Weston / Walton descent from the Earls of Westmorland

[Joe]

In 1632, the pedigree of Richard Weston, Lord Treasurer and future 1st earl of Portland was certified by William Segar the Garter King of Arms and included a descent from the earls of Westmorland. In 1878, Robert E.C. Waters in his Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley called this pedigree an elaborate fabrication.[1] Despite no evidence to support this claim, it has been generally accepted that the Segar pedigree was false.

In 2011, Shawn H. Potter presented a great deal of information to support the original descent. I wish to add one more bit of information which also supports the original and try to summarize some of the evidence.[2,3] See: http://tinyurl.com/kpp24wx http://tinyurl.com/mkm4yhm

An important part of Waters argument and the doubts of others on this forum is that there is no evidence to link the Westons of Roxwell to the Westons of Lichfield as given in the Segar pedigree. This is of course true only if you call the Simon Weston letter a part of an outrageous hoax, and ignore the evidence of the descent of the prebend of Sawley and the advowson of Bucknell. However, I have stumbled across one more piece of evidence that does in fact link the two families. In the 1630's Thomas Wentworth earl of Stafford was in an extraordinary feud with Richard Boyle earl of Cork. Richard Boyle had built in St. Patrick's cathedral the "largest and grandest tomb in Ireland at a personal cost of £1000" to house the bodies of his mother-in-law Alice Weston and her father Robert Weston the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Wentworth was demanding (purely out of spite) that it be torn down. Among the many letters regarding this issue was a mention that the Lord Treasurer would side with those wishing for the monument to remain "because of his kinsman the Lord Chancellor Weston, " and that he was "stirring in the matter" at court.[4,5,6,] In other words, he did not want the tomb of his great-uncle torn down. Waters was wrong to say there is no link between the two families, and so his basic conclusion that the college of arms pedigree was therefore a fabrication must be discarded. Morant and Waters leave no room for these men to be called "kinsman" in this context.


In support of the claim that Richard Weston, Lord Treasurer descended from John Weston and Cecilia Neville:

1. The certified pedigree by the Garter King of Arms is likely true unless proved otherwise. It was at the time supported by "authentic evidence" and felt proven by the highest official in charge of such matters. The pedigree is described as 205 pages on 110 feet of vellum containing copies of the charters and other documents of the Weston family, 33 hand colored seals, 4 pages of depictions of funerary monuments, etc. Just because we no longer have access to all of the evidences presented doesn't mean they didn't exist. Many pedigrees stand on much less than this simple fact. There is no evidence to the contrary.
2. We have a copy of a fine which states Cecilia, wife of John Weston, is the sister of the earl of Westmorland.
3. We have the letter by Simon Weston of Lichfield, written in 1631, which corroborates (out right proves!) the pedigree. He states unequivocally that he is the grandson of John Weston of Lichfield and Cecilia Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville and the granddaughter of Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland.

According Waters and others on this forum, the above points are supposed to part of a grand conspiracy and to be ignored without further evidence. However, rejecting the above also means ignoring:

4. Robert Weston, Lord Chancellor of Ireland was in fact a "kinsman" of Richard Weston the Lord Treasurer. A fact unknown to Waters who based his conclusion on "the absence of any proof that Richard Weston, the purchaser of Skreens, was connected with the Staffordshire" Westons.

5. The prebend of Sawley belonged to the Booth family in the 15th century. In fact, Ralph Booth, the father of Isabel Booth who married Ralph Neville, 3rd earl of Westmorland, is buried in Sawley. This was then later held by Robert Weston, Lord Chancellor who noted in his will said it was in the hands of his brother James Weston. James Weston in his will gave it to his aunt Alice Ball. This descent certainly indicates a connection between the Booth family and the Westons of Lichfield.[7]

8. The advowson of Bucknell was purchased by and passed from Richard Weston the Judge of Roxwell, to his son Sir Jerome Weston of Roxwell, to his aunt Alice (Weston) Ball of Lichfield, widow, to her son Robert Ball, to his nephew Josias White (son of Isabel Ball and John White of Stanton). This supports and/or confirms a family connection between the Roxwell and Lichfield branches of the Westons.[8]

9. Waters says he has strong reasons for accepting the statement by Morant in 1768 that Richard Weston the Judge sprang from the family of William Weston, Mercer of London and lord of Prested Hall.[9] This is despite the fact he notes that Morant "is by no means infallible an authority" and his "genealogical inferences are often wrong." Morant's statement seemingly relies entirely on the fact William Weston of Prested Hall had a fourth son named John and the Weston's of Roxley had a mark of cadency of a 4th son on their arms. There is no other evidence to connect William Weston of Prested Hall with the Roxwell Weston's. In fact, no one has ever shown a connection between the Westons of Prested Hall and the Westons of Roxwell.

10. The proposed fraud would have involved at least three separate Weston men, Simon of Lichfield, Richard of Rugeley baron of the Exchequer and Richard, Lord Treasurer all scattered and living in different counties. It would also have included Henry Lily of the college of arms and probably William Segar (who had already been jailed once for accidentally certifying a false pedigree). They Segar pedigree was made at a time when there many living grandchildren and great-grandchildren of John and Cecilia Neville who would surely have known the truth. The scope alone of this alleged fraud makes it so improbable that Waters' statements should be rejected without some proof on his part.

11. Richard Weston, Lord Treasurer did not need to fake a pedigree to improve his station. As the Lord Treasurer he was already one of the most powerful men in the country (said to be loved by and the closest advisor of King Charles). In fact, if he had been caught forging this pedigree it would only have been ammunition for his many enemies and potentially politically ruinous.

12. Note: It is important to distinguish John Weston of Lichfield who married Cecilia Neville from his nephew John Weston of Rugeley and Hagley who married Cecilia Ford. Having two John Weston's each married to a Cecilia seemed to confuse previous discussions. John Weston of Rugeley is the son of Richard Weston (older brother of John Weston of Lichfield). He occurs with Cecilia his wife in fines regarding Hagley and on a brass plaque in Rugeley church.[10,11,12,13]

13. The earls of Westmorland had been a failed and dishonored family for more than 150 years with every generation being either inconsequential or disgraced, or both. In fact, for much of this period it was likely dangerous to both life and reputation to be associated with them. They were not a family you would choose to prop up your own reputation (as alleged).

14. Note: The ODNB does say that Richard Weston the judge was likely a grandson of William Weston, mercer, of London.[14] The HOP says his grandson "inspired the fabrication of a pedigree" from the earls of Westmorland.[15] However, both of these secondary sources cite and are simply following Waters, provide nothing new and so can't be used to support Waters argument. The ODNB and HOP also say that Robert Weston, Lord Chancellor of Ireland and his brother James were the sons of the Cecilia, sister of the earl of Westmorland, so does this prove her existence?[16,17] Complete Peerage notes Waters and the controversy, but says "their ancestry is perhaps unduly disparaged" by Waters.[18]

Summary
1. The Segar pedigree in 1632 correctly identifies the Weston descent from the earls of Westmorland.
2. Morant was wrong in 1768 to connect the Westons of Roxwell to the Westons of Prested Hall. It was likely based on a poor inference drawn from the will of William Weston of Prested Hall.
3. In 1878, Waters followed Morant because he was ignorant of the evidence we have today.
4. The HOP and ODNB blindly followed Waters giving credence to the accusation of an "elaborate fabrication" which has no evidence to support it. CP is correct to say the pedigree was unduly disparaged by Waters.


1. Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley, by Robert Edmond Chester Waters (1878). Westons pp. 93-110 . http://tinyurl.com/k48tk6l
2. SGM Thread: New Walton Descent from Edward III, first post by Shawn Potter on 11 November 2011. http://tinyurl.com/kpp24wx
3. SGM Thread: Additonal Evidence for New Walton Descent from Edward III, first post by Shawn Potter on 6 December 2011. http://tinyurl.com/mkm4yhm
4. The Life and Letters of the Great Earl of Cork, by Dorthea Townshend (1904). P. 213 http://tinyurl.com/mfwpmrt
5. Archbishop Laud and Priestly Government, by Henry Bradley Bell (1905). P. 173 http://tinyurl.com/kwahvhd
6. The Works of Archbishop Laud William vol. VI part II, ed. by James Bliss (1857). P. 358-359. http://tinyurl.com/lxdtboa (Letter connecting Lord Treasurer and Lord Chancellor)
7. Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley, by Robert Edmond Chester Waters (1878). Westons pp. 93-110 . http://tinyurl.com/k48tk6l Wills of James and Robert Weston.
8. History of the Deanery of Bicester, Part VIII: History of Ardley, Bucknell, Caversfield and Stoke Lynn, by James Charles Blomfield (1894). P. 54 http://tinyurl.com/kl4n7je
9. Morant, Philip, The History and Antiquities of the County of Essex (London: 1768.) P. 70 and 171
10. Collections for a History of Staffordshire (William Salt Archaeological Society, 1938). P. 162 http://tinyurl.com/m883pse
11. Collections for a History of Staffordshire. (The William Salt Archaeological Society, 1897), vol. 18, p. 67. http://tinyurl.com/mbtb23u
12. Collections for a History of Staffordshire, ed. by The William Salt Archaeological Society, now Staffordshire Record Society (1891), Vol. 12, p199 http://tinyurl.com/kbo67kk
13. Gateway to the Past: Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent's Cultural Heritage. Rugeley Church (Old) - Monument to John Weston . web. http://tinyurl.com/n8ar6ke
14. J. H. Baker, 'Weston, Richard (d. 1572)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [ http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/29125 , accessed 3 Feb 2014]
15. History of Parliament Online from The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1509-1558, ed. S.T. Bindoff, 1982. Biography of Richard Weston (d. 1572). http://tinyurl.com/n236xqg
16. Andrew Lyall, 'Weston, Robert (b. in or before 1522, d. 1573)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [ http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/29131/2004-09 , accessed 3 Feb 2014.
17. History of Parliament Online from The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1509-1558, ed. S.T. Bindoff, 1982. Biography of Robert Weston (d. 1573). http://tinyurl.com/kb6nb9s
18. Complete Peerage, vol. X, p. 582, fn a.

[Joe]

A descent from Edward III through Cecilia Neville to Elizabeth Cooke, wife Rev. William Walton:

1. Edward III, King of England = Philippe of Hainault
2. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster = Blanche of Lancaster (descendant of Henry III, King of England)
3. Elizabeth of Lancaster = John de Holand, 1st Duke of Exeter (descendant of Edward I, King of England)
4. John de Holand, 2nd Duke of Exeter = Anne de Stafford (descendant of Edward III, King of England)
5. Anne de Holand = Sir John Neville, 1st Baron Neville (descendant of Edward I, King of England)
6. Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmorland = Isabel Booth
7. Ralph Neville, Lord Neville = Edith Sandys
8. Cecilia Neville = John Weston of Weeford
9. Alice Weston = John Ball of Lichfield
10. Isabel Ball = John White of Stanton
11. Martha White = Rev. William Cooke
12. Elizabeth Cooke = Rev. William Walton


I believe there are number of other 17th century immigrants who would claim a decent to John Weston and Cecilia Neville, including Jeremy Clarke, of Rhode Island.


Joe

[pj.evans]

On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:32:13 AM UTC-8, Joe wrote:
> In 1632, the pedigree of Richard Weston, Lord Treasurer and future 1st earl of Portland was certified by William Segar the Garter King of Arms and included a descent from the earls of Westmorland. In 1878, Robert E.C. Waters in his Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley called this pedigree an elaborate fabrication.[1] Despite no evidence to support this claim, it has been generally accepted that the Segar pedigree was false.
>
> In 2011, Shawn H. Potter presented a great deal of information to support the original descent. I wish to add one more bit of information which also supports the original and try to summarize some of the evidence.[2,3] See: http://tinyurl.com/kpp24wx http://tinyurl.com/mkm4yhm
>
> An important part of Waters argument and the doubts of others on this forum is that there is no evidence to link the Westons of Roxwell to the Westons of Lichfield as given in the Segar pedigree. This is of course true only if you call the Simon Weston letter a part of an outrageous hoax, and ignore the evidence of the descent of the prebend of Sawley and the advowson of Bucknell. However, I have stumbled across one more piece of evidence that does in fact link the two families. In the 1630's Thomas Wentworth earl of Stafford was in an extraordinary feud with Richard Boyle earl of Cork. Richard Boyle had built in St. Patrick's cathedral the "largest and grandest tomb in Ireland at a personal cost of £1000" to house the bodies of his mother-in-law Alice Weston and her father Robert Weston the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Wentworth was demanding (purely out of spite) that it be torn down. Among the many letters regarding this issue was a mention that the Lord Treasurer would side with those wishing for the monument to remain "because of his kinsman the Lord Chancellor Weston, " and that he was "stirring in the matter" at court.[4,5,6,] In other words, he did not want the tomb of his great-uncle torn down. Waters was wrong to say there is no link between the two families, and so his basic conclusion that the college of arms pedigree was therefore a fabrication must be discarded. Morant and Waters leave no room for these men to be called "kinsman" in this context.
>
> In support of the claim that Richard Weston, Lord Treasurer descended from John Weston and Cecilia Neville:
>
> 1. The certified pedigree by the Garter King of Arms is likely true unless proved otherwise. It was at the time supported by "authentic evidence" and felt proven by the highest official in charge of such matters. The pedigree is described as 205 pages on 110 feet of vellum containing copies of the charters and other documents of the Weston family, 33 hand colored seals, 4 pages of depictions of funerary monuments, etc. Just because we no longer have access to all of the evidences presented doesn't mean they didn't exist. Many pedigrees stand on much less than this simple fact. There is no evidence to the contrary.
>
> 2. We have a copy of a fine which states Cecilia, wife of John Weston, is the sister of the earl of Westmorland.
>
> 3. We have the letter by Simon Weston of Lichfield, written in 1631, which corroborates (out right proves!) the pedigree. He states unequivocally that he is the grandson of John Weston of Lichfield and Cecilia Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville and the granddaughter of Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland.
>
> According Waters and others on this forum, the above points are supposed to part of a grand conspiracy and to be ignored without further evidence. However, rejecting the above also means ignoring:
>
> 4. Robert Weston, Lord Chancellor of Ireland was in fact a "kinsman" of Richard Weston the Lord Treasurer. A fact unknown to Waters who based his conclusion on "the absence of any proof that Richard Weston, the purchaser of Skreens, was connected with the Staffordshire" Westons.
>
> 5. The prebend of Sawley belonged to the Booth family in the 15th century. In fact, Ralph Booth, the father of Isabel Booth who married Ralph Neville, 3rd earl of Westmorland, is buried in Sawley. This was then later held by Robert Weston, Lord Chancellor who noted in his will said it was in the hands of his brother James Weston. James Weston in his will gave it to his aunt Alice Ball. This descent certainly indicates a connection between the Booth family and the Westons of Lichfield.[7]
>

[snip]

I'd want to see evidence for (5), because nothing in it requires any kinship between the Booths and the Westons.

[Joe]

No, it does not require or prove a kinship, and it is not known how exactly how the prebend of Sawley came to be held by Robert Weston of Lichfield, Lord Chancellor of Ireland. It just adds to the weight of the argument.

It would be an unreasonable and remarkable coincidence though if this pedigree was false, and it just so happened that Sawley in Derbyshire was once held by the Booths and was then later held by the Westons of Lichfield, Staffordshire.

All evidence points to the correctness of the Segar pedigree. I do not think Waters would have rejected it if he had understood all of the family connections.

[Joe]

>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> I'd want to see evidence for (5), because nothing in it requires any kinship between the Booths and the Westons.

Let me ask you this. Would it really matter if the Sawley connection between the Booths and the Westons was just a strange coincidence? (Sawley is still important for showing the relationship between Robert Weston, James Weston and Alice Ball)

Philip Morant, writing in 1768, writes 3 sentences giving an alternative parentage for Richard Weston of Skreens in Roxwell as being William Weston of Prested Hall. He doesn't know William Weston's parentage. He gives no details of the family. He gives no indication he is aware of the Segar pedigree.

The ONLY details he gives are the amounts which William Weston gave to his children in his will, making it clear that he has seen William's will. Thus, making it appear as though he had concluded that William's 4th son John was the father of Richard the Judge based solely on the fact that the arms of the Westons of Roxwell bore the 4th son cadency mark.

How these 3 undocumented sentences by Morant, writing 130 years later, trumps one of the most well documented pedigrees by the college of arms, the personal attestation of a grandson, evidence of kinship which supports Segar and refutes Morant, a fine which corroborates the Cecilia Neville identification, and the improbability of such a massive and widespread conspiracy is beyond me.

[pj.evans]

It's called 'evidence'. (I'm discounting the conspiracy part: it need not be invoked for errors and hearsay.)

[Joe]

>
> It's called 'evidence'. (I'm discounting the conspiracy part: it need not be invoked for errors and hearsay.)

But a conspiracy of deliberate fabrication is what was alleged. I'm glad you agree it is unreasonable.

If there was no conspiracy then there is no reason to doubt the college of arms pedigree. It is 205 pages of copies of fines and charters, beautifully drawn pedigrees, painted coats of arms, paintings of funerary monuments, etc. It was not a minor undertaking. No, I do not know all the evidence inside; I wish I did as it is supposed to be much more extensive and thorough than the outline published by Erdeswick (http://tinyurl.com/nmzhy9z )

Among the duties of the Garter King of Arms is to present a genealogy to the house of lords of a new peer ( http://tinyurl.com/mb7rsve ). This manuscript was sealed and signed William Segar, Garter shortly before Richard Weston was made 1st Earl of Portland. If I can hazard a guess, this book (4 copies actually) was created for presentation to the house of lords on the creation of a new earldom.

As far as direct evidence that we have beyond the Segar pedigree:
A fine stating the relationship:
Sciant omnes &c. quod ego Johannes Weston de Rugeley Senior, gen. dedi &c. ad usum Johis. Weston junioris filii mei et Cecilie uxoris ejus, sororis Radi Com. Westmoreland, &c. Dat Lichfield 15 July, 18 Hen. VIII [1526]. (15 [Add. MSS. 18667, in Brit. Mus.])


The Simon Weston letter to Richard Weston of Rugeley where he states who his grandparents parents are:
"my grandfather John Weston who whilest he lived in England lived in the Citty of Lichfield and had to wife Cecely the daughter of Ralph Neville that died in the life time of the Erle of Westmorland his father who had five [sons] by the said Cicely Edmund Weston his oldest soune Richard Weston the Judge his second soune and grandfather to the now Lord Treasurer Robert Weston Chancellor of Ireland his third soun James Weston of the place where I now live in the City of Lichfield his fourth soune Christopher Weston his fifth son; James Weston my father ..."

I think Simon Weston writing in 1631 was more likely to know who his own grandparents were than Morant was writing in 1768.

Joe

[Matt Tompkins]

On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 17:44:02 UTC, Joe wrote:
> But a conspiracy of deliberate fabrication is what was alleged. I'm glad you agree it is unreasonable.
>
> If there was no conspiracy then there is no reason to doubt the college of arms pedigree. It is 205 pages of copies of fines and charters, beautifully drawn pedigrees, painted coats of arms, paintings of funerary monuments, etc. It was not a minor undertaking. No, I do not know all the evidence inside; I wish I did as it is supposed to be much more extensive and thorough than the outline published by Erdeswick (http://tinyurl.com/nmzhy9z )
>
> Among the duties of the Garter King of Arms is to present a genealogy to the house of lords of a new peer ( http://tinyurl.com/mb7rsve ). This manuscript was sealed and signed William Segar, Garter shortly before Richard Weston was made 1st Earl of Portland. If I can hazard a guess, this book (4 copies actually) was created for presentation to the house of lords on the creation of a new earldom.
>
> As far as direct evidence that we have beyond the Segar pedigree:
> A fine stating the relationship:
> Sciant omnes &c. quod ego Johannes Weston de Rugeley Senior, gen. dedi &c. ad usum Johis. Weston junioris filii mei et Cecilie uxoris ejus, sororis Radi Com. Westmoreland, &c. Dat Lichfield 15 July, 18 Hen. VIII [1526]. (15 [Add. MSS. 18667, in Brit. Mus.])
>

This 1526 charter (it is not a fine) and the Segar pedigree are actually the same document. BM Add. MS. 18997 is the Segar pedigree with its supporting documentation, and the 1526 charter is one of the charters copied into it. The pedigree is the only authority for the charter's existence - if the pedigree is unreliable, then so too is the charter.

If the original of the charter could be found then much of the doubt surrounding the pedigree would be removed. The pedigree says the original of the charter was 'at Chillington' - presumably a reference to the Giffard seat at Chillington Hall near Wolverhampton. The Giffard archive is now in the Stafford Record Office, principally with the reference D590, but unfortunately does not seem to contain the 1526 charter.

Matt Tompkins

[Brad Verity]

> > A fine stating the relationship:
> > Sciant omnes &c. quod ego Johannes Weston de Rugeley Senior, gen. dedi &c. ad usum Johis. Weston junioris filii mei et Cecilie uxoris ejus, sororis Radi Com. Westmoreland, &c. Dat Lichfield 15 July, 18 Hen. VIII [1526]. (15 [Add. MSS. 18667, in Brit. Mus.])

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:47:35 PM UTC-8, Matt Tompkins wrote:
> This 1526 charter (it is not a fine)

Thank you, Matt. This abstract, purportedly from 1526, is not a fine. It is dated at Lichfield, and the Feet of Fines for Staffordshire for this period have been published. The fines for the regnal year 18 Henry VIII start on p. 265, and go to p. 267. The above transaction is not among them:
https://archive.org/stream/collectionsforhi11stafuoft#page/266/mode/2up

In fact nowhere, on any of these Staffordshire fines, running over two centuries, from 1327 to 1547, does any Weston appear. This doesn't bode well for there ever existing a John Weston of Staffordshire whose son married an earl's sister, even a bastard sister or a step-sister.

>and the Segar pedigree are actually the same document. BM Add. MS. 18997 is the Segar pedigree with its supporting documentation, and the 1526 charter is one of the charters copied into it. The pedigree is the only authority for the charter's existence - if the pedigree is unreliable, then so too is the charter.

The abstract of the charter has huge red flags for me. First, it's in Latin. In 1526, was it very typical for a lower gentry family like these Westons must have been (if they were landed at all) to conduct a private family transaction between father and son in Latin?

Second, this abstract tells us nothing of what was transacted. "Sciant omens" basically translates to "know all men". So this abstract translated is "Know all that I, John Weston of Rugeley Senior, 'gen. dedi &c.' to the use of John Weston junior my son and Cecily his wife, sister of Ralph, earl of Westmorland, &c."

I don't know what "gen. dedi" after the name of John Weston of Rugeley is supposed to mean, but I would think if he had existed and was arms-bearing and owned land in Rugeley he would describe himself as "esquire" or in Latin "armiger".

Inconveniently, for anyone ever inclined to read this pedigree and follow-up on the evidences, whatever lands or property that John Weston of Rugeley was conveying to his son and daughter-in-law by this charter have been omitted from this abstract. Without a clue as to the properties this family is supposed to have held in 1526, there is no way to verify this supposed transaction in any other sources.

> If the original of the charter could be found then much of the doubt surrounding the pedigree would be removed. The pedigree says the original of the charter was 'at Chillington' - presumably a reference to the Giffard seat at Chillington Hall near Wolverhampton. The Giffard archive is now in the Stafford Record Office, principally with the reference D590, but unfortunately does not seem to contain the 1526 charter.

Not surprising. So in 1632, whatever heralds, clerks, peers, etc., in addition to the Westons and their family, who bother to read through this pedigree, presumably (I obviously haven't seen the original and its layout) come to the marriage of John Weston and Cecily Neville laid out in English in pedigree form, with a single sentence in Latin that says nothing but repeat the relationship the pedigree is presenting, and date stamps it at Lichfield 15 July 1526.

It's brilliant. Why would anyone in 1632 challenge this? Only a herald or a very experienced genealogist of the period would have the expertise to understand that this presented marriage of Weston of Rugeley to Neville of Westmorland from one hundred years previous may not have been valid. It took more than two hundred years, but an experienced genealogist, Robert Waters, finally did try and follow-up on this pedigree as presented, and deemed it an "elaborate fabrication".

I can't speak to the rest of the pedigree and the Weston relationships laid out in it, but when it comes to this one particular Weston of Rugeley/Neville of Westmorland portion, I'm in complete agreement with Waters - fabrication.

Cheers, ----Brad

[Joe]

>
> The pedigree is the only authority for the charter's existence - if the pedigree is unreliable, then so too is the charter.
>
>

But there is no reason to think the pedigree is unreliable - there is only Waters' conclusion based on inadequate information. Nothing has ever been shown to be actually wrong with the pedigree.

If the charter is unreliable because the pedigree is unreliable, and the pedigree is unreliable because the charter is unreliable... well I can't argue with that sort of circular reasoning.

[Joe]

>
> I can't speak to the rest of the pedigree and the Weston relationships laid out in it, but when it comes to this one particular Weston of Rugeley/Neville of Westmorland portion, I'm in complete agreement with Waters - fabrication.
>
>
>
> Cheers, ----Brad

Individual pieces of evidence might be challenged or doubted. If there was only the charter, I couldn't prove, disprove or convince you of its authenticity. However, I think you are not looking at the charter in the context of all the other bits of data. I am asking you to look at the evidence as a whole.

