Second Sight: Three Un-persecuted lineages from Otto of Zutphen

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

SECOND SIGHT: UN-PERSECUTED LINEAGES FROM OTTO OF ZUTPHEN

Compiled by John Schmeeckle, Oct. 23-Nov. 1, 2018


INTRODUCTION

As explained by several ancestors, "second sight” – a peculiar ability to foresee the future – was a traditional attribute of kings. During the medieval period, individuals with second sight were often persecuted and burned at the stake. If someone with "the sight" was persecuted, this ruined the sight in their descendants, although intermarriage with an un-persecuted lineage could sometimes restore the sight in descendants of such a marriage. However, if two or three generations failed to use the sight, it would usually disappear in that family.

Un-persecuted lineages that maintained the sight through the generations are almost non-existant. In addition to the Zutphen lineage, there is an un-persecuted lineage from the 13th-century marriage of Robert de Valoines with Eve, heiress of Criketot. There is also an earlier lineage from Criketot, with at least two branches. There is a lineage from Coucy (which is mentioned twice below); and a just-discovered Scottish Lamont lineage (descended from the Kings of Ireland), which intermarried with one of the Zutphen lines below. I am currently preparing articles like this one on the lineages from Coucy and from Valoines/Criketot.

Most of the information in this article comes directly from the ancestors. An explanation of communicating with ancestors is appended to the end of this article.

OTTO OF ZUTPHEN

Otto of Zutphen lived in the tenth century. The following statement was transcribed by John Schmeeckle on Oct. 30, 2018.

Zutphen: “Otto, Lord of Zutphen, was the descendant of a line of kings of France. The line had the gift of ‘second sight.’ This enabled the king to look into the future and choose a path that benefited the people. The gift had to be used for no other purpose. This gift was abused by the later kings. The later kings had a problem with difficulties over who would be king. The gift was destroyed.

“Zutphen was descended from a younger brother. The younger brother saw that he would be the ancestor of another line of kings. The king who initiated this line would not be a king. Zutphen understood. This was not to be explained.

“Zutphen understood, because of what his father told him, that Zutphen was unable to use the sight. Zutphen must preserve a lineage. Zutphen must ensure that a line of descendants continued without being persecuted for having the sight.

“Zutphen understood. Some of his descendants would abuse the sight. They would lose. Their families would not prosper. Some of Zutphen’s descendants would use the sight. They would prosper, or not. The use of the sight was not important. What was important was that the sight be used in a proper way, when it was not too dangerous.

“Zutphen also understood. There were generations of the lineage that would be forbidden to use the sight. This was because of persecution. If the sight hid for a generation, it would not affect the lineage.

“Zutphen wanted to be able to not have the sight. Zutphen did not expect to be able to do what was revealed. Zutphen had to maintain his territory. Zutphen had an enemy. The enemy was growing in strength. Zutphen had no hope of resisting. Zutphen saw his successful resistance. Zutphen had to have the will to resist. Otherwise, nothing else that Zutphen saw would come to pass.

“Zutphen willed to resist. Zutphen told his men to expect help. Zutphen did not give details. The men were ambitious. The men were courageous. The men prevailed when the leader of the opposing force was struck down by an arrow.

“Zutphen lived. Zutphen did not talk. Zutphen was hailed. Zutphen did what he intended. Zutphen was never suspected of having the sight. This was the greatest fear of anyone with the sight. If a family was suspected, everything that the family did was scrutinized. This meant that any good fortune was talked about as if it was done by consulting the sight. Zutphen emphasized to his daughter that, if suspicion fell, the person and his or her son or daughter must never use the sight. The instructions must pass to a following generation. The following generation would have to be very careful. This was seen to be effective. Zutphen trained his daughter, and Zutphen his daughter trained her son. Zutphen understood. The son trained his sister. The sister her lineage continued.”

(Nov. 1, 2018) Zutphen: “Zutphen has been understanding the lineages. Zutphen was unable to understand until John Human showed the link. Zutphen now understands. Young has a male-line descent, un-persecuted, from a King with the sight. Zutphen had no expectation. Zutphen now has to think of this lineage as the important one.”

UN-PERSECUTED LINEAGES FROM OTTO OF ZUTPHEN

The following ancestors’ statements (in parentheses) were recorded starting on Oct. 23, 2018.

In the lineage below, #1 is the parent of #2, who is the parent of #3, etc. The lineage branches at #18, with two separate Scottish royal lineages. Many of these people were notable, and they have Wikipedia articles. I have included links to many of these useful articles, but there is no reason to think that everything in these articles is correct. (As an occasional Wikipedia editor, I know both the value and the limitations of the Wikipedia project.) I have often added dates of birth and death from secondary sources: Such data does not come from the ancestors and is not definitive.

The earlier Scottish royal lineage branches at #21 (with different daughters of King James IV). The first branch splits again at #23, with one descent to a Wallace family that left South Carolina, and another descent that eventually merges in Virginia with Lamont/Young, which is the second branch of the earlier Scottish royal lineage.

The later Scottish royal lineage includes a French and Russian royal connection, and eventually merges with one branch of the earlier lineage, in the 1850s marriage of Julia Wallace to William Joseph Coons. Their story (transcribed by John Schmeeckle) is online here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_William_Coons_and_Julia_Wallace

As time permits, I intend to record the stories of many more of the ancestors in these lineages.
--
1. Otto of Zutphen

“Otto. Otto had the sight. Otto was from a family that had the sight. Otto knew that the sight came from a king. Otto understood. The sight must be used to help others.”

2. Matilda, m. Megingoz of Avalgau. [Megingoz’s Wikipedia page, showing a different mother of his children, is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megingoz_of_Guelders]
“Mathilde. Mathilde was the daughter. Mathilde was not the son. Mathilde had no brother. Mathilde brought the sight. Mathilde saw a lineage. Mathilde understood. Mathilde was to help the lineage continue.”

3. Irmtrude, m. Herbert van Wetterau (c. 930-992), a descendant of Charlemagne. [Herbert’s Wikipedia page is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_of_Wetterau ]
“Irmtrude. Irmtrude was a daughter. Irmtrude had a brother. Irmtrude knew. Irmtrude would be the one.”

4. Udo, Count of Gleiberg
“Udo. Udo was Count. Udo was under another man. Udo understood. Udo waited.”

5. Irmentrud (heiress of Zutphen), m. Rupert of Zutphen.
Irmtrude: "Irmtrude was a daughter. Irmtrude had a brother. The brother did not live.”

6. Gutta (heiress of Zutphen) (b. abt. 1045), m. Ludwig I, Count of Arnstein (c. 1040- c. 1084).
Gutta: "Gutta was a daughter. Gutta had no brother. Gutta had the sight. Gutta knew. Gutta had to have patience. Gutta had patience.”
“Zutphen will speak. Zutphen was aware, because of the sight, that his descendants would be king. Zutphen knew, because of the sight, that Zutphen and his descendants had to continue in a lineage that would not be persecuted. Zutphen understood. A lineage that was persecuted would not lead to a king.”

7. Ludwig III, Count of Arnstein (d. around 1130), m. Udelhild of Odenkirchen. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnstein_Abbey
“Ludwig. Ludwig was Count. Ludwig was under another man. Ludwig had the sight. Ludwig did wisely. Ludwig did not kill.”

8. Agnes von Arnstein (1128-bef. 1179), m. Hendrik I, Count of Guelders and Zutphen (which he inherited from his mother).
"Agnes. Agnes was the daughter. Agnes had no brother. Agnes had the sight. Agnes understood. Agnes had to be patient.”
[Agnes’s son’s descent continues below. Agnes also had a daughter Adelaide, wife of Gerard, Count of Looz. This couple were ancestors of the Delano (De Lannoy) family of Plymouth Colony, but that lineage includes a persecuted generation. However, the Delano family does have an un-persecuted lineage from Coucy.]

(continued Oct. 27, 2018)

9. Otto I, Count of Guelders and Zutphen (1150-1207), m. Richardis of Bavaria (Wittelsbach)
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_I,_Count_of_Guelders
“Otto had the sight. Otto understood. Otto must use the sight to help others. This was part of Otto his training. Otto did not use the sight.”

10. Gerard III, Count of Guelders and Zutphen (c. 1185-1229), m. Margaretha of Brabant.
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_III,_Count_of_Guelders
“Gerard had the sight. Gerard did not use the sight. Gerard understood. The sight could kill. Gerard did not think that he would not give the sight to his children. Gerard discovered that two of his children did not have the sight.”

11. Otto II, Count of Guelders (c. 1210-1270), m. Philippe of Dammartin.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_II,_Count_of_Guelders
“Otto did not use the sight. Otto understood. To use the sight made one vulnerable. Otto simply protected himself.”

12. Reinald, Count of Guelders (c. 1255-1326), m. (2) Margaret of Flanders.
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_I_of_Guelders
“Reinald did not use the sight. Reinald thought that he was being careful. Then Reinald discovered that his brother did not have the sight. That meant that Reinald his brother did not have the ability that his father had. That made Reinald think that Reinald should learn.”

13. Margareta of Guelders (c. 1286-1346), m. Diedrich VIII, Count of Cleves.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_VIII,_Count_of_Cleves
“Margareta. Margareta had the sight. Margareta understood. Margareta must not use the sight. Margareta had to preserve.”

14. Margareta Kleve (heiress of Kleves) (1305-1348), m. Adolf Mark (1300-1347)
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Cleves,_Countess_of_the_Marck
“Margaret did not have a brother. Margaret her father did not have any ability. Margaret understood. The sight would leave the family. Margaret understood. Margaret must learn.”

15. Adolf, Bishop of Meunster and Count of Marck and Count of Cleves (c. 1334-1394)
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_III_of_the_Marck
“Adolf was a bishop. Adolf understood. The sight was punishable. Adolf had to choose. If Adolf had the ability and did not use it, the ability would disappear. Adolf used the ability. Adolf had no good fortune. Adolf acted as he saw. Adolf did not prosper.”

16. Adolf, Duke of Kleve (1373-1448)
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_I,_Duke_of_Cleves
“Adolf was able. Adolf was summoned. Adolf had the sight. Adolf was unhurt.”

(continued Oct. 28-30, 2018)

17. Katharina of Cleves (1417-1479), m. Arnoud, Duke of Guelders (1410-1473).
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Cleves_(1417%E2%80%931479)
“Katharina. Katharina had the sight. Katharina used the sight. Katharina understood. The sight must be used.”
“Arnoud had the sight. Arnoud did not use the sight. Arnoud simply understood that he was under an obligation to preserve the lineage.”
[Arnoud and Katharina had a daughter Maria, ancestor of the earlier Scottish royal lineage, and also a son Adolf, Duke of Guelders, who was ancestor of the later Scottish royal lineage (see down below). Because King James IV, King of Scots, was NOT the father of King James V (who was “given” to James IV by a cousin because his own children kept being murdered as infants), the later Scottish royal lineage does not descend from the earlier one.

EARLIER SCOTTISH ROYAL LINEAGE

18. Maria of Guelders (1434-1463) , m. King James II of Scotland (1430-1460).
“Maria of Guelders. Maria was able to use the sight. Maria was unable to see good things. Maria lived in a land where people killed each other to gain power.”
Maria’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Guelders

19. King James III (1451-1488), m. Margaret of Denmark.
“James, King of the Scots. James had the sight. James used the sight. James saw that James would not be a good king. James followed what James saw.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_III_of_Scotland

20. King James IV (1473-1513).
“James IV, King of Scots. James had the sight. James used the sight. James understood. The sight would leave Scotland.” James’s Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_IV_of_Scotland
[Aside from King James’s daughter Catherine below, there is an additional lineage through another daughter Hester, into the Lamont/Young family – see further below.]

21. Catherine (daughter of James IV by Margaret Boyd), m. James Douglas, 3rd Earl of Morton.
“Catharina. Catharina was a woman without a name. Catharina knew that her husband would give her a name. Catharina was pleased with the name she got. Catharina knew, because of the sight, that Catharina would be the ancestor of a king.”

22. Margaret Douglas (c. 1515-1581), m. James Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Arran.
“Margaret was a woman with a name. Margaret married a man with a good name. Margaret understood. Margaret must not use the sight.”
[Margaret had two daughters with descents in my family tree. One line leads down to the Wallace family, which intermarried with the Jones family, which had an un-persecuted lineage through their Gash/Wentworth ancestors back to Valoines/Criketot. The other line leads to a marriage into the Lamont/Young family, which has an independent descent from King James IV (see page 7)].

DESCENT TO WALLACE
(which later merges with the Wentworth/Gash descent from the Valoines/Criketot lineage)

23. Jean Hamilton [daughter of Margaret (Douglas) Hamilton].
“Jean was a woman who did not obey. Jean saw. Jean did.”

24. Margaret Hamilton (raised by her grandparents), m. Alexander Pethien (1560-1611)
“Margaret Hamilton had the name of her grandfather. Margaret understood. Margaret was preserving a lineage.”

25. Andrew (“Hugh”) Peden, m. Isabella Robb.
“Andrew knew. Andrew saw. Andrew left Scotland.”

26. James Peden (b. abt 1630)
“James was born in Scotland. James understood. James saw. James must leave. James and his father were respected in Ireland.”

27. James Peden (b. abt. 1683), not son of his father’s wife; m. Mary Mills.
“James had his father his name. James understood. The name meant that James would be able to marry well.”

28. Jane Peden, m. James McIlvey.
“Jane, daughter of James, had the sight. Jane understood. The sight was not persecuted. The sight was not well received. Jane was not able to use the sight.”

29. Jane McIlvey, m. Joseph Wallace (d. 1807).
“Jane came to a new country. Jane understood. Jane her father gave an opportunity. Jane knew that the sight must find other families.”

30. William Wallace (c. 1780-1823), m. Mary Anne Nesbitt.
“William Wallace was from a family with a lineage. William had to leave. William left and found a new land. William settled and provided for his family. William needed to be away from the family that knew of William and his ancestry.”

31. Rev. William Donaldson Wallace (1816-1871), m. Martha Jones (1820-1882), with an un-persecuted lineage from the Valoines/Criketot marriage (see that article).
“Rev. William Donaldson Wallace was of the opinion that the sight was beneficial. However, William has been re-evaluating. William used the sight for good. Now William has heard stories of the sight simply showing terrible things. William does not have the same feeling that he had before.” [This statement contrasts somewhat with Rev. William Wallace’s statement in the article on the Valoines/Criketot lineage.]

32. Julia Ann Wallace (1837-1872), m. William Joseph Coons (descended from the later Scottish royal lineage; see #34 in that lineage below, on page 11.)
“Julia had the sight. Julia was taught. Julia understood. Julia had to carry the sight without using it.”
Julia’s family tree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Wallace-Family-Tree-3991

33. Nettie (Coons) Tobey: See #35 in the later Scottish royal lineage on p. 11.

DESCENT TO YOUNG

23. Barbara Hamilton, daughter of Margaret (Douglas) Hamilton (see above).
Barbara Hamilton m. (1) Alexander Gordon.
“Barbara understood. Barbara must use the sight. Barbara had to be very careful. Barbara was able.”

24. Barbara Gordon, m. John Alexander.
“Barbara was a woman with no father. Barbara understood. Barbara must marry. Barbara did not object.”

25. John Alexander, emigrated to Virginia.
“John Alexander was the son of a man who did not have the sight. John inherited the sight from his mother. John did not have the ability to use it without being seen. John was always being watched.”

26. Mary Alexander, m. John Wallace.
“Mary grew up in a new land. Mary understood. The sight was not feared. Mary was able to learn. Mary her father gave her some instruction.”
27. Elizabeth Wallace, m. William Young.
“Elizabeth understood. Elizabeth had the sight. Elizabeth had to use the sight. Elizabeth had to accept whatever Elizabeth saw. Elizabeth looked. Elizabeth did not.”
28. Henry Young (c. 1745-1833) – See the Lamont/Young lineage below.
LAMONT/YOUNG LINEAGE
(Oct. 30-Nov. 1, 2018) For a note on the very early history of Clan Lamont, see https://www.electricscotland.com/history/nation/lamond.htm
According to the ancestors, John Lamont, husband of Mary Young (see #24 below) was nephew (not the son) of Gilbert Lamont. Gilbert and John were the sons of John, who was son of John Lamont by the daughter of King James IV.

21. Hester, daughter of King James IV, m. John Lamont.
Hester: “Hester had no way of knowing who was her father. Hester understood. There would come a time. Hester saw the name. Hester did not believe.”
John Lamont: “John Lamont had the sight. John knew of his descent. Lamont descended directly from the King of Ireland.”

22. John Lamont.
“John Lamont. John was not a royal heir. John had no hope of becoming King. John just had royal blood. That was enough. John was suspected of plotting to kill the King. John was not given any opportunity to defend himself. John was cut down.”

23. John (not his elder brother Gilbert) Lamont.
“John was not the heir. John his brother Gilbert was cut down. John became the heir. John his father was cut down. John became the lord.”

24. John Lamont, m. Mary Young. See http://www.brokerdirectmlsohio.com/charryoung/early.html
“John was the lord. John had the sight. John, unlike his father, used the sight. John did not see what happened. John was unable.” [In other words, John, one of the leaders of Clan Lamont, did not see his death in the 1646 massacre that exterminated the leadership of the clan.]

25. Andrew (Lamont) Young. See http://www.brokerdirectmlsohio.com/charryoung/early.html
“Andrew was Lamont. Andrew became Young. Andrew hid. Andrew was never safe.”

26. John Young.
“John Young. John was unable. John was not healthy. John had a gift. This gift helped other people. This gift could not be used to help oneself. John did not see the value of the gift. John was not inclined to use the gift.”

27. William Young, partner of Elizabeth Wallace (see p. 7 above).
“William was able to use the gift. William understood that the gift was meant to be used. If it wasn’t used, then it would disappear. William used the gift. William lived a long and healthy life.”

28. Henry Young (c. 1745-1833), son of William by a woman who was not his wedded wife – see #27 in the “Earlier Scottish Royal Lineage” on page 7 above.
“Henry Young was unable. Henry Young was not strong. Henry Young had a gift. The gift gave knowledge about the future. The gift was not helpful. Henry did not understand that it was only to help other people. Henry tried. Henry saw what he would become. Henry saw a very old man. The very old man had a young family. Henry did not think this was possible. Henry did not marry. Henry had a family with a woman who was not his wife. The woman was able to be as a wife. Henry then married her niece. This made Henry bigamous. Henry did not think of the vision until after he remembered. His wife was unable to think of the gift as something unhelpful. Henry was able to think of his wife and what she needed. That made Henry realize that the gift showed how to help others.”

29. Henry Young, Jr. (c. 1782-1827), m. Dempsey Buckelew.
“Henry had no knowledge of how to use the gift. Henry simply had the ability to focus. This gave Henry an image. The image was of the future. That was all that Henry ever did.”

30. William Young (1809-1872), m. Susan White (see #32 in the “Later Scottish Royal Lineage” on p. 12.
Susan also descends from the Cecil/Davis descent from the un-persecuted Valoines/Criketot lineage.)
“William had a gift. William had no understanding. William had no training. William simply saw. William married a woman who had the gift. William learned. Then William was able to think of helping. That gave an image. William could do what was shown. If he did, the result was good.”

31. William Henry Young (b. 1845) m. Jane (Roberts) Yapp (who has a mother’s-line descent from Prideaux and an un-persecuted “second sight” descent from the earlier Criketot lineage).
“William was known as Henry. William had the gift. William used the gift. William saw. William had to marry. William resisted. William did not obey fully. William married but gave away the daughter. William had to face the consequences. William had no family. William did not have a good position. William simply was a farmer.”

32. Florence Willard Stewart (1874-1924), daughter of William and Jane Young, m. Dr. Charles Franklin Burkhalter (who has an un-persecuted “second sight” lineage through the Griesheimer family back to Coucy).
“Florence had a gift. Florence had no way of using the gift. Florence had no knowledge. Florence had no one to talk to about it. Florence understood. There was something about her family. Florence learned that her mother was not her real mother. That meant that Florence had to find her real mother. That way Florence could ask someone about what she was able to do. That happened. Florence knew. And Florence had the ability to think of helping. That meant that the gift was useful.”

33. Evelyn Mae Burkhalter (1995-1997), m. Dr. Ralph O. Stickler
Evelyn: “Evelyn had a gift. Evelyn did not use it. Evelyn had the impression that it should not be used. Evelyn does not know why.”
Evelyn’s family tree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Burkhalter-Family-Tree-441
Ralph: “Ralph had a gift. Ralph knew that it came from both of his parents. Ralph understood. Ralph had to preserve the gift. Ralph wasn’t supposed to use it.” Ralph’s family tree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Stickler-Family-Tree-220

34. Phyllis Stickler (1931-1975), m. (2) Roger Schmeeckle
“Phyllis did not think of what she saw. Phyllis saw things that she knew would happen. Phyllis did not seek the vision. Phyllis eventually understood that the thing that she saw in a particular way would happen. Phyllis understood that, when she thought of helping and saw, the result would be clear. This happened regularly. Phyllis was good at helping people.”

LATER SCOTTISH ROYAL LINEAGE

18. Adolf (1438-1477), Duke of Guelders, son of Arnoud, Duke of Guelders by Katharina of Cleves (#17 above). Adolf’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf,_Duke_of_Guelders
“Adolf was a man with a heritage. Adolf understood. Adolf was preserving. Adolf must not use the sight. Adolf must simply allow the instructions to be passed.”

19. Philippa of Guelders, wife of Rene de Lorraine-Vaudemont II (1451-1508), Duke of Lorraine.
“Philippa was the daughter of a man who never used the sight. Philippa understood. Philippa had to use the sight so the sight would not leave. Philippa looked. Philippa saw. A lineage would continue to a line of kings. Philippa had to use the sight to protect her family. Philippa did that.”
Philippa’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_of_Guelders

20. Claude of Lorraine (1496-1550), 1st Duke of Guise.
“Claude had the sight. Claude knew, because of his sight, that Claude should not try to rise. Claude had to simply agree with others. Claude was able to not make conflict. This led Claude to be able to marry his daughter to the King of the Scots.”
Claude’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude,_Duke_of_Guise

21. Mary of Guise (1515-1560), married James V, King of Scots; later Queen Regent during her daughter’s minority. Mary’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Guise
“Mary has much to say. Mary had the sight. Mary understands that now is not the time to tell her story. Mary had the opportunity to rule. As the regent for a daughter, Mary understood that Mary would have more power than a regent would normally have. Mary had to be wise. Mary had the sight. Mary used the sight for the good.”

22. Mary Queen of Scots (1542-1587). Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Queen_of_Scots
(recorded Oct. 28, 2018) “Mary, Queen of Scots. Mary had a son by her husband Francis, King of France. Francis died. Mary was pregnant. Mary fled. Mary went away from where she was expected. Mary was aware. Mary understood. Mary had the heir, if he was a son. The heir would be killed.
“Mary knew, if she was able to survive, that Mary would not be able to claim the throne of France for her son. The son must not think of his rightful inheritance. Mary ensured that the son would be brought up in a way that made him able to return to England. Mary wanted her son to learn English. This was not typical. Mary knew, when Mary arrived in Russia, that Mary was not going to be able to stay long. Mary gave birth. Mary left her son. Mary knew, if Mary stayed, that Mary would not be allowed to leave. Mary was the Queen. Mary knew, because of her father’s gift, that Mary had to be in Scotland. This is what Mary understood.”
(added Oct. 30, 2018) “Mary knew that her mother had the sight. Mary understood that her father also had the sight. Mary knew, before her marriage, that her father had foreseen that Mary had to stay in Scotland. Mary left Scotland. Mary knew that this was contrary to her father his vision. Mary understood. Mary had to return. Mary thinks, because she left, that something happened. Mary should have refused. Mary had the ability to refuse to marry the King of France. Mary understood. Mary caused a change.”
Queen Mary’s lineage splits, with one line through Henry, her son by the King of France, and the other line through her son James, king of Scotland and England. James was the son of Queen Mary by David Rizzio, a lutist and her personal secretary, descended from the Italian noble houses of Este and Sforza.

QUEEN MARY’S LINE THROUGH HENRY OF FRANCE

23. Henry of France, m. Tatyana Romanov.
(Oct. 28, 2018) “Mary’s son will speak. Henry, son of Mary, was born in Russia. Henry was able to learn English. Henry understood. Henry had a heritage. Henry had a family with a lineage of kings. Henry had a family with a lineage of second sight. Henry had to preserve. Henry had to be anonymous. Henry understood enough English to leave Russia after he married. Henry understood. Henry had to not become Russian.” Henry’s wife was Tatyana, daughter of Feodor Nikitich Romanov, who became Patriarch Filaret of Mosccow, and who was father of the first Czar of the Romanov dynasty. See his Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Filaret_of_Moscow
(added Oct. 30, 2018) “Henry had the sight. Henry understood. Henry had a lineage to protect. Henry would not be a prominent man. Henry would have a line of descent to a man who would become king.”

24. Stephen Stewart
“Stephen had the sight. Stephen used the sight. Stephen didn’t think that the sight was helpful.”

25. Margaret Stewart, m. Henry, son of James, illegitimate son of Gov. John West of Virginia by Ursula, a granddaughter of King Edward VI. (See “Ancestral Memories: Tudor Descents.”)
“Margaret understood. Margaret must use the sight. Margaret understood. What Margaret saw must be followed. Margaret followed.”

26. Mildred, m. Michael Tavenor.
“Mildred did not have a strong sight. Mildred thinks this was because her father had the sight in a lineage that was persecuted. Mildred did not think that the sight was harmful. Mildred used the sight when she wanted to try to help someone.”

27. Elizabeth Tavenor, m. John Mathews (with a persecuted lineage; his father’s father’s father’s father’s father was burned at the stake for having the sight).
“Elizabeth knew, because of her lineage, that Elizabeth would not have the full sight. Elizabeth had the sight. The sight showed Elizabeth. Elizabeth would marry a man without the sight. Elizabeth knew, because of her father, that Elizabeth would not give the sight to all of her children. This is what happened.”
John Mathews: "John Mathews was not able to see. John could tell when something was going to happen."

28. Elizabeth Mathews (d. 1736), m. David Holloway. (For his ancestry back to King Henry VIII, see “Ancestral Memories: Tudor Descents.”)
“Elizabeth had the sight. Elizabeth had the strong sight. Elizabeth understood. The sight had been repaired. Elizabeth must use the sight. Elizabeth thought that her husband would not object. Elizabeth hoped that Elizabeth and her husband would be able to give the sight to her children. The sight only went to one child.”

29. John Holloway (b. 1701). For his wife’s ancestry going back to King Edward VI, see “Ancestral Memories: Tudor Descents.”
“John Holloway. John Holloway was the man who was under the flag. The flag was under the fleet. The fleet was in the harbor. The harbor was under attack. The flag was seized. John Holloway was remembered.”

30. James Holloway (c. 1730-1778), m. Judith Booker. (For her ancestry, see “Ancestral Memories: Tudor Descents.”)
“James Holloway. James was a man who had a father who was well known. James understood. James his father used the sight. The sight showed. James his father acted. James understood. James must do as the sight showed. James looked. The sight showed. James did.”

31. Ashby Holloway (c. 1755-1815), m. Samuel Durham. (For his ancestry, see “Colclough/Durham/Sachevell/Fitton.”)
“Ashby. Ashby had the sight. Ashby knew. Ashby had to look. Ashby had to act. Ashby acted. The sight did not fail.”

32. Lousanna Durham (b. 1782), m. Mathew Kelly.
“Lousanna. Lousanna had the sight. Lousanna did not act. The sight did not show any action. Lousanna understood. Lousanna was to simply give the sight to her daughter.”

33. Mahala Kelly (1808-bef. 1838), m. Silas Coons.
“Mahala Kelley. Mahala had the sight. Mahala married a man with a little bit of the sight. Mahala understood. Mahala was being given the opportunity to preserve the sight. This happened.”
Mahala’s family tree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Kelly-Family-Tree-4782

34. William Joseph Coons (1833-1916), m. Julia Ann Wallace (#32 in the earlier Scottish royal lineage).
William: “William had the sight. William understood. William did not use the sight. William acted. William did not use the sight. William returned. William thought that the sight was not helpful. William simply acted as if he had no sight.” [William “acted” and “returned”: see his full story at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_William_Coons_and_Julia_Wallace , with his experience as a soldier in General Sherman’s army.

35. Nettie Ellen Coons (1868-1948), m. William Walter Tobey, who had an un-persecuted lineage through the Delano family from Coucy.
Nettie: “Nettie had the sight. Nettie looked. Nettie understood. Nettie would be betrayed. Nettie never looked again.”
Nettie’s family tree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Coons-Family-Tree-328

36. Lola Fern Tobey, m. Jacob Daniel Schmeeckle.
“Fern. Fern had the sight. Fern didn’t know what she had. Fern never learned. Fern just ‘knew.’”
Fern’s family tree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Tobey-Family-Tree-591

QUEEN MARY’S LINE THROUGH KING JAMES

23. James VI, King of Scots (James I, King of England) (1566-1625), m. Anne of Denmark.
“King James had the sight. King James was King. King James disobeyed. King James knew. His disobedience would cost his heirs.”
King James’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I

24. Henry (1594-1612), eldest son of King James, poisoned two years after his private marriage to Margaret Courtenay, granddaughter of King Edward VI (see “Ancestral Memories: Tudor Descents.”)
“Henry understood. Henry was to be denied.” Henry’s Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Frederick,_Prince_of_Wales

25. Charles Stewart.
“Charles had the sight. Charles was unable to see anything except not being prominent. Charles looked for success. The sight never showed.”

26. Margaret Stewart, married Abraham White, grandson of Virginia Governor John West (see “Ancestral Memories: Tudor Descents.”)
Margaret: “Margaret had the sight. Margaret understood. Margaret had to leave. Margaret went to Virginia. There was a lack of women. Margaret understood. There would be a husband.”
Abraham: “Abraham had the sight, but it was not good. Abraham saw. Abraham did not understand.”

27. Abraham White, m. Frances Dolman, daughter of Philip Dolman by Frances, daughter of Walter Vavasour, from a family with an ancient lineage – and the next two generations in this White lineage married Vavasour descendants (see below).
Abraham: “Abraham had the sight. Abraham did not look. Abraham knew that Abraham was forbidden.”

28. Abraham White, m. Mary, daughter of Abel Hastings, son of Geoffrey, son of John by Ethel, bastard daughter of Rauf Vavasour.
Abraham: “Abraham did not think that Abraham had the sight. Abraham did not know of the sight. Abraham saw. Abraham knew. Abraham wondered.”

29. Abraham White, m. Esther, daughter of Edward Wright, son of John Wright (immigrant to Virginia), who was a bastard son of John, third son of Richard Revel, who was great-grandson of Rauf Vavasour (see immediately above).
Abraham: “Abraham had the sight. Abraham was commanded to look. Abraham saw. Abraham knew. The sight was being preserved. The sight must not be used.”

30. Benjamin White (c. 1760-1825), m. Sukee (Susan) Bartee.
“Benjamin had the sight. Benjamin did not look. Benjamin understood. The sight was not for him.”

31. Jonathan White (1788-1833), m. Katie (Catherine) Mead.
“Jonathan. Jonathan had the sight. Jonathan was commanded. Jonathan looked. Jonathan saw. A lineage of kings was in his family. Jonathan looked. Jonathan knew. Jonathan should never look again.”

32. Susan White (1829-1895), m. William Young (#30 in the Lamont/Young lineage above).
“Susan had the sight. Susan did not look. Susan knew. The sight was not for Susan.”

33. William Henry Young – see #31 in the Lamont/Young lineage above.

APPENDIX: Explaining Communicating with Ancestors

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.”

Here is a brief quote from my ancestor Bishop Tobey Mathew (taken from his remarks at the end of this page):
“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.”

I posted the following explanation of the proper way to communicate with ancestors (written as the ancestors guided me) at wikitree, on Jan. 9, 2018: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors
Over a year ago, I was told that it is possible to communicate with deceased ancestors, but 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), I thought of the names of all of my grandparents and their parents and grandparents, and they started talking to me. 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.

[And then a follow-up post on Jan. 10, 2018]:
On Nov. 1, 2016, I made a point of respectfully focusing on the names of each grandparent, great-grandparent and great-great-grandparent. Then I started listening, focusing on each great-great-grandparent, starting at the top of my 5-generation chart and working haphazardly down the list. When I got to my mother's side of the family, I talked to my Stickler great-grandparents, and then had to end because I was getting overwhelmed; I followed up the following day.

