 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
Can anyonme confirm the numbering? One source lists the present baron as the 18th others the 17th.
I would like to question the clarity as well as the veracity of this article. The line of descent through the La Zouche family has been used in the past to link colonial settlers and their descendents to european royalty through "Lucy" La Zouche's marriage to Thomas de Greene (and his descendents).
Although some web sites attest this geneology... the motivation seems suspect.
In order to place the descendents of "Lucy" in line for the throne, these genealogies make Alan Baron La Zouche (de Ashby) (into) her grandfather, when Roger La Zouche is more correctly identified as such. Alan would be her uncle, and his brother Eudo La Zouche would be her father.
The apparent reason for this misplacement: Alan married into the royal line through Helen de Quincy...
So, in order to bring the whole descent into line through Eudo he had to be made into the son of his brother!
Wikipedia should not take part in perpetuating a fraud on the American public.
Please clarify in your article the correct line of descent for the La Zouche famiy... (I may do it myself...)
Guithenoc begat Josselin, who begat Eudon, who begat Geoffrey, who begat Alan (this is when they moved to England), who begat Roger, who begat Alan & Eudo...
A thorough investigation should be made into the origins of the La Zouches. The name itself sounds a little suspect...
RKI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertigoe (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- This whole thing is a mess... even the references (including my own) don't make sense...--Robertigoe 22:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Although I certainly understand (and agree with) the thrust of the questions above, I'm not sure where they fit into this genealogy. I agree that the narrative in the first five paragraphs of the article is confusing, but I don't see that Lucy la Zouche is mentioned.....
Weis, Ancestral Roots, in the current (8th) edition shows the following:
1 -- 39-26 Geoffrey, Viscount of Porhoet
2 -- 39-27 Alan la Zouche d. 1190
3 -- 39-28 Roger la Zouche d. 1238
4 -- 38-28 Alan la Zouche d. 1270
5 -- 53-30 Roger la Zouche d. 1285 m. Ela Longsepee
6 -- 31-29 Alan la Zouche d. 1314
4 -- 39-29 Eudo la Zouche d. 1279, son of Roger(3), m. Millicent de Cantilou
5 -- 39-30 Eve la Zouche
5 -- 200-31 Sir William la Zouche, son Eudo
(39-26), etc. are Weis's line and generation numbers
That is all consistent with the article's first six paragraphs as they stand today. While I have no way of cross checking Weis, I do know that this line has been revised several times through the last four editions.Jameslwoodward (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Obituaries available edit
-- billinghurst (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)