Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Viking FGC23343

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    . . . *Dorsetshire=1,024 square miles
    Jersey=46 square miles, or ~1/22 the size of Dorset

    Dorsetshire=183,371 total population, Vincent= 0.19%
    Jersey=52,455 total population, Vincent=0.28%



    So I guess the DENSITY of the surname Vincent in 1881, within Britain & Crown dependencies, probably reached its overall peak in Jersey.
    I was just kind of eye-balling it from queries at FamilySearch.org then. But now I see that there is actually a free historical mapping utility, customizable on several criteria, including frequency, to get a more objective view. From Forebears.io:

    https://forebears.io/surnames/vincent

    So in 1881, Jersey was actually # 4 in terms of frequency of the surname Vincent, behind Dorset, Cornwall & (surprisingly) Norfolk, in descending order. It was actually a pretty closely run competition between Jersey & Norfolk, but overall the distribution is clear--heavily westcountry. Maybe not a surprise. Recruitment of early settlers for Virginia focused on this region.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
      I was just kind of eye-balling it from queries at FamilySearch.org then. But now I see that there is actually a free historical mapping utility, customizable on several criteria, including frequency, to get a more objective view. From Forebears.io . . .

      Also just noticed this, which may possibly be useful in reaching towards an explanation of the Dumfriesshire tradition of the FGC23343+ Vincents:

      https://forebears.io/surnames/pool

      I think the wife of the earliest known male ancestor was Rosanna Pool(e).

      Mapped by frequency, the surname Pool(e) was, in 1881, by far and away most common in Dumfriesshire, practically the only place it entered into the top 200 surnames by rank (i.e., rank 103 Dumfriesshire, next place being rank 295 in nearby Bute).

      The birthplace normally attributed to Rosanna, Hamburg, never felt right to me. Significant migration from that region of Germany only seems to have begun in the mid 19th century, although I admit exceptions are always possible, and it only takes one.
      Last edited by benowicz; 25th August 2018, 10:44 PM.

      Comment


      • As an alternate hypothesis re: the origin of the FGC23343+ Vincents, if they were not directly from Jersey, given the evidence around subclade FGC28370, another good candidate MIGHT be the family of Braithwell, Yorkshire. I mean, if it is a gentry family, the Braithwell family might be the best candidate.

        Just on the basis of drawing a line from the patronage networks of the Conqueror's generation. I haven't seen any documents suggesting that any went to colonial Virginia in particular.

        http://opendomesday.org/place/SK5294/braithwell/

        From what I understand, there is no evidence of the Braithwell Vincents before ~1340, but in 1086, Braithwell belonged to William de Warrenne, whose mother was apparently a close relation to the Duchess Gunnor--and therefore had strong connections, and possibly estates, in what is now the Manche department, where the fitz Gerards & Doreys roots appear to lie. I mean, I haven't seen that de Warenne had estates in Manche, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willia...Earl_of_Surrey

        This William de Warenne was married to a daughter of the first Norman earl of Chester, so that may tie the Braithwell Vincents closer to the fitz Gerards, who were vassals to the earls of Chester--although it seems like the Fitz Gerards' vassalage started under the NEXT line of Earls of Chester, NOT Gerbod the Fleming, whose tenure was very short.

        https://books.google.com/books?id=Fq...ugh%22&f=false

        This line of gentry Vincents appears to be entirely different from the family of Swinford, Leicestershire, who are discussed in Sean's earlier link.

        http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...&postcount=118

        The Braithwell family is also the one whose daughter married Lord Carnwath, many of whose estates lay in Dumfriesshire, although I tend to doubt any Vincents settled there, if even he himself spent much time there.

        So I guess what I am saying is that POSSIBLY, just possibly, the fitz Gerards, Doreys and Vincents all share a common ancestor from the Montebourg area of Manche, some of whom went to the isle of Jersey, some of whom went to England in the retinue of the (2nd) Earl of Chester, and some of whom went to England in the retinue of William de Warenne.

        The 111 marker comparison of the Vincents vs. the fitz Gerards returns an average MRCA of around 1040 A.D. at the 50% confidence level. Per McGee's Y Utility, anyhow. So this sounds possible.

