Re: Changing the Sutton/Dudley pedigree: The mother of John de Sutton the younger Opciones
Renia
cross-posting it for the delectation of a more appropriate group of
medieval genealogists who will be able to explain to me why your earldom
doesn't appear in The Complete Peerage.
fortitudine wrote:
> Dear member of the Group,
>
> I am a member of the Anglo-Norman family "De Sutton-Dudley" Irish
> branch called de Clonard now living in Ireland and UK as well as in
> Spain, France and the USA.
>
> My name for all of you is Joseph (alias XXIX Earl of Clonard in Eire
> and UK, or in Spain since 1770) and it is a pleasure for me to give
> you some clues:
>
> 1. If you are in a position to accept that sometimes the History
> contains errors, including our History (England, Ireland..etc) then
> please allow me to recommend you the following electronic book:
>
> http://www.sirbacon.org/vonkunow.html
>
> The tittle: "LAST OF THE TUDORS"
> Historian: Lady Amelie Deventer von Kunow -1924
>
> The access is free.
>
> 2. In respect to the 2nd. Earl of Essex, (the same for Francis Bacon)
> nothing is new for our family and myself because we are at the same
> time Sutton-Dudleys and Devereux descendants too. Indeed we know for
> centuries that Robert Jr. and Francis were children of HM. the Queen
> Elizabeth I Tudor with Robert De Sutton-Dudley Earl of Leicester, Lord
> Protector, and a long etc. (Please see their secret marriage details
> in the book edited in 1924).
>
> This chapter of the History of England is wrong, as many other in
> France or in Spain, I would say this is not an exception.
>
> It is also true that an important nber. of genealogies were erased
> during and after the "Religious Wars" for example in Ireland, and now
> I recognize that very often it is almost impossible to clearly see the
> Global Ancestry of a specific Anglo-Norman family for example,
> including ours "De Sutton-Dudleys" all of them descendants of
> Balderich Le Teuton (Teutonic) Duke de Neuville in France.
>
> If you are interested in our History and Genealogy (including the
> Irish branch) please do not hesitate to contact me to:
>
> suttondud...@gmail.com
>
> I promise you to do my very best.
>
> you can also see more details in my Web site : http://suttonclonard.com/Summary.htm
>
> Kind regard.
>
> Joseph G. de Sutton Dudley (Lord Clonard)
> God save HM. the Queen.
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> fortitudine wrote:
> > Dear member of the Group,
>
> > I am a member of the Anglo-Norman family "De Sutton-Dudley" Irish
> > branch called de Clonard now living in Ireland and UK as well as in
> > Spain, France and the USA.
>
> > My name for all of you is Joseph (alias XXIX Earl of Clonard in Eire
> > and UK, or in Spain since 1770) and it is a pleasure for me to give
> > you some clues
>
> You've sent this fascinating information to the wrong group, so I'm
> cross-posting it for the delectation of a more appropriate group of
> medieval genealogists who will be able to explain to me why your earldom
> doesn't appear in The Complete Peerage.
Actually, Renia, you don't need to go anywhere near the mediaeval
period in order to suss this nutter out.
Have a look at his website. According to his own alleged genealogy,
he has "inherited" the so-called comital title of Clonard from his
paternal grandmother, "Rosario [sic] Blanca, Countess Clonard". I
don't know terribly many British earldoms that pass through the female
line [save some Scots titles, and a tiny handful of special remainders
- eg Arlington, Mountbatten].
Furthermore, "Countess Rosario Blanca" is said to have succeeded her
father, Seraphin, who was himself (wait for it!) the illegitimate son
of Queen Isabel II by the Conde de Clonard.
I know of even fewer British peerages that can survive illegitimacy.
Turning to the mediaeval part of his alleged pedigree, we find that he
claims descent from "Thomas Sutton de Clonard, Count de Clonard", son
of "Sir John de Sutton Dudley Sutton de Clonard [sic], KG, Earl of
Clonard, 1400-1487". This John Sutton was a Knight of the Garter, but
the highest peerage honour he attained was the barony of Dudley,
granted to him in 1440 by means of a writ of summons (see ODNB article
by Hugh Collins).
Furthermore, it seems that we look in vain for a Thomas amongst his
sons: Edmund (the heir apparent, but dvp), John, William and Oliver.
