Two Other trys: Charlemagne descent (through De Spencers and De Knightly)
Stefan Ramonat
inaccurate, so here is two more possibilities. Both end at my 2nd
Great Grandmother. The first one connects mostly though the De
Knightley family, while the second connects through the De Spencer
family. Could someone please verify and correct (as I am sure there
are many errors) the lines?
1. Charlemagne + Hildegarde Von Vinzgau Of Swabia
2. Louis I + Ermengarde Of Hesbaye
3. Robert "The Strong" + Adelaide
4. Robert I Of France + Beatrix De Vermandois
5. Hughes "The Great" Of France + Hawise Of Germany
6. Hugues "Capet" Of France + Adélaide Of France Of Guyenne, Of
Poitou
Descent # 1 (via De Knightley)
7. Hedwig Of France + Rainier IV Of Hainault
8. Beatrix, Countess of Hainault + Ebles I, Count of Rhiems and
Roucy
9. Alice De Roucy + Hildouin IV De Montdidier
10. Beatrix De Roucy + Geoffrey II De Perche De Montaigne
11. Margaret De Perche + Henry I De Beaumont
12. Agnes De Beaumont + Geoffrey De Clinton
13. Lasceline De Clinton + Norman I De Verdun
14. Alicia De Verdun + Ivo De Wemme Pantolph
15. Aline Pantolph + Robert De Knightley
16. Robert De Knightley + Philippa
17. Robert De Knightley + Alice D'Oyly
18. John De Knightley + Nicole
19. William De Knightley + Dorothy Glover
20. Roger De Knightley + Alice
21. John De Knightley + Elizabeth De Burgh
22. Richard De Knightley + Joan Giffard
23. Richard De Knightley + Elizabeth Purefoy
24. Margaret De Knightley + William Gascoigne
25. John Gascoigne + Anna Vavasour
26. Katherine (Catherine)Gascoigne + Richard
Beaumont
27. Catherine Beaumont + William Lawrence
28. Margaret Lawrence + John Hulins
(Hulings)
29. Margaret Hulins + Thomas Bliss
30. Nathaniel Bliss + Catherine Chapin
31. Samuel Bliss + Sarah Stebbins
32. Margaret Bliss + Benjamin Cooley
33. Keziah Cooley + Philip Hayward
Goss
34. Keziah Cooley Goss + John Rose
35. Jairus Rose + Zilpha Gillett
36. George Phillip Rose + Sarah Ann
Farley
37. Susan Rose + Edward P. Pierce
38. Alice Sarah Pierce + Harry
Russell Irish
Descent # 2 (via De Spencer)
7. Robert II "The Pious" + Constance De Arles
8. Robert I Of Burgundy + Helie De Semur
9. Henry Of Burgundy + Sibylle Of Barcelona
10. Eudes I "Borel" Of Burgundy + Sibylle Of Burgundy
11. Alice Of Burgundy + William Talvas Montgomery De Spencer
12. Thurston De Spencer + Lucia
13. Thomas De Spencer + Rohese
14. Galfridus De Spencer + Emma De Harcourt
15. John De Spencer + Anne
16. William De Spencer + ?
17. John De Spencer + Alice Deverell
18. Nicholas De Spencer + Joan Pollard
19. Thomas De Spencer + Dorothy
20. Henry Spencer + Isabella Lincoln
21. Thomas Spencer + Margaret Smith
22. Robert Spencer + ? Smythe
23. John Spencer + Ann Empson
24. Robert Spencer + Anne Pecke
25. John Spencer + Christina Baker
26. John Spencer + Ann Merrill
27. Michael B Spencer + Elizabeth
28. Gerard Spencer + Alice Whitebread
29. Thomas Spencer + Sarah Mary Bearding
30. Sarah Spencer + Thomas Huxley
31. Sarah Huxley + James Barlow
32. James Barlow + Mary Harmon
33. Elizabeth Barlow + Thomas Gillet
34. Thomas Gillett + Mary Jones
35. Zilpha Gillett + Jairus Rose
36. George Phillip Rose + Sarah Ann
Farley
37. Susan Rose + Edward P. Pierce
38. Alice Sarah Pierce + Harry
Russell Irish
Stefan Ramonat
Todd A. Farmerie
> It would appear that the Palmer-Charlemagne line that I gave was quite
> inaccurate, so here is two more possibilities. Both end at my 2nd
> Great Grandmother. The first one connects mostly though the De
> Knightley family, while the second connects through the De Spencer
> family. Could someone please verify and correct (as I am sure there
> are many errors) the lines?
