__
|
_Ambrose BOADEN _____|__
| (.... - 1616)
_Ambrose BOADEN _____|
| (1589 - 1675) m 1624|
| | __
| | |
| |_____________________|__
|
_John BOWDEN ________|
| (1630 - 1697) m 1651|
| | __
| | |
| | _____________________|__
| | |
| |_Marie LETHEBRIDGE __|
| (1595 - 1673) m 1624|
| | __
| | |
| |_____________________|__
|
_Abraham (Bouden or) BOWDEN _|
| m 1706 |
| | __
| | |
| | _____________________|__
| | |
| | _____________________|
| | | |
| | | | __
| | | | |
| | | |_____________________|__
| | |
| |_Grace BULLY ________|
| (.... - 1710) m 1651|
| | __
| | |
| | _____________________|__
| | |
| |_____________________|
| |
| | __
| | |
| |_____________________|__
|
|
|--Ebenezer BOWDEN
| (1731 - ....)
| __
| |
| _____________________|__
| |
| _____________________|
| | |
| | | __
| | | |
| | |_____________________|__
| |
| _____________________|
| | |
| | | __
| | | |
| | | _____________________|__
| | | |
| | |_____________________|
| | |
| | | __
| | | |
| | |_____________________|__
| |
|_Martha Mary WORMWOOD _______|
(1688 - 1751) m 1706 |
| __
| |
| _____________________|__
| |
| _____________________|
| | |
| | | __
| | | |
| | |_____________________|__
| |
|_____________________|
|
| __
| |
| _____________________|__
| |
|_____________________|
|
| __
| |
|_____________________|__
[51889] This family is from the unverified file LCMQ-FBG in familysearch.org.
_Henry III, King of ENGLAND _______________+
| (1207 - 1272) m 1237
_Edward I ("Longshanks"), King of ENGLAND _|_Eleanor of PROVENCE ______________________
| (1239 - 1307) m 1254 (1217 - 1291)
_Edward II, King of ENGLAND _______________|
| (1284 - ....) m 1308 |
| | _Ferdinand III, King of CASTILE ___________+
| | | (1201 - 1252) m 1237
| |_Eleanor of CASTILE _______________________|_Joan(na) "of Ponthieu" DE DAMMARTIN ______
| (.... - 1290) m 1254 (1220 - 1279)
_Edward III, King of ENGLAND _________|
| (1312 - 1377) m 1328 |
| | _Philip III "The Bold", King of FRANCE ____+
| | | (1245 - 1285) m 1262
| | _Philip IV "The Fair", King of FRANCE _____|_Isabelle of ARAGóN ______________________
| | | (1268 - 1314) m 1284 (1247 - 1271)
| |_Isabella "The Fair" of FRANCE ____________|
| (1292 - 1358) m 1308 |
| | _Henry I de Blois, King of NAVARRE ________+
| | | (.... - 1274) m 1269
| |_Jeanne (or Joanna), Queen of NAVARRE _____|_Blanche of Artois, Queen of NAVARRE ______
| (1272 - 1305) m 1284 (.... - 1302)
_Edward "The Black Prince" of WOODSTOCK _|
| (1330 - 1376) m 1361 |
| | _John I of AVESNES ________________________+
| | | (1218 - 1257) m 1246
| | _John II of AVESNES _______________________|_Adelaide of HOLLAND ______________________
| | | (1248 - 1304) m 1270 (1226 - ....)
| | _William III ("the Good") of AVESNES ______|
| | | (1286 - 1337) m 1305 |
| | | | _Henry I ("der Grosse"), Count of LIMBURG _+
| | | | | (1217 - 1281) m 1240
| | | |_Philippa of LUXEMBOURG ___________________|_Margaret of BARR _________________________
| | | (1252 - 1311) m 1270 (1220 - 1275)
| |_Philippa of HAINAUT _________________|
| (.... - 1369) m 1328 |
| | _Philip III "The Bold", King of FRANCE ____+
| | | (1245 - 1285) m 1262
| | _Charles, Count of VALOIS _________________|_Isabelle of ARAGóN ______________________
| | | (1270 - 1325) m 1290 (1247 - 1271)
| |_Joanna (or Jane) of VALOIS _______________|
| (.... - 1342) m 1305 |
| | _Charles II d'Anjou, King of NAPLES _______+
| | | (1250 - 1309) m 1270
| |_Margaret of NAPLES _______________________|_Marie of HUNGARY _________________________
| (1273 - 1299) m 1290 (.... - 1323)
|
|--Richard II, King of ENGLAND
| (1367 - 1400)
| _John Plantagenet, King of ENGLAND ________+
| | (1167 - 1216) m 1200
| _Henry III, King of ENGLAND _______________|_Isabella of ANGOULêME ___________________
| | (1207 - 1272) m 1237 (1188 - 1246)
| _Edward I ("Longshanks"), King of ENGLAND _|
| | (1239 - 1307) m 1299 |
| | | _Raymond V Berenger, 4th Ct. of PROVENCE __+
| | | | (1195 - 1245) m 1219
| | |_Eleanor of PROVENCE ______________________|_Beatrice of SAVOY ________________________
| | (1217 - 1291) m 1237 (1205 - 1266)
| _Edmund "of Woodstock", Earl Of KENT _|
| | (1301 - 1330) m 1325 |
| | | _Louis IX ("the Saint"), King of FRANCE ___+
| | | | (1214 - 1270) m 1234
| | | _Philip III "The Bold", King of FRANCE ____|_Marguerite BERENGER ______________________
| | | | (1245 - 1285) (1221 - 1295)
| | |_Marguerite of FRANCE _____________________|
| | (1282 - 1317) m 1299 |
| | | _Henry III, Duke of BRABANT _______________+
| | | | (.... - 1260)
| | |_Marie of BRABANT _________________________|_Alice ("Adelaine") of BURGUNDY ___________
| | (.... - 1321) (1233 - 1273)
|_Joan ("Fair Maid of Kent") PLANTAGENET _|
(1328 - 1385) m 1361 |
| _Hugh WAKE ________________________________+
| | (.... - 1241)
| _Baldwin WAKE _____________________________|_Joan DE STUTEVILLE _______________________
| | (1236 - ....) (.... - 1276)
| _John WAKE ________________________________|
| | (.... - 1300) |
| | | _Robert DE QUINCY _________________________+
| | | | (.... - 1257)
| | |_Hawise DE QUINCY _________________________|_Ellen ("Helen") ferch LLEWELLYN __________
| | (.... - 1285) (.... - 1253)
|_Margaret WAKE _______________________|
(.... - 1349) m 1325 |
| _Ingelram DE FIENES _______________________+
| | (1192 - 1267)
| _William DE FIENES ________________________|_Isabel CONDE _____________________________
| | (1245 - 1302) m 1269
|_Joan DE FIENNES __________________________|
(.... - 1309) |
| _Jean DE BRIENNE __________________________+
| | (1225 - 1296) m 1251
|_Blanche DE BRIENNE _______________________|_Jeanne DE CHATEAUDUN _____________________
(.... - 1302) m 1269
Deposition Of Richard II:
Richard II, son of Edward the Black Prince, succeeded his grandfather,
Edward III, on the throne of England in 1377, when Richard was but ten years
old. During his minority the government was intrusted to a council of twelve,
but for some years it was mainly controlled by Richard's uncles, John of
Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester. War
with France, then in progress, entailed great expenditures, which were
increased by court extravagance, and at length burdensome taxes led to popular
uprisings. These became most serious in the great revolt of the peasants led
by Wat Tyler, in 1381. Richard appeared among the insurgents and granted them
concessions.
