The Duchess of Cambridge: Another unsuccessful attempt to link her to "noble" blood

This is just getting rather sad. The Daily Mail refuses to give up on finding possible "royal/noble" blood when it comes to the Duchess of Cambridge. The Daily Mail had previously put out a few years back that Kate or Catherine Middleton is a descendant of Mary Boleyn, sister of Queen Anne Boleyn. This however has been disproven by professional genealogists who have been researching her genealogy for years now. (Wargs.com)

The latest attempt on 16 December 2012 to link her to "noble" blood (which the Daily Mail is incorrectly calling her ancestors) shows a link to a supposed second cousin, 3x removed; Barbara Lupton. The study was done by school children. "Pupils in Melbourne, Australia, stumbled across the link during a genealogy project set by their teacher Michael Reed." So how factually correct this all is -- we have no idea because once again, the Daily Mail, has NO sources as to where the information came from exactly! Just word of mouth!

What exactly is the obsession to link her to noble/royal blood? She is a commoner through and through.

According to the Daily Mail:

The teacher contacted Edward, the surviving son of Sir Christopher and Lady Bullock who confirmed the connection.

He also sent his findings to the Duchess, who thanked him for the research.

Her assistant private secretary Rebecca Deacon wrote back on October 19, in the early stages of Kate's pregnancy, that the Duchess sent her best wishes and thanks to the teacher.

Mr Reed told The Sunday Times: 'It is a good feeling to know that I've unearthed something that may be of interest to the Duchess, her family and the Royal family.'

He traced the Duchess's family line back five generations to the Marquess of Lansdowne and his brother Thomas FitzMaurice who lived at the Buckinghamshire stately home Cliveden with his wife Mary, 4th Countess of Orkney in the late 18th century.

William Bortrick, the chairman of Burke's Peerage, said it will make an 'interesting inclusion' in the next edition of the guide, which will be published after the Duchess gives birth.

Ok, let's get this correct. She is linked to them -- related by marriage -- she DOES NOT descend from them or have any blood connection to them so that means there is no noble blood involved. Olive Lupton, Kate's great-grandmother, is a 2nd cousin (distant relation for these days) of Barbara Lupton who married Sir Christopher Bullock. So these are not ancestors.

Ancestors: are those people you directly descend from, not extended family members! An ancestor or forebear is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth). Ancestor is "any person from whom one is descended. In law the person from whom an estate has been inherited."

The ancestry here, according to the chart above is that of Bullocks father, The Rev. L. Bullock [full name not written out] who married Cecil Augusta Spearman. The connections come from Spearman's family, NOT the Lupton's OR Bullock's! So, the Duchess of Cambridge IS NOT related at all to these previous ancestors of Spearman as two marriages remove the Duchess's distant cousin from the actual family from which these notable people descend. She is only related to the children of Sir Christopher Bullock and Barbara Lupton -- Richard Henry Bullock and Edward Anthony Bullock.

The Prime Minister and Marquess of Lansdowne, William Petty FitzMaurice isn't even an ancestor of the Spearman's or the Duchess's cousin's (Richard and Edward Bullock), but rather a great-uncle of Thomas FitzMaurice, 5th Earl of Orkney (maternal grandfather of Cecil Augusta Spearman). The Marquess was a brother to Thomas FitzMaurice, the husband of Mary, suo jure 4th Countess of Orkney. So again, I applaud the Daily Mail at twisting the truth -- which is far from these conclusions.

As of right now, Kate's lineage only links her back to Edward III of England as an ancestor through a Sir William Fairfax (b. circa 1496). Sir William was the son of Sir Thomas Fairfax (b. circa 1475) and Agnes Gascoigne (b. circa 1474); herself the daughter of Sir William Gascoigne (b. circa 1450) and Lady Margaret Percy (b. circa 1447). By William Fairfax, she descends from Edward III thrice.

Sir William descends from Edward III by the king's granddaughter Lady Joan Beaufort's first marriage to Lord Ferrers. Their daughter Mary married to her step-brother, Sir Ralph Neville, son of Sir Ralph Neville (later 1st Earl of Westmorland) by his first wife, Lady Margaret Stafford. Sir Ralph would go on to marry Lady Joan Beaufort after the death of Margaret Stafford.

Lady Margaret Percy also descends from Edward III by her paternal grandparents, Sir Henry Percy, 2nd Earl of Northumberland and Lady Eleanor Neville. Percy was a great-grandson of Prince Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence, son of Edward III. Eleanor Neville was another daughter of Lady Joan Beaufort by her second marriage to Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland.

