Corbet-Mallory marriage wrong?
Vickie (Elam) White
In a recent issue of NEHGS' Nexxus, Gary Boyd Roberts states that Robert CORBET
of Moreton Corbet did not marry Margaret MALLORY, daughter of Sir William
MALLORY of Shawbury and an unknown first wife. This contradicts articles that
appeared in TAG 35:100-106,245; 37:45-51; 40:95-99, 253 as well as in the 7th
edition of Weis' "Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists...", which
outline a descent from Piers de GAVESTON and Margaret de CLARE. Yet no proof of
the reason behind deleting this ancestry was given by Gary Boyd Roberts. Does
anyone know the proof?
My husband descends from the BULKELEY family, so this interests me greatly.
While this family has other royal and noble lines, I was tickled to have one
from good ol' Piers. Anyone else descend from the BULKELEY family?
Vickie (Elam) White
10265...@compuserve.com
( Vicki Chrysler-Royalty)
In a message dated 96-08-20 16:45:04 EDT, you write:
<< Hi Vicki: Yes, my husband is a descendant of Martha Bulkley who married
Abraham Mellows. Gary's article has had me spending weeks redoing our
charts
- a massive project! If he is mistaken, I'll kill him! (Just teasing!) As
it is, we still ended up with connections back to Charlemagne in tact,
regardless - yet I am anxiously awaiting others responses to your post to
see
what the general trend of thinking might be. Keep in touch.
Jeanne
>>
JBel...@aol.com
Don Stone
Vickie (Elam) White wrote:
> In a recent issue of NEHGS' Nexus, Gary Boyd Roberts states that Robert CORBET
> of Moreton Corbet did not marry Margaret MALLORY, daughter of Sir William
> MALLORY of Shawbury and an unknown first wife. This contradicts articles
that
> appeared in TAG 35:100-106,245; 37:45-51; 40:95-99, 253 as well as in the 7th
> edition of Weis' "Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists...", which
> outline a descent from Piers de GAVESTON and Margaret de CLARE. Yet no proof
of
> the reason behind deleting this ancestry was given by Gary Boyd Roberts. Does
> anyone know the proof?
The relevant information is in _The History of Parliament: The House of Commons,
1386-1421_, by J. S. Roskell, Linda Clark and Carole Rawcliffe, 1992, vol. II,
p. 654 (Corbet) and vol. III, p. 674, footnote 1 (Mallory). It appears that
Sir William Mallory was the second husband rather than the father of Margaret,
widow of Robert Corbet. Thus Margaret's descendants (the Bulkeleys as well as
Robert Abell) lose the line from Piers de Gaveston through Sir William Mallory.
-- Don Stone
Vickie (Elam) White
On 8/20/96 Don Stone wrote
<<The relevant information is in _The History of Parliament: The House of
Commons,
1386-1421_, by J. S. Roskell, Linda Clark and Carole Rawcliffe, 1992, vol. II,
p. 654 (Corbet) and vol. III, p. 674, footnote 1 (Mallory). It appears that
Sir William Mallory was the second husband rather than the father of Margaret,
widow of Robert Corbet. Thus Margaret's descendants (the Bulkeleys as well as
Robert Abell) lose the line from Piers de Gaveston through Sir William
Mallory.>>
Don,
Thanks for your response.
According to Weis' AR7, Sir William MALLORY did indeed marry, as his second
wife, a woman named Margaret. But Weis says that she was the mother of the
Margaret MALLORY ( - 1439) who married Robert CORBET. He says that Sir
William's first wife is unknown but was perhaps a PAPWORTH descendant. His
second wife Margaret ____ may have been a relative of Giles ERDINGTON.
TAG 40:98 states that Margaret MALLORY who married Robert CORBET was the
daughter of Sir William's unkown first wife and she was born ca 1397. Their
marriage could have been influenced by her stepmother, Margaret ( ) MALLORY
because both she and Robert CORBET were connected to the ERDINGTON family.
Does the source you cite distinguish between the two Margarets enough to
invalidate the GAVESTON line? Is it possible for you to post the pertinent
quote?
Vickie (Elam) White
10265...@compuserve.com
Todd A. Farmerie
In a previous article, 10265...@COMPUSERVE.COM (Vickie (Elam) White) says:
>In a recent issue of NEHGS' Nexxus, Gary Boyd Roberts states that Robert CORBET
>of Moreton Corbet did not marry Margaret MALLORY, daughter of Sir William
>MALLORY of Shawbury and an unknown first wife.
