Genuine Gateway Ancestors (GGAs)?
R. Ben Madison
Having reviewed the long thread on "Bogus Gateway Ancestors," I am curious
to know: Is there a source which might give "Genuine Gateway Ancestors" for
early New England settlers who might have legitimate long, long pedigrees
going back to royalty, nobility, and that ilk?
Thanks,
R. Ben Madison
D. Spencer Hines
"The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the
United States, Who Were Themselves Notable or Left Descendants Notable
In American History," [RD 500], 1001 North Calvert Street, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202; Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc.; (1993) LOC
93-79085; ISBN 0-8063-1395-1.
RD 500 is out of print, but any really good library should have a copy.
Roberts is working on a new version.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
R. Ben Madison <tal...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:7t92j2$d0o$1...@uwm.edu...
R. Ben Madison
<7t9423$gme$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Yes, Faris, op. cit. and Gary Boyd Roberts:
>"The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the
>United States, Who Were Themselves Notable or Left Descendants Notable
>In American History," [RD 500]
Thanks much, I will look for it. The more genealogy I do, the more "Yankees"
I find. Which is pretty boring for someone with continental ambitions such
as myself. ;-)
BTW, is there a website listing the 500?
R. Ben Madison
http://www.talossa.com
Douglas Richardson
immigrants (including New Englanders) with Plantagenet
royal ancestry, see David Faris' book, Plantagenet
Ancestry, lst ed., published by Genealogical Publishing
Company in Baltimore. This list supercedes the list found
in Gary B. Roberts' book recommended by Mr. Hines. As with
the Roberts book, Dr. Faris' book is out of print but a 2nd
edition is due out shortly to be published by New England
Historic Genealogical Society in Boston. The new 2nd ed.
will include 10-15 additional colonial immigrants not found
in the lst ed.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> For the most recent and up-to-date list of colonial
> immigrants (including New Englanders) with Plantagenet
> royal ancestry, see David Faris' book, Plantagenet
> Ancestry, lst ed., published by Genealogical Publishing
> Company in Baltimore. This list supercedes the list found
> in Gary B. Roberts' book recommended by Mr. Hines.
It does so with two caveats. First of all, Mr. Roberts' book focusses
on all immigrants of Royal descent, not limiting the time frame to
descent from Plantagenets, and thus includes descendants from Henry I
and Charlemagne who do not have more recent links. Second, the Faris
book appears to exclude from consideration all descents from
Plantagenets that involve an illegitimate child of a monarch. Thus
descents from, for example, William Longespee do not qualify. (This
seems somewhat arbitrary to me, as descents through illegitimates at any
other position in the lineage were accepted - or have I misunderstood?)
taf
Josephine Lindsay Bass
ancestor.
I agree, however in my DUDLEY line the focus has been on Thomas Dudley the
GOV, whose line has been somewhat iffy. The Virginia DUDLEY line has been
ignored, i think i have it right, I linked into Longshanks - and many
others, some illegitimate - i have so many royal gfs and gms i am beginning
to wonder if i have really messed up. could someone post a neat list of
the # possible. Appareciate any and all comments and critique.
Dorothy b 1695 d 1751 Spots. Co. dau of Richard 2nd son of EDWARD DUDLEY as
shown by will of Thomas Saxe pr. 1 Jan 1654/55 & Elizabeth Dudley.
Will of Richard Dudley names daus Elizabeth Gatewood & Dorothy Gatewood,
dtd 10 Dec 1716, pr 16 July 1717 Essex Co. (Bk 16, p. 79) "Living Desc of
Blood Royal" pp. 323-327. t
Richard Dudley b 1642 Gloucester Co. VA in Will of Henry Sewall, 25 apr
1664; MD Calendar of Wills, Vol. II, p. 246. Living Descendants of Blood
Royal, p. 326.
Col Richard DUDLEY 1623-1687 Summoned to Orphan Court, York Co; 1646 was
granted more than 1000 acres in Glouchester Co. VA.
1657 was Sheriff of Gloucester Co. VA.
1679 was appointed Colonel of Militia Gloucester Co. VA.
Lived in Kingston Parrish, Gloucester County
Wm & Mary College, Vol XIII, page 28. Settled in Gloucester County, VA;
was High Sheriff in 1675 and Col of Militia.
He married Mary SEWELL, daughter of Richard SEWELL & Mary DUGDALE, Before
11 Aug 1642 in England. Born Circa 1616 in Coventry, England. Other data
says Henry Sewell was her father. Richard DUDLEY. Son of Edward DUDLEY &
Elizabeth PRITCHARD.
Edward DUDLEY-Emigrated to Virginia before May 19, 1637.
Resided first in New Norfolk, later in York Co. where he purchased land Feb
6, 1661/2.
Emigrated To VA. Before 19 May 1637; Resided In Norfork, First Dudley
Ancestor to the New World.
VA Mag, Vol VI, p. 191, Land Patents; Gov Harvey issues to Rev Thomas
Hampton 300 acres in Norfolk County for bringing 6 adult persons into the
colony; viz: John Bagworth, Edward Dudley, John Bass, Thomas Hampton, John
Broune, Richard Eggleston. This is confirmed by Green's "List of Early
Immigrants", page 200.
Mr. Dudley 1st settled in York County and in 1654 was in Lancaster Co. VA.
VA MAG, Vol 5, pages 154, 429, 430. His widow m. Robinson.
Another? Dudley was in Jamestown, VA -
1624 WEST SHERLOW VA D340 DUDLEY, Andrew- no other info.
josie
(1) 1 EDWARD DUDLEY, 2626
----------------------------------------
Birth: Bristol, ENG
Death: 1655, VA
Occ: Royal Descendant Of Charlemagne
Residence: Bristol, ENG & NewYork, Bef May19,1637 > York Co.VA
Sources: See:[131],[393],[440],[763]
Father: ROBERT DUDLEY, 2630
Mother: GREEN, 2631
[131].Emigrated to Virginia before May 19, 1637.
Resided first in New Norfolk, later in York Co. where he purchased land Feb
6, 1661/2.
[393] Emigrated To VA. Before 19 May 1637; Resided In Norfork, First Dudley
Ancestor to the New World.
[763] VA Mag, Vol VI, p. 191, Land Patents; Gov Harvey issues to Rev Thomas
Hampton 300 acres in Norfolk County for bringing 6 adult persons into the
colony; viz: John Bagworth, Edward Dudley, John Bass, Thomas Hampton, John
Broune, Richard Eggleston. This is confirmed by Green's "List of Early
Immigrants", page 200.
Mr. Dudley 1st settled in York County and in 1654 was in Lancaster Co. VA.
VA MAG, Vol 5, pages 154, 429, 430. His widow m. Robinson.[763]
Another? Dudley was in Jamestown, VA -
1624 WEST SHERLOW VA D340 DUDLEY, Andrew - no other info.
[763]
Arms - Or, a lion rampart, vert, double queried.
Crest - a Lion Head erased.
Motto - Nec gladio nec arcu.
Spouse: ELIZABETH PRITCHARD, 2627
Birth: ENG
Death: 2 Oct 1691, York Co. VA
Residence: ENG > York Co. VA
Sources: See:[131],[393],[440],[763]
Father: WILLIAM PRITCHARD, 2628
Mother: HESTER, 2629
Children:
Elizabeth, 2882
William, 2880 (1621-1677)
RICHARD, 2622 (~1623-~1687)
Robert, 2881 (1650-1700)
Grace, 12573
Bridget, 22602
(2) 1.1 RICHARD DUDLEY COL, 2622
----------------------------------------
Birth: abt 1623, Bristol, ENG
Death: abt 1687, VA, age: 64
Occ: Col Of Militia Gloucester Co. VA
Residence: Bristol, ENG; York & Glouchester Co. VA
Sources: See:[128],[129],[130],[131],[132],[393],[440],[454],[763]
Summoned to Orphan Court, York Co; 1646 was granted more than 1000 acres in
Glouchester Co. VA.
1657 was Sheriff of Gloucester Co. VA.
1679 was appointed Colonel of Militia Gloucester Co. VA.[132]
Lived in Kingston Parrish, Gloucester County[393]
[763] Wm & Mary College, Vol XIII, page 28. Settled in Gloucester County,
VA; was High Sheriff in 1675 and Col of Militia.
He married Mary SEWELL, daughter of Richard SEWELL & Mary DUGDALE, Before
11 Aug 1642 in England. Born Circa 1616 in Coventry, England.
Other data says Henry Sewell was her father.
Richard DUDLEY. Son of Edward DUDLEY & Elizabeth PRITCHARD. Born Circa 1623
in Bristol, England. Died Circa 1687 in Virginia. Richard was sheriff of
Gloucester County, Virginia in 1657. In 1679, he was appointed Colonel of
the militia in Gloucester County, Virginia.
