FINAL UNCERTAINTIES IN THE DESCENT OF THE TIPPERARY WALLERS


1. I have been unable to establish a clear line of descent in the following cases.  

2.Index of Uncertainties.
The later para's of this web page offer reasoning for my preferred line of descent through each uncertainty (click on the blue text to go to the relevant para's):



2.1 That 8 Charibert, a nobleman from Hesbaye was an illegitimate son of 7 Chlot(h)ar I King of the Soissons Franks.

2.2 That 24 Rodolf I was a son of 23 Hugh (Hugues) Aimerie de Thouars.

2.3 That the the Warrens of Poynton are descended from the family of the De Warrenne Earls of Surrey via 29 Reginald de Warrenne b ~1113 Vermandois, Normandy rather than William 3rd Earl.

2.4 That the Vicomtes de Thouars are descended from 17 Bouchard de Fezensac

2.5  That the Wallers of the Royston, Herts, area were descended from the Warrens of Poynton, Cheshire. Please see Note 3 immediately below.


3 Options covering the time of The Missing Link   An investigation relevant to deciding if the Wallers of the Royston, Herts, area were descended from the Warrens of Poynton, Cheshire.
I believe (admittedy from only a few records) that 39xa Sir Laurence had a youngest son 40xd Anthony who was stricken from Laurences will and genealogies derived from this will; probably because he had favoured the protestant movement. This deduction is supported by the fact that Anthony's son  41xda William was very probably a Dissenter.

I think that the most probable line of descent is:

38 Sir John Warren
b ~1404
m Eleanor Bryn
d 1459

son

39xa Sir Laurence Warren 
1435-1474, Poynton, Cheshire
m Isabel Legh, (b 1440 in Adlington, Macclesfield, Cheshire).
Knighted by Henry VII,

son

40xd Anthony Warren
b ~1467 Claybury, Essex, (Henry VIII 1509-1547) 
m Margaret Leigh
d 1557  Bassingbourn, Cambs

son

41xda William Warren the first to assume the alias Waller
b ~1482 Bassingbourn, Cambs, (Henry VIII 1509-1547) 
d 1567 Combs, Suffolk , that had many Dissenters.

The Puritan Movement was founded around 1558 as Elizabeth came to the throne. It seems possible that 41xda (William of Bassingbourn then around 68 yrs) became a Dissenter around this time. (Most Dissenter sects are now part of the United Reformed Churches). This first "alias Waller" and his children are not listed in most Warren genealogies; hence the family tale of a "missing link". I think it likely that this happened because 41xda William broke with his father's family (the Poynton Warrens) who, were probably supporters of Henry VIII's Anglo-Catholicism or Mary's Roman Catholicism, (39xa Laurence having been Knighted by Henry VII), were strongly opposed to radical Protestants such as the Dissenters. This is indicated by the fact that his much younger brother 41xdb Richard Warren got some of the Warren inheritance, as indicated by Richard's daughter being described as an heiress. Of course the alienation from the Poynton Warrens and/or absence from Warren of Poynton Genealogies may have been for one of the following other reasons:
1. 41xda William had changed his commonly used name (alias) to Waller. (I think this was probably a result of his becoming a Dissenter. The Kentish branch of this family were prominent Presbyterians).
2. His father's will had been written after this son had received his inheritance by a Deed of Conveyance.
3.
He was illegitimate, this  may be the cause of the Arms of some of his descendants having a Bordure Ermine. However, the presence of a Bordure Ermine does not always indicate illegitimacy. It can be used to indicate a junior line, this supports descent from Anthony the youngest son.
4. Those Warrens of this family who lived outside the Cheshire area were purposely left out because the genealogy was deliberately confined to the lineage of those who lived in the Poynton Area.

There always remains the possibility that the Bassingbourn Wallers have little to do with the Poynton Warrens. For instance there has been a Genealogical error by the Grantee of Arms in 1631 , Ref "Book of Certificates" College of Arms. For instance 41xda was not a son of 40xd Anthony Warren or any other member of his family but was the son of some Waller who wished to be associated with the Warren family or vice versa. ( Cases exist of Arms being granted as a result of bribery around the mid 1600s.)

