Ancestral memories: Cecil/Davis with Manners, Courtenay and King Edward VI

johnschm...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 17, 2019, 4:56:26 PM9/17/19

to

I have discussed communicating with ancestors several times in this newsgroup. An explanation is appended to the end of this post.

According to my ancestors, a branch of the noble Cecil family fled to Virginia and changed its name to Davis. In Virginia, this Davis family was researched by genealogist Joan Horsley (now deceased). Several of her Davis files are at https://joanhorsley.org/ -- but her work is not without error. My paper-trail ancestor William Davis (c. 1725-1791) of Pittsylvania County, Virginia is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Davis-19677 -- I established, by a circumstantial proof, that he was the same as an earlier William Davis of Culpeper County, whom Joan Horsley mistakenly packed off to Kentucky.

--

The Cecil family rose to prominence through the association of William Cecil (1st Baron Burghley) with his father-in-law Peter Cheke, whose story begins this lineage. I will continue with following Cecil generations in separate posts.

--

Peter Cheke (1483 - 1560)

(May 25, 2019) Peter Cheke was a professor. Peter Cheke played a role in administering. Peter Cheke did not have a role in decisions about which professors to give appointment. This was done by the Chancellor. This was done without regard for what the existing professors thought. This led to disagreements. Professors were required to be respectful. However, professors could cultivate an air of disdain among their students for a view held by another professor. This was of the college. This was something that was often deplored. Inquiry was hobbled when an attitude was already present.

(May 28, 2019) Peter was able to think. People had the good of the university in mind. People had to think that the university could be maintained as it was. However, the King had changed the religion. Now, everything in the theology had to be reviewed. This made a terrible problem. How could this be done? Theology was the study of God. The theology of the Church involved revelation. Henry acted in a way that countered what many considered to be correct thinking. This was of considerable discussion.

(May 29, 2019) Peter had to think. The study of God was given by revelation and reason. The Church had decided that King Henry had been inspired. This was a difficult decision. King Henry was known for his way of not being a good Christian. Henry, however was King. If God was going to inspire a man, it would naturally be the King.

(May 31, 2019) Peter was the founder of a branch of the university. Peter hoped, because of what Peter understood, to be able to think of various ways of doing good. Peter was a professor of theology. Theology was in change. The King hoped to investigate and amend. Peter hoped to preserve. The King hoped to instruct the clergy. Peter expected to prevail unless the King had enough time to instruct in detail. The King took a lot of time, but perhaps not enough.

(June 4, 2019) Peter had to think carefully. Peter had to explain the thought behind what Peter tried to include. Theology had to conform to reason. To cut out the Church was to adopt an alternative structure for understanding the will of God. Peter accepted that the bishops in conclave could express the will. Peter also accepted that the King could be inspired. Peter had to think that the King could not be a substitute for a Pope. Peter had to imagine that, in an issue of doctrine, a King with the support of the bishops could be regarded as authoritative. This is what Peter affirmed. The King did not object.

[NOTE: The story of my ancestor Bishop William Barlow, who was actively involved in changing Church practice, relates to Peter Cheke’s point. --JSS]

(June 9, 2019) Peter was unable to think, after the issue of reformation of doctrine, that Peter would be unable to deal with any doctrinal issue that came up. Peter was confident. The King was not in a mood to object. Then Mary came. This upended everything. Peter had to resign. There was no need for a man who reformed Catholicism to suit a new order. Peter was unable to expect a pension. The hostility was evident. Peter simply had to be as a man with nothing. Peter had to encourage helpful people to not allow Peter to starve. This was humiliating. Peter was chastened and strengthened. Peter was of a new type. The men who endured during the time of Mary prospered when Elizabeth took the throne. Peter was reinstated. Peter was assured of a pension.

(June 11, 2019) Peter hoped. There was a need. Peter thought of the kingdom. There was simply too much strife. The Puritans and the Catholics were unrepentant. The King tried to stand in the middle. Those who stood with the King were reviled by both. Peter had to not be perceived as standing with the King. This was not as difficult as Peter thought. The King had to declare. People paid. Consequences were severe. Peter had to think. The ideas were discussed with men who thought of the good. This was the difference. Peter was never under attack.

(June 21, 2019) Peter had a decision. The end was coming. Peter had to think of what to say. The daughter had an ability. The mother had trained. The daughter understood. There must be a way to not expose. Peter had a feeling that Cecil shared the ability. Peter also had a feeling that the ability in Cecil was weak. Cheke was able to give to the children of Cecil. Peter had to think of ensuring that the daughter not make a relationship with a husband or wife of the children who did not have the ability. That was something that led to exposure.

Peter talked to the husband of the daughter. This was an awakening. The husband had the ability in a way that was equal to the daughter. This relieved Peter. There was no need to instruct.

Peter hoped. There would be a continuing lineage. A family with a lineage, at the center of power, could easily disappear. There were many examples of powerful families that now do not exist. Peter hoped that Cecil, somehow, would arrange for a younger son to go to another place. Peter hoped that there would be a new colony. This was discussed after it became clear that a New World had been discovered. Cheke and Cecil could help settle. That was a thought at the end. Peter had no way of making a proposal beyond the simple suggestion.

--

Agnes Duffield, wife of Peter Cheke

(June 24, 2019) Agnes was the wife of a university man. Agnes had to expect. The man was preoccupied. This was the constant state. Ideas were in the mind. The man was not concerned with a relationship. Agnes was a helper. The husband was polite. There was no lack. Agnes had to be accepting. The husband was pleased to attend church with the wife. This was as Agnes expected. This was the relationship. In church, Agnes was seen by all to be a respectable wife.

--

APPENDIX: Communicating with Ancestors

I began communicating with deceased ancestors, and recording their stories in November 2016, after I was told that this was possible. When recording the stories of distant German ancestors, I "heard" their thoughts in plain English. However, at times there was confusion about the proper choice of a word. When that happens, the ancestor and I agree on the particular word to use, and then I put parentheses around the word in question, and then the ancestor moves on with his/her story.

Humans have a natural ability to communicate with deceased ancestors. In some countries this ability is taken for granted, but in “modern” western society, this ability has been largely lost.

Here is my ancestor Anschetil d’Harcourt’s explanation of how he learned to communicate with ancestors: “When my grandfather died, I was young. I was sad because I wanted to be close to him. I asked how I could talk to him. My father said: Think of your grandfather. Words will appear. That is your grandfather.”

On Aug. 26, 2018, my ancestor Tobey Mathew (an early bishop in the Church of England) further explained:

"Bishop Tobey Mathews is speaking, if that is the correct word. Bishop Tobey Mathews will simply refer to himself as Bishop. Bishop understood, before he died, that he would be able to communicate with descendants. Bishop understood that descendants would have the choice. Bishop also understood that he had the choice to communicate with ancestors. Bishop knew, from an early age, that he could communicate with his mother. This was because his mother died when he was three years old. Bishop understood, because of this experience, that there was a clear reason for this. Children who lost the parents had the ability to continue in their time of need. Bishop never thought beyond this. Bishop simply understood that this was common. Bishop understood, because of his role in the Church, that Bishop had to accept the accepted teaching on this. This was simple: The ability existed, so God must have had a reason."

