RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: TheNineteenth on Friday 09 December 16 11:07 GMT (UK)
-
I post this for your delectation and hope that someone will try and challenge it (and that I can successfully defend it!). I know I would if I saw someone saying it, but anyway - here are my three direct lines of descent from Henry II, King John, and King John again. Let me know if I need to rethink, or if you spot a massive flaw that needs sorting!
I just think this needs putting to the test of some rigour. So here goes - challenge it all you like!
My Great Grandma was Emma Moore, born Waterloo, Liverpool in 1874. Died Seaforth 1955.
Her mother was a Harriet Amelia Cooper, born 1844 in Lane End, Stafford. Died Waterloo(?) 1923.
Her mother was a Frances Robinson from Essex, born there 1810.
Her mother was a Mary Ann Tabrum, born at Aveley, Essex 1783.
Her father was Arthur Tabrum, born 1758 at Bocking.
His mother was Mary Walford, born at Bocking in 1723.
Her father was William Walford, born at Bocking in 1700.
His mother, Jane Disbrowe, was born around 1675.
Her father was Valentine Disbrowe, born at Huntingdon around 1643.
His mother was Jane Cromwell (sister to Oliver), born at Huntingdom 1606.
Her mother was Elizabeth Steward, who lived between around 1564 and 1654.
Her father appears to be Sir William Steward, who died in 1594.
His father appears to be Nicholas Steward, who lived at Ely, having received a lease of the rectory there in 1548 from his brother, the Dean.
His mother was Cecilia Baskerville, born around 1470 of Eardisley, Hereford.
Her father was John Baskerville, c 1438 Eardisley.
Now my line splits into three.
Line One:
John's father was Sir John Baskerville, a knight born in February 1408 at Eardisley. He died December 1455.
His father was another John Baskerville (1387-1415) of Hereford.
His mother was Joan Everingham of Laxton, Nottingham.
Her father was William de Everingham, born around 1333 at Laxton, died around August 1370.
His mother was Joan Deiville of Egmanton, Nottingham (1315-1377).
Her father was John Deiville (1276-1325/6) of Egmanton
His mother was Maud Audley (c1260 of Audley, Stafford)
Her mother was Ella Longespee (1228-1299) of Audley
Her father was Sir William Longespee (1212-1250).
His father was William Longespee, 3rd Earl of Salisbury (1176-1226)
He was an illegitimate son of Henry II.
Line Two:
Sir John Baskerville's mother was Jane Brugge (1389) of Bridge Sollers, Hereford.
Her father was Sir John Brugge, a knight of Staunton Upon Wye (1368-1436)
His mother was Isabel de Grandison (1340 of Ashperton, Hereford)
Her mother was Blanche de Mortimer, Viscountess of Grandison (1310-1347) of Wigmore.
Her father was Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, born at Netherwood, Thornbury (1287-1330)
His father was Edmund Mortimer, a Baron. Born and died at Wigmore and lived 1252-1303.
His father was Roger Mortimer, another Baron. Born at Radnor, Wales in 1231.
His mother was Gwladys, daughter of Llewllyn of Wales (1205-1251).
Her mother was Joan Plantagenet.
And her father was King John.
Line Three:
Sir John Baskerville's wife was ELizabeth Touchet (1404 Heleigh, Stafford)
Her father was John Tuchet, 4th Baron of Audley
His father was Sir John Tuchet
His mother was Joan Audley (1331-1393)
His mother was Joan Mortimer (b. 1312)
And then the line rejoins the previous one, with the father being Roger Mortimer (1287-1330).
-
His mother was Jane Cromwell (sister to Oliver), born at Huntingdom 1606.
If you can positively prove up to this lady using your own research you're on your way.
The next 3 look a bit murky.
Her mother was Elizabeth Steward, who lived between around 1564 and 1654.
Her father appears to be Sir William Steward, who died in 1594.
His father appears to be Nicholas Steward
-
His mother was Mary Walford, born at Bocking in 1723.
Her mother, Jane Disbrowe, was born around 1675.
This gap seems quite long. Jane Disbrowe would have been 48 - not impossible, but somewhat unlikely.
-
Thanks Jim.
Yes, the Stewards are quite murky. There's a wealth of research on them, but often it's contradictory. Some of it leads straight to the Kingly types, so I deliberately chose to focus on the research that suggested less fanciful origins.
As for:
Her father was Arthur Tabrum, born 1758 at Bocking.
His mother was Mary Walford, born at Bocking in 1723.
Her father was William Walford, born at Bocking in 1700.
His mother, Jane Disbrowe, was born around 1675.
Her father was Valentine Disbrowe, born at Huntingdon around 1643.
His mother was Jane Cromwell (sister to Oliver), born at Huntingdom 1606.
Well, I am definitely a direct descendant of this Arthur, and have "proved" the line as far back as William Walford. To go further however, we have to take the text linked to below to see that William was one of the seven confirmed children of John Walford, “a wealthy clothier in Essex” and Jane Disbrowe, daughter of Valentine Disbrowe as mentioned in the text. John and Jane did marry at Bocking in 1698.
Further into the text we see that John Walford was also of Bocking origins, being christened there in March 1675, and Jane was likely from there too, being born around 1678 (as her father Valentine was stated to be “of Bocking”, although he had been born at Huntingdon in Cambridgeshire). Jane died in 1715.
Valentine Disbrowe’s parents were apparently John and Jane Disbrowe.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WZVCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291&dq=%22arthur+tabrum%22&source=bl&ots=UrwlaN0seI&sig=H_xuU329AaaT9rt79EPtm6AOBRA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMpqmXhOfQAhXJI8AKHTZKCKwQ6AEILzAF#v=onepage&q=%22arthur%20tabrum%22&f=false
-
Vance, absolutely. I managed to leave a line out of the report! Please find missing William Walford below. And in the edited original!
His mother was Mary Walford, born at Bocking in 1723.
Her father was William Walford, born at Bocking in 1700.
His mother, Jane Disbrowe, was born around 1675.
-
The book by Mark Noble wasn't very well received:
In 1784 Noble produced a compilation "Memoirs of the Protectoral House of Cromwell" 2 vols. London, 1784 (2nd edit., "with improvements", 1787); it contains many errors.
-
I suppose one factor which may tend to draw anyone into a 'royal' pedigree is that in earlier centuries the only recorded trees belonged to the upper, or educated (clerical) classes. Ordinary folk - like those I descend from - probably kept no records, or if they did they have likely disappeared. So if you find an apparent attachment that is where it may lead.
But as it is usually hard to prove a negative hypothesis, you may be able to blag almost anyone .... :)
-
Andrew, It's true that it's more difficult to trace ordinary people, but not impossible. Before the beginning of parish records, there are lay subsidy rolls in the 1520s, muster rolls in the 1520s, legal records such as Common Pleas and King's Bench going back to the 13th century, the Poll taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, and manorial records. All of these contain records of 'the middling sort of people' but not the poorest.
Some of these are online but for the most part not indexed or transcribed (legal records), and some have been published by country record societies.
-
Why do you want to be descended from royalty, anyhow?
It won't get you a better pension or seat on the bus.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Dawn M
-
Descendant of Royalty won't get you a better pension but will get you a better pedigree.
-
The Nineteenth, it is possible that you are of royal descent.
One of my lines leads back to Royalty - a royal female who married one of my ancestors, so their children were not royal - and there are other lines who came over with William the Conqueror but were not related to him. The reason I know this is because prior to 1837, the families lived in small villages and the parish records are very good with lots of info re BMDs, also I've visited the villages and the churches and looked at the parish records. As I researched further back, I found my ancestors were married to knights, or sons of knights and at this point, you only have to look in Burke's Peerage to follow the lines back through the centuries.
This was the tree of my g.grandmother - pity her family was so poor that her father and 2 brothers lived in the workhouse at one point (the girls in the family stayed home with mum) and her grandfather (my 3 x g.grandfather went to live in the workhouse when his daughters died and his son in laws didn't want him any more. He died in the workhouse). This was down to generations of being descended from the first son of the first son, only then to become descended from one of the younger sons who wasn't bequeathed a manor house and/or money and titles.
Only a couple of generations previously the family were merchants, then a few more generations back to mid 1500s, they were Lords of the Manor and so on back to the Knights, one who died on the way back from the Crusades, and eventually back to a someone who accompanied William the Conqueror in 1066, who appears to have been a butler but was knighted and given the title of Lord when William the Conqueror was crowned at Westminster. Interestingly the royal lady who married into my family married again - I assume somehow she got divorced, because she and her first husband died within a couple of years of each other in their 60s, but she had a daughter with her 2nd husband and two of her grandchildren, offspring of children of both her marriages, ended up marrying each other, my family tree calculator suggests they were half first cousins.
-
I agree, Dawn!
And lineage is only "provable" if you have documentary evidence for every generation.
That means birth certificates, marriage certificates, baptism records, marriage records, wills and so on.
Even Burkes's Peerage is known to be inaccurate; and don't even mention Ancestry Trees!
-
Even Burkes's Peerage is known to be inaccurate
In which case, I guess I need the BBC (WDYTYA) to visit the present day descendants of the original Knights, who are still living in various castles around the UK to verify my research. :D :D
-
Unlike Ancestry trees the pedigrees of the nobility & Royalty have come from many sources.
Historians for centuries have researched families, dynasties & periods in time so there is a lot of cross-referencing that can be done.
Like LizzieW I too have castles in my family. One now a theme park.
-
You know, when you think how much hassle people go through, trying to "prove" royal - or even noble - descent, it makes me ever so glad that there simply is NOT anything higher than the odd (very odd, I suspect) "Yeoman Farmer" anywhere, no matter how far back I manage to trundle along the family lines - eeeh, I am common, me!
-
It's not the Royal & Noble families that cause the hassle as they have been extensively researched.
It's what happened to GGGrandad & who were his parents that causes the hassle.
-
Can we ever really prove anything? We only know that x and y are the parents of z because the parish registers say so. We've all seen relatives telling porkies in official records... I've often wondered how many of the mariner's wives in my tree played away while their husband was at sea... maybe complete sections of my tree are wrong!
Anyway, sorry to be cynical :)
TheNineteenth - what do you know about your ancestor Frances Robinson born 1810? You don't specify where in Essex she's from, so can you be sure you've found the correct parents for her? This is the only weak link as far as I can see - your research looks pretty sound but I haven't tested it too rigorously.
-
You just have to use the 99.9% certainty and always accept the 0.01% uncertainty about the bloodlines in our family tree.
I am more worried about tracing earliest known ancestors on lines to see if I can get back further, rather than try and prove a link to royalty.
-
I don't believe the poster said he was setting out to try & find a line back to Royalty but having established a line back to Nobility is simply testing it's validity.
-
Re: Errors in Burke's Peerage:
See: http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/essay-7.html
http://ancestryforums.custhelp.com/posts/9573ad8370
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/2nd-june-1832/19/burkes-peerage
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Burkes-Peerage
and so forth :D ;D
-
Ten generations back (about 3 centuries) you will have had 1024 ancestors, and another 3 centuries over a million. In 1400 that would have been a significant fraction of the British population, even allowing for the strong probability that many will have been immigrants. So the chance that a few were of aristocratic lineage must be quite high, especially since many of the men put themselves about a bit .... :D
-
Thanks Andrew for doing the maths! I was going to make a similar comment, and was just getting ready to find out how many ancestors you would have if you went back to the 1400s or thereabouts. I suspect the chances are that, given the availability of records, most of us could trace our lineage back to royalty. In theory. However, any ancestral line will always be subject to the maxim: 'Mummy's baby; Daddy's... maybe.'
-
However, any ancestral line will always be subject to the maxim: 'Mummy's baby; Daddy's... maybe.'
Or the old saying 'it's a wise child that knows its own father' - whatever that means, exactly?
-
Ironically, it is the partner of my g.grandmother (the one whose line goes back centuries) who I can't find anything about. He is my g.grandfather but as they didn't marry I have no idea who his father was - and if they'd married he may not have told the truth - so I can't find him before his name appears on my gran's birth certificate in 1884. He did stay with the family and continued in the family home after the death of my g.gran until his own death in 1935. All I know from census is that he said he was born in Middlesex and Bethnel Green, but with a common name and all the brains of Rootschatters he remains a mystery.
-
Jim1 - thanks for the info on the apparent poor quality of Noble's Memoirs. There is very little I have used him for, but used him I have. And I need to find a way around that, I think. Just in case I've just copied his error!
BillyBlue - I don't give a damn for being descended from royalty except
1) It's fun to have a coin of King John and know that's my 29xGreat Grandfather
2) When you're asked to do those ice-breaker questions of 'two things that are true, and one that is a lie' it's fun for that, too.
But otherwise, I'm much more impressed by my Cromwell connection.
ThrelfallYorky - I was in the same boat as you. I researched my tree from around 1998 and found nothing more than yeomanary and...sometimes...people who could VOTE! And then just a massive breakthrough last year when I found Mary Tabrum's maiden name. There's hope for everyone!
clairec666 - Yes, poorly annotated on my behalf. I did all the digging on Frances many years ago, and for some reason haven't carried those findings through to the spreadsheet all the others are in. Rest assured, I did my homework! Frances appears to have run away from home and married a gypsy man (Tommy Cooper - not that one). Hence her kids are born strewn across the UK until she eventually makes it to Liverpool. I have Frances' origins as Orsett (or Ossett. I forget which) from the censuses, and her age, etc. The one whose baptism fits all that is the only feasible one.
Andrew Tarr - yes, I believe everyone does have an aristocratic lineage...somewhere. The trick is in getting past the c1600 parish registers and onto those Burke's peerage lines. The gap can be insurmountable.
-
Well, supposedly we are all descended from Adam and Eve, if you read / believe the Bible ::) ::) ::)
So we all must have some connection with royalty along the way :-\ :-\ :-\
Otherwise you'll have to be like me. Billy Blue was my GGGF so I can legitimately claim to have Blue blood :D :D :D :D
Dawn M
-
Just been reading this topic but what obviously caught my eye was...
"Am I of (proveable) royal descent?"
This seems a strange question in my book as it is already showing doubt?
"of proveable" would tell me that it isn't proven?
I'm directly descended from a King William (which I can prove) but strangely enough I have no record with the word "King" attached ::)
If you have all the paperwork up to where it's necessary & can't definitively get further then you may want to reassure yourself with DNA which seems to be the "in thing" now?
Annie
-
I'm always skeptical about royal descents because of all those trees on Ancestry going back to William I, Charlemagne and God. My lot are all peasants - half of them Welsh peasants with very common names, so untraceable - and illegitimacy, doubt and a line from a Green puts paid to tracing most of the rest very far.
But I did find a distant Skelsey in The Peerage, so I was able to amuse family members with a connection to the House of Windsor over three marriages, even though this is of course cheating - they were more impressed with this than anything in their direct line.
However on Have I Got News For You last night it was revealed that a guest was married to a de Chair. So it turns out I am related by one marriage to a lady (a contact) who is first cousin to Mrs Jacob Rees-Mogg! Scary or what?
