Is it possible for GENI to hold onto records who have come into disfavor?

Maven, I read those old antiquarians and genealogists just as I would SMDB or PBJ on Geni. Nice effort, but don't go along without checking and double checking their facts.

Dale, I don't think it takes much to be skeptical of a story written by some guy during the time of Oliver Cromwell, who said "Oh yeah, my wife's grandfather was an illegitimate son of Henry VIII. Everyone knew that, but too bad they're all dead now so you'll have to take my word for it.". Then, didn't even publish it in his own lifetime.

PS. In the Summer of '69 I was a kid riding horses with my cousins on a farm in rural Utah and occasionally traipsing out to help irrigate.

Justin, IMHO they're more like the various discussion groups we have nowadays, except they didn't have the Internet to facilitate a rapid exchange of ideas. They can be right on the nose, or way off the mark. But when they report that John de Smith signed/witnessed a charter in Smithtown in the year 1250 (and especially when they reproduce or quote from the charter), you can be reasonably sure that there was an adult John de Smith living in Smithtown in 1250. (Other details tend to be optional unless provided by the same context.)

SMDB is probably *very* unhappy with me at this point. I've broken several links in his fantasy genealogy: William Scarborough to Col. Edmund Scarburgh, Col. Edmund to Capt. Stephen Charlton through his fantasy "wife" and Charlton's fantasy "daughter", Capt. Charlton's connection to the Charltons of Terne (it was another man with the same name), his hypothesis deriving the Charltons of Apley from the 13th century Cauntelos (no dice, there were Charltons (variously spelled) in the area back to the early 12th century, and the Cauntelos were mostly elsewhere), and so on back to Geoffrey de Porhoet and his wife Hawise - who was certainly *not* Hawise "Fergant". (I did a spot-check and found there were about 270 "Hawise" profiles in the period 1100-1200; some were probably duplicates, but that's still a lot of Hawises.)

Pending further information I'm reserving judgement on the Charlton of Terne/Charlton of Apley link, but it looks a bit suspicious.

The publications as being like discussion groups? I can see that, although I've always pictured their meetings as being the discussion group ;)

I've always been interested in the "history of history". Recently, we had a little flak over Helena of Normandy. The curators wouldn't accept that it is just an old story. They sent me off on a research project of proving it. That might take the rest of my life.

I've gotten deep into the history of the Sinclairs, tracking the growth of the legend, the explosion of new theories after Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code, Prince Henry the Navigator, the secrets of Roslin, and the Newport Tower.

Nowadays, when anyone can afford to self-publish a book without worrying about selling it to a publishing company, there's an amazing picture. Over the last few decades the story grows with each new book. Little fragments appear suddenly, apparently from nowhere, then get repeated as facts. Authors and discussion groups weave the pieces together, and argue about the interpretation. And, maybe not so surprising, almost as soon as a book is published with a genealogy chart, that chart is used by hundreds of genealogists across the web, no matter how bogus.

Recently, I was reading one of the books and came across a little fragment that said basically, "In previous books we've supported the idea that Hugues de Payen (1st Templar Grand Master) was married to Catherine St. Clair, but we haven't found any proof."

Found any proof?? I laughed for hours. There's no proof for any of it. It's all just an elaborate, participatory story-telling session. But, I do think there is some indication that this might be the direction of the future. Some of these authors take themselves seriously. They're starting to learn how to do the research, and they're beginning to realize they've been had.

So what haplogroup do you think Sir Rhys ap Thomas 3rd cousin of the Tudors Was? You have indicated to me several times that it was plainly disproved that Edmund Rice 1594 could not have had that DNA because he's I-1 Scandanavian/Viking & Norman.

The joining of the two families was at a woman married into both lines....so she wouldn't have spun off anything but the father's Y...in the case of the ap Thomas line....that's anicent and easily goes back a thousand years. Why not I-1?

Dale, the double and triple negatives make it difficult for me to follow exactly what you're saying. Plainly disproved that ... could not have had?

I think you might have muddled several different lines of discussion.

First, Edmund Rice is I1. That much is clear, but he's too distant from John Rice, also I1, for them to have been close relatives.

Second, the Edmund Rice pedigree as published in By The Name Of Rice is bogus. It goes through a man who never existed, then back through a man who has been fraudulently connected to a more famous family on the other side of the country -- even though the sources actually show the connection was impossible. The dates are a jumble, the places are a mess. It's just pure fantasy, a typically American delusion for that period. So, there is no particular reason to think that either Edmund Rice or John Rice came from this Welsh family.

