In the "House of Cornewall", by C.G. Cornewall and Compton Reade, it
is stated that Sir John Cornwall of Kinlet, Shropshire, and his wife
Elizabeth Wasteneys had as heirs their three daughters: Elizabeth,
married to Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet; Matilda, married to John
Wode; and Isabel, married to Sir William Lichfield. [See chart, p.
54, and text on pp. 66-7.] John's IPM from 1415 shows only one heir,
the daughter Isabel, wife of William Lichfield.
Assuming that the "House of Cornewall" is correct in giving John three
daughters and correct in naming their husbands, the question now comes
as to which Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet was the husband of
Elizabeth Cornwall. It seems that the only choice would be the Roger
Corbet, who died in 1468. If true, this would mean that he had a wife
before Elizabeth Hopton, the mother of his children. ("The House of
Cornewall" is clear that Elizabeth Cornewall had no children
whatsoever.)
Any comments?
Mike
Roger Corbet and Elizabeth Hopton: an earlier marriage for R
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
wjhonson
Re: Roger Corbet and Elizabeth Hopton: an earlier marriage f
On Feb 12, 6:42 am, mrdgen <mrdar...@gmail.com> wrote:
You said yourself that John's IPM from 1415 shows only one heir.
That should settle the question shouldn't it? The other two daughters
are fictional, or confused identifications.
Will Johnson
In the "House of Cornewall", by C.G. Cornewall and Compton Reade, it
is stated that Sir John Cornwall of Kinlet, Shropshire, and his wife
Elizabeth Wasteneys had as heirs their three daughters: Elizabeth,
married to Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet; Matilda, married to John
Wode; and Isabel, married to Sir William Lichfield. [See chart, p.
54, and text on pp. 66-7.] John's IPM from 1415 shows only one heir,
the daughter Isabel, wife of William Lichfield.
Assuming that the "House of Cornewall" is correct in giving John three
daughters and correct in naming their husbands, the question now comes
as to which Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet was the husband of
Elizabeth Cornwall. It seems that the only choice would be the Roger
Corbet, who died in 1468. If true, this would mean that he had a wife
before Elizabeth Hopton, the mother of his children. ("The House of
Cornewall" is clear that Elizabeth Cornewall had no children
whatsoever.)
Any comments?
Mike
You said yourself that John's IPM from 1415 shows only one heir.
That should settle the question shouldn't it? The other two daughters
are fictional, or confused identifications.
Will Johnson
-
wjhonson
Re: Roger Corbet and Elizabeth Hopton: an earlier marriage f
Are you quite sure the book states that the three daughers were
"heiresses" and not merely "daughters" ?
They are simply copying Burke's. But Burke does *not* state that the
three daughters were co-heiresses.
"heiresses" and not merely "daughters" ?
They are simply copying Burke's. But Burke does *not* state that the
three daughters were co-heiresses.
-
mrdgen
Re: Roger Corbet and Elizabeth Hopton: an earlier marriage f
On Feb 12, 5:34 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
I agree that the IPM should settle it. But there is the possibility
that
the other daughters died before the father (though that brings up the
question
as to why the text called them "co-heiresses"). It is quite clear
that
"The House of Cornewall" is confused here, and if this was a copy from
Burke,
the confusion is explained. Thanks for the information.
Just for the record, the following is a direct quotation, from pp. 66
& 67 of "The House of Cornewall":
"Bryan de Cornewall married Maude (Harl. MSS. 6148 and 6157, p. 110),
daughter of Lord Strange* of Blakemere, and by her had (I) Sir John de
Cornewall of Kinlet, who by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Wasteneys
of Tixall*, Staffordshire, left at his decease, 2 Henry V., (1415),
three coheiresses, viz.: ---
I.-- Elizabeth, wife of Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet, Salop. s.p.
2.-- Matilda, wife of John Wode. s.p.
3.-- Elizabeth, born 1391, according to the Lansdowne MSS., 86, p.
165, twenty-four years of age on her marriage, who by Sir William
Lychefeld had an only child, Margaret. In the Inq. post mortem on Sir
John Cornewall, 1415, mention is made of Isabel, wife of Sir William
Lychefeld as his only daughter and heir..."
Are you quite sure the book states that the three daughers were
"heiresses" and not merely "daughters" ?
They are simply copying Burke's. But Burke does *not* state that the
three daughters were co-heiresses.
I agree that the IPM should settle it. But there is the possibility
that
the other daughters died before the father (though that brings up the
question
as to why the text called them "co-heiresses"). It is quite clear
that
"The House of Cornewall" is confused here, and if this was a copy from
Burke,
the confusion is explained. Thanks for the information.
