Gustav Anjou; how could you?

I'm sure every serious family researcher out there has heard of him by now. Even his name is fake. So far, over 300 lineages he created have been found to be fake. Just check out any of the royal lineage books and you'll soon find examples of them. Stay away from anything that references back to him.

Royal lineage books, such as descendants of Charlemagne

You have to verify every connection in this one. Quite a few errors, erroneous connections.

Pierrepont lineage in royal lineage books

Leave the royal lineage books on the shelf. They are rife with errors. I would suspect due to all the fraudulent lineages by Gustav Anjou. The lineage that links James Pierpont directly to the Pierrepont who married a Cavendish is crap. While James does descend from the same family, NOT that branch. I'm trying now to find the link, listed in several old sources, including British sources that link James to Sir George Pierrepont. It looks more promising.

Magna Charta line of Manning, Oops! Not!

In the supposed Magna Charta line of Manning we fine a Margaret Brandon marrying Hugh Manning, she the daughter of William Brandon and Elizabeth Wingfield. Only thing is, she married Gregory Lovell. No Manning anywhere.

parents of Beatrice de Beauchamp, wife of Hugh de Morville

Reading ancient sources on google books, it seems that the ancestors of Beatrice de Beachamp are father, Pagan de Beauchamp and Roisia de vere; brother of Hugh de Beauchamp who came over with William I. They were seated at Bedford. Pagan built a strong castle there which was besieged by King Stephen in 1137.

William Fitz Gilbert de Lancaster and the Lancaster name

One source found in Google Books, calls William the son of Gilbert de Montanis, later styled de Furness or de Furnesio by Henry II. It calls him baron. William was a knight, supposedly son of Gilbert of Furness. He was granted the right to change his name to Lancaster after the ascension of Henry II. There were no de Lancasters before that time. As to Gundred, there yet isn't any evidence linking her to William de Warrene with any certainty.

Walter de Riddlesford II

This Walter is the one who received the Irish grants after the conquest of Richard I. He was a supporter of John I and had his grants confirmed by John. There's no record found yet of a Walter I, as a matter of fact. Walter II had two heirs, both daughters. Walter was not born in Kildare either.

Gerbera who married Albert I of Vermandois, of Giselbert of Lorraine

Gerbera is the daughter of Giselbert/Gilbert of Lorraine. Her mother married Louis IV of France after her father's death, the year she was born. Probably another phony line created years ago to give people conterfeit royal lineages. Go back far enough and she's still royally connected via Henry, King of Germany.

Herbert III of Vermandois and Ermengarde of Bar

No evidence of this connection. French sources don't list a wife for Herbert III. By his time this line was relatively unimportant. There were no counts of Bar in her time. One Irish source couples him with the widow of Charles the Simple. I think some people got ahold of the counterfeit lineages going around at the time.

Grosvenor line

The line of Randall Grosvenor who married into the Mainwaring family is wrong as cited. According to several old English texts the line goes as such:
Gilbert, nephew to Hugh Kevelioc, Earl of Chester in the time of William I.
Robert le Grosvenor and Alice
Henry le Grosvenor
Raufe, or Ralph de Grosvenor
Robert le Grosvenor and Margery
Richard le Grosvenor and Margery
Robert le Grosvenor
Raufe le Grosvenor and Emma de Mobberly
Robert le Grosvenor and Joan de Pulford
Thomas Grosvenor and Joan Phesaunt, daughter William. While he was married to the
daughter of Sir Richard Venables, she was not the mother of his children.
Thomas Grosvenor and Isabel Pershale (everyone has these two Thomases turned around)
Randall Grosvenor and Margaret Mainwaring
Then on down the line.

Sir John Mansfield, Isabel Leigh-parents of Richard, debunked

For some time there have been those who supposed that Richard Mansfield of Exeter and New Haven was the progeny of Sir John Mansfield and Isabel Leigh. According to published English sources, the Landed Gentry, he is not. John and Isabel had one son George and two daughters. No Richard. This entry was found in Winthrop's diary: John Winthrop wrote of him "One thinge I thinke fitt to observe as a wittnesse of Godes providence for this plantation: there came in this shippe one Marisfeild, a poore Godly man of Exeter, beinge verye desirious to come to vs, but not able to transport his famyle, tehre was in the Cytye a riche merchante one marshall, who beinge troubled in his dreames about the said poore man could not be quiett till he had sent for him & given hi 50. li & lent him 100.li willing him withall, that if he wanted he should send to him for more: this marsfeild grewe suddainly riche, & then lost his godlinesse, & his wealthe soone after." He was identified as the Mansfield who went to New Haven.

