Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Five Century Challenge

I intended the rules to be either heir-male or heir-general, as in the passage of a title or funds. If the 3rd Duke (Edward) of Buckingham had not been attainted, the title would now be likely to have passed to the 15th Baron, who is a full heir-general of the first (Henry, son of the 3rd Duke).
Legitimate descendents only, please, except where specified or children of a monarch.
If I widen the start line to 1504 to match the title, you could have the Careys (Henry VIII's bastards as the Chopaholic was born in C15).

Suggestions:
Sir Geoffrey or Sir Arthur Pole,
Anne of Exeter,
The Staffords of Grafton (split from the Buckinghams in C12/13, included Sir Humphrey x.1486. Sir William married Dorothy Stafford, sister of Thomas!),
Archbishop Cranmer (the first Archbishop with legitimate descendents),

My "Stafford Line" was handwritten from Castelli, Tompsett and Burke's, is now in PowerPoint and I can e-mail it privately on request. Titles make the job much easier. I will be far more impressed by anyone who disproves the Received Wisdom, as the Society is built for that!
----- Original Message -----
From: Sharp, Ann
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Five Century Challenge


Stephen:
Would anyone else like to take up the Five Century Challenge? Take a (noble?) figure from Richard's lifetime and trace his or her heir in 2004.

PS Anyone choosing Henry VII or Norfolk (public knowledge), Clarence or Hastings (completed by Jones last tear) or Buckingham (by me this month) will be disqualified!

Ann:
I have only been on this list a few months and haven't heard of the Five Century Challenge before. Could you review the ground rules?

Starting Person must have been a contemporary of Richard's, or at least been alive in the 1452-1485 period? Can be anyone (but noble and royal persons are far better documented than commoners, especially in this pre-1538 period).

Challenge is to trace descent from that person to the present day.

How do you define "heir" for the Challenge? Is it straight male line exclusively? Are we assuming that a male-line title held by the Starting Person would descend to the Heir? Are we assuming that, say, a Large Fortune belonging to the Starting Person would descend to the Heir (but, unlike a title, would go through female descendants when the male line failed)? What documentation per generation is acceptable? -- lineage-society quality, with proof required of birth, marriage, and death?

Inquiring minds want to know,


Ann
axsc@...
http://mzbworks.home.att.net/ann.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> I intended the rules to be either heir-male or heir-general, as in
the passage of a title or funds. If the 3rd Duke (Edward) of
Buckingham had not been attainted, the title would now be likely to
have passed to the 15th Baron, who is a full heir-general of the
first (Henry, son of the 3rd Duke).
> Legitimate descendents only, please, except where specified or
children of a monarch.
> If I widen the start line to 1504 to match the title, you could
have the Careys (Henry VIII's bastards as the Chopaholic was born in
C15).
>
> Suggestions:
> Sir Geoffrey or Sir Arthur Pole,
> Anne of Exeter,

Anne of Exeter = the Duke of Rutland. There's that's me done.

That is an easy one - can you knock it up in PowerPoint or Word and e-mail me privately? (Neil doesn't like attachments)
----- Original Message -----
From: marie
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: Five Century Challenge


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> I intended the rules to be either heir-male or heir-general, as in
the passage of a title or funds. If the 3rd Duke (Edward) of
Buckingham had not been attainted, the title would now be likely to
have passed to the 15th Baron, who is a full heir-general of the
first (Henry, son of the 3rd Duke).
> Legitimate descendents only, please, except where specified or
children of a monarch.
> If I widen the start line to 1504 to match the title, you could
have the Careys (Henry VIII's bastards as the Chopaholic was born in
C15).
>
> Suggestions:
> Sir Geoffrey or Sir Arthur Pole,
> Anne of Exeter,

Anne of Exeter = the Duke of Rutland. There's that's me done.




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> That is an easy one -

I know - so why put it on the list?

can you knock it up in PowerPoint or Word and e-mail me privately?
(Neil doesn't like attachments)


Some time. At present I only have the information that the title has
been carried down in the male line since the marriage of Anne St
Leger to George Manners and that miraculously, though Anne of York
left only one child, and that female, her issue have carried down
through the male line ever since. I can do this if you want, but my
library visits are precious and this proves nothing not already well
known.

