AT Walter Blount of Astley (-1561)
BromN...@aol.com
I'd greatly appreciate constructive comment on and additions to the following
ahnentafel for Walter Blount of Astley, (-1561). It was constructed wholly
from secondary, and even a few tertiary sources. Thank you,
Bromfield Nichol
Pensacola Florida
USA
1. Walter Blount of Astley, Worcestershire (-1561)
2. Sir Thomas Blount of Kinlet, Shropshire (1456-1524)
3. Anne Croft of Croft Castle, Herefordshire
4. Humphrey Blount of Kinlet (1422-1477)
5. Elizabeth (Winnington) Delves (-aft.1502)
6. Sir Richard Croft of Croft Castle, Herefordshire (-1509)
7. Eleanor Cornwall
8. John Blount of Kinlet (-1442)
9. Alicia de la Bere
10. Robert Winnington
12. William Croft of Croft Castle (-bef.1448)
13. Margaret Walwyn
14. Sir Edmund Cornwall (-1436)
15. Elizabeth Barre
16. Sir John Blount, Lord of Sodington (-1424)
17. Isabel de Cornwall
18. Kynard de la Bere, of Herefordshire
24. Sir John de Croft
25. Janet
26. Thomas Walwyn
28. Richard de Cornwall (-1442/43)
29. Alice Merbury
30. Sir Thomas Barre of Barre's Court, Hertfordshire
31. Alice Talbot (-1441)
32. Sir John Blount (-1358)
33. Isolda Montjoy
34. Sir Brian de Cornwall, Lord of Kinlet (c.1326-)
35. Maud le Strange (c.1267-1324)
50. Owain Glyndwr, Prince of Wales (c.1354-1416)
51. Margaret Manmer
64. Sir Walter le Blount of Rock (-c.1316)
65. Johanna de Sodington
66. Thomas Mountjoy
68. Sir Edmund de Cornwall of Kinlet (-1353/54)
69. Elizabeth de Brompton (1294-1354) dau. of Sir Brian de Brompton, Lord
of Kinlet
70. Fulk le Strange, 1st Lord Strange of Blackmere (c.1267-1324/35)
71. Eleanor Giffard of Brimsfield
100. Gruffyd Fychan, Lord of Glyndyfrdwy
101. Elen
Leo van de Pas
I had a look at this family and would like to add a few questions :-(
Nr. 16 in this ancestor list is where my problems start.
According to Purke's Peerage, 1999 edition, page 297, Sir John Bloung of
Sodington was married three times
1. Juliana Foulhurst, by whom he had a son (what is his name and who was his
wife?) who died in Sir John's lifetime, this unnamed son is the father of
John Blount of Sodington whose line is continued to the present.
2.Isabel Cornwall
3.Helen
By the second wife, Sir John Blount of Sodington is the father of John
Blount of Kinlet (nr.8 in this ancestor list) John Blount of Kinlet died in
1442 and was married to Alice Delabere (de la Bere) and according to Gerald
Paget in his book on the ancestors of Prince Charles, they are parents of
Margaret Blount (P 57686) who married Robert Pigot. Howeverm following this
ancestor list they are also parents of Humphrey Blount, of Kinlet 1422-1477
(nr.4) and his son is Sir Thomas Blount, of Kinlet 1456-1524 (nr.2) and he
is the father of Walter Blount of Astley, died 1561 (nr.1). Why is nr.1
Walter Blount of Astley and not of Kinlet? Is it because he is a younger
brother of Sir John Blount of Kinlet who married Catherine Pershall and they
are the parents of Bessie Blount, mistress of Henry VIII?
Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Jay
death dates as his daughter, a definite sign that the original source
of this material is utterly unreliable.
BromN...@aol.com
Thanks for your response, Leo.
You asked why I styled AT#1 Walter Blount (-1561) as being of Astley rather
than Kinlet. The reference is to his home parish not the manor of that name.
I'm not aware that he was seized of either the manor of Astley or Kinlet. He
seems to have resided at the manor of Glasshampton, in the parish of Astley, a
property of his wife's Acton family. His tomb is in Astley Parish Church, so "of
Astley" seems appropriate even if a little confusing. His son Robert Blount,
in his will of 1573, also styled himself as being "of Astley," as did Bridgett
Broome Blount Stanley, Thomas Blount and Charles Blount in their wills dated
1636, 1622 and 1655 respectively. I don't think they owned Astley Manor
either. "Of Astley" was and is just a convenient label for this particular branch.
And yes, I show the above Walter (-1561) as having an older brother, John
Blount (1484-1524) "of Kinlet" who married Catherine Peshall. I've no further
data on this John Blount line.
Thanks again for your kind response.
Brom
Kyle S. VanLandingham
for the Blounts' ownership of Astley manor.
The Blounts of Kinlet are covered in Alexander Croke's _Genealogical History
of the Croke Family, originally named Le Blount_ (Oxford, 1823), Vol. II,
155-169. Regrettably, Croke does not clearly establish on pp. 157-158 that
Walter was father of Robert Blount. However, the wills of Walter Blount and
Robert Blount resolve that matter.
Kyle VanLandingham
----- Original Message -----
From: BromN...@aol.com
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Cc: leov...@bigpond.com ; vanl...@earthlink.net ; BromN...@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 11:25 AM
Subject: AT Walter Blount of Astley (-1561)
BromN...@aol.com
The dates shown for #35 Maud le Strange I mistakenly picked up from Weis' AR7
line 259:29. They are the dates for her father, #70 Fulk le Strange. I don't
have dates for #35 Maud le Strange.
Bromfield Nichol
Jay
OK that clears up that particular wrinkle. I can't comment on the
existence of other issues on that line, as I have done no research on
it. That one just kind of stared out at me so I thought I would raise
it, in case it was a real concern.
Jay
Robert O'Connor
56. Sir Geoffrey Cornwall
57. Cecilia Seymour
58. Sir John Merbury
62. Richard, 4th Baron Talbot
63. Ankaret Strange
> 64. Sir Walter le Blount of Rock (-c.1316)
> 65. Johanna de Sodington
> 66. Thomas Mountjoy
> 68. Sir Edmund de Cornwall of Kinlet (-1353/54)
> 69. Elizabeth de Brompton (1294-1354) dau. of Sir Brian de Brompton,
Lord
> of Kinlet
> 70. Fulk le Strange, 1st Lord Strange of Blackmere (c.1267-1324/35)
> 71. Eleanor Giffard of Brimsfield
> 100. Gruffyd Fychan, Lord of Glyndyfrdwy
> 101. Elen
>
112. Sir Richard Cornwall
113. Sybil
124. Gilbert, 3rd Baron Talbot d 1387
125. Pernel Butler
126. John, 4th Baron Strange d 1361
127. Mary Fitz Alan
224. Sir Geoffrey Cornwall d 1335
225. Margaret Mortimer
248. Richard, 2nd Baron Talbot d 1356
249. Elizxabeth Comyn
250. James Butler, 1st Earl of Ormonde
251. Eleanor de Bohun
252. John, 2nd Baron Strange d 1349
253. Ankaret Boteller
and so on.... (incl 2 lines back to Edward I).
Robert O'Connor
Robert O'Connor
<BromN...@aol.com> wrote in message news:ea.439c2a5...@aol.com...
> Good morning, Listers,
>
> 14. Sir Edmund Cornwall (-1436)
> 15. Elizabeth Barre
>
> 16. Sir John Blount, Lord of Sodington (-1424)
> 17. Isabel de Cornwall
> 18. Kynard de la Bere, of Herefordshire
> 24. Sir John de Croft
> 25. Janet
> 26. Thomas Walwyn
> 28. Richard de Cornwall (-1442/43)
> 29. Alice Merbury
> 30. Sir Thomas Barre of Barre's Court, Hertfordshire
He d between July & Sept. 1420
> 31. Alice Talbot (-1441)
>
> 32. Sir John Blount (-1358)
> 33. Isolda Montjoy
> 34. Sir Brian de Cornwall, Lord of Kinlet (c.1326-)
> 35. Maud le Strange (c.1267-1324)
> 50. Owain Glyndwr, Prince of Wales (c.1354-1416)
> 51. Margaret Manmer
60. Sir Thomas Barre, MP, d 1420
61. Elizabeth Croyser
> 64. Sir Walter le Blount of Rock (-c.1316)
> 65. Johanna de Sodington
> 66. Thomas Mountjoy
> 68. Sir Edmund de Cornwall of Kinlet (-1353/54)
> 69. Elizabeth de Brompton (1294-1354) dau. of Sir Brian de Brompton,
Lord
> of Kinlet
> 70. Fulk le Strange, 1st Lord Strange of Blackmere (c.1267-1324/35)
> 71. Eleanor Giffard of Brimsfield
> 100. Gruffyd Fychan, Lord of Glyndyfrdwy
> 101. Elen
>
120. Thomas Barre d 1388
121. Hawise Pembridge
122. Sir William Croyser, MP
123. Alice Pabenham
Robert O'Connor
254. Richard Fitzlan, 3rd Earl of Arundel
255. Isabel Despencer
Douglas Richardson
> more:
>
> 254. Richard Fitzlan, 3rd Earl of Arundel
> 255. Isabel Despencer
Dear Bromfield ~
The correct ancestry for #127 Mary de Arundel, wife of John le
Strange, 4th Lord Strange of Blackmere, is given below:
