Giving Anne "Harling" an ancestry
wjhonson
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00109111&tree=LEO
last wife of John 5th Lord Scrope of Bolton
Leo is not showing any ancestry for her. She is actually Anne Herling
(or de Herling), heiress of her father Sir Robert de Herling who was
Slain at Paris in 1435.
As this heiress she (probably among other things) acquired the Manor
of Newnham, which when she died "in 1498 at a great age" she
bequeathed it to Gonville Hall (evidently a kind of college).
John Lord Scrope was actually her third husband. Her first had been
William Chamberlain K.G. who evidently "died about 1462". Her second
was Sir John Wingfield.
Can anyone identify who exactly this Sir John Wingfield, living in
1462, died by 1498 could be ?
Sir Robert de Herling was the son (and apparently heir?) of Sir John
de Herling by his wife Cecily Mortimer who (she) had inherited Newnham
Manor as co-heiress of her father, but evidently by an agreement dated
1402 (even though he'd died in 1387).
Cecily Mortimer was co-heiress to her father Thomas Mortimer Knt of
Attleborough who d.v.p.
Who was the other co-heiress?
Will Johnson
wjhonson
ascent for Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York.
In a volume of the Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society
http://books.google.com/books?id=tBTTAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA190#v=onepage&q=&f=false
It is stated that this Cecily Mortimer (grandmother of Anne de
Herling) is ancestral to the Radcliffe Earls of Sussex. I almost fell
off my chair.
Checking Leo's great web site here we see the ancestral chart for John
Radcliffe Lord FitzWalter
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00198890&tree=LEO
And note with astonishment his grandfather Sir John Radcliffe of (get
ready, get set, go) Attleborough.
Must it not be, that this Sir John Radcliffe of Attleborough is
exactly, a son of Cecily Mortimer of Newnham (and evidently
Attleborough; living in 1402) by her known second husband John
Radcliffe who was evidently yet living in 1428 (or perhaps the one in
1428 IS this son John).
Will Johnson
John
You haven't stated a source for your assertions that Anne's surname
was Herling, not Harling, and that her 2nd husbnad was Sir John
Wingfield.
CP sub Scrope of Bolton calls her Anne Harling [not Herling} and says
that her 2nd husband was Sir Robert Wingfield (not Sir John). This
agrees with pedigrees of the Wingfields in BP, which show this Sir
Robert as the son of the Sir Robert who mar. Elizabeth Goushill.
As for the sisters and co-heiresses of Cecily Mortimer of
Attleborough, see various posts in the archives of the group (most
recently, a few days ago in the thread on William Wrothe), as well as
the visitations of Norfolk, and finally CP sub Mortimer of
Attleborough (which also calls the family Harling, not Herling).
wjhonson
come to her from her ancestors the Mortimers.
As far Harling versus Herling, it seems a small quibble. Googling for
Sir Robert Harling gives 67 hits, while Sir Robert Herling gives an
additional 25 including notes about his tomb
http://www.eastharling.com/ehherlingtomb.html
So I would say that the surname was flexible somewhat.
Interestingly his tomb originally only contained his own recumbant
figure, while his wife was added later. I wonder, seeing that Sir
William Chamberlain who'd I'd say must be the same person as the first
husband of their heiress Anne Herling, rebuilt this chapel in 1449.
Even the place name is given in some sources as East HERLING
See for example
http://books.google.com/books?id=kqkHAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA150
Page 150
Will Johnson
John
> Completely without intention, I've evidently stumbled upon yet another
> ascent for Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York.
>
>
> It is stated that this Cecily Mortimer (grandmother of Anne de
> Herling) is ancestral to the Radcliffe Earls of Sussex. I almost fell
> off my chair.
>
> Checking Leo's great web site here we see the ancestral chart for John
>
> And note with astonishment his grandfather Sir John Radcliffe of (get
> ready, get set, go) Attleborough.
>
> Must it not be, that this Sir John Radcliffe of Attleborough is
> exactly, a son of Cecily Mortimer of Newnham (and evidently
> Attleborough; living in 1402) by her known second husband John
> Radcliffe who was evidently yet living in 1428 (or perhaps the one in
> 1428 IS this son John).
