William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MCA
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Greg Vaut
William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MCA
With the permission of the author, I am copying below an email I
recently received pointing out potential error in Richardson's recently
published _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (pp. 232-233).
According to my correspondent, Douglas may have misread the pedigree of
the Faunt family in "The History and Antiquities of the County of
Leicester" (first published by John Nichols, 1807 - Richardson cites
this book in MCA) and ommitted a generation in the Faunt line (ancestral
to Henry Corbin).
Can anyone shed any additional light on this missing generation?
Can anyone comment on the reliability and accuracy of Nichols' bok,
"History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester"?
Regards,
Greg Vaut
[quote]
I have not read Douglas Richardson's work, but in this case he has
certainly misread Nichols Vol.IV., Pt1., pp.174-5., first published in
1807- not the first mistake I have seen from people quoting him!
The details I gave in my first e-mail are as Nichols has them (see below).
According to the MCA pages you sent me under the title 'Corbin' it
should, based on Nichols, read:
11. Alice Conyers (Richardson says Isabel) married Thomas Clervaux, son
of Sir John Clervaux and
Isabel, dau of Richard Richmond.
12. Alice Clervaux, daughter and heir married John Faunt of Wistow, "a
Counsellor learned in the
laws of the land, and in Commission for the Peace of the County.
Died at his house at Wistow,
County Huntingdon, and is buried in the church there."
13. John Faunt of Wistow married Anne, daughter of John Hide, and sister
of George Hide Esq.
[The William Faunt given by Richardson, and his brother Thomas both
died without issue]
14. William Faunt, "servant to Lord Poynings, temp Henry VII; buried at
Wistow" married Isabel,
daughter of John Syor (Richardson has Sayer).
15. William Faunt "purchased Foston; died there 4 Sept 1559, age 63.
Married (1) Anne Fielding. No
issue. Married (2) Jane, widow of Nicholas Purefoy Esq., but by
birth the daughter of George
Vincent of Peckleton. Jane died 1585, age 74.
[The Pedigrees of Purefoy and Vincent both confirm this]
Nichols mentions just the marriage of William and Jane's daughter Mary
to George Corbin of Hall End, Warwickshire. Jane died 1614.
About William Faunt (15 above) Nichols says, in a footnote:
"The whole manor of Foston about the latter end of King Henry VIII came
(by purchase) to William Faunt of Wistow, Esq.; and apprentice of the
law, and Fellow of the Inner Temple in London. A man of great learning,
wisdom, judgement, of great esteem and grace in his county, having been
chosen twice Knight of the Shire for the Parliament by voice of the
Shire; and in those busy, various, and uncertain times of the latter end
of King Henry VIII, Kinf Edward Vi and Queen Mary, ever carried himself
just and upright, holding that saying of Justin the Emperor to the
Senate always authentical "He that walks right, he fears no harm at all;
And he that keeps the straight way cannot fall". He was a Justice of the
Peace and Quorum, and in one copy of this pedigree is styled "Legis
professor and senescallus de Burton Hasard". He increased his original
property by the purchase of the Manors of Foston and Newton, with lands
at Tur Langton, Twyford, Clawson, Somerby, and Harby; and died at Foston
where he was buried 4 September 1559." [Nichols is here quoting from a
manuscript of William Burton, who wrote in the 1600s]
In a "Pedigree of the Family of Percy, possessors of the manor of Foston
in early Time", Nichols (p.174) continues the line back from Alice
Clervaux (who married John Faunt) through four generations of Clervaux
and then back to William Percy who "came into England with William the
Conqueror" he married Emma de Port.
Nichols spent most of his adult life researching the families of note in
Leicestershire and published his massive 8 vol. work between 1793 and
1811. We have a copy in our local library.
I hope this helps to clear things up a bit!
With every best wish to you and all of yours,
Martin Wood
Melton Mowbray,
Leicestershire,
England.
[end quote]
recently received pointing out potential error in Richardson's recently
published _Magna Carta Ancestry_ (pp. 232-233).
According to my correspondent, Douglas may have misread the pedigree of
the Faunt family in "The History and Antiquities of the County of
Leicester" (first published by John Nichols, 1807 - Richardson cites
this book in MCA) and ommitted a generation in the Faunt line (ancestral
to Henry Corbin).
Can anyone shed any additional light on this missing generation?
Can anyone comment on the reliability and accuracy of Nichols' bok,
"History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester"?
Regards,
Greg Vaut
[quote]
I have not read Douglas Richardson's work, but in this case he has
certainly misread Nichols Vol.IV., Pt1., pp.174-5., first published in
1807- not the first mistake I have seen from people quoting him!
The details I gave in my first e-mail are as Nichols has them (see below).
According to the MCA pages you sent me under the title 'Corbin' it
should, based on Nichols, read:
11. Alice Conyers (Richardson says Isabel) married Thomas Clervaux, son
of Sir John Clervaux and
Isabel, dau of Richard Richmond.
12. Alice Clervaux, daughter and heir married John Faunt of Wistow, "a
Counsellor learned in the
laws of the land, and in Commission for the Peace of the County.
Died at his house at Wistow,
County Huntingdon, and is buried in the church there."
13. John Faunt of Wistow married Anne, daughter of John Hide, and sister
of George Hide Esq.
[The William Faunt given by Richardson, and his brother Thomas both
died without issue]
14. William Faunt, "servant to Lord Poynings, temp Henry VII; buried at
Wistow" married Isabel,
daughter of John Syor (Richardson has Sayer).
15. William Faunt "purchased Foston; died there 4 Sept 1559, age 63.
Married (1) Anne Fielding. No
issue. Married (2) Jane, widow of Nicholas Purefoy Esq., but by
birth the daughter of George
Vincent of Peckleton. Jane died 1585, age 74.
[The Pedigrees of Purefoy and Vincent both confirm this]
Nichols mentions just the marriage of William and Jane's daughter Mary
to George Corbin of Hall End, Warwickshire. Jane died 1614.
About William Faunt (15 above) Nichols says, in a footnote:
"The whole manor of Foston about the latter end of King Henry VIII came
(by purchase) to William Faunt of Wistow, Esq.; and apprentice of the
law, and Fellow of the Inner Temple in London. A man of great learning,
wisdom, judgement, of great esteem and grace in his county, having been
chosen twice Knight of the Shire for the Parliament by voice of the
Shire; and in those busy, various, and uncertain times of the latter end
of King Henry VIII, Kinf Edward Vi and Queen Mary, ever carried himself
just and upright, holding that saying of Justin the Emperor to the
Senate always authentical "He that walks right, he fears no harm at all;
And he that keeps the straight way cannot fall". He was a Justice of the
Peace and Quorum, and in one copy of this pedigree is styled "Legis
professor and senescallus de Burton Hasard". He increased his original
property by the purchase of the Manors of Foston and Newton, with lands
at Tur Langton, Twyford, Clawson, Somerby, and Harby; and died at Foston
where he was buried 4 September 1559." [Nichols is here quoting from a
manuscript of William Burton, who wrote in the 1600s]
In a "Pedigree of the Family of Percy, possessors of the manor of Foston
in early Time", Nichols (p.174) continues the line back from Alice
Clervaux (who married John Faunt) through four generations of Clervaux
and then back to William Percy who "came into England with William the
Conqueror" he married Emma de Port.
Nichols spent most of his adult life researching the families of note in
Leicestershire and published his massive 8 vol. work between 1793 and
1811. We have a copy in our local library.
I hope this helps to clear things up a bit!
