Agnes (or Anne) Godard married to Sir Brian Stapleton appears in a number of
genealogies. She is variously described as the daughter of filius Godard
or Sir John Godard or, in one case I recently encountered, Sir Francis
Godard. Sometimes her mother is given as Matilda (or Maud) Neville. I
have been reviewing the evidence for these various attributions.
The "Sir Francis" version is found in footnotes in Parts I & II of Wills at
York (Surtees Vol 4) found online like many of the sources cited here at
http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030149a/northern/. These footnotes allege that
Matilda Neville, after the death of her husband Peter, Lord Maulay, married
a Sir Francis God[d]ard and that their daughter Anne married Sir Brian
Stapleton. Matilda was widowed in 1414 and Agnes in 1417 or 1418 so this
is plainly incorrect. If Matilda was the mother of Agnes it must have been
from an ealier marriage. I'll return to "Sir Francis" later.
The earliest source I can find for the alleged Sir John/Matilda Neville
marriage is in the Ashmole MS 831 reprinted in Visitations of the Nort Part
III, Surtees Vol 144. The MS appears to be a copy of the results of a
herald's visitation of the late C15th. The Neville pedigree lists "Matilda
lady Mauley married John Goddard, knight, whose daughter and co-heir Agnes
married Brian Stapleton, knight" (my translation). It also notes that the
text from "married" onwards is a later addition. The original pedigree
presumably made no such claim. This addition must have been made about 2
centuries after Agnes' birth. Note in passing that the Stapleton pedigree
doesn't name either Agnes or her mother, it just lists "filia domini
Johanis Godard militis".
It's well chronicled that Sir John married Constance Sutton by December
1384. His death is not recorded but most authors believe he died in the
early 1390s. Constance died in 1401. If he married Matilda Neville it
must have been a previous marriage.
The marriage of a couple who then both went on to marry other spouses in
this period presents legal difficulties. We must conclude that no such
marriage took place. If Matilda was Agnes' mother then she must have
married some other Goddard. Alternatively this tradition may have been a
garbled version of some marriage after her widowhood, possibly to "Sir
Francis" or to Sir John & Constance's son who was also called Sir John who
seems to have had descendants who survived Matilda. In fact her will
(Wills at York Part II), despite the editor's footnote includes no
suggestion that any of the beneficiaries were descendants. I can find no
contemporary evidence that she married again or that she had any childran
at all. It seems to me that the likeiest explanation for the addition to
the Neville pedigree is that a chronicler knew that Sir John had married
the widow of a Lord Mauley and that Matilda Neville was the widow of a Lord
Mauley and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Constance was, in fact the
widow of the previous Lord Mauley, the grandfather of Matilda's husband.
The conclusion of this is that we can eliminate Matilda as the mother of
Agnes and as an ancestor of any Stapleton descendants.
We must now consider whether Sir John was the father of Agnes. I've noted a
claim to this above in the Stapleton pedigree of the late C15th visitation.
This is repeated in the visitations of 1563-4 in Harleian vol 16 and
Ashmole MS 834 published in Surtees Vol 146 along with the visitation of
1575 lists Sir John's arms as a quartering in the Blyth and Eltoft families
into which, according the Harl. 16, two of Agnes' grand-daughters married.
None of these is a particularly early source but in the absence of any
alternative I might have to accept them.
The existence of the "filius Godard" tradition is puzzling, however. If Sir
John were indeed Agnes' father how did this alternative tradition arise?
If it is a later tradition we must assume that Stapleton genealogists
somehow lost him. But why should it be an earlier tradition? Sir John had
been escheator of York and then High Sheriff in the late 1380s. There
would have been no reason to have recorded him as some anonymous "filius"
and then amended this after he became well-known - he was well-known
already. The alternative is that Agnes was not the daughter of Sir John
and that initially her origins were suppressed and then optimistically but
incorrectly ascribed to Sir John.
