Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck
Bill Arnold
Would I put his wife after the =
"Jane, dau of Edward Lord Dudley"
or
Jane Sutton
?
Bill
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Somewhere in this long thread is a statement that William de Middleton will proved 11 Mar 1552
> married "Jane DUDLEY".
>
> In actuality, his wife is called "Jane, dau of Edward Lord Dudley"
>
> Her surname was Sutton, the Lord's Dudley at this time were Suttons, not Dudleys.
>
> Will Johnson
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
Bill Arnold
by Wm Flower and the 1665 Visitations of Yorke
by Dugdale and found no Peck pedigrees and
no Leake/Leeke pedigrees.
In the 1563-64 Visitation of Yorkshire by Wm Flower
I found no Leake/Leeke pedigrees but a substantial
Peck pedigree, pages 236-237.
Of the Peck pedigree, re: my proposed Peck pedigree
based on ALL sources, including the 1563-64 Flower,
wills, chancery records, et al., I find confirmation of the
following [using current spelling]:
_________________________________________________
Richard Peck=Alice, dau. of Middleton of Stockeld
son& heir
_________________________________________________
thence [not part of my proposed pedigree]
John Peck=Jane, dau. of John Anne of Frickley
son&heir
also: four dau's: Isabel, Joan, Margaret, and Elizabeth
___________________________________________________
[Note: missing from this Peck pedigree segment is another
son, referred to in wills, chancery records, church records,
et al., namely:
Henry Peck=Margery, dau. of John Leeke
and their issue:
Robert Peck, Sr.(Elder)=Johan, dau. of John Waters:
end of Note]
___________________________________________________
QUESTION: Are there other *Visitations* I should be
aware of that have a Peck/Leeke/Leake pedigree with this segment
expanded: particularly into descendants?
Bill
*****************************************************
--- John Higgins <jthi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
John Higgins wrote, "There may in fact be a problem in the proposed
pedigree but it's likely not in the Middleton segments - and
Isabel Plumpton is not the problem."
The Middleton segment expands into descendants of Leeke and Peck.
_____________________________________
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton
_____________________________________
Henry Peck=Margery Leeke
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, Sr.(Elder)=Johan, dau. of John Waters
_____________________________________
> I'm as bewildered as Bill Arnold by Will Johnson's mention of Isabel
> Plumpton, dau. of Sir William Plumpton and his 1st wife Elizabeth
> Stapleton - especially since I can find no reference to Alice Plumpton in
> any of Bill Arnold's posts. The only Plumpton that Bill mentioned is
> Eustacia, several generations earlier. There may in fact be a problem in
> the proposed pedigree but it's likely not in the Middleton segments - and
> Isabel Plumpton is not the problem.
>
> As I underestand it, Bill is trying to place Alice Middleton, wife of
> Richard Peck. She is in fact mentioned in Clay's edition [with additions]
> of Dugdale's 1664-5 Visitation of Yorkshire. The Middleton of Stockeld
> pedigree going back from her is, per Clay:
>
> Sir Peter Middleton (d. ca. 1499), m. Anne, dau. of Sir Henry Vavasour of
> Hazlewood
> Sir John Middleton, m. Matilda, dau. of Sir John Thwaites of Lofthouse
> William Middleton (will 1474), m. Margaret, dau. of Sir Stephen Hamerton of
> Wigglesworth
> Sir John Middleton, m. Alice, dau. of Sir Peter Mauleverer of Beamsley
> Sir Nicholas Middleton; m. (2 of 3) Avice, dau. of Sir Gilbert Stapleton
> Sir Thomas Middleton (prob. d. before March 1393), m. Eliza, dau. of Sir
> Henry Gramary
> Sir Peter Middleton, m. Eustacia, dau. of Sir Robert Plumpton
> [and five more generations before this]
>
> Alice Plumpton gets into this through the Hamerton marriage. Margaret
> Hamerton who mar. William Middleton (d. 1474) is identified in Dugdale's
> Middleton pedigree as daughter of Sir Steven Hamerton. In pedigrees of the
> Hamerton family in visitations and other sources (e.g., Thomas Dunham
> Whitaker's "Deanery of Craven"), Margaret is said to be a dau. of Sir
> Stephen by his wife Isabel Plumpton - yes, THAT Isabel. The problem is that
> Sir Stephen is said to have died 1500/1 per his IPM. Although this likely
> presents no problems with the Plumpton chronology that Will mentions below,
> it is problematic to give Sir Stephen a son-in-law who died 27 years before
> him, as the pedigrees indicate. It seems possible that Margaret Hamerton
> was in fact a sister, rather than daughter, of Sir Stephen Hamerton - but
> this is only a guess.
>
> Since Will has introduced Isabel Plumpton into the picture, does this help
> to clarify things a bit and put her in a proper context?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "WJhonson" <wjho...@aol.com>
> To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Alice Middleton, died aft.1491
>
>
> > Bill the full line, as presented, is not possible.
> >
> > In particular its highly unlikely that Isabel Plumpton, daughter of Sir
> William Plumpton "eldest son" by his wife Elizabeth Stapleton figures in the
> line in the way you have described.
> >
> > For Alice to be married and active on deeds in the 1490s, she has to be
> too old to be in this descent. Sir William Plumpton is known to have been
> born on 7 Oct 1404 and died on 15 Oct 1480, his Stapleton wife was dead by
> 1450.
> >
> > If you calculate approximate years backward yourself you will see that
> there is a problem.
> >
> > Will Johnson
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
Bill Arnold
I am looking at George Marshall's *The Genealogist's Guide*
and notice on page 477-8, LEAKE-LEEK, and on 480,
LEEK, or LEEKE, and 484 LEKE, finally: 534 MARTIN-LEAKE.
I possess none of the citations, and my nearest library is
not helpful, and interlibrary loan is five weeks waiting.
I suspect a gen-medieval member has an interest in my
main interest: I have seen and read about Sir John and
Sir Simon Leeke pedigrees:
does anyone have one to share? Re below: Margery Leeke
was the dau. of John Leeke, Beccles, England, and I am
seeking ancestors of Margery Leeke and her father?
Bill
*****************
Bill
*****************************************************
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
WJhonson
I think John was "of Wakefield".
Also what is the proof that Henry Peck was his "son and heir" as you stated ? I do not find any Henry Peck at this point.
Thanks
Will Johnson
WJhonson
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton
_____________________________________
Henry Peck=Margery Leeke
_____________________________________
d.20 Nov 1556
_____________________________________
Robert Peck, Jr.=Ellen(Helen)Babbs >>
--------------------------
http://books.google.com/books?id=9jNHy0PBqlUC&pg=PA1756
"Historic Homes and Places and Genealogical and Personal Memoires Relating To...", by William Richard Cutter
states that the ascent goes
John Peck + Joan Anne
Robert Peck +1 Norton +2 Waters (he does NOT specify which mother was the mother of...)
Robert Peck + Helen Babbs
Joseph Peck "fourth son" +1 Rebecca Clark +2 "second wife's name is Unknown"
----------End of quote=========
This is why is always very important to cite exactly what source you are using and exactly what it says and doesn't say.
Will Johnson
Bill Arnold
I do believe based on the REGISTER series of articles cited in my
previous post, that this proposed pedigree of John as father of
Robert Peck, the Elder, is flawed. The authors, Stanhope and
S. Allyn Peck refuted that lineage in the 1930s. Again: I will
post detailed notes, forthcoming.
Let me clarify:
[Note 1: 1939 NEHGSRegister, April, page 178,
"Additional Material Relating To The Leekes and Pecks of Beccles,
co. Suffolk, From the Record of the Court of Requests, Robert Young
v. Robert Peck and Katherin Drawer, Wife of Thomas Drawer,"
"...complainant sold to John Leke of Beccles,tanner...[certain items]
...now afterwards said Leke made his last will and testament and
appointed Robert Pekke (Peck) and Katherine Drawer, wife of
Thomas Drawer...."
"[This case should be compared with the statements about the will,
family, executors, etc., of John Leeke of Beccles given in the REGISTER,
vol. io, pp. 334339 (October 1935), the reader keeping in mind the
fact that Robert Peck, one of the executors of the will of John Leeke
should probably be regarded as a grandson, rather than a nephew of
John Leeke. See Editorial Note in REGISTER, vol. 91, p. 7 (January 1937)."
With this and other citations, in the REGISTER series, the conclusions:
John Leeke had a dau. Margery who married second son of
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton, who was the father-in-law of Richard,
who was thusly the grandfather of Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles.
I wish to categorically state that I do not find John Peck as father
of Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles, although there are other
Roberts in John's line, not to be confused with Robert, the Elder.
I apologize for seeking confirmation of the 1930s conclusions,
but it did bear fruition with John Higgins finding of Alice Middleton
found as dau. of Sir Peter Middleton in the Visitations.
Bill
****************************************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
Bill Arnold
I do not recall saying that John Peck was "of Beccles" and if I did
consider it withdrawn. Truly, for my proposed pedigree of gateway
ancestor to America Joseph Peck, I have no interest in John Peck except
as he illuminates the pedigree. He has been an instrument of much
confusion online in many alleged pedigrees of Joseph, 1587.
Nor do I ever recall saying that Henry Peck was his "son and heir."
I do not know where you are reading that and if I did consider
it withdrawn, as well. John Peck who married the dau. of Anne
was the primogeniture son of his father and most visitations
I have seen list him as son and heir. I believe I said that because
of the English history with laws of primogeniture, it seemed to
me that was why he, the eldest son, referenced himself and four
sisters to the Visitation requests. There appears no doubt that
there were two sons born of the union of Richard Peck=Alice
Middleton, and the second, Henry, unnamed, except in other
sources, was apparently the father with Margery Leeke, dau.
of John Leeke, of Beccles, of Robert Peck, of Beccles, the Elder.
I will cite the full references in a later post. The ones I have
found, as I have already posted, were in the series of articles
in the American publication, NEHGSRegister in the 1930s, by
Stanhope and S. Allyn Peck, descendants of this line of Pecks.
I have already posted specifics from the series about the
Middleton segment of this proposed pedigree.
Bill
*************************************************************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
Bill Arnold
With this and other citations, in the REGISTER series, the conclusions:
John Leeke had a dau. Margery who married second son of
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton, who was the father of Margery,
and
father-in-law of HENRY,
who was thusly the grandfather of Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles.
**************************
Much thanks for that citation, Will.
I do believe based on the REGISTER series of articles cited in my
previous post, that this proposed pedigree of John as father of
Robert Peck, the Elder, is flawed. The authors, Stanhope and
S. Allyn Peck refuted that lineage in the 1930s. Again: I will
post detailed notes, forthcoming.
