Complete Peerage Correction: Queen Anne Boleyn's alleged Felton ancestry

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage, 6 (1926): 561–565 (sub Hoo) has a good account of
Queen Anne Boleyn's great-great-grandfather, Sir Thomas Hoo, K.G.,
Lord Hoo and Hastings (died 1455). Sir Thomas Hoo's parentage and
ancestry are traced in "Note A" found on page 565-567 following the
Hoo account in Volume 6.

According to page 561 (sub Hoo account), Sir Thomas Hoo, K.G. (died
1455) was the son and heir of Sir Thomas Hoo [died 1420], of Luton-
Hoo, Bedfordshire, Wartling, Sussex, etc., "by his 1st wife, Eleanor,
widow of Sir Robert d'Ufford, of Wrentham, Suffolk, and younger
daughter and coheiress of Sir Thomas de Felton, K.G., of Litcham,
Norfolk." END OF QUOTE

There is no doubt that the elder Sir Thomas Hoo (died 1420) married
Eleanor Felton, widow of Sir Robert d'Ufford, of Wrentham, Suffolk.
This marriage is repeated elsewhere in Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 294
(sub Felton). Eleanor's maiden name is confirmed for instance by her
own seal which is described in Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the
British Museum 3 (1894): 606, which displays the arms of Ufford (for
Eleanor's 1st husband) and Felton (her own arms):

Seal of Eleanor, widow of Sir Robert de Ufford dated 1393 — A shield
of arms: per pale, dex., a cross lozengy, or engrailed, over all a
bendlet [UFFORD], with a bendlet for difference; sin., two lions
passant in pale, crowned [FELTON]. Suspended by a strap from a forked
tree. Within a carved panel, with open tracery at the sides, and ball-
flowers or small quatrefoils along the inner edge. Cabled borders).

Eleanor Felton's parentage and her issue by her 1st marriage to Sir
Robert d'Ufford is likewise attested by a pedigree of the Ufford
family taken from the cartulary of Priory of St. Faith at Horsham,
Norfolk as published in Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum 3 (1821): 636–
637:

Genealogia Fundatoris: “…Et dictus Robertus Ufford maritatus fuit
Elionoræ filiæ Thomæ Felton militis, qui genuit Elam, Sibillam, et
Joannam filias, quæ dicta Ela desponsata fuit Ricardo Bowes armigero,
quæ obiit sine hærede, et Sibilla monialis de Berkinge, et prædicta
Johanna nupta Willielmo Bowes armigero, fratri Ricardi Bowes prædicti,
qui genuit ex ea filiam, nuptam domino Dacres, et genuit ex ea filiam
nomine Johannam quæ nupta fuit Ricardo Fines militi, camerario domini
regis Edwardi quarti”).

From the above we learn that Eleanor Felton had three Ufford
daughters, Ela (wife of Richard Bowet, Esq.), Sibyl (nun at Barking),
and Joan (wife of William Bowes, Knt.).

But did Eleanor Felton have issue by her Hoo marriage? To answer that
question I have searched various records to see if there was any
mention of Eleanor Felton as the mother of Sir Thomas Hoo (died
1455). I found two visitation records of the Hoo family as follows:

1. Harvey et al. Vis. of Norfolk 1563 & 1613 (H.S.P. 32) (1891): 158–
160 (Hoo ped.: “Sir Thomas Hoo [1] = Elenor da. of Thomas Felton, [2]
= Elizabeth da. of William Eckington.”).

2. Benolte et al. Four Vis. of Berkshire 1532, 1566, 1623 & 1665–6 2
(H.S.P. 57) (1908): 203–205 (Reade ped.: “Eliz: da: and heire to Wm
Wichingham William de Echingham. 2d wife. = Tho: Lo: Hoo ob. 23 Aug :
1420. = Ellenor da: to Thomas Felton. First wife.”).

In both pedigrees, it is Elizabeth Echingham who is assigned as the
mother of Thomas Hoo, K.G. (died 1455), not Eleanor Felton. That
finding was certainly unexpected. Elizabeth Echingham was the second
and surviving wife of Sir Thomas Hoo (died 1420), and, following his
death, she married (2nd) before Michaelmas 1426 Thomas Lewknor, Knt.
However, she is most definitely not the mother of Thomas Hoo, K.G.
(died 1455), as he refers to her in his will dated 1455 as "my lady
lewkenore my mother in lawe" [i.e., step-mother].

If Elizabeth Echingham wasn't Thomas Hoo's mother, the question arises
will the chronology permit Eleanor Felton to be his mother as claimed
by Complete Peerage?

My research indicates that Eleanor Felton was born about 1361 (she
being aged 20 in 1381). She married (1st) Robert de Ufford, of Burgh
St. Margaret and Horsford, Norfolk, Wrentham, Suffolk, etc. He
presented to the church of Blythburgh, Suffolk in 1382. Sir Robert de
Ufford was living 7 Jan. 1389/90, and died before 1393. His widow,
Eleanor, married (2nd) in or before Feb. 1394/5 (date of demise) (as
his 1st wife) Thomas Hoo, Knt. In 1395 and 1396 Thomas and his wife,
Eleanor, and the Convent presented to the church of Blythburgh,
Suffolk. Eleanor allegedly died 8 Aug. 1400.

As far as I can tell, yes, the chronology would permit Eleanor Felton
to be the mother of Thomas Hoo, K.G. (died 1455).

I subsequently checked to see what became of Eleanor Felton's father's
lands to see if any of them were inherited by Eleanor's three Ufford
daughters or by her alleged son, Thomas Hoo, K.G. As best I can tell,
none of Eleanor Felton's father's lands were ever held by either
Eleanor, the three Ufford girls, or by Thomas Hoo, K.G. Again that
was a strange finding, as usually Eleanor's share of her father's
lands should have descended to her alleged son and heir, Sir Thomas
Hoo, K.G.

So what other evidence is there? Well if Eleanor Felton was Thomas
Hoo's mother, and since we know that Eleanor was definitely an
heiress, her arms should appear among heraldic quarterings of the
various descendants of Sir Thomas Hoo's four surviving daughters and
co-heiresses.

That's when yet another unexpected finding occurred. After searching
for Hoo family quarterings, I located a description of the gravestone
of Sir William Boleyn, who was the grandfather of Queen Anne Boleyn.
Sir William Boleyn's mother, Anne Hoo, was the eldest daughter and co-
heiress of Sir Thomas Hoo (died 1455). Sir William Boleyn's
gravestone in Norwich Cathedral is discussed in Blomefield, Essay
towards a Topographical History of Norfolk 4 (1806): 33-35, which
information may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3tovAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA33

According to Blomefield, the arms on Sir William Boleyn's gravestone
were as follows:

1. BOLEYN single, arg. a chevron gul. between three bulls heads cooped
S. armed or.
2. BOLEYN quartering, 1. ----- three mullets, 2 and 1, a chief
indented erm. [BRACTON]
2. BUTLER Earl of Ormond. Or, a chief indented az, Impaling HOE,
quarterly arg. and sab. quartering ST. OMER, az. a fess between six
croslets or, and a coat of pretence, in fess of WICHINGHAM er. on a
chief sab. three croslets pate or. 3. Three mullets 2 and 1, a chief
indented erm. [BRACTON]

So we have Hoo, and its associated quarterings, St. Omer and
Wichingham, but no Felton. I believe Bracton is a quartering of the
Boleyn family.

The failure of the Felton arms to appear on the gravestone of Sir
William Boleyn is a sure indication that his grandfather, Sir Thomas
Hoo (died 1455) was not the son of Eleanor Felton as claimed by
Complete Peerage.

