C.P. Correction: Pernel de Crey, wife of Robert Fitz Walter
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
C.P. Correction: Pernel de Crey, wife of Robert Fitz Walter
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 493 has a good account of the history of
Robert Fitz Walter (died 1291), of Daventry, Northamptonshire. The
following information is given regarding his marriage:
"He married (it is said) Perronelle de Grey."
Fortunately, there is an agreement dated 1284 found in the the book,
Cartular of Daventry Priory, which specifically names Robert Fitz
Walter's wife. As it turns out, his wife's name was Pernel de Crey,
not Grey. A transcript of the document is presented below.
"Agreement between Prior William [IV] and Robert [II] Fitz Walter and
Petronilla de Crey, his wife, permitting a manorial chapel wihout
bells on their estate in Daventry. Robert to provide for the curate's
stipend, offerings to go to the sacrist of Daventry, no marriages or
purifications to take place, except in cases in peril of death, no
mass on the major feasts (Christmas, Purification, Easter, Pentecost,
nativity of St. John) or on the dedication of the church of Daventry
unless the lord or his wife are compelled by illness to stay at home.
Robert and Petronilla promise that any curate they appoint will swear
to observe this arrangement, as will their successors in the house.
Date: All Saints (1 November), 1284. Witnesses: domino Johanne,
vicario de Daventry, domino Johanne, vicario de Staverton, Willelmo,
vicario de Esseby." [Reference: M.J. Franklin, The Cartulary of
Daventry Priory (Pubs. of Northamptonshire Rec. Soc. 35) (1988): 16].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 493 has a good account of the history of
Robert Fitz Walter (died 1291), of Daventry, Northamptonshire. The
following information is given regarding his marriage:
"He married (it is said) Perronelle de Grey."
Fortunately, there is an agreement dated 1284 found in the the book,
Cartular of Daventry Priory, which specifically names Robert Fitz
Walter's wife. As it turns out, his wife's name was Pernel de Crey,
not Grey. A transcript of the document is presented below.
"Agreement between Prior William [IV] and Robert [II] Fitz Walter and
Petronilla de Crey, his wife, permitting a manorial chapel wihout
bells on their estate in Daventry. Robert to provide for the curate's
stipend, offerings to go to the sacrist of Daventry, no marriages or
purifications to take place, except in cases in peril of death, no
mass on the major feasts (Christmas, Purification, Easter, Pentecost,
nativity of St. John) or on the dedication of the church of Daventry
unless the lord or his wife are compelled by illness to stay at home.
Robert and Petronilla promise that any curate they appoint will swear
to observe this arrangement, as will their successors in the house.
Date: All Saints (1 November), 1284. Witnesses: domino Johanne,
vicario de Daventry, domino Johanne, vicario de Staverton, Willelmo,
vicario de Esseby." [Reference: M.J. Franklin, The Cartulary of
Daventry Priory (Pubs. of Northamptonshire Rec. Soc. 35) (1988): 16].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Rosie Bevan
Re: C.P. Correction: Pernel de Crey, wife of Robert Fitz Wal
I'm not sure why you've capitalised 'Fitz' in copying this charter, but it
should be 'fitz' as in the Daventry cartulary. Robert's father was Walter
son of Simon, and Robert's son was known as Walter son of Robert, as implied
by 'fitz'. Fitz Walter was not their surname and is not capitalised in CP,
as you have it, either.
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:33 PM
Subject: C.P. Correction: Pernel de Crey, wife of Robert Fitz Walter of
Daventry
should be 'fitz' as in the Daventry cartulary. Robert's father was Walter
son of Simon, and Robert's son was known as Walter son of Robert, as implied
by 'fitz'. Fitz Walter was not their surname and is not capitalised in CP,
as you have it, either.
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 8:33 PM
Subject: C.P. Correction: Pernel de Crey, wife of Robert Fitz Walter of
Daventry
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 493 has a good account of the history of
Robert Fitz Walter (died 1291), of Daventry, Northamptonshire. The
following information is given regarding his marriage:
"He married (it is said) Perronelle de Grey."
Fortunately, there is an agreement dated 1284 found in the the book,
Cartular of Daventry Priory, which specifically names Robert Fitz
Walter's wife. As it turns out, his wife's name was Pernel de Crey,
not Grey. A transcript of the document is presented below.
"Agreement between Prior William [IV] and Robert [II] Fitz Walter and
Petronilla de Crey, his wife, permitting a manorial chapel wihout
bells on their estate in Daventry. Robert to provide for the curate's
stipend, offerings to go to the sacrist of Daventry, no marriages or
purifications to take place, except in cases in peril of death, no
mass on the major feasts (Christmas, Purification, Easter, Pentecost,
nativity of St. John) or on the dedication of the church of Daventry
unless the lord or his wife are compelled by illness to stay at home.
Robert and Petronilla promise that any curate they appoint will swear
to observe this arrangement, as will their successors in the house.
Date: All Saints (1 November), 1284. Witnesses: domino Johanne,
vicario de Daventry, domino Johanne, vicario de Staverton, Willelmo,
vicario de Esseby." [Reference: M.J. Franklin, The Cartulary of
Daventry Priory (Pubs. of Northamptonshire Rec. Soc. 35) (1988): 16].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Correction: Pernel de Crey, wife of Robert Fitz Wal
rbevan@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message news:<05ba01c4d911$7e25bb90$cd00a8c0@rosie>...
Dear Rosie ~
Before posting such a petty comment such as this, I think it would be
appropriate if you first thanked me for finding and sharing the
correction to Complete Peerage. So, how about if we start over. You
can repost and say "Thank you for your good post, Douglas." Then I
will follow up by saying "You're welcome" and then comment on your
pettiness.
If you fail to say thanks, people might think you are only looking to
find fault in my posts. And, I shudder to think they might be right.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
I'm not sure why you've capitalised 'Fitz' in copying this charter, but it
should be 'fitz' as in the Daventry cartulary. Robert's father was Walter
son of Simon, and Robert's son was known as Walter son of Robert, as implied
by 'fitz'. Fitz Walter was not their surname and is not capitalised in CP,
as you have it, either.
Rosie
Dear Rosie ~
Before posting such a petty comment such as this, I think it would be
appropriate if you first thanked me for finding and sharing the
correction to Complete Peerage. So, how about if we start over. You
can repost and say "Thank you for your good post, Douglas." Then I
will follow up by saying "You're welcome" and then comment on your
pettiness.
If you fail to say thanks, people might think you are only looking to
find fault in my posts. And, I shudder to think they might be right.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: C.P. Correction: Pernel de Crey, wife of Robert Fitz Wal
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Douglas,
You're simply fabulous. Just thinking about your erudition makes me wet
myself. You represent a prototype, by comparison to which all scholars
can be judged. What would we ever do without you?
Now, say "You're welcome" and go ahead and "comment on her pettiness".
(Oh, and don't forget to thank her for her post.)
taf
rbevan@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message news:<05ba01c4d911$7e25bb90$cd00a8c0@rosie>...
I'm not sure why you've capitalised 'Fitz' in copying this charter, but it
should be 'fitz' as in the Daventry cartulary. Robert's father was Walter
son of Simon, and Robert's son was known as Walter son of Robert, as implied
by 'fitz'. Fitz Walter was not their surname and is not capitalised in CP,
as you have it, either.
Rosie
Dear Rosie ~
Before posting such a petty comment such as this, I think it would be
appropriate if you first thanked me for finding and sharing the
correction to Complete Peerage. So, how about if we start over. You
can repost and say "Thank you for your good post, Douglas." Then I
will follow up by saying "You're welcome" and then comment on your
pettiness.
If you fail to say thanks, people might think you are only looking to
find fault in my posts. And, I shudder to think they might be right.
Dear Douglas,
You're simply fabulous. Just thinking about your erudition makes me wet
myself. You represent a prototype, by comparison to which all scholars
can be judged. What would we ever do without you?
Now, say "You're welcome" and go ahead and "comment on her pettiness".
(Oh, and don't forget to thank her for her post.)
taf
-
Rosie Bevan
Re: C.P. Correction: Pernel de Crey, wife of Robert Fitz Wal
Dear Douglas
I'm hurt you are not grateful to me for pointing out your copying errors, as
I know what a stickler you are referring to medieval people as they were
termed during their lifetime, and thought you would particularly want to
know that you'd made the same error twice, and not want to deliberately
mislead people. A thank you would be the least I would expect for taking the
trouble to respond to your post.
As for finding faults with your posts - well I shudder at the thought of it
too. BTW your last Tracy post has left me hanging in suspense for your
follow up post tying in Thomas son of Henry de Tracy and Thomas, husband of
Iseult de Cardinham. With you being a trained genealogist and all, I know
you would not assume that having the same name, they would be the same
person.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Pernel de Crey, wife of Robert Fitz Walter of
Daventry
I'm hurt you are not grateful to me for pointing out your copying errors, as
I know what a stickler you are referring to medieval people as they were
termed during their lifetime, and thought you would particularly want to
know that you'd made the same error twice, and not want to deliberately
mislead people. A thank you would be the least I would expect for taking the
trouble to respond to your post.
As for finding faults with your posts - well I shudder at the thought of it
too. BTW your last Tracy post has left me hanging in suspense for your
follow up post tying in Thomas son of Henry de Tracy and Thomas, husband of
Iseult de Cardinham. With you being a trained genealogist and all, I know
you would not assume that having the same name, they would be the same
person.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Pernel de Crey, wife of Robert Fitz Walter of
Daventry
rbevan@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message
news:<05ba01c4d911$7e25bb90$cd00a8c0@rosie>...
I'm not sure why you've capitalised 'Fitz' in copying this charter, but
it
should be 'fitz' as in the Daventry cartulary. Robert's father was Walter
son of Simon, and Robert's son was known as Walter son of Robert, as
implied
by 'fitz'. Fitz Walter was not their surname and is not capitalised in
CP,
as you have it, either.
Rosie
Dear Rosie ~
Before posting such a petty comment such as this, I think it would be
appropriate if you first thanked me for finding and sharing the
correction to Complete Peerage. So, how about if we start over. You
can repost and say "Thank you for your good post, Douglas." Then I
will follow up by saying "You're welcome" and then comment on your
pettiness.
If you fail to say thanks, people might think you are only looking to
find fault in my posts. And, I shudder to think they might be right.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Brendan Wilson
Re: C.P. Correction: Pernel de Crey, wife of Robert Fitz Wal
Has this man gone crazy?
I'm lost interest in this mans comments.
If you have the time to make remarks to Rosie
then why don't you answer my email re your book.
copied
Hi Douglas,
please clarify the following.
page 684
14; Robert Stapleton, .... married Elizabeth Mallory
dau of William Mallory...... by Jane DAU, JOHN CONYERS [see Mallory
14 for her Ancestry]
if you turn to Mallory 14; on page 487, we see that William Mallory
married Jane Norton ( NOT, CONYERS) daughter of John Norton of Norton
Conyers. ( NOT JOHN CONYERS)
by Margaret his wife.
One page you say Jane Conyers, another Jane Norton
Who did he marry?
His book has lots of typos in it don't know who proof read it I've
sent him 7 emails informing him of typos. For which he thanked me.
He won't answer clarifications request though.
Why did I buy it? Cause in New Zealand we are very limited in what you
can get for research.
Douglas you should help where you can, don't blow your trumpet and pat
your self on the back.
Encourage, not provoke to get a response
Which wife is correct?
