John FitzRandolph

Abt 1455 -

 Set As Default Person

• Name	John FitzRandolph
  Born	Abt 1455	Spennithorn, North Riding, Yorkshire, England
  	FitzRandolph-23
  Gender	Male
  Reference Number	7966
  Person ID	I7966	FelsingFam
  Last Modified	16 Feb 2024

  
  

  Children	+ 1. Christopher FitzRandolph,   b. Abt 1495, Kirby, Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, England ,   d. Abt 28 Jun 1574, Nottinghamshire, England  (Age ~ 79 years)  [natural]
  Last Modified	16 Feb 2024
  Family ID	F3219	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

• Notes

  from https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/233782/edward-randolph-fitzrandolph-longer-proven-gateway-ancestor#:~:text=No%2C%20the%20Fitz%20Randolphs%20are%20not%20descended%20from,York%20%28no%20connection%20to%20the%20Dukes%20of%20Westmorland%29. OK, I think I understand this all now. The simple answer is, no, Edward Fitz Randolph the immigrant is not a known descendant John of Gaunt, Edward III or have any other known connection to the kings of England. The connection comes from: L.V.H. Randolph. Fitz Randolph Traditions. (New York, 1907), p. 120. It is complete garbage. This book made the Fitz Randolph line go: Edward Fitz Randolph -- Emigrant, son of Edward Fitz Randolph of Langton Hall d. 1635 son of Christopher Fitz Randolph son of Randolph de Neville 5th son of Ralph (or Randolph) de Neville -- Duke of Westmoreland d. 1565. No, the Fitz Randolphs are not descended from the Dukes of Westmorland and the spectacular ancestry that would go with it. They are thought to descend from the Fitz Randolph family of Spennithorne, co. York (no connection to the Dukes of Westmorland). This family had been traced back quite a few generations to Ranulph Fitz Robert who married Mary le Bigod, daughter of the Magna Carta Surety, Roger Le Bigod. The line appears in early editions of Magna Carta Sureties and in Douglas Richardson’s 1st editions of Magna Carta Ancestry. However, there is an unproven or doubtful generation (John Fitz Randolph who m. Joan Conyers is not proven to have had a son John) and the line has been removed from Richardson’s most recent work Royal Ancestry. The line remains in WikiTree. SEE: NEHGR vol. 97 (1943), 275-277 and 295-298 NEHGR vol. 99 (1945):335-336. Weis. Magna Carta Sureties 5th edition (1999): line 164, for old line. There is a good discussion of both the evidence and of the problems with the line by the noted genealogist John Insley Coddington Richardson. Magna Carta Ancestry 1st ed. (2005):342-343, for old line. See Richardson. Royal Ancestry vol. IV (2013):226, sub Neville. showing the line removed. answered Mar 27, 2016 by Joe Cochoit G2G6 Pilot (206k points) selected Nov 11, 2018 by Elizabeth Ernst Just to clarify that the "old line" here is the Spennithorne line. The "Dukes of Westmorland" line was never in any reputable book. Fitz Randolph Traditions is a very odd book. There's a lot of interesting stuff in it. The pedigree is deliberate fakery, not a mistake or just over-optimism. And yet the book never mentions Edward III - the author draws the line at making that claim explicit.