And the wife assigned to this Thomas is equally imaginative: "Mary
Catherine Strange, Lady Norfolk", a maternal line granddaughter to
Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland (1364-1425) - his daughter
Katherine is given a new husband ("Thomas Strange, knight") and a new
title ("Lady Norfolk") - a conflation of her actual title from her
first marriage (Duchess of Norfolk) and her actual second husband (Sir
Thomas Strangways) - see ODNB article by Rowena Archer. [Katherine
Neville did have a daughter Katherine Strangways, but she was the wife
of Henry, 7th Lord Grey of Codnor.]
Conveniently, the apparent lack of historical verification for these
"ancestors" is put down to the fact that "Old Nobility Irish Records
were erased or incinerated following Royal Orders" - a vertiable
bonfire of the vanities, it would seem.
Joseph may be a delightful and well-meaning chap, for all I know, but
he ain't an Earl, and he ain't a Sutton or a Dudley either.
Cheers, Michael
Renia
I'd never heard of the Earl of Clonard so I did a cursory search for it
in Altavista and bumped straight into this strange website.
As soon as I saw Cate Blanchett and Joseph Fiennes positively identifed
as HM Queen Elizabeth I and her husband, Lord Robert Dudley de
Leicester, the parents of Lord Francis Bacon and Lord Robert, I knew
this poster needed genealogical and historical help.
The OP's offer of help was posted only to shm, so I crossposted it to
sgm, where his genealogical expertise could be admired. You've snipped
off shm, but he will probably only see your eloquent reply there, so
I've put it back again.
Nathaniel Taylor
<02c781ac-cfce-4615...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
Unfortunately the page he originally linked to his shm delurk appears
not to be up, but the pages in Spanish are more informative, especially:
http://www.suttonclonard.com/Summary_Sp.htm
What isn't readily clear is whether all the recent Spanish ancestors are
fictitious (or fictitiously noble), or merely the alleged Sutton-Dudley
descent. Worth checking in Spanish nobiliaries. At any rate, a
pleasant piece of nuttery.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Peter Stewart
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nlta...@nltaylor.net> wrote in message
news:nltaylor-F41E65...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
It would be interesting to know if King Juan Carlos might think it pleasant
to be dragged into this.
There is no mention of an earldom (or any other title) of Clonard existing
in the Jacobite peerage, according to Guy Stair Sainty, see
http://www.chivalricorders.org/nobility/jacobite.htm
Maybe "Sotto" morphed into "Sutton", with all that nuttily follows, after
1997.
Peter Stewart
fortitudine
> "Nathaniel Taylor" <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote in message
>
> news:nltaylor-F41E65...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <02c781ac-cfce-4615-b1af-1993c5baf...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Peter,
Allow me please to insist again the a.m. book is also wrong, because
the "remote sources" taken were obviously wrong too, perhaps by
omission, or may be submitted to censure or auto-censure as many other
in the past, relating Irish History or Genealogy. «REF: Jacobite
peerage, according to Guy Stair Sainty»
You say....."It would be interesting to know if King Juan Carlos might
think it pleasant to be dragged into this"-
Now listen please, Don Juan Carlos is a member of my Family and He is
well informed by Clonard on a regular basis on many aspects you
ignore, not only as my King but also as my cousin"...... as you say
in the UK. : Think big!. - and feel free to contact Him; everyone is
welcome to Zarzuela Palace, one the protocol has been respected.
Today I also have reported this problem to the actual Leader of the
Clan O'Donnell (called Lady Angelina O'Donnell) living in San Diego
CA. (USA) because this is a global topic we have all the Irish (Norman
or not) in respect with a significant nber. of books edited in
England. What is a shame for England as well as for Eire is the fact
we obtain more accurate information about i.e. jacobites in Paris
than in London. The Clan O'Donnell is probably the most representative
of all the Irish Clans and Celtic Nobility. We have with them familiar
relationship and they know very well for centuries the Sutton Clan,
that is to say the Earls of Clonard and their origins.
Perhaps the last solution would be to create a special British-Irish-
Commission to point-out the English-Irish book errors made by mistake
or by omission....etc. and requesting from Dublin and London proper
amendments for the next editions.(Everything sems to be still
difficult when the subject is Ireland)
Someone like me, was terrified visiting my old lands in Wexford. When
you see the damages produced by the English Military Forces in the
past. (I mind several centuries ago). The Suttons had only in Wexford
five Castles, with wonderful lands and pretty parishes. The most
important was the so called "Great Clonard" totally destroyed by
Cromwell as the rest of their defences. The other were Ballykeerogue
Castle (Destroyed by Cromwell 400 victims and only 2 survivals) -
Oldcourt Castle (destroyed) - Clonmines (destroyed) - and the only
exception Fethar Castle wich was given to the bishop of Ferns
Alexander Devereux as a Sutton family present (Alexander was our
cousin by female lineage) is still visible, however visits are not
allowed, perhaps because the Castle is small and not yet restored.
It is still hard for us to see the English, not justified, contempt in
respect to my Irish ancestors........try to understand whenever is
possible.
We are who we are, we are loved in Ireland, we are proud to bear Anglo-
Norman blood and we will defend the clan (certainly not alone) each
time we will see, i.e. wrong Suttons Genealogies in books and we will
take the necessary actions against English offensive Genealogists. Yes
we know, the mistakes are not made by genealogists because the
mistakes already are in books.
Believe me we often pry for peace, for Ireland and England, to finish
this nightmare. Otherwise we are happy in Spain dreaming to spend our
retirement also in Eire and in England, as well as in Malaga of
course....hahaha!!!
Kind regards.
God bless HM. the Queen.
Lord Joseph de Clonard in Spain, Ireland and UK.
De Sutton Family.
Peter Stewart
"fortitudine" <suttondud...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:25ef558a-8e58-4417...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
<chomp>
> Lord Joseph de Clonard in Spain, Ireland and UK.
If you wish to be thought an earl by anyone as zanily imaginative as
yourself, you could do worse than start by learning how to style yourself
correctly - no real peer of any rank would commit the howler above.
An actual earl of Clonard would be referred to as "Lord Clonard", and would
sign himself simply "Clonard" in writing to or for people who called him by
this title.
"Lord Josephe de Clonard" on the other hand would not be a peer at all, but
could only be the younger son of a (non-existant) duke or marquess surnamed
"de Clonard".
Peter Stewart
fortitudine
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com>
Date: Mar 3, 11:42 am
Subject: faux Spanish Dudley (was re: Changing the Sutton/Dudley
pedigree...)
To: soc.genealogy.medieval
"fortitudine" <suttondudleyclon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:25ef558a-8e58-4417-8363-
d95541...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
fortitudine
> "fortitudine" <suttondudleyclon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:25ef558a-8e58-4417...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> <chomp>
>
> > Lord Joseph de Clonard in Spain, Ireland and UK.
>
> If you wish to be thought an earl by anyone as zanily imaginative as
> yourself, you could do worse than start by learning how to style yourself
> correctly - no real peer of any rank would commit the howler above.
>
> An actual earl of Clonard would be referred to as "Lord Clonard", and would
> sign himself simply "Clonard" in writing to or for people who called him by
> this title.
>
> could only be the younger son of a (non-existant) duke or marquess surnamed
> "de Clonard".
>
> Peter Stewart
Dear Peter
Why are you so aggressive? - this is not a war, at least from our
side, and now let us see, more interested people about the topic
Counts de Clonard (or Earls of Clonard) and this time living in the
UK.
Please press on the following URL link:
http://www.irenesutton.co.uk/html/body_sutton_waters.html
There you will read the following text written by an English Sutton!
- who I have never seen in my life.......for the moment. (Do not
worry there are many others, in or out of England):
QUOTE
The surname Sutton emerged as a notable family name in the county of
Nottingham. Many junior branches of this prolific family acquired many
estates, during the medieval period, including Norwood Park, Scofton,
West Retford, Kelham and Averham in Nottingham.
Amongst the titles in this notable family are the Barons Lexington,
Lords Manners, Viscounts Canterbury, Count de Clonard and many
Baronets. Amongst the offices held were, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, Speaker of the House of Commons and
founders of Brasenose College, Oxford. Outstanding amongst the family
at this time was Hervey of Sutton, first Lord of Sutton upon Trent.
The surname Sutton contributed much to local politics and in the
affairs of England or Scotland. During the 12 th century many of these
Norman families moved north to Scotland. Later in the 16th, 17th and
18th centuries England was ravaged by religious and political
conflict. The Monarchy, the Church and Parliament fought for
supremacy. The unrest caused many to think of distant lands.
The chronicles of England show the early records of the name Sutton to
be derived from the Norman race. There it appears in England from
about 1066 A.S., and its history is interwoven within the majestic
tapestry which contains the history of England. Professional
researchers used such ancient manuscripts as the Domesday Book
(compiled in 1086 by William the Conqueror), the Ragman Rolls, the
Wace poem, the Honour Roll of the Battel Abbey, The Curia Regis, Pipe
Rolls, the Falaise Roll, tax records, baptismals, family genealogies
and local parish and church records to establish that the first record
of the name Sutton was found in Nottinghamshire where they were
descended from Drey de Montaigu who came into England at the Norman
Conquest in 1066 A.D. in the train of the Count of Mortain. His first
seat was at Sutton Montague in Somerset and the family later acquired
Sutton upon Trent near Tuxford in Nottingham, where they became Lords
of the manor and the Barons Dudley.
The name Sutton, occurred in many references, but from time to time,
spellings included Sutton, Suton, Suttone and many others. Scribes
recorded and spelled the name as it sounded. It wasn't unlikely that a
person would be born with one spelling, married with another and
buried with a headstone which showed another spelling.
The Normans were commonly believed to be of French origin but, more
accurately, they were of Viking origin. The Vikings landed in the
Orkneys and Northern Scotland about the year 870 A.D., under their
King, Stirgud the Stout. Later, under their Earl, Thorfinn Rollo, they
invaded France about 910 A.D. The French King, Charles the Simple,
after Rollo laid siege to Paris, finally conceded defeat and granted
northern France to Rollo. Duke William, who invaded and defeated
England in 1066, was descended from the first Duke Rollo of Normandy.
UNQUOTE
Believe me that this is a non exhaustive text, in fact we could write
a book about this great family called Sutton (First House) and Dudley
(Second House).
I call to your good and professional sense:
«please do not say again that «Sutton Dudley de Clonard House, or
Sutton de Clonard House, or Sutton Duley House» does not exist.
«Please do not talk about us as a "non-existant" Count de Clonard
house»
You are considered by our Suttons de Clonard living in France (my
cousins) as ridiculous. This is the message I have just received one
hour ago. You are not making friends with your attitude.
This is not a war but this was not a game. The first time I wrote to
the group I offered my free services without any sort of interest. We
always prefer to have a friend than an enemy. However a normal or a
minimum of respect is also necessary from you side and when I say
this, be sure it is not a game, I am very serious.
We know Sir that your books are wrong....that is the reason why I'm
(we are) still very patient. Do the same please, and do not injure to
anyone; even if this people belong to the Sutton-Dudley de Clonard
House.
With my kind regards.
XXIX Earl of Clonard
God Bless HM. the Queen, our loved Cousin.
Sutton-Dudley de Clonard House.
Peter Stewart
<chomp of more irrelevant & portentous blather>
> XXIX Earl of Clonard
This attempt is no better than "Lord Joseph de Clonard". Real earls do not
sign themselves with ordinal numbers or with the title "Earl".
There is NO such title as "earl of Clonard" anyway. This person is just
another tawdry impostor, resorting to self-righteous bilge & risible
conspiracy theories to explain the world's denial of his lies. No matter how
whimsical & harmless the imposture may seem, it is nothing but deceit - even
if it is now also, and perhaps primarily, self-deceit.
No earldom of Clonard was created in secret, much less inherited
surreptitiously 28 times. Peerages, including Jacobite ones that are not
recognised in the United Kingdom, were created openly by letters patent. The
origin of the term "patent" is the Latin verb meaning "to be open". (Try
correcting English reference books on that, to account for the contradiction
of secret letters "patent" in one case.)
Let us grant the falsehood for a moment: If an actual peerage creation had
never been made known, it would become just as if it had never been made in
the first place - like a cardinal promoted by the pope "in pectore", if the
fact is not revealed before that pope dies then the man is no longer a
cardinal from the instant of death. Similarly, if there had been a secret
creation of this fabricated earldom of Clonard in the Jacobite peerage, it
would have ceased with the demise of the pretender who was silly enough to
go about it in this way.
But as usual we have an unhinged screed, as vague as it is pompous, about
unspecified "services" that have been rendered by or are about to be
delivered to the unfortunate dynasty. King Juan Carlos is apparently
fretting in the Zarzuela palace about his cousins' rights and honours, while
he doesn't have the gumption to pick up the phone on their behalf and get
the matter known in the real world, so that this momentous historic wrong
can be set right at last. Unaccountably he is as secretive, although
naturally solicitous, as his ancestral cousins the Jacobite pretenders.
Well, what a pity - and here's another one: I believe in the "29th earl of
Clonard" every bit as much as the king of Spain does.
