Richardson's works ("Plantagenet Ancestry..." and the rest) considered THE MASTER sources?

Question

Richardson's works ("Plantagenet Ancestry..." and the rest) considered THE MASTER sources?

To "The WikiTree Genealogical Community":

This post is in reply to the G2G thread concerning Richardson's works as being "The Master Sources." I will comment more about WikiTree’s Magna Carta project as it relates to several proven errors found in Richardson’s works, which he reluctantly hasn't corrected yet. Most importantly, WikiTree's Magna Carta Project leaders need to acknowledge the fact of known and proven errors in Douglas Richardson's lines in his Magna Carta Ancestry (2011) work. Perhaps basing the Project off of a different author's work for some genealogical lines might be the best solution. The Magna Carta Ancestry (2011) work authored by Douglas Richardson was completed over five years ago. Since then he has made some but not all corrections to several lines, hence his corrections, additions, and discoveries page in his Plantagenet and Royal Ancestry volumes. It should be pointed out that Douglas Richardson of Salt Lake City, Utah, USA is not a Medievalist and writing a book on Magna Carta Ancestry, Plantagenet Ancestry, or Royal Ancestry does not automatically qualify him as an expert in medieval genealogy.

Douglas Richardson is a trained Colonial New England Genealogist in addition to being an adjunct community college history professor. Most of the lines in Richardson's Ancestry series volumes were originally researched and created by Walter Lee Sheppard, Frederick Lewis Weis, and Dr. David Faris. Richardson simply changed a few generations and added a few more lines related to his own personal ancestry for his own publications. One important error found in all three of Richardson’s ancestry volumes is his Bonville line. More specifically, this error is Richardson’s assignment of parentage to Philippa Bonville, who married firstly (as his 2^nd wife) William Grenville. Richardson assigned John Bonville and Elizabeth Fitz-Roger as the parents of Philippa Bonville. This was a change from the previous three hundred years of Philippa being assigned as the daughter of William Bonville, K.G., 1^st Lord Bonville and his first wife, Margaret Grey, which was the conclusion regarding Philippa’s parentage by renowned genealogists of the 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th centuries. Richardson changed Philippa’s parentage without providing any primary nor secondary sources to support this change in parentage. Richardson also contradicted several sources he listed which specifically stated that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of Sir William Bonville, K.G., 1^st Lord Bonville and his first wife, Margaret Grey.

It should also be noted that Richardson is not the sole authority on the parentage of Philippa Bonville. Many respected and academically trained 21st century medieval genealogists disagree with Richardson's position on the parentage of Philippa Bonville, much more so than any who actually agree with Richardson on that matter. The following sources listed at the end of this post cite Philippa Bonville as the daughter of William Bonville, K.G., 1st Lord Bonville and his first wife, Margaret Grey. Although ranging in dates from the early 18th century to the late 19th century, these authors wrote independently of each other and did not reference one another when forming their conclusions on the parentage of Philippa Bonville. Many additional genealogical historians writing in the 20th and 21st centuries reviewed the evidence and came to their own independent conclusions concerning the parentage of Philippa Bonville. All of them stated that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of William Bonville, K.G., 1st Lord Bonville and his first wife, Margaret Grey. The only modern day author to hold that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of John Bonville and Elizabeth Fitz-Roger was Douglas Richardson. Richardson even listed sources in his Magna Carta Ancestry (2011) book series which stated that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of William Bonville, K.G., 1st Lord Bonville and his 1st wife, Margaret Grey. This directly contradicted the Bonville line Richardson developed for his Magna Carta Ancestry, Plantagenet Ancestry, and Royal ancestry series books.

Why Richardson chose not to follow the sources he used in his ancestry book series was not provided. He simply decided in the 1990s to change Philippa's parentage without proper justification or rationalization when he developed the Bonville line for his Magna Carta Ancestry series (2011). Since WikiTree follows Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry work for its Magna Carta Project, they should be forewarned that there are proven errors in this particular ancestry book series which WikiTree should be aware of and should acknowledge. Many of these errors are also found in his subsequent works, Plantagenet Ancestry (2011) and Royal Ancestry (2013).

The sources to refute Richardson’s Bonville line are as follows:

(1) Lake & Hotton, A Complete Parochial History of the County of Cornwall. v. 2 (1868): p. 372.

(2) Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry; or, Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland v. 3 (1838): p. 4.

(3) Dudley, A Supplement to the Peerage of England (1716): p. 243.

(4) Gilbert, An Historical Survey of the County of Cornwall: v. 2 (1820): p. 507.

(5) Fox, Chronicles of Tonedale: Two Centuries of Family History (1879): pp. 46-47a (Appendix V ped.).

commented Nov 24, 2016 by anonymous G2G Rookie (100 points)
edited Nov 27, 2016 by anonymous

A number of the projects on WikiTree use some form of source as a starting point for their research. I see that having a starting point is essential on WikiTree because of the sheer number of profiles, but I take your point that no source is infallible and all will contain some errors, particularly in the field of medieval genealogy, where new research is going on all the time.

Where there are discrepancies between sources, then we try to see what the primary sources actually state. Do you know if there are any primary sources that mention Philippa's parents? I notice that all 5 of the sources you list are secondary sources (and one of those, Burkes, has a very poor reputation) - do you know if any of them cite primary sources?

I'm not in a position to look at the moment, but the soc.genealogy.medieval group often discuss recent developments in medieval genealogy, perhaps her parents are discussed in that group?

commented Nov 24, 2016 by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (622k points)

Here is a post back in 2002 from Brad Verity (a highly respected Canadian Genealogist) regarding the assignment of parentage for Philippa Bonville. Apparently his research project team came to the conclusion that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of William Bonville, K.G., 1st Lord Bonville and his first wife, Margaret Grey. The main source they cited was the U.K. History of Parliament biography on Sir William Bonville, K.G., 1st Lord Bonville. I give two sources below the soc.genealogy.medieval group posting.

"GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

From: batruth@hotmail.com (Brad Verity)

Subject: Re: Rethinking Amy de Gavaston

Date: 11 Sep 2002 19:52:10 0700

OK. Here's another example.

Last year I participated in research on the Grenvilles of Cornwall and Devon. Philippa Bonville married as his second wife William Grenville after 12 May 1427. HOP states Philippa was the daughter of William, Lord Bonville, which would make her born after 1414 (when the contract for Lord Bonville to marry Margaret Grey was finalized). This would make her a young teen at her marriage to William Grenville, which fits your theory that women of her rank were married before age 20."

The source cited by Brad Verity is from the world's most renowned medieval genealogical historian (Professor J.S. Roskell - U.K. Parliamentary Historian) of the 20th century. The source is:

Roskell, The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1386–1421 v. 2 (1992): pp. 284–288 (biog. of Sir William Bonville II) "These ties were to be strengthened by the marriage of Bonville's son and heir, William, to Lord Harrington's only child, and of two of his daughters, Philippa and Margaret, respectively to William Grenville ... and William Courtenay ..." (Professor Roskell identifies Philippa Bonville, 2nd wife of William Grenville, Esq., as the daughter of William Bonville, first Lord Bonville and his first wife, Margaret Grey).

Another very credible source is from the Yeo Society website article, "A Brief History of the Early Yeo Family," completed by professional U.K. genealogical researchers, we have the following directly quoted citation:

"John and Alice's son William Yeo, married Ellen Grenville. Ellen 's mother was Phillipa Bonville, daughter of Lord William Bonville. This was the time of the War of the Roses when there was great civil unrest in Devon with families divided on their loyalties to either the House of York or the House of Lancaster. Phillipa 's father, Lord Bonville was one of the wealthiest men in Devon, having inherited massive estates in Devon, Somerset & Dorset. He married, Margaret Grey, the daughter of Lord Grey of Ruthin."

This is a very reliable source, completed in the 21st century, stating that Philippa Bonville (2nd wife of William Grenville, Esq.) was the daughter of William, 1st Lord Bonville and his first wife, Margaret Grey.

commented Nov 24, 2016 by anonymous G2G Rookie (100 points)
edited Nov 25, 2016 by anonymous

Richardson's Royal Ancestry is 5 volumes with over 3,500 pages of densely packed genealogical detail. Of course there are errors in it. It is still by far the best work of its kind.

Just because you take issue with a single point of fact does not mean you should disparage Douglas or his work. If you disagree with something found in Plantagenet Ancestry, or Royal Ancestry or on WikiTree, make a new G2G post and we will discuss it.

With regard to Philippa, it should be noted that the very basis for calling her a daughter of William (descent of land and manors), has been shown to be incorrect. Richardson has also pointed out that Hugh Stukeley (Philippa's half-brother if she was a daughter of John) served as a feoffee for Philippa Bonville's husband, William Grenville. This opens up the question of her parentage. I cannot say however that she is a daughter of William or John. I also do not know Richardson's reasoning for making her a daughter of John instead of William - I suggest we ask him directly.

commented Nov 24, 2016 by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (260k points)

To “The WikiTree Genealogical Community”:

It was not the intention of the earlier post to write a thesis on all of the errors found in Douglas Richardson’s Royal Ancestry Series works. And I do not intend to list those errors and provide the proof as to why they are errors. It was merely to point to the notion that WikiTree’s Magna Carta Project needs to be prudent in the genealogical lines they use from Richardson’s works. The information given in the earlier post was not intended to be disparaging or condescending to Richardson, but rather factual and verifiable. I challenge any future commentator to my post to find what was said to be false in any way.

With regard to the post made about the parentage of Philippa Bonville. Some U.K. genealogists in the 21^st century who have recently (in the past two years) researched Philippa Bonville have commented on the lack of primary sources for her. In that case, secondary sources and chronological proofs have been used to ascertain what is most probable, improbable, or impossible with her identity.

As to Philippa Bonville’s identity, which fits the chronology best, sister or daughter of Sir William Bonville, K.G. 1^st Lord Bonville? Elizabeth Fitz-Roger married John Bonville in his father’s lifetime, while she was an eight or nine year old child. On John Bonville’s death in 21 October 1396, Elizabeth was 26 years old. So her children were probably born between 1388 and 1396. Sir William Bonville, K.G., 1^st Lord Bonville, according to his Proof of Age, was born 31 August 1392, when his mother Elizabeth was 22. Thomas Bonville, sheriff of Cornwall was then born in the period between 1393 and 1396. We also have to fit in Isabel, married to Richard Champernowne, as well as Philippa, and Philippa would have been aged between 30 and 38 if married to William Grenville, Esq. after 12 May 1427, and most likely in 1428. This scenario would be improbable given that women of Philippa’s social rank and status would almost always marry before the age of 20. If she were the daughter of John Bonville, she'd have been a matrimonial 31 years old! Then after the death of William Grenville, Esq., she married John Almescombe in c. 1450. She'd have been 54 years old at that time! However, if she were the daughter of Sir William Bonville, K.G., 1st Lord Bonville and his first wife, Margaret Grey, there are no chronology problems at all. She would have married William Grenville, Esq. at a much younger and much more appropriate age for that time period, and married secondly at a time when she still could have possibly had children. There are also no primary or secondary sources that state Philippa had a marriage prior to William Grenville, Esq., which would support the notion of her marrying William Grenville, Esq. at such a late age for a woman of her social rank and status in the early 15^th century. Such a supposition would be genealogically careless and bordering on gross speculation.

Can we make William Grenville’s second wife, Philippa Bonville, a daughter of Sir William Bonville, K.G., 1^st Lord Bonville? According to a J.R. Powell M.S. the future Sir William Bonville, K.G., 1^st Lord Bonville married firstly, by contract dated 12 December 1414, to Margaret Grey. They had a son and heir William, who was born between 1416 and 1421, who at an age between 22 and 27 had a son William born between 1438 and 1443, who also at an age between 22 and 27 had the ultimate daughter and heiress Cecily, born between 1459 and 1464. If there was a daughter called Philippa, unnoted in the Bonville pedigree, born between 1415 and 1416 and mostly likely within the first year of Sir William Bonville, K.G., 1^st Lord Bonville’s marriage to Margaret Grey, then this Philippa would have been 12 to 15 years old at the time of her first marriage to William Grenville, Esq., which occurred after 12 May 1427 and by 1430. This scenario would be most probable. She would then have reached the age of 15/16 when she consummated her first marriage to William Grenville, Esq and had her first known child, Sir Thomas Grenville I, who was born sometime around 1430/1431. We can support this date of birth of Sir Thomas Grenville I due to the known date of Sir Thomas’s marriage to Anne Courteney in 1447 by license when he was 16/17 years old. Ellen Grenville (wife of William Yeo) was Philippa's last child with William Grenville, Esq. and was born between 1435 and 1437. Although Philippa Bonville lived as William Grenville's wife until his death 12 to 14 years later, there were no further children that we know of. Thus it is reasonable to assume that Philippa was 36/37 years old at the time of her marriage to John Almescombe and had not borne children for perhaps 12 years. It is most probable that Philippa had no issue by her second husband, John Almescombe. It is most probable that Philippa married as her first husband, William Grenville, Esq., when she was 12 to 15 years old after 12 May 1427 and by 1430 when their first child, Sir Thomas Grenville I was born. This would make Philippa a young teen at the time of her first marriage to William Grenville, Esq., and in her mid-teens when she gave birth to her first known child, Sir Thomas Grenville I. Discarding the controversial and often misinterpreted descent of land and manors as mentioned by Roger Granville and acknowledging that Hugh Stukeley was of relation to Philippa through her grandmother, Elizabeth Fitz-Roger, the above analysis of Philippa’s identity considering the chronological proof only, it can then be concluded that it's most probable that Philippa Bonville was the daughter and not the sister of Sir William Bonville, K.G., 1^st Lord Bonville and his first wife, Margaret Grey!

commented Nov 25, 2016 by anonymous G2G Rookie (100 points)
edited Nov 26, 2016 by anonymous

Lord Ellerton,

I have taken the time to look at all your sources and study the issue. I have written up a complete analysis of the problem using all of your sources plus quite a few more. Basically, I disagree with your conclusions. Phillipa could not be a daughter of William Bonville.

Your attacks of Douglas Richardson do not help your argument. Bringing up a few decades old minor disagreements from an often-contentious newsgroup serves no purpose here. Perhaps the reason Douglas chooses not to answer every question about his work and his research is because of the frankly rude attacks he has to constantly endure. As it turns out, your harsh criticism of Douglas for changing the parentage of Phillipa from William Bonville to John Bonville is completely misplaced. The research and the conclusion for this was published by the noted genealogist Charles Fitch-Northen in DCNQ. Richardson simply developed a line for MCS from others published research. See:

Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries vol. XXXIV no. 4 (Autumn 1979):154-161. A Revision of the Grenville Pedigree, by Charles Fitch-Northen.

But of course you already knew this because you copy-pasted whole paragraphs from this article into your posts here. However, you neglected to acknowledge, cite or give Charles Fitch-Northen credit for the work. What’s worse though is you changed key parts of what he wrote to fit your needs, and you also left out his analysis of the chronology of the Grenvilles on the previous page and a half. Finally, you neglected to mention his conclusions:

“The conclusions are: that no Courtenay is discernable who could have been the mother of William Grenville Esqr ; that the mother of William’s son Sir Thomas Grenville I. was either Thomazine (a Cole?), or the daughter of John Bonville and Elizabeth Fitz Roger, and sister of Lord Bonville ; and that Elizabeth the daughter of Sir Theobald Gorges and Jane Hankeford, probably widow of a Calmady was the mother of Sir Thomas Grenville II., K.B.”

This is the worse kind of plagiarism.

My own conclusions are:

There are serious chronological problems in the Grenville pedigree which give doubts as to its accuracy. Could there be a missing generation? I think this is likely, but is not directly supported by any contemporary record.
The evidence that Phillipa is even a Bonville is weak and comes from a flawed family pedigree from the early 1600s and the from Visitations of Cornwall 1620. These two sources give opposite parentage.
The more reliable of the two sources is probably the Visitations of Cornwall 1620 which makes her a sister of William Bonville.
If Phillipa was a daughter William Bonville (as you give it), she would have been at least 45 years younger than William Grenville when they married, and she would have been too young to be the mother of Thomas Grenville.
Assuming there is only one William Grenville, Phillipa could only be the daughter of John Bonville and so a sister of William, Lord Bonville (just as stated in the Visitations).
If there is only one William Grenville, it is more likely than not that his children were by his first wife Elizabeth Cole and not by Phillipa at all.

The full analysis with supporting sources is here.

commented Nov 28, 2016 by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (260k points)

To "John Atkinson":

You can hide whichever comments you want from contributors as you see fit. The comments, sources, and references provided in my posts are available to the public from other websites to view for themselves. They are not proprietary in any way. I just brought them to light. I haven’t said nor done anything to discredit the honor of Mr. Douglas Richardson, even to his most ardent supporters. You can hide all of my posts; however, the originator of this thread’s question, Michael Bartelt, was greatly appreciative of my contributions.

The stain-glass window you mention above is the heraldic evidence which showed the Grenville arms impaled with the Bonville arms in the church of Kilkhampton, Cornwall, which is just one of the many pieces of evidence to support the surname of Philippa as being Bonville. So, the "conclusion point 2" above that says the evidence of Philippa being a Bonville is weak, has thus been shattered! Don't bother thanking me for this, as your position on the matter is well noted.

To "Joe Cochoit":

Your analysis and conclusions still require speculation, of which they have not been proven.

The noted genealogist Charles Fitch-Northen, as you point out, has been corrected and revised since 1979. Most notably, starting in 1992, Professor J.S. Roskell (even more highly regarded than Fitch-Northen) has corrected Fitch-Northen on numerous occasions in his History of Parliament series.

Joe Cochoit stated: "The recent attacks on Douglas Richardson for his changing the parentage of Phillpa from William Bonville to John Bonville in MCS, PA and RA are unwarranted and unfair. He was simply following the most recent published research by noted genealogist Charles Fitch-Northen which reached this conclusion - it wasn't really his own research at all."

If Mr. Douglas Richardson did not do any of his own original research, why didn't he reference Charles Fitch-Northen as a source in his Magna Carta Ancestry (2011), Plantagenet Ancestry (2011), or Royal Ancestry (2013) Volumes? That is because Mr. Douglas Richardson did not use Charles Fitz-Northen as a secondary source when he conducted his research into the origins of Philippa Bonville. Mr. Douglas Richardson came to his own opinions and conclusions based off the evidence he reviewed and researched on his own. He did not base his conclusion about the parentage of Philippa Bonville off of the opinions and/or conclusions of Charles Fitz-Northen, he based it off of his own independent original research. To say anything to the contrary is false and misleading!!!!!

Once again, providing the reference of the world's most renowned medieval genealogist of the 20th century, we have:

Roskell, The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1386–1421 v. 2 (1992): pp. 284–288 (biog. of Sir William Bonville II) "These ties were to be strengthened by the marriage of Bonville's son and heir, William, to Lord Harrington's only child, and of two of his daughters, Philippa and Margaret, respectively to William Grenville ... and William Courtenay ..." (Professor Roskell identifies Philippa Bonville, 2nd wife of William Grenville, Esq., as the daughter of William Bonville, first Lord Bonville and his first wife, Margaret Grey).

I'm sure I'm plagiarizing now, also. Are WikiTree members suppose to accept your unproven analysis and conclusions over that of world renowned 'History of Parliament' genealogical historians?

Are you the lead of the WikiTree Magna Carta Project?

There is no need to provide an additional 10 to 15 sources supporting my argument and opinions regarding the parentage of Philippa Bonville. Stating fact and adding my opinion is hardly plagiarism!

Apparently Mr. Douglas Richardson has found new evidence to support his most current position on the parentage of Philippa Bonville, which would support the History of Parliament conclusions, and my opinions and conclusions regarding the matter, not yours. My criticisms of Mr. Douglas Richardson are hardly misplaced, as you would like to believe.

Many can write multiple arguments on whether Philippa was a daughter or sister of Sir William Bonville, K.G., 1st Lord Bonville, but I presume if the Magna Carta Project wants to follow Mr. Douglas Richardson, I'm sure you can find his change to Philippa's parentage in his next book.

So be careful of making baseless charges towards someone (including a WikiTree contributor) who is bringing to light factual matters in genealogy. Your analysis and conclusions were piecemealed together from older arguments found on posts from the soc.genealogy.medieval group. That is the worst kind of plagiarism, as you are copying someone else's opinions and ideas. Paragraphs from a work can be used and not considered plagiarism if fact, not opinion, is stated. Which I so happened to do.

commented Nov 28, 2016 by anonymous G2G Rookie (100 points)
edited Dec 11, 2016 by anonymous

What you are proposing is that man likely in his 60s and at least in his 50s married a girl who was at most 12 years old, and by her had a son and heir when she was at most 13 years old. Sorry, it didn’t work that way.

You are basing this on secondary sources, none of which provide contemporary records. Sorry, you haven’t proved anything.

Thank you for Richardson’s quote stating he had changed his mind. Now that he is on your side, we can all agree that he is infallible and is the master source. I would like read the thread where he made those comments but I have not been unable to find it. Can you provide the link please?

What you need to understand is, I don’t really care who Phillipa’s father is – I don’t descend from her. I do want the genealogy to be sound though. I will be just as happy if you or Douglas can provide sources to prove her father is William.

If you had bothered to read what I wrote you will have seen that I provided a solution where we are both right. I actually I believe there is a generation missing from the standard Grenville pedigree. It makes no sense to suppose that Theobald Grenville died c1380 and then he had a grandson born after 1427. My belief is that the pedigree should read:

Theobald Grenvile

    |

William Grenvile m. Elizabeth Cole

    |

William Grenvile m. Phillipa Bonville

    |

Thomas Grenville

In other words, the William who married Phillipa is not the son of Theobald and brother John (as found in the Visitations), he is the grandson of Theobald and nephew of John. Note that this removes all of the chronological impossibilities, moves William and Phillipa to the same generation, and even makes it more likely than not Phillipa is daughter of William, Lord Bonville just as you have suggested. Note that I have no proof of this, it is just the only solution which fits all the known facts.

commented Nov 29, 2016 by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (260k points)
edited Nov 29, 2016 by Joe Cochoit

To "Michael":

It was not unusual for medieval women to marry young between the ages of 12 and 19 (sometimes younger) during the 11^th to 15^th centuries, to men who were already married at least once and considerably older. Two high profile marriages of this kind in the Middle Ages were that of Margaret of France to Edward I, King of England, and Elizabeth (or Isabel) de Vermandois to Sir Robert de Beaumont, 1^st Earl of Leicester. These age gaps between young women and older men were not just seen within the royal and noble ranks, but also in gentry families, as in the case with Philippa Bonville and her first husband, William Grenville, Esq.

The first high profile marriage of this kind was Margaret of France, born circa 1279, who was the daughter of Philip III of France and Maria of Brabant. She was 19 years old when she married the 60 year old Edward I, King of England. Edward I was at least 40 years older than Margaret of France. Their wedding took place at Canterbury on 8 September 1299. Despite the age difference, they lived together in contentment. Three children were born, two of whom (Thomas of Brotherton and Edmund of Woodstock) lived to adulthood.

The second high profile marriage of this kind was Sir Robert de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Leicester, born circa 1046. When Sir Robert de Beaumont was 50 years old and some 35 plus years older than his young bride, he married as his second wife, Elizabeth (or Isabel) de Vermandois in circa 1096. She was about 11 to 15 years old at the time, born circa 1080 to 1085, which is estimated based off of her parents’ date of marriage. However, in this marriage, Sir Robert de Beaumont seemed to have regretted marrying a woman so young: “for his wife, although she was the mother of eight children deserted him in his old age for William de Warrenne II, whom she married immediately after her husband's death.” [See Chester Waters, Gundrada de Warrenne, The Archaeological Journal, vol. xli (1884) p. 308].

This was also not uncommon in gentry families such as the case with the Grenville and Bonville marriage union of William Grenville, Esq. and Philippa Bonville. William Grenville would have been some 35 to 40 years older than Philippa when he married her as his second wife. This would put William Grenville’s date of birth estimate anywhere from 1375 to 1380 [See Weis The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 fifth ed. (1999): p. 29 [Line 22-10] (author estimates William Grenville’s date of birth as circa 1375)], which adheres to most conventional estimates of his birth, with Philippa being born between 1414 and 1416. Philippa and William married after 12 May 1427 and could have conceivably married in the latter half of 1427 or in 1428, but also possibly up until 1430, when Sir Thomas Grenville I could have been born within the first year of their marriage [See Weis The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 fifth ed. (1999): p. 30 [Line 22-11] (author estimates Thomas Grenville I’s date of birth as circa 1430)]. In this scenario, Philippa would have married young, probably in her early to mid-teens, and as she was William Grenville’s second wife, it would also not be unusual that he’d be much older, sometimes by a generation or more.

There are other examples in medieval history, but these two are the ones I wanted to highlight. Hope this helps.

commented Nov 29, 2016 by anonymous G2G Rookie (100 points)
edited Dec 6, 2016 by anonymous

The William Grenville missing generation theory was proposed on the soc.genealogy.medieval group website back in 2001. The argument being that there were two William de Grenvilles; the elder marrying Thomasine Cole and the son marrying Philippa Bonville. The line went as follows:

            Sir Theobald Grenville II (died c. 1381) = m. Margaret

                                                  |

   William Grenville I (born btw. 1375 and 1380) = m. Thomasine Cole

                                                  |

William Grenville II, Esq. (c. 1402 - c. 1449) = m. Philippa Bonville (born c. 1415/1416)

                                                  |

                 Sir Thomas Grenville I (born c. 1430/1431)

While in theory this proposed line is plausible, there is no proof to validate this lineage.

commented Dec 6, 2016 by anonymous G2G Rookie (100 points)
edited Dec 6, 2016 by anonymous

An even more plausible line, while not proven might be:

          Sir Theobald Grenville II (c. 1345 - c. 1381) = m. Margaret

                                                  |

           William Grenville I (born btw. 1375 and 1380) = m. Unknown

                                                  |

m.(1st) Thomasine Cole = William Grenville II, Esq. (c. 1402 - c. 1449) = m.(2nd) Philippa Bonville (born c. 1415/1416)

                                                  |

                       Sir Thomas Grenville I (born c. 1430/1431)

While in theory this proposed line is also plausible, there is again no proof to validate the missing William de Grenville generation lineage. It is best to read the two examples of medieval marriages above to support the widely held belief of there being only one William de Grenville!

commented Dec 6, 2016 by anonymous G2G Rookie (100 points)
edited Dec 11, 2016 by anonymous

==============================================

“Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + +

PHILIPPE BONVILLE, married (1st) after 12 May 1427 (as his 2nd wife) WILLIAM GRENVILLE (or GREYNVILLE, GREYNEVYLE, GRAYNVILLE, GRAYNEFILD), Esq., of Bideford, Devon and Kilkhampton, Cornwall, younger son of Thebaud Grenville, Knt., of Bideford, Devon and Kilkhampton, Cornwall, by his wife, Margaret. Her maritagium included the manors of Week St. Mary and Swannacote, and other tenements in the hundred of Stratton, Cornwall. They had three sons, Thomas, Knt., John, Gent., and William, and two daughters, Margaret (wife of John Thorne) and Ellen (wife of William Yeo). He was heir in 1412 to his brother, John Grenville, Knt., of Bideford, Devon and Kilkhampton, Cornwall, Sheriff of Cornwall, 1404–6, 1410–11. WILLIAM GRENVILLE, Esq., was living 7 Nov. 1447, on which date he granted lands to James Chuddeligh, William Chuddeleigh, and Hugh Stucle, Esquires. His widow, Philippe, married (2nd) before 1450–1 (date of deed) JOHN ALMESCOMBE (or ALMYSCOMBE), Esq. In 29 Henry VI [1450–1] John de Copleston and others granted John and his wife, Philippe, lands in Wildhays and Guakmore. In 1455 Thomas Bodrugan, Esq., of Bodrugan, Cornwall, was pardoned for not appearing before the justices of the Bench to answer John and his wife, Philippe, late the wife of William Greynevyle, Esq. touching a trespass. In 1458 he and his wife, Philippe, presented to the church of Bideford, Devon. In 1461 he and his wife, Philippe, settled 23 messuages, 1 mill, and various lands in Kilkhampton, Cornwall, together with the advowson of the church of Kilkhampton, Cornwall, on themselves and the heirs of their bodies, with successive remainders to John Grenville and William Grenville. In 1464 he sued William Pyke, of Clayhidon, Devon, husbandman and five others in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a trespass [vi et armis] at Clayhidon, Devon. In 1464 he and his wife, Philippe, settled the manor and advowson of the church of Kilkhampton, Cornwall and the manor and advowson of the church of Bideford, Devon on themselves and the heirs of their bodies, with reversion to the right heirs of Philippe. In 1468 John Bele, of Shildon, Devon, butcher, was pardoned for not appearing to answer John Almyscombe, Esq., administrator of the good and chattels of John Ferlard, chaplain, touching a debt of 62s. 8d. JOHN ALMESCOMBE, Esq., died testate before Hilary term 1475. In Hilary term 1475 William Yeo and John Barnehowes, executors of John Almyscombe sued Peter Benet, Gent., of Eltham, Kent, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the abduction of a minor ward, John Benet son and heir of Thomas Benet.

References:

Pole, Colls. towards a Desc. of Devon (1791): 387–388 (Grenville ped.: “Willam Grenvill his brother maried Thomazin, & unto his 2 wief Phelip, daughter of Willam Lord Bonvill, & had issue Sr Thomas ...”). Oliver, Ecclesiastical Antiqs. in Devon 3 (1842): 41. Vivian, Vis. of Cornwall (H.S.P. 9) (1874): 84–86 (Grenville ped.: “Willm Grenvile Brother and hey. to Sr John temp. H. IV. - Philip sist’ to the Lo. Bondvile.”). Granville, Hist. of Bideford (1883): 109. Rpt. & Trans. Devonshire Assoc. 16 (1884): 684–685 (author identifies Philippe, wife of William Grenville, as “sister to Wm. Lord Bonville.”). Rogers, Strife of the Roses & Days of the Tudors in the West (1890): 47–48 (author identifies Philippe Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, Lord Bonville). Granville, Hist. of the Granville Fam. (1895): 56–57 (“The arms of William Graynefeld, impaled with those of his second wife [Philippe Bonville], were in Kilkhampton Church, in a hatchment of stucco.”). Vivian Vis. of Devon 1531, 1564 & 1620 (1895): 101–103 (Bonville ped.). List of Sheriffs for England & Wales (PRO Lists and Indexes 9) (1898): 21–22. C.P.R. 1467–1477 (1900): 75–76. C.P.R. 1452–1461 (1910): 189. Dalton, Collegiate Church of Ottery St Mary (1917): 31 (author identifies Philippe Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, Lord Bonville). NGSQ 59 (1971): 254–262 (author identifies Philippe Bonville, wife of William Grenville, as the daughter of William Bonville, Lord Bonville).”

+++++++++++++++

================================================

commented Mar 13, 2017 by anonymous G2G Rookie (100 points)
edited Mar 13, 2017 by anonymous

This is for the WikiTree community who have been following these posts regarding Douglas Richardson’s works as the Master Sources and his claims regarding the 15^th century woman, Philippa Bonville. WikiTree members will also notice that someone by the name of Joe Cochoit has been diligent in replying to all of these posts. It is not a secret that this Joe is a devout worshipper and disciple of Douglas Richardson, even to the point of calling him infallible. This we know is a gross exaggeration. While Richardson’s works are credible, there are proven errors in some of his lines. This same Joe Cochoit posted an unwarranted, untrue, and unprovoked personal attack against me, simply for pointing out that Douglas Richardson’s conclusions regarding Philippa Bonville were not proven and just speculative.

Above is Douglas Richardson’s current file on Philippa Bonville. This was recently posted on a SGM thread. Richardson also provided a short reasoning behind why he placed Philippa Bonville as the sister of Lord William Bonville. In this same thread, Richardson reveals his three major assumptions for his conclusions.

commented Mar 13, 2017 by anonymous G2G Rookie (100 points)
edited Mar 13, 2017 by anonymous

First, he assumes that William Grenville, Esq., and Philippa Bonville were married in 1428 (any later date would push the chronology a little too much for Philippa to be borne by 1396 and to have five children after her marriage). Additionally, all we know is that William Grenville and Philippa married after 12 May 1427. Did William and Philippa marry within a few years after this? Probably yes, but that could have been in 1429, 1430, or 1431. There isn’t any evidence to confirm they married in 1428. We know that their first born son, Thomas Grenville I, married Anne Courtenay in 1447 and they had to sue in the courts to grant a tenement to Richard Ashrigge in 1449. In this same tenement, William Grenville is mentioned as still being alive. Most estimates place William Grenville’s date of death in the year 1450, which includes Charles Fitch-Northen. This would suggest that Thomas was not of age (21 years old) in 1449 because the courts were involved, thus making Thomas Grenville 20 years of age or younger in 1449. We can then conclude that Thomas Grenville was born no earlier than 1429 and assuredly could have been born in 1430 or 1431 (which would follow along with the same reasoning and original date of birth estimate for Thomas Grenville being 1430 as found in Weis’ The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 fifth ed. (1999): p. 30 [Line 22-11]). We also have a land grant from Thomas Grenville and his second wife to Richard Rede in the 31^st Henry VI [21 Jan. 1453]. Since the courts were not involved, we can be quite sure that Thomas Grenville was of age (21 years old) in 1452, thus placing his date of birth around 1431.

Secondly, Douglas Richardson assumes that Philippa Bonville had an unnoticed first marriage to explain why she was of such a late age (32 years old / assuming a date of birth of 1396 and a marriage date of 1428) upon her marriage to William Grenville, Esq., in the early 15^th century. This is way too convenient to say in order to help fit her into the window of being Sir John Bonville and Elizabeth FitzRoger’s daughter, born between May 1393 and July 1397. Once again, since there is neither any primary nor secondary evidence to suggest a first marriage of Philippa before William Grenville, this makes it quite easy to concoct such a marriage for Philippa Bonville. We can estimate this date range (May 1393 – July 1397) given the proof of age for Lord William Bonville, which puts his date of birth at 31 Aug. 1392. We know through ipms that Sir John Bonville’s death occurred on 21 Oct. 1396. So following along the lines of this theory, if Philippa was born in 1397, Elizabeth FitzRoger would had to of conceived Philippa in the months just prior to John Bonville’s death (with John Bonville most likely being in ill-health for most of 1396 before his death in Oct. 1396). This is an unlikely scenario and thus would reduce the date range of Philippa’s birth to occur before 1397. We also know that Thomas Bonville and Isabel Bonville were also born between May 1393 and July 1397. Again, suggesting that Isabel was born before Lord William Bonville is an easy convention in order to allow more time for Philippa to be born within the time period after May 1393 and before 1397. It should also be noted that Elizabeth FitzRoger’s marriage agreement with her 2^nd husband, Richard Stukeley, Gent., occurred on 6 Dec. 1396. Elizabeth FitzRoger’s ipm in 1414 gives her eldest son with Richard Stukeley a date of birth of 1398. Again, the evidence that Philippa had a marriage prior to William Grenville is as unnoticed as the invention that she did. There is zero evidence to suggest that Philippa had a prior marriage to William Grenville. Richardson’s own file account of Philippa states, “PHILIPPE BONVILLE, married (1st) after 12 May 1427 (as his 2nd wife) WILLIAM GRENVILLE!”

Finally, Douglas Richardson’s third assumption is that Hugh Stukeley was the half-brother of Philippa Bonville because Hugh served as a feoffee for Philippa Bonville’s husband, William Grenville. Richardson states, “But the most likely explanation is that Hugh Stucle, Esq., was Isabel and Philippe Bonville’s half-brother.” Any student of history would know by looking at the lists of feoffees for the 15th century, just how many were the sibling-in-laws of the people involved! Was it more than likely that Hugh Stukeley was the brother-in-law or the uncle-in-law of William Grenville? It is unsupportable to use Hugh Stukeley’s feoffee status to conclude either relationship (brother-in-law or uncle-in-law) to William Grenville, other than just wanting it to be so.

In Roger Granville’s book, The History of the Granville family, he states:

“In the 26^th Henry VI. [7 Nov 1447], being styled William Graynefild, he grants lands to James (William ?) Chuddeleigh and Hugh Stucles, Esquires. The deed is dated 7^th November, and thereto is appended two seals.”

There is no mention in the History of the Granville family, or in the deed itself of the exact relationship between William Grenville and Hugh Stukeley. It doesn’t say that William granted lands to his brother-in-law nor does it mention any other kind of kinship. But since we know that Elizabeth FitzRoger married Richard Stukeley after 6 Dec. 1396, we can presume there was a kinship between Hugh Stukeley and Philippa Bonville. There is nothing to say that Hugh Stukeley was not the uncle of Philippa Bonville, as we know it is fact that Hugh Stuckeley was the half-brother of Lord William Bonville. Again, Richardson wants Philippa to be the sister of Lord William Bonville, so it is more than convenient to say that Hugh Stukeley was Philippa’s half-brother.

These three assumptions make it convenient for Richardson to place Philippa Bonville as the sister of Lord William Bonville and the daughter of Sir John Bonville and Elizabeth FitzRoger. What Richardson fails to achieve is to provide any concrete evidence to support or confirm his assumptions. This would make his conclusion that Philippa Bonville was the sister of Lord William Bonville very suspect. Who is to say that Professor J. S. Roskell’s conclusion that Philippa Bonville was the daughter of Lord William Bonville and Margaret Grey inaccurate? According to the Proceedings of the British Academy, “His insistence on never going a step beyond the evidence, his profound distrust of speculation, and the down-to-earth commonsense of his Lancashire stock, gave his conclusions a solidity that commanded assent. He steered to successful completion the official history of The House of Commons, 1386–1421, which bears the imprint of his approach.”

We should trust the conclusion of Professor Roskell as it concerns the parentage of Philippa Bonville, because that is what all the evidence has ever supported.

commented Mar 13, 2017 by anonymous G2G Rookie (100 points)
edited Mar 14, 2017 by anonymous

We find in the book "the History of the Granville family" written by Roger Granville, the following statement concerning Philippa's surname.

Granville, Hist. of the Granville Fam. (1895): pp. 56–57 (“The arms of William Graynefeld, impaled with those of his second wife [Philippe Bonville], were in Kilkhampton Church, in a hatchment of stucco.”).

I think it is fairly certain that Philippa was a Bonville. For, how, otherwise do we account for the above statement by Roger Granville. The Yeo society did considerable research into this stained glass window, which had the Grenville arms impaling the Bonville arms, representing the marriage of William Grenville, Esq. and Philippa Bonville. Their research can be found here http://www.yeosociety.com/heraldry/yeo%20evidence.htm.

commented Mar 13, 2017 by anonymous G2G Rookie (100 points)

3 Answers

Answer 1 · 2016-11-22T01:40:14+0000

Please list some examples of what you mean.

The works of Richardson & Cawley ,in addition to other sourcing materials are carefully considered before connecting or disconnecting profiles. Please see the project pages for the Euroaristo & Magna Carta Projects.

With the Magna Carta Project there is a carefully considered review process in place regarding profiles that lead to the Surety Barons.

Our primary collaboration space is our Base Camp, where you can see what's being worked on now, and opportunities to help out.

Goals

To have a reviewed/approved trail from every Gateway Ancestor to a Magna Carta Surety Baron.
- Gateway Ancestors are those immigrants to America, prior to 1700, who are descended from a Magna Carta Surety Baron and are documented by Douglas Richardson (see "Project Sources" below). A Questionable Gateway Ancestor is not documented by Richardson, but may meet the other criteria.
To have a reviewed/approved trail from all 17 Magna Carta Surety Barons with descendants who immigrated to America.
- See the Descendant pages (click the links provided in the Index of Surety Barons to Gateway Ancestors).

Answer 2 · 2016-11-22T02:05:46+0000

By Douglas Richardson I assume you mean…

Richardson, Douglas. Royal Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, in 5 vols. (Salt Lake City, Utah, 2013).

Richardson, Douglas, Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, exp. 2nd edn. in 3 vols. (Salt Lake City, Utah, 2011).

Richardson, Douglas. Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, exp. 2nd ed. in 4 vols, (Salt Lake City, Utah, 2011).

Yes, Richardson’s works are generally the most accurate and complete works of their kind. They are the basis of the euroaristo project, and are generally accepted as the works to follow unless it can be positively shown to be wrong (they are after all still secondary sources). I note that you are working from Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry. First, there are multiple editions of these works - it is important to realize that there were occasional changes from the 2004 editions to the 2011 editions. Second, both works were superseded by his Royal Ancestry publications which greatly expanded Richardson’s work.

With regard to gateway ancestors, these generally fall under the PGM project and the “master source” here is actually the NEHGS’s Great Migration Project. These biographies are actually more comprehensive and more completely researched than in Richardson’s books. The biographies are all available AmericanAncestor.org if you are a member of the NEHGS.

I am not here to slow you down. I’m glad to have someone else helping to clean the junk out of WikiTree. Just remember to be respectful to Profile Managers who may not like you breaking their precious royal ancestry, and to fully source and document what are fundamental changes to a profile and the person’s ancestry.

answered Nov 22, 2016 by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (260k points)

You are of course right. The term Gateway Ancestor most generally refers to an ancestor which opens up one’s ancestry from one specific group to another distinct specific group. However, the term is most commonly used here on WikiTree and elsewhere to refer to the ancestor which transitions one’s ancestry in America to one’s ancestry in Europe. And most specifically, it refers to the ancestor who immigrated from England to the New World during the Great Migration of the 1620s to 1640s.

Certainly, Australians can similarly use the term to refer to their immigrant ancestor, and the same can be said for those in South Africa with English ancestry. Probably many immigrant groups could use the term. However, the most common use and meaning refers to a Great Migration immigrant with traceable European ancestry, and these all do fall under the PGM project.

commented Nov 26, 2016 by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (260k points)

there's "gateway ancestors" and then there's the WikiTree category "Gateway Ancestors". The category is part of WikiTree's Magna Carta Project. See the category page for details (or an answer I posted in another G2G thread), but short answer: pre-1700 Colonial American immigrant descendants of a Magna Carta Surety Baron who have been documented in Douglas Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestry and Royal Ancestry - could be PGM too, as well as other WikiTree projects.

a while back, there was a discussion about Australian gateways & also about MCSB English descendants who never emigrated & the decision of the Magna Carta Project at the time was remain focused on those trails documented by Richardson and to not expand the project to include non-immigrants/immigrants to other than Colonial America. I can see if I can find that G2G discussion if you're interested, but it might be better to start a new one.

P.S. William Ironmonger is definitely a Gateway - his trail was completed/reviewed by the Magna Carta project September 2015.

commented Nov 29, 2016 by Liz Shifflett G2G6 Pilot (635k points)

Answer 3 · 2016-12-06T05:38:45+0000

As an example, the PGM Project has always been clear that Robert Charles Anderson's Great Migration works are used "unless there is more recent published research that corrects or adds" to them. Which there has been, and will continue to be, including revisions and updates from the GM team itself.

Anderson's GM and Richardson's RA are significant works in their genre because they are broad, comprehensive, with a consistent data structure/format, relatively accessible even to the beginner, and they exhaustively document their sources and explain their methods, allowing their research and conclusions to be reproduced, extended, or refuted by others. It would be ridiculous to hold such publications to any standard of perfection, since that is not how historical scholarship works, but their rigor and overall reliability are indisputable.

Large complex Projects like PGM and MC need a shared baseline around which their many participants can find common ground. Without it, the work would be unmanageable; thousands of significant profiles could resemble this G2G thread, an outcome the WikiTree leadership strives mightily to avoid. It makes absolute and complete sense that the Projects would choose GM and RA respectively, because the qualities mentioned above that these works share (broad, accessible, consistent, reproducible, falsifiable) also make them wonderfully suited to collaborative wikiwork.

Of course history doesn't freeze the moment someone writes it down. There is always new research and the possibility of new data coming to light which could revise or upend prior conclusions. That is how scholarship rightly works. Both Projects already acknowledge this.

I wonder if we are getting wrapped around the axle unnecessarily by the word "master" in the original question? I found it a curious choice of word, especially because some seem to be choosing to interpret it in the sense of superlative (making it a matter of opinion and debate) rather than one of the neutral senses, like principal or even from which duplicates [or derivatives] are made. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that neither PGM nor MC refers to GM or RA as a "master" source on their Project page, a fact which I know because I wrote both of them.

Could we simply agree that these are starting sources, and not "master" anythings, and might that allow us to de-escalate the rhetoric a bit?

Categories

Richardson's works ("Plantagenet Ancestry..." and the rest) considered THE MASTER sources?

Robert I De Beaumont/ 1st Earl of Leicester Comte DeMeulan

1049–1118

Birth 1049 • Beaumont, Eure, Haute-Normandie, France

Death 5 JUNE 1118 • Leicestershire, England

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to answer this question.

3 Answers

Goals

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Related questions