>
> Will Johnson
The Radcliffe/Mortimer connection was also discussed in this group a
few years ago....check the archives. In particular it appears that
the Radcliffe Earls of Sussex were descended from Sir John Radcliffe
(d. 1441) by his 2nd wife Katherine Burnell, not his 1st wife Cecily
Mortimer. This is, in fact, what Leo shows in the pedigree you cite
(although he doesn't include the 1st wife Cecily).
wjhonson
Elizabeth Goushill, states that this Robert Wingfield, Comptroller of
the household of Edward IV was one of their sons.
They there give him an estimate birthyear of 1432, but with the
obviously erroneous deathdate of 1492/3 which I've removed. There is
a primary document, in which Anne in 1488, in then already described
as "Widow of Sir Robert Wingfield". So obviously he cannot have lived
another 5 years.
I would expect this 1492/3 death year is probably based entirely on
some other document in which she was already married to Lord Scrope or
something of that nature.
If this Robert Wingfield has been correctly identified, that would
make Anne Harling or Herling a Cecil 6
Will Johnson
wjhonson
>
> The Radcliffe/Mortimer connection was also discussed in this group a
> few years ago....check the archives. In particular it appears that
> the Radcliffe Earls of Sussex were descended from Sir John Radcliffe
> (d. 1441) by his 2nd wife Katherine Burnell, not his 1st wife Cecily
> Mortimer. This is, in fact, what Leo shows in the pedigree you cite
> (although he doesn't include the 1st wife Cecily).
What Leo shows is no parents for Sir John Radcliffe d 1441
That leaves open the idea I presented that Cecily is his mother, not
his wife.
John
The idea you presented that Sir John Radcliffe (d. 1441) was the son
and not the husband of Cecily Mortimer can be quickly dismissed by
checking pedigrees of the Radcliffe family in the standard sources,
which consistently show that this Sir John was married twice. There
is admittedly some question in some of the pedigrees as to whether the
younger Sir John (d. 1461) was a son of the 1st or the 2nd wife, but
the evidence in CP seems to support that the younger Sir John
(ancestor of the earls of Sussex) was of the 2nd marriage (to
Katherine Burnell). Once again, see the archives - for 2003.
Leo's database is certainly useful, but it's far from complete (as leo
would be this first to admit). It's a pretty wild leap to assume
that, because Leo doesn't include a first marriage or parents for Sir
John, his mother could be Cecily Mortimer. That's what research is
all about - not just looking at databases....
wjhonson
I dismiss all the standard sources, dating from at least 150 years
after the fact :)
As to your snickery comment of what "research is about" I would
suggest that I am using primary sources, while you are using secondary
ones. When primary sources appear to possibly conflict with secondary
ones, then all bets are off. That is what research is about teacher.
When you post a primary source, let me know.
Thanks and have a nice day.
wjhonson
another one for you to ponder on your quick leap that the surname was
Harling not Herling.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=75139
Note that the surname is Herling.
The entire point is rather silly. We know that vowels were not a
strong point in medieval documents whatsoever.
Will
wjhonson
For those of you who like heraldry as a primary source document.
Will
wjhonson
It is said that this Margaret, was the sister of Anne, Lady Scropes
father. I find that hard to believe.
When Anne de Herling, Lady Scrope died without issue on 18 Sep 1498
she was then described as "of a great age". Her first husband William
Chamberlain, K.G. was certainly born by 1413, possibly as much as 40
years earlier for all I know. But we do know that he was Governor of
Craill upon Oise in France, in 1436 if not earlier. By the way, he
has a monument at East Herling, but I don't know that it says anything
on it.
If Anne were only say 60 ish I wouldn't call that "a great age", so
apparently she had to be at least 70. Her parents Sir Robert and his
wife Joan Gonville were *already married* in 1420 when that year
holding the Manor of Gonvilles and he is already that year called
"miles".
When Robert de Herling was slain in Paris in 1435 it was while trying
to hold that city for the king.
There is a site here
http://www.themcs.org/churches/East%20Harling%20St%20Peter%20and%20St%20Paul.html
which apparently is given details from M.I.s I would suppose, although
they don't make that very clear.
They state, fwiw that John de Herling, Knt father of this Robert was
born 1379 and died Jun 1403. That gives very narrow range for when
Robert himself could be born.
But for my purpose it casts doubt upon the statement that Margaret in
1498 then wife of Robert de Tudenham, Knt was this Robert's "sister".
She would have been quite ancient at the time, certainly well into her
90s. That simply isn't credible without a direct quote from the
primary source material.
Will Johnson
John
Ummhh...exactly what "primary" sources have you cited in this thread?