2.1 The possibility that 8 Charibert, a nobleman from Hesbaye
b ~555 was a natural son of 7 Chlot(h)ar I King of the Soissons Franks b ~497 needs more research. It could well be doubted because his father had a legitimate son with Ingonde also named Charibert, who became King of Paris.


2.2 The ancestry of William 1st Earl is in doubt. Several genealogies suppose that William, 1st Earl de Warenne's father was Walter de St Martin. However, I can find no evidence for this. But, I find that his mother was possibly Emma de St Martin, probably a dau' of Walter de St Martin; a Frankish noble descended from Charlemagne. His less improbable father was Rodolf Warrenne II, first name also spelled Raoul/Ranulph/ Rudolph/ Ralph, surname also spelled Warenne/Warrene/Warren. The birth of Walter de St Martin in Varenne probably lead to him sometimes being known as Walter de (V)Warenne thus reinforcing the error covered above. Rodolf I's son Rodolf II was the 1st in this line to be named de (V)Warenne in many genealogies. Rodolf I's many lands probably included some along the river Varenne. Since Rodolf II was a 2nd son, he may have inherited just the Varenne part of Rodolf I's lands. I believe there are two less unlikely lines of descent derived from a belief among some genealogists that he was descended from a Bishop in Normandy. I have investigated two such bishops, who might have been confused with each other through the same forename (Hugh/Hugues) and who have appeared in genealogies as an ancestor of William 1st Earl:


2.2 A. Hugh (Hugues) Aimerie de Thouars who may have been Bishop of Coutances b ~959 possible father of 24 Rodolf (Ralph) I b ~984, W.H.Turton, "The Plantagenet Ancestry" (Balt.:Gen.Pub.Co.,1968),p.112, gives Hugh, Bishop of Coutances (d.1020) as father of Ralph de Warren. Lord of Tancarville and High Chamberlain of William, Duke of Normandy, who founded Abbaye Saint- Georges- de- Boscherville , a collegiate church in Saint- Martin- de- Boscherville, Normandy around 1050, and grandfather of another Ralph de Warren who was father of William 1st Earl. The descent of the Vicomtes de Thouars from Bouchard de Fezensac (17 on Franks page), b ~800 d ~876 m Bava de Thouars, has been questioned. However, Bava was heiress to the city of Thouars from her father so it is not unreasonable to assume that she could pass the city on to her son Geoffrey of Orleans to become 1st Vicomte.


2.2 B. Hugh de Normandy who was descended from Rollo Ragnvaldsson, 1st Count of Normandy and was therefore closely related to the Dukes of Normandy. This line traces back as shown in northmen.html. This proposition arises from the report that William the Conqueror called William 1st Earl "cousin", they were 3rd cousins if de Normandy is correct.


I have chosen Hugh Aimerie de Thouars as the probable father of William 1st Earl. " Turton" supports de Thouars. "Cousin" de Normandy. "Turton" seems more substantial.



2.3 Was the last Earl, (34x) John de Warrenne 1286- 1347, an ancestor?


I argue in 2.3 D1 to D5 below that 33 Sir Edward de Warren, b ~1295 d 1370 was not a son of the last earl 34x. But what was his descent? I believe that he and therefore the Irish Wallers descend from the junior line of de Warrennes started by 29 Reginald de Warren b ~1113 Vermandois, Normandy m Aldalia de Mowbray, who was the younger brother of 29x William de Warren 3rd Earl of Surrey 1106- 1148 also born in Vermandois, who gave rise to the Plantagenet de Warrennes. My reasons are given in paras D3 to D5 below.


2.3 D1 (34x) John de Warrenne succeeded his grandfather as seventh/eighth and last Earl of Warrene and Surrey (depends whether Hamelin Plantagenet is counted as 4th).