From this time the King became more active in his government, and in 1386
John of Gaunt withdrew to the Continent. About the same time the Duke of
Gloucester headed a coalition of the baronial party in opposition to the
sovereign; but in 1389 Richard suddenly declared himself of age and gave a
check to their designs. For eight years he ruled with moderation as a
constitutional monarch.
But in 1396 Richard married Isabella, daughter of Charles VI of France,
and henceforth seems to have adopted French ideas, and to have made
pretensions in the direction of absolutism. He proceeded to arbitrary
prosecutions which led to the violent death of several leading nobles. Richard
also quarrelled with Henry, son of John of Gaunt, whom as Duke of Lancaster he
succeeded in 1399. The year before, Richard had banished Henry for ten years
- fearing him as a possible rival. The history of the remaining months of
Richard's reign is crowded with the events which rapidly led to the ending of
the direct line of the Plantagenets and the beginning of the line of
Lancaster.
In Shakespeare's Richard II - the first of his historical plays - the
poet, following Holinshed's chronicle, presents not only a skilful dramatic
construction of the recorded incidents of the reign, but also a finely
discriminated portrait of Richard's much debated character as man and monarch.
Richard now saw himself triumphant over all his opponents. Even his
uncles, through affection or fear, seconded all his measures. He had attained
what seems for some time to have been the great object of his policy. He had
placed himself above the control of the law. By the grant of a subsidy for
life he was relieved from the necessity of meeting his parliament; with the
aid of his committee, the members of which proved the obsequious ministers of
his will, he could issue what new ordinances he pleased; and a former
declaration by the two houses, that he was as free as any of his predecessors,
was conveniently interpreted to release him from the obligations of those
statutes which he deemed hostile to the royal prerogative. But he had
forfeited all that popularity which he had earned during the last ten years;
and the security in which he indulged hurried him on to other acts of
despotism, which inevitably led to his ruin. He raised money by forced loans;
he compelled the judges to expound the law according to his own prejudices or
caprice; he required the former adherents of Gloucester to purchase and
repurchase charters of pardon; and, that he might obtain a more plentiful
harvest of fines and amercements, put at once seventeen counties out of the
protection of the law, under the pretence that they had favored his enemies.
The Duke of Lancaster did not survive the banishment of his son more than
three months; and the exile expected to succeed by his attorneys to the ample
estates of his father. But Richard now discovered that his banishment, like
an outlawry, had rendered him incapable of inheriting property. At a great
council, including the committee of parliament, it was held that the patents
granted, both to him and his antagonist, were illegal, and therefore void; and
all the members present were sworn to support that determination. Henry Bowet,
who had procured the patent for the duke of Hereford, was even condemned, for
that imaginary offence, to suffer the punishment of treason; though, on
account of his character, his life was spared on condition that he should
abjure the kingdom forever.
This iniquitous proceeding seems to have exhausted the patience of the
nation. Henry - on the death of his father he had assumed the title of duke
of Lancaster - had long been the idol of the people; and the voluntary
assemblage of thousands to attend him on his last departure from London might
have warned Richard of the approaching danger. The feeling of their own
wrongs had awakened among them a spirit of resistance; the new injury offered
to their favorite pointed him out to them as their leader. Consultations were
held; plans were formed; the dispositions of the great lords were sounded; and
the whole nation appeared in a ferment. Yet it was in this moment, so
pregnant with danger, that the infatuated monarch determined to leave his
kingdom. His cousin and heir, the Earl of March, had been surprised and slain
by a party of Irish; and, in his eagerness to revenge the loss of a relation,
he despised the advice of his friends, and wilfully shut his eyes to the
designs of his enemies.
Having appointed his uncle, the Duke of York, regent during his absence,
the King assisted at a solemn mass at Windsor, chanted a collect himself, and
made his offering. At the door of the Church he took wine and spices with his
young Queen; and, lifting her up in his arms, repeatedly kissed her, saying,
"Adieu, madam, adieu till we meet again." From Windsor, accompanied by several
noblemen, he proceeded to Bristol, where the report of plots and conspiracies
reached him, and was received with contempt. At Milford Haven he joined his
army, and, embarking in a fleet of two hundred sail, arrived in a few days in
the port of Waterford. His cousin the Duke of Albemarle had been ordered to
follow with a hundred more; and three weeks were consumed in waiting for that
nobleman, whose delay was afterward attributed to a secret understanding with
the King's enemies.
At length Richard led his forces from Kilkenny against the Irish. Several
of the inferior chiefs hastened barefoot and with halters round their necks to
implore his mercy; but M'Murchad spurned the idea of submission, and boasted
that he would extirpate the invaders. He dared not indeed meet them in open
combat; but it was his policy to flee before them, and draw them into woods
and morasses, where they could neither fight with advantage nor procure
subsistence. The want of provisions and the clamor of the soldiers compelled
the King to give up the pursuit, and to direct his march toward Dublin; and
M'Murchad, when he could no longer impede their progress, solicited and
obtained a parley with the Earl of Gloucester, the commander of the
rear-guard. The chieftain was an athletic man; he came to the conference
mounted on a gray charger, which had cost him four hundred head of cattle, and
brandished with ease and dexterity a heavy spear in his hand. He seemed
willing to become the nominal vassal of the King of England, but refused to
submit to any conditions. Richard set a price on his head, proceeded to
Dublin, and at the expiration of a fortnight was joined by the Duke of
Albemarle with men and provisions. This seasonable supply enabled him to
recommence the pursuit of M'Murchad; but while he was thus occupied with
objects of inferior interest in Ireland, a revolution had occurred in England,
which eventually deprived him both of his crown and his life.
When the King sailed to Ireland, Henry of Bolingbroke, the new Duke of
Lancaster, resided in Paris, where he was hospitably entertained, but at the
same time narrowly watched, by the French monarch. About Christmas he offered
his hand to Marie, one of the daughters of the Duke of Berry. The jealousy of
Richard was alarmed; the Earl of Salisbury hastened to Paris to remonstrate
against the marriage of a daughter of France with an English "traitor," and,
suiting his conduct to his words, the envoy, having accomplished his object,
returned without deigning to speak to the exile. While Henry was brooding over
these injuries, the late Primate, or nominal Bishop of St. Andrews, secretly
left his house at Cologne, and in the disguise of a friar procured an
interview with the Duke at the Hotel de Vinchester. The result of their
meeting was a determination to return to England during the King's absence.
