On Tuesday, July 19, 2005 at 11:37:03 PM UTC-5, Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> paul bulkley wrote:
> > Neel III married a daughter of Duke Robert of Normandy
> > (great great grand daughter of Richard Duke of
> > Normandy), and if this is correct presumably a sister
> > of William I of England. Children included Neel IV of
> > Halton and possibly a daughter who married William de
> > Vernon.
> There is no evidence that Niel of St. Sauveur was identical to Nigel of
> Halton, from whom many Cheshire families claim descent. Further, there
> is no evidence for this Vernon marriage (note that in your other post
> you marry Niel to a daughter of William).
> taf

I know it's 17 years since ya'll last posted on this thread, but I would like to ask if any of you gentleman are still interested in this genealogy.

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:00:21 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
> I know it's 17 years since ya'll last posted on this thread, but I would like to ask if any of you gentleman are still interested in this genealogy.

Do you have a specific question? I am unaware of any publuished progress, leaving us in the same boat:
1. The St Sauveur counts were an authentic family, though much of what you find about them in online pedigrees (and 19th century antiquarian publications) is wishful thinking or entirely made up.
2. Because they were a prominent family, there has been a long history of making name's-the-same identifications of Anglo-Norman barons with members of the family, and these identifications appear to range from possible but completely devoid of evidence other than the name to (again) groundlerss wishful thinking.

Regarding the origin of William Fitz Nigel of Halton, mentioned in the thread, Keats-Rohan implicitly suggests identification with a WIlliam filius Nigel de Haia, and states that he is named as 'nepos' by Walter de Gand. The latter relationship probably in some manner gave rise to the 19th century sources (and modern online pedigrees, and Wikipedia) that claim William married Agnes, Walter's sister, a relationship that would not be encompassed by 'nepos'. Keats-Rohan does not include this Agnes among her listing of the children of Gilbert, Walter's father.

taf

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:40:06 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 8:00:21 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
> > I know it's 17 years since ya'll last posted on this thread, but I would like to ask if any of you gentleman are still interested in this genealogy.
> Do you have a specific question? I am unaware of any publuished progress, leaving us in the same boat:
> 1. The St Sauveur counts were an authentic family, though much of what you find about them in online pedigrees (and 19th century antiquarian publications) is wishful thinking or entirely made up.
> 2. Because they were a prominent family, there has been a long history of making name's-the-same identifications of Anglo-Norman barons with members of the family, and these identifications appear to range from possible but completely devoid of evidence other than the name to (again) groundlerss wishful thinking.
>
> Regarding the origin of William Fitz Nigel of Halton, mentioned in the thread, Keats-Rohan implicitly suggests identification with a WIlliam filius Nigel de Haia, and states that he is named as 'nepos' by Walter de Gand. The latter relationship probably in some manner gave rise to the 19th century sources (and modern online pedigrees, and Wikipedia) that claim William married Agnes, Walter's sister, a relationship that would not be encompassed by 'nepos'. Keats-Rohan does not include this Agnes among her listing of the children of Gilbert, Walter's father.
>
> taf
my male

I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the last descendants in the male line.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:

> I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the last descendants in the male line.

I think I know where you are going with this and I have to warn you, there are probably at least three problematic/unsupported genealogical links that underly this conclusion.

taf

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
>
> > I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the last descendants in the male line.
> I think I know where you are going with this and I have to warn you, there are probably at least three problematic/unsupported genealogical links that underly this conclusion.
>

Lest it be unclear to people new to this area why I am saying this, the three problematic connections I had in mind are:

1) the suppositition that the Nigel who was father of baron WIlliam fitz Nigel was the same man as Neel de St Sauveur. This is just a name's-the-same identification, without solid foundation, and not accepted by any recent scholars I am aware of. Nigel, father of William, is a mysterious person, entirely undocumented except in his son's patronymic.

2) that the Hatton founder was brother of Nigel, WIlliam's father. This claim is based on a monastic foundation myth that reports that the father of William was accompanied from Normandy by five brothers. One of these, Wulfatus, in later genealogies morfed into an entirely undocumented Wolfric de Hatton, founder of the Hatton family. There seems to be no authentic history here, particularly given that the five claimed brothers of Nigel all bore Anglo-Saxon names (i.e. they were native men, presumably early landholders under the Norman William fitz Nigel)

3) that the Hattons descend from Wolfric. The earliest versions of the pedigrees connecting to 'Wolfric' make that man father of William de Hatton, who died almost 150 later (subsequently modified by insertion of additional generations). This seems to just be a made up connection, to attach the later family to the Wulfatus of the monastic foundation legend (not there associated with Hatton).

I could add another one, but have insufficient information to evaluate the situation.