Here are my notes (abridged to remove bits that ancestors would prefer not to share):
"Gottlieb [Schmeeckle] regretted that he had been unable to provide a comfortable widowhood for Barbara, but he had failed to prosper after coming to Nebraska in his elder years. Jacob Zimmerman said that he had been unable to prevent his daughter from marrying outside the Amish church, and then had been unable to shun her after she did so, and so the congregation ended up shunning their minister. Prince Tobey talked about being unable to work on the trip through California (because he was so old), but he had skillfully directed the others, who benefited from his direction. And then back in Nebraska, he was well-received by his children as he lived out his years, once again because of his practical wisdom. I had mistakenly called “Sarah Hunt,” and Prince’s wife Esther talked after him, saying that because of her hips, she was unable to work properly, and mentioned losing six of her children. Her mother Sarah later spoke up, wondering why I had called her. I first said that she was the only ancestor who had been born in Vermont where I grew up, and then explained the mistake, that I had meant to name her daughter Esther. Sarah said that Esther, although unable to work well, had been good at building a loving home environment for her family. She said that there had never quite been enough in the town she lived in, but the community supported each other and together managed to make ends meet. James Gilliland Stickler [I heard him pronounce “Jilliland,” not “Guilliland,” as I had always imagined the pronunciation] said that he had been unable to give good educations to all his children, so he focused his resources on his son Ralph, with the idea that Ralph would pay for the educations of his brothers’ children; and so he did. James said that Ralph’s wife had never been satisfied, and made it impossible for James to enjoy a relationship with his son as an adult. James’s wife Mercy Ann Singley said that she had been a simple woman, and was surprised that anyone had remembered her. And that was when it first occurred to me that I could have extended conversations with these people."

I "heard" all of these conversations in plain English as I am used to speaking. It occurred to me that my great-great-grandfather Gottlieb Schmeeckle spoke little if any English when alive. When I recently talked to distant German ancestors, I also "heard" their thoughts in plain English. However, at times there was confusion about the proper choice of a word, and I indicated that in my first "Ancestral Memories" free space page by putting the word in question in parentheses. [See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Schm%C3%BCckle_Family_in_Einod ] In each of these cases, the ancestor and I agreed on the particular word to use, and then the ancestor moved on with his/her story. I don't have any explanation for how I hear their words; it's part of the mystery of what is going on.

--

(Aug. 26, 2018) “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. Bishop understood, because of this way of thinking, that people would think of rational explanations. This is what happened. Bishop understood, after talking to one man, that some people had the experience of counseling ancestors. This was a shock. Ancestors were to be respected. This was universally accepted. Giving counsel went counter to a general attitude of respect, or at least Bishop thought so. Bishop later thought that giving aid to one in need is always a gesture of respect. But Bishop was never comfortable with the thought of counseling an ancestor.

“Bishop will clarify. Counseling an ancestor means giving advice related to a problem in a family relationship. If a living descendant has a grandfather who could not compel the obedience of his wife, for example, the living descendant had to accommodate the discord when trying to communicate with his grandparents. This could lead to a situation where the living descendant gave advice to the grandparents, allowing them to coexist while not denying either one communication with the grandchild.

“Bishop understood, after learning about the ability to communicate with ancestors, that he could ask ancestors about family legends. Bishop discovered that his family was not from where the coat of arms said. (There were two Mathew coats of arms, and Bishop’s family began using the coat from the wrong branch.) This surprised Bishop. Bishop understood that the Mathew family was Welsh. And this was certainly what Bishop found. Bishop understood that his family was from a landowning class. Bishop understood that in Wales, the social structure was different. Bishop found that some of his ancestors weren’t Welsh. And this surprised Bishop.”

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

ANCESTRAL MEMORIES: DESCENTS FROM THE TUDOR KINGS

Compiled by John Schmeeckle, Oct./Nov. 2018.

Introduction: Communicating with Ancestors.

Two years ago I was told that it was possible to communicate with ancestors, and I tried it and it worked. I began recording the stories that ancestors wanted to tell, focusing on recent ancestors. Later, I began to ask ancestors about medieval lineages, and a few months ago began to uncover a growing collection of descents from Tudor monarchs. These are all “bastard” lineages, with one exception. The ancestors revealed a sub-culture where the children of mistresses, lacking surnames, could find suitable marriage partners and sometimes climb back into “respectability,” with the option of going to Virginia and starting over with a newly chosen family name.

Communicating with ancestors has pitfalls, and it is of the utmost importance to be respectful at all times, especially toward ancestors who did things that they regretted during their lifetimes. I learned that ancestors have gaps in their memories, and they are inclined to resist genealogical queries. For more on how to communicate with ancestors, see https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors

SECOND SIGHT

A couple months ago I began to stumble across ancestral references to “second sight,” a peculiar ability – associated with kings – to foresee the future. This ability passed from parent to child, but the ability could disappear among the children or grandchildren of people who didn’t use it. People known to have this ability were burned at the stake in the Middle Ages, and those under suspicion of having second sight were often unable to find marriage partners. Repeatedly, if a king was suspected of having second sight, he of course could not be persecuted, but his lineage was persecuted and/or exterminated, often after a generation or two. Examples of this include Louis XI of France, James IV of Scotland, and Henry VIII of England (see below).

There are a very few un-persecuted lineages that preserved “the sight” through the centuries. I have completed a report on the un-persecuted descents from Otto of Zutphen (which is referred to several times below), and I will soon complete reports on un-persecuted second-sight lineages from Valoines/Criketot (mentioned twice below) and from Leopold of Coucy (ancestor of immigrants Philip Delano of Plymouth Colony, Michael Ashford of Maryland, and Valentine Greisheimer of Pennsylvania).

Second sight came into the lineage of the Kings of England with Philippa of Hainault, wife of Edward III, but this was a persecuted lineage, and Philippa did not give the sight to all of her children. But the lineage leading to the Tudor monarchs did have the sight, as the ancestors will describe:

A. Edmund, Duke of York (son of King Edward III by Philippa of Hainault): “Edmund had the sight. Edmund understood. Edmund must not use the sight. Edmund did not.”

B. Richard, Duke of York: “Richard had the sight. Richard did not receive a compulsion. Richard used the sight. Richard understood. Richard must not attack. Richard never attacked.”

C. Richard, Duke of York: “Richard had the sight. Richard did not use the sight.”

D-1. Edward IV, King of England (grandfather of Henry VIII): “Edward had the sight. Edward didn’t use the sight.”

D-2. Richard III, King of England (grandfather of Henry VIII): “Richard III did not think of what he saw. Richard had no instruction. Richard had a feeling. Richard saw an image. Richard rejected or not, as he thought proper. When Richard rejected, the image came to pass.”

E. Henry VII, King of England (son of Richard III): “Henry had the sight. Henry did not use the sight. Henry let the sight use him.”

F. Henry VIII, King of England: “Henry used the sight. Henry knew. Henry could expect to find in future whatever he saw. Henry saw the end. Henry knew. Henry would not have a grandson. Henry understood. The sight was condemning his house. Henry did not accept. Henry raged.”

G-1. Edward VI, King of England: “Edward does not think that the sight was in Edward. Edward did not receive a gift like that described by his ancestors. Edward thinks that he was passed over.”

G-2. Elizabeth, Queen of England: “Elizabeth had the sight. Elizabeth did not think of using. Elizabeth simply thought of helping. The sight thought of images. Elizabeth followed what she saw. England survived.”

King James I of England had an un-persecuted second sight lineage, which can be found in “Second Sight: Three Un-persecuted Lineages from Otto of Zutphen.”

James, King of England: “King James had the sight. James understands that all of his children received the sight. James understands that he was never suspected. James understood, because of the way his eldest son was eliminated, that the ambition to unify the Tudor and Stewart dynasties with a marriage led to the unfortunate second son ascending the throne. James had a grandson whom he overlooked. James calculated that to have a child on the throne would lead to a dynastic failure.”

FIRST GENERATION

1. Henry VII, King of England, natural son of Richard III, King of England.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VII_of_England

SECOND GENERATION

2. Margaret of England, wife of James IV, King of Scots; she was NOT the mother of King James V. Margaret had a daughter Margaret (#4 below) by her future third husband (Henry Stewart, 1st Lord Methven) while married to her second husband (Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus).
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Tudor
Margaret: “Margaret had a life of control. Margaret had the ability to maneuver. Margaret did not regret.”

3. Henry VIII, King of England, father of numbers 5 through 11 below.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

THIRD GENERATION

4. Margaret (1515-1578), daughter of Margaret of England (#2) by Henry Stewart, Lord Methven. She was a lady-in-waiting to Queen Anne Boleyn (mother of Queen Elizabeth).
Margaret: “Margaret grew up in England. Margaret understood. Margaret must marry an Englishman. Margaret had the opportunity to marry a man who was her inferior. Margaret did so. Margaret was punished.” Margaret’s husband, Thomas Howard, was a younger son of Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk, descended from Magna Carta barons Mowbray, Bohun, and de Vere. Margaret and Thomas Howard had a son Robert (#12 below). Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Douglas

5. Way, son of King Henry VIII (#3). In King Henry’s words (Oct. 29, 2018): “King Henry had a son who was unknown. The son was an accident. The woman attracted the prince, who never thought of becoming King. The prince was careless. A son was born. The son was given a legacy.”
Way: “The son of King Henry had a way of living. The son had to work. The son understood. He was not to be seen. The son had a way of working. The son was a man who made swords. The son had a wife who was of common birth. The wife bore a daughter. The daughter married. The son his name was Way.”
Way: “Way was the son of a king. Way had no knowledge. Way simply was. Way made swords. Way had a living. Many important men bought swords.”

6. Anne, daughter of King Henry VIII (#3). King Henry VIII explained that he had an early daughter, of whom he had been unaware until much later. In daughter Anne’s words (Oct. 29, 2018): “Anne understands that her father was unaware of her birth. Anne understands that, because of the situation, Anne could not be acknowledged. Anne was give a private gift, which helped Anne marry well. Anne was the wife of a nobleman. Anne had three children, two sons and a daughter. Anne, through her son, is the ancestor of John.” Anne’s husband: “Anne’s husband was known as William. Anne’s husband was not of a prominent family. William had the name of Fortescue.” After that was said, I [JSS] did a google search using the words “william fortescue anne,” and found Anne Gifford, wife of William Fortescue. Anne said that the Giffords were her adoptive family. They had a son Faithful (#14 below).

7. Thomas Stucley (c. 1520-1598), son of Henry VIII (#3 above), by Jane Pollard, whose husband Hugh Stukley was a Knight of the Body to King Henry. “Thomas Stucley was the son of the king. Thomas was known as the king’s son. Thomas was able. Thomas was used. Thomas did not prosper.”
Thomas Stucley’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Stukley
Thomas Stucley had a daughter Philippa (#15 below).

8. Christian, daughter of King Henry VIII (#3) by Anne Basset, whose wikitree profile is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Bassett
“Christian understood. Christian had a choice. Christian could be a wife. Or Christian could be a mistress. Christian chose. Her choice was not the good choice. Christian bore a daughter. The daughter was of a family with a lineage. The family was not well respected. The family was known as involved with the death of King Edward. The family was Neville.”
Neville (husband of Christian): “Neville will speak. Neville had the choice of being a proper man or of living according to his will. Neville made his choice. This was before Neville became the man of Christian. Neville did not know of the story of the death of King Edward until he asked why his family was not well respected. Neville did not think of this until he thought of choosing a wife. Neville discovered that it would be difficult to find a wife of a good family. Neville instead chose a woman from the family of Edward.” Neville was a recognized son of Henry, 5th Earl of Westmoreland, but not by either of Henry’s wives. Neville was a full brother of the wife of Edward VI.
Christian and Neville’s daughter Anne (#16 below) was an ancestor of Anna Wright, wife of Thomas Burnham, early immigrant to Connecticut.

9. Catherine Carey (d. 1569), daughter of Henry VIII (#3 above) by Mary Boleyn. She was raised by Mary’s husband William Carey as his daughter, and became the chief lady-in-waiting of her half-sister (and first cousin – their mothers were sisters) Queen Elizabeth. Her husband was Sir Francis Knollys (c. 1511-1596), Member of Parliament and Treasurer of the (Royal) Household. Their daughter Anne (#16) below) married Thomas West, 2nd Baron De La Warr.
Catherine Carey’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Carey
Sir Francis Knollys’ Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Knollys_(the_elder)

10. Elizabeth, Queen of England (1533-1603), had a daughter Anne (#18 below) by Walter Ralegh, M.P.; the daughter was the mother of Richard Wright, whose wife Anne was daughter of King Henry VIII’s daughter Christian (#8). “Queen Elizabeth was imprisoned. Queen Elizabeth understood. The chances were good that Queen Elizabeth would be beheaded. Queen Elizabeth chose. Queen Elizabeth had a child. This prevented her from being beheaded.”
Queen Elizabeth’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England
Walter Ralegh’s “History of Parliament” page: https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/ralegh-walter-15045-81

11. Edward VI, King of England (1537-1553) had a son and a daughter by Margaret Neville, wife of Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland, who acted as their father. [Henry, Earl of Rutland’s actual son, the 3rd Earl of Rutland, was the grandfather of the William Cecil, husband of #32 below.) Edward also had a daughter by a secret marriage to a daughter of Margaret Neville’s brother Henry, 5th Earl of Westmoreland, who played a central role in poisoning King Edward. “Edward knew that his secret wife was the daughter of a man but not his wife. This is the only way a woman could have become a secret wife.” [Edward’s wife was 15 at the birth of their daughter, within a month before his death. Her mother was Margaret, bastard daughter of Lewis Pollard, who was grandfather of Thomas Stukley (#7)] “Edward’s wife will speak. Edward’s wife was named Margaret. Margaret was the niece of the woman who bore Edward’s children. Margaret was much younger. Margaret was the daughter of her father’s mistress. Margaret understood. Margaret had to act. Margaret had a baby. If Edward didn’t die, then the baby would die. Margaret understood. Margaret her father insisted that Margaret bear the poison.”
Edward VI’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VI_of_England
Henry Neville, 5th Earl’s page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Neville,_5th_Earl_of_Westmorland
Henry, 2nd Earl of Rutland’s page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Manners,_2nd_Earl_of_Rutland

FOURTH GENERATION

12. Robert Howard (1537-1598), son of Margaret (#4), daughter of Margaret of England (#2). “Robert Howard was the son of a man who had a good position. Robert did not. Robert had to struggle. Robert was not given preferment. Robert was remembered as the son of the King’s displeasure.” Robert Howard had a daughter Mary (#22) by his mistress.
Robert Howard’s findagrave: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/111928656/robert-howard
[Nov. 3, 2018: Robert Howard had two other daughters by his mistress, one of whom – Margaret -- was wife of William Holloway, first cousin of George Holloway (the father-in-law of #37). William and Margaret Holloway were the parents of John, father of James, father of John Holloway the ancestor of Sarah, who became the companion of Henry Young, Sr., a descendant of #48 below.]

13. Mary, daughter of Way (#5), son of King Henry VIII. “The daughter of Way knew that her father had no name. The daughter understood that her father was the son of an important man. The daughter also understood, because of her mother, that the daughter could not marry a man with a lineage. The daughter’s name was Mary.”
“The husband of Mary, the daughter of Way, had a small effort. The effort involved buying and selling. This was enough. London needed supplies. The husband of Mary had connections. This was enough. The name of the husband was Efrain. He was of the family of Way.” Efrain and Mary had a son John who went to Virginia (#23 below).

14. Faithful Fortescue was son of William Fortescue by Anne (#6), daughter of King Henry VIII.
Faithful: “Faithful Fortescue had the name of a nephew. The nephew was important. Faithful was not. Faithful was confused with his nephew. Faithful had a son Faithful. The son was also confused with the nephew.” His son Faithful (#24) lived in Virginia during the Interregnum (1650s).
15. Philippa, daughter of Thomas Stucley (#7), son of King Henry VIII.
Philippa: “The daughter of Thomas Stucley never knew her father. The daughter of Thomas Stucley understood who he was. The daughter of Thomas Stucley was in the procession of the Duke. The daughter of Thomas Stucley was named Philippa. The daughter of Thomas Stucley was married.”
Philippa’s husband: “The husband of Philippa was named William. William was from a family with a lineage. William understood that his wife had the blood of the king. William was able to not have any problem. William went to Virginia. William was the progenitor of a family. The name was Hevering.” William was the father of Edgar Hevering (#25).

16. Anne, daughter of Neville by Christian (#8), daughter of King Henry VIII by Anne Basset, married Richard Wright (#28 below) and had daughter Anne (#26 below) who married Thomas Burnham and settled in Connecticut.
Anne: “Anne had the life of a farmwife. Anne thought that she would marry a man who would keep her in a way that she expected. Anne knew, because of her family, that it was important to not be near the King. Anne understood, because of her family, that people would not forget. Anne needed to not be available for other people to manipulate. Anne wanted to be a farmwife. Anne had a husband who owned a ship. Anne had the responsibility of keeping the farm. The farm was far from London.”

