Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Tudor of Penmynydd
725 views
Skip to first unread message
taf
Oct 8, 2018, 7:31:10 PM10/8/18
to
The Anglesey family that gave rise to the Tudor kings left a 'senior' branch. In the late 14th century, a group of (half-)brothers of the family would be with the Black Prince and closely associated with the reign of his son, Richard II, but with the accession of Henry IV they found themselves alienated from the crown, and, related by marriage and/or blood to Owain Glyndwr, a group of them joined in his rebellion and had their lands confiscated. Among these rebels was Maredudd, the father of Owen Tudor. The majority of the lands were given to a distant cousin, royal ally Gwilym ap Gruffydd of Penrhyn, who was married to the daughter of Maredudd's eldest brother, Goronwy.
Some time later, Penmynydd was held by an Owain ap Tudor Fychan, and eventually fell to his son, Richard Owain ap Tudor Fychan (anglicized as Richard Owen Theodor). From him came a group of Richards (and one David) who held Penmynydd, using the surnames Owen, Theodor or both together, until the line ended with the fifth Richard Owen Theodor in the 1650s. They are said to have held a status much elevated over what their meagre holdings would suggest due to their royal connection.
Traditional pedigrees (such as found in Bartrum) show Owain ap Tudor Fychan to have been the paternal grandson of Gwilym ap Gruffydd, and this would mean that these Owen Theodors of Penmynydd were not male-line descendants of the earlier family (though they would nonetheless be distantly related, the Griffiths of Penrhyn like the Tudors of Penmynydd both being of the lineage of Ednyfed Fychan, who died 1246). However, in 1869, J. Williams writing in Archaeologia Cambrensis argued that Owain was instead a nephew of Gwilym's wife, and paternal grandson of Goronwy. He indicates that the later holders of Penrhyn descend from the second marriage of Gwilym, and that it is hard to explain, were Tudor actually his father's eldest son, why he would only be given his mother's minor holdings while his younger half-brother should receive the majority of their patrimony. He suggests that Morfydd ferch Goronwy, actually d.s.p., and that Tudor Fychan was really her younger brother, still a minor at their father's death. In so doing he admitted that it would create chronology much longer than would be expected. The Dictionary of Welsh Biography has followed this novel pedigree.
Option 1 (traditional):
1. Goronwy ap Tudor ap Goronwy, d. 1382, (apparently relatively young: his brother Maredudd, father of Owen Tudor, d. 1406 and another was brother executed 1412, while nephew Owen Tudor himself lived to 1461)
2. Morfydd ferch Goronwy m. Gwilym ap Gruffydd
3. Tudor Fychan ap Gwilym
4. Owain ap Tudor Fychan
5. Richard Owain ap Tudor Fychan/Richard Owen Theodor I
6. Richard Owen Theodor II, fl. 1584
Option 2 (Williams/DWB):
1. Goronwy ap Tudor ap Goronwy, d. 1382
2. Morfydd d.s.p.; Tudor Fychan ap Goronwy
3. Owain ap Tudor Fychan
4. Richard Owain ap Tudor Fychan/Richard Owen Theodor I
5. Richard Owen Theodor II, Sheriff of Anglesey 1565, 1573, fl. 1584
I should add that since the critical generation in Williams' reconstruction is without documentation, there could be another male generation between Goronwy and Tudor Fychan that would assuage the chronological concerns. Is anyone aware of any work on this family in the intervening 150 years that might support (or refute) Williams' rearrangement of the pedigree?
taf
https://books.google.com/books?id=MpQbAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA291
http://wbo.llgc.org.uk/en/s-TUDU-PEN-1400.html
Some time later, Penmynydd was held by an Owain ap Tudor Fychan, and eventually fell to his son, Richard Owain ap Tudor Fychan (anglicized as Richard Owen Theodor). From him came a group of Richards (and one David) who held Penmynydd, using the surnames Owen, Theodor or both together, until the line ended with the fifth Richard Owen Theodor in the 1650s. They are said to have held a status much elevated over what their meagre holdings would suggest due to their royal connection.
Traditional pedigrees (such as found in Bartrum) show Owain ap Tudor Fychan to have been the paternal grandson of Gwilym ap Gruffydd, and this would mean that these Owen Theodors of Penmynydd were not male-line descendants of the earlier family (though they would nonetheless be distantly related, the Griffiths of Penrhyn like the Tudors of Penmynydd both being of the lineage of Ednyfed Fychan, who died 1246). However, in 1869, J. Williams writing in Archaeologia Cambrensis argued that Owain was instead a nephew of Gwilym's wife, and paternal grandson of Goronwy. He indicates that the later holders of Penrhyn descend from the second marriage of Gwilym, and that it is hard to explain, were Tudor actually his father's eldest son, why he would only be given his mother's minor holdings while his younger half-brother should receive the majority of their patrimony. He suggests that Morfydd ferch Goronwy, actually d.s.p., and that Tudor Fychan was really her younger brother, still a minor at their father's death. In so doing he admitted that it would create chronology much longer than would be expected. The Dictionary of Welsh Biography has followed this novel pedigree.
Option 1 (traditional):
1. Goronwy ap Tudor ap Goronwy, d. 1382, (apparently relatively young: his brother Maredudd, father of Owen Tudor, d. 1406 and another was brother executed 1412, while nephew Owen Tudor himself lived to 1461)
2. Morfydd ferch Goronwy m. Gwilym ap Gruffydd
3. Tudor Fychan ap Gwilym
4. Owain ap Tudor Fychan
5. Richard Owain ap Tudor Fychan/Richard Owen Theodor I
6. Richard Owen Theodor II, fl. 1584
Option 2 (Williams/DWB):
1. Goronwy ap Tudor ap Goronwy, d. 1382
2. Morfydd d.s.p.; Tudor Fychan ap Goronwy
3. Owain ap Tudor Fychan
4. Richard Owain ap Tudor Fychan/Richard Owen Theodor I
5. Richard Owen Theodor II, Sheriff of Anglesey 1565, 1573, fl. 1584
I should add that since the critical generation in Williams' reconstruction is without documentation, there could be another male generation between Goronwy and Tudor Fychan that would assuage the chronological concerns. Is anyone aware of any work on this family in the intervening 150 years that might support (or refute) Williams' rearrangement of the pedigree?
taf
https://books.google.com/books?id=MpQbAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA291
http://wbo.llgc.org.uk/en/s-TUDU-PEN-1400.html
taf
Oct 9, 2018, 3:00:53 PM10/9/18
to
On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:31:10 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> 1. Goronwy ap Tudor ap Goronwy, d. 1382, (apparently relatively young: his brother Maredudd, father of Owen Tudor, d. 1406 and another was brother executed 1412, while nephew Owen Tudor himself lived to 1461)
> 2. Morfydd ferch Goronwy m. Gwilym ap Gruffydd
> 3. Tudor Fychan ap Gwilym
> 4. Owain ap Tudor Fychan
> 5. Richard Owain ap Tudor Fychan/Richard Owen Theodor I
> 6. Richard Owen Theodor II, fl. 1584
>
> Option 2 (Williams/DWB):
> 1. Goronwy ap Tudor ap Goronwy, d. 1382
> 2. Morfydd d.s.p.; Tudor Fychan ap Goronwy
> 3. Owain ap Tudor Fychan
> 4. Richard Owain ap Tudor Fychan/Richard Owen Theodor I
> 5. Richard Owen Theodor II, Sheriff of Anglesey 1565, 1573, fl. 1584
This may help with the chronology. An ipm abstract published in Catalogue of the Manuscripts Relating to Wales in the British Museum includes an ipm for Richard Owen Theodor (III), son of the last, who died testate in 1586
> 1. Goronwy ap Tudor ap Goronwy, d. 1382, (apparently relatively young: his brother Maredudd, father of Owen Tudor, d. 1406 and another was brother executed 1412, while nephew Owen Tudor himself lived to 1461)
> 2. Morfydd ferch Goronwy m. Gwilym ap Gruffydd
> 3. Tudor Fychan ap Gwilym
> 4. Owain ap Tudor Fychan
> 5. Richard Owain ap Tudor Fychan/Richard Owen Theodor I
> 6. Richard Owen Theodor II, fl. 1584
>
> Option 2 (Williams/DWB):
> 1. Goronwy ap Tudor ap Goronwy, d. 1382
> 2. Morfydd d.s.p.; Tudor Fychan ap Goronwy
> 3. Owain ap Tudor Fychan
> 4. Richard Owain ap Tudor Fychan/Richard Owen Theodor I
> 5. Richard Owen Theodor II, Sheriff of Anglesey 1565, 1573, fl. 1584
https://books.google.com/books?id=7XNEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA170
It reports that he died s.p. 9 January 1585/6 and that his inquisition the following October found him to have been son of Richard Owen Theodor and Margaret, and that his heir was his brother, David, aged 45. His PCC will names brothers David and John Owen Theodor, sisters Agnes, Mawde and Katherin Owen, and aunt Grace Owen, naming David and John as executors. (Katherin is probably the wife of poet Dafydd Llwyd ap Sion of Henblas, d. 1613, who has a DWB article). Richard III seems to have been a London legal - there was a dispute at Grey's Inn following his death over the contents of his chamber in 1590 (unless this was the father).
This would put David's birth about 1541. To make Tudor the son of Goronwy, d. 1382 one would have to have 40-year generations over four generations (Tudor born say 1380, Owen 1420, Richard I 1460, Richard II 1500), which is decidedly long, particularly given that we know Richard II was still living in 1584. I think there has to be another generation here, which would make it more like 32 years per generation. This does not distinguish whether the extra generation is a son or daughter of Goronwy.
I will add that though it doesn't change the overall chronology, I find a pedigree from the 1950s (snippet only) that would have Richard II dying in ca. 1558. This would mean that the Sheriff was not, as the Williams article would have it, Richard II, but instead his son Richard III. This pedigree gives Goronwy a son Tudor, but does not identify this Tudor with the Tudor Fychan who was progenitor of the later family.
taf
Chris Pitt Lewis
Oct 9, 2018, 5:56:07 PM10/9/18
to
Penmynydd", in Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion
1959, pp.9-37. Unfortunately it is in Welsh, but helpfully there is a
pedigree on p.37.
My very limited Welsh means I cannot read the article properly. However,
he gives Goronwy d 1382 a son Tudur, who died ca 1400 and is distinct
from Tudur Vychan. He has Tudur Vychan as the son of Morfudd verch
Goronwy and Gwilym ap Gruffydd. In this he claims to be following J R
Jones, The development of the Penrhyn estate to 1431 (1955, an
unpublished MA thesis in the University of Wales). He cites as Jones'
authority for this "Ancient Petitions, V, 13604" (endnote 7).
I struggle to translate this into a modern National Archives reference.
Ancient Petitions are SC8, but SC8/273/13604 seems irrelevant.
SC8/27/1318 is a petition by "William ap Gruffydd of Penmynyth" but, at
least as calendared, does not seem to assist with Tudur's parentage.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis
taf
Oct 9, 2018, 9:29:05 PM10/9/18
to
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 2:56:07 PM UTC-7, Chris Pitt Lewis wrote:
> On 09/10/2018 20:00, taf wrote:
> > I will add that though it doesn't change the overall chronology, I find a pedigree from the 1950s (snippet only) that would have Richard II dying in ca. 1558. This would mean that the Sheriff was not, as the Williams article would have it, Richard II, but instead his son Richard III. This pedigree gives Goronwy a son Tudor, but does not identify this Tudor with the Tudor Fychan who was progenitor of the later family.
> >
>
> On 09/10/2018 20:00, taf wrote:
> > I will add that though it doesn't change the overall chronology, I find a pedigree from the 1950s (snippet only) that would have Richard II dying in ca. 1558. This would mean that the Sheriff was not, as the Williams article would have it, Richard II, but instead his son Richard III. This pedigree gives Goronwy a son Tudor, but does not identify this Tudor with the Tudor Fychan who was progenitor of the later family.
> >
>
> There is a detailed account of this family by Glyn Roberts, "Teulu
> Penmynydd", in Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion
> 1959, pp.9-37. Unfortunately it is in Welsh, but helpfully there is a
> pedigree on p.37.
As it turns out, that is the pedigree from the 1950s to which I was referring - the cataloging on Google books was such that I couldn't tell. Given that Dict Welsh Bio was first published the same year, it would not have benefitted from Glyn Roberts' work, and may not have been aware of Jones.
> Penmynydd", in Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion
> 1959, pp.9-37. Unfortunately it is in Welsh, but helpfully there is a
> pedigree on p.37.
> My very limited Welsh means I cannot read the article properly. However,
> he gives Goronwy d 1382 a son Tudur, who died ca 1400 and is distinct
> from Tudur Vychan. He has Tudur Vychan as the son of Morfudd verch
> Goronwy and Gwilym ap Gruffydd. In this he claims to be following J R
> Jones, The development of the Penrhyn estate to 1431 (1955, an
> unpublished MA thesis in the University of Wales). He cites as Jones'
> authority for this "Ancient Petitions, V, 13604" (endnote 7).
>
> I struggle to translate this into a modern National Archives reference.
> Ancient Petitions are SC8, but SC8/273/13604 seems irrelevant.
> SC8/27/1318 is a petition by "William ap Gruffydd of Penmynyth" but, at
> least as calendared, does not seem to assist with Tudur's parentage.
taf
taf
Oct 9, 2018, 11:44:02 PM10/9/18
to
As long as we are talking about this, 'Dd Owen Theoder' himself signed a visitation pedigree in 1588, although the printed edition is confusing to me, showing three different pedigrees, but they all show Owain ap Tudur Fychan as deriving from Griffith of Penryn rather than directly from the earlier Tudors of Penmynydd:
https://books.google.com/books?id=LJlOAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA192
Also, the first Richard Owen Theodor would seem to be the Richard Oweyn in a 1513 plea involving a squabble with John Oweyn over land in Penwynydd that had belonged to John's brother William Oweyn - these seem to be the three sons of Owain ap Tudor Fychan.
http://www.tpwilliams.co.uk/TAAS/1927plea/1927pleaw.pdf #64
taf
https://books.google.com/books?id=LJlOAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA192
Also, the first Richard Owen Theodor would seem to be the Richard Oweyn in a 1513 plea involving a squabble with John Oweyn over land in Penwynydd that had belonged to John's brother William Oweyn - these seem to be the three sons of Owain ap Tudor Fychan.
http://www.tpwilliams.co.uk/TAAS/1927plea/1927pleaw.pdf #64
taf
Chris Pitt Lewis
Oct 10, 2018, 3:52:38 PM10/10/18
to
On 10/10/2018 02:29, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 2:56:07 PM UTC-7, Chris Pitt Lewis wrote:
>> On 09/10/2018 20:00, taf wrote:
>>> I will add that though it doesn't change the overall chronology, I find a pedigree from the 1950s (snippet only) that would have Richard II dying in ca. 1558. This would mean that the Sheriff was not, as the Williams article would have it, Richard II, but instead his son Richard III. This pedigree gives Goronwy a son Tudor, but does not identify this Tudor with the Tudor Fychan who was progenitor of the later family.
>>>
>>
>> There is a detailed account of this family by Glyn Roberts, "Teulu
>> Penmynydd", in Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion
>> 1959, pp.9-37. Unfortunately it is in Welsh, but helpfully there is a
>> pedigree on p.37.
>
> As it turns out, that is the pedigree from the 1950s to which I was referring - the cataloging on Google books was such that I couldn't tell. Given that Dict Welsh Bio was first published the same year, it would not have benefitted from Glyn Roberts' work, and may not have been aware of Jones.
Although the article in DWB on the Tudor family of Penmynydd (by TJP,
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 2:56:07 PM UTC-7, Chris Pitt Lewis wrote:
>> On 09/10/2018 20:00, taf wrote:
>>> I will add that though it doesn't change the overall chronology, I find a pedigree from the 1950s (snippet only) that would have Richard II dying in ca. 1558. This would mean that the Sheriff was not, as the Williams article would have it, Richard II, but instead his son Richard III. This pedigree gives Goronwy a son Tudor, but does not identify this Tudor with the Tudor Fychan who was progenitor of the later family.
>>>
>>
>> There is a detailed account of this family by Glyn Roberts, "Teulu
>> Penmynydd", in Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion
>> 1959, pp.9-37. Unfortunately it is in Welsh, but helpfully there is a
>> pedigree on p.37.
>
> As it turns out, that is the pedigree from the 1950s to which I was referring - the cataloging on Google books was such that I couldn't tell. Given that Dict Welsh Bio was first published the same year, it would not have benefitted from Glyn Roberts' work, and may not have been aware of Jones.
i.e. Professor Thomas Jones Pierce) follows the 1869 version and makes
Tudur Vychan the son of Goronwy, the article on Ednyfed Vychan and his
descendants, and a long article in the Appendix on Griffith of Penrhyn,
are both by Glyn Roberts and agree with the pedigree in his 1959 article.
> The critical question (or at least a critical question) is if Tudor Fychan was the eldest son of William ap Gruffydd, how is it that he missed out on his father's inheritance and only received his mother's. The way that in the abstract of this petition he is stressing his marriage to William Stanley's daughter may be giving some indication that he was favouring his children by her and not the older one born to Morfudd, but I am perhaps reading too much into it.
daughter is mainly intended to emphasise his and his family's essential
Englishness, so as to justify his being given the rights of an
Englishman. But for the same reason he may have felt that the family's
prosperity, in the long run, would be more secure if the bulk of his
inheritance went to his half-English second family. The petition talks
of purchasing land in fee simple and fee tail, and I suppose entailing
the land on the issue of his second marriage would be a way to do this.
What we can't know is how capable Tudur was compared with his half
brother and whether for some other reason he was out of favour with his
father.
