[For extensive discussion leading up to this segment of the ancestry of Joseph
Peck, gateway ancestor to America, b.1587, immigrant of 1638 from England,
and his grandfather, Robert Peck, the Elder,d.Nov 1556, see gen-medieval archives,
Middleton pedigree: 1100-1600 and addenda.]
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Peck,d.Nov 1556=1st, dau.of Norton?,2nd, Johan(Joan) Waters,d. Oct 1556
[source: *English Ancestry of Joseph Peck,* NEHGSR, 1930s]
________________________________________________________________________________
The authors of the above serialization created a can of worms in Peck genealogy,
and the serialized articles need to be revisited: the crux of the Peck pedigree segment
under scrutiny begins with the search for the immediate ancestors of Robert Peck,
the Elder, so-called of Beccles. All previous assumptions and declarations are set aside
in favor of establishing the IDENTITY FACTS of Robert Peck, the Elder, d.Nov 1556.
IDENTITY FACT 1: Contrary to the appelation "of Beccles" and its implications, Robert
Peck, the Elder,d.Nov 1556, was not born in Beccles. He arrived in Beccles from places
unknown c.1525, inasmuch as it was stated clearly in a deposition of 1537 that he
had lived in Beccles about 12 years. His name did not "appear under Beccles in the
subsidy of 1524, for he was not then a resident of Beccles. Since, however he was living
in Beccles as early as 1525 and in 1529 was one of the executors of the will of John
Leek..." [authors comment in quotes: Oct 1939, page 361].
The authors investigate, to their satisfaction, not mine, and allege the following:
"That the first Robert Peck of Beccles, one of the two executors of the will of John Leek
of Beccles, was not a native of Beccles, but had taken up his residence there about 1525,
is proved by his deposition dated 23 May 1537, in a case concerning the testament of
John Coke, late of Beccles, deceased." [authors comment in quotes: Oct 1939, page 360].
In the deposition, the authors found "Robert Pecke, of Beccles, where he had resided
for 12 years, of free condition, saith he has known testator and executor for seven years.
Duly sworn and examined he saith that the Testament then exhibited agrees in everything
with the Testament read to him." (Causes Ecclesiastical, Diocese of Norwich, year 1537,
folio 150)." [authors citation in quotes: Oct 1939, page 360].
Obviously, there is conflict of conclusions in the above commentary by the authors about
their citations in the texts. Based on these and other alleged facts, the authors proport to
draw proper conclusions based on whether or not this Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles,
could or could not have been the Robert Peck of Beccles, son of John Peck in the Peck
pedigree in the British Museum created by the College of Heralds, dated 1620, and published
in 1936 in this serialization of articles of Joseph Peck, whose grandfather is now under
investigation. The authors draw conclusions on age of participants, places of residence,
interpretation of the word "neve" in texts which often are interpreted either as "nephew"
or "grandson," by them and others, without redressing the entire text with this questionable
translation, and dismiss a pedigree in the British Museum in its totality as "fraudulent"
when it fact it is based on two previous and accepted *Visitations.*
The authors herein allege this Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles, married twice, first, a
daughter
of Walter Norton of Halesworth, Suffolk. They state that a Richard Pek and Maryon Pek
were found in a lay subsidy in Suffolk in 1524. A William Pek is identified as an associate.
Land, of three acres, and pasture was in the tenure of a Robert Pecke and Anne Carre,
a widow, in 1549-50. [Oct 1939, page 360]
However, the identity of all these Pecks, and their relationships is not discussed nor fixed.
The authors make assumptions and draw conclusions about the parentage of Robert Peck
of Beccles and his birthplace. The authors state "The surname is common both to Norfolk
and to Suffolk from a very early date...It is evident, nevertheless, that the Pecks in that
section
of Norfolk, near Beccles, were not very prolific, as no testators of the name have been
found there in the records of the Norfolk probate records." [authors comment in quotes:
oct 1939, page 361]
The authors assume and dismiss conclusions without a factual basis of the true and
certain birthplace of Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles. One identity fact is true and
certain from this record and commentary by the authors: Robert Peck, the Elder,
was not born in Beccles nor had he lived there until c.1525 according to a recorded
deposition to which he was a signed party.
Bill
PS
I believe I had made a true and certain record of my sources and if anyone finds I err,
I will gladly correct this *Peck pedigree* in gen-medieval in the interest of scholarship.
***************
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Peck pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Beccle
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Somerby's forged Peck pedigree...
In article <mailman.505.1193358179.19317.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
<...>
The 'need' for revisitation is nothing other than your refusal to accept
the obvious conclusions of Miss Peck's careful work.
