Biography of Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe
Cristopher Nash
>Just wanted to point out the existence of a 420-page biography of
>Thomas Norton (d. 1584), M.P., of Sharpenhoe, Bedfordshire, both of
>whose wives were members of the Cranmer family. I believe he is
>claimed as an ancestor of at least two Norton immigrants to New
>England (I'm going from memory here; I threw out the set of TAG,
>1930-63 [or whatever], but there was a series of articles on these
>Nortons therein).
>
>The biography is: Michael A. R. Graves, _Thomas Norton: The
>Parliament Man_ (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994).
Thanks a lot for this, John. (I think the most recent discussion
here of the problems with the claims you mention was 28 Nov - 5 Dec
01 under <George Norton of Ipswich and Sharpenhoe?> -- though if
there's been any since I'd appreciate a a heads-up!) Did you notice
whether Graves offers any details re Thomas Norton's descs, or was
this simply a general alert?
Cris
--
Todd A. Farmerie
One issue that remains open is the possible placement of Conn.
immigrant Thomas Norton from this earlier man. Thomas has
traditionally been placed as son of William Norton (a nephew of
Thomas) and Denise Choemsley (sp?), yet it has been shown that
his Thomas was likely a distinct man. It was then suggested that
Thomas might be the son of Richard, son of Thomas. I am
wondering if anything more has been done on this, to allow a
conclusion one way or the other.
taf
Cristopher Nash
>Cristopher Nash wrote:
>>starb...@hotmail.com (John Brandon) wrote --
>>
>>>Just wanted to point out the existence of a 420-page biography of
>>>Thomas Norton (d. 1584), M.P., of Sharpenhoe, Bedfordshire, both of
>>>whose wives were members of the Cranmer family. I believe he is
>>>claimed as an ancestor of at least two Norton immigrants to New
>>>England (I'm going from memory here; I threw out the set of TAG,
>>>1930-63 [or whatever], but there was a series of articles on these
>>>Nortons therein).
>>>
>>>The biography is: Michael A. R. Graves, _Thomas Norton: The
>>>Parliament Man_ (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994).
[SNIP]
>One issue that remains open is the possible placement of Conn.
>immigrant Thomas Norton from this earlier man. Thomas has
>traditionally been placed as son of William Norton (a nephew of
>Thomas) and Denise Choemsley (sp?), yet it has been shown that his
>Thomas was likely a distinct man. It was then suggested that Thomas
>might be the son of Richard, son of Thomas. I am wondering if
>anything more has been done on this, to allow a conclusion one way
>or the other.
>
>taf
Me too. In case John's was as I say only a 'general alert' (for
which again thanks), if anyone here has read through the Graves,
would s/he please give us a shout? Meantime John, pardon the
personal query, but does your <starbuck> stem from _The Rainmaker_ by
any chance? Or the New England family? or is it just in celebration
of the ubiquitous coffee?
Best,
Cris
--
Rafal T. Prinke
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
> >> Just wanted to point out the existence of a 420-page biography of
> >> Thomas Norton (d. 1584), M.P., of Sharpenhoe, Bedfordshire, both of
> >> whose wives were members of the Cranmer family.
> >> The biography is: Michael A. R. Graves, _Thomas Norton: The
> >> Parliament Man_ (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994).
> Thomas has
> traditionally been placed as son of William Norton (a nephew of
> Thomas) and Denise Choemsley (sp?),
My question probably is not concerned with the same Nortons - but
perhaps someone knows if there is any published genealogy
of the Nortons of Bristol? I am especially interested in
the 15th and 16th c. and the immediate family of Thomas Norton,
the alchemical poet, author of _The Ordinall of Alchemy_ (1477?).
He is said to have been the son of a Norton (I don't know the first
namew) ho was a prominent citizen of Bristol (bailiff 1392,
sheriff 1410, mayor 1413, M.P. from 1399 to 1421).
I assume it was the same family as that of Sir George Norton of Bristol
who built Leigh Court in 1588.
Best regards,
Rafal
Cristopher Nash
Macy/Starbuck/Folger folk, with and without coffee -- and again,
thanks for taking my prying in the spirit intended!
John Brandon <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote --
>I'm thinking that immigrant Capt. Walter Norton of New England is
>claimed as a son of Thomas Norton (d. 1584) by his second wife Alice
>Cranmer. Graves's book lists the children of Thomas (d. 1584), but
>does not include a son Walter. I think Thomas's son Henry, who IS
>mentioned in the book, is also supposed to have New England
>descendants. Graves, citing John Manningham's diary, mentions that
>Henry is supposed to have been duped into marriage, and speculates
>that he may have been a bit "simple."
I think it'd be sensible for me to mention to Norton-seekers here
that (as y'd expect on demog. grounds) there are several Norton lines
early in New England, and that found solutions to the puzzles
affecting one aren't guaranteed to resolve things relating to
another. This may disappoint friends springing to the appearance of
Thomas Nortons (with Cranmer associations) in Bedfordshire, since
Thomas Norton of early Guldford, CT, is also associated with Beds (so
to speak). One of the appeals of Douglas Richardson's account of the
latter's and his wife Grace Wells' origins as of Dean and Shelton,
Beds, was his restraint in declining to stretch to a Sharpenhoe
connection without evidence. (TAG, 54:179-80). While it explicitly
"resists" connections with a Sharpenhoe line famously reported by
Seversmith in TAG, it's essentially a continutation/ confirmation of
Walter Whittlesey Norton's (_Some Descendants of John Norton of
Branford 1622-1709_ [1909]).
This isn't to say that there may not be links between the families --
and William L. Norton <wl...@worldnet.att.net> was a few years ago in
pursuit of ones. I haven't heard from Bill in some time, but perhaps
someone else here has, with some encouraging results.
>But Graves does not seem to have been really concerned with tracing
>the descendants of Thomas.
No children's dates/marriages/places? No wonder that --
>Alice Cranmer Norton fell into a deep melancholy at menopause and
>became insane
-- and
>The second wife of Thomas's father committed suicide by drowning.
Frustrated genealogists, no doubt.
Cheers,
Cris
--
Rick Eaton
It is Guilford, CT (Connecticut, USA), not Guildford as you
have written and British English speakers would write. This
is where I live.
Rick Eaton
Todd A. Farmerie
> I think it'd be sensible for me to mention to Norton-seekers here that
> (as y'd expect on demog. grounds) there are several Norton lines early
> in New England, and that found solutions to the puzzles affecting one
> aren't guaranteed to resolve things relating to another. This may
> disappoint friends springing to the appearance of Thomas Nortons (with
> Cranmer associations) in Bedfordshire, since Thomas Norton of early
> Guldford, CT, is also associated with Beds (so to speak). One of the
> appeals of Douglas Richardson's account of the latter's and his wife
> Grace Wells' origins as of Dean and Shelton, Beds, was his restraint in
> declining to stretch to a Sharpenhoe connection without evidence. (TAG,
> 54:179-80). While it explicitly "resists" connections with a Sharpenhoe
> line famously reported by Seversmith in TAG, it's essentially a
> continutation/ confirmation of Walter Whittlesey Norton's (_Some
> Descendants of John Norton of Branford 1622-1709_ [1909]).