This is possible. Sir Brian's main residence was Carlton. There is good
evidence for a Godard family originating in the same parish, Snaith, just
across the river Aire in the late C13th. They seem to have originated in
the free peasantry of the area. There is some evidence to suggest that at
least one branch of this family rose in status, in fact I can see no reason
to believe that Sir John himself did not come from this family. It's
possible that Sir Brian simply married the daughter of what had become a
neighbouring yeoman family, maybe a cousin or a niece rather than a
daughter of Sir John.
What then of the "Sir Francis" version? It may be of significance
that "Francis" and "filius" have the same initial letter and that one
version may be a corruption of the other. It could, of course, be that the
father really was called Francis. However these footnotes are the only
instances of the "Sir Francis" version, no authority is quoted in them and
the editor in other respects has shown a lack of care (Sir John in one
footnote appears to have changed his name to "Sir Robert" by the time he
reaches the index). I'm inclined, therefore to suspect that the "Sir
Francis" version is a corruption of "filius".
Against this there is a possible mechanism for Sir John to be replaced
by "filius". If someone arrived at the conclusion that Agnes could not
have been the daughter of Sir John and Matilda they may have been inclined
to drop Sir John in favour of keeping Matilda. In any event it appears
that there may have been an element, deliberate or otherwise, of
disinformation by the Stapletons' chroniclers.
It would go some way to resolving this if I could find an early source for
the filius" tradition or, indeed, for a Sir Francis God[d]ard in Yorkshire
in the years about 1400. At present all I can find is a series of modern
genealogies which cite no sources. Does anyone have a citation for such a
source?
--
Ian Goddard
Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually
read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk
Parentage of Agnes (Godard) Stapleton
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
wjhonson
Re: Parentage of Agnes (Godard) Stapleton
On Mar 5, 8:14 am, Ian Goddard <godda...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
You might check A2A, the Stapleton family, Barons Beaumont of Carlton
Towers has papers there under DDCA, etc that mention Brian Stapleton,
his wife Agnes, her father John, etc.
It's probable that somewhere in that mass might be the proof for which
you're looking.
Will Johnson
Agnes (or Anne) Godard married to Sir Brian Stapleton appears in a number of
genealogies. She is variously described as the daughter of filius Godard
or Sir John Godard or, in one case I recently encountered, Sir Francis
Godard. Sometimes her mother is given as Matilda (or Maud) Neville. I
have been reviewing the evidence for these various attributions.
The "Sir Francis" version is found in footnotes in Parts I & II of Wills at
York (Surtees Vol 4) found online like many of the sources cited here athttp://www.uiowa.edu/~c030149a/northern/. These footnotes allege that
Matilda Neville, after the death of her husband Peter, Lord Maulay, married
a Sir Francis God[d]ard and that their daughter Anne married Sir Brian
Stapleton. Matilda was widowed in 1414 and Agnes in 1417 or 1418 so this
is plainly incorrect. If Matilda was the mother of Agnes it must have been
from an ealier marriage. I'll return to "Sir Francis" later.
The earliest source I can find for the alleged Sir John/Matilda Neville
marriage is in the Ashmole MS 831 reprinted in Visitations of the Nort Part
III, Surtees Vol 144. The MS appears to be a copy of the results of a
herald's visitation of the late C15th. The Neville pedigree lists "Matilda
lady Mauley married John Goddard, knight, whose daughter and co-heir Agnes
married Brian Stapleton, knight" (my translation). It also notes that the
text from "married" onwards is a later addition. The original pedigree
presumably made no such claim. This addition must have been made about 2
centuries after Agnes' birth. Note in passing that the Stapleton pedigree
doesn't name either Agnes or her mother, it just lists "filia domini
Johanis Godard militis".
It's well chronicled that Sir John married Constance Sutton by December
1384. His death is not recorded but most authors believe he died in the
early 1390s. Constance died in 1401. If he married Matilda Neville it
must have been a previous marriage.
