I’ve been researching the ancestry of Violet Hemsley (Duncan) (Mann-Thomson) Fitzgerald (1881-1968), whose son Reginald Patrick Fitzgerald of Petworth, Sussex, Commander Royal Navy 1955-64 (1921-2002) can be found at The Peerage website, here:
http://www.thepeerage.com/p66131.htm#i661306

Violet’s uncle, William Butler Duncan of New York City (1830-1912), was a Scottish-American banker and railroad magnate who during the 1860s entertained the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and his younger brother the Duke of Connaught, at his mansion on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. His wife was Jane Percy Sargent (1833-1905), granddaughter of Winthrop Sargent (1753-1820), Governor of the Mississippi Territory 1798-1801. W. Butler Duncan has a Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Butler_Duncan

He can also be found in the Genealogics database, here:
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00687998&tree=LEO

Duncan’s son-in-law, journalist Paul Dana (1852-1930), was the editor of the New York ‘Sun’ newspaper from 1897-1903. Duncan’s daughter, Dame Jessie Percy Butler Wilton (Duncan) Phipps (1855-1934), has an entry in ODNB:
https://www.oxforddnb.com/search?q=Jessie+Phipps&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true

As does the granddaughter of Dame Jessie Phipps, British actress Joyce Grenfell (1910-1979):
https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-31172?rskey=4guOQL&result=1

This Duncan family is covered in the article ‘Duncan late of Knossington Grange’ in Burke’s Landed Gentry 13th Edn (1921), p. 534.

It is also covered much more thoroughly in the article ‘Alexander Duncan (1805-1889) of Scotland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and England’ by Kip Sperry in the book ‘Genealogies of Rhode Island Families: From The New England Historical and Genealogical Register’ Vol. I (1989), pp. 430-437.

None of the above sources have traced the royal ancestry of the Duncans of Providence, Rhode Island. Given the prominence of several descendants, in both the U.S. and Britain, it may make a nice addition to a subsequent edition of Gary Boyd Roberts’s ‘Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants’ series.

Through his father, William Butler Duncan of New York City, his daughter Dame Jessie Phipps, and his granddaughter Joyce Grenfell, descend from two of the illegitimate sons of James V of Scotland.

James V had two sons A1 and B1 (see below):
A1) Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of Orkney (1533-1593) m. Lady Janet Kennedy (c..1542-1598), and had
A2) Lady Mary Stewart (b. c.1562) m. Patrick, 6th Lord Gray (c.1560-1611, descended from Edward III), and had
A3) Hon. Jane Gray (c.1590-1640) m. John Wemyss, 1st Earl Wemyss (1586-1649, descended from Edward III), and had
A4) Lady Elizabeth Wemyss (d. 1667) m. Sir John Aytoun of that Ilk (c.1600-1676), and had
A5) Margaret Aytoun (b. 1647) m. Sir Archibald Hope, Lord Rankeillor (1639-1706, descended from Edward III), and had
A6) Margaret Hope (1677-1751) m. Patrick Scott, 2nd of Rossie House (1664-1731), and had
A7) Archibald Scott, 3rd of Rossie House (c.1703-1773) m. Janet Scott of Benholm (b. 1703), and had
A8) PATRICK SCOTT, 4th of Rossie House, Craig, Forfarshire, Scotland, b. c.1728; d. 14 Apr. 1814 Nether Dysart House, Lunan, Forfarshire, bur. Inchbrayock [Craig] Parish Kirkyard, Forfarshire; m. MARGARET FORBES (see B8 below), and had
A9) JANET SCOTT, b. 19 Jan. 1779 Rossie House, bap. 24 Jan. 1779 Craig Parish Kirk, Forfarshire; d. 5 June 1805 Parkhill House, Arbroath, Forfarshire, bur. Craig Parish Kirkyard; m. 31 Aug. 1799 St Mary Church, Maryton, Forfarshire, ALEXANDER DUNCAN of Parkhill House, surgeon for Honorable East India Company (b. 29 Jan. 1758; d. 4 Aug. 1832, bur. Craig Parish Kirkyard), son of David Duncan of Brechin, merchant & Margaret Jamieson, and had
A10) ALEXANDER DUNCAN of Providence, Rhode Island and of Knossington Grange, Leicestershire, banker and lawyer, b. 25 May 1805 Parkhill House, Arbroath; d. 14 Oct. 1889 North House, Putney, Surrey, bur. 18 Oct. 1889 St Peter Church, Knossington; m. 11 Oct. 1827 New Haven, Connecticut, SARAH BUTLER (b. 16 May 1806 Rhode Island; d. 26 Dec. 1888 7 Princes Gate, London, bur. 31 Dec. 1888 St Peter Church, Knossington), dau. of Samuel Butler of Providence, Rhode Island, merchant & master mariner (c.1755-1814) & Sarah Whipple (c.1761-1811), and had
A11) WILLIAM BUTLER DUNCAN of Manhattan, New York, banker & railroad executive, b. 17 Mar. 1830 No. 3 Heriot Row, Edinburgh, Scotland; d. 20 June 1912 1 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, bur. North Burial Ground, Providence, Rhode Island; m. 22 Nov. 1853 New Orleans, Louisiana, JANE PERCY SARGENT (b. 25 Aug. 1833 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, bap. 15 Apr. 1835 St Stephen Episcopal Church, Philadelphia; d. 11 Dec. 1905 1 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, bur. North Burial Ground, Providence), dau. of George Washington Sargent of Philadelphia (1802-1864) & Margaret Isabella Jessie Percy (c.1796-1865), and had issue, two sons and two daughters.

B1) James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray, illegit. (1531-1570) m. Lady Agnes Keith (c.1544-1588, descended from James I of Scotland), and had
B2) Elizabeth Stewart, 2nd Countess of Moray (1565-1591) m. James Stewart, 2nd Earl of Moray (1565-1592, descended from Edward III), and had
B3) Lady Grizel Stewart (b. c.1590) m. Sir Robert Innes, 1st Baronet of That Ilk (1584-1658, descended from James IV), and had
B4) Sir Robert Innes, 2nd Baronet of That Ilk (d. 1689) m. Hon. Jean Ross (descended from James II of Scotland), and had
B5) Margaret Innes m. Hugh Rose, 14th Laird of Kilravock Castle (d. 1687), and had
B6) Margaret Rose m. Sir William Forbes, 3rd Baronet of Craigievar (1660-c.1730, descended from Edward III), and had
B7) Sir Arthur Forbes, 4th Baronet of Craigievar (1709-1773) m. 2nd Margaret Strachan, and had
B8) MARGARET FORBES, b. c.1752; d. 12 July 1839, bur. Inchbrayock [Craig] Parish Kirkyard, Forfarshire; m. PATRICK SCOTT, 4th of Rossie House (see A8 above)

A Very Merry Christmas to all.

