Whitney article in October TAG
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Larsy
Whitney article in October TAG
I just received the October TAG yesterday, and was quite pleased with
the Whitney article by Robert Leigh Ward and Tim Doyle (on the
apparent ancestry of John Whitney of New England).
One small error I noted: the lawsuit of 1659 which they discuss must
actually be from 1569. I gave myself a small headache trying to
figure out how parties named in the suit could still be alive in 1659
(or even sixty years earlier, which was one of the chronological
details mentioned). Sure enough, the footnote was to a volume of
Lists & Indexes suits from 1567-88, I believe. Hence, the date surely
fell in that period, not nearly one hundred years later (1659).
the Whitney article by Robert Leigh Ward and Tim Doyle (on the
apparent ancestry of John Whitney of New England).
One small error I noted: the lawsuit of 1659 which they discuss must
actually be from 1569. I gave myself a small headache trying to
figure out how parties named in the suit could still be alive in 1659
(or even sixty years earlier, which was one of the chronological
details mentioned). Sure enough, the footnote was to a volume of
Lists & Indexes suits from 1567-88, I believe. Hence, the date surely
fell in that period, not nearly one hundred years later (1659).
-
Larsy
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
Paul Reed's article on Cornelius Holland was also interesting.
However, if I had been writing it, I might have treated the alleged
ducal Holland and Ogle descent with a little more caution. (Not that
Paul claimed this was proven, of course; he does show that Cornelius
Holland's grandfather David was called "yeoman" in two different
places.)
Gilbert Mabbott, the person who originated the lofty ducal Holland-
Ogle claim, may have been quite as biased *for* Cornelius as the
others were *against* him (his detractors having claimed he was a poor
boy and that his father died in debtors' prison). In the intense
partisan politics of the Interregnum period, it is often hard to know
whom to believe (and there was often gross exaggeration in statements
of both scorn and praise during the period).
If I had been Paul, I probably would have quoted the full statement of
the author of the 1660 pamphlet, ""The Mystery of the Good Old
Cause":
Cornelius Holland. His father died in the Fleet for debt, and left
him a poor boy in the court, waiting on sir Henry Vane, then
comptroller of the prince's house. He was still sir Henry Vane's
zany, but now, coming in with his master for the revenue of the king,
queen, and prince, this pharisee was engaged with other monopolists
and patentees, while they stood, his conscience scrupling not the
means where profit was the prize. He was turned out of the office of
the Green Cloth for fraud and breach of trust; but, with the help of
his master, made himself a Farmer of the king's Feeding-Grounds at
Crestoe, in Buckinghamshire, worth 1800l. or 2000l. per ann. at the
rate of 20l. per ann. which he discounted. He possessed Somerset-
House a long time, where he and his family nested themselves. He was
Keeper of Richmond-House for his country retreat, and Commissary for
the Garrisons at Whitehall and the Mews. He had an office in the
Mint, and, having ten children, he long since gave 5000l. with a
daughter, after which rate we must conceive he had laid aside 50,000l.
for portions. He was one of the King's Judges, and one of the
Committee of Safety.
It's all good, as they say --
However, if I had been writing it, I might have treated the alleged
ducal Holland and Ogle descent with a little more caution. (Not that
Paul claimed this was proven, of course; he does show that Cornelius
Holland's grandfather David was called "yeoman" in two different
places.)
Gilbert Mabbott, the person who originated the lofty ducal Holland-
Ogle claim, may have been quite as biased *for* Cornelius as the
others were *against* him (his detractors having claimed he was a poor
boy and that his father died in debtors' prison). In the intense
partisan politics of the Interregnum period, it is often hard to know
whom to believe (and there was often gross exaggeration in statements
of both scorn and praise during the period).
If I had been Paul, I probably would have quoted the full statement of
the author of the 1660 pamphlet, ""The Mystery of the Good Old
Cause":
Cornelius Holland. His father died in the Fleet for debt, and left
him a poor boy in the court, waiting on sir Henry Vane, then
comptroller of the prince's house. He was still sir Henry Vane's
zany, but now, coming in with his master for the revenue of the king,
queen, and prince, this pharisee was engaged with other monopolists
and patentees, while they stood, his conscience scrupling not the
means where profit was the prize. He was turned out of the office of
the Green Cloth for fraud and breach of trust; but, with the help of
his master, made himself a Farmer of the king's Feeding-Grounds at
Crestoe, in Buckinghamshire, worth 1800l. or 2000l. per ann. at the
rate of 20l. per ann. which he discounted. He possessed Somerset-
House a long time, where he and his family nested themselves. He was
Keeper of Richmond-House for his country retreat, and Commissary for
the Garrisons at Whitehall and the Mews. He had an office in the
Mint, and, having ten children, he long since gave 5000l. with a
daughter, after which rate we must conceive he had laid aside 50,000l.
for portions. He was one of the King's Judges, and one of the
Committee of Safety.
It's all good, as they say --
-
mhollick@mac.com
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
If the Whitney article holds up, then a tentative royal line can be
now established for John Whitney of Watertown, Mass.
1 King Henry II of England aka: "Curtmantel" ref #: F222:17 1133 -
1189
+ aka: Countess Ida ref #: (see notes)
2 Sir William Longespee aka: Earl of Salisbury; Named in Magna Charta
ref #: W142-1 1176 - 1225/26
+Ela FitzWilliam aka: Ela de Salisbury ref #: Ä108-28 1189 - 1261
3 Ida Longespee aka: Idonea de Longespee ref #: W142-2 - 1265
+William de Beauchamp aka: Lord Beauchamp of Bedford ref #: (Ä184A-9)
1185 - 1260
4 Beatrice de Beauchamp ref #: Ä122A-30 - 1281
+Sir Thomas FitzOtho aka: Thomas FitzOates ref #: (Ä216-29) 1231 -
1274
5 Maud FitzThomas aka: Matilda FitzOtho ref #: Ä122A-31 - 1329
+Adm. Sir John de Botetourte aka: 1st Lord Botetourte ref #: Ä216-29
1265 - 1324
6 Ada de Botetourt
+Sir John de St. Philbert aka: Knt. ref #: (W131-8)
7 Maud de St. Philbert ref #: (W131-8)
+Sir Warin Trussell ref #: W131-8
8 Sir Lawrence Trussell ref #: W131-9
+Maud Charnells ref #: (Ä150-34)
9 Sir William Trussell aka: Lord of Elmesthorpe ref #: W131-10 - 1464
+Margery Ludlow ref #: W111-9 - 1447
The problem generation is next: Was she a Trussell or Russell?
10 Jennet Trussell/Russell m. Sir Eustace Whitney
11. Sir Robert Whitney m. (2) Elizabeth Vaughn
12. Robert Whitney m. NN
13. Robert Whitney m. Elizabeth ap Morgan
14. Thomas Whitney m. Mary Bray
15. John Whitney of Watertown, Mass.
now established for John Whitney of Watertown, Mass.
1 King Henry II of England aka: "Curtmantel" ref #: F222:17 1133 -
1189
+ aka: Countess Ida ref #: (see notes)
2 Sir William Longespee aka: Earl of Salisbury; Named in Magna Charta
ref #: W142-1 1176 - 1225/26
+Ela FitzWilliam aka: Ela de Salisbury ref #: Ä108-28 1189 - 1261
3 Ida Longespee aka: Idonea de Longespee ref #: W142-2 - 1265
+William de Beauchamp aka: Lord Beauchamp of Bedford ref #: (Ä184A-9)
1185 - 1260
4 Beatrice de Beauchamp ref #: Ä122A-30 - 1281
+Sir Thomas FitzOtho aka: Thomas FitzOates ref #: (Ä216-29) 1231 -
1274
5 Maud FitzThomas aka: Matilda FitzOtho ref #: Ä122A-31 - 1329
+Adm. Sir John de Botetourte aka: 1st Lord Botetourte ref #: Ä216-29
1265 - 1324
6 Ada de Botetourt
+Sir John de St. Philbert aka: Knt. ref #: (W131-8)
7 Maud de St. Philbert ref #: (W131-8)
+Sir Warin Trussell ref #: W131-8
8 Sir Lawrence Trussell ref #: W131-9
+Maud Charnells ref #: (Ä150-34)
9 Sir William Trussell aka: Lord of Elmesthorpe ref #: W131-10 - 1464
+Margery Ludlow ref #: W111-9 - 1447
The problem generation is next: Was she a Trussell or Russell?
