:
>> Joe, more than one billion known descendants? I apologize, I had no idea.
> Not literally one billion (I doubt 1/7 of the global population can trace their ancestry before 1500), but there would be an awful lot.

Not literally 1 billion living descendants, or 1/7 of the current global
population, and probably not 1 billion altogether - but the number of
deceased descendants would be very large indeed. All five of the
couple's daughters have descendants today.

>> (Blushing) Dolly
> Is there some specific question you have? A particular line you are interested in?
>
> Well, I will ask one. The Wikipedia page list a granddaughter Isabel Marshal, married to Rhys ap Maeldon Fychan, as illegitimate daughter of his son Geoffrey Marshall, Earl of Pembroke. I presume this is coming from a Welsh pedigree source, but is there anything close to contemporary that supports it?
>

Gilbert Marshal, not Geoffrey.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

Huh. My brain said Gilbert, my fingers did something else. Yes. Gilbert - did he realy have such a bastard daughter?

taf

[P J Evans]

I suspect it's Rhys ap Maelgwn Fychan, also.

[Peter Stewart]

There must be a name for this phenomenon - or maybe that should be two
distinct phenomena: your fingers occasionally have a mind of their own,
whereas mine often have a mindlessness of their own...

Peter Stewart

[John Higgins]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 6:57:28 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> Is there some specific question you have? A particular line you are interested in?
>
> Well, I will ask one. The Wikipedia page list a granddaughter Isabel Marshal, married to Rhys ap Maeldon Fychan, as illegitimate daughter of his son Geoffrey Marshall, Earl of Pembroke. I presume this is coming from a Welsh pedigree source, but is there anything close to contemporary that supports it?
>
> taf

FWIW (not necessarily very much) Isabel Marshal has an entry in the FHL's Community Trees database (but NOT the Welsh Medieval Genealogy section of that database) which gives a single source for her: John Fitchett Marsh, Annals of Chepstow Castle (1883), p. 106, which is available here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=JTEQAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The relevant text from that page is fairly well transcribed in the Community Trees database as follows:
"Gilbert appears, from a marriage contract referred to in some legal proceedings between him and Maelgwn ap Maelgwn ap Rhys, to have had a daughter Isabella contracted to be married to a son of the latter, but she must have died in her father's lifetime."

The Wikipedia entry has mangled the name of Isabel's supposed husband - it should be Rhys ap Maelgwn Fychan ap Maelgwn Hen. This person appears in table Rhys ap Tewdwr 4, in Batrum's Welsh Genealogies, but without a wife's name given.
http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/5655/Rhys%20ap%20Tewdwr%204.png?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

So, at least from these sources, it's unclear whether there actually was a marriage between Isabel Marshal (if she existed) and Rhys ap Maelgwn Fychan. At any rate, according to Bartrum Rhys' descendants by whatever wife he had died out with his grandchildren.

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 9:57:28 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 6:45:28 PM UTC-7, Dee wrote:
> > Joe, more than one billion known descendants? I apologize, I had no idea.
>
> Not literally one billion (I doubt 1/7 of the global population can trace their ancestry before 1500), but there would be an awful lot.

Of course, it may be an exaggeration, but I did mean it literally. I have no doubt that records exist that would allow 1/7 of the global population to trace their ancestry to this extent. Whether those records are known to those individuals, or that they have been compiled in a single place is another story (to which the answer is clearly 'no').

Heck, I'm just an average nobody and I know over 100 different ways just me alone is descended from this couple.

[Andrew Lancaster]

I agree. The number will be much bigger than for Edward III for example, although of course only a part of these will eventually be traceable.

Marshall was much further back and had some similarly prodigious descendants. Whereas a late 20th century-born Brit might reasonably hope for a single traceable Edward III descent they may well have many from the Marshall as long as they can navigate back at least one line to gentry.

For sure not many people have got a traced connection though, only a tiny proportion. And that is genealogy. Tracing all the traceable lines is something not even the internet has yet achieved, and I think it will be years before it does.

For the benefit of the original question, there are of course projects online which seek to trace all known descents from traceable ancestors like Marshall. We discuss those projects here sometimes, but can not hope to work on that scale here. Some are very big already but still a long way from being accurate and complete.