Let me clarify:
[Note 1: 1939 NEHGSRegister, April, page 178,
"Additional Material Relating To The Leekes and Pecks of Beccles,
co. Suffolk, From the Record of the Court of Requests, Robert Young
v. Robert Peck and Katherin Drawer, Wife of Thomas Drawer,"
"...complainant sold to John Leke of Beccles,tanner...[certain items]
...now afterwards said Leke made his last will and testament and
appointed Robert Pekke (Peck) and Katherine Drawer, wife of
Thomas Drawer...."
"[This case should be compared with the statements about the will,
family, executors, etc., of John Leeke of Beccles given in the REGISTER,
vol. 89, pp. 334-339 (October 1935), the reader keeping in mind the
fact that Robert Peck, one of the executors of the will of John Leeke
should probably be regarded as a grandson, rather than a nephew of
John Leeke. See Editorial Note in REGISTER, vol. 91, p. 7 (January 1937)."
With this and other citations, in the REGISTER series, the conclusions:
John Leeke had a dau. Margery who married second son of
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton, who was the father-in-law of Henry,
Bill
WJhonson
[Note 1: 1939 NEHGSRegister, April, page 178,
"Additional Material Relating To The Leekes and Pecks of Beccles,
co. Suffolk, From the Record of the Court of Requests, Robert Young
v. Robert Peck and Katherin Drawer, Wife of Thomas Drawer,"
"...complainant sold to John Leke of Beccles,tanner...[certain items]
...now afterwards said Leke made his last will and testament and
appointed Robert Pekke (Peck) and Katherine Drawer, wife of
Thomas Drawer...."
"[This case should be compared with the statements about the will,
family, executors, etc., of John Leeke of Beccles given in the REGISTER,
should probably be regarded as a grandson, rather than a nephew of
John Leeke. See Editorial Note in REGISTER, vol. 91, p. 7 (January 1937)." >>
---------------------------
How can any conclusion be drawn from the above? In what you presented above, it is undated. So we have no idea what decade or even what century this took place. Also the note is by a modern editor based on what?
Will
WJhonson
John Leeke had a dau. Margery who married second son of
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton, who was the father of Margery,
and
father-in-law of HENRY,
who was thusly the grandfather of Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles. >>
The above is awfully confusing. Since two authors of secondary works are in conflict about the ascent, we really need to quote and cite specific documents showing how it went. Showing each relationship.
Will
Bill Arnold
> Bill:
>
> Which Henry Peck and Joseph Peck are you referring to? I descend from
> Henry Peck and Deacon William Peck of New Haven.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steven
************************************************************
Thanks for your interest, Steven, and other Pecks, and
gen-medieval scholars, et al.
Here is fuller proposed pedigree, re Medieval period:
EIGHTH GENERATION: 5/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
215 214
Ruth Skinner_______________________Abiel Peck
b.bef.1727,Attleboro/Norton,MA. b.19 May 1730,b.Boston,MA.
m. 11 Jul, 1751,Attleboro,Bristol,MA.
d.?,d.Hopewell,NB. d.16 Dec 1802,d.Hopewell,NB.
__________________________________________________________________
NINTH GENERATION: 6/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
429 428
Rebecca(Rebekah) Richardson________John Peck
b.28 Feb,1697,Medfield,Norfolk,MA. b.13 oct 1700,Attleboro,MA.
m. 26 May 1724,Attleborough/Rehoboth, MA.
d.?,d.Attleboro,Ma. d.22 Mar 1730,Attleboro,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
TENTH GENERATION: 7/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
857 856
Deborah Cooper_____________________Hezekiah Peck
b.21 Sep 1664,Attleboro,MA. b.1 Apr 1662,Attleboro,MA.
m. 1686,Rehoboth/Attleboro, Bristol, MA.
d.5 Mar 1730,Attleboro, MA. d.2 Sep 1723
__________________________________________________________________
11TH GENERATION: 8/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
1713 1712
Rebecca Bosworth___________________Nicholas Peck
b.Feb 1641,Seakonk,MA. b.9Apr 1630,Hingham,Norfolk,GB.
m. 1658/1659,Rehoboth/Attleboro,Bristol, MA.
d.2 Nov 1704,Rehoboth/Attle.,MA. d.27 May 1710,Seakonk,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
12TH GENERATION: 9/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3425 3424
Rebecca Clark______________________Joseph Peck
b.2 May,1585,Hingham,Norfolk,GB. b.30Apr1587,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
m.21 May 1617,Hingham,Norfolk, England, GB.
d.24 Oct 1637,Hingham,Suff.,GB. d.23 Dec 1663,Rehoboth,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
13TH GENERATION: 10/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
6849 6848
Ellen(Helen)Babb(Babbs)____________Robert Peck, Jr.
b.Sep 1546,Guildford,Surrey,GB. b.28 Nov 1548,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.22 Jul 1573,Beccles, Suffolk,England,GB .
d.31 Oct 1614,Beccles,Suff.,GB. d.22 Mar 1593,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
_________________________________________________________________
14TH GENERATION: 11/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.c.1476,Carltoncolville, Suf.,GB. b.1496,Carltoncolville,Suff.,GB
m.c.1520
d.? d.bef.16 Apr 1525,Beccles,S.,GB
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785 54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.c.1458,Wakefield,Yorkshire,GB. b.c.1454,Wakefield,Ykshr.,GB.
m. 1490
d.? d.24 Jun 1516,L.,Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
17TH GENERATION: 14/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
109570 109571
Sir Peter Middleton________________Anne(Catherine), dau. of
b.Wakefield,Yorkshire,GB. Sir Henry Vavasour of Hazelwood
d.c.1499 d.?
married:?
__________________________________________________________________
18TH GENERATION: 15/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
219140 219141
Sir John Middleton_________________Maud(Matilda), dau. of
b.Hamerton,Yorkshire,GB. Sir John Thwaites of Lofthouse
d.? d.Yorkshire, GB.
married:?
__________________________________________________________________
19TH GENERATION: 16/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
______________________________________________
438280 438281
William Middleton__________________Margaret, dau. of Sir Stephen
b.Yorkshire, GB. Hamerton of Wigglesworth
d.1474,GB. d.Hamerton,Yorkshire,GB.
married:c.1473
__________________________________________________________________
20TH GENERATION: 17/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
______________________________________________
876560 876561
Sir John Middleton_________________Alice, dau. of Sir Peter
b.Yorkshire, GB. Maulereverer of Beamsley
m.
d.? d.?
__________________________________________________________________
21ST GENERATION: 18/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
1753120 1753121
Sir Nicholas Middleton_____________Avice, dau. of Sir Gilbert
b.Yorkshire,GB. Stapleton
m.
d.? d.?
__________________________________________________________________
22ND GENERATION: 19/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3506241 3506240
Sir Thomas Middleton_______________Eliza, dau. of Sir Henry
b.1321, Plumpton, GB. Gramary
m.
d.bef.March,1393,GB. d.,Yorkshire,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
23RD GENERATION: 20/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
7012481 7012480
Sir Peter Middleton________________Eustacia, dau. of Sir Robert
b.1290/95,Plumpton,Yorkshire,GB. de Plumpton
m.
d.aft.1338 d.?
__________________________________________________________________
***********************************************************
>
> On 10/15/07, Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Re: remarks by John Higgins below, to this thread:
> >
> > Has anyone got a Visitation which covers Sir John Leeke,
> > whose daughter married Henry Peck, and whose son Robert
> > he called his grandson in his will? I would appreciate any input
> > about the next two descendants which are the possible problem
> > alluded to by John in the proposed pedigree of my ancestors?
> > I agree with John that the Middleton segment appears not to
> > be the problem. I also am not interested in the alleged problem
> > of the Peck pedigree of the ancestors of Richard Peck who married
> > Alice Middleton, at this time. I wish to restrict the discussion to
> > the possible problem alluded to by John Higgins.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > ****************************************************
> > --- John Higgins <jthi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > John Higgins wrote, "There may in fact be a problem in the proposed
> > pedigree but it's likely not in the Middleton segments - and
> > Isabel Plumpton is not the problem."
> >
> > The Middleton segment expands into descendants of Leeke and Peck.
> >
> > _____________________________________
> > Richard Peck=Alice Middleton
> > _____________________________________
> > Henry Peck=Margery Leeke
> > _____________________________________
> > Robert Peck, Sr.(Elder=Joan Water
> > d.20 Nov 1556
> > _____________________________________
> > Robert Peck, Jr.=Ellen(Helen)Babbs
> > _____________________________________
> > Joseph Peck, Gateway=Rebecca Clark
> > ancestor to America,arrived 1638
> > b.30 Apr 1587
> > > > Will Johnson
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers
> - Check it out.
> > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Steven C. Perkins SCPe...@gmail.com
> http://stevencperkins.com/
> Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy
> http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
> Steven C. Perkins' Genealogy Page
> http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html
Bill Arnold
I just sent in response to a Peck descendant a FULLER proposed
pedigree:
from me: without details, they are NOT Medieval facts:
Pecks:
Leeke:
Middleton:
Plumpton:
I am open to full discussion of what I propose:
As to *confusion* I must agree. I find life confusing, too.
But I do believe we can resolve this: the series of articles in
NEHGSREGISTER I have and have to painstakingly SELECT
and TYPE ONLINE and that is all consuming: but that is
why I requested a Leeke pedigree. I note in the gen-medieval
archives that Leek/Leake/Leeke has a couple dozen posts and
I have printed and saved them. I am looking them over: it appears
that there were Leekes intermarried with all these named families,
including the Foljambes.
Does anyone know if THOSE Leekes, re: Simon aka John, are
related to John Leeke, of Beccles, co. Suffolk, father of Margery?
Bear with me: I am rereading the Peck articles in the NEHGSREGISTER
from the 1930s and will post soon.
Bill
****************************************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
WJhonson
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.c.1476,Carltoncolville, Suf.,GB. b.1496,Carltoncolville,Suff.,GB
m.c.1520
d.? d.bef.16 Apr 1525,Beccles,S.,GB >>
--------------------------------
But what is the basis for saying that Robert was son of Henry instead of son of John Peck of Wakefield by his wife Joan Anne ?
Will Johnson
WJhonson
b.c.1458,Wakefield,Yorkshire,GB. b.c.1454,Wakefield,Ykshr.,GB.
m. 1490
d.? d.24 Jun 1516,L.,Wakefield,GB. >>
---------------------
The idea that Alice was b c 1458, that she was born in Wakefield, and that she m 1490 should all be discarded. Exact statements like these need exact citations, stated and quoted in the text.
In fact 1462 is about the minimus date on which Alice could be born, and we have nothing, so far, to my knowledge, that gives her any maximus, excepting that her husband has an IPM 28 Aug 10H8 and they evidently had six children as a couple.