[in part to amplify and correct some earlier comments of mine]
I've not seen this, but this John is usually made son of Richard
and Lettice (Norton) Norton, Richard being son of William and
Dionise (Cheemsley), William of Richard and Margery (Wingar), and
Richard of John and Jane (Cowper) Norton, the founder of the
Sharpenhow family. Thomas of Guilford is shown in most sources
as son of William and Dionise, and hence uncle of John of
Branford. However, his 1631 Shelton, Beds marriage would seem
out of place for a man born in the late 1570s or early 1580s, and
an alternative identification for this Thomas son of William has
been given (TAG 16), as perhaps the Thomas of Barton-le-Clay,
Beds, whose children start appearing in 1595. That left the
immigrant without identification, and to the suggestion that
immigrant Thomas may have been the Thomas, son of Robert Norton,
bap. Streatley, Beds., 15 Sep. 1609. This Robert was son of
Thomas and Alice (Cranmer), son of Thomas and Elizabeth (Merry),
son of John and Jane (Cowper). With regard to this
identification, it should be pointed out that Streatley and
Shelton are about as far distant as you can get and still be in Beds.
taf
Cristopher Nash
>[in part to amplify and correct some earlier comments of mine]
>
>I've not seen this, but this John is usually made son of Richard and
>Lettice (Norton) Norton, Richard being son of William and Dionise
>(Cheemsley), William of Richard and Margery (Wingar), and Richard of
>John and Jane (Cowper) Norton, the founder of the Sharpenhow family.
>Thomas of Guilford is shown in most sources as son of William and
>Dionise, and hence uncle of John of Branford. However, his 1631
>Shelton, Beds marriage would seem out of place for a man born in the
>late 1570s or early 1580s, and an alternative identification for
>this Thomas son of William has been given (TAG 16), as perhaps the
>Thomas of Barton-le-Clay, Beds, whose children start appearing in
>1595. That left the immigrant without identification, and to the
>suggestion that immigrant Thomas may have been the Thomas, son of
>Robert Norton, bap. Streatley, Beds., 15 Sep. 1609. This Robert was
>son of Thomas and Alice (Cranmer), son of Thomas and Elizabeth
>(Merry), son of John and Jane (Cowper). With regard to this
>identification, it should be pointed out that Streatley and Shelton
>are about as far distant as you can get and still be in Beds.
I have to say (with Todd, I think, and as I was hinting) that mere
Birth in Beds isn't genealogically all it's cracked up to be. While
I'm tempted by the Shelton-Streatley link, it's not a lock -- other
records referring to Robert as of Dunstable/Markyate-Cell not helping
bridge regions -- and I feel more's needed. As David Greene pointed
out back in Dec '01, at least one immediately relevant Norton
pedigree appears not in the Beds but the Herts 1634 Visitation, and
this combined with the allusion to Markyate-Cell (with its Herts
associations) suggests to me that the net must be thrown wider if
we're to get the full picture. E.g. at the very least,
Streatley-and-environs records should be canvassed to rule out the
possibility there's a sequence of distinct earlier Nortons
established there, and more can and ought to be done than I've seen
on the name-and-place connections of the Heares, Robert's wife's
family, etc. Till then I'm afraid these Nortons are streatleys apart.
Cris
Cris
--
l.akershoek
Who can help me in finding some more ancestors of:-
Aelftrud van Devonshire.
The little info I have, is as follows:
1 AELFTRUD VAN DEVONSHIRE, born between 945 and 947, died on November 17, 1000.
Aelftrud was married in the year 964 to EDGAR VAN WESSEX, born in the year 943, died on July 8, 975, son of EDMUND I VAN WESSEX and AELGIFU VAN COVENTRY. Edgar was widower of AETHELFLAED, daughter of ORDMEAR.
AELFTRUD's father was (?):
ORDGAR VAN DEVONSHIRE, for whom I do not have any further details, not even to whom he was married: the mother of AELFTRUD
Who will help me??
Kindest regards,
\!!/
(°_°)
_ooO0_______0Ooo_
Leo Akershoek
My hobby?
Digging-up my dead relatives.
Cristopher Nash
>at the very least, Streatley-and-environs records should be
>canvassed to rule out the possibility there's a sequence of distinct
>earlier Nortons established there, and more can and ought to be done
>than I've seen on the name-and-place connections of the Heares,
>Robert's wife's family, etc. Till then I'm afraid these Nortons are
>streatleys apart.
I note from an exchange with Bill Norton of 1999 that in 'Deeds of
Sharpenhoe Dating from the Middle of the 16th Century' [LDS Film
6085245], document 20, dated April 23, 1612, as Bill wrote in summary
--
>recites a conveyance of the Rectory and titles of Streatley on
>September 9, 1606 to Robert Norton, gentleman, William Norton,
>clerk, and Walter Norton, gentleman. The purpose of document number
>20 is to record an 'exchange of tithes' between George Barbor alias
>Grigge of Houghton Regis, yeoman, Richard Barbor alias Grigge of
>Streatley and Luke Norton of Offley, Herts County (Gr. Offiey
>[Offley?], Hertford Co.), esquire, wife Lettice, and Gravely Norton
>their son and heir. The document further specifies that this Luke
>Norton is the son of Thomas Norton mentioned in the Letters Patent
>of Henry VII, i.e. the Thomas of Sharpenhoe Manor
-- by whom Bill means
>Thomas who married Alice Cranmer. From the deed documents ... an
>Alice Norton, widow, was alive as late as April 23, 1612.
I may well have missed a discussion of this document here or in the
number of papers published on the possible relations between Thomas
Norton of Guilford, CT, and the Thomas of Sharpenhoe, Beds. If
there's been none disputing the essence of Bill's remarks, this seems
to me (as it did to Bill) to offer a bridge (or the footings of one,
since no relationship is actually spelled out) between the two
families by way of Robert Norton of Streatley, Beds. While I write
Bill for an update, any thoughts?
Cris
--
Todd A. Farmerie
> I wrote --
>
>> at the very least, Streatley-and-environs records should be canvassed
>> to rule out the possibility there's a sequence of distinct earlier
>> Nortons established there, and more can and ought to be done than I've
>> seen on the name-and-place connections of the Heares, Robert's wife's
>> family, etc. Till then I'm afraid these Nortons are streatleys apart.
>
>
> I note from an exchange with Bill Norton of 1999 that in 'Deeds of
> Sharpenhoe Dating from the Middle of the 16th Century' [LDS Film
> 6085245], document 20, dated April 23, 1612, as Bill wrote in summary --
>
>> recites a conveyance of the Rectory and titles of Streatley on
>> September 9, 1606 to Robert Norton, gentleman, William Norton, clerk,
>> and Walter Norton, gentleman. The purpose of document number 20 is to
>> record an 'exchange of tithes' between George Barbor alias Grigge of
>> Houghton Regis, yeoman, Richard Barbor alias Grigge of Streatley and
>> Luke Norton of Offley, Herts County (Gr. Offiey [Offley?], Hertford
>> Co.), esquire, wife Lettice, and Gravely Norton their son and heir.
>> The document further specifies that this Luke Norton is the son of
>> Thomas Norton mentioned in the Letters Patent of Henry VII, i.e. the
>> Thomas of Sharpenhoe Manor
>
>
> -- by whom Bill means
>
>> Thomas who married Alice Cranmer. From the deed documents ... an
>> Alice Norton, widow, was alive as late as April 23, 1612.
I don't think this is right. Luke, husband of Lettice appears to
be younger half-brother of Thomas (m. Cranmer x 2), both sons of
an earlier Thomas Norton by different mothers. THis doesn't
change the import of the document, as Robert, William, and Walter
(names of three sons of Thomas and Alice Norton), appearing
together and in connection with 'uncle' Luke, certainly point to
this Robert of Streatly being the son of Thomas and Alice
Cranmer. I don't think there is room to doubt that this Robert is
the same as the father of the children born in Streatley in the
following few years.
> I may well have missed a discussion of this document here or in the
> number of papers published on the possible relations between Thomas
> Norton of Guilford, CT, and the Thomas of Sharpenhoe, Beds. If there's
> been none disputing the essence of Bill's remarks, this seems to me (as
> it did to Bill) to offer a bridge (or the footings of one, since no
> relationship is actually spelled out) between the two families by way of
> Robert Norton of Streatley, Beds. While I write Bill for an update, any
> thoughts?
It certainly looks solid. I have not looked at it closely
either, but I was under the impression that the big leap was
whether Thomas, son of Robert of Streatley was identical to
Thomas of Shelton, and hence to Thomas of Guilford.
FWIW, Waters, in his The Chesters of Chicheley reports that
Robert, son of Thomas "entered his pedigree in the Visitation of
Hertfordshire in 1634 and died in the beginning of the next year,
for his will is dated 28th Jan. 1634-5, and was proved in C.P.C.
on 19th Feb. following. He left three sons and two daughters."
I would think either the Visitation or the P.C.C. will should be
quite helpful in further documenting the identity of the Roberts.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear research-partners,
>
> Who can help me in finding some more ancestors of:-
>
> Aelftrud van Devonshire.
> The little info I have, is as follows:
>
> 1 AELFTRUD VAN DEVONSHIRE, born between 945 and 947, died on November 17, 1000.
> Aelftrud was married in the year 964 to EDGAR VAN WESSEX, born in the year 943, died on July 8, 975, son of EDMUND I VAN WESSEX and AELGIFU VAN COVENTRY. Edgar was widower of AETHELFLAED, daughter of ORDMEAR.
>
> AELFTRUD's father was (?):
> ORDGAR VAN DEVONSHIRE, for whom I do not have any further details, not even to whom he was married: the mother of AELFTRUD
>
> Who will help me??
No one - as far as I know, this is the extent to which her
ancestry is known. Ordgar was an Ealdorman, one of the ruling
elite, but these titles were not hereditary, so we can go no further.
taf
Cristopher Nash
>>>Thomas who married Alice Cranmer. From the deed documents ... an
>>>Alice Norton, widow, was alive as late as April 23, 1612.
>
>I don't think this is right. Luke, husband of Lettice appears to be
>younger half-brother of Thomas (m. Cranmer x 2), both sons of an
>earlier Thomas Norton by different mothers.
Thanks for straightening this out.
>THis doesn't change the import of the document, as Robert, William,
>and Walter (names of three sons of Thomas and Alice Norton),
>appearing together and in connection with 'uncle' Luke, certainly
>point to this Robert of Streatly being the son of Thomas and Alice
>Cranmer. I don't think there is room to doubt that this Robert is
>the same as the father of the children born in Streatley in the
>following few years.
[SNIP]
>It certainly looks solid. I have not looked at it closely either,
>but I was under the impression that the big leap was whether Thomas,
>son of Robert of Streatley was identical to Thomas of Shelton, and
>hence to Thomas of Guilford.
You're absolutely right. I'm doing/recommending the following:
1) P.C.C.: I'll look up the P.C.C. per the Waters details you
describe (as copied below).
2) Herts Visitation of 1634: The Bodleian astonishingly missing a
copy of this, by phone today with the Herts Rec Office I've had it
confirmed that it shows the pedigree of Robert of Market-cell, husb.
of Ann da. of Robert Hare [sic] of Lincolnshire [nota bene]. He is
given (gives himself, we believe, sh. bef. his d. in 1635) parents
Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe and Margaret, daughter of Thomas Cranmer,
Archbishop of Canterbury (Thomas subsequently marrying Alice daughter
of Edmund Cranmer). Robert and Ann (Hare) Norton are shown with
children: Thomas, Richard, George, Robert, Thomas [sic], Ann wife of
James Castle of London, and Elizabeth. [Harleian vol. 22 (1886),
based on Harleian MSS 6147 and 1546].
I'm awaiting hardcopy, which I'll check for details. One I'll look
at with interest is 'Market-cell' (a spelling we've seen in other
reports, but not I believe the spelling in this record), which -- as
has been suggested elsewhere - may refer to Markyate. If so, this
may explain Robert's filing in the Herts visitation - Markyate being
(as I've mentioned) a Herts placename, just across the border into
Herts and some 5 mi south of Dunstable. (Luke Norton, with whom
Robert is associated, has signif holdings in Herts.) Not essential
but can help to round out the picture.
3) Page-Turner's _Genealogia Bedfordiensis_: I note that Seversmith
says that "a careful study of the Norton entries extracted from the
parish registers and published in Page-Turner's _Genealogia
Bedfordiensis_ shows us that the Thomas who married Grace Wells was
of the vicinity of Dunstable" -- i.e. with which, along with nearby
Streatley and Sharpenhoe, Robert is associated [TAG 15:203]. I don't
recall any references to the Page-Turner in the last few years'
discussions, and will have a look at it early next week.
