Hussey Line To Royalty
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 4/18/1999 11:15:42 PM, boles...@aol.com writes:
<<There are three major grounds for doubting the
connection of John Hussey (m. Mary Wood) to George Hussey of the Lincolnshire
pedigree. First, John Hussey (m. Mary Wood) was of co. Surrey, which is at
some remove from Lincolnshire. Second, George Hussey's elder brother John
left his estates to a cousin, Charles Hussey, Jr., of Belton, in a will
proved
in 1587, as indicated in *Lincolnshire Pedigrees*. Given the family pedigree
in that source, the testator and his legatee were probably no closer than
second cousins, or possibly first cousins once removed, leaving open the
question of why the family estates would have been left to such a distant
relation if the testator's nephew John was still alive (as was John Hussey of
co. Surrey). Third, there is the matter of naming patterns: Besides John,
the
male names Francis, Thomas, and George appear in the Lincolnshire family,
while Christopher and Joseph appear in the Surry family.>>
Futher examination of materials availalable to me make me question the above
assumptions. One hinge document remains unchecked and that is MS C.23 at
Herald's College that my source indicates connects George as the son of
Thomas Hussey (son of Sir Giles Hussey) and Bridget Bowes of York. A
secondary source for this comes from THE HISTORY OF DODDINGTON by Rev. R. E.
G. Cole.
So far as the distance of Surrey from Lincolnshire, I have found some
evidence that this is not relative. It seems that the grandfather, Sir John
Hussey, Baron, was involved in the Lincolnshire rebellion in the autumn of
1536. He was accused of making no effort to raise men to put the rebellion
down and the king accused him of treason for refusing to tell the names of
the men behind the rebellion. He was tried at Westminster 15 May 1537 and
executed. His manor at Sleford was confiscated along with other lands to the
value of 5000 pounds per year income. Neither the estates not title was
granted to his heirs, though his children were restored in parliament in
1563. (The Earlier Tudors, Mackie.)
John's son, Giles Hussey, resided for a while in Caythorpe, Lincolnshire. He
was knighted by the Earl of Surrey at the sacking of Morlaix in France in
1522. {Lincolnshire Pedigrees.] He was probably about 18-years-old at the
time (b c1505). Later, he married Jane Pigot. His 4 children were: Francis
Hussey, Thomas Hussey (b 1536), Alice Hussey, and Elizabeth Hussey.
Thomas Hussey (b 1526), son of Giles, m Bridget Bowes of York (also a great
distance from Lincolnshire). They had three children: John Hussey, m
Elizabeth Metcalfe, George Hussey (b c1551) and Elizabeth Hussey, m Thomas
Stydolf of Norbury, Surrey. [Lincolnshire Pedigrees]
Please note that George's sister Elizabeth also married a man from Surrey.
This brings us to George, father of John Hussey, b 1570 in Dorking, Surrey.
who married Marie Wood 5 Dec 1593 in Dorking, Surrey. They has good position
and had a moderate estate in land. The records are meager, but they are
known to have had a son John who died young, a son Christopher, and at least
one or more daughters.
It is this Christopher that came to America.
Sir Giles Hussey, of Caythorpe
Thomas Hussey
George Hussey
John Hussey
Christopher Hussey, of Hampton
John Hussey
John Hussey
1675-1733
|
John Hussey
1703-1770
|
Elizabeth Hussey
1759-1847
|
Edith Price
1801-1873
|
Elizabeth Price Griffith
1827-1923
|
Franklin Milhous
1848-1919
|
Hannah Milhous
1885-1967
|
Richard Milhous Nixon
37th President of The USA 1969-1974
1913-1994
- Ken
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
_____________________HT COMMUNICATIONS____________________
PO Box 1401 Arvada, CO 80001 USA
Voice: 303-420-4888 Fax: 303-420-4845 e-mail: K...@AOL.com
Homepage: http://members.aol.com/TPConnect/Page2.html
Associated with: Thompson Starr International
[Films ... Representation ... Publishing ... Marketing]
Dcrdcr4
Sir John Thimbleby. of Irnham, co. Lincolnshire, who is ancestral to the
colonial immigrant, Olive (Welby) Farwell. I believe the Hussey-Thimbleby
connection comes through Thimbleby's wife, a Boys of Lincolnshire, whose
ancestry is untraced. For proof of the Hussey-Thimbleby connection, see the
series, Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII.
