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

I am reading back these notes on here. First, The chantry chapel is 13 th century. That has been confirmed by archaeology. The church expansion correlated with the tomb building. The Heralds Visitations didn't happen until the 15 th century. That is when the Windsor Library document was prepared, most probably in preparation for the Heralds visit of mid 1400's, authorizing the letters of patent and asking the families to prove their genealogies and right to Coats of Arms. I already posted Doug Richardsons's email inquiry regarding the purpose of this swearing out of witnesses. Obviously he didn't check what year the heralds came or he would have figured out the purpose of what they were doing. No one disputes this document in ant way, it had multiple signatories of descendants and locals familiar with the families. That is when a later date inscription above the tomb, in different style was most probably placed, to remind people in later years whose chapel it had been. What is being confused here is that Craig Thornber found the older inscription, much worn out and barely visible to naked eye, detailing the Latin identification, at the base of one of the effigies. He photographed it and digitally enhanced it.

Pamela, I think your inexperience in this area is leading you to make many newbie mistakes.

You say that Cheshire Heraldry told you that this Huntingdon quarter is proof that the Breretons are descended from the Earls of Huntingdon. With respect, no reputable expert on English heraldry would say such a thing. Instead, a real expert would couch it in much more cautious terms -- the Huntingdon quarter is proof the Breretons claimed a Huntingdon descent.

You ask if I am more expert than they. Apparently I am, if that's what they told you. I remind you that I am a former VP of the American Heraldry Society. I know more than a little about this area.

It troubles me that you would quote a Tudor grant as evidence. The venality of the Tudor heralds is legendary. This is exactly the same perhaps when the nouveau Spencers managed to bribe the heralds into making themselves Despensers. Your wonderful find is completely meaningless.

The general problem is this. At certain periods (very much later than the Countess Ada) the College of Heralds was notoriously corrupt. If, for example, someone became an Earl, they could easily feel that he ought to have an ancestry which went back beyond his grandfather, even if this was not in fact the case and manufacture the ancestry. What we normally rely on is that two families' pedigrees (seem to) coincide. Mostly, this works. Occasionally it can't.

Pamela, I checked with a friend at Cheshire Heraldry.

You seem to be over-interpreting the information they gave you. Their standard advice is that the images at Cheshire Heraldry should be compared to the Visitations, and the information from the Visitations must be verified from other sources.

They did not endorse your theory that Ada married Ralph Brereton.

I did not " interpret" anything Justin. I have the email and told you exactly what my contact told me word for word. And I did not ask them about an image from Chesire Heraldry, I sent them a photo from Craig Thornber, and a drawing scanned from a heraldry book, both 13 & 14th century, both showing the oldest coat of arms. So the info stands.

Mark, I would like to point out that if you read all the material, the witnesses to the Windsor Library document are varied. This is the document required by the heralds to prove genealogy and to be an armiger. Secondly, there is a churchman as part of the group. The Heralds didn't have to dishonest, they were presented with the exact type of documentation that they were requiring from all noble families at that time.Please refer to the material on the Windsor document signatories.

And Justin, I am not a newbie, so hurling that at me isn't going to work. I've done an excellent job of research, and took the time to post my links and documentation, most of which were never thoroughly read, erroneous conclusions were jumped to ( like what I sent to Chesire a Heraldry) .I asked them to explain and identify the heraldry I sent them, not to interpret it, as you apparently are claiming YOU did, which makes you the newbie by definition. I did not put them on that spot as it is a well known point of controversy, with many historians on my side of the issue. That's why I question you. Everyone I have corresponded with, and all other scholars, archaeologists I have worked with would never, ever claim that they knew the answer indisputably, as you have, with so much conflicting evidence. When you read good , primary resources, they will always couch any questions like in terms of " I don't know, until future information appears"' or like Ormerod many times " it is said or suspected" , always leaving the question open until the future may bring more to light. That is all I have requested. That's the scholarly way.