However -- Croft's Peerage -- has put this up on their site...

A descent from Sir William Gascoigne V is one of the commonest "royal descents" in both Britain and the United States. The New England Historic Genealogical Society has estimated that up to 50 million Americans can trace their ancestry back to King Edward III. All of these people are related (albeit very distantly) to the Duke of Cambridge and possibly to the Duchess.

This purported Royal descent depends on the correct identification of the Duchess of Cambridge's Fairfax ancestors. Anthony Adolph ("The Fairfax Ancestry of the Duchess of Cambridge - A Correction" Genealogists' Magazine Vol 30 No 10 Jun 2012 page 407) casts a critical eye on this line of descent and finds that the Fairfaxes of Norwich are unlikely to be descended from the Fairfaxes of Walton and Gilling, thus making the Duchess of Cambridge's connections to royalty through her Fairfax ancestry "probable" at best.[4]

Sources:

1. WARGS.COM: Ancestry of Catherine Middleton
2. Douglas Richardson. "Magna Carta Ancestry, 2nd edition, 2011.
3. Douglas Richardson. "Plantagenet Ancestry," 2nd edition, 2011.
4. Croft's Peerage: Kate Middleton

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249023/Kate-Middleton-New-study-reveals-Duchesss-links-earls-countesses-Prime-Minister.html#ixzz2FGHhhoV7

Ancestry of Kate [Catherine] Middleton - debunked

These rumors are solely based on a few articles which do not refer to reliable sources. Even in that Reitweisner page there are self-published books trying to confirm this lineage and for the Fairfax lineage there is only one book, a family memoirs book called The Suffolk Bartholomeans : a memoir of the ministerial and domestic history of John Meadows.

William Fairfax, son of Thomas and Anne Gascoigne -- Apparently his name is listed in the Douglas Richardson 'Plantagenet Ancestry' book which is online -- but it stops there. There is also no date of birth or death and no wife listed on Reitwiesner's page. When you try to search for this guy nothing comes up, just says that he was the twin of Sir Nicholas. Only two sources list him, Crofts Peerage, which claims that he got married and had issue.. but there are no names of the wife or children -- Reitwiesner's site which goes on to say that William had a son named William who married Lucy Goodman.. cannot be validated. The only source for it is what he posted: The Suffolk Bartholomeans : a memoir of the ministerial and domestic history of John Meadows which is a self-published memoir about John Meadows and is thus the only source for it which can only be accessed through ancestry.com or by going to a library. Alas many sites including Stirnet are not concluding whether this information is correct or not until further research is done. On one of the wikipedia pages about a Thomas Fairfax it clearly states at the bottom under sources, within in the source, 'A guess but most likely within the link to the Reitwiesner's page". Apparently this info is true according to Reitweisner and a book is being published. A book on Kate Middleton's ancestry? Why and who paid for it; her parents?

Also this most recent news about her being connected to royalty is rubbish as it was put out by newspapers and magazines. There is no official source for it. This is the only source which shows the direct lineage, an article from the Daily Mail [1]. Those who use the official books which were written over a decade ago such as Burke's Peerage know that her supposed ancestor William Davenport and Grace Alloway are NOT listed anywhere except for those newspapers, etc just put out. Also the question to ask is why would this information just come out AFTER the engagement when for 8 or 9 years people have had access to every possible source and information about the family?

This claim that William Davenport was a son of Elizabeth Talbot and Henry Davenport is not proven to be correct. Even the Reitwiesner page which is not authoritative argues this is not correct due to people just trying to link whomever without correct sources. The page states that a correspondent "concludes that insufficient evidence exists to establish such a connection beyond a reasonable doubt." Recent additions to the page state that it has been DISPROVEN. In the article from the Dail Mail it states the Kate is a descendant of Elizabeth Knollys by Sir Thomas Leighton, their daughter Elizabeth Leighton married a Sherrington Talbot; their son Sherrington Talbot married a Jane Lyttelton -- this is ALL correct up to this point.. then it goes off with some undocumented names that don't seem to add up as they are not mentioned in both of the sources below and others. In the Daily Mail article it then goes on to state that their supposed daughter Elizabeth Talbot marries a William Davenport. Crofts Peerage's Sherrington Talbot who married Jane Lyttelton doesn't even mention an Elizabeth Talbot who married a William Davenport. The same goes for the book Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 838. But then if you go over to Burke's Peerage here Burke's Peerage there is a mention of an Elizabeth Talbot, daughter of a Sharington Talbot, but there is NO mother and NO mention of that Elizabeth Talbot who married Henry Davenport ever having a William Davenport that went on to marry a Grace Alloway and it only states:

