Ancestral memories: Cecil/Davis with Manners, Courtenay and King Edward VI

[j***@gmail.com]

I have discussed communicating with ancestors several times in this newsgroup. An explanation is appended to the end of this post.

According to my ancestors, a branch of the noble Cecil family fled to Virginia and changed its name to Davis. In Virginia, this Davis family was researched by genealogist Joan Horsley (now deceased). Several of her Davis files are at https://joanhorsley.org/ -- but her work is not without error. My paper-trail ancestor William Davis (c. 1725-1791) of Pittsylvania County, Virginia is here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Davis-19677 -- I established, by a circumstantial proof, that he was the same as an earlier William Davis of Culpeper County, whom Joan Horsley mistakenly packed off to Kentucky.

--

The Cecil family rose to prominence through the association of William Cecil (1st Baron Burghley) with his father-in-law Peter Cheke, whose story begins this lineage. I will continue with following Cecil generations in separate posts.


--


Peter Cheke (1483 - 1560)


(May 25, 2019) Peter Cheke was a professor. Peter Cheke played a role in administering. Peter Cheke did not have a role in decisions about which professors to give appointment. This was done by the Chancellor. This was done without regard for what the existing professors thought. This led to disagreements. Professors were required to be respectful. However, professors could cultivate an air of disdain among their students for a view held by another professor. This was of the college. This was something that was often deplored. Inquiry was hobbled when an attitude was already present.

(May 28, 2019) Peter was able to think. People had the good of the university in mind. People had to think that the university could be maintained as it was. However, the King had changed the religion. Now, everything in the theology had to be reviewed. This made a terrible problem. How could this be done? Theology was the study of God. The theology of the Church involved revelation. Henry acted in a way that countered what many considered to be correct thinking. This was of considerable discussion.

(May 29, 2019) Peter had to think. The study of God was given by revelation and reason. The Church had decided that King Henry had been inspired. This was a difficult decision. King Henry was known for his way of not being a good Christian. Henry, however was King. If God was going to inspire a man, it would naturally be the King.

(May 31, 2019) Peter was the founder of a branch of the university. Peter hoped, because of what Peter understood, to be able to think of various ways of doing good. Peter was a professor of theology. Theology was in change. The King hoped to investigate and amend. Peter hoped to preserve. The King hoped to instruct the clergy. Peter expected to prevail unless the King had enough time to instruct in detail. The King took a lot of time, but perhaps not enough.

(June 4, 2019) Peter had to think carefully. Peter had to explain the thought behind what Peter tried to include. Theology had to conform to reason. To cut out the Church was to adopt an alternative structure for understanding the will of God. Peter accepted that the bishops in conclave could express the will. Peter also accepted that the King could be inspired. Peter had to think that the King could not be a substitute for a Pope. Peter had to imagine that, in an issue of doctrine, a King with the support of the bishops could be regarded as authoritative. This is what Peter affirmed. The King did not object.

[NOTE: The story of my ancestor Bishop William Barlow, who was actively involved in changing Church practice, relates to Peter Cheke’s point. --JSS]

(June 9, 2019) Peter was unable to think, after the issue of reformation of doctrine, that Peter would be unable to deal with any doctrinal issue that came up. Peter was confident. The King was not in a mood to object. Then Mary came. This upended everything. Peter had to resign. There was no need for a man who reformed Catholicism to suit a new order. Peter was unable to expect a pension. The hostility was evident. Peter simply had to be as a man with nothing. Peter had to encourage helpful people to not allow Peter to starve. This was humiliating. Peter was chastened and strengthened. Peter was of a new type. The men who endured during the time of Mary prospered when Elizabeth took the throne. Peter was reinstated. Peter was assured of a pension.

(June 11, 2019) Peter hoped. There was a need. Peter thought of the kingdom. There was simply too much strife. The Puritans and the Catholics were unrepentant. The King tried to stand in the middle. Those who stood with the King were reviled by both. Peter had to not be perceived as standing with the King. This was not as difficult as Peter thought. The King had to declare. People paid. Consequences were severe. Peter had to think. The ideas were discussed with men who thought of the good. This was the difference. Peter was never under attack.

(June 21, 2019) Peter had a decision. The end was coming. Peter had to think of what to say. The daughter had an ability. The mother had trained. The daughter understood. There must be a way to not expose. Peter had a feeling that Cecil shared the ability. Peter also had a feeling that the ability in Cecil was weak. Cheke was able to give to the children of Cecil. Peter had to think of ensuring that the daughter not make a relationship with a husband or wife of the children who did not have the ability. That was something that led to exposure.

Peter talked to the husband of the daughter. This was an awakening. The husband had the ability in a way that was equal to the daughter. This relieved Peter. There was no need to instruct.


Peter hoped. There would be a continuing lineage. A family with a lineage, at the center of power, could easily disappear. There were many examples of powerful families that now do not exist. Peter hoped that Cecil, somehow, would arrange for a younger son to go to another place. Peter hoped that there would be a new colony. This was discussed after it became clear that a New World had been discovered. Cheke and Cecil could help settle. That was a thought at the end. Peter had no way of making a proposal beyond the simple suggestion.


--


Agnes Duffield, wife of Peter Cheke


(June 24, 2019) Agnes was the wife of a university man. Agnes had to expect. The man was preoccupied. This was the constant state. Ideas were in the mind. The man was not concerned with a relationship. Agnes was a helper. The husband was polite. There was no lack. Agnes had to be accepting. The husband was pleased to attend church with the wife. This was as Agnes expected. This was the relationship. In church, Agnes was seen by all to be a respectable wife.
--
APPENDIX: Communicating with Ancestors

I began communicating with deceased ancestors, and recording their stories in November 2016, after I was told that this was possible. When recording the stories of distant German ancestors, I "heard" their thoughts in plain English. However, at times there was confusion about the proper choice of a word. When that happens, the ancestor and I agree on the particular word to use, and then I put parentheses around the word in question, and then the ancestor moves on with his/her story.

Humans have a natural ability to communicate with deceased ancestors. In some countries this ability is taken for granted, but in “modern” western society, this ability has been largely lost.

Here is my ancestor Anschetil d’Harcourt’s explanation of how he learned to communicate with ancestors: “When my grandfather died, I was young. I was sad because I wanted to be close to him. I asked how I could talk to him. My father said: Think of your grandfather. Words will appear. That is your grandfather.”

On Aug. 26, 2018, my ancestor Tobey Mathew (an early bishop in the Church of England) further explained:


"Bishop Tobey Mathews is speaking, if that is the correct word. Bishop Tobey Mathews will simply refer to himself as Bishop. Bishop understood, before he died, that he would be able to communicate with descendants. Bishop understood that descendants would have the choice. Bishop also understood that he had the choice to communicate with ancestors. Bishop knew, from an early age, that he could communicate with his mother. This was because his mother died when he was three years old. Bishop understood, because of this experience, that there was a clear reason for this. Children who lost the parents had the ability to continue in their time of need. Bishop never thought beyond this. Bishop simply understood that this was common. Bishop understood, because of his role in the Church, that Bishop had to accept the accepted teaching on this. This was simple: The ability existed, so God must have had a reason."


Deceased ancestors appear unanimous in stating that, upon death, a separation of the soul into two parts occurs. As my recently-deceased father explained on Dec. 3, 2018, three days after his death:


"Roger knew, as Roger died, that there would be a change. Roger remembered hearing that there was a separation. Roger experienced this separation. Roger knew to expect it. Roger also knew, because of his training, that it is best to simply accept. Roger did not fight. The separation took place. Roger experienced a flash of memories. Things in Roger’s life that Roger did not have any recollection of went through Roger’s mind. Roger does not think that these memories still exist. Roger is certain that aspects of his life are no longer available. Much of Roger’s intellectual interest is simply not available. This suggests that the purpose of what Roger is in now is not related. Roger hopes that, as Roger experiences what he is experiencing, John will continue to make notes."




When I was told that it is possible to communicate with deceased ancestors, I was cautioned to always have a respectful attitude when talking to them. I decided to try it and see what happened, and it worked.

On the “Day of the Dead” (the day after Halloween) in 2016, I thought of the names of all of my grandparents and their parents and grandparents, and they started talking to me. (I made detailed notes.) Remorse came up immediately for some of them. I learned that women often had ongoing connections with living daughters and granddaughters, but most of the men had been isolated since their deaths. I was told – several times – that after death there is a kind of separation of what we call the soul into two parts. Each ancestor has a part that remains accessible to descendants, and a part that goes elsewhere. Memories are incomplete.

Ancestors want to see the well-being of their descendants. Ancestors also want to be able to talk to their own parents and children. Ancestors hope that living descendants will work their way back from their parents or grandparents to more distant ancestors, one generation at a time. This allows children and parents among the ancestors to talk to each other, when a living descendant is open to ancestral communication.

Ancestors want to avoid hearing from descendants who just want to ask questions about the family tree. Ancestors may not communicate with descendants with only this in mind. For this reason, it is once again a good idea to work your back from one generation to the next. Ancestors believe that descendants who are respectful will be pleased to talk about their own lives. Ancestors want their descendants to live will, and ancestors are concerned when descendants are struggling. Ancestors have the ability to observe the lives of living descendants, but they often do not do so. Ancestors may be inclined to be more observant after a descendant contacts an ancestor, especially if that ancestor had not had any communication with descendants before.

Some ancestors, especially those who were devoutly religious, may avoid communicating with descendants who don’t share their moral values.

Husbands and wives who didn’t get along with each other may be able to begin to communicate about issues that they never talked about before death.

One final point – I have heard some disturbing stories from ancestors, and proper respect demands that the ancestor be asked for permission before sharing such stories.

[j***@gmail.com]

Here is the story of Peter Cheke's son-in-law, William Cecil (1520-1598), 1st Baron Burghley:


(May 25, 2019) William was from a line of Welshmen. William did not think of his heritage. William was the son of a man who settled near London. This was not a recognized family. Cecil was not the name. William is aware that his father was able to hide the Welsh origin. However, when the title was bestowed, the father of William was inclined to investigate his origin. The father discovered that his grandfather was the son of a man who had an estate that was confiscated. This was because of a difficulty during the period of troubles that the living call the War of the Roses. William understands, Cecil was able to rise because of the confiscation. This showed loyalty to the side that prevailed.

(May 27, 2019) William will say “Cecil.” This was the way that everybody said. Cecil was of a family that was not important. Cecil was of an education that opened a door. The teacher who made an impression was Peter Cheke. This meant that Cecil had to be thought of together with Cheke. Cheke hoped that his student would gain a post at court. Cecil achieved. Then Cheke hoped that Cecil would take a daughter. Cecil was obliged. Cecil was thoughtful about this. The obligation prevented Cecil from marrying a woman with a useful family connection. Cheke was nobody. Then Cecil learned, Cheke was somebody who gave opinions that became everybody’s opinion. Cecil benefited far more that Cecil would have with a woman from a well-connected family.

(May 28, 2019) William had a new expectation. William discovered that William would be approached by people who wanted to talk to the professor. William had to think, because of this, people wanted William to show favor. This was something that William never expected. [INTERRUPTED] William decided to be of help when possible. William began writing notes for discussion with his father-in-law. If a question was difficult, William thought to discuss with the man who asked.

(May 29, 2019) William had no reason. There was a way in William life. The way was simple. A vision showed. William acted. Whatever the vision showed as the result came. William did not have any reason to doubt. This was something that William understood came from his family. William understood that both his father and his mother had this ability. William learned that this was “sight.” William also heard “second sight.” William never thought about what people said. Those with “sight” were persecuted. William had to not talk. This was what the parents of William instructed.

(May 31, 2019) Cecil was able to be as a lord. Cecil went to court. Who was Cecil? The name was unknown. Cecil had to affect wealth. This was not hard. All one had to do was spend. Wealth brought followers who wanted money. Cecil hoped to find a way to impress people. Having followers was impressive. Money was a concern. Cecil simply did not have enough.

(June 4, 2019) William was not interested in promoting the family. William had no ambition beyond preserving. The good of the kingdom took the attention. William had no further aim. Cecil was seen to not enrich. This was not well viewed. Others felt uncomfortable as they took. Cecil had the respect of the Crown. This was something that Cecil preserved as one monarch replaced another, including Queen Mary. Cecil had to be extremely cautious during the reign of Mary. Cecil avoided destroying or being destroyed.

(June 9, 2019) William was able to preserve as Elizabeth took the throne. William had no intention of apologizing. William was able to keep a position that did not have anything to do with doctrine. The kingdom had to be maintained. William did as best William could. Elizabeth saw fit to keep an able servant. William was grateful. William likes to think that William repaid Elizabeth amply.

(June 11, 2019) William had a good relationship with Elizabeth. Elizabeth wanted younger men. William had a son. There was an informal understanding. The son would be in the place of the father. The son could draw freely on the experience of the father. William was able to communicate from time to time. William was seen to not be too close. This was for the best.

[j***@gmail.com]

<snip>

WARNING: For anyone who comes upon this thread in the future, please note that the entirety of the above is a work of historical fiction / creative writing. It has no resemblance to actual historical events.
--JC

[Enno Borgsteede]

Post by j***@gmail.com

<snip>

WARNING: For anyone who comes upon this thread in the future, please note that the entirety of the above is a work of historical fiction / creative writing. It has no resemblance to actual historical events.
--JC

What creative writing? Mental illness!

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Enno Borgsteede

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 5:03:46 PM UTC-4,

Post by j***@gmail.com
Here is the story of Peter Cheke's son-in-law, William Cecil
<snip>

WARNING:  For anyone who comes upon this thread in the future, please
note that the entirety of the above is a work of historical fiction /
creative writing.   It has no resemblance to actual historical events.
--JC

What creative writing? Mental illness!

Agreed - although there can be literary value in such fictitious
communication, as with Dante whose imaginary self in the Divine Comedy
spoke with Manfred of Sicily.

But Manfred's posthumous avatar managed to speak in cogent sentences,
instead of slogans and drivel like the ancestors in these tiresome posts.

Peter Stewart

[Enno Borgsteede]

Post by Enno Borgsteede

<snip>

WARNING:  For anyone who comes upon this thread in the future, please note that the entirety of the above is a work of historical fiction / creative writing.   It has no resemblance to actual historical events.
--JC

What creative writing? Mental illness!

Agreed - although there can be literary value in such fictitious communication, as with Dante whose imaginary self in the Divine Comedy spoke with Manfred of Sicily.
But Manfred's posthumous avatar managed to speak in cogent sentences, instead of slogans and drivel like the ancestors in these tiresome posts.

That's right, and we assume, although we can't be completely sure, that Dante knew that his work was fiction, whereas J.S. doesn't seem to have a clue about reality.

Cheers,

Enno

[Vance Mead]

I thought we had see the last of J.S., but apparently he has escaped from the loony bin and is now running around loose.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Enno Borgsteede

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by Enno Borgsteede

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 5:03:46 PM UTC-4,

Post by j***@gmail.com
Here is the story of Peter Cheke's son-in-law, William Cecil
<snip>

WARNING:  For anyone who comes upon this thread in the future,
please note that the entirety of the above is a work of historical
fiction / creative writing.   It has no resemblance to actual
historical events.
--JC

What creative writing? Mental illness!

Agreed - although there can be literary value in such fictitious
communication, as with Dante whose imaginary self in the Divine Comedy
spoke with Manfred of Sicily.
But Manfred's posthumous avatar managed to speak in cogent sentences,
instead of slogans and drivel like the ancestors in these tiresome posts.

That's right, and we assume, although we can't be completely sure, that
Dante knew that his work was fiction, whereas J.S. doesn't seem to have
a clue about reality.

In the case of Manfred, Dante was communicating with the 'spirit' of
someone who died in the year after he himself was born, so not a distant
figure to be characterised entirely from unhinged imagination such as
sixteenth-century or earlier personages to the deluded poster.

I'm not sure that we can be definitive about how far a modern sense of
reality would overlap with Dante's, but certainly he had a clear and
brilliant mind by the lights of his time. And certainly he understood
the difference between his own actual experience and literary contrivance.

But most of all, he certainly knew better than to bore the wrong
audience with his effusions.

Peter Stewart

[Ian Goddard]

Post by j***@gmail.com
I have discussed communicating with ancestors several times in this newsgroup.

Wrong group.

[wjhonson]

Not sure why you are calling the Cecil's "noble" unless this is figurative.

As to some branch of this family fleeing to Virginia.... and then changing their name to Davis. That has to be among the most utterly bizarre things you've ever said.

There is Zero evidence, that the Davis family in Virginia, is related to the Cecil's.

[j***@gmail.com]

Here is an overview of this Cecil/Davis lineage:

FIRST GENERATION

William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, married Mary, daughter of Peter Cheke

SECOND GENERATION

Thomas Cecil, 2nd Baron Burghley, married Dorothy, daughter of John Neville, 4th Baron Latimer

THIRD GENERATION

William Cecil, 1st Earl of Exeter, married Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland.

FOURTH GENERATION

William Cecil (1590-1618), m. (2) Jane, "bastard" daughter of William Courtenay, de jure 3rd Earl of Devon, by Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI by Margaret (Neville), wife of Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland.

FIFTH GENERATION

John Cecil/Davis (b. 1618), brought to Virginia by his widowed mother after the murder of his father; his wife was descended through a bastard lineage from Alexander Livingstone, 1st Earl of Linlithgow, and also descended from Charles (bastard son of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland) and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI by his secret wife Margaret, bastard daughter of Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland, instigator of the plot to poison King Edward VI, with the poison being administered by his daughter the secret wife of King Edward.

SIXTH GENERATION

William Davis, had a son by Wendy (Gwendolyn), daughter of Henry Weston, bastard son of Josiah Winslow, who like his father Edward Winslow was once Governor of Plymouth Colony.

SEVENTH GENERATION

John Davis, "married" Mary, bastard daughter of Henry Soane, Jr., Speaker of the House of Burgesses, and descended (on his mother's side) through a bastard lineage that includes both King Henry VIII (grandson of King Richard III) and King Henry VI's son Edward.

EIGHTH GENERATION

Benjamin Davis (b. 1706), who married Esther Herndon, who was descended on her father's side from Virginia Governor Edward Digges and from the sister of Henry Soane, Jr. (see above, with lineage back to Kings Henry VI and VIII); and on her mother's side from Virginia governors Edward Nott and Alexander Spotswood, who on his mother's side descended from King Louis XI of France through a single daughter by his first wife who was sent to Scotland as a child to marry the King of Scots, a marriage that never took place, so she ended up marrying Alexander Livingston.

NINTH GENERATION

William Davis (c. 1730-1791), miller of Culpeper and Pittsylvania Counties, Virginia, married Sarah Graves, descended from Thomas Stucley, bastard son of King Henry VIII, and from Hugh (Stuckley) Orchard, descended through the Monck family from King Edward IV, and (through a Holloway connection) from the above-mentioned lineage from Kings Henry VI and VIII.

[j***@albion.edu]

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha....
*deep breath*
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Wow. Just wow.

So. William Cecil’s wife Jane was a bastard daughter of the Earl of Devon, by Edward VI’s secret daughter Elizabeth, eh?
And then, Jane’s son John “Davis” was married to a woman who “descended from Charles [Neville] and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI”?
And then, virtually every Davis married some secret royal bastard-descendant?

Your dead ancestors must have sent all their logic “somewhere else” when they split their souls.

It bears repeating: no future readers should take this thread as anything other than wild historical fiction. And the “historical” part only refers the the (ab)use of actual historical names.

[wjhonson]

A gigantic load of dog leavings.

William Cecil Lord Ros (1590-1618) married Anne Lake
The marriage was a bad fit, and there are *literally*... dozens upon dozens of letters, not to mention several lawsuits about this and the resultant fall out from his in-laws shenanigans.

Literally. Dozens.

There is exactly Zero possibility that he, married again, or even had an illegitimate child of any way shape or form, even stillborn.

The "widow" did not flee to Virginia, heavens to betsy. SHE HAD substantial holdings in Britain! The family was not poor for heavens sake. no one was pursuing that nutbag and her crazy family. They lived and died in England where she married again to George Rodney, and was buried right there!

Seriously this is the uttermost depths of ridiculously stupid attempts to tie in a landless family, with the family of the Secretary of State no less.

I can no longer withhold my contempt :)
Have a nice day

[j***@gmail.com]

@ Enno Borgsteede, I am disappointed at your open rudeness, which I have come to expect from others around here. In the past, we have had strongly-worded disagreements about your pseudo-religious reductionist-materialist stance. In light of our previous disagreement, for you to impose that debatable point of view onto what I now present appears arrogant as well as boorish. I hope you have not given up all hope of maintaining the appearance of being civil. If you want to rekindle that debate, you could post in the "Debate with a scientist" thread at https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35419


@ wjhonson, you appear to be confused with your surprisingly ignorant assertion that Cecil was not a noble family. Perhaps you could double-check, or do a google search using phrases such as "Baron Burghley" and "Earl of Exeter."


@ jmbaker, you appear to be unaware of the inclination among aristocratic families to marry distant cousins. This arguably goes double for families with the ambiguous social status of having bastard royal blood. In 1969 the Commonwealth of Virginia embraced the slogan, "Virginia is for lovers." Back in the 17th century, they could have said, "Virginia is for bastards."

@ whjhonson (again), by your own statement, you were possessed by the urge to expose your "contempt." It may be worth considering the question of whether habitual expressions of contempt tend to breed cockroaches in one's soul. Perhaps, by exposing your contempt, you were trying to cover up your earlier ignorant blather about Cecil not being a noble family.

In the the English Cecil lineage that I presented earlier, each man married twice, although I did not mention both wives, just the mother of the son in my ancestral lineage. You seem to have not noticed that I clearly identified Jane Courtenay (second wife) and not Anne Lake (first wife) as the mother of John Cecil/Davis. Whether William Cecil (Baron Ros) was formally divorced from his first wife, and whether he was formally married to his second wife, are details that he may or may not choose to add to his story.

You make the categorical statement that "there is exactly zero possibility" that William Cecil "had an illegitimate child of any way, shape or form." You appear to be implying that you are utterly certain that William Cecil had been castrated. You seem to be living in a fantasy world unsupported by any documentary or other evidence. Perhaps you will agree that prudence dictates that you not expose yourself again.

[Vance Mead]

"You seem to be living in a fantasy world unsupported by any documentary or other evidence"

[P J Evans]

Post by j***@gmail.com
@ Enno Borgsteede, I am disappointed at your open rudeness, which I have come to expect from others around here. In the past, we have had strongly-worded disagreements about your pseudo-religious reductionist-materialist stance. In light of our previous disagreement, for you to impose that debatable point of view onto what I now present appears arrogant as well as boorish. I hope you have not given up all hope of maintaining the appearance of being civil. If you want to rekindle that debate, you could post in the "Debate with a scientist" thread at https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35419
@ wjhonson, you appear to be confused with your surprisingly ignorant assertion that Cecil was not a noble family. Perhaps you could double-check, or do a google search using phrases such as "Baron Burghley" and "Earl of Exeter."
@ jmbaker, you appear to be unaware of the inclination among aristocratic families to marry distant cousins. This arguably goes double for families with the ambiguous social status of having bastard royal blood. In 1969 the Commonwealth of Virginia embraced the slogan, "Virginia is for lovers." Back in the 17th century, they could have said, "Virginia is for bastards."
@ whjhonson (again), by your own statement, you were possessed by the urge to expose your "contempt." It may be worth considering the question of whether habitual expressions of contempt tend to breed cockroaches in one's soul. Perhaps, by exposing your contempt, you were trying to cover up your earlier ignorant blather about Cecil not being a noble family.
In the the English Cecil lineage that I presented earlier, each man married twice, although I did not mention both wives, just the mother of the son in my ancestral lineage. You seem to have not noticed that I clearly identified Jane Courtenay (second wife) and not Anne Lake (first wife) as the mother of John Cecil/Davis. Whether William Cecil (Baron Ros) was formally divorced from his first wife, and whether he was formally married to his second wife, are details that he may or may not choose to add to his story.
You make the categorical statement that "there is exactly zero possibility" that William Cecil "had an illegitimate child of any way, shape or form." You appear to be implying that you are utterly certain that William Cecil had been castrated. You seem to be living in a fantasy world unsupported by any documentary or other evidence. Perhaps you will agree that prudence dictates that you not expose yourself again.

*I'm* surprised that you haven't gotten the help you need to differentiate between reality and fantasy. None of what you're posting is genealogy or history.

[Enno Borgsteede]

Post by P J Evans

Post by j***@gmail.com
@ Enno Borgsteede, I am disappointed at your open rudeness, which I have come to expect from others around here. In the past, we have had strongly-worded disagreements about your pseudo-religious reductionist-materialist stance. In light of our previous disagreement, for you to impose that debatable point of view onto what I now present appears arrogant as well as boorish. I hope you have not given up all hope of maintaining the appearance of being civil. If you want to rekindle that debate, you could post in the "Debate with a scientist" thread at https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35419
In the the English Cecil lineage that I presented earlier, each man married twice, although I did not mention both wives, just the mother of the son in my ancestral lineage. You seem to have not noticed that I clearly identified Jane Courtenay (second wife) and not Anne Lake (first wife) as the mother of John Cecil/Davis. Whether William Cecil (Baron Ros) was formally divorced from his first wife, and whether he was formally married to his second wife, are details that he may or may not choose to add to his story.
You make the categorical statement that "there is exactly zero possibility" that William Cecil "had an illegitimate child of any way, shape or form." You appear to be implying that you are utterly certain that William Cecil had been castrated. You seem to be living in a fantasy world unsupported by any documentary or other evidence. Perhaps you will agree that prudence dictates that you not expose yourself again.

*I'm* surprised that you haven't gotten the help you need to differentiate between reality and fantasy. None of what you're posting is genealogy or history.

Right, me too!

To John: To me it makes no sense to reply to uncivil arguments that start with silly accusations like me having a "pseudo-religious reductionist-materialist stance". It basically tells me that you're not really interested in being civil at all.

And AFAIK, there is nothing rude in saying that you're suffering from a mental illness, because all signs are there. Hearing voices is not a problem by itself, but believing them, and thinking that the whole world is against you is.

Good luck!

Enno

P.S. Your messages are automatically deleted here, so normally I don't see anything you write. It's P J Evans quoting your rudeness that got me into reading that.

[j***@albion.edu]

Oh! Well then, I am severely and utterly chastened. It never occurred to foolish me that royal inbreeding was a thing that existed. I am so glad that you have proven to me that your (and your ancestors’) motives are pure as driven snow, and that self-aggrandizing royal lineages are the hallmark of a true historian. And thank you for the thought that William Cecil must have been castrated for Will Johnson to be certain that he had no bastards. Now I am sure you must be descended from this castrato.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@albion.edu
It never occurred to foolish me that royal inbreeding was a thing that existed.

Not "royal inbreeding," but rather INTERbreeding (there is a difference) among non-royal families with bastard descents from royalty.

[taf]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by j***@albion.edu
It never occurred to foolish me that royal inbreeding was a thing that existed.

Not "royal inbreeding," but rather INTERbreeding (there is a difference) among non-royal families with bastard descents from royalty.

There is a difference, but what you describe, with two successive generations of your absurd pedigree marrying the descendants of the same king, is inbreeding.

An example of 'royal interbreeding' would be when Berengaria of Portugal married Valdemar II of Denmark - a marriage between the royal families of different kingdoms, not a marriage between two scions of the same royal family.

taf

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by taf

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by j***@albion.edu
It never occurred to foolish me that royal inbreeding was a thing that existed.

Not "royal inbreeding," but rather INTERbreeding (there is a difference) among non-royal families with bastard descents from royalty.

There is a difference, but what you describe, with two successive generations of your absurd pedigree marrying the descendants of the same king, is inbreeding.
An example of 'royal interbreeding' would be when Berengaria of Portugal married Valdemar II of Denmark - a marriage between the royal families of different kingdoms, not a marriage between two scions of the same royal family.
taf

If you look up the definitions, the difference is in the degree of the relationship. When third cousins once removed marry (as in this case), it is INTERbreeding, not inbreeding.

[taf]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by taf
There is a difference, but what you describe, with two successive generations of your absurd pedigree marrying the descendants of the same king, is inbreeding.
An example of 'royal interbreeding' would be when Berengaria of Portugal married Valdemar II of Denmark - a marriage between the royal families of different kingdoms, not a marriage between two scions of the same royal family.

If you look up the definitions, the difference is in the degree of the relationship. When third cousins once removed marry (as in this case), it is INTERbreeding, not inbreeding.

Not any definition I can find, but I guess if you are going to concoct relationships, you can just as well fabricate definitions.

Anyhow, you seem to be confused about the fraudulent genealogy you presented. You showed the so-called John Cecil Davis as maternal grandson of Elizabeth, fanciful daughter of Edward VI. You also said that the made-up wife of this John Cecil/Davis was descended from the same Elizabeth, though you spared us the precise inanity invented to connect them. Now, since you are one for definitions, go ahead and look up what degree of relationship exists between a grandson of somebody and someone descended from the same person. Hint: it ain't 3rd cousin, any times removed.

Oh, I know. This must be one of those cases when the ancestors are lying their asses off, which you warned us about.

taf

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by taf

Post by j***@gmail.com
If you look up the definitions, the difference is in the degree of the relationship. When third cousins once removed marry (as in this case), it is INTERbreeding, not inbreeding.

Anyhow, you seem to be confused about the fraudulent genealogy you presented. You showed the so-called John Cecil Davis as maternal grandson of Elizabeth, fanciful daughter of Edward VI. You also said that the made-up wife of this John Cecil/Davis was descended from the same Elizabeth, though you spared us the precise inanity invented to connect them. Now, since you are one for definitions, go ahead and look up what degree of relationship exists between a grandson of somebody and someone descended from the same person. Hint: it ain't 3rd cousin, any times removed.

It looks like we both made a mistake here. I should have said SECOND (not third) cousins once removed. And you falsely assumed that the two separately-identified half-sisters named Elizabeth (daughters of King Edward by two different mothers named Margaret, one of them a bastard of the 5th Earl of Westmorland and the other the daughter of the 4th Earl of Westmorland and the wife of the 2nd Earl of Rutland) were one and the same person. This means that John Cecil/Davis's parents (both descended from Margaret the wife of the 2nd Earl of Rutland), like John and his wife, were HALF second cousins once removed.

[taf]

Post by j***@gmail.com
It looks like we both made a mistake here. I should have said SECOND (not
third) cousins once removed.

So you are changing your made up definition of interbreeding to match the scenario?

Post by j***@gmail.com
And you falsely assumed that the two separately-identified half-sisters
named Elizabeth (daughters of King Edward by two different mothers named
Margaret, one of them a bastard of the 5th Earl of Westmorland and the
other the daughter of the 4th Earl of Westmorland and the wife of the 2nd
Earl of Rutland) were one and the same person.

Oh, of course, an 'I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl' scenario. The king took time off from dying at the age of 15 to father two children by his secret wife and her aunt, and in his sickly state he couldn't remember any female name but Elizabeth for both, not the name of either mother (the same name), nor that of his dearly-departed idolized mother, no. Why didn't I think of that?

Post by j***@gmail.com
This means that John Cecil/Davis's parents (both descended from Margaret
the wife of the 2nd Earl of Rutland), like John and his wife, were HALF
second cousins once removed.

Of course they were, because the voices in your head say so.

taf

[j***@gmail.com]

taf, you appear confused. As I understand, inbreeding means repeated marriages within a lineage in violation of the limits of consanguinity, generally accepted as third or more distant cousins. I suspect that, back in the 17th century, a marriage between half second cousins once removed was not considered problematic.

Of course the general question here is where to draw the line. The Valois kings of France routinely married second cousins descended from the same earlier royal couple -- it seemed almost to be a rule. Does this repeated intermarriage count as inbreeding? I would say yes, but others may disagree.

On the other hand, among the English (and European?) landed gentry, it was not uncommon for there to be more than one intermarriage of third cousins in a pair of allied families. I don't think that is inbreeding.

According to my ancestors, King Henry VII (bastard son of Richard III who was himself a bastard) married his half first cousin Anne of York. Is that single instance of intermarriage in violation of the limits of consanguinity but not quite reaching the red line of full first cousins something to be socially discouraged? In my opinion it is, but I'm not inclined to argue the point strongly, especially as the overarching goal of the marriage was peace in the realm.

[taf]

Post by j***@gmail.com
taf, you appear confused. As I understand, inbreeding means repeated
marriages within a lineage in violation of the limits of consanguinity,

Nope. Not confused, I just am not constrained by your self-serving personal definition. Simply put, inbreeding is within a group, interbreeding is between groups. That's it.

Post by j***@gmail.com
Of course the general question here is where to draw the line.