127. Mary de Arundel.
254. Edmund de Arundel (or Fitz Alan), Knt., 9th Earl of Arundel.
255. Alice de Warenne.
508. Richard Fitz Alan (or de Arundel), Knt., 8th Earl of Arundel.
509. Alice (or Alasia) di Saluzzo
510. William de Warenne, Knt.
511. Joan de Vere.
1016. John Fitz Alan.
1017. Isabel de Mortimer.
1018. Tommaso I, Marchese di Saluzzo.
1019. Aluisia di Ceva.
Mary's father, Edmund de Arundel, is the last member of the medieval
Fitz Alan family to employ the surname, Fitz Alan. Edmund, both of
his brothers, two of his sons, all four grandsons, etc., were
subsequently known as de Arundel.
For a discussion of Mary's correct parentage, see the Corrections and
Additions to Complete Peerage on Chris Phillips' great website (sub
Strange of Blackmere):
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Jay
>
> 254. Richard Fitzlan, 3rd Earl of Arundel
> 255. Isabel Despencer
I have the parents of Mary Fitz Alan who married John Le Strange, 4th
Lord Strange of Blackmere as either being Sir Richard Fitz Alan and
Eleanor Plantagenet, and Isabel Despencer only child with Richard as
being Edmund, anybody know for certain? Or how Isabel connects with
other Despencers?
Jay
or is that an error of transcription.?
Jay
> "Robert O'Connor" <roco...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:<bs65dn$le8$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
> > more:
> >
> > 254. Richard Fitzlan, 3rd Earl of Arundel
> > 255. Isabel Despencer
>
> Dear Bromfield ~
>
> The correct ancestry for #127 Mary de Arundel, wife of John le
> Strange, 4th Lord Strange of Blackmere, is given below:
>
> 127. Mary de Arundel.
Out of curiosity, why is it Mary de Arundel, and not Mary d'Arundel???
Chris Phillips
Jay wrote:
> I have the parents of Mary Fitz Alan who married John Le Strange, 4th
> Lord Strange of Blackmere as either being Sir Richard Fitz Alan and
> Eleanor Plantagenet, and Isabel Despencer only child with Richard as
> being Edmund, anybody know for certain? Or how Isabel connects with
> other Despencers?
I think the evidence is clear that Mary was a daughter of Edmund, 9th Earl
of Arundel (not of his son Richard).
For a summary of the evidence, see
www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/arundel.shtml
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
Dear Jay ~
You've asked a very good question. The answer may surprise you. In
contemporary medieval records, you'll find Mary's surname written as
both "d'Arundel" and "de Arundel." Eventually the "de" was dropped
and the surname became just Arundel. The same thing happened with
Audley. In the case of Daubeney, however, the "de" was retained.
You may ask why the inconsistency about retaining the "de"? Answer: I
have no idea.
If you prefer to show Mary as "d'Arundel" in your records, it is
entirely correct. Either "d'Arundel" or "de Arundel" are acceptable
in my opinion. For individuals who lived after 1400, the "de" needs
to be eliminated, except of course in instances such as Daubeney.
Jay
explains why I see things done inconsistently, the inconsistency is in
the orignal records.
I also had only Edmund as the child of Isabel Despenser....hmmmm
T. Stanford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
Because at the time in question neither Norman French, nor English had
stabilised in their current orthography. The elision that later became
standard was not yet set, and as time went on, the rules of French,
(Parisian or Norman), were forgotten by English speakers. Just as today
many Anglophones, (American at least), think that all languages except
Spanish have silent 'E's. Therefore, the last syllable of 'provolene',
'minastrone', 'calzone', etc. is not pronounced by those speakers. Drives
_me_ up the wall, but there it is: a fact of life in an anti-intellectual
democracy.