Pamela, you believe you've proven your case. I think you haven't. Not even close. Instead, you have a mish-mash of poor quality sources to which you are bringing an over-imaginative idea about the realities of life in these time periods.

Your argument about Cheshire Heraldry is just one small example of your approach. You claimed they endorsed your theory. My buddy there says they did not, and never would.

In that respect, this is very much like the discussions about John Rice, of Dedham. You said you hoped to get as much attention as those did. Instead, it seems you're creating a general indifference to your theory -- just as Dale did with his.

Justin's not the only one who knows something about heraldry (though he probably knows a good bit more than I do).

As far as I can make out, quartering of arms started in the 14th century, when Edward III laid claim to the throne of France (c. 1340) and presumptuously quartered the arms of England (to which he had a clear right) with those of France (to which his claim was by no means so clear, especially to the French).

It took a while to catch on, and was not in widespread use among the gentry until about the middle 15th century.

Multiple quarterings (sometimes called "seize-quartiers") involving as many armigerous ancestors as possible (or practical) was a *much* later development, starting circa the mid-16th century and achieving runaway popularity in the 17th and 18th - although the British never made quite the fetish of it that was in play on the Continent.

As a general rule, the more quarters shown on a specific coat of arms, the later that particular version is.

The very first Heraldic Visitation was in 1530.

Having worked extensively with the Visitations, I can say that they are prone to errors of omission (fairly common) and commission (rare, but not unknown).

As to the heralds themselves, some were honest and hard-working, some were lazy and just took whatever information the head of the family gave them at face value, and some were venal and colluded with said head of household on "improving" their ancestry. *None* of them had the time or tools to do the kind of in-depth study that can be done nowadays.

Lady Ada le Scott de Huntingdon Baroness Hastings is [my] first cousin 23 times removed.

Thanks to "Six Degrees of Dick Cheney"....

She's my 25th great grandmother, having gained a couple of generations since the last time I checked, and acquired a display name I am not sure is correct. Can someone verify it?

I actually have (a bit) more reason to believe it might really be true that I descend. Some DNA triangulation one a very small matching chromosome segment is identifying Sir Henry Bold of Bold in Lancashire as a common ancestor. So at least I'm in the right geographic vicinity. :):)

Most of us with British ancestors are probably descended from her, whether we know it or not.

If you've got any Cheneys in your family tree, you're probably related to everybody, like it or not. They were very prolific and power-hungry, and married for whatever advantage they could get.

If you think this sounds like a certain past VP, take a no-prize. :-D

Haven't we had enough equine necroflagellation, yet? :-D

Ada's sister Devorgilla was the mother of Ada's niece, Ada. Ada the younger was born in 1250 which supports that Ada clearly could have been of child bearing age at the death of Henry of Huntington.

Maven, the local churches kept the genealogies for the most part, as that was the safest, and where the most literate people were. If you question one families genealogy then you will have to question all of Britain's landed gentry, as these are the primary resources as to who they are at this time. Also, the heralds job was to carefully review these genealogies. So what is it, everyone's genealogy is wrong or what? Are you deciding this matter for everyone and every family, or do we look at an accumulation of evidence?

Justin, I said Cheshire Heraldry identified the individual coat of arms on the quarterings of the Brereton's arms, and their significance in that sequence. I think this is getting laughable at this point. I think you have misstated your case, as they would not take a stance against any, old aristocratic family, that's not their job,
You have archaeological evidence that has a clear inscription, photographed by a history PHd currently working the site and updated recently, and whose credentials are top notch,
You have no other family candidates fitting the description who lived at that time, to eliminate name confusion;
You have a acknowledged, legitimate coat of arms that has stood the test of time emblazoned on multiple church windows and chapels, and homes from the period, as well as descendants portraits.
You have documented connection of the land and the church to these individuals,
You have multiple genealogists and pedigrees including these individuals that are of great antiquity;
That the families have intermarried for centuries in adjoining lands,
The life dates of the individual work ,
There is no post mortem on record disputing the death,
That the era was full of political motivations and actions that cast doubt on your land transfer evidence, which is your ENTIRE argument against;
That there are documents in the Windsor library that your own resource Richardson acknowledges of the swearing of multiple witness including the church rector as to who lies in those tombs, and to their coats of arms,
That's just what's been available on the internet through correspondence.