The marriage of a couple who then both went on to marry other spouses in
this period presents legal difficulties. We must conclude that no such
marriage took place. If Matilda was Agnes' mother then she must have
married some other Goddard. Alternatively this tradition may have been a
garbled version of some marriage after her widowhood, possibly to "Sir
Francis" or to Sir John & Constance's son who was also called Sir John who
seems to have had descendants who survived Matilda. In fact her will
(Wills at York Part II), despite the editor's footnote includes no
suggestion that any of the beneficiaries were descendants. I can find no
contemporary evidence that she married again or that she had any childran
at all. It seems to me that the likeiest explanation for the addition to
the Neville pedigree is that a chronicler knew that Sir John had married
the widow of a Lord Mauley and that Matilda Neville was the widow of a Lord
Mauley and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Constance was, in fact the
widow of the previous Lord Mauley, the grandfather of Matilda's husband.
The conclusion of this is that we can eliminate Matilda as the mother of
Agnes and as an ancestor of any Stapleton descendants.
We must now consider whether Sir John was the father of Agnes. I've noted a
claim to this above in the Stapleton pedigree of the late C15th visitation.
This is repeated in the visitations of 1563-4 in Harleian vol 16 and
Ashmole MS 834 published in Surtees Vol 146 along with the visitation of
1575 lists Sir John's arms as a quartering in the Blyth and Eltoft families
into which, according the Harl. 16, two of Agnes' grand-daughters married.
None of these is a particularly early source but in the absence of any
alternative I might have to accept them.
The existence of the "filius Godard" tradition is puzzling, however. If Sir
John were indeed Agnes' father how did this alternative tradition arise?
If it is a later tradition we must assume that Stapleton genealogists
somehow lost him. But why should it be an earlier tradition? Sir John had
been escheator of York and then High Sheriff in the late 1380s. There
would have been no reason to have recorded him as some anonymous "filius"
and then amended this after he became well-known - he was well-known
already. The alternative is that Agnes was not the daughter of Sir John
and that initially her origins were suppressed and then optimistically but
incorrectly ascribed to Sir John.
This is possible. Sir Brian's main residence was Carlton. There is good
evidence for a Godard family originating in the same parish, Snaith, just
across the river Aire in the late C13th. They seem to have originated in
the free peasantry of the area. There is some evidence to suggest that at
least one branch of this family rose in status, in fact I can see no reason
to believe that Sir John himself did not come from this family. It's
possible that Sir Brian simply married the daughter of what had become a
neighbouring yeoman family, maybe a cousin or a niece rather than a
daughter of Sir John.
What then of the "Sir Francis" version? It may be of significance
that "Francis" and "filius" have the same initial letter and that one
version may be a corruption of the other. It could, of course, be that the
father really was called Francis. However these footnotes are the only
instances of the "Sir Francis" version, no authority is quoted in them and
the editor in other respects has shown a lack of care (Sir John in one
footnote appears to have changed his name to "Sir Robert" by the time he
reaches the index). I'm inclined, therefore to suspect that the "Sir
Francis" version is a corruption of "filius".
Against this there is a possible mechanism for Sir John to be replaced
by "filius". If someone arrived at the conclusion that Agnes could not
have been the daughter of Sir John and Matilda they may have been inclined
to drop Sir John in favour of keeping Matilda. In any event it appears
that there may have been an element, deliberate or otherwise, of
disinformation by the Stapletons' chroniclers.
It would go some way to resolving this if I could find an early source for
the filius" tradition or, indeed, for a Sir Francis God[d]ard in Yorkshire
in the years about 1400. At present all I can find is a series of modern
genealogies which cite no sources. Does anyone have a citation for such a
source?
--
Ian Goddard
Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually
read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk
You might check A2A, the Stapleton family, Barons Beaumont of Carlton
Towers has papers there under DDCA, etc that mention Brian Stapleton,
his wife Agnes, her father John, etc.