That's not enough to pin her to such an exact date as 1458. Her father Peter was "of Stokeld" so I see no reason to expect her to be born at Wakefield
Will Johnson
Will Johnson
Bill Arnold
Alice Middleton
b.Yorkshire, GB.
d.aft.1491
I believe I have already posted that there were documents
citing her alive in 1488 and 1491 in legal matters with her
husband Richard Peck.
Bill
*****************************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
Bill Arnold
if I recall correctly, pointed out, that "b.c.1458" date for
Alice Middleton came via *AF* and it took me awhile to
solve the conundrum he presented. I am a naif when it
comes to stepping into the comfort zone of medieval
scholars and placed too much trust in the *AF* dates!
So: agreed. What I am learning from citations and dating
and placing on *gen-medieval* is that wills and chancery-
type record dates are quite reliable: I will attempt to
extract those from the NEHGSR articles. Sorry about
the faux pas. I leave it for others to clean up the *AF*
dating mess: despite their disclaimers.
Bill
Bill Arnold
Simply put: as you can see: Henry married Margery Leeke, and
wills of these participants clearly identify Robert Peck, of Beccles,
as *grandson* of John Leeke, father of Margery. The wills are in
the series of articles in the New England Historical Genealogical
Society Register, 1930s. I am working on extracting the essential
quotes. I also believe that there was NO alleged son of John Peck
and Joan Anne named Robert. As I read the wills, and other documents,
the *same* land owned by John Leeke which went to Robert Peck,
of Beccles, his *grandson* was entrusted to Robert Peck, of Beccles,
who was to care for women members of the Leeke family until their
deaths, thereafter the deed holdings would remain with Robert Peck,
of Beccles. We are referring to Robert Peck, the Elder, here. The wills
are English translations, and I assume the originals were in Latin. It
would be possible for those so interested to check the primary
documents, if they were so inclined.
Bill
*********************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> <<In a message dated 10/18/07 07:23:09 Pacific Daylight Time, billar...@yahoo.com writes:
> 13697 13696
> Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
> b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
> m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
> d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> 15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
> __________________________________________________________________
> 27393 27392
> Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
> b.c.1476,Carltoncolville, Suf.,GB. b.1496,Carltoncolville,Suff.,GB
> m.c.1520
> d.? d.bef.16 Apr 1525,Beccles,S.,GB >>
>
> --------------------------------
> But what is the basis for saying that Robert was son of Henry instead of son of John Peck of
> Wakefield by his wife Joan Anne ?
>
WJho...@aol.com
<<In a message dated 10/18/2007 8:25:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
billar...@yahoo.com writes:
Sorry about the faux pas. I leave it for others to clean up the *AF*
dating mess: despite their disclaimers.>>
-----------------------------------
It's very unlikely the Ancestral File at _www.familysearch.org_
(http://www.familysearch.org) will ever be cleaned up. They simply do not have the
methodology in place to do that.
OneWorldTree at _www.ancestry.com_ (http://www.ancestry.com) is an attempt
toward a clean-up but I'm still not quite sure if it's going to pass muster.
The way OneWorldTree is supposed to work is that the computer *attempts* to
put families together, and then humans and supposed-to, over time, slowly
correct it's errors and gradually get a "best-of-class" due to the thousands of
eyes watching and fixing it.
Unfortunately I don't have a lot of confidence that that will happen in the
way it was supposed. What is more likely to happen is that the errors will
multiply far faster than the correct details, and people will then have yet
another on-line database to cite as their foundational source, when it's really
a house-of-cards.
The Henry Project is probably the best-of-class in terms of its intent, but
it builds very slowly. Every fact however is backed with very firm sources
and good scholarship. It's doubtful there are many people who have the kind
of time that requires to mimic it.
Will Johnson
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Bill Arnold
To begin with, I organized all for less confusion:
GEN-MEDIEVAL can access the *THE ENGLISH ANCESTRY OF JOSEPH PECK,
OF HINGHAM, MASS., IN 1638* Compiled by S. ALLYN PECK, B.A.,
of New York City, and contributed by FREDERICK STANHOPE PECK,
LL.D., of Barrington, R.I.* at:
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/publications/Register/
Be aware that one must become a member in order to access the archives.
Sort of like Stirnet, and elsewhere?
But: if you bear with me, I will post as a scholar my *selections* in the interest
of the scholarship of the proposed Peck-Leeke-Middleton pedigree, from Gateway ancestor
Joseph Peck, b.1587, co. Suffolk, immigration 1638, back to Sir Peter Middleton, c.1290/1338,
who married Eustacia Plumpton, sister of Sir William Plumpton, Yorkshire, England.
The articles are found in 1935, 1936, 1937, lesser extent in 1938, and 1939.
The website is *searchable* and I will post my extracts, forthwith.
Bill
*******************************
--- WJho...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/18/2007 8:37:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> billar...@yahoo.com writes:
>
> Henry married Margery Leeke, and
> wills of these participants clearly identify Robert Peck, of Beccles,
> as *grandson* of John Leeke, father of Margery. The wills are in
> the series of articles in the New England Historical Genealogical
> Society Register, 1930s.
>
>
> ----------
> Okay bill put up. Stop talk about doing the extracts :)
> Let's see some results!
>
> Will
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
>
__________________________________________________
Bill Arnold
Re: the following segment of the proposed Peck-Leeke-Middleton segment,
I will present selections from NEHGSREGISTER of the Peck authors, hereafter
referred to as *authors,* of their conclusions and evidence, from transcriptions
in English of often-times Latin documents, of abstracts of English records,
including wills and court and church records [for fuller texts, see originals
or those from the NEHGSREGISTER: I accept responsibility for any errors
in my transcriptions and will gladly clarify omissions and supply details
overlooked]:
Bill
__________________________________________________________________
12TH GENERATION: 9/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3425 3424
Rebecca Clark______________________Joseph Peck
b.2 May,1585,Hingham,Norfolk,GB. b.30Apr1587,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
m.21 May 1617,Hingham,Norfolk, England, GB.
d.24 Oct 1637,Hingham,Suff.,GB. d.23 Dec 1663,Rehoboth,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
13TH GENERATION: 10/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
6849 6848
Ellen(Helen)Babb(Babbs)____________Robert Peck, Jr.
b.Sep 1546,Guildford,Surrey,GB. b.28 Nov 1548,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.22 Jul 1573,Beccles, Suffolk,England,GB .
d.31 Oct 1614,Beccles,Suff.,GB. d.22 Mar 1593,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
_________________________________________________________________
14TH GENERATION: 11/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.1526/1533,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Margery Leeke______________________Henry Peck
b.c.1476,Carltoncolville, Suf.,GB. b.1496,Carltoncolville,Suff.,GB
m.c.1520
d.? d.bef.16 Apr 1525,Beccles,S.,GB
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785 54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.Yorkshire,GB. b.Yorkshire,GB.
m.?
d.aft.1491 d.24 Jun 1516, Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
[Note 2: "Beccles, the home of two Robert Pecks, the grandfather and
the father of Rev. Robert Peck and of Joseph Peck of Hingham and
Rehoboth in New England, is an important parish in the northeastern
part of Suffolk, 41 miles northeast from Ipswich. It is situated on the
River Waveney, which winds in a general northeasterly direction towards
the North Sea and separates Suffolk from Norfolk...
The earliest mention in the records here presented of a Robert
Peck who can be *proved* to be the first Robert Peck of Beccles of the
Peck pedigree is found in the will of John Leeke of Beccles, dated 6 Sept.
1529 (*vide infra*). The testator calls Robert Peck his "neve"
[scholars since the original now translate its meaning as *grandson*
which was general usage in the 16th century: later in the series, see
comment by G. Andrews Moriarty, A.M., LL.B., F.S.A., of Bristol, R.I.,
Chairman of the Committee on English and Foreign Research
(the *vetting* panel of the NEHGSociety REGISTER publication cited)
Jan 1937, page 7]
without naming his residence; but in the records in the Chancery suit
Drawer v. Pek (*vide infra*) [already posted to gen-medieval as Note 1]
his residence is given as Beccles, co. Suffolk. Below are given, in
chronological order, abstracts of (1) the will of John Leeke of Beccles,
dated, it seems likely, on the Thursday before Michaelmas, 1504,
who was *probably* the father of the testator of 6 Sept. 1529, (2) the
will of Thomas Leke, Parson, of Beccles, dated 12 Dec 1504, who was
brother of the testator of the Michaelmas season, 1504, (3) the will
of Henry Peke of Carlton Colville, co. Suffolk, dated 16 Apr. 1525, who
*may have been* the father of the Robert Peck named in the will of the
testator of 6 Sept. 1529. Then follow abstracts of (5) the proceedings
in the Chancery suit of Drawer v. Pek, *circa* 1530, (6) the will of Alyce
Leeke of Beccles, dated 14 June 1537, widow of the testator of 6 Sept.
1529, and (7) the will of Robert Pecke of Beccles, dated 31 Oct 1556
[*grandson*] of the testator of 6 Sept. 1529 and grandfather of the
emigrants to New England" [Oct 1935, page 333].
COMMENT: I will end this post at this point. In the interest of scholarship,
I open the door to query as to what members believe would be crucial
in any of the above reference documents. Understanding, I will select
what I consider substantial proof of the proposed pedigree of Peck-
Leeke-Middleton, if others differ: please correct the pedigree or query
for information sought from the above record. There are considerably
more documents referenced as we go along. We, knowingly, are
REVISITING the work left undone in the NEHGSREGISTER circa 1939.
We acknowledge up-front that significant *probable* and *probably*
qualifiers must be inserted at appropriate places, and if I omit them
in my zeal to prove the proposed pedigree, by all means remind me.
No doubt, members may find proof found lacking in the series as
completed circa 6 decades ago. I attest I have a vested interest in
the proposed pedigree inasmuch as Joseph Peck was my gateway
ancestor of this lineage to England and make no apologies for my
unmitigated zeal in seeking truth and certainty where possible.
Bill
WJhonson
There are many maybes in this presentation, hopefully those can be firmed. For instance, does this article mention the previous affiliation of Robert Peck of Beccles as son of John Peck of Wakefield by Joan Anne. If they don't mention it, they should have. You always have to destroy older theories whilst building new ones, if only to show that you're aware of them and their flaws.
So I'd be looking for that for one thing. John Peck is said to have had eight sons and eight daughters. It's certainly possible one of them could have lived at Beccles.