To elude the suspicions of the French ministers, Henry procured permission to
visit the Duke of Bretagne; and, on his arrival at Nantes, hired three small
vessels, with which he sailed from Vannes to seek his fortune in England. His
whole retinue consisted only of the Archbishop, the son of the late Earl of
Arundel, fifteen lances, and a few servants. After hovering for some days on
the eastern coast, he landed at Ravenspur in Yorkshire, and was immediately
joined by the two powerful earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland; before
whom, in the White Friars at Doncaster, he declared upon oath that his only
object was to recover the honors and estates which had belonged to his father,
and bound himself not to advance any claim to the crown.
The Duke of York, to whom the King had intrusted the government during
his absence, was accurately informed of his motions, and had summoned the
retainers of the crown to join the royal standard at St. Albans. There is,
however, reason to believe that he was not hearty in the cause which it was
his duty to support. He must have viewed with pity the unmerited misfortunes
of one nephew, and have condemned the violent and thoughtless career of the
other; and from the fate of his brother Gloucester, and the cruel and unjust
treatment of the only son of his brother, John of Gaunt, he could not draw any
very flattering conclusion with respect to the stability of his own family.
Whether it was from suspicion of his fidelity, or from the disinclination of
the chief barons to draw the sword against one who demanded nothing more than
his right, the favorites of Richard became alarmed for their own safety.
The Earl of Wiltshire, with Bussy and Greene, members of the committee of
parliament, had been appointed to wait on the young Queen at Wallingford; but
they suddenly abandoned their charge, and fled with precipitation to Bristol.
York himself followed with the army in the same direction. It might be that,
to relieve himself from responsibility, he wished to be in readiness to
deliver up the command on the expected arrival of Richard from Ireland; but at
the same time he left open the road from Yorkshire to the metropolis, and
allowed the adventurer to pursue his object without impediment. Henry was
already on his march. The snowball increased as it rolled along, and the
small number of forty followers, with whom he had landed, swelled by the time
that he had reached St. Albans to sixty thousand men. He was preceded by his
messengers and letters, stating not only his own wrongs, but also the
grievances of the people, and affirming that the revenue of the kingdom had
been let out to farm to the rapacity of Scrope, Bussy, and Greene. In all
those lordships which had been the inheritance of his family he was received
with enthusiasm; in London by a procession of the clergy and people, with
addresses of congratulation, and presents, and offers of service.
His stay in the capital was short. Having flattered the citizens, and
confirmed them in their attachment to his person, he turned to the west, and
entered Evesham, on the same day on which York reached Berkeley. After an
interchange of messages they met in the church of the castle; and, before they
separated, the doom of Richard was sealed. That the regent consented to the
actual deposition of his nephew does not necessarily follow; he might only
have sought his reformation by putting it out of his power to govern amiss;
but he betrayed the trust which had been reposed to him, united his force with
that of Henry, and commanded Sir Peter Courtenay, who held the castle of
Bristol for the King, to open its gates. That officer, protesting that he
acknowledged no authority in the Duke of Lancaster, obeyed the mandate of the
regent. The next morning the three fugitives, the Earl of Wiltshire, Bussy,
and Greene, were executed by order of the constable and marshal of the host.
The Duke of York remained at Bristol; Henry with his own forces proceeded to
Chester to secure that city, and awe the men of Cheshire, the most devoted
adherents of the King.
We may now return to Richard in Ireland. It must appear strange, but
Henry had been in England a fortnight before the King, in consequence, it was
said, of the tempestuous weather, had heard of his landing. The intelligence
appears to have provoked indignation as much as alarm. "Ha!" he exclaimed,
"fair uncle of Lancaster, God reward your soul! Had I believed you, this man
would not have injured me. Thrice have I pardoned him; this is his fourth
offence." But he referred the matter to his council, and was advised to cross
over to England immediately with the ships which had brought the reenforcement
under the Duke of Albemarle. That nobleman, however, insidiously, as it was
afterward pretended, diverted him from this intention. The Earl of Salisbury
received orders to sail immediately with his own retainers, a body of one
hundred men, and to summon to the royal standard the natives of Wales.
Richard promised to follow in the fleet from Waterford in the course of six
days. The Earl obeyed; the men of Wales and Cheshire answered the call; and a
gallant host collected at Conway.
But Richard appeared not according to his promise, distressing reports
were circulated among the troops; and the royalists, having waited for him
almost a fortnight, disbanded in spite of the fears and entreaties of their
commander. At last, on the eighteenth day, the King arrived in Milford Haven
with the dukes of Albemarle, Exeter, and Surrey, the Earl of Worcester, the
bishops of London, Lincoln, and Carlisle, and several thousands of the troops
who had accompanied him to Ireland. With such a force, had it been faithful,
he might have made a stand against his antagonist; but on the second morning,
when he arose, he observed from his window that the greater part had
disappeared. A council was immediately summoned, and a proposal made that the
King should flee by sea to Bordeaux; but the Duke of Exeter objected that to
quit the kingdom in such circumstances was to abdicate the throne. Let them
proceed to the army at Conway. There they might bid defiance to the enemy; or
at all events, as the sea would still be open, might thence set sail to
Guienne. His opinion prevailed; and at nightfall the King, in the disguise of
a Franciscan friar, his two brothers of Exeter and Surrey, the Earl of
Gloucester, the Bishop of Carlisle, Sir Stephen Scrope, and Sir William
Feriby, with eight others, stole away from the army, and directed their route
toward Conway. Their flight was soon known. The royal treasure, which
Richard left behind him, was plundered; Albemarle, Worcester, and most of the
leaders hastened to pay their court to Henry; the rest attempted in
small bodies to make their way to their own counties, but were in most instances
plundered and ill-treated by the Welsh.
The royal party with some difficulty, but without any accident, reached
Conway, where, to their utter disappointment, instead of a numerous force,
they found only the Earl of Salisbury with a hundred men. In this emergency
the King's brothers undertook to visit Henry at Chester, and to sound his
intentions; and during their absence Richard, with the Earl of Salisbury,
examined the castles of Beaumaris and Carnarvon; but finding them without
garrisons or provisions, the disconsolate wanderers returned to their former
quarters.
When the two dukes were admitted into the presence of Henry, they bent
the knee and acquainted him with their message from the King. He took little
notice of Surrey, whom he afterward confined in the castle, but, leading
Exeter aside, spoke with him in private, and gave him, instead of the hart,
the King's livery, his own badge of the rose. But no entreaties could induce
him to allow them to return. Exeter was observed to drop a tear when the Duke
of Albemarle said to him tauntingly: "Fair cousin, be not angry. If it please
God, things shall go well."