Just for the record, the following is a direct quotation, from pp. 66
& 67 of "The House of Cornewall":
"Bryan de Cornewall married Maude (Harl. MSS. 6148 and 6157, p. 110),
daughter of Lord Strange* of Blakemere, and by her had (I) Sir John de
Cornewall of Kinlet, who by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Wasteneys
of Tixall*, Staffordshire, left at his decease, 2 Henry V., (1415),
three coheiresses, viz.: ---
I.-- Elizabeth, wife of Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet, Salop. s.p.
2.-- Matilda, wife of John Wode. s.p.
3.-- Elizabeth, born 1391, according to the Lansdowne MSS., 86, p.
165, twenty-four years of age on her marriage, who by Sir William
Lychefeld had an only child, Margaret. In the Inq. post mortem on Sir
John Cornewall, 1415, mention is made of Isabel, wife of Sir William
Lychefeld as his only daughter and heir..."
-
wjhonson
Re: Roger Corbet and Elizabeth Hopton: an earlier marriage f
On Feb 14, 4:59 am, mrdgen <mrdar...@gmail.com> wrote:
It would appear that this book is quoting some other MS that there
were three co-heiresses. And then turning around and pointing out the
the IPM of Sir John only mentions one. So it appears they themselves
are pointing out the conflict. In that case the IPM has to hold over
the MS. Another possible error would be that Elizabeth (Isabel) was
born 1391, married at 24, and the IPM taken in 1415. All of those
square with each other, which is suspect.
It's quite possible for example, that the IPM in 1415 states that she
is "24 and more" and that she is already married. And so somebody
using "married BY 1415" made it into "married IN 1415". Happens all
the time. So I would trust that she was "24 and more" but not what
year she married.
The idea that there were three co-heiresses *might* be more closely
related to what was occuring with the Wasteneys inheritence. So you
might check there to see if can clarify exactly *who* Sir John
Wasteneys was, and who he left as heirs and then who his heirs left as
heirs.
Will Johnson
Just for the record, the following is a direct quotation, from pp. 66
& 67 of "The House of Cornewall":
"Bryan de Cornewall married Maude (Harl. MSS. 6148 and 6157, p. 110),
daughter of Lord Strange* of Blakemere, and by her had (I) Sir John de
Cornewall of Kinlet, who by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Wasteneys
of Tixall*, Staffordshire, left at his decease, 2 Henry V., (1415),
three coheiresses, viz.: ---
I.-- Elizabeth, wife of Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet, Salop. s.p.
2.-- Matilda, wife of John Wode. s.p.
3.-- Elizabeth, born 1391, according to the Lansdowne MSS., 86, p.
165, twenty-four years of age on her marriage, who by Sir William
Lychefeld had an only child, Margaret. In the Inq. post mortem on Sir
John Cornewall, 1415, mention is made of Isabel, wife of Sir William
Lychefeld as his only daughter and heir..."
It would appear that this book is quoting some other MS that there
were three co-heiresses. And then turning around and pointing out the
the IPM of Sir John only mentions one. So it appears they themselves
are pointing out the conflict. In that case the IPM has to hold over
the MS. Another possible error would be that Elizabeth (Isabel) was
born 1391, married at 24, and the IPM taken in 1415. All of those
square with each other, which is suspect.
It's quite possible for example, that the IPM in 1415 states that she
is "24 and more" and that she is already married. And so somebody
using "married BY 1415" made it into "married IN 1415". Happens all
the time. So I would trust that she was "24 and more" but not what
year she married.
The idea that there were three co-heiresses *might* be more closely
related to what was occuring with the Wasteneys inheritence. So you
might check there to see if can clarify exactly *who* Sir John
Wasteneys was, and who he left as heirs and then who his heirs left as
heirs.
Will Johnson
-
wjhonson
Re: Roger Corbet and Elizabeth Hopton: an earlier marriage f
Having now looked at some details of the descent of Tixall, I'm not
even sure that we can connect this John to that place. Certainly
there were other Wasteneys who were called "of Tixall" but weren't in
the direct line of possession. So it's a bit murky.
I did however, in this glance, find where the last Wasteneys of
Tixall, Rose, alongwith her husband Sir John Merston, conveyed in 1461
the Manor of Tixall to William Wore, Rotfern Walle, Wm Comberford,
Christopher Goldsymth and Richard Poore
Who evidently then conveyed it to Sir Thomas Lyttleton and his wife
Jane
So that explains how Thomas got it. Or at least he bought the
reversion of it, Rose getting 24 pounds a year, etc.
