I didn't say it was the primary source: I'm just saying that it agrees with other sources. Please don't put "words" in my messages.
You are correct in that
LDS = Latter Day Saints
In this instance it refers to a huge database that the LDS keeps of "genealogical records" without going into much detail the church encourages its members to load family info into there database to "prove" that everyone is related.
The problem with this is that the quality of the database is not filtered in anyway whatsoever. There is no attempt to reconcile any of the data against any of the other data nor any attempt to remove wrong data, simple mistakes or lies. Also because there's no centralised organisation there is a lot of repetition. To the novice, such as yourself, an internet search might turn up a number of matches in the LDS database which might encourage you to believe that the info is quite reliable, in reality it may just be one persons fantasy that has been copy and pasted by lots of other LDS members.
Basically the LDS database is no more reliable that any other internet database or family trees on sites like MyHeritage, Ancestry.com, etc.
of course it's reasonable to argue that there's a lot of data on Geni that is equally unreliable, but at least on Geni we can question, discuss, edit, merge and learn.
"Basically the LDS database is no more reliable that any other internet database or family trees on sites like MyHeritage, Ancestry.com, etc."
Alex Moes hello there 24th cousin four times removed.LDS is sometime good place to look as is myhertiage and ancestry.com but you have to be careful what ye take from any of those sites let alone any site.. I have run into an problem such as this person not that long ago and with Erica "the Disconnectrix" Howton help we have been fixing it on this site.. There are 2-3 different Adas it seems- one being an mother, on3 being an daughter and the other if I read from one of the sites posted an niece of the daughter.. It would be nice to figure out the real truth to these Adas as they are related to many it seems but we may never get the real truth.. I know they are to be related to me being 20th great grand aunt and the mother being my 21st great grandmother so it would be nice to get to bottom but who knows if we will get it.. Right now, I am inclined to go with the fact that Ada 1 was only married to the one guy and her daughter Ada 2 was married to 2 men one by being abducted and the other who ye all are fighting/discussing over Sir Ralph de Brereton... I have been trying to do research on them myself since i saw that they were to be relatives of mine and most sites do Ada 1 was married to the Henry only..
i) ADA (-after 1241). The Annales Londonienses name "Margaretam, Isabellam, Matildam, et Aldam" as the four daughters of "comiti David", recording the marriage of "la tierce fille Davi" and "sire Henri de Hastinges". m (before 7 Jun 1237) HENRY de Hastings, of Ashill in Norfolk, son of WILLIAM de Hastings & his first wife Margery Bigod of Norfolk (-before 9 Aug 1250).
Only marriage I see for her on this page ....
The lands of John le Scot were partitioned, and before 1241 the manor of Brampton and Houghton had been allotted to Henry de Hastings, husband of Ada, sister and co-heir of John le Scot. (fn. 49) In 1247 the Crown desired to make an exchange for the manor of Brampton under the terms of the grant to Earl David, and writs were issued to John de Balliol and Henry de Hastings, (fn. 50) but nothing further was done.
49 Cal. Close R. 1237–42, p. 364; Rot. Hund. loc. cit.
50 Cal. Close R. 1242–7, p. 544.
What we've got for hard fact here, from what I can see, is a Ralph de Brereton with a wife named Ada, who was *later thought to have been* the daughter of David Earl of Huntington.
She may well have had a Huntington connection, but it isn't likely to be quite that direct - as the article referenced in the first post cautions:
"However, it appears that this inscription is much later than the tomb itself. Moreover the claim that Ralph was married to Ada, daughter of David Earl of Huntingdon, while being picked up and repeated by various historians over the centuries, cannot be validated. Indeed detailed contemporary accounts in the Curia Regis Rolls, supplied to me by Douglas Richardson, show that Ada, the daughter of David Earl of Huntingdon married Henry de Hastings. However, she died before Trinity Term 1242 and in 1247 her widower Henry de Hastings was holding her lands. Consequently, she died before her husband and was not free to marry Ralph Brereton. Who erected the inscription and for what purpose remains a mystery. Thomas Helsby, in revising Ormerod's History of Cheshire was anxious not to cast aspersions against the Breretons but nowadays we would be less charitable to falsification of records. Such actions are not unknown. [example of Elizabethan abuse of records follows]
Regardless of how you fudge around with her and her mother's dates, you still have to get past the awkward facts that Ada of Huntington's father died in 1219 and her (here supposed to be first) husband circa 1250. She would have had to be a mere infant in 1219, to be fertile with a second husband after 1250. And *that* doesn't square with the birth dates of the Hastings children, no matter how you push *them* around.
In short, all other considerations aside, the math just doesn't work.
There does not seem to be any particular reason why this Sir Ralph de Brereton can't have married Ada's daughter Ada, and later generations got the two Adas mixed up. It needn't take more than two or three generations, just long enough for things to get a bit hazy.
(That's even discounting the possibility that the tomb was misappropriated by the Brereton family from the Venables, some centuries after the fact, as also noted in the same article.)
Maven: all this has been gone over. You are referring to the wrong inscription. An original inscription carved into the tomb was found by a Cheshire historian with a PHd, Craig Thornber, and photos were posted. No one on Geni seems to read the ENTIRE discussion and posted documents. The historian has outstanding credentials. Secondly, there is no document saying Ada died. It simply says her husband took over her lands ( this usually happened at the death of a spouse). However, if you understand the history surrounding this time, England is at war with both Wales and Scotland. All the Barons are rebelling against Henry III. Henry has stated he will never let Ada and her sisters inherit their lands ( and the crown of Scoland). Things are so bad Henry later is captured and held prisoner because he has been taking lands illegally from his subjects and giving them to his french relatives, the Lusignans. Read about the second Barons War. Lots of illegal land steals and murders of both the Scottish Royal house descendants and the the Welsh Princes. You are making the usual mistake of repeating an assumption about a questionably interpreted document that no one has access to. Anne Boleyn has documents claiming all sorts of things, but we all know that by reading history, she was innocent. ( which leads to another discussion about why Henry VIII had Ralph Breretons' descendant, William Brereton, executed. Think about that. The Brereton's, by nature of their descent from the Royal house of Scotland, were always a thorn in the side of the Tudors, whose ascent and right to the thrown continued to be questioned). When Elizabeth I ascended the throne one of the first things she did was restore and favor the Brereton family as she knew they had been unjustly attainted.