By his own words, Waters' assertion of fabrication was based on his statement that he could find no connection between the Westons of Lichfield with the Westons of Roxwell. But we now know there was transfer of property between the two families. We know Richard Weston of Rugeley was a MP for Lichfield in 1621, which he "almost certainly owed his seat to his distant kinsman Sir Simon Weston." [HOP] We have the Simon Weston letter stating his family descent. Finally, importantly, Richard Weston of Roxwell, Lord Treasurer of England was called a kinsman of Robert Weston of Lichfield, Lord Chancellor of Ireland in a context completely unrelated to the pedigree. Waters' premise was wrong - his conclusion of fabrication was wrong.

I am not questioning that Waters was a good genealogist, but even good 19th century genealogists made mistakes. Taking an Occam's razor approach, which is the most likely - that all of the above is the result of a conspiracy of fraud and the convergence of multiple coincidences, or that Waters' made an error based on inadequate information?

Why would it be hard to accept that he could have made a mistake?


Joe

[Matt Tompkins]

> > > A fine stating the relationship:
> > > Sciant omnes &c. quod ego Johannes Weston de Rugeley Senior, gen. dedi &c. ad usum Johis. Weston junioris filii mei et Cecilie uxoris ejus, sororis Radi Com. Westmoreland, &c. Dat Lichfield 15 July, 18 Hen. VIII [1526]. (15 [Add. MSS. 18667, in Brit. Mus.])
>
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:47:35 PM UTC-8, Matt Tompkins wrote:
> > This 1526 charter (it is not a fine)
>
>
On Wednesday, 19 February 2014 23:07:02 UTC, Brad Verity wrote:
> Thank you, Matt. This abstract, purportedly from 1526, is not a fine. It is dated at Lichfield, and the Feet of Fines for Staffordshire for this period have been published. The fines for the regnal year 18 Henry VIII start on p. 265, and go to p. 267. The above transaction is not among them:
>
> https://archive.org/stream/collectionsforhi11stafuoft#page/266/mode/2up
>
> In fact nowhere, on any of these Staffordshire fines, running over two centuries, from 1327 to 1547, does any Weston appear. This doesn't bode well for there ever existing a John Weston of Staffordshire whose son married an earl's sister, even a bastard sister or a step-sister.
>

No fine ever began with the words 'Sciant omnes ...' - this wording is found only in charters.

>
> >and the Segar pedigree are actually the same document. BM Add. MS. 18997 is the Segar pedigree with its supporting documentation, and the 1526 charter is one of the charters copied into it. The pedigree is the only authority for the charter's existence - if the pedigree is unreliable, then so too is the charter.
>
>
> The abstract of the charter has huge red flags for me. First, it's in Latin. In 1526, was it very typical for a lower gentry family like these Westons must have been (if they were landed at all) to conduct a private family transaction between father and son in Latin?
>
> Second, this abstract tells us nothing of what was transacted. "Sciant omens" basically translates to "know all men". So this abstract translated is "Know all that I, John Weston of Rugeley Senior, 'gen. dedi &c.' to the use of John Weston junior my son and Cecily his wife, sister of Ralph, earl of Westmorland, &c."
>
> I don't know what "gen. dedi" after the name of John Weston of Rugeley is supposed to mean, but I would think if he had existed and was arms-bearing and owned land in Rugeley he would describe himself as "esquire" or in Latin "armiger".
>

'gen.' is short for 'generosus', meaning 'gentleman'. By this date gentlemen as well as esquires had been armigerous for well over a century, so there is no problem here. Also, although English-langauge conveyances were beginning to appear at about this time, Latin was still the language used in the vast majority of such documents, so that is not a problem, either. In fact the charter is in every respect in a perfectly normal and credible form, except perhaps for one small but rather important point - the insertion of the phrase 'sister of Ralph, earl of Westmorland'.

Statements of a party's family connections were normally only included if it was relevant to the title to the property being transferred or necessary for identification purposes - neither purpose applies here. Of course this is hardly proof that the charter is a fake - there are always documents which depart from the norm - but the reference to Cecily's illustrious family does look a little odd.

The charter conveyed a messuage in Lichfield and a piece of meadow in a neighbouring hamlet. Its full text, translated into English, is given below.

Matt

> Inconveniently, for anyone ever inclined to read this pedigree and follow-up on the evidences, whatever lands or property that John Weston of Rugeley was conveying to his son and daughter-in-law by this charter have been omitted from this abstract. Without a clue as to the properties this family is supposed to have held in 1526, there is no way to verify this supposed transaction in any other sources.
>
>
> > If the original of the charter could be found then much of the doubt surrounding the pedigree would be removed. The pedigree says the original of the charter was 'at Chillington' - presumably a reference to the Giffard seat at Chillington Hall near Wolverhampton. The Giffard archive is now in the Stafford Record Office, principally with the reference D590, but unfortunately does not seem to contain the 1526 charter.
>
>
> Not surprising. So in 1632, whatever heralds, clerks, peers, etc., in addition to the Westons and their family, who bother to read through this pedigree, presumably (I obviously haven't seen the original and its layout) come to the marriage of John Weston and Cecily Neville laid out in English in pedigree form, with a single sentence in Latin that says nothing but repeat the relationship the pedigree is presenting, and date stamps it at Lichfield 15 July 1526.
>
> It's brilliant. Why would anyone in 1632 challenge this? Only a herald or a very experienced genealogist of the period would have the expertise to understand that this presented marriage of Weston of Rugeley to Neville of Westmorland from one hundred years previous may not have been valid. It took more than two hundred years, but an experienced genealogist, Robert Waters, finally did try and follow-up on this pedigree as presented, and deemed it an "elaborate fabrication".
>
> I can't speak to the rest of the pedigree and the Weston relationships laid out in it, but when it comes to this one particular Weston of Rugeley/Neville of Westmorland portion, I'm in complete agreement with Waters - fabrication.
>
> Cheers, ----Brad

The full text of the 1526 charter (BM Add MS 18667, fol. 101), translated, reads as follows:

[fo. 101 recto]

Original at Chillington

[55] Know all men, present and future, that I, John Weston of Rugeley the elder, gent., have given, granted and in this my present charter have confirmed to John Giffard, knt., John Knightley, esq., and John Wolsley, gent., all my messuage in Lichfield, with all my lands and tenements, meadows, grazings and pastures, rents, reversions and services with all and singular their appurtenances belonging to the aforementioned messuage, and also the whole of my meadow called Hams in Linhurst, to have and to hold the messuage and meadow aforesaid and other premises with their appurtenances to the aforementioned John Gifford, John Kniteley and John [60] Wolseley, their heirs and assigns, to the use of John Weston the younger, [61] my son, and Cecily his wife, sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland, and their heirs and assigns forever, to hold from the Chief Lord of that fee by the service therefrom due and lawfully customary. And I the aforesaid John Weston and my heirs will warrant and forever defend the messuage and meadow aforesaid and other premises with their appurtenances to to the aforementioned John Giffard, John Knightley, John Wolsley, their heirs and assigns, to the aforesaid use against all men. Know further that I the aforementioned John Weston have appointed and put in my place my beloveds in Christ Roger Trusell and Alan Orel my true and lawful
attorneys to deliver for me and in my name to the aforementioned John Giffard, John, and John Wolsley full and peaceful seisin of and in the messuage and meadow aforesaid and other premises with their appurtenances according to the force, form and effect of this my present Charter holding and to hold [fo. 101 verso] as ratified and pleasing all and anything my attorneys or either of them
shall do in my name in delivery of the aforesaid seisin exactly as if I myself
were there personally. In witness whereof I have affixed my seal to this my present Charter of enfeoffment. Dated at Lichfield, the fifteenth day of July in the eighteenth year of the reign of king Henry the eighth. [15 July 1526]

Note: the numbers in square brackets appear in the left margin opposite individuals named in the text and are ID numbers - in the pedigree each individual is assigned a unique identifying number.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Matt, Joe, etc.

Thank you Matt for providing a full translation of the Weston deed dated 1526. Much appreciated.

On the surface, the deed looks like a typical deed of the time period. I'm not troubled by the reference to Cecily, wife of John Weston, being styled "sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland" in the deed. Especially if the deed was granted close to the time of the marriage of John and Cecily, it would be perfectly normal to refer to Cecily's family in such a document. I suspect the reason a wife's family was identified in such documents around the time of marriage was the make sure that if John Weston had a later wife named Cecily, that the later wife of the same name would be excluded from claiming the property.

Does anyone have an idea about when John Weston and Cecily Neville married?

I would normally have trouble accepting Cecily as a sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland, but for the fact that her male descendants had illustrious careers and were quite distinguished men. This would be expected if Cecily Weston was truly a Neville. So that part is a definite plus in Joe's favor.

The one problem I have is that John Weston's father, the elder John Weston, is styled a gentleman in the 1526 deed. It would be odd that a Neville girl would be married to a gentleman's son. However, there could be reasons to explain why Cecily married a man below her social status. One reason is lack of dower available to Cecily. In this case, we know that in 1526 at least one third of the Neville estates were tied up in dower by her mother, Edith Sandys. I've also seen examples of where a wealthy brother refused to provide an ample dower for his sister. So Cecily might have been hampered by lack of dower.

In contrast, I note that Edith Sandys had one proven daughter, Elizabeth Darcy, who was the wife of Marmaduke Constable, Knt. That marriage is more like one would expect of this family group.

Two other things still trouble me. First, I haven't seen any evidence that the Westons were involved in later records with their Neville-Darcy kinfolk. Second, Cecily Weston is not named in a contemporary Neville pedigree I found, but her proven aunt is so named. That is a bit odd.

I think the attention given to whether or not this is a fraud is leading the discussion in the wrong direction. Any descent needs to be proven on the basis of the weight of its own evidence. It makes NO difference what a secondary source such as Morant or Waters said in print. Secondary sources are often wrong. I recommend that Joe stop attacking Waters, and just stick to the evidence.

As far as Joe's mistake in calling the 1526 deed a fine, this is no problem. Years ago, when I was first starting out, I had little understanding of medieval matters and I easily made such errors. If Joe hasn't already, he will learn the difference between a deed and a fine in good time.

One last thing: Joe repeatedly refers to Cecily Weston as "Cecilia." Cecilia is the Latin form of her name and should be avoided.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. I should note that it is common for men to be called a gentlemen in one document and an esquire in another document. As such, depending on the document, the elder John Weston might have been considered both a gentleman AND an esquire by his contemporaries, even though the 1526 document styles him a gentleman. I'd like to see more evidence on this point.

[Joe]

Dear Matt, Doug, Brad, etc.

>
> Thank you Matt for providing a full translation of the Weston deed dated 1526. Much appreciated.
>
>

Yes, thank you Matt for taking the time to find and translate this deed. Do you have any other comments regarding the rest of this pedigree? Is there anything else about it that points to its authenticity or lack there of?

>
> On the surface, the deed looks like a typical deed of the time period. I'm not troubled by the reference to Cecily, wife of John Weston, being styled "sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland" in the deed. Especially if the deed was granted close to the time of the marriage of John and Cecily, it would be perfectly normal to refer to Cecily's family in such a document. I suspect the reason a wife's family was identified in such documents around the time of marriage was the make sure that if John Weston had a later wife named Cecily, that the later wife of the same name would be excluded from claiming the property.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have an idea about when John Weston and Cecily Neville married?
>
>
>
> I would normally have trouble accepting Cecily as a sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland, but for the fact that her male descendants had illustrious careers and were quite distinguished men. This would be expected if Cecily Weston was truly a Neville. So that part is a definite plus in Joe's favor.
>
>
>
> The one problem I have is that John Weston's father, the elder John Weston, is styled a gentleman in the 1526 deed. It would be odd that a Neville girl would be married to a gentleman's son. However, there could be reasons to explain why Cecily married a man below her social status. One reason is lack of dower available to Cecily. In this case, we know that in 1526 at least one third of the Neville estates were tied up in dower by her mother, Edith Sandys. I've also seen examples of where a wealthy brother refused to provide an ample dower for his sister. So Cecily might have been hampered by lack of dower.
>
>

This might be especially so considering she was likely married during her younger brother's 20 year minority.

>
> In contrast, I note that Edith Sandys had one proven daughter, Elizabeth Darcy, who was the wife of Marmaduke Constable, Knt. That marriage is more like one would expect of this family group.
>
>
>
> Two other things still trouble me. First, I haven't seen any evidence that the Westons were involved in later records with their Neville-Darcy kinfolk. Second, Cecily Weston is not named in a contemporary Neville pedigree I found, but her proven aunt is so named. That is a bit odd.
>
>

We both know that it was extremely common for daughters and younger sons to be omitted from the Visitation pedigrees. So, though it would have been nice if Cecily had been listed (there never would have been a controversy), it doesn't mean much that she wasn't.

By a contemporary Neville pedigree I assume you mean the Heraldic Visitation of the Northern Counties in 1530 by Thomas Tonge (p. 29 http://tinyurl.com/lbaw9cd ). If you look at this Visitation most of the pedigrees omit the daughters and younger sons, many are straight male line descents. The first pedigree I checked, for example, John Neville Lord Latimer does not mention his daughter Margaret, nor does it name 9 of his siblings. The Westmorland pedigree did not know the name of Isabel Booth, and does not name 3rd earl's brother John. I believe it names Anne, Lady Conyers only because she married a member of the peerage. My only point being, there should really be no expectation that Cecily Neville would be listed in Tonge's Visitation.

>
> I think the attention given to whether or not this is a fraud is leading the discussion in the wrong direction. Any descent needs to be proven on the basis of the weight of its own evidence. It makes NO difference what a secondary source such as Morant or Waters said in print. Secondary sources are often wrong. I recommend that Joe stop attacking Waters, and just stick to the evidence.
>
>

I attack Waters statement only because I want people to realize he is the sole source of the idea that this pedigree was fabricated. My goal is to get people to look at the underlying evidence, and not to just accept his conclusion. I realize Waters was a very good genealogist, but there seems to an unwillingness to admit that it was possible for him to make a mistake.

Joe

[Brad Verity]

On Thursday, February 20, 2014 7:17:26 AM UTC-8, Matt Tompkins wrote:

> The full text of the 1526 charter (BM Add MS 18667, fol. 101), translated, reads as follows:

> Original at Chillington
> [55] Know all men, present and future, that I, John Weston of Rugeley the elder, gent., have given, granted and in this my present charter have confirmed to John Giffard, knt., John Knightley, esq., and John Wolsley, gent., all my messuage in Lichfield, with all my lands and tenements, meadows, grazings and pastures, rents, reversions and services with all and singular their appurtenances belonging to the aforementioned messuage, and also the whole of my meadow called Hams in Linhurst, to have and to hold the messuage and meadow aforesaid and other premises with their appurtenances to the aforementioned John Gifford, John Kniteley and John [60] Wolseley, their heirs and assigns, to the use of John Weston the younger, [61] my son, and Cecily his wife, sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland, and their heirs and assigns forever, to hold from the Chief Lord of that fee by the service therefrom due and lawfully customary. And I the aforesaid John Weston and my heirs will warrant and forever defend the messuage and meadow aforesaid and other premises with their appurtenances to to the aforementioned John Giffard, John Knightley, John Wolsley, their heirs and assigns, to the aforesaid use against all men. Know further that I the aforementioned John Weston have appointed and put in my place my beloveds in Christ Roger Trusell and Alan Orel my true and lawful attorneys to deliver for me and in my name to the aforementioned John Giffard, John, and John Wolsley full and peaceful seisin of and in the messuage and meadow aforesaid and other premises with their appurtenances according to the force, form and effect of this my present Charter holding and to hold [fo. 101 verso] as ratified and pleasing all and anything my attorneys or either of them shall do in my name in delivery of the aforesaid seisin exactly as if I myself were there personally. In witness whereof I have affixed my seal to this my present Charter of enfeoffment. Dated at Lichfield, the fifteenth day of July in the eighteenth year of the reign of king Henry the eighth. [15 July 1526]

Dear Matt,

Many thanks for taking the trouble to do this, especially the translation from Latin! I assume you've seen the original 1632 pedigree, or has it been been published somewhere?

I was under the impression that only the following appeared in the pedigree:

> > > > Sciant omnes &c. quod ego Johannes Weston de Rugeley Senior, gen. dedi &c. ad usum Johis. Weston junioris filii mei et Cecilie uxoris ejus, sororis Radi Com. Westmoreland, &c. Dat Lichfield 15 July, 18 Hen. VIII [1526].

That - a herald simply offering up a sentence of Latin & a date as evidence - looked very much like fraud to me. The fact that the full charter was included definitely moves me from the 'fraud' side, onto the fence, and actually almost over the fence into the 'valid' side. That charter is just too full of detail to have been invented.

Your point that the "sororis Radi Com. Westmoreland" is not typical, or needed, in this charter is a good one, and does keep the case for fraud (the insertion of that one clause into the charter by a herald) somewhat open. We definitely need now some evidence separate from this 1526 charter that links the Nevilles of Westmorland to these Westons of Lichfield. And, Joe, I'm not dismissing all the arguments you've made about the Westons in the 1630s, it's simply that we need 16th-century documents, not 17th-century ones, to validate this 1520s marriage. Original document works from the period 1490-1550 should be searched - such as the 'Letters & Papers of Henry VIII' series - for other instances of these Westons of Lichfield in record. I've only done a search through the Staffordshire Feet of Fines, and no Weston appears from 1327 to 1547.

But this full charter provides the names of several individuals and landholdings that can be followed up on. For what its worth, Douglas, there is a HOP bio of Richard Weston, here:
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/weston-robert-1522-73

It estimates his birth to be "by 1522", as he was a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford in 1536. So this 1526 charter would've been at least a few years after the marriage of John Weston & Cecily.

I have quite a full genealogy plate at the moment, and for the next three months or so, and must withdraw myself from this search. I leave it in the capable hands of you gentlemen, and anyone else who wants to join the fun, to see if John Giffard, John Knightley, John Wolsley, Roger Trussell or Alan Orel (all involved in this charter) have any connection with the Nevilles of Westmorland.

Good luck, and I hope, Joe, that you can validate this Weston/Neville marriage. It's looking much more promising now!

Cheers, ---Brad

[Matt Tompkins]

On Thursday, 20 February 2014 19:11:19 UTC, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Is BM Add MS 18667, fol. 101, part of the later Segar conglomeration, or a separate original dating from 1526?

Add MS 18667 is a bound copy of the entire pedigree, actually researched and compiled by Henry Lily, Rouge Rose pursuivant, and only signed off by William Segar, Garter King of Arms. It's an impressive document, about 250 pages long, beautifully produced and illustrated and with all the collected evidence clearly set out and cross-referenced. It includes full transcripts about 100 charters and other title documents, detailed line drawings of several church monuments, and transcripts of a miscellany of other records, including several PCC wills, the Weston pedigree in the Essex Visitation of 1612, and John Weston's 1631 letter (the one referring to 'my grandfather John Weston who whilst he liued in England, liued in Lichfield, and had to wife Cecily, the daughter of Ralph Neuill ...').

The transcript of the 1526 charter which refers to Cecily, sister of Ralph, earl of Westmorland is on fol. 101.

Matt Tompkins

[Matt Tompkins]

On Thursday, 20 February 2014 20:22:09 UTC, Joe wrote:
> Dear Matt, Doug, Brad, etc.
>

> Yes, thank you Matt for taking the time to find and translate this deed. Do you have any other comments regarding the rest of this pedigree? Is there anything else about it that points to its authenticity or lack there of?
>

No, I don't think there is anything like that. At face value the pedigree is an impressive document. The difficulties only come when one tries to find corroboration of its contents, especially of the statement that John Weston's wife Cecily was a sister of Ralph, earl of Westmorland. There ought to be references in contemporary documents to her connection to the Nevilles, and they just cannot be found. Further, the references one can find to John and his forebears in various records like manor court rolls and lay subsidies do not reveal people of a status likely to have intermarried with a comital family, even an illegitimate daughter of one.

Matt Tompkins

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Matt, Joe, etc.

I came across the following two lawsuits in the Court of Common Pleas involving the Weston family.

#1.

Date: 1535

Location: Kent

Plaintiff: Weston, Robert; Weston, Richard; Henson, Richard, clerk; Weston, John, of Lichefeld; Manaryng, Oliver; Bragge, Richard

Defendant: Champeneys, John

Lawsuit concerns the manor of Hagley (in Rugeley), Staffordshire, together with [?two] messuages, 200 acres of land, 100 acres of meadow, 200 acres of pasture, and 40s. of rent in Hagley and Horton, Staffordshire.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/1084, image 2312f, available at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H8/CP40no1084/aCP40no1084fronts/IMG_2312.htm

I assume John Weston, of Lichfield, is the man who allegedly married Cecily Neville. But who are Robert Weston and Richard Weston?

I believe Oliver "Manaryng" would be Oliver Manwaring.

I assume the above lawsuit had something to do with the following earlier conveyance:

In 1527 John Mitton and John Nastrett conveyed the manor of Hagley (in Rugeley), together with two messuages, 200 acres of land, 100 acres of meadow, 200 acres of pasture, and 40s. of rent in Hagley and Horton, Staffordshire to John Champeneys, John Baker, Thomas Barett, Gents., John Wiseman, and Thomas Argall for the sum of £460.

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

#2.

Date: 1545

Location: Derbsyshire

Plaintiff: Pype, John

Defendants: Weston, John, of Rugeley, Staffordshire, gentleman; Wodeward, Peter, of Colton, Staffordshire, yeoman; and Darryngton, John, of Stafford, Staffordshire, yeoman

Re.: a debt of 40 shillings.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/1124, image 1628d, available at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/aalt1/H8/CP40no1124/bCP40no1124dorses/IMG_1628.htm

+ + + + + + +

I find mention of a conveyance after 1539 to John Weston in Lichfield, Staffordshire in Jackson, History of the City and Cathedral of Lichfield (1805): 262, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=iq9JAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA262

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Joe, Matt, etc.

The Oliver "Manaryng" mentioned in the 1535 Common Pleas lawsuit would surely be the same individual as Oliver Manwaryng, gentleman, who together with Richard Weston, were granted a 99 years' lease of the rectory of Aylesbeare, Devon in 1535.

See Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature and Art, Volume 69 (1937): 464.

A snippet view of this item may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9UwDAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Oliver+Manwaryng%22&dq=%22Oliver+Manwaryng%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_BoHU7HaNaOT2gWh0YH4CA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Thursday, February 20, 2014 1:22:09 PM UTC-7, Joe wrote:
> Dear Matt, Doug, Brad, etc.
>

> > DR: The one problem I have is that John Weston's father, the elder John <Weston, is styled a gentleman in the 1526 deed. It would be odd that a <Neville girl would be married to a gentleman's son. However, there could be <reasons to explain why Cecily married a man below her social status. One <reason is lack of dower available to Cecily. In this case, we know that in <1526 at least one third of the Neville estates were tied up in dower by her <mother, Edith Sandys. I've also seen examples of where a wealthy brother <refused to provide an ample dower for his sister. So Cecily might have been <hampered by lack of dower.
>
> Joe: This might be especially so considering she was likely married during her younger brother's 20 year minority.

In this case, it would be unlikely. Unless Cecily's father died deeply in debt (which could have happened), usually provisions were made for a daughter's marriage. Given that Cecily's alleged mother, Edith Sandys, was afterwards the wife of Lord Darcy, I seriously doubt that providing dower was a problem for this family.

In any case, it would be highly unlikely for the sole sister of an earl to be married to a gentleman.

< DR: Two other things still trouble me. First, I haven't seen any evidence

< that the Westons were involved in later records with their Neville-Darcy
< kinfolk. Second, Cecily Weston is not named in a contemporary Neville
< pedigree I found, but her proven aunt is so named. That is a bit odd.
<

< Joe: We both know that it was extremely common for daughters and younger sons <to be omitted from the Visitation pedigrees. So, though it would have been <nice if Cecily had been listed (there never would have been a controversy), it <doesn't mean much that she wasn't.

It would be odd to include an aunt in a visitation pedigree, and ignore the earl's sole sister, especially if the sister had surviving issue.

You're ignoring the contrary evidence because it doesn't fit your theory. You need to put all the evidence on the table, not just the evidence that supports your idea. I've destroyed as many royal descents as I've proven. You need to be dispassionate when evaluating claims of royal descents. That includes the Weston-Neville connection.

At this point, I would say it was highly unlikely that a legitimate sister of the earl of Westmorland married John Weston. This is why Waters questioned it. I did not say it is impossible. Just highly unlikely.

< Joe: By a contemporary Neville pedigree I assume you mean the Heraldic Visitation <of the Northern Counties in 1530 by Thomas Tonge (p. 29 http://tinyurl.com/lbaw9cd ). My only point being, there should really be no expectation that <Cecily Neville would be listed in Tonge's Visitation.

Cecily's failure to be named in this pedigree suggests to me that she was illegitimate.

<< DR: I think the attention given to whether or not this is a fraud is leading < the discussion in the wrong direction. Any descent needs to be proven on the < basis of the weight of its own evidence. It makes NO difference what a

< secondary source such as Morant or Waters said in print. Secondary sources
< are often wrong. I recommend that Joe stop attacking Waters, and just stick < to the evidence.