I'm fairly sure this must be Sir Thomas Lyttleton, K.B. who d 23 Aug
1481 at Franklin Manor, co Worcs and his wife Joan Burley "eldest
daughter" of Sir William Burley of Castle Broncroft (etc) by his wife
Ellen Grendon.
Joan Burley had prevously been married to Sir Philip Chetwynd of
Ingestrie, which opens up a whole new can of worms, as the Chetwynd's
and Wasteneys had been involved in various lawsuits for some time.
At any rate. Tom and Jane had a son William, knighted in 1487, of
Franklin typically stated, but his daughter by Ellen Walsh was a Jane
Lyttleton called "heiress of Tixall, Staffs"
Probably thousands of people descend from this point. At least we
know how they got Tixall.
Will Johnson
even sure that we can connect this John to that place. Certainly
there were other Wasteneys who were called "of Tixall" but weren't in
the direct line of possession. So it's a bit murky.
I did however, in this glance, find where the last Wasteneys of
Tixall, Rose, alongwith her husband Sir John Merston, conveyed in 1461
the Manor of Tixall to William Wore, Rotfern Walle, Wm Comberford,
Christopher Goldsymth and Richard Poore
Who evidently then conveyed it to Sir Thomas Lyttleton and his wife
Jane
So that explains how Thomas got it. Or at least he bought the
reversion of it, Rose getting 24 pounds a year, etc.
I'm fairly sure this must be Sir Thomas Lyttleton, K.B. who d 23 Aug
1481 at Franklin Manor, co Worcs and his wife Joan Burley "eldest
daughter" of Sir William Burley of Castle Broncroft (etc) by his wife
Ellen Grendon.
Joan Burley had prevously been married to Sir Philip Chetwynd of
Ingestrie, which opens up a whole new can of worms, as the Chetwynd's
and Wasteneys had been involved in various lawsuits for some time.
At any rate. Tom and Jane had a son William, knighted in 1487, of
Franklin typically stated, but his daughter by Ellen Walsh was a Jane
Lyttleton called "heiress of Tixall, Staffs"
Probably thousands of people descend from this point. At least we
know how they got Tixall.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Roger Corbet and Elizabeth Hopton: an earlier marriage f
On Feb 12, 5:04 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
you are confused with my identity, WileECoyote
run, roady
<G>
On Feb 12, 6:42 am, mrdgen <mrdar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In the "House of Cornewall", by C.G. Cornewall and Compton Reade, it
is stated that Sir John Cornwall of Kinlet, Shropshire, and his wife
Elizabeth Wasteneys had as heirs their three daughters: Elizabeth,
married to Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet; Matilda, married to John
Wode; and Isabel, married to Sir William Lichfield. [See chart, p.
54, and text on pp. 66-7.] John's IPM from 1415 shows only one heir,
the daughter Isabel, wife of William Lichfield.
Assuming that the "House of Cornewall" is correct in giving John three
daughters and correct in naming their husbands, the question now comes
as to which Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet was the husband of
Elizabeth Cornwall. It seems that the only choice would be the Roger
Corbet, who died in 1468. If true, this would mean that he had a wife
before Elizabeth Hopton, the mother of his children. ("The House of
Cornewall" is clear that Elizabeth Cornewall had no children
whatsoever.)
Any comments?
Mike
You said yourself that John's IPM from 1415 shows only one heir.
That should settle the question shouldn't it? The other two daughters
are fictional, or confused identifications.
Will Johnson
you are confused with my identity, WileECoyote
run, roady
<G>
-
mrdgen
Re: Roger Corbet and Elizabeth Hopton: an earlier marriage f
On Feb 14, 5:11 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
The lesson to me in this is that even a fairly well regarded secondary
or tertiary source (such as "House of Cornewall") is at best a
secondary or tertiary source, whose information must be checked
firsthand.
For what it's worth, "House of Cornewall" says (p. 67) that Elizabeth
Wasteneys, wife of John Cornewall, was the daughter of John Wasteneys
(1282-1359) and his wife Isabella Hay.
Regards,
Mike
Having now looked at some details of the descent of Tixall, I'm not
even sure that we can connect this John to that place. Certainly
there were other Wasteneys who were called "of Tixall" but weren't in
the direct line of possession. So it's a bit murky.
The lesson to me in this is that even a fairly well regarded secondary
or tertiary source (such as "House of Cornewall") is at best a
secondary or tertiary source, whose information must be checked
firsthand.
For what it's worth, "House of Cornewall" says (p. 67) that Elizabeth
Wasteneys, wife of John Cornewall, was the daughter of John Wasteneys
(1282-1359) and his wife Isabella Hay.
Regards,
Mike