I would appreciate any comments regarding the plausibility of the descent of
the estate called Brenkley in Ponteland Parish, Northumberland, that I have
constructed. I am completely reliant upon Percy Hedley's Northumberland
Families for the early part of this construction.
Cuthbert Shafto of Little Bavington (in Thockrington Parish), son of Edward
Shafto & Elizabeth Swynburne, was the husband of Isabell Bertram, one of the
four daughters and co-heiresses of Roger Bertram of Brenkley (in Ponteland
Parish) and Benwell (two miles west of Newcastle). In 1544 Cuthbert Shafto
along with the representatives of the other co-heiresses was involved in a legal
case. At that time Cuthbert's wife was deceased and he was holding the land
apparently by right of England. Am I correct in assuming he would have been
unable to alienate the lands of his deceased wife and they would naturally
descend after his death to his wife's legitimate heir, who was his and her
eldest son, John Shafto, Esq., of Little Bavington?
Shortly after this one of the Bertram co-heiresses [Agnes (Bertram) Greene]
died sine prole, and in later mentions of the estate mention is made of
divisions in thirds - in 1573 the Cowdale third of Brenkley was mentioned and in
the early 1600s the Swynburne third of Brenkley was mentioned.
In 1571 John Fenwick, Gent., of Brenkley, was a witness to will of his
uncle. Am I correct in assuming a gentleman is by definition a landowner and that
his primary residence would be where is described as being of? [That
sentence is a little convoluted.] So John Fenwick is representing the interest of
one of these thirds of Brenkley. Correct? There is no extant record of how
he came to hold this interest. But in 1573 he purchased the Cowdale third
which transaction included a guaranteed warranty against of the future
intrusion of the Cowdale and Swynburne heirs. No mention is made of his needing a
warranty against the Shafto heirs. Is it likely that is because he was
already representing the Shafto interest? Since he did not appear to purchase this
Shafto claim is it likely that he received it in marriage to one of John
Shafto's four daughters [who were all still unmarried in 1563-64 as per the
Yorkshire Visitation]? This John Fenwick was deceased by 1590 when his cousin
made a bequest to his children, but John's widow lived on some time until she
was buried in Ponteland Parish in 1613. Their descendants continued to hold
two thirds of the Brenkley estate, and in the 1620s acquired the final third
by a little swapping action.
Earlier in this tale I mentioned that the Bertram co-heiresses also held the
Benwell estate near Newcastle. I found the following entry in The Beauties
of England and Wales...(1813), Vol. 12, Pt. 1, pp. 74 (sub Northumberland, by
J. Hodgson):
"The old tower of Benwell was the place where the prior of Tynemouth had his
summer's residence, and the chapel which Mr. Shaftoe opens for the good of
the people of his village, was the prior's domestic chapel." (A footnote
states this from "A note written in the time of the commonwealth...") "The
Shaftoes here were a branch of the Bavington family. Their mansion was joined to
the old tower, but the whole edifice has been several years untenanted, and
is now in ruins. The register of the chapel ends in 1742; its foundations
have been raised; and nothing remains to point out its site, except a few
gravestones..."
I include this entry since it seems to support the fact that a cadet line of
John Shafto's family who made its principle residence at Little Bavington
was tenacious in holding on to the Benwell inheritance for nearly two
centuries. It seems to me by the meandering logic I provided earlier in this note
that his descendants in the female line also held on to the Brenkley inheritance.
I am extremely anxious to find further evidence for or against this claim of
mine that the Fenwick family of Brenkley was descended from John Shafto and
his Bertram mother [co-heiress of Brenkley], since I have ascertained that
John Fenwick (d. by 1590), Gent., of Brenkley, and his wife (d. 1613), were the
parents of John Fenwick (alive 1629), Gent., of Brenkley, who married in 1612
to Jennet Pye, who in their turn were the parents of Cuthbert Fenwick
(1614-1655), Gent., of Calvert County, Maryland [my ancestor].
The wife of John Shafto (d. 1563-65), Esq., of Little Bavington, and the
mother of his eight children, was Anne Ellerker, who has a least three lines of
descent from Edward III [one from Lionel of Antwerp & two from John of Gaunt].
Thanks for any input or further assistance in piecing together these
Northumberland families.
History of the Brenkley Estate in Northumberland ~ Plausible
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
RE: History of the Brenkley Estate in Northumberland ~ Plau
_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L History of the Brenkley Estate in Northumberland ~
Plausible?_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1132091487)
I have come across an article "Notes on the Fenwicks of Brenkley" on pp.
66-82 of Archaeologia Aeliana, 3rd series, vol. 18, with a pedigree of the
family based on various Feets of Fines in Northumberland from 1647, 1694, and 1711
which mention conspiratorial "confederations," "fraudulent circumvention,"
and "false messinges."