Regards
Brendan Wilson
New Zealand
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
On 3 Dec 2004 10:55:57 -0800, royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) wrote:
I'm lost interest in this mans comments.
If you have the time to make remarks to Rosie
then why don't you answer my email re your book.
copied
Hi Douglas,
please clarify the following.
page 684
14; Robert Stapleton, .... married Elizabeth Mallory
dau of William Mallory...... by Jane DAU, JOHN CONYERS [see Mallory
14 for her Ancestry]
if you turn to Mallory 14; on page 487, we see that William Mallory
married Jane Norton ( NOT, CONYERS) daughter of John Norton of Norton
Conyers. ( NOT JOHN CONYERS)
by Margaret his wife.
One page you say Jane Conyers, another Jane Norton
Who did he marry?
His book has lots of typos in it don't know who proof read it I've
sent him 7 emails informing him of typos. For which he thanked me.
He won't answer clarifications request though.
Why did I buy it? Cause in New Zealand we are very limited in what you
can get for research.
Douglas you should help where you can, don't blow your trumpet and pat
your self on the back.
Encourage, not provoke to get a response
Which wife is correct?
Regards
Brendan Wilson
New Zealand
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system
On 3 Dec 2004 10:55:57 -0800, royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) wrote:
rbevan@paradise.net.nz (Rosie Bevan) wrote in message news:<05ba01c4d911$7e25bb90$cd00a8c0@rosie>...
I'm not sure why you've capitalised 'Fitz' in copying this charter, but it
should be 'fitz' as in the Daventry cartulary. Robert's father was Walter
son of Simon, and Robert's son was known as Walter son of Robert, as implied
by 'fitz'. Fitz Walter was not their surname and is not capitalised in CP,
as you have it, either.
Rosie
Dear Rosie ~
Before posting such a petty comment such as this, I think it would be
appropriate if you first thanked me for finding and sharing the
correction to Complete Peerage. So, how about if we start over. You
can repost and say "Thank you for your good post, Douglas." Then I
will follow up by saying "You're welcome" and then comment on your
pettiness.
If you fail to say thanks, people might think you are only looking to
find fault in my posts. And, I shudder to think they might be right.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Jane Norton, wife of William Mallory
Dear Brendan ~
Who did Sir William Mallory marry? He married Jane Norton. The
correct answer is found in several places in my book: pg. 411, 487,
and 732.
On pg. 487, I quote directly from four different visitations, all of
which identify Sir William Mallory's wife, Jane Norton:
1. Glover & St. George, Vis. of Yorkshire 1584–5, 1612 (1875): 156–157
(Mallory pedigree: "Sir William Mallory, of Studley, Knt. = Jane, dau.
to Sir John Norton, of Norton, Knt.").
2. Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563–4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 231–232
(Norton pedigree: "Jane [Norton] wyff to Sir William Mallory Knight of
Stodeley.").
3. Harvey et al., Vis. of the North 2 (Surtees Soc. 133) (1921): 146
(Mallory pedigree: "Sir William [Mallory], son and heyr. = Jane, doter
of Sir John Norton of Norton.")
4. Harvey et al., Vis. of the North 4 (Surtees Soc. 146) (1932): 69–71
(Norton pedigree: "Jane [Norton] mar: to Sr Wm Malory of Studley").
If you have access to these visitations, I recommend you check them
out. There is much material in them which would be helpful to you.
The Norton family is sometimes called Conyers in some secondary
records.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Brendan Wilson <wilson97@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<1533r0hlgq385079mnitn6cth8ckcrfdb7@4ax.com>...
Who did Sir William Mallory marry? He married Jane Norton. The
correct answer is found in several places in my book: pg. 411, 487,
and 732.