With every best wish to you and all of yours,
Martin Wood
Melton Mowbray,
Leicestershire,
England.
[end quote]
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
Dear Greg ~
I've copied below the Faunt line as it appears in Magna Carta Ancestry
(2005), pp. 232-233, with slight revision. I believe this line is
sound, but I'd definitely like to see better documentation to support
it.
Your correspondant, Mr. Wood, has cited Nichols exclusively. I've
found Nichols makes mistakes, and often cites no documentation to
support his pedigrees, as in the material Mr. Wood has quoted for you.
As such, he usually is a good place to start, but that is all. Nichols
is one of the better antiquarians of the 19th Century, but I've learned
to be careful with him. A better source to use for Leicestershire
families would be Farnham, if he covers this family. I have a very
high opinion of Mr. Farnham's work.
I haven't re-checked the 1619 Visitation of Leicestershire. My notes
below, however, indicate William Faunt [Generation 13 below] married
"_____ Da. of Scot." This is at variance with Nichols, which fact
Mr. Wood has overlooked. Perhaps Mr. Wood can explain why he missed
this discrepancy.
If you have something further beyond Nichols, by all means, please post
what you have. I'm sure the descendants of Henry Corbin would
appreciate having additional information on this line. I did a quick
check just now of the helpful online A2A and National Archives
catalogues, and found nothing helpful on this family. I also checked
Google Book Search for William Faunt, and found nothing. Perhaps you
and Mr. Wood would have better luck.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
11. ISABEL CONYERS, married THOMAS CLERVAUX, younger son of John
Clervaux, of Croft, Yorkshire, by Isabel, daughter of Richard de
Richmond. They had one son, Robert, and one daughter, Alice. Thomas
and Isabel were legatees in the 1431 will of her father, Robert
Conyers, Esq.
References: Surtees, Hist. & Antiq. of Durham 3 (1823): 247-248
(Conyers pedigree). Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1)
(1807): 174-175 (Clervaux and Faunt pedigrees). Longstaffe, Hist &
Antiq. Parish Darlington (1854), tabular pedigree; Division VI,
lix-lxxx. Glover & St. George, Vis. of Yorkshire 1584-5, 1612
(1875): 412-414 (Clervaux pedigree: "Thomas [Clervaux], mar.
Isabel, da. of Thomas Thoresby, but, as saith Glover, the dau. of Thos.
Conyers, of Sockborne, o.s.p."). Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563-4
(H.S.P. 16) (1881): 58-59 (Clervaux pedigree: "Thomas Clervaux dyd
mary Izabell doughter to Robert Conyers."). Clagett, Seven
Centuries: Clagett (1999): 550 (citing Whitaker Hist. of Richmondshire
1 (1823); Burton 107; Round 2: 168).
12. ALICE CLERVAUX, daughter and heiress. She married JOHN FAUNT,
Esq., of Wistow and Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, and of London, attorney,
King's Serjeant, son of William Faunt, of Wistow, Huntingdonshire, by
Joan, daughter of John Moulton, Knt. They had three sons, John,
William, and Thomas. JOHN FAUNT, Esq., died at Wistow after 1499.
References:
Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1) (1807): 174-175
(Clervaux and Faunt pedigrees). Longstaffe, Hist & Antiq. Parish
Darlington (1854), tabular pedigree; Division VI, lix-lxxx. Lennard
& Vincent, Vis. of Leicester 1619 (H.S.P. 2) (1870): 28 (Faunt
pedigree: "John Faunt a Counceller of the Lawe ob. at Wistowe. _____ Da. & hey of Tho. Claruaux.") (Faunt arms: Argent, a lion
rampant between five cross crosslets fitchée gules). Glover & St.
George, Vis. of Yorkshire 1584-5, 1612 (1875): 413. C.P.R.
1494-1509 (1916): 9, 643.
13. WILLIAM FAUNT, of Wistow, Huntingdonshire. He married ISABEL
SAYER, daughter of John Sayer. They had three sons, John, William, and
Anthony. He was a servant to Lord Poynings. WILLIAM FAUNT was buried
at Wistow, Huntingdonshire.
Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1) (1807): 175 (Faunt
pedigree). Lennard & Vincent, Vis. of Leicester 1619 (H.S.P. 2)
(1870): 28 (Faunt pedigree: "William Faunt seruant to the Lo.
Poyninges buried at Winstow. = _____ Da. of Scot.").
14. WILLIAM FAUNT, Esq., of Foston, Leicestershire, 2nd son, born about
1496. He married (1st) ANNE FIELDING, widow of Richard Cave, of
Pickwell, Leicestershire, and daughter of William Fielding, of Newnham,
Warwickshire. They had no issue. He married (2nd) before 1547 JANE
VINCENT, widow of Nicholas Purefoy, Esq., of Drayton, and daughter of
George Vincent, of Peckleton, Leicestershire, by his 1st wife, Anne,
daughter of William Slorey. They had four sons, William, Anthony,
Arthur (Jesuit priest), and Vincent, and four daughters, Dorothy (wife
of Ralph Burton, Esq.), Frideswide (wife of John Hales and Roger
Cotton), Alice (wife of Humphrey Purefoy and John Plumbe, Esq.), and
Mary. He purchased the manor of Foster, Leicestershire. WILLIAM FAUNT
was buried at Foston, Leicestershire 4 Sept. 1559. His widow, Jane,
died in 1585.
References: Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1) (1807): 169
(William Faunt: "a very respectable lawyer, of the Inner Temple"),
175 (Faunt pedigree), 176 ("The whole manor of Foston about the
latter end of the reign of king Henry VIII. came (by purchase) to
William Faunt, of Wistow, esq.; an apprentice of the law, and fellow of
the Inner Temple in London; a man of great learning, wisdom, and
judgement, of great esteem and grace in his country, having been chosen
twice knight of the shire for the parliament by voice of the shire; and
in those busy, various, and uncertain times of the latter end of king
Henry VIII. king Edward VI. and queen Mary, ever carried himself just
and upright ..."); 4(2) (1811): 870 (Moton and Vincent pedigree).
Oliver, Colls. towards illustrating the biog. of the Scottish, English,
and Irish members of the Society of Jesus (1845): 89 (re. Laurence
Arthur Faunt, a Jesuit priest). Lennard & Vincent, Vis. of Leicester
1619 (H.S.P. 2) (1870): 28 (Faunt pedigree: "Will'm Faunt a man of
Law of fosson in Com. Leic. ob. 1 Elizab. 1559 ætat. 63., [1] = Anne
Da. of Sr Wm Feilding of Newna' in Com. Warw. sine p'le., [2] Jane [Da.] of Geo. Vincent of Pecleton ob. 7. Elizab."). Cal. Patent
Rolls, Elizabeth I 1 (1939): 215.
I've copied below the Faunt line as it appears in Magna Carta Ancestry
(2005), pp. 232-233, with slight revision. I believe this line is
sound, but I'd definitely like to see better documentation to support
it.
Your correspondant, Mr. Wood, has cited Nichols exclusively. I've
found Nichols makes mistakes, and often cites no documentation to
support his pedigrees, as in the material Mr. Wood has quoted for you.
As such, he usually is a good place to start, but that is all. Nichols
is one of the better antiquarians of the 19th Century, but I've learned
to be careful with him. A better source to use for Leicestershire
families would be Farnham, if he covers this family. I have a very
high opinion of Mr. Farnham's work.