It states that John Fenwick of Brenkley [will dated 24 Nov. 1585] had three
sons (which I had already been able to figure out from other sources): (1)
John Fenwick of Brenkley, (2) Martin Fenwick of Brenkley, and (3) Robert
Fenwick of Brenkley. The author of the article, Alan Fenwick Radcliffe, believed
that the eldest son John left no male issue since his descendants never
contested these later proceedings.
Mr. Radcliffe overlooked some sources regarding the elder son, John Fenwick,
Gent., of Brenkley, including the fact that in 1626 he leased the manor
house at Ellingham, Northumberland, from the Earl of Annandale for seven years at
a rent of L60. John was also a grand juror at Northumberland Quarter
Sessions held at Morpeth on 7 Oct. 1629 and 13 Jan. 1629/30. Also that he had two
surviving children, Cuthbert Fenwick, Gent., and Jane (Fenwick)
Taylor-Smyth-Eltonhead, who were well established in Maryland with much greater means than
their Northumberland cousins by the time of the 1647 dispute, and there is
no record of these two ever returning to England. In fact they appear
consistently in the Maryland records without any lapse until after the settlement of
their estates after their deaths. It is already established that these
Northumberland kinsmen were conniving in the extreme by the nature of these
suits, so it would seem unlikely they would try to notify John's descendants in
North America who had left over a decade previously, even if they believed they
were still alive.
In the 1647 dispute it is stated that ancestors of the Fenwicks of Brenkley
had held Brenkley for more than one hundred years. I believe this lends
credence to the supposition that I have made that John Fenwick, Gent., obtained
the Shafto third of Brenkley in marriage by 1571 and that their descendants
continued to be the chief landholders there.
Plausible?_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1132091487)
I have come across an article "Notes on the Fenwicks of Brenkley" on pp.
66-82 of Archaeologia Aeliana, 3rd series, vol. 18, with a pedigree of the
family based on various Feets of Fines in Northumberland from 1647, 1694, and 1711
which mention conspiratorial "confederations," "fraudulent circumvention,"
and "false messinges."
It states that John Fenwick of Brenkley [will dated 24 Nov. 1585] had three
sons (which I had already been able to figure out from other sources): (1)
John Fenwick of Brenkley, (2) Martin Fenwick of Brenkley, and (3) Robert
Fenwick of Brenkley. The author of the article, Alan Fenwick Radcliffe, believed
that the eldest son John left no male issue since his descendants never
contested these later proceedings.
Mr. Radcliffe overlooked some sources regarding the elder son, John Fenwick,
Gent., of Brenkley, including the fact that in 1626 he leased the manor
house at Ellingham, Northumberland, from the Earl of Annandale for seven years at
a rent of L60. John was also a grand juror at Northumberland Quarter
Sessions held at Morpeth on 7 Oct. 1629 and 13 Jan. 1629/30. Also that he had two
surviving children, Cuthbert Fenwick, Gent., and Jane (Fenwick)
Taylor-Smyth-Eltonhead, who were well established in Maryland with much greater means than
their Northumberland cousins by the time of the 1647 dispute, and there is
no record of these two ever returning to England. In fact they appear
consistently in the Maryland records without any lapse until after the settlement of
their estates after their deaths. It is already established that these
Northumberland kinsmen were conniving in the extreme by the nature of these
suits, so it would seem unlikely they would try to notify John's descendants in
North America who had left over a decade previously, even if they believed they
were still alive.
In the 1647 dispute it is stated that ancestors of the Fenwicks of Brenkley
had held Brenkley for more than one hundred years. I believe this lends
credence to the supposition that I have made that John Fenwick, Gent., obtained
the Shafto third of Brenkley in marriage by 1571 and that their descendants
continued to be the chief landholders there.
-
Gjest
RE: History of the Brenkley Estate in Northumberland ~ Plaus
_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L RE: History of the Brenkley Estate in
Northumberland ~ Plausible?_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1132612722)
As it turns out there is a fine dated Michaelmas 1570 where John Shafto,
Esq., alienated to John ffenwyck, Gent., property in Brenkley and one third of
the manor for an annuity of L4. This may or may not preclude John Fenwick
from being a husband of one of Shafto's four daughters. It still seems likely
in my estimation.
John Shafto's aunt Agnes (Bertram) Grene in effect alienated her Capheaton
lands in 1544 to the benefit of her Swynburne nephew. So this seems to be a
usual occurrence in this family.
Northumberland ~ Plausible?_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1132612722)
As it turns out there is a fine dated Michaelmas 1570 where John Shafto,
Esq., alienated to John ffenwyck, Gent., property in Brenkley and one third of
the manor for an annuity of L4. This may or may not preclude John Fenwick
from being a husband of one of Shafto's four daughters. It still seems likely
in my estimation.
John Shafto's aunt Agnes (Bertram) Grene in effect alienated her Capheaton
lands in 1544 to the benefit of her Swynburne nephew. So this seems to be a
usual occurrence in this family.
-
Gjest
Re: History of the Brenkley Estate in Northumberland ~ Plau
_RootsWeb: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L History of the Brenkley Estate in Northumberland ~
Plausible?_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1132091487)
An article entitled "Roger Bertram's Lands in Brenkley and Benwell," by Alan
Fenwick Radcliffe, in Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th series, vol. 7, pp. 68-76
(1930), completely debunks my hypothesis about the connection between Cuthbert
Fenwick (1614-1655) and John Fenwick of Brenkley (in Ponteland Parish),
Northumberland. After obtaining a copy of that article it appears at least to my
eyes that there must be at least two other contemporary John Fenwicks in
Ponteland Parish besides John Fenwick of Brenkley, and which of these two is
Cuthbert's father I have no idea. Any assistance is appreciated.
Plausible?_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1132091487)
An article entitled "Roger Bertram's Lands in Brenkley and Benwell," by Alan
Fenwick Radcliffe, in Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th series, vol. 7, pp. 68-76
(1930), completely debunks my hypothesis about the connection between Cuthbert
Fenwick (1614-1655) and John Fenwick of Brenkley (in Ponteland Parish),
Northumberland. After obtaining a copy of that article it appears at least to my
eyes that there must be at least two other contemporary John Fenwicks in
Ponteland Parish besides John Fenwick of Brenkley, and which of these two is
Cuthbert's father I have no idea. Any assistance is appreciated.
-
butlergrt
Re: Re: History of the Brenkley Estate in Northumberland ~
Good Evening Todd,
I do not disagree with your summation, on the other hand, other than a
typographical error or a jumped line, as Hubert Walter Archbishop of
Canterbury and King de facto of King Richard I, close confidant and
advisor to King John(remember it was after Huberts death, also 1205, that
King John said that "at last now I can be truly the king of England) and
of course Theobold Walters brother, if it is indeed not as you suggest,
then it must be. As it was once said after all the possible facts have
been eliminated what remains no matter how improbable most be the truth!!
Rather than an out-right dismissal it needs to be looked at, sure, it
would seriously change some genealogical studies, some in a rather large
way but what is, is.
It is written in the "Anglo-Norman Records of the the Glanville family"
that Hervey fitzWalter granted Armounderness to Theobold Walter before
1165, yes I know that according to the British UK arecords that he
recieved them from King Richard in 1196, Richard wasn't in England he was
on the continent and Hubert Theobalds barother was running England, so ok,
let's say he got them from Hubert, it was a waste land anyway. But if the
Glanville records are at least reasonably correct and not another vanity
work of the 1880's, as I suspect they are that means that Theobold was at
least 21 +/- a few years by then and Gilbert fitzReinfrid was b.c. 1162,
then it would make sense. Part of the Glanville records are correct in
mentioning that Hervey kept I fee fo the see of Ely for himself, which is
correct as 35 years or so previous it was an abbey with an abbott and at
the time a bishop of the transfer it was a bishopric also by Herve le
Breton. I know that most of the dates of Theobold Walter show him as b.c.
1165, don't think likely as when he went to Ireland and made Pincerna of
ALL of Ireland he would have been about 7? with Henry II? when Prince John
was made Lord of Ireland in 1185 and it was one of the 1st 10 recordings
in "The Calendar of Ormonde Deeds" and if you pushed Theobold's date to
b.c. 1160 he would have been 25, and he was a commoner by what is
portrayed I don't think so again, neither a commoner nor made pincerna of
all of Ireland at the age of 7 or 10 or.... But if he was b.c. 1140 and a
seasosned warrior and of nnobility then this starts to make sense, a 1st
wife and her son kept his mothers susrname? it was done by more than 1
Butler, look at Theobold Walter's grandson thru Rohese de Verdun, the
surname was maintained by the de Verdun line and some of that generation
went by both names, Butler and de Verdun, and let us say Maud le Vavasour
was a 2nd wife? Let us say that Rober le Vavasour, by the mandate did
indeed have a Gilbert fitz reinfrid but wanted the succession thru
Theobolds line with his daughter, not a previous wife!! has happened
before, and ..............................