On pg. 487, I quote directly from four different visitations, all of
which identify Sir William Mallory's wife, Jane Norton:
1. Glover & St. George, Vis. of Yorkshire 1584–5, 1612 (1875): 156–157
(Mallory pedigree: "Sir William Mallory, of Studley, Knt. = Jane, dau.
to Sir John Norton, of Norton, Knt.").
2. Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563–4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 231–232
(Norton pedigree: "Jane [Norton] wyff to Sir William Mallory Knight of
Stodeley.").
3. Harvey et al., Vis. of the North 2 (Surtees Soc. 133) (1921): 146
(Mallory pedigree: "Sir William [Mallory], son and heyr. = Jane, doter
of Sir John Norton of Norton.")
4. Harvey et al., Vis. of the North 4 (Surtees Soc. 146) (1932): 69–71
(Norton pedigree: "Jane [Norton] mar: to Sr Wm Malory of Studley").
If you have access to these visitations, I recommend you check them
out. There is much material in them which would be helpful to you.
The Norton family is sometimes called Conyers in some secondary
records.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Brendan Wilson <wilson97@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<1533r0hlgq385079mnitn6cth8ckcrfdb7@4ax.com>...
Hi Douglas,
please clarify the following.
page 684
14; Robert Stapleton, .... married Elizabeth Mallory
dau of William Mallory...... by Jane DAU, JOHN CONYERS [see Mallory
14 for her Ancestry]
if you turn to Mallory 14; on page 487, we see that William Mallory
married Jane Norton ( NOT, CONYERS) daughter of John Norton of Norton
Conyers. ( NOT JOHN CONYERS)
by Margaret his wife.
One page you say Jane Conyers, another Jane Norton
Who did he marry?
Which wife is correct?
Regards
Brendan Wilson
New Zealand
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Jane Norton, wife of William Mallory
In message of 4 Dec, royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
I am a great fan of the Visitation books as they are such marvellous
collections of genealogical information within single covers that is
unavailable in any other medium. But I would not pretend these books
to be other than they are; the critical thing is what they are not:
they are not the records of the Visitations, with the possible
exceptions of the first of these, of which I do not (yet) have a copy.
The second, third and fourth are not from manuscripts of the
Visitations.
The second is indeed William Flower's manuscript of 1563-4 but contains
additions in his hand way beyond the visitation and up to 1582. This
manuscript was held privately by the Norcliffe family from 1738 at
least until 1881 when it was published. The Editor of the publication
collated it with the real Visitation manuscript in the College of Arms
and noted over 100 additional pedigrees. Further this visitation is
one of the worst for including material way before the grandfather of
the interviewee, giving such no other confirmation and leaving it with a
considerable taint of suspicion. That said, for this Norton entry on
page 131, it is of the great-aunt of the interviewee and can be
presumed to be accurate. It is worth noting that the words "of
Stodeley" are in italics which indicates that they were not in the
original of the visitation so were added later to this manuscript.
Finally Jane's father is described as "Sir John Conyers alias Norton"
where the "Conyers alias" are also in italics, being added later: that
is the master copy in the College of Arms thus just has "Sir John
Norton".
The third and the fourth are from a remarkable collection of
long lost manuscripts that included much visitation material and some
additional material in other hands. These manuscripts were only
re-discovered around 1911.
The third item is in the hand of Flower the herald of the 1563-4
visitation. It is a collection of pedigrees that are very close to the
visitation material but not the same. It must be remembered that the
heralds did not go out on the later visitations without first obtaining
some good copies of pedigrees from earlier ones; further these books of
pedigrees were the stock in trade of a herald, to be carried with him
and developed over the course of his working life. Some of them were
then developed further by whoever inherited the originals. In this
pedigree Jane is indeed "Jane Norton, dotor of Sir John Norton of
Norton" and she is the mother of the subject of this pedigree; hence
this must be accepted as highly probable.
The fourth item is from a series of pedigrees that were described by the
editor as very probably drafts from which the 1573 visitation was
written up. Jane is indeed here the daughter of John Norton and the wife
of Sir W. Malory.
I would add some caution to this. Helpful yes, final no. Visitation
material, particularly handwritten copies of such, does need some
corroborating.
The actual facts are almost as recorded at the foot of the page of the
fourth reference. It says that the three times great grandfather of the
interviewee was "Roger Norton ... married Margaret, daughter and
heiress of of Richard Norton of Norton. Their son Adam took the name
of his mother's family but retained the differenced arms of Conyers".
Unfortunately the opening name of this has to be wrong: the three times
great grandfather has to have been Roger Conyers. None of these
records of visitation records uses the name "Conyers" for Jane or her
father, save in one italicised addition in the second item. Which
"secondary record", I wonder, actually uses Conyers?
After all that I have been struck by the synoptic problem of the
visitations (hands up those who know of the problem of the three
synoptic gospels?). It is becoming more and more clear to me that each
surviving visitation record depends greatly on previous records. The
heralds made it their business to copy from other records before going
out into the field; it was completely impractical for them to work
their way through any surviving deeds chest that each family possessed.
What then, are the implications of this thought on the overall veracity
of the visitation records themselves, or even, of these derived and
amended copies of the visitation records?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Who did Sir William Mallory marry? He married Jane Norton. The
correct answer is found in several places in my book: pg. 411, 487,
and 732.
On pg. 487, I quote directly from four different visitations, all of
which identify Sir William Mallory's wife, Jane Norton:
1. Glover & St. George, Vis. of Yorkshire 1584–5, 1612 (1875): 156–157
(Mallory pedigree: "Sir William Mallory, of Studley, Knt. = Jane, dau.
to Sir John Norton, of Norton, Knt.").
2. Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563–4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 231–232
(Norton pedigree: "Jane [Norton] wyff to Sir William Mallory Knight of
Stodeley.").
3. Harvey et al., Vis. of the North 2 (Surtees Soc. 133) (1921): 146
(Mallory pedigree: "Sir William [Mallory], son and heyr. = Jane, doter
of Sir John Norton of Norton.")
4. Harvey et al., Vis. of the North 4 (Surtees Soc. 146) (1932): 69–71
(Norton pedigree: "Jane [Norton] mar: to Sr Wm Malory of Studley").
I am a great fan of the Visitation books as they are such marvellous
collections of genealogical information within single covers that is
unavailable in any other medium. But I would not pretend these books
to be other than they are; the critical thing is what they are not:
they are not the records of the Visitations, with the possible
exceptions of the first of these, of which I do not (yet) have a copy.
The second, third and fourth are not from manuscripts of the
Visitations.
The second is indeed William Flower's manuscript of 1563-4 but contains
additions in his hand way beyond the visitation and up to 1582. This
manuscript was held privately by the Norcliffe family from 1738 at
least until 1881 when it was published. The Editor of the publication
collated it with the real Visitation manuscript in the College of Arms
and noted over 100 additional pedigrees. Further this visitation is
one of the worst for including material way before the grandfather of
the interviewee, giving such no other confirmation and leaving it with a
considerable taint of suspicion. That said, for this Norton entry on
page 131, it is of the great-aunt of the interviewee and can be
presumed to be accurate. It is worth noting that the words "of
Stodeley" are in italics which indicates that they were not in the
original of the visitation so were added later to this manuscript.
Finally Jane's father is described as "Sir John Conyers alias Norton"
where the "Conyers alias" are also in italics, being added later: that
is the master copy in the College of Arms thus just has "Sir John
Norton".
The third and the fourth are from a remarkable collection of
long lost manuscripts that included much visitation material and some
additional material in other hands. These manuscripts were only
re-discovered around 1911.