4) Norton/Cranmer connections with north Beds: I see from the Lincs.
placement of Robert 'Hare' that there may be negligible benefit in
pursuing his fam. for useful evidence of an earlier Hare/Heare link
with the Nortons to explain the presence of Robert Norton's s. Thomas
in Shelton/Dean. But worth asking is whether the Cranmers (Robert's
maternal family) had holdings in north Beds -- i.e. specifically
Shelton &/or Dean -- ?
There's also the extremely slim possibility that - as Bill Norton's
suggested to me - the persistent 'error' of associating the
Sharpenhoe Nortons with Ockley, Surrey, may be due to a confusion
(e.g. in family lore) with Oakley, Beds -- where there are slight
Norton associations -- a few miles south of Dean and Shelton, on the
track toward Dunstable/Streatley. Etymologically & in terms of
earlier spellings there's no good reason for such a confusion, so I
won't push it; it's just something to keep an eye open for.
Cris
>FWIW, Waters, in his The Chesters of Chicheley reports that Robert,
>son of Thomas "entered his pedigree in the Visitation of
>Hertfordshire in 1634 and died in the beginning of the next year,
>for his will is dated 28th Jan. 1634-5, and was proved in C.P.C. on
>19th Feb. following. He left three sons and two daughters." I would
>think either the Visitation or the P.C.C. will should be quite
>helpful in further documenting the identity of the Roberts.
--
Todd A. Farmerie
> 2) Herts Visitation of 1634: The Bodleian astonishingly missing a copy
> of this, by phone today with the Herts Rec Office I've had it confirmed
> that it shows the pedigree of Robert of Market-cell, husb. of Ann da. of
> Robert Hare [sic] of Lincolnshire [nota bene]. He is given (gives
> himself, we believe, sh. bef. his d. in 1635) parents Thomas Norton of
> Sharpenhoe and Margaret, daughter of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of
> Canterbury (Thomas subsequently marrying Alice daughter of Edmund
> Cranmer).
This is a useful demonstration of the reliability of Visitations.
> Robert and Ann (Hare) Norton are shown with children:
> Thomas, Richard, George, Robert, Thomas [sic], Ann wife of James Castle
> of London, and Elizabeth. [Harleian vol. 22 (1886), based on Harleian
> MSS 6147 and 1546].
As to the dual Thomas, Streatley records apparently show Thomas
bap. 10 Dec. 1605, bur. 20 Dec. 1605; Robert, bap. 2 Dec. 1606;
Anne, bap. 10 Oct. 1608; Thomas, bap. 15 Sep. 1609.
taf
Cristopher Nash
>Cristopher Nash wrote:
>
>2) Herts Visitation of 1634: The Bodleian astonishingly missing a
>copy of this, by phone today with the Herts Rec Office I've had it
>confirmed that it shows the pedigree of Robert of Market-cell, husb.
>of Ann da. of Robert Hare [sic] of Lincolnshire [nota bene]. He is
>given (gives himself, we believe, sh. bef. his d. in 1635) parents
>Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe and Margaret, daughter of Thomas
>Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury (Thomas subsequently marrying
>Alice daughter of Edmund Cranmer).
>
>This is a useful demonstration of the reliability of Visitations.
Mmm. Bloody marvelous.
>>Robert and Ann (Hare) Norton are shown with children: Thomas,
>>Richard, George, Robert, Thomas [sic], Ann wife of James Castle of
>>London, and Elizabeth. [Harleian vol. 22 (1886), based on Harleian
>>MSS 6147 and 1546].
>
>As to the dual Thomas, Streatley records apparently show Thomas bap.
>10 Dec. 1605, bur. 20 Dec. 1605; Robert, bap. 2 Dec. 1606; Anne,
>bap. 10 Oct. 1608; Thomas, bap. 15 Sep. 1609.
Yes, I recall that. I note that (as of 1831 anyway) Sharpenhoe is
actually a hamlet in the parish of Streatley. Really must do my
homework.
For Norton researchers interested in the Cranmer connection -- and
for anyone thinking things get more user-friendly as we leave the
medieval period behind, at least when we're dealing with one of the
most famous and heavily documented figures of the 16th century --
here's a chastening illus of what's involved. From the review by
Sean Lawrence (U of British Columbia) of Diarmaid MacCulloch's
_Thomas Cranmer: A Life_ (Yale UP, 1996).
(Lawrence says of the book "[A]t six-hundred and thirty-two pages,
excluding the bibliography, index and three appendices, this volume
is likely to define our view of Thomas Cranmer for generations". It
rec'd the (American) James Tait Black Memorial Prize for
Biography,1996, the Duff Cooper Prize 1996, and the (British)
Whitbread Book of the Year 1996).
Call it 'Thomas Cranmer, the Genealogist's Friend, or Handy Uses for
a Large Box':
"Cranmer married twice, but....[E]ven his first wife's family name is
speculation....Of his second wife, scarcely more is known. MacCulloch
raises, only to dismiss, the rumour that she was kept in a box
(250)....Margaret, the second Mrs. Cranmer, would have had to live in
England so secretly that even her husband's most bitter opponents
never learned of her existence (250)....Unfortunately, what makes the
women who participated in these contraband or near-contraband
marriages so interesting also makes them almost impossible to
research. MacCulloch remarks that "a complete silence envelops
Cranmer's wife during the 1530s; she probably came to England quite
soon after he became Archbishop, but she kept so low a profile as to
be invisible...." (250). Moreover, the secrecy which we would expect
to surround an illegal activity is compounded by Cranmer's almost
complete reticence regarding his family. MacCulloch claims that
Cranmer makes only a single reference to either wife in all surviving
correspondence (481). None of his children's ages are known with any
precision (361)....[W]hen MacCulloch claims that only one reference
to Margaret Cranmer survives, I am prepared to believe him. This is a
rich, deeply researched work....[t]he bibliography fills twenty-six
large pages, drawing on manuscript collections from Douai to
Uppsala...."
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
>2) Herts Visitation of 1634...shows the pedigree of Robert of
>Market-cell, husb. of Ann da. of Robert Hare [sic] of Lincolnshire
>[nota bene]. He is given ... parents Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe
>and Margaret, daughter of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury
>(Thomas subsequently marrying Alice daughter of Edmund Cranmer).
Todd wrote --
>This is a useful demonstration of the reliability of Visitations.
It _does_ contradict the most commonly recited accounts.
>Waters, in his The Chesters of Chicheley reports that Robert, son of
>Thomas "entered his pedigree in the Visitation of Hertfordshire in
>1634 and died in the beginning of the next year, for his will is
>dated 28th Jan. 1634-5
As it's plain that Cranmer himself's going to do all he can to
obstruct us (per my last posting), and just to make sure we're all on
the same page: Where the pedigree actually shows Thomas Norton also
marrying Edmund Cranmer's da. Alice, it could be hard not to accept
this attrib of Thomas Cranmer and Margaret (--) as grandparents of
Robert Norton, given the general notion that children know -- and
aren't prepared to fib about -- who their grandparents were.* Unless
we don't trust Waters' claim that the pedigree is Robert's work.