        I have questions about mutation rates, etc. that I think can only be resolved by identifying the SNPs separating the Basque, Vendee, Jersey, Scottish & fitz Gerard branches of FGC23343, but that's probably not happening any time soon.

        I guess the evidence is just too thin to have much confidence at this stage. There's a 200 year gap between the William de Warenne and the earliest recorded Braithwell Vincent, and not even a specific hypothetical ancestor to bridge the gap.

        The most conservative hypothesis would probably be to assume that the FGC23343+ Vincents came to Virginia directly from the isle of Jersey. But this Braithwell thing may be a plausible alternative, one that there might be a documentary trail to research, if only one dug deep enough & got lucky.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
          . . . Just on the basis of drawing a line from the patronage networks of the Conqueror's generation. I haven't seen any documents suggesting that any went to colonial Virginia in particular.

          http://opendomesday.org/place/SK5294/braithwell/

          From what I understand, there is no evidence of the Braithwell Vincents before ~1340, but in 1086, Braithwell belonged to William de Warrenne, whose mother was apparently a close relation to the Duchess Gunnor--and therefore had strong connections, and possibly estates, in what is now the Manche department, where the fitz Gerards & Doreys roots appear to lie. I mean, I haven't seen that de Warenne had estates in Manche, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.
          . . .
          Actually, the retinue of William de Percy may be an even better possibility. He was DEFINITELY from the Cotentin, and worked closely (if he was not related directly by blood) with the line of Earls of Chester of whom the fitz Gerards were vassals. And he had property in Braithwell also.

          http://opendomesday.org/place/SK5294/braithwell/

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Percy

          Percy derived his name from a fief IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT to La Columbe--a fortress of the Viscounts of Saint Sauveur whom I hypothesize as ancestors of the fitz Gerards. See the map on page 10 of the linked article, and the map locating Percy directly below.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=ck...ortain&f=false

          https://www.wikimanche.fr/Percy-en-Normandie

          Plus, William de Percy married into the de Gan(t/d) family--which William fitz Nigel, whom I hypothesize as an ancestor of the fitz Gerards, did as well. Page 2 of the following link.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=70...20Gant&f=false

          Yeah. The de Percy link makes MUCH more sense. If only there were more robust documentation of the origins of the Virginia Vincents.
          Last edited by benowicz; 27th August 2018, 08:13 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
            Actually, the retinue of William de Percy may be an even better possibility. He was DEFINITELY from the Cotentin . . . Percy derived his name from a fief IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT to La Columbe--a fortress of the Viscounts of Saint Sauveur whom I hypothesize as ancestors of the fitz Gerards. . .
            Actually, that article says that Neel de Sain Sauveur was LORD of Percy in 1080.



            "En 1080, Néel II, vicomte de Saint-Sauveur, détient la seigneurie de Percy. À cette date, Percy possède au moins deux églises, le texte d'une charte dit en effet : Nigellus, vicecomes, ...... dedit in Perceio eadem abbatiae ecclesias cum decimis earumdem. Le vicomte Néel...... a donné à Percy à cette même abbaye (de Saint-Sauveur) des églises avec leurs dîmes elles-mêmes."

            https://www.wikimanche.fr/Percy-en-Normandie


            If this is a coincidence, it's a very shocking one. I mean, maybe it shouldn't be, given how small the coterie of Norman lords of the Conquest generation were. But I am shocked.

            Comment


            • 1. Apparently, the recognized male line of the first Percy barons of Topcliffe is thought to have daughtered out as early as the 12th century. The name survived through female line descendants who assumed it, a common enough practice.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Percy

              2. The earliest known Vincents of Braithwell (apparently a branch of a family located earlier at Great Smeaton) were intimates of those female-line Percys, charging members of those families to hold property in trust for the Vincents in 1450.

              https://books.google.com/books?id=Bt...ton%22&f=false

              3. The connection of the Vincents of Braithwell to Scotland goes back a very long time. The wife of Marmaduke Vincent of Great Smeaton was a sister of the wife of John Knox, the Scottish reformer. Per the notes to the transcription of the will of their father, Richard Bowes of South Cowton, Yorkshire, dated 1558. Page 118.

              https://archive.org/stream/willsandi...ngoog_djvu.txt

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Knox

              4. That 1558 will mentions an illegitimate son, Ralph Vincent. Could this represent the founder of the Dumfriesshire, Scotland branch mentioned by Sean's tradition?

