Review of Douglas Richardson's book, Plantagenet ancestry: a study in colonial and medieval families
KBra...@lourdes-pad.org
Fellow
Plantagenet
Researchers:
I've been
skimming Douglas
Richardson's
book, Plantagenet
ancestry: a study
in
colonial and
medieval families
("PA3"), since
it's arrival
yesterday and
can't
put it down.
Due to the
collaborative
relationship
between Dr. Faris
and Douglas
Richardson, this
book is naturally
similar to its
predecessor,
Plantagenet
ancestry of
seventeenth-
century
colonists, 2nd
ed. Douglas'
book inherits
PA2's strengths,
as well as its
weaknesses.
Faris was not
always inclined
to discuss every
child of a given
couple,
even those who
are not difficult
of access (e.g.,
by consulting
other
readily-available
secondary works).
I find PA3 has
the same
limitations.
However, I've yet
to read *any*
compendium that
is totally
comprehensive.
Another
weakness is the
fact that this
book treats only
185 or so
immigrants:
Roberts has
so many more
possibilities for
the average
searcher to
connect to in his
book, Royal
Descents of 600
Immigrants, etc.
(RD600), because
that author
focuses on more
than the
Plantagenet
dynasty for his
descents.
However, the
latter work can't
even come close
to the staggering
detail in PA3.
Gary Roberts
wasn't kidding
when he lavishly
praised
Douglas
Richardson's
book. Of course,
much of the
biographical
material in the
work is
lifted straight
out of The
Complete Peerage,
but people who
don't have access
to that
resource will
appreciate seeing
it in an
affordable, and
available,
format. To own a
set of The
Complete Peerage
(Sutton
Publishing,
microprint
edition), many
researchers
will have to skip
a mortgage
payment.
DR has a
well-developed
and detailed
summary of the
parentage of
Isabel, wife of
Sir Thomas
Shirley.
He has Isabel as
da. of Alice de
Audley & her 2nd
husband, Hugh de
Meynell (citing
the will of Ralph
Basset, lord
Basset of Drayton
& the 1423
marriage
dispensation
between Ralph
Shirley &
Margaret
Staunton--the
latter a de
Meynell heir).
This
is an excellent
piece of research
(pp. 650-51).
There are several
other examples
in the book of
Richardson's
scholarly
analysis breaking
new ground.
There will be
numerous changes
to my gedcom, as
soon as I have
the opportunity
to
fully digest
Richardson's tome
and compare it
with my other
resources. This
book
is hardly the
disaster that
some others have
been hoping it
would be. The
format,
design and
background
material all
belong to the
mind of the late
Dr. David Faris,
so Richardson
inherited a work
with most of the
pieces already in
place. However,
quite a few of
Faris' lines
didn't fit
together
completely (a
case in point
being
the Talbot
lineage).
Richardson has
done a
commendable job
tying up the
loose
ends and linking
these families in
an ever-tighter
bond of familial
relationships.
All the best,
Kevin Bradford,
M.L.S.
Plantagenet
Genealogy &
Biography:
http://home.earth
link.net/~kb60/pl
antagenet01.htm
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Leo van de Pas
view of the work of Douglas Richardson.
Without going into too many details he gives his opinion and this opinion
answers to me several of the prejudiced waffle thrown at me by one of the
wild and woolly people who lay in ambush to attack anyone who might be
perceived to criticise Douglas Richardson and his work.
First I think it is rather cheap for people like Phil Moody to accuse me of
making "an absolutely false statement" and, when I explain, does not bother
to withdraw his intemperate and wrong statement.
Then there is another wild and woolly person who seems to believe that by
belittling David Faris he can make a monument out of Douglas Richardson.
To quote myself:
I have said before on Gen-Med that I expect PA3 to be very good, after all
the basis has been laid by David Faris (and others, which includes DR). For
Douglas Richardson to stuff up would be the most stupid thing to do ever,
after all he has been on many fishing trips on gen-med and many a time has
asked people to assist him.
The remark I received was :
Strange that you should use David Faris's previous work as evidence of a
"basis". My painfully limited work with Douglas Richardson's book included
no less than having in my hands the Faris work and the evidence of at least
one glaring mistake by him. Oops.
What does Kevin Bradford say?
Due to the collaborative relationship between Dr. Faris anbd Douglas
Richardson, this book is naturally similar to its predecessor, Plantagenet
ancestry of seventeenth century colonists, 2nd ed. Douglas' book inherits
PA2's strenghts, as well as its weaknesses.
Kevin Bradford sees as a weakness that DR treats only 185 or so immigrants.
I don't know that this should be seen as a weakness, after all DR and David
Faris restricted themselves to a time period. Gary Boyd Roberts does not
have a time limit and, in my opinion, even included people "on a holiday" in
the United States. And to give a great deal of information about a few (185
or so) seems to me better than the enormous number of people with hardly
any. I think I pointed out earlier that had GBR used dates one error would
not have been made.
Kevin Bradford maintains "Gary Boyd Roberts wasn't kidding when he lavishly
praised Douglas Richardson's book. I don't know Gary Boyd Roberts but I have
been told he is a very exhuberant person. Your and my superlatives about
what kind of day it is, apparently, fade into insignificance with the kind
of expressions GBR would employ.
David Nelson, in his unbriddled praise for Douglas Richardson's book, seems
to think he does not have to explain where he comes from. He was a
contributor to this book, however small or large, he has vested interests
and should have stated them as then whatever he said would appear more
honest than it did.
