Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ?

[Leo]

In 2011 Hugo Vickers published "Behind Closed Doors, The Tragic, Untold Story of the Duchess of Windsor".

In this book are two family trees. In one he gives a line from the Duchess of Windsor via Nicholas Wyatt 1620-ca1673, and son (?) of the Rev. Hawte Wyatt, all the way to King Edward I of England.

But the one incredible 'find' he describes on page 377.

"The Duchess (of Windsor) also descended from King Henry III, the Plantagenet King, via his son, Edmund 'Crouchback'. His son, Henry, had a daughter, Joan, who married John De Mowbray. John married Elizabeth de Segrave and their daughter, Eleanor, married John de Welles.
Their son, Eudo de Welles married Maud de Greystoke and was father to Lionel de Welles, 6th Lord Welles, KG (1457) (ca 1406-ca 1434 (*), who married Margaret Beauchamp, widow of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, KG (1439), bringing more Garter ancestry to the Duchess's line.
Their daughter (**), Cicely (d.1466), married Sir Robert Willoughby, of Parham, Suffolk. Their great-granddaughter, Elizabeth (ca.1516-80) married Thomas Totteshurst. Their daughter, Ann, married Richard Thomas, whose son Christopher Thomas went to Virginia in 1635."

First (*) does he mean that Lionel Welles lived from ca 1406 to ca 1434, yet became a KG in 1457? I have Lionel killed in battle in 1461. Obviously a typographical error by Vickers.

(**) As Tony Hoskins pointed out to me Cicely is a daughter by the first wife of Lionel, not by Margaret Beauchamp.

As his Christopher Thomas went to Virginia in 1635, he is a Gateway Ancestor, and if he is a descendant of King Henry III, he is a Royal Gateway Ancestor. But is he?

I looked in Douglas Richardson's meticulously indexed "Plantagenet Ancestry" where Christopher Thomas was not to be found. I went to the book by David Faris and Gary Boyd Roberts' 600 Immigrants and, there too, no Christopher Thomas was to be found.......................

Any comments?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

[Wjhonson]

I think he means he has no good idea when Lionel was BORN

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 2, 2012 12:03 pm
Subject: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ?


In 2011 Hugo Vickers published "Behind Closed Doors, The Tragic, Untold Story of

he Duchess of Windsor".
In this book are two family trees. In one he gives a line from the Duchess of

indsor via Nicholas Wyatt 1620-ca1673, and son (?) of the Rev. Hawte Wyatt, all

he way to King Edward I of England.
But the one incredible 'find' he describes on page 377.
"The Duchess (of Windsor) also descended from King Henry III, the Plantagenet

ing, via his son, Edmund 'Crouchback'. His son, Henry, had a daughter, Joan,

ho married John De Mowbray. John married Elizabeth de Segrave and their

aughter, Eleanor, married John de Welles.
Their son, Eudo de Welles married Maud de Greystoke and was father to

ionel de Welles, 6th Lord Welles, KG (1457) (ca 1406-ca 1434 (*), who married

argaret Beauchamp, widow of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, KG (1439),

ringing more Garter ancestry to the Duchess's line.
Their daughter (**), Cicely (d.1466), married Sir Robert Willoughby, of

arham, Suffolk. Their great-granddaughter, Elizabeth (ca.1516-80) married

homas Totteshurst. Their daughter, Ann, married Richard Thomas, whose son

hristopher Thomas went to Virginia in 1635."
First (*) does he mean that Lionel Welles lived from ca 1406 to ca 1434, yet

ecame a KG in 1457? I have Lionel killed in battle in 1461. Obviously a

ypographical error by Vickers.
(**) As Tony Hoskins pointed out to me Cicely is a daughter by the first wife of

ionel, not by Margaret Beauchamp.
As his Christopher Thomas went to Virginia in 1635, he is a Gateway Ancestor,

nd if he is a descendant of King Henry III, he is a Royal Gateway Ancestor. But

s he?
I looked in Douglas Richardson's meticulously indexed "Plantagenet Ancestry"

here Christopher Thomas was not to be found. I went to the book by David Faris

nd Gary Boyd Roberts' 600 Immigrants and, there too, no Christopher Thomas was

o be found.......................
Any comments?
With best wishes

eo van de Pas,
anberra, Australia

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message

[Leo]

Dear Will,

I believe the tradition is to show the year of birth and death. If he wanted to show his insecurity it would have been ca.1406/ca.1434 - 1461, but this is trivia, the main "find" is this new "royal gateway ancestor". Can you shine any light on that?

Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: Wjhonson
To: can...@netspeed.com.au ; GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ?


I think he means he has no good idea when Lionel was BORN





-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 2, 2012 12:03 pm
Subject: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ?