17. Anne Knollys (1555-1608), daughter of Catherine Carey (#9), daughter of Henry VIII by Mary Boleyn. Anne Knollys married Thomas West, 2nd Baron De La Warr. They were the parents of John West, Governor of Virginia (#27 below).
Ann Knollys’ Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Knollys,_Baroness_De_La_Warr
Thomas West’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_West,_2nd_Baron_De_La_Warr

18. Anne (b. 1555), daughter of Queen Elizabeth (#10). Anne: “Anne was not able to be with her mother. Anne knew who her mother was. Anne also knew, because of her mother, that Anne would be well cared for. Anne had the opportunity to marry. Anne also had the opportunity to be a mistress. This was a choice that Anne considered. Anne understood, because of her birth, that to be a wife would be very difficult. Anne chose. Anne was the mistress of a man who had a good family. Anne understands that, because she was not a lawful wife, her daughter and son were not recognized. This meant that they had to work. This was the price of Anne her choice.”
“Anne had a man. The man was of a family that had no problem supporting an extra son. The man was an extra son. The man was helpful to his family. The man understood, when he chose Anne, that being the man of a woman with royal blood would give him extra attention. That was not a good thing. The man was unable to be awarded gifts because of the perception that he was being improperly favored.” Their son was Richard Wright (#28 below).

19. John Manners, 4th Earl of Rutland (c. 1551-1588), son of King Edward VI (#11) by Margaret Neville, wife of Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland.
Earl John: “John, Earl of Rutland, was able to live as if he was the son of the 2nd Earl. That was a fiction that was not well hid. John understood, because of his father, that John should be very careful. John had a thought of leaving England. John did not, but John knew that his daughter would be a target. John found a husband, without knowing if this would be a good match.” He had a daughter Ursula (#30 below, and not the daughter of his wife), who was sent to Virginia and married a bastard son of Governor John West (#27 below).
Earl John’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Manners,_4th_Earl_of_Rutland

20. Elizabeth Manners (c. 1553-c. 1590), daughter of King Edward VI (#11) by Margaret Neville, wife of Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland. She married William Courtney and had (among others) William Courtenay (#31), Jane Courtenay (#32), Margaret Courtenay (#33).
Elizabeth: “There was a confusion. Elizabeth understood. The father of Elizabeth must never be mentioned.”
William Courtenay’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Courtenay_(died_1630)

21. Elizabeth (b. 1553), daughter of King Edward VI (#11) by his secret wife Margaret. “The daughter of Edward and Margaret was not named Margaret. She was named Elizabeth. Elizabeth was the name of Edward his sister. Edward understood. The family would split apart. Mary would be Catholic. Elizabeth would not. Edward made a choice with the name of his daughter. This was remembered. Elizabeth had an opportunity. Elizabeth understood. If Elizabeth was able to marry the son of a king, then Elizabeth could bring the blood of King Henry to the next family. Elizabeth hoped that her daughter would be the wife of the son of King James. Elizabeth did not live to see if that happened.”
“The husband of Elizabeth was named Charles. The husband was not from a family that was prominent. The husband was not the son of the wife of his father. The father was from Neville. The husband never used Neville. The husband was the second cousin of his wife.” Ralph Neville, father of the 4th Earl of Westmoreland, had a son named Neville who was not by his wife. “Neville had a son named Charles who had a son named Charles.”
Elizabeth and Charles had a daughter Elizabeth (#34).

FIFTH GENERATION

22. Mary, daughter of Robert Howard (#12), son of Margaret (#4), daughter of Margaret of England: “Robert’s daughter was named Mary. Mary was under the government of her father’s wife. Mary was not badly treated. Mary had to work. Mary understood that she would marry a man who expected his wife to work. Mary had to agree.”

23. John Abrams, son of Efrain by Mary (#13), daughter of Way (#5). “John was the son of Efrain. John had no name. John went to Virginia. John became a man with a name. John his name was Abraham. And this became Abrams.”

24. Faithful Fortescue (1601-1683), son of Faithful Fortescue (#14), son of Anne (#6), dau. of Henry VIII. See http://www.fortescue.org/alphabetical/b31.html#P948 : “Lieu-Col Faithful FORTESCUE22 was christened on 23 January 1601 in Northam, Devon.19 He died about 1683 in Northam, Devon. Faithful entered the Army and served in Flanders with distinction. He visited his cousin Sir Faithful, governor of Carrickfergus and drew up and formed the whole army in order of battle so well that he was given a captain's commission in the field by the Duke of Ormonde….” (The rest of the quotation confuses Faithful with his first cousin by the same name.)
Faithful: “Faithful Fortescue was from a family with a tradition of honorable service. Faithful had a name. The name and tradition bound Faithful. Faithful was obligated to support the king. Faithful was forced to flee when the King was captured. Faithful did not think. Faithful acted.”
Faithful Fortescue settled in Virginia and changed his name, and had a daughter Elizabeth (#37) who stayed in Virginia and became the second wife of James Holloway.

25. Edgar Hevering, son of William Hevering by Philippa (#15), dau. of Thomas Stucley (#7), son of Henry VIII. Edgar Hevering married Sarah Orchard (daughter of Hugh Stucley/Orchard, a descendant of Edward IV). Sarah was part of an un-persecuted “second sight” lineage from the Valoines/Criketot marriage (see that file). Edgar Hevering: “Edgar Hevering was unable to have a good position. Edgar Hevering won a bet and gained a home. This was the source of his position. This was not well respected. Edgar Hevering was able to be the father of a son [Jason, #38 below], who was the ancestor of John.”

26. Anne Wright, daughter of Richard Wright (#28 below) by Anne (#16 above), who was daughter of Christian (#8), daughter of Henry VIII. Anne Wright married Thomas Burnham, a lawyer and an early immigrant to Connecticut, who bought a large tract of land from an Indian chieftain and resisted colonial attempts to expropriate it. Their descendants are well-researched; see https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Burnham-Descendants-436
Anne: “Anne knew, because of her family, that it was best to leave England. Anne understood, because of the King and the Queen in her ancestry, there would be a problem. Anne knew, in Connecticut, the people were not going to ask questions.”

27. John West (1590-1659), Governor of Virginia, son of Thomas West (2nd Baron De La Warr) by Anne Knollys (#17), daughter of Catherine (#9), daughter of Henry VIII. He had a mistress, who bore a son John (#40 below), who was reared by the mistress’s half-brother Abraham White, who gave his name to son John and his descendants. John West also had a son James by another mistress. James married Ursula (#30 below—granddaughter of King Edward VI).
“John West, Governor of Virginia. John knew, because of his position, that John had to stay in Virginia. John had royal blood. John understood, there were a few people who knew. For that reason, John always was uncomfortable. John West was a good governor. John did not use his office to make his family supreme. This was remembered.”

28. Richard Wright, son of Anne (#18), daughter of Queen Elizabeth (#10). Richard married Anne (#16 above), granddaughter of King Henry VIII. Their daughter was Anne (#26 above).
Richard: “There was a way for Richard Wright to visit America. Richard ensured that his daughter settle there. Richard understood. Richard must not draw attention.”

29. Anne, daughter of Anne (#18), daughter of Queen Elizabeth (#10).
“Anne’s daughter was able to have a husband. Anne was the daughter’s name. Anne knew, because of her mother, that her grandmother was the queen. This meant that Anne had the hope of actually meeting the Queen. This happened. Anne was invited to become one of the Queen her waiting women. This was done without the Queen saying if she knew. The Queen understood. This must never be said.”
Anne’s husband: “The husband of Anne knew. The husband of Anne did not think that other people would know. But this was a mistake. The family had more. The family had less than the husband desired. But the husband was above what he expected. The husband his name was Christopher Baconson.” Christopher was an early son of the famous natural philosopher (and Chancellor to King James I) Francis Bacon, whose maternal grandfather, the noted scholar Anthony Cooke of Oxford University, was in charge of the moral education of King Edward VI. Christopher was unable to be a good father. Christopher knew, if he was going to be able to support a child, that Christopher had to have a skill or connections that allowed Christopher to assist others in making money. Christopher did not have either. Christopher was comfortable. Christopher was unable to make his station endure for his daughter.” Christopher and Anne were the parents of Abigail (#42).

30. Ursula was a bastard daughter of John Manners, 4th Earl of Rutland (#19), son of King Edward VI. Ursula: “Ursula expected to marry well, but Ursula was sent to Virginia were an important man needed a wife. Ursula married a relative of one of the merchants. Ursula was very disappointed, because Virginia was no place for a noblewoman.”
(Oct. 31, 2018): “The husband of Ursula was named James. James had no name. James had a lineage. The family of James’s father was West. [His father was Governor John West of Virginia--#27 above] James knew that he had a sister. James also knew that the sister had a different mother. James was unable to be a good brother. James lost his sister. James understood, if he was careful, he might find a clue. James discovered that his sister had an uncle. The uncle was Abraham. Abraham did not want to help James. James understood, because of his family, that people in England were thinking of coming to America. James understood, if he was able to help, then the family of his sister could receive men. James was able to assure Abraham that James wanted to be able to pass members of the family to relatives so the family could help each other. This was accepted. James was able to pass one family to the family of his sister. James understands that his son was able to do the same.”
Ursula and James had a son Henry (#42 below).

31. William Courtenay (d. 1605), was the eldest son of William Courtenay by Elizabeth Manners (#20), daughter of King Edward VI (#11). His mistress was Rachel, of the Harcourt family [see “Ancestral Memries: Harcourt Descents” (forthcoming)]. “Rachel was unable to have a husband. Rachel understood, because her father had no land, that she would be unable to have a husband unless she married a farmer. Rachel became the mistress of a man who had a great estate. Rachel bore a son. Rachel had a life of comfort. Rachel is not ashamed.”
William and Rachel had a son Ralph (#43 below). Rachel and her son were well maintained after William’s early death.

32. Jane Courtenay was a daughter of William Courtenay by his wife Elizabeth Manners (#21), daughter of King Edward VI (#11). Jane married William Cecil (1590-1618) as his second wife, and she fled to Virginia after his murder with their son John, who became Davis. (See the Cecil/Davis ahnentafel.)
(Oct. 1, 2018) King James: "Cecil was being destroyed. Cecil his [first] wife was able to convince others. Cecil his wife did not want to. Cecil his wife did not act of her own will. Cecil was unable to get his wife away from her family. Cecil was sent abroad. Cecil suffered. Cecil was the victim. Cecil was able to marry again."
William Cecil: "Cecil was cut short, and he will now speak, if he is given leave to speak. Cecil was the son of a great lord. Cecil understood that the kingdom was being ruined. Cecil was aware of the source of the evil. Cecil decided to act. Cecil acted without sufficient preparation. Cecil was exposed. Cecil understood that he would be persecuted. Cecil had a wife and a son. Cecil arranged for his wife and son to be sent to Virginia with sufficient wealth to establish themselves. Cecil was able to pretend that his wife was at a country estate. Cecil supposes that his wife was searched for before the decision to kill him.” Cecil’s wife and son John (#44) established themselves in Virginia under the name of Davis.

33. Margaret Courtenay was a daughter of William Courtenay and Elizabeth Manners (#21), daughter of King Edward VI (#11). Margaret married Prince Henry (1594-1612), eldest son of King James. (See the later Scottish royal lineage in “Second Sight: Three Un-persecuted Lineages from Otto of Zutphen.”) Prince Henry and his parents actually had no Tudor ancestry (despite the “accepted” genealogy), so the marriage to Margaret was meant to bring Tudor blood into the Stuart dynasty. Prince Henry had a son Charles (#45), who was overlooked to preserve the throne.
After Prince Henry’s premature death, Margaret had another son Abraham (#46). Margaret: “The son did not have a good opportunity. Margaret was able to ensure that the son had passage to Virginia.”

34. Elizabeth, daughter of Elizabeth (#21), daughter of King Edward VI (#11) by his wife Margaret. “Elizabeth had a good life. Elizabeth had a good husband. Elizabeth had a son who went to Virginia.”
Elizabeth’s husband: “Elizabeth’s husband was named John. John was from the family of Herndon. Herndon had a lineage. The lineage was not prominent. John Herndon decided to send his younger son [#47 below] to Virginia. John understood, because of his wife, there was a possibility that John and his family would be persecuted. John knew, if he had a son in Virginia, there would be a safe place.”

SIXTH GENERATION

35. Sam, son of Mary (#22), daughter of Robert Howard (#12), son of Margaret (#4), daughter of Margaret of England. “The son of Mary was unable to have a good life. The son was sent to Virginia. The son was sent as a prisoner. The son understood. This was a way to get rid of someone. The son had to live. The son had to work. The son knew that he had a noble lineage. The son wanted to be recognized. The son had to earn the recognition. The son achieved his goal. The son was called Sam. Sam was not a name that people used. It was laughed at. But Sam was able to make the name respected.” Sam was the father of Eve (#48).

36. John, son of John Abrams (#23), son of Efrain by Mary (#13), daughter of Way (#5), son of King Henry
“The son of John Abrams was named John. John knew that he had the opportunity to build a lineage. John did not have a son. John had a daughter. John knew, if his daughter married a respectable man, John would be remembered. John was unable to find a respectable man. John did not have a good daughter. John his daughter made an arrangement. This made a new family. John helped the new family. John hoped that a grandson would think of his grandfather. John had a grandson. The grandson was named Efrain.” Efrain was the son of John’s daughter Julia (#49).

37. Elizabeth, daughter of Faithful Fortescue (#24), son of Faithful Fortescue (#14), son of Anne (#6), daughter of Henry VIII. Faithful Fortescue brought his daughter Elizabeth to Virginia after the Royalists lost the Civil War. Elizabeth became the second wife of James Holloway, and the mother of David (#50). James had had an earlier son David by his first wife, who died young; the two Davids are often confused.
“Elizabeth did what she should. Elizabeth did as a mother.”

38. Jason Hevering, son of Edgar Hevering (#25), son of William Hevering by Philippa (#15), dau. of Thomas Stucley (#7), son of Henry VIII.
“Jason was unable to be a prominent man. Jason was able to be respected. Jason had a generation in the town where he lived. Jason had a daughter Esther who married a miller.” See #51 below.

39. Thomas Burnham (1646-1726) of Connecticut, son of Thomas Burnham by Anne Wright (#26), daughter of Richard Wright (#28), son of Anne (#18), daughter of Queen Elizabeth (#10). Thomas married Naomi, daughter of Josias Hull.
Thomas Burnham: “Thomas Burnham was the son of a man who fought against the colony. Thomas was not given respect. Thomas had ability. Thomas married a daughter of a respected family. Thomas simply had to accept that he would not be allowed into the leading families.”

40. John White, son of Gov. John West (#27), son of Thomas West (2nd Baron De La Warr) by Anne Knollys (#17), daughter of Catherine (#9), daughter of Henry VIII. John was reared by his mother’s half-brother Abraham White, who gave his surname to John and his descendants. The lineage descends through three generations on the Virginia frontier named Abraham White (see “Second Sight: Three Un-persecuted Lineages from Otto of Zutphen”), and then a paper trail emerges with Benjamin White: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/White-10386 , whose son Jonathan married a descendant of William Davis of Pittsylvania Co., Virginia (see #51).

41. Abigail, daughter of Christopher Baconson by Anne (#29), daughter of Anne (#18), daughter of Queen Elizabeth (#10).
Abigail: “Abigail was able to marry. Abigail had a husband who wanted to travel. The family understood. The man was given a boat. The boat was used to make a profit. The boat was sold for a ship. The ship was used, but not profitably. The ship brought enough income.”
“The husband of Abigail will say that the boat was more profitable than the ship. The ship allowed the husband to imagine living in America. This is what his son decided to do. The husband was named Abel.” Abel was the father of Abel Carter of Delaware (#52 below).

42. Henry was a son of James, son of Governor John West (#27--great-grandson of King Henry VIII) by Ursula (#30), granddaughter of King Edward VI. Henry married Margaret, daughter of Stephen Stewart, son of Henry of France, the post-humous son of King Francis II of France by Mary, Queen of Scots. [Henry of France was born in Russia and stayed there after his mother returned to her throne in Scotland. He married the daughter of Feodor Romanov, Patriarch of Moscow and the progenitor of the Romanov Czars of Russia. The lineage through Queen Mary is part of an un-persecuted “second sight” lineage from Otto of Zutphen—see that article.]
Henry and Margaret were the parents of Mildred (#53), wife of Michael Tavenor.