Peter Stewart
fortitudine
> "fortitudine" <suttondudleyclon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:72e494e2-c14a-4bfc...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> <chomp of more irrelevant & portentous blather>
>
> > XXIX Earl of Clonard
>
> This attempt is no better than "Lord Joseph de Clonard". Real earls do not
>
> There is NO such title as "earl of Clonard" anyway. This person is just
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sir,
I do not know who you are and why are you emerged by yourself as THE
MASTER OF THE MASTERS. let me tell you; you do not have a strong and
solid idea about what is History. This is often a common default of
many genealogist, you have a certain level of acknowledgement in
Genealogy, but in History you have certainly often problems to
distinguish a Donkey from a Horse.
Please keep your wrong books well for others, your vanity is so big
that we will not make any additional effort to show you what happened
in real. The British Empire is now finished with people like you, and
you are obliged to live with the reason and not any more with your
common "FOLIES DE GRANDEUR". You are, excuse me, a poor man Sir, and
you are not in a position to give your " destructive recommendations
to any one else". Probably you are a "working disaster" genealogist.
The worse is that you do not have the Spirit to be an open mind
investigator. When you do not have any idea, your solution is to
injure other people. (read customers?). Fortunately "Dieu merçi!"
we are not your clients!.
You are not allow, by Suttons, to give me any recommendation about
your own conception of what is the spanish protocol, because I will
follow in this matter what my mentor, that is to say my Grandfather
show me years ago!).
In respect to my familiar relationship with the Spanish Royal
House......I'm doing what I have to do «the common DNA has been
already verified to follow a logic procedure and the result is
positive for both branches, that's all I can say (REF. LDB.), but your
stupidity Sir, have no limits from the instant you make your own
conclusionS without any support or argument, excepting your lack in
respect to a sensitive informations or, the Norman-Irish old
Genealogies..
So from now you are invited to write, not to me but rather to the King
of Spain, my cousin, and please relate to Him what do you think about
the "Suttons Dudley de Clonard in Spain", I'm ready to give you the
Royal Palace Address via FAX or CABLE at your best convenience. You
also have my phone number. if you want to let me know your
professional address in order to send you a FAX. Obviously later it
will be my turn, but from now, and after to have been injured by
yourself , without any reason, for the 3rd. time, please note your
are declared as a person "non-Grata" by the Earl of Clonard and all of
his family. Probably you will not be able to have sufficient courage
to do it. Poor Man! - For the rest I feel pity for you, when I see
your moral degradation and vanity vis à vis of other people. Keep your
ignorance for yourself please!
"Bien à Vous Monsieur Stewart"
Conde de Clonard XXIX
Dios guarde a SM. La Reina, nuestra amada Prima.
Casa Sutton Dudley de Clonard en España
Nathaniel Taylor
<e9464e22-2af9-4d8d...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
fortitudine <suttondud...@gmail.com> wrote:
<...>
> In respect to my familiar relationship with the Spanish Royal
> House......I'm doing what I have to do «the common DNA has been
> already verified to follow a logic procedure and the result is
> positive for both branches, that's all I can say (REF. LDB.)
<...>
Do you mean to say that DNA testing has confirmed your allegation of the
Clonard paternity of Alfonso XII?
t...@clearwire.net
> In article
> <e9464e22-2af9-4d8d-86a0-e1da2be3b...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> fortitudine <suttondudleyclon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > In respect to my familiar relationship with the Spanish Royal
> > House......I'm doing what I have to do «the common DNA has been
> > already verified to follow a logic procedure and the result is
> > positive for both branches, that's all I can say (REF. LDB.)
>
> <...>
>
> Do you mean to say that DNA testing has confirmed your allegation of the
> Clonard paternity of Alfonso XII?
The compiler reports DNA results on his web site, but they are his own
Y-chromosome haplotype. Given that he claims descent via a female
line, this would be of no probative value. If tests have been done on
other subjects, this will have to be evaluated independently, but the
compiler's DNA is of no use in answering the question.
I also found the suggestion that Peter consult the King about the
Sutton connection curious. Perhaps I missed the news that King Juan
Carlos has abandoned his claim to be the senior representative of the
Capetian male line, and instead is now claiming to be a junior
representative of Sutton of Clonard.
