Bush descent from royalty
Frank Johansen
http://www.nettavisen.no/servlets/page?section=3&item=134706 (Norwegian)
about the Royal ancestors of Governor Bush.
I quote (my translation): "President-elect George Bush most likely has
european royal blood in his veins. The Czech journalist and genelogist
Jan Drocar has found out that the president-to-be is a 26th-generation
descendant of George 3. (!!) and Eleonore of Provence, according to the
internet edition of the Czech newspaper Dnes."
George W. Bush - a descendant of George 3. and Eleanore of Provence....
Has those guys with the time-machine that saved the Romanovs been
kidding around again?
I tried http://www.dnez.cz to try and check if this also occurs in the
original article, but I didn't quite understand how to find any articles
there...
--
Vennlig hilsen
Frank H. Johansen
frank.j...@hm.telia.no
William Addams Reitwiesner
>Just read an article on
>http://www.nettavisen.no/servlets/page?section=3&item=134706 (Norwegian)
>about the Royal ancestors of Governor Bush.
>
>I quote (my translation): "President-elect George Bush most likely has
>european royal blood in his veins. The Czech journalist and genelogist
>Jan Drocar has found out that the president-to-be is a 26th-generation
>descendant of George 3. (!!) and Eleonore of Provence, according to the
>internet edition of the Czech newspaper Dnes."
Eleanor of Provence's husband was Henry III, not George III.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
Carpenter, Charles
someone from Burkes (or maybe a competitor) solemnly intoning that no one
should have been surprised that Bush beat Dukakis because the candidate with
royal genes always wins. The fellow was not heard from in 1992. There's
little mystery in GWB's ancestry -- Mr. Roberts' book lays in all out.
*****************************************************
This electronic mail transmission contains confidential
information intended only for the person(s) named.
Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure
by another person is strictly prohibited.
*****************************************************
Francisco Antonio Doria
>Cute. We went all through that when George Sr. was elected: I remember
>someone from Burkes (or maybe a competitor) solemnly intoning that no one
>should have been surprised that Bush beat Dukakis because the candidate with
>royal genes always wins. The fellow was not heard from in 1992. There's
>little mystery in GWB's ancestry -- Mr. Roberts' book lays in all out.
In our case this probably explains why Socialist candidate Lula wasn't
elected in 1989 and in the two intervening elections... Both winning
Conservative candidates Collor de Mello and Cardoso have distinguished
ancestries.
But I would rather say that Lula's defeats are much better explained by
the strong stratification of Brazilian society, one which would then
exclude from noble & royal genes those of working class extraction, such
as the defeated Socialist, working-class, candidate.
chico
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
those whose ancestry or religion is different
from their own." Comment by
current President-Elect George W. Bush,
06 MAR 2000, at:
The Simon Wiesenthal Center,
1399 South Roxbury, LA, California.
http://www.wiesenthal.com/feature/index.html
[ “[Bush] is closely related to every
European Monarch both on and off the
throne,” says Brooks-Baker.]
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/london001025.html
[Bush's family tree can be documented
as far back as the early 15th century.]
http://www.namibian.com.na/2000/October/world/00AD186050.html
[Burke’s Peerage has designed the coats of
arms for Governor George W Bush of Texas
. . . All American Presidents since
George Washington have been researched
by Burke’s Peerage as can be seen in our
book, Burke’s Presidential families of the
United States of America.] ISBN
NUMBER 0850110335
Presidential Families of USA £35.00
http://www.burkes-peerage.com/
ALSO: AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL
FAMILIES [*]
by Hugh Brogan and Charles Mosley. 792
pages, 8" X 10", hardbound, dj. Published
in 1993 by Macmillan. $85.00 + shipping.
JSB Book# NB9713
"This is the first book of its kind to give
narrative detail not only on the immediate
families of the Presidents, but also on their
ancestries and their descendants, from
Washington to Clinton. The co-authors
are also owners of Burke's Peerage and
Baronetage, and one of the most unusual
aspects of the book is how often a President
or his family has links with a peer's or
baronet's family in the British Isles."
http://www.jonathansheppardbooks.com/Booklists/NewBooks.htm
George Herbert Walker Bush
http://www.walkerltd.com/blueribbonbooks/politics/bush/ghwbush.html
George Bush Presidential Library
and Museum
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/
SEE ALSO: George W. Bush, Jr.
Biography and Books
http://www.walkerltd.com/blueribbonbooks/politics/bush/default.htm
[Ancestry of George W. Bush
compiled by William Addams Reitwiesner]
http://members.aol.com/wreitwiesn/candidates2000/bush.html
[U.S. PRESIDENTIAL
Ancestor Tables
BIBLIOGRAPHY
George Herbert Walker Bush]
http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/presidents/bbl_bush.htm
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Genealogy and History Internet Web Directory
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/
"Free Coverage of the Genealogy World in a Nutshell"
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] -
Who's Who In The West, 1998/1999
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
---------------------------------------------
Tracy Scarpino
But Gore does have direct links to the holy Roman Empire.
He is a descendant of Roman Emperors Louis II, Charles II and Louis I
and is therefore also a direct descendant of Charlemagne - the
eight-century Emperor.
I am also directly descended from Charlemagne but I read on a website
that just about EVERYONE can link back to Charlemagne in some way.
In fact, I can link back to all the same monarchs as Bush and Gore...
can't everyone? I've just been researching my paternal grandmother's
side so I don't know if my three other grandparents had similar
ancestors... should I expect them to? They were all of European
descent and I imagine if I go back far enough there would be a king
or two.... I'm just starting out with genealogy... the only reason I
can trace my grandmother's side back so far is one of her ancestors
was the great,great,great grandmother of James Madison and another
was the great grandfather of George Washington so there are all kinds
of genealogies for them on the Internet.
Me...
"Tracy Scarpino" <sca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> I am also directly descended from Charlemagne but I read on a website
> that just about EVERYONE can link back to Charlemagne in some way.
There has been a lot of work done on the ancestry of various American
colonists, only a small minority of whom have documented descents from
nobility, usually in England.
There is not as much discussion about commoners from other countries having
descent from nobility, though such descents certainly exist, they just
haven't had enough work done on them.
> In fact, I can link back to all the same monarchs as Bush and Gore...
> can't everyone? I've just been researching my paternal grandmother's
> side so I don't know if my three other grandparents had similar
> ancestors... should I expect them to? They were all of European
> descent and I imagine if I go back far enough there would be a king
> or two.... I'm just starting out with genealogy... the only reason I
> can trace my grandmother's side back so far is one of her ancestors
> was the great,great,great grandmother of James Madison and another
> was the great grandfather of George Washington so there are all kinds
> of genealogies for them on the Internet.
A general rule that seems to be used is that if a -believed- royal line is
not found in "Royal Descent of 500 Immigrants" by Gary Boyd Roberts, or in
Faris' "Plantagenet Ancestry", (or even Weiss' "Ancestral Roots of Certain
American Colonists") then it probably isnt a correct descent. Many people
still believe in supposed royal descents that were disproved decades ago.
Beware, you will certainly find a great mix of truth and error on various
websites.
Leslie
Stan Brown
alt.talk.royalty:
>President-elect George Bush most likely has
>european royal blood in his veins.
But is there any American (of European stock, anyway) who _doesn't_
have royal blood in his/her veins? I think if you go back far enough
everyone does.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Noel S. McFerran
>
> Frank Johansen <frank.j...@hm.telia.no> wrote in
> alt.talk.royalty:
> >President-elect George Bush most likely has
> >european royal blood in his veins.
>
> But is there any American (of European stock, anyway) who _doesn't_
> have royal blood in his/her veins? I think if you go back far enough
> everyone does.
Mr Brown may be correct - but the challenge is to proove descent from
royalty.
In my own case, I have done significant research on a number of my own
family lines of descent. My paternal line is Irish (Larne, Co. Antrim),
and so there are difficulties going very far back. But my mother's
family are all English, and in several lines I can go back several
hundred years. In my ancestry I can find no "unequal" marriages
whatsoever - we have never ever married above ourselves! I have found
not a single armigerous ancestor (let alone royal).
--
Noel S. McFerran
noel.m...@home.com
Grant Menzies
Noel is correct - royal descents for commoners don't exactly grow on
trees. A few of mine (and we're talking Germany here) can be
attributed to normal circumstances - e.g., a royally-descended
nobleman's daughter is married off as the third wife of a wealthy and
influential burgher, and their children (including my ancestor) spread
the gene pool by having lots of children who marry into families of
the same patrician but non-noble class of their father, and so on.
But the majority of my connections to noble and royal ancestry come
via cross-social-class liaisons - a nobleman making a mistress and a
mother of his housemaid, for example. I have three of those in the
family tree (and counting ;-)
Grant
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Francisco Antonio Doria
> - e.g., a royally-descended
>nobleman's daughter is married off as the third wife of a wealthy and
>influential burgher, and their children (including my ancestor) spread
>the gene pool by having lots of children who marry into families of
>the same patrician but non-noble class of their father, and so on.
The pattern of those lines is somewhat different in Brazil.
a) First the Portuguese government sends to Brazil noblemen to take up
positions in the Colonial administration (16th century). These noblemen
are usually younger children of great houses, or first- or second-cousins
to high-ranking individuals in the central government.
E.g.: Jerônimo de Albuquerque, descended from King D. Diniz and a cousin
of Afonso de Albuquerque, Viceroy of the Indies; Luisa de Mello de
Vasconcellos, sister of Bartolomeu de Vasconcellos who is listed in the
royal household as a fidalgo cavaleiro - a hereditary knighthood like a
Ritter or prhaps even a baronet; Egas Moniz Barreto de Meneses, who has a
most grand descent through the Meneses family.
b) These people usually intermarry. They also marry within the local
ruling class with officials of lower ancestry. (17th century)
c) The blood tricles down slowly through dispossed second sons and enters
the general population.
