Attn: Chamberlaine and Raleigh of Farnboro Desc.
Kay Allen AG
article by F.N. Craig, "Chamberlains in the Ancestry of the Marbury
Sisters."
Unfortunately, it has some nasty fireworks for those of us who are
Raleigh of Farnborough descendants. Equally unfortunately, they are
buried in the small print with a minimum of discussion.
"Footnote 65 F.N. Craig, "Chamberlains in the Marbury Ancestry," NEHGR
138 (1984): 317-20. My Raleigh article (F.N. Craig, "Raleigh of
Farnborough," NEHGR 145 [1991]:3-21) needs a correction at 15-16 to
delete the Greene parentage of Elizabeth, wife of William Ralegh. M.
John G. Hunt [Now Robert {Bowman}, don't burst a blood vessel] has
kindly called my attention to the note at the end of line 14 in
Ancestral Roots... which on the basis of CCR[supra note 32], 1454-61,
36, casts doubt on the the evidence for this Greene connection. Also the
identification of mary Ralegh, wife of Nicholas Wodhull, as daughter of
Edward Ralegh and his wife, Anne Chamberlain, in my Ralegh article at
18-20 is not certain. Ancestral Roots, line 150, no. 39, shows Nicholas
Wodhull's wife Mary as daughter of Edward Raleigh 9line 14, no. 36). If
this is correct, she would be sister of the Edward Raleigh who married
Anne Chamberlain 9line 14, no. 37). Chronology does not allow a clear
determination as to whether Mary was daughter of the first or second
Edward Ralegh. If Mary was daughter of the second Edward, who married
Anne Chamberlain in or after 1496, she would have been quite young in
1507/8, when the marriage of the Mary, daughter of Edward Ralegh, and
Nicholas Wodhull, took place. (for these dates, see Ralegh of
Farnborough," 18,20)."
I had a telephone conversation with Co. Hansen when the Farnborough
article appeared, in which I asked why Craig had put Mary as sister to
Bridget, the ancestress of the Marburys and Col. Hansen and I discussed
the reasons. On the basis of this conversation. I rate the Chamberlain
ancestry of the Raleighs and the Wodhulls as probable. I need to do some
refreshing and more research before I comment on these factors. Sorry,
all :-(
Note 32 expands CCR to Calendar of the Close Rolls. Does anyone happen
to have this volume at hand to tell us what it says. The copy I use is
at Cal, an hour's train ride away (or more).
I knew that line 14 had mentioned doubt as to the identification of
Elizabeth Greene, but it was not enlarged upon to explain what the
doubts are. And since it was John Hunt whose track record has been
discussed ad nauseum here who pointed out the problem to Mr. Craig, I
must remain skeptical until the issue has been discussed and settled
satisfactorily. I apologize for the appearance of slandering Mr. Hunt.
But if those sufficiently interested will search the archives, they will
see my reasoning for a distrust of his work at this time.
Also in his foot note 64, he states, "The Knyvet-Chamberlain match was
accepted by Colket, Marbury Ancestry [supra note 1], 41, 54, and by
Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancstral Roots of Sixty Colonists, 7th ed.
(Baltimore, 1992), line 238, but contemporary evidence for the match is
lacking."
Since there is evidence of close associations of the Chamberlains and
the Knyvets mentioned in the article, I would rate this marriage highly
possible, almost probable. Yes, I am bet-hedging!
Kay Allen AG
R. Battle
[snip]
> "Footnote 65 F.N. Craig, "Chamberlains in the Marbury Ancestry," NEHGR
> 138 (1984): 317-20. My Raleigh article (F.N. Craig, "Raleigh of
> Farnborough," NEHGR 145 [1991]:3-21) needs a correction at 15-16 to
> delete the Greene parentage of Elizabeth, wife of William Ralegh. M.
> John G. Hunt [Now Robert {Bowman}, don't burst a blood vessel] has
> kindly called my attention to the note at the end of line 14 in
> Ancestral Roots... which on the basis of CCR[supra note 32], 1454-61,
> 36, casts doubt on the the evidence for this Greene connection.
[snip]
> Note 32 expands CCR to Calendar of the Close Rolls. Does anyone happen
> to have this volume at hand to tell us what it says. The copy I use is
> at Cal, an hour's train ride away (or more).
I am not familiar with this line and so cannot comment on the
ramifications of this CCR entry. However, here it is:
/Calendar of Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office/ Henry VI
vol. VI A.D. 1454-1461, p. 36 (1454, part of membrane 29d):
"Isabel Grene, daughter of dame Philippa Grene daughter of Robert late
lord Ferrers and wife of Thomas Grene knight father of Isabel, to William
Holt citizen and mercer of London, John Poutrell esquire, Humphrey Hayford
citizen and goldsmith of London and William Skerne 'gentilman,' their
heirs and assigns. Quitclaim of the manor of Karsalton co. Surrey with
all lands, rents, reversions and services, woods, mills, markets, fairs
etc. in Karsalton, Walyngton, Mycham and Wodmarston, and all other, lands,
rents and services there, which they had by gift of Thomas Grene esquire
her brother, son and heir of her said mother, to them, their heirs and
assigns, and which descended to him after his mother's death, and warranty
against Edmund abbot of Westminster and his successors. Dated 8 Jun, 32
Henry VI.
"/Memorandum/ of acknowledgment at London, 10 November this year, before
John Dyve and John Brygge esquire, by virtue of a /dedimus potestatem/
which is on the chancery file for this year.
"Thomas Grene knight, to William Holt, John Poutrell, Humphrey Hayford and
William Skerne (/as above/), their heirs and assigns. Quitclaim of the
manor of Karsalton etc. (/as in the last/), which they had by gift of
Thomas Grene esquire his son, being son and heir of dame Philippa Grene
daughter of Robert late lord Ferrers and wife of the said knight, and
warranty (/as above/). Dated (/as the last/).
"/Memorandum/ of acknowledgment at Norton Davy co. Northampton, 10
November this year, before John Brygge esquire, by virtue of a /dedimus
potestatem/ which is on the chancery file for this year."
-Robert Battle