Deceased ancestors appear unanimous in stating that, upon death, a separation of the soul into two parts occurs. As my recently-deceased father explained on Dec. 3, 2018, three days after his death:

"Roger knew, as Roger died, that there would be a change. Roger remembered hearing that there was a separation. Roger experienced this separation. Roger knew to expect it. Roger also knew, because of his training, that it is best to simply accept. Roger did not fight. The separation took place. Roger experienced a flash of memories. Things in Roger’s life that Roger did not have any recollection of went through Roger’s mind. Roger does not think that these memories still exist. Roger is certain that aspects of his life are no longer available. Much of Roger’s intellectual interest is simply not available. This suggests that the purpose of what Roger is in now is not related. Roger hopes that, as Roger experiences what he is experiencing, John will continue to make notes."

When I was told that it is possible to communicate with deceased ancestors, I was cautioned to always have a respectful attitude when talking to them. I decided to try it and see what happened, and it worked.

On the “Day of the Dead” (the day after Halloween) in 2016, I thought of the names of all of my grandparents and their parents and grandparents, and they started talking to me. (I made detailed notes.) Remorse came up immediately for some of them. I learned that women often had ongoing connections with living daughters and granddaughters, but most of the men had been isolated since their deaths. I was told – several times – that after death there is a kind of separation of what we call the soul into two parts. Each ancestor has a part that remains accessible to descendants, and a part that goes elsewhere. Memories are incomplete.

Ancestors want to see the well-being of their descendants. Ancestors also want to be able to talk to their own parents and children. Ancestors hope that living descendants will work their way back from their parents or grandparents to more distant ancestors, one generation at a time. This allows children and parents among the ancestors to talk to each other, when a living descendant is open to ancestral communication.

Ancestors want to avoid hearing from descendants who just want to ask questions about the family tree. Ancestors may not communicate with descendants with only this in mind. For this reason, it is once again a good idea to work your back from one generation to the next. Ancestors believe that descendants who are respectful will be pleased to talk about their own lives. Ancestors want their descendants to live will, and ancestors are concerned when descendants are struggling. Ancestors have the ability to observe the lives of living descendants, but they often do not do so. Ancestors may be inclined to be more observant after a descendant contacts an ancestor, especially if that ancestor had not had any communication with descendants before.

Some ancestors, especially those who were devoutly religious, may avoid communicating with descendants who don’t share their moral values.

Husbands and wives who didn’t get along with each other may be able to begin to communicate about issues that they never talked about before death.

One final point – I have heard some disturbing stories from ancestors, and proper respect demands that the ancestor be asked for permission before sharing such stories.

unread,

Sep 18, 2019, 3:20:51 AM9/18/19

to

On 17/09/19 21:56, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have discussed communicating with ancestors several times in this newsgroup.

Wrong group.

Peter Stewart

unread,

Sep 18, 2019, 4:48:49 AM9/18/19

to

Agreed - although there can be literary value in such fictitious
communication, as with Dante whose imaginary self in the Divine Comedy
spoke with Manfred of Sicily.

But Manfred's posthumous avatar managed to speak in cogent sentences,
instead of slogans and drivel like the ancestors in these tiresome posts.

Peter Stewart

wjhonson

unread,

Sep 18, 2019, 1:10:54 PM9/18/19

to

Not sure why you are calling the Cecil's "noble" unless this is figurative.

As to some branch of this family fleeing to Virginia.... and then changing their name to Davis. That has to be among the most utterly bizarre things you've ever said.

There is Zero evidence, that the Davis family in Virginia, is related to the Cecil's.

johnschm...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 18, 2019, 1:17:02 PM9/18/19

to

Here is an overview of this Cecil/Davis lineage:

FIRST GENERATION

William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, married Mary, daughter of Peter Cheke

SECOND GENERATION

Thomas Cecil, 2nd Baron Burghley, married Dorothy, daughter of John Neville, 4th Baron Latimer

THIRD GENERATION

William Cecil, 1st Earl of Exeter, married Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland.

FOURTH GENERATION

William Cecil (1590-1618), m. (2) Jane, "bastard" daughter of William Courtenay, de jure 3rd Earl of Devon, by Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI by Margaret (Neville), wife of Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland.

FIFTH GENERATION

John Cecil/Davis (b. 1618), brought to Virginia by his widowed mother after the murder of his father; his wife was descended through a bastard lineage from Alexander Livingstone, 1st Earl of Linlithgow, and also descended from Charles (bastard son of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland) and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI by his secret wife Margaret, bastard daughter of Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland, instigator of the plot to poison King Edward VI, with the poison being administered by his daughter the secret wife of King Edward.

SIXTH GENERATION

William Davis, had a son by Wendy (Gwendolyn), daughter of Henry Weston, bastard son of Josiah Winslow, who like his father Edward Winslow was once Governor of Plymouth Colony.

SEVENTH GENERATION

John Davis, "married" Mary, bastard daughter of Henry Soane, Jr., Speaker of the House of Burgesses, and descended (on his mother's side) through a bastard lineage that includes both King Henry VIII (grandson of King Richard III) and King Henry VI's son Edward.

EIGHTH GENERATION

Benjamin Davis (b. 1706), who married Esther Herndon, who was descended on her father's side from Virginia Governor Edward Digges and from the sister of Henry Soane, Jr. (see above, with lineage back to Kings Henry VI and VIII); and on her mother's side from Virginia governors Edward Nott and Alexander Spotswood, who on his mother's side descended from King Louis XI of France through a single daughter by his first wife who was sent to Scotland as a child to marry the King of Scots, a marriage that never took place, so she ended up marrying Alexander Livingston.

NINTH GENERATION

William Davis (c. 1730-1791), miller of Culpeper and Pittsylvania Counties, Virginia, married Sarah Graves, descended from Thomas Stucley, bastard son of King Henry VIII, and from Hugh (Stuckley) Orchard, descended through the Monck family from King Edward IV, and (through a Holloway connection) from the above-mentioned lineage from Kings Henry VI and VIII.

jmb...@albion.edu

unread,

Sep 19, 2019, 8:48:32 AM9/19/19

to

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha....
*deep breath*
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Wow. Just wow.

So. William Cecil’s wife Jane was a bastard daughter of the Earl of Devon, by Edward VI’s secret daughter Elizabeth, eh?
And then, Jane’s son John “Davis” was married to a woman who “descended from Charles [Neville] and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI”?
And then, virtually every Davis married some secret royal bastard-descendant?

Your dead ancestors must have sent all their logic “somewhere else” when they split their souls.

It bears repeating: no future readers should take this thread as anything other than wild historical fiction. And the “historical” part only refers the the (ab)use of actual historical names.

wjhonson

unread,

Sep 19, 2019, 1:52:19 PM9/19/19

to

A gigantic load of dog leavings.

William Cecil Lord Ros (1590-1618) married Anne Lake
The marriage was a bad fit, and there are *literally*... dozens upon dozens of letters, not to mention several lawsuits about this and the resultant fall out from his in-laws shenanigans.