chico
Ed Mann
Sloppy research. There are, however, multiple descents from Henry III
and Eleanore de Provence. Here's one:
Selected Descendants of Henry III of England
1 King Henry III of England 1207 - 1272 ref #: F225:15
+Éléonore de Provence 1217 - 1291 ref #: Ä111-30
2 King Edward I of England 1239 - 1307 "Longshanks" ref #: BRF:81
+Princess Alianore de Castile 1240 - 1290 ref #: Ä110-30
3 Elizabeth Plantagenet 1282 - 1316 ref #: PA33:12
+Sir Humphrey de Bohun VIII 1276 - 1321/22 4th Earl of Hereford &
Essex ref #: W18-5
4 Sir William de Bohun 1312 - 1360 Knt. / K.G. / 1st Earl of
Northampton ref #: PA34:11
+Elizabeth de Badlesmere 1313 - 1356 ref #: W36-7
5 Elizabeth de Bohun - 1385 ref #: (PA34:11)
+Sir Richard FitzAlan 1346 - 1397 K.G. / 10th Earl of Arundel ref
#: F106:12
6 Elizabeth FitzAlan 1375 - 1425 ref #: F106:11
+Sir Robert Goushill - 1403 ref #: (Ä57-36)
7 Elizabeth Goushill 1402 - ref #: F106:11i
+Robert Wingfield 1403 - 1451 ref #: F163:7
8 Elizabeth Wingfield - 1497 ref #: F213:5
+Sir William Brandon 1425 - 1491 Knt. ref #: BxP:71
9 Eleanor Brandon ref #: F214:4
+John Glemham - 1499
10 Anne Glemham ref #: F214:3
+Henry Palgrave 1470 - 1516
11 Thomas Palgrave 1507 - ref #: F214:2
+Alice Gunton
12 Rev. Edward Palgrave 1541 - 1623 ref #: F214:1
13 Dr. Richard Palgrave 1585 - 1651 ref #: F214:1v
+Anna - 1668/69 ref #: AAP:303
14 Mary Palgrave 1619 - ref #: F214:1va
+Roger Wellington ref #: AAP:209
15 Benjamin Wellington ref #: AAP:210
+Elizabeth Sweetman ref #: AAP:210
16 Elizabeth Wellington ref #: AAP:210
+John Fay, Jr. ref #: NK2:36
17 John Fay III ref #: AAP:210
+Hannah Child 1700 - 1788 ref #: AAP:210
18 Jonathan Fay 1724 - 1800 ref #: AAP:210
+Joanna Phillips 1729 - 1788 ref #: AAP:210
19 Jonathan Fay, Jr. 1752 - 1811 ref #: AAP:210
+Lucy Prescott 1757 - 1792 ref #: AAP:210
20 Samuel Prescott Phillips Fay 1778 - 1856 ref #: AAP:209
+Harriet Howard 1782 - 1847 ref #: AAP:209
21 Samuel Howard Fay 1804 - 1847 ref #: AAP:209
+Susan Shellman 1808 - 1887 ref #: AAP:209
22 Harriet Eleanor Fay 1829 - 1924 ref #: AAP:209
+James Smith Bush 1825 - 1889 ref #: AAP:209
23 Samuel Prescott Bush 1863 - 1948 ref #: AAP:209
+Flora Sheldon 1872 - 1920 ref #: AAP:209
24 Sen. Prescott Sheldon Bush 1895 - 1972 ref #: AAP:209
+Dorothy Walker 1901 - ref #: AAP:209
25 Pres. George Herbert Walker Bush 1924 - 41st President of the
United States ref #: AAP:121
+Barbara Pierce 1925 - ref #: AAP:209
26 George Walker Bush 43d President of the United States
^^^^^
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:INET...@atlantic.net
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
NK1 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_One_, [page].
NK2 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_Two_, [page].
Π= Hardy, Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America, [pg].
PA = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, 2d ed. [page:para].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat lector.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat lector.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page] Caveat lector.
Renia
> Frank Johansen <frank.j...@hm.telia.no> wrote in
> alt.talk.royalty:
> >President-elect George Bush most likely has
> >european royal blood in his veins.
>
> But is there any American (of European stock, anyway) who _doesn't_
> have royal blood in his/her veins? I think if you go back far enough
> everyone does.
There are certainly a predominance of British families who do not have
royal blood in their veins. I find it uncanny that so many Americans do.
Renia
Pavel Pokorný
--
The original article can be found at
It mentions Henry III, not George, of course.
Sincerely,
Pavel
Grant Menzies
<snip>
> 17 John Fay III ref #: AAP:210
> +Hannah Child 1700 - 1788 ref #: AAP:210
<snip>
Ed, would these be the same Fays who settled in Cambridge, Mass.?
Stan Brown
>Stan Brown wrote:
>> But is there any American (of European stock, anyway) who _doesn't_
>> have royal blood in his/her veins? I think if you go back far enough
>> everyone does.
>
>There are certainly a predominance of British families who do not have
>royal blood in their veins.
Really? If you go back 30 generations (750 years), you have 2^30 =
about 1000 million pairs of ancestors, which well exceeds the 13th-
century population of Britain. It seems statistically very likely
that everyone now living who was born in Britain has as ancestors
everyone who was living there in the 13th century, barring
immigrants or people who trace their whole ancestry to immigrants.
Can you state, please, why you feel the great majority of Britons
have no royal ancestry?
Todd A. Farmerie
> >royal blood in their veins.
>
> Really? If you go back 30 generations (750 years), you have 2^30 =
> about 1000 million pairs of ancestors, which well exceeds the 13th-
> century population of Britain. It seems statistically very likely
> that everyone now living who was born in Britain has as ancestors
> everyone who was living there in the 13th century, barring
> immigrants or people who trace their whole ancestry to immigrants.
>
> Can you state, please, why you feel the great majority of Britons
> have no royal ancestry?
There are two different things being talked about here. One is a
statistical argument of probabilities, while the other is of
proven descents. The great majority do not have a documentable
descent.
taf
PDel...@aol.com
great and the good, propounded that, give an englishman of three generations
English Blood and he could prove that this man had royal blood coursing in
his veins!- Well he did to a remarkable degree, but proof can only be
substantiated with the accompanying documents of the era one attaches the
person to Royalty, and when we come to the mid medieval let alone the Stuart
period, the agricultural labourer of today whose parents and grandparents and
great g parents were also Ag. Labs, there is a high likelihood that there
wou;d not be any suitable proof for their families to go beyond the early
18th century let alone Stuart and Medieval periods and thus no likelihood of
Royal ascent. It can be surmised but not proven.
My great great grandfather, a Cheshireman with thew Midas touch, who built up
a fortune of c £80 million by 1860, was very proud of his Yeoman origins and
said that he was proud enough not to have recourse to the claim to Royal
ancestry. Despite his Yeoman origins and direct descent from a 'Knightly
family' of cheshire with a now proven pedigree to 1580, there is as he said,
not a glimmer of Royalty in his veins.
Maybe the emigrant and his descendants were more conscious of their pedigrees
and tried to ensure that their descendants knew about it.
Peter de Loriol
74 Elms Road
London, SW4 9EW, GB
Fax: (0)207 622 4505
Tel : (0)207 622 9623
Renia
> Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> >Stan Brown wrote:
> >> But is there any American (of European stock, anyway) who _doesn't_
> >> have royal blood in his/her veins? I think if you go back far enough
> >> everyone does.
> >
> >There are certainly a predominance of British families who do not have
> >royal blood in their veins.
>
> Really? If you go back 30 generations (750 years), you have 2^30 =
> about 1000 million pairs of ancestors, which well exceeds the 13th-
> century population of Britain. It seems statistically very likely
> that everyone now living who was born in Britain has as ancestors
> everyone who was living there in the 13th century, barring
> immigrants or people who trace their whole ancestry to immigrants.
>
> Can you state, please, why you feel the great majority of Britons
> have no royal ancestry?
Because I have been commissioned to do several genealogies for various
people, and have found no royal links for them. Not that we were looking
for royal links, and not that every line was sought. Neither are there any
royal links for any of those in my husband's several family lines. And,
although I am descended from a great deal of the aristocracy of Scotland,
England and Eastern Europe, I still have not found a royal line. Though
I've looked, cursorily, through Humphrey Beauchamp, I have not found it. I
expect it's there, but I'm not looking that hard, quite frankly.
Renia
Robert W Fay
There are many Fays of this family all over North America and elsewhere. They are descendants
of John Fay of Marlborough, the subject of an 1898 book by Orlin P Fay, much of which is now
online.
You can find the particular reference to John Fay and Hannah Child at:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~faywebsite/orlin23.html
The Fay/Bush connection was extensively researched and published on several lists on
rootsweb when George H W Bush was in office.
If you are interested in the very old and geographically diverse Fay families please consider
joining us at the mail list Fa...@rootsweb.com. I would really like someone else of medieval
interest besides myself on the list.
Recently, there has been much discussion of several Fay lines that extend back to the years
1000, 1200, and in the case of one line 290. You may find those of interest!
Bob Fay
Date forwarded: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 08:11:14 -0800
Date sent: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:45:54 GMT
From: scot...@europa.com (Grant Menzies)
Organization: Northwest Link
Subject: Re: Bush descent from royalty
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Forwarded by: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Robert W Fay
Sturtevant, Wisconsin USA
Researching FAY, DEAGAN, BURRITT
Visit the Fay websites at:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~faywebsite/index.html
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fayfamily/index.html
FAY Mail list at Rootsweb.com: Subscribe by sending an
email with the single word subscribe on the subject line to:
FAY-L-...@rootsweb.com
Grant Menzies
>Grant,
>
>There are many Fays of this family all over North America and elsewhere. They are descendants
>of John Fay of Marlborough, the subject of an 1898 book by Orlin P Fay, much of which is now
>online.
>
>You can find the particular reference to John Fay and Hannah Child at:
>http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~faywebsite/orlin23.html
>
>The Fay/Bush connection was extensively researched and published on several lists on
>rootsweb when George H W Bush was in office.
>
>If you are interested in the very old and geographically diverse Fay families please consider
>joining us at the mail list Fa...@rootsweb.com. I would really like someone else of medieval
>interest besides myself on the list.
>
>Recently, there has been much discussion of several Fay lines that extend back to the years
>1000, 1200, and in the case of one line 290. You may find those of interest!
Thanks for the information, Bob. What mainly intrigues me is the Fay
connection to the wonderful Deuxieme Empire memoirist, American Lillie
de Hegermann-Lindencrone. She was a Greenough, a granddaughter of a
Judge Fay of Cambridge. She spent part of her childhood with him in
the Fay mansion, now part of Radcliffe College. A fascinating,
sparkling society woman, whose letters make great reading. Her
account of landing derriere-first with Empress Eugenie while
iceskating is a hoot - and her description of the war-torn territory
outside Paris in 1871, as well as the dynamics between Prussians and
French, is first-rate reporting.
Do we know how Lillie might be related to George Bush? (I know this is
extremely OT for this group - my apologies. I'm cross-posting to
alt.talk.royalty just to balance things out :-)
Grant
lma...@att.net
> Recently, there has been much discussion of several Fay lines that
extend back to the years
> 1000, 1200, and in the case of one line 290. You may find those of
interest!
>
> Bob Fay
It would be very interesting to see how they traced the line back to
the year 290, since there are no documented royal descents going back
before the period around the year 500.
Leslie
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Stan Brown
>Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
>>
>> >There are certainly a predominance of British families who do not have
>> >royal blood in their veins.
>
>statistical argument of probabilities, while the other is of
>proven descents. The great majority do not have a documentable
>descent.
Obviously the great majority of people can't _document_ their
ancestors very far back.
But that's not what Renia claimed. He, or she, claimed that the
"predominance" [sic] of British families had no royal blood at all,
and as far as I can see that is false.
If she, or he, had said most could not _trace_ royal descent, of
course I would agree.
Sean MacLochlainn
"Stan Brown" <bra...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14a71e827...@news.mindspring.com...
> But that's not what Renia claimed. He, or she, claimed that "the
> "predominance" [sic] " [sic] of British families had no royal blood
at all,
> and as far as I can see that is false.
As far as I can see, you need to sign up for my sure-fire Multi-Level
Marketing scheme.