Research: "The Winthrop Fleet of 1630" by Charles Edward Banks :
Dudley, Thomas
Dudley, Dorothy (Yorke) (wife of Thomas)
Dudley, Samuel (son of Thomas)
Dudley, Anne (daughter of Thomas)
Dudley, Patience (daughter of Thomas)
Dudley, Sarah (daughter of Thomas)
Dudley, Mercy (daughter of Thomas)
Dudley, Thomas, Jr. (son of Thomas)
1704 VA Rent tolls:
Dudley Ambrose (Sherifff(?)) Glocester, Kingston Parish
Dudley Capt Glocester, Kingston Parish
Dudley Christopher Nansemond County, 1704
Dudley James Glocester, Petso Parish
Dudley James Middlesex County, 1704
Dudley Richd Glocester, Kingston Parish
Dudley Richd Glocester, Petso Parish
Dudley Richd. Junr Glocester, Ware Parish
Dudley Robt. Middlesex County, 1704
Dudley Thomas Glocester, Petso Parish
Dudly Thomas Middlesex County, 1704
Spouse: Mary SEWELL (SEAWELL), 2623
Birth: ? 1616/1622, ENG
Residence: Glouchester Co. VA
Sources: See:[128],[129],[130],[131],[132],[393],[440],[454],[763]
Father: Henry SEWELL (SEWALL), 2625
Mother: Mary DUGDALE, 19608
Marr: bef 11 Aug 1642, ENG
Children:
RICHARD, 2620 (1642-)
Robert, 2889 (1647-1701)
Ambrose, 2890 (1649-)
Francis, 2891 (~1651-)
Alexander, 2892 (~1653-)
(3) 1.1.1 RICHARD DUDLEY, 2620
----------------------------------------
Birth: 1642/1650, Glouchester Co. VA
Death: VA
Residence: Glouchester Co. VA
Sources: See:[128],[129],[130],[131],[132],[440],[454]
Will of Henry Sewall, 25 apr 1664; MD Calendar of Wills, Vol. II, p. 246.
Living Descendants of Blood Royal, p. 326.
Spouse: Elizabeth STEPHENS, 2621
Birth: abt 1640/1650
Residence: Of VA
Sources: See:[128],[129],[132],[440],[454]
Father: John STEPHENS, 2624
Children: RICHARD, 1795 (1665-~1716)
(4) 1.1.1.1 RICHARD DUDLEY, 1795
----------------------------------------
Birth: 1665/1675, VA
Death: abt 1716, VA, age: 51
Occ: Royal Descendant
Residence: Southfarnham, Essex Co. VA
Sources: See:[11],[125],[128],[130],[131],[132],[440],[454]
Virginia Colonial Abstracts, Vol. 5, page 48.
Living Descendants of Blood royal, p. 326. The Dudley line traces back to
King Edward I 1239-1307, who md. Eleanor of Castile 1254.[128]
Will of Richard, dated Dec 10, 1716, pr 16 Jul 1717 Essex Co VA (BK 16, p.
79) names daus Elizabeth Gatewood and Dorothy Gatewood.[125]
BOOKS:
The History of the Dudley family is still available through Higgensons
books in Salem....so is the Last meeting of the Gov Thomas Dudley
association and "The Sutton-Dudley's of England" The Library in your area
should still have LDBR (Living Descendants of Blood Royal) and the Abridged
Compendium of American Genealogy.
The Dudley family and the Tudors by Paul Fincham
The Dudley Genealogies by James Henry Mason
Our Dudley Heritage by James Henry Mason.
The above may be had at old book stores or on microfische through the LDS
Much of the info is repetitions though, and most just quote Dean Dudley.
Spouse: Elizabeth SAXE, 1796
Birth: abt 1665/1675
Residence: Southfarnham, Essex Co.VA
Sources: See:[11],[125],[128],[130],[131],[132],[440]
Dorothy b 1695 dau of Richard (2nd son of Edward Dudley as shown by will of
Thomas Saxe pr 1 Jan 1654/55 & Elizabeth Dudley.)[125]
Children:
Elizabeth, 4533 (1692-1765)
DOROTHY, 1794 (~1695-~1751)
Peter, 15901 (~1700-)
11. McCants, Wall and Related Families, Robbie McCants Jones, D.
Armstrong Co., Inc. Houston, TX, 1982. P.O. Box 1323, Livingston, TX 77351
125. "John and Amy Gatewood and their Descendants 1666-1986" by Carol J.
Gothberg. 902 S. 59th St. Springfield, OR 97478. and
jpl...@crosslink.net 9/1/96 (desc of John and Betsey's son William HAM
(1794-1835).
128. Virginia Colonial Abstracts, Vol. 5, page 48.
129. Will of Henry Sewall, 25 Apr 1664.
MD Calendar of Wills, Vol. II, p. 246.
130. Tyler's Quarterly Magazine, pages 182-83.
Virginia Colonial Abstracts, Vol. 25, page 23.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 5, page 430.
131. VA Colonial Abstracts, Vol. 22 page 33;
Tyler's Quarterly Magazine, pp. 176-7.
VA May. of Hist. & Biog. V. 5 p 430;
393. Cameron R. Dudley. EMail: cdu...@coastalnet.com 4/25/97 Much info
on this line researched by Vivian Cayton Moore E Mail vecm...@eastlink.net
440. "Living Descendants of Blood Royal", book 1, pages 323 to 327.
454. Cheryl McGraw; EMail emc...@uakron.edu 7/97
2549-D Royal County Down, Uniontown, OH USA 44685
http://w3.gwis.com/~cmcgraw/family/mcgraw/dudley.htm
763. "Colonial Families of the United States", Vol V.; by Mackenzie,
George Norbury. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co. Inc., 1907.
Borderbund CD. 189.
Index
DUDLEY
Alexander (~1653 - ) child of (2) 1.1
Ambrose Major (1649 - ) child of (2) 1.1
Bridget child of (1) 1
DOROTHY (~1695 - ~1751) child of (4) 1.1.1.1
EDWARD ( - 1655) (1) 1
Elizabeth child of (1) 1
Elizabeth (1692 - 1765) child of (4) 1.1.1.1
Francis (~1651 - ) child of (2) 1.1
Grace child of (1) 1
Peter (~1700 - ) child of (4) 1.1.1.1
RICHARD (1665 - ~1716) (4) 1.1.1.1
RICHARD (1642 - ) (3) 1.1.1
RICHARD COL (~1623 - ~1687) (2) 1.1
Robert (1650 - 1700) child of (1) 1
Robert Major (1647 - 1701) child of (2) 1.1
William (1621 - 1677) child of (1) 1
PRITCHARD
ELIZABETH ( - 1691) spouse of (1) 1
SAXE
Elizabeth (~1665 - ) spouse of (4) 1.1.1.1
SEWELL SEAWELL
Mary (?1616 - ) spouse of (2) 1.1
STEPHENS
Elizabeth (~1640 - ) spouse of (3) 1.1.1
----------------------------------------
Josephine Lindsay Bass 216 Beach Park Lane, Cape Canaveral FL 32920
jb...@digital.net (407) 868-1771
Becky Bass Bonner 8209 Canna Lane, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73132
rbo...@imail.ouhsc.edu (405) 728-2050
jb...@digital.net
216 Beach Park Lane
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-5003
Home of The *HARRISON* Repository & *MY FAMILY*
http://moon.ouhsc.edu/rbonner/harintro.htm
Our Family WWW: http://moon.ouhsc.edu/rbonner/index.htm
LINDSAY & HARRISON Surnames & CSA-HISTORY Roots Mail List
GENCONNECT: http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/indx/FamAssoc.html
Data Managed by beautiful daughter Becky Bass Bonner and me, Josephine
Lindsay Bass
John Steele Gordon
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
> >
> > For the most recent and up-to-date list of colonial
> > immigrants (including New Englanders) with Plantagenet
> > royal ancestry, see David Faris' book, Plantagenet
> > Ancestry, lst ed., published by Genealogical Publishing
> > Company in Baltimore. This list supercedes the list found
> > in Gary B. Roberts' book recommended by Mr. Hines.
>
> It does so with two caveats. First of all, Mr. Roberts' book focusses
> on all immigrants of Royal descent, not limiting the time frame to
> descent from Plantagenets, and thus includes descendants from Henry I
> and Charlemagne who do not have more recent links. Second, the Faris
> book appears to exclude from consideration all descents from
> Plantagenets that involve an illegitimate child of a monarch. Thus
> descents from, for example, William Longespee do not qualify. (This
> seems somewhat arbitrary to me, as descents through illegitimates at any
> other position in the lineage were accepted - or have I misunderstood?)
I have never been entirely sure I understand the criteria regarding
legitimacy for Faris's including or excluding descents from a
Plantagenet king. He writes as follows:
"Illegitimate descents: The legitimate descents included in this work
are indicated by the bold face used for the names of Plantagenet
descendants and spouses at first appearance in the text. Legitimacy is
defined as birth to a married couple, the children of marriages later
annulled being regarded as legitimate for purposes of descent. The
children of post-birth marriages or of no marriage are regarded as
illegitimate without regard to any later legitimization. Nevertheless,
some descents from illegitimate children have been included, notably the
Beauforts, with the names lacking bold face until there is a marriage to
a legitimate descendant. The only emigrant included without a legitimate
descent is Thomas Gerard."
If I understand this correctly, then only those 17th-century immigrants
who have a legitimate descent from a Plantagenet king--potential heirs
to the throne, so to speak-- are included, although their additional
illegitimate descents might, or might not, be indicated. The sole
exception to this rule is Edward I-descendant Thomas Gerard, immigrant
to Maryland, whose grandfather, Thomas Gerard, was illegitimate. Why
Gerard should be allowed into the club and not others Faris doesn't say.
