Blount-Ayala
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
In a message dated 6/27/06 5:25:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alden@mindspring.com writes:
<< "The estate later called the manor of UPTON originated as the portion
settled by William de Breuse (d. 1211) on the marriage of his daughter
Bertha to William Beauchamp, lord of Elmley Castle (Worcs.); (fn. 5) in
1221 Reynold de Breuse confirmed a large estate, described as a moiety
of Tetbury manor, to William's son Walter (fn. 6) (d. 1235). It passed
to Walter's son William (d. 1269) and to William's son (fn. 7) William
Beauchamp, earl of Warwick (d. 1298), >>
Is "Walcheline" a variant form of Walter ?
Thanks
Will
alden@mindspring.com writes:
<< "The estate later called the manor of UPTON originated as the portion
settled by William de Breuse (d. 1211) on the marriage of his daughter
Bertha to William Beauchamp, lord of Elmley Castle (Worcs.); (fn. 5) in
1221 Reynold de Breuse confirmed a large estate, described as a moiety
of Tetbury manor, to William's son Walter (fn. 6) (d. 1235). It passed
to Walter's son William (d. 1269) and to William's son (fn. 7) William
Beauchamp, earl of Warwick (d. 1298), >>
Is "Walcheline" a variant form of Walter ?
Thanks
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Batesford/Brenchesle
In a message dated 6/27/06 10:52:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< Cecily who became abbess of Malling - From VCH Kent, Vol. 2: "Pope
Boniface on 5 Dec. 1400 ordered the abbess and convent to assign a room in the
monastery to Cecily Batesford, one of the nuns and another nun to be her
companion for life, as by an illness she was greatly hampered in presenting choir and
chapter hours (Ca. Papal Let. III, 355). Cecily died an abbess on 14th July
1439. In the next year her sister Joan Brincheslee made grants to the convent
asking for a celebration at Cecily's death anniversary at which three flagons
of wine should be distributed, one to the abbess and the remaining two for the
convent". (Roch. Epis. Reg. III, fol. 157d). >>
I agree that this proves that Joan Brenchsley lived until 14 Jul 1439. The
above states "sister" but whether she was a sister or not remains to be proven.
The above Joan could also be a niece.
I agree, provisionally, that she this is Joan, the sister and that she was a
Batisford PROVIDED THAT the original document can be queried and made to show
that it actually states "my sister" or words to that affect.
Will Johnson
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< Cecily who became abbess of Malling - From VCH Kent, Vol. 2: "Pope
Boniface on 5 Dec. 1400 ordered the abbess and convent to assign a room in the
monastery to Cecily Batesford, one of the nuns and another nun to be her
companion for life, as by an illness she was greatly hampered in presenting choir and
chapter hours (Ca. Papal Let. III, 355). Cecily died an abbess on 14th July
1439. In the next year her sister Joan Brincheslee made grants to the convent
asking for a celebration at Cecily's death anniversary at which three flagons
of wine should be distributed, one to the abbess and the remaining two for the
convent". (Roch. Epis. Reg. III, fol. 157d). >>
I agree that this proves that Joan Brenchsley lived until 14 Jul 1439. The
above states "sister" but whether she was a sister or not remains to be proven.
The above Joan could also be a niece.
I agree, provisionally, that she this is Joan, the sister and that she was a
Batisford PROVIDED THAT the original document can be queried and made to show
that it actually states "my sister" or words to that affect.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Batesford/Brenchesle
In a message dated 6/27/06 12:55:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
<< Very interesting Charlotte, thanks for sharing. It certainly proves
the Joan Brenchley who died in 1453 was Joan Batesford and we now have
a bit more depth to her family. >>
I think you mean "doesn't"
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
<< Very interesting Charlotte, thanks for sharing. It certainly proves
the Joan Brenchley who died in 1453 was Joan Batesford and we now have
a bit more depth to her family. >>
I think you mean "doesn't"
-
Gjest
Re: Batesford/Brenchesle
In a message dated 6/27/06 12:55:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
<< Well it shows that the Joan Brenchley, who we know from other sources
died in 1453, was Joan Batesford. >>
I think that's reading too much into this document.
Although we know that there was a woman Joan Brenchsley who died in 1453, I
have yet to see a compelling argument that she was the same Joan Brenchsley who
had evidently been a widow since her husband died way back in 1406.
That's the golden ticket. I haven't yet seen all the documents arranged in a
way to make this compelling.
Will
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
<< Well it shows that the Joan Brenchley, who we know from other sources
died in 1453, was Joan Batesford. >>
I think that's reading too much into this document.
Although we know that there was a woman Joan Brenchsley who died in 1453, I
have yet to see a compelling argument that she was the same Joan Brenchsley who
had evidently been a widow since her husband died way back in 1406.
That's the golden ticket. I haven't yet seen all the documents arranged in a
way to make this compelling.
Will
-
Ye Old One
Re: Batesford/Brenchesle
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 04:13:45 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
I would have thought there was more than enough references to the Joan
who died in 1453 being the widow of Sir William.
I will admit that one of the really frustrating parts of medieval
genealogy is that it is very hard to find birth dates and therefore
very hard to establish ages. I also would like to find proof of an
earlier wife(s) for Sir William.
--
Bob.
this group when s/he wrote:
In a message dated 6/27/06 12:55:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
Well it shows that the Joan Brenchley, who we know from other sources
died in 1453, was Joan Batesford.
I think that's reading too much into this document.
Although we know that there was a woman Joan Brenchsley who died in 1453, I
have yet to see a compelling argument that she was the same Joan Brenchsley who
had evidently been a widow since her husband died way back in 1406.
That's the golden ticket. I haven't yet seen all the documents arranged in a
way to make this compelling.
Will
I would have thought there was more than enough references to the Joan
who died in 1453 being the widow of Sir William.
I will admit that one of the really frustrating parts of medieval
genealogy is that it is very hard to find birth dates and therefore
very hard to establish ages. I also would like to find proof of an
earlier wife(s) for Sir William.
--
Bob.
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Batesford/Brenchesle
In message of 28 Jun, Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote:
<snip>
But surely this is part of the fun of medieval genealogy. You have to
assemble what little information you have and then reason to an
acceptable conclusion. That's is why we find a few logicians on this
newsgroup, gently exercising their talents.
Even more fun is when two or more people reason in different ways and
then come up with magnificent spats calling one another all the names
under the sun.
Do you really want to go back to modern genealogy where all you have to
do is to go to the central register office and get hold of a few birth
certificates? It would be very dull.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<snip>
I will admit that one of the really frustrating parts of medieval
genealogy is that it is very hard to find birth dates and therefore
very hard to establish ages.
But surely this is part of the fun of medieval genealogy. You have to
assemble what little information you have and then reason to an
acceptable conclusion. That's is why we find a few logicians on this
newsgroup, gently exercising their talents.
Even more fun is when two or more people reason in different ways and
then come up with magnificent spats calling one another all the names
under the sun.
Do you really want to go back to modern genealogy where all you have to
do is to go to the central register office and get hold of a few birth
certificates? It would be very dull.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Ye Old One
Re: Batesford/Brenchesle
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:26:31 +0100, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Oh I agree 101%.
But it is still frustrating at times
--
Bob.
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
In message of 28 Jun, Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote:
snip
I will admit that one of the really frustrating parts of medieval
genealogy is that it is very hard to find birth dates and therefore
very hard to establish ages.
But surely this is part of the fun of medieval genealogy. You have to
assemble what little information you have and then reason to an
acceptable conclusion. That's is why we find a few logicians on this
newsgroup, gently exercising their talents.
Even more fun is when two or more people reason in different ways and
then come up with magnificent spats calling one another all the names
under the sun.
Do you really want to go back to modern genealogy where all you have to
do is to go to the central register office and get hold of a few birth
certificates? It would be very dull.
Oh I agree 101%.
But it is still frustrating at times
--
Bob.
-
Gjest
Re: Anglo-Saxon kings in England
But I'm no expert.
The Jutish kings claimed descent from Aesc, the ash-tree, the Saxons
from Seaxnet, the need of the Saxons, and the Angles from Woden, the
All-Father. Likewise, the Caesars claimed descent from Venus, the
Goddess of Love. But Aesc, Seaxnet, Woden, and Venus were not real
people. Indeed, they were neither real nor people. There were
personificatons of abstract concepts, like Hope and Victory. This is
most obviously apparent in the case of Seaxnet, the need of the Saxons.
It is also important to be aware that the pagan Anglo-Saxons were
illiterate, so written records commence with the arrival of Augustine.
King lists and genealogies purporting to document prechristian kings
are not contemporary with the period, but were fabricated subsequently.
Likewise, the earlier portions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which was
compiled in 891, are fiction, largely derived from an imaginative
interpretation of place-names. Under 477 we read that Wlencing was the
son of Aelle, but Wlencing is a patronymic meaning 'son of Wlenca',
so he cannot also have been son of Aelle! Clearly the chronicler has
carelessly extracted Wlencing from an early form of the place-name
Lancing. Moving on to 501, Portsmouth is located at the mouth of a
port; it is not named after a sailor called Port; he was quarried out
of the place-name. Then under 508 Natanleag means 'wet meadow', so
it was not named after a slain Welsh king called Natanleod; he is an
invention. And under 514 we find Wihtgar, who twenty years later is
given the Isle of Wight, and later buried at Wihtgaraburg. But
Wihtgaraburg does not mean 'burial place of Wihtgar' but 'the
fortress of the inhabitants of Wight', and Wight itself is derived from
Romano-British Vectis or Vecta.
http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=s ... ry=450-550
While it is now the case that people name children River or Poppy, this
was most certainly not true during the Anglo-Saxon period, when
personal names were almost always constructed from two name forming
elements. Taking Edward the Confessor as a starting point, the sequence
backwards is: Ead-weard, Aethel-red, Ead-gar, Ead-mund, Ead-weard,
Aelf-red, Aethel-wulf, Ecg-berht, and Ealh-mund. All these are
historical. The father and grandfather of Ealhmund are less certainly
historical. Their names are recorded as "Eafa" and "Eoppa".
There are no dates attached to these names. They have no brothers,
sisters, mothers, wives, or daughters. They exist solely to connect
Ealhmund, King of Kent, to the West Saxon kings. "Eafa" and
"Eoppa" may be fictional, but they could be hypocoristic forms of
genuine names, just as Nunna was Nothhelm, Offa was Osfrith, and Aelle
was Aelfwine (and today Billy is William). Beyond "Eoppa", the
regular sequence resumes: In-gild, Coen-red, Ceol-wald, Cuth-wulf,
Cuth-wine, Cael-in, Cyn-ric, "Creoda", and Cer-dic. There are
variant version of this; often the suspicious "Creoda" is omitted.
Cynric and Cerdic may be real Saxons, or Britons (Cunorix and
Caratacos), or they may have been invented by the Chronicler out of
place-names. Certainly the actions attributed to them must be fiction,
because they are placed too far South (in Jutish territory), and are
found in the company of the bogus "Natanleod" and "Wihtgar".
Beyond Cerdic, all is fiction: "Elesa", "Esla", "Gewis",
"Wig", "Freawine", "Froethegar", "Brand",
"Baeldaeg", and Woden, the All-Father. Not only is the list
fictional, but it has been stolen from Ida, King of Bernica, with
"Boernic", eponym of Bernicia removed and replaced with
"Gewis", eponym of the Gewisse (the original name of the West Saxon
people). As with "Eafa" and "Eoppa", there are no dates, no
brothers, sisters, mothers, wives, or daughters, just a list of strange
names. This information comes from K. Sisam, "Anglo-Saxon Royal
Genealogies" (1953):
"The explanation is, I believe, that Cerdic's pedigree was copied from
this part of Ida's, and that Gewis was substituted afterwards to give
it a West Saxon colouring. The substitution exactly at this point might
be made because the association of Bernic with Bernicia was obvious.
Bernic, who appears only in the pedigree of Ida, is generally regarded
as an eponymous king derived from the name of the Bernicians, and
Giwis, who appears only in the pedigree of Cerdic, seems to be derived
in the same way from Gewisse".
-
John H
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
Thanks for the reply Douglas,
I have looked at the notes under Sir Edward that show the D1224 etc and I
(having inherited this databse as previously stated) get the impressionthat
the d1224 followed by opther numbers appears to be a mortgage number for the
vasrious transactions that Anne and son John were guarantors.
Now where it came from I dont know, but further down there is the following
(U269 T246/2), which appears to refer to a document from A2A
A search on A2A using Edward Greville brought up many similar references.
I will attempt to locate where Brother in Law got this D1224 from and if I
locate source I will advise through group.
re Elizabeth Tame, nothing showing an Elizabeth Tame or an Elizabeth married
to a Edmund Tame, but the B in Law didnt diverge passed the direct line
much.
DR said:
shows a Katherine without a surname, rest matches, including dying out of
male Tame line after the Edward who died in c1544..
re Elizabeth Greville, sister mentioned in Sir Edwards Will of 1528/9, for
what its worth, this database shows Elizabeth born ?? died c 1545 married to
Thomas Neville with son John Neville. No sources or other notes except that
he states "Elizabeth inherited the Manor of Tetbury".
Other siblings of Elizabeth shown are
Ann Greville married to Thomas Denton (Brother of Anne Denton)
[Denton children's father shown as John Robert Thomas Denton who Lived
Armesden, Buckinghamshire, Eng. with wife Isabell Browne]
Agnes Greville married to Edmund Tame
Sir Edward Greville married to Anne Denton (sister of Thomas Denton, also
shows an Isabel Denton married to unknown Greville)
Robert Greville married to Isabel Wyncott
Boy you guys are getting me to look in areas I havent ever looked before and
I see a lot of work needed to get missing sources etc .
regards
John H
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1151424854.069001.207370@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I have looked at the notes under Sir Edward that show the D1224 etc and I
(having inherited this databse as previously stated) get the impressionthat
the d1224 followed by opther numbers appears to be a mortgage number for the
vasrious transactions that Anne and son John were guarantors.
Now where it came from I dont know, but further down there is the following
(U269 T246/2), which appears to refer to a document from A2A
A search on A2A using Edward Greville brought up many similar references.
I will attempt to locate where Brother in Law got this D1224 from and if I
locate source I will advise through group.
re Elizabeth Tame, nothing showing an Elizabeth Tame or an Elizabeth married
to a Edmund Tame, but the B in Law didnt diverge passed the direct line
much.
DR said:
I believe the younger Sir Edmund Tame was married to Katherine Dennis.
The younger Sir Edmund Tame appears to have had no issue. His heir was
his sister, Margaret Tame, who married in 1528 Sir Humphrey Stafford.
Data in this database seems to agree with statement above , although it only
shows a Katherine without a surname, rest matches, including dying out of
male Tame line after the Edward who died in c1544..
re Elizabeth Greville, sister mentioned in Sir Edwards Will of 1528/9, for
what its worth, this database shows Elizabeth born ?? died c 1545 married to
Thomas Neville with son John Neville. No sources or other notes except that
he states "Elizabeth inherited the Manor of Tetbury".
Other siblings of Elizabeth shown are
Ann Greville married to Thomas Denton (Brother of Anne Denton)
[Denton children's father shown as John Robert Thomas Denton who Lived
Armesden, Buckinghamshire, Eng. with wife Isabell Browne]
Agnes Greville married to Edmund Tame
Sir Edward Greville married to Anne Denton (sister of Thomas Denton, also
shows an Isabel Denton married to unknown Greville)
Robert Greville married to Isabel Wyncott
Boy you guys are getting me to look in areas I havent ever looked before and
I see a lot of work needed to get missing sources etc .
regards
John H
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1151424854.069001.207370@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear John ~
I believe there were two Sir Edmund Tames in succession, they being
father and son. I believe the elder Sir Edmund Tame, of Fairford,
Gloucestershire, died in 1534, as per his brass. He was married twice.
He appears to have been survived by a wife named Elizabeth, as
indicated by the Chancery Proceeding item below dated 1544-1551:
C 1/1128/50-51: Thomas, John and Edward, sons of Anthony HUNGREFORD,
knight, and others, v. Thomas BRUDENELL, knight, executor of Elizabeth,
late the wife of Edmund Tame, knight.: Legacies of sheep.: GLOUCESTER.
Date: 1544-1551 [Source: National Archives catalogue,
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp).
I believe the younger Sir Edmund Tame was married to Katherine Dennis.
The younger Sir Edmund Tame appears to have had no issue. His heir was
his sister, Margaret Tame, who married in 1528 Sir Humphrey Stafford.
I note that Sir Edward Greville's will dated 1528 mentions his sister,
Elizabeth, and his brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame. It is tempting to
think that Sir Edward Greville's sister was Elizabeth, wife of Sir
Edmund Tame, named in the Chancery record above. By any chance, do you
have any particulars on Elizabeth, wife of Sir Edmund Tame?
One other question for John: In your posts, you have twice referred to
a source for Sir Edward Greville and his first wife, Anne Denton, which
you have identified only as D1224. What is this source?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Gjest
Re: Batesford/Brenchesle
In a message dated 6/28/2006 1:15:42 AM Pacific Standard Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
I would have thought there was more than enough references to the Joan
who died in 1453 being the widow of Sir William.
Well you also need to exclude the possibility that there were two Sir
William's both with wifes named Joan don't you? So far that's been assumed, but
since we're still today finding new references I'm not sure we can actually
assume that.
Will
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
I would have thought there was more than enough references to the Joan
who died in 1453 being the widow of Sir William.
Well you also need to exclude the possibility that there were two Sir
William's both with wifes named Joan don't you? So far that's been assumed, but
since we're still today finding new references I'm not sure we can actually
assume that.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Batisford/brenchesle
In a message dated 6/28/2006 11:11:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
Since you seem to be a doubting thomas I suggest you prove it wrong by going
to the source which is Rochester Bishops Register Vol 111 page 144 and
maybe seeing is believing. How can you jump to the conclusion that she
might be a niece .
And you keep insisting that each document you find proves the point you
started out as believing in the first place. While ignoring any document which
points in the opposite direction. This isn't my family, it's yours though.
You should be interesting in reviewing the actual primary document instead of
relying on secondary sources, which conflict.
Will Johnson
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
Since you seem to be a doubting thomas I suggest you prove it wrong by going
to the source which is Rochester Bishops Register Vol 111 page 144 and
maybe seeing is believing. How can you jump to the conclusion that she
might be a niece .
And you keep insisting that each document you find proves the point you
started out as believing in the first place. While ignoring any document which
points in the opposite direction. This isn't my family, it's yours though.
You should be interesting in reviewing the actual primary document instead of
relying on secondary sources, which conflict.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Complete Peerage Correction: Ancestry of Fitzwilliam fam
In a message dated 22/06/2006 12:25:22 GMT Standard Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Probate granted by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 26 January 1578
(Prob 11/60) "Hughe Fitzwilliam of Sprotborough, Yorkshire".
The will is included in:
Surtees Society M.DCCC.XXXIV
NORTH COUNTRY WILLS 1558-1604 Vol II pp 40-1
XXXI THE WILL OF HUGH FITZWILLIAM, {fn} of SPROTBOROUGH
(Langley, 3.)
Be yt knowen unto all Christian people that I, Hughe Fitzwilliam of
Sprootbroughe, dothe make, beinge in perfecte mynde, this my laste will in the yere
of our Lord God 1563, the xiiij th daye of October. And firste of all I
bequeath my sowle into the handes of Allmightie God my Saviour and Reedeemer of
the worlde. Item I bequeathe my two chestes that I lefte with Mr Thomas Norton
the younger, dwellinge beside St Brydes churche in London, to my cosen Sr
William Fitzwilliam of Mylton, and my chascate that standeth within the cheste
barred and covered with lether and all that therin is contayned, and all the
reste of my stuffe there. Item I bequeathe to the said Mr Thomas Norton a
bruche of goulde, and to his servauntes xxs. amongeste them. Item I bequeathe
a boxe contayned in a lether bagge sealed with my armes that I lefte withe
Annes Som’er, servaunte into the personne of Plumptrie, to Sr William
Fitzwilliam, and all that therein is, and all the reste of my stuffe there. Item I
bequeathe to Sr John Olief, the parsonne of Plumptrye, tenne of my beste
bookes, and to the said Annes Som’er tenne shillinges, and to the reste of his
servauntes x s. amongeste them. Item to the said Sr William Fitzwilliam all
my stuffe that I have at Sutill Hall, and my little male of writinges and
evidences that I lefte with Swayle, my Lady Savelles butler, to the whiche Swayle
I bequeathe x s. Item I bequeathe all my writinges and evidences,
wheresoever they be, to the saide William and the heires males of Mylton. Item I doe
bequeathe to my cosen John Fitzwilliam thelder, brother to the said Sr
William Fitzwilliam, my cheane of goulde, and to my cosen William Fitzwilliam,
sonne and heire to the said Sr William Fitzwilliam, my ringe withe a poynted
dyamonde, the whiche Sr William Fitzwilliam, John Fitzwilliam his brother, and
William Fitzwilliam his sonne I doe make my full executors of this my laste
will, to the whiche I have sette my hande and seale. Be it also knowen that I
the seyd Hugh Fitwillim at the date hereof dyd not owe to any lyvinge creature
by promyse or byll of my hande or otherwaise any one grote to my knowledge,
as I shall answeare at the day of judgemente before the throne of Almyghtie
God.
[Proved 26 January 1577-8.]
{fn [by Surtees soc] He was one of a younger branch of the Fitzwilliams of
Sprotborough, being son of John Fitzwilliam, of Haddlesey. He claimed the
Sprotborough estates when they came, by the death of William Fitzwilliam in
1516, to the Saviles and Copleys. There is an account of him in Hunter’s South
Yorkshire, i, 341, in which he is called the antiquary of the family.}
Adrian
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
Douglas Richardson wrote:
The historian, Mary E. Finch, in her book, Five Northamptonshire
Families, published in 1956, cites the problem of the long generations
between John Fitzwilliam (died 1417) and his alleged grandson, Sir
William Fitzwilliam (died 1534), ancestor of the Milton Fitzwilliams.
Finch, however, documented that about 1565 members of Sir William
Fitzwilliam's family aided their kinsman, Hugh Fitzwilliam, in his
attempt to recover Fitzwilliam family lands. Hugh Fitzwilliam was then
heir male of Sir John Fitzwilliam (died 1417), he being descended from
John's 3rd son, Ralph, whereas Sir William and his line descended
from John, 6th son of the same John (died 1417)]. Finch says the
following:
"For waging this war, he [Hugh] collected many evidences; and in 1565
he compiled a detailed genealogy, the basis of all subsequent
pedigrees. To attest the authority of this record, Hugh procured the
signature of eleven members of the house of Fitzwilliam, including the
Milton family." [Reference: Finch, Five Northamptonshire Fams.