Third, study after study shows that I1 is primarily, if not exclusively, associated with the Anglo-Saxon and Norman invasions, which is why it's concentrated in the areas they settled most heavily. I quibble with this, just a bit, but a new study published just this week showed very strongly that the Normans and the Danes made very little impact on England's DNA. My quibble, such as it is, is that I don't see much evidence that Anglo-Saxon, Danish, and Norman DNA is all that different. The epicenter for all of it was Denmark or just south of Denmark.

Fourth, Rhys ap Thomas came from a very old Welsh family, with a pedigree going back to the earliest tribal leaders, before the coming of the Anglo-Saxons, Danes, and Normans. The overwhelming odds are that they would be R1b, but perhaps some chance that they have Roman ancestry, so maybe one of the exotic groups like G.

Fifth, no one knows the haplogroup of the Tudors and there are too many outrageous claims to noble Welsh ancestry, so no one is really sure, but the odds on favorite with the existing data is that the Tudors will turn out to be R1b like the many modern men who claim to be their distant cousins.

Sixth, a woman who marries into "both" lines has nothing to do with their yDNA. Her sons will always have the yDNA of their fathers no matter who their step-fathers might have been. I think this is often a sticking point for you because you don't quite keep the elements separate. My dad was G2a and so I am. My first step-father / adopted father was R1a. My second step-father was E1b. I'm not likely to go off the rails and start looking for R1a and E1b people to find ancestors on my G2a line.

So, my answer to your question would be (a) I think Rhys ap Thomas was almost certainly R1b. I'd be surprised if he wasn't, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. And (b) Rhys ap Thomas could have been I1 if only because there's no proof he wasn't. There's always a chance that some stray I1 Dane washed up on the Welsh shore, was there to welcome Joseph of Arimathea, and founded one of the main noble families. But I wouldn't risk even $1 on it.

Okay: You got to where I think we are on the same page. I also think the line is ancient enough to be G or I-1....That's where I came out. Yes, we all know the French Normans brought R1b to take over the lands but the oldest tribes were there long before W.T.C.

I used the female in both Tudor and Ap Thomas as a point of reference that's all. I certainly know that she contributes nothing on the Y....I don't understand why to persist in painting me as an idiot over this!!

Now here's the real reason for my question/observation. The writer may have sited fraudulent lines....but does that mean all the information is incorrect? There is such a thing as a wrong thread of evidence. Which certainly must be purged. Fruit of the Poison Tree throws all the data out the window in considering the value of data presented.

All the historical references cite Henry of Newton as the father of both Thomas Henry Rice and Henry Thomas Rice both brothers born 3 years apaprt and both married to the same woman...Margaret Baker.

Henry Newton Rice is in turn the Son of William Rice 1521-22 and whether we look at the Wm born to Robert Rice and Joan Otter (often cited as the mother along with Griffeth ap Gruffed ap Rice b.1530 to executed ap Thomas grandson: Griffeth ap Gruffed 1508) or some other William Rice, we could certainly be talking about I-1 Haplogroup!

We all know that Wm. Rice 1521 was not the son of Katherine Howard Rice, Lady Bridgewater since he nor the sister Mary born 1530 were named in her will. I don't know keeps that one alive...but it certainly connot the same William. I am voting for Robert Rice and Jane Otter and Henry of Newton as the logical line of ancestors of Edmund Rice 1594.

sorrry about cited above 3 para. first line.

@Justin, American Delusional?

You guys have the patience of Job. No way could I reiterate the same response a dozen different times without losing it.

Dennis, not sure what you're asking. To clarify, I meant that it is a peculiarly American delusion of the early 20th century that our immigrant ancestors came from noble and gentle families, and that the immigrant was certain to have been a close relative of some famous person in England with the same surname.

