Thoughts about Adrian Benjamin Burke's Article about the Two Wives of Robert Whitney
Shawn
FMG about “The Two Wives of Robert Whitney.” I’m sure other
descendants of John Whitney share my appreciation for Adrian’s work.
I wonder, though, if Document No. 11 actually tells us a little more
about the maternity of Robert Whitney’s children than Adrian states.
The following statements in Document No. 11 appear to indicate that:
(1) Constance and Robert had no living male heirs on October 8, 1492,
(2) Constance and Robert had living female heirs on October 8, 1492,
and (3) Elizabeth and Robert had living male heirs on October 8,
1492. The document doesn’t appear to indicate whether or not
Elizabeth and Robert had female heirs living on October 8, 1492. Here
are the statements:
Feoffment of the manor of Whitney “… to the abovesaid Robert Whitney
and the male heirs of his body … and if it should happen that the said
Robert Whitney, without a male heir of his body begotten, should die,
then we wish and grant by these presents that the said manor … shall
remain to the said Robert Whitney and his heirs by himself and the
body of Custance formerly his first wife …”
Document No. 11 appears to distinguish between heirs of Elizabeth and
Robert, which, on October 8, 1492, did hold the potential for
including living males when the estate finally would be settled, and
heirs of Constance and Robert, which, on October 8, 1492, did not hold
the potential for including living males when the estate finally would
be settled.
Am I correct in my understanding of these implications in Document No.
11? Should we assume the six men who witnessed this document
concurred with these implications when they signed their signatures?
AdrianBnjmBurke
Hi Shawn, your post is very interesting and as a matter of fact, I
agree with your interpretation, others from whom I sought advice on my
interpretation disagreed hence my more "conservative" evaluation. It
would be interesting to know what others have to say on this. I
presume also you were using the full translation of the document not
the abstract from the Manor Record Catalogue?
ADRIAN BENJAMIN BURKE
NEW YORK CITY
Nathaniel Taylor
<b6e71e1c-1e74-445b...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
AdrianBnjmBurke <adrianben...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 8:37 pm, Shawn <shpx...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I read with great interest Adrian Benjamin Burkeąs second article in
> > FMG about łThe Two Wives of Robert Whitney.˛ Iąm sure other
> > descendants of John Whitney share my appreciation for Adrianąs work.
> >
> > I wonder, though, if Document No. 11 actually tells us a little more
> > about the maternity of Robert Whitneyąs children than Adrian states.
> > The following statements in Document No. 11 appear to indicate that:
> > (1) Constance and Robert had no living male heirs on October 8, 1492,
> > (2) Constance and Robert had living female heirs on October 8, 1492,
> > and (3) Elizabeth and Robert had living male heirs on October 8,
> > 1492. The document doesnąt appear to indicate whether or not
> > Elizabeth and Robert had female heirs living on October 8, 1492. Here
> > are the statements:
> >
> > Feoffment of the manor of Whitney "Š to the abovesaid Robert Whitney
> > and the male heirs of his body Š and if it should happen that the said
> > Robert Whitney, without a male heir of his body begotten, should die,
> > then we wish and grant by these presents that the said manor Š shall
> > remain to the said Robert Whitney and his heirs by himself and the
> > body of Custance formerly his first wife Š"
> >
> > Document No. 11 appears to distinguish between heirs of Elizabeth and
> > Robert, which, on October 8, 1492, did hold the potential for
> > including living males when the estate finally would be settled, and
> > heirs of Constance and Robert, which, on October 8, 1492, did not hold
> > the potential for including living males when the estate finally would
> > be settled.
> >
> > Am I correct in my understanding of these implications in Document No.
> > 11? Should we assume the six men who witnessed this document
> > concurred with these implications when they signed their signatures?
>
> Hi Shawn, your post is very interesting and as a matter of fact, I
> agree with your interpretation, others from whom I sought advice on my
> interpretation disagreed hence my more "conservative" evaluation. It
> would be interesting to know what others have to say on this. I
> presume also you were using the full translation of the document not
> the abstract from the Manor Record Catalogue?
I have read the partial translation in Adrian's article and looked at
some of the terms in the original (it's printed in a reduced form which
is not completely legible). The only things that the feoffment implies
certainly are that Robert Whitney had some children alive, including one
or more daughters by his late wife Constance, at the time of the
feoffment. He either had a son or sons or expected that he could yet
father a son or sons, but their maternity was irrelevant. The succession
is (1): to heirs male of the body (i.e. sons & sons of sons) of Robert,
by any wife, either already alive or not yet born; (2) to heirs of the
body by Constance his first wife (that is, to daughters and/or their
heirs, since any living son would go under option 1); (3) to 'right
heirs' (rectis heredibus), which would first be any female heirs by a
wife subsequent to Constance, and next be whatever collateral heir of
Robert was appropriate for that holding under the common law. So while
the first condition implied that Robert had male children or expected
that he could father them, there is nothing to imply that existing male
children were or were not by Constance; there is also nothing to specify
that Robert did or did not have any daughters living at that time by a
wife other than Constance. Sons by a second wife would be included in
(1). Daughters by a subsequent wife were not included in (2), but are
covered in (3) as 'right heirs': in privileging daughters of the first
wife before daughters of any subsequent wife this feoffment differs from
the English common law which would makes daughters by any mother equal
coheirs.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
Nathaniel Taylor
<nltaylor-E3FD0D...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Nathaniel Taylor <nlta...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
I should add that what this all boils down to is that this document
alone does not resolve the maternity of any of Robert Whitney's known
children.
AdrianBnjmBurke
> In article
> <b6e71e1c-1e74-445b-b56d-4fa345ba6...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> AdrianBnjmBurke <adrianbenjaminbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 8:37 pm, Shawn <shpx...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > FMG about ³The Two Wives of Robert Whitney.² I¹m sure other
> > > descendants of John Whitney share my appreciation for Adrian¹s work.
>
> > > I wonder, though, if Document No. 11 actually tells us a little more
> > > The following statements in Document No. 11 appear to indicate that:
> > > (1) Constance and Robert had no living male heirs on October 8, 1492,
> > > (2) Constance and Robert had living female heirs on October 8, 1492,
> > > and (3) Elizabeth and Robert had living male heirs on October 8,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good summary. I think I may have a hi res copy of that document, I'd
have to check my files at home. As an aside, we know he had two sons
based on contemporary evidence ie James (heir), Robert (I) of
Castleton and according to Bartrum peds Hugh Whitney of the Hay (I
have seen him mentioned in a couple places but to date I don't believe
we have come across contemporary evidence of him).
Shawn
Thank you both for your replies. Knowledge of English common law and
experience reading (and understanding the implications of) such
documents greatly enhances what can be gleaned from such a record.
You got a lot more out of the record than I realized was there.
I hope a contemporary record will be found that either dates
Constance's death or Elizabeth's marriage and thus reveals the
maternity of James Whitney of Whitney and--even more importantly from
my point of view--Robert Whitney of Castleton.
Shawn
AdrianBnjmBurke
>
> - Show quoted text -
That was the original point i think i had made.....
AdrianBnjmBurke
i am hoping that someone will pick-up a bit where i have left off and
search other manor records or court records not already examined and
catelogued at Kew....
ABB