This is news to me. I did (I think) send him evidence that the unknown
first wife of William was NOT a Papworth as had been speculated in CP and
Weis, but I do not know of a fault with his daughter's marriage.
Todd
Don Stone
Vickie (Elam) White wrote:
> According to Weis' AR7, Sir William MALLORY did indeed marry, as his second
> first wife is unknown but was perhaps a PAPWORTH descendant. His
> second wife Margaret ____ may have been a relative of Giles ERDINGTON.
> TAG 40:98 states that Margaret MALLORY who married Robert CORBET was the
> marriage could have been influenced by her stepmother, Margaret ( ) MALLORY
> because both she and Robert CORBET were connected to the ERDINGTON family.
> Does the source you cite distinguish between the two Margarets enough to
> invalidate the GAVESTON line? Is it possible for you to post the pertinent
> quote?
According to vols. II and III of _The History of Parliament: The House of
Commons, 1386-1421_, Sir William MALLORY married (1) 1420/1, Margaret (d. 26
Jan. 1439 [1438/9?]), wid. of Robert CORBET (who had died in 1420 at the early
age of 36), by whom he had a son Thomas MALLORY, and (2) Margery _______; by
her first husband (Robert CORBET) Margaret had two sons, Thomas, b. ca. 1410
(aged 10 years at his father's death in 1420), and Roger, b. ca 1414/5 (aged 24
years at his mother's death in 1438, according to John G. Hunt in TAG 35: 104).
Hunt proposes (TAG 40: 98) that Sir William MALLORY was born ca. 1380 and that
his supposed daughter Margaret, wife of Robert CORBET, was born ca. 1397, but
Hunt doesn't seem to be aware of Margaret's elder son, Thomas CORBET, who died
before his mother. In order for Margaret to be the mother of this Thomas (b.
ca. 1410), she would have to be born ca. 1394 or earlier and her father would
have to be born ca. 1377 or earlier; it is unlikely that Sir William MALLORY
was born in 1377 or earlier, because William's mother's second (or possibly
first?) husband died in 1378 and William was the second son of her third
marriage, his older full brother Thomas MALLORY being born ca. 1380/1 (aged 12
or more at his father's death in 1393) (TAG 35: 102-3).
Chronologically, the relationships given in _The History of Parliament_ are
definitely more plausible than those postulated by Hunt.
Brice McAdoo Clagett has done further research on this problem, but has not yet
published the results.
-- Don Stone
Vickie (Elam) White
On 8/21/96 Don Stone wrote:
<< Sir William MALLORY married (1) 1420/1, Margaret (d. 26 Jan. 1439 [1438/9?]),
wid. of Robert CORBET (who had died in 1420 at the early age of 36)>>
Don,
Thanks for responding. But I have one problem with this, namely I had been
under the impression that Robert CORBET died in 1440 and that his wife Margaret
predeceased him by about one year.
In TAG 37:51 Hunt writes "The i.p.m. of Dame Margaret CORBET wife of Robert
CORBET of Morton, knight, 18 Henry VI, Ref. C 139/90/4 shows that Robert and
Margaret held in the manor of Shawebury with appurtenances in co. Salop." So,
if this was written about 1440, wouldn't this show that Robert was still alive?
It doesn't say widow or relict of Robert CORBET, it says wife.
Also, in Weis' AR7:32, it says Robert CORBET died in 1440, not 1420. Do you
have any idea where Weis got this death date of 1440, since he doesn't mention a
source for this fact much less the TAG 35:29 - 32 which he cites for the rest of
the ancestry.
Since Robert was the Sheriff of Shropshire in 1419, is there a way to find out
how long he held this position? Do you have access to __The History of
Parliament__ so you could find the actual statement that Robert died in 1420 at
the age of 36? It is evidently in Volume II pp. 653-654.
It still seems that somewhere there is a mixup concerning Sir William MALLORY's
second wife Margaret ( ) and his daughter Margaret MALLORY. Could there also
be a mixup between Sir Robert CORBET and another by the same name who died in
1420?
I haven't really digested all of the TAG articles and your letter, since I
couldn't get past the problem of Margaret CORBET not being a widow in 1420. I'm
quite prepared to accept this new development revealed by Gary Boyd Roberts, but
I do want to see as much of the evidence as possible.
I'm looking forward to corresponding with you, Don (and others), on this line.
Are you a descendent of any of these players?
Vickie (Elam) White
10265...@compuserve.com
Todd A. Farmerie
In a previous article, DonS...@PLANTAGENET.COM (Don Stone) says:
>The relevant information is in _The History of Parliament: The House of Commons,
>1386-1421_, by J. S. Roskell, Linda Clark and Carole Rawcliffe, 1992, vol. II,
>p. 654 (Corbet) and vol. III, p. 674, footnote 1 (Mallory). It appears that
>Sir William Mallory was the second husband rather than the father of Margaret,
>widow of Robert Corbet. Thus Margaret's descendants (the Bulkeleys as well as
>Robert Abell) lose the line from Piers de Gaveston through Sir William Mallory.
>
This is curious, but I find myself asking, what is the source that enables
this conclusion to be drawn? If I had a royal ancestor for every time an
established pedigree was wrongly overturned on some unsubstantiate whim of
the author (take, for instance, Faussner and the Otto II connection) I
would be the Queen. Do they provide sources?
Todd
Vickie (Elam) White
On 8/23/96 Todd A. Farmerie responded to my query about the NEHGS Nexxus article
that says Robert CORBET of Moreton Corbet did not marry Margaret MALLORY,
daughter of Sir William MALLORY of Shawbury and an unknown first wife with this
message:
<<This is news to me. I did (I think) send him evidence that the unknown first
wife of William was NOT a Papworth as had been speculated in CP and Weis, but I
do not know of a fault with his daughter's marriage.>>
Todd,
You should take a look at the Nexxus article, it is the most recent one I think
(Volume 13 #3-4, page 128). The gist of the little note about the CORBET-
MALLORY marriage is that Robert CORBET married not Margaret MALLORY, daughter of
Sir William MALLORY but Margaret ( ), who later married Sir William as her
second husband.
I believe that there is a mixup between mother and daughter. Sir William
MALLORY did marry a woman named Margaret as his second wife, but he also had a
daughter named Margaret MALLORY. The daughter is the one who I had thought
married Robert CORBET.
Any idea what the mixup is? Any sources to prove or disprove what Gary Boyd
Roberts is saying?
Vickie (Elam) White
10265...@compuserve.com
Don Stone
On 22 Aug. 1996 Vickie (Elam) White wrote:
> On 8/21/96 Don Stone wrote:
> << Sir William MALLORY married (1) 1420/1, Margaret (d. 26 Jan. 1439
[1438/9?]),
> wid. of Robert CORBET (who had died in 1420 at the early age of 36)>>
> under the impression that Robert CORBET died in 1440 and that his wife
Margaret
> predeceased him by about one year.
> In TAG 37:51 Hunt writes "The i.p.m. of Dame Margaret CORBET wife of Robert
> CORBET of Morton, knight, 18 Henry VI, Ref. C 139/90/4 shows that Robert and
> Margaret held in the manor of Shawebury with appurtenances in co. Salop." So,
> if this was written about 1440, wouldn't this show that Robert was still
alive?
> It doesn't say widow or relict of Robert CORBET, it says wife.
> Also, in Weis' AR7:32, it says Robert CORBET died in 1440, not 1420. Do you
> have any idea where Weis got this death date of 1440, since he doesn't mention
a
> source for this fact much less the TAG 35:29 - 32 which he cites for the rest
of
> the ancestry.
I don't know where Hunt or Weis (Sheppard) get the death date of 1440 for Robert
CORBET. The (New) Complete Peerage, vol. V, p. 88, note a (cited by Hunt), says
that Robert Corbet died 12 Aug. 1420 and calls Sir Roger Corbet his second son
and
(eventually) heir. Likewise, The History of Parliament: The House of Commons,
1386-1421, says on p. 654 of vol. II that Robert "died during his term as
sheriff
on 12 Aug. 1420, at the early age of 36. His heir was his elder son, Thomas,
then
aged ten, who subsequently sat for Shropshire in 1435 but died less than four
years
afterwards when, on the death of Robert's widow (who had meanwhile married Sir
William Mallory of Papworth, Cambridgeshire), the family estates passed to
Robert's
younger son, Roger Corbet." The source for this information is given as two
Inquisitions Post Mortem (IPMs): C138/46/43 and C139/90/4. The latter is for
Robert's widow Margaret and is cited by Hunt. I imagine that the former is for
Robert; the printed Calendars of IPMs at the University of Pennsylvania library
stop at 1405 (in a volume printed in 1987) and then resume at a much later date.