4) that the poster's Hatten family descends in the male line from the Hatton lords, which I take to be the basis of the proposed male-line descent. The senior male line of the Hattons went extinct at the start of the 14th century, and though most of these families produced lines from younger sons, these lines are usually poorly documented, and the presumption that a later person with a similar surname must have descended from the earlier landed family of the same name is unsafe, to say the least.

taf

A quarta-feira, 27 de abril de 2022 à(s) 18:28:03 UTC+1, taf escreveu:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
> >
> > > I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the last descendants in the male line.
> > I think I know where you are going with this and I have to warn you, there are probably at least three problematic/unsupported genealogical links that underly this conclusion.
> >
> Lest it be unclear to people new to this area why I am saying this, the three problematic connections I had in mind are:
>
> 1) the suppositition that the Nigel who was father of baron WIlliam fitz Nigel was the same man as Neel de St Sauveur. This is just a name's-the-same identification, without solid foundation, and not accepted by any recent scholars I am aware of. Nigel, father of William, is a mysterious person, entirely undocumented except in his son's patronymic.
>
> 2) that the Hatton founder was brother of Nigel, WIlliam's father. This claim is based on a monastic foundation myth that reports that the father of William was accompanied from Normandy by five brothers. One of these, Wulfatus, in later genealogies morfed into an entirely undocumented Wolfric de Hatton, founder of the Hatton family. There seems to be no authentic history here, particularly given that the five claimed brothers of Nigel all bore Anglo-Saxon names (i.e. they were native men, presumably early landholders under the Norman William fitz Nigel)
>
> 3) that the Hattons descend from Wolfric. The earliest versions of the pedigrees connecting to 'Wolfric' make that man father of William de Hatton, who died almost 150 later (subsequently modified by insertion of additional generations). This seems to just be a made up connection, to attach the later family to the Wulfatus of the monastic foundation legend (not there associated with Hatton).
>
> I could add another one, but have insufficient information to evaluate the situation.
>
> 4) that the poster's Hatten family descends in the male line from the Hatton lords, which I take to be the basis of the proposed male-line descent. The senior male line of the Hattons went extinct at the start of the 14th century, and though most of these families produced lines from younger sons, these lines are usually poorly documented, and the presumption that a later person with a similar surname must have descended from the earlier landed family of the same name is unsafe, to say the least.
>
> taf
Thanks for this, Todd. I had never studied this family. What you said is interesting and clarifying.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:28:03 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
> >
> > > I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the last descendants in the male line.
> > I think I know where you are going with this and I have to warn you, there are probably at least three problematic/unsupported genealogical links that underly this conclusion.
> >
> Lest it be unclear to people new to this area why I am saying this, the three problematic connections I had in mind are:
>
> 1) the suppositition that the Nigel who was father of baron WIlliam fitz Nigel was the same man as Neel de St Sauveur. This is just a name's-the-same identification, without solid foundation, and not accepted by any recent scholars I am aware of. Nigel, father of William, is a mysterious person, entirely undocumented except in his son's patronymic.
>
> 2) that the Hatton founder was brother of Nigel, WIlliam's father. This claim is based on a monastic foundation myth that reports that the father of William was accompanied from Normandy by five brothers. One of these, Wulfatus, in later genealogies morfed into an entirely undocumented Wolfric de Hatton, founder of the Hatton family. There seems to be no authentic history here, particularly given that the five claimed brothers of Nigel all bore Anglo-Saxon names (i.e. they were native men, presumably early landholders under the Norman William fitz Nigel)
>
> 3) that the Hattons descend from Wolfric. The earliest versions of the pedigrees connecting to 'Wolfric' make that man father of William de Hatton, who died almost 150 later (subsequently modified by insertion of additional generations). This seems to just be a made up connection, to attach the later family to the Wulfatus of the monastic foundation legend (not there associated with Hatton).
>
> I could add another one, but have insufficient information to evaluate the situation.
>
> 4) that the poster's Hatten family descends in the male line from the Hatton lords, which I take to be the basis of the proposed male-line descent. The senior male line of the Hattons went extinct at the start of the 14th century, and though most of these families produced lines from younger sons, these lines are usually poorly documented, and the presumption that a later person with a similar surname must have descended from the earlier landed family of the same name is unsafe, to say the least.
>
> taf

I am certainly not trying to falsely establish a connection. I have spent hundreds of hours researching the history, and I do admi I'm still no where near a definitive conclusion. I am confident that I have perused the paternal line all the way back to Malahuc, the Uncle of Rollo. I have found several instances that the family changed their name. I am simply asking for help, and this is a purely personal/academic journey!

A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 10:11:32 UTC+1, Trent Hatten escreveu:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:28:03 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the last descendants in the male line.
> > > I think I know where you are going with this and I have to warn you, there are probably at least three problematic/unsupported genealogical links that underly this conclusion.
> > >
> > Lest it be unclear to people new to this area why I am saying this, the three problematic connections I had in mind are:
> >
> > 1) the suppositition that the Nigel who was father of baron WIlliam fitz Nigel was the same man as Neel de St Sauveur. This is just a name's-the-same identification, without solid foundation, and not accepted by any recent scholars I am aware of. Nigel, father of William, is a mysterious person, entirely undocumented except in his son's patronymic.
> >
> > 2) that the Hatton founder was brother of Nigel, WIlliam's father. This claim is based on a monastic foundation myth that reports that the father of William was accompanied from Normandy by five brothers. One of these, Wulfatus, in later genealogies morfed into an entirely undocumented Wolfric de Hatton, founder of the Hatton family. There seems to be no authentic history here, particularly given that the five claimed brothers of Nigel all bore Anglo-Saxon names (i.e. they were native men, presumably early landholders under the Norman William fitz Nigel)
> >
> > 3) that the Hattons descend from Wolfric. The earliest versions of the pedigrees connecting to 'Wolfric' make that man father of William de Hatton, who died almost 150 later (subsequently modified by insertion of additional generations). This seems to just be a made up connection, to attach the later family to the Wulfatus of the monastic foundation legend (not there associated with Hatton).
> >
> > I could add another one, but have insufficient information to evaluate the situation.
> >
> > 4) that the poster's Hatten family descends in the male line from the Hatton lords, which I take to be the basis of the proposed male-line descent.. The senior male line of the Hattons went extinct at the start of the 14th century, and though most of these families produced lines from younger sons, these lines are usually poorly documented, and the presumption that a later person with a similar surname must have descended from the earlier landed family of the same name is unsafe, to say the least.
> >
> > taf
> I am certainly not trying to falsely establish a connection. I have spent hundreds of hours researching the history, and I do admi I'm still no where near a definitive conclusion. I am confident that I have perused the paternal line all the way back to Malahuc, the Uncle of Rollo. I have found several instances that the family changed their name. I am simply asking for help, and this is a purely personal/academic journey!
We don't know Rollo's parentage, so any claim that they were descended from a paternal uncle of his named Mahaluc (I never heard of such an uncle of Rollo in any of his supposed parentages, BTW), is fantasy.