              I mentioned my doubts about that Scottish tradition in an earlier post, noting that in the 1841 census, there was only one fellow surnamed Vincent born before 1800 in Scotland. That said, he was living at Cavers, Roxburghshire, near the border with Dumfriesshire.

              Just thoughts. Still seems like a long shot. There isn't a robust documentary record with continuity, like the Edgeworths & Garnetts. But maybe not as wild a proposition as I first thought.

              Comment


              • There is definitely something to work with here, though it will definitely take a while. Hope it pans out. If nothing else, it brings two more powerful pieces of circumstantial evidence to support the idea that the fitz Nigel barons of Halton were cadets of the Viscounts of Saint Sauveur.
                Attached Files

                Comment


                • Just remembered. There is a 3rd new piece of evidence connecting the Percys & fitz Nigels together.

                  1. Intermarriage with the de Gant family

                  2. Vassals of Earl of Chester

                  3. Heraldic motifs (i.e., conjoined fusils, in fess or pale)

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_(barony)

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Percy

                  Actually, this may also apply to the barons D'aubeney, who were at least in-laws, if not agnatic cousins, of the d'Aubigny family of d'Aubigny-St. Martin, whose earliest ancestors were from the Cotentin peninsula and also used the name Neel (aka 'Nigel', in Latin).

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_...Baron_Daubeney

                  Essentially identical arms were assumed by the de Carteret family of Jersey to commemorate their descent from a daughter of the Daubeneys.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carteret

                  Comment


                  • I'm glad I went through all that stuff about Braithwell & the Percys. It has provided more circumstantial evidence supporting my theory about the fitz Nigel barons of Halton descending from the Viscounts of Saint Sauveur.

                    But I think it was just a coincidence, with regard to explaining the FGC23343+ Vincents' connection to the FGC28370+ folks. As far as I can tell, the Vincents' interest in Braithwell dated no early than a lease in 1427. And I've found probably a much more plausible, researchable link than the Percys: The Constable family of Everingham.

                    As I discussed in an earlier post, there seems to be quite a bit of good documentary basis to conclude that the Constable family of Flamborough, and their cadets at Everingham, were descendants of William, son of William fitz Nigel.

                    http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...6&postcount=86

                    Now it turns out that the Vincents of Great Smeaton, Yorkshire were relatives of the Everinghams. I have to nail down the precise original sources for these pedigrees, but it seems that around 1540, a John or Richard Vincent of Great Smeaton married Eleanor Crathorne of Crathorne, whose brother, Thomas, married an Everingham Constable.

                    https://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/b...rne01.php#dau2

                    https://books.google.com/books?id=9U...rne%22&f=false

                    It looks as though the Crathornes married with the Constables on at least two other occasions, and their home, Crathorne was fairly close to Great Smeaton--9 miles. So there must have been a good deal of familiarity among all of this extended family.

                    Maybe without even realizing it, we actually have gotten a Y DNA test from one of the Constable family.

                    I never would even have considered this possibility if a handful of the FGC28370+ folks and Vincent hadn't all expanded their STR profiles to 111 markers. Using the infinite allele model--there's one weird multi-step discrepancy--and the mutation rate implied by McGee's Y Utility, I get something like a 45% confidence level that the MRCA was born about 1040 A.D., which seems pretty fair to me.

                    I hope they discover some reliable SNPs between FGC23343 and FGC28370 so that this theory can be definitively tested one day.