Marie

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: marie
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Five Century Challenge
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > I intended the rules to be either heir-male or heir-general, as
in
> the passage of a title or funds. If the 3rd Duke (Edward) of
> Buckingham had not been attainted, the title would now be likely
to
> have passed to the 15th Baron, who is a full heir-general of the
> first (Henry, son of the 3rd Duke).
> > Legitimate descendents only, please, except where specified or
> children of a monarch.
> > If I widen the start line to 1504 to match the title, you could
> have the Careys (Henry VIII's bastards as the Chopaholic was born
in
> C15).
> >
> > Suggestions:
> > Sir Geoffrey or Sir Arthur Pole,
> > Anne of Exeter,
>
> Anne of Exeter = the Duke of Rutland. There's that's me done.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>

CLARIFIED RULES:
1) Preferably alive during Richard's time but born by 1504 at the latest.
2) For Buckingham, I had to disprove a popular myth - that they lost all of their titles and would be impossible to trace - and anything similar would be a bonus.
3) Hopefully produced in PowerPoint and e-mailed to me; "I know Z is the heir of A" would get you nowhere in an exam. We might even do something with the entries.
4) Heirs should hopefully be alive today.
5) Anything published in a popular book as a family tree should be avoided. Originality and use of websites (recommended by me or not) is important.

This is fun. My "Stafford Line" will be available from the Mid-Anglia Group next year, after my lecture on Thomas (12 Feb). Actually, a copy would make a great prize. Genealogy complete, notes and sketches to come.

Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: marie
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Five Century Challenge


--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "Sharp, Ann"
> <axsc@p...> wrote:
> > Stephen:
> > Would anyone else like to take up the Five Century
> Challenge? Take a (noble?) figure from Richard's lifetime and
trace
> his or her heir in 2004.
> >
>
> I'll take the Percy Earls of Northumberland:
>
> Henry Percy
>
> lots more Henry Percies
>
> the present Henry Percy
>
> (In this marvelous family the eldest son was almost always named
> Henry and was almost always the heir, except one notable instance
> when it fell to about the sixth son, who was in Holy Orders and had
> to return to the secular world to keep the title going.)
>
> Katy

Perhaps I should be staying out of this, as a non-participant (sadly,
I don't have the time). But here goes anyway.

I was under the impression this was intended to discover heirs who
are not already known - hence the disqualification of Norfolk.

I'm not volunteering for that - don't have the time - but perhaps we
need some clarification on eligibility?

This is a question for Stephen, by the way.

Marie



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> CLARIFIED RULES:
> 1) Preferably alive during Richard's time but born by 1504 at the
latest.
> 2) For Buckingham, I had to disprove a popular myth - that they
lost all of their titles and would be impossible to trace - and
anything similar would be a bonus.
> 3) Hopefully produced in PowerPoint and e-mailed to me; "I know Z
is the heir of A" would get you nowhere in an exam. We might even do
something with the entries.

I wasn't seriously suggesting my "Duke of Rutland" counted as a
competition entry, Stephen - that would hardly be fair. And I don't
think it would be fair if I sent you the tree in order to enter - as
you say, it's an easy one. In fact, what I was really pointing out is
that Anne of Exeter's heir, like Norfolk's, is already known and
doesn't need doing. I really wouldn't need to give an examiner
chapter and verse to prove it - the Duke of Rutland's descent is
well known. If I wrote in an exam that Elizabeth II is descended from
Queen Victoria, I wouldn't be expected to produce a family tree to
prove it.
If Anne's line, and the Dukes of Northumberland, are to be allowed,
then why not Norfolk? If it's the tree you're interested in rather
than the answer, then it seems a bit unfair to make an exception of
him.


