RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Buckinghamshire => Topic started by: KerrUSA on Tuesday 01 December 09 21:27 GMT (UK)
-
Like thousands of others, I can trace a branch of my family back to William Dormer (1438-1506) of West Wycombe, whose parents were Geffery Dormer (1408-1478) and Ursula Collingridge (1407-1502), about whom Collins' Peerage of England states: "He very much increased his estate by marriage with Ursula, daughter and heir of Bartholomew Collingridge, the heir general of Arundel, ..." But from that point on, all information is sketchy and highly suspect. Most online sources list Bartholomew's wife as Alice FitzAlan (c. 1385-1447), and his parents as John Collingridge (1355-?) and Margaret FitzAlan (c. 1360-?). It is presumably by both his mother and wife being of the FitzAlans of Arundel that Bartholomew became "the heir general" to the Arundel estates (or what was left of them after Richard II distributed large portions of the Arundel estates to his cronies).
Alice FitzAlan is universally described as the daughter of Ranulph FitzAlan (1359-?) and Juliana "of Wycombe" (1361-?). All of the online references to this relationship, however, cite one another and ultimately lead back to an unsourced citation in the LDS records. There is no listing that I've ever been able to find of a Ranulph FitzAlan in any of the British peerage records or any other qualified source linking him to any known FitzAlan of Arundel. He is also variously cited as Ranulf FitzAlan and Ralph FitzAlan. Many skeptics have now come to describe Ranulph FitzAlan as either an outright fabrication or simply the son ("fitz") of someone unrelated to the Earls of Arundel named Alan.
I had nearly come to accept this verdict until I stumbled across a reference in Montague's Guide to the Study of Heraldry that discusses the unique arms of "Ralph de Arundel" as being "the arms of Arundel and Warenne flanched quarterly" and thus designating him as an illegitimate child of the House of Arundel. Since the Warenne estates in Surrey did not pass to the Earls Arundel until 1347, none of the Ralph de Arundels prior to the Ranulph FitzAlan born 1359 would appear to qualify for these arms. The same quarterings later appear in the Dormer arms. Coincidence?
This Ralph de Arundel ("Radulphus de Arundell") was buried with his wife "Julyan" in the church at Towersey, Bucks. A marble slab in the chantry was quoted in Lee's The History, Description, and Antiquities of the Prebendal Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Thame (1883) as bearing the inscription: "Pray for the soules of William and Christian his wife, also for Ralph Arundel and Julyan, also for Bartholomew Collingridge and Alys his wife and for their son William whose soules now her lyeth." This is likely the source for assuming marital connections between these three families (FitzAlan, Collingridge, and Dormer).
I lack the wherewithall to fly to England to sort this all out, so I'm hoping that someone in Bucks can provide me with some guidance on how I might determine if "Ranulph FitzAlan" is also "Ralph de Arundel" and "Radulphus de Arundell", if he is indeed the illegitimate son of Richard FitzAlan ("Copped Hat") the 5th/10th Earl of Arundel, and father of Alice FitzAlan who married Bartholomew Collingridge.
-
Hi there
Peerage.com
http://www.thepeerage.com/p32865.htm#i328648
http://www.thepeerage.com/p32865.htm#i328649
Find out who William is, and you've cracked it!! ;)
Charles Mosley knows more about this than you or I, so I would accept that .
Copped Hat had four brothers, Michael, Edmund, John and Edward. Possibly Edmund and Edward were one and the same. Any one of these could have fathered your man.
Not a William around that time in the direct Arundel dynasty, though.
These might be of help
www.college-of-arms.gov.uk
www.civicheraldry.co.uk
www.theheraldrysociety.com/
www.heraldry.co.uk/
I appreciate that this is probably not of much help. :(
Best wishes in your quest
Mark :)
-
Thank you, Mark! I've seen this theory espoused before. Sir William FitzAlan KG is generally held to have been the son of John FitzAlan, 1st Baron Arundel, and Lady Eleanor Maltravers. This, however, makes Sir William's lifespan from c. 1369 to 1400. By most accounts, Sir William died childless around age 31. Assuming he did have offspring, they would have been born somewhere between 1385 (at the very earliest) and 1400, which does not coincide with the generally accepted timeline for Ranulph FitzAlan and his descendents.
