Thank you for you (reasonably) civil reply. It has taken me a while to check all the references but my conclusion is that my original suspicions about Craig's "brilliant" article have been justified. Please see responses below <I read Rosie Bevan's post on the matter of the parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt just now. I've also re-studied the brilliant article by F.N. Craig

Dear Newsgroup ~ I read Rosie Bevan's post on the matter of the parentage of Sir John Botetourt, 1st Lord Botetourt just now. I've also re-studied the brilliant article by F.N. Craig which appeared in The American Genealogist, 63 (1988): 145-153. Admittedly, there are several difficult points in the Botetourt pedigree. Comparing Mrs. Bevan's version against Mr. Craig's, however, I believe

On Sep 20, 5:39 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote: Dear Hugh ~ Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated. The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled "The Parentage of John Botetourte" in The American Genealogist, 63 (1988): 145-153, which article provided compelling evidence based on the passage of lands that Sir John Botetourt, 1st

Dear Newsgroup ~ I''ve revised and expanded the note in my files concerning the parentage of Sir John Botetourt, Knt., 1st Lord Botetourt (died 1324). It currently reads as follows: Note: The author F.N. Craig published a brilliant article entitled "The Parentage of John Botetourt (died 1324)" in TAG, 63 (1988): 145-153, which article provides compelling evidence that John Botetourt, 1st