-
I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that "Burke's Peerage" was the greatest work of fiction yet published in the English language! ;D ;D
Skoosh.
-
However on Have I Got News For You last night it was revealed that a guest was married to a de Chair. So it turns out I am related by one marriage to a lady (a contact) who is first cousin to Mrs Jacob Rees-Mogg! Scary or what?
Not at all scary Chris. Jacob Rees-Mogg and I share a common ancestor - Richard Mogg of Farrington Gurney who died in the seventeenth century. I'm quite proud to be distantly related to such a distinguished Parliamentarian. Mind you I descend from Richard's favourite daughter and Jacob from a son that he obviously didn't like, according to his will
Steve
-
https://www.wikitree.com/photo.php/7/7a/Llywelyn-29.jpg
Yale Pedigree and British Royalty.
-
I post this for your delectation and hope that someone will try and challenge it (and that I can successfully defend it!). I know I would if I saw someone saying it, but anyway - here are my three direct lines of descent from Henry II, King John, and King John again. Let me know if I need to rethink, or if you spot a massive flaw that needs sorting!
I just think this needs putting to the test of some rigour. So here goes - challenge it all you like!
My Great Grandma was Emma Moore, born Waterloo, Liverpool in 1874. Died Seaforth 1955.
Her mother was a Harriet Amelia Cooper, born 1844 in Lane End, Stafford. Died Waterloo(?) 1923.
Her mother was a Frances Robinson from Essex, born there 1810.
Her mother was a Mary Ann Tabrum, born at Aveley, Essex 1783.
Her father was Arthur Tabrum, born 1758 at Bocking.
His mother was Mary Walford, born at Bocking in 1723.
Her father was William Walford, born at Bocking in 1700.
His mother, Jane Disbrowe, was born around 1675.
Her father was Valentine Disbrowe, born at Huntingdon around 1643.
His mother was Jane Cromwell (sister to Oliver), born at Huntingdom 1606.
Her mother was Elizabeth Steward, who lived between around 1564 and 1654.
Her father appears to be Sir William Steward, who died in 1594.
His father appears to be Nicholas Steward, who lived at Ely, having received a lease of the rectory there in 1548 from his brother, the Dean.
His mother was Cecilia Baskerville, born around 1470 of Eardisley, Hereford.
Her father was John Baskerville, c 1438 Eardisley.
Now my line splits into three.
Line One:
John's father was Sir John Baskerville, a knight born in February 1408 at Eardisley. He died December 1455.
His father was another John Baskerville (1387-1415) of Hereford.
His mother was Joan Everingham of Laxton, Nottingham.
Her father was William de Everingham, born around 1333 at Laxton, died around August 1370.
His mother was Joan Deiville of Egmanton, Nottingham (1315-1377).
Her father was John Deiville (1276-1325/6) of Egmanton
His mother was Maud Audley (c1260 of Audley, Stafford)
Her mother was Ella Longespee (1228-1299) of Audley
Her father was Sir William Longespee (1212-1250).
His father was William Longespee, 3rd Earl of Salisbury (1176-1226)
He was an illegitimate son of Henry II.
Line Two:
Sir John Baskerville's mother was Jane Brugge (1389) of Bridge Sollers, Hereford.
Her father was Sir John Brugge, a knight of Staunton Upon Wye (1368-1436)
His mother was Isabel de Grandison (1340 of Ashperton, Hereford)
Her mother was Blanche de Mortimer, Viscountess of Grandison (1310-1347) of Wigmore.
Her father was Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, born at Netherwood, Thornbury (1287-1330)
His father was Edmund Mortimer, a Baron. Born and died at Wigmore and lived 1252-1303.
His father was Roger Mortimer, another Baron. Born at Radnor, Wales in 1231.
His mother was Gwladys, daughter of Llewllyn of Wales (1205-1251).
Her mother was Joan Plantagenet.
And her father was King John.
Line Three:
Sir John Baskerville's wife was ELizabeth Touchet (1404 Heleigh, Stafford)
Her father was John Tuchet, 4th Baron of Audley
His father was Sir John Tuchet
His mother was Joan Audley (1331-1393)
His mother was Joan Mortimer (b. 1312)
And then the line rejoins the previous one, with the father being Roger Mortimer (1287-1330).
Starting at the very beginning, what exact date was Emma born? And what does it say on her birth cert?
Kind regards
-
Not at all scary Chris. Jacob Rees-Mogg and I share a common ancestor - Richard Mogg of Farrington Gurney who died in the seventeenth century. I'm quite proud to be distantly related to such a distinguished Parliamentarian. Mind you I descend from Richard's favourite daughter and Jacob from a son that he obviously didn't like, according to his will
Steve
Fair enough, though I think "distinguished parliamentarian" has to be earned rather than just conferred.
-
Fair enough, though I think "distinguished parliamentarian" has to be earned rather than just conferred.
[/quote]
Well to each his own, but I rather think he has - in the same mould as Tony Benn or Frank Field. Not one to blindly follow the party line and with a spirit of independence and a clear idea of the responsibilities of the Lower House.
-
U cannot be serious! Rees Mogg is a comic figure straight out of P.G.Woodhouse! A buffoon but a dangerous one, Mogg has suggested that post-Brexit Britain should scrap its employment & environmental laws to compete with India.