If the other evidence points to his being Gwilym's son, I don't see that
the inheritance question is that critical, though I accept that it needs
an explanation.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis
alj...@googlemail.com
Oct 10, 2018, 4:00:12 PM10/10/18
to
Doesn't the article by Professor Glyn Roberts (Dictionary of Welsh Biography (1959), GRIFFITH OF PENRHYN (Caerns.)) actually support the "traditional" pedigree? ("His son by his first wife inherited only his mother's property at Penmynydd..") It is dated 1959 and in 1957 Professor Roberts originally wrote his "Teulu Penmynydd" essay mentioned by Chris Pitt Lewis (though it was published in Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion in 1959). He had written an earlier essay (in English) "Wyrion Eden" in 1951, in which he had adopted the version of John Williams (1869) but he amended this in Teulu Penmynydd. In a footnote to the essay, as printed in Aspects of Welsh History (University of Wales Press, 1969), he explained [translated]:
"In Wyrion Eden... I followed the suggestion of John Williams (Arch Camb. 1869 page 379) that Tudur Fychan, ancestor of the later Penmynydd Tudors, was a son of Goronwy ap Tudur (died 1382). But J. R. Jones, op cit, showed a misreading of Ancient Petitions, V, 13604, where one has definite proof that Tudur Fychan was a son of Gwilym ap Gruffudd and Morfudd". (The op cit was the1953 M.A. thesis by J. Rowland Jones "The Development of the Penrhyn Estate to 1431".)
The documents he referred to can be seen online (as A.13604) in Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, volume V) at
https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal05greauoft/page/548 et seq.
However Professor Roberts also went on to say [translated]:
"It must be that Tudur Fychan was born 1385-90; the death of Owain Tudur Fychan in 1504-5 is a definite fact. Conjecturing that Tudur would be about 50 years old in the year of his son's birth, and the son over 60 when dying in 1504, the combination of dates is not impossible but there is a temptation to suppose that a generation is missing somewhere."
Also, in "Gwilym ap Gruffudd and the Rise of the Penrhyn Estate" (by A. D. Carr in Welsh History Review, vol. 15 No. 1 (June 1990), pages 1-20 at page 8) reference is made to a writ dated 13 October 1405:
".... and it reveals that the original was dated 13 October 1405 and that in it Gwilym's son Tudur Fychan, his father and his mother Generys were all named twice and that it also includes his brother Rhys. The same document includes an exemplification of an inquisition dated 9 November 1406 which found that Tudur, the son and heir of Gwilym and Morfudd, formerly his wife, was under age and a rebel and was seised of the manor and of half the township of Penmynydd and half the township of Dinsilwy [and other properties]. This inquisition indicates that Tudur Fychan was born after 1385 and that Morfudd was now dead."
(The 1385-90 date for Tudur Fychan's birth was evidently used in Teulu Penmynydd because Gwilym's son was old enough to have taken part in the Owain Glyn Dŵr rebellion, albeit being a minor in 1406.)
To justify the "certain proof" that he died in 1404-1405, Professor Roberts used a curious source: "an abstract of the inquisitio post mortem in The Taylors Cussion (ed. E. M. Pritchard) (1906), Part II, folio 7". The book comprises facsimile reproductions of notes made by George Owen, Lord of Kemeys (circa 1552-1613) who, according to the introduction, was an antiquary, author and general collector of information of all sorts. Surprisingly, the book is available at archive.org and the relevant page in the online version is 274
( https://archive.org/details/taylorscussion00owengoog/page/n273 )
I cannot decipher all of it but it seems to me to to purport to be a note (two notes actually) of a record that Owinus Tud Vichan of the manor of "penmynyth" died in the 20th Henry VII (Aug 1404-Aug 1405) (or perhaps the record was made in that year?) and that he had sons William, John and Richard, and Richard was his heir.
J. E. Griffith (Pedigrees of Anglesey and Carnarvonshire [sic] Families (1914)) under Plas Penmynydd at page 106/107 has "Tudur Vychan" as the son of "Gwilim ap Gruffydd" by his first marriage and as father of "Owen Tudor Vychan". Against Tudur Vychan he recorded "an imbecile, see Angharad Llwyd History of Mona p.335"; against "Owen Tudor Vychan" he recorded "esquire of the body to Henry VII" (without giving a source). Regarding the first note, Angharad Llwyd, in her book History of the Island of Mona, quoting from a "Salisbury Pedigree" said that Tudur Vychan was "an imbecile who did not receive any of his father's lands only the land of his mother". (Evidently his imbecility came late in life or perhaps it it was just wrongly assumed that imbecility was the cause of his being disinherited.) Regarding the second note, if it is correct, it would be evidence that Owen was alive in 1485 and so not inconsistent with his dying in 1504/5. But the pedigree also shows "Owen Tudor Vychan" to have been the father of Richard, William, John and also Hugh, the eldest being Richard Owen Tudur (consistent with the note in The Taylors Cussion), but recording that Richard was High Sheriff of Anglesey in 1565. (This must surely be wrong - the High Sheriff must have been of the next generation.)
Is it possible that the Owain ap Tudur Fychan who died in 1504/5 was actually a grandson of Tudur ap Gwilym ap Gruffudd Fychan, his father being the Tudur who was Gwilym ap Gruffudd's son? That would make the generation gap unexceptional and it would also explain why he had the epithet Fychan (the younger) when Gwilym's son Tudur did not have the name in his recent ancestry (though perhaps it may have reflected the contemporary existence until his death, before 1400, of his maternal uncle Tudur ap Goronwy).
Although A. D. Carr says that the writ of 13 October 1405 refers to Gwilym's son "Tudur Fychan", this may have been the author's identification rather than a direct quote from the writ, because the abstract of the document in the online catalogue of Penrhyn Estate documents at Bangor University merely describes him as "Tud'", though the abstract omits names which A. D. Carr says were in the original document so perhaps it is incomplete:
[Dated 06 April 1414] "Letters Patent of Henry VI being an exemplification of a writ of exigent (dated October 13, 1405- September 29, 1406) against Owen of Glynrody [Owain Glyndwr], [and many others] ... that Tud’ son and heir of William ap Gruff ap Willym and Morvyth formerly his wife being under age and a rebel abiding in association with Owen of Glyndordy [Owain Glyndwr] in Wales is seised in his demesne and as of fee of the Manor and half township of Penmynyth and half the township of Dynsylwy valued at 6 marks p.a. and that the same Tud’ ap Willym ap Gruff, rebel, has one mill called Melyn Vraynt valued at 10s p.a. and has a fourth part of the mill of G[e]reynt valued at 40d. p.a."
( http://calmview.bangor.ac.uk/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=PFA%2f14%2f1%2f9%2f1&pos=5 )
Unfortunately the catalogue does not include the Inquisition he mentioned.
If he was called Tudur Fychan in a contemporary document the uncomfortably long generation span identified by Professor Glyn Roberts must presumably be correct.
(As for the disinheritance of Tudur ap Gwilym, A. D. Carr (op cit pages 11-12) refers to an entail and jointure in 1413 bringing it about, connected to the second marriage of his father, to Joan Stanley of the wealthy English Stanley family. He says that it was probably the price paid for the marriage, requiring preference to be given to a potential son of that family. It may also have been seen as disadvantageous for his son Tudur to inherit substantial estates given his participation in the rebellion.)
Alan Jones
http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s1-GRIF-PEN-1300.html (Dictionary of Welsh Biography)
https://journals.library.wales/view/1073091/1080900/0#?xywh=-896%2C-1%2C4172%2C3438 ("Gwilym ap Gruffudd and the Rise of the Penrhyn Estate")
https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal05greauoft/page/548 (Catalogue of Ancient Deeds)
"In Wyrion Eden... I followed the suggestion of John Williams (Arch Camb. 1869 page 379) that Tudur Fychan, ancestor of the later Penmynydd Tudors, was a son of Goronwy ap Tudur (died 1382). But J. R. Jones, op cit, showed a misreading of Ancient Petitions, V, 13604, where one has definite proof that Tudur Fychan was a son of Gwilym ap Gruffudd and Morfudd". (The op cit was the1953 M.A. thesis by J. Rowland Jones "The Development of the Penrhyn Estate to 1431".)
The documents he referred to can be seen online (as A.13604) in Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, volume V) at
https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal05greauoft/page/548 et seq.
However Professor Roberts also went on to say [translated]:
"It must be that Tudur Fychan was born 1385-90; the death of Owain Tudur Fychan in 1504-5 is a definite fact. Conjecturing that Tudur would be about 50 years old in the year of his son's birth, and the son over 60 when dying in 1504, the combination of dates is not impossible but there is a temptation to suppose that a generation is missing somewhere."
Also, in "Gwilym ap Gruffudd and the Rise of the Penrhyn Estate" (by A. D. Carr in Welsh History Review, vol. 15 No. 1 (June 1990), pages 1-20 at page 8) reference is made to a writ dated 13 October 1405:
".... and it reveals that the original was dated 13 October 1405 and that in it Gwilym's son Tudur Fychan, his father and his mother Generys were all named twice and that it also includes his brother Rhys. The same document includes an exemplification of an inquisition dated 9 November 1406 which found that Tudur, the son and heir of Gwilym and Morfudd, formerly his wife, was under age and a rebel and was seised of the manor and of half the township of Penmynydd and half the township of Dinsilwy [and other properties]. This inquisition indicates that Tudur Fychan was born after 1385 and that Morfudd was now dead."
(The 1385-90 date for Tudur Fychan's birth was evidently used in Teulu Penmynydd because Gwilym's son was old enough to have taken part in the Owain Glyn Dŵr rebellion, albeit being a minor in 1406.)
To justify the "certain proof" that he died in 1404-1405, Professor Roberts used a curious source: "an abstract of the inquisitio post mortem in The Taylors Cussion (ed. E. M. Pritchard) (1906), Part II, folio 7". The book comprises facsimile reproductions of notes made by George Owen, Lord of Kemeys (circa 1552-1613) who, according to the introduction, was an antiquary, author and general collector of information of all sorts. Surprisingly, the book is available at archive.org and the relevant page in the online version is 274
( https://archive.org/details/taylorscussion00owengoog/page/n273 )
I cannot decipher all of it but it seems to me to to purport to be a note (two notes actually) of a record that Owinus Tud Vichan of the manor of "penmynyth" died in the 20th Henry VII (Aug 1404-Aug 1405) (or perhaps the record was made in that year?) and that he had sons William, John and Richard, and Richard was his heir.
J. E. Griffith (Pedigrees of Anglesey and Carnarvonshire [sic] Families (1914)) under Plas Penmynydd at page 106/107 has "Tudur Vychan" as the son of "Gwilim ap Gruffydd" by his first marriage and as father of "Owen Tudor Vychan". Against Tudur Vychan he recorded "an imbecile, see Angharad Llwyd History of Mona p.335"; against "Owen Tudor Vychan" he recorded "esquire of the body to Henry VII" (without giving a source). Regarding the first note, Angharad Llwyd, in her book History of the Island of Mona, quoting from a "Salisbury Pedigree" said that Tudur Vychan was "an imbecile who did not receive any of his father's lands only the land of his mother". (Evidently his imbecility came late in life or perhaps it it was just wrongly assumed that imbecility was the cause of his being disinherited.) Regarding the second note, if it is correct, it would be evidence that Owen was alive in 1485 and so not inconsistent with his dying in 1504/5. But the pedigree also shows "Owen Tudor Vychan" to have been the father of Richard, William, John and also Hugh, the eldest being Richard Owen Tudur (consistent with the note in The Taylors Cussion), but recording that Richard was High Sheriff of Anglesey in 1565. (This must surely be wrong - the High Sheriff must have been of the next generation.)
Is it possible that the Owain ap Tudur Fychan who died in 1504/5 was actually a grandson of Tudur ap Gwilym ap Gruffudd Fychan, his father being the Tudur who was Gwilym ap Gruffudd's son? That would make the generation gap unexceptional and it would also explain why he had the epithet Fychan (the younger) when Gwilym's son Tudur did not have the name in his recent ancestry (though perhaps it may have reflected the contemporary existence until his death, before 1400, of his maternal uncle Tudur ap Goronwy).