No, actually the general question here is whether someone who whimsically invents relationships has any credibility on any subject.

Post by j***@gmail.com
On the other hand, among the English (and European?) landed gentry, it was
not uncommon for there to be more than one intermarriage of third cousins
in a pair of allied families. I don't think that is inbreeding.

Because, . . . . . just because, I guess.

Post by j***@gmail.com
According to my ancestors, King Henry VII (bastard son of Richard III who
was himself a bastard)

Of course. It is said that anyone who defends himself in court has a fool for a client. Well, anyone whose progeny thinks the voices they hear in their head are sufficient reason to rewrite documented history has a fool for a descendant.

Post by j***@gmail.com
married his half first cousin Anne of York. Is that single instance of
intermarriage in violation of the limits of consanguinity but not quite
reaching the red line of full first cousins something to be socially
discouraged?

It is a fantasy you dreamed up, so speculating about the societal acceptance of it is pointless.

Post by j***@gmail.com
In my opinion it is, but I'm not inclined to argue the point strongly,
especially as the overarching goal of the marriage was peace in the realm.

The overarching goal of the 'marriage' was to satisfy your perverse desire to rewrite history based on the voices you claim to hear in your head. Nothing is gained from concocting further motivations for a fantastical union.

taf

[j***@gmail.com]

Oops, my bad, I should have said Elizabeth (not Anne) of York, eldest daughter of King Edward IV by his wife Anne, and wife of King Henry VII.

[taf]

Post by j***@gmail.com
Oops, my bad, I should have said Elizabeth (not Anne) of York, eldest daughter
of King Edward IV by his wife Anne, and wife of King Henry VII.

That was the least of the problems with your made-up relationship.

taf

[j***@gmail.com]

SECOND GENERATION

Thomas Cecil, 2nd Baron Burghley, married Dorothy, daughter of John Neville, 4th Baron Latimer

(May 25, 2019) Thomas Cecil was a minister. Thomas was not as important as his brother Robert. Thomas had to think that his brother was the one who has been remembered by history. Thomas was important, but not as much.

(May 27, 2019) Thomas was unable to be as the first minister. This was the ambition. This was always out of reach. Thomas had to think, because of his ambition, Thomas sometimes tried to act in a way that made other men look bad. This was not uncommon. Thomas had to regret. Thomas began to learn. This was a way that caused bad feelings among the men who had to cooperate for the realm to function.

(May 29, 2019) Thomas improved. Thomas was noticed. [INTERRUPTED] Thomas had a decision to make. Thomas knew, because of what Thomas had done, that three men hated Thomas. Thomas had to think of how to relieve the feelings. Thomas thought, this should be done in stages. The first stage was easy: Do not do anything to make the feeling worse. The second stage was tricky: Act indirectly for the benefit of the men. This might be seen. The third stage was to apologize and offer to make (compensation). Thomas was able to do this with one man. This had an effect on the other two. Eventually, none of them hated. Thomas was never able to cooperate with them.

Thomas had to think of what he did. Thomas was unable to undo harm that he did. Thomas was able to make amends. That had to be sufficient. Thomas was able to hope, and continued hoping until the day Thomas died.

(May 31, 2019) Thomas was unable to be at peace. Thomas had harmed six women. Each woman had given a child. The goal was to have an additional son. All of the children were daughters. Thomas kept on trying. Each woman was maintained. Thomas was unwilling to give dowries. Each daughter found a man. The man was as a husband. This was of bastard families. Thomas supposes that many men stopped after having a son in this way, and didn’t have any daughter. Thomas made up for this lack.

(June 4, 2019) Thomas was the man who decided. Thomas had to be invisible. There was a brother. The brother was the face. Thomas was the mind. The brother had a way with people. Thomas had a way with strategy. The brother accepted. Both Thomas and the brother were well.

(June 9, 2019) Thomas had a decision. The brother was of the highest. Thomas could not hope. Thomas had to think of a son being in this position. Thomas had to prepare the son. The son had to be able to consider the realm before the family. This was of the essence. Thomas understood, a man who did this and was recognized by a faithful sovereign would prosper. The son took the message to heart.

Thomas did not as he would. Thomas did as Thomas saw. Thomas knew. The sight was of a spirit. The Sight showed. Thomas understood that the Sight did not show without reason. Thomas had to act as Thomas saw. Thomas understood, if Thomas did not, a terrible result would happen. The result might not be for Thomas. The plan of the sight was harmony within the kingdom. The Sight had to plan in a way that allowed people to cooperate. The sight had to think of men who had power and made decisions. Thomas understood that the Sight, in the family of Cheke, came to Cecil and demanded attention. Cheke preserved the sight for six generations. The sight finally was able to descend to a family with power.

(June 11, 2019) Thomas had a relationship. The wife was of a similar family. Neville and Cecil both had the sight. Thomas understands that Neville rebelled against what the sight showed. This resulted in a terrible crisis. Thomas understood that Neville could not recover.

(June 18, 2019) Thomas had a gift. The sight was strong. Thomas was able to think of a problem in the kingdom. The sight gave a way to make the situation better. Sometimes the situation would completely recover. Sometimes it would get better and then get worse again.

(June 20, 2019) Thomas had to think of the well-being of many people. The sight was constant. Thomas looked and acted. There was no thinking. Thomas had a reputation The man was of a genius. The brother had the ability to be as one with people. But Thomas had the ability to see a clear way forward. Thomas had to be very careful. This ability, if talked about, would lead to the downfall of Cecil. Nobody was allowed to have the sight.

(June 24, 2019) Thomas had to think. The Sight was not demanding. Thomas used. There was no compulsion. The Sight sometimes was of this way. Thomas had to think. Ancestors gave. Thomas saw. There was a clear indication. Thomas was living as the Sight imagined.

(June 28, 2019) Thomas had the ability to ask. The Sight was able to communicate. The Sight explained, it would talk once and never again. The Sight was a being that had the responsibility of ensuring that a lineage continued. The lineage was of an ancient king. The king was in the Bible. The Bible misrepresented the story of Nebuchadnezzar. This was the king who was the ancestor of everyone who had the sight. Nebuchadnezzar was not a bad king. Nebuchadnezzar was under the compulsion to act as the Sight ensured. This was the story that was not included. The Sight passed, from a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, into the House of David. This was the origin of the Sight in the European royal houses. The Sight did not give details. The Sight had to do as it did, because humans are inclined to self-destruct. The Sight is opposed to a force that wanted humans to self-destruct. The force acted on human leaders. Later, the force acted on groups of men with similar motives. This is the result of the force being able to compel men who try to dominate. If a man does not try to dominate, the force has no power over the man.

(July 5, 2019) Thomas had to be able to have a discipline. Thomas had to not rely on the sight for routine decisions. Thomas understood, because of this need, that Thomas would not be able to continue if Thomas was in a time of crisis. Thomas could not overuse the sight.

Thomas decided. There would be a system. Thomas would not use the sight for routine requests. Thomas had to think of the good of the realm. The good of individuals would be the topic for Thomas to use his own judgment. For the good of the realm, Thomas looked. Many times there was a clear alternative, and one choice was superior. Sometimes there were alternatives with little difference in the outcome. And once, there was no alternative. The situation must be endured. This led Thomas to gain a reputation. Thomas was the man who could find a way through. When, in this case, Thomas said there was no way through, this was accepted. Thomas had the will of the decision makers. This was a terrible power. Thomas had to be insistent on not receiving gifts. This was mentioned. This was respected. Thomas had the reputation of a man without personal interest.

(July 6, 2019) Thomas had to discuss what was going to happen. Thomas decided to not. There was too much at stake for a careless word to give thought that Thomas might have the sight. If Thomas had given this thought, there would be a cry. The sight was reviled. The sight made men do things that were against the Church. Thomas had no experience of this. Thomas simply heard the stories. A man with a wife was commanded to have a child by another woman. Somehow, the sight was of this act. The sight must be eliminated. The Church was adamant. The Catholic Church before was just as adamant. Thomas had to be extremely cautious.

Thomas did not have enough time. The Spanish were coming. Sight showed. There would be a great victory. Thomas had to organize what would happen afterward. This is where Thomas did not have enough time. Thomas had to be able to direct England toward the New World. Spain must be limited. The way to limit was to colonize north of where Spain was. Thomas foresaw. The nation that would arise would be the most powerful in the world. The nation would self-destruct in the midst of a natural cataclysm. Thomas foresaw. A new nation would arise. This nation would include the western part of the old nation. It would also include the area to the south, down the tail of the northern continent. Thomas foresaw, the people of this nation would be greatly reduced by the natural disaster. Thomas saw, because of the problems, the people from the north would be greeted as saviors. The new nation would take form very quickly. The new nation would be dominant in the area, but not in the world. The new nation would be as an island, without connecting to other areas in the northern continent, where nobody would live, because of the result of man-made disaster on top of the natural disaster. Thomas was unable to think that what Thomas saw was real. Thomas saw an explosion destroying an entire city. Thomas believes that this is able to be done now. Thomas does not sense any hint of disbelief in the man who is recording.

(July 7, 2019) Thomas had an expectation. Thomas was going to continue. Cecil would be able to continue. The realm would continue to use the service of Cecil. William, the eldest son, was a fitting successor as Elizabeth wanted younger counselors.

Thomas wanted to be of the group of elder statesmen who helped organize the thought of the counselors. Thomas discovered that there was opposition to the inclusion of Thomas. There was a sense that Thomas would overpower the group, because the Queen was accustomed to deferring to Thomas. This meant that Thomas had to think of finding another way to have influence. Thomas hoped. Another way appeared. The son was repeatedly challenged. Thomas began to realize that the group of elder statesmen was the same group as the group that was challenging the son. Thomas originally thought that this was simply personal ambition. But a design eventually appeared. Venice was the likely origin. Thomas instructed a servant to find a way to plant this idea without it being of Thomas. Thomas eventually heard a man criticize the power of Venice to corrupt, using this group as an example. Thomas considered his warning to have been delivered.

--

Dorothy, daughter of John Neville, 4th Baron Latimer

(July 8, 2019) Dorothy was the daughter of a man who was the leader of a younger branch of Neville. Neville had six branches. Dorothy thought, the different branches did not act as a single family. Neville was a name that got attention. Dorothy understood, if someone thought that Dorothy was from an important branch, that person would be respectful. But, if that person thought that Dorothy was not part of the important branch, the person would be dismissive, as if Dorothy was falsely pretending to be important.

(July 24, 2019) Dorothy had a decision. To marry Cecil was to be of the highest. Cecil was not an important family. Cecil was a servant. The Crown made Cecil important. Dorothy had to be aware that Cecil would be consumed by the needs of the realm. This meant that Dorothy would not have a relationship with the husband. This also meant, most likely, the husband would not have a mistress. Dorothy chose to marry Cecil, and accepted the life of the wife of a prominent courtier. Dorothy was not unable to assist when Cecil needed to help a man go in a proper direction. This made Dorothy feel pleased, to be able to be of benefit to a faithful husband. Dorothy did not think of the women that the Sight selected to be the mothers of bastards as being unfaithful. Dorothy had a bit of the sight. Dorothy understood, Cecil must act as if Cecil did of his own. Dorothy did not see any of the women as a mistress.

(Aug. 11, 2019) Dorothy had to think. Cecil was propagating the sight. Dorothy had a child, a son and heir. Dorothy wanted another child. Thomas was instructed by the sight to not. Dorothy was as a woman with no husband. Dorothy had to endure. Cecil had been good. Some husbands took their wives with little thought for propriety of their behavior. Dorothy was never treated in a manner that was improper toward a lady.

(Aug. 22, 2019) Dorothy had to accept. There would be no other children. There was a son. There were two daughters. Cecil was a small family. The family did not have great wealth. An additional son would be a burden. Dorothy thought, because of this, there would be a new respect for Cecil as the son became established. Dorothy then thought of a son not being able to make a good arrangement for the future. Would there be time for a second son to be born? Sometimes a son, after becoming an adult, wasted his patrimony and came to a bad end. Dorothy was troubled by this thought. Cecil was also concerned. The sight had to be respected and obeyed. This was the end of the discussion. Cecil had to think that, as the sight was regularly correct, there would also be a family that continued, because this is what the sight showed. Cecil and Dorothy were reconciled to this need to simply act as the sight demanded.

(Sept. 17, 2019) Dorothy was unable to live to see the birth of grandchildren. Dorothy suspects that her husband had an affair. Dorothy understood. The man needed another son. A bastard would not be expensive to maintain. A bastard would be able to support the family without expecting. Dorothy thought, this was not a worthy ambition. Dorothy had to accept that this was the way of many noblemen. Dorothy never knew.

[P J Evans]

Post by j***@gmail.com
SECOND GENERATION

[many lines of fiction snipped]

This isn't genealogy. It's fiction, and poor-quality fiction at that.
Please stop posting it here; this is not a fiction support group.

[wjhonson]

Post by j***@gmail.com
@ Enno Borgsteede, I am disappointed at your open rudeness, which I have come to expect from others around here. In the past, we have had strongly-worded disagreements about your pseudo-religious reductionist-materialist stance. In light of our previous disagreement, for you to impose that debatable point of view onto what I now present appears arrogant as well as boorish. I hope you have not given up all hope of maintaining the appearance of being civil. If you want to rekindle that debate, you could post in the "Debate with a scientist" thread at https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35419
@ wjhonson, you appear to be confused with your surprisingly ignorant assertion that Cecil was not a noble family. Perhaps you could double-check, or do a google search using phrases such as "Baron Burghley" and "Earl of Exeter."
@ jmbaker, you appear to be unaware of the inclination among aristocratic families to marry distant cousins. This arguably goes double for families with the ambiguous social status of having bastard royal blood. In 1969 the Commonwealth of Virginia embraced the slogan, "Virginia is for lovers." Back in the 17th century, they could have said, "Virginia is for bastards."
@ whjhonson (again), by your own statement, you were possessed by the urge to expose your "contempt." It may be worth considering the question of whether habitual expressions of contempt tend to breed cockroaches in one's soul. Perhaps, by exposing your contempt, you were trying to cover up your earlier ignorant blather about Cecil not being a noble family.
In the the English Cecil lineage that I presented earlier, each man married twice, although I did not mention both wives, just the mother of the son in my ancestral lineage. You seem to have not noticed that I clearly identified Jane Courtenay (second wife) and not Anne Lake (first wife) as the mother of John Cecil/Davis. Whether William Cecil (Baron Ros) was formally divorced from his first wife, and whether he was formally married to his second wife, are details that he may or may not choose to add to his story.
You make the categorical statement that "there is exactly zero possibility" that William Cecil "had an illegitimate child of any way, shape or form." You appear to be implying that you are utterly certain that William Cecil had been castrated. You seem to be living in a fantasy world unsupported by any documentary or other evidence. Perhaps you will agree that prudence dictates that you not expose yourself again.

John you nutty nutbag there WAS no second marriage.
Lord Ros did not marry a second time. And he did not divorce his wife, "formally" or not, whatever in the name of gods green earth that is supposed to mean.

The life of Lord Ros is well documented. perhaps you should do ANY RESEARCH at all. I mean... any... at all. That might help.

But I think it's pretty clear, that being completely shut out of any sort of serious consideration, you have taken this mystical path, where you can just make up any ridiculous nonsense you think you can and post it as facts.

William Cecil Lord Ros died s.p. (and v.p.)
As I said there are DOZENS of letters flying back and forth between these families regarding all of this.

Do you *really* think that some second wife and child would escape the notice of EVERYBODY ? But suddenly be found by a raving nutcase and his nutty associates four hundred years later? And then attached to a family of landless nobodies ? With no supporting documentation of any sort at all.

Nice research. Try again.

[wjhonson]

It really makes little difference if they were second cousins, or second cousins once removed, or fourth cousins for that matter, since such a marriage DID NOT OCCUR.

I mean if you are going to make up genealogical nonsense, connecting landless nobodies to well-known landed and titled families, you should really pick people quite a bit more obscure.

The life of Lord Ros is well known, and has been documented, up the ying-yang. No matter what extra baggage you try to load on, this silly Virginia family were *not* his descendants at all. So. Next caller.

[wjhonson]

One more cogent point, as if my slinging of waste upon your head was not enough.

Explain just HOW the Barony of Ros, which was his, and the Earldom of Exeter, which was his, would just magically *leap* away from his only son as you claim?

Exactly how did it occur that *both* of these would move to some other person instead of the rightful heir that you claim existed?

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by wjhonson
One more cogent point, as if my slinging of waste upon your head was not enough.
Explain just HOW the Barony of Ros, which was his, and the Earldom of Exeter, which was his, would just magically *leap* away from his only son as you claim?
Exactly how did it occur that *both* of these would move to some other person instead of the rightful heir that you claim existed?

Something about your phrasing suggests that you would actually be not such a bad fellow if you weren't being instructed to be aggressively rude.

Regarding your "cogent" point, I already implied that I was not told that William Cecil was formally married to his second wife. Obviously, without a formal marriage, the titles would not pass on to his son.

William Cecil will speak for himself: "William had little time. Sight showed death in the near future. A wife was sent, with the thought of pretending a marriage upon return. William was not able to make any arrangement for the future of the son. Death took William as the price for the wife and son escaping from Venice. William had to act as the sight directed. The sight showed a lineage in the New World. William had no hope, except to trust as William saw."

[wjhonson]

So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.

That would explain why the titles would not pass to this bastard child. However, merely *stating* that this occurred, and that no one in his blood-family, or in-law-married, thought fit to ever mention it, means the onus is upon you to provide actual sources, which make this claim concrete.

Not dreams from your supposed ancestors, but actual sources.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.

By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.

[wjhonson]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.

By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.

When a man has a wife, and he is not divorced from her (which he was not), then any other woman is not his "wife", common-law or not. He was not divorced. His wife Anne Lake, remarried, after his death.

Are you seriously going to do NO research at all on this family?

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by wjhonson

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.

By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.

When a man has a wife, and he is not divorced from her (which he was not), then any other woman is not his "wife", common-law or not. He was not divorced. His wife Anne Lake, remarried, after his death.
Are you seriously going to do NO research at all on this family?

Once again, Deborah Read was not divorced from her husband when she "married" Benjamin Franklin.

Your failure to do any basic fact checking regarding this simple example brings to mind your earlier foot-in-mouth failure to realize that Cecil was a noble family.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by wjhonson

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.

By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.

When a man has a wife, and he is not divorced from her (which he was not), then any other woman is not his "wife", common-law or not. He was not divorced. His wife Anne Lake, remarried, after his death.
Are you seriously going to do NO research at all on this family?

Once again, Deborah Read was not divorced from her husband when she "married" Benjamin Franklin.
Your failure to do any basic fact checking regarding this simple example brings to mind your earlier foot-in-mouth failure to realize that Cecil was a noble family.

Since I'm happily not reading through all of this dreary thread, I have
no idea what is behind this last remark - however, you should be aware
that in England there is no such thing as a "noble family".

This is a Continental custom that never crossed the Channel. In England
peers are noble but apart from individuals holding peerages in their own
right all other members of their families are commoners, including any
of their relatives with courtesy titles.

Peter Stewart

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by wjhonson

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.

By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.

When a man has a wife, and he is not divorced from her (which he was not), then any other woman is not his "wife", common-law or not. He was not divorced. His wife Anne Lake, remarried, after his death.
Are you seriously going to do NO research at all on this family?

Once again, Deborah Read was not divorced from her husband when she "married" Benjamin Franklin.
Your failure to do any basic fact checking regarding this simple example brings to mind your earlier foot-in-mouth failure to realize that Cecil was a noble family.

Since I'm happily not reading through all of this dreary thread, I have
no idea what is behind this last remark - however, you should be aware
that in England there is no such thing as a "noble family".
This is a Continental custom that never crossed the Channel. In England
peers are noble but apart from individuals holding peerages in their own
right all other members of their families are commoners, including any
of their relatives with courtesy titles.
Peter Stewart

Thank you for that attempt at clarification. By "noble family" I meant a family in which a hereditary title descends. I am well aware that, for example, sons of peers are allowed to sit in the House of Commons while their fathers are alive.

[wjhonson]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by wjhonson

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.

By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.

When a man has a wife, and he is not divorced from her (which he was not), then any other woman is not his "wife", common-law or not. He was not divorced. His wife Anne Lake, remarried, after his death.
Are you seriously going to do NO research at all on this family?

Once again, Deborah Read was not divorced from her husband when she "married" Benjamin Franklin.
Your failure to do any basic fact checking regarding this simple example brings to mind your earlier foot-in-mouth failure to realize that Cecil was a noble family.

Since I'm happily not reading through all of this dreary thread, I have
no idea what is behind this last remark - however, you should be aware
that in England there is no such thing as a "noble family".
This is a Continental custom that never crossed the Channel. In England
peers are noble but apart from individuals holding peerages in their own
right all other members of their families are commoners, including any
of their relatives with courtesy titles.
Peter Stewart

Thank you for that attempt at clarification. By "noble family" I meant a family in which a hereditary title descends. I am well aware that, for example, sons of peers are allowed to sit in the House of Commons while their fathers are alive.

That there was one heriditary title, descending to one of his children, does not make the entire family "noble" however.

And again, I will ask for *any* documentary source, whatsoever, that such a woman even existed at all, and that she was the mistress of Lord Ros.

Any. Source.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by wjhonson

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by wjhonson
So when you say he wasn't "formally" married, you mean he wasn't married. So this woman was not his "second wife" at all, but merely his mistress.

By your reasoning, Benjamin Franklin's "wife" Deborah Read was actually his mistress.

When a man has a wife, and he is not divorced from her (which he was not), then any other woman is not his "wife", common-law or not. He was not divorced. His wife Anne Lake, remarried, after his death.
Are you seriously going to do NO research at all on this family?

Once again, Deborah Read was not divorced from her husband when she "married" Benjamin Franklin.
Your failure to do any basic fact checking regarding this simple example brings to mind your earlier foot-in-mouth failure to realize that Cecil was a noble family.

Since I'm happily not reading through all of this dreary thread, I have
no idea what is behind this last remark - however, you should be aware
that in England there is no such thing as a "noble family".
This is a Continental custom that never crossed the Channel. In England
peers are noble but apart from individuals holding peerages in their own
right all other members of their families are commoners, including any
of their relatives with courtesy titles.
Peter Stewart

Thank you for that attempt at clarification. By "noble family" I meant a family in which a hereditary title descends. I am well aware that, for example, sons of peers are allowed to sit in the House of Commons while their fathers are alive.

I assume you mean "a family within which ..." i.e. following a
particular line according to the remainder. Unless there is a special
remainder, most family members are excluded from inheritance of a
peerage just as effectively as are non-relatives.

Peter Stewart

[wjhonson]

Post by j***@gmail.com
Thank you for that attempt at clarification. By "noble family" I meant a family in which a hereditary title descends. I am well aware that, for example, sons of peers are allowed to sit in the House of Commons while their fathers are alive.

"sons of peers are allowed to sit...."

What?
The House of Commons are people *voted in* to it.
There is no right for anyone to sit in it, who was not voted to it.
Not sure what you mean by this

[Peter Stewart]

Post by wjhonson

Post by j***@gmail.com
Thank you for that attempt at clarification. By "noble family" I meant a family in which a hereditary title descends. I am well aware that, for example, sons of peers are allowed to sit in the House of Commons while their fathers are alive.

"sons of peers are allowed to sit...."
What?
The House of Commons are people *voted in* to it.
There is no right for anyone to sit in it, who was not voted to it.
Not sure what you mean by this

Obviously it means "eligible to stand" - the entire House of Commons was
not "allowed to sit" in recent weeks because the queen didn't have the
nous, gumption or principle to ask one simple question and discover that
she was being advised to order an unlawful prorogation.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

Post by wjhonson
"sons of peers are allowed to sit...."
What?
The House of Commons are people *voted in* to it.
There is no right for anyone to sit in it, who was not voted to it.
Not sure what you mean by this

It means that they are allowed to sit, if elected. Peers, by nature of their eligibility to sit in the House of Lords, are legally barred from the Commons, and if a member of the Commons inherits or is granted a Peerage, they are required to resign their Commons seat.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Post by taf

Post by wjhonson
"sons of peers are allowed to sit...."
What?
The House of Commons are people *voted in* to it.
There is no right for anyone to sit in it, who was not voted to it.
Not sure what you mean by this

It means that they are allowed to sit, if elected. Peers, by nature of their eligibility to sit in the House of Lords, are legally barred from the Commons, and if a member of the Commons inherits or is granted a Peerage, they are required to resign their Commons seat.

Are they, or is this automatic?

I seem to recall that the only way for a member of the Commons to resign
is to apply for the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and I don't
think new peers are required to do this.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

Post by Peter Stewart
Are they, or is this automatic?

Probably automatic.

The point is that the English political population is divided into 'classes' that define eligibility, and these classes are mutually exclusive.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Post by taf

Post by Peter Stewart
Are they, or is this automatic?

Probably automatic.
The point is that the English political population is divided into 'classes' that define eligibility, and these classes are mutually exclusive.

Not any longer - hereditary peers can stand for election to the House of
Commons while retaining their peerages if they do not sit in the House
of Lords, as very few now do. It was previously possible for peers to be
elected MPs if they first disclaimed their peerage titles (like Anthony
Wedgwood-Benn and Alec Douglas-Home), but since the latest reforms that
is not required for English peers.

Peter Stewart

[Richard Smith]

Post by Peter Stewart
hereditary peers can stand for election to the House of
Commons while retaining their peerages if they do not sit in the House
of Lords, as very few now do. It was previously possible for peers to be
elected MPs if they first disclaimed their peerage titles (like Anthony
Wedgwood-Benn and Alec Douglas-Home), but since the latest reforms that
is not required for English peers.

Only hereditary peers could disclaim their peerages under the Peerage
Act 1963. If you were a life peer you are stuck with it: they
automatically had a seat in the Lords, even after the reforms of
1999/2000, and were therefore barred from sitting in the Commons. It
was only in 2014 that it finally became possible for life peers or
elected (properly called "excepted") hereditary peers to resign their
seat in the Lords – though without resigning the peerage itself. There
have been quite a few such resignations, almost invariably of elderly
peers wishing to leave the political arena. It's not therefore
surprising that none have sought re-election to the Commons, but in
principle they now can.

Richard

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Peter Stewart
hereditary peers can stand for election to the House of
Commons while retaining their peerages if they do not sit in the House
of Lords, as very few now do. It was previously possible for peers to be
elected MPs if they first disclaimed their peerage titles (like Anthony
Wedgwood-Benn and Alec Douglas-Home), but since the latest reforms that
is not required for English peers.

Only hereditary peers could disclaim their peerages under the Peerage
Act 1963.  If you were a life peer you are stuck with it:  they
automatically had a seat in the Lords, even after the reforms of
1999/2000, and were therefore barred from sitting in the Commons.  It
was only in 2014 that it finally became possible for life peers or
elected (properly called "excepted") hereditary peers to resign their
seat in the Lords – though without resigning the peerage itself.  There
have been quite a few such resignations, almost invariably of elderly
peers wishing to leave the political arena.  It's not therefore
surprising that none have sought re-election to the Commons, but in
principle they now can.

Thanks - it never crossed my mind that a life peer might have wished to
disclaim the honour once having accepted it, but then many of them are
politicians who as a breed tend to be contrary by nature.

It seems from your explanation that hereditary peers are (or recently
were) over-enfranchised, if they could elect some of their own number to
continuing seats in the House of Lords and then also vote for MPs in the
House of Commons. Is that - or was it even briefly - the case?

Peter Stewart

[Richard Smith]

Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks - it never crossed my mind that a life peer might have wished to
disclaim the honour once having accepted it, but then many of them are
politicians who as a breed tend to be contrary by nature.

I can see one situation where it could arise, not simply through
contrariness. In recent years there's been a trend towards appointing
young life peers with the intention of making them junior ministers, as
a way of bringing specialist talent into government. I can imagine
someone who became a life peer in such circumstances, perhaps while
still their 30s, wanting to move to the Commons a few decades later.

Post by Peter Stewart
It seems from your explanation that hereditary peers are (or recently
were) over-enfranchised, if they could elect some of their own number to
continuing seats in the House of Lords and then also vote for MPs in the
House of Commons. Is that - or was it even briefly - the case?

An interesting question! However the answer appears to be no, they were
not over-enfranchised, even briefly. Only hereditary members of the
House of Lords may vote in the election of the so-called excepted
hereditary peers, and members of the House of Lords have never been
allowed to vote in general elections to the Commons.

The elections of the first excepted hereditary peers were held on 27-28
Oct 1999, and as all the hereditary peers were then still members of the
House of Lords, all were entitled to vote. The election did not take
effect immediately and all of the hereditaries remained members of the
Lords until the end of that parliamentary session. I cannot immediately
locate the date of that, but the next session began on 17 Nov, so the
previous one will have ended a few days earlier. On whatever that date
was, those hereditaries who had not been elected to the excepted seats
in the Lords ceased being eligible to vote for excepted hereditary Lords
and immediately became eligible to vote in general elections.

But we have now moved a long way from mediæval genealogy – though
perhaps no further than the deluded fictions which started this thread.

Richard

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks - it never crossed my mind that a life peer might have wished to
disclaim the honour once having accepted it, but then many of them are
politicians who as a breed tend to be contrary by nature.

I can see one situation where it could arise, not simply through
contrariness.  In recent years there's been a trend towards appointing
young life peers with the intention of making them junior ministers, as
a way of bringing specialist talent into government.  I can imagine
someone who became a life peer in such circumstances, perhaps while
still their 30s, wanting to move to the Commons a few decades later.

Post by Peter Stewart
It seems from your explanation that hereditary peers are (or recently
were) over-enfranchised, if they could elect some of their own number to
continuing seats in the House of Lords and then also vote for MPs in the
House of Commons. Is that - or was it even briefly - the case?

An interesting question!  However the answer appears to be no, they were
not over-enfranchised, even briefly.  Only hereditary members of the
House of Lords may vote in the election of the so-called excepted
hereditary peers, and members of the House of Lords have never been
allowed to vote in general elections to the Commons.
The elections of the first excepted hereditary peers were held on 27-28
Oct 1999, and as all the hereditary peers were then still members of the
House of Lords, all were entitled to vote.  The election did not take
effect immediately and all of the hereditaries remained members of the
Lords until the end of that parliamentary session.  I cannot immediately
locate the date of that, but the next session began on 17 Nov, so the
previous one will have ended a few days earlier.  On whatever that date
was, those hereditaries who had not been elected to the excepted seats
in the Lords ceased being eligible to vote for excepted hereditary Lords
and immediately became eligible to vote in general elections.
But we have now moved a long way from mediæval genealogy – though
perhaps no further than the deluded fictions which started this thread.

Well, since all hereditary peers are descended from medieval ancestors
they are as well-qualified for discussion here as anyone else alive
today, including newsgroup members who tell us about their peeves.

If you say the hereditary peers taking part in the first election of
excepted hereditary peers were not over-enfranchised, it seems they were
nonetheless over-represented since the first-elected extended lords &
ladies would be sitting at the same time as MPs for whom the
non-extended ones had subsequently become eligible to vote.

In other words, one peer or peeress could have two recipients of his or
her votes sitting in different houses of the parliament at the same
time. Not quite egalitarian, by my reckoning. Are you sure they weren't
obliged to choose participating in election for just one house or other,
and not both?

Peter Stewart

[Richard Smith]

Post by Peter Stewart
If you say the hereditary peers taking part in the first election of
excepted hereditary peers were not over-enfranchised, it seems they were
nonetheless over-represented since the first-elected extended lords &
ladies would be sitting at the same time as MPs for whom the
non-extended ones had subsequently become eligible to vote.
In other words, one peer or peeress could have two recipients of his or
her votes sitting in different houses of the parliament at the same
time. Not quite egalitarian, by my reckoning. Are you sure they weren't
obliged to choose participating in election for just one house or other,
and not both?

I think I see the point you're making.

Yes, it's true that a peer could participate in the 1999 Lords election
to elect someone to the Lords, and then some time later, participate in
a Commons election while the heredetary peer they voted for remained in
the Lords. As a result they would have voted for two people who were
sitting in Parliament concurrently. I guess that's a bit unfair. But
bear in mind the 1999 Lords elections were for life – fifteen years
later it became possible to stand down from the Lords, but this wasn't
anticipated at the time – and the Lords is much less powerful than the
Commons. Would it have been fairer to have said that hereditaries would
participated in the 1999 Lords election were not allowed to vote in
general elections while any of the batch of hereditaries elected in 1999
remained in the Lords? It's certainly not obvious that it would be.