Cheers, ------Brad

On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 10:54:27 PM UTC-8, Brad Verity wrote:
> I’ve been researching the ancestry of Violet Hemsley (Duncan) (Mann-Thomson) Fitzgerald (1881-1968), whose son Reginald Patrick Fitzgerald of Petworth, Sussex, Commander Royal Navy 1955-64 (1921-2002) can be found at The Peerage website, here:
> http://www.thepeerage.com/p66131.htm#i661306
>
> Violet’s uncle, William Butler Duncan of New York City (1830-1912), was a Scottish-American banker and railroad magnate who during the 1860s entertained the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and his younger brother the Duke of Connaught, at his mansion on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. His wife was Jane Percy Sargent (1833-1905), granddaughter of Winthrop Sargent (1753-1820), Governor of the Mississippi Territory 1798-1801. W. Butler Duncan has a Wikipedia entry:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Butler_Duncan
>
> He can also be found in the Genealogics database, here:
> https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00687998&tree=LEO
>
> Duncan’s son-in-law, journalist Paul Dana (1852-1930), was the editor of the New York ‘Sun’ newspaper from 1897-1903. Duncan’s daughter, Dame Jessie Percy Butler Wilton (Duncan) Phipps (1855-1934), has an entry in ODNB:
> https://www.oxforddnb.com/search?q=Jessie+Phipps&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true
>
> As does the granddaughter of Dame Jessie Phipps, British actress Joyce Grenfell (1910-1979):
> https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-31172?rskey=4guOQL&result=1
>
> This Duncan family is covered in the article ‘Duncan late of Knossington Grange’ in Burke’s Landed Gentry 13th Edn (1921), p.. 534.
>
> It is also covered much more thoroughly in the article ‘Alexander Duncan (1805-1889) of Scotland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and England’ by Kip Sperry in the book ‘Genealogies of Rhode Island Families: From The New England Historical and Genealogical Register’ Vol. I (1989), pp. 430-437.
>
> None of the above sources have traced the royal ancestry of the Duncans of Providence, Rhode Island. Given the prominence of several descendants, in both the U.S. and Britain, it may make a nice addition to a subsequent edition of Gary Boyd Roberts’s ‘Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants’ series.
>
> Through his father, William Butler Duncan of New York City, his daughter Dame Jessie Phipps, and his granddaughter Joyce Grenfell, descend from two of the illegitimate sons of James V of Scotland.
>
> James V had two sons A1 and B1 (see below):
> A1) Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of Orkney (1533-1593) m. Lady Janet Kennedy (c.1542-1598), and had
> A2) Lady Mary Stewart (b. c.1562) m. Patrick, 6th Lord Gray (c.1560-1611, descended from Edward III), and had
> A3) Hon. Jane Gray (c.1590-1640) m. John Wemyss, 1st Earl Wemyss (1586-1649, descended from Edward III), and had
> A4) Lady Elizabeth Wemyss (d. 1667) m. Sir John Aytoun of that Ilk (c.1600-1676), and had
> A5) Margaret Aytoun (b. 1647) m. Sir Archibald Hope, Lord Rankeillor (1639-1706, descended from Edward III), and had
> A6) Margaret Hope (1677-1751) m. Patrick Scott, 2nd of Rossie House (1664-1731), and had
> A7) Archibald Scott, 3rd of Rossie House (c.1703-1773) m. Janet Scott of Benholm (b. 1703), and had
> A8) PATRICK SCOTT, 4th of Rossie House, Craig, Forfarshire, Scotland, b. c.1728; d. 14 Apr. 1814 Nether Dysart House, Lunan, Forfarshire, bur. Inchbrayock [Craig] Parish Kirkyard, Forfarshire; m. MARGARET FORBES (see B8 below), and had
> A9) JANET SCOTT, b. 19 Jan. 1779 Rossie House, bap. 24 Jan. 1779 Craig Parish Kirk, Forfarshire; d. 5 June 1805 Parkhill House, Arbroath, Forfarshire, bur. Craig Parish Kirkyard; m. 31 Aug. 1799 St Mary Church, Maryton, Forfarshire, ALEXANDER DUNCAN of Parkhill House, surgeon for Honorable East India Company (b. 29 Jan. 1758; d. 4 Aug. 1832, bur. Craig Parish Kirkyard), son of David Duncan of Brechin, merchant & Margaret Jamieson, and had
> A10) ALEXANDER DUNCAN of Providence, Rhode Island and of Knossington Grange, Leicestershire, banker and lawyer, b. 25 May 1805 Parkhill House, Arbroath; d. 14 Oct. 1889 North House, Putney, Surrey, bur. 18 Oct. 1889 St Peter Church, Knossington; m. 11 Oct. 1827 New Haven, Connecticut, SARAH BUTLER (b. 16 May 1806 Rhode Island; d. 26 Dec. 1888 7 Princes Gate, London, bur. 31 Dec. 1888 St Peter Church, Knossington), dau. of Samuel Butler of Providence, Rhode Island, merchant & master mariner (c.1755-1814) & Sarah Whipple (c.1761-1811), and had
> A11) WILLIAM BUTLER DUNCAN of Manhattan, New York, banker & railroad executive, b. 17 Mar. 1830 No. 3 Heriot Row, Edinburgh, Scotland; d. 20 June 1912 1 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, bur. North Burial Ground, Providence, Rhode Island; m. 22 Nov. 1853 New Orleans, Louisiana, JANE PERCY SARGENT (b. 25 Aug. 1833 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, bap. 15 Apr. 1835 St Stephen Episcopal Church, Philadelphia; d. 11 Dec. 1905 1 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, bur. North Burial Ground, Providence), dau. of George Washington Sargent of Philadelphia (1802-1864) & Margaret Isabella Jessie Percy (c.1796-1865), and had issue, two sons and two daughters.
>
> B1) James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray, illegit. (1531-1570) m. Lady Agnes Keith (c.1544-1588, descended from James I of Scotland), and had
> B2) Elizabeth Stewart, 2nd Countess of Moray (1565-1591) m. James Stewart, 2nd Earl of Moray (1565-1592, descended from Edward III), and had
> B3) Lady Grizel Stewart (b. c.1590) m. Sir Robert Innes, 1st Baronet of That Ilk (1584-1658, descended from James IV), and had
> B4) Sir Robert Innes, 2nd Baronet of That Ilk (d. 1689) m. Hon. Jean Ross (descended from James II of Scotland), and had
> B5) Margaret Innes m. Hugh Rose, 14th Laird of Kilravock Castle (d. 1687), and had
> B6) Margaret Rose m. Sir William Forbes, 3rd Baronet of Craigievar (1660-c.1730, descended from Edward III), and had
> B7) Sir Arthur Forbes, 4th Baronet of Craigievar (1709-1773) m. 2nd Margaret Strachan, and had
> B8) MARGARET FORBES, b. c.1752; d. 12 July 1839, bur. Inchbrayock [Craig] Parish Kirkyard, Forfarshire; m. PATRICK SCOTT, 4th of Rossie House (see A8 above)
>
> A Very Merry Christmas to all.
>
> Cheers, ------Brad

Brad,
Many thanks for sharing these interesting lineages. The newest edition of the compilation
of Royal Descents by Gary Roberts was just published in November. Details are here:

https://genealogical.com/2022/11/07/announcing-the-new-second-edition-of-royal-descents-of-900-immigrants-by-gary-boyd-roberts/

The next edition of this publication will probably be in a few years.

Leslie

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 12:54:27 AM UTC-6, Brad Verity wrote:
> I’ve been researching the ancestry of Violet Hemsley (Duncan) (Mann-Thomson) Fitzgerald (1881-1968), whose son Reginald Patrick Fitzgerald of Petworth, Sussex, Commander Royal Navy 1955-64 (1921-2002) can be found at The Peerage website, here:
> http://www.thepeerage.com/p66131.htm#i661306
>
> Violet’s uncle, William Butler Duncan of New York City (1830-1912), was a Scottish-American banker and railroad magnate who during the 1860s entertained the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and his younger brother the Duke of Connaught, at his mansion on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. His wife was Jane Percy Sargent (1833-1905), granddaughter of Winthrop Sargent (1753-1820), Governor of the Mississippi Territory 1798-1801. W. Butler Duncan has a Wikipedia entry:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Butler_Duncan
>
> He can also be found in the Genealogics database, here:
> https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00687998&tree=LEO
>
> Duncan’s son-in-law, journalist Paul Dana (1852-1930), was the editor of the New York ‘Sun’ newspaper from 1897-1903. Duncan’s daughter, Dame Jessie Percy Butler Wilton (Duncan) Phipps (1855-1934), has an entry in ODNB:
> https://www.oxforddnb.com/search?q=Jessie+Phipps&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true
>
> As does the granddaughter of Dame Jessie Phipps, British actress Joyce Grenfell (1910-1979):
> https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-31172?rskey=4guOQL&result=1
>
> This Duncan family is covered in the article ‘Duncan late of Knossington Grange’ in Burke’s Landed Gentry 13th Edn (1921), p.. 534.
>
> It is also covered much more thoroughly in the article ‘Alexander Duncan (1805-1889) of Scotland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and England’ by Kip Sperry in the book ‘Genealogies of Rhode Island Families: From The New England Historical and Genealogical Register’ Vol. I (1989), pp. 430-437.
>
> None of the above sources have traced the royal ancestry of the Duncans of Providence, Rhode Island. Given the prominence of several descendants, in both the U.S. and Britain, it may make a nice addition to a subsequent edition of Gary Boyd Roberts’s ‘Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants’ series.
>
> Through his father, William Butler Duncan of New York City, his daughter Dame Jessie Phipps, and his granddaughter Joyce Grenfell, descend from two of the illegitimate sons of James V of Scotland.
>
> James V had two sons A1 and B1 (see below):
> A1) Robert Stewart, 1st Earl of Orkney (1533-1593) m. Lady Janet Kennedy (c.1542-1598), and had
> A2) Lady Mary Stewart (b. c.1562) m. Patrick, 6th Lord Gray (c.1560-1611, descended from Edward III), and had
> A3) Hon. Jane Gray (c.1590-1640) m. John Wemyss, 1st Earl Wemyss (1586-1649, descended from Edward III), and had
> A4) Lady Elizabeth Wemyss (d. 1667) m. Sir John Aytoun of that Ilk (c.1600-1676), and had
> A5) Margaret Aytoun (b. 1647) m. Sir Archibald Hope, Lord Rankeillor (1639-1706, descended from Edward III), and had
> A6) Margaret Hope (1677-1751) m. Patrick Scott, 2nd of Rossie House (1664-1731), and had
> A7) Archibald Scott, 3rd of Rossie House (c.1703-1773) m. Janet Scott of Benholm (b. 1703), and had
> A8) PATRICK SCOTT, 4th of Rossie House, Craig, Forfarshire, Scotland, b. c.1728; d. 14 Apr. 1814 Nether Dysart House, Lunan, Forfarshire, bur. Inchbrayock [Craig] Parish Kirkyard, Forfarshire; m. MARGARET FORBES (see B8 below), and had
> A9) JANET SCOTT, b. 19 Jan. 1779 Rossie House, bap. 24 Jan. 1779 Craig Parish Kirk, Forfarshire; d. 5 June 1805 Parkhill House, Arbroath, Forfarshire, bur. Craig Parish Kirkyard; m. 31 Aug. 1799 St Mary Church, Maryton, Forfarshire, ALEXANDER DUNCAN of Parkhill House, surgeon for Honorable East India Company (b. 29 Jan. 1758; d. 4 Aug. 1832, bur. Craig Parish Kirkyard), son of David Duncan of Brechin, merchant & Margaret Jamieson, and had
> A10) ALEXANDER DUNCAN of Providence, Rhode Island and of Knossington Grange, Leicestershire, banker and lawyer, b. 25 May 1805 Parkhill House, Arbroath; d. 14 Oct. 1889 North House, Putney, Surrey, bur. 18 Oct. 1889 St Peter Church, Knossington; m. 11 Oct. 1827 New Haven, Connecticut, SARAH BUTLER (b. 16 May 1806 Rhode Island; d. 26 Dec. 1888 7 Princes Gate, London, bur. 31 Dec. 1888 St Peter Church, Knossington), dau. of Samuel Butler of Providence, Rhode Island, merchant & master mariner (c.1755-1814) & Sarah Whipple (c.1761-1811), and had
> A11) WILLIAM BUTLER DUNCAN of Manhattan, New York, banker & railroad executive, b. 17 Mar. 1830 No. 3 Heriot Row, Edinburgh, Scotland; d. 20 June 1912 1 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, bur. North Burial Ground, Providence, Rhode Island; m. 22 Nov. 1853 New Orleans, Louisiana, JANE PERCY SARGENT (b. 25 Aug. 1833 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, bap. 15 Apr. 1835 St Stephen Episcopal Church, Philadelphia; d. 11 Dec. 1905 1 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan, bur. North Burial Ground, Providence), dau. of George Washington Sargent of Philadelphia (1802-1864) & Margaret Isabella Jessie Percy (c.1796-1865), and had issue, two sons and two daughters.
>
> B1) James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray, illegit. (1531-1570) m. Lady Agnes Keith (c.1544-1588, descended from James I of Scotland), and had
> B2) Elizabeth Stewart, 2nd Countess of Moray (1565-1591) m. James Stewart, 2nd Earl of Moray (1565-1592, descended from Edward III), and had
> B3) Lady Grizel Stewart (b. c.1590) m. Sir Robert Innes, 1st Baronet of That Ilk (1584-1658, descended from James IV), and had
> B4) Sir Robert Innes, 2nd Baronet of That Ilk (d. 1689) m. Hon. Jean Ross (descended from James II of Scotland), and had
> B5) Margaret Innes m. Hugh Rose, 14th Laird of Kilravock Castle (d. 1687), and had
> B6) Margaret Rose m. Sir William Forbes, 3rd Baronet of Craigievar (1660-c.1730, descended from Edward III), and had
> B7) Sir Arthur Forbes, 4th Baronet of Craigievar (1709-1773) m. 2nd Margaret Strachan, and had
> B8) MARGARET FORBES, b. c.1752; d. 12 July 1839, bur. Inchbrayock [Craig] Parish Kirkyard, Forfarshire; m. PATRICK SCOTT, 4th of Rossie House (see A8 above)
>
> A Very Merry Christmas to all.
>
> Cheers, ------Brad

