Morton of Milborne St. Andrew, Dorset

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

Hi everyone,
Could anyone advise me on the reliability of the Morton pedigree in John
Hutchins' History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset (Vol. II pp.
478-9)? I know that there were three editions of this work, and I consulted
one at NEHGS library, but I believe it was the first edition of 1774.
Specifically, exactly how do the Mortons of Dorset connect with the Mortons
of Bawtry, Yorkshire? Different online pedigrees differ greatly on this
subject. Some say that the first Morton of Dorset, William Morton, was 2nd
son of Charles Morton of Morton, but I am a little skeptical about the name
"Charles," which I was under the impression was (in England) not in common
use at this period.
Charles Morton is stated in Hutchins to be the son of Sir Robert Morton,
Sheriff of Nottingham 35 Edward III, and Lieutenant of Nottingham Castle 47
Edward III. Sir Robert is stated to be brother of Thomas Morton, Secretary
to Edward III. But others state that this Thomas was the direct ancestor.
I was under the impression that a man in Thomas' position would be a
clergyman- am I mistaken?
I will be grateful for any help on this subject. Thank you!
Nancy

[Matt Tompkins]

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:45:47 PM UTC+1, Nancy Piccirilli via wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Could anyone advise me on the reliability of the Morton pedigree in John
> Hutchins' History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset (Vol. II pp.
> 478-9)? I know that there were three editions of this work, and I consulted
> one at NEHGS library, but I believe it was the first edition of 1774.
> Specifically, exactly how do the Mortons of Dorset connect with the Mortons
> of Bawtry, Yorkshire? Different online pedigrees differ greatly on this
> subject. Some say that the first Morton of Dorset, William Morton, was 2nd
> son of Charles Morton of Morton, but I am a little skeptical about the name
> "Charles," which I was under the impression was (in England) not in common
> use at this period.
>

Charles was certainly a rare forename in the 14th century, but not unknown. Reaney's Dictionary of English Surnames gives some examples. And this deed from 1331 records one Kentish peasant called Charles, and two others whose surname Charles must have derived from an ancestor forenamed Charles:

Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CCA-DCc-ChAnt/M/172
Grant 21 Jan 1331
From: Thomas Charles; Charles Isaak; and 14 others
To: Henry Charles; and 27 others

Matt Tompkins

[gera...@earthlink.net]

Hutchins (and the Burkes) got their Morton of Milborne Andrew genealogy from Arthur Collins (1720), who relied on the 1515 pedigree compiled by or for Thomas Morton (c.1462-1516), nephew of Cardinal Morton. Unfortunately, it's a complete fabrication.

Let's start with the fact that Cardinal Morton was born in 1420 (attested independently by two authoritative documents) and his father and two uncles were born in the 1390s (I can email you the unpublished archival document if you like). So his grandfather would have been born in the 1360s-1370s, and his great-grandfather in the 1330s-1350s.

Let's start with the Bawtry ancestors claimed by the 1515 pedigree: Charles Morton of Bawtry (who, as the Cardinal's great-grandfather, would have been born no later than the 1350s), and his sons Robert of Bawtry and William who purportedly moved to Dorset (born no later than the 1370s). Okay, the Bawtry line is quite well documented, being big-shots of a sort. Thomas Morton was a royal courtier, his son Robert I was one of John of Gaunt's leading retainers, and his son Robert II was courtier, MP, and happens to be the "MORTON" who opens Henry IV, Part II -- he was duly attainted and sentenced to death for his part in Scrope's Rebellion. On the Roberts, see the biography of Robert II in History of Parliament (you can read it online), which tells a little about Robert I; much more about Robert I is in Simon Payling's "The Lancastrian Affinity". The Wills of both Roberts are given in full in Testamenta Eboracensia.

There was no "Charles" Morton amongst the 14th Cent. Mortons of Bawtry -- absolutely not. Plenty of documentation, no Charles, no place where a Charles could even fit. As for a "Robert" who was the older brother of this undocumented William, he doesn't fit chronologically with either Robert I or Robert II, and neither of those men could have had a brother William -- just not possible, too much documentation.

The "Charles Morton" with a son "Robert" to whom the 1515 pedigree is totally anachronous. He was born about 1410, son of Robert II by his second marriage to Katherine Frost. His heir Robert (who married Cecily Knyveton) succeeded around 1460. Robert left a Will two days before the Battle of Bosworth, saying he was going off to fight the rebels on behalf of "most excellent King Richard III". There's your Charles and Robert, father and older brother of William of Milborne St. Andrew -- two men born 70 years too late!!!!!

The crushing blow to this fantasy is that Robert II was already an armiger as of his Will. But no document referring to any Morton in Dorset or Somerset calls any of them armigerous prior to Dr. Morton becoming Chancellor of England. Nor is there any grant of arms to Dr. Morton. Anthony Ettrick examined the pedigree and questioned the heralds, and concluded that Dr. Morton simply selected an escutcheon he liked, immaterial of whether it pertained to his family or not.

Cardinal Morton's usurpation of the Bawtry escutcheon wasn't of much importance until his nephew in 1515 applied for a formal grant of arms. Now the herald's office was in a pickle. They'd let Cardinal Morton get away with stealing another family's arms (who were they to deny him?); to deny arms to Thomas would have been to admit they were complicit in this fraud. So they came up with this bogus descent. Think about it for a moment: don't you think the heralds were capable of determining that Charles and Robert Morton lived 70 years too late? So either they turned a blind eye to Thomas Morton's fraud, or they themselves were directly involved.

I have spent an enormous amount of time researching this topic, and would be happy to answer any other questions on the topic that you may have.

Sincerely,
GERALD MONTAGNA
New York, New York
gera...@earthlink.net

[Renia]

On 16/07/2014 17:26, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Remember everyone would have been aware of Charles the Great, Charlemagne.


Not really. Charlemagne was active more than 600 years earlier, and not
in England. He became known through the education system, which was
very limited in England in the 14th century. Moreover, he wasn't known
as Charles at the time, but Karl, Karol or other Germanic equivalents.

[gera...@earthlink.net]

I don't understand why you folks are discussing whether Charles was or wasn't a common name. The question isn't whether it's common, it's whether there's documentation that can confirm or disconfirm his existence. Read the Wills of Robert Morton I of Bawtry (1396) and his son Robert II (1424). Do you see any Charles there?

Then, if we pretend that anomaly doesn't exist, there's the question of which Robert could have had a younger brother named William. Robert II can't have had a younger brother William who became Cardinal Morton's grandfather, because Robert II is only thought to have been born c.1375 -- far far too late to be an older brother to Cardinal Morton's grandfather.

Here are the Wills in Testamenta Eboracensia, which you can read from the comfort of your living room online on Hathitrust. See Volume I pp. 210-14, p.408.

[gera...@earthlink.net]

By the way, no Mortons were even in the area of Milborne St. Andrew prior to the 1410s -- contrary to the rumours and wild guesses reported in the secondary literature. They didn't own any of the six manors surrounding the village until Dr. John Morton became Chancellor of England, when he proceeded to buy up the whole area. Before the 1470s they owned very little there, and were not the lords of any of the six manors. The documents sounds like they didn't own much more than a country cottage. And they weren't there at all before 1410.

[gera...@earthlink.net]

"Different online pedigrees differ greatly on this subject."

Sorry, I forgot to answer that point. Those online pedigrees that put "Charles Morton" in the line of succession of 14th c. Bawtry Mortons are NOT doing this based on any documentation, NOR on any pedigree produced by the Bawtry Mortons themselves. Rather, they've simply taken the liberty of interposing this Charles into the line on the assumption that the 1515 pedigree is authoritative. As I've said, outside of the 1515 pedigree, he doesn't even exist.

[Richard Smith]

On 16/07/14 15:45, Nancy Piccirilli via wrote:

> Could anyone advise me on the reliability of the Morton pedigree in John
> Hutchins' History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset (Vol. II pp.
> 478-9)?

I know nothing of the Morton family, and in any case others have
answered your question. But I would make a general comment. I've
looked up several pedigrees in Hutchins' Dorset, and they contain enough
erroneous steps to make me very cautious of trusting him. I suspect he
places too much trust in early modern pedigrees, such as those in the
heralds' visitations.

