Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Thomas Cotton & Margaret Wentworth
471 views
Skip to first unread message
notnek202
Jan 29, 2012, 5:27:32 PM1/29/12
to
Did they have a daughter Anne who married a Mr. Edward Doyley in
1487 ?
Margaret Wentworth was the Great Great Granddaughter of Philippa of
Clarence.
1487 ?
Margaret Wentworth was the Great Great Granddaughter of Philippa of
Clarence.
Wjhonson
Jan 29, 2012, 5:58:10 PM1/29/12
to kbran...@yahoo.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Thomas /Cotton/ of Landwade Manor, co Camb 1455- (as Lord) , Knt; Sheriff of Camb and Hunt 16e4 1476-7
was married twice, firstly to Margaret Wentworth and secondly to Joan Sharpe by whom he had his son and heir Robert.
Thomas died 30 Jul 1499, we do not know what year he married either wife, we do not know what year Robert was born, we do not know what year Anne was born
Anne's husband Edward d'Oyly "heir of his father" died 1534
We do not know how old his heir Henry was
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
John
Jan 29, 2012, 8:44:05 PM1/29/12
to
On Jan 29, 2:58 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thomas /Cotton/ of Landwade Manor, co Camb 1455- (as Lord) , Knt; Sheriff of Camb and Hunt 16e4 1476-7
> was married twice, firstly to Margaret Wentworth and secondly to Joan Sharpe by whom he had his son and heir Robert.
>
> Thomas died 30 Jul 1499, we do not know what year he married either wife, we do not know what year Robert was born, we do not know what year Anne was born
>
> Anne's husband Edward d'Oyly "heir of his father" died 1534
> We do not know how old his heir Henry was
>
>
When Will says "we do not know what year Robert was born", he
> Thomas /Cotton/ of Landwade Manor, co Camb 1455- (as Lord) , Knt; Sheriff of Camb and Hunt 16e4 1476-7
> was married twice, firstly to Margaret Wentworth and secondly to Joan Sharpe by whom he had his son and heir Robert.
>
> Thomas died 30 Jul 1499, we do not know what year he married either wife, we do not know what year Robert was born, we do not know what year Anne was born
>
> Anne's husband Edward d'Oyly "heir of his father" died 1534
> We do not know how old his heir Henry was
>
>
obviously meant to say "I do not not know". And he's wrong, because
there IS evidence as to the birth year of Robert which Will has
overlooked. See TAG 57:56.
The identification of Anne as a daughter of Thomas Cotton of Landwade
(by either wife) seems a bit tenuous - but probable. A visitation
pedigree of the D'Oyley family calls her daughter of Thomas Cotton of
"Landward" without specifying her mother, and a visitation pedigree of
the family of Cotton of Landwade (probably inaccurate in places) says
only that an unnamed daughter of Thomas Cotton by Margaret Wentworth
married an unnamed "Doyley", with the latter gentleman said (in an
editor's addition) to be of Norfolk and the father of Sir Henry.
Perhaps Will can provide us with sources for his statements on the
Cotton family. After all, this is Will "I always respond when I'm
asked for evidence" Johnson. :-)
Wjhonson
Jan 29, 2012, 10:37:40 PM1/29/12
to jhigg...@yahoo.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Which statements?
Please don't ask me to back up a negative, which is not possible.
-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
John
Jan 29, 2012, 11:15:25 PM1/29/12
to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> the message
Oh...so you cannot now support all your "we do not know" statements
> the message
above?
If it's "not possible" to "back up a negative", then you shouldn't be
making such broad statements to start with. Especially since they're
simply based on YOUR limited knowledge. After all, one of those "we
do not know" statements has already been disproved.
Wjhonson
Jan 29, 2012, 11:49:29 PM1/29/12
to jhigg...@yahoo.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Actually what occurred so far is you posted a citation without any argument from it.
We have no idea what it does or doesn't say just from that.
So nothing has been disproved.
Secondly, it is within the realm of the critic to say "show me the evidence" and in light of no evidence to say "such a thing does not exist". Or perhaps more lightly "there is no evidence to show that such a thing exists". Almost the same thing.
The main point John being we have no evidence as to which wife, if either, Anne might be off.
Whether or not you have any evidence for a suggested birthyear for Robert doesn't really touch on that point at all, since we have no evidence for any birthyear or even a good range for Anne. Which was the OP's question in the first place.
-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Brad Verity
Jan 30, 2012, 9:41:08 AM1/30/12
to
Margaret Wentworth Cotton died 28 April 1478. From the Wentworth of
Nettlested pedigree in 'The Visitation of Suffolk 1561 made by William
Hervey, Clarenceux King of Arms: Part II', edited by Joan Corder
(Harl. Soc. Pubs. New Series Volume 3, 1984), p. 166:
“2. MARGARET. Married, as his first wife, Thomas Cotton, of Landwade,
co. Cambs. (Rutton. ‘Three Branches of the Family of Wentworth’ in
‘East Anglian N. & Q.’ (N.S.) II: 138). Buried in Landwade church;
remains of a monument with brasses to husband and both wives, part of
inscription ‘.....Wentworth Milit: qe obiit XXVIII die Aplis Ao Di
MIIIIcLXXViii [28 April 1478]...’ (Palmer. ‘Monumental Inscriptions &
Coats of Arms from Cambridgeshire’: 94-5). Thomas Cotton died 1499
[see Cotton Pedigree, ‘Visitations of Cambridgeshire 1575 &
1619’ (H.S.) 21].”
I only have one child so far in my database for Sir Thomas Cotton of
Landwade - a son William Cotton of Oxen Hoath, from Sir Thomas's
second marriage to Jane Sharpe. I haven't seen the Cotton of Landwade
Visitation pedigree, but will now track it down as I'd like to add the
children he had with his first wife. I don't have any birth or death
dates for William Cotton - just a birthdate of about 1481 for his wife
Margaret Culpepper. Sir Thomas Cotton was born 1439.
Cheers, -----Brad
Nettlested pedigree in 'The Visitation of Suffolk 1561 made by William
Hervey, Clarenceux King of Arms: Part II', edited by Joan Corder
(Harl. Soc. Pubs. New Series Volume 3, 1984), p. 166:
“2. MARGARET. Married, as his first wife, Thomas Cotton, of Landwade,
co. Cambs. (Rutton. ‘Three Branches of the Family of Wentworth’ in
‘East Anglian N. & Q.’ (N.S.) II: 138). Buried in Landwade church;
remains of a monument with brasses to husband and both wives, part of
inscription ‘.....Wentworth Milit: qe obiit XXVIII die Aplis Ao Di
MIIIIcLXXViii [28 April 1478]...’ (Palmer. ‘Monumental Inscriptions &
Coats of Arms from Cambridgeshire’: 94-5). Thomas Cotton died 1499
[see Cotton Pedigree, ‘Visitations of Cambridgeshire 1575 &
1619’ (H.S.) 21].”
I only have one child so far in my database for Sir Thomas Cotton of
Landwade - a son William Cotton of Oxen Hoath, from Sir Thomas's
second marriage to Jane Sharpe. I haven't seen the Cotton of Landwade
Visitation pedigree, but will now track it down as I'd like to add the
children he had with his first wife. I don't have any birth or death
dates for William Cotton - just a birthdate of about 1481 for his wife
Margaret Culpepper. Sir Thomas Cotton was born 1439.
Cheers, -----Brad
Message has been deleted
Joe
Jan 30, 2012, 11:46:48 AM1/30/12
to
I had no particular knowledge of this family before this morning, but
I looked at the reference given by John. It seems ‘we’ may know more
than Will thinks after all.
The American Genealogist, vol. 57 no. 1 (January 1981). p. 35-44,
55-56. ‘Thomas Bradbury’s Cotton Ancestry,’ by John Brooks Threlfall,
FASG.
IPM of his mother Alice (Abbot) Cotton:
Taken 24 January 1474; she died 21 November 1473; Thomas Cotton is son
and heir age 30 and more.
Presumably this is the document that sets Thomas Cotton’s birth at
about 1444, though when rounded to the nearest decade it is certainly
possible he was a few years older.
IPM of Thomas Cotton:
He died 30 July 1499; his heir Robert age 22.
So if Robert was born about 1477, and Margaret Wentworth died 28 April
1478 – then Robert would appear to the son of Margaret Wentworth (1st
wife) as opposed to Joan Sharp (2nd wife) as stated by Will. I know
there are references which state Robert was the son of Joan Sharp, but
all the ones I saw were secondary sources without evidence such as
‘Baronetage of England.’
The article does not mention Anne, wife of Edward d’Oyley. However,
if we accept the Visitation evidence given by John, and if they were
married 1487 as stated by the original poster, then she would almost
certainly have to be the daughter of Margaret Wentworth.
Second wife Joan Sharp died 29 March 1496
The article gives as children of Thomas without specifying by which
wife:
1. Robert (1477-1519)
2. Leonard, a priest. d.s.p. 1556-7
3. Martin, a priest. d.s.p. 1565
4. Audrey m. John Bassingbourne of Hatfield
5. William m. Margaret Colpepper
Joe
I looked at the reference given by John. It seems ‘we’ may know more
than Will thinks after all.
The American Genealogist, vol. 57 no. 1 (January 1981). p. 35-44,
55-56. ‘Thomas Bradbury’s Cotton Ancestry,’ by John Brooks Threlfall,
FASG.
IPM of his mother Alice (Abbot) Cotton:
Taken 24 January 1474; she died 21 November 1473; Thomas Cotton is son
and heir age 30 and more.