All for now. Douglas Richardson
Bolesbooks
>who married Marie Wood 5 Dec 1593 in Dorking, Surrey. They has good position
>and had a moderate estate in land. The records are meager, but they are
>known to have had a son John who died young, a son Christopher, and at least
>one or more daughters.
This is the crux of the problem. I have never seen any evidence presented
that John Hussey of Dorking was the son of a man named George. It has simply
been asserted to be the case, apparently on the basis of *Lincolnshire
Pedigrees*. However, that source only gives George Hussey as father of *a*
John Hussey. But was this the same man as John Hussey of Dorking? I very
much doubt that he was, given the arguments I posed before: Namely, George
Hussey's brother left his property to a distant cousin rather than his nephew
John (whereas John Hussey of Dorking was still very much alive); that there is
a geographic disparity; and that there is no naming similarity among the sons
of the Lincolnshire and Dorking families. Together these seem fairly
compelling arguments.
On the other hand, if there is evidence that John Hussey *of Dorking* was the
son of a George Hussey, that could change the complexion of the problem
considerably. I'd be very interested in hearing about such evidence. The
*Lincolnshire Pedigree* source, however, clearly does not constitute such
evidence since it contains no information linking John Hussey, son of George,
to Dorking, Surrey.
David Boles
http://members.aol.com/Bolesbooks/Bolesbooks.html
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 5/6/1999 11:19:21 AM, boles...@aol.com writes:
<<if there is evidence that John Hussey *of Dorking* was the
son of a George Hussey, that could change the complexion of the problem
considerably. I'd be very interested in hearing about such evidence. >>
MS C.23 at Herald's College supposedly connects George as the son of
Thomas Hussey (son of Sir Giles Hussey) and Bridget Bowes of York.
I do not know how to find this ... perhaps someone out there is near Herald's
College?
Bolesbooks
<<if there is evidence that John Hussey *of Dorking* was the
son of a George Hussey, that could change the complexion of the problem
considerably. I'd be very interested in hearing about such evidence. >>
To which Kenneth Harper Finton replied:
>MS C.23 at Herald's College supposedly
>connects George as the son of
>Thomas Hussey (son of Sir Giles Hussey) and Bridget
> Bowes of York.
You are missing the point entirely. The question is not whether George Hussey
was the son of Thomas Hussey and Bridget Bowes (the *Lincolnshire Pedigrees*
show that), but whether George Hussey was the father of John Hussey of Dorking.
For the third time, the *Lincolnshire Pedigrees* indicate that George Hussey
had a son John, but I know of no evidence that John Hussey of Dorking was the
son of George.
David Boles
http://members.aol.com/Bolesbooks/Bolesbooks.html
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 5/7/1999 1:00:58 AM, boles...@aol.com writes:
<<You are missing the point entirely. The question is not whether George
Hussey
was the son of Thomas Hussey and Bridget Bowes (the *Lincolnshire Pedigrees*
show that), but whether George Hussey was the father of John Hussey of
Dorking.
For the third time, the *Lincolnshire Pedigrees* indicate that George Hussey
had a son John, but I know of no evidence that John Hussey of Dorking was the
son of George.>>
Whoops -- I had that backwards. What I meant to say is that MS C.23 at
Herald's College goes into the lineage and might answer this question, but I
have no access to it. What we need is someone with access to this MS to see
what it says. Otherwise, the stalemate in this line continues.
I do, however, believe that since Surrey connections are found in the
Lancaster family, we cannot dismiss the possibility that this is not a case
of the name is the same, but should be open to the possibility that this line
is correct.
dhi...@att.net
abt. 1550 and married to William Eaton. All I have is
this:
She made her will Aug. 27, 1584, and it was proved,
Dec. 29, the same year. From this will we understand
that she was a widow and executrix of the will of her
late husband William Eaton. Her body was buried in the
church yard of St. James at Dover. She names her
(eldest) son William Eaton, her sons John, Peter and
Nicholas, then under age, and gives directions for the
education of Peter and Nicholas, that "they shall be kept
for one year more in France, to learn the French tongue,
and shall afterwards be put to some science or
occupation." She makes her son-in-law, Jacques (or
James) Huggenson, her soul executor, and mentions "my
other children." (History/Genealogy Eaton Families,
Nellie Molyheux, 1911.)
Dave Hintz
>Subject: Re: Hussey Line To Royalty
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>On the other hand, if there is evidence that John Hussey
*of Dorking* was the
>son of a George Hussey, that could change the complexion
of the problem
>considerably. I'd be very interested in hearing about
Reedpcgen
>
C. 23. is the Vsitation of Lincoln made by Sir Richard St. George in 1623.
This was the basis for what became _Lincolnshire Pedigrees_, edited by Cannon
Maddison. I quote from the preface of the first volume of that series [HS 50],
pp. v, ix:
"They [the pedigrees] are the lifelong work of Mr. Arthur Staunton Larken,
Richmond Herald.... On his appointment as Portcullis Pursuivant in 1878 he
had, of course, enlarged facilities of search in the rich stores of the College
of Arms..." "of course, the framework of most of them [the pedigrees] is to be
found in the great Lincolnshire Visitation of 1634 in the College of Arms, MS.
C. 23."
So I doubt that any information in C. 23. could have been overlooked by
Maddison.
Thomas Hussey, husband of Bridget Bowes, had been thrown into the Tower due to
his actions in the Lincolnshire rebellion. He was alive in 1574.
His eldest son, John Hussey, MP, of Honington and Caythorpe, co. Lincoln, died
in Aug. 1587 and was buried at Honington [registers survive from 1561, but I
haven't checked them yet]. His will, dated 14 Aug. 1583, was proved 5 Sep.
1587 [PCC 55 Spencer]. He died without issue.
His widow, Elizabeth, made her will on 28 May 1594. It was proved 31 March
1597 [PCC 21 Cobham].
John Hussey's estates were left to a distant cousin, Charles Hussey, "the
younger" of Belton, Esquire, who died without issue [PCC 6 Spencer]. His elder
half-brother, Sir Charles Hussey, was his heir, and inherited Honongton and
Caythorpe (he died 29 Jan. 1608/9). Note that all these men were styled
Esquire, a definite step above the average gentleman, let alone yeoman or
husbandman.
If John Hussey's brother George died with issue that survived his brother John
(the visitation states that George had a son named John, but not that he
married or left issue), I don't see how the family estates would have been
given to a distant cousin.
John and George Hussey's sister Elizabeth Hussey married Thomas Stydolf, or
Stydolph, of Norbury, co. Surrey. Their son Sir Francis was father of the
first Baronet, Richard Stydolph. Both Manning and Brayes' History of Surrey
(2:651), and Burke's Extinct Baronetage (p. 512) call Elizabeth the daughter
and heir of Thomas Hussey of co. Lincoln, though this is an error [she may have
been eventual heir of her brothers, and therefore of her father, and she might
have survived them all, but she did have male siblings].
I have not yet checked Berry's Surrey Genealogies, pp. 126, 286 or 344 to see
what those Hussey pedigrees say, but if there were Husseys in Surrey already,
one would need a very good reason to look elsewhere for their origins.
pcr
Reedpcgen
connection to royalty on this Hussey line is false. Let's group things in two
areas, first, records of the families of Christopher Hussey and his father John
in Dorking, Surrey, and second the Hussey family of Honington and Caythorpe,
Lincolnshire.
I first checked information given in Ancestral File and the International
Genealogical Index. It includes some fictitious material that may be in part
fraudulent.
Christopher Hussey is given as being born at Dorking on 11 Feb. 1594, or 18
Feb. 1599. But there is no record of births. Though some parish registers
also record birth dates as well as baptismal dates, that of Dorking records
only the day of baptism. Christopher is presented as being son of John Hussey,
born at Dorking 29 Apr. 1559, died there 5 Feb. 1638. These dates are false.
There is no christening or burial in those years for any John Hussey (I did ont
search all of the burials, or check the date 24 July 1632, which was not given
in AF or IGI, but mentioned on this group). This John is given as being son of
Hugh Hussey who died at Dorking 5 Apr. 1612, son of an earlier Hugh Hussey,
given as dying in 1537. This too is false. There is no burial for a Hugh
Hussey in the period around 1612, and the register did not start until 1538.
I searched the baptismal register of Dorking from 1550 through 1610, though
there is a gap 1572-1578. I found that John Hussey did indeed marry Mary Wood
at Dorking on 5 Dec. 1593. A son John was baptized 29 Apr. 1596, and was
buried 8 Nov. 1597. Christopher was baptized 18 Feb. 1598/9. A daughter named
Marie was baptized 31 Mar. 1602. I found no other Hussey baptisms recorded
before 1610.
A search of probate records for Surrey is simplified by a new index produced by
the Index Library (The British Record Society, London), vol. 99, which is a
comprehensive index of all surviving probate records for all courts in Surrey
[including the PCC] before 1650 (ed. Cliff Webb). It lists only a handful of
Hussey entries [spelled Hosey, Husey, Hussie, and Hussey]:
Nicholas, of Kingston, 1488
John, of Kingston, 1503
Cicely, widow, of Kingtson, 1511
John, of Richmond, 1597
Henry, gent., of Battersea, 1611
(Dame) Patience of Surrey [PCC 1643]
Kingston, Richmond and Battersea are all situated on the south side of the
River Thames, west of London. Dorking, on the other hand, is a large parish in
the south central part of the county, with no apparent connection.
We therefore have no evidence of any ancestry earlier than the marriage of John
Hussey at Dorking in 1593. I should also note that the Dorking register did
not record the name of parents in baptisms (with a few exceptions) before
1578/9, so even of a baptism for John had been found, it would not have given
the name of his father. If the family of John had been in any way prominent,
we would have expected him to leave some type of probate record.
Turning to the Lincolnshire family, I checked the will of John Hussey,
gentleman, who is given in the visitation pedigree as having had a brother
named George who had a son named John. John Hussey, who had served as a Member
of Parliament, left a very long and detailed will, dated 14 August 1583. He
died without issue. Nearly half of the first page of his will was devoted to
bequests to the poor. He mentioned his stepson, various servants, his sister
Agnes Townsende, each of her children, her husband Thomas Townsend, gave a colt
to a cleric, many cousins, including Augustine Massenberte, Edmond Thorolde,
many godchildren, gave small legacies to NUMEROUS individuals, cousin Stephen
Thumilbie, etc., including long and detailed entails of his lands among various
relatives with remainders in case of failure of issue.
The wording of the will makes it clear that if John had had a brother with
surviving issue that he certainly would have been mentioned, even if given a
small legacy to keep him from disputing the terms of the will. I must conclude
from this that John's brother George and his nephew and namesake John
predeceased him without surviving issue.
pcr
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 5/8/1999 11:31:05 PM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<<I did some research in original records, and must conclude that the
purported connection to royalty on this Hussey line is false. >>
Thank you, Paul, for your time and effort in looking into this. As usual,
the research has provoked more questions than answers, partly because the
source references were unclear and mixed with false Ancestral File
information.
"Christopher Hussey is given as being born at Dorking on 11 Feb. 1594, or 18
Feb. 1599. But there is no record of births [in the Dorking registers].
Though some parish registers also record birth dates as well as baptismal
dates, that of Dorking records only the day of baptism. Christopher is
presented as being son of John Hussey, born at Dorking 29 Apr. 1559, died
there 5 Feb. 1638. These dates are false. There is no christening or burial
in those years for any John Hussey (I did not search all of the burials, or
check the date 24 July 1632, which was not given in AF or IGI, but mentioned
on this group). This John is given as being son of Hugh Hussey who died at
Dorking 5 Apr. 1612, son of an earlier Hugh Hussey, given as dying in 1537.
This too is false. There is no burial for a Hugh Hussey in the period around
1612, and the register did not start until 1538." PCR
Thus the Dorking records show that Chrisopher Hussey as the son of John
Hussey, but John seems not to have come from Dorking as there are no
christening or burial records for John. However, the John we are looking for
came from Lincolnshire, not Dorking. Thomas Hussey of Lincolnshire (b 1526),
son of Giles, m Bridget Bowes of York (also a great distance from
Lincolnshire). They had three children: John Hussey, m Elizabeth Metcalfe,
George Hussey (b c1551) and Elizabeth Hussey, m Thomas Stydolf of Norbury,
Surrey. [Lincolnshire Pedigrees] Please note that George's sister Elizabeth
also married a man from Surrey.
<<We therefore have no evidence of any ancestry earlier than the marriage of
John Hussey at Dorking in 1593. I should also note that the Dorking register
did not record the name of parents in baptisms (with a few exceptions) before
1578/9, so even of a baptism for John had been found, it would not have given
the name of his father. If the family of John had been in any way prominent,
we would have expected him to leave some type of probate record. PCR>>
Not necessarily, as he may not have had land to be passed. All it would take
would be for John to have disappeared as a young man and moved from
Lincolnshire to Surrey and lose all contact with his brother George who may
have had property. Since he had a sister named Elizabeth who lived in Surrey
and married an man without much property, it is quite possible that something
happened in that family that drove the children Hussey youth from
Lincolnshire. Since this is the age of religious feuds and we know that Marie
Wood, wife of John Hussey was persecuted for her religious beliefs, we could
hold that divergent religious views drove a wedge in the family
relationships. We know that the family lost their lands and the titles were
not restored until 1563. We need to see if there is a birth record for George
and John that gives their age at this time.
DORKING PARISH REGISTERS, CO. å…¨URREY, ENGLAND 1503-178_
MARRIAGES:
25th 9. 1569. John Wood
Joane Taylor 5th 12. 1593*
John Hussey Marie Wood
BAPTISMS
28th 6. 1562. John Wood, son of John Wood (senior) and Audrey, his
wife 5th 5. 1581
Sara Wood, daughter of John Wood (junior) 9th 7. 1581
Marie Wood, granddaughter of John Wood (senior) 30th 8. 1584
Elias Wood, son of John Wood (junior) 3rd 10.
1588
Martha Wood, daughter fo John Wood (junior) 29th 4. 1596
John Hussey, first child of John Hussey and Marie Wood 18th 2. 1598
Christopher Hussey, second child of John Hussey and Marie Wood 31st
1. 1601
Marie Hussey, third child of John Hussey and Marie Wood.
BURIALS
1581 Marie Wood, daughter of John Wood (senior)
1586 JoaneWood, daughter of John Wood (senior) 8th 11. 1597
John Hussey, son of John Hussey and Marie Wood 18th 2. 1603
Audrey, wife of John Wood (senior) 5th 4. 1612 John Wood
(senior) 24th 5. 1632
John Hussey, aged 74
*Between 1582 and 1752, March was the first month of the year. The 12th
month, therefore, was February, which brought about double dating. 5th 12.
1593, for example, should read 5th February 1593
4 or February 5, 1593 4. ------- Walter Weston Folger
He married 16.Marie Wood 5 Dec 1593.
16. Marie Wood was christened 9 Sep 1581 in Dorking, Surrey, England, the
daughter of 24.Henry Wood and 25.Marthey Bull.
NOTES for Marie:
The ancestry of Mary is taken from Ancestors and Descendants of Jehu Cox
by Wayne D. Stout.
Stout provided it without any references.
Mary Wood Hussey emigrated to the New England Colony 1630 according to one
historical record, and in 1632 according to others.
Having been persecuted in England for their religious views in
opposition the the Church of England, they, along with hundreds of other
non-conformists or Puritans, had resided in Holland for a period before
emigrating to America.
She was an 'Original Grantee' of Hampton, N.H. and a 'Proprietor"
there 1638-1640. Her home was near but not with son, Christopher. Even though
there was no official "Friends" or Quaker Meetings at that time, her family
was of the faith that later became known as 'Friends'. She was a forceful
individual.
Source: Historic Nantucket, Vol. 27, Oct 1979, No. 2, quotes Dorking
Parish Register. This is a more authentic reference for Mary (Marie) Wood's
birth and marriage.
They had 4 children:
m i. John HUSSEY, christened 29 Jun 1596 in
Dorking, Surrey, England, died, and was buried 8 Jan 1597/1598 in Dorking,
Surrey, England.
Source: UK IGI. The IGI also indicates birth as 1596 and 1597 in
Dorking.
Source: Historic Nantucket, Vol. 27, Oct 1979, No. 2, quotes Dorking
Parish Register.
11. m ii. Christopher HUSSEY, born 18 Feb 1598/1599,
died 6 Mar 1686.
f iii. Marie HUSSEY, born 1599 in Dorking,
Surrey, England.
Source: UK IGI.
m iv. Joseph HUSSEY, born 1601 in Dorking,
Surrey, England.
Source: UK IGI.
Even though this is in the IGI, there is considerable doubt about
Joseph HUSSEY being of this family. See Christopher HUSSEY's son Joseph for a
more detailed discussion.
Marie died 16 Jun 1660 in Hampton, Rockingham, New Hampshire.
John died before 24 Jul 1632 in Dorking, Surrey, England, and was
buried 24 Jul 1632 in Dorking, Surrey, England.
______________
"Turning to the Lincolnshire family, I checked the will of John Hussey,
gentleman, who is given in the visitation pedigree as having had a brother
named George who had a son named John. John Hussey, who had served as a
Member of Parliament, left a very long and detailed will, dated 14 August
1583. He died without issue. Nearly half of the first page of his will was
devoted to bequests to the poor. He mentioned his stepson, various servants,
his sister Agnes Townsende, each of her children, her husband Thomas
Townsend, gave a colt to a cleric, many cousins, including Augustine
Massenberte, Edmond Thorolde, many godchildren, gave small legacies to
NUMEROUS individuals, cousin Stephen Thumilbie, etc., including long and
detailed entails of his lands among various relatives with remainders in case
of failure of issue. The wording of the will makes it clear that if John had
had a brother with surviving issue that he certainly would have been
mentioned, even if given a small legacy to keep him from disputing the terms
of the will. I must conclude from this that John's brother George and his
nephew and namesake John predeceased him without surviving issue." PCR
Are you certain you have the right John Hussey here? John and George were
brothers, but I have no record that they had a sister named Agnes ... only
Elizabeth who married a man from Surrey. Perhaps there are two families in
Lincolnshire that are confused?
-Ken
Reedpcgen
>Are you certain you have the right John Hussey here? John and George were
>brothers, but I have no record that they had a sister named Agnes ... only
>Elizabeth who married a man from Surrey. Perhaps there are two families in
>Lincolnshire that are confused?
I am certain it was the right man (remember also that a "sister" could be a
sister-in-law, or an illegitimate child). He mentioned not only his wife
Elizabeth, but her deceased husband, and his stepson. It also matches
information from the Visitation of Lincolnshire, which places that man at
Honington and Caythorpe, and dying without issue.
(1) What evidence do you have that the John, son of George, of Lincolnshire,
did not die as a child? If he lived, why didn't the visitation pedigree trace
ou this branch of the family, or why did it bother to trace that branch in the
first place unless it was going to make a full accounting?
(2) What evidence do you have that John of Dorking did not more likely come
from somewhere else, like London, or Sussex (plenty of Husseys in Sussex
records, south of Surrey, but not that far south)? There were Husseys in
Wiltshire for centuries, aside from other areas of the country. Why pick on
the poor John you are fixated on? What good reason do you have other than "the
name's the same" game?
(3) Have you read the original will of John? If not, I would not suggest you
begin rash speculation or wishful thinking. If you are capable of reading the
PCC script of that period, let me know and I'll send you a copy, but I don't
have time to transcribe it to try to hammer my point in the way I did with the
Dudley material.
pcr
