Medieval royal line for John Washburn, immigrant to Plymouth Colony, Mass.?

[D.E. Mitchel]

Would kind readers critique the following proposed line? In each succeeding generation the child is listed first, followed by the person they married. Washburn is the current American spelling, but English clerks used Washbourn, Washborn or Washbourne. I am uncertain whether to modernize Jone Whithead to Joan.

1. EDWARD I "Longshanks" (1239-1307) & ELEANOR of CASTILLE "Leonor de Castilla" (House of Borgoña) (1241-1290) Married 1254

2. JOAN of ACRE (1272-1307) & Gilbert de CLARE, 9th Lord of Clare (1243-1295)

3. Eleanor de CLARE, 6th Lady of Glamorgan (1292-1337) & William la ZOUCHE, 1st Baron Zouche of Mortimer (1269-1336)

4. Joyce la ZOUCHE (-1372) & John de BOTETOURT, 2nd Lord Botetourt (1318-1386)

5. Joyce de BOTETOURT (1350-1420) & Sir Adam de PERSHALL, Knt. ( -1419)

6. Margaret de PERSHALL (1393-1420) & Sir Richard MITTON, Knt. (1379-1418)

7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )

8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)

9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)

10. John WASHBOURNE (1544-1593) & Jone WHITHEAD (1540-1567)

11. John WASHBOURNE (1566-1624) & MARTHA TIMBRELL (1573-1626)

12. John WASHBURN (1597-1671) & Margery [ Moore ?] (1588-1662)

13. John WASHBURN (1620-1686) & Elizabeth Mitchell (Abt. 1629-5 Dec 1684). She is the grand-daughter of Mayflower passenger and Plymouth colonist Francis Cooke.

Thank you, and any suggestions for further research will be followed.

D. E. Mitchel

[Vance Mead]

In this generation, Emma would have been 65 years old when John junior was born.

[Vance Mead]

These generations are in the Visitation of Worcestershire, 1569, page 143:

7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )

8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)

9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)

https://archive.org/details/visitcowor00phil/page/142

The younger John Washborne must be this guy in Common Pleas in 1525:

Third entry:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H8/CP40no1046/bCP40no1046dorses/IMG_0309.htm

Worcs. John Hornyhold versus John Washborne, of Wychynford, gentleman, and others. Trespass: breach of close at Wychynford.

[taf]

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:27:01 AM UTC-7, Vance Mead wrote:
> These generations are in the Visitation of Worcestershire, 1569, page 143:
>

> 7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )
>
> 8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)
>

> 9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)

Well, sort of. The visitation gives John and Joan a son John, but only his bare name is given, not a marriage, and thus it is unclear where the marriage and dates come from.

> The younger John Washborne must be this guy in Common Pleas in 1525:

I am not so sure. It could be John, son of Robert, son of John and Joan.

The chronological displacement can be seen by comparing to the visitation:

A. John Washbourne m. Joan Mytton
B. Robert Washbourne m. Eleanor Stapylls
C. John Washbourne m. Margaret Tracy
D. Anthony Washbourne m. Anne Read
E. John Washbourne ae 21 in 1569 (b.~1548)

A. John Washbourne m. Joan Mytton
B. John Washbourne m. Emma
C. John Washbourne b. 1544 m. Joan Whithead

So a 2-generation temporal displacement.

This looks to me like an all-too-common scenario, just finding someone in a visitation pedigree whose fate is unknown but who happens to have the same name as the earliest person to whom one can trace, and deciding they must be the same person because 'parentage unknown' is too unsatisfying.

taf

[D.E. Mitchel]

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 1:56:15 AM UTC-7, Vance Mead wrote:

Thank you, I appreciate the note. Either I am missing a generation of the many John Washbournes, or Emme / Emma was younger and married John (1479-1546) later in his life. I have been following James Davenport, The Washbourne family of Little Washbourne and Wichenford in the county of Worcester, (London: Methuen, 1907), especially pp. 35-58. The Plymouth immigrant is treated briefly in Anderson, Robert C., The Great Migration Begins, Boston: NEHGS, 1995, Vol 3, pp. 1937-1939.

[D.E. Mitchel]

Thank you, TAF, this is a useful cautionary note. The visitation record, alone, will not suffice. DEM

[Brad Verity]

On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 5:57:38 PM UTC-7, D.E. Mitchel wrote:
> Would kind readers critique the following proposed line? In each succeeding generation the child is listed first, followed by the person they married. Washburn is the current American spelling, but English clerks used Washbourn, Washborn or Washbourne. I am uncertain whether to modernize Jone Whithead to Joan.
> 1. EDWARD I "Longshanks" (1239-1307) & ELEANOR of CASTILLE "Leonor de Castilla" (House of Borgoña) (1241-1290) Married 1254
> 2. JOAN of ACRE (1272-1307) & Gilbert de CLARE, 9th Lord of Clare (1243-1295)
> 3. Eleanor de CLARE, 6th Lady of Glamorgan (1292-1337) & William la ZOUCHE, 1st Baron Zouche of Mortimer (1269-1336)

These three initial generations are correct, but the line fails at the next generation.

> 4. Joyce la ZOUCHE (-1372) & John de BOTETOURT, 2nd Lord Botetourt (1318-1386)

William, 1st Lord Zouche of Mortimer was the second husband of Eleanor de Clare. Zouche abducted her in 1329, and they had only one child together, a son William la Zouche, who became a monk at Glastonbury Abbey. See Frances Underhill, 'For Her Good Estate: The Life of Elizabeth de Burgh' (1999), p. 87:
"Meanwhile, Eleanor and William la Zouche began a family. One son survived, choosing to become a monk at Glastonbury since he had few prospects for secular fortune. William's motives for joining the monastery perhaps lacked a strong religious impulse, as Glastonbury was more noted for its comfortable style than its zeal or piety in the late Middle Ages. Elizabeth's accounts confirm that William's thoughts ranged beyond the monastery, for in 1355-56 he leased her estate at Bletchingdon."

Per the 15th-century Tewkesbury Chronicle, Eleanor de Clare's son by William la Zouche was named 'Hugh' la Zouche:
"Obiit domina Eleanora uxor ejusdem ij. kal. Julii. anno Domini mcccxxxvij. Ista erat mater Hugonis tertii, et Edwardi primi, et Gilberti le Despencer per conjugem suam Hugonem secundum. Post mortem ejus maritata fuit domino Willielmo le Sowch, de quo genuit Hugonem Souch.”

But presumably Underhill got the first name 'William' [not 'Hugh'] from the household accounts of the gentleman's aunt Lady Elizabeth de Burgh, which are primary 14th-century documents, and should be regarded as definitive over a chronicle a century later.

The 1st Lord Zouche's first wife was Alice de Toeni (1284-1325), the widowed countess of Warwick. Joyce (la Zouche), Lady Botetourt (d. 1372) may have been his daughter by Countess Alice. She was not the daughter of Eleanor de Clare.

> 5. Joyce de BOTETOURT (1350-1420) & Sir Adam de PERSHALL, Knt. ( -1419)
> 6. Margaret de PERSHALL (1393-1420) & Sir Richard MITTON, Knt. (1379-1418)
> 7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )
> 8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)

[snip]

Sorry, I'm not any help with the later generations.

Cheers, -----Brad

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

Here is a link to a well researched and well sourced genealogy, which starts with John and Emme: http://www.maltbyfamily.net/genealogies/washburn/washburn_england.html

[D.E. Mitchel]

Thank you, another assumption pulled into the light of evidence. Much appreciated. DEM

[D.E. Mitchel]

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 12:34:11 PM UTC-7, peter...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> Here is a link to a well researched and well sourced genealogy, which starts with John and Emme: http://www.maltbyfamily.net/genealogies/washburn/washburn_england.html

Thank you. This is very useful. The link between John W. of Bengeworth and a previous John W. of Wichenford is not supported by the evidence presented. Very much appreciate you pointing to this online source. DEM

[John Higgins]

Most (although not all) of the information at this website can also be found in the James Davenport book on the Washbournes cited earlier in this thread. Davenport cites parish registers and probate registers for most of this information. I think there is good support for generations 9 through 13, starting with John (d. 1546) and his wife Emme (d. 1647). The difficulty is with the parentage of #9 John, which appears to be largely conjectural in both the website and the Davenport book - more so in the Davenport book. I think more evidence is needed before this connection can be accepted.

BTW I think the birth dates before generation 10 are simply guesses and should probably be discarded.

[D.E. Mitchel]

Thank you, useful advice, and I agree with the need for better evidence. A Y-DNA group of Washbourne males would be illuminating.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

The link between genetations 8 and 9 does have some support. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Washbourne-3, DNA tests have showed a relation between the descendants of the John Washbourne who died in 1546 and the descendants of Robert Washbourne who was a son of the John Washbourne who died in 1517 and Joan Mitton. Of course, it's not conclusive about the exact link but it's a piece of evidence.

