Would there be interest in an Edward III descent project?

Question

We very often see postings here looking for information about Royal descents and on the other hand one of Wikitree's big success stories is the Magna Carta Project. Is there a possibility of doing something similar?

As sometimes discussed in such discussions, Edward III is the most recent royal that a lot of people will descend from and not know it.

Would there be interest in an Edward III project?

Of course like the Magna Carta project to make it practical there should be a point in time or generations at which we stop tracing these descents, but it strikes me as potentially very useful to at least bring the descents down to a time when things like parish registers and wills are commonly functioning for many families, somewhere between 1500 and 1700. After 1700 it would become too ambitious and I think it has to be up to individual families to work it out from there.

One way to structure and prioritize work would be if the project proceeded by generation. The first 4 or 5 are of course simple, and by the way perhaps deserve a special tag anyway (grandchild of Edward III etc)?

Like with Magna Carta, there are standard reference works which could be used to keep it simple (including Richardson).

To get to 1500 would I think not be such a big project. Most/all of those lines will already be right and just need to be checked and tagged. To get to 1700 would be very big and long term project though, that could potentially help link a lot of people one day.

Comments

Possibly an easy way to start and test interest is simply by creating a category (descendants of Edward III), sub-categories (child, grandchild, great grandchild to start with) and tags to go with those. The category page would then give an automatic listing of affected profiles.

---

BTW, I also think an ANCESTRY of Henry II path would be similarly interesting and this has been discussed before also (using the Henry II project website as a reference point). I did some work on checking our profiles against the project, but never created tags etc.

Henry II and Edward III are two interesting nodes in the royal line for purposes of connecting other lines to.

What seems more immediately attractive from a Wikitree point of view about going forwards from EIII instead of backwards from HII, is the relevance to more genealogists who face walls in recent centuries.

---

Sounds fascinating to me, relationship finder has him listed as my 20th great grandfather. Gets exciting to see how far back one can go and read all the stories you've found to your grandchildren.

---

At this stage it seems that once my winter break starts what I will be doing is making a freespace page where I start by summarizing the first generations after Edward III.

Possibly some sort of standard comment or tag or template or category will also be added to profiles.

Everyone ok with that as a start?

---

I've created a page by converting the descendants chart.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:A_table_of_descendants_of_Edward_III

I used a project page to get the full width.  Splitting the table wasn't ideal, but it had to be done to make it usable.  Edit by sections, Wikipedia-style.

---

Great!

---

Next step is defining who can work on that and what "procedures" we follow to make that work useful.

---

Thanks RJ that table is fantastic

I think that at the moment to keep the momentum going we don't want to get bogged down in too many procedures.

My idea is that someone puts their name against a profile they are working on, and once completed, someone else also looks at it to see what they can add (in line with Magna Carta procedures).

The aim should be to have every profile completed with good sources, and as much according to style standards as possible.

As anyone comes across good sources - they could be added to the source list to help anyone else.

---

I agree of course that the "procedure"  should be very simple, certainly to start and see how it works. I hope I'll get some time eventually to actually work on this also :)

I see RJ has added some codes. Can we for example add notes and sign with our name in the notes column? But the first thing I would not is the UNC markings in the first table which seems to be this notorious DNA misunderstanding. I suppose anyone fixing such a problem can remove the notation from the project tables?

---

The table shows the current state of WikiTree, so it reflects what needs fixing.

The UNCs are the ones currently in place in the tree, last time I looked.

Anything added after the last || appears in the Notes column.  Anything longer than 2-3 lines I'd suggest putting <ref></ref> round it, to make it appear as a footnote.

---

1. Any proposal about how we should eventually tag or note a profile as checked? (See post of John.)

2. Concerning posting anything on profiles themselves, I am still thinking a quick bit of text and a category might be useful. A category tag creates a handy list of worked on profiles for one thing.

Idea:

For the first 4 generations we just keep note on the project page, and then after that I am thinking that generation 5 (great great great grandchildren) we actually create a category, and standard text to add to profiles, so as to create a standard list for the people in that generation.

What do after 5 is a future discussion, but I noticed how RJH got quickly to five and that at 5 we are just hitting late 1400s and a few into the 1500s. Eventually that list of 5th generation confirmed people could become a new basis for working forward in a different step.

---

I think I will start a new thread about this mini project idea, which has led to some practical actions already.

---

Edward III Plantagenet shows to be my 18th Great-Grandfather. Would be great to have more information on his lineage to validate what I already have.

---

The project has been going some time now, slowly. But a big part of it is simply cleaning up what we have. One thing everyone can do is make sure the lines they are interested in have good sourcing concerning the evidence for all relationships.

Answer 1

I think it would be interesting.  Since many of the royal families of Europe intermarried with each other, there are many, many possibilities. Below is are links to each of the English/British Monarchs since William the Conqueror through King George III ... Based on what is in WikiTree, I show a connection to each though I do not have the "paper trail" to back it up.  I just hope this helps someone figure things out a bit.