On another note, is anyone aware of copies of (any edition of) Hutchins
online? It's the sort of work that I'd expect to find on archive.org,
but I cannot find it there or on Google Books.

Richard

[jhigg...@yahoo.com]

The 3rd edition of Hutchins' Dorset is available (and downloadable) online via the FHL, here:

https://familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=133131

[Richard Smith]

On 17/07/14 05:34, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The 3rd edition of Hutchins' Dorset is available (and downloadable) online via the FHL, here:
>
> https://familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=133131

Super! Thanks.

Richard

[gera...@earthlink.net]

But it's important to use Hutchins's third edition in conjunction with the 1st edition, so you know whether the statement comes from Hutchins or from Shipp & Hodson -- if you don't compare them, there's no way of knowing (unless the statement is in a Shipp & Hodson appendix, then it's automatically theirs). If you can get access through a research library to "Eighteenth Century Collections Online", the first edition is there.

Shipp & Hodson don't hesitate to flay Hutchins alive when necessary, and they're brutal concerning his pedigrees. They even accuse him of reprinting pedigrees that he (Hutchins I mean) already knew to be false.

Shipp & Hodson were outstanding scholars, not rumour-collectors, and backed most of their statements with archival documents.

ALWAYS check the appendix, because some of their corrections are there and you'd miss them if you didn't bother.

[gera...@earthlink.net]

Let me add about Dorset genealogy in general, that we are severely hampered by the failure of the Dorset volumes of the Victoria History of the Counties series to have gotten off the ground. Recent volumes in that series are fantastic, top flight scholars going through the archival documentation manor-by-manor through the whole county! But each county is funded separately by donations, and Dorset died because it never got funding. I contacted the director of the series to ask when they will finally get around to Dorset, and the answer basically was --- NEVER! The funding never materialized. Terrible, I'm sure we'd be so much further along with the Mortons and the other Dorset families had VHC gotten funding.

[Richard Smith]

On 17/07/14 20:35, gera...@earthlink.net wrote:
> But it's important to use Hutchins's third edition in conjunction
> with the 1st edition, so you know whether the statement comes
> from Hutchins or from Shipp & Hodson -- if you don't compare them,
> there's no way of knowing (unless the statement is in a Shipp &
> Hodson appendix, then it's automatically theirs). If you can get
> access through a research library to "Eighteenth Century
> Collections Online", the first edition is there.

Thanks for the advice. Previously I've only used the first edition
(hence my earlier comments on its reliability), and until this evening I
hadn't appreciated that the third edition was significantly different.

I've not heard of "Eighteenth Century Collections Online" so don't know
whether I can find access to it. However I can access a paper copy of
the first edition without too much difficultly, as I am very fortunate
to live within walking distance of one of the UK copyright libraries and
to work within walking distance of another. Nonetheless, an online copy
is very handy!

Richard

[Tompkins]

From: geraldrm
Sent: 17 July 2014 20:40

> Let me add about Dorset genealogy in general, that we are severely hampered by the failure of the Dorset volumes of the Victoria History of the Counties series to have gotten off the ground. Recent volumes in that series are fantastic, top flight scholars going through the archival documentation manor-by-manor through the whole county! But each county is funded separately by donations, and Dorset died because it never got funding. I contacted the director of the series to ask when they will finally get around to Dorset, and the answer basically was --- NEVER! The funding never materialized. Terrible, I'm sure we'd be so much further along with the Mortons and the other Dorset families had VHC gotten funding.
>

Yes, with the exception of the Oxfordshire VCH, which continues to be well-funded and is working steadily, the VCH is in dire straits, partly for long-term reasons, partly due to a catastrophic diminution in funding since the financial crisis. Some counties are completely moribund, others are reduced to trying to use unpaid and unqualified volunteers to research and write parish histories, with little success. If anyone knows a millionaire who would like to fund the production of books which will be standard reference works for generations to come, point him to the VCH. Or to our IPM project, of course.

Matt Tompkins