Such potential inequalities are intrinsic in most democratic systems.
If I move house, I could end up participating in a by-election in my new
home constituency while the MP I voted for in the last general election
is still in office. Maybe some democratic systems don't allow you to
participate in by-elections in such circumstances, but Britain's does.

Richard

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Peter Stewart
If you say the hereditary peers taking part in the first election of
excepted hereditary peers were not over-enfranchised, it seems they were
nonetheless over-represented since the first-elected extended lords &
ladies would be sitting at the same time as MPs for whom the
non-extended ones had subsequently become eligible to vote.
In other words, one peer or peeress could have two recipients of his or
her votes sitting in different houses of the parliament at the same
time. Not quite egalitarian, by my reckoning. Are you sure they weren't
obliged to choose participating in election for just one house or other,
and not both?

I think I see the point you're making.
Yes, it's true that a peer could participate in the 1999 Lords election
to elect someone to the Lords, and then some time later, participate in
a Commons election while the heredetary peer they voted for remained in
the Lords.  As a result they would have voted for two people who were
sitting in Parliament concurrently.  I guess that's a bit unfair.  But
bear in mind the 1999 Lords elections were for life – fifteen years
later it became possible to stand down from the Lords, but this wasn't
anticipated at the time – and the Lords is much less powerful than the
Commons.  Would it have been fairer to have said that hereditaries would
participated in the 1999 Lords election were not allowed to vote in
general elections while any of the batch of hereditaries elected in 1999
remained in the Lords?  It's certainly not obvious that it would be.
Such potential inequalities are intrinsic in most democratic systems. If
I move house, I could end up participating in a by-election in my new
home constituency while the MP I voted for in the last general election
is still in office.  Maybe some democratic systems don't allow you to
participate in by-elections in such circumstances, but Britain's does.

Fundamentally apples to oranges - in the UK members of the House of
Commons represent geographic electorates, whereas extended hereditary
peers represent a demographic one. If you move to a different electorate
you are no longer represented by the MP for the one you left, so of
course you are eligible to vote in a by-election wherever you are
currently enrolled.

In the case of extended peers, once the principle of hereditary right to
sit in the House of Lords was removed they effectively became life peers
by election - in that sense, an abdication of the sovereign's role as
fount of honour. Imagine the outrage at Buckingham Palace if the Trades
Unions were given the right to vote in 90+ members of the House of Lords
as a demographic electorate. Yet when this privilege was given to
hereditary peers, not a murmur of dissent.

As I wrote before, the days of rigorously=principled monarchy are in the
past.

Peter Stewart

[Richard Smith]

Post by taf
Peers, by nature of their eligibility to sit in the House of Lords,
are legally barred from the Commons, and if a member of the Commons
inherits or is granted a Peerage, they are required to resign their
Commons seat.

This used to be the case, but ceased being so when the House of Lords
Act 1999 came into full effect in early 2000. Since then, the number of
hereditary peers in the House of Lords was been fixed at 90, plus the
Earl Marshall (the Duke of Norfolk) and the Lord Great Chamberlain (for
practical purposes, the Marquess of Cholmondeley). When you inherit a
peerage nowadays, unless it is the Dukedom of Norfolk or the Marquessate
of Cholmondeley, you do not now automatically get to sit in the Lords,
and you do not lose your eligibility to sit the in Commons. The 90
seats in the Lords allocated for hereditary peers are now filled on a
per-party basis by election in which all hereditary peers of the party
in question (or amongst the crossbenchers, meaning non-partisan peers,
for those allocated to them).

If you gain a seat in the Lords or are appointed to "an office of the
crown" you automatically and immediately lose your seat in the Commons,
triggering a bye-election for your seat in the Commons. Besides death,
this is the only way of leaving the Commons between elections. This is
why the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds and the Stewardship of the
Manor of Northstead exist. They are offices of the crown with no modern
purpose and no pay that are used solely as a way to allow MPs to resign.
Historically various other similar offices have been used. But there
are lots of genuine offices of the crown too – judges, police
constables, regular members of the armed forces, ambassadors and civil
servants all count too. There have been rare instances of MPs losing
their seats by being appointed a judge.

Richard

[taf]

No, he won't. John will yet again make up something and pretend that he heard it from a dead person whom he wishes was his ancestor but for which connection he has no evidence he hasn't himself invented.

taf

[P J Evans]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by wjhonson
One more cogent point, as if my slinging of waste upon your head was not enough.
Explain just HOW the Barony of Ros, which was his, and the Earldom of Exeter, which was his, would just magically *leap* away from his only son as you claim?
Exactly how did it occur that *both* of these would move to some other person instead of the rightful heir that you claim existed?

Something about your phrasing suggests that you would actually be not such a bad fellow if you weren't being instructed to be aggressively rude.
Regarding your "cogent" point, I already implied that I was not told that William Cecil was formally married to his second wife. Obviously, without a formal marriage, the titles would not pass on to his son.
William Cecil will speak for himself: "William had little time. Sight showed death in the near future. A wife was sent, with the thought of pretending a marriage upon return. William was not able to make any arrangement for the future of the son. Death took William as the price for the wife and son escaping from Venice. William had to act as the sight directed. The sight showed a lineage in the New World. William had no hope, except to trust as William saw."

Making up more shit, I see.

[j***@gmail.com]

THIRD GENERATION

William Cecil, 2nd Earl of Exeter (1565-1640)

(July 7, 2019) William was of a similar office as the father. William, however, was unable to overcome a group of unhappy men who wanted there to be a clear discussion. William was able to limit. William could not move openly without risking being removed from his office. This was unfortunate. [INTERRUPTED, cont. July 8)] William had to avoid doing what was necessary until there was a crisis. Then William could take decisive action on (a number of fronts) at the same time. The problem was, a crisis sometimes took too much time, not allowing for thoughtful decisions in other areas. William had to pre-arrange in the mind, and then think at the moment if the pre-arrangement was a good idea. Sometimes circumstances changed. William became good at doing this. Elizabeth was well served. William was in the background. People did not think that William was the man making decisions. Other men took the responsibility for much that William suggested. This was done to ensure that William was not perceived as the man who made the decisions of the realm. This was successful until near the end. Near the end, the son was sacrificed.

(July 15, 2019) William did not think of enduring. The kingdom was under great stress. For William, to think of enduring was to abandon the need to try to keep the ship of state from capsizing. William understood, if the ship of state capsized, William would be swept away among the first victims. The enemy of the House of Tudor grew ever stronger. Elizabeth had no will to combat. Elizabeth simply tried to preserve what she could. William understood that James was of a mind similar to that of Elizabeth. James would bring vigor. James would be constrained by an all-surrounding invisible enemy that controlled too much of the levers of power already. William was unable to do anything except assist the effort to endure as long as possible. The sight was not clear. William was aware of the ability to use the sight in particular circumstances, for the benefit of others. But, for the benefit of the realm, no good outcome was ever seen. William was with the realm on a course toward oblivion or enslavement. William had to hope of a future. There was never any hope in the vision from the sight, at least as far as William tried to see. Now William understands that the hope was in the far future. Perhaps what William did at the end was of help.

(July 25, 2019) William did as the sight directed. The sight was able to communicate. The sight did not have a good expectation for England. America must rise, and England and Scotland would each contribute to the rise of a new way in America. William did not have a good idea of what William should do, until the widow and son of the son of William went to Virginia. Then the way was clear.

(Aug. 7, 2019) William spent the final year of the life in retirement. William had an official title and collected a salary, but did no real work. The appointed assistant occasionally inquired. This led William to realize that England and now Scotland were being led to ruin. William had to not deplore. The assistant was not in a position to do anything of importance. William was a respected relic and would ruin the respect if William expressed a strong negative opinion. William was simply holding on to what could be held, as England slipped from the grasp of men who wanted the good of the realm. William had to feel bitter regret. William also felt a stirring of excited expectation as a seed of the family was planted in a new world that was not yet corrupted, although William heard of the abomination of slavery being introduced. William had to hope that this would not taint the family of the young grandson. William imagines that this was a vain hope.

[wjhonson]

Your posts do not belong in this group

[j***@gmail.com]

CECIL/DAVIS OVERVIEW (updated)


FIRST GENERATION

William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, married Mary, daughter of Peter Cheke.

I posted their stories in the first posts of this thread, on Sept. 17.

SECOND GENERATION

Thomas Cecil, 2nd Baron Burghley, married Dorothy, daughter of John Neville, 4th Baron Latimer.

I posted their stories on Sept. 23. The Cecil/Davis lineage includes descents from three different branches of the Neville family: Westmorland, Latymer and Bergavenny (the last being the origin of John Neville, one of the original settlers of Maryland).

THIRD GENERATION

William Cecil, 1st Earl of Exeter, married Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland.

I posted Exeter's story above on Sept. 24. I will continue shortly, finishing up with the stories of the near ancestors of Exeter's wife: Manners and Holcroft (John Holcroft was one of four people present at a secret meeting before the Battle of Bosworth Field, at which King Richard III instructed Percy to not advance with the bulk of the army as Richard charged with many of his closest supporters at the ranks of his bastard son Henry (VII), thus choreographing his own death and Henry's succession by right of conquest.

John Holcroft was also an ancestor of Myles Standish, captain of the militia of the Plymouth colonists. I will eventually start a thread devoted to Mayflower gateway ancestors, including Standish, Richard Warren, William Brewster and Edward Winslow (who share a descent from Theobald of Verdun), Mary (Wentworth) Brewster, and Marie (De Lannoy) Carver (half sister of Philip Delano), whose orphaned daughter married Joseph Prior/Pryer; their granddaughter Sarah Pryer married Theodosius Moore, descended from King Henry VIII's martyred chancellor Thomas More.

FOURTH GENERATION

William Cecil (1590-1618), m. (2) Jane, "bastard" daughter of William Courtenay, de jure 3rd Earl of Devon, by Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI by Margaret (Neville), wife of Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland.

I will be adding the stories shared by the York and Tudor Kings of England.

FIFTH GENERATION

John Cecil/Davis (b. 1618), brought to Virginia by his widowed mother after the murder of his father; his wife was descended through a bastard lineage from Alexander Livingstone, 1st Earl of Linlithgow, and also descended from Charles (bastard son of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland) and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI by his secret wife Margaret, bastard daughter of Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland, instigator of the plot to poison King Edward VI, with the poison being administered by his daughter the secret wife of King Edward.

I will be adding the stories of the Neville lineages at this point.

SIXTH GENERATION

William Davis, had a son by Wendy (Gwendolyn), daughter of Henry Weston, bastard son of Josiah Winslow, who like his father Edward Winslow was once Governor of Plymouth Colony.

SEVENTH GENERATION

John Davis, "married" Mary, bastard daughter of Henry Soane, Jr., Speaker of the House of Burgesses (by a bastard daughter of King James I), and descended (on his mother's side) through a bastard lineage that includes both King Henry VIII (grandson of King Richard III) and (Lancaster) King Henry VI's son Edward.

EIGHTH GENERATION

Benjamin Davis (b. 1706), who married Esther Herndon, who was descended on her father's side from Virginia Governor Edward Digges and from the sister of Henry Soane, Jr. (see above, with lineage back to Kings Henry VI and VIII); and on her mother's side from Virginia governors Edward Nott and Alexander Spotswood, who on his mother's side descended from King Louis XI of France through a single daughter by his first wife who was sent to Scotland as a child to marry the King of Scots, a marriage that never took place, so she ended up marrying Alexander Livingston.

I will be adding the stories shared by the Valois Kings of France at this point. As with the Kings of England, they tell of constant struggle with Venice, with the ever-present threat of being poisoned.

NINTH GENERATION

William Davis (c. 1730-1791), miller of Culpeper and Pittsylvania Counties, Virginia, married Sarah Graves, descended from Thomas Stucley, bastard son of King Henry VIII, and from Hugh (Stuckley) Orchard, descended through the Monck family from King Edward IV, and (through a Holloway connection) from the above-mentioned lineage from Kings Henry VI and VIII.

TENTH GENERATION

Sarah Davis, m. Thomas Maide/Meade, a revolutionary soldier with a conscience and initiative, but no known medieval ancestry.

ELEVENTH GENERATION

Katie Maide, wife of Jonathan White, a male-line descendant of Gov. John West, descended through Knollys from a bastard daughter of King Henry VIII. The White family also has three lines of descent from the Vavasour family, rooted in a male-line descent from a bastard son of King Henry I of France. Jonathan White's mother Susan Bartee descends on her mother's side from Herndon and Soane (as above), as well as (through a branch of the Buckelew family) from Henry, a bastard son of King Charles I.

TWELFTH GENERATION

Susan White, wife of William Young, whose family name was originally Lamont before the infamous Clan Lamont massacre; he descends from a Lamont chieftain who married (as her second husband) a bastard daughter of James IV, King of Scots (who was NOT the father of King James V). William Young's mother Dimsey Buckelew (whose story was added earlier on this thread) descends on her mother's side from a bastard son of Henry, a legitimate younger son of King Charles II.

THIRTEENTH GENERATION

William Henry Young, husband of Jane (Roberts) Yapp, daughter of Cornish immigrants to Wisconsin, descended on her father's side from a branch of Herndon (as above) that returned to England, and also (through Theophilus Cornish) from Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk (who was the grandson of Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset, but NOT the grandson of Thomas's wife Cecily Bonville, as mentioned above; but rather the grandson of Dorset's mistress Margaret, bastard daughter of Lewis Woodville, who was actually a bastard son of Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland), as well as from Roscarrow and Grenville and Bonville; and descended on her mother's side from Prideaux and from Champernoun (many times over), and through Moyle and St. Aubyn to Grenville and Bonville.

[Kelsey Jackson Williams]

It is, of course, pointless to comment in any detail on these fabulous pedigrees, but I could hardly refrain from laughter on seeing "Henry, a legitimate younger son of Charles II". Who was the elder? In either case, what a blow to the poor Duke of York....

All the best,
Kelsey

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Kelsey Jackson Williams
It is, of course, pointless to comment in any detail on these fabulous pedigrees, but I could hardly refrain from laughter on seeing "Henry, a legitimate younger son of Charles II". Who was the elder? In either case, what a blow to the poor Duke of York....

Perhaps James II tied the great seal around the neck of his "legitimate"
nephew Henry before he threw it into the Thames...

History trembles before the revelations of John Schmeeckle.

Peter Stewart

[j***@gmail.com]

Thank you Kelsey Jackson Williams for pointing out the mix-up in the two Henrys in the summaries of the eleventh and twelfth generations.

In the eleventh generation, it should read Henry the legitimate son of King Charles I (who was himself a bastard, according to the ancestors); Henry was the Duke of Gloucester, but died at the age of 20.

In the twelfth generation it should read Henry the illegitimate son of King Charles II, but this was NOT Henry, Duke of Grafton.

@wjhonson, your habitual scorn is once again misplaced. Perhaps it would be well for you to remember that we all make mistakes. After all, you're the self-promoting fool who thought that the Cecil family didn't have any noble titles.

[j***@gmail.com]

THIRD GENERATION continued: MANNERS

--

Henry Manners (1526-1563), 2nd Earl of Rutland

(May 9, 2019) Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland. There was a need. Rutland was chosen. The King needed an heir. Rutland had a wife who was of an appropriate station. The King needed a bastard.

(May 10, 2019) Henry was not. Henry did not. The marriage ended. Henry had no desire. The wife was taken. There was no compensation.

--

Margaret Neville, wife of Henry, 2nd Earl of Rutland

(May 10, 2019) Margaret was married. Margaret bore a son. Margaret and her husband were full of joy. Margaret expected to have more children. The husband also expected. Margaret was taken.

(May 12, 2019) Margaret had to think. There was a need. Margaret was appropriate. Margaret was from a family that could imagine being married to a king. Margaret had a husband. The king needed a wife. Margaret hoped to explain that a wife would be better than Margaret. This explanation led to the father of a woman offering. The father of this woman was also the brother of Margaret. This meant, the King would be the husband of a bastard. This was inappropriate. Margaret understood that this could be set aside. If the people accepted, it could be preserved. Margaret hoped that the wife would have a son.

--

Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland

(May 29, 2019) Edward was the son of an earl. This meant that Edward had privilege. Edward expected people to be of a way that indicated that Edward was above. This was of the people. Everyone expected to have a place. Those who were above expected those who were below to recognize. A man could rise or fall. This did not happen unless there was a big change. Edward was of the opinion that this thinking was never explained. It simply governed. Edward never thought to question. Most people did not.

(May 31, 2019) Edward was the son of a man who lost his wife. Edward was able to understand what the King required. Edward understood that a sister and a brother were not of the father. Edward had to intend to keep the brother as a brother. This was not difficult. The sister was as a sister.
(June 4, 2019) Edward was never of a mind to talk. The family was undone. Edward would never explain. Edward simply did not.

(June 9, 2019) Edward had to insist. A man wanted to ask. The question was not appropriate. The man who asked was insistent. The reason had to do with marriage. Edward had to insist. The son was not.

Edward did not answer. The man despaired. Edward was not in a good state. If the son was not, then the son could not. Edward had to think that the son should have a mistress. This would give the title and land to the correct descendant. The son was able to agree. This happened. Edward had managed to make sure that there was no mistake.

(June 11, 2019) Edward had a mistake to correct. The son was unable.

(June 18, 2019) Edward had no choice. The son must not inherit. The son assumed. Edward instructed. The son could not have the mistress as a wife. The son was rejected.

(June 20, 2019) Edward had to be strict. A son who could not inherit could not be formally acknowledged. Edward had to be lenient. This son had been a dutiful son. Edward had to find a balance. A balance eluded. Edward remembered the son before dying, but not in the will.

(June 24, 2019) Edward was unable. The son was not appreciative. The will was read. Edward could see consternation. The son had assumed to be the heir. Edward had warned. This was impossible. The son never listened.

(June 28, 2019) Edward had to accept. The son might learn. A bastard must know his place. Otherwise, the children of the bastard would be treated as bastards.

--

Isabel Holcroft, wife of Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland (parents of Elizabeth, wife of William Cecil, Earl of Exeter)

(June 9, 2019) Isabel was the daughter of a man who was known as the son of a man who was faithful to the King. Isabel had a charmed childhood. Isabel married the son of a man who was loyal, at the cost of his marriage. Isabel had to think that this was something that should never have been done. Isabel hoped, because of the family, that the children would not have a taint.

Isabel was not disappointed. Isabel has to wonder about the grandchildren.

(June 11, 2019) Isabel had to understand. The daughter was not of a correct family. This meant, Isabel had to explain. Isabel understood that the daughter needed to be assured that Isabel was the correct mother. Isabel knew that the daughter was suspected of being the daughter of a sister. That would mean that the daughter was of the King. Isabel hoped to spare the daughter the story. The daughter found the story by the malice of a courtier.

(June 20, 2019) Isabel hoped. A son was not. There was a daughter. Isabel hoped. There would be no more.

(June 24, 2019) Isabel had no interest. The family was connected. Others hoped. Isabel was approached. Would Isabel help another gain favor? Isabel declined. Isabel had no interest. Isabel was not of the court.

(June 28, 2019) Isabel had to wait. The man who requested was enraged. Isabel had the ability to influence. Isabel had no intention of using that ability. The man intended to punish. Isabel had to think of how to protect. Isabel did not think that the man would give up.

(June 29, 2019) Isabel had to think of the consequences. Isabel had a husband who was not active at court. This was because a change in the leaders caused the husband to withdraw. Isabel understood that a new man was trying to get support. Isabel was of a family well known for being supportive of Tudor kings. Isabel wanted to avoid being used to support the ambition of a man who might not be supportive of the Queen. Isabel thought, at this time, Isabel needed to not get involved in court intrigue. The husband was noncommittal. Isabel had to make a decision that would have an effect on the future involvement of the husband. The husband had to be seen as indifferent. Isabel had to be extremely cautious.

(July 5, 2019) Isabel had to insist. Isabel was not of the court. There was no way for Isabel to think of influencing. Isabel was apologetic. Isabel offered. The man might want to have words with the husband. The man demurred. The husband was known to be indifferent. Isabel was a potential tool for a man who had already approached and been dismissed.

(July 8, 2019) Isabel did not think. The man disappeared. The husband had a complaint. Isabel was not properly respectful. Isabel realized. The man was going to take revenge. Isabel hoped. The man was unable. Isabel was unknown. To bitterly attack an unknown woman would not be well received. The man had no power to harm Isabel. Isabel had to be concerned. The husband had earlier not acted. The man might try to harm the husband. Isabel was able to imagine. The man would not act, unless there was a convenient opportunity.

[j***@gmail.com]

THIRD GENERATION continued: HOLCROFT

John Holcroft

(Aug. 11, 2019) John Holcroft witnessed the decision to change the King. The decision was of the King. Richard III decided to give the throne to a bastard son, the future King Henry VII. Richard was able to do this because of the meeting that John witnessed, as a second for Henry, known as the son of Owen Tudor. Henry was agreeable. Henry had little stomach for a fight against his father. Richard understood, there was no other way for Henry to succeed. Henry had to preside over the death of his father. Holcroft had to be the witness. Henry trusted Holcroft as no other. Holcroft was aware of the consequence. Henry, as King, would use Holcroft as a tool. Holcroft would be elevated.

(Aug. 22, 2019) Holcroft was the man who witnessed the deed that brought Henry “Tudor” to the throne. Holcroft became an assistant. Holcroft had the complete confidence of the King. This was rare. The King used men, as kings must. Most men were willing to be used, because the men hoped for benefit. Holcroft was loyal, and was willing to be used without hope of benefit. Holcroft saw. There would be benefit for the family in the next generation. There was no need to apply to the King for a favor. The King also saw. Holcroft was reliable and worth the respect that the King showed. This was all that Holcroft needed to be a man of consequence. Holcroft reflected. By not seeking favor, Holcroft gained in a way that was valuable, and not able to be obtained by others.

(Sept. 23, 2019) John was of a mind. There were six children. Three were sons. Each son had an opportunity to rise, because Holcroft was a name that the King respected. John advised. Each son was under the obligation to serve the King without thought or question. This was of the essence. Holcroft was disappointed when two of the sons abandoned the King at the time of religion. Holcroft had to expect the third son to be under suspicion. Henry VIII was of a mind. There had to be a loyal Holcroft. Henry had the thought of winning back the other two as a symbol. Holcroft counseled from the grave. Each son had to act as conscience dictated in the Church. The Church was a part of the order of the realm. Holcroft urged each son to not be disorderly. Holcroft was not disappointed.

--

Margaret of Mascy, wife of John Holcroft

(Aug. 11, 2019) Margaret had the sight. The family of Margaret was known. The sight was helpful. People asked Margaret and the brother of Margaret for advice. Margaret was pleased. Helping people was the purpose of the sight. Margaret was willing. The brother was less so.

(Aug. 22, 2019) Margaret was the daughter of a man who was persecuted. Margaret understood. The father did not have the sight. The mother did. The name of the mother was hidden. A false mother was added to the record. This made the origin of the sight in the family of Mascy unable to be found. The father was suspected because the false mother was known to not have the sight. Margaret slipped, and the sight was seen to act behind advice that Margaret gave too freely. This was the origin of the persecution of the father.

Margaret had to accept, this was of the sight. The father had to release his interest in the family property to preserve the ability to have inheritance for Margaret and two sisters. The brother was already cared for. Mascy had to disappear. The brother was unable to marry. Margaret had to think, because of this, there would be a way for the sight to hide. Margaret had to think, if people suspected the father but not the mother, people would think that the children of Margaret might not have the sight. Margeret was able to train three sons to never show awareness of the sight. Margaret was less successful with two daughters, who were unable to hide the sight. Margaret thinks, because of one daughter, one son was also exposed. The son tried to protect a brother. This was observed. The brother was always suspected. Nothing ever came of the suspicion. Margaret had to imagine that the sight had a reason.


(Oct. 8, 2019) Margaret did not think. The sight showed. Margaret, as a young woman, gave advice to a neighbor. Margaret said, "my parents say..." The neighbor recognized the sight as the source. The neighbor told a priest. Inquiries began. The sight had already shown to the mother of Margaret what would happen. Botiler would be protected. There was a line that needed to be saved. Margaret was said to be the daughter of a third wife. Margaret was unwilling to be the cause of the persecution of a step-mother who was not a bad woman. Margaret, after thinking, realized that Botiler needed others to sacrifice so the lineage could remain hidden. Botiler was not suspected, but Margaret was instructed to act in a way that harmed Massey. Margaret had to think, because Margaret was unable to think of not doing as Margaret saw, that there was a reason that Margaret had to not think of, until the sight gave a vision.

In the vision, Holcroft was of a lineage. Holcroft must never be thought of as descended from the son of King Llewelyn. Margaret was unsure which king Llewelyn was. "The Great" was the answer. Margaret understood, after the vision continued. All the sons, and their sons, of King Llewelyn were killed or not allowed to have children. The lineage of Llewelyn was exterminated. Holcroft was hidden. Holcroft carried the memory of the Kings of Wales into another family. Standish was the family. Margaret saw a son marry a daughter of Standish. Margaret saw, after two generations, another marriage with Standish. Margaret understood, from this marriage, Standish would have a lineage that preserved the lineage of the son of King Llewelyn.

--

Thomas Holcroft, son of John and Margaret, husband of Juliana Jennings, and father of Isabel, wife of Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland

(Sept. 29, 2019) Thomas was son of a man who was well-known as loyal and trustworthy. Thomas had the opportunity to accompany the father on a visit to a nobleman as the messenger of the King. The man was refusing to support the King in a campaign against rebels. [NOTE FROM THOMAS'S FATHER: The campaign was against the Scots.] Thomas observed the manner of the man as it changed. The father of Thomas did not threaten. The father simply dined at the table of the man and talked of what the father knew of the progress of the rebels, asking the man for what he would do if he was the commander against them. The nobleman began giving orders to his knights to summon men from the tenants. This was according to the agreement of noblemen with the king. The right to pay instead was not invoked. The nobleman agreed to take the field and the problem was solved. Thomas supposes that the rebels were not defeated until the nobleman arrived with other latecomers.

(Sept. 30, 2019) Thomas Holcroft was a courtier. Thomas was sent, repeatedly, on missions that required discretion. For this reason, Thomas was not well-known at court, except for occasional appearances, when the King made a point of showing favor. For this reason, two men began to inquire. Thomas recognized a potential threat, and was inclined to evade. One of the men contrived to be on a ship that carried Thomas to Ireland. Henry was overjoyed at the success of his Irish conquest and understood that preserving what had been won required constant attention. Thomas Holcroft was a principal assistant in communicating privately with the followers of Henry who sought to maintain their positions atop a restive people. Thomas thinks, because of the sense of being outnumbered conquerors, the men were more than willing to comply with directions from King Henry, even when preferment was unexpectedly denied. The men, as a group, cooperated with the King and with each other. Thomas was the one who made communication the way.

--

Juliana Jennings, wife of Thomas Holcroft and mother of Isabel, wife of Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland


(Oct. 2, 2019) Juliana was an heiress. The father of Juliana was a gentleman of the country. Holcroft was a very suitable husband. Holcroft was of the same as the father. Holcroft had the trust of the King. Juliana never thought of not marrying Holcroft.

Juliana became aware, after the marriage, that Holcroft would not have a relationship with his wife. Holcroft was the servant of a king with few trustworthy servants. Holcroft had to go where the King willed. Juliana was fortunate, from time to time, to be with a husband who was almost always away, often to Scotland or Ireland.


Juliana had to accept. The family was well maintained. Juliana had freedom, much more than most women. Juliana began to give instructions regarding the care of the home and land. Juliana hoped, because of this, that Juliana would be given special status.


Holcroft gave a command: In the case of the absence of Holcroft, Juliana would be the one to decide when the crops would be planted and harvested. This was what Juliana wanted. Juliana was able to rely on sight. The families of tenants needed to know, if they were inclined to plant, that there would not be a late frost that killed the seeds. Juliana was respected after a first warning was correct. Juliana was well regarded by the tenants.

[j***@gmail.com]

FOURTH GENERATION

William Cecil (1590-1618)

(July 5, 2019) William Cecil was the son of a man who intended the good of England. William expected to continue in a similar role. William was set up. Those who opposed the good of England understood that Cecil must be undermined. William was attacked through a wife who was compelled. William was able to recognize that this was foreordained. William must accept that William must be cut. A son would survive. This son would preserve the lineage of Cecil in a far-away land. This would be of the lineage that resulted in a new king. William foresaw lines of Sight converging. The line that resulted would be of a new power. William did not have a clear idea of how long. William simply observed and accepted. The Sight was able to act with William as the man who did the will of the spirit.

(July 15, 2019) William did not try to avoid. The wife made a false accusation. William had to defend. The wife was taken away by a family who had planned to use the wife to ruin William. The wife was not part of the plan at first. Later, after the family of the wife had orchestrated a rumor that spread without William being aware, the wife was pressured to abandon the husband. William lost the wife. William lost a son, who died under suspicion of poison. William had to act as the sight gave. William took a second wife. This was unexpected. So was the son. The son had the blood of King Henry. Now William had a sense of hope and purpose. William could distract. The son had an opportunity to escape. If the son could go to Virginia, the lineage would be preserved in a land that wasn’t corrupted in the same way as England. William imagined the father persevering in order to protect Virginia long enough to become established, with the lineage of William and King Henry intact in a family that knew power. William did not think of anything else. William was quickly poisoned after acting in a way that William knew would attract attention. The wife was also of the sight. The wife saw clearly. Virginia was the way to survive.

[j***@gmail.com]

FOURTH GENERATION (continued)

Jane, daughter of William Courtenay, 3rd Earl of Devon, by Elizabeth Manners, daughter of King Edward

(Aug. 22, 2019) Jane was a bastard. Jane was the daughter of the wife of the father. Jane did not think that Jane was a bastard, until the mother explained that the parents of Jane did not marry until after Jane was born. Jane was the daughter of a bastard daughter of the King. That meant that the children of Courtenay would have the blood of King Henry and his son King Edward.

(Sept. 17, 2019) Jane thought, after being married, that Cecil was of the most important families. Jane did not understand before. Cecil was an advisor. The Queen had many advisors. Cecil had the ability to protect. Jane understood. The son of this man would be protected. This was not what happened. Jane lost and the husband was taken. There was no way for Jane to protect an infant son. Cecil was surrounded. Jane was aware. The time of Cecil had passed. Jane suspected that a man would try to murder the infant. Cecil had the sight. Jane knew, men with the Venetians were looking for families with sight. These families disappeared. Jane understood, because of a cousin, that sometimes it was possible for a family to be as a different family. Jane had to think. Was Virginia a place for the son to live as a gentleman? Jane understood. There was never enough. A new colony would not be a sufficient place for Cecil to maintain. Jane knew, Cecil could never maintain. Jane decided to go.

(Sept. 18, 2019) Jane went. The family was in accord. Courtenay needed to think that a bastard daughter would not be an embarrassment. Jane hoped that Courtenay and Cecil would find a way to maintain communication with a son who had the opportunity to be of service to those who had an interest in trading or settling in the New World. Jane does not think that either Cecil or Courtenay ever communicated with the son. Jane was never able to find any relative in Virginia. Cecil was never spoken of. Jane and the son were always Davis.

[j***@gmail.com]

FOURTH GENERATION (continued)

Jane Courtenay's maternal grandfather (as told by the ancestors) was King Edward VI. I will post the stories of the York and Tudor kings next. This lineage includes a descent from James II, King of Scots. I will be posting the stories of the Stewart monarchs on the Scrimgeour/Wallace thread at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/1pupplUCvcI

Jane's maternal grandmother was a daughter of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland. I will add the stories of the Neville family at a later generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage.

Jane's paternal Courtenay lineage goes back to William Bonville, whose daughter Margaret married William Courtenay. I will post the stories of this lineage after the stories of the York and Tudor kings. William Bonville is a figure known to history, and the story he tells of his house's slow-motion death spiral during the War of the Roses bears comparison with the historical record, as a test of the validity of these ancestral stories that I have been receiving and recording.

Jane's paternal grandmother descends from the controversial Champernoun family. I will add the stories of that lineage after Courtenay.

[j***@gmail.com]

FOURTH GENERATION (continued): Richard, Duke of York

(Oct. 11, 2019) Richard was of Plantagenet. York was the title of a younger son. Plantagenet divided, after Richard, King of England, was overthrown, without having designated an heir. Richard, Duke of York, was the grandson of an earlier York. Richard, as an heir of King Edward III, had to be considered when people thought of who should be King. The Duke of York could not argue that York had precedence over Lancaster. The incapacity of King Henry VI gave York a pretense that did not otherwise exist. Richard was able to benefit, without arranging the attack on the mind of the King.