And what primary (or secondary) sources did you consult before coming
up with the hypothesis that Sir John Radcliffe (d. 1441) was the son
of Cecily Mortimer? If you have primary sources regarding the
Radcliffe family which you've consulted, perhaps you could share them
with the group. Even if you profess to disdain the use of secondary
sources, it's certainly wise to consult them before jumping to a wild
and unsupportable conclusion as you did.
As it happens, one of the sources you DID cite in this thread (I'll
leave it to you to judge whether it's primary or secondary) does say
that Cecily Mortimer married [and thus was not the mother of] Sir John
Radcliffe (d. 1441) and gives the names of Sir John's parents.
Apparently you overlooked that item.....
Douglas Richardson
John Radcliffe, Esq. (died 1461), of Attleborough, Norfolk was the son
and heir of John Radcliffe, K.G. (died 1441), of Attleborough,
Norfolk, 2nd Baron of the Exchequer of Ireland, joint Chief Butler of
Ireland, Seneschal of Aquitaine, Chamberlain of North Wales, by his
2nd wife, Katherine, daughter and co-heiress of Edward Burnell, Knt.
He was not the son of his father's first wife, Cecily Mortimer, as
sometimes claimed in print.
We can be certain of this for three reasons. First, contemporary
records indicate that John Radcliffe, Esq. (died 1461), was born about
1430, he being aged 23 in 1453. His parents, John Radcliffe and
Katherine Burnell, are known to have married before 8 Dec. 1420, as
indicated by a conveyance of that date.
Second, John Radcliffe, Esq. (died 1461), is known to have inherited
his mother's share of the Burnell inheritance, namely the manors of
Billingford, Riston, Southmere and Docking, and Thurning, Norfolk,
which properties in turn passed to his descendants.
Third, I find that John Radcliffe, Esq. (died 1461) was styled
"cousin" in a letter dated 1456 by Dame Alice Ogard (née Lovel)
[Reference: Fenn & Ramsay, Paston Letters (1859): 79]. John
Radcliffe, Esq. was related to Alice (Lovel) Ogard through his mother,
Katherine Burnell. Alice Lovel and Katherine Burnell were related to
one another by way of common descent from Maud Burnell (b. c. 1290/4,
died c. 1341), wife successively of John Lovel, 2nd Lord Lovel, and
John de Haudlo, Knt.
For those interested in reading additional information on the matter
of the parentage of John Radcliffe, Esq., I suggest they consult
Roskell, House of Commons 1386–1421 4 (1992): 155–159.
As for Cecily Mortimer, the first wife of the elder John Mortimer, she
was the daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Mortimer, Knt., of
Attleborough, Norfolk and Newnham, Cambridgeshire, by Mary, daughter
of Nicholas Park. Prior to her marriage to John Mortimer, Cecily
Mortimer had been the wife of John Herling, Knt., who died before 1
July 1403. By her Herling first marriage, Cecily Mortimer had one
surviving child, Robert Herling, which Robert Herling was the father
of the Anne Herling, about whom this thread began.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Matt Tompkins
> As for Cecily Mortimer, the first wife of the elder John Mortimer, she
> was the daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Mortimer, Knt., of
> Attleborough, Norfolk and Newnham, Cambridgeshire, by Mary, daughter
> of Nicholas Park. Prior to her marriage to John Mortimer, Cecily
> Mortimer had been the wife of John Herling, Knt., who died before 1
> July 1403. By her Herling first marriage, Cecily Mortimer had one
> surviving child, Robert Herling, which Robert Herling was the father
> of the Anne Herling, about whom this thread began.
When you say "first wife of the elder John Mortimer" and "Prior to her
marriage to John Mortimer" you meant to say "John Radcliffe", didn't
you, Douglas?
Matt
wjho...@aol.com
Will
Douglas Richardson
< When you say "first wife of the elder John Mortimer" and "Prior to
her
< marriage to John Mortimer" you meant to say "John Radcliffe", didn't
< you, Douglas?
<
< Matt
Yes, of course. That's for catching the mistake.
Cecily Mortimer married (1st) John Harling, who died before 1 July
1403, and (2nd) perhaps in 1405 the elder John Radcliffe, K.G., who
died in 1441. Following Cecily Mortimer's death, John Radcliffe,
K.G., married (2nd) before 8 Dec. 1420 Katherine Burnell, who died 13
Oct. 1452.