I hope you don't think I'm being disrespectful to Americans. I'm thoroughly American myself. I just don't have any illusions about what happens when amateur enthusiasts tackle partial and unfamiliar sources. You don't hear Norwegians saying that every Johan Eriksen is from the same family ;)

Arthur, I wouldn't say it has anything to do with patience. Clearly, G-d intended me to be spending my life in front of a white board, explaining history to a group of college freshmen who are only worried about whether it's going to be on the test. If there are no college freshman handy, I'm just as happy to explain it to my cats. Just doing what comes naturally ;)

Cross examination contains elements of repitition to see if the answer remains consistent. Where as before the answer was....Edmund Rice does NOT match to the Rhys ap Thomas line. Now it is amended to: " Not likely to be I-1 within the Rhys ap Thomas line". Which I find to be a sea change. Because now the posibility exists that did not exist before ...that Sir Rhys ap Thomas line in tact for 2,000 years in the same locale at leas has the possibility of being G or I-1. it did not have that answer 3 years ago SIR.

Dale, a couple things to think about.

You really need to take a hard look at the dates here, and reverse your pet theories about I1 and R1b.

There might have been people in Britain before the Ice Age, but if so they all left or died when the ice made it uninhabitable, so the settlement of Britain begins about 7500 to 15,000 years ago with people coming up from Spain. As far as anyone can tell, these people were overwhelmingly R1b. Britain still is, in fact. At this point, I1 didn't even exist yet. It wouldn't exist for another 2500 to 10,000 years.

Those migrations into Britain probably included some men from the smaller haplogroups who had survived on the Continent, including E, G, and maybe J. There were probably also immigrants from Ireland and the Continent over the many centuries. Those immigrants would also have been mostly R1b, with a sprinkling of E, G, J, and R1a.

The Romans came under Claudius (just after Julius Caesar and Jesus). They probably brought more R1b, along with E, G, J and R1a,

As far as anyone can tell I1 didn't enter Britain in any significant number until the Romans left and the Anglo Saxons invaded. Part of the reason they know this is that there is no evidence in Britain of any I1 that isn't closely related to the I1 homeland in Scandinavia and northern Germany.

The traditional story is that the Welsh are the pure remnants of the ancient British people, pushed into Wales by the Anglo Saxon invaders. Modern genetics suggests that the common people didn't really get pushed out of England. Instead, the Welsh were just the unconquered remnant.

Then, with the Norman conquest, more I1 came to Britain. The Normans in many cases were just Danes and Norwegians whose ancestors had been in France for a few generations, so it's hard to distinguish them from the Anglo-Saxons.

In the 11th century, the Normans began their conquest of Wales. Wales today is 75% R1b mostly from the original population and maybe 12% I1 from the invaders. In fact, I1 in Wales is concentrated in areas like southern Pembrokeshire where the Normans established their strongest presence, and I1 is weakest in the mountain areas where the Normans were less successful.

There will always be individual cases, so none of this proves anything. It just means that if you're betting on the yDNA of an ancient Welsh family the safest bet is R1b, and that if you're looking at I1 in Wales the safest bet is that you're looking at Norman and Anglo Saxon lines that came with the Normans.

The second piece of your many questions is about Henry Thomas and Thomas Henry Rice, supposedly brothers.

This is just crap, and it's recognizable as crap by anyone who has spent more than 20 minutes with the original records of this time (1550).

Elizabethan people did not have middle names. It was a shocking, Popish innovation practiced by heretics in Spain and Germany. There are something like three known exceptions and they are all so amazing that they've been written about constantly ever since.

When a genealogist sees middle names for English people before the 17th century, the standard procedure is to laugh out loud because some idiot is trying to pass off a fraud. Someone found a Henry and a Thomas and really, really, really wanted them to be the same person so they decided that one name was a middle name. It's no surprise that eventually we ended up with two men, supposedly brothers, supposedly married to the same woman. Once you start lying you get in deeper and deeper.

If you dig out the records, you'll find that there was only a Thomas and only a Henry, and only one of them was married to Margaret Baker, but the line will fall apart at this point unless you do the Faker's Song and Dance.

The research shows the decreased melanin of skin leading to whiter skin, and Blue eyes occured 10,000 years ago. Which means the Vikings had both upon arrival in England and Wales. We know that Richard III had blue eyes and He's G. Therefore the assoociation is that G and I both preceed R1b yes?

Since the family of my Chalfant mother is Mt.DNA is from central Spain, and shows 3.2% Neanderthal blood that should be a fair indication that her family came up out of Spain as you say perhaps across the natural Land bridge.

The I-1 Blue eyed crowd is then part of the G, I, &J haplogroups for at least 3,000 years before R1b emerges. Coincidentally the I-1 Male out of Scandanavia is on the Scene before 1066 and that haplogroup is estimated to emerge from a single Blue eyed male about 10,000 years ago. So if Melanin genetic mutation means anything we should be in agreement that G, I, J's are first Blue eyed people with a 3,000 year head start on R1b's. Gosh I hope the answer is yes!

They settled near Windsor as the CHALFANT;s and the cousin line of Blount family (friendly with Henry VIII) are there as well. The Tudor's of Scandanavia have the I1 Haplogroup & follow the Y values of John Rice . One Tutor even named Henry V as the most distant ancestor. DNA allelels that are clearly family, but distant.

PS: I saw that article on the impact of the NORMANS on ENgland yesterday as well. I wondered how you would interpret it. Ice Sheets being what they are did they overcome the entire ISLAND, which is bathed in Warm Current Waters at the Tip of Wales ? The key here is what is more likely? A remnant I-1 Haplogroup that were the Monarch's of Wales before 1066, a RARE subgroup? That's why I pull for the ap Thomas family to be I-1....shouldn't there be a descendant some where that can be tested? Or perhaps has already tested? I have not seen that subject covered yet.....2,000 year line of England's Welsh Royals surviving as ?????

Following your questions and comments in order, the next thing I come to is the idea that a book with erroneous information might have some information that is correct.

I don't see a problem with that. It's certainly true of By The Name Of Rice.

The problem is that you don't get to pick and choose which things you think are more likely to be correct. You have to go back to original sources and document each item. See where it came from and where the "seams" in the story are.

One of the outstanding examples of this in By The Name Of Rice is the William Rice (1521) who is woven into the story. His father is unknown, but the author connects him to a Welsh family. He had no living children but the author connects him to a later line of Rices. He had a nephew, but within 10 years of his death there were no living relatives on his father's side.

The History of Parliament Online says he claimed to be of gentle birth, but the author says he was granted a coat of arms, which means his parents might have been well off but he could not have been from a family that had even a remote claim to a coat of arms. If he had a real claim to arms, he would not have needed a grant. If he had some kind of fake claim the Tudor heralds would have certified his right. The Tudors were all about allowing just about any claim, for a price, rather than embarrassing someone. And certainly he could have afforded the standard bribe.

This means that, whatever his ancestry, he most certainly was not and never imagined he could be a member of the ap Rhys family.

So, you've got one guy in the book (and there are others) who simply doesn't fit the line. The details given about him seem to be true, but he's not connected to those ancestors or to those descendants. That's the way these frauds usually go. He was just a handy person with the right name for the author to grab, at a time when the author could not have imagined that anyone would ever know the difference.

I think you are hitting at the heart of the matter Justin. My father believed that Daffid ap Rhys married to a staff member of Mary Tudor, was the cuckhold father of William 1521. I think that was what he was trying to say to me. If that story is part of "By the name of Rice" a book I have not read and avoided purposfuly, then I think we have to assume that the Extinct line of apRice/Fuller A devoute CATHOLIC, left the estate of Barbara Fuld to the William ap Rhys that was not a Bastard line of apThomas. That line marries into Welsh family listed on the tomb of Margaret Mercer....Begins with "B" I think. I havn't looked in the past year.

Since I don't know the book except by your telling....do you think the person married to Barbara Fuller/Fulde left the Medmenham estates to the mentioned Wm ap Rice that died 1510 and wife remarried? That Wm. ap Rice may or may not have had a son Henry of NEwton. I don't recall.

Yes, the Widow of Wm ap Rice 1470 dies 1510 marries into the BATEMANS of Wales. She was the Heiress of a lot of land and married the non Bastard son of Sir Rhys ap Thomas. It finally came back as I was reflecting on this again.

"Following your questions and comments in order, the next thing I come to is the idea that a book with erroneous information might have some information that is correct."

That's what makes them so dangerous.

Dale, I'm finally getting to the point where you are claiming that I lied to you about whether Rhys ap Thomas was I1, and that I've now changed my story under "cross-examination".

This is the stupidest thing you've said in any discussion so far, and the most offensive.

Over and over you've made the same dumb a** mistakes about DNA, and each time I've walked you through it. But, apparently you don't read the answers. You just skim, then go off again on some fantasy about how you think it would make more sense if the earth were flat.