On 02-May-22 2:31 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 10:11:32 UTC+1, Trent Hatten escreveu:
>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:28:03 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the last descendants in the male line.
>>>> I think I know where you are going with this and I have to warn you, there are probably at least three problematic/unsupported genealogical links that underly this conclusion.
>>>>
>>> Lest it be unclear to people new to this area why I am saying this, the three problematic connections I had in mind are:
>>>
>>> 1) the suppositition that the Nigel who was father of baron WIlliam fitz Nigel was the same man as Neel de St Sauveur. This is just a name's-the-same identification, without solid foundation, and not accepted by any recent scholars I am aware of. Nigel, father of William, is a mysterious person, entirely undocumented except in his son's patronymic.
>>>
>>> 2) that the Hatton founder was brother of Nigel, WIlliam's father. This claim is based on a monastic foundation myth that reports that the father of William was accompanied from Normandy by five brothers. One of these, Wulfatus, in later genealogies morfed into an entirely undocumented Wolfric de Hatton, founder of the Hatton family. There seems to be no authentic history here, particularly given that the five claimed brothers of Nigel all bore Anglo-Saxon names (i.e. they were native men, presumably early landholders under the Norman William fitz Nigel)
>>>
>>> 3) that the Hattons descend from Wolfric. The earliest versions of the pedigrees connecting to 'Wolfric' make that man father of William de Hatton, who died almost 150 later (subsequently modified by insertion of additional generations). This seems to just be a made up connection, to attach the later family to the Wulfatus of the monastic foundation legend (not there associated with Hatton).
>>>
>>> I could add another one, but have insufficient information to evaluate the situation.
>>>
>>> 4) that the poster's Hatten family descends in the male line from the Hatton lords, which I take to be the basis of the proposed male-line descent. The senior male line of the Hattons went extinct at the start of the 14th century, and though most of these families produced lines from younger sons, these lines are usually poorly documented, and the presumption that a later person with a similar surname must have descended from the earlier landed family of the same name is unsafe, to say the least.
>>>
>>> taf
>> I am certainly not trying to falsely establish a connection. I have spent hundreds of hours researching the history, and I do admi I'm still no where near a definitive conclusion. I am confident that I have perused the paternal line all the way back to Malahuc, the Uncle of Rollo. I have found several instances that the family changed their name. I am simply asking for help, and this is a purely personal/academic journey!
> We don't know Rollo's parentage, so any claim that they were descended from a paternal uncle of his named Mahaluc (I never heard of such an uncle of Rollo in any of his supposed parentages, BTW), is fantasy.

The name is Malahulc, and the source stating that he was a paternal
uncle of Rollo is an interpolation by Orderic in William of Jumièges'
_Gesta Normannorum ducum_ ("Rogerius Toenites de stirpe Malahulcii, qui
Rollonis ducis patruus fuerat"). Since Orderic did not name any brother
of Malahulc, this of course does not help in identifying Rollo's father.

As for a line of agnatic descent from Malahulc - assuming he was
correctly described in the 12th century - for any family other than the
Tosnys, to whom Orderic drew the bare connection, I don't know of a source.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 3:16:47 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> As for a line of agnatic descent from Malahulc - assuming he was
> correctly described in the 12th century - for any family other than the
> Tosnys, to whom Orderic drew the bare connection, I don't know of a source.

Most English language sources seem to trace to John Pym Yeatman (1882), The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel, who assigns three sons, giving rise to Toeny, St Sauveur and Bayeux, based on his own evaluation of French suources from previous decades that I just can't be bothered to track down, given that his summary of their work shows them to have started with assuming that there must have been a connection and then going fishing among the known ducal relatives for a place to dangle the lines - this is from a quick glance, as none of what I am seeing is of a level of schoalrship that would merit a more careful reading.