Will Johnson
Bill Arnold
Re: point one, well taken. But then, as a well-respected genealogist told me, as the authors
of the series were launched into their several years of their thread, it was Andrew Moriarty who
made the observation of a translation error from the Latin. I am quite confident there are enough
Medieval Latin scholars in the world who can confirm Moriarty or not. Remember Occam's Razor,
however, and looking at the will in question, the relationships only make sense if *grandson*
is the translation. I am sure Medieval scholars can attest to that: as I am far from an expert
on ancient primogeniture law, in the case of giving all of one's land to one's wife in surety to
one's grandson born of one's daughter makes most sense to me. It appears John Leeke had two
wives and the gentleman had to handle a difficult situation without a male heir. But, I have
speculated
enough and there is ample more data to be digested from these authors before we rush to
judgement: and *probably* we will have to rest with *probable* anyway, when we come to
the ultimate test of a proposed pedigree: *identity*!
Re: point two, well taken. I can assure you the authors did not have to set up the *son-of-John*
straw man because the Pedigree of Pecks beyond this point in the pedigree has been alleged
to be fraudulent. That is not my concern. Although, being a descendant of Pecks, it would be
nice to know how far back they can be *identified*? However, they amply dealt with the *John*
question and I am convinced in my read of the many pages over many years that Robert of Beccles
was NOT the son of John and the dau. of the Anne family.
Bill
*******************************************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
WJhonson
Again Bill your arguments achieve a hundred-times-their weight when you quote your sources. So if you could quote that portion of the will that you think supports these assertions that would be quite helpful.
WJhonson
GEN-MEDIEVAL can access the *THE ENGLISH ANCESTRY OF JOSEPH PECK,
OF HINGHAM, MASS., IN 1638* Compiled by S. ALLYN PECK, B.A.,
of New York City, and contributed by FREDERICK STANHOPE PECK,
LL.D., of Barrington, R.I.* at:
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/publications/Register/ >>
------------------------
You can also access this work here
http://content.ancestry.com/iexec/?htx=BookList&dbid=14109
at Ancestry, with the appropriate subscription.
Will Johnson
Bill Arnold
Bill
b.Carlton Colville, Suf.,GB. b.Carlton Colville,Suffolk,GB.
m.c.1520
d.? d.c.Nov 1525, Beccles,S.,GB
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785 54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.Yorkshire,GB. b.Yorkshire,GB.
m.?
d.aft.1491 d.24 Jun 1516, Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
[Note 4: "The Will of John Leeke of Beccles, co. Suffolk, England, Diocese of
Norwich, dated 6 September 1529. To be buried in the Church of St. Michael
the Archangel in Beccles...To Kateryn, my daughter [be it noted: that Henry
Peck who married Margery Leeke named a daughter Kateryn, obviously after
Margery's sister, establishing another confirming link between these families],
and to her heirs for ever, all my lands and tenements in Gelingham, Wyndell,
Wynston, Gelston, and Alby, or elsewhere with the county of Norfolk. I will
that Alys, my wife, shall have her chamber and dwelling within the house of
Robert Pecke, my 'neve' [*grandson*], that is to say, in the 'parlour' next the
'mease' [messuage] of Richard Craske, with sufficient meat, etc., during her
lifetime. Should she refuse to dwell there, then [she shall have] an annuity for
life of 20s., and the said Robert Pecke is to supply her with...To my said daughter
40 Pounds, to be paid on the day of her marriage. To my said wife my land that
I bought of Marsshe, for her life, and after her decease to the aforesaid Robert
Pecke and his heirs. To my said wife and daughter and Robert Pecke all the
residue of the household goods, equally...To the said Robert Peck [sic: noting
variant spelling throughout] my 'mease' [messuage] that I dwell in and all my
other 'measey', lands, and tenements in Beccles, co. Suffolk, as well bond as
freehold, to him and his heirs, on condition that he pay unto Robert Leeke,
John Leeke, and Richard Leeke 20 marks apiece and to Alys Leeke and Elyn
Leeke 30 marks apiece, and to Margaret Leke 40s., to be paid at the age of
discretion. An obit is to be kept for me and my sons in Beccles church yearly
by Robert Pecke, if he is able. To John Waters, my godson [note: his
great-grandchildren were of the Waters family inasmuch as Robert Peck,
the Younger, married Johan(Joan) Waters: the contents of this will further
establishing links between these families] 20s., and to each other of my
godchildren 12d. To the said Robert Pecke all my pen cattle, moveables, and
apparel. If my wife troubles, vexes, or sues my executors, her legacies are
to be void. All the residue to my executors, namely, my well-beloved in Christ,
the aforesaid Robert Peck, my 'neve' [*grandson'], and Kateryn, my daughter.
Witnesses: John Waters, James Canne, Richard Robards, William Robards,
Osbern Dering, John Pottes, William Hastings, Thomas Drurye, and others.
Proved 17 November 1529. (Consistory Court of Norwich [Norwich Probate
Registry], Register Attmer (1528-1537), fo. 65)" [Oct 1935, pages 334-35].
[note: Hastings pedigrees, which are extensive, may have had family
members who married into Leekes: members might know, and such may shed
light on this proposed pedigree: as already noted, my supply of these Visitations
and resultant pedigrees is limited.]
THE AUTHORS SPEAK:
"[As has been already stated, it is in this will of John Leeke of beccles, co. Suffolk,
that the earliest *certain* reference to Robert Peck, grandfather of Rev. Robert Peck
and his brother Joseph, has been found. Although John Leeke in his will does not
mention the residence of this Robert peck, the Chancery proceedings in the suit of
Drawer v. Pek (Peck) (*infra,* No. 5) show that he was of Beccles, co Suffolk."
"The provisions of this will should be studied carefully, especially those referring to
Alice, the testator's wife, and to Robert peck, whom he calls his 'neve,' that is,
*grandson.* That this *grandson* of John Leeke is IDENTICAL [the KEY point, in
genealogy, by the way: MY CAPS] WITH ROBERT PECK OF BECCLES, CO. SUFFOLK,
THE TESTATOR OF 31 OCT. 1556 (*INFRA,* NO. 7), IS INDICATED BY THE PROVISION
IN HIS WILL BY WHICH JOHN LEEKE LEAVES TO HIS WIFE ALICE, FOR HER LIFE, THE
LAND THAT HE BOUGHT OF 'MARSSHE,' AND DIRECTS THAT AFTER HER DECEASE
THIS LAND SHALL GO TO ROBERT PECK AND HIS HEIRS, AND BY THE PROVISION
IN HIS WILL OF THE TESTATOR OF 31 OCT 1556 BY WHICH THIS LATER TESTATOR
LEAVES TO HIS SON, JOHN PECKE, THREE ACRES OF LAND, 'LATE WILLIAM MARSHES.'
John Leeke leaves his lands in county Norfolk to his daughter Katherine and her heirs
AND HIS LANDS IN BECCLES TO HIS *GRANDSON* ROBERT PECK AND HIS HEIRS, on
condition that Robert peck pay certain legacies, and after stating what shall be done
with his household goods and other moveables, he leave all the residue of his estate
to his executors, anely, THE AFORESAID ROBERT PECK, HIS *GRANDSON,* and Katherine,
his (the testator's) daughter" [Oct 1935, page 335].
I leave the authors direct statements for SUMMARY: they then sum up that John Leeke
was married twice, that Katherine was the daughter of his second wife, and although
the second wife was disenfranchised from challenging his Will, the daughter became
a party to the aforementioned suit in Chancery known as the Drawer case. The authors
note that John Leeke entrusted his *grandson* Robert Peck with the perpetual care of
his wife, Alice. In the resultant suit *circa* 1530 the *grandson* is referred to as
"Rbt Pek (Peck) of Beccles in the County of Suff [olk]" [Oct 1935, page 336].
COMMENT: The fact that John Leeke mentions not only his third generation of Robert
Peck, the Elder, but the allied Waters family of Robert's wife Johan Waters, via his
*godson* John Waters, probably the brother-in-law of Robert Peck, the Elder, and the
recipient of the largess of John Leeke, and had AS WITNESS TO HIS WILL that same
"John Waters" should NOT escape linkage in this pedigree from the Pecks through to
the Leekes, both of Beccles, to the Waters family who married into the Peck family
circa 1540 [See 14th GENERATION of proposed pedigree, above]. All of this only makes
sense in that the daughter of John Leeke, Margery, married the father of Robert, the
Elder, Henry Peck, testator of Nov, 1525.
Bill Arnold
Lacking further critique, for the record I offer the following summary
of the focal points posted to the gen-medieval archives re: this thread:
see attached proposed pedigree:
Re-cap of the conclusion based on the evidence presented:
that the proposed pedigree of Middleton, allied with Waters
and Leeke, to Peck, 1100-1600 in Yorkshire records
is probably valid:
__________________________________________
Richard Peck=Alice Middleton confirmed via her relatives
William Middleton and William Thwaites
as participants to wills and lands
__________________________________________
Henry Peck=Margery Leeke confirmed via John Leeke
as maker of will to grandson Robert Peck, the Elder,
compelling identity of land descended three generations,
and compelling identity of Waters particpants
as allied family members of Leekes and Pecks
__________________________________________
Robert Peck, the Younger=Joan(Johan) Waters
firmly established and rest of lineage proved
wills and other records in Beccles, et al.
__________________________________________
Bill
***************************************************
WJho...@aol.com
other points are left uncited.
I feel that perhaps the articles you're reading don't actually address those
points, and you're hoping we won't notice the omission. But I can't
overlook it.
Will Johnson
Bill Arnold
I am surprised you found the article(s) "deadly dull" when you claim
you are a descendant.
On the contrary, you are wrong on the *conclusions* of the article(s).
The article(s) had as a PREMISE the desire to challenge the British Museum
*Pedigree of Pecks* which alleged it was fraudulent. I would rather term
the British Museum *Pedigree of Pecks* mistaken. What you did was not
read the article(s) thoroughly enough: you stated you found them "deadly
dull." So, I challenge you to reread them and note this time that the authors
in fact did challenge the Pedigree of Pecks. And I also would remind you
that I wrote here at gen-medieval that I was NOT interested in the Pecks
beyond Richard Peck=Alice Middleton unless someone working with the
primary documents in Yorkshire could work out the Peck lineage, I was
not about to attempt it.
But let us get to the crux of the matter: the lineage I have proposed based
on the conclusions of the authors of the REGISTER in which the proposed
pedigree shifts maternally from Richard Peck into the Middletons via
Alice Middleton is worthy of further investigation. You must have noted
that the top of that lineage, as far as I have stated, are two prominent
knights of early Yorkshire history. The Pecks are descendants, if the
proposed pedigree is valid, of something very interesting historical
personages. I will leave it at that: and rest my case on the FACTS I have
presented and others have brought to the gen-medieval table.
In other words: I will entertain challenges to the FACTS presented: I really
cannot address someone's "deadly dull" reading view of their own ancestry.