Since I descend from Thomas Gerard, I'm perfectly happy to see in there
with his betters. Perhaps including Longspee descendants would have made
the book too large. Donald Lines Jacobus, a Longspee descendant through
Obadiah Bruen, immigrant to Connecticut, might have objected.
JSG
Douglas Richardson
I've discussed the matter of including the illegitimate
Plantagenet descents at some length with Dr. Faris. I
think he feels there is too much emphasis placed on bastard
descents which are numerous and sometimes doubtful to the
exclusion of legitimate descents which are fully proven by
the records of the period and have always been accepted as
valid descents.
Dr. Faris included the Beaufort children of John of Gaunt
in the book because John subsequently married the mother of
those children. Likewise, all the Beaufort children were
subsequently legitimized by Parliament. As for Thomas
Gerard, that line was contributed by a correspondant of Dr.
Faris who was helpful to the overall project. Also, in the
Gerard line, the documentation of the illegitimacy was
sound.
In future editions, I'd very much like Dr. Faris to include
our common ancestor, William Longespee. However, just
doing the legitimate descents, the book keeps growing.
The new 2nd edition is over 100 pages larger than the lst
edition which was done just three years earlier. And, due
to time constraints, at least two or three new legitimate
lines were left out of the 2nd edition, including one I
developed. As such, the 3rd edition when it appears will
be even larger than the 2nd edition which has just been
completed. So there is an abundance of material just
doing the legitimate descents.
Perhaps the solution is to do a volume of illegitimate
descents. But, if so, that will have to wait until our
Magna Carta Ancestry is finished. I've pretty much
finished my research for the Magna Carta book and now we
just need to prepare and edit the final draft. At some
point, we're also planning a book on Baronial Ancestry.
We're probably about half finished with that project. So
we're not hurting for projects, just the time to do them.
All for now. Best always, Douglas Richardson
D. Spencer Hines
Thank you, Douglas.
That was quite informative and nicely written to convey a great deal of
information.
Your style appears to have evolved.
All Best Wishes & Aloha,
Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0a0133f8...@usw-ex0103-020.remarq.com...
D. Spencer Hines
a line oneself and not just accept the word of the compiler --- even the
word of several compilers. Particularly if it is one's own line. <g>
Gary Boyd Roberts has also initiated some corrections to his own book
and those must be perused as well.
Hopefully, his second edition, in 2001 or 2002, will clear out some of
the underbrush.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37f9244f...@news.mindspring.com...
| On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 23:44:20 -0500, "R. Ben Madison"
| <tal...@execpc.com> wrote:
|
| >>"The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or
the
| >>United States, Who Were Themselves Notable or Left Descendants
Notable
| >>In American History," [RD 500]
| >
| >Thanks much, I will look for it. The more genealogy I do, the more
"Yankees"
| >I find. Which is pretty boring for someone with continental ambitions
such
| >as myself. ;-)
| >
| >BTW, is there a website listing the 500?
|
| The above book (RD500) should come with the warning that it is not a
| listing of valid royal descents, but is rather a bibliographic
| collection of CLAIMED royal descents, each of which is accompanied by
| a list of sources (sometimes of poor quality) giving the claimed
| descent. A significant number of the alleged royal descents listed in
| this book are false and the disproofs of some of them have already
| appeared in the literature in recent years (and the number of such
| disproven descents in the book will increase again when I get around
| to writing up my disproof of the claimed royal line of William
| Edwards, John Edwards et al. on page 309).
|
| As has been discussed in this newsgroup on numerous occasions in the
| past, RD500 is an excellent finding aid for leading you to what has
| been written before on a given alleged royal line, but the appearance
| of a line in RD500 should not be used to decide whether or not the
| line is correct.
|
| Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 23:44:20 -0500, "R. Ben Madison"
> <tal...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
> >>"The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the
> >>United States, Who Were Themselves Notable or Left Descendants Notable
> >>In American History," [RD 500]
> >
> >Thanks much, I will look for it. The more genealogy I do, the more "Yankees"
> >I find. Which is pretty boring for someone with continental ambitions such
> >as myself. ;-)
> >
> >BTW, is there a website listing the 500?
>
> The above book (RD500) should come with the warning that it is not a
> listing of valid royal descents, but is rather a bibliographic
> collection of CLAIMED royal descents, each of which is accompanied by
> a list of sources (sometimes of poor quality) giving the claimed
> descent. A significant number of the alleged royal descents listed in
> this book are false and the disproofs of some of them have already
> appeared in the literature in recent years (and the number of such
> disproven descents in the book will increase again when I get around
> to writing up my disproof of the claimed royal line of William
> Edwards, John Edwards et al. on page 309).
This is not entirely accurate either. There are numerous claimed royal
descents that Roberts excluded from this compilation because he
considered them to be inaccurate. When he published this work, Roberts
believed that each of these descents was valid. That several of them
have subsequently been demonstrated to be false is something to be
expected of any publication (for example, at least one descent appearing
in Faris has been shown to be chronologically impossible).
> As has been discussed in this newsgroup on numerous occasions in the
> past, RD500 is an excellent finding aid for leading you to what has
> been written before on a given alleged royal line, but the appearance
> of a line in RD500 should not be used to decide whether or not the
> line is correct.
This is a caveat that really applies to all such summary works. When it
really comes down to it, it is virtually impossible to be intimately
familiar with all of the support for every line in such a source
extensive enough to claim to be comprehensive. (It is the same reason
everybody complains about Turton or Stuart, but none of the critics are
willing to take on the project themselves.) Thus whenever reading such
a source, it is incumbent on the reader to follow the citations back to
the primary and secondary sources, and to independently evaluate the
connections. Still, this can be insufficient, as often the flaw in the
line is not a problem with the cited information, but with critical
sources not discovered by the author, and hence not cited. Thus, what
is critical is to remain aware of the most recent published literature,
and to do independent research, consulting the widest range of sources,
on the lines in which you are interested.
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
Richardson <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>Hi John:
>
>I've discussed the matter of including the illegitimate
>Plantagenet descents at some length with Dr. Faris. I
>think he feels there is too much emphasis placed on bastard
>descents which are numerous and sometimes doubtful to the
>exclusion of legitimate descents which are fully proven by
>the records of the period and have always been accepted as
>valid descents.
This is absurd. The illegitimacy or bastardy of specific filiations bears
little relation to whether the lines in question are 'doubtful' or 'fully
proven'. Dispassionate assessment of the soundness of any line can and
should be made regardless of legal or social concepts of legitimacy. If
consistently applied, such an assessment would be the only useful criteria
for inclusion or rejection in such a book.
Nat Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor
jb...@digital.net (Josephine Lindsay Bass) wrote:
>I agree with taf, and these books leave out DOROTHY DUDLEY of Virginia, my
>ancestor.
>I agree, however in my DUDLEY line the focus has been on Thomas Dudley the
>GOV, whose line has been somewhat iffy. The Virginia DUDLEY line has been
>ignored, i think i have it right, I linked into Longshanks - and many
>others, some illegitimate - i have so many royal gfs and gms i am beginning
>to wonder if i have really messed up. could someone post a neat list of
>the # possible. Appareciate any and all comments and critique.
In the data you have presented I see no concise argument for the royal
ancestry of Edward Dudley, immigrant to Virginia in 1637, grandfather of
Dorothy (Dudley) Gatewood (if I read this post correctly). Here you name
his parents as Robert Dudley and ___ Green. Who are they, and on what
evidence have your sources made this assignment?
[...]
>(1) 1 EDWARD DUDLEY, 2626
>----------------------------------------
>Birth: Bristol, ENG
>Death: 1655, VA
>Occ: Royal Descendant Of Charlemagne
>Residence: Bristol, ENG & NewYork, Bef May19,1637 > York Co.VA
>Sources: See:[131],[393],[440],[763]
>Father: ROBERT DUDLEY, 2630
>Mother: GREEN, 2631
>
>[393] Emigrated To VA. Before 19 May 1637; Resided In Norfork, First Dudley
>Ancestor to the New World.
>
>[763] VA Mag, Vol VI, p. 191, Land Patents; Gov Harvey issues to Rev Thomas
>Hampton 300 acres in Norfolk County for bringing 6 adult persons into the
>colony; viz: John Bagworth, Edward Dudley, John Bass, Thomas Hampton, John
>Broune, Richard Eggleston. This is confirmed by Green's "List of Early
>Immigrants", page 200.
>
>Mr. Dudley 1st settled in York County and in 1654 was in Lancaster Co. VA.
>VA MAG, Vol 5, pages 154, 429, 430. His widow m. Robinson.[763]
[...]
Your source list includes:
>131. VA Colonial Abstracts, Vol. 22 page 33;
>Tyler's Quarterly Magazine, pp. 176-7.
>VA May. of Hist. & Biog. V. 5 p 430;
>393. Cameron R. Dudley. EMail: cdu...@coastalnet.com 4/25/97 Much info
>on this line researched by Vivian Cayton Moore E Mail vecm...@eastlink.net
>440. "Living Descendants of Blood Royal", book 1, pages 323 to 327.