Sean
Colin Bevan
so that the chances of royal descent are very slim. If the social structure
were more fluid as in the States, there would be a better chance of royal
descent. My royal connection occurred when a daughter of 'decaying' gentry
married into a yeomanry class in the early 1700's. I never had any
expectation of finding such an event because I knew it would not be
consistent with social trends.
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Brown" <bra...@mindspring.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Bush descent from royalty
> Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> >Stan Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> >>
> >> >There are certainly a predominance of British families who do not have
> >> >royal blood in their veins.
> >
> >There are two different things being talked about here. One is a
> >statistical argument of probabilities, while the other is of
> >proven descents. The great majority do not have a documentable
> >descent.
>
> Obviously the great majority of people can't _document_ their
> ancestors very far back.
>
> But that's not what Renia claimed. He, or she, claimed that the
> "predominance" [sic] of British families had no royal blood at all,
> and as far as I can see that is false.
>
> If she, or he, had said most could not _trace_ royal descent, of
> course I would agree.
>
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
>
> Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> >Stan Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> >>
> >> >There are certainly a predominance of British families who do not have
> >> >royal blood in their veins.
> >
> >There are two different things being talked about here. One is a
> >statistical argument of probabilities, while the other is of
> >proven descents. The great majority do not have a documentable
> >descent.
>
> Obviously the great majority of people can't _document_ their
> ancestors very far back.
>
> But that's not what Renia claimed. He, or she,
She. Renia is feminine. It is usually a shorter form for Renata or
Teresa.
----------------------------
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
raf...@home.com (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada)
hey...@hotmail.com
ra...@londonmail.com (London, England)
*Winston Churchill Link Page: http://www.geocities.com/rafalhm/wsc.html
*The London Group Mailing List: http://www.geocities.com/london_group
*The Ottawa Branch of the Monarchist League of Canada:
http://www.geocities.com/monarchist_ottawa
PDel...@aol.com
I beg to disagree - Anthony Wagner's book , Pedigree and Progress, shows that
Britain, unlike even America, has had one of the most fluid social
intermarriage ability since the demise of the Feudal system , way back in the
15 th Century. Anyone with enough money was and is deemd a Gentleman -
quarterings did not come into it. It was only the upper aristocracy that
retained a very defined separate identity until the early 18th Century.
Otherwise money married gentility and vice versa quite happily, i'e the
patricians and the nobility if one wants to call it that. Now even Royalty
marries middle classes. The one great leveller , although much maligned by
other countries, is the 'Public School' system where all the social classes
with enough money send their children. Hence the Rhys Jones Windsor marriage,
the Windsor-Bowes Lyons marriage etc.
Stewart Baldwin
>The point is that British people rarely married out of their social class,
>so that the chances of royal descent are very slim. If the social structure
>were more fluid as in the States, there would be a better chance of royal
>descent. My royal connection occurred when a daughter of 'decaying' gentry
>married into a yeomanry class in the early 1700's. I never had any
>expectation of finding such an event because I knew it would not be
>consistent with social trends.
Actually, this is somewhat misleading. DOWNWARD social mobility has
been common in most societies, even when upward social mobility was
rare. The younger sons of gentry often had to take a step down in
social class. The reasons are pretty straightforward. If a member of
the gentry had more than one son, then primogeniture would give most
of the wealth to the eldest, and the younger sons would have to make
do with less. Even if primogeniture was not in effect, and the wealth
was divided, then all the sons would have less, unless they managed to
be lucky enough to marry an heiress. This kind of downward social
mobility (leading to many noble descents for "common" folk) is going
to be common in virtually any society in which large families are the
norm.
Stewart Baldwin
Louis Epstein
: Frank Johansen <frank.j...@hm.telia.no> wrote in
: >President-elect George Bush most likely has
: >european royal blood in his veins.
:
: But is there any American (of European stock, anyway) who _doesn't_
: have royal blood in his/her veins? I think if you go back far enough
: everyone does.
I certainly see no evidence that I do.
Louis Epstein
: Stan Brown wrote:
:
: > Frank Johansen <frank.j...@hm.telia.no> wrote in
: > alt.talk.royalty:
: > >President-elect George Bush most likely has
: > >european royal blood in his veins.
: >
: > But is there any American (of European stock, anyway) who _doesn't_
: > have royal blood in his/her veins? I think if you go back far enough
: > everyone does.
:
: There are certainly a predominance of British families who do not have
: royal blood in their veins. I find it uncanny that so many Americans do.
Have you never heard King Edward III described as "Ancestor of the
English middle class"?
Renia
> Stan Brown wrote:
> >
> > Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> > >Stan Brown wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> > >>
> > >> >There are certainly a predominance of British families who do not have
> > >> >royal blood in their veins.
> > >
> > >There are two different things being talked about here. One is a
> > >statistical argument of probabilities, while the other is of
> > >proven descents. The great majority do not have a documentable
> > >descent.
> >
> > Obviously the great majority of people can't _document_ their
> > ancestors very far back.
> >
> > But that's not what Renia claimed. He, or she,
>
> She. Renia is feminine. It is usually a shorter form for Renata or
> Teresa.
Funny you should say that. My name has always been short for Teresa,
like my Polish aunt after whom I am named. My father (her brother) only
found out a few years ago that it was also short for Renata. But we are
both Teresas.
Renia
Renia
I agree with this. British society seems to be static, because the
institutional conventions remain almost static. But the people within
them do not. Otherwise, the Beauchamps and the Seymours would still be
up there.
Renia
Renia
> Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> >Stan Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in alt.talk.royalty:
> >>
> >> >There are certainly a predominance of British families who do not have
> >> >royal blood in their veins.
> >
> >There are two different things being talked about here. One is a
> >statistical argument of probabilities, while the other is of
> >proven descents. The great majority do not have a documentable
> >descent.
>
> Obviously the great majority of people can't _document_ their
> ancestors very far back.
>
> But that's not what Renia claimed. He, or she, claimed that the
> "predominance" [sic] of British families had no royal blood at all,
> and as far as I can see that is false.
>
> If she, or he, had said most could not _trace_ royal descent, of
> course I would agree.
>
> --
> Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
Let's review what I said:
> There are certainly a predominance of British families who do not have
> royal blood in their veins. I find it uncanny that so many Americans do.
>
What constitutes British? Are we talking of the British citizens and
nationals of today, or of earlier times? Which earlier times? However,
that's not really what we were talking about.
While I agree with Peter de Loriol that Britain has had a much more
fluid society than might seem apparent, I also agree with Rosie when she
said that "The point is that British people rarely married out of their
social class, so that the chances of royal descent are very slim." Most
people did not marry out of their class. That Britain was and is fluid
did not mean that everybody married out of their class. Few could and
did, most did not.
The point I was really making in my post, was that I find it uncanny
that so many more Americans have royal ancestry, than do British people.
I imagine, that to some Americans, the perception of Britain is that it
is a tiny place, with comparitively few people in it, especially in the
past. Thus, if two people of the same surname, or similar surnames, are
found in the same village, or parish, or within a few miles of a
specific village, that those two people must be the same person. I have
studied a family with a very rare name. There are less than 100 in the
whole British phone directory today. (My theory is, that they are all
have a common root.) Yet I have found about 10 separate family groups in
the early 17th century, all living within 10 miles of each other, and
none of them is related. (All others of the same name, lived within a
30-mile radius, except for those who were in London, and a few other
oddments.) The relationship for some of these 10-mile groups will
probably be found in 16th century records. For the rest (if my theory is
correct), the relationship will be much further back. Another 150 years
or more, juding by the status of the various families. Anyone finding
two persons of this surname within such close proximity, might, for want
of records they do not have access to, assume that they were the same
person. But as I have made a one-name study of this name over the last
20 years, I know that that is
not the case. This is a very rare surname. I wonder how many people make
this mistake with more common names, never mind rare ones? The progeny
of people of this name, married (through their increased wealth) and
became aristocracy.
Now this was a surname fairly high up in the pecking order in their
county, but not aristocracy, early on, but there is no indication that
they were of a breed to have descended from royalty. The name itself
first appears only in about 1315 in a Court Roll, but a generation
earlier, in 1290, it possibly appears as a hybrid of another name, which
I also theorize might be that of its origin (which is completely
dissimilar to what the books on surnames come up with). If my studies of
that hybrid name have any bearing on my one-name study, then this was a
breed almost definitely not connected to royalty. As to
many of the surnames who intermarried with this family, and with each
other, though my studies on them are not nearly so intense, a similar
story is unfolding. The family name which gave rise to an earldom,
descended from a 16th century mayor, of a similar type of family to that
of my one-name study. No royal connections to this family name, either.
I could presume, that if I intensified my researches into the other
families from whom I am descended, then, somewhere along the way, I may
find a distant royal. But my concentration is upon the one-name study,
and I tend to leave it at that. Occasionally, I hunt around looking for
info on the other families, but I don't really have the time for such
intense investigations into these families, whose genealogies are
published in the usual genealogical books.
As to my husband's family, on his mother's side, they are from
generations of Devon farmers, with not an ounce of gentility back to the
16th century. However, my husband's mothers name is the same as that of
one of the predominant Devon families, so I could make a leap of the
imagination, and imagine that she might be descended from the
well-heeled namesake. But even
the well-heeled namesake has no apparent royal connections.
On his father's side, not one ag lab, but plenty of fishermen, and the
staggeringly common surname of Simmonds. I looked through my local phone
directory about 10 years ago, and in the environs of this town of a
250,000 population, there were over 600 Simmonds and variants in the
phone directory. Though there were a family of Simmons baronets, I would
not even begin to imagine that there was some connection, even if those
baronets lived in the same town.
My father's side is Polish, and were of the nobility. His mother's
maiden name has been traced, certainly to the 16th century, and likely
to the 14th. (The notes for the early part are in Polish, and I don't
understand them.) No royalty there, apparently, because someone would
have boasted about it.
Someone once said to me that the preponderance of genealogical
connections among Americans, is because of the small root stock. I don't
know how true that is, but I find it surprising. Many of the early
American settlers seem to have been the same class of people as my
one-name study - nobility, but not quite, while others were obviously
poor, and yet others were the poor relations of the nobility, or were
nobility who wanted to increase their land holdings. They went for
varying reasons: religious freedom; adventure; financial opportunity.
But, I admit, I not know enough about the early American settlers to
comment much further than this, save to say, that it has always
surprised me how it seems to be much more common for their descendants
to find royal ancestors, than do the descendants of those who remained
in Britain. It could be simply because the British don't look for it,
because we don't expect to find it, but Americans find it, because they
expect to, and go looking for it.
Renia
Robert W Fay
I have to say that I am deeply concerned about the credibility of some of these French Fay
genealogies I am hearing. I have had several personal letters written to me stating the existence
of French Fay genealogies back to the 400's and one person said he had seen them.
In addition, on 12/4/00, a doubting writer inquired of the Fay-L mail list of Baron Hector de Fay,
de La Tour de Maubourg en Velay, Lord of Chambrespine.
During the correspondence one learns that information is being supplied by a French informant
that states the genealogy goes back to 290. The name of a book was also given. "Les
Parsonniers Vellaves, Les Chapteuil" by Albert Boudon-Lashmore.