Perhaps a more broad evaluation of the claim is in order. The
compiler's web site traces the de Sotto-Clonard line, in the male
line, from Charlemagne. This connection is via Charles Constantine of
Vienne, son of Charles the Simple, King of France. That would be
problem number one. Charles Constantine is, of course, a historical
individual, and a descendant of Charlemagne, although not in the male
line and most assuredly not son of Charles the Simple.
Next, Charles Constantine is made father of Wigilius de Coucy, a
completely fictitious individual. Next comes "Baldric the Teuton",
Duke of Neville. Now, Baldric is a historical individual, but there
never was a Duke of Neville, nor were there any Dukes in Normandy at
the time other than THE Duke. The next two generations are
fictitious, Richard and Gilbert le Teuton. Then the first Sutton,
Hervey, followed by three more, Herveys I, II, III, and IV. I have not
investigated the Suttons in this period, but I am pretty sure these
too are fictional. The last is made Count de Clonard. The problem is
that the Suttons were no where near Ireland in this or several later
generations. There are no Counts at this time, and no such thing as
an Irish Earl. The next generation is Rowland de Sutton, the first
documented Sutton of which I am aware. He is shown as Earl of Clonard,
which is again ridiculous. The title then seems to go into eclipse
for several decades until John de Sutton, Viceroy of Ireland (15th
century) is the next Earl given.
Ignoring the fact that British Earldoms pass to the eldest son, the
next Earl is not Sir John's eldest son, but rather (supposedly) his
third, Thomas. I don't know it what follows, connecting Sutton of
Sutton to the Irish line is valid or invented, but if Sir John was
Earl of Clonard, such a title would not have passed to his third son.
There is another change, though. Now the Earl of Clonard becomes Count
de Clonard, an anachronistic title. Again the claim fails. Earl or
Count, the title that is said to exist is an Irish one, not a French
or Spanish one, which will become relevant later.
There then follow several more generations, including a move to Spain.
There, according to the document you cited earlier, Michael de Sutton
was made Comte de Clonard by the Spanish crown in 1770. Here is an
important point. There appears not the slightest shred of evidence
that any Clonard title existed before this point. If it did exist
previous to this time, the recognition by the Spanish crown would be
of no significance toward an Irish title, as the SPanish king never
has had the right to grant or confirm Irish titles. This would then
(if authentic) represent a novel Spanish creation. This becomes
important several generations later, when the title is said to have
passed first through an illegitimate union and then through the female
line, it is, as the compiler has adamantly insisted, Spanish
inheritance of title that governs, but it only governs this newly
created title, not any supposed Irish original, which would still be
inherited, or fail to be inherited, based on Irish law. That the
compiler insists on Spanish law predominating is defacto rejection of
the existence of an Irish title. (Along these lines, there is also the
title, Comte de Clonard, which is an independent French title allowed
to another branch of the same family.) The compiler may well be the X
Conde de Clonard (Spain, 1770), but is in no sane sense the XXIX Earl
(Ireland, whenever). If there ever was such a title (for which no
evidence has been provided), it would have passed to the elder male
line of the Sutton Dudleys, and not gone to the younger son of the
Viceroy at all. If it was some later cration among the Irish family,
it would have ended with the claimed illegitimacy, or if that is
apocryphal, as reported by the pedigree associated with the decision
in his favor by the Spanish body, then it went into abeyance with the
last male-line member, the compiler's great-grandfather, and no
Spanish court or body would have any right to resolve an Irish peerage
issue.
While I mention the illegitimacy, there is something puzzling me about
that. If Queen Isabella II, while married, gave birth to Serafin de
Sutton a year before she gave birth, supposedly by the same father, to
Alfonso XII, why, then, was Alfonso XII the child who succeeded?
The other thing I find curious: this Spanish compiler is using the
Suttons in order to claim an English noble descent, while a line to
the same Sutton lords (connecting via the Blount/Sancha de Ayala
marriage) is used by Americans to claim noble Spanish descent. It
just goes to show the draw of the exotic.
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
<5c51b3f0-7a6b-49d5...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
t...@clearwire.net wrote:
Todd, thanks for looking at the early stuff. I hadn't even bothered to
get around to it, other than to notice that the nonexistent earldom was
allegedly conferred by Henry II in 1170. I didn't get as far as the
fictitious male-line descent from Charlemagne, but it's hardly
surprising given the other fantasies shoveled together here.
> While I mention the illegitimacy, there is something puzzling me about
> that. If Queen Isabella II, while married, gave birth to Serafin de
> Sutton a year before she gave birth, supposedly by the same father, to
> Alfonso XII, why, then, was Alfonso XII the child who succeeded?
The Isabel II fantasy is the baldest of all these, and the one most
likely to draw the ire of this man's peers if he is indeed the holder of
a legitimate modern Spanish title.
> The other thing I find curious: this Spanish compiler is using the
> Suttons in order to claim an English noble descent, while a line to
> the same Sutton lords (connecting via the Blount/Sancha de Ayala
> marriage) is used by Americans to claim noble Spanish descent. It
> just goes to show the draw of the exotic.
This is precisely why it's so interesting. Grass is greener, I suppose.
Leticia Cluff
I was particularly intrigued by the family tree showing the two sons
born to Queen Elizabeth I, Francis Alias Bacon Sutton Dudley Tudor and
Robert Alias Devereux Sutton Dudley Tudor:
Tish
Nathaniel Taylor
Leticia Cluff <letici...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
> I was particularly intrigued by the family tree showing the two sons
> born to Queen Elizabeth I, Francis Alias Bacon Sutton Dudley Tudor and
> Robert Alias Devereux Sutton Dudley Tudor:
>
> http://gw.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=iraird&lang=en;m=D;p=john;n=sutton+dudley;
> oc=3&siblings=on¬es=on&t=T&v=5&image=on
Ah, I missed this too. Poor guy.
Douglas Richardson
<
< The other thing I find curious: this Spanish compiler is using the
< Suttons in order to claim an English noble descent, while a line to
< the same Sutton lords (connecting via the Blount/Sancha de Ayala
< marriage) is used by Americans to claim noble Spanish descent. It
< just goes to show the draw of the exotic.
<
< taf
Well, what I find curious is how taf can ramble on for so many
paragraphs about historical figures and his interpretation of
historical events, and not cite even one source or one weblink.
One would think that taf could find at least something to cite to back
up his statements, ESPECIALLY if he is talking about history and
genealogy, which are so heavily dependant on accurate source
citations.
Hopefully taf can do better with future posts.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
t...@clearwire.net
> Please press on the following URL link:
>
> http://www.irenesutton.co.uk/html/body_sutton_waters.html
>
> There you will read the following text written by an English Sutton!
> - who I have never seen in my life.......for the moment. (Do not
> worry there are many others, in or out of England):
>
> QUOTE
. . .
> The Normans were commonly believed to be of French origin but, more
> accurately, they were of Viking origin. The Vikings landed in the
> Orkneys and Northern Scotland about the year 870 A.D., under their
> King, Stirgud the Stout. Later, under their Earl, Thorfinn Rollo, they
> invaded France about 910 A.D. The French King, Charles the Simple,
> after Rollo laid siege to Paris, finally conceded defeat and granted
> northern France to Rollo. Duke William, who invaded and defeated
> England in 1066, was descended from the first Duke Rollo of Normandy.
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> Believe me that this is a non exhaustive text, in fact we could write
> a book about this great family called Sutton (First House) and Dudley
> (Second House).
It is not a very accurate one either. Take for example the above
paragraph. "Stirgud the Stout" is a botched attempt at rendering
Sigurd the Stout, jarl of the Orkneys. He is legendary, not
historical. There never was any such person as Thorfinn Rollo. The
author is trying to give the historical Rollo a fictional pedigree by
making him identical to someone in the Orkneyingasaga (which is
curious, because the Orkneyingasaga itself tries to do the same thing,
only it identifies Rollo with a completely different individual.
taf
Peter Stewart
> In article
> <5c51b3f0-7a6b-49d5...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> t...@clearwire.net wrote:
>
> Todd, thanks for looking at the early stuff. I hadn't even bothered to
> get around to it, other than to notice that the nonexistent earldom was
> allegedly conferred by Henry II in 1170. I didn't get as far as the
> fictitious male-line descent from Charlemagne, but it's hardly
> surprising given the other fantasies shoveled together here.
I didn't have the interest to get even that far - how anyone could imagine
that an earldom created by Henry II might vanish from the historical record
is beyond understanding. To hope that this might be credited for an instant
by anyone else is beyond eccentricity. As you suggest, the Spanish nobility
will not be delighted by such a tacky imposture if it comes to wider notice.
Peter Stewart
t...@clearwire.net
> On Mar 4, 12:16 am, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> <
> < The other thing I find curious: this Spanish compiler is using the
> < Suttons in order to claim an English noble descent, while a line to
> < the same Sutton lords (connecting via the Blount/Sancha de Ayala
> < marriage) is used by Americans to claim noble Spanish descent. It
> < just goes to show the draw of the exotic.
