Earliest Dades, missing a generation? pt 1 of 2

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Kelly Leighton

Earliest Dades, missing a generation? pt 1 of 2

Legg inn av Kelly Leighton » 19 mar 2007 23:27:44

Researchers,

It is commonly accepted based on the pedigree found near the end (page 42) of the Genealogical Memoranda
Relating to the Family of Dade of Suffolk (accessible from the BYU site
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/docum ... 9889&REC=1 or
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/search.php with a search "Dade of Suffolk") that William Dade who died in 1597
was the son of John Dade who married a Pakenham from Shropham in Norfolk. The Norfolk visitation (accessible from
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/ ... isitation/) seems to indicate
this, as well. Two of Douglas Richardson's works (P.A. and M.C.A.) refer to this source, and some of the earlier works
done on the Dade descendants in Virginia appear to have used these sources. John Bailey Calvert Nicklin's Dade
article in Genealogies of Virginia Families seems verbatim, Some Emigrants to Virginia cites it, and it has seen
some circulation in even the best internet pedigrees, as well.

It now appears likely that this is not, in fact, the case. There may have been a misreading, or combination of a couple
of different Williams.

I have found the coming of age (my translation of the latin, horrible as it, no doubt, is probably pretty close
to the entry purpose) of Margaret, daughter of Henry Pakenham which indicates that the Dade-Pakenham marriage
took place a generation earlier than reflected in the pedigree. The marriage had already occured before the
1495/6 age testimony.

1158. Margaret, one of the daughters and heirs of Henry Pakenham, wife of John Dade.
Wrtt de Aetate probanda 20 June, 10 Hen. VII; probatio aetatis on the feast of St. Simon and St. Jude the Apostles,
11 Hen. VII.

NORF. She was born at a place called 'Pakemans' in Shropham and was baptized in Shropham church, 4 Oct., 15 Edw. IV,
John Tate and Margaret Framlyngham being gossips.
Her lands were in the custody of Richard Suthwell, esq., by grant from Thomas Wodehous to whom King Richard III
had committed the same. C. Series 11, Vol. 11 (16.)

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other analogous Documents, Henry VII. Vol. ii page 508.
(London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1915.)

So, Margaret Pakenham was born on 15 Oct, 1475/6 and her father apparently had died by About 1484 when his lands were
held by Thomas Wodehouse. According to Blomfield, Thomas Wodehouse died in 1487, after narrowly avoiding debt he
"co-signed" for for the Duke of Suffolk. This would explain the transfer of Margaret's inheritance the second time.

Additionally, I have acquired the 1506 will from the Norfolk Record Office (transcribed as best I can, in full below)
which sheds some light on this family. A note about the will: it is, itself, a transcription. From the words of an
Archive Assistant:

PD 125/25 is a letter from a Norwich resident in 1953 to a friend
enclosing a copy he has written out of John Dade's will (in the first
paragraph he writes 1506, but this seems to be a mistake as 1560 is stated
at the end). I have tried to find the original or registered copy of this
will in our records and in the records of the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury without success. This absence and the lack of any indication of
the will being proved on the copy suggests that it may never have been
proved, and that the original from which he was copying was a private
possession. We have no information on where it might be now, which is a pity
as it's unusually long and detailed.

Will of John Dade of Witton


1. In the name etc. 15th Ot 1506 I John dade of Witton etc make my last will etc: -
2. I commend my sould to God etc, & my body to be buried int he Grey Friars of Norwich
if my body decease there. My sepulchre to be before the image of our Lady of pity: -
3. I give to the high altr of the Church of Witton, for my tithes negligently forgotten 20/- :-
4. I give to the Church of St Mary the Little in Norwich 10/- :-
5. I give to the Grey Friars in Norwich 5 marks :-
6. I give to the orders of Friars in Norwich, viz Austin, White, & Black 5 marks each :-
7. I give to each House of Lepers at the 5 gates of Norwich 6/8 and a coomb of malt :-
8. I give to the sustenation of the Mass of the Most Sweet Name of Jesus, celebrate within the church of St
Peter Mancroft in Norwich 6/8 :-
9. I give to the Nuns of Carrow 20/- :-
10. I give tot he Sisters of Normans in Norwich 20/:-
11 I will that there be had & gotten, some honest priest to sing and pray for my soul, the souls of my
father and mother, & other my friends