It's probable that somewhere in that mass might be the proof for which
you're looking.
Will Johnson
-
Ian Goddard
Re: Parentage of Agnes (Godard) Stapleton
wjhonson wrote:
Yes, the actual papers are in the University of Hull. I keep intending to
go over there for a day. Apart from anything else they have copies of
Constance's & the younger Sir John's IPMs.
Since I posted things have moved on. I looked on Google Books (should have
done it earlier!) where they have a scan of the whole of Vol II of the
Scope Grosvenor controversy which includes biographical details of the
deponents amongst whom is Sir John at pp 389-390. There is sufficient
detail in there to convince me that Sir John was indeed Agnes father -
which makes the "filius Goddard" attribution odder still.
Based on that book and other material this is how things stand now:
Firstly, in addition to Sir John's son, the younger Sir John who is
mentioned in Constance's IPM as her heir, there was another son, Henry who
died issueless in 1421.
It also mentions the older Sir John's grandson whom I knew about from the
younger Sir John's IPM. This grandson is the key as he died aged about 12
and his heirs were Agnes, her sister Maud Wadsley or Waddesle who is
mentioned in Agnes' will and Robert Ughtred.
It does not say who was the mother of the sisters but I think we can
eliminate Constance. She was one of 3 Sutton sisters, the others being
Margaret and Agnes. VCH at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... ery=atwick
traces the fate of a Sutton property. (It confuses the two generations of
Sir John; a great many sources around the relevant families seem to confuse
a generation somewhere along the line.) It shows Constance's share passing
to the Ughtreds via Margaret Goddard.
Of the other Sutton sisters Margaret married Constance's step-son Peter de
Mauley (father of the final Peter de Mauley who married Maud Neville but
who predeceased his own father) and Agnes married Sir Ralph Bulmer.
Margaret's daughters Constance and Elizabeth married Sir John Bigod and
George Salvan respectively and these families eventually inherited all the
property of the final Peter de Mauley including Margaret Sutton's share of
the Sutton property.
There is no mention of any part of the property going to the Stapleton
family so it would appear that of the grandson's heirs only Robert Ughtred
was a Sutton descendant. Agnes Stapleton and her sister must, therefore,
have been daughters of an earlier marriage.
Incidentally the Scrope source also demolished my straw men hypothesis that
Matilda Neville married the younger Sir John by naming his wife as
Isabella.
This leaves me with some further loose ends. The implication seems to be
that the grandson was the end of this Godard line. However at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... HOLDERNESS
there is an account of a dispute as to who should have certain rights
originally held by the Sutton sisters' father in regard to the College of
St James at Sutton-in-Holderness. In about 1458 a jury awarded these to a
Bygod, a Salvin, a Bulmer and Lady Isabella Goddard. Who was this Lady
Isabella?
We don't know when the younger Sir John's wife was born but she could have
been as young as her late fifties at this date so it's not impossible that
she could have survived till then. She would not, however, have been a
Sutton descendant so it is not clear why the jury should have made the
award to her. Was she a daughter of the younger Sir John and if so why was
she not one of his son's heirs?
The other loose end is the reference in Ashmole 384 to a Sir Hugh Godard of
Cheshire bearing Sir John's arms in Parliament. What relation was this Sir
Hugh to Sir John?
Finally the Scrope source had been unable to ascertain the arms of Godard.
According to Ashmole 384 they are "ermine, a cross patonce sable" and
according to Harlein 16 "ermine, a cross molyn sable".
--
Ian Goddard
Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually
read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk
You might check A2A, the Stapleton family, Barons Beaumont of Carlton
Towers has papers there under DDCA, etc that mention Brian Stapleton,
his wife Agnes, her father John, etc.
It's probable that somewhere in that mass might be the proof for which
you're looking.
Will Johnson
Yes, the actual papers are in the University of Hull. I keep intending to
go over there for a day. Apart from anything else they have copies of
Constance's & the younger Sir John's IPMs.