>
>
> 1. Charlemagne + Hildegarde Von Vinzgau Of Swabia
> 2. Louis I + Ermengarde Of Hesbaye
> 3. Robert "The Strong" + Adelaide
> 4. Robert I Of France + Beatrix De Vermandois
> 5. Hughes "The Great" Of France + Hawise Of Germany
You have it entered wrong in generation 3, where Robert the
Strong is supposed to have married the daughter of Louis I. That
being said, this attributed marriage is faulty anyhow - Robert's
wife was not Louis's daughter. Howver, Beatrix (if that was her
name) de Vermandois, second wife of Robert I was a descendant of
Charlemagne, being daughter of Heribert of Vermandois, son of
Pepin, son of Bernard, son of Pepin, son of Charlemagne (the line
in your last posting prior to Berenger AKA Pepin).
> 27. Catherine Beaumont + William Lawrence
> 28. Margaret Lawrence + John Hulins
> (Hulings)
> 29. Margaret Hulins + Thomas Bliss
> 30. Nathaniel Bliss + Catherine Chapin
Unless I have missed in important discovery, this appears to be
flawed at gen. 28 (if not earlier). Thomas Bliss has ling been
given a wife Margaret Lawrence, apparently to explain the use of
the name Lawrence Bliss for a son. Scholarly genealogists had
long dismissed this prior to the discovery that his wife was
actually Margaret Hullings. The available records fail to name
the mother of this woman, so it looks like someone has taken
advantage of this ambiguity to reinsert the invented but
displaced Margaret Lawrence a generation further back.
>
> Descent # 2 (via De Spencer)
> 7. Robert II "The Pious" + Constance De Arles
> 8. Robert I Of Burgundy + Helie De Semur
> 9. Henry Of Burgundy + Sibylle Of Barcelona
That she was of Barcelona is speculation (based on the appearance
of the Barcelona name Borrell as a byname for her sons). That
her name was Sibylle results from confusion with her daughter in law.
> 10. Eudes I "Borel" Of Burgundy + Sibylle Of Burgundy
> 11. Alice Of Burgundy + William Talvas Montgomery De Spencer
> 12. Thurston De Spencer + Lucia
William Talvas de Montgomery was not a de Spencer - this was
someone's sloppy attempt to stick the Spencers onto a noble
family by giving them the de Spencer surname. He had no such son
Thurstan de Spencer.
> 21. Thomas Spencer + Margaret Smith
> 22. Robert Spencer + ? Smythe
> 23. John Spencer + Ann Empson
> 24. Robert Spencer + Anne Pecke
> 25. John Spencer + Christina Baker
> 26. John Spencer + Ann Merrill
> 27. Michael B Spencer + Elizabeth
> 28. Gerard Spencer + Alice Whitebread
> 29. Thomas Spencer + Sarah Mary Bearding
My notes on this family are scanty, but I have it as only
speculative that John, husband of Ann (you have Merrill - I have
no surname) was son of John and Christian Baker. I have John (no
spouse listed in my notes), father of Robert (m. Ann Peck) as the
earliest generation. I can tell that I didn't put much effort
into this line, so I won't vouch for the accuracy of my material
vs. yours.
(By the way, I note that I erred in my earlier post - Margaret
Hulings was daughter of John Hulings and Margaret, but Margaret's
surname is not known - again, unless I missed a new discovery).
taf
Peter Stewart
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:41FD46E8...@interfold.com...