Ada's age fits perfectly again if you look at the fact more closely.Her mother was 30 years younger than her father. She and her sister must have been born just before her father's death in 1219. Her sister is having children in the 1250's. After Henry Hastings died in 1250, Ada is still perfectly capable of having children. Her son by Henry Hastings is being held by Henry III to make her family pay homage to him ( and make her and her 3 sisters held in check from claiming the Scottish throne). In Ormerod's time, it was thought that Henry Hastings died much later, which was what confused him. The earlier date of 1250 is a more recent correction which would have clarified things for him, had he known it. He would have never included his note " thought that" if he didn't think there was something more to investigate.
I have presented a detailed study previously. There are no other Ada's who fit this profile. The English heralds would have never allowed a family to use the arms of John le Scot if they weren't entitled, nor would the Scots. Her tomb states clearly who she is. Motive: Ada needed protection from Henry III, so she marries a Marcher Lord, Ralph Brereton, who has the entire Venables clan, and the Earl of Chester at his back. They eventually capture Henry III. They are all enemies at this time. The English crown is in great danger. You should also note how all the Marcher Lord families are making dynastic marriages with the houses of Scotland and Wales at this time, not just the Breretons. That is why, according to Geni itself, i and others have multiple lines descending from this same group.
Her tomb has been definitely dated to the 13th century expansion of the original Norman church. That's an archaeological fact you cannot dispute, tomb citation mix up by Geni or no. There is more, and I am writing an article on this issue with citations I'm going to put up on the Internet. The Brereton sons ages correspond to her being their mother. Geni can do whatever it wants. There are many alternative profiles for people on Geni, and I feel that this person deserves an alternate. It also proves you can't make a definitive ID of someone of this antiquity without really reviewing all the facts. She is staying on my personal tree. If the day comes when another effigy tomb is discovered for this lady, which it never has, I'd sure like to know about it. I hope to go to Chester, and find even more supporting documents ( payments for masses said in the chantry chapel, etc). The site is considered by the English Heritage to be of prime importance for preservation, and study has begun. You may also want to refer back to the discussion of the Windsor Library documents, which are sworn statements by descendants, churchmen and other local aristocracy, confirming the identification of both Ralph and Ada as daughter of David, Earl of Huntington, when the heralds first came to Cheshire. As a friend of mine said, there's is far less identifying the Kings of Egypt than the abundance of evidence for Ralph and Ada's Union.
Maven, you can't get harder evidence than a stone tomb. And I don't need more evidence, as I have far more than any ever presented here. It's pointless to repost it all as no one here has the focus to read it in its entirety, proven by the rehash of the wrong inscription. Furthermore, the Cheshire Historical Society and Dr. Craig Thornber, Cheshire historian agree with me.
I'm going with the experts.
Henry died 1250. Gilbert Brereton ( not Henry Hastings son) is a rector for some time 1290 at Brereton chapel. He is also rector at St. Marys recorded on church records during the time he would have been an adult if born after the death of Henry Hastings, and Ada's remarriage. The time outline was in the discussion and the documents supporting were also attached to the sources section.
I have no idea about accidentally. If you are implying vandalism, that is something to be reported to Geni.
I will make it easier on those following along the discussion.
This site is pretty good as a compiler, and she uses Ormerod, of course
Son of Sir Ralph (living in 1275) & brother of Sibyl
Born: Abt 1220, Brereton, Cheshire, England 696
Marriage: Margaret de Sandbach 713
Died: After 19 Nov 1299, Cheshire, England 713
~Ormerod's History of Chester, Vol. III, p.88, Sir William, living during the reign of Kings John and Henry III of England, married to Margery, daughter of Randle Thorton. The children shown are Sir William de Brerton, lord of Brerton, Knight, living during the reign of Henry III and ward of Sir Richard de Sanbach; and Gilbert de Brerton, younger son, was rector of Astbury. His widow, Alice was living 27 Edward I. 713
Information about this person:
• Background Information. 696
William Bereton was a witness to four deed on file in Chester, during the year of 1250. In 1307, another William Brereton was witness to four deeds in Chester. The same year, William le Brereton, Knight, was witness to deeds of sale in chester.
Sir William Brereton, Knight, son and heir of Sanbach, in fulfilment of a contract made with William de Venables.
~Brereton, a Family History, pg. 9-10
In other words, he was of legal age to sign a charter in the year 1250. What age range would that put him in for a birth date?
Here's a link to the page on Brereton family history mentioned, I'll make sure it's attached to the profiles.
For more convenience I am posting the profile of Sir William de Brereton, Kt.
Many sources uploaded if the sources tab is selected. I don't see any tampering?
For further reference: William de Brereton, Knt was living during the reign of Henry lll (Reign 19 October 1216 – 16 November 1272).
His son William married Rose de Vernon abt 1275. Even if William ll was married off at birth, the latest William l could have been born is 1255.
So we have a 30 odd year spread to winnow down.
Private User i was in the wrong here cleary and should not have said anything. Hatte Blejer on partial hiatus was right on. lets leave it at that.