Re: Don's puzzling question/Something's awry
-
In reply to:
Re: Don's puzzling question/Something's awry
7/19/01
Don:
That's probably the right conclusion. I have the same pedigree that you have, plus one with a question mark next to the first Robert. I guess he was being doubly uncertain in that instance. Of what he was uncertain, I sure do not know. perhaps it was even the name, Robert, since it is merely an "R" elsewhere.
Never-the-less, I still think that the issue is not whether Robert was Robert de Eyton because surely he was. Instead, the question is completely about his parentage and Pantulph, according to those arms, almost certainly was not -- otherwise Pantulph would have been on the dexter side rather than the sinister side.
All should remember that, almost always, the only time the female (sinister side) would end up on the dexter side of the arms was when that family was so very prominent (as in the daughter of a duke, etc.) that it "dwarfed" the male's lineage.
Since, as I understand it, this is "armorial fact," an Eyton Pantulf connection would be conventional with, in this case, the male, Eyton, being conventionally important and ythe same with Pantulf (who we know to be very important). Eyton + Pantulph=peers, or equals.
The question, then, is what Pantulph female married Robert de Eyton?
And, then, there is the same ol'/sameol' boring question as to who begat Robert.
I am all but sure it was not Pantulph.
The only possible records remaining to be explored, as far as I know and which I have not gotten to yet, are (1) College of heralds (qand I know nothing about how to go about this yet), manorial records and the Eyton Church baptismal book, which -- apparently -- is at the Wellington Church.
This is a time at wh9ch I wish so very much that we had a member on the ground in the U.K. to pick up on this. Apparently, we do not.
I hope to go back in 2002 and pick up where I left off and I admit to just hating having to wait that long.
Rick
More Replies:
-
Research 2002
7/20/01
-
Re: Research 2002
Rick Eaton 7/20/01
-
Re: Research 2002
Alan Garner 7/20/01
-
Re: Research 2002
Rick Eaton 7/20/01
-
Re: Research 2002
7/20/01
-
Re: Research 2002
-
Re: Research 2002
Rick Eaton 7/20/01
-
Re: Research 2002