Complete Peerage Addition: Marriage Date of Anne Fiennes and Thomas Brandon
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage 2 (1912): 135 (sub Berkeley) shows that Anne Fiennes,
widow of William Berkeley, Marquess of Berkeley (died 14 Feb. 1491/2),
married (2nd) Thomas Brandon, K.G. No date is provided for Anne's 2nd
marriage to Thomas Brandon.
A deed found in Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, vol. 3 (1900),
pg. 501 indicates that Anne Fiennes and Thomas Brandon were married
before 16 May 1496.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Peter Stewart
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage 2 (1912): 135 (sub Berkeley) shows that Anne Fiennes,
> widow of William Berkeley, Marquess of Berkeley (died 14 Feb. 1491/2),
> married (2nd) Thomas Brandon, K.G. No date is provided for Anne's 2nd
> marriage to Thomas Brandon.
>
> A deed found in Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, vol. 3 (1900),
> pg. 501 indicates that Anne Fiennes and Thomas Brandon were married
> before 16 May 1496.
What is the description of this deed, and how does it indicate the marriage?
Peter Stewart
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage 2 (1912): 135 (sub Berkeley) shows that Anne Fiennes,
> widow of William Berkeley, Marquess of Berkeley (died 14 Feb. 1491/2),
> married (2nd) Thomas Brandon, K.G. No date is provided for Anne's 2nd
> marriage to Thomas Brandon.
>
> A deed found in Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, vol. 3 (1900),
> pg. 501 indicates that Anne Fiennes and Thomas Brandon were married
> before 16 May 1496.
In The Lives of the Berkeleys, Vol II, p. 144, Smyth writes:
"The third wife of this lord was Anne daughter of Sr John ffynes lord
Dacres of the south, and of Alice his wife daughter and heire of Henry
lord fitz Hugh, whom hee maryed about two years after the death of the
said lady Jone, towards the end of the first year of king Henry the
seaventh, by whom he had noe issue ; This Anne was this lords wife
about seaven years, And after his death lived his widowe, and the wife
of Sr Thomas Brandon, almost the like time : And dyed the tenth of
September in the . 13th of the said king Henry the seaventh..."
So:
Feb 1484/5: Jone, 2nd wife of Wm Berkeley, died.
c. 1486: Anne Fiennes (ffynes?) married William Berkeley.
Feb 1491/2: Wm Berkeley died.
Sep 1497: Anne died.
If Anne was to have been married to Thos Brandon "almost the like time"
(though this is somewhat ambiguous) to her marriage to Wm. Berkeley, it
sounds as if she must have married Thos very soon after Wm's death,
well before May 1496.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Tim - I would say Smith meant that Anne was wife to Sir Thomas
Brandon for "almost the like time" as she was to Lord Berkeley, that
is for almost seven years by his account, although he could posibly
mean "almost the like time" as her widowhood.
In either case, if he was right she must have remarried well before
May 1496: in the former event her second wedding must have been almost
immediately after Berkeley's death (with the "funeral baked meats"
barely cold), and in the latter event it should have been in 1494/5.
If Douglas Richardson will tell us what he says he found, this could
perhaps narrow the timeframe.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Dear Tim ~
I checked your great website site just now
(http://www.freewebs.com/powys/pl_tree/ps24/ps24_475.htm)
and I see that you state that Anne Fiennes married her 2nd husband,
Sir Thomas Brandon, "about 1490," which is two years before her first
husband, Sir William Berkeley, died! OOOPS!
You can pick whatever date you want out of thin air, Tim. I prefer to
use a date indicated by a primary document such as the 1496 deed I
found in the Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds. I trust you
agree with me.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> You can pick whatever date you want out of thin air, Tim. I prefer to
> use a date indicated by a primary document such as the 1496 deed I
> found in the Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds. I trust you
> agree with me.
How did you find a "primary" document in a descriptive catalogue? Is it
actually printed there?
You still haven't told us what the description of this is, and what the
original document may indicate.