Literally. Dozens.

There is exactly Zero possibility that he, married again, or even had an illegitimate child of any way shape or form, even stillborn.

The "widow" did not flee to Virginia, heavens to betsy. SHE HAD substantial holdings in Britain! The family was not poor for heavens sake. no one was pursuing that nutbag and her crazy family. They lived and died in England where she married again to George Rodney, and was buried right there!

Seriously this is the uttermost depths of ridiculously stupid attempts to tie in a landless family, with the family of the Secretary of State no less.

I can no longer withhold my contempt :)
Have a nice day

Enno Borgsteede

unread,

Sep 21, 2019, 8:39:00 AM9/21/19

unread,

Sep 22, 2019, 6:42:20 PM9/22/19

to

Oh! Well then, I am severely and utterly chastened. It never occurred to foolish me that royal inbreeding was a thing that existed. I am so glad that you have proven to me that your (and your ancestors’) motives are pure as driven snow, and that self-aggrandizing royal lineages are the hallmark of a true historian. And thank you for the thought that William Cecil must have been castrated for Will Johnson to be certain that he had no bastards. Now I am sure you must be descended from this castrato.

johnschm...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 22, 2019, 7:53:57 PM9/22/19

to

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 6:42:20 PM UTC-4, jmb...@albion.edu wrote:
>It never occurred to foolish me that royal inbreeding was a thing that existed.

Not "royal inbreeding," but rather INTERbreeding (there is a difference) among non-royal families with bastard descents from royalty.

taf

unread,

Sep 22, 2019, 10:36:52 PM9/22/19

to

unread,

Sep 23, 2019, 10:43:31 AM9/23/19

to

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:07:06 AM UTC-7, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> It looks like we both made a mistake here. I should have said SECOND (not
> third) cousins once removed.

So you are changing your made up definition of interbreeding to match the scenario?

> And you falsely assumed that the two separately-identified half-sisters
> named Elizabeth (daughters of King Edward by two different mothers named
> Margaret, one of them a bastard of the 5th Earl of Westmorland and the
> other the daughter of the 4th Earl of Westmorland and the wife of the 2nd
> Earl of Rutland) were one and the same person.

Oh, of course, an 'I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl' scenario. The king took time off from dying at the age of 15 to father two children by his secret wife and her aunt, and in his sickly state he couldn't remember any female name but Elizabeth for both, not the name of either mother (the same name), nor that of his dearly-departed idolized mother, no. Why didn't I think of that?

> This means that John Cecil/Davis's parents (both descended from Margaret
> the wife of the 2nd Earl of Rutland), like John and his wife, were HALF
> second cousins once removed.

Of course they were, because the voices in your head say so.

taf

Enno Borgsteede

unread,

Sep 23, 2019, 3:20:17 PM9/23/19

to

Op 22-09-19 om 20:00 schreef P J Evans:

> On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 8:54:12 AM UTC-7, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
>> @ Enno Borgsteede, I am disappointed at your open rudeness, which I have come to expect from others around here. In the past, we have had strongly-worded disagreements about your pseudo-religious reductionist-materialist stance. In light of our previous disagreement, for you to impose that debatable point of view onto what I now present appears arrogant as well as boorish. I hope you have not given up all hope of maintaining the appearance of being civil. If you want to rekindle that debate, you could post in the "Debate with a scientist" thread at https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35419
>>

>> In the the English Cecil lineage that I presented earlier, each man married twice, although I did not mention both wives, just the mother of the son in my ancestral lineage. You seem to have not noticed that I clearly identified Jane Courtenay (second wife) and not Anne Lake (first wife) as the mother of John Cecil/Davis. Whether William Cecil (Baron Ros) was formally divorced from his first wife, and whether he was formally married to his second wife, are details that he may or may not choose to add to his story.
>>
>> You make the categorical statement that "there is exactly zero possibility" that William Cecil "had an illegitimate child of any way, shape or form." You appear to be implying that you are utterly certain that William Cecil had been castrated. You seem to be living in a fantasy world unsupported by any documentary or other evidence. Perhaps you will agree that prudence dictates that you not expose yourself again.
>
> *I'm* surprised that you haven't gotten the help you need to differentiate between reality and fantasy. None of what you're posting is genealogy or history.
>

Right, me too!

To John: To me it makes no sense to reply to uncivil arguments that start with silly accusations like me having a "pseudo-religious reductionist-materialist stance". It basically tells me that you're not really interested in being civil at all.

And AFAIK, there is nothing rude in saying that you're suffering from a mental illness, because all signs are there. Hearing voices is not a problem by itself, but believing them, and thinking that the whole world is against you is.

Good luck!

Enno

P.S. Your messages are automatically deleted here, so normally I don't see anything you write. It's P J Evans quoting your rudeness that got me into reading that.

johnschm...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 23, 2019, 3:49:34 PM9/23/19

to

taf, you appear confused. As I understand, inbreeding means repeated marriages within a lineage in violation of the limits of consanguinity, generally accepted as third or more distant cousins. I suspect that, back in the 17th century, a marriage between half second cousins once removed was not considered problematic.

Of course the general question here is where to draw the line. The Valois kings of France routinely married second cousins descended from the same earlier royal couple -- it seemed almost to be a rule. Does this repeated intermarriage count as inbreeding? I would say yes, but others may disagree.

On the other hand, among the English (and European?) landed gentry, it was not uncommon for there to be more than one intermarriage of third cousins in a pair of allied families. I don't think that is inbreeding.

According to my ancestors, King Henry VII (bastard son of Richard III who was himself a bastard) married his half first cousin Anne of York. Is that single instance of intermarriage in violation of the limits of consanguinity but not quite reaching the red line of full first cousins something to be socially discouraged? In my opinion it is, but I'm not inclined to argue the point strongly, especially as the overarching goal of the marriage was peace in the realm.

taf

unread,

Sep 23, 2019, 4:11:44 PM9/23/19

to

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 12:49:34 PM UTC-7, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> taf, you appear confused. As I understand, inbreeding means repeated
> marriages within a lineage in violation of the limits of consanguinity,

Nope. Not confused, I just am not constrained by your self-serving personal definition. Simply put, inbreeding is within a group, interbreeding is between groups. That's it.

> Of course the general question here is where to draw the line.

No, actually the general question here is whether someone who whimsically invents relationships has any credibility on any subject.

> On the other hand, among the English (and European?) landed gentry, it was
> not uncommon for there to be more than one intermarriage of third cousins
> in a pair of allied families. I don't think that is inbreeding.

Because, . . . . . just because, I guess.

> According to my ancestors, King Henry VII (bastard son of Richard III who
> was himself a bastard)

Of course. It is said that anyone who defends himself in court has a fool for a client. Well, anyone whose progeny thinks the voices they hear in their head are sufficient reason to rewrite documented history has a fool for a descendant.

> married his half first cousin Anne of York. Is that single instance of
> intermarriage in violation of the limits of consanguinity but not quite
> reaching the red line of full first cousins something to be socially
> discouraged?