taf

A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 23:16:47 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
> On 02-May-22 2:31 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 10:11:32 UTC+1, Trent Hatten escreveu:
> >> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:28:03 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the last descendants in the male line.
> >>>> I think I know where you are going with this and I have to warn you, there are probably at least three problematic/unsupported genealogical links that underly this conclusion.
> >>>>
> >>> Lest it be unclear to people new to this area why I am saying this, the three problematic connections I had in mind are:
> >>>
> >>> 1) the suppositition that the Nigel who was father of baron WIlliam fitz Nigel was the same man as Neel de St Sauveur. This is just a name's-the-same identification, without solid foundation, and not accepted by any recent scholars I am aware of. Nigel, father of William, is a mysterious person, entirely undocumented except in his son's patronymic.
> >>>
> >>> 2) that the Hatton founder was brother of Nigel, WIlliam's father. This claim is based on a monastic foundation myth that reports that the father of William was accompanied from Normandy by five brothers. One of these, Wulfatus, in later genealogies morfed into an entirely undocumented Wolfric de Hatton, founder of the Hatton family. There seems to be no authentic history here, particularly given that the five claimed brothers of Nigel all bore Anglo-Saxon names (i.e. they were native men, presumably early landholders under the Norman William fitz Nigel)
> >>>
> >>> 3) that the Hattons descend from Wolfric. The earliest versions of the pedigrees connecting to 'Wolfric' make that man father of William de Hatton, who died almost 150 later (subsequently modified by insertion of additional generations). This seems to just be a made up connection, to attach the later family to the Wulfatus of the monastic foundation legend (not there associated with Hatton).
> >>>
> >>> I could add another one, but have insufficient information to evaluate the situation.
> >>>
> >>> 4) that the poster's Hatten family descends in the male line from the Hatton lords, which I take to be the basis of the proposed male-line descent. The senior male line of the Hattons went extinct at the start of the 14th century, and though most of these families produced lines from younger sons, these lines are usually poorly documented, and the presumption that a later person with a similar surname must have descended from the earlier landed family of the same name is unsafe, to say the least.
> >>>
> >>> taf
> >> I am certainly not trying to falsely establish a connection. I have spent hundreds of hours researching the history, and I do admi I'm still no where near a definitive conclusion. I am confident that I have perused the paternal line all the way back to Malahuc, the Uncle of Rollo. I have found several instances that the family changed their name. I am simply asking for help, and this is a purely personal/academic journey!
> > We don't know Rollo's parentage, so any claim that they were descended from a paternal uncle of his named Mahaluc (I never heard of such an uncle of Rollo in any of his supposed parentages, BTW), is fantasy.
> The name is Malahulc, and the source stating that he was a paternal
> uncle of Rollo is an interpolation by Orderic in William of Jumièges'
> _Gesta Normannorum ducum_ ("Rogerius Toenites de stirpe Malahulcii, qui
> Rollonis ducis patruus fuerat"). Since Orderic did not name any brother
> of Malahulc, this of course does not help in identifying Rollo's father.
>
> As for a line of agnatic descent from Malahulc - assuming he was
> correctly described in the 12th century - for any family other than the
> Tosnys, to whom Orderic drew the bare connection, I don't know of a source.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
Thanks for this, Peter.

A segunda-feira, 2 de maio de 2022 à(s) 02:04:54 UTC+1, taf escreveu:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 3:16:47 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> > As for a line of agnatic descent from Malahulc - assuming he was
> > correctly described in the 12th century - for any family other than the
> > Tosnys, to whom Orderic drew the bare connection, I don't know of a source.
> Most English language sources seem to trace to John Pym Yeatman (1882), The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel, who assigns three sons, giving rise to Toeny, St Sauveur and Bayeux, based on his own evaluation of French suources from previous decades that I just can't be bothered to track down, given that his summary of their work shows them to have started with assuming that there must have been a connection and then going fishing among the known ducal relatives for a place to dangle the lines - this is from a quick glance, as none of what I am seeing is of a level of schoalrship that would merit a more careful reading.
>
> taf
Thanks for this, Todd.

A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 23:16:47 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
> On 02-May-22 2:31 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 10:11:32 UTC+1, Trent Hatten escreveu:
> >> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:28:03 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the last descendants in the male line.
> >>>> I think I know where you are going with this and I have to warn you, there are probably at least three problematic/unsupported genealogical links that underly this conclusion.
> >>>>
> >>> Lest it be unclear to people new to this area why I am saying this, the three problematic connections I had in mind are:
> >>>
> >>> 1) the suppositition that the Nigel who was father of baron WIlliam fitz Nigel was the same man as Neel de St Sauveur. This is just a name's-the-same identification, without solid foundation, and not accepted by any recent scholars I am aware of. Nigel, father of William, is a mysterious person, entirely undocumented except in his son's patronymic.
> >>>
> >>> 2) that the Hatton founder was brother of Nigel, WIlliam's father. This claim is based on a monastic foundation myth that reports that the father of William was accompanied from Normandy by five brothers. One of these, Wulfatus, in later genealogies morfed into an entirely undocumented Wolfric de Hatton, founder of the Hatton family. There seems to be no authentic history here, particularly given that the five claimed brothers of Nigel all bore Anglo-Saxon names (i.e. they were native men, presumably early landholders under the Norman William fitz Nigel)
> >>>
> >>> 3) that the Hattons descend from Wolfric. The earliest versions of the pedigrees connecting to 'Wolfric' make that man father of William de Hatton, who died almost 150 later (subsequently modified by insertion of additional generations). This seems to just be a made up connection, to attach the later family to the Wulfatus of the monastic foundation legend (not there associated with Hatton).
> >>>
> >>> I could add another one, but have insufficient information to evaluate the situation.
> >>>
> >>> 4) that the poster's Hatten family descends in the male line from the Hatton lords, which I take to be the basis of the proposed male-line descent. The senior male line of the Hattons went extinct at the start of the 14th century, and though most of these families produced lines from younger sons, these lines are usually poorly documented, and the presumption that a later person with a similar surname must have descended from the earlier landed family of the same name is unsafe, to say the least.
> >>>
> >>> taf
> >> I am certainly not trying to falsely establish a connection. I have spent hundreds of hours researching the history, and I do admi I'm still no where near a definitive conclusion. I am confident that I have perused the paternal line all the way back to Malahuc, the Uncle of Rollo. I have found several instances that the family changed their name. I am simply asking for help, and this is a purely personal/academic journey!
> > We don't know Rollo's parentage, so any claim that they were descended from a paternal uncle of his named Mahaluc (I never heard of such an uncle of Rollo in any of his supposed parentages, BTW), is fantasy.
> The name is Malahulc, and the source stating that he was a paternal
> uncle of Rollo is an interpolation by Orderic in William of Jumièges'
> _Gesta Normannorum ducum_ ("Rogerius Toenites de stirpe Malahulcii, qui
> Rollonis ducis patruus fuerat"). Since Orderic did not name any brother
> of Malahulc, this of course does not help in identifying Rollo's father.
>
> As for a line of agnatic descent from Malahulc - assuming he was
> correctly described in the 12th century - for any family other than the
> Tosnys, to whom Orderic drew the bare connection, I don't know of a source.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
Wouldn't you agree the descent is fantasy, though?