Richard, after the King was unable, hoped that the realm would decide that another should be King. Then Henry had a son. This hope became as nothing. Richard had to accept, Henry with an heir must be recognized, even when the disability of the mind returned after the birth of the son. Richard had to bury the sense of frustration that Richard always felt. Richard, after knowing that the crown would never be worn by Richard, hoped that Edward might become King. Richard ensured that Edward was trained to think of what kings had to decide. This was not difficult. King Edward III, insisting that the rightful King be respected, made a point of tutoring young Edward from the grave.

[j***@gmail.com]

FOURTH GENERATION (continued): King Edward IV

(Oct. 4, 2019) King Edward became. The father lusted. The throne was made for the son. Edward realized, Richard, Duke of York, could never claim to be a rightful king without the sight. Edward received the sight from the mother. Edward understood that a remnant of the sight was in the father. Edward, without the support of the men who gave Richard hope, could not vanquish Lancaster.

York was able, because the King was unable. Edward suspects that a man of York made the King unable. The lack was of the mind. When the King was affected, there was no thought that connected to other thoughts. This was described as madness. This was nothing more than repeated attack. The King recovered when the attacker was discovered and killed. The men who did this were never rewarded. King Henry was afraid of being charged with murder. The men had to wait for the son. The son never took the throne. Edward, upon taking the throne, imprisoned one. The other was no threat. The imprisoned man confessed to a priest. Edward killed the priest. The truth must not be suspected. Otherwise, many would appear to attack the mind of the king. Edward had no ability to withstand an attack of this type.

(Oct. 5, 2019) King Edward was ruthless. Plantagenet was ruthless, ever since the first king of the line. Henry II became King by guaranteeing enough barons that the barons would have authority as agents of the king in their barony. This was violated by King John and by Henry III, in ways that prompted rebellion. Plantagenet finally learned. Parliament was the solution. This was the lesson that every Plantagenet was taught. The King must rule through Parliament, as the way of keeping the promise made by Henry II. Edward never thought to break this commitment. Edward had to think of the Commons as a bulwark against nobles who assumed the air of kings in their held lands. Edward had to remind recalcitrant nobles that the authority of each noble was an extension of the authority of the King.

Edward had no lack of recalcitrant nobles. Lancastrans were only part of the problem. Yorkists expected payment for elevating Edward. Neville was foremost among recalcitrant nobles. Edward had to think, because of Neville, there must be bloodshed. Edward had to think, because of Edwards rise as a beneficiary of Neville, Edward could not openly confront Neville. Edward had to wait. This meant that Edward had to pass the problem of Neville to a successor. This meant that other nobles would assume prerogatives that Edward did not have the power to deny Neville.

The position of Neville on the Scottish border ensured that Neville was indispensable. Neville, as long as Percy was a rival, could not be as a king. Neville had to maintain a show of deference. Edward maintained a group of (communicators) who routinely kept Edward abreast of the situation on the border. Each man was instructed to visit Percy and then Neville. This gave the man the ability to inform Neville about Percy. This gave the appearance of sharing, which allowed Neville to think that Neville was being treated as above Percy. The King did not neglect Percy. Percy simply did not have the benefit of conversation with a man who had just visited Neville.

(Oct. 6, 2019) King Edward had the sight. The sight did not dominate, as it did the mother of King Edward. There was a sense of overwhelming purpose in the transmission of the sight to Edward. As King, Edward chose whether to observe as Edward saw. Edward discovered, before becoming King, that Edward could not act freely in violation of an action that Edward saw Edward doing. This was unfortunate, and doubly so when Edward became King. The sight showed combat with Scotland, even though Richard had been given a mistress who was a Scottish royal bastard. Edward saw Scotland capitulate. Strathbogie would rise. Strathbogie was the link to preserve amity between Scotland and conquering England.

Edward demurred. The kingdom would not follow. The sight showed enough to conquer, and those who conquered were to be the favored nobles who would resist encroachment from Venice. Edward was aware of Venice, probing and beginning to arrange groups of merchants to do as Venice directed. This had to be resisted. Edward saw Edward repressing a guild of cloth-makers. Edward saw a riot in London that brought down the kingdom's leading moneylenders. Edward saw Venice withdraw, with the intention of finding a way to return. Edward saw France as the agent that Venice chose. Edward saw, a king of France resisting and being poisoned. Edward saw, another King of France poisoned for a different reason. Edward saw, a Queen Mother playing an extended game of survival for her son, who in turn played to survive. Edward realized, Venice would fail to turn France against England. England would survive and plant colonies in the world to the west that was unknown. Edward saw, England would fall to Venice, much later, but the colonies would become independent.

Edward, after seeing this, decided to act as the sight showed. The sight gave a final vision: Edward would be poisoned shortly after the riot that expelled the moneylenders. Edward lost nerve and failed to act. Edward was poisoned anyway. Venice was intent on ruining the House of Plantagenet for all time: Edward was already a target, simply because Plantagenet was on the throne.

--

Elizabeth Woodville, Queen Consort to King Edward IV

(Oct. 11, 2019) Elizabeth was of Woodville. Woodville was not an important family. Woodville traded. Woodville married the daughter of a European nobleman. This gave Woodville connections that made Woodville able to bring prosperity to other families. Elizabeth met the King when Woodville presented another family at court. This was done to provide income to the King. Elizabeth, unaware of politics, met the son of a man who wanted to become King. The son was promised to a foreign wife, but the marriage never happened. Edward married as Edward chose. France was incensed. Elizabeth was overjoyed and fearful. Woodville rose, and created resentment among noble families who did not trade.

(Oct. 11, cont.) Elizabeth was unable to be presentable among the families of the leading nobles. Elizabeth was not shunned. Elizabeth was simply not given recognition as the wife of the King. The pretense was that the King was married to a daughter of France. That marriage was negotiated and agreed to by the father of Edward. That marriage never took place. Edward created hostility in France by rejecting the bride chosen by his father.

Edward, by marrying without the consent of his father, violated an ancient custom. Edward, as King, could be expected to choose his own bride. Elizabeth married Edward before Edward was King. Elizabeth had children with Edward before Edward was King. There were people who pretended that the children were illegitimate, even though a priest had performed the marriage ceremony. Elizabeth hoped that people would eventually accept Elizabeth and the family of Woodville. This never happened. Elizabeth did not have any sense of being the Queen.

[j***@gmail.com]

FOURTH GENERATION (continued): King Richard III

(Aug. 14, 2019) Richard was the King. Richard was a bastard. Richard understood, the bastard became as a son who was murdered as an infant. The bastard “proved” that the son was not murdered. This allowed the father of Richard to have a say. A legitimate son meant that the father was a contender to be King. Richard thought, Edward, the elder brother, would continue. Edward was unable. The nobles were too unruly. The sons of Edward disappeared after Edward was murdered.

Richard was of a family. [INTERRUPTED] (Sept. 18, 2019) Richard was not a bastard. Richard was of the wife of the father. Richard never understood why the mother was never warm. Richard had to endure a childhood with no love, love that was shared with the elder brother. Richard was cold. Richard remained cold. Edward was well-liked. Richard was not. Richard was never good. Richard was an extra son. The Duke knew that Richard had to be preserved, because any high nobleman was always at risk. Edward could not be assumed to survive. The father of Richard and Edward instilled in both the principles of the Chancellor Fortescue. The King must rule with the assent of the kingdom. The King must strive to benefit the kingdom. This was a legacy from the enemy House, after Fortescue agreed to serve King Edward IV. Richard hoped, because of the connection to realm of Scotland through the secret wife, that Richard would never have to worry about a Scottish invasion. In turn, Scotland was free from worry. Richard understands that the name of the wife has not been shared. Richard hopes that the wife will be able to speak for her own family. Richard did not think of the secret wife as a mistress. The public wife was for show. There was no living as man and wife. The secret wife was for security of the realm. The secret wife had a son who became the King after Richard acted with self-sacrifice on the battlefield, guaranteeing the succession.

(Sept. 24, 2019) Richard was of a mind to not think of being popular. Richard had to endure. The sight came, not as with Edward, but from a distant ancestor of the father. Edward had sight in a way that Richard could not hope for. Richard understood, the mother was the source. Richard had no sense of obligation to the kingdom. Richard was not loved. Richard was suspected of killing the son of Edward, who was under the protection of Richard when the boy was kidnapped. Richard had to think of who was trying to ruin the House of Plantagenet. Richard, after the thought of Edward warning against foreign intrigue, had to consider Venice and France as the only states with the power and will to do what was being done. Richard had, after a brief consultation, a remedy. The prince must be acknowledged to be dead. Richard apologized for the death. The Tower was not unhealthy. A boy might have a disease at any time. Richard professed to not be eager to be king. Richard was not believed. There was no backing from the need. Richard was always unpopular.

--

Sarah, mistress of King Richard III

(Sept. 18, 2019) Sarah was the daughter of the King. Sarah was never acknowledged. Sarah was given to the King of England. This was done after Scotland threatened to invade. Richard was insecure. Richard needed an alliance with Scotland. The King had a bastard daughter. Sarah was given. There was no love from the father. There was enough from the husband. Sarah was given as a mistress. Sarah became the mother of the next king. Sarah had to endure, after the overthrow and death of King Richard. Sarah could not be acknowledged as the mother of King Henry. Sarah hoped that the king would find a way to have Sarah present at court. This never happened. Henry was desperate. Sarah understood that the two sons of King Edward were in France, and would be used to try to overthrow King Henry VII. Sarah hoped that her son would survive, and simply had to endure a life of comfort and solitude away from the court.

(Sept. 19, 2019) Sarah was able to live as the wife of a nobleman. Sarah did not appear in public. The husband had to maintain the appearance of being the husband of another. Sarah did not have any duties that made Sarah talk to courtiers. Sarah was of a different country. That meant that Sarah would not understand the customs of English noble families. The husband and Sarah had a proper formality, as was between husbands and wives. A mistress was a plaything. Sarah was as a wife. Richard did not misuse the woman whom the King of Scots gave to a younger son of a pretender to the throne of England.

(Sept. 21, 2019) Sarah had three children. Henry had to be given up. The plan was implemented successfully. Sarah was the unacknowledged mother of the King. Sarah had to think that there was a purpose. The realm was secure, if Henry could keep his throne. Sarah had no lack. Henry was only a king and not a son. Sarah thinks that Henry, deprived of his mother, was cold like his father. Sarah also thinks that Henry, son of a loving father and mother, was good as a father and as a king. Sarah, unfortunately, was not remembered by the children of Henry. A daughter taught her daughter to communicate. Sarah had some sense of how the Tudor family continued.

[j***@gmail.com]

FOURTH GENERATION (continued): Henry VII, King of England

(June 22, 2019) Henry VII was a bastard. Henry was of a family that had a claim. Both were understood. The people who understood the first pretended to believe the second. The people who understood the second were willing to fight. There was a revolution, a conquest of the throne. Henry ruled by right of conquest. Henry conquered the father of Henry, by an arrangement that was agreed on before the battle.

Henry had to be as the champion of Lancaster. Lancaster had died out. There were few who might advance a claim to the throne. In addition, the sons of King Edward had disappeared. Henry understood that they had been smuggled to France. Henry assumed that the French would support. Henry had to imagine that there would be a Yorkist attempt to overthrow Henry. This meant that Henry had to pose as the champion of Lancaster.

(June 25, 2019) Henry wanted to be un-witnessed. The victory had to be complete. The death of the King removed any discussion. Henry was King.

Henry thought. There was a need. The princes escaped. France was corrupting. Henry had to ensure that France did not ruin England through the imposition of the young princes whose minds had been twisted. Jesuits were at work. Henry was able to find the location. Each prince was destined to try. Henry thought, if there was an attack, it would come from west. The east was too obvious. Henry was not wrong. There were two rebellions. Each had a pretender. Each pretender spoke French better than English. Henry was horrified. There must not be this perversion. Henry prevailed. Each pretender was denounced as a fraud. This was effective. Even if people did not know for sure, it was safe to parrot the words of the King. The King was secure. The throne never teetered.

(June 30, 2019) Henry was able to make improvements. The plan was not new. Edward III had the idea of making the kingdom into a unit, instead of a collection of duchies. This meant, Edward should get the respect for the plan that Henry implemented. Edward was unable to do as Edward thought. The kingdom was too unstable. Henry had a decided advantage. The money of the King was able to purchase artillery. Any nobleman who owned artillery would be destroyed. Henry made this very clear. There was no opposition. Henry ruled, and artillery enforced. Henry had need of artillery in the two rebellions led by the sons of Edward IV. Henry had to think, without artillery, Henry would not have survived.

(July 1, 2019) Henry was never in serious danger. With artillery, warfare changed. The power of the monarchy prevailed over any rebellious nobleman with a castle. Castles could be breached with little difficulty. Henry took advantage and unified the kingdom under the King in Parliament. This was not opposed by the majority of the nobles and commoners. The two rebellions were of a small faction that did not receive opportunities under the new dynasty. Henry had to think of Tudor as new. There was no way to honor the memory of a loving father.

(July 6, 2019) Henry was not of a mind to continue. The battle had cost the life of the father. The battle had never been a battle. It was a reckless charge, guaranteed by a promise that the bulk of the army would not support. This was all. Henry witnessed the calculated death of the father to give the throne to Henry. Henry felt unworthy. The throne was as dust.

Henry was not able to simply not act. Henry must make a kingdom worthy of the sacrifice of the father. Henry was inclined to not be ambitious. The throne was not secure. Two sons of Edward IV were still alive in France. Henry thought, when they made their rebellion, as surely they would, it would be as Frenchmen. They would have little hope of rallying a majority of the kingdom.

However, if the kingdom was disrupted before a rebellion, any attempt to overthrow the king could have unexpected consequences. Henry had to ensure stability. This is what Henry did. Henry improved. Henry built. Henry invested in artillery. The people respected an honest king. The soldiers with the artillery destroyed every castle that resisted. Henry felt reasonably secure on the throne. Henry was never of a peaceful mind. Henry was always thinking of another rebellion that might arrive when the kingdom was in a time of distress.

(July 9, 2019) Henry had a system for ensuring that there was a way to enter the mind of a man who threatened the well-being of the kingdom. A man who threatened had a motive. A foreign enemy was behind his treason. Henry had to root out the treason network. This was not difficult after one man of the network opened his mind. Henry was not involved in doing this until the second rebellion. This led Henry into the mind of the young prince who was the rightful heir.

The mind of the prince had been tortured. The prince had been forced to be as a Frenchman. The prince had been unable to learn anything of his own country. People who had a good idea of England were absent from the mind. Everybody who talked to the prince derided England. The prince was constantly reminded of his impotence. This seemed to be calculated.

(July 27, 2019) Henry wanted to think that, if the prince could be captured, there would be a way to educate. Henry was able to focus. The prince was unwilling to be reeducated. The prince had been formed as a tool of the creator. The creator was not France. The creator acted through a Jesuit. The creator was Venice. The prince, sent to England to rebel, was going to corrupt England if successful.

Henry had to insist that the prince was an imposter. The imposition was of Venice, who had destroyed the sense of a king being responsible for the well-being of the people. Henry hoped, if and when an attack came, there would be a decisive rejection. The rejection came, but it was not decisive. People were inclined to speculate. Henry had to be severe. This resulted in dislike that did not exist before. Henry acted without hesitation. There must be an orderly succession. The Sight ensured a powerful son, who would act in a time of great peril. Henry was of the Sight. There was no questioning. Henry succeeded and passed on the responsibility to a second son who was better suited to command than the eldest who was assassinated. Venice, by killing Arthur, enabled Henry to rule. Henry, the son of Henry, was able to preserve the realm for another century. This was enough. The Sight demonstrated. There was a clear intent. England must be preserved long enough for Virginia to take root. The Sight enabled the blood of Henry to enter Virginia.

This was not a way to rule. Henry realized that the blood of Henry and his son would be present in a lineage that would bring forth a new king in a new nation. Henry, of the blood of this new king, will be available as an ancestor to guide. The ways of men were well-known to Henry, and the way of living in the modern world has not been so different, in spite of all the changes in the technology. Men and women still lust and compete for power. Some include benevolent motivation. A few put the well-being of all in the forefront. The way to interpret motivation is the insight that Henry and son Henry will be able to share when the man who is recording becomes and administrator, as Henry fully expects to happen.

--

Queen Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward IV and wife of King Henry VII

(Oct. 9, 2019) Elizabeth was able to marry the King. Elizabeth wanted to think that the story of Owen Tudor was true. Elizabeth practiced pretending. Pretending led to believing. The story was necessary for York to regain the throne. Henry, with the help of the remnant of Lancaster, became the York champion, after Richard did what he did on the battlefield. Elizabeth, as the eldest daughter, was the one who had to marry the conqueror. Elizabeth, after understanding that Henry was the son of Richard, thought that anyone who knew would also know that Elizabeth and Henry were cousins, forbidden to marry. Elizabeth had to pretend, and learned to believe.

[j***@gmail.com]

FOURTH GENERATION (continued): Henry VIII, King of England

(Apr. 7, 2019) Henry, King of England, did not expect to be king. Henry had an elder brother. Arthur was capable. Arthur was being trained. Arthur was cut down. Henry was elevated.

Henry did not have temperament. Henry was understood to be a second son. A second son had the elevated status without the burden. This was Henry. This had to be set aside. Henry was not agreeable. The father had to insist. Henry must give up much of what Henry expected. Henry had to be prepared. The burden was of Henry. There was no other choice. Henry had to ensure that the family was not destroyed. Henry understood. The family was under attack.
Henry had to experience a change in the perception of everyone. People never had to think carefully around Henry. Now they did.

Henry was aware. There was a man who poisoned. Henry was also aware. Venice was of poison. Henry had to think of who was friendly to Venice. Henry also had to think, who was inclined to oppose the King. Both were present in Neville. Henry was suspicious. Henry held back.

Henry was able to think, after there was a time of unrest, that people outside the country were affecting what people inside the country were thinking. Henry was able to think of a few examples of people who returned from Italy and began talking and writing in a way that was unique. Henry had to think, after three examples, that Venice was the common area that these men had visited. Henry also had to think, the way of thinking was not a clear threat.
Henry had to examine the thinking to understand why this was being promoted.
Henry understood, because it came from Italy, it had to be something that the Church knew of. Henry also understood, because it was something that was not a clear threat, this might not have been examined. Henry asked a church official about the new way of thinking. The official said this was something that the Church was investigating. Henry asked about the implication of the thinking. The Church leader suggested that one implication was that people should think clearly for themselves about the world around them. Henry was not able to get anything else from the leader. Henry thought, because of this, there was something that was being discovered or still hidden.

Henry was unable to spend much time thinking. Henry was always active. There were too many disruptions. Henry had decided that the Puritans as well as the Catholics needed to be suppressed. Henry, in retrospect, has to wonder if Henry should have supported the Puritans. However, the Puritans had a tendency to zeal that was not agreeable to cooperation. Zeal was the father of disharmony. Henry needed men to think of compromising. Henry had to act as he did.

Henry did not think of the consequences when Henry agreed to marry the widow of his brother. Henry was available. Henry needed an alliance. Henry understood that Spain was a good counter to France. This was something that Henry never considered beyond that idea. Henry did not think that the wife of his brother was a bad woman. Henry did not think of her not being able to bear a son. Henry imagined having a son. Henry understood that he had a vision of never having a son who grew to manhood.

Henry did not think, because of what he decided, that there would arise a crisis. But this is what happened. Henry needed a son because Italy was going to tear England apart. Henry did not have any way to prevent such a disaster unless Henry had a legitimate son. Henry needed to do whatever was necessary. This had the result of splitting England from the Roman Church. This meant that England had to obey the King in a way that was new. Henry was uncomfortable with this unfortunate situation. Henry was disinclined to be closely involved with the Church. However, Henry had to take responsibility. Henry found an archbishop who had a view that Henry could support. This had to be good enough.

(Apr. 8, 2019) Henry does not have a feeling that Henry is well-respected. Henry was of the opinion that, as King, Henry did not need to worry about the effect of what he did. Henry did not think about his legacy. Henry was preoccupied with survival. Henry had appetites that Henry was inclined to not worry about. Henry understood that he needed to do what he wanted. Henry also needed to act for the kingdom. Henry was unable to make a good balance. Henry has had much time to reflect. Henry hopes that, because of what Henry is saying, Henry will be better understood, even if those who scowl at his memory are unwilling to change their judgment.

Henry understood, after the first of his ministers, that there would be a constant temptation. Henry needed a man who would do the will of the King. The man needed to be someone who wanted power. The man needed to be someone who was not of undue scruples. This was something that Henry understood without thinking of consequences. The man who did the will of the King without hesitation would do as he willed as long as the King did not object. This was the problem. Henry did not solve that problem.

Henry did not have a clear intention. Henry had to think of the situation. Henry had an enemy. The enemy reached into England. The enemy had the ability to enter into families. A family that was influenced by the enemy could decide to resist. Henry had to think. There had to be no open statement. There had to be no decision of resistance. There had to be a hidden understanding. This had to be communicated discreetly. This was slowly done.

Henry understood, as it grew obvious that Italy was responding to Henry, Henry needed to rid England of the Catholic Church. Italy was using the Church. Italy was the enemy. Henry understood that Venice and the Church were Italy. Henry accepted that the Church had a power over the minds of the people.

Henry understood, as long as this was allowed to continue, Henry was incapable of defending himself. Henry needed an heir. Henry knew, because his wife was no longer able to bear, Henry could use this as a pretext. That depended on the Pope refusing to grant an annulment. Henry expected this. If the annulment was not granted, then Henry would destroy the Roman Church in England. Henry thought, if it happened that the Pope granted the annulment, Henry could proceed to get an heir. Henry thought, if this happened, Rome would demonstrate that Henry had power over the Church in England. For this reason, Henry imagined that the Church would not. Henry of course was correct.

(Apr. 9, 2019) Henry knew, because of his experience, that Henry would not be attacked. The attack would be on his successor. Henry understood how to dominate. Any potential attacker would have to face the men that Henry marshalled to oppose. This was done repeatedly. Italy imposed its rule on people who would oppose. Puritans were not immune. Catholics were susceptible. People who wanted something were vulnerable to money from Italy. This money came with a demand to oppose the King.

Henry wanted, before he died, to ensure his succession. This was the battle that Henry could not afford to lose. Henry did not have a good result. The result was not a total loss.

(Apr. 10) Henry understands that there are people among the living who do not want the story that Henry is telling to be told. Henry is able to speak, after being isolated for many years. Henry also understands that the man who is recording is in a condition that gives him time while robbing him of the ability to work. Henry simply has to accept what the man is accepting. Henry also understands, because of what has happened, there is a need for the story of Henry to be shared. Henry expects this to be available, but Henry realizes that this may not be available to many.

Henry will accept that his view is not the modern view. Henry suspects that the modern view is not of the truth. Henry understands that two men, as Henry speaks, are attempting to twist what is being heard. Henry is capable of guaranteeing that his words are recorded as he thought. Henry also thinks, the man often hears in a different way, with the meaning clearly the same. Henry has not tried to change when the words were recorded in this way.

Henry has the understanding that his descendant has begun a new step in telling of the family. Henry understands that, for the time being, Henry has the opportunity to tell of his life. Later, there will not be time. Henry is of a mind to speak as the opportunity permits. Henry had to think of the lineages that Henry wants to ensure get properly recorded. Henry understands that one lineage includes a marriage by a descendant with a daughter of a descendant of Queen Elizabeth. This is something that Henry hopes will be very well received. Henry had a feeling that Elizabeth was very reluctant. Henry suspects that this has been somewhat reduced.

Henry also hopes that the lineage of Cecil will be recorded. Henry does not think that this has been observed. Henry thinks that the lineage to Governor West has been noticed, but not accepted. Henry suspects that the descents from Governor West have not been noticed. The other descents are important, but these are the most important. Henry understands that Edward will have a thought about his own descents.

(Apr. 11, 2019) Henry thinks that Henry has said enough. Henry understands that many details of the reign of Henry appear to be without reason. Henry hopes that what Henry has shared gives an explanation. Henry will say again. The house of Henry was being attacked. The enemy was Italy. Henry understood that the Church was Italy. Henry understood that Venice was the power that manipulated the Church. Henry had to resist or submit. Henry chose the path of his father. Henry understands that his successor, James Stuart, was also of the same mind. Henry understands that the son of James was cut down. This is as happened to Henry.

--

Queen Jane (mother of King Edward VI)

(June 14, 2019) Queen Jane had to think at the beginning. Being Queen was a privilege. Being the wife of Henry was a monstrous thing. Jane knew, if Henry was young, Jane would be consumed. Jane knew, because Henry was old, there would be a time of freedom after the death of the King. Jane had to think about living with the man. Henry was bloated. Henry had difficulty moving. Jane had to think of anything except being with the man. Jane decided to try.

(June 19, 2019) Queen Jane was the one. A son was born. Henry had no further need. Queen was relieved. Queen was revered. Queen was alone. This was a good thing. Henry was old. Henry was under attack. A man made Henry eat. Henry was being compelled. There was no stopping. Queen and King were separate.

(June 22, 2019) Queen Jane was of a mind to discuss the care of the son. The Queen was not expected to do much of the work. The Queen was expected to be with the infant. The Queen was willing to do more of the work than the Queen was allowed. That meant a word with the King. Henry was not opposed. The Queen was favored. Henry was unable to be as a proper husband. The Queen made no demand. It was easy for Henry to imagine that his Queen could be a mother to the child.

(June 25, 2019) Queen Jane was of a mind. There was no reason. The King and the Queen were of one accord. The servant was inclined to be obstructive. The Queen insisted. Another servant brought the baby. The servant was discovered. A plot to kill had been hatched. The Queen was able to stop. The Queen tasted the food. The Queen died.

(June 30, 2019) Queen Jane had to think. Death had taken the Queen. Henry was unaware. Queen could not communicate with the son. Henry had to be warned. Queen had connections with ancestors. Henry might have ancestors whose lineage was the same. Queen was able to talk when a living person thought of Queen. This happened a lot at the beginning. Then, after Queen thought of trying to find a connection with the ancestors of King Henry, people stopped talking about the Queen. Queen Jane understood. King Henry had a new queen.

(July 4, 2019) Queen Jane had an apparition. Descendants were talking. Edward was remembered. There were children. Queen knew that Edward died before being able. Queen also knew that Edward had the ability to talk. Edward talked occasionally. Suddenly Edward stopped. Queen had to imagine that Edward met the same fate as Queen.

[j***@gmail.com]

FOURTH GENERATION (continued): Edward VI, King of England

(Apr. 16, 2019) King Edward was King. King Edward was not. The King spoke. His advisers conferred. The advisers recognized. The will of King Henry had been expressed. The advisers conferred. The will of King Henry was respected. Edward was cut down.

(Apr. 17, 2019) King Edward was unable. King Edward was not an adult. King Edward had to be as a boy. This was not difficult. Edward had advisers. The advisers were men who had to be respected. Edward realized, one by one, the advisers would leave. Edward had to think of logical reasons. Edward also had to think of replacements. This was something that Edward kept to himself.

Edward wanted to think that one of his advisers was trustworthy. Edward had to think that all of them were ambitious. Edward had to imagine that a man who was younger would be able to think of giving his loyalty. The men whom Edward had to accept were of an older generation. Edward did not accept. Edward had to.

Edward had to be aware. There were people who wanted to influence the King. Sometimes people said things in a way that could have been designed to make an impression. An opinion in the mind of the King was sometimes the goal. Edward had to be mistrustful. Edward had no friends. Anyone who thought to spend time with Edward was going to be examined. His ideas would be helped, with the thought that his ideas would become those of Edward. Edward had to think that Edward had no ability to know.

Edward had to think, because of this, there was a way to think about who wanted what. Edward might not know the truth, but Edward might know who wanted Edward to think one thing or another. That meant, Edward began to understand the mind of his counselors. This was helpful. Edward began.

(Apr. 20, 2019) King Edward did not have any way to question. If the regents made a decision, this could not be set aside. The King was not the King. Edward must wait. Edward had no power. Edward had a threat. When Edward came into power, Edward would decide. The men who judged would be judged. Edward was incautious. Edward said as much. One man told the others. Every man had reason to be afraid.

(Apr. 21, 2019) Edward had a reason. Edward was threatened.

(Apr. 21, later) Edward had a feeling. One man was different. This man had an agenda. The agenda was not with that of the others. This man did not think of acting together. He had the power to insist. The others looked for consensus. Neville was the man. Edward was under the impression that Neville had backing from outside England. Edward did not think beyond this.

(Apr. 21, later) Edward did not have any further feeling. Neville did not make an impression. Edward was aware of a change.

(Apr. 21, later) Edward understood that something had been unmade. Edward had to think of what had caused the change.

(Apr. 21, later) Edward understood. There had been a new instruction. The man who had dominated now had to hold back. The group was suspicious.

(Apr. 22, 2019) Edward did not think. Edward had a new assignment. Edward began to communicate with his father.

(Apr. 22, later) Edward was unable. There was no way. The regents did not have a good idea of what had to be done. One of the regents had an agenda. The others were thinking about preserving their position. They did not have the ability to think of the good of the kingdom. Edward had to ask his father. This led to the death of Edward.

(Apr. 22, later) Edward had the ability to talk. Edward had a good basic education. Edward involved himself in discussions. Edward began to think about his cabinet. Edward understands that this was not a real cabinet. This was a group that held the power. Edward had to think of a group that would eventually agree to do the will of the King. Edward began to demonstrate that his will must be considered. This resulted in decisions. Edward began to feel power.

(Apr. 23, 2019) Edward asked his father. Edward received a reply. Henry began to offer more and more advice. Edward was unable to think about whether the advice was thoughtful. Edward did not think that his father might not have a good idea of the situation. Edward simply accepted.

(Apr. 23, later) Edward did not think. Edward told. Edward said, one man was not behaving well.

(Apr. 24, 2019) Edward saw the result. The man was hostile.

(Apr. 24, later) Edward was unable to make amends. The man plotted. Edward learned. This was a mistake. Edward must be hesitant.

Edward decided. This man must be removed. The man was insistent. Edward decided. The man was allowed to bargain. This led to Edward thinking.

(Apr. 25, 2019) Edward was unable. The man was too cunning. Edward was not going to have a good way with the other men if Edward insisted. This meant, the man was in a position to do harm.

(Apr. 25 – later) Edward did not have a good idea. The man was not going to be relieved. The man was part of the regency. Henry told Edward to do what Edward thought was appropriate. Edward had no thought. [Henry was here telling Edward to “be King” – to learn to guess, and then to live with the consequences.] Edward did not understand. Edward was looking for a rule to apply.

(Apr. 26, 2019) Edward had little ability. Edward did not think that Henry understood. Henry never had to act as king when Henry was very young.

(Apr. 26 – later) Edward had to accept. There was no other way. Edward must decide.

(Apr. 26 -- later) Edward did not have any further problem. The man was not inclined to stay hostile. Edward learned a lesson. A man who was hated by the King always felt nervous.

(Apr. 26 -- later) Edward had a feeling. There was another man. This man was never active. He observed. He agreed. He had to be asked. He was always present. Edward thought, what was this man doing? Edward also thought, Venice was present. Edward heard from his father. Neville was with Venice. Edward observed the man. He was not with any other. He was apart. Edward had to imagine that the man was of Venice. Edward had no way of knowing.

(Apr. 26 – later) Edward had to think. There was a certainty that Venice was in the group. There was a man who was apart. This was a coincidence. This had to be the correct understanding. Edward had to think. If Venice was with this man, who else was Venice with? Who was with this man? Who could Edward ask? This became the problem. Edward could trust nobody.

(Apr. 26 – later) Edward had to act. Henry instructed. Edward must have a child. Edward must have a son, even if the son could not be King. Edward did not understand. Edward was reluctant. Henry insisted. The ability to continue must be maintained. Edward thought, if a son had no ability, the continuation would not be helpful. Edward thought, if this was the case, Henry would not get anything. Henry said, there was a vision. Edward must have a son. Edward did not disagree.

(Apr. 26 – later) Edward agreed. Rutland was chosen. Henry had a way. Rutland did not agree. Rutland endured.

(Apr. 26 – later) Edward was able to be the father of two children. Rutland had a second son. Edward understood. Rutland had served. Rutland was compensated. Rutland never forgave.

(Apr. 27, 2019) Edward had to have a wife. Henry insisted. Henry knew that Edward would have a child. Henry now needed a legitimate child. Henry needed to think, if Edward was able to survive, even a daughter would help. Edward had to be able.

(Apr. 27, later) Edward was given a wife. The wife was a daughter of the man that Edward suspected. This was something that Henry could not forestall. Edward did not think of danger. Henry was suspicious.

(Apr. 27, later) Edward had to accept. The wife was the only one who might be available. The wife was not a legitimate daughter. This meant, the wife would be willing to be a hidden wife.

(Apr. 27, later) Edward had to think. The wife would bear. The father would kill.

(Apr. 28, 2019) Edward was as a husband. The wife was with child. Edward was able to think that Edward might be able to live. Edward was able to imagine that the father of his wife was not who Edward feared. Edward had to hope.

(Apr. 29, 2019) Edward was able. The counselors were attentive. The kingdom was beginning to be orderly. Edward had three years before gaining his maturity. This meant that the Regency was unable to make a clear plan. There would be a change. Some men would stay in new positions. Other men would be sent home. Edward already thought of whom he intended to keep. Edward did not make his intention clear. Edward had learned not to be too trusting. Edward had to be able to not ask for advice.

(Apr. 29, later) Edward did not think. Edward had to act. The wife gave him food. Edward got sick.

(Apr. 29, later) Edward had to think. The food was the source. Edward did not think that his wife was putting poison in the food. Edward imagined. The food was from another source. The food had to be in the way of poison.

(Apr. 30, 2019) Edward had to think. Edward knew that somebody was trying to poison. Edward knew that his wife brought the food. Edward also knew, if his wife brought food from a different place, the poison could be avoided.

(May 1, 2019) Edward was sick again. The poison was not from the food. Edward had to imagine. The poison may have come from the water. Edward was strict. Only his wife could bring. Edward had to think. Where did the water come from? The wife could not know. The wife had to bring as she was given. Who gave? Edward despaired. There was no way. Edward had to think of being unable. Edward had to think of a successor.

(May 3, 2019) Edward was unable. The successor was chosen. This was rejected. The choice of the King was of no consequence.

(May 4, 2019) Edward had blundered. The King was not of age. This meant, the King did not have the power to choose a successor. Edward, by his blunder, condemned his successor. This was done after his death. Edward did not have any sense. The successor could have preserved a relic of the House of Tudor.

(May 5, 2019) Edward had to think of something that John said. Edward had the idea that he was a failure. Edward realized, Edward actually tried.

(May 9, 2019) Edward had a way. There was no way for a young man. Edward was beyond. Henry gave. Edward received and gave. This was accepted. One man cut.

(May 9, later) Edward had a final thought. After Edward died, a daughter talked. The daughter said, people knew that the daughter was of Edward. People followed. The daughter was not safe. The daughter, although married, was opposed. Men acted like the daughter might be a conquest. Edward thought, this was a provocation. Edward wondered. Who wanted to make a hardship for the daughter?

(May 10, 2019) Edward had to think. The man who wanted to make hardship was afraid. The daughter might have a son. The son might have power. The son might communicate with Henry. The son must not be allowed. Edward thought. The daughter had to have a way to have a daughter. This was all that Edward could think. The daughter had a daughter. There was no further problem.

(May 12, 2019) Edward had another communication. The daughter of the daughter had a problem. Edward had to think. Was there a way for Edward to give good advice?

(May 13, 2019) Edward had no way. Edward was not familiar with the new people. Edward was not successful when Edward was alive. Edward could not offer, except a general idea. This was all. Edward had no further communication until his descendant who is writing made it possible for kings to speak again with living descendants.

[j***@gmail.com]

KING EDWARD VI'S REGENCY COUNCIL: John Dudley

[John Dudley, President of the Regency Council for King Edward VI, is an ancestor of Wendy Weston, mistress of William Davis (sixth generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage).]

John Dudley

(Sept. 24, 2019) John was never inclined to openly confront Neville. The power behind Neville was establishing itself in London, among the merchants and financiers. Dudley had no expectation of being able to persevere as regent if there was obstruction from this group. Too much of the well-being of the realm depended on trade. Venice was coming to monopolize the relationships that English traders had with foreign partners. This had the effect of allowing Venice to enter England without real opposition, although Dudley understood that men like Cecil perceived the threat to the realm. Dudley had no way of being active to resist. Dudley had to simply tolerate and try to preserve a way of order for an able young king to inherit at his majority.

(Oct. 3, 2019) Dudley had to examine. Neville had the impulse to ruin. Wriothesley was being ruined. Neville would never admit. Neville could not be openly challenged, unless proof was obvious to others. Neville had to be taken away from the Council, in a way that Dudley could not implement. There was too much opposition from the family of the mother of the King. This meant that Dudley was severely limited in the choices that were realistic. Dudley simply had to try to persevere, hoping that a young King would listen to Dudley at the time of majority.

This was never a guarantee. Who Edward would listen to was unknown, except Dudley understood that Henry was already talking from the grave to the son who would be an effective ruler if he was not poisoned. Dudley suspected poison when Edward fell ill. The recovery was not quick. Dudley understood, some poisons linger in the body, but this was unusual. Dudley had to wonder if additional poison was being given. This made Dudley inquire about the reason for the continuing illness. Edward was unable to give a good explanation. The new wife was not suspected. Dudley, unfortunately, saw Neville as the hand administering the poison, and the new wife as the agent. Edward would not accept. The new wife had to be trusted. Otherwise, Edward had nobody.

(Oct. 5, 2019) Dudley did not think, before it was too late, that Venice was of the worst. Dudley thought of Neville using Venice, but Venice, in retrospect, was using Neville, although Neville was pleased to be used in this way. Both wanted the ruin of Plantagenet, now known as Tudor. Neville had a way of dominating that allowed allowed Venice to sweep up opponents who thought of defying. Neville never had to act. Effortless domination was the impression.

Dudley finally awoke, after Cecil privately warned. Dudley had to think that the realm could not be saved. Cecil, later, spoke of preserving the essence of England in the New World, if there was time. Dudley then saw the task as a rearguard action, buying time, staving off ultimate defeat.

Dudley had to think, after this passed, Venice would dominate London, and London would dominate the colonies, unless a colony or two could grow fast enough to be too big to hold by force of arms. Dudley had to hope, and the confidence of Cecil was a blessing. Dudley gave up life to protect the designated heir of King Edward, long enough to preserve a man who dedicated himself to establishing a colony in the New World. Raleigh was that man.

[j***@gmail.com]

John Dudley (first part)

(Aug. 6, 2019) John Dudley was in charge. The king was minor. John was selected by Henry VIII. Fifteen other men were also charged. This ensured that men who might be opposed had the opportunity to enrich. This was not a bad choice. John was able to limit, and sometimes to encourage to do as a man of responsibility should. John was able to imagine that there would be an orderly transition when Edward was of age. John was unable to prevent the poisoning, although John became aware of what was happening. John was reluctant to openly challenge. Neville was just too powerful.

(Aug. 8, 2019) John never thought of openly challenging until the King spoke. John was shocked. The thought of what to do was not of a young teenager. It was of a mature, calculating mind. Edward had to have had the thought from somewhere. Dudley was not inclined to inquire. There was someone who was speaking to the King of problems within the regency council. Dudley became much more attentive. The attention was not noticed. Dudley had to be as invisible. Others had to suggest what Dudley decided on beforehand. This was the only way. Otherwise, the council would rebel. Dudley was the leader in name only, as long as two or three were willing to act as if Dudley had suggested.

(Aug. 12, 2019) John had to act. The King had precipitated. Neville was openly criticized. The King had to not be of this habit. Dudley had to counsel. The King had to be willing to listen. Neville was unwilling to act in any other way. Dudley recognized that Neville was of a problem that went beyond the realm.

Dudley had to think that Neville would acquiesce in a show of acceptability. Dudley approached and asked Neville to give an impression without any need to explain. Dudley was not rebuffed. Neville was of a mind to do the same. Dudley had to think, because of what had happened, Neville would be a foe of this King until there was another Neville. Dudley had to ask if Neville wanted to remove anyone from the council. Neville listed the three men who acted for Dudley. Dudley was of a mind to resist without thinking. Instead, Dudley thought to ask for an explanation. Neville did not think to explain. Neville simply expressed the desire. Dudley had to think of removing one to appease Neville. Dudley also had to think of removing the one supporter of Neville as a balance. This was the way of the council.

[j***@gmail.com]

KING EDWARD VI'S REGENCY COUNCIL: Thomas Wriothesley

(Aug. 8, 2019) Thomas Wriothesley was of a family that had a good reputation. Wriothesley was a new family. This meant, a coat of arms was purchased, instead of being earned on the battlefield. Wriothesley was unfortunate in the choice of a coat. Wriothesley thought to emulate. The duke who was emulated thought to chastise. This was done indirectly. The father of Thomas was held back. Thomas thought to differentiate. The colors of the coat were changed. The duke was not impressed.

Thomas had to think, because of the ability of the father, that Thomas was going to be able to wait until the duke died. This was never a problem. Thomas simply used the coat with the different colors, and then returned to the original colors. The family of the duke was able to think that Wriothesley was able to think of the family as being of a benefaction. Wriothesely was grateful when the family of the duke condescended to allow Wriothesley to show respectful deference.

(Aug. 12, 2019) Thomas had the opportunity to become a counselor. King Henry needed men to balance. Wriothesley was a new man. A new man was beholden to the King. This balanced the established families on the council. The council rarely spoke with one voice. With one voice, the council could dominate the King. King Henry sought to prevent this at all costs.

Wriothesley was elevated with the intention of never agreeing with Neville. This was something that Wriothesley took to mean, Wriothesley should never be of a faction that included Neville. Wriothesley was not forbidden to agree if others who were not of Neville also agreed. Wriothesley was able to block Neville on three occasions when the majority of the council was pressured to accept. Wriothesley simply said that this appeared to not be in the interest of the kingdom.

Henry was appreciative. Henry thought, Wriothesley would be useful on the regency council. Wriothesley understood, after the death of Henry, there was no power that could compel Wriothesley to oppose Neville. Wriothesley was considered to be independent. Wriothesley was able to observe men seeking to undermine the reputation of Wriothesley. Wriothesley had no doubt that Neville was at work. This gave Wriothesley the choice of appeasing Neville or succumbing to eventual reputation for grasping and self-seeking. Wriothesley had to think of what was honorable, even though honor was increasingly rare at court. Wriothesley was unable to bow to Neville. The ruin of the reputation of Wriothesley was all but inevitable.

(Sept. 24, 2019) Thomas had a feeling. There was a man. The man observed. There was little attempt to communicate. The man was being used to observe who benefited from interacting with Wriothesley. This was an effort, as Thomas imagined, to create a rumor that Wriothesley was abusing the power of the position on the regency council.

Thomas did not act improperly. However, rumors have a way. As soon as people understood that other people are likely to believe, the urge to spread a rumor is very strong. A rumor, backed by a similar rumor, would be accepted without being examined. Wriothesley was unable to break the way of spreading rumors, except by not benefiting at all as regent.

Wriothesley began to do this. Then, false rumors began to appear. This meant, Wriothesley would have to be willing to duel, if a false rumor was asserted to the face of Wriothesley. This was the way of the court. Wriothesley began to think, a man would assert, hoping to provoke a duel and benefiting from a patron if he was able to kill Wriothesley. Wriothesley withdrew.

(Sept. 30, 2019) Wriothesley decided to abandon any effort to communicate with other members of the Council. Wriothesley was able to carry on business of the King without reporting, unless requested by Dudley. Wriothesley was unable to be effective, but Wriothesley realized that the continuing presence of Wriothesley meant that an enemy of the King would not take Wriothesley's place.

Wriothesley died still a member of the Council. Wriothesley suspected poison, but could not be sure until, after death, Wriothesley communicated with a daughter who observed what must have been the act of placing poison in Wriothesley's water.

[j***@gmail.com]

KING EDWARD VI'S REGENCY COUNCIL: Anthony Denny (ancestor of Jane Roberts, wife of William Henry Young in the thirteenth generation of my Cecil/Davis descent).

[NOTE FROM PREVIOUS POST: Thomas Wriothesley, 1st Earl of Southampton, has two lines of descent, to Robert Holloway and wife Edith, with descents to the spouses in the seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh and thirteenth generations of the Cecil/Davis lineage. All but one of these descents are through Hester Holloway, wife of Henry Soane, Sr. By the way, Anthony Browne, also on the regency council for King Edward VI, is an ancestor (according to the ancestors), but not through the Cecil/Davis lineage.]


Anthony Denny

(Aug. 8, 2019) Anthony was a member of the regency council for King Edward. This was the claim that Anthony had when insisting on respect. There were others on the council who were not known for honesty. Anthony was of the men who wanted to do well by England. Anthony was also a man who wanted to benefit.

This was only natural. A king rewarded faithful servants. Without a king, a faithful servant had to be able to receive. Anthony and the others thought of their service as worth ample reward.

Some did little to serve, and benefited. Others did much, and benefited. Those who did little were remembered. The young King began to look for a way to remove men who did nothing but take. Anthony had to be able to caution.

This was not effective. The King had to learn by making a mistake. Then, the King began to listen. Anthony hoped that the counsel of Anthony was not taken as disrespect. The young King demanded to know the reasoning behind a particular decision. Anthony could not explain, beyond a feeling that this was correct. The King affected displeasure. Anthony begged leave to think of how to explain a decision that was logical if thought through. The King condescended to accept. Anthony did not have any other way, except to explain that a man had a pattern. The pattern was of disrespect to the King. This enraged the King. Anthony had made an enemy, without willing.

(Nov. 7, 2019) Anthony Denny was not in a position to be of help. Wriothesley was being ruined. Dudley was unable to do much, except indirectly. Denny and one other tried to act as Dudley implied. Dudley was preserved, as those who supported him were under pressure.

Anthony did not understand what happened until it was too late. Business in London was treacherous. Venice was ever more powerful. Venice now had the ability to make and ruin a merchant. Anthony had to neglect business if Anthony wanted to act for the benefit of the King. Anthony failed to notice the complaint that grew without warning.

Suddenly the client of the supplier of Anthony decided that Anthony would no longer be able to comply with new requirements. There was a shifting of decisions. What was agreed was now no longer remembered, and denied. Anthony faced ruin. Dudley had to remove one man. Anthony volunteered.

(will continue)

[j***@gmail.com]

QUEEN ELIZABETH: TWO DESCENTS

According to the ancestors, both of my descents from Queen Elizabeth are through her only daughter Anne. One of these descents, to Anne Wright, wife of immigrant Thomas Burnham of Connecticut, is at the "Burnham of
Connecticut" thread at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/k9sRfvPTMBU

The other descent is through Anne's daughter Anne who, by Christopher, bastard son of Francis Bacon, had daughter Abigail who with husband Abel had son Abel Carter who married Isabel, of the Orchard family (originially Stucley, descended through Monck from King Edward IV), parents of Susanna Carter who married Richard Enos (1693-1748) of Delaware.

Richard Enos is the progenitor in the 1958 genealogy, "A History of the Enos Family of Delaware," by Joseph G. Enos.

I descend from Richard and Susanna's daughter Mary, wife of Robert Mitchell, parents of Susanna, wife of Josiah Campbell of Kentucky (son of a bastard son of Archibald Campbell, 3rd Duke of Argyll), parents of Elizabeth, wife of Allen Jones, parents of Robert Campbell Jones, father of Martha, wife of Rev. William Donaldson Wallace -- see the 25th generation in the first Wallace descent in the Scrimgeour/Wallace thread at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/1pupplUCvcI%5B76-100%5D

[j***@gmail.com]

FOURTH GENERATION (continued): William Bonneville's story

[Those who are (understandably) inclined to be skeptical regarding the ancestral stories that I share could compare the following story of William Bonville to what is known of him from the historical record. Please keep in mind that, at the time of William Bonville, being denied a final blessing by a priest at the point of death was understood to put one's soul at risk of being barred from Heaven.]

William, Lord Bonneville
(Apr. 15, 2018) Sir William Bonneville became William, Lord Bonneville. William Bonneville was from a family that was respectable but not distinguished. William Bonneville knew, because of his family’s status, that he was unlikely to prosper beyond the ability that he brought to his life circumstances. William Bonneville was able to make a good marriage. William Bonneville was able to attain offices because of his marriage. And this led William Bonneville to a high level. This also led William Bonneville into conflict with the Courtenay Earl of Devon. The elder earl was of a mind to respect William Bonneville. The younger earl was inclined to disrespect everyone. This led to insult, and William Bonneville was forced to consider the younger earl to be an enemy.

William Bonneville knew that, because of the weakness of the king, there would be war. William knew, if there was war, that Courtenay and Bonneville would be on opposite sides. Bonneville had the fortune to be the husband of Courtenay’s distant cousin. This ensured that the whole family of Courtenay would not align against Bonneville. Bonneville understood, because of this, there was a chance that Courtenay would back down.

Bonneville sought to avoid open hostility. Courtenay wanted to receive assurance that he was the first man in Devon. This was unfortunate. The king promised Courtenay an office, and then, forgetting what he had done, gave the office to Bonneville. This ensured that there would be conflict.

Bonneville had no way of acting honorably without insisting that Courtenay respect him. Courtenay was full of disrespect. If Courtenay had not been full of disrespect, Bonneville would have been able to abandon the office. However, because of Courtenay’s disrespect, Bonneville was forced to preserve his position. Bonneville wanted to not be forced into combat. But Bonneville knew that Courtenay intended to ravish his land.

Bonneville decided to allow this. Bonneville calculated that he could survive. If Bonneville did not fight, this would be remembered. Bonneville wanted to be perceived as a man who wanted to preserve the peace.

Bonneville allowed Courtenay to ravish his land. Bonneville gathered a force. Bonneville knew, after Courtenay’s men returned to their homes, Courtenay would be defenseless. Bonneville intended to make a raid, demonstrating that honor demanded a reprisal, and then withdraw.

Bonneville did exactly that. Bonneville ravished one village and the surrounding countryside. And then Bonneville withdrew.

(Apr. 28, 2018) William Bonneville was unable to be a good father. William was pleased with how he had been. William knew that he was able to have a good relationship with his son. William wanted his son to be a man of honor. William knew, because of the business of his work, he had to focus away from his family. William didn’t have enough time to interact with his son. William knew, this was common. William also knew, this was a way that led to sons being estranged from their fathers. William didn’t have any choice. William wanted to be able to have more time. But there was never enough time.

William didn’t have enough time. William didn’t have enough time to make decisions. William didn’t have enough time to decide how to make a barony. William didn’t have enough time to decide what was going to become of people who transgressed. William had to make decisions. William wanted to be able to deliberate. William didn’t have the ability. He simply had to make a quick decision. This led to injustice. This led to bitter feelings. William had to stand by his decisions. William often felt that he may have judged in error. William simply had no better way.

William Bonneville wanted to be able to have a respectful interaction with his neighbors. William was part of a group that included the Courtenay family. The Courtenay family was able to dominate Cornwall. This had been the way for the past three generations. This was something that William became able to challenge. William succumbed to the temptation to challenge the Courtenay domination of Cornwall. This was William’s downfall.

(Apr. 30, 2018) William Bonneville was able to dominate Cornwall. The Courtenay family was in disarray. The old Courtenay earl died, and the young earl was a man without good sense. This was William Bonneville’s opportunity, but the opportunity led to terrible consequences. William Bonneville should have never challenged the Courtenays. He was able to be a well-established and well-respected leader. He grabbed for more than he should have. And William Bonneville paid the price, in a way that was of bitter memory before being eliminated.

(May 13, 2018) William Bonneville understood, after the Courtenay Earl attacked Bonneville’s property, that there would be no peace. Bonneville understood that, from this time on, there would be perpetual war. Bonneville was able to guard the rest of his holdings. Bonneville was unable to compensate the people whose crops had been destroyed. Bonneville was hard pressed. Bonneville understood that Courtenay was going to be a difficult enemy. Bonneville wanted Courtenay to understand that this course would ruin both Courtenay and Bonneville. But Bonneville was unable to find a way to communicate. Courtenay was beyond help.

At this time, England was divided. There was a group that supported the king. And there was a group that supported the protector of the king, who wanted to become king. The king was not a capable king. He didn’t have the strength of personality. He didn’t have the desire for glory. He allowed powerful helpers to be overly ambitious. This was the problem of all of England. Bonneville was able to benefit because of this king and his carelessness. This made Courtenay envious. Courtenay was opposed to the situation. Courtenay found a way to ensure that the king recognized Courtenay as supreme in Devon. This forced Bonneville to look for help away from this king. This was a mistake. Bonneville quickly backed away from those who wanted to ensure that Bonneville would be their ally. But now Bonneville had to be aware of their suspicion. And this was the trial of the times. Everyone was suspicious. Everyone understood that, if somebody was not an open ally, he could not be trusted.

(June 27, 2018) William Bonneville understood that, if he was to not be overwhelmed, he needed allies. William Bonneville wanted to look for allies among supporters of the king. William Bonneville understood, if he was able to find allies, he would not be accused of forswearing his oath. However, William Bonneville also understood that Courtenay was allied with men who were close to the king. This meant that Bonneville and Courtenay were trying to ally with the same people. This gave an opportunity. Bonneville understood, because Courtenay was not interested in negotiating, that Bonneville would be able to present a better position. However, Bonneville also understood that men with the king recognized Courtenay as dominant in Cornwall. This meant that Bonneville would have to accept Courtenay. Unfortunately, Bonneville did not have anyone who would intercede. Bonneville had to make approaches. And this is what caused the next problem.

Bonneville approached an earl who was under the influence of Courtenay. The earl understood that Bonneville was able to defend himself. The earl also understood that Bonneville was unable to be a second to Courtenay. This earl thought that Courtenay was an earl, so Bonneville should be second. However, this earl also recognized that Courtenay was unable to be a good example. This earl was uneasy. He had the impression that Bonneville was going to attack. He also had the impression that Bonneville was unaware that the earl was talking to Courtenay. The earl understood that Bonneville was looking for an informal way to back away. This was what the earl told Courtenay.

Bonneville understood, because of what happened, that Courtenay wasn’t able to allow Bonneville to back away. Courtenay intended to destroy Bonneville. Courtenay wanted Bonneville to act in a way that allowed Courtenay to attack with the appearance of being in the right. This is what Bonneville was trying to avoid.

(July 8, 2018) William Bonneville was unable to prevent Courtenay from attacking. Courtenay pretended to be avenging an insult. Courtenay understood that few people would really believe. But Courtenay understood that many people would refuse to contradict. This is what happened.

There was another possibility. William Bonneville understood, after Courtenay ravished his lands, that there could be an agreement. Bonneville needed to bow. Bonneville understood that this is what Courtenay wanted. Bonneville refused. Bonneville paid.

(July 9, 2018) William Bonneville was able to exact a price. William Bonneville understood, because of the way of thinking at the time, that there would be resistance to Courtenay. Courtenay was in the wrong. Courtenay pillaged. This was something that brought a strong reaction. Bonneville answered. This was read as honor being defended. Bonneville didn’t have any problem with people who criticized him. Courtenay was criticized. Bonneville had the upper hand in the matter of people’s opinion. Courtenay had the upper hand on the field.

William Bonneville understood, because of the situation, that he could never win. William Bonneville was forced to ally with the Yorkist cause. Courtenay was allied with the Lancasters. This meant that the king was unable to reign. Lancaster usurped the throne. York reclaimed the throne. This is how the Yorkists explained things. However, Lancaster had much support in Cornwall. This meant that Bonneville had little ability to defend himself.

William Bonneville understood, if he wanted to be able to maintain his position, he had to not expect too much. William knew that he had to give up a lot in order to preserve the rest. William also understood, if he was going to be successful, he would have to be a reliable ally. William understood that, in Cornwall, the Courtenay family was supreme. William also understood, at this time, the earl was roundly hated. William also understood, if there was an opportunity to have a new earl, William would be able to negotiate. However, in such a situation, William understood that he would be limited. William would simply not be able to abandon his ally.

William understood, if he was going to survive, he had to prevent Courtenay from making more allies. William also understood, as the problem grew more violent, that Courtenay was demonstrating superior force. This made some men willing to be Courtenay’s allies even if they disliked him. This was an ongoing problem. William had been able to ravage Courtenay’s lands, but had chosen not to. This meant that Courtenay was stronger than he would have been. William didn’t regret his decision. William was of the opinion that being right and correct before God was more important. And this was William’s position as he talked to other men. This led several men to complain that William would not be a reliable ally, because he would not do things that were necessary to survive. This led William to rebut, saying if this was the correct decision, then everyone would go to hell.

(July 19, 2018) William Bonneville wanted to maintain a proper Christian way. William Bonneville was forced, by the needs of the time, to abandon this. William Bonneville became a man who struck without mercy. William Bonneville hated what he had become. William Bonneville didn’t have any stomach for the life that he was forced to begin living.

William Bonneville understood, if there was going to be a resolution, William Bonneville would have to be ready to compromise. William understood, if this happened, William would be more ready than others. This meant that others were inclined to not be willing to count on William. This was a constant problem. William was unable to have the firm support of men who would powerfully oppose Courtenay. This led William to the Yorkist camp.

(Aug. 5, 2018) William Bonneville understood, after joining the Yorkists, that he had made a terrible mistake. The Yorkists wanted William to use his resources. The Yorkists, without exception, intended to replace the King. William understood, if this happened, there would be ongoing warfare. William didn’t have any option. William simply move in the direction that allowed his survival.

William Bonneville understood, after joining the Yorkists, that men who formerly respected him would no longer associate with him. This meant that William had less support. This was a serious problem. William was unable to be much of an asset to the Yorkists. This led William to a situation. William had to involve himself in the Yorkist leadership. This was not easy to do. William had been under suspicion. William had been unwilling to fight. William had been unable to give a good account of himself. This meant that William had little ability to influence. This made leaders reluctant to invite William to their councils.

William had the asset of being perceived as just. This eventually allowed William to be heard. This was all that William had. And this was all that William gave up.

(Aug. 11, 2018) William Bonneville understood, if he was to preserve his situation, he would have to act in a way that he deplored. William understood that his enemies would try to destroy him. William had to destroy them. And William began to do this.

William was unable to completely destroy the first man whom he attacked. William wanted to not have to do that. The man was not a bad man. He was just allied to another enemy. William understood, in this situation, William had no choice. William destroyed the man’s land. William was able to capture the man’s castle. William decided to not destroy the castle. This was not a mistake. This gave William a reputation. William was able to extract a pledge from the man to not raise a sword. And this was how William began.

William was unable to do the same for the second enemy. William was able to seize the man’s castle. And William offered the opportunity to make a pledge. But the man was contemptuous. So William destroyed the man.

William was unable to continue like this. William simply had no stomach. There was no way that William could demolish the safety of the family who provided safety for all of the people around them. This was something that William observed. After William destroyed the castle, bandits began to prey. There was no way to stop them. The bandits simply attacked and retreated into the forest. And the people on the land could not defend themselves.
(Aug. 12, 2018) William Bonneville was unable to be an effective general. William simply had no ability to kill without remorse. This was the need. And William did not have the ability. William didn’t think that this was a major problem. William was able to lend troops. This meant that other men had additional forces. However, this also meant that William was at risk. The troops that William lent had to be maintained. The troops had to be provisioned. The troops had to be taken care of. Men needed to know that their master was attentive. William had to be able to ensure that his men were well treated. And this was a problem.

William was unable to make a commitment to lend troops for an extended campaign. The reason was that the men refused. They didn’t want to be under the authority of a man who might use them instead of his own soldiers. They thought that they were at risk. So the men refused to be under the authority of another general. This meant that William had to lead his men. And this led to problems.

William was an able administrator. William was able to ensure that his men had all the necessary supplies. William ensured that his men were healthy. William didn’t want his men to die. William knew that fighting meant that men died. And William had no stomach. William was reluctant to send his men into battle. This made William unliked. People needed a friend who would defend them without waiting. This was very difficult.

(Aug. 13, 2018) William Bonneville had three experiences where William was able to help. William Bonneville had six experiences where he was unable. This meant that he was unreliable. This meant that William was unable to ask for help. This meant that William was vulnerable.

(Aug. 14, 2018) William Bonneville was not attacked. William had ample forces. Courtenay was the only one who could conceivably defeat Bonneville. William Bonneville was good at maintaining a defensive posture. This is what William Bonneville did. And this made it impossible for Courtenay to dominate.

William Bonneville understood, after two years, that Courtenay would be able to win if Bonneville did not actively participate. The allies of Courtenay were stronger than the allies of Bonneville. Bonneville relied on help from outside Cornwall and Devon. This meant that Bonneville had to pay. And Bonneville paid.

Bonneville understood, in the long run, Bonneville did not have sufficient resources. Courtenay also understood this. The war was one of attrition. Bonneville understood that Courtenay understood that Bonneville would have to move. Bonneville moved. And Bonneville lost.

(Aug. 26, 2018) William Bonneville understood how to arrange a principality. William was an efficient administrator. If William had been able to administer Cornwall, it would have been a blessing. Unfortunately, William was unable to do so. This meant that William was unable to use his talent. However, William had many estates. These were well organized. William had the ability to select capable men. William also had the ability to encourage them to act fairly. This was essential. William understood, if a lieutenant was dishonest, the estate would not be profitable. This also meant that the underlings would likely be corrupted. William was able to avoid this. William had only one instance of a lieutenant who was unworthy. William was proud of this.

(Aug. 29, 2018) William Bonneville understood, after the first of several failures, that his hesitation to attack meant that he was perceived as being limited. This meant that William was expected to support the effort financially. This meant that William had to waste his resources supporting others. This meant that William was slowly dwindling. This meant that William faced the expectation that he would be unable to meet his obligations. This meant, after three years, that William had to reassess his involvement. William, after discussion, knew that his fellows were unable to maintain themselves. William, without his efforts to support his allies, would have been able to maintain himself without trouble. However, without allies, William’s estates could not be defended adequately.

(Aug. 31, 2018) William Bonneville interested himself in the doing of the Church. William understood, if the Church was to be a patron of peace, the Church could not directly encounter the conflict. William also understood, if the Church was made of men, that the Church could have an influence. This made William interested in approaching the Church. William understood, because of Courtenay, there was little opportunity for William to approach the man who held the King. This meant that William was unable to take a stand without his allies. William understood, because of Courtenay, there would be no peace. William also understood, because of Courtenay, that William was able to make a case that he was be wronged. This is what William tried to do, but William was not well received. When William Bonneville approached a priest, the priest advised William to not seek assistance. William was not in poor repute with the Church. William had been a patron of his parish. William understood, because of the nature of the problem, that the Church was simply unable to get involved.

William Bonneville was unable to find a way out of his disastrous situation. William had overreached. Then the kingdom began to split apart. William was trapped.

William tried one last desperate attempt. William attacked. William knew, because of his allies’ advice, that an attack on Courtenay was a bad idea. Instead, William decided to attack one man who had repeatedly tried to raid. This meant that William had the appearance of redressing a grievance.

William attacked. And William failed. The man was prepared. The knew that William intended to attack. The man was prepared to ensure that the maximum number of William’s soldiers were killed. William understood, before the attack, that his enemy was prepared. William simply had no choice.

(Sept. 2, 2018) William Bonneville didn’t have any reason to hesitate. William Bonneville understood, if he attacked, he had a good chance of succeeding. William had more soldiers. William had engines. William had the ability to scale walls. William understood, if he conquered his enemy, other enemies would be less likely to attack. William also understood, if he failed, other enemies would start attacking. William didn’t hesitate.

(Sept. 3, 2018) William Bonneville understood, after he had attacked, that his attack was preordained to fail. William had a choice of simply waiting, or attacking and taking his chances. If he had waited, the situation might have changed. William considered this choice. William thought, if he made this choice, he would be perceived as a coward. This had to be avoided. The rule of honor demanded that William retaliate. And this is what William did.

William understood, after the failure of his attack, that he wasn’t strong enough. His men were not inured to the thought of possible death. This meant that they did not prosecute the attack with full vigor. This meant that men died without any real chance. This meant that William was blamed. This meant that William had no ability to command. This meant that William had to find others to lead his men. This meant that William was becoming irrelevant.

William Bonneville was getting old. William understood, if he was to survive, he had to risk his son. This meant that his son would bring his grandson into battle. This was unavoidable. William understood that, if he didn’t survive, his son and grandson would perish. William girded himself. William put his son at the head of his soldiers.

William was aware that his son was not a good commander. William was aware that his son did not have the well being of the soldiers in his mind. William understood that soldiers who do not feel that they are being well treated do not fight. William wanted to guide his son. William was aware, because of the time that William had spent training his son, that his son would fail. William was aware of his son going into battle. William was not aware of his son being captured. William understood, after word came, that William was without an heir. William understood that his grandson had also been captured.

(Sept. 17, 2018) William Bonneville understood that there was no hope. William knew that his son and grandson would be beheaded. William understood, because of the penalty, that he would not be able to perpetuate the family. There was no other. William would be the last of his line.