< Joe: I attack Waters statement only because I want people to realize he is

< the sole source of the idea that this pedigree was fabricated. My goal is to < get people to look at the underlying evidence, and not to just accept his
< conclusion. I realize Waters was a very good genealogist, but there seems to < an unwillingness to admit that it was possible for him to make a mistake.

Historians/genealogists such as Morant and Waters often make mistakes. So do Heralds. You need to concentrate on the evidence (or lack thereof) and not worry about Waters. By starting your argument attacking Waters, you're immediately weakening your argument. Start and finish with your evidence. Waters was right to question the Neville connection. So should you. Critical analysis includes both pro AND con.

In this case, you're overplaying your hand. You've maximized all the positive points and minimized/obscured the negative points.

[Joe]

Thank you for your comments Doug:

>
> > > DR: The one problem I have is that John Weston's father, the elder John <Weston, is styled a gentleman in the 1526 deed. It would be odd that a <Neville girl would be married to a gentleman's son. However, there could be <reasons to explain why Cecily married a man below her social status. One <reason is lack of dower available to Cecily. In this case, we know that in <1526 at least one third of the Neville estates were tied up in dower by her <mother, Edith Sandys. I've also seen examples of where a wealthy brother <refused to provide an ample dower for his sister. So Cecily might have been <hampered by lack of dower.

Cicely's father died fairly young in his own father's lifetime and so before inheriting. Cicely would have been still a young child and so it is likely no special provisions were made for marriage by her father. Her grandfather died very soon after his son's death and so he likely had no time to make provisions for her marriage. It is also worth noting in this context that the earldom of Westmorland was the weakest and poorest in England. The second earl was forced to concede of 85% of his lands to the earl of Salisbury in 1443 (he complained his income decreased from £2600 to £400 p.a.). I find it notable the earl's effigy was made of wood. Cicely's grandfather inherited from a Lancastrian uncle who had been an enemy of the king and a father who had been killed at Towton and attainted. He switched sides to support the Yorkist kings, which was great until Richard III was killed. He was subsequently deprived of all lands and rents granted by Richard III and became one of only 6 peers forced by Henry VII to put up a bond for his good behavior. Though he was so poor he paid only £400 400 marks (compared to the £10,000 put up by the earl of Northumberland, viscount Beaumont, and the marquis of Dorset); he also surrendered his son as a ward (hostage) to Henry VII.

Another point - if the marriage of the Westmorland children was so important, why was Cicely's father (a ward of the king no less) married to Edith Sandys? Or her grandfather to Isabel Booth? Neither of these represent some great dynastic marriage. I also think that for every marriage of an earl's son to another earl's daughter you can find other much less illustrious matches (Elizabeth Courtenay m. John Tretherff, Florence Courteney m. John Trelawney, Mary Tudor the king's sister m. Charles Brandon, Lady Frances Radclyffe m. Thomas Mildmay)

> You're ignoring the contrary evidence because it doesn't fit your theory. You need to put all the evidence on the table, not just the evidence that supports your idea. I've destroyed as many royal descents as I've proven. You need to be dispassionate when evaluating claims of royal descents. That includes the Weston-Neville connection.
>
> At this point, I would say it was highly unlikely that a legitimate sister of the earl of Westmorland married John Weston. This is why Waters questioned it. I did not say it is impossible. Just highly unlikely.
>
>

> Historians/genealogists such as Morant and Waters often make mistakes. So do Heralds. You need to concentrate on the evidence (or lack thereof) and not worry about Waters. By starting your argument attacking Waters, you're immediately weakening your argument. Start and finish with your evidence. Waters was right to question the Neville connection. So should you. Critical analysis includes both pro AND con.
>
> In this case, you're overplaying your hand. You've maximized all the positive points and minimized/obscured the negative points.
>

I don't think I am. In this case, there is circumstantial evidence only against the marriage, balanced by very direct evidence that it did occur and which is supported by an even greater amount of circumstantial evidence. I get it and I have tried to answer every argument challenging the match. The positive points greatly outweigh the negative ones, and I feel the evidence is being brushed aside simply because the marriage seems "unlikely."

1. The marriage is unlikely. OK, but as you say not impossible. If this was a match proven by say the transfer of property only (as many medieval pedigrees are) it would be a reason to reject it. So while this is the reason that any doubt has been expressed at all, it does not in any way actually counter the evidence. You have made no attempt to explain away the positive evidence. The only one, of course, is a conspiracy of deliberate fabrication. As I have tried to show, it is a conspiracy which makes no sense, involves too many people, fails to improve the Westons social standing, and brought risk with little benefit,

2. It does not occur in the Neville pedigrees in the printed Visitations. Again, I do not see how the failure to name a daughter in the Tonge Visitation means anything. It was clearly not his intent to name all family members. E.g. the children of lord Latimer are not given; the brother of the third earl of Westmorland is not given though he may have represented the male heir of the line had Cicely's brother died. Cicely lived in another county and was admittedly of no great import. She played no role as a possible heir to the earl as he had 10 children by this time.

3. The records are copies made in 1632 and placed in the Segar pedigree - there are no early to mid 16th century records which corroborates the Weston-Neville marriage. Again, I am not completely surprised. I would hope to find a marriage settlement, but if the record no longer exists there may not be any other records. Cicely's father died while she was very young, her brother was younger and likely underage when she was married, her step-father was attainted and executed, etc. There is no reason for her to appear in any record other than a marriage settlement. The copy of the one charter we have appears authoritative in form and content, and the only reason to question it is "the marriage is unlikely."

4. I'll give you one more. The Weston pedigree in the Visitations of Essex starts with Richard Weston the Judge of Skreens in Roxwell who "descended from the ancient descent of Westons" without mentioning his mother was Cicely Neville. The fact that it doesn't say he is the great-grandson of a disgraced earl on his mother's side doesn't disprove anything.

Perhaps, giving the descent to the Judge was all that was necessary to prove their arms. Perhaps they did not have the evidence at hand since they were a junior branch of the Weston family with the deeds held at Rugeley, co. Stafford. Perhaps, as a Catholic family getting by in a Protestant world, they did not want to be associated with an earl who led a Catholic revolt in the north, was attainted, and fled the country in disgrace. Perhaps, it is not a true Visitation pedigree at all but just a pedigree created by some antiquary who did not know all of the family history (note that there are certainly additions to this which did not come from a Visitation in 1612).

Of course, it would have been nice if the parents of Richard Weston the Judge had been given - there would have been no controversy. But the fact that they weren't does not disprove any evidence which we do have.

So, the unlikelihood of the Weston-Neville marriage must be weighed against the evidence:
1. Research of and acceptance by the college of arms at a time within the living memory of grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
2. Copy of a charter stating the relationship
3. Direct testimony of a grandson
4. Evidence of kinship in property transfers which is contrary to the only competing theory
5. New evidence demonstrating kinship which is contrary to the only competing theory
6. A rise of prominence of the Weston family in a short time to include a prominent judge, a Lord Chancellor of Ireland, a Lord Treasurer of England, several barons of the exchequer, prominent clergymen and the creation of the earldom of Portland. A new level of wealth apparently far beyond the previous few generations for all of John Weston and Cicely's sons (well at least 4 out of 5, I'm not sure about the youngest Christopher)
9. An approximately 9 year marriage allowing ample time and even a likelihood for Ralph Neville and Edith Sandys to have had several children.

You speak of probabilities. Though admittedly an unlikely match, if you weigh the evidence on both sides, it seems far more likely that John Weston married a sister of the earl of Westmorland, than all of the direct and circumstantial evidence that we have is false.

> Cecily's failure to be named in this pedigree suggests to me that she was illegitimate.
>

Perhaps we can answer this. Matt, did you notice if the pedigree in the British Museum names Cicely's mother as Edith Sandys? Does it give the Sandys ancestry?

> << DR: I think the attention given to whether or not this is a fraud is leading < the discussion in the wrong direction. Any descent needs to be proven on the < basis of the weight of its own evidence. It makes NO difference what a
> secondary source such as Morant or Waters said in print. Secondary sources
> < are often wrong. I recommend that Joe stop attacking Waters, and just stick < to the evidence.

Intentional fraud is the only way to explain the evidence if the pedigree is incorrect and therefore needs to be addressed. Remove the accusation of fraud and the marriage is proven by charter evidence and the direct testimony of a grandson.

Joe

[Joe]

I find the following to be suggestive:

In 1539, "John Weston of Lichfield" in on a list of names owing money to King Henry VIII from previous fines or obligations.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=75865&strquery=weston%20lichfield

What reason would John Weston of Lichfield have for appearing on this list? Could this be from a fine paid to have Cicely Neville's marriage? The list appears to me to contain many abbots and other clergy, 1 earl, several lords and a fair number of knights.

Of course, it proves nothing without knowing exactly the cause for the debt. But it is interesting that a man of John Weston's supposed social status was in debt to the king.

Joe

[Matt Tompkins]

On Monday, 24 February 2014 17:55:06 UTC, Joe wrote:
> > Cecily's failure to be named in this pedigree suggests to me that she was illegitimate.
>
> Perhaps we can answer this. Matt, did you notice if the pedigree in the British Museum names Cicely's mother as Edith Sandys? Does it give the Sandys ancestry?
>

No, I'm afraid Add. MS. 18997 says nothing on this point. I think it only mentions Cecily three times: (i) in the actual pedigree, where it says she is 'soror Radvulphi Comitis Westmerlandiae filia Radulphi D'ni Nevile'; (ii) in the transcript of the 1526 charter, where she is just 'sororis Rad'i Comitis Westmorl' ', and (iii) in the transcript of John Weston's letter dated 9 Dec 1631 where she is 'the daughter of Ralph Neuill that died in the lifetyme of the Earle of Westmorland his father'.

Matt

[Joe]

Thank you Matt,

From the format of the pedigree, would you say that it suggests she is illegitimate (by failing to name the mother)? Or is it just the wording of that generation and the format of the pedigree, and so gives no hint one way or the other?

Joe

[Matt Tompkins]

> > No, I'm afraid Add. MS. 18997 says nothing on this point. I think it only mentions Cecily three times: (i) in the actual pedigree, where it says she is 'soror Radvulphi Comitis Westmerlandiae filia Radulphi D'ni Nevile'; (ii) in the transcript of the 1526 charter, where she is just 'sororis Rad'i Comitis Westmorl' ', and (iii) in the transcript of John Weston's letter dated 9 Dec 1631 where she is 'the daughter of Ralph Neuill that died in the lifetyme of the Earle of Westmorland his father'.
> > Matt
>
>
> Thank you Matt,
>
> From the format of the pedigree, would you say that it suggests she is illegitimate (by failing to name the mother)? Or is it just the wording of that generation and the format of the pedigree, and so gives no hint one way or the other?
>

Most wives are described in the pedigree in the same brief way. Each individual gets a fairly small circle within which is squeezed his or her name and a small number of other items of information - there just isn't space for details of wives' parentage beyond their father's name (in many cases even that is not known, and the circle is only half filled). So it would be difficult to draw conclusions about illegitimacy.

Matt

[Matt Tompkins]

I forgot a fourth reference to Cecily in Add MS 18997. On fo. 126 there is a transcript of a 1633 certificate of the death, burial and ancestry of James Weston, grandson of John and Cecily, by Nicholas Bacon, copied 'out of the Booke of Certificates in the Office of Armes'. It says that Cecily was 'daughter of Rafe Neuile Lo: Neuile, and sister of Rafe E of Westmerland'.

I also overlooked the heraldry in the pedigree, which in two places may have some relevance to the illegitimacy question.

The pedigree depicts a coat of arms next to the names of most of the principal members of the Weston family. Some may have been derived from seals on documents or from displays on monuments, but in many cases they must have been just attributed by the heralds - most show just the Weston arms (or, an eagle sable) dimidiated with the arms of the wife's family. The shield next to the names of John Weston and his wife Cecily dimidiates the Weston and Neville arms. The latter are 'gules, a saltire argent with a label of three points' - it may be significant that there is no differentiation for illegitimacy.

Second, the pedigree has a very detailed drawing of a monument in St Mary's, Lichfield, to James Weston (d. 1589, a younger son of John and Cecily), which shows these same arms, again with no apparent differentiation for illegitimacy.

The lack of differentiation for bastardy is hardly unequivocal proof that Cecily was legitimate, of course, but it can at least be said that the pedigree does not positively assert her illegitimacy.

Matt

[acoc...@gmail.com]

> I forgot a fourth reference to Cecily in Add MS 18997. On fo. 126 there is a transcript of a 1633 certificate of the death, burial and ancestry of James Weston, grandson of John and Cecily, by Nicholas Bacon, copied 'out of the Booke of Certificates in the Office of Armes'. It says that Cecily was 'daughter of Rafe Neuile Lo: Neuile, and sister of Rafe E of Westmerland'.
>
>
>
> I also overlooked the heraldry in the pedigree, which in two places may have some relevance to the illegitimacy question.
>
>
>
> The pedigree depicts a coat of arms next to the names of most of the principal members of the Weston family. Some may have been derived from seals on documents or from displays on monuments, but in many cases they must have been just attributed by the heralds - most show just the Weston arms (or, an eagle sable) dimidiated with the arms of the wife's family. The shield next to the names of John Weston and his wife Cecily dimidiates the Weston and Neville arms. The latter are 'gules, a saltire argent with a label of three points' - it may be significant that there is no differentiation for illegitimacy.
>

> Second, the pedigree has a very detailed drawing of a monument in St Mary's, Lichfield, to James Weston (d. 1589, a younger son of John and Cecily), which shows these same arms, again with no apparent differentiation for illegitimacy.
>
> The lack of differentiation for bastardy is hardly unequivocal proof that Cecily was legitimate, of course, but it can at least be said that the pedigree does not positively assert her illegitimacy.
>
> Matt

Matt,

This is great. Thank you for taking the time to look at the pedigree more closely.

This adds to the evidence, though I realize the certificate of death is again a copy of the original and created by the same people Douglas has expressed his doubts about. Curious that it is a 1633 certificate when Segars seal certifying the pedigree was placed November 1632. I suppose it could have been a late addition prior to Richard Weston being made an earl in 1633.

The drawing of the monument to James Weston I find to be the most significant as the monument was presumably made long before the creation of the 1632 pedigree. Furthermore, it would have been very bold to place the Neville arms on his tomb if he was not the earl of Westmorland's nephew.

What do you think Brad and Douglas? Still on the fence, or ready to come over to the 'valid' side?

Joe

[Douglas Richardson]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:01:30 PM UTC-7, acoc...@gmail.com wrote:

<What do you think Brad and Douglas? Still on the fence, or ready to come over < to the 'valid' side?

> Joe

Yes, I'm ready to be on the "valid" side. Here is the evidence which settles the matter once and for all.

Offlist a newsgroup contributor has kindly forwarded to me a transcript of the family of John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire, which occurs in Ann J. Kettle, ed., A List of Families in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, 1532-3. Collections for a History of Staffordshire, Fourth Series, Volume Eight (Staffordshire Record Society, 1976).

This book contains what is essentially a census of Staffordshire taken in the years, 1532-1533. I have used the census in the past and found it to be reliable. On page 177 is the entry for what seems to be the family of the right John Weston, living on Saddler Street, Lichfield. It lists John Weston, both of his wives, and all of his children, living and deceased.

John Weston, Elizabeth, †Margaret, uxores eius, Elizabeth, Agnes, John, Joan, Edmund, Nicholas, †William, †Richard, †John, Robert, Ellen, Alice, John, Agnes, Katherine, James, Christopher, Joan.

We know from other records that John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire had at least four sons, Edmund, Robert, James, and Christopher, and two daughters, Alice Ball and Katherine Dyott. This is in complete agreement with the above census record.

Unfortunately, John Weston is assigned two wives in the census, namely Margaret (then deceased) and Elizabeth (then living). There is no wife named Cecily. I might add that this is the only John Weston listed in the census for Lichfield, Staffordshire.

I previously posted one lawsuit from the Common Pleas dated 1535 which concerns John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire. In that lawsuit, John Weston is called neither gentleman or esquire.

I've since been sent yet another Common Pleas lawsuit offlist by my private correspondant. This new lawsuit is dated 1533. As we can see below, John Weston, of Lichfield, is identified in this lawsuit as a tanner.

Plaintiff: Ruddyng, John, executors of; (Grasbroke, John, of Shenston, landlord; Ruddyng, Ellen, widow)

John Grasbroke and Ellen Ruddyng, widow, executors of the will of John Ruddyng alias John Grasbroke, of Shenston, Staffordshire,

Defendants: John Weston, of Lytchefeld [Lichfield], Staffordshire, tanner; Humphrey Stafford, of Wyforth, Staffordshire, gentleman; John Butler, of Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, mercer; John Bathe, of Womburne, Staffordshire, yeoman; and John Smalwode, of Peryhall, Staffordshire, yeoman

Regarding a debt of 40 shillings.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, Court of Common Pleas, CP40/1076, image 3974f, which is available at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H8/CP40no1076/aCP40no1076fronts/IMG_3974.htm

Given that John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire had wives named Margaret and Elizabeth (not Cecily), and given that he was a tanner, I can wholeheartedly label the alleged marriage of John Weston to Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, a complete and total fraud.

I might add that the 1532-3 census proves that John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire, was not the father of Sir Richard Weston, of Essex, as sometimes claimed in print. According to the census, John Weston had a son Richard alright, but he was deceased in 1532-3. As such, Waters was absolutely correct to question that John Weston, of Lichfield, was the father of Sir Richard Weston, of Essex.

I wish to thank my private correspondant for his assistance in this matter. My correspondant has chosen for personal reasons to remain anonymous.

[Matt Tompkins]

On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 02:01:30 UTC, acoc...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is great. Thank you for taking the time to look at the pedigree more closely.
>
> This adds to the evidence, though I realize the certificate of death is again a copy of the original and created by the same people Douglas has expressed his doubts about. Curious that it is a 1633 certificate when Segars seal certifying the pedigree was placed November 1632. I suppose it could have been a late addition prior to Richard Weston being made an earl in 1633.
>

Oops, sorry, the certificate is dated 23 Jan 1633, ie 1632/3.

Matt

[Brad Verity]

On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 8:53:40 PM UTC-8, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Yes, I'm ready to be on the "valid" side. Here is the evidence which settles the matter once and for all.

Dear Douglas,

Many thanks to you and your off list contributor for finally, and definitively, resolving this matter. I'm assuming you are being facetious above, as you are definitely coming down on the 'fraud', not the 'valid' side of the fence.

> Unfortunately, John Weston is assigned two wives in the census, namely Margaret (then deceased) and Elizabeth (then living). There is no wife named Cecily. I might add that this is the only John Weston listed in the census for Lichfield, Staffordshire.

Just the name 'Cecily Neville' would conjure up in 1632 images of the powerful Neville family. Cecily Neville, Duchess of York, was arguably the most well-known female Neville of the 15th century as mother of Edward IV and Richard III.

> I've since been sent yet another Common Pleas lawsuit offlist by my private correspondant. This new lawsuit is dated 1533. As we can see below, John Weston, of Lichfield, is identified in this lawsuit as a tanner.

> Defendants: John Weston, of Lytchefeld [Lichfield], Staffordshire, tanner; Humphrey Stafford, of Wyforth, Staffordshire, gentleman; John Butler, of Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, mercer; John Bathe, of Womburne, Staffordshire, yeoman; and John Smalwode, of Peryhall, Staffordshire, yeoman

A tanner - perfect. There is no way that a man about to be created Earl of Portland would want that for an ancestor. Not that he himself need be personally ashamed of it, but he was about to enter a political body - the House of Lords - who could trace their lineage back to nobles of antiquity.

> Given that John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire had wives named Margaret and Elizabeth (not Cecily), and given that he was a tanner, I can wholeheartedly label the alleged marriage of John Weston to Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, a complete and total fraud.

The lengths that the herald, clearly in cahoots with Simon Weston, went to are pretty amazing. Do you think the entire alleged charter of 1526 was fraudulent? Have you been able to identify any of the individuals mentioned within it?

> I might add that the 1532-3 census proves that John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire, was not the father of Sir Richard Weston, of Essex, as sometimes claimed in print. According to the census, John Weston had a son Richard alright, but he was deceased in 1532-3. As such, Waters was absolutely correct to question that John Weston, of Lichfield, was the father of Sir Richard Weston, of Essex.
> I wish to thank my private correspondant for his assistance in this matter. My correspondant has chosen for personal reasons to remain anonymous.

This definitely needs to become a published article, Douglas, so that all of the biographies in History of Parliament, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, etc., can be corrected.

Great work!

Thanks and Cheers, ----Brad

[Matt Tompkins]

Aha! Congratulations to your anonymous correspondent, Douglas - he has found what I could not: a statement of John Weston’s status or occupation. As you’ll see in a moment, this reference to him as a tanner gels very nicely with my own findings.

In late 2012 I was commissioned to search for corroboration of the Nevill connection stated in Segar’s Pedigree and spent two weeks researching in Stafford and Lichfield record offices and in the National Archives at Kew, and also in published sources. I looked in a variety of records relating to Lichfield and Rugeley, including tax rolls, manor court rolls, guild admission lists and others records, gathering references to John Weston of Lichfield and the Westons of Rugeley in the late 15th and the 16th centuries.

When this present discussion blew up I obtained permission to share my findings with the group, and for the last week I have been slowly, whenever I have a spare moment, working my various reports to my client up into a single coherent post to the list. I still haven’t finished it, but this seems a good moment to post what has been done so far.

The results were inconclusive, in that I found no clear unequivocal evidence either proving or disproving the Nevill connection. John and Cecily’s generation and those immediately preceding them do not feature largely in the surviving records and I was not able to build up a full picture of their status and wealth. However on balance the evidence pointed more towards John and his father having been of a rather lower status and wealth than you would expect for intermarriage with the peerage. It is noteworthy, though, that I found no certain reference to John’s wife Cecily (there were a couple that might have been to her, but the family contained more than one Cecily so it is difficult to be sure). Further, two sources which supplied names for his wives (he seems to have had at least two) called them Margaret and Elizabeth.

In a moment I’ll set out some of the findings in more detail. They will cover (i) references to John Weston of Lichfield’s father and grandfather in manorial records relating to Rugeley, (ii) references to John Weston of Lichfield in records of national taxes (lay subsidies etc) and (iii) references to him in three local records from Lichfield.

For convenience the pedigree contained in Add MS 18667 is reproduced below, including the ID numbers it gives to all the family members. I will use these ID numbers to avoid confusion between family members with the same names (thus the John Weston of Lichfield who married Cecily will be referred to as ‘60 John Weston’).

51 Richard Weston of Rugeley, living 1425-44, married 52 Agnes, living 1438-43.

51’s son and heir was 53 Richard Weston of Rugeley, died before 1491, married 54 Agnes, living 1490-1.

53’s son and heir was 55 John Weston of Rugeley, gent, living 1490-1 and 1542-3*, married 56 Alice, living 1490-1. [* sic in the Pedigree, though the transcribed documents cross-referenced to him are actually dated 1461, 1491, 1521, 1526.]

55 had four sons:

the eldest was 57/100 Richard Weston of Rugeley, gent., living 1539-40, married 101 Catherine, living 1433-4 and 1539-40 (his son and heir was 102 John Weston of Rugeley, senior, living 1533-4, died 1566, who married 103 Cecily Forde - their eldest son was 105 Richard Weston of Rugeley, d. 1613)

the second son was 58 Edmund Weston, clerk, living 1532-3

the third son was 59 William Weston, sub-Dean of Exeter

the fourth son was 60 John Weston junior, of Lichfield, living 1526-41, married 61 Cecily Neville.

John and Cecily had 5 sons and 3 daughters: 62 Edmund, 63 Robert (of Weeford, Lord Chancellor of Ireland), 64 James (of Lichfield, esq.), 65 Christopher (of Tamworth), 70 Richard (of Skrenes in Roxwell, JCP), 66 Alice, 67 nk, 68 Katherine.

(i) Westons in the Rugeley manor court rolls and other records, 1485 – 1546

[I haven't finished this bit. In brief it seems likely that 60 John Weston of Lichfield's father 55 John was an innkeeper in Brereton in Rugeley parish, though probably quite a wealthy, upwardly mobile one.] 

(ii) 60 John Weston in Lichfield subsidy rolls and similar records, 1524-50

In the National Archives I searched the Lichfield returns for the 1524, 1540, 1543, 1545 and 1549 Lay Subsidies (and also those of 1560 and 1566), the 1542 Forced Loan, 1545 Benevolence and 1546 Free and Voluntary Contribution, and two Muster Rolls from the 1530s. 60 John Weston was listed in all but two of the pre-1551 rolls.

A fairly clear picture was obtained of his comparative wealth between 1524 and 1550 – he was one of the better-off inhabitants, but far from the wealthiest. When most of the adult male population or heads of households were listed he generally fell into the top 5-10%, but in the shorter lists, when only the wealthier sections of society were taxed, he was middling. He was not asked to pay the really elite taxes – the forced loan and voluntary contribution.

Disappointingly not a single record gave an indication of his status or occupation. It is not clear when he was a gentleman (or esquire), or a merchant or wealthy tradesman. However it is possible to make some deductions on this score from the amount he paid in the 1524 lay Subsidy -see below, after the details.

