On Sunday, October 24, 2021 at 4:40:18 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
A sábado, 16 de outubro de 2021 à(s) 00:23:25 UTC+1, Paulo Ricardo Canedo escreveu:
A sábado, 8 de agosto de 2020 à(s) 05:22:16 UTC+1, jhigg...@yahoo.com escreveu:
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 4:34:18 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
sábado, 8 de Agosto de 2020 às 00:29:56 UTC+1, Ivan the Terrible escreveu:
SGM Newsgroup,
Does the following Welsh line of descent from Llywelyn ap Iorwerth to 17th century new world immigrant, William Goddard of Watertown, Massachusetts stand up to scrutiny?
Thanks for any help.
Regards,
Ivan
Line of Descent from Llywelyn ap Iorwerth, Prince of Wales (died 1240) to William Goddard of Watertown, Massachusetts (died 1691):
1. Llywelyn ap Iorwerth (c.1173 – c.1240) = Joan of Wales (c.1189 – c.1237)
2. Gwladus DDU of Wales (c.1205 – c.1251) = Ralph de Mortimer (c.1190 – c.1246)
3. Roger de Mortimer (c.1231 – c.1282) = Matilda Braose (c.1226 – c.1301)
4. Isabel de Mortimer (c.1248 – c.1274) = John Fitz Alan (c.1246 – c.1272)
5. Maud Fitz Alan (c. 1263 – c. 1302) = Philip Burnell (c.1262 – c.1294)
6. Maud Burnell (c.1290 – c.1338) = John de Haudlo (c.1271 – c.1346)
7. Nicholas Burnell (c.1320 – c.1383) = Mary ____
8. Hugh Burnell (c.1347 – c.1420) = Joyce Botetourt (c.1364 – c.1407)
9. Edward Burnell (c.1371 – c.1415) = Alianor le Strange 10.Margaret Burnell (c.1410 – c.1486) = Edmund Hungerford (c.1405 – c.1484)
11.Thomas Hungerford (c.1430 – c.1494) = Christina Halle (c.1435 – c.1504)
12.John Hungerford (c.1460 – c.1524) = Margaret Blount (c.1458 – c.1531)
13.Margery Hungerford (c.1478 – aft.1538) = Henry Brydges (c.1470 – c.1538/9)
14.Joan Brydges (c.1503 – c.1558) John Gifford (c.1502 - c.1538) 15.Anne Gifford (c.1535 - ?) = Thomas Goddard (c.1532 - c.1597) 16.Richard Goddard (c.1560 - c.1615) = Elizabeth Walrond (c.1558 – aft.1628)
17.Edward Goddard (c.1584 – c.1647) = Priscilla d'Oyley (c.1594 – c.1681)
18.William Goddard of Massachusetts (c. 1627 – c. 1691) = Elizabeth Miles (c.1631 – c.1696)
This line seems correct. Wikitree shows all of it, citing Richardson. Start with https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Goddard-177.
There are (at least) two errors in this descent, as listed by the original poster and as shown in Wikitree. One of of the errors does not affect the descent, but the other one does - making the descent invalid.
1) At #9, Sir Edward Burnell was the son of Hugh Burnell, 2nd Lord Burnell - but by his 1st wife Elizabeth [surname unknown], not his 2nd wife Joyce Botetourt.
2) At #13, Margery Hungerford, wife of Henry Brydges is not the daughter of Sir John Hungerford and his wife Margaret Blount, but by a John Hungerford whose identity is unknown. This specific issue was addressed in an article by Paul C. Reed and
Dorothy E. Hopkins in vol. 156 (2002) of NEHGR. Their conclusion was that "the parentage of Henry Brugge's [i.e., Brydges] wife therefore remains undetermined".
The Richardson books agree with points 1 and 2 above. In both cases, the Wikitree profiles cite the Richardson books, but obviously ignored or misinterpreted them.
Interestingly, the Wikitree profile for Henry Brydges notes the uncertainty about the identity of John Hungerford and says "this is being investigated" and even cites the NEHGR article. However the Wikitree profile for his wife Margery also cites
the NEHGR article - but jumps to the (unsupported) conclusion that her parents were Sir John Hungerford and his wife Margaret Blount.
Morale of the story: don't cite Wikitree unless you check it out. It's not OK to say that "this line seems correct" just because "Wikitree shows all of it", even if Richardson is cited there.
I know it's been a year, but was the parentage disproven or simply shown not to have evidence?
So?
The authors of the 2002 NEHGR article were unable to identify who the “John Hungerford”, said to be the father of Margery, wife of Henry Bruges [or Bridges], actually was. And they also raised doubt about the evidence (such as it was) that named him
simply as “a” John Hungerford, noting that the Bruges source for this identification provide no citation for this and made other errors in the Bruges pedigree..
As I noted before, the 1st editions of Richardson’s PA and MCA agree with the NEHGR article (which they cite), referring to Margery as “said to be daughter of John Hungerford Esq.”, with no further family identification. The Wikitree pedigree
mentioned earlier cites the Richardson books in support of Margery Hungerford – without mentioning that the Richardson books do not give her the parents that the Wikitree pedigree does.
It’s worth noting that the HOP biography of Henry Brydges [sic] does not identify Margery as a Hungerford but simply as the widow of “one Bedford of Newbury”.
With respect to Sir John Hungerford of Down Ampney and his wife Margaret Blount (who are given as the parents of Margery the wife of Henry Brydges in the Wkitree pedigree), the 2002 article cites the 1623 visitation of Wiltshire in saying that this
couple had 2 sons and 3 daughters – not including a daughter Margery. And the 1623 Visitation of Gloucester (also cited in the 2002 article) says that this couple had 3 sons and 3 daughters – not including a daughter Margery.
So – the bottom line is that there is no evidence regarding the parentage of Marge the wife of Henry Bridges. And thus the line presented at the beginning of this thread is indeed incorrect. You really should be more careful, in regard to a Wikitree
pedigree, when you say that “this line seems correct” - unless you’ve checked all the sources for the pertinent connection.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)