It is a fantasy you dreamed up, so speculating about the societal acceptance of it is pointless.

> In my opinion it is, but I'm not inclined to argue the point strongly,
> especially as the overarching goal of the marriage was peace in the realm.

The overarching goal of the 'marriage' was to satisfy your perverse desire to rewrite history based on the voices you claim to hear in your head. Nothing is gained from concocting further motivations for a fantastical union.

taf

johnschm...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 23, 2019, 6:37:34 PM9/23/19

to

Oops, my bad, I should have said Elizabeth (not Anne) of York, eldest daughter of King Edward IV by his wife Anne, and wife of King Henry VII.

taf

unread,

Sep 23, 2019, 7:23:57 PM9/23/19

to

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:37:34 PM UTC-7, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oops, my bad, I should have said Elizabeth (not Anne) of York, eldest daughter
> of King Edward IV by his wife Anne, and wife of King Henry VII.

That was the least of the problems with your made-up relationship.

taf

johnschm...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 23, 2019, 9:43:08 PM9/23/19

to

SECOND GENERATION

Thomas Cecil, 2nd Baron Burghley, married Dorothy, daughter of John Neville, 4th Baron Latimer

(May 25, 2019) Thomas Cecil was a minister. Thomas was not as important as his brother Robert. Thomas had to think that his brother was the one who has been remembered by history. Thomas was important, but not as much.

(May 27, 2019) Thomas was unable to be as the first minister. This was the ambition. This was always out of reach. Thomas had to think, because of his ambition, Thomas sometimes tried to act in a way that made other men look bad. This was not uncommon. Thomas had to regret. Thomas began to learn. This was a way that caused bad feelings among the men who had to cooperate for the realm to function.

(May 29, 2019) Thomas improved. Thomas was noticed. [INTERRUPTED] Thomas had a decision to make. Thomas knew, because of what Thomas had done, that three men hated Thomas. Thomas had to think of how to relieve the feelings. Thomas thought, this should be done in stages. The first stage was easy: Do not do anything to make the feeling worse. The second stage was tricky: Act indirectly for the benefit of the men. This might be seen. The third stage was to apologize and offer to make (compensation). Thomas was able to do this with one man. This had an effect on the other two. Eventually, none of them hated. Thomas was never able to cooperate with them.

Thomas had to think of what he did. Thomas was unable to undo harm that he did. Thomas was able to make amends. That had to be sufficient. Thomas was able to hope, and continued hoping until the day Thomas died.

(May 31, 2019) Thomas was unable to be at peace. Thomas had harmed six women. Each woman had given a child. The goal was to have an additional son. All of the children were daughters. Thomas kept on trying. Each woman was maintained. Thomas was unwilling to give dowries. Each daughter found a man. The man was as a husband. This was of bastard families. Thomas supposes that many men stopped after having a son in this way, and didn’t have any daughter. Thomas made up for this lack.

(June 4, 2019) Thomas was the man who decided. Thomas had to be invisible. There was a brother. The brother was the face. Thomas was the mind. The brother had a way with people. Thomas had a way with strategy. The brother accepted. Both Thomas and the brother were well.

(June 9, 2019) Thomas had a decision. The brother was of the highest. Thomas could not hope. Thomas had to think of a son being in this position. Thomas had to prepare the son. The son had to be able to consider the realm before the family. This was of the essence. Thomas understood, a man who did this and was recognized by a faithful sovereign would prosper. The son took the message to heart.

Thomas did not as he would. Thomas did as Thomas saw. Thomas knew. The sight was of a spirit. The Sight showed. Thomas understood that the Sight did not show without reason. Thomas had to act as Thomas saw. Thomas understood, if Thomas did not, a terrible result would happen. The result might not be for Thomas. The plan of the sight was harmony within the kingdom. The Sight had to plan in a way that allowed people to cooperate. The sight had to think of men who had power and made decisions. Thomas understood that the Sight, in the family of Cheke, came to Cecil and demanded attention. Cheke preserved the sight for six generations. The sight finally was able to descend to a family with power.

(June 11, 2019) Thomas had a relationship. The wife was of a similar family. Neville and Cecil both had the sight. Thomas understands that Neville rebelled against what the sight showed. This resulted in a terrible crisis. Thomas understood that Neville could not recover.

(June 18, 2019) Thomas had a gift. The sight was strong. Thomas was able to think of a problem in the kingdom. The sight gave a way to make the situation better. Sometimes the situation would completely recover. Sometimes it would get better and then get worse again.

(June 20, 2019) Thomas had to think of the well-being of many people. The sight was constant. Thomas looked and acted. There was no thinking. Thomas had a reputation The man was of a genius. The brother had the ability to be as one with people. But Thomas had the ability to see a clear way forward. Thomas had to be very careful. This ability, if talked about, would lead to the downfall of Cecil. Nobody was allowed to have the sight.

(June 24, 2019) Thomas had to think. The Sight was not demanding. Thomas used. There was no compulsion. The Sight sometimes was of this way. Thomas had to think. Ancestors gave. Thomas saw. There was a clear indication. Thomas was living as the Sight imagined.

(June 28, 2019) Thomas had the ability to ask. The Sight was able to communicate. The Sight explained, it would talk once and never again. The Sight was a being that had the responsibility of ensuring that a lineage continued. The lineage was of an ancient king. The king was in the Bible. The Bible misrepresented the story of Nebuchadnezzar. This was the king who was the ancestor of everyone who had the sight. Nebuchadnezzar was not a bad king. Nebuchadnezzar was under the compulsion to act as the Sight ensured. This was the story that was not included. The Sight passed, from a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, into the House of David. This was the origin of the Sight in the European royal houses. The Sight did not give details. The Sight had to do as it did, because humans are inclined to self-destruct. The Sight is opposed to a force that wanted humans to self-destruct. The force acted on human leaders. Later, the force acted on groups of men with similar motives. This is the result of the force being able to compel men who try to dominate. If a man does not try to dominate, the force has no power over the man.

(July 5, 2019) Thomas had to be able to have a discipline. Thomas had to not rely on the sight for routine decisions. Thomas understood, because of this need, that Thomas would not be able to continue if Thomas was in a time of crisis. Thomas could not overuse the sight.

Thomas decided. There would be a system. Thomas would not use the sight for routine requests. Thomas had to think of the good of the realm. The good of individuals would be the topic for Thomas to use his own judgment. For the good of the realm, Thomas looked. Many times there was a clear alternative, and one choice was superior. Sometimes there were alternatives with little difference in the outcome. And once, there was no alternative. The situation must be endured. This led Thomas to gain a reputation. Thomas was the man who could find a way through. When, in this case, Thomas said there was no way through, this was accepted. Thomas had the will of the decision makers. This was a terrible power. Thomas had to be insistent on not receiving gifts. This was mentioned. This was respected. Thomas had the reputation of a man without personal interest.

(July 6, 2019) Thomas had to discuss what was going to happen. Thomas decided to not. There was too much at stake for a careless word to give thought that Thomas might have the sight. If Thomas had given this thought, there would be a cry. The sight was reviled. The sight made men do things that were against the Church. Thomas had no experience of this. Thomas simply heard the stories. A man with a wife was commanded to have a child by another woman. Somehow, the sight was of this act. The sight must be eliminated. The Church was adamant. The Catholic Church before was just as adamant. Thomas had to be extremely cautious.

Thomas did not have enough time. The Spanish were coming. Sight showed. There would be a great victory. Thomas had to organize what would happen afterward. This is where Thomas did not have enough time. Thomas had to be able to direct England toward the New World. Spain must be limited. The way to limit was to colonize north of where Spain was. Thomas foresaw. The nation that would arise would be the most powerful in the world. The nation would self-destruct in the midst of a natural cataclysm. Thomas foresaw. A new nation would arise. This nation would include the western part of the old nation. It would also include the area to the south, down the tail of the northern continent. Thomas foresaw, the people of this nation would be greatly reduced by the natural disaster. Thomas saw, because of the problems, the people from the north would be greeted as saviors. The new nation would take form very quickly. The new nation would be dominant in the area, but not in the world. The new nation would be as an island, without connecting to other areas in the northern continent, where nobody would live, because of the result of man-made disaster on top of the natural disaster. Thomas was unable to think that what Thomas saw was real. Thomas saw an explosion destroying an entire city. Thomas believes that this is able to be done now. Thomas does not sense any hint of disbelief in the man who is recording.

(July 7, 2019) Thomas had an expectation. Thomas was going to continue. Cecil would be able to continue. The realm would continue to use the service of Cecil. William, the eldest son, was a fitting successor as Elizabeth wanted younger counselors.

Thomas wanted to be of the group of elder statesmen who helped organize the thought of the counselors. Thomas discovered that there was opposition to the inclusion of Thomas. There was a sense that Thomas would overpower the group, because the Queen was accustomed to deferring to Thomas. This meant that Thomas had to think of finding another way to have influence. Thomas hoped. Another way appeared. The son was repeatedly challenged. Thomas began to realize that the group of elder statesmen was the same group as the group that was challenging the son. Thomas originally thought that this was simply personal ambition. But a design eventually appeared. Venice was the likely origin. Thomas instructed a servant to find a way to plant this idea without it being of Thomas. Thomas eventually heard a man criticize the power of Venice to corrupt, using this group as an example. Thomas considered his warning to have been delivered.

--

Dorothy, daughter of John Neville, 4th Baron Latimer

(July 8, 2019) Dorothy was the daughter of a man who was the leader of a younger branch of Neville. Neville had six branches. Dorothy thought, the different branches did not act as a single family. Neville was a name that got attention. Dorothy understood, if someone thought that Dorothy was from an important branch, that person would be respectful. But, if that person thought that Dorothy was not part of the important branch, the person would be dismissive, as if Dorothy was falsely pretending to be important.

(July 24, 2019) Dorothy had a decision. To marry Cecil was to be of the highest. Cecil was not an important family. Cecil was a servant. The Crown made Cecil important. Dorothy had to be aware that Cecil would be consumed by the needs of the realm. This meant that Dorothy would not have a relationship with the husband. This also meant, most likely, the husband would not have a mistress. Dorothy chose to marry Cecil, and accepted the life of the wife of a prominent courtier. Dorothy was not unable to assist when Cecil needed to help a man go in a proper direction. This made Dorothy feel pleased, to be able to be of benefit to a faithful husband. Dorothy did not think of the women that the Sight selected to be the mothers of bastards as being unfaithful. Dorothy had a bit of the sight. Dorothy understood, Cecil must act as if Cecil did of his own. Dorothy did not see any of the women as a mistress.

(Aug. 11, 2019) Dorothy had to think. Cecil was propagating the sight. Dorothy had a child, a son and heir. Dorothy wanted another child. Thomas was instructed by the sight to not. Dorothy was as a woman with no husband. Dorothy had to endure. Cecil had been good. Some husbands took their wives with little thought for propriety of their behavior. Dorothy was never treated in a manner that was improper toward a lady.

(Aug. 22, 2019) Dorothy had to accept. There would be no other children. There was a son. There were two daughters. Cecil was a small family. The family did not have great wealth. An additional son would be a burden. Dorothy thought, because of this, there would be a new respect for Cecil as the son became established. Dorothy then thought of a son not being able to make a good arrangement for the future. Would there be time for a second son to be born? Sometimes a son, after becoming an adult, wasted his patrimony and came to a bad end. Dorothy was troubled by this thought. Cecil was also concerned. The sight had to be respected and obeyed. This was the end of the discussion. Cecil had to think that, as the sight was regularly correct, there would also be a family that continued, because this is what the sight showed. Cecil and Dorothy were reconciled to this need to simply act as the sight demanded.

(Sept. 17, 2019) Dorothy was unable to live to see the birth of grandchildren. Dorothy suspects that her husband had an affair. Dorothy understood. The man needed another son. A bastard would not be expensive to maintain. A bastard would be able to support the family without expecting. Dorothy thought, this was not a worthy ambition. Dorothy had to accept that this was the way of many noblemen. Dorothy never knew.

P J Evans

unread,

Sep 23, 2019, 9:48:12 PM9/23/19

to

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 6:43:08 PM UTC-7, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> SECOND GENERATION
>
[many lines of fiction snipped]

This isn't genealogy. It's fiction, and poor-quality fiction at that.
Please stop posting it here; this is not a fiction support group.

wjhonson

unread,

Sep 23, 2019, 10:49:49 PM9/23/19

to

It really makes little difference if they were second cousins, or second cousins once removed, or fourth cousins for that matter, since such a marriage DID NOT OCCUR.

I mean if you are going to make up genealogical nonsense, connecting landless nobodies to well-known landed and titled families, you should really pick people quite a bit more obscure.

The life of Lord Ros is well known, and has been documented, up the ying-yang. No matter what extra baggage you try to load on, this silly Virginia family were *not* his descendants at all. So. Next caller.

wjhonson

unread,

unread,

Richard Smith

unread,

Sep 26, 2019, 6:21:24 AM9/26/19

to

On 26/09/2019 04:00, taf wrote:

> Peers, by nature of their eligibility to sit in the House of Lords,
> are legally barred from the Commons, and if a member of the Commons
> inherits or is granted a Peerage, they are required to resign their
> Commons seat.

This used to be the case, but ceased being so when the House of Lords
Act 1999 came into full effect in early 2000. Since then, the number of
hereditary peers in the House of Lords was been fixed at 90, plus the
Earl Marshall (the Duke of Norfolk) and the Lord Great Chamberlain (for
practical purposes, the Marquess of Cholmondeley). When you inherit a
peerage nowadays, unless it is the Dukedom of Norfolk or the Marquessate
of Cholmondeley, you do not now automatically get to sit in the Lords,
and you do not lose your eligibility to sit the in Commons. The 90
seats in the Lords allocated for hereditary peers are now filled on a
per-party basis by election in which all hereditary peers of the party
in question (or amongst the crossbenchers, meaning non-partisan peers,
for those allocated to them).