For the record, the article in question is:
S[hirley] Allyn Peck: "The English Ancestry of Joseph Peck, of Hingham,
Mass., in 1638," _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_ 89
(1935):327-39; 90 (1936):58-67, 194-198, 263-68, 371-73 [and plates
I-IVa]; 91 (1937):7-15, 282-86, 355-63; 92 (1938):71-73; 93 (1939),
176-78, 359-61; 94 (1940):71-73.
The article also indicates that it was 'compiled' by Miss Peck and
'communicated' or 'contributed' by Frederick Stanhope Peck of
Barrington, Rhode Island. But I take this to mean that FS Peck simply
transmitted Miss Peck's to the society.
At this last page it is stated that it is "to be continued," but no
further parts are found in the NEHGR by searching the online index for
Miss Peck's or Mr. FS Peck's names.
"of Beccles" is used not to claim he was a native of a place, but--as is
perfectly common usage in such discussions--to indicate that he lived
much of his adult life there. Miss Peck was aware that this Robert Peck
was not born at Beccles.
I'm sorry: what part of Miss Peck's interpretation are you seeking to
disparage here?
I fail to see any "conflict of conclusions" here.
It is misleading to say that the MS pedigree presented in Miss Peck's
article is "based on" two visitations. Certainly, two extant visitation
pedigrees were apparently used to concoct the pedigree, as it
incorporates their information. But to those of us who look at it
experienced and disinterested eyes, it *looks like a rank forgery*: and
such forgeries almost always were "based on" authentic material. The
usual modus operandi of such endeavors was to copy and conflate known
sources, then add new material, without contradicting known data, to
achieve the desired result (usually either linking some later individual
to an visitation family, or adding a lengthy pre-visitation ancestry to
a known family, or both). Even before focusing on elements in it which
can be explicitly disproved, one has to begin with the assumption that
it is a forgery, based on the reputation of the pedigree's 'finder',
Somerby.
In the event, this careful article by Miss Peck shows quite convincingly
that Robert Peck (Sr.) of Beccles, Suffolk, could not have been a son or
grandson of John Peck, son of Richard Peck of Wakefield, Yorkshire. See
especially on this NEHGR 90 (1936):372. Similarly, Richard Peck of
Wakefield had no known younger son Henry who could be identified with
the Carlton Colville Henry Peck who you offered as a possible father of
Robert Peck of Beccles. Both Richard's own will (see NEHRG 90
[1936]:63-4), and son John's pedigree in Tonge's visitation, mention
only girls apart from John.
This seems a perfectly reasonable statement of useful background
material on the distribution of the surname. Without a trustworthy
primary source or compelling name matches, pointing to a distant locale,
one should always first look near an individual's residence for his or
her ancestors.
What does Miss Peck assume without factual basis? What does she dismiss
prematurely?
It seems to me as if you are setting out, rather inexpertly, to prove
the forged pedigree, in the face of the contradictory evidence carefully
laid out by Miss Peck seventy years ago. Save your breath.
Don't be too disappointed in the exposure of the forgery: a forgery is
an interesting and noteworthy thing in itself. I would be glad to have
such a curiosity in my own family tree. I am tempted--unrelated as I am
to any of these Pecks--to get someone to consult the original in the BL
and request digital photographs.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote:
<...>
The authors of the above serialization created a can of worms in Peck
genealogy,
and the serialized articles need to be revisited:
The 'need' for revisitation is nothing other than your refusal to accept
the obvious conclusions of Miss Peck's careful work.
For the record, the article in question is:
S[hirley] Allyn Peck: "The English Ancestry of Joseph Peck, of Hingham,
Mass., in 1638," _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_ 89
(1935):327-39; 90 (1936):58-67, 194-198, 263-68, 371-73 [and plates
I-IVa]; 91 (1937):7-15, 282-86, 355-63; 92 (1938):71-73; 93 (1939),
176-78, 359-61; 94 (1940):71-73.
The article also indicates that it was 'compiled' by Miss Peck and
'communicated' or 'contributed' by Frederick Stanhope Peck of
Barrington, Rhode Island. But I take this to mean that FS Peck simply
transmitted Miss Peck's to the society.
At this last page it is stated that it is "to be continued," but no
further parts are found in the NEHGR by searching the online index for
Miss Peck's or Mr. FS Peck's names.
the crux of the Peck
pedigree segment
under scrutiny begins with the search for the immediate ancestors of Robert
Peck,
the Elder, so-called of Beccles. All previous assumptions and declarations
are set aside
in favor of establishing the IDENTITY FACTS of Robert Peck, the Elder, d.Nov
1556.
IDENTITY FACT 1: Contrary to the appelation "of Beccles" and its
implications, ...
"of Beccles" is used not to claim he was a native of a place, but--as is
perfectly common usage in such discussions--to indicate that he lived
much of his adult life there. Miss Peck was aware that this Robert Peck
was not born at Beccles.
