Re: Ancestry of Jeffrey Amherst

Message has been deleted

Brad Verity

unread,

Jan 6, 2016, 5:00:17 AM1/6/16

to

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 1:53:46 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Is the following Edward III line for Jeffrey Amherst correct?
> Edward III, King of England = Queen Philippa
> John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster = Blanch of Lancaster
> Elizabeth Plantagenet = John Holland, Duke of Exeter
> Constance Holland = Sir John Grey
> Edmund Grey, 1st Earl of Kent = Katherine Percy
> George Grey, 2nd Earl of Kent = Katherine Herbert
> Anne Grey = John Hussey, 1st Lord Hussey of Sleaford
> Sir Giles Hussey = Jane Pigot

The line fails at the above generation, John. Per The Hussey Manuscript, Sir Giles Hussey was the son of Lord Hussey by his first wife Margaret Blount, not by Anne Grey. Chronology seems to support this. The Hussey MS says of Giles, "He was knighted by the Earl of Surrey at the Battle of Morlaix in France in July, 1522, according to 'Lincolnshire Pedigrees.' The battle occurred at the French town, about five miles from the English channel, during the Hundred Years War, and he returned home in October 1522. He was appointed peace commissioner at Kesteven, Lincolnshire in 1523, according to 'Calendar of State Papers.' He and his father were appointed on the commission of sewers for Lincolnshire in March, 1524."

Though it's possible for a man to be knighted in his teens, it's unlikely he would be appointed a commissioner unless he was of full age, so Giles Hussey was born by 1502. Lord Hussey and Anne Grey were married about 18 February 1505 (date of settlement). She could not have been more than age 14 at the time, as her own parents' marriage settlement was dated 1 October 1490.

> Thomas Hussey = Bridget Bowes
> Elizabeth Hussey = Thomas Stydolfe

The Hussey Manuscript confirms the marriages of Sir Giles Hussey to Jane Pigot, and their son Thomas Hussey to Bridget Bowes, but mentions only child for Thomas and Bridget (Bowes) Hussey, a son John Hussey.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gowenrf/husseyms_003.html

Hope this helps.

Cheers, -----Brad

Message has been deleted

Joe

unread,

Jan 6, 2016, 12:08:44 PM1/6/16

to

> > Thomas Hussey = Bridget Bowes
> > Elizabeth Hussey = Thomas Stydolfe
>
> The Hussey Manuscript confirms the marriages of Sir Giles Hussey to Jane Pigot, and their son Thomas Hussey to Bridget Bowes, but mentions only child for Thomas and Bridget (Bowes) Hussey, a son John Hussey.
>

> Cheers, -----Brad

Thomas Hussey and Bridget Bowes had 2 other children - George Hussey who in turn had a son John Hussey, and Elizabeth Hussey who married Thomas Stydolf/Stydolph, of Norbury, Surrey as mentioned. Elizabeth Stydolf was the eventual heir general of her father Thomas Hussey. John Hussey, of Honington and Caythorpe, Lincolnshire, left a long and detailed will dated 14 Aug. 1583 and proved 5 Sep. 1587. It is clear that when he wrote this will that his brother George and his nephew John were dead; he named a distant cousin, Charles Hussey, jr., of Belton, Lincolnshire, as the male heir of his estates.

Joe

Message has been deleted

jhigg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 6, 2016, 2:17:35 PM1/6/16

to

Brad:

I agree with your conclusion that, based on chronology, Sir Giles Hussey must be a son of his father's 1st wife Margaret Blount and not the 2nd wife Anne Grey. FWIW the (not very reliable) Burke's Extinct Peerages does in fact assign Sir Giles as a son of Margaret Blount (although it reverses the order of the two wives and assigns another Giles (d. sp - not knighted) as the son of Anne Grey.

I'm not so sure, however, that you can rely on the Hussey Manuscript to conclude that Thomas Hussey and Bridget Bowes had only a single child John. It gives no source at all for this statement (and it's pretty uneven and unspecific in its use of citations in general). Although its title perhaps suggests an aura of antiquity, it's actually a compilation begun in 1941 by an American researcher. Without adequate support for its statements, I'd be hesitant to accept its conclusions at face value - especially since other sources do indicate other children for Thomas Hussey and Bridget Bowes (e.g., 1562-64 Lincolnshire visitation and Maddison's Lincolnshire Pedigrees).

Although Lord Jeffrey Amherst loses his Edward III descent through Anne Grey, he does have Plantagenet descents through his father.

Message has been deleted

Colin Withers via

unread,

Jan 7, 2016, 10:37:02 AM1/7/16

to gen-me...@rootsweb.com

Could someone please confirm if the dates in the Calendars of Patent
Rolls, Close Rolls, etc, which are in the form of:

22 January 1380

are, by the common practice today,

22 January 1379/80
or
22 January 1380/1

TIA

Wibs

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Brad Verity

unread,

Jan 7, 2016, 11:47:58 AM1/7/16

to

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-8, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm not so sure, however, that you can rely on the Hussey Manuscript to conclude that Thomas Hussey and Bridget Bowes had only a single child John. It gives no source at all for this statement (and it's pretty uneven and unspecific in its use of citations in general). Although its title perhaps suggests an aura of antiquity, it's actually a compilation begun in 1941 by an American researcher. Without adequate support for its statements, I'd be hesitant to accept its conclusions at face value - especially since other sources do indicate other children for Thomas Hussey and Bridget Bowes (e.g., 1562-64 Lincolnshire visitation and Maddison's Lincolnshire Pedigrees).

I agree with your assessment of the Hussey Manuscript as a source, John. It should be used merely as a pedigree source, and other evidence must be found to verify it's statements.

I think that the evidence Joe posted solidifies the line of descent from Sir Giles Hussey down to Baron Amherst.

> Although Lord Jeffrey Amherst loses his Edward III descent through Anne Grey, he does have Plantagenet descents through his father.

I don't have Lord Amherst in my database. Are his paternal Plantagenet descents from Edward I, or from earlier kings?

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 12:06:45 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It does look like Sir Giles Hussey would derive his name from his mother's (Margaret's) uncle, Giles Lord Daubeny, ennobled 1486.

Yes, very likely.

> Although I'm not very confident about its success, I present the following possible line, based on the links beneath:
> King Edward III
> John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster = (3) Katherine Swynford
> Joan Beaufort (legitimated) = (1) Robert Ferrers, Baron Boteler of Wemme
> Elizabeth Ferrers = John Greystoke, 4th Lord Greystoke
> Joan Greystoke = John Darcy (? Lord Darcy)
> Joan Darcy = (1) ____ Beaumont or Beauchamp; (2) Sir Giles Daubeny
> (by 2) William Daubeny = Alice Stourton

As you've already worked out, John, the above line fails at Joan Darcy. The Joan Darcy who was daughter of Joan Greystoke (c.1409-by 1487) and her first husband John Darcy of Temple Hurst (1404-1458), did marry a Beaumont - John Beaumont of Coleorton Hall (1428-1461) - but as he was killed at the battle of Towton, this is far too late chronologically for his widow to have been the first wife of Sir Giles Daubeney of South Petherton (1395-1446).

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 1:04:24 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> No, chronologically that clearly can't be right. Joan Darcy, wife of Daubeney, must be a sister of the John Darcy who married Joan Greystoke.

Per CP Vol. 4, pp. 100-101, Sir Giles Daubeney's 1st wife (and the mother of his heir William, b. 1424) was Joan Darcy, 3rd dau. of Philip, 4th Lord Darcy of Knaith (1352-1399) and Elizabeth Gray (c.1357-1412), and said to have been widow of John Beaumont. It cites the wills of both the 4th Lord Darcy and his widow Elizabeth as sources confirming this parentage. The pedigree from 'Coll. Top. & Gen.' that you linked to, also states she was dau. of Philip Lord Darcy.

> BUT ... what about an Edward I descent? If at first you don't succeed ...
> 1. King Edward I
> 2. Elizabeth Plantagenet = Humphrey de Bohun
> 3. Eleanor de Bohun = James Butler, Earl of Ormond
> 4. Petronilla (Pernel) Butler = Gilbert Talbot, Lord Talbot
> 5. Elizabeth Talbot = Sir Henry de Grey, 5th Lord Grey of Wilton
> 6. Margaret de Grey = John Darcy, Lord Darcy
> 7. Joan Darcy = (1) ____ Beaumont or Beauchamp; (2) Sir Giles Daubeny

No, it seems Joan Darcy (#7 above), was the sister, not the daughter, of John, 5th Lord Darcy (1377-1411), and so was not the daughter of Margaret Grey of Wilton. Per CP, Margaret did have four daughters, unmarried in 1412 after their father's death, when Margaret petitioned the Crown for help with their maintenance. It would be nice to someday discover what became of these four Darcy daughters, as they were mtDNA descendants of Eleanor of Castile.

Cheers, -----Brad

Message has been deleted

jhigg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 7, 2016, 3:47:20 PM1/7/16

to

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 8:47:58 AM UTC-8, Brad Verity wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-8, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I'm not so sure, however, that you can rely on the Hussey Manuscript to conclude that Thomas Hussey and Bridget Bowes had only a single child John. It gives no source at all for this statement (and it's pretty uneven and unspecific in its use of citations in general). Although its title perhaps suggests an aura of antiquity, it's actually a compilation begun in 1941 by an American researcher. Without adequate support for its statements, I'd be hesitant to accept its conclusions at face value - especially since other sources do indicate other children for Thomas Hussey and Bridget Bowes (e.g., 1562-64 Lincolnshire visitation and Maddison's Lincolnshire Pedigrees).
>
> I agree with your assessment of the Hussey Manuscript as a source, John. It should be used merely as a pedigree source, and other evidence must be found to verify it's statements.
>
> I think that the evidence Joe posted solidifies the line of descent from Sir Giles Hussey down to Baron Amherst.
>
> > Although Lord Jeffrey Amherst loses his Edward III descent through Anne Grey, he does have Plantagenet descents through his father.
>
> I don't have Lord Amherst in my database. Are his paternal Plantagenet descents from Edward I, or from earlier kings?
>

> Cheers, -----Brad

Via his father, Sir Giles Hussey is descended (through the Berkeley family) from Sir Richard FitzRoy of Chilham, the bastard son of King John. That appears to be the most recent Plantagenet monarch in his ancestry.

Leo van de Pas via

unread,

Jan 7, 2016, 4:45:04 PM1/7/16

to Gen-Med

Stewart Baldwin via

unread,

Jan 7, 2016, 9:03:38 PM1/7/16

to gen-me...@rootsweb.com

On 1/7/2016 9:36 AM, Colin Withers via wrote:
> Could someone please confirm if the dates in the Calendars of Patent
> Rolls, Close Rolls, etc, which are in the form of:
>
> 22 January 1380
>
> are, by the common practice today,
>
> 22 January 1379/80
> or
> 22 January 1380/1

I would assume that it is usually the first of these alternatives, but I
would hesitate to claim that this is always the case. In general,
different abstracters of records have had different ideas about which of
these to use, but there are usually ways to tell, even when they don't
disclose their method in their introduction. Two good ways to test this
for a specific case are as follows:

1. If the entries are chronological (or mostly so), look at whether the
year changes in January or March.

2. If regnal dates are also used, use the known beginning of the reign
to compare the regnal date with the calendar date in a January or
February (or early March) event.

When I abstract information from records, I usually try to avoid any
doubt regarding the above by copying the dates as they appear in the
record, and then enclosing the additional information in brackets. So,
if the original record said 22 January in the third year of Richard II,
I would write the date as 22 January 3 Ric. II [1379/80], indicating
that the "1379/80" was my own interpretation and that only 22 January 3
Ric. II appeared in the record itself. If the record says 22 January
1545 (to use a later date where this method would be more likely), I
would transcribe it as 22 January 1545[/6] (or 22 January 154[5/]6 if I
was abstracting a later transcript where it was clear that the
transcriber had already converted). I would only transcribe as "22
January 1545/6" if the double-dating actually appeared in the original
record itself.

[I should quit before I get into a long rant about the mess that some
amateur genealogists make of this problem by taking an already converted
date and converting it again, etc., etc.]

Stewart Baldwin

Matt Tompkins

unread,

Jan 8, 2016, 7:43:17 AM1/8/16

to

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 3:37:02 PM UTC, Colin Withers via wrote:
> Could someone please confirm if the dates in the Calendars of Patent
> Rolls, Close Rolls, etc, which are in the form of:
>
> 22 January 1380
>
> are, by the common practice today,
>
> 22 January 1379/80
> or
> 22 January 1380/1
>
> TIA
>
> Wibs
>

Calendars of the sort you mention always give years in the New Style only (so 22 Jan 1380 represents 22 Jan 1379 Old Style). This is the approach recommended in Hunnisett's Editing Records for Publication and is fairly standard among medieval historians.

Matt Tompkins

taf

unread,

Jan 8, 2016, 10:37:45 AM1/8/16

to

I don't think I noticed the connection before but the Durvassal/Spernore connection rings a bell. The first part of this royal descent would be shared by American colonial gateway immigrant Robert Abell.

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, Leo van de Pas via wrote:
> Alfred 'the Great', king of England
> |
> Edward I 'the Elder', king of England
> |
> Eadgifu of Wessex

. . .

> William de Camville
> |
> Thomas de Camville
> |
> Felicia de Camville
> |
> Thomas Durvassal, lord of Spernore
> |

John Durvassal
William Durvassal
Joyce Durvassal
Margaret Swinfen (als Pipe)
Henry Vernon of Haddon
Elizabeth Vernon
Dorothy Corbet
Arthur Mainwaring
Mary Mainwaring
Frances Cotton
Robert Abell

taf

taf

unread,

Jan 8, 2016, 3:07:56 PM1/8/16

to

On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 7:37:45 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> John Durvassal
> William Durvassal
> Joyce Durvassal
> Margaret Swinfen (als Pipe)

Just for clarity, Joyce commonly appears (e.g. Genealogics) as Jacosa.

There is a free document at TNA that suggests William Durvassal was in active dispute over the wardship of his nieces, daughters of his brother Nicholas, against their mother.

taf

Message has been deleted

taf

unread,

Jan 8, 2016, 6:15:16 PM1/8/16

to

On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 12:30:32 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Todd, wasn't this G.A. Moriarty's work? I think I'm remembering correctly.
> It seems to be ancestral to a number of immigrants (William Sargent and
> Alice Freeman, via Giffard and Throckmorton). Also to Underhill and Stites
> of New York and possibly to a new one in Gary's manuscript.

I don't know that anyone has done a thorough survey of the Abell ancestry, the primary focus being on the more notable lines (there are multiple Edward I descents). I haven't seen anyone going from the Vernon (and hence Abell) side tracing back beyond William Durvassal, father of Joyce (Durvassal) .

In contrast, the Throckmorton ancestry, part of the Alice Freeman pedigree, has been done inside and out, and at least one Throckmorton book traces back to the Durvassals and traces them down to Joyce, but no farther.

Thus, all the pieces were in place but nobody connected the dots (or at least I never did) to link the Durvassals of the Abell pedigree to the Durvassals of the Throckmorton pedigree prior to it being mentioned in this group a few years back, but I never looked into it further (indeed, I had forgotten all about it before I noticed it again in this thread).

taf

Douglas Richardson

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 12:59:35 AM1/9/16

to

My comment is interspersed below. DR

The line breaks at this generation. Milicent de Rethel was the step-mother of William de Camville, not his mother.

|
> William de Camville
> |
> William de Camville
> |
> Thomas de Camville

VCH Warwick 3 (1945): 26-31 assigns Thomas de Camville (living 1275) as the brother of William de Camville (who occurs 1220-1236), not his son. Banks, Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 1 (1807): 51 assigns Thomas as the son of William de Camville as you have it. Better documentation is needed for this generation.

Douglas Richardson

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 1:01:31 AM1/9/16

to

On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 1:07:56 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 7:37:45 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
>
> > John Durvassal
> > William Durvassal
> > Joyce Durvassal
> > Margaret Swinfen (als Pipe)
>
>
> Just for clarity, Joyce commonly appears (e.g. Genealogics) as Jacosa.

Just for clarity, Jacosa is Latin for Joyce. DR

taf

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 2:19:21 AM1/9/16

to

Just for clarity, Jacosa is not Latin, but rather Latinized a concoction by medieval clerks and scholars, enabling them to provide a Latin-looking rendition of a non-Latin name.

Also for clarity, Jacosa did not exclusively represent Joyce. It was also sometimes used to represent the less common name Jaket (itself an English rendering of the French Jacquet/te), although an argument could be made that the use of Jacosa there represents a scribal error for the more common Latinized rendering of Jaket, Jacota.

So, not Latin and not just Joyce. Are we clear now?

taf

Peter Stewart via

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 2:37:18 AM1/9/16

to gen-me...@rootsweb.com

The usual rendering of Joyce in Latin is Jocosa - a variant form
"Jacosa", if this represents Joyce and is not a scribal error, would
surely be far less common.

Peter Stewart

Tompkins

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 2:55:09 AM1/9/16

to gen-me...@rootsweb.com

>>> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 1:07:56 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>>> Just for clarity, Joyce commonly appears (e.g. Genealogics) as Jacosa.
>>>
>>On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 10:01:31 PM UTC-8, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>> Just for clarity, Jacosa is Latin for Joyce. DR
>>

> From: taf via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]
> Sent: 09 January 2016 07:19
> Just for clarity, Jacosa is not Latin, but rather Latinized a concoction by medieval clerks and scholars, enabling them to provide a Latin-looking rendition of a non-Latin name.
>
Also for clarity, Jacosa did not exclusively represent Joyce. It was also sometimes used to represent the less common name Jaket (itself an English rendering of the French Jacquet/te), although an argument could be made that the use of Jacosa there represents a scribal error for the more common Latinized rendering of Jaket, Jacota.
>
> So, not Latin and not just Joyce. Are we clear now?
>

Medieval Latin had a vast vocabulary of new words not found in Classical Latin, including many proper nouns. It's a bit extreme to categorise them as 'not Latin'. Surely 'manerium' and 'Guillelmus' are Latin? By this logic I would have to rename the Medieval Latin class I am teaching in a couple of weeks ''Medieval Latinised Concoctions'!

Matt Tompkins

Leo van de Pas via

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 3:22:01 AM1/9/16

to Gen-Med

I always believe that exposing information is always good, it may bring additions and it may bring corrections. That is why I am grateful for Douglas Richardson's remark.

His observation is that Milicent de Rethel is not the mother but the stepmother of William de Camville.

Gary Boyd Roberts in his 'The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants", published in 2004, page 557, clearly marks Milicent as the mother of William.

Has Gary Boyd Roberts been found wanting? Love to hear and I will gladly make corrections.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Peter Stewart via

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 5:59:57 AM1/9/16

to gen-me...@rootsweb.com

On 9/01/2016 6:54 PM, Tomp...@lists2.rootsweb.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 1:07:56 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>>>> Just for clarity, Joyce commonly appears (e.g. Genealogics) as Jacosa.
>>>>
>>> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 10:01:31 PM UTC-8, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>>> Just for clarity, Jacosa is Latin for Joyce. DR
>>>

>> From: taf via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]
>> Sent: 09 January 2016 07:19

>> Just for clarity, Jacosa is not Latin, but rather Latinized a concoction by medieval clerks and scholars, enabling them to provide a Latin-looking rendition of a non-Latin name.
>>
> Also for clarity, Jacosa did not exclusively represent Joyce. It was also sometimes used to represent the less common name Jaket (itself an English rendering of the French Jacquet/te), although an argument could be made that the use of Jacosa there represents a scribal error for the more common Latinized rendering of Jaket, Jacota.
>> So, not Latin and not just Joyce. Are we clear now?
>>

> Medieval Latin had a vast vocabulary of new words not found in Classical Latin, including many proper nouns. It's a bit extreme to categorise them as 'not Latin'. Surely 'manerium' and 'Guillelmus' are Latin? By this logic I would have to rename the Medieval Latin class I am teaching in a couple of weeks ''Medieval Latinised Concoctions'!

How about Medieval Latinity? - it was good enough for Du Cange.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 2:17:31 PM1/9/16

to

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 12:19:21 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

< Just for clarity, Jacosa is not Latin, but rather Latinized a concoction by <medieval clerks and scholars, enabling them to provide a Latin-looking <rendition of a non-Latin name.

All Latin forms and all vernacular forms were "concocted" at one point in time and space by someone. This applies to all names, but just Jacosa/Jocosa. Having said that, Jacosa/Jocosa were two Latin forms used for the English given name Joyce in the medieval period in England. Scholars are frequently unaware of this and leave the name untranslated from the Latin. Scholars similarly stumble over Ebulo, Bogo, Alesia, Matilda, etc.

< Also for clarity, Jacosa did not exclusively represent Joyce. It was also <sometimes used to represent the less common name Jaket (itself an English <rendering of the French Jacquet/te), although an argument could be made that <the use of Jacosa there represents a scribal error for the more common <Latinized rendering of Jaket, Jacota.

Although scribal errors are always possible, I personally haven't seen the Latin form Jacosa/Jocosa used for Jaket, only for women named Joyce. In fact, Jaket and Joyce are entirely two different names. Jaket is a variant form of the better known name, Jacquet. A common Latin form for Jacquet was Jaquetta, as found in a royal charter dated 1455 published in Dugdale Monasticon Anglicanum 6(2) (1846): 722-724, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=a10RAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA723

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 2:44:18 PM1/9/16

to

Dear Leo ~

I've copied below my current file account of Richard de Camville (died 1176), of Godington and Middleton (in Middleton Stoney), Oxfordshire, Avington, Berkshire, etc., and his two wives, Alice (or Adelicia) and Milicent de Rethel. Contemporary records indicate that Richard de Camville had four sons, Gerard, Walter, William, and Richard, and two daughters, Maud and Isabel.

Of these children, it would appear that the son Richard and the daughter Isabel (wife of Robert de Harcourt) were the only children by Richard de Camville's 2nd wife, Milicent de Rethel. This is deduced by the fact that Milicent de Rethel's lands at Stanton Harcourt, Oxfordshire (which she had by grant of her kinswoman, Queen Alice) were held after Milicent's death by the younger Richard de Camville. When the younger Richard de Camville died in 1191, he was succeeded briefly by his son and heir, John. It appears that John de Camville soon died without issue, and the lands at Stanton Harcourt reverted to his father Richard's sister, Isabel de Harcourt or her representative. Had Milicent de Rethel been the mother of the elder Richard de Camville's other sons, Stanton Harcourt would have fallen to them, ahead of Isabel Harcourt. The succession at Stanton Harcourt suggests that the younger Richard de Camville and Isabel de Harcourt were full sublings, and the only children of Milicent de Rethel by the elder Richard de Camville.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + +

1. RICHARD DE CAMVILLE, of Godington and Middleton (in Middleton Stoney), Oxfordshire, Avington, Berkshire, Hildersham, Cambridgeshire, Charlton Horethorne and Henstridge, Somerset, etc., Sheriff of Oxfordshire and Berkshire, 1154, Constable of Lincoln Castle, and, in right of his 2nd wife, of Stanton Harcourt and South Leigh, Oxfordshire. He married (1st) ALICE (or ADELICIA) _____. They had three sons, Gerard, Walter, and William, and one daughter, Maud. He married (2nd) MILICENT DE RETHEL, widow of Robert Marmion, of Tamworth, Warwickshire (killed about 16 Sept. 1144), and daughter of Gervaise, Count of Rethel, by Elizabeth, daughter of Godefroy I, Count of Namur. She was born after 1115. They had one son, Richard, Knt., and one daughter, Isabel. Sometime before 1141 Queen Alice of Louvain, widow of King Henry I, gave to her kinswoman ["cognata"], Milicent, wife of Robert Marmion, land in Stanton Harcourt and South Leigh, Oxfordshire worth £40. In 1143 Richard granted the church of Manuden, Essex to the Priory of Hatfield Regis. In 1145-6 he witnessed a charter of Ranulph, Earl of Chester, to his wife's step-son, Robert Marmion. He was a witness to two charters confirmed by King Stephen at Northampton in 1147. In 1148 he witnessed a charter of the king at Bermondsey, Surrey. In 1150 he found a monastery of the Cistercian order at Combe, Warwickshire. In 1153 he served as a witness to the agreement made between King Stephen and Duke Henry [future King Henry II] at Wallingford. Sometime in the period, 1154-76, he witnessed a charter of King Henry II to the Knights of the Temple of Jerusalem. About Michaelmas 1156 he was granted 16 librates of land, which probably constituted the manor of Little Stretton (in King's Norton), Leicestershire. In 1158 he was with the king at Dover. In 1160 he was sent abroad with the king's austringers and falconers. About 1166 he and his brother, Roger de Camville, granted lands in Godington, Oxfordshire to Missenden Abbey, Buckinghamshire. In 1170 he granted a third part of the tithes of his lands at Hautot-l'Auvray to Jumièges Priory. In ?1176 he resigned his right in the church of Henstridge, Somerset to make it a perpetual prebend of the cathedral church of Wells, Somerset. Sometime before 1176 he granted the church of South Leigh, Oxfordshire and two yardlands to Reading Abbey, Berkshire. RICHARD DE CAMVILLE died in 1176, while accompanying the king's daughter, Joan, on her journey to Palermo to be married to King William II of Sicily.

References:

Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France 2 (1726): 757 (sub Comtes de Namur: "Elizabeth de Namur, épousa Gervais comte de Rethel, qui du vivant de ses freres avoit été archidiacre de Reims, & nommé a l'archevêché de cette église par le roi Philippe I. du nom, lequel par son autorité l'avoit fait élire á la fin de 1106, par quelques chanoines, pendant que les autres avoient élû le prévôt de cette église. Cette élection ayant été confirmée par le pape Paschal II. Gervais avoit renoncé a son droit en 1109. It était encore archidiacre en 1112. mais sans être dans les ordres: ainsi après la mort de Manasses comte de Rethel son frere, arrivée en 1115, il avoit quitté ses benefices, & recueillant sa succession s'étoit marié a Elizabeth de Namur, qui en resta veuve in 1124. Elle se maria á Roger, dit Clerembault en quelques titres, seigneur de Rosoy en Thierasche."). Lewis, Topog. Dict. of England (1848): 186-192. Eyton, Court, Household & Itinerary of Henry II (1878): 204. Blomfield, Hist. of Middleton & Somerton (1888): 10-12 (biog. of Richard de Camville), 15 (Camville ped.). Round, Feudal England (1895): 190-195. Saige, Cartulaire de la seigneurie de Fontenay le Marmion (1895): xviii-xix ("Robert Marmion .... fit dans le territoire de cette seigneurie une donation au monastère de Sainte Edith de Polesworth. Plus tard, d'accord avec sa femme Melissent, it donnait le bourg de Butegate, près de Bardney (comté de Lincoln), aux moines de Bardney."), xx ("... en 1148, guerroyant en Angleterre contre le duc de Chester, il [Robert Marmion] fut tué á Coventry. Il avait dut époser en 1117, d'après la chronique d'Albéric de Trois-Fontaines, la fille du comte Gervais de Rethel et d'Elisabeth de Namur ..."). Cal. of the MSS of the Dean & Chapter of Wells 1 (Hist. MSS. Comm., vol. 12B(1)) (1907): 20-23. VCH Essex 2 (1907): 107-110. D.N.B. 12 (1909): 1075-1076 (biog. of Robert Marmion [d. 1218]). VCH Berkshire 4 (1924): 158-162. Jenkins, Cartulary of Missenden 1 (Buckinghamshire Arch. Soc. 2) (1938): 17. Loyd, Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Fams. (H.S.P. 103) (1951): 24. VCH Warwick 6 (1951): 72-74. VCH Oxford 6 (1959): 146-152, 243-251; 12 (1990): 249-252, 274-281. VCH Leicester 5 (1964): 256-264. English Hist. Rev. 86 (1971): 533-545. VCH Cambridge 6 (1978): 59-69. Cross, Early Recs. of Medieval Coventry (Recs. of Social & Economic Hist. n.s. 11) (1986): 8-9. Davis, From Alfred the Great to Stephen (1991). Franklin, English Episcopal Acta 14 (1997): 25-26, 48-49. VCH Somerset 7 (1999): 84-93, 108-119.

taf

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 4:26:06 PM1/9/16

to

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:17:31 AM UTC-8, Douglas Richardson wrote:

> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 12:19:21 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>
> All Latin forms and all vernacular forms were "concocted" at one point
> in time and space by someone. This applies to all names, but just
> Jacosa/Jocosa. Having said that, Jacosa/Jocosa were two Latin forms
> used for the English given name Joyce in the medieval period in England.
> Scholars are frequently unaware of this and leave the name untranslated
> from the Latin. Scholars similarly stumble over Ebulo, Bogo, Alesia,
> Matilda, etc.
>

So, your argument would be when used in Latin sources they represent appropriate Latin names, but when used in English sources they represent inappropriate English names. Seems to be a double standard.

> < Also for clarity, Jacosa did not exclusively represent Joyce. It was also > <sometimes used to represent the less common name Jaket (itself an English
> <rendering of the French Jacquet/te), although an argument could be made
> that <the use of Jacosa there represents a scribal error for the more common
> <Latinized rendering of Jaket, Jacota.
>
> Although scribal errors are always possible, I personally haven't seen the
> Latin form Jacosa/Jocosa used for Jaket, only for women named Joyce.

Then your incomplete personal experience may be misleading you. (And I never said Jocosa was used for Jaket, just Jacosa.)

> In fact, Jaket and Joyce are entirely two different names.

Indeed, that was my point.

> Jaket is a variant form of the better known name, Jacquet.

Yeah, I said that.

> A common Latin form for Jacquet was Jaquetta, as found in a royal charter
> dated 1455 published in Dugdale Monasticon Anglicanum 6(2) (1846): 722-724,
> which may be viewed at the following weblink:

This continental woman basically introduced the name into England, and appears as Jacquet/Jacquetta. However, by the start of the 16th century, the derivative English form comes to predominate, Jaket, usually rendered as Jacota but occasionally appearing as Jacosa (commonly this is an error of modern transcribers and indexers, but it does appear in the primary record). There seems to have been a later resurgence of Jacquet. Curiously, one pedigree in a mid-16th century visitation includes the name in three successive generations, the first and last as Jaket, the middle as Jacques (sic).

taf

taf

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 4:42:46 PM1/9/16

to

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 1:26:06 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

> This continental woman basically introduced the name into England, and
> appears as Jacquet/Jacquetta. However, by the start of the 16th century,
> the derivative English form comes to predominate, Jaket, usually rendered
> as Jacota but occasionally appearing as Jacosa (commonly this is an error
> of modern transcribers and indexers, but it does appear in the primary
> record).

By the way, Jacoba also sometimes appears.

taf

Peter Stewart via

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 6:07:18 PM1/9/16

to gen-me...@rootsweb.com

On 10/01/2016 6:17 AM, Douglas Richardson via wrote:
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>

> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 12:19:21 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>

> < Just for clarity, Jacosa is not Latin, but rather Latinized a concoction by <medieval clerks and scholars, enabling them to provide a Latin-looking <rendition of a non-Latin name.
>

> All Latin forms and all vernacular forms were "concocted" at one point in time and space by someone. This applies to all names, but just Jacosa/Jocosa. Having said that, Jacosa/Jocosa were two Latin forms used for the English given name Joyce in the medieval period in England. Scholars are frequently unaware of this and leave the name untranslated from the Latin. Scholars similarly stumble over Ebulo, Bogo, Alesia, Matilda, etc.

Scholars may be perfectly aware of the modern English equivalent of any
name and yet prefer the form found in a medieval Latin source.

They usually have no way of kowing the vernacular form that a person
named Jocosa would have recognised. And for that matter, even if knowing
that this may have been "Joyce" they can't be sure how she would have
spoken her own name - for example, in Shakepeare's time this was
apparently something more like "Jo-ess" than the modern "Jois". How it
was pronounced earlier is more questionable.

School-marmish consistency for its own sake is not the primary aim of
scholars.

Peter Stewart

taf

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 11:20:09 PM1/9/16

to

While I'm at it . . .

Genealogics shows the wife of Sir Guy de Spineto (Guy de Spine/Spyney/Spyne) to have been Katherine Holt, daughter of John Holt and Eleanor Durvassal. This is widely reported to have been the case, but I think it is wrong. It seems to trace back to a chart in _A genealogical and historical account of the Throckmorton family in England and the United States_ (facing p. 69 : unfortunately most of the online copies of this do not scan the full chart, but if you have access to Ancestry, their copy is complete). This is a chart of the de Spyne and Durvassal families and shows Guy de Spyne marrying Katherine, but then it includes a footnote that Katherine was "Probably the daughter of John Holt and Alianore Durvassal (dau. and heir of Nicholas Durvassal), and heir to her brother Walter. Attention is called to the fact that her eldest daughter was named Alice after her husband's mother, and her next daughter Elianore (so spelled in contemporary documents) apparently after her own mother."

That's it. Katherine and Guy de Spine had a daughter named Eleanor, so she must be daughter of John Holt and Eleanor Durvassal! Genealogy is so easy - you just look for anyone with the same given name. The author cites Dugdale for other information in the chart but ignores the implications of other information on the same page of the latter's work ( https://books.google.com/books?id=PhBaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP135 ).

We know that William Durvassal son of John, along with Joyce, John's widow, were granted Spernore in 1349 by Thomas Durvassal. It is then reported that in 1362/3, William de Spyne (Guy's father, himself grandson of Thomas Durvassal) quitclaimed Spernore to William and Joyce. (What is meant by this is not stated, but it looks like a fine - it was a way of confirming William Durvassal and Joyce's rights to Spernore and does not indicate that William de Spine ever held a true right - this confused A.K. Grundy, _Richard II and the Rebel Earl_, who was unaware of the initial transfer and interpreted this as a manipulation of the inheritance by the Earl of Warwick in favor of his henchman Durvassal. Grundy separates the two making the grant to Sibyl in 1362 and that to William in 1375, citing WCRO CR 1998/38/BB and Shakespeare Birthplace Trust ER 1/61 no. 5, neither of which can I find in Discovery - perhaps 1375 represents the date of Sibyl's death and William acted again to reiterate his rights.) In 1377, Rose, widow of Nicholas challenged William in Parliament over the rights of her daughters to Spernore (and William Durvassal appears to have started calling himself William de Spernore at this time to reinforce his claim). This led to William being called to account, although apparently for his behavior toward his sister-in-law and not his actual possession of Spernore. Eventually an accord was reached reaffirming that William would hold Spernore for life, at which time it would pass to the right heirs of John and Joyce. Later Eleanor, wife of John Holt and daughter of Nicholas put forward her right (this is speculated to be a formality, just to put her claim as per the rightful inheritance and the accord, as next heir). When William died, it passed to Walter Holt, son of Eleanor Durvassal, daughter of Nicholas, while William's own heirs were Margaret and Joyce, both unmarried.

Walter enfeoffed it and Dugdale traces this enfeoffment to John Reve, from whom it was inherited by Thomas Reve, who granted it to William Wybbe. Next, he reports, it was purchased by John Throckmorton, but it is clear from the names of the sellers that he did not purchase this enfeoffment, but rather the next step up - the rights of Walter Holt. Specifically, he bought it from Henry Beaumont and Joan his wife, and from William Vernon and Margaret his wife. These are the granddaughters of William Durvassal, Joan being daughter of Margaret, and Margaret being daughter of Joyce.

Since Walter Holt, and not William's daughters, received Spernore on the death of William, the most parsimonious explanation for how Joan and Margaret could have acquired Spernore is if Walter Holt died s.p. (and without siblings), and that the Spernore inheritance then reverted to the right heirs of John Durvassal and Joyce, and thus equal rights fell to the heirs of William Durvassal's two daughters. (As an aside, this interpretation of the record would mean that William was right heir of John and Joyce, and not illegitimate, as suggested by Davis.)

If Katherine were sister of Walter Holt and daughter of John Holt by Eleanor, she would have brought it to Guy de Spyne, and thence to Eleanor, wife of John Throckmorton: his wife would have been right heir and he would have had no need to purchase it. Given that the whole thing was just hand-waving to begin with, I don't think making Katherine a Holt can be supported in the face of dugdale's documentation of the land transfer (note that Dugdale himself confused the pedigree and was unclear how everyone fit together, so his documentation becomes more valuable because it is not tainted by presupposition of what the pedigree must have been.).

taf

Jan Wolfe

unread,

Jan 9, 2016, 11:58:40 PM1/9/16

to

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:20:09 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> While I'm at it . . .

...

...

William de Spyne (Guy's father, himself grandson of Thomas Durvassal)

...

Genealogics indicates that William de Spyne had two wives: Joan of Coughton and Margery Durvassel. What is the evidence that Margery was the mother of William's son William? (Leo cites for this family group RD600 and Ancestor list of Lucy and Emily O'Connor 2015 by Robert O'Connor.)

Leo van de Pas via

unread,

Jan 10, 2016, 12:00:07 AM1/10/16

to Gen-Med

Dear Douglas,

You seem to base your explanation on the _assumption_
that Milicent de Rethel was obliged to leave her property to her eldest son. But you and I know that Richard de Camville was not Milicent's eldest son.

Milicent had married first Robert Marmion, sire de Fontenay-le-Marmion, who died 1143/1144. By him she had a son also Robert Marmion, sire de Fontenay-le-Marmion, who died about October 1181.

If primogeniture had been involved, why didn't the son Robert Marmion inherit Stanton Harcourt? My presumption is that William Camville had been provided for by his father, as Robert Marmion had been. Why couldn't Milicent have by-passed, first her Marmion son and then an elder Camville full-brother or two?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

taf

unread,

Jan 10, 2016, 1:18:24 AM1/10/16

to

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:00:07 PM UTC-8, Leo van de Pas via wrote:
> Dear Douglas,
>
> You seem to base your explanation on the _assumption_
> that Milicent de Rethel was obliged to leave her property to her eldest son.
> But you and I know that Richard de Camville was not Milicent's eldest son.

There are assumptions here (ones that in the absence of evidence to the contrary are probably valid), but it is not this.

>
> Milicent had married first Robert Marmion, sire de Fontenay-le-Marmion, who
> died 1143/1144. By him she had a son also Robert Marmion, sire de Fontenay-
> le-Marmion, who died about October 1181.
>
> If primogeniture had been involved, why didn't the son Robert Marmion
> inherit Stanton Harcourt? My presumption is that William Camville had been
> provided for by his father, as Robert Marmion had been. Why couldn't
> Milicent have by-passed, first her Marmion son and then an elder Camville
> full-brother or two?

It is not how Richard came to possess Stanton that suggests he was the only (surviving, with issue) son of Richard by Milicent, it is what happened at young Richard's demise. If there was another son of Richard by Milicent, that hypothetical son would have been heir to Richard. The fact that Stanton went to Isabel is strong evidence that none of the other Camville lines derive from the same parents. (Just as a reminder, there is a quirk to English inheritance law at this period, whereby only full-blood relationships qualify. Half-brothers, whether on the Camville or Marmion sides, would not be heirs of Richard unless specified as a reversion in the original grant.)

The assumptions in this conclusion are 1) that Isabel inherited Stanton, rather than having been granted it by John, heir to her brother Richard, and 2) that when Milicent granted it to Richard, she did not set up a reversion that preferred Isabel to another (hypothetical) full sibling. As far as I know, neither of these is formally excluded but parsimony would favor the most straightforward reconstruction, that Isabel inherited from John, and thus she did not have any other full siblings.

taf

Leo van de Pas via

unread,

Jan 10, 2016, 2:29:28 AM1/10/16

to Gen-Med

The assumptions in this conclusion are 1) that Isabel inherited Stanton, rather than having been granted it by John, heir to her brother Richard, and 2) that when Milicent granted it to Richard, she did not set up a reversion that preferred Isabel to another (hypothetical) full sibling. As far as I know, neither of these is formally excluded but parsimony would favor the most straightforward reconstruction, that Isabel inherited from John, and thus she did not have any other full siblings.

taf

Dear Todd,
I do not know when William Camville died, by the time Isabel inherited he may well have died and then Isabel woud be the nearest full sibling. Does this make it possible that William was Isabel's full sibling?
Leo

taf

unread,

Jan 10, 2016, 2:59:41 AM1/10/16

to

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:29:28 PM UTC-8, Leo van de Pas via wrote:

> I do not know when William Camville died, by the time Isabel inherited he
> may well have died and then Isabel woud be the nearest full sibling. Does
> this make it possible that William was Isabel's full sibling?

Not if he had any children. It is possible that there was a full sibling, either male or female, but if there was, then of necessity they could not have left descent. If there was a full brother with issue, it would have gone to that issue in preference to Isabel. If there was a full sister with issue, her descendants and Isabel's would have shared the rights to Stanton. That Isabel held it in its entirely is strong evidence that there are no other lines descended from the marriage of Richard and Milicent (bearing in mind those assumptions I mentioned), that if there was a full sibling then they and any line they gave rise to must have been extinct prior to the time of the first record we have of Isabel holding Stanton.

taf

jhigg...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jan 10, 2016, 6:56:09 PM1/10/16

to

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:
> While I'm at it . . .
>
> On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, Leo van de Pas via wrote:
>
> > |
> > Thomas Durvassal, lord of Spernore
> > |
> > Margery Durvassel
> > |
> > William de la Spine, of Coughton
> > |
> > Sir Guy de Spineto, of Coughton
> > |
> > Eleanor de Spineto
> > |
> > Eleanor Throckmorton
>
>
> Genealogics shows the wife of Sir Guy de Spineto (Guy de Spine/Spyney/Spyne) to have been Katherine Holt, daughter of John Holt and Eleanor Durvassal. This is widely reported to have been the case, but I think it is wrong. It seems to trace back to a chart in _A genealogical and historical account of the Throckmorton family in England and the United States_ (facing p. 69 : unfortunately most of the online copies of this do not scan the full chart, but if you have access to Ancestry, their copy is complete). This is a chart of the de Spyne and Durvassal families and shows Guy de Spyne marrying Katherine, but then it includes a footnote that Katherine was "Probably the daughter of John Holt and Alianore Durvassal (dau. and heir of Nicholas Durvassal), and heir to her brother Walter. Attention is called to the fact that her eldest daughter was named Alice after her husband's mother, and her next daughter Elianore (so spelled in contemporary documents) apparently after her own mother."
>
> That's it. Katherine and Guy de Spine had a daughter named Eleanor, so she must be daughter of John Holt and Eleanor Durvassal! Genealogy is so easy - you just look for anyone with the same given name. The author cites Dugdale for other information in the chart but ignores the implications of other information on the same page of the latter's work ( https://books.google.com/books?id=PhBaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP135 ).
>

FWIW, in addition to the copy at Ancestry.com, there is an online copy of the Throckmorton book, with a reasonably readable copy of the chart Todd mentions, available via the FHL catalog here:
https://familysearch.org/search/catalog/172040?availability=Family%20History%20Library

reed.mi...@edumail.vic.gov.au

unread,

Nov 21, 2017, 6:17:15 AM11/21/17

to

On Thursday, 7 January 2016 04:08:44 UTC+11, Joe wrote:
> > > Thomas Hussey = Bridget Bowes
> > > Elizabeth Hussey = Thomas Stydolfe
> >
> > The Hussey Manuscript confirms the marriages of Sir Giles Hussey to Jane Pigot, and their son Thomas Hussey to Bridget Bowes, but mentions only child for Thomas and Bridget (Bowes) Hussey, a son John Hussey.
> >
> > Cheers, -----Brad
>
> Thomas Hussey and Bridget Bowes had 2 other children - George Hussey who in turn had a son John Hussey, and Elizabeth Hussey who married Thomas Stydolf/Stydolph, of Norbury, Surrey as mentioned. Elizabeth Stydolf was the eventual heir general of her father Thomas Hussey. John Hussey, of Honington and Caythorpe, Lincolnshire, left a long and detailed will dated 14 Aug. 1583 and proved 5 Sep. 1587. It is clear that when he wrote this will that his brother George and his nephew John were dead; he named a distant cousin, Charles Hussey, jr., of Belton, Lincolnshire, as the male heir of his estates.
>
> Joe

George's son was John Hussey of Dorking, Surrey, England. He was born in 1570 and died during 1632 as his wife and son were planning to go to New England in March. This is recorded in the parish records in Dorking. Christopher Hussey did very well in Hampton, New England and used elements of his family's coat-of-arms in the decorative carvings on the back chair that he commissioned for his father-in-law (and fellow Puritan) Rev. Stephen Bachiler. The ceremonial chair was made 1650-177 and is currently on display in the METROPOLITAN MUSEUM of ART in New York.

reed.mi...@edumail.vic.gov.au

unread,

Nov 21, 2017, 6:18:32 AM11/21/17

to

On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 21:00:17 UTC+11, Brad Verity wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 1:53:46 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Is the following Edward III line for Jeffrey Amherst correct?
> > Edward III, King of England = Queen Philippa
> > John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster = Blanch of Lancaster
> > Elizabeth Plantagenet = John Holland, Duke of Exeter
> > Constance Holland = Sir John Grey
> > Edmund Grey, 1st Earl of Kent = Katherine Percy
> > George Grey, 2nd Earl of Kent = Katherine Herbert
> > Anne Grey = John Hussey, 1st Lord Hussey of Sleaford
> > Sir Giles Hussey = Jane Pigot
>
> The line fails at the above generation, John. Per The Hussey Manuscript, Sir Giles Hussey was the son of Lord Hussey by his first wife Margaret Blount, not by Anne Grey. Chronology seems to support this. The Hussey MS says of Giles, "He was knighted by the Earl of Surrey at the Battle of Morlaix in France in July, 1522, according to 'Lincolnshire Pedigrees.' The battle occurred at the French town, about five miles from the English channel, during the Hundred Years War, and he returned home in October 1522. He was appointed peace commissioner at Kesteven, Lincolnshire in 1523, according to 'Calendar of State Papers.' He and his father were appointed on the commission of sewers for Lincolnshire in March, 1524."
>
> Though it's possible for a man to be knighted in his teens, it's unlikely he would be appointed a commissioner unless he was of full age, so Giles Hussey was born by 1502. Lord Hussey and Anne Grey were married about 18 February 1505 (date of settlement). She could not have been more than age 14 at the time, as her own parents' marriage settlement was dated 1 October 1490.

>
> > Thomas Hussey = Bridget Bowes
> > Elizabeth Hussey = Thomas Stydolfe
>
> The Hussey Manuscript confirms the marriages of Sir Giles Hussey to Jane Pigot, and their son Thomas Hussey to Bridget Bowes, but mentions only child for Thomas and Bridget (Bowes) Hussey, a son John Hussey.

> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gowenrf/husseyms_003.html
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Cheers, -----Brad

wjhonson

unread,

Nov 21, 2017, 12:00:08 PM11/21/17

to

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 3:17:15 AM UTC-8, reed.mi...@edumail.vic.gov.au

>
> George's son was John Hussey of Dorking, Surrey, England. He was born in 1570 and died during 1632 as his wife and son were planning to go to New England in March. This is recorded in the parish records in Dorking. Christopher Hussey did very well in Hampton, New England and used elements of his family's coat-of-arms in the decorative carvings on the back chair that he commissioned for his father-in-law (and fellow Puritan) Rev. Stephen Bachiler. The ceremonial chair was made 1650-177 and is currently on display in the METROPOLITAN MUSEUM of ART in New York.

What is your source for this 1570 birth year ?

Joe

unread,

Nov 21, 2017, 2:00:18 PM11/21/17

to

>
> George's son was John Hussey of Dorking, Surrey, England. He was born in 1570 and died during 1632 as his wife and son were planning to go to New England in March. This is recorded in the parish records in Dorking. Christopher Hussey did very well in Hampton, New England and used elements of his family's coat-of-arms in the decorative carvings on the back chair that he commissioned for his father-in-law (and fellow Puritan) Rev. Stephen Bachiler. The ceremonial chair was made 1650-177 and is currently on display in the METROPOLITAN MUSEUM of ART in New York.

I believe this falls into the category of common internet error. There is no actual evidence as to the father of John Hussey of Dorking.
As noted above John Hussey, the son of George Hussey cannot be the same person as John Hussey of Dorking. He died without issue leaving a long will with his sister Elizabeth Stydolf as his rightful heir, with distant cousin Charles Hussey, jr., of Belton, Lincolnshire, as the male heir of his estates.
I believe it was Paul C. Reed FASG who really looked into the family Thomas Hussey and Bridget Bowes including transcribing originally the above mentioned will. As he said in 1999, “The Husseys of Holbrook, co. Somerset, and those of Wiltshire, and different that the Lincolnshire Husseys who have been recently discussed.
Again, there is no evidence as to who the father of John Hussey of Dorking was. PCR“

Joe

unread,

Nov 21, 2017, 2:06:51 PM11/21/17

to

Now I see why this thread was revived as they are being discussed here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/hussey$20dorking%7Csort:date/soc.genealogy.medieval/mlJBW9m-Oq4/TcuBrY-hAgAJ

This connection of John Hussey of Dorking to Thomas Hussey and Bridget Bowes was disproved by Paul C Reed.

Matthew Langley

unread,

Dec 1, 2017, 6:13:15 AM12/1/17

to

I would assume you have pictures of this chair's use of coat of arms.