If you gain a seat in the Lords or are appointed to "an office of the
crown" you automatically and immediately lose your seat in the Commons,
triggering a bye-election for your seat in the Commons. Besides death,
this is the only way of leaving the Commons between elections. This is
why the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds and the Stewardship of the
Manor of Northstead exist. They are offices of the crown with no modern
purpose and no pay that are used solely as a way to allow MPs to resign.
Historically various other similar offices have been used. But there
are lots of genuine offices of the crown too – judges, police
constables, regular members of the armed forces, ambassadors and civil
servants all count too. There have been rare instances of MPs losing
their seats by being appointed a judge.

Richard

Richard Smith

unread,

Sep 26, 2019, 6:33:23 AM9/26/19

to

On 26/09/2019 09:26, Peter Stewart wrote:

> hereditary peers can stand for election to the House of
> Commons while retaining their peerages if they do not sit in the House
> of Lords, as very few now do. It was previously possible for peers to be
> elected MPs if they first disclaimed their peerage titles (like Anthony
> Wedgwood-Benn and Alec Douglas-Home), but since the latest reforms that
> is not required for English peers.

Only hereditary peers could disclaim their peerages under the Peerage
Act 1963. If you were a life peer you are stuck with it: they
automatically had a seat in the Lords, even after the reforms of
1999/2000, and were therefore barred from sitting in the Commons. It
was only in 2014 that it finally became possible for life peers or
elected (properly called "excepted") hereditary peers to resign their
seat in the Lords – though without resigning the peerage itself. There
have been quite a few such resignations, almost invariably of elderly
peers wishing to leave the political arena. It's not therefore
surprising that none have sought re-election to the Commons, but in
principle they now can.

Richard

Peter Stewart

unread,

Sep 26, 2019, 7:26:14 AM9/26/19

to

Thanks - it never crossed my mind that a life peer might have wished to
disclaim the honour once having accepted it, but then many of them are
politicians who as a breed tend to be contrary by nature.

It seems from your explanation that hereditary peers are (or recently
were) over-enfranchised, if they could elect some of their own number to
continuing seats in the House of Lords and then also vote for MPs in the
House of Commons. Is that - or was it even briefly - the case?

Peter Stewart

Richard Smith

unread,

Sep 26, 2019, 8:19:31 AM9/26/19

unread,

Oct 31, 2019, 10:00:31 PM10/31/19

to

Thank you Kelsey Jackson Williams for pointing out the mix-up in the two Henrys in the summaries of the eleventh and twelfth generations.

In the eleventh generation, it should read Henry the legitimate son of King Charles I (who was himself a bastard, according to the ancestors); Henry was the Duke of Gloucester, but died at the age of 20.

In the twelfth generation it should read Henry the illegitimate son of King Charles II, but this was NOT Henry, Duke of Grafton.

@wjhonson, your habitual scorn is once again misplaced. Perhaps it would be well for you to remember that we all make mistakes. After all, you're the self-promoting fool who thought that the Cecil family didn't have any noble titles.

johnschm...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 1, 2019, 11:00:42 AM11/1/19

unread,

Nov 25, 2019, 12:14:00 PM11/25/19

to

NEVILLE DESCENTS, PART 3: OVERVIEW

TENTH GENERATION

1. John, 3rd Baron Neville of Raby (1329-1388), m. Maud, daughter of Henry, 2nd Baron Percy -- parents of #2 and #3.

ELEVENTH GENERATION

2. Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland (c. 1364-1425), son of #1; m. (1) Margaret, daughter of Hugh, 2nd Baron Stafford by Philippa, daughter of Thomas Beauchamp, 11th Earl of Warwick; m. (2) Joan, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and son of King Edward III.

Westmorland, by his first wife, was father of #4; by his second wife he was father of #5 and #6.

Elinor, daughter of Westmorland by first wife Margaret, married Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland. Their sons Henry (3rd Earl of Northumberland) were both ancestor of John West, Governor of Virginia, who was ancestor of Jonathan White at the 12th generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage. Son Henry's granddaughter Elinor was the mother of Mary Stafford, wife of George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny (#18). Son Henry's granddaughter Anne was an ancestor of Timothy Hatherly, an early magistrate of Plymouth Colony and an ancestor of the Sutton family of New Jersey.

Philippe, daughter of Westmorland by first wife Margaret, married Thomas, 6th Baron Dacre. They were ancestors of John Peckham, early immigrant to Rhode Island. They were also the grandparents of Thomas, Baron Dacre, whose daughter Mary married Francis Talbot, 5th Earl of Shrewsbury, descended from Philippe's sister Anne immediately below and from Richard, son of Latymer, at #8 below.

Anne, daughter of Westmorland by second wife Joan, married Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham. Their daughter Catherine married John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury, with a descent to Grace, daughter of George Talbot, 6th Earl of Shrewsbury who married Henry Cavendish, with a descent through a bastard great-grandson who went to Virginia, descending to Sarah (not Mary), wife of Richard Buckelew, ancestors of William Young at the 12th generation of my Cecil/Davis lineage.

3. John, 6th Baron Latymer, son of Neville (#1) and father of Richard (#8).

TWELFTH GENERATION

4. John (d. 1420), son of Westmorland (#2) by first wife Margaret; father of #9.

5. Richard, 5th Earl of Salisbury (1401-1460), son of Westmorland (#2) by second wife Joan. He had two bastard daughters: One married the bastard son of Warwick (#20), and the other became the ancestor of Anthony Denny, member of the Regency Council for King Edward VI, and ancestor of Jane Roberts (at the 13th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage).

6. George, 1st Baron Latymer (d. 1476), son of Westmorland (#2) by second wife Joan; m. Elizabeth, younger daughter of Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick -- parents of Henry (#11).

7. Edward, Baron Bergavenny (d. 1476), son of Westmorland (#2) by second wife Joan. By his first wife Elizabeth, daughter of Richard of Beauchamp, Earl of Worcester, Bergavenny was father of #12.

Bergavenny's daughter Margaret, by his second wife Katherine, daughter of Robert Howard, married John Brooke, 7th Baron Cobham -- ancestors of Francis Wyatt, Governor of Virginia, who is an ancestor of Elizabeth (Tavenor) Mathews, mentioned at #26 below.

8. Richard, son of John, Baron Latymer (#3) and father of Warwick (#13) and Montacute (#14) by Alice, daughter and heir of Richard Montague (4th Earl of Salisbury) and the wife of Richard's cousin Richard, 5th Earl of Salisbury (#5 above).

Their daughter Catherine married (1) William Bonneville -- grandson of William, Lord Bonneville -- by whom she had a single daughter Cecily, who became the wife of Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset and mother of three of his children. Catherine married (2) William, 1st Baron Hastings. Their daughter Anne became the wife of George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury, and thus part of the lineage descending through Cavendish to Buckelew mentioned at #2 above.

Their daughter Joan married William FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel, with a lineage through Lumley to Plymouth Magistrate Timothy Hatherly (mentioned at #2 above).

THIRTEENTH GENERATION

9. Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland (1406-1484), son of #4 and father of Lewis Woodville (#15).