William understood, because of his decision, that his son was lost. William knew that his son was not a capable commander. William understood that he had no other choice. William could not lead men to their death. William had no stomach for slaughter.

William had to behave in a way that was considered honorable. William was constrained by the requirement to maintain the appearance of honor. William had no choice. William had to lead the remainder of his men into battle.

William did so. William lost. William had no hope. William did not fail. William managed to protect the majority of his men. This was more than he expected. William was captured. William was judged. William was found guilty of treason.

William understood, because of what had happened, William was viewed with sympathy. William understood, as he surrendered, that his life would be spared. William understood, because his life would be spared, that William had an opportunity. William had three daughters. William had a great-granddaughter. William understood that his family had not been exterminated. William understood that William would be remembered. William understood that William had the potential to ensure the well-being of his descendants. William understood that he would be given this opportunity. This was not the case.

(Sept. 18, 2018) William Bonneville led his men into battle. William fought. William fell. William was very old. William had no will to live. William understood that he should have died. William didn’t plea. William was simply unable to rise. His captor took him and delivered him to the Queen. William didn’t recognize the Queen. William understood, if he recognized the Queen, he would be spared. William knew, because the Queen had killed his son, that honor forbade. William died.

(Nov. 26, 2018) William Bonneville did not tell the complete story. The reason was that the Queen had not given her permission. William now understands that John is descended from the Queen. William now has permission to tell the story.

William Bonneville did not think that he would be killed. William had reason to not want to die. William had a great-granddaughter. William understood, if he was able to arrange her marriage, William would be able to promote a family that was able to continue. William thought that this was worth doing.

William volunteered to be with the King. William understood. The man with the King would be attacked. The man with the King would not be killed. Somebody had to be with the King as the battle ended. The King must not be killed. William was guarding the life of the King. William did not expect to be punished.

William was attacked. William fell. William did not rise.

William was taken to the Queen. The King was incapable. The King had a mind that did not work. The King was unable to say what happened.

William was able to say one thing. William said, “I protected the King.”

(Nov. 29, 2018) William was not allowed to speak. William understood. There was going to be a beheading. William knew, because of his son, that there was bad feeling. The son of William did not die without making a statement. This meant that the name “Bonneville” was remembered. This meant that William was going to pay. William thought, because of the situation, that William had no way of making a case. William was not asked to speak. William was not able to get anyone to be interested in listening. William thought, if the King could speak, the King would say that William had been respectful. However, William did not think that the King would gain his wits. William simply thought, because of the situation, that William would die.

William knew that a man who was condemned had the opportunity to speak. William also knew, because of his innocence, that this would not be given. William was unable to give a story of what he did. William was unable to be blessed by a priest. William was not given the proper conditions to meet his Maker. This meant that William did not go to the next world.

[j***@gmail.com]

DENNY AND CHAMPERNOUN (continued)

The first part of the story of Anthony Denny, member of the Regency Council for King Edward VI, was posted above on Nov. 7. Denny was the husband of Joan, daughter of Philip Champernown, son of John Champernowne, who was a brother of Blanche, wife of Robert, 1st Baron Willoughby, in the Champernoun lineage immediately above. In that lineage, I did not give the story of Blanche's son Robert, 2nd Baron Willoughby, which appears below, after the continuation of the story of Anthony Denny.

ANTHONY DENNY (continued)

(Nov. 11, 2019) Anthony Denny was of a family without a long lineage. Denny, as a new man, depended on the King. Denny rose in the favor of King Henry. King Henry chose. Denny was one of the choices. The intent was never said.
Denny was responsible to act and propose as Dudley wanted, without talking to Dudley. Denny needed to be seen as independent of Dudley. This had an effect. The council entertained the suggestions of Denny without thinking that Dudley was trying to dominate. Denny was often not taken seriously, until two others and Dudley expressed interest in the idea.

Sometimes Dudley ignored the thought that Denny understood Dudley to want others to accept. Denny wanted to be a good man and a helpful councilor. Dudley made Denny apparent as one of the leading idea men. This meant that Denny was expected to think and give others ideas to consider. This was Denny.

--

Robert, 2nd Baron Willoughby, m. Dorothy, daughter of Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, by his mistress Margaret, daughter of Lewis Woodville, who was actually a bastard son of Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland.

(Nov. 14, 2019) Robert was the son of the first Baron. Robert was of the same name. Baron Robert continued. The father was pleased to train the son to act as the father. Robert began to command before the father died. Toward the end, Robert was as the Baron.

(Nov. 15, 2019) Robert had the sight. The sight came from the mother. Willoughby and Champernoun had married before. The sight was now in Willoughby. Willoughby needed protection. Robert had to marry into a family that could protect.

Grey was appropriate. Grey was close to the King. Robert thought, while Grey was powerful, Willoughby would not be in danger. Robert thought, as Henry grew old, Grey would become as the first family.

Robert had no idea of the catastrophe that befell Grey with the death of King Edward. Suddenly, Willoughby had no protection. Awareness that Willoughby had the sight was limited. As long as Willoughby gave no hint, Willoughby would be safe. Robert had to instruct a daughter who was of the sight to never say anything that could give a hint to people outside the family. This was not sufficient. The daughter could not act without sight. Robert had to think of hiding the daughter. Marriage to a man with a family with the sight was the obvious answer.

Robert arranged for the daughter to marry a son of Paulet. From Champernoun, Robert knew that Paulet was safe. Paulet accepted, with the guidance of the sight. Grey was no longer powerful. Robert survived. The sight passed. Willoughby continued without the sight.

--

Dorothy (daughter of Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset), wife of Robert, 2nd Baron Willoughby.

(Nov. 17, 2019) Dorothy was the daughter of a man who had a mistress. Dorothy had a mother who was different from the mother whom everyone knew. Dorothy learned to not speak. The mother of everyone was different from the mother of Dorothy and most of the children. Dorothy thought, with three, Dorothy was not the same as with the others. Dorothy thought that the mother of all was especially kind to these three. Dorothy did not ask either mother to explain. Dorothy simply accepted and obeyed.

(will continue)

[j***@gmail.com]

FIFTH GENERATION (continued): "Mary," wife of John Cecil/Davis

(Oct. 3, 2019) The wife of John Davis was unable to find a husband from an established family. The wife of John was also not from an established family. The wife was named Marie. "Mary" became the name. The wife of John was never thought of as French. The father was not able to live long, after the birth of Mary. The mother was unable to think of anything beyond finding a husband to take care of an infant daughter. Mary was never able to be as the daughter of the husband of the mother. Mary was unable to think of a good marriage. Davis was not a bad marriage.

(Oct. 4, 2019) Mary, as Mary was known, did not have a difficult life. Davis had money. Davis had a big plantation. Davis was not inclined to waste on luxuries. Davis was inclined to survive. Mary was able to think of the husband as a man with the obligation to preserve a lineage. John would not talk about the family in England. Mary had to understand that Davis was hiding from an enemy who wanted the lineage to disappear. Mary, after being aware of John with the ability to see what was going to happen, understood. Mary, through the mother, had something of this gift. Mary had to simply accept. This is all that Mary thought. Mary never knew that Davis was the legitimate son of a prominent nobleman.

--

(The wife of John Davis was the daughter of a Frenchman who was ship-wrecked off the coast of Virginia, en route to Canada. Offered land, he decided to stay in Virginia, and quickly married a woman whose grandfather was a bastard son of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland and whose grandmother was a daughter of King Edward VI by his hidden wife, a bastard daughter of Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland. Obviously, the grandfather was much older than the grandmother.)

(I will begin presenting the various Neville lineages after the next post, which will deal with the Livingston descent of the French father of the wife of John Cecil/Davis. Alexander Livingston, 1st Earl of Linlithgow, had a bastard daughter who had a daughter who had a daughter who was taken to France, where she became the mother of the Frenchman who was ship-wrecked off the coast of Virginia (the father of "Mary," the wife of John Davis). These ancestors are not inclined to share stories of their lives.

[j***@gmail.com]

FIFTH GENERATION (continued): The Livingston lineage, through Alexander Livingstone, Earl of Linlithgow.

I compared the lineage given by the ancestors with that shown at wikitree. There are three significant differences, noted below. The numbers show the consecutive generations (according to the ancestors), from father to son, grandson, etc.


1. Alexander of Drumry. (This is not the Alexander Livingston shown on wikitree, who was from a related family.)

2. Andrew of Drumry, became the Sheriff of Lanarck after the previous sheriff was killed in 1297.

3. William of Callendar, took the lands forfeited by his son’s father-in-law.

4. William Livingston of Drumry, m. Christian, daughter of Patrick of Callendar. William (and not his father) fought in the battle of Hallidon Hill in 1333, which he survived.

5. Alexander (did not inherit). Wikitree currently shows Alexander as the brother and not the father of John Livingston of Calendar (#6 below).

6. John Livingston of Callendar (d. 1402 at the Battle of Homildon Hill); his first wife was Hannah, daughter of John Mentieth of Kerse (d. 1382), GRANDson (not son) of Walter of Ruskie [whose son John was father of John Menteith of Kerse], who was the son of John of Arran, son of Walter (Stewart – son of the 3rd High Steward of Scotland) by Mary, daughter of Murdoch, Earl of Menteith, who was the son of a king.


7. Alexander Livingstone of Callendar, a councilor for King James I and a guardian for the young King James II. An account of his career is given here: http://www.robertsewell.ca/living4.html According to Alexander, this account falsely portrays his involvement in the infamous "Black Dinner" of 1440. ("Alexander knew, but did not act.")


“Alexander had a son James who had a son Alexander who had no legitimate son. Alexander of Callendar decided, after the birth of the grandson, to give Callendar to a younger son. The younger son married. No son came. A son came by the widow. This son was the father of James [3rd of Livingston, son of Alexander Livingstone of Dunipace].”

According to the ancestors, Alexander Livingston of Dunipace (b. c. 1450) was son of Margaret, daughter of King Louis XI of France by Margaret, daughter of James I, King of Scots. Margaret of France was the wife of Alexander Livingston of Phildies, who was the elder half-brother of Alexander of Dunipace. Alexander of Phildies was the younger brother of James, 1st of Livingston, whose second son Alexander had a son James who was heir of his uncle James, 2nd of Livingston. This James (heir to Livingston) married Elizabeth Fleming in 1472, but died without an heir and without inheriting. James, youngest son of Alexander Livingston of Dunipace, took the place of his dead kinsman James as the heir to Livingston, and became 3rd of Livingston, allowing Dunipace in this irregular way to establish his youngest son (having already intended for his elder sons). (Dunipace’s wife Alison, daughter of Gourlay, was not the mother of his sons.) (Dunipace’s son Alexander is the ancestor of Alexander Spotswood, Governor of Virginia, grandfather of Esther Herndon in the 8th generation of this Cecil/Davis lineage.)

8. Alexander Livingston of Dunipace (see explanation above)

9. James (youngest son), 3rd of Livingston and of Callendar (d. 1503), m. (as his only wife) Agnes, daughter of John Houston by Agnes, daughter of Duncan Campbell of Lochow by Marjory, daughter of Robert, 1st Duke of Albany (and son of King Robert II).

10. William, 4th of Livingston (d. 1514), m. Agnes, daughter of Alexander Hepburn of Whitston, whose mother was a daughter of Thomas Wallace, son of James Wallace of Elderslie by his wife Ellen, daughter of Malcolm Wallace of Elderslie, whose father Thomas was son of Adam of Riccarton, who was also ancestor of James Wallace. (The early Wallaces appear in the Scrimgeour/Wallace thread at https://groups.google.com/forum/embed/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/1pupplUCvcI%5B51-75%5D -- see the post of Oct. 13, 2019)


11. Alexander, 5th of Livingston (d. c. 1553 in France), m. (2) Agnes, daughter of John Douglas, 2nd Earl of Morton, who was son of James Douglas, 1st Earl of Morton by Joan, daughter of King James I by his wife Joan (“Beaufort”), who descends from King Edward III of England.


12. William, 6th of Livingston (d. 1592), married Agnes, daughter of Malcolm, 3rd of Fleming (whose father John, 2nd of Fleming, was a bastard and not the son of his father’s wife Euphemia, daughter of Livingston) by Janet, daughter of King James IV by his mistress Jane, legitimate daughter of James Stewart, Earl of Buchan, who descends (as does King James IV) from King Edward III of England.

13. Alexander Livingstone (1561-1621), 1st Earl of Linlithgow (ancestor of the wife of John Cecil/Davis)

Here is Linlithgow's story:

(Sept. 27, 2019) Alexander, 1st Earl of Linlithgow, was a son of Livingston. Alexander took the name and put an "e" on the end, when the earldom was bestowed. Alexander understood, because of the honor, Linlithgow was now the way to address Alexander. Alexander will now simply say Linlithgow.

Linlithgow was unable to prosper. An earldom had a responsibility to provide men for the king. In times of crisis, this could ruin an earl. Linlithgow received just before the outbreak of a time of crisis with England. Scotland needed vigor to defend against English raiders. The "rough wooing" of King Henry was well remembered. Now, additional trouble came from south of the border, a border that Scotland considered to be unacceptable.

Linlithgow and other earls mustered men and knights. Soldiers now bore muskets. Knights were not useful as in the past. Scotland had to think that the expense of maintaining and equipping knights was better spent on soldiers with officers who were as the old knights, except they were in direct service to the King.

Linlithgow was of the last of the old way, as the new way became the only way. Linlithgow had to bring six knights and 50 soldiers. This required Linlithgow to make sure that there were extra knights, in case a knight died or was injured or was too old.

Linlithgow had three sons. Each was expected to be a knight and serve as the price for hoping to inherit. Linlithgow wanted each son to serve for five months and then retire to other duties that were expected of the son of an earl. An earl must make the tenants observe the presence of authority. A son was preferred over a steward, but often a steward was sent to resolve a problem. Linlithgow understood, if each son became as a steward, the earldom would be well managed, with obedient tenants who did not think of colluding with a steward at the expense of the Earl. Linlithgow wanted to believe that sons would be respectful toward their father, as the father was loving and generous toward the sons. Linlithgow was disappointed with two of the three. The third eventually was the heir.

(Sept. 29, 2019) Linlithgow had a choice. The eldest son was capable but not well suited. The youngest was both. The eldest had a wife who would inherit an estate that was more than Linlithgow. The eldest would not have the title if the estate of the wife was all. Linlithgow had to petition the King to ensure that the estate of Linlithgow and the title passed to the youngest. The eldest and his son would of course inherit if the line of the youngest failed. This was done, and Linlithgow continued in the hands of a capable and generous earl.

(Sept. 30, 2019) Linlithgow wanted to be perceived as a capable and generous benefactor. Linlithgow does not have a sense of this being remembered. Linlithgow hoped, with the discovery, recently, of a bastard daughter, that the lineage of Linlithgow would receive attention. Linlithgow understands that this is being presented in a way that will not receive respectful attention, until the ability to discuss communication with ancestors is openly recognized. Linlithgow did not have any idea of how badly the culture of the living has degenerated. Linlithgow hoped, with the recovery of awareness that Linlithgow is in the ancestry of the Davis family that descends from Cecil, there would be an increased interest in the ancestry of Livingston. Linlithgow hopes that the descendant who is recording will begin to understand and connect his various Livingston descents.

[j***@gmail.com]

NEVILLE DESCENTS, PART 1: Back to Magna Carta through Clavering

John FitzRobert (Magna Carta surety baron)

John was the son of Robert. There was no other name. John had the opportunity to serve as one of the sureties of Magna Carta. John had to weigh the potential consequences. Magna Carta proclaimed that the barons had the privilege of managing the realm if the King abused the authority that the barons had given to Plantagenet. This was always understood. John understood, in addition, the barons agreed not to kill if the King became a tyrant.

John had to pray. To kill a tyrant was expected. John did not think of King John as trustworthy. Magna Carta was unlikely to be honored. The Pope might act as an ally of the King. This would make the barons outlawed by the Church. John decided that, because of the number of barons who supported Magna Carta, John would be as safe as John would be under the discipline of a king who knew no rules. John never regretted.

The choice was made and was honored by all but two. John thought, Aubigny was a man with little principle. John thought that Lacy was under obligation to the King in a way that made him an unwise choice. John thinks that Lacy will tell his own story.

--

Roger of Clavering (did not die c. 1249), son of John FitzRobert

(Nov. 8, 2019) Roger was of Clavering. The land gave the name. Roger understood that, for a family without the name of an ancestral land, the name of the holding was accepted. Robert did not have any other thought. Clavering became the name.

(Nov. 10, 2019) Roger fought. Every man who held a barony had to fight. A lord was protected. The lord must be seen. Every battle, even if protected, meant possibly dying.

Roger did not die in battle. A son gave his life, although with a young daughter. Roger took the daughter as the daughter of Roger. Roger had one other son. This was enough to preserve Clavering. Roger aided the barons against the King. Magna Carta was the call. The majority of the barons did not abandon the promise made by King Henry II.

This was a bitter fight. Roger hoped to not be ruined. A knight could spend and ruin his house, even if not wounded. Roger and the House of Clavering were able to continue.

[Roger is here referring to the Second Barons' War, which took place in the 1260s. Others have written that Roger died in a tournament in Normandy in 1249, but Roger says this is not correct. The wikipedia article on the Second Barons' War is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barons%27_War .]

--

Robert of Clavering, son of Roger

(Nov. 10, 2019) Robert was of Clavering. Robert did not have any problems with the King. Clavering was a family of Magna Carta. Robert was able to think of the need. The need did not arise. King Edward was old and unwilling to challenge the barons with the possibility that son Edward might be prevented from being the next King. Robert was able to be informed, before dying, that Magna Carta was recognized by the new King.

[It appears that Robert here is referring to what became the Ordinances of 1311; see https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-ordinances-of-1311 . Magna Carta was entered onto the statue roll in 1297, toward the end of the reign of King Edward I.]

[Robert's daughter Eupheme became the wife of Ranulphe, 1st Baron Neville of Raby, and Neville accepted responsibility for fighting against Scottish raiders, assisting and eventually replacing Clavering.]

[j***@gmail.com]

NEVILLE DESCENTS, PART 2: The earliest generations

FIRST GENERATION

Uchtred

(Oct. 22, 2019) [Wikipedia speculates that Uchtred was the son of Lighulf (d. 1080), a “great thane” of Northumbria. Uchtred says that Uchtred was the grandson, not son, of King Lighulf.]

(Nov. 13, 2019) Uchtred was of a lineage that is no longer remembered. The King of Northumbria was the son of another king, who ruled a greater land. Uchtred thinks that this king has not been forgotten. Uchtred thinks, because of the origin of Neville, Neville began to remember as Neville became of the leading families.

SECOND GENERATION

Dolfin (adult in 1129)

(Nov. 13, 2019) Dolfin was of a family that persevered when the Normans arrived. Dolfin was loyal. The Normans had a lieutenant. Dolfin had to accept. Many lost land. Normans could take, if a man had pretended to be disloyal at the beginning. Dolfin had to accept that many, at first, promised to resist. The lands of all of these were forfeit. Dolfin did not. Dolfin was too young. Uchtred made a show of loyalty and was reviled. Dolfin understands that Uchtred had the sight, which showed. Dolfin had the sight. The sight showed perseverance and no hope of rising. Dolfin did not fall.

THIRD GENERATION

Meldred

(Nov. 14, 2019) Meldred was of a family that had old roots. Meldred understood that Norman families pretended to be of the best. Meldred was able to say that Meldred was of the line of a king. This allowed the Norman families to accept Meldred. Meldred never thought of being equal. That would have to wait for the next generation.

FOURTH GENERATION

Robert, married Isabel, daughter of Geoffrey of Neville (d. 1193)
(Nov. 19, 2019) Robert was as a baron. Robert was recognized as the lord of an area that was the size of a barony. This lasted from the time of the old King. This was never challenged. The family of Uchtred allied with Normans. Robert had Norman blood and kin from France. This was enough. The family was seen as important to keep the area stable. Robert thought, because of the marriage to the daughter of Neville, that taking the name Neville would give the feeling of total alliance with the King. Robert did not understand that the old family that was dispossessed would see Robert as a traitor. This was a problem through the life of Robert, until the patriarch of the old family finally decided to instruct his grandson to survive by allying with Neville. Robert was able to think of marrying a son to the daughter of the patriarch of the old family. This was not done, but Robert was able to arrange a marriage with a Norman family for the old family. Robert, by doing this, brought peace to the village and the territory of the barony.

--

THE OLD NORMAN NEVILLE FAMILY

[Geoffrey of Neville, the father of Isabel the wife of Robert, was the son of a bastard, and recognized as the heir of his uncle Gilbert of Neville, son of Geoffrey, who was as a progenitor.]

Geoffrey of Neville (“as a progenitor”):

Geoffrey of Neville came from France after the Conquest of England. Geoffrey was not from an important family. Geoffrey received, from the land that was seized from earlier families that resisted the arrival of the conquerors. Geoffrey had an enemy, the man who held what Geoffrey now held. Geoffrey had to accept that the man could not simply be killed. To do this would be a sin, a mortal sin. The Church insisted that men act in accord with the commands of the Church. Geoffrey had to be aware, at all times, of the enmity of a man who now was forced to live as a simple farmer.

Geoffrey of Neville (grandson of Geoffrey the progenitor)

Geoffrey was the son of a bastard. Geoffrey was made heir of an uncle who lost both of his sons in battle. Geoffrey fought and was wounded. Geoffrey was able to retire from fighting and Neville continued. Geoffrey had six sons. Each son was called. Each son fought and died.

--

FIFTH GENERATION

Geoffrey of Neville (d. around 1242), son of Robert of Neville by wife Isabel
(Nov. 23, 2019) Geoffrey took Neville as the name. Geoffrey became as a Norman. Geoffrey understood that old families saw the elevation of Geoffrey and resented. Geoffrey was of a family that led, and then cooperated. Geoffrey was expected to lead. Old families needed to be accepted. Neville, as an old family, but seen as Norman, could help. Geoffrey explained, privately. One old family whispered to another. Eventually, Neville was accepted as the leader by the old families. This made Neville better respected among the Normans.

SIXTH GENERATION

John (not Robert) of Neville

(Nov. 23, 2019) John of Neville did not think of Neville. John was of the land of the ancestors. Neville was the ancestral land of a Norman who came to England after the Conquest. Neville was not a name of honor. It was a Norman name. John did not think that a Norman name was something of respect. The old families held some of their ancient land. The old families in this area accepted the Conquest. This meant that they were not deprived, except everyone had to give a third. The Conqueror had to settle followers in every part of the kingdom. This meant that every village had to give to new men. The Conquest was brutal when old families resisted. Any family that resisted was destroyed. If not, an old family could endure, with less, and perhaps not enough to be of the leading families. Neville, from an old family that gave up a third, now had the name of a follower who did not conquer. John hoped that Neville would not continue to be the name. This was something that each brother had to choose.

One brother decided to not use “Neville.” This brother was simply Fitz Geoffrey. John hoped that the other brother would also do this. John could be one with the brothers. But the other brother understood that, if he was called, a Norman name would be of good report. This is what John decided as well. John was called. When called, John was as a Norman. This was a big difference. John felt men give respect that John was aware of Normans not giving when John was in the village of the fathers. John thought, a Norman name would be a way for the children of John to make sure that respect was part of what they learned about the family.

SEVENTH GENERATION

Robert of Neville, father of Ranulphe, 1st Baron Neville of Raby

(Nov. 23, 2019) Robert was never able to think of anything except Neville for the name. Robert understood that Neville came from the grandmother. Robert did not think. Neville was what everybody said. Robert would be the heir. Neville was Robert.

[j***@gmail.com]

NEVILLE DESCENTS, PART 3: Barons Neville of Raby

EIGHTH GENERATION

Ranulphe, 1st Baron Neville of Raby (d. 1361), husband of Eupheme, daughter of Clavering

(Aug. 24, 2019) Ranulphe elevated Neville. There was a marriage. This made Ranulphe eligible. There was doubt. Was Neville appropriate? The family was ancient. The family was respected. The family was of little consequence. Ranulph was able to perform a deed on a battlefield. This led to recognition. A later deed led to the marriage. Ranulph was being elevated by Clavering.

Clavering was obtaining an ally. This was the way of the old families. With Neville, Clavering had greater security. There was always the possibility of barons revolting. When this happened, neighbors had to choose. To ally with a neighbor might mean to defy the King. That might mean forfeiting the family land. To not ally with a neighbor might mean being dispossessed by the neighbor. Clavering was of an old family famous for resisting King John. Clavering was looked to when anyone thought of discussing the need to resist another king. Clavering needed more than one ally to be able to not be pressured into a resistance that would prove fatal to the family. Neville helped. Neville was known to be loyal. Clavering with Neville could resist pressure to act too quickly when the King was unjust.

(Sept. 18, 2019) Ranulphe was never able to be independent. Ranulphe owed the father of the wife. Ranulphe was the loyal man of another. This had to be without question. Ranulphe came when summoned, without hesitation. This was never taken for granted. Clavering was suspicious. Ranulphe had to be especially aware of the need. This guaranteed that Ranulphe would be the progenitor of a line that rose. Clavering was never inclined to worry after the second generation. Clavering disappeared. Neville was secure.

(Sept. 23, 2019) Neville prospered. The land was not fertile. Farmers had to endure. This meant, Neville got little from farms. This meant, Neville needed many farmers who all had to give a little. Neville had a force of soldiers. Farmers in winter trained. Scottish wayfarers were always a threat. Farmers were willing. All had family who suffered from Scottish raiding ventures. Neville had to be constantly in the saddle. Neville was trained for the great struggle to come. The Kings of England needed Neville and Percy. Neville had the advantage over Percy. Clavering became Neville. Clavering was directly descended from Magna Carta. Neville had the respect of others who also claimed Magna Carta as of them. Neville had a force that was always being reckoned with. Neville did not always have to choose sides, between barons and kings. Neville was far away, holding back the Scots.


Eupheme, daughter of Robert of Clavering and wife of Ranulphe Neville, 1st Baron Raby

(Oct. 9, 2019) Eupheme was the heir of Clavering. Neville was chosen for an alliance. Eupheme did not think that Eupheme would become the heiress. A brother had a son. The son did not live. A cousin was going to claim the barony. The cousin was persuaded to not, by the King, who wanted Neville to be strong. The King needed a strong family to carry the battle to the Scots when they raided. A weak family could not. The raiders must be killed. If raiders failed to return, few would try the English lands.

Eupheme was a wife of a man who battled raiders constantly. Eupheme raised a son to do the same. Service to the King and protection of home and tenants were of the same. Eupheme was unable to think of anything more. Neville and Clavering joined in this service, after Berwick upon Tweed became English a final time. Eupheme thinks, because of this, the Scots united in an attempt to drive English farmers from the border. Many left. Land lay fallow. The farmers nearest the border were always feeling threatened. Eupheme had to think that, if peace was possible, the farmers could harvest abundantly. The constant threat of raiders made the farmers reluctant to harvest without lookouts who were unable to bring in the food. Some food was always lost, because men were needed to protect the workers, who were always nervous.

Eupheme did a lot to make sure that Clavering was willing to be as one with Neville. Eupheme had a vital part in ensuring that the father of Eupheme took Neville as a son, and not as a rival. Neville would win, if Clavering sought to be as an earl. Neville had cousins. Clavering had only one. Eupheme needed to expect Neville to always be dutiful. Neville was reluctant. Eupheme persuaded Ranulph to guarantee that Neville would defer to Clavering. The earldom that Neville eventually received was the reward for Nevilles deference to Clavering when the threat from the Scots was of the worst. Eupheme did not live to observe the bestowal of the earldom. Eupheme witnessed from beyond the grave. Neville with Clavering rose.


NINTH GENERATION

Ralph, 2nd Baron Neville of Raby (1291-1367), husband of Alice, daughter of Audley

(Oct. 3, 2019) Ralph was of Neville. Neville was of Clavering. Ralph was responsible to protect against the Scots. There was nothing else.

--

Hugh of Audley, father-in-law of Ralph, 2nd Baron Neville

Hugh of Audley was not a nobleman. Hugh had land. Percy and Neville bordered Hugh. Hugh allied with Neville. Percy did not have a son to marry to the daughter. Hugh had a son. Audley continued, allied with Neville. The son was cut by Scottish raiders. A grandson did not live long enough to inherit. Audley was of Neville.

--

Alice, wife of Ralph, 2nd Baron Neville

(oct. 10, 2019) Alice thought, because of Neville, that Audley would be safe. Alice understood, after the marriage, Audley was expected to fight with Neville. Neville was always fighting. Audley was not safe. Nobody was safe. Alice lost a brother to the Scots. The son did not reach maturity. Audley was taken by Neville. Neville was a protector, better than Audley. Neville insisted that sons of tenants fight against the Scots. Audley was safe. Sometimes the sons of tenants did not return.


TENTH GENERATION

John, 3rd Baron Neville of Raby (married Maud, daughter of Percy)

(Oct. 4, 2019) John was Neville. Neville had three branches. John was of the senior branch. Neville had to act as one. Scottish raiders were a constant part of life. People who tried to harvest were often cut down in the field. Neville was responsible to pursue and kill any raiders that Neville could catch. Neville maintained three garrisons and six outposts. There was always a need for more soldiers. Neville had to make decisions about which of the nine stations for soldiers would not have enough. Raiders had to be unaware, so Neville had to move soldiers back and forth. This kept the land under surveillance, which was of the most important. Neville was the eyes of the King. A regular report was expected.

Raiders who came in larger parties were a sign of harvest failure in Scotland. Hungry men took the sword to England to steal food or die. Neville had to think of such men as vermin. Death was meted out without mercy. Neville and the men under Neville were accustomed to simply killing, without a thought of ransom. Raiders and their families had nothing.

Neville was of the opinion that, because of this situation, there would never be peace, unless Scotland acted to discourage and feed the men who attacked. Neville never had any hope of Scotland being a good neighbor. The bad blood from the earlier campaign that seized Berwick could not be undone unless England defeated and conquered Scotland, a thought made unlikely by the example of William Wallace. Neville hoped, if a great victory happened again, that Scotland and England could become as one.

That was the way of Nevilles thinking. Neville had no hope that Neville, by thinking this, brought about an English reception of the Scottish King. Neville simply hoped for the union of the two crowns. Neville now knows that this is what happened. Neville brought about the willingness of Scotland to negotiate because Neville, together with Percy, was able to prove to the Scots that border raids were not a source of booty.

--

Maud, daughter of Henry, 2nd Baron Percy, wife of Ralph Neville, 3rd Baron Raby

(Oct. 11, 2019) Maud was of Percy. Maud did not think of Neville as above Percy. Neville was of Clavering, with a lineage back to a Magna Carta surety baron. Percy was of the same family as another surety baron. The brother of this baron faithfully supported the cause of the barons. Maud thinks that this was equal to the descent of Neville from Clavering. Maud never heard that Neville supported the barons in their quest for justice from King John. Maud thinks, because of this argument, Percy felt that Neville was disrespectful. Maud had to not be part of the argument. Maud, as a proper wife, deferred to the husband. Maud had to explain to Percy that Neville thought of Clavering as of Neville. Percy had no reply.

[j***@gmail.com]

NEVILLE DESCENTS, PART 3: OVERVIEW

TENTH GENERATION

1. John, 3rd Baron Neville of Raby (1329-1388), m. Maud, daughter of Henry, 2nd Baron Percy -- parents of #2 and #3.

ELEVENTH GENERATION

2. Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland (c. 1364-1425), son of #1; m. (1) Margaret, daughter of Hugh, 2nd Baron Stafford by Philippa, daughter of Thomas Beauchamp, 11th Earl of Warwick; m. (2) Joan, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and son of King Edward III.

Westmorland, by his first wife, was father of #4; by his second wife he was father of #5 and #6.

Elinor, daughter of Westmorland by first wife Margaret, married Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland. Their sons Henry (3rd Earl of Northumberland) were both ancestor of John West, Governor of Virginia, who was ancestor of Jonathan White at the 12th generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage. Son Henry's granddaughter Elinor was the mother of Mary Stafford, wife of George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny (#18). Son Henry's granddaughter Anne was an ancestor of Timothy Hatherly, an early magistrate of Plymouth Colony and an ancestor of the Sutton family of New Jersey.

Philippe, daughter of Westmorland by first wife Margaret, married Thomas, 6th Baron Dacre. They were ancestors of John Peckham, early immigrant to Rhode Island. They were also the grandparents of Thomas, Baron Dacre, whose daughter Mary married Francis Talbot, 5th Earl of Shrewsbury, descended from Philippe's sister Anne immediately below and from Richard, son of Latymer, at #8 below.

