Royalty-Blue Blood Families

Comment

Comment by James P. LaLone on December 2, 2009 at 9:48am

WATRONVILLE Family -
Additions/corrections appreciated on following, thanks, Jim:

Generation One

1. Robert de WATRONVILLE, b. c. 1230.i

Married c. 1250,ii Halvix _____, d. 1290,2 buried in St-Paul's, Verdun.2

Children:
2. i. Jean.


Generation Two

2. Jean de WATRONVILLE, d. 31 Jul 1313,2 buried in Verdun.2

Married2 Jeanne du CHATELET title: Dame of Gondrecourt, (daughter of Liebault du CHATELET) d. 1315 in Verdun.2

Children:
3. i. Robert II de.


Generation Three

3. Robert II de WATRONVILLE.

Married c. 1330 in Verdun,iii Jeanne d'ARGIES, d. 1354.

Children:
4. i. Evrard I de.


Generation Four

4. Evrard I de WATRONVILLE, also known as Eyrard, d. aft. 1370.

Marriediv Jeanne de MAISER, also known as MAIZEY.

Children:
5. i. Robert de.


Generation Five

5. Robert de WATRONVILLE title: Ecuyer, Sgr. of Watronville.

Wife also listed as Marguerite de LaTOUR, and they had a dau. Jeanne who married Henri de HOUSSE.

Married 1417,v Blanche de GELLONNET.

Children:
i. Jeanne de WATRONVILLE, d. c. 1456.5

Unsure of mother.

Notes:
(1) Married5 Henri de HOUSSE.
(2) Married5 Jean de SAULX.
(3) Married5 Jean de BOULIGNY, also known as BOULGNY, (son of Thiébaut de BOULIGNY and Catherine de FAILLY).

Sources:
i de La Chenaye-Desbois et Badier, _____, Dictionnaire de la Noblesse (Kraus Reprint, 1969, 3rd edition), 19:993.
ii de La Chenaye-Desbois et Badier, _____, Dictionnaire de la Noblesse (Kraus Reprint, 1969, 3rd edition), 19:994.
iii de La Chenaye-Desbois et Badier, _____, Dictionnaire de la Noblesse (Kraus Reprint, 1969, 3rd edition), 19:995.
iv de La Chenaye-Desbois et Badier, _____, Dictionnaire de la Noblesse (Kraus Reprint, 1969, 3rd edition), 19:996.
v de La Chenaye-Desbois et Badier, _____, Dictionnaire de la Noblesse (Kraus Reprint, 1969, 3rd edition), 19:997.

Comment by Thomas E. Abbott on September 23, 2009 at 1:02pm

Oops, I miswrote there. Dermot was an ancestor of the Bohuns. Humphrey deBohun VIII married Edward's daughter Elizabeth (in 1302).
Many people with extensive New England (and Virginia too?) colonial ancestry -- if they can get it to be extensive enough -- will find "gateway" (usually Great Migration, 1600-1640) ancestors eventually linking in England to royal family lines. But it is easy to mix up way back there who belongs to whom as an ancestor!

Comment by Thomas E. Abbott on September 23, 2009 at 12:50pm

Has anyone tried to do a chart of, say, Edward I's ancestry? I've been trying, and the thing is gigantic!! Even getting down to #5 font and bunching the names fairly closely, one generation can be seveal feet long. It is, however, a GREAT way to get very familiar with the names! For instance, if someone mentions Donnchad MacMuirchada, you might even remember he was the king of Dublin in the 1100's. But really, is anyone else trying to do this WITHOUT a software program (i.e., by hand)?

Comment by GaryRea on July 25, 2009 at 9:25pm

Hi, Pam. Well, nothing's ever really done! It's all a work in progress. My ex used to harass me about it and ask, "When are you going to finish that damned genealogy?!" I said, "Whenever I run out of ancestors to find, or when I drop dead, whichever comes first." ;)

I haven't added anything new to the Griffith/Gruffyd lineage in years. Indeed, all I have of it is two people: William Griffith (Gruffyd) and his daughter Elizabeth. William was married to Jane Stradling about 1518 and his daughter Elizabeth was married to Sir John Philps (Phylips). I haven't been able to find anything on the parents of William, yet.

Then there are the Marcher Lords in my line, which includes Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd (1096), Ieuan ap Gruffydd (1358) and Rhys ap Gruffydd (1133-1197), which appears to be unrelated to my other Gruffyds, as there wasn't yet a surname in that lineage. They used a patronymic system in Wales, at the time, so Rhys ap Gruffyd was the son of Gruffyd ap Rhys, who was the son of Rhys ap Tewdr, and so on. Ieuan ap Gruffydd was the son of Gruffydd ap Madog and Cadwaladr ap Gruffyd was a son of Gruffydd ap Cynan. Confusing, eh?

Gary

Comment by GaryRea on July 21, 2009 at 8:03pm

Which gives you some idea of the power of the church, at the time, James. Charlemagne had to be blessed by the Pope before he could become Emperor of France. There was no separation of church and state at all in those days.

Wait until you hit upon the relationships between the English monarchy and that of the Vikings. It gets really interesting. Entangled with that are the kings of Scotland, as well. One way to control enemy nations at that time was to marry into their rulers' bloodline. Then they were more apt to become "allies" and could be used against other powers. That's how the lines of the Scottish kings and the kings of Norway became intertwined.

Comment by James Allan Waite on July 21, 2009 at 6:37pm

I've been working on the noble families for the last several months, not necessarily because I'm related, but because the history it puts you in contact with fascinates me. As far as I can tell, If you are able to work a line across the big water, and hook into a significant peer of the realm, you will probably be able to document relations to many many significant noble and notable families across england ireland scotland and on to europe, just a GaryRea says. These guys were so interbred that at one point they began importing daughters from eastern europe, eurasia, and russia, because they couldn't get the hometown girls with more than three generations distance, which the church required to allow the marriage. truly fun stuff

Comment by GaryRea on July 17, 2009 at 4:18am

Via my great-grandmother, Clara Isabel Bates (1870-1950) (wife of Orvin James Rea) I have two or three "gateway" ancestors that are connected to several nobles and, eventually, to most of the monarchs of medieval Europe. The royals of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, France, Italy and Germany are included. At first, I thought this was really significant, but then, years later, after I'd founded a surname DNA project, I realized that, at some point in the past, we're all related to the same ancestors, so we're all literally cousins - just many, many times removed. That, plus the fact that millions of Americans are descended from the same royal bloodlines made it clear that it's really not that significant, after all. But, even so, it's still fascinating to know I'm connected to people who made history. Of course, all my ancestors made history, though, whether they were kings or farmers. I celebrate them all equally, for, without any one of them, I wouldn't be here.

Comment by Charles Ray Yoder on July 15, 2009 at 7:08am

My aunt always claimed that we were related to the British royal family. Perhaps this will help me find out if it is true.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page