Presumably this is the document that sets Thomas Cotton’s birth at
about 1444, though when rounded to the nearest decade it is certainly
possible he was a few years older.
IPM of Thomas Cotton:
He died 30 July 1499; his heir Robert age 22.
So if Robert was born about 1477, and Margaret Wentworth died 28 April
1478 – then Robert would appear to the son of Margaret Wentworth (1st
wife) as opposed to Joan Sharp (2nd wife) as stated by Will. I know
there are references which state Robert was the son of Joan Sharp, but
all the ones I saw were secondary sources without evidence such as
‘Baronetage of England.’
The article does not mention Anne, wife of Edward d’Oyley. However,
if we accept the Visitation evidence given by John, and if they were
married 1487 as stated by the original poster, then she would almost
certainly have to be the daughter of Margaret Wentworth.
Second wife Joan Sharp died 29 March 1496
The article gives as children of Thomas without specifying by which
wife:
1. Robert (1477-1519)
2. Leonard, a priest. d.s.p. 1556-7
3. Martin, a priest. d.s.p. 1565
4. Audrey m. John Bassingbourne of Hatfield
5. William m. Margaret Colpepper
Joe
John
Jan 30, 2012, 2:22:56 PM1/30/12
to
the Threlfall article on the Cottons in TAG vol. 57:
As I read the article, it says that Thomas Cotton, by his 1st wife
Margaret Wentworth, had a single unnamed daughter who married NN
Cockett, and the five other children listed by Joe were by the 2nd
wife Joan Sharpe. This agrees with the Cotton visitation pedigree
(HSP vol. 41 page 21) - with the exception that the visitation
pedigree, as previously noted, lists an additional unnamed daughter by
the 1st wife who married an unnamed "Doyley".
The conflict between Margaret's death date of 28 April 1478 and
Robert's aged of 22 at his father's IPM (in 1499 - or possibly 1500?)
doe4s pose a question regarding Robert's maternity. The visitation
pedigree does show Robert as a son of Joan, but there are enough areas
of uncertainty in that pedigree that this too could be doubtful. I
suppose it's possible that the IPM should have said that Robert was
"in his 22nd year" instead of "aet. 22" or that it simply got his age
wrong by a a couple of years. But if the IPM is accepted "as is",
then the visitation pedigree is wrong with respect to Robert's
maternity.
For those who are interested, both Robert Cotton and his sister (or
half-sister?) Audrey (m. John Bassingbourne) are ancestors of Princess
Diana, and their aunt Ethelreda (or Audrey) is also an ancestor of
Diana, but two of her three husbands.
Douglas Richardson
Jan 30, 2012, 4:51:39 PM1/30/12
to
Robert Cotton was surely the son of Thomas Cotton's 2nd wife, Jane
Sharpe, as stated by the Visitation of Cambridgeshire. Jane Sharpe was
an heiress, and, as such, her descendants would have had the right to
quarter her arms.
The Cotton arms are in fact found quartered with the Sharpe arms at
the tombs of Robert Cotton's male line descendants, Sir John Cotton,
died 1593, and Sir John Cotton, 1st Baronet, died 1669. This
information is published in East Anglian, 1 (1864): 343-344, which
material may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=aAUIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA343
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Sharpe, as stated by the Visitation of Cambridgeshire. Jane Sharpe was
an heiress, and, as such, her descendants would have had the right to
quarter her arms.
The Cotton arms are in fact found quartered with the Sharpe arms at
the tombs of Robert Cotton's male line descendants, Sir John Cotton,
died 1593, and Sir John Cotton, 1st Baronet, died 1669. This
information is published in East Anglian, 1 (1864): 343-344, which
material may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=aAUIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA343
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Message has been deleted
Joe
Jan 30, 2012, 5:45:39 PM1/30/12
to
We can be sure of the parentage of Robert.
CIPM Henry VII, Vol. 2 (13-20 Henry VII 1497-1505)
IPM of Thomas Cotton http://tinyurl.com/8yzcukj
p. 181 no 279. Writ 4 August 1499. Taken 30 June 1500.
Proves ancestry Walter-William-Thomas
Died 31 July 1499. Son Robert age 22 and more.
Another p. 197, no. 301. http://tinyurl.com/82xl89s
Writ 3 September 1499; Taken 31 October 1499
Concerns property of his second wife Joan Sharp.
Died 31 July 1499; heir his son Robert of the body of the said Joan
[Sharp] aged 22 and more.
p. 291, no. 472 IPM of Thomas Cotton
Writ 16 October 1500, taken 17 November 1500
Robert age 23 and more is son and heir
Joe
John
Jan 30, 2012, 6:31:52 PM1/30/12
to
references to the age of Robert are basically consistent over the
three documents, and the mention of Robert as the son "of the body of
the said Joan" certainly seems to resolve the issue of his maternity.
But it also means that the death date of Margaret Wentworth from the
monumental inscription (see Brad's earlier post and the TAG article)
is wrong. Oh, well...
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Jan 31, 2012, 3:21:44 AM1/31/12
to
aet XXII means aged 21 in modern speak; the Latin was, in long,
anno aetatis suae vincensimo et secundo: in the 22nd year of his
life. Sometime you see a little superscript 'o' after a age number or
date, ie XX' II'. (I'm using an apostrophe as I cannot do a
superscript 'o' in this format.)
In terms of Robert Cotton, if on 30 July 1499 he was in his 22nd year,
then he was born after 30 July 1478. Margaret Wentworth died 28 April
1478, which puts her out of the frame, so as he was the heir and so
must have been legitimate, he must be the son of the second wife. He
may have been in his 22nd year at the time of the Inquisition, not of
the father's death, and that would allow a little more time, though
usually not very much. Rather quick work, even for those days, but
perhaps Margaret was sickly, hence less children, and Thomas was
already playing away. That would make her death rather fortuitous!
anno aetatis suae vincensimo et secundo: in the 22nd year of his
life. Sometime you see a little superscript 'o' after a age number or
date, ie XX' II'. (I'm using an apostrophe as I cannot do a
superscript 'o' in this format.)
In terms of Robert Cotton, if on 30 July 1499 he was in his 22nd year,
then he was born after 30 July 1478. Margaret Wentworth died 28 April
1478, which puts her out of the frame, so as he was the heir and so
must have been legitimate, he must be the son of the second wife. He
may have been in his 22nd year at the time of the Inquisition, not of
the father's death, and that would allow a little more time, though
usually not very much. Rather quick work, even for those days, but
perhaps Margaret was sickly, hence less children, and Thomas was
already playing away. That would make her death rather fortuitous!
Brad Verity
Jan 31, 2012, 12:46:31 PM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 12:21 am, Alex Maxwell Findlater
superscript 'o' meant, and unfortunately leave it off when I
transcribe, as I can't make one in the fonts I use, either.
> In terms of Robert Cotton, if on 30 July 1499 he was in his 22nd year,
> then he was born after 30 July 1478. Margaret Wentworth died 28 April
> 1478, which puts her out of the frame, so as he was the heir and so
> must have been legitimate, he must be the son of the second wife. He
> may have been in his 22nd year at the time of the Inquisition, not of
> the father's death, and that would allow a little more time, though
> usually not very much.
He was returned as age 22 and more on 31 Oct. 1499 & on 30 June 1500.
Then as age 23 and more on 17 November 1500 (thanks to Joe for
tracking down the IPMs).
> Rather quick work, even for those days, but
> perhaps Margaret was sickly, hence less children, and Thomas was
> already playing away. That would make her death rather fortuitous!
It's always possible that her M.I. had her date of death incorrect.
Perhaps an extra roman numeral 'i' was added to "MIIIIcLXXViii", and
she really died in 1477, not 1478. But your explanation does allow
for the M.I. to have her correct date of death. It's also possible
Robert Cotton was aged up a year to 22 instead of 21 to insure there
would be no need for a proof of age or wardship. If we assume the
IPMs are accurate as to his age, he was born in the range of July to
October 1478. And, yes, if Margaret did indeed die only a few months
previous in April, there certainly is a story there! It's likelier
that she died April 1477, not 1478, and/or Robert was born July to
October 1479, not 1478.
Whatever the case, Thomas Cotton remarried immediately after his first
wife's death, and Robert was definitely the first child of the new
marriage.
I've added Anne Cotton D'Oyly to my database as Margaret Wentworth's
daughter, and carried the line down to Sir William D'Oyly, 1st Baronet
of Shottisham, who was already in there. I also added Robert Cotton
of Landwade as the first child of Thomas's second marriage. I'd like
to add in the other daughter of Margaret Wentworth Cotton - the one
who married "NN Cockett". Does anyone know in which county the
Cockett family was seated?
Thanks & Cheers,
--Brad
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> aet XXII means aged 21 in modern speak; the Latin was, in long,
>
> anno aetatis suae vincensimo et secundo: in the 22nd year of his
> life. Sometime you see a little superscript 'o' after a age number or
> date, ie XX' II'. (I'm using an apostrophe as I cannot do a
> superscript 'o' in this format.)
Thank you, Alex, for this explanation. I often wondered what that
> aet XXII means aged 21 in modern speak; the Latin was, in long,
>
> anno aetatis suae vincensimo et secundo: in the 22nd year of his
> life. Sometime you see a little superscript 'o' after a age number or
> date, ie XX' II'. (I'm using an apostrophe as I cannot do a
> superscript 'o' in this format.)
superscript 'o' meant, and unfortunately leave it off when I
transcribe, as I can't make one in the fonts I use, either.