Ranulph had a daughter, either Alice or "Unknown", who married Bartholomew Collingridge. They had a daugher, Ursula, who was the mother of Wiliam Dormer, born 1438. For this to have happened, Ursula must have been born by about 1420, which means that both Ranulph and his daughter would each have had to have their children at about age 15 -- not altogether unheard of, but certainly not common at that time.
It also seems to be inconsistent with both the armorial information for Sir Ranulph and his tomb inscription at Towersey. I appreciate your help, but I'm not sure Sir William is the man I'm looking for.
-
Hi Kerr,
I was just wondering if you have found anymore evidence to support your theory on Ranulf Fitzalan.
Also, do you know any credible sources for the parents of Bartholomew Collingridge?
I saw that you think his parents might be Margaret Fitzalan and John Collingridge, but I haven't found any good results when searching them online.
Thanks
-
Serlo, no I have not yet uncovered any further evidence concerning Ranulf.
And, no, I don't really know of any credible sources for Bart's parents. I believe I first saw the John-and-Margaret connection stated in LDS sources, and it is almost universally given as such on Ancestry.com and Genealogy.com. While the LDS genealogies are reliable for the most part, I have found that a good deal of their information is questionable. It appears that in a number of cases, LDS people have found someone with the same surname born 20-40 years prior to an individual in the same county and have simply assumed them to have parent/child relationships -- which is often not the actual case. Similarly, the source citations on Ancestry.com and Genealogy.com are often circular -- Joe cites John who cites Mary who cites Joe! So even heavily "sourced" citations on these sites are often suspect. And, of course, most general search results on Google are as credibly documented as most JFK assassination theories ...
... Which is the reason I brought this case to RootsChat. I've found the people on RootsChat are often locals (i.e., living in or near Bucks today) who know precisely where more reliable sources can be found (for example which parish records to search, where to find wills and estates recorded, etc.). Sometimes they will even do the lookup, but just knowing where to search can save months -- and a good bit of cash!
-
It's now been shown that she was Alice Collingridge, not Ursula. See a Soc.Genealogy.medieval thread at
http://www.rootschat.com/links/086s/
I place no reliance on entries on the LDS site when they relate to this period.
David
-
David, thank you for your most helpful reply and links. I will amend my "Ursula" records accordingly, and hopefully be able to obtain a copy of the records mentioning Alice by name.
In case I neglected to say so, I also very much appreciated your help with my Willis riddle in the Bedfordshire forum. Still haven't tracked down "Thomas Sr." but I have faith that I will one day. After all, I discovered 3 or 4 new generations in a single year's time after 10 years of fruitless efforts! I still have living Willis cousins in England. One is a history major at University of Kent, so I've enlisted his assistance in tracking down our mutual ancestor, Thomas Sr.!
The irony of my research has been that Mum's (known) ancestors are all English and Scottish (Kerr), with many relatives still living, yet each of her lines has hit a dead-end around 1700. On Dad's side, however, we've been able to trace several lines (including the Baldwin--Dormer--Collingridge--Arundel line) to the late Middle Ages with no (known) living relatives in the UK from that side of the family! So my "extinct" lines have been easier to trace!
-
After reading the evidence shown by Douglas Richardson I have to agree that Ranulph appears to have descended from Richard de Arundell. That would certainly be nice.
Hopefully I'll get the chance to go to England and investigate this myself.
Thanks for making these posts, they certainly are more helpful than Ancestry.com which is very misleading.
Jordan
-
In researching this very issue, I came across an obscure and rare book, in the New York Public Library, called "The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel" by John Pym Yeatman (1882). On Page 295 of this text, there is a Pedigree chart of one branch of the Fitz Alan line. It Provides for an "Alice, dau, and heir = Bartholomew Coleridge", who's parents (Alice's) are given as "Robert Fitz Alan = Juliana". However, on Page 324 of this same text, another Fitz Alan Pedigree Provides for the same "Alice, dau and heiress = Bartholomew Coleridge 9 Ed. IV., who's parents (Alice's) are given as "Ranulf fitz Alan, only son = Juliana. Clearly, this is the same "Alice" and "Bartholomew", but there is an inconsistency in the names of her Parents... this is likely an oversight by Yeatman. As, if one look to Alice's grandparents and g-grandparents on these 2 pedigree's connect to John de Arundel and Eleanor Maltravers.