Marie

--- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > CLARIFIED RULES:
> > 1) Preferably alive during Richard's time but born by 1504 at the
> latest.
> > 2) For Buckingham, I had to disprove a popular myth - that they
> lost all of their titles and would be impossible to trace - and
> anything similar would be a bonus.
> > 3) Hopefully produced in PowerPoint and e-mailed to me; "I know Z
> is the heir of A" would get you nowhere in an exam. We might even
do
> something with the entries.
>
> I wasn't seriously suggesting my "Duke of Rutland" counted as a
> competition entry, Stephen - that would hardly be fair. And I don't
> think it would be fair if I sent you the tree in order to enter -
as
> you say, it's an easy one. In fact, what I was really pointing out
is
> that Anne of Exeter's heir, like Norfolk's, is already known and
> doesn't need doing. I really wouldn't need to give an examiner
> chapter and verse to prove it - the Duke of Rutland's descent is
> well known. If I wrote in an exam that Elizabeth II is descended
from
> Queen Victoria, I wouldn't be expected to produce a family tree to
> prove it.
> If Anne's line, and the Dukes of Northumberland, are to be
allowed,
> then why not Norfolk? If it's the tree you're interested in rather
> than the answer, then it seems a bit unfair to make an exception of
> him.
>
>
> Marie

For Norfolk, you would only need to follow the title. Anne of
Exeter's line has a few "interruptions" through the female line. The
Buckingham title was discontinued in 1521 and the Stafford Barony
interrupted in 1640. I have never seen the Exeter-St.Leger-Rutland
line written down and Castelli doesn't have it.
If you wanted to try the other Pole brothers, Sir Geoffrey had 11
children and Sir Arthur (died at 33) had 3. Castelli says that some
of them died in the Tower during the Mary Stuart plots.

Stephen

--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> --- In , "marie" <marie@r...>
> wrote:
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > > CLARIFIED RULES:
> > > 1) Preferably alive during Richard's time but born by 1504 at
the
> > latest.
> > > 2) For Buckingham, I had to disprove a popular myth - that they
> > lost all of their titles and would be impossible to trace - and
> > anything similar would be a bonus.
> > > 3) Hopefully produced in PowerPoint and e-mailed to me; "I know
Z
> > is the heir of A" would get you nowhere in an exam. We might even
> do
> > something with the entries.
> >
> > I wasn't seriously suggesting my "Duke of Rutland" counted as a
> > competition entry, Stephen - that would hardly be fair. And I
don't
> > think it would be fair if I sent you the tree in order to enter -
> as
> > you say, it's an easy one. In fact, what I was really pointing
out
> is
> > that Anne of Exeter's heir, like Norfolk's, is already known and
> > doesn't need doing. I really wouldn't need to give an examiner
> > chapter and verse to prove it - the Duke of Rutland's descent is
> > well known. If I wrote in an exam that Elizabeth II is descended
> from
> > Queen Victoria, I wouldn't be expected to produce a family tree
to
> > prove it.
> > If Anne's line, and the Dukes of Northumberland, are to be
> allowed,
> > then why not Norfolk? If it's the tree you're interested in
rather
> > than the answer, then it seems a bit unfair to make an exception
of
> > him.
> >
> >
> > Marie
>
> For Norfolk, you would only need to follow the title. Anne of
> Exeter's line has a few "interruptions" through the female line.

Are there more, besides her own daughter? I know families sometimes
adopted the family name from the female line when inheriting from
said female.

The
> Buckingham title was discontinued in 1521 and the Stafford Barony
> interrupted in 1640. I have never seen the Exeter-St.Leger-Rutland
> line written down and Castelli doesn't have it.

Poor old Castelli.

> If you wanted to try the other Pole brothers, Sir Geoffrey had 11
> children and Sir Arthur (died at 33) had 3. Castelli says that some
> of them died in the Tower during the Mary Stuart plots.

Sorry, Stephen, I don't. I'm afrid I'm busy with busy with:
a) Cecily Neville's will
b) Will of Anne (Montagu) Duchess of Exeter
c) Article on Havelok (about to start, really)
d) A couple of books (one started, tother not)

But good luck,

Marie



c)
>
> Stephen