This person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Martin
reportedly has a number of royal descents, including a line from Henry VII
according to the information given here:
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Martin-24355
Finding documentation for the most recent generations of the Fleming
& Willett families might be a challenge, unless there are newspaper notices about them.

Leslie

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 11:46:27 PM UTC-8, Leslie Mahler wrote:
> Many thanks for sharing these interesting lineages. The newest edition of the compilation
> of Royal Descents by Gary Roberts was just published in November. Details are here:
>
> https://genealogical.com/2022/11/07/announcing-the-new-second-edition-of-royal-descents-of-900-immigrants-by-gary-boyd-roberts/

> The next edition of this publication will probably be in a few years.

Thank you, Leslie, for the link to the new RD900 edition. I've added it to my list of books to purchase. Hopefully I'll get it in the next couple months.

From the above link: "New immigrants include Mrs. Elizabeth Epes Chute, Mrs. Mary Epes Duncan (one of whose grandsons was Boston Brahmin family founder Epes Sargent, ancestor of John Singer Sargent)..."

Which monarch does Epes Sargent descend from? He is a direct paternal ancestor of Jane Percy (Sargent) Duncan, wife of William Butler Duncan. So it seems she also has a royal descent behind her.

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-8, Leslie Mahler wrote:
> This person
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Martin
> reportedly has a number of royal descents, including a line from Henry VII
> according to the information given here:
> https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Martin-24355
> Finding documentation for the most recent generations of the Fleming
> & Willett families might be a challenge, unless there are newspaper notices about them.

I'll take a look into this Henry VII descent for Chris Martin of Coldplay. Thank you for sharing the link, Leslie.

I've finally finished adding the line you shared last year, from Edward III to Brian May (now Sir Brian May) of Queen, to my database. I'll share the additional details to it that I uncovered, in a separate post.

Thanks & Cheers, -----Brad

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 12:58:38 AM UTC-5, Brad Verity wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 11:46:27 PM UTC-8, Leslie Mahler wrote:
> > Many thanks for sharing these interesting lineages. The newest edition of the compilation
> > of Royal Descents by Gary Roberts was just published in November. Details are here:
> >
> > https://genealogical.com/2022/11/07/announcing-the-new-second-edition-of-royal-descents-of-900-immigrants-by-gary-boyd-roberts/
>
> > The next edition of this publication will probably be in a few years.
> Thank you, Leslie, for the link to the new RD900 edition. I've added it to my list of books to purchase. Hopefully I'll get it in the next couple months.
>
> From the above link: "New immigrants include Mrs. Elizabeth Epes Chute, Mrs. Mary Epes Duncan (one of whose grandsons was Boston Brahmin family founder Epes Sargent, ancestor of John Singer Sargent)..."
>
> Which monarch does Epes Sargent descend from? He is a direct paternal ancestor of Jane Percy (Sargent) Duncan, wife of William Butler Duncan. So it seems she also has a royal descent behind her.
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 11:00:02 AM UTC-8, Leslie Mahler wrote:
> > This person
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Martin
> > reportedly has a number of royal descents, including a line from Henry VII
> > according to the information given here:
> > https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Martin-24355
> > Finding documentation for the most recent generations of the Fleming
> > & Willett families might be a challenge, unless there are newspaper notices about them.
> I'll take a look into this Henry VII descent for Chris Martin of Coldplay.. Thank you for sharing the link, Leslie.
>
> I've finally finished adding the line you shared last year, from Edward III to Brian May (now Sir Brian May) of Queen, to my database. I'll share the additional details to it that I uncovered, in a separate post.
>
> Thanks & Cheers, -----Brad

Brad, the Epes immigrants are shown to descend from Henry I of England, via Robert of Gloucester, de Clare, de Say, Cheyne, at Towne, Sondes, Bettenham, Fisher, and Epes (2:1039-40). This line is credited to Alexander Bannerman and "several lineage-society applicants" who are not named.

The new edition has interesting updates, showing Queen Camilla as a descendant of Warham Horsmanden of Virginia (credited to Leslie), plus Jill Biden's line from Mary (Underhill) Stites of New York, who has been upgraded to an Edward I line. Also, a line from Joanna (Quarles) Smith to President Gerald Ford, and from Truman's ancestor Thomas Monteith of Virginia (a James IV line) to Ellen Herndon, Mrs. President Chester A. Arthur.

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:48:12 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> Brad, the Epes immigrants are shown to descend from Henry I of England, via Robert of Gloucester, de Clare, de Say, Cheyne, at Towne, Sondes, Bettenham, Fisher, and Epes (2:1039-40). This line is credited to Alexander Bannerman and "several lineage-society applicants" who are not named.
>

A critical link in tis descent was discussed here a year ago, but it sort of got distracted and petered out without resolution. Basically, it involves 'correcting' a visitation pedigree naming the at Towne father-in-law as William Cheyne with the Richard Cheyne with the desired descent, with some circumstantial evidence but nothing direct to support the link. Maybe there is something additional not raised in the discussion, but as it stood there, I considered it to be wanting (and I am not more convinced knowing that it has 'several lineage-society applicants' behind it).

taf

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:35:10 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:48:12 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > Brad, the Epes immigrants are shown to descend from Henry I of England, via Robert of Gloucester, de Clare, de Say, Cheyne, at Towne, Sondes, Bettenham, Fisher, and Epes (2:1039-40). This line is credited to Alexander Bannerman and "several lineage-society applicants" who are not named.
> >
> A critical link in tis descent was discussed here a year ago, but it sort of got distracted and petered out without resolution. Basically, it involves 'correcting' a visitation pedigree naming the at Towne father-in-law as William Cheyne with the Richard Cheyne with the desired descent, with some circumstantial evidence but nothing direct to support the link. Maybe there is something additional not raised in the discussion, but as it stood there, I considered it to be wanting (and I am not more convinced knowing that it has 'several lineage-society applicants' behind it).
>
> taf

Yep, I would guess Bannerman et al. were not aware of the discussion here.