On 02-May-22 11:31 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 23:16:47 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
>> On 02-May-22 2:31 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>>> A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 10:11:32 UTC+1, Trent Hatten escreveu:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:28:03 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the last descendants in the male line.
>>>>>> I think I know where you are going with this and I have to warn you, there are probably at least three problematic/unsupported genealogical links that underly this conclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Lest it be unclear to people new to this area why I am saying this, the three problematic connections I had in mind are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) the suppositition that the Nigel who was father of baron WIlliam fitz Nigel was the same man as Neel de St Sauveur. This is just a name's-the-same identification, without solid foundation, and not accepted by any recent scholars I am aware of. Nigel, father of William, is a mysterious person, entirely undocumented except in his son's patronymic.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) that the Hatton founder was brother of Nigel, WIlliam's father. This claim is based on a monastic foundation myth that reports that the father of William was accompanied from Normandy by five brothers. One of these, Wulfatus, in later genealogies morfed into an entirely undocumented Wolfric de Hatton, founder of the Hatton family. There seems to be no authentic history here, particularly given that the five claimed brothers of Nigel all bore Anglo-Saxon names (i.e. they were native men, presumably early landholders under the Norman William fitz Nigel)
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) that the Hattons descend from Wolfric. The earliest versions of the pedigrees connecting to 'Wolfric' make that man father of William de Hatton, who died almost 150 later (subsequently modified by insertion of additional generations). This seems to just be a made up connection, to attach the later family to the Wulfatus of the monastic foundation legend (not there associated with Hatton).
>>>>>
>>>>> I could add another one, but have insufficient information to evaluate the situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) that the poster's Hatten family descends in the male line from the Hatton lords, which I take to be the basis of the proposed male-line descent. The senior male line of the Hattons went extinct at the start of the 14th century, and though most of these families produced lines from younger sons, these lines are usually poorly documented, and the presumption that a later person with a similar surname must have descended from the earlier landed family of the same name is unsafe, to say the least.
>>>>>
>>>>> taf
>>>> I am certainly not trying to falsely establish a connection. I have spent hundreds of hours researching the history, and I do admi I'm still no where near a definitive conclusion. I am confident that I have perused the paternal line all the way back to Malahuc, the Uncle of Rollo. I have found several instances that the family changed their name. I am simply asking for help, and this is a purely personal/academic journey!
>>> We don't know Rollo's parentage, so any claim that they were descended from a paternal uncle of his named Mahaluc (I never heard of such an uncle of Rollo in any of his supposed parentages, BTW), is fantasy.
>> The name is Malahulc, and the source stating that he was a paternal
>> uncle of Rollo is an interpolation by Orderic in William of Jumièges'
>> _Gesta Normannorum ducum_ ("Rogerius Toenites de stirpe Malahulcii, qui
>> Rollonis ducis patruus fuerat"). Since Orderic did not name any brother
>> of Malahulc, this of course does not help in identifying Rollo's father.
>>
>> As for a line of agnatic descent from Malahulc - assuming he was
>> correctly described in the 12th century - for any family other than the
>> Tosnys, to whom Orderic drew the bare connection, I don't know of a source.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> https://www.avg.com
> Wouldn't you agree the descent is fantasy, though?

If you mean the descent from Malahulc to Saint-Sauveur, this appears to
be a fantasy of English busy-bodies and genealogists-for-hire such as
John Pym Yeatman (whose works I never consult without a nose-peg handy)
hawking "ancient" bloodlines to gullible patrons or for pretentious
wannabes. There was no shortage of these nuisances in the 19th century.
His claim that Malahulc was also known as "Halduc de Tresney" is rotten
garbage.