Since I posted things have moved on. I looked on Google Books (should have
done it earlier!) where they have a scan of the whole of Vol II of the
Scope Grosvenor controversy which includes biographical details of the
deponents amongst whom is Sir John at pp 389-390. There is sufficient
detail in there to convince me that Sir John was indeed Agnes father -
which makes the "filius Goddard" attribution odder still.
Based on that book and other material this is how things stand now:
Firstly, in addition to Sir John's son, the younger Sir John who is
mentioned in Constance's IPM as her heir, there was another son, Henry who
died issueless in 1421.
It also mentions the older Sir John's grandson whom I knew about from the
younger Sir John's IPM. This grandson is the key as he died aged about 12
and his heirs were Agnes, her sister Maud Wadsley or Waddesle who is
mentioned in Agnes' will and Robert Ughtred.
It does not say who was the mother of the sisters but I think we can
eliminate Constance. She was one of 3 Sutton sisters, the others being
Margaret and Agnes. VCH at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... ery=atwick
traces the fate of a Sutton property. (It confuses the two generations of
Sir John; a great many sources around the relevant families seem to confuse
a generation somewhere along the line.) It shows Constance's share passing
to the Ughtreds via Margaret Goddard.
Of the other Sutton sisters Margaret married Constance's step-son Peter de
Mauley (father of the final Peter de Mauley who married Maud Neville but
who predeceased his own father) and Agnes married Sir Ralph Bulmer.
Margaret's daughters Constance and Elizabeth married Sir John Bigod and
George Salvan respectively and these families eventually inherited all the
property of the final Peter de Mauley including Margaret Sutton's share of
the Sutton property.
There is no mention of any part of the property going to the Stapleton
family so it would appear that of the grandson's heirs only Robert Ughtred
was a Sutton descendant. Agnes Stapleton and her sister must, therefore,
have been daughters of an earlier marriage.
Incidentally the Scrope source also demolished my straw men hypothesis that
Matilda Neville married the younger Sir John by naming his wife as
Isabella.
This leaves me with some further loose ends. The implication seems to be
that the grandson was the end of this Godard line. However at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... HOLDERNESS
there is an account of a dispute as to who should have certain rights
originally held by the Sutton sisters' father in regard to the College of
St James at Sutton-in-Holderness. In about 1458 a jury awarded these to a
Bygod, a Salvin, a Bulmer and Lady Isabella Goddard. Who was this Lady
Isabella?
We don't know when the younger Sir John's wife was born but she could have
been as young as her late fifties at this date so it's not impossible that
she could have survived till then. She would not, however, have been a
Sutton descendant so it is not clear why the jury should have made the
award to her. Was she a daughter of the younger Sir John and if so why was
she not one of his son's heirs?
The other loose end is the reference in Ashmole 384 to a Sir Hugh Godard of
Cheshire bearing Sir John's arms in Parliament. What relation was this Sir
Hugh to Sir John?
Finally the Scrope source had been unable to ascertain the arms of Godard.
According to Ashmole 384 they are "ermine, a cross patonce sable" and
according to Harlein 16 "ermine, a cross molyn sable".
--
Ian Goddard
Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually
read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Parentage of Agnes (Godard) Stapleton
In message of 9 Mar, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
<snip of very interesting account of some Goddards>
The "Dictionary of British Arms, Medieval Ordinary", Vol II, by
Woodcock, Grant and Graham, pub 1996, had five entries of Godards
bearing Gules eagle displayed or. These do not include any names of the
armigers, but the documents referenced for four of them are of about the
time of these Goddards.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
<snip of very interesting account of some Goddards>
The other loose end is the reference in Ashmole 384 to a Sir Hugh Godard of
Cheshire bearing Sir John's arms in Parliament. What relation was this Sir
Hugh to Sir John?
Finally the Scrope source had been unable to ascertain the arms of Godard.
According to Ashmole 384 they are "ermine, a cross patonce sable" and
according to Harlein 16 "ermine, a cross molyn sable".
The "Dictionary of British Arms, Medieval Ordinary", Vol II, by
Woodcock, Grant and Graham, pub 1996, had five entries of Godards
bearing Gules eagle displayed or. These do not include any names of the
armigers, but the documents referenced for four of them are of about the
time of these Goddards.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Ian Goddard
Re: Parentage of Agnes (Godard) Stapleton
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
I think there are at least four separate Goddard families. This is based
largely on plotting the county by county counts of IGI hits for the last
four decades of the C16th in other words the early years of parish
registers). This is a very crude tool but the results are surprisingly
clear. There are five main clusters, Wessex (Hants, Wilts. & Berks), East
Anglia, Leicestershire, Yorkshire and London.
This was far from what I had expected as Wessex and especially Wiltshire is
normally regarded as the main Goddard territory. I'd expected to see a
single distribution centred there as individuals migrated outwards. I
discounted the London cluster as probably being due to immigration and
concluded that the non-London clusters are independant in origin. Last
time I had correspondence with the US Y chromosome DNA project their
results appeared consistent with this. It was this finding that lead me to
start looking at earlier Yorkshire Goddards and eventually discovered
documentary evidence of a family originating in the same parish as the
Stapleton manor of Carlton in the late C13. There is a fairly convincing
series of documentary footprints connection Cowick to Sheffield and my
corner of the Wakefield manor by the early C15 and these are the very areas
which comprise the Yorkshire cluster.
Wessex is, however, the largest cluster, probably because it's the oldest
and had more generations of multiplication. In particular a Goddard family
acquired the manor of Swindon in Tudor times & held onto it until 1925
(they did particularly well out of it when Brunel decided to base the GWR
engineering there!). I'm pretty sure the entries you cite belong to the
Wessex Goddards. I took it that when the Scrope volume mentioned not being
able to ascertain the arms of Godard it referred specifically to the
Yorkshire Sir John and it is his arms to which the Ashmole & Harleian
documents refer.
I do know that there was a contemporary Sir John in Kent, particularly
associated with Sandwich. Is there any indication in Woodcock et al that
any of their examples had such a connection?
--
Ian Goddard
Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually
read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk
In message of 9 Mar, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
snip of very interesting account of some Goddards
The other loose end is the reference in Ashmole 384 to a Sir Hugh Godard
of
Cheshire bearing Sir John's arms in Parliament. What relation was this
Sir Hugh to Sir John?
Finally the Scrope source had been unable to ascertain the arms of
Godard. According to Ashmole 384 they are "ermine, a cross patonce sable"
and according to Harlein 16 "ermine, a cross molyn sable".
The "Dictionary of British Arms, Medieval Ordinary", Vol II, by
Woodcock, Grant and Graham, pub 1996, had five entries of Godards
bearing Gules eagle displayed or. These do not include any names of the
armigers, but the documents referenced for four of them are of about the
time of these Goddards.
I think there are at least four separate Goddard families. This is based
largely on plotting the county by county counts of IGI hits for the last
four decades of the C16th in other words the early years of parish
registers). This is a very crude tool but the results are surprisingly
clear. There are five main clusters, Wessex (Hants, Wilts. & Berks), East
Anglia, Leicestershire, Yorkshire and London.
This was far from what I had expected as Wessex and especially Wiltshire is
normally regarded as the main Goddard territory. I'd expected to see a
single distribution centred there as individuals migrated outwards. I
discounted the London cluster as probably being due to immigration and
concluded that the non-London clusters are independant in origin. Last
time I had correspondence with the US Y chromosome DNA project their
results appeared consistent with this. It was this finding that lead me to
start looking at earlier Yorkshire Goddards and eventually discovered
documentary evidence of a family originating in the same parish as the
Stapleton manor of Carlton in the late C13. There is a fairly convincing
series of documentary footprints connection Cowick to Sheffield and my
corner of the Wakefield manor by the early C15 and these are the very areas
which comprise the Yorkshire cluster.
Wessex is, however, the largest cluster, probably because it's the oldest
and had more generations of multiplication. In particular a Goddard family
acquired the manor of Swindon in Tudor times & held onto it until 1925
(they did particularly well out of it when Brunel decided to base the GWR
engineering there!). I'm pretty sure the entries you cite belong to the
Wessex Goddards. I took it that when the Scrope volume mentioned not being
able to ascertain the arms of Godard it referred specifically to the
Yorkshire Sir John and it is his arms to which the Ashmole & Harleian
documents refer.
I do know that there was a contemporary Sir John in Kent, particularly
associated with Sandwich. Is there any indication in Woodcock et al that
any of their examples had such a connection?
--
Ian Goddard
Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually
read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Parentage of Agnes (Godard) Stapleton
In message of 9 Mar, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
No, this was the point. They give the sources and if these include
details of the armiger, they give the full name as well, otherwise all
we get is the surname. If they give arms that are principally
'crosses', this will be in the two later volumes due to be published in
a year or two; between vols I and II they have only got as far as
'chevrons'. When these come out, we will have the references for any
Goddard 'cross' arms of before 1530 which is their cut-off date.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 9 Mar, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
snip of very interesting account of some Goddards
The other loose end is the reference in Ashmole 384 to a Sir Hugh
Godard of Cheshire bearing Sir John's arms in Parliament. What
relation was this Sir Hugh to Sir John?
Finally the Scrope source had been unable to ascertain the arms of
Godard. According to Ashmole 384 they are "ermine, a cross patonce
sable" and according to Harlein 16 "ermine, a cross molyn sable".
The "Dictionary of British Arms, Medieval Ordinary", Vol II, by
Woodcock, Grant and Graham, pub 1996, had five entries of Godards
bearing Gules eagle displayed or. These do not include any names of
the armigers, but the documents referenced for four of them are of
about the time of these Goddards.
I think there are at least four separate Goddard families. This is
based largely on plotting the county by county counts of IGI hits for
the last four decades of the C16th in other words the early years of
parish registers). This is a very crude tool but the results are
surprisingly clear. There are five main clusters, Wessex (Hants,
Wilts. & Berks), East Anglia, Leicestershire, Yorkshire and London.
This was far from what I had expected as Wessex and especially
Wiltshire is normally regarded as the main Goddard territory. I'd
expected to see a single distribution centred there as individuals
migrated outwards. I discounted the London cluster as probably being
due to immigration and concluded that the non-London clusters are
independant in origin. Last time I had correspondence with the US Y
chromosome DNA project their results appeared consistent with this.
It was this finding that lead me to start looking at earlier Yorkshire
Goddards and eventually discovered documentary evidence of a family
originating in the same parish as the Stapleton manor of Carlton in
the late C13. There is a fairly convincing series of documentary
footprints connection Cowick to Sheffield and my corner of the
Wakefield manor by the early C15 and these are the very areas which
comprise the Yorkshire cluster.
Wessex is, however, the largest cluster, probably because it's the
oldest and had more generations of multiplication. In particular a
Goddard family acquired the manor of Swindon in Tudor times & held
onto it until 1925 (they did particularly well out of it when Brunel
decided to base the GWR engineering there!). I'm pretty sure the
entries you cite belong to the Wessex Goddards. I took it that when
the Scrope volume mentioned not being able to ascertain the arms of
Godard it referred specifically to the Yorkshire Sir John and it is
his arms to which the Ashmole & Harleian documents refer.
I do know that there was a contemporary Sir John in Kent, particularly
associated with Sandwich. Is there any indication in Woodcock et al
that any of their examples had such a connection?