Skoosh.
-
Skoosh, your reply demeans you. We are not talking party politics here, but perhaps you can't see the difference
Steve
-
....But hasn't it occurred to TheNineteenth that I don't hope to find Royalty or even Nobility?? I'm quite happy knowing I come from people who farmed, and made things, and had skills.... The last thing I'd want is to discover an ancestor (probably on the wrong side of the blanket) who was merely "Royal"
TY
-
You were talking about "Distinguished Parliamentarians", Mogg is nothing of the sort. Party politics has nothing whatsoever to do with it!
Skoosh.
-
Some odd comments on this thread, some of them not very pleasant. We can't help who we descend from. Surely what we all hope for is to have traceable ancestors, whoever they are, rather than permanent brick walls.
-
I'm with you there, Sloe Gin. I don't consider myself to be a product of my parents, or any previous generations - I am my own person, and I can only feel proud of my own achievements, not those of my ancestors. So being descended from royalty means nothing to me. (Besides, the majority of us are descended from royalty, even if it's not provable.)
So why am I researching my family history, you might ask... I just find it fascinating to trace people through the centuries, see what they did, how their wealth and status changed.
-
Yes Clairec666... Its all just so interesting.... Thats why we do it. And coming from Royalty is a fun anecdote to share.
-
Billyblue, we are all certainly descended from a common ancestor. Either Adam and Eve, an African ape, or a dinosaur-era fish, depending on your outlook. This topic is about *proveable* descent, though...
Rosinish - I do show doubt. I've had to rely on the peerage lines from about 1500 upwards. And, like any research, there's always the potential for doubt. Not sure a DNA test would work on this project, really...
chris_49 - perhaps 1/8th of your family is related to Rees-Mogg, and the other 7/8ths to his Nanny :)
Cell - blimey, you're taking me back. Her birth date is buried in the documents I was looking at a decade and a half ago. Fairly sure I've never seen her birth cert - the first two generations were completed by an Uncle, and I took over. I've joined everything together about them to my own satisfaction through parish records and censuses, though.
ThrelfallYorky - I have plenty of ancestors with skills who had bloody awful lives. And I can't trace them back before about 1490 - that's my earliest 'non royal' line. It's just if you are descended from royalty, you can pull things back hundreds of years further. And that's the appeal here. Not being descended from King John who, frankly, is somewhat crap.
Sloe Gin - Thanks, yes. That is my aim.
-
I don't consider myself to be a product of my parents, or any previous generations - I am my own person, and I can only feel proud of my own achievements, not those of my ancestors.
I think I know what you mean, but that's a strange way of putting it ? ???
-
I'm directly descended from a King William (which I can prove) but strangely enough I have no record with the word "King" attached ::)
Truth time....
I just had to add that wee bit as I couldn't help but think of my dad who in my eyes was the 'King' of all fathers ;D
If he'd lived, he would have been 100 yrs old today but sadly passed away 10 yrs ago aged 90.
I'd always hoped for him to receive that 'Telegram' but sadly it wasn't to be ::)
Annie
P.S. I'm not sad, was just wee addition to lighten the conversation ;D
-
I can understand the urge to take one's lineage back to some landmark personage. The trouble is that once beyond (say) 1750, the waters get increasingly murky and the level of doubt increases. There needs to be a 'reliable' source of local information, preferably combined with a relatively distinctive surname; and even then there was the annoying habit of earlier generations to keep recycling a limited set of forenames. If any one of your assumptions is wrong the whole cardhouse collapses - though you will be blissfully unaware .... :(
My Tydeman (fairly rare) ancestors emerged from a Suffolk village, presumably having arrived from the Low Countries, perhaps in the 1400s. Almost routinely their first sons were alternately Edmund or Brice, right down to my grandfather (who had no sons). I soon gave up trying to tell who was who, or which gravestone was the 'right' one.
-
I can understand the urge to take one's lineage back to some landmark personage.
I don't think there is such an "urge" here. I didn't get that impression from the OP at all, simply that he wanted people to look for any possible errors.
One of my ancestors is a Benbow. All the Benbows seem to trace back to the same family, two or three members of which emigrated to the USA, so there is a lot of American interest.
My goal was to connect my branch to the main family, since nobody seemed to share my little clutch of Benbows. Eventually I did so by "killing off" a first wife, whose burial was buried in non-conformist records.
But further back there's not so much interest for me, as it's been researched to death by people hoping to trace their ancestry to the famous Admiral. He doesn't seem to have had any surviving sons, so good luck with that (http://www.4smileys.com/smileys/devil-smileys/devil_smiley_005.gif) (http://www.4smileys.com)
-
As with any investigative task you have to go where the evidence leads. If it leads to a hand loom weaver in Bradford you can then research what life was like for a hand loom weaver. If it leads to Royalty surely you have to do the same. This is where the OP's evidence has led & he wants to test it's validity. To discard certain types of class or people because it doesn't sit well is taking the blinkered approach.
The OP may not be that bothered whether he has Royalty in his family but that's what he's found.
Instead of being given help & advice this thread has become sneering & at times vitriolic.
