Re: Descendants of Thomas De Holland
-
In reply to:
Re: Descendants of Thomas De Holland
7/31/00
Rhonda:
The following is from p. 279 of the 1996 reprinting of "Dormant and Extinct Peerages":
Thomas Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent...m. Alice Fitzalan, dau. of Richard, Earl of Arundel, by whom he had, with other issue, Thomas...Edmund." These are the only two sons of Thomas De Holland, according to Burke. Burke goes on to say that the elder son, Thomas, was "taken prisoner and beheaded, with the Earl of Salisbury, by the populace, at Cirecester, in 1400..." and that the younger son, Edmund, "recieved a mortal wound in his head by an arrow from a cross-bow, 15 September, 1407." He further says that, "...having no legitimate issue, his sisters, or their representatives, became his heirs..."
So, according to Burke, who was writing this in 1883, the two sons of Thomas De Holland, 2nd Earl of Kent died without issue; i.e., childless, leaving only female heirs.
I agree that it's not entirely one's heritage that one the person they are. Most of what makes us who we are is our own doing. However, you must acknowledge the contributions of your ancestors, which made it possible for you to do what you've done, in the first place. And, yes, we are all related to each other, in some way, at some point in the past. You don't have to believe what the Bible says for this to be so, for it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with human history. We are who we are because of our ancestors and because of ourselves.
Gary