QUAKER-ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > QUAKER-ROOTS > 1998-03 > 0888746231


From: Bill Blackburn <>
Subject: Re: HARRY mentioned in GENEALOGY-MEDIEVAL
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 01:57:11 -0800


Dear Mr. Baldwin (or other Harry researchers).

May we have a brief summary of the actual ancestry of Hugh Harry ? I assume
that the American Genealogist outlined his actual ancestry in disproving the
Henry II connection.

Although my connection is distant (Hugh Harry married a sister of my
ancestorWilliam Brinton born 1670), I am interested in Hugh's story (and he has
a GREAT name) !

Bill Blackburn, Mt. Shasta, CA

Researching: BLACKBURN, BRINTON, MATLACK, BAGLEY, PIERCE, THATCHER,ETC

Stewart Baldwin wrote:

> wrote:
> >Does anyone else read the GENEALOGY-MEDIEVAL group? There was an
> >interesting post there recently, claiming that Hugh HARRY was a descendant
> >of William LONGESPEE, an illegitimate son of Henry II. The post was made
> >by someone who appears to have a lot of expertise in medieval history and
> >genealogy.
> >
> >Other Harry researchers with whom I have corresponded contend that the
> >royal line has been refuted, and that the Harry brothers were not descended
> >from the Harry Thomas Owen who was a sheriff, which accounted for the royal
> >lineage. Perhaps this is a different branch? Is there new evidence of a
> >royal connection?
> >
> >I would appreciate any further information. Responding to the group would
> >be great, because there are a lot of Harry descendants out there.
>
> The alleged royal descent of Hugh Harry has been disproven. See
> Neil D. Thompson's article on the subject in "The American
> Genealogist" vol. 69 (1994), pp. 95-97. I am also a regular
> participant in the medieval genealogy newsgroup, and the poster
> of that particular item was apparently unaware that this claimed
> royal descent (and others) on the list were invalid.
>
> Stewart Baldwin
>
> ==== QUAKER-ROOTS Mailing List ====
> Visit The Quaker Corner - http://www.rootsweb.com/~quaker

This thread: