Re: Grizel (Roche) Boteler correction

On Oct 25, 5:22 pm, WJhon...@xxxxxxx wrote:
But you must admit that he definitely claims that her father was *not*  
William.

In a message dated 10/25/2008 5:35:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  

jhiggins...@xxxxxxxxx writes:

On Oct  24, 10:17 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@xxxxxxx> wrote:> Leo,  citing RD repeats the gnome that Grizel Roche, wife of John
Boteler  was the daughter of Sir William Roche, Lord Mayor of London

 However her own son Philip states that his grandfather's name was
 Bryan Roche

http://books.google.com/books?id=oGMBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA156http://books.go....
&pg=PA158



 Which I'm inclined to follow citing this work on the Chesters.

Setting  aside the fact that two of the pages you cite (156 and 157)
are irrelevant  to the point at hand, this is an inaccurate reading of
R. E Chester Waters'  "Chester of Chicheley".

Grizel (Roche) Boteler's son Philip did not  STATE that "his
grandfather's name was Bryan Roche" - at least not as cited  in
Waters.  Instead Waters cites a baptismal entry for Philip in a  bible
found in the library of Christ's College, Cambridge, but proceeds  to
question the reliability of that source because of other errors in  it.
(see page 159).

Waters also notes that Bryan Roche's will fails  to mention a daughter
Grizel, but also says that Grizel named two of her  children after
Bryan's son Nicholas and his wife Elizabeth.  Although  his pedigree of
the Roches places Grizel as a daughter of Bryan, Waters  notes that "I
must leave further proof of her parentage to those who have  better
opportunities of research." [page 160]

Waters seems to be  leaning in favor of Bryan Roche as Grizel's father,
but it's certainly not  a ringing endorsement of that  conclusion.

-------------------------------


To say that Waters "definitely claims" that Sir William Roche was not
the father of Grizel is a bit overstated - he does say definitely that
she was not his heir as he had previously thought, but is somewhat
uncertain with respect to his parentage of Grizel (although generally
doubting it).

The point of my post, however, was not to dispute the conclusion on
Grizel's parentage, but to point out that Waters was misquoted (or
misinterpreted) with respect to Grizel's son Philip's supposed
"statement" regarding his grandfather. It's not just the citing of
sources that's important but also their proper use.
.