Sir Jean de Contentin, Knt. [Fictitious Person]

Yvo "Bellomontensis" de Cotentin, [NOT de Beaumont or Vicomte/Viscount] Did not have a son Jean.

John De Cotentin (son of Evon Ivan Bellomontensis) was born 1042 in Normandy, France, and died 1105 in Normandy, France.

He married Marie De Normandy.

Children of John De Cotentin and Marie De Normandy are:

• +William De Cotentin, b. 1068, Cotentin, Manche, France d. 1136

Fabricated Pedigree

http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/cotton/2024/

• John de Cotentin
• By Tori Clark July 12, 2003 at 09:40:45

I have read that John de Cotentin is not a real person.Who else in that line is a fake?How far back can I go and know for sure?I am a descendant of John Cotton b. 1625 England, d. 1691 North Carolina (hope he's real!!).I have found most of my info from Charles Sprague's & Paul McBride's genealogy.

Getting frustrated...

Tori

• Re: John de Cotentin
• By Michael Cotten July 13, 2003 at 04:12:23
• In reply to: John de Cotentin
• Tori Clark 7/12/03

The whole genealogy is pretty much a fabrication, though many of the individuals are real. There are several different versions of it all of which were invented by the same man.

It starts off with John, Count of Cotentin and his son Sir John de Cotentin who is married to a fictional sister or daughter of William the Conqueror. As far as I know the Normans didn't even use the name John (Jean). There was no Count of Contentin. There was a Viscount of Cotentin at the time of the conquest, but his name was Neel de Saint Saveur.

After a few more fake names the genealogy starts to follow the line of the Cottons of Hamstall-Ridware. This is a real family documented in Burke's Extinct Baroneticies. In one version some of the wives are replaced by women who have surnames in the fabricator's own ancestry. [e.g. de Maatenloch (Matlock) and de Brett (Britt)].

The genealogy then switches to the Cottons of Madingley and Landwade for several generations. This is another real family documented in Burke's American Families. They are supposedly the ancestors of Rev. John Cotton of Boston but are not related to the Cottons of Ridware. The line then switches to the Cottons of Connington, descendants of the Ridware family but not related to the Landwade Cottons. This is accomplised by turning Richard Cotton's son William into his g-g-g-g-g-g-nephew. The genealogy continues down to Sir Robert Bruce Cotton's grandson John who comes to Virginia. In one version this John is the son of Robert Cotton's son John. These two John Cottons were real men who lived their entire lives in England. Another version gives Sir Robert a fictional son named Robert Jr. who fathers the immigrant John.

The first ancestor that the genealogy has in America is John Cotton of York Co., VA. This was another real person. He and his wife Ann appear in the records of colonial Virginia from 1657 to 1681. The dates 1625 to 1691 were an invention of the forger as is giving Ann Cotton's maiden as Hutcheson. There is no proof that this John and Ann are the parents of John Cotton who died in Bertie Co., NC in 1728 (or that John and Ann had any children at all).

So really the first verifiable ancestor is John Cotton who married Martha Godwin. He appears first in the records of Isle of Wight Co., VA in 1699, moves to Nansemond Co. by 1707 and to Chowan Co., NC by 1717. This part of Chowan County later became Bertie County and it was here that John Cotton died in 1728.

Neither of the men you mentioned are responsible for this fake genealogy. I'm sure they are just passing on what they have been told as I did before I discovered the truth. Its too bad that one man could contaminate so much research.

Michael Cotten

https://books.google.com/books?id=LKIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&d...