Although A. D. Carr says that the writ of 13 October 1405 refers to Gwilym's son "Tudur Fychan", this may have been the author's identification rather than a direct quote from the writ, because the abstract of the document in the online catalogue of Penrhyn Estate documents at Bangor University merely describes him as "Tud'", though the abstract omits names which A. D. Carr says were in the original document so perhaps it is incomplete:
[Dated 06 April 1414] "Letters Patent of Henry VI being an exemplification of a writ of exigent (dated October 13, 1405- September 29, 1406) against Owen of Glynrody [Owain Glyndwr], [and many others] ... that Tud’ son and heir of William ap Gruff ap Willym and Morvyth formerly his wife being under age and a rebel abiding in association with Owen of Glyndordy [Owain Glyndwr] in Wales is seised in his demesne and as of fee of the Manor and half township of Penmynyth and half the township of Dynsylwy valued at 6 marks p.a. and that the same Tud’ ap Willym ap Gruff, rebel, has one mill called Melyn Vraynt valued at 10s p.a. and has a fourth part of the mill of G[e]reynt valued at 40d. p.a."
( http://calmview.bangor.ac.uk/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=PFA%2f14%2f1%2f9%2f1&pos=5 )
Unfortunately the catalogue does not include the Inquisition he mentioned.
If he was called Tudur Fychan in a contemporary document the uncomfortably long generation span identified by Professor Glyn Roberts must presumably be correct.
(As for the disinheritance of Tudur ap Gwilym, A. D. Carr (op cit pages 11-12) refers to an entail and jointure in 1413 bringing it about, connected to the second marriage of his father, to Joan Stanley of the wealthy English Stanley family. He says that it was probably the price paid for the marriage, requiring preference to be given to a potential son of that family. It may also have been seen as disadvantageous for his son Tudur to inherit substantial estates given his participation in the rebellion.)
Alan Jones
http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s1-GRIF-PEN-1300.html (Dictionary of Welsh Biography)
https://journals.library.wales/view/1073091/1080900/0#?xywh=-896%2C-1%2C4172%2C3438 ("Gwilym ap Gruffudd and the Rise of the Penrhyn Estate")
https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal05greauoft/page/548 (Catalogue of Ancient Deeds)
taf
Oct 10, 2018, 5:14:39 PM10/10/18
to
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:52:38 PM UTC-7, Chris Pitt Lewis wrote:
> If the other evidence points to his being Gwilym's son, I don't see that
> the inheritance question is that critical, though I accept that it needs
> an explanation.
The problem from my perspective is that there is the paper by Williams that I have read, and amidst all of the 19th-century assumptions that carry little weight, there is the fact that Tudor Fychan, who would be the eldest son, did not appear to have inherited any of Gwilym's property. Now, such things did happen - we just saw that in the Champernowne thread where a man manipulated things to pass most (but not all) of his lands to the youngest son, but it is still something that is at odds with what one might expect were the traditional pedigree correct.
> If the other evidence points to his being Gwilym's son, I don't see that
> the inheritance question is that critical, though I accept that it needs
> an explanation.
In the face of this we have Glyn Roberts, writing in Welsh, and which I can only see snippets one, citing Jones, an unpublished thesis I am likely never going to be able to consult. It is very hard for me to know what weight to give this, as without the nuances of the original sources, I can't tell whether there is direct evidence, deduction, or what. The there is the visitation pedigree, but I can't actually tell fromt he edittion what I am looking at - what each of the three pedigrees represents, and you will note that the third one, the one that has David Owen Theoder's name under it, actually has compressed the first two Richards into one, and I don't know if this is an editorial error, a scribal error, or if David didn't really know his own pedigree all that well, which has broader implications.
So, I would love to be able to independently confirm this.
taf
taf
Oct 10, 2018, 6:11:40 PM10/10/18
to
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 1:00:12 PM UTC-7, alj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Doesn't the article by Professor Glyn Roberts (Dictionary of Welsh
> Biography (1959), GRIFFITH OF PENRHYN (Caerns.)) actually support
> the "traditional" pedigree?
Yes, but the article on Tudor of Penmynydd does not. "It was Owain , grandson of Goronwy , who appears to have been the first of this branch of the family to adopt the surname Tudor, transformed into Theodore in the time of his son, RICHARD THEODORE I."
> Doesn't the article by Professor Glyn Roberts (Dictionary of Welsh
> Biography (1959), GRIFFITH OF PENRHYN (Caerns.)) actually support
> the "traditional" pedigree?
> "In Wyrion Eden... I followed the suggestion of John Williams (Arch Camb.
> 1869 page 379) that Tudur Fychan, ancestor of the later Penmynydd Tudors,
> was a son of Goronwy ap Tudur (died 1382). But J. R. Jones, op cit, showed
> a misreading of Ancient Petitions, V, 13604, where one has definite proof
> that Tudur Fychan was a son of Gwilym ap Gruffudd and Morfudd". (The op
> cit was the1953 M.A. thesis by J. Rowland Jones "The Development of the
> Penrhyn Estate to 1431".)
> The documents he referred to can be seen online (as A.13604) in Descriptive
> Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, volume V) at
>
> https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal05greauoft/page/548 et seq.
. . .
> But the pedigree also shows "Owen Tudor Vychan" to have been the father
> of Richard, William, John and also Hugh, the eldest being Richard Owen
> Tudur (consistent with the note in The Taylors Cussion), but recording
> that Richard was High Sheriff of Anglesey in 1565. (This must surely
> be wrong - the High Sheriff must have been of the next generation.)
> Is it possible that the Owain ap Tudur Fychan who died in 1504/5 was
> actually a grandson of Tudur ap Gwilym ap Gruffudd Fychan, his father
> being the Tudur who was Gwilym ap Gruffudd's son? That would make the
> generation gap unexceptional and it would also explain why he had the
> epithet Fychan (the younger) when Gwilym's son Tudur did not have the
> name in his recent ancestry (though perhaps it may have reflected the
> contemporary existence until his death, before 1400, of his maternal
> uncle Tudur ap Goronwy).
Looks like we need some documents from the 15th century that name the holders of Penmynydd. Perhaps if some of the wives listed in the visitation pedigree can be tracked down we could deduce some chronology from their families.
taf
taf
Oct 11, 2018, 12:20:31 AM10/11/18
to
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 12:00:53 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> It reports that he died s.p. 9 January 1585/6 and that his
> inquisition the following October found him to have been
> son of Richard Owen Theodor and Margaret, and that his heir
> was his brother, David, aged 45.
>
> It reports that he died s.p. 9 January 1585/6 and that his
> inquisition the following October found him to have been
> son of Richard Owen Theodor and Margaret, and that his heir
> was his brother, David, aged 45.
>
> This would put David's birth about 1541.
For the chronology of the last generations, we have the following:
"Llansadwrn, co. Anglesey, 1611.
Richard owen theodor soonn and heire unto Richard owen of penmynydd was borne the xxviith of maii and baptised the last of maii att penmynydd"
https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/wal/Archives/NLWjournals/ParishRegs
This is David's son, Richard (IV), and his grandson, Richard (V), and hence establishes a 35-year average for the last two generations.
taf
taf
Oct 11, 2018, 10:56:34 AM10/11/18
to
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 2:56:07 PM UTC-7, Chris Pitt Lewis wrote:
> I struggle to translate this into a modern National Archives reference.
> Ancient Petitions are SC8, but SC8/273/13604 seems irrelevant.
> SC8/27/1318 is a petition by "William ap Gruffydd of Penmynyth" but, at
> least as calendared, does not seem to assist with Tudur's parentage.
This contains an interesting claim, at least as calendared.
> I struggle to translate this into a modern National Archives reference.
> Ancient Petitions are SC8, but SC8/273/13604 seems irrelevant.
> SC8/27/1318 is a petition by "William ap Gruffydd of Penmynyth" but, at
> least as calendared, does not seem to assist with Tudur's parentage.
"that the petitioner [William ap Gruffydd] is married to one of the daughters of William de Stanley, knight, who is entirely English, and that he himself is for the most part entirely descended from the English race."
Compare this to his pedigree per Bartrum (with all the inherent caveats:
1. Ednyfed Fychan m. Nest dau Llewellyn ap Bran
2. Tudor Marchg m. Adles dau Richard ap Caddr ap Gruffydd ap Cynan
3. Heilin m. ? dau Einion Wyddel
4. Gruffydd m. Eva dau Gruffydd Gruffydd ap Tudor ap Madog ab Iarddur
5. Gwilym m. Gwenh. dau Ieuen
6. Gruffydd ap Gwilyn m. Generys dau & sole heiress of Madoc ap Gronwy Fychan ap Gronwy ap Ednyfed Fychan
7. Gruffydd ap Gwilim
So, his claim to be "for the most part entirely descended from the English race" seem to have been for the most part entirely false.
taf
taf
Oct 11, 2018, 11:12:47 AM10/11/18
to
taf
Chris Pitt Lewis
Oct 11, 2018, 1:26:21 PM10/11/18
to
On 10/10/2018 21:00, alj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Doesn't the article by Professor Glyn Roberts (Dictionary of Welsh Biography (1959), GRIFFITH OF PENRHYN (Caerns.)) actually support the "traditional" pedigree? ("His son by his first wife inherited only his mother's property at Penmynydd..") It is dated 1959 and in 1957 Professor Roberts originally wrote his "Teulu Penmynydd" essay mentioned by Chris Pitt Lewis (though it was published in Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion in 1959). He had written an earlier essay (in English) "Wyrion Eden" in 1951, in which he had adopted the version of John Williams (1869) but he amended this in Teulu Penmynydd. In a footnote to the essay, as printed in Aspects of Welsh History (University of Wales Press, 1969), he explained [translated]:
>
> "In Wyrion Eden... I followed the suggestion of John Williams (Arch Camb. 1869 page 379) that Tudur Fychan, ancestor of the later Penmynydd Tudors, was a son of Goronwy ap Tudur (died 1382). But J. R. Jones, op cit, showed a misreading of Ancient Petitions, V, 13604, where one has definite proof that Tudur Fychan was a son of Gwilym ap Gruffudd and Morfudd". (The op cit was the1953 M.A. thesis by J. Rowland Jones "The Development of the Penrhyn Estate to 1431".)
>
> The documents he referred to can be seen online (as A.13604) in Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, volume V) at
>
> https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal05greauoft/page/548 et seq.
>
So Roberts in his footnote meant to say Ancient Deeds, not Ancient
> Doesn't the article by Professor Glyn Roberts (Dictionary of Welsh Biography (1959), GRIFFITH OF PENRHYN (Caerns.)) actually support the "traditional" pedigree? ("His son by his first wife inherited only his mother's property at Penmynydd..") It is dated 1959 and in 1957 Professor Roberts originally wrote his "Teulu Penmynydd" essay mentioned by Chris Pitt Lewis (though it was published in Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion in 1959). He had written an earlier essay (in English) "Wyrion Eden" in 1951, in which he had adopted the version of John Williams (1869) but he amended this in Teulu Penmynydd. In a footnote to the essay, as printed in Aspects of Welsh History (University of Wales Press, 1969), he explained [translated]:
>
> "In Wyrion Eden... I followed the suggestion of John Williams (Arch Camb. 1869 page 379) that Tudur Fychan, ancestor of the later Penmynydd Tudors, was a son of Goronwy ap Tudur (died 1382). But J. R. Jones, op cit, showed a misreading of Ancient Petitions, V, 13604, where one has definite proof that Tudur Fychan was a son of Gwilym ap Gruffudd and Morfudd". (The op cit was the1953 M.A. thesis by J. Rowland Jones "The Development of the Penrhyn Estate to 1431".)
>
> The documents he referred to can be seen online (as A.13604) in Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, volume V) at
>
> https://archive.org/details/descriptivecatal05greauoft/page/548 et seq.
>
Petitions.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis
taf
Oct 11, 2018, 9:13:37 PM10/11/18
to
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:20:31 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> For the chronology of the last generations, we have the following:
>
> "Llansadwrn, co. Anglesey, 1611.
> Richard owen theodor soonn and heire unto Richard owen of penmynydd was borne the xxviith of maii and baptised the last of maii att penmynydd"
>
> https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/wal/Archives/NLWjournals/ParishRegs
>
> This is David's son, Richard (IV), and his grandson, Richard (V), and hence establishes a 35-year average for the last two generations.
>
And now I can add another little nugget, which doesn't move things forward much, but someone may care. The Llansadwrn registers also have the marriage of Richard (IV) 26 June 1610, to Maria Rowland.
> For the chronology of the last generations, we have the following:
>
> "Llansadwrn, co. Anglesey, 1611.
> Richard owen theodor soonn and heire unto Richard owen of penmynydd was borne the xxviith of maii and baptised the last of maii att penmynydd"
>
> https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/wal/Archives/NLWjournals/ParishRegs
>
> This is David's son, Richard (IV), and his grandson, Richard (V), and hence establishes a 35-year average for the last two generations.
>
taf
Richard Owen Theodor (IV) married
taf
Nov 8, 2018, 4:18:28 PM11/8/18
to
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 2:56:07 PM UTC-7, Chris Pitt Lewis wrote:
> There is a detailed account of this family by Glyn Roberts, "Teulu
> Penmynydd", in Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion
> 1959, pp.9-37. Unfortunately it is in Welsh, but helpfully there is a
> pedigree on p.37.
For anyone interested, I found this article online:
> Penmynydd", in Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion
> 1959, pp.9-37. Unfortunately it is in Welsh, but helpfully there is a
> pedigree on p.37.
https://journals.library.wales/view/1386666/1415159/16#?xywh=-62%2C272%2C2570%2C1776
taf
J. Sardina
May 8, 2022, 1:29:47 PM5/8/22
to
It has been quite some time since this last posting.
I was looking through the group to see what could be found regarding these lines. From the article mentioned here, from the chart on that page, it seems that Generys and Gruffydd were related within a few degrees, and that their son and his first wife Morfudd, were also related within a few degrees, on the Tudur side.
Question: There seem to be a few men in this line named Goronwy.
Is Goronwy Fychan, the father of Madog, and grandfather of Generys, a brother of Tudur Hen?
or was the father of Madog the same as the son of Tudur Hen?
The reconstruction in the article gives three generations between Generys to Ednyfed Fychan, and four generations between her husband and Ednyfed.
From various articles on Ednyfed, it seems that the line of the Tudurs came from the first marriage of Ednyfed, but the line of Gruffydd from a second marriage. It seems a little odd that the male line would be longer in this case.
I am still not sure if Ellen, the daughter of Gwilym and Jonet Stanley, and wife of William Bulkeley, was the mother of Catherine Bulkeley, the second wife of Randall Brereton, and if Catherine was the mother of the next Randall Brereton.
J. Sardina
taf
May 8, 2022, 7:02:35 PM5/8/22
to
On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:29:47 AM UTC-7, J. Sardina wrote:
> On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 4:18:28 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 2:56:07 PM UTC-7, Chris Pitt Lewis wrote:
> > > There is a detailed account of this family by Glyn Roberts, "Teulu
> > > Penmynydd", in Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion
> > > 1959, pp.9-37. Unfortunately it is in Welsh, but helpfully there is a
> > > pedigree on p.37.
> > For anyone interested, I found this article online:
> >
> > https://journals.library.wales/view/1386666/1415159/16#?xywh=-62%2C272%2C2570%2C1776
> >
> > taf
> Thanks.
>
> It has been quite some time since this last posting.
>
> I was looking through the group to see what could be found regarding these lines. From the article mentioned here, from the chart on that page, it seems that Generys and Gruffydd were related within a few degrees, and that their son and his first wife Morfudd, were also related within a few degrees, on the Tudur side.
>
> Question: There seem to be a few men in this line named Goronwy.
> Is Goronwy Fychan, the father of Madog, and grandfather of Generys, a brother of Tudur Hen?
> or was the father of Madog the same as the son of Tudur Hen?
>
> The reconstruction in the article gives three generations between Generys to Ednyfed Fychan, and four generations between her husband and Ednyfed.
This is the same as given by Bartrum, that Goronwy Fychan was grandson of Ednyfed Fychan.
> On Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 4:18:28 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 2:56:07 PM UTC-7, Chris Pitt Lewis wrote:
> > > There is a detailed account of this family by Glyn Roberts, "Teulu
> > > Penmynydd", in Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion
> > > 1959, pp.9-37. Unfortunately it is in Welsh, but helpfully there is a
> > > pedigree on p.37.
> > For anyone interested, I found this article online:
> >
> > https://journals.library.wales/view/1386666/1415159/16#?xywh=-62%2C272%2C2570%2C1776
> >
> > taf
> Thanks.
>
> It has been quite some time since this last posting.
>
> I was looking through the group to see what could be found regarding these lines. From the article mentioned here, from the chart on that page, it seems that Generys and Gruffydd were related within a few degrees, and that their son and his first wife Morfudd, were also related within a few degrees, on the Tudur side.
>
> Question: There seem to be a few men in this line named Goronwy.
> Is Goronwy Fychan, the father of Madog, and grandfather of Generys, a brother of Tudur Hen?
> or was the father of Madog the same as the son of Tudur Hen?
>
> The reconstruction in the article gives three generations between Generys to Ednyfed Fychan, and four generations between her husband and Ednyfed.
> From various articles on Ednyfed, it seems that the line of the Tudurs came from the first marriage of Ednyfed, but the line of Gruffydd from a second marriage. It seems a little odd that the male line would be longer in this case.
>
taf
J. Sardina
May 10, 2022, 4:30:31 PM5/10/22
to
J. Sardina
Leslie Mahler
Oct 11, 2022, 12:47:30 AM10/11/22
to
On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:29:47 AM UTC-7, J. Sardina wrote:
https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00263731&tree=LEO
Leslie
taf
Oct 12, 2022, 6:21:02 AM10/12/22
to
On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 9:47:30 PM UTC-7, Leslie Mahler wrote:
> There is a pedigree with Randall Brereton, Catherine Bulkeley and others, with sources, here:
> https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00263731&tree=LEO
Unfortunately, one of the pages critical for this question, that for Marjory, mother of Brereton wife Catherine Bulkeley, has "[S04743] Posting to Soc-Gen-Med Newsgroup 19 Oct 2020" as its only source.
> There is a pedigree with Randall Brereton, Catherine Bulkeley and others, with sources, here:
> https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00263731&tree=LEO
taf
Will Johnson
Oct 12, 2022, 4:49:29 PM10/12/22
to
0 new messages