The tombs of Sir William Boleyn and his mother, Anne Hoo, in Norwich
Cathedral are elsewhere discussed in Atherton, Norwich Cathedral:
Church, City, & Diocese, 1096–1996 (1996): 462, which may be viewed at
the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=iw0XzrlUZJ8C&pg=PA462

Mr. Atherton says the following:

"The patronage of the alterations to the presbytery is shown by the
magnificent heraldic scheme of seventeen shields depicting the Boleyns
of Salle and Blickling. The scheme accompanies the tombs of Sir
William Boleyn (d. 1505) and his mother Anne; the latter has
subsequently been removed. At first glance the shields appear rather
complex, but only seven families are represented: Boleyn, Bracton,
Hoo, St. Leger, St. Omer, Witchingham and Buttler - and only five
shields combining their quarterings." END OF QUOTE.

Another Hoo family quartering, that of St. Leger, is mentioned here,
but again no Felton.

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[wjhonson]

The Manor of Litcham had been settled in tail male. When Thomas de
Felton d.s.p.m.26 Apr 1380 it reverted away from his co-heiresses
entirely.

Thomas' widow Joan long outlived Thomas. She was yet living 9H4. She
made a fine limiting Felton's alias Barrows hall in Suffolk to her
daughter Mary and her heirs.

So there are ways to explain a few properties Thomas held, perhaps if
you listed what he held from his IPM we could tick them off one by
one.

[Jan]

Will, you can read the IPM of Thomas Felton here:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?u=1&num=139&id=wu.89095770921
(and the next two pages)

[Philip Cheyney]

On Jan 20, 1:50 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

>The failure of the Felton arms to appear on the gravestone of Sir
>William Boleyn is a sure indication that his grandfather, Sir Thomas
>Hoo (died 1455) was not the son of Eleanor Felton as claimed by
>Complete Peerage.

In Tudor times, quarterings were intended to show descent from
illustrious families whether that involved the inheritance of lands or
not.

However, in the early days of quartering, the quarters represented
land. If the Felton lands were settled away from Sir Thomas's
daughters, and their descendants did not inherit any of them, that
could well explain the absence of a Felton quarter on Sir William
Bolyn's tomb.

Philip

[J Cook]

On Jan 19, 8:50 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

> There is no doubt that the elder Sir Thomas Hoo (died 1420) married
> Eleanor Felton, widow of Sir Robert d'Ufford, of Wrentham, Suffolk.

Speaking of the Elder Sir Thomas Hoo, I see that Genealogics does not
have any extended Ancestry for him.

Is anything known for certain on the grandparents of William Hoo and
Alice St. Omer, beyond William Hoo's maternal grandfather being John
de St. Leger from whom lands were inherited?

Hal Bradley's website has many royal French/Welsh/etc lines from these
two:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hwbradley/aqwg1484.htm#29955

Joe C

[Philip Cheyney]

On Jan 20, 1:50 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

Reading on a little from the passages quoted, there is in Blomefield
at the bottom of page 35:

'Another stone had these arms:
1. Two lions passant guardant.
2. Quarterly Hoo and Wichingham, and a coat of pretence of
St Leger, az. frette arg. a chief or
3. St Omer'

Atherton refers on page 462 to a nearby stone bearing the arms of Sir
William's mother Anne Hoo.

If Blomefield's 'another stone' is Atherton's tomb of Anne Hoo, then
we have, not as a quarter but as a single coat of arms, the missing
shield of Fenton, 'two lions passant guardant'.

Philip

[Philip Cheyney]

On Jan 20, 5:12 pm, Philip Cheyney <philip.chey...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

The last sentence should have read '...the missing shield of Felton,

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Philip ~

Thanks for posting this item. I missed Blomefield's reference on page
35 to "another stone" [i.e., gravestone] in Norwich Cathedral. Just
so newsgroup members can view it, here is a weblink to that page in
Blomefield:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3tovAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA35

We know from her son, Sir William Boleyn's will that Anne (Hoo) Boleyn
was definitely buried in Norwich Cathedral. An abstract of Sir
William Boleyn's will is published in Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta, 2
(1826): 465, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XOgKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA465

Sir William Boleyn's will reads as follows:

"William Boleyn, Knight, [will dated] 7th October 1505. My body to be
buried in the Cathedral of Norwich, near the sepulture of Dame Ann
Boleyn, my mother." END OF QUOTE.

Given the heraldry on this other gravestone, I think it is a safe
assumption that this was the gravestone for Anne (Hoo) Boleyn, which
Atherton says was formerly found in Norwich Cathedral. As you point
out, Bromefield indicates that this other gravestone included the
Felton arms, which are two lions passant guardant, It is odd, though,
that Atherton missed those arms in his description of the gravestones
of Sir William Boleyn and his mother, Anne Hoo.

I don't know if this is an important point but the Felton arms on the
1393 seal of Eleanor (Felton) Ufford Hoo are described as two lions
passant in pale, crowned. I believe this is slightly different from
two lions passant guardant given by Blomefield on the gravestone of
Anne (Hoo) Boleyn in Norwich Cathedral. Even so, the arms of Eleanor
(Felton) Hoo are elsewhere found impaled with the arms of her husband,
Sir Thomas Hoo [died 1420] on a ledge in Norwich Cathedral. This item
was likely created in Eleanor Felton's lifetime, certainly c.
1395-1410. See Rose, Misericords of Norwich Cathedral (2003): 16,
which material (and photograph) may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=o1uF2vPMMcYC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA16

The author describes Eleanor Felton's arms on the misericord as red
two lions passant ermine, with no mention of the lions being "in pale"
or "guardant." I might note, though, that the arms, two lions
passant guardant in pale, are elsewhere found on the 1333 seal of Sir
John Felton, lord of Ochiltree [see Macdonald, Scottish Armorial Seals
(1904): 113].

For another description of the misericord in Norwich Cathedral with
the Hoo, Felton, and Saint Omer arms, see S08 (also N04) in the
following weblink:

http://www.misericords.co.uk/norwich_des.html

At any rate, since the Felton arms are apparently on the gravestone of
Anne (Hoo) Boleyn, I'm prepared to accept that her father, Sir Thomas
Hoo, was the son of Eleanor Felton. However, I am puzzled why the
Felton arms are missing from all of the later Hoo heraldic
achievements. Perhaps you are correct that the explanation for the
absence of the Felton arms is that Sir Thomas Hoo inherited none of
the lands of his mother's Felton inheritance. If that is the correct
explanation, this would be the first time I've encountered that
situation in heraldry. But we're dealing with a gravestone from 1484,
not 1600.

There are two points in favor of Eleanor Felton being the mother of
Sir Thomas Hoo [died 1455]. First, as I noted in my first post, the
chronology permits that Eleanor Felton was Sir Thomas Hoo's mother.
Second, Sir Thomas Hoo's father, Sir Thomas the elder [died 1420], is
only known to have had two wives, Eleanor Felton and Elizabeth
Echingham. Eleanor Felton allegedly died in 1400. I find that Sir
Thomas Hoo [died 1420] didn't marry his second wife, Elizabeth
Echingham, until after after 15 Jan. 1414/15 (date of inquisition)
[see Cal. Inqs. Misc. 7 (1968): 280]. Also, as I noted already,
Elizabeth Echingham was clearly called "mother in law" [that is, step-
mother] in the 1455 will of Sir Thomas Hoo [died 1455].

From another record I found today, it is certain that Sir Thomas Hoo
[died 1455] was an adult before 1426, or born in or before 1405 [see
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/663, rot. 121d) (available at http://
www.british-history.ac.uk/source.aspx?pubid=1272).. If his father had
only two wives, then Eleanor Felton would presumably have to be his
mother.