In 1306 Earl John had married Joan of Barre who died in 1361. He had no children by Joan. In 1316 he sued for divorce on ludicrous grounds and lost. Some reports say that Earl John was excommunicated by Pope John XXII in 1316. During this unhappy marriage, John cohabited openly with Matilda (Maud) de Nerford dau of Sir William de Nerford of Nerford, Norfolk, who lived only a few miles away. She was married to a Lord de Diriba (Derby). Some genealogies claim that Earl John married de Nerford in 1314, but this seems legally impossible since both were still married at that date.This woman has been confused with Maud de Skegton wife of 33 Sir Edward de Warren. The possible confusion is examined in Note 4 below. Later he took as mistress Isabel de Ho(u/l)land. He had illegitimate children by both women. In 1317 Edward II granted the manor of Sandal, near Wakefield, to Matilda de Nerford and two natural sons by Earl John [John and Thomas de Warrene, who died before her, thus de Nerford having died in 1360, Sandal reverted to the crown in 1362]. Earl John's wife Joan de Barre lived until 1361 after Earl John died in 1347 and thus the report that Earl John married Matilda de Nerford and later Elisabeth de Houland after his wife Joan died is unlikely to be correct. Furthermore, Matilda (Maud) de Nerford died in 1360, i.e. before Countess Joan died. Therefore, he could not have married Matilda legitimately even if he went through a form of marriage with her.

There havebeen several studies into the ancestry of 34 SIR EDWARD DE WARENNE, Knt, of Booton, Skey(g)ton, Crostweyth, Fransham, and Rougham, Norfolk b ~1321 d >1363<1368 son of Sir Edward de Warren, b ~1295 d 1370 after his son 34, who some believe to be an illegitimate son of the last Earl, (34x) John de Warrenne 1286- 1347. Dr. Ormerod the Historian of Cheshire (in his vol. iii. p. 310), presented a fair review of the known evidence, and of the arguments pro et con, but was obliged to leave the question still in doubt. I will quote his exposition of the whole discussion, for the benefit of those to whom it may be new: "Sir Edward Warren appears to have been the husband of Maud surnamed of Nerford, daughter and co- heir of Richard de Skegeton, and according to every authority was descended, either legitimately or otherwise, from the Earls of Warren; but the authorities differ as to the precise mode of the descent.

On this subject, as Watson observes (House of Warren, ii. 75- 82), there are three opinions, but the second of these may be subdivided.

The first opinion (that of Vincent, and the one which has been generally believed,) states that this Sir Edward [ b ~1281] was a son of John de Warren [b ~1264] bastard son of John the seventh/eighth Earl [ b ~1286] by his concubine Maud de Nerford [b ~1292]. The only objection to this supposition is that the King, who was last in the Earl's settlement, entered, instead of Sir Edward, upon the lands settled on this Earl John de Warren's lawful male issue, (Watson, ii. 76- 77) [ The alleged birth dates invalidate this opinion unless Vincent meant the sixth/seventh Earl, but Maud was ~13 when he died aged ~74]

The second opinion is contained in the pedigree drawn up by Glover (Vincent's Cheshire, Coll. Arm.) which makes the said John (father of Sir Edward) a legitimate son of John sixth or seventh Earl Warren; and this account is varied by Sir John Borlase Warren's pedigree, which makes Sir Edward a legitimate son of the seventh/eighth Earl himself. (Ibid. 77- 80.)

The third opinion occurs in the Poynton pedigree, as drawn by Flower and Glover in 1580, viz. that Sir Edward was son of John, son of Sir John, son of William, which William was unquestionably son of Reginald de Warren, a younger brother of William the third Earl. An establishment of this hypothesis was the object with which Mr. Watson's History of the Warrens was written, and the result was an admirable account of the great Earls of that title, and of the family of the same name which settled at Poynton, each branch being severally traced and identified by every means which antiquarian research could supply; but with respect to the link between the families, to the two Johns de Warren who intervene in Glover’s pedigree between William, nephew of the third Earl, and Sir Edward, the ancestor of the Poynton branch, without which the identification the whole falls to the ground, it must be owned that the reader will only find (in pp. 88- 89, vol. ii.) the unsupported assertions of Glover repeated, without confirmation, or even an attempt at confirmation.


2.3 D2. There are several confusing reports about the identities of Earl John's children :


2.3 D2A. George Ormerod, History of the County Palatine and City Chester, E. J. Morten (Publishers), 1980. States "By Maud Nerford he had three sons and three daughters".


2.3 D2B. Another reference believed them to be:



D3. The descent of 34 SIR EDWARD DE WARENNE, Knt, of Booton, Skey(g)ton, Crostweyth, Fransham, and Rougham, Norfolk, as an illegitimate son of 34x John de Warren last (7th/8th) Earl of Surrey 1st Earl of Strathearn 1286- 1347 by his mistress, Matilda de Nerford, born 1316/23 is in doubt. Some claim that he was the son of 33 Sir Edward de Warren, ~ 1295 in Poynton, Cheshire. Various studies have examined this matter:

E.g.Censura Literaria, ART. II. Memoirs of the ancient Earls of Warren and Surrey, and their descendants to the present time. By the Rev. John. Watson, M. A. F. A. S. Late Fellow of Brazen Nose College in Oxford, and Rector of Stockport in Cheshire.