>763. "Colonial Families of the United States", Vol V.; by Mackenzie,
>George Norbury. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co. Inc., 1907.
>Borderbund CD. 189.
Does the _Living Descendants of Blood Royal_ (your no. 440) connect this
Edward Dudley to the baronial Sutton-Dudleys? On what evidence?
Nat Taylor
D. Spencer Hines
It seems quite sound to me to publish a book with only legitimate
descents, with the exception of Thomas Gerard, who sneaked in under the
tent, with help from a descendant.
I'm surprised that a Harvard man doesn't know that the singular of
<criteria> is <criterion>.
No Greek, I suppose.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Nathaniel Taylor <nta...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:ntaylor-0410...@dunster-4360.student.harvard.edu...
criteria [sic]
Leo van de Pas
Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth-century Colonists
The Descent from the Later Plantagenet Kings of England, Henry III,
Edward I, Edward II and Edward III, of Emigrants from England and Wales
to the North American Colonies before 1701.
To me the requirements are :
1. the migrant has to leave England or Wales before 1701.
2.there has to be a descent from Henry III, Edward I, Edward II or Edward
III
This certainly gives room to bastards. This leaves out, quite rightly, the
Longespee lines, but otherwise bastards should not be ignored. I may misread
pages 113 and 114, but I do not see an illegitimate link for Thomas Gerard.
He may, also, have an illegitimate line but it does not seem to be the one
displayed on these pages.
On page 18 there is a bastard shown, Charles Somerset, son of Henry
Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Beaufort, by Jane Hill.
Bastard or legitimate, the only difference is a piece of paper as far as the
child is concerned.
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
Have you read Faris's Introduction, pp. vii through xiii, recently?
Here is the first sentence:
"This book is intended to provide summary information about the
legitimate descent from an Angevin (i.e., Plantagenet) King of England
of about one hundred individuals who emigrated from England and Wales to
the North American colonies by the end of the seventeenth century and
who are believed to have many descendants living in this country today."
You seem to be complaining that Faris did not write the book you wanted
him to write, but a different book.
That is rather strange logic. He writes the book that he chooses to
write and that he feels he is capable of writing and he tells us his
rationale for doing so quite clearly in the Introduction.
Also, Douglas Richardson's post seemed to be quite clear on all this.
What is bothering you so much about this, my friend?
Surely there is a difference between legitimate and illegitimate
descents, marked differences, in the period under consideration.
We cannot project late 20th Century ideas of political correctness and
the psycho-babble of the self-esteem movement, which fears injury to
contemporary bastards by calling them bastards, back upon 17th
Century --- or earlier --- bastards.
Faris is also quite clear what he means by illegitimate, viz. bastard,
so there is no problem there either.
Cheers,
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Leo van de Pas <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:010d01bf0edd$b60e1240$7f4d3bcb@leo...
Leo van de Pas
> Leo, your disagreement is with David Faris, rather than with me.
I agree.
>
> Have you read Faris's Introduction, pp. vii through xiii, recently?
No, I haven't. But his 'Flag', the title of the book should have said so,
that illegitimates were not welcome. He could have slipped in the word
'legitimate' if he wanted to avoid illegitimates, but he doesn't, see in
that
introduction where he has : Illegitimate Descents. Here he tells how
illegitimates are displayed. I will have to study the Thomas Gerard line
again.
> Here is the first sentence:
>
> "This book is intended to provide summary information about the
> legitimate descent from an Angevin (i.e., Plantagenet) King of England
> of about one hundred individuals who emigrated from England and Wales to
> the North American colonies by the end of the seventeenth century and
> who are believed to have many descendants living in this country today."
If he wants to use the Plantagenet name, why exclude Henry II and King
John? Again it seems 'unclear advertising' in the title of the book. If
anyone
has to decide whether to buy the book or not, if they only see the title,
they do not get what they expect, only three-quarters. On the cover of the
book
no qualification is given, only once you open the book and if you have to
order from a catalogue, or through the Internet, that option is not
available.
>
> You seem to be complaining that Faris did not write the book you wanted
> him to write, but a different book.
.......To me the messages I have seen so far, in my opinion, maintain that
the book strays from its title. What we see is not what we get. "Some
Plantagenet Ancestries of seventeenth-century colonists with, mainly, a full
legitimate line of descent" seems what the title should have been.
>
> That is rather strange logic. He writes the book that he chooses to
> write and that he feels he is capable of writing and he tells us his
> rationale for doing so quite clearly in the Introduction.
>
> Also, Douglas Richardson's post seemed to be quite clear on all this.
>
> What is bothering you so much about this, my friend?
>
> Surely there is a difference between legitimate and illegitimate
> descents, marked differences, in the period under consideration.
>
...........I don't see this. This book is to display pioneering colonists
who came to America and with them brought the bloodlines of only some of the
Plantagenet kings. In my opinion The pioneer is still a pioneer whether the
whole line to the Kings is legitimate or not. Why discriminate
illegitimates?
Who is considered illegitimate one moment, may be regarded legitimate the
next. In my opinion it is the bloodline that counts. Was this book meant to
be an exclusive "Almanach de Gotha" type book, where you have to fit in in
the correct legitimate class? I thought Americans had tried to get away from
that.
> We cannot project late 20th Century ideas of political correctness and
> the psycho-babble of the self-esteem movement, which fears injury to
> contemporary bastards by calling them bastards, back upon 17th
> Century --- or earlier --- bastards.
My opinion has nothing to do with political correctness----a descendant is a
descendant. Legitimate or not. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the
word Bastard, as long as it is the relationship between the parents that
makes a person one. When you have people proudly calling themselves "the
Great Bastard of Burgundy". A term I dislike is "a love child", now that is
rubbish.
>
> Faris is also quite clear what he means by illegitimate, viz. bastard,
> so there is no problem there either.
He may be clear with what he means by illegitimate and bastard, but my
question still remains : why discriminate? Are they no people, are they no
descendant? If a person is established as the bastard of.......and that
father or mother descends form a Plantagenet King, who are we to discrimate?
For many people it is hard enough to find a link, legitimate or not.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Reedpcgen
>ancestry of Edward Dudley, immigrant to Virginia in 1637,
Nat is right. I've done detailed research on this ancestry. It breaks
completely in at least two points, first in trying to connect to a Dudley
family at Newcastle, Northumberland, second in trying to trace that family back
to an earlier branch.
pcr
John Steele Gordon
> This is not entirely accurate either. There are numerous claimed royal
> descents that Roberts excluded from this compilation because he
> considered them to be inaccurate. When he published this work, Roberts
> believed that each of these descents was valid. That several of them
> have subsequently been demonstrated to be false is something to be
> expected of any publication (for example, at least one descent appearing
> in Faris has been shown to be chronologically impossible).
Could you tell us which one of Faris's colonists has been defrocked as a
Plantagenet descendant?
JSG
John Steele Gordon
> I may misread
> pages 113 and 114, but I do not see an illegitimate link for Thomas Gerard.
> He may, also, have an illegitimate line but it does not seem to be the one
> displayed on these pages.
On page 114, it describes his grandfather, also named Thomas Gerard, as
"base-born son" of William Gerard.
>
> On page 18 there is a bastard shown, Charles Somerset, son of Henry
> Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Beaufort, by Jane Hill.
Yes, but he doesn't get his name in bold face type. Nor does his son,
Henry Somerset. It is only with his grandson, whose mother was
descended, legitimately, from Edward I, that bold face is used in the
line.
I agree that the book is somewhat misleadingly titled. "Plantagenet
Ancestry of Some Seventeenth-Century Colonists" would have been better.
But a mighty useful and informative book it is, regardless.
JSG
--
http://www.familyorigins.com/users/g/o/r/John-S-Gordon
Todd A. Farmerie
Fortunately, the one I am aware of is not a complete defrocking.
Immigrant Richard Palgrave is shown as having two Edward I descents, one
through Glemham, Brandon, Wingfield, FitzAlan, and Bohun, the other
through Hastings, Despencer, and I don't recall after that. The latter
of the two is flawed, connecting to Hastings a generation later than it
should, and hence the authentic connection misses the Despenser marrage.
It should be pointed out that there is a names-the-same problem with
Richard Palgrave. There were (at least) two men of this name running
around Norfolk/Suffolk at the time, and a letter to NEHGR suggesting
that the immigrant has been identified with the wrong one seems to have
passed largely unnoticed and uncited in later summary works.
taf
Chris Dickinson
"
It should be pointed out that there is a names-the-same
problem with
Richard Palgrave. There were (at least) two men of this
name running
around Norfolk/Suffolk at the time, and a letter to NEHGR
suggesting
that the immigrant has been identified with the wrong one
seems to have
passed largely unnoticed and uncited in later summary works.
"
What percentage of gateway ancestors in books such as these
can definitely be proved (rather than just assumed) not to
be same-name?
Chris
Stewart Baldwin
<ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 23:44:20 -0500, "R. Ben Madison"
>> <tal...@execpc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>"The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the
>> >>United States, Who Were Themselves Notable or Left Descendants Notable
>> >>In American History," [RD 500]
>> >
>> >Thanks much, I will look for it. The more genealogy I do, the more "Yankees"
>> >I find. Which is pretty boring for someone with continental ambitions such
>> >as myself. ;-)
>> >
>> >BTW, is there a website listing the 500?