But if you truly found the primary source, you may wish to transcribe it
collegially instead.
Tim has quoted another secondary authority that may augment the
information from yours, not exactly what I should call "thin air".
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> If Douglas Richardson will tell us what he says he found, this could
> perhaps narrow the timeframe.
>
> Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
The work, Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, is available at many
libraries throughout the world. If you wish to verify the information
that I posted, you may check the work and see for yourself that I have
correctly abstracted the pertinent information regarding Anne
Fiennes's 2nd marriage to Thomas Brandon.
Finding new corrections and additions for Complete Peerage is
relatively easy for me. However, you and Ms. Bevan are sounding more
and more like trial attorneys who object to anything and everything,
just to keep the opposing side from making their case. This makes
both of you look like contentious people. Are you two in collusion
with each other?
Specifically, collusion is defined as: secret agreement or cooperation
especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.
Pretending to be interested in the Fiennes-Brandon marriage (when you
are not) tells me you are being deceitful, Peter. In which case,
there is nothing I or anyone else can do for you.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
hardly, it is but an idle amusement for my declining years.
> website site just now
> (http://www.freewebs.com/powys/pl_tree/ps24/ps24_475.htm)
>
> and I see that you state that Anne Fiennes married her 2nd husband,
> Sir Thomas Brandon, "about 1490," which is two years before her first
> husband, Sir William Berkeley, died! OOOPS!
But as you can see from the above, I had obviously realised this error
and it will be corrected on my regular re-publishing every two or three
months. (It takes nearly three days to rebuild the data and index on
the server, so updates are not something I can do in a flash.) For
precisely this sort of reason I describe it as a "miscellany of
bygones".
What you might also reflect on is that I do publish and I do update.
> You can pick whatever date you want out of thin air, Tim. I prefer to
> use a date indicated by a primary document such as the 1496 deed I
> found in the Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds. I trust you
> agree with me.
I agree with you that primary documents are to be preferred but doubt
that a "Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds" is primary. In his own
way Smyth was preparing a descriptive catalogue of ancient deeds, those
that he found in the Berkeley deeds rooms. So there is not much
difference between our sources of information.
The question then is whether Smyth should be quoted at all. The
implication of your words is that he should not be quoted. Certainly
he is occasionally wrong, as we all are. But what stands out like
a beacon from his writings is that he was working, mainly, from original
documents. There is thus so much in his writings that is obviously of
value, that it must be worth while quoting what he says to add to the
information we have so that we may direct our searches suitably. Do
you not agree?
Can we now get back to discussing the probable date of the marriage of
Wm. Berkeley and Anne ffynes? What other evidence can anyone find?
Rosie Bevan
Despite the hint of paranoia in your message, the questioning from various
quarters about the material you are using is symptomatic of the general lack
of confidence in your abilities to interpret them, which for a professional
genealogist, is a track record of which one would not be proud. If you
cannot discuss how this item corrects anything in CP, this fuels that lack
of confidence further. Peter Stewart may very well descend from this couple
for all you know, but that is not really the point; your refusal to answer a
pertinent question gives us doubt as to whether the evidence stacks up or
not.
Your analogy about law is actually a very good one to keep in mind when
presenting and weighing evidence. I use it all the time and you would do
well to do so too. To object to it makes you sound as if you have no
confidence in yourself or your material, and are only presenting one side of
things without the other. Everyone who posts in the public domain expects
their work to be scrutinised and there is no reason why you should be an
exception.
And before you start spreading silly rumours - no, I am not Paul Reed.
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: Complete Peerage Addition: Marriage Date of Anne Fiennes and
Thomas Brandon
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> p_m_s...@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote in message news:<88abeaa.04022...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>>If Douglas Richardson will tell us what he says he found, this could
>>perhaps narrow the timeframe.
>>
>>Peter Stewart
>
>
> Dear Peter ~
>
> The work, Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, is available at many
> libraries throughout the world. If you wish to verify the information
> that I posted, you may check the work and see for yourself that I have
> correctly abstracted the pertinent information regarding Anne
> Fiennes's 2nd marriage to Thomas Brandon.