[Ian Goddard]

On 20/04/17 06:27, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Heck, I'm just an average nobody and I know over 100 different ways just me alone is descended from this couple.

This implies that multiple descendants of the couple married each other.
One way of looking at that is that each of the superfluous 99+
marriages cuts off a potential line of descent to someone else such as
myself.

--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk

[James Wester]

I believe the one billion figure comes from someone calculating over 40 generations with each couple having two surviving children and both of those children having two surviving children. That comes to 1,099,511,627,776. That progression can begin with the number "1" as the person of interest.


James Wester
jwwe...@verizon.net

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 10:35:03 AM UTC-4, Ian Goddard wrote:

> On 20/04/17 06:27, joecook wrote:
> > Heck, I'm just an average nobody and I know over 100 different ways just me alone is descended from this couple.
>
> This implies that multiple descendants of the couple married each other.
> One way of looking at that is that each of the superfluous 99+
> marriages cuts off a potential line of descent to someone else such as
> myself.

Apologies good sir for stealing your ancestors. 8-)
Joe C

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 11:15:47 AM UTC-4, James Wester wrote:
> I believe the one billion figure comes from someone calculating over 40 generations with each couple having two surviving children and both of those children having two surviving children. That comes to 1,099,511,627,776. That progression can begin with the number "1" as the person of interest.

No, that would be *1 trillion*. :)

[Andrew Lancaster]

Well, the American definition is becoming the most common, but it is still true that billion can mean 1 with 12 zeros, rather than 9. Handy to know if you are reading older text books about economics.

[taf]

Billion in the UK used to be used for this larger number, with the shorter number being called a 'thousand million'. T, and this usage still appears sometimes.

taf

[taf]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 9:10:40 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:

> So, at least from these sources, it's unclear whether there actually was
> a marriage between Isabel Marshal (if she existed) and Rhys ap Maelgwn Fychan.
> At any rate, according to Bartrum Rhys' descendants by whatever wife he had
> died out with his grandchildren.

It also isn't clear that she was illegitimate, since she is not known to have survived her father.

taf

[Paulo Canedo]

I know this is not a maths debate but the american definion is not used by any European country and as far as I know the american definition is not the international definition.

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 6:24:39 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> I know this is not a maths debate but the american definion is not used by any European country and as far as I know the american definition is not the international definition.

It has a big influence because of American English being a kind of standard in finance, which is a place we many people most often hear such numbers.

But then again, if you are reading John Maynard-Keynes, who even American economists read...

...How many Edward III descents did John Maynard-Keynes have?

[taf]

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote:
> On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 6:24:39 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote:
>
> > I know this is not a maths debate but the american definion is not used by > > any European country and as far as I know the american definition is not
> > the international definition.
>
> It has a big influence because of American English being a kind of standard
> in finance, which is a place we many people most often hear such numbers.

According to Wikipedia (for whatever that's worth) the French are to blame.
Billion was originally a million-million, but French mathamaticians changed this to be a single grade above million, and the pro-French 19th-century American intelligencia followed suit. It also reports that UK official statistics have used the shorter ('American') form since 1974.

taf

[joe...@gmail.com]

Ah, yes. mea culpa. I had forgotten this; partially because I mistakenly thought the American English definition had caught on everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales#Current_usage

[Ian Goddard]

You're welcome to that lot. I have my own of good yeoman stock.

[Richard Carruthers]

Have you managed to trace your yeomen well into the mediaeval period?
If so, that's a considerable feat. Most of the lines I have managed to
get back before 1600 are yeomen too, but it has become much harder to
do so before 1500.

[Ian Goddard]

On 21/04/17 00:54, Richard Carruthers wrote:
> Have you managed to trace your yeomen well into the mediaeval period?
> If so, that's a considerable feat. Most of the lines I have managed to
> get back before 1600 are yeomen too, but it has become much harder to
> do so before 1500.
>

For one thing yeomen as a class, at least hereabouts, emerge largely
from the customary manorial tenants. Although the nature of Wakefield
manor was such that, apart from maintenance of the roads etc., rents
were in money rather than work, these were essentially non-free tenants.