Bill
***************************
--- John Brandon <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As a descendant of Rev. Robert Peck, I felt it my duty at one point to
> read through all installments of the article (which was in every
> quarterly issue of the _Register_ across two or three whole years, if
> I'm remembering correctly). The article was deadly dull, but I think
> it convincingly showed that the Beccles Pecks could not have been
> descended from the Yorkshire Pecks (a higher-status family). I think
> it is probably pointless to try to work in some exalted descent by a
> detour to a proposed Leeke line. I'm fairly certain all these people
> (ancestors of Rev. Robert and Joseph) were "in humble life," as the
> expression goes.
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
Bill Arnold
If you consult the archives, I believe I have quoted every source for every
fact. For the most part, they come from the cited REGISTER articles. So,
if you have a particular challenge to a particular FACT, raise it and I will
either supply it anew or direct you to where in the archives it is. There is
no doubt in my mind that we are agreed that in scholarship, one must cite
sources of facts and address conclusions, as such.
Bill
*************************************************************************
--- WJho...@aol.com wrote:
WJho...@aol.com
posting, and then you post a brief extract of part of the article. The extracts
don't cover all your conclusions, so a person has to piece together multiple
newsgroups, removing the conclusions in order to see what the article actually
said, in part.
I've mentioned before that you should not mix your comments into the
comments of the extract. It makes it very confusing for us to separate out what
*you* are saying, what the *author* of the article is saying, and what the
underlying primary source is saying.
The best way to approach the line would be to simply extract the article
details without ANY additional comment. Saving any additional comment for other
postings, or adding those seperately to the end of your posting to make it
more clear.
I don't feel so far, that the article supports your conclusions. I think
you've added many other conclusions from other places. It would be more
helpful if you addressed only ONE fact at a time. Such as the proof that Henry was
the father. Without any additional baggage.
Nathaniel Taylor
John Brandon <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Arnold wrote privately:
>
> > ... I do NOT believe
> > you are a Peck descendant but a negativist reading gen-medieval
> > posts. ...
I tuned out most of this thread, which seemed an inefficient,
cart-before-horse discussion. But this exchange (and Mr. Arnold's
incredulity that John could find an article on his own ancestors boring)
raises an interesting point about perspectives & habits.
Some people who are new to this whole endeavor seem to think that only
descendants are uniquely qualified to research, and above all to
critique, genealogies. Remember the Skipwith-Dale discussion, with Jeff
Chipman's insisting that his descent uniquely qualified him to ignore
logic, and that any criticisms must come from those who were motivated
by envy or competition, and could safely be ignored? Sort of 'descendo
ut intelligam'.
Apparently, Mr. Arnold is interested in the Middletons because he
descends from a Peck colonist who was long ago alleged to be a
descendant of a Yorkshire gentry family with a Middleton marriage.
Hasty searching comes up with this line, posted variously by Mr. Arnold
and rearranged for clarity:
1. Richard Peck, Esq., [of Wakefield, Yorks. d. 1516] = Alice Middleton
2. Henry Peck [of Carlton Colville, Suffolk, d. 1525] = Margery Leeke
3. Robert Peck, Sr. [of Beccles, Suffolk, d. 1556] = Joan Water
4. Robert Peck [of Beccles, Suffolk] = Ellen Babbs
5. Joseph Peck, baptised at Beccles 30 Apr 1587 [immigrant, 1638]
Now, a 2002 post by one Bradford Peck, on the rootsweb Peck list,
handily summarizes a lengthy NEHGR article on the Pecks, appearing in
1935 to 1940, which disproved an earlier pedigree which connected the
last three generations above, with the first, via a John Peck of
Wakefield [d. 1558/9] in generation 2 instead of Henry of Carlton
Colville, Suffolk.
Consult:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/PECK/2002-01/1012515364
The original article is:
S. Allyn Peck [and Frederick Stanhope Peck], "The English Ancestry of
Joseph Peck of Hingham, Mass, in 1638," NEHGR 89-94 (Oct 1935 through
Jan 1940), ...
According to Bradford Peck's summary (quoted below), the 1935-40 article
shows the following holes in the above descent:
> .. the NEHGR series certainly seems to eliminate John Peck of Wakefield, d. 3
> Feb 1558/9 & Joan Anne / Aune as the parents of Robert Peck Sr, d. 1556, of
> Beccles as was reported in both the Ira Peck and Herbert Peck books.
>
> Also the NEHGR series does a good job of establishing John Leeke, d. 1529 as
> Robert Peck Sr.'s maternal grandfather. However Robert Peck's father is not
> identified who married the unidentified daughter of John Leek, d. 1529.
>
> Further that this John Leeke is the probable son of a John Leeke, d. 1504
> (and possibly his wife Alys).
>
> It does suggest early in the series that Robert might be the son of Henry
> Peke, d. 1525, of Carlton Colville, Suffolk (about 5 miles east of Beccles)
> who names his wife Margery, a son Robert and a daughter Kateryn in his will
> dated 16 Apr 1525 & proved Nov 1525. However it is stated: "Thus far no proof
> has been found." [V.89, page 334, Oct 1934].
So apparently the line posted by Mr. Arnold (which, to be fair, did not
originate with him, as Bradford Peck's post notes seeing it distributed
on the internet) is an attempt to revive the earlier Yorkshire gentry
descent for the Suffolk Pecks by assigning Henry Peck of Carlton
Colville, Suffolk, as father of Robert Peck of Beccles, and son of
Richard Peck, Esq. of Wakefield, Yorks. But both assignments are
without evidence, and no evidence suggests any link between the Suffolk
Pecks and the Yorkshire ones. Mr. Arnold has suggested that John
Brandon's reading of the lengthy NEHGR Peck article mistakes its
findings, but John's summary is essentially the same as Bradford Peck's
summary quoted here.
If Mr. Arnold has evidence independent of the 1935-40 NEHGR series to
[re-]connect the Suffolk Pecks to the Yorkshire Peck / Middleton couple,
he should present it clearly.
Throwing up one's hands about Peck, then devoting so muchy energy to the
alleged Middleton ancestry, is a classic beginner's mistake -- or
genealogy of denial.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net/
Bill Arnold
of how one must proceed, I can deal with line item questions based on the proposed
pedigree.
Henry Peck who married Margery had a son named Robert. That is in the will of
Henry, and I believe I gave the citation already for the will in the archives.
Bill
**********************************************************************************
--- WJho...@aol.com wrote:
Bill Arnold
I appreciate it, and aside from some snippets of an obvious relationship
between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Taylor, I do NOT appreciate your disclosure
of a *PRIVATE EMAIL* between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Arnold being posted
to a public newsgroup. You should refrain from invading my privacy, or
anyone else's in the future.
Now: as to the Middleton-Peck-Leeke-Waters families.
Let me recapitulate, in my own way.
Up until John Higgins informed this group *PUBLICLY* that the Middleton
pedigree down to Alice who married Richard Peck was in the *Visitations*
somewhere, I HAD NO IDEA. I admittedly told everyone up front I am a
*naif* compared to the rest of you. Also, I joined gen-medieval recently,
and HAD NO IDEA of the posts of Bradford Peck on a rootsweb Peck list,
because I HAD NO IDEA OF A ROOTSWEB PECK LIST. How naive of me
to be so naive. I wish we all were as smart as Mr. Brandon and Mr. Taylor
who are naive about privacy laws: even on the internet.
For you or anyone else to impugn my character is irrelevant, as far as I am
concerned. Let Mr. Brandon deal with his own privacy as I have. I will NOT
disclose what he wrote me as it was private. I will tell you when I responded
to his message I mistakenly hit send because the newsgroup sets up both
the public and the private email addresses. I have to constantly strip from
my addressee box the private email address. I did forget to delete his email
address. I apologized to Mr. Brandon and asked him to deal with this matter
publicly, because he wrote me in private. Apparently he did NOT accept my
apology.
I am only interested in resolving the question at hand. So: I will respond
to the thoughtful part of your post. Can we keep this matter in the realm
of scholarship?
So: I now know that descendants of Sir Peter Middleton, knight who
married Eustacia Plumpton, include Alice Middleton who married Richard
Peck, and their children. I HAVE THAT CLEAR now, and prior to John
Higgins polite and informative posts, I did not.
Also: from rereading S. Allyn Peck I now KNOW that Robert Peck, the Elder,
of Beccles, was the grandson of John Leeke, of Beccles. That is also fact,
as I read the NEHGSR and you have, I believe, posted it accurately.
QUESTION OF IDENTITY: I ask the membership of gen-medieval, at large,
assistance in establishing whether or not the grandson of John Leeke
can be IDENTIFIED with the son of Henry Peck? It has taken me awhile
to get to the crux of this matter, but I am sure that someone somewhere
on this list with access to wills, church or court records can assist us?
With all due respect to the membership-at-large, and concerned that
someone has brought a *private* email before you, I am
Bill
*************************************************
Bill Arnold
I joined this list after finding it by googling my ancestry concerns
and reading Douglas Hickling's article on Mowbray and Plumpton.
I have since found that the files in Utah are highly questionable,
and most files at rootsweb are highly questionable. Now, who's
fault it that? Should the naive among use be blamed?
I have been doing my personal genealogy since the 1970s. I have not
claimed to be an expert. So, I came with open arms like a naif, and
now find that this group is like the rest of the world, scholars and naifs,
and not all nice. I am reading a few classic ad hominem attacks amongst
you all. Well, have at it.
For me: I would hope that those of you, scholars and naifs, will refrain
from these attacks on honest souls trying to resolve their own ancestry
issues. Sure: I know the scholars want to deal with scholarship questions.
I have *Plantagenet Ancestry* and respect the work that went into it.
I have personally talked for an hour and a half with Gary Boyd Roberts
on the phone, and have to say: what a gentleman to treat me with kindness
and respect.
Now: if some of you wish to ignore threads: why tell us that we have carts
before horses? We naifs do not know better. Show us some respect, or
go back to your classic scholarly concerns and ignore us.
For the scholars like Gary Boyd Roberts, and others who have been kind
to me, and others like me who are interested in *personal* ancestry concerns,
I say: God bless you, and thanks.
If I may ask for indulgence: keep private emails private, and let me explore
my personal ancestry quests privately on a public forum, and let those
scholars who wish out of the largesse of their hearts to assist others: do so!
And for those scholars who have such a high and mighty opinion of themselves,
I suggest: look in the mirror, and look hard, and long. You might want to soften
your perception of yourself, a tad :)
And for those, here, who have been kind enough to assist, and come to the aid
of a genealogy naif, I say thanks,
Bill
WJhonson
Thank you Nat for clearing the muddy waters. Now I understand the situation better.
Will Johnson
WJhonson
Is Robert, known to be listed as a son of Henry Peck of Carlton Colville, the same person as Robert Peck, known to be a grandson of John Leeke of Beccles, and also apparently himself of Beccles.
Can the two Robert Pecks be considered the same person? That's the question. It was the question back in 1940 evidently, and apparently no one still knows.