(Northamptonshire Rec. Soc. 19) (1956): 188-189].
Finch further reveals that Hugh Fitzwilliam subsequently left his
Milton cousins all of his evidences and much of his personal property,
making them his executors. Finch provides no date or probate
information for the will of Hugh Fitzwilliam,
Probate granted by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 26 January 1578
(Prob 11/60) "Hughe Fitzwilliam of Sprotborough, Yorkshire".
but this will serves as
excellent evidence that Hugh Fitzwilliam, the heir male of Sir John
Fitzwilliam (died 1417), believed that he was near related to the
Fitzwilliam family of Milton.
The will is included in:
Surtees Society M.DCCC.XXXIV
NORTH COUNTRY WILLS 1558-1604 Vol II pp 40-1
XXXI THE WILL OF HUGH FITZWILLIAM, {fn} of SPROTBOROUGH
(Langley, 3.)
Be yt knowen unto all Christian people that I, Hughe Fitzwilliam of
Sprootbroughe, dothe make, beinge in perfecte mynde, this my laste will in the yere
of our Lord God 1563, the xiiij th daye of October. And firste of all I
bequeath my sowle into the handes of Allmightie God my Saviour and Reedeemer of
the worlde. Item I bequeathe my two chestes that I lefte with Mr Thomas Norton
the younger, dwellinge beside St Brydes churche in London, to my cosen Sr
William Fitzwilliam of Mylton, and my chascate that standeth within the cheste
barred and covered with lether and all that therin is contayned, and all the
reste of my stuffe there. Item I bequeathe to the said Mr Thomas Norton a
bruche of goulde, and to his servauntes xxs. amongeste them. Item I bequeathe
a boxe contayned in a lether bagge sealed with my armes that I lefte withe
Annes Som’er, servaunte into the personne of Plumptrie, to Sr William
Fitzwilliam, and all that therein is, and all the reste of my stuffe there. Item I
bequeathe to Sr John Olief, the parsonne of Plumptrye, tenne of my beste
bookes, and to the said Annes Som’er tenne shillinges, and to the reste of his
servauntes x s. amongeste them. Item to the said Sr William Fitzwilliam all
my stuffe that I have at Sutill Hall, and my little male of writinges and
evidences that I lefte with Swayle, my Lady Savelles butler, to the whiche Swayle
I bequeathe x s. Item I bequeathe all my writinges and evidences,
wheresoever they be, to the saide William and the heires males of Mylton. Item I doe
bequeathe to my cosen John Fitzwilliam thelder, brother to the said Sr
William Fitzwilliam, my cheane of goulde, and to my cosen William Fitzwilliam,
sonne and heire to the said Sr William Fitzwilliam, my ringe withe a poynted
dyamonde, the whiche Sr William Fitzwilliam, John Fitzwilliam his brother, and
William Fitzwilliam his sonne I doe make my full executors of this my laste
will, to the whiche I have sette my hande and seale. Be it also knowen that I
the seyd Hugh Fitwillim at the date hereof dyd not owe to any lyvinge creature
by promyse or byll of my hande or otherwaise any one grote to my knowledge,
as I shall answeare at the day of judgemente before the throne of Almyghtie
God.
[Proved 26 January 1577-8.]
{fn [by Surtees soc] He was one of a younger branch of the Fitzwilliams of
Sprotborough, being son of John Fitzwilliam, of Haddlesey. He claimed the
Sprotborough estates when they came, by the death of William Fitzwilliam in
1516, to the Saviles and Copleys. There is an account of him in Hunter’s South
Yorkshire, i, 341, in which he is called the antiquary of the family.}
Adrian
-
Gjest
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
In a message dated 6/28/06 9:11:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
<< re Elizabeth Greville, sister mentioned in Sir Edwards Will of 1528/9, for
what its worth, this database shows Elizabeth born ?? died c 1545 married to
Thomas Neville with son John Neville. No sources or other notes except that
he states "Elizabeth inherited the Manor of Tetbury".
Other siblings of Elizabeth shown are
Ann Greville married to Thomas Denton (Brother of Anne Denton)
[Denton children's father shown as John Robert Thomas Denton who Lived
Armesden, Buckinghamshire, Eng. with wife Isabell Browne] >>
Since you mentioned sources, you might check this Thomas Neville with son
John against http://www.genealogics.org
I'm showing Thomas' wife was Anne Greville, dau of Robert Greville of
Charringworth, and I think that's where I got it from.
Will
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
<< re Elizabeth Greville, sister mentioned in Sir Edwards Will of 1528/9, for
what its worth, this database shows Elizabeth born ?? died c 1545 married to
Thomas Neville with son John Neville. No sources or other notes except that
he states "Elizabeth inherited the Manor of Tetbury".
Other siblings of Elizabeth shown are
Ann Greville married to Thomas Denton (Brother of Anne Denton)
[Denton children's father shown as John Robert Thomas Denton who Lived
Armesden, Buckinghamshire, Eng. with wife Isabell Browne] >>
Since you mentioned sources, you might check this Thomas Neville with son
John against http://www.genealogics.org
I'm showing Thomas' wife was Anne Greville, dau of Robert Greville of
Charringworth, and I think that's where I got it from.
Will
-
celia
Re: Hereward (was The Fairy Bride)
"Betty Owen" wrote:
I am claiming that he is wrong in saying that Hereward's
grandfather is Toki, son of Auti, if instead he is correctly
Toki son of Wiggod, he becomes part of a powerful
family group with a history of determining who ruled
England. It also makes sense of other supposed events
in the life of Hereward particularly with regard to the
fenland foundations (closely linked at this time) due to
close connections to his family.
Further light is shed if it was Bourn, Cambs. rather than
Bourne, Lincs that Hereward's father came from.
Mid 11th c. the spelling was the same.
Celia
aCtually,
there is a whole book written on this genealogical theory
It is written by Peter Rex ..
Betty
----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: Hereward (was The Fairy Bride)
And again.
celia wrote:
celia wrote:
I think I might have worked out Hereward's family.
Check this out and see if it fits the facts and makes
sense and if it does I will fill in the references and the
missing bits.
I have long thought Osgod Clappa and Wigod of Wallingford
to be brothers, perhaps twins, this is based mainly on land
holdings and the names of the places they hold.
They appear to be closely related to Cypping, perhaps
another brother.
Osgod's daughter married Ralph the Staller then
Tovi the Proud, it was probably Tovi's second marriage.
Wigod's son was Toki who made the tomb for Cypping's
son Aethelweard and as far as I can recall also worked
at Peterborough as a sculptor.
If the Toki who is the father of Abbot Brand is not Toki
son of Auti the moneyer but Toki son of Wigod then
the details of Hereward's family as given in the various
accounts make sense.
Brand's brothers, and Hereward's father and uncles on
his father's side are Asketil, Siworth, Siric, Godric and
perhaps an unrecorded brother named Leofric who
married a great grandaughter or great neice of Duke Oslac
by the name of Aedina or Aediva.
Hereward is related to Ralph the Staller as suggested
as Ralph married his grandfather's sister.
He is well connected as Tovi and Ralph both married
into the royal family.
I can't see anything in this that contradicts the accounts
or that isn't probable. If it isn't ripped to pieces I will
give references.
Well no one came to my rescue by demolishing
the theory so now I'll have to justify it.
Where are you Jamie when I need you ?
My resources for giving sources are very limited
as I have neither a good private nor a good public library.
This means that this is rather rough and ready and if
it's got any mileage will need more research.
I made use of Hereward the Last Englishman
by Peter Rex and Hereward by Victor Head,
They were particularly useful in saving time when
finding references to Hereward. Peter Rex's book
sees Hereward as a grandson of Toki, son of Auti
and a son of Asketil. Victor Head's book leans
towards Hereward being the son of Earl Leofric.
I will go through the information on Hereward's family
starting with the source then commenting on it and
finally showing how it fits into my theory.
The Gesta Herewardi says that Hereward's
father was Leofric of Bourne as does Historia
Croylandensis. (I know both of these are late
and unreliable but lets see where it leads)
DB shows Hereward owning three estates a
couple of miles from Bourne in Lincs but Bourne
itself is shown as owned by Morcar and there is
no indication that it was ever owned by anyone
named Leofric; indeed there is no indication that
anyone of that name owned land nearby.
Because Hereward's manors are nearby no
alternative is ever considered and this is probably
sensible but there is another Bourn that had the
same name when the DB was written and it is in
the heartland of Hereward's resistance to William
in the forest of Brunneswald (named after it) in Cambs.
In the Cambridgeshire Bourn members of the family
that I propose as Hereward's family own land.
There is an 11th c. castle there and earthworks.
Most of the land around Bourn is owned by Eadgifu
who has two goldsmiths as her 'man (or possibly
men of the same names) and I think is the
widow of that name that married a goldsmith.
Ralph owns land in the hundred as do Esgar, Stigand
and Peter de Valognes, and the abbots of Ramsey and Ely.
Esgar, Stigand and possibly Ralph can be fitted into
Hereward's familt tree, Peter de Valognes took over
some goldsmith land and was entrusted with the
care of the elderly goldsmith Sparhavoc by
Queen Edith, Sparhavoc was possibly related to Stigand
as their histories make sense when viewed together
and there lands are near each other.
My argument doesn't stand or fall by which Bourne
belonged to Hereward's father but I think the other
Bourne is worth considering.
The Gesta says Leofric is the son of Earl Ralf Scalre
Freeman interprets this as Ralf the Staller
Croyland says that Leofric was the 'nepos'
of Radin , earl of Hetford whose wife is Goda,
sister of King Edward.
I have Hereward's father as 'nepos' of Ralf the Staller
who is married to Goda.
The Gesta has Hereward's mother as Aedina,
great, great grandaughter of Duke Oslac.
Croyland has his mother as Aediva,
niece of Duke Oslac.
She couldn't have been Duke Oslac's niece but
at this level of society i see no problem with his
wife being related to Oslac.
I considered if Aediva could be a version of the
widow Eadgifu's name, Eadgifu can be spelled
'Eadgiva', is Eadgifu more English ? I don't know
but several members of this family used more than one
name often a Danish and an English name, sometimes
a Norman one, it gets confusing.
Abbot Brand is said to be Hereward's uncle in Croyland
and Annales Burgo Spaldensis,
"Brand, Abbot of Peterborough, paternal uncle of
the said Hereward"
My family tree shows Brand as Hereward's paternal uncle.
Abbot Brand is known to have had four brothers,
Asketil, Siric, Siworth and Godric. Peter Rex considers
that because of age only Asketil is a candidate for
Hereward's father. There isn' a Leofric known.
It is possible that Leofric isn't recorded but just as
likely is that Peter Rex is right about Asketil being
Hereward's father but that he also went by the
more English sounding name of Leofric.
(Actually i'm not sure that it is English)
Two of Brand's brothers are called 'Toki's son'
in the Black Book of Peterborough and a Ramsey
charter cited by Rex.
If instead of Toki. son of Auti this is Toki ,son of Wiggod
allowing for the minor errors that creep in with time
the accounts of Hereward's family are substantially correct.
I know I've missed bits out but my brain has given up.
I credited Peter Rex's book in earlier discussion in shm
I am claiming that he is wrong in saying that Hereward's
grandfather is Toki, son of Auti, if instead he is correctly
Toki son of Wiggod, he becomes part of a powerful
family group with a history of determining who ruled
England. It also makes sense of other supposed events
in the life of Hereward particularly with regard to the
fenland foundations (closely linked at this time) due to
close connections to his family.
Further light is shed if it was Bourn, Cambs. rather than
Bourne, Lincs that Hereward's father came from.
Mid 11th c. the spelling was the same.
Celia
-
Gjest
Re: Batesford/Brencheslee
In a message dated 6/28/2006 9:04:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
I fail to see your thinking on two William Brencheslee\ We have a series
of references to the fact that Joan Batesford was married to William
Brencheslee.
No you don't. You have a few references that some Joan was married to a
William Brenchsley. Or possibly two different Joans and two different Williams.
Or one William and two different Joans.
for the time period we are discussingm and lots of activity in the courts
with deeds and grants.
Which activity, we have had to, laboriously tweeze out of the primary
documents over the past month.
Despite what you say that I accept what I write, I do a lot of research on
the facts and have to accept some of the early documents as proof and if you
can prove the documents wrong, great, I will be delighted.I am looking for
the proof always. You jump to the conclusion that it is wrong without showing
proof that it is wrong.
Wrong. I jump to the conclusion that you jump to conclusions. The document
simply does not proof what you stated it proves.
For instance you said maybe Joan was a niece not a sister, but the Batisford
did not have a son, only a 4 daughters. Again, the Bishops register is
probably very reliable in what it says as the church documents were carefully
kept. Here the document and the footnotes and references to find this
online Abbey of Malling.
Are you quite sure that William Brenchsley didn't have a son?
And we're not speaking about the church documents are we? We're speaking
about someone who is analyzing and editing them with imperfect knowledge. They
can make mistakes just like we all can. They can make assumptions also.
That's why you need to read the original primary document.
WIll Johnson
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
I fail to see your thinking on two William Brencheslee\ We have a series
of references to the fact that Joan Batesford was married to William
Brencheslee.
No you don't. You have a few references that some Joan was married to a
William Brenchsley. Or possibly two different Joans and two different Williams.
Or one William and two different Joans.
for the time period we are discussingm and lots of activity in the courts
with deeds and grants.
Which activity, we have had to, laboriously tweeze out of the primary
documents over the past month.
Despite what you say that I accept what I write, I do a lot of research on
the facts and have to accept some of the early documents as proof and if you
can prove the documents wrong, great, I will be delighted.I am looking for
the proof always. You jump to the conclusion that it is wrong without showing
proof that it is wrong.
Wrong. I jump to the conclusion that you jump to conclusions. The document
simply does not proof what you stated it proves.
For instance you said maybe Joan was a niece not a sister, but the Batisford
did not have a son, only a 4 daughters. Again, the Bishops register is
probably very reliable in what it says as the church documents were carefully
kept. Here the document and the footnotes and references to find this
online Abbey of Malling.
Are you quite sure that William Brenchsley didn't have a son?
And we're not speaking about the church documents are we? We're speaking
about someone who is analyzing and editing them with imperfect knowledge. They
can make mistakes just like we all can. They can make assumptions also.
That's why you need to read the original primary document.
WIll Johnson
-
Ye Old One
Re: Batesford/Brenchesle
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:22:27 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
You do have a valid point, the two Johns being a good example.
However, in this case I think the movement of lands do tie things up.
My current thinking is that the son, Richard, was from William's first
marriage, maybe with the mother dying in childbirth, and that Joan
Batisford was almost a child bride.
--
Bob.
this group when s/he wrote:
In a message dated 6/28/2006 1:15:42 AM Pacific Standard Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
I would have thought there was more than enough references to the Joan
who died in 1453 being the widow of Sir William.
Well you also need to exclude the possibility that there were two Sir
William's both with wifes named Joan don't you? So far that's been assumed, but
since we're still today finding new references I'm not sure we can actually
assume that.
Will
You do have a valid point, the two Johns being a good example.
However, in this case I think the movement of lands do tie things up.
My current thinking is that the son, Richard, was from William's first
marriage, maybe with the mother dying in childbirth, and that Joan
Batisford was almost a child bride.
--
Bob.
-
Gjest
Re: Anglo-Saxon kings in England
In several postings above, Ealhmund, father of Ecgberht, King of
Wessex, is referred to as "Ealhmund, subking of Kent". Historically
that style is incorrect. In a surviving absract of a charter he is
called "Ealmundus rex Canciæ". The abstract is greatly abbreviated,
but no superior king is mentioned.
http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=seek&query=S+38
The style "subking" seems to be used on the assumption that
Ealhmund was a West Saxon interloper who was somehow imposed on Kent.
There is no evidence for this. On the contrary, Ealhmund's name, and
that of his son, closely match Kentish royal names: the previous kings
(so far as they are know) were Aethelbert, Eadbald, Ercenberht,
Ecgberht, Hlothhere, Eadric, Mul (of Wessex), Sweafheard (of Essex),
Oswine, Wihtred, Aethelberht, Eadberht, Eardwulf, Eadberht, Sigered,
Eanmund, Ecgberht, and Heahberht. Eahlmund's successors were
Eadberht, Cuthred (Mercian), and Baldred.
Eahlmund's name is remarkably similar to Eanmund (supposedly reigning
twenty years previously), and Ecgberht's name is the same as two
previous Kentish kings. In contrast, prior to Ecgberht's accession in
Wessex, no West Saxon king ever had a name commencing with Ean-, Eahl-
Ecg-, or Ead-, nor ending in -mund.
Wessex, is referred to as "Ealhmund, subking of Kent". Historically
that style is incorrect. In a surviving absract of a charter he is
called "Ealmundus rex Canciæ". The abstract is greatly abbreviated,
but no superior king is mentioned.
http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=seek&query=S+38
The style "subking" seems to be used on the assumption that
Ealhmund was a West Saxon interloper who was somehow imposed on Kent.
There is no evidence for this. On the contrary, Ealhmund's name, and
that of his son, closely match Kentish royal names: the previous kings
(so far as they are know) were Aethelbert, Eadbald, Ercenberht,
Ecgberht, Hlothhere, Eadric, Mul (of Wessex), Sweafheard (of Essex),
Oswine, Wihtred, Aethelberht, Eadberht, Eardwulf, Eadberht, Sigered,
Eanmund, Ecgberht, and Heahberht. Eahlmund's successors were
Eadberht, Cuthred (Mercian), and Baldred.
Eahlmund's name is remarkably similar to Eanmund (supposedly reigning
twenty years previously), and Ecgberht's name is the same as two
previous Kentish kings. In contrast, prior to Ecgberht's accession in
Wessex, no West Saxon king ever had a name commencing with Ean-, Eahl-
Ecg-, or Ead-, nor ending in -mund.
-
John H
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
Will,
I agree Leo shows Anne Greville's (wife of Thomas Neville) father as Robert
Greville as you state
but he shows no details for that Robert, so cant check his parentage from
Leo's site.
The database I have, shows a Thomas Neville with the same three wives as you
& Leo show,
it shows that Thomas's parents as Sir Henry Neville and Joan Bourchier who
were married at Raby, Durham
c1466/1467, Sir Henry dying at battle of Edgcote field, Banbury Oxon 27 July
1469. Joan died 7/10/1470 Mathon Worc.
The Anne Greville you speak of is, (according to this database) Sir Edward
Greville's brother Robert Greville's child (wife Isabel Wyncott), this Anne
also married a Thomas Neville and also had a son John Neville, (so the two
Thomas's appear to be mixed up). This John Neville born c1540 died c1618
married Alice Rydall and had a son Francis Neville born c 1575 died c 1664
married Mary "Unknown Surname". This Francis Neville and Mary also had a son
John Neville born c1606 married Joan Shelley of Yopxnall Staffs, of which no
"dob" or "dod" shown in database. This couple had a son Thomas Neville who
married a Anne Bulkeley at Shenstone park. Staffs etc etc
John & Alice nee Rydall (from Leo's site) also shows a son named Fulke,
(which is a common given name in this Greville family).
This database is missing that Fulke one.
This database also has this Anne (nee Greville) Neville, marrying a Raufe
Westcote after death of Thomas Neville in 1546.
The Robert Greville on Leo's site matches as Anne Greville's father, this
Robert Greville, was Sir Edward and Elizabeths sibling (Brother).
Thus the Anne Greville and Thomas Neville of which you speak and is on Leos
site, is one generation down from what I was speaking of.
What I have for those people, I believe matches what Leo has, only it is
NOT the same Thomas Neville of which I posted, married to Sir Edwards sister
Elizabeth.
++++++++++++
Now this database shows another Thomas Neville marrying Elizabeth Greville
(the Elizabeth who was Sir Edwards sister mentioned in his will of 1528/9)
and this Elizabeth inherited the manor of Tetbury and it is this Thomas
Neville of whom I posted., NOT the one from Leo's site
This couple had a John Neville of whom no marriage and/or issue is shown
this database.
So which, I guess, leaves the question....Who were the parents of Thomas
Neville married to Sir Edward's sister Elizabeth?.
I dont have any parents in this database. So is it a duplication or not?
Crikey! this is going in circles!!
I wish some of those families would stop marrying into each other multiple
times,
but I guess they married to people in their own social/class circles.
regards
John H
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:313.7852f8e.31d49bfd@aol.com...
I agree Leo shows Anne Greville's (wife of Thomas Neville) father as Robert
Greville as you state
but he shows no details for that Robert, so cant check his parentage from
Leo's site.
The database I have, shows a Thomas Neville with the same three wives as you
& Leo show,
it shows that Thomas's parents as Sir Henry Neville and Joan Bourchier who
were married at Raby, Durham
c1466/1467, Sir Henry dying at battle of Edgcote field, Banbury Oxon 27 July
1469. Joan died 7/10/1470 Mathon Worc.
The Anne Greville you speak of is, (according to this database) Sir Edward
Greville's brother Robert Greville's child (wife Isabel Wyncott), this Anne
also married a Thomas Neville and also had a son John Neville, (so the two
Thomas's appear to be mixed up). This John Neville born c1540 died c1618
married Alice Rydall and had a son Francis Neville born c 1575 died c 1664
married Mary "Unknown Surname". This Francis Neville and Mary also had a son
John Neville born c1606 married Joan Shelley of Yopxnall Staffs, of which no
"dob" or "dod" shown in database. This couple had a son Thomas Neville who
married a Anne Bulkeley at Shenstone park. Staffs etc etc
John & Alice nee Rydall (from Leo's site) also shows a son named Fulke,
(which is a common given name in this Greville family).
This database is missing that Fulke one.
This database also has this Anne (nee Greville) Neville, marrying a Raufe
Westcote after death of Thomas Neville in 1546.
The Robert Greville on Leo's site matches as Anne Greville's father, this
Robert Greville, was Sir Edward and Elizabeths sibling (Brother).
Thus the Anne Greville and Thomas Neville of which you speak and is on Leos
site, is one generation down from what I was speaking of.
What I have for those people, I believe matches what Leo has, only it is
NOT the same Thomas Neville of which I posted, married to Sir Edwards sister
Elizabeth.
++++++++++++
Now this database shows another Thomas Neville marrying Elizabeth Greville
(the Elizabeth who was Sir Edwards sister mentioned in his will of 1528/9)
and this Elizabeth inherited the manor of Tetbury and it is this Thomas
Neville of whom I posted., NOT the one from Leo's site
This couple had a John Neville of whom no marriage and/or issue is shown
this database.