Gee, I have to challenge you to find a grave of that antiquity that has AS MUCH evidence for your standards, other than a king's!

And I want to thank you for the fan mail I've received from so many following this discussion!
As far as many are concerned it's you who have not proven your case. I, for one, am grateful, as I've been motivated to write a blog about this now that I've got so much research into it.

Pamela, I'm trying very hard to honor Maven's point that this is a dead horse. The dates don't work, and that should be the end of it. You've run into a problem familiar to every medieval genealogist -- what some people call "the crushing weight of non-evidence".

There is a traditional descent, but it doesn't stand up. The contemporary records that should exist to support it are missing or never existed. All the good stuff is much later, but tinged with doubts. You think you have something good, only to have it fall apart with some simple questioning.

It is not true that the church kept the genealogies, although church evidence plays an important part. What is truer is that the local families themselves kept the records. Those original deeds were their proofs. At the Visitations, the stated rule was families were supposed to produce their original title deeds and other evidences. If the local castle burned with those deeds in it, it was a disaster. If the government could have just turned to the church for records, they would have done so.

You told me in a private message that Cheshire Heraldry had guaranteed the accuracy of this descent. (And they said they didn't.) Publicly, you've only said they told you that Omerod is the best source. There's a world of difference between those two statements.

You need stop piling bad evidence on top of bad evidence to build a house of cards.

You need to identify the dower properties of Ada of Huntingdon, then show through IPMs and deeds that one or more of those dower properties ended up in Brereton hands in a way that cannot be accounted for except by inheritance and cannot involve descent from Ada's daughter of the same name.

This is how genealogists bridge the gap when contemporary records are missing. Heraldic visitations and displays are good secondary evidence, but they can't stand up to doubt.

"There's no crying in genealogy."

One of my Geni chums said that a few weeks ago. Since then I keep noticing how astute that advice is.

Genealogy requires intellectual honesty. You have to be able to evaluate the evidence from a neutral point of view. And sometimes you have to be willing to jettison a favorite line.

Most of the arguments I see, both public and private, start with someone wanting to preserve or extend a line in spite of the evidence.

Maybe we should start a project with that title. It could be a support group for people who've lost a line they really wanted to keep ;)

Since I claim to be descended from Countess Ada's chaplain (Northumbria was a bit old-fashioned, and the newfangled doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy had not really caught on there - if it ever did anywhere; look at Italian genealogy and it is amazing how many people are descended from monks), I shall consult him when I can. I am sure he remembers. Unfortunately I may not be able to report my results, except (perhaps) by ouija-board.

I don't think church windows are a very good source. How many stained-glass windows are genuinely medieval, and how many nineteenth-century. You have to be very expert, and very local, to judge.

I've come across at least one family where no satisfactory reconstruction of their exact descent has yet been achieved, despite many attempts, even though (since the later lot had deeds over the same lands going back to the 1200s) it is quite clear that a descent existed. It's only one or perhaps two generations which are in doubt...

Mark

Justin, yes, a little bit of objectivity goes a long way. First, what do I need Ada in my tree? I already have the Warrens and practically every other family in Chesire. I never heard of her before I read Craig Thornbers website about her tomb. Is Craig intellectually dishonest? You know, an expert working at Legh Hall, one of the foremost estates in a Cheshire?
You can't really seem to undermine his credentials.
You have really come across as the non objective one, and now have to resort to insults and bullying because you've got evidence that you can't refute, and instead of saying let's keep the discussion open, you want to exert your power to END discussion. As for the power of experts, it was a amateur woman researcher who found and funded the Richard III dig. Quite sure she ran into a lot of people like you.

As for heralds visits, here's one from 1530:
http://dbooks.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/books/PDFs/N12913818.pdf

A good resources for the leading families, stating Brereton's and 1 other were considered heads of the palatinate, with list of names of other leading gentry:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-L-skqOw7QoC&pg=PA19&lpg=P...

To reply to your above statements, I told you Craig Thornber and the Cheshire Historical Society support Ormerod. I have that in writing.
The Cheshire Historic society is not Cheshire Heraldry, as you know. So Justin you have that mixed up.

Justin, can you clarify "dates don't work" ? Are you referring to the dates supplied by Ada and family's arch enemy Henry as to his transfer of her lands to himself when her first husband dies? Nothing says, in the original documents, that she is dead, that is an assumption made by interpretation of the ancient English law used to justify the land transfer. Has anyone put that in context? Because that's the nexus of the dispute. All other dates work fine. Let's see, if Henry had my young son in captivity, and had stated he would never let me or my sisters inherit our rightful kingdom, my brother was poisoned, and we all had a more legitimate claim to the Scottish throne, and under English law I had no rights, but under Scottish and border law I did have support, I would let the king grab my lands, hoping my son would would inherit. Then I would marry a marcher lord whose power rivaled Henry. The link I just posted explain the difference between the laws of the Principate and the rest of England. If anyone cares to do some actual research.

Pamela, I'm sorry you feel bullied. I'm not trying to insult you or end the discussion. I am still a little miffed that you kept sending private messages after I asked you to stop, that those private messages were full of personal attacks, and that I ultimately had to block you. I'll try to do better at controlling my tone of voice in the public discussions.

What I would like you to understand is that Omerod is a good source, but not infallible. Church windows are a good source, but not infallible.

When you come across a question about a medieval line, you cannot break through just by piling on secondary sources.

Going back to why Ormerod was cautious about the Brereton genealogy were 2 points that have completely changed in recent years. First, he was cautious because his records showed Henry Hastings died in 1268. That would have made Ada most likely out of childbearing age. We now know that Henry Hastings died in 1250, putting her potentially back into her early 30's.
Secondly, the dating on the newer tomb transcription, which I have already covered ( that Craig Thornber has photographed what looks to be the original engraving on the side of the tomb). I'm hoping that archaeologists will be examining this soon, as excavations are scheduled at St. Mary's.)

Pamela

I had asked you to look into some questions you've never answered, the most fundamental being, what is the age range of the Brereton children?
I have big issues with the chronology and by working with later generations sometimes we cab backtrack to something more reasonable.

I read Omerod's caution differently than you do. Eynton (and this is another question you've never responded to) stated clearly that "in 1247, Ada being dead ..."

So to me Omerod was aware of research that contradicted "some pedigrees" so phrased it exactly to reference that.

Where do you see his caution was based on (some person's later) mixup between Henry l of Hastings and his son Henry ll of Hastings death dates? As far as I can see that's just later narrative?

We just had a round of clarification as to who were the children of which Thomas Throckmorton of Tortworth (there were two of him, father and son), and this is in the SIXTEENTH century, with supposedly superior documentation.

Why is it so hard to believe that two people of the same name in consecutive generations could get mixed up in the THIRTEENTH century, with minimal to no contemporary documentation?

There is in fact some documentation on her properties in the Pipe Rolls. She collected the rent via the Sheriff who recorded the financial transaction. From 1247 to 1250 the rent went to Henry l of Hastings instead as "Ada, being dead ...". I believe after 1250 most then went to Henry ll as her heir with dowry portions for the girls in the nunnery (perhaps another indication she was deceased at the time).

The older daughter(s) were not heiresses suggesting that perhaps they were issue of Henry l by an earlier marriage.

Spoke to my Uncle who is a Latin Transator, he said, in some context Ada can mean "given". He is going to join the site, so he will assist us occasionally. Shaz