2]

during the time of 10 years, & I will he be gotten soon after my decease:-
12. I will every priest at my 30th day have 4d each & clerk 2d:-
13. To as many poor people as come I give to each of them 1d:-
14. I will Julian my mother have yearly an annuity of 10 marks, going out of all my lands yearly during
her life, to be paid quarterly 3 3/4 :-
15. I charge my executors to make a sufficient deed of the same, she to have meat and drink, chamber & fuel
with all necessaries that she well desire, being with my wife & a convenient woman servant to keep her during
her life at my cost & charge :-
16. I give Margaret my wife all my lands and tenements that I have within the towns of Witton, Little Plumstead,
Much Plumstead & Brundeall & in other towns thereto adjoining with in the hundred of Blofield except my tenement
called Chapman's being in Much Plumstead to have and to hold the said lands & tenements & to her assigns during
the term of her life:-
17. I give her also 200 marks in money to be paid her by my executors in as a convenient season as it may be paid:-

3]

18. To her also my cattle, going upon my said lands, in all the aforesaid towns, with all my corn, which that
hap to be sown, with all manner of grain, now being in the barn, to be at her own & only rule :-
19. After her decease, I give all my lands, tenements, enclosures, meadows, pastures, to remain to Richard my on
at 22 years of age if he then live & his mother being deceased, to hold to him & his heirs of his body, lawfully
begotten :-
20. I will he have all my Manor called Modingwell in the town of Shropham with all other lands, meadows, tenements
pastures, feedings foldages, older cows (?), fishings, with all manner of rents, & serices, with appurtences lying &
being on the town of Shropham, to him and his heirs lawfully begotten at 22 years :-
21. If he happens to die within the said age of 22 then I will all the aforesaid to remain to John my son, his brother
at 22, to hold to him & his heirs lawfully begotten:-
22. I will John my son have all my lands & tenements in the town of Shadingfield in Suffolk whereof one tenement is
called Graunts & another called Spencer's lying in the towns Shadingfield, Willingham, & all my lands in Wissett
which I purchased late

4]

of William Espre (?), & he to have them at 22, to have & to hold to him & his heirs lawfully begotten:-
23. I will that my executors see reparations be done to the said house & tenements so that they fall in no decay during
the nonage of the said John:-
24. Whereas I have sold a certain tenement lying in Wissett in Suff to one Roger Bartarby (?) the which should
make payment to me now at this time, viz at the feast of St Michael last past L28.13.4 as appeareth by
covenants between him and me, I will that my executors shall take and receive the said money & put it into a Bagge
& all other payments which shall grow from the said Roger Bataby, viz L60 & the same money to be safely kept in a bag
to the use of the said John when he is 22.
25. If any other lands or tenements can be purchased by my executors lying next the said lands & tenements of
Shadingfield, & Willingham that they could be purchased & the said money to be paid:-

5]

26. After I will a lawful stake (?) be made by my executors to the said John when he is 22:-
27. If he decease before I will that the said lands of Shadingfield & Wissett remain to William my son at 22, & to
his lawful begotten heirs:-
28. Also he to have all my lands in Horningtoft, Whissonsett, Mileham, Brisley, & Bilney which lands are known
by the name of Carson's, lying in the said towns, of Stanfield as well free as bond (?) at 22 years & to his
heirs lawfully begotten:-
29. If he deceases before 22 then I will the same lands remain to Nicholas my son, his brother at 22 & to his heirs
lawfully begotten:-
30. I will the same Nicholas have all of my lands and tenements in Barnham Broom, & Barford which I late purchased
of he (?) Nicholas Goldwell clerk, at 22:-

6]

31. I will a lawful stake be made to him & his heirs of his body lawfully begotten:-
32. If the said John, William & Nicholas my sons decease under 22 I will the said lands remain to Richard my son & his
heirs lawfully begotten:-
33. If it hap all my said sons decease before 22 then I will that Olive my daughter shall have my lands in Witton &
Stanfield to her and her heirs for ever:-
34. All the residue of all my afore-said lands to be sold by my executors to the performance of my will & in the
charitable deeds for my soul:-
35. To Olive my daughter L100, to her marriage: if she be ruled by her mother. I will that the said money be levied
by my executors growing out of my said lands & tenements during her nonage:-
36. To Richard my son at 22, 400 marks, or else my executors purchase for him lands to the same value:-
37. If he decease before 22, then the 400 marks, or lands to remain to John my son:-

7]