British/English Monarchs

• Guillaume (William I) "the Conqueror" de Normandie (1066 - 1087) is my 26th great grandfather through my Father's line.
• William (William II, King) "Rufus" of England" de Normandie (1087 - 1100) is my 25th great grand uncle through my Father's line.
• Henry (Henry I) "Beauclerc, FitzWilliam, King of England" de Normandie (1100 - 1135) is my 25th great grandfather through my Father's line.
• Étienne (Stephen I) "King of the English" Blois (1135 - 1154) is my 24th great grand uncle through my Father's line.
• Henry (Henry II) Curtmantle "King of England" Plantagenet (1154 - 1189) is my 24th great grandfather through my Father's line.
• Richard (Richard I) "Coeur de Lion (the Lionheart)"King of England" Plantagenet (1189 - 1199) is my 23rd great grand uncle through my Father's line.
• John "Lackland, King of England" Plantagenet (1199 - 1216) is my 24th great grandfather through my Father's line.
• Henry (Henry III) "King of England" Plantagenet (1216 - 1272) is my 23rd great grandfather through my Father's line.
• Edward (Edward I) "Longshanks, King of England" Plantagenet (1272 - 1307) is my 22nd great grandfather through my Father's line.
• Edward (Edward II) "King of England" Plantagenet (1307 - 1327) is my 21th great grand uncle through my Father's line.
• Edward (Edward III) "King of England" Plantagenet (1327 - 1377) is my 1st cousin 22 times removed through my Father's line.
• Richard (Richard II) "King of England" Plantagenet (1377 - 1399) are first cousins 19 times removed through my Father's line.
• Henry (Henry IV) "King of England" Plantagenet (1399 - 1413) is my 17th great grand uncle through my Father's line.
• Henry (Henry V) "King of England" Lancaster (1413 - 1422) are first cousins 18 times removed through my Father's line.
• Henry (Henry VI) "King of England, King of France" Lancaster (1422 - 1461; 1470 - 1471) are second cousins 17 times removed through my Father's line.
• Edward (Edward IV) "King of England" of York (1461 - 1470; 1471 -1483) are first cousins 17 times removed through my Father's line.
• Edward (Edward V) "King of England" Plantagenet (1483 -1483) are second cousins 16 times removed through my Father's line.
• Richard (Richard III) "King of England" Plantagenet (1483 -1485) are first cousins 17 times removed through my Father's line.
• Henry (Henry VII) "King of England" Tudor (1485 -1509) are second cousins 16 times removed through my Father's line.
• Henry (Henry VIII) "King of England" Tudor (1509 -1547) are third cousins 15 times removed through my Father's line.
• Edward (Edward VI) "King of England" Tudor (1547 -1553) are fourth cousins 13 times removed through my Father's line.
• Mary (Mary I) "Bloody Mary, Queen of England, Queen of Spain" (1553 -1558) are fourth cousins 14 times removed through my Father's line.
• Elizabeth (Elizabeth I) "Queen of England" (1558 - 1603) are first cousins 14 times removed through my Father's line.
• Mary (Mary I) "Queen of Scots" Stuart (1542 - 1567; Scotland) are fifth cousins 13 times removed through my Father's line.
• James Charles (James VI and I) Stuart aka King of Scots, King of England and Ireland (1603 - 1625) are 8th cousins 8 times removed through my Father's line.
• King Charles (Charles I) "King of England, Scotland and Ireland" Stuart (1625 -1649) are 9th cousins 7 times removed through my Father's line.
• Oliver Cromwell "Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland" (1649 -1658) are 9th cousins 10 times removed through my Father's line.
• King Charles (Charles II) "the Merry Monarch" Stuart (1660 - 1685) are 10th cousins 6 times removed through my Father's line.
• James (James II) "King of England and Scotland, Duke of York and Albany" Stuart (1685 - 1688) are 10th cousins 6 times removed through my Father's line.
• Mary (Mary II) "Queen of England Scotland and Ireland" Stuart(* Co-Regent (1689 - 1694)) are 11th cousins five times removed through my Father's line.
• King Willem Hendrik "William Henry of Orange" Orange-Nassau III (William III) (*Co-Regent (1689 - 1702) are 11th cousins five times removed through my Father's line.
• Anne "Queen Anne of Great Britain" Stuart (1702 - 1714) are 11th cousins five times removed through my Father's line.
• King Georg Ludwig (George I) "George Louis" Hannover of Great Britain (1714 - 1727) are 11th cousins five times removed through my Father's line.
• King Georg August (George II) "George Augustus" Hannover of Great Britain (1727 - 1760) are 12th cousins four times removed through my Father's line.
• King George William Frederick (George III) Hannover of the United Kingdom (1760 - 1820) are 14th cousins twice removed through my Father's line.

Comments

Yes, and in theory a project could begin with any of them and go backwards or forwards, but I hope everyone understands the reason why EIII is a very interesting one to chose to go forwards?

---

I pointed this out below, but you are prob. not related to any British monarchs since one of your ancestors, William Knowles, the supposed son of William Knollys, the 1st Earl of Banbury. appears to me to be an error. Even if he was a natural son who didn't know how to spell his father's name, the History of Parliament, specifies Lord Banbury he was childless until his sons were born to his 2nd wife, (and their parentage was also disputed!)

 

---

Actually I made an error in the above listing.  Edward III is actually my 1st cousin 22 times removed. I also do not see https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Knowles-2140 listed in the relationship trail as you mentioned, although he is suppossedly my 5th cousin 12X removed.  I have corrected the above list for Edward II and III, which I provided so folks could link to Edward III and the other Monarchs.  I still think it's really interesting stuff. Ken

---

Edward III and Arora are fifth cousins 19 times removed

Edward III (Plantagenet) of England and Arora (G) Anonymous are both descendants of Henri I (Brabant) de Brabant.

Answer 2

Sounds good to me.  Relationship finder shows him as my 21st great grandfather although I haven't reviewed the trail.

Comments

One of the aims would be to "certify" the best proven lines as solid. So then anyone who is feeling a bit uncertain about what is proven or not can also see it more easily. (This is inspired by the Magna Carta project.)

Answer 3

It does sound like an interesting idea Andrew.  Many of the profiles already on WikiTree for Edward III and his descendants could do with a clean-up or even the addition of good sources.

A couple of comments/questions

• Would it be better to aim for a certain number of generations (5 to start with) rather than a date (1500)?
• Should we put a time frame on the project (6 months/a year - a focus for 2017 perhaps)?
• I'm not sure about categories, having to add a sub-category for grandchild, great grandchild could get confusing?  Perhaps it would be better to start with a free-space page, and list the descendants there?
• You could work the project from both ends - working down from Edward III, or as Ken Parman has done finding a connection to any monarch (they will all be descendants of Edward III) and then confirming by researching the paper trail.
• I'm not sure what standard sources (other than Richardson) you mean.  That could be a crucial element of defining the recommended sources

 

Comments

John ,  a good plan of action.