In addition, of greatest concern, James M G Fay, a Frenchman, gave to the Vermont Historical
Society a large collection of Fay documents that they hold even today as I saw them in October
of this year.
We have one document online and it makes a large number of references to ancient Fay lines,
and you can find it here:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~faywebsite/papers2.html
I think I had indicated earlier that I am about the only one of the Fay's interested in the medieval
period and really I am more interested in the Normans, don't read French and am located in the
US midwest.
So what do you think the credibility is of these various statements.
Bob Fay
Date forwarded: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 14:11:15 -0800
Date sent: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:03:32 GMT
From: lma...@att.net
Organization: Deja.com
Subject: Re: Bush/Fay conection
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Forwarded by: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> In article madg...@clsurf.com wrote, amongst other things:
Colin Bevan
talking about fluidity within a very small percentage of the total
population. Public schools are/were only available to the wealthy, not ag
labs, for example, who made up the most part of the English population in
the nineteenth century.
When I said that marriage outside one's class was the exception, not the
norm, I was thinking across the board. For an ag lab in the nineteenth
century to be descended from royalty, there would have to be a succession of
unequal unions to achieve this. In my own case it happened over 22
generations via illegitimacy, aristocracy, gentry, merchants, clergy,
yeomanry, bootmakers, shopkeepers. This is only one of all my lines where
this has happened, so I would continue to believe that it is the execption
not the rule.
With increasing social mobility, the chances of royal descent become
statistically more likely with every future generation
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: <PDel...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: Bush descent from royalty
Carpenter, Charles
royal lines than English people of comparable class: greater willingness of
the royally descended to intermarry with the non-royally descended, which
would have been only natural given American conditions. Thus, greater
dispersal.
I am myself a descendant on my father's side of Robert Abell and on my
mother's side of Frances Deighton. Both emigrated to Bristol Co. Mass. in
the 1640s, both were children of unimportant minor landowners in England,
and both were born more than 300 years after their nearest royal ancestor.
Whereas if they had stayed in England, they could both have been expected
have their children marry people of like class and descent, in Bristol Co.
Mass. in the 1660s there were just not enough such people to go around. As
it was, most, if not all, of the people their children married were not also
royal descendants. As children are born with only one royal descended
parent, grandparent, or great grandparent, this increases the stock of royal
descendants over what one might have found in England, where, because of
less willingness to intermarry across class lines, one would expect fewer
people with only one royally descended great grandparent.
And anyway, while wealth from the old country was of course always
important, conditions in the new led, more or less, to the creation of a new
landed aristocracy, into which one could hope to marry one's children. And,
on the other hand, they had large families in New England, which dispersed
both in place and class. I would venture to guess that if you looked at
social standing ca. 1730, you would find a great many more laborers among
the descendants of the emigrants Abell and Deighton, then among the
descendants of their siblings or cousins that did not emigrate.
Does anyone have any information on that latter general subject?
Charley
*****************************************************
This electronic mail transmission contains confidential
information intended only for the person(s) named.
Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure
by another person is strictly prohibited.
*****************************************************
Colin Bevan
married someone of equal status within his class as long as he had an income
to support his family according to the expectations of his wife's family. If
he could not, he did not marry. Taking a step to marry someone out of one's
class was unusual and not viewed favourably.
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Baldwin" <sba...@mindspring.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Bush descent from royalty
> On 17 Dec 2000 16:30:24 -0800, cbe...@xtra.co.nz (Colin Bevan) wrote:
>
> >The point is that British people rarely married out of their social
class,
lma...@my-deja.com
After looking at the information on the website referred to here, it
looks like the genealogy actually only goes back to John Fay who
arrived in 1656. The statement that he was a Huguenot looks like
nothing more than a guess. In some cases, people have stated that
certain colonists were Huguenots without proof, and later on, solid
research has found that the person in question was actually English.
Some of the information given by Orlin Fay doesn’t seem historically
accurate. Examples are:
“Adolphe Victoire Fay, an illustrious warrior under Charlemagne. Killed
in battle on the banks of the Weser, 782.” Or “Fay Edouard Maurice, a
Carpathian who distinguished himself in the service of Henri First of
France and died about 1040.”
Apparently the author didn’t realize that middle names weren’t used
until at least 700 years later. Also, names such as Victoire and
Edouard were not used in this time period. Not to mention that no
references whatsoever are given for these statements.
Anyways, that’s just a minor overview of some of the material.
daniel_m...@my-deja.com
CARP...@pepperlaw.com (Carpenter, Charles) wrote:
>
> I am myself a descendant on my father's side of Robert Abell
Making you a distant cousin of the actress Glenn Close. The Abell
descent comes in through her mother.
Daniel MacGregor,
Compiler, "Close Ties: Ancestors and Cousins of Glenn Close"
Serban Marin
> Carpathian who distinguished himself in the service of Henri First of
> France and died about 1040."
>
Now, with your permission: what does it exactly mean "Carpathian"?
Hungarian?
Serban Marin,
Bucharest, Romania
lma...@att.net
sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote:
>
> Actually, this is somewhat misleading. DOWNWARD social mobility has
> been common in most societies, even when upward social mobility was
> rare. The younger sons of gentry often had to take a step down in
> social class. The reasons are pretty straightforward. If a member of
> the gentry had more than one son, then primogeniture would give most
> of the wealth to the eldest, and the younger sons would have to make
> do with less. Even if primogeniture was not in effect, and the wealth
> was divided, then all the sons would have less, unless they managed to
> be lucky enough to marry an heiress. This kind of downward social
> mobility (leading to many noble descents for "common" folk) is going
> to be common in virtually any society in which large families are the
> norm.
>
> Stewart Baldwin
I have definitely found this to be true in a number of countries. In
researching my ancestry in France, Belgium and Sweden, Ive found that
my immigrant ancestors have descents from gentry in all three of those
countries. One can see the gradual social descents, from landed gentry
with coats of arms, going down to common farmers. The problem with many
of those other countries is that the church registers usually begin
about 1660, if not later, as compared to England, where many registers
begin in the mid to late 1500s. Thats an average difference of about
100 years, which means a possibility of finding eight times as many
ancestors in England.
A big problem in England is finding maternal ancestries, since the
baptisms often do not give much about the mothers identity, as compared
to continental Europe, where the mother's maiden name is given most of
the time. European records often give clues to where people where born,
as compared to England, where people could migrate about without any
clues given in the records.
The US has some great difficulties in researching, as compared to most
other countries. In many regions here, there was no established system
of keeping vital records, and many places did not keep wills at an
early date. Another very big problem is finding the origins of various
colonists. One cannot hope to trace lines back into the middle ages
unless a country of origin can be found (thats obvious, right??)
One of the reasons why so many people in the US can trace back to
English nobility is because of the immense volume of work that has been
done on early colonists. One example is Henry Waters' "Genealogical
Gleanings in England" which is 1000 pages worth of summarized wills
from the Prerogative Court of Canterbury - and it was done 100 years
ago!!
Also, the established periodicals in this country are a great
assistance to researchers. Compare "The American Genealogist" with the
English publication "Genealogist's Magazine". You will find that the
former is almost entirely composed of compiled genealogies and new
discoveries, whereas the latter seems to discuss methodology.
With the use of the periodicals, even someone with only 5% New England
ancestry can open a magazine and find new ancestors thanks to someone
elses work. How often does that happen in England or other countries???
Leslie
Robert W Fay
I am trying to find out if this is a credible, but poorly referenced group of statements by Orlin P
Fay or his informant or if it is someone's fantasy and fiction.
The remainder of the book is well studied and known to be credible but with some
understandable errors and omissions.
Bob Fay
Date forwarded: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:15:31 -0800
From: "Serban Marin" <sma...@dnt.ro>
Subject: Re: Bush/Fay conection
Date sent: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:20:37 +0200
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Forwarded by: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> > Or "Fay Edouard Maurice, a
PDel...@aol.com
records, now mostly with the Archives departementales, go back eons before
English records - This is why it is relatively easy to find the ancestors of
a realtively modest family. I have come across countless examples of this
whereas Britain suffered disastrously , as far as records go, in the 17th
Century, and organised records were not kept prior to this for the Hoi poloi.
France being a bureaucracy, and having been one since time began, has,
through wars and revolutions, kept meticulous records of its populace through
the notarial records - the results are quite amazing if one knows how to
search these, for anybody.
There is a saying in England , that it is almost impossible to go back beyond
the early 18th Century for the average, and I am afraid that this is true.
In one particular instance, I am descended from a family MATHER, from
Warrington, who were quite successful, owned Brickyards and Timber businesses
in the 18th Century. The earliest proven member of this family is a Henry
Mather, who in his will, shows that he has inherited a parcel of land in the
parish of Leigh called Mather' i th'kow, a property "owned by my great
grandsire brother of Richard Mather of Massachusettes". But I have vainly
tried to trace this line and collected **** of mathers in the process!
Stewart, Peter
> From: Colin Bevan [mailto:cbe...@xtra.co.nz]
> Sent: Monday, 18 December 2000 14:43
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Bush descent from royalty
>
>
> from royalty, there would have to be a succession of
> unequal unions to achieve this.
Not necessarily so - there are instances where this came about in legitimate
lines through a very rapid if not quite instantaneous social decline. The
famous descendant of the countess of Salisbury who was a village cobbler may
be one example (I've never checked the details of this story). Lunacy in
noble or gentry families was another obvious way to hit the social skids.
And of course the descendants of 19th-century agricultural labourers
nowadays become royalty, some would say by similar means.
Peter Stewart
Colin Bevan
Stewart, Peter
> From: Colin Bevan [mailto:cbe...@xtra.co.nz]
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 December 2000 9:48
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Bush descent from royalty
>
>
>
> > From: Colin Bevan [mailto:cbe...@xtra.co.nz]
> > Sent: Monday, 18 December 2000 14:43
> > To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> > Subject: Re: Bush descent from royalty
> >
> >
> > For an ag lab in the nineteenth century to be descended
> > from royalty, there would have to be a succession of
> > unequal unions to achieve this.
>
I'm not sure what you would take to be "common" here - a single instance is
enough to disprove your original statement. If you are asking about the
frequency of lunatics occurring in & quickly falling out of the landed
classes in England before the 19th century, I've never come across a study
of this phenomenon. However, I can say that their counterparts often retain
their property & increase their social prestige today.
Peter Stewart
Colin Bevan
To use statistics alone as a basis for claiming that everyone is descended from Edward I is to ignore, social trends.
I'm not sure what you have disproved. I did not claim that royal descent was impossible, I said that it was unlikely that the most part of the British population had royal descent for the reasons I gave.
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: Stewart, Peter
To: 'Colin Bevan'
Cc: 'Gen-Medieval post'
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: Bush descent from royalty
Jonathan Couchman
Herald-Tribune Newscoast
http://www.newscoast.com/headlinesstory2.cfm?ID=35115
STAFF REPORT
The president of the Florida Holocaust Museum said Saturday that
George W.
Bush's grandfather derived a portion of his personal fortune
through his
affiliation with a Nazi-controlled bank.
John Loftus, a former prosecutor in the Justice Department's Nazi
War Crimes
Unit, said his research found that Bush's grandfather, Prescott
Bush, was a
principal in the Union Banking Corp. in Manhattan in the late
1930s and the
1940s.
Leading Nazi industrialists secretly owned the bank at that time,
Loftus said,
and were moving money into it through a second bank in Holland
even after the
United States declared war on Germany. The bank was liquidated in
1951,
Loftus said, and Bush's grandfather and great-grandfather
received $1.5
million from the bank as part of that dissolution.
"That's where the Bush family fortune came from: It came from the
Third Reich,"
Loftus said.
Loftus made his remarks during a speech as part of the Sarasota
Reading
Festival. The author of "Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, The Nazis
and the Swiss
Banks," Loftus documented the Swiss bank accounts that harbored
funds
confiscated from Holocaust victims and the participation of
Italian priests in
smuggling Nazi war criminals to safe haven in Canada, Central and
South
America and the United States after the war.
Although he said he had a file of paperwork linking the bank and
Prescott Bush
to Nazi money, Loftus did not provide that documentation
Saturday.
Loftus pointed out that the Bush family would not be the only
American political
dynasty to have ties to the "wrong side of World War II." The
Rockefellers had
financial connections to Nazi Germany, he said.
Loftus also reminded his audience that John F. Kennedy's father,
an avowed
isolationist and former ambassador to Great Britain, profited
during the 1930s
and '40s from Nazi stocks that he owned.
"No one today blames the Democrats because Jack Kennedy's father
bought
Nazi stocks," Loftus said. Still, he said, it is important to
understand these
historical connections for what they tell us about politics
today. The World War
II experience points out how easy it was then -- and remains
today -- to hide
money in multinational funds.
That money flows into American politics today, he said, from "a
series of
multinational corporations behaving like pirates. They don't care
about
ideology; they care about money."
Loftus' speech left many in tears.
"I am absolutely shocked," said Nancy Krauss of Punta Gorda. "I
wish this would
have come out before the election. My husband voted for Bush. I
don't think he
would have voted for him if he would have known."
D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu
and Philippa of Hainault.
This has all been discussed here before.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
----
In article <aVd%5.5634$Sl.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) wrote:
Tracy Scarpino
it. You all know so much - do any of you know anything about the
origin of the surname Nicolai? It was my maternal grandmother's
maiden name and the original immigrants were from Germany. This
doesn't seem like a German name to me - is it? Or did they
originally come from somewhere else? I'm just grasping at straws
here, thinking perhaps someone knows something of use. Thanks!
Grant Menzies
I have it, Tracy, in my paternal grandmother's lineage - in 17th
century Hessen. It's a common German name.
Grant
lma...@att.net
PDel...@aol.com wrote:
> I'm sorry i beg to differ with one , very salient point. Franch
notarial
> records, now mostly with the Archives departementales, go back eons
before
> English records -
Of course, this varies by region. The areas I am interested in (Haute
Saone, St Die, also Namur et Hainaut in Belgium) do not appear to have
as many notarial records going back before 1500, and in some cases, the
repositories were bombed in WWII, which creates some big problems.
>This is why it is relatively easy to find the ancestors of
> a realtively modest family. I have come across countless examples of
this
> whereas Britain suffered disastrously , as far as records go, in the
17th
> Century, and organised records were not kept prior to this for the
Hoi poloi.
There are indeed many gaps for English parish registers in the Civil
War period. However, I have Quaker ancestors who arrived in the US in
the 1680s, and in some cases, Ive been able to take their lineages back
into the early 1500s. The same is true for New England colonists.
That appears to be a reference to the family of the noted New England
minister Cotton Mather. I believe that his ancestors were from Toxteth
Park or thereabouts. I will look up some of the details on this, and
I'll send them to you in the next couple of days.
Leslie
buel...@my-deja.com
Fays never heard of the Fay families of Hampshire county here in
southern England? We trace our descent from David Fay, living 2nd half
of the 17th century, who is alleged to be son of a Huguenot refugee
from La Rochelle, France.
I say "alleged" because we have a strong tradition but no real
evidence. My grandfather believed it, so he visited La Rochelle some
time in the 1920s, but I never heard if he found proof. The American
Fays might be interested in an elaboration of our tradition: the story
goes that two brother Fay fled La Rochelle, one to England and the
other to New England. I offer this in the spirit of Christmas story-
telling and in the hope it may stimulate further research: can my David
and your John Fay ancestors be kin?
Light-hearted PS to Bob: how do you know you are the only Fay
interested in medieval times?! Yours, Peter Buell-Fay
In article <3A3D266C.19143.7B720E@localhost>,
hin...@my-deja.com
It's quite an important family.
DSH
----
In article <91n900$dmp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Serban Marin
Here is the Russian "Nikolaj", just like in Ukrainian.
Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian "Nikola".
Greek "Nikolaos"
Romanian "Nicolae" (or in some forms: "Niculai", "Nicola" etc.)
Hungarian "Miklos"
The Western European forms are too known.
So, I think there is something either Slavonic (more probably, Russian or
Ukrainian), or Romanian. Who knows, maybe we are relatives...
Serban Marin,
Bucharest, Romania
PS. By the way, Miss (or Mrs.) Scarpino, are your ancestors coming from
Italy? If yes, which part of it?
Tim Powys-Lybbe
cbe...@xtra.co.nz (Colin Bevan) wrote:
> Yes. Granted there was some fluidity in social mobilty, but Peter, you are
> talking about fluidity within a very small percentage of the total
> population. Public schools are/were only available to the wealthy, not ag
> labs, for example, who made up the most part of the English population in
> the nineteenth century.
>
<snip>
Might I correct the odd misconception. The very wealthy prior to the
20th century tended to educate their children privately: they hired a
tutor for the sons and a governess for the daughters; it was the less
wealthy who had to send the kids to a public (and they were, by
comparison, "public") school. The fees for these public schools were
low, the teachers were paid poorly (no change?).
I agree that ag labs could not afford fees for boarding schools but they
did afford fees for day schools in the latter part of the 19th century,
until those government encouraged schools were paid for by the
government. And there were scholarships for the better schools, that
allowed a not a few from poor backgrounds to gain an real education.
My cousin was telling me only a couple of weeks ago about how his family
had in the early 18th century (sorry, not medieval) were ordinary local
shop-keepers but by the end of the century were vastly weathly and
trading internationally. A prime case of mobility?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Robert O'Connor
me a brief outline of the descent from Edward III to George "Doubleya".
Thanks
Robert O'Connor
<D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:91mpn9$2ud$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Tracy Scarpino
So the German Nicolais were probably of Slavic or Russian descent...
my mother always thought her ancestors were Russian so we were
surprised when we found the slip of paper saying they had come to
America from Germany. Then when I was looking around the Internet I
saw a lot of Italian Nicolais. I guess it's a pretty widespread
name, taking different forms and spellings like the ones you
mentioned. I fear I'll never be able to trace those ancestors. It's
the same with my mother's maiden name, Pack, it seems to have origins
in both England and France, and I can't figure out where the first
guy, George Pack, came from in the 1600s... George have been French
or English.
Scarpino is the name I was born with - my great-grandfather Giuseppe
came to America from a little town in Calabria called Sersale. I've
been there and met the cousins and everything - it's a cute town. My
grandfather visited in the 1950s and got the records of the family
back to the 1600s - I think the town was founded around that time. I
hope one day to find out where my Scarpino ancestors originally came
from ... I think lots of Calabrians came from Greece and even the
Middle East and Africa. Tons of them came from Albania but Sersale
isn't one of the towns listed as being founded by Albanians. Who
knows... all I know is that "scarpino" means "little shoe" so perhaps
they were in the shoe business or just had tiny feet. ;)
Tracy
Tim Powys-Lybbe
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
User Name : Tim Powys-Lybbe
User email address : p100.f2098.n246.z2
User FidoNet address : 2:246/2098.100
User email address : Tim.Pow...@p100.f2098.n246.z2.fidonet.org
=============================================================
Robert O'Connor
Thanks
Robert O'Connor
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
User Name : Robert O'Connor
User email address : p100.f2098.n246.z2
User FidoNet address : 2:246/2098.100
User email address : Robert.O'Con...@p100.f2098.n246.z2.fidonet.org
=============================================================
Tracy Scarpino
Serban -
Tracy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
User Name : Tracy Scarpino
User email address : p100.f2098.n246.z2
User FidoNet address : 2:246/2098.100
User email address : Tracy.S...@p100.f2098.n246.z2.fidonet.org
=============================================================
mthi...@swbell.net
HUGUENOTS-WAL...@rootsweb.com> under the excellent and expert
administration of the very knowledgeable Andrea Vogel.
Just a thought........malinda
buel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Sent via Deja.com
> > > http://www.deja.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Robert W Fay
> > Sturtevant, Wisconsin USA
> >
> > Researching FAY, DEAGAN, BURRITT
> >
> > Visit the Fay websites at:
> > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~faywebsite/index.html
> > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fayfamily/index.html
> >
> > FAY Mail list at Rootsweb.com: Subscribe by sending an
> > email with the single word subscribe on the subject line to:
> > FAY-L-...@rootsweb.com
> >
> >
>
mthiesse
Just a thought........malinda
buel...@my-deja.com wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
User Name : mthiesse
User email address : p100.f2098.n246.z2
User FidoNet address : 2:246/2098.100
User email address : mthi...@p100.f2098.n246.z2.fidonet.org
=============================================================
lma...@att.net
hin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Please post the details on the Mathers.
>
> It's quite an important family.
>
> DSH
As requested:
There was an article published in "The New England Historical and
Genealogical Register", Jan. 1893, vol. 47, p. 38, which contains a
large collection of Mather wills from southern Lancashire. But the
author of said article was unable to find any new information on the
ancestry of Rev. Richard Mather.
Here is a brief summary what is known - Im not sure if anything new has
been found in the past 100 years.
Richard Mather was born about 1596 at Lowton in the parish of Winwick,
Lancashire, son of Thomas and Margaret Mather. The parents were said to
have been descended from notable families, but they themselves were
in 'humble circumstances'. Richard entered Brasenose College, Oxford on
9 May 1618, and he later preached at Toxteth Park [Lancashire]. He
departed for New England via Bristol on the ship James in 1635, and
died in 1669. A portrait of him is extant. Im sure that other details
of his life are available, and they could be found in other sources,
especially amongst the works of his grandson Cotton Mather.
Its interesting to see how little is known about the ancestry of so
many prominents figures in early New England, examples being Thomas
Hooker, John Cotton, Miles Standish, the Winslows, etc. In most cases,
we know only who their parents were and nothing more.
lmahler
hin...@my-deja.com wrote:
As requested:
Leslie
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
User Name : lmahler
User email address : p100.f2098.n246.z2
User FidoNet address : 2:246/2098.100
User email address : lma...@p100.f2098.n246.z2.fidonet.org
=============================================================
Stewart, Peter
> From: Colin Bevan [mailto:cbe...@xtra.co.nz]
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 December 2000 10:41
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Bush descent from royalty
>
>
> agreed with Renia in that not every British person has
> descent from royalty as the statistics quoted implied.