In 2011 Hugo Vickers published "Behind Closed Doors, The Tragic, Untold Story of

the Duchess of Windsor".

In this book are two family trees. In one he gives a line from the Duchess of

Windsor via Nicholas Wyatt 1620-ca1673, and son (?) of the Rev. Hawte Wyatt, all
the way to King Edward I of England.

But the one incredible 'find' he describes on page 377.

"The Duchess (of Windsor) also descended from King Henry III, the Plantagenet

King, via his son, Edmund 'Crouchback'. His son, Henry, had a daughter, Joan,
who married John De Mowbray. John married Elizabeth de Segrave and their
daughter, Eleanor, married John de Welles.

Their son, Eudo de Welles married Maud de Greystoke and was father to

Lionel de Welles, 6th Lord Welles, KG (1457) (ca 1406-ca 1434 (*), who married
Margaret Beauchamp, widow of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, KG (1439),
bringing more Garter ancestry to the Duchess's line.

Their daughter (**), Cicely (d.1466), married Sir Robert Willoughby, of

Parham, Suffolk. Their great-granddaughter, Elizabeth (ca.1516-80) married
Thomas Totteshurst. Their daughter, Ann, married Richard Thomas, whose son
Christopher Thomas went to Virginia in 1635."

First (*) does he mean that Lionel Welles lived from ca 1406 to ca 1434, yet

became a KG in 1457? I have Lionel killed in battle in 1461. Obviously a
typographical error by Vickers.

(**) As Tony Hoskins pointed out to me Cicely is a daughter by the first wife of

Lionel, not by Margaret Beauchamp.

As his Christopher Thomas went to Virginia in 1635, he is a Gateway Ancestor,

and if he is a descendant of King Henry III, he is a Royal Gateway Ancestor. But
is he?

I looked in Douglas Richardson's meticulously indexed "Plantagenet Ancestry"

where Christopher Thomas was not to be found. I went to the book by David Faris
and Gary Boyd Roberts' 600 Immigrants and, there too, no Christopher Thomas was
to be found.......................

Any comments?

With best wishes

Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

[Nathaniel Taylor]

Leo, we've been around this before. In common usage in US
genealogical journals at least, a 'gateway ancestor' is someone who
transmits a traceable ancestry in any one discrete population to
descendants in another population. In the case of 17th-century
American settlers, the vast majority are of unknown ancestry, and
most of those whose origin is known only contribute a traceable
ancestry of an additional one or two generations; so these are by
convention not called 'gateway ancestors', which in the context of
early settlers is reserved for those whose traceable ancestry
includes several generations, almost inevitably linking to medieval
noble lines somewhere, and through them to the great interwoven
medieval European noble family tree.

Looking quickly online for this Christopher Thomas who founded a
family in Maryland, it seems as if there is a traditional
identification of gentry ancestry which has been disputed in favor of
making him the son of another Christopher Thomas, yeoman, of
Orpington, Kent, who died testate in 1635/6 with a son Christopher
then overseas; this would invalidate the parentage claimed in the
passage quoted by Leo. Perhaps someone familiar with the case could
comment briefly?

Nat Taylor

[Leo]

Dear Nat,

My aim is to refute the line. Also Nicholas Wyatt is not a son of Rev. Hawte
Wyatt. I think Hugo Vickers has done genealogy a great deal of harm with the
trees and description in his book.

I understood a Gateway Ancestor is one who came from one country and went
to another? Whether we know their parents or not. Being a migrant myself
(under very different circumstances) I think they were exceptional people
leaving behind their known world for the uncertainty in a new world.

Many thanks for your message.

Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nlta...@nltaylor.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ?

[Nathaniel Taylor]

>>Leo, we've been around this before. In common usage in US
>>genealogical journals at least, a 'gateway ancestor' is someone who
>>transmits a traceable ancestry in any one discrete population to
>>descendants in another population. In the case of 17th-century
>>American settlers, the vast majority are of unknown ancestry, and
>>most of those whose origin is known only contribute a traceable
>>ancestry of an additional one or two generations; so these are by
>>convention not called 'gateway ancestors', which in the context of
>>early settlers is reserved for those whose traceable ancestry
>>includes several generations, almost inevitably linking to medieval
>>noble lines somewhere, and through them to the great interwoven
>>medieval European noble family tree.
>

>I understood a Gateway Ancestor is one who came from one country and
>went to another? Whether we know their parents or not. Being a
>migrant myself (under very different circumstances) I think they
>were exceptional people leaving behind their known world for the
>uncertainty in a new world.