So which, I guess, leaves the question....Who were the parents of Thomas
Neville married to Sir Edward's sister Elizabeth?.
I dont have any parents in this database. So is it a duplication or not?
Crikey! this is going in circles!!
I wish some of those families would stop marrying into each other multiple
times,
but I guess they married to people in their own social/class circles.
regards
John H
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:313.7852f8e.31d49bfd@aol.com...
In a message dated 6/28/06 9:11:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
re Elizabeth Greville, sister mentioned in Sir Edwards Will of 1528/9,
for
what its worth, this database shows Elizabeth born ?? died c 1545 married
to
Thomas Neville with son John Neville. No sources or other notes except
that
he states "Elizabeth inherited the Manor of Tetbury".
Other siblings of Elizabeth shown are
Ann Greville married to Thomas Denton (Brother of Anne Denton)
[Denton children's father shown as John Robert Thomas Denton who Lived
Armesden, Buckinghamshire, Eng. with wife Isabell Browne]
Since you mentioned sources, you might check this Thomas Neville with son
John against http://www.genealogics.org
I'm showing Thomas' wife was Anne Greville, dau of Robert Greville of
Charringworth, and I think that's where I got it from.
Will
-
John H
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
Still looking re D1224
Another possiblity is a catalogue number for A2A.
Anyone got any thoughts on what it is?
regards
John H
"John H" <JohnH4999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44a2a8f6_2@news.chariot.net.au...
Another possiblity is a catalogue number for A2A.
Anyone got any thoughts on what it is?
regards
John H
"John H" <JohnH4999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44a2a8f6_2@news.chariot.net.au...
Thanks for the reply Douglas,
I have looked at the notes under Sir Edward that show the D1224 etc and I
(having inherited this databse as previously stated) get the
impressionthat the d1224 followed by opther numbers appears to be a
mortgage number for the vasrious transactions that Anne and son John were
guarantors.
Now where it came from I dont know, but further down there is the
following (U269 T246/2), which appears to refer to a document from A2A
A search on A2A using Edward Greville brought up many similar references.
I will attempt to locate where Brother in Law got this D1224 from and if I
locate source I will advise through group.
re Elizabeth Tame, nothing showing an Elizabeth Tame or an Elizabeth
married to a Edmund Tame, but the B in Law didnt diverge passed the direct
line much.
DR said:
I believe the younger Sir Edmund Tame was married to Katherine Dennis.
The younger Sir Edmund Tame appears to have had no issue. His heir was
his sister, Margaret Tame, who married in 1528 Sir Humphrey Stafford.
Data in this database seems to agree with statement above , although it
only shows a Katherine without a surname, rest matches, including dying
out of male Tame line after the Edward who died in c1544..
re Elizabeth Greville, sister mentioned in Sir Edwards Will of 1528/9, for
what its worth, this database shows Elizabeth born ?? died c 1545 married
to Thomas Neville with son John Neville. No sources or other notes except
that he states "Elizabeth inherited the Manor of Tetbury".
Other siblings of Elizabeth shown are
Ann Greville married to Thomas Denton (Brother of Anne Denton)
[Denton children's father shown as John Robert Thomas Denton who Lived
Armesden, Buckinghamshire, Eng. with wife Isabell Browne]
Agnes Greville married to Edmund Tame
Sir Edward Greville married to Anne Denton (sister of Thomas Denton, also
shows an Isabel Denton married to unknown Greville)
Robert Greville married to Isabel Wyncott
Boy you guys are getting me to look in areas I havent ever looked before
and I see a lot of work needed to get missing sources etc .
regards
John H
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1151424854.069001.207370@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear John ~
I believe there were two Sir Edmund Tames in succession, they being
father and son. I believe the elder Sir Edmund Tame, of Fairford,
Gloucestershire, died in 1534, as per his brass. He was married twice.
He appears to have been survived by a wife named Elizabeth, as
indicated by the Chancery Proceeding item below dated 1544-1551:
C 1/1128/50-51: Thomas, John and Edward, sons of Anthony HUNGREFORD,
knight, and others, v. Thomas BRUDENELL, knight, executor of Elizabeth,
late the wife of Edmund Tame, knight.: Legacies of sheep.: GLOUCESTER.
Date: 1544-1551 [Source: National Archives catalogue,
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp).
I believe the younger Sir Edmund Tame was married to Katherine Dennis.
The younger Sir Edmund Tame appears to have had no issue. His heir was
his sister, Margaret Tame, who married in 1528 Sir Humphrey Stafford.
I note that Sir Edward Greville's will dated 1528 mentions his sister,
Elizabeth, and his brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame. It is tempting to
think that Sir Edward Greville's sister was Elizabeth, wife of Sir
Edmund Tame, named in the Chancery record above. By any chance, do you
have any particulars on Elizabeth, wife of Sir Edmund Tame?
One other question for John: In your posts, you have twice referred to
a source for Sir Edward Greville and his first wife, Anne Denton, which
you have identified only as D1224. What is this source?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Douglas Richardson
Crikey! this is going in circles!! - More Greville
Dear John ~
Below is what I have on the Thomas Neville, Esq. (died 1546), who was
the husband of Anne Greville. This Thomas Neville, Esq., has been
proposed in times past as a possible ancestor of the Winslow family of
Mayflower fame. The connection, if one exists, has never been
satisfactorily worked out.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004) and Douglas
Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).
NEVILLE FAMILY
I. THOMAS NEVILLE, Esq., of Binholme (in Pershore) and Mathon,
Worcestershire, Justice of the Peace for Worcestershire, 1511, Sheriff
of Staffordshire, 1511 and 1516, 2nd son of Henry (or Harry) Neville,
Knt. (died 1469), of Isenhampstead, Berkshire, by Joan (or Jane),
daughter of John Bourgchier, Knt., K.G., 1st Lord Berners. He married
(1st) ANNE WESTERDALE. They had no issue. He married (2nd) LETTICE
HARCOURT, widow of Humphrey Peshale, Esq. (died 28 May 1498), of Tean
(in Checkley), Staffordshire [see BRESSEY 11]. They had three
daughters, including Ellen (wife of Kenelm Bucke). He married (3rd)
ANNE GREVILLE, daughter of Robert Greville, of Charringworth,
Gloucestershire. They had one son, John. Thomas was a legatee in the
1512 will of his uncle, Thomas Bourgchier, Knt. THOMAS NEVILLE died in
1546. Modern descendants (not traced in this book).
References:
Nash, Colls. for the Hist. of Worcestershire 2 (1782): 19. Brydges,
Collins' Peerage of England 4 (1812): 428-453. Whitaker, Hist. of
Richmondshire 2 (1823): facing 78 (Latimer pedigree). Rowland, Noble
Fam. of Nevill (1830). Surtees, Hist. & Antiqs. of Durham 4 (1840):
158-163 (Nevill pedigrees). Glover, Vis. of Staffordshire 1583
(Colls. Hist. Staffs. 3(2)) (1883): 116 (Nevill pedigree: "Thomas
Nevill of Mathon in the Countye of Worcester, Esqr, seconde sonne; had
3 wives. = Anne, da. of Rob'te Grevill of Charingworth in the Countye
of Gloucester, Esqr; thirde wife."). Burke, Gen. & Heraldic Hist. of
the Landed Gentry 2 (1939): 1674.
Below is what I have on the Thomas Neville, Esq. (died 1546), who was
the husband of Anne Greville. This Thomas Neville, Esq., has been
proposed in times past as a possible ancestor of the Winslow family of
Mayflower fame. The connection, if one exists, has never been
satisfactorily worked out.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Source: Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004) and Douglas
Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry (2005).
NEVILLE FAMILY
I. THOMAS NEVILLE, Esq., of Binholme (in Pershore) and Mathon,
Worcestershire, Justice of the Peace for Worcestershire, 1511, Sheriff
of Staffordshire, 1511 and 1516, 2nd son of Henry (or Harry) Neville,
Knt. (died 1469), of Isenhampstead, Berkshire, by Joan (or Jane),
daughter of John Bourgchier, Knt., K.G., 1st Lord Berners. He married
(1st) ANNE WESTERDALE. They had no issue. He married (2nd) LETTICE
HARCOURT, widow of Humphrey Peshale, Esq. (died 28 May 1498), of Tean
(in Checkley), Staffordshire [see BRESSEY 11]. They had three
daughters, including Ellen (wife of Kenelm Bucke). He married (3rd)
ANNE GREVILLE, daughter of Robert Greville, of Charringworth,
Gloucestershire. They had one son, John. Thomas was a legatee in the
1512 will of his uncle, Thomas Bourgchier, Knt. THOMAS NEVILLE died in
1546. Modern descendants (not traced in this book).
References:
Nash, Colls. for the Hist. of Worcestershire 2 (1782): 19. Brydges,
Collins' Peerage of England 4 (1812): 428-453. Whitaker, Hist. of
Richmondshire 2 (1823): facing 78 (Latimer pedigree). Rowland, Noble
Fam. of Nevill (1830). Surtees, Hist. & Antiqs. of Durham 4 (1840):
158-163 (Nevill pedigrees). Glover, Vis. of Staffordshire 1583
(Colls. Hist. Staffs. 3(2)) (1883): 116 (Nevill pedigree: "Thomas
Nevill of Mathon in the Countye of Worcester, Esqr, seconde sonne; had
3 wives. = Anne, da. of Rob'te Grevill of Charingworth in the Countye
of Gloucester, Esqr; thirde wife."). Burke, Gen. & Heraldic Hist. of
the Landed Gentry 2 (1939): 1674.
-
Ye Old One
Re: Batesford/brencheslee
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:18:32 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
I hear what you are saying Will, but where is the conflict you are
seeing?
Looking at it from my position things have become a lot clearer in
recent weeks, though of course even more new questions have opened up.
The questions I have currently are:-
1) Did Sir William have an earlier wife or wives?
2) Is William's son Richard the son of Joan or an earlier wife?
3) Who is William's father?
4) When will someone invent a time machine so I can go back and
interview some of these buggers
--
Bob.
this group when s/he wrote:
I'm not saying its wrong. I'm saying you're making a lot of additional
assumptions that simply aren't there. I haven't read every primary document.
HOWEVER, where the secondary documents CONFLICT which these do, then do you do need
to go to the primary documents and read them.
That's the only way to resolve conflicts among secondary documents.
This is a bit of a broken record by now.
Will
I hear what you are saying Will, but where is the conflict you are
seeing?
Looking at it from my position things have become a lot clearer in
recent weeks, though of course even more new questions have opened up.
The questions I have currently are:-
1) Did Sir William have an earlier wife or wives?
2) Is William's son Richard the son of Joan or an earlier wife?
3) Who is William's father?
4) When will someone invent a time machine so I can go back and
interview some of these buggers
--
Bob.
-
Gjest
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
In a message dated 6/29/06 7:15:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
<< The Anne Greville you speak of is, (according to this database) Sir Edward
Greville's brother Robert Greville's child (wife Isabel Wyncott), this Anne
also married a Thomas Neville and also had a son John Neville, (so the two
Thomas's appear to be mixed up). >>
Actually it *is* possible to check this as Leo is showing as his source
"Burke's Landed Gentry". If your database has no sources for it's information,
then you might want to check Burke's and copy out what it says, then post it
"with quotes" and cite it and then you'll be on slightly firmer ground.
Will Johnson
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
<< The Anne Greville you speak of is, (according to this database) Sir Edward
Greville's brother Robert Greville's child (wife Isabel Wyncott), this Anne
also married a Thomas Neville and also had a son John Neville, (so the two
Thomas's appear to be mixed up). >>
Actually it *is* possible to check this as Leo is showing as his source
"Burke's Landed Gentry". If your database has no sources for it's information,
then you might want to check Burke's and copy out what it says, then post it
"with quotes" and cite it and then you'll be on slightly firmer ground.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
In a message dated 6/29/06 7:15:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
<< What I have for those people, I believe matches what Leo has, only it is
NOT the same Thomas Neville of which I posted, married to Sir Edwards sister
Elizabeth. >>
Without any sources, it's all very tentative isn't it?
Hard to speak of certainties or even possibilities without anything
whatsoever to back up your statements
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
<< What I have for those people, I believe matches what Leo has, only it is
NOT the same Thomas Neville of which I posted, married to Sir Edwards sister
Elizabeth. >>
Without any sources, it's all very tentative isn't it?
Hard to speak of certainties or even possibilities without anything
whatsoever to back up your statements
-
Gjest
Re: Batesford/brencheslee
In a message dated 6/29/06 1:16:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< I wonder if you have read every primary document for the proofs you have
for your genealogy. especially the medieval documents. We have to trust some
transcriptions unless one proves them wrong. If we read every primary
document ,latin, french, etc. I am sure most of us could not do it. Agan, how can
you say the document was wrong when you haven't read the orginial.. >>
I'm not saying its wrong. I'm saying you're making a lot of additional
assumptions that simply aren't there. I haven't read every primary document.
HOWEVER, where the secondary documents CONFLICT which these do, then do you do need
to go to the primary documents and read them.
That's the only way to resolve conflicts among secondary documents.
This is a bit of a broken record by now.
Will
charcsmith@verizon.net writes:
<< I wonder if you have read every primary document for the proofs you have
for your genealogy. especially the medieval documents. We have to trust some
transcriptions unless one proves them wrong. If we read every primary
document ,latin, french, etc. I am sure most of us could not do it. Agan, how can
you say the document was wrong when you haven't read the orginial.. >>
I'm not saying its wrong. I'm saying you're making a lot of additional
assumptions that simply aren't there. I haven't read every primary document.
HOWEVER, where the secondary documents CONFLICT which these do, then do you do need
to go to the primary documents and read them.
That's the only way to resolve conflicts among secondary documents.
This is a bit of a broken record by now.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Batesford/Brenchesle
In a message dated 6/29/06 12:11:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
<< My current thinking is that the son, Richard, was from William's first
marriage, maybe with the mother dying in childbirth, and that Joan
Batisford was almost a child bride. >>
Uh oh you're going to conflict with Charlotte who believes that Joan married
first to John Codding who was died by 1397.
Reread the passage of Cooden and Ewhurst. I think Ewhurst is supposed to
have come into Joan's hands or at least a moiety by this marriage.
Will
usenet@mcsuk.net writes:
<< My current thinking is that the son, Richard, was from William's first
marriage, maybe with the mother dying in childbirth, and that Joan
Batisford was almost a child bride. >>
Uh oh you're going to conflict with Charlotte who believes that Joan married
first to John Codding who was died by 1397.
Reread the passage of Cooden and Ewhurst. I think Ewhurst is supposed to
have come into Joan's hands or at least a moiety by this marriage.
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Batesford/brencheslee
In a message dated 6/29/06 2:10:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time, usenet@mcsuk.net
writes:
<< 2) Is William's son Richard the son of Joan or an earlier wife? >>
There is a document which states that Richard is the son of Joan.
Should be in your notes on Richard.
writes:
<< 2) Is William's son Richard the son of Joan or an earlier wife? >>
There is a document which states that Richard is the son of Joan.
Should be in your notes on Richard.
-
Gjest
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
In a message dated 6/29/06 4:56:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
<< Still looking re D1224
Another possiblity is a catalogue number for A2A.
Anyone got any thoughts on what it is? >>
If it's A2A then he has misplaced the punctuation.
There are cataloges like D1/.... or D12/...
A better way to find it, would be to search on the names within that document
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
<< Still looking re D1224
Another possiblity is a catalogue number for A2A.
Anyone got any thoughts on what it is? >>
If it's A2A then he has misplaced the punctuation.
There are cataloges like D1/.... or D12/...
A better way to find it, would be to search on the names within that document
-
Gjest
Re: Blanche Perry the Queen's lady-in-waiting
There are various bits and pieces online that give the overviews of Blanche,
but very little is said about her genealogy. She never married and lived from
abt 1507 to 1589. Although there is an effigy, she built, in Bacton, she had
her funeral at Westminster and "it is there that she is buried".
Recently, a frequent contributor to this list, sent me by snail mail, some
photostats from an article called
Alltyrnys and the Cecils, A L Rowse. English Historical Review, Jan 1960
Within this article is the following which I quote, and which can hopefully
put into perspective how this women fits into the general scheme.
"That same month old William Cecil [of Alltyrnys, not Baron Burghley] was in
London, lodging at the Swan in the Strand, whence he wrote asking Robert to
prefer the bearer to be one of the queen's guard. 'Her Majesty lately taking the
air in Islington fields noted this bearer then there being a shooting and of
her goodness said he was a feat man to attend her service. He is strong and
active and attended my very good friend Mistress Blanche Parry his aunt when he
was a youth, and if God had pleased she would have preferred him to a better
room.' [fn 2]
Footnote 2 says: "Ibid Vii. 180" referring to Footnote 1 which says
Hist MSS Comm., Salisbury MSS
"The bearer" is not identified, but William Cecil is said-to-have married
Olive Parry, so it would appear the the bearer must be William's son Matthew and
that Olive and Blanche must be sisters.
Comments appreciated.
Will Johnson
but very little is said about her genealogy. She never married and lived from
abt 1507 to 1589. Although there is an effigy, she built, in Bacton, she had
her funeral at Westminster and "it is there that she is buried".
Recently, a frequent contributor to this list, sent me by snail mail, some
photostats from an article called
Alltyrnys and the Cecils, A L Rowse. English Historical Review, Jan 1960
Within this article is the following which I quote, and which can hopefully
put into perspective how this women fits into the general scheme.
"That same month old William Cecil [of Alltyrnys, not Baron Burghley] was in
London, lodging at the Swan in the Strand, whence he wrote asking Robert to
prefer the bearer to be one of the queen's guard. 'Her Majesty lately taking the
air in Islington fields noted this bearer then there being a shooting and of
her goodness said he was a feat man to attend her service. He is strong and
active and attended my very good friend Mistress Blanche Parry his aunt when he
was a youth, and if God had pleased she would have preferred him to a better
room.' [fn 2]
Footnote 2 says: "Ibid Vii. 180" referring to Footnote 1 which says
Hist MSS Comm., Salisbury MSS
"The bearer" is not identified, but William Cecil is said-to-have married
Olive Parry, so it would appear the the bearer must be William's son Matthew and
that Olive and Blanche must be sisters.
Comments appreciated.
Will Johnson
-
John H
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
Will,
No doubt I would, but I dont have access to "Burke's landed Gentry" unless
you can advise me
where (preferably online) I can get access. I am not domiciled in England,
and local libraries arent really "in to" English genealogical history.
BTW I didn't (as I said) disagree with Leo's data at all, just no father
was shown for Robert, so didnt know his parents other than those I show.
all other data was as Leo showed.
From Leo's site reference, it suggests that this is where Burke stopped, at
Robert ...jie no parents shown on Leo's site.
I also note that in the past, people on this group have suggested to me and
others, that "Burke's landed gentry in Ireland" is not a very reliable
source, SO are the England ones any better?
When I got that Irish data from an English professional researcher, it cost
an "arm and a leg".
I find most ground in those times is fairly boggy, and will always look for
more solid ground.
If you took my statement to mean this database I have is more correct, then
it definitely was not intended as such, as I dont know who (if any are
correct), I wasnt around at the time and can't give definite first hand
knowledge to the discussion.
Therefore I (and I suggest also you and others on this group) rely on those
gone before us who researched data available to them in their era. There may
be more or less data around on a subject in 2006, which was not available to
the original presenter in their time, which would vary the result.
I find that there are many very knowledgeable people on this group with much
more knowledge than myself (L plate), I am learning to crawl, then walk ,
then run (genealogically speaking), so appreciate any help from "the
learned".
I am quite open to you or anyone else to post contradictory data to the
group, rather than just saying "prove it".
for instance, you give the impression that you have the material from
Burkes "Landed gentry", if so, then why not post it so I and others can see
it,
rather than keep it to yourself. You no doubt have access to sources of
which I have no knowledge or access at this time.
I have not at this time personally the availability of time to go through
and read every bit of paper (a full four drawer filing cabinet), looking for
where a particular piece of data came from. I would love to have time to
do that, and perhaps will do so in time.
Thus I am presenting things as shown in this database I inherited and I do
know that the people who worked on it, spent many years in record offices in
England, finding the material, and I wouldn't discount anything until proven
so by a very reliable source and hopefully a primary one.
Getting a database where a lot of sources arent written down in it, isnt
helpful I know, but I doubt that any database exists that "was purrfect in
every way", otherwise none of us would be looking for anything, it would all
be there 100% correct.
Unless I put what is in this database to the group, (apart from searching
internet & other places for the data, which I also do), I am never going to
know how accurate it maybe. I dont claim it is perfect, but I take it as
correct until disproven ( I do have a very open mind you know). When I post
data I have in this database, I dont post it as unchangeable fact, but only
what is in this database.
The other option would be for me to assume everything is false, and "start
from scratch" myself , I consider this option is "damn stupid" when others
before me have done a lot of hard work albeit it may not be 100% correct,
(what & who ever is).
As with most discussions on this group, different people (including
yourself), consider different sources more accurate than others and have
quite spirited debate about same. I note what ALL say in discussion,
discounting nothing, and then make my own judgement as to which I will use,
I may be right or wrong in any decison I make but I stick with it until
proven otherwise.
regards
John H
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:386.62f7c0e.31d58dce@aol.com...
No doubt I would, but I dont have access to "Burke's landed Gentry" unless
you can advise me
where (preferably online) I can get access. I am not domiciled in England,
and local libraries arent really "in to" English genealogical history.
BTW I didn't (as I said) disagree with Leo's data at all, just no father
was shown for Robert, so didnt know his parents other than those I show.
all other data was as Leo showed.
From Leo's site reference, it suggests that this is where Burke stopped, at
Robert ...jie no parents shown on Leo's site.
I also note that in the past, people on this group have suggested to me and
others, that "Burke's landed gentry in Ireland" is not a very reliable
source, SO are the England ones any better?
When I got that Irish data from an English professional researcher, it cost
an "arm and a leg".
I find most ground in those times is fairly boggy, and will always look for
more solid ground.
If you took my statement to mean this database I have is more correct, then
it definitely was not intended as such, as I dont know who (if any are
correct), I wasnt around at the time and can't give definite first hand
knowledge to the discussion.
Therefore I (and I suggest also you and others on this group) rely on those
gone before us who researched data available to them in their era. There may
be more or less data around on a subject in 2006, which was not available to
the original presenter in their time, which would vary the result.
I find that there are many very knowledgeable people on this group with much
more knowledge than myself (L plate), I am learning to crawl, then walk ,
then run (genealogically speaking), so appreciate any help from "the
learned".