"Henry Davenport Esq who m 82 Oct 1665 Elizabeth dau of Sharington Talbot Esq of Lacock co Wilts and d. in July 1698 leaving with other daus who died unmarried, a dau Mary m 1st to the Rev William Hallifax DD who rf in 1720 and 2ndly to the Rev Prideaux Sutton of Itreedon co Worcester and two sons Sharington the elder a major general in the army who rf unm in Ireland 5 July 1719 and Henry Davenport Esq baptized 26 Feb 1677 8 who m 1st Mary Lucy dau of Daniel Charden Esq and had by her a son Sharington of whom presently and two daus Mary Elizabeth m to John Mytton Esq of Halftone and Mary Luce rf unm Mr Davenport m 2ndly Barbara second dau of Sir John Ivory of Ireland by Aline his wife dan of Sir John Talbot of Lacock co Wilts and by her who rf in 174ft left at his decease in 1731 a son William in holy orders DD rector of Bree don who m Mary dau of John Ivory Talbot of Lacock and had issue The only son of the first marriage".

From discussion:
I'm not sure how you can call my input 'original research' when you brought up the Richardson book which was not even listed as a source on the Reitweisner page. Since you would not accept the sources that were listed above which listed no William -- I was simply citing more. The thing is that both Richardson and Reitweisner only list a William. There is no birth date, no death date, and no wife listed. I'm not overruling Douglas Richardson, if you read what I wrote I acknowledge that the name William is in there, but that is it.. there is nothing else on him. Just his name in parenthesis and the book goes on to his elder brother's line, Nicholas. Richardson. (Pertaining to the William Fairfax connection). How exactly is Reitweisner an expert? He's just another person doing exactly what we are doing which is considered 'original research'. Well the research is being done because everyone wants to believe that this is true about her ancestry when it has not been completely confirmed by anyone other then newspaper articles and this Reitweisner site. What I was doing is simply looking into this Reitweisner's claims, since you insist on making him an expert in your eyes, which came from his page which is 'original research'. I am calling it as I see it. I'm simply saying that there is no other source linking the William of Thomas and Anne (which I might ad has no birth or death date or even a wife's name on his page) to the next William who again has no birth date, no death date, and no wife -- who supposedly had a son named William as of right now. If you can find something that is not written by an 'original researcher' that proves otherwise, let it go. I would also like to add that the Thomas Fairfax pages which were added to wiki were added right after this news came out -- and at the bottom under references for Reitweisner, it states within the link 'A guess, but most likely'. I am not the only one who has investigated this and said that it may not be entirely correct, you can see that within this page. If you are calling Lundy an amateur genealogist (who is generally accepted on here as a source because he actually cites reputable sources and books), how is Reitweisner any different with his 'original research'? This is ridiculous -- you have proved nothing other than the fact that William was listed in the Richardson book and that's where it ends for now. Unless you can find more on this confirming the lineage down to Kate with legit sources I'm done trying to talk about this.

== Elizabeth Knollys and Kate Middleton ==

There is no definitive evidence that Kate Middleton is the descendant of Elizabeth Knollys. The Daily Mail cites NO sources and is not a genuine source that is allowed on Wikipedia. Even the Reitwiesner's page just posted that is has been DISPROVEN.

"In Hobbs (full citation below), on p. 13, F. M. Lupton cites a pamphlet William Davenport, of Reading, and his descendants, by Rev. James Davenport, which claims that this William Davenport of Reading (number 636, above) was the same person as the William Davenport born at Worfield, Shropshire, on 24 Feb. 1679, a younger son of Henry Davenport of Hollon, Shropshire, by his wife Elizabeth Talbot.

Rev. James Davenport appears to have written several different works on William Davenport of Reading, as a correspondent refers to a publication by Rev. James Davenport, Rector of Harvington in Worcestershire, titled The Davenport Family of Reading and Welford on Avon, and printed in 1923 (long after Hobbs was printed). About the identification of William Davenport of Reading with the William Davenport baptized at Worfield, the correspondent states that the author "concludes that insufficient evidence exists to establish such a connection beyond a reasonable doubt." This identification has been DISPROVEN." -- meaning it's NOT true!

Email from Reitweisner's; wmaddamstrust@gmail.com:
"Yes we have disproven it, both with the will of Elizabeth Davenport not mentioning a son William, other records showing her son William died in his 20s and with her research showing Kate's William was likely the son of a Laurence Davenport."