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:47:33 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> Yep, I would guess Bannerman et al. were not aware of the discussion here..

In all fairness, I don't think I would have changed my mind based on the discussion here - it wasn't exactly insightful or detailed. For all I know it may be legit, its just that what was stated hear made it look like it was almost entirely dependent on (a different) Bannerman correcting a visitation, and the location of arms near each other in a window. I don't know what they have beyond this, if anything.

taf

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:20:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:47:33 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > Yep, I would guess Bannerman et al. were not aware of the discussion here.
> In all fairness, I don't think I would have changed my mind based on the discussion here - it wasn't exactly insightful or detailed. For all I know it may be legit, its just that what was stated hear made it look like it was almost entirely dependent on (a different) Bannerman correcting a visitation, and the location of arms near each other in a window. I don't know what they have beyond this, if anything.
>
> taf

Main sources seem to be St Olave Hart Street register; _Ancestry of Priscilla Baker_ (1870); Walter G. Davis on Reade and Epes; Bannerman's Kent Visitations; 1594 and 1619 Kent Visitations; Richardson's Royal Ancestry (early generations).

Generation 6 is "Sir William de Say = Sybil ____." This is quite similar to the generation 10 in the Gov. William Leete line, also "Sir Willam de Say = Sybil ____" (2:857). I guess it is another couple with the same names, since the previous generation in the Leete line is Robert de Say and Alice Stratfield; the earlier generation in Epes line being Geoffrey de Say and Hawise de Clare.

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:22:27 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:20:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:47:33 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > Yep, I would guess Bannerman et al. were not aware of the discussion here.
> > In all fairness, I don't think I would have changed my mind based on the discussion here - it wasn't exactly insightful or detailed. For all I know it may be legit, its just that what was stated hear made it look like it was almost entirely dependent on (a different) Bannerman correcting a visitation, and the location of arms near each other in a window. I don't know what they have beyond this, if anything.
> >
> > taf
> Main sources seem to be St Olave Hart Street register; _Ancestry of Priscilla Baker_ (1870); Walter G. Davis on Reade and Epes; Bannerman's Kent Visitations; 1594 and 1619 Kent Visitations; Richardson's Royal Ancestry (early generations).
>
> Generation 6 is "Sir William de Say = Sybil ____." This is quite similar to the generation 10 in the Gov. William Leete line, also "Sir Willam de Say = Sybil ____" (2:857). I guess it is another couple with the same names, since the previous generation in the Leete line is Robert de Say and Alice Stratfield; the earlier generation in Epes line being Geoffrey de Say and Hawise de Clare.

Never looked at the Say portion. I was unsatisfied over the identification of the Cheyne who was father-in-law of Towne.

taf

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 7:01:15 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:22:27 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:20:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:47:33 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > > Yep, I would guess Bannerman et al. were not aware of the discussion here.
> > > In all fairness, I don't think I would have changed my mind based on the discussion here - it wasn't exactly insightful or detailed. For all I know it may be legit, its just that what was stated hear made it look like it was almost entirely dependent on (a different) Bannerman correcting a visitation, and the location of arms near each other in a window. I don't know what they have beyond this, if anything.
> > >
> > > taf
> > Main sources seem to be St Olave Hart Street register; _Ancestry of Priscilla Baker_ (1870); Walter G. Davis on Reade and Epes; Bannerman's Kent Visitations; 1594 and 1619 Kent Visitations; Richardson's Royal Ancestry (early generations).
> >
> > Generation 6 is "Sir William de Say = Sybil ____." This is quite similar to the generation 10 in the Gov. William Leete line, also "Sir Willam de Say = Sybil ____" (2:857). I guess it is another couple with the same names, since the previous generation in the Leete line is Robert de Say and Alice Stratfield; the earlier generation in Epes line being Geoffrey de Say and Hawise de Clare.
> Never looked at the Say portion. I was unsatisfied over the identification of the Cheyne who was father-in-law of Towne.
>
> taf

This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover

But, right, there could be problems with more recent generations.

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:

> This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil....
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover

Indeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)

compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:

Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]

As you say, quite different.

Looking at CP:
William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
(by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say

CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one born to each wife.

Overall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allow these royal connections. The CP line does look a little tight, but not prohibitively so - 5 x 20yr generations, but it seems well researched, with the generation-to-generation transitions each referenced, and the earliest generations are well known due to the passage of the Earldom of Essex to the daughter-in-law of the first WIlliam's William's elder son, rather than the surviving male line of Geoffrey. There is no space for a connection to the Clare/Gloucester marriage above the William married to Beatrice de Mandeville, and the CP acocunt looks solid, and does not permit an extra generation to be shoehorned between those of the Cheney and Marshall marriages.

What exactly does the Roberts line look like?

taf

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
>
> > This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil....
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover
> Indeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
> Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
> Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
> William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
> Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
>
> compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
>
> Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
> William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
> Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
> Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
> WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
> William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
> Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
>
> As you say, quite different.
>
> Looking at CP:
> William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
> Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
> (by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
> William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
> William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
> Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
>
> CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one born to each wife.
>
> Overall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allow these royal connections.. The CP line does look a little tight, but not prohibitively so - 5 x 20yr generations, but it seems well researched, with the generation-to-generation transitions each referenced, and the earliest generations are well known due to the passage of the Earldom of Essex to the daughter-in-law of the first WIlliam's William's elder son, rather than the surviving male line of Geoffrey. There is no space for a connection to the Clare/Gloucester marriage above the William married to Beatrice de Mandeville, and the CP acocunt looks solid, and does not permit an extra generation to be shoehorned between those of the Cheney and Marshall marriages.
>
> What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
>
> taf

Roberts has ...

4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety

5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety

6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____

7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne

8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland

9 Richard de Cheyne = ______

10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle

11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne

So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> >
> > > This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover
> > Indeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
> > Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
> > Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
> > William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
> > Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
> >
> > compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
> >
> > Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
> > William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
> > Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
> > WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
> > William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
> > Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
> >
> > As you say, quite different.
> >
> > Looking at CP:
> > William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
> > (by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
> > William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
> > William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
> > Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
> >
> > CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one born to each wife.
> >
> > Overall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allow these royal connections. The CP line does look a little tight, but not prohibitively so - 5 x 20yr generations, but it seems well researched, with the generation-to-generation transitions each referenced, and the earliest generations are well known due to the passage of the Earldom of Essex to the daughter-in-law of the first WIlliam's William's elder son, rather than the surviving male line of Geoffrey. There is no space for a connection to the Clare/Gloucester marriage above the William married to Beatrice de Mandeville, and the CP acocunt looks solid, and does not permit an extra generation to be shoehorned between those of the Cheney and Marshall marriages.
> >
> > What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
> >
> > taf
> Roberts has ...
>
> 4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
>
> 5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
>
> 6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
>
> 7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
>
> 8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
>
> 9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
>
> 10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
>
> 11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
>
> So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?

Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:

Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
William de Say = Sybil _____
Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
Robert de Cheyne = _____
Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."

So, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say, presumably of Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife of Geoffrey Crek). He married (2nd) before Easter Term 1242, Aline ____, widow of Hubert de Vaux (living 1235/6), of Surlingham, Suffolk. His wife, Aline, was living in Hilary Term, 1244. In 1265 he was granted free warren in his demesne lands at Rickling, Essex, and Denham, Suffolk. Geoffrey de Say died 1265/71. ..."

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > >
> > > > This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover
> > > Indeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
> > > Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
> > > Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
> > > William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
> > > Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
> > >
> > > compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
> > >
> > > Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
> > > William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
> > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
> > > WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
> > > William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
> > > Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
> > >
> > > As you say, quite different.
> > >
> > > Looking at CP:
> > > William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
> > > (by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
> > > William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
> > > William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
> > > Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
> > >
> > > CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one born to each wife.
> > >
> > > Overall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allow these royal connections. The CP line does look a little tight, but not prohibitively so - 5 x 20yr generations, but it seems well researched, with the generation-to-generation transitions each referenced, and the earliest generations are well known due to the passage of the Earldom of Essex to the daughter-in-law of the first WIlliam's William's elder son, rather than the surviving male line of Geoffrey. There is no space for a connection to the Clare/Gloucester marriage above the William married to Beatrice de Mandeville, and the CP acocunt looks solid, and does not permit an extra generation to be shoehorned between those of the Cheney and Marshall marriages.
> > >
> > > What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
> > >
> > > taf
> > Roberts has ...
> >
> > 4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
> >
> > 5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
> >
> > 6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
> >
> > 7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> >
> > 8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
> >
> > 9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
> >
> > 10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
> >
> > 11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
> >
> > So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?
> Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
>
> Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
> William de Say = Sybil _____
> Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
> Robert de Cheyne = _____
> Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."
>
> So, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say, presumably of Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife of Geoffrey Crek). He married (2nd) before Easter Term 1242, Aline ____, widow of Hubert de Vaux (living 1235/6), of Surlingham, Suffolk. His wife, Aline, was living in Hilary Term, 1244.. In 1265 he was granted free warren in his demesne lands at Rickling, Essex, and Denham, Suffolk. Geoffrey de Say died 1265/71. ..."