I am quite open to you or anyone else to post contradictory data to the
group, rather than just saying "prove it".
for instance, you give the impression that you have the material from
Burkes "Landed gentry", if so, then why not post it so I and others can see
it,
rather than keep it to yourself. You no doubt have access to sources of
which I have no knowledge or access at this time.
I have not at this time personally the availability of time to go through
and read every bit of paper (a full four drawer filing cabinet), looking for
where a particular piece of data came from. I would love to have time to
do that, and perhaps will do so in time.
Thus I am presenting things as shown in this database I inherited and I do
know that the people who worked on it, spent many years in record offices in
England, finding the material, and I wouldn't discount anything until proven
so by a very reliable source and hopefully a primary one.
Getting a database where a lot of sources arent written down in it, isnt
helpful I know, but I doubt that any database exists that "was purrfect in
every way", otherwise none of us would be looking for anything, it would all
be there 100% correct.
Unless I put what is in this database to the group, (apart from searching
internet & other places for the data, which I also do), I am never going to
know how accurate it maybe. I dont claim it is perfect, but I take it as
correct until disproven ( I do have a very open mind you know). When I post
data I have in this database, I dont post it as unchangeable fact, but only
what is in this database.
The other option would be for me to assume everything is false, and "start
from scratch" myself , I consider this option is "damn stupid" when others
before me have done a lot of hard work albeit it may not be 100% correct,
(what & who ever is).
As with most discussions on this group, different people (including
yourself), consider different sources more accurate than others and have
quite spirited debate about same. I note what ALL say in discussion,
discounting nothing, and then make my own judgement as to which I will use,
I may be right or wrong in any decison I make but I stick with it until
proven otherwise.
regards
John H
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:386.62f7c0e.31d58dce@aol.com...
In a message dated 6/29/06 7:15:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
JohnH4999@hotmail.com writes:
The Anne Greville you speak of is, (according to this database) Sir
Edward
Greville's brother Robert Greville's child (wife Isabel Wyncott), this
Anne
also married a Thomas Neville and also had a son John Neville, (so the two
Thomas's appear to be mixed up).
Actually it *is* possible to check this as Leo is showing as his source
"Burke's Landed Gentry". If your database has no sources for it's
information,
then you might want to check Burke's and copy out what it says, then post
it
"with quotes" and cite it and then you'll be on slightly firmer ground.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Blanche Perry the Queen's lady-in-waiting
Will, very interesting additional bits of data on Blanch[e] Perry. Please
examine also the following which touches on another sister to Blanche, very
procatively surnamed Vaughan !!
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------
Herefordshire Record Office: Records of the Whitehouse Estate, Vowchurch
RECORDS OF THE WHITEHOUSE ESTATE, VOWCHURCH
Catalogue Ref. F37
Creator(s): Howorth family of Vowchurch, Herefordshire
Wood family of Vowchurch, Herefordshire
FILE [no title] - ref. F37/201 - date: June 1861
[from Scope and Content] Rowland Vaughan was brother of Henry Vaughan of
Moccas, whose heiress married a Cornewall and took that estate into their family.
These brothers were nephews of Blanch Parry - their mother must have been her
sister. Epiphan Howorth must have married a Blanch Parry, perhaps the daughter
of John Parry of Poston. Rowland Vaughan's daughter after his decease resold
the Whitehouse to Epiphan Howorth and Blanch his wife.
examine also the following which touches on another sister to Blanche, very
procatively surnamed Vaughan !!
Will Johnson
-----------------------------------
Herefordshire Record Office: Records of the Whitehouse Estate, Vowchurch
RECORDS OF THE WHITEHOUSE ESTATE, VOWCHURCH
Catalogue Ref. F37
Creator(s): Howorth family of Vowchurch, Herefordshire
Wood family of Vowchurch, Herefordshire
FILE [no title] - ref. F37/201 - date: June 1861
[from Scope and Content] Rowland Vaughan was brother of Henry Vaughan of
Moccas, whose heiress married a Cornewall and took that estate into their family.
These brothers were nephews of Blanch Parry - their mother must have been her
sister. Epiphan Howorth must have married a Blanch Parry, perhaps the daughter
of John Parry of Poston. Rowland Vaughan's daughter after his decease resold
the Whitehouse to Epiphan Howorth and Blanch his wife.
-
Gjest
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
No what I was pointing out is some "a" source, even flawed, is certainly a
step in the right direction versus "no" source.
Certainly Burke's is flawed as are all sources, and maybe more than the top
ten, lets say, but its better than "my brother-in-law said so" as a source.
Don't you agree
As for what libraries carry it, I don't know if its online, you can "google
books" for it to see, but Burke's Landed Gentry is a very well-represented
volume in the US. They even have a copy in my tiny Santa Cruz library which is
only servicing a city of 70K or so. Just as an example.
Will Johnson
step in the right direction versus "no" source.
Certainly Burke's is flawed as are all sources, and maybe more than the top
ten, lets say, but its better than "my brother-in-law said so" as a source.
Don't you agree
As for what libraries carry it, I don't know if its online, you can "google
books" for it to see, but Burke's Landed Gentry is a very well-represented
volume in the US. They even have a copy in my tiny Santa Cruz library which is
only servicing a city of 70K or so. Just as an example.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Blanche Perry the Queen's lady-in-waiting
Will thank you for bringing to my attention these notes on the genealogy of
Blance Parry/Perry. Just to confirm what you've found so far please note this
cite
http://yba.llgc.org.uk/AnaServer?ybawbo ... l=e&show=1
Which confirms and adds to what you've stated, and connects this parry family
to the Stradlings of St Donats Castle !
So your Blanch has a whole slew of new ancestors, via this link.
Will Johnson
Blance Parry/Perry. Just to confirm what you've found so far please note this
cite
http://yba.llgc.org.uk/AnaServer?ybawbo ... l=e&show=1
Which confirms and adds to what you've stated, and connects this parry family
to the Stradlings of St Donats Castle !
So your Blanch has a whole slew of new ancestors, via this link.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Blanche Perry the Queen's lady-in-waiting
In a message dated 6/29/06 7:21:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
<< http://yba.llgc.org.uk/AnaServer?ybawbo ... l=e&show=1
Just to clarify, although this site mentions that William Cecil of Alltyrynys
married Olive Parry, it positions her at a distance from Blanche, where the
letter, writen by William Cecil himself, calls Blanche the "Aunt" which is not
a distant relation at all.
So that seems a correction to this article which is based in part on a book
from 1935 as stated.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< http://yba.llgc.org.uk/AnaServer?ybawbo ... l=e&show=1
Just to clarify, although this site mentions that William Cecil of Alltyrynys
married Olive Parry, it positions her at a distance from Blanche, where the
letter, writen by William Cecil himself, calls Blanche the "Aunt" which is not
a distant relation at all.
So that seems a correction to this article which is based in part on a book
from 1935 as stated.
Will Johnson
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
In message of 30 Jun, "John H" <JohnH4999@hotmail.com> wrote:
Nigel Batty-Smith advertises four out-of-copyright versions on CDROM at:
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/shop/peerage.html
Burke, of course, himself gives no information as to his sources but
usually he got his material from the families concerned, some (most,
even) of whom had to pay to have their entry included. So the quality
is a bit variable. And some families might be in one edition and not in
another and with changed information in a third.
Stirnet say that they got most of their information from Burkes various
volumes so they can be used as an on-line guide to what is in Burke:
http://www.stirnet.com/
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
I dont have access to "Burke's landed Gentry" unless you can advise me
where (preferably online) I can get access.
Nigel Batty-Smith advertises four out-of-copyright versions on CDROM at:
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/shop/peerage.html
Burke, of course, himself gives no information as to his sources but
usually he got his material from the families concerned, some (most,
even) of whom had to pay to have their entry included. So the quality
is a bit variable. And some families might be in one edition and not in
another and with changed information in a third.
Stirnet say that they got most of their information from Burkes various
volumes so they can be used as an on-line guide to what is in Burke:
http://www.stirnet.com/
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Bob Turcott
Re: Livingston Research
my great great great grandparents are James Livingston and his wife
Prudential (last name not given), however I was looking at the names of
children of the PARISHES OF KILNINVER & KIMELFORT, 1759-1852. And noted the
names Neil, Duncan, Sara, Elizabeth,& Alexander, These same first names are
also noted in my family as well see below, this makes me suspicious although
its only a hunch to make me suspect and only suspect my family could be
descending from Clan Livingstone, It seems like a dead ringer and it sticks
out like a sore thumb to me!!!
a quick note: Great Great grandparents Charles Zimmer & Sara Livingston were
married aug. 30 1889 in accordance to boston marriage register, but Sara's
parents James Livingston & Prudential were married and born in scotland
With all this said I will do some research and let you know more when I have
concrete links.
In accordance to the 1900 boston census page 67a lines 3 and 4 show James
Livingston (Saras father) and his wife Prudential (last name not given)
anyway
line 3 says James Livingston head of household, born march 1843, age at last
birthday 57,number of years married 29, his place of birth Scotland, his
parents place of birth scotland,year immigrated 1871, years in us 29
Line 4 Prudentail (his wife, Saras mother), born jan 1855, age at last
birthday 45, number of years married 29, her place of birth scotland and her
parents scotland, year immigrated to us 1872 , years in us 28, she had 14
children 9 living at time of census.
They could have been married in scotland! But census records need to be
compared to church records.
The children of James livingston & his wife Prudential are listed, all
children are listed as born in MASS except Elisabeth she was listed as being
born in new jersey for some reason.
Elizabeth born dec 1876, age 23
Katherine born july 1879, age 20
John w. born marh 1881, age 19
Duncan born march 1885, age 15
Prudential born may 1888, age 12
Neil born Dec 1890, age 9
Alexander born Aug 1892, age 7
Sara (my great great grandmother) married born april 1872, age 27
This will shed some light for sure!!!
Bob
From: "JohnR" <cjrees@gmail.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Livingston Research
Date: 30 Jun 2006 05:43:13 -0700
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
Prudential (last name not given), however I was looking at the names of
children of the PARISHES OF KILNINVER & KIMELFORT, 1759-1852. And noted the
names Neil, Duncan, Sara, Elizabeth,& Alexander, These same first names are
also noted in my family as well see below, this makes me suspicious although
its only a hunch to make me suspect and only suspect my family could be
descending from Clan Livingstone, It seems like a dead ringer and it sticks
out like a sore thumb to me!!!
a quick note: Great Great grandparents Charles Zimmer & Sara Livingston were
married aug. 30 1889 in accordance to boston marriage register, but Sara's
parents James Livingston & Prudential were married and born in scotland
With all this said I will do some research and let you know more when I have
concrete links.
In accordance to the 1900 boston census page 67a lines 3 and 4 show James
Livingston (Saras father) and his wife Prudential (last name not given)
anyway
line 3 says James Livingston head of household, born march 1843, age at last
birthday 57,number of years married 29, his place of birth Scotland, his
parents place of birth scotland,year immigrated 1871, years in us 29
Line 4 Prudentail (his wife, Saras mother), born jan 1855, age at last
birthday 45, number of years married 29, her place of birth scotland and her
parents scotland, year immigrated to us 1872 , years in us 28, she had 14
children 9 living at time of census.
They could have been married in scotland! But census records need to be
compared to church records.
The children of James livingston & his wife Prudential are listed, all
children are listed as born in MASS except Elisabeth she was listed as being
born in new jersey for some reason.
Elizabeth born dec 1876, age 23
Katherine born july 1879, age 20
John w. born marh 1881, age 19
Duncan born march 1885, age 15
Prudential born may 1888, age 12
Neil born Dec 1890, age 9
Alexander born Aug 1892, age 7
Sara (my great great grandmother) married born april 1872, age 27
This will shed some light for sure!!!
Bob
From: "JohnR" <cjrees@gmail.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Livingston Research
Date: 30 Jun 2006 05:43:13 -0700
The Livingstons of New York have been well researched, a quick Google
will show you their ancestors via Livingston of Callendar. Is yours
another line?
Maybe, the research has just begun!!! see above..
John
"Bob Turcott" wrote:
To all:
I am researching a new ancestral line with a family surname of
Livingston,
before I write to Scoland
authorities begging for acts. Is there someone in this forum that has
some
knowledge specifically with Scotland roots or has direct knowledge of
Livingston family lines?
I understand That the Livingston surname is of 2 known origins,
Highland
Livingston & Lowland Livingston and there is ample data spread all over
the
internet, however I am looking for a good resource if one exist on this
forum on Livinsgton families or could anyone direct me to the
appropriate
authorities to write for marriage/notorial acts in scotland.
Bob
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
-
John H
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
Thanks for that info Tim
John H
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:6101f83e4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
John H
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:6101f83e4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 30 Jun, "John H" <JohnH4999@hotmail.com> wrote:
I dont have access to "Burke's landed Gentry" unless you can advise me
where (preferably online) I can get access.
Nigel Batty-Smith advertises four out-of-copyright versions on CDROM at:
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/shop/peerage.html
Burke, of course, himself gives no information as to his sources but
usually he got his material from the families concerned, some (most,
even) of whom had to pay to have their entry included. So the quality
is a bit variable. And some families might be in one edition and not in
another and with changed information in a third.
Stirnet say that they got most of their information from Burkes various
volumes so they can be used as an on-line guide to what is in Burke:
http://www.stirnet.com/
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Bob Turcott
Re: Livingston Research
I have also contacted Niall Livingstone of Bachuil today, it will be
interesting to see what he has to say about this.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
interesting to see what he has to say about this.
From: "Bob Turcott" <bobturcott@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Livingston Research
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:32:54 +0000
my great great great grandparents are James Livingston and his wife
Prudential (last name not given), however I was looking at the names of
children of the PARISHES OF KILNINVER & KIMELFORT, 1759-1852. And noted the
names Neil, Duncan, Sara, Elizabeth,& Alexander, These same first names are
also noted in my family as well see below, this makes me suspicious
although its only a hunch to make me suspect and only suspect my family
could be descending from Clan Livingstone, It seems like a dead ringer and
it sticks out like a sore thumb to me!!!
a quick note: Great Great grandparents Charles Zimmer & Sara Livingston
were married aug. 30 1889 in accordance to boston marriage register, but
Sara's parents James Livingston & Prudential were married and born in
scotland
With all this said I will do some research and let you know more when I
have concrete links.
In accordance to the 1900 boston census page 67a lines 3 and 4 show James
Livingston (Saras father) and his wife Prudential (last name not given)
anyway
line 3 says James Livingston head of household, born march 1843, age at
last birthday 57,number of years married 29, his place of birth Scotland,
his parents place of birth scotland,year immigrated 1871, years in us 29
Line 4 Prudentail (his wife, Saras mother), born jan 1855, age at last
birthday 45, number of years married 29, her place of birth scotland and
her parents scotland, year immigrated to us 1872 , years in us 28, she had
14 children 9 living at time of census.
They could have been married in scotland! But census records need to be
compared to church records.
The children of James livingston & his wife Prudential are listed, all
children are listed as born in MASS except Elisabeth she was listed as
being born in new jersey for some reason.
Elizabeth born dec 1876, age 23
Katherine born july 1879, age 20
John w. born marh 1881, age 19
Duncan born march 1885, age 15
Prudential born may 1888, age 12
Neil born Dec 1890, age 9
Alexander born Aug 1892, age 7
Sara (my great great grandmother) married born april 1872, age 27
This will shed some light for sure!!!
Bob
From: "JohnR" <cjrees@gmail.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Livingston Research
Date: 30 Jun 2006 05:43:13 -0700
The Livingstons of New York have been well researched, a quick Google
will show you their ancestors via Livingston of Callendar. Is yours
another line?
Maybe, the research has just begun!!! see above..
John
"Bob Turcott" wrote:
To all:
I am researching a new ancestral line with a family surname of
Livingston,
before I write to Scoland
authorities begging for acts. Is there someone in this forum that has
some
knowledge specifically with Scotland roots or has direct knowledge of
Livingston family lines?
I understand That the Livingston surname is of 2 known origins,
Highland
Livingston & Lowland Livingston and there is ample data spread all over
the
internet, however I am looking for a good resource if one exist on this
forum on Livinsgton families or could anyone direct me to the
appropriate
authorities to write for marriage/notorial acts in scotland.
Bob
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
Dear John ~
The number, D1224, reminds me of catalogue numbers typically used by
the Gloucestershire Record Office. If so, I don't think that an
abstract of this particular document is available yet in the A2A
Catalogue.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
John H wrote:
The number, D1224, reminds me of catalogue numbers typically used by
the Gloucestershire Record Office. If so, I don't think that an
abstract of this particular document is available yet in the A2A
Catalogue.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
John H wrote:
Still looking re D1224
Another possiblity is a catalogue number for A2A.
Anyone got any thoughts on what it is?
regards
John H
"John H" <JohnH4999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44a2a8f6_2@news.chariot.net.au...
Thanks for the reply Douglas,
I have looked at the notes under Sir Edward that show the D1224 etc and I
(having inherited this databse as previously stated) get the
impressionthat the d1224 followed by opther numbers appears to be a
mortgage number for the vasrious transactions that Anne and son John were
guarantors.
Now where it came from I dont know, but further down there is the
following (U269 T246/2), which appears to refer to a document from A2A
A search on A2A using Edward Greville brought up many similar references.
I will attempt to locate where Brother in Law got this D1224 from and if I
locate source I will advise through group.
re Elizabeth Tame, nothing showing an Elizabeth Tame or an Elizabeth
married to a Edmund Tame, but the B in Law didnt diverge passed the direct
line much.
DR said:
I believe the younger Sir Edmund Tame was married to Katherine Dennis.
The younger Sir Edmund Tame appears to have had no issue. His heir was
his sister, Margaret Tame, who married in 1528 Sir Humphrey Stafford.
Data in this database seems to agree with statement above , although it
only shows a Katherine without a surname, rest matches, including dying
out of male Tame line after the Edward who died in c1544..
re Elizabeth Greville, sister mentioned in Sir Edwards Will of 1528/9, for
what its worth, this database shows Elizabeth born ?? died c 1545 married
to Thomas Neville with son John Neville. No sources or other notes except
that he states "Elizabeth inherited the Manor of Tetbury".
Other siblings of Elizabeth shown are
Ann Greville married to Thomas Denton (Brother of Anne Denton)
[Denton children's father shown as John Robert Thomas Denton who Lived
Armesden, Buckinghamshire, Eng. with wife Isabell Browne]
Agnes Greville married to Edmund Tame
Sir Edward Greville married to Anne Denton (sister of Thomas Denton, also
shows an Isabel Denton married to unknown Greville)
Robert Greville married to Isabel Wyncott
Boy you guys are getting me to look in areas I havent ever looked before
and I see a lot of work needed to get missing sources etc .
regards
John H
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1151424854.069001.207370@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear John ~
I believe there were two Sir Edmund Tames in succession, they being
father and son. I believe the elder Sir Edmund Tame, of Fairford,
Gloucestershire, died in 1534, as per his brass. He was married twice.
He appears to have been survived by a wife named Elizabeth, as
indicated by the Chancery Proceeding item below dated 1544-1551:
C 1/1128/50-51: Thomas, John and Edward, sons of Anthony HUNGREFORD,
knight, and others, v. Thomas BRUDENELL, knight, executor of Elizabeth,
late the wife of Edmund Tame, knight.: Legacies of sheep.: GLOUCESTER.
Date: 1544-1551 [Source: National Archives catalogue,
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp).
I believe the younger Sir Edmund Tame was married to Katherine Dennis.
The younger Sir Edmund Tame appears to have had no issue. His heir was
his sister, Margaret Tame, who married in 1528 Sir Humphrey Stafford.
I note that Sir Edward Greville's will dated 1528 mentions his sister,
Elizabeth, and his brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame. It is tempting to
think that Sir Edward Greville's sister was Elizabeth, wife of Sir
Edmund Tame, named in the Chancery record above. By any chance, do you
have any particulars on Elizabeth, wife of Sir Edmund Tame?
One other question for John: In your posts, you have twice referred to
a source for Sir Edward Greville and his first wife, Anne Denton, which
you have identified only as D1224. What is this source?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Bob Turcott
Re: Livingston Research
To all:
Niall Livingstone of Bachuil said,
I think this will be of great interest and there is little doubt you are one
of us.
Of cousre I have a lot of research to confirm this before accepting it. Over
the
next few weeks the clan and non clan Livingston in scotland agreed to give
me a helping
hand. I am also looking thru some records as well.
Bob
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
Niall Livingstone of Bachuil said,
I think this will be of great interest and there is little doubt you are one
of us.
Of cousre I have a lot of research to confirm this before accepting it. Over
the
next few weeks the clan and non clan Livingston in scotland agreed to give
me a helping
hand. I am also looking thru some records as well.
Bob
From: "Bob Turcott" <bobturcott@msn.com
To: bobturcott@msn.com, GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Livingston Research
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:52:08 +0000
I have also contacted Niall Livingstone of Bachuil today, it will be
interesting to see what he has to say about this.
From: "Bob Turcott" <bobturcott@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Livingston Research
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:32:54 +0000
my great great great grandparents are James Livingston and his wife
Prudential (last name not given), however I was looking at the names of
children of the PARISHES OF KILNINVER & KIMELFORT, 1759-1852. And noted
the names Neil, Duncan, Sara, Elizabeth,& Alexander, These same first
names are also noted in my family as well see below, this makes me
suspicious although its only a hunch to make me suspect and only suspect
my family could be descending from Clan Livingstone, It seems like a dead
ringer and it sticks out like a sore thumb to me!!!
a quick note: Great Great grandparents Charles Zimmer & Sara Livingston
were married aug. 30 1889 in accordance to boston marriage register, but
Sara's parents James Livingston & Prudential were married and born in
scotland
With all this said I will do some research and let you know more when I
have concrete links.
In accordance to the 1900 boston census page 67a lines 3 and 4 show James
Livingston (Saras father) and his wife Prudential (last name not given)
anyway
line 3 says James Livingston head of household, born march 1843, age at
last birthday 57,number of years married 29, his place of birth Scotland,
his parents place of birth scotland,year immigrated 1871, years in us 29
Line 4 Prudentail (his wife, Saras mother), born jan 1855, age at last
birthday 45, number of years married 29, her place of birth scotland and
her parents scotland, year immigrated to us 1872 , years in us 28, she had
14 children 9 living at time of census.
They could have been married in scotland! But census records need to be
compared to church records.
The children of James livingston & his wife Prudential are listed, all
children are listed as born in MASS except Elisabeth she was listed as
being born in new jersey for some reason.