38. If John decease before 22, then the 400 marks or lands to remain to William my son:-
39. If William decease before 22, then the same 400 marks or lands to remain to Nicholas my son:-
40. If they all decease before 22, then I leave all the said money or lands to the disposition of my executors:-
41. I will Margaret my wife have all my stuff of household with all necessaries being in the bakehouse, kitchen & buttery:-
42. She to be a good mother to Richard when he comes to the age of marriage that she will give him at her
pleasure,some stuff to begin with household:-
43. To her my best goblet with a cover weighing 20 ounces, & my best salt, 1 dozen of my best silver spoons such
as she will choose:-
44. To Richard my son a goblet, with out a cover, & a salt, to be delivered to him at marriage & 1 dozen silver
spoons of the best, when his mother has chosen:-
45. To John my son, a flat piece with half a dozen silver spoons at marriage:-
46. To William my son my macer (?) & half a dozen silver spoons at marriage:-

8]

47. To Nicholas my son 1/2 dozen silver spoons & 2 6/8 to buy him a cup at marriage:-
48. To Olive my daughter at her marriage a cup or a salt, value 5 marks, & to be bought by my executors:-
49. Whereas there are 6 featherbeds sheets, tablecloths, towels & other napery (?), I will my wife take what she will:-
50. The remainder to be given to my children:--
51. I will Alice Smyth have my tenement in Much Plumstead called Chapmans to hold to her and her heirs for evermore:-
52. I will John Smith have my tenement in South Walsham holden by bond of my Lady of Norfolk, to him & his heirs:-
53. All my lands & tenements in Rumburgh, Wissett, & Spethall (?), & in other towns adjoining, with in the Hundred
of Blything, which late were purchased of John Aldrich, together with all my other lands not willed nor bequeathed be
sold by my executors to the performing of this my testament & last will:-
54. I bequeath to Nicholas Companor (?) my servant 20/-:-

9]

55. To Elizabeth Mownleney my servant shen she is married 40/- :-
56. To Agnes Joyse my servant 20/- :-
57. To Julian Krane to keep her with 40/- & if she live not to spend it, I will it be spent at her burying:-
58 I will the old Roof of the Church of Witton be taken down & the walls of the Church hained (heightened) &
a new roof to be made after the pattern of Little Plumstead:-
59. Because I am not able to lead it I will it be releaded & made at my cost:-
60. I have in keeping of the said church 40/-. I will that money go to the making thereof:-
61. I require all my feoffees in all my said lands & tenements that they make a statement there-of to my
executors or to such persons as they shall name when they are required:-
62. If my executors do not levy & gather my debts, which I trust to be my good debts, that then my
executors shall augment or minish any of my bags aforesaid by my supervisor or as shall seem with descrechen etc etc:--
63. The residue of all my goods not beset, I put fully to be at the rule of Margaret my wife & Walter Stubbe
Gent, whom I ordain & make executors:-
64. I give the said Walter for his hand L5 :-
65. I will Margaret my wife by my will & consent have full power to chose her a discreet man if need be & to be one
of my executors: whom I constitute, ratify & ordain by thse present:
66. I make Sir James Hobart, knight, Supervisor whom I pray to be good to my wife:-
67. In witness I have set my seal to these presents:-
68. Given day & year abovesaid.
69. 31st March 1560-1 at Norwich. The testement of John Dade of Witton. Dum Viail Norwich. (?)
<<<<<<

Gjest

Re: Earliest Dades, missing a generation? pt 1 of 2

Legg inn av Gjest » 20 mar 2007 21:13:22

On 19 Mrz., 22:27, "Kelly Leighton" <klei...@cox.net> wrote:
Researchers,

It is commonly accepted based on the pedigree found near the end (page 42) of the Genealogical Memoranda
Relating to the Family of Dade of Suffolk (accessible from the BYU sitehttp://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/d ... ch.phpwith a search "Dade of Suffolk") that William Dade who died in 1597
was the son of John Dade who married a Pakenham from Shropham in Norfolk. The Norfolk visitation (accessible fromhttp://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/engl ... isitation/) seems to indicate
this, as well. Two of Douglas Richardson's works (P.A. and M.C.A.) refer to this source, and some of the earlier works
done on the Dade descendants in Virginia appear to have used these sources. John Bailey Calvert Nicklin's Dade
article in Genealogies of Virginia Families seems verbatim, Some Emigrants to Virginia cites it, and it has seen
some circulation in even the best internet pedigrees, as well.

It now appears likely that this is not, in fact, the case. There may have been a misreading, or combination of a couple
of different Williams.

