Thomas Burdet of Rowell early 1400's
Neil H
PETER CAVE, of Stanford, Co. Northants., Born c. 1410. M Mary, d. of Thomas Burdett, Esq., of Rowell, Co. Northants. He had issue:(Ref:Nichols IV, p 371) Elsewhere this alliance is referred to simply as daughter of ___ Burdet of Rothwell. (Burkes 107)
Rowell is indeed Rothwell in Northamptonshire England. To this day locals still pronounce it "Rowell".
The family Cave through the male line had moved south from Yorkshire to Northamptonshire in the previous generation.
Mary was most likely to have been the mother of Thomas Cave(Cave's of Stanford, Northants). Thomas died and was buried at Stanford in 1495 with an inventory of goods taken at that date .
I have tried in vain to identify this father of Mary Burdet(t). The Northamptonshire Record Office could find no record of him either having consulted a number of local history resources, so can anyone help please? thanks
WJho...@aol.com
norma...@hotmail.co.uk writes:
Instead of being born c 1410, rather we have absolutely no idea of when he
was born, even within 20 years.
Not only did he have issue, but he is ancestral to Prince Harry and William
The idea that we know that Peter Cave's family came from Yorkshire is
probably spurious.
Not only was Thomas buried at Stanford, but he has there (or had) an M.B.
I'd submit that the reason you can't find the relevant Burdet family might
be because your search is too narrow chronologically. Like her husband, we
have no idea, even within 20 years either side, of when she was born.
Will
pj.evans
Thomas's son Richard is said to have been born about 1465 (he died in
1538), so I'd think that Thomas was most likely born sometime around
1425 or 1430, and that would push Peter's birth back to roughly
1390-1400, figuring age at the child's birth at 30-40 years.. (Earlier
dates are definitely possible.)
Neil H
In a message dated Sat, 25 Sep 2010 19:15:29 EDT WJohnson writes
"The idea that we know that Peter Cave's family came from Yorkshire is
probably spurious".
WJho...@aol.com
norma...@hotmail.co.uk writes:
What I mean by this is that we have no actual primary evidence (of which I
know) or even contemporary description of any sort of relationship between
this Peter and his forebears, whatsoever, Yorkshire or Mars :) So we don't
know where he came from, and nobody at the time happened to tell us, or even
tell us to whom, he might be related other than his spouse and child.
We DO know, or at least think we know, that he had a brother John Cave,
Vicar of Stanford from 1458
Other than that relation, we are given no informaiton about Peter's life
before he appears already in Stanford.
As to the other person who responded in this thread, the idea that Richard
Cave was born "in or about 1465" is spurious.
He was born anytime between 1455 and 1473. This birth range is *solely*
dependent on the following steps:
1. He was Sheriff North'amp 1530 and I'm assuming a man over 75 would not
be Sheriff, so that limits him on one side.
2. He was twice married, by his first wife he had exactly two children
before she died in 1493, so that limits him on the other side.
And that's all we get to narrow his age. Nothing else at all.
By his second wife Margaret Saxby he had exactly eight sons and five
daughters before she died Mar 1531/2 with a Brass effigy in Stanford.
As far as I know, we're never told his age at any time, so anyone claiming
to know it, is probably making it up :)
Will Johnson
pj.evans
> In a message dated 9/25/2010 5:47:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
Which is, pretty closely, 'about 1465', with a reasonable margin of
error.
(FWIW, I have much more recent people than this in my tree, for whom I
can't document age, as it appears to be different every time. So don't
be patronizing.)
John
>
> > In a message dated Sat, 25 Sep 2010 19:15:29 EDT WJohnson writes
> > "The idea that we know that Peter Cave's family came from Yorkshire is
> > probably spurious".
> > Cat among pigeons, I'm probably going to regret this but please explain?
>
> What I mean by this is that we have no actual primary evidence (of which I
> know) or even contemporary description of any sort of relationship between
> this Peter and his forebears, whatsoever, Yorkshire or Mars :) So we don't
> know where he came from, and nobody at the time happened to tell us, or even
> tell us to whom, he might be related other than his spouse and child.
>
>
Ummm...as to Peter and his forebears, the family is generally
understood to have come from the parishes of North Cave and South Cave
in the east Riding of....Yorkshire. You may want to check out this
source and see if you would classify it as "spurious":
John George Hall, A history of South Cave and of other parishes in the
East Riding of the County of York.
See, as a start, page 36, which gives you a great number of people "to
whom he might be related".
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> John George Hall, A history of South Cave and of other parishes in the
> East Riding of the County of York.
>
> See, as a start, page 36, which gives you a great number of people "to
> whom he might be related".
A mixture of primary sources and "traditional" sources which have no
primary backup :)
The problem isn't whether someone can guess where a person might go in a
pedigree, but rather whether they can show evidence for it.
This source is late and secondary and doesn't cite any credible background
to show that Peter Cave actually fits here.
John
> In a message dated 9/25/2010 8:25:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> > John George Hall, A history of South Cave and of other parishes in the
> > East Riding of the County of York.
>
> > See, as a start, page 36, which gives you a great number of people "to
> > whom he might be related".
>
> A mixture of primary sources and "traditional" sources which have no
> primary backup :)
> The problem isn't whether someone can guess where a person might go in a
> pedigree, but rather whether they can show evidence for it.
>
> This source is late and secondary and doesn't cite any credible background
> to show that Peter Cave actually fits here.
It's obviously desirable to have primary sources to support linkages
in a pedigree, but for the medieval period it's shortsighted to insist
on such sources - it just won't happen. Lacking such "primary"
sources, we have to fall back on "traditional" sources - unless they
are proved to be deficient by contradictory facts. I seriously doubt
that all of the people in your own database (or even a majority of
them) are supported by "primary" sources.
In this case, the fact that the Cave family has ("traditionally") been
associated with places called Cave in Yorkshire seems to be reasonable
grounds for the assumption that the family was originally from
Yorkshire, barring evidence to the contrary. The fact that you
yourself haven't done sufficient research in either "primary" or
"traditional" sources for the family is insufficient reason to broadly
assert that the connection of the Cave family to Yorkshire is
"spurious".
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> In this case, the fact that the Cave family has ("traditionally") been
> associated with places called Cave in Yorkshire seems to be reasonable
> grounds for the assumption that the family was originally from
> Yorkshire, barring evidence to the contrary. The fact that you
> yourself haven't done sufficient research in either "primary" or
> "traditional" sources for the family is insufficient reason to broadly
> assert that the connection of the Cave family to Yorkshire is
> "spurious".
That's your opinion, and I view the situation upside down from that.
If I suspect that a linkage "traditionally" made is spurious that is
sufficient for me (but not obviously for you) to state that it seems to me
spurious and I doubt it. I don't need a contradictory source in order to form an
opinion that something sounds "off" in a connection.
While desireable perhaps in order to convince people like yourself, it's
not a necessary part of the way I work.
There are other people named Cave. I've seen so far no serious effort to
convince us that all Caves originated from Cave.
Just a lot of hand flapping.
Just because moles have tiny eyes doesn't mean I need to accept a story of
how they got them, or make one up myself.
I can simply take the position that, the situation is not clear.
John
> In a message dated 9/26/2010 9:45:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
So... what specifically leads you to "suspect" that this particular
"traditional" linkage is "spurious"? And how is this different than
the many other "traditional" linkages not supported by primary sources
that you presumably have accepted?
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> So... what specifically leads you to "suspect" that this particular
> "traditional" linkage is "spurious"? And how is this different than
> the many other "traditional" linkages not supported by primary sources
> that you presumably have accepted? >>
I'm not sure what you are implying by the use of the word "Accept".
I have in my database many sources which are ridiculous. They are there
for the very purpose of pointing out that they are ridiculous.
In fact this source is in my database, and I've pointed out that it's
probably spurious, in my database.
That, to my mind, is what we should all be doing. Not just annotating
those sources which we think reflect the reality, but also those that we think
or are certain do not.
John
> In a message dated 9/26/2010 11:41:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
You answered the second question (in a way) but not the first. So
I'll ask again: What specifically leads you to "suspect" that this
particular "traditional" linkage is "spurious"? Or are you simply
making the jump from "unsupported" to "spurious"?
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> You answered the second question (in a way) but not the first. So
> I'll ask again: What specifically leads you to "suspect" that this
> particular "traditional" linkage is "spurious"? Or are you simply
> making the jump from "unsupported" to "spurious"? >>
In my mind, unsupported for 600 years and more is almost always equivalent
to spurious. It's been long enough for someone to find an actual primary
record supporting the connection.
Neil H
It is a fact that much of the Cave (de Cave) family history (Wyamarus, Jordayne, Bryan etc) cannot be 'verified' by 'primary sources' and that obviously applies to countless 'noble' families. I don't see the point of perpetuating further debate on that point.
What we can do however is make reasoned judgements and look at circumstantial evidence in taking a view on things. The Yorkshire origins are well documented so what of the relocation to Stanford (said to be due to estate and male heir going their separate ways).
The circumstantial evidence can be summed up by ecclesiastical association.
STANFORD (St. Nicholas), a parish, in the union of Rugby, hundred of Guilsborough, S. division of the county of Northampton, 3½ miles (S. W.) from Welford, and 5 (S. E.) from Lutterworth; containing 32 inhabitants. Shortly after the Conquest, Guy de Reinbudcurt, one of the Norman companions of William, sold the lordship to Benedict, abbot of the Benedictine monastery of Selby, in Yorkshire.
In 1471 John Cave died vicar of Stanford, having, probably, been presented the living by his brother, then abbot of Selby. After the Dissolution, the manor and advowson were granted by Henry VIII., for the sum of £1194. 3. 4., to Thomas Cave, Esq. The old manor-house of Stanford Hall was situated on the left bank of the Avon in this county; about 1680 it was pulled down by Sir Roger Cave, and a new building was commenced on the right bank, in the county of Leicester, which was completed in 1737. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=51296
Abbots of Selby
Simon de Scardeburg (prior), 1313, died 1321John de Wystow II, (fn. 38) 1322, died 1335John de Heslyngton (a monk), 1335, died 1342Geoffrey de Gaddesby, 1342, died 1368 (fn. 39)John de Shirburn, 1369, died 1408William Pigot, 1408, died 1429 (fn. 40)John Cave, 1429, died 1436
This list is practically that in the Coucher Bk. of Selby, i, index, 402, checked by the Calendars of Patent Rolls. A few additional particulars are given as to some of the abbots. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=36216
I actually think John the vicar was nephew of John the Abbot but in any event Selby presents a very plausible connection between Yorkshire and Stanford. I live just a few miles north of Stanford and I've known about the Selby Abbey connection for years.
Neil H
I meant to do a précis and overview:-
Sir Alexander Cave m. Katherine dau Roger Somerville of Grindall (various spellings but in Yorkshire) Their son Peter Cave married Anne dau of Ralph Ingleby.Peter's brother John was Abbot of Selby (in Yorkshire)Selby Abbey held the Lordship of Stanford including the parish of St Nicolas (in Northamptonshire)John Cave who became vicar of St Nicholas Stanford was the nephew of the Abbot of Selby.John's brother, Peter married Mary Burdett (dau _ Burdett of Rowell, Northamptonshire) by that time evidently living in Stanford where there was a manor house.
Which also brings me back to my original question ..... who was Burdett of Rowell (Rothwell)???
WJho...@aol.com
norma...@hotmail.co.uk writes:
> It is a fact that much of the Cave (de Cave) family history (Wyamarus,
> Jordayne, Bryan etc) cannot be 'verified' by 'primary sources' and that
> obviously applies to countless 'noble' families. I don't see the point of
> perpetuating further debate on that point. >>
Sure, because to ignore it allows people for the next hundred years to
continue to state these connections without any caveat that they are
unsupported.
> What we can do however is make reasoned judgements and look at
> circumstantial evidence in taking a view on things. The Yorkshire origins are well
> documented so what of the relocation to Stanford (said to be due to estate
> and male heir going their separate ways). >>
Um no. The Yorkshire origins are not well documented, that is the very
point. In fact there is no documentation of them at all. There were Caves in
Yorkshire. There were Caves in Stanford. "Although some late sources
connect these families, the connection is unsupported by primary evidence."
> The circumstantial evidence can be summed up by ecclesiastical
> association.
> STANFORD (St. Nicholas), a parish, in the union of Rugby, hundred of
> Guilsborough, S. division of the county of Northampton, 3½ miles (S. W.) from
> Welford, and 5 (S. E.) from Lutterworth; containing 32 inhabitants. Shortly
> after the Conquest, Guy de Reinbudcurt, one of the Norman companions of
> William, sold the lordship to Benedict, abbot of the Benedictine monastery of
> Selby, in Yorkshire.
> In 1471 John Cave died vicar of Stanford, having, probably, been presented
> the living by his brother, then abbot of Selby. After the Dissolution, the
> manor and advowson were granted by Henry VIII., for the sum of £1194. 3.
> 4., to Thomas Cave, Esq. The old manor-house of Stanford Hall was situated
> on the left bank of the Avon in this county; about 1680 it was pulled down
> by Sir Roger Cave, and a new building was commenced on the right bank, in
> the county of Leicester, which was completed in 1737.
> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=51296 >>
Uh.. what? What primary evidence exists that John Cave's brother was
"abbot of Selby" ?
>
>
> Abbots of Selby
> Simon de Scardeburg (prior), 1313, died 1321John de Wystow II, (fn. 38)
> 1322, died 1335John de Heslyngton (a monk), 1335, died 1342Geoffrey de
> Gaddesby, 1342, died 1368 (fn. 39)John de Shirburn, 1369, died 1408William Pigot,
> 1408, died 1429 (fn. 40)John Cave, 1429, died 1436
> This list is practically that in the Coucher Bk. of Selby, i, index, 402,
> checked by the Calendars of Patent Rolls. A few additional particulars are
> given as to some of the abbots.
> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=36216
> I actually think John the vicar was nephew of John the Abbot but in any
> event Selby presents a very plausible connection between Yorkshire and
> Stanford. I live just a few miles north of Stanford and I've known about the
> Selby Abbey connection for years. >>
That would be great were you a writer living 600 years ago, but you're not.
So we're still left with the unconvincing argument that two men named Cave
were related to each other.... in some way... or not.
It does happen that two men of the same surname are unrelated.
I'm not moved.
Will
John
> In a message dated 9/26/2010 12:45:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> > You answered the second question (in a way) but not the first. So
> > I'll ask again: What specifically leads you to "suspect" that this
> > particular "traditional" linkage is "spurious"? Or are you simply
> > making the jump from "unsupported" to "spurious"? >>
>
> In my mind, unsupported for 600 years and more is almost always equivalent
> to spurious. It's been long enough for someone to find an actual primary
> record supporting the connection.
Okay, you've made your position clear with respect to the "almost
always" equivalence of "unsupported" and "spurious" (oh, excuse me,
you did limit this to "600 years or more"). For the record (and
probably needless to say), I disagree with your position. Actually,
my impression is that you're simply digging a bigger hole for
yourself, rather than prudently retreating from the unwise, overly
broad, and unsupported statement that you originally made. But I
won't speculate any further on this, and there's no point in
continuing the discussion on this matter, which is rapidly descending
into absurdity.
Neil H
> Uh.. what? What primary evidence exists that John Cave's brother was "abbot of Selby" ?
As actually I indicated in my post "John the vicar was nephew of John the Abbot".
> Um no. The Yorkshire origins are not well documented, that is the very
> point. In fact there is no documentation of them at all. There were Caves in
> Yorkshire. There were Caves in Stanford. "Although some late sources
> connect these families, the connection is unsupported by primary evidence."
The phrase "the Yorkshire origins" refers to Cave's IN Yorkshire. The whole point of my post (apart from _ Burdett of Rothwell !!!) was there is no primary evidence, that's a given. In the rarefied air that is Medieval genealogy, circumstantial evidence may be helpful sometimes in disproving a long held view, sometimes supporting one.
If the primary evidence rule is to be the Guillotine to indisputable family trees, there's going to be an awful lot of homeless monkeys!
John Watson
> > Uh.. what? What primary evidence exists that John Cave's brother was "abbot of Selby" ?
>
> As actually I indicated in my post "John the vicar was nephew of John the Abbot".
>
> > Um no. The Yorkshire origins are not well documented, that is the very
> > point. In fact there is no documentation of them at all. There were Caves in
> > Yorkshire. There were Caves in Stanford. "Although some late sources
> > connect these families, the connection is unsupported by primary evidence."
>
> The phrase "the Yorkshire origins" refers to Cave's IN Yorkshire. The whole point of my post (apart from _ Burdett of Rothwell !!!) was there is no primary evidence, that's a given. In the rarefied air that is Medieval genealogy, circumstantial evidence may be helpful sometimes in disproving a long held view, sometimes supporting one.
> If the primary evidence rule is to be the Guillotine to indisputable family trees, there's going to be an awful lot of homeless monkeys!
Hi Neil,
Coming back to the point of this whole thread - Thomas Burdett of
Rowell, Northamptonshire. The only Thomas Burdett that I can find who
fits your timeframe was of Arrow, Warwickshire - is this the same
person?
Regards,
John
WJho...@aol.com
norma...@hotmail.co.uk writes:
> If the primary evidence rule is to be the Guillotine to indisputable
> family trees, there's going to be an awful lot of homeless monkeys! >>
I think the point you're missing here is that "traditional" family trees
say a lot of things which we know today are silly nonsense.
I'm just pointing out, again, that the mere idea that the "only Caves in
that time period" lived in Yorkshire, is probably a good start to a just-so
story.
Who exactly has done the actual research to show this point? Who has done
the research to show the origin of the name at all? Who has published this
research, in print, that we can review?
The one source cited so far, had a particular point of view to support in a
specific location. Was the author truly trying to cover the entire country
and all known primary sources? I don't think so. That's my opinion of the
state of the matter on the Cave family. Waiting for someone with the time
and energy to do a true full survey.