                    Comment


                    • Just to establish the record, the documented male line of the Vincents of Great Smeaton, parent house of the Vincents of Braithwell, goes no further back than William Vincent (1373-1444). There have been attempts to take them back further, but they are not supported by documentation, and, in fact, seem to be counter-indicated by the actual historical record.

                      https://barninghamvillage.co.uk/wp-c...ive-25-pdf.pdf

                      However, I think I may have come a little bit closer. Just as speculation, but informed speculation, I think they may descend from a fellow named Vincent of Thirsk, son of Wigot, who died in the late 12th or early 13th century. There are a number of references to his family in property transactions documented in charters held by Durham University.

                      http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId...1gb19f580q.xml

                      http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId...1vh53wv76d.xml


                      Wigot is a Saxon name. So either my earlier theories deriving FGC28370+ fitz Gerard families to a Norman origin is wrong, or, more likely, either I am wrong to derive the FGC23343+ Vincents from the family of Great Smeaton, or there was an NPE in the Great Smeaton family, perhaps involving the de Percy or Constable of Everingham families, who were connected to the Great Smeaton family through marriage.

                      I searched the parish histories for all the places mentioned within the land holdings of the Vincents of Great Smeaton for any hint of a Norman origin for them, and I just couldn't find it. In the 15th century, their holdings included places running from the Richmond area down to the Thirsk area. There is no mention of anyone called Vincent before their tenure, which I assumed was generally by lease at some point in the 1400s or late 1300s. The only place I could see that they held in fee was 'Brunton' aka 'Patrick Brompton', which they must have acquired by marriage from the Conyers family, yet another connection to the Constables of Everingham.

                      https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...vol1/pp332-340


                      Looking again over the 1841 census records, I see that the name Vincent is very rare outside of the southern, coastal counties. There are a handful of Yorkshire-born Vincents from the Leeds area, considerably south of Thirsk, but by-and-large, in the north, people surnamed Vincent surname appear to be recent arrivals from the south in just about all cases. So either those Leeds people were descendants of the Great Smeaton family, or the Great Smeaton family had died out or all emigrated.

                      I know that the Shenandoah Valley is famous for its 18th century immigration from Ireland and the border country. Maybe some collateral lines of the FGC23343+ Vincents, like the Pooles, were from that part of Britain. But on balance, it's looking like the Vincents themselves came either out of an NPE with the de Percy or Constable families, or were simply an un-representative example of immigration from the south, or Channel Islands.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                        Just to establish the record, the documented male line of the Vincents of Great Smeaton. . . The only place I could see that they held in fee was 'Brunton' aka 'Patrick Brompton' . . .

                        https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...vol1/pp332-340

                        Hmmm. Wonder if I got that wrong. There were a couple of similarly named places in the Richmondshire area, and another one is considerably closer to Great Smeaton (i.e., 6 miles vs. 18 miles).

                        https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...vol2/pp424-430


                        It's very interesting because parts of it were held by several branches of the fitz Nigel family mentioned previously--Eustace Fitz John, the Vesceys, etc. Even the Percys owned bits of it. However, most, if not all of these Percys are of the de Louvain line, not agnatic descendants of the 1st baron Topcliffe.

                        http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...&postcount=142

                        https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...h/vol2/pp70-80

                        Of course, the Conyers appear here again, so that is probably how the Vincents acquired their lands here--if this is indeed the correct 'Brunton'.

                        HOWEVER, there is the mention of a different branch of the de Percys at Sawdon manor in this parish. Although they seem to have been divested of their interest in Sawdon in the 13th century, well before the appearance of the first Vincent of Great Smeaton, they do appear to have been of the original de Percy stock I trace to the Viscounts of Saint Sauveur. Their earliest ancestor was one Picot de Percy, possibly a brother of William, 1st baron of Topcliffe.

                        https://books.google.com/books?id=Ek...rcy%22&f=false

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                          Hmmm. Wonder if I got that wrong. There were a couple of similarly named places in the Richmondshire area, and another one is considerably closer to Great Smeaton (i.e., 6 miles vs. 18 miles).

                          https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...vol2/pp424-430
                          Yeah, it is this 2nd place. Appears as "Brompton juxta Alverton" (i.e., Northallerton) in a 1450 record of the family.