>
> To use statistics alone as a basis for claiming that everyone
> is descended from Edward I is to ignore, social trends.
>
> I'm not sure what you have disproved. I did not claim that
> royal descent was impossible, I said that it was unlikely
> that the most part of the British population had royal
> descent for the reasons I gave.
>
Apologies if I didn't note your own original statement - the categorical and
mistaken one to which my remarks were addresed may have been by someone else
in the same thread:
> > > For an ag lab in the nineteenth century to be descended
> > > from royalty, there would have to be a succession of
> > > unequal unions to achieve this.
> >
My point is that one unequal union could achieve the same effect, and
further that this could be accomplished without a generational succession at
all if circumstances such as lunacy resulted in dispossession. There are
numerous examples of the latter, where once-landed gentlemen ended up in a
local bedlam or workhouse, having married and sired offspring after the
catastrophe. A John Docton of Doketon, Devon in the late 17th century is one
example you could check.
Peter Stewart
Stewart, Peter
Peter Stewart
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
User Name : Stewart, Peter
User email address : p100.f2098.n246.z2
User FidoNet address : 2:246/2098.100
User email address : Stewart,.Pe...@p100.f2098.n246.z2.fidonet.org
=============================================================
mthi...@swbell.net
malinda
mthiesse
malinda
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
User Name : mthiesse
User email address : p100.f2098.n246.z2
User FidoNet address : 2:246/2098.100
User email address : mthi...@p100.f2098.n246.z2.fidonet.org
=============================================================
Robert W Fay
Yes, I'm well aware of the Fay's of Hampshire but I didn't know you traced to Rochelle, France.
Here's a small quote I found that is part of a section much too large for this list. I have to believe
this is your Rochelle family as it is not the Tour Maubourg Fay's, and they are the only others in
the area. Does this sound familiar?
The reference for the following is:
"Irish Pedigrees; or the Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation" by John
O'Hart, 1923, Murphy & McCarty, 86 Walker Street, New York.
**********************************************************************
<snip>
"In 1208, King John confirms to "Peter De Fay, our Burgess of Rochelle, the
reasonable gift made him by Ralph De Fay, of the office of 'Baker and
Pasturer' of Rochelle, and of the Hundred Shillings rent in the 'Minages" of
Rochelle, and in the Forty Schillings out of the house in Rochelle, wherein
Elias gasket formerly had an exchange."
<snip>
What do you think of that?
Bob Fay
Date forwarded: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 04:12:11 -0800
Date sent: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:58:54 GMT
From: buel...@my-deja.com
Organization: Deja.com
Send reply to: buel...@my-deja.com
Ed Mann
>
> INET...@atlantic.net (Ed Mann) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > 17 John Fay III ref #: AAP:210
> > +Hannah Child 1700 - 1788 ref #: AAP:210
> <snip>
>
> Ed, would these be the same Fays who settled in Cambridge, Mass.?
No idea.
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:INET...@atlantic.net
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
NK1 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_One_, [page].
NK2 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_Two_, [page].
Π= Hardy, Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America, [pg].
PA = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, 2d ed. [page:para].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat lector.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat lector.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page] Caveat lector.
Karen Horn
: Stan Brown wrote:
:
:> Frank Johansen <frank.j...@hm.telia.no> wrote in
:> alt.talk.royalty:
:> >President-elect George Bush most likely has
:> >european royal blood in his veins.
:>
:> But is there any American (of European stock, anyway) who _doesn't_
:> have royal blood in his/her veins? I think if you go back far enough
:> everyone does.
: There are certainly a predominance of British families who do not have
: royal blood in their veins. I find it uncanny that so many Americans do.
:
: Renia
:
Well, but then most of you are just drawing on BRITISH royalty---but
people of US ancestory who've been here for more than a few generations
are likely admixtures of various nationalities---i.e. British AND
German AND Swiss and This and THAT and the OTHER
Karen
[Ukrainian, German, English, Welch, Swiss, French, and God knows what
else that I haven't yet discovered. And there is a Baron Meunch in
the family one one of my lines if you go back 350 years or so...]
Amanda Jones
> My cousin was telling me only a couple of weeks ago about how his family
> had in the early 18th century (sorry, not medieval) were ordinary local
> shop-keepers but by the end of the century were vastly weathly and
> trading internationally. A prime case of mobility?
Look at the medieval Cardinal Wolsey - born a butcher's son in East
Anglia, became one of the most powerful men in the country.
Amanda
The Bibliographer
The same can be said of all the English cardinals from the twelfth century
to the Reformation, except Bourchier and Beaufort.
For example, after years in the cardinalate, Nicholas Breakspear was
elected pope (as Adrian IV) in 1154. His mother was still alive then, as a
serf on a manor in Kent, where she had spent her entire life. Again,
certainly not for the first time, envoys came to the manor to move her to
some location more suitable to the mother of the pope. She told them to go
away.
The origins of the other cardinals, including Langton, Pullen, Kempe,
Morton, and Urswick (Bainbridge) are only slightly less humble.
--
Regards, Frank Young
tip...@wam.umd.edu 703-527-7684
Post Office Box 2793, Kensington, Maryland 20891
"Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate... Nunc cognosco ex parte"
Barrie J. Wright
That money flows into American politics today, he said, from "a
series of multinational corporations behaving like pirates.
They don't care about ideology; they care about money."
Loftus' speech left many in tears.
"I am absolutely shocked," said Nancy Krauss of Punta Gorda. "
I wish this would have come out before the election.
My husband voted for Bush. I don't think he would have voted for
him if he would have known."
Is this what they call New Left McCarthyism-- or just sentimental
claptrap? The mind boggles when Dubya actually got his start
with a baseball team!
Let's stay with all the Medieval Miscreants instead...
Barrie J. Wright
GLENELG EAST, 5045
in Adelaide, South Australia
bjwr...@senet.com.au
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Couchman <Terra...@worldnet.att.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 December 2000 2:17
Subject: Bush descent from royalty
> Author links Bush family to Nazis
>
> Herald-Tribune Newscoast
> http://www.newscoast.com/headlinesstory2.cfm?ID=35115
>
> STAFF REPORT
>
> Loftus pointed out that the Bush family would not be the only
> American political
> dynasty to have ties to the "wrong side of World War II." The
> Rockefellers had
> financial connections to Nazi Germany, he said.
>
> Loftus also reminded his audience that John F. Kennedy's father,
> an avowed
> isolationist and former ambassador to Great Britain, profited
> during the 1930s
> and '40s from Nazi stocks that he owned.
>
> "No one today blames the Democrats because Jack Kennedy's father
> bought
> Nazi stocks," Loftus said. Still, he said, it is important to
> understand these
> historical connections for what they tell us about politics
> today. The World War
> II experience points out how easy it was then -- and remains
> today -- to hide
> money in multinational funds.
>
> That money flows into American politics today, he said, from "a
> series of
> multinational corporations behaving like pirates. They don't care
> about
> ideology; they care about money."
>
> Loftus' speech left many in tears.
>
> "I am absolutely shocked," said Nancy Krauss of Punta Gorda. "I
> wish this would
> have come out before the election. My husband voted for Bush. I
> don't think he
> would have voted for him if he would have known."
>
> ______________________________
Phaedra nunnsmith
"Louis Epstein" <l...@put.com> wrote in message
news:jWd%5.5635$Sl.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> Renia (PSim...@cwcom.net) wrote:
> : Stan Brown wrote:
> :
> : > Frank Johansen <frank.j...@hm.telia.no> wrote in
> : > alt.talk.royalty:
> : > >President-elect George Bush most likely has
> : > >european royal blood in his veins.
> : >
> : > But is there any American (of European stock, anyway) who _doesn't_
> : > have royal blood in his/her veins? I think if you go back far enough
> : > everyone does.
> :
> : There are certainly a predominance of British families who do not have
> : royal blood in their veins. I find it uncanny that so many Americans do.
> :
>
> English middle class"?
Yes I have and I believe the largest concentration of these per capita live
on Pitcairn Island ..........Something to do with Fletcher Christian's
descent from Edward the third
Phaedra ..............now you all needed to know that bit of trivia :-)
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Excitabat enim fluctus in simpulo." ---- Marcus Tullius Cicero [106 -
43 B.C.] ---- De Legibus III, 16
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Phaedra nunnsmith" <phae...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a438c11$0$7508$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
JG
web she is a descendant of US President Franklin Pierce but can't find
anything further back than her grandfather Jonas Pierce. And was US
president Franklin Pierce descended from the gentry or nobles of England or
anywhere else in France? He was a New Englander, thus another tie-in with
the comments below.
Thanks & regards
JG
<lma...@att.net> wrote in message news:91ls32$99e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote:
> >
> > Actually, this is somewhat misleading. DOWNWARD social mobility has
> > been common in most societies, even when upward social mobility was
> > rare. The younger sons of gentry often had to take a step down in
> > social class. The reasons are pretty straightforward. If a member of
> > the gentry had more than one son, then primogeniture would give most
> > of the wealth to the eldest, and the younger sons would have to make
> > do with less. Even if primogeniture was not in effect, and the wealth
> > was divided, then all the sons would have less, unless they managed to
> > be lucky enough to marry an heiress. This kind of downward social
> > mobility (leading to many noble descents for "common" folk) is going
> > to be common in virtually any society in which large families are the
> > norm.
> >
> > Stewart Baldwin
>
> I have definitely found this to be true in a number of countries. In
> researching my ancestry in France, Belgium and Sweden, Ive found that
> my immigrant ancestors have descents from gentry in all three of those
> countries. One can see the gradual social descents, from landed gentry
> with coats of arms, going down to common farmers. The problem with many
> of those other countries is that the church registers usually begin
> about 1660, if not later, as compared to England, where many registers
> begin in the mid to late 1500s. Thats an average difference of about
> 100 years, which means a possibility of finding eight times as many
> ancestors in England.
>
> A big problem in England is finding maternal ancestries, since the
> baptisms often do not give much about the mothers identity, as compared
> to continental Europe, where the mother's maiden name is given most of
> the time. European records often give clues to where people where born,
> as compared to England, where people could migrate about without any
> clues given in the records.
>
> The US has some great difficulties in researching, as compared to most
> other countries. In many regions here, there was no established system
> of keeping vital records, and many places did not keep wills at an
> early date. Another very big problem is finding the origins of various
> colonists. One cannot hope to trace lines back into the middle ages
> unless a country of origin can be found (thats obvious, right??)
>
> One of the reasons why so many people in the US can trace back to
> English nobility is because of the immense volume of work that has been
> done on early colonists. One example is Henry Waters' "Genealogical
> Gleanings in England" which is 1000 pages worth of summarized wills
> from the Prerogative Court of Canterbury - and it was done 100 years
> ago!!
>
> Also, the established periodicals in this country are a great
> assistance to researchers. Compare "The American Genealogist" with the
> English publication "Genealogist's Magazine". You will find that the
> former is almost entirely composed of compiled genealogies and new
> discoveries, whereas the latter seems to discuss methodology.
