Ada de Warenne, Countess of Huntingdon - All curators please assist Find a grave verifies no grave or burial site here

Here lies RALPH Brereton MILES AND WIFE
Ada, his wife, a daughter of David Earl of Huntingdon

Translated, not sure what the MILES is ?

That is too cool!!!!
And in my amature opinion... I´d say... possibly, Ralph was Ralph Miles Brereton. And the Surname went in the middle.

Place of Burial: St Mary's Church, Astbury, Cheshire , England
Birth: after circa 1200
Death: after 1275 (75)

Ada de Warenn
Birth: 1120
Huntingdon, Huntingdon, England
Death: 1178 (58)
Warwickshire, England

This connection is incorrect - this Ada died before Sir Ralph was born. I disconnecting.

Wrong Ralph? Breteton's maybe have more members to that family?

Search:

At this point they lie Ralph Breretons, the Knight, and the Lady of Adah, the wife of their own. One of the daughters Diavidis Count

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Miles+Brereton+Father+of+Ralph&a...

"Lady of Adah" may indicate the daughter of Adah who is daughter of David, as you first thought Eric. Just google translation tho.

It is the right Ralph de Breteton, knight, died 1275, buried at St Mary's. The Latin for knight is "miles."

But this discussion is on a profile that is an entirely "different" Ada. Ada de Warren, countess of Huntington, died in 1178.

Erica... sorry, my "A" key is not working properly, Think that has happened a few times. Its NOT deliberate :)

No worries, I typo all the time.

The Ada who was buried with Ralph de Brereton is under discussion here

http://www.geni.com/discussions/136733

Although I feel like I'm dialoguing with myself there instead of resolving anything. :(:( (makes me sad)

I am not much help, but I try, with instinct and feelings that I get. I am taking a day to just listen to music today. The dialogue is there for everyone to catch up on, that's important :) Be Happy :)

Since Justin has decided to question my subjectivity, I have a question for him. Why does Geni allow curators to curate their own families? As we all saw with the over 2 year back and forth over Erica connecting John Warren of the Mayflower with John Warren of Watertown, when there has never been any evidence linking them, she should not curate her own, and my, family. That leads to all kinds of problems, as that incident illustrated. I tried providing documentation to straighten out the Warrens all that time, no answers. Now she curates all my supposed ancestors as she and I are apparently closely related. I think that Geni should not let family members have control of huge swaths of ancestors, this leads to no control over biased research.

She should have recused herself from this discussion entirely.

Also, I have provided endless hours of research on other unrelated lines to me, which Justin knows. I would just like to see someone do the same for me. Justin, you have told me in the past I'm a good researcher, then you have proceeded to make ugly, off topic comments, totally unprofessional when I disagree with you.
Yes, ladies, I agree, a break is needed. I'm not sad, just very disappointed.

Pamela - I do not curate Ada of Huntington, nor am I the "closest related" curator" to the Warrens I curate.

Curators "catch the case" as we clean trees. I haven't checked lately but a generalization is that American curators with known English ancestors are 8th to 18th cousins to each other.

Rather we more work by historical period, events, geography, "and" family line. And of course what we'd like to work on as this is an entirely voluntary activity.

But we are not responsible for content, that is managerial & member research contributions.

If there is specific profile you or any member would prefer to see with a different curator .... Wow, not sure what to suggest first. But I think identifying that profile and what exactly the un resolved problem is could be a start.

But after the months of voluntary work I put in on the Warren tree to align it with "best known data" I would be delighted to un curate them and leave them to the wolves ...

Re: "She should have recused herself from this discussion entirely.

This is not a court of law, it is a genealogy discussion, all on topic contributions are welcome, and particular attention paid to the usual courtesy rules of public discourse.

THIRD round of Dead Horse Beating, degenerating into ad hominem.

:-P

Pamela,

You are asking why curators are allowed to curate their own family. There is a two-part answer.

First, because a non-family member wouldn't want to take the time. When I make an MP I am making a commitment to the Geni community that I will participate in resolving any problems and stabilizing the data ("curating").

For most profiles that commitment is negligible, but in the event of a dispute it can be huge. It would be non-sensical to expect someone to take on that kind of responsibility in area where they know nothing and have no interest.

The best curator in a given area will be someone who has already researched the area and knows the problems, or at least someone familiar with the cultural, religious, and economic history who is willing to put in some research time.

It wouldn't make much sense to say, "Hmmm, Justin is a medievalist. Let's make him do 18th and 19th century Italian politicians."

As a corollary to that, it would be very difficult to find someone with a strong skill set, interested in English gentry, who is not related to them. These popular and contentious profiles are popular and contentious because so many people are descended from them. If you disqualify every curator with a Warren connection from working on the Warrens, you'll disqualify everyone with an interest in gentry families.

To be continued ...

Second, the MP system has checks and balances. There is very little risk that a curator could abuse the power.

This happens on two fronts.

On the first front, there are other curators. If a curator tried to maintain a false connection, they would run into resistance from other curators, both privately and in the curator forum. I've been on both sides there. The exchanges can be very heated ;)

On the second front, there are public messages. If a user doesn't like the information in a profile or doubts a particular connection and if the curator doesn't agree, the user can start a discussion. Make your case. Provide your sources. Explain your reasoning. If the curator is being unreasonable, you'll get the change.

Isn't that what's happening here? The checks and balances are working. Except here, you haven't persuaded anyone yet. Other curators have looked at your evidence and they disagree. There's been a public discussion, and still no one else agrees with you.

Yes, Pamela, I think you're a good researcher. A very good researcher. But I don't think that makes you infallible. I think you've gone off the rails here.

Pamela, now a final word of advice. When you call someone out on a public discussion, make sure they're following it. I would have missed this one if someone hadn't mentioned it to me.

I see somebody is being a very sore loser. :-P

It's just the normal frustration of someone who is learning a lot in a short amount of time. Pamela has the potential to become a great researcher like Maven, but sometimes people need to vent. Just let it go.

Maven, I consider my point won and always have. You couldn't even follow the discussions and addended notes and photos properly. Who made you Queen?

I could follow them perfectly well, but I *did not agree with them*.

Disagreement does not mean stupidity. (It *can* mean extreme pigheadedness - we have a number of people on Geni like that - but that's a different issue.)

LADY ADA,

Lady Ada, the alleged wife of Sir Ranulphus, or Radulphus
de Brerton, of Brereton, was the third married daughter of David,
Earl of Huntingdon, third son of Henry, Prince of Scotland, only
son of King David I., of Scotland. Lady Ada's mother was Maud,
daughter of Hugh de Keveilioc, Count Palatine, and fifth Earl
Royal of Chester, and sister and heiress of Randulph de Blunde-
vill, sixth Earl Royal of Chester, who was fifth in descent from
Margaret, sister to the Conqueror, and mother of Hugh Luj-us,
the first Earl Royal of Chester, or Count Palatine, of Cheshire.
Her only brother was John the Scot, seventh and last Earl Royal
of Chester, who died without issue, said to have been murdered
by his wife.

http://archive.org/stream/breretonsofchesh00brer/breretonsofchesh00...

Hi Ulf

If you go back to the beginning of this discussion, you'll likely reach the same conclusion that I did; that there is a mixup in the pedigree, and the best evidence we have at "this" time, based on the Pipe Rolls which is primary evidence, is that this Ada was dead about 1242, so could have not have been the Ada who married this Ralph Brereton.

You mean this one Erica,
http://www.geni.com/path/Ulf-Martinsson+is+related+to+Ada-de-Hastin...

Has been confused with this one
http://www.geni.com/path/Ulf-Martinsson+is+related+to+Ada-of-Huntin...

That is one possibility, Ulf, yes. I'm not sure we have enough evidence to conclude that Ralph de Brereton married Ada of Hastings, but it is a sensible guess to me.

Among all the things I don't know are:

- who was Ada of Hastings mother? It had seemed more likely she was the product of an earlier marriage of Henry de Hastings than his marriage to Ada, as the elder Ada's daughters were underage and living in a nunnery did their education at Henry's death in 1250

- when did the 2nd Ada's 1st husband die? We know that he "abducted" her without the King's permission for the marriage.

- did she have other known / possible marriages? I believe there were other candidates for it

- I was hoping to try and nail down the date range for the de Brereton children to further illuminate ...

One thing that keeps being overlooked is the motivation as to why Ada would have been falsely proclaimed dead. Falsification of documents is rampant in the 13th century. The King was severely threatened by Ada and her sisters. He acknowledged that he would never let women inherit the throne of Scotland or their extensive lands.
As for primary resources, archaeology is one. The tomb has been dated to the 13 th century, as was the original part of the Norman church, which matches the tomb inscription dating of 1280.Ada's son was the rector of this church at her death. All this far outweighs the one single entry that says she didn't appear at a hearing regarding the estate. I wouldn't have either, knowing the king was my a rch enemy, and had Wardship of my son, who dies shortly afterward.

Pamela - did you read the Pipe Rolls? Ada was paid rent in (I think) 1241. She was not paid rent in 1243, 1244 ... Etc every year to 1250, when Henry Hastings died and his estate was settled. Property etc went to his son & his "underage" daughters by Ada de Huntington (helpful in nailing timelines). The king owned their marriages & settlements. The descendants of her father were eligible to compete for the kingship - no de Brereton's among the candidates.

I'm not saying there weren't land grabs & other brutal issues, but you have "no male progeny" in the de Brereton line mentioned for the Big Prize. How then does that reconcile?

There references are simplified (there were more mentioned) but worth looking at. The event was in 1291:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitors_for_the_Crown_of_Scotland#...

http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/bruce_9.html

John Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings

John Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings, son of Henry de Hastings, son of Ada, third daughter of David, Earl of Huntingdon, son of Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, son of King David I.

This is a good illustration of why research skills are so important. Not just the ability to dig out evidence but also the ability to put into context and make judgments about what is possible, what is probable, and what is just a nice fantasy.

Whenever someone begins to push an answer as being certain, even in the face of contradictory evidence, they've lost the detachment necessary for meaningful research.

A good researcher will acknowledge the problems with their pet theories, and gracefully accept being the minority opinion (for now), not lash out in anger.

Erica, I think you are right to circle back around to looking at the Competitors. It's far from being conclusive, but I think the fact that there were no Breretons among the Competitors suggests that none of them were Ada's descendants.

That's not a watertight argument because John Hastings had a superior claim through the same line, but it strikes me as highly unlikely that any medieval noble would have bowed out of an inheritance dispute. Even if they didn't win, there was always a good chance of picking up some of the crumbs.