> In terms of Robert Cotton, if on 30 July 1499 he was in his 22nd year,
> then he was born after 30 July 1478. Margaret Wentworth died 28 April
> 1478, which puts her out of the frame, so as he was the heir and so
> must have been legitimate, he must be the son of the second wife. He
> may have been in his 22nd year at the time of the Inquisition, not of
> the father's death, and that would allow a little more time, though
> usually not very much.
Then as age 23 and more on 17 November 1500 (thanks to Joe for
tracking down the IPMs).
> Rather quick work, even for those days, but
> perhaps Margaret was sickly, hence less children, and Thomas was
> already playing away. That would make her death rather fortuitous!
Perhaps an extra roman numeral 'i' was added to "MIIIIcLXXViii", and
she really died in 1477, not 1478. But your explanation does allow
for the M.I. to have her correct date of death. It's also possible
Robert Cotton was aged up a year to 22 instead of 21 to insure there
would be no need for a proof of age or wardship. If we assume the
IPMs are accurate as to his age, he was born in the range of July to
October 1478. And, yes, if Margaret did indeed die only a few months
previous in April, there certainly is a story there! It's likelier
that she died April 1477, not 1478, and/or Robert was born July to
October 1479, not 1478.
Whatever the case, Thomas Cotton remarried immediately after his first
wife's death, and Robert was definitely the first child of the new
marriage.
I've added Anne Cotton D'Oyly to my database as Margaret Wentworth's
daughter, and carried the line down to Sir William D'Oyly, 1st Baronet
of Shottisham, who was already in there. I also added Robert Cotton
of Landwade as the first child of Thomas's second marriage. I'd like
to add in the other daughter of Margaret Wentworth Cotton - the one
who married "NN Cockett". Does anyone know in which county the
Cockett family was seated?
Thanks & Cheers,
--Brad
Peter Stewart
Jan 31, 2012, 4:42:00 PM1/31/12
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 31/01/2012 7:21 PM, Alex Maxwell Findlater wrote:
> aet XXII means aged 21 in modern speak; the Latin was, in long,
>
> anno aetatis suae vincensimo et secundo: in the 22nd year of his
> life. Sometime you see a little superscript 'o' after a age number or
> date, ie XX' II'. (I'm using an apostrophe as I cannot do a
> superscript 'o' in this format.)
>
> In terms of Robert Cotton, if on 30 July 1499 he was in his 22nd year,
> then he was born after 30 July 1478.
It may be that the difference between ordinal and cardinal numbers was
> aet XXII means aged 21 in modern speak; the Latin was, in long,
>
> anno aetatis suae vincensimo et secundo: in the 22nd year of his
> life. Sometime you see a little superscript 'o' after a age number or
> date, ie XX' II'. (I'm using an apostrophe as I cannot do a
> superscript 'o' in this format.)
>
> In terms of Robert Cotton, if on 30 July 1499 he was in his 22nd year,
> then he was born after 30 July 1478.
well understood by clerks in England, certainly by the late 15th century
as in this case, but unfortunately monks and others writing in earlier
centuries sometimes did not have a clue and their counting can't be
relied on - there are many examples of "anno XXIIo" (vicesimo secundo)
actually meaning the 23rd rather than 22nd year, etc (to say nothing of
instances where they were even more confused and it should be 21st or
24th year, and so on).
Peter Stewart
John
Jan 31, 2012, 6:30:01 PM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 9:46 am, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've added Anne Cotton D'Oyly to my database as Margaret Wentworth's
> daughter, and carried the line down to Sir William D'Oyly, 1st Baronet
> of Shottisham, who was already in there. I also added Robert Cotton
> of Landwade as the first child of Thomas's second marriage. I'd like
> to add in the other daughter of Margaret Wentworth Cotton - the one
> who married "NN Cockett". Does anyone know in which county the
> Cockett family was seated?
>
> Thanks & Cheers,
>
> --Brad
A Cockett family of Suffolk and Norfolk appears in a fairly extensive
>
> I've added Anne Cotton D'Oyly to my database as Margaret Wentworth's
> daughter, and carried the line down to Sir William D'Oyly, 1st Baronet
> of Shottisham, who was already in there. I also added Robert Cotton
> of Landwade as the first child of Thomas's second marriage. I'd like
> to add in the other daughter of Margaret Wentworth Cotton - the one
> who married "NN Cockett". Does anyone know in which county the
> Cockett family was seated?
>
> Thanks & Cheers,
>
> --Brad
pedigree in the visitation of Worcestershire (Harleian Society, vol.
27), but I don't see any reference to a Cotton marriage.
Another daughter of Sir Thomas Cotton by his 2nd wife Joan Sharpe was
Audrey who married Sir John Bassingbourne of Hatfield, Hertfordshire.
Bassingbourne's mother was a daughter of Sir John Say, Speaker of the
Commons. Some information on the Bassingbournes can be found in this
source (see pp. 43 and 53):
http://books.google.com/books?id=n-kVAAAAYAAJ
Sir John and Audrey (Cotton) Bassingbourne had only two daughters.
Anne married as his 1st of 3 wives Thomas Gawdy of Redenhall, Norfolk,
and had descendants who are covered in one of the visitations of
Norfolk (Harleian Society, vol. 32). (This Thomas Gawdy was the
eldest son of another Thomas Gawdy who had three sons, each named
Thomas and each by a different wife - very confusing for
genealogists!)
The other daughter Catherine married Sir Nicholas Hare of Bruisyard,
Suffolk, and is (via the families of Timperley, Townshend, Doughty,
Lukin [later Windham], and Baring) an ancestor of Princess Diana.
Wjhonson
Feb 1, 2012, 9:39:47 AM2/1/12
to jhigg...@yahoo.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
I see that Leo has this connection thbrough the Townshends to Timperley.
For some reason I currently show the mother of Roger Townshend who married Anne Morrison, as Elizabeth CATLYN the daughter of Richard Catlyn by Barbara Spencer.
I will have to check to see if that can be supported or if some conflict can be found in that between the sources. Don't have time just this morning. Will have to wait until tonight or tomorrow night.
-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
For some reason I currently show the mother of Roger Townshend who married Anne Morrison, as Elizabeth CATLYN the daughter of Richard Catlyn by Barbara Spencer.
I will have to check to see if that can be supported or if some conflict can be found in that between the sources. Don't have time just this morning. Will have to wait until tonight or tomorrow night.
-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Colin B. Withers
Feb 1, 2012, 11:35:03 AM2/1/12
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
If anyone has this volume I would really appreciate it if they could confirm that the IPM of John Paulet of Basing, Hampshire, 1492, is listed.
I particularly need to know if there is any mention of the surname 'Strangeways' in the IPM, or the Manor of Breighton, Yorks.
Thanks
Wibs
I particularly need to know if there is any mention of the surname 'Strangeways' in the IPM, or the Manor of Breighton, Yorks.
Thanks
Wibs
Brad Verity
Feb 1, 2012, 12:29:27 PM2/1/12
to
On Jan 31, 3:30 pm, John <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A Cockett family of Suffolk and Norfolk appears in a fairly extensive
> pedigree in the visitation of Worcestershire (Harleian Society, vol.
> 27), but I don't see any reference to a Cotton marriage.
Thanks for checking this, John. Margaret's daughter who married a
> A Cockett family of Suffolk and Norfolk appears in a fairly extensive
> pedigree in the visitation of Worcestershire (Harleian Society, vol.
> 27), but I don't see any reference to a Cotton marriage.
Cockett must've died young & without issue then, otherwise she'd
likely have been included in the Cockett pedigree.
> Another daughter of Sir Thomas Cotton by his 2nd wife Joan Sharpe was
> Audrey who married Sir John Bassingbourne of Hatfield, Hertfordshire.
> Bassingbourne's mother was a daughter of Sir John Say, Speaker of the
> Commons. Some information on the Bassingbournes can be found in this
> source (see pp. 43 and 53):http://books.google.com/books?id=n-kVAAAAYAAJ
they descend from Edward I thru Marney-Cergeaux-Sir Edmund Arundel
(that poor 'bastard', who is a gateway to royal descent for so many
East Anglian gentry families).
> Sir John and Audrey (Cotton) Bassingbourne had only two daughters.
> Anne married as his 1st of 3 wives Thomas Gawdy of Redenhall, Norfolk,
> and had descendants who are covered in one of the visitations of
> Norfolk (Harleian Society, vol. 32). (This Thomas Gawdy was the
> eldest son of another Thomas Gawdy who had three sons, each named
> Thomas and each by a different wife - very confusing for
> genealogists!)
> The other daughter Catherine married Sir Nicholas Hare of Bruisyard,
> Suffolk, and is (via the families of Timperley, Townshend, Doughty,
> Lukin [later Windham], and Baring) an ancestor of Princess Diana.
up when I add in the Bassingbournes. It'll be quite awhile before I
make it down to Princess Diana - the furthest I've gone forward on the
royal family line is the Electress Sophia.