William Todd I of Pontefract

Where to start with this one. Again, many genealogies state William's occupation as being a miller and baker. I guess someone decided that since Christopher was a miller and baker that everyone else was too. When William first purchased property in Pontefract, he listed his occupation as husbandman. Christopher's father died when he was four months old so there's a good chance they he may have been made a ward of his mother's family, the Wards, who were millers and bakers in the Pontefract area. It's also been supposed that Reginald Todd was William's father. This has never been established as fact. He doesn't appear in parish records for the time that William, John and Christopher were there. While he is no doubt related, there's no proof he was the father of William. William I doesn't appear to have been born in Pontefract. He doesn't appear in parish records until his marriage. I've seen genealogies sprouting up that has William I migrating from Scotland. Really?? NOT! He was a collateral descendant of William I of York, whose family had been there since surnames came into vogue and probably before. Where, oh where do these things get started? Someone assumed long ago that Christopher was a minor member of the New Haven colony initially because he doesn't have a title of distinction, such as Mr., and because he wasn't a church member right away and he didn't sign his name. He was barely 20 years old. He wouldn't have earned the title Mr. yet. He may not actually have been an actual congregant when he arrived. Millers were essential to the formation of colonies and one of the most important people there. Before groups of colonists embarked for the new world, they first made sure to recruit atleast one miller so the colony had a chance to survive. Not to mention that in the case of the New Haven group, all those who joined had to commit 50 pounds of gold towards the colony. A large sum. So that made Christopher a key member of New Haven Colony. So far as not signing his name. He didnt' have to if he used his signet as many people of more important lineage did. He signed with an elegant C. his recognized mark such as would be pressed into a signet ring or a seal.

Todd, Scottish origin????

While there were Tods in Scotland early on, the name didn't originate there. The Todds didn't suddenly appear in Scotland and migrate to England as some of repeated in their family histories. The name came from Normandy originally, migrated to the York area of England and moved into Scotland, along with the Gordons and others.

Tidd, Todd. Oh my God!

Years ago, shortly after I started working on my family tree, I got an email from a woman researching her Tidd line and had confused it with Todds in the same area. People! John Todd is not the same person as John Tidd. John Todd married Alice Clayton. John Tidd did not. John Todd came from Pontefract. John Tidd did not. He isn't (Tidd that is) the brother of Christopher Todd. Don't publish until the facts are straight. Once it's out there it spreads like a virus.

John Browne-Plymouth again

It looks that John may have been a Bristol England native. He was involved in the creation of a trading settlement in Maine in 1625, several years before the Plymouth colony was created. Considering that names in the colony associated with him were named for locations in England around Bristol, such as Bristol, Taunton and Swansea, it would seem that this may be a viable option. One suggestion was that he descends through the Eastern family of Beachworth Castle through William who removed to Tavistock. In the book Mary Browne: a true account of her life, Thomas is recognized as his father and William the famous poet his brother. But there was also a Browne family that existed in Bristol since before surnames were created. Still on the hunt.

john browne-plymouth

John and Samuel Browne were brothers and they were the two expelled in 1629 who returned 1632 or 33. A Kellam Browne had signed an agreement in Cambridge in 1629 to travel to New England but never did so. He was a country gentleman of no inconsiderble fortune and university training. He signed at the same time as saltonstall, winthrop, pinchon, vassal and dudley. Still no confirmation that he was related to the brothers browne.
Hugh Browne, of salem, had two children baptized in the parish church of Stepney in Middlesex, England 1641. He is of Ratcliffe and a mariner. S0n John was born about 1631 and Daniel about 1634 in Salem.
Again, not sure of any connection with John and Samuel

More on John Brown of Plymouth

I just found a book on google dealing with the history of Boston that mentions a John and Samuel Browne who were in the Endicott group who migrated in 1628 or there abouts. There were originally Hugh, John, Kellam and Samuel. John and Samuel disagreed with the colony on religious matters and were sent back to England. This would have been John and Samuel of Kent. They were recommended to the council there, Davenport, Eaton, Winthrop and others who were forming a goverment in Plymouth England for the establishment of a colony, that John Browne was made an assistant and would be of great help to the committee in England and should be given 200 acres when Davenport and the others arrive. William Brown may have been another brother (Kellam) first mentioned. Hugh doesn't appear again. Samuel doesn't either and must have elected to remain in England or died. Anyway the John of Kent who was rejected was probably the same as the John who returned with the company. Perhaps he returned in 1632 with his family. But there's hardly room for doubt that he did return as he was again assistant to Winthrop. The original colonists pretty much adhered to the Church of England but Winthrop sent a letter to the king upon their departure in 1630, outlining their intention of breaking away completely. They had a charter to settle Plymouth, but Endicott had been given orders to take over the Bay before they arrived.
The next question is, was John Browne native to Kent or had he removed there?

