Gateway Find or Failure?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Gateway Find or Failure?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 22 jul 2005 08:15:02

I have a file placed on the website of Mrs. Brigitte Gastel Lloyd and someone in America contacted me because he thinks that I missed out on one child of a specific couple.
And as that child emigrated to the USA in 1714 I hope some people may know something about him.

Arthur Ingram, 3rd Viscount Irvine 1666-1702, according the Burke's Extinct Peerage, 1866, page 297 had nine sons of whom 5 succeeded to the title. So far I have found six of these sons.
1.Edward Machel Ingram, 4th Viscount, lived 1686-1714
2.Richard Ingram, 5th Viscount, lived 1688-1721
3.Arthur Ingram, 6th Viscount, lived 1689-1736 baptised in Whitkirk
4.Henry Ingram, 7th Viscount, lived 1691-1761 baptised in Whitkirk
5.George Ingram, 8th Viscount, lived 1694-1763
6.Hon.Charles Ingram, lived 1696-1748

It seems there could have been a son called John, who was supposedly baptised 4 June 1693 in Whitkirk Church, emigrated to America in 1714 and died in 1788.

If this is correct then this John should have become Viscount Irvine in 1761 when Henry died. I did a quick count and Arthur Ingram, 3rd Viscount Irvine has at least 334 lines of descent from Geoffrey Plantagenet.

Can anyone add to the knowledge about this John? Of course, he could have been illegitimate but he would still be a Gateway Ancestor.
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

R. Battle

Re: Gateway Find or Failure?

Legg inn av R. Battle » 22 jul 2005 08:15:03

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Leo van de Pas wrote:

<snip>
Arthur Ingram, 3rd Viscount Irvine 1666-1702, according the Burke's
Extinct Peerage, 1866, page 297 had nine sons of whom 5 succeeded to the
title. So far I have found six of these sons.
1.Edward Machel Ingram, 4th Viscount, lived 1686-1714
2.Richard Ingram, 5th Viscount, lived 1688-1721
3.Arthur Ingram, 6th Viscount, lived 1689-1736 baptised in Whitkirk
4.Henry Ingram, 7th Viscount, lived 1691-1761 baptised in Whitkirk
5.George Ingram, 8th Viscount, lived 1694-1763
6.Hon.Charles Ingram, lived 1696-1748

It seems there could have been a son called John, who was supposedly
baptised 4 June 1693 in Whitkirk Church, emigrated to America in 1714
and died in 1788.

If this is correct then this John should have become Viscount Irvine in
1761 when Henry died.
snip
Can anyone add to the knowledge about this John? Of course, he could
have been illegitimate but he would still be a Gateway Ancestor.
snip


According to CP 7:74-75 (sub Irvine), your #5 George Ingram was "next
surv[iving] br[other] and h[eir]", terminology which differs from the
previous brothers, all of whom were called "next br. and h." (except
Edward Machell Ingram, of course, who was "1st s. and h." of the previous
viscount). This indicates that there was a brother in between Henry and
George and that that brother did not survive and did not leave any heirs.
One might concoct a scenario in which John went to America and was
presumed dead or something, but that would be far less likely than that he
actually died without heirs as implied and that the American John Ingram
was a different person. The English John Ingram was certainly not
illegitimate, as witness the anonymous mention in CP as well as his
extracted christening record in the British IGI (where he is called a son
of Arthur Ingram and Isabella Machell).

-Robert Battle

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Gateway Find or Failure?

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 22 sep 2005 03:44:01

May I throw another iron in this fire?
According to TAG (sorry I haven't got the date) Richard Ingraham 5th
Viscount Irwin was the son of Arthur Ingram 3rd Viscount Irwin and Elizabeth
Mallory, not Isabella Machell. (Could Arthur have had another wife?)
Could this Richard be the gateway ancestor mentioned below, rather than
John?
Richard married Elizabeth Wignall, daughter of Alexander Wignall.
Richard and Elizabeth had a son Jarrett Ingraham who was born 28 May 1638 in
Rehoboth, Massachusetts and died 28 May 1662 in Rehoboth. He married
Rebecca Searle, daughter of Edward Sale/Seal/Savill.

Arthur Ingram 3rd Viscount Irwin was the son of Henry Ingram 1st Viscount
Irwin who died in 1666 and Eleanor Slingsby.
Henry was the son of Arthur Ingram of Nottingham, England who died in 1655.
Arthur was the son of Arthur Ingram who died in 1642.
Sorry about the lack of detail and sources, but I have two sets of
Ingraham/Ingram and wondered if someone could clarify if Richard Ingraham is
the same as Richard Ingram below.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia

-------Original Message-------

From: R. Battle
Date: 07/22/05 16:19:34
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Gateway Find or Failure?

