Why did someone re-attach Cecily again as a parent? She is not. She had no son. We removed Cecily before, and someone else re-attached this line probably in error or to link to a royal line. However, not to worry, Robert de Welles is a cousin of some sort and attaches in some other generation to royal lineage, just not via Cecily Plantagenet. By attaches a known error it discourages learning the correct links to our past.

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

http://www.deeprootstalltrees.com/Harrington/harrington_pd/43383.htm

In the above link, you will see that two sets of parents were assigned. Neither seem correct, as modern historical accounts say neither pair had a son.

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

Possible Parents #1: This Robert de Welles is NOT descended from John de Welles and Cecily Plantagenet. (They had two daughters and no son.)

Possible Parents #2: This Robert de Welles, is also NOT the son of Robert Welles and Elizabeth Bourchier. (They were childless.)

Possible Parents #3: This Robert WELLES as a son of Richard DE WELLES 1428-1470 and Joan WILLOUGBY 1430-1462. (Verification?)

Possible Parents #4: Somehow related to: Robert DE WELLES was the father of Thomas DE WELLES 1512-1558 who married Elizabeth BRYAN 1516-1563.

Possible Parents #5: It is possible that this Robert de Welles is a close relative of Governor Welles of Connecticut, and somehow related to him.

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

Two generations of the Welles-Bouchier family was beheaded, which drove descendants to America. The Bourchier lineage eventually leads to many interesting lines including to the Plantagenet dynasty, via another route leading to Anne of Gloucester, granddaughter of King Edward III.

NOTE'S FROM RESEARCHERS

• http://www.deeprootstalltrees.com/Harrington/harrington_pd/43383b.htm:

Robert De WELLES parentage is from Bouchier, not Cecily Plantagenet. I

In my research, many family trees posted on the internet make a connection to EDWARD IV and Elizabeth WOODVILLE through their daughter Cicely PLANTAGENET and her first husband John De WELLES, connecting Robert DE WELLES (or just WELLES) 1446-1470 as their son.

However, a search on the internet of the known children of Cicely PLANTAGENET and John DE WELLES shows only two daughters, Elizabeth and Ann. No son, Robert. So Cecily cannot be his mother.

This led me to try and confirm my original find. Robert DE WELLES was the father of Thomas DE WELLES 1512-1558 who married Elizabeth BRYAN 1516-1563.

Another researcher carried the line through in another direction, as the most recent information, having been posted November 29, 2005. He posts Robert WELLES as a son of Richard DE WELLES 1428-1470 and Joan WILLOUGBY 1430-1462.

• http://www.shon.150m.com/aqwg2280.htm#75955

Robert WELLES 1 was born about 1484 of Whichford, Warwickshire, England.

• He had the following children.

 Thomas WELLES was born in 1512. He died on 30 Aug 1558.

• taxed at Wichfort, Co Warwick in 1523
• Source of possible confusion about correct Robert Welles ancestry-

Genealogical issue with "Robert Welles"-

http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.plantagenet/399.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx

• John Welles and Cecily of York had 2 daughters only, NO son.

Here's one source of our difficulties: the Gustav Anjou fraudulent genealogies. Some time ago, I ran into the info totally by accident, just by googling the terms "Doty family" and "genealogy".

He lived 1863-1942, and people would hire him to research their families. Many professional genealogists are aware of him and avoid his reports or anything unsourced which might be contaminated by his materials, but most of us amateurs are a little naive about accepting stuff from online... (and offline, for that matter). Not that the internet has been bad for genealogists, just that it perpetuates the bad with the good.

If you want to see a list of the materials that Anjou published, go to http://personal.linkline.com/xymox/fraud/fraud.htm and click on the "Fraudulent Lineages" link. It is a site by the Sons & Daughters of America's First Families (not sure of their antecedents but the site is useful and seems to be clean and safe).

The site contains 1. a set of hallmarks by which you can identify Anjou's handiwork if it isn't identified by author name, and 2. a list of fraudulent genealogies known to be published by Anjou. Unfortunately the list is quite long (Anjou claimed to have published 192 by 1927, and he lived another 15 years) and the Weld/Wells/Welles/Willis/Wilds family is one of them. Most of the families are early New England families, so anyone with roots back that far in the U.S. is likely to run into some of his smoke and mirrors.

• I found this recently in the Wikipedia entry for Cecily of York:

Cecily, had three children, Robert, Elizabeth, and Anne Welles, Elizabeth and Anne both died young, and unmarried. Viscount Welles died on February 9, 1499. Cecily's grief was considerable, and all the correct heraldic and religious honours were paid to her husband.

Any idea where this information comes from? I know Wikipedia is not a great resource, but they had to get their information from somewhere

• John Welles and Cecily of York

beesrock  (View posts)  Posted: 21 May 2008 5:37PM  

Classification: Query Surnames: I also read on Wikipedia that John and Cecily had a son named Robert. This is the only place I have seen this written except for the many on-line family trees that claim the same.

I started looking for a Robert de Welles and this is what I found: Richard de Welles, son of Lionel de Welles and his first wife Joan, and half brother to John, 1st Viscount Welles, had one son and his name was ROBERT. He was the 8th Lord Welles and Willoughby. He was beheaded, by order of the king on the 19th of March 1469 or 1470. He died without heirs.

Now back to 1st Viscount John Welles, it is written in many books the following:

"Both of John's daughters (whom he had with Cecily Plantagenet) died before him. He had no male heirs. The male line of this family expired at his death, (Feb. 9 1499) taking with him the titles to the Barony of Lord Welles and the right to their Coat of Arms"

All I can go by is what I have read, really not knowing how much is fact or fiction. But at this point, I tend to believe that Wikipedia has made an error and that there was no son born to John and Cecily. If any Plantagenet researcher reads this post, and can help clear this matter for us, we would love to hear from you!!!

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

The matter of Cicely Plantagenet has been cleared up. The mother of this Robert de Welles was Elizabeth Bourchier. When you go back, you will find Plantagenet lines. It was said that the family informed the genealogist that there was a Plantagenet ancestry and the genealogist gave Cicely incorrectly as the mother and the wrong Robert de Welles. No big deal. It is now corrected to the right Robert de Welles and correct mother, who is a Bourchier. You will also see why this Robert de Welles line moved to America, his father and grandfather were beheaded and thus lost power in England during the War of the Roses. This line is a noble line leading to Plantagenets, jut not by Cicely.

However, John de Welles and Elizabeth Bourchier are NOT the parents as it appears they had no children.

It is likely that this Robert de Welles is a close relative of Governor Welles of Connecticut.

• ___________
• 'Robert Welles (Wellys)
• 'M, b. circa 1484, d. after 1523
• ' Robert Welles (Wellys) married Elizabeth. Robert Welles (Wellys) was born circa 1484 at of Whichford, Warwick, England. He died after 1523.
• 'Family Elizabeth
• Children
  • Walter Welles b. c 1510, d. bt 1 Dec 1577 - 9 Dec 1577
  • Thomas Welles+ b. c 1512, d. 30 Aug 1558
  • William Welles b. c 1514
• From: http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p26.htm#i763
• ____________________