> Stefan Ramonat wrote:
<snip>
>> 1. Charlemagne + Hildegarde Von Vinzgau Of Swabia
>> 2. Louis I + Ermengarde Of Hesbaye
>> 3. Robert "The Strong" + Adelaide 4. Robert I Of France + Beatrix De
>> Vermandois
>> 5. Hughes "The Great" Of France + Hawise Of Germany
>
> You have it entered wrong in generation 3, where Robert the Strong is
> supposed to have married the daughter of Louis I. That being said, this
> attributed marriage is faulty anyhow - Robert's wife was not Louis's
> daughter. Howver, Beatrix (if that was her name) de Vermandois, second
> wife of Robert I was a descendant of Charlemagne, being daughter of
> Heribert of Vermandois, son of Pepin, son of Bernard, son of Pepin, son of
> Charlemagne (the line in your last posting prior to Berenger AKA Pepin).
This should be treated as probable - I think highly questionable - and not
as certain. The evidence that Robert married twice is not absolutely clear,
and depends on interpretaion: the assumption of an unknown first wife is
necessary to allow for the proven marriage of his daughter to Count Heribert
II of Vermandois IF his supposedly second wife Beatrix, the mother of his
son Hugo Magnus, was sister to the latter as given only incidentally in a
much later & not especially well-informed source.
Karl Ferdinand Werner patched together a version of Robert's marriages that
has stuck for the past 40 years, hinging on his tendentious interpretation
of a charter in which Hugo named his parents, and that I think this needs
revision. Without going into detail here & now (I hope to publish an article
about it before long), I think it can be equally well maintained that
Robert's first wife was Beatrix, of unknown family, mother of all his
recorded children, and that his second wife was a lady named Adela who _may_
have been a Carolingian princess of the house of Vermandois.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
If Margaret Hulings, wife of the American colonist, Thomas Bliss, has
royal ancestry, I should be glad to know it. I descend from this woman
as do many who post here on the newsgroup. What are your sources for
this lengthy descent from antiquity?
If you quote the Ancestral File, World connect, or Peter Stewart as
your sources, then we should know you are pulling our leg.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107140489....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Stefan ~
>
> If Margaret Hulings, wife of the American colonist, Thomas Bliss, has
> royal ancestry, I should be glad to know it. I descend from this woman
> as do many who post here on the newsgroup. What are your sources for
> this lengthy descent from antiquity?
>
> If you quote the Ancestral File, World connect, or Peter Stewart as
> your sources, then we should know you are pulling our leg.
O dear, so it was just another tease when I pointed out the inadequacy &
sheer folly of Richardson's boasted 15 years of work on the "Countess of
Lorett"? He seemed to be laughingon the other side of his face at the
time...I wonder why.
Peter Stewart
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Stefan ~
>
> If Margaret Hulings, wife of the American colonist, Thomas Bliss, has
> royal ancestry, I should be glad to know it. I descend from this
> woman as do many who post here on the newsgroup. What are your
> sources for this lengthy descent from antiquity?
>
> If you quote the Ancestral File, World connect, or Peter Stewart as
> your sources, then we should know you are pulling our leg.
On the other hand I would be proud to quote Peter Stewart as a source.
He is an obviously knowledgeable but cautious scholar of early medieval
history and genealogy. Further he usually checks his entries after
publication and posts corrections if there is any amendment needed.
Even better he gives his sources so that I could check them and
reference them myself, if I had the relevant language skills of course.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
As you well know, I cited Peter Stewart as a source in my own book,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004). However, the thing I cited him for he
later changed his position. This, in spite of the fact that I
assembled ten pieces of hard evidence to prove the matter, two of them
being contemporary to the individual's lifetime (one of these sources
was provided by Peter himself).
Is this the sign of a "cautious scholar" (your words for Peter
Stewart)? I don't think so. I respect Peter's intellect, but not his
logic, nor his manners. He also takes himself much too seriously.
The subject line of this thread are two new descents from Charlemagne,
one being for the New World colonist, Margaret (Hulings) Bliss. I
recommend we get back to the topic under discussion. Hopefully, the
original poster will reveal his sources for these new royal lines. As
a descendant of Margaret (Hulings) Bliss, I'm keenly interested in her
possible royal ancestry. I'm not so interested, Tim, in you playing
Peter Stewart's sock puppet. If you wish to express your admiration
for Mr. Stewart, I suggest you do so in a private e-mail to him and
spare the rest of us. That's just being fair.
Sincerely yours, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1107204909.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Tim ~
>
> As you well know, I cited Peter Stewart as a source in my own book,
> Plantagenet Ancestry (2004). However, the thing I cited him for he
> later changed his position. This, in spite of the fact that I
> assembled ten pieces of hard evidence to prove the matter, two of them
> being contemporary to the individual's lifetime (one of these sources
> was provided by Peter himself).
>
> Is this the sign of a "cautious scholar" (your words for Peter
> Stewart)? I don't think so. I respect Peter's intellect, but not his
> logic, nor his manners. He also takes himself much too seriously.
>
> The subject line of this thread are two new descents from Charlemagne,
> one being for the New World colonist, Margaret (Hulings) Bliss. I
> recommend we get back to the topic under discussion. Hopefully, the
> original poster will reveal his sources for these new royal lines. As
> a descendant of Margaret (Hulings) Bliss, I'm keenly interested in her
> possible royal ancestry. I'm not so interested, Tim, in you playing
> Peter Stewart's sock puppet. If you wish to express your admiration
> for Mr. Stewart, I suggest you do so in a private e-mail to him and
> spare the rest of us. That's just being fair.
So it's fair to post mindless criticism of someone, but not praise - very
collegial indeed.
I have never met Tim, and though I appreciate his kind words there was no
prompting from me behind them.
As for the idea that a "cautious scholar" could never change his mind, that
is patently idiotic.
But Richardson is barking - if, as I guess, he is talking about the
maternity of Louis VII's daughter Countess Adelaide of Ponthieu, I haven't
changed my position on the matter since providing the French source that I
presume he mentions (this should not be the only citation of Peter Stewart's
SGM posts in his book, according to undertakings made by Richardson in a
private email exchange). I simply challenged him to search for more evidence
& come up with something more conclusive than a few distant - and in other
respects erroneous - sources, and especially to find out why Leopold
Delisle, a great expert on the subject, maintained a different view. That is
the business of scholarship, and the practice of caution. Richardson has
still not come up with anything further, so I imagine that once again he has
either failed to do his own work or failed to report that he can't find
anything.
Peter Stewart
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Dear Tim ~
If you were really writing to me, you would have sent this privately
and not copied in the whole group.
>
> As you well know,
No I don't!
> I cited Peter Stewart as a source in my own book, Plantagenet Ancestry
> (2004). However, the thing I cited him for he later changed his
> position.
But I would commend someone for doing this if they are convinced their
previous position was no longer tenable. Though if they did this too
often, one would begin to question their judgement.
> This, in spite of the fact that I assembled ten pieces of hard
> evidence to prove the matter, two of them being contemporary to the
> individual's lifetime (one of these sources was provided by Peter
> himself).
Have there never been occasions in the past where two researchers have
disagreed? Most learned journals get some interesting differing
opinions from time to time. Long may it continue. And it usually
their successors that decide who was right. The adherents of the losing
theory seldom change their mind, they just eventually die; I think this
was first said of the adherents of the phlogiston theory of combustion,
patently wrong but it had its supporters in its day.
> Is this the sign of a "cautious scholar" (your words for Peter
> Stewart)? I don't think so. I respect Peter's intellect, but not his
> logic, nor his manners. He also takes himself much too seriously.
>
> The subject line of this thread are two new descents from Charlemagne,
> one being for the New World colonist, Margaret (Hulings) Bliss. I
> recommend we get back to the topic under discussion.
But who took it off the thread? I was merely commenting on something I
did not share.