All the Weston references found were to 60 John Weston only - if there were any other Westons living in Lichfield between 1524 and 1550 they were not sufficient wealthy to have paid these taxes nor fit for military service (the earlier subsidies are reckoned to have caught about three-quarters, maybe more, of the adult heads of households – the later ones progressively smaller proportions; the two muster rolls in theory listed all adult males).

The following documents are all at TNA.

Details:

E 179/177/118, rot. 16r-18d 1523 Lay Subsidy Dated June ?1524

John Weston paid 6s. 6d. on goods.

391 taxpayers listed (191 paid on goods, 8 on land and 190 on wages).

About 14 paid more than John Weston (and 1 the same), putting him in the top 4%.


E 179/177/97, rot. 11r 1523 Lay Subsidy Dated 20 March 1525

John Weston paid 3s. on goods.

100 taxpayers (35 paid on goods, 3 on land and 62 on wages).

5 paid more than 6s. (I should have calculated how many paid more than 3s., but got mixed up - though I can say that of the 28 taxpayers in the lower quarter of the roll which I photographed only one paid more than 3s., so John Weston was probably in at least the top 10%).


E 36/18 Offlow Hundred Muster Roll Date uncertain, calendar says pre-1538.

p. 61, in Bore Street: ‘John Weston a able man, a bill, harness, for hym selfe’

290 men (mostly able-bodied) were listed in Lichfield, of whom only 12 had harness (armour) and 73 had pieces of armour, mostly either a pair of splints (armour for the arms) or a sallet (helmet), or sometimes both. Some of the remainder had a bill (halberd) or bow, but the majority had no equipment at all (though many were nevertheless described as an archer).

By law all males were supposed to keep military equipment commensurate with their wealth, so this puts John Weston in the top 5% of the adult male population of Lichfield in terms of wealth.


1539 Muster Roll for Offlow Hundred
Published in Collections for a History of Staffordshire 4 NS (1901), pp. 213-57, with Lichfield at pp. 222-6. The following has been derived from the published edition (the original at the TNA has not been seen).

The only Weston in the Hundred is:
John Weston, in Lichfield, who had a horse, harness and a bill.

275 able-bodied men were listed in Lichfield, of whom only 8 had a horse, harness and bill - another 7 had a horse, harness and a bow. Of the rest 48 had two out of three of those things, 137 had only a bill and 75 only a bow.

This puts John Weston in the top 5% of the active adult male population in terms of wealth.


E 179/177/121 1540 Lay Subsidy Dated 1 Oct 1541

John Weston paid 12s. on goods.

Only 30 taxpayers (all paid on goods).

4 out of 30 paid more than John Weston (and one other paid the same), putting him in the top 20% of the upper crust.


E 179/177/115 1542 Forced Loan, assessment Dated 24 May 1542
E 179/177/114 1542 Forced Loan, payment Dated 14 July 1542

No Weston paid.

Only 15 paid the Loan in the whole of Offlow Hundred (1 lady, 1 knight, 2 esquires, 3 gents, 4 yeomen, 3 clerks, 1 woman), plus 5 senior churchmen in Lichfield.


E 179/177/117, rot. 3r-5r 1543 Lay Subsidy Dated 16 Oct – 4 Nov 1543

John Weston paid 10s. 8d. on goods.

269 taxpayers (253 paid on goods, 14 on land).

At least 18 (another 18 amounts are illegible) paid more than John Weston (and one other paid the same – most of the 18 paid 12s. or 13s. 4d.), putting him in the top 8%.


E 179/177/132, rot. 4,5 1545 Benevolence from the laity and clergy Dated 13 Mar 1545 [?1546]

John Weston paid 5s.

47 taxpayers, plus 26 clerks from Lichfield Close.

Almost all paid 5s. or more, several considerably more, so JW near the bottom of the upper crust.

(and a John Weston paid 7s. in Rugeley).


E 179/177/137, rot. 10d Lay Subsidy of 1545 Dated 10x27 Feb 1546

John Weston paid 10s. on goods.

81 taxpayers (64 paid on goods, 13 on land, 3 on salary).

27 paid more than John Weston (and 5 others paid the same), putting him in the upper 40%.


E 179/177/145, rot.3,m.2 1546 Free and Voluntary Contribution from the laity and clergy Dated 18x21 June 1546

31 paid the ‘free and voluntary’ contribution – no Weston paid.


E 179/177/141, m. 3d, 2d Lay Subsidy of 1545 Dated 19 April 1547

John Weston paid 10s. on goods.

80 taxpayers (66 paid on goods, 11 on land, 1 on wages and 4 on ‘fees’).

30 paid more than John Weston (and 9 others paid the same), putting him in the upper half.


E 179/177/124, rot. 1d, 2r Lay Subsidy of 1543 Dated [c. July 1547]

John Weston paid 5s. 8d. on goods worth £17.

46 taxpayers (35 paid on goods, 10 on land, 1 on his ‘fee’).

23 paid more than John Weston (and 1 other paid the same), putting him at the median point.


E 179/177/155, m. 1d Lay Subsidy ('relief') of 1549 Dated 6 May 1549
E 179/177/159, rot.1,m.1 Lay Subsidy ('relief') of 1549 Dated 12 Feb x 14 Apr 1550
E 179/177/161, rot. 7 Lay Subsidy ('relief') of 1549 Dated 16 Dec 1550 x 20 Mar 1551
-/160, rot. 5. The 4th payment of this subsidy, in 1552, was not checked, as the first 3 were identical.

John Weston paid 10s. on goods in each of the three payments.

34 taxpayers (all paid on goods).

10s. was the lowest assessment, paid by 21 (the rest paid 12-20s.).


I also jumped ahead to look at two later subsidies from the 1560s:

E 179/178/168 Lay Subsidy of 1560 Dated 26 Jan 1560

Robert Weston paid 5s. 4d. on lands worth £4.

62 taxpayers (39 paid on goods, 21 on land, 2 on annuities).

9 paid more than Robert Weston (and 2 the same as him), most paying 6s., putting him in the top 20%.


E 179/178/185 Lay Subsidy of 1566 Dated 20 Feb 1568

?John Weston paid 2s. 8d. on lands worth £4.

The entire roll is rather faint, and the Weston forename is not really legible. It may well not be John, though it looks even less like Robert.


(iib) 60 John Weston’s status as revealed by the 1524 Lay Subsidy:

JCK Cornwall, Wealth and Society in Early Sixteenth England (London, 1988) is a comprehensive analysis of the 1524 Lay Subsidy returns from several counties (not, alas, that from Staffordshire) and what they tell us about the distribution of wealth among the social classes. It has a chapter addressing specifically the question of how tax paid in the 1524 lay subsidy can be converted (in a rough and ready way) into social status.

First, I should explain that the 1524 lay subsidy was paid at differential rates: (a) those with goods worth £20 or more paid 1s. in the pound and (b) those with goods worth under £20 paid 6d. in the pound (so if you had goods worth £20 you paid 20s. tax – if you had goods worth £19 you paid 9s. 6d.). Thus when 60 John Weston paid 6s. 6d. tax it meant he had been assessed on goods worth £13.

In Lichfield the top twenty four taxpayers were assessed on goods as follows:

£50 x 1
£40 x 1
£26 x 1
£20 x 6
£15 x 2
£14 x 3
£13 x 2 (one was John Weston)
£12 x 2
£10 x 6.

Cornwall’s conclusions, on p. 29, were that, while there was much overlap between social classes, “in most circumstances the £100 man is most likely to be the squire of a village, a merchant in a town; while men from £3 to £10 will almost all be small farmers and craftsmen” and “personal wealth can be used as a broad guide to status as follows:

£100 and upwards: Knights and other leading gentry, merchants in overseas trade
£40-99: Gentry, higher yeomen, provincial merchants
£20-39: Minor gentry, yeomen, lesser merchants
£10-19: Larger peasant farmers, highly skilled craftsmen
£3-9: Peasant farmers, less skilled craftsmen
£2: Smallholders, village craftsmen, senior servants
£1 and less: Artificers, labourers, servants.”

This would give Lichfield nine merchants (two ‘provincial’, seven ‘lesser’) and fifteen ‘highly skilled craftsmen’, of which last 60 John Weston would have been one. This structure is consistent with many of the small towns analysed by Cornwall and seems quite plausible for a town like Lichfield. I’m a little surprised at John Weston rating no higher than a master craftsman, though as such he would have been an employer, with apprentices and journeymen working for him, and perhaps not often personally involved physically in the production side of his business. Still, in this light he looks a rather unlikely husband for even an illegitimate daughter of a peer.

[The Common Pleas reference to him as a tanner fits very nicely here]


(iii) 60 John Weston in various Lichfield records, 1519-36

Lichfield manor court rolls 1506-7 and 1519-36
Stafford Record Office, D(W)1734/2/1/597, mm 24-36

The Lichfield manor court rolls contain a number of (very terse) references to a John Weston who was resident in Lichfield and economically active between at least 1519 and 1536. He sued or was sued for debts in the manor court in 1519, 1522 and 1530-5. In 1522 and 1525 he was fined for obstructing the flow of water in Wade Street ward, for dung in Sandford Street ward, and for putting too many sheep on the common land in Bacon Street ward). He must have been of some middling importance, since he served occasionally as a juror (in 1522 and 1530), but not in any other office. It is impossible to say much else about him - his status or occupation is never mentioned.

John did not appear in the 1506-7 roll, though a Peter Weston did, once as a juror (nothing else is known about him).


Guild of St Mary Admissions Book, 1485 - 1548.
Lichfield Record Office, D 77/1, fo. 190 onwards

Quite a few references to Westons were found in the Admissions Book of the town’s Guild of St Mary between 1485 and 1548, including one to a Cicely Weston (admitted in 1534-5). However, it is impossible to be sure which of them were resident in Lichfield (residents of the surrounding area also joined the Guild), and none of the references provides the much-needed statement of the Lichfield family’s status or occupation.

The Admissions Book also reveals that when Lichfield was incorporated in 1548 by royal charter, 60 John Weston was sufficiently senior in the town’s hierarchy to be named first in the charter’s list of the town’s governing council of 24 burgesses, immediately after the two bailiffs.

Between 1485 and 1548 there must have been at least a hundred admissions, sometimes many more, each year. Many were of a husband and wife (sometimes the wife’s name is given, sometimes not); sometimes larger groups all with the same surname are listed together, presumably families, though the relationship between them is seldom made explicit. A surprisingly large number of admissions are of deceased persons (perhaps in order to obtain the prayers of guild members for their souls?). The first names in each year’s list are always those with the highest status – sometimes nobles or bishops, often abbots and priors of monasteries – usually followed by a scattering of knights, esquires and gentlemen, though it seems probable that not everyone entitled to these appellations was accorded them. Apart from large numbers of chaplains, no other indications of status or occupation appear, however, so the lower orders are left as an undifferentiated mass. Places of residence are seldom stated, but when they are it is revealed that many members lived outside Lichfield, often outside Staffordshire (Coventry and London are mentioned particularly often) – consequently many of the people listed below may not have lived in Lichfield..

fo.
223v, 1492-3, William Weston and his wife.

233v, 1494-5, John Weston.

239v, 1496-7, John Weston and Elizabeth his wife. [19th in list]

255v, 1507-8, Joan wife of Peter Weston [not far from top of list]
“ “ Joan Coxe, servant of the same.

259v, 1508-9, Sir John Weston [a priest?]
260, “ Sir Robert Weston chaplain.
“ “ Richard Weston and Alice his wife. [several entries below]
“ “ Avice Weston deceased. [several entries below]
265v, 1508-9, Margaret and Elizabeth wi-- of John Weston [?2 successive wives of John Weston?]
“ “ Agnes Weston deceased. [5 entries below, penultimate entry]

301v, 1523-4, William Weston and Alice his wife.
302, “ Sir Richard Weston.
“ “ John Weston. [3 entries below]

347, 1534-5, Cicely Weston [several hundred names down]

365v, 1540-1, Catherine Weston. [several entries down]

On fo. 392 is a statement that the guild was ‘begun’ in 1387 and incorporated in 1548, when it was converted by royal charter into the city’s governing council (see VCH Staffs 14, pp. 73 et seq.). The council consisted of two bailiffs and 24 brethren - the first bailiffs and brethren, named in the charter, are listed on fo. 392; the first three names are:

Gregorie Stonynge [bailiff]
Marcke Wirley [bailiff]
John Weston [first-named of the 24]


A list of families in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, 1532-3

A.J. Kettle (ed.) ‘A list of families in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, 1532-3’, Collections for a History of Staffordshire, 4th Series, viii (1976), is the published text of an unusual document which appears to provide a list of the members of John Weston of Lichfield’s family in c.1532-3.

The document is a puzzling one, however, and needs careful interpretation. It consists of just a list of names with almost no other detail identifying individuals or their relationships, tantalisingly holding back as much evidence as it offers. It is undated, though its editor believes it to have been produced around 1532-3, and it nowhere explains what information it is recording – it appears to be a list of family groups, arranged by place of residence but with no indication of its meaning. Although it lists a large proportion of the households in each place, it clearly does not list all of them – but the reason for inclusion or exclusion is not apparent. Particularly oddly, many of the family groups include deceased members. The editor surmises that it may have been a list of souls to be prayed for. (All this is discussed in the introduction to the volume.)

On page 177, in Saddler Street in Lichfield, is the following family group:

John Weston, Elizabeth, + Margaret, his wives, Elizabeth, Agnes, John, Joan, Edmund, Nicholas, + William, + Richard, + John, Robert, Ellen, Alice, John, Agnes, Katherine, James, Christopher, Joan.

And on page 14 there are three Weston families in Brereton in Rugeley:

John and wife Catherine, Cicely, Catherine, Elizabeth, Richard, John
Humphrey and wife Agnes, Ellen
William and wife Alice, John, Alice, Elizabeth, Catherine, George, Dorothy, Cicely, Humphrey, Margaret

The crosses almost certainly indicate that the individual was dead, probably already dead at the time of the making of the list, possibly even long dead. The names which come after the adults are probably their children, but might possibly include some who are other relatives – possibly even parents or grandparents or uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces etc). It’s difficult to construct definite family trees from such uncertain material, but two things do seem fairly clear – when the list was made John Weston of Lichfield was married to his second wife, called Elizabeth, and his first wife had been called Margaret. If he also married a Cicely it must have been after this date. The Guild Admissions Book suggests that he had been married to his second wife Elizabeth ever since 1509-10. The admission of a Cicely in 1534-5 makes one wonder if this was his third wife, admitted to the guild shortly after their marriage. (On the other hand two of the Rugeley Weston families in the 1532-3 list have a daughter called Cicely, and of course 102 John Weston of Rugeley had a wife 103 Cicely, née Forde.)

But on the other hand the Chillington deed which refers to 60 John’s wife Cicely (as sister of the earl of Westmorland) dates from 1526. A nice conundrum – the c1532-3 document and the Admissions Book seem to make it impossible for 60 John Weston of Lichfield to have had a wife called Cicely in 1526, but on the other hand both records are something less than hard and unequivocal evidence.

It does look as though the John Weston living in Saddler Street in c1532-3 is the same man as Segar and Lily’s 60 John, though. All of his 7 children named in their Pedigree appear in the c1532-3 list (though scattered among 11 other names, not all of whom can have been John’s children – we are surely looking at an extended family, and possibly at more than two generations). Unfortunately the only Richard in the list is identified as dead – another conundrum.

Matt Tompkins

[Joe]

>
> Given that John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire had wives named Margaret and Elizabeth (not Cecily), and given that he was a tanner, I can wholeheartedly label the alleged marriage of John Weston to Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, a complete and total fraud.
>
>

> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Slow down a minute. Matt are you really so sure that John Weston the tanner is the same person as John Weston [60] father of the Lord Chancellor and supposed father of Cicely Neville? I am not convinced.

There are too many inconsistencies to make this identification. Certainly, the names of the six known siblings appear together in the List of Families in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, 1632; however, it is 6 common names on list of 18 children, it not clear what this list truly represents, and it is not clear that this even represents a single family group. Many of the children we are looking for would have been very young; would they even appear on this list as such?

The biggest red flag is that the names of wives are wrong. John Weston the tanner was married to Margaret and Elizabeth, and not to Cicely. The 1526 deed appears authoritative with the question being were the words 'sister of the earl of Westmorland inserted.' So, the wives tell me not that Cicely is fictitious but that this is the wrong family.

As Matt shows, John Weston the tanner falls in the category of a well off peasant farmer or master craftsman. When he paid taxes, it was always on goods only and not on land. Just as it is impossible to image this tanner becoming the husband of the sister of the earl of Westmorland, it is hard to see how he could be the father Edmund, James or Robert Weston - they were all too rich, too successful and owned too much land to be the son of this unlanded craftsman.

Edmund Weston was the archdeacon of Lewes and owned land in multiple counties. This case which occurred following the death of Edmund gives some idea of his wealth ( http://tinyurl.com/qaepgqn ). He had just purchased the manor of Wicome, co. Lincoln for £357, and then sold his manor of Scremby, co. Lincoln for £2000.

James was a lawyer, burguess of Litchield, MP for Lichfield and registrar of the diocese of Litchfield. His son Simon paid a dowry of £6000 to marry his daughter to Sir Thomas Ridgeway - again not the grandson of a poor tanner.

And of course, Robert Weston became Lord Chancellor of Ireland, a most improbable post for the son of John Weston the tanner.

All indications are this was an armigerous family. The article in the Herald and Genealogist, vol. 8 http://tinyurl.com/mcngt6x concerning the arms of the Westons states the seal of John Weston of Lichfield temp. Henry VIII descended to and was used by his grandson Dr. John Weston, canon of Christchurch, Oxon. Are these supposed to be the arms of John Weston the tanner? All branches of this family used and displayed arms, and married into other gentry level, armigerous families. It is inconsistent that they were the children of a tanner who owned no lands.

The point and conclusion is that John Weston the tanner married to Margaret and Elizabeth (and who also occurs in manor court rolls presented by Matt) is almost certainly not the same person as John Weston [60] of the Segar pedigree. It is a simple case of the 'name is the same' misidentification. As such the record in the List of Families in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, 1532-3 given by Douglas does not prove or disprove anything about the Segar pedigree. It is going to take more than list of names of uncertain meaning and relevance to counter the accumulated weight of 'positive' evidence.

Matt has obviously made a very good and careful search to find conclusive evidence proving the Segar pedigree without success. It is disappointing. Simon Weston wrote "my grandfather John Weston who whilest he lived in England lived in the Citty of Lichfield." It may be that the difficulty in finding the corroborating evidence is because John Weston spent a considerable time living abroad, and Lichfield was not his actual true home.

For now, we still have a great deal of direct evidence proving that John Weston married Cicely Neville, however and admittedly, all of this evidence comes only from copies of records within the Segar pedigree. Though, it is hard to imagine some of this evidence being forged (funerary monuments displaying the Neville arms). The pedigree is also supported by multiple points of circumstantial evidence. The case for forgery rests entirely on the unlikelihood of a man of John Weston's social status (was he truly so low born given the wealth of his children?) marrying Cicely Neville, and the fact that no corroborating evidence has been found. There is no direct evidence which disproves anything in the Segar pedigree.

Joe

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Thursday, February 27, 2014 3:08:14 PM UTC-7, Joe wrote:
<
< Slow down a minute. Matt are you really so sure that John Weston the tanner < is the same person as John Weston [60] father of the Lord Chancellor and
< supposed father of Cicely Neville? I am not convinced.

The John Weston on the 1532-3 Census of Lichfield, Staffordshire is definitely the right man. His wives were named Margaret and Elizabeth, not Cecily. His children are a perfect match to what we know of John Weston's family. John Weston's two wives, Margaret and Elizabeth, are mentioned elsewhere in contemporary guild records (as per Matt Tompkins' own research).

< There are too many inconsistencies to make this identification.

Not at all.

Certainly, the names of the six known siblings appear together in the List of Families in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, 1632; however, it is 6 common names on list of 18 children, it not clear what this list truly represents, and it is not clear that this even represents a single family group. Many of the children we are looking for would have been very young; would they even appear on this list as such?

Yes, the census represents a single family group. The odds against a second John Weston having the same six known children in the same period and city as your John Weston, of Lichfield, are astronomical.

< The biggest red flag is that the names of wives are wrong. John Weston the < tanner was married to Margaret and Elizabeth, and not to Cicely.

You have this backwards, Joe. The census shows that he had wives Margaret and Elizabeth. It was ALWAYS doubtful that he had a wife, Cecily, who was the sister of the Earl of Westmorland.

<The 1526 deed appears authoritative with the question being were the words <'sister of the earl of Westmorland inserted.' So, the wives tell me not that <Cicely is fictitious but that this is the wrong family.

The 1526 deed is a fraud. I don't use the word fraud frivilously. I've only encountered an obvious fraud twice in my lifetime. The first instance was the alleged royal ancestry of the immigrant, Thomas Newberry. In that case, family records were altered to create a false impression, and other important evidence was suppressed or explained away. The Weston case is the second instance of fraud that I've encountered.

Mr. Waters cogently explained why he doubted that Sir Richard Weston, of Essex, was the son of John Weston, of Lichfield. His reasons were compelling. The 1532-3 Census indicates that John Weston, of Lichfield, had a son Richard alright, but that that Richard died young before 1532-3. Waters was a competent historian. As it turns out, he was right.

< As Matt shows, John Weston the tanner falls in the category of a well off
< peasant farmer or master craftsman.

A peasant farmer or master craftesman would not be married to the sister of the Earl of Westmorland. That just isn't going to happen, Joe. Possibly a gentleman or esquire might be married to an earl's sister, but not a tanner. Sorry.

> Edmund Weston was the archdeacon of Lewes and owned land in multiple
< counties. This case which occurred following the death of Edmund gives some < idea of his wealth ( http://tinyurl.com/qaepgqn ). He had just purchased the < manor of Wicome, co. Lincoln for £357, and then sold his manor of Scremby,
< co. Lincoln for £2000.

I earlier posted a Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1535 which involved John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire, with Robert Weston, Richard Weston, Richard Henson, and Oliver Manaryng [i.e., Manwaring]:

CP40/1084, image 2312f; involving plaintiffs: Weston, Robert; Weston, Richard; Henson, Richard, clerk; Weston, John, of Lichefeld; Manaryng, Oliver; Bragge, Richard; and defendant: Champeneys, John)

I pointed out that Oliver Manwaring was almost certainly the same person as Oliver Manwaryng, gentleman, who together with Richard Weston, was granted a 99 years' lease of the rectory of Aylesbeare, Devon in 1535.

My private correspondant has since provided me offlist additional information pertaining to Oliver Manwaring and his Weston connection.

My correspondant found a Chancery lawsuit which indicates that Oliver Manwaring served as executor for Robert Weston, canon of Exeter.

National Archives, C 1/1037/7
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=7&CATID=-2457377

Plaintiffs: Oliver MANERYNG, executor of Robert Weston, canon of Exeter.
Defendants: William FORDE.

Subject: Debt the bond for which is lost. Devon

Covering dates 1538-1544

This Robert Weston was evidently a churchman. He was incumbent of Chudleigh, Devon, in which position was replaced 18 Sept. 1509. He was presented as vicar of East Budleigh, Devon 15 March 1511/12. He was collated vicar of Paignton, Devon 3 June 1515. He was collated sub-dean of Exeter 28 April 1518. He died in Sept. 1539. Reference: Brushfield, Church of All Saints, East Budleigh, Part III (1894): 1920, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=RGQVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q&f=false

Oliver, Lives of the Bishops of Exeter, and a History of the Cathedral (1861): 296 indicates that Robert Weston was replaced as sub-dean of Exeter on 6 October 1539 by his nephew, Nicholas Weston, who died shortly before 7 March 1546-7.

This source may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gPwUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA296#v=onepage&q&f=false

I believe the nephew, Nicholas Weston, was the Nicholas Weston who occurs as a son of John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire, on the 1532-3 Census of Lichfield. If so, this would mean that Robert Weston, sub-dean of Exeter, was the brother of John Weston, of Lichfield.

Robert Weston was an executor in 1519 for Hugh Oldham, Bishop of Exeter. See the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XOgKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA566

Robert Weston also served as an executor in 1537 for Nicholas Maynwaring, clerk. Another executor was Nicholas Maynwaring's "cousin," Oliver Maynwaring. See the following weblink:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=D977709

Elsewhere we find that Robert Weston (sub-dean of Exeter) and Edmund Weston were joint stewards of Polsloe Priory in 1533. Reference: Allison Fizzard, "Retirement Arrangements and the Laity at Religious Houses in Pre-Reformation Devon," Florilegium, vol. 22 (2005): 71, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/flor/article/view/12516

This Edmund Weston was presumably the eldest surviving son of John Weston, of Lichfield, and thus another probable nephew of Robert Weston.

The ecclesiastical career of Edmund Weston [son of John Weston, of Lichfield] is fully documented in contemporary records. He was B.Can.L and B.C.L. at Oxford in 1532 (http://books.google.com/books?id=JRIBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1603#v=onepage&q&f=false). He subsequently was Archdeacon of Lewes, 1560-64, and Prebendary of Chichester Cathedral, 1561-70. See http://db.theclergydatabase.org.uk/jsp/persons/DisplayPerson.jsp?PersonID=79385).

That Edmund Weston, Archdeacon of Lewes, was a brother of Robert Weston, Chancellor of Ireland (another known son of John Weston, of Lichfield) is shown by the following record:

C78/96/4. 10 Feb. 16 Eliz [1574] (http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/C78/C78no96/IMG_0012.htm )

Plaintiff: Henry Weston, son and heir of Edmund Weston of Chichester, Sussex, late prebendary there, decd.

Defendant: George Cotton of Densworth, Sussex, gent., who married Parnell, widow and executrix of Edmund Weston, and Alice Weston, widow and executrix of Robert Weston, D.L., formerly chancellor in Ireland and brother of Edmund Weston. Regarding possession of tenements in St Martin's le Grand, London, held as leaseholds of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster.

< The point and conclusion is that John Weston the tanner married to Margaret
< and Elizabeth (and who also occurs in manor court rolls presented by Matt) is < almost certainly not the same person as John Weston [60] of the Segar
< pedigree.

The evidence says otherwise. I showed that that John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire was associated in a 1533 lawsuit with Robert Weston and Oliver Manwaring. My private correspondant believes this Robert Weston is the same man as Robert Weston, a churchman, who was sub-dean of Exeter, 1518-39. This makes sense to me. Robert Weston in turn is known to have had a nephew, Nicholas Weston, who fits to be the Nicholas Weston who was a son of John Weston, of Lichfield. Robert Weston was also associated with an Edmund Weston, who fits to be the Edmund Weston, also a churchman, who was a son of John Weston, of Lichfield.

Given these facts it seems clear to me that the John Weston on the 1532-3 Census at Lichfield is clearly the right man. He definitely had wives named Margaret and Elizabeth, not Cecily. His six known children, plus Nicholas, are an exact match for Weston family in the 1532-3 census.

I conclude that the 1526 deed is a complete and total fraud.

< Matt has obviously made a very good and careful search to find conclusive <evidence proving the Segar pedigree without success. It is disappointing. <Simon Weston wrote "my grandfather John Weston who whilest he lived in England <lived in the Citty of Lichfield."

There appears to have been only one John Weston who resided at Lichfield, Staffordshire in this time period and he was a tanner by profession. There is no indication so far that I've seen that he was ever styled gentleman or esquire. In fact, just the opposite.

<For now, we still have a great deal of direct evidence proving that John <Weston married Cicely Neville, however and admittedly, all of this evidence <comes only from copies of records within the Segar pedigree.

The Segar pedigree is a fraud. Demonstrably so!

<Though, it is hard to imagine some of this evidence being forged (funerary <monuments displaying the Neville arms).

It is not hard to imagine that at all.

<The pedigree is also supported by multiple points of circumstantial evidence.

Not even close, Joe. Your "circumstantial" evidence you presented was at best extremely weak. You were unable to show ANY connection whatsoever between John Weston, of Lichfield, and the Nevilles, Earl of Westmorland. If nothing else, that in itself should have told you that you were on the wrong track.

<The case for forgery rests entirely on the unlikelihood of a man of John <Weston's social status (was he truly so low born given the wealth of his <children?) marrying Cicely Neville, and the fact that no corroborating <evidence has been found. There is no direct evidence which disproves anything <in the Segar pedigree.

A fraud is difficult for some people to accept. Maybe you're one of those people, Joe.

In closing, once again I wish to acknowledge my private correspondant for his help in this matter. I very much appreciate his assistance.

> Joe

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

I earlier reported the following lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas involving the Weston family.

Date: 1535

Location: Kent

Plaintiff: Weston, Robert; Weston, Richard; Henson, Richard, clerk; Weston, John, of Lichefeld; Manaryng, Oliver; Bragge, Richard

Defendant: Champeneys, John

Lawsuit concerns the manor of Hagley (in Rugeley), Staffordshire, together with [?two] messuages, 200 acres of land, 100 acres of meadow, 200 acres of pasture, and 40s. of rent in Hagley and Horton, Staffordshire.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/1084, image 2312f, available at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H8/CP40no1084/aCP40no1084fronts/IMG_2312.htm

I assumed the above lawsuit had something to do with the following earlier conveyance:

In 1527 John Mitton and John Nastrett conveyed the manor of Hagley (in Rugeley), together with two messuages, 200 acres of land, 100 acres of meadow, 200 acres of pasture, and 40s. of rent in Hagley and Horton, Staffordshire to John Champeneys, John Baker, Thomas Barett, Gents., John Wiseman, and Thomas
Argall for the sum of £460.

I've since located a related Chancery lawsuit which involves the same matters and similar date. In this new lawsuit dated 1533-8, Richard Weston and Richard Henson, clerks, "and others" sue two parties regarding the manor of Hagley (in Rugeley), Staffordshire claimed for "John Harpisfyld, deceased, and Jocose, his wife."

Reference: National Archives, C 1/927/16-18

Plaintiffs: Richard Weston and Richard Henson, clerks, and others.

Defendants: Roger Brodebery and John Chatterton.

Subject: Detention of deeds relating to the manor of Hagley in Rugeley, claimed for John Harpisfyld, deceased, and Jocose, his wife. Staffordshire

Date: 1533-1538" END OF QUOTE.

The above lawsuit is important as it establishes that Richard Weston involved in the other 1533 Common Pleas lawsuit was a clerk. As such, it fits for him to be the same man as Richard Weston, a churchman, who was sub-Dean of Exeter, as believed by my private correspondant.

I can identify "John Harpisfyld, deceased, and Jocose, his wife" as John Harpesfield, Gent. (living 1530), Citizen and draper of London, and his wife, Joyce, daughter and heiress of John Mitton, Esq. (died 1533), of Weston-under-Lizard, Bobbington, Hagley (in Rugeley), and Tamhorn (in Fisherwick), Staffordshire. Joyce's father, John Mitton, would be the man involved in the 1527 conveyance.

I presume that John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire is one of the unnamed "other" plaintiffs in this new Chancery lawsuit, as he occurs as one of the plaintiffs in the 1533 Common Pleas lawsuit.

[taf]

On Monday, February 17, 2014 9:32:13 AM UTC-8, Joe wrote:
>
> In support of the claim that Richard Weston, Lord Treasurer descended from John Weston and Cecilia Neville:
>
>
>
> 1. The certified pedigree by the Garter King of Arms is likely true unless proved otherwise. It was at the time supported by "authentic evidence" and felt proven by the highest official in charge of such matters. The pedigree is described as 205 pages on 110 feet of vellum containing copies of the charters and other documents of the Weston family, 33 hand colored seals, 4 pages of depictions of funerary monuments, etc. Just because we no longer have access to all of the evidences presented doesn't mean they didn't exist.
>


I really have nothing to say about the rest of the material presented,
but this point is flawed. "Authentic evidence" to and ancient herald
could be anything from a chain of charters and inquisitions proving
the descent in every detail, to something that was forged immediately
before being given to the King of Arms. They simply did not have the
same standards of evidence as modern scholars do, and you can't simply
assume that anything we can't document must be based on a legitimate
source since lost. The very fact that you do find such pedigrees
making bogus claims that can be proven false means that you simply
cannot give this pedigree the benefit of the doubt. I could show you
a visitation pedigree that invents the grandfather of the person
visited, as well as giving as aunts women who didn't belong in that
generation. The family's land tenure had just been challenged, so
what do they do? They invent an ancestry for their own father that
would provide an incontrovertible claim to the holdings, with each
generation marrying an heiress to one of their lands, and this they
give to a herald to be recorded in an official document without
comment or question as to authenticity. The guy's nephew did the same
thing in a different visitation of about the same time, except he
invented a different set of ancestors for the same guy, with different
marriages to heiresses of the same places. So, no, we can't assume
what we would consider to be authentic evidence existed at the time,
and we cannot consider the pedigree to be true unless proven false.

>
>Many pedigrees stand on much less than this simple fact. There is no evidence to the contrary.
>

Yet many pedigrees that are similar in every respect have been proven
false. That doesn't mean this one is false, but it can't be assumed
true.

taf

[Matt Tompkins]

On Friday, February 28, 2014 8:19:04 AM UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> I earlier reported the following lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas involving the Weston family.
>
> Date: 1535
> Location: Kent
> Plaintiff: Weston, Robert; Weston, Richard; Henson, Richard, clerk; Weston, John, of Lichefeld; Manaryng, Oliver; Bragge, Richard
> Defendant: Champeneys, John
> Lawsuit concerns the manor of Hagley (in Rugeley), Staffordshire, together with [?two] messuages, 200 acres of land, 100 acres of meadow, 200 acres of pasture, and 40s. of rent in Hagley and Horton, Staffordshire.
> Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/1084, image 2312f, available at the following weblink:
> http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H8/CP40no1084/aCP40no1084fronts/IMG_2312.htm
>

> I assumed the above lawsuit had something to do with the following earlier conveyance:
>
> In 1527 John Mitton and John Nastrett conveyed the manor of Hagley (in Rugeley), together with two messuages, 200 acres of land, 100 acres of meadow, 200 acres of pasture, and 40s. of rent in Hagley and Horton, Staffordshire to John Champeneys, John Baker, Thomas Barett, Gents., John Wiseman, and Thomas Argall for the sum of £460.
>
> I've since located a related Chancery lawsuit which involves the same matters and similar date. In this new lawsuit dated 1533-8, Richard Weston and Richard Henson, clerks, "and others" sue two parties regarding the manor of Hagley (in Rugeley), Staffordshire claimed for "John Harpisfyld, deceased, and Jocose, his wife."
>
> Reference: National Archives, C 1/927/16-18
> Plaintiffs: Richard Weston and Richard Henson, clerks, and others.
> Defendants: Roger Brodebery and John Chatterton.
> Subject: Detention of deeds relating to the manor of Hagley in Rugeley, claimed for John Harpisfyld, deceased, and Jocose, his wife. Staffordshire
> Date: 1533-1538" END OF QUOTE.
>
> The above lawsuit is important as it establishes that Richard Weston involved in the other 1533 Common Pleas lawsuit was a clerk. As such, it fits for him to be the same man as Richard Weston, a churchman, who was sub-Dean of Exeter, as believed by my private correspondant.
>

Should that be *Robert* Weston, sub-Dean of Exeter?

In Segar's Pedigree he is called William (with ID no. 59), but as the Pedigree's 59 William is brother of 60 John Weston of Lichfield and sub-Dean of Exeter I think it must be the same person. From your anonymous correspondent's contributions to your previous post it seems Robert must be the correct name.

The Richard Weston who sued for the title deeds to the small sub-manor of Hagley was 60 John Weston's elder brother (eldest son and heir of 55 John Weston), but I don't believe he was a clerk. Is your anonymous correspondent sure the C1/927 pleading says "Richard Weston and Richard Henson, clerks", not "Richard Weston and Richard Henson, clerk"?

The acquisition of the manor by him or his son 102 John Weston is discussed in VCH Staffs v, under Rugeley (where this lawsuit is mentioned), and in:

C. Harrison, 'Fire on the Chase: rural riots in sixteenth-century Staffordshire', Contributions for a History of Staffordshire, 4th ser., 19 (1999), pp. 97-126.

Matt

[Douglas Richardson]

On Friday, February 28, 2014 6:16:44 AM UTC-7, Matt Tompkins wrote:

< DR: The above lawsuit is important as it establishes that Richard Weston involved in the other 1533 Common Pleas lawsuit was a clerk. As such, it fits for him to be the same man as Richard Weston, a churchman, who was sub-Dean of Exeter, as believed by my private correspondant.

< Matt: Should that be *Robert* Weston, sub-Dean of Exeter?

Yes, I inadvertedly confused Richard Weston, clerk, in the 1533-1538 Chancery action with Robert Weston, sub-dean of Exeter. Thanks for catching my error.

< In Segar's Pedigree he is called William (with ID no. 59), but as the
< Pedigree's 59 William is brother of 60 John Weston of Lichfield and sub-Dean < of Exeter I think it must be the same person. From your anonymous
< correspondent's contributions to your previous post it seems Robert must be
< the correct name.

What does Segar's Pedigree say about William Weston (ID No. 59)?

< The Richard Weston who sued for the title deeds to the small sub-manor of
< Hagley was 60 John Weston's elder brother (eldest son and heir of 55 John
< Weston), but I don't believe he was a clerk. Is your anonymous correspondent < sure the C1/927 pleading says "Richard Weston and Richard Henson, clerks",
< not "Richard Weston and Richard Henson, clerk"?

I was the one who found the 1533-1538 Chancery lawsuit. However, I believe my private correspondant has been over the same material in the National Archives discovery catalog. The online abstract of the 1533-1538 Chancery lawsuit does indicate that the plaintiff, Richard Weston, was a clerk. As noted already, the 1533 Common Pleas makes no indication that Richard Weston was a clerk.

I assume that the plaintiffs in the 1533 Common Pleas lawsuit were the same as in the the 1533-1538 Chancery lawsuit. If so, the Chancery lawsuit should involve John Weston, of Lichfield, and Oliver Manwaring as plaintiffs. Perhaps someone can contact an archivist at the National Archives and ask for a clarification of the names of all the plaintiffs in the the 1533-1538 Chancery lawsuit.

Having said that, it appears that Robert Weston, sub-dean of Exeter, did have a nephew named Richard Weston who was a clerk.

Below are five additional items from the online National Archives Discovery catalog.

The first item dated 1518-1529 below involves a Richard Weston, clerk, and Robert Weston, chaplain, his uncle. It also involves a "steward of the bishop of Exeter." Robert Weston, chaplain, could be Robert Weston, sub-dean of Exeter. If so, this lawsuit would indicate that Robert Weston had a nephew, Richard Weston, who was a clerk. If Robert Weston in this lawsuit is the sub-dean of Exeter, the date of the lawsuit would suggest that his nephew, Richard Weston, clerk, was a bit older than the children of Robert's brother, John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire. If so, I would guess that Richard Weston, clerk, was a son of Robert Weston's older brother, Richard Weston, who you have mentioned.

Items #2-5 involve Robert Weston who was the sub-dean of Exeter. Item #4 also involves a certain Richard Weston, who is not styled a clerk, nor is he styled nephew of Robert Weston. But he could be the same person as in Item #1.

Question for Matt: Does the Segar pedigree mention Nicholas Weston, the son of John Weston, of Lichfield? I believe he is the Nicholas Weston who succeeded his uncle, Robert Weston, as sub-dean of Exeter.

I see Item #5 indicates that Robert Weston, sub-dean of Exeter, was involved in the sale of merchandise in the Staple. That's a bit unusual for a churchman. Perhaps this explains how his brother, John's sons received good educations.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Item #1:

Reference: C 1/568/83

Description:

Plaintiffs: John Skewys.

Defendants: Richard Weston, clerk, Robert Weston, chaplain, his uncle, and Stephen Gayer, feoffee to uses, and steward of the bishop of Exeter.

Subject: The advowson of the church of Ladock, appendant to land in Budock (Bedoke, alias Besake), and refusal by the feoffees of the complainant's presentation of William Reskymer, upon its voidance by the death of Nicholas Kent.

Cornwall.

Date: 1518-1529

+ + + + + + + + + +

Item #2:

Reference: C 1/527/17

Description:

Plaintiffs: Charles Hoppyng.

Defendants: Robert Weston of Exeter, clerk, and Thomas Bonyfaunt.

Subject: Matters in variance between complainant and Richard Alen, clerk, submitted to the joint arbitration of defendants, but the award being by the said Robert only, and action of debt by the said Richard.

Middlesex, Devon.

Note: Mutilated.

Date: 1518-1529

+ + + + + + + + + +

Item #3:

Reference:
C 1/874/11-14

Description:

Plaintiffs: William Parkehouse, clerk.

Defendants: Robert Weston, clerk.

Subject: Expenses of surgical treatment of Stephen Halle, servant of complainant, for an assault by John Aldaye, servant of defendant, at Exeter. Devon

Note: Damaged.

Date: 1533-1538

+ + + + + + + + +

Item #4:

Reference: C 1/627/36

Description:

Plaintiffs: Richard Denys, clerk.

Defendants: Richard Weston.

Subject: Action upon a forged bond, to which complainant's assent and seal were obtained by a subterfuge; maintenance by Robert Weston, canon of Exeter cathedral. Devon

Date: 1529-1532

+ + + + + + + +

Item #5:

Reference: C 241/283/73

Description:

Debtor: William Budde of Topsham [Wonford Hundred, Devon] merchant.

Creditor: Robert Weston, clerk, canon of the cathedral church of St Peter, Exeter.

Amount: £40, for merchandise bought from him in the Staple.

Before whom: Robert Hooker, mayor of the Staple of Exeter; William Peringham, and John Buller, Constables.

When taken: 15/10/1530

First term: 25/11/1530

Last term: 25/11/1530

Writ to: Sheriff of [Devon]

Sent by: Robert Hooker, Mayor of the Staple of Exeter; William Peringham, and John Buller, Constables.

Endorsement: Devon, before the Lord King in his Chancery on the morrow of the Purification of St Mary, next.

Date: 1531 Oct. 20

[Matt Tompkins]

On Friday, 28 February 2014 18:49:21 UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
<snip>

> What does Segar's Pedigree say about William Weston (ID No. 59)?
>

Only that he was 55 John Weston's 3rd son and was sub-Dean of Exeter.

<snip>

>
> Having said that, it appears that Robert Weston, sub-dean of Exeter, did have a nephew named Richard Weston who was a clerk.
>
> Below are five additional items from the online National Archives Discovery catalog.
>
> The first item dated 1518-1529 below involves a Richard Weston, clerk, and Robert Weston, chaplain, his uncle. It also involves a "steward of the bishop of Exeter." Robert Weston, chaplain, could be Robert Weston, sub-dean of Exeter. If so, this lawsuit would indicate that Robert Weston had a nephew, Richard Weston, who was a clerk. If Robert Weston in this lawsuit is the sub-dean of Exeter, the date of the lawsuit would suggest that his nephew, Richard Weston, clerk, was a bit older than the children of Robert's brother, John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire. If so, I would guess that Richard Weston, clerk, was a son of Robert Weston's older brother, Richard Weston, who you have mentioned.
>

Segar's Pedigree only gives one son to the older brother 57/100 Richard Weston of Rugeley - 102 John Weston of Rugeley (d. 1566 - owner of the manor of Hagley, though the Pedigree doesn't mention that), who himself had sons 105 Richard Weston of Rugeley (d. 1613, also owned Hagley) and 107 John Weston.

>
> Items #2-5 involve Robert Weston who was the sub-dean of Exeter. Item #4 also involves a certain Richard Weston, who is not styled a clerk, nor is he styled nephew of Robert Weston. But he could be the same person as in Item #1.
>
> Question for Matt: Does the Segar pedigree mention Nicholas Weston, the son of John Weston, of Lichfield? I believe he is the Nicholas Weston who succeeded his uncle, Robert Weston, as sub-dean of Exeter.
>

No - the only sons it gives 60 John Weston of Lichfield are 62 Edmund, 63 Robert (of Weeford, Lord Chancellor of Ireland), 64 James (of Lichfield, esq.), 65 Christopher (of Tamworth), and 70 Richard (of Skrenes in Roxwell, JCP).

Matt

[Joe]

On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:49:21 AM UTC-8, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
> I see Item #5 indicates that Robert Weston, sub-dean of Exeter, was involved in the sale of merchandise in the Staple. That's a bit unusual for a churchman. Perhaps this explains how his brother, John's sons received good educations.
>

Leaving aside the question of the name of the John Weston's wife, this reference supports this idea:

Exeter Cathedral as it was 1050-1550, by Nicholas Orme (1986).
p. 93 "There are some charming glimpses of the canons at this time in Hooker's history of Exeter, written later but based on his own reminiscences. ... The subdean Robert Weston was distinguished for his patronage of learning. He was 'a great benefactor of scholars', many of whom he helped through school or university with his money, including his nephews Nicholas, Richard and Robert. The first became a Bachelor of Divinity and succeeded his uncle as subdean, the second studied law and became a serjeant-at-law (leading barrister) and the third became Lord Chancellor of Ireland."

I have not been able to track down the original reference in Hooker's History of Exeter. It would be nice to know exactly the evidence that shows Nicholas, Robert and Richard are nephews of subdean Robert Weston, and the evidence that he provided for their education.

I believe it is also saying that Richard Weston the Judge of Skreens in Roxwell was a nephew of Robert Weston subdean of Exeter. Given this, the Simon Weston letter, and the fact that the Lord Treasure Richard Weston was called 'kinsman' of Lord Chancellor Robert Weston, I believe Richard was another brother of Robert, James and Edmund Weston as shown in the Segar pedigree. Yes, I know there is a little 'plus' sign in front of the name Richard in the List of Families in the Archdeaconry of Stafford.

Joe

[Douglas Richardson]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 6:31:38 PM UTC-7, Joe wrote:

< I believe it is also saying that Richard Weston the Judge of Skreens in
< Roxwell was a nephew of Robert Weston subdean of Exeter. Given this, the
< Simon Weston letter, and the fact that the Lord Treasure Richard Weston was
< called 'kinsman' of Lord Chancellor Robert Weston, I believe Richard was
< another brother of Robert, James and Edmund Weston as shown in the Segar
< pedigree. Yes, I know there is a little 'plus' sign in front of the name
< Richard in the List of Families in the Archdeaconry of Stafford.

< Joe

Waters, Chester of Chicheley 1 (1878): 95 stated that Sir Richard Weston the Judge, of Skreens, Essex [died 1572] bore the following arms: Ermine, on a chief azure five bezants, with a martlet for difference. They are wholly different from the arms of the Weston family of Lichfield and Rugeley, Staffordshire, which were Or, an eagle displayed regardant sable.

For those who wish to read the entirely of Waters' comments, they can be viewed at the following weblink:

https://archive.org/stream/genealogicalmem01wategoog#page/n124/mode/2up

For his own reasons, Joe seems to have glided over the difference in the two sets of arms. Normally, two different sets of arms means that you are dealing with two entirely different Weston families.

Now that the 1532-3 Staffordshire census proves that Richard Weston, son of John Weston, of Lichfield, died young and can not be the Judge, it vindicates both Waters' and Morant's statements. As Waters noted, Morant assigned Sir Richard Weston the Judge to an entirely different family than the Staffordshire family. And rightly so ... if the heraldic evidence is considered.

I suggest we stop beating a dead horse.

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 10:58:06 PM UTC-5, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
> Waters, Chester of Chicheley 1 (1878): 95 stated that Sir Richard Weston the Judge, of Skreens, Essex [died 1572] bore the following arms: Ermine, on a chief azure five bezants, with a martlet for difference. They are wholly different from the arms of the Weston family of Lichfield and Rugeley, Staffordshire, which were Or, an eagle displayed regardant sable.
>

The Weston arms appear in a copy of the 1612 Visitation of Essex at the College of Arms (MS C.15) as ermine, on a chief azure five bezants, with a martlet for difference. These Weston arms are essentially the same in copies of the visitation at the University of Oxford (MS Qu.xcv fol. 4v, fol. 5r) and the British Library.

These same arms, with a martlet, are displayed on the tomb of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas (d. 1572), in Writtle Church, co. Essex. [Miller Christy, W.W. Porteous, and E. Bertram Smith, "Some Interesting Essex Brasses" in Essex Archaeological Society, Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society (Colchester: Published by the Society at the Museum in the Castle, 1906), 56-58.]

Sir Benjamin Tichborne (d. 1629), Bart. of Tichborne, son-in-law of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas, also bore these arms, with a martlet. [John Gough Nichols, The Herald and Genealogist (London: J.G. Nichols and R.C. Nichols, 1866), 3:426.]

Joan Creswell (d. 1590), daughter of Catherine Weston, daughter of John Weston of Lichfield, also bore these arms, with a martlet. [James P. Jones, A History of the Parish of Tettenhall, in the County of Stafford (London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent, & Co., Ld., 1894), 252.]

Dr. John Weston (d. 1632), Canon of Christchurch, Oxon, son of Robert Weston, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and great-grandson of John Weston of Lichfield, bore these same arms, with a martlet. [John Gough Nichols, The Herald and Genealogist (London: R.C. Nichols and J.B. Nichols, 1874), 8:507-508.]

Richard Weston of Sutton Place bore these same arms without the martlet. [W. Bruce Bannerman, ed., The Visitations of the County of Surrey (London: The Harleian Society, 1899), 43: 7-8.]

John Weston, Turcopolier and Pillar of England from 1471 to 1476, also bore these arms without a martlet. [The Seals of the Order of St John of Jerusalem, 109]

Shawn

[Joe]

> Waters, Chester of Chicheley 1 (1878): 95 stated that Sir Richard Weston the Judge, of Skreens, Essex [died 1572] bore the following arms: Ermine, on a chief azure five bezants, with a martlet for difference. They are wholly different from the arms of the Weston family of Lichfield and Rugeley, Staffordshire, which were Or, an eagle displayed regardant sable.
>
> For those who wish to read the entirely of Waters' comments, they can be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> https://archive.org/stream/genealogicalmem01wategoog#page/n124/mode/2up
>
> For his own reasons, Joe seems to have glided over the difference in the two sets of arms. Normally, two different sets of arms means that you are dealing with two entirely different Weston families.
>
> Now that the 1532-3 Staffordshire census proves that Richard Weston, son of John Weston, of Lichfield, died young and can not be the Judge, it vindicates both Waters' and Morant's statements. As Waters noted, Morant assigned Sir Richard Weston the Judge to an entirely different family than the Staffordshire family. And rightly so ... if the heraldic evidence is considered.
>
> I suggest we stop beating a dead horse.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Doug,

In your first post in this thread you said I need to look at the evidence, however you are the one who has consistently not acknowledged any evidence but your own. When I give evidence which supports a hypothesis of yours, you chose to accept half of it and reject the other half without comment. Sorry, you cannot make Nicholas Weston a nephew of subdean Robert Weston unless you also acknowledge Richard Weston who "studied law and became a serjeant-at-law (leading barrister)" as his nephew. They ultimately come from the same source. This is almost certainly Richard Weston of Skreens the judge - if you disagree you need to show who else this could possibly be.

If you are going to continue to hold that the Westons of Roxwell are an entirely different family from the Westons of Lichfield, you need to explain why the Lord Chancellor was called 'kinsman' of the Lord Treasurer, and why the Lord Treasurer took a personal interest in the tomb of the Lord Chancellor. You also need to explain why the advowson of Bucknell went from Sir Jerome Weston of Roxwell, to his (his aunt) Alice (Weston) Ball of Lichfield.

While you are at it, can you address the likelihood that Lord Chancellor Weston of Lichfield came to hold the Booth property of the advowson of Sawley, co. Derby by pure random chance?

You have made guesses (as to identities in suits) in order to make inferences (as to kinships not stated), to draw conclusions based on a document of uncertain meaning. You now say your conclusion is indisputable fact and I should stop 'beating a dead horse.' I take this to mean I should stop presenting evidence contrary to your opinion. Yes, I do question whether the List of Families refers to 1. the correct John Weston 2. to a single family group. You may be correct but it is not conclusive and it is not completely consistent with other evidence which you are choosing to ignore. My doubts about the List of Families come from Matt's analysis which bears repeating:

Matt Tompkins: "The document is a puzzling one, however, and needs careful interpretation. It consists of just a list of names with almost no other detail identifying individuals or their relationships, tantalisingly holding back as much evidence as it offers. It is undated, though its editor believes it to have been produced around 1532-3, and it nowhere explains what information it is recording - it appears to be a list of family groups, arranged by place of residence but with no indication of its meaning. Although it lists a large proportion of the households in each place, it clearly does not list all of them - but the reason for inclusion or exclusion is not apparent. Particularly oddly, many of the family groups include deceased members. The editor surmises that it may have been a list of souls to be prayed for. (All this is discussed in the introduction to the volume.)"

I am well aware of the heraldry and I did not glide over them. I just do not think they can be used to prove either side of the argument. Thank you Shawn for showing that both the Westons of Roxwell and the Westons of Lichfield used the Ermine, on a chief azure five bezants arms long before the 1632 Segar pedigree - does this prove they are the same family Doug? Are these the arms of an unlanded tanner? Morant said the arms Richard of Roxwell "are wholly different from the arms of the Westons of Rugeley," not that they were different from Westons of Lichfield. This destroys your entire argument. The heraldry says the Westons of Roxwell and the Westons of Lichfield are the same family.

The college of arms granted the ermine arms quartered with the eagle sable arms to the Westons of Rugeley, the Westons of Roxwell and the Westons of Lichfield. I can argue this is proof of the relationship as easily as you can argue it is proof of "two entirely different Weston families." Given the uncertainty, the heraldry cannot be used as definitive proof of anything. In fact, if anything it supports the idea that Richard of Roxwell is another brother of Edmund, James and Robert, and you are wrong in your conclusion that he is completely unrelated.


Joe

[Douglas Richardson]

On Monday, March 3, 2014 12:04:38 AM UTC-7, Joe wrote:

<Yes, I do question whether the List of Families refers to 1. the correct John <Weston 2. to a single family group. You may be correct but it is not <conclusive and it is not completely consistent with other evidence which you <are choosing to ignore. My doubts about the [1532-3] List of Families come
<from Matt's analysis which bears repeating.

Matt Tompkins specifically says "it appears to be a list of family groups, arranged by place of residence but with no indication of its meaning."

Matt is correct. The 1532-3 census of Staffordshire consists of a list of family groups. Men are listed with the names of their wife/wives and their children (living and deceased). The deceased spouses and children are marked with a cross.

The census is unique in its completeness as to family groups. I know of no other similar census for this time period. I have used the census for other families and it appears to be reliable.

If John Weston's wives are named as Margaret and Elizabeth in the census, then you can be confident that he had no wife named Cecily.

As I already stated, that statistical odds that you would have a second John Weston in Lichfield in 1532-3 with the same seven children are absolutely astronomical. Perhaps someone with a mathematical bent can make that calculation for you.

Regarding the veracity of the Segar pedigree of the Weston family, Tewars questioned it in Notes and Queries as far back as 1872:

Notes and Queries, vol. 9 (1872): 356-357:
"The writer of the elaborate note on 'Weston-under-Lyzard' gravely assumes that the pedigree drawn up by Segar in 1632 for my relation Richard Weston, Earl of Portland, then Lord Treasurer of England, is a record of historical value, whereas he ought to have detected at once that it is a febrication of the same class as abounds in the Peerage and the Landed Gentry, and other such compilations of genealogical mythology." END OF QUOTE.

Notes and Queries, 4th Ser. vol. 10 (1872): 49-50:
"Besides, this pedigree of Weston is not a solitary specimen of Segar's loose notions of genealogical veracity, for in the same year (1632) he compiled a genealogy of much the same kind for the Caves of Stanford, which has found its way into two county histories, and is annually reprinted in the Baronetage, although the first twelve generations are neither proved nor probable." END OF QUOTE.

"Fabrication" ... "genealogical mythology" ... "neither proved nor probable" ... in other words, Segar is untrustworthy and unreliable.

[Douglas Richardson]

On Monday, March 3, 2014 12:04:38 AM UTC-7, Joe wrote:

<Thank you Shawn for showing that both the Westons of Roxwell and the Westons <of Lichfield used the Ermine, on a chief azure five bezants arms long before <the 1632 Segar pedigree - does this prove they are the same family Doug?

Since my post quoting Waters' comments about the Weston arms, I've read the much different comments on the Weston arms published in the Herald and Genealogist. I'll have further to say about this later.

As I said earlier, "normally" when you have two sets of arms, you're dealing with two different family. The word "normally," however, doesn't cover all cases.

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Monday, March 3, 2014 3:49:41 AM UTC-5, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
> Since my post quoting Waters' comments about the Weston arms, I've read the much different comments on the Weston arms published in the Herald and Genealogist. I'll have further to say about this later.
>

Waters should not be cited as an authority on the question of whether or not the Weston pedigree is reliable.

Waters erroneously stated the Weston pedigree sets forth that John Weston of Rugeley "was lineally descended from Reginald de Baliol, the Doomsday lord of Weston-under-Lizard in Staffordshire." Waters then concluded that "the root of this pedigree can be cut off at once, for it is well established that the manor of Weston was included in the Doomsday fee of the Sheriff of Shropshire, and that Reginald de Baliol's tenure of it was official and temporary, and not personal and hereditary." Contrary to this claim by Waters, the Weston pedigree shows no genealogical connection between the Weston family and Reginald de Baliol, Lord of Weston, Berton, Broton, and Newton, co. Stafford. There is no line in the pedigree connecting the family of Hamo de Weston to the family of Reginald de Baliol. [ADD18667, The British Library; also ADD74251A, The British Library] See also Gould Hunter-Weston, FSA, of Hunterston to John Heathfield Stratton of Little Berkhamsted, 12 Jan 1902. "I maintain that Segar intended to show the descent of the Manor of Weston from its Doomsday tenant Rainald de Baillial, and that, as he was not certain that Hamo, the proprietor of Weston temp: Hen: II, was a Baillial by birth, he gave a separate root for each family." [ADD74251B, The British Library]

Waters also cited as evidence the very pedigree he proclaimed to be fraudulent in order to support his treatment of the Cave lineage. "Peter Cave her uncle continued the male line, and was the father of John Cave Abbot of Selby, and of Peter his brother, the supposed ancestor of the Caves of Stanford. This descent is fully set forth in an elaborate pedigree compiled by Sir William Segar Garter in 1632, and repeated in the Baronetages; but I must leave to such authorities a genealogy which I have no means of verifying in detail." [Robert Edmond Chester Waters, Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester in Chicheley (London: Robson and Sons, 1878), 1:73]

I once thought the Weston pedigree was reliable, principally because (1) Waters so mishandled the question while he is cited as the discoverer of the fraud, (2) several contemporary records strongly suggest a close kinship between Robert Weston, Chancellor of Ireland, and Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas, and (3) the pedigree is accompanied by several testimonies, by people who should have known, saying the Chancellor and Justice were brothers and also saying their mother was Cecily, sister of the Earl of Westmorland. Yet, after looking into the problem more closely, and considering the views of several experts with whom I've corresponded, I am no longer convinced. It's one thing to say Waters made erroneous statements about the pedigree; but quite another to say the pedigree is reliable. I would like to see evidence from the Neville family regarding the connection. At the same time, the magnitude of the conspiracy (if the pedigree is fraudulent) is troubling, and connections between the Chancellor and Justice must be explained. I would like to see a complete and impartial treatment of all the evidence.

Shawn

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Monday, March 3, 2014 8:29:04 AM UTC-5, shp...@comcast.net wrote:
>I would like to see a complete and impartial treatment of all the evidence.
>

One such record, which may shed light on the relationship between Chancellor Weston and Justice Weston, pertains to the Advowson of Bucknell. The record, dated 30 Jan 1573/4, can be found in New College Archive 9787 (Charters 7), 352, New College, University of Oxford, UK. The relevant statement is as follows. "Sciatis me praefatum Jeronimo Weston pro diversis causis et considerationibus me sp[ec]ialiter moventibus dedisse concessisse confirmasse ac per p[rese]ntes dare concedere & confirmare Aliciae Ball de civitate Lichfeild in com civitate Lichfeld viduae advocationem donacoem liberam disposicoem et Jus patronatus Rectoriae et eccl[es]iae pochialis de Bucknell in com Oxon. . . ." Although I have not studied Latin, I suspect the following is an approximate translation -- perhaps someone will correct my errors. "Know that I, the said Jerome Weston, for diverse reasons and considerations especially moving me, have given, granted, confirmed, and by these presents do give, grant, and confirm to Alice Ball of the city of Lichfield in the county [city of Lichfield--sic.], widow, that advowson, right of presentation, free disposal, and patronage of the rectory and church parish of Bucknell in the county of Oxford. . . ." Alice Ball was a sister of Chancellor Weston; and Jerome Weston was son and heir of Justice Weston.

Shawn

[shp...@comcast.net]

The heralds appear to have produced several copies of the Weston pedigree including the following.

ADD18667 (276 pages), The British Library. The introduction says this manuscript was produced for Sir Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland.

ADD74251A (282 pages), The British Library. British Library records say this manuscript was produced for Sir Richard Weston of Rugeley.

PI-350 (214 pages), Staffordshire Record Office. This seems to be a previously unknown manuscript of the Weston pedigree. The final page contains the following inscription.
"Jan.ry 16 1739
These manuscripts Bought of Mr Warrine Stationer
of Birmingham by S. Weston __ 2:2:0"

Harley 5816 (96 pages), The British Library. These pages appear to be Lily's working papers, generated as he prepared the Weston pedigree.

Shawn

[Joe]

>
> If John Weston's wives are named as Margaret and Elizabeth in the census, then you can be confident that he had no wife named Cecily.
>

And if Richard Weston of Skreens was a brother of the Lord Chancellor as indicated by multiple pieces of evidence, then you can be that confident your analysis of the List of Families is incorrect.

>
> Regarding the veracity of the Segar pedigree of the Weston family, Tewars questioned it in Notes and Queries as far back as 1872:
>

> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

You are quoting from one side of a series of back and forth between Tewars and two men H.H. and Pheon that went on for a while before being ended by the editor (N&Q s4 v9 pp. 275, 356-357, 508-509; N&Q s4v10 31-33, 49-51). Tewars was a nasty man who was out right gleeful after the death of his 'opponent.' I had long assumed that the idea of the fabrication first occurred to Waters after seeing the exchange in Notes and Queries. They used very similar verbage. Today when Shawn pointed out Waters error regarding Reginald de Baliol it occurred to me that Tewars repeatedly made the same error.

Tewars was a pseudonym and not a real name, he used the exact same language as Waters and he made the same errors in his analysis as Waters. Obviously, TEWARS is WATERS. Using Waters statements in 1872 to support his identical statements in 1878 doesn't help prove or disprove anything.

Joe

[pj.evans]

One thing I haven't seen is any explanation as to why it's so important to you that Weston has a descent from Neville, especially since there's so little evidence to back up that claim.

[Brad Verity]

On Thursday, February 27, 2014 2:08:14 PM UTC-8, Joe wrote:
> The biggest red flag is that the names of wives are wrong. John Weston the tanner was married to Margaret and Elizabeth, and not to Cicely. The 1526 deed appears authoritative with the question being were the words 'sister of the earl of Westmorland inserted.' So, the wives tell me not that Cicely is fictitious but that this is the wrong family.

What Matt Tompkins's detailed post regarding his research into the surviving records of early 16th century Lichfield shows us is that the only John Weston resident there at the time (roughly 1500-1550) was of the burgess class, not someone of the landed gentry. This would be the same John Weston who in 1532 had had the two wives named Elizabeth and Margaret, and the list of children, already posted. Douglas shared a document which showed that this same John Weston was a tanner in Lichfield.

You are not disputing the records Matt & Douglas posted regarding John Weston, tanner & burgess, of Lichfield, but are arguing that the 1526 deed which is transcribed in the 1632 Weston pedigree produced by the herald Lily, and signed off by Segar, the Garter King of Arms, must refer to a different John Weston, as in this 1526 deed, his wife's name is Cecily, not Elizabeth or Margaret.

But when you consider how many surviving records John Weston the tanner of Lichfield appears in, you need to consider how many more records a higher-status John Weston of Lichfield, brother-in-law to an earl, should appear in. Yet there are none, not a single one. The only evidence that there was a John Weston of Lichfield married to a lady named Cecily is the 1632 transcription of an alleged 1526 Lichfield deed, the original of which cannot today be located.

This of course is a huge red flag that the deed said to be dated July 1526 was in actuality created by the pen of a herald in 1632.

> As Matt shows, John Weston the tanner falls in the category of a well off peasant farmer or master craftsman. When he paid taxes, it was always on goods only and not on land. Just as it is impossible to image this tanner becoming the husband of the sister of the earl of Westmorland, it is hard to see how he could be the father Edmund, James or Robert Weston - they were all too rich, too successful and owned too much land to be the son of this unlanded craftsman.

Yet we know from the entry for John Weston [the tanner] of Lichfield in the list c.1531/2, that he did have sons named Edmund, James and Robert.

> Edmund Weston was the archdeacon of Lewes and owned land in multiple counties. This case which occurred following the death of Edmund gives some idea of his wealth ( http://tinyurl.com/qaepgqn ). He had just purchased the manor of Wicome, co. Lincoln for £357, and then sold his manor of Scremby, co. Lincoln for £2000.

When did Edmund Weston die? Could he have made money or been granted lands in the large real estate trading that occurred following the dissolution of the monasteries?

> James was a lawyer, burguess of Litchield, MP for Lichfield and registrar of the diocese of Litchfield. His son Simon paid a dowry of £6000 to marry his daughter to Sir Thomas Ridgeway - again not the grandson of a poor tanner.

But John Weston of Lichfield wasn't a poor tanner. He was a wealthy and successful tanner, and was himself a burgess of Lichfield. It isn't odd then, for him to have had a son who also was a leading burgess of Lichfield, and who held a high administrative position within the diocese. It should be noted that James Weston was not returned to Parliament until late in his life, in 1584, when he was in his 60s, five years before his death, after a long and apparently productive career.

> And of course, Robert Weston became Lord Chancellor of Ireland, a most improbable post for the son of John Weston the tanner.

Why so? Thomas More was the son of a lawyer and grandson of a baker, as More himself described 'a Londoner born, of no noble family, but of an honest stock'. Cardinal Thomas Wolsey was the son of an Ipswich cloth merchant, and Thomas, Lord Audley of Walden was a burgess, son of a minor Essex administrator, and all three were appointed Lord Chancellor of England, none requiring an earl for an uncle to receive the post.

"William Petre came of a family of Devon yeomen, his father being a farmer and tanner assessed at £40 in goods for the subsidy of 1523." Petre went on to serve as secretary of state to Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I.

> All indications are this was an armigerous family. The article in the Herald and Genealogist, vol. 8 http://tinyurl.com/mcngt6x concerning the arms of the Westons states the seal of John Weston of Lichfield temp. Henry VIII descended to and was used by his grandson Dr. John Weston, canon of Christchurch, Oxon. Are these supposed to be the arms of John Weston the tanner? All branches of this family used and displayed arms, and married into other gentry level, armigerous families. It is inconsistent that they were the children of a tanner who owned no lands.

The Petres bore arms and they came from a tanner. It is not unusual for a successful burgess to bear arms.

> The point and conclusion is that John Weston the tanner married to Margaret and Elizabeth (and who also occurs in manor court rolls presented by Matt) is almost certainly not the same person as John Weston [60] of the Segar pedigree. It is a simple case of the 'name is the same' misidentification. As such the record in the List of Families in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, 1532-3 given by Douglas does not prove or disprove anything about the Segar pedigree. It is going to take more than list of names of uncertain meaning and relevance to counter the accumulated weight of 'positive' evidence.

There is no positive evidence - only the deed transcribed in 1632, which was said to be from 1526. But the only John Weston residing in Lichfield in this time period is the one who was a tanner and burgess, and in 1531/2, had only had wives named 'Margaret' and 'Elizabeth'. So the deed is already incorrect as to the first name of John Weston of Lichfield's wife.

> Matt has obviously made a very good and careful search to find conclusive evidence proving the Segar pedigree without success. It is disappointing. Simon Weston wrote "my grandfather John Weston who whilest he lived in England lived in the Citty of Lichfield." It may be that the difficulty in finding the corroborating evidence is because John Weston spent a considerable time living abroad, and Lichfield was not his actual true home.

But Lichfield was his true home. Even in this deed transcribed in 1632, allegedly from 1526, his father is granting John Weston, "all my messuage [ie., chief house, or hall] in Lichfield," with all the lands and holdings that were a part of it. If this John Weston was a different man than John Weston the burgess/tanner, as you are arguing, your John Weston could not have completely escaped the many records from Lichfield in this time period which survive.

> For now, we still have a great deal of direct evidence proving that John Weston married Cicely Neville, however and admittedly, all of this evidence comes only from copies of records within the Segar pedigree. Though, it is hard to imagine some of this evidence being forged (funerary monuments displaying the Neville arms).

In which churches are these funerary monuments? Do they still exist today? This should be easy enough to uncover.

> The pedigree is also supported by multiple points of circumstantial evidence. The case for forgery rests entirely on the unlikelihood of a man of John Weston's social status (was he truly so low born given the wealth of his children?)

Per the 1632 Weston pedigree, John Weston was the younger (fourth) son of an elder John Weston who held the manor of Rugeley, Staffordshire, and a house or hall in the city of Lichfield which he deeded to his younger son. This is not so low as to prevent his children from rising to fortune and position, and history shows several of them did, but it is too low for the Nevilles of Westmorland to consider as a spouse for the sister and potential co-heiress (should the male heir die childless) of the young earl of Westmorland.

> marrying Cicely Neville, and the fact that no corroborating evidence has been found. There is no direct evidence which disproves anything in the Segar pedigree.

The direct evidence is that the only John Weston who was living in Lichfield in 1531/2, with sons named Edmund, James and Robert, was the burgess/tanner whose wives were named Margaret and Elizabeth.

You have to invent an entirely different John Weston of Lichfield, who otherwise has no appearance in records, to support the information given in the 1632 Weston pedigree.

> If you are going to continue to hold that the Westons of Roxwell are an entirely different family from the Westons of Lichfield, you need to explain why the Lord Chancellor was called 'kinsman' of the Lord Treasurer, and why the Lord Treasurer took a personal interest in the tomb of the Lord Chancellor.

In March 1634/5, in a letter written by the archbishop of Canterbury to Viscount Wentworth, "He [Richard Weston, earl of Portland, Lord Treasurer] takes it very highly because of his kinsman the Lord Chancellor Weston." By that point, Robert Weston of Lichfield, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, had been dead for over sixty years, since 1573. The Earl of Portland may have taken the matter of the Lord Chancellor's tomb seriously in 1634/5 because he wished to maintain the Weston pedigree laid out by the College of Arms two years previous, in 1632.

Any statement of kinship between the Westons of Roxwell (later earls of Portland) and the Westons of Lichfield that is made after 1632 cannot be held as evidence, because the 1632 Weston pedigree could be the source of the kinship statement. In other words, the archbishop could assume that the earl of Portland was a kinsman of the long-deceased Lord Chancellor of Ireland because of reading the pedigree.

If you want to prove a kinship between the two Weston families, you need to use a source written prior to 1632, and the appearance of the Weston pedigree in the College of Arms.

> You also need to explain why the advowson of Bucknell went from Sir Jerome Weston of Roxwell, to his (his aunt) Alice (Weston) Ball of Lichfield.

In the original transfer of the advowson in January 1573/4, which Shawn posted, Alice Ball is not referred to as an aunt, or relative of any kind, by Jerome Weston. She is simply described as a widow.

> While you are at it, can you address the likelihood that Lord Chancellor Weston of Lichfield came to hold the Booth property of the advowson of Sawley, co. Derby by pure random chance?

Who held the advowson of Sawley immediately prior to Lord Chancellor Weston?

> I am well aware of the heraldry and I did not glide over them. I just do not think they can be used to prove either side of the argument. Thank you Shawn for showing that both the Westons of Roxwell and the Westons of Lichfield used the Ermine, on a chief azure five bezants arms long before the 1632 Segar pedigree - does this prove they are the same family Doug? Are these the arms of an unlanded tanner?

There is evidence that the arms borne by "Sir Symond Weston, of Lichfield" was questioned by the heralds, as he is added into a list of "The Doubtful Arms of Staffordshire" from the 1583 Visitation of that county:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=ADsRAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA29&dq=Sir+Symond+Weston+of+Lichfield&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3hoVU8aBMM3toASp0oC4AQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Sir%20Symond%20Weston%20of%20Lichfield&f=false

So I agree with you that heraldry shouldn't be used to prove either side of the argument.

> Morant said the arms Richard of Roxwell "are wholly different from the arms of the Westons of Rugeley," not that they were different from Westons of Lichfield. This destroys your entire argument. The heraldry says the Westons of Roxwell and the Westons of Lichfield are the same family.

But per the 1632 Weston pedigree, John Weston of Lichfield was a younger son of John Weston of Rugeley, so the arms of both should be the same. If the Weston of Roxwell arms are different from the Weston of Rugeley arms, then they are also different from the Weston of Lichfield arms.

> The college of arms granted the ermine arms quartered with the eagle sable arms to the Westons of Rugeley, the Westons of Roxwell and the Westons of Lichfield. I can argue this is proof of the relationship as easily as you can argue it is proof of "two entirely different Weston families." Given the uncertainty, the heraldry cannot be used as definitive proof of anything. In fact, if anything it supports the idea that Richard of Roxwell is another brother of Edmund, James and Robert, and you are wrong in your conclusion that he is completely unrelated.

But in earlier Weston of Roxwell pedigrees, taken at Visitations of Essex prior to the elaborate 1632 Weston pedigree signed off by the College of Arms, no relationship to Lord Chancellor of Ireland Robert Weston is shown for these Westons of Roxwell. Why would they not state their relationship to this prominent Elizabeth administrator to the heralds taking down their pedigree in the 1500s, during the lifetime of the Lord Chancellor? Why is not until the 1630s that any such relationship is heard of?

Cheers, ----Brad

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Monday, March 3, 2014 3:33:50 PM UTC-5, shp...@comcast.net wrote:

> Harley 5816 (96 pages), The British Library. These pages appear to be Lily's working papers, generated as he prepared the Weston pedigree.

Lily's working papers, Harley 5816, include, among other documents, a transcription of the much discussed 15 Jul 1526 deed from John Weston of Rugeley to "John Weston Junior my son and Cecilia his wife sister of Ralph Earl of Westmorland" [my translation] (folio 31 recto). This document appears among papers concerning the family of Giffard of Chillington, where the later manuscript pedigree says the document was found. Folios 32 verso - 37 recto also contain major elements of the Weston pedigree, including on folio 34 verso "Johannes Weston iunior de Lichfeild 20.26.&31. Hen.8.41 filius Johis Weston de Rudgeley = Cecilia uxor eius soror Radi Comit Westmerlandice".

A careful comparison between these papers (mostly in Latin) and the documents provided by Lily in support of the Weston pedigree may shed light on Lily's work.

The notes do not include the letters from Sir Simon Weston and Dr John Weston or the testimony from Nicholas Bacon. According to documents with the Weston pedigree, Sir Simon and Dr Weston both wrote that Chancellor Weston and Justice Weston were brothers; Sir Simon also wrote that the mother of Chancellor Weston and Justice Weston was Cecily, daughter of Ralph Neville who died in the lifetime of his father; and Nicholas Bacon testified that James Weston -- his father-in-law -- was a son of Cecily, daughter of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, and sister of Ralph Earl of Westmorland.

Shawn

[Joe]

Shawn,

I wasn't aware of the Dr. Weston letter or the Nicholas Bacon testimony. Do you have transcripts readily available?

Joe

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Regarding the issue of the parentage of Sir Richard Weston the Judge, of the Middle Temple, London and Roxwell, Essex [died 1572], I believe three different sets of parents have been proposed for him.

Bindoff, History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1509-1558 (1982) gives the following information about his parentage. His full comments can be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/weston-richard-1527-72

"probably 3rd s. of Richard Weston of Colchester, Essex .... Weston's real ancestry is uncertain. He was probably a grandson of William Weston, mercer of London, who died in 1515 leaving four sons, of whom one, Richard, settled in Colchester, where he died in 1541 or 1542, styling himself gentleman and leaving three sons under age, the youngest named Richard. Richard Weston of Colchester left legacies to his 'most singular good lord and master' Chancellor Audley and to John Lucas, to whom he also committed the upbringing of his second son John. Both Audley and Lucas were members of the Inner Temple, but the younger Richard Weston was apparently to follow his stepfather Jerome Gilbert to the Middle Temple." END OF QUOTE.

If we are to believe Bindoff, then Sir Richard Weston the Judge was a younger son of Richard Weston, Gent. [died 1542], of Colchester, Essex, by his wife, Elizabeth. Following his father's death, his mother, Elizabeth, married (2nd) (as his 1st wife) Jerome Gilbert, Gent., of Colchester, Essex.

The above parentage is tempting to accept as it would explain why Sir Richard Weston the Judge named his eldest son and heir, Jerome Weston, perhaps in honor of his step-father, Jerome Gilbert.

However, below are several documents pulled from the online Discovery catalogue. The first 4 items concern Jerome Gilbert, Gent., and his wife, Elizabeth, who is identified as the widow of Richard Weston, Gent. Elizabeth's son, Richard Weston, is mentioned in these documents. These four documents are dated 1547-8.

The 5th item is a later release from Richard Weston of East Bergholt, clothier to Jerome Gilbert dated 1560. While the nature of the release is not stated in the catalogue, this Richard Weston the clothier was surely Jerome Gilbert's step-son. If so, this means that the parentage assigned by Bindoff to Sir Richard Weston the Judge is surely incorrect.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

Item #1:
Reference: LR 14/922/10
Description:

GRANTOR: Jerome Gylberd, gentleman, and Elizabeth his wife, late the wife of Richard Weston, gentleman. GRANTEE: William Jaye, clerk. PLACE OR SUBJECT: Grant, indented, of the above messuage, etc. (which the said Richard bought from George Horsman and Frances his wife, daughter and heir of Robert Tipley, and left by his will (recited) to the said Elizabeth) to the use of the grantors, for their lives, with remainder to Richard Weston, son of the said Elizabeth, for life, etc. COUNTY: Essex.

Date: 1 Edw. VI [1547-8].

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Item #2:
Reference: LR 14/922/9
Description:

GRANTOR: William Jaye, clerk. GRANTEE: Jerome Gylberd, gentleman, and Elizabeth his wife. PLACE OR SUBJECT: Grant, indented, for their lives, with remainder to Richard Weston son of the said Elizabeth, for his life, of a messuage called `Lauseleys' andafterwards `Stampes and `Tymperleys', with a croft adjoining, in the parishes of Holy Trinity and St. Mary, Colchester. COUNTY: Essex.

Date: 1 Edw. VI [1547-8].

+ + + + + + + + +
Item #3:

Reference: LR 14/922/9
Description:

GRANTOR: William Jaye, clerk. GRANTEE: Jerome Gylberd, gentleman, and Elizabeth his wife. PLACE OR SUBJECT: Counterpart of the Grant, indented, for their lives, with remainder to Richard Weston son of the said Elizabeth, for his life, of a messuage called `Lauseleys' and afterwards `Stampes and `Tymperleys', with a croft adjoining, in the parishes of Holy Trinity and St. Mary, Colchester. COUNTY: Essex.

Date: 1 Edw. VI [1547-8].

+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Item #4:

Reference: LR 14/922/11
Description:

GRANTOR: Jerome Gylberd, gentleman, and Elizabeth his wife, late the wife of Richard Weston, gentleman. GRANTEE: William Jaye, clerk. PLACE OR SUBJECT: Enrolment of the above grant. COUNTY: Essex.

Date: 1 Edw. VI [1547-8].

+ + + + + + + + + + +

Item #5:

Reference: LR 14/922/8
Description:

GRANTOR: Richard Weston of East Bergholt, clothier. GRANTEE: Jerome Gilbert. PLACE OR SUBJECT: General release.

Date: 1560.

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12:01:00 AM UTC-5, Joe wrote:
> On Monday, March 3, 2014 5:53:57 PM UTC-8, shp...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> I wasn't aware of the Dr. Weston letter or the Nicholas Bacon testimony. Do you have transcripts readily available?
>

The following letter is found in the Weston Pedigree, ADD18667 on folios 124 verso and 124 recto. The seal bears the following arms: ermine on a chief five bezants, with a martlet for difference. The same letter is found in Weston Pedigree, ADD74251A, on folios 128 recto, 129 verso, and 129 recto. It also appears in Weston Pedigree, PI-350, on folios 128 recto, 129 verso, and 129 recto.

These followinge lines was sent from Doctor Weston
vnder his hand and Seale to Mr. Ri~ Weston of
Rudgeley in Com~: Stafford Esquire:

Touchinge my Grandfather his name was Iohn Weston he liued in Lichfeild, and was about 80 yeares old and blind when he died; He gaue me as I was tould the lease of St. Iones in Lichfeild which since my Father renewed; The very Seale wherewith I Seale this Letter I was told was my Grandfathers: he had many Children sones and daughters
1: The eldest I thinke was Edmund Weston he liued aboute Chichestre a Channcellor or some other Officer of Worship there. He hath Grandchildren yet liuing Masles lineally descended of his body, one of them was aliue some 3 or 4 yeares since, and hath land in Essex about Ingerstone, of whom you may inquire more of that line.
2: Richard Weston who was Iudge, was also one of my Grandfather sones, which Iudge was Grandfather to my Lord Tresurer that now is [vizt:] his Fathers Father of whom, and of Sr. Beniamin Touchborne you may haue full aduertisement of that line.
3: Another Robert Weston who died Lord Chauncellour in Ireland. Wiues he had two. The First ws a Ienings such was her Fathers name, by whom he had 3: daughters and one Sonne.
1: Elizabeth Weston the eldest who died in Ireland and neuer maried.
2: Alice Weston first maried to the Bishop of Merh~ in Ireland his Name was Brady by whom she had sones and daughters; Luke Bradi deceased, and Nicholas yet liuinge, in Ireland and Knighted as I thinke. Her second Husband was Sr. Geffrey Fenton Kt. Secretary of the Counsell in Ireland, by whom she had issue William Fenton Kt. yet liueing in Ireland, and Katherine maried to Rich:~ Boyle Earle of Corke, who hath many sonnes and daughters concering whome my Lord Goring or my Lord Digby can giue you more perfect aduertisement.
3: The third daughter Audrey Weston maried to Gideon Ansham Kt. yet liuinge in Heston neere Hownflowe of whom you may haue better instructions in that lineage.
The said Robert Westons son is called Iohn Weston Dr. of the Ciuill Law, and Prebendary of Christ Church yet liuinge, his wife Anne Freeman by whom he had:
1: Iohn Weston Mr. of Arts of ye Vniuersity of Oxon.~
2: Anne Weston maried to William Piers Dr. of Diuinity and Deane of Peterborough.
3: Elizabeth maried to Thomas Iles Dr. of Kiuinitie of ye Vniuersitie of Oxon:~
4: Dorothy Weston yet liuinge vnmaried.
The said Robert Weston had a second wife, a widdowe her name ws Ansham, Inquire further if you haue occasion of the Children he had by the second wife of Mr. Gedeon Ansham dwellinge at Heston aforesaid.
4: Another son he had named Iames Weston Register of the Diocesse of Lichfield and Couenty. whose sonne and heire Sr. Simon Weston is, of whome, or Mr Iames Weston of the Inner Temple you may further inquire.
5: Another sonne Christopher Weston, who had sonnes and daughters who dwelt about Tamworth in Staffordshire.
1: The Said Ioh~ Weston my Grandfather had daughters also, Alice Weston maried to Mr. Ball of Lichfeild by whom she had sonnes and daughters Iohn Ball who died in Ireland a Ciuill lawyer, Robert Ball a Diuine who died in Gloucestr~. about Sauerne side, Henry Ball Dr. of Diuinity deceased also. Alice Ball maried to one Mr Bardd, Ione Ball maried to one Temple in Lichfeild.
2: An other daughtr Katherine Weston maried to Mr. Diett of Lichfeild, of whom she had sonnes and daughtrs.
Anthony Diott Councellour at Lawe of the Inner Temple deceased of whose sone who now is of the Temple also you may inquire at large of his generation wherein I shall come short.
Iohn Diot of Lichfeild deceased.
Arthur Diot of Lichfeild deceased.
Ione Diot maried to Mr. Cressy, who had a daughter maried to Sr. Iohn Curson yet liuing near to Oxon.~ The said Lady Curson had a former husband a Marchant in London, but I knowe not his Name.
Yor assured loueinge cozen
John Weston
[seal]
In Dorso:
To the right worth~ Mr.
Richard Weston Councellour
at lawe of the Inner Temple
these:
London

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 6:45:13 PM UTC-5, shp...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12:01:00 AM UTC-5, Joe wrote:

> I wasn't aware of the Dr. Weston letter or the Nicholas Bacon testimony. Do you have transcripts readily available?
>

The following statement is found in the Weston Pedigree, ADD18667 on folio 127 verso. It is absent from Weston Pedigree, ADD74251A, and Weston Pedigree, PI-350.

Shawn

Out of the Booke of Certificates in the Office of Armes
Sr Iames Weston Knight one of the Barons of the excheq, and youngest sone of Iames Weston of Lichefeild in the county of Staff: gent~ fourth sonne of Iohn Weston by Cecilie his wife daughter of Rafe Neuile Lr: Neuile, and sister of Rafe E of Westmerland. died in Londo~ the fifth day of December 1633, and his body was conuayed to Castle Camps where it lyes interred
He maried Mary daughter of Iames Weston of Itam in ye County of Kent~ Esq. and by her had yssue onely one daughter and heire called Anne maried to Nicholas Bacon of Gillingham in ye County of Norff: Esq. fift son~e of Sr Nich~as Bacon of Redgaue Kt & prime Baronet of Engl~ by whome she had yssue Anne sole daughter now of the age of about thirteene yeares whose mother aforesaid Anne died the day of September 1621 and lyes buried at Castle Camps aforesaide by her saide father Sr James the defunct who made the saide Nich~as Bacon his sole Executor of his last will, & Testament who in testimony that this certificate is true hath subscribed it with his hand being taken the 23th day of January 1633 by Henr Chitting Chester herald to be recorded in the Office of Armes.
Nich: Bacon

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 6:48:44 PM UTC-5, shp...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 6:45:13 PM UTC-5, shp...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12:01:00 AM UTC-5, Joe wrote:
> I wasn't aware of the Dr. Weston letter or the Nicholas Bacon testimony. Do you have transcripts readily available?
>

Although you didn't ask, the following letter is found in the Weston Pedigree, ADD18667 on folio 126 verso. The seal bears quartered arms, with the upper right quarter and the lower left quarter apparently [difficult to be certain] showing: ermine on a chief five bezants. There appears to be no martlet for difference in either quarter. The same letter is found in Weston Pedigree, ADD74251A, on folio 130 verso. It also appears in Weston Pedigree, PI-350, on folios 130 verso and 130 recto.

Shawn

To my right Wort~ Cozen Richard Weston Esqr. at his house in Ridgeley.
Cozen Weston, to satisfie your desire in answer of your lres~ for the pefecting of our pedigree, which I knowe cannot be done without sight of your auncient euidence remaininge with you at Ridgley, wher you may finde the names of all our Auncestours, and especially of my greate Grandsire, who was yor Auncestour, and of my Grandfather Iohn Weston, who whilest he liued in England, liued in the Citty of Lichfield, and had to wife Cecely, the daughter of Ralph Neuille that died in the life tyme of the Earle of Westmorland his father who had issue by the said Cecely, Edmund Weston his eldest sonne Richard Weston, the Iudge his second sonne, and Gransfather to the now Lord Tresurer Weston, Robert Weston Chauncellor of Ireland his third sonne, Iames Weston of the place wher I now liue in the Citty of Lichfeld his fourth sonne; Christopher Weston his fift son; Iames Weston my father tooke in mariage Margerie the daughter of Mr Humfrey Lowe by whom he had foure sonnes, and fiue daughters (vizt) Richard his eldest who died in the life tyme of my Father, vpon a hurt he received in the lowe Countries and was buried at Hoastend in Flanders; and I Sr. Simon Weston was the second sonne and heire to my Father; who haue to wife Mary the daughter of Iohn Lloyd of Carnaruon in Wales, Doctor. of the Ciuill lawes, a gentleman of an auncient Family; which Iohn Lloyd tooke to wife Elizabt~ one of the daughters of Thomas Piggott of Doddersall in the County of Buch~ Esqr: there were two younger sonnes, namely Michael Weston who died in his minority, and Sr. Iames Weston Kt. now one of the Barons of the Exchequer. I had fiue Sisters whereof Catherine the eldest was married to Humfrey Welles of Hoare-Crosse Esqr. Elizabeth one of the younger was married to Edward Mitton of Weston Esqr. Alice was married to Martin Heaton Bishop of Ely; Anne to Sr. Henry Whitehead Kt. And Margery to Ralph Flyer, Esqr; my daughters name is Elizabeth the wife of the now Lord Ridgeway of Galen-Ridgeway Earle of Londondery, who hath issue by my said daughter Weston Lord Ridgeway his eldest sonne, Leicester Ridgeway his second sonne, Challons Ridgeway his third sonne; Robert Ridgeway his fourth sonne Lettice Ridgeway his sole daughter. Our family hath been auncient and large as may appeare by being planted in so many parts of his Maj~ies Kingdome. In witness whereof I haue here vnto set my hand and Seale of Armes in the presence of
SS Weston
Michael Hickens
Richard Clerke
Simon Martin
St Johns Lichfeld
this 9th of Decembr~
1631

[shp...@comcast.net]

And for the sake of completeness, the following record is found in the Weston Pedigree, ADD18667 on folios 101 recto and 102 verso. It also appears in Weston Pedigree, ADD74251A on folios 95 recto and 96 verso, Weston Pedigree PI-350, on folios 95 recto and 96 verso, and Lily's Working Papers Harley 5816, folio 31 recto. Matt Tomkins kindly provided this translation from the original Latin.

Shawn

fo. 101 recto
Original at Chillington
[55] Know all men, present and future, that I, John Weston
of Rugeley the elder, gent., have given, granted and in this
my present charter have confirmed to John Giffard, knt.,
John Knightley, esq., and John Wolsley, gent., all my
messuage in Lichfield, with all my lands and tenements, meadows,
grazings and pastures, rents, reversions and services with all and singular their
appurtenances belonging to the aforementioned messuage, and also the whole of my meadow called
Hams in Linhurst, to have and to hold the messuage and meadow aforesaid and other
premises with their appurtenances to the aforementioned John Gifford, John Kniteley and John
[60] Wolseley, their heirs and assigns, to the use of John Weston the younger,
[61] my son, and Cecily his wife, sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland,
and their heirs and assigns forever, to hold from the Chief Lord of that fee
by the service therefrom due and lawfully customary. And I the aforesaid
John Weston and my heirs will warrant and forever defend the messuage
and meadow aforesaid and other premises with their appurtenances to to the
aforementioned John Giffard, John Knightley, John Wolsley, their heirs and
assigns, to the aforesaid use against all men. Know further that I the aforementioned
John Weston have appointed and put in my place my beloveds
in Christ Roger Trusell and Alan Orel my true and lawful
attorneys to deliver for me and in my name to the aforementioned John
Giffard, John, and John Wolsley full and peaceful seisin of and in
the messuage and meadow aforesaid and other premises with their appurtenances according
to the force, form and effect of this my present Charter holding and to hold
fo. 102 verso as ratified and pleasing all and anything my attorneys or either of them
shall do in my name in delivery of the aforesaid seisin exactly as if I myself
were there personally. In witness whereof I have affixed my seal
to this my present Charter of enfeoffment. Dated at
Lichfield, the fifteenth day of July in the eighteenth year of the reign of king
Henry the eighth. [15 July 1526]

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 6:52:32 PM UTC-5, shp...@comcast.net wrote:
>of his Maj~ies Kingdome. In witness whereof I haue here vnto set my hand and
>Seale of Armes in the presence of
> SS Weston
> Michael Hickens
> Richard Clerke
> Simon Martin
> St Johns Lichfeld
> this 9th of Decembr~
> 1631

Reference the above witnesses to Sir Simon Weston's letter describing his family. Michael Hickens, Richard Clerke, and Simon Martin also witnessed a codicil to Sir Simon Weston's 29 Apr 1637 will. See Will of Sir Symon Weston of Lichfield, co. Stafford, 29 Apr 1637, Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, PROB 11/173, The National Archives, London, UK.

Shawn

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Below are five items which pertain to Robert Weston, sub-dean of Exeter, who was the brother of John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire. Robert Weston's nephew, Richard Weston, clerk, features in two of the items. All five items involve actions in Cornwall.

Stephen Gayer, Gent., of St. Keverne, Cornwall, is mentioned in four of the items below. He is likely the Stephen Gayer who was admitted to Lincoln's Inn in 1514 [Reference: Baildon, Records of the Honorable Society of Lincoln's Inn 1 (1896): 36].

Robert Weston, clerk, is associated in two of the actions below with Nicholas Hynshowe/Hynchewe/Haynshawe, clerk, and Roger Eton/Heton, Gent. All three inviduals were executors of Hugh Oldham, Bishop of Exeter.

The third item below was kindly sent to me offlist by my private correspondant. His contribution is gratefully acknowledged.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + +

Item #1:

In 1519 Robert Weston, clerk and sub dean of St. Peter's Cathedral, Exeter, sued John Gavergan, of Gavergan, Cornwall, Gent., in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £40.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/1023, image 147f, available at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H8/CP40no1023/aCP40no1023fronts/IMG_0147.htm

+ + + + + + + + + +

Item #2:

Reference: C 1/568/83

Chancery

Description:

Plaintiffs: John Skewys.

Defendants: Richard Weston, clerk, Robert Weston, chaplain, his uncle, and Stephen Gayer, feoffee to uses, and steward of the bishop of Exeter.

Subject: The advowson of the church of Ladock, Cornwall, appendant to land in Budock (Bedoke, alias Besake), and refusal by the feoffees of the complainant's presentation of William Reskymer, upon its voidance by the death of Nicholas Kent.

Date: 1518-1529

+ + + + + + + +

Item #3:

Court of Common Pleas
Date: 1519

Place: Cornwall

Plaintiffs: John More, Justice of the Common Pleas; William Fermer; John Trevethen; Stephen Gayer; [and Robert Weston, clerk]

Defendants: Anne Malyuerer [Mauleverer], widow; Richard Weston, clerk

Subject: Presentation to the advowson of the church of Ladock, Cornwall.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/1023, image 706f, available at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT2/H8/CP40no1023/aCP40no1023fronts/IMG_0706.htm

+ + + + + + + + +

Item #4:

In 1521 Robert Weston, clerk, Nicholas Hynshowe, clerk, and Roger Eton sued Stephen Gayer, Gent., of St. Keverne, Cornwall in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £19.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/1031, image 521f, available at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H8/CP40no1031/aCP40no1031fronts/IMG_0521.htm

+ + + + + + + + +

Item #5:

In 1525 Robert Weston, clerk, Nicholas Hynchewe, clerk, and Roger Eton sued Stephen Gayer, Gent., of St. Kev'n [i.e., St. Keverne], Cornwall in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of £19.

Court of Common Pleas, CP40/1046, image 321d, available at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H8/CP40no1046/bCP40no1046dorses/IMG_0321.htm

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 11:00:06 AM UTC-5, shp...@comcast.net wrote:

> The Weston arms appear in a copy of the 1612 Visitation of Essex at the College of Arms (MS C.15) as ermine, on a chief azure five bezants, with a martlet for difference. These Weston arms are essentially the same in copies of the visitation at the University of Oxford (MS Qu.xcv fol. 4v, fol. 5r) and the British Library.
>
> These same arms, with a martlet, are displayed on the tomb of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas (d. 1572), in Writtle Church, co. Essex. [Miller Christy, W.W. Porteous, and E. Bertram Smith, "Some Interesting Essex Brasses" in Essex Archaeological Society, Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society (Colchester: Published by the Society at the Museum in the Castle, 1906), 56-58.]
>

For the arms of Dr. John Weston of Christ Church see John Gutch, ed., The History and Antiquities of the Colleges and Halls in the University of Oxford: by Antony Wood, M.A. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1786), 488-489. A black marble tablet in the church of Christ Church College, University of Oxford, memorializes John Weston, L.L.D., who died 20 Jul 1632, displaying the following arms: ermine on a chief azure five bezants, with a martlet for difference.

For the arms of Robert Weston, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, see Church Monuments Society, Church Monuments: Journal of the Church Monuments Society (London: International Society for the Study of Church Monuments, 1998), 13: 81. "The topmost tier of the monument carries a reclining male effigy identified by the inscription below as Robert Weston, formerly Dean of St Patrick's and Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who died in 1573. His effigy is attired in an ankle-length robe, the colours of which were perhaps distinctive at one time, but are now difficult to make out. In front of him is a shield bearing the arms of Weston impaling those of his wife, Alice Jennings, ermine, a martlet gules on a chief azure, four [sic.] bezants for Weston impaling sable, a chevron or between three bezants, on a chief azure, for Jennings."

Shawn

[shp...@comcast.net]

The following circumstances may be mere coincidence or -- in light of other factors -- may reflect a Neville-Weston family connection.

Sir William Pelham, Lord Justice of Ireland, and Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland, were first cousins, once removed. Sir William was a great-grandson and the 4th Earl of Westmorland was a grandson of Sir William Sandys of the Vine and Margaret Cheney. (Brydges, Collins's Peerage of England, 3:387)

Sir William married firstly Eleanor Neville, granddaughter of the 4th Earl of Westmorland. They were second cousins, once removed. (Brydges, Collins's Peerage of England, 3:391)

Sir William and Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas, were brothers-in-law (and perhaps second cousins). Sir William married secondly Dorothy Catesby, daughter of Anthony Catesby of Whiston and Weburgh Pigott; and Justice Weston married firstly Weburgh Catesby, sister of Dorothy. (Brydges, Collins's Peerage of England, 3:391; Bindoff, The House of Commons, 4:442)

Edmund Weston, Archbishop of Lewes, eldest son of John Weston of Lichfield, bought the manor of Wickham in co. Stafford in about 1570. Sir William willed two thirds of the manor of Wickham to his son Peregrine Pelham in 1587. (Chancery Proceedings, C3/45/100, The National Archives; Brydges, Collins's Peerage of England, 3:390)

Sir William asked Francis Walsingham to secure the appointment of Sir Geoffrey Fenton, son-in-law of Robert Weston, Chancellor of Ireland, to the office of Secretary of Ireland in 1580. (Brewer and Bullen, eds, Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts Preserved in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, 2:221-222)

Further research along these lines may prove interesting.

Shawn

[shp...@comcast.net]

Was Anne Sandys, wife of Sir Richard Weston of Sutton Place, Governor of Guernsey, related to Edith Sandys, wife of Richard Neville, Lord Neville? And, was Sir Richard Weston of Sutton Place, Governor of Guernsey, related to John Weston of Lichfield?

Edmund Weston, father of Sir Richard, became Co-Governor of Guernsey in 1485 together with his wife's cousin Thomas de St Martin. This Thomas de St Martin was Gentleman of the Household of Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham in 1488 -- at this time, the young Duke was a ward of the King's mother, Margaret Beaufort. Ralph Neville, 4th Earl of Westmorland, became a ward of the 3rd Duke of Buckingham in 1510, and married the Duke's daughter, Catherine Stafford, before June 1520. Sir Richard Weston of Sutton Place and his brother, Sir William Weston, Grand Prior of the Knights Hospitaller, bore the following arms: ermine on a chief azure five bezants. John Weston of Lichfield bore the same arms with a martlet for difference.