And here I come to the crux of my message: these wild and woolly people,
laying in ambush to attack, rightly or wrongly, anyone who seems to be
criticising DR or his work, should realise that most of the time they do DR
more harm than good. Their partisan behaviour only harms genealogy. "You are
against DR? Therefor you must be wrong." does not serve genealogy.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Kelsey J. Williams
Yesterday I received my copy of _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (ordered via
GPC last Saturday) and thought I'd make a few comments concerning it.
I. FORMAT
Generally the format seems very good. I like the 8/5 x 11 pages and
the text size, although a little large, seems to be about right. I do
have a few minor complaints though. All cross-references are to lines
(i.e. "Butler 16" or "Lunsford 11") and although one can look up the
cross-referenced person in the index easily enough it would be nice to
have had the line name at the top of every page (as in Burke's or the
CP) for convenient flipping.
The main point which bothers me about the format is the style of the
source citations. Having them in a sort of viscuous glob of data
after each person makes it very difficult to pinpoint where this or
that piece of data came from. In the future I would heartily
recommend keying citations to individual statements.
PA3 has made one distinct alternation for the better in the standard
format for royal descent publications and that is the inclusion of a
list of all the children of the person mentioned. There usually isn't
any further detail beyond names (and spouses for women) but that's
still a great improvement over AR7 or MCS5.
II. CONTENT
Most of my own Plantagenet descents are via Joan Beaufort and her
Scottish husbands so I am not intimately familiar with very many of
the lines covered in PA3 however I will provide a few observations on
two I do have some familiarity with.
Mr. Richardson has done an admirable job with the Aston descent (pp.
47-48) and has exorcised all mention of the Walter Aston of the West
Indies as being the same as Walter Aston of Virginia. However, he
states that the Walter Aston who married Joyce Nason died in 1647 and
his only source is the 1633-35 Visitation of London. It would be nice
if, in spite of professional differences, Richardson would have
acknowledged that Walter Sr.'s death date and the altered opinion
about Walter Jr. came from Paul Reed's article on the subject in _The
American Genealogist_.
It was with regret that I saw that the entire
Beaufort-Stradling-Dennis line has remained in its almost certainly
incorrect form (pp. 77-78, 263). I hope that in future editions this
error will be remedied.
III. ORIGINALITY
There have been a number of comments on s.g.m. about the originality
or lack thereof of PA3. I think that this is perhaps being looked at
the wrong way. Any work dealing with the Plantagenet ancestries of
early American colonists is going to be on well-trodden ground and I
think that for the area he has been working in Mr. Richardson has
actually made a surprising number of new discoveries.
IV. SUMMARY
Over all I would rate PA3 quite high on the scale. Although it is
mostly based on previously researched material there is enough new
material and enough new syntheses of older material to make it a
valuable addition to the library of any medieval genealogist. I
expect that in the years to come it will be placed next to AR7, MCS5 &
RD600 in the pantheon of royal descent publications.
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams
Michael
>
>"NEWDIGATE POYNTZ, of Benefield, Northamptonshire, youngest son,
>baptized at Reigate, Surrey 16 Nov. 1608. He is of record at
>Benefield in 1628. He married (1st) about 1627 SARAH FOXLEY, ...
>They had six sons and five daughters. His wife, Sarah, was buried at
>Benefield, Northamptonshire 31 May 1636. He married (2nd) before 30
>Jan. 1636/7 by contract dated 20 Sept. 1636 ANNE FOREST ..."
>
>How would it have been possible for Sarah Poyntz to have had 11
>children between 1627 and 1636??
>
A couple sets of twins, perhaps.
Michael
Leo van de Pas
The period is vague, the marriage was "about 1627" it could have been a
year earlier and then throw in a twin or two, it doesn't say all children
survived.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: Review of Douglas Richardson's book, Plantagenet ancestry: a
study in colonial and medieval families
> Also, there may be a problem with this statement (and I remember
> something similar in PA2) ...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Also, there may be a problem with this statement (and I remember
> something similar in PA2) ...
>
> p. 560:
>
> "NEWDIGATE POYNTZ, of Benefield, Northamptonshire, youngest son,
> baptized at Reigate, Surrey 16 Nov. 1608. He is of record at
> Benefield in 1628. He married (1st) about 1627 SARAH FOXLEY, ...
> They had six sons and five daughters. His wife, Sarah, was buried at
> Benefield, Northamptonshire 31 May 1636. He married (2nd) before 30
> Jan. 1636/7 by contract dated 20 Sept. 1636 ANNE FOREST ..."
>
> How would it have been possible for Sarah Poyntz to have had 11
> children between 1627 and 1636??
Apologies for this off-topic information. The only children I have on
record for the above couple are these eight in John Maclean's "Memoirs
of the Family of Poyntz" pub 1886, p. 198:
Baptism Child
======= =====
12 Jan 1628/9 Thomas Poyntz, bur. 26 Mar 1677
3 Jan 1629/30 John Poyntz, bur 12 Aug 1712
18 Nov 1630 Charles Poyntz, d. bef. 1645
8 Jan 1631-2 Dorothy Poyntz, d. 2 Aug 1705
16 Jan 1632/3 Francis Poyntz, bur 22 Sep 1684
14 Jan 1633/4 Mary Poyntz, d. unknown
29 Jan 1633/4 Sarah Poyntz, bur 2 May 1635
29 May 1636 Elizabeth Poyntz, bur same day
Looks like Mary and Sarah might have been twins. I agree that
squeezing in another three children looks difficult.
The eleven children might well be those that survived Newdigate Poyntz,
six by his first and five by his third wife, Mary Parkyns (Maclean
above, p. 187). However Maclean only gives the name of one of these five
later children, William, an upholsterer and the great grandfather of
Elizabeth Georgina Poyntz, countess Spencer.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org