10 Jennet Trussell/Russell m. Sir Eustace Whitney
11. Sir Robert Whitney m. (2) Elizabeth Vaughn
12. Robert Whitney m. NN
13. Robert Whitney m. Elizabeth ap Morgan
14. Thomas Whitney m. Mary Bray
15. John Whitney of Watertown, Mass.
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
In article <1182871630.713662.151820@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"mhollick@mac.com" <mhollick@mac.com> wrote:
Fascinating. I haven't got this TAG yet. Another potential medieval
line for my children. Thomas & Mary (Bray) Whitney were long known to
be the parents of the immigrant, but Thomas' parentage had been subject
to both fraud & wishful thinking in earlier publications. In a
nutshell, what's the evidence for the line down from Sir Eustace Whitney
to this Thomas?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
"mhollick@mac.com" <mhollick@mac.com> wrote:
If the Whitney article holds up, then a tentative royal line can be
now established for John Whitney of Watertown, Mass.
1 King Henry II of England aka: "Curtmantel" ref #: F222:17 1133 -
1189
+ aka: Countess Ida ref #: (see notes)
2 Sir William Longespee aka: Earl of Salisbury; Named in Magna Charta
ref #: W142-1 1176 - 1225/26
+Ela FitzWilliam aka: Ela de Salisbury ref #: ?108-28 1189 - 1261
3 Ida Longespee aka: Idonea de Longespee ref #: W142-2 - 1265
+William de Beauchamp aka: Lord Beauchamp of Bedford ref #: (?184A-9)
1185 - 1260
4 Beatrice de Beauchamp ref #: ?122A-30 - 1281
+Sir Thomas FitzOtho aka: Thomas FitzOates ref #: (?216-29) 1231 -
1274
5 Maud FitzThomas aka: Matilda FitzOtho ref #: ?122A-31 - 1329
+Adm. Sir John de Botetourte aka: 1st Lord Botetourte ref #: ?216-29
1265 - 1324
6 Ada de Botetourt
+Sir John de St. Philbert aka: Knt. ref #: (W131-8)
7 Maud de St. Philbert ref #: (W131-8)
+Sir Warin Trussell ref #: W131-8
8 Sir Lawrence Trussell ref #: W131-9
+Maud Charnells ref #: (?150-34)
9 Sir William Trussell aka: Lord of Elmesthorpe ref #: W131-10 - 1464
+Margery Ludlow ref #: W111-9 - 1447
The problem generation is next: Was she a Trussell or Russell?
10 Jennet Trussell/Russell m. Sir Eustace Whitney
11. Sir Robert Whitney m. (2) Elizabeth Vaughn
12. Robert Whitney m. NN
13. Robert Whitney m. Elizabeth ap Morgan
14. Thomas Whitney m. Mary Bray
15. John Whitney of Watertown, Mass.
Fascinating. I haven't got this TAG yet. Another potential medieval
line for my children. Thomas & Mary (Bray) Whitney were long known to
be the parents of the immigrant, but Thomas' parentage had been subject
to both fraud & wishful thinking in earlier publications. In a
nutshell, what's the evidence for the line down from Sir Eustace Whitney
to this Thomas?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
Dear Martin,
In regards to the vital Trussell/Russell link.
Gerald Paget in his book on the ancestors of Prince Charles gives
Q115473 Eustace Whitney, son of Sir Robert Whitney by Wenllian (Joan)
daughter of Sir Thomas Oldcastle
Eustace died 8 June 1463
Q115474----------is left blank and should be Jennet Trussell/Russell
Cahiers de Saint Louis, page 997
Eustache Whitney and Jeannette Russell
are parents of
Robert Whitney, of Whitney
married (1) Alice Vaughan (2) Constance Audley
I have Robert Whitney marry (1) circa 1464 Constance Touchet, daughter of
James Touchet, 5th Lord Audley and Eleanor Holand
(2) Elizabeth Vaughan (see
Bartrum Welsh Genealogies)
Sorry I cannot give more definite information.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <mhollick@mac.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: Whitney article in October TAG
If the Whitney article holds up, then a tentative royal line can be
now established for John Whitney of Watertown, Mass.
1 King Henry II of England aka: "Curtmantel" ref #: F222:17 1133 -
1189
+ aka: Countess Ida ref #: (see notes)
2 Sir William Longespee aka: Earl of Salisbury; Named in Magna Charta
ref #: W142-1 1176 - 1225/26
+Ela FitzWilliam aka: Ela de Salisbury ref #: Ä108-28 1189 - 1261
3 Ida Longespee aka: Idonea de Longespee ref #: W142-2 - 1265
+William de Beauchamp aka: Lord Beauchamp of Bedford ref #: (Ä184A-9)
1185 - 1260
4 Beatrice de Beauchamp ref #: Ä122A-30 - 1281
+Sir Thomas FitzOtho aka: Thomas FitzOates ref #: (Ä216-29) 1231 -
1274
5 Maud FitzThomas aka: Matilda FitzOtho ref #: Ä122A-31 - 1329
+Adm. Sir John de Botetourte aka: 1st Lord Botetourte ref #: Ä216-29
1265 - 1324
6 Ada de Botetourt
+Sir John de St. Philbert aka: Knt. ref #: (W131-8)
7 Maud de St. Philbert ref #: (W131-8)
+Sir Warin Trussell ref #: W131-8
8 Sir Lawrence Trussell ref #: W131-9
+Maud Charnells ref #: (Ä150-34)
9 Sir William Trussell aka: Lord of Elmesthorpe ref #: W131-10 - 1464
+Margery Ludlow ref #: W111-9 - 1447
The problem generation is next: Was she a Trussell or Russell?
10 Jennet Trussell/Russell m. Sir Eustace Whitney
11. Sir Robert Whitney m. (2) Elizabeth Vaughn
12. Robert Whitney m. NN
13. Robert Whitney m. Elizabeth ap Morgan
14. Thomas Whitney m. Mary Bray
15. John Whitney of Watertown, Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regards to the vital Trussell/Russell link.
Gerald Paget in his book on the ancestors of Prince Charles gives
Q115473 Eustace Whitney, son of Sir Robert Whitney by Wenllian (Joan)
daughter of Sir Thomas Oldcastle
Eustace died 8 June 1463
Q115474----------is left blank and should be Jennet Trussell/Russell
Cahiers de Saint Louis, page 997
Eustache Whitney and Jeannette Russell
are parents of
Robert Whitney, of Whitney
married (1) Alice Vaughan (2) Constance Audley
I have Robert Whitney marry (1) circa 1464 Constance Touchet, daughter of
James Touchet, 5th Lord Audley and Eleanor Holand
(2) Elizabeth Vaughan (see
Bartrum Welsh Genealogies)
Sorry I cannot give more definite information.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <mhollick@mac.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 1:27 AM
Subject: Re: Whitney article in October TAG
If the Whitney article holds up, then a tentative royal line can be
now established for John Whitney of Watertown, Mass.
1 King Henry II of England aka: "Curtmantel" ref #: F222:17 1133 -
1189
+ aka: Countess Ida ref #: (see notes)
2 Sir William Longespee aka: Earl of Salisbury; Named in Magna Charta
ref #: W142-1 1176 - 1225/26
+Ela FitzWilliam aka: Ela de Salisbury ref #: Ä108-28 1189 - 1261
3 Ida Longespee aka: Idonea de Longespee ref #: W142-2 - 1265
+William de Beauchamp aka: Lord Beauchamp of Bedford ref #: (Ä184A-9)
1185 - 1260
4 Beatrice de Beauchamp ref #: Ä122A-30 - 1281
+Sir Thomas FitzOtho aka: Thomas FitzOates ref #: (Ä216-29) 1231 -
1274
5 Maud FitzThomas aka: Matilda FitzOtho ref #: Ä122A-31 - 1329
+Adm. Sir John de Botetourte aka: 1st Lord Botetourte ref #: Ä216-29
1265 - 1324
6 Ada de Botetourt
+Sir John de St. Philbert aka: Knt. ref #: (W131-8)
7 Maud de St. Philbert ref #: (W131-8)
+Sir Warin Trussell ref #: W131-8
8 Sir Lawrence Trussell ref #: W131-9
+Maud Charnells ref #: (Ä150-34)
9 Sir William Trussell aka: Lord of Elmesthorpe ref #: W131-10 - 1464
+Margery Ludlow ref #: W111-9 - 1447
The problem generation is next: Was she a Trussell or Russell?
10 Jennet Trussell/Russell m. Sir Eustace Whitney
11. Sir Robert Whitney m. (2) Elizabeth Vaughn
12. Robert Whitney m. NN
13. Robert Whitney m. Elizabeth ap Morgan
14. Thomas Whitney m. Mary Bray
15. John Whitney of Watertown, Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
gryphon801@aol.com
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
On Jun 26, 9:09?am, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Having seen the rough draft of the article, I can observe that the
full text you quote here was actually the first footnote. It was
because the article had to be trimmed down to the allotted space that
it was dropped. As it is, the editors of TAG were quite gracious to
allow so much space to be taken for what is essentially a biography,
rather than an extended genealogy.
Also, I didn't think that Mabbott was claiming Cornelius was a direct
descendant of a Duke, but of the same blood. Since he came from
Denton, next to Upholland, I think that would be an accurate
observation, and no reason to doubt that in that extremely rural
region of Lancashire, that it is the same Holand bloodline.
I would also think that for the son of a yeoman (Ralph, son of David)
to be preferred to the royal wardrobe, there would be some influential
relatives involved, in this case perhaps more likely the Ogle family.
Paul Reed's article on Cornelius Holland was also interesting.
However, if I had been writing it, I might have treated the alleged
ducal Holland and Ogle descent with a little more caution. (Not that
Paul claimed this was proven, of course; he does show that Cornelius
Holland's grandfather David was called "yeoman" in two different
places.)
Gilbert Mabbott, the person who originated the lofty ducal Holland-
Ogle claim, may have been quite as biased *for* Cornelius as the
others were *against* him (his detractors having claimed he was a poor
boy and that his father died in debtors' prison). In the intense
partisan politics of the Interregnum period, it is often hard to know
whom to believe (and there was often gross exaggeration in statements
of both scorn and praise during the period).
If I had been Paul, I probably would have quoted the full statement of
the author of the 1660 pamphlet, ""The Mystery of the Good Old
Cause":
Cornelius Holland. His father died in the Fleet for debt, and left
him a poor boy in the court, waiting on sir Henry Vane, then
comptroller of the prince's house. He was still sir Henry Vane's
zany, but now, coming in with his master for the revenue of the king,
queen, and prince, this pharisee was engaged with other monopolists
and patentees, while they stood, his conscience scrupling not the
means where profit was the prize. He was turned out of the office of
the Green Cloth for fraud and breach of trust; but, with the help of
his master, made himself a Farmer of the king's Feeding-Grounds at
Crestoe, in Buckinghamshire, worth 1800l. or 2000l. per ann. at the
rate of 20l. per ann. which he discounted. He possessed Somerset-
House a long time, where he and his family nested themselves. He was
Keeper of Richmond-House for his country retreat, and Commissary for
the Garrisons at Whitehall and the Mews. He had an office in the
Mint, and, having ten children, he long since gave 5000l. with a
daughter, after which rate we must conceive he had laid aside 50,000l.
for portions. He was one of the King's Judges, and one of the
Committee of Safety.
It's all good, as they say --
Having seen the rough draft of the article, I can observe that the
full text you quote here was actually the first footnote. It was
because the article had to be trimmed down to the allotted space that
it was dropped. As it is, the editors of TAG were quite gracious to
allow so much space to be taken for what is essentially a biography,
rather than an extended genealogy.
Also, I didn't think that Mabbott was claiming Cornelius was a direct
descendant of a Duke, but of the same blood. Since he came from
Denton, next to Upholland, I think that would be an accurate
observation, and no reason to doubt that in that extremely rural
region of Lancashire, that it is the same Holand bloodline.
I would also think that for the son of a yeoman (Ralph, son of David)
to be preferred to the royal wardrobe, there would be some influential
relatives involved, in this case perhaps more likely the Ogle family.
-
Larsy
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
Having seen the rough draft of the article, I can observe that the
full text you quote here was actually the first footnote. It was
because the article had to be trimmed down to the allotted space that
it was dropped. As it is, the editors of TAG were quite gracious to
allow so much space to be taken for what is essentially a biography,
rather than an extended genealogy.
Being nine months behind in their publishing schedule, you'd think
they might relax their blessed standards just this once. It's a pity
the "Old Cause" quote wasn't given; it's brilliantly written, and if I
were a Holland descendant, I'd certainly prefer to think it was the
truth.
Also, I didn't think that Mabbott was claiming Cornelius was a direct
descendant of a Duke, but of the same blood. Since he came from
Denton, next to Upholland, I think that would be an accurate
observation, and no reason to doubt that in that extremely rural
region of Lancashire, that it is the same Holand bloodline.
Possible, I suppose.
I would also think that for the son of a yeoman (Ralph, son of David)
to be preferred to the royal wardrobe, there would be some influential
relatives involved, in this case perhaps more likely the Ogle family.- Hide quoted text -
Vaguely possible, I suppose.
-
mhollick@mac.com
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
On Jun 26, 6:59 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Not wanting to spoil the fun of reading the article, the authors found
a chancery suit in 1569 that outlines the lines of descent (without
specific relationships) for the Whitneys of Whitney. The make a
strong circumstantial case for the pedigree above as a cadet branch of
the family.
The one whole (major IMHO) is they don't yet have proof that the
Thomas Whitney of London, gentleman, who is without doubt the father
of John Whitney of Watertown, is the same Thomas Whitney of the
Whitneys of Castleton of the cadet branch. Two glaring things jump
out which is that Thomas is not mentioned in the wills of either his
proposed father or brother. So the authors rely on visitation records
and other facts (such as other Whitneys living in the same parish of
London, etc.). It's a hard sell to say that a visitation is wrong in
this point but correct in another, which is what they in fact do.
However, I think they are right. It makes sense.
The other problem they have is they alleviate the chronological
difficulties that refute earlier proposed Whitney lines (pointed out
by Jacobus) but create another without properly addressing it. In
their scheme Thomas Whitney is born about 1550. He therefore marries
in his late thirties and dies at 87. Possible, but out of the norm
the other way. Again, because of this one really needs some document
that points to Thomas Whitney of London being tied to Castleton.
Martin
wrote:
In article <1182871630.713662.151...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"mholl...@mac.com" <mholl...@mac.com> wrote:
If the Whitney article holds up, then a tentative royal line can be
now established for John Whitney of Watertown, Mass.
1 King Henry II of England aka: "Curtmantel" ref #: F222:17 1133 -
1189
+ aka: Countess Ida ref #: (see notes)
2 Sir William Longespee aka: Earl of Salisbury; Named in Magna Charta
ref #: W142-1 1176 - 1225/26
+Ela FitzWilliam aka: Ela de Salisbury ref #: ?108-28 1189 - 1261
3 Ida Longespee aka: Idonea de Longespee ref #: W142-2 - 1265
+William de Beauchamp aka: Lord Beauchamp of Bedford ref #: (?184A-9)
1185 - 1260
4 Beatrice de Beauchamp ref #: ?122A-30 - 1281
+Sir Thomas FitzOtho aka: Thomas FitzOates ref #: (?216-29) 1231 -
1274
5 Maud FitzThomas aka: Matilda FitzOtho ref #: ?122A-31 - 1329
+Adm. Sir John de Botetourte aka: 1st Lord Botetourte ref #: ?216-29
1265 - 1324
6 Ada de Botetourt
+Sir John de St. Philbert aka: Knt. ref #: (W131-8)
7 Maud de St. Philbert ref #: (W131-8)
+Sir Warin Trussell ref #: W131-8
8 Sir Lawrence Trussell ref #: W131-9
+Maud Charnells ref #: (?150-34)
9 Sir William Trussell aka: Lord of Elmesthorpe ref #: W131-10 - 1464
+Margery Ludlow ref #: W111-9 - 1447
The problem generation is next: Was she a Trussell or Russell?
10 Jennet Trussell/Russell m. Sir Eustace Whitney
11. Sir Robert Whitney m. (2) Elizabeth Vaughn
12. Robert Whitney m. NN
13. Robert Whitney m. Elizabeth ap Morgan
14. Thomas Whitney m. Mary Bray
15. John Whitney of Watertown, Mass.
Fascinating. I haven't got this TAG yet. Another potential medieval
line for my children. Thomas & Mary (Bray) Whitney were long known to
be the parents of the immigrant, but Thomas' parentage had been subject
to both fraud & wishful thinking in earlier publications. In a
nutshell, what's the evidence for the line down from Sir Eustace Whitney
to this Thomas?
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
Not wanting to spoil the fun of reading the article, the authors found
a chancery suit in 1569 that outlines the lines of descent (without
specific relationships) for the Whitneys of Whitney. The make a
strong circumstantial case for the pedigree above as a cadet branch of
the family.
The one whole (major IMHO) is they don't yet have proof that the
Thomas Whitney of London, gentleman, who is without doubt the father
of John Whitney of Watertown, is the same Thomas Whitney of the
Whitneys of Castleton of the cadet branch. Two glaring things jump
out which is that Thomas is not mentioned in the wills of either his
proposed father or brother. So the authors rely on visitation records
and other facts (such as other Whitneys living in the same parish of
London, etc.). It's a hard sell to say that a visitation is wrong in
this point but correct in another, which is what they in fact do.
However, I think they are right. It makes sense.
The other problem they have is they alleviate the chronological
difficulties that refute earlier proposed Whitney lines (pointed out
by Jacobus) but create another without properly addressing it. In
their scheme Thomas Whitney is born about 1550. He therefore marries
in his late thirties and dies at 87. Possible, but out of the norm
the other way. Again, because of this one really needs some document
that points to Thomas Whitney of London being tied to Castleton.
Martin
-
Larsy
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
Not wanting to spoil the fun of reading the article, the authors found
a chancery suit in 1569 that outlines the lines of descent (without
specific relationships) for the Whitneys of Whitney. The make a
strong circumstantial case for the pedigree above as a cadet branch of
the family.
The one whole (major IMHO) is they don't yet have proof that the
Thomas Whitney of London, gentleman, who is without doubt the father
of John Whitney of Watertown, is the same Thomas Whitney of the
Whitneys of Castleton of the cadet branch. Two glaring things jump
out which is that Thomas is not mentioned in the wills of either his
proposed father or brother. So the authors rely on visitation records
and other facts (such as other Whitneys living in the same parish of
London, etc.). It's a hard sell to say that a visitation is wrong in
this point but correct in another, which is what they in fact do.
However, I think they are right. It makes sense.
The other problem they have is they alleviate the chronological
difficulties that refute earlier proposed Whitney lines (pointed out
by Jacobus) but create another without properly addressing it. In
their scheme Thomas Whitney is born about 1550. He therefore marries
in his late thirties and dies at 87. Possible, but out of the norm
the other way. Again, because of this one really needs some document
that points to Thomas Whitney of London being tied to Castleton.
Also, one other possible problem occurs to me: the 1587 list of heirs
ought to have included Nicholas Whitney the eldest brother of Thomas
and Richard, as he did not die until later in the same year (Nov.
1587). Possibly he was excluded as he did not have children, but the
authors should have addressed this (IMHO).
-
mhollick@mac.com
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
On Jun 27, 10:29 am, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
True. Nonetheless, I feel genealogical scholarship is an ongoing
discussion and the others deserve credit for illuminating the cadet
branches of the Whitneys and pointing out new geographical areas to
pursue further research. I think they are on the right track.
Not wanting to spoil the fun of reading the article, the authors found
a chancery suit in 1569 that outlines the lines of descent (without
specific relationships) for the Whitneys of Whitney. The make a
strong circumstantial case for the pedigree above as a cadet branch of
the family.
The one whole (major IMHO) is they don't yet have proof that the
Thomas Whitney of London, gentleman, who is without doubt the father
of John Whitney of Watertown, is the same Thomas Whitney of the
Whitneys of Castleton of the cadet branch. Two glaring things jump
out which is that Thomas is not mentioned in the wills of either his
proposed father or brother. So the authors rely on visitation records
and other facts (such as other Whitneys living in the same parish of
London, etc.). It's a hard sell to say that a visitation is wrong in
this point but correct in another, which is what they in fact do.
However, I think they are right. It makes sense.
The other problem they have is they alleviate the chronological
difficulties that refute earlier proposed Whitney lines (pointed out
by Jacobus) but create another without properly addressing it. In
their scheme Thomas Whitney is born about 1550. He therefore marries
in his late thirties and dies at 87. Possible, but out of the norm
the other way. Again, because of this one really needs some document
that points to Thomas Whitney of London being tied to Castleton.
Also, one other possible problem occurs to me: the 1587 list of heirs
ought to have included Nicholas Whitney the eldest brother of Thomas
and Richard, as he did not die until later in the same year (Nov.
1587). Possibly he was excluded as he did not have children, but the
authors should have addressed this (IMHO).
True. Nonetheless, I feel genealogical scholarship is an ongoing
discussion and the others deserve credit for illuminating the cadet
branches of the Whitneys and pointing out new geographical areas to
pursue further research. I think they are on the right track.
-
Larsy
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
True. Nonetheless, I feel genealogical scholarship is an ongoing
discussion and the others deserve credit for illuminating the cadet
branches of the Whitneys and pointing out new geographical areas to
pursue further research. I think they are on the right track.
Has anybody ever looked into the following? One of the children of
Thomas and Mary (Bray) Whitney was
Saint Margaret, Westminster
--Arnewey Whitney, son of Thomas, bapt. 2 Feb. 1590
The only other person in the entire extracted IGI for England with
this given name was baptized at the same church ...
--Arnwey Prescot, son of John, bapt. Aug. 1579
-
Larsy
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
from A2A --
WESTMINSTER QUARTER SESSIONS: COURT IN SESSION
Catalogue Ref. WJ
Creator(s):
Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the City and Liberty of
Westminster, 1618-1844
SESSIONS ROLLS
Rolls transferred from Westminster Abbey - ref. WJ/SR/NS
ROLL (NEW SERIES) NO.5; JAN 19 JAMES I
FILE - Writ of supersedeas; for release of Thomas Whitney
of St. Margaret, Westminster - ref. WJ/SR(NS)5/118 - date: 19 James
I [1622] 9 Jan
FILE - Indictment:; Thomas Whitney of St. Margaret,
Westminster, yeoman on 16 Nov [1621] insulted and struck George
Cranson; Endorsed: True bill; Annotated: At large - ref. WJ/
SR(NS)5/120 - date: [1622]
FILE - Recognizance:; George Cranstone of St. Martin in the
Fields, gent. (£40), Robert Brotherstone of St. Margaret, Westminster,
shoemaker (£20) and John Wadel of St. Margaret, Westminster, tailor
(£20) for the appearance of George Cranstone at the next sessions and
to keep the peace, especially regarding Thomas Whitny the elder and
the younger of St. Margaret, Westminster, yeomen; Taken before:
Gabriel Grante - ref. WJ/SR(NS)5/049 - date: 19 James I [1621] 26
Nov
FILE - Recognizance:; Thomas Whitny the younger of St.
Margaret, Westminster, yeoman (£20), Thomas Whitny the elder of St.
Margaret, Westminster, yeoman (£10) and Francis Beale of St. Margaret,
Westminster, haberdasher (£10) for the appearance of Thomas Whitny the
younger at the next sessions and to keep the peace, especially
regarding George Cranstone of St. Martin in the Fields; Taken before:
Gabriel Grante; Annotated: Defaulted - ref. WJ/SR(NS)5/050 - date:
19 James I [1621] 26 Nov
WESTMINSTER QUARTER SESSIONS: COURT IN SESSION
Catalogue Ref. WJ
Creator(s):
Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the City and Liberty of
Westminster, 1618-1844
SESSIONS ROLLS
Rolls transferred from Westminster Abbey - ref. WJ/SR/NS
ROLL (NEW SERIES) NO.5; JAN 19 JAMES I
FILE - Writ of supersedeas; for release of Thomas Whitney
of St. Margaret, Westminster - ref. WJ/SR(NS)5/118 - date: 19 James
I [1622] 9 Jan
FILE - Indictment:; Thomas Whitney of St. Margaret,
Westminster, yeoman on 16 Nov [1621] insulted and struck George
Cranson; Endorsed: True bill; Annotated: At large - ref. WJ/
SR(NS)5/120 - date: [1622]
FILE - Recognizance:; George Cranstone of St. Martin in the
Fields, gent. (£40), Robert Brotherstone of St. Margaret, Westminster,
shoemaker (£20) and John Wadel of St. Margaret, Westminster, tailor
(£20) for the appearance of George Cranstone at the next sessions and
to keep the peace, especially regarding Thomas Whitny the elder and
the younger of St. Margaret, Westminster, yeomen; Taken before:
Gabriel Grante - ref. WJ/SR(NS)5/049 - date: 19 James I [1621] 26
Nov
FILE - Recognizance:; Thomas Whitny the younger of St.
Margaret, Westminster, yeoman (£20), Thomas Whitny the elder of St.
Margaret, Westminster, yeoman (£10) and Francis Beale of St. Margaret,
Westminster, haberdasher (£10) for the appearance of Thomas Whitny the
younger at the next sessions and to keep the peace, especially
regarding George Cranstone of St. Martin in the Fields; Taken before:
Gabriel Grante; Annotated: Defaulted - ref. WJ/SR(NS)5/050 - date:
19 James I [1621] 26 Nov
-
TimTX
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
It's interesting that you posted this as this is a set of documents
that I have ordered and have been working on. It seems as though this
court case solidifies the existence of a son Thomas, Jr., son of
Thomas and Mary (Bray) Whitney as has previously been postulated (in
Smith & Sanborn, as well as on the Whitney Research Group (WRG)
website at http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.ph ... s_Whitneys).
Sometime in 1621, Thomas Whitney "the younger" of St. Margaret's
Parish, Westminster, hit and insulted George Cranstone of the parish
of St. Martin in the Fields, London. On 26 Nov 1621, both were
released on what amounts to bail, which was paid not only by
themselves, but by friends and family members as well to guarantee
that they would appear in court. Those backing Thomas Whitney were
(probably his father), Thomas Whitney "the elder" and Frances Beale,
who had just the year before married Alice Whitney in St. Margaret's,
but whose relationship to the Thomas Whitneys was previously unknown.
A writ of supersedeas was issued for the release of Thomas Whitney on
9 Jan 1622. Thomas Whitney the younger was indicted in 1622 and failed
to show up in court - he was listed "at large" and his Recognizance
(bail) document marked with the word "default".
Additional details can be found at
http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.ph ... he_Younger
and at http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.ph ... 09-1637%29.
Please be kind - my Latin is not the best, by any means.
One interesting fact uncovered in these documents is the involvement
of Francis Beale. He was almost certainly the man who had married
Alice Whitney, who I now believe to have been a previously
unidentified daughter of Thomas and Mary (Bray) Whitney, born about
1602. Francis was perhaps the man of that name of Axe Yard who was the
landlord mentioned in the diary of Samuel Pepys. Although I'm still
ironing out the details of this family, more can be seen at
http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.ph ... 2-a1666%29
Tim Doyle
On Jun 27, 4:26 pm, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
that I have ordered and have been working on. It seems as though this
court case solidifies the existence of a son Thomas, Jr., son of
Thomas and Mary (Bray) Whitney as has previously been postulated (in
Smith & Sanborn, as well as on the Whitney Research Group (WRG)
website at http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.ph ... s_Whitneys).
Sometime in 1621, Thomas Whitney "the younger" of St. Margaret's
Parish, Westminster, hit and insulted George Cranstone of the parish
of St. Martin in the Fields, London. On 26 Nov 1621, both were
released on what amounts to bail, which was paid not only by
themselves, but by friends and family members as well to guarantee
that they would appear in court. Those backing Thomas Whitney were
(probably his father), Thomas Whitney "the elder" and Frances Beale,
who had just the year before married Alice Whitney in St. Margaret's,
but whose relationship to the Thomas Whitneys was previously unknown.
A writ of supersedeas was issued for the release of Thomas Whitney on
9 Jan 1622. Thomas Whitney the younger was indicted in 1622 and failed
to show up in court - he was listed "at large" and his Recognizance
(bail) document marked with the word "default".
Additional details can be found at
http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.ph ... he_Younger
and at http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.ph ... 09-1637%29.
Please be kind - my Latin is not the best, by any means.
One interesting fact uncovered in these documents is the involvement
of Francis Beale. He was almost certainly the man who had married
Alice Whitney, who I now believe to have been a previously
unidentified daughter of Thomas and Mary (Bray) Whitney, born about
1602. Francis was perhaps the man of that name of Axe Yard who was the
landlord mentioned in the diary of Samuel Pepys. Although I'm still
ironing out the details of this family, more can be seen at
http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.ph ... 2-a1666%29
Tim Doyle
On Jun 27, 4:26 pm, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
from A2A --
WESTMINSTER QUARTER SESSIONS: COURT IN SESSION
Catalogue Ref. WJ
Creator(s):
Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the City and Liberty of
Westminster, 1618-1844
SESSIONS ROLLS
Rolls transferred from Westminster Abbey - ref. WJ/SR/NS
ROLL (NEW SERIES) NO.5; JAN 19 JAMES I
FILE - Writ of supersedeas; for release of ThomasWhitney
of St. Margaret, Westminster - ref. WJ/SR(NS)5/118 - date: 19 James
I [1622] 9 Jan
FILE - Indictment:; ThomasWhitneyof St. Margaret,
Westminster, yeoman on 16 Nov [1621] insulted and struck George
Cranson; Endorsed: True bill; Annotated: At large - ref. WJ/
SR(NS)5/120 - date: [1622]
FILE - Recognizance:; George Cranstone of St. Martin in the
Fields, gent. (£40), Robert Brotherstone of St. Margaret, Westminster,
shoemaker (£20) and John Wadel of St. Margaret, Westminster, tailor
(£20) for the appearance of George Cranstone at the next sessions and
to keep the peace, especially regarding Thomas Whitny the elder and
the younger of St. Margaret, Westminster, yeomen; Taken before:
Gabriel Grante - ref. WJ/SR(NS)5/049 - date: 19 James I [1621] 26
Nov
FILE - Recognizance:; Thomas Whitny the younger of St.
Margaret, Westminster, yeoman (£20), Thomas Whitny the elder of St.
Margaret, Westminster, yeoman (£10) and Francis Beale of St. Margaret,
Westminster, haberdasher (£10) for the appearance of Thomas Whitny the
younger at the next sessions and to keep the peace, especially
regarding George Cranstone of St. Martin in the Fields; Taken before:
Gabriel Grante; Annotated: Defaulted - ref. WJ/SR(NS)5/050 - date:
19 James I [1621] 26 Nov
-
TimTX
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
Melville dealt with this many years ago, as follows:
4. Arnwaye, baptized February 2, 1589-90; buried
August 11, 1591. The origin of this peculiar name is
suggested by a monument to a person living at these
dates, still to be seen in St. Margaret's, inscribed:
Interred here in graue, doth Thomas Arnwaye Lye,
Who in his life tyme loued the Poore & in that loue did dye,
For what be left, to Helpe the Poore; HE did devise the same,
Not idlell Folke, but such as woulde them selfs to Goodness frame,
The Thriftie peopell by his will that in this parishe dwell
Fyue poundes for ther comforte may haue if yt they use it well
From yeare to yeare if carefullie they looke unto their charge,
Of such men as this Arnwaye was God make the number large.
Tim Doyle
On Jun 27, 3:28 pm, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
4. Arnwaye, baptized February 2, 1589-90; buried
August 11, 1591. The origin of this peculiar name is
suggested by a monument to a person living at these
dates, still to be seen in St. Margaret's, inscribed:
Interred here in graue, doth Thomas Arnwaye Lye,
Who in his life tyme loued the Poore & in that loue did dye,
For what be left, to Helpe the Poore; HE did devise the same,
Not idlell Folke, but such as woulde them selfs to Goodness frame,
The Thriftie peopell by his will that in this parishe dwell
Fyue poundes for ther comforte may haue if yt they use it well
From yeare to yeare if carefullie they looke unto their charge,
Of such men as this Arnwaye was God make the number large.
Tim Doyle
On Jun 27, 3:28 pm, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Has anybody ever looked into the following? One of the children of
Thomas and Mary (Bray)Whitneywas
Saint Margaret, Westminster
--ArneweyWhitney, son of Thomas, bapt. 2 Feb. 1590
The only other person in the entire extracted IGI for England with
this given name was baptized at the same church ...
--Arnwey Prescot, son of John, bapt. Aug. 1579
-
TimTX
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
The date of the lawsuit should actually be May, 1566. I can't account
for how the incorrect date slipped into the final version of the
article. For more information on the lawsuit, see
http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.ph ... C_3/186/32
Tim Doyle
On Jun 26, 9:01 am, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
for how the incorrect date slipped into the final version of the
article. For more information on the lawsuit, see
http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.ph ... C_3/186/32
Tim Doyle
On Jun 26, 9:01 am, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
One small error I noted: the lawsuit of 1659 which they discuss must
actually be from 1569. I gave myself a small headache trying to
figure out how parties named in the suit could still be alive in 1659
(or even sixty years earlier, which was one of the chronological
details mentioned). Sure enough, the footnote was to a volume of
Lists & Indexes suits from 1567-88, I believe. Hence, the date surely
fell in that period, not nearly one hundred years later (1659).
-
Gjest
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
On Jun 26, 10:01 am, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just curious, but you indicate you received the October 2006 TAG back
in June? I have not as of today (Sunday 15 July)...
I just received the October TAG yesterday, and was quite pleased with
theWhitneyarticle by Robert Leigh Ward and Tim Doyle (on the
apparent ancestry of JohnWhitneyof New England).
One small error I noted: the lawsuit of 1659 which they discuss must
actually be from 1569. I gave myself a small headache trying to
figure out how parties named in the suit could still be alive in 1659
(or even sixty years earlier, which was one of the chronological
details mentioned). Sure enough, the footnote was to a volume of
Lists & Indexes suits from 1567-88, I believe. Hence, the date surely
fell in that period, not nearly one hundred years later (1659).
Just curious, but you indicate you received the October 2006 TAG back
in June? I have not as of today (Sunday 15 July)...
-
Gjest
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
On Jun 27, 10:29 am, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Good point - but Nicholas Whitney of Castleton had at least three
children (see the whitneygen.org site). Most likely, the reason he was
omitted from the Entail is because of the legal entanglements he was
involved in and probable alienation from the Lord Whitney.
Not wanting to spoil the fun of reading the article, the authors found
a chancery suit in 1569 that outlines the lines of descent (without
specific relationships) for the Whitneys ofWhitney. The make a
strong circumstantial case for the pedigree above as a cadet branch of
the family.
The one whole (major IMHO) is they don't yet have proof that the
ThomasWhitneyof London, gentleman, who is without doubt the father
of JohnWhitneyof Watertown, is the same ThomasWhitneyof the
Whitneys of Castleton of the cadet branch. Two glaring things jump
out which is that Thomas is not mentioned in the wills of either his
proposed father or brother. So the authors rely on visitation records
and other facts (such as other Whitneys living in the same parish of
London, etc.). It's a hard sell to say that a visitation is wrong in
this point but correct in another, which is what they in fact do.
However, I think they are right. It makes sense.
The other problem they have is they alleviate the chronological
difficulties that refute earlier proposedWhitneylines (pointed out
by Jacobus) but create another without properly addressing it. In
their scheme ThomasWhitneyis born about 1550. He therefore marries
in his late thirties and dies at 87. Possible, but out of the norm
the other way. Again, because of this one really needs some document
that points to ThomasWhitneyof London being tied to Castleton.
Also, one other possible problem occurs to me: the 1587 list of heirs
ought to have included NicholasWhitneythe eldest brother of Thomas
and Richard, as he did not die until later in the same year (Nov.
1587). Possibly he was excluded as he did not have children, but the
authors should have addressed this (IMHO).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Good point - but Nicholas Whitney of Castleton had at least three
children (see the whitneygen.org site). Most likely, the reason he was
omitted from the Entail is because of the legal entanglements he was
involved in and probable alienation from the Lord Whitney.
-
John Brandon
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
The date of the lawsuit should actually be May, 1566. I can't account
for how the incorrect date slipped into the final version of the
article. For more information on the lawsuit, seehttp://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index ... C_3/186/32
But mightn't this date conflict with the TAG article inasmuch as the
Thomas Whitney said to be deceased in the 1566 lawsuit might actually
be the same son of Robert and Eleanor (Morgan) Whitney named in the
father's will?
-
John Brandon
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
Just curious, but you indicate you received the October 2006 TAG
back
in June? I have not as of today (Sunday 15 July) ...
Got it three weeks ago (at least). I think they're having problems at
TAG (way behind in publication, mailing issues, etc.).
-
John Brandon
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
Good point - but Nicholas Whitney of Castleton had at least three
children (see the whitneygen.org site). Most likely, the reason he was
omitted from the Entail is because of the legal entanglements he was
involved in and probable alienation from the Lord Whitney.
I don't know that I find that a very convincing explanation.
-
Gjest
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
On Jul 16, 10:54 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well....you have to understand that legal conflicts that had been
going on for many many years between the whitneys of castleton and
whitneys of whitney - it is all in tim's transcriptions of the court
cases on the whitney website. there was no legal mandate that Sir
James follow an absolutely precise formula for naming a list of
contingent heirs in the entail. in fact, it was at that time already a
quaint legal device the legality of which was murky to say the least,
about a hundred years later the court had laid down in the Matter of
the Duke of Norfolk what would eventually be known as the rule against
perpetuities which survives in various ways today. This is also
detailed in a note I wrote on the whitneygen website. Notwithstanding,
the omission of Nicholas from the entail doesn't really effect the
identification of Thomas Whitney of Castleton as being the son of
Robert Whitney of Castleton since Thomas is mentioned in the entail,
and was mentioned precisely in robert of castleton's will and in the
case stemming from the death of Thomas of Caslteton's nephew in law -
it was stated that he was a near cousin of Sir James.
Good point - but Nicholas Whitney of Castleton had at least three
children (see the whitneygen.org site). Most likely, the reason he was
omitted from the Entail is because of the legal entanglements he was
involved in and probable alienation from the Lord Whitney.
I don't know that I find that a very convincing explanation.
Well....you have to understand that legal conflicts that had been
going on for many many years between the whitneys of castleton and
whitneys of whitney - it is all in tim's transcriptions of the court
cases on the whitney website. there was no legal mandate that Sir
James follow an absolutely precise formula for naming a list of
contingent heirs in the entail. in fact, it was at that time already a
quaint legal device the legality of which was murky to say the least,
about a hundred years later the court had laid down in the Matter of
the Duke of Norfolk what would eventually be known as the rule against
perpetuities which survives in various ways today. This is also
detailed in a note I wrote on the whitneygen website. Notwithstanding,
the omission of Nicholas from the entail doesn't really effect the
identification of Thomas Whitney of Castleton as being the son of
Robert Whitney of Castleton since Thomas is mentioned in the entail,
and was mentioned precisely in robert of castleton's will and in the
case stemming from the death of Thomas of Caslteton's nephew in law -
it was stated that he was a near cousin of Sir James.
-
Gjest
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
On Jul 16, 10:23 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No. Thomas Whitney, son of Robert Whitney of Caslteton was alive and
well in 1589. We know this fromk the litigation he commenced against
the relatives of his dead nephew in law.
The date of the lawsuit should actually be May, 1566. I can't account
for how the incorrect date slipped into the final version of the
article. For more information on the lawsuit, seehttp://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index ... C_3/186/32
But mightn't this date conflict with the TAG article inasmuch as the
Thomas Whitney said to be deceased in the 1566 lawsuit might actually
be the same son of Robert and Eleanor (Morgan) Whitney named in the
father's will?
No. Thomas Whitney, son of Robert Whitney of Caslteton was alive and
well in 1589. We know this fromk the litigation he commenced against
the relatives of his dead nephew in law.
-
Gjest
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
On Jun 27, 10:29 am, Larsy <ravinmaven2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes but only if Sir James was obliged to follow a rule of law
specifying strinct primogeniture. With such Entails there was indeed a
degree of vagueness. As I posted down the line a bit - no one knows
for sure since we cannot get into Sir James' dead head but we DO know
two things: he had a vitriolic relationship with his family and his
uncle had to intervene to Lord Whitney to patch things up with his
brother 2. we know that Nicholas Whitney and his father had sued the
Lord Whitney over land Therefore I would conjecture the reason that
Sir James skipped Nicholas in favor of Thomas and Richard is that Sir
James didn't like Nicholas! (and wanted everyone to know it!) But,
aside from his omission of Nicholas, it is interesting to note that he
also didn't include William, another son mentioned in the
pedigrees....Did he not like him as well or was he prior
deceased....interesting as well.....
ABB
Not wanting to spoil the fun of reading the article, the authors found
a chancery suit in 1569 that outlines the lines of descent (without
specific relationships) for the Whitneys of Whitney. The make a
strong circumstantial case for the pedigree above as a cadet branch of
the family.
The one whole (major IMHO) is they don't yet have proof that the
Thomas Whitney of London, gentleman, who is without doubt the father
of John Whitney of Watertown, is the same Thomas Whitney of the
Whitneys of Castleton of the cadet branch. Two glaring things jump
out which is that Thomas is not mentioned in the wills of either his
proposed father or brother. So the authors rely on visitation records
and other facts (such as other Whitneys living in the same parish of
London, etc.). It's a hard sell to say that a visitation is wrong in
this point but correct in another, which is what they in fact do.
However, I think they are right. It makes sense.
The other problem they have is they alleviate the chronological
difficulties that refute earlier proposed Whitney lines (pointed out
by Jacobus) but create another without properly addressing it. In
their scheme Thomas Whitney is born about 1550. He therefore marries
in his late thirties and dies at 87. Possible, but out of the norm
the other way. Again, because of this one really needs some document
that points to Thomas Whitney of London being tied to Castleton.
Also, one other possible problem occurs to me: the 1587 list of heirs
ought to have included Nicholas Whitney the eldest brother of Thomas
and Richard, as he did not die until later in the same year (Nov.
1587). Possibly he was excluded as he did not have children, but the
authors should have addressed this (IMHO).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes but only if Sir James was obliged to follow a rule of law
specifying strinct primogeniture. With such Entails there was indeed a
degree of vagueness. As I posted down the line a bit - no one knows
for sure since we cannot get into Sir James' dead head but we DO know
two things: he had a vitriolic relationship with his family and his
uncle had to intervene to Lord Whitney to patch things up with his
brother 2. we know that Nicholas Whitney and his father had sued the
Lord Whitney over land Therefore I would conjecture the reason that
Sir James skipped Nicholas in favor of Thomas and Richard is that Sir
James didn't like Nicholas! (and wanted everyone to know it!) But,
aside from his omission of Nicholas, it is interesting to note that he
also didn't include William, another son mentioned in the
pedigrees....Did he not like him as well or was he prior
deceased....interesting as well.....
ABB
-
TimTX
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
I think you're asking if the Thomas Whitney listed as deceased in
C3/186/32, folio 5 (dated about May 1566) could possibly be the son of
Robert Whitney and Elizabeth verch Morgan ap William. If I have this
correct, then I don't believe this to be the case. That Thomas Whitney
had died before Robert Whitney of Castleton, father of Nicholas
Whitney of Castleton had obtained the property, and we know that that
was over 60 years prior to 1566. I suspect that that Thomas was
Robert's elder brother who d.s.p. Here is the relevant transcription:
"Robert witney granndfather of your saide orator [Nicholas Whitney of
Castleton] was thereof lawffully seased in his demeasne as of fee And
so beinge thereof seased By good and lawffull assinennce and
conveyinnce in the lawe Did assuer and convey the saide premisses unto
one Thomas witney and to the heires of his boddye lawfully begotten
And for default of suche issue to Robert witney father of your saide
orator and to his heires for ever And that the saide Thomas Died
witheout heire of his boddye And that the saide Robert father of your
saide orator did enter unto the saide premisses and was thereof
lawfully seased in his Demeasne as of fee And thissues and proffitte
thereof issueng risinge comming and groweing by many yeres peceably
and quietly did perceave collect and take untill there fell a
contencon betwene the saide Robert father of the saide compl. and one
Thomas wyke for the saide lande whiche wikes served the saide Robert
father of your saide orator withe a suppena And thereuppon the saide
Robert beinge a verry aged and olde man Desired the saide Robert
witney father of the saide [torn]endennt for to ayde him in his saide
suite and Delivered unto him his Deades touching the saide lande / who
having the saide Deades toke the profitte of the saide lande..."
It doesn't make sense to me that (the eldest) Robert Whitney would
give the lands to his grandson and if he didn't have issue, then give
it to his own son, father of the said grandson. It seems much more
plausible that the Thomas mentioned was a brother of the younger
Robert, both sons of the elder Robert. Please let me know if I have
misunderstood you.
Tim
On Jul 16, 9:23 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
C3/186/32, folio 5 (dated about May 1566) could possibly be the son of
Robert Whitney and Elizabeth verch Morgan ap William. If I have this
correct, then I don't believe this to be the case. That Thomas Whitney
had died before Robert Whitney of Castleton, father of Nicholas
Whitney of Castleton had obtained the property, and we know that that
was over 60 years prior to 1566. I suspect that that Thomas was
Robert's elder brother who d.s.p. Here is the relevant transcription:
"Robert witney granndfather of your saide orator [Nicholas Whitney of
Castleton] was thereof lawffully seased in his demeasne as of fee And
so beinge thereof seased By good and lawffull assinennce and
conveyinnce in the lawe Did assuer and convey the saide premisses unto
one Thomas witney and to the heires of his boddye lawfully begotten
And for default of suche issue to Robert witney father of your saide
orator and to his heires for ever And that the saide Thomas Died
witheout heire of his boddye And that the saide Robert father of your
saide orator did enter unto the saide premisses and was thereof
lawfully seased in his Demeasne as of fee And thissues and proffitte
thereof issueng risinge comming and groweing by many yeres peceably
and quietly did perceave collect and take untill there fell a
contencon betwene the saide Robert father of the saide compl. and one
Thomas wyke for the saide lande whiche wikes served the saide Robert
father of your saide orator withe a suppena And thereuppon the saide
Robert beinge a verry aged and olde man Desired the saide Robert
witney father of the saide [torn]endennt for to ayde him in his saide
suite and Delivered unto him his Deades touching the saide lande / who
having the saide Deades toke the profitte of the saide lande..."
It doesn't make sense to me that (the eldest) Robert Whitney would
give the lands to his grandson and if he didn't have issue, then give
it to his own son, father of the said grandson. It seems much more
plausible that the Thomas mentioned was a brother of the younger
Robert, both sons of the elder Robert. Please let me know if I have
misunderstood you.
Tim
On Jul 16, 9:23 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The date of the lawsuit should actually be May, 1566. I can't account
for how the incorrect date slipped into the final version of the
article. For more information on the lawsuit, seehttp://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index ... C_3/186/32
But mightn't this date conflict with the TAG article inasmuch as the
Thomas Whitney said to be deceased in the 1566 lawsuit might actually
be the same son of Robert and Eleanor (Morgan) Whitney named in the
father's will?
-
John Brandon
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
I think you're asking if the Thomas Whitney listed as deceased in
C3/186/32, folio 5 (dated about May 1566) could possibly be the son of
Robert Whitney and Elizabeth verch Morgan ap William. If I have this
correct, then I don't believe this to be the case. That Thomas Whitney
had died before Robert Whitney of Castleton, father of Nicholas
Whitney of Castleton had obtained the property, and we know that that
was over 60 years prior to 1566. I suspect that that Thomas was
Robert's elder brother who d.s.p. Here is the relevant transcription:
"Robert witney granndfather of your saide orator [Nicholas Whitney of
Castleton] was thereof lawffully seased in his demeasne as of fee And
so beinge thereof seased By good and lawffull assinennce and
conveyinnce in the lawe Did assuer and convey the saide premisses unto
one Thomas witney and to the heires of his boddye lawfully begotten
And for default of suche issue to Robert witney father of your saide
orator and to his heires for ever And that the saide Thomas Died
witheout heire of his boddye And that the saide Robert father of your
saide orator did enter unto the saide premisses and was thereof
lawfully seased in his Demeasne as of fee And thissues and proffitte
thereof issueng risinge comming and groweing by many yeres peceably
and quietly did perceave collect and take untill there fell a
contencon betwene the saide Robert father of the saide compl. and one
Thomas wyke for the saide lande whiche wikes served the saide Robert
father of your saide orator withe a suppena And thereuppon the saide
Robert beinge a verry aged and olde man Desired the saide Robert
witney father of the saide [torn]endennt for to ayde him in his saide
suite and Delivered unto him his Deades touching the saide lande / who
having the saide Deades toke the profitte of the saide lande..."
It doesn't make sense to me that (the eldest) Robert Whitney would
give the lands to his grandson and if he didn't have issue, then give
it to his own son, father of the said grandson. It seems much more
plausible that the Thomas mentioned was a brother of the younger
Robert, both sons of the elder Robert. Please let me know if I have
misunderstood you.
Tim
Oh, okay, that seems like a sensible interpretation, now we've got the
date straight.
What is the explanation for the eldest son Nicholas (or his son
Eustace) not being listed in the entail of 1587?
-
TimTX
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
I can't say for sure. However, it appears that Sir James Whitney may
have been the type to hold grudges, even with close family members, as
the following passage from Melville describes (p. 179):
"And this defendante further sayeth that true yt ys that all the tyme
of the laste sicknes of the saide Sir James Whytney whereof he dyed,
wch this defendante taketh to be the tyme when the saide Sir James
Whytney did firste cause his laste Wyll and Testamente to be sett
downe in Wrytinge, there was greate displeasure or dislike betweene
the saide Sir James Whytney and the saide Eustauce Whytney; But
afterwards and before the departure out of this lyfe of the saide Sir
James Whytney he the saide Eustauce Whytney, by the medyac'on of this
defendante, beynge uncle unto both the said parties was reconcyled
unto the said Sir James. After wch reconcyliac'on he the saide Sir
James Whytney did [and here occurs a hole in the parchment]"
to step in to convince them to patch things up.
In 1566, both brothers Nicholas and Richard Whitney filed suit against
Sir James, but after the first documents in the set, Richard is not
listed again, while the case of Nicholas proceeded. Could Sir James
and Richard have come to an agreement and been on better terms than
that of James and Nicholas? Was this why Sir James included Richard,
but omitted Nicholas?
Tim
On Jul 16, 6:06 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
have been the type to hold grudges, even with close family members, as
the following passage from Melville describes (p. 179):
"And this defendante further sayeth that true yt ys that all the tyme
of the laste sicknes of the saide Sir James Whytney whereof he dyed,
wch this defendante taketh to be the tyme when the saide Sir James
Whytney did firste cause his laste Wyll and Testamente to be sett
downe in Wrytinge, there was greate displeasure or dislike betweene
the saide Sir James Whytney and the saide Eustauce Whytney; But
afterwards and before the departure out of this lyfe of the saide Sir
James Whytney he the saide Eustauce Whytney, by the medyac'on of this
defendante, beynge uncle unto both the said parties was reconcyled
unto the said Sir James. After wch reconcyliac'on he the saide Sir
James Whytney did [and here occurs a hole in the parchment]"
From this it seems as though Sir James and his brother Eustace were on
bad terms just before his death, and their uncle William Whitney had
to step in to convince them to patch things up.
In 1566, both brothers Nicholas and Richard Whitney filed suit against
Sir James, but after the first documents in the set, Richard is not
listed again, while the case of Nicholas proceeded. Could Sir James
and Richard have come to an agreement and been on better terms than
that of James and Nicholas? Was this why Sir James included Richard,
but omitted Nicholas?
Tim
On Jul 16, 6:06 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What is the explanation for the eldest son Nicholas (or his son
Eustace) not being listed in the entail of 1587?
-
mhollick@mac.com
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
I find this type of genealogical analysis faulty. You must let the
records dictate the story. If someone is not in a will (as Thomas
Whitney who married Mary Bray is not in his alleged father's nor
brother's wills) or in the case of the Whitney lawsuit naming heirs,
the first and most probable reason is that you have the wrong
family.
If you interject that someone held a grudge you are inventing a reason
to prove your theory in light of the records, rather than letting the
records speak for themselves. It's a dangerous road to tread.
records dictate the story. If someone is not in a will (as Thomas
Whitney who married Mary Bray is not in his alleged father's nor
brother's wills) or in the case of the Whitney lawsuit naming heirs,
the first and most probable reason is that you have the wrong
family.
If you interject that someone held a grudge you are inventing a reason
to prove your theory in light of the records, rather than letting the
records speak for themselves. It's a dangerous road to tread.
-
AdrianBnjmBurke
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
On Jul 16, 7:53 pm, TimTX <t...@greenscourt.com> wrote:
hey thanks for cutting and pasting that quote from melville tim - i
didnt have it handy when i posted my response to his question
yesterday.
I can't say for sure. However, it appears that Sir James Whitney may
have been the type to hold grudges, even with close family members, as
the following passage from Melville describes (p. 179):
"And this defendante further sayeth that true yt ys that all the tyme
of the laste sicknes of the saide Sir James Whytney whereof he dyed,
wch this defendante taketh to be the tyme when the saide Sir James
Whytney did firste cause his laste Wyll and Testamente to be sett
downe in Wrytinge, there was greate displeasure or dislike betweene
the saide Sir James Whytney and the saide Eustauce Whytney; But
afterwards and before the departure out of this lyfe of the saide Sir
James Whytney he the saide Eustauce Whytney, by the medyac'on of this
defendante, beynge uncle unto both the said parties was reconcyled
unto the said Sir James. After wch reconcyliac'on he the saide Sir
James Whytney did [and here occurs a hole in the parchment]"
From this it seems as though Sir James and his brother Eustace were on
bad terms just before his death, and their uncle William Whitney had
to step in to convince them to patch things up.
In 1566, both brothers Nicholas and Richard Whitney filed suit against
Sir James, but after the first documents in the set, Richard is not
listed again, while the case of Nicholas proceeded. Could Sir James
and Richard have come to an agreement and been on better terms than
that of James and Nicholas? Was this why Sir James included Richard,
but omitted Nicholas?
Tim
On Jul 16, 6:06 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What is the explanation for the eldest son Nicholas (or his son
Eustace) not being listed in the entail of 1587?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
hey thanks for cutting and pasting that quote from melville tim - i
didnt have it handy when i posted my response to his question
yesterday.
-
AdrianBnjmBurke
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
On Jul 16, 8:10 pm, "mholl...@mac.com" <mholl...@mac.com> wrote:
Um, well, i think you're confusing two different issues here.
1. The COMPLETE will of Robert Whitney of Castleton DOES mention his
son Thomas. In a very interesting way I might add. 2. It does not
require too much imagination to deduce that Nicholas W of Castleton
didn't mention his brother Thomas since his brother Thomas had been
put on trial just a few years prior to Nicholas' death for the murder
of Nicholas' son in law!!!!! 3. No will for Richard Whitney of
Castleton has been found, nor for the daughters of Robert of Castleton
and his son named William(referenced only in the pedigrees) So at this
point we have no way of knowing if any other siblings and siblings in
law mentioned Thomas of Castleton.
As for why Sir James did not mention Nicholas of Castleton in his
Entail, my speculation as to why this was the case, is based on the
fact that Tim Doyle found the court cases demonstrating that for
decades there was a source of definite contention between the
Castleton Whitneys and the Senior Branch over lands AND because of the
document Tim just cited from Melville in which it is clearly stated
that Sir James didn't get along with his brother, if Sir James had
problems with his own brother, I do not believe it that far fetched to
think he may not have cared much for one of his second cousins once
removed who had sued his father!!!!!! But you know, the question of
why Nicholas of Castleton wasn't included in the Entail is an academic
one and doesn't really make any difference to any of the arguments put
forth in Doyle and Ward's recent article. I agree with you that one
has to be careful about speculating on motivations of medieval men and
woman - it is probably best left to fortune tellers and john edwards
to commune with their spirits and divine their intentions from
centuries ago, however, I do think that in this particular case my
theory has validity but if someone else has a better one I would love
to hear it!
Happy hunting boys! ABB
I find this type of genealogical analysis faulty. You must let the
records dictate the story. If someone is not in a will (as Thomas
Whitney who married Mary Bray is not in his alleged father's nor
brother's wills) or in the case of the Whitney lawsuit naming heirs,
the first and most probable reason is that you have the wrong
family.
If you interject that someone held a grudge you are inventing a reason
to prove your theory in light of the records, rather than letting the
records speak for themselves. It's a dangerous road to tread.
Um, well, i think you're confusing two different issues here.
1. The COMPLETE will of Robert Whitney of Castleton DOES mention his
son Thomas. In a very interesting way I might add. 2. It does not
require too much imagination to deduce that Nicholas W of Castleton
didn't mention his brother Thomas since his brother Thomas had been
put on trial just a few years prior to Nicholas' death for the murder
of Nicholas' son in law!!!!! 3. No will for Richard Whitney of
Castleton has been found, nor for the daughters of Robert of Castleton
and his son named William(referenced only in the pedigrees) So at this
point we have no way of knowing if any other siblings and siblings in
law mentioned Thomas of Castleton.
As for why Sir James did not mention Nicholas of Castleton in his
Entail, my speculation as to why this was the case, is based on the
fact that Tim Doyle found the court cases demonstrating that for
decades there was a source of definite contention between the
Castleton Whitneys and the Senior Branch over lands AND because of the
document Tim just cited from Melville in which it is clearly stated
that Sir James didn't get along with his brother, if Sir James had
problems with his own brother, I do not believe it that far fetched to
think he may not have cared much for one of his second cousins once
removed who had sued his father!!!!!! But you know, the question of
why Nicholas of Castleton wasn't included in the Entail is an academic
one and doesn't really make any difference to any of the arguments put
forth in Doyle and Ward's recent article. I agree with you that one
has to be careful about speculating on motivations of medieval men and
woman - it is probably best left to fortune tellers and john edwards
to commune with their spirits and divine their intentions from
centuries ago, however, I do think that in this particular case my
theory has validity but if someone else has a better one I would love
to hear it!
Happy hunting boys! ABB
-
John Brandon
Re: Whitney article in October TAG
The date of the lawsuit should actually be May, 1566. I can't account
for how the incorrect date slipped into the final version of the
article. For more information on the lawsuit, seehttp://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index ... C_3/186/32
I think there may be another problem with this lawsuit, even when it
is correctly dated. The relevant section of the article (p. 259)
says,
"A previously unseen document has been found giving the name of the
father of Robert-B Whitney of Castleton. It is a chancery suit
brought in May 1659 [sic; 1566] by Nicholas Whitney against Sir Robert
Whitney of Whitney. In this suit, the plaintiff demands that Sir
Robert produce documents relative to the ownership of certain lands
which long ago had belonged to Nicholas's _grandfather, Robert-C
Whitney_. They were to pass to one Thomas Whitney (relationship not
stated, but perhaps a son of Robert-C) and his heirs, but the said
Thomas Whitney had died without issue, and the property had passed to
Nicholas's father Robert-B Whitney. The last named had requested the
documents from Sir Robert's father Robert Whitney of Whitney about 60
years earlier, without success, and then both of them had died."
Taking into account the corrected date, that last sentence indicates
that "the last named [i.e., Robert-B Whitney] had requested the
documents ... about 60 years earlier [i.e., 1506], without
success ..."
The article gives two dates of birth for "the last named," i.e.,
Robert-B Whitney:
--p. 257 says born "say 1500"
--p. 262 says born "ca. 1498."
However, I would think that if he "requested documents" he would have
been an adult at the time (at least 20 years of age), which gives a
birthdate of 1486, or earlier. I think this may conflict with the
supposition that he was the father of Thomas, born ca. 1555.