Leo, you and I had an identical discussion about this here back in
1995 or so, and you explained your use of the term 'gateway ancestor'
in your own database to signify such immigrants, but this is not the
common usage. Certainly most settlers are (in the main) brave and
resourceful people and worthy of flagging in one's database, etc. But
the term 'gateway ancestor' was coined, years earlier, for a specific
genealogical use, in the narrow context of climbing genealogical
trees: a gateway permits one climbing one sort of tree (colonists) to
graft on another tree (late-medieval gentry). A gateway does not have
to be a geographic migrant, but could be one who 'migrates' from one
population to another, for example a significant inter-racial
marriage bringing traceable ancestry in one population to descendants
in another.

Nat Taylor

[Leo]

Dear Nat,

Do you think I should change it in my system? Could you coin a phrase for
"Gateway Ancestors" without parents? I think they should be identifiable.

At the moment I am slowly in a process in my data base where you can
request -Gateways- but also those who went from one specific country to
another specific country (usually to the USA, Canada or South America).

With many thanks

Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nlta...@nltaylor.net>
To: "Leo" <can...@netspeed.com.au>
Cc: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ?

[John Dobson]

As Lawrence Bouett pointed out in a posting to this group dated 10 April 2001, Anthony Richard Wagner's English Genealogy credits the coinage of the term "gateway ancestor" to Major Francis Jones:

"A Study of royal descents brings out forcibly the importance of what Major Francis Jones has conveniently named the 'gateway ancestor'. The marriage of Henry Percy, called Hotspur, to Elizabeth Mortimer, Edward III's great-granddaughter, in 1379, spread the royal blood largely through the gentry of north eastern England."

This is from the 2nd edition (1972), p. 238, but I think the 1st edition (1960), my copy of which I can't find at the moment, says the same thing. Although Wagner doesn't give a precise citation, a few pages earlier he quotes Jones's paper "An Approach to Welsh Genealogy," Cymmrodorion Society Transactions, 1948, so perhaps that is the source, but I haven't checked it.

Wagner goes on to list several other examples of gateway ancestors, and as his book is doubtless largely responsible for the popularization of the term, it only seems fair that the meaning he gives it should be accorded some weight. These examples support the definition given by Nat Taylor. A gateway ancestor is a person with some kind of uncommon ancestry (usually royal) who transmits this to a large group of descendants; in other words, a genetic bottleneck. It is irrelevant whether such a person is an immigrant. Likewise, contrary to a recent discussion on another newsgroup, the term does not merely imply an immigrant whose parentage is known.

John Blythe Dobson


>>> Nathaniel Taylor <nlta...@nltaylor.net> 02-Feb-12 3:32 PM >>>

[Leo]

Dear John Blythe Dobson,

You are trying to do terrible things to me :-) For the sake of my website I think I should stick to those who moved from Europe to America (north and south). I may be a little loose with the time frame.

Off line someone suggested the word Immigrant for those who arrived without known parents, making those with known parents Gateway Ancestors.

I extracted all Gateway Ancestors from my website, which meant printing 40 pages with approx. 22 names per page, and now I am on page 4 making changes.

I still hope people will comment on the two people who are ancestors of the Duchess of Windsor and linked by Hugo Vickers to royalty. Especially Nicholas Wyatt.

I have been reading a bit more in the book itself. Page 246 under a heading "Ancestry and Relations" he starts with : "The Duchess descended twice over from Henry III on her father's side." What nonsense. That supposed line goes via the Rev. Hawte Wyatt and according to my system, the Rev. Hawte Wyatt has at least 10 lines to Henry III.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: John Dobson
To: Leo ; Nathaniel Taylor
Cc: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ?

[John Dobson]

Hi Leo,

Perhaps my last message could have been phrased better. I wrote that it
is "irrelevant" whether a gateway ancestor is an immigrant. It may be
strictly irrelevant to the definition, but in the literature, a gateway
ancestor is in fact often an immigrant simply because the circumstance
separates them from the genetic group conveying the ancestry of
interest, and allows them to introduce that ancestry to a new
population. Also, if one accepts the characterization of a gateway
ancestor as a "bottleneck," an immigrant might simply be the last in a
succession — not necessarily an unbroken succession — of persons who
would fit such a characterization, but would be the most genealogically
interesting. (The last person in the succession necessarily has the
greatest total traceable ancestry, and would tend to have the most
unique combinations of interesting ancestry.)

Of course, the project you describe is interesting in itself. There are
excellent reasons for trying to identify the places of origin and
parentage of immigrants that have nothing to do with discovering
particular kinds of ancestry, noble or otherwise. It is important to
make inventories of immigrants, because the patterns that emerge suggest
new avenues of research and promote fresh discoveries. However, with Nat
Taylor, I think it is important to reserve the term "gateway ancestor"
for the specific situation for which it was originally coined. If the
idea that it refers to immigrants with known parents continues to gain a
foothold, it will cause a serious incompatibility with previous
historiography.

I won't attempt to comment on the book by Vickers, as I'm sure there
are others on this list better qualified to do that.

Best wishes,
John Blythe Dobson


>>> "Leo" <can...@netspeed.com.au> 02-Feb-12 8:22 PM >>>

[Wjhonson]

I have Cecily de Welles as one of the daughters of Lionel's *first* wife Miss de Waterton whose first name was either Beatrice, Cecily, or Joan evidently. This lady died 18 Oct 1434 and it was only in 1447, or at least after her second husband John the earl of Somerset died (27 Mar 1444) that Margaret Beauchamp was free to marry lastly to Lionel

On the other hand Cecily de Welles married Robert Willoughby of Eresby and they had a son Christopher who inherited that place. I have doubts that there is enough time for Cecily to have been born so late as to be a daughter of Margaret. I don't know why Cecily is dead IN 1466, this would be the death date for her husband Robert who died on 30 May either in 1465 or 1466, perhaps his wife is named dead by that time I don't know. I have no death date for her at all.



At any rate, I suspect this supposed connection from Cicely de Welles to some Elizabeth (Somebody) Totteshurst. Sounds highly unlikely

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 2, 2012 12:03 pm

I looked in Douglas Richardson's meticulously indexed "Plantagenet Ancestry"
where Christopher Thomas was not to be found. I went to the book by David Faris
and Gary Boyd Roberts' 600 Immigrants and, there too, no Christopher Thomas was
to be found.......................

Any comments?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

[John]

You need to do more research before making these assertions....

What specific piece of the connection from Cecily Welles to Elizabeth,
wife of Thomas Totteshurst, are you questioning? The descent is well
documented in visitation pedigrees, as a start.

BTW you should also check your sources on the issue of whether the
Waterton mother of Cecily d. 18 Oct 1434. Douglas Richardson, for
one, says otherwise in his books (not that he's always right,
but....).

And Cecily's husband was Sir Robert Willoughby of Parham, not Eresby -
a different branch of the family. And he died in 1465, not 1466.

[TJ Booth]

Leo,

As Nat notes below, the definition of 'gateway ancestor' has been discussed
on SGM many times, but without any apparent common agreement. One major
problem for everyone is that the word 'royal' does not appear in the term,
yet many interpret it as implying a royal connection.

Accepting Nat's 'common usage in US genealogical journals' as the most
defensible definition, this would seem to make the term inappropriate for
your use. But many words have more than one meaning - can you simply define
the term as you wish and then include a link to the definition every time
the term is used? Using a different definition is certainly consistent with
other SGM posts - for instance, in 1999 John Ravilious posted an ahnentafel
for 'gateway ancestor' Samuel Hyde d. 12 Sep 1689 in Newton MA (a royal
pedigree later apparently found to be flawed) - see
archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/1999-11/0943640785.

The 'common usage' definition is not without its own problems. Borrowing
Nat's concept of grafting one population tree branch onto another tree, this
begs the question of exactly how one distinguishes between a natural branch
and a grafted one. Does Sancha de Ayala m. Sir Walter Blount qualify as a
gateway ancestor because of her likely Spanish royal ancestry? Or is royal
ancestry even necessary - does a French woman with a ten generation albeit
non-royal ancestry constitute a 'gateway ancestor' to her American or
Australian husband and descendants? There is certainly no mention of royalty
in the term itself - so what does the 'common usage' definition require
beyond two persons of very different backgrounds to marry and have children?
Absent a clear 'common usage' definition - is there one? - its usage would
seem very large.

You might consider using a term like 'gateway immigrant' instead. It does
suggest a special kind of immigrant, which is what I think you intend. It
also does not (at least to my knowledge) have a 'common usage' definition
others might find fault with. Even so, this term would still seem to apply
to anyone with an extended pre-emigration ancestry. If the term is intended
to apply only to persons with royal ancestries, then it would seem best to
describe them as a 'royal gateway immigrant'. This also allows for
identifying other types of gateway immigrants such as by nationality or race
or religion - i.e. Spanish gateway immigrant.

While you may be focusing on immigrants with a royal ancestry that move from
one continent to another (i.e. Europe to the Americas or Australia, Asia to
the Americas, etc), an immigrant by definition only requires moving from one
country to another. In that sense, Sancha de Ayala would still qualify as a
'royal gateway immigrant' - as would William the Conqueror, who emigrated
from France to England and brought with him a Carolingian ancestry. To my
way of thinking, both also are royal gateway immigrants but for a different
reason, since if 'crossing the water' from one continent to another
qualifies, why not 'crossing the water' to an island nation? This again
points to the need for a clear definition of how you want to use the term.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nlta...@nltaylor.net>
To: "Leo" <can...@netspeed.com.au>
Cc: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 2, 10:22 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

<  I have Cecily de Welles as one of the daughters of Lionel's *first*
wife Miss de Waterton whose first name was either Beatrice, Cecily, or
Joan evidently.  This lady died 18 Oct 1434 <and it was only in 1447,
or at least after her second husband  John the earl of Somerset died
(27 Mar 1444) that Margaret Beauchamp was free to marry lastly to

Lionel.