>>
>> The above book (RD500) should come with the warning that it is not a
>> listing of valid royal descents, but is rather a bibliographic
>> collection of CLAIMED royal descents, each of which is accompanied by
>> a list of sources (sometimes of poor quality) giving the claimed
>> descent. A significant number of the alleged royal descents listed in
>> this book are false and the disproofs of some of them have already
>> appeared in the literature in recent years (and the number of such
>> disproven descents in the book will increase again when I get around
>> to writing up my disproof of the claimed royal line of William
>> Edwards, John Edwards et al. on page 309).
>
>This is not entirely accurate either. There are numerous claimed royal
>descents that Roberts excluded from this compilation because he
>considered them to be inaccurate. When he published this work, Roberts
>believed that each of these descents was valid. That several of them
>have subsequently been demonstrated to be false is something to be
>expected of any publication (for example, at least one descent appearing
>in Faris has been shown to be chronologically impossible).
While your comment is technically correct, it does not address the
original question that was asked in this thread, which asked for a
book providing "Genuine Gateway Ancestors". After RD500 was
incorrectly cited as such a book, I felt that it was necessary to
point out that RD500 is not such a book, and should never be used as
such. What the author intended the book to be, and what it actually
is, are two different things. By emphasizing the latter point, I was
committing a minor technical innacuracy, but was providing an accurate
picture of how the book ought to be used. The fact is that the author
showed poor judgement in many lines mentioned in RD500, and included a
large number of supposed royal descents for which no reasonable
supporting evidence appears in the sources cited.
>> As has been discussed in this newsgroup on numerous occasions in the
>> past, RD500 is an excellent finding aid for leading you to what has
>> been written before on a given alleged royal line, but the appearance
>> of a line in RD500 should not be used to decide whether or not the
>> line is correct.
>
>This is a caveat that really applies to all such summary works. When it
>really comes down to it, it is virtually impossible to be intimately
>familiar with all of the support for every line in such a source
>extensive enough to claim to be comprehensive. (It is the same reason
>everybody complains about Turton or Stuart, but none of the critics are
>willing to take on the project themselves.) Thus whenever reading such
>a source, it is incumbent on the reader to follow the citations back to
>the primary and secondary sources, and to independently evaluate the
>connections. Still, this can be insufficient, as often the flaw in the
>line is not a problem with the cited information, but with critical
>sources not discovered by the author, and hence not cited. Thus, what
>is critical is to remain aware of the most recent published literature,
>and to do independent research, consulting the widest range of sources,
>on the lines in which you are interested.
This is true, but again misses the point of the original posting.
While it is true in the idealized case that people ought to check the
lines of interest to them right down to the primary sources, a blanket
statement like "This is a caveat that really applies to all such
summary works" essentially ignores the fact that some such works are
of much higher quality than others.
As for your comments about Turton and Stuart, not everyone has shied
away from the attempt to do it right. A series has been started
which, when finished, will completely supercede Turton, Stuart, and
other similar attempts. I am talking, of course, about the ancestor
table of Charles II by Charles Hansen and Neil Thompson, which has
been published in installments in "The Genealogist", and is now in the
eleventh generation. Of course, like all works of this scope, errors
have been found (quickly corrected in later installments). However,
this is an example of a "summary work" which technically satisfies the
conditions of your above comment, and yet which I could recommend to
someone with a high degree of confidence.
All "summary works" are not created equal, and attempts should be made
to steer people away from the unreliable ones and toward the good
ones.
Stewart Baldwin
THERON L. SMITH
was to the revised edition. The first edition adequately discusses descents
of Eleanor HOLAND even through they were illegitimate - in this case the
child of Edward iii involved - Edmund of York was, of course, legintimate.
Eleanor's descendants are not in bold type - but who cares?
Theron Smith.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Richardson [SMTP:royala...@msn.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 2:49 PM
> Hi John:
>
> I've discussed the matter of including the illegitimate
> Plantagenet descents at some length with Dr. Faris. I
> think he feels there is too much emphasis placed on bastard
> descents which are numerous and sometimes doubtful to the
> exclusion of legitimate descents which are fully proven by
> the records of the period and have always been accepted as
> valid descents.
>
D. Spencer Hines
Give us a reference in Faris, s'il vous plait.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
THERON L. SMITH <TLS...@ffpmarketing.com> wrote in message
news:810FE2967A01D211BD0500A024CC2E92261FA4@NT3...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> All "summary works" are not created equal, and attempts should be made
> to steer people away from the unreliable ones and toward the good
> ones.
And steer them towards . . . . what. Faris gives only partial coverage
(as we have discussed here, being limited to descendants in legitimate
lines of four English kings), and has errors too. Weis/Shepard?
certainly not. I'd have to say there is no collection of Genuine
Gateway Ancestors, nor can there ever be, so take the best you can get,
and vet the lines yourself. (At least pcr's page, when it arrives, will
be dynamic, which is a step in the right direction.)
I also have to say that I must be researching a different set of lines
than you, as I have only found rare instances where Roberts work is not
up to the task, while you have found many.
taf
THERON L. SMITH
The reference I was thinking of in Farris, 1st Edition, is under
TUCHET, p. 270; WYATT, p. 287. On 2d reading. I have to add that
Alianor (aka. Eleanor) does not appear in line as a descendant of Edward
iii, but her line back to Edward iii is shown by virtue of the fact that she
married James TUCHET, 5th Lord Audley, by virtue of the fact that HE was a
legitimate descendant of Edward I.
However, Alinor and James's children other than Elizabeth who m. Edward
Brooke, 6th Lord Cobham, are not listed. These were :
Sir Humphrey Audley who m. Elizabeth Courtenay (ancestors of the OWSLEY
family of VA, one of which is my wife.)
Constance Tuchet, ancestor of the late actor Peter Lawford.
(Nixon's alleged descent from her had to be decommitted.)
Margaret TUCHET or AUDLEY (she has two descents to each of the Princess of
Wales and Sir Winston Churchill.)
These descents are covered in Robert's RD500 or extensions thereto
published in NEXUS (Newsmgazine of then New England Historic Genealogical
Society)
So I suppose I do regret the policy of excluding well proven but
illegitimate descendants. (Thanks for assisting me in realizing that!)
But, I do plan to purchase the revised edition and the Magna Charta volume.
Regards,
Theron Smith.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Spencer Hines [SMTP:D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 12:24 PM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Genuine Gateway Ancestors (GGAs)?
>
Douglas Richardson
The lst edition of Dr. Faris' book, Plantagenet Ancestry,
pp. 140, 270, includes Eleanor Holand, wife of James
Tuchet. As you correctly note, it identifies her as the
base born daughter of Edmund Holand, 4th Earl of Kent.
However, just before the 2nd edition went to press, I
proved that Eleanor was NOT the mother of James Tuchet's
daughter, Elizabeth, who married Edward Brooke, as claimed
by Complete Peerage (sub Cobham) and as shown in
Plantagenet Ancestry, lst ed. Rather, it appears that
Elizabeth (Tuchet) Brooke was the daughter of James
Tuchet's first marriage to Margaret Ros.
The 2nd edition of Dr. Faris' book should show the revision
in Elizabeth Tuchet's maternity. Eleanor Holand will
continue to appear in the new edition, however, as Dr.
Faris has added a new descent from Eleanor's daughter,
Constance Tuchet, who married Robert Whitney.
Josephine Lindsay Bass
good question,
yea what evidence? how do i find that out. all i have is sources i posted.
uh oh - this is trouble - what to do?
"Nat is right. I've done detailed research on this ancestry. It breaks
completely in at least two points, first in trying to connect to a Dudley
family at Newcastle, Northumberland, second in trying to trace that family
back
to an earlier branch. pcr"
can you please send me specifics. josie
1 EDWARD DUDLEY. Born in Bristol, ENG. EDWARD died in 1655 in VA.
EDWARD married ELIZABETH PRITCHARD.
2 ROBERT DUDLEY.
ROBERT married GREEN.
3 GREEN. A Sister Of Edward And Robert Green.
4 SIR ROBERT DUDLEY OF NEWCASTLE EARL. Born in Of The Port Of Newcastle.
Buried on 7 May 1613 in Burned. Occupation: Knighted By James I; Mayor Of
Newcastle 1603.
SIR ROBERT married ANNE WOOD OF NEWCASTLE.
5 ANNE WOOD OF NEWCASTLE.
8 JOHN DUDLEY OF NEWCASTLE EARL. Born in Of Newcastle-On-Tyne.
JOHN married BRIDGET CARRE.
9 BRIDGET CARRE.
10 CHRISTOPHER WOOD OF NEWCASTLE.
16 RICHARD SUTTON DUDLEY OF YEANWITH. Born in 1518 in Yanwath,
Westmoreland, England. RICHARD SUTTON died on 1 Jan 1593, he was 75.
RICHARD SUTTON married DOROTHY SANFORD OF ASHAM.