Sight next week of the actual Harleian Soc repro of the Visitation
may give me some evidence of who the ped's filer was (though even the
original Harl. MSS may well lack this). But if you've other
thoughts, Todd -- ?
Cris
* This may seem meant for a giggle but it's not, altogether. I've
had to show that this wasn't true of my mother's father, who (with no
profit in fibbing) - consistently, and on all occasions - not only
got the name wrong but was off by exactly 300 years.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
>> Waters, in his The Chesters of Chicheley reports that Robert, son of
>> Thomas "entered his pedigree in the Visitation of Hertfordshire in
>> 1634 and died in the beginning of the next year, for his will is dated
>> 28th Jan. 1634-5
>
> As it's plain that Cranmer himself's going to do all he can to obstruct
> us (per my last posting), and just to make sure we're all on the same
> page: Where the pedigree actually shows Thomas Norton also marrying
> Edmund Cranmer's da. Alice, it could be hard not to accept this attrib
> of Thomas Cranmer and Margaret (--) as grandparents of Robert Norton,
> given the general notion that children know -- and aren't prepared to
> fib about -- who their grandparents were.* Unless we don't trust
> Waters' claim that the pedigree is Robert's work. Sight next week of the
> actual Harleian Soc repro of the Visitation may give me some evidence of
> who the ped's filer was (though even the original Harl. MSS may well
> lack this). But if you've other thoughts, Todd -- ?
The ipm for Thomas, quoted by Waters, indicates that at the time
of his death, 10 Mar 1583/4, his eldest son Henry was 13 years, 8
months, and 20 days, or b. 20 Jun. 1570 (if I did my math right),
making Robert born no earlier than, say, Mar. 1571. Elsewhere,
Waters writes "Margaret Cranmer did not live to witness this
recognition of her husband's abilities, for she died without
issue before 1568, when Norton was the husband of her cousin
Alice, daughter of Edmund Cranmer, Archdeacon of Canterbury, who
was mother of his children." Unfortunately, he gives no citation
for this statement. If it is based on Alice appearing with
Norton in a document, then it would be clear proof, when combined
with Henry's age, that Robert was son of Alice. If, however, it
is based on nothing more than Alice being mother of the children,
then the argument becomes circular.
To this I should add something I should have found earlier, and
it might have saved you some trouble. In Herald & Genealogist,
vol. III, there appeared a review of the NEHGR Norton article of
1859. The original article, it should be remembered, contained a
pedigree compiled by "John Philepott, Somersett" Herald in 1632
(before the death of Robert). This explicitly states that
Margaret d.s.p. The review goes on to quote the 1634 Herts
Visitation, as follows (I have maintained spacing where possible,
but in some cases, my linewrap defeats this aim, and I have had
to adjust):
Elizabeth, dau. of Ro-=Thomas Norton of=Elizabeth daughter of Ro-
bert Merry, of North- |Sharpenhow, co. bert Marshall,of Hitchin,
all, 1 ux. |Bedford co. Hertford, 2 ux.
+-------------+
Margaret, daughter of Thomas=Thomas Norton=Alice, daughter of
Cranmer, Archbishop of of Sharpenhow| Edmund Cranmer
Canterbury |
+------------------------------+
Robert Norton, Esq. of Markeate-=Anne, daughter of Robert
cell, esq. now living 1634 | Hare of co. Lincoln
|
+---------+--+-------------+--+--------+--+
Thomas, eldest 2.Robert, s.p. 4.Richard. Anne, wyfe of James
son, s.p. 3.Thomas 5.George. Castle of London
Elizabeth
(Signed) Rob't Norton
It looks like either what you were given over the phone was an
imprecise account of the actual record, or that the Harleian
rendition of this pedigree does not match that which served as
source for this H&G transcript (unfortunately, it does not
specify its source). I do think the order of children here, in
perfect match with the reported Streatley baptisms, should remove
all doubt in the untity of these families.
taf
Tim Powys-Lybbe
c...@windsong.u-net.com (Cristopher Nash) wrote:
> I wrote --
>
> >2) Herts Visitation of 1634...shows the pedigree of Robert of
> >Market-cell, husb. of Ann da. of Robert Hare [sic] of Lincolnshire
> >[nota bene]. He is given ... parents Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe
> >and Margaret, daughter of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury
> >(Thomas subsequently marrying Alice daughter of Edmund Cranmer).
>
> Todd wrote --
>
> >This is a useful demonstration of the reliability of Visitations.
>
> It _does_ contradict the most commonly recited accounts.
>
> >Waters, in his The Chesters of Chicheley reports that Robert, son of
> >Thomas "entered his pedigree in the Visitation of Hertfordshire in
> >1634 and died in the beginning of the next year, for his will is
> >dated 28th Jan. 1634-5
I just happen to have a copy of the Herts visitation (do ask for info in
the future - and I have many of the other visitations too) and the
striking thing to me is that the published version is not from the
original manuscripts in the College of Arms but from copies, made by
hand and with many additions, in the Harleian collection.
For another County I even got out one of the copy Visitations of
Shropshire from the British Library and found some material in there
that has little basis in fact. I even formed the opinion that said
ancestor had hoodwinked his half-heraldic visitor.
On the other hand some of the real heralds on the actual visitations
were very careful only to include information on current generations -
and then got the armiger to sign the entry.
The very recent visitation books published by the Harleian Society are
from the College of Arms' manuscripts (eg Oxfordshire Visitation of 1669
and 1675). This indicates that the College may have changed its
previous policy of non-cooperation. If so, it seems that the whole
previous Visitation series will need re-publishing and this time from
the original manuscripts.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Todd A. Farmerie
> In message <a05100300ba6ff59b537b@[10.0.1.2]>
> c...@windsong.u-net.com (Cristopher Nash) wrote:
>
>>I wrote --
>>
>>>2) Herts Visitation of 1634...shows the pedigree of Robert of
>>>Market-cell, husb. of Ann da. of Robert Hare [sic] of Lincolnshire
>>>[nota bene]. He is given ... parents Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe
>>>and Margaret, daughter of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury
>>>(Thomas subsequently marrying Alice daughter of Edmund Cranmer).
>>
>>Todd wrote --
>>
>>>This is a useful demonstration of the reliability of Visitations.
>>
>>It _does_ contradict the most commonly recited accounts.
>
> the future - and I have many of the other visitations too) and the
> striking thing to me is that the published version is not from the
> original manuscripts in the College of Arms but from copies, made by
> hand and with many additions, in the Harleian collection.