It is somewhat suprising that Margaret's IPM calls her the wife of Robert
Corbet,
but this may be analogous to the situation (discussed by Hunt) where the IPM of
Sir
William Mallory's mother Alice calls her Alice Basset, even though she was more
recently the widow of Anketil Mallory and may even have been currently married
to a
fouth husband, William Papworth (TAG 35: 103; 40: 98). I believe that there are
numerous descendants, incidentally, of Alice's marriage to Ralf BASSET who can
(still) claim descent from Piers GAVESTON. Ancestral Roots of Certain American
Colonists by Weis/Sheppard/Faris gives a little information about one line of
descendants in Line 212 (the first wife in generation 36A, the mother of
generation
37, is a descendant, though I can't see how this line leads to any American
colonists covered in this book). In a mid-1970's letter to me, Walter Lee
Sheppard, Jr., said that "there is an abeyant peerage in this welter of issue,
however, since though de Gaveston's earldom was forfeited, his barony never was,
and it must lie in abeyance and could be called out by the senior line."
> Are you a descendant of any of these players?
I am descended from Robert and Margaret Corbet via Olive (WELBY) FARWELL,
immigrant
to Massachusetts.
-- Don Stone
Vickie (Elam) White
On 8/24/96 Don Stone wrote
Don,
Thanks for your response. We share the same FARWELL ancestry, by the way. Nice
to know we are "cousins" more recently than the middle ages!
OK, so is there any way to find out what the IPM C138/46/43 says and when it
was held? Also, thanks for the quote from __The (New) Complete Peerage __
(vol. V, p. 88) and __The History of Parliament: The House of Commons,
1386-1421__(Vol. II, p.654). I'd still like to see a full quote from both IPMs
instead of second-hand quotes, though. No offense to you, of course <G>
Have you ever read __ The Family of Corbet, Its Life and Times __(2 vols,
London, 1918) by A.E. Corbet? Weis cites it in AR7, although he mostly cites
the various TAG articles when discussing our particilar CORBET branch. There is
also something called __Shropshire Genealogies__ a manuscript by George Morris
(Ms. 2792, Local Studies Library, Shrewsbury, Salop, microfilm copy GSU, SLC)
which Weis cites in AR7. Perhaps this manuscript has some info on the
CORBET-MALLORY marriage that we'd need, since it seemed to convince Weis.
Also, although I don't know much about them, do you think the __Visitations of
Shropshire__ would yield any answers?
Also, we need a more definite proof of the alleged marriage of Sir William
MALLORY and Margaret ( ) CORBET. There were many Margaret CORBETs around, I
think. How do we know she was really Robert CORBET's widow and when she
supposedly remarried?
I sure wish Gary Boyd Roberts had been more specific, don't you? <G>
Vickie (Elam) White
10265...@compuserve.com
.
Todd A. Farmerie
Vickie (Elam) White wrote:
>
> On 8/21/96 Don Stone wrote:
>
>> << Sir William MALLORY married (1) 1420/1, Margaret (d. 26 Jan. 1439
>
> Thanks for responding. But I have one problem with this, namely I had
> been under the impression that Robert CORBET died in 1440 and that his
> wife Margaret predeceased him by about one year.
>
> In TAG 37:51 Hunt writes "The i.p.m. of Dame Margaret CORBET wife of
> Robert CORBET of Morton, knight, 18 Henry VI, Ref. C 139/90/4 shows
> that Robert and Margaret held in the manor of Shawebury with
> appurtenances in co. Salop." So, if this was written about 1440,
> wouldn't this show that Robert was still alive?
> It doesn't say widow or relict of Robert CORBET, it says wife.
> Also, in Weis' AR7:32, it says Robert CORBET died in 1440, not 1420.
> Do you have any idea where Weis got this death date of 1440, since he
> doesn't mention a source for this fact much less the TAG 35:29 - 32
> which he cites for the rest of the ancestry.
>
I went back over what I have on the family, and can now make a few
observations. First, I don't have much that is of a reliable nature.
