The last article I did on this was VERY critical of the theory, but I
was SOON corrected There WAS some evidence (as the newer, corrected article
stated) that it just MAY be so! James Woodard (another working on some branches
of the Dudley line [as it relates to HIM, of course], and a cousin) wrote to me
and stated the facts that he has at his disposal. They are interesting, and I
quote him in its entirety:.
Gary, In the 6th Edition of "Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists" Dr Weis
gives the following sources for his information and I quote
"Generations 34-43: Dudley Pedigree, Herald's College, 28 Jan. 1937, approved
by A. T. Butler, Windsor Herald. Generations 9-13: G. A. Moriarty: Chart of the
Robertins in NEGHR 99: 130-131, corrected by chart in 101: 112; see also NEGHR
vol. 117, pp. 268-271. Generations13-24: D. L. Jacobus in Boston Evening
Transcript, 12 OCT. 1927, Note 2257, Part IX, Note 5980, 28 Nov. 1927; Pere
Anselme; Brandenburg; v. Redlich I 120-121; CP I 22; IV 670, 672-674; V 736;
VII 520, 737; X 351. Generations 24-27: CP IV 317, 670 chart III; VII 520,
708-737, 771; NEGHR 97: 342; Jackson: Falaise Roll, table IX; Waters: Pedigrees
of Courtenay and Champernoun, in Essex Institute Proceedings, XVII 16:
Generations 30-34: CP IV 676; VI 123-126; Dudley Pedigree; Collins IV=240-241;
Stokes Records I 99-102. Generations 38-43: Visitations of Berks., I:
Publications of the Harleian Soc., vol. 56 (Visitations of Bucks.) vol. 58, p.
199; Purefoy pedigree in Brit. Museum Harleian ms. 1189, folio 18 and 19;
Nichols: History of Leicestershire, IV Part II pp. 519a-520a; Stokes Records I
93; Mary K Talcott in NEGHR 66: 340-343; 47: 120; 49: 507; 56: 189, 206; 97:
342; Waters II 1087; Publications of=the Dudley Family Association.
Source Abbreviations:
Brandenburg=3D DR. Erick Brandenburg,
Die Nachkommen Karls des Grossen, 1935
CP=3D G. E. Cokayne's (new revised)
Complete Peerage, vols. I-XII pt. 2,1910-1959
Jackson=3D M. Jackson
Crispin, Falaise Roll, London, 1938
NEGHR=3D New England Historical
Genealogical Register
Pere Anselme=3D Pere Anselme, Histoire genealogique
de la maison royale de France
v. Redlich=3D Pedigrees of some of the
Emperor Charlemagne's Descendants, Chicago, 1941( this is the only source cited
which is dubious, one wonders why he cited it. jcw)
Waters=3D Genealogical
Gleanings in England, 1901. 2 volumes
Generation numbers are as
follows:(names only, I'm getting Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from all this typing
:)jcw)
9. COUNT WARINUS
10. LEUTWINUS
11. ROTROU
12. PEPIN THE
SHORT
13. CHARLEMAGNE
14. PEPIN
15. BERNARD
16. PEPIN
17.
HERBERT I DE VERMANDOIS
18. HERBERT II
19. ALBERT I
20. HERBERT
III
21. OTHO
22. HERBERT IV
23. ADELAIDE DE VERMANDOIS
24.
ISABEL DE VERMANDOIS
25. WALERAN DE BEAUMONT
26. SIR ROBERT DE
BEAUMONT
27. MAUD DE BEAUMONT
28. MARY DE VERNON
29 SIR JOHN DE
COURTENAY
30 SIR HUGH DE COURTENAY
31 ELEANOR DE COURTENAY
32. SIR
RICHARD DE GREY
33. SIR JOHN DE GREY
34. JANE DE GRAY (ALMOST CERTAINLY
SISTER OF #33)
35. SIR THOMAS DE HARCOURT
36. SIR THOMAS DE
HARCOURT
37 SIR RICHARD HARCOURT
38. ALICE HARCOURT
39. ELIZABETH
BESSILES
40. ANNE FETTIPLACE
41. MARY PUREFOY
42. SUSAN (or
SUSANNA) THORNE
43. GOVERNOR THOMAS DUDLEY
All of the above is from
line 50 in Ancestral Roots 6th edition by Frederich Lewis Wies.
Gary,
I feel you should be a little more circumspect with the kind of disparaging
remarks made in the Charlemagne Controversy article until you have looked a
little more closely at the information available. If you wish to post this to
the page as a rebuttal please feel free to do so.
Your friend and cuz,
Jim.
The GOOD part about running your own board is---IF you are honest, you
can admit that you CAN learn something....and I did. While I STILL do not
entirely agree with the theory...still...it now LOOKS a lot better than it did
before, and most assuredly deserves further study.
Jim is correct, I
should have been more circumspect. THANKS!
Again I say, the problem
with Genealogy is that it is an INEXACT hobby. We can ONLY research what is
THERE--and when hard evidence stops, so do we. It is fascinating to delve into
"maybe this, or maybe that," but we CAN NOT put forth as factual things that
are not.
I will entertain further opposing viewpoints. IF you write a
reputable opposing article, email me it, and IF well documented I WILL post it
on-site.
| Front Page |
Email Me |