I have attempted to come to a conclusion by looking at:



D3A. HERALDRY


De Warrenne Arms deWARRENNE arms

Several authorities have attempted to resolve the descent of 34 Sir Edward by


Warren of Poynton WarrenPoynton Their Canton canton

NOTE the split tail in the canton.This could be seen as derived from the Mowbray Arms:

de Mowbray ArmsNOTE their split tail.


Glover et al Vis of Cheshire 1580, 1566. 1533 & 1591 HSP 18) (1882): 241- 243 (Warren pedigree: "Edward Warren = (Ciceley Elton [recte Eton]. Eedes Cheshire Peds (1882) 499 (Harleian MS 1424: fo.143, Harleian MS 1505: fo 147) (arms of Warren of Poynton. Checky or and azure, on a canton gules a lion rampant argent). 29 Reginald de Warren ~ 1113 married Aldalia de Mowbray . This connection is significant in that the de Mowbray coat of arms may have been used as a canton on the de Warren arms to distinguish descendants of Reginald from those of his cousin 29x William the 3rd Earl.

In 1572 the Ashwell Wallers were granted arms with a Bordure Ermine (to indicate bastardy, derivation from a source from long ago or a junior line) around the arms of the Poynton WarrensPoynton Warren

The Canton on the Waller Arms is the same as that on the arms of the Poynton Warrens (see above). It also could be seen as derived from the de Mowbray Arms:

canton on PoyntonNOTE the split tail.


1.The tail of the Warren of Poynton Arms is bifurcated as is that of the de Mowbray Arms.Therefore; our descent is more likely to be from 29 Reginald than 34x Earl John de Warren, last (7/8 th) Earl of Surrey 1s t Earl of Strathearn.


2.The line via Reginald is supported by the fact that there is no mention of Poynton in the genealogy via 34x Earl John ; whereas, that via 29 Reginald de Warren shows a John de Warren (32) born ~ 1264 who married a Joan de Port of Poynton. Furthermore Glover et al Vis of Cheshire 1580, 1566. 1533 & 1591 HSP 18) (1882) records

3. Note that the arms of the Poynton Warrens are without a Bordure Ermine (therefore not via bastardy or a junior line). It is likely, therefore, that 34 Sir Edward de Warrenne was legitimate. However no legitimate sons of 34x Earl John are recorded


4.Sir Edward did not inherit the Earl's lands.


CONCLUSION

These four factors make me accept that Sir Edward was a legitimate son of 33 Sir Edward de Warren b ~ 1295 Poynton, Cheshire as surmised in the Poynton pedigree, drawn by Flower and Glover in 1580.


ARMS OF WILLIAM WARREN WALLER:


waller



Cooke & St George Vis of Hertfordshire 1572, 1634 & 1946 (H.S.P 22) (1886). 134- 137 records the arms of 42 William Warren Waller of Ashwell as Chequy or (gold)and azure (blue), on a canton (a charge placed in the upper left- dexter- corner) gules (red) a lion rampant( i.e.The Warren Arms) within a bordure(border of) ermine . Because of the bifurcated tale, this canton can be interpreted as of de Mowbray. Thus supporting his descent via 29 Reginald, rather than 34x Earl John. However, Cooke and St George report that the whole coat is shown within an ermine bordure, which implies bastardy, reliance on an early ancestors arms, or a member of a very junior line. Therefore it is tempting to consider illegitimate descent from 34x Earl John but it could be at any birth before 42's and after that of 34 Sir Edward Warren because his Arms were recorded as having no Bordure Ermine. Thus it is unlikely that 34 Sir Edward Warren was an illegitimate son of 34x Earl John de Warren. The bastardy or lowly line could have come later. However, some genealogies claim a Matilda (Maud) de Nerford married 33 Sir Edward de Warren and that a lady of the same name was a mistress of 34x Earl John de Warren. If this marriage is true and 34 Sir Edward was a legitimate son of this de Nerford, his arms would carry a canton of Matilda (Maud)'s de Nerford family, which is: de Nrford no split in tail.