---

Hi John

Yes, was also starting to think in terms of generations at least as a starting phase and like you say that could be one year for example.

With this approach the sub-category idea (for the first few generations only perhaps, with the rest just general descendants) did not sound too complicated because it would be the subject of focus and not a large number.

Concerning sources Richardson came to mind as a starting point, but I was wondering if there might be any others to keep in mind on this rather well-known subject.

Andrew

---

John, to get things moving should we start at least the first category, just "Descendants of Edward III"? I suppose sub-categories and a nice template can be invented when anyone has time, or after more discussion if needed. Also I suppose some procedures and check lists might develop, but to start with, just marking out non controversial ones shown in Richardson, several generations, seems non-controversial?

---

Andrew, I think for the moment it would be easier to start this as a sub-project of the European Aristocrats project, rather than going down the route of developing a separate project with templates and badges etc.

The best way to start might be to develop a free-space page, and start to list the descendants of Edward III so that people can indicate which profile they are working on, and we are not doubling up.  I'm not going to have time to do that until the weekend (maybe) so if you or someone else can start that would be great.  It can be very basic to start with and we can improve it as we go.  There also needs to be some space for people to indicate where they are looking at specific lines.

A couple of more questions -

• Was your plan to look at all the descendants of Edward III, including children who died young for instance, or just those where we know (think?) they had descendants?
• Should we include cleaning up profiles of partners (wives, husbands, mistresses etc)?

---

John

Thanks for the advice. I actually also do not have much time and was not as such looking for more to do, but the idea just seemed worth putting on record even if not for now. So whatever way is easiest seems best.

I was also wondering about children without known children and figure that they are lower priority at least.

Illegitimate children certain seem of interest to this idea, but the partners themselves not so much as their children.

So in practice how could it be done? A simple category under Euroaristo?

---

All the British Monarchs have been researched pretty extensively, so its actually probably more useful to find out errors in your genealogy tree. 

In the example above, he's related to Edward III through William Knowles, the supposed son of the 1st Earl of Banbury. who mysteriously changes his surname spelling from Knollys, has no sources, and is skipped in the line of succession in favor of his younger step-siblings.

---

Hi Kirk, Yes that was the aim, taking "your genealogy tree"  to refer to any Wikitree editor's. People with mistakes in their lines will be able to see if their lines are registered by this project as a known descent, and that can help look into problems. By the same token, there will also be people who have already done a lot of work to get their tree back into the 1500s but are not aware yet of how to go further.

The category of profiles we are talking about is not the monarchs themselves of course, but the descendants of the most recent one to have a very big number of descendants. Of course it is true that EIII's children and grandchildren are also very easy to look up, but the aim is to get his uncontroversial descendants clear down into the 1500s. And by then it is certainly not easy to find a clear listing here or anywhere else, and there are lots of fake lines adding to confusion.

---

My suggestion is a space, add a section and list each of Edward III's known children, link them to profiles. In those profiles, add sources, and mark their parents as confirmed/unconfirmed, then check of each in the space. Then add another generation, list all of the grandchildren, etc. I think like John mentioned you could put it as a sub-proj. of EuroAristo. I think you can link to the space rather than using a category.

Obviously, Richardson's Royal Ancestry would be very useful since he has done a lot of the work, the first few generations are prob. complete.

---

Yes, simple sounds good indeed because it is a simple idea, and a basic free space page could be enough. I think John was also thinking in this direction.

Answer 4

Andrew , I think this is a good idea.  So far all of us in this discussion share several relationships.  We all are cousins a few times over.  We share many threat Grande parent  , as would many other wikitree members.

Comments

Right Trudy and EIII is a very important linking person in the genealogy of modern people.

---

Not only do many of those that have responded have relationships with each other, most all of us have taken some form of DNA test.  Perhaps we could do a little triangulation and establish some real confirmed results.  I would be very interested to see if the paths shown through WikiTree are true.  Many of the Edward I, II, III and immediate families are "Great Grandparents" according to WikiTree.

---

Yes but we can not test them directly in most cases :)

It is very hard to triangulate from our generation to those ones. Not saying this is not a great aim, but I think it is a difficult project within itself, not part of what I am proposing here which I have actually tried to propose in a non-ambitious way.

Answer 5

Andrew,  I think you certainly selected the appropriate person for such a project.  When I clicked on Edward III's profile I was a bit dismayed at the organization and a number of inaccuracies.  So as step one of your project I took it upon myself to cleanup and source the profile of Edward III.

The work is still on going - I would like to add more sources, get rid of the copy-paste sections from Royal Ancestry and Royal Tombs, and add a bit more of a historical narrative (wars and relations with Scotland, France, etc.) for this important person.

Comments

Thank you Joe for doing that, particularly that you rectified the incorrect use of the DNA information.

---

Thanks Joe, and of course such work is needed in so many important profiles and the Magna Carta project's success in focusing such efforts is part of my reasoning. BTW (general point to everyone) in my opinion the DNA evidence is being misunderstood with all the "uncertain" markings for EIII's children. This has been discussed on G2G many times, and also on the Medieval Genealogy list. Tagging a relationship as uncertain should mean more than "not proven by DNA" or otherwise most connections would need that tag.

---

I have many reliable sources for Edward III (and all British aristocracy) and would love to work on this. I have about 50 books on medieval history all written by historians. I have researched the monarchy extensively over the past 20 years. I would love to help!

---

Hi again Barry, sounds great. Wikitree needs a lot of work still. As already mentioned it is likely that the first few generations after a well known king will be reasonably correct, maybe a few fake children. But the further we go...

Answer 6

I'm interested, I have noticed several of my lines that trail back to various aristocrats.  Problem: I am not pre1500 certified, and not sought certification.  Would this project be limited to those certified?  If so, it seems that it would be quite limited in it's scope.  How many volunteers on WT are pre1500?

Comments

ha ha ha, now that I look with fresher eyes and clearer mind, my answer itself is "limited in scope."  I must have been really, really tired. . .

Sorry folks.

Andrew, you go for it.  An excellent idea to try to clean up several of the bogus ancestral lines.

---

Well, the first aim would be especially to let people see which ones are least controversial. I think there might be some lines which are genuinely not certain (illegitimates etc) and there might need to be a category eventually.

Answer 7

I am interested. I have been adding Richardson,s "Royal Ancestry"sources to all of the Plantagenet profiles that I have found. Richardson does not have a Plantagenet chapter in his RA book, they are dispersed through out the RA book. Is there a list of the Plantagenet royals we could see to make it easier looking up sources for the family.   

Thanks, Andrew! Good ideal!

Comments

Edward III is here

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kjme027UeagC&pg=PA66

and all of his official Gateways are listed in footnotes 44-48.

They're all Magna Carta Gateways.  I think these are the people you have to connect, to "convert" their Magna Carta trails to Edward III trails

44 2 Philippe (Plantagenet-190) of Clarence
45 2 Elizabeth of Lancaster-459
45 2 Henry IV
46 3 Joan (Beaufort-20) Stewart
46 3 Edmund Beaufort-4
46 3 Joan (Beaufort-6) Stradling
46 3 Mary & Elizabeth Ferrers, daughters of Joan Beaufort by Robert Ferrers
46 3 several children of Joan Beaufort by Ralph Neville
47 3 Isabel (Despenser-32) Beauchamp
47 3 Eleanor (Holand-37) Touchet
47 3 Richard of York-1210, via Richard of Conisbrough
48 2 Anne (Plantagenet-114) of Gloucester

But I haven't checked that too carefully

PS fixed link
 

---

Here's a Henry IV line that WikiTree hasn't got, the descent of Rowland Ellis (Penn Quaker) from Mary Kynaston.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=RA1-PA110

Anybody feeling Welsh?

 

 

 

---

I'm feeling Welsh! My mother's Lawhorn (Laugharne) family is said to hail from Wales! Love it RJ Horace! I will check this line out! Thanks!

---

Laugharne Castle - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laugharne_Castle
Laugharne Castle (Welsh: Castell Talacharn) is a castle in the town of Laugharne in southern Carmarthenshire, Wales. It is located on the estuary of the River ...

---

Hi Carroll, the first family dealt with in Volume 1 of Royal Ancestry is called "England". That is a good starting place. :)

---

Thank you, Andrew Lancaster! I will check this out! Royal Ancestry has Philippe (Philippa) Of Hainault, married Edward III, King of England.

Child of Marguerite of Hainault, by Ludwig IV of Bavaria:
a. Guillaume (or Willem) Of Bavaria, Knt., married MAUD OF LANCASTER. Would Maud be in  your line?

---

Carroll, I am lucky enough to have a good looking Edward III (and Phillippa) descent, in fact even one going through their son John of Gaunt, the founder of the War of Roses "House of Lancaster" (actually a part of the royal family, not a Lancaster family in the normal sense). But through this is only through my mother :)  This is the part of my descent which can be found in published works. (The next stepsneeded digging up of wills.)

John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster etc (1340-1399)    m. 1396    Katheryn Swynford (d. 1403)                                                                     
Joan Beaufort (d. 1440)    m. 1397    Ralph de Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland (d. 1425)    

Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury (1400-1460)    m.    Alice Montacute

Lady Alice Neville (d. 1503)    m.    Henry Fitz Hugh

Elizabeth FitzHugh    m.    Nicholas, 1st Baron Vaux (d. 1523)

Anne Vaux    m.    Sir Thomas le Strange (1493–1545)    

Sir Nicholas Strange of Hunstanton M.P.    m.    Ellin (or Eleanor) Fitz William of Melton                                      

Hamon le Strange (died 1580)    m.    Elizabeth Hastings (b abt.1533)  

Anne le Strange of Hunstanton    m.    Roger Bozoun of Whissinsett Esq. (d. 1623)             

Catherine Bozoun (died 1624)    m. 1605    William Howman (abt.1586-1644)      

Rev. Roger Howman (1606-abt.1670)    m. 1638    Merriall Amyas

The Belgian connection through Edward's wife is also nice because I live there, and my in-laws are Belgian.

---

Sorry, the line I posted was not correct.

Thank you!

---

RJ: on the Kynaston->Ellis line above, I added Humphrey ap Hywel ap Jenkin , I think he was the only missing link, although I'm not a Welsh name field expert so feel free to correct my work and I didn't add spouses.

Also, Elsbeth Hywel must be related somehow to Humphrey's father Hywel ap Jenkin - she married Mary's brother.

---

Hello, Andrew Lancaster, you were 100% correct with your suggestion to start with Richardson's chapter 'England! I think this is leading to the answer I have been looking for with the Robert Needham line! 

D. Richardson's Royal Ancestry, Vol. II p. 10   
[Rev.] PETER BULKELEY, born 1582/3 married (2nd)  about 1635 GRACE CHETWODE, daughter of Richard Chetwode, Knt., by his 2nd wife, Dorothy, daughter of Robert Needham, Esq.  She was born about 1602. They had three sons, ... and one daughter, Dorothy. He and his family immigrated to New England in the Susan & Ellen in 1635, where they settled initially at Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

The Robert Needham relationship trail leads to Edward I, but I think this would fall into the Edward III project since Edward I (Plantagenet) of England is the grand father of Edward III (Plantagenet) of England. 

I think, I can see the 'light at the end of the tunnel!'

Thank you, Andrew Lancaster!

 

---

Edward I would be a much bigger job, if we wanted to do a complete listing past 1500, although the general idea of noting direct descendants of kings in the profiles still appeals to me.

I think that is useful information for any profile (apart from descendants who are kings themselves or children of kings, because they are pretty obvious).

It is common in works on the genealogies of gentry to see certain individuals noted for their most recent royal descent. It is a sort of a reference to a fixed point that can then be more easily looked up.

---

Thank you,  RJ Horace,for posting this Gatewary information to Edward III. .

In this relationship trail all but three are Magna Carta badged.. 

 Hawte Wyatt 

 George Wyatt

 Thomas Wyatt 

Elizabeth (Brooke) Warner

 Thomas Brooke

Margaret (Neville) Brooke

 Edward (Neville) de Neville 

 Joan (Beaufort) de Neville LG

 John (Plantagenet) of Gaunt KG 

 Edward (Plantagenet) of England 

Thank you!

---

AND, Edward III is the great grandfather of Mary Ferrers.

 Mary (Ferrers) Neville

 Joan (Beaufort) de Neville LG

 John (Plantagenet) of Gaunt KG

Edward (Plantagenet) of England

 Joan (Beaufort) de Neville LG, seems to be the key in the line to Edward III with both husbands,     

 Robert (Ferrers) de Ferrers and 

 Ralph (Neville) de Neville KG, PC 

Thank you!

---

William I the Conqueror is the 8th great grandfather of  Joan (Beaufort) de Neville LG

1. Joan is the daughter of John (Plantagenet) of Gaunt KG 
2. John is the son of Edward (Plantagenet) of England 
3. Edward III is the son of Edward (Plantagenet) of England  
4. Edward II is the son of Edward (Plantagenet) of England 
5. Edward I is the son of Henry (Plantagenet) of England 
6. Henry III is the son of John (Plantagenet) of England I 
7. John is the son of Henry Plantagenet 
8. Henry II is the son of Matilda (Normandie) de Anjou 
9. Maud is the daughter of Henry (Normandie) of England 
10. Henry I is the son of Guillaume (Normandie) de Normandie 

Thank you!

Answer 8

This project sounds very interesting and one I would like to be part of. Even though I do see a direct connection with Relationship Finder, I would need more proof through a paper trail. For me, it isn't just about a connection with King Edward III but all the lesser known but equally interesting relations along the way that are uncovered.

Comments

Hi James. Relationship finder is a different type of tool. It can quickly summarize whatever is in Wikitree at the moment, helping us look for interesting things, and for problems. It works even if the information is totally wrong in Wikitree which unfortunately still happens quite often.

But this specific project would be one aimed at double checking some very well known lines and certifying them for quality (or correcting them). For the first few generations after Edward there will hopefully not be many problems, so the tagging will mainly just help people realize when they have hit one of his descendants. Once we get to around 1500, I expect to find a lot more issues, but by that time the project should have a momentum.

The idea is that Wikitree has to work more on quality in the pre 1500 profiles (which are very important as common ancestors to very many people) and the Magna Carta project especially has shown a way to build a solid core upon which more can then be done. We could start a lot simpler, but having that as an example is helpful.

Answer 9

Hi Andrew Lancaster.

RJ Horace, mentioned Joan Beaufort and Ralph Neville  already have Magna Carta Gateways, and their Magna Carta trails could be adapted more easily to Edward III. 

Joan (Beaufort) de Neville LG   (1379 - 13 Nov 1440) m. Robert Ferrers (abt 1372 - bef 29 Nov 1396) bef 30 Sep 1390. m. Ralph Neville KG, PC (abt 1364 - 21 Oct 1425) bef 29 Nov 1396.

I can connect to Joan & Ralph Neville, so, I would be interested in starting with them..I have D. Richardson's, "Royal Ancestry" books so will be happy to do researching for sources.

Thank you, Andrew Lancaster!

  

Comments

Yes, I see the point about how in effect any such line which overlaps Magna Carta project work can take their work as already having done the check. It is details like this about how to work on it which I wanted a chance to think through and hear ideas about.

Answer 10

I'm very much in favor of this project and would like to participate. I understand the significance of beginning with Edward III but I'd like to see it begin with Edward I if possible.

Answer 11

Looks like a great project.  However, what about any of Edward III's children who are suspected of not being his?  Will they be included?

I noticed that his son Edmund, Duke of York (https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/York-1256) has his father as King Edward III, but the status of the father is marked as uncertain.  Is that due to the DNA study, or for some other reason?

Comments

At one point all the children of Edward III and his wife Philippa were marked as Uncertain, owing to a sensational newspaper report about the DNA testing of the remains of Richard III.

There was presumably at least one false paternity event some where in the genealogy of either Richard III or the current members of the Somerset family, but to take that information and mark every generation as uncertain seems to be going too far.

Some of the uncertain paternity have been removed but obviously Edmund was forgotten.

---

I have cleaned up and sourced the profile of Edmund of Langley, Duke of York.  There is always much more which could be done.

I have also included a statement regarding his paternity.   Even though we know there was a non-paternal event somewhere in the line of Richard III OR somewhere in the line of the Somersets (most likely), there is not enough evidence to mark any particular generation as uncertain.

Answer 12

I am also interested in volunteering for this clean-up project. My lineage indicates Edward III as my 19th great grandfather... but I am skeptical of some of the connections between the two of us. I would rather like to have more definitive answers.

Comments

Michele,

Post your line in another thread, and let us take a look. We may be able to quickly prove the connection, or find the questionable link.  This is a general invitation to anyone who has an Edward III link and would like to check its accuracy.

Though, I will be on vacation for the next week so I may not be able to look at it until after Christmas.

---

Will do. This week will be crazily busy, so after Christmas works for my schedule.  

To be honest, I haven't done any research on this line and discovered it only after exploring other people's work on this site. It's time for me to pitch in on the heavy lifting for the clean up - or the pleasant surprise - whichever it turns out to be.  :-D

---

Just out of curiosity, I checked WikiTree and with the exception of a couple of "Private" profiles, everyone answering this thread are cousins.  This is pretty amazing to me.  Although I'm only a 1st cousin 22X removed to Edward III, here's my connection to his line along with all the confidence levels:

Relationship Trails

1. Edward III is the son of Edward (Plantagenet) of England [unknown confidence]
2. Edward II is the son of Edward (Plantagenet) of England [unknown confidence]
<!-- it's not the last -->
This trail tells us that Edward I is the grandfather of Edward III.

1. Ken is the son of Randall Parman [confident]
2. Randall is the son of Porter Benjamin Parman [confident]
3. Porter is the son of James Wesley Parman [confident]
4. James is the son of Elijah William Parman [unknown confidence]
5. Elijah is the son of Mary M (Woolsey) Parman [unknown confidence]
6. Mary is the daughter of Thomas Woolsey II [unknown confidence]
7. Thomas is the son of Thomas Woolsey [unknown confidence]
8. Thomas is the son of Sarah (Fowler) Woolsey [unknown confidence]
9. Sarah is the daughter of William Fowler [unknown confidence]
10. William is the son of Henry Fowler III [unknown confidence]
11. Henry is the son of Henry Fowler II [unknown confidence]
12. Henry is the son of Henry Fowler I [unknown confidence]
13. Henry is the son of Thomas Fowler [unknown confidence]
14. Thomas is the son of Anthony Fowler [unknown confidence]
15. Anthony is the son of Elizabeth Windsor [unknown confidence]
16. Elizabeth is the daughter of Elizabeth (Andrews) Windsor [unknown confidence]
17. Elizabeth is the daughter of Elizabeth (Stratton) Andrews [unknown confidence]
18. Elizabeth is the daughter of Elizabeth (Luttrell) Stratton [unknown confidence]
19. Elizabeth is the daughter of Hugh Luttrell [unknown confidence]
20. Hugh is the son of Elizabeth (Courtenay) Luttrell [confident]
21. Elizabeth is the daughter of Margaret (Bohun) de Courtenay [confident]
22. Margaret is the daughter of Elizabeth (Plantagenet) de Bohun [confident]
23. Elizabeth is the daughter of Edward (Plantagenet) of England [unknown confidence]

---

Hi Ken,

I final got around to looking at this line, and I think it needs to be broken in at least two places.  Pretty much the entire Fowler section of the pedigree I find to be questionable.  As it is not a recognized gateway ancestry, I think it needs a fairly high level of scrutiny at each generation.  I will admit I have not had the time to track down all the Fowler information out there, so perhaps you know the evidence.

At first glance the line seems a confusion of multiple Fowler families, and a reliance on early publications which are not documented.

As is always the case, the first question is - can you prove the immigrant generation?  How do you know that Henry Fowler who came to New York is the son of Henry Fowler and Sarah Kevington of Hambleton, co. Rutland, England?

When the question came up recently in SGM, John Higgins wrote: “The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record published a four-part article on the descendants of Henry Fowler and Rebecca Newell in 1927 and 1928 (vols. 58 and 59). The authors devote most of the first page of the article discussing the various theories published up to that point regarding the ancestry of Henry Fowler.  They end this review by discarding all of the theories - including (and particularly) the Dickinson book – and concluding that nothing can be determined regarding Henry Fowler's origins except that he came from London.  The authors provide no evidence that he was connected to the Fowlers of Hambledon, as was asserted by Dickinson.”

Based on this alone, I would break the line until solid evidence was presented that connected Henry Fowler of New York to the Fowlers of Hambledon.

Frankly, the entire Fowler line is poorly documented, and there is a major problem in connecting the Fowlers of Hambleton to the Richard Fowler who married Elizabeth Windsor (royal link).

---

My 19th ggf

Me  →  My mother →  her father →  Everett Willard Fenton his father →  Zilpha Ann Fenton
his mother →  William Eames
her father →  William Goddard Eames
his father →  Jotham Eames, Sr.
his father →  Henry Framingham Eames, Jr.
his father →  Ruth Eames
his mother →  Hannah Newton
her mother →  Joseph Morse
her father →  Hester Morse
his mother → John Pearce
her father →  Richard Pierce
his father →  Richard Percy, of Pearse Hall
his father →  Peter Percy
his father →  Sir Ralph Percy, Governor of Bamburgh Castle
his father → Eleanor Percy, Countess of Northumberland
his mother →  Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmorland
her mother →  John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster
her father →  Edward III of England
his father

 - https://www.geni.com/path/Melissa-King+is+related+to+Edward-III-of-England?from=6000000022395846638&to=6000000000202115160

---

Joe,

I agree with you on the Henry Fowler part... I have completely different entries on Ancestry.  I think whoever created these profiles left out a lot of information such as other children. I do connect to Thomas Fowler though, but not through the Henrys.  As soon as I get it all figured out I will change the lineage to the correct path.  Ken

---

And now, I get something completely different....

Relationship Trail

1. Ken is the son of Randall Parman
2. Randall is the son of Porter Benjamin Parman [confident]
3. Porter is the son of Martha Catherine Gibbs [confident]
4. Martha is the daughter of Laura (Needham) Gibbs [confident]
5. Laura is the daughter of Elias Needham Jr [unknown confidence]
6. Elias is the son of Elias Needham SR [unknown confidence]
7. Elias is the son of Daniel Needham [unknown confidence]
8. Daniel is the son of Mary Parkman [unknown confidence]
9. Mary is the daughter of Elizabeth Adams [unknown confidence]
10. Elizabeth is the daughter of Mary (Coffin) Adams [unknown confidence]
11. Mary is the daughter of Peter Coffin [unknown confidence]
12. Peter is the son of Joan (Avent) Coffin [unknown confidence]
13. Joan is the daughter of Anne (Seymour) Unton [unknown confidence]
14. Anne is the daughter of Edward Seymour [unknown confidence]
15. Edward is the son of Margaret (Wentworth) Seymour [unknown confidence]
16. Margery is the daughter of Henry Wentworth KB [unknown confidence]
17. Henry is the son of Mary (Clifford) Wentworth [unknown confidence]
18. Maria is the daughter of Elizabeth (Percy) Neville [unknown confidence]
19. Elizabeth is the daughter of Elizabeth (Mortimer) Camoys [unknown confidence]
20. Elizabeth is the daughter of Philippa (Plantagenet) Mortimer [unknown confidence]
21. Philippa is the daughter of Lionel (Plantagenet) of Antwerp KG [confident]
22. Lionel is the son of Edward (Plantagenet) of England [confident]
<!-- it's the last -->
This trail tells us that Edward III is the 20th great grandfather of Ken.

---

Hi Ken,

Anne Seymour, Countess of Warwick and daughter of  Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset did not marry an Unknown Avent.  Her life is well-documented.  She did not have a daughter Joan Avent.

If the wife of Nicholas was in fact Joan Avent (I have doubts), then her parents are Unknown.

The parents of Joan Avent need to be disconnected.  Unknown Avent needs to be disconnected as a husband of Anne Seymore, and the profile of this non-existent person deleted.

---

Joe,

 

Agree, now we're back to just being 1st cousins 21 X removed.  Fixed the connections.  Apparently Joan did exist... There's just no record of her last name.

Ken

---

Hi Melissa,

With regard to your Pierce/Percy line, it is not in WikiTree and with good reason – it is entirely incorrect.  It comes from the Peirce Genealogy published in 1880.  Since this 19th century work is readily available on the internet, its errors are widely spread.  There are so many red flags in this line, you could be sure it is wrong without going through each generation.  It depends on an undocumented “possibly illegitimate” son, jumping from English county to English county as you move through the generations, sudden changes in social class, and a name change from the noble family of Percy to the working-class family of Pierce.  All these are clues that something is wrong.

The easiest break in the line is, as always, with the immigrant ancestor.  The marriage and baptisms of the children of John Peirce of Watertown were recently identified and published as being at St. Edmund, Norwich, England.  His parents are unknown – he was not the son of Richard Pierce of Pearse Hall, Yorkshire, England as you have given.

Hatcher, Patricia Law. "The Peirce Family of Norwich England, and Watertown, Massachusetts." in The American Genealogist, v. 84 (2010):177-184, page 362 ff.

Pierce, Frederick Clifton. Pierce genealogy, being the record of the posterity of John Pers, an early inhabitant of Watertown, in New England … (Worcester, 1880).

Answer 13

Andrew,

Excellent idea. Looks like the time is right 2017

Answer 14

I don't know if this project will take off, but as a start...

I have gone through,corrected and sourced the profiles of Edward III, his wife, his mistress and their 15 children.  There was a surprising amount of work to do and errors to correct.  My focus was on fixing formatting and style problems and to provide sourcing for the basic genealogical information of birth/marriage/children/death.  An expanded narrative biography of their lives can be added to just about all of them.

Perhaps someone would like to look over the Profiles of Edward III and his children:

Edward (Plantagenet) of England and Philippa (Hainaut) of Hainault

Isabella (Plantagenet) de Coucy LG, Joan Plantagenet, William (Plantagenet) of Hatfield, Lionel (Plantagenet) of Antwerp KG, John (Plantagenet) of Gaunt KG, Edmund (Plantagenet) of Langley KG, Blanche Plantagenet, Mary (Plantagenet) of Waltham, Margaret (Plantagenet) Hastings, William (Plantagenet) of Windsor,Thomas (Plantagenet) of Woodstock KG, John (Southeray) de Southeray and Jane (Plantagenet) Despayne

 

The goals of this project as I see it would be to:

1. Develop a free space page to help guide the project.
2. Perfect a five generation genealogy of the descendants of Edward III (all profiles perfect and sourced for 5 generations).
3. Develop of list of proven and accepted gateway ancestors.
4. Help prove or disprove the many other claimed descents from Edward III.

 

Comments

One error (as I see it) is the LNAB of Jane Southerey, illegitimate daughter of Edward III.  I do not think it is correct to give illegitimate children of monarchs the name Plantagenet - it should be Southerey.  The PM has not yet responded.

---

With regard to the birth date of Philippa of Hainault:

Wikipedia currently shows a precise birth date of 24 June 1314. The source given for this is Williamson's ''Debrett's Kings and Queens of Britain''. Given that the date is not followed by Cawley or Richardson, it would seem to be unlikely to be correct.  Is anyone able to check wikipedia's source to see if it gives a primary source of information.

---

The only source I could see was Williamson's:

•  David Williamson, Debrett's Kings and Queens of Britain, p.81, Webb and Bower Publishers, Ltd., London, 1986

But if it helps the Constitutional Monarchy Association reccomends it http://www.monarchy.net/reading.aspx , and Amazon and Goodreads rate it high, and the National Portrait Gallery reccomended the work http://www.npg.org.uk/business/publications/the-national-portrait-gallery-history-of-the-kings-and-queens-of-england.php

He's listed as a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, and a Fellow of the Society of Genealogists, He was well respected http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/david-williamson-36513.html , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1428209/David-Williamson.html

And this site https://www.britroyals.com/royals.asp

I couldn't find a version of that book online so you would have to physically check it

---

Thanks for doing that Joe -

In regards to Philippa's birth date, apparently  a marriage between Edward and one of the Hainault daughters was proposed back in 1318 or 1319 (perhaps this is early 1318/19) and Walter Stapleton, Bishop of Exeter, was sent to inspect the proposed bride.  His very thorough report includes the information that 'she would be nine years old on St John's day to come' (24 June is St John's day) but unfortunately the report doesn't actually name which daughter is being inspected.

It was always thought that this was an inspection of Philippa, because they eventually married, but Cawley, thinks it is the eldest daughter Marguerite, and Lisa Hilton in Queen's Consort: England's medieval queens, suggests it could have been Sybella, another daughter who died sometime between 1319 and 1326.

Cawley cites a recent study of the Hainault daughters by Bert M. Kamp for a birth date of about 1314 for Philippa, but then has her birth as possibly between 25 January and early February. I'm not sure if Kamp is still the source for these dates or he is using some other source?

In regards to Jane Southerey's LNAB, I think the profile manager is not very active at the moment, so I'll leave it for a few days and then go and make the change myself.  I would like to make the EuroAristo project the main profile manager for most of these profiles, in line with accepted policy.

---

Sounds about right to me. I have finally found some time to start using the page set up by RJ to compare the first few generations to Richardson. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:A_table_of_descendants_of_Edward_III#Thomas_of_Woodstock_etc

Richardson is pretty good for many lines (some beyond 5 generations), but not all, because of the focus on American gateways. For some continental lines such as de Coucy or Portugal it would be good to have a source similar to Richardson. But in any case getting wikitree in line with Richardson would be a good start and as we are all finding there are many corrections to make eventually.

---

To A.C (and Joe)

I have a copy of another book by David Williamson, Brewer's British Royalty, published in 1996, which is probably a revamp of the earlier Debrett's book but with a different publisher.

It quotes a birth date for Philippa of 24 June 1311, based on the report by Walter Stapleton, I've referred to above.

Although the book appears well researched, it doesn't actually cite any sources, and doesn't even have a reference list.  I'm guessing it was written for a general audience and working off the author's reputation, and I suspect the Debrett's book was the same?

---

Ian Mortimer in 'The Perfect King' (appendix 1) argues that the Stapleton report refers to Margaret (Hainault) the older sister and that it was she who was the daughter born on the 24 June 1311 and who may have been the original intended bride  . 'Other documents confirm that Count William wrote to the pope on 10 Dec 1318 seeking dispensation for Margaret of Hainault to be married to Edward'  Permission was granted but this marriage didn't take place.(she married Ludwig of Bavaria)

He then cites Froissart who knew her in her later years and ''asserted that she (Philippa) was in her fourteenth year at the time of her marriage in 1328''

'This implies that she was born between 25th Jan 1314 and 24 Jan 1315

The citations are

Hingeston-Randolph (ed) Register of Walter de Stapleton (1892) p 169

For the letter to the pope

A Wauters, Tables chronologique des Chartes et  diplômes imprimés concernant l'Histoire de la Belgique, viii 1301-20 Brussels c 1907

 Froissart reference is the DNB quoting Luce ed  Froissart,i p 285

edited see also https://www.hrionline.ac.uk/onlinefroissart/apparatus.jsp?type=namebase&node=PER-00971

---

Thanks Helen for those sources, though they do add to the confusion slightly.

Presumably Hingeston-Randolph, the editor of The Register of Bishop Stapeldon thinks that he made his journey to Hainault to inspect ? in July/August 1319 and if so that aligns with a birth date of 24 June 1311.

It seems to be Bert M. Kamp who thinks this visit took place in January-March 1319, and in which case the birth date for (Marguerite) would be 24 June 1310, but I'm not sure what source he is using.

I notice we currently have January 1314 as Philippa's birth date, based on Froissart, but I think that it would be better to just go with about 1314 given all the research so far.

---

John,

I just updated the discussion of Philippa's birth date, including adding references and links. Will you look it over and tell me if you think anything should be changed?

 I was just about to ask what date we should go with when you posted.

---

The recent yale bio by Ormrod says her birth year is not sure and between 1310 and 1315. Pp69-70

---

I would say Ormrod is being very cautious and not giving a firm date without conclusive evidence; the point is probably trivial to him anyways.

We have two statements as to her birth date:

Sometime in 1319, Bishop Stapleton said the daughter of William de Hainault will be age 9 on June 24.  However, it is highly probably he was talking about Philippa's sister Margaret and not about Philippa.

Froissart said she was 14, or 13 almost 14, at the time of her marriage.

I agree with John that we should go with About 1314, as the best estimate of her birth.

---

I'll cite this in her profile - from her DNB article:

"Her date of birth is not entirely certain, owing to the imprecision of the records as to the order in which she and her sisters were born. Philippa may have been born on 24 June 1310, but it is also possible that she was not born until 1315." 

---

Kirk,

There is already a better discussion on her page which cites the only two contemporary records regarding her birth and the possible interpretations of those records.  

Bishop Stapleton said an unnamed daughter was born 24 June.

Froissart said she was about 14 when she married.

Bert Kamp's recent paper regarding the children of William de Hainault came to the conclusion (as others have before) that the 24 June birth date belongs to her sister Margaret.  To me, the DNB  just confuses the issue as it doesn't bother to address the known records as we have done.

---

Given her mother, Jeanne de Valois was born about 1294, and Philippa is the third daughter (according to Bert Kamp's research) and there may have been a son born before her, I think a birth date for Philippa in 1310 would be impossible.

I still think a birth date of about 1314 with a range from 1313-1315 fits what we have discovered and what is available in the primary or near primary sources.

(Jeanne de Valois, birth date of about 1294 is from Les Valois, by Patrick Van Kerrebrouck, published 1990, but he doesn't give a source for that date)

 

Answer 15

After following this thorough discussion, I am still in favor of beginning the project with Edward l. It would be be bigger and take longer to work on, but provide better accuracy to the overall wikitree.

Comments

Well, we have to start somewhere. Working on improving the descents from Edward III is PART of working on improving the descents from Edward I, which is also certainly work worth doing.

---

Just coming back to the question it might be interesting to record:

Before Edward III is his father Edward II, but the only other child to have known descent is Eleanor of Woodstock, whose descendants were in the German empire. This would be a specialized project to follow up, but definitely interesting if someone is up to it, but I am not personally feeling up to it at this time.

In terms of clean-up: I see Edward's wife has an un-sourced daughter named Joanna. (Distinct from Joan.) Who is she?

Going back to Edward I, as suggested, there are many more children and several had issue: not only Edward II but also Margaret, Elizabeth, Thomas of Brotherton, and Edmund of Woodstock. This is a similar sized project to following up the children of Edward III. Maybe something to do in the future if the Edward III idea gives any good results.

In terms of clean up for Edward I see unsourced daughters Alice and Isabel. Who are they?

Answer 16

Sounds interesting and I would like to join.

Comments

Hi David. The project has continued to move along. Follow the links and you'll see we have several tracking/indexing pages which have helped guiding editing and/or editing recommendations. This could go on for years of course.

Answer 17

Definitely yes.