Ada de Huntingdon - Curators :Ada was also married to Ralph Brereton please add

Sais here, her first husband was not a Baron, nor the son Henry officially yet created in 1264, maybe the names are wrong, not the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_de_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Hastings

Ada of Huntington was dead in 1242 when her property passed to her estate - her husband de Hastings. Since he died in 1250 with his children under age, the holdings went to the Lusignan's in ward of the son & heir. The dowries of the 3 unmarried daughters were held by the King.
This is why I suggested proving the Brereton / Huntington marriage (of whichever generation) by looking into property brought to the Breretons - if any can be traced back to count David, there's a case.

Until then you have an inscription.

Collins Peerage recognized the claim of the Breretons to descent from Ada of Huntington with this:

======

However, there appears to be official contradiction of this "additional generation" in the following note found in Archaeologia, or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, stating (apparently) that Ada de Huntington was married to Ralph de Brereton:

"Sir Ralph Brereton of Brereton, Knight, through marriage to Ada de Huntington, gives the Breretons Royal Descent because she was decended of David, King of Scotland, and maternally the Earls of Chester were Royal Earls, who possessed jura regalis in the Palatinate of Chester. They also laid claim to royal descent from the Venables, who was a relation of Stephen of Blois and William, the Conqueror. At first the descent of the Breretons from the royal blood of Scotland was mentioned as a mere claim, which was found in Collins' Peerage and in Dugdale's British Peers, but a copy of the patent or grant of creation to Sir William Brereton, of the Barony of Brereton, has since been procured and in that instrument such royal descent in Scotland is expressly recited and recognized in the following terms: "We, considering with mature deliberation the free and true services of Sir William Brereton, and that he is sprung from an ancient, noble and most renowned family, inasmuch as he is descended, through many illustrious ancestors, from Ada, sister of John, surnamed le Scot, 7th Earl of Chester, and daughter of David, Earl of Huntingdon, Lord of Galloway, within our kingdom of Scotland." (This quotation is found in Archaeologia, or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Vol. 33, p. 59.)

==========

"he is descended, through many illustrious ancestors, from Ada, sister of John, surnamed le Scot, 7th Earl of Chester, and daughter of David, Earl of Huntingdon, Lord of Galloway, within our kingdom of Scotland."

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

This does not reference a contract, charter, pipe roll, property transfer, dowry, wedding ceremony, baptism, god parent, witness, etc etc etc

To a marriage.

It accepts the claim of descent from.

Why would they say John brother AND David father to describe her, sounds like 2 different lines.

I don't think that's unusual? Ada of Huntington is described by heads of family in her lifetime: 1st her father, and after his death in 1219, her brother.

Can we first eliminate Wikipedia as a reliable resource. Also, Alison Weir, who Justin has criticized several times.
1.) Archaeology supports Ada's marriage to Ralph.
2.) Can we use archaeology plus more authentic original documents, like Ormerod, Welsh genealogies, Visitations, etc. as sources, and do the work, read the original resources carefully, instead of Tudor place type websites, which might simply repeat past mistakes. Then assemble the data in a logical sequence here? I know some original sources sometimes conflict, because they simply didn't have the ability to compare data we do. So we have to gather it all together as a body.
Thank you.

My attention has been a bit scattered on this problem. Do I remember correctly that there is an analysis from Doug Richardson? He is a highly competent researcher. If he has looked at this problem, any discussion should start with "here is what Richardson concluded" then any argument should start with "here is something Richardson missed".

In other words, let's not re-invent the wheel.

Reposting;

=======

OK please weigh in on Richardson's conclusions:

From [http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.genealogy.medieval/... Ada of Huntingdon] (died c.1242), wife of Henry de Hastings, Knt. From: Douglas Richardson Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008

"In conclusion, it is clear that Ada of Huntingdon had but one husband,
Sir Henry de Hastings. She did not marry (2nd) Sir Ralph de Brereton
or William de Handsacre. The possibility exists that Sir Ralph de
Brereton may have been married to her daughter, Ada de Hastings, widow of Sir Hubert Hovel. It is also possible that Sir Ralph de Brereton's widow married William de Handsacre. However, if so, Sir Ralph de Brereton can not have been married to Ada de Hastings, as William de Handsacre's wife was named Alice or Ala. Further study is needed to resolve this points.

=========

My thought had been to walk through Richardson's points to ensure we follow them, and then discuss.

I had also uploaded the entire thread to the profiles.

Unknown Profile
Let us allow Erica and Private User sort this out please.

That is the question. Ada, daughter of David of Huntingdon, Heiress of Yardley was married to Henry, Lord of Hastings. She died in 1242, before Henry died.

Ralph Brereton's tomb has an inscription stating his wife was Ada of Huntingdon, daughter of David. How can this be, if Ada predeceased her first husband?

We are attempting to resolve this inconsistency.

A Project would be a good idea, this is of Historical importance, and effects a LOT of peoples trees... Like millions?

Personally I think a clear profile overview will do it, it's one profile. Pamela made a great start to a clean presentation on her copy of Ada. And Janet's succinct summation above states the case.

I am curious though why Doug Richardson's argument / possible solution is not being discussed. He is one of the most important contemporary researcher's for these lines.

"May" may not be good enough, perhaps people are hoping for a breakthrough with conclusive results.

Doug Richardson's argument may also be his mistake.

On my tree, I first wanted to see how far I could go, only in England, and only spelled with a "Y". I am now working on every possible case that may "break" it, as an exercise in emotional detachment and a return to more factual and clinical base, to un-condition myself from thinking it is right.

If it does not break, given all other possibilities, I think I might think that it is correct.

I suppose its what you call, "thinking outside the box", the box in this case, being the belief or opinion that has been created to date.

PS. In all of this, I found an Ada Duthy, but I think she died young :(

Ditto Lloyd, just read your post, good idea for sure, back to basics, GMTA :)

Another thing that I noticed was that "death records" are the easiest to mix up, as, so many infant mortalities back then, often its a gamble, as sons and daughters named after parents. I have avoided them a bit.

(Also, in Australia, they must have had a space for "Father" and if unknown, the son or husbands name was put there instead/ or, yet another child??? That has messed me up a bit.)

Rather than "Father" perhaps it is a record of whoever is reporting the death?

I have seen death certs where i know many immediate family members are still alive but the people making the report are complete strangers to me. Neighbours? Friends? No idea.

I am curious as to why we'd be getting contemporary form death reports for historic figures deceased in 1242?

Erica, Sharyn's reference to Australia lead me to believe that her comment was a general observation about the way online databases are populated rather than specific to this profile.

And what's your reading of the Ada of Huntington mystery, Alex? Surely she's your 26th great something too? You've been doing great work in European medieval genealogy, don't think it's not noticed, & the skill set admired.

I would think the next question is where Doug Richardson left off in 2008 (unless another professional has addressed it further), which is -

Is it possible Ralph de Brereton married Ada, daughter of Ada of Huntington, Heiress of Yardley?

And associated questions, such as

Who is the mother of de Brereton's children & is that the same person entombed with him?

His descendant's claim to the Huntington lineage was accepted. When & why & based on what? It wasn't a monumental inscription.

Ada de Huntingdon is my 20th ggm, but I am still 5-6 generations from her. I have been following your discussion. I found one site online that seems to have quite a lot about her. Erica, it may even be the site you were quoting from in your comments yesterday @ 1210 pm. But when I clicked on the site you mentioned all I found was the index...
Look & see if this is the site as it is by Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah: It is entitled: Ada of Huntingdon (died c.1242), wife of Henry de Hastings, Knt.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.genealogy.medieval/...

Don't know if this helps or not...

Pat

Yes, Pat, I read that discussion. Did you read it? What do you think?

Thanks for the compliment Erica but my "skill set" doesn't stretch to original research in the 13th century.

I am just able to return to this discussion. I am in contact with the historian in Chesire who took the tomb photo. He has sent me higher resolution photos, and is going to try to pop over to Astbury to shoot more as he said his photos were 9 years old. He seemed surprised by the controversy, as the historic research center he works with there considers Ormerod the best resource available. I'll post any additional info we may get from other photos. He was also the one who referred the manuscript witnessed by contemporaries that Ralph and his Wife Ada's bones were in the tomb. Please see the Alternate profile I developed for the source. It's pretty conclusive. As for the children, William was a ward at his fathers death, so he was not of age, making him the right age to be Ada's son, and Gilbert would have been younger, as he went to the church and was first Rector of St. Oswalds in Brereton in 1297, again making the case for a son of a marriage with Ada after 1250, when Henry Huntingdon died. This is all from memory, folks, as off to work I go. But please read sources on alternative profile. Thanks for your help!