I think the OP can only be commended for not rising to the bait & behaving in a perfectly reasonable manner. A lesson there perhaps.
-
Well said, Jim.
-
chris_49 - perhaps 1/8th of your family is related to Rees-Mogg, and the other 7/8ths to his Nanny :)
Yes, very likely - though statistically we're all likely to be descended from Henry I. Otherwise, I never claimed to be directly related to the man - though we do both have Rees ancestry, one of the less common Welsh surnames, so anything is possible.
-
chris_49 - perhaps 1/8th of your family is related to Rees-Mogg, and the other 7/8ths to his Nanny :)
Yes, very likely - though statistically we're all likely to be descended from Henry I. Otherwise, I never claimed to be directly related to the man - though we do both have Rees ancestry, one of the less common Welsh surnames, so anything is possible.
Perhaps you should start another thread. I doubt the OP has any interest in someone you're not related to or even someone you are.
-
chris_49 - perhaps 1/8th of your family is related to Rees-Mogg, and the other 7/8ths to his Nanny :)
Yes, very likely - though statistically we're all likely to be descended from Henry I. Otherwise, I never claimed to be directly related to the man - though we do both have Rees ancestry, one of the less common Welsh surnames, so anything is possible.
Perhaps you should start another thread. I doubt the OP has any interest in someone you not related to or even someone you are.
Well I was replying to a response from the OP as it happens. This is now looking like a Lighter Side thread though
-
You know, when you think how much hassle people go through, trying to "prove" royal - or even noble - descent, it makes me ever so glad that there simply is NOT anything higher than the odd (very odd, I suspect) "Yeoman Farmer" anywhere, no matter how far back I manage to trundle along the family lines - eeeh, I am common, me!
My g-g-g-grandfather Nicholas was a 'yeoman' for all his life in Devon, farming 95 acres. My dictionary definition is 'a small farmer who cultivates his own land - specifically belonging to a class of English freeholders ranking below the gentry and formerly qualified by owning property worth 40 shillings a year to enjoy certain legal privileges, such as jury duty'. So quite a decent position really.
-
When you consider that Henry VIII had his wife executed for, amongst other things, having sex with her brother or the questioned paternity of Edward III, James IV, James VIII, Elizabeth I & even Prince Albert, etc', etc', etc'. Any claim to so-called "Royal Blood" in ones family tree is just pure fantasy island.
Alley cats spring readily to mind here. "It's a wise bairn that kens his ain faither!" ;D
Skoosh.
-
When you consider that Henry VIII had his wife executed for, amongst other things, having sex with her brother or the questioned paternity of Edward III, James IV, James VIII, Elizabeth I & even Prince Albert, etc', etc', etc'. Any claim to so-called "Royal Blood" in ones family tree is just pure fantasy island.
Alley cats spring readily to mind here. "It's a wise bairn that kens his ain faither!" ;D
Skoosh.
If you take that attitude, we're all wasting our time then.
-
Andrew Tarr - I don't believe I'm a product of my parents or previous generations, but they are of interest to me for what they could achieve given their own lots in life. My grandparents and parents were great recipients of advancements in social mobility, whereas for their own ancestors - and myself, and my own children - things are more different.
Also, Andrew, like you, my ancestors had never "risen further" than that of Yeoman. But my more recent developments were a very happy accident. Unusual surname, well indexed parish records, etc...
Sloe Gin - I have found, like you, that many of my Steward relatives all try and trace the most potentially illustrious lines, despite those having the ropiest provenances! They sound similar to those claiming descent of your Admiral Benbow :)
jim1 - I'm never normally one to avoid rising to the bait, but other than the fact that only a handful of people have addressed my initial request ("Please try and discredit my evidence!") I've not noticed anything too bad in this thread. Mostly a case of people misreading or misunderstanding me. Hopefully not deliberately...
Skoosh - as I'e reiterated a few times now, my quest wasn't particularly to find "royal blood", but simply to take my tree back as far as I could. I always knew I would have to find illustrious ancestry in order to do that. And, to be honest, anyone you're able to trace back to the 1200s or so is usually going to be a bastard child of a royal somewhere or other! My own research suggests that Oliver Cromwell himself was of royal descent, of course.
-
You folks know from your own family experience & from sharing that of folk posting on Rootschat that family history is an unchancy business, I have cousins with the same surname who I've found out are nothing of the kind, they don't know that & I certainly won't enlighten them. A universal circumstance I'd have thought but learning about history is never time wasted! ;D
Skoosh.
-
You folks know from your own family experience & from sharing that of folk posting on here that family history is an unchancy business, I have cousins with the same surname who I've found out are nothing of the kind, they don't know that & I certainly won't enlighten them. A universal circumstance & learning about history is never time wasted! ;D
Skoosh.
Instead of sneering with talk of "fantasy island" and "alley cats", why not take up the OP's request and see if you can specifically "discredit the evidence"?
-
The OP was never stating they wanted an urge to find royal roots, just trying to prove a possible link to royalty.
And there are no alley cats or fantasy islands as many Brits will have a royal ancestor and it was very easy to slip down the social scale.