Shawn

[shp...@comcast.net]

In 1599, Robert White willed the manor of Tongham to his daughters and heirs Ellen, wife of Sir Richard Tichborne, 2nd Baronet Tichborne, and Mary, wife of Sir Walter Tichborne of Aldershot. Sir Richard Tichborne and Sir Walter Tichborne were sons of Sir Benjamin Tichborne, 1st Baronet Tichborne, and Amphilis Weston, daughter of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas. In 1600, Walter Tichborne mortgaged half the manor of Tongham to Richard Weston, James Weston, and George Bland. In 1604, Sir Richard Tichborne mortgaged the whole manor of Tongham to Sir Richard Weston and William Brocke. Richard Weston, later 1st Earl of Portland, son of Sir Jerome Weston and grandson of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas, was knighted on 23 Jul 1603. So, it seems likely that he was the Richard Weston who received the mortgage of the manor of Tongham from Sir Walter Tichborne in 1600 and from Sir Richard Tichborne in 1604. Sir Richard Weston was a first cousin of Ellen and Mary White. But, who was this James Weston who received a mortgage for half the manor of Tongham with Sir Richard Weston in 1600? Was he James Weston, Baron of the Exchequer, who was knighted on 21 May 1631, son of James Weston of Lichfield, and grandson of John Weston of Lichfield? If so, did he receive a mortgage for half the manor because he was a first cousin, once removed, of Ellen and Mary White? This was their relationship if James Weston of Lichfield was a brother of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas.

Shawn

[Joe]

Shawn,

Thank you for providing the transcripts from the Segar pedigree and the other notes on possible family associations. This letter from Dr. John Weston, though written at the time of when the pedigree was made, provides further corroboration of the Simon Weston testimony. Most importantly it names the same seven (and only seven) children of John Weston of Lichfield, including Richard Weston the Judge of Skreens.

If Richard Weston the Judge was a son of John Weston of Lichfield, then he obviously could not be the Richard Weston deceased in 1532 as argued by Doug. This letter also provides proof that John Weston of Lichfield leased the mansion house St. John in Lichfield (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=37864 ). Perhaps records of this lease could help prove or disprove the idea that the John Weston who was the head of his family group is the same as John Weston the tanner living on Saddler Street.


Joe

[Joe]

> > The first item dated 1518-1529 below involves a Richard Weston, clerk, and Robert Weston, chaplain, his uncle. It also involves a "steward of the bishop of Exeter." Robert Weston, chaplain, could be Robert Weston, sub-dean of Exeter. If so, this lawsuit would indicate that Robert Weston had a nephew, Richard Weston, who was a clerk. If Robert Weston in this lawsuit is the sub-dean of Exeter, the date of the lawsuit would suggest that his nephew, Richard Weston, clerk, was a bit older than the children of Robert's brother, John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire. If so, I would guess that Richard Weston, clerk, was a son of Robert Weston's older brother, Richard Weston, who you have mentioned.
>
>
> Segar's Pedigree only gives one son to the older brother 57/100 Richard Weston of Rugeley - 102 John Weston of Rugeley (d. 1566 - owner of the manor of Hagley, though the Pedigree doesn't mention that), who himself had sons 105 Richard Weston of Rugeley (d. 1613, also owned Hagley) and 107 John Weston.
>
> Matt

Richard Weston of Brereton in Rugeley occurs in the List of Families. It confirms that this Richard also had a son named Richard.

Richard Weston, Catherine, uxor eius, +John, Alice, parentes, Thomas, Alice Richard, Ellen, Margaret, John, Agnes, John.
The nature of the List of Families makes it not unlikely that an adult son living elsewhere would be included in the list of children.

So, I agree with Doug that Richard Weston clerk, the nephew of Robert Weston subdean of Exeter, was likely a son a of his older brother, Richard Weston of Rugeley. This record is interesting in that it also names his parents as John and Alice Weston which matches the Segar pedigree. Naming the wife as Catherine and the names of his parents as John and Alice make it near certain that this is the correct Richard Weston of Rugeley.


Joe

[Joe]

> Cheers, ----Brad

Brad,

One issue has not been brought up in this thread. Ralph Neville, Lord Neville and Edith Sandys have also been assigned another daughter:

Isabel Neville married to Robert Plumpton
(Plumpton Correspndence p. 196-197, http://tinyurl.com/oj3zn7e )

I believe the identification is based on letter from Edith (Sandys, Neville) Darcy written to Isabel Plumpton "in the hand of your mother." The Plumptons were in severe financial troubles (many of the Plumpton Correspondences concern their attempt to regain their inheritance) and had borrowed money from her father-in-law Thomas Darcy, Lord Darcy. Edith Darcy was writing her daughter to say she had convinced her husband to forgive the balance of the loan and was returning the note.

The only supporting evidence I know of for this marriage is the fact that William Sandys, the brother of Edith Sandys, was the primary trustee for the marriage settlement of Isabel and Robert Plumpton.

You have in the past have argued that these two records together are enough to prove that Isabel was a daughter of Ralph Neville and Edith Sandys. Do you still believe this?

Joe

[Brad Verity]

On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:15:43 PM UTC-7, Joe wrote:
> One issue has not been brought up in this thread. Ralph Neville, Lord Neville and Edith Sandys have also been assigned another daughter:
> Isabel Neville married to Robert Plumpton
> (Plumpton Correspndence p. 196-197, http://tinyurl.com/oj3zn7e )
> I believe the identification is based on letter from Edith (Sandys, Neville) Darcy written to Isabel Plumpton "in the hand of your mother." The Plumptons were in severe financial troubles (many of the Plumpton Correspondences concern their attempt to regain their inheritance) and had borrowed money from her father-in-law Thomas Darcy, Lord Darcy. Edith Darcy was writing her daughter to say she had convinced her husband to forgive the balance of the loan and was returning the note.
> The only supporting evidence I know of for this marriage is the fact that William Sandys, the brother of Edith Sandys, was the primary trustee for the marriage settlement of Isabel and Robert Plumpton.

The marriage settlement was dated 18 September 1505, in which year Sir Robert Plumpton was age 52, taking a bride no older than 14, if she was the legitimate daughter of Edith Sandys Neville, for Edith and Lord Neville were married in 1490. Notice that this 1505 deed settling property on "Sir Robert Plumpton, of Plumpton, kt. and Isabella his wife, and either of them, the longer liver" does not refer to Isabel as "sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland" as the Weston of Lichfield deed, allegedly from 1526, copied in the 1632 Weston pedigree from the College of Arms, does.

> You have in the past have argued that these two records together are enough to prove that Isabel was a daughter of Ralph Neville and Edith Sandys. Do you still believe this?

Yes, with the qualification that Isabel doesn't appear in Neville of Westmorland pedigrees, so the only firm evidence that makes her a daughter of Edith Sandys Neville is Edith's use of the phrase "written in haste by the hand of your mother" in her letter to Isabel. But if she raised Isabel as a stepmother, for example, she would also use that phrase, so the possibility remains that Isabel Plumpton was an illegitimate daughter of Lord Neville.

But other evidence corroborates Edith Sandys as Isabel's mother:
1) Sir William Sandys as the primary trustee, as you say, of Isabel's marriage settlement. It's interesting that despite Edith having been married to Sir Thomas Darcy for at least six years prior to Isabel's marriage to Plumpton, Edith had her brother, and not her husband, involved in Isabel's marriage settlement. This is a strong indicator that Isabel was of the blood of the Sandys family, not of the Darcys, so was not a stepdaughter of Edith from her second marriage.
2) Her first name of Isabel is an indicator that she was Edith's daughter by Lord Neville, whose mother was Isabel Booth.
3) Sir Robert Plumpton, despite his feud with his nieces over the Plumpton inheritance, was a mature, well-established, and well-conected leading knight of the Yorkshire gentry. The mother of his first wife Agnes Gascoigne had been born a Neville. At the time of her marriage, Isabel's brother Ralph, earl of Westmorland, was only seven years old. If he were to die as a child, Isabel stood to gain whatever of the Westmorland inheritance was not entailed to the male line. Sir Robert was in a position to protect that possible inheritance, and also to serve as an advisor to the young earl.

All that said, there's still the unusual factor of a 52-year-old marrying a 14-year-old, younger than several of his children by his first wife. But clearly Plumpton's financial situation was not solid, and as the marriage of his son and heir William Plumpton to an heiress of the Babthorpe family had already been arranged in 1496, Sir Robert stepped forward himself to take the hand of this young well-connected Neville bride nine years later.

There is enough evidence from the 1500-1510 period to make the identification of Isabel Plumpton as a daughter of Ralph, Lord Neville & Edith Sandys, very plausible. Compare this with the alleged daughter Cecily Weston, for which we have no evidence from the 1500-1510 period, only a charter allegedly from 1526, transcribed in a pedigree drawn up in 1632.

Cheers, ----Brad

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:06:17 AM UTC-4, Brad Verity wrote:
>
> Yes, with the qualification that Isabel doesn't appear in Neville of Westmorland pedigrees, so the only firm evidence that makes her a daughter of Edith Sandys Neville is Edith's use of the phrase "written in haste by the hand of your mother" in her letter to Isabel. But if she raised Isabel as a stepmother, for example, she would also use that phrase, so the possibility remains that Isabel Plumpton was an illegitimate daughter of Lord Neville.

> But other evidence corroborates Edith Sandys as Isabel's mother: ...

The following Weston connections are interesting.

Edward Plumpton, cousin and attorney of Isabel's husband, Sir Robert Plumpton of Plumpton Hall, served as secretary to Sir John Weston, Prior of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, uncle of Sir Richard Weston of Sutton Place. [Gregory O'Malley, The Knights Hospitaller of the English Langue: 1460-1565 (Oxford University Press, 2005), 37. See also Stapleton, Plumpton Correspondence, 44 footnote. Edward Plumpton, first cousin of Sir Robert Plumpton, served as the attorney of Sir Robert Plumpton and also as the secretary of Sir John Weston, Prior of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, uncle of Sir Richard Weston of Sutton Place.] Was John Weston of Lichfield related to Sir John and Sir Richard?

Again, it may be coincidental, but it is interesting that Sir Ambrose Cave, brother-in-law of Justice Weston's third wife through her first husband Anthony Cave, seems to have bought Nuneaton, co. Stafford, from Sir Robert Constable, grandson of Sir Thomas Darcy, Lord Darcy, and his second wife Edith Sandys -- mother of Isabel.

Shawn

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:04:12 PM UTC-5, shp...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> Reference the above witnesses to Sir Simon Weston's letter describing his family. Michael Hickens, Richard Clerke, and Simon Martin also witnessed a codicil to Sir Simon Weston's 29 Apr 1637 will. See Will of Sir Symon Weston of Lichfield, co. Stafford, 29 Apr 1637, Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, PROB 11/173, The National Archives, London, UK.
>

Please don't miss the implication of the presence of these same witnesses on Sir Simon's 1631 letter and his 1637 will. Surely this letter was not fabricated by the heralds. Since Sir Simon would have known whether or not his grandmother was a sister of an earl, his statement is important. Either his grandmother was Cecily, sister of the Earl of Westmorland, or he was a participant in a remarkably elaborate conspiracy.

Shawn

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:04:12 PM UTC-5, shp...@comcast.net wrote:
>

> Reference the above witnesses to Sir Simon Weston's letter describing his family. Michael Hickens, Richard Clerke, and Simon Martin also witnessed a codicil to Sir Simon Weston's 29 Apr 1637 will. See Will of Sir Symon Weston of Lichfield, co. Stafford, 29 Apr 1637, Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, PROB 11/173, The National Archives, London, UK.
>

[Joe]

> You have in the past have argued that these two records together are enough to prove that Isabel was a daughter of Ralph Neville and Edith Sandys. Do you still believe this?

> Yes, with the qualification that Isabel doesn't appear in Neville of Westmorland pedigrees, so the only firm evidence that makes her a daughter of Edith Sandys Neville is Edith's use of the phrase "written in haste by the hand of your mother" in her letter to Isabel. But if she raised Isabel as a stepmother, for example, she would also use that phrase, so the possibility remains that Isabel Plumpton was an illegitimate daughter of Lord Neville.

> But other evidence corroborates Edith Sandys as Isabel's mother:
> 1) Sir William Sandys as the primary trustee, as you say, of Isabel's marriage settlement. It's interesting that despite Edith having been married to Sir Thomas Darcy for at least six years prior to Isabel's marriage to Plumpton, Edith had her brother, and not her husband, involved in Isabel's marriage settlement. This is a strong indicator that Isabel was of the blood of the Sandys family, not of the Darcys, so was not a stepdaughter of Edith from her second marriage.
> 2) Her first name of Isabel is an indicator that she was Edith's daughter by Lord Neville, whose mother was Isabel Booth.
> 3) Sir Robert Plumpton, despite his feud with his nieces over the Plumpton inheritance, was a mature, well-established, and well-conected leading knight of the Yorkshire gentry. The mother of his first wife Agnes Gascoigne had been born a Neville. At the time of her marriage, Isabel's brother Ralph, earl of Westmorland, was only seven years old. If he were to die as a child, Isabel stood to gain whatever of the Westmorland inheritance was not entailed to the male line. Sir Robert was in a position to protect that possible inheritance, and also to serve as an advisor to the young earl.

However, if the primary objection or doubt about the existence of Cicely Neville is that there is no evidence from the early 16th century connecting the Westons to the Earls of Westmorland, then the existence of Isabel Plumpton must say that perhaps we should not expect to find any.

If not for the unusual circumstance of the preservation of a personal letter, Isabel Plumpton would never have been identified as a daughter of Ralph Neville and Edith Sandys. She also does not occur in the Visitations of the North, nor are there any charters, grants or fines to directly connect the Nevilles to the Plumptons. Her grandfather died when she was young, her father died when she was young and she married when her brother was still a child. Outside of a marriage settlement you would not expect to find a transfer of Neville lands to the Plumptons (in this case there Isabel and her husband received no lands from the Westmorland inheritance). All this would also hold true for Cicely Neville, and it is not surprising that no records c1510-1540 exist to connect the Nevilles to the Westons.

> There is enough evidence from the 1500-1510 period to make the identification of Isabel Plumpton as a daughter of Ralph, Lord Neville & Edith Sandys, very plausible. Compare this with the alleged daughter Cecily Weston, for which we have no evidence from the 1500-1510 period, only a charter allegedly from 1526, transcribed in a pedigree drawn up in 1632. Cheers, ----Brad

There is much more than just the 1526 charter, though of course it is all found the 1632 pedigree. There is 1. the Segar pedigree itself 2. the 1526 charter 3. testimony of grandson Simon Weston 4. monument to James Weston (d.1589) displaying the Neville arms 5. the death certificate of James Weston (d. 1633). Family relationships in the pedigree are supported by 1. testimony of Dr. John Weston 2. transfer of the advowson of Bucknell 3. descent of the advowson of Sawley 4. statement of 'kinship' between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Treasure 5. heraldry. There is also the circumstantial evidence of 1. the extreme rise in social prominence in multiple family branches 2. the associations presented by Shawn between the Westons and would be cousins 3. John Weston owing a debt to the king from an unknown previous fine.

Joe

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:38:14 PM UTC-4, Joe wrote:
> There is also the circumstantial evidence of 1. the extreme rise in social > prominence in multiple family branches ...

I don't recall if anyone has described the scope of this prominence. In only four generations, descendants of John Weston of Lichfield and his wife included seven earls, nine knights, a head of England's treasury, a justice of England's supreme court for matters of equity, a justice of England's supreme court for matters of common law, two heads of Ireland's treasury, a head of Ireland's judiciary, and a head of Ireland's legislative affairs.

Shawn

[Hans Vogels]

Op maandag 17 februari 2014 18:32:13 UTC+1 schreef Joe:
> In 1632, the pedigree of Richard Weston, Lord Treasurer and future 1st earl
> of Portland was certified by William Segar the Garter King of Arms and
> included a descent from the earls of Westmorland.

<snip>
> In support of the claim that Richard Weston, Lord Treasurer descended from
> John Weston and Cecilia Neville:

<snip>
> 5. The prebend of Sawley belonged to the Booth family in the 15th century.
> In fact, Ralph Booth, the father of Isabel Booth who married Ralph
> Neville, 3rd earl of Westmorland, is buried in Sawley. This was then
> later held by Robert Weston, Lord Chancellor who noted in his will said
> it was in the hands of his brother James Weston. James Weston in his
> will gave it to his aunt Alice Ball. This descent certainly indicates a
> connection between the Booth family and the Westons of Lichfield.[7]

In this Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Neville,_3rd_Earl_of_Westmorland

we find that the father of Isabel Booth was a Roger Booth. What's the correct name of her father?

> Before 20 February 1473 Neville married Isabel, the daughter of Roger Booth,
> esquire, and niece of Lawrence Booth, Archbishop of York, by whom he had
> son and a daughter:[11]
> Ralph Neville, Lord Neville (d. 1498).
> Anne Neville, who married firstly William Conyers, 1st Baron Conyers, and
> secondly, Anthony Saltmarsh.[13]

Is it perhaps possible that Cecilia Neville was of an elder generation, say daughter of Isabel Booth and that the 17th century statement and transcripts were partly in error with regards to the correct generations? Assumptions leading to statements needs not always be literally true.

I noticed the name Cicely twice as a daughter. See the post of Matt Tompkins of 26 feb.

> A list of families in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, 1532-3
>
> A.J. Kettle (ed.) 'A list of families in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, 1532-
> 3', Collections for a History of Staffordshire, 4th Series, viii (1976), is
> the published text of an unusual document which appears to provide a list of
> the members of John Weston of Lichfield's family in c.1532-3.
>
> And on page 14 there are three Weston families in Brereton in Rugeley:

> John and wife Catherine, Cicely, Catherine, Elizabeth, Richard, John
> Humphrey and wife Agnes, Ellen
> William and wife Alice, John, Alice, Elizabeth, Catherine, George, Dorothy,
> Cicely, Humphrey, Margaret


Another question I have is on the frequency of the name Cecily/Cecilia. Was is a normal female name in that period or was it a name restricted to certain families?

Hans Vogels

[Joe]

> In this Wikipedia page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Neville,_3rd_Earl_of_Westmorland
>
>
>
> we find that the father of Isabel Booth was a Roger Booth. What's the correct name of her father?
>
>

It's Roger. Typo. I probably got carried away with too many Ralphs.

>
> Is it perhaps possible that Cecilia Neville was of an elder generation, say daughter of Isabel Booth and that the 17th century statement and transcripts were partly in error with regards to the correct generations? Assumptions leading to statements needs not always be literally true.
>
>

Simon Weston directly stated his grandmother was Cecily Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville who died in the lifetime of the Earl of Westmorland his father; the 1526 charter directly says she was the sister of the earl of the Westmorland. The 3rd Earl of Westmorland was born c1456 and his father died in 1461 - this is way too early for Cecily to be a sister of the 3rd earl.

>
> Another question I have is on the frequency of the name Cecily/Cecilia. Was is a normal female name in that period or was it a name restricted to certain families?
>
>
>
> Hans Vogels

I think of it as a fairly common name. The only way I could think of quickly check this was to use the List of Names that has been discussed. It is a List of approximately 50,000 names and would be a very good way to determine name frequency in this time period. I cannot count the names and can only see this book as a snippet view. However, when you search for Cicely, 91 pages (or more than half of the pages with names) have at least 1 occurrence of the name. This tells me it was not an uncommon name.

Joe

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

> Another question I have is on the frequency of the name Cecily/Cecilia. Was is a normal female name in that period or was it a name restricted to certain families?
> Hans Vogels

From: Joe Sent: 20 March 2014
> I think of it as a fairly common name. The only way I could think of quickly check this was to use the List of Names that has been discussed. It is a List of approximately 50,000 names and would be a very good way to determine name frequency in this time period. I cannot count the names and can only see this book as a snippet view. However, when you search for Cicely, 91 pages (or more than half of the pages with names) have at least 1 occurrence of the name. This tells me it was not an uncommon name.
> Joe
>

In his Christian Names in Local and Family History, George Redmond calculated the frequencies of all the forenames in the 1377-81 poll taxes and in various mid-16C lay subsidies (1538-49 and later). He found that Cicely/Cecily was the 12th most popular female forename in 1377-81 and the 16th in 1538-49, though falling to 20th-33rd after 1550.

He also calculated the 1377-81 frequencies in certain counties. Cicely/Cecily was 17th in Staffordshire, 6th in South Yorkshire, 11th in Cumbria, 13th in Lincolnshire, 12th in Leicestershire, 20th in Warwickshire and 12th in Gloucestershire.

Matt Tompkins

[Joe]

Below is a grant of wardship for Ralph Neville, 4th earl dated 21 July 1501 when he was 2 years old. It says that if he "dies before he reaches full and legal age, his heir or heirs being under age, the bishop wills and grants to them... and their assigns during the minor age of the then heir or heirs until their full and legal age"

To me, this is saying that Ralph Neville had living heirs who were underage at the time of the grant. These heirs could only be his older sister or sisters, and would represent strong contemporary supporting evidence as to the existence of Isabel and/or Cecily Neville.

My only question would be - could this be standard or formulaic wording for a grant of wardship? In other words, would the phrase "his heir or heirs being under age" be included even if he was an only child? Can anyone point to examples of grants of wardship of an only child where a similar phrase was used? This grant would otherwise provide direct evidence that Ralph Neville had living older sisters.

Joe



Durham Cathedral Muniments Registrum Parvum IV
http://tinyurl.com/nuk2l3p

f.134r-v 21 July [1501]
Grant [by letters patent] by Richard, bishop of Durham that for £100, paid to his hands by Roger Layburn, clerk, and William Bulmer, knight, of which the bishop acknowledges himself paid and Roger and William quit, and for 1000 marks, to be paid to him at Martinmas next, he sells, bargains and grants to them the custody of all and sundry castles, demesnes, manors, lands, tenements, revenues, services, reversions, knight's fees, advowsons of churches, chapels, chantries, colleges and all other advowsons and all other hereditaments which were lately Ralph's, late earl of Westmorland, deceased, within the bishopric of Durham and the liberty thereof, and which by fine after the death of the late earl and by reason of the minor age of Ralph, his kinsman and heir, the present earl, came or should come to and are now in the bishop's hands, excepting all those lands and tenements which were lately the late earl's in Stotfold, Keverstone and Hunwick within the bishopric of Durham, all and sundry aforesaid castles (etc.) with appurtenances and the keeping of the same, excepting that previously excepted, to be held and enjoyed by them and their assigns, during the minor age of the aforesaid heir, to their own uses and to the uses and purposes of paying and causing to be paid all the annual rents to be had and levied by the bishop from the aforementioned castles (etc.), before these times by his letters patent, howsoever granted or assigned. If the said heir dies before he reaches full and legal age, his heir or heirs being under age, the bishop wills and grants to them <and their assigns> for the aforesaid sums paid and to be paid to him, as aforementioned, the custody of all and sundry castles (etc.) with appurtenances, excepting that previously excepted, to be held by them and their assigns during the minor age of the then heir or heirs until their full and legal age etc. from heir to heir until some heir reaches full and legal age and for as long as the aforesaid castles (etc.) should be or remain in the hands of the bishop, his successors or assigns by reason of the minor age of the present heir or of some heir or heirs or otherwise, to their own uses and the uses and purposes of [making] payments of the aforesaid annual rents without rendering or otherwise paying any account or any other to the bishop or his successors. They are quit in perpetuity towards the bishop and his successors from all that which above the payments of the said annual rents was left or will remain from the farms, revenues, profits or reversions of the said demesnes, manors, lands, tenements and others aforementioned with appurtenances, excepting that previously excepted. All that which was thus left or will remain should be converted and remain to their own uses for the reason that no express mention was made of the true annual value or of any value or certificate of the aforementioned or about any gifts or grants made to them before these times, notwithstanding any act, statute, ordinance (etc.) to the contrary or any other matter or cause.
Witness: Roger Layburn, clerk, the bishop's chancellor.
Date: Durham, 21 July 16 A. R. Henry VII..

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

From: Joe Sent: 21 March 2014 05:05

> Below is a grant of wardship for Ralph Neville, 4th earl dated 21 July 1501 when he was 2 years old. It says that if he "dies before he reaches full and legal age, his heir or heirs being under age, the bishop wills and grants to them... and their assigns during the minor age of the then heir or heirs until their full and legal age"
>
> To me, this is saying that Ralph Neville had living heirs who were underage at the time of the grant. These heirs could only be his older sister or sisters, and would represent strong contemporary supporting evidence as to the existence of Isabel and/or Cecily Neville.
>
> My only question would be - could this be standard or formulaic wording for a grant of wardship? In other words, would the phrase "his heir or heirs being under age" be included even if he was an only child? Can anyone point to examples of grants of wardship of an only child where a similar phrase was used? This grant would otherwise provide direct evidence that Ralph Neville had living older sisters.
>
> Joe
>

<snip>

A bit of googling seems to suggest that wording of that sort was standard form. It was a common occurrence for a minor ward to die under age leaving an heir who was also under age, so it wouldn't be surprising if the standard wording covered this possibility.

But the heir was not always a younger sibling - he or she could also be a more distant relative (a cousin, an uncle, a nephew for example), or even the deceased ward's own child. It wasn't uncommon for a ward to marry and produce an heir and then die before he reached his majority (though I think royal grants of wardship may have excluded this particular possibility by including the wardship of the ward's underage heirs only when the ward died unmarried).

Matt Tompkins

-------------------------------
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