17 DOROTHY SANFORD OF ASHAM.
18 WILLIAM CARRE.
32 THOMAS SUTTON LORD DUDLEY. Born in 1487 in Yeyton, Cheshire, England.
THOMAS died in 1530, he was 43. Occupation: Esquire Of Yanwath (Yeanwith)
Manor.
THOMAS married GRACE THRELKELD.
33 GRACE THRELKELD. Born in 1490 in Yeanwith, ENG. Occupation: Inherited
The Manor Of Yanwath, Cumberland County.
34 EDWARD SANFORD Of ASHAM. Occupation: (Adlard Op. Cit. Pedigree C. Burkes
Peerage 1923, 763).
64 EDMUND SUTTON LORD DUDLEY. Born abt 1425 in Dudley Castle,
Worcestershire, ENG. EDMUND died in ENG in 1483/1487, he was 58.
Occupation: Deputy Lieutenant Of Ireland.
abt 1470 when EDMUND was 45, he married MATILDA (Maud) de CLIFFORD OF
WORDSWORTH, in Cumberland, ENG.
65 MATILDA (Maud) de CLIFFORD OF WORDSWORTH. Born in 1430 in Conisborough,
Yorkshire, ENG. MATILDA (Maud) de died in ENG aft 1491, she was 61.
Occupation: Descendant Of Edward I And Edward III.
66 LANCELOT THRELKELD SIR K.B. Born in Of Yeanwith, ENG (Ibid.).
Occupation: K.B. Manor Of Yanwath, Cumberland County, ENG.
128 JOHN DUDLEY SUTTON VI Knt., K.G. BARON. Born on 25 Dec 1400/1406 in
Barton, Co. Derby, ENG. JOHN DUDLEY died in Stafford, Staffordshire, ENG
abt 13 Sep 1487, he was 86. Buried on 30 Sep 1487 in St. James Priory,
Dudley, Staffordshire, ENG. Occupation: Lord Lieutenant Of Ireland 1428-30;
M.P 1440-87.
aft 14 Mar 1420/1421 when JOHN DUDLEY was 19, he married ELIZABETH de
BERKELEY OF BEVERSTONE, in ENG.
129 ELIZABETH de BERKELEY OF BEVERSTONE. Born abt 1400 in Beverstone,
Gloucestershire, England. ELIZABETH de died in Dudley Staffordsire, ENG
abt 8 Dec 1478, she was 78. Buried in St. James Priory, Dudley,
Staffordshire, England. Occupation: Desc Of Charlemagne.
130 THOMAS de CLIFFORD 8th LORD OF WORDSWORTH. Born on 25 Mar 1414 in Of
Wordsworth, ENG. THOMAS de died in 1st Battle Of St. Albans, ENG on 22 May
1455, he was 41. Buried in Abbey Church, Albans. Occupation: Hereditary
Sheriff Of Westmoreland M.P. (Baron) (Cp IV-480).
aft Mar 1424 when THOMAS de was 9, he married JOAN de DACRE, in ENG.
131 JOAN de DACRE. Born abt 1410. JOAN de died bef 1455, she was 45.
Occupation: Descendant Of King Edward I.
256 JOHN SUTTON 3RD BARON DUDLEY. Born in Feb 1380 in Dudley Castle, Co.
Stafford, Worcestershire, ENG. JOHN died on 28 Aug 1406, he was 26.
bef 10 Dec 1401 when JOHN was 21, he married CONSTANCE de BLOUNT OF
BARTON, in ENG.
257 CONSTANCE de BLOUNT OF BARTON. CONSTANCE de died on 23 Sep 1432 in
Dudley Castle, Co. Stafford, ENG.
258 JOHN de BERKELEY Knt. OF BEVERSTONE. Born on 21 Jan 1351 in Wotton,
Gloucestershire, ENG. JOHN de died in ENG in 1428, he was 76. Occupation:
CP IV 479/480, Wm. Salt Arch. Soc. V IX; Lord Of Beverstone.
JOHN de married ELIZABETH BETTESHORNE OF BISTERNE.
259 ELIZABETH BETTESHORNE OF BISTERNE. Born in 1353 in Co. HANTS, ENG.
260 JOHN K.G. de CLIFFORD 7th LORD OF WESTMORELAND. Born abt 1388. JOHN
K.G. de died in Siege Of Meaux, France on 13 Mar 1421/1422, he was 33.
Buried in Bolton Priory. Occupation: Hereditary Sheriff Of Westmoreland M.P.
abt 1404 when JOHN K.G. de was 16, he married ELIZABETH de PERCY, in ENG.
261 ELIZABETH de PERCY. Born abt 1390. ELIZABETH de died in Staindrop
Church on 26 Oct 1437, she was 47.
262 THOMAS de DACRE 6th LORD OF GILLESLAND. Born on 27 Oct 1387 in Naworth
Castle. THOMAS de died on 5 Jan 1457/1458, he was 69. Buried in Lanercost
Priory.
bef 20 Jul 1399 when THOMAS de was 11, he married PHILLIPPE de NEVILLE.
263 PHILLIPPE de NEVILLE. Born in OF WESTMORELAND. PHILLIPPE de died bef
1457. Occupation: Descendant Of King Edward I.
512 JOHN SUTTON IV BARON OF DUDLEY. Born on 6 Dec 1361 in Coleshill In
Arden, Co. Warwick, ENG (Ibid.). JOHN died in ENG on 10 Mar 1395/1396,
he was 33.
JOHN married JOAN ARUNDEL?.
513 JOAN ARUNDEL? JOAN died in Apr 1408 in ENG.
514 WALTER de BLOUNT OF BARTON Knt. Born in 1358 in Co. Derby, ENG. WALTER
de died in Battle Of Shrewsbury on 22 Jun 1403, he was 45. Occupation: Inq.
P.M. 1401-09; CP IV 479, DNB 16 107-09 (Ibid).
WALTER de married SANCHA de AYALA OF TOLEDO.
515 SANCHA de AYALA OF TOLEDO. SANCHA de died in 1418.
516 THOMAS de BERKELEY. Born in 1293. THOMAS de died on 27 Oct 1361, he was
68.
THOMAS de married CATHERINE de CLIVELDON.
517 CATHERINE de CLIVELDON. CATHERINE de died on 27 Oct 1361.
518 JOHN BETTESHORNE OF BISTERNE Knt.
520 THOMAS 6TH LORD de CLIFFORD OF WESTMORELAND. Born abt 1363 in
Appleby, Westmoreland. THOMAS 6TH LORD de died on 18 Aug 1391, he was 28.
Occupation: Magna Charta Surety Descent And Descend Of Charlemagne.
THOMAS 6TH LORD de married ELIZABETH de ROS.
521 ELIZABETH de ROS. ELIZABETH de died in Mar 1424, she was 54. Born abt
1370. Occupation: Descendant Of King Edward I.
522 HENRY "Harry Hotspur" de PERCY LORD Knt. Born on 20 May 1364. HENRY
"Harry Hotspur" de died in Slain At Shewsbury on 21 Jul 1403, he was 39.
Buried in York Minster.
HENRY "Harry Hotspur" de married ELIZABETH de MORTIMER.
523 ELIZABETH de MORTIMER. Born on 12 Feb 1370/1371 in Usk Co. Monmouth.
ELIZABETH de died on 20 Apr 1417, she was 47.
524 WILLIAM de DACRE 5th LORD OF GILLESLAND. WILLIAM de died in 1399.
Occupation: Baronial Descent.
WILLIAM de married JOAN DOUGLAS.
525 JOAN DOUGLAS.
526 RALPH K.G. de NEVILLE 4th LORD OF RABY, P.C. Born in 1363 in Raby,
Durham. RALPH K.G. de died in Raby Castle, Durham, ENG on 21 Oct 1425, he
was 62. Buried in Staindrop, Collage Church Durham. Occupation: Magna
Charta Surety Descent And Descendant Of Charlemagne.
RALPH K.G. de married MARGARET de STAFFORD.
527 MARGARET de STAFFORD. Born bef 1364 in Brancepath, Durham, ENG.
MARGARET de died on 9 Jun 1396, she was 32. Buried in Brancepeth, Durham.
1024 JOHN de SUTTON 2ND BARON DUDLEY. Born abt Nov 1338 in Co. Worcester,
ENG. JOHN de died in Prob. In France in 1369/1370, he was 30. Occupation:
Served In The Army In France.
On 25 Dec 1357 when JOHN de was 19, he married KATHERINE de STAFFORD, in ENG.
1025 KATHERINE de STAFFORD. Born abt 16 Sep 1348 in Stafford, ENG.
KATHERINE de died on 25 Dec 1361, she was 13.
1030 DIEGO GOMEZ de TOLEDO. Occupation: Alcalde Maior De Toledo.
DIEGO GOMEZ de married INES ALFONSO de AYALA.
1031 INES ALFONSO de AYALA.
1032 MAURICE de BERKELEY 2nd LORD BERKELEY. Born in Apr 1271/1281. MAURICE
de died on 31 May 1326, he was 55.
In 1289 when MAURICE de was 17, he married EVA la ZOUCHE.