Oh, also, and yet have no proof of this, just a gut feeling. The two other figures laid out with Ralph and Ada may be Gilbert ( the churchman effigy) and heir William ( the knight effigy). The history of St. Mary's church archaeology also seems consistent with a great 13 th century renovation of the the older church, done in Norman style. I would gues funded by the Brereton family. Gotta go to work now....

Thank you, Pamela. The additional information about the ages of the Brereton children are a big help (I suspect Bradley might be off).

I'm going to try & put together a timeline for you but there are already two details that pop out.

- Ada daughter of count David "had to have been" born before 1219, his recorded death.

- William son of Ralph was under age 21 at his father's death (Ralph was living in 1275). That means he was born no earlier than 1255 and perhaps much later.

- Even if Ada of Huntington survived her reported death in 1242, the very youngest she could have been in 1255 was 37.

- however the sources seem to have her born between 1199 - 1205. 1205 birth date would make her age 50 in 1255 (although of course she was, according to records, deceased by 1242)

- age 50 is past child bearing years.

- Ada of Huntington cannot have been the mother of the Brereton children. If she was not, then Sir Ralph married again, after her death, in order to have at least child William, underage in 1275.

- at his demise of course he could have been entombed with a previous wife, and an inscription celebrate it. But for tree purposes I would think "this" Ada cannot be the mother of the children.

- I would think it highly unlikely he married a mother & then her daughter. So one or the other possibility needs to be eliminated.

In other words, "even if" the recorded date of 1242 is wrong, and she somehow remarried to Ralph de Brereton as 2nd husband after Hastings death in 1250, this marriage was maximum 5 years in duration and had no issue, and she was dead between 1250-1255.

So since Ada, daughter of David, who died in 1219, "cannot have been" the mother of children born after 1255, we have this document to understand:

==========

a copy of the patent or grant of creation to Sir William Brereton, of the Barony of Brereton, has since been procured and in that instrument such royal descent in Scotland is expressly recited and recognized in the following terms: "We, considering with mature deliberation the free and true services of Sir William Brereton, and that he is sprung from an ancient, noble and most renowned family, inasmuch as he is descended, through many illustrious ancestors, from Ada, sister of John, surnamed le Scot, 7th Earl of Chester, and daughter of David, Earl of Huntingdon, Lord of Galloway, within our kingdom of Scotland." (This quotation is found in Archaeologia, or Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity, Vol. 33, p. 59.)

=========

In other words, the claim of descent from Scots nobility "was" accepted, and that "would not have been" based on an issue less marriage.

So either -

- someone fooled the Lord Lyon etc
- there "is" a valid descent by issue (mother and father to son, and on from there)

To understand the valid descent we can revisit the Latin of the inscription. And again my question:

Does "filia" ever, in medieval Latin, mean anything different from "daughter of" ?

To answer that I asked Mr. google, and he served me serveral interesting answers, the first being

Magnum Filiam = grand daughter in Latin

So - perhaps the word "magnum" fell off the inscription.

However Mr Google had some other possibilities. For one thing, the "more usual" term for grand daughter was, according to

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~earlofdonegal/LAT...
granddaughter; sometimes great granddaughter - NEPTIS

There is also

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gsfa/Latin_words.html
filia fratris/sororis: niece, daugher of brother/sister
filia innupta: unwed daughter

And

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/familyanddailylife/qt/030609Rela...

filia, -ae. f. daughter
privignus, -i, m. stepson
privigna, -ae, f. stepdaughter
nepos, nepotis m. grandson
neptis, neptis, f. grand-daughter

I've uploaded a chart from the latter source here

http://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000026887826122

Now this researcher

http://www.brereton.org/Cheshire%20January%202013.pdf

Has noted the timeline discrepancies and that

"apparently Omerod was doubtful about the marriage ..."

The author has chosen to select

" ... Ada and Randulphus married but there was no issue. Consequently, William Brereton would have been the son Randulphus Brereton and his first wife Cecile de Sanbach."

Which does not explain the acceptance of descent from David, de Huntington.

The people historically kept marrying in to the same families, I have seen that so often in most lines I have worked on in the last year. Is it possible they were already cousins?