If you mean the agnatic descent stated by Orderic from Malahulc to the
Tosny family, I have no reason to doubt that this was accepted as true
in the 12th century and probably for a long time before it was briefly
documented. The story seems quite plausible to me, accounting for the
special status of the early Tosny family and the otherwise mysterious
promotion by Rollo's son William of their kinsman Hugo from a mere monk
at Saint-Denis to be archbishop of Rouen in 942. The objection that the
name Hugo indicates the man must have been a Frank rather than a Norman
is - frankly - barking: Rollo was baptised as Robert, we don't know any
pagan name for his son William, and Hugo was another Frankish magnate's
name very likely to have been given to a convert. Hostages were
freqently exchanged between Normans and Franks, as well as captives
taken, and I see no particular difficulty with a grandson of Rollo's
uncle being educated as a monk at Saint-Denis.

Peter Stewart

On 02-May-22 12:10 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 02-May-22 11:31 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>> A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 23:16:47 UTC+1,
>> pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
>>> On 02-May-22 2:31 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>>>> A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 10:11:32 UTC+1, Trent Hatten
>>>> escreveu:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:28:03 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my
>>>>>>>> family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the
>>>>>>>> last descendants in the male line.
>>>>>>> I think I know where you are going with this and I have to warn
>>>>>>> you, there are probably at least three problematic/unsupported
>>>>>>> genealogical links that underly this conclusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lest it be unclear to people new to this area why I am saying
>>>>>> this, the three problematic connections I had in mind are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) the suppositition that the Nigel who was father of baron
>>>>>> WIlliam fitz Nigel was the same man as Neel de St Sauveur. This is
>>>>>> just a name's-the-same identification, without solid foundation,
>>>>>> and not accepted by any recent scholars I am aware of. Nigel,
>>>>>> father of William, is a mysterious person, entirely undocumented
>>>>>> except in his son's patronymic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) that the Hatton founder was brother of Nigel, WIlliam's father.
>>>>>> This claim is based on a monastic foundation myth that reports
>>>>>> that the father of William was accompanied from Normandy by five
>>>>>> brothers. One of these, Wulfatus, in later genealogies morfed into
>>>>>> an entirely undocumented Wolfric de Hatton, founder of the Hatton
>>>>>> family. There seems to be no authentic history here, particularly
>>>>>> given that the five claimed brothers of Nigel all bore Anglo-Saxon
>>>>>> names (i.e. they were native men, presumably early landholders
>>>>>> under the Norman William fitz Nigel)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) that the Hattons descend from Wolfric. The earliest versions of
>>>>>> the pedigrees connecting to 'Wolfric' make that man father of
>>>>>> William de Hatton, who died almost 150 later (subsequently
>>>>>> modified by insertion of additional generations). This seems to
>>>>>> just be a made up connection, to attach the later family to the
>>>>>> Wulfatus of the monastic foundation legend (not there associated
>>>>>> with Hatton).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I could add another one, but have insufficient information to
>>>>>> evaluate the situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4) that the poster's Hatten family descends in the male line from
>>>>>> the Hatton lords, which I take to be the basis of the proposed
>>>>>> male-line descent. The senior male line of the Hattons went
>>>>>> extinct at the start of the 14th century, and though most of these
>>>>>> families produced lines from younger sons, these lines are usually
>>>>>> poorly documented, and the presumption that a later person with a
>>>>>> similar surname must have descended from the earlier landed family
>>>>>> of the same name is unsafe, to say the least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> taf
>>>>> I am certainly not trying to falsely establish a connection. I have
>>>>> spent hundreds of hours researching the history, and I do admi I'm
>>>>> still no where near a definitive conclusion. I am confident that I
>>>>> have perused the paternal line all the way back to Malahuc, the
>>>>> Uncle of Rollo. I have found several instances that the family
>>>>> changed their name. I am simply asking for help, and this is a
>>>>> purely personal/academic journey!
>>>> We don't know Rollo's parentage, so any claim that they were
>>>> descended from a paternal uncle of his named Mahaluc (I never heard
>>>> of such an uncle of Rollo in any of his supposed parentages, BTW),
>>>> is fantasy.
>>> The name is Malahulc, and the source stating that he was a paternal
>>> uncle of Rollo is an interpolation by Orderic in William of Jumièges'
>>> _Gesta Normannorum ducum_ ("Rogerius Toenites de stirpe Malahulcii, qui
>>> Rollonis ducis patruus fuerat"). Since Orderic did not name any brother
>>> of Malahulc, this of course does not help in identifying Rollo's father.
>>>
>>> As for a line of agnatic descent from Malahulc - assuming he was
>>> correctly described in the 12th century - for any family other than the
>>> Tosnys, to whom Orderic drew the bare connection, I don't know of a
>>> source.
>>>
>>> Peter Stewart
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>> https://www.avg.com
>> Wouldn't you agree the descent is fantasy, though?
>
> If you mean the descent from Malahulc to Saint-Sauveur, this appears to
> be a fantasy of English busy-bodies and genealogists-for-hire such as
> John Pym Yeatman (whose works I never consult without a nose-peg handy)
> hawking "ancient" bloodlines to gullible patrons or for pretentious
> wannabes. There was no shortage of these nuisances in the 19th century.
> His claim that Malahulc was also known as "Halduc de Tresney" is rotten
> garbage.

This "Tresney" garbage may have originated from a life of William I by
Sir John Hayward published in 1613, where he called Roger de Tosny
"Roger Tresuye" - at any rate, that is the earliest approximation I can
find to name Yeatman misrepresented as belonging to Rollo's uncle and a
variant of Tosny (p. 73 of the book cited upthread by Todd: "The
chronicle of Normandy states that another name of this uncle was Halduc
de Tresney, another form of the name Toesni").