Elizabeth born dec 1876, age 23
Katherine born july 1879, age 20
John w. born marh 1881, age 19
Duncan born march 1885, age 15
Prudential born may 1888, age 12
Neil born Dec 1890, age 9
Alexander born Aug 1892, age 7
Sara (my great great grandmother) married born april 1872, age 27
This will shed some light for sure!!!
Bob
From: "JohnR" <cjrees@gmail.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Livingston Research
Date: 30 Jun 2006 05:43:13 -0700
The Livingstons of New York have been well researched, a quick Google
will show you their ancestors via Livingston of Callendar. Is yours
another line?
Maybe, the research has just begun!!! see above..
John
"Bob Turcott" wrote:
To all:
I am researching a new ancestral line with a family surname of
Livingston,
before I write to Scoland
authorities begging for acts. Is there someone in this forum that has
some
knowledge specifically with Scotland roots or has direct knowledge of
Livingston family lines?
I understand That the Livingston surname is of 2 known origins,
Highland
Livingston & Lowland Livingston and there is ample data spread all
over the
internet, however I am looking for a good resource if one exist on
this
forum on Livinsgton families or could anyone direct me to the
appropriate
authorities to write for marriage/notorial acts in scotland.
Bob
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's
FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/o ... direct/01/
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
-
Gjest
Re: Clinching proof for the Bromfield line
Dear John B and Others,
Is it known how Edward Bromfield was
related to Thomas Dummer of South Stoneham, Hants and was the said Dummer the
same as He who married Susanna Neve and had several children including Margaret
Dummer, wife of Job Clements of Haverhill, Massachusetts ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Is it known how Edward Bromfield was
related to Thomas Dummer of South Stoneham, Hants and was the said Dummer the
same as He who married Susanna Neve and had several children including Margaret
Dummer, wife of Job Clements of Haverhill, Massachusetts ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
John Brandon
Re: Clinching proof for the Bromfield line
I believe it was Samuel Sewall, not Bromfield, who was kin to the
Dummers. It is spelled out in the Sewall diary, which I don't have
handy at the moment. He speaks frequently of "cousin Dummer," etc.
Dummers. It is spelled out in the Sewall diary, which I don't have
handy at the moment. He speaks frequently of "cousin Dummer," etc.
-
Gjest
Re: Clinching proof for the Bromfield line
Dear John B,
Samuel Sewall not Edward Bromfield cousin to Thomas
Dummer. Thanks.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Samuel Sewall not Edward Bromfield cousin to Thomas
Dummer. Thanks.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
John H
Re: Edward Greville's brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame
Thanks Douglas,
It may just be a good possibilty as he and an English relly spendt asome
considerable time in GLS record office getting information in the 1990's
regards
John H
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1151683042.028616.186350@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It may just be a good possibilty as he and an English relly spendt asome
considerable time in GLS record office getting information in the 1990's
regards
John H
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1151683042.028616.186350@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear John ~
The number, D1224, reminds me of catalogue numbers typically used by
the Gloucestershire Record Office. If so, I don't think that an
abstract of this particular document is available yet in the A2A
Catalogue.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
John H wrote:
Still looking re D1224
Another possiblity is a catalogue number for A2A.
Anyone got any thoughts on what it is?
regards
John H
"John H" <JohnH4999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44a2a8f6_2@news.chariot.net.au...
Thanks for the reply Douglas,
I have looked at the notes under Sir Edward that show the D1224 etc and
I
(having inherited this databse as previously stated) get the
impressionthat the d1224 followed by opther numbers appears to be a
mortgage number for the vasrious transactions that Anne and son John
were
guarantors.
Now where it came from I dont know, but further down there is the
following (U269 T246/2), which appears to refer to a document from A2A
A search on A2A using Edward Greville brought up many similar
references.
I will attempt to locate where Brother in Law got this D1224 from and
if I
locate source I will advise through group.
re Elizabeth Tame, nothing showing an Elizabeth Tame or an Elizabeth
married to a Edmund Tame, but the B in Law didnt diverge passed the
direct
line much.
DR said:
I believe the younger Sir Edmund Tame was married to Katherine Dennis.
The younger Sir Edmund Tame appears to have had no issue. His heir
was
his sister, Margaret Tame, who married in 1528 Sir Humphrey Stafford.
Data in this database seems to agree with statement above , although it
only shows a Katherine without a surname, rest matches, including dying
out of male Tame line after the Edward who died in c1544..
re Elizabeth Greville, sister mentioned in Sir Edwards Will of 1528/9,
for
what its worth, this database shows Elizabeth born ?? died c 1545
married
to Thomas Neville with son John Neville. No sources or other notes
except
that he states "Elizabeth inherited the Manor of Tetbury".
Other siblings of Elizabeth shown are
Ann Greville married to Thomas Denton (Brother of Anne Denton)
[Denton children's father shown as John Robert Thomas Denton who Lived
Armesden, Buckinghamshire, Eng. with wife Isabell Browne]
Agnes Greville married to Edmund Tame
Sir Edward Greville married to Anne Denton (sister of Thomas Denton,
also
shows an Isabel Denton married to unknown Greville)
Robert Greville married to Isabel Wyncott
Boy you guys are getting me to look in areas I havent ever looked
before
and I see a lot of work needed to get missing sources etc .
regards
John H
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1151424854.069001.207370@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear John ~
I believe there were two Sir Edmund Tames in succession, they being
father and son. I believe the elder Sir Edmund Tame, of Fairford,
Gloucestershire, died in 1534, as per his brass. He was married
twice.
He appears to have been survived by a wife named Elizabeth, as
indicated by the Chancery Proceeding item below dated 1544-1551:
C 1/1128/50-51: Thomas, John and Edward, sons of Anthony HUNGREFORD,
knight, and others, v. Thomas BRUDENELL, knight, executor of
Elizabeth,
late the wife of Edmund Tame, knight.: Legacies of sheep.: GLOUCESTER.
Date: 1544-1551 [Source: National Archives catalogue,
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp).
I believe the younger Sir Edmund Tame was married to Katherine Dennis.
The younger Sir Edmund Tame appears to have had no issue. His heir
was
his sister, Margaret Tame, who married in 1528 Sir Humphrey Stafford.
I note that Sir Edward Greville's will dated 1528 mentions his sister,
Elizabeth, and his brother-in-law, Sir Edmund Tame. It is tempting to
think that Sir Edward Greville's sister was Elizabeth, wife of Sir
Edmund Tame, named in the Chancery record above. By any chance, do
you
have any particulars on Elizabeth, wife of Sir Edmund Tame?
One other question for John: In your posts, you have twice referred
to
a source for Sir Edward Greville and his first wife, Anne Denton,
which
you have identified only as D1224. What is this source?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Gjest
Re: The Zouches and the manor of Weston Ing
Dear Douglas,
Thank You.for the biographical details on Sir Thomas la
Zouche, kt. of Westoning, Bedford.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Thank You.for the biographical details on Sir Thomas la
Zouche, kt. of Westoning, Bedford.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Patricia Junkin
Re: The Zouches and the manor of Weston Ing
James and Douglas,
There are also these references:
C 143/377/3
William la Zouche of Harringworth, knight, to settle the manor of Westoning
on himself, Elizabeth his wife, Thomas their son, and the heirs of the said
William. Bedford.
46 EDWARD III. [1373]
C 143/333/10
William la Zouche of Harringworth to settle the manor of Barby (N'hamp.) on
himself for life, with remainder to Thomas his son and the heirs of his
body, remainder to Eudo also his son and the heirs of his body, remainder to
his own right heirs, retaining the manors of Eaton and Houghton (Bedford)
and Calstone (Wilts.), the castle of Totnes (Devon), and the manors of
Harringworth (N'hamp.), Weston in Arden, Wolvershill, and Foleshill
(Warwick), andKilpesham (Rutland). N'hamp. Bedford. Wilts. Devon. Warwick.
Rutland. 33 EDWARD III. [1360]
Pat
----------
There are also these references:
C 143/377/3
William la Zouche of Harringworth, knight, to settle the manor of Westoning
on himself, Elizabeth his wife, Thomas their son, and the heirs of the said
William. Bedford.
46 EDWARD III. [1373]
C 143/333/10
William la Zouche of Harringworth to settle the manor of Barby (N'hamp.) on
himself for life, with remainder to Thomas his son and the heirs of his
body, remainder to Eudo also his son and the heirs of his body, remainder to
his own right heirs, retaining the manors of Eaton and Houghton (Bedford)
and Calstone (Wilts.), the castle of Totnes (Devon), and the manors of
Harringworth (N'hamp.), Weston in Arden, Wolvershill, and Foleshill
(Warwick), andKilpesham (Rutland). N'hamp. Bedford. Wilts. Devon. Warwick.
Rutland. 33 EDWARD III. [1360]
Pat
----------
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The Zouches and the manor of Weston Ing
Date: Mon, 3, 2006, 2:53 PM
Dear James ~
The Sir Thomas la Zouche (died 1404), of Westoning, Bedfordshire, about
whom you enquired was a younger son of Sir William la Zouche, Knt.
(died 1382), 2nd Lord Zouche of Harringworth, by his wife, Elizabeth,
daughter of William de Roos, 2nd Lord Roos of Helmsley. He was a
Knight of the Shire for Bedfordshire in 1390. I've posted fiurther
particulars regarding Sir Thomas la Zouche below.
l. THOMAS LA ZOUCHE, Knt., of Westoning, Bedfordshire, Ellesborough,
Middle Claydon, and Ham, Buckinghamshire, King's Worthy, Hampshire,
Ing's (in Wheathampstead), Hertfordshire, Ightham and Eynsford, Kent,
Barby, Northamptonshire, and Alvenely, Suffolk, Knight of the Shire for
Bedfordshire, 1390, commissioner of array, 1403, younger son. He
married MARY ENGAINE, widow of William Bernack, Knt. (died 1386), and
younger daughter of John Engaine, Lord Engaine, of Colne-Engaine, by
Joan, daughter of Robert Peverel, Knt. She was born about 1343. She
was co-heiress in 1367 to her brother, Thomas Engaine, Knt., by which
she inherited the manors of Sandy, Bedfordshire, Dillington,
Huntingdonshire, Hallaton, Leicestershire, and Pytchley,
Northamptonshire. They had no issue. In 1392 he was forced to find
security that neither he nor his servants would harm certain residents
of Totternhoe, Bedfordshire. His wife, Mary, died 14 May 1401. SIR
THOMAS LA ZOUCHE died 30 October 1404.
References:
VCH Hampshire 4 (1911): 431. VCH Buckingham 2 (1908): 332; 4 (1927):
112. VCH Hertford 2 (1908): 307, 367. C.F.R. 12 (1931): 298.
Bedfordshire Hist. Rec. Soc. 25 (1947): 98-99 (biog. of Sir Thomas la
Zouche). VCH Essex 10 (2001): 107-110.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Fellow Listers,
According to the Calendar of Patent
Rolls
(University of Iowa) for Richard II volume 5 p 2 ( December 2nd ,
1391 at
Westminister) License for 10 I paid to the King by William la Zouche
of Harynworth
for John, Bishop of Lincoln, to grant the reversion of the manor of
Weston Ing,
co. Bedford, held in chief, which Thomas la Zouche holds for life, to
the said
William and Agnes his wife for their lives with successive remainders
for
life to John, Edmund and Thomas and final remainder to his right
heirs.
Apparently the elder Thomas was perhaps William the (3rd Lord) la
Zouche`s uncle or perhaps brother (son of Eon la Zouche and Joan
Inge or William La
Zouche, 2nd Lord and Elizabeth de Roos respectively)
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA
-
Gjest
Re: Is this the correct ancestry of the Cecil/Burleighs?
In a message dated 7/3/06 1:56:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<<
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/ ... /p190.html >>
This is the ancestry I have in my files
Will
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<<
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/ ... /p190.html >>
This is the ancestry I have in my files
Will
-
John Higgins
Re: Is this the correct ancestry of the Cecil/Burleighs?
FWIW [not necessarily much], the Cecil ancestry in the visitation pedigree
(up to the Winston marriage) matches what's shown in Burke's Peerage (sub
Exeter), although Burke's gives more detail on the spouses of the early
Cecils.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Is this the correct ancestry of the Cecil/Burleighs?
(up to the Winston marriage) matches what's shown in Burke's Peerage (sub
Exeter), although Burke's gives more detail on the spouses of the early
Cecils.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Is this the correct ancestry of the Cecil/Burleighs?
In a message dated 7/3/06 1:56:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/ ... /p190.html
This is the ancestry I have in my files
Will
-
Gjest
Re: The Zouches and the manor of Weston Ing
Dear Pat,
Thank You .
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Thank You .
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Family of William Cecil, Sheriff of Herefordshire 1582,
In a message dated 7/4/06 4:27:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< I presume this "Henry Parry" is to be identified with Henry Myles of
Newcourt, husband of Alice Milborne (one of the 13 Milborne heiresses).
Is it possible that he was Henry ap Miles, and his daughters' Parry
surname was some kind of equivalent to "ap Harry" (except of course
that they should be 'verch' rather than 'ap', being females)?
Blanche Parry's Milborne ancestry is therefore well documented, and
extends to the Dukes of Normandy. >>
Would you mind sharing a bit on Alice Milborne's ancestry? With a little
more info perhaps I can make the connection to show that Henry ap Miles if the
same person as Henry Parry of Newcourt.
Thanks
Will Johnson
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:
<< I presume this "Henry Parry" is to be identified with Henry Myles of
Newcourt, husband of Alice Milborne (one of the 13 Milborne heiresses).
Is it possible that he was Henry ap Miles, and his daughters' Parry
surname was some kind of equivalent to "ap Harry" (except of course
that they should be 'verch' rather than 'ap', being females)?
Blanche Parry's Milborne ancestry is therefore well documented, and
extends to the Dukes of Normandy. >>
Would you mind sharing a bit on Alice Milborne's ancestry? With a little
more info perhaps I can make the connection to show that Henry ap Miles if the
same person as Henry Parry of Newcourt.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
John
Re: Tempest and Hudleston
As a footnote to this thread: I noted that the Cal. Papal Registers
recorded a papal indult to Sir John Tempest and his wife, Isabel, 3
June 1344 and that it might be useful to check the original of the
register to verify the wife's name, given the controversy about John's
wife. Doug Hickling and I have now done so, or at least we have
consulted an image of the original. It turns out that the Vatican
Secret Archives has produced a series of CDs with images of the
registers, see:
http://asv.vatican.va/en/stud/cd_dvd_inform.html
There are over 500 of these CDs, covering John VIII (872-882) to Paul
II (1464-1471) each available for sale at 120 euros. At least some of
these CDs are held by university libraries in the US, including Notre
Dame and the University of California-Berkeley. They are also held by
the British Library. The title, for purposes of looking them up in
library catalogues is Archivum Secretum Vaticanum, Reg. Vat. The entry
for John Tempest and his wife is on Reg. Vat. 166 (CD number 166) for 3
Clement VI. It is found at f. 347v and is number clxv. It does
clearly identify Isabel as John's wife. We appreciate the assistance
of Chris Phillips in interpreting the entry.
The article on the Tempest wives by Doug Hickling and me may be found
on Chris's website at:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fam ... ndex.shtml
John Schuerman
recorded a papal indult to Sir John Tempest and his wife, Isabel, 3
June 1344 and that it might be useful to check the original of the
register to verify the wife's name, given the controversy about John's
wife. Doug Hickling and I have now done so, or at least we have
consulted an image of the original. It turns out that the Vatican
Secret Archives has produced a series of CDs with images of the
registers, see:
http://asv.vatican.va/en/stud/cd_dvd_inform.html
There are over 500 of these CDs, covering John VIII (872-882) to Paul
II (1464-1471) each available for sale at 120 euros. At least some of
these CDs are held by university libraries in the US, including Notre
Dame and the University of California-Berkeley. They are also held by
the British Library. The title, for purposes of looking them up in
library catalogues is Archivum Secretum Vaticanum, Reg. Vat. The entry
for John Tempest and his wife is on Reg. Vat. 166 (CD number 166) for 3
Clement VI. It is found at f. 347v and is number clxv. It does
clearly identify Isabel as John's wife. We appreciate the assistance
of Chris Phillips in interpreting the entry.
The article on the Tempest wives by Doug Hickling and me may be found
on Chris's website at:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fam ... ndex.shtml
John Schuerman
-
W David Samuelsen
Re: Judit (or Juta?) von Ohningen
<http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-07/1152007513>
common mistake - it is Oeningen, not Ohingen. This mistake is being
replicated enmasse.
Dagsburg and Metz are near each other.
David Samuelsen
common mistake - it is Oeningen, not Ohingen. This mistake is being
replicated enmasse.
Dagsburg and Metz are near each other.
David Samuelsen
-
Sutliff
Re: Constance Huntley of Boxwell, Glos.
No, Constance Ferrers is daughter of Edward Ferrers and his wife Elizabeth
Grey of Wood Bevington, Warw. Edward Ferrers was a younger son of Sir Edward
Ferrers d. 1535 and his wife Constance Brome.
HS
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:547.1e9f6d1.31dc6a27@aol.com...
Grey of Wood Bevington, Warw. Edward Ferrers was a younger son of Sir Edward
Ferrers d. 1535 and his wife Constance Brome.
HS
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:547.1e9f6d1.31dc6a27@aol.com...
In a message dated 7/4/06 1:26:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
suthen@redshift.com writes:
Constance Huntley, bapt. 13 Jan 1583 of Boxwell, Glos., daughter of
George
Huntley of Boxwell and Constance Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton, Warw. was
married three times:
Is this Constance Ferrers a dau of Edward Ferrers by his wife Bridget
Windsor?
-
Gjest
Re: Constance Huntley of Boxwell, Glos.
In a message dated 7/4/06 1:26:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
suthen@redshift.com writes:
<< Constance Huntley, bapt. 13 Jan 1583 of Boxwell, Glos., daughter of George
Huntley of Boxwell and Constance Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton, Warw. was
married three times: >>
Is this Constance Ferrers a dau of Edward Ferrers by his wife Bridget Windsor?
suthen@redshift.com writes:
<< Constance Huntley, bapt. 13 Jan 1583 of Boxwell, Glos., daughter of George
Huntley of Boxwell and Constance Ferrers of Baddesley Clinton, Warw. was
married three times: >>
Is this Constance Ferrers a dau of Edward Ferrers by his wife Bridget Windsor?
-
Gjest
Re: Judit (or Juta?) von Ohningen
Not important but just for the records ....
The actual name is Öhningen. This, if the 'umlaut' is not supported
can be spelled Oehningen wich is correct even in Germany. As you can
see, the official site of Öhningen is: http://www.oehningen.de/
Some people, not knowing that the 'umlaut' may replaced with an 'e',
omit it and write Ohningen.
You are right about the mistakes (two of them without the 'h') beeing
replicated and in most cases the origin is clearly american (from the
U.S.A.). Google give us a clear account:
Öhningen - 257.000
Oehningen - 22.700
Ohningen - 17.800
Oeningen - 950
Oenningen - 364 (sorry Leo, but you should change that
)
Regards
Francisco
(Portugal)
W David Samuelsen escreveu:
The actual name is Öhningen. This, if the 'umlaut' is not supported
can be spelled Oehningen wich is correct even in Germany. As you can
see, the official site of Öhningen is: http://www.oehningen.de/
Some people, not knowing that the 'umlaut' may replaced with an 'e',
omit it and write Ohningen.
You are right about the mistakes (two of them without the 'h') beeing
replicated and in most cases the origin is clearly american (from the
U.S.A.). Google give us a clear account:
Öhningen - 257.000
Oehningen - 22.700
Ohningen - 17.800
Oeningen - 950
Oenningen - 364 (sorry Leo, but you should change that
Regards
Francisco
(Portugal)
W David Samuelsen escreveu:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-07/1152007513
common mistake - it is Oeningen, not Ohingen. This mistake is being
replicated enmasse.
Dagsburg and Metz are near each other.
David Samuelsen
-
Gjest
Re: CP Moriarty and Gilbert de Gant.
Dear Leo,
I do have access to it as a NEHGS Research member. Would
You like me to try to e-mail it to you ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
I do have access to it as a NEHGS Research member. Would
You like me to try to e-mail it to you ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Interesting account of the complaint of Capt. 'Bredan'
One of my ancestors Hezekiah Lovejoy lost his status as freeman due to what
was almost certainly alchoholism (He frequently indulged in the consumption of
a certain rum/ molasses concoction and eventually was stripped of all rights.
He wasn`t even allowed to stand as sponsor for his children`s baptisms,
though the local Congregational Church in its` infinite mercy deined to allow his
wife Hannah Lovejoy nee Austin to stand as her children`s sponsor - eventually.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
was almost certainly alchoholism (He frequently indulged in the consumption of
a certain rum/ molasses concoction and eventually was stripped of all rights.
He wasn`t even allowed to stand as sponsor for his children`s baptisms,
though the local Congregational Church in its` infinite mercy deined to allow his
wife Hannah Lovejoy nee Austin to stand as her children`s sponsor - eventually.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Henry Whitfield
There's two articles and an entire book on their ancestries:
TAG 56:236-45 (initial article on his ancestry); NEHGR 137:291-305
(Sheafe ancestry); John Brooks Threlfall, The Ancestry of Reverend John
Whitfield (1590-1657) and his wife Dorothy Sheafe (159?-1669) of
Guilford, Connecticut (Madison, WI: the author, 1989).
joseph cook wrote:
TAG 56:236-45 (initial article on his ancestry); NEHGR 137:291-305
(Sheafe ancestry); John Brooks Threlfall, The Ancestry of Reverend John
Whitfield (1590-1657) and his wife Dorothy Sheafe (159?-1669) of
Guilford, Connecticut (Madison, WI: the author, 1989).
joseph cook wrote:
Do Henry Whitfield of Guilford, CT or his wife Dorothy Sheafe have any
known royal ancestry?