I haven't re-checked the 1619 Visitation of Leicestershire. My notes
below, however, indicate William Faunt [Generation 13 below] married
"_____ Da. of Scot." This is at variance with Nichols, which fact
Mr. Wood has overlooked. Perhaps Mr. Wood can explain why he missed
this discrepancy.
If you have something further beyond Nichols, by all means, please post
what you have. I'm sure the descendants of Henry Corbin would
appreciate having additional information on this line. I did a quick
check just now of the helpful online A2A and National Archives
catalogues, and found nothing helpful on this family. I also checked
Google Book Search for William Faunt, and found nothing. Perhaps you
and Mr. Wood would have better luck.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
11. ISABEL CONYERS, married THOMAS CLERVAUX, younger son of John
Clervaux, of Croft, Yorkshire, by Isabel, daughter of Richard de
Richmond. They had one son, Robert, and one daughter, Alice. Thomas
and Isabel were legatees in the 1431 will of her father, Robert
Conyers, Esq.
References: Surtees, Hist. & Antiq. of Durham 3 (1823): 247-248
(Conyers pedigree). Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1)
(1807): 174-175 (Clervaux and Faunt pedigrees). Longstaffe, Hist &
Antiq. Parish Darlington (1854), tabular pedigree; Division VI,
lix-lxxx. Glover & St. George, Vis. of Yorkshire 1584-5, 1612
(1875): 412-414 (Clervaux pedigree: "Thomas [Clervaux], mar.
Isabel, da. of Thomas Thoresby, but, as saith Glover, the dau. of Thos.
Conyers, of Sockborne, o.s.p."). Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563-4
(H.S.P. 16) (1881): 58-59 (Clervaux pedigree: "Thomas Clervaux dyd
mary Izabell doughter to Robert Conyers."). Clagett, Seven
Centuries: Clagett (1999): 550 (citing Whitaker Hist. of Richmondshire
1 (1823); Burton 107; Round 2: 168).
12. ALICE CLERVAUX, daughter and heiress. She married JOHN FAUNT,
Esq., of Wistow and Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, and of London, attorney,
King's Serjeant, son of William Faunt, of Wistow, Huntingdonshire, by
Joan, daughter of John Moulton, Knt. They had three sons, John,
William, and Thomas. JOHN FAUNT, Esq., died at Wistow after 1499.
References:
Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1) (1807): 174-175
(Clervaux and Faunt pedigrees). Longstaffe, Hist & Antiq. Parish
Darlington (1854), tabular pedigree; Division VI, lix-lxxx. Lennard
& Vincent, Vis. of Leicester 1619 (H.S.P. 2) (1870): 28 (Faunt
pedigree: "John Faunt a Counceller of the Lawe ob. at Wistowe. _____ Da. & hey of Tho. Claruaux.") (Faunt arms: Argent, a lion
rampant between five cross crosslets fitchée gules). Glover & St.
George, Vis. of Yorkshire 1584-5, 1612 (1875): 413. C.P.R.
1494-1509 (1916): 9, 643.
13. WILLIAM FAUNT, of Wistow, Huntingdonshire. He married ISABEL
SAYER, daughter of John Sayer. They had three sons, John, William, and
Anthony. He was a servant to Lord Poynings. WILLIAM FAUNT was buried
at Wistow, Huntingdonshire.
Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1) (1807): 175 (Faunt
pedigree). Lennard & Vincent, Vis. of Leicester 1619 (H.S.P. 2)
(1870): 28 (Faunt pedigree: "William Faunt seruant to the Lo.
Poyninges buried at Winstow. = _____ Da. of Scot.").
14. WILLIAM FAUNT, Esq., of Foston, Leicestershire, 2nd son, born about
1496. He married (1st) ANNE FIELDING, widow of Richard Cave, of
Pickwell, Leicestershire, and daughter of William Fielding, of Newnham,
Warwickshire. They had no issue. He married (2nd) before 1547 JANE
VINCENT, widow of Nicholas Purefoy, Esq., of Drayton, and daughter of
George Vincent, of Peckleton, Leicestershire, by his 1st wife, Anne,
daughter of William Slorey. They had four sons, William, Anthony,
Arthur (Jesuit priest), and Vincent, and four daughters, Dorothy (wife
of Ralph Burton, Esq.), Frideswide (wife of John Hales and Roger
Cotton), Alice (wife of Humphrey Purefoy and John Plumbe, Esq.), and
Mary. He purchased the manor of Foster, Leicestershire. WILLIAM FAUNT
was buried at Foston, Leicestershire 4 Sept. 1559. His widow, Jane,
died in 1585.
References: Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1) (1807): 169
(William Faunt: "a very respectable lawyer, of the Inner Temple"),
175 (Faunt pedigree), 176 ("The whole manor of Foston about the
latter end of the reign of king Henry VIII. came (by purchase) to
William Faunt, of Wistow, esq.; an apprentice of the law, and fellow of
the Inner Temple in London; a man of great learning, wisdom, and
judgement, of great esteem and grace in his country, having been chosen
twice knight of the shire for the parliament by voice of the shire; and
in those busy, various, and uncertain times of the latter end of king
Henry VIII. king Edward VI. and queen Mary, ever carried himself just
and upright ..."); 4(2) (1811): 870 (Moton and Vincent pedigree).
Oliver, Colls. towards illustrating the biog. of the Scottish, English,
and Irish members of the Society of Jesus (1845): 89 (re. Laurence
Arthur Faunt, a Jesuit priest). Lennard & Vincent, Vis. of Leicester
1619 (H.S.P. 2) (1870): 28 (Faunt pedigree: "Will'm Faunt a man of
Law of fosson in Com. Leic. ob. 1 Elizab. 1559 ætat. 63., [1] = Anne
Da. of Sr Wm Feilding of Newna' in Com. Warw. sine p'le., [2] Jane [Da.] of Geo. Vincent of Pecleton ob. 7. Elizab."). Cal. Patent
Rolls, Elizabeth I 1 (1939): 215.
-
John Higgins
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
The Faunt family is not covered in Farnham's Leicestershire Pedigrees.
The 1619 Leics visitation says that the first William Faunt, father of the
William who mar. Anne Feilding [not Fielding] and Jane Vincent, was the son
of John Faunt and Alice Clervaux. This apparently disagrees with Nichols'
Leics, as quoted in the post that started this thread.
Nichols' Leics and the 1619 Leics visitation are the only sources cited for
the elder William Faunt in both RPA and MCA. Both books follow Nichols for
his wife's name and follow the visitation for his parentage - a very strange
and inconsistent choice. Why is one source preferred for one item and the
other source for the other? Perhaps Mr. Richardson can explain why he
missed this discrepancy.
One difference in the sources is noted in the
books, but the other (and perhaps more important) one, the parentage, is
ignored.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MCA
The 1619 Leics visitation says that the first William Faunt, father of the
William who mar. Anne Feilding [not Fielding] and Jane Vincent, was the son
of John Faunt and Alice Clervaux. This apparently disagrees with Nichols'
Leics, as quoted in the post that started this thread.
Nichols' Leics and the 1619 Leics visitation are the only sources cited for
the elder William Faunt in both RPA and MCA. Both books follow Nichols for
his wife's name and follow the visitation for his parentage - a very strange
and inconsistent choice. Why is one source preferred for one item and the
other source for the other? Perhaps Mr. Richardson can explain why he
missed this discrepancy.
books, but the other (and perhaps more important) one, the parentage, is
ignored.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MCA
Dear Greg ~
I've copied below the Faunt line as it appears in Magna Carta Ancestry
(2005), pp. 232-233, with slight revision. I believe this line is
sound, but I'd definitely like to see better documentation to support
it.