Ah, that makes more sense, from a 'what has gone wrong' perspective. As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the Magna Carta surety. Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex, and was the father of Maud de Crec, who in 1278 held property previously given in free marriage by Robert de Vere to his sister. It reports that Geoffrey son of William de Say granted Rickling to his son Geoffrey, and that Geoffrey de Say II later confirmed the grant (which would make no sense were he the original recipient - there were clearly two Geoffreys in this generation). CP also relates that two grants by Walkelin Maminot and Geoffrey de Say were confirmed by Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and his wife Alice de Cheney, and also confirmed by William de Say, son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. He adds that by 1200, the Say barony consisted almost entirely of formerly Maminot lands.

Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:

> Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
>
> Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
> Robert de Cheyne = _____
> Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."
>

This clearly comes from the visitation of Berkshire publication, which has a Cheyne of Woodhey pedigree. It begins with:

Alexander Cheney d. 24 Edw. I [1295-6], married to Agnes de Say, daughter of William de Say, "by whome came the manor of Patricksborne".

William Cheney, aged 22 at father's death, married Margaret, daughter and heiress of Sir Robert Shirland of Shirland.

i. William Cheney, d. 8 Edw III [1334-5] aged 58 s.p.
ii. [Sir] Robert de Cheney [of Shirland in the Isle of Sheppey, Kent], brother and heir, 30 years old, d. 38 Edw III [1364-5]. {no marriage given}

[Sir] Richard Cheney [of Shirland], aged 10 in 38 Edw III. married Margery, daughter of coheriess of Robert Crall [of Crall, Sussex] and Margaret, daughter and heiress of Simon Pepplesham

It then gives the same two sons and five daughters, among whom is:

Joane ux. Tho. Atrown [Towne of whome com. Somes].

[As an aside, the dating here smacks of ipms, and sure enough, there is one for Alex, naming his heir as Wm, aged 22, and one for William 8 Edw III that refers to Patricksborne as formerly held in chief by WIlliam de Say, and that 60 years ago he gave it by charter to Alexander de Cheyny, grandfather of the said William de Cheyny, and to Agnes his wife. {60 years before 1334/5 puts it about the same time as 22 years before 1295/6, William's birth, so this was likely a marriage settlement on his parents and he was born within the year.} Then it gets a bit convoluted - I think the abstractor was confused. It says that on Alexander's death it passed to the said William {surely instead to the father of the said William}, who gave it to Margaret de Sckirlond and her heirs, who in turn gave it to William de Cheyny, son of Alexander and Agnes, and to Margaret, his wife and the heirs of their bodies - this seems to be a rendering of a fine. Then William de Cheyny son of William and Margaret died siezed of it, leaving as heir his brother Robert, aged 30 and more. {If William the younger really was aged 58 as the visitation suggests, and I have found nothing to support this, then Robert was certainly aged 30 and A LOT more.} Finally, we get an ipm for Robert Cheyne naming his sons Richard aged 10 and Roger aged 6. At least this portion of the pedigree is solid.]

The pedigree is taken from M.S. Ashmole 852, with additions (in brackets here) from Harleian M.S. 1532. Though in the prior discussion this was characterized as coming from the 1532 visitation, the Ashmole ms in which it appeared seems to have been compiled as a research aid for the compilation of the 1665/6 visitation. The Cheney pedigree in the 1532 visitation makes no mention of any of these people. THe editor says of these pedigrees absent from the earlier visitations, "Unfortunately, their origin is not even suggested." Harleian 1532 (perhaps the source of the confusion - that is the manuscript number, not the year) is described as "the visitation of 1566 with additions from that of 1623 and other Pedigrees", and the material in question is in neither 1566 nor 1623. This pedigree, then dates from the 17th century in its surviving copies, and hence after the 1574 Kent visitation Sondes pedigree , apparently taken from the COllege of Arms original, that reports something different, that Thomas Towne married "Joane, daughter and heiress of William Cheyney, for whicih the editor has then added in way of correction, "[Richard Cheyney of Sheppey]".

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover
> > > > Indeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
> > > > Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
> > > > Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
> > > > William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
> > > > Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
> > > >
> > > > compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
> > > >
> > > > Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
> > > > William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
> > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
> > > > WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
> > > > William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
> > > > Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
> > > >
> > > > As you say, quite different.
> > > >
> > > > Looking at CP:
> > > > William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
> > > > (by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
> > > > William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
> > > > William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
> > > > Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
> > > >
> > > > CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one born to each wife.
> > > >
> > > > Overall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allow these royal connections. The CP line does look a little tight, but not prohibitively so - 5 x 20yr generations, but it seems well researched, with the generation-to-generation transitions each referenced, and the earliest generations are well known due to the passage of the Earldom of Essex to the daughter-in-law of the first WIlliam's William's elder son, rather than the surviving male line of Geoffrey. There is no space for a connection to the Clare/Gloucester marriage above the William married to Beatrice de Mandeville, and the CP acocunt looks solid, and does not permit an extra generation to be shoehorned between those of the Cheney and Marshall marriages.
> > > >
> > > > What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
> > > >
> > > > taf
> > > Roberts has ...
> > >
> > > 4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
> > >
> > > 5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
> > >
> > > 6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
> > >
> > > 7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> > >
> > > 8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
> > >
> > > 9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
> > >
> > > 10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
> > >
> > > 11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
> > >
> > > So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?
> > Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
> >
> > Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
> > William de Say = Sybil _____
> > Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> > William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
> > Robert de Cheyne = _____
> > Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."
> >
> > So, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say, presumably of Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife of Geoffrey Crek). He married (2nd) before Easter Term 1242, Aline ____, widow of Hubert de Vaux (living 1235/6), of Surlingham, Suffolk. His wife, Aline, was living in Hilary Term, 1244. In 1265 he was granted free warren in his demesne lands at Rickling, Essex, and Denham, Suffolk. Geoffrey de Say died 1265/71. ..."
> Ah, that makes more sense, from a 'what has gone wrong' perspective. As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the Magna Carta surety. Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex, and was the father of Maud de Crec, who in 1278 held property previously given in free marriage by Robert de Vere to his sister. It reports that Geoffrey son of William de Say granted Rickling to his son Geoffrey, and that Geoffrey de Say II later confirmed the grant (which would make no sense were he the original recipient - there were clearly two Geoffreys in this generation). CP also relates that two grants by Walkelin Maminot and Geoffrey de Say were confirmed by Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and his wife Alice de Cheney, and also confirmed by William de Say, son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. He adds that by 1200, the Say barony consisted almost entirely of formerly Maminot lands.
>
> Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.

Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?

As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover

Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these Says.

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:17:28 AM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover
> > > > > Indeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
> > > > > Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
> > > > > Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
> > > > > William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
> > > > > Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
> > > > >
> > > > > compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
> > > > >
> > > > > Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
> > > > > William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
> > > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
> > > > > WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
> > > > > William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
> > > > > Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
> > > > >
> > > > > As you say, quite different.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at CP:
> > > > > William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
> > > > > (by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
> > > > > William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
> > > > > William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
> > > > > Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
> > > > >
> > > > > CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one born to each wife.
> > > > >
> > > > > Overall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allow these royal connections. The CP line does look a little tight, but not prohibitively so - 5 x 20yr generations, but it seems well researched, with the generation-to-generation transitions each referenced, and the earliest generations are well known due to the passage of the Earldom of Essex to the daughter-in-law of the first WIlliam's William's elder son, rather than the surviving male line of Geoffrey. There is no space for a connection to the Clare/Gloucester marriage above the William married to Beatrice de Mandeville, and the CP acocunt looks solid, and does not permit an extra generation to be shoehorned between those of the Cheney and Marshall marriages.
> > > > >
> > > > > What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
> > > > >
> > > > > taf
> > > > Roberts has ...
> > > >
> > > > 4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
> > > >
> > > > 5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
> > > >
> > > > 6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
> > > >
> > > > 7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> > > >
> > > > 8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
> > > >
> > > > 9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
> > > >
> > > > 10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
> > > >
> > > > 11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
> > > >
> > > > So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?
> > > Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
> > >
> > > Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
> > > William de Say = Sybil _____
> > > Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> > > William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
> > > Robert de Cheyne = _____
> > > Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."
> > >
> > > So, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say, presumably of Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife of Geoffrey Crek). He married (2nd) before Easter Term 1242, Aline ____, widow of Hubert de Vaux (living 1235/6), of Surlingham, Suffolk. His wife, Aline, was living in Hilary Term, 1244. In 1265 he was granted free warren in his demesne lands at Rickling, Essex, and Denham, Suffolk. Geoffrey de Say died 1265/71. ..."
> > Ah, that makes more sense, from a 'what has gone wrong' perspective. As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the Magna Carta surety. Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex, and was the father of Maud de Crec, who in 1278 held property previously given in free marriage by Robert de Vere to his sister. It reports that Geoffrey son of William de Say granted Rickling to his son Geoffrey, and that Geoffrey de Say II later confirmed the grant (which would make no sense were he the original recipient - there were clearly two Geoffreys in this generation). CP also relates that two grants by Walkelin Maminot and Geoffrey de Say were confirmed by Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and his wife Alice de Cheney, and also confirmed by William de Say, son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. He adds that by 1200, the Say barony consisted almost entirely of formerly Maminot lands.
> >
> > Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.
> Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
>
> As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
>
> Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these Says.

