tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6796453294242204514.post6681367011709754008..comments2024-03-28T18:12:05.958-07:00Comments on The Family Connection: Pierre de Morlaix Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6796453294242204514.post-37367674157084468212023-08-14T12:47:11.667-07:002023-08-14T12:47:11.667-07:00Complicated, isn't it? I decided to ask an AI ...Complicated, isn't it? I decided to ask an AI (Google Bard) about de Morlaix. Here's what it gathered from the web:<br /><br /><i>There is no historical record of a person named Henry Pierrekins. The name "Pierrekins" is a fictional name that was created by the Perkins family in the 18th century. The Perkins family claimed that Henry Pierrekins was the son of Pierre de Morlaix, the 14th-century French nobleman. However, there is no evidence to support this claim.<br /><br />The Perkins family created the fictional name of Henry Pierrekins in order to give their family a more distinguished and noble history. They claimed that Henry Pierrekins was a knight who fought in the Crusades and that he was the ancestor of Sir William Henry Perkin, the inventor of mauveine. However, there is no evidence to support these claims either.<br /><br />The Perkins family's story about Henry Pierrekins is a myth. There is no historical record of a person with this name, and there is no evidence that he was the ancestor of Sir William Henry Perkin. The Perkins family created this myth in order to give their family a more distinguished and noble history.</i><br />Cellophane Queenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08166797508899835493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6796453294242204514.post-61515053980011697552022-11-01T03:01:51.057-07:002022-11-01T03:01:51.057-07:00Thoroughly enjoyed your romp.
Mansfield Harry Is...Thoroughly enjoyed your romp. <br /><br />Mansfield Harry Isham Parkyns (1823-1894) stands out, in terms of veracity. Accepted into the Royal Geographical Society and grounded in reason, he corresponded with Augustus Thorndike Perkins (1827-1891) on the latter’s hunger for legitimate association with a coat-of-arms. The exacting Parkyns referenced records to tactfully suggest Bostonian Augustus – from 1872 until his death a member in good standing of the Massachusetts Historical Society – had “been misled … by conjectures …” with similar, cordial corrections to a series of baseless contentions. Caveat on title page of Augustus’ 1890 text should give us pause: “Intended Only as an Indication of the Best Points of Future Investigation.” I will say Augustus earnestly committed to his task: he also corresponded on Perkins matters with William Henry Turner (d 1880), Antiquarian at The University of Oxford’s Bodleian Library.<br /><br />Supremely collegial Parkyns was also helping Doctor George Augustus Perkins (1827-1895), Minister of the Gospel, following on from the latter’s 16-page <i>The Family of John Perkins of Ipswich, Massachusetts;</i> a cull of records reported to the Essex Institute in 1872. The disciplined Parkyns felt far less need to stand as corrective in whatever culture-shaping George pursued. <br /><br />I found less background for A. Mary Sharp, whom Parkyns simultaneously assisted, and to whom he introduced Augustus and George. Sharp’s 1892 <i>The History of Ufton Court</i> was strewn with errors. (She is source for discredited association of John Perkyns/ Perkins, Sr. (1609-1686) antecedents with Newent, as opposed to Hillmorton records; specious Augustus claimed to have ascertained the still-extant dwelling Perkins, Sr. occupied at Newent.) But it is likely that Sharp included Perkins, Sr. in appendix as result of introductions made by Parkyns.<br /><br />I appreciate in particular how you’ve represented Petrus Morley. Consider me informed. I declined to research ‘Pierrekins’ when dissatisfied by purported lineage accorded Perkins, Sr. Augustus, tracing ancestry through Ufton Perkinses (known to legitimately use heraldic devices), produced work product that I don’t believe intersected at all with that of Perkins, Sr. researchers. I did learn the term ‘patronymic,’ however.<br /><br />I remain unsure of my role as researcher and writer, regarding Wikipedia correction. I suppose Parkyns would want us to weigh in; bring logic to a post-Enlightenment era.rdhardestyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07086771345621272408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6796453294242204514.post-30363905414104051902020-12-28T23:44:59.560-08:002020-12-28T23:44:59.560-08:00This is from my own research.
Beatrix Plantagenet...This is from my own research.<br /><br />Beatrix Plantagenet = Jean II, Duc de Bretagne<br /><br />Contemporary accounts of Beatrix’s birth (1242) and marriage (1260): ed. Luard, ‘Flores historiarum’ (1890) pgs. 256 and 441 <br /><br />https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924105775500&view=1up&seq=457<br /><br />1279 indulgence by the Archbishop of Canterbury for those who prayed for the souls of Beatrix: ed. Martin, ‘Registrum epistolarum fratris Johannis Peckham’ (1882) pgs. 33-34<br />https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002013404562&view=1up&seq=87<br /><br />1302 Will of Jean in the Charters of Nantes Cathedral: Lobineau, ‘Histoire de Bretagne, composée sur les titres’, (1707) pgs. 446-452<br /><br />1306 given as year of death in chronicles of Brittany in Nantes Cathedral: Ibid., pg. 35<br /><br />https://www.google.com/books/edition/Histoire_de_Bretagne_composée_sur_les_t/53nLJ6X1NykC?hl=en&gbpv=1<br /><br />Please note that in his will. Jean II de Bretagne only mentions his eldest son, Artur, who became the next Duke upon his death. In 1264, we know that a second son named Jean was born to the couple from an instrument from the state papers of Henry III dated 25 January 1264 recognizing him as heir to the County of Richmond:<br /><br />Rymer: ‘Foedera, conventiones, literæ, et cujuscunque’ (1739) pg. 84 [image 350/942]<br /><br />https://archive.org/details/fderaconventione01ryme/page/n349/mode/2up<br /><br />I find no evidence of any other children, but I could of course be wrong, and I’m open to other possibilities.<br /><br />Best,<br />Josiah de la Motte<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Josiah de la Mottehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13301808564896580025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6796453294242204514.post-66707111670151818562019-09-19T15:38:32.729-07:002019-09-19T15:38:32.729-07:00Beatrice of England died in 1275. How could she ha...Beatrice of England died in 1275. How could she have given birth in 1312?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04971851111907917689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6796453294242204514.post-67990202557138354432012-12-12T20:01:04.358-08:002012-12-12T20:01:04.358-08:00Dear Jeanie,
I have traced my ancestry to John P...Dear Jeanie, <br /><br />I have traced my ancestry to John Perkins as well. My source is a copy of a Daughter's of the Revolution application, which was completed in 1950 by my aunt Phylis (my father's sister). The right of lineal decent is from the line of Joel Perkins (1761-1841). <br /><br />The line descends but stops at John Perkins (1641-5/19/1668)wife Deborah Browning, son of Thomas Perkins. <br /><br />After reading "The Family of John Perkins of Ipswich" by G.A. Perkins M.D. I see that Thomas was the son of John Perkins Senior. Our mutual ancestor. <br /><br />That book led me to the Wikipedia article you talked about and eventually to this blog. <br /><br />So after a short sense of satisfaction having traced my ancestry to the 1300's, I see by your comments that this may not be true. <br /><br />Have you made any further conclusions on our ancestry? <br /><br /><br />your very distant relative :)<br /><br />Blaine Simons<br />blainesimons@gmail.com<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14259657405399575989noreply@blogger.com