1033 EVA la ZOUCHE. Born in 1271. EVA la died on 5 Dec 1314, she was 43.
1034 JOHN de CLIVELDON SIR.
1040 ROGER de CLIFFORD 5th LORD OF WORDSWORTH. Born in 1333 in of
Cumberland, England. ROGER de died in Brough Castle, Westmoreland, England
in 1389, he was 56. Occupation: Magna Charta Surety Descent And Descendant
Of Charlemagne.
ROGER de married MAUD de BEAUCHAMP.
1041 MAUD de BEAUCHAMP. Born abt 1335 in of Warwick, Warwickshire,
England. MAUD de died in feb 1402/1403, she was 67. Occupation: Magna
Charta Surety Descent And Descendant Of Charlemagne.
Reedpcgen
>The 2nd edition of Dr. Faris' book should show the revision in Elizabeth
Tuchet's maternity. Eleanor Holand will
>continue to appear in the new edition, however, as Dr. >Faris has added a new
descent from Eleanor's daughter, Constance Tuchet, who married Robert Whitney.
>
Doug, would this be the descent traced down to the immigrant Jeffrey Jeffreys
and his son Edward [formerly MC line 32] which I outlined in the _Genealogical
Journal_ 19:162 (1991), which review essay Faris stated (in a letter to me) he
had seen?
Or is it another line?
pcr
Leslie Mahler
Chris Dickinson wrote:
> taf writes :
>
> "
> It should be pointed out that there is a names-the-same
> problem with
> Richard Palgrave. There were (at least) two men of this
> name running
> around Norfolk/Suffolk at the time, and a letter to NEHGR
> suggesting
> that the immigrant has been identified with the wrong one
> seems to have
> passed largely unnoticed and uncited in later summary works.
As I remember, Moriarty was descended from this Palgrave family,
and he shows a royal descent for them in his "Plantagenet Ancestry".
Whereas "The Great Migration Begins" states that the origin of this
colonist is unknown.
> What percentage of gateway ancestors in books such as these
> can definitely be proved (rather than just assumed) not to
> be same-name?
>
> Chris
Perhaps the only way to have an answer to this is to go back and check
all of the primary documentation for each individual.
Douglas Richardson
To answer your question, I don't know. I recommend you
contact David and ask him yourself.
Douglas Richardson
I'm sure your Gateway Immigrant Web Page will appear in due
time. I'm more than willing to wait.
Reedpcgen
>To answer your question, I don't know. I recommend you
>contact David and ask him yourself.
>
>
What? You have no copy of the manuscript you have been helping with?!? I
thought you magnanimously sent a copy to our friend in New Zealand.
pcr
Reedpcgen
be answered. I would be only too happy for the connection to be correct, but
it is not.
1. What evidence is there that the Virginia immigrant was from Bristol,
Gloucestershire, England?
2. What evidence is there that Robert Dudley of Newcastle had a son named
Edward who went to Bristol [a very unusual migration route], and then to
Virginia? This is the first complete break.
3. What evidence is there that Richard Dudley, of Yanwath, Cumberland, had a
son named John who founded the Newcastle line? He had two sons, Edward and
Robert, and a number of daughters. This is the second complete break.
The evidence for disproof will appear in the near future on the Gateway
Immigrant Web Page [I sound like Doug promising Plantagenet Ancestry, don't I?
When I went to the doctor last Thursday, she said I had pneumonia in my right
lung, which would explain why things have been delayed. Getting better now,
thanks to Zithromax].
pcr
Josephine Lindsay Bass
to say the least i was bit overcome by the news of the Dudley disconnect,
and a page such as you describe on the web will be most helpful to many
persons. I have quite a few prominent ancestral lines in Old Virginia and
a South Carolina.
seems none of them can verify or prove their ancestry across the seas.
TAYLOR, PENN, PENDLETON, THORNTON, MARKAM, GREGORY, HURT,
GRAVES, HIGGINBOTHAM, CONEY, CANT etc.
It is most discouraging, I thought i had a least one - DUDLEY -
Does anyone else have this problem?
thanks, josie
D. Spencer Hines
Edward I and beyond, but not this one apparently. Yours didn't pan out.
The ones that ascend to Royalty are "better" than those that do not
ascend to Royalty.
Shall we have a debate about that too?
One might ask why, if ALL DESCENTS (AND ASCENTS, OF COURSE) ARE EQUAL
you are, [a] "bit overcome by the news of the Dudley disconnect" ---
n'est-ce pas?
This sounds like the pigs in George Orwell's _Animal Farm_. What
started out as "All Animals Are Equal" transmuted to "All Animals Are
Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others" --- or words to that
effect.
Faris has the Dudley coverage in _Plantagenet Ancestry_. See pages 90
through 94.
Cheers,
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Josephine Lindsay Bass <jb...@digital.net> wrote in message
news:3.0.6.32.1999100...@digital.net...
Josephine Lindsay Bass
these people - sort of a fantasy world so to speak. Even fantisized about
meeting them in the next world, my Celestial Family, which BTW is not that
far off, give or take 20 years. So, I will have a lot more surprises
waiting for me.
DSH, It still could be so, but NOT PROVED. Who knows what the future will
bring, especially with the internet ease across the waters. We are
planning a visit "over thar" next year. If anyone has any ideas as to best
road to take please provide map to jump start the search.
It wouldn't be fittin to quit before the last shot is fired.
Meanwhile, dau Becky and I will revise our family part of the web site, it
is too big anyway (25,000 records with sources). Quite a job for my
beautiful daughter to upload.
Happy Huntin, and sometimes not so happy
josie
At 08:36 AM 10/06/1999 -1000, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>Well, some Dudley-derived lines are 'good to go' and ascend to Royalty,
>Edward I and beyond, but not this one apparently. Yours didn't pan out.
D. Spencer Hines
Thank you kindly, JLB.
The important thing to remember at times like these is that "all
descents [ascents] are the same." It just doesn't make any difference,
right?
I mean Leo van de Pas told that, and others chimed in, so they must be
right --- n'est-ce pas?
Just Remember:
A Descent, Is A Descent, Is A Descent.
All Animals Are Equal
I admire your candour, your forthrightness and your existential approach
to this matter JLB.
Thou Art A Stalwart, Not A Namby-Pamby.
Another line may well show up and you'll simply have a new Celestial
Family, you're right.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Josephine Lindsay Bass <jb...@digital.net> wrote in message
news:3.0.6.32.1999100...@digital.net...
| I am having a pity party because I spent the last 3 years identifying
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/6/1999 12:42:36 PM, D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu
writes:
<< The ones [descents] that ascend to Royalty are "better" than those that do
not
ascend to Royalty. Shall we have a debate about that too? >>
Absolutely debatable. I would rather have Robin Hood as an ancestor that King
John. Unfortunately, most are related to John. I would rather have Simon De
Montfort as an ancestor rather that Henry. Unfortunately, most relate to
Henry.
Not many are impressed by English bigotry and snobbish ideas. An American who
uses English slang is disdained by both the English and the Americans.
- Ken
Malinda Jones
Would you be so kind as to post something about the Dudley line that you
consider to be "good to go " ?
Thank you ,
Malinda Jones
----- Original Message -----
From: D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
D. Spencer Hines
I never said that JLB was Namby-Pamby, quite the contrary. : )
[N.B. "Namby Pamby" [1745] is good Georgian language. I use British
slang because I learn something that way. I already know American
slang. Why would I want to recycle that? Some folks, such as Finton,
are too dumb to understand that --- hence they don't learn new words at
a good rate. To learn new words one must use them. Using them in a
literary conceit is a good way to do that and to remember them, as well.
QED.]
I gave the complete citation to Faris. The Dudley lines are 4 1/2 pages
of dense type in length. Why not buy the Faris/Richardson book, when
the second edition comes out, hopefully in December? It's a keeper.
Further, I don't want to violate Faris's copyright. Intellectual
property rights are very important and we should all protect them.
Finally, there is a cluster of lines, not just one. One needs to read
them in context and consult connecting lines to get the full import of
the Dudley connections.
Perhaps Ed Mann will grace us with one of his data dumps.
Cheers and Good Hunting,
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Malinda Jones <mthi...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:001b01bf1064$a6ceadc0$3134a497@mthiesse...
Malinda Jones
Malinda Jones
VA.
Malinda Jones
----- Original Message -----
From: Josephine Lindsay Bass <jb...@digital.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Genuine Gateway Ancestors (GGAs)? DUDLEY
D. Spencer Hines
You don't appear to have been reading the previous posts in this thread.
Think New England for the Dudleys.
Did you receive my answer to you?
If you post your alleged Dudley line, someone may be able to help you.
"Robert Dudley 1758 in Virginia" is very slim pickings.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Malinda Jones <mthi...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:00d201bf1071$24604120$df10bcd0@mthiesse...
Gee Gee Hughes
I will be anxious to see what you have to say on this line. I spoke with
Gary Boyd Roberts several weeks ago, and asked which lines will be
eliminated in his new addition. He said several lines had "fallen" (pages
225, 226 and 227), but the rest of the Welsh lines were still okay.
In particular, I asked about my ancestors, Ellen Hugh/Pugh (p. 309), the
wife of Edward Foulke and further down in the line, Gainor John, sister of
Edward ap John. He assured me that this line is still intact.
I am looking forward to your information.
Gee Gee Hughes
..............snip............