Lionel (or Leo) Welles, K.G., 6th Lord Welles (died 1461) married
(1st) at St. Oswald’s, Methley, Yorkshire 15 Aug. 1417 Joan (or Jane)
Waterton, daughter of Robert Waterton, Esq., of Methley, Yorkshire,
Master of the Horse, Master of the Hounds, Chief Forester of
Knaresborough, Keeper of Pontefract Castle, Steward, Master Forester,
and Bailiff of Hatfield, by his 2nd wife, Cecily, daughter of Robert
Fleming, Knt. They had one son, Richard, Knt. [7th Lord Welles], and
four daughters, Cecily, Margaret, Eleanor, and Katherine. His wife,
Joan, was living 18 Oct. 1434. Lionel (or Leo) Welles married (2nd)
by license dated 14 April 1447 and settlement dated 20 April 1447
Margaret Beauchamp, widow successively of Oliver Saint John, Knt.
(died 1437), and John Beaufort, K.G., Duke of Somerset (died 27 May
1444), and daughter of John Beauchamp, Knt., of Bletsoe, Bedfordshire,
by his 2nd wife, Edith, daughter of John Stourton, Knt. They had one
son, John, K.G. [Viscount Welles, 10th Lord Welles].

For evidence that Joan (or Jane) Waterton (not Beatrice or Cecily
Waterton) was the mother of Sir Lionel Welles' four daughters, see the
following record dated 1487 taken from the A2A Catalogue:

Sheffield Archives: Bacon Frank MSS, BFM/379 (Deed of partition dated
26 April 1487 between Sir Christopher Willoughbie, Knt., Sir Robert
Dymock, Knt., Thomas Lawrense, Esq., Robert Tempest, Esq., (in the
right of Dame Katherine his wife, late wife to Sir Thomas Delaland,
Knt.) all (excepting Robert Tempest) cousins and (through their
grandmother Jane) heirs to the estate of the late Sir Robert Waterton,
Knt., brother to the said Jane) (available at www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).

Further particulars on this family can be found in my two books,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2nd ed., 2011) and Magna Carta Ancestry (2nd
ed., 2011), and also in my forthcoming book, Royal Ancestry, scheduled
for publication later this year.

Best Always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

My last post on Lionel (or Leo) Welles merged Will Johnson's comments
into my own comments, which was not intended. To make things clearer,
I'm reposting my message again and placing Will's comments at the end
of my post. DR

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + +

[Leo]

Dear Terry,

Many thanks for your message. I intend to use the term in my system for
those people who crossed the ocean from Europe to America and simply add the
word royal when I know the individual has royal ancestors. Also I try to add
on that line names of ships and dates when they arrived.

To use Gateway Ancestor within a country I think is too hard.

If you go to Genealogics and go to Text Search, there you see a line 'search
occupation' if you enter Gateway, you will find 899 results. However if you
enter only "England - USA" you get 473 results. Sadly for me "France -
Canada" only brings 14 replies.

At the moment I am working on improving these entries.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

[Nathaniel Taylor]

At 8:09 AM +1100 2/4/12, Leo wrote:

>...I intend to use the term in my system for those people who

>crossed the ocean from Europe to America and simply add the word
>royal when I know the individual has royal ancestors. Also I try to
>add on that line names of ships and dates when they arrived.
>

>To use Gateway Ancestor within a country I think is too hard. ...

Leo, your database is of course your own (and we all agree that it is
excellent and very useful), but to use the term 'gateway' for
immigrants just because they're immigrants -- whether or not their
ancestry is known -- is to ignore the primary and original
genealogical definition of a 'gateway' -- one who brings significant
new ancestry into a pedigree. The term is, at root, relativistic
because it is does not denote an intrinsic quality of an individual,
but only something retrospectively relevant to someone tracing
genealogies within a group. The term is appropriate because a
'gateway' implies a passage from one side to another, and does not
really say anything special about that person as a person (which is
what I think you are, appropriately, seeking to do by honoring the
personal qualities of immigrants as a group). Terry brings up
interesting questions of subjectivity and degree (how much ancestry
does a gateway have to bring in to be considered a 'gateway'? Must
it include a royal line?; etc.), but these questions all presuppose
the fundamental genealogical meaning inherent in its original
popularization in Anthony R. Wagner's _English Genealogy_. I like to
think that 'gateway' can and should be used relativistically. Eight
or ten generations of traceable ancestry should quality one as a
gateway if it is brought into a distinct group across the water or
across a social divide. It should not necessarily imply a royal line,
but in medieval genealogy, once one hits the echelon of the
intermarried nobility that includes a royal line, one is virtually
assured of tapping into the oldest traceable Western lines (e.g. to
the Carolingians; the Saxon or early Irish kings; etc.).