>
> With the use of the periodicals, even someone with only 5% New England
> ancestry can open a magazine and find new ancestors thanks to someone
> elses work. How often does that happen in England or other countries???
Jon Meltzer
the
> web she is a descendant of US President Franklin Pierce but can't find
> anything further back than her grandfather Jonas Pierce.
I believe that was the press getting things wrong. In any case her line
should be in Roberts' book.
elm...@my-deja.com
"JG" <coyo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Does anyone have the descent of G.W.'s mother, Barbara Pierce? I read
on the
> web she is a descendant of US President Franklin Pierce but can't find
> anything further back than her grandfather Jonas Pierce. And was US
> president Franklin Pierce descended from the gentry or nobles of
England or
> anywhere else in France? He was a New Englander, thus another tie-in
with
> the comments below.
>
> Thanks & regards
Actually, the web was wrong. She cannot descend from Franklin Pierce as
he had no children to live into adulthood. I think that both Barbara
and Franklin descend from a common ancestor.
U...@aol.com
coyo...@earthlink.net writes:
> Does anyone have the descent of G.W.'s mother, Barbara Pierce? I read on the
> web she is a descendant of US President Franklin Pierce but can't find
> anything further back than her grandfather Jonas Pierce. And was US
> president Franklin Pierce descended from the gentry or nobles of England or
> anywhere else in France? He was a New Englander, thus another tie-in with
> the comments below.
>
> Thanks & regards
>
> JG
>
>
Best I can do, but I believe there are other lineages in AAP.
Direct Descendants of Henry Sampson
1 Henry Sampson b: Bef. 15 January 1603/04 in Henlow, BDF, ENG
d: Abt. 24 August 1684 in Duxbury, MA
... +Anne Plummer d: Bef. 1684
2 Stephen Sampson
...... +Elizabeth ....
... 3 Mary Sampson
......... +Samuel Thayer
...... 4 Zilpa Thayer
............ +John Holbrook
........ 5 John Holbrook, Jr.
.............. +Rhoda Thayer
........... 6 John Holbrook III
................. +Mercy Hill
.............. 7 Chloe Holbrook
.................... +James Pierce, Jr.
................. 8 Jonas James Pierce
...................... +Kate Pritzel
................... 9 Scott Pierce
......................... +Mabel Marvin
...................... 10 Marvin Pierce
............................ +Pauline Robinson
......................... 11 Barbara Pierce b: 08 June 1925 in Rye,
MA
Always optimistic--Dave
GORDON E CHALLEEN
1. Obadiah Bruen (b.1606) Gateway ancestor reported to be
descendant of Henry II through William Longespee.
2. Sarah Bruen
+Abraham Kitchel
3. Joseph Kitchel
+ Rachel Bates
4. Grace Kitchel
+ Samuel Ford
5. Phoebe Ford
+ Robert Marvin
6. Samuel Marvin
+Julia Ann Place
7. Jerome Marvin
+ Martha Stokes
8. Mabel Marvin
+ Scott Pierce
9. Marvin Pierce
+ Pauline Robinson
10. Barbara Pierce
+ Pres. George H. W. Bush
Note: Barbara Pierce is a third great grandniece of 14th U.S.
President Franklin Pierce.
Source: "The Continuing Saga of Grace Kitchel Ford, 1740-1818,
Ancestor of First Lady Barbara Bush"; Donald Kiddoo; For the
Genealogy Club of the Library of the New Jersey Historical Society;
17 Feb 1990.
Regards,
Gordon Challeen
Leo van de Pas
I am fortunate to have Roberts's book on the American Presidents and their
wives. Page 236 shows that Sarah Bruen is a granddaughter of Obadiah, not
his daughter. Sarah Bruen's parents are John Bruen and Esther Lawrence
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Perth, Western Australia
'
----- Original Message -----
From: GORDON E CHALLEEN <CHAL...@prodigy.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Bush descent from royalty
GORDON E CHALLEEN
Thank you for bringing it to my attention. You are correct. I
inadvertently
left out one generation. Sarah Bruen was indeed the daughter of John Bruen
and Esther Lawrence of Newark, New Jersey and therefore the granddaughter
of Obadiah Bruen.
Regards,
Gordon Challeen
Leo van de Pas <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:004e01c07135$604df120$43c23bcb@leo...
Ed Mann
>
> Does anyone have the descent of G.W.'s mother, Barbara Pierce? I read on the
> web she is a descendant of US President Franklin Pierce but can't find
> anything further back than her grandfather Jonas Pierce.
Multiple descents from Henry II of England, including:
Selected Descendants of Henry II of England
1 Henry II of England aka: "Curtmantel" b: 25 Mar 1133 d: 8 Jul 1189
ref #: F222:17
+ aka: Countess Ida ref #: (see notes)
2 William Longespee aka: Earl of Salisbury; Named in Magna Charta b:
Abt. 1176 d: 7 Mar 1225/26 ref #: W142-1
+Ela FitzWilliam aka: Ela de Salisbury b: Abt. 1189 d: 24 Aug 1261
ref #: Ä108-28
3 William de Longespee d: 7 Feb 1249/50 ref #: W143-2
+Idoine de Camville d: Abt. 1251 ref #: BxP:100
4 Ida Longespee ref #: Ä30-27
+Walter FitzRobert d: Bef. 10 Apr 1258 ref #: W50-2
5 Ela FitzWalter ref #: W50-3
+William de Odyngsells d: 1294 ref #: (Ä30-28)
6 Ida de Odingsells ref #: AAP:235
+John de Clinton aka: 1st Baron Clinton d: Bef. 1313 ref #:
BxP:124
7 John de Clinton aka: 2d Lord Clinton b: Abt. 1300 d: Abt. 1335
+Margaret Corbet aka: Margery Corbet d: Aft. 1342
8 John de Clinton aka: 3d Lord Clinton b: Bef. Apr 1326 d: 6 Sep 1398
ref #: BPci:466
+Idonea de Say d: Abt. 1384 ref #: W16-7
9 Margaret de Clinton ref #: W16-8
+Baldwin de Montfort
10 William de Montfort ref #: W16-9
+Margaret Peche
11 Robert Montfort ref #: W16-10
12 [2] Katherine Montfort b: 1400 ref #: W16-11
+[1] George Booth d: 1483 ref #: W97-12
13 [3] William Booth aka: Knt. b: 1473 d: 9 Nov 1519 ref #: W97-13
+[4] Ellen Montgomery ref #: BxP:60
14 [5] Jane Booth ref #: W97-14
*2nd Husband of [5] Jane Booth:
+[6] Thomas Holford ref #: (Ä33-38)
15 [7] Dorothy Holford ref #: W97-15
+[8] John Bruen d: 1587 ref #: (Ä33-39)
16 [9] John Bruen b: Abt. 1560 d: 18 Jan 1625/26 ref #: W97-16
+[10] Anne Fox ref #: (Ä33-40)
17 [11] Obadiah Bruen b: Bef. 25 Dec 1606 d: Bef. 1690 ref #: W97-17
+[12] Sarah d: Abt. 25 Mar 1684 ref #: (Ä33-41)
18 [13] John Bruen ref #: AAP:236
+[14] Esther Lawrence ref #: AAP:236
19 [15] Sarah Bruen b: Abt. 1737 d: 3 Jun 1803 ref #: AAP:236
+[16] Abraham Kitchell ref #: AAP:236
20 [17] Joseph Kitchell ref #: AAP:236
+[18] Rachel Bates ref #: AAP:236
21 [19] Grace Kitchell ref #: AAP:236
+[20] Samuel Ford, Jr. ref #: AAP:236
22 [21] Phebe Ford ref #: AAP:236
+[22] Robert Marvin ref #: AAP:236
23 [23] Samuel Ross Marvin ref #: AAP:236
+[24] Julia Anne Place ref #: AAP:236
24 [25] Jerome Place Marvin ref #: AAP:236
+[26] Martha Anne Stokes ref #: AAP:236
25 [27] Mabel Marvin ref #: AAP:236
+[28] Scott Pierce ref #: AAP:236
26 [29] Marvin Pierce ref #: AAP:236
+[30] Pauline Robinson ref #: AAP:236
27 [31] Barbara Pierce b: 8 Jun 1925 ref #: AAP:209
> And was US president Franklin Pierce descended from the gentry or nobles of
> England or anywhere else in France?
Multiple descents from Henry I of England, including:
Selected Descendants of Henry I of England
1 Henry I of England aka: "Beauclerc" b: 1068 d: 1 Dec 1135 ref #:
Ä121-25
2 Robert de Caen aka: Earl of Gloucester b: Abt. 1090 d: 31 Oct 1147
ref #: Ä124-26
+Maud FitzHamon b: Abt. 1090 d: 1157 ref #: (Ä63-26)
3 William FitzRobert aka: 2d Earl of Gloucester d: 25 Nov 1183 ref
#: Ä124-27
4 Mabel aka: Mabel of Gloucester b: Aft. 1127 d: 23 Nov 1183 ref #:
Ä179-1
+Gruffudd ap Ifor Bach d: 1211 ref #: (Ä179-1)
5 Rhys ap Gruffudd ref #: Ä179-2
6 Joan verch Rhys ref #: Ä179-3
+Ralph Maelog ref #: (Ä179-3)
7 Ann ref #: Ä179-4
+Gwrgi Ghant ref #: (Ä179-4)
8 Jenkin ap Gwrgi ref #: Ä179-5
9 Gwilym ap Jenkin ref #: Ä179-6
10 Ann ref #: Ä179-7
+Hywel ap Gruffudd Fab ref #: (Ä179-7)
11 Hywel Fychan ap Hywel ref #: Ä179-8
+Catrin ref #: (Ä179-8)
12 Gwilym Gam ap Hywel Fychan ref #: Ä179-9
+Gwenllian ref #: (Ä179-9)
13 Hywel Melyn ap Gwilym Gam ref #: Ä179-10
14 Ieuan Gwyn ap Hywel Melyn ref #: Ä179-11
+Mabel Cradock ref #: (Ä179-11)
15 Jenkin ref #: Ä179-12
+Jonet ref #: (Ä179-12)
16 [2] Owain ap Jenkin d: Aft. 1565 ref #: Ä179-13
+[1] Alice ferch John ref #: (Ä179-13)
17 [3] Gruffudd Bowen d: Aft. 1566 ref #: Ä179-14
+[4] Anne Berry ref #: (Ä179-14)
18 [5] Philip Bowen ref #: Ä179-15
+[6] Elsbeth Vaughan ref #: (Ä179-14)
19 [7] Francis Bowen ref #: Ä179-16
+[8] Ellen Frankleyn ref #: (Ä179-16)
20 [9] Griffith Bowen b: Abt. 1600 d: Abt. 1675 ref #: Ä179-17
+[10] Margaret Fleming ref #: (Ä179-17)
21 [11] Henry Bowen ref #: AAP:189
+[12] Elizabeth Johnson ref #: AAP:189
22 [13] John Bowen ref #: AAP:189
+[14] Hannah Brewer ref #: AAP:189
23 [15] Abigail Bowen ref #: AAP:189
+[16] Caleb Kendrick ref #: AAP:189
24 [17] Benjamin Kendrick ref #: AAP:189
+[18] Sarah Harris ref #: AAP:189
25 [19] Anna Kendrick ref #: AAP:189
+[20] Benjamin Pierce, Jr. ref #: AAP:189
26 [21] Franklin Pierce aka: 14th President of the United States b:
1804 d: 1869 ref #: AAP:189
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:INET...@atlantic.net
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|'94 atx, vibrant white/opal grey, 113k+; 70mm MAF, K&N, conectomy; |
|'96 brakes; halogen b/u & side lamps, DRLs, xenon headlamp bulbs; |
|Blazer fogs w/ switch mod; SHO Registry (http://www.shoregistry.com) |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
NK1 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_One_, [page].