I have checked the arms carried by 34 Sir Edward and the canton is of de Mowbray: mowbray cantonNOTE the split tail.


There is an illustration of Isabelle de Warren dau of 32x John Plantagenet de Warren 6th Earl of Surrey at her marriage to John II Balliol King of Scotland that shows her wearing a dress bearing a coat of arms similar to a de Nerford canton on the de Warren arms. But, I believe this illustration is unlikely to be contemporaneous and may be much later, when it proves nothing. I have searched the arms of the families of all the Countesses from the 3rd to the 7/8 th and have found none similar to de Nerford. 30 William de Warren, a son of Reginald, when 30 was Keeper of Norwich Castle 1186- 1189, flew a de Warrenne Arms with a canton of his mother Aldalia de Mowbray and without a Bordure Ermine. If we accept the canton on later grants of Arms to Warren/Waller as that of de Mowbray. The presence upon them of a Bordure Ermine does not rule out descent from Reginald. Neither does it necessarily imply descent from a bastard of Earl John's. Bastardy, reliance on an early ancestor or Juniority could have arisen in any generation up to 42 William Warren Waller of Bassingbourn, Cambs, later Ashwell, Herts b~ 1525. I will show in 3. Options covering the time of the the Missing Link that 42 William Warren Waller was probably descended from Anthony Warren, the 4th and youngest son of 39 Sir Laurence Warren of Poynton. Therefore, 42 William Warren Waller's arms bear a Bordure Ermine to indicate descent from a Junior Line.


D3B PROPERTY


In 1346, 34 Sir Edward, who died that year, being ready to attend the king abroad, requested the Chancellor that he be discharged from the demand to find a man- at- arms for his lands in Norfolk. He seems to have been obliged to revert Skegton to the King, perhaps because he could not get a discharge for Skegton or he died. We know this because in 1346 Skegton had been acquired by or had reverted to the King, see ref, and was occupied by the Baynard family of Norfolk. His wife, Cecily, was living in 1352. 34 SIR EDWARD DE WARENNE was living in 1363, but presumably died in or before 1367/8, when his younger sons, William and Edward, released all their right to the manor of Booton. His wife, Cecily, died prior to 1369. Blomefield plainly shows that VCH Warwick 5 (1949): 144- 145 CP. 12(1) (1953). 511, footnote k incorrectly states that Skeyton, Norfolk was Matilda de Nerford's "inheritance." Blomefield states that a Matilda (Maud) de Nerford acquired the reversion of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk in 1323 by conveyance from Ralph de Skeyton, Knt. not by inheritance. But Blomefield may have confused the two Norfolk Mauds: Maud de Nerford from Nerford near Castle Acre (one of Earl John's properties)who may have been born in Skegton and Maud de Skegton a different woman who acquired Skegton (located among properties owned by the Reginald line) from her brother Sir Ralph de Ske(g)yton, Knt. There is no mention of Edward having acquired any de Nerford property, but this was never likely since Matilda had several brothers, one of whom, Thomas de Nerford , left issue a son and heir, John (see CP. 9 (1936): 469- 470 (sub Nerford); VCHSussex 7 (1940): 207 208).

A further examination of property may shed light on the origins of 34 Sir Edward.As already stated a Matilda (Maud) acquired the reversion of Skeyton and Booton, Norfolk in 1323 by conveyance from Sir Ralph de Ske(g)yton. If the acquirer was Matilda de Nerford "The Mistress", this may explain how she became known as Matilda (Maud) de Skegton or she may have been born in Skegton. Anyway this Maud became confused with Maud de Skegton daughter of Richard de Skegton. 34 Sir Edward de Warren born ~ 1321 was referred to, inter alia, as de Skegton but how and when did he acquire the reversion of the Skeg(y)ton property? From Maud de Skegton or from Maud de Nerford. In 1346 Skegton had been acquired by or had reverted to the King, see ref, and was tenanted by the Baynard family of Norfolk.


It is hard to understand why Matilda (Maud) de Nerford would have bought the reversion of Skegton (in 1323) because she and her natural children by Earl John were granted extensive properties by him in 1317, viz this entry . This makes me believe that Skegton was held by Sir Ralph de Skegton before 1323, acquired by Matilda de Skegton from 1323 after a conveyance from her brother Sir Ralph until she died before 1346 when it reverted to the King (Edward III) and a Baynard was the tenant. The later acquisition of the reversion by Sir Edward de Warren born ~1321 seems likely to be because his mother was the Matilda (Maud) who acquired it I.E. Maud de Skegton. Nevertheless, he seems to have lost it back to the King possibly because he reverted it to get out of or to reduce a demand to find men- at- arms as a result of his Norfolk properties.


D4. POSSIBLE MARRIAGE OR COHABITATION I now investigate the possibility that Matilda (Maud) de Nerford was married off to 33 Sir Edward de Warren or that Maud de Skegton was a mistress of Earl John.

It is just possible that de Nerford was married off to 33 Sir Edward de Warren, to disguise the bastardy of 34 Sir Edward de Warren. However it is reported (see above) that de Nerford was married to her long term lover 34x John de Warren, last (7/8 th) Earl of Surrey 1st Earl of Strathearn after his wife Joan died in 1361, but this must be a fiction since Earl John died in 1347, so 34 Sir Edward born ~1321 could not be a product of any such marriage between Earl John and de Nerford. It remains, therefore, that she might have been married off to 33 Sir Edward de Warren, born ~ 1281 at any time and given him a son or had him adopt a bastard Edward from her cohabitation with 34x Earl John sometime before she died in 1360. We shall never know without genetic tests.

Earl John seems to have had a natural son named Sir Edward who was bequeathed ?5 in Earl John's will. It is also conceivable that Maud de Skegton, wife of 33 Sir Edward de Warren, numbered amongst Earl John's many women and that she bore him a son 34 Sir Edward de Warren [the population of nobility was quite small in the 14th century and Earl John spent much time fighting in Lancashire, just north of Poynton in Cheshire]. If so this child appears to have been passed off as 33 Sir Edward's.


D5. CONCLUSIONS On the evidence outlined above, I am inclined to believe that:



2.4 That the Vicomtes de Thouars are descended from 17 Bouchard de Fezensac. I followed the descent given in
http://helenesgenes.coman often quoted version of the Plantagenet family line.

2.5  That the Wallers of the Royston, Herts, area were descended from the Warrens of Poynton, Cheshire. Please see Note 3 immediately below.


3.Options covering the time of The Missing Link   An investigation relevant to deciding if the Wallers of the Royston, Herts, area were descended from the Warrens of Poynton, Cheshire.
I believe (admittedy from only one record) that 39x Sir Laurence had a youngest son 40xd Anthony who was stricken from Laurences will and genealogies derived from this will; probably because he had favoured the protestant movement.Please see Note 2 and also Note3, This deduction is supported by the fact that Anthony's son  41xda William was very probably a Dissenter.

40xd Anthony Warren
b ~1467 Claybury, Essex,
m Margaret Leigh
d 1557  Bassingbourn, Cambs

son

41xda  William Warren the first to assume the alias Waller
b ~1482? Bassingbourn
d 1567 Combs, Suffolk , that had many Dissenters. The Puritan Movement was founded around 1558 as Elizabeth came to the throne. Most Dissenter sects are now part of the United Reformed Churches. This first "alias Waller" and his children are not listed in most Warren genealogies; hence the family tale of a "missing link". I think it likely that this happened because he broke with his father's family (the Poynton Warrens). This is indicated by the fact that his much younger brother 41xdb Richard Warren got some of the Warren inheritance, as indicated by Richard's daughter being described as an heiress. One of the following reasons is a likely cause of the break:
1. He had become a member of the Protestant Movement (Henry VIII 1509-1547)  and changed his commonly used name (alias) to Waller. ( The Kentish branch of this family were prominent Presbyterians). He  probably  becoming a Dissenter. He died in a well known dissenter village (Combs in Suffolk);
2. His father's will had been written after this son had received his inheritance by a Deed of Conveyance.
3. He may have been stricken from his Yorkist and  father's Will because he became a Lancastrian.
4. Genealogical error (he was not a son of 40xd Anthony Warren.)

5. He was illegitimate, this  may be the cause of the Arms of some of his descendants having a Bordure Ermine.

Note: The later grant of arms is within a   Bordure Ermine that can be used to indicate a junior line, this supports descent from Anthony the youngest son.



back to top