>The above book (RD500) should come with the warning that it is not a
>listing of valid royal descents, but is rather a bibliographic
>collection of CLAIMED royal descents, each of which is accompanied by
>a list of sources (sometimes of poor quality) giving the claimed
>descent. A significant number of the alleged royal descents listed in
>this book are false and the disproofs of some of them have already
>appeared in the literature in recent years (and the number of such
>disproven descents in the book will increase again when I get around
>to writing up my disproof of the claimed royal line of William
>Edwards, John Edwards et al. on page 309).
>
>As has been discussed in this newsgroup on numerous occasions in the
>past, RD500 is an excellent finding aid for leading you to what has
>been written before on a given alleged royal line, but the appearance
>of a line in RD500 should not be used to decide whether or not the
>line is correct.
>
>Stewart Baldwin
Gee Gee Hughes
Ooops, made a typo in the page numbers for the lines which will be
eliminated from Gary Boyd Roberts new addition of, "Royal Descents of 500
Immiggrants".
The pages which will be eliminated should read: 325, 326 - 327.
Sorry for the incorrect information.
Gee Gee Hughes
D. Spencer Hines
Thank you.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Gee Gee Hughes <G.G.H...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4.1.199910071...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net...
Gee Gee Hughes
Re: "Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants" by Gary Boyd Roberts.
P. 325 is the line for immigrant, Oliver Cope of PA.
p. 326 - 7 is the line for immigrant, Robert Lloyd of PA.
Hope this helps.
Gee Gee Hughes
D. Spencer Hines
Thank you kindly, Gee Gee.
Aloha,
Spencer
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Gee Gee Hughes <G.G.H...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4.1.199910072...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net...
D. Spencer Hines
of Royal Descent [BOGARD] and simple BGA's --- and that is a Good Thing.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Warriors --- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37fd6a54...@news.mindspring.com...
| On 7 Oct 1999 17:36:09 -0700, G.G.H...@worldnet.att.net (Gee Gee
| Hughes) wrote:
|
| >Hi Stewart,
| >
| >I will be anxious to see what you have to say on this line. I spoke
with
| >Gary Boyd Roberts several weeks ago, and asked which lines will be
| >eliminated in his new addition. He said several lines had "fallen"
(pages
| >325, 326-327), but the rest of the Welsh lines were still okay.
| [In the "quote" above, I took the liberty of changing the corrected
| page numbers given in your later posting.]
|
| To this should certainly be added the false royal line of the Welsh
| immigrants Daniel and Hugh Harry (p. 168), which was disproven by Neil
| Thompson in a TAG article a few years ago (I don't have the exact
| citation handy).
|
| >In particular, I asked about my ancestors, Ellen Hugh/Pugh (p. 309),
the
| >wife of Edward Foulke and further down in the line, Gainor John,
sister of
| >Edward ap John. He assured me that this line is still intact.
|
| The line of Gainor John is intact only in the sense that my disproof
| has not yet appeared. As I will show when I write up my paper, the
| line gets cut at generation 18. As for the claimed royal line of
| Ellen Hugh/Pugh, that line is not affected directly by my current
| research. However, I do note that Thomas Allen Glenn's "Welsh
| Founders of Pennsylvania" is cited by Roberts as a major source for
| that line also, and that is a "red flag" of major proportions. Glenn
| was a very sloppy genealogist, and any royal line which depends on his
| work for crucial generations should be regarded with considerable
| skepticism until the line has been VERY carefully checked against the
| primary sources to see if they in fact prove each of the claimed
| relationships in the line. I'm sorry the news isn't better.
|
| Stewart Baldwin
Gee Gee Hughes
.......snip.............
>To this should certainly be added the false royal line of the Welsh
>immigrants Daniel and Hugh Harry (p. 168), which was disproven by Neil
>Thompson in a TAG article a few years ago (I don't have the exact
>citation handy).
While Gary did not mention it, I had heard this. Perhaps he assumed I was
already aware of it, which I was.
>The line of Gainor John is intact only in the sense that my disproof
>has not yet appeared. As I will show when I write up my paper, the
>line gets cut at generation 18. As for the claimed royal line of
>Ellen Hugh/Pugh, that line is not affected directly by my current
>research. However, I do note that Thomas Allen Glenn's "Welsh
>Founders of Pennsylvania" is cited by Roberts as a major source for
>that line also, and that is a "red flag" of major proportions. Glenn
>was a very sloppy genealogist, and any royal line which depends on his
>work for crucial generations should be regarded with considerable
>skepticism until the line has been VERY carefully checked against the
>primary sources to see if they in fact prove each of the claimed
>relationships in the line. I'm sorry the news isn't better.
This in not the first line I have lost, nor will it probably be the last
and I am aware that one must be careful with Glenn's work. :) Thank you
for telling me where the line is cut, for Gainor John. While I am
disappointed, I would rather know the truth instead of having incorrect
information. :) I am in the process of trying to verify all sources used.
This is one problem I had not encountered yet.
Thomas Allen Glenn's source for Ellen Hugh/Pugh ancestry, is taken from
"Welsh Founder's of PA" p. 149 (and printed in full), from a translation of
the original MS by Ellen's husband, Edward Foulke. Am I correct in
assuming then (as it is from an original MS), that this line would stand?
Thank you,
Gee Gee Hughes
Stewart Baldwin
Hughes) wrote:
>Hi Stewart,
>
>I will be anxious to see what you have to say on this line. I spoke with
>Gary Boyd Roberts several weeks ago, and asked which lines will be
>eliminated in his new addition. He said several lines had "fallen" (pages
>325, 326-327), but the rest of the Welsh lines were still okay.
[In the "quote" above, I took the liberty of changing the corrected
page numbers given in your later posting.]
To this should certainly be added the false royal line of the Welsh
immigrants Daniel and Hugh Harry (p. 168), which was disproven by Neil
Thompson in a TAG article a few years ago (I don't have the exact
citation handy).
>In particular, I asked about my ancestors, Ellen Hugh/Pugh (p. 309), the
>wife of Edward Foulke and further down in the line, Gainor John, sister of
>Edward ap John. He assured me that this line is still intact.
The line of Gainor John is intact only in the sense that my disproof
has not yet appeared. As I will show when I write up my paper, the
line gets cut at generation 18. As for the claimed royal line of
Ellen Hugh/Pugh, that line is not affected directly by my current
research. However, I do note that Thomas Allen Glenn's "Welsh
Founders of Pennsylvania" is cited by Roberts as a major source for
that line also, and that is a "red flag" of major proportions. Glenn
was a very sloppy genealogist, and any royal line which depends on his
work for crucial generations should be regarded with considerable
skepticism until the line has been VERY carefully checked against the
primary sources to see if they in fact prove each of the claimed
relationships in the line. I'm sorry the news isn't better.
Stewart Baldwin
John Steele Gordon
> I will be anxious to see what you have to say on this line. I spoke with
> Gary Boyd Roberts several weeks ago, and asked which lines will be
> eliminated in his new addition. He said several lines had "fallen" (pages
>
> In particular, I asked about my ancestors, Ellen Hugh/Pugh (p. 309), the
> wife of Edward Foulke and further down in the line, Gainor John, sister of
> Edward ap John. He assured me that this line is still intact.
The descent of Elizabeth Alsop in RD500, pp. 272-273, has also gone
aglimmer, severed at line 8. She descends not from this Sir Thomas
Dymoke but from his eponymous grandfather. Mr. Roberts tells me,
however, that another royal line for Elizabeth Alsop is in the works,
although I don't know if it has been proved or merely postulated.
JSG
--
http://www.familyorigins.com/users/g/o/r/John-S-Gordon
Gee Gee Hughes
Thanks for sharing. Having correct information is so very important and I
am very grateful to both you and Stewart for pointing these out.
Gee Gee Hughes
At 08:05 AM 10/8/99 -0400, you wrote:
THERON L. SMITH
this line in the 1995 Ancestors of American Presedents.
Theron Smith.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gee Gee Hughes [SMTP:G.G.H...@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 12:33 AM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Genuine Gateway Ancestors (GGAs)?
>
> Hi Stewart,
>
> .......snip.............
> >To this should certainly be added the false royal line of the Welsh
> >immigrants Daniel and Hugh Harry (p. 168), which was disproven by Neil
> >Thompson in a TAG article a few years ago (I don't have the exact
> >citation handy).
>
> While Gary did not mention it, I had heard this. Perhaps he assumed I was
> already aware of it, which I was.
>
> >The line of Gainor John is intact only in the sense that my disproof
> >has not yet appeared. As I will show when I write up my paper, the
> >line gets cut at generation 18. As for the claimed royal line of
> >Ellen Hugh/Pugh, that line is not affected directly by my current
> >research. However, I do note that Thomas Allen Glenn's "Welsh
> >Founders of Pennsylvania" is cited by Roberts as a major source for
> >that line also, and that is a "red flag" of major proportions. Glenn
> >was a very sloppy genealogist, and any royal line which depends on his
> >work for crucial generations should be regarded with considerable
> >skepticism until the line has been VERY carefully checked against the
> >primary sources to see if they in fact prove each of the claimed
> >relationships in the line. I'm sorry the news isn't better.
>