I have found the coming of age (my translation of the latin, horrible as it, no doubt, is probably pretty close
to the entry purpose) of Margaret, daughter of Henry Pakenham which indicates that the Dade-Pakenham marriage
took place a generation earlier than reflected in the pedigree. The marriage had already occured before the
1495/6 age testimony.

1158. Margaret, one of the daughters and heirs of Henry Pakenham, wife of John Dade.
Wrtt de Aetate probanda 20 June, 10 Hen. VII; probatio aetatis on the feast of St. Simon and St. Jude the Apostles,
11 Hen. VII.

NORF. She was born at a place called 'Pakemans' in Shropham and was baptized in Shropham church, 4 Oct., 15 Edw. IV,
John Tate and Margaret Framlyngham being gossips.
Her lands were in the custody of Richard Suthwell, esq., by grant from Thomas Wodehous to whom King Richard III
had committed the same. C. Series 11, Vol. 11 (16.)

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other analogous Documents, Henry VII. Vol. ii page 508.
(London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1915.)

So, Margaret Pakenham was born on 15 Oct, 1475/6 and her father apparently had died by About 1484 when his lands were
held by Thomas Wodehouse. According to Blomfield, Thomas Wodehouse died in 1487, after narrowly avoiding debt he
"co-signed" for for the Duke of Suffolk. This would explain the transfer of Margaret's inheritance the second time.

Additionally, I have acquired the 1506 will from the Norfolk Record Office (transcribed as best I can, in full below)
which sheds some light on this family. A note about the will: it is, itself, a transcription. From the words of an
Archive Assistant:

PD 125/25 is a letter from a Norwich resident in 1953 to a friend
enclosing a copy he has written out of John Dade's will (in the first
paragraph he writes 1506, but this seems to be a mistake as 1560 is stated
at the end). I have tried to find the original or registered copy of this
will in our records and in the records of the Prerogative Court of
Canterbury without success. This absence and the lack of any indication of
the will being proved on the copy suggests that it may never have been
proved, and that the original from which he was copying was a private
possession. We have no information on where it might be now, which is a pity
as it's unusually long and detailed.



Will of John Dade of Witton

1. In the name etc. 15th Ot 1506 I John dade of Witton etc make my last will etc: -
2. I commend my sould to God etc, & my body to be buried int he Grey Friars of Norwich
if my body decease there. My sepulchre to be before the image of our Lady of pity: -
3. I give to the high altr of the Church of Witton, for my tithes negligently forgotten 20/- :-
4. I give to the Church of St Mary the Little in Norwich 10/- :-
5. I give to the Grey Friars in Norwich 5 marks :-
6. I give to the orders of Friars in Norwich, viz Austin, White, & Black 5 marks each :-
7. I give to each House of Lepers at the 5 gates of Norwich 6/8 and a coomb of malt :-
8. I give to the sustenation of the Mass of the Most Sweet Name of Jesus, celebrate within the church of St
Peter Mancroft in Norwich 6/8 :-
9. I give to the Nuns of Carrow 20/- :-
10. I give tot he Sisters of Normans in Norwich 20/:-
11 I will that there be had & gotten, some honest priest to sing and pray for my soul, the souls of my
father and mother, & other my friends

2]

during the time of 10 years, & I will he be gotten soon after my decease:-
12. I will every priest at my 30th day have 4d each & clerk 2d:-
13. To as many poor people as come I give to each of them 1d:-
14. I will Julian my mother have yearly an annuity of 10 marks, going out of all my lands yearly during
her life, to be paid quarterly 3 3/4 :-
15. I charge my executors to make a sufficient deed of the same, she to have meat and drink, chamber & fuel
with all necessaries that she well desire, being with my wife & a convenient woman servant to keep her during
her life at my cost & charge :-
16. I give Margaret my wife all my lands and tenements that I have within the towns of Witton, Little Plumstead,
Much Plumstead & Brundeall & in other towns thereto adjoining with in the hundred of Blofield except my tenement
called Chapman's being in Much Plumstead to have and to hold the said lands & tenements & to her assigns during
the term of her life:-
17. I give her also 200 marks in money to be paid her by my executors in as a convenient season as it may be paid:-

3]