[Douglas Richardson]

In my post just now, I inadvertedly referred to Blomefield as
Bromefield. My apologies to Mr. Blomefield.

DR

[Philip Cheyney]

On Jan 20, 6:52 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

>I don't know if this is an important point but the Felton arms on the
>1393 seal of Eleanor (Felton) Ufford Hoo are described as two lions
>passant in pale, crowned. I believe this is slightly different from
>two lions passant guardant given by Blomefield on the gravestone of
>Anne (Hoo) Boleyn in Norwich Cathedral.

We do not know how worn or damaged the tombs were. Norwich cathedral,
and the two tombs, suffered during the Commonwealth at the hands of
iconoclasts like William Dowsing who was paid to go round East Anglia
destroying images in churches. The crowns (they would have been a
smallish open coronet) may by Blomefield's time have looked like the
ears of a lion facing out of the shield (= guardant).

'Per pale' is just being pedantic and pointing out specifically that
the lions passant (= walking horizontally across the shield) were
arranged one underneath the other. One really wouldn't expect
anything else at this time.

Philip

[John]

> two:http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hwbradley/aqwg1484....
>
> Joe C

There is a lengthy article on the Hoo family in Sussex Archaeological
Collections, vol. 8 (1856), which can probably be found on either
Google Books or the Internet Archive. In addition, an article by F.
N. Craig in NEHGR, vol. 140 (1986) gives information on the ancestry
of each of the earlier Hoo wives, starting with Alice St. Omer and
going back from there.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In a previous post in this thread, I mentioned a lawsuit dated 1426,
in which Thomas Hoo [afterwards K.G., died 1455] appeared as a
defendant. This lawsuit indicates that Thomas Hoo was an adult in or
before 1426, or born in or before 1405. I overlooked the fact that
there is a still earlier lawsuit dated 1422, which proves that Thomas
Hoo made a bond in his own right in 1419, which indicates he was born
in or before 1398. The year 1398 would be in the time period that
Thomas Hoo's father, Sir Thomas Hoo the elder [died 1420] is known to
have been married to his 1st wife, Eleanor de Felton [died 1400].

I've copied particulars of the 1422 lawsuit below which are taken from
British History Online at the following weblink :

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=118071&strquery=Thomas%20Hoo*

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + +
Court of Common Pleas

Term: Easter 1422
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 100s
Case type: Bond

Pleading: John Harrys claims that Thomas Hoo owes him £8 3s 4d per a
bond. Damages are claimed at 100s. Bond shown in court.

Pleading: Thomas Hoo defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as
Michaelmas term 1422. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Events Type Place Date
Bond St Stephen Walbrook < Walbrook Ward < London < England
(initial) 05/07/1419
(due) 29/09/1419 < Michaelmas

Individuals Individual Status Occupation Place Role
John Harrys, Citizen and Skinner of London, Plaintiff
Richard Pittes, Gentleman, of Brigstock, Northamptonshire, Surety for
defendant
Thomas Hoo, Esquire, Lordsec, of Hoo, Bedfordshire, England,
Defendant
Thomas Threder, Yeoman, of Luton, Hertfordshire, Surety for defendant
William Warner, Yeoman, of Brigstock, Northamptonshire, Surety for
defendant
William Yelverton, Gentleman, of Rougham, Norfolk, Surety for
defendant

[Wjhonson]

If the lands were settled away from *Eleanor* de Felton, co heiress, that alone would explain why the arms are not quartered in the Boleyn family. Her sisters could still have received portions of the land.

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

[Alex Maxwell Findlater]

The Feltons did not have particularly illustrious ancestry, so there
would have been no strong reason to quarter their arms. If they had
been illustrious the arms would definitely have been quartered in the
Tudor period - everyone wanted to connect themselves to earlier, pre-
Wars of the Roses, magnates. Look at the Garter Stall Plates!