"He [John de Preaux or Pratellis] had a moiety of Patricksbourne by Joanna de Bornes (Hasted, Hist. of Kent, calls her Margery), which he gave soon after (A.D. 1200) to his newly-erected Priory of Beaulieu. His wife's possessions after his death went to Jeffrey de Say. The other moiety of Patricksbourne went to Say. Sir W. de Say (Hen. III) gave it to Sir Alex. de Cheney."

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:34:36 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:17:28 AM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover
> > > > > > Indeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
> > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
> > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
> > > > > > William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
> > > > > > Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
> > > > > > William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
> > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
> > > > > > WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
> > > > > > William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
> > > > > > Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you say, quite different.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking at CP:
> > > > > > William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
> > > > > > (by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
> > > > > > William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
> > > > > > William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
> > > > > > Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one born to each wife.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Overall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allow these royal connections. The CP line does look a little tight, but not prohibitively so - 5 x 20yr generations, but it seems well researched, with the generation-to-generation transitions each referenced, and the earliest generations are well known due to the passage of the Earldom of Essex to the daughter-in-law of the first WIlliam's William's elder son, rather than the surviving male line of Geoffrey. There is no space for a connection to the Clare/Gloucester marriage above the William married to Beatrice de Mandeville, and the CP acocunt looks solid, and does not permit an extra generation to be shoehorned between those of the Cheney and Marshall marriages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > taf
> > > > > Roberts has ...
> > > > >
> > > > > 4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
> > > > >
> > > > > 5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
> > > > >
> > > > > 6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
> > > > >
> > > > > 7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> > > > >
> > > > > 8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
> > > > >
> > > > > 9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
> > > > >
> > > > > 10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
> > > > >
> > > > > 11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
> > > > >
> > > > > So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?
> > > > Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
> > > >
> > > > Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
> > > > William de Say = Sybil _____
> > > > Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> > > > William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
> > > > Robert de Cheyne = _____
> > > > Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."
> > > >
> > > > So, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say, presumably of Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife of Geoffrey Crek). He married (2nd) before Easter Term 1242, Aline ____, widow of Hubert de Vaux (living 1235/6), of Surlingham, Suffolk. His wife, Aline, was living in Hilary Term, 1244. In 1265 he was granted free warren in his demesne lands at Rickling, Essex, and Denham, Suffolk. Geoffrey de Say died 1265/71. ..."
> > > Ah, that makes more sense, from a 'what has gone wrong' perspective. As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the Magna Carta surety. Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex, and was the father of Maud de Crec, who in 1278 held property previously given in free marriage by Robert de Vere to his sister. It reports that Geoffrey son of William de Say granted Rickling to his son Geoffrey, and that Geoffrey de Say II later confirmed the grant (which would make no sense were he the original recipient - there were clearly two Geoffreys in this generation). CP also relates that two grants by Walkelin Maminot and Geoffrey de Say were confirmed by Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and his wife Alice de Cheney, and also confirmed by William de Say, son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. He adds that by 1200, the Say barony consisted almost entirely of formerly Maminot lands.
> > >
> > > Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.
> > Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
> >
> > As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these Says.
> "He [John de Preaux or Pratellis] had a moiety of Patricksbourne by Joanna de Bornes (Hasted, Hist. of Kent, calls her Margery), which he gave soon after (A.D. 1200) to his newly-erected Priory of Beaulieu. His wife's possessions after his death went to Jeffrey de Say. The other moiety of Patricksbourne went to Say. Sir W. de Say (Hen. III) gave it to Sir Alex. de Cheney.."
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Publications/ACF9r44VmgkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+say%22+alice+cheney&pg=RA14-PA4&printsec=frontcover

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:45:38 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:34:36 AM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:17:28 AM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:46:56 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 11:24:46 PM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:35:35 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:11:46 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This pedigree chart seems to show a large number of intervening generations between Geoffrey and Hawise and the William de Say who married a Sybil...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Miscellanea_Genealogica_Et_Heraldica_and/hQtBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22william+de+saye%22+sybil&pg=PA314&printsec=frontcover
> > > > > > > Indeed. I am not sure what Roberts shows, but the version of this pedigree on FamilySearch shows:
> > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (1130-1214) =Alice de Cheney
> > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (1155-1230)=Hawise de Clare (1189-1235)
> > > > > > > William de Say (1209-1272)=Sibyl Marshall (1220-1255)
> > > > > > > Alexander de Cheyne (1248-1295)=Agnes de Say (1250-1296)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > compared to the Ransford pedigree in MGH:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say=Hawise de Clare
> > > > > > > William de Say=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1215)=Letice Maminot, granddaughter of Aubrey de Vere
> > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1230)=Alice Cheney
> > > > > > > WIlliam de Say (d 1294)=Sibyl Marshal
> > > > > > > William de Say MP (d 1295)=Mary
> > > > > > > Alexander Cheney (d. 1296)=Agnes de Say, sister of Geoffrey [Baron Say, below]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As you say, quite different.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looking at CP:
> > > > > > > William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
> > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
> > > > > > > (by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
> > > > > > > William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary
> > > > > > > William de Say, summoned to a pseudo-parliament (1253-1295) =Elizabeth
> > > > > > > Geoffrey de Say, first baron Say
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CP adds regarding Sibyl that "according to Edmondson . . . and other 18th cent. pedigree makers she was da. of John Marshall of Lenton." William de Say b. 1253 was going to Ireland for three years with Alexander de Cheyny in 1276, then again in 1294 the two were traveling together to Gascony - that seems to put them in the same generation rather than father-in-law and son-in-law as per the Ransford pedigree. If I am readinng it correctly, there were two Geoffreys in the third generation, one born to each wife.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Overall, it looks to me like the Rainsford pedigree has a few problems here and there, but basically aggrees with CP down to the Marshall marriage, then confuses the next two generations. The first pedigree has it all jumbled, but seemingly is the version of Roberts, becuase the Clare marriage would ahve to be placed that far down the pedigree to allow it to bring in Gloucester, yet I would cynically suggest that is exactly whay it is so different - forcing the Clare marriage down just to allow these royal connections. The CP line does look a little tight, but not prohibitively so - 5 x 20yr generations, but it seems well researched, with the generation-to-generation transitions each referenced, and the earliest generations are well known due to the passage of the Earldom of Essex to the daughter-in-law of the first WIlliam's William's elder son, rather than the surviving male line of Geoffrey. There is no space for a connection to the Clare/Gloucester marriage above the William married to Beatrice de Mandeville, and the CP acocunt looks solid, and does not permit an extra generation to be shoehorned between those of the Cheney and Marshall marriages.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What exactly does the Roberts line look like?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > taf
> > > > > > Roberts has ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4 Amicia of Gloucester = Richard de Clare, 3rd Earl of Hereford, Magna Carta surety
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5 Hawise de Clare = Geoffrey de Say, Magna Carta surety
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 6 Sir William de Say = Sybil ____
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 7 Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 8 William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shirland
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 9 Richard de Cheyne = ______
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 10 Sir Richard de Cheyne = Margaret Cralle
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 11 Joan Cheyne = Thomas at Towne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, he may have followed the version on FamilySearch. But it may be that there are a couple of additional generations between the de Say-de Clare marriage and William de Say who married Sybil (if we accept CP)?
> > > > > Doug's earlier book, _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (2005) gives:
> > > > >
> > > > > Geoffrey de Say (the Surety) = _______
> > > > > William de Say = Sybil _____
> > > > > Agnes de Say = Alexander de Cheyne
> > > > > William de Cheyne = Margaret de Shurland/ Shirland
> > > > > Robert de Cheyne = _____
> > > > > Richard Cheyne = Margaret Cralle .... "They had two sons, William, Esq., and Simon, and five daughters, Alice (wife of John Cobham), Margery (wife of James Donet and John Salerne), Joan (wife of Thomas Atrown), Elizabeth [wife of John Wilcotes], and Isabel (wife of John Pympe)."
> > > > >
> > > > > So, in the meantime did Doug figure out the Surety was married to Hawise de Clare? In the same 2005 book he gives Surety Richard de Clare a seventh child ... "____ de Clare, married (as his 1st wife) in or before 1215, Geoffrey de Say, presumably of Rickling, Essex and Denham, Suffolk, younger son of Geoffrey de Say, of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife Alice, daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Essex. They had two sons, Geoffrey and Robert (clerk), and one daughter, Maud (wife of Geoffrey Crek). He married (2nd) before Easter Term 1242, Aline ____, widow of Hubert de Vaux (living 1235/6), of Surlingham, Suffolk. His wife, Aline, was living in Hilary Term, 1244. In 1265 he was granted free warren in his demesne lands at Rickling, Essex, and Denham, Suffolk. Geoffrey de Say died 1265/71. ..."
> > > > Ah, that makes more sense, from a 'what has gone wrong' perspective.. As I mentioned, according to CP, Geoffrey I de Say had two sons with the same name. Geoffrey IIA de Say was son by Alice Maminot, was the husband of Alice de Cheney, and was the Magna Carta surety. Geoffrey IIB de Say was his half-brother, the son of Alice de Vere, held Rickling, Essex, and was the father of Maud de Crec, who in 1278 held property previously given in free marriage by Robert de Vere to his sister. It reports that Geoffrey son of William de Say granted Rickling to his son Geoffrey, and that Geoffrey de Say II later confirmed the grant (which would make no sense were he the original recipient - there were clearly two Geoffreys in this generation). CP also relates that two grants by Walkelin Maminot and Geoffrey de Say were confirmed by Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and his wife Alice de Cheney, and also confirmed by William de Say, son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. He adds that by 1200, the Say barony consisted almost entirely of formerly Maminot lands.
> > > >
> > > > Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.
> > > Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
> > >
> > > As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
> > >
> > > Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these Says.
> > "He [John de Preaux or Pratellis] had a moiety of Patricksbourne by Joanna de Bornes (Hasted, Hist. of Kent, calls her Margery), which he gave soon after (A.D. 1200) to his newly-erected Priory of Beaulieu. His wife's possessions after his death went to Jeffrey de Say. The other moiety of Patricksbourne went to Say. Sir W. de Say (Hen. III) gave it to Sir Alex. de Cheney."
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Publications/ACF9r44VmgkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+say%22+alice+cheney&pg=RA14-PA4&printsec=frontcover
> [6 Henry VI] ..."John Willecotes, Esq., was seized in demesne of the manor of Great Tywe [Tewe] of the King as of his honour of Chester, by the service of a knight's fee, which manor he had granted, long before his death, by charter produced, to Richard Crable [? Cralle] of Sussex, Esq., and Alexander Cheyne of Kent, and Thomas Frankleyn, to hold, &c. ..."
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Publications/ACF9r44VmgkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=willecotes+crable&pg=RA14-PA6&printsec=frontcover