Anne, daughter of Westmorland by second wife Joan, married Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham. Their daughter Catherine married John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury, with a descent to Grace, daughter of George Talbot, 6th Earl of Shrewsbury who married Henry Cavendish, with a descent through a bastard great-grandson who went to Virginia, descending to Sarah (not Mary), wife of Richard Buckelew, ancestors of William Young at the 12th generation of my Cecil/Davis lineage.

3. John, 6th Baron Latymer, son of Neville (#1) and father of Richard (#8).

TWELFTH GENERATION

4. John (d. 1420), son of Westmorland (#2) by first wife Margaret; father of #9.

5. Richard, 5th Earl of Salisbury (1401-1460), son of Westmorland (#2) by second wife Joan. He had two bastard daughters: One married the bastard son of Warwick (#20), and the other became the ancestor of Anthony Denny, member of the Regency Council for King Edward VI, and ancestor of Jane Roberts (at the 13th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage).

6. George, 1st Baron Latymer (d. 1476), son of Westmorland (#2) by second wife Joan; m. Elizabeth, younger daughter of Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick -- parents of Henry (#11).

7. Edward, Baron Bergavenny (d. 1476), son of Westmorland (#2) by second wife Joan. By his first wife Elizabeth, daughter of Richard of Beauchamp, Earl of Worcester, Bergavenny was father of #12.

Bergavenny's daughter Margaret, by his second wife Katherine, daughter of Robert Howard, married John Brooke, 7th Baron Cobham -- ancestors of Francis Wyatt, Governor of Virginia, who is an ancestor of Elizabeth (Tavenor) Mathews, mentioned at #26 below.

8. Richard, son of John, Baron Latymer (#3) and father of Warwick (#13) and Montacute (#14) by Alice, daughter and heir of Richard Montague (4th Earl of Salisbury) and the wife of Richard's cousin Richard, 5th Earl of Salisbury (#5 above).

Their daughter Catherine married (1) William Bonneville -- grandson of William, Lord Bonneville -- by whom she had a single daughter Cecily, who became the wife of Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset and mother of three of his children. Catherine married (2) William, 1st Baron Hastings. Their daughter Anne became the wife of George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury, and thus part of the lineage descending through Cavendish to Buckelew mentioned at #2 above.

Their daughter Joan married William FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel, with a lineage through Lumley to Plymouth Magistrate Timothy Hatherly (mentioned at #2 above).

THIRTEENTH GENERATION

9. Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland (1406-1484), son of #4 and father of Lewis Woodville (#15).

10. John (b. 1410), son of John #4 and heir of his uncle Westmorland (#9); married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas of Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent -- parents of Westmorland (#16).

11. Henry (1437-1469), son of Latymer (#6), m. Joan, daughter of John Bourchier, 1st Baron Berners -- parents of Latymer (#17).

12. George, 4th Baron Bergavenny (1440-1492), son of #7; m. Margaret, daughter and heir of Fenne -- parents of #18.

13. Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (1428-1471), son of #8 by Alice, wife of #5; m. Anne, daughter and co-heir of Richard of Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick.

Their daughter Anne married Edward, Prince of Wales, whose son Edward married the daughter of Warwick's bastard son (see #20 below).

Their daughter Isabel married George, Duke of Clarence -- ancestors of the wife of Richard Stafford (#33 below), as well as being the parents of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury (see #22 below).


14. John, Marquis of Montacute (son of #8 by Alice, wife of #5). His great-granddaughter Lucy married John, 4th Baron Latymer (#28 below).

FOURTEENTH GENERATION

15. Lewis Woodville, bastard of Westmorland (#9).

Lewis's daughter Margaret was the mistress of Thomas Grey, 1st Marquis of Dorset, and mother of most of his children, including (1) Dorothy, wife of Robert, 2nd Baron Willoughby (ancestors of Jane Courtenay, wife of John Cecil/Davis in the 5th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage); (2) Elizabeth, wife of Gerald FitzGerald, 9th Earl of Kildare, ancestors of the mother of Theodosius Moore (mentioned at #24 below); (3) Thomas Grey, 2nd Marquis of Dorset, whose son Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk had a bastard son who was the grandfather of Theophilus Cornish, ancestor of Jane Roberts, at the 13th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage; and whose daughter Catherine married Henry FitzAlan, 12th Earl of Arundel, ancestors of Plymouth Magistrate Timothy Hatherly (mentioned at #2 above).

16. Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmorland (d. 1498), son of John (#10); m. Isabel Booth -- parents of Ralph (#21). Westmorland was also the father of #22.
17. Richard, 2nd Baron Latymer (1468-1530), son of Henry (#11); m. Anne, daughter of Humphrey Stafford -- parents of Latymer (#23).
18. George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny (1469-1535), son of #12. By his third wife Mary, daughter of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham (a descendant of #2 above), he had, in addition to son John (#24 below), daughter Ursula, wife of Warham St. Leger, descending through Digges to Esther Herndon, wife of Benjamin Davis (8th generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage).
By his fourth wife Mary Brooke, Bergavenny had a posthumous daughter Mary, whose husband Edward (son of Edward, son of George, Duke of Clarence by Isabelle, daughter of Warwick -- #13 above) pretended to be a bastard of his deceased father-in-law. Edward and Mary had a daughter who married Richard Stafford (#33), son of Henry, 2nd Baron Stafford (#27 below).


19. Edward Nevill, brother of George, 5th Baron Bergavenny (and son of #12), and father of Henry Nevill (#25).

20. Ralph, bastard son of Warwick (#13), married a bastard daughter of Salisbury (#5); their daughter married Edward of Middleham, son of Edward, Prince of Wales by Anne, daughter of Warwick (#13). This lineage descends to Mary, daughter of Henry Soane and "wife" of John Davis (at the seventh generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage).

FIFTEENTH GENERATION

21. Ralph (d. 1498), son of Westmorland (#16); m. Edith Sandys -- parents of Westmorland (#26) and Stafford (#27).

22. Ralph, bastard son of Westmorland (#16), had a daughter who was the mother of Charles (#32), bastard son of the 4th Earl of Westmorland (#26). He was also the father of all the children of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, whose maternal grandfather was Warwick (13) and whose paternal grandmother was a daughter of Westmorland (#2).

23. John, 3rd Baron Latymer (1493-1543), son of (#17); m. (1) Dorothy, daughter of George Vere, son of the 12th Earl of Oxford -- parents of Latymer (#28).

24. John, second son of Bergavenny (#18). His legitimate daughter Evelyn (by a wife who was not of his station) married Augustine More (supposed by genealogists to have died as a child), whose father Augustine More was a grandson of Thomas More, Chancellor of King Henry VIII. Augustine More and wife Evelyn had a son Thomas, whose son Theodosius Moore immigrated to Massachusetts around 1690.

25. Henry Nevill (1520-1593), son of Edward Nevill (#19) and father of Francis Nevill (#29).

SIXTEENTH GENERATION

26. Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland (1498-1549), m. Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham -- parents of #30.
[Their daughter Margaret married Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland, by whom she had Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland, whose daughter Elizabeth married William Cecil, Earl of Exeter (3rd generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage). Margaret had two children by King Edward VI: (1) John Manners, 4th Earl of Rutland, whose bastard son had a daughter Mary Smith who married John Herndon (ancestor of Esther Herndon, wife of Benjamin Davis in the 8th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage), and whose bastard daughter Ursula had, by John West, Governor of Virginia, a bastard son James, whose son Henry was the maternal grandfather of Elizabeth Tavenor, wife of John Mathews, son of Samuel Mathews, Governor of Virginia. (2) Elizabeth, wife of William Courtenay, de jure 3rd Earl of Devon, by whom (according to the ancestors) she had three children in my family tree, including Jane, “second wife” of William Cecil (in the 4th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage). Jane’s brother William was the ancestor of Mary Smith, wife of John Holloway, great-grandson of Elizabeth (Tavenor) Mathews immediately above. Jane’s sister Margaret, by husband Henry, Prince of Wales (son and heir of King James VI) had a son Charles, whose bastard daughter Margaret was the mother of Mary Hastings, mother of Abraham White III, descended in the male line from Gov. John West of Virginia, and grandfather of Jonathan White (in the 11th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage). Jane’s sister Margaret also had a bastard son Abraham Smith, who was (according to the ancestors) the actual father of George Archer, who was grandfather of Judith (Archer) Booker, mother of Judith Booker, wife of James Holloway, son of John Holloway and his wife Mary Smith (see immediately above). Their daughter Ashby (Holloway) Durham descends (according to the ancestors) from King Henry VIII through all four of her grandparents.]

27. Henry, 1st Baron Stafford (brother of 4th Earl of Westmorland, and son of #21), father of Richard Stafford (#33).

28. John, 4th Baron Latymer (1520-1577), husband of Lucy, daughter of Henry Somerset, Earl of Worcester, by Elizabeth, daughter of Browne by Lucy, daughter of John, Marquis of Montacute (#14).
Their daughter Dorothy married Thomas Cecil, Baron Burghley (2nd generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage).
Their daughter Margaret married Henry Percy, 8th Earl of Northumberland and had son Jocelyn who had a daughter by a daughter of William Pelham by Elinor, daughter of Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland (#30 below). Jocelyn Percy was the father of Anne, wife of John West, Governor of Virginia (descended from King Henry VIII), male-line ancestor (according to the ancestors) of Jonathan White, husband of Katie Maide/Meade in the 11th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage.
Their daughter Elizabeth married (2) Edmund Carey and had a single daughter with a descent to me that has not been told yet.

29. Francis Nevill, son of Henry (#25) and father of John (#34).

SEVENTEENTH GENERATION

30. Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland, m. Anne, daughter of Thomas Manners, 1st Earl of Rutland. Their daughter Elinor had a daughter by William Pelham who was the mother of Jocelyn Percy, mentioned at #28 above).

Westmorland’s bastard daughter Margaret married King Edward VI. Their daughter Elizabeth, by her first husband Archibald, bastard of Alexander Napier, 6th of Merchistoun, had a son Benjamin Napier who was the ancestor of Anne Brayne, wife of Governor Alexander Spotswood. Benjamin Napier also has a descent to Jane MacNamara, wife of Joseph Wallace – 23rd generation in my Wallace lineage #2 at https://groups.google.com/forum/embed/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/1pupplUCvcI%5B76-100%5D


31. Cuthbert Neville, son of Westmorland (#26), in the Northern Rebellion in 1569; had a daughter in my family tree, with a descendant who intermarried with Neville.

[(Oct. 20, 2019) "The daughter of Cuthbert was named Elizabeth. Elizabeth wanted to be a legitimate daughter. Elizabeth had to accept that Elizabeth would be a mistress. Elizabeth hoped. A son was not a good man. The son had a daughter. Elizabeth understands, the daughter is an ancestor of John."
"The daughter of the son of Elizabeth had a husband. The man was not able to prosper. He decided to go to a new land. He brought Elizabeth and did not have a bad life. It was hard, but everyone had to endure. The new land was Connecticut. Elizabeth thinks that John might be able to find."] (The descent here is to the parents of Susanna Smith, wife of Thomas Standish of Connecticut, son of Myles Standish of Plymouth Colony.)

32. Charles, bastard of Westmorland (#26); he was the second husband of Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI by wife Margaret, bastard of Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland (#29 immediately above).

Charles and Elizabeth’s daughter Elizabeth married John Herndon, whose descendant Esther Herndon married Benjamin Davis, of the 8th generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage.

33. Richard Stafford, son of Henry, 1st Baron Stafford by Ursula Pole, daughter of #22, married a daughter of Edward (descended from Warwick #13) by Mary, posthumous daughter of George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny (#18). They were parents of Roger Stafford (#37).

34. John, son of Francis Nevill and father of John Nevill, immigrant to Maryland (#38).

EIGHTEENTH GENERATION

35. Neville, bastard of Henry, 5th Earl of Westmorland, married Christian, daughter of King Henry VIII by Anne, daughter of Basset and step-daughter of Plantagenet. Their daughter Anne married Richard Wright, grandson of Queen Elizabeth; their daughter Anne Wright married Thomas Burnham, immigrant to Connecticut. See the "Burnham of Connecticut" thread at https://groups.google.com/forum/embed/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/k9sRfvPTMBU

36. Charles, son of Charles (#32) and Elizabeth (daughter of King Edward VI by his wife Margaret, bastard daughter of #29). His legitimate daughter had a granddaughter who married John Cecil/Davis – 5th generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage.

37. Roger Stafford (1572-1640), son of Richard Stafford (#33) and father of Thomas Stafford (#39).

38. John Nevill, immigrant to Maryland, son of John (#34) and father of John Nevill (#40) and William Nevill (#41).

His youngest daughter Rachel married Michael Ashford and had a daughter Johanna who, by her second husband Thomas Gash, had a son Michael who married Elizabeth "Preston," granddaughter of John's son William Nevill (#41).

NINETEENTH GENERATION

39. Thomas Stafford (1605-1677), immigrant to Rhode Island. His daughter Deborah married Amos Westcott and had daughters Penelope (married James Baker -- ancestors of Margaret, wife of Robert Jellison of Westmorland Co., Pennsylvania) and Rosanna, ancestor of (Mary) Elizabeth, wife of William Hoagland, "Governor" of a squatter colony in Ohio territory before the land was opened up for settlement.

40. John Nevill (d. 1674), son of John Nevill (#38); of Calvert Co., Maryland, father of Gervase who moved to Virginia, father of Christopher, father of George (1734-1811) who moved from Virginia to Tennessee, father of Josiah Nevils (1794-1854), father of Jethro, father of Benton Nevils, Union soldier in the Civil War.

41. William Nevill, son of John Nevill (#38); had a bastard son William who was the father of Elizabeth “Preston” (the surname of her step-father), wife of Michael Gash, descended from John Nevill (#38).

[Genmedieval]

Post by j***@gmail.com
NEVILLE DESCENTS, PART 3: OVERVIEW
TENTH GENERATION
1. John, 3rd Baron Neville of Raby (1329-1388), m. Maud, daughter of Henry, 2nd Baron Percy -- parents of #2 and #3.
ELEVENTH GENERATION
2. Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland (c. 1364-1425), son of #1; m. (1) Margaret, daughter of Hugh, 2nd Baron Stafford by Philippa, daughter of Thomas Beauchamp, 11th Earl of Warwick; m. (2) Joan, daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and son of King Edward III.
Westmorland, by his first wife, was father of #4; by his second wife he was father of #5 and #6.
Elinor, daughter of Westmorland by first wife Margaret, married Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland. Their sons Henry (3rd Earl of Northumberland) were both ancestor of John West, Governor of Virginia, who was ancestor of Jonathan White at the 12th generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage. Son Henry's granddaughter Elinor was the mother of Mary Stafford, wife of George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny (#18). Son Henry's granddaughter Anne was an ancestor of Timothy Hatherly, an early magistrate of Plymouth Colony and an ancestor of the Sutton family of New Jersey.
Philippe, daughter of Westmorland by first wife Margaret, married Thomas, 6th Baron Dacre. They were ancestors of John Peckham, early immigrant to Rhode Island. They were also the grandparents of Thomas, Baron Dacre, whose daughter Mary married Francis Talbot, 5th Earl of Shrewsbury, descended from Philippe's sister Anne immediately below and from Richard, son of Latymer, at #8 below.
Anne, daughter of Westmorland by second wife Joan, married Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham. Their daughter Catherine married John Talbot, 3rd Earl of Shrewsbury, with a descent to Grace, daughter of George Talbot, 6th Earl of Shrewsbury who married Henry Cavendish, with a descent through a bastard great-grandson who went to Virginia, descending to Sarah (not Mary), wife of Richard Buckelew, ancestors of William Young at the 12th generation of my Cecil/Davis lineage.
3. John, 6th Baron Latymer, son of Neville (#1) and father of Richard (#8).
TWELFTH GENERATION
4. John (d. 1420), son of Westmorland (#2) by first wife Margaret; father of #9.
5. Richard, 5th Earl of Salisbury (1401-1460), son of Westmorland (#2) by second wife Joan. He had two bastard daughters: One married the bastard son of Warwick (#20), and the other became the ancestor of Anthony Denny, member of the Regency Council for King Edward VI, and ancestor of Jane Roberts (at the 13th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage).
6. George, 1st Baron Latymer (d. 1476), son of Westmorland (#2) by second wife Joan; m. Elizabeth, younger daughter of Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick -- parents of Henry (#11).
7. Edward, Baron Bergavenny (d. 1476), son of Westmorland (#2) by second wife Joan. By his first wife Elizabeth, daughter of Richard of Beauchamp, Earl of Worcester, Bergavenny was father of #12.
Bergavenny's daughter Margaret, by his second wife Katherine, daughter of Robert Howard, married John Brooke, 7th Baron Cobham -- ancestors of Francis Wyatt, Governor of Virginia, who is an ancestor of Elizabeth (Tavenor) Mathews, mentioned at #26 below.
8. Richard, son of John, Baron Latymer (#3) and father of Warwick (#13) and Montacute (#14) by Alice, daughter and heir of Richard Montague (4th Earl of Salisbury) and the wife of Richard's cousin Richard, 5th Earl of Salisbury (#5 above).
Their daughter Catherine married (1) William Bonneville -- grandson of William, Lord Bonneville -- by whom she had a single daughter Cecily, who became the wife of Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset and mother of three of his children. Catherine married (2) William, 1st Baron Hastings. Their daughter Anne became the wife of George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury, and thus part of the lineage descending through Cavendish to Buckelew mentioned at #2 above.
Their daughter Joan married William FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel, with a lineage through Lumley to Plymouth Magistrate Timothy Hatherly (mentioned at #2 above).
THIRTEENTH GENERATION
9. Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland (1406-1484), son of #4 and father of Lewis Woodville (#15).
10. John (b. 1410), son of John #4 and heir of his uncle Westmorland (#9); married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas of Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent -- parents of Westmorland (#16).
11. Henry (1437-1469), son of Latymer (#6), m. Joan, daughter of John Bourchier, 1st Baron Berners -- parents of Latymer (#17).
12. George, 4th Baron Bergavenny (1440-1492), son of #7; m. Margaret, daughter and heir of Fenne -- parents of #18.
13. Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick (1428-1471), son of #8 by Alice, wife of #5; m. Anne, daughter and co-heir of Richard of Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick.
Their daughter Anne married Edward, Prince of Wales, whose son Edward married the daughter of Warwick's bastard son (see #20 below).
Their daughter Isabel married George, Duke of Clarence -- ancestors of the wife of Richard Stafford (#33 below), as well as being the parents of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury (see #22 below).
14. John, Marquis of Montacute (son of #8 by Alice, wife of #5). His great-granddaughter Lucy married John, 4th Baron Latymer (#28 below).
FOURTEENTH GENERATION
15. Lewis Woodville, bastard of Westmorland (#9).
Lewis's daughter Margaret was the mistress of Thomas Grey, 1st Marquis of Dorset, and mother of most of his children, including (1) Dorothy, wife of Robert, 2nd Baron Willoughby (ancestors of Jane Courtenay, wife of John Cecil/Davis in the 5th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage); (2) Elizabeth, wife of Gerald FitzGerald, 9th Earl of Kildare, ancestors of the mother of Theodosius Moore (mentioned at #24 below); (3) Thomas Grey, 2nd Marquis of Dorset, whose son Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk had a bastard son who was the grandfather of Theophilus Cornish, ancestor of Jane Roberts, at the 13th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage; and whose daughter Catherine married Henry FitzAlan, 12th Earl of Arundel, ancestors of Plymouth Magistrate Timothy Hatherly (mentioned at #2 above).
16. Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmorland (d. 1498), son of John (#10); m. Isabel Booth -- parents of Ralph (#21). Westmorland was also the father of #22.
17. Richard, 2nd Baron Latymer (1468-1530), son of Henry (#11); m. Anne, daughter of Humphrey Stafford -- parents of Latymer (#23).
18. George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny (1469-1535), son of #12. By his third wife Mary, daughter of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham (a descendant of #2 above), he had, in addition to son John (#24 below), daughter Ursula, wife of Warham St. Leger, descending through Digges to Esther Herndon, wife of Benjamin Davis (8th generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage).
By his fourth wife Mary Brooke, Bergavenny had a posthumous daughter Mary, whose husband Edward (son of Edward, son of George, Duke of Clarence by Isabelle, daughter of Warwick -- #13 above) pretended to be a bastard of his deceased father-in-law. Edward and Mary had a daughter who married Richard Stafford (#33), son of Henry, 2nd Baron Stafford (#27 below).
19. Edward Nevill, brother of George, 5th Baron Bergavenny (and son of #12), and father of Henry Nevill (#25).
20. Ralph, bastard son of Warwick (#13), married a bastard daughter of Salisbury (#5); their daughter married Edward of Middleham, son of Edward, Prince of Wales by Anne, daughter of Warwick (#13). This lineage descends to Mary, daughter of Henry Soane and "wife" of John Davis (at the seventh generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage).
FIFTEENTH GENERATION
21. Ralph (d. 1498), son of Westmorland (#16); m. Edith Sandys -- parents of Westmorland (#26) and Stafford (#27).
22. Ralph, bastard son of Westmorland (#16), had a daughter who was the mother of Charles (#32), bastard son of the 4th Earl of Westmorland (#26). He was also the father of all the children of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, whose maternal grandfather was Warwick (13) and whose paternal grandmother was a daughter of Westmorland (#2).
23. John, 3rd Baron Latymer (1493-1543), son of (#17); m. (1) Dorothy, daughter of George Vere, son of the 12th Earl of Oxford -- parents of Latymer (#28).
24. John, second son of Bergavenny (#18). His legitimate daughter Evelyn (by a wife who was not of his station) married Augustine More (supposed by genealogists to have died as a child), whose father Augustine More was a grandson of Thomas More, Chancellor of King Henry VIII. Augustine More and wife Evelyn had a son Thomas, whose son Theodosius Moore immigrated to Massachusetts around 1690.
25. Henry Nevill (1520-1593), son of Edward Nevill (#19) and father of Francis Nevill (#29).
SIXTEENTH GENERATION
26. Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland (1498-1549), m. Elizabeth, daughter of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham -- parents of #30.
[Their daughter Margaret married Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland, by whom she had Edward Manners, 3rd Earl of Rutland, whose daughter Elizabeth married William Cecil, Earl of Exeter (3rd generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage). Margaret had two children by King Edward VI: (1) John Manners, 4th Earl of Rutland, whose bastard son had a daughter Mary Smith who married John Herndon (ancestor of Esther Herndon, wife of Benjamin Davis in the 8th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage), and whose bastard daughter Ursula had, by John West, Governor of Virginia, a bastard son James, whose son Henry was the maternal grandfather of Elizabeth Tavenor, wife of John Mathews, son of Samuel Mathews, Governor of Virginia. (2) Elizabeth, wife of William Courtenay, de jure 3rd Earl of Devon, by whom (according to the ancestors) she had three children in my family tree, including Jane, “second wife” of William Cecil (in the 4th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage). Jane’s brother William was the ancestor of Mary Smith, wife of John Holloway, great-grandson of Elizabeth (Tavenor) Mathews immediately above. Jane’s sister Margaret, by husband Henry, Prince of Wales (son and heir of King James VI) had a son Charles, whose bastard daughter Margaret was the mother of Mary Hastings, mother of Abraham White III, descended in the male line from Gov. John West of Virginia, and grandfather of Jonathan White (in the 11th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage). Jane’s sister Margaret also had a bastard son Abraham Smith, who was (according to the ancestors) the actual father of George Archer, who was grandfather of Judith (Archer) Booker, mother of Judith Booker, wife of James Holloway, son of John Holloway and his wife Mary Smith (see immediately above). Their daughter Ashby (Holloway) Durham descends (according to the ancestors) from King Henry VIII through all four of her grandparents.]
27. Henry, 1st Baron Stafford (brother of 4th Earl of Westmorland, and son of #21), father of Richard Stafford (#33).
28. John, 4th Baron Latymer (1520-1577), husband of Lucy, daughter of Henry Somerset, Earl of Worcester, by Elizabeth, daughter of Browne by Lucy, daughter of John, Marquis of Montacute (#14).
Their daughter Dorothy married Thomas Cecil, Baron Burghley (2nd generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage).
Their daughter Margaret married Henry Percy, 8th Earl of Northumberland and had son Jocelyn who had a daughter by a daughter of William Pelham by Elinor, daughter of Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland (#30 below). Jocelyn Percy was the father of Anne, wife of John West, Governor of Virginia (descended from King Henry VIII), male-line ancestor (according to the ancestors) of Jonathan White, husband of Katie Maide/Meade in the 11th generation of the Cecil/Davis lineage.
Their daughter Elizabeth married (2) Edmund Carey and had a single daughter with a descent to me that has not been told yet.
29. Francis Nevill, son of Henry (#25) and father of John (#34).
SEVENTEENTH GENERATION
30. Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland, m. Anne, daughter of Thomas Manners, 1st Earl of Rutland. Their daughter Elinor had a daughter by William Pelham who was the mother of Jocelyn Percy, mentioned at #28 above).
Westmorland’s bastard daughter Margaret married King Edward VI. Their daughter Elizabeth, by her first husband Archibald, bastard of Alexander Napier, 6th of Merchistoun, had a son Benjamin Napier who was the ancestor of Anne Brayne, wife of Governor Alexander Spotswood. Benjamin Napier also has a descent to Jane MacNamara, wife of Joseph Wallace – 23rd generation in my Wallace lineage #2 at https://groups.google.com/forum/embed/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/1pupplUCvcI%5B76-100%5D
31. Cuthbert Neville, son of Westmorland (#26), in the Northern Rebellion in 1569; had a daughter in my family tree, with a descendant who intermarried with Neville.
[(Oct. 20, 2019) "The daughter of Cuthbert was named Elizabeth. Elizabeth wanted to be a legitimate daughter. Elizabeth had to accept that Elizabeth would be a mistress. Elizabeth hoped. A son was not a good man. The son had a daughter. Elizabeth understands, the daughter is an ancestor of John."
"The daughter of the son of Elizabeth had a husband. The man was not able to prosper. He decided to go to a new land. He brought Elizabeth and did not have a bad life. It was hard, but everyone had to endure. The new land was Connecticut. Elizabeth thinks that John might be able to find."] (The descent here is to the parents of Susanna Smith, wife of Thomas Standish of Connecticut, son of Myles Standish of Plymouth Colony.)
32. Charles, bastard of Westmorland (#26); he was the second husband of Elizabeth, daughter of King Edward VI by wife Margaret, bastard of Henry Neville, 5th Earl of Westmorland (#29 immediately above).
Charles and Elizabeth’s daughter Elizabeth married John Herndon, whose descendant Esther Herndon married Benjamin Davis, of the 8th generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage.
33. Richard Stafford, son of Henry, 1st Baron Stafford by Ursula Pole, daughter of #22, married a daughter of Edward (descended from Warwick #13) by Mary, posthumous daughter of George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny (#18). They were parents of Roger Stafford (#37).
34. John, son of Francis Nevill and father of John Nevill, immigrant to Maryland (#38).
EIGHTEENTH GENERATION
35. Neville, bastard of Henry, 5th Earl of Westmorland, married Christian, daughter of King Henry VIII by Anne, daughter of Basset and step-daughter of Plantagenet. Their daughter Anne married Richard Wright, grandson of Queen Elizabeth; their daughter Anne Wright married Thomas Burnham, immigrant to Connecticut. See the "Burnham of Connecticut" thread at https://groups.google.com/forum/embed/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/k9sRfvPTMBU
36. Charles, son of Charles (#32) and Elizabeth (daughter of King Edward VI by his wife Margaret, bastard daughter of #29). His legitimate daughter had a granddaughter who married John Cecil/Davis – 5th generation in the Cecil/Davis lineage.
37. Roger Stafford (1572-1640), son of Richard Stafford (#33) and father of Thomas Stafford (#39).
38. John Nevill, immigrant to Maryland, son of John (#34) and father of John Nevill (#40) and William Nevill (#41).
His youngest daughter Rachel married Michael Ashford and had a daughter Johanna who, by her second husband Thomas Gash, had a son Michael who married Elizabeth "Preston," granddaughter of John's son William Nevill (#41).
NINETEENTH GENERATION
39. Thomas Stafford (1605-1677), immigrant to Rhode Island. His daughter Deborah married Amos Westcott and had daughters Penelope (married James Baker -- ancestors of Margaret, wife of Robert Jellison of Westmorland Co., Pennsylvania) and Rosanna, ancestor of (Mary) Elizabeth, wife of William Hoagland, "Governor" of a squatter colony in Ohio territory before the land was opened up for settlement.
40. John Nevill (d. 1674), son of John Nevill (#38); of Calvert Co., Maryland, father of Gervase who moved to Virginia, father of Christopher, father of George (1734-1811) who moved from Virginia to Tennessee, father of Josiah Nevils (1794-1854), father of Jethro, father of Benton Nevils, Union soldier in the Civil War.
41. William Nevill, son of John Nevill (#38); had a bastard son William who was the father of Elizabeth “Preston” (the surname of her step-father), wife of Michael Gash, descended from John Nevill (#38).

And of course, John Schmeekle is a bastard son of Charles Manson.

[taf]

Post by Genmedieval
And of course, John Schmeekle is a bastard son of Charles Manson.

I won't believe that without a source. Now, had you said that your ancestors told you, that would be a different story. Then I would have to believe you, because otherwise the whole set of inane postings we have been bombarded with based on the same claim would be nothing but nonsense.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Post by taf

Post by Genmedieval
And of course, John Schmeekle is a bastard son of Charles Manson.

I won't believe that without a source. Now, had you said that your ancestors told you, that would be a different story. Then I would have to believe you, because otherwise the whole set of inane postings we have been bombarded with based on the same claim would be nothing but nonsense.

Couldn't the shade of Charles Manson himself be Genmedieval's source? Or
perhaps the mother, assuming she too is deceased? Is there some rule
that only a decendant can speak to an ancestor?

Of course, if Manson's spectre was the source it might have been fibbing
- like other spirits who have mischievously led John Schmeeckle into
blunders.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

Post by Peter Stewart
Couldn't the shade of Charles Manson himself be Genmedieval's source? Or
perhaps the mother, assuming she too is deceased? Is there some rule
that only a decendant can speak to an ancestor?

Our intrepid necromancer has told us that the dead speak to their own dead relatives, allowing information from those not direct ancestors, so there is no reason the information couldn't pass up and down the line, even if it had to go all the way to Noah and back to get to the relator (and of course such discussions would retain perfect accuracy, as we know is the case in all human communication involving that number of intervening steps - maybe it is to preserve the integrity of the messages that they are communicated with the linguistic complexity of a five-year-old).

Post by Peter Stewart
Of course, if Manson's spectre was the source it might have been fibbing
- like other spirits who have mischievously led John Schmeeckle into
blunders.

But he maintains that if the dead are treated with respect they will tell the truth, so all you have to do is express to Manson the great esteem in which one holds murderous psychopathic whack-jobs and he is sure to tell you the truth.

As to blunders, accuracy has to be a priority in order for an incorrect statement to be a blunder. If one simply wants to stroke one's own ego, then the blunder may instead lie in not divorcing oneself entirely from reality and just going for it big-time. I am just waiting, as this all descends down the rabbit hole, to hear of one of his ancestors arising fully formed from the head of Zeus, or being given form when the cow Auðumbla licked them from the hoarfrost, or that they simply arrived from the Yellow World by climbing inside the great Male Reed with Turquoise Boy and Big Water Creature. What you see as blunders I see as lost opportunities for our burgeoning fanticist, who has yet to explore the liberties his chosen medium allows.

taf

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter Stewart
Is there some rule
that only a decendant can speak to an ancestor?

The rule, as I understand it, is that I can communicate with any deceased relative, if the relative, when alive, either (1) communicated with a direct ancestor with whom I have already communicated, or (2) communicated with one of their ancestors who, when alive, communicated with a direct ancestor with whom I have already communicated. For this reason I am able to communicate with (for example) Ralph Cudworth, the Cambridge Platonist and his brother James Cudworth, immigrant to Plymouth Colony.

A slightly more complicated example: As I experience, I can communicate with John Adams (who has a lot to say) because his son John Quincy Adams, while alive, communicated with both his deceased father and the ancestors of his mother, going back to a common ancestor with me.

p.s. The lineages in the "overview" (my previous post) were all of course "according to the ancestors," which many will take for granted but bears stating repeatedly to avoid confusion, especially in the cases where there are departures from established presumptions.