The only "information" you have posted on this was in your post of 26
February, as follows:
> A deed found in Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, vol. 3 (1900),
> pg. 501 indicates that Anne Fiennes and Thomas Brandon were married
> before 16 May 1496.
I asked in reply, "What is the description of this deed, and how does it
indicate the marriage?"
There are some hundreds of SGM readers whom you claim - when it suits
you - as your "colleagues" in the pursuit of information. Yet rather
than trouble yourself to provide them all a little helpful information
when requested, you look instead for a way to insult Tim Powys-Lybbe and
now make baseless allegations against Rosie Bevan as well as
pontificating about what my interests might or might not be. Rum.
> Finding new corrections and additions for Complete Peerage is
> relatively easy for me.
Ang getting these wrong is relatively frequent for you.
However, you and Ms. Bevan are sounding more
> and more like trial attorneys who object to anything and everything,
> just to keep the opposing side from making their case. This makes
> both of you look like contentious people. Are you two in collusion
> with each other?
You haven't made any case yet, just reported that you have satisfied
yourself of the contents & meaning of a primary source by way of a
secondary work describing it. Remember, you were bragging recently that
you had corrected the PRO, but now you are suggesting that a catalogue
published by the PRO is an absolute authority, which no honest person
should question even at third hand - all without apparently sighting the
primary source behind this. Indeed, from the way you phrased the
original post, it isn't quite clear that you have even seen the
descriptive catalogue: as far as we know on the evidence, this could be
another of your gleanings from someone else's work and citation, on
which you are now stalling because unable to give further detail.
> Specifically, collusion is defined as: secret agreement or cooperation
> especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose.
So the term can't very well apply to Rosie Bevan and myself in openly
contributing to SGM. Or is that a nefarious activity in your book?
> Pretending to be interested in the Fiennes-Brandon marriage (when you
> are not) tells me you are being deceitful, Peter. In which case,
> there is nothing I or anyone else can do for you.
You have attempted to fool people for years about the level of your
"expertise" in genealogical research, and now you are putting yourself
forward as the final authority on my mind when you have never met me. At
least a consistent pattern is beginning to emerge....
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Yes, once again I'm afraid this may be the best you can do.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Dear Mr Richardson
>
> Despite the hint of paranoia in your message, the questioning from various
> quarters about the material you are using is symptomatic of the general lack
> of confidence in your abilities to interpret them, which for a professional
> genealogist, is a track record of which one would not be proud. If you
> cannot discuss how this item corrects anything in CP, this fuels that lack
> of confidence further. Peter Stewart may very well descend from this couple
> for all you know, but that is not really the point; your refusal to answer a
> pertinent question gives us doubt as to whether the evidence stacks up or
> not.
By the way - and Rosie is quite right to say it isn't the point - I'm
not a descendant of either of them (both died without surviving issue).
Berkely was labelled "Waste-all", settling his estates on King Henry
VII. I can't remember if Anne Fiennes had any children who pre-deceased
her, but I doubt it.
Like many on SGM, I am descended from the Berkeley, Fiennes and Brandon
families; and apart from that my interests range where they will.
Among my pertinent concerns are the rigorous examination of actual
sources rather than descriptions of them where possible, and the fair &
full presentation of results to SGM readers. As in so much else, Douglas
Richardson is proving himself to be no colleague in those pursuits.
As it happens, volumes 2 & 3 of the _Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient
Deeds_ are not available in the State Library of Victoria or in any
local university library. (I had already checked before Richardson's
unhelpful suggestion - and I live in Melbourne, Australia despite his
absurd notion that I am a resident of Hawaii.)
I don't intend to waste time and money on an inter-library loan just to
find that the abstract says what could so easily be posted, or even that
Richardson was wrong (too common an occurence to be worth any outlay).
Peter Stewart