As to the 1440 date for Robert Corbet, a possible source is the
Shropshire Visitation pedigree for the family, which under Robert's name
adds "ob 1440". It is not clear (at least from my notes) whether this
was in the original, or was added by the editors based on some
documentary support. I suspect that it indicates the date at which
Roger came into possession of his inheritance. If so, then it is
probably erroneous, being the death of Margaret. Hunt's reference to
the ipm of Margaret, wife of Robert need not indicate that Robert was
still living, unless this was quoted from the ipm itself. Since Hunt
thought that Robert was still living, he would obviously say wife, not
widow. That Margaret would be called Corbet is also not necessarily
unusual. If a woman's first husband was much more imporatant than the
second, she might continue to be refered to by that name, especially if
she maintained possession of the first husband's lands, which appears to
be the case here (see below). Thus unless Hunt was quoting directly
from the original, this is not helpful. (Does anyone have access to the
Calendar of ipms to confirm the language used in the original?)
Now, consulting what I have on the Mallorys, I discovered one little
tidbit which bears on the question. Based on quotation from the
inquisition proving the age of Thomas Mallory, son of William and
Margaret, we learn that Thomas was born in 1425, not at Papworth or any
of the Mallory posessions, but at Moreton Corbet. With the culture
surrounding the birth process at the times (no "honey, my water broke,
off to the hospital" - they laid in at home (hers or her parents') for
as long as months prior to the event), it is difficult to come up with
any other good explanation of why Thomas Mallory would be born at the
home of the Corbets. (I know of one similar precident, although I am
sure there are more. Philip Courtenay, son of John Courtenay and Joan
Champernowne, was born in 1401 at Ashton, co.Devon, home of the
Chudleghs. Here again, Philip's mother Joan had formerly been wife of
James Chudlegh of Ashton, and had retained possession during the
minority of the son and heir James Chudlegh.) This provides
circumstantial evidence to support that Margaret, mother of Thomas
Mallory had formerly been wife of Robert Corbet of Morton Corbet, rather
than step-mother-in-law.
Todd
William A. Reitwiesner
Don Stone <DonS...@PLANTAGENET.COM> posted:
> In a mid-1970's letter to me, Walter Lee
>Sheppard, Jr., said that "there is an abeyant peerage in this welter of issue,
>however, since though de Gaveston's earldom was forfeited, his barony never was,
>and it must lie in abeyance and could be called out by the senior line."
Several things wrong with Mr. Sheppard's statement:
(1) I've seen evidence that Gaveston sat in Parliament as Earl of Cornwall,
but I've not seen any evidence that he was ever issued a writ of summons.
It's the writ which creates the barony, and if no writ was issued there's
no barony.
(2) The barony (if it existed) would have fallen into abeyance only if
someone who inherited the title left no sons and two or more daughters
(co-heiresses). That's the only way a barony by writ can fall into
abeyance.
(3) If a barony has fallen into abeyance, it can be called out in favor
of any of the co-heirs, not just the senior line.
(4) Since the Gaveston barony (if one existed) has not yet been claimed,
the claim would be affected by a 1927 change in peerage law -- no abeyances
lasting more than 100 years will be called out, and no claimant who
represents less than 1/3 of the original writ will be called out.
(5) If the Gaveston barony has *not* fallen into abeyance (i.e., whenever
there was a female heir she had no sisters), then the heir (whoever it is)
could present his or her claim to the Committee on Privileges of the House
of Lords today, and be seated as soon as his or her case is proved.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@loc.gov
Vickie (Elam) White
On 8/26/96 Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
<<I went back over what I have on the family, and can now make a few
observations. First, I don't have much that is of a reliable nature.
As to the 1440 date for Robert Corbet, a possible source is the
Shropshire Visitation pedigree for the family, which under Robert's name
adds "ob 1440". It is not clear (at least from my notes) whether this
was in the original, or was added by the editors based on some
documentary support. I suspect that it indicates the date at which
Roger came into possession of his inheritance. If so, then it is
probably erroneous, being the death of Margaret. Hunt's reference to
the ipm of Margaret, wife of Robert need not indicate that Robert was
still living, unless this was quoted from the ipm itself. Since Hunt
thought that Robert was still living, he would obviously say wife, not
widow. That Margaret would be called Corbet is also not necessarily
unusual. If a woman's first husband was much more imporatant than the
second, she might continue to be refered to by that name, especially if
she maintained possession of the first husband's lands, which appears to
be the case here (see below). Thus unless Hunt was quoting directly
from the original, this is not helpful. (Does anyone have access to the
Calendar of ipms to confirm the language used in the original?)>>
Todd, I have several contacts trying to see if they can access the Calendar of
ipms. I really want to look at the originals now, don't you? Hunt was probably
wrong, as Roberts and others recently said, I'm becoming more and more
convinced of it. But I think it was rather sloppy presentation of this, since
it in effect invalidated a line on heresay. Kind of "take my word for it, the
proof DOES exist" school of genealogy, which I abhor. I don't mind when new
discoveries or further research changes a line, but I want to see a clear
explanation of the proof or at least the evidence. Don't you?
<<Now, consulting what I have on the Mallorys, I discovered one little
tidbit which bears on the question. Based on quotation from the
inquisition proving the age of Thomas Mallory, son of William and
Margaret, we learn that Thomas was born in 1425, not at Papworth or any
of the Mallory posessions, but at Moreton Corbet. With the culture
surrounding the birth process at the times (no "honey, my water broke,
off to the hospital" - they laid in at home (hers or her parents') for
as long as months prior to the event), it is difficult to come up with
any other good explanation of why Thomas Mallory would be born at the
home of the Corbets. (I know of one similar precident, although I am
sure there are more. Philip Courtenay, son of John Courtenay and Joan
Champernowne, was born in 1401 at Ashton, co.Devon, home of the
Chudleghs. Here again, Philip's mother Joan had formerly been wife of
James Chudlegh of Ashton, and had retained possession during the
minority of the son and heir James Chudlegh.) This provides
circumstantial evidence to support that Margaret, mother of Thomas
Mallory had formerly been wife of Robert Corbet of Morton Corbet, rather
than step-mother-in-law.>>
Fantastic!! This is a great piece of the puzzle, Todd. Thanks! While it isn't
absolute proof, it sure helps build a good case.
One thing keeps sticking in my craw, though. Do you think it is possible that
the Mary CORBET who married Robert CHARLTON was the daughter of some other
Robert CORBET? Wasn't the CORBET family fairly large? It does seem to be the
old problem of a family using only a handful of names -- Robert, Mary, Thomas,
Margaret, etc. Any other CORBET families in Shropshire that had a daughter
named Mary born ca 1430?
Vickie (Elam) White
10265...@compuserve.com
Todd A. Farmerie
Vickie (Elam) White wrote:
>
> On 8/26/96 Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
>
>
> Todd, I have several contacts trying to see if they can access the Calendar of
> ipms. I really want to look at the originals now, don't you?
Unfortunately (at least as far as I know) the text of the originals has
yet to be published. All that exists in the public domain (without
going to London, that is)
is a calendar which provides the name of the person involved, with a
full account of
the possessions, but no account of heirs. I may be able to check this
source this weekend, but I am not sure I trust it. I checked Hunt, and
he was basing his quoted summary on someone elses abstract, so it is
even more removed from the original.
Todd
JA Tappero
I,m new to the group and have only been following the posts for about
three weeks. I am a descendant of Olive Welby and Henry Farwell. My
interest in medieval genealogy began about five years ago although I have
been researching for over 15 years. Had to get everything that comes
before done first. I worked my pedigrees out by using Weis 6 and pedigrees
contained in a book entiltled "The English Ancesty of Peter Bulkeley,
Grace Chetwood, and Sarah Chauncy" by Frank Wayne Ayers; 1988, and by
rechecking some sources shown in both, which is an
on going project.
Thought maybe the following would be of help.
The book "The Family of Corbet : It's Life and Times" is by Augusta
Elizabeth Brickdale; pub. London: St. Catherine Press. 1914-1920. It is in
two volumes, both of which can be found on film at the LDS Family History
Library, and can be ordered to your local center. Vol. 1 and 2 are on film
#908350, item 1, 2, and a second filming of volume 2 on #962462, item 3.
Volume 2, p. 245- contains the material on Robert Corbet. "He married
Margaret Mallory as quite a young man, for his eldest son was of age to be
knighted about 1422 or so."......... "His eldest son Thomas predeceased
him in 1436"..........."Thomas the eldest son, died about 1436, leaving no
heir. His father, Sir Robert, died we think about 1438-9, as at those
dates and
1440 we have the acknowledgment of the homage of his heir, Sir Roger
Corbet, and the record of the death of his mother, Margaret Mallory."
The Visitation of Shropshire, 1623, taken from; "The Publications of The
Harleian Society", vol. XXVIII, shows the death of Robert Corbet as 17 H.
6 (1439) and his wife as "Margareta filia Will'i Mallory militis."
(Margaret the daughter of William Mallory, knight or soldier). They are
shown with the following children: Elizabetha uxor Georgij Sandford de
Sandford in co. Salop; Dorothea uxor Philippi Kynaston de Walford in com.
Salop; Thomas Corbet, ob. s.p.; Rogerus Corbet miles ob. married
Elizabetha filia et haeres Thomae Hopton; Maria uxor Rob'ti Charlton de
Apley in co. Salop.
In the introduction it states "There is another copy of the Visitation of
1623 in the School Library at Shrewsbury, and by the kindness of the
School Committee we have been able to incorporate a collation of this
interesting MS. in the present volume, which therefore consists of Harl.
MS. 1396, with additions from Harl. MSS. 615 and 1241, and from the
Shrewsbury MS., and comprises the Visitations of 1569, 1584, and 1623 . To
distinguish these various MSS., Harl. MS. 1396 is printed in ordinary
Roman type, the additions from Harl. MS. 1241 are printed in italics, the
additions from Harl. MS. 615 are printed in italics within parentheses,
and the additions and variations taken from the Shrewsbury MS. are printed
in italics within square brackets." The entries for Roger Corbet and
Margaret Mallory are in ordinary Roman type which would have come
exclusively from the
Visitation of 1623.
As for the time he served as Sheriff of Shropshire, on film #510646,
"Phillips manuscripts", filmed at the Public Library, Shrewsbury, England,
Robert is shown as serving as sheriff in 1419. This is in a list of The
Sheriff's of Shropshire, and shows that almost all of them only served for
one year.
Hope this helps in some way. I am looking forward to this thread
continuing so that maybe this can be decided. I have some other sources to
look at the next time I'm at the Family History Library which will
probably be Monday or Tuesday. One is the Acts of Office for the diocese
of Hereford, 1407-1480, a MS filmed at the County Record Office in
Hereford and concerning the proceedings of the Consistory court.
Shropshire is included.
Ann jata...@aol.com
Ann Tappero jata...@aol.com
Dennis J. Cunniff
> I am a descendant of Olive Welby and Henry Farwell.
Anne,
Do you have a GEDCOM or Family Group record for this couple. I am descended
from a FARWELL that may or may not have been a child of a Henry and Olive
Farwell.
Dennis.
JATa...@aol.com
From: "Dennis J. Cunniff" <cunn...@UMDNJ.EDU>
<< Do you have a GEDCOM or Family Group record for this couple. I am
descended
from a FARWELL that may or may not have been a child of a Henry and Olive
Farwell.
>>
Hope this helps Dennis. Looks like we could be cousins.
Ann jata...@aol.com
Descendants of Henry FARWELL
First Generation
1. Henry FARWELL was born about 1605 in Boston, Lincoln, England. He died 1
Aug 1670 in Chelmsford, Middlesex, Massachusetts.
Henry married (1) Olive WELBY, daughter of Richard WELBY and Francis BULKELEY
on 16 Apr 1629 in Boston, Lincoln, England. Olive was christened 17 Jun 1604
in Moulton, Lincoln, England. She died 1 Mar 1691/1692 in Chelmsford,
Middlesex, Massachusetts.
They had the following children:
2 F i. Elizabeth FARWELL was christened 27 May
1630 in Boston, Lincoln,
England. She died 9 Nov 1670 in Taunton, Bristol, Massachusetts.
Elizabeth married (1) Joseph WILBUR on 1651 in England.
3 M ii. Samuel FARWELL was christened 9 Jun 1633
in Boston, Lincolnshire,
England. was buried 20 Jun 1634 in Boston, Lincolnshire, England.
4 M iii. John FARWELL was christened 25 Oct 1635
in Boston, Lincoln,
England. He died 15 Sep 1686 in Concord, Middlesex, Massachusetts.
John married (1) Sarah WHEELER on 4 Nov 1658 in Concord, Middlesex,
Massachusetts. Sarah died 23 May 1662 in Concord, Middlesex, Massachusetts.
John also married (2) Sarah FISKE.
5 M iv. Joseph FARWELL was born 26 Feb 1640/1641
in Concord, Middlesex,
Massachusetts. He died 31 Dec 1722 in Nashua, Hillsboro, New Hampshire.
Joseph married (1) Hannah LEARNED, daughter of Isaac LEARNED and Mary STEARNS
on 25 Dec 1666 in Chelmsford, Middlesex, Massachusetts. Hannah was born 24
Aug 1649 in Woburn, Middlesex, Massachusetts. She died 31 Dec 1685 in
Chelmsford, Middlesex, Massachusetts.
6 F v. Mary FARWELL was born 1642 in Concord,
Middlesex, Massachusetts. She
died 7 Mar 1713/1714 in Chelmsford, Middlesex, Massachusetts.
Mary married (1) John BATES on 22 Dec 1665 in Chelmsford, Middlesex,
Massachusetts.
7 F vi. Olive FARWELL was born 1645 in Concord,
Middlesex, Massachusetts.
Olive married (1) Benjamin SPALDING on 30 Oct 1668 in Chelmsford, Middlesex,
Massachusetts.
8 M vii. James FARWELL was born about 1645 in
Concord, Middlesex,
Massachusetts.
James married (1) Sarah FISKE.
9 M viii. Henry FARWELL was born about 1649 in
Concord, Middlesex,
Massachusetts.
Appendix A - Notes
1. Henry FARWELL
Snow-Estes Ancestry FHL Book 929.273, Sn61s, v.1
BIOGRAPHY: Made a freeman in Concord, Massachusetts 14 Mar 1639. He was a
tailor by trade. He came to New England in about 1636/7, with his wife and
two children, Elizabeth and John. They left behind them the grave of their
small son Samuel who died at the age of 1 year. The family moved to
Chelmsford, Massachusettsin about 1655. The record states he "died suddenly",
just three weeks after his will was made. His will is dated 12 Jul 1670 and
can be found in the Middlesex Co. Massachusetts probate records, FHL Film
#521766. He leaves to his wife Olive and children John, Joseph and his wife
Hannah, Mary Bates, Olive Spaulding, Elizabeth Wilbore. The two sons, James
and Henry are shown on the Ancestral File and on family group sheets in the
Archives of the LDS Family History Center in Salt Lake City. The only other
mention of them that I have found refers to James and is in the Concord,
Massachusetts Genealogy FHL Film #599531
1S. Olive WELBY
"Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists" by Frederick Lewis Weis 6th edition
31-41:Mr. Deacon Henry Farwell of Concord and Chelmsfor 223-43: b. ca. 1604,
d. ca. 1691; m. ca. 1629, Dea. Henry Farwell, d. ca.1670; came from England
to Concord ca. 1635.
Snow-Estes Ancestry FHL Book 929.273, Sn61s, v.1
2. Elizabeth FARWELL
Snow-Estes Ancestry FHL Book 929.273, Sn61s, v.1
3. Samuel FARWELL
Snow-Estes Ancestry FHL Book 929.273, Sn61s, v.1
4. John FARWELL
Snow-Estes Ancestry FHL Book 929.273, Sn61s, v.1
MARRIAGE: Printed copy of vital records of Concord, Middlesex, Massachusetts
FHL 974.44/C4 V2c
4S. Sarah WHEELER
DEATH: Printed copy of vital records of Concord, Middlesex, Massachusetts
FHL 974.44/C4 V2c
5. Joseph FARWELL
BIRTH: Printed copy of vital records of Concord, Middlesex, Massachusetts
FHL 974.44/C4 V2c
Snow-Estes Ancestry FHL Book 929.273, Sn61s, v.1
Ancestral File states his place of death as Dunstable, Middlesex,
Massachusetts. At the time of Joseph Farwell Sr.'s death the town of Nashua,
New Hampshire was a part of the old township of Dunstable, Massachusetts.
The name was changed after the boundry dispute between Massachusetts and New
Hampshire.
WILL:
filed 16 Jan 1722
Middlesex Co., Massachusetts probate FHL Film #521773
5S. Hannah LEARNED
BIRTH: Vital records of Woburn, Middlesex, Massachusetts FHL Film #859998
6. Mary FARWELL
Snow-Estes Ancestry FHL Book 929.273, Sn61s, v.1
7. Olive FARWELL
Snow-Estes Ancestry FHL Book 929.273, Sn61s, v.1
8. James FARWELL
The two sons, James and Henry are shown on the Ancestral File and on family
group sheets in the Archives of the LDS Family History Center in Salt Lake
City. The only other mention of them that I have found refers to James and is
in the Concord, Massachusetts Genealogy FHL Film #599531 His marriage to
Sarah Fiske is shown in this source. Note that records also show his brother
John married (2) Sarah Fiske.
9. Henry FARWELL
The two sons, James and Henry are shown on the Ancestral File and on family
group sheets in the Archives of the LDS Family History Center in Salt Lake
City.