Another Porter-Hawes marriage

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Another Porter-Hawes marriage

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 jan 2005 22:02:20

Sometimes it is interesting to note marriages within a certain social
circle, as they tend to confirm other connections. Page 363 of the
1635 London Visitation shows the marriage of John Hatley "of London,
grocer," to Anne, "da. of John Porter of Lamberhurst in Kent, Esqr."

http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/ ... index.html

The London Visitation pedigree shows John Hatley as the grandson of
Robert Hatley "of Putenho nigh Bedford." This is probably the same
Robert Hatley who was the second husband of Constance (Hawes) Sheppard,
widow of Thomas Sheppard, and daughter of Thomas and Elizabeth (Brome)
Hawes. _House of Commons, 1558-1603_, 2:275-76, says that Robert
Hatley, "of Puttenhoe and Goldington, Beds.," married to "(1) 17 Sept.
1559, Mill­icent, da. of one Barre, wid. of Thomas Fairclough, s.p.;
(2) 8 May 156­4, Constance (d. 1596), da. of Thomas Sheppard of
Hockliffe, 1s­. 2da." Thus, the John Hatley who married Anne Porter
must have been a Hawes descendant.

John Porter of Lamberhurst (the father of Anne [Porter] Hatley) was
almost certainly the brother of Jane (Porter) Hawes, wife of Edmund
Hawes of Solihull, Warwickshire. Their father, Richard Porter, M.P.,
though usually called "of Bayham," had also been associated with Frant
and Lamberhurst, as his sketch in _HOP_ shows. The will of Jane
(Porter)Hawes' mother, Jane (Whitfield) (Porter) Quinby, mentions "sons
Arthur Bromfield­ Esq., Thomas Porter, John Porter, and daughter Jeane
Hawes" (_NEHGR_, 53:12-13).

Hence, this was the second intermarriage of members of the Porter
family into the extended family of the Haweses of Warwickshire.

Gjest

Re: Another Porter-Hawes marriage

Legg inn av Gjest » 30 jan 2005 17:55:04

Thus, Jane Porter's niece Anne married Edmund Hawes' first cousin once
removed.

I think Dorothy Hampden, wife of the second Robert Hatley, was related
to the Haweses as well (she was a descendant of the Brome family).

starbuck95

Re: Another Porter-Hawes marriage

Legg inn av starbuck95 » 31 jan 2005 18:37:36

If you do a search in the LDS Ancestral File for John Hatley + Anna
Porter (exact spelling), it shows that Anne Porter who married John
Hatley was indeed a granddaughter of Richard and Jane (Whitfield)
Porter.

Gjest

Re: Another Porter-Hawes marriage

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 jan 2005 23:41:02

"If you do a search in the LDS Ancestral File for John Hatley + Anna
Porter (exact spelling), it shows that Anne Porter who married John
Hatley was indeed a granddaughter of Richard and Jane (Whitfield)
Porter."

And the Ancestral File is a false source. It is merely a compilation out of various and sundry "family group sheets" submitted by anyone. As such the authority of it is spotty. It should certainly not be used to "prove" anything.
Will Johnson

starbuck95

Re: Another Porter-Hawes marriage

Legg inn av starbuck95 » 01 feb 2005 15:02:27

And the Ancestral File is a false source. It is merely a compilation
out of various and >>sundry "family group sheets" submitted by anyone.

As such the authority of it is spotty. >>It should certainly not be
used to "prove" anything.

But it isn't _always_ wrong. And in this case I believe it _is_
correct ....

Gjest

Re: Another Porter-Hawes marriage

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 feb 2005 03:41:01

">>And the Ancestral File is a false source. It is merely a compilation
out of various and >>sundry "family group sheets" submitted by anyone.
As such the authority of it is spotty. >>It should certainly not be
used to "prove" anything.

But it isn't _always_ wrong. And in this case I believe it _is_
correct ...."


You are correct the Ancestral File is often correct and often incorrect. But "belief" has no part in genealogical research does it? The Ancestral File can certainly be based to "point" to the facts, but it itself should never be used AS a fact.
Will Johnson

starbuck95

Re: Another Porter-Hawes marriage

Legg inn av starbuck95 » 02 feb 2005 13:23:30

The Ancestral File can certainly be based >>to "point" to the facts,
but it itself should never >>be used AS a­ fact.


No argument there.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»