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Leo van de Pas wrote:

<snip>
Arthur Ingram, 3rd Viscount Irvine 1666-1702, according the Burke's
Extinct Peerage, 1866, page 297 had nine sons of whom 5 succeeded to the
title. So far I have found six of these sons.
1.Edward Machel Ingram, 4th Viscount, lived 1686-1714
2.Richard Ingram, 5th Viscount, lived 1688-1721
3.Arthur Ingram, 6th Viscount, lived 1689-1736 baptised in Whitkirk
4.Henry Ingram, 7th Viscount, lived 1691-1761 baptised in Whitkirk
5.George Ingram, 8th Viscount, lived 1694-1763
6.Hon.Charles Ingram, lived 1696-1748

It seems there could have been a son called John, who was supposedly
baptised 4 June 1693 in Whitkirk Church, emigrated to America in 1714
and died in 1788.

If this is correct then this John should have become Viscount Irvine in
1761 when Henry died.
snip
Can anyone add to the knowledge about this John? Of course, he could
have been illegitimate but he would still be a Gateway Ancestor.
snip


According to CP 7:74-75 (sub Irvine), your #5 George Ingram was "next
surv[iving] br[other] and h[eir]", terminology which differs from the
previous brothers, all of whom were called "next br. and h." (except
Edward Machell Ingram, of course, who was "1st s. and h." of the previous
viscount). This indicates that there was a brother in between Henry and
George and that that brother did not survive and did not leave any heirs.
One might concoct a scenario in which John went to America and was
presumed dead or something, but that would be far less likely than that he
actually died without heirs as implied and that the American John Ingram
was a different person. The English John Ingram was certainly not
illegitimate, as witness the anonymous mention in CP as well as his
extracted christening record in the British IGI (where he is called a son
of Arthur Ingram and Isabella Machell).

-Robert Battle

Leo van de Pas

Re: Gateway Find or Failure?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 22 sep 2005 06:51:01

Dear Merilyn,
It looks as though TAG and CP are at odds with each other. CP Volume VII
page 72 clearly states that Arthur Ingram, 3rd Viscount Irvine, married
Isabella Machell, 1st daughter and heir of John Machell by Helena his wife.
Volume XIV has no corrections to the Irvines. The family name is definitely
Ingram. And according to CP Arthur had only the one wife. He was 20 when
they married and she outlived him, so that is a serious problem with TAG.

Also CP calls the 5th Viscount Rich not Richard and he married Lady Anne
Howard who outlived him and remarried. Where does Elizabeth Wignall fit in?
Was she a mistress?
Which may explain the name Ingraham.

Sorry about this.
Leo




----- Original Message -----
From: "Merilyn Pedrick" <pedricks@ozemail.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Gateway Find or Failure?


May I throw another iron in this fire?
According to TAG (sorry I haven't got the date) Richard Ingraham 5th
Viscount Irwin was the son of Arthur Ingram 3rd Viscount Irwin and
Elizabeth
Mallory, not Isabella Machell. (Could Arthur have had another wife?)
Could this Richard be the gateway ancestor mentioned below, rather than
John?
Richard married Elizabeth Wignall, daughter of Alexander Wignall.
Richard and Elizabeth had a son Jarrett Ingraham who was born 28 May 1638
in
Rehoboth, Massachusetts and died 28 May 1662 in Rehoboth. He married
Rebecca Searle, daughter of Edward Sale/Seal/Savill.

Arthur Ingram 3rd Viscount Irwin was the son of Henry Ingram 1st Viscount
Irwin who died in 1666 and Eleanor Slingsby.
Henry was the son of Arthur Ingram of Nottingham, England who died in
1655.
Arthur was the son of Arthur Ingram who died in 1642.
Sorry about the lack of detail and sources, but I have two sets of
Ingraham/Ingram and wondered if someone could clarify if Richard Ingraham
is
the same as Richard Ingram below.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia

-------Original Message-------

From: R. Battle
Date: 07/22/05 16:19:34
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Gateway Find or Failure?

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Leo van de Pas wrote:

snip
Arthur Ingram, 3rd Viscount Irvine 1666-1702, according the Burke's
Extinct Peerage, 1866, page 297 had nine sons of whom 5 succeeded to the
title. So far I have found six of these sons.
1.Edward Machel Ingram, 4th Viscount, lived 1686-1714
2.Richard Ingram, 5th Viscount, lived 1688-1721
3.Arthur Ingram, 6th Viscount, lived 1689-1736 baptised in Whitkirk
4.Henry Ingram, 7th Viscount, lived 1691-1761 baptised in Whitkirk
5.George Ingram, 8th Viscount, lived 1694-1763
6.Hon.Charles Ingram, lived 1696-1748

It seems there could have been a son called John, who was supposedly
baptised 4 June 1693 in Whitkirk Church, emigrated to America in 1714
and died in 1788.

If this is correct then this John should have become Viscount Irvine in
1761 when Henry died.
snip
Can anyone add to the knowledge about this John? Of course, he could
have been illegitimate but he would still be a Gateway Ancestor.
snip

According to CP 7:74-75 (sub Irvine), your #5 George Ingram was "next
surv[iving] br[other] and h[eir]", terminology which differs from the
previous brothers, all of whom were called "next br. and h." (except
Edward Machell Ingram, of course, who was "1st s. and h." of the previous
viscount). This indicates that there was a brother in between Henry and
George and that that brother did not survive and did not leave any heirs.
One might concoct a scenario in which John went to America and was
presumed dead or something, but that would be far less likely than that he
actually died without heirs as implied and that the American John Ingram
was a different person. The English John Ingram was certainly not
illegitimate, as witness the anonymous mention in CP as well as his
extracted christening record in the British IGI (where he is called a son
of Arthur Ingram and Isabella Machell).

-Robert Battle



Allen John Mallory

Re: Gateway Find or Failure?

Legg inn av Allen John Mallory » 22 sep 2005 21:16:12

Interesting.....RD 600 page 231-2 lists a Arthur Ingram marrying to Jane
Mallory (daughter of Sir John Mallory and Mary Moseley). A son was
Arthur Ingram with wife Elizabeth Barns.

Just can't get rid of those Mallory's <g>

Allen John Mallory
Danbury, Connecticut

Leo van de Pas wrote:
Dear Merilyn,
It looks as though TAG and CP are at odds with each other. CP Volume VII
page 72 clearly states that Arthur Ingram, 3rd Viscount Irvine, married
Isabella Machell, 1st daughter and heir of John Machell by Helena his
wife. Volume XIV has no corrections to the Irvines. The family name is
definitely Ingram. And according to CP Arthur had only the one wife. He
was 20 when they married and she outlived him, so that is a serious
problem with TAG.

Also CP calls the 5th Viscount Rich not Richard and he married Lady
Anne Howard who outlived him and remarried. Where does Elizabeth Wignall
fit in? Was she a mistress?
Which may explain the name Ingraham.

Sorry about this.
Leo




----- Original Message ----- From: "Merilyn Pedrick"
pedricks@ozemail.com.au
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Gateway Find or Failure?


May I throw another iron in this fire?
According to TAG (sorry I haven't got the date) Richard Ingraham 5th
Viscount Irwin was the son of Arthur Ingram 3rd Viscount Irwin and
Elizabeth
Mallory, not Isabella Machell. (Could Arthur have had another wife?)
Could this Richard be the gateway ancestor mentioned below, rather than
John?
Richard married Elizabeth Wignall, daughter of Alexander Wignall.
Richard and Elizabeth had a son Jarrett Ingraham who was born 28 May
1638 in
Rehoboth, Massachusetts and died 28 May 1662 in Rehoboth. He married
Rebecca Searle, daughter of Edward Sale/Seal/Savill.

Arthur Ingram 3rd Viscount Irwin was the son of Henry Ingram 1st Viscount
Irwin who died in 1666 and Eleanor Slingsby.
Henry was the son of Arthur Ingram of Nottingham, England who died in
1655.
Arthur was the son of Arthur Ingram who died in 1642.
Sorry about the lack of detail and sources, but I have two sets of
Ingraham/Ingram and wondered if someone could clarify if Richard
Ingraham is
the same as Richard Ingram below.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia

-------Original Message-------

From: R. Battle
Date: 07/22/05 16:19:34
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Gateway Find or Failure?

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Leo van de Pas wrote:

snip

Arthur Ingram, 3rd Viscount Irvine 1666-1702, according the Burke's
Extinct Peerage, 1866, page 297 had nine sons of whom 5 succeeded to the
title. So far I have found six of these sons.
1.Edward Machel Ingram, 4th Viscount, lived 1686-1714
2.Richard Ingram, 5th Viscount, lived 1688-1721
3.Arthur Ingram, 6th Viscount, lived 1689-1736 baptised in Whitkirk
4.Henry Ingram, 7th Viscount, lived 1691-1761 baptised in Whitkirk
5.George Ingram, 8th Viscount, lived 1694-1763
6.Hon.Charles Ingram, lived 1696-1748

It seems there could have been a son called John, who was supposedly
baptised 4 June 1693 in Whitkirk Church, emigrated to America in 1714
and died in 1788.

If this is correct then this John should have become Viscount Irvine in
1761 when Henry died.

snip

Can anyone add to the knowledge about this John? Of course, he could
have been illegitimate but he would still be a Gateway Ancestor.

snip

According to CP 7:74-75 (sub Irvine), your #5 George Ingram was "next
surv[iving] br[other] and h[eir]", terminology which differs from the
previous brothers, all of whom were called "next br. and h." (except
Edward Machell Ingram, of course, who was "1st s. and h." of the previous
viscount). This indicates that there was a brother in between Henry and
George and that that brother did not survive and did not leave any heirs.
One might concoct a scenario in which John went to America and was
presumed dead or something, but that would be far less likely than
that he
actually died without heirs as implied and that the American John Ingram
was a different person. The English John Ingram was certainly not
illegitimate, as witness the anonymous mention in CP as well as his
extracted christening record in the British IGI (where he is called a son
of Arthur Ingram and Isabella Machell).

-Robert Battle




Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»