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:55:42 AM UTC-8, Johnny Brananas wrote:

> "William de Say of Sawbridgeworth, Herts., a baron by tenure, died early in 1272, leaving William his son and heir, who was born on 20th Nov. 1252, and a daughter Agnes, who was then already the wife of Alexnder de Cheney. The age of these children makes it clear that Mary [de Say, their father's widow, who remarried to Ufford] was not their mother, as the son and heir of her second marriage was nearly 27 years younger than his supposed half-brother William de Say. Mary's parentage is wholly unknown."
>
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t11p14v10&view=1up&seq=365&q1=%22it%20clear%20that%20Mary%20was%20not%20their%20mother%22
>
> So in CP's scheme, the last person in the descent should be the father of Agnes (de Say) Cheyney ...
> William de Say (d in or bef 1194)=Beatrice de Mandeville
> Geoffrey de Say (d 1212|4)=1 Alice Maminot; =2 Alice de Vere
> (by 1st) Geoffrey de Say (d 1230) =1 Alice de Cheney =2 Margery Briwerre
> William de Say (d 1272) =1 Sibyl =2 Mary

Yes, that was the clear implication, with the next William, the pseudo-MP, being a contemporary of Alexander [and his Say wife]. The dating given here is derived from another ipm, for William de Sey, 12 Feb 56 Hen III, his heir being son William aged 18 or 19 (in different returns) on feast of St Edmund the King last.

taf

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 5:17:28 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.
> Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
>
> As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
>
> Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these Says.

I had seen the early marriage claim before, that it was Geoffrey, father of the Mandeville brother-in-law, who made this marriage, but I never remember seeing any direct evidence for it and was always soemwhat dubious over it but never directly investigated it. Richardson dismisses this as a genealogical doppelganger of the later marriage.

The version as given by Roberts is apparently the same that Richardson posted here, and represents a change of opinion from teh earlier work you summarized:

https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/oJ7DigECN4s/m/bdD2WpTv6noJ

Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, and had by these wives Geoffrey IIA married to Hawise de Clare and Geoffrey IIB. However, this scenario completely fails to account for the large amount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent. He also seems to be parsing a document differently than the CP editor does. This (the Ancient Deeds citation) is what CP summarizes as by 'Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say and Agnes his wife', and further confirmed by William de Say son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. CP clearly parsed this as "Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and Agnes his wife" - i.e. Agnes was wife of the confirmer, while the only way you could get Richardson's reconstruction is parsing it "Geoffrey de Say, filius Geoffrey de Say and Agnes his wife", making Agnes teh motehr of the confirmer. The difference makes Agnes either the [step?] mother of William (which is entirely inconsistent with this William being the son of 'widow Hawise de Clare' as in Richardson's reconstruction), or that same William's grandmother.

As usual, with its presentation as bold fact without discussion other than to say 'I am right and CP is wrong', and the burying of the critical references in a forest of irrelevant ones, it nearly impossible to determine the underlying thought process behind this novel reconstruction, let alone to pass judgment on it.

taf

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:09:28 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 5:17:28 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.
> > Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
> >
> > As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these Says.
> I had seen the early marriage claim before, that it was Geoffrey, father of the Mandeville brother-in-law, who made this marriage, but I never remember seeing any direct evidence for it and was always soemwhat dubious over it but never directly investigated it. Richardson dismisses this as a genealogical doppelganger of the later marriage.
>
> The version as given by Roberts is apparently the same that Richardson posted here, and represents a change of opinion from teh earlier work you summarized:
>
> https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/oJ7DigECN4s/m/bdD2WpTv6noJ
>
> Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, and had by these wives Geoffrey IIA married to Hawise de Clare and Geoffrey IIB. However, this scenario completely fails to account for the large amount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent. He also seems to be parsing a document differently than the CP editor does. This (the Ancient Deeds citation) is what CP summarizes as by 'Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say and Agnes his wife', and further confirmed by William de Say son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. CP clearly parsed this as "Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and Agnes his wife" - i.e. Agnes was wife of the confirmer, while the only way you could get Richardson's reconstruction is parsing it "Geoffrey de Say, filius Geoffrey de Say and Agnes his wife", making Agnes teh motehr of the confirmer. The difference makes Agnes either the [step?] mother of William (which is entirely inconsistent with this William being the son of 'widow Hawise de Clare' as in Richardson's reconstruction), or that same William's grandmother.
>
> As usual, with its presentation as bold fact without discussion other than to say 'I am right and CP is wrong', and the burying of the critical references in a forest of irrelevant ones, it nearly impossible to determine the underlying thought process behind this novel reconstruction, let alone to pass judgment on it.
>
> taf

And this is where I pull my copy of Altschul and check for Hawise de Clare and any Says. (None appear.)
Genealogical tables are here: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/69429

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-5, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:09:28 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 5:17:28 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > > Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.
> > > Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
> > >
> > > As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
> > >
> > > Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these Says.
> > I had seen the early marriage claim before, that it was Geoffrey, father of the Mandeville brother-in-law, who made this marriage, but I never remember seeing any direct evidence for it and was always soemwhat dubious over it but never directly investigated it. Richardson dismisses this as a genealogical doppelganger of the later marriage.
> >
> > The version as given by Roberts is apparently the same that Richardson posted here, and represents a change of opinion from teh earlier work you summarized:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/oJ7DigECN4s/m/bdD2WpTv6noJ
> >
> > Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, and had by these wives Geoffrey IIA married to Hawise de Clare and Geoffrey IIB. However, this scenario completely fails to account for the large amount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent. He also seems to be parsing a document differently than the CP editor does. This (the Ancient Deeds citation) is what CP summarizes as by 'Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say and Agnes his wife', and further confirmed by William de Say son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. CP clearly parsed this as "Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and Agnes his wife" - i.e.. Agnes was wife of the confirmer, while the only way you could get Richardson's reconstruction is parsing it "Geoffrey de Say, filius Geoffrey de Say and Agnes his wife", making Agnes teh motehr of the confirmer. The difference makes Agnes either the [step?] mother of William (which is entirely inconsistent with this William being the son of 'widow Hawise de Clare' as in Richardson's reconstruction), or that same William's grandmother.
> >
> > As usual, with its presentation as bold fact without discussion other than to say 'I am right and CP is wrong', and the burying of the critical references in a forest of irrelevant ones, it nearly impossible to determine the underlying thought process behind this novel reconstruction, let alone to pass judgment on it.
> >
> > taf
> And this is where I pull my copy of Altschul and check for Hawise de Clare and any Says. (None appear.)
> Genealogical tables are here: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/69429

