#15 VCH Sussex 9 Brenchly, Echyngham

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
charlotte smith

#15 VCH Sussex 9 Brenchly, Echyngham

Legg inn av charlotte smith » 09 jun 2006 18:33:01

#15 VCH Sussex 9: BRENCHLY, ECHINGHAM [Louise Staley
<caramut@bigpond.com]

*LUNDSFORD:* “A John [Lundsford] was also holding the manor in 1423 and
1428, and was *married to Elizabeth daughter of Thomas de Echingham*
[31] (VCH Sussex 9: 214).”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 Book Plantagenet Ancestry by Faris has the following on this Lunsford;
HSP 53: 12.30 (1905) Coll. Top & Gen 4:139-141) is a pedigree entered in MS 2D 13 in the c0llege of Arms dated 1 Dec 1648; the editor commented "the compiler of the pedigree-strung together all he found with an ingenuity more curious than happy" HSP 12:84-85 (1877) (1619 vis Warwick) (Lunsford arms: azure, a chevron between three boars" heads couped gules) Sussex arc Coll 58 chart facing pa 64 (1916)

Note on ancestry of William Lunsford: an article in TAG 46:117 (Apr 1971) traced a descent of William Lunsford from his great grandfather John Lunsford, whose wife was identified as Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Echingham, Knt of Etchingham, Sussex(descendant of King Henry II, see Echingham, 8) However in CCH Sussex 9:114 (1937) information was provided citing in a footnote Add Ms 5679 vol 668 Feud. Aids v 150, that !A John (Lunsford) was also holding the manor (of Lundsford) in 1423 and 1428, and was married to Elizabeth daughter of Thomas de Echingham. His son William was in possession of Lundsford in 1469 but died in that year or the next and another William held it in 1480. He or, more likely, a namesake died seized of it in 1531, leaving it to his son John, a boy of `12." These individuals are undoubtedly the successive generations of John, William, William, William and John named in the pedigree in Coll. Top 6 & gen 4. 1 (1834) David H. Kelley, in a following
article TAG 47:987 (Apr 1971) concludes: " New information on the chronology makes it extremely unlikely that the mother of William Lunsford (#38 of the article) was Elizabeth Echyngham(#37) Sir Thomas de Echyugham was born about 1401-(and) was only 27 when (his) supposed grandson, William, first appears in the record. Moreover, Echyngham would have been only two years old when his putative son in law John Lunsford, first appears in the records- these chronological irregularitiess could suffice to make the alleged pedigree seem- extremely doubtful"

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»