-
I don't think there is such an "urge" here. I didn't get that impression from the OP at all, simply that he wanted people to look for any possible errors.
I think anyone willing to take on that task would take a very long time to do so at a very expensive cost.
As a paper trail is needed, I doubt anyone would be willing apart from doing what has already been done, a quick search through names/dates provided which is not scrutinising it at all.
Annie
-
I don't think there is such an "urge" here. I didn't get that impression from the OP at all, simply that he wanted people to look for any possible errors.
I think anyone willing to take on that task would take a very long time to do so at a very expensive cost.
As a paper trail is needed, I doubt anyone would be willing apart from doing what has already been done, a quick search through names/dates provided which is not scrutinising it at all.
Annie
I wouldn't presume to speak for other people. Someone else may have already done research into some of these lines and found something that had been missed.
-
Yes, and we all know how often when we're totally stuck, someone else on here will kindly look at what we've got, spot something we've missed, or got wrong, and gently set us on the right path again .... or pat us on the back, even, for having got it all right!
I alsways think it's quite hard to absolutely PROVE anything totally - one small slip with two folk same ages and names, even, in a case of mine, same parents' names, and it can send you wildly off course. Then - when you ( or someone sharper-eyed) finally spot it ... the hunt is on again!!
-
cooms - indeed. My 'lot' seem to have sunk from royalty to Knights, to extremely wealthy landowners, and eventually to prosperous farmers. I know that the further descent occurs then when Frances Robinson "runs off with a gypsy".
Rosinish - I wasn't expecting anyone to do a forensic paper trail trawl of all the names and connections, but thought it likely that, the closer I got to the top of the tree, someone might have experience of the links and names, and be able to discredit some of them, if necessary.
-
Rosinish - I wasn't expecting anyone to do a forensic paper trail trawl of all the names and connections, but thought it likely that, the closer I got to the top of the tree, someone might have experience of the links and names, and be able to discredit some of them, if necessary.
Ah, I see, a bit more feasible then :)
Annie
-
As for the original query, well it seems good up to Jane Disbrowe. I looked on FreeReg and a William Walford was baptised in Bocking in 1700, son of John. No mother mentioned, is that one thing you are trying to confirm, that William born in 1700 was the son of John and Jane? Or do you think there is a small chance he was descended from another John Walford?
-
Thanks coombs!
The William Walford one is a 'weak link', I suppose. I got my original information from Noble:
"Jane, the daughter of mr. Val. Disbrowe, is ancestress of many families; I shall, therefore, be as particaular as possible, fearing the reader may not otherwise comprehend me; she was married to mr. John Walford, a wealthy clothier in Essex, as were most of his descendants; by whom she had two sons and a daughter, William, Richard and Jane; mr. Will. Walford, the eldest son, was also a clothier, he married miss Mary Bacon..."
I managed to find - if memory serves! - from the Bocking records a reference to William being baptised there in March 1700. I believe I found that there were seven children born to John, and that there was a marriage ref. for him and Jane there in 1698. I can't remember if there are any other Walfords knocking around Bocking at the time (either called John, or not). Obviously if there were, then this would put my claim into trouble!
-
Well I have looked on Boyds and on Freereg and Ancestry and cannot find a marriage of William Walford to Mary Bacon yet. A Jane Bacon was born in 1726 to William and Mary in Bocking, which throws weight onto him being the son of John and Jane.
Good news now. A William Walford, gentleman left a will, proved in 1767, and he mentions a son John Disbrowe Walford. Also mentions daughters, Mary, Jane and Frances. And mentions son in law Arthur Tabrum. He left the will in 1766.
Arthur Tabrum born in 1758 must have been the son of an Arthur Tabrum then?
So it does look like William is the son of John Walford and Jane Disbrowe.
-
Hi..my name is Chrissy I am from Victoria Australia...I was born in Burnie Tasmania. On my maternal line I am related back through Hanson/Barry/wade//walford/mayhew/bacon and walford/ disbrowe//cromwell/williams/ etc
William Bacon
1677–
BIRTH 5 AUG 1677 • Langham, Essex, England
DEATH Langham, Essex, buried St Mary the Virgin Church Essex
7th great-grandfather
Married
30 Jul 1702 • Langham, St Mary The Virgin, Essex, England
Elizabeth Ham
1681–1761
BIRTH ABT 1681 • of Langham, Essex, England
DEATH ABT 1761
7th great-grandmother
There daughter Mary Bacon
1704–1758
BIRTH 29 AUG 1704 • Langham, Essex, England
DEATH 30 JUN 1758 • Bocking, Essex, England
6th great-grandmother
Married 1722 Bocking, Essex
William Walford
1700–1766
BIRTH 23 MAR 1700 • Bocking, Braintree, Essex, England
DEATH 31 OCT 1766 • Bocking, Braintree, Essex, England
6th great-grandfather
William Walford was the son of John Walford and Jane Disbrowe
I have a tree on ancestry..I have extensively researched my mums ancestors if anyone would like help please contact me.
Chrissy
-
I post this for your delectation and hope that someone will try and challenge it (and that I can successfully defend it!). I know I would if I saw someone saying it, but anyway - here are my three direct lines of descent from Henry II, King John, and King John again. Let me know if I need to rethink, or if you spot a massive flaw that needs sorting!