... Robert
Peck, the Elder,d.Nov 1556, was not born in Beccles. He arrived in Beccles
from places
unknown c.1525, inasmuch as it was stated clearly in a deposition of 1537
that he
had lived in Beccles about 12 years. His name did not "appear under Beccles
in the
subsidy of 1524, for he was not then a resident of Beccles. Since, however
he was living
in Beccles as early as 1525 and in 1529 was one of the executors of the will
of John
Leek..." [authors comment in quotes: Oct 1939, page 361].
The authors investigate, to their satisfaction, not mine, and allege the
following:
"That the first Robert Peck of Beccles, one of the two executors of the will
of John Leek
of Beccles, was not a native of Beccles, but had taken up his residence there
about 1525,
is proved by his deposition dated 23 May 1537, in a case concerning the
testament of
John Coke, late of Beccles, deceased." [authors comment in quotes: Oct 1939,
page 360].
I'm sorry: what part of Miss Peck's interpretation are you seeking to
disparage here?
In the deposition, the authors found "Robert Pecke, of Beccles, where he had
resided
for 12 years, of free condition, saith he has known testator and executor for
seven years.
Duly sworn and examined he saith that the Testament then exhibited agrees in
everything
with the Testament read to him." (Causes Ecclesiastical, Diocese of Norwich,
year 1537,
folio 150)." [authors citation in quotes: Oct 1939, page 360].
Obviously, there is conflict of conclusions in the above commentary by the
authors about
their citations in the texts.
I fail to see any "conflict of conclusions" here.
Based on these and other alleged facts, the
authors proport to
draw proper conclusions based on whether or not this Robert Peck, the Elder,
of Beccles,
could or could not have been the Robert Peck of Beccles, son of John Peck in
the Peck
pedigree in the British Museum created by the College of Heralds, dated 1620,
and published
in 1936 in this serialization of articles of Joseph Peck, whose grandfather
is now under
investigation. The authors draw conclusions on age of participants, places
of residence,
interpretation of the word "neve" in texts which often are interpreted either
as "nephew"
or "grandson," by them and others, without redressing the entire text with
this questionable
translation, and dismiss a pedigree in the British Museum in its totality as
"fraudulent"
when it fact it is based on two previous and accepted *Visitations.*
It is misleading to say that the MS pedigree presented in Miss Peck's
article is "based on" two visitations. Certainly, two extant visitation
pedigrees were apparently used to concoct the pedigree, as it
incorporates their information. But to those of us who look at it
experienced and disinterested eyes, it *looks like a rank forgery*: and
such forgeries almost always were "based on" authentic material. The
usual modus operandi of such endeavors was to copy and conflate known
sources, then add new material, without contradicting known data, to
achieve the desired result (usually either linking some later individual
to an visitation family, or adding a lengthy pre-visitation ancestry to
a known family, or both). Even before focusing on elements in it which
can be explicitly disproved, one has to begin with the assumption that
it is a forgery, based on the reputation of the pedigree's 'finder',
Somerby.
In the event, this careful article by Miss Peck shows quite convincingly
that Robert Peck (Sr.) of Beccles, Suffolk, could not have been a son or
grandson of John Peck, son of Richard Peck of Wakefield, Yorkshire. See
especially on this NEHGR 90 (1936):372. Similarly, Richard Peck of
Wakefield had no known younger son Henry who could be identified with
the Carlton Colville Henry Peck who you offered as a possible father of
Robert Peck of Beccles. Both Richard's own will (see NEHRG 90
[1936]:63-4), and son John's pedigree in Tonge's visitation, mention
only girls apart from John.
The authors make assumptions and draw conclusions about the parentage of
Robert Peck
of Beccles and his birthplace. The authors state "The surname is common both
to Norfolk
and to Suffolk from a very early date...It is evident, nevertheless, that the
Pecks in that
section
of Norfolk, near Beccles, were not very prolific, as no testators of the name
have been
found there in the records of the Norfolk probate records." [authors comment
in quotes:
oct 1939, page 361]
This seems a perfectly reasonable statement of useful background
material on the distribution of the surname. Without a trustworthy
primary source or compelling name matches, pointing to a distant locale,
one should always first look near an individual's residence for his or
her ancestors.
The authors assume and dismiss conclusions without a factual basis of the
true and
certain birthplace of Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles.
What does Miss Peck assume without factual basis? What does she dismiss
prematurely?
It seems to me as if you are setting out, rather inexpertly, to prove
the forged pedigree, in the face of the contradictory evidence carefully
laid out by Miss Peck seventy years ago. Save your breath.
Don't be too disappointed in the exposure of the forgery: a forgery is
an interesting and noteworthy thing in itself. I would be glad to have
such a curiosity in my own family tree. I am tempted--unrelated as I am
to any of these Pecks--to get someone to consult the original in the BL
and request digital photographs.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net