Thanks
-
Gjest
Vampage/Russell (was Tracy - Danvers link)
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Worcestershire, ii 183; however, I seem to have seen it and can't find
any notes about it, so possibly it is just a recap. of the visitation
one. The Visitation of Worcestershire (Harl. Soc. XXVII, pp.68-70 &
137-8) gives the following descent:
1. Sir Bryan Vampage
2. Sir John Vampage
3. Sir Osbert Vampage=Jane dau Sir Wm Tracey
4. Richard Vampage=dau Gifford
5. John Vampage esq=dau Norman Washborne of W esq
6. John Vampage esq=(1) Elizabeth dau Thomas Walter
7. Sir John Vampage=Katharen d&h Wm Wollashall of W
8. John Vampage=Margery d&h John Sarell of Week
9. Robert/Roger Vampage=Elianor d&ch Wm Grevill of Arle
10. John Vampage (dsp)=Agnes dau Sir Thos. Unton
To add a dating framework, from the HoP entry for the father in law of
(7) we have that (6) was an MP in 1422. Further, the second wife given
for (6) is "Isabell da. to Sr Richard Vernon K."; the HoP entry for Sir
Richard Vernon of Haddon (1390-1451, sometime Speaker) notes that one
of his daughters was married to a Vampage of Worcestershire. The
visitation adds that she married for her 2nd husband "Sr John Stanley
of Pipe K.". the pedigrees of the Stanleys of Elford are quite confused
but are agreed that Sir John Stanley's three wives included a daughter
of Sir Richard Vernon; and the widow of Sir John Vampage, King's
Attorney/Attorney General- these are apparently then the same woman,
although most reconstructions split her into two because of confusion
over her first name. A list of Attorneys-General gives John Vampage as
holding the office from 28th October 1429 to 30th June 1452; the latter
date, however, is when his successor took office, Vampage being
described as deceased (CPRs), so he presumably died a little earlier.
This fits with Sir John Stanley, who apparently married the widow in
the 1450s. John Vampage and his second wife had a son William; in VCH
Worcs-
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... ry=vampage we
have a John and Elizabeth Vampage granted the reversion of the manor of
Wick Warren near Pershore c.1430; John's son William succeeded in 1452.
Further information from VCH Worcs.:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... ry=vampage
gives:
Sir John Vampage of Pershore married Joan or Catherine, daughter and
heiress of William Muchgros/Wollashall; settlement 10th August 1436 by
parents of both; Sir John was succeeded by his son John, who was
succeded by his son Robert; descent to John Vampage who dsp 1548.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... ry=vampage
gives:
John Vampage and son of same name, 1448-9; latter died by 1505 leaving
son Robert who d.1516 leaving son John who dsp 1548. (I suspect in fact
that this account has joined to Johns into one, and the one who left
the son Robert was actually son of the John jr of 1448-9; otherwise we
would have the latter as the son of parents whose marriage settlement
was just twelve years previously, yet making purchases with his
father.)
There are PCC wills for the following:
John Vampage of Pershore, Worcs, pr. 12 Sept 1452
John Vampage of Barington, Glos, pr. 26 May 1501
Robert Vampage, pr. 6 March 1516
John Vampage of Wollashall, Worcs, pr. 6 feb 1549
An item in the PRO catalogue (SP/46/124/fo 61-62) mentions that John
and Anne Vampage held the manors of "Colsbourne, Lytell Baryngton,
Elkeston and Cheltenham"; and that John's will was dated 22 Mar 1548.
This ties in with the will of John Vampage of 'Barington' above; Little
Barrington, and the other places mentioned, are all in Gloucestershire.
This page- http://www.oxfordshirepast.net/ml_ch.html mentions an inscription
to a John Vampage (d.1466) at Minster Lovell, just over the county
border from Little Barrington.
So, we can put all this dating information into the visitation pedigree
as follows:
6. John Vampage of Pershore, MP Worcs 1422, Attorney General 1429-1452,
died 1452.
7. Sir John Vampage of Pershore etc.; marriage sett. 1436; died 1466?
8. John Vampage of Little Barrington etc., d.1501.
9. Robert Vampage, died 1516
10. John Vampage, dsp 1548.
There's no sign of anything to particularly support the earlier
generations of the visitation pedigree- there is another PRO document
(E210/9352) mentioning a John Vampage of Pershore in 27EIII; perhaps
too early to reasonably be the attorney's father, but conceivably the
one given as father to Catherine (Russell): the VCH pedigree of Russell
of Strensham at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... ry=vampage
has that the Robert Russell who married Catherine Vampage was son of
Nicholas (dcd. 1346); succeeded in 1349, was living in 1361 and was
dead by 1376- so it's impossible that he could be even a brother-in-law
of the man who died in 1452 (let alone a descendant). Catherine's
great-grandson Sir Robert Wingfield was born in 1403; it does look as
though the only place she could possibly be allocated in the visitation
pedigree would be as daughter of (2), but that's assuming that both the
Vampage and Russell visitation pedigrees are absolutely accurate (which
is a big assumption). Perhaps safest to follow HoP, and have her with a
question mark only.
There are a couple of other points re: Vampage, but I'll deal with them
in a separate post.
-Matthew
That being said, there are numerous immigrants (and non-immigrants
including HRH E2, IIRC) who descend from the marriage of Elizabeth,
daughter of John Russell and wife Anne to Robert Wingfield, and hence a
more definitive Vampage descent would be of broad interest.
I have a note that there is a Vampage pedigree in Nash's
Worcestershire, ii 183; however, I seem to have seen it and can't find
any notes about it, so possibly it is just a recap. of the visitation
one. The Visitation of Worcestershire (Harl. Soc. XXVII, pp.68-70 &
137-8) gives the following descent:
1. Sir Bryan Vampage
2. Sir John Vampage
3. Sir Osbert Vampage=Jane dau Sir Wm Tracey
4. Richard Vampage=dau Gifford
5. John Vampage esq=dau Norman Washborne of W esq
6. John Vampage esq=(1) Elizabeth dau Thomas Walter
7. Sir John Vampage=Katharen d&h Wm Wollashall of W
8. John Vampage=Margery d&h John Sarell of Week
9. Robert/Roger Vampage=Elianor d&ch Wm Grevill of Arle
10. John Vampage (dsp)=Agnes dau Sir Thos. Unton
To add a dating framework, from the HoP entry for the father in law of
(7) we have that (6) was an MP in 1422. Further, the second wife given
for (6) is "Isabell da. to Sr Richard Vernon K."; the HoP entry for Sir
Richard Vernon of Haddon (1390-1451, sometime Speaker) notes that one
of his daughters was married to a Vampage of Worcestershire. The
visitation adds that she married for her 2nd husband "Sr John Stanley
of Pipe K.". the pedigrees of the Stanleys of Elford are quite confused
but are agreed that Sir John Stanley's three wives included a daughter
of Sir Richard Vernon; and the widow of Sir John Vampage, King's
Attorney/Attorney General- these are apparently then the same woman,
although most reconstructions split her into two because of confusion
over her first name. A list of Attorneys-General gives John Vampage as
holding the office from 28th October 1429 to 30th June 1452; the latter
date, however, is when his successor took office, Vampage being
described as deceased (CPRs), so he presumably died a little earlier.
This fits with Sir John Stanley, who apparently married the widow in
the 1450s. John Vampage and his second wife had a son William; in VCH
Worcs-
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... ry=vampage we
have a John and Elizabeth Vampage granted the reversion of the manor of
Wick Warren near Pershore c.1430; John's son William succeeded in 1452.
Further information from VCH Worcs.:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... ry=vampage
gives:
Sir John Vampage of Pershore married Joan or Catherine, daughter and
heiress of William Muchgros/Wollashall; settlement 10th August 1436 by
parents of both; Sir John was succeeded by his son John, who was
succeded by his son Robert; descent to John Vampage who dsp 1548.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... ry=vampage
gives:
John Vampage and son of same name, 1448-9; latter died by 1505 leaving
son Robert who d.1516 leaving son John who dsp 1548. (I suspect in fact
that this account has joined to Johns into one, and the one who left
the son Robert was actually son of the John jr of 1448-9; otherwise we
would have the latter as the son of parents whose marriage settlement
was just twelve years previously, yet making purchases with his
father.)
There are PCC wills for the following:
John Vampage of Pershore, Worcs, pr. 12 Sept 1452
John Vampage of Barington, Glos, pr. 26 May 1501
Robert Vampage, pr. 6 March 1516
John Vampage of Wollashall, Worcs, pr. 6 feb 1549
An item in the PRO catalogue (SP/46/124/fo 61-62) mentions that John
and Anne Vampage held the manors of "Colsbourne, Lytell Baryngton,
Elkeston and Cheltenham"; and that John's will was dated 22 Mar 1548.
This ties in with the will of John Vampage of 'Barington' above; Little
Barrington, and the other places mentioned, are all in Gloucestershire.
This page- http://www.oxfordshirepast.net/ml_ch.html mentions an inscription
to a John Vampage (d.1466) at Minster Lovell, just over the county
border from Little Barrington.
So, we can put all this dating information into the visitation pedigree
as follows:
6. John Vampage of Pershore, MP Worcs 1422, Attorney General 1429-1452,
died 1452.
7. Sir John Vampage of Pershore etc.; marriage sett. 1436; died 1466?
8. John Vampage of Little Barrington etc., d.1501.
9. Robert Vampage, died 1516
10. John Vampage, dsp 1548.
There's no sign of anything to particularly support the earlier
generations of the visitation pedigree- there is another PRO document
(E210/9352) mentioning a John Vampage of Pershore in 27EIII; perhaps
too early to reasonably be the attorney's father, but conceivably the
one given as father to Catherine (Russell): the VCH pedigree of Russell
of Strensham at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... ry=vampage
has that the Robert Russell who married Catherine Vampage was son of
Nicholas (dcd. 1346); succeeded in 1349, was living in 1361 and was
dead by 1376- so it's impossible that he could be even a brother-in-law
of the man who died in 1452 (let alone a descendant). Catherine's
great-grandson Sir Robert Wingfield was born in 1403; it does look as
though the only place she could possibly be allocated in the visitation
pedigree would be as daughter of (2), but that's assuming that both the
Vampage and Russell visitation pedigrees are absolutely accurate (which
is a big assumption). Perhaps safest to follow HoP, and have her with a
question mark only.
There are a couple of other points re: Vampage, but I'll deal with them
in a separate post.
-Matthew
-
Gjest
Re: Vampage/Russell (was Tracy - Danvers link)
I wrote:
To return to this pedigree, there is the mention of Norman Washborne at
gen (5); there was only one man of that name, and a very useful post by
Brad Verity (about the Scropes) contains details of his family:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1066182672
it quotes an earlier author who gives the dates 1433-by 1482 for
Norman; however, they should be revised slightly backwards, according
to VCH Worcs:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... washbourne
which informs that Norman was conveyed lands by 1426-7 and had died by
1479; his father died about 1430 per HoP. It still seems impossible
that he could have a grandson who was an MP in 1422, however (although
it's still of course possible that the attorney's mother was a
Washbourne, but of an earlier generation). The list of Washbourne
daughters mentions one who married John Hugford; in the visitation
their grandson, also John Hugford, actually married a sister of the
John Vampage who d.1548 (who was theoretically sixth in descent from
Norman Washbourne, but that can't be the case). Interestingly, there's
a mention in Brad's post of "a brass at Minster Lovell, Oxfordshire, to
John Vampage 'ad regis causas attornatus', d.1502, and his wife
Elizabeth", which seems to mix up different Johns- by the numbering of
generations above, (6) was the king's attorney and married Elizabeth,
(7) perhaps has the 1466 MI at Minster Lovell, and (8) died in 1501. We
know that the attorney certainly died in 1452, which does suggest that
the reported inscription is in error.
One other Vampage point of potential interest: the visitation gives
John Vampage (ie, the one identified as the attorney, d.1452) and his
second (Vernon) wife a daughter Anne, who it has married to a 'Robart
Fowlshurst'; the version of the pedigree given on p.69 of the
visitation adds their children: "Robart Fowlshurst. Thomas. Richard.
Katharen. Janne. Isabell." Could this Anne Vampage possibly be the
Anne, of unknown surname, who married *Thomas* Fouleshurst (d.1494) and
had (at least) a son and heir Robert (d.1513)? It might be worth
checking Ormerod to see if Thomas and Anne are given other children who
do or don't match up, or if there is any other contemporary Fouleshurst
who is stated to have married this Vampage daughter. If this checked
out it would give many more Vampage descents, as there are plenty from
this Fouleshurst couple (including Prince Charles, per Paget).
-Matthew
The Visitation of Worcestershire (Harl. Soc. XXVII, pp.68-70 &
137-8) gives the following descent:
1. Sir Bryan Vampage
2. Sir John Vampage
3. Sir Osbert Vampage=Jane dau Sir Wm Tracey
4. Richard Vampage=dau Gifford
5. John Vampage esq=dau Norman Washborne of W esq
6. John Vampage esq=(1) Elizabeth dau Thomas Walter
7. Sir John Vampage=Katharen d&h Wm Wollashall of W
8. John Vampage=Margery d&h John Sarell of Week
9. Robert/Roger Vampage=Elianor d&ch Wm Grevill of Arle
10. John Vampage (dsp)=Agnes dau Sir Thos. Unton
To return to this pedigree, there is the mention of Norman Washborne at
gen (5); there was only one man of that name, and a very useful post by
Brad Verity (about the Scropes) contains details of his family:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1066182672
it quotes an earlier author who gives the dates 1433-by 1482 for
Norman; however, they should be revised slightly backwards, according
to VCH Worcs:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... washbourne
which informs that Norman was conveyed lands by 1426-7 and had died by
1479; his father died about 1430 per HoP. It still seems impossible
that he could have a grandson who was an MP in 1422, however (although
it's still of course possible that the attorney's mother was a
Washbourne, but of an earlier generation). The list of Washbourne
daughters mentions one who married John Hugford; in the visitation
their grandson, also John Hugford, actually married a sister of the
John Vampage who d.1548 (who was theoretically sixth in descent from
Norman Washbourne, but that can't be the case). Interestingly, there's
a mention in Brad's post of "a brass at Minster Lovell, Oxfordshire, to
John Vampage 'ad regis causas attornatus', d.1502, and his wife
Elizabeth", which seems to mix up different Johns- by the numbering of
generations above, (6) was the king's attorney and married Elizabeth,
(7) perhaps has the 1466 MI at Minster Lovell, and (8) died in 1501. We
know that the attorney certainly died in 1452, which does suggest that
the reported inscription is in error.
One other Vampage point of potential interest: the visitation gives
John Vampage (ie, the one identified as the attorney, d.1452) and his
second (Vernon) wife a daughter Anne, who it has married to a 'Robart
Fowlshurst'; the version of the pedigree given on p.69 of the
visitation adds their children: "Robart Fowlshurst. Thomas. Richard.
Katharen. Janne. Isabell." Could this Anne Vampage possibly be the
Anne, of unknown surname, who married *Thomas* Fouleshurst (d.1494) and
had (at least) a son and heir Robert (d.1513)? It might be worth
checking Ormerod to see if Thomas and Anne are given other children who
do or don't match up, or if there is any other contemporary Fouleshurst
who is stated to have married this Vampage daughter. If this checked
out it would give many more Vampage descents, as there are plenty from
this Fouleshurst couple (including Prince Charles, per Paget).
-Matthew
-
John Brandon
Re: Henry Whitfield
Do Henry Whitfield of Guilford, CT or his wife Dorothy Sheafe have any
known royal ancestry?
The "spot to watch" in Rev. Henry Whitfield's ancestry occurs in his
mother's family, the Mannings of Downe and Cudham, Kent. See p. 165 of
the 1619 Kent Visitation (Henry Whitfield's mother is "Mildreda vx'
Tho: Whitfeild" at the bottom of the chart):
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/ ... index.html
Notice Hugh Manning of Cray, at the top of the chart. His wife was
supposedly "...filia ... Brandon Amita Charoli Brandon Ducis
Suffolciae," which, I understand, translates to "daughter of ...
Brandon, aunt to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk." (Does "amita"
indicate a paternal aunt only?) Note that this same assertion occurs
in the 1633 London Visitation:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=LCCN1 ... g+marshall
This could be a true assertion. This lady's grandson, Henry Manning,
was Marshall of the Household to Kings Henry VIII - Queen Elizabeth.
His wife was a daughter of the King's armorer, Erasmus Kirkener.
_Lists and Indexes_, volume 50, has the following two lawsuits
involving the Manning family:
p. 157:
--John Manyng of Westminster, serving-man.
--John Exbryge.
--Tenement called the 'Caternewhele' in Ospringe.
p. 159:
--John Mennynge (Manyng), great-nephew and heir of Richard Peteley,
yeoman.
--Joan, late the wife of Robert Exbridge, and John, her son.
--Detention of deeds relating to a messuage called the 'Kateren Whylle'
in Ospringe.
This John Manning must be the older brother of Henry, Marshall of the
Household, unless there is a missing and unrecognized extra generation
in the pedigree as traditionally given. I assume that John was a
serving-man to either the king or some member of the nobility.
This could all be consistent with these Mannings being minor relations
of the Brandon family (perhaps through an illegitimate daughter of the
Duke of Suffolk's grandfather). Whether or not this would entail a
royal descent, I don't know --
The 1619 Kent Visitation lists a sister for Mildred Manning Whitfield:
Margaret, wife of Thomas Howard, Viscount Bindon, who remarried to Sir
Edward [sic] Ludlow. Other pedigrees--specifically, the one given in
the NEHGR--show another sister married to a Ludlow (presumably related
to Margaret's husband), and one who was wife to Joshua Aylmer, "fil.
natural de Marquis Winton" (or some such, I assume it means
"illegitimate son of Lord / Marquess Winton"--could someone check the
correct wording in the NEHGR?). I noticed, and passed on to John
Threlfall, a biography for this Joshua Aylmer in the _HOP_ series (not
sure whether Mr. Threlfall included this information in his Whitfield
book). The HOP sketch shows Joshua Aylmer associating with Sir Edmund
Ludlow, M.P., his brother-in-law, but doesn't give much information
beyond that (although I think it also notes that Aylmer had interests
in Ireland). Does anybody know who this "Marquis Winton" would be, and
if he had any illegitimate children?
-
John Brandon
Re: Henry Whitfield
It seems Charles, Duke of Suffolk, was actually "Marshal of the
Household" himself for a time ...
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... mP_GhDjCEI
Here is my favorite document concerning Henry Manning, from _Lists and
Indexes_, vol. 308:
_Calendar of Patent Rolls 33 Elizabeth I (1590-1591)_, p. 157 (no.
860):
10 Dec 1590. Commission, to the council, treasurer and barons of the
Exchequer, to call before them Henry Mannynge, the only surviving
executor of Thomas [Howard], Lord Howard, Viscount Howard of Bindon,
the queen's cousin, and cause him not only to deliver a true account or
certificate of the whole wealth and estate of the said Thomas [Howard]
at the time of his death and what has become of the same, but also to
assign, grant and set over by his deed to the queen and to the queen's
use all such bonds, specialties and debts wherein or whereby anyone
stood bound or indebted to the said viscount at the time of his death
in any sum of money, which is not already fully satisfied and paid; and
cause the said Henry Mannynge to pay into the court all such money that
he is justly charged to owe or have by reason of the said will; and out
of the money raised, levied or obtained to pay, deliver, employ and
bestow in good security £2,000 to the use of the [sic] Frances Howard,
daughter of the said Thomas, for her preferment in marriage; and to pay
out of the said money raised £400 due by the said viscount by his bond
to William Boxe for the discharging of certain lands, which the
viscount assured for the jointure of Lady Margaret his wife, which are
to remain to Charles Howard, one of his sons, after Margaret's death;
and to pay to Anne Howarde, another of the testator's daughters, whom
he intended to advance but was prevented from doing so by his death, as
much as the treasurer thinks good towards her maintenance or
advancement in marriage. Thomas [Howard], Viscount Howard of Bindon,
by will made about ten years ago, appointed that certain of his stock
and store of sheep remaining upon his several farms in Dorset, should
be sold by his executors, and that from the money levied by the sale
therof £2,000 should be paid to the treasurer to the use of Frances
Howard, his daughter, then a child aged about two or three, for her
preferment in marriage, willing that from the profit thereof there
should be money raised for her education and maintenance. He made
Richard Burton, lately deceased, and Henry Mannynge and others
executors, and died shortly afterwards. Only Richard and Henry took
upon themselves the execution of the said will. Although all the said
sheep have been sold by them and although Thomas had at the time of his
death divers other goods and chattels to pay all his debts and funeral
charges in addition to the money to be levied of the said stocks and
stores of sheep, they have not paid one penny to the treasurer towards
the preferment of the said Frances, but have employed and converted all
the money to the satisfying of the debts of the said late viscount and
into bonds and debts in their own names and to their own uses. They
suffer Lady Margaret, formerly the wife of the testator and daughter of
the said Henry Mannynge, to detain and have to her own use contrary to
the will certain plate, jewels and good of his to the value of £1,000
or more, and suffer those who were indebted to the said Thomas at the
time of his death, and also Henry [Howard], now Lord Viscount of
Bindon, and sundry others, whom since the sale of the said sheep and
other goods they have made debtors to themselves in great sums, to
detain the said sums. By reason whereof, if the said Henry [Howard],
who has no land except for the term of his life and no great value in
goods and chattels, the said Henry Mannynge, who has grown old and
sickly and is of small ability, and Lady Margaret, who has taken to
husband [blank] Ludlowe, or any of them happen to die, it is to be
greatly feared that the said Frances Howard shall be in great danger to
lose a great part of her portion. [English]
Household" himself for a time ...
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0 ... mP_GhDjCEI
Here is my favorite document concerning Henry Manning, from _Lists and
Indexes_, vol. 308:
_Calendar of Patent Rolls 33 Elizabeth I (1590-1591)_, p. 157 (no.
860):
10 Dec 1590. Commission, to the council, treasurer and barons of the
Exchequer, to call before them Henry Mannynge, the only surviving
executor of Thomas [Howard], Lord Howard, Viscount Howard of Bindon,
the queen's cousin, and cause him not only to deliver a true account or
certificate of the whole wealth and estate of the said Thomas [Howard]
at the time of his death and what has become of the same, but also to
assign, grant and set over by his deed to the queen and to the queen's
use all such bonds, specialties and debts wherein or whereby anyone
stood bound or indebted to the said viscount at the time of his death
in any sum of money, which is not already fully satisfied and paid; and
cause the said Henry Mannynge to pay into the court all such money that
he is justly charged to owe or have by reason of the said will; and out
of the money raised, levied or obtained to pay, deliver, employ and
bestow in good security £2,000 to the use of the [sic] Frances Howard,
daughter of the said Thomas, for her preferment in marriage; and to pay
out of the said money raised £400 due by the said viscount by his bond
to William Boxe for the discharging of certain lands, which the
viscount assured for the jointure of Lady Margaret his wife, which are
to remain to Charles Howard, one of his sons, after Margaret's death;
and to pay to Anne Howarde, another of the testator's daughters, whom
he intended to advance but was prevented from doing so by his death, as
much as the treasurer thinks good towards her maintenance or
advancement in marriage. Thomas [Howard], Viscount Howard of Bindon,
by will made about ten years ago, appointed that certain of his stock
and store of sheep remaining upon his several farms in Dorset, should
be sold by his executors, and that from the money levied by the sale
therof £2,000 should be paid to the treasurer to the use of Frances
Howard, his daughter, then a child aged about two or three, for her
preferment in marriage, willing that from the profit thereof there
should be money raised for her education and maintenance. He made
Richard Burton, lately deceased, and Henry Mannynge and others
executors, and died shortly afterwards. Only Richard and Henry took
upon themselves the execution of the said will. Although all the said
sheep have been sold by them and although Thomas had at the time of his
death divers other goods and chattels to pay all his debts and funeral
charges in addition to the money to be levied of the said stocks and
stores of sheep, they have not paid one penny to the treasurer towards
the preferment of the said Frances, but have employed and converted all
the money to the satisfying of the debts of the said late viscount and
into bonds and debts in their own names and to their own uses. They
suffer Lady Margaret, formerly the wife of the testator and daughter of
the said Henry Mannynge, to detain and have to her own use contrary to
the will certain plate, jewels and good of his to the value of £1,000
or more, and suffer those who were indebted to the said Thomas at the
time of his death, and also Henry [Howard], now Lord Viscount of
Bindon, and sundry others, whom since the sale of the said sheep and
other goods they have made debtors to themselves in great sums, to
detain the said sums. By reason whereof, if the said Henry [Howard],
who has no land except for the term of his life and no great value in
goods and chattels, the said Henry Mannynge, who has grown old and
sickly and is of small ability, and Lady Margaret, who has taken to
husband [blank] Ludlowe, or any of them happen to die, it is to be
greatly feared that the said Frances Howard shall be in great danger to
lose a great part of her portion. [English]
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Vampage/Russell (was Tracy - Danvers link)
Dear Matthew ~
The second wife of Sir John Vampage (died 1446), of Pershore,
Worcestershire, was Elizabeth Vernon. She married (2nd) before 16 Feb.
1451/2 (as his 2nd wife) Sir John Stanley, K.B., of Elford,
Staffordshire. The record below concerns Elizabeth and her second
husband, Sir John Stanley. Elizabeth must have died soon after the
date of this grant, as Sir John Stanley was survived at his death in
1476 by his third wife, Anne Handesacre.
Birmingham City Archives: Elford Hall Collection, MS 3878/45, grant
dated 4 Aug. 1471 from John de Stretey of Norhamton, son of William
Stretey formerly of Elford and Margaret his wife to John Stanley, knt.,
lord of Elford and Elizabeth, his wife, of lands with appurtenances in
Elford and Haselhoor Haselour both in co. Stafford (abstract of
document available online at at
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
<Further, the second wife given for (6) is "Isabell da. to Sr Richard
Vernon K."; the HoP <entry for Sir Richard Vernon of Haddon (1390-1451,
sometime Speaker) notes that one
< of his daughters was married to a Vampage of Worcestershire. The
< visitation adds that she married for her 2nd husband "Sr John Stanley
The second wife of Sir John Vampage (died 1446), of Pershore,
Worcestershire, was Elizabeth Vernon. She married (2nd) before 16 Feb.
1451/2 (as his 2nd wife) Sir John Stanley, K.B., of Elford,
Staffordshire. The record below concerns Elizabeth and her second
husband, Sir John Stanley. Elizabeth must have died soon after the
date of this grant, as Sir John Stanley was survived at his death in
1476 by his third wife, Anne Handesacre.
Birmingham City Archives: Elford Hall Collection, MS 3878/45, grant
dated 4 Aug. 1471 from John de Stretey of Norhamton, son of William
Stretey formerly of Elford and Margaret his wife to John Stanley, knt.,
lord of Elford and Elizabeth, his wife, of lands with appurtenances in
Elford and Haselhoor Haselour both in co. Stafford (abstract of
document available online at at
http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
mvernonconnolly@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
<Further, the second wife given for (6) is "Isabell da. to Sr Richard
Vernon K."; the HoP <entry for Sir Richard Vernon of Haddon (1390-1451,
sometime Speaker) notes that one
< of his daughters was married to a Vampage of Worcestershire. The
< visitation adds that she married for her 2nd husband "Sr John Stanley
of Pipe K.". the pedigrees of the Stanleys of Elford are quite confused
but are agreed that Sir John Stanley's three wives included a daughter
of Sir Richard Vernon; and the widow of Sir John Vampage, King's
Attorney/Attorney General- these are apparently then the same woman,
although most reconstructions split her into two because of confusion
over her first name.
-Matthew
-
John Brandon
Re: Henry Whitfield
It seems Charles, Duke of Suffolk, was actually "Marshal of the
Household" himself for a time ...
It just occurred to me that this may be the origin of the claim to be
related to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. If he was responsible for
Henry Manning securing the office of "Marshal of the Household,"
perhaps someone later speculated that there was some family connection
between Manning and Brandon.
-
John Brandon
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
The above is mostly a curious question since you post to this group
incessantly. To the particulars of your question: Could the Manor of
Perton have been granted to the senior Humphrey Strafford who married
Alice Greville? He was "of age" in 1388/9. Why couldn't the junior
Humphrey be granted a manor at age 10 or 11? You seem to point out
contradictions but don't follow with any logical discussion of
possibilities.
Not much thought goes into most of his postings--he's trying to get
answers to his own questions, and the continuity of others' postings be
damned. All this is in the service of a quest to show the entire
English nobility was (remotely) related to the Cecils, something
everybody knows anyway.
The hasty and rubbishy look of his postings (odd spacingsand omitted
punctuation) don't help matters, and the lengthy computer-generated
headings further add to a generally shabby appearance: "In a message
dated 7/8/2006 3:42:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, royalances...@msn.com
writes:"
(Surely there is no need to refer to the actual second something was
posted, not to mention the time zone).
I think "Will Johnson" is an assumed name, anyway. If you click on
"view profile" and look at his first 10 postings (in 1999), it seems
like a different person entirely (well-written, well-spelled, sober and
serious, AND none of them have anything to do with genealogy). Also,
he never signed his name in those early postings. I suspect the
current fool is someone of a different name who somehow "assumed" the
identity of the earlier "WJhonson." In my opinion, the misspelling of
"Jhonson" for "Johnson" adds to the rubbishy look of "Will's" postings.
-
Gjest
Re: Vampage/Russell (was Tracy - Danvers link)
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Douglas,
Many thanks for that- it's clear too that she is the mother of Humphrey
Stanley of Pipe. I have a note of the deed that must be the source of
the 'terminus ante quem' marriage date you give, but I have it as dated
16 Feb 1452; wouldn't that be 1452/3, rather than 1451/2? Or perhaps it
was already 'adjusted' for the transcript I have here. I'm also
interested to see that you have the death date of 1446 for Sir John
Vampage, which is a bit earlier than expected; do you happen to have a
reference for that date to hand?
Best wishes, Matthew
The second wife of Sir John Vampage (died 1446), of Pershore,
Worcestershire, was Elizabeth Vernon. She married (2nd) before 16 Feb.
1451/2 (as his 2nd wife) Sir John Stanley, K.B., of Elford,
Staffordshire. The record below concerns Elizabeth and her second
husband, Sir John Stanley. Elizabeth must have died soon after the
date of this grant, as Sir John Stanley was survived at his death in
1476 by his third wife, Anne Handesacre.
(Document snipped)
Dear Douglas,
Many thanks for that- it's clear too that she is the mother of Humphrey
Stanley of Pipe. I have a note of the deed that must be the source of
the 'terminus ante quem' marriage date you give, but I have it as dated
16 Feb 1452; wouldn't that be 1452/3, rather than 1451/2? Or perhaps it
was already 'adjusted' for the transcript I have here. I'm also
interested to see that you have the death date of 1446 for Sir John
Vampage, which is a bit earlier than expected; do you happen to have a
reference for that date to hand?
Best wishes, Matthew
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Jane Chauncey, widow of Bishop of Sodor and Mann
Dear Leslie ~
I've noted the corrections you posted. Thank you for sharing them with
me.
I'll check on the marriage license for Roger Ludlow and Mary Cogan when
I have the opportunity.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
lmahler@att.net wrote:
I've noted the corrections you posted. Thank you for sharing them with
me.
I'll check on the marriage license for Roger Ludlow and Mary Cogan when
I have the opportunity.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
lmahler@att.net wrote:
Here are some other additions / corrections
(you dont need to credit me).
The Brent siblings of Virginia & Maryland had a brother Edward Brent
who died in Virginia.
His PCC will proved in 1625 was published in Henry Waters,
Genealogical Gleanings in England.
Re: Katherine Hamby, wife of Edward Hutchinson.
They were married in Lawford, ESSEX (not Suffolk).
Her father's will was proved PCC SADLER (not Adler).
The marriage license for Roger Ludlow & Mary Cogan was supposed
to have been published in one of the last of the Mary & John Clearing
House
volumes.
Leslie
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear John ~
Nice post. Keep up the great work.
I've added the Chauncey citation to my database, with credit to you as
follows:
"Index of Chancery Procs. (Series II) 1 (PRO Lists and Indexes 7)
(1896): 288; citation courtesy of John Brandon."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Gjest
Re: Henry Whitfield
John Brandon schrieb:
"Marquis Winton" would mean the Marquess of Winchester. The putative
father of Joshua Aylmer, who I believe flourished in 1586, could have
been:
William Paulett, 1st Marquess (c1483-1572), his son:
John, 2nd Marquess (c1510-1576), or his son:
William, 3rd Marquess (1532-1598)
The 1619 Kent Visitation lists a sister for Mildred Manning Whitfield:
Margaret, wife of Thomas Howard, Viscount Bindon, who remarried to Sir
Edward [sic] Ludlow. Other pedigrees--specifically, the one given in
the NEHGR--show another sister married to a Ludlow (presumably related
to Margaret's husband), and one who was wife to Joshua Aylmer, "fil.
natural de Marquis Winton" (or some such, I assume it means
"illegitimate son of Lord / Marquess Winton"--could someone check the
correct wording in the NEHGR?). I noticed, and passed on to John
Threlfall, a biography for this Joshua Aylmer in the _HOP_ series (not
sure whether Mr. Threlfall included this information in his Whitfield
book). The HOP sketch shows Joshua Aylmer associating with Sir Edmund
Ludlow, M.P., his brother-in-law, but doesn't give much information
beyond that (although I think it also notes that Aylmer had interests
in Ireland). Does anybody know who this "Marquis Winton" would be, and
if he had any illegitimate children?
"Marquis Winton" would mean the Marquess of Winchester. The putative
father of Joshua Aylmer, who I believe flourished in 1586, could have
been:
William Paulett, 1st Marquess (c1483-1572), his son:
John, 2nd Marquess (c1510-1576), or his son:
William, 3rd Marquess (1532-1598)
-
John Brandon
Re: Henry Whitfield
"Marquis Winton" would mean the Marquess of Winchester. The putative
father of Joshua Aylmer, who I believe flourished in 1586, could have
been:
William Paulett, 1st Marquess (c1483-1572), his son:
John, 2nd Marquess (c1510-1576), or his son:
William, 3rd Marquess (1532-1598)
I'm thinking that the name Seton was mentioned as well. I believe
there was a Seton family who held the title of Lord Winton, or
something like that. I'll check CP in just a minute. Going to post
the Joshua Aylmer reference, as well.
-
Gjest
Re: Henry Whitfield
John Brandon schrieb:
PCC Wills:
John Manning of St Mary Cray, Kent, gentleman, will proved 10 May 1583
Henry Manning of St Mary Cray, gentleman, will proved 8 November 1620
(probably the brother of Mildred Whitfeild)
Do Henry Whitfield of Guilford, CT or his wife Dorothy Sheafe have any
known royal ancestry?
The "spot to watch" in Rev. Henry Whitfield's ancestry occurs in his
mother's family, the Mannings of Downe and Cudham, Kent. See p. 165 of
the 1619 Kent Visitation (Henry Whitfield's mother is "Mildreda vx'
Tho: Whitfeild" at the bottom of the chart):
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/ ... index.html
_Lists and Indexes_, volume 50, has the following two lawsuits
involving the Manning family:
p. 157:
--John Manyng of Westminster, serving-man.
--John Exbryge.
--Tenement called the 'Caternewhele' in Ospringe.
p. 159:
--John Mennynge (Manyng), great-nephew and heir of Richard Peteley,
yeoman.
--Joan, late the wife of Robert Exbridge, and John, her son.
--Detention of deeds relating to a messuage called the 'Kateren Whylle'
in Ospringe.
This John Manning must be the older brother of Henry, Marshall of the
Household, unless there is a missing and unrecognized extra generation
in the pedigree as traditionally given. I assume that John was a
serving-man to either the king or some member of the nobility.
PCC Wills:
John Manning of St Mary Cray, Kent, gentleman, will proved 10 May 1583
Henry Manning of St Mary Cray, gentleman, will proved 8 November 1620
(probably the brother of Mildred Whitfeild)
-
Gjest
Re: Henry Whitfield
John Brandon schrieb:
That would be useful.
The Setons were Earls of Winton, or Wintoun as it was more usually
spelled, but I don't think the first Earl would have been old enough to
have fathered an illegitimate son active by 1586.
MA-R
"Marquis Winton" would mean the Marquess of Winchester. The putative
father of Joshua Aylmer, who I believe flourished in 1586, could have
been:
William Paulett, 1st Marquess (c1483-1572), his son:
John, 2nd Marquess (c1510-1576), or his son:
William, 3rd Marquess (1532-1598)
I'm thinking that the name Seton was mentioned as well. I believe
there was a Seton family who held the title of Lord Winton, or
something like that. I'll check CP in just a minute. Going to post
the Joshua Aylmer reference, as well.
That would be useful.
The Setons were Earls of Winton, or Wintoun as it was more usually
spelled, but I don't think the first Earl would have been old enough to
have fathered an illegitimate son active by 1586.
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: Henry Whitfield
John Brandon schrieb:
There are a couple of Brandon wills from the PCC which seem to relate
to the Duke of Suffolk's immediate ancestors:
Sir William Brandon of Wangford, Suffolk, will proved 13 July 1491
Sir William Brandon, will proved 17 November 1491
These may both relate to the one person, the Duke's paternal
grandfather - and thus the putative father-in-law of Hugh Manning - or
one may represent a late grant in respect of the Duke's father, killed
at Bosworth in 1485. The elder William Brandon was married to
Elizabeth Wingfield, who was a descendant of King Edward I.
It seems Charles, Duke of Suffolk, was actually "Marshal of the
Household" himself for a time ...
It just occurred to me that this may be the origin of the claim to be
related to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. If he was responsible for
Henry Manning securing the office of "Marshal of the Household,"
perhaps someone later speculated that there was some family connection
between Manning and Brandon.
There are a couple of Brandon wills from the PCC which seem to relate
to the Duke of Suffolk's immediate ancestors:
Sir William Brandon of Wangford, Suffolk, will proved 13 July 1491
Sir William Brandon, will proved 17 November 1491
These may both relate to the one person, the Duke's paternal
grandfather - and thus the putative father-in-law of Hugh Manning - or
one may represent a late grant in respect of the Duke's father, killed
at Bosworth in 1485. The elder William Brandon was married to
Elizabeth Wingfield, who was a descendant of King Edward I.
-
Gjest
Re: Henry Whitfield
m...@btinternet.com schrieb:
See from the archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.ge ... f89fbfea18
John Brandon schrieb:
It seems Charles, Duke of Suffolk, was actually "Marshal of the
Household" himself for a time ...
It just occurred to me that this may be the origin of the claim to be
related to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. If he was responsible for
Henry Manning securing the office of "Marshal of the Household,"
perhaps someone later speculated that there was some family connection
between Manning and Brandon.
See from the archives:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.ge ... f89fbfea18
-
John Brandon
Re: Clue to identity of the mother of Bridget (Warde) (Rawso
I believe the parents of Gibbs who married Wilson are in the 1619 Kent
Visitation.
See p. 182:
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/ ... index.html
Page 55 has a Somer family that may be connected, as well.
-
John Brandon
Re: Henry Whitfield
The Setons were Earls of Winton, or Wintoun as it was more usually
spelled, but I don't think the first Earl would have been old enough to
have fathered an illegitimate son active by 1586.
And since the extracted IGI has Joshua Aylmer's marriage to Anne
Manning occurring in 1579, this would mean a birth by the late 1550s, I
suppose.
-
John Brandon
Re: Clue to identity of the mother of Bridget (Warde) (Rawso
Page 55 has a Somer family that may be connected, as well.
Is the John Somer "de St. Margett" on p. 55 any relation of the one on
p. 21, "de S. Margetts Clericus," whose daughter was the wife of Sir
Alexander Temple?
Note that one of Rev. William Wilson's grandchildren on p. 55 was named
"Alexander Somer."
-
John Brandon
Re: Jane Chauncey, widow of Bishop of Sodor and Mann
Doug,
You may be interested in this scrap, as firming up the date of marriage
of Sir William Browne of Flushing (grandfather of Nathaniel Browne of
New England) --
_Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth_,
vol. 21, part 4, (January-June 1588), p. 37:
[Jan. 28, 1588.] WILLIAM BROWNE to his master, SIR FRAS. WALSINGHAM.
Asks approval for his marriage in those parts, to a Frenchwoman of
small substance, and no great lineage, being forced to it by constraint
of commanding accidents.---Flushing, 28 January, 1588.
As I posted a couple years ago, his wife was related to people named
"de Blocq" and "de Calvaert."
You may be interested in this scrap, as firming up the date of marriage
of Sir William Browne of Flushing (grandfather of Nathaniel Browne of
New England) --
_Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth_,
vol. 21, part 4, (January-June 1588), p. 37:
[Jan. 28, 1588.] WILLIAM BROWNE to his master, SIR FRAS. WALSINGHAM.
Asks approval for his marriage in those parts, to a Frenchwoman of
small substance, and no great lineage, being forced to it by constraint
of commanding accidents.---Flushing, 28 January, 1588.
As I posted a couple years ago, his wife was related to people named
"de Blocq" and "de Calvaert."
-
alden@mindspring.com
Re: Henry Whitfield
John Brandon wrote:
Also see:
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/HenryManning.htm
Unfortunately few references.
Doug Smith
The Setons were Earls of Winton, or Wintoun as it was more usually
spelled, but I don't think the first Earl would have been old enough to
have fathered an illegitimate son active by 1586.
And since the extracted IGI has Joshua Aylmer's marriage to Anne
Manning occurring in 1579, this would mean a birth by the late 1550s, I
suppose.
Also see:
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/HenryManning.htm
Unfortunately few references.
Doug Smith
-
Gjest
Re: Plantagenet
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
"In origin it was the nickname of Geoffrey of Anjou, Henry II's
father, who took for his badge, the plante genet, a spring of flowering
broom." (John Harvey "The Plantagenets" )
"Geoffrey, the son who stayed at home to rule Anjou and Maine,
acquired the nickname of Plantagenet from the sprig of broom (planta
genista) which he jauntily wore in his cap." (David Williamson
"Kings and Queen of Britain")
After a while we often take the meaning of words and expressions for granted and presume "everyone knows".
I am curious, does anyone know who actually coined the phrase "Plantagenet" and when was it first used.
"We all know" that Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou and Maine, took a Broome (planta genesta) and put it on his helmet. But do we know why he did this? Did he simply like the plant or did he use it to distinguish himself from others? Did others do a similar thing, to make themselves, once dressed for battle, to look different from the others?
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
"In origin it was the nickname of Geoffrey of Anjou, Henry II's
father, who took for his badge, the plante genet, a spring of flowering
broom." (John Harvey "The Plantagenets" )
"Geoffrey, the son who stayed at home to rule Anjou and Maine,
acquired the nickname of Plantagenet from the sprig of broom (planta
genista) which he jauntily wore in his cap." (David Williamson
"Kings and Queen of Britain")
-
John Brandon
Re: Henry Whitfield
Okay, here's the Aylmer bio.:
P.W. Hasler, ed., _The History of Parliament: The House of Commons,
1558-1603_, 2:86:
ELMER (AYLMER), Joshua
HEYTESBURY 1589
Joshua Elmer, steward to Thomas, 1st Viscount Howard of Bindon,
disbursed over L480 for his master's funeral in 1582. Thereafter he
probably remained in the service of the family. Bindon's half-sister
married the son of John Thynne*, and Elmer's representation of
Heytesbury was presumably due to this connexion with the Thynne family.
He had some dealings with Edmund Ludlow*, who was ordered by the 2nd
Earl of Pembroke and Sir James Marvin, acting as arbitrators, to pay
L300 to Elmer. This was not done and in 1589 the Privy Council
directed Pembroke to enforce the award.
APC, xviii. 399; Lansd. 109, f. 211; Thynne mss 6 (general
correspondence ii) f. 250.
* * * *
There's no mention of Ireland in that account, but I scrounged around
and finally found where it comes from:
_Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most. Hon. the Marquis of
Salisbury_, [Historical MSS. Commission], part XII, p. 158:
JOSHUA AYLMER to SIR ROBERT CECIL.
1602, May 18.---At his coming out of Ireland, he delivered to
Cecil a letter from the Lord President of Munster, signifying the
discharge of his duty as commissary of the musters there, and his
service at the siege of Kinsale. Begs for some employment in her
Majesty's pay in Munster, and for his speedy despatch thither, where
his estate is overthrown by the rebels. Encloses a proof of his
services.---London, 18 May, 1602.
Also, two letters in the same series, part XIV, pp. 123:
JOSUA AYLMER.
[1599?]---His spoils by the rebels in Munster, and his services under
the Earl of Essex. Prays for a foot company there, or a place of
commissary for the Musters.---Undated.
ibid., p. 202:
[1601?]---JOSUA AYLMER. Details of his services in Ireland, and his
losses thereby. Was one of the commissaries of the musters for
Munster, but was discharged last October. Prays for employment, or for
authority to seize traitors' and felons' goods in Munster, with
allowance out of the goods.
P.W. Hasler, ed., _The History of Parliament: The House of Commons,
1558-1603_, 2:86:
ELMER (AYLMER), Joshua
HEYTESBURY 1589
Joshua Elmer, steward to Thomas, 1st Viscount Howard of Bindon,
disbursed over L480 for his master's funeral in 1582. Thereafter he
probably remained in the service of the family. Bindon's half-sister
married the son of John Thynne*, and Elmer's representation of
Heytesbury was presumably due to this connexion with the Thynne family.
