A Genealogical Mistake

Recently I received a comment on a post that I had made back in 2016 about a connection of the Pierpont family to William the Conqueror. This comment stated:

Hi I am also a descendant of both Rev Noadiah Russell and Rev James Pierpont. They are both my 7th great grandfathers. My mother's maiden name is Russell and we came down a male line of Noadiah's son, William and James' daughter Mary (whereas I believe you have documented your connection as being of Noadiah's daughter, Hannah, and James' son, Joseph). This line of Russells has been in Illinois for 4 generations before me and only Middletown, Connecticut before that.

Anyway, I was doing some preliminary investigations on how far back I could trace my ancestors and randomly came across a connection to William the Conquerer through the Pierpont/Pierrepont line. If you follow Pierpont back to George Pierrepont (1510-1564), his parents were Sir William Pierrepont (1486-1531) and Joan Empson (1466-1550), daughter of Chancellor Richard Empson (1450-1510, minister of Henry VII) and Lady Jane Hill (1438-1498). If you follow Lady Jane Hill's father's male line you go through several generations of "Hill", "de Hill", and "de la Hull" until you get to Robert II, Duke of Normandy, son of William the Conquerer.

Don't know if it's any more "direct" than the route you describe here, but it does just go through 1 female Empson and 1 Female Hill to get there in an otherwise straight line of Englishmen/Frenchmen. Might be worth an investigation!

This individual has made an interesting claim that he has found a previously unknown (at least to the Pierpont family) connection from one of the New England Pierpont family back to William the Conqueror. The details in this were missing, but were worthy of checking out. And an amateur genealogist and the co-historian of the Pierpont Family Association, I needed to do so. Here is what I found.

 

The Pierpont Connection

The line from the New England Pierponts is well documented here. The pertinent portion starting from the Rev. James Pierpont is as follows (following the male line):

·        Rev. James Pierpont (1659-1714)

·        John Pierrepont (1617-1682)

·        James Pierrepont (1597-1664)

·        William Pierrepont (1547-1648)

·        Sir George Pierrepont (?-1564)

Sir George is the son of Sir William Pierrepont (?-1533) and Joan [Empson] (1466-1550). Joan is daughter of Sir Richard Empson. Joan’s mother is not named here. So, as we leave the Pierpont/Pierrepont line we must look to other sources.

 

Following The Hill Line

In a well-known resource for genealogy trees, WikiTree, we find, as the commentor has stated, that Joan [Empson) Pierrepont is the daughter Chancellor Richard Empson and Jane (Hill) Empson - also called Lady Jane Hill. Then turning to other well-known resources, Familysearch and geni.com, we have the following line back:

·        Lady Jane Hill (1438-1498)

·        Robert IV Hill (1421-1493)

·        Robert III Hill of Shilston (1392-1444)

·        Robert Hill of Spaxton (1361-1423)

·        Sir John Hill (1338-1408)

·        Lord Richard de Hill (1320-1363)

·        Sir William de Hill, Earl of Bridgnorth (1294-1349)

·        Lord Richard Hill, of White Mere De La Hull (1268-1315)

·        Sir Thomas Hill, Lord of Axminster (1255-1325)

·        Lord Symon de la Hulle (1230-1283)

·        Robert de la Hulle (1199-1264)

·        Lord Hugh de la Hulle (1175-1224) 

·        Ayleth de Normandie de la Hulle (1152-1187) and Oseberre de Hulle (1154-1200) [Note that we are once again moving from the male line to the female line – Ayleth is a female name and she is the wife of Oseberre]

·        Ozwell de Hill (1131-1164) [Note that geni.com has Ozwell listed as the father of both Ayleth and Oseberre and has both listed as male. This is obviously a mistake. The more logical, given the naming conventions of the time, is that Ozwell is the father only of Oseberre and my comments above and below about moving from the male to the female line is incorrect.]

·        Aethling William de la Hulle (1102/3-) and Isabelle de Normandy (1106-)

I have no reason to question anything in this line. There is only one deviation from what the commentor stated in that there are now a total of three instances of following the female side of the tree as he did not recognize that Ayleth was the mother of Lord Hugh (granted that it’s not a name in use these days and I didn’t catch it at first either).

 

William the Conqueror’s Family

Now let us leave the trail back and look at a portion of the family of William the Conqueror, using a variety of other resources. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Curthose) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Clito) we find the following:

Robert Curthose is Robert II of Normandy (1051-1134) and he was the eldest son of William the Conqueror and succeeded his father as Duke of Normandy in 1087. He had one legitimate child, William Clito who was born in 1102. Then quoting from the latter reference:

His nickname Clito was a Medieval Latin term equivalent to the Anglo-Saxon “Aetheling” and its Latinized “Adelinus” (used to refer to his first cousin, William Adelin). Both terms signified “man of royal blood” or, the modern equivalent, “prince”. [Aetheling is also found spelled Aethling.]

 

The Source of Confusion

This is the source of the confusion. There is no doubt that William Clito of Normandy (who could also be called Aetheling William de Normandie) is the grandson of William the Conqueror. However, it is also well documented that he died in 1128 with no issue.

However, the sources in WikiTree and Geni.com say that Aethling William de la Hulle was also born around 1102 in Normandy. But Aethling William de la Hulle is NOT the same person as Aetheling William de Normandie as the former had a son, Ozwell, who was born in 1131. Since Ozwell was not born until three years after William Clito died, he could not be a great-grandson of William the Conqueror. It’s an easy mistake to make, but shows why facts always need to be examined very carefully!

As the commentor stated, “Might be worth an investigation!” I have done so, but not with the results that he might have hoped. But since he and I are both descended from James Pierpont who is our common great*7 grandfather, he is still my 8^th cousin and I’m happy to have him in my family tree.