Your correspondant, Mr. Wood, has cited Nichols exclusively. I've
found Nichols makes mistakes, and often cites no documentation to
support his pedigrees, as in the material Mr. Wood has quoted for you.
As such, he usually is a good place to start, but that is all. Nichols
is one of the better antiquarians of the 19th Century, but I've learned
to be careful with him. A better source to use for Leicestershire
families would be Farnham, if he covers this family. I have a very
high opinion of Mr. Farnham's work.
I haven't re-checked the 1619 Visitation of Leicestershire. My notes
below, however, indicate William Faunt [Generation 13 below] married
"_____ Da. of Scot." This is at variance with Nichols, which fact
Mr. Wood has overlooked. Perhaps Mr. Wood can explain why he missed
this discrepancy.
If you have something further beyond Nichols, by all means, please post
what you have. I'm sure the descendants of Henry Corbin would
appreciate having additional information on this line. I did a quick
check just now of the helpful online A2A and National Archives
catalogues, and found nothing helpful on this family. I also checked
Google Book Search for William Faunt, and found nothing. Perhaps you
and Mr. Wood would have better luck.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
11. ISABEL CONYERS, married THOMAS CLERVAUX, younger son of John
Clervaux, of Croft, Yorkshire, by Isabel, daughter of Richard de
Richmond. They had one son, Robert, and one daughter, Alice. Thomas
and Isabel were legatees in the 1431 will of her father, Robert
Conyers, Esq.
References: Surtees, Hist. & Antiq. of Durham 3 (1823): 247-248
(Conyers pedigree). Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1)
(1807): 174-175 (Clervaux and Faunt pedigrees). Longstaffe, Hist &
Antiq. Parish Darlington (1854), tabular pedigree; Division VI,
lix-lxxx. Glover & St. George, Vis. of Yorkshire 1584-5, 1612
(1875): 412-414 (Clervaux pedigree: "Thomas [Clervaux], mar.
Isabel, da. of Thomas Thoresby, but, as saith Glover, the dau. of Thos.
Conyers, of Sockborne, o.s.p."). Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563-4
(H.S.P. 16) (1881): 58-59 (Clervaux pedigree: "Thomas Clervaux dyd
mary Izabell doughter to Robert Conyers."). Clagett, Seven
Centuries: Clagett (1999): 550 (citing Whitaker Hist. of Richmondshire
1 (1823); Burton 107; Round 2: 168).
12. ALICE CLERVAUX, daughter and heiress. She married JOHN FAUNT,
Esq., of Wistow and Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, and of London, attorney,
King's Serjeant, son of William Faunt, of Wistow, Huntingdonshire, by
Joan, daughter of John Moulton, Knt. They had three sons, John,
William, and Thomas. JOHN FAUNT, Esq., died at Wistow after 1499.
References:
Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1) (1807): 174-175
(Clervaux and Faunt pedigrees). Longstaffe, Hist & Antiq. Parish
Darlington (1854), tabular pedigree; Division VI, lix-lxxx. Lennard
& Vincent, Vis. of Leicester 1619 (H.S.P. 2) (1870): 28 (Faunt
pedigree: "John Faunt a Counceller of the Lawe ob. at Wistowe. =
_____ Da. & hey of Tho. Claruaux.") (Faunt arms: Argent, a lion
rampant between five cross crosslets fitchée gules). Glover & St.
George, Vis. of Yorkshire 1584-5, 1612 (1875): 413. C.P.R.
1494-1509 (1916): 9, 643.
13. WILLIAM FAUNT, of Wistow, Huntingdonshire. He married ISABEL
SAYER, daughter of John Sayer. They had three sons, John, William, and
Anthony. He was a servant to Lord Poynings. WILLIAM FAUNT was buried
at Wistow, Huntingdonshire.
Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1) (1807): 175 (Faunt
pedigree). Lennard & Vincent, Vis. of Leicester 1619 (H.S.P. 2)
(1870): 28 (Faunt pedigree: "William Faunt seruant to the Lo.
Poyninges buried at Winstow. = _____ Da. of Scot.").
14. WILLIAM FAUNT, Esq., of Foston, Leicestershire, 2nd son, born about
1496. He married (1st) ANNE FIELDING, widow of Richard Cave, of
Pickwell, Leicestershire, and daughter of William Fielding, of Newnham,
Warwickshire. They had no issue. He married (2nd) before 1547 JANE
VINCENT, widow of Nicholas Purefoy, Esq., of Drayton, and daughter of
George Vincent, of Peckleton, Leicestershire, by his 1st wife, Anne,
daughter of William Slorey. They had four sons, William, Anthony,
Arthur (Jesuit priest), and Vincent, and four daughters, Dorothy (wife
of Ralph Burton, Esq.), Frideswide (wife of John Hales and Roger
Cotton), Alice (wife of Humphrey Purefoy and John Plumbe, Esq.), and
Mary. He purchased the manor of Foster, Leicestershire. WILLIAM FAUNT
was buried at Foston, Leicestershire 4 Sept. 1559. His widow, Jane,
died in 1585.
References: Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1) (1807): 169
(William Faunt: "a very respectable lawyer, of the Inner Temple"),
175 (Faunt pedigree), 176 ("The whole manor of Foston about the
latter end of the reign of king Henry VIII. came (by purchase) to
William Faunt, of Wistow, esq.; an apprentice of the law, and fellow of
the Inner Temple in London; a man of great learning, wisdom, and
judgement, of great esteem and grace in his country, having been chosen
twice knight of the shire for the parliament by voice of the shire; and
in those busy, various, and uncertain times of the latter end of king
Henry VIII. king Edward VI. and queen Mary, ever carried himself just
and upright ..."); 4(2) (1811): 870 (Moton and Vincent pedigree).
Oliver, Colls. towards illustrating the biog. of the Scottish, English,
and Irish members of the Society of Jesus (1845): 89 (re. Laurence
Arthur Faunt, a Jesuit priest). Lennard & Vincent, Vis. of Leicester
1619 (H.S.P. 2) (1870): 28 (Faunt pedigree: "Will'm Faunt a man of
Law of fosson in Com. Leic. ob. 1 Elizab. 1559 ætat. 63., [1] = Anne
Da. of Sr Wm Feilding of Newna' in Com. Warw. sine p'le., [2] =
Jane [Da.] of Geo. Vincent of Pecleton ob. 7. Elizab."). Cal. Patent
Rolls, Elizabeth I 1 (1939): 215.
-
John Brandon
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
2. The Pedigree of Vincent of Peckleton calls Jane 'Joan' (if you see
what I mean). It shows Joan as the daughter of George Vincent of
Peckleton (died 1565, age 80) and his first wife, Anne, the daughter of
William Slorey of Sleford (probably Sleaford, Lincolnshire). George
Vincent was the son of Richard Vincent of Messingham, Lincolnshire, and
his wife Anne, daughter and heir of William Grimsby.
As I pointed out a few days ago, it seems quite clear, from Bindoff,
_The House of Commons, 1509-1558_, that this lady was not Anne Slorey,
but Jane Story, niece of Sir Richard Sacheverell.
VINCENT, George (by 1493-1566), of Peckleton, Leics.
b. by 1493, 1st s. of Richard Vincent of Messingham, Lincs. by Anne,
da. and h. of William Grimsby of Lincoln, Lincs. ... m. (1) by 1517,
Jane, da. of William Story of Sleaford, Lincs., 7s. 2da.; (2) by 1542,
Anne, da. of Richard Radcliffe, wid. of Roger Lache of Daventry,
Northants.; (3) Amy, da. of Peter Colles of Preston Capes, Northants.
2s. 1da. _suc._ fa. bef. 1515.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Greg Vaut wrote:
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Greg Vaut wrote:
There seems to be some interest in the FAUNT line, so I would like to
update this thread with some additional comments from Mr. Wood, which he
sent to me in response to the other messages posted to this thread so
far: (Again, posted with Mr. Wood's permission).I do have a high regard for Nichols, however.
I have regard for Mr. Nichols. But, I have learned to verify
everything he says.
< I do know that Nichols actually met representatives of most of the
families hecovers and got information on their families from them directly.
This was done many years after the fact.Burton, a respected early Leicrestershire researcher who published a book with
some pedigrees in it in the late 1600s, makes the line as Richardson and
those who copy him do. In his text about the Faunt family Nichols uses
much from Burton,s MSS, but he appears to correct Burton when he finds
cause to do so - e.g. making John Faunt of Wistow (who married Anne
Hyde) the son and heir of John Faunt of Wistow and his wife Alice
Clervaux. Nichols doesn't say that John's brothers, William and Thomas,
didn't marry, but that they died without issue. I can't really say more
than that. [end quote]
Why is that?Richardson says that a better source for the Faunt's would be
Farnham "if it covers this family" - I would have thought he would know
if it did - but one of your replies says it doesn't.
I've gone through Farnham and haven't noticed him paying any attention
to the Faunt family. It's a pity, too, as Farnham is usually quite
good.Richardson seems to place some store on the books of Visitations -
useful as guides, but notably unreliabe.
Visitations are no more reliable than Nichols. Both need verification,
where possible.In his reply to you Richardson says Nichols often cites no documentation
"as in the material he (that's me!) quoted for you". This is not true.
Nichols has a whole page of footnotes quoting the documents he used to
support his Pedigree of the Faunt family. [end quote]
What is the documentation Nichols cites for the part of the Faunt
pedigree which is under discussion? Does Nichols cite Patent Rolls?
Close Rolls? Fine Rolls? An original deed? A will? What? Don't
leave us hanging.2. The Pedigree of Vincent of Peckleton calls Jane 'Joan' (if you see
what I mean). It shows Joan as the daughter of George Vincent of
Peckleton (died 1565, age 80) and his first wife, Anne, the daughter of
William Slorey of Sleford (probably Sleaford, Lincolnshire). George
Vincent was the son of Richard Vincent of Messingham, Lincolnshire, and
his wife Anne, daughter and heir of William Grimsby.
Joan and Joan are interchangeable in this period.Best regards to all,
Greg Vaut
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Greg Vaut
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
There seems to be some interest in the FAUNT line, so I would like to
update this thread with some additional comments from Mr. Wood, which he
sent to me in response to the other messages posted to this thread so
far: (Again, posted with Mr. Wood's permission).
update this thread with some additional comments from Mr. Wood, which he
sent to me in response to the other messages posted to this thread so
far: (Again, posted with Mr. Wood's permission).
I do have a high regard for Nichols, however. I cannot imagine
what it must have been like to proof read his massive volumes, and some
mistakes in pedigrees contradict what he says in the text. I do know
that Nichols actually met representatives of most of the families he
covers and got information on their families from them directly. Burton,
a respected early Leicrestershire researcher who published a book with
some pedigrees in it in the late 1600s, makes the line as Richardson and
those who copy him do. In his text about the Faunt family Nichols uses
much from Burton,s MSS, but he appears to correct Burton when he finds
cause to do so - e.g. making John Faunt of Wistow (who married Anne
Hyde) the son and heir of John Faunt of Wistow and his wife Alice
Clervaux. Nichols doesn't say that John's brothers, William and Thomas,
didn't marry, but that they died without issue. I can't really say more
than that. [end quote]Richardson says that a better source for the Faunt's would be
Farnham "if it covers this family" - I would have thought he would know
if it did - but one of your replies says it doesn't.
Richardson seems to place some store on the books of Visitations -
useful as guides, but notably unreliabe.
In his reply to you Richardson says Nichols often cites no documentation
"as in the material he (that's me!) quoted for you". This is not true.
Nichols has a whole page of footnotes quoting the documents he used to
support his Pedigree of the Faunt family. [end quote]Looking down the messages you sent me, there seems to be
questions about the parentage of Anthony Faunt - who married Elizabeth
Noel - as well as about the parentage of Elizabeth Noel.
If it helps anyone, I can answer these using Nichols, as follows:
1. Anthony Faunt (who married Elizabeth Noel) was the son of William
Faunt (Purchased Foston and died there 4 Sept 1559, age 63) and his
second wife Jane, the widow of Nicholas Purefoy, Esq. of Drayton, but by
birth the daughter of George Vincent of Peckleton.
2. The Pedigree of Vincent of Peckleton calls Jane 'Joan' (if you see
what I mean). It shows Joan as the daughter of George Vincent of
Peckleton (died 1565, age 80) and his first wife, Anne, the daughter of
William Slorey of Sleford (probably Sleaford, Lincolnshire). George
Vincent was the son of Richard Vincent of Messingham, Lincolnshire, and
his wife Anne, daughter and heir of William Grimsby.
3. The Pedigree of Noel of Old Dalby (about 4 miles from where I live)
shown Elizabeth Noel (who married Anthony Faunt) as the daughter of
Andrew Noel of Old Dalby and his second wife Elizabeth, the widow of Sir
John Peryent, Knight, but by birth the daughter and heir of William
Hopton of Shropshire. His first wife (by whom he had a son John Noel of
Wellesborough) was Dorothy, the widow of Roger Flower of Whitwell, but
by birth the daughter of Richard Coniers of Blaston.
[Dorothy's previous marriage to Roger Flower is confirmed in the
Pedigree of Flower in "The History and Antiquities of the County of
Rutland" by James Wright. First published in 1684.
[Nichols notes the some pedigrees have Elizabeth as Andrew Noel's first
wife, and Dorothy as his second, but says that this is disproved by a
monument in the Church at Old Dalby].
The altar-tomb in St. John the Baptist Church at Old Dalby reads: "Heir
lieth Andrewe Noell, esquyer, disceased ye xxiii day of Januarie, ano
dni 1562; and Dorythe his wyfe, desceassed ano dni 1548; and dame
Elezabethe Peryent, now lyving, and late wyfe to ye said Andrewe Noell:
whose soulles God pardon."
4. Andrew Noel Esq., "was constituted the King's feodary in the Counties
of Northampton and Rutland; and on June 13 the year after, his feodary
in Leicestershire. Feb 12, 1543-4 he had a grant of all that capital
Manor and site of the late perceptory of Dalby-upon-the-Woulds, in
Leicestershire, late the possessions of the Knights of St. John of
Jerusalem; also of the Manor of Purbarre in Staffordshire. In 28 Henry
VIII ( 1537) he was Sheriff of the County of Rutland; also in 4 Edward
VI (1551) and 4 Mary (1557). In 1548 he purchased the seat and manor of
Brook, in Rutland."