> Well, what I find curious is how taf can ramble on for so many
> paragraphs about historical figures and his interpretation of
> historical events, and not cite even one source or one weblink.
This puzzled me. Curiosity is usually marked by a desire to learn, so
unexpected given the attitude typically displayed by this poster. If
he was really curious, he would ask about some specific aspect of the
post that puzzled him, but no. He posts, not because he questions
anything that was said, and not because he wants to learn anything
more, and not to contribute to the subject under discussion, but
solely to launch an attack on my posting. Curious indeed.
Curiosity also can reflect an observation of novelty, but that can't
apply here either, as there is nothing novel about posting without
reference - this group existed for over a decade with posters
contributing however and however much they saw fit before one specific
poster, this specific poster, started demanding that anyone who
disagrees with him about anything must provide a reference, not just
when appropriate but any time they post (even though he himself only
provides them when convenient). This ridiculous demand is the novelty,
but is only applied when he wants to stifle criticism, or as in this
case, simply to launch a backhanded attack on another poster.
No, Mr. Richardson is lying (itself curious given that he just made a
post whined about other posters lying - he pulls the old Charlie
Brown, "why is everybody always picking on me", and yet two hours
later here he is mugging someone in an alley). He is not curious. He
is just mean spirited, vindictive and hypocritical.
> One would think that taf could find at least something to cite to back
> up his statements, ESPECIALLY if he is talking about history and
> genealogy, which are so heavily dependant on accurate source
> citations.
One would think that from this that my sole reason for participating
here is to earn a gold star from the teacher. Only in your most
delusional moments could you possibly imagine a world in which I give
a rat's @$$ what Mr. Richardson thinks of my posts. That someone who
on a daily basis acts in a manner that endangers the entire group via
his self-centered egomaniacal crossposting would claim some moral high
ground from which to pontificate about appropriate newsgroup behavior
is laughable in and of itself. However, that he would choose to
intimidate other posters by making a demand that is often impractical
or illogical and always inconsiderate of those who have less access to
records than he does is a truly sad indication of the depths to which
he would allow himself to sink. The fact that he himself frequently
fails to meet this faux standard only highlights the hypocrisy of the
demand and demonstrates the bad faith in which it is made, and this
within two hours of throwing a wine and cheese party without the
cheese.
> Hopefully taf can do better with future posts.
. . . he condescendingly says . . .and this from one who repeatedly
claims to be here to make friends.
Mr. Richardson can take Dick Cheney's advice to Pat Leahy, which seems
appropriate under the circumstances.
taf
Peter Stewart
<t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:0e67039e-d2a2-41fb...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Mr. Richardson can take Dick Cheney's advice to Pat Leahy, which seems
> appropriate under the circumstances.
He doesn't need to take the first part of this advice, "Go", since he is
already, premanently, in position to undertake the rest.
Peter Stewart
wjhonson
>The title then seems to go into eclipse
> for several decades until John de Sutton, Viceroy of Ireland (15th
> century) is the next Earl given.
>
> Ignoring the fact that British Earldoms pass to the eldest son, the
> next Earl is not Sir John's eldest son, but rather (supposedly) his
> third, Thomas. I don't know it what follows, connecting Sutton of
> Sutton to the Irish line is valid or invented, but if Sir John was
> Earl of Clonard, such a title would not have passed to his third son.
> There is another change, though. Now the Earl of Clonard becomes Count
> de Clonard, an anachronistic title. Again the claim fails. Earl or
> Count, the title that is said to exist is an Irish one, not a French
> or Spanish one, which will become relevant later.
>
----------------
There is a DNB for this particular John Sutton who was Viceroy
it names his sons as Edmund, John, William and Oliver in that order
and no more
http://books.google.com/books?id=XjcJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA108
DNB, "Sutton, John"
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
> Well, what I find curious is how taf can ramble on for so many
> paragraphs about historical figures and his interpretation of
> historical events, and not cite even one source or one weblink.
>
> One would think that taf could find at least something to cite to back
> up his statements, ESPECIALLY if he is talking about history and
> genealogy, which are so heavily dependant on accurate source
> citations.
>
> Hopefully taf can do better with future posts.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Hm, what curious hypocrisy we have here.
No sources + no weblinks = ignore.
MA-R