I just think this needs putting to the test of some rigour. So here goes - challenge it all you like!
My Great Grandma was Emma Moore, born Waterloo, Liverpool in 1874. Died Seaforth 1955.
Her mother was a Harriet Amelia Cooper, born 1844 in Lane End, Stafford. Died Waterloo(?) 1923.
Her mother was a Frances Robinson from Essex, born there 1810.
Her mother was a Mary Ann Tabrum, born at Aveley, Essex 1783.
Her father was Arthur Tabrum, born 1758 at Bocking.
His mother was Mary Walford, born at Bocking in 1723.
Her father was William Walford, born at Bocking in 1700.
His mother, Jane Disbrowe, was born around 1675.
Her father was Valentine Disbrowe, born at Huntingdon around 1643.
His mother was Jane Cromwell (sister to Oliver), born at Huntingdom 1606.
Her mother was Elizabeth Steward, who lived between around 1564 and 1654.
Her father appears to be Sir William Steward, who died in 1594.
His father appears to be Nicholas Steward, who lived at Ely, having received a lease of the rectory there in 1548 from his brother, the Dean.
His mother was Cecilia Baskerville, born around 1470 of Eardisley, Hereford.
Her father was John Baskerville, c 1438 Eardisley.
Now my line splits into three.
Line One:
John's father was Sir John Baskerville, a knight born in February 1408 at Eardisley. He died December 1455.
His father was another John Baskerville (1387-1415) of Hereford.
His mother was Joan Everingham of Laxton, Nottingham.
Her father was William de Everingham, born around 1333 at Laxton, died around August 1370.
His mother was Joan Deiville of Egmanton, Nottingham (1315-1377).
Her father was John Deiville (1276-1325/6) of Egmanton
His mother was Maud Audley (c1260 of Audley, Stafford)
Her mother was Ella Longespee (1228-1299) of Audley
Her father was Sir William Longespee (1212-1250).
His father was William Longespee, 3rd Earl of Salisbury (1176-1226)
He was an illegitimate son of Henry II.
Line Two:
Sir John Baskerville's mother was Jane Brugge (1389) of Bridge Sollers, Hereford.
Her father was Sir John Brugge, a knight of Staunton Upon Wye (1368-1436)
His mother was Isabel de Grandison (1340 of Ashperton, Hereford)
Her mother was Blanche de Mortimer, Viscountess of Grandison (1310-1347) of Wigmore.
Her father was Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, born at Netherwood, Thornbury (1287-1330)
His father was Edmund Mortimer, a Baron. Born and died at Wigmore and lived 1252-1303.
His father was Roger Mortimer, another Baron. Born at Radnor, Wales in 1231.
His mother was Gwladys, daughter of Llewllyn of Wales (1205-1251).
Her mother was Joan Plantagenet.
And her father was King John.
Line Three:
Sir John Baskerville's wife was ELizabeth Touchet (1404 Heleigh, Stafford)
Her father was John Tuchet, 4th Baron of Audley
His father was Sir John Tuchet
His mother was Joan Audley (1331-1393)
His mother was Joan Mortimer (b. 1312)
And then the line rejoins the previous one, with the father being Roger Mortimer (1287-1330).
I have also found a link to the Baskerville family of Eardisly in my tree. The family were brought to comparative poverty following the civil war when the Castle was all but destroyed. It was then sold and the family dispersed. My Baskervilles appear a few miles away in Wolverley Worcestershire. My ancestor was the sister of John Baskerville -The Printer, (1706 - 1775). During his lifetime he spoke of his knowledge that he was descended from the Baskerville's of Eardisley. I am most interested in the connection of the Baskerville's to the Grey family (Lady Jane Grey, Elizabeth Woodville, Queen of England, Elizabeth of York, Queen of England) so there is another line of royal descent for you ;D
-
I am adding the line of descent of the Baskervilles from the Grey family for your information.
Elizabeth Woodville, Queen of England, (1437-1492). Married first Sir John Grey Sir, 1st Baron Ferrers of Groby, 1432–1461. (Married second, King Edward IV.) Their Daughter Princess Elizabeth Plantagenet known as Elizabeth of York (1466- ) married King Henry VII Tudor.
Elizabeth Woodville and John Grey had a son - Thomas Grey 1st Marquis of Dorset, 1st Earl of Huntingdon, 7th Baron Ferrers of Groby, (1455 - 1501).
Thomas Grey married Cecily Bonville, (Baroness De Grey) (1460–1530)
Thomas Grey and Cecily had 13 children. (Their son Thomas is the grandfather of Lady Jane Grey, Queen of England) Their daughter Mary Grey, (1493–1537) married Walter Devereux, Lord Ferrers of Chartley, (1488–1558).
Mary Grey and Walter Devereux had a daughter - Katherine Devereux, (1506– )
Katherine Devereux married Sir James Baskerville M.P & Sheriff, Knight Banneret, Knight of the Bath.
Sir James Baskerville was the son of Sir John Baskerville and ELizabeth Touchet as detailed in your line 3.
Hope this helps!