[taf]

The problem with such conclusions is two-fold. First, as pointed out on the page, this would mean the two families are related in the male line, but their most recent common ancestor could be the John who married Joan Mitton, or it could be all the way back at Domesday. The lower Anglo-Norman gentry spawned younger sons in generation after generation, and without direct evidence there is no reason to believe the connection was recent as opposed to distant. The second problem is that, based on the summary, it is hard to tell the nature of the evidence. They claim to have compared with the haplotype of a descendant of Robert, eldest son of John and Joan, but I suspect that descent was self-reported, and it may not be based on any stronger evidence than that of the Bengeworth line. Could this be a descendant of the Bengeford line who is basing their claim on an inaccurate pedigree?

taf

[taf]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 8:31:03 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> Could this be a descendant of the Bengeford line who is basing their
> claim on an inaccurate pedigree?

Sorry, I meant to ask, Could this be a descendant of the Bengeworth line? What I mean is if someone descended from John and Emma of Bengeworth convinced themselves that they descend from the senior line instead and that is the pedigree they self-reported when comparing the tests, their yDNA would match another descendant of the Bengeworth line but due to their misreported pedigree it would make it look as if it confirmed a relationship between the branches.

taf

[John Higgins]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 8:04:08 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> The link between genetations 8 and 9 does have some support. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Washbourne-3, DNA tests have showed a relation between the descendants of the John Washbourne who died in 1546 and the descendants of Robert Washbourne who was a son of the John Washbourne who died in 1517 and Joan Mitton. Of course, it's not conclusive about the exact link but it's a piece of evidence.

Setting aside the DNA question, there are many problems with the Wikitree account that you cite. No evidence is provided to support the assertion that the John born in Wichenford supposedly in 1479 (the date is noted to be an estimate) is the same John who shows up in Bengeworth years later. The narrative simply repeats the conjecture from the James Davenport book that some sort of family disagreement triggered by his supposed father's 2nd marriage caused the younger John to move from Winchenford to Bengeworth.

Also no evidence is provided to support the supposed marriage date of 1516 for John and his wife Emme. And John's supposed father is promoted to be SIR John, a title I've seen in no other source - including the 1569 Visitation of Worcestershire, which is actually shown next to the narrative.

Even by the pretty lax standards of Wikitree, this is a very poor example of a genealogy.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

On your first point, I know that, that's why I said it wasn't conclusive about the exact link. The exact link between the families could be more distant.

[D.E. Mitchel]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 8:31:03 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

TAF, useful clarification for the y-DNA genealogist. The Washburn y-DNA project is in its infancy. It does present another way to look at the families involved, but will require careful disambiguation to make sure the two lines are accurate to the "paper" record. DEM

[leslie...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 8:34:52 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

This supposed Washburn descent was also analyzed in Eugene Stratton's
1988 publication, "Applied Genealogy":

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=john+washburn+noble+ancestry+wichenford+worcestershire

Leslie

[D.E. Mitchel]

Thank you for finding this and bringing it to my attention. DEM

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

AJB seems to have made a pretty good case. What do others think? I do agree with TAF that visitations have linked two unrelated families basically out of wishful thinking. Two examples from my lines are the Fones of London and the Skipwiths of St. Albans. However, I have a visitation linking the Broughtons of Bedfordshire with the Broughtons of Buckinghamshire for which I have VERY strong documentation that indeed this is the case. The visitation genealogy does some missing generations and one wrong name, but about two thirds of it is correct.

I agree that because you have a person paying taxes in one place does not necessarily mean the person lived there. I have medieval ancestors who lived in one place and had property elsewhere.

Another claim made against linking the Washbournes of Bengeworth with those in Wichenford is that the John of Wichenford does not mention a son named John in his will. I have wills of proven ancestors where not all the children for whatever reason are named.

On the other hand one person used a family tradition that said that their Washbourne ancestors descended from royalty as evidence that the Bengeworth Washbournes are the Wichenford Washbournes. Family tradition can also be wrong.

In weighing the evidence pro and con one must be very careful not to let your emotions get in the way. Your emotions can blind you to evidence that points in a direction opposite to what you believe.

Initially I agreed with those who say that the John of Bengeworth was not the son of the John of Wichenford. However, after reviewing the evidence I've so far seen I now conclude the opposite as it seems to make far more sense.

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

What is the source for the presence of the Washbourne Crest in a window at St. Peter's Church at Bengeworth and what evidence is there for it being the Washbourne Crest of the Washbournes of Wichenford?