I have never told you that Rhys ap Thomas is 100%, no doubt about it, never in a million years not I1. Instead, I've gone to great lengths to explain to you why it's unlikely and why it's so unlikely that it's almost impossible. I've done that over and over and over, until it would seem that everyone on Geni who is paying even the smallest attention should be able to explain it to you.

So, back off. If there's any sea change here, it's only in your own fantasy world. If you've misunderstood something, man up and admit it but don't try to shift the blame.

http://www.geni.com/path/Sancha-Blount-Lady-de-Ayala+is+related+to+...

Trying to be absolutely Clinical in ruminating over the Tudors & their Not Royal enough tradition they had to overcome, points to blood that is not R1b.
PLEASE Comment on :
The Ayalla branch is under a cloud if I recall, but the rest surely are not!

Justin, this Rockbear Churchill links to my Churchills at Elizabeth and Hannah, and Charity Derby.....Also Rockbear is a 6th cousin to the Perrotts.

Lastly: Sir Thomas Perrott married to Mary Berkley was not an I1, he like almost all other Perrott's are R1b. The Blank space here is that his son, Sir John Perrott 1528 is not R1b if John Perratt II 1565 listed as his son is the father of John Rice 1630 as my father said. And was brought to Ma in the "Sparrow" as stated, and Admiralty Naval Records indicate John Perratt was it's master. (That's in the records Uploaded here at GENI) The PURITAN connection which was stated as lacking in the beginning is now all over the place in both Sir James Perrott Sir John Son and Sir John himself was a Leading Puritan in Elizabeth I court. The scoundrel and boorish behavior of John Perratt II 1565, was too much and he was indeed declared dead...but that was a device used to disinherit in those times. He shows up in Havorford West 9 months before John Rice's Birth May of 1630, and the event which takes place cannot be imagined without anger. We know that because Pembrokshire Journals say he was salvedging a small French Merchant Vessel there. So still alive in 1630. Age 64.

All behaviors of the people toward sir John Perrott 1528 say that he was treated like the son of a KING, and all the lands and favors point to his rise after being introduced to the King Henry VIII as a very young man around age 14. Behaviors matter......

Maybe it's a big fat ZERO....but there is certainly a lot of behaviors that point to people believing that various Tudors and their heirs were of a Non Royal haplogroup.....maybe I-1. Analysis of markers 38-45 show that I-1 Perrott's match the Edmund Rice 1594. And that could mean he's likely a grandson of Wm. Rice died 1510 widow married Bateman line & grand son of Henry Rice of NEWTON, who's son Thomas Rice 1558 is the father of Edmund Rice1594...or he was the Cuckhold father by a Perrott/White in 1594. The solution is coming into view....and the I-1 Perrotts of Lawrence in Virginia son of Robert son John Perrott of Paraquito Pt. is the KEY.

There is no such thing as a "royal" or "non-royal" haplogroup. There are specific haplogroups that have been identified with specific royal families - and a lot more that we simply don't have clue one about.

We don't have clue one about the Tudors.Given that they were Welsh, and that the percentage of R1b men in Wales is something like 80%, that gives you 4-1 odds that they were R1b. And as soon as Henry VII won the day at Bosworth, his haplogroup, whatever it was, became "royal" because *he was now the king*.

You just blew a hole in your own reasoning. If Sir John Perrott is *not* the son of Thomas Perrott, *there is no way to prove what Thomas Perrott's haplogroup WAS*. You *have to have a direct male-to-male line with NO breaks* - or you're just making Wild Mass Guesses.

I apologize profusely to you Justin about the ap Rice possibly being I-1...but there was agreement in the beginning that the EDMUND RICE 1594 could not be an ap Rice because of his haplogroup was I-1. That was stated flat out by all contributors as being the cause of not following the "By the Name of RICE", information. I merely meant to celebrate the Possibility that History now being more forgiving, I-1 cannot be ruled out. Yes, you've been very careful in your explanations and I do understand them even though you say over and over that I don't. If this story is to die, then let it do so here and now after all the vetting and looking up of information in response to the thousands of postings. I was under the impression that Tudor and Edwardes tested R1b. That's why I moved on last year. If we can't find a DNA trail among the Dudley/and Suttons, then we are back to an unknown Tudor line indicated by I-1s of Tudors out of Norway.

You've taken umbrage at the "SIR" after Mr. Newkirk weighed in. That was for him, not you. I again apologize. DCR

The Thomas Perrott line has been tested. The group is R1b...The blank is left to the paternity of Sir John Perrott 1528, if not R1b then what? Again, this is working backward from what is usually the case Ms. Helms. We have Aural history pointing at his son as so and so....and we have down line Perrott with I-1 at Lawrence Perrott of Va. and they are hot on this linkage to Robert Perrott. I don't have that part yet. So if these all connect as the story implies they do...we have a "Man Like a Prince but not a Prince " in Sir John Perrott. Which is where all this began, and your reading then that it referred to Sir Rhys ap Thomas of Bosworth would have to be amended if the Perrott linkages which are 12/12 22/25 at Lawrence...and then implode for my values. Where the truth lies is to be determined. My line has an NPE, I think it's at Edward Son of Samuel.

It was very loudly reported in the times before Henry VII that the Tudor's were a Bastard line....due to Owen Tudor a nobody: consort to a queen. I don't want' to open that here, we've agreed to disagree over what Happened at Conway CAstle in Wales 1400-01/

Let's recap the I1 and R1b evidence. We're been over this so many times before I hesitate to do it again, but just so it's fresh --

First, understand that Tudor was originally a given name. It became a surname in families that had a father or grandfather with the given name Tudor. So, it's like the surname Johnson. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of unrelated families. Without a proven line it's pointless to look the DNA for any of them.

Second, if you go back and re-read the old discussions you will see that you are the one who decided it wasn't possible for the Tudors to be I1 after all. You believe (or believed) Rev. Richard Edwardes was an illegitimate son of Henry VIII. You were not convinced by the evidence that Agnes Blewitt was nowhere near the king at the time her baby was conceived (etc.). When we showed you that the descendants of Richard Edwardes are R1b, you decided that was proof Henry VIII and the Tudors were R1b. That wasn't a particularly rational conclusion considering the evidence against Edwardes being his son, but that's the direction you chose to go with it and no one argued with you.

There weren't that many Tudors *to* test, and the Henry VII/VIII line daughtered out in the 16th century. Short of locating and digging up one of their ancestors - and you'd get a lot of flak about this from everybody from Buckingham Palace on down - there's no finding out anything.

The reason they got somewhere with the Bourbons is that there are living, documented Bourbons alive today who were willing to be tested. And at that, there is some uncertainty as to whether they represent the Capet/Valois line as well as the Bourbon - Henri IV, first of the Bourbon kings, was a 9th cousin to the last of the Valois. (No Capets or Valois available to test, so short of poking about with someone's remains the point is moot.)

Frankly, the Tudors *were* a bastard line - on the maternal side for certain, because John of Gaunt only married Katherine Swynford *after* their children were born, and on the paternal side for probable. The Lancastrians were scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel.

They rolled a natural 20. (D&D lingo - think "boxcars" if you'd rather).

Yes, I did that because it seemed to be the Preponderance of the Evidence. I abandoned the Tudors as I-1 as you say. But it was the Un-vetted/tested remark by the newly minted Duchess of Aquataine who said her brother was an Edwardes descendent and he's R1b. I asked for reassurance that the line was unbroken...SILENCE was all that was given to me....the punching bag then, so I caved and moved onto the Sutton/Dudley part of the story. Guilty, I did as you say.

Let's call it a day. The view from here is more clear than ever....because now there is a reason for the Central Spain female line in Sancha Ayalla/Blount to Chalfant of Windsor Castle and the pedigree of Dorothy Allin Hackley goes to this same section of Spain...I've looked.

My father looked for the Chalfant family, and one branch of it moved into the town of Neleigh Nebraska (think North Leigh). They in turn provided the Iowa branch relative who came to care for Clara Rice after her stroke. That branch of the Chalfants was Mildred M. Cookston who's grandmother was Marie Chalfant, cousin to ORVILE HAROLD, the Opera Star of 1900. just fyi

Sam G. Rice cited the twins of the Chalfant line born 1541 as being the daughters of Henry VIII. The mother is listed as Margaret Art Broke and her husband Wm. Died 1540 the year before the twin girls Lucy and Elizabeth Chalfant were born. The Chalfants were cousins to the Blounts and were stewards at Windsor Castle. It is to this piece of information that my father sought out wed my mother. Bringing about 9 dopple gangers faces across the spectrum of Valois/Stewart/Tudor/and French Kings that will cause some to gasp when you see them. DCR