Proposed new line of descent from King Edward I for the immigrant, Nathaniel Littleton, of Virginia
Douglas Richardson
I found the following information posted on an internet message board
by Mike Bodman. About the same time as this post took place, Mr.
Bodman sent me the same information by private e-mail.
I haven't had a chance yet to examine the line to see if it is valid.
Anyone have any comments?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF MIKE BODMAN'S POST
Reference: http://boards.ancestry.com.au/topics.royalty.general/891/mb.ashx
Posted: 17 Sep 2007 6:29PM
I believe I've uncovered additional lines of descent from Edward I to
Nathaniel Littleton of Virginia not hitherto published in Plantagenet
descents of Colonists to America.
The lines of descent are through Mary Walter the wife of Sir Edward
Littleton of Munslow and Henley, Chief Justice of North Wales (i.e.,
the parents of the Virginia immigrant Nathaniel Littleton). Mary
Walter was the descendant of Sir Richard Corbet and his wife Elizabeth
Devereux as Follows:
1) Sir Richard Corbert married Elizabeth Devereaux, daughter of Walter
Lord Ferrers of
Chartley, Co. Stafford
(Visitation of Shropshire 1623 - pedigree of Corbet de Morton)
2) Elizabeth Corbet married Thomas Trentham (born c. 1468, died c.
1519),
(Visitation of Shropshire 1623 - pedigree of Corbet de Morton;
pedigree of Walter of
Ludlow)
3) Katherina Trentham married Thomas Hackluit of Yetton (Eyton, Co.
Hereford)
(Visitation of Shropshire 1623 - pedigree of Walter of Ludlow)
4) Maria Hackluit married Sir Edmund Walter, Chief Justice of South
Wales (Visitation of Shropshire 1623 - pedigree of Walter of Ludlow)
5) Maria Walter married Sir Edward Littleton, Chief Justice of North
Wales (Visitation of Shropshire 1623 - pedigree of Walter of Ludlow)
6) Nathaniel Littleton, immigrant to Virginia
Sincerely,
Mike Bodman
Highland, Ca
mj...@btinternet.com
wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> I found the following information posted on an internet message board
> by Mike Bodman. About the same time as this post took place, Mr.
> Bodman sent me the same information by private e-mail.
>
> I haven't had a chance yet to examine the line to see if it is valid.
> Anyone have any comments?
Yes, as it happens, here's some friendly advice I recently came across
on this very group, which seems apt and which I am sure you will find
useful:
"If he wishes to prove his statements, he knows what he needs to do.
It's called original research."
Perhaps you could try following it - after all, it's your own. And
sadly it doesn't look like any of the friends you have made here feels
inclined to do the work for you.
Hope this helps.
Best wishes, Michael
Peter Stewart
<mj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:baf2cadc-0a12-426b...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I can't imagine anything that the field of medieval genealogy needs less
than Richardson trying to undertake original research in it - but, as he has
shown us consistently over years, the chances that this will ever happen are
fixed somewhere between nil & zero.
The menace prefers to expose his "professional" reputation to scorn, and his
personal character to outright contempt, in the hope of cadging tips &
picking up free assistance here, rather than simply doing his own work.
Does anyone know if commissions are still going his way, from unsuspecting
members of the public, for paid research into other people's genealogies?
Or is he now reliant on his publications, to which so much was contributed
by this newsgroup, to earn a living?
Peter Stewart
mik...@sbcglobal.net
2008, which provided College of Arms records' references that support
Nathaniels Littleton's descent to Sir Walter Devereaux, Lord Ferrers
de Chartley.
Nathaniel's grand-mother's [Mary Hackluit] Hackluit descent is as
follows:
Henry Hackluitt = a dau. of Cassey of Whitfeld
of Yeaton, Herefordshire
Henry Hackluitt = unnamed
of Yeaton, Herefordshire
2nd son
Edmond Hackluit = unnamed
of Eyton, Herefordshire
Thomas Hackluit, = Katherin Trentham
of Eyton, Herefordshire
Mary Hackluit = Edmund Walter, Esq.
Mary Walter = Sir Edward Littleton
Nathaniel Littleton,
immigrant to Virginia
Most references to Nathaniel suggest that The Earl of Southampton
influenced him to go to Virgina. However, I now believe that his
cousin Rev. Richard Hackluit had the influence. Rev. Richard Hackluit
was an original signer of the Virginia Charter and author of the
English Voyages that had a tremendous influence on English
colonization of Virginia.
> Peter Stewart- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
wjhonson
citations* to the works in question. I know, amazing, but yet true.
And so shall we proceed to do so?
The conclusion shall be, that the purported connection fails at a
crucial juncture, but could possibly be corrected.
And so we see from
http://books.google.com/books?id=cAJX_DXyiDIC&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA136,M1
Vis Shropshire 1623, "Corbet" page 136
That Elizabeth Corbet did indeed marry Thomas Trentham
And then we also see from
http://books.google.com/books?id=0RAuZKnD1EcC&printsec=titlepage#PPA483,M1
Vis Shropshire, "Walter of Ludlow" page 483
That the mother-in-law of Edmund Walter of Ludlow was indeed
"Katherine filia Thomas Trentham" and she married Thomas Hacklett.
Can anybody spot the names-the-same-game played here, which the Vis is
not exactly supporting? I am not opining that *some other source*
could be used to correct the gloss, only that such gloss exists here.
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> Can anybody spot the names-the-same-game played here, which the Vis is
> not exactly supporting? I am not opining that *some other source*
> could be used to correct the gloss, only that such gloss exists here.
>
Sorry, Will - you're being too obtuse for my tired brain. Can you
spell it out please?
MAR
wjhonson
>
> Sorry, Will - you're being too obtuse for my tired brain. Can you
> spell it out please?
>
> MAR
Michael, there mere fact that there are two men in the same Vis, on
different pages, in different families with the same name "Thomas
Tresham" is no guarentee or even indication that they are the same
person. For all we know they could be uncle and nephew, grandson and
grandfather, first cousins or completely unrelated.
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
Aha, so it's TT where the doubt lies - thanks!
MAR
mik...@sbcglobal.net
Yes, and thank you for your postings. This fact was disconcerting to
myself, amongst others, along with your notice.
However, Timothy Duke addresses this issue as follows:
"The Staffordshire Visitation of 1583 was edited by H S Grazebrook and
published in 1883, and I attach a photocopy of the relevant pages.
This version was taken from a manuscript in the William Salt Library
at Manchester, which does not tally precisely with the official copy
in the College's custody, but I think you will find it of interest. A
small red cross marks the position of Katherine Trentham on the second
page of the pedigree (page 140 of the publicaiton), although her
forename is not given. According to this pedigree, Elizabeth who
married Thomas Hacklut of Yetton (in the 1569 Visitation of
Herefordshire) was Katherine's niece. 'Villa Salopiae', given as the
place of residence of a number of men in the printed pedigree, is
Latin for 'town of Shropshire', and means Shrewsbury."
Nathaniel's ancester Thomas Hackluit, of Eyton, co. Herefordshire, and
his wife Katherine Trentham, daughter of Thomas Trentham, of
Shrewsbury. Thomas Hackluit descended from Henry the second son of
Henry Hackluitt, of Yeaton, Herefordshire, and his wife, a daughter of
Cassey of Whitfeld.
The Thomas Trentham of Eaton, or Yeatton, co. Herefordshire, who
married Elizabeth Trentham, daughter of Richard Trentham of Roscester
died sans issue. This Thomas Trentham descended from Richard the son
and heir of Henry Hackluitt, of Yeaton, Herefordshire, and his wife, a
daughter of Cassey of Whitfeld.
Again, thank you for your postings.
Mike.
mik...@sbcglobal.net
The Thomas Hackluit of Eaton, or Yeatton, co. Herefordshire, who
married Elizabeth Trentham, daughter of Richard Trentham of Roscester
died sans issue. This Thomas Hackluit descended from Richard the son
and heir of Henry Hackluitt, of Yeaton, Herefordshire, and his wife, a
daughter of Cassey of Whitfeld.
Sorry for typo error.
> > Will Johnson- Hide quoted text -
jhigg...@yahoo.com
The 1623 Visitation of Shropshire that Will cites may not conclusively
confirm that the Thomas Trentham [not Tresham - where did that come
from?] whose daughter married Thomas Hackluit was the same Thomas
Trentham who mar. Elizabeth Corbet. But a Trentham pedigree in the
1583 Visitation of Staffordshire {pub. 1883] does make it clear that
these two Thomases are the same person.
OTOH the Staffordshire visitation does not provide the given name of
the Trentham daughter or the Hackluit husband. And it also notes a
second Trentham/Hackluit marriage a generation later: Elizabeth, dau.
of Richard Trentham (son of Thomas and Elizabeth Corbet), mar. Thomas
Hacluyt [sic].
This second Trentham/ Hackluit marriage also appears in a Hackluyt
pedigree in the 1569 Visitation of Herefordshire [pub. 1886], with a
note that there was no issue from the marriage (the husband had
another marriage which did have issue - order of marriages unclear).
The first marriage, of Katherine Trentham and Thomas Hackluit, does
not appear in the Herefordshire visitation. And, more important, the
sequence of Hackluits in this visitation cannot be reconciled with the
sequence (given in an earlier post) said to be on record at the
College of Arms, except for the 1st generation (Henry Hackluit mar. a
dau. of Cassey of Whitfield). It's very possible that the Hereford
visitation omitted a junior line of the Hackluit family documented in
(unspecified) records of the College of Arms, but better documentation
would certainly be desirable for the Hackluit ancestry
jhigg...@yahoo.com
This post (and its subsequent amendment) came through while I was
posting my note on the same subject. It seems to confirm, as I
suspected, that there were Thomas Hackluits in two separate lines who
married Trentham daughters. Are there any published sources (beyond
the Herefordshire visiation) that give details on the various Hackluit
lines? For example I have a Sir John Hackluyt of Eyton whose daughter
Joan mar. Sir John Harley of Brampton (d. 1506) and was an ancestor of
Sir Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford and Mortimer (CP 10:263ff). But I
can't connect this Sir John Hackluyt to the rest of the family....