18. To her also my cattle, going upon my said lands, in all the aforesaid towns, with all my corn, which that
hap to be sown, with all manner of grain, now being in the barn, to be at her own & only rule :-
19. After her decease, I give all my lands, tenements, enclosures, meadows, pastures, to remain to Richard my on
at 22 years of age if he then live & his mother being deceased, to hold to him & his heirs of his body, lawfully
begotten :-
20. I will he have all my Manor called Modingwell in the town of Shropham with all other lands, meadows, tenements
pastures, feedings foldages, older cows (?), fishings, with all manner of rents, & serices, with appurtences lying &
being on the town of Shropham, to him and his heirs lawfully begotten at 22 years :-
21. If he happens to die within the said age of 22 then I will all the aforesaid to remain to John my son, his brother
at 22, to hold to him & his heirs lawfully begotten:-
22. I will John my son have all my lands & tenements in the town of Shadingfield in Suffolk whereof one tenement is
called Graunts & another called Spencer's lying in the towns Shadingfield, Willingham, & all my lands in Wissett
which I purchased late

4]

of William Espre (?), & he to have them at 22, to have & to hold to him & his heirs lawfully begotten:-
23. I will that my executors see reparations be done to the said house & tenements so that they fall in no decay during
the nonage of the said John:-
24. Whereas I have sold a certain tenement lying in Wissett in Suff to one Roger Bartarby (?) the which should
make payment to me now at this time, viz at the feast of St Michael last past L28.13.4 as appeareth by
covenants between him and me, I will that my executors shall take and receive the said money & put it into a Bagge
& all other payments which shall grow from the said Roger Bataby, viz L60 & the same money to be safely kept in a bag
to the use of the said John when he is 22.
25. If any other lands or tenements can be purchased by my executors lying next the said lands & tenements of
Shadingfield, & Willingham that they could be purchased & the said money to be paid:-

5]

26. After I will a lawful stake (?) be made by my executors to the said John when he is 22:-
27. If he decease before I will that the said lands of Shadingfield & Wissett remain to William my son at 22, & to
his lawful begotten heirs:-
28. Also he to have all my lands in Horningtoft, Whissonsett, Mileham, Brisley, & Bilney which lands are known
by the name of Carson's, lying in the said towns, of Stanfield as well free as bond (?) at 22 years & to his
heirs lawfully begotten:-
29. If he deceases before 22 then I will the same lands remain to Nicholas my son, his brother at 22 & to his heirs
lawfully begotten:-
30. I will the same Nicholas have all of my lands and tenements in Barnham Broom, & Barford which I late purchased
of he (?) Nicholas Goldwell clerk, at 22:-

6]

31. I will a lawful stake be made to him & his heirs of his body lawfully begotten:-
32. If the said John, William & Nicholas my sons decease under 22 I will the said lands remain to Richard my son & his
heirs lawfully begotten:-
33. If it hap all my said sons decease before 22 then I will that Olive my daughter shall have my lands in Witton &
Stanfield to her and her heirs for ever:-
34. All the residue of all my afore-said lands to be sold by my executors to the performance of my will & in the
charitable deeds for my soul:-
35. To Olive my daughter L100, to her marriage: if she be ruled by her mother. I will that the said money be levied
by my executors growing out of my said lands & tenements during her nonage:-
36. To Richard my son at 22, 400 marks, or else my executors purchase for him lands to the same value:-
37. If he decease before 22, then the 400 marks, or lands to remain to John my son:-

7]

38. If John decease before 22, then the 400 marks or lands to remain to William my son:-
39. If William decease before 22, then the same 400 marks or lands to remain to Nicholas my son:-
40. If they all decease before 22, then I leave all the said money or lands to the disposition of my executors:-
41. I will Margaret my wife have all my stuff of household with all necessaries being in the bakehouse, kitchen & buttery:-
42. She to be a good mother to Richard when he comes to the age of marriage that she will give him at her
pleasure,some stuff to begin with household:-
43. To her my best goblet with a cover weighing 20 ounces, & my best salt, 1 dozen of my best silver spoons such
as she will choose:-
44. To Richard my son a goblet, with out a cover, & a salt, to be delivered to him at marriage & 1 dozen silver
spoons of the best, when his mother has chosen:-
45. To John my son, a flat piece with half a dozen silver spoons at marriage:-
46. To William my son my macer (?) & half a dozen silver spoons at marriage:-

8]

47. To Nicholas my son 1/2 dozen silver spoons & 2 6/8 to buy him a cup at marriage:-
48. To Olive my daughter at her marriage a cup or a salt, value 5 marks, & to be bought by my executors:-
49. Whereas there are 6 featherbeds sheets, tablecloths, towels & other napery (?), I will my wife take what she will:-
50. The remainder to be given to my children:--
51. I will Alice Smyth have my tenement in Much Plumstead called Chapmans to hold to her and her heirs for evermore:-
52. I will John Smith have my tenement in South Walsham holden by bond of my Lady of Norfolk, to him & his heirs:-
53. All my lands & tenements in Rumburgh, Wissett, & Spethall (?), & in other towns adjoining, with in the Hundred
of Blything, which late were purchased of John Aldrich, together with all my other lands not willed nor bequeathed be
sold by my executors to the performing of this my testament & last will:-
54. I bequeath to Nicholas Companor (?) my servant 20/-:-

9]

55. To Elizabeth Mownleney my servant shen she is married 40/- :-
56. To Agnes Joyse my servant 20/- :-
57. To Julian Krane to keep her with 40/- & if she live not to spend it, I will it be spent at her burying:-
58 I will the old Roof of the Church of Witton be taken down & the walls of the Church hained (heightened) &
a new roof to be made after the pattern of Little Plumstead:-
59. Because I am not able to lead it I will it be releaded & made at my cost:-
60. I have in keeping of the said church 40/-. I will that money go to the making thereof:-
61. I require all my feoffees in all my said lands & tenements that they make a statement there-of to my
executors or to such persons as they shall name when they are required:-
62. If my executors do not levy & gather my debts, which I trust to be my good debts, that then my
executors shall augment or minish any of my bags aforesaid by my supervisor or as shall seem with descrechen etc etc:--
63. The residue of all my goods not beset, I put fully to be at the rule of Margaret my wife & Walter Stubbe
Gent, whom I ordain & make executors:-
64. I give the said Walter for his hand L5 :-
65. I will Margaret my wife by my will & consent have full power to chose her a discreet man if need be & to be one
of my executors: whom I constitute, ratify & ordain by thse present:
66. I make Sir James Hobart, knight, Supervisor whom I pray to be good to my wife:-
67. In witness I have set my seal to these presents:-
68. Given day & year abovesaid.
69. 31st March 1560-1 at Norwich. The testement of John Dade of Witton. Dum Viail Norwich. (?)


Hi Kelly

Very interesting posts, and I'm sorry I cannot add much useful to the
detail you already have.

The transcribed date of "31st March 1560-1" is even more curious than
first appears, as New Year's Day was 25 March - i.e. 31 March fell
clearly into the same year that we would now assign to it, so
expressing it in the dual year form makes little sense.

As you note, assigning a date of 1506 rather than 1560 is consistent
with the tentative identification of the Supervisor, Sir James Hobart
as the one of that name "of Hales Hall, Norfolk, PC, Attorney General
temp Henry VII, died Feb 1517" who heads the pedigree for the family
of the Earl of Buckinghamshire in Burke's Peerage. According to Fasti
Ecclesiae Anglicanae, Nicholas Goldwell was Archdeacon of Norwich from
1484 to 1497, when he transferred to Suffolk (still within the Diocese
of Norwich), dying in 1505 (PCC will, PRO11/14), apparently having
succeeded a Pakenham [Pykenham] in the latter position.

On a related matter, sub 'Longford', Burke's states that the Pakenhams
of Shropham became extinct in 1495 (sic) - do you think this is ten
years too late?

Best wishes, Michael

Kelly Leighton

Re: Earliest Dades, missing a generation? pt 1 of 2

Legg inn av Kelly Leighton » 21 mar 2007 05:13:18

Michael,

Thank you for the good reply. You are polite and yet always have something
valuable to add.

Based on your work, I found a William De Pykenham who seems to have had the
job until 1497.

The James Hobart did have a family but I've not read anything about a son
James. It does seem odd that John Dade would refer to a dead Archdeacon as a
clerk, so I'm guessing that there was a younger, not-so-famous- Nicholas
running around. It does seem as if there is a hole in many of Blomefield's
lists of vicars at the end of the 1400s and in the very early 1500s.

I hadn't even considered the calendar year. I am very conscious of the fact
that we are dealing with a transcript. You are actually dealing with mine of
someone else's (though I am willing to email the scanned "originals" if they
are of use, or I could just post them somewhere) so have my
errors/interpretations on top of what I'm working with..

On a separate rant, I have to admit to some significant frustration in
Googlebooks' digitized version of the Index Nominum. Pages scanned multiple
times, others missed completely, the entire middle of the book missing, and
pages rearranged as if chemical substances were involved. Certainly a very
valuable work, and worth Google's time to do it over, correctly.

I am knee deep in Feet of Fines, Kts of Edw 1st, Blomefield, Procat (and
anything else I can get my claws on) to come to grips with these guys.

My gut says yes, the 1495 date that is used (by Blomefield) might be driven
by I.P.M.s. My only proof right now is circumstantial. Based on what
Margaret's entry said, her father died about 1484. If she is one of Henry
Pakenham (who is stated to have died in 1495)'s daughters (Blomfield lists 2
others but caveats that he cannot say how many there might have been) then I
think we have our answer. My problem, right now, is proving that her father
Henry is THIS Henry. The fact that her entry came at that time, that she was
of Shropham, and that her father was Henry, seem pretty good for me to
continue on, but Blomefield does note the existence in 1453 of a Henry son
of Henry. So, The Henry son of Robert is my prime suspect, but without
knowing more of Henry son of Henry, I cannot yet conclusively deny he was
her father.

I have to look again for anything Pakenham related in the Calenders when I
get another chance. It wasn't my focus when I had them in my grip, I think I
only caught that because of the reference to my John Dade.

I'm still trying to nail the linkages down.

On another note, The kind souls in Norfolk have indicated the wills for
Olive and Richard Dade will be posted tomorrow. Now if only I can read them
and understand them.

Thanks again for the post Michael, always great to hear from you.

Kelly in RI


<<<Snip Kelly's Post>>>>

Hi Kelly

Very interesting posts, and I'm sorry I cannot add much useful to the
detail you already have.

The transcribed date of "31st March 1560-1" is even more curious than
first appears, as New Year's Day was 25 March - i.e. 31 March fell
clearly into the same year that we would now assign to it, so
expressing it in the dual year form makes little sense.

As you note, assigning a date of 1506 rather than 1560 is consistent
with the tentative identification of the Supervisor, Sir James Hobart
as the one of that name "of Hales Hall, Norfolk, PC, Attorney General
temp Henry VII, died Feb 1517" who heads the pedigree for the family
of the Earl of Buckinghamshire in Burke's Peerage. According to Fasti
Ecclesiae Anglicanae, Nicholas Goldwell was Archdeacon of Norwich from
1484 to 1497, when he transferred to Suffolk (still within the Diocese
of Norwich), dying in 1505 (PCC will, PRO11/14), apparently having
succeeded a Pakenham [Pykenham] in the latter position.

On a related matter, sub 'Longford', Burke's states that the Pakenhams
of Shropham became extinct in 1495 (sic) - do you think this is ten
years too late?

Best wishes, Michael



Gjest

Re: Earliest Dades, missing a generation? pt 1 of 2

Legg inn av Gjest » 21 mar 2007 14:57:04

On Mar 21, 4:13 am, "Kelly Leighton" <klei...@cox.net> wrote:
Michael,

Thank you for the good reply. You are polite and yet always have something
valuable to add.

Based on your work, I found a William De Pykenham who seems to have had the
job until 1497.

It's just my speculation that Pykenham could be a variant for Pakenham
- I think that Pekenham and Pickenham are.

The James Hobart did have a family but I've not read anything about a son
James.

I can't remember exactly what the line according to Burke's is, but
can check for you - the usual caveats about that source apply!

It does seem odd that John Dade would refer to a dead Archdeacon as a
clerk, so I'm guessing that there was a younger, not-so-famous- Nicholas
running around. It does seem as if there is a hole in many of Blomefield's
lists of vicars at the end of the 1400s and in the very early 1500s.

I think the reference to Nicholas as "clerk" is probably reasonable.
For instance, when the will of John Jeffry, archdeacon of Sudbury from
1483 until his death, was proved in the PCC in 1493, he was described
as "John Jeffry, clerk".

I hadn't even considered the calendar year. I am very conscious of the fact
that we are dealing with a transcript. You are actually dealing with mine of
someone else's (though I am willing to email the scanned "originals" if they
are of use, or I could just post them somewhere) so have my
errors/interpretations on top of what I'm working with..

On a separate rant, I have to admit to some significant frustration in
Googlebooks' digitized version of the Index Nominum. Pages scanned multiple
times, others missed completely, the entire middle of the book missing, and
pages rearranged as if chemical substances were involved. Certainly a very
valuable work, and worth Google's time to do it over, correctly.

I am knee deep in Feet of Fines, Kts of Edw 1st, Blomefield, Procat (and
anything else I can get my claws on) to come to grips with these guys.

My gut says yes, the 1495 date that is used (by Blomefield) might be driven
by I.P.M.s. My only proof right now is circumstantial. Based on what
Margaret's entry said, her father died about 1484. If she is one of Henry
Pakenham (who is stated to have died in 1495)'s daughters (Blomfield lists 2
others but caveats that he cannot say how many there might have been) then I
think we have our answer. My problem, right now, is proving that her father
Henry is THIS Henry. The fact that her entry came at that time, that she was
of Shropham, and that her father was Henry, seem pretty good for me to
continue on, but Blomefield does note the existence in 1453 of a Henry son
of Henry. So, The Henry son of Robert is my prime suspect, but without
knowing more of Henry son of Henry, I cannot yet conclusively deny he was
her father.

There is a 1446 reference to the family on A2A which I presume you
have seen? It might not add anything to what Blomefield says.

I have to look again for anything Pakenham related in the Calenders when I
get another chance. It wasn't my focus when I had them in my grip, I think I
only caught that because of the reference to my John Dade.


I assume from the proof of age that she held in chief, and that
therefore there should be an IPM for her father somewhere; if it has
not survived, it might be worth checking the Fine Rolls Calendar too,
in case there is a contemporary reference to the writs having been
issued. I certainly can't see anything obvious on PROCAT.

I'm still trying to nail the linkages down.

On another note, The kind souls in Norfolk have indicated the wills for
Olive and Richard Dade will be posted tomorrow. Now if only I can read them
and understand them.

Good luck! Shout out if you want a second pair of eyes.

Regards, Michael

Gjest

Re: Earliest Dades, missing a generation? pt 1 of 2

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 mar 2007 22:39:04

My only proof right now is circumstantial. Based on what
Margaret's entry said, her father died about 1484. If she is one of Henry
Pakenham (who is stated to have died in 1495)'s daughters (Blomfield lists 2
others but caveats that he cannot say how many there might have been) then I
think we have our answer. My problem, right now, is proving that her father
Henry is THIS Henry. The fact that her entry came at that time, that she was
of Shropham, and that her father was Henry, seem pretty good for me to
continue on, but Blomefield does note the existence in 1453 of a Henry son
of Henry. So, The Henry son of Robert is my prime suspect, but without
knowing more of Henry son of Henry, I cannot yet conclusively deny he was
her father.

Kelly

Here are a couple of Calendar entries which may be relevant -
apologies if they are already known to you.

(1) Patent Rolls, 18 November 1477

Licence for 33s 4d paid in the hamper for Henry Pakenham, son and heir
of Robert Pakenham late of Shropham, Esquire, who is seized in his
demesne as of fee 30 acres of land and 7 marks rent in Sniterton,
Shropham, Wilby, Hargham, Lirlyng, Brethenham, Hillyngton, Rokelond,
Stowebydon, Hokham and Brykels in the County of Norfolk, held in
chief, to grant the said rent and 29 acres of the said land to
Nicholas Bryan, vicar of Shropham, and Robert Knyght of Attilburgh,
and for these to grant the same to the said Henry and Anne Leedes, and
the heirs male of their bodies, with successive remainder to the heirs
of the body of the said Henry, to William brother of the said Robert
and the heirs of his body, and to the right heirs of the said Henry.

(2) Close Rolls, 14 May 1474

To the Escheator in Norfolk: order to give livery to Henry, son and
heir of Robert Pakenham, of his father's lands, since he has proved
his age before John Pelly, knight, late escheator, and for half a mark
paid in the hamper the King has respited his homage until Easter next.

(3) Close Rolls, 15 July 1503

John Wyseman, Esquire, to James Hobart, King's Attorney, Henry Weydon,
knight, Richard Braunch, clerk, and John Dade, their heirs and
assigns: release and quitclaim re Heigham Manor, dated 26 June 1503
[ie linking Sir James Hobart with John Dade].

I also looked up William de Pykenham in Emden's Biographical Register
of the University of Cambridge; he petitioned BA at Cambridge in 1450,
and was DCL by 1465; he was rector of East Peckham, Kent, Rayleigh,
Essex, and Blofield, Norfolk, together with many other incumbancies
and canonries (indeed, he was a colossal pluralist!); while several
variants of his surname are listed (eg Pekenham, Piknam, etc) no
details of his family or background are given (despite his PCC will
being quoted) so any tentative connection with the Pakenhams remains
my speculation.

Best wishes, Michael

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»