Cheers, ------Brad
Joe
Feb 1, 2012, 12:27:12 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 8:35 am, "Colin B. Withers" <Colin.With...@eumetsat.int>
wrote:
My IPM List:
http://tinyurl.com/8yn7y8s
(I put this out there in case anyone knows of more I don’t have)
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry VII, Vol. 1 (1-11 Henry
VII 1485-1496)
http://tinyurl.com/82p4jxz
See page 353 no. 823 and 824, page 355 no. 827
Joe
wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/8yn7y8s
(I put this out there in case anyone knows of more I don’t have)
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry VII, Vol. 1 (1-11 Henry
VII 1485-1496)
http://tinyurl.com/82p4jxz
See page 353 no. 823 and 824, page 355 no. 827
Joe
Matt Tompkins
Feb 1, 2012, 12:27:18 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 4:35 pm, "Colin B. Withers" <Colin.With...@eumetsat.int>
wrote:
Colin, there is the IpM of John Poulet the elder who held the honour,
lordship and manor of Basyng (nos. 823, 824, 827 on p. 355 - writ 13
Oct, returns from Wilts, Sussex and Hants dated 7, 12 and 6 Nov 8 Hen
VII).
I'm afraid there are no mentions of either Strangways or Breighton in
any of those returns. Breighton doesn't appear in the volume's index,
either, though there are plenty of references to people called
Strangeways.
Matt Tompkins
wrote:
lordship and manor of Basyng (nos. 823, 824, 827 on p. 355 - writ 13
Oct, returns from Wilts, Sussex and Hants dated 7, 12 and 6 Nov 8 Hen
VII).
I'm afraid there are no mentions of either Strangways or Breighton in
any of those returns. Breighton doesn't appear in the volume's index,
either, though there are plenty of references to people called
Strangeways.
Matt Tompkins
Colin B. Withers
Feb 1, 2012, 12:57:07 PM2/1/12
to Joe, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Thanks Joe. Unfortunately the Google Books copy is not available, except in limited preview mode, in Germany, and I suspect not in the UK either.
Great list, btw :)
Wibs
Great list, btw :)
Wibs
Jan
Feb 1, 2012, 1:32:02 PM2/1/12
to
For many of the IPM books, see http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007960803
on HathiTrust.
On Feb 1, 12:57 pm, "Colin B. Withers" <Colin.With...@eumetsat.int>
wrote:
on HathiTrust.
On Feb 1, 12:57 pm, "Colin B. Withers" <Colin.With...@eumetsat.int>
wrote:
> Thanks Joe. Unfortunately the Google Books copy is not available, except in limited preview mode, in Germany, and I suspect not in the UK either.
>
> Great list, btw :)
>
> Wibs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com [mailto:gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Joe
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 6:27 PM
> To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Anyone have Cal. IPM Henry VII, vol 1
>
> On Feb 1, 8:35 am, "Colin B. Withers" <Colin.With...@eumetsat.int>
> wrote:
> > If anyone has this volume I would really appreciate it if they could confirm that the IPM of John Paulet of Basing, Hampshire, 1492, is listed.
>
> > I particularly need to know if there is any mention of the surname 'Strangeways' in the IPM, or the Manor of Breighton, Yorks.
>
> > Thanks
>
> > Wibs
>
> My IPM List:
> http://tinyurl.com/8yn7y8s
> (I put this out there in case anyone knows of more I don’t have)
>
> Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry VII, Vol. 1 (1-11 Henry
> VII 1485-1496)http://tinyurl.com/82p4jxz
>
> Great list, btw :)
>
> Wibs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com [mailto:gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Joe
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 6:27 PM
> To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Anyone have Cal. IPM Henry VII, vol 1
>
> On Feb 1, 8:35 am, "Colin B. Withers" <Colin.With...@eumetsat.int>
> wrote:
> > If anyone has this volume I would really appreciate it if they could confirm that the IPM of John Paulet of Basing, Hampshire, 1492, is listed.
>
> > I particularly need to know if there is any mention of the surname 'Strangeways' in the IPM, or the Manor of Breighton, Yorks.
>
> > Thanks
>
> > Wibs
>
> My IPM List:
> http://tinyurl.com/8yn7y8s
> (I put this out there in case anyone knows of more I don’t have)
>
> Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Henry VII, Vol. 1 (1-11 Henry
> See page 353 no. 823 and 824, page 355 no. 827
>
> Joe
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
> Joe
>
> -------------------------------
John
Feb 1, 2012, 6:59:27 PM2/1/12
to
into which Audrey Cotton married) are descended from Marney and thence
eventually from Edward I (although I have the Marney descent from
Edward I). What am I missing here?
John
Feb 1, 2012, 7:54:34 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 6:39 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> I see that Leo has this connection thbrough the Townshends to Timperley.
> For some reason I currently show the mother of Roger Townshend who married Anne Morrison, as Elizabeth CATLYN the daughter of Richard Catlyn by Barbara Spencer.
>
> I will have to check to see if that can be supported or if some conflict can be found in that between the sources. Don't have time just this morning. Will have to wait until tonight or tomorrow night.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John <jhiggins...@yahoo.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 3:31 pm
> Subject: Re: Thomas Cotton & Margaret Wentworth
>
>
> I see that Leo has this connection thbrough the Townshends to Timperley.
> For some reason I currently show the mother of Roger Townshend who married Anne Morrison, as Elizabeth CATLYN the daughter of Richard Catlyn by Barbara Spencer.
>
> I will have to check to see if that can be supported or if some conflict can be found in that between the sources. Don't have time just this morning. Will have to wait until tonight or tomorrow night.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John <jhiggins...@yahoo.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 3:31 pm
> Subject: Re: Thomas Cotton & Margaret Wentworth
>
>
> The other daughter Catherine married Sir Nicholas Hare of Bruisyard,
> Suffolk, and is (via the families of Timperley, Townshend, Doughty,
> Lukin [later Windham], and Baring) an ancestor of Princess Diana.
>
The key question here is which of three Thomas Townshends in
> Suffolk, and is (via the families of Timperley, Townshend, Doughty,
> Lukin [later Windham], and Baring) an ancestor of Princess Diana.
>
succession was the father of Roger Townshend. And yes, the sources
are in conflict - or very incomplete. But by reviewing the dates of
the three Thomas Townshends, a reasonable conclusion can be reached as
to which one was the father of Roger.
Brad Verity
Feb 1, 2012, 10:04:27 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 3:59 pm, John <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't immediately see how these Bassingbournes (i.e., the family
> into which Audrey Cotton married) are descended from Marney and thence
> eventually from Edward I (although I have the Marney descent from
> Edward I). What am I missing here?
My mistake - I confused two Cergeaux sisters and said 'Marney' above
> I don't immediately see how these Bassingbournes (i.e., the family
> into which Audrey Cotton married) are descended from Marney and thence
> eventually from Edward I (although I have the Marney descent from
> Edward I). What am I missing here?
when I should have said 'Pashley'. Here's the ten-generation descent
from Edward I for Sir John Bassingbourne of Woodhall, husband of
Audrey Cotton, as I have it now in my database:
Edward I, had
1) Joan of Acre, Countess of Gloucester, who had
2) Eleanor de Clare m. 1) Hugh le Despenser the Younger, and had
3) Isabel Despenser m. Richard Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, and had
4) Sir Edmund Arundel (1327-c.1381) m. 1331 Sybil Montagu (b. c.1329),
and had
5) Philippa Arundel (d. 1399) m. 1) by 1370 Sir Richard Cergeaux (c.
1340-1393), and had
6) Philippa Cergeaux (1381-1420) m. 1) Sir Robert Pashley (c.
1370-1400), and had
7) Anne Pashley (c.1399-1444) m. 1) John Bassingbourne of Manuden
Hall, and had
8) John Bassingbourne (d. by 1493) m. Katherine (----), and had
9) Thomas Bassingbourne of Hoddesdon m. Katherine Say, and had
10) Sir John Bassingbourne of Woodhall (d. 1535) m. Audrey Cotton
I'm finding the Bassingbournes a difficult family to research in
detail. The VCH Hertford series covers them very sketchily regarding
the descent of the manors of Hoddesdon in Broxbourne and Woodhall in
Hatfield. The family's Essex manors (including Manuden Hall) have not
yet been covered in the VCH Essex series.
VCH Hertford makes no mention of Anne Pashley as the wife of John
Bassingbourne, and appears to combine him with his son of the same
name. But the will of Edward Tyrrell of Downham, Anne's second
husband, makes it clear that Bassingbourne was her first husband and
that she had a son John Bassingbourne, by him. This younger John
Bassingbourne needs firmer dates, and the parentage of his wife
Katherine can hopefully be uncovered with further research.
Cheers, -----Brad
Joe
Feb 1, 2012, 10:47:13 PM2/1/12
to
On Feb 1, 10:32 am, Jan <janwo...@umich.edu> wrote:
> For many of the IPM books, seehttp://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007960803
> on HathiTrust.
>
Jan,
> For many of the IPM books, seehttp://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007960803
> on HathiTrust.
>
Thank you for the link. I have updated my IPM list to include those
on the HathiTrust Digital Library site: http://tinyurl.com/7srvajz
It includes volume 10 which has not been available on Google Books or
archive.org. It is interesting to note it also includes a number of
books published after 1923.
I am really looking forward to seeing if other out of copyright books
which google has incorrectly marked as no view or snippet view are
available as full view at HathiTrust.
Joe
John Watson
Feb 2, 2012, 3:59:30 AM2/2/12
to
can see for any of the CIPM volumes is "Full view is not available for
this item
due to copyright © restrictions."
Regards,
John
John H
Feb 2, 2012, 6:03:45 AM2/2/12
to
Colin,
Assuming the document you want is out of copyright and probably is full view
to the US people.
Have you tried to use a proxy server to download the google book?
Google doesnt like people ouitside of USA downloading the file, so the US
proxy server below lies to them about your location.
