Writtle ancestors of Lady Diana and Sarah Ferguson
Leo
Eleanor Walsingham-Writtle, Gerald Paget in his work on the ancestors of Prince Charles suggests a different ancestry.
Eleanor Writtle - Paget's nr O 29498
her parents
Walter Writtle, of Bobbingworth, died 18 April 1475, Paget's number P 58995
Joan Hende, Paget's number 58996
The Hende family has more ancestors which are recorded on my website.
Could Katherine you mention as mother of Grissell, perhaps, be a second wife, making Grissell and Eleanor half-sisters? Time wise it seems quite feasible.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra,
Australia
On Leo's great website here
http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00395932&tree=LEO
we see that Grissell Writtle who by marrying John Rochester became
ancestral to Princess Diana
Grissell and John appear, already married in the will of her mother
Katherine dated 1493, where Katherine specifically names this as "John
Rochester my son who married my daughter Grissell".
This Katherine "sometime wife of Walter Wrytell [or Writtle] and late
wife of Sir Richard Hawte
Since Katherine and Richard had a son Henry "born about 1487" as "The
Ancestry of Mary Isaac" states, this puts a limit on Katherine's birth
range on one side. Since in her will she specifically names her "god
daughter Katherine" the daughter of her daughter Eleanor (Writtle)
Walsingham, this puts a limit on the other side.
I had had this Eleanor as "co-heiress of her father" but I think this
is false. I think she must be "eventual co-heiress of her father" or
in other words, co-heiress of her brother or half-brother. I'm not
yet certain.
It must then be as well that Lora (Writtle) Waldegrave was a full
sister of Eleanor, as otherwise she would not also be listed as a "co-
heiress".
Grissell descents to Princess Diana, but not so far to Sarah, however
her full sister Eleanor descends to them both.
Will Johnson
-------------------------------
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
WJho...@aol.com
second wife to Walter Writtle after Joan Hende's death.
At an IPM on Walter's estate taken many years after his death apparently,
his heir was his own grandson John, son of his deceased son John. However at
Katherine's IPM HER heir was John Greene a son by her second marriage to
John Greene of Wickham Bohunt, co Essex. That proves that John Writtle was
not her son.
The proof that Grissell Writtle Rochester was not Joan Hende's daughter is
that Katherine in her own will dated 1493 states "John Rochester my son and
Grissell my daughter his wife". The proof that Grissell was the full sister
of Eleanor is that both were co-heiresses "to their father" which I modify
to "eventual co-heiresses of their father, or rather of their nephew" which
is not possible unless they were full sisters.
Were Eleanor the only full sister of the deceased John Writtle, she would
have been his sole heiresses, not sharing with her sister of the half-blood.
Will Johnson
John
What is the source for the statement that Eleanor was "co-heiress" of
her father and what is the date of this reference? Does the same
source (at the same date) mention Grissell and Lora as also co-
heiresses? The source does not appear to be the 1493 will or IPM of
Katherine (Boston) (Writtle) (Greene) Haute, at least according to
Davis' recounting of these in his "Mary Isaac". The date is
significant because Walter's son by Joan Hende did have at least one
heir that lived until 1509, and thus (as you suggest) it would be
premature to call any daughters "co-heiresses" rather than "eventual
co-heiresses" until after the death of the last heir of Walter's son,
and accordingly the accuracy of this particular source may be
questionable.
FWIW a pedigree in the Visitations of Essex (Harleian Society, vol.
13, p. 97) says that all three of Walter's daughters were by Katherine
Boston, but this pedigree is certainly incomplete as it doesn't
mention Walter's first marriage (let alone his sons) nor does it
mention Katherine's subsequent marriages. Conversely, a pedigree in
the Essex Review, 7:140 lists the sons of Walter Writtle's first
marriage with Joan Hende, but doesn't mention any daughters of this
marriage or mention at all the second marriage. So it's equally as
incomplete as the first pedigree. But one telling detail in the second
pedigree is that Joan Hende's mother was "Griselda dau. of Hamon
Belknap". The similarity of names between Joan's mother and Walter's
daughter could suggest that Grissell was a daughter by Joan instead of
Katherine.
It's not impossible that Katherine's 1493 will misnamed her daughters
and that they were in fact step-daughters. I believe that other
instances of such errors have been discussed in the group in the
past. In addition, there is at least one other notable error in the
proceedings at Katherine's death (at least as recounted by Davis in
"Mary isaac") to the effect that Walter's heir is identified as his
cousin (rather than grandson) John. BTW, Katherine had more sons than
just John Green (or Grene) that are enumerated in her will - all
presumably by her second husband except Henry who was definitely by
her 3rd husband Sir Richard Haute (the younger).
As always, it's too bad that Paget didn't provide sources for his
identification of the mother of Elanor (Writtle) Walsingham. (Does
that make Paget "unsupported" and therefore "spurious"?) But he
clearly had some reason for reaching thsi conclusion, and given the
incomplete nature of the sources, it may be premature to simply
dismiss his conclusion.
Tony Ingham
You state below that Griseld and Eleanor must have been full sisters as
they were co-heirs of their father Walter Writtel. This is manisfestly
incorrect, a man could have many daughters by many different wives and
as long as he had no male heir then all his daughters were his co-heirs
by law.
The fact that Katherine Boston/Writtle called 'Grissell' her daughter is
meaningless as it was the practice of many later wives to name their
husband's daughters (and indeed sons) by a previous marriage as their own.
I can only assume that Griseld was the daughter of Joan Hende and
grand-daughter of Griseld Belknap, and named after her grand-mother.
Tony Ingham
On 27/09/2010 10:49 AM, WJho...@aol.com wrote:
> Yes Katherine Boston, daughter of Thomas Boston, merchant of London, was a
> second wife to Walter Writtle after Joan Hende's death.
>
> At an IPM on Walter's estate taken many years after his death apparently,
> his heir was his own grandson John, son of his deceased son John. However at
> Katherine's IPM HER heir was John Greene a son by her second marriage to
> John Greene of Wickham Bohunt, co Essex. That proves that John Writtle was
> not her son.
>
> The proof that Grissell Writtle Rochester was not Joan Hende's daughter is
> that Katherine in her own will dated 1493 states "John Rochester my son and
> Grissell my daughter his wife". The proof that Grissell was the full sister
> of Eleanor is that both were co-heiresses "to their father" which I modify
> to "eventual co-heiresses of their father, or rather of their nephew" which
> is not possible unless they were full sisters.
>
> Were Eleanor the only full sister of the deceased John Writtle, she would
> have been his sole heiresses, not sharing with her sister of the half-blood.
>
> Will Johnson
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3159 - Release Date: 09/26/10 03:45:00
>
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> As always, it's too bad that Paget didn't provide sources for his
> identification of the mother of Elanor (Writtle) Walsingham. (Does
> that make Paget "unsupported" and therefore "spurious"?) But he
> clearly had some reason for reaching thsi conclusion, and given the
> incomplete nature of the sources, it may be premature to simply
> dismiss his conclusion. >>
By now you should have seen several references to the claim that Paget is
slip-shod. I can assume that he made this connection merely because that's
the source he had at hand, and he didn't research any further. His claim is
unsupported in his work obviously. The counter-claim is supported in the
will of Katherine. To me, that is a much higher weight.
It's possible, as you say, that these children were her step-daughters. We
then have to research what occurred with Katherine's own estate that went
to her heir John Greene. If for example, his line died out, and the heirs
were the descendents of these girls, then we'd know they were Katherine's own
daughters.
Right now, I believe we have more presumptive claim that they were, than
that they weren't.
Paget is not a good source to show a conflict. His work was only meant as
a broad survey, not as a penultimate source.
WJho...@aol.com
tony....@bigpond.com writes:
> You state below that Griseld and Eleanor must have been full sisters as
> they were co-heirs of their father Walter Writtel. This is manisfestly
> incorrect, a man could have many daughters by many different wives and
> as long as he had no male heir then all his daughters were his co-heirs
> by law. >>
Tony you are not understanding the situation.
They were manifestly NOT Walter's co-heiresses as I already stated.
Walter's heir long after his death, was his grandson, not his daughters.
That's the point.
