Sir Robert de Harley
Jae Fleming
I am curious about the fate of Sir Robert de Harley* as briefly described in
a file (which I believe was from the LDS) as: "died 1359, Victim of the
Inquisition". I have been unable to find a reference to him in any history
books. Does anyone know what the circumstances of his death were?
1. Sir Robert de Harley + Margaret de Brampton
2. *Sir Robert de Harley (b Shropshire, d 1359) + Joan de Corbet
3. Joan de Harley + John de Besford (Abt 1295 - 1323)
4. Alexander de Besford (1319-1404)
Georgia Fleming
Hyac...@snowhill.com
Reedpcgen
3. Joan de Harley + John de Besford (Abt 1295 - 1323)
4. Alexander de Besford (1319-1404)
This line is false!
To briefly summarize a well documented article in _The Genealogist_ v. 10, no.
1, pp. 35-72,
"Agnes (de Besford) Throckmorton was therefore descended neither from the
Harley family of co. Salop nor from the Harley family of co. Worcester."
Evidence indicates that Alexander de Besford (b. est. 1325?) was likely son of
John de Besford's brother Alexander, thus entirely missing any possible
connection to Joan [de Harley?]. Please make a note of it. ; )
pcr
Reedpcgen
of Robert de Harley. He was not a knight, he did not die in 1359, and was not
a victim of the inquisition. It appears he was mentally handicapped, as
records call him "fatuus." He was son of Sir Robert de Harley, who died of the
Black Death in 1349.
I think the younger Robert's wife, Joan de Corbet, was herself a very
interesting person, but again, you are not descended from her through the
Throckmorton line.
pcr
Jae Fleming
>To briefly summarize a well documented article in _The Genealogist_ v. 10, no.
>1, pp. 35-72,
>"Agnes (de Besford) Throckmorton was therefore descended neither from the
>Harley family of co. Salop nor from the Harley family of co. Worcester."
>Evidence indicates that Alexander de Besford (b. est. 1325?) was likely son of
>John de Besford's brother Alexander, thus entirely missing any possible
>connection to Joan [de Harley?]. Please make a note of it. ; )
Thanks for the correction -- I'll provide the remainder of the Besford line
I have just in case there are other errors. I now have:
1. Osbert de Besford b abt 1160
2. Vivian de Besford b abt 1185 + _ de Naffort
3. Walter de Besford b abt 1210 + Helen _
4. Alexander de Besford + Margaret de Nauton
5. Alexander de Besford b abt 1260 + _ de Thornden
6. Alexander de Besford (the brother of John) + _
7. Alexander de Besford b 1325 + Beatrice de Thornden
8. Agnes de Besford
I'm particularly wondering if the de Thornden in 5. might be an error based
on 7.
Advice appreciated,
Georgia Fleming
Jae Fleming
>This line is false!
I traced one source of this erroneous line to World Family Tree disks 5 and
7. This seems to be the source cited by most websites where I found it.
Unfortunately, it's perpetuated on a *lot* of websites. :-/
Georgia Fleming
Leo van de Pas
Stoyan. What a shame.
Leo van de Pas
ED MANN
>
> I promise this will be my *last* question for several days. <g>
>
> I am curious about the fate of Sir Robert de Harley* as briefly described in
> a file (which I believe was from the LDS) as: "died 1359, Victim of the
> Inquisition". I have been unable to find a reference to him in any history
> books. Does anyone know what the circumstances of his death were?
>
> 1. Sir Robert de Harley + Margaret de Brampton
> 2. *Sir Robert de Harley (b Shropshire, d 1359) + Joan de Corbet
> 4. Alexander de Besford (1319-1404)
Weis notes in _Ancestral Roots_, 7th. ed., that Joan de Harley, Ä29A-33,
was the daughter of another Sir Robert de Harley, not the husband of
Joan Corbet, Ä29A-32.
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.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].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat emptor.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat emptor.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page]
G . EDWARD ALLEN
>
> >This line is false!
>
> I traced one source of this erroneous line to World Family Tree disks 5 and
> 7. This seems to be the source cited by most websites where I found it.
> Unfortunately, it's perpetuated on a *lot* of websites. :-/
>
> Georgia Fleming
Georgia,
This is support for why I mentioned this particular set of CDs as a
miserable source to cite.
Thank you.
Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
G . EDWARD ALLEN
Georgia,
Sources: VCH Worcestershire and G. Andrews Moriarty article:
1. Agnes Besford.
2. Sir Alexander Besford of Besford, Worcestershire; b. ca. 1325/30; d.
1418/19.
3. Beatrice, possibly a Leche of Leche Randolph.
4. John Besford; b. about 1300; d. after 1341.
8. Alexander Besford; b. before 1259; d. after 1322.
9. Margery Thorndon of Thorndon, Worcestershire.
16. Alexander Besford; b. ca. 1225; d. before 1268.
17. Margaret Nauton.
18. John Thorndon Esquire of Thorndon, Worcestershire.
32. Sir Walter Besford.
34. Helen.
64. Vivian Besford.
65. Naford.
128. Osbert Besford.
As you can see this line could use more work.
Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
130. Walter Naford.
256. Vivian Besford.
Reedpcgen
<Weis notes in _Ancestral Roots_, 7th. ed., that Joan de Harley, Ä29A-33,
was the daughter of another Sir Robert de Harley, not the husband of
Joan Corbet, Ä29A-32.
This is wrong. It is not accurate. There is no proof that Joan was even a 'de
Harley,' and there is no descent from her in the first place. Weis's [Walter
Lee Sheppard, the editor's] comments were based on an older article in The
Genealogist ["Ravens or Pelicans"] which was superceded by the article I made
reference to.
pcr
Reedpcgen
1. Vivian de Besford, living 1175/6, probably father of:
2. Osbert de Besford
3. Vivian de Besford, living 1220/1
4. Sir Walter de Besford, liv. 1230-50, m. Helen
5. Alexander de Besford, living 1248/9, d. by 1268, when the wardship of his
heir belonging to William de Beauchamp was mentioned. (Moriarty made the
father of Alexander [I] a John de Besford.)
6. Alexander de Besford, b. say 1258, adult by 1280, aged an infirm in 1338, m.
by 1300, Margery.
7. Alexander de Besford, b. say 1290 [brother of John de Besford], m. by 1338,
Joan. He served as a Member of Parliament in 1382, 1388, 1391 and 1395. It is
likely, though not certain, that they were the parents of:
8. Alexander de Besford, b. say 1325, living 1399, but dead by 1404, m.
Beatrice, m. by 1387, d. by 1403/4.
9. Agnes de Besford, b. say 1355-60, m. ca. 1380, living 1427/8, m. Thomas
Throckmorton. Her dsister and coheir, Joan de Besford, married William
Clopton. A third sister, Margaret de Besford, married (1) John Dickelston, and
(2) Thomas de la Hay.
There are descents to Colonial immigrants through all trhee daughters.
pcr
Reedpcgen
7. Alexander de Besford, b. say 1290 [brother of John de Besford], m. by 1338,
Joan. [The next part should be under no. 8, Alexander; Throckmorton had
confounded nos. 7 and 8, making them one individual; it was no. 8 who was the
MP (sorry)] It is
likely, though not certain, that they were the parents of:
8. Alexander de Besford, b. say 1325, living 1399, but dead by 1404, (he
served as a Member of Parliament in 1382, 1388, 1391 and 1395) m.