mik...@sbcglobal.net
Henry Hackluitt = a dau. of Cassey of Whitfeld
of Yeaton, Herefordshire
Henry Hackluitt = unnamed
2nd son
of Yeaton, Herefordshire
[elder brother Richard Hackluit continued the Eaton/Yeatton line,
which descended Thomas Hackluit who married Elizabeth Trentham, dau.
of Richard Trentham]
Edmond Hackluit = unnamed
of Eyton, Herefordshire
Thomas Hackluit, = Katherin Trentham
of Eyton, Herefordshire
Summary:
Nathaniel's ancester Thomas Hackluit, of Eyton, co. Herefordshire,
and
his wife Katherine Trentham, daughter of Thomas Trentham, of
Shrewsbury. Thomas Hackluit descended from Henry the second son of
Henry Hackluitt, of Yeaton, Herefordshire, and his wife, a daughter
of
Cassey of Whitfeld.
The Thomas Hackluit of Eaton, or Yeatton, co. Herefordshire, who
married Elizabeth Trentham, daughter of Richard Trentham of Roscester
died sans issue. This Thomas Hackluit descended from Richard the son
and heir of Henry Hackluitt, of Yeaton, Herefordshire, and his wife,
a
daughter of Cassey of Whitfeld.
To reiterate, again, what I said above:
Most references to Nathaniel suggest that The Earl of Southampton
influenced him to go to Virgina. However, I now believe that his
cousin Rev. Richard Hackluit had the influence. Rev. Richard Hackluit
was an original signer of the Virginia Charter and author of the
English Voyages that had a tremendous influence on English
colonization of Virginia.
> would certainly be desirable for the Hackluit ancestry- Hide quoted text -
mik...@sbcglobal.net
suspect that Sir John Hackluyt of Eyton whose daughter
Joan mar. Sir John Harley of Brampton (d. 1506) was a brother of
Thomas Hackluit who married Katherine Trentham. I, also, suspect that
he was the father of Rev. Richard Hackluit, who was an original
trustee and signer of the first Virginia Charter.
> can't connect this Sir John Hackluyt to the rest of the family....- Hide quoted text -
Douglas Richardson
Below is an account of a descent from King Henry II of England down to
Mary Walter, mother of the New World immigrant, Col. Nathaniel
Littleton, of Northampton County, Virginia. This line was suggested
to me by Mike Bodman, of Highland, California.
There is a PCC will for Edmund Walter, Knt., husband of Mary Hackluyt
[Generation 16 below], the details of which I haven't yet added to the
account.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
Line of Descent from King Henry II of England down to Mary Walter,
wife of Edward Littleton, Knt., mother of the immigrant, Nathaniel
Littleton.
1. HENRY II, King of England, by a mistress, IDA DE TONY.
2. WILLIAM LONGESPÉE, Knt., Earl of Salisbury, married ELA OF
SALISBURY.
3. IDA LONGESPÉE, married WILLIAM DE BEAUCHAMP, Knt., of Bedford,
Bedfordshire.
4. MAUD DE BEAUCHAMP, married ROGER DE MOWBRAY, Knt., of Thirsk,
Yorkshire.
5. ROGER DE MOWBRAY, Knt., 1st Lord Mowbray, married ROSE DE CLARE.
6. JOHN DE MOWBRAY, Knt., 2nd Lord Mowbray, married ALINE DE BREWES.
7. JOHN DE MOWBRAY, Knt., 3rd Lord Mowbray, married JOAN OF LANCASTER
(desc. King Henry III).
8. JOHN DE MOWBRAY, Knt., 4th Lord Mowbray, married ELIZABETH DE
SEGRAVE (desc. King Edward I).
9. MARGARET MOWBRAY, married REGINALD LUCY, Knt., of Dallington,
Northamptonshire.
10. WALTER LUCY, Knt., of Dallington, Northamptonshire, married
ELEANOR L’ARCEDEKNE (desc. Geoffrey Plantagenet).
11. ELEANOR LUCY, married THOMAS HOPTON, Knt., of Staunton-on-Arrow,
Herefordshire (desc. King Henry II).
12. ELIZABETH HOPTON, married ROGER CORBET, Knt., of Moreton Corbet,
Shropshire.
13. RICHARD CORBET, Knt., of Moreton Corbet, Shropshire, married
ELIZABETH DEVEREUX (desc. King Edward I) [see LUCY 14].
14. ELIZABETH CORBET, married THOMAS TRENTHAM, Esq., of Shrewsbury,
Shropshire, Burgess (common councilman) for Shrewsbury by 1508,
restored Sept. 1511, Bailiff of Shrewsbury, 1512–1513, 1516–1517,
Coroner of Shrewsbury, 1515–1516, Burgess (M.P.) for Shrewsbury, 1512,
1515, son and heir of Thomas Trentham, Esq., of Shrewsbury,
Shropshire, by Katherine, daughter and heiress of John Marshall, of
Hurst, Shropshire. He was born before 1487. They had two sons,
Richard, Esq., and Robert, and five daughters, including Katherine,
Anne (wife of Ralph Leighton), and Elizabeth (wife of Richard
Hussey). In the period, 1504–1515, as “Thomas Trentham the younger,”
he sued Elizabeth Horton, widow, and Richard Forten, chaplain, in
Chancery regarding the detention of deeds relating to messuages and
lands in Wodecot and Horton, Shropshire. As a young man, he kept
company with a group deemed troublemakers by the Shrewsbury
authorities and, for his part in releasing a prisoner from the town
gaol, he was briefly deprived of his burgess-ship. In the period,
1508–1511, in connection with this matter, John Watur, sued Florens
Semper, Thomas Trentham, and John Geton, late bailiffs of Shrewsbury,
and Roger Mongomery, common clerk regarding their refusal to produce a
record of the judgment in a suit for the escape of Roger Lankyslowe, a
judgment debtor. In the period, 1508–1515, John Lewet and Nicholas
Waryng, late bailiffs of Shrewsbury, sued Thomas Trentham, bailiff of
Shrewsbury, regarding his failure to indemnify complainants against
escape of prisoners imprisoned for debt, which prisoners were
transferred to the complainants’ successors, they being the defendant
and Thomas Mitton, now deceased. In the period, 1515–1518, Richard
Fortune, priest, Richard Cley, and Nicholas Madok, cousins and heirs
of Thomas Horton, yeoman sued Thomas, son of Edward Hosier of
Shrewsbury, Shropshire in Chancery regarding the detention of deeds
relating to lands in Horton and Woodcote, Shropshire abstracted by the
said Edward under pretextof arranging them, Thomas Trentham and Thomas
[the younger], his son, having been in wrongful possession of the
premises. Several complaints were also lodged against Thomas Trentham
in Star Chamber regarding riotous behavior, assault and keeping 17 of
his wayward companions in food, clothes and money. He succeeded his
father as bailiff in 1512. In Oct. 1512 Richard abbot of the
monastery of Salop and the convent reached agreement with William
Mitton and Thomas Trentham the younger, bailiffs of the town of
Shrewsbury, regarding the liberties and franchises of the monastery.
Acting as bailiff of Shrewsbury, Thomas Trentham also witnessed a
transfer of property in Shrewsbury shortly before he departed under
the command of the 4th Earl of Shrewsbury for the French campaign of
1513 while Parliament stood prorogued. In 1514 he and Thomas Kynaston
each received £6 10s. for the final session of Parliament. Later in
the year, the town complied with the king’s request for the re-
election of the previous Members and he was returned to Parliament.
In 1519 he contributed 4s. towards his own wages for the Parliament of
1515. THOMAS TRENTHAM, Esq., left a will dated 4 Oct. 1518, proved 10
June 1519 (PCC, 17 Ayloffe), requesting burial in All Hallows’
churchyard, London.
References:
Owen & Blakeway, A Hist. of Shrewsbury 1 (1825): 319, 530, 549.
Glover Visitacion of Staffordshire 1583 (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 3)
(1883): 139–141 (Trentham pedigree: “Thomas Trentham de Villâ Salopiæ,
junior, Armiger. = Elizabetha, filia Ricardi Corbett de Moreton,
militis.”) (Trentham arms: Argent, three griffin’s heads erased sable,
beaked gules). Salopian Shreds and Patches 8 (1887–1888): 190.
Tresswell & Vincent, Vis. of Shropshire 1623, 1569 & 1584 2 (H.S.P.
29) (1889): 132–144 (1623 Vis.) (Corbet pedigree: “Elizabetha [Corbet]
vxor Thomæ Trentham de Shrewesbury.”). Bindoff, House of Commons 1509–
1558 3 (1982): 480–481 (biog. of Thomas Trentham). PRO Documents, C
1/171/37; C 1/177/19; C 1/331/68; C 1/408/1; STAC 2/16; STAC 2/21/199:
STAC 2/21/200; STAC 2/21/235; STAC 2/26/280 (abstract of documents
available online at http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
Catalogue of the Shropshire deeds and papers of the Smythe Family of
Acton Burnell, Reference 1514/342 & 343 (deed dated 23 April 1523
Ralph Leyghton of Cotys, gentleman, grants to Roger Corbett, Richard
Leyghton, Thomas Otteley and Richard Trentham, Esq., three messuages
and various lands in Rushbury, Shropshire to the use of the said Ralph
Leyghton and his wife, Anne, daughter of Thomas Trentham late of Salop
Esq. deceased and Elizabeth his wife) (abstract of document available
online at http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp). Shropshire
Archives: The Stobbs Collection, Reference: 215/37 (agreement dated 15
October 1512 between Richard, Abbot of the monastery of Salop and the
convent, and William Mitton and Thomas Trentham the younger Bailiffs
of the town and liberties of Salop, and the commonalty) (abstract of
document available online at http://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).