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

Here’s my review of the evidence against and for the Washbournes of Bengeworth being connected to the Washbournes of Wichenford. Some, like TAF for example, argue that this is a simple case of basically wishful thinking. One family tacks on their genealogy to a more illustrious family’s genealogy. Another argument is that the will of John of Wichenford does not mention a son named John. Still another argument against is that there were men of the same name paying taxes in the Bengeworth area about 200 years earlier and therefore the Bengeworth Washbournes of the late 1400s descend from them.

On the other hand AJB, whom I believe is probably Angela Bristow argues that the visitation of 1569 has a John as the son of John Washbourne and Joan Mytton of Wichenford. Also that the absence of someone from a will does not prove that the person was not a son or daughter or the person who made the will. There is the presence of Washboure crest in a window at old St. Peter’s Church in Bengeworth and the family’s coat of arms on a tile found in the ruins of Evesham Abbey.

Let’s examine the evidence more closely. At first glance TAF seems to be right that this may be a simple case of wishful thinking. Two families that I descend from, Fones and Skipwith, linked their families to more illustrious families of the same name, which has been shown not to be the case. On the other hand I descend from the Broughtons. The visitations link the Broughtons of Bedfordshire with those of Buckinghamshire who were of the lesser aristocracy. Well I have solid documentary evidence taken from, among many places, the patent and the close rolls, that clearly show the two families are one in the same.

As for someone not being named in the will of another who is believed to be the parent showing no connection that is not necessarily the case. I have wills in which not all the children for which I have documentary evidence for not being named in the will.

Owning property and paying taxes on it does not show residency. The Broughtons had previously owned property in several areas and payed taxes on it, but did not live there.

The claim that the presence of the Washbourne crest and arms in the area of Bengeworth does not show a link between this family and those in Wichenford unless one can come up with photographs, drawings or detailed descriptions of these to compare with those known to be of Wichenford Washbournes.

One more thing I’ll throw out which I’ve just come across mention in Julia Chase Washburn's Genealogical Notes Of The Washburn Family, 1898, that Burke says the the Evesham and Wichenford branches of the Washbournes come from the same stock. So far I haven’t found the Burke book in question. However, even if that is indeed the case, which I think is probably true, it still begs the question as to what basis did Burke base this on?

So what can we make of all of this? The evidence is clearly inconclusive one way or the other to say that the John Washbourne of Bengeworth was the son of John Washbourne and Joan Mytton of Wichenford or that the two families descend from the same stock. It gets down to a matter of opinion until further evidence can be discovered to lead to a firmer conclusion.

My personal view is that I think the two families are connected, which may or may not be through John and Joan. It may be some 200 years earlier.

[taf]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 9:46:10 AM UTC-7, AJB wrote:
> The published Visitation of Worcestershire 1569 and Harleian MS no. 1566 and
> Harleian MS no. 1043 all tell us that John Washbourne Esq. Lord of
> Wichenford, dead in 1517 (hereinafter referred to as 1517), had 4 sons with
> Joan Mytton: Robert, John, Walter and Francis.
>
> What evidence exists to prove or disprove the existence of these purported
> sons?

Has anyone questioned their existence?



> Another 1502 resident at Alstone/Teddington was a John Rutter. When John
> Washbourne of Bengeworth’s widow wrote her will in 1547, one of her bequests
> was to an Emme Rutter. We might think this a mere coincidence, and it may
> be.

Yes, it might.

> We must not rest our genealogical conclusions upon mere “wishful thinking.”
> Alternatively, we must not dismiss, out of hand, the probability of a
> relationship between two individuals when diligent research reveals a
> compelling and consistent collection of data points in support of such a
> relationship. AJB

And when there is a 'compelling and consistent collection of data points' it will be a different story, but that is not what I am seeing here. Proving that John and Joan really did have a younger son John doesn't really move the question forward, nor does finding two different people named Rutter.

taf

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

I agree with TAF. There is not enough evidence to link the John Washburn of Bengeworth with the John Washburn of Wichenford. Add to this John Maltby has found another John Washburn living at the same time in Broadway, Worcester. Maybe this John was the son of the John of Wichenford. Is there documented evidence of the Washburns of Bengeworth marrying into the Washburns of Wichenford? Is there other documented evidence of regular contact between the two families? Another question what is the original source of May 6, 1516 being the marriage date of John and Emme? At present the best we can say, based on available evidence, is that the Washburns of Bengeworth are probably related to the Washburns of Wichenford. However was that relation to the John Washburn who died in 1517 or was it two centuries earlier? Right now we can't say.

[taf]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 3:59:28 PM UTC-7, AJB wrote:

> Simply finding two people named Rutter would in fact add no value, in
> isolation. But, finding two people named Rutter - in close association with
> the people in question - in two different geographies – one closely
> associated with the Wichenford Washbournes (Alstone) and one with those of
> Bengeworth - most certainly does;

No, it doesn't, not much at least. It is like putting significance on finding two people with the same birthdate. In a room of 40 people, you are more likely to find it than not. Given the way surnames spread and cluster, there is bound to be overlap, occurrences of two surnames in each of two towns, entirely by chance.

> Medieval genealogy requires rigorous analysis of obscure records and the
> ability to link seemingly disparate fragments together into what may
> eventually emerge as a meaningful whole.

The problem is that linking seemingly disparate fragments together is also the hallmark of connect-the-dots pseudo-genealogy.

> It is not for the weak or narrow of mind or mean of spirit.

Nor is it for the zealot, who reaches a conclusion and then over-interprets every piece of evidence they find to fit that conclusion.

> When we are lucky, we find clear, primary records which we can use to prove
> or debunk our ideas.

And when we are unlucky, it may never be possible to make the connection we wish to draw. And that's alright.

> In the future with respect to my postings: Legitimate, well-grounded
> questions and criticism are always welcome. But, if you persist in
> simply sitting by the side of the road throwing rocks at the workers
> you will just end up with a sunburn and a sore arm. AJB

Only cheerleaders welcome? It amuses me how frequently people post here claiming to want feedback but actually just wanting affirmation.

taf

[taf]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 8:06:50 PM UTC-7, AJB wrote:
> Unable to actually engage in serious discussions of the facts at hand, TAF resorts to a vicious ad hominem attack.
>
> TAF Insults AJB accusing him of “connect-the-dots pseudo-genealogy.”

No. I didn't. I simply indicated that the because the characteristic you were attributing to medieval genealogy is not exclusive to it, the act of linking up seemingly disparate fragments does not, in and of itself, imply that good genealogy is going to be the result. I never mentioned you.

> TAF Calls AJB a “Zealot” just because he disagrees with him.

No,. I didn't. You said that medieval genealogy was not for the weak or narrow of mind or mean of spirit. I said it was not for zealots. Again, I never mentioned you, I made an observation, just like you were making an observation. Then again, maybe you weren't just making an observation. Maybe you assumed I was talking about you precisely because you were calling me narrow-minded and mean-spirited, in which case your whine of 'How dare he insult me BACK!' lacks a certain philosophical consistency.

> TAF says “Only cheerleaders welcome? It amuses me how frequently people
> post here claiming to want feedback but actually just wanting affirmation”.
>
> AJB Responds: I certainly don’t want your affirmation. You can’t even
> pose a decent fact based question, you simply excel at throwing rocks.
> Stop throwing rocks TAF

Stop pretending you have something substantial, and I won't have to point it out.

> It’s disappointing really to encounter this level of discourse. I am part
> of an ongoing Washbourne research group with over 60 years of collective
> experience including PhDs and other individuals with advanced research
> skills.

Yawn. Color me underwhelmed.

> I post for the group from time to time to correct clear inaccuracies on
> the internet.

Bringing enlightenment to the great unwashed, eh?

> We know that the question of 1546’s origin is yet unanswered but we, unlike
> TAF, realize that this is not an unanswerable question.

Except this itself is an assumption. To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you go into it with the preconception that the answer is there, every piece of evidence will look like a part of that answer. The problem is that sometimes the blind men who feel a a snake, a wall and a tree trunk are not actually all touching an elephant, they are in a walled garden and one is touching a snake, another a wall and the third a tree, and there is no bigger picture.

Humans inherently draw connections, even when there aren't any. This talent for detecting patterns is what allows for sparks of insight, but also leads to conspiracy theories and jumped conclusions. Not all questions are answerable, and if you go into research with the preconceived notion that there is an answer in the evidence, you will find one, but it may not match historical reality.

> We have disciplined but open minds.

Of course you do. I am sure that your children are all above average too.

taf

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

Let me sum up what we've learned so far from both AJB and taf:


Well that's it. What I'm reading are both parties trading insults, which is not productive. Okay there is one thing we've learned that the John Washburn of Broadway may have been born too late to be the son of the John Washburn either Wichenford or Bengeworth. That doesn't exactly surprise me as John Maltby didn't specify the time frame.

One thing that would greatly help in dealing with this matter would be to find documented proof of regular contact between the two families or that Emme, wife of John of Bengeworth, was born in or around Wichenford.

The touchiness of this matter is illustrated by AJB asking me why I asked the question "Another question what is the original source of May 6, 1516 being the marriage date of John and Emme?" and assumed I was asking it of AJB. It was a general question posed to whomever could answer it. It's like this reply is directed not just at taf and AJB, but to all who are interested in the Washburns.

In summing up about the Washburns we do not have enough evidence to draw any conclusions one way or the other. Contrast this to another family I descend from, the Crannells of Warren County, NY, where I have my third great grandmother living in Queensbury in 1821 and her probable father listed on the 1820 census in Queensbury and having a presumed daughter of the same age of my ancestor, plus some other evidence.

So far I've investigated roughly 10 lines of mine for whom claims of royal or aristocratic descent has been claimed. So far only one line, the Lawrences, has held up. A few other lines right family, wrong branch.

I have done medieval genealogy using translated and transcribed records. It's been fun and challenging.

[wjhonson]

On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 3:59:28 PM UTC-7, AJB wrote:

> TAF: Anyone who spends more than five minutes reading various sources on the Washbournes will find arguments posited against the existence of these sons of 1517; some Visitations leave them out entirely. This is most especially the case for John because he was not mentioned in 1517’s will.
>
> For example: "Phillimore's Visitation of Worcestershire indicated that John Washbourne of Wichenford had a son named John, but the will of John Washbourne of Wichenford did not name a son John, nor did the Inquisition Post Mortem. So this is a classic case of conflicting evidence." John Maltby 2005
>
>


just on this point, are you suggesting that an IPM would name a younger son ?

The heir of John 1517 was his grandson John, son of his eldest (dead) son Robert, as it should be. There would be no reason to name any other of his children

[AJB]

Responding to wjhonson who asks if, in an earlier post, I was suggesting that an IPM would name a younger son. The answer to that is no. If a younger son was not the legal heir (his elder brother(s) having died without issue) he would not be named in the IPM. I believe that there are very rare exceptions to this as when the living legal heir is being bypassed and the fee settled upon a younger son (or someone else entirely) who would, in those rare cases, then be named - usually via an excerpt from a will or an enfeoffment, quotes from which would then also be included in the IPM.

In my post I was quoting John Maltby who wrote in 2005: "Phillimore's Visitation of Worcestershire indicated that John Washbourne of Wichenford had a son named John, but the will of John Washbourne of Wichenford did not name a son John, nor did the Inquisition Post Mortem. So this is a classic case of conflicting evidence." I presented Maltby's quote in answer to TAF's question in which he asked me if anyone had ever questioned the existence of 1517's sons. Yes, people have questioned their existence and the Maltby quote was just one example of that. My "evidence of sons" post was simply to show evidence that four sons, by Joan Mytton, do seem to have existed. But it is not the only example. The 1569 Visitation of Herefordshire only names the eldest son Robert (by Mytton) and then names Anthony as the second son and Richard as the third (by Monington) - so providing an example of an official record in which the three younger sons of 1517 and Joan Mytton are erased entirely. AJB

[taf]

On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 2:55:16 PM UTC-7, AJB wrote:
> Responding to wjhonson who asks if, in an earlier post, I was suggesting
> that an IPM would name a younger son. The answer to that is no. If a
> younger son was not the legal heir (his elder brother(s) having died without
> issue) he would not be named in the IPM. I believe that there are very rare
> exceptions to this as when the living legal heir is being bypassed and the
> fee settled upon a younger son (or someone else entirely) who would, in
> those rare cases, then be named - usually via an excerpt from a will or an
> enfeoffment, quotes from which would then also be included in the IPM.

I have seen a number of examples of where a younger son was named in an ipm: as you mention in a will excerpt, where a younger son was named as an enfeofee, as heir to an entailment, or, in the case of multiple marriages, when a younger son was the heir to his mother, of whose inheritance the husband held a life interest. So, they can appear, but their absence from an ipm is of no disprobative value.

taf

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

I don't think anyone is saying that John 1517 did not have a son named John and that includes John Maltby. And I made basically the same point on the Washburn Facebook group that a person's absence from a will does not mean that they were not the son or daughter of the person who made the will. But we're back to the starting point in that there is no evidence connecting the John of Bengeworth with the John of Wichenford. Personally I'd like very much to see at least some strong circumstantial evidence connecting the two, but alas there isn't and, as taf said, there may never be.