10. John (b. 1410), son of John #4 and heir of his uncle Westmorland (#9); married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas of Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent -- parents of Westmorland (#16).

11. Henry (1437-1469), son of Latymer (#6), m. Joan, daughter of John Bourchier, 1st Baron Berners -- parents of Latymer (#17).

12. George, 4th Baron Bergavenny (1440-1492), son of #7; m. Margaret, daughter and heir of Fenne -- parents of #18.

13. Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (1428-1471), son of #8 by Alice, wife of #5; m. Anne, daughter and co-heir of Richard of Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick.

Their daughter Anne married Edward, Prince of Wales, whose son Edward married the daughter of Warwick's bastard son (see #20 below).

Their daughter Isabel married George, Duke of Clarence -- ancestors of the wife of Richard Stafford (#33 below), as well as being the parents of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury (see #22 below).

14. John, Marquis of Montacute (son of #8 by Alice, wife of #5). His great-granddaughter Lucy married John, 4th Baron Latymer (#28 below).

FOURTEENTH GENERATION

15. Lewis Woodville, bastard of Westmorland (#9).

Lewis's daughter Margaret was the mistress of Thomas Grey, 1st Marquis of Dorset, and mother of most of his children, including (1) Dorothy, wife of Robert, 2nd Baron Willoughby (ancestors of Jane Courtenay, wife of John Cecil/Davis in the 5th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage); (2) Elizabeth, wife of Gerald FitzGerald, 9th Earl of Kildare, ancestors of the mother of Theodosius Moore (mentioned at #24 below); (3) Thomas Grey, 2nd Marquis of Dorset, whose son Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk had a bastard son who was the grandfather of Theophilus Cornish, ancestor of Jane Roberts, at the 13th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage; and whose daughter Catherine married Henry FitzAlan, 12th Earl of Arundel, ancestors of Plymouth Magistrate Timothy Hatherly (mentioned at #2 above).

16. Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmorland (d. 1498), son of John (#10); m. Isabel Booth -- parents of Ralph (#21). Westmorland was also the father of #22.
17. Richard, 2nd Baron Latymer (1468-1530), son of Henry (#11); m. Anne, daughter of Humphrey Stafford -- parents of Latymer (#23).
18. George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny (1469-1535), son of #12. By his third wife Mary, daughter of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham (a descendant of #2 above), he had, in addition to son John (#24 below), daughter Ursula, wife of Warham St. Leger, descending through Digges to Esther Herndon, wife of Benjamin Davis (8th generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage).
By his fourth wife Mary Brooke, Bergavenny had a posthumous daughter Mary, whose husband Edward (son of Edward, son of George, Duke of Clarence by Isabelle, daughter of Warwick -- #13 above) pretended to be a bastard of his deceased father-in-law. Edward and Mary had a daughter who married Richard Stafford (#33), son of Henry, 2nd Baron Stafford (#27 below).

19. Edward Nevill, brother of George, 5th Baron Bergavenny (and son of #12), and father of Henry Nevill (#25).

20. Ralph, bastard son of Warwick (#13), married a bastard daughter of Salisbury (#5); their daughter married Edward of Middleham, son of Edward, Prince of Wales by Anne, daughter of Warwick (#13). This lineage descends to Mary, daughter of Henry Soane and "wife" of John Davis (at the seventh generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage).

FIFTEENTH GENERATION

21. Ralph (d. 1498), son of Westmorland (#16); m. Edith Sandys -- parents of Westmorland (#26) and Stafford (#27).

22. Ralph, bastard son of Westmorland (#16), had a daughter who was the mother of Charles (#32), bastard son of the 4th Earl of Westmorland (#26). He was also the father of all the children of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, whose maternal grandfather was Warwick (13) and whose paternal grandmother was a daughter of Westmorland (#2).

23. John, 3rd Baron Latymer (1493-1543), son of (#17); m. (1) Dorothy, daughter of George Vere, son of the 12th Earl of Oxford -- parents of Latymer (#28).

24. John, second son of Bergavenny (#18). His legitimate daughter Evelyn (by a wife who was not of his station) married Augustine More (supposed by genealogists to have died as a child), whose father Augustine More was a grandson of Thomas More, Chancellor of King Henry VIII. Augustine More and wife Evelyn had a son Thomas, whose son Theodosius Moore immigrated to Massachusetts around 1690.

25. Henry Nevill (1520-1593), son of Edward Nevill (#19) and father of Francis Nevill (#29).

SIXTEENTH GENERATION

26. Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland (1498-1549), m. Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham -- parents of #30.
[Their daughter Margaret married Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland, by whom she had Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland, whose daughter Elizabeth married William Cecil, Earl of Exeter (3rd generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage). Margaret had two children by King Edward VI: (1) John Manners, 4th Earl of Rutland, whose bastard son had a daughter Mary Smith who married John Herndon (ancestor of Esther Herndon, wife of Benjamin Davis in the 8th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage), and whose bastard daughter Ursula had, by John West, Governor of Virginia, a bastard son James, whose son Henry was the maternal grandfather of Elizabeth Tavenor, wife of John Mathews, son of Samuel Mathews, Governor of Virginia. (2) Elizabeth, wife of William Courtenay, de jure 3rd Earl of Devon, by whom (according to the ancestors) she had three children in my family tree, including Jane, “second wife” of William Cecil (in the 4th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage). Jane’s brother William was the ancestor of Mary Smith, wife of John Holloway, great-grandson of Elizabeth (Tavenor) Mathews immediately above. Jane’s sister Margaret, by husband Henry, Prince of Wales (son and heir of King James VI) had a son Charles, whose bastard daughter Margaret was the mother of Mary Hastings, mother of Abraham White III, descended in the male line from Gov. John West of Virginia, and grandfather of Jonathan White (in the 11th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage). Jane’s sister Margaret also had a bastard son Abraham Smith, who was (according to the ancestors) the actual father of George Archer, who was grandfather of Judith (Archer) Booker, mother of Judith Booker, wife of James Holloway, son of John Holloway and his wife Mary Smith (see immediately above). Their daughter Ashby (Holloway) Durham descends (according to the ancestors) from King Henry VIII through all four of her grandparents.]

27. Henry, 1st Baron Stafford (brother of 4th Earl of Westmorland, and son of #21), father of Richard Stafford (#33).

28. John, 4th Baron Latymer (1520-1577), husband of Lucy, daughter of Henry Somerset, Earl of Worcester, by Elizabeth, daughter of Browne by Lucy, daughter of John, Marquis of Montacute (#14).
Their daughter Dorothy married Thomas Cecil, Baron Burghley (2nd generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage).
Their daughter Margaret married Henry Percy, 8th Earl of Northumberland and had son Jocelyn who had a daughter by a daughter of William Pelham by Elinor, daughter of Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland (#30 below). Jocelyn Percy was the father of Anne, wife of John West, Governor of Virginia (descended from King Henry VIII), male-line ancestor (according to the ancestors) of Jonathan White, husband of Katie Maide/Meade in the 11th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage.
Their daughter Elizabeth married (2) Edmund Carey and had a single daughter with a descent to me that has not been told yet.