In order for the girls to be his "eventual" co-heiresses, as I correct,
they would have to be either *all* full sisters of the main line, or *all*
sisters of the half-blood. There could not be a mixture. That's the point.
If one was a full sister, and the other a half-sister of this *male* heir
of the line, they would not inherit together. The full sister would inherit.
The only way around that, would be if all full sisters' lines died out
before the heir of the male lines' did. Then, and only then, would the lines of
the half-sisters inherit.
John
> In a message dated 9/26/2010 8:55:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
I think it's rather extreme and unfair to posthumously deride Paget as
"slipshod". I think there's ample evidence that he did do thorough
research - for the more than 60 years that he worked on the ancestry
of the Prince of Wales (with the Prince in question changing over that
era). His published work does not have sources, but that was likely a
decision by his publisher, as a matter of economics and the size of
resulting book, rather than necessarily by Paget himself (who was then
roughly 90). In hindsight it was perhaps an unfortunate publishing
decision, but it's not an appropriate basis on which to denigrate
Paget's actual research. As to his work being "only meant as a broad
survey", have you actually seen Paget's work in order to make this
judgment?
To get back to the specific topic of this thread I repeat the question
I raised earlier:
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> In hindsight it was perhaps an unfortunate publishing
> decision, but it's not an appropriate basis on which to denigrate
> Paget's actual research. As to his work being "only meant as a broad
> survey", have you actually seen Paget's work in order to make this
> judgment? >>
I did not "denigrate" his work. I pointed out that, since it has no
sources, it is unsupported in his work. That's a tautology.
Several times, right here on this group, we have pointed out errors in his
work.
>
> To get back to the specific topic of this thread I repeat the question
> I raised earlier:
>
> What is the source for the statement that Eleanor was "co-heiress" of
> her father and what is the date of this reference? Does the same
> source (at the same date) mention Grissell and Lora as also co-
> heiresses? The source does not appear to be the 1493 will or IPM of
> Katherine (Boston) (Writtle) (Greene) Haute, at least according to
> Davis' recounting of these in his "Mary Isaac". The date is
> significant because Walter's son by Joan Hende did have at least one
> heir that lived until 1509, and thus (as you suggest) it would be
> premature to call any daughters "co-heiresses" rather than "eventual
> co-heiresses" until after the death of the last heir of Walter's son,
> and accordingly the accuracy of this particular source may be
> questionable. >>
Why are you repeating this? I heard you the first time. I responded to a
few points, not to all of them, because I don't have all of my notes right
in front of me, right now. You can find however, for example that Grissell
is named as a co-heiress of her father in the DNB entry for her son Sir
Robert Rochester.
Otherwise you're going to have to wait, until I can respond to this
specific point.
John
> In a message dated 9/27/2010 9:20:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
Okay, so you were just restating supposed "references to the claim
that Paget is
slip-shod". i doubt that you can find any such "claim" that expressed
it that way and in particular used the word "slipshod" - that word
appears to be your judgment. But this is just splitting hairs, I
guess.
Of course Paget's work contains errors - subsequent or more extensive
research can always find "errors" in any genealogical work. That
doesn't mean that the original work is unacceptable or "slipshod".
Even Will Johnson is known to have made errors based on insufficient
research - as recently as a few days ago!
I look forward to seeing further evidence on the co-heiresses of
Walter Writtle.
John
> Why are you repeating this? I heard you the first time. I responded to a
> few points, not to all of them, because I don't have all of my notes right
> in front of me, right now. You can find however, for example that Grissell
> is named as a co-heiress of her father in the DNB entry for her son Sir
> Robert Rochester.
>
> Otherwise you're going to have to wait, until I can respond to this
> specific point.
FWIW, although the old DNB in its bio of Sir Robert Rochester says
that his mother Grissell Writtle was "daughter and coheir" of Walter
as you say, that reference is removed in the revised on-line ODNB,
which doesn't mention Grissell's paternity or heirship. Did the
author or editor of ODNB find the earlier article to be erroneous?
Maybe - or maybe not. Make of it what you will....