Go to the desired url, copy the url, then open following (US) proxy server
program :
> http://turbohide.com/ <
(when it opens find the url box)
Copy the url into the box provided and press "GO"
There is a good chance that you then get a pdf to download (actual docco may
not show properly) but the PDF button in google doccos usually is on the
right hand
OR clicking a "Google Ebook Free" button on top left gets you to see PDF
click on it to download the pdf.
OR clicking box labelled "other formats" if an archive.org book
try it
If it doesnt work for you, send me the url and I will try it for you.
+++
One quirk is when you go to the document via the proxy server it still
doesnt give a PDF to download.
Enter a name (any name) in the search box and search and it may then give
you a PDF to d/l.
Dont ask me why it just works a lot.
John H
++++
"Colin B. Withers" <Colin....@eumetsat.int> wrote in message
news:mailman.3.132811903...@rootsweb.com...
Assuming the document you want is out of copyright and probably is full view
to the US people.
Have you tried to use a proxy server to download the google book?
Google doesnt like people ouitside of USA downloading the file, so the US
proxy server below lies to them about your location.
Go to the desired url, copy the url, then open following (US) proxy server
program :
> http://turbohide.com/ <
(when it opens find the url box)
Copy the url into the box provided and press "GO"
There is a good chance that you then get a pdf to download (actual docco may
not show properly) but the PDF button in google doccos usually is on the
right hand
OR clicking a "Google Ebook Free" button on top left gets you to see PDF
click on it to download the pdf.
OR clicking box labelled "other formats" if an archive.org book
try it
If it doesnt work for you, send me the url and I will try it for you.
+++
One quirk is when you go to the document via the proxy server it still
doesnt give a PDF to download.
Enter a name (any name) in the search box and search and it may then give
you a PDF to d/l.
Dont ask me why it just works a lot.
John H
++++
"Colin B. Withers" <Colin....@eumetsat.int> wrote in message
news:mailman.3.132811903...@rootsweb.com...
John H
Feb 2, 2012, 7:19:13 AM2/2/12
to
Hi Brad,
I have a Jane Bassingbourne marrying a Sir Edmund
BATAILLE/Batayle/Batell/Batelle/Battely/Battley/Battelle
(The surname spelling has show up as at least 35 different ways from 1100 to
present time)
supposedly born Ongar Park, Essex on the Bataille family manor estates.
(Ongar Park would relate to Manuden and could relate to Manuden
Hall)(Manuden in 2011 is still a very small village).
Granted Arms (source is College of Arms) also Source Visitation of Essex,
1558 (Barrington family)
Source Visitation of Essex, 1558 (Barrington family).
Tim Powys-Lybbe (who posts on this list) is a descendent of this Barrington
family.
Jane may have been a sibling or a relation of Cessily Bassingbourne who
married John Battaille below:
A Cessily Bassingbourne marrying a John Bataille and in 1295 was of Manuden,
tenant of John de Bassingburn 15 acres in Manuden
c1296 was also of Little Chishall/Chishill, (7-8miles Nth East of manuden)
Which was in Essex, now located in Cambridgeshire. (Bassingborne family
area) held by John Bataille
Notes below that I show for the son of Cessily & John, ie "John the Younger"
1317 Re Rogers lands?
1320 John of Manuden
1336 Ongar Park perm.
1349 Orchestin St George and Orcheston St Mary's, Wiltshire grant of "a
little land" to John Bataille and Henry Battell , rector of church of Troy.
(Trowell Nottinghamshire)
1355 Little Chishall Manor, with the advowson of the church of the
town.along with church at Shepenes (not located?)
+++++
Ancient petition 1322:
Petitioners: Steven de Bassingburn (Bassingbourn); John Batayl (Bataille).
Name(s): de Bassingburn (Bassingbourn); Batayl (Bataille), Steven; John
Addressees: King and chancellor.
Nature of Request: Bassingburn and Batayle request a commission to enquire
of the chattels of Tuchet in Essex, as they allege that there are ...
Nature of Endorsement: [On face].[Let] a commission [be made] to Dover and
Bataille to more plainly enquire by the council of Bassingburn.[On dorse,
...
Places mentioned: Essex; Ugley, [Essex].
People mentioned: Sheriff of Essex; William de Neuport (Newport),
sub-escheator; William Tuchet; John de Doure (Dover).
Date derivation: The petition dates to 1322 as it clearly follows the
rebellion of the earl of Lancaster, and because a writ of ...
1322 SC 8/178/8859
++++
Don't know whether any of the above helps you in your Bassingbourne quest or
not, but have posted it anyway.
Below has something on the Bassingbournes:
Bottom left page 32
> http://www.archive.org/stream/feetoffinesfores03greauoft#page/32/mode/2up
> <
also same book, top right page 53
> http://www.archive.org/stream/feetoffinesfores03greauoft#page/52/mode/2up
If you would like what I have on the family I am researching which is the
Bataille family, as Manuden gets a few more mentions
then you can have what I have "WARTS, mistakes and all" by emailing me.
.
regards
John H
"Brad Verity" <royald...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ed2f4bdf-13c1-48b2...@vh10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
I have a Jane Bassingbourne marrying a Sir Edmund
BATAILLE/Batayle/Batell/Batelle/Battely/Battley/Battelle
(The surname spelling has show up as at least 35 different ways from 1100 to
present time)
supposedly born Ongar Park, Essex on the Bataille family manor estates.
(Ongar Park would relate to Manuden and could relate to Manuden
Hall)(Manuden in 2011 is still a very small village).
Granted Arms (source is College of Arms) also Source Visitation of Essex,
1558 (Barrington family)
Source Visitation of Essex, 1558 (Barrington family).
Tim Powys-Lybbe (who posts on this list) is a descendent of this Barrington
family.
Jane may have been a sibling or a relation of Cessily Bassingbourne who
married John Battaille below:
A Cessily Bassingbourne marrying a John Bataille and in 1295 was of Manuden,
tenant of John de Bassingburn 15 acres in Manuden
c1296 was also of Little Chishall/Chishill, (7-8miles Nth East of manuden)
Which was in Essex, now located in Cambridgeshire. (Bassingborne family
area) held by John Bataille
Notes below that I show for the son of Cessily & John, ie "John the Younger"
1317 Re Rogers lands?
1320 John of Manuden
1336 Ongar Park perm.
1349 Orchestin St George and Orcheston St Mary's, Wiltshire grant of "a
little land" to John Bataille and Henry Battell , rector of church of Troy.
(Trowell Nottinghamshire)
1355 Little Chishall Manor, with the advowson of the church of the
town.along with church at Shepenes (not located?)
+++++
Ancient petition 1322:
Petitioners: Steven de Bassingburn (Bassingbourn); John Batayl (Bataille).
Name(s): de Bassingburn (Bassingbourn); Batayl (Bataille), Steven; John
Addressees: King and chancellor.
Nature of Request: Bassingburn and Batayle request a commission to enquire
of the chattels of Tuchet in Essex, as they allege that there are ...
Nature of Endorsement: [On face].[Let] a commission [be made] to Dover and
Bataille to more plainly enquire by the council of Bassingburn.[On dorse,
...
Places mentioned: Essex; Ugley, [Essex].
People mentioned: Sheriff of Essex; William de Neuport (Newport),
sub-escheator; William Tuchet; John de Doure (Dover).
Date derivation: The petition dates to 1322 as it clearly follows the
rebellion of the earl of Lancaster, and because a writ of ...
1322 SC 8/178/8859
++++
Don't know whether any of the above helps you in your Bassingbourne quest or
not, but have posted it anyway.
Below has something on the Bassingbournes:
Bottom left page 32
> http://www.archive.org/stream/feetoffinesfores03greauoft#page/32/mode/2up
> <
also same book, top right page 53
> http://www.archive.org/stream/feetoffinesfores03greauoft#page/52/mode/2up
If you would like what I have on the family I am researching which is the
Bataille family, as Manuden gets a few more mentions
then you can have what I have "WARTS, mistakes and all" by emailing me.
.
regards
John H
"Brad Verity" <royald...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ed2f4bdf-13c1-48b2...@vh10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
John H
Feb 2, 2012, 7:35:54 AM2/2/12
to
Further to the previous post.
The Bassingbourne arms were originally with the Bataille arms in the
Batailles chapel which is on the side of Manuden Church.
(Batailles chapel as can be seen on top side of church on google maps at the
bend in The St. and near Pinchpools rd)
> http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl <
No arms were present 2010 in that chapel which is for all intents and
purposes used as a vestry nowadays.
The local church historian had knowledge of their existence, when I was
there in 2010.
John H
"John H" <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgdv05$doq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
The Bassingbourne arms were originally with the Bataille arms in the
Batailles chapel which is on the side of Manuden Church.
(Batailles chapel as can be seen on top side of church on google maps at the
bend in The St. and near Pinchpools rd)
> http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl <
No arms were present 2010 in that chapel which is for all intents and
purposes used as a vestry nowadays.
The local church historian had knowledge of their existence, when I was
there in 2010.
John H
"John H" <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jgdv05$doq$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
wjhonson
Feb 2, 2012, 9:33:53 AM2/2/12
to
On Feb 2, 4:19 am, "John H" <johnh4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Brad,
>
> I have a Jane Bassingbourne marrying a Sir Edmund
> BATAILLE/Batayle/Batell/Batelle/Battely/Battley/Battelle
> (The surname spelling has show up as at least 35 different ways from 1100 to
> present time)
> supposedly born Ongar Park, Essex on the Bataille family manor estates.
> (Ongar Park would relate to Manuden and could relate to Manuden
> Hall)(Manuden in 2011 is still a very small village).
> Granted Arms (source is College of Arms) also Source Visitation of Essex,
> 1558 (Barrington family)
> Source Visitation of Essex, 1558 (Barrington family).
> Tim Powys-Lybbe (who posts on this list) is a descendent of this Barrington
> family.
>
> Jane may have been a sibling or a relation of Cessily Bassingbourne who
> married John Battaille below:
>
> regards
> Hi Brad,
>
> I have a Jane Bassingbourne marrying a Sir Edmund
> BATAILLE/Batayle/Batell/Batelle/Battely/Battley/Battelle
> (The surname spelling has show up as at least 35 different ways from 1100 to
> present time)
> supposedly born Ongar Park, Essex on the Bataille family manor estates.
> (Ongar Park would relate to Manuden and could relate to Manuden
> Hall)(Manuden in 2011 is still a very small village).
> Granted Arms (source is College of Arms) also Source Visitation of Essex,
> 1558 (Barrington family)
> Source Visitation of Essex, 1558 (Barrington family).
> Tim Powys-Lybbe (who posts on this list) is a descendent of this Barrington
> family.
>
> Jane may have been a sibling or a relation of Cessily Bassingbourne who
> married John Battaille below:
>
> John H
This page to which John refers is online here, page 23
http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=hqwKAAAAYAAJ&pg=GBS.PA23
Brad Verity
Feb 2, 2012, 1:29:59 PM2/2/12
to
> Don't know whether any of the above helps you in your Bassingbourne quest or
> not, but have posted it anyway.
>
> Below has something on the Bassingbournes:
> Bottom left page 32>http://www.archive.org/stream/feetoffinesfores03greauoft#page/32/mode...
> not, but have posted it anyway.
>
> Below has something on the Bassingbournes:
> > <
>
> also same book, top right page 53
>
> >http://www.archive.org/stream/feetoffinesfores03greauoft#page/52/mode...
>
> also same book, top right page 53
>
>
> If you would like what I have on the family I am researching which is the
> Bataille family, as Manuden gets a few more mentions
> then you can have what I have "WARTS, mistakes and all" by emailing me.
John,
> If you would like what I have on the family I am researching which is the
> Bataille family, as Manuden gets a few more mentions
> then you can have what I have "WARTS, mistakes and all" by emailing me.
Thank you for the links & the other info. Stephen Bassingbourne was
an ancestor of the John Bassingbourne who married Anne Pashley. My
focus, though, is only on the Bassingbournes who descend from that
couple. If you come across any 15th-century information on the family
during your research, please let me know.
Thanks & Cheers, ------Brad
John
Feb 2, 2012, 2:02:15 PM2/2/12
to
Basingbournes, and gives a royal descent to some of the Gawdy family
for whom I previously had none.
Here's another Bassingbourne reference which may be before your scope
of interest, but I'll mention it in case it's of interest. Vivian's
edition of the Visitations of Devon, in its pedigree of the Reynell
family (p. 643), mentions "Joane, fil. John Basingborne & Cozin & heir
of Alan le Francis" as the wife of Walter Reinell [sic] of Badlingham,
Cambridgeshire, which Walter was living 8 Richard 2 (1383). I suspect
that this Joan may possibly be an aunt of of the John Bassingbourne
who married Anne Pashley - if she's related at all.
John
Feb 3, 2012, 2:05:23 AM2/3/12
to
Roger Townshend can NOT be the son of the Thomas Townshend who married
Elizabeth Catlyn.
Wjhonson
Feb 4, 2012, 12:03:05 PM2/4/12
to jhigg...@yahoo.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Just a slight point of correction on this source mentioned in this thread
http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=n-kVAAAAYAAJ&pg=GBS.PA40
which claims that John Fray was Agnes Danver's first husband here
when he was actually her second husband
Her first being
Thomas /Baldington/ of Aldebury and Baldington Manor; esq
who died 22 Aug 1435 Ipm 15h6 No 28
and by which she had three Baldington co-heiresses
-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=n-kVAAAAYAAJ&pg=GBS.PA40
which claims that John Fray was Agnes Danver's first husband here
when he was actually her second husband
Her first being
Thomas /Baldington/ of Aldebury and Baldington Manor; esq
who died 22 Aug 1435 Ipm 15h6 No 28
and by which she had three Baldington co-heiresses
-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 4:10 pm
Subject: Re: Thomas Cotton & Margaret Wentworth
Subject: Re: Thomas Cotton & Margaret Wentworth
Wjhonson
Feb 4, 2012, 12:42:48 PM2/4/12
to royald...@hotmail.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
I don't believe we have any primary evidence for the year of marriage for Sibyl de Montagu to Edmund
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Verity <royald...@hotmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 7:15 pm
Subject: Re: Thomas Cotton & Margaret Wentworth
Wjhonson
Feb 4, 2012, 12:59:11 PM2/4/12
to jhigg...@yahoo.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Joan was also the heiress of her father by whom evidently (unless by Alan?) she acquired the Manors of East Ogwell and Malston
http://books.google.com/books?id=aL0VAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA237
-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Douglas Richardson
Feb 4, 2012, 2:34:43 PM2/4/12
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Sir Edmund de Arundel was born about 1329 (he being aged 18 in 1347).
He was bastardized by the annulment of his parents’ marriage in 1344.
He married before 16 July 1347 Sibyl de Montagu, daughter of William
de Montagu, Knt., 1st Earl of Salisbury, 3rd Lord Montagu, Earl
Marshal of England, by Katherine, daughter of William de Grandison (or
Graunson), Knt., 1st Lord Grandison.
Edmund and Sibyl are known to have been married before 16 July 1347,
on which date they received papal indults to choose their own
confessor and for plenary remission at the hour of death. See
Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers.: Letters, 3 (1897): 248,
251, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=AiDD_XU7P4kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=calendar+of+entries+in+the+papal+registers+1342&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pIItT7bcG4qwiQLrt9WpCg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Arundel&f=false
It should be noted that Sir Edmund de Arundel's father, Richard de
Arundel, Knt., Earl of Arundel (died 1376), was never known as Fitz
Alan.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Feb 4, 10:42 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
< I don't believe we have any primary evidence for the year of
marriage for Sibyl de Montagu to Edmund de Arundel.
Sir Edmund de Arundel was born about 1329 (he being aged 18 in 1347).
He was bastardized by the annulment of his parents’ marriage in 1344.
He married before 16 July 1347 Sibyl de Montagu, daughter of William
de Montagu, Knt., 1st Earl of Salisbury, 3rd Lord Montagu, Earl
Marshal of England, by Katherine, daughter of William de Grandison (or
Graunson), Knt., 1st Lord Grandison.
Edmund and Sibyl are known to have been married before 16 July 1347,
on which date they received papal indults to choose their own
confessor and for plenary remission at the hour of death. See
Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers.: Letters, 3 (1897): 248,
251, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=AiDD_XU7P4kC&printsec=frontcover&dq=calendar+of+entries+in+the+papal+registers+1342&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pIItT7bcG4qwiQLrt9WpCg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Arundel&f=false
It should be noted that Sir Edmund de Arundel's father, Richard de
Arundel, Knt., Earl of Arundel (died 1376), was never known as Fitz
Alan.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Feb 4, 10:42 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
< I don't believe we have any primary evidence for the year of
Brad Verity
Feb 5, 2012, 5:30:15 PM2/5/12
to
On Feb 4, 9:42 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> I don't believe we have any primary evidence for the year of marriage for Sibyl de Montagu to Edmund
From 'The Fitzalans: Earls of Arundel and Surrey, Lords of the Welsh
> I don't believe we have any primary evidence for the year of marriage for Sibyl de Montagu to Edmund
Marches (1267-1415)' by Michael Burtscher (Logaston Press: 2008), p.
33:
"Arundel, nonetheless, remained in the king's mercy and this is
plainly shown by the fact that on 30 January 1331 he betrothed his
firstborn, Edmund, to Sybil, the daughter of William Montague who had
been instrumental in the capture and overthrow of Queen Isabella and
Mortimer (CCR 1330-1333, p. 280). This marriage was undoubtedly of
greater importance to Montague than to Arundel, who had certainly
hoped to marry his only son and heir to a lady wealthier and more
influential than the daughter of a mere knight. It is uncertain
whether Montague and Arundel already knew each other before the coup
of 1330. For the Montagues the marriage was a significant dynastic
prize as it enabled them to become part of the ruling aristocracy, a
position which was sealed by William Montague's own elevation to the
earldom of Salisbury in 1337. The union between Fitzalan and Montague
therefore proved advantageous to Arundel after all, especially since
Montague remained one of the king's most trusted companions, as part
of that coterie which later constituted the core of the so-called
newly-created earls of 1337 (Bothwell, 'Age of Edward III', pp.
35-52)."
From CCR 1330-1333, p. 280:
“30 Jan. 1331, Hertford. William de Monte Acuto, knight, acknowledges
that he owes to Richard, earl of Arundel, 2,000l.; to be levied, in
default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Gloucester.-The
chancellor received the acknowledgment. Cancelled on payment.
Richard, earl of Arundel, acknowledges that he owes to William de
Monte Acuto, knight, 2,000l.; to be levied, in default of payment, of
his lands and chattels in co. Sussex.-The chancellor receives the
acknowledgment. Cancelled on payment.”
Edward III had invited the exiled Richard Fitzalan back to court in
November 1330 (CPR 1330-1334, p. 20). On 12 Dec. 1330 Richard
petitioned Parliament to be reinstated to his inheritance and the
title of Earl of Arundel. Then followed 2 months of wrangling and
negotiation, ending with the King and Parliament re-granting the
earldom and inheritance to Richard on 8 February 1331. It was during
these two months that Richard and William Montagu arranged the
marriage of their children. Montagu was a hero of the coup two months
previous in October that had overthrown Mortimer, and uniting the
Fitzalan family to Montagu thru marriage was a shrewd move on
Richard's part: it insured that Montagu would use his tremendous
influence on the young King to re-instate Richard to the Arundel
earldom so that one day his daughter Sybil could be countess of
Arundel. Richard's son and heir Edmund was born in 1327, so only
about age 3 in January 1331. Sybil appears to have been William
Montagu's second daughter, the next to be arranged in marriage after
her elder sister Elizabeth, whose marriage to Giles de Badlesmere had
been arranged in 1328. Montagu's son and heir William was born in June
1328. I have Sybil in my database as the next child after him, born
about 1329. But it's also possible she was the same age as, or a year
or so older, than her husband Edmund Arundel, so born in 1326 or 1327.
Cheers, -----Brad
WJho...@aol.com
Feb 6, 2012, 11:06:45 PM2/6/12
to jhigg...@yahoo.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
In a message dated 2/6/2012 8:03:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> <<I should perhaps have added here that, contrary to Will's statement,
> Roger Townshend can NOT be the son of the Thomas Townshend who married
> Elizabeth Catlyn. >>
>
Because ?
> <<I should perhaps have added here that, contrary to Will's statement,
> Roger Townshend can NOT be the son of the Thomas Townshend who married
> Elizabeth Catlyn. >>
>
John
Feb 7, 2012, 12:09:05 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 6, 8:06 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2/6/2012 8:03:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>
> In a message dated 2/6/2012 8:03:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>
> jhiggins...@yahoo.com writes:
> > <<I should perhaps have added here that, contrary to Will's statement,
> > Roger Townshend can NOT be the son of the Thomas Townshend who married
> > Elizabeth Catlyn. >>
>
> Because ?
It's chronologically impossible. Thomas Townshend who married
> > <<I should perhaps have added here that, contrary to Will's statement,
> > Roger Townshend can NOT be the son of the Thomas Townshend who married
> > Elizabeth Catlyn. >>
>
> Because ?
Elizabeth Catlyn was dead by 19 Apr 1581 (the date his will was
proved). Thomas Townshend the father of Roger (and son of the above
Thomas) was living in 1639 when he is mentioned with his son Roger in
regard to the will of a third party, and Thomas himself is mentioned
in 1624/5 in regard to the will of his father-in-law.
You haven't yet provided sources to support your statement that Roger
was in fact the son of the Thomas Townshend who married Elizabeth
Catlyn.
Douglas Richardson
Feb 7, 2012, 7:20:27 PM2/7/12
to
<From CCR 1330-1333, p. 280:
< “30 Jan. 1331, Hertford. William de Monte Acuto, knight,
acknowledges
< that he owes to Richard, earl of Arundel, 2,000l.; to be levied, in
< default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Gloucester.-The
< chancellor received the acknowledgment. Cancelled on payment.
< Richard, earl of Arundel, acknowledges that he owes to William de
< Monte Acuto, knight, 2,000l.; to be levied, in default of payment,
of
< his lands and chattels in co. Sussex.-The chancellor receives the
< acknowledgment. Cancelled on payment.”
Regardless of what is claimed by Mr. Burtscher, there is no mention of
< “30 Jan. 1331, Hertford. William de Monte Acuto, knight,
acknowledges
< that he owes to Richard, earl of Arundel, 2,000l.; to be levied, in
< default of payment, of his lands and chattels in co. Gloucester.-The
< chancellor received the acknowledgment. Cancelled on payment.
< Richard, earl of Arundel, acknowledges that he owes to William de
< Monte Acuto, knight, 2,000l.; to be levied, in default of payment,
of
< his lands and chattels in co. Sussex.-The chancellor receives the
< acknowledgment. Cancelled on payment.”
any marriage contract in this Close Rolls item dated 1331. Indeed a
marriage contract for Earl Richard's and William de Montagu's children
at this date would have been highly unlikely and quite irregular.
Richard, Earl of Arundel's own son, Edmund de Arundel, was only two
years old in 1331.
Brad Verity
Feb 9, 2012, 9:18:39 PM2/9/12
to
On Feb 7, 4:20 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Regardless of what is claimed by Mr. Burtscher,
Who has made an extensive and scholarly study of the Fitzalan family.
> Regardless of what is claimed by Mr. Burtscher,
And regardless of what surname you claimed they used in their
lifetimes, it is the surname 'Fitzalan' - that of their paternal DNA
line - under which they are classified and researched today.
> there is no mention of
> any marriage contract in this Close Rolls item dated 1331.
2,000 livres (an incredibly high sum - amounting to a million dollars
at least today) for in January 1331? Were they investing in land on
the Scottish march? Maybe they were hoodwinked into a Frescobaldi
bankers Ponzi scheme?
> Indeed a
> marriage contract for Earl Richard's and William de Montagu's children
> at this date would have been highly unlikely and quite irregular.
> Richard, Earl of Arundel's own son, Edmund de Arundel, was only two
> years old in 1331.
marriage to Giles Badlesmere in 1328? Marriages could be contracted
between two parties for infants or even as-yet-unborn children. Or
are you still insisting that everyone had to be at least age seven
when contracted to marry?
Cheers, -----Brad
J.C.B.Sharp
Jan 30, 2013, 5:44:00 PM1/30/13
to
In article
<7d56fa10-9a91-48c5...@iu7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
jhigg...@yahoo.com (John) wrote:
> *From:* John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
> *Date:* Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:31:52 -0800 (PST)
>
> On Jan 30, 2:45 pm, Joe <coch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 11:22 am, John <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 30, 8:46 am, Joe <coch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I had no particular knowledge of this family before this
> > morning, but
> > > > I looked at the reference given by John. It seems _we_ may
> > know more
> > > > than Will thinks after all.
> >
> > > > The American Genealogist, vol. 57 no. 1 (January 1981). p.
> > 35-44,
> > > > 55-56. _Thomas Bradbury_s Cotton Ancestry,_ by John Brooks
> > Threlfall,
> > > > FASG.
> >
> > > > IPM of his mother Alice (Abbot) Cotton:
> > > > Taken 24 January 1474; she died 21 November 1473; Thomas
> > Cotton is son
> > > > and heir age 30 and more.
> > > > Presumably this is the document that sets Thomas Cotton_s
> > birth at
> > > > about 1444, though when rounded to the nearest decade it is
> > certainly
> > > > possible he was a few years older.
> >
> > > > IPM of Thomas Cotton:
> > > > He died 30 July 1499; his heir Robert age 22.
> > > > So if Robert was born about 1477, and Margaret Wentworth died
> > 28 April
> > > > 1478 _ then Robert would appear to the son of Margaret
> > Wentworth (1st
> > > > wife) as opposed to Joan Sharp (2nd wife) as stated by Will.
> > I know
> > > > there are references which state Robert was the son of Joan
> > Sharp, but
> > > > all the ones I saw were secondary sources without evidence
> > such as
> > > > _Baronetage of England._
> >
> > > > The article does not mention Anne, wife of Edward d_Oyley.
> > However,
> > > > if we accept the Visitation evidence given by John, and if
> > they were
> > > > married 1487 as stated by the original poster, then she would
> > almost
> > > > certainly have to be the daughter of Margaret Wentworth.
> >
> > > > Second wife Joan Sharp died 29 March 1496
> >
> > > > The article gives as children of Thomas without specifying by
> > which
> > > > wife:
> > > > 1. Robert (1477-1519)
> > > > 2. Leonard, a priest. d.s.p. 1556-7
> > > > 3. Martin, a priest. d.s.p. 1565
> > > > 4. Audrey m. John Bassingbourne of Hatfield
> > > > 5. William m. Margaret Colpepper
> >
> > > > Joe
> >
> > > One small (but perhaps not minor) note on Joe's excellent
> > summary of
> > > the Threlfall article on the Cottons in TAG vol. 57:
> >
> > > As I read the article, it says that Thomas Cotton, by his 1st
> > wife
> > > Margaret Wentworth, had a single unnamed daughter who married NN
> > > Cockett, and the five other children listed by Joe were by the
> > 2nd
> > > wife Joan Sharpe. This agrees with the Cotton visitation
> > pedigree
> > > (HSP vol. 41 page 21) - with the exception that the visitation
> > > pedigree, as previously noted, lists an additional unnamed
> > daughter by
> > > the 1st wife who married an unnamed "Doyley".
> >
> > > The conflict between Margaret's death date of 28 April 1478 and
> > > Robert's aged of 22 at his father's IPM (in 1499 - or possibly
> > 1500?)
> > > doe4s pose a question regarding Robert's maternity. The
> > visitation
> > > pedigree does show Robert as a son of Joan, but there are
> > enough areas
> > > of uncertainty in that pedigree that this too could be
> > doubtful. I
> > > suppose it's possible that the IPM should have said that Robert
> > was
> > > "in his 22nd year" instead of "aet. 22" or that it simply got
> > his age
> > > wrong by a a couple of years. But if the IPM is accepted "as
> > is",
> > > then the visitation pedigree is wrong with respect to Robert's
> > > maternity.
> >
> > > For those who are interested, both Robert Cotton and his sister
> > (or
> > > half-sister?) Audrey (m. John Bassingbourne) are ancestors of
> > Princess
> > > Diana, and their aunt Ethelreda (or Audrey) is also an ancestor
> > of
> > > Diana, but two of her three husbands.
> >
> > You are correct John, I misread it the first time through.
> >
> > We can be sure of the parentage of Robert.
> >
> > CIPM Henry VII, Vol. 2 (13-20 Henry VII 1497-1505)
> > IPM of Thomas Cotton http://tinyurl.com/8yzcukj
> > p. 181 no 279. Writ 4 August 1499. Taken 30 June 1500.
> > Proves ancestry Walter-William-Thomas
> > Died 31 July 1499. Son Robert age 22 and more.
> >
> > Another p. 197, no. 301. http://tinyurl.com/82xl89s
> > Writ 3 September 1499; Taken 31 October 1499
> > Concerns property of his second wife Joan Sharp.
> > Died 31 July 1499; heir his son Robert of the body of the said
> > Joan
> > [Sharp] aged 22 and more.
> >
> > p. 291, no. 472 IPM of Thomas Cotton
> > Writ 16 October 1500, taken 17 November 1500
> > Robert age 23 and more is son and heir
> >
> > Joe
>
> Thanks, Joe, for these further references - very interesting. The
> references to the age of Robert are basically consistent over the
> three documents, and the mention of Robert as the son "of the body
> of
> the said Joan" certainly seems to resolve the issue of his
> maternity.
> But it also means that the death date of Margaret Wentworth from the
> monumental inscription (see Brad's earlier post and the TAG article)
> is wrong. Oh, well...
I have had the death date of Margaret as a problem for a long time.
First of all we cannot assume that an age of 22 given in an IPM implies a
date of birth as all that was necessary was to show that the heir had
come of age.
Palmer gives the year of death as 1478 on one page and 1479 on another
(Palmer 1938, 95, 230).
The marriage settlement of Joan Sharpe was dated 26 February 1470/1. I
cannot read my own writing for the reference but it appears to be from
Calendar of inquisitions post mortem Henry VII, ii.
I suggest that Margaret died in 1468.
just out of interest I add that Margaret's father Sir Philip was
attainted after the battle of Towton and beheaded after Hexham 18 May
1464.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
<7d56fa10-9a91-48c5...@iu7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
jhigg...@yahoo.com (John) wrote:
> *From:* John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
> *Date:* Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:31:52 -0800 (PST)
>
> On Jan 30, 2:45 pm, Joe <coch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 11:22 am, John <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 30, 8:46 am, Joe <coch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I had no particular knowledge of this family before this
> > morning, but
> > > > I looked at the reference given by John. It seems _we_ may
> > know more
> > > > than Will thinks after all.
> >
> > > > The American Genealogist, vol. 57 no. 1 (January 1981). p.
> > 35-44,
> > > > 55-56. _Thomas Bradbury_s Cotton Ancestry,_ by John Brooks
> > Threlfall,
> > > > FASG.
> >
> > > > IPM of his mother Alice (Abbot) Cotton:
> > > > Taken 24 January 1474; she died 21 November 1473; Thomas
> > Cotton is son
> > > > and heir age 30 and more.
> > > > Presumably this is the document that sets Thomas Cotton_s
> > birth at
> > > > about 1444, though when rounded to the nearest decade it is
> > certainly
> > > > possible he was a few years older.
> >
> > > > IPM of Thomas Cotton:
> > > > He died 30 July 1499; his heir Robert age 22.
> > > > So if Robert was born about 1477, and Margaret Wentworth died
> > 28 April
> > > > 1478 _ then Robert would appear to the son of Margaret
> > Wentworth (1st
> > > > wife) as opposed to Joan Sharp (2nd wife) as stated by Will.
> > I know
> > > > there are references which state Robert was the son of Joan
> > Sharp, but
> > > > all the ones I saw were secondary sources without evidence
> > such as
> > > > _Baronetage of England._
> >
> > > > The article does not mention Anne, wife of Edward d_Oyley.
> > However,
> > > > if we accept the Visitation evidence given by John, and if
> > they were
> > > > married 1487 as stated by the original poster, then she would
> > almost
> > > > certainly have to be the daughter of Margaret Wentworth.
> >
> > > > Second wife Joan Sharp died 29 March 1496
> >
> > > > The article gives as children of Thomas without specifying by
> > which
> > > > wife:
> > > > 1. Robert (1477-1519)
> > > > 2. Leonard, a priest. d.s.p. 1556-7
> > > > 3. Martin, a priest. d.s.p. 1565
> > > > 4. Audrey m. John Bassingbourne of Hatfield
> > > > 5. William m. Margaret Colpepper
> >
> > > > Joe
> >
> > > One small (but perhaps not minor) note on Joe's excellent
> > summary of
> > > the Threlfall article on the Cottons in TAG vol. 57:
> >
> > > As I read the article, it says that Thomas Cotton, by his 1st
> > wife
> > > Margaret Wentworth, had a single unnamed daughter who married NN
> > > Cockett, and the five other children listed by Joe were by the
> > 2nd
> > > wife Joan Sharpe. This agrees with the Cotton visitation
> > pedigree
> > > (HSP vol. 41 page 21) - with the exception that the visitation
> > > pedigree, as previously noted, lists an additional unnamed
> > daughter by
> > > the 1st wife who married an unnamed "Doyley".
> >
> > > The conflict between Margaret's death date of 28 April 1478 and
> > > Robert's aged of 22 at his father's IPM (in 1499 - or possibly
> > 1500?)
> > > doe4s pose a question regarding Robert's maternity. The
> > visitation
> > > pedigree does show Robert as a son of Joan, but there are
> > enough areas
> > > of uncertainty in that pedigree that this too could be
> > doubtful. I
> > > suppose it's possible that the IPM should have said that Robert
> > was
> > > "in his 22nd year" instead of "aet. 22" or that it simply got
> > his age
> > > wrong by a a couple of years. But if the IPM is accepted "as
> > is",
> > > then the visitation pedigree is wrong with respect to Robert's
> > > maternity.
> >
> > > For those who are interested, both Robert Cotton and his sister
> > (or
> > > half-sister?) Audrey (m. John Bassingbourne) are ancestors of
> > Princess
> > > Diana, and their aunt Ethelreda (or Audrey) is also an ancestor
> > of
> > > Diana, but two of her three husbands.
> >
> > You are correct John, I misread it the first time through.
> >
> > We can be sure of the parentage of Robert.
> >
> > CIPM Henry VII, Vol. 2 (13-20 Henry VII 1497-1505)
> > IPM of Thomas Cotton http://tinyurl.com/8yzcukj
> > p. 181 no 279. Writ 4 August 1499. Taken 30 June 1500.
> > Proves ancestry Walter-William-Thomas
> > Died 31 July 1499. Son Robert age 22 and more.
> >
> > Another p. 197, no. 301. http://tinyurl.com/82xl89s
> > Writ 3 September 1499; Taken 31 October 1499
> > Concerns property of his second wife Joan Sharp.
> > Died 31 July 1499; heir his son Robert of the body of the said
> > Joan
> > [Sharp] aged 22 and more.
> >
> > p. 291, no. 472 IPM of Thomas Cotton
> > Writ 16 October 1500, taken 17 November 1500
> > Robert age 23 and more is son and heir
> >
> > Joe
>
> Thanks, Joe, for these further references - very interesting. The
> references to the age of Robert are basically consistent over the
> three documents, and the mention of Robert as the son "of the body
> of
> the said Joan" certainly seems to resolve the issue of his
> maternity.
> But it also means that the death date of Margaret Wentworth from the
> monumental inscription (see Brad's earlier post and the TAG article)
> is wrong. Oh, well...
I have had the death date of Margaret as a problem for a long time.
First of all we cannot assume that an age of 22 given in an IPM implies a
date of birth as all that was necessary was to show that the heir had
come of age.
Palmer gives the year of death as 1478 on one page and 1479 on another
(Palmer 1938, 95, 230).
The marriage settlement of Joan Sharpe was dated 26 February 1470/1. I
cannot read my own writing for the reference but it appears to be from
Calendar of inquisitions post mortem Henry VII, ii.
I suggest that Margaret died in 1468.
just out of interest I add that Margaret's father Sir Philip was
attainted after the battle of Towton and beheaded after Hexham 18 May
1464.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
Mike Clifford
Jul 23, 2015, 11:19:51 AM7/23/15
to
On Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 5:59:11 PM UTC, wjhonson wrote:
> Joan was also the heiress of her father by whom evidently (unless by Alan?) she acquired the Manors of East Ogwell and Malston
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=aL0VAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA237
Joan Bassingbourn married first Bregg and second Walter Reynell of East Ogwell and Malston, Devon, at some date before 1400. According to Burke this marriage was 1393.
> Joan was also the heiress of her father by whom evidently (unless by Alan?) she acquired the Manors of East Ogwell and Malston
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=aL0VAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA237
A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland Volume 4 http://www.archive.org/stream/genealogicalhera04burk#page/446/mode/2up/search/reynel
Walter and Joan are clearly documented at Badlingham and Fordham in Cambridgeshire
Feet of Fines http://www.archive.org/stream/pedesfiniumfine00pleagoog#page/n157/mode/1up/search/reynel
Feet of Fines http://www.archive.org/stream/pedesfiniumfine00pleagoog#page/n155/mode/1up/search/reynel
An 'inspeximus' dated 1415 describes Walter Reynell as of Devon and refers to Joan his wife as a heiress and kinswoman of Alan le Fraunceys, and confirms a charter dated 1270.
Patent Rolls http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/h5v1/body/Henry5vol1page0336.pdf
Mike
0 new messages