Thus, the Pedigree on Page 295 continues as:
1. Alice, dau, and heir = Barthlomew Coleridge
2. Robert fitz Alan = Juliana (from above)
3. William Fitz Alan = Christina
4. John Fitz Alan - Eleanor, dau. and heir of Henry, Lord Maltravers
5. Richard Fitz Alan II., Earl of Arundel b. 1305 + 1377 - Eleanor Plantagenet
The Pedigree on Page 324 has one inconsistency with the Pedigree on Page 295 (in generation 2 and 3) but they are clearly the same Alice and Bartholomew:
1. Alice, dau. and heiress = Barthlomew Coleridge + 9 Ed. IV.
2. Ranulf fitz Alan, only son = Juliana
3. Sir William fitz Alan, K.G. + 1st Aug., 1400 = Agnes
4. John de Arundel. Marshall of England. Drowned 1379 = Alinanor, dau. of John Maltravers
5. Richard fitz Alan II., Earl of Arundel, b. 1306 + 1375 = Eleanor, dau. of Henry Plantagenet, Earl of Lancaster. m. 1345 + 1372
I've attached images of these Pedigrees to this Posting. hopefully this contribution will be of assistance to all of us working piecing this puzzle together!
-
Great find, Connellaw! But there is one other inconsistency: the wife of Sir William FitzAlan KG. One chart lists her as Agnes and the other as Christina.
I'm beginning to put more credence in the theory that Sir William d'Arundel was the father of Ranulf, but the armorial information and timeline of the generations still leaves some doubts ... But every new bit of evidence helps tremendously.
-
I was able to locate from a publication titled MISCELLANEA GENEALOGICA et HERALDICA Vol. IV (full view of this text using google book search online is available), page 98-100, a family tree further corroborating the Fitzalan-Coleridge connection. There are still a few discrepancies, but this text offers detailed evidence (page 98) in a paragraph/footnote describing, in addition to other items of interest, an "Authentick Booke of pedigrees remaining in the Office of Armes marked on the cover ... of William Arundell & Christian [Christina] his wife & of Ralph Arundell theyr son & Julyan [Juliana] his wife and of Alice theyr da and heyre that maried Bartholmew Collingridge contractedly called Colridge...", etc, etc, etc. Thought this would be of further assistance/interest to us all in piecing this together. please see below for copies of this family tree.
-
Brilliant! I've seen this quoted before, but never had a look at the actual document myself.
-
Am new to Rootschat, but thank you to all those who have done research into this subject. Am really wanting to find an answer so I can finalise my family tree, before my time is up. :D One Question: the spelling of Arundell/Arundel. From the chart posted, the spelling is Arundell. I have read that this Arundell line is different to the Arundel line. Is this true? Thank you. Marilyn
-
Strathbrook, spelling was not an exact science during the Middle Ages, so most names have multiple spelling variations. Arundel and Arundell appear to have been used interchangeably for the Earls of that ilk.
However, I have also seen references to Arundells (usually with two l's) of Lanherne in Cornwall. I know little about them, but found this link that gives some interesting information:
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/arundell-john-i-1366-1435
-
Thanks heaps for this information, most grateful, will share with two cousins I have recently found while searching my family line. Cheers M
-
I am far from experienced in Genealogy, and way behind everyone else, but has anyone read Burke's Peerage vol 1, page 1168? I have managed to obtain a copy of this reference, I can email if anyone is interested. Guessing most have already see it. It is either the most massive hoax in history or true. Only two options. Too many grey hairs over this one. :D Cheers Marilyn
-
;) I have just received my Autosomal DNA results, am 100% European. The only ancestry connections I have from Spain are from Royal Blood, so this could be a possible connection through Ranulph Fitzalan of Arundel/l. May do more DNA tests in the future. I thought that this was a good way to try prove my connection. Time will tell. Cheers Marilyn
-
Hi all, I have this morning been going through Volume 1 Antiquities & History of Buckinghamshire, I have purchased this Volume. Have printed off many pages relating to Dormer. If anyone is interested I can scan and send via email. I have been searching for the information relating to Ranulph which is also found in Burke's Peerage Page 1168. I did have this inf, but my computer was compromised and I lost it. It is there somewhere. Cheers Marilyn
-
Marilyn, I would greatly appreciate receiving scanned copies and deeply appreciate your generosity. My email address is len_pellman[at]yahoo.com (using the @ symbol of course).
-
Hi all - I have just made the connection to this line on Ancestry.com and hesitated when I couldnt find much corroboration for Ranulph - this chat forum is very useful. To those of you who have collected all of the available material, what's is the current verdict? Is Ranulph really part of the aristocratic Fitzalan family?
-
Burkes Peerage 2003 Edition Page 1168, also Collins Peerage.refer to Ranulph as descending from William Fitzalan. I do not have the exact Collins Peerage reference at the tip of my fingers, can reasearch it. The History and Antiquities of Buckinghamshire also refers to Ranulph same as above. I have read it myself personally, but due to a computer gliche at the time lost the reference and have been looking for it again every since. There is also a reference in HAB re the tombstone details, which refers to G Dormer and his two wives, children, Ranulph and Julyann his wife and William and Alice. I can be contacted through my family tree on ancestry. Strathbrook. I personally believe yes he did exist and is the result of an affair which obviously the Fitzalan family would not have approved of.
-
Will be purchasing the book, Plantagenet Ancestry by Douglas Richardson, not in print, but have my name listed to be notified when available. Cheers Marilyn
-
As PDF copies of these previously obscure records become more readily available, it is becoming abundantly clear that a Ranulph (with several variant spellings) FitzAlan, did in fact exist and was a son of a William FitzAlan. The flanching of his arms strongly suggests an illegitimate descent, but the remaining question is whether is more than one William FitzAlan whose son he could have been.
I believe we'll uncover enough information in the next few years to make a definitive determination and settle the matter for even the most persistent skeptics.
-
Thanks to Strathbrook & KerrUSA for your comments - I have an open mind right now & am just looking to see what material there is to support the connection into the Fitzalans - there is a lot riding on it.
On the question of William FitzAlan - apart from the William-John-Richard line, are there other known possibilities?
Also there is an on-line version of the History & Antiquities of Buckinghamshire - http://archive.org/stream/historyantiquiti04lips/historyantiquiti04lips_djvu.txt - I have done searches but couldnt find any reference to Ranulph, at the page given or in the index - do I have the right reference?
Thanks again
-
Take 2, my laptop has a mind of its own. GEFFERY DORMER, of W Wycombe; married Isabel, daughter and coheir of Thomas Balldington, Lord Manors of Balldington, Thame, Oxon, and Adderbury, Oxon, by Agnes (dau of John Danvers, of Cothorpe, by Alice, daughter and heiress of William Verney, of Byfield), and had:
GEFFERY DORMER, of W Wycombe; Lord Manor of Thame; married 1st Margaret (died 1454), daughter and coheir of John Launcelyn, of Cople, Beds; married 2nd Ursula, daughter and heir of Bartholomew Collingridge and grand-daughter of Ranulf FitzAlan andgreat-grand-daughter of Sir William FitzAlan, KG (died 1 Aug 1400), and had, with other issue, including a younger son (Sir Michael, Sheriff London 1529, Lord Mayor 1541):
this is Burkes Peerage Page 1168 Edition 2003 (?)
-
Attached is a JPEG copy of page 150 of the Testamenta Vetusta, Volume 1, quoting the will of Sir William Arundel dated 01 August 1400. His will omits any reference to children, and he leaves all of his estates to his "carnal" brother Sir Richard Arundel, his jewels to his widow, and his silverware to their nephew who was also named Sir William Arundel. Not only does his will make no mention of children, but none are recorded elsewhere and several accounts mention him as either "childless" or "leaving no heirs".
We must conclude from this either that Ranulf/Ranulph was illegitimate and thus excluded from the will, or that he was the son of a different William FitzAlan/Arundel.
-
Further to our discussions. Recently I did my autosomal dna test. I came across a 3rd -5th cousin in Gotland, who has an extensive ancestry family tree. It was through a completely different surname that I found her, but this lady is a descendant of Thomas de Holland and Alice Fitzalan. I searched many other names which did not show up on her tree, only this one Fitzalan name. I am slowly working along my family line in Wikitree as they have the dna tests. Although this is not 100% proof of a connection it is a start, I am rated as 100% European, and all the areas shown on my dna map are those of where my family tree ancestors also came from, the only european ancestors being from the dormer, parkhurst, fitzalan lines etc. Except for a Peterson from Sweden which was how I originally contacted this 3rd cousin. So I encourage others trying to find a key to the Fitzalan door to find a family tree program where dna can be done.
-
Thank you, this is an excellent record to have.
-
I found some relevant on-line material that doesnt seem to have been reported in this thread, and it introduces a new theory for Ranulph/Ralph.
Its Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, 2nd Edition, 2011. and is on-line at this link.
http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Magna_Carta_Ancestry_A_Study_in_Colonial.html?id=8JcbV309c5UC&redir_esc=y
Refer to Pages 418-421
There is another briefer reference (seemingly contradictory?) at p 190
-
thank you so much for this information, i will be trying to purchase this book of Douglas Richardson as well. I just want my family tree to be accurate which i am sure many others feel the same. :)
-
Marilyn, Just to let you know that Douglas Richardson published his "Royal Ancestry" at the end of 2013 - it was intended to replace both "Magna Carta Ancestry" AND "Plantagenet Ancestry", and contains the most up-to-date research of all three.
(The only problem I have with his excellent books is that he doesn't despatch to the UK, so my set had to be sent to a friend in the US who then posted them on to me.)
Janice
-
Hello, I tried so hard a few weeks ago, to purchase the latest edition of Magna Carta and Plantagenet Ancestry. If Royal Ancestry has the information I need then I will try to order, however, I had the same problem, no delivery to Australia. I do not know anyone in the USA. Did you purchase Royal Ancestry and find the answers to the questions? Am happy to purchase. Do you think your friend would be willing to help me out. Thank you.
-
I bought 'Plantagenet Ancestry' as I didn't know that 'Royal Ancestry' had been published - I just wish they'd told me about it when I enquired about ordering and delivery to the UK.
It's especially annoying as much of 'Plantagenet Ancestry' is viewable online at http://tinyurl.com/onl6j7q
Much of 'Magna Carta Ancestry' is also viewable - http://tinyurl.com/p53egzd
(Sorry my friend won't be able to help you.)
-
Thank you anyway for the information, I will keep trying other avenues to purchase the book. Will probably try to purchase all three if I can. Then its done. Very grateful for your message. Cheers
-
There are a number of companies which offer freight forwarding services to Australia from the USA.
Eg: myus, stackry and reship, and of course courier companies such as Fedex.
I know someone who has successfully used this:
https://shopmate.auspost.com.au/
An article abut it here:
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01im0/
Good luck.
-
Thank you so much, ever grateful. I normally do not shop online, so its all a bit confusing.
-
Have set up my Shop mate address, so can now start looking for latest Edition of Royal Ancestry. Cheers.
-
Good luck. I hope it is hassle free.
Let is know how you get on? :)
-
HI, just searching Royal Ancestry, found a page which has 1,2,3,4,5 available. Does not really specifiy if the 5 are all Royal Ancestry. Says Volumes, paperback, used for $1,000. I would also like to get Magna Carta, but not sure if I should, if Royal Ancestry covers it all. Should I be looking for just the last Volume of Royal Ancestry? Thank you. Marilyn
-
This week I finally received my Five Volumes of Royal Ancestry. Purchasing directly from Douglas Richardson, posted to Australia, no problems. Amazed at the concise detailed work put into this publication. Excellent. Volume III has the information I was looking for, the elusive Ralph, Ranulph, Radulphus Fitzalan? de Arundel? The information given is excellent even though still not giving an exact answer, but in my mind, the collected information (especially the "Arms", if that is the correct word that Ralph represented). I do not believe this Ralph is a figment of imagination and pops up in many writings, with some variations as to authenticity. Hundreds of years ago things were very different with illegitimate children. Such children from Nobility, if I can use that word, were always given some sort of recognition and family connection, albeit, vague. Not only does this written work give me the information on the elusive Ralph, but so many other family names not connected with Ralph. Am far from experienced with genealogy, but I give it my best go, and don't let go until I find what I am looking for. These volumes are so easy to look up and find the persons mentioned. Will be taking a prime position in my family book case. In my family the story of a clandestine affair by a person of authority with a kitchen maid has always been there. Most likely with some elaboration. Happy Hunting. Would love to hear some comments from others who have this 2013 Edition by Douglas Richardson.