The immediate object of Henry was to secure the royal person. He was
gratified to learn from the envoys the place of Richard's retreat, and
detained them at Chester, that the King, instead of making his escape, might
await their return. His first care was to take possession of the treasure
which the King had deposited in the strong castle of Holt; his next, to
despatch the Earl of Northumberland at the head of four hundred men-at-arms
and a thousand archers to Conway, with instructions not to display his force,
lest the King should put to sea, but by artful speeches and promises to draw
him out of the fortress and then make him prisoner. The Earl took possession
in his journey of the castles of Flint and Rhuddlan, and a few miles beyond
the latter, placing his men in concealment under a rock, rode forward with
only five attendants to Conway.
He was readily admitted, and, to the King's anxious inquiries about his
brothers, replied that he had left them well at Chester, and had brought a
letter from the Duke of Exeter. In it that nobleman said, or rather was made
to say, that full credit might be given to the offers of the bearer. These
offers were, that Richard should promise to govern and judge his people by
law; that the dukes of Exeter and Surrey, the Earl of Salisbury, the Bishop of
Carlisle, and Maudelin, the King's chaplain, should submit to a trial in
parliament, on the charge of having advised the assassination of Gloucester;
that Henry should be made grand justiciary of the kingdom, as his ancestors
had been for a hundred years; and that, on the concession of these terms, the
Duke should come to Flint, ask the King's pardon on his knees, and accompany
or follow him to London. Richard consulted his friends apart. He expressed
his approbation of the articles, but bade them secretly be assured that no
consideration should induce him to abandon them on their trial, and that he
would grasp the first opportunity of being revenged on his and their enemies -
"for there were some among them whom he would flay alive; whom he would never
spare for all the gold in the land." Northumberland was then sworn to the
observance of the conditions. He took his oath on the host; and, "like
Judas," says the writer, "perjured himself on the body of our Lord."
As Northumberland departed to make arrangements for the interview at
Flint, the King said to him: "I rely, my lord, on your faith. Remember your
oath, and the God who heard it." Soon afterward he followed with his friends
and their servants, to the number of twenty-two. They came to a steep
declivity, to the left of which was the sea, and on the right a lofty rock
overhanging the road. The King dismounted, and was descending on foot, when
he suddenly exclaimed: "I am betrayed. God of Paradise, assist me! Do you
not see banners and pennons in the valley?" Northumberland with eleven others
met them at the moment and affected to be ignorant of the circumstance. "Earl
of Northumberland," said the King, "if I thought you capable of betraying me,
it is not too late to return." "You cannot return," the Earl replied, seizing
the King's bridle; "I have promised to conduct you to the Duke of Lancaster."
By this time he was joined by a hundred lances, and two hundred archers on
horseback; and Richard, seeing it impossible to escape, exclaimed: "May the
God, on whom you laid your hand, reward you and your accomplices at the last
day!" and then, turning to his friends, added: "We are betrayed; but remember
that our Lord was also sold and delivered into the hands of his enemies."
They dined at Rhuddlan, and reached Flint in the evening. The King, as
soon as he was left with his friends, abandoned himself to the reflections
which his melancholy situation inspired. He frequently upbraided himself with
his past indulgence to his present opponent: "Fool that I was!" he exclaimed:
"thrice did I save the life of this Henry of Lancaster. Once my dear uncle
his father, on whom the Lord have mercy! would have put him to death for his
treason and villany. God of Paradise! I rode all night to save him; and his
father delivered him to me, to do with him as I pleased. How true is the
saying that we have no greater enemy than the man whom we have preserved from
the gallows! Another time he drew his sword on me, in the chamber of the
Queen, on whom God have mercy! He was also the accomplice of the Duke of
Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel; he consented to my murder, to that of his
father, and of all my council. By St. John, I forgave him all; nor would I
believe his father, who more than once pronounced him deserving of death."
The unfortunate King rose after a sleepless night, heard mass, and
ascended the tower to watch the arrival of his opponent. At length he saw the
army, amounting to eighty thousand men, winding along the beach till it
reached the castle and surrounded it from sea to sea. He shuddered and wept,
and cursed the Earl of Northumberland, but was called down by the arrival of
Archbishop Arundel, the Duke of Albemarle, and the Earl of Worcester. They
knelt to Richard, who, drawing the prelate apart, held a long conversation
with him. After their departure he again mounted the tower, and, surveying
the host of this enemies, exclaimed: "Good Lord God! I commend myself into thy
holy keeping, and cry thee mercy, that thou wouldst pardon all my sins. If
they put me to death I will take it patiently, as thou didst for us all."
Northumberland had ordered dinner, and the Earl of Salisbury, the Bishop and
the two knights, Sir Stephen Scrope and Sir William Feriby, sat with the King
at the same table by his order; for since they were all companions in
misfortune, he would allow no distinction among them. While he was eating,
unknown persons entered the hall, insulting him with sarcasms and threats. As
soon as he rose, he was summoned into the court to receive the Duke of
Lancaster. Henry came forward in complete armor, with the exception of his
helmet. As soon as he saw the King he bent his knee, and, advancing a few
paces, he repeated his obeisance with his cap in his hand.
"Fair cousin of Lancaster," said Richard, uncovering himself, "you are
right welcome." "My lord," answered the Duke, "I am come before my time. But I
will show you the reason. Your people complain that for the space of twenty
or two-and-twenty years you have ruled them rigorously; but, if it please God,
I will help you to govern better." The King replied, "Fair cousin, since it
pleaseth you, it pleaseth us well." Henry then addressed himself successively
to the Bishop and to the knights, but refused to notice the Earl. The King's
horses were immediately ordered; and two lean and miserable animals were
brought out, on which Richard and Salisbury mounted, and amid the flourish of
trumpets and shouts of triumph followed the Duke into Chester.
At Chester writs were issued in the King's name for the meeting of
parliament and the preservation of the peace. Henry dismissed the greater
part of his army, and prepared to conduct his prisoner to the capital. At
Lichfield Richard seized a favorable moment to let himself down from his
window, but was retaken in the garden, and from that moment was constantly
guarded by ten or twelve armed men. In the neighborhood of London they
separated. Henry, accompanied by the mayor and principal citizens,
proceeded to St. Paul's, prayed before the high altar, and wept a few minutes over the
tomb of his father. The King was sent to Westminster, and thence on the
following day to the Tower, and, as he went along, was greeted with curses and
the appellation of "the bastard," a word of ominous import, and prophetic of
his approaching degradation.
When the Duke first landed in England, he had sworn on the Gospels that
his only object was to vindicate his right to the honors and possessions of
the house of Lancaster. If this was the truth, his ambition had grown with
his good-fortune. He now aspired to exchange the coronet of a duke for the
crown of a king. Can we believe that he would meet with opposition from his
associates, the Percy family? Yet so we are assured. They, however, by their
perfidy, had given themselves a master. Their retainers had been already
dismissed; and the friends of Richard abhorred them as the worst of traitors.
They had therefore no resource but to submit, and to second the design of
Lancaster. After several consultations it was resolved to combine a solemn
renunciation of the royal authority on the part of Richard with an act of
deposition on the part of the two houses of parliament, in the hope that those
whose scruples should not be satisfied with the one, might acquiesce in the
other. To obtain the first, the royal captive was assailed with promises and
threats. Generally he abandoned himself to lamentation and despair;
occasionally he exerted that spirit which he had formerly displayed. "Why am I
thus guarded?" he asked one day. "Am I your king or your prisoner?" "You are
my king, sir," replied the Duke with coolness; "but the council of your realm
has thought proper to place a guard about you."
On the day before the meeting of parliament a deputation of prelates,
barons, knights, and lawyers waited on the captive in the Tower, and reminded
him that in the castle of Conway, while he was perfectly his own master, he
had promised to resign the crown on account of his own incompetency to govern.
On his reply that he was ready to perform his promise, a paper was given him
to read, in which he was made to absolve all his subjects from their fealty
and allegiance, to renounce of his own accord all kingly authority, to
acknowledge himself incapable of reigning, and worthy for his past demerits to
be deposed, and to swear by the holy Gospels that he would never act, nor, as
far as in him lay, suffer any other person to act, in opposition to this
resignation. He then added, as from himself, that if it were in his power to
name his successor, he would choose his cousin of Lancaster, who was present,
and to whom he gave his ring, which he took from his own finger.
Such is the account of this transaction inserted by the order of Henry in
the rolls of parliament; an account the accuracy of which is liable to strong
suspicion. It is difficult to believe that Richard had so much command over
his feelings as to behave with that cheerfulness which is repeatedly noticed
in the record; and the assertion that he had promised to resign the crown when
he saw Northumberland in the castle of Conway, is not only contradictory to
the statement of the two eye-witnesses, but also in itself highly improbable.
From the fate of Edward II, with which he had so often been threatened, he
must have known that it was better to flee to his transmarine dominions, which
were still open to him, than to resign his crown and remain a prisoner in the
custody of his successor.
The next day the two houses met amid a great concourse of people in
Westminster hall. The Duke occupied his usual seat near the throne, which was
empty and covered with cloth of gold. The resignation of the King was read;
each member, standing in his place, signified his acceptance of it aloud; and
the people with repeated shouts expressed their approbation. Henry now
proceeded to the second part of his plan, the act of deposition. For this
purpose the coronation oath was first read; thirty-three articles of
impeachment followed, in which it was contended that Richard had violated that
oath; and thence it was concluded that he had by his misconduct forfeited his
title to the throne. Of the articles, those which bear the hardest on the
King are: the part which he was supposed to have had in the death of the Duke
of Gloucester, his revocation of the pardons formerly granted to that Prince
and his adherents, and his despotic conduct since the dissolution of
parliament. Of the remainder, some are frivolous; many might, with equal
reason, have been objected to each of his predecessors; and the others rest on
the unsupported assertion of men whose interest it was to paint him in the
blackest colors.
No opposition had been anticipated, nor is any mentioned on the rolls;
but we are told that the Bishop of Carlisle, to the astonishment of the
Lancastrians, rose and demanded for Richard what ought not to be refused to
the meanest criminal, the right of being confronted with his accusers; and for
parliament what it might justly claim, the opportunity of learning from the
King's own mouth whether the resignation of the crown, which had been
attributed to him, were his own spontaneous act. If Merks actually made such
a speech, he must have stood alone; no one was found to second it; the house
voted the deposition of Richard; and eight commissioners, ascending a tribunal
erected before the throne, pronounced him degraded from the state and
authority of king, on the ground that he notoriously deserved such punishment,
and had acknowledged it under his hand and seal on the preceding day. Sir
William Thirnyng, chief justice, was appointed to notify the sentence to the
captive, who meekly replied that he looked not after the royal authority, but
hoped his cousin would be good lord to him.
The rightful possessor was now removed from the throne. But, supposing
it to be vacant, what pretensions could Henry of Lancaster advance to it? By
the law of succession it belonged to the descendants of Lionel, the third son
of Edward III; and their claim, it is said, had been formally recognized in
parliament. All waited in anxious suspense till the Duke, rising from his
seat, and forming with great solemnity the sign of the cross on his forehead
and breast, pronounced the following words: "In the name of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, I, Henry of Lancaster, challenge this realm of England, and
the crown, with all the members and appurtenances, as that I am descended by
right line of blood, coming from the good lord King Henry III, and through
that right that God, of his grace, hath sent me with help of my kin and of my
friends to recover it; the which realm was in point to be undone for default
of governance and undoing of good laws."
In these extraordinary terms did Lancaster advance his pretensions,
artfully intermixing an undefined claim of inheritance ^1 with those of
conquest and expediency, and rather hinting at each than insisting on either.
But, however difficult it might be to understand the ground, the object of his
challenge was perfectly intelligible. Both houses admitted it unanimously;
and, as a confirmation, Henry produced the ring and seal which Richard had
previously delivered to him. The Archbishop of Canterbury now took him by the
hand, and led him to the throne. He knelt for a few minutes in prayer on the
steps, arose, and was seated in it by the two archbishops. As soon as the
acclamations had subsided, the Primate, stepping forward, made a short
harangue, in which he undertook to prove that a monarch in the vigor of
manhood was a blessing, a young and inexperienced prince was a curse to a
people. At the conclusion the King rose. "Sirs," said he, "I thank God, and
you, spiritual and temporal, and all estates of the land; and do you to wit,
it is not my will that no man think that by way of conquest I would disinherit
any man of his heritage, franchises, or other rights that him ought to have,
nor put him out of that that he has and has had by the good laws and customs
of the realm; except those persons that have been against the good purpose and
the common profit of the realm."
With the authority of Richard had expired that of the parliament and of
the royal officers. Henry immediately summoned the same parliament to meet
again in six days, appointed new officers of the crown, and as soon as he had
received their oaths retired in state to the royal apartments. Thus ended
this eventful day, with the deposition of Richard of Bordeaux, and the
succession of his cousin, Henryof Bolingbroke.
- Lingard, John, Deposition Of Richard II, History of the World, 1 Jan 1992.
_Michael HEICHEL __________________
| (.... - 1854) m 1819
_Joseph HEICHEL ______|_Katharine ALBERT _________________
| (1819 - 1889) m 1843 (1797 - 1870)
_Francis Marion HEICHEL ____|
| (1847 - 1912) m 1894 |
| | _George Washington Waters BASFORD _+
| | | (1800 - 1871) m 1822
| |_Ann Rebecca BASFORD _|_Anna RIDGELY _____________________
| (1825 - 1910) m 1843 (1803 - 1837)
_Elmer Edward HEICHEL _|
| (1908 - 1981) |
| | _John Frederick COLEMAN ___________+
| | | (1792 - 1874) m 1813
| | _Frederick COLEMAN ___|_Rachel STAHL _____________________
| | | (1827 - 1901) m 1863 (1795 - 1874)
| |_Rachel (Lucettie) COLEMAN _|
| (1866 - 1942) m 1894 |
| | ___________________________________
| | |
| |_Melissa CARNAHAN ____|___________________________________
| (.... - 1907) m 1863
_William David HEICHEL _|
| |
| | ___________________________________
| | |
| | ______________________|___________________________________
| | |
| | ____________________________|
| | | |
| | | | ___________________________________
| | | | |
| | | |______________________|___________________________________
| | |
| |_Verna Isabelle ADAMS _|
| (1910 - 1999) |
| | ___________________________________
| | |
| | ______________________|___________________________________
| | |
| |____________________________|
| |
| | ___________________________________
| | |
| |______________________|___________________________________
|
|
|--David HEICHEL
|
| ___________________________________
| |
| ______________________|___________________________________
| |
| ____________________________|
| | |
| | | ___________________________________
| | | |
| | |______________________|___________________________________
| |
| _______________________|
| | |
| | | ___________________________________
| | | |
| | | ______________________|___________________________________
| | | |
| | |____________________________|
| | |
| | | ___________________________________
| | | |
| | |______________________|___________________________________
| |
|_Suzanne C. STUDWELL ___|
|
| ___________________________________
| |
| ______________________|___________________________________
| |
| ____________________________|
| | |
| | | ___________________________________
| | | |
| | |______________________|___________________________________
| |
|_______________________|
|
| ___________________________________
| |
| ______________________|___________________________________
| |
|____________________________|
|
| ___________________________________
| |
|______________________|___________________________________
[12602] living - details excluded
_____________________________
|
_Johannes HERBST _____________|_____________________________
| (1770 - 1832) m 1789
_David HERBST _______________|
| (1793 - 1863) m 1817 |
| | _____________________________
| | |
| |_Maria Magdalena FISSCHER ____|_____________________________
| (1769 - 1843) m 1789
_Jacob HERBST _______|
| (1822 - 1898) m 1847|
| | _Johannes MUELLER ___________+
| | | (1709 - 1755)
| | _Henry Jacob MILLER __________|_Elizabeth Catherine FREY ___
| | | (1749 - 1830) m 1778 (1717 - 1758)
| |_Mary MILLER ________________|
| (1797 - 1868) m 1817 |
| | _John HOUSER ________________
| | | (1709 - 1763)
| |_Yuleayne ("Juliana") HOUSER _|_____________________________
| (1753 - 1836) m 1778
_Charles D. HERBST __|
| (1847 - 1922) |
| | _____________________________
| | |
| | _Johan Carl DIEHL ____________|_____________________________
| | | (1750 - 1817)
| | _Charles DIEHL ______________|
| | | (1778 - 1839) |
| | | | _Christian STABLER __________
| | | | | (1727 - 1783) m 1752
| | | |_Christina STABLER ___________|_Anna FRITZ _________________
| | | (1757 - 1810) (1726 - 1800)
| |_Julia DIEHL ________|
| (1825 - 1907) m 1847|
| | _____________________________
| | |
| | ______________________________|_____________________________
| | |
| |_Catherine KOLLER ___________|
| (1781 - 1865) |
| | _____________________________
| | |
| |______________________________|_____________________________
|
|
|--Julia HERBST
|
| _____________________________
| |
| _Abraham YOST ________________|_____________________________
| | (1751 - 1842)
| _Abraham YOST _______________|
| | (1792 - 1855) m 1812 |
| | | _____________________________
| | | |
| | |_Elizabeth FEISER ____________|_____________________________
| | (1753 - 1848)
| _Jacob YOST _________|
| | (1820 - 1894) m 1845|
| | | _Peter FEISER _______________
| | | | (1732 - 1808)
| | | _Peter FEISER ________________|_Catherine Elizabeth ENNERS _
| | | | (1759 - 1819) m 1788 (1728 - 1798)
| | |_Anna Maria FEISSER _________|
| | (1790 - 1859) m 1812 |
| | | _____________________________
| | | |
| | |_Anna Maria FREY _____________|_____________________________
| | (1762 - 1853) m 1788
|_Sarah YOST _________|
(1846 - 1912) |
| _Peter BRILLHART ____________+
| | (1726 - 1782) m 1745
| _Jacob BRILLHART _____________|_Mary MEYER _________________
| | (1766 - 1811) m 1788 (.... - 1804)
| _David BRILLHART ____________|
| | (1786 - 1824) |
| | | _Jacob MOYER ________________+
| | | | (1707 - 1763) m 1753
| | |_Margaret MYERS ______________|_Elizabeth EBERLE ___________
| | (1753 - 1818) m 1788 (1723 - ....)
|_Leah BRILLHART _____|
(1828 - 1887) m 1845|
| _George FAIGELE _____________
| |
| _Martin FEIGELI ______________|_____________________________
| | (1774 - 1822)
|_Magdalena ("Lena") FEIGLEY _|
(1793 - 1867) |
| _Peter BRILLHART ____________+
| | (1746 - 1801)
|_Maria BRILLHART _____________|_____________________________
_Solomon HIGGINS ____+
| (1721 - 1780) m 1747
_Abijah HIGGINS _____|_Bethiah CHASE ______
| (1779 - 1855) m 1805 (1734 - ....)
_Zacheus HIGGINS ____|
| (1811 - ....) m 1834|
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_Nancy BUCKLEY ______|_____________________
| (.... - 1825) m 1805
_Warren Herman HIGGINS _|
| (1858 - ....) m 1882 |
| | _Job STANWOOD _______+
| | | (1727 - 1776) m 1759
| | _David STANWOOD _____|_Martha BRADSTREET __
| | | (1772 - 1818) m 1792 (1738 - ....)
| |_Martha STANWOOD ____|
| (1815 - 1874) m 1834|
| | _Thomas WASGATT _____+
| | | (.... - 1820) m 1770
| |_Eunice WASGATT _____|_Eunice ROBBINS _____
| (1777 - ....) m 1792 (1754 - 1780)
_Warren Herman HIGGINS _|
| (1888 - 1967) m 1910 |
| | _____________________
| | |
| | _____________________|_____________________
| | |
| | _____________________|
| | | |
| | | | _____________________
| | | | |
| | | |_____________________|_____________________
| | |
| |_Lydia Maria NORWOOD ___|
| (1861 - 1920) m 1882 |
| | _____________________
| | |
| | _____________________|_____________________
| | |
| |_____________________|
| |
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_____________________|_____________________
|
|
|--Lenora L. HIGGINS
| (1913 - 1999)
| _____________________
| |
| _____________________|_____________________
| |
| _____________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | |_____________________|_____________________
| |
| ________________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | | _____________________|_____________________
| | | |
| | |_____________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | |_____________________|_____________________
| |
|_Lida Ethel LUNT _______|
(1896 - ....) m 1910 |
| _____________________
| |
| _____________________|_____________________
| |
| _____________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | |_____________________|_____________________
| |
|________________________|
|
| _____________________
| |
| _____________________|_____________________
| |
|_____________________|
|
| _____________________
| |
|_____________________|_____________________
_____________________
|
_________________________|_____________________
|
__________________________|
| |
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_________________________|_____________________
|
_James Henry ("Henry") MARTIN _|
| (1843 - 1920) |
| | _____________________
| | |
| | _________________________|_____________________
| | |
| |__________________________|
| |
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_________________________|_____________________
|
_George William MARTIN _|
| (1869 - 1941) m 1902 |
| | _____________________
| | |
| | _________________________|_____________________
| | |
| | _Jonathan INYART _________|
| | | (1827 - 1850) m 1848 |
| | | | _____________________
| | | | |
| | | |_________________________|_____________________
| | |
| |_Mary Ann INYART ______________|
| (1848 - 1919) |
| | _Richard RIDGELY ____+
| | | (1774 - 1863) m 1798
| | _George William RIDGELY _|_(Anna) Mary HYMES __
| | | (1799 - 1863) (1780 - 1873)
| |_Clarisa Minerva RIDGLEY _|
| (1827 - 1916) m 1848 |
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_________________________|_____________________
|
|
|--Leona Ferne MARTIN
| (1903 - 2000)
| _____________________
| |
| _________________________|_____________________
| |
| __________________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | |_________________________|_____________________
| |
| _______________________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | | _________________________|_____________________
| | | |
| | |__________________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | |_________________________|_____________________
| |
|_Stella Ethel INYART ___|
(1883 - 1965) m 1902 |
| _____________________
| |
| _________________________|_____________________
| |
| __________________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | |_________________________|_____________________
| |
|_______________________________|
|
| _____________________
| |
| _________________________|_____________________
| |
|__________________________|
|
| _____________________
| |
|_________________________|_____________________
__
|
_____________________|__
|
_____________________|
| |
| | __
| | |
| |_____________________|__
|
_____________________|
| |
| | __
| | |
| | _____________________|__
| | |
| |_____________________|
| |
| | __
| | |
| |_____________________|__
|
_Robert POTTER ______|
| (1610 - 1655) |
| | __
| | |
| | _____________________|__
| | |
| | _____________________|
| | | |
| | | | __
| | | | |
| | | |_____________________|__
| | |
| |_____________________|
| |
| | __
| | |
| | _____________________|__
| | |
| |_____________________|
| |
| | __
| | |
| |_____________________|__
|
|
|--Elizabeth POTTER
|
| __
| |
| _Francis ANTHONY ____|__
| | m 1549
| _Francis ANTHONY ____|
| | (1550 - 1623) m 1582|
| | | __
| | | |
| | |_Judith ROBY ________|__
| | (1527 - ....) m 1549
| _John ANTHONY _______|
| | (.... - 1655) |
| | | __
| | | |
| | | _____________________|__
| | | |
| | |_Susan HOWE _________|
| | (1554 - 1623) m 1582|
| | | __
| | | |
| | |_____________________|__
| |
|_Isabella ANTHONY ___|
|
| __
| |
| _____________________|__
| |
| _____________________|
| | |
| | | __
| | | |
| | |_____________________|__
| |
|_____________________|
|
| __
| |
| _____________________|__
| |
|_____________________|
|
| __
| |
|_____________________|__
[6007] Elizabeth m. Richard Harcutt. She is second-born.
_____________________
|
_Johannes Heinrich SCHREFFLER _|_____________________
| (1714 - 1784) m 1745
_Gottfried SCHREFFLER ____|
| (1752 - 1812) |
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_Anna Maria WEBER _____________|_____________________
| (1716 - 1776) m 1745
_Gottfried SCHREFFLER _|
| (1787 - 1870) m 1808 |
| | _____________________
| | |
| | _______________________________|_____________________
| | |
| |__________________________|
| |
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_______________________________|_____________________
|
_John SCHREFFLER ____|
| (1820 - 1895) |
| | _Peter LEBO _________+
| | | (.... - 1783)
| | _Peter LEBO ___________________|_____________________
| | | (.... - 1807)
| | _John Philip LEBO ________|
| | | (1769 - 1839) |
| | | | _____________________
| | | | |
| | | |_Anna Catharina JORDAN ________|_____________________
| | | (1744 - ....)
| |_Eva Gretha LEBO ______|
| (1790 - 1872) m 1808 |
| | _____________________
| | |
| | _______________________________|_____________________
| | |
| |_Anna Marie WOHLFORD _____|
| |
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_______________________________|_____________________
|
|
|--Nathan SCHREFFLER
| (1853 - 1938)
| _Johann Adam REBUCK _
| |
| _Valentine REHBOCK ____________|_____________________
| | (1730 - 1802) m 1757
| _Johann Michael REBUCK ___|
| | (1769 - 1852) |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | |_Anna Barbara BALDAUF _________|_____________________
| | (1735 - 1808) m 1757
| _Gottfried REBUCK _____|
| | (1798 - 1875) |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | | _______________________________|_____________________
| | | |
| | |_Maria Margaretha THOMAS _|
| | (1762 - 1820) |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | |_______________________________|_____________________
| |
|_Salome REBUCK ______|
(1821 - 1893) |
| _____________________
| |
| _______________________________|_____________________
| |
| __________________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | |_______________________________|_____________________
| |
|_Catharine WAGNER _____|
(1801 - 1875) |
| _____________________
| |
| _______________________________|_____________________
| |
|__________________________|
|
| _____________________
| |
|_______________________________|_____________________
[42641] Nathan and Mary Ann had Mattie Jane Schreffler Reinoehl (1882 - 1964); Etta D Schreffler Latsha (1885 - 1965); William Freeman Schreffler (1887 - 1966); Monroe Ira Schreffler (1890 - 1954); Lottie Cora Schreffler Schlegel (1894 - 1975); Luther Lee Schreffler (1897 - 1974); Stella Verna Schreffler (1899 - 1984). Mount Carmel Item, 15 April 1938, p. 4: Nathan Schreffler, 84, died at his home in Pitman Wednesday afternoon at 4:00 o'clock following an illness that extended over the past year. Mr. Schreffler had only been bedfast for the past two days, however, and news of his death proved a shock to his many friends in this section. He was born in Pitman and spent all of his life there. A farmer by occupation he was retired for the past 28 years. A man of quiet nature and pleasing personality, Mr. Schreffler made a legion of friends who join his survivors in their bereavement. To survive, Mr. Schreffler leaves his wife, Mary and 9 children, William of Pitman. Mrs. Mattie Reinoehl ofHelfenstein. Mrs. George Latsha of Ashland, Monroe, Luther and John Schreffler of Ashland, Mrs. Harvev Schlegel of Dornsife, Mrs. Daniel Schreffler of Green Brier. Mrs. Monroe Neiswender of Millmont and a brother Frank of Sunbury. Thirty-two grandchildren and 9 great granchildren also survive. The funeral will be held Saturday afternoon with services at the home at 1:30 o'clock. Interment will be made in Hoverter's Cemetery.
[50910]
Mary is daughter of John Gordon Snow (1864-1958) & Elsie Adeline Munn (1880-1949; m. 26 June 1900 i Boiestown, Ludlow, Northumberland Co., New Brunswick, Canada).
_Richard DE TALBOT ________________________+
|
_Gilbert DE TALBOT ________________________|_Aliva BASSET _____________________________
| (1225 - 1274)
_Richard TALBOT ___________________________|
| |
| | _Rhys Mechyll, Lord of DYNEVOR ____________+
| | |
| |_Gwenthlian MECHYLL _______________________|___________________________________________
| (.... - 1274)
_Gilbert TALBOT _____|
| (1276 - 1346) |
| | _William DE BEAUCHAMP _____________________+
| | | (.... - 1260)
| | _William DE BEAUCHAMP _____________________|_Isabella MORTIMER ________________________
| | | (1215 - 1269)
| |_Sarah DE BEAUCHAMP _______________________|
| |
| | _William MAUDUIT __________________________+
| | | (.... - 1257)
| |_Isabel MAUDUIT ___________________________|_Alice DE NEWBURGH ________________________
| (1196 - ....)
_Richard TALBOT _____|
| (.... - 1356) m 1326|
| | ___________________________________________
| | |
| | ___________________________________________|___________________________________________
| | |
| | ___________________________________________|
| | | |
| | | | ___________________________________________
| | | | |
| | | |___________________________________________|___________________________________________
| | |
| |_Anne LE BOTILER ____|
| (.... - 1340) |
| | ___________________________________________
| | |
| | ___________________________________________|___________________________________________
| | |
| |___________________________________________|
| |
| | ___________________________________________
| | |
| |___________________________________________|___________________________________________
|
|
|--Gilbert TALBOT
| (.... - 1387)
| _Richard COMYN ____________________________+
| | (.... - 1244)
| _Sir John COMYN ___________________________|___________________________________________
| | (.... - 1277)
| _Sir John COMYN ___________________________|
| | (.... - 1302) |
| | | ___________________________________________
| | | |
| | |___________________________________________|___________________________________________
| |
| _John COMYN _________|
| | (.... - 1306) |
| | | _Hugh DE BALIOL ___________________________+
| | | | (.... - 1229) m 1200
| | | _John DE BALIOL ___________________________|_Cecily DE FONTAINES ______________________
| | | | (.... - 1269) m 1233
| | |_Eleanor DE BALIOL ________________________|
| | |
| | | _Alan MacDonal, Lord of GALLOWAY __________+
| | | | (1185 - 1234) m 1209
| | |_Devorguilla of GALLOWAY __________________|_Margaret of HUNTINGDON ___________________
| | (1220 - 1290) m 1233 (.... - 1229)
|_Elizabeth COMYN ____|
(1299 - 1372) m 1326|
| _Hugh IX ("the Brown"), Count of La MARCH _+
| | (.... - 1219)
| _Hugh (X) of Lusignan, Count of La MARCHE _|_Mathilde of (Angoulême) TAILLEFER _______
| | (.... - 1249) m 1217 (.... - 1233)
| _Sir William de Valence, Earl of PEMBROKE _|
| | m 1247 |
| | | _Aymer de Valence, Count of ANGOULêME ____+
| | | | (.... - 1218) m 1180
| | |_Isabella of ANGOULêME ___________________|_Alice DE COURTENAY _______________________
| | (1188 - 1246) m 1217 (1218 - 1216)
|_Joan DE VALENCE ____|
|
| _William DE MUNCHENSEY ____________________+
| | (.... - 1204)
| _Warin DE MUNCHENSI _______________________|_Aveline CLARE ____________________________
| | (.... - 1225)
|_Joan DE MUNCHENSI ________________________|
m 1247 |
| _Sir William the MARSHAL __________________+
| | (1146 - 1219) m 1189
|_Joan MARSHALL ____________________________|_Isabel DE CLARE __________________________
(1173 - 1220)
[11910] Concering Gilbert, http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/TALBOT.htm offers: "Knight of the Garter. B. Strange of Blackmere 1413. His second wife Beatrice Pinto of Portugal, who married secondly, ABT 1423, Thomas Fettiplace of East Shefford, Berks (1383-1446); and 25 Dec 1447; i East Shefford; is easily confused with her namesake Beatrice illeg. (but probably legitimated) dau of John I, King of Portugal m1 26 Nov 1405 Lambeth: Thomas Fitz Alan 5th Earl of Arundel 1381-1415 [CP]; m2 (by licence, 20 Jan 1432.3 John Holand, Duke of Exeter). Defeated the insurgent Welsh in 1407. Served in the French wars. Captain General of the Marches in Normandy."
_James VEITCH _______+
| (1628 - 1685) m 1657
_Nathan VEITCH ______|_Mary GAKERLIN ______
| (1668 - 1705) m 1692 (1637 - ....)
_James VEATCH ______________|
| (1696 - 1762) m 1719 |
| | _Thomas CLAGETT _____
| | | (1645 - 1703) m 1672
| |_Ann CLAGETT ________|_Mary NUTTER ________
| (1674 - 1746) m 1692 (1645 - 1691)
_Daniel VEATCH __________|
| (1722 - 1803) m 1744 |
| | _____________________
| | |
| | _____________________|_____________________
| | |
| |_Rachel (Beall or) HEPBURN _|
| (1700 - 1766) m 1719 |
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_____________________|_____________________
|
_John VEATCH ________|
| (1744 - 1820) m 1766|
| | _____________________
| | |
| | _____________________|_____________________
| | |
| | ____________________________|
| | | |
| | | | _____________________
| | | | |
| | | |_____________________|_____________________
| | |
| |_Dorcas Deakins PLUMMER _|
| (1720 - 1773) m 1744 |
| | _____________________
| | |
| | _____________________|_____________________
| | |
| |____________________________|
| |
| | _____________________
| | |
| |_____________________|_____________________
|
|
|--Rachel Daciser VEATCH
| (1765 - 1833)
| _____________________
| |
| _____________________|_____________________
| |
| ____________________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | |_____________________|_____________________
| |
| _________________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | | _____________________|_____________________
| | | |
| | |____________________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | |_____________________|_____________________
| |
|_Sarah HODGE ________|
(1745 - 1821) m 1766|
| _____________________
| |
| _____________________|_____________________
| |
| ____________________________|
| | |
| | | _____________________
| | | |
| | |_____________________|_____________________
| |
|_________________________|
|
| _____________________
| |
| _____________________|_____________________
| |
|____________________________|
|
| _____________________
| |
|_____________________|_____________________
[41982] This line is from the unverified Brown Family Tree in Ancestry.com in 2017.