Talk:Elizabeth Knollys

Descendants do not include Kate Middleton

This most recent news about Kate Middleton 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?
As to the latest news it claims that William Davenport was a son of Elizabeth Talbot and Henry Davenport. In the article from the Dail Mail it states the Kate is a descendant of Elizabeth Knollys by Sir Thomas Leighton. Elizabeth Knollys and Sir Thomas Leighton had a daughter Elizabeth Leighton who 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 22 Oct 1665 Elizabeth dau of Sharington Talbot Esq of Lacock co Wilts." This is what the facts state and until otherwise proved by genealogical and historic records there is no proof of any of this nonsense and the information should be taken down. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll take it out. At any rate, it's just a bit of frivolous trivia and isn't even properly referenced.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've already done it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that people keep putting Kate back in. If there are no sources confirming that she is a descendant why is it constantly being put back in? Reitsweisner's page which is publishing her ancestry "concludes that insufficient evidence exists to establish such a connection beyond a reasonable doubt." The Daily Mail, again, NO sources! -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The family connection is mentioned on the article about the royal wedding, so it should be noted here, with an explanation that it has not been established as absolute fact.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also see Catherine Carey where it repeats the claim in the Issue section (I haven't airbrushed it out yet as it's being discussed here) - the "sourcing" being this [2] from something called the "New England Historic Genealogical Society" and this [3] from our friends at the Mail, which repeats the 12th cousins once removed claim. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

On a passing thought though, I know the Mail isn't the most authoritative of sources, but isn't the analysis above OR and therefore doesn't the only available secondary source point to it being correct? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also note that the New England Genealogical Society document gives justifications and sourcing evidence for the Davenport and Alloway connections. I am no genealogist so I have no way of assessing the quality of this source but it gives an additional "source" or sources to look at over above the Mail. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be pointed out that Wikipedia isn't about truth but verifiability. The article can back up the claim by Reliable Sources, so it should stay in the article. For what it's worth, I noticed while watching the wedding ceremony, that Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge bears a resemblance to portraits of Anne Boleyn. If Elizabeth Knollys was indeed her ancestress, she would be a collateral descendant of Anne, seeing that Elizabeth was the queen's great-niece.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in the absence of other contrary sources, it would appear that we have sourcing to the effect that there is the relationship stated. Interesting if it's true as it certainly makes the Middleton's a lot posher than so far stated by the media, descended from the Howards, Mowbrays, Hereward the Wake, the Hwicce, Alfred the Great, etc, etc! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. Kate's descent to Elizabeth Knollys is only speculation. Jeanne Boleyn, you can not place speculation in an article just because you are under the opinion that there is a resemblance to her and Anne Boleyn. Unless you have more reliable sources that give concrete evidence other than a magazine article or a website that states the connection is only speculation it will have to be removed. Wikipedia is not a geneaology website nor a fansite. Virgosky (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Speculation because she resembles Anne Boleyn? In attitude her whole family does, yes, they resemble the Boleyn family. It has been disproven.

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!

I also personally emailed the Reitweisner page and got this response; wmaddamstrust@gmail.com 29 May 2011:

"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." Feel free to email them yourself. -- Lady Meg (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I own a copy of 'The Ancestry of Catherine Middleton' and Elizabeth Knollys is not listed as an ancestor. I believe that early in their research they thought there was (which led to the Daily Mail article) but they disproved it by the end. Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)