Citing "The chronicle of Normandy" is a shameless imposture even by
Yeatman's self-serving standards.

Peter Stewart

On 02-May-22 2:48 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 02-May-22 12:10 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 02-May-22 11:31 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>>> A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 23:16:47 UTC+1,
>>> pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
>>>> On 02-May-22 2:31 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>>>>> A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 10:11:32 UTC+1, Trent Hatten
>>>>> escreveu:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:28:03 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my
>>>>>>>>> family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the
>>>>>>>>> last descendants in the male line.
>>>>>>>> I think I know where you are going with this and I have to warn
>>>>>>>> you, there are probably at least three problematic/unsupported
>>>>>>>> genealogical links that underly this conclusion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lest it be unclear to people new to this area why I am saying
>>>>>>> this, the three problematic connections I had in mind are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) the suppositition that the Nigel who was father of baron
>>>>>>> WIlliam fitz Nigel was the same man as Neel de St Sauveur. This
>>>>>>> is just a name's-the-same identification, without solid
>>>>>>> foundation, and not accepted by any recent scholars I am aware
>>>>>>> of. Nigel, father of William, is a mysterious person, entirely
>>>>>>> undocumented except in his son's patronymic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) that the Hatton founder was brother of Nigel, WIlliam's
>>>>>>> father. This claim is based on a monastic foundation myth that
>>>>>>> reports that the father of William was accompanied from Normandy
>>>>>>> by five brothers. One of these, Wulfatus, in later genealogies
>>>>>>> morfed into an entirely undocumented Wolfric de Hatton, founder
>>>>>>> of the Hatton family. There seems to be no authentic history
>>>>>>> here, particularly given that the five claimed brothers of Nigel
>>>>>>> all bore Anglo-Saxon names (i.e. they were native men, presumably
>>>>>>> early landholders under the Norman William fitz Nigel)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) that the Hattons descend from Wolfric. The earliest versions
>>>>>>> of the pedigrees connecting to 'Wolfric' make that man father of
>>>>>>> William de Hatton, who died almost 150 later (subsequently
>>>>>>> modified by insertion of additional generations). This seems to
>>>>>>> just be a made up connection, to attach the later family to the
>>>>>>> Wulfatus of the monastic foundation legend (not there associated
>>>>>>> with Hatton).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I could add another one, but have insufficient information to
>>>>>>> evaluate the situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4) that the poster's Hatten family descends in the male line from
>>>>>>> the Hatton lords, which I take to be the basis of the proposed
>>>>>>> male-line descent. The senior male line of the Hattons went
>>>>>>> extinct at the start of the 14th century, and though most of
>>>>>>> these families produced lines from younger sons, these lines are
>>>>>>> usually poorly documented, and the presumption that a later
>>>>>>> person with a similar surname must have descended from the
>>>>>>> earlier landed family of the same name is unsafe, to say the least.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> taf
>>>>>> I am certainly not trying to falsely establish a connection. I
>>>>>> have spent hundreds of hours researching the history, and I do
>>>>>> admi I'm still no where near a definitive conclusion. I am
>>>>>> confident that I have perused the paternal line all the way back
>>>>>> to Malahuc, the Uncle of Rollo. I have found several instances
>>>>>> that the family changed their name. I am simply asking for help,
>>>>>> and this is a purely personal/academic journey!
>>>>> We don't know Rollo's parentage, so any claim that they were
>>>>> descended from a paternal uncle of his named Mahaluc (I never heard
>>>>> of such an uncle of Rollo in any of his supposed parentages, BTW),
>>>>> is fantasy.
>>>> The name is Malahulc, and the source stating that he was a paternal
>>>> uncle of Rollo is an interpolation by Orderic in William of Jumièges'
>>>> _Gesta Normannorum ducum_ ("Rogerius Toenites de stirpe Malahulcii, qui
>>>> Rollonis ducis patruus fuerat"). Since Orderic did not name any brother
>>>> of Malahulc, this of course does not help in identifying Rollo's
>>>> father.
>>>>
>>>> As for a line of agnatic descent from Malahulc - assuming he was
>>>> correctly described in the 12th century - for any family other than the
>>>> Tosnys, to whom Orderic drew the bare connection, I don't know of a
>>>> source.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Stewart
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>> https://www.avg.com
>>> Wouldn't you agree the descent is fantasy, though?
>>
>> If you mean the descent from Malahulc to Saint-Sauveur, this appears
>> to be a fantasy of English busy-bodies and genealogists-for-hire such
>> as John Pym Yeatman (whose works I never consult without a nose-peg
>> handy) hawking "ancient" bloodlines to gullible patrons or for
>> pretentious wannabes. There was no shortage of these nuisances in the
>> 19th century. His claim that Malahulc was also known as "Halduc de
>> Tresney" is rotten garbage.
>
> This "Tresney" garbage may have originated from a life of William I by
> Sir John Hayward published in 1613, where he called Roger de Tosny
> "Roger Tresuye" - at any rate, that is the earliest approximation I can
> find to name Yeatman misrepresented as belonging to Rollo's uncle and a
> variant of Tosny (p. 73 of the book cited upthread by Todd: "The
> chronicle of Normandy states that another name of this uncle was Halduc
> de Tresney, another form of the name Toesni").