"Walkelin [Magminot/ Maminot] was apparently dead in 3 Ric. I, when the scutage of Wales due from his estate was paid by his heir, and it is suggested that he left no issue, but was succeeded by one or more of his brothers, who also died childless, until at last his barony passed to the husband of his sister Alice. Geoffrey de Say, son of the Geoffrey of this roll, in confirming grants to Beigham, [Kent,] speaks of the gift which his father Geoffrey de Say and his mother Aliz had made: and in the elder Geoffrey's own grant Walkelin Maminot is described as his “antecessor," a word which at this period means simply predecessor in title.
By the end of Richard's reign Geoffrey de Say had succeeded to the responsibilities of his wife's inheritance, the following entry appearing in the Pipe Roll for the ninth year under Kent 'Galfr' de Say debet roli. ios. de scutagio heredum Walkelini Maminot quorum heres est.' Whether in fact he succeeded to the estate of joint heirs or to the debts of successive heirs does not at present appear.
Part of the Say fief in Bucks. was thus certainly derived through the Maminot alliance, but this does not account for the whole of it. Sawbridgeworth in Herts. came to him, for in the 2nd year of John he owes seven marks to have lands which had been Earl William's; and in 1212 he is returned as holding Sabrithteswurth in chief, pertaining to the honour of Earl William de Mandevill. The fief may of course have grown after the time of Geoffrey."

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015039477511&view=1up&seq=229&q1=%22by%20one%20or%20more%20of%20his%20brothers%22

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 2:35:35 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-5, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 10:09:28 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 5:17:28 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:47:34 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > > > Either CP (and Richardson) is wrong about all this, or the Roberts line has mistakenly created a chimera of Geoffrey IIA and IIB.
> > > > Would you say that Geoffrey IIB was actually the husband of a de Clare, perhaps Hawise?
> > > >
> > > > As noted before, some pedigrees seem to place the Hawise de Clare marriage into the Say family considerably before the time of Geoffrey IIA and Geoffrey IIB.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_history_and_antiquities_of_the_paris/E6oHAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=say+%22de+clare%22+mandeville&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover
> > > >
> > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Contains_the_barons_from_the_accession_o/zvQ6AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22de+clare%22+maminot+vere&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover
> > > >
> > > > Gary seems to be drawing from Doug Richardson's _Royal Ancestry_, which is the 5-volume set published around 2013/14, for the de Clare-de Say connection. I only have the 3-vol. _Plantagenet Ancestry_ (2011) by Richardson, which has nothing on these Says.
> > > I had seen the early marriage claim before, that it was Geoffrey, father of the Mandeville brother-in-law, who made this marriage, but I never remember seeing any direct evidence for it and was always soemwhat dubious over it but never directly investigated it. Richardson dismisses this as a genealogical doppelganger of the later marriage.
> > >
> > > The version as given by Roberts is apparently the same that Richardson posted here, and represents a change of opinion from teh earlier work you summarized:
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/oJ7DigECN4s/m/bdD2WpTv6noJ
> > >
> > > Here he is reshuffling the Geoffreys and their wives. As best I can tell, he envisions a scenario in which Geoffrey I married first to Alice de Cheyne, then to Alice de Vere, and had by these wives Geoffrey IIA married to Hawise de Clare and Geoffrey IIB. However, this scenario completely fails to account for the large amount of Maminot land coming to the family, as in making Alice de Cheyne the mother of Geoffrey IIA, it displaces the Maminot descent. He also seems to be parsing a document differently than the CP editor does. This (the Ancient Deeds citation) is what CP summarizes as by 'Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say and Agnes his wife', and further confirmed by William de Say son of Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. CP clearly parsed this as "Geoffrey de Say filius Geoffrey de Say, and Agnes his wife" - i..e. Agnes was wife of the confirmer, while the only way you could get Richardson's reconstruction is parsing it "Geoffrey de Say, filius Geoffrey de Say and Agnes his wife", making Agnes teh motehr of the confirmer. The difference makes Agnes either the [step?] mother of William (which is entirely inconsistent with this William being the son of 'widow Hawise de Clare' as in Richardson's reconstruction), or that same William's grandmother.
> > >
> > > As usual, with its presentation as bold fact without discussion other than to say 'I am right and CP is wrong', and the burying of the critical references in a forest of irrelevant ones, it nearly impossible to determine the underlying thought process behind this novel reconstruction, let alone to pass judgment on it.
> > >
> > > taf
> > And this is where I pull my copy of Altschul and check for Hawise de Clare and any Says. (None appear.)
> > Genealogical tables are here: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/69429
> "Walkelin [Magminot/ Maminot] was apparently dead in 3 Ric. I, when the scutage of Wales due from his estate was paid by his heir, and it is suggested that he left no issue, but was succeeded by one or more of his brothers, who also died childless, until at last his barony passed to the husband of his sister Alice. Geoffrey de Say, son of the Geoffrey of this roll, in confirming grants to Beigham, [Kent,] speaks of the gift which his father Geoffrey de Say and his mother Aliz had made: and in the elder Geoffrey's own grant Walkelin Maminot is described as his “antecessor," a word which at this period means simply predecessor in title.
> By the end of Richard's reign Geoffrey de Say had succeeded to the responsibilities of his wife's inheritance, the following entry appearing in the Pipe Roll for the ninth year under Kent 'Galfr' de Say debet roli. ios. de scutagio heredum Walkelini Maminot quorum heres est.' Whether in fact he succeeded to the estate of joint heirs or to the debts of successive heirs does not at present appear.
> Part of the Say fief in Bucks. was thus certainly derived through the Maminot alliance, but this does not account for the whole of it. Sawbridgeworth in Herts. came to him, for in the 2nd year of John he owes seven marks to have lands which had been Earl William's; and in 1212 he is returned as holding Sabrithteswurth in chief, pertaining to the honour of Earl William de Mandevill. The fief may of course have grown after the time of Geoffrey."
>
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015039477511&view=1up&seq=229&q1=%22by%20one%20or%20more%20of%20his%20brothers%22

Forgive the lack of punctuation; this whole chunk was cut and pasted from the Hathi Trust sidebar (from Farrer's _Honors and Knights' Fees_, 3:318-19)..

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015032992151&view=1up&seq=334&q1=%22geoffrey%20and%20alice%22%20say

The Chronicle of Sibton omits mention of Sarra and her issue; and worse still, it does not mention the heir who succeeded to the Sussex portion of this fee. This was Alice daughter (?) and heir of John de Chesney, who married first Hugh de Periers, who died at the end of 1175,35 and secondly Geoffrey de Say;, son of William de Say;. In 1180 Geoffrey; and Alice;, holding the manor of Ditton Priors, Salop, in dower by the endowment of Hugh de Periers to the said Alice, delivered it to the prior of Wenlock charged with an annuity to Alice.36 Geoffrey de Say;, with the consent of Alice his wife and William his son and heir, and for the health of his lord Henry II, gave the advowson and church of Bradfield, Norf., to Walden priory.37 Geoffrey de Say; confirmed to Coxford the gifts of William de Chesney and John his nephew, and also gave the church of St. Margaret at Thorpe by (South) Repps for the souls of his wife Alice, his father William, and others of his kindred.38 On New Year's Day, 1198 or 1199, Geoffrey de Sai and Geoffrey son of the same Geoffrey; and Alice; (Aeliza) de Chesney, for the souls of the said Alice de Chesney, William her son and William earl of Mandevill, gave to the hospital at Drincourt a church and land in the same district.39 Geoffrey de Say;, son of William de Say;, made a feoffment of land in Edmonton, Midd., towards the end of the 12th century; as Geoffrey de Say;, son of Alice de Chesney, he made another feoff- ment of land there.40 Geoffrey; and Alice; gave the church of West Greenwich, Kent, to the abbey of Beigham.41 Within the period 1196-1198 Geoffrey son of William de Say; gave to Geoffrey his son the manor of Ridding, Essex.42 Geoffrey de Say; was surety in n94 with earl Roger Bigod and William de Warenne (of Wormegay) for Robert de Mortemer (of Attleborough) that Robert would make his peace with the king, through the mediation of the primate, for having tourneyed without licence.43 In August 1214 Geoffrey son and heir of Geoffrey de Sai made fine with the king for his father's lands in the counties of Hertford, Buckingham, Sussex, Middlesex and Northampton ; 44 he gave 400 marks; for; this; fine; to; include; the; manor; of Rickling; given to him by his said father.45 In 1223 he was preparing to go on pilgrimage to Santiago.46 He died beyond seas on 19 August, 1230; when William his son and heir succeeded,47 and in 1237 conceded the right of William earl Warenne to the fishery of Hamsey (Hammes) and withdrew his claim to chase venison in certain of the earl's woods in Sussex.48 About the same date William confirmed to the Templars their manor of Saddlescombe, which Geoffrey his grandfather had given in exchange for his earlier gift of the manor of East Green- wich.49