43. Ralph, son of William Courtenay (#31), son of William Courtenay by Elizabeth Manners (#20), daughter of King Edward VI (#11).
“Ralph had a choice: Go to Virginia or be a servant in a position of trust. Ralph chose to be a servant. Ralph understood, if he prospered, he could go to Virginia later. This is not what he did. Ralph married and had a daughter. The daughter had a son. The daughter’s son went to Virginia.” Ralph’s daughter was Mary (#54).

44. John Davis, son of William Cecil by Jane Courtenay (#32), daughter of William Courtenay by his wife Elizabeth Manners (#21), daughter of King Edward VI (#11). John’s son William had a son John, who had a son Benjamin who married Esther Herndon (see note at #47 below).

45. Charles Stewart (b. 1611), son of Prince Henry by Margaret Courtenay (#33), daughter of William Courtenay by his wife Elizabeth Manners (#21), daughter of King Edward VI (#11).
“Charles was unable to live in England. Charles was unable. Charles did not have a good way. Charles was unfortunate. Charles thought that he deserved to be King. Charles understood. If he tried to become King, he would be killed. Charles understood. The people who tried to keep his father from marrying his mother, also intended to keep Charles from being King.”
Charles Stewart’s daughter Margaret married Abraham White, son of John White (#40).
“Margaret. Margaret was unable to have a good family. Margaret lived in the backwoods. Margaret understood. Margaret was hiding the sight.”

46. Abraham Smith, son of Margaret Courtenay (#33), daughter of William Courtenay by his wife Elizabeth Manners (#21), daughter of King Edward VI (#11).
Margaret: “The son did not have a good opportunity. Margaret was able to ensure that the son had passage to Virginia.”
Abraham: “The son of Margaret Courtenay was the father of George Archer. George did not approve. The son of Margaret was unable to be as a father. The son was raised as a son by George. The son of Margaret was named Abraham. Abraham took the name Smith.”
According to the ancestors, George Archer (b. 1654?) of Virginia was not the son of George Archer. He was the son of Mary, wife of George Archer, by Abraham Smith, son of Margaret Courtenay. The younger George Archer was the father of John Archer, whose daughter Judith had a daughter Judith (Booker), who married James Holloway, grandson of #50.

47. John Herndon, son of Elizabeth (#34), daughter of Elizabeth (#21), daughter of King Edward VI (#11).
“John Herndon went to Virginia as a young man. John learned about where to invest. John knew that he could not buy land. John thought of returning and buying. This what John did.”
John was the father of William Herndon who married Anne Bishop. Their son William married Catherine, daughter of Governor Edward Digges. William and Catherine had a son Edward, who married Elizabeth, a late daughter of Gov. Alexander Spottswood by Polly, only child of Governor Edward Nott. Governor Spottswood descends, through his mother (Strachan/Straquan), from King Louis XI of France, whose only daughter (Margaret) by his first wife was raised in Scotland and married Alexander Livingston of Callendar (d. 1450), Keeper of Stirling Castle, after it was decided that young King James II would not marry her.
Edward and Elizabeth Herndon had a daughter Esther, who married Benjamin Davis, father of William Davis, miller of Pittsylvania County (who married Sarah Graves, granddaughter of #51).

SEVENTH GENERATION

48. Eve, daughter of Sam (#35), son of Mary (#22), daughter of Robert Howard (#12), son of Margaret (#4), daughter of Margaret of England.
Eve: “Eve knew that her father became a prisoner. Eve understood. This was disrespectable. This was a mark. This was something that people understood. Eve could not expect to find a good husband. Eve had a life of trouble. Eve did not look for a good husband. Eve found a man who would keep her. That was all she thought she could get.”

“Eve her man will speak. Eve was unable to be respectable. Eve her man was unable to be respectable. They lived together. They had two children. One of the children was the ancestor of John. This was the daughter. The son worked. The son did not have a chance to have a family.”

Eve, daughter of Eve: “The daughter of Eve was not able to be a good wife. The daughter of Eve understood, if she was going to be able to live in a way that she wanted, she would have to make a problem for another man his wife. This is what Eve did. Eve had a son. The son was named Thomas. Thomas was a name that Eve chose. Thomas was the name that was given to her husband.”

Thomas, son of Eve: “Thomas had a family. Thomas died.”

Sarah: “The daughter of Thomas had a family. The daughter of Thomas was named Sarah. Sarah had a husband. Sarah did not think that Sarah had a lineage. Sarah was a simple wife of a farmer.” (also named Thomas).

“Francis, son of Thomas and Sarah, will speak. Sarah did not have a child until she was getting old. Sarah did not have a dowry. Sarah waited. A man who lost his wife needed a wife. Sarah was chosen. Francis was unable to live well. Francis had no fortune. Francis was the youngest. The other children got a settlement. Francis had nothing. Francis was able to go to another place. That meant that Francis was new. Nobody knew of the reputation of the family. Francis had the chance to work. Francis worked. And Francis began. Francis was able to make enough money to have some land. And that was enough.” Francis had a daughter Frances who married John Holloway.

“John Holloway. John Holloway was from a family that had a brief lineage. John understood that he had a royal connection. John did not have any sense of how. John simply lived.” [See note below.]

“Sam, the son of John, will speak. Sam did not have a name. Sam was just Sam. Sam knew that he would not have a good wife. Sam understood. The family that did not have a name must find others who didn’t have a name.” Sam’s daughter became the companion of Henry Young, Sr. (see “Second Sight: Three Un-persecuted Lineages from Otto of Zutphen.”)

“Sam’s daughter had the name Sarah. Sarah had a family. Sarah wasn’t married. Sarah had a niece. Sarah understood. The niece would be able to take care of Sarah and her husband. Sarah and her husband agreed. The niece would marry the husband. Then the husband had children with the niece. Sarah understood. The family continued.” Sarah and Henry were the parents of Henry Young, Jr., who married Dimsey (Dempsey) Buckelew, a descendant of #48 below.
[Nov. 3, 2018: I found a reference to John Holloway in a Jan. 2017 e-mail from a Holloway researcher. John Holloway confirmed that he was the same as John, son of James (d. 1745), brother of William who was the son of John, son of William Holloway the immigrant, who “was not the brother but the first cousin of George. William was the husband of the daughter of a man named Howard.” This was Robert Howard, #12 above. George Holloway was the father-in-law of Elizabeth Fortescue, #37 above.]

49. Julia, daughter of John Abrams (#36), son of John Abrams (#23), son of Efrain, by Mary (#13), daughter of Way (#5), son of King Henry VIII.
Julia: “The daughter of John was named Julia. Julia understood. Julia had made a choice. Julia could not expect her family to rise.”
James: “The man of Julia was named James. The man did not have a family name.”

Efrain: “Efrain, the son of James, was a man with a name. Efrain took the name Smith. Efrain understood. Because Smith was a common name, people with that name were confused with others. That is why Smith became such a common name. Efrain had a daughter. Efrain his daughter was a good daughter. Efrain found a husband.”

Mary: “The daughter of Efrain was named Mary. Mary understood, because of her family, that Mary should not expect to marry well. Mary knew that Mary was able to attract a man. Mary was able to find a man from a settled family. That was her husband.”

James Newton: “The husband of Mary was named James. James was from a family that was well established. The name was Newton.” Their daughter Mary married Garrett Buckelew, and their daughter Dimsey married Henry Young, Jr. (descended from #48 above. For the Young lineage, see “Second Sight: Three Un-persecuted Lineages from Otto of Zutphen”).

50. David Holloway, son of James Holloway by Elizabeth (#37), daughter of Faithful Fortescue (#24), son of Faithful Fortescue (#14), son of Anne (#6), daughter of King Henry VIII. David Holloway married Elizabeth Mathews, granddaughter of #53. Their son John married Sarah, grand-daughter of Mary (#54); they were the parents of James Holloway, whose wife Judith Booker (a distant cousin of Thomas Jefferson) was a daughter of Judith Archer, great-granddaughter of #46.

David Holloway: “David Holloway was the son of a man who had enough. David had more. David married the heiress of a man who had much. David was fortunate. David had a very big family. David had to be careful. David managed to set up his son. David managed to give opportunities to his younger sons.”

Elizabeth, wife of David: “Elizabeth had a good family. Elizabeth did not have a good relationship with her father. Elizabeth did not think that Elizabeth would be well remembered Elizabeth her father was able to provide for the children of Elizabeth.”

John Holloway: “John was the son of parents who had good fortune. John understood, because of this, that John had to be careful. It was the responsibility of the eldest to ensure the respect of the family.”

51. Hester, daughter of Jason Hevering (#38), son of Edgar Hevering, son of William Hevering by Philippa (#15), dau. of Thomas Stucley (#7), son of Henry VIII.
[Oct. 23] “Hester was able to live a comfortable life. Hester understood, after going to America, that the miller had a skill that made him valuable. This was of greater value in Virginia. The miller and Hester had a respectable life.”
Hester’s husband: “The miller was a man from a family with no lineage. The miller understood. His wife had a linage. His wife was from a family without proper respect. This meant that the miller married someone who was equal. This was important. The miller went to America because he knew that he would have more opportunities.” The miller’s name was John Graves. His son John had a daughter Sarah who married William Davis, miller of Pittsylavnia County, Virginia, son of Benjamin Davis, son of John, son of William, son of John (#44). For research on the Graves family, see http://www.gravesfa.org/gen270.htm . For extensive research on the Davis family [unfortunately missing the fact that William Davis of Pittsylvania County (starting March 1779) was the same as William Davis who left Culpeper County in December 1778, and incorrectly supposing that William’s father Benjamin Davis was the son rather than the grandson of the earlier William Davis, and incorrectly suggesting that the earlier William Davis’s wife was Mary White (per the ancestors, she was his sister-in-law), see http://www.joanhorsley.org/#Davis ].

52. Abel Carter, son of Abel by Abigail (#41), daughter of Christopher Baconson by Anne (#29), daughter of Anne (#18), daughter of Queen Elizabeth (#10).
Abel Carter: “Abel was able. Abel was a man with energy. Abel also had a family that was a good foundation. Abel understood, because of his family, that Abel had the opportunity to rise.”
Abel Carter married Isabel, a great-granddaughter of Hugh (Stucley) Orchard, through Hugh’s son Jason, a brother of the wife of #25 above. Abel Carter then brought his wife to America and settled in Delaware, where they had a daughter Susanna, who married Richard Enos of Delaware. There is a competent genealogy of the descendants of Richard Enos. One descent (through the Mitchell, Jones and Wallace families, a lineage followed in “Second Sight: “Three Un-persecuted Valoines/Criketot Lineages”) is online at https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Enos-Descendants-40 .

53. Mildred, daughter of Henry (#42), who was son of James, son of Governor John West (#27--great-grandson of King Henry VIII) by his wife Ursula (#30), granddaughter of King Edward VI. Mildred: “Mildred was the daughter of a man who did not have a good estate. Mildred understood, because of her inheritance, that Mildred had the blood of Kings. Mildred was told that her ancestry included kings of France and Scotland. Mildred also understood that her father was descended from the King of England. Mildred always thought, if this was true, Mildred should have more. Mildred also thought, if this was not true, then people should not have these stories. Mildred thought, after a while, if Mildred was descended from a king through a line that was not proper, that might explain. Mildred also thought, if the line was proper, there would be a claim.”

Mildred married Michael Tavenor. Their daughter Elizabeth married John Mathews, son of Governor Samuel Mathews. They in turn had a daughter Elizabeth, who married David Holloway (#50 above), whose son John married a granddaughter of Mary (#54 below).

Michael Tavenor: “Michael Tavenor was related to one of the early investors in Virginia. Michael was not his grandson. Michael benefitted. The man had no grandson. Michael was able to be thought of as the continuation of the man.” See https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/taverner/1/

54. Mary, daughter of Ralph (#43), son of William Courtenay (#31), son of William Courtenay by Elizabeth Manners (#20), daughter of King Edward VI (#11).
“Mary was the daughter of a man who was not well placed. Mary understood. Mary had to think of marrying a man who was not well placed. Mary was able to get a husband.”
Mary’s husband: “Mary was the wife of a man with no name. Mary her husband had a name, Pharoah. Pharoah had a name that showed his fathers pride. Pharoah wanted to not be seen. Pharoah stayed on the estate of his brother. This was not a hardship.” Pharoah was the son of William Saye, son of William Saye, Chancellor of the Bishop of Winchester, son of William (who was not a legitimate son; his mother was a daughter of Richard Fiennes, de jure 4th Baron Saye and Sele. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Saye_and_Sele#Lord_(Baron)_Saye_and_Sele_(1447) . Richard was the son of Henry, the 3rd Baron, by Anne, daughter of Richard Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt; see http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/saye1446.htm and https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Harcourt-Family-Tree-30 Fiennes descends from Magna Carta baron Geoffrey de Say; Richard Harcourt descends from Magna Carta baron Saher de Quincy (and others), and Richard’s wife Edith St. Clair descends from Magna Carta baron Robert de Vere.

Mary and Pharoah had a son who went to Virginia:

Vain: “The son of Mary and Pharoah was named Vain. Vain was unable. Vain had no way to ensure a living for a family. Vain had to work. Vain simply was a worker. Vain took the name Smith.”

Sarah: “Sarah, the daughter of Vain, understood that her father was from a family that was of good estate. Sarah understood that her father had no claim. Sarah was content to marry the son of a man with a good ancestry but no claim.” Her husband was John Holloway, son of David (#50).

[P J Evans]

> Sarah: “The daughter of Thomas had a family. The daughter of Thomas was named Sarah. Sarah had a husband. Sarah did not think that Sarah had a lineage. Sarah was a simple wife of a farmer.” (also named Thomas). ...

Fiction or spam? Choose. But it isn't genealogy.

[taf]

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 3:22:16 PM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> SECOND SIGHT: UN-PERSECUTED LINEAGES FROM OTTO OF ZUTPHEN
>
> Compiled by John Schmeeckle, Oct. 23-Nov. 1, 2018
>
>
> INTRODUCTION
>
> As explained by several ancestors, "second sight” – a peculiar ability to foresee the future – was a traditional attribute of kings.

I would suggest that had kings had this peculiar attribute, William II would not have gone hunting (or at least would have arranged his succession better before going hunting). Henry I might not have eaten as many eels (or at least would have arranged his succession better before going engorging). . . . .

Just more nonsensical mysticism.

taf

[P J Evans]

I thought John was the one who died from eating too many eels.

[taf]

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 8:38:57 PM UTC-8, P J Evans wrote:
> > I would suggest that had kings had this peculiar attribute,
> > William II would not have gone hunting (or at least would have
> > arranged his succession better before going hunting). Henry I
> > might not have eaten as many eels (or at least would have
> > arranged his succession better before going engorging). . . . .
>

> I thought John was the one who died from eating too many eels.

Henry of Huntingdon famously reported that Henry I died after eating "a surfeit of lampreys" against doctors' orders.

taf

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 3:34:32 PM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:

> Henry VII, King of England, natural son of Richard III, King of England.

Regarding the Tudor sucession:

History records that Henry VII was the posthumous son of Edmund Tudor by his wife Margaret Beaufort, descended from the House of Lancaster. However, according to the ancestors, Henry VII was the bastard son of King Richard III, who in turn was a bastard son of Richard, Duke of York. This means that Henry VII defeated his own father (by pre-arranged plan, because Richard had no heir) at Bosworth Field, to end the Wars of the Roses. This also means Henry VII’s wife, Elizabeth of York, daughter of King Edward IV, was the half first cousin of Henry VII.

Henry VII: “Henry VII was the son of Richad III. Henry understood. There was discrepancy in the records. Henry understood the reason. Richard, father of Richard, was unable to have another son. Richard had to continue by giving his bastard a new birthday. This was done to ensure the succession. Richard had to continue to be able to have children. That meant that Richard his wife had to register births. That meant that Richard had to ensure that a baby was baptized. This was done. Henry understood. Because of this, there was no way for Richard to be seen as the father of Henry. That meant, if Henry had to be the heir, Henry would have to appear to win the crown on the battlefield. This is what Richard and Henry agreed to do.

“Before the Battle of Bosworth, Henry and Richard met. Henry was backed by Holcroft. Richard was backed by Percy. Richard ordered Percy to not advance. Henry accepted. Henry understood, without Percy, Henry could win. With Percy, Henry had no chance.”

History records that, at the Battle of Bosworth, Richard III charged recklessly toward Henry and was cut down with many of his men.