To be clearer, Roger de Tosny is named "Roger Tresuye" in the 1613
edition of Hayward's life (here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qC08AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA12), but Yeatman
more probably came across the name as "Tresny" in an edition from 1809
(here: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=MMY_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA443).

Peter Stewart

A segunda-feira, 2 de maio de 2022 à(s) 03:10:45 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
> On 02-May-22 11:31 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 23:16:47 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
> >> On 02-May-22 2:31 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> >>> A domingo, 1 de maio de 2022 à(s) 10:11:32 UTC+1, Trent Hatten escreveu:
> >>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:28:03 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:41 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-7, Trent Hatten wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have tons of questions, actually. I've been researching my family tree for about 3 years, and I think my family may be the last descendants in the male line.
> >>>>>> I think I know where you are going with this and I have to warn you, there are probably at least three problematic/unsupported genealogical links that underly this conclusion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Lest it be unclear to people new to this area why I am saying this, the three problematic connections I had in mind are:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) the suppositition that the Nigel who was father of baron WIlliam fitz Nigel was the same man as Neel de St Sauveur. This is just a name's-the-same identification, without solid foundation, and not accepted by any recent scholars I am aware of. Nigel, father of William, is a mysterious person, entirely undocumented except in his son's patronymic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) that the Hatton founder was brother of Nigel, WIlliam's father. This claim is based on a monastic foundation myth that reports that the father of William was accompanied from Normandy by five brothers. One of these, Wulfatus, in later genealogies morfed into an entirely undocumented Wolfric de Hatton, founder of the Hatton family. There seems to be no authentic history here, particularly given that the five claimed brothers of Nigel all bore Anglo-Saxon names (i.e. they were native men, presumably early landholders under the Norman William fitz Nigel)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3) that the Hattons descend from Wolfric. The earliest versions of the pedigrees connecting to 'Wolfric' make that man father of William de Hatton, who died almost 150 later (subsequently modified by insertion of additional generations). This seems to just be a made up connection, to attach the later family to the Wulfatus of the monastic foundation legend (not there associated with Hatton).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I could add another one, but have insufficient information to evaluate the situation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4) that the poster's Hatten family descends in the male line from the Hatton lords, which I take to be the basis of the proposed male-line descent. The senior male line of the Hattons went extinct at the start of the 14th century, and though most of these families produced lines from younger sons, these lines are usually poorly documented, and the presumption that a later person with a similar surname must have descended from the earlier landed family of the same name is unsafe, to say the least.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> taf
> >>>> I am certainly not trying to falsely establish a connection. I have spent hundreds of hours researching the history, and I do admi I'm still no where near a definitive conclusion. I am confident that I have perused the paternal line all the way back to Malahuc, the Uncle of Rollo. I have found several instances that the family changed their name. I am simply asking for help, and this is a purely personal/academic journey!
> >>> We don't know Rollo's parentage, so any claim that they were descended from a paternal uncle of his named Mahaluc (I never heard of such an uncle of Rollo in any of his supposed parentages, BTW), is fantasy.
> >> The name is Malahulc, and the source stating that he was a paternal
> >> uncle of Rollo is an interpolation by Orderic in William of Jumièges'
> >> _Gesta Normannorum ducum_ ("Rogerius Toenites de stirpe Malahulcii, qui
> >> Rollonis ducis patruus fuerat"). Since Orderic did not name any brother
> >> of Malahulc, this of course does not help in identifying Rollo's father.
> >>
> >> As for a line of agnatic descent from Malahulc - assuming he was
> >> correctly described in the 12th century - for any family other than the
> >> Tosnys, to whom Orderic drew the bare connection, I don't know of a source.
> >>
> >> Peter Stewart
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >> https://www.avg.com
> > Wouldn't you agree the descent is fantasy, though?
> If you mean the descent from Malahulc to Saint-Sauveur, this appears to
> be a fantasy of English busy-bodies and genealogists-for-hire such as
> John Pym Yeatman (whose works I never consult without a nose-peg handy)
> hawking "ancient" bloodlines to gullible patrons or for pretentious
> wannabes. There was no shortage of these nuisances in the 19th century.
> His claim that Malahulc was also known as "Halduc de Tresney" is rotten
> garbage.
>
> If you mean the agnatic descent stated by Orderic from Malahulc to the
> Tosny family, I have no reason to doubt that this was accepted as true
> in the 12th century and probably for a long time before it was briefly
> documented. The story seems quite plausible to me, accounting for the
> special status of the early Tosny family and the otherwise mysterious
> promotion by Rollo's son William of their kinsman Hugo from a mere monk
> at Saint-Denis to be archbishop of Rouen in 942. The objection that the
> name Hugo indicates the man must have been a Frank rather than a Norman
> is - frankly - barking: Rollo was baptised as Robert, we don't know any
> pagan name for his son William, and Hugo was another Frankish magnate's
> name very likely to have been given to a convert. Hostages were
> freqently exchanged between Normans and Franks, as well as captives
> taken, and I see no particular difficulty with a grandson of Rollo's
> uncle being educated as a monk at Saint-Denis.
>
> Peter Stewart
Thanks for this, Peter.
I was refering to the Saint-Sauveur descent.
I am surprised to learn that the Tosny descent is plausible.