As to how to prove they are, or they aren't, it would be instructive to enumerate each property coming into the hands of Henry Peck from his relations, and from his wifes, and each one leaving by being sold, etc.
And then do the same for Robert Peck of Beccles, his wife, and children. There are many *times* the number of documents available today publicly, as there were in 1940, so it may be possible to finally answer the question, IF you're willing to do the hard work. Check every personal name, and every property name in A2A for example, see what comes up.
Will Johnson
Bill Arnold
realized something:
Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles, was the *grandson*
Of John Leeke, of Beccles, and named executor in his
grandfather's will. Of course, that means that John Leeke's
dau. was Robert Peck's mother, and his mother was married
to *a* Peck. So, no doubt,there ought to be other documents,
in Yorkshire or Suffolk which would shed light on that Peck,
if it is not Henry Peck, the aforementioned, who had a wife
Margery, and son Robert. And even IF it were Henry Peck,
of nearby Carlton Colville, we would still have the IDENTITY
question looming: was the Henry Peck of Carlton Colville
IDENTICAL to the man who married John Leeke's daughter
and was he the son of Richard Peck and Alice Middleton?
It is not unreasonable to assume it might have been, despite
the one day distance by horse from Yorkshire. We know that
Richard Peck by primogeniture willed his land to his first son
John. But what about the other son of the two sons of Richard
Peck who married Alice Middleton? Because he was the less-
willed son, second by nature, who would take care of him?
Would it not be the father-of-the-bride? And primogeniture
sons by their very nature, heirs of the land, would stay locally
with the land. And the other sons by their very nature, as the
daughters, would have to move away? Leave the natural pack,
and receive largess of fathers-in-laws? Am I understanding
this English system correctly in accordance with the times?
So: we have theoretical Henry, second son of Alice Middleton,
and daughters, moving to where the fathers-in-law would
grant them land and holdings? So: what is wrong with the
scenario of this proposed pedigree? Nothing: except proof?
Indeed. So: I submit, unless my logic is faulty, and I stand
to be corrected, the plausibility still exists that this is a viable
pedigree, wanting proof? It does not seem unreasonable to
me that the Pecks of Yorkshire became the Pecks of the
largess of John Leeke of Beccles, and the second son followed
his bride south to Carlton Colville and nearby Beccles. I
seem to recall that William I "The Lion" King of Scotland
himself was involved with a number of ladies other than
his wife of-the-time: and fathered distant relatives, only
a day's horse ride away? Unless, I am mistaken? And what
was good for a king might good for a knight or a lesser
nobleman?
Awaiting a *nice* scholar, or scholarly scholar interested
in solving a pedigree puzzle, for finding proof! After all,
the father of Robert Peck, the Elder, was a Peck, by definition.
Only his identity is lacking: for we KNOW he married the daughter
of John Leeke of Beccles. Cannot argue with that fact, according
to primary documents. And we cannot argue with that other fact,
according to other primary documents that Richard Peck and his
wife Alice Middleton had another son, unnamed and unfound,
at this point. Why cannot scholars solve this missing IDENTITY
in their Medieval midst? What are they afraid of finding: more
skeletons? Is that not the stuff of this stuff? I read among your
posts that there is bitter dispute about these matters. So: solve
this one. It is a worthy lineage of pursuit, or have none of you
checked out the ancestors of Eustacia Plumpton? Go ahead:
compete over something worth competing over.
I award the First Annual Pedigree Prize of the Gen-Medieval Society
and Academy of Scholars to the recipient finder!
WJhonson
No Bill. Every attempt to fit a framework like this must fail. Every father, and every father-in-law could do what they wanted with second, third, fourth, sons and sons-in-law. To try to force the issue only clouds the necessary work that must be done to prove a connection. There are as many "rules" as there are exceptions, and thus the rules become non-rules. That is, the rules are false modern attempts to put an order on something that wasn't.
It is not unreasonable to assume it might have been. But that isn't evidence. It might have been completely upside-down as well. Still not evidence. It's just as likely that second sons moved away, as that they didn't, we have examples on both sides.
What's wrong with your proposal is that you haven't yet attempted to collect the evidence. YOU can do it yourself, you don't need help. The work is available online to scour, anyone can do it. You shouldn't expect someone else to do the work for you, because in general they won't. Unless you're in the paying mood that is.
You shouldn't say that Robert being grandson of John is a "fact" it doesn't help your argument and makes it sound like you're shrill. There is compelling evidence that he was, "facts" are hard to find in genealogy.
So get to work. We await YOUR new findings.
Will Johnson
Bill Arnold
If I send my emails as Bill, and you choose to call me Arnold,
what do I make of that? I guess I cannot count on you to assist
me in my ancestry?
Sir Hines, I am NOT confused.
When I send an email to the gen-medieval list, it is *public.*
When I send an email to a personal address, it is *private.*
If you do NOT understand that, then YOU are confused.
With all due respect,
count your friends if you violate THAT trust,
on less than one finger,
Bill
***************************
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> Arnold is VERY confused.
>
> There is nothing PRIVATE about an email.
>
> DSH
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
> "John Brandon" <starb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1193083917.2...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > Ha ha ... once again, *funny funny*.
> >
> > I have never sent you a private email, whereas you have sent me two (a
> > copy of your posting, and the little follow-up gem I posted above).
> > That wasn't "nice," I suppose, but I am known for being "a hateful,
> > spiteful person" on this group. Most of the "good people" won't even
> > condescend to speak to me.
> >
> > But it is absolutely false for you to claim I sent you a private
> > email.
> >> Also: from rereading S. Allyn Peck I now KNOW that Robert Peck, the
> >> Elder,
> >> of Beccles, was the grandson of John Leeke, of Beccles. That is also
> >> fact,
> >> as I read the NEHGSR and you have, I believe, posted it accurately.
> >>
> >> QUESTION OF IDENTITY: I ask the membership of gen-medieval, at large,
> >> assistance in establishing whether or not the grandson of John Leeke
> >> can be IDENTIFIED with the son of Henry Peck? It has taken me awhile
> >> to get to the crux of this matter, but I am sure that someone somewhere
> >> on this list with access to wills, church or court records can assist us?
> >>
> >> With all due respect to the membership-at-large, and concerned that
> >> someone has brought a *private* email before you, I am
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >> *************************************************
> >>
> >> --- Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > In article <1193068839.697266.202...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > descent for the Suffolk Pecks by assigning Henry Peck of Carlton
> >> > Colville, Suffolk, as father of Robert Peck of Beccles, and son of
> >> > Richard Peck, Esq. of Wakefield, Yorks. But both assignments are
> >> > without evidence, and no evidence suggests any link between the Suffolk
> >> > Pecks and the Yorkshire ones. Mr. Arnold has suggested that John
> >> > Brandon's reading of the lengthy NEHGR Peck article mistakes its
> >> > findings, but John's summary is essentially the same as Bradford Peck's
> >> > summary quoted here.
> >>
> >> > If Mr. Arnold has evidence independent of the 1935-40 NEHGR series to
> >> > [re-]connect the Suffolk Pecks to the Yorkshire Peck / Middleton
> >> > couple,
> >> > he should present it clearly.
> >>
> >> > Throwing up one's hands about Peck, then devoting so muchy energy to
> >> > the
> >> > alleged Middleton ancestry, is a classic beginner's mistake -- or
> >> > genealogy of denial.
> >>
> >> > Nat Taylor
> >> >http://www.nltaylor.net/
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
Bill Arnold
Will, my dear friend, which you are proving to be,
as John Higgins, before you, I understand, well,
indeed. I have been a journalist and now am a scholar,
in other fields, although I am not new to genealogy.
You mention acronym 2A2, or A2A, and online, whatever,
but you, as a medieval scholar, with a website, no less,
must know that we naifs out here are not sophomoric
which used to mean *between the walls* inasmuch as
we outsiders are NOT privy to what is between the walls,
so open the ivy please and tell me WHERE online I can do
my work? I am willing to do it, and report back to:
gen-medieval, unless someone wants the Award rather
than I win it by default :)
Bill
*******************************************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
WJhonson
A2A stands for Access to Archives and the other main source is called
ProCat
Both are linked off my Sources page here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources
Will Johnson
D. Spencer Hines
The recipient of an email has no such obligation.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.381.11930970...@rootsweb.com...
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, thanks much, Nathaniel, for the summary of the whole situation.
> I appreciate it, and aside from some snippets of an obvious relationship
> between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Taylor, I do NOT appreciate your disclosure
> of a *PRIVATE EMAIL* between Mr. Brandon and Mr. Arnold being posted
> to a public newsgroup. You should refrain from invading my privacy, or
> anyone else's in the future.
>
> Now: as to the Middleton-Peck-Leeke-Waters families.
>
> Let me recapitulate, in my own way.
>
> Up until John Higgins informed this group *PUBLICLY* that the Middleton
> pedigree down to Alice who married Richard Peck was in the *Visitations*
> somewhere, I HAD NO IDEA. I admittedly told everyone up front I am a
> *naif* compared to the rest of you. Also, I joined gen-medieval recently,
> and HAD NO IDEA of the posts of Bradford Peck on a rootsweb Peck list,
> because I HAD NO IDEA OF A ROOTSWEB PECK LIST. How naive of me
> to be so naive. I wish we all were as smart as Mr. Brandon and Mr. Taylor
> who are naive about privacy laws: even on the internet.
>
> For you or anyone else to impugn my character is irrelevant, as far as I am
> concerned...
Your 'character' is not intentionally impugned here; people have only
picked up on an apparent lack of experience in genealogy--and there's
nothing wrong with that. Your posts have exhibited a classic problem,
though: you are interested in pursuing the ancestry of Alice Middleton,
wife of Richard Peck, esquire, of Wakefield, Yorkshire. S. Allyn Peck
showed that, although this couple existed and are found in visitations &
other primary sources (so one could certainly research their
ancestries), there is no evidence that they are ancestors of Joseph Peck
(hence of you). Realizing this may save you some effort which you can
redirect into pursuing your real ancestry. If you want to add to the
sum of knowledge about Joseph Peck's ancestry, begin with his known
ancestors and work backwards. You seem already to be responding that,
shifting your curiosity to Leeke, etc. S. Allyn Peck's long NEHGR
article is quite thorough in going over the known Suffolk Peck and
apparent Leek ancestry. A2A is certainly the easiest place to see
whether you can dredge up new primary sources beyond the wills, IPMs and
chancery suits found by S. Allyn Peck. Forget Yorkshire and the
Middletons.
I hove now skimmed S. Allen Peck's 72-page article, and admit I share
John's yawn (overkill on the documents in extenso), except for the
forgery part. The alleged Yorkshire connection comes from a
20-generation pedigree supplied in 1853 to wealthy American descendant
Ira Peck by none other than Horatio Gates Somerby, the prolific forger.