NK2 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_Two_, [page].
Ś = Hardy, Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America, [pg].
The Bibliographer
GORDON E CHALLEEN <CHAL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Note: Barbara Pierce is a third great grandniece of 14th U.S.
>President Franklin Pierce.
>Source: "The Continuing Saga of Grace Kitchel Ford, 1740-1818,
>Ancestor of First Lady Barbara Bush"; Donald Kiddoo; For the
>Genealogy Club of the Library of the New Jersey Historical Society;
>17 Feb 1990.
I may be very wrong, but I do not think their relationship is that
close. From the data I was able to find in a short search, it appears that
Barbara Pierce Bush is a fourth cousin, four times removed of President
Pierce. It seems that their nearest common, male Pierce ancestor is
Thomas, who died in 1683.
I'd welcome corrections of my errors, if any.
Relationship of President Franklin Pierce to Barbara Pierce Bush
1 Thomas Pierce b: ABT 1583 d: 7 Oct 1666
+ Elizabeth ??? b: ABT 1595 d: 1667
2 Thomas Pierce b: 1608 d: 6 Nov 1683
+ Elizabeth Cole b: ABT 1619 d: 5 Mar 1687/88
3 Stephen Pierce b: 16 Jul 1651 d: 10 Jun 1733
+ Tabitha Parker d: 31 Jan 1741/42
4 Stephen Pierce b: 1679 d: 9 Sep 1749
+ Esther Fletcher b: 1681 d: 1767
5 Benjamin Pierce b: 25 Nov 1726 d: 16 Jun 1764
+ Elizabeth Merrill b: 22 Feb 1727/28
6 Benjamin Pierce b: 25 Dec 1757 d: 1 Apr 1839
+ Elizabeth Andrews b: 1768 d: 13 Aug 1788
7 Franklin Pierce b: 23 Nov 1804 d: 8 Oct 1869
+ Jane Means Appleton b: 12 Mar 1806 d: 2 Dec 1863
3 James Pierce b: 7 May 1659 d: 20 Jan 1741/42
+ Elizabeth Kendall b: 15 Jan 1652/53 d: 16 Oct 1715
4 James Pierce b: 28 Feb 1689/90 d: 21 Dec 1773
+ Hannah ???
5 Joshua Pierce b: 1 Apr 1722 d: 13 Feb 1771
+ Susan Reed
+ Esther Richardson b: 6 Aug 1727 d: 1 Jun 1819
6 James Pierce b: 8 Sep 1768 d: 4 Feb 1849
+ Mary Stacy b: 20 Dec 1774 d: 15 Sep 1847
7 James Pierce b: 24 Sep 1810 d: 2 Dec 1874
+ Chloe Holbrook b: 20 Mar 1816 d: 16 Aug 1886
8 Jonas James Pierce b: 23 Sep 1839 d: 3 Mar 1913
+ Kate Pritzel b: 19 Dec 1841 d: 1931
9 Scott Pierce b: 18 Jan 1866
+ Mabel Marvin b: 4 Jun 1869
10 Marvin Pierce b: 17 Jun 1893 d: 17 Jul 1969
+ Pauline Robinson b: 1896 d: 23 Sep 1949
11 Barbara Pierce
+ George Herbert Walker Bush
12 George Walker Bush
D. Spencer Hines
are 4th cousins, 4 times removed.
Whence cometh the data?
Fortem Posce Animum.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Demagogues, popularizers, prostitutes and charlatans give people what
they want. Statesmen, educators, friends and lovers give them what
they need." DSH, 31 August 1999
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"The Bibliographer" <tip...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:92h42u$q...@rac1.wam.umd.edu...
The Bibliographer
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
>Whence cometh the data?
Several web sites have it. Here is a better presentation, with one glring
error corrected, from: www.bearhaven.com/family/cousins/barbara.html --
with a list of sources.
According to Pierce Genealogy, Frederick Clifton Peirce, Esq., 1882,
Barbara Bush's Pierce correct ancestry is as
follows:
Thomas1 PIERCE 1583-4? -1666 m. Elizabeth WORTINGTON b.1595-6
Thomas2 PIERCE 1618-1683 m.1635 Elizabeth COLE d.1688
James3 PIERCE 1659-1742 m.bef.1688 Elizabeth KENDALL 1653-1715
James4 PIERCE 1690-1773 m.(2)bef.1711 Phebe UNKNOWN d.1776
Joshua5 PIERCE 1722-1771 m(2)1753 Esther RICHARDSON 1727-1819
James6 PIERCE 1768-1849 m.1795 Mary STACY 1774-1847
Gen. James7 PIERCE Jr. 1810-1874 m.1839 Chloe HOLBROOK 1816-1886
Jonas8 James PIERCE 1839-1913 m.1865 Kate PRITZEL 1841-1931
Scott9 PIERCE 1866-aft.1930 m.1891 Mabel MARVIN 1869-193?
Marvin10 PIERCE 1893-1969 m.(1)1918 Pauline ROBINSON 1896-1949
Barbara11 PIERCE 1925- m.1945 George Herbert Walker BUSH 1924-
George Walker BUSH 1946- m.1977 Laura WELCH 1946-
and President Franklin Pierce's ancestry is as follows:
Thomas1 PIERCE 1583-4? -1666 m. Elizabeth WORTINGTON b.1595-6
Thomas2 PIERCE 1618-1683 m.1635 Elizabeth COLE d.1688
Stephen3 PIERCE 1651-1733 m.1676 Tabitha PARKER d.1742
Stephen4 PIERCE 1679-1749 m.1707 Esther FLETCHER 1681-1767
Benjamin5 PIERCE 1726-1764 m.1746 Elizabeth MERRILL b.1727/8
Gen. Benjamin6 PIERCE 1757-1839 m.(2)1790 Anna KENDRICK 1768-1838
Pres. Franklin7 PIERCE 1804-1869 m.1834 Jane M. APPLETON 1806-1863
So Barbara PIERCE Bush 1925- is a fourth cousin four times removed
(4C4R) of President Franklin PIERCE 1804-1869, and not a third great
grandniece as reported. The latest common
ancestor is Thomas2 PIERCE 1608[?]-1683.
From www.bearhaven.com/family/cousin/barbara.html -- with list of sources.
D. Spencer Hines
Thank you.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Demagogues, popularizers, prostitutes and charlatans give people what
they want. Statesmen, educators, friends and lovers give them what
they need." DSH, 31 August 1999
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"The Bibliographer" <tip...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:92ha99$3...@rac4.wam.umd.edu...
sper...@rci.rutgers.edu
Pierce Bush descend from?
Thanks,
Steven C. Perkins
Steven C. Perkins sper...@rci.rutgers.edu
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~scperkins/
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~sperkins/hdtv.html
THERON L. SMITH
<< So Barbara PIERCE Bush 1925- is a fourth cousin four times removed
(4C4R) of President Franklin PIERCE 1804-1869, and not a third great
grandniece as reported. The latest common ancestor is Thomas2 PIERCE
1608[?]-1683.>>
Former President Bush also has an ancestral PIERCE line. Does anyone know if
and how he and wife, Barbara PIERCE BUSH are distantly related?
Theron Smith
The Thill Group, Inc.
4 Mabel aka: Mabel of Gloucester b: Aft. 1127 d: 23 Nov 1183 ref #:
Ä179-1
+Gruffudd ap Ifor Bach d: 1211 ref #: (Ä179-1)
Is this the same as
1 Mabel FitzWilliam (Alias: "Mabel of Gloucester" ) born: Aft. 1127 died:
November 23, 1183
. +Amaury DeMontfort
Becky T.
ttg...@home.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Mann <INET...@atlantic.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Bush descent from royalty
> O = Hardy, Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America, [pg].
Grant Menzies
http://www.geocities.com/~tfboettger/russian/counts.htm#N
Grant
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tracy Scarpino
gleaned there were some counts with the first name Nicolai. I really
don't know what to make of the Nicolai story my great-grandmother was
told.
Grant Menzies
>Thanks Grant. That webpage was all messed up in my browser but I
>gleaned there were some counts with the first name Nicolai. I really
>don't know what to make of the Nicolai story my great-grandmother was
>told.
Sorry about the mess-ups - Tim includes Cyrillic script on the site
which not all browsers can disentangle. Yes, Nikolai is a name many
Russians have born as a Christian name over many centuries, but as a
surname or name associated with a title, I don't know of any. I was
lax in my reference to "legitimated children of grand dukes or tsars"
- I meant natural children who were then given a name by their father
on being legitimated according to law. A child of Catherine the Great
could be given a name referring to the beaverskin in which he was
wrapped as an infant, but I've yet to see a Russian titular surname
like "Nikolai."
Tracy Scarpino
Perhaps the guy who fled Russia had the given name of Nicolai and
then it was turned to his surname when he went to Germany? I don't
know... I give up... thanks for your help!!
Tracy
Ed Mann
>
> Ed Mann said:
>
> 4 Mabel aka: Mabel of Gloucester b: Aft. 1127 d: 23 Nov 1183 ref #:
> Ä179-1
> +Gruffudd ap Ifor Bach d: 1211 ref #: (Ä179-1)
>
> Is this the same as
>
> 1 Mabel FitzWilliam (Alias: "Mabel of Gloucester" ) born: Aft. 1127 died:
> November 23, 1183
> . +Amaury DeMontfort
Dunno.
D. Spencer Hines
Please note, I said a POSSIBILITY.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Tracy Scarpino" <sca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p04320413b6769850b3b3@[63.209.88.48]...
The Thill Group, Inc.
Thank you.
Becky T.
ttg...@home.com
* ttg-inc = The Thill Group, Inc., a corporation for contract programming.
Only related to the genealogy line I work with as a means to receive my
e-mails.
* T. = Thill, as in the owner of The Thill Group, Inc.
* The genealogy information asked or shared is for my personal hobby of
genealogy and not connected to the contract programming corporation that I
own.
:)
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Mann <INET...@atlantic.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Bush descent from royalty
Leo van de Pas
these two ladies are half-sisters.
the wife of Amaury de Montfort (source Paget) is a legitimate daughter of
William 2nd Earl of Gloucester and Hawise de Beaumont
Gary Boyd Roberts in Presidential ancestors
page 189 tells the other Mabel is an illegitimate daughter of the same
William but no mother is mentioned
Weiss, Ancestral Roots, 7th edition page 154 even mentions that the link
with William was discovered by Nickerson (NGSQ 67:163-166)
Hope this helps.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas