Re: The Tamworth Descent of Mrs. Margaret (Estouteville) Sheppard
wjho...@aol.com
Elizabeth Robinson the co-heiress of her father Nicholas of Boston was only "aet 3y5m" in 1560, the year Nicholas died.
The wife here just called "daughter of Charles Knyvett" was named Anne, their marriage settlement is dated 10 Jul 1555 and they married a one month at Sempringham, as her first husband. Anne would next marry Leonard Irby, MP for Boston (1552), have two children by him, and then thirdly she would marry Robert Carre of Sleaford who was "aet 18" in 1529.
Anne's own age or birth details are unclear within a 30year range afaik.
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: Johnny Brananas <ravinma...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 15, 2010 8:01 am
Subject: The Tamworth Descent of Mrs. Margaret (Estouteville) Sheppard
Just something I found rather interesting ...
Rev. Thomas Sheppard's first wife, Margaret Estouteville or
Touteville, apparently had the following line of descent from medieval
times:
Nicholas Tamworth = Anne, dau. of Lord Lisle/Lysley
Sir Nicholas Tamworth = Anne, dau. of Lord Willoughby
Sir John Tamworth = dau. of Simon Lake or Leake
John Tamworth = Elizabeth Kyme
John Tamworth = Isabel Ayscough
John Tamworth = Elizabeth Clement
John Tamworth =
Margaret Tamworth [called "Elizabeth" Thomworth in Essex Vis.] = Sir
Grey [_recte_ Guy] Wolston
Elizabeth Wolston = (1) John Style; (2) Sir James Yarford/ Yarforth,
who founded a chantry for himself, his wife, her first husband Style,
and his in-laws, "Guy and Margaret Welstone"
Florence Style [called "Yerforth" after stepfather in Lincs. Vis.] =
Nicholas Robertson of Boston, Lincs.
Bryan Robertson = Margaret Fitzwilliam
Anne Robertson = Charles Estouteville
Margaret Estouteville = Rev. Thomas Shepard, who came to New England
Sources:
"Robinson" [i.e., Robertson] pedigrees, p. 104 and 105, and Tamworth
pedigree, pp. 119-20, in the 1562/4 Lincolnshire Visitation:
http://ia331305.us.archive.org/1/items/visitationofcoun00cook/visitationofcoun00cook.pdf
Looking through the patent and close rolls from the late 1300s, I
noticed a Joan, widow of Sir Nicholas Tamworth, who had remarried to a
Gilbert Talbot. This might be consistent with her being the daughter
of one of the lords (Lisle or Willoughby) as stated at the top of the
descent.
Margaret Estouteville will be in Doug's forthcoming books on her lines
through Fitzwilliam, Knevitt, etc.
Doug, what is the current status of your publications? I thought they
were shipping "on or about" June 1.
-------------------------------
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
wjho...@aol.com
However there was another Guy Wolston who had a wife Elizabeth, both living in 1488. He was not a knight, at least at this time. They had two (or possibly more) co-heiresses, Margaret (Wolston) Sapcote, and Elizabeth (Wolston) Style.
We are not the first generation to confuse the two Guys together, and we probably won't be the last.
Now the trick is to go through all the docs with a find toothed comb to seperate the lives of the two Guys.
Sir Guy of Apethorpe evidently left a will PCC 21 Holgrave. Is this extant? If so it might help cement the case that he left only the sole heiress.
John Dobson
The will of Sir Guy Wollston, P.C.C. 21 Holgrave, proved 1504, can be purchased online at
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=1057713
Yours Sincerely,
John Blythe Dobson
>>> <wjho...@aol.com> 15-Jul-10 2:24:59 PM >>>
John
> Having reviewed the sources and a few others, I've now decided that there were two Guy Wolstan's living at the same time. One was knighted and had a sole heiress Ethelreda (Audrey) Wolston who married Thomas Empson then heir apparent of his father Richard then Gent, but apparently later a Knight.
>
> However there was another Guy Wolston who had a wife Elizabeth, both living in 1488. He was not a knight, at least at this time. They had two (or possibly more) co-heiresses, Margaret (Wolston) Sapcote, and Elizabeth (Wolston) Style.
>
> We are not the first generation to confuse the two Guys together, and we probably won't be the last.
> Now the trick is to go through all the docs with a find toothed comb to seperate the lives of the two Guys.
>
> Sir Guy of Apethorpe evidently left a will PCC 21 Holgrave. Is this extant? If so it might help cement the case that he left only the sole heiress.
>
> Will
>
Elizabeth (Wolston) Style were the daughters of the Guy Wolston who
was not a knight, and conversely that Audrey/Ethelreda (Wolston)
Empson was the dau. (and also the sole heir) of SIR Guy Wolston? (I'm
not saying that the conclusion is wrong - but the evidence we've seen
so far isn't necessarily decisive and may contradict this conclusion.)
According to the ODNB bio of his father, Thomas Empson, the husband of
Audrey/Ethelreda Wolston, was the son of Sir Peter Empson, councillor
to King Henry VII, who was created a Knight of the Bath in 1504, but
arrested immediately after Henry VII's death and executed a year or so
later. ODNB refers to him as "the king's hatchet man".
FWIW Margaret (Olston) Sapcote, daughter of one or the other Guy
Wolstons, is an ancestor of Princess Diana among others.
John
I typed too quickly - the "king's hatchet man" per ODNB was Sir
RICHARD Empson....his father was Peter (who was definitely not a
knight).
(Thanks to Leo for catching this)
WJho...@aol.com
when I have my sources in front of me. But iirc there are two documents
concerning the marriage of Ethelreda where some financial arrangement is discussed
re her married as "heir apparent" of "Sir Guy Wolstan" and "his wife
Margaret"; to this Thomas as "heir apparent" of Richard Empson.
I enquote that, because it's odd to me to see a woman called "heir
apparent". But at any rate it would seem that such an odd usage should indicate
"sole heiress" as well.
I'll find the citation tomorrow.
Will
Don McArthur
wife, of the one part, and Richard Emson of the other part, witnessing that
the said Sir Guy and Dame Margaret have received at London from the said
Richard 30l., part of the sum due to them on the marriage of Thomas Emson,
son and heir apparent of the said Richard, with Audrey, daughter and heir
apparent of the said Sir Guy and Dame Margaret. 9 June, 16 Henry [VII].
English. Signed. Two seals.
Douglas Richardson
Etheldreda/Ethelreda is Latin for Audrey.
DR
John
Ethelreda - Latin??? Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
[and of course it's irrelevant in the context of the thread anyway]
Douglas Richardson
> Ethelreda - Latin??? Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
> [and of course it's irrelevant in the context of the thread anyway]
To be more precise. Ethelreda is Willspeak for Etheldreda.
Etheldreda is Latin for Audrey.
DR
John
LOL...what nonsense. More unsupported assertions....
Douglas Richardson
< LOL...what nonsense. More unsupported assertions....
Yes, your comment is nonsense. I'll say it again with emphasis:
Etheldreda is the Latin form of Audrey.
DR
Christopher Ingham
latinized form of OE Æðelþryd, Æðeldreda, etc. Some claim that Audrey
derives directly from Æðelþryd, but, FWIW, in a cursory search on the
web I don't find instances of the use of that name before the 12th
century.
G. Redmonds,_Christian names in local and family history_(Toronto,
2004), 7:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xQZxQV4Z5sYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7
R. C. Charnock,_Prænomina_(London, 1882), 13:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=R3ICAAAAQAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA13
M. Morpurgo Davies, "Greek personal names and linguistic
continuity,"_ProcBritAc_104 (2000):16:
http://books.google.com/books?id=SbVJvfu7EzsC&pg=PA16
Christopher Ingham
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your post. Much appreciated.
One source I saw online said Audrey was a "variant" form of
Etheldreda. I believe Audrey is actually the vernacular form of the
Latin given name, Etheldreda. If so, it would neither be a variant
form, or a diminuative form.
I believe the reason for the confusion is that historians and
genealogists often leave names in their Latin forms when they don't
know the corresponding vernacular forms. A good example of this would
be the Latin female name, Egidia. Another Latin form you often see
untranslated in modern records is Mariota. Etheldreda is likewise
often left untranslated.
The Latin names, Etheldreda, Egidia, and Mariota, all have
corresponding vernacular forms.
DR
wjho...@aol.com
http://books.google.com/books?id=LGAsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA211
"Lists and Indexes, Issue 29", "Early Chancery Proceedings - Bundle 306"
"Thomas Emson son of Richard Emson knight and Etheldrede his wife daughter and heir of Guy Wolston knight and Margaret his wife....The manors of Apthorpe, Tansor, Hale, Castor and Yarwell with messuages mills land and rent settled in remainder on complainants at their marriage.... Northants"
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 16, 2010 8:02 am
Subject: Re: The Tamworth Descent of Mrs. Margaret (Estouteville) Sheppard
DR
-------------------------------
John
> This is my theory of the timeline:
>
> ca. early 1460s -- Guy Wolston marries the widow Margaret (Tamworth)
> Pynchbeck of Lincolnshire, and has by her children Guy Jr, Elizabeth
> (m. Style and Yarforth), and Margaret (m. Sapcote)
>
> 1476 -- Margaret (Tamworth) (Pynchbeck) Wolston dies and Sir Guy
> marries another Margaret, apparently an heiress
>
> 1488 -- the son Guy Wolston, Jr., not called "knight," is found with
> wife Elizabeth (---) Middleton, but dies shortly thereafter, v.p. and
> s.p., and his widow marries Sir William Hampton
>
> 1501 -- Audrey Wolston, daughter of Sir Guy Wolston by the second
> Margaret, heir apparent _of her mother only_, marries Thomas Empson
>
> 1500s -- John Style and wife Elizabeth (clearly stated to be daughter
> of the first Margaret Wolston) sue her father Sir Guy and his second
> wife Margaret
This looks like a viable hypothesis given the information we've seen
so far. It will a challenge to see if all of this can be proven - good
as it is.
One small addtion: Elizabeth, who mar. John Middleton, Guy Wolston
(jr.), and Sir William Hampton, is identified in the bio of her first
husband John Middleton in Wedgwood's HOP as the daughter of Thomas
Wolseley of Wolseley, Satffordshire, and sister of Ralph Wolseley,
Baron of the Exhchequer (who himslef has a bio in the same HOP).
Middleton's bio does not mention Elizzabeth subsequent husbands - but
it would not necessarily have any reason to do so. They are confirmed
in the Thrupp reference cited earlier.
Douglas Richardson
I don't have an issue with "familiar" forms. I do have an issue with
leaving a name like Egidia in Latin, when the name should be properly
translated as Gille (or Giles). Modern historians usually translate
Latin name forms into their modern equivalents. I agree with this
convention. Where the confusion comes in is when historians and
genealogists translate some names into modern vernacular forms, but
not others. I think this practice should be approached in a
CONSISTENT fashion. Hence, if you translate Robertus as Robert, you
should render Matilda as Maud; Mariota as Marion, etc.
The actual text of the PRO document you cite may be in Latin.
Sometimes when an archivist translates a text into English, they leave
an unfamiliar name in Latin. Etheldredra, Egidia, and Mariota are
names which are typically left in the Latin forms. In this case, the
text might either be in Latin or English. You'd have to see the
actual text to be sure.
Elsewhere I find that women with this name (Etheldredra/Audrey) occur
in some modern abstracts as Etheldreda and in others as Audrey. As
such, I don't believe Audrey is the diminuative for Etheldredra.
Rather, I believe Audrey is the vernacular form. Like William would
be the vernacular form of the Latin name, Willielmus. I might add
that It might be possible that Etheldred and Audrey both exist as name
forms in later periods. If so, that would really confuse matters. I
actually came across one such example in recent time, so it's not
impossible.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
wjho...@aol.com
Douglas your theory does not seem falsifiable.
If I find a document using Etheldreda you will say they didn't change it.
If I find a document using Audrey you will say, see that's the vernacular form.
So either way you have a way out.
I don't subscribe to your theory of Latin versus vernacular.
My own pet theory is that any "y" or "ie" name is a familiar form of something else, until modern times (meaning in this case, in the last century).
But this is rather off the track. We should be trying to find more documents about this cluster of people so we can see if we are dealing with one Guy, two Guys father and son or uncle and nephew, or two Guys who seem to be not closely related.
Let's not get all wound up in naming. We'll not agree.
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 16, 2010 1:21 pm
Subject: Re: The Tamworth Descent of Mrs. Margaret (Estouteville) Sheppard
Will ~
impossible.
-------------------------------
Douglas Richardson
Under usual conditions, if a name in a Latin document has been left in
in Latin form when translated into English, you can readily find other
examples of the name in original English texts which provide the
vernacular form. It usually isn't too difficult to determine what is
the Latin form and what is the vernacular form.
I also said it might be possible that both Etheldreda and Audrey were
vernacular forms in the later period. But I doubt it. I believe
Audrey is the vernacular form and that Etheldreda is the Latin form.
It should be easy to find some examples of women called Etheldreda in
Latin texts and see what they were called in English texts. If
someone wants to get started, you can start by searching Google books
for the words, Etheldreda Visitation, and then check to see if anyone
of the women you find called Etheldreda in visitation records were
elsewhere called Audrey in their own wills or those of their husbands.
DR
Douglas Richardson
I find that a Sir Edmund Brudenell had a wife and daughter, both named
Audrey. See Finch, Mary E. The Wealth of Five Northamptonshire
Families, 1540–1640.
The daughter Audrey Brudenell married Basil Brooke as his 1st wife.
She is styled Audrey by the historian, Michael Questier, in the
following weblink:
However, a transcript of her monumental inscription in Latin calls
Basil Brooke's wife, Etheldreda:
Yet when Mr. Randall, the author of that work, translates the Latin
text into English, he calls her Etheldreda:
So is her name Audrey (as stated by two historians) or Etheldreda as
stated by Mr. Randall?
And, is Etheldreda Latin for Audrey?
Douglas Richardson
Audrey Ferneley, is called Audrey by modern historians:
1. Visitation of Suffolk.
2. Papers of Nathaniel Bacon.
So far we have found one contemporary Latin record in which Sir Edmund
Brudenell's daughter is called Etheldreda.
So is the name Audrey or Etheldreda? Or is one an English form and
the other a Latin form?
Douglas Richardson
daughter as Etheldreda:
1. Visitation of Shropshire.
DR
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
> <<I also said it might be possible that both Etheldreda and Audrey were
> vernacular forms in the later period. But I doubt it. I believe
> Audrey is the vernacular form and that Etheldreda is the Latin form.
>
> <<It should be easy to find some examples of women called Etheldreda in
> Latin texts and see what they were called in English texts. If
> someone wants to get started, you can start by searching Google books
> for the words, Etheldreda Visitation, and then check to see if anyone
> of the women you find called Etheldreda in visitation records were
> elsewhere called Audrey in their own wills or those of their husbands. >>
>
------------------
Douglas, I've said what I wish on this naming twist in which you have your
knickers. I'm not going to fuel your bizarre fixation.
Those who have ears, let them hear.
Will
Douglas Richardson
as Awdrey:
So now we have one record of the wife in an English record as Awdrey
and two records of the daughter in Latin records as Etheldreda.
Is a pattern developing?
DR
Douglas Richardson
> Douglas, I've said what I wish on this naming twist in which you have your
> knickers. I'm not going to fuel your bizarre fixation.
> Those who have ears, let them hear.
>
> Will
I'm showing you how to document a Latin form versus English form.
There is nothing bizarre about this. This is standard research.
DR
David Daniell
To summarize
You and others have established an indisputable link between the two separate names Audrey and Etheldreda.
Etheldreda is an antique, originally Old English, form and not "Latin" - not even "Latinised".
re Ms Audrey Brudenell aka Etheldreda:
Perhaps to bolster her family's sense of apartness Audreyl's monument uses the form Etheldreda in it's Latin inscription.
Merely modish antiquing to underscore the lineage and fit with the upmarket Latin inscription.
Because they are different names and very evidently completely unaware of your new "Latin translation" concept the scholar, Randall, who produced in 1890 the translation of the monument's inscription was not so presumptuous as to change it but to report accurately exactly what he read. Surely that's apparent. Same form used in the visitation published at the same time perhaps because the monument's evidence seemed more concrete?
Your own messages show you are wrong to assume one name is a "translation" of the other between languages.
With kind regards
David
Douglas Richardson
< Your own messages show you are wrong to assume one name is a
"translation" of the other between languages.
<
< With kind regards
<
< David
David ~
They are not "different" names. One is the Latin form (Etheldreda),
the other is the English form (Audrey).
Like Willielmus and William.
Same name, different language.
Mr. Randall was evidently not aware that Etheldreda was the Latin form
of Audrey. Had her name been Margareta on the Latin inscription, he
would have had no trouble rendering her name as Margaret in English.
Throw an unfamiliar Latin form at someone, they usually have trouble
translating it into English. Egidia usually throws everyone. The
vernacular form, however, is Gille (or Giles).
DR
P.S. I stated earlier that there may actually be a given name
Etheldred which was in existence in the later time period. I
supposedly have an aunt named Etheldred Wells, born about 1600, in
Northamptonshire, England behind my Tuttle ancestry. However, if the
modern genealogist was looking at the parish records in Latin which
records her baptism, he may not have realized that Etheldreda was the
Latin form for Audrey. If the parish registers are in English,
however, then the given name Etheldred would surely stand. I haven't
seen the actual registers to see if they are in Latin or English.
John
> In a message dated 7/16/2010 3:15:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
Hear, hear!!
Remember the old saying (from a poem, I believe): "Argue with no true
believer".
It's pointless to pursue this topic any further with someone like DR.
His mind is made up and God (or DR) forbid that anyone should dare to
disagree with him.
Philip Cheyney
<snip>
> Modern historians usually translate
> Latin name forms into their modern equivalents. I agree with this
> convention.
>
<snip>
>
> I don't believe Audrey is the diminuative for Etheldredra.
> Rather, I believe Audrey is the vernacular form.
Perhaps this is a difference between the United States and England,
arising because we remained old-fashioned much longer over the
compulsory teaching of Latin (I would not have been accepted into
Cambridge without it). As a result we seem more at home with the
language.
We therefore have the parish of St Etheldreda with St Clement in
Fulham and the [Roman] Catholic church of St Etheldreda in the City.
Ely Cathedral has a plaque to its founder, St Etheldreda, although the
cathedral choir produced a CD called Evensong for St Ethelfreda, but
with two versions of a 'Hymn to St Etheldreda' by Sebastian Forbes.
And in Romsey, Hants, there is the abbey church of St Mary & St
Ethelfleda.
English authorities [1] treat Audrey as originally a pet-name, or
reduction, or what we call a diminutive (instead of diminuative). But
by the 17th century Audrey had become a separate name, especially
amongst the lower classes. [2]
In a similar example, the English Thome and French Mace were medieval
diminutives for the Latin name Thomas, which of course remains the
formal version used now in both England and France. And in the saying
'Any Tom, Dick or Harry', they were originally intended as examples of
lower-class names.
But what's important about all names is that we recognise which person
the other is talking about. We've all managed that very easily. So
perhaps we can keep our differences.
Philip
[1] OED s.v. tawdry; Withycombe, Dictionary of Christian Names p 36.
Since at that time all formal names were in Latin, any vernacular
versions were perforce informal, diminutive pet-names.
[2] cf. Shakespeare's Dramatis personae in As You Like It: "Audrey, a
country wench"
Christopher Ingham
wrote:
Adeldreda, Aetheldreda, Aethelthryth, Aildreda, Aude, Audrey, Audry,
Audrye, Awdrie, Ethel, Etheldred, Etheldritha, Ethelia, Theldred, and
Theldry.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/domesday.asp
http://www.gaminggeeks.org/Resources/KateMonk/England-Medieval/Saxon.htm
Many of these names did not survive much beyond the Anglo-Saxon
period. In most cases they would have been rendered by the Latin
form_Etheldreda_in legal documents. The vernacular Etheldreda is still
found in late medieval Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, in which case it
it should be described as the latinized rather than Latin form of the
OE Æðelþryd.
G. Redmonds,_Christian names in local and family history_(Toronto:
Dundurn Press, 2004), 7-8:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xQZxQV4Z5sYC&pg=PA7
"Rather more numerous in 1377-81 were the two women's names Gun(n)ild
and Etheldred[....] Etheldred was an East Anglian name in that period,
found in three counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. It was
especially prominent in 1381 in Mildenhall where four women bore that
name. The inspiration in this case was probably Queen Etheldred who
founded the abbey of Ely and is thought to have been born in
Suffolk[....] Audrey was the vernacular form, and the fair dedicated
to her was known as either St Etheldred's or St Audrey's Fair."
P. H. Reaney and R. M. Wilson,_A dictionary of English surnames_, 3rd
ed. (New York: Routledge, 1991), s.v. "Audrey, Awdrey, Awdry."
http://books.google.com/books?id=fPoujUPs3hYC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19
"Audrey, Awdrey, Awdry:_Aldreda_1066 DB (Nf), 1219 AssY;
Robert_Audrey_1279 RH (O). The DB personal-name may be
for_Ælfðryð_,_Æðelðryð_or_Ealhðryð_, all feminine. Of these the most
common was the second, 'noble strength', popular through the
reputation of St. Etheldreda, Queen of Northumbria and founder of the
convent at Ely. This became_Audrey_and is found in the 14th century in
Essex and Suffolk as_Etheldreda_(1304 AD i (Ess.), 1381 SRSf)."
Christopher Ingham