JUST as you are doing, assuming that fitzReinfrid means son of a Reinfrid,
I know that is what it means, may not only be incorrect, but may have been
erroneously assigned to a different family because of it, has also been
done many times before as we have all seen. There are many circumstantial
records, lands etc. that things start to make sense when viewed in this
manner, the other way they don't. Theobold Walter died in April of 1205,
that would only give a month or less for Gilbert to be delivered to
Theobold, as these are records for 1205-1206, and the entry was for 1206,
it would not be to deliver Gilbert up to Theobold. Shoot that in the foot.
I posted this not to be dismissed out of hand but rather for serious
inquiry as some things are quite amiss and those in power did not easily
make those kinds of mistakes, 1200 marks for Maud to marry Fulk fitzWarin
was no small penny in those days!!!
Anyway, I felt that this would be of great interest to many and that
something of this magnitude deserves to be investigated and put to bed
properly one way or another. Gilbaert fitzreinfrid was Thebolds deputy
sheriff of lancaster!!!!!!!!!!!! They at least had more than a passing
knowledge of one another as did Nicholas Butler of Rawcliffe that no one
seems to want to touch with a 10 foot pole either.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler
I do not disagree with your summation, on the other hand, other than a
typographical error or a jumped line, as Hubert Walter Archbishop of
Canterbury and King de facto of King Richard I, close confidant and
advisor to King John(remember it was after Huberts death, also 1205, that
King John said that "at last now I can be truly the king of England) and
of course Theobold Walters brother, if it is indeed not as you suggest,
then it must be. As it was once said after all the possible facts have
been eliminated what remains no matter how improbable most be the truth!!
Rather than an out-right dismissal it needs to be looked at, sure, it
would seriously change some genealogical studies, some in a rather large
way but what is, is.
It is written in the "Anglo-Norman Records of the the Glanville family"
that Hervey fitzWalter granted Armounderness to Theobold Walter before
1165, yes I know that according to the British UK arecords that he
recieved them from King Richard in 1196, Richard wasn't in England he was
on the continent and Hubert Theobalds barother was running England, so ok,
let's say he got them from Hubert, it was a waste land anyway. But if the
Glanville records are at least reasonably correct and not another vanity
work of the 1880's, as I suspect they are that means that Theobold was at
least 21 +/- a few years by then and Gilbert fitzReinfrid was b.c. 1162,
then it would make sense. Part of the Glanville records are correct in
mentioning that Hervey kept I fee fo the see of Ely for himself, which is
correct as 35 years or so previous it was an abbey with an abbott and at
the time a bishop of the transfer it was a bishopric also by Herve le
Breton. I know that most of the dates of Theobold Walter show him as b.c.
1165, don't think likely as when he went to Ireland and made Pincerna of
ALL of Ireland he would have been about 7? with Henry II? when Prince John
was made Lord of Ireland in 1185 and it was one of the 1st 10 recordings
in "The Calendar of Ormonde Deeds" and if you pushed Theobold's date to
b.c. 1160 he would have been 25, and he was a commoner by what is
portrayed I don't think so again, neither a commoner nor made pincerna of
all of Ireland at the age of 7 or 10 or.... But if he was b.c. 1140 and a
seasosned warrior and of nnobility then this starts to make sense, a 1st
wife and her son kept his mothers susrname? it was done by more than 1
Butler, look at Theobold Walter's grandson thru Rohese de Verdun, the
surname was maintained by the de Verdun line and some of that generation
went by both names, Butler and de Verdun, and let us say Maud le Vavasour
was a 2nd wife? Let us say that Rober le Vavasour, by the mandate did
indeed have a Gilbert fitz reinfrid but wanted the succession thru
Theobolds line with his daughter, not a previous wife!! has happened
before, and ..............................
JUST as you are doing, assuming that fitzReinfrid means son of a Reinfrid,
I know that is what it means, may not only be incorrect, but may have been
erroneously assigned to a different family because of it, has also been
done many times before as we have all seen. There are many circumstantial
records, lands etc. that things start to make sense when viewed in this
manner, the other way they don't. Theobold Walter died in April of 1205,
that would only give a month or less for Gilbert to be delivered to
Theobold, as these are records for 1205-1206, and the entry was for 1206,
it would not be to deliver Gilbert up to Theobold. Shoot that in the foot.
I posted this not to be dismissed out of hand but rather for serious
inquiry as some things are quite amiss and those in power did not easily
make those kinds of mistakes, 1200 marks for Maud to marry Fulk fitzWarin
was no small penny in those days!!!
Anyway, I felt that this would be of great interest to many and that
something of this magnitude deserves to be investigated and put to bed
properly one way or another. Gilbaert fitzreinfrid was Thebolds deputy
sheriff of lancaster!!!!!!!!!!!! They at least had more than a passing
knowledge of one another as did Nicholas Butler of Rawcliffe that no one
seems to want to touch with a 10 foot pole either.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler