The Woodvile/Dormer connection, the Pakingtons, the Baldwins

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Hickory

The Woodvile/Dormer connection, the Pakingtons, the Baldwins

Legg inn av Hickory » 13 des 2007 23:11:03

The Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1566, by William Harvey,
Clarenceulx Rex Armorum (Harleian Ms. 5867), Edited by Walter C.
Metcalfe, F.S.A., Exeter: William Pollard, Printer, North Street,
1883.

I found the above volume in the collection of the Institute of
Historical Research of the University of London where, as a visiting
fellow of the Institute, I have free access. It is a tiny book, not
larger than B5 in size and, including the index, only 55 pages in
length. It is complete, but in very bad need of preservation work.

Where the later 17th century visitation published by the Harleian
Society is at odds with the earlier visitation, the evidence the
earlier visitation provides should be used unless it can be proven
wrong. I am providing two full excerpts and a short summary of a third
pedigree in the hope that they will help others.

One more comment, my written English is often horrid, but the
following mistakes faithfully represent those to be found in the
original 16th century text and which was faithfully preserved by the
editor of the book I referred to. Where it appeared that people might
think I was perhaps making some kind of typing mistake on my own
accord, I used the academic notation of (sic!) to indicate that this
was the way it really was in the book I was copying from and, no
doubt, from the original text itself.

pp. 11 & 12 - Dormer, of Ascot in Wing

p. 11
Arms: Quarterly, 1 and 4, Azure, ten billets four, three, two, one Or,
on a chief of the second a demi-lion Sable; 2, Gules, a chevron Argent
between these fishes naiant Or, a chief indented of the second; 3,
Argent, three fleur-de-lis Azure.

Geffrey Dormer of Thame, co. Oxon, Esq. married to his first wife,
Margery, and heir of ...Cowlriche of Turyforde, co. Buck., Gent., and
by her had issue, - William, his eldest son; Thomas, second son;
After, the said Geffrey mar. to his second wife, Alys, da. of ....
Launcelyn and had issue, - Geffrey; Mychaell; Peter; and Mychaell
(sic!); Parnell first married to ....Nashe, and after to John Goodwin
of Over Wichington, co. Bucks., Esq.; Maude, marr. To...Brightman,
half-brother to Sir John Dawntesey, kt.

William Dormer of Wyckombe, co. Buck., Esq., eldest son and heir to
Geffrey, mar. Agnes, da. Of Sir Richard Woodvyle, Erle Ryvers, and by
her had issue, - Robert, his eldest son; and three da.'s, the one
married to Sir John Baldwin, kt., Lord Chief Justice of Englande;
another (from here, p. 12) mar. to ....Bromwell of London, merchante;
the other to one Bryeteyn of London, marchante.

Sir Robert Dormer of the Parish of Winge, co. Buck., kt., Treasouror
of the Campe at Mutterell under Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, Leife
Tennante to Kinge Henrye the Eighth, eldest son and heir to William,
mar. Jane, da. to John Newdegate of Harfelde, co. Midd., Esq., and by
her had issue, - William his eldest son and heir.

Sir William Dormer of Ascott in the Parish of Winge, co. Buck., kt.,
eldest son and heir to Sir Robert, married to his first wife, Marye,
da. to Sir William Sidney of Penhurst, co. Kent, kt. And kt. Banneret
and Governor to Kinge Edward the Sixth, and by her had issue, - Thomas
and Robert, dyed both yonge; Jane, mar. to Don Rogonus, Counte de
Feria; Anne, mar. to Sir Walter Hungerford of Farley Castell, co.
Wilts., kt., son and heir of Lorde Hungerforde; - after, the said Sir
William Dormer, mar. to his second wife, Dorothe, da. to ...Catesbye
of Huston (Whiston) co. Northamp., Esq., heir apparent; Mary,
Katherin; and Margaret, all unmarried.

pp. 27 & 28 - Pakington of Aylesbury

p. 27
John Pakington of Stamforde, co. ..., Esq., mar. ..., da. and heir of
Washburne in co. Worc., Esq., and by her had issue, - John, his eldest
son; Humphrey, second son; Robert, third son; Augustin, fourth son;
and dyvers da's, 1, ...first mar. to...Blounte, and after
to ...Corbett; ...mar. to Gravenor in co. Salop, Esq.; ...mar.
to ...Neve in co. Essex.

Sir John Pakington of Hampton Lovett, co. Worc., kt., eldest son and
heir to John, mar. ...da. of ..., and by her had issue, - Bridgett,
mar. to John Lyttleton of Frankelin in co. Worc., Esq.; another da.,
married to ...Scudamore of co. Heref., Esq.

Humphrey Pakington of London, marchante, second son to John, mar...da.
of ..., and by her had issue, - John, his eldest son and heir;
William, second son; and dyvers da's, one, mar. to Roger martin,
Alderman of London; Jane, first mar. to Humfrey Baskervyle, Alderman
of London, and after to Lyonell Duckett, Alderman of London; another,
mar. to Richard Lambert, Alderman of London; another to John Lambert
of London, merchant; Anne, first mar. to Humfrey Style, Gent. And
Merchant of London, and after to ...Jackman, Alderman of London;
another, mar. to ...Coles of London, merchant; another, mar.
to ...Burbage of ..., co. Midd., Gent.

Robert Pakington of London, Esq., third son to John, mar. to his first
wife, Anne, one of the da's and heires of Sir John Baldewin of
Aylesboroughe, co. Buck., kt., Lord Chiefe Justice of comon place, and
had by her issue, - Thomas, his eldes son; Johon his second son;
Elizabeth, first married to John Lane of Walgrave, co. Northamp.,
Esq., and (from here, p. 28) after to Sir Rycharde Malorye, knt. And
alderman of London; Anne mar. to Rycharde Cupper of Glympton, co.
Oxon., Esq.; and Margaret, married to Bennet Lee of Birstow, co.
Buck., Esq. and after, she mar. to Thomas Scotte of..., co. York,
Gent.

Sir Thomas Pakington of Aylesburye, co. Buck., kt., eldest son and
heir to Robert, mar. Dorothe, da. of Sir Thomas Kytson of Hengrave,
co. Suff. Kt., and by her hath issue, - John, his eldest son and heir
apparent; Henry, second son; Robert, third son; and Thomas, fourth
son; Margarett; Katherin; and Margarett, all unmarried.

The said Sir John Baldwin, kt, mar. ..., da. to William Dormer of
Wyckombe, co. Buck., Esq., and had issue, - William, who died sans
issue; Anne mar. to Robert Pakington of London, mercer; Parnell, first
married to ...Ramsey of Hicham, co. Buck., Esq., and after
to ...Burlace of Lyttle Marlowe in the said co., Esq.; Alyce, a nunne
at Burnham, died sans issue.

p. 36 - Newnham of (??) Staunton, co. Northampt., Esq. (found under
Risley)

William Hallesberke who lived in the time of Edward III was the father
of William Hallesderke who was the father of Thomas (married to a
Dagworthe) who was the father of Henry (married to a Sherdelove) who
was the father of Richard (married to Katherin, the daughter of Hugh
Blondell) who were the parents of Thomas (married to an Odingselles)
who were the parents of Robert (married to Alys, the daughter of
Martyn Ellys) who were the parents of Isabel Halisberke (married to
John Newnham of (??) Stanton, co. Northampton, Esq.) who were the
parents of Alice Newnham (eldest daughter and co-heiress, wife of
William Risley of Chetwood, co. Buck.) and Anne Newnham (second
daughter and co-heiress, wife of Thomas Malorye of Litchborough, co.
Northampton). I included this summary because some scholars think
that, at one time the Mallorys of Litchborough possessed some rather
famous manuscripts which were passed to the Risleys of Chetwood and
eventually into the possession of the British Library.

suthen

Re: The Woodvile/Dormer connection, the Pakingtons, the Bald

Legg inn av suthen » 14 des 2007 07:05:03

Comments below

On Dec 13, 2:09 pm, Hickory <hkitabaya...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1566, by William Harvey,
Clarenceulx Rex Armorum (Harleian Ms. 5867), Edited by Walter C.
Metcalfe, F.S.A., Exeter: William Pollard, Printer, North Street,
1883.

snip
pp. 11 & 12 - Dormer, of Ascot in Wing

snip
William Dormer of Wyckombe, co. Buck., Esq., eldest son and heir to
Geffrey, mar. Agnes, da. Of Sir Richard Woodvyle, Erle Ryvers, and by
her had issue, - Robert, his eldest son; and three da.'s, the one
married to Sir John Baldwin, kt., Lord Chief Justice of Englande;
another (from here, p. 12) mar. to ....Bromwell of London, merchante;
the other to one Bryeteyn of London, marchante.

snip


I have to respctfully disagree with you about Vistitations that they
should be accepted unless someone could prove them wrong. Rather it is
necessary to prove them valid as too much emphasis is placed on their
truthfulness when over and over and over again we have found invented
ancestries. The Visitations of Yorkshire, Essex and Devon are among
the many with false ancestries. Apparently this Visitation of Bucks is
the same.

Just look at what you have posted above about Agnes, daughter of Sir
Richard Wydeville, Earl Rivers. I have never seen a daughter Agnes
given to either of the Richards who were Earl Rivers, The second
Richard (3rd Earl Rivers) neither married nor had issue. The daughters
(Elizabeth, Margaret, Anne, Jacquetta, Joan, Catherine and Mary) of
the first Earl Rivers are well known and their marriages equally well
known. Indeed it was the prominent marriages made by the Wydeville
daughters and the alliances obtained there from, that caused so much
concern during this period.

So a healthy amount of skepticism is necssary in putting too much
emphasis on the Vistiations. They are a useful source, but like so
many others we use are sufficiently flawed as to require futher
documentation.

Henry Sutliff

P. S. Testamenta Vetusta: 474 indicates that the correct wife of this
William Dormer was Agnes, daughter of Sir John Launcelyne, a French
knight. It also states that William Dormer's daughter Agnes was mother
of Sir John Baldwin, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas not his
wife that the Visitation states. Hope this helps.

Hickory

Re: The Woodvile/Dormer connection, the Pakingtons, the Bald

Legg inn av Hickory » 14 des 2007 12:40:03

I completely agree with the need for always being skeptical in the use
of visitation material, but that, within the context of the
visitations, themselves, the closer a visitation is to what it
describes, the more value it has vis-a-vis to a later visitation.
Where the 1566 visitation differs from the 1634 visitation concerning
family relationships of the late 1400s and early 1500s, the 1566
visitation must be given priority and then proven wrong, because it
would be dealing about events that took place concerning people who
were alive within the memory of living members of the visitation
informant's circle of family members whereas the later visitation did
not. This does not mean that the 1566 visitation was necessarily right
in all its parts. People do and did lie and, even when not lying, do
and did easily misinterpret things. But this would generally apply
more so the greater the distance in time from the event. What the
difference in visitations indicates is a careful need to make an
exhaustive, across-the-board, search of contemporary sources,
something which I would do if it were more closely connected with the
field of research I am interested in. As it's not, my hope is that
someone else would find this as a stimulus and carry on from there.

Hikaru

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»