5. Andrew and Elizabeth (above) had:
i. Sir Andrew Noel of Dalby (knighted at Greenwich 2 March 1586), who
married Maybel, 6th daughter of Sir James Harrington of Exton, Rutland.
[This is confirmed in the Pedigree of Harrington in Wright's "History
and Antiquities of the County of Rutland".] Sir Andrew died at Brook in
Rutland on 19 Oct 1607 and buried at Old Dalby on 8 December 1607. Mabel
died 30 June 1603.
ii. Henry, who died 26 February 1596. A gentleman pensioner to Queen
Elizabethand by the Queen's command buried in the Abbey Church of
Westminster in the chapel of St. Andrew.
iii. George.
iv. William.
v. Elizabeth, who married Anthony Faunt.
vi Goudith.
6. Sir Andrew and Maybel (Harrington) had:
i. Sir Edward Noel of Dalby, Leicestershire and Brook, Rutland, where he
lived. Created a Baronet on 22 June 1611 and Baron in 1617 by the title
of Lord Noel of Ridlington, Rutland. He died 1642. He married Juliana,
daughter and coheir of Sir Baptist Hicks, of Hunnington, Warwickshire
and Viscount Campden of Campden.
ii. Lucy, who married William Lord Euer.
iii. Theodosia, who married Sir Edward Cecil,(3rd son of Thomas Cecil,
Earl of Exeter), afterwards Viscount Wimbleton. Theodosia died in
Holland and is buried in the Collegiate Church, Utrecht.
iv. Elizabeth, first wife of George Lord Audley, Earl of Castlehaven in
Ireland.
v. Sir Charles Noel, who died unmarried, age 28, in 1619. Buried at
Brook where there is a monument to him in the church.
vi. Arthur, age 9 when his father died in 1607.
vii. Alexander Noel of Whitwell, age 5 when his father died. Married
Mary, daughter of Thomas Palmer, of Carlton, Northamptonshire.
[end quote]
Best regards to all,
Greg Vaut
John Higgins wrote:The Faunt family is not covered in Farnham's Leicestershire Pedigrees.
The 1619 Leics visitation says that the first William Faunt, father of the
William who mar. Anne Feilding [not Fielding] and Jane Vincent, was the son
of John Faunt and Alice Clervaux. This apparently disagrees with Nichols'
Leics, as quoted in the post that started this thread.
Nichols' Leics and the 1619 Leics visitation are the only sources cited for
the elder William Faunt in both RPA and MCA. Both books follow Nichols for
his wife's name and follow the visitation for his parentage - a very strange
and inconsistent choice. Why is one source preferred for one item and the
other source for the other? Perhaps Mr. Richardson can explain why he
missed this discrepancy.One difference in the sources is noted in the
books, but the other (and perhaps more important) one, the parentage, is
ignored.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MCA
Dear Greg ~
I've copied below the Faunt line as it appears in Magna Carta Ancestry
(2005), pp. 232-233, with slight revision. I believe this line is
sound, but I'd definitely like to see better documentation to support
it.
Your correspondant, Mr. Wood, has cited Nichols exclusively. I've
found Nichols makes mistakes, and often cites no documentation to
support his pedigrees, as in the material Mr. Wood has quoted for you.
As such, he usually is a good place to start, but that is all. Nichols
is one of the better antiquarians of the 19th Century, but I've learned
to be careful with him. A better source to use for Leicestershire
families would be Farnham, if he covers this family. I have a very
high opinion of Mr. Farnham's work.
I haven't re-checked the 1619 Visitation of Leicestershire. My notes
below, however, indicate William Faunt [Generation 13 below] married
"_____ Da. of Scot." This is at variance with Nichols, which fact
Mr. Wood has overlooked. Perhaps Mr. Wood can explain why he missed
this discrepancy.
If you have something further beyond Nichols, by all means, please post
what you have. I'm sure the descendants of Henry Corbin would
appreciate having additional information on this line. I did a quick
check just now of the helpful online A2A and National Archives
catalogues, and found nothing helpful on this family. I also checked
Google Book Search for William Faunt, and found nothing. Perhaps you
and Mr. Wood would have better luck.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
11. ISABEL CONYERS, married THOMAS CLERVAUX, younger son of John
Clervaux, of Croft, Yorkshire, by Isabel, daughter of Richard de
Richmond. They had one son, Robert, and one daughter, Alice. Thomas
and Isabel were legatees in the 1431 will of her father, Robert
Conyers, Esq.
References: Surtees, Hist. & Antiq. of Durham 3 (1823): 247-248
(Conyers pedigree). Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1)
(1807): 174-175 (Clervaux and Faunt pedigrees). Longstaffe, Hist &
Antiq. Parish Darlington (1854), tabular pedigree; Division VI,
lix-lxxx. Glover & St. George, Vis. of Yorkshire 1584-5, 1612
(1875): 412-414 (Clervaux pedigree: "Thomas [Clervaux], mar.
Isabel, da. of Thomas Thoresby, but, as saith Glover, the dau. of Thos.
Conyers, of Sockborne, o.s.p."). Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563-4
(H.S.P. 16) (1881): 58-59 (Clervaux pedigree: "Thomas Clervaux dyd
mary Izabell doughter to Robert Conyers."). Clagett, Seven
Centuries: Clagett (1999): 550 (citing Whitaker Hist. of Richmondshire
1 (1823); Burton 107; Round 2: 168).
12. ALICE CLERVAUX, daughter and heiress. She married JOHN FAUNT,
Esq., of Wistow and Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, and of London, attorney,
King's Serjeant, son of William Faunt, of Wistow, Huntingdonshire, by
Joan, daughter of John Moulton, Knt. They had three sons, John,
William, and Thomas. JOHN FAUNT, Esq., died at Wistow after 1499.
References:
Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1) (1807): 174-175
(Clervaux and Faunt pedigrees). Longstaffe, Hist & Antiq. Parish
Darlington (1854), tabular pedigree; Division VI, lix-lxxx. Lennard
& Vincent, Vis. of Leicester 1619 (H.S.P. 2) (1870): 28 (Faunt
pedigree: "John Faunt a Counceller of the Lawe ob. at Wistowe. =
_____ Da. & hey of Tho. Claruaux.") (Faunt arms: Argent, a lion
rampant between five cross crosslets fitchée gules). Glover & St.
George, Vis. of Yorkshire 1584-5, 1612 (1875): 413. C.P.R.
1494-1509 (1916): 9, 643.
13. WILLIAM FAUNT, of Wistow, Huntingdonshire. He married ISABEL
SAYER, daughter of John Sayer. They had three sons, John, William, and
Anthony. He was a servant to Lord Poynings. WILLIAM FAUNT was buried
at Wistow, Huntingdonshire.
Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1) (1807): 175 (Faunt
pedigree). Lennard & Vincent, Vis. of Leicester 1619 (H.S.P. 2)
(1870): 28 (Faunt pedigree: "William Faunt seruant to the Lo.
Poyninges buried at Winstow. = _____ Da. of Scot.").