15. KATHERINE TRENTHAM, married (1st) (as his 2nd wife) THOMAS
HACKLUYT, Esq., of Eyton (in Leominster), Herefordshire, clerk of the
council in the marches of Wales. They had four sons, Thomas, Rowland,
George, and Charles, and three daughters, Mary, Elizabeth, and Anne.
THOMAS HACKLUYT, Esq., died in 1544. His widow, Katherine, married
(2nd) before 1545 EDMUND FOXE, of Ludford, Shropshire, Burgess (M.P.)
for Ludlow, Shropshire, 1542, son and heir of William Foxe, of Stoke
by Greet and St. John’s Hospital, Ludlow, Shropshire, Burgess (M.P.)
for Ludlow, Shropshire, ?1523, 1529, and 1536, by Jane, daughter of
Richard Downe, of Ludlow, Shropshire. They had one son, Edward, and
one daughter, Elizabeth (wife of Jacob Barrow). He was admitted to
Lincoln’s Inn in 1536. In 1540 he and his brother, Charles Foxe,
jointly obtained the office of clerk of the signet to the council in
the marches of Wales. In 1542 he sued Humphrey Coningsby in the Court
of the Star Chamber regarding an assault near Temple Bar in November
1541. EDMUND FOX died in 1550. He left a will dated 7 October 1550,
proved 27 November 1550 (PCC 28 Coode). In the period, 1550–1551,
Ralph Hackluyte, of London, and William his brother, sons of Ralph
Hackluyte, deceased, sued Katherine, late the wife of Edmund Foxe, and
Humphrey Luce in Chancery regarding messuages and land in Aston by
Kingsland, Lawton in Kingsland, Stoke Prior, Wharton (in Leominster),
and Leominster, Herefordshire. Katherine married (3rd) before 1553
NICHOLAS DEPDEN (or DEBDEN), Gent., of Ludford, Shropshire, and Aston
(in Kingsland), Herefordshire, Burgess (M.P.) for Leominster,
Herefordshire, 1554, 1571, 1572, Commissioner of reliefs for
Herefordshire, 1559, Escheator of Shropshire, 1561. He was born about
1520. They had no issue. In the period, 1552, Richard Hakluyt,
Gentleman, sued Nicholas Debden, Gentleman, Katherine his wife, and
Ralph Leighton, Gentleman in Chancery regarding land at Eyton in
Leominster, late of Thomas Hakluyt, deceased, father of complainant
and former husband of the said Katherine, regarding wrongful detention
of deeds and occupancy of 20 acres of land at Eyton (in Leominster),
Herefordshire. In 1553 Nicholas was assessed on goods worth £20
towards the subsidy. In 1554 he quit the Parliament before its
dissolution, for which action he was subsequently prosecuted in the
King’s bench. In 1557–1558 he and his wife, Katherine, and her son,
Rowland Hackluyt, granted Richard Leighton, Gent., of Rushonby,
Shropshire, various properties in Leominster, Upper Hill [in Hope
under Dinmore], and Aston [in Kingsland], and Kingsland,
Herefordshire. In 1564 he was commended as a “favourer of religion.”
The marriage of Nicholas and Katherine proved to be an uphappy one, it
ending in separation in 1565. NICHOLAS DEPDEN left a will dated 5
March 1588, proved 5 Sept. 1588 [NLW Hereford consist. ct. wills, box
4 De-Di], naming his good friend, Robert Townshend, his residuary
legatee and executor.
References:
Glover, Visitacion of Staffordshire 1583 (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 3)
(1883): 139–141 (Trentham pedigree: “_____ filia, nupta p’mo ….
Hakluit de Com. Herf.; deinde renupta …. Fox.”). Tresswell & Vincent,
Vis. of Shropshire 1623, 1569 & 1584 1 (H.S.P. 28) (1889): 191–194
(1623 Vis. Shropshire) (Fox pedigree: “Edmundus Fox de Ludford in com.
Heref. fil. et hæres. = Katherina fil. Tho. Trentham de Salopia
relicta …. Hacklute [Haclluit].”); 2 (H.S.P. 29) (1889): 483 (1623
Vis.) (Walter pedigree: “Thomas Hacklett Hackluit de Eyton [Yetton,
co. Hereford]. = Katherine filia Thomæ Trentham.”). Bindoff, House of
Commons 1509–1558 2 (1982): 37 (biog. of Nicholas Depden), 169 (biog.
of Edmund Foxe), 169–170 (biog. of William Foxe), 273–274 (biog. of
Richard Hakluyt). PRO Document, C 1/1133/2; C 1/1302/3-7; C 4/24/20;
C 4/28/20; C 4/41/20; C 147/355; SP 46/33/fo 32; STAC 2/15 (abstract
of documents available online at http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
16. MARY HACKLUYT, married (as his 1st wife) EDMUND WALTER, Knt., of
Ludlow, Shropshire, Chief Justice of South Wales. They had three
sons, John, James, and Edward, and three daughters, Dorothy (wife of
Jenkin Lloyd), Sarah, and Mary. He married (2nd) MARY OTELEY,
daughter of Adam Oteley. They had one daughter, Jane.
References:
Tresswell & Vincent, Vis. of Shropshire 1623, 1569 & 1584 1 (H.S.P.
28) (1889): 191–194 (1623 Vis. Shropshire) (Fox pedigree: “Mary
[Hacklute] vxor Edmond Walter.”); 2 (H.S.P. 29) (1889): 483 (1623
Vis.) (Walter pedigree: “Edmundus Walter de Ludlow in com. Salop vnus
de consilio in March’ Walliæ ao 1596. [1] = Maria fil. Adæ Oteley; [2]
= Maria filia Thomæ Hacklett de Eyton.”) (Walter arms: Azure, a fesse
dancettée between three eagles displayed argent).
Child of Mary Hackluyt, by Edmund Walter, Knt.:
i. MARY WALTER, married EDWARD LITTLETON, Knt., of Munslow and
Henley (in Bitterley), Shropshire [see LITTLETON 19].
Douglas Richardson
>
> I can't imagine anything that the field of medieval genealogy needs less
> than Richardson trying to undertake original research in it - but, as he has
> shown us consistently over years, the chances that this will ever happen are
> fixed somewhere between nil & zero.
> Peter Stewart
Once again, Peter. No sources. No weblinks. Personal attacks.
Ignore.
mik...@sbcglobal.net
To all and singular who are interested, please check out the beautiful
pictures of the Walter/Hackluit tomb:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52219527@N00/2235878697/
> available online athttp://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
> Catalogue of the Shropshire deeds and papers of the Smythe Family of
> Acton Burnell, Reference 1514/342 & 343 (deed dated 23 April 1523
> Ralph Leyghton of Cotys, gentleman, grants to Roger Corbett, Richard
> Leyghton, Thomas Otteley and Richard Trentham, Esq., three messuages
> and various lands in Rushbury, Shropshire to the use of the said Ralph
> Leyghton and his wife, Anne, daughter of Thomas Trentham late of Salop
> Esq. deceased and Elizabeth his wife) (abstract of document available
> online athttp://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp). Shropshire
> Archives: The Stobbs Collection, Reference: 215/37 (agreement dated 15
> October 1512 between Richard, Abbot of the monastery of Salop and the
> convent, and William Mitton and Thomas Trentham the younger Bailiffs
> of the town and liberties of Salop, and the commonalty) (abstract of
> document available online athttp://www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).
> of documents available online athttp://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
jhigg...@yahoo.com
>
> 16. MARY HACKLUYT, married (as his 1st wife) EDMUND WALTER, Knt., of
> Ludlow, Shropshire, Chief Justice of South Wales. They had three
> sons, John, James, and Edward, and three daughters, Dorothy (wife of
> Jenkin Lloyd), Sarah, and Mary. He married (2nd) MARY OTELEY,
> daughter of Adam Oteley. They had one daughter, Jane.
>
> References:
>
> Tresswell & Vincent, Vis. of Shropshire 1623, 1569 & 1584 1 (H.S.P.
> 28) (1889): 191–194 (1623 Vis. Shropshire) (Fox pedigree: “Mary
> [Hacklute] vxor Edmond Walter.”); 2 (H.S.P. 29) (1889): 483 (1623
> Vis.) (Walter pedigree: “Edmundus Walter de Ludlow in com. Salop vnus
> de consilio in March’ Walliæ ao 1596. [1] = Maria fil. Adæ Oteley; [2]
> = Maria filia Thomæ Hacklett de Eyton.”) (Walter arms: Azure, a fesse
> dancettée between three eagles displayed argent).
>
> Child of Mary Hackluyt, by Edmund Walter, Knt.:
>
> i. MARY WALTER, married EDWARD LITTLETON, Knt., of Munslow and
> Henley (in Bitterley), Shropshire [see LITTLETON 19].
This mention of the families of Walter and Littleton brings to light
at least two more errors in RPA and MCA. The indicated paragraph
LITTLETON 19 in both works, in its listed sources, includes a note
saying that Mary's brother James Walter was Chief Baron of the
Exchequer. James was in fact an MP, but it was the brother of James
and Mary, Sir John, who was Chief Baron of the Exchequer, as indicated
by the latter's biography in ODNB and by the omission of that title in
James' biography in HOP, which also says that John held that office.
Also, DR has the sequence of the children wrong. Both HOP and ODNB
clearly say that James was the elder of the brothers James and John.
I guess that DR simply chose to "alter the record" in these
matters....or perhaps it's just sloppy work.....
mj...@btinternet.com
Once again, Douglas. Ostrich. Head in sand. Pathetic.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> I havn't yet seen any published account of this line. However, I
> suspect that Sir John Hackluyt of Eyton whose daughter
> Joan mar. Sir John Harley of Brampton (d. 1506) was a brother of
> Thomas Hackluit who married Katherine Trentham. I, also, suspect that
> he was the father of Rev. Richard Hackluit, who was an original
> trustee and signer of the first Virginia Charter.
Mike
Something doesn't quite gell in the above.
If I am reading it correctly, you are positing that Joan Hackluyt,
whose husband died in 1506, was the sister of the Revd Richard
Hackluit, who signed the Virginia Charter. The latter, according to
his ODNB entry, was born circa 1552 and died 1616. The former,
according to Collins's Peerage (sub Oxford) was knighted in 1471.
They can't have been brothers-in-law.
Collins states that the Revd Richard H. was the son of Richard Hakluyt
of London, citizen and skinner, who died in 1557, and his wife
Margery.
Regards, Michael
Douglas Richardson
This mention of the families of Walter and Littleton brings to light
the biography of Sir John Walter, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, found
in the Dictionary of National Biography, 20 (1909): 704–705, which may
be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xS88AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA704&dq=Walter+Chief+Baron+Exchequer&lr=#PPA704,M1
Douglas Richardson
> Once again, Douglas. Ostrich. Head in sand. Pathetic.
>
> MA-R
Once again, Michael. No sources, no weblinks, personal attacks.
mj...@btinternet.com
Shucks; here's a weblink for you, Douglas:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
What a sad joke you have become.
Kind regards, Michael
mj...@btinternet.com
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> This mention of the families of Walter and Littleton brings to light
> the biography of Sir John Walter,
No, Douglas, the mere mention of two family names does not "bring" a
biography "to light".
The phrase "to bring to light" means "to expose", "to show up", "to
demonstrate".
Perhaps the phrase you are thinking of is "calls to mind", i.e.
"reminds one of", "makes one think of".
Curiously, you seem to have used "brings to light" because you have
copied the first line of John Higgins's earlier post:
"This mention of the families of Walter and Littleton brings to light
at least two more errors in RPA and MCA."
Unaccountably - but typically - you have deleted and ignored the
second line, which is of course the crucial one. John points out
that, for instance, at p 453 of 'Plantagenet Ancestry' (Genealogical
Publishing Company, 2004) you refer to "James Walter, Chief Baron of
the Exchequer", whereas the man who held that office was *John*
Walter, the brother of James.
It is not clear why you provide a weblink to the DNB biography of John
Walter [which further "brings to light" your original published
error]; presumably it is a sly non sequituur, designed to make it look
like you know something, but fooling no-one.
Most notably - and typically - your post is utterly devoid of any
acknowledgement that you made a mistake, or that John Higgins has made
a very valid point.
You keep telling us you offer us your best, but I would like to see
some signs of improvement, because it is generally a very low standard
of offering these days.
Kind regards, Michael
mj...@btinternet.com
>
> This mention of the families of Walter and Littleton brings to light
> the biography of Sir John Walter, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, found
> in the Dictionary of National Biography, 20 (1909): 704–705, which may
> be viewed at the following weblink:
Here is a more interesting weblink in relation to Sir John Walter,
Lord Chief Baron:
http://stpeterswolvercote.org/index.php?s=content&p=Waltertomb
MA-R
Douglas Richardson
<
< What a sad joke you have become.
<
< Kind regards, Michael
Are you talking about my sense of humor, or my research on the
Littleton-Walter ancestry?
If it's the latter, you' need to stay on topic, post your sources and
weblinks, and, for heaven's sake, avoid personal attacks.
Douglas Richardson
< Accounting like this is a gift to humanity.
I assume you're referring to my account of the Littleton-Walter
ancestry. If so, thanks for the complement. Much appreciated.
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> This mention of the families of Walter and Littleton brings to light
> the biography of Sir John Walter, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, found
> in the Dictionary of National Biography, 20 (1909): 704–705, which may
> be viewed at the following weblink:
>
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
A competent researcher would recognize that the 1909 edition of DNB
cited by this enthusiastic poster has been superseded by later,
revised editions. The ODNB is of course available on-line (at least
to patrons of libraries which have a subscription to it - including
the BYU library, where the poster sometimes conducts his "research").
The article in the on-line ODNB is the one I cited in my post, and it
clearly mentions the elder brother James of Sir John, the Chief Baron
of the Exchequer.
It is perhaps pardonable that DR overlooked this updated ODNB article
in his preparation of RPA and MCA. What is certainly less excusable
is that he cites the article on James Walter in HOP and then proceeds
to mis-state the information in that article, confusing James with his
brother Sir John.
The citation mentioned earlier by MAR is still pertinent:
mj...@btinternet.com
> On Apr 19, 2:15 am, mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
> <
> < What a sad joke you have become.
> <
> < Kind regards, Michael
>
> Are you talking about my sense of humor, or my research on the
> Littleton-Walter ancestry?
Neither seems worthy of notice. I was just referring to your general
lack of scholarship, your failure to acknowledge others' work in
correcting your errors, and your habits of lying and/or covering up
your tracks. None of these is a becoming feature. I have said it
before: when I first joined this group, I thought you knew what you
were talking about; it has long since become clear that you are just a
joke. And I think that's sad.
> If it's the latter, you' need to stay on topic, post your sources and
> weblinks, and, for heaven's sake, avoid personal attacks.
Yawn. No sources, no weblinks = ignore.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
> Littleton-Walter ancestry?
Dear Douglas
Here's my favourite bit of your "research" on the Littleton-Walter
ancestry.
It is from the first 2 lines of p 453 of 'Plantagenet
Ancestry' (Genealogical Publishing Co, 2004), where you refer to "Rev.
John Littleton (or Littleton)".
Could you please explain to me and the group what the fundamental
difference between "Littleton" and "Littleton" is?
Thanks in advance
Michael
mik...@sbcglobal.net
Littelton and/or Lyttleton. We all have had typos unless you're Obama
or Hillary.
Douglas Richardson
< His publisher may be at fault here. Douglas meant Littleton or
< Littelton and/or Lyttleton. We all have had typos unless you're
Obama
< or Hillary.
Dear Mike B.~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
No, I'm the one at fault here not my publisher. This egregioush
erropr was coreckted in my Maggna Karta Ancesstry bookk publishhed in
200005.
However, Mihcael Andruus Reedinge overlooked tellinge us that in his
post. As such, I suppose he can add it to his long list of errors of
omissions and commissions on his website. If he is going to continue
to act like Godd, he must be more accurate than all of us. Right
Mihcael?
For me, I make more mistakes than everyone and readily admit it. Now
that we've accepted that fact, perhaps we can move on.
mj...@btinternet.com
> Dear Mike B.~
>
> Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
>
> No, I'm the one at fault here not my publisher. This egregioush
> erropr was coreckted in my Maggna Karta Ancesstry bookk publishhed in
> 200005.
>
> However, Mihcael Andruus Reedinge overlooked tellinge us that in his
> post. As such, I suppose he can add it to his long list of errors of
> omissions and commissions on his website. If he is going to continue
> to act like Godd, he must be more accurate than all of us. Right
> Mihcael?
Dear Douglas
The newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, and making friends.
You need to stay on topic, post your sources and weblinks, and, for
heaven's sake, avoid personal attacks.
Kind regards, Michael
Douglas Richardson
<
< Dear Douglas
<
< The newsgroup is about medieval genealogy, and making friends.
<
< You need to stay on topic, post your sources and weblinks, and, for
< heaven's sake, avoid personal attacks.
<
< Kind regards, Michael
I was merely pulling your legg, Mihcael.
To err is humor, to forgive is divine. To laugh is even better.
DR
mj...@btinternet.com
Rest assured, your contributions are often laughable.
MA-R
mik...@sbcglobal.net
collecting the enormous amount of genealogical info contained in his
works?
If so, a little humanity should heal a lot of animosity.
> MA-R- Hide quoted text -
mj...@btinternet.com
> Are you willing to admit a little jealousy on your side for DR
> collecting the enormous amount of genealogical info contained in his
> works?
>
> If so, a little humanity should heal a lot of animosity.
No, you can be jealous if you wish, but you should be careful about
imputing it onto anyone else. Douglas Richardson makes a living from
genealogical research and publications. It is hardly surprising that
he produces volumes of genealogical data. And I am always happy to
acknowledge the significant contributions that he has made.
However, once you have spent a little more time being exposed to his
regular output you will realise that much of what he puts out is
flawed. He jumps to unwarranted conclusions; he fails to properly
reference his statements; he relies on inappropriate sources, and he
exhibits serious lapses in scholarly protocol (eg he tries to hide his
errors by deleting historical statements; he misrepresents others'
views - a polite way of saying that he lies, I suppose; he expects
collegial co-operation but seldom offers it).
It is true that none of this negates the contributions he has made -
but it does indicate that a certain amount of independent judgment is
called for in evaluating his offerings, as scrutiny frequently shows
they are flawed in the manner I have just described.
It is also true that the publication of a couple of lengthy books,
based originally on another, now deceased man's research, does not
give licence to flood the internet with faulty research. Turning a
blind eye to that and allowing newcomers to be taken in by the faulty
stuff doesn't seem like a very generous thing to do.
As it happens, I used to stick up for Douglas too, until his poor
scholarship and shameless behaviour made me feel I could no longer
ignore it. Bad genealogy pollutes the public record.
Nevertheless, far from bearing any sense of jealousy towards him, I
wish him success in his endeavours. You will find that the motivation
for criticism here is as much a desire to see him put his efforts to
effective use as to expose his faults.
Kind regards, Michael
mik...@sbcglobal.net
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Mike Bodman,
Highland, CA