I risk repeating myself. I wrote a little on the concept of gateway
ancestors in my blog years ago:

http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/archives/11

Nat Taylor

[Mary Zashin]

No Christopher Thomas is listed in "Virginia Immigrants and Adventurers, 1607-1635: A Biographical Dictionary, by Martha W. McCartney, GPC, 2007. M. Zashin


On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 AM, gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com wrote:

> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ? (Wjhonson)

>
> From: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
> Date: February 2, 2012 11:22:21 PM CST
> To: can...@netspeed.com.au, GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ?
>
>
>

> With best wishes
> Leo van de Pas,
> Canberra, Australia

[Wjhonson]

I'm certain that Christopher Thomas *existed*. The issue at hand is whether Cicely de Welles can be SHOWN with primary documentation to be in his ancestry, or whether this is merely a "traditional" ascent based on wishful thinking.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Zashin <zas...@ameritech.net>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, Feb 3, 2012 1:48 pm
Subject: RE: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ?


No Christopher Thomas is listed in "Virginia Immigrants and Adventurers,

607-1635: A Biographical Dictionary, by Martha W. McCartney, GPC, 2007. M.

ashin

n Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 AM, gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com wrote:
> Today's Topics:

1. Re: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ? (Wjhonson)

From: Wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Date: February 2, 2012 11:22:21 PM CST
To: can...@netspeed.com.au, GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ?



I have Cecily de Welles as one of the daughters of Lionel's *first* wife Miss

e Waterton whose first name was either Beatrice, Cecily, or Joan evidently.

his lady died 18 Oct 1434 and it was only in 1447, or at least after her second

usband John the earl of Somerset died (27 Mar 1444) that Margaret Beauchamp

as free to marry lastly to Lionel

On the other hand Cecily de Welles married Robert Willoughby of Eresby and

hey had a son Christopher who inherited that place. I have doubts that there

s enough time for Cecily to have been born so late as to be a daughter of

argaret. I don't know why Cecily is dead IN 1466, this would be the death date

or her husband Robert who died on 30 May either in 1465 or 1466, perhaps his

ife is named dead by that time I don't know. I have no death date for her at

ll.



At any rate, I suspect this supposed connection from Cicely de Welles to some

lizabeth (Somebody) Totteshurst. Sounds highly unlikely



-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <can...@netspeed.com.au>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 2, 2012 12:03 pm
Subject: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ?


In 2011 Hugo Vickers published "Behind Closed Doors, The Tragic, Untold Story

f
the Duchess of Windsor".

In this book are two family trees. In one he gives a line from the Duchess of
Windsor via Nicholas Wyatt 1620-ca1673, and son (?) of the Rev. Hawte Wyatt,

ll
the way to King Edward I of England.

But the one incredible 'find' he describes on page 377.

"The Duchess (of Windsor) also descended from King Henry III, the Plantagenet
> King, via his son, Edmund 'Crouchback'. His son, Henry, had a daughter, Joan,
who married John De Mowbray. John married Elizabeth de Segrave and their
daughter, Eleanor, married John de Welles.
Their son, Eudo de Welles married Maud de Greystoke and was father to
Lionel de Welles, 6th Lord Welles, KG (1457) (ca 1406-ca 1434 (*), who married
> Margaret Beauchamp, widow of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset, KG (1439),
bringing more Garter ancestry to the Duchess's line.
Their daughter (**), Cicely (d.1466), married Sir Robert Willoughby, of
> Parham, Suffolk. Their great-granddaughter, Elizabeth (ca.1516-80) married
Thomas Totteshurst. Their daughter, Ann, married Richard Thomas, whose son
Christopher Thomas went to Virginia in 1635."

First (*) does he mean that Lionel Welles lived from ca 1406 to ca 1434, yet
became a KG in 1457? I have Lionel killed in battle in 1461. Obviously a
typographical error by Vickers.

(**) As Tony Hoskins pointed out to me Cicely is a daughter by the first wife

f
Lionel, not by Margaret Beauchamp.

As his Christopher Thomas went to Virginia in 1635, he is a Gateway Ancestor,
and if he is a descendant of King Henry III, he is a Royal Gateway Ancestor.

ut
is he?

I looked in Douglas Richardson's meticulously indexed "Plantagenet Ancestry"
where Christopher Thomas was not to be found. I went to the book by David

aris
and Gary Boyd Roberts' 600 Immigrants and, there too, no Christopher Thomas

as
to be found.......................

Any comments?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

------------------------------

o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of

he message

[Peter Stewart]

On 4/02/2012 2:24 AM, TJ Booth wrote:
> Leo,
>
> As Nat notes below, the definition of 'gateway ancestor' has been discussed
> on SGM many times, but without any apparent common agreement. One major
> problem for everyone is that the word 'royal' does not appear in the term,
> yet many interpret it as implying a royal connection.
>
> Accepting Nat's 'common usage in US genealogical journals' as the most
> defensible definition, this would seem to make the term inappropriate for
> your use. But many words have more than one meaning - can you simply define
> the term as you wish and then include a link to the definition every time
> the term is used? Using a different definition is certainly consistent with
> other SGM posts - for instance, in 1999 John Ravilious posted an ahnentafel
> for 'gateway ancestor' Samuel Hyde d. 12 Sep 1689 in Newton MA (a royal
> pedigree later apparently found to be flawed) - see
> archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/1999-11/0943640785.
>
> The 'common usage' definition is not without its own problems. Borrowing
> Nat's concept of grafting one population tree branch onto another tree, this
> begs the question of exactly how one distinguishes between a natural branch
> and a grafted one.

But Nat's definiton was more specific than this - he wrote "a 'gateway

ancestor' is someone who transmits a traceable ancestry in any one

discrete population to descendants in another population", so
traceability is the necessary distinction.

We are not talking about hybrids after all. Given that between Britain
and the American colonies there was no genetically or culturally alien
grafting stock, and the narrowing obsession in the USA with connections
to Plantagenet ancestry (so weird that in the jargon of the genealogical
community researching evidence has become "developing" a line), in
effect this means gateways from unknown and presumably common ancestors
to the ruling elite of late-medieval Britain, or in a very few cases
Spain, Italy, France etc. Or native American for that matter - I suppose
Pocahontas is considered a kind of gateway, whereas John Rolfe is
perhaps not.

Peter Stewart

[Leo]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nlta...@nltaylor.net>

To: <GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com>
Cc: "Leo" <can...@netspeed.com.au>
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Who are Gateways?


> At 8:09 AM +1100 2/4/12, Leo wrote:
>
>>...I intend to use the term in my system for those people who crossed the
>>ocean from Europe to America and simply add the word royal when I know the
>>individual has royal ancestors. Also I try to add on that line names of
>>ships and dates when they arrived.
>>
>>To use Gateway Ancestor within a country I think is too hard. ...
>
> Leo, your database is of course your own (and we all agree that it is
> excellent and very useful), but to use the term 'gateway' for immigrants
> just because they're immigrants -- whether or not their ancestry is
> known --

Dear Nat,
This is why I have printed these 40 pages, and am weeding out those without
parents in the old land.

is to ignore the primary and original
> genealogical definition of a 'gateway' -- one who brings significant

------when is ancestry significant? I think knowledge from the old country
should suffice, never mind how little or how much. Do you agree with this?

> new ancestry into a pedigree. The term is, at root, relativistic because
> it is does not denote an intrinsic quality of an individual, but only
> something retrospectively relevant to someone tracing genealogies within a
> group. The term is appropriate because a 'gateway' implies a passage from
> one side to another, and does not really say anything special about that
> person as a person (which is what I think you are, appropriately, seeking
> to do by honoring the personal qualities of immigrants as a group).

------ For me the importance of pinpointing when a family (person) arrived
and from where, could be of assistance with the knowledge "stop looking in
the USA, as the person came from ....whichever country".

Terry brings up
> interesting questions of subjectivity and degree (how much ancestry does a
> gateway have to bring in to be considered a 'gateway'?

------I think one parent will have to do.

Must
> it include a royal line?; etc.),

--------Royal is for me an addition

but these questions all presuppose
> the fundamental genealogical meaning inherent in its original
> popularization in Anthony R. Wagner's _English Genealogy_. I like to
> think that 'gateway' can and should be used relativistically. Eight or ten
> generations of traceable ancestry should quality one as a gateway if it is
> brought into a distinct group across the water or across a social divide.

------------Knowledge of eight to ten generations for people living in the
16th century? I think that will be very hard. This, to me, seems so
academic. Four generations of ancestors in the old country won't do?