14. WILLIAM FAUNT, Esq., of Foston, Leicestershire, 2nd son, born about
1496. He married (1st) ANNE FIELDING, widow of Richard Cave, of
Pickwell, Leicestershire, and daughter of William Fielding, of Newnham,
Warwickshire. They had no issue. He married (2nd) before 1547 JANE
VINCENT, widow of Nicholas Purefoy, Esq., of Drayton, and daughter of
George Vincent, of Peckleton, Leicestershire, by his 1st wife, Anne,
daughter of William Slorey. They had four sons, William, Anthony,
Arthur (Jesuit priest), and Vincent, and four daughters, Dorothy (wife
of Ralph Burton, Esq.), Frideswide (wife of John Hales and Roger
Cotton), Alice (wife of Humphrey Purefoy and John Plumbe, Esq.), and
Mary. He purchased the manor of Foster, Leicestershire. WILLIAM FAUNT
was buried at Foston, Leicestershire 4 Sept. 1559. His widow, Jane,
died in 1585.
References: Nichols, Hist. & Antiq. of Leicestershire 4(1) (1807): 169
(William Faunt: "a very respectable lawyer, of the Inner Temple"),
175 (Faunt pedigree), 176 ("The whole manor of Foston about the
latter end of the reign of king Henry VIII. came (by purchase) to
William Faunt, of Wistow, esq.; an apprentice of the law, and fellow of
the Inner Temple in London; a man of great learning, wisdom, and
judgement, of great esteem and grace in his country, having been chosen
twice knight of the shire for the parliament by voice of the shire; and
in those busy, various, and uncertain times of the latter end of king
Henry VIII. king Edward VI. and queen Mary, ever carried himself just
and upright ..."); 4(2) (1811): 870 (Moton and Vincent pedigree).
Oliver, Colls. towards illustrating the biog. of the Scottish, English,
and Irish members of the Society of Jesus (1845): 89 (re. Laurence
Arthur Faunt, a Jesuit priest). Lennard & Vincent, Vis. of Leicester
1619 (H.S.P. 2) (1870): 28 (Faunt pedigree: "Will'm Faunt a man of
Law of fosson in Com. Leic. ob. 1 Elizab. 1559 ætat. 63., [1] = Anne
Da. of Sr Wm Feilding of Newna' in Com. Warw. sine p'le., [2] =
Jane [Da.] of Geo. Vincent of Pecleton ob. 7. Elizab."). Cal. Patent
Rolls, Elizabeth I 1 (1939): 215.
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
I meant to say "Joan and Jane are interchangeable in this period," not
"Joan and Joan."
DR
"Joan and Joan."
DR
-
John Higgins
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
If you challenge Mr. Wood (or Mr. Vaut) below to identify the documentation
cited by Nichols for his pedigree of the Faunt family, it's only fair to ask
YOU to do the same for the visitation pedigree that you use (partially) as
the basis for this pedigree. As you say, "don't leave us hanging!"
At a minimum you should explain why you choose to use the visitation
pedigree in preference to Nichols for some elements of this family's
pedigree but not for others. This selective use of sources without
explanation is inherently questionable, especially when differences between
the cited sources are glossed over or not mentioned at all. A "trained
professional genealogist" can certainly do better than this....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MCA
cited by Nichols for his pedigree of the Faunt family, it's only fair to ask
YOU to do the same for the visitation pedigree that you use (partially) as
the basis for this pedigree. As you say, "don't leave us hanging!"
At a minimum you should explain why you choose to use the visitation
pedigree in preference to Nichols for some elements of this family's
pedigree but not for others. This selective use of sources without
explanation is inherently questionable, especially when differences between
the cited sources are glossed over or not mentioned at all. A "trained
professional genealogist" can certainly do better than this....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MCA
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Greg Vaut wrote:
There seems to be some interest in the FAUNT line, so I would like to
update this thread with some additional comments from Mr. Wood, which he
sent to me in response to the other messages posted to this thread so
far: (Again, posted with Mr. Wood's permission).I do have a high regard for Nichols, however.
I have regard for Mr. Nichols. But, I have learned to verify
everything he says.
I do know that Nichols actually met representatives of most of the
families he
covers and got information on their families from them directly.
This was done many years after the fact.
Burton, a respected early Leicrestershire researcher who published a
book with
some pedigrees in it in the late 1600s, makes the line as Richardson and
those who copy him do. In his text about the Faunt family Nichols uses
much from Burton,s MSS, but he appears to correct Burton when he finds
cause to do so - e.g. making John Faunt of Wistow (who married Anne
Hyde) the son and heir of John Faunt of Wistow and his wife Alice
Clervaux. Nichols doesn't say that John's brothers, William and Thomas,
didn't marry, but that they died without issue. I can't really say more
than that. [end quote]
Why is that?Richardson says that a better source for the Faunt's would be
Farnham "if it covers this family" - I would have thought he would know
if it did - but one of your replies says it doesn't.
I've gone through Farnham and haven't noticed him paying any attention
to the Faunt family. It's a pity, too, as Farnham is usually quite
good.
Richardson seems to place some store on the books of Visitations -
useful as guides, but notably unreliabe.
Visitations are no more reliable than Nichols. Both need verification,
where possible.
In his reply to you Richardson says Nichols often cites no documentation
"as in the material he (that's me!) quoted for you". This is not true.
Nichols has a whole page of footnotes quoting the documents he used to
support his Pedigree of the Faunt family. [end quote]
What is the documentation Nichols cites for the part of the Faunt
pedigree which is under discussion? Does Nichols cite Patent Rolls?
Close Rolls? Fine Rolls? An original deed? A will? What? Don't
leave us hanging.
2. The Pedigree of Vincent of Peckleton calls Jane 'Joan' (if you see
what I mean). It shows Joan as the daughter of George Vincent of
Peckleton (died 1565, age 80) and his first wife, Anne, the daughter of
William Slorey of Sleford (probably Sleaford, Lincolnshire). George
Vincent was the son of Richard Vincent of Messingham, Lincolnshire, and
his wife Anne, daughter and heir of William Grimsby.
Joan and Joan are interchangeable in this period.
Best regards to all,
Greg Vaut
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
"John Higgins" wrote:
< If you challenge Mr. Wood (or Mr. Vaut) below to identify the
documentation
< cited by Nichols for his pedigree of the Faunt family, it's only fair
to ask
< YOU to do the same for the visitation pedigree that you use
(partially) as
< the basis for this pedigree. As you say, "don't leave us hanging!"
Mr. Wood has claimed that Mr. Nichols is accurate and entirely
reliable. If he wishes, he can post the sources that Mr. Nichols used
to create the pedigree of the Faunt family. Then we can examine those
sources and see if they bear scrutiny. It's appropriate for him to do
this, especially since he has claimed that Nichols supplied a whole
page of sources. If Nichols' pedigree is correct, I for one should be
glad to know it.
< A "trained professional genealogist" can certainly do better than
this....
Is this like a "trained seal?"
DR
< If you challenge Mr. Wood (or Mr. Vaut) below to identify the
documentation
< cited by Nichols for his pedigree of the Faunt family, it's only fair
to ask
< YOU to do the same for the visitation pedigree that you use
(partially) as
< the basis for this pedigree. As you say, "don't leave us hanging!"
Mr. Wood has claimed that Mr. Nichols is accurate and entirely
reliable. If he wishes, he can post the sources that Mr. Nichols used
to create the pedigree of the Faunt family. Then we can examine those
sources and see if they bear scrutiny. It's appropriate for him to do
this, especially since he has claimed that Nichols supplied a whole
page of sources. If Nichols' pedigree is correct, I for one should be
glad to know it.
< A "trained professional genealogist" can certainly do better than
this....
Is this like a "trained seal?"