                          https://books.google.com/books?id=tP...aux%22&f=false

                          That is nearly a century before the Conyers marriage I keep talking about.

                          https://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/b...v/vincent3.php

                          So maybe there was a de Percy/Vincent NPE after all. It's complicated by the fact that there isn't clear documentation of the descent of their interest in Sawdon. But the fact that this particular place has been identified as the earliest holding-in-fee of the Vincent family is uncanny.

                          Just as a side note here, the arms of the Great Smeaton/Braithwell Vincents could be interpreted as a variation on the arms of the de Ayton family who held the main manor in this parish, just with a difference of color. The de Aytons were the ones who married into the de Louvain branch of the de Percys (i.e., NOT the ones I want).

                          https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...vol2/pp424-430

                          https://books.google.com/books?id=Fq...aywell&f=false

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
                            Yeah, it is this 2nd place. . . So maybe there was a de Percy/Vincent NPE after all. It's complicated by the fact that there isn't clear documentation of the descent of their interest in Sawdon. But the fact that this particular place has been identified as the earliest holding-in-fee of the Vincent family is uncanny. . .
                            >Sigh< Not the smoking gun I was hoping for.

                            The references to 'Brunton' or 'Brompton juxta Alverton' in the Vincent family's wills are indeed to the manor of Sawdon near Northallerton, but not in a way that advances the de Percy NPE hypothesis.

                            It turns out that some of the pedigrees I'd been using for William Vincent's 2nd wife, Margaret Clervaux, were incorrect on one very important point--her great grandfather was Sir John de Mauliverer of Allerton, and the William 'de Mesnehermer' within this parish history of Brompton is an obvious typo for 'de Mauliverer'.

                            http://www.stirnet.co.uk/genie/data/.../clervaux1.php

                            https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...vol2/pp424-430

                            William Vincent's 1450 testamentary trust mentions a reversionary interest in Brompton, meaning that it was not yet (as it would become by 1558) a fee simple holding of the family. Brompton was almost certainly, like Great Smeaton itself, part of Margaret Clervaux' dowry, and therefore no particular indication of a close association between the Vincents and the de Percys. The reversionary interest to the heirs of John 'Synflete' [s/b 'Swinefleet'?] must have expired in the meantime, most likely due to the extinction of that family.

                            https://books.google.com/books?id=tP...aux%22&f=false

                            There are a lot of places mentioned in that 1450 document, but unfortunately, I couldn't find much that suggested the origins of the Vincent family. The richest information all seemed to relate to the Clervaux family.

                            -Atelaucouton [???]
                            -South Kilvington [near Thirsk--like the family of Vincent, son of Wigot?]
                            -Barningham [near Richmond, like Margaret Clervaux's mother?]
                            -Shetesby [???]
                            -Whitewell [???]
                            -Great Cowton [definitely another Clervaux inheritance]
                            -Great Smeaton [explicitly a Clervaux inheritance; reversionary interest seems to have been bought out or otherwise extinguished only in 1543]
                            -Brompton [just discussed, a Mauliverer inheritance through the Clervaux family]
                            -Carlton
                            -Richmond [almost certainly part of the Clervaux inheritance]


                            So far, it seems like a pretty one-sided marriage, with Margaret Clervaux bringing in all the serious property.

                            Comment


                            • Okay, here's another shot. It may pay off.

                              1. It seems that the gentry family of Vincent of Great Smeaton did indeed have connections to colonial Virginia in the late 1600's. Margaret, daughter of Marmaduke Smeaton of Great Smeaton, married Joseph Peyton, brother of Sir Edward Peyton, in 1674. Their nephew, Robert Peyton, settled in Gloucester Co., VA.

                              https://books.google.com/books?id=IJ...meaton&f=false


                              2. The pedigree of these Vincents is a bit complicated, because it looks as though the estate of Great Smeaton had passed through an heiress to the totally unrelated family of same name living at Swinford, Leicestershire. So, genealogically speaking, Margaret Vincent Peyton was of the Swinford family in the direct male line, her mother being of the so-called Great Smeaton line.

                              The direct male line of the original Great Smeaton Vincents survived in a cadet branch living at Braithwell, Yorkshire, and a branch descended from an illegitimate son, Rev. Ralph Vincent, who became rector of Great Smeaton.

                              https://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/b...ent3.php#link1

                              3. So it's not hard to imagine this encouraging a chain migration to colonial Virginia that included direct male line descendants of BOTH gentry Vincent families.

                              4. There is a curious editor's note in the a Massachusetts Historical Society publication that may suggest that there was a known NPE in the line of the Great Smeaton Vincents that could lead back to William fitz Nigel, whom I have hypothesized, with good evidence, I think, as the ancestor of several FGC28370+ donors through the Gerard family of Ince, Co. Lancashire.

                              https://books.google.com/books?id=jn...incent&f=false

                              Page 88 describes a formal grant of arms to a member of the Braithwell branch of the Vincent family. It directly cites the curious fact that the arms he was granted do NOT match those of the established Braithwell family (i.e., argent two bars gules, a canton of the 2nd charged with a trefoil of the first). Rather, they are supposed to be those of a Coleby family.

                              This is interesting for three reasons:

                              a. If true, it seems to be inconsistent with the claims I have seen in various books on the Colby surname that they are all of one stock. The arms described by the MHS book do not match ANY of those described in Burke's general armory, and definitely not those of the family of Norfolk, upon whom most Colby genealogist fixate. Pages 213 & 214.

                              https://archive.org/stream/generalar...e/212/mode/2up

                              There definitely were Colebys in the Richmondshire area where these particular Vincents lived, but I can't find anything on them before the 1600s. But I don't really know if the author of that MHS article is correct in attributing the arms granted to a family named Coleby. His claim that the Vincents obtained Great Smeaton from the Colebys seems to be wrong, given that we've already seen some documents from the 1400s showing it as an inheritance from the Clervaux family, whose arms were also very different than those quoted in the MHS publication. Page 203 of the Burke's edition linked above.

                              Maybe I shouldn't focus too much on how Great Smeaton was acquired. First of all, the documents I've shown from the 1400s show that Great Smeaton was acquired from William Vincent's 2nd marriage, to a Clervaux, whereas the Braithwell branch of the family were descended from William's 1st marriage. Maybe the MHS author meant to indicate that the Vincent family had an independent interest in Smeaton BEFORE the 2nd marriage. That's possible. In no case does it look as if the Vincents ever acquired the whole parish.

                              In any event, the Braithwells were (allegedly) of the same direct male line as Rev. Ralph Vincent, rector of Great Smeaton, who I believe would have been the prime candidate as hypothetical ancestor of the FGC23343+ Vincent donor.

                              b. There was a gentry family named 'de Coleby', who held a manor called Coleby, in Lincolnshire in 1271. They had certainly been established there for a long time, but there is no indication how long ago.

                              https://books.google.com/books?id=9Y...nshire&f=false

                              c. Although there are two different places called Coleby in Lincolnshire, so I cannot be certain that I'm looking at the correct place, one of them contained a 2nd manor called West Halton whose lord was William fitz Nigel during the Domesday Book. The head manor here was called Coleby, but the 2nd manor was West Halton.

                              http://opendomesday.org/place/SE8919/coleby/

                              This has to be the same William fitz Nigel I've been talking about elsewhere. His immediate overlord was the Earl of Chester, and the place was named 'West Halton', after all, like his barony in Cheshire.

                              So now, understanding the changes in ownership of West Halton, and the descent of the Lincolnshire Colebys would be very useful.

                              Comment


                              • Maybe it will turn out to be relevant that the person named as heir-in-remainder to Brompton [juxta Alverton] in 1450 was named John 'Synflete'. 'Swinefleet' is a place not very far from West Halton/Coleby, about 8 miles as the crow flies, both of them being on the south side of the Humber/Ouse rivers. That name doesn't pop up in any version of the Clervaux pedigrees I've seen to date. Maybe William Vincent had an otherwise unattested son-in-law named Swinefleet, or he had an interest in Brompton independent of the Clervaux family.

                                http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...&postcount=148

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X