He had some dealings with Edmund Ludlow*, who was ordered by the 2nd
Earl of Pembroke and Sir James Marvin, acting as arbitrators, to pay
L300 to Elmer. This was not done and in 1589 the Privy Council
directed Pembroke to enforce the award.
APC, xviii. 399; Lansd. 109, f. 211; Thynne mss 6 (general
correspondence ii) f. 250.
* * * *
There's no mention of Ireland in that account, but I scrounged around
and finally found where it comes from:
_Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Most. Hon. the Marquis of
Salisbury_, [Historical MSS. Commission], part XII, p. 158:
JOSHUA AYLMER to SIR ROBERT CECIL.
1602, May 18.---At his coming out of Ireland, he delivered to
Cecil a letter from the Lord President of Munster, signifying the
discharge of his duty as commissary of the musters there, and his
service at the siege of Kinsale. Begs for some employment in her
Majesty's pay in Munster, and for his speedy despatch thither, where
his estate is overthrown by the rebels. Encloses a proof of his
services.---London, 18 May, 1602.
Also, two letters in the same series, part XIV, pp. 123:
JOSUA AYLMER.
[1599?]---His spoils by the rebels in Munster, and his services under
the Earl of Essex. Prays for a foot company there, or a place of
commissary for the Musters.---Undated.
ibid., p. 202:
[1601?]---JOSUA AYLMER. Details of his services in Ireland, and his
losses thereby. Was one of the commissaries of the musters for
Munster, but was discharged last October. Prays for employment, or for
authority to seize traitors' and felons' goods in Munster, with
allowance out of the goods.
-
John Brandon
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
The heading is generated automatically. It is not something I create.
You can't manually alter it before you send it? Just to something
short and sweet like "John Brandon wrote:"? You might want to consider
it. It looks extremely tacky as is. I wouldn't bring it up, except
for the fact that you post forty to sixty frickin' messages a day.
Or why don't you start posting through Google Groups? You can go there
and come up with a whole new name, something far more spicy and
interesting than your plain, boring name. Make that your plain, boring
name MISSPELLED. Please think about it. Each time I read your
postings, I have to see my first name misspelled. It bugs the living
crap out of me.
-
John Brandon
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
The last time you mentioned this, it was requested, by another list member
that the heading stay exactly the way it reads.
I think that person (Powys-Libbe) clutters up his postings with lots o'
junk as well. Be the junk twins, if you like -- what do I care?
-
Gjest
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
So we're right back to the logic of using only Internet sources. If
you choose only sources on the Internet, you are missing 99% of the
available research in genealogy. Why isn't it enough to cite to
sources that makes a person have to get his/her fat tuchus out of their
computer chair and into a library or archives?
It seems to me that you are using the "free rider" principle of
economics. You want others to go out, spend money and time to gather
research, and post it for free to use. Why shouldn't you pony up some
money and time yourself? Your membership dues to research societies
keeps those societies going. Your publication dues keeps those
scholarly journals going. At some point you have to spend some money
if you are going to do "real" genealogical research.
Martin
WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
you choose only sources on the Internet, you are missing 99% of the
available research in genealogy. Why isn't it enough to cite to
sources that makes a person have to get his/her fat tuchus out of their
computer chair and into a library or archives?
It seems to me that you are using the "free rider" principle of
economics. You want others to go out, spend money and time to gather
research, and post it for free to use. Why shouldn't you pony up some
money and time yourself? Your membership dues to research societies
keeps those societies going. Your publication dues keeps those
scholarly journals going. At some point you have to spend some money
if you are going to do "real" genealogical research.
Martin
WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/9/06 3:56:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:
If (a) why choose a 1894 compiled history to cite over
the citations given in Richardson's two works?
Because, the source I used, I can quote at length.
Richardson's sources have no quotations and unless I'm mistaken, neither he
nor anyone else has indicated that they can be viewed online, as this book I
quoted can.
You're correct that the 1894 book may be wrong, but as in another recent
example, we really can't say until the relevant quotations are all extracted and
reviewed. Simply posting a list of citations without quotes doesn't help that
situation.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
I guess we disagree on whether you post anything worthy of recognition
(quality v. quantity). Just because you work with your legs in the air
don't make you no ballerina (David Mamet).
You did ask Doug Richardson to post such material. By saying he
doesn't quote his sources, but merely cite them, you clearly implied
that you wanted him to give you the actual quotes. That means, you
want him (or others) to go get the materials and post them. If you're
in Santa Cruz, use the UC system to order everything to come to you.
Berkeley's collection is phenomenal for medieval sources.
Martin
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
(quality v. quantity). Just because you work with your legs in the air
don't make you no ballerina (David Mamet).
You did ask Doug Richardson to post such material. By saying he
doesn't quote his sources, but merely cite them, you clearly implied
that you wanted him to give you the actual quotes. That means, you
want him (or others) to go get the materials and post them. If you're
in Santa Cruz, use the UC system to order everything to come to you.
Berkeley's collection is phenomenal for medieval sources.
Martin
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/10/06 5:56:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:
Your characterization is unfair. My subscription to ancestry is not free. I
think it's fairly clear that I spend a large amount of time as well, in fact
on the order of about six to ten hours per weekday. The number of posts here
is representative of that fact.
I post my research here, freely, that I spent time and money to gather, for
others to use. And others post theirs as well. We can't all have access to
every resource, which is why we share what we find. I share what I find, and I
have never once asked someone to spend time or money to share anything. I've
only posted and asked if anyone has anything to add. That is, the nature, of
this list, and is what, everyone on this list, also does.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Thursby of Lynn, Norfolk
In a message dated 7/8/06 3:58:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
lynawolf@yahoo.com.au writes:
<< Giles ALINGTON & Dorothy CECIL
William ALINGTON & Elizabeth TOLLEMACHE
William ALINGTON & Joanna NOEL
Juliana ALINGTON & Scrope HOWE >>
This "Joanna" might be "Juliana" per genealogics
Will
lynawolf@yahoo.com.au writes:
<< Giles ALINGTON & Dorothy CECIL
William ALINGTON & Elizabeth TOLLEMACHE
William ALINGTON & Joanna NOEL
Juliana ALINGTON & Scrope HOWE >>
This "Joanna" might be "Juliana" per genealogics
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
Only that on your webpage under the Janis Joplin genealogy you
mischaracterize Gary Boyd Roberts's article. You say that GBR states
that Janis's grandmother was Laura. However, if you READ the article,
you will see that GBR took that information from the Janis's biography
as written by her sister Laura. So Laura, says her grandmother's name
was Laura East. Now your research may in fact be correct, but
certainly your webpage should read" Gary Boyd Roberts citing Janis
Joplin's biography written by her sister Laura states . . . and include
that perhaps Laura was a nickname and it doesn't jive with census
records.
Martin
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
mischaracterize Gary Boyd Roberts's article. You say that GBR states
that Janis's grandmother was Laura. However, if you READ the article,
you will see that GBR took that information from the Janis's biography
as written by her sister Laura. So Laura, says her grandmother's name
was Laura East. Now your research may in fact be correct, but
certainly your webpage should read" Gary Boyd Roberts citing Janis
Joplin's biography written by her sister Laura states . . . and include
that perhaps Laura was a nickname and it doesn't jive with census
records.
Martin
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/10/06 6:26:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:
You did ask Doug Richardson to post such material. By saying he
doesn't quote his sources, but merely cite them, you clearly implied
that you wanted him to give you the actual quotes
I stated that he did not quote them.
I did not ask him to quote them.
When I post my material I quote it.
What more is there to discuss?
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
In a message dated 7/10/06 9:26:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< The hasty and rubbishy look of his postings (odd spacingsand omitted
punctuation) don't help matters, and the lengthy computer-generated headings
further add to a generally shabby appearance: "In a message dated 7/8/2006
3:42:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, royalances...@msn.com writes:" (Surely there is no
need to refer to the actual second something was posted, not to mention the
time zone).>>
The heading is generated automatically. It is not something I create.
<< I think "Will Johnson" is an assumed name, anyway. If you click on "view
profile" and look at his first 10 postings (in 1999), it seems like a
different person entirely (well-written, well-spelled, sober and serious, AND none of
them have anything to do with genealogy). Also, he never signed his name in
those early postings. I suspect the current fool is someone of a different
name who somehow "assumed" the identity of the earlier "WJhonson." In my
opinion, the misspelling of "Jhonson" for "Johnson" adds to the rubbishy look of
"Will's" postings. >>
Wjhonson is my AOL email address. Again not something under my control. And
I don't think I was a member of this list in 1999. You can, if you chose, go
to google and type
"Will Johnson" genealogy
just like that with the quotes and you should be able to find out all you
care to about me.
Will Johnson
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< The hasty and rubbishy look of his postings (odd spacingsand omitted
punctuation) don't help matters, and the lengthy computer-generated headings
further add to a generally shabby appearance: "In a message dated 7/8/2006
3:42:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, royalances...@msn.com writes:" (Surely there is no
need to refer to the actual second something was posted, not to mention the
time zone).>>
The heading is generated automatically. It is not something I create.
<< I think "Will Johnson" is an assumed name, anyway. If you click on "view
profile" and look at his first 10 postings (in 1999), it seems like a
different person entirely (well-written, well-spelled, sober and serious, AND none of
them have anything to do with genealogy). Also, he never signed his name in
those early postings. I suspect the current fool is someone of a different
name who somehow "assumed" the identity of the earlier "WJhonson." In my
opinion, the misspelling of "Jhonson" for "Johnson" adds to the rubbishy look of
"Will's" postings. >>
Wjhonson is my AOL email address. Again not something under my control. And
I don't think I was a member of this list in 1999. You can, if you chose, go
to google and type
"Will Johnson" genealogy
just like that with the quotes and you should be able to find out all you
care to about me.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
In a message dated 7/10/06 5:26:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< You can't manually alter it before you send it? Just to something
short and sweet like "John Brandon wrote:"? >>
The last time you mentioned this, it was requested, by another list member
that the heading stay exactly the way it reads.
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:
<< You can't manually alter it before you send it? Just to something
short and sweet like "John Brandon wrote:"? >>
The last time you mentioned this, it was requested, by another list member
that the heading stay exactly the way it reads.
-
Gjest
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
In a message dated 7/9/06 3:56:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:
<< Did you actually use this work as a hard copy book (printed in 1894,
which you left off of your citation) or did you use the ancestry.com
version? If so, is that a digitized work of the original or is it in
database form? >>
Ancestry has imaged the pages. That is, they are photographic images of the
pages of the book. Then somehow they've OCR'd them or something in order to
generated an index to the contents. I'm not sure of the exact manner, but when
I read the book, it does appear to be photographs.
writes:
<< Did you actually use this work as a hard copy book (printed in 1894,
which you left off of your citation) or did you use the ancestry.com
version? If so, is that a digitized work of the original or is it in
database form? >>
Ancestry has imaged the pages. That is, they are photographic images of the
pages of the book. Then somehow they've OCR'd them or something in order to
generated an index to the contents. I'm not sure of the exact manner, but when
I read the book, it does appear to be photographs.
-
Gjest
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
In a message dated 7/9/06 3:56:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:
<< If (a) why choose a 1894 compiled history to cite over
the citations given in Richardson's two works? >>
Because, the source I used, I can quote at length.
Richardson's sources have no quotations and unless I'm mistaken, neither he
nor anyone else has indicated that they can be viewed online, as this book I
quoted can.
You're correct that the 1894 book may be wrong, but as in another recent
example, we really can't say until the relevant quotations are all extracted and
reviewed. Simply posting a list of citations without quotes doesn't help that
situation.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< If (a) why choose a 1894 compiled history to cite over
the citations given in Richardson's two works? >>
Because, the source I used, I can quote at length.
Richardson's sources have no quotations and unless I'm mistaken, neither he
nor anyone else has indicated that they can be viewed online, as this book I
quoted can.
You're correct that the 1894 book may be wrong, but as in another recent
example, we really can't say until the relevant quotations are all extracted and
reviewed. Simply posting a list of citations without quotes doesn't help that
situation.
Will Johnson
-
Kay Allen
Re: Descent of Fitton of Gawsworth from barons of Dunham Mas
I believe that the issue of Hamon VI were barred from
the inheritance and Fitton of Gawsworth inherited as
son of the sister of Hamon VI.
I believe the case is in Pedigrees from the Plea
Rolls. Sorry, still from top of head.
K
--- "alden@mindspring.com" <alden@mindspring.com>
wrote:
the inheritance and Fitton of Gawsworth inherited as
son of the sister of Hamon VI.
I believe the case is in Pedigrees from the Plea
Rolls. Sorry, still from top of head.
K
--- "alden@mindspring.com" <alden@mindspring.com>
wrote:
ToddWhitesides@aol.com wrote:
If this has already been discussed then I
apologize in advance for the
repitition.
Peter Leycester in his Historical Antiquities...,
v. 2, pt. 4, pp. 241-242,
identified the eldest daughter of Sir Hamon Massy,
6th baron of Dunham Massy,
as Cecily, wife of John Fitton of Bollin (in
Macclesfield Hundred), whose
male heir and representative during the suits
concerning the division of Dunham
Massy (in Bucklow Hundred) was Richard Fitton of
Bollin.
In "Pedigrees From the Plea Rolls" in The
Genealogist, n.s., 12:230, there
is a case labeled "De Banco. Trinity 51. E. 3. m.
266. Cestria~" in which
Thomas Fitton of Gawsworth sued Thomas, Abbot of
St. Werburgh, to deliver a
deed of quitclaim dated 15 Edw. II, in which
Oliver de Ingham, Knt., released to
Hamon de Mascy, Knt., all his rights in the manors
of Dunham etc. Thomas
Fitton's mother was shown to be Isabella, daughter
of Cecily Mascy.
Leycester on pp. 242-243 showed that Thomas
Fitton's wife was Isabel,
daughter and heir of Thomas Orreby of Gawsworth.
My question is this: Was Cecily Massy the wife
first of Thomas Orreby of
Gawsworth and the mother of Isabell his heiress,
and secondly the wife of John
Fitton of Bollin and the mother of Richard Fitton
of Bollin? The fact that
she had a daughter by a previous marriage would
not affect the fact that her
male heir in the division of the Dunham Massy
estate would be by her second
marriage. Or is there another interpretation for
this?
Todd Whitesides
I believe the Cecily who married Thomas de Orreby is
considered the
aunt of the Cecily who married John Fitton.
Doug Smith
-
Gjest
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
In a message dated 7/10/06 5:56:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:
<< It seems to me that you are using the "free rider" principle of
economics. You want others to go out, spend money and time to gather
research, and post it for free to use. Why shouldn't you pony up some
money and time yourself? Your membership dues to research societies
keeps those societies going. Your publication dues keeps those
scholarly journals going. At some point you have to spend some money
if you are going to do "real" genealogical research. >>
Your characterization is unfair. My subscription to ancestry is not free. I
think it's fairly clear that I spend a large amount of time as well, in fact
on the order of about six to ten hours per weekday. The number of posts here
is representative of that fact.
I post my research here, freely, that I spent time and money to gather, for
others to use. And others post theirs as well. We can't all have access to
every resource, which is why we share what we find. I share what I find, and I
have never once asked someone to spend time or money to share anything. I've
only posted and asked if anyone has anything to add. That is, the nature, of
this list, and is what, everyone on this list, also does.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< It seems to me that you are using the "free rider" principle of
economics. You want others to go out, spend money and time to gather
research, and post it for free to use. Why shouldn't you pony up some
money and time yourself? Your membership dues to research societies
keeps those societies going. Your publication dues keeps those
scholarly journals going. At some point you have to spend some money
if you are going to do "real" genealogical research. >>
Your characterization is unfair. My subscription to ancestry is not free. I
think it's fairly clear that I spend a large amount of time as well, in fact
on the order of about six to ten hours per weekday. The number of posts here
is representative of that fact.
I post my research here, freely, that I spent time and money to gather, for
others to use. And others post theirs as well. We can't all have access to
every resource, which is why we share what we find. I share what I find, and I
have never once asked someone to spend time or money to share anything. I've
only posted and asked if anyone has anything to add. That is, the nature, of
this list, and is what, everyone on this list, also does.
Will Johnson
-
norenxaq
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
Wjhonson is my AOL email address. Again not something under my control.
you can choose any combination of letters and numbers with aol and that
becomes your email address, thus it is under your control
-
Gjest
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
In a message dated 7/10/06 6:26:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:
<< You did ask Doug Richardson to post such material. By saying he
doesn't quote his sources, but merely cite them, you clearly implied
that you wanted him to give you the actual quotes >>
I stated that he did not quote them.
I did not ask him to quote them.
When I post my material I quote it.
What more is there to discuss?
Will Johnson
writes:
<< You did ask Doug Richardson to post such material. By saying he
doesn't quote his sources, but merely cite them, you clearly implied
that you wanted him to give you the actual quotes >>
I stated that he did not quote them.
I did not ask him to quote them.
When I post my material I quote it.
What more is there to discuss?
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
In a message dated 7/10/06 6:41:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
norenxaq@san.rr.com writes:
<< you can choose any combination of letters and numbers with aol and that
becomes your email address, thus it is under your control >>
Not quite.
You cannot choose one that is already taken.
So therefore it is not under your control.
Wjohnson was taken.
norenxaq@san.rr.com writes:
<< you can choose any combination of letters and numbers with aol and that
becomes your email address, thus it is under your control >>
Not quite.
You cannot choose one that is already taken.
So therefore it is not under your control.
Wjohnson was taken.
-
Gjest
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
In a message dated 7/10/06 7:11:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mhollick@mac.com
writes:
<< Gary Boyd Roberts citing Janis
Joplin's biography written by her sister Laura states >>
Mea culpa.
It now reads as you have most helpfully pointed out.
Thank you for your input!
Will
writes:
<< Gary Boyd Roberts citing Janis
Joplin's biography written by her sister Laura states >>
Mea culpa.
It now reads as you have most helpfully pointed out.
Thank you for your input!
Will
-
John Brandon
Re: Henry Whitfield
I'm thinking that the name Seton was mentioned as well. I believe
there was a Seton family who held the title of Lord Winton, or
I was wrong about the name Seton, which is not mentioned anywhere.
What Waters' chart actually says is: "Anna [Manning] ux. Josuae Aylmer
fil. naturalis Johis, Marchis Winton." Waters was a very careful
researcher, and almost always had good reasons for what he wrote; so I
expect the notation about "fil naturalis ... Marchis Winton" actually
comes from some contemporary pedigree chart. If so, this adds quite a
bit to the HOP sketch of Joshuae Aylmer (is anybody keeping track of
corrections?).
CP shows that William, 3rd Marquess of Winchester, had at least four
illegitimate sons, so perhaps, John, 2nd Marquess, his father, had some
as well.
-
Kay Allen
Re: de Tracy - Danvers link (was Re: Fibbs, fables and conti
Dear David.
My records show that Joan Russell is the dtr. of John
Russell of Bradenstoke and Agnes Godfrey. Part of this
is probably VCH Wilts.
K
--- David Teague <davteague@hotmail.com> wrote:
My records show that Joan Russell is the dtr. of John
Russell of Bradenstoke and Agnes Godfrey. Part of this
is probably VCH Wilts.
K
--- David Teague <davteague@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks to everyone who offered assistance with Amy
Danvers' alleged Tracy
ancestry.
Having examined the alleged lineage, I found that it
runs thusly:
Grace de Tracy + John de Sudeley
William de Tracy (of Toddington) + Hawise de Born
Jane de Tracy + Osbert Vampage
Richard Vampage + dau. of Roger Gifford & Anne
Brewer
John Vampage + Elisabeth Washborne
John Vampage + Elisabeth Walker
John Vampage + Catherine Wollashall
Katherine Vampage + Robert Russell
John Russell + Thomas Quartermain
Matilda (=Maud) Quartermain + John Bruley
Joan Bruley + Sir John Danvers
Amy Danvers + John Langston
If AR7, Line 222 is correct, Grace de Tracy was not
the daughter of William
de Tracy, Henry I's son by an unknown mistress, as
used to be claimed;
however, the William de Tracy in the 2nd generation
above was the ancestor
of the Viscounts Tracy.
David Teague
-
Kay Allen
Re: de Tracy - Danvers link (was Re: Fibbs, fables and conti
Sorry, VCH OXON 10.
K
--- Kay Allen <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote:
K
--- Kay Allen <allenk@pacbell.net> wrote:
Dear David.
My records show that Joan Russell is the dtr. of
John
Russell of Bradenstoke and Agnes Godfrey. Part of
this
is probably VCH Wilts.
K
--- David Teague <davteague@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks to everyone who offered assistance with Amy
Danvers' alleged Tracy
ancestry.
Having examined the alleged lineage, I found that
it
runs thusly:
Grace de Tracy + John de Sudeley
William de Tracy (of Toddington) + Hawise de Born
Jane de Tracy + Osbert Vampage
Richard Vampage + dau. of Roger Gifford & Anne
Brewer
John Vampage + Elisabeth Washborne
John Vampage + Elisabeth Walker
John Vampage + Catherine Wollashall
Katherine Vampage + Robert Russell
John Russell + Thomas Quartermain
Matilda (=Maud) Quartermain + John Bruley
Joan Bruley + Sir John Danvers
Amy Danvers + John Langston
If AR7, Line 222 is correct, Grace de Tracy was
not
the daughter of William
de Tracy, Henry I's son by an unknown mistress, as
used to be claimed;
however, the William de Tracy in the 2nd
generation
above was the ancestor
of the Viscounts Tracy.
David Teague
-
John Brandon
Re: Humphrey Stafford of Hooke, Dorset d 27 May 1442
You cannot choose one that is already taken.
So therefore it is not under your control.
Wjohnson was taken.
Live a little, hon. Branch out. Chose "Hyenawill" ... or
"SuppressivePerson" ... er "THEmadGENEALOGIST" ... or "Baywatchfan" ...
or "iheartgeneralhospital" ... or whatever.
I would think you'd get tired of your plain little name stamped in
incorrect spelling across everything.
-
Lyn Wolf
Re: Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Thursby of Lynn, Norfolk
Thanks for pointing out my typo. Yes, it is Juliana NOEL.
Lyn
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Thursby of Lynn, Norfolk
Lyn
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Thursby of Lynn, Norfolk
In a message dated 7/8/06 3:58:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
lynawolf@yahoo.com.au writes:
Giles ALINGTON & Dorothy CECIL
William ALINGTON & Elizabeth TOLLEMACHE
William ALINGTON & Joanna NOEL
Juliana ALINGTON & Scrope HOWE
This "Joanna" might be "Juliana" per genealogics
Will
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com