> Hopefully, the original poster will reveal his sources for these new
> royal lines. As a descendant of Margaret (Hulings) Bliss, I'm keenly
> interested in her possible royal ancestry. I'm not so interested,
> Tim, in you playing Peter Stewart's sock puppet. If you wish to
> express your admiration for Mr. Stewart, I suggest you do so in a
> private e-mail to him and spare the rest of us. That's just being
> fair.
If someone claims that another is pulling their leg, then those who do
not think this is right are entirely fair if they disagree. And if the
claim is in public, then it is also fair to reply in public. Please
explain why it is not fair.
And there is no need to call me a sock puppet either. I do not call you
funny names, so why should you do the same to me? It is only fair!
But all that said, I am delighted to see that as ever you are using the
quote signs correctly, at least one can then follow who said what.
For those that are unused to this, the '>' are the quote signs. A
single '> ' is what is being replied to, written by a second person. A
double '> > ' is what that the second person was replying to, by a third
person. A treble '> > > ' is what a third person was replying to, by a
fourth person. After that is is best to snip things as it gets
complicated. And good software will do the quoting automatically.
> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
>
> > In message of 31 Jan, "Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com"
> > <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Stefan ~
> > >
> > > If Margaret Hulings, wife of the American colonist, Thomas Bliss,
> > > has royal ancestry, I should be glad to know it. I descend from
> > > this woman as do many who post here on the newsgroup. What are
> > > your sources for this lengthy descent from antiquity?
> > >
> > > If you quote the Ancestral File, World connect, or Peter Stewart
> > > as your sources, then we should know you are pulling our leg.
> >
> > On the other hand I would be proud to quote Peter Stewart as a
> > source. He is an obviously knowledgeable but cautious scholar of
> > early medieval history and genealogy. Further he usually checks
> > his entries after publication and posts corrections if there is any
> > amendment needed. Even better he gives his sources so that I could
> > check them and reference them myself, if I had the relevant
> > language skills of course.
And what follows is called a 'sig', for signature. It is shown by two
dashes followed by a space. It should not be quoted in replies, wastes
space.
Peter A. Kincaid
Who is at fault? It is as if you are implying that you regret
using him as a source as he in the end made you look bad.
The onus is on you, as a writer, to verify your sources.
I am not personally acquainted with any of the so called regular
posters here. However, one quickly forms an impression about
them based on their posts. While Peter Stewart, like some others,
can mud sling in an unbecoming way, he does have interesting
and useful posts. You on the other hand, have quickly given
me the impression that you are the group's "leech." You keep
pushing your books but are constantly trying to mine other
peoples findings. How can you have the audacity to complain
about someone who once filled your wishes. I am sorry but
there is no way that I could not be highly critical about your last
post.
Peter
Peter Stewart
""Peter A. Kincaid"" <7kin...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6.2.0.14.1.200501...@pop1.nb.sympatico.ca...
>I don't know how Mr. Richardson can be so pretentious here.
> Who is at fault? It is as if you are implying that you regret
> using him as a source as he in the end made you look bad.
> The onus is on you, as a writer, to verify your sources.
>
> I am not personally acquainted with any of the so called regular
> posters here. However, one quickly forms an impression about
> them based on their posts. While Peter Stewart, like some others,
> can mud sling in an unbecoming way, he does have interesting
> and useful posts. You on the other hand, have quickly given
> me the impression that you are the group's "leech." You keep
> pushing your books but are constantly trying to mine other
> peoples findings. How can you have the audacity to complain
> about someone who once filled your wishes. I am sorry but
> there is no way that I could not be highly critical about your last
> post.
I'm afraid you are quite right, Peter.
Is there by any chance a becoming way that I could learn to sling mud? I'm
always eager to improve.
Peter Stewart
Peter A. Kincaid
It is all in the presentation. If this were a mud wrestling contest
between the some of "the" girls on Baywatch, the entertainment
value would be much more appreciated. ;-)
Best wishes!
Peter
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Buy a bigger shovel and develop a graceful yet powerful throw? Or a
dainty trowel?