Does it really show Robert Norton as son of Margaret Cranmer, and
not Alice Cranmer?
taf
Tim Powys-Lybbe
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
Transcribing the lot, apart from the last generation, as there are one
or gems there:
NORTON OF MARKETCELL
Quere better [proofe] of these armes, p. R.C. Clarenceux
Elizabeth, da. of Robert =Thomas Norton of Sharpen-=Elizabeth, da. of
Merry of Northall, 1 wife| howe, co. Bedf. Robert Marshall of
| Hitchin co Hertf.,
| 4 wife [sic]
|_______________
|
Margaret, da. of Thomas Cranmer=Thomas Norton of Sharpen-=Alice, da. of
Archbishol of Canterbury | Edmund Cranmer.
|
___________________________|
|
Robert Newton of Markate Cell,=Anne, da. of Robert hare
now living, ao 1634 |of co. Linc.
|
|
5 names sons, 2 named daus
If Clarenceux (Sir Richard St George) was querying the proof of these
arms, he may have been querying the descent so listed. (I know that
happened with one of my forbears who claimed some arms, which were
respited for proof, seems eventually to have been allowed them but never
left behind him any details of the descent let alone the proof, leading
to the suspicion that a couple of capons were involved.)
Cristopher Nash
Todd, thanks for this (and better late than never, espec given the
timescale we're used to). You may be right - and before saying more
I think I'd best wait till I've seen the Visitation hardcopy,
partic. in view of Tim's postings. And thanks much, Tim!
I do note that per Herts Rec Office conversation, as I mentioned, the
original MSS numbers are cited, suggesting that in this case they
were eyeballing the Right Stuff in 1886 - but we'll see.
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
>I just happen to have a copy of the Herts visitation (do ask for info in
>the future - and I have many of the other visitations too) and the
>striking thing to me is that the published version is not from the
>original manuscripts in the College of Arms but from copies, made by
>hand and with many additions, in the Harleian collection.
On closer look at this, Tim, I see the implication that my viewing
the Harleian published version may leave me no wiser. Just for
clarification: when you say you've a copy of the Herts visitation, do
you mean the original as compared with a known-to-be manhandled
Harleian one? And which, again, is the source of -
>
> NORTON OF MARKETCELL
>
> Quere better [proofe] of these armes, p. R.C. Clarenceux
>
>Elizabeth, da. of Robert =Thomas Norton of Sharpen-=Elizabeth, da. of
>Merry of Northall, 1 wife| howe, co. Bedf. Robert Marshall of
> | Hitchin co Hertf.,
> | 4 wife [sic]
> |_______________
> |
>Margaret, da. of Thomas Cranmer=Thomas Norton of Sharpen-=Alice, da. of
>Archbishol of Canterbury | Edmund Cranmer.
> |
> ___________________________|
> |
>Robert Newton of Markate Cell,=Anne, da. of Robert hare
>now living, ao 1634 |of co. Linc.
> |
> |
> 5 names sons, 2 named daus
? Are we talking about 3 distinct versions --
(1) an original CofA (signed by Robt Norton)
(2) a CofA quere - incl. revision? - by Clarenceux
(3) a manipulated published Harleian, vol 22 (1886)
- based on (1)? based (2)?
Or are there only 2? If 3, how much of any distinction here is
explicit and how much speculative (i.e. might some 2 of these be
identical)?
And does your transcription's original really say 'Robert _Newton_ of
Markate Cell'?
I think you're suggesting you've all versions, and it'd be a great
help to see which is which, vis-à-vis the parents of Robert Norton.
Sorry about this - there's just a whiff of rush here, and I'm tryin
to get these ducks in a row!
Cris
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
c...@windsong.u-net.com (Cristopher Nash) wrote:
<snip on the Herts Visitation book>
> I do note that per Herts Rec Office conversation, as I mentioned, the
> original MSS numbers are cited, suggesting that in this case they
> were eyeballing the Right Stuff in 1886 - but we'll see.
From the preface to the Herts Visitation:
"The first Visitation of Hertfordshire and Middlesex was made in 1572 by
COOKE, and the second in 1634 by SIR RICHARD ST GEORGE. The original
MSS. of these are G 17 and C 28 at the College of Arms.
"This Volume contains so much of these two visitations as relate to
Hertfordshire.
"Copies of the Hertfordshire portion of the first Visitation are to be
found in Harl. MSS. 1433, 1504, 1546, and 6147; and of the second in
Harl MSS. 1504 and 1547. These MSS. contain many additions to the
Visitation pedigrees, which are not repeated in these pages [of this
Volume]. Harl. MS. 6147 also contains the additional hertfordshire
Pedigrees which are given in Appendix I.; a copy of this MS. in in the
Library of Queen's College, Oxford, and has been erroneously called a
Visitation of Hertfordshire in 1615 by CAMDEN.
"Appendix II. contains Hertfordshire Pedigrees added to Harl. MS. 1546
by R. Mundy.
"A few explanatory notes are given in brackets.
"The third and last Visitation of Hertfordshire is that of 1669 by
BYSSHE, D 28 at the College of Arms, of which no copy is known to exist
elsewhere."
And I wonder what manuscript numbers the Herts Record office gave?
Tim Powys-Lybbe
c...@windsong.u-net.com (Cristopher Nash) wrote:
> t...@powys.org wrote --
>
> >I just happen to have a copy of the Herts visitation (do ask for info in
> >the future - and I have many of the other visitations too) and the
> >striking thing to me is that the published version is not from the
> >original manuscripts in the College of Arms but from copies, made by
> >hand and with many additions, in the Harleian collection.
>
> On closer look at this, Tim, I see the implication that my viewing
> the Harleian published version may leave me no wiser. Just for
> clarification: when you say you've a copy of the Herts visitation, do
> you mean the original as compared with a known-to-be manhandled
> Harleian one?
This is the one published by the Harleian Society, which was manhandled
from the Harleian MSS which were manhandled from the originals in the
College of Arms. Hence my view that all the Visitations need
republishing (in due course) from the C of A originals.
I've quoted the preface in another posting.
The problem is that in the 19th century the College of Arms forbade
anyone to use the original Royal Commission manuscripts and continued
this policy through much of the 20th century. It is only recently that
the Herleian Society editors are publishing from the C of A originals.
> And which, again, is the source of -
>
> >
> > NORTON OF MARKETCELL
> >
> > Quere better [proofe] of these armes, p. R.C. Clarenceux
> >
> >Elizabeth, da. of Robert =Thomas Norton of Sharpen-=Elizabeth, da. of
> >Merry of Northall, 1 wife| howe, co. Bedf. Robert Marshall of
> > | Hitchin co Hertf.,
> > | 4 wife [sic]
> > |_______________
> > |
> >Margaret, da. of Thomas Cranmer=Thomas Norton of Sharpen-=Alice, da. of
> >Archbishol of Canterbury | Edmund Cranmer.
> > |
> > ___________________________|
> > |
> >Robert Newton of Markate Cell,=Anne, da. of Robert hare
> >now living, ao 1634 |of co. Linc.
> > |
> > |
> > 5 names sons, 2 named daus
>
>
> ? Are we talking about 3 distinct versions --
>
> (1) an original CofA (signed by Robt Norton)
Possibly his signature is on the original in the College of Arms.
> (2) a CofA quere - incl. revision? - by Clarenceux
The Clarenceux King of Arms, or the relevant Herald, would have revised
his original copy when he got back to base.
> (3) a manipulated published Harleian, vol 22 (1886)
> - based on (1)? based (2)?
Yes to the Vol 22, pub 1886. But based on neither (1) nor (2). See the
preface I have quoted in another posting.
The Visitation teams has at least a painter and some sort of clerk,
with them and may not have been lead by the King of Arms but by one
of the Heralds, and each of these people made copies for their own
records and then added to their copies a they thought fit. Some of
these copies were then further copied, with additions, by those who held
the manuscripts. It is these resulting documents that are numbered by
the Harleian system and are to be found in the various depositories in
England. All the early Visitation books were made from these sorts of
copies and NOT from the originals in the College of Arms.
> Or are there only 2? If 3, how much of any distinction here is
> explicit and how much speculative (i.e. might some 2 of these be
> identical)?
Not from the (few) documents I have seen in the British Library. Those
who had made a copy of some visitation may then have rewritten it to
include details they had found or been given subsequently.
> And does your transcription's original really say 'Robert _Newton_ of
> Markate Cell'?
No. Apologies; today's other typo! It's Norton of course.
> I think you're suggesting you've all versions, and it'd be a great
> help to see which is which, vis-à-vis the parents of Robert Norton.
I really don't think you can rely on these "Visitation" books to resolve
disputed details. You can get a Herald to report on the real
Visitation, but they'll charge a fee, though it may be more productive
to start with a query to them via their internet site:
www.college-of-arms.gov.uk .
> Sorry about this - there's just a whiff of rush here, and I'm tryin
'trying' - we all suffer from the same problem!
> to get these ducks in a row!
>
> Cris
--
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
visitations I hesitate to intervene, but the Harleian publication of The
Visitations of Hertfordshire 1572 and 1634, has been posted on the net
at
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Hertfordshire/visitations/index.h
tml
This site also has several Visitations on CD-ROM for sale. Check out
the links of their Visitations at
http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/visitations/index.html
Thanks for your understanding and help.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Cristopher Nash
>Given all that has been said here and on Soc.Heraldry about the
>visitations I hesitate to intervene, but the Harleian publication of The
>Visitations of Hertfordshire 1572 and 1634, has been posted on the net
>at
>
>http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Hertfordshire/visitations/index.h
>tml
>
>This site also has several Visitations on CD-ROM for sale. Check out
>the links of their Visitations at
>
>http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/visitations/index.html
>
>Thanks for your understanding and help.
>
>Richard C. Browning, Jr.
>Grand Prairie, TX
Thanks enormously for this, Richard. You've saved us a lot of trouble!
Cris
--
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
links to individual pages on the site, and some not, I have also found
the Cheshire visitation at
http://www.scfhs.org.uk/visitations/BookVC1580/c001.htm
This site is very well done and has more links, than just the page
numbers.
Thanks for your understanding and help.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cristopher Nash [mailto:c...@windsong.u-net.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 20:15
> To: Richard C. Browning, Jr.
> Subject: RE: Biography of Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe
>
> Thanks enormously for this, Richard. You've saved us a lot of
trouble!
>
> Cris
>
>
> >Given all that has been said here and on Soc.Heraldry about the
> >visitations I hesitate to intervene, but the Harleian publication of
The
> >Visitations of Hertfordshire 1572 and 1634, has been posted on the
net
> >at
> >
>
>http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/england/Hertfordshire/visitations/index.
h
> >tml
> >
> >This site also has several Visitations on CD-ROM for sale. Check out
> >the links of their Visitations at
> >
> >http://www.uk-genealogy.org.uk/visitations/index.html
> >
> >Thanks for your understanding and help.
> >
> >Richard C. Browning, Jr.
> >Grand Prairie, TX
> >
> --
Cristopher Nash
You wrote -
> > ? Are we talking about 3 distinct versions --
>>
>> (1) an original CofA (signed by Robt Norton)
>
>Possibly his signature is on the original in the College of Arms.
Ok. I see now myself that the signature doesn't appear in the
published edition of the 1634 Visitation (repro'd [not transcribed]
online and picked up thanks to Richard Browning's site-citing).
Comparing the 1886 pub'd Harleian pedigree with the one reported in
Herald & Genealogist, vol. III (as described here by Todd), the
latter describes the pedigree as "signed by Rob't Norton". Comparing
further, one is in no way a copy of the other; the texts are clearly
different in spelling and other minor respects, and in one
substantive matter: "Elizabeth daughter of Robert Marshall, of
Hitchin, co. Hertford, 2 ux." in the H&G version becomes "Elizabeth,
da. of Robert Marshall of Hitchin, co. Hertf., 4 wife [sic]" in
Harleian 1886. (Sic the "[sic]".)
If Tim's guess is right, there's the possibility that here are
transcriptions of both the original CofA MS (signed by Robert Norton)
and the manhandling Harleian MSS version further manhandled for the
1886 Harleian publication. I don't want to push this any further,
but point out simply that between these two versions, one of them
perhaps nearly contemporaneous (Clarenceux), there is a consensus on
the matter in hand - i.e. the view that the grandparents of Robert
Norton are Thomas Cranmer and his first wife Margaret, purportedly as
endorsed by Robert Norton.
Though the more the freedom that was commonly exercised by Harleian
man(uscript)handlers the more opportunity there was through the
C17-C19 for this applecart to be upset, I don't by any means want to
place excessive emphasis on these docs. The case to answer is
simply: why - within a year of Laud's hunkering down on Cranmer's
throne and swinging his High-Church mace about - did Robert Norton
want to claim to be Cranmer's grandson (_I_ wouldn't've chanced it),
and when he must have perfectly well foreseen Todd's important
objections on chronological grounds? %-{o>
Tim wrote --
>I wonder what manuscript numbers the Herts Record office gave?
As I said, Carol Parker there said #6147 and #1546, but how she
selected these from the 5 cited in the 1886 Preface I don't quite see.
This is all of course of no interest to descendants of Thomas Norton
of Guilford, unless perhaps, say, something convincing turns up in
Page-Turner's study in _Genealogia Bedfordiensis_ of the parish
records purportedly showing that Thomas of Shelton comes from
Dunstable -- which I'll see next week.
Kay - I'm expecting Bill Norton to show up on Gen-Med (or to have
some thoughts from him on what we've been saying) in a few days and
he may have something on the subject of Thomas as
heir-unlikely-to-leave-town. (I believe he had notes on the
subsequent holders of Sharpenhoe; my half-memory is that they're
well-documented, but I've nothing immediately at hand.)
I wrote -
>I'm tryin to get these ducks in a row!
Tim you wrote -
>'trying' - we all suffer from the same problem!
I'm still tryin. (See Kay?)
Cris
--
Todd A. Farmerie
> Comparing the 1886 pub'd Harleian pedigree with the one reported in
> Herald & Genealogist, vol. III (as described here by Todd), the latter
> describes the pedigree as "signed by Rob't Norton". Comparing further,
> one is in no way a copy of the other; the texts are clearly different in
> spelling and other minor respects, and in one substantive matter:
> "Elizabeth daughter of Robert Marshall, of Hitchin, co. Hertford, 2 ux."
> in the H&G version becomes "Elizabeth, da. of Robert Marshall of
> Hitchin, co. Hertf., 4 wife [sic]" in Harleian 1886. (Sic the "[sic]".)
>
> If Tim's guess is right, there's the possibility that here are
> transcriptions of both the original CofA MS (signed by Robert Norton)
> and the manhandling Harleian MSS version further manhandled for the 1886
> Harleian publication. I don't want to push this any further, but point
> out simply that between these two versions, one of them perhaps nearly
> contemporaneous (Clarenceux), there is a consensus on the matter in hand
> - i.e. the view that the grandparents of Robert Norton are Thomas
> Cranmer and his first wife Margaret, purportedly as endorsed by Robert
> Norton.
Hold on. I'm getting mixed up in terms of which versions you are
talking about. The H&G version (perhaps, in representing the
signature, being closer to the C of A original) is not in
agreement with the Harleian one - the H & G version shows Robert
as son of Alice Cranmer, and grandson of Edmund. (I hope my
chart didn't get garbled in transmission.)
taf
Cristopher Nash
>Hold on. I'm getting mixed up in terms of which versions you are
>talking about. The H&G version (perhaps, in representing the
>signature, being closer to the C of A original) is not in agreement
>with the Harleian one - the H & G version shows Robert as son of
>Alice Cranmer, and grandson of Edmund. (I hope my chart didn't get
>garbled in transmission.)
Nope, Todd - at 5:00 a.m. I totally fluffed it (and at 6:09 a.m.
apologized). Praise the lord for your watchful eye (and your gentle
forebearance); some equally sleepless night I may not see in time!
I'll get back when I've seen the Page-Turner - hopefully at a more
alert, less mindcluttered & fantasy-laden hour.
Cris
--
Todd A. Farmerie
> I'll get back when I've seen the Page-Turner - hopefully at a more
> alert, less mindcluttered & fantasy-laden hour.
Maybe it will be a real 'page turner.' (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Another brief note. While no source is given for the Robert
Norton pedigree in the H&G article, the author goes on to give
the Visitation pedigree for Graveley Norton. This he cites as
"(From the original in the College of Arms.)" I suspect, then,
that both came from the College originals.
taf
Shawn Potter
Ipswich (grandson of William Norton of Sharpenhoe and Margerie Hawes
according to NEHGR 13:225-228) needs further investigation. Here are
some notes:
The son-in-law of William Norton of Ipswich, John Wainwright--who
married Elizabeth, daughter of William of Ipswich not daughter of
George of Salem according to TAG 30:18 and NEHGR 13:230, administrated
the estate of the eldest son of George Norton of Salem, Freegrace
Norton on September 26, 1676. George Norton of Salem had died
September 22, 1659, but George had other surviving sons who could have
administered their brother's estate. So, was George Norton of Salem a
brother of William Norton of Ipswich?
William Norton of Ipswich acted as attorney of Francis Wainwright
(father of John Wainwright, who almost 30 years later married
Elizabeth Norton, daughter of William Norton of Ipswich) to secure a
legacy left to Francis Wainwright's wife, Philippa Sewell, in
Halstead, county Essex, England, on November 23, 1647 (see NEHGR
67:269). Francis Wainwright died in Salem May 19, 1692.
August 29, 1635. William Norton xxv yeres old is to transport himself
to New England & to imbarque himself in the Hopewell p. cert: from the
minister of his conformitie to the church disipline of England: he
hath taken the oath of Allegeance & Supremacie. Die et Ae pred (see
NEHGR 2:399). [So, William Norton of Ipswich was 37 years of age in
1647--even though NEHGR 13:229 says William was 68 years of age when
died April 30, 1694, which would make him 21 years of age in 1647.]
A brother of William Norton of Ipswich was Rev. John Norton, born at
Starford, Hartfordshire, England, May 6, 1606. He came to New England
in 1634 and settled at Ipswich in 1636. In 1655, he succeeded Rev.
John Cotton as minister of the First Church of Boston, where he died
April 5, 1663. [NEHGR]
William Norton of Ipswich married Lucy Downing, daughter of Emanuel
Downing and Lucy Winthrop (sister of Governor John Winthrop). William
and Lucy had a daughter, Elizabeth Norton, who married John Wainwright
in Ipswich March 10, 1674. [NEHGR]
Shawn Potter
Cristopher Nash
>>I'll get back when I've seen the Page-Turner - hopefully at a more
>>alert, less mindcluttered & fantasy-laden hour.
>
>Maybe it will be a real 'page turner.' (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
You rat! I was saving that for a header! When/as/if it turnered out
to be true, anyway. Now anything'll be anticlimactic.
>Another brief note. While no source is given for the Robert Norton
>pedigree in the H&G article, the author goes on to give the
>Visitation pedigree for Graveley Norton. This he cites as "(From
>the original in the College of Arms.)"
That's v. helpful. As you say --
>I suspect, then, that both came from the College originals.
>Thomas of Streatley himself did did not stand to inherit Sharpenhoe,
>it having already been alienated a quarter century earlier.
Yes, thanks for bringing in Seversmith's dates for Luke's tenure - it
was my view too, but on intuitive grounds only. You know, I've got
to reread the Seversmith. It was after copying his article that,
ironically, I abandoned the Norton case as unresolved, but it was
years ago and I'd since forgotten his data.
As to the mystery of Robert's dropping off the inheritance-tree I see
nobody goes for my speculations on socio-econ &/or religious
('Nonconformist in the era of "Thorough"') grounds. Serves me right
- back to the coal-face, Cris.
Cris
--