[j***@gmail.com]

FOURTH GENERATION (continued): COURTENAY

Philip of Powderham (1404-1463)

(Oct. 28, 2019) Philip was of a junior branch of Courtenay. Philip, unfortunately, was closely allied with Bonneville. Philip had to confront the Earl without drawing the sword. Philip was unable to avoid the battle. Philip had to draw. The earl was not present. Bonneville raided in retaliation. The gesture was a symbol. Bonneville did not have the heart to bring devastation to tenants in more than one village. Courtenay received word that Philip had entered the field against Courtenay. Philip thinks that Courtenay was shocked. The Earl of Devon could not command the allegiance of the family.

Bonneville gained a reprieve. Philip, as a kinsman of Bonneville, had to stand with Bonneville. Potential enemies of Bonneville were also potential enemies of Powderham. Philip stayed by Bonneville until the war for the crown entered a new chapter. Then, Philip had to make peace with neighbors, abandoning Bonneville for the pledge of not suffering ravishment of the land of Philip. This was a terrible blow to Bonneville, who was unable to endure for long. Philip did not think of fighting for or against York. Philip simply stood with Philip kinsman until the time forced Philip to change. Philip never took the field against Bonneville.

--

Elizabeth (d. 1476), daughter of Hungerford, wife of Philip of Powderham

(Oct. 28, 2019) Elizabeth was the wife of a man who was allied with the father. The marriage cemented the alliance. This was the way. Elizabeth and Philip became husband and wife without ever meeting. Elizabeth, understanding little of men, was appalled at what was expected. A dutiful wife must share her body whenever a husband desired. A proper husband desired only when intending to bring a child to the wife. A dutiful wife did not resist when the husband was not proper. Everyone knew the time when a child was most likely to come. Elizabeth was not resistant when the husband thought of not bringing. Elizabeth did not encourage. A dutiful wife simply accepted. Elizabeth did not give Philip any reason to be displeased. The husband took as the husband willed.

Elizabeth never had to worry about the husband having a mistress. This was the reward that Elizabeth discovered after a sister complained. The mistress appeared after the sister objected to her husband being with her at the time when the coming of a child was unlikely. This was of the way of men. Elizabeth preserved a marriage and gave a good example to three daughters. Courtenay had a reputation for being proper. A mistress was always thought of as improper.

--

William of Powderham (1428-1485), son of Philip and husband of Margaret, daughter of Bonneville

(Nov. 1, 2019) William was the heir of Powderham. Powderham was not close to Devon. Courtenay had split. Powderham allied with Bonneville, before Bonneville and the son of Devon began their feud. Devon thought that Powderham would abandon Bonville. Powderham did not, until very late. Bonneville was already on the path to ruin.

William married the daughter of Bonneville. William acted as the second of the father of William. This meant, the father decided, and William acted as if the will of the father was the will of William. William decided to simply not question. The time for William to make decisions would come. William benefited from observing how the father considered. Sometimes William practiced considering. The father instructed and William learned.

(Nov. 3, 2019) William had no part in the decision of the father of William to no longer support Bonneville on the battlefield. William, as the son, did as the father. William, as the son of Bonneville, had to be present. William had no way to be as a good son. William decided to be absent, and then to be present. This was observed.

Powderham was questioned. William answered. William was as a son to the father. William was as a son to the father of the wife. The answer was not accepted. William had to think of the consequences.

--

William of Powderham (1451-1512), son of William and husband of Cecily, daughter of Cheyne

(Nov. 4, 2019) William was the son and heir. Powderham survived. The King was not hostile. Powderham had chosen because of a marriage. Powderham retired and did not oppose the new King. Powderham was not an important family. Courtenay was important. Powderham was now Courtenay. Powderham had to wait. Another branch of the family was married to a daughter of the King. Powderham expected to have a way to rise, if Powderham was patient.

(Nov. 6, 2019) William did not have any difficulty. The new king looked for a way to excuse people who supported the old king because he was the king. Courtenay was seen in this way. William had the ability to be married to the daughter of a respected family. Cheyne had an ancient lineage without being descended from the King. Courtenay was descended from King Edward I. This was seen as a benefit for Cheyne. Courtenay had no thought.

--

William Courtenay of Powderham (1477-1535), son of William and husband of Margaret, daughter of Edgecumbe

(Nov. 6, 2019) William Courtenay of Powderham was of a junior branch of a family that had a senior branch that was broken. William thought, the Earldom of Devon would come to the junior branch. William imagined that George, the eldest son, would become the earl after the senior branch expired. William, after the death of George, understood that the young grandson would not be recognized, until Courtenay intermarried with a family with more recent royal blood. William, at the end, understood that a regency would not elevate Courtenay. That would have to wait for the King to be an adult. William imagined that this would be understood and a suitable marriage would be possible. William died before anything could be done.

[William Courtenay was an Esquire of the Body of King Henry VIII, and served three times as Sheriff of Devon and once as the Knight of the Shire.]

--

George Courtenay of Powderham (d. 1533), son of William and husband of Catherine, daughter of St. Leger

(Nov. 6, 2019) George Courtenay did not have any thoughts of becoming the Earl. George understood, the earldom would not be granted because there was a need for Devon to be represented by a man of stature. George was the son of a man of stature. George did not marry a woman with royal blood. George was not thinking of being the first of this line to be Earl. George had to become the second Earl. George understood, because the father was unlikely to live long enough, George would not become the Earl. This would have to wait. George understood the need for a son to marry a woman with royal blood. This would help. A family with royal blood could elevate Courtenay and gain an earl for an ally. This was the plan. George died before being able to arrange a good marriage for the son.

--

William Courtenay, (1529-1557, son of George) de jure 2nd Earl of Devon

(June 9, 2019) William Courtenay had to think that Courtenay was fortunate. Courtenay descended from King Edward I. This was not a prominent ancestor. Those who descended from Edward III had a sense of being better. Courtenay had the fortune of being of service to the King. This made Courtenay trustworthy in a way that the better families did not try. Courtenay was pleased to continue as a loyal servant of the King or Queen. Courtenay continued.

(June 11, 2019) Courtenay was the first of the line of Powderham to be Earl. Courtenay was not the correct choice. The Queen decided to elevate. Courtenay was pleased to accept. The Earldom was of the Queen to give or not. Courtenay was of the family of the previous earl.

(June 18, 2019) Courtenay was under a threat. Courtenay had little royal ancestry. This made Courtenay useless to a family that wanted to increase royal connections. Courtenay had to think of marrying a woman who was from a lesser family.

Courtenay had another opportunity. A daughter of Rutland wasn’t the daughter of Rutland. The daughter was of the King. That would give a royal connection that was much closer than that of many other families. Courtenay had to wonder. Would that be an advantage or would it lead to extermination? Courtenay decided to take the chance.

Courtenay wanted the relationship with the King to be understood. That made a problem. Rutland was legitimate. The brother was not. This was not well known. The brother had to be as a legitimate brother. Rutland had no heir.

(June 21, 2019) William hoped, before going to the altar, that a wife with a lineage would be. This was not. Courtenay married a woman with a respectable pedigree. There was no royal lineage, as would be expected from the wife of an earl. William did not have any doubt about the propriety. The earldom was in the mind of the Queen. The earldom was not in fact. Parliament had to accept. Courtenay was not of sufficient station. Parliament was inclined to delay and delay. Courtenay was not heavy with disappointment.

(June 24, 2019) Courtenay had to accept. The earldom would never be recognized. Parliament was intent on preserving. An earl must be of the blood of the King.

(June 29, 2019) William had to think, because of William and the previous Earl, that William had a logical but shaky claim to inherit. William was the logical heir of the previous earl, but William did not have the royal connections that the previous earl had. William was from a distant branch of the family. For an earl to have such a high position, the earl should have more royal blood. A wife of royal blood was provided for the son.

(July 5, 2019) William was approached. King Edward had a bastard. The woman was of an age to marry the son of William. Would William elevate Courtenay in this way? The question was one that William had to consider. Courtenay needed royal blood. The blood of a recent king was always a threat, even if it was illegitimate. Courtenay had to think of how to best protect, if Courtenay was able to elevate in this way. William hoped for recognition. The claim to the earldom was based on inheritance. The Queen was supportive. William had to imagine, there would be little objection. The Lords wanted Devon to be represented. There was currently no other candidate. Devon must have an earl again. William had to be the one. The son was allowed to marry.

(July 15, 2019) William was able to foresee the result of the marriage. The Sight gave a vision: Courtenay would be oppressed. The line would endure, but unable to use the sight, and therefore without the sight after a generation. The lines of the daughters of the son would continue, but only in Virginia. William was aware of Virginia being prepared for a world that would be created after Virginia was destroyed.

--

Elizabeth Paulet (descended from Champernon), wife of William Courtenay (de jure 2nd Earl of Devon)

(July 5, 2019) Elizabeth had the impression of being unaware. There was always something to be done. Elizabeth did. Then Elizabeth thought of why. The sight was in Elizabeth. This was something that the husband had, but not much. Elizabeth had to think, because of this, there was a reason for a son or daughter. William talked of a son who would marry the daughter of King Edward. This was something that Elizabeth thought of as appropriate. Then Elizabeth realized, once again, the thought was of the sight. Elizabeth had no objection.

(Aug. 7, 2019) Elizabeth did not think, as the sight showed. Elizabeth simply obeyed. The sight had a larger purpose. Elizabeth had no thought of disobeying or disregarding. This was of the family. Elizabeth was the wife of a man who had something of the sight. Elizabeth was of the sight in a way that the man did not expect. The man became aware and became inclined to accept.

(Aug. 22, 2019) Elizabeth had a vision. The children would not be famous. There would be a lineage in a land far away. The lineage would result in a man who became an assistant to the government, giving advice and gaining respect as a trusted elder. Elizabeth hoped, because of the vision, that the descendant would find a way to think of Elizabeth. The ancestors who had visions are slowly being communicated with. Elizabeth does not think that the visions were part of a plan. Elizabeth thinks that the sight showed some people what they needed to act as the sight needed. Sometime the sight showed much more. Elizabeth does not understand why.

--

William Courtenay (1553-1630), de jure 3rd Earl of Devon; husband of Elizabeth (Manners) -- their eldest daughter Jane became the "wife" of the much younger William Cecil (1590-1618)

(Aug. 24, 2019) William Courtenay was not the Earl. William had the right to the title. The title depended on the family being of a sort that was accepted by other noble families. The wife of William gave royal blood. But then the dynasty changed. The royal blood of the Tudors, even in a bastard line, was a taint. Stuart was not secure, and Stuart wanted no memory of Tudor. William had to accept that the earldom would not be recreated until there was a change. This meant, perhaps a son or grandson would be awarded the Earldom of Devon. William thought, Courtenay could act as an informal leader in Devon. This was not hard. The name Courtenay was one of respect. William knew that eventually Courtenay would be understood to be the Earl. This meant, William and his son could benefit from cultivating a reputation. This is what William dedicated the life to. Courtenay was well received by other families. Courtenay was free from public scandal. The son understood the need. The earldom depended on the perception of correct behavior. Courtenay could not indulge.

(Sept. 17, 2019) William was of a mind. There was a need in Devon. People were not able to think properly of the authority of the Earl. There was no formal recognition. William had to act as if William would become formally recognized. This became a known pretense, without any thought that it would become real. William was jocular about the situation. When the earldom was bestowed became a saying that William used to create a mood. There was always the thought that, perhaps, this might actually happen.


(Sept 23, 2019) There were very many who wanted to be with Courtenay as Courtenay became the Earl. There were very few who cultivated. Courtenay was aware that family alliances were not available, until Stuart became another dynasty. Courtenay had to think, after Charles and not the infant son of Henry became king, that the realm needed to be preserved from civil war. Charles, after Courtenay passed, was inept. Courtenay had to think, as a son and grandson chose, that allegiance to the sovereign, as the only requirement, made it possible for Courtenay to endure. Courtenay became Earl of Devon after Stuart regained the throne. This was a surprise to William, but in passing, William was absolutely certain that Stewart would never let Courtenay rise.

[NOTE Sept. 23: After William Courtenay finished his story, I looked up the Earls of Devon, and found that William was mistaken about what happened after he died. In 1644 William's grandson, also named William Courtenay, was created a baronet (and at a 1688 reception for William of Orange was given respect due to an earl, as William {de jure 3rd Earl} now understands to be the source of his mistaken understanding). In 1762 the great-grandson of this later William, also named William Courtenay, was created Viscount Courtenay of Powderham Castle. Viscount Courtenay's grandson, another William Courtenay, was formally recognized as the Earl of Devon. The family still exists.]

--

Elizabeth (Manners), daughter of King Edward VI by Margaret (daughter of Westmorland and wife of Rutland), and wife of William Courtenay, de jure 3rd Earl of Devon

(June 11, 2019) Elizabeth was the daughter of the Earl of Rutland. Then, Elizabeth was not. Elizabeth was the daughter of the King. This made Elizabeth bewildered. Elizabeth had no further information. This was all that Elizabeth received.

(June 18, 2019) Elizabeth hoped. The voice of Elizabeth father was not the voice of the father of Elizabeth brother. Elizabeth second brother had the same father as Elizabeth. There was one more. Elizabeth understood that Elizabeth mother was the aunt of the wife of Elizabeth father. There was a daughter. Elizabeth had a sister Elizabeth.

[NOTE: Elizabeth and her brother, the future 4th Earl of Rutland, were the children of King Edward VI by Margaret Neville, wife of the 2nd Earl of Rutland. Elizabeth’s elder half-brother, the 3rd Earl of Rutland, was the son of the 2nd Earl by his wife Margaret Neville. King Edward VI also had a daughter Elizabeth by his wife Margaret (bastard daughter of the 5th Earl of Westmorland), who was a niece of Margaret Neville, wife of the 2nd Earl of Rutland.]

(June 24, 2019) Elizabeth had to hope. The family was out of order. There were bastards. There was adultery. The command of a King did not take away. The family had to hide. Elizabeth had to pretend. Elizabeth was the daughter of Rutland. There was no discussion. Nobody was allowed to say otherwise. People who inquired were not given a respectful answer.

(July 5, 2019) Elizabeth hoped. There would be a delay. People wanted Elizabeth to marry. Elizabeth had to ask, who was the husband. The name Courtenay did not inspire. Elizabeth understood, Courtenay was heir to an earldom. Elizabeth, with her blood, would make Courtenay more appropriate. This was something that Elizabeth didn’t expect. The daughter of a king should be able to marry someone of high station. Elizabeth was the daughter of the King by woman who was the wife of another man. This was known. For Elizabeth to insist on a high-born husband was to invite attacks. This made Elizabeth pause.

(Aug. 11, 2019) Elizabeth accepted. Courtenay would be an appropriate husband. Courtenay would benefit and so would Elizabeth. The family would continue. The sight chose and Elizabeth and the husband accepted.

(Sept. 17, 2019) Elizabeth had a good life. The family was not disrespected. The earldom was never bestowed. The family was always seen as waiting for a just appointment. Elizabeth had to think, when thinking of a husband for daughters, that Courtenay was destined to rise. Elizabeth was able to participate in the selection of the husband of three daughters. Each married into a good family with standing at court. This was because of the blood of the King. Each family understood that Courtenay brought royal blood. Elizabeth hoped that people would not think of this. Elizabeth hoped that the families of the daughters would forget. The lineage of King Henry VIII had to not be thought of. Elizabeth trained the daughters to not speak of this, beyond what was necessary to impress the parents of a husband. This was all.

[j***@gmail.com]

FOURTH GENERATION (continued): VALLETORT / CHAMBERNON / STONEHOUSE / BIGBERY / CHAMPERNOUN (again) / WILLOUGHBY / PAULET / COURTENAY

Eglina, daughter of Hugh of Valletort and wife of Oliver of Chambernon

(Oct. 5, 2019) Eglina understood that Valletort was used to bring the sight to Chambernon. Eglina had three sons. Two did not have the sight as Eglina did. The third was dominated by the sight. The lineage of this son had to be hidden. Eglina understood that Chambernon was never going to be a respectable family. Chambernon would endure, and the sight would use the three branches of the family to preserve a lineage that was dominated by the sight. Eglina supposes that the man who is recording is descended from this branch of Chambernon, six or seven times. Eglina, after being asked to speak by Valletort, had to think that the story of Valletort should be told as well.

--

Oliver of Chambernon, husband of Eglina

(June 20, 2019) Oliver of Chambernon had a mission. The wife had a vision. Oliver had to obey. The father of the wife had the ability that would appear in the son of Oliver. The wife explained the vision. A man in the future, without the ability but with a related ability, would have an effect. This effect was of the nature of a gift. The gift was for the world. The man would heal. The country of the man would need. Oliver saw, and did not understand.

(later) Oliver was of Chambernon. Oliver married. The wife was of a family with the sight. Chambernon had the sight. Oliver had the sight. The wife was able to think of marrying a man who would understand.

Oliver did not understand. The wife had something else. Valletort gave, in addition to the sight, an ability. Valletort had the ability to see into the future. Valletort had this, independent of the sight. Oliver had to respect the ability. Oliver had to imagine that there was something of the sight in the ability. Oliver had to imagine, as the wife acted, that the wife acted only for others. The wife never looked at her own future.

(June 21, 2019) Oliver Chambernon was of a family that guided its members. The family had a will. The elder males decided. Younger men had to obey. The younger men would become elder when they accepted the decision for the marriage of their children.

(June 23, 2019) Oliver had to decide. Oliver was able to think of the benefit. The sight instructed. Oliver saw a grandson. The grandson had a sister. The sister became a wife. Oliver was terrified.

(June 24, 2019) Oliver had to ask. Sight explained. The lineage must be reinforced. There must be a family with enough power. The power was not for the family to use. It was to preserve. Mating the sister and brother would allow a later generation to not use sight and preserve. This was the purpose. Sight must be preserved in a situation where the people would have little use, because they had little ability to help. Sight made it clear: There must be no discussion.

--

Margaret, daughter of Oliver of Chambernon and wife of Thomas Stonehouse

(Oct. 5, 2019) Margaret was of the sight. Margaret saw, and acted without thought. Margaret saw a husband without the sight. There needed to be a lineage that preserved the afflictions of Margaret. This lineage, of the sight, would enable a future king to be able to act in a way that the sight was planning. Margaret and a line of descendants would be a way of bringing the sight into a family that knew power. Margaret understood, the father and mother of Margaret understood the plan and accepted. Margaret knew nothing else but to be as the sight willed.

--

Thomas Stonehouse, husband of Margaret, daughter of Oliver of Chambernon

(Oct. 6, 2019) Thomas Stonehouse was a man with a safe house. Stonehouse could resist if a neighbor of the Earl chose to ravish. This was never expected, but always possible. Stonehouse married the daughter of a man with enough and more. Stonehouse discovered, the wife had a gift that dominated. This was not a problem, until Thomas realized that the son and heir had the same. Thomas forbade and commanded, in opposition to the gift.

Thomas was unable to prevail. Thomas disinherited the son in favor of one who did not have the gift of the wife. Stonehouse continued, as Thomas thought, without a blasphemy that would attract ruin. Thomas, now, has to think that Thomas, by disinheriting the son, made it possible for the son to marry a woman with the gift. If Thomas had not disinherited the son, the woman would not have been an appropriate wife. The gift, as Thomas understands, continued in the lineage of this son.

--

Thomas Stonehouse (younger), son of Thomas and Margaret

(Oct. 6, 2019) Thomas Stonehouse was the son of a man without the sight. Thomas was dominated by the sight. This was unhappily a conflict between Thomas and the father. Thomas must do as the sight commanded. Thomas must be an obedient son. Thomas could not do both. Thomas sacrificed the patrimony to a brother who did not have the sight as Thomas did. The brother had enough of the sight. The brother gave what the father withheld. Stonehouse was of the sight.

Thomas had one purpose. A daughter must marry Bigbery, who had the sight. Chambernon and Bigbury intermarried seven times, if Thomas is correct. Chambernon and Bigbury were as one with the sight.

--

Katherine, daughter of Thomas Stonehouse (younger) and wife of William of Bigbery (elder)

--

(Oct. 21, 2019) Katherine was of the sight. Bigbery had the sight. Katherine was from Doddiscombe. Katherine understood that Doddiscombe, with Bigbery, needed to be a support for Chambernon. Katherine, although not of Chambernon, always thought that the well-being of Chambernon was the goal. Katherine was pleased when a daughter married Chambernon. This was a lineage of Chambernon that was known to not have the sight. Now, this descent of Chambernon had the sight, and had to be protected.

--

William of Bigbery (younger), son of William, and husband of Elizabeth, daughter of Powlet

(Oct. 6, 2019) William was of the sight. William did not live long. William married a woman from a family with the sight. Elizabeth was not of the sight. Two of the sight would have children would have children with no human will. This was forbidden. Those of the sight had the ability to resist the will of the sight. This was almost always fatal. William thought of resisting. William had no reason to harm a loving family.

The sight did not involve itself in basic decisions of ordinary life. The will of William could choose whether to slaughter a calf for meat, or to wait and have an ox. William thought, when the sight acted through William, that the sight was as a separate person inside the mind of William. William never gave allegiance to the sight. The sight did not request allegiance. William simply thought and realized that the sight did that thought. William did not accept, but did not resist. William had a daughter and two sons. Bigbery continued.

--

Elizabeth, daughter of Powlet and wife of William of Bigbery (younger)

(Nov. 11, 2019) Elizabeth was of a family that had the sight. The sight did not dominate. Powlet was always considered when the other families with the sight needed a husband or wife. Powlet was never suspected of having the sight.

--

Elizabeth, daughter of William of Bigbery (younger) and wife of John Champernowne of Beer Ferrers

(Aug. 11, 2019) Elizabeth was of the sight. The sight had no reason. Elizabeth simply saw and did. This was a burden. Others who served knew that England had the sight, in the monarch, and also in families that gave a lineage from King Edward IV.

(Aug. 22, 2019) Elizabeth hoped. A man would become a good husband. The sight provided. A man would be a good provider. The sight gave a vision. There would be good years and bad. Sometimes there would be no ability to provide. There must be stored food from the good years. Elizabeth had a way of hoping for a way to do what was necessary to protect the family, when Elizabeth saw a time of hardship. The sight gave. Elizabeth had no real lack. Elizabeth did not feel that Elizabeth was free. Elizabeth simply thought, because of the sight, there was no way for Elizabeth to do anything that Elizabeth willed, if the sight was of a different intention.

--

John Champernon (d. 1475) of Beer Ferrers, husband of Elizabeth (daughter of Bigbery) and father of Blanche, wife of Robert Willoughby

(Nov. 10, 2019) John was of a branch of Chambernoun that did not have the sight. John was instructed to marry a wife who was of the sight. This, after three generations of assurance that Beer Ferrers did not have the sight, allowed the sight to enter and be hidden. John was of the opinion that the sight was not a curse. The sight helped preserve the family. The family was of respect in the neighborhood. Champernoun had the blood of old kings. Champeroun was not tainted by rebellion. John, although of a family with little status, was of a feeling that Champernoun was important. John, after the marriage, began to understand. Champernoun was preserving a lineage for a king.

--

ADDITIONAL CHAMPERNOUN NOTES: According to the ancestors, John Champernoun's son John Champernowne descends through grandson Gawen Champernowne to Nicoll, Prideaux, Chapel and Pearce; and through Gawen’s sister Joan (Denny), down through Carew, to Roberts (in Cornwall 17th century, showing up in Vivian's Visitations), descending to Joseph Roberts, Cornish miner, whose wife Elizabeth Rogers descended through Pearce and Chapel to Prideaux and Champernowne. Joseph and Elizabeth Roberts were the parents of Jane, wife of William Henry Young (of the thirteenth generation in the Cecil/Davis descent).]

(June 20, 2019) Gawen Champernowne was the nephew, not the son of Arthur, “who had to enfeoff Gawen to ensure that lineage continued with support.” The father of Gawen was also named Gawen; the name was from the mother.

Margaret Courtenay, wife of Sir John Champernowne, was not the daughter but the GRANDdaughter of Sir Philip Courtenay.

Sir John Champernowne (d. 1503) was NOT the son of William of Modbury. He was the son of William’s cousin John Champernoun of Beer Ferrers.

Hugh of Valletort (father of Eglina, wife of Oliver Champernoun) was the son, not the grandson of Philip of Valletort. The mother’s identity is important.

(June 21, 2019) Prudence, wife of Francis Prideaux, was the granddaughter of Gawen Champernowne’s son Gawen Champernon. The elder Gawen was the father of Abigail, mother of Abigail Nichols who married John Prideaux, father of Francis Prideaux.

The mother of Charles Chapel (husband of Elizabeth Prideaux) was a great-granddaughter (in the father’s line) of the younger Gawen Champernon and wife Roberta Montgomerie.

Henry Pearce, husband of Elizabeth Chapel, was the son of John, whose mother was of Champernowne – her grandfather Edward Champernowne was a grandson of the younger Gawen Champernon.

--

Continuing with the descent to Courtenay:

Blanche Champernon, daughter of John Champernoun of Beer Ferrers and wife of Robert, Baron Willoughby

(Nov. 11, 2019) Blanche was the daughter of two who had the sight. Blanche did not have the ability to not act unless sight was part. Blanche was of the sight in a way that meant the sight was using Blanche to continue a lineage that would not lose the sight. Blanche understood that persecution caused many lineages to lose the sight, because people did not use the sight, so it disappeared. Blanche understood, Blanche was given the sight with great strength to preserve the sight when persecution made it impossible for a grandson and granddaughter to use the sight.

--

Robert, Baron Willoughby (d.1502, a servant of King Henry VII in various capacities)

(Aug. 22, 2019) Robert was a baron. Robert had the sight. Robert was the husband of a woman who was of the sight, in a way that Robert was not. Robert hoped. The wife was never wrong. When Elizabeth said it was necessary to store food, Robert decided to devote every effort. This had an effect. If Robert stored, neighbors began to store. The neighborhood of Robert was able to better survive when the harvest failed. The harvest failed five times during the years that Robert was a man. This meant that Elizabeth, five times, told and was correct. Robert had to think of the well-being of the tenants. When Robert stored, Robert gave each tenant an alternative. If the tenant stored for famine, the tax was reduced. This meant that Robert received less. The tenant was going to be able to preserve his family. This was more important than receiving the grain. Robert had to think of not being hospitable. Robert decided to simply say that Robert was storing grain to protect against famine. This had an effect, but not until after the first famine. Then, Robert was remembered. Robert was the signal for others. Robert was never suspected of having the sight. Robert simply acted without talking, until others asked.

--

Robert, 2nd Baron Willoughby (1472-1521), m. (2) Dorothy, daughter of Thomas Grey, Marquess of Dorset (but NOT the daughter of Dorset's wife Cicely Bonneville). Willoughby and wife Dorothy were the parents of Elizabeth, wife of John Paulet, Marquess of Winchester.

(Willoughby will be able to speak.)

--

Elizabeth, daughter of Robert, Baron Willoughby, wife of John Paulet, Marquess of Winchester; and mother of Elizabeth, wife of William Courtenay, de jure 3rd Earl of Devon (see previous post).

(Aug. 11, 2019) Elizabeth had a problem. The sight commanded. Elizabeth almost always promptly did as told. There were two occasions where Elizabeth almost had to forfeit the awareness. Elizabeth gave up a relationship with a loving husband, to have a child with a stranger. Elizabeth was of the sight. There could be no questions.

(Aug. 22, 2019) Elizabeth had to think, because of the sight, that Elizabeth had no way to decide. The sight decided. If Elizabeth had any thought of what Elizabeth might want, the sight provided without hesitation. Elizabeth had a way of thinking of a need, and the need would be met.

Elizabeth also had a way of simply not wanting. Elizabeth lived for family. Elizabeth was generous at church. There was a need for people in the church to care for the poor. Elizabeth would take in a poor woman from time to time, giving the woman a way to find work and then the woman would leave. Elizabeth hoped, because of this, to be seen as a benefactor. Elizabeth never thought that people talked about what Elizabeth did, until a man said, “You are the woman who gives other women a chance to have some dignity.” Elizabeth never forgot that.

--

John Paulet, Marquess of Winchester and father of Elizabeth, wife of William Courtenay, de jure 3rd Earl of Devon (see previous post).

(Aug. 22, 2019) John had the sight. The sight gave instructions. John had a wife who was of the sight. John knew that the sight came from the mother. John also knew that some families had the sight in a way that was different. John had a feeling, because of the wife, that there would never be a serious problem. The wife would see and recommend.

The wife was not a person with much will. The wife was passive. Things happened. The wife spoke. This was taken for a word from God. John had no other thought. There was an uncanny precision about the prophecies that the wife gave. John had to recognize that the sight in John was of little use, because the wife had a much greater portion. The sight was using the family. John understood, a daughter would have the sight in a similar way. This lineage was going to descend to a family that would preserve the sight. This was something that John decided was not worth thinking about. John had little interest in trying to make a better position for the family. The sight was going to provide. John was certain that the family was being well cared for.

After the birth of the second son, John began to relax. The duty to the family had been fulfilled. John could be assured that the family would continue. Both sons, like John, had something of the sight. The daughter, like the mother, was of the sight. John supposed that a granddaughter would be the same. John never knew, after John died, what would become of the family. Others have told of visions. John had little interest. John simply lived as directed. The life was not a bad one.

[j***@gmail.com]

Before posting the story of King Edward VI, I have been requested to share my descents (according to the ancestors) from King Edward's great-great-uncle George, Duke of Clarence (d. 1474), who, like his half brother King Richard III, was a bastard of Richard, Duke of York.

George says he had a son George who was kidnapped and later became known as Lambert Simnal, claiming in a rebellion to be his brother Edward. (According to the ancestors, I am not descended from Lambert, who did leave a bastard in France.)

Clarence's eldest son Edward had a bastard named Edward before his assassination. This son Edward pretended to be a bastard of George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny (and was accepted as such), after marrying Bergavenny's much younger post-humuous daughter Mary.

This couple had a daughter who married Richard Stafford, son of Henry, 1st Baron Stafford by Ursula, daughter of Richard Pole by Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, daughter of George, Duke of Clarence.

Henry, 1st Baron Stafford, according to the ancestors, was actually a younger brother of Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland.

Richard Stafford had a son Roger who had a "gateway" son Thomas (d. 1677) who settled in Rhode Island. His daughter Deborah married Amos Westcott, son of Stukeley Westcott, who was son of Edward Westcott by Demaris Stuckley.

[wjhonson]

Post by j***@gmail.com
@wjhonson, your habitual scorn is once again misplaced. Perhaps it would be well for you to remember that we all make mistakes. After all, you're the self-promoting fool who thought that the Cecil family didn't have any noble titles.

Scorn where scorn is due you rapid idiot

I never said "the Cecil family...had no noble titles"
I said that the Cecil family was not noble.

The your first cousin has a title does not make YOU noble.
You are really the dog's breakfast with your stultifying nonsense

IF you had read almost ANY source about this family you claim to be summoning, you would... actually you would exactly the same thing because it's fairly clear you are neither literate nor logical.

[wjhonson]

Post by wjhonson

Post by j***@gmail.com
@wjhonson, your habitual scorn is once again misplaced. Perhaps it would be well for you to remember that we all make mistakes. After all, you're the self-promoting fool who thought that the Cecil family didn't have any noble titles.

Scorn where scorn is due you rapid idiot
I never said "the Cecil family...had no noble titles"
I said that the Cecil family was not noble.
The your first cousin has a title does not make YOU noble.
You are really the dog's breakfast with your stultifying nonsense
IF you had read almost ANY source about this family you claim to be summoning, you would... actually you would exactly the same thing because it's fairly clear you are neither literate nor logical.

And let me add, your writing is utterly without merit. It's like a seven-year old learning to write their first story.

[wjhonson]

Post by wjhonson

Post by j***@gmail.com
@wjhonson, your habitual scorn is once again misplaced. Perhaps it would be well for you to remember that we all make mistakes. After all, you're the self-promoting fool who thought that the Cecil family didn't have any noble titles.

Scorn where scorn is due you rapid idiot
I never said "the Cecil family...had no noble titles"
I said that the Cecil family was not noble.
The your first cousin has a title does not make YOU noble.
You are really the dog's breakfast with your stultifying nonsense
IF you had read almost ANY source about this family you claim to be summoning, you would... actually you would exactly the same thing because it's fairly clear you are neither literate nor logical.

Oops that should say "rabid" idiot, not... rapid.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by wjhonson
Oops that should say "rabid" idiot, not... rapid.

Once again, we all make mistakes. If you and a few others would strive to avoid combining contempt with jumping to mistaken conclusions, the tone around here would be much more civil.

[wjhonson]

I have mentioned before that when you try to attach modern paying customers, to these old well-known lines, it's just like shooting fish in a barrel, to point out the gaping holes in the line.

See my posts destroying the fantasy Rockefeller line, years ago.

If you really want to build a fantasy pedigree, you need to stick to more obscure people.