29. Francis Nevill, son of Henry (#25) and father of John (#34).

SEVENTEENTH GENERATION

30. Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland, m. Anne, daughter of Thomas Manners, 1st Earl of Rutland. Their daughter Elinor had a daughter by William Pelham who was the mother of Jocelyn Percy, mentioned at #28 above).

Westmorland’s bastard daughter Margaret married King Edward VI. Their daughter Elizabeth, by her first husband Archibald, bastard of Alexander Napier, 6th of Merchistoun, had a son Benjamin Napier who was the ancestor of Anne Brayne, wife of Governor Alexander Spotswood. Benjamin Napier also has a descent to Jane MacNamara, wife of Joseph Wallace – 23rd generation in my Wallace lineage #2 at https://groups.google.com/forum/embed/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/1pupplUCvcI%5B76-100%5D

31. Cuthbert Neville, son of Westmorland (#26), in the Northern Rebellion in 1569; had a daughter in my family tree, with a descendant who intermarried with Neville.

[(Oct. 20, 2019) "The daughter of Cuthbert was named Elizabeth. Elizabeth wanted to be a legitimate daughter. Elizabeth had to accept that Elizabeth would be a mistress. Elizabeth hoped. A son was not a good man. The son had a daughter. Elizabeth understands, the daughter is an ancestor of John."
"The daughter of the son of Elizabeth had a husband. The man was not able to prosper. He decided to go to a new land. He brought Elizabeth and did not have a bad life. It was hard, but everyone had to endure. The new land was Connecticut. Elizabeth thinks that John might be able to find."] (The descent here is to the parents of Susanna Smith, wife of Thomas Standish of Connecticut, son of Myles Standish of Plymouth Colony.)

32. Charles, bastard of Westmorland (#26); he was the second husband of Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI by wife Margaret, bastard of Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland (#29 immediately above).

Charles and Elizabeth’s daughter Elizabeth married John Herndon, whose descendant Esther Herndon married Benjamin Davis, of the 8th generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage.

33. Richard Stafford, son of Henry, 1st Baron Stafford by Ursula Pole, daughter of #22, married a daughter of Edward (descended from Warwick #13) by Mary, posthumous daughter of George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny (#18). They were parents of Roger Stafford (#37).

34. John, son of Francis Nevill and father of John Nevill, immigrant to Maryland (#38).

EIGHTEENTH GENERATION

35. Neville, bastard of Henry, 5th Earl of Westmorland, married Christian, daughter of King Henry VIII by Anne, daughter of Basset and step-daughter of Plantagenet. Their daughter Anne married Richard Wright, grandson of Queen Elizabeth; their daughter Anne Wright married Thomas Burnham, immigrant to Connecticut. See the "Burnham of Connecticut" thread at https://groups.google.com/forum/embed/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/k9sRfvPTMBU

36. Charles, son of Charles (#32) and Elizabeth (daughter of King Edward VI by his wife Margaret, bastard daughter of #29). His legitimate daughter had a granddaughter who married John Cecil/Davis – 5th generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage.

37. Roger Stafford (1572-1640), son of Richard Stafford (#33) and father of Thomas Stafford (#39).

38. John Nevill, immigrant to Maryland, son of John (#34) and father of John Nevill (#40) and William Nevill (#41).

His youngest daughter Rachel married Michael Ashford and had a daughter Johanna who, by her second husband Thomas Gash, had a son Michael who married Elizabeth "Preston," granddaughter of John's son William Nevill (#41).

NINETEENTH GENERATION

39. Thomas Stafford (1605-1677), immigrant to Rhode Island. His daughter Deborah married Amos Westcott and had daughters Penelope (married James Baker -- ancestors of Margaret, wife of Robert Jellison of Westmorland Co., Pennsylvania) and Rosanna, ancestor of (Mary) Elizabeth, wife of William Hoagland, "Governor" of a squatter colony in Ohio territory before the land was opened up for settlement.

40. John Nevill (d. 1674), son of John Nevill (#38); of Calvert Co., Maryland, father of Gervase who moved to Virginia, father of Christopher, father of George (1734-1811) who moved from Virginia to Tennessee, father of Josiah Nevils (1794-1854), father of Jethro, father of Benton Nevils, Union soldier in the Civil War.

41. William Nevill, son of John Nevill (#38); had a bastard son William who was the father of Elizabeth “Preston” (the surname of her step-father), wife of Michael Gash, descended from John Nevill (#38).

Genmedieval

unread,

Nov 25, 2019, 4:24:26 PM11/25/19

to

And of course, John Schmeekle is a bastard son of Charles Manson.

taf

unread,

Nov 25, 2019, 6:48:25 PM11/25/19

to

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 1:24:26 PM UTC-8, Genmedieval wrote:

> And of course, John Schmeekle is a bastard son of Charles Manson.

I won't believe that without a source. Now, had you said that your ancestors told you, that would be a different story. Then I would have to believe you, because otherwise the whole set of inane postings we have been bombarded with based on the same claim would be nothing but nonsense.

taf

Peter Stewart

unread,

Nov 25, 2019, 8:28:24 PM11/25/19

to

Couldn't the shade of Charles Manson himself be Genmedieval's source? Or
perhaps the mother, assuming she too is deceased? Is there some rule
that only a decendant can speak to an ancestor?

Of course, if Manson's spectre was the source it might have been fibbing
- like other spirits who have mischievously led John Schmeeckle into
blunders.

Peter Stewart

taf

unread,

Nov 25, 2019, 9:41:49 PM11/25/19

to

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 5:28:24 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Couldn't the shade of Charles Manson himself be Genmedieval's source? Or
> perhaps the mother, assuming she too is deceased? Is there some rule
> that only a decendant can speak to an ancestor?

Our intrepid necromancer has told us that the dead speak to their own dead relatives, allowing information from those not direct ancestors, so there is no reason the information couldn't pass up and down the line, even if it had to go all the way to Noah and back to get to the relator (and of course such discussions would retain perfect accuracy, as we know is the case in all human communication involving that number of intervening steps - maybe it is to preserve the integrity of the messages that they are communicated with the linguistic complexity of a five-year-old).

> Of course, if Manson's spectre was the source it might have been fibbing
> - like other spirits who have mischievously led John Schmeeckle into
> blunders.

But he maintains that if the dead are treated with respect they will tell the truth, so all you have to do is express to Manson the great esteem in which one holds murderous psychopathic whack-jobs and he is sure to tell you the truth.

As to blunders, accuracy has to be a priority in order for an incorrect statement to be a blunder. If one simply wants to stroke one's own ego, then the blunder may instead lie in not divorcing oneself entirely from reality and just going for it big-time. I am just waiting, as this all descends down the rabbit hole, to hear of one of his ancestors arising fully formed from the head of Zeus, or being given form when the cow Auðumbla licked them from the hoarfrost, or that they simply arrived from the Yellow World by climbing inside the great Male Reed with Turquoise Boy and Big Water Creature. What you see as blunders I see as lost opportunities for our burgeoning fanticist, who has yet to explore the liberties his chosen medium allows.

taf