As stated in my post, Cecily Mortimer was the mother of Robert
Harling. And, Katherine Burnell was the mother of the younger John
Radcliffe, born c.1430.
Douglas Richardson
Stubborn Will might try looking at Cal. of Close Rolls, 1441–1447
(1937): 10–11. These pages refer to the arrangements made following
the death of the elder John Radcliffe in 1441 with respect to the
lands of his first wife, Cecily Mortimer, and those of his surviving
wife, Katherine Burnell. As stated already, both of these ladies were
heiresses in their own right.
In the first record on pg. 10, it indicates that John Mortimer had
survived Cecily Mortimer and that he continued "his estate" in her
lands "all his life" and "died thereof so seized." Reversion of
Cecily's lands was granted to her granddaughter, Anne Herling, then
wife of William Chamberlain, Knt.
In the second record on pp. 10-11, Katherine, the surviving wife of
John Radcliffe, was granted possession of the lands of her own
inheritance, they previously having been settled on John and Katherine
and their heirs, and that John "died thereof so seised." At
Katherine's own death in 1452, these lands passed to her son, John
Radcliffe, Esq., in accordance with the earlier settlement.
These Close Rolls pages can be found at the following weblinks:
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City. Utah
wjhonson
>
> Stubborn Will might try looking at Cal. of Close Rolls, 1441–1447
> (1937): 10–11. These pages refer to the arrangements made following
> the death of the elder John Radcliffe in 1441 with respect to the
> lands of his first wife, Cecily Mortimer, and those of his surviving
> wife, Katherine Burnell. As stated already, both of these ladies were
> heiresses in their own right.
>
> In the first record on pg. 10, it indicates that John Mortimer had
> survived Cecily Mortimer and that he continued "his estate" in her
> lands "all his life" and "died thereof so seized." Reversion of
> Cecily's lands was granted to her granddaughter, Anne Herling, then
> wife of William Chamberlain, Knt.
>
> In the second record on pp. 10-11, Katherine, the surviving wife of
> John Radcliffe, was granted possession of the lands of her own
> inheritance, they previously having been settled on John and Katherine
> and their heirs, and that John "died thereof so seised." At
> Katherine's own death in 1452, these lands passed to her son, John
> Radcliffe, Esq., in accordance with the earlier settlement.
>
> These Close Rolls pages can be found at the following weblinks:
>
>
> pg. 11:http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=%2FFHMedieval...
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City. Utah
You say that in the first record it indicates that "John Mortimer
[recte Radcliffe] had survived Cecily, etc etc."
The first record is solely a command to the escheators in Essex,
Norfolk, and Suffolk to take the fealty of John Racliffe [as he had]
taken to wife Elizabeth daughter and heir of Walter Lord Fitz
Waultier.
That's it. That's all it states. What has that got to do at all with
Cecily? In fact this person isn't even the John we're discussing.
Unless you're now going to state that John was married thrice! Or are
you going to declare that this John was the widower of Catherine
Burnell here. I don't think so Douglas.
John Radcliffe, the one you want to have married first Cecily, died in
or about 1441, four years before this CCR entry.
Recte ?
Will Johnson
wjhonson
The silly gooses at Family History Archive, have decided to use their
own silly goose deep embedding links. You cannot merely cut and paste
the address bar link into a message.
*Throws up hands* *Rolls eyes*
Jeez Louise. Let me play with this and see if I can see how to do it.
Will Johnson
wjhonson
Okay fine.
*When* you are reading one these Family History Archive pages, there
is a main URL at the top in your address bar, but this apparently
*only* points to the first page you ever view.
As you view other pages, this URL apparently doesn't change. So if
you cut-and-paste that one, you will only direct people to the first
page you viewed, not the current page you are viewing.
When you are viewing a page, near the top of that page, there is a
link that says "Reference URL". If you want to direct people to the
page you are viewing, you have to click on that link, and a new pop-up
window will open and after a pause will show you the URL to use.
So for example, you page 10, of this document is
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/FHMedieval2,56073
Page 11 would be
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/FHMedieval2,56074
Interesting how only the final digit changes.
I have a sneaky suspicious that these are pure index numbers to the
"current number of pages scanned ever". Which is a bit of an odd way
to do it. But notice how the URL doesn't seem to have any
identification exact a pure and small number.
Apparently simply by changing this number from 1 up to 100000 you
could browse through all of their collection without needing to know
even the names of the items.
Will