Richard, Duke of York (father of Richard III): “Richard understood the need to have additional sons. Richard his sons were dying. Richard knew. Somebody was murdering the baby. Richard had two bastards. Richard needed to show a baptism. That meant that, even if the baby died, Richard could say that this was the baby. Richard had to do this. Richard had to keep his bastard sons out of the public eye. This was not difficult. Richard had a second heir. Richard also understood. When his heir was murdered, Richard had to be able to produce another heir. That meant that Richard had to explain. Richard said that his heir was murdered. Richard said that his next heir was unready to be presented. The next heir must be able to defend himself. This was accepted. George waited. George died.”

George, Duke of Clarence: “George can speak, because George had a son. George’s son was believed to have died. George understood how babies died. George existed because he took the place of a dead baby. George expected to have the same done to him.

“George knew, because of his heir, that George would be eliminated. George knew, because he was going to be eliminated, that he could chance his life with Lancaster. George understood, after approaching Lancaster, that Lancaster understood that George had an heir. Lancaster would never be helpful. George knew, after that, that there was no hope. George simply tried to preserve his son.”

Edward (1475-1499), son of George: “Edward knew. Edward was marked. Edward could not be allowed. Edward would be eliminated. Edward understood. Edward must have a son. This way, there would be a succession. This way, Edward would have a reason. Edward could not marry. The king forbade. Edward had a mistress. Edward was young. The mistress bore a son. The son disappeared. That was understood. The mistress disappeared. That was also understood. Edward had done what he intended.

"Edward knew, after his mistress left with his son, that Edward would not be able to escape. The King had guaranteed that Edward would not be a threat. Edward was imprisoned. Edward was cut.” (Edward is my ancestor, but I have not worked through the lineage yet.)

Lambert Simnel: “Lambert was the brother of Edward. Lambert was George. Lambert was unknown. Lambert could not appear as himself. Lambert had to insist that he was Edward.” [Lambert had a son who stayed in France. Lambert is not my ancestor, but is able to communicate with me, because while alive he communicated with his father, who communicated with his own father (my ancestors), as part of an extended web of ancestral communication.]
Lambert Simnel's Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_Simnel

[taf]

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 12:05:06 PM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 3:34:32 PM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Henry VII, King of England, natural son of Richard III, King of England.
>
> Regarding the Tudor sucession:
>
> History records that Henry VII was the posthumous son of Edmund Tudor by his wife Margaret Beaufort, descended from the House of Lancaster. However, according to the ancestors, Henry VII was the bastard son of King Richard III, who in turn was a bastard son of Richard, Duke of York. This means that Henry VII defeated his own father (by pre-arranged plan, because Richard had no heir) at Bosworth Field, to end the Wars of the Roses. This also means Henry VII’s wife, Elizabeth of York, daughter of King Edward IV, was the half first cousin of Henry VII.
>

What a huge steaming pile. Your coprogenesis is both irresponsible and tedious.

taf

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

SECOND SIGHT: THREE UN-PERSECUTED LINEAGES FROM VALOINES/CRIKETOT

Compiled by John Schmeeckle, October/November 2018
NOTE ON SOURCES

These three lineages are given by the ancestors who are part of the lineage, often confirming but sometimes contradicting an existing paper trail. I have added an explanation about communicating with ancestors at the end of this article.

I have often included birth and death dates below. These do not come from the ancestors, who rarely remember such details. These dates are taken from secondary or tertiary sources (including linked Wikipedia articles) and are not meant to be definitive. Their primary purpose is to show the approximate time period of the various people in the lineage.

SECOND SIGHT

The people in these three lineages had “the sight” – an ability to see the future, which was associated with the early medieval Kings of Wales and the Merovingian Kings of France (both descended – through separate lineages – from the Hebrew kings of the Old Testament). During the latter part of the medieval period, people with second sight were often persecuted and burned at the stake if they were discovered, which had the effect of crippling or weakening “the sight” in their descendants.

It is rare to find an un-persecuted lineage of people with second sight. This article presents three such lineages going back to the thirteenth-century marriage of Robert of Valoines to Eve, daughter of William of Criketot. One of these lineages descends to a well-connected Davis family of King William, Spottsylvania and Culpeper Counties, Virginia. Another lineage descends to a Graves family of Virginia that intermarried with this Davis family in the mid-eighteenth century. And a third lineage descends through the Wentworths to the Gash family of Maryland to a Jones/Wallace family of Iowa and Kansas.

Three other un-persecuted Valoines/Criketot lineages will be presented at another time: (1) to James Skiffe, an original settler of the town of Sandwich in Plymouth Colony; (2) to Ezra Perry, also an early settler of Sandwich in Plymouth Colony; and (3) to Oliver Wallace, an 18th-century immigrant from Ireland to South Carolina and ancestor of the Wallace family that intermarried with descendants of the Wentworth/Gash lineage below.

OTTO OF ZUTPHEN

The following explanation of “second sight” was given on Oct. 30, 2018 by Otto of Zutphen and transcribed by the compiler. It first appeared in “Second Sight: Three Un-persecuted Lineages from Otto of Zutphen,” which was posted online at the beginning of November, 2018.

“Otto, Lord of Zutphen, was the descendant of a line of kings of France. The line had the gift of ‘second sight.’ This enabled the king to look into the future and choose a path that benefited the people. The gift had to be used for no other purpose. This gift was abused by the later kings. The later kings had a problem with difficulties over who would be king. The gift was destroyed.

“Zutphen was descended from a younger brother. The younger brother saw that he would be the ancestor of another line of kings. The king who initiated this line would not be a king. Zutphen understood. This was not to be explained.

“Zutphen understood, because of what his father told him, that Zutphen was unable to use the sight. Zutphen must preserve a lineage. Zutphen must ensure that a line of descendants continued without being persecuted for having the sight.

“Zutphen understood. Some of his descendants would abuse the sight. They would lose. Their families would not prosper. Some of Zutphen’s descendants would use the sight. They would prosper, or not. The use of the sight was not important. What was important was that the sight be used in a proper way, when it was not too dangerous.

“Zutphen also understood. There were generations of the lineage that would be forbidden to use the sight. This was because of persecution. If the sight hid for a generation, it would not affect the lineage.

“Zutphen wanted to be able to not have the sight. Zutphen did not expect to be able to do what was revealed. Zutphen had to maintain his territory. Zutphen had an enemy. The enemy was growing in strength. Zutphen had no hope of resisting. Zutphen saw his successful resistance. Zutphen had to have the will to resist. Otherwise, nothing else that Zutphen saw would come to pass.

“Zutphen willed to resist. Zutphen told his men to expect help. Zutphen did not give details. The men were ambitious. The men were courageous. The men prevailed when the leader of the opposing force was struck down by an arrow.

“Zutphen lived. Zutphen did not talk. Zutphen was hailed. Zutphen did what he intended. Zutphen was never suspected of having the sight. This was the greatest fear of anyone with the sight. If a family was suspected, everything that the family did was scrutinized. This meant that any good fortune was talked about as if it was done by consulting the sight. Zutphen emphasized to his daughter that, if suspicion fell, the person and his or her son or daughter must never use the sight. The instructions must pass to a following generation. The following generation would have to be very careful. This was seen to be effective. Zutphen trained his daughter, and Zutphen his daughter trained her son. Zutphen understood. The son trained his sister. The sister her lineage continued.”

VALOINES, CRIKETOT, AND OTHERS

Valoines and Criketot are part of a small group of ancestors that actively communicates with living descendants. I recorded the following statements from the members of this group on Oct. 21, 2018:

Criketot: “Criketot will describe how Criketot and Valoines became associated with John Human. Criketot was able to live in peace. Criketot had the sight. Criketot was descended in the male line from a king. Criketot understood that descendants of the king often were swayed by personal ambition. This led them to use the sight without thinking of the well-being of others. This meant that Criketot had a gift that had been lost. This meant that Criketot had something unique. Criketot had the feeling that the gift had to return to a king. Criketot understood. Criketot had to give the gift to another family. This is why Criketot had a single surviving daughter.

Valoines: “Valoines understood, because of the gift, that Valoines was different. Valoines had the gift in the male line. Many families had the gift in a female line. This meant that the gift was given together with instruction from a mother. Valoines had the gift together with instructions from the father. This is something that Valoines understood. Valoines had to be careful. Valoines understood, when the male line failed, as Valoines saw that it would, female lines had to be prepared. This meant that the families that Valoines married would have the instruction from Valoines without being limited. This is what happened.”

Willoughby: “Willoughby will explain. Willoughby was a family that introduced the gift with a marriage. The marriage was to a daughter of Valoines. The gift was powerful. Willoughby had no idea how to train his son. Valoines was close. Valoines his brother was also in the neighborhood. Willoughby his son was able to think that he was in a good position.”

Fellbrigg: “Felbrigg was able to use the gift. Felbrigg understood. Felbrigg had a gift that was incomplete. The gift had been affected. Fellbrigg knew, because of this, that Felbrigg had to marry with a family. Felbrigg understood. Felbrigg moved. Felbrigg found.”

Monthermer: “Monthermer had the gift. Monthermer had a gift that was incomplete. Monthermer had a gift that could not be used. The gift compelled. The gift showed. Monthermer acted. Monthermer understood. Monthermer was being used to bring a family into the people.”

Criketot: “Criketot understood, after being able to live in a way that was harmonious, that Criketot did not have a way to show that Criketot had the ability to kill. This was a problem. Criketot had to be able to defend. The gift, used correctly, made Criketot unable to do things that were required.”

Senlis (added Nov. 9, 2018): “Senlis was descended from Charlemagne. Senlis was older than the others. Senlis did not experience persecution. This was not common in the earlier centuries. Senlis understood. Those with the sight, and with royal ancestry, were targeted. They might be killed by relatives. The relatives often hoped to become King.”

LINEAGE THROUGH DESPENSER AND CHEKE TO CECIL/DAVIS

1. Robert Valoines (d. 1263). “Robert was able to use the sight. Robert understood the limitation. Robert must never use the sight for his personal benefit. Robert must use the sight for the benefit of others.”

2. Robert Valoines (d. c. 1292). “Robert Valoines was able to learn from his father. Robert understood. Robert used the sight carefully. Robert used the sight when he was called. Because of the sight, Robert was able to see an ambush. Robert was very careful. Robert noticed. Robert was able to alert his companions. Robert understood, because the sight was not permanent, Robert had to plan. If Robert wanted to have a son who had the sight, Robert needed to have a wife. Robert needed to have a wife who supported Robert. Many people were afraid of people who had the sight. This meant, if Robert and his wife were not in agreement, Robert his wife would not agree to let Robert train their son. Robert was able to find a wife. Robert knew, because of his father, that the Criketot family had the sight. Robert his family married with Criketot. Robert knew that there was not a Criketot marriage recently. Robert married Eve Criketot.”

2. “Eve, daughter of William Criketot. Eve knew, because of her sight, that Eve and her husband would have a lineage. Eve thought, ‘How can my children be good for other people?’ Eve knew, after looking, that the lineage would not be persecuted. Eve thought, after being aware of this, that Eve should teach her children very carefully. Eve did this.”

3. “Joan, daughter of Robert of Ufford. Joan did not think of the sight. Joan did not think. Joan was simple. Joan took care of children. Joan did not have any opinions. Joan knew, when there was a decision, to look inside her. Joan knew, when she saw something bad, Joan could not change. Joan understood. What Joan saw must be followed.”

4. Aya, daughter of Joan Ufford after the death of Joan’s husband, had a son (Edward Cheke) with Edward, 4th Lord le Despencer (d. 1342). “Edward, 4th Lord le Despenser. Edward was unable. Edward was crippled. Edward had the sight. Edward understood. Edward had to let people think that Edward was not. This meant that Edward had no ability. Edward knew that this was not true. Edward understood. Edward was able. This means that Edward had the ability of second sight. This means that Edward had a power. Edward was unable. This means that Edward had no power. Edward was both able and unable. This meant that Edward was not clearly seen. Edward had the ability to listen. This meant that Edward could think of a person. If the person was speaking, Edward could hear. This meant that Edward was able. Edward had power, even though he was unable.”

5. “Edward Cheke. Edward was a man. This means that Edward had the ability to have a child. This also means that Edward had a child. This means that Edward was not married.”

6 “John Cheke. John Cheke was able. John Cheke had the sight. John Cheke understood. John Cheke had to live. John Cheke was a coward.”

7. “John Cheke. John Cheke was not. This means that John Cheke had no ability. This means that John Cheke was not trained as a knight. This also means that John had the ability to not go to fight. That meant that John was able to have a family. But John did not have an estate.”

8. “John Cheke. John was unable. John was not trained. John was unable. John was not a man. John did not have the ability. John was married. John his wife was able to help. John had a son.”

9. “Robert Cheke. Robert Cheke was not. Robert was unable. Robert was not. This means that Robert, after not being able to go to fight, was unable to have a child. This was because Robert did not have enough money to support a family.”

10. “Peter Cheke. Peter Cheke was a man. Peter Cheke was able. Peter Cheke was called.”

11. Mary Cheke (m. 1541; d. 1544). “Mary Cheke. Mary was the daughter of a man who valued education. Mary was given an education. Mary made a good marriage.”

12. William Cecil, 1st Baron of Burghley (1521-1598). “William Cecil. William Cecil had the sight. William was unabe. William was able. William was able to serve.”
Willliam Cecil’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cecil,_1st_Baron_Burghley "From 1558 for forty years the biography of Cecil is almost indistinguishable from that of [Queen] Elizabeth and from the history of England,” and Cecil had “a rare and natural gift for avoiding dangers.”

13. Thomas Cecil, 1st Earl of Exeter (1542-1623). “Thomas Cecil had the sight. Thomas was able. Thomas was a man with a mission. Thomas understood. The monarchy was in danger. Thomas acted. Thomas supported the queen.
Thomas Cecil’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cecil,_1st_Earl_of_Exeter

14. William Cecil, 2nd Earl of Exeter (1565-1640). “William Cecil had the sight. William understood. The sight must not be used for personal benefit.”
William Cecil’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cecil,_2nd_Earl_of_Exeter

15. William Cecil, 16th Baron de Ros (1590-1618). “William Cecil. William had the sight. William saw. William was destroyed. William saw. William was married again. William saw. William had a son. Wlliam had a new way. William understood. William his wife was the granddaughter of a king. William also understood. William his family would be killed. William countered. William sacrificed his life. William his wife escaped. William his son survived.
William Cecil’s Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cecil,_16th_Baron_de_Ros
William Cecil’s ancestry: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Cecil-Family-Tree-933 , which does not show the ancestry of his grandmother Isabel Holcroft. She was the granddaughter of John Holcroft, who (as mentioned in “Ancestral Memories: Descents from the Tudor Monarchs”) served as a second for not-yet King Henry VII when he secretly met King Richard III (Henry’s father) just before the Battle of Bosworth Field. William Cecil’s second marriage to Jane Courtenay (a granddaughter of King Edward VI), is also in “Ancestral Memories: Descents from the Tudor Kings.” After William’s untimely death, his wife brought son John to Virginia and took the name Davis.

16. “John Cecil alias Davis. John was a man. John understood. John had the sight. John was able. John wanted. John forbade himself. John was recompensed. This means that John was able to have a child. John saw the need to not have a child. This is what John denied himself.”

17. “William Davis. Willim Davis was a man with a mill. William understood. William had to be the pillar of support for the community. William had a way. William had the sight. William was able to guide his property. This meant that William didn’t make improvements. William was able to pass on the sight. This was all that William was able to do.

18. “John Davis. John Davis was a man. John Davis did not. John Davis was able to be married. But John had the temptation. John resisted, and for that reason John had a good marriage.”

19. “Benjamin Davis. Benjamin had the sight. Benjamin knew. Benjamin made a lot of money. Benjamin had the sight. Benjamin knew. Benjamin had a wife from a prominent family. This meant that Benjamin had opportunity. Benjamin used his opportunity. Benjamin was responsible for how he acted. This meant that Benjamin had to be careful. Benjamin understood. This meant that Benjamin knew the coming consequence. Benjamin did not save. Benjamin simply accepted what happened.”

Benjamin’s wife, Esther Herndon, was descended from three Virginia governors and from King Edward VI; see “Ancestral Memories: Descents from the Tudor Kings.”
For a report (not without error) on the family of Benjamin Davis, see http://www.joanhorsley.org/reports/Davis_Benjamin_I_REPORT_%2011_29_2017.pdf

20. William Davis (d. 1791), of Pittsylvania County, Virginia. “William Davis had a mill. William Davis had property. William Davis had slaves. William was uncertain. William did not use the sight at this time, because William knew that he might not want to see what he saw. William gave when the necessity required. This meant that William saw the church as his special responsibility. This was recorded.” See William Davis’s WikiTree profile at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Davis-19677

William’s wife Sarah Graves is #21 in the second lineage below. For Sarah’s descent from King Henry VIII, see “Ancestral Memories: Descents from the Tudor Kings.”