Tracing them becomes ... interesting.

For example my family surnames include Littlewood, Hinchliffe,
Broadhead, Crosland, Armitage and Lockwood. The etymology of Broadhead
is a little uncertain but I suspect it's toponymic; the rest certainly
are and are all local. In fact I can see the area we believe was
Littlewood out of my window right now. Hinchliffe is hidden behind the
ridge at the back of my house but I drive through there several times a
week. If I'm right about origins of Broadhead it's a house a few
hundred yards from Hinchliffe. Crosland, Armitage and Lockwood are a
few miles down the valley.

Littlewood and Broadhead are surnames going back to the late C13th in
the manorial rolls. Hinchliffe as a place is first recorded in 1307
when it was assarted from the manorial waste and de Hinchliffe is
recorded as a name a few years later. Another local name, Beardsell in
various spellings, creeps into the manorial rolls in the early C14th as
well; Redmonds believes that this is from Buersill near Rochdale but I'm
not wholly convinced of this.

So for these and other surnames there's a clear medieval presence over
centuries. Other names crept in in later periods but in some cases can
also be traced back to medieval origins, e.g. Dearnley at
http://familytree.dearnley.com/

OTOH the parochial record keeping for the local area was abysmal. It's
at the remote end of two parishes, Almondbury and Kirkburton and served
by a chapel of ease from the late C15th. For several years at the start
of the C18th during the incumbency of one vicar of Almondbury no
baptisms were recorded for any of the various chapels that it served.
In the late C17th the records are very patchy - I have what appear to be
4 generations of William Goddard but no baptisms or marriages of any of
them; most baptised children seem to have been those who died young but
two of the adult Williams are also attested in the manorial rolls. In
part this poor record may be connected with the activity - or lack
thereof - of the Holmfirth chaplain of the time; how many other places
can claim to have had their local clergyman hung for the offence of coin
clipping?

So in terms of straight genealogical record it may well be impossible to
make such connections although we know that the families were here in
the medieval. More may be established with further study of the
manorial rolls.

We also have indications of the degree of intermarriage that was
possible in the more enclosed Pennine communities. My father's maternal
grandmother, for instance had 4 generations of Dearnley ancestors each
of whom married a descendant of the same Beardell-Armitage* couple
(which also includes two Crosland descents from the marriage of one of
their granddaughters). His paternal grandmother adds another descent
via the Crosland marriage and, for good measure, a Kay/Kaye 2nd cousin
marriage, two Hinchliffes (connections between them so far unknown) and
a Whitehead (so far untraced but the Whiteheads are known to have
acquired the eponymous Dearnley property by marriage in the C15th).

* A branch of the Armitages certainly made it to gentry level and the
baronetage. However, in the 1379 subsidy roll there's only one couple
and they were taxed the basic 4d. A C16th ancestor in my Armitage line
left one of his daughters a brass pot as the remainder of her marriage
portion; these were not the later gentry branch of the family.

[James Wester]

Billion, trillion, quadrillion. Whatever! I did not bother to count the commas. I was merely pointing out how it is possible for one person to have an extremely large number of descendants. I am also old enough to remember the term one thousand million being used.

James Wester
jwwe...@verizon.net




-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Lancaster <lancast...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 20, 2017 1:55 pm
Subject: Re: Descendants of Sir William Marshall and Isabel de Clare

[taf]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 9:10:40 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:
>

> FWIW (not necessarily very much) Isabel Marshal has an entry in the FHL's
> Community Trees database

MedLands has it, giving as its source CP X 373 footnote i.

Anyone have ready access and can tell me what, precisely, it says?

taf

[John Higgins]

The relevant portion of footnote i on p. 373 of CP vol. 10 sayS:
"He had an illegit. da., Isabel, who was contracted in marriage to Rhys, s. of Maelgon Vychan, Lord of Cardigan Is Ayron (Ahbrev. Plac, p. 108)."

This is presumably the source for the Wikipedia article's corruption of the name Maelgwn Fychan.

[taf]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 12:27:07 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:

> The relevant portion of footnote i on p. 373 of CP vol. 10 sayS:
> "He had an illegit. da., Isabel, who was contracted in marriage to Rhys, s. of
> Maelgon Vychan, Lord of Cardigan Is Ayron (Ahbrev. Plac, p. 108)."

I know I should probably recognize this, but it is not ringing a bell. Ahbrev. Plac.?

taf

[John Higgins]

The source is unknown to me also....perhaps someone else will recognize it?

[Douglas Richardson]

Abbreviatio Placitorum. That's the short title. It's available on Google Books.

DR

[taf]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 12:27:07 PM UTC-7, John Higgins wrote:

> The relevant portion of footnote i on p. 373 of CP vol. 10 sayS:
> "He had an illegit. da., Isabel, who was contracted in marriage to Rhys, s.
> of Maelgon Vychan, Lord of Cardigan Is Ayron (Ahbrev. Plac, p. 108)."

Found it:

"Placitorum in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi asservatorum abbreviatio, temporibus regum Ric. I," published in 1811

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015014113313;view=1up;seq=134;size=150

taf

[taf]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 1:48:06 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

>
> "Placitorum in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi asservatorum abbreviatio,
> temporibus regum Ric. I," published in 1811
>
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015014113313;view=1up;seq=134;size=150
>

I will add that it only refers to Isabel as "fil' Ipsi' com'" so the supposition that she was illegitimate seems to be that of the CP editor(s).

taf

[Peter Stewart]

I wonder how safe a supposition this is - according to ODNB, 'Gilbert’s
scheme [in 1240] to force Maelgwn Fychan to hold southern Ceredigion as
his vassal was soon frustrated by the king'. The marriage of Maelgwyn's
son to Gilbert's daughter presumably formed a part of this scheme. But
would an illegitimate daughter of an earl of Pembroke have been an
acceptable inducement? And would Gilbert have given his own mother's
name to an illegitimate daughter in the first place? Is there a source
stating that Gilbert had no child by his wife, whom he married in August
1235, or is it just an assumption that Isabel must have been more than 4
years old at the time of the frustrated scheme?

Peter Stewart

[D. Spencer Hines]

That should be:

Abbrev. Plac.

Abbreviatio Placitorum -- Record Commission.

"Abbreviated Pleas"

DSH

"John Higgins" wrote in message
news:853e732e-8c1a-4dec...@googlegroups.com...

[taf]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 5:54:09 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> I wonder how safe a supposition this is - according to ODNB, 'Gilbert’s
> scheme [in 1240] to force Maelgwn Fychan to hold southern Ceredigion as
> his vassal was soon frustrated by the king'. The marriage of Maelgwyn's
> son to Gilbert's daughter presumably formed a part of this scheme. But
> would an illegitimate daughter of an earl of Pembroke have been an
> acceptable inducement?

Hard to say. It is said that the Wlsh did not place such an emphasis on lgitimacy.

> And would Gilbert have given his own mother's
> name to an illegitimate daughter in the first place?

I don't know the numbers here, but I don't think it was that uncommon.

> Is there a source
> stating that Gilbert had no child by his wife, whom he married in August
> 1235, or is it just an assumption that Isabel must have been more than 4
> years old at the time of the frustrated scheme?

I know of no near-contemporary source that is explicit on this, other than that he had none at the time of his death. It seems to me likely that the intended marriage never took plae, given that Henry quashed the scheme of which it was just one part. Still, were she legitimate, it would have made Maelgwn's grandchildren Gilbert's heirs, not just his vassals, which puts a different complexion on the whole thing.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Do you know of any evidence to indicate how old Rhys ap Maelgwyn was
when he died in 1255, or how old his son Rhys Fychan ap Rhys was when he
succeeded Maelgwyn in 1257? I suppose (based on no specific knowledge at
all) it may be possible that Rhys ap Maelgwyn was still a child in 1241,
and that he had married a different woman before the birth of his son.

Peter Stewart

[Jan Wolfe]

Does this September 1230 record pertain to the same Gilbert Marshal?
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_029.html#it462_001
14/462 (September 1230)
Concerning land to be taken into the king’s hand. Order to the sheriff of Berkshire to take the land of Gilbert Marshal and Matilda de Lanvallay, his wife, in his bailiwick into the king’s hand and [to keep it safely] with all [... until the king orders otherwise.] [1] Because Gilbert took her to wife without the king’s licence, and she is of the king’s gift. [2] Witness as above.
1. ‘Teste ut supra’ entered here.
2. The right-hand edge of the membrane has been lost which curtails this entry.

[Jan Wolfe]

The link above became attached to the next line, it should be
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_029.html#it462_001

[David Teague]

Hi, Dolly!

Do you think you have (or may have) one or more descents from Sir William
and Countess Isabel?

David

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017, Dee <dee.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all. Can anyone refer me to a listing of all known descendants of Sir
> William Marshall and his wife, Countess Isabel de Clare? I'm aware of the
> Wikipedia listing of their 10 sons and daughters with their spouses.
> Thanks, Dolly in Maryland USA
> --

>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to

> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com <javascript:;> with the word

[Peter Stewart]

Definitely not the same Gilbert - I wonder if Marshal was the correct
surname for Matilda de Lanvallay's husband, or just an approximation by
the editors.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 22/04/2017 12:40 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Definitely not the same Gilbert - I wonder if Marshal was the correct
> surname for Matilda de Lanvallay's husband, or just an approximation
> by the editors.

I should have added: Gilbert Marshal was not married before he became
earl of Pembroke & master marshal in April 1234 - he was knighted and
invested on 11 June. Before that he was intended for a clerical career,
and according to the author of *L’histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal* he
was renowned for his good sense and conduct ("Clers fu, de boen senz
renommez, | De bones mors, de boen afaire, | Franz e gentilz e debonaire").

Although several of Henry I's illegitimate daughters had his mother's
name, I wonder how many young clerics in the 13th century imitated this
behaviour while retaining their good reputation.

Peter Stewart

[Jan Wolfe]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 11:18:40 PM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
...

> > On 22/04/2017 12:22 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:

...

> >>> Does this September 1230 record pertain to the same Gilbert Marshal?

...
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_029.html#it462_001
...

> > Definitely not the same Gilbert - I wonder if Marshal was the correct
> > surname for Matilda de Lanvallay's husband, or just an approximation
> > by the editors.
>
> I should have added: Gilbert Marshal was not married before he became
> earl of Pembroke & master marshal in April 1234 - he was knighted and
> invested on 11 June. Before that he was intended for a clerical career,
> and according to the author of *L’histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal* he
> was renowned for his good sense and conduct ("Clers fu, de boen senz
> renommez, | De bones mors, de boen afaire, | Franz e gentilz e debonaire").
>
> Although several of Henry I's illegitimate daughters had his mother's
> name, I wonder how many young clerics in the 13th century imitated this
> behaviour while retaining their good reputation.
>
> Peter Stewart

In the image of the document about the marriage to Matilda, to me it looks like Gilbert's surname is written as Marescall. It is written in exactly the same way as Earl R. Marshal's surname in the image of a 1233 entry:
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_032.html#it311_003

[Peter Stewart]

Apologies, I didn't look at this before - Marescall' it is, so maybe
this Gilbert's surname was a mistake by the scribe rather than an
approximation by the editors. As far as I can tell there was only one
Gilbert in the master marshal's family living in 1230. There may have
been a Gilbert de Marisco, or some other similar designation.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 9:12:24 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Apologies, I didn't look at this before - Marescall' it is, so maybe
> this Gilbert's surname was a mistake by the scribe rather than an
> approximation by the editors. As far as I can tell there was only one
> Gilbert in the master marshal's family living in 1230. There may have
> been a Gilbert de Marisco, or some other similar designation.

I don't have time to track down reliable versions right now, but I am finding online pedigrees claiming that Maud de Lanvalei married first Richard de Waleys and second Gilbert de Mareys, matching your hypothesis.

taf

[John Higgins]

The account referenced earlier on p. 373 of vol. 10 of CP addresses this specific issue:

"His [Gilbert's] alleged 1st marriage to Maud, da. of [? William] de Lanvalei, is due to a clerical error."

Footnote e on the same page explains the matter further, with sources:
"(e) Exc. e Rot. Fin., vol. i, p. 202. G. W. Watson has shown that, in the passage cited, Marescall' is an error, the scribe who enrolled this entry having mistaken an abbreviated de Marisco for an abbreviated Marescalli. Thus the husband of Maud de Lanvalei was really Gilbert de Mareys (Marsh). Her father was Ralph de Lanvalei, of Eastburv, Berks [Misc. Gen. et Herald., 5th Ser., vol. x, pp. 110-11)."

[apologies for any errors in copying]

AFAIK vol. 10 of the 5th series of MGH is available online only via the FHL - and only if you're at the FHL or at a FHC. If there are other online copies of this volume (and others in the 5th series), I'd be happy to hear of them.

[Jan Wolfe]

On Saturday, April 22, 2017 at 1:52:33 AM UTC-4, John Higgins wrote:
...

> The account referenced earlier on p. 373 of vol. 10 of CP addresses this specific issue:
>
> "His [Gilbert's] alleged 1st marriage to Maud, da. of [? William] de Lanvalei, is due to a clerical error."
>
> Footnote e on the same page explains the matter further, with sources:
> "(e) Exc. e Rot. Fin., vol. i, p. 202. G. W. Watson has shown that, in the passage cited, Marescall' is an error, the scribe who enrolled this entry having mistaken an abbreviated de Marisco for an abbreviated Marescalli. Thus the husband of Maud de Lanvalei was really Gilbert de Mareys (Marsh). Her father was Ralph de Lanvalei, of Eastburv, Berks [Misc. Gen. et Herald., 5th Ser., vol. x, pp. 110-11)."
>
> [apologies for any errors in copying]
>
> AFAIK vol. 10 of the 5th series of MGH is available online only via the FHL - and only if you're at the FHL or at a FHC. If there are other online copies of this volume (and others in the 5th series), I'd be happy to hear of them.

Also see https://books.google.com/books?id=Mu4LAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA519
Close Rolls, Henry III v. 1
"Pro Gilberto de Marisco.—Rex gratum habet et acceptum quod Gilebertus de Marisco duxit in uxorem Matildem de Launvaley, que fuit de dono regis, et ad hoc regium adhibuit assensum. Et mandatum est vicecomiti Berk' quod, non obstante eo quod credebat ipsum Gilebertum duxisse predictam Matildem sine assensu et voluntate regis, ipsis Gileberto et Matildi de terra sua quam habuit de hereditnte predicte Matildis in Estbir', plenam saisinam habere faciat; ita quod occasione predicta de saisina sua ipsos non inpediat. Teste ut supra."

The article cited in MGH is "The Heirs of Ralph de Lanvalay" by G.W. Watson and begins:
"In the Fine Roll of 14 Hen. I l l , m. 1, there is a fragmentary writ (correctly copied in the Excerpta), as follows:—
'De terra capta in manum domini Regis.—Mandatum est Vicecomiti
Berk' quod capiat in manum Regis terram Gileb' Marescall' et Matild' de
Lanvaley uxoris sue in balliva sua et eam cum omnibus . . . . preceperit.
Teste . . . die Septembris. Quia idem Gileb' duxit eam in uxorem que est
de dono Regis sine licencia Regis.'
It is solely owing to this writ that it has been stated, in the pedigrees
of the Earls Marshals, that Gilbert, Earl of Pembroke, was married, not only
to Margery of Scotland, but also (some say, before that and others, after) to
Maud de Lanvalay. Such a statement should never have been made, for
it was well known that in Sep. 1230 Gilbert was a clerk in holy orders. On
31 May 1225 he had letters of presentation to the Church of Oxford, and
on 19 Sep. 1228 to the Church of Wingham, both in the King's gift, and in
Apr. 1230 and Sep. 1232 obtained from the King letters commanding that
he should have straightway any prebend or other ecclesiastical dignity that
might fall to the King's gift (Patent Rolls, 9 Hen. Ill, m. A; 12 Hen. III,
m. 2; 14 Hen. III, p. 1, m. 3; 16 Hen. III, m. 2). It was not until after he,
unexpectedly, succeeded in Apr. 1234 to the earldom, that he laid aside his
orders, was knighted in June following, married Margaret of Scotland in 1235,
and left her a widow at his death in June 1241. As these facts have always
been common knowledge, it is not easy to see why anyone should have
assumed that this Gilbert was the man mentioned in the writ of Sep. 1230."

The above Close Rolls entry is cited on p. 111 of the article.

[Peter Stewart]

On 22/04/2017 3:52 PM, John Higgins wrote:
> On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 9:59:44 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>> On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 9:12:24 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
>>> Apologies, I didn't look at this before - Marescall' it is, so maybe
>>> this Gilbert's surname was a mistake by the scribe rather than an
>>> approximation by the editors. As far as I can tell there was only one
>>> Gilbert in the master marshal's family living in 1230. There may have
>>> been a Gilbert de Marisco, or some other similar designation.
>> I don't have time to track down reliable versions right now, but I am finding online pedigrees claiming that Maud de Lanvalei married first Richard de Waleys and second Gilbert de Mareys, matching your hypothesis.
>>
>> taf
> The account referenced earlier on p. 373 of vol. 10 of CP addresses this specific issue:
>
> "His [Gilbert's] alleged 1st marriage to Maud, da. of [? William] de Lanvalei, is due to a clerical error."
>
> Footnote e on the same page explains the matter further, with sources:
> "(e) Exc. e Rot. Fin., vol. i, p. 202. G. W. Watson has shown that, in the passage cited, Marescall' is an error, the scribe who enrolled this entry having mistaken an abbreviated de Marisco for an abbreviated Marescalli. Thus the husband of Maud de Lanvalei was really Gilbert de Mareys (Marsh). Her father was Ralph de Lanvalei, of Eastburv, Berks [Misc. Gen. et Herald., 5th Ser., vol. x, pp. 110-11)."
>
>

Thanks John - a bell was faintly ringing in the nether regions of my
mind, but I didn't have the good sense to check CP.

The earliest a legitimate daughter of Gilbert Marshal could have been
born was ca May 1236, making Isabel (presuming she was one) an infant or
very young child at the time of her betrothal to Rhys in 1240 and at the
time of her death shortly afterwards (by June 1241 when her father was
killed, since Gilbert evidently died childless by his marriage). I don't
see any circumstance to assume that Isabel must have been illegitimate.

Peter Stewart

[Ian Goddard]

On 20/04/17 17:24, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> I know this is not a maths debate but the american definion is not used by any European country and as far as I know the american definition is not the international definition.
>

Maybe it's just me having a scientific background but as a Brit a
billion as 10 to the power of 9, i.e. 1000 million, is the norm as far
as I'm concerned. 10 to the power of n where n is in the series 3, 6, 9,
12 etc (and the corresponding negative numbers) is standard in science
and gives us the prefixes kilo, mega, giga etc (and milli, micro, pica etc).

There is, of course, the complication in computing where 2 to the power
of multiples of 10 make more sense (2 to the power of 10 is 1024).

[taf]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 7:13:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> Do you know of any evidence to indicate how old Rhys ap Maelgwyn was
> when he died in 1255, or how old his son Rhys Fychan ap Rhys was when he
> succeeded Maelgwyn in 1257? I suppose (based on no specific knowledge at
> all) it may be possible that Rhys ap Maelgwyn was still a child in 1241,
> and that he had married a different woman before the birth of his son.

The only thing I can find is that Maelgwn had a brother Rhys aged 6 in 1212, so Maelgwn could have been born, say 1210, and his son may well also have been a child in 1241.

taf

[Adrian]

This is a bit OT, but the origin of a billion was by 16th century French
mathematicians and stood for a million^2 i.e 10^12. Similarly a
(tri)llion was a million^3, ie 10^18. From mid 20c the meaning gradually
changed to 10^9 (trillion 10^12)

Adrian

[Ian Goddard]

On 20/04/17 16:15, James Wester wrote:
>
> I believe the one billion figure comes from someone calculating over 40 generations with each couple having two surviving children and both of those children having two surviving children. That comes to 1,099,511,627,776. That progression can begin with the number "1" as the person of interest.

This depends on the assumption that none of the descendants marry each
other. Each such marriage combines a pair of subtrees into one,
effectively halving the number of potential descendants in the pair.

That assumption in itself wraps up all sorts of other assumptions of a
sociological and geographical nature.

Even if marriages can extend through the overall population at random
eventually descendants will start marrying. The apparent exponential
expansion is simply the start of a sigmoid one.

Now consider the possibility that there are sociological and
geographical constraints of who marries whom. The sigmoidal expansion
starts to flatten out much sooner as descendants are more likely to
inter-marry than if there were no constraints.

Looking at this from the descendant's PoV one is likely to see the same
ancestors appearing in multiple places in a family tree. Due to the
better record keeping at that level of society royal and aristocratic
ancestors are more easily found. Combine that with multiple descents
those who have royal or aristocratic ancestors are apt to experience
confirmation bias in a belief that such individuals are somehow common
ancestors of everybody.

[Peter Stewart]

On 22/04/2017 9:59 PM, Ian Goddard wrote:
> On 20/04/17 17:24, Paulo Canedo wrote:
>> I know this is not a maths debate but the american definion is not
>> used by any European country and as far as I know the american
>> definition is not the international definition.
>>
>
> Maybe it's just me having a scientific background but as a Brit a
> billion as 10 to the power of 9, i.e. 1000 million, is the norm as far
> as I'm concerned. 10 to the power of n where n is in the series 3, 6,
> 9, 12 etc (and the corresponding negative numbers) is standard in
> science and gives us the prefixes kilo, mega, giga etc (and milli,
> micro, pica etc).

This argument is surely out-of-date: until the 1950s in England a
billion meant a million millions - however, for a long time now it has
usually meant a thousand millions. Cosmologists everywhere mean the same
thing when they say the universe is around 13.8 billion years old.

The OED says: "In the 19th century, the U.S. adopted the French
convention, but Britain retained the original and etymological use (to
which France reverted in 1948). Since 1951 the U.S. value, a thousand
millions, has been increasingly used in Britain, especially in technical
writing and, more recently, in journalism; but the older sense 'a
million millions' is still common."

It seems fogeyish to insist on the older meaning, or the artificially
revived meaning in France - according to the Dictionnaire de l'Académie
française, "Selon un décret de 1961, le mot Billion a reçu une nouvelle
valeur, à savoir un million de millions ... qui n'est pas entrée dans
l'usage".

Peter Stewart

[Jim Herd]

On Wednesday 19 April 2017 at 04:31:18 UTC+1, Dee wrote:
> Hello all. Can anyone refer me to a listing of all known descendants of Sir
> William Marshall and his wife, Countess Isabel de Clare? I'm aware of the
> Wikipedia listing of their 10 sons and daughters with their spouses.
> Thanks, Dolly in Maryland USA
> --

They are ancestors of both Robert the Bruce, The Stuarts, The Plantagenets, all the way down to the current royal family in theory.

Google their names and Robert the Bruce.

[joseph cook]

On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 3:04:51 PM UTC-5, Jim Herd wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 April 2017 at 04:31:18 UTC+1, Dee wrote:
> > Hello all. Can anyone refer me to a listing of all known descendants of Sir
> > William Marshall and his wife, Countess Isabel de Clare? I'm aware of the
> > Wikipedia listing of their 10 sons and daughters with their spouses.
> > Thanks, Dolly in Maryland USA
> > --

Conservatively, there are at least 1 Billion people who are or were directly descended from them. Are you looking for a list of just living descendants, or all generations? Can you narrow the scope of your question a bit or are you looking for a list over 1 billion entries long?
--Joe Cook

[joseph cook]

Dammit Jim, you fooled me; this post was made in 2017. There is no need to reply.
Sorry all,
Joe C

[Ian Goddard]

joseph cook wrote:
> Conservatively, there are at least 1 Billion people who are or were directly descended from them.

This is 1 in 8 of the world's population.

Are you sure?

Ian