DR
-
John Higgins
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
You misrepesent Mr. Wood's position (and, to be clear, this is not a
defense of his position - defensible as it is - but a criticism of your
position and your tactics). Mr. Wood never used the phrase "accurate and
entirely reliable" with respect to Nichols (in fact his comments make it
clear that this is not his position). These are your words based on your
interpretation of his comments, and they are unduly (and, for you,
conveniently) broad and over-reaching - and untrue. All you're doing is
creating a "straw man" for you to attack - a tactic you've used frequently
before.
I happen to agree that it might be useful to know what Nichols' sources are
for the Faunt family, especially since you've cited him in your books. I
assume that you would have checked his sources before citing him, but I
guess that's expecting too much. Instead, we are faced with the larger
question (which you've twice declined to address) of whether Nichols or the
Leics visitation is a better source for the Faunt family. You apparently
take a middle ground on this question by citing pieces of both sources,
without explaining why to your readers or even noting the discrepancy
between the sources.
I don't expect that we will get an honest answer to the larger question
(because it highlights a lapse of judgment in your books), so this
discussion is quickly becoming pointless.
However, I do apologize - I misquoted when I identified you as a "trained
professional genealogist". In fact, as the archives will show (e.g. Apr 15
2002), you have identified yourself as "a trained historian and a
professional genealogist". If we're to be literal here, I guess you're
saying that as a genealogist you're untrained - a conclusion which might be
deemed to fit well under the circumstances.
Since this is a genealogy group, I'll leave it for the "trained historian"
to deal with the matter of "the trained seal"....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MCA
defense of his position - defensible as it is - but a criticism of your
position and your tactics). Mr. Wood never used the phrase "accurate and
entirely reliable" with respect to Nichols (in fact his comments make it
clear that this is not his position). These are your words based on your
interpretation of his comments, and they are unduly (and, for you,
conveniently) broad and over-reaching - and untrue. All you're doing is
creating a "straw man" for you to attack - a tactic you've used frequently
before.
I happen to agree that it might be useful to know what Nichols' sources are
for the Faunt family, especially since you've cited him in your books. I
assume that you would have checked his sources before citing him, but I
guess that's expecting too much. Instead, we are faced with the larger
question (which you've twice declined to address) of whether Nichols or the
Leics visitation is a better source for the Faunt family. You apparently
take a middle ground on this question by citing pieces of both sources,
without explaining why to your readers or even noting the discrepancy
between the sources.
I don't expect that we will get an honest answer to the larger question
(because it highlights a lapse of judgment in your books), so this
discussion is quickly becoming pointless.
However, I do apologize - I misquoted when I identified you as a "trained
professional genealogist". In fact, as the archives will show (e.g. Apr 15
2002), you have identified yourself as "a trained historian and a
professional genealogist". If we're to be literal here, I guess you're
saying that as a genealogist you're untrained - a conclusion which might be
deemed to fit well under the circumstances.
Since this is a genealogy group, I'll leave it for the "trained historian"
to deal with the matter of "the trained seal"....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MCA
"John Higgins" wrote:
If you challenge Mr. Wood (or Mr. Vaut) below to identify the
documentation
cited by Nichols for his pedigree of the Faunt family, it's only fair
to ask
YOU to do the same for the visitation pedigree that you use
(partially) as
the basis for this pedigree. As you say, "don't leave us hanging!"
Mr. Wood has claimed that Mr. Nichols is accurate and entirely
reliable. If he wishes, he can post the sources that Mr. Nichols used
to create the pedigree of the Faunt family. Then we can examine those
sources and see if they bear scrutiny. It's appropriate for him to do
this, especially since he has claimed that Nichols supplied a whole
page of sources. If Nichols' pedigree is correct, I for one should be
glad to know it.
A "trained professional genealogist" can certainly do better than
this....
Is this like a "trained seal?"
DR
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
I've kindly asked Mr. Wood that he cite Mr. Nichols' sources for the
Faunt pedigree, which he says fills a whole page, and then we can
examine the sources and see if they bear scrutiny. This is the way
that a trained historian and professional genealogist would approach
the problem.
In the meantime, I suggest to Mr. Higgins that he sit tight and chill
out. We shall know soon enough if Mr. Nichols' pedigree is reliable
and accurate.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
Faunt pedigree, which he says fills a whole page, and then we can
examine the sources and see if they bear scrutiny. This is the way
that a trained historian and professional genealogist would approach
the problem.
In the meantime, I suggest to Mr. Higgins that he sit tight and chill
out. We shall know soon enough if Mr. Nichols' pedigree is reliable
and accurate.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
John Higgins
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
If "the way that a trained historian and professional genealogist would
approach the problem" is to"examine the sources and see if they bear
scrutiny", why didn't you do so before you cited Nichols in your books?
(especially since you knew that there was a conflict between Nichols and
other sources - and failed to disclose this to your readers) And why don't
you do it NOW? You certainly have access to Nichols at the FHL. "Don't
keep us hanging!"
After you've done this research, you can then explain (as you should have
originally) why the Leics visitation pedigree is superior to the Nichols
pedigree - which is the question you continue to dodge. How do we know that
the Leics visitation pedigree , cited by you, is "reliable and accurate"?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MCA
approach the problem" is to"examine the sources and see if they bear
scrutiny", why didn't you do so before you cited Nichols in your books?
(especially since you knew that there was a conflict between Nichols and
other sources - and failed to disclose this to your readers) And why don't
you do it NOW? You certainly have access to Nichols at the FHL. "Don't
keep us hanging!"
After you've done this research, you can then explain (as you should have
originally) why the Leics visitation pedigree is superior to the Nichols
pedigree - which is the question you continue to dodge. How do we know that
the Leics visitation pedigree , cited by you, is "reliable and accurate"?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MCA
I've kindly asked Mr. Wood that he cite Mr. Nichols' sources for the
Faunt pedigree, which he says fills a whole page, and then we can
examine the sources and see if they bear scrutiny. This is the way
that a trained historian and professional genealogist would approach
the problem.
In the meantime, I suggest to Mr. Higgins that he sit tight and chill
out. We shall know soon enough if Mr. Nichols' pedigree is reliable
and accurate.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Gjest
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
"John Higgins" wrote:
< And why don't you do it NOW?
You seem a little stressed lately, John.
DR
< And why don't you do it NOW?
You seem a little stressed lately, John.
DR
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: William Faunt m. Isabel Sayer (Syor) and Richardson's MC
Greg Vaut wrote:
< There seems to be some interest in the FAUNT line, so I would like to
update this thread < with some additional comments from Mr. Wood, which
he sent to me in response to the
< other messages posted to this thread so far: (Again, posted with Mr.
Wood's
< permission).
<
< [quote] Richardson says that a better source for the Faunt's would be
Farnham "if it
< covers this family" - I would have thought he would know if it did -
but one of your replies
< says it doesn't.
Mr. Wood's comment withstanding, Farnham's work includes material on
the Faunt family of Leicestershire, including a helpful pedigree.
DR
< There seems to be some interest in the FAUNT line, so I would like to
update this thread < with some additional comments from Mr. Wood, which
he sent to me in response to the
< other messages posted to this thread so far: (Again, posted with Mr.
Wood's
< permission).
<
< [quote] Richardson says that a better source for the Faunt's would be
Farnham "if it
< covers this family" - I would have thought he would know if it did -
but one of your replies
< says it doesn't.
Mr. Wood's comment withstanding, Farnham's work includes material on
the Faunt family of Leicestershire, including a helpful pedigree.
DR