21. Sarah Davis (c. 1753-after 1843), wife of Thomas Mead. “Sarah Davis had the sight. Sarah Davis had to wait. Sarah understood. Sarah would receive a husband. Sarah received. Sarah had a family. Sarah had difficulty. Sarah lost all of her children. Sarah died after they all died.”
Part of Sarah Davis’s family tree is here: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Davis-Family-Tree-19676 “Thomas Mead. Thomas was able to see. Thomas had the sight. Thomas understood. Thomas did not have the ability that his wife did. This meant that Thomas had to accept what his wife saw. Thomas did not argue. Thomas asked. Thomas obeyed.”

22. Catherine Mead (c. 1788-1863), wife of Jonathan White. “Catherine. Catherine understood. Catherine had the sight. Catherine lost her husband. Catherine got a way. Catherine followed. Catherine ended up on top.”

23. Susan White (1829-1895), m. William Young, who also had an un-persecuted second-sight lineage.
“Susan had the sight. Susan understood that Susan was unable to be more than a widow. Susan knew that there was a bigger reason. Susan lived for the well-being of her children.”
(The lineage continues in “Second Sight: Three Un-persecuted Lineages from Otto of Zutphen.”)
For an ancestry chart of Susan’s son William Henry Young, see https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Young-Family-Tree-10061

LINEAGE FROM VALOINES/CRIKETOT TO GRAVES OF VIRGINIA

1. Robert of Valoines (d. 1263). “Robert was able to use the sight. Robert understood the limitation. Robert must never use the sight for his personal benefit. Robert must use the sight for the benefit of others.”

2. Robert of Valoines (d. 1292). “Robert of Valoines was able to learn from his father. Robert understood. Robert used the sight carefully. Robert used the sight when he was called. Because of the sight, Robert was able to see an ambush. Robert was very careful. Robert noticed. Robert was able to alert his companions. Robert understood, because the sight was not permanent, Robert had to plan. If Robert wanted to have a son who had the sight, Robert needed to have a wife. Robert needed to have a wife who supported Robert. Many people were afraid of people who had the sight. This meant, if Robert and his wife were not in agreement, Robert his wife would not agree to let Robert train their son. Robert was able to find a wife. Robert knew, because of his father, that the Criketot family had the sight. Robert his family married with Criketot. Robert knew that there was not a Criketot marriage recently. Robert married Eve, of Criketot.”

2. “Eve, daughter of William of Criketot. Eve knew, because of her sight, that Eve and her husband would have a lineage. Eve thought, ‘How can my children be good for other people?’ Eve knew, after looking, that the lineage would not be persecuted. Eve thought, after being aware of this, that Eve should teach her children very carefully. Eve did this.”

3-A. “Cecily [d. 1325] was the daughter of Robert of Valoines. Cecily understood, because of her sight, that Cecily would have a lineage. Cecily understood, because of what she saw, that some of her descendants would not be persecuted. Ccecily understood, because of what she saw, that one lineage would not stop. The lineage would grow and grow. Cecily also saw that the lineage that grew would intermix with lineages that were persecuted. This meant that the lineage that grew needed to be cleansed. Cecily thought, if she saw correctly, that the cleansing would come through a man. Cecily saw, if she saw clearly, that the man would accompany ancestors.”

3-B. Geoffrey of Norwich (d. 1290?), first husband of Cecily. “Geoffrey did not have the sight. Geoffrey understood. If Geoffrey was cooperative, many of Geoffrey’s descendants would not be persecuted. Geoffrey also understood. Many of Geoffrey’s descendants would be persecuted. Geoffrey did not hesitate. Geoffrey had children.”

3-C. Robert of Ufford (second husband of Cecily) (d. 1316). “Robert was the son of a man who did not have the sight. Robert learned, after his marriage, that his wife had the sight. Robert was afraid. Robert understood that some of his descendants would be persecuted. Robert also understood that a main line of his descendants would not. Robert accepted what had happened. This was Robert his choice. Robert had the option of denouncing his wife. Robert thought that, if he did this, his wife would be burned.”

4-B (son of 3-B). Walter of Norwich, First Baron Exchequer. “Walter was the son of a man who understood that his son would have a power that he did not have. Walter understood. Walter was careful. Walter did not think that he was better. Walter understood. Walter must use the gift for the benefit of others.”

5-A. John, 1st Baron Norwich (son of Walter (4-B).
Alice, wife of John, Baron Norwich. “Alice was the daughter of William, Lord of Huntingfield. Alice understood. Alice had the sight. Alice knew, because of her father, that people with the sight could be killed. Alice knew, because of her mother, that people with the sight could be accused of witchcraft. Alice lost her parents. Alice understood. Alice her parents were not careful. Alice her mother tried to warn a friend. The friend did not listen. Alice her mother tried to insist. The friend was harmed. The friend accused. Alice her mother was burned.” (This lineage continues, but was persecuted, so will not be continued here.)

5-B (daughter of 4-B, married 5-C). “Margaret, daughter of Walter of Norwich, was able to learn how to use the sight. Margaret understood. Margaret must always use the sight to help other people. Margaret also understood that Margaret must never let other people think that Margaret had the sight. Margaret learned how to predict the weather. Margaret learned how to think about enough food. Margaret also knew, because of what she learned, that Margaret had to accept anything bad. Margaret knew, because of what her mother said, that bad things must happen. Margaret saw that her daughter would be burned. Margaret saw that her daughter would be accused. Margaret understood. Margaret must do nothing.”

5-C (son of 3-A and 3-C, married 5-B). [1298-1369] “Robert of Ufford. Robert was the son of Robert. Robert was trained. Robert knew, because of the sight, that Robert would have a daughter who was burned. Robert understood. If Robert did nothing, the effect would be that other people in Robert his family would be safe. Robert did nothing.”
--
6. “Margaret, daughter of Robert of Ufford. Margaret understood, when Margaret was young, that Margaret and her sisters were able to understand what would happen. Margaret had to learn to not talk. Margaret learned, because her parents told her, that talking meant death. Margaret didn’t believe this. Margaret understood. Margaret looked. And Margaret saw after thinking about talking.

“Margaret knew, because of her training, that Margaret should never talk about what will happen. Margaret should always talk about what might happen. That was what Margaret thought was appropriate. Margaret knew, after a while, that talking about what might happen drew attention. That was a lesson that Margaret learned before it was too late.”

6. “William, 3rd Baron Ferrers. William understood, after marrying Margaret, that Margaret had the second sight. William, after thinking about the situation, decided to listen. Margaret explained. Margaret had the same gift that her father had. Margaret had to say that. William understood. Margaret condemned her father. William had to decide if he was going to make an issue that would ruin an important man. William decided not to act.”
(William was descended from King Edward I, as well as Magna Carta barons Hugh and Roger le Bigod, Henry de Bohun, Gilbert and Richard de Clare, John de Lacy, and Saher de Quincy.)

7. Margaret Ferrers (c. 1360-1410), married Thomas Beachamp (c. 1339-1401), Earl of Warwick.
“Margaret. Margaret knew, because of the sight, that Margaret would have a lineage. Margaret knew, because of the sight, that the lineage would not be persecuted. Margaret, because of the sight, knew that the lineage would become a king.”
“Thomas Beauchamp did not have the sight. Thomas knew that his wife would be killed if he spoke. Thomas was silent.”

8. Richard Beauchamp (1382-1439), Earl of Warwick; m. (1) Elizabeth Berkeley (1386-1422).
“Richard, Earl of Warwick, had the sight. Richard knew. Richard would not be persecuted. Richard also understood. Richard had to be very careful.”
“Elizabeth, wife of Richard. Elizabeth knew. Elizabeth had the sight. Elizabeth had a lineage that included persecution. Elizabeth could be better because of her husband.”

9. Margaret Beauchamp (1404-1467) m. John Talbot (1384-1453), 1st Earl of Shrewsbury.
“Margaret was not able to use the sight. Margaret understood. Margaret should be very careful. People were watching. Margaret had to wait.”
“John Talbot, Earl. John was not able to think of having the sight. John never knew that his wife had the sight.”

10. John Talbot (c. 1426-1453), 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, m. Joan Cheddar (c. 1425-1464).
“John, Earl of Shrewsbury. John knew that he could never share the sight with his father. John his mother insisted. John knew, from his earliest time, that the sight was with him. John understood. The sight must never be shown. John used the sight to think of how to manage his estate. John knew that the well-being of his people depended on his decision. This helped.”
“Joan did not have the sight. Joan did not know that her husband had the sight.”

11. Elizabeth Talbot (d. 1487) m. Edward Grey (d. 1492), 1st Viscount Lisle.
“Elizabeth had the sight. Elizabeth knew. Elizabeth would have a life of hardship. Elizabeth understood. This was necessary. The times were hard times.”
“Edward, Viscount. Edward had the sight. The sight was not good. Sometimes the sight would show nothing. Edward did not rely on the sight.”

12. Elizabeth Grey (c. 1482-c. 1526) m. (2) Arthur Plantagenet (d. 1542), 6th Viscount Lisle.
“Elizabeth had the sight. Elizabeth understood. The sight should never be used unless for other people. This is how Elizabeth used the sight. Elizabeth understood. If there was a problem with a neighbor, the sight could help. Elizabeth thought of helping. An image would appear. Elizabeth could explain an idea based on the image.”
“Arthur. Arthur had the sight. Arthur understood. The sight in Arthur was not complete. Arthur never understood why sometimes the sight did not show.”

13. Frances Plantagenet (1519-1568), m. Thomas Monck.
“Frances was the daughter of a man who had a high position. Frances understood. Frances must never think too much of herself. Frances also understood. The sight must be hidden.
“Thomas Monck. Thomas was able to use the sight. Thomas had the sight. Thomas did not have a strong sight. Thomas did not understand. Thomas simply could not look very far.”

14. Anthony Monck (1542-1620), m. Mary Arscott.
“Anthony Monck had the sight. Anthony did not have the use of the sight. Anthony felt the compulsion to not use the sight.”
“Mary Arscott. Mary did not have the sight. Mary did not know about the sight.”

15. Frances Monck (b. 1571) m. Lewis Stucley (1574-1620).
“Frances was a woman who had a good family. Frances knew that Frances should be able to make a good marriage. Frances also knew, because of the sight, that Frances would have a difficult marriage.”
“Lewis was able. Lewis was not.”

16. Hugh Stucley (alias Orchard) m. Arminella Weeks (b. 1594).
“Hugh Stucley. Hugh had the sight. Hugh did not. Hugh had to not do.”
“Arminella was able to see. Arminella understood. Her husband must not use the sight.”

17. Sarah Orchard m. Edgar Hevering
“Sarah had the sight. Sarah understood. The sight must not be lost. Sarah must use the sight. Sarah must use the sight often. That meant that Sarah had to see things that Sarah did not want to see.”
“Edgar had the sight. Edgar did not have the strong sight. Edgar knew that his wife had the strong sight. Edgar had to be respectful. Edgar was a good husband.”

18. Jason Hevering.
“Jason Hevering. Jason had the sight. Jason did not use the sight.”
“Fahid will speak. Fahid was a woman from a different culture. Fahid did not want to live in England. Fahid knew that, if Fahid had a girl, Fahid would not prosper.”

19. Esther, married John Graves.
“Esther had the sight. Esther did not use the sight. Esther understood. The sight must wait.”

20. John Graves, Jr., m. Rebecca (descended from King Henry VI).
“John Graves. John had the sight. John did not think. The sight simply appeared. When the sight appeared, John knew. Something would happen.”

21. Sarah Graves, m. William Davis (#20 in the Davis lineage above, where Sarah’s descent continues).
“Sarah Graves had the sight. Sarah understood. There must be a way to use the sight. Sarah knew. If the sight was not used, it would disappear. Sarah had to find a way to use the sight. Sarah used the sight to think of how the farmers should plant. This was always welcome.”
--

LINEAGE FROM VALOINES/CRIKETOT TO WENTWORTH/GASH of Maryland

1. Robert Valoines (d. 1263).

2. Robert Valoines (d. 1292), m. Eve, daughter of Criketot.

3. Cecily Valoines m. Robert d’Ufford. (See above.)

4. Their daughter Joan m. Richard Weyland (d. by 1319).
“Joan was a daughter of two people who had the sight. Joan knew, because of that, that all of Joan her children would have the sight.”
“Richard was able. Richard did not. Richard was a good husband.”

5. Cecily Weyland, as a widow, had a daughter by Bartholomew Burghersh (d. 1369).
“Cecily was able to show her children how to use the sight. Cecily had an extra daughter. The sight must be continued. The daughter found a man with the sight. They had a child. The lineage continued.”

6. Elizabeth (d. 1409) had a daughter by Edward, 1st Baron le Despenser (1336-1375).
“Elizabeth had the sight. Elizabeth did not use the sight. Elizabeth had a way of knowing that was not the sight.”
“Edward had the sight. Edward was from a family that was disrespected. Edward knew that the disrespect helped persecute. Edward was able to avoid.”
Edward’s Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_le_Despencer,_1st_Baron_le_Despencer
Edward’s wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Despenser-Family-Tree-35

7. Anne, m. Hugh Hastings.
“Anne was the daughter of an important man. Anne did not think that her mother was not her mother. Anne learned. Anne then looked for her mother. Anne found that her mother was a different type of woman. Anne had the sight. Anne her new mother had the sight. Anne learned.”
“Hugh had the sight. Hugh understood. Families with the sight had to keep together. Hugh also understood. A family with the sight that was suspected endangered the other family. Hugh was not suspected. Hugh very rarely used the sight.”

8. Edward Hastings (1382-1428), de jure 8th Baron Hastings, m. Muriel Dinham.
“Edward had the sight. Edward did not use the sight. It was unsafe.”
“Muriel will say that the sight was not foreign. Muriel her father had the sight. Muriel her husband had the sight.”

9. John Hastings (c. 1412-1477) de jure 9th Baron Hastings, m. Anne Morley.
“John knew that his father had the sight. John knew that his mother did not. John understood. The children of John might or might not have the sight. John his children all had the sight.”

“Anne had the sight. Anne never showed. Anne her children all had the sight.”

“Morley will speak. Morley had the sight. And Morley knows that John has seen the name before.”

10. Hugh Hastings (c. 1437-1488), de jure 10th Baron Hastings, m. Anne Gascoigne.
“Hugh had the sight. Hugh did not. Hugh had an advantage. Hugh looked. Hugh protected. Hugh fought. Hugh survived.”
“Anne had the sight. Anne knew. Anne was from a family that had to marry other families with the sight.”

11. Bryan Hastings (d. 1537), m. Anne (widow) Portington.
“Bryan was a man who knew how to do what had to be done. Bryan looked. Bryan followed.”
“Anne did not have the sight. Anne knew that her husband had a way of doing things that was unexpected. Anne simply accepted.”

12. Anne Hastings m. John Wentworth (b. c. 1516)
“Anne knew. Anne saw the sight. Anne knew that her lineage would continue. Anne understood. The sight was not for Anne. The sight was for the future. Anne must preserve the sight.”
“John had the sight. John knew. The sight must be protected.”

13. Thomas Wentworth (c. 1542-1590), m. Anne Calverley.
“Thomas had the sight. Thomas did not use the sight. Thomas had to not use the sight, because it was suspected. Thomas was from a family that married another family with the sight. For that reason, Thomas was always under suspicion.”

“Anne did not have the sight. Anne knew that her husband was under suspicion. Anne did not think that her husband used the sight.”