The third item is in the hand of Flower the herald of the 1563-4
visitation. It is a collection of pedigrees that are very close to the
visitation material but not the same. It must be remembered that the
heralds did not go out on the later visitations without first obtaining
some good copies of pedigrees from earlier ones; further these books of
pedigrees were the stock in trade of a herald, to be carried with him
and developed over the course of his working life. Some of them were
then developed further by whoever inherited the originals. In this
pedigree Jane is indeed "Jane Norton, dotor of Sir John Norton of
Norton" and she is the mother of the subject of this pedigree; hence
this must be accepted as highly probable.
The fourth item is from a series of pedigrees that were described by the
editor as very probably drafts from which the 1573 visitation was
written up. Jane is indeed here the daughter of John Norton and the wife
of Sir W. Malory.
If you have access to these visitations, I recommend you check them
out. There is much material in them which would be helpful to you.
I would add some caution to this. Helpful yes, final no. Visitation
material, particularly handwritten copies of such, does need some
corroborating.
The Norton family is sometimes called Conyers in some secondary
records.
The actual facts are almost as recorded at the foot of the page of the
fourth reference. It says that the three times great grandfather of the
interviewee was "Roger Norton ... married Margaret, daughter and
heiress of of Richard Norton of Norton. Their son Adam took the name
of his mother's family but retained the differenced arms of Conyers".
Unfortunately the opening name of this has to be wrong: the three times
great grandfather has to have been Roger Conyers. None of these
records of visitation records uses the name "Conyers" for Jane or her
father, save in one italicised addition in the second item. Which
"secondary record", I wonder, actually uses Conyers?
After all that I have been struck by the synoptic problem of the
visitations (hands up those who know of the problem of the three
synoptic gospels?). It is becoming more and more clear to me that each
surviving visitation record depends greatly on previous records. The
heralds made it their business to copy from other records before going
out into the field; it was completely impractical for them to work
their way through any surviving deeds chest that each family possessed.
What then, are the implications of this thought on the overall veracity
of the visitation records themselves, or even, of these derived and
amended copies of the visitation records?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Jane Norton, wife of William Mallory
royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0412040956.233fee13@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
Well, it seems from his own account that on p. 684 Douglas Richardson
was napping and copied his information from secondary records that had
changed the surname from Norton to Conyers.
How exactly does that fit with his stated & often restated criterion
of providing evidence from primary sources?
Peter Stewart
Dear Brendan ~
Who did Sir William Mallory marry? He married Jane Norton. The
correct answer is found in several places in my book: pg. 411, 487,
and 732.
<snip>
The Norton family is sometimes called Conyers in some secondary
records.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Brendan Wilson <wilson97@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<1533r0hlgq385079mnitn6cth8ckcrfdb7@4ax.com>...
Hi Douglas,
please clarify the following.
page 684
14; Robert Stapleton, .... married Elizabeth Mallory
dau of William Mallory...... by Jane DAU, JOHN CONYERS [see Mallory
14 for her Ancestry]
Well, it seems from his own account that on p. 684 Douglas Richardson
was napping and copied his information from secondary records that had
changed the surname from Norton to Conyers.
How exactly does that fit with his stated & often restated criterion
of providing evidence from primary sources?
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Jane Norton, wife of William Mallory
p_m_stewart@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote in message news:<88abeaa.0412051417.2bc071bd@posting.google.com>...
Are you asking me a question, Peter?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
How exactly does that fit with his stated & often restated criterion
of providing evidence from primary sources?
Peter Stewart
Are you asking me a question, Peter?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Jane Norton, wife of William Mallory
No, but now I am asking you three questions: didn't you note that I
referred in the earlier post to Douglas Richardson in the third person?
Why would I do that if addressing you directly? Have you never heard of
rhetorical questions?
This further attempt to deflect attention from lapses in your book
won't work any better than all the feeble rest.
Peter Stewart
referred in the earlier post to Douglas Richardson in the third person?
Why would I do that if addressing you directly? Have you never heard of
rhetorical questions?
This further attempt to deflect attention from lapses in your book
won't work any better than all the feeble rest.
Peter Stewart