No, this was the point. They give the sources and if these include
details of the armiger, they give the full name as well, otherwise all
we get is the surname. If they give arms that are principally
'crosses', this will be in the two later volumes due to be published in
a year or two; between vols I and II they have only got as far as
'chevrons'. When these come out, we will have the references for any
Goddard 'cross' arms of before 1530 which is their cut-off date.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
Ian Goddard
Re: Parentage of Agnes (Godard) Stapleton
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
http://www.goddard-association.co.uk/foundation.html which shows a number
of Goddard arms. As far as I can make out, which is rather limited in some
cases, they appear to be variations on four themes. Whether these bear any
relation to my four geographical clusters or the four Y-chromosome types is
a different matter.
--
Ian Goddard
Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually
read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk
In message of 9 Mar, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 9 Mar, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
snip of very interesting account of some Goddards
The other loose end is the reference in Ashmole 384 to a Sir Hugh
Godard of Cheshire bearing Sir John's arms in Parliament. What
relation was this Sir Hugh to Sir John?
Finally the Scrope source had been unable to ascertain the arms of
Godard. According to Ashmole 384 they are "ermine, a cross patonce
sable" and according to Harlein 16 "ermine, a cross molyn sable".
The "Dictionary of British Arms, Medieval Ordinary", Vol II, by
Woodcock, Grant and Graham, pub 1996, had five entries of Godards
bearing Gules eagle displayed or. These do not include any names of
the armigers, but the documents referenced for four of them are of
about the time of these Goddards.
I think there are at least four separate Goddard families. This is
based largely on plotting the county by county counts of IGI hits for
the last four decades of the C16th in other words the early years of
parish registers). This is a very crude tool but the results are
surprisingly clear. There are five main clusters, Wessex (Hants,
Wilts. & Berks), East Anglia, Leicestershire, Yorkshire and London.
This was far from what I had expected as Wessex and especially
Wiltshire is normally regarded as the main Goddard territory. I'd
expected to see a single distribution centred there as individuals
migrated outwards. I discounted the London cluster as probably being
due to immigration and concluded that the non-London clusters are
independant in origin. Last time I had correspondence with the US Y
chromosome DNA project their results appeared consistent with this.
It was this finding that lead me to start looking at earlier Yorkshire
Goddards and eventually discovered documentary evidence of a family
originating in the same parish as the Stapleton manor of Carlton in
the late C13. There is a fairly convincing series of documentary
footprints connection Cowick to Sheffield and my corner of the
Wakefield manor by the early C15 and these are the very areas which
comprise the Yorkshire cluster.
Wessex is, however, the largest cluster, probably because it's the
oldest and had more generations of multiplication. In particular a
Goddard family acquired the manor of Swindon in Tudor times & held
onto it until 1925 (they did particularly well out of it when Brunel
decided to base the GWR engineering there!). I'm pretty sure the
entries you cite belong to the Wessex Goddards. I took it that when
the Scrope volume mentioned not being able to ascertain the arms of
Godard it referred specifically to the Yorkshire Sir John and it is
his arms to which the Ashmole & Harleian documents refer.
I do know that there was a contemporary Sir John in Kent, particularly
associated with Sandwich. Is there any indication in Woodcock et al
that any of their examples had such a connection?
No, this was the point. They give the sources and if these include
details of the armiger, they give the full name as well, otherwise all
we get is the surname. If they give arms that are principally
'crosses', this will be in the two later volumes due to be published in
a year or two; between vols I and II they have only got as far as
'chevrons'. When these come out, we will have the references for any
Goddard 'cross' arms of before 1530 which is their cut-off date.
There is a rather low-res scan at
http://www.goddard-association.co.uk/foundation.html which shows a number
of Goddard arms. As far as I can make out, which is rather limited in some
cases, they appear to be variations on four themes. Whether these bear any
relation to my four geographical clusters or the four Y-chromosome types is
a different matter.
--
Ian Goddard
Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually
read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk