Capt. Thomas Bradbury, Magna Carta Gateway Ancestor?

Question

Wondering if Captain Thomas Bradbury of Salisbury, MA has ever been considered for membership in WikiTree's Magna Carta project? Capt. Bradbury's Fulnetby/Dymoke line connects to William de Mowbray, Robert de Ros, Saher de Quincy and at least five other surety barons. Thank you.

Comments

https://mhollick.typepad.com/slovakyankee/2015/06/robert-de-ros-ca-1170-1226.html

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Dymoke-1

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/005724784

---

I tagged this magna_carta so they will see it.

---

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/Lri1TWl8y0s

But this is all about the possible Charlemagne line through early Marmions, which is all a bit redundant alongside the immigrant's descent from the Dymokes on his mother's side, if that stands up.

---

Thank you.  I should have mentioned the Dynewell-Fulnetby-Dymoke lineage in my initial post. Capt. Bradbury was recently reinstated as a gateway ancestor by the Order of the Crown of Charlemagne through this line.  Have to say I am enjoying researching Capt. Bradbury and hope to learn more about him.

Answer 1

The line comes from an article in the NEHGR, however, it is not completely accepted.

• New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. no. 1 (January 2007): pages 27-36. “A Probable Royal Descent for Thomas Bradbury of Salisbury, Massachusetts,” by Marshall Kirk. AmericanAncestors.org link.

One line would be:

1. Robert de Ros m. Isabel of Scotland

2. Sir William de Ros m. Lucy Fitz Piers

3. Sir William de Ros m. Eustache Fitz Ralph

4. Ivetta de Ros m. Sir Geoffrey le Scrope

5. Sir Stephen le Scrope m Isabel (---)

6. Joan le Scrope m. William Pert

7. Isabel Pert m. Robert Conyers

8. Joan Conyers m. Sir Philip Dymoke

9. Sir Thomas Dymoke m. Margaret de Welles

10. Joan Dymoke m. John Fulnetby

11. Katherine Fulnetby m. William Dynewell

12. Anne Dynewell m. Henry Whitgift

13. William Whitgift m. Margaret Bell

14. Elizabeth Whitfigt m. Wymond Bradbury

15. Thomas Bradbury

The key generations in doubt would be #11 and 12.

Comments

Thank for you for your response.  The Order of the Crown of Charlemagne recently reinstated Thomas Bradbury as a gateway ancestor (through the Dynewell-Fulnetby-Dymoke lineage).  That was my reason for inquiring about the Magna Carta project for Capt. Bradbury.

---

Thomas Bradbury was added to the list of Gateway Ancestors, on the Order of the Crown Charlemagne's website.

---

If it is through the line that I posted, then they are wrong (again).  It is based on an article which is highly conjectural and fails at generation 11-12.  I would encourage you to read the article so you can see the weaknesses for yourself.

Douglas Richardson's take on the line was "As for the Bradbury descent, it is based on a working theory proposed by Marshall Kirk published in NEHGR 161 (2007): 27–36.  The theory, while likely, remains unproven.  At the present time, the line is only good down to Jane Dymoke, wife of John Fulnetby [Gen. 9 above].  I've been unable to prove that John Fulnetby had a daughter, Katherine, who married William Dynewell.  If you know of such evidence, I'd like to see it."

This problem has actually been studied in vastly more detail since the article was published. You can see the approach and the evidence of Nathan Murphy in his SGM post RD900 Thomas Bradbury and the Fulnetbys.  His conclusion was:

"This thread has focused on trying to prove or disprove the validity of a royal descent for New England immigrant Thomas Bradbury through the Fulnetbys of Fulnetby, Lincolnshire. It has been theorized that one of the grandmothers of Archbishop John Whitgift [brother to ancestor of Thomas Bradbury] was a Fulnetby and she was a daughter of John Fulnetby of Fulnetby, Esq., who died 11 June 1524. He had a Whitgift grandfather and a Dynewell grandfather. I have now completed extensive research. I couldn't find any documentation connecting either the Whitgifts or the Dynewells to John Fulnetby."

While still possibly true, the line is certainly not proven and is not accepted.