John Browne, Plymouth Colony and Dorothy Who?

Here we go again. There are trees out there who have John Browne being born all over England, but his place of birth hasn't been established with any certainty. The John Browne of Kent was returned to England so it wasn't he. In a research article Http://newsgroups. derkeilert.com his father is thought to be Phillip, elder brother of Reverend Robert Browne. There is a chance he is John Browne of Louth, Lincolnshire. He may have been bapt. Alford, possible home of Philip's wife. So again, people are spreading supposition, and most likely, erroneous supposition as fact in their family trees. There's no evidence of Dorothy being a Beauchamp, though the family was acquainted with Beauchamps. But do you really think that he and his mythical father Thomas both were married to a Dorothy Beauchamp? And the William that someone else names as his father has no basis in fact either. This John was definitely associated with the Wray and Vane families and John Robinson of Leydon, as was John in Plymouth. Read the article in this newsgroup, it's in pdf format and well written and researched. Let me repeat well written and researched. Need I say it again? http://newsgroups.derkeilert.com/Archive/Soc/soc.genealogy.medieval/2006-02/msg00017.html

Jacobina Goad, wife Andrew Willet; parents of Thomas of Swansea, first mayor of New York

A history in the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, vol 33, mentions that Jacobina Goad's father was Thomas Goad who succeeded his father as rector of King's College Cambridge, but Thomas was Jacobina's brother, not her father. English records mention that Jacobina was the daughter of Andrew's friend, Roger Goad.
Andrew and Roger, though 30 years difference in ages, both preached at St. Margarets and were highly esteemed ministers.

Edward Bates-Weymouth Massachusetts

There are several guesses as to the parentage of Edward Bates, all being guesses but included in family histories as being certain. Edward was supposedly a manservant to Thomas Leverett. Thomas Leverett came from Boston Lincolnshire in 1630 so if he was is servant he would have arrived then, being about 25 years old. Being a son of James of Lydd is probably not legit as no such son is mentioned in his will and it is supposed that his son Edward had died in Lydd. If he did come with Leverett then he isn't the edward who married susannah putnam in Buckingham in 1632 and he couldn't have been here in 1633 with three children.
So clean up your tree until some connection is proven.

More on William Barsham

William Barsham, son of William and Anne Yelverton was still in England in 1638, unmarried and without issue, according to Norfolk Visitation.

William Barsham-Dorcester Massachusetts

This is another mistake showing up on trees, that William Barsham, who was probably born around 1610 was William Barsham, b Dec 1588, son of William and Anne Yelverton Barsham, b June 1588. Do you see one obviously glaring error with this information? That William II was born six months after William I, in the same year? I don't know where this one started, or who was the originator of this fantasy, but it's another rotten branch that needs to be lopped off those trees.

Michael Todd-Eastern Shore Maryland

A book published regarding the families of the Eastern Shore of Maryland mentions a Michael Todd who appears there in the 1700s and makes the leap that he was the same as Michael Todd in New Haven. Michael Todd of New Haven never left that town. He was born, lived and died there. He was a merchant and owned a share in the wharf of New Haven, and also helped to operate his father's mill for a time, along with his two brothers.

Tidd/Todd; Oh my God!

I've found many errors over the years, some already published, many not. This one is particulary aggravating as it (1) involves my family and (2)I had already explained to another researcher years ago that the Tidd family had nothing to do with the Todd family. This erroneous connection, included on a number of trees on the web now involves John Tidd of Woburn Massachusetts. I don't know how this came about but someone, unable to locate the English connection to their Massachusetts immigrant decided somehow to latch onto someone elses and others, unwilling to check the information themselves have perpetuated it. One of the bad things about the internet is once these things happen, it seems to grow, like a weed. Anyway, John Tidd settled in Woburn and a John Tidd is later found in Groton in 1676, present when the Indians attacked and burned the town. Someone decided that he was the son of William Todd of Pontefract England. NO! He's not! John Todd of Rowley Massachusetts(lived and died there and was never in Woburn), cousin to Christopher Todd, was son of Christopher's uncle John Todd, brother to William II of Pontefract. William I was the father of John and William and was married to Isabel Rogerson. And, by the way, he is listed as a husbandman in English records, not a miller.
In any case, in the sixteen years I have researched the Todds, I have never seen the name confused with that of Tidd, except by people who want to latch onto someone else's tree because they can't find their own.
If you read this and have this error in your tree (unfortunately there are either no email contact information for many of these trees or no one wants to respond), please remove it. It's wrong. Wishing it were so, doesn't make it legitimate. Do your own research, find your real family, if you can. But if you can't, it's not right to take someone elses and pretend its yours.