OTOH, you may want to check out the bio of Sir Robert Rochester in HOP
1509-1558, which says his mother was "Griselda, da. and EVENTUAL coh.
of Walter Writtle of Bobbingsworth" [enphasis added]. But it's not
immediately clear from the sources for HOp how this conclusion was
reached.
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> Of course Paget's work contains errors - subsequent or more extensive
> research can always find "errors" in any genealogical work. That
> doesn't mean that the original work is unacceptable or "slipshod".
> Even Will Johnson is known to have made errors based on insufficient
> research - as recently as a few days ago! >>
There you go using the odd expression "acceptable" as if there is a pruning
knife that seperates one branch from the trunk.
In my database I still have numerous references to Stirnet and to
Tudorplace.com.ar even though I no longer recommend those sites to people who ask,
and I point out that the sites really are not useful for the sort of work I'm
trying to do. Others may use them, but I'm going to.
"Slipshod" is my judgement call, I'm allowed to make it, you're allowed to
dispute it.
My opinion is not a fact, it's an opinion.
Of course I make errors, everyone makes errors. That doesn't mean you
should use what I say, or not use what I say, based on my errors or lack of
errors.
It's your choice, and that's the point.
Sometimes I think you understand me, and then other times you go off on a
flight of fancy that comes out of left field :)
I'm certainly not comparing myself to Paget. After all that would be a
farce, I'm perfect and he was not.
What I'm doing is pointing out, yet again, that sources which do not cite
sources, are only are worthwhile as if they tend to actually state their
(uncited) underlying sources with a certain degree of accuracy, whatever those
underlying may say. And which you cannot determine without knowing those
sources anyway, so what's the point? And that they tend to cover the field of
sources, instead of relying on a single source.
In the case of this particular example, we can see that there is conflict
and obviously that conflict is not stated in Paget's source and so in this
case, his source is flawed, in not at least stating that there is a conflict,
whatever it's resolution might be.
But as I said, his source was never intended to be this sort of "in-depth"
analysis, it's a general overall survey of the field. Even if he had known
of this conflict, he may not have cited it, prefering to choose a single
"answer" for this blank spot.
In the sort of detailed work which I am doing, that is not useful to me.
It's flawed.
I also do not see the need to use his source, when the intricate details of
all the relationships specified therein, are already covered in sources
which are much more precise and detailed than his. There's no point.
W.
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> FWIW, although the old DNB in its bio of Sir Robert Rochester says
> that his mother Grissell Writtle was "daughter and coheir" of Walter
> as you say, that reference is removed in the revised on-line ODNB,
> which doesn't mention Grissell's paternity or heirship. Did the
> author or editor of ODNB find the earlier article to be erroneous?
> Maybe - or maybe not. Make of it what you will....
>
> OTOH, you may want to check out the bio of Sir Robert Rochester in HOP
> 1509-1558, which says his mother was "Griselda, da. and EVENTUAL coh.
> of Walter Writtle of Bobbingsworth" [enphasis added]. But it's not
> immediately clear from the sources for HOp how this conclusion was
> reached. >>
The will is cited in "Mary Isaac" of Grissell's mother.
That proves who Grissell's mother was.
Odd that the ODNB doesn't cite this. I should add that to my list of
corrections.
I'm glad that HOP fully vindicates me :) even if they don't cite the exact
source for this claim.
John
> In a message dated 9/27/2010 12:15:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
We've already had discussion on whether Katherine Haute's will (as
described in Davis' "Mary isaac") is accurate in describing Grissell
as her daughter rather than step-daughter. Anyway, since ODNB doesn't
mention either parent of Grissell, it's not really a "correction" to
it, but instead beyond the scope of what ODNB chose to address. (And
the old DNB only mentions her father, not her mother - whoever she may
be).
While HOP's sources may or may not support Grissell's status as
"eventual co-heiress" of her father, your assertion of that status for
Grissell and her sister is also unsupported so far (except for the old
DNB reference). Yeah, I know - i should be patient, you're still
digging through your notes...
John
> In a message dated 9/27/2010 11:50:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
>
> "Slipshod" is my judgement call, I'm allowed to make it, you're allowed to
> dispute it.
> My opinion is not a fact, it's an opinion.
I recognize that your opinion is exactly that, and i will certainly
dispute it when necessary. if you in your "judgment" (such as it may
be) choose to state opinions which I regard as rash, off-the-cuff,
uninformed, or otherwise generally stupid (the word "slipshod" is
appropriate here), I haven't hesitated to respond. You're obviously
free to dispute my opinion - or ignore it. OTOH perhaps it would be
better for me to just treat you as a troll and ignore your postings.
>
> I'm certainly not comparing myself to Paget. After all that would be a
> farce, I'm perfect and he was not.
!!!!
> But as I said, his source was never intended to be this sort of "in-depth"
> analysis, it's a general overall survey of the field. Even if he had known
> of this conflict, he may not have cited it, prefering to choose a single
> "answer" for this blank spot.
You obviously haven't even seen Paget's work if you characterize it as
"a general overall survey of the field". But it's indicative of what
is so irritating about so many of your posts: the tendency to make
broad and over-reaching statements (of opinion OR fact - not
necessarily distinguished from one another) which are supported, if at
all, by only very limited research (usually just some Googling).
But you clearly aren't going to change your modus operandi, and I
suppose that I should follow the lead of others in the group and just
ignore your more laughable "contributions".
Good luck in your efforts as a "professional genealogist"....
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> While HOP's sources may or may not support Grissell's status as
> "eventual co-heiress" of her father, your assertion of that status for
> Grissell and her sister is also unsupported so far (except for the old
> DNB reference). Yeah, I know - i should be patient, you're still
> digging through your notes... >>
Don't be so sarcastic my friend, you're turning colors.
My notes are not WITH me. I am not with my notes.
Can you understand that? You can whine and plead and moan but that won't
make those notes magically appear at my current location.
Or you can be patient.
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> broad and over-reaching statements (of opinion OR fact - not
> necessarily distinguished from one another) which are supported, if at
> all, by only very limited research (usually just some Googling).
>
> But you clearly aren't going to change your modus operandi, and I
> suppose that I should follow the lead of others in the group and just
> ignore your more laughable "contributions".
>
> Good luck in your efforts as a "professional genealogist"....
You're off your meds today.
Do you really equate "Googling" to the actual reading of published books
available on Google Books?
Does it seem equal to you, to cite someone's family tree or to cite TCP or
CPR ?
Really John? Really?
You've strayed away from the reservation. Try to control yourself.
wjhonson
>
> - Show quoted text -
The ancestry of Mary Isaac states that Eleanor and Grissell were co-
heiresses, and does not mention a Lora at all.
The Vis Essex you cite does not name the mother of the girls at all,
but does include this Lora who married a Waldegrave and had a son
Edward
The error is easy to see now, since Grissell herself had a daughter
Lora who married John Waldegrave of Borley and had this son Edward.
So someone has just moved Lora up a generation where she doesn't
belong.
That someone probably knew that there were two co-heiresses but then
couldn't figure out what to do with Eleanor, since he'd already marked
two.
Sir Edward Waldegrave has a DNB which names his mother
The DNB of Robert names his sister Lora and her nephew as his
succcessor to the chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster.
This is still not primary evidence that Grissell and Eleanor were
daughters of Katherine Boston versus Joan Hende. For that we'd
probably have to look at the disposition of anything that Joan brought
to her marriage.
wjhonson
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here it is. The proof that Grissell and Eleanor were not off the wife
Joan Hende is how the Manor of Stonden descended.
Griselda (Belknap) Hende was probably holding it in dower as she was
yet living in 1471.
Whenever Griselda died, the manor would have descended to her grandson
John Writtle who died 13 Oct 1485 at which time his son and heir, also
John was only a few months old, being at the IPM dated Nov 1493 "aged
7 and more" and then in the king's custody.
This John married Ethelreda Shaa, daughter of Sir John Shaa Mayor of
London and guardian of the boy John.
They had a daughter Juliana who died in 1509 "two years old"
apparently after her parents had both died as well, as *that year* the
manor was granted to Griselda Belknap's *brother*.
If there had been other heirs in this line, they or the heirs of their
lines (which both lines had living heirs) would have had a prior claim
to Stonden.
This shows that the line of Griselda Belknap was by the death of
Juliana in 1509, completely extinct.
Will "the hopeless idiot" Johnson
John
To "the hopeless idiot":
This is informative, but "as is" it's simply a string of statements
from you with no supporting evidence whatsoever - and by your own
standard "unsupported" can possibly mean "spurious". But I can help
you avoid the embarrassment of your work being deemed "spurious" by
providing the information that you neglected to include: some sources
which provide support for these statements.
Most of this information can be seen in the item in the Essex Review,
7:140, which I mentioned earlier. But a more detailed account can be
be found in the chapter on the manor of Stondon [sic] Massey in VCH
Essex vol. 4 (Ongar Hundred). In essence it says that Griselda
(Belknap) Hende was NOT holding Stondon in dower as you indicate, but
rather her brother-in-law John Hende (one of two brothers named John -
the other was Griselda's husband) received it via will from his father
and subsequently entailed it to first his niece Joan (daughter of
Griselda and 1st wife of Walter Writtle) and her heirs and then to the
heirs of Griselda herself. By 1509, as you indicate, the heirs of
Joan (Hende) Writtle had died out, and by the terms of the entail
Stondon went to Griselda's Belknap heir Edward Belknap - who was
Griselda's nephew, NOT her brother as you state above.
None of this directly addresses the question of the status of Walter
Writtle's three daughters as co-heiresses (eventual or otherwise) of
their father. But this is addressed, at least peripherally, in the
descent of Walter's other manors Bobbingworth and High Laver in the
same volume of VCH Essex. After Walter's death, these manors did at
first descend with Stondon to the heirs of his son John. But after
1509 they went a different route, since they were Walter's estates and
not covered by the entail of his first wife's family's property at
Stondon. Specifically Walter's two surviving daughters Eleanor and
Griselda (or Grissell) shared the inheritance of Bobbingworth and High
Laver (and they or their heirs later disposed of both properties).
The bottom line is that all of this seems to provide satisfactory
evidence (and not just unsupported assertions) that the daughters of
Walter Writtle were by his second wife Katherine Boston (as indicated
in her will - at least for two of them). FWIW the VCH Essex accounts
appear to provide some further ancestral information for Walter
Writtle {or Wryttel, as he is called there) which I need to peruse
further.
And, to answer Leo's original question which started this thread,
Paget is apparently wrong in saying that Eleanor Writtle was the
daughter of Joan Hende rather than Katerine Boston.
BTW, fortunately for Will, both the item in the Essex Review and the
appropriate volume of VCH Essex are available on-line.
WJho...@aol.com
I did *not* state that Griselda was holding it in dower. I said she was
probably holding it in dower.
I'm sure you know what probably means.
But I appreciate that you've now come round in a full circle to exactly the
same position as "Mary Isaac" already states ;)~~~ snark snark.
And regardless of whether this addresses whether the daughters were
co-heiresses of their father, if you will read again I was addressing specifically
and *solely* your point that they MAY have been step-daughters, not
daughters. That is, daughters of Joan Hende the first wife.
What I gave, proves that they were not daughters of Joan Hende, as if they
had been, they would have received the manor.
I was not addressing, at all, in that post, whether they were co-heiresses
of their *father* but rather, and solely, in that post, which wife was their
mother.
But of course you read in such a rushed manner you wouldn't have noticed
that :)
Will
John
I give up....you're incorrigible....
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> I give up....you're incorrigible....
You give up until tomorrow.
Says the pot to the kettle.
WJho...@aol.com
log in mine!
If you parse the VCH entry finely you will see that although John Hende
"the younger" died in 1464 (his elder brother had died in 1461) devising the
Manor to his niece Joan and then to the heirs of Griselda...
Joan *herself* predeceased this uncle. THUS it was Griselda who held as
widow of John in 1471 (when I think she presented iirc) just as I stated,
which also then implies that John Writtle the son of Joan must have yet been a
minor.
So there Mister Smarty Pants.
Will
Tony Ingham
G'day Will and John,
After such a lengthy exchange of pleasantries I have been waiting for
either one of you to call a temporary truce. However, as the discussion
is gathering speed by the minute I 'm sending you both a couple of
primary sources which you may find interesting.
Firstly, Walter Writtel's will:
Description Will of Walter Wyrtyll of Essex
Date 19 February 1476
Catalogue reference PROB 11/6
This was written in Latin on 6 Oct 1473. His supervisors were Nicholas
Thorles knight and Walter Writyll esquire. His executors were his wife
Katherine and Humphrey Starkey gent., whose daughter Anne married John
Writtel.
His wife Katherine was to have the custody and the marriage of Walter's
son John, [who was obviously a minor].
. . . . then I intend that all my feoffees of and in all other my manors
with advowsons and their appurtenances in all other my . . . .
tenements with their appurtenances in co. Essex make estate after the
decease of the foresaid Katerine my wife to Elianore Gresyld & Katerine
my daughters divided equally between them . . . .
Later in the will there is also an entail to Walter's son John and the
heirs male of his body with reversions (which should include his
daughters though they are not named).
If there is anyone on the list who feels that they could make a good
fist of translating the Latin I'll happily send them the PDF file.
The last item in Katherine Haute's will is this - I give to my
daughter Walsingham the christening basin which I gave her when she was
right little.
This would surely indicate that Eleanor was definitely Katherine's
daughter. The naming order in Walter's will suggests that all three
girls were born to Katherine.
I see that mention has been made to the division of the estate after the
death of Juliane the daughter of John Writtel and Audrey Shaa in 1510.
1500-1515 P.R.O. C 1/371/87
> James Walsyngham and Eleanor, his wife, and Gresyll West, widow. v.
> John Mundy, of London, goldsmith.: Detention of deeds relating to
> manors and lands late of Juliana, daughter and heir of John Wrytyll,
> whose daughters? and heirs the said Eleanor and Gresyll are.
The Fines indicating the distribution of the various manors and lands in
Essex beginning Easter term 1510 appear in Vol. IV. of Essex Feet of
Fines pages 120-121.
> Easter 2 Henry VIII. No. 15.
> John Everard and John Sennowe, pl.
> James Walsingham, esquire, and Eleanor his wife and Edward
> Waldegrave and Grisilda his wife, def.
> The manors of Astlyns [in High Ongar], Buckhurst, and Gooldhurst
> [both in Chigwell] and 8 messuages, 200 acres of land, 40 acres of
> meadow, 400 acres of pasture, 40 acres of wood and 40s. rent in
> Bobyngeworth, Welde, Moreton, Laver Mawdelen, Fyffehede, alta Onger,
> Northweld Basset, Chigewell and Berkyng. Def. quitclaimed to pl. and
> the heirs of John Everard. Consideration 300£.
At Michaelmas 29 Henry VIII. there are further settlements by Edward and
Grisilda in the same volume of the Essex Fines at pages 215-216.
Another source from E.R.O. dealing with the non-Writtel lands
> 1508/9 Essex Record Office D/DB/T96/58
> MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS DEPOSITED BY THE BRITISH RECORDS ASSOCIATION
> Dates of Creation 31 Jan 1509
> Indenture of agreement between Edward Belnap, esq., cousin and h.
> of Grisild Hende, and John Basset, cousin and h. to John Hende, cit.
> of London, and to his sons John Hende, sen., and John Hende, jun., of
> the one part, and Grisild West, widow, daughter and co-heir of Walter
> Writell and cousin and heir of Robert Writell and Eleanor Prior his
> wife of the other part, by which the first party guarantees to the
> other a moiety of Mole hall in Debden, Chigwell, Astlyns, Bobbingworth
> and High Laver with lands in many other parishes, and the second
> guarantees to the first the manors of Little Canfield, Great & Little
> Chishall, Bradwell-by Coggeshall, Pygotts, Stisted, Ramsey, Wrabness,
> Mascallbury in White Roading, Shalford mill and Stondon, and third of
> the manors of Blamsters and other property in Kent and Essex. 2
> seals, one quasi-armorial.
I reckon the argument about co-heirs or eventual co-heirs is a bit of a
no brainer. Why don't you just call it a draw and agree to disagree.
You are both too adept at this caper to be arguing the toss about such a
minor thing.
All the best,
Tony Ingham