14. Thomas Wentworth m. Elizabeth Goodricke.
“Thomas had the sight. Thomas did not use the sight. Thomas had a feeling. Thomas knew. The wife of Thomas had the sight. The wife of Thomas used the sight. The children would all have the sight.”
“Elizabeth had the sight. Elizabeth used the sight. Elizabeth was able to protect her children. Elizabeth had a way of imagining that helped Elizabeth find a way to act that would have a good result.”
Wentworth in Dugdale: https://archive.org/stream/dugdalesvisitati01dugd#page/296/mode/2up

15. Thomas Wentworth (bur. 1632/3):
“Thomas had a wife. Thomas had another woman. The other woman was the woman whom Thomas saw in the sight. Thomas acted as he saw. Thomas did not feel remorse. This was an error. Thomas saw. A new family, from Thomas his son, would settle in the New World. This would be a family that would use the gift in the way it was intended. This led Thomas to carry on with what he foresaw. Thomas saw the ruin of his marriage. Thomas also saw that his wife would suffer. Thomas understood, because of what he did, that Thomas would be reviled. Thomas accepted what he saw, and understood, this was the way for the best future.” [Thomas’s wife also had the sight, and the “other woman,” mother of Thomas’s son, had the sight. This woman is descended through the earlier un-persecuted Criketot lineage.]
Wentworth at WikiTree: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Wentworth-Family-Tree-1109

16. Thomas Wentworth (alias Gash):
Thomas Wentworth/Gash: “Thomas had a gift. Thomas was fortunate. Thomas was adopted by a man with a fortune. This helped Thomas to establish himself well enough. Thomas wanted to think of being a progenitor. Thomas suspected that he didn’t have enough to be considered a progenitor. Thomas used his gift to ensure that his family was well provided for. Thomas wanted to share his ability. Thomas sought ways to suggest to others what was good. This was something that Thomas understood helped to avoid seeing things that would lead to bad consequences.” [Thomas’s wife had the gift as well; she is descended from a Valoines/Criketot lineage.]

17. Thomas Gash (d. 1704), immigrant to Maryland.
“Thomas Gash used the gift to trade. Thomas Gash used the gift for personal benefit. Thomas Gash did not abuse the gift. Thomas Gash used the gift to farm. Thomas Gash did not abuse the gift. Thomas Gash used the ability to say when was a good time to plant. To plant was to risk. If the weather was bad, planting was a waste of effort. Gash told his neighbor. Gash’s neighbor was a man of authority. Gash’s neighbor always told another neighbor that Gash said when it was a bad time to plant. Gash used his gift and Gash understood that it was for the benefit of the whole.” [“Gash’s wife had the gift, but Gash’s wife has not been identified. Gash will not identify his wife until there is time.” She is descended from a Valoines/Criketot lineage.]

18. Thomas Gash (1692-1759), m. Hannah (Ashford) Gilbert.
“Thomas Gash had the gift. Thomas Gash understood the proper use. Thomas Gash carefully used the gift to help neighbors. This was done in a way that Thomas thought cultivated his reputation as a wise man. Thomas understood, because of the way that he used the gift, that the gift would not harm him. Thomas always thought of others when using the gift. This way, the gift was not abused. This led to Thomas never seeing anything that was hurtful to him or his family, unless Thomas already had a feeling that someone was going to die.”

Hannah (Ashford) Gilbert (1685—aft. 1758), daughter of Michael Ashford; Thomas Gash was her second husband: “Hannah didn’t have much. Hannah knew, her father had a powerful gift. Hannah knew, if her father thought of what might happen, he saw clearly into the future. Hannah simply had the ability to tell if everyday activities would be beneficial. Hannah didn’t think of whether this was good for other people. Hannah just used her gift routinely to make sure that there weren’t unexpected difficulties.”

Michael Ashford (1658-1734): “Michael Ashford knew how to look into the future. Michael was a ship’s captain. Michael knew, if he looked, he would see if there was a shipwreck. Michael didn’t try to use the gift to think of whether he would make money. This was not the proper use. Michael simply thought of the well-being of the crew. This was what Michael thought of. This is what Michael did. This is all that Michael will say.” (For Michael Ashford’s ancestry, see “Second Sight”: Three Un-persecuted Lineages from Leopold of Coucy.”)

Rachel, wife of Michael Ashford: “Rachel had a gift. Rachel knew, because of her gift, that Rachel would not suffer. Rachel saw that Rachel and her family would live well. Rachel was content. Rachel used her gift and didn’t ask for more.”

18. Michael Gash (1728—1810), m. Elizabeth (Preston) Gilbert.
“Michael Gash was able to use a gift. Michael understood, if he was still and pondered the consequence of an action, the future would appear. Michael understood, if he used the gift to think of the well-being of others, this was a reliable guide. Michael understood, if he was able to think of the well-being of others before thinking of using the gift, this would have a good effect. Michael was able to teach his son Thomas. Michael resisted teaching his daughter. Michael accepted that his daughter was unlikely to think of others before trying to use the gift. Michael also taught his son Michael. This was a mistake. Michael’s son was disinclined to think of others. This meant that Michael was unable to use the gift as it was meant. Michael used the gift for personal advantage. This led to his inability to see in a way that benefitted him.”

Elizabeth (Preston) (Gilbert) (1720-1771), wife of Michael Gash: “Elizabeth had a gift. Elizabeth understood, because of the way she thought, that Elizabeth was able to share things that would help other people make good decisions. Elizabeth simply thought of what the other person intended and told the other person what she considered to be a good choice. Elizabeth never explained how she knew what was appropriate. Elizabeth understood, when people didn’t take her advice, there was a bad consequence.”

19. Thomas Gash (c. 1760 – 1826), husband of Martha Daugherty: “Thomas Gash had a gift. Thomas wanted to use the gift. Thomas thought of how he might advance. Thomas saw that, if he settled in Kentucky, he would be able to establish his family. This is what he did. Thomas also saw, if he established his family, that his three daughters would marry men with the gift. This is also what happened. However, Thomas was able to see that the gift would not pass to his son. Thomas understood that his son was not inclined to use the gift for others. Thomas, for that reason, did not try to encourage his son to develop the gift.”

Martha (Daugherty) Gash (c. 1768—by 1809), daughter of James Daugherty, and wife of Thomas Gash: “Martha had the gift. Martha understood that the gift should be used for others. Martha also understood, if she wanted to keep the gift, she must always simply accept what she understood was to come.”
James Daugherty (1737—1812), son of Thomas Daugherty, son of James, from a Scottish family] “James had the gift. James understood that his wife did not. James also understood, because his family had the gift, that James should hope to marry into a family that also had the gift. James wanted to think that his family was special. However, James understood, if he was inclined to think that way, pride would blind him.” (James Daughtery is descended from the Lamont/Young family, five generations earlier. This family appears in “Second Sight: Three Un-persecuted Lineages from Otto of Zutphen,” and there was also an un-persecuted male-line Lamont lineage back to the King of Ireland.

20. Martha Gash (1797-1851), m. Robert C. Jones: “Martha had the gift. Martha understood that her parents both had the gift. Marth also understood, because of the gift, her family was blessed. Martha understood, if her family was careful, the gift could be used to benefit others. Martha understood, when she thought of what would happen, the idea that came into her mind would be accurate. This helped Martha think of how to prepare. This is all that the gift was for Martha. Martha used the gift to think of how to care for her children. Martha also used the gift to prepare for outings. If it was going to rain, Martha said it wasn’t a good time to go.”

Robert C. Jones: “Robert was of a family that had the gift. Robert knew that it should be used to help others.” (Robert has a lineage from Otto of Zutphen, which may have been un-persecuted; it hasn’t been worked through yet.)

21. Martha (Jones) Wallace (1820-1882): “Martha had the gift. Martha understood that her gift was like the gift in the Wallace family. Martha knew that her father knew that Wallace was a family that was safe to marry. Martha understood that Jones and Wallace intermarried because both families had the gift.”

Rev. William Wallace (1816-1871): “William Wallace had a gift, that William used to see what would happen. William understood that the gift was something that must not be abused. William also understood that his gift was something that he should help others with. William was a minister. William was able to think of how to see the congregation. William understood, if he was in a state of grace, the congregation would benefit. This led William to cultivate being in a state of grace. This led William to be a minister who was revered.”

Rev. William Wallace’s lineage appears in “Second Sight: Three Un-persecuted Lineages from Otto of Zutphen”, which also includes his descent to my grandmother Fern Tobey.

EXPLANATION: COMMUNICATING WITH ANCESTORS

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.”

Here is a brief quote from my ancestor Bishop Tobey Mathew (taken from his remarks at the end of this page):
“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.”

I posted the following explanation of the proper way to communicate with ancestors (written as the ancestors guided me) at wikitree, on Jan. 9, 2018: https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors

Over a year ago, I was told that it is possible to communicate with deceased ancestors, but 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), I thought of the names of all of my grandparents and their parents and grandparents, and they started talking to me. 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.

[And then a follow-up post on Jan. 10, 2018]:
On Nov. 1, 2016, I made a point of respectfully focusing on the names of each grandparent, great-grandparent and great-great-grandparent. Then I started listening, focusing on each great-great-grandparent, starting at the top of my 5-generation chart and working haphazardly down the list. When I got to my mother's side of the family, I talked to my Stickler great-grandparents, and then had to end because I was getting overwhelmed; I followed up the following day.

Here are my notes (abridged to remove bits that ancestors would prefer not to share):
"Gottlieb [Schmeeckle] regretted that he had been unable to provide a comfortable widowhood for Barbara, but he had failed to prosper after coming to Nebraska in his elder years. Jacob Zimmerman said that he had been unable to prevent his daughter from marrying outside the Amish church, and then had been unable to shun her after she did so, and so the congregation ended up shunning their minister. Prince Tobey talked about being unable to work on the trip through California (because he was so old), but he had skillfully directed the others, who benefited from his direction. And then back in Nebraska, he was well-received by his children as he lived out his years, once again because of his practical wisdom. I had mistakenly called “Sarah Hunt,” and Prince’s wife Esther talked after him, saying that because of her hips, she was unable to work properly, and mentioned losing six of her children. Her mother Sarah later spoke up, wondering why I had called her. I first said that she was the only ancestor who had been born in Vermont where I grew up, and then explained the mistake, that I had meant to name her daughter Esther. Sarah said that Esther, although unable to work well, had been good at building a loving home environment for her family. She said that there had never quite been enough in the town she lived in, but the community supported each other and together managed to make ends meet. James Gilliland Stickler [I heard him pronounce “Jilliland,” not “Guilliland,” as I had always imagined the pronunciation] said that he had been unable to give good educations to all his children, so he focused his resources on his son Ralph, with the idea that Ralph would pay for the educations of his brothers’ children; and so he did. James said that Ralph’s wife had never been satisfied, and made it impossible for James to enjoy a relationship with his son as an adult. James’s wife Mercy Ann Singley said that she had been a simple woman, and was surprised that anyone had remembered her. And that was when it first occurred to me that I could have extended conversations with these people."

I "heard" all of these conversations in plain English as I am used to speaking. It occurred to me that my great-great-grandfather Gottlieb Schmeeckle spoke little if any English when alive. When I recently talked to distant German ancestors, I also "heard" their thoughts in plain English. However, at times there was confusion about the proper choice of a word, and I indicated that in my first "Ancestral Memories" free space page by putting the word in question in parentheses. [See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Ancestral_Memories:_The_Schm%C3%BCckle_Family_in_Einod ] In each of these cases, the ancestor and I agreed on the particular word to use, and then the ancestor moved on with his/her story. I don't have any explanation for how I hear their words; it's part of the mystery of what is going on.
--

(Aug. 26, 2018) “Bishop Tobey Mathew 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.

[taf]

On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 10:40:15 AM UTC-8, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> SECOND SIGHT: THREE UN-PERSECUTED LINEAGES FROM VALOINES/CRIKETOT
>
> Compiled by John Schmeeckle, October/November 2018
> NOTE ON SOURCES
>
> These three lineages are given by the ancestors who
> are part of the lineage,

No, they are not. They are historical fiction, dreamed up in the head of the author. Any resemblance to authentic genealogy is purely coincidental.

taf

[johnschm...@gmail.com]

My earlier post today included a section on medieval ancestors who have begun actively communicating with living descendants. I omitted Vavasour from that list, so here is the corrected list including Vavasour:

VALOINES, CRIKETOT, AND OTHERS

Valoines and Criketot are part of a small group of ancestors that actively communicates with living descendants. I recorded the following statements from the members of this group on Oct. 21, 2018:

Criketot: “Criketot will describe how Criketot and Valoines became associated with John Human. Criketot was able to live in peace. Criketot had the sight. Criketot was descended in the male line from a king. Criketot understood that descendants of the king often were swayed by personal ambition. This led them to use the sight without thinking of the well-being of others. This meant that Criketot had a gift that had been lost. This meant that Criketot had something unique. Criketot had the feeling that the gift had to return to a king. Criketot understood. Criketot had to give the gift to another family. This is why Criketot had a single surviving daughter.

Valoines: “Valoines understood, because of the gift, that Valoines was different. Valoines had the gift in the male line. Many families had the gift in a female line. This meant that the gift was given together with instruction from a mother. Valoines had the gift together with instructions from the father. This is something that Valoines understood. Valoines had to be careful. Valoines understood, when the male line failed, as Valoines saw that it would, female lines had to be prepared. This meant that the families that Valoines married would have the instruction from Valoines without being limited. This is what happened.”

Willoughby: “Willoughby will explain. Willoughby was a family that introduced the gift with a marriage. The marriage was to a daughter of Valoines. The gift was powerful. Willoughby had no idea how to train his son. Valoines was close. Valoines his brother was also in the neighborhood. Willoughby his son was able to think that he was in a good position.”

Fellbrigg: “Felbrigg was able to use the gift. Felbrigg understood. Felbrigg had a gift that was incomplete. The gift had been affected. Fellbrigg knew, because of this, that Felbrigg had to marry with a family. Felbrigg understood. Felbrigg moved. Felbrigg found.”

Monthermer: “Monthermer had the gift. Monthermer had a gift that was incomplete. Monthermer had a gift that could not be used. The gift compelled. The gift showed. Monthermer acted. Monthermer understood. Monthermer was being used to bring a family into the people.”

Criketot: “Criketot understood, after being able to live in a way that was harmonious, that Criketot did not have a way to show that Criketot had the ability to kill. This was a problem. Criketot had to be able to defend. The gift, used correctly, made Criketot unable to do things that were required.”

Vavasour (added Nov. 9, 2018): “Vavasour was chosen to represent the King. The King has recently been able to communicate. Vavasour talks to people. If Vavasour is answered and respected, Vavasour will begin to help a descendant find which is the most recent King in the lineage of the descendant.”

[Peter Stewart]

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 10:22:16 AM UTC+11, johnschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> SECOND SIGHT: UN-PERSECUTED LINEAGES FROM OTTO OF ZUTPHEN
>
> Compiled by John Schmeeckle, Oct. 23-Nov. 1, 2018

<snip>

> As time permits, I intend to record the stories of many more of the ancestors in these lineages.
> --
> 1. Otto of Zutphen

<snip>

> 2. Matilda, m. Megingoz of Avalgau. [Megingoz’s Wikipedia page, showing a different mother of his children, is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megingoz_of_Guelders]

I won't bother to read through this pile of tripe, but it may be worth pointing out that the Wikipedia page shows a different mother because the children of Megingoz had a different mother. Her name was Gerberga and her father was not Otto of Zutphen (whose ancestry is unknown) but rather the Lotharingian count palatine Godefrid: this fact is established from multiple sources and is not an open question that needs to be resolved by imaginary communications from the beyond or any other means.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

sexta-feira, 9 de Novembro de 2018 às 18:40:15 UTC, johnschm...@gmail.com escreveu:
> SECOND SIGHT: THREE UN-PERSECUTED LINEAGES FROM VALOINES/CRIKETOT
>
> Compiled by John Schmeeckle, October/November 2018
> NOTE ON SOURCES
>
> These three lineages are given by the ancestors who are part of the lineage, often confirming but sometimes contradicting an existing paper trail. I have added an explanation about communicating with ancestors at the end of this article.
>
> I have often included birth and death dates below. These do not come from the ancestors, who rarely remember such details. These dates are taken from secondary or tertiary sources (including linked Wikipedia articles) and are not meant to be definitive. Their primary purpose is to show the approximate time period of the various people in the lineage.
>
> SECOND SIGHT
>
> The people in these three lineages had “the sight” – an ability to see the future, which was associated with the early medieval Kings of Wales and the Merovingian Kings of France (both descended – through separate lineages – from the Hebrew kings of the Old Testament). During the latter part of the medieval period, people with second sight were often persecuted and burned at the stake if they were discovered, which had the effect of crippling or weakening “the sight” in their descendants.

I hadn't read this delusion of yours well, back, in November, but now that I have, with this claim of the Merovingians being descended from the Hebrew kings of the Old Testament, it appears to me that you have read too much Da Vinci Code, that must be the origin of this specific delusion.

[P J Evans]

No, I've seen that elseweb. A lot of the large back-to-Adam online (and offline) genealogies work backward along that route.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I'm well aware of such genealogies, but they are ultimately based on the same "source" as the Da Vinci Code, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail that is itself based on Pierre Plantard's frauds. Another work that doubtless inspires such genealogies is Bloodline of The Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed by the late Lawrence Gardner that worked for the fake Belgian Stuart pretender Michel Roger Lafosse.