It should not necessarily imply a royal line,

-------Fully agree, that is why I "add" royal to Gateway Ancestor

> but in medieval genealogy, once one hits the echelon of the intermarried
> nobility that includes a royal line, one is virtually assured of tapping
> into the oldest traceable Western lines (e.g. to the Carolingians; the
> Saxon or early Irish kings; etc.).
>
> I risk repeating myself. I wrote a little on the concept of gateway
> ancestors in my blog years ago:

------I am going to read this now. Many thanks

Leo


>
> http://nltaylor.net/sketchbook/archives/11
>
> Nat Taylor

[John]

On Feb 3, 2:02 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> I'm certain that Christopher Thomas *existed*.  The issue at hand is whether Cicely de Welles can be SHOWN with primary documentation to be in his ancestry, or whether this is merely a "traditional" ascent based on wishful thinking.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Zashin <zas...@ameritech.net>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Fri, Feb 3, 2012 1:48 pm
> Subject: RE: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ?
>
> No Christopher Thomas is listed in "Virginia Immigrants and Adventurers,
> 607-1635:  A Biographical Dictionary, by Martha W. McCartney, GPC, 2007.  M.
> ashin
>

> n Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 AM, gen-medieval-requ...@rootsweb.com wrote:
> > Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Sensational Find (?) - New Royal Gateway Ancestor ? (Wjhonson)
>

>  To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
>  the message
>
> ------------------------------

> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> he message

You should be more specific as to the particular Christopher Thomas
about whose existence you are certain. There are at least 6 persons
of that name, all related to one another, and three or four of them
appear to have ended up in VA or MD.

The basic problem here is that Hugo Vickers' book (cited by Leo) has
apparently confused a Christopher Thomas who IS descended from Cecily
Welles (and did NOT go to VA) with another Christopher Thomas (his
relative) who went to America and was apparently an ancestor of the
Duchess of Windsor.

Who specifically is the Christopher Thomas about whose existence you
are certain?

[lostcopper]

In the discussions about gateway ancestors & royal gateway ancestors
to North
America, it appears that only those who emigrated in the 17th century
are counted.
Is there an actual cut-off date? For example, if someone with
documented royal
ancestry emigrated from Ireland to Canada in 1830, would they be
excluded from
consideration? Thanks, Bronwen

[WJho...@aol.com]

Sources differ on each of the points you seem to think are fixed and
require me to do more research. So....

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/6/2012 8:15:07 PM Pacific Standard Time,

jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:


> The basic problem here is that Hugo Vickers' book (cited by Leo) has
> apparently confused a Christopher Thomas who IS descended from Cecily
> Welles (and did NOT go to VA) with another Christopher Thomas (his
> relative) who went to America and was apparently an ancestor of the
> Duchess of Windsor.
>
> Who specifically is the Christopher Thomas about whose existence you
> are certain? >>
>

Both, or all. The point is that the one who went to Virginia can not be
shown to exist at this point in the tree. I find it uncertain that you can
show using reliable sources where he should go.

[Nathaniel Taylor]

>In the discussions about gateway ancestors & royal gateway ancestors
>to North America, it appears that only those who emigrated in the 17th century
>are counted.
>
>Is there an actual cut-off date? For example, if someone with
>documented royal ancestry emigrated from Ireland to Canada in 1830,
>would they be excluded from consideration? Thanks, Bronwen

Not at all -- the whole concept is relative. A 'gateway' is a narrow
bottleneck transmitting something to somebody -- in American usage,
ordinarily an immigrant who transmits medieval European ancestry to
modern new-world descendants. The 17th c. gets a lot of attention in
North America because it is the first big century of colonization,
and identifiable gateways from the early generations are likely to
have lots of (potentially curious) descendants. Similarly endowed
aftercomers are by no means ineligible for attention. So, Gary
Roberts' book of gateways includes people all the way to the 20th c.,
while the compendia initiated by Weis and developed by Shepard, Faris
and now Douglas Richardson focus just on 17th-century immigrants.

Nat Taylor

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Sir Lionel Welles' first wife, Joan Waterton, daughter of Robert
Waterton, Esq., is specifically named in several places in the various
inquisitions post mortem taken in 1421 following the death of Sir
Lionel Welles' grandfather, Sir John Welles, 5th Lord Welles.
Abstracts of these contemporary records are published in Calendar of
Inquisitons Post Mortem (1418-1422) 21 (2002): 304-307, which may be
viewed in part at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1lrecAD4SncC&pg=PA305

One of these references reads as follows:

"By his indenture dated at Belleauy 26 July 1417 John, Lord Welles,
granted to Richard de Hagh [and two others].... the 2 several inclosed
pastures called 'Thakfen' and 'Wypholme' in Bonthorpe on the
conditions recited therein, and so seised, by their indenture shown to
the jurors dated at Belleau 29 July 1417 they demised them to John for
life, reversion to Lionel son of Eudes de Welles and Joan daughter of
Robert de Waterton for life, remainder to the right heirs of John,
Lord Welles, Lionel and Joan survive." END OF QUOTE

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

I might add that the Essex inquisition post mortem of John Welles, 5th
Lord Welles, pg. 307, specifically states the following:

“Lionel [Welles] married Joan [Waterton] in the parish church of St.
Oswald, Methley, on 15 Aug. 1417.” END OF QUOTE