It is gently impugned by S. Allyn Peck, without being too bald in
fingering Somerby. Somerby told Ira Peck it can be found in BL MS Add.
5524, folio 152 (recte 158), and S. Allyn Peck printed a facsimile, in
five plates tipped in before NEHGR 90 (1936):371. I wonder if anyone
familiar with Somerby's own manuscripts (maybe Paul Reed?) could say
definitely if this pedigree is in Somerby's own hand. What is the
acquisition date / provenance of BL Add. MS 5524? I do not find it in
the BL Catalogue, online.
Didn't someone (Paul?) years ago post a list of potentially suspect
Somerby projects found in FHL manuscripts? Or am I thinking only of the
Gustave Anjou bibliography found in the Evans festschrift?
If people are interested, I have posted the entirety of S. Allyn Peck's
72 page NEHGR article online, including the facsimile of the forged
20-generation pedigree, here (3.7 MB):
http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR.pdf
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Bill Arnold
I will try it, and report back my findings.
Bill
PS
Have you read my book which has your name Will
on the title page?
********************************************
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
D. Spencer Hines
that the Peck article was "To be continued".
Was it?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-1A...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Bill Arnold
You are confused. Send that response to all your email friends,
privately. It IS a question of TRUST, and it your friends do NOT
trust you, then they will NOT send you a private email. I certainly
will not, but then you probably think I am not your friend?
Who OWNS the legal rights to a letter, the recipient or the maker?
Although the internet is NEW, it still has LUX and VERITAS,
as in:
VE - RI - TAS
and
LIB - ER - TAS
and that freedom you praise rests on TRUST:
as we journalists say: trust me on this. Ever hear of Fleet Street?
But can you be trusted?
"sequere me et dimitte mortuos sepelire mortuos suos"
***************************
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
D. Spencer Hines
will always be treated as a PRIVATE communication.
Bill Arnold
"Were you talking about the 'Last Will'?"
Not really. Try this:
Bill
************************************************
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com>
> To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Middleton pedigree, 1100-1600: Leeke and Peck and Waters
>
>
> > Much thanks, Will.
> >
> > I will try it, and report back my findings.
> >
> > Bill
> > PS
> > Have you read my book which has your name Will
> > on the title page?
************************************************
>
> >
> > ********************************************
> > --- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There are two main sources for access (at least citations to) actual
> >> primary documents, deeds,
> >> wills, contracts, etc from the medieval period, (as opposed to
> >> compilations, extracts,
> >> abstracts, discussions...)
> >>
> >> A2A stands for Access to Archives and the other main source is called
> >> ProCat
> >>
> >> Both are linked off my Sources page here
> >> http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources
> >>
> >> Will Johnson
Bill Arnold
and you remind me of that other world leader,
Monsieur K., who, when he did not get his own way
at the United Nations, took off his shoe and pounded
it on the table.
Are YOU suggesting I am a fool?
Monsieur, unless it escapes you: I am speaking philosophically
to a list of gents, who ought at least to understand a question
of *ethics* when they see it.
Have you any, Monsieur?
If you do, I believe you will respect my privacy as I respect yours,
unless of course you become a public figure as when I worked
for the Fleet Street boys, here in America. Then, of course, you
are fair game.
As a former journalist, and occasional *stringer* to world media
sources, I have a thick skin, so this is all an academic discussion
to me. Apparently, you do not see it that way, and insist upon
invective and ad hominem. As I said earlier, have at it. I am still
here, waiting in this wings for the real fool, stage left :)
You must understand: all this reflects upon the unethical behaviour
of someone who *repostes* [pun intended] a private email to a
public list. They lack a code of ethics, pure and simple. I will not
be a party to such unethical behaviour, and apologize wheneve I
err in that direction. I made it clear and simple that this listserver
automatically puts up the private email address and the public
email address in the addressee box. You are NOT on my private
list, nor would you EVER be. Period. As in: end of thought,
sentence, and communication.
Bill
************************************
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
D. Spencer Hines
Anyone who sends an email to another is a fool if he thinks such an email
will always be treated as a PRIVATE communication.
Further, this fool, Arnold, is doubly foolish in that he thinks he can blame
his error on his listserver.
Obviously, he needs to get a listserver where HE can control the addressees
to whom he sends messages -- or continue to screw the pooch royally -- and
daily...
To the Great Amusement of us all.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Bill Arnold" <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.413.11931411...@rootsweb.com...
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/23/2007 4:40:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
billar...@yahoo.com writes:
http://www.past-perfect-florida-history-books.com/?CLSN_381=1193138848381a9dc5
0b7fbaa4205d97&keyword=BILL+ARNOLD&searchby=author&page=shop%2Fbrowse&fsb=1&Se
arch=Search
------------------------------
Bill Arnold is the author of three books
_http://umassmag.com/2006/Fall06/ClassNotes/bookmarks.html_
(http://umassmag.com/2006/Fall06/ClassNotes/bookmarks.html)
WJho...@aol.com
WJhonson writes:
Bill Arnold is the author of three books
_http://umassmag.com/2006/Fall06/ClassNotes/bookmarks.html_
(http://umassmag.com/2006/Fall06/ClassNotes/bookmarks.html)
Will Johnson>>
-------------------------
But Will, what is this book "Gospel according to Will" about anyway?
I'm glad you asked Will, here is the book descrip. in Bill's own words
_http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2002/2451.html_
(http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2002/2451.html)
BEGIN QUOTE
JESUS: The Gospel According To Will: "Thy Kingdom Come, thy Will Be
Done," ISBN 1892582-01-5, 2002.
I would suggest to SHAKSPEReans that the book is about JESUS primarily,
as per the title, with an three-part apologia: with history of the
ancient texts of the NT; history of primarily English translations up to
the KJV; and 179 KJV paradigms, focusing on key quotations of Jesus,
selected and organized by the author. The book attempts in the central
portion of the apologia to cover the history of the Will Shakespeare
question of whether or not he actually translated any portions of the
KJV, with all the known referents included. I gave my opinion in
summary in my previous post to SHAKSPER.
Bill Arnold
END QUOTE
Will Johnson "The Other"
D. Spencer Hines
Hmmmmmmm...
What's this undue fascination with Emily Dickinson's behind?
Tawdry...
And:
Necrophilic
DSH
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.431.11931650...@rootsweb.com...
Bill Arnold
As a sample of hundreds if not thousands of citations, I submit,
seeking your thoughts of procedure, selection and then viewing:
____________________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C 1/627/25
Thomas Drawer and Katherine, his wife, daughter and heir of John Leeke. v. Robert Pekk of Beccles:
Detention of deeds relating to a messuage and land in Toft sometime of William Davy, who mortgaged
the same to the said John.: Norfolk. . Detailed description
Date range: 1529 - 1532.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
________________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C
1/1022/33-37
John LEEKE, esquire, grandson and heir of William Foxe, gentleman, v. Godfrey FULJAMBE, knight,
and Thomas BAXTER his servant.: Distress on land in Hasland.: DERBY. . Detailed description at
item level John LEEKE, esquire, grandson and heir of William
Date range: 1538 - 1544.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
________________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. DR429/55
Quit claim by Joh. {John?} Vavasour, Tho. {Thomas?} Wode, Justices of the Common Bench, Will
Cutlerd and Joh. {John?} Leeke to Tho. {Thomas?} Bowde, etc. (DR429/52) of all title in the land,
etc., sold by Marquis of Dorset. Extent, etc. given. Signatures
Date: 1499.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
------------------------------------------------
Information relating to document ref. no. DD/FJ/4/8/2
Bill in Chancery 1) Francis Neryng and wife Kateryn, a daughter of Sir John Leeke of Sutton
(Derbs.), Kt. 2) Sir Godfrey Fuliambe, Kt., uncle and guardian of John L., son and heir of Sir
J.L. (1) claim from (2) 100 marks bequeathed to K.M. by her father,
Date: 1533.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
________________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. DD/FJ/4/6/1
Marriage covenants 1) Hen. {Henry?} Foliambe, son., of Walton, esq. 2) John Leeke, son., of Sutton
in the Dale, esq. Godfrey F. son and heir of (1) (or if he die, Thos. {Thomas?} F. 2nd son) to
marry Katherine daughter of (2) (or if she die, Muriel, 2nd
Date: 1489.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
_______________________________________________________
Demise GIL/1/173, 716 x 8Demise in fee by William Waterman at request of executors of William
Wright to John Leeke of messuage called Clerkys and Gylberdys, in Gillingham
Date: 1518.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
________________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. DD/FJ/7/5/1
Lease 1) John Leeke of Sutton in the Dale, (Derbs.) esq. 2) Rich. {Richard?} Bate of Landford,
yeo. (1) to (2) manor of Landford etc., for 41 yrs; 53s.4d. p.a. Seal.
Date: 1512.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
_______________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. DD/FJ/4/6/4
Feoffment 1) John Leeke, esq. 2) Hen. {Henry?} Vernon, Hen. {Henry?} Foliambe and Ralph Oker. (1)
to (2) manors of Kyrkhalum (Kirk Hallam, Derbs.) and Colyngham (Collingham, Notts.); to uses as in
570. Given at Sutton in the Dale. Seal.
Date: 1489.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
______________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. DD/FJ/4/8/4
Award as above. 1) Sir Jas. {James?} F. as above. 2) John Leeke, esq., brother of Sir F.L. Re
legacies in will of father of (2) and rents etc. as above. Neither party to molest the other, but
without prejudice to (2)'s claim to land or rents worth £10
Date: 1548.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
_____________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. D239 M/E 14492
Lease for 60 years from Michaelmas last past by Eleanor dowager countess of Rutland, and her son
Henry, earl of Rutland, to John Leeke esq., servant to the earl, and Margaret Paston his wife,
natural sister of the countess, of the manor of Warsop. Timber
Date: 1551.
________________________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C 1/1243/29
Francis LEEK, knight, and John LEEK, v. James FOLJAMB, knight, son and executor of Godfrey
Foljamb, knight.: Goods and profits of lands of John Leek, knight, deceased, father of
complainant.: NOTTS, DERBY. . Detailed description at item level Francis
Date range: 1544 - 1551.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________
Exchequer: Treasury of Receipt: Ancient Deeds, Series AA E 41/45/(iv)
Godfrey Foliambe knight: lands of the inheritance of Francis Leek son and heir of John Leek
knight: manors of Hartston (Leics.) Elston, [East] Stoke, Gedling, Stoke Bardolf, Saxondale [in
Shalford], Langford (Landford) (Nott.), Kirk Hallam, (Kyrkhalom)
Date range: 1523 - 1524.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________
Power of attorney by John Leek of Halom and Thomas Leek of Newerk to John Halgh to deliver seisin
to Alice widow of John Leek of Landford, esquire of their manor of Crownest Regehall, and in all
their lands in the parish of St. John's, Worcester. MS 3688/277
Date: 1450.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
_____________________________________________
Attorney from Alice widow of John Leek of Landford, esq. to Richard Foston to receive seisin from
John Leek of Halom and Thomas Leek of Newerk, of the manor of Crownest Regeall in St. John's
Parish, Worcester. MS 3688/278
Date: 1450.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
______________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C 1/653/50
Francis Leek of Sutton, esquire, son and heir of John Leek, knight. v. Godfrey Fulgham, knight.:
Detention of deeds relating to the manor of Sutton and messuages, watermills, land and rent there;
the manors of Leake and Langford and messuages, land and
Date range: 1529 - 1532.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_________________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/21
Will of Sir John Leek ,
Date: 1523.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
_________________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/14
Will of John Leek , of Sutton Le Dale, Derbyshire
Date: 1505.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
__________________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C
1/1102/37-39
Godfrey BOSWELL, gentleman, and Jane his wife, a daughter of John Hardwyk of Derby, esquire,
deceased, v. John LEEK, esquire, and Henry MARMYON, gentleman, feoffees to user.: Share of profits
of messuages and lands in Hardwick (in Ault Hucknall), Lownde,
Date range: 1544 - 1547.
_______________________________________________________
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Depositions taken by Commission E 134/42Eliz/Trin10
Charles Yelverton, "Her Ma't's farmer." v. Cuthbert Browne, William Goodye, John Leekes.: Right
and title to pasture grounds called "The Delfes" and "Oldelfes" and "The Pingle," in the Isle of
Ely (Cambridge), claimed by plaintiff, such claim being resisted
Date range: 1599 - 1600.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
______________________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C 1/855/22
Francis Meryng and Katherine, his wife, a daughter of John Leek, knight. v. Godfrey Fuljambe,
knight.: Manors of Sutton-in-the-Dale, Sandiacre, Normanton, Chesterfield, Great and Little Leake,
Lanforth (i.e. Langford ?), Hucknall Torkard, Colwick, Carcolston,
Date range: 1533 - 1538.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________________
King's Remembrancer: Accounts Various E 101/72/1/1021
Parties to Indenture: Indentures between the king and the following, retaining them for service in
his invasion of France John Leek . Parties to Indenture: Indentures between the king and the
following, retaining them for service in his invasion of France
Date range: 1474 - 1475.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________________
Information relating to document ref. no. DD/FJ/1/52/12
Release 1) John Robartte alias Gyles of Birley, son of Giles Robarte. 2) Hen. {Henry?} Foliambe,
lord of Walton, esq. (1) to (2) 16a. he had from Wm. {William?} Smyth and John Mymmotte of
Morysburgh. Witn: Hen. {Henry?} Vernon, esq., John Leek, esq, John
Date: 1488.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
________________________________________________________
Court Book of Assemblies and Hundreds WIN/54
£3 6s 8d Henry Peck for a messuage and acre at Strand 10s Owners of Castle Field
and the messuage in Quarter 7 where Henry Peck lives £8 - paid by Adam Ashburnham
esq Thomas Tokey for the Lamp House £2 5 costs for obtaining patent = at least
£258 + £150
Date range: 1586 - 1597.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
______________________________________________
Quit claim DE/HL/12241
By William Scott, esq, John Tufton, esq, and Henry Peck, to Robert Marche in regard to
land in Rye, Peasmarsh and Udimore. Field names given. Signatures. Seals
Date: 1560.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
____________________________________________________________
Additions to the estate: Messuage and land, Knossington
On 16 March 1750 Henry Peck of Knossington, gent, mortgaged to Henry Clarke of
Leicester, hosier, having previously on 19 & 20 October 1749 settled the property on
the marriage of his son Robert Peck and Elizabeth Hand. On 22 January 1785 Robert Peck of
Date range: 1500 - 1957.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
____________________________________________________
Deeds relating to COUNTY OF YORK KM/153
Grant by William Fournes of Southe Kyrkby, to Robert Melton, Esquire, Thomas Wentworth,
Esquire, John Peck, rector of the Church of Warsoppe, and others, of lands in the County
of York, for carrying out his last will. Witnesses, John Wentworth, John Flyntell.
Date: 1495.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
____________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C 1/1368/76
Robert MOLEHOWSE v. Henry PECKE.: Detention of deeds relating to land in Wattisfield and Walsham,
late of the free chapel of Redgrave and Botesdale.: SUFFOLK. . Detailed description at item level
Robert MOLEHOWSE v. Henry PECKE.: Detention of deeds relating
Date range: 1553 - 1555.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
____________________________________________
Unexecuted bond in £200 to perform covenants WIN/2045
Henry Pecke of Winchelsea and John Pecke of Peasemarsh, gent, to Robert Ashenden
of Northgate near Canterbury in Kent, yeoman, and Richard Ashenden of Ripe, yeoman
Title of two pieces of fresh marsh (20a) in Padiham Marsh in Icklesham, conveyed by HP to
Date: 1584.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
_____________________________________________________
Quit claim DE/HL/12241
By William Scott, esq, John Tufton, esq, and Henry Peck, to Robert Marche in
regard to land in Rye, Peasmarsh and Udimore. Field names given. Signatures. Seals
Date: 1560.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
____________________________________________________
Unexecuted bond in £200 to perform covenants WIN/2045
Henry Pecke of Winchelsea and John Pecke of Peasemarsh, gent, to Robert Ashenden
of Northgate near Canterbury in Kent, yeoman, and Richard Ashenden of Ripe, yeoman
Title of two pieces of fresh marsh (20a) in Padiham Marsh in Icklesham, conveyed by HP to
Date: 1584.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
______________________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and
Mary C 1/1368/76
Robert MOLEHOWSE v. Henry PECKE.: Detention of deeds relating to land in Wattisfield
and Walsham, late of the free chapel of Redgrave and Botesdale.: SUFFOLK. . Detailed
description at item level Robert MOLEHOWSE v. Henry PECKE.: Detention of deeds relating
Date range: 1553 - 1555.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
___________________________________________________
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to
Charles I C 142/129/61
Peck, Richard: York . Peck, Richard: York The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1560 - 1561.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
__________________________________________________
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to
Charles I C 142/70/54
Peck, Richard: Leicester . Peck, Richard: Leicester The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1544 - 1545.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
______________________________________________
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Escheators' Files, Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II,
and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to Elizabeth I E 150/1166/1
Peck, Kenelm: Leicester . Peck, Kenelm: Leicester The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1579 - 1580.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to Charles I C
142/129/61Peck, Richard: York . Peck, Richard: York The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1560 - 1561.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to Charles I C
142/70/54
Peck, Richard: Leicester . Peck, Richard: Leicester The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1544 - 1545.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
________________________________________________
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Escheators' Files, Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other
Inquisitions, Henry VII to Elizabeth I E 150/1166/1
Peck, Kenelm: Leicester . Peck, Kenelm: Leicester The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1579 - 1580.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_________________________________________________
Tibenham and Carleton Rode: enfeoffment 12/14William Williams de Carleton Rode son and heir of
John Williams de Carleton Rode to Thomas Pecke, clerk, Henry Cossey (Costesey), clerk, John Pecke
de Carleton [Rode] and Thomas Wikes of the same, enfeoffment of land in Tybenham. Tibenham, 5
October, 18
Date: 1478.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
________________________________________________
Tibenham, Carleton Rode, Bunwell and Haddeston: gift 12/15
William Williams de Carleton Rode to Thomas Pecke, clerk, Henry Cossey (Costesey), clerk, John
Pecke de Carleton [Rode] and Thomas Wikes of the same, gift of land in Tybenham, Carleton [Rode],
Bunwelle and Haston (Haddeston?). Tibenham, 5 October, 18 Edward
Date: 1478.
Source: Access to Archives (A2A): not kept at The National Archives
__________________________________________________________
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to Charles I C
142/122/49
Peck, John: York . Peck, John: York The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1558 - 1559.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
_______________________________________________
Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other Inquisitions, Henry VII to Charles I C
142/233/107
Peck, Thomas: Norfolk . Peck, Thomas: Norfolk The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1591 - 1592.
_______________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/16Will of John Leeke ,
Date: 1508.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
______________________________________________
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Answers etc, before 1660 C 4/68/48
Thomas Leeke v. John Leeke: answer Date of document: Sixteenth century . Thomas Leeke v. John
Leeke: answer Date of document: Sixteenth century The National Archives, Kew
Date range: 1501 - 1600.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
___________________________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/22
Will of Sir John Leeke , late Vicar of Carshalton, Surrey
Date: 1526.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
___________________________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/94
Will of John Leeke , Yeoman of Astrop, Northamptonshire
Date: 1599.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
__________________________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/9
Will of John Leeke ,
Date: 1492.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
___________________________________________________________
Online Document PROB 11/54Will of John Leeke , of Edmonton, Middlesex
Date: 1572.
Source: DocumentsOnline (images of documents from The National Archives)
______________________________________________________
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
WJhonson
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to Philip and Mary C 1/627/25
Thomas Drawer and Katherine, his wife, daughter and heir of John Leeke. v. Robert Pekk of Beccles:
Detention of deeds relating to a messuage and land in Toft sometime of William Davy, who mortgaged
the same to the said John.: Norfolk. . Detailed description
Date range: 1529 - 1532.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives >>
Certainly this one should draw your eye as it would imply yet another generation of Robert Peck of Beccles since it's dated 1529-32 much too early to be the one who m Joan Waters and had a son and heir in 1548, esp if that Robert who m Joan is "second son" to his father.
It would however, seem to tell us that John Leeke was dead by at least 1532, we knew that his will was dated 6 Sep 1529, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that he actually dead shortly afterward.
Will
Bill Arnold
Yes: it drew my attention: which is why I pasted it first.
I believe it might BE the Chancery case cited and quoted in the serialization
articles in NEHGSRegister in the 1930s: I believe that was undated? I will
have to revisit that. Or, you may be on to something: we know there was
a Robert Peck, Jr., married Ellen Babbs, 22 Jul 1573, and the Robert Peck,
the Elder, married Johan(Joan) Waters, and that John Leeke mentioned the
Waters family in his will(leaving money to his Waters godson) and mentioning
a male Waters family member, perhaps brother of Johan. This Robert Peck,
the Elder, who I have as died, Oct 1556, was charged in grandfather John Leeke's
will to care for John Leeke's widow, hence her inheritance would fall to the
same Robert Peck, the Elder.
Now: do we merely look at this citation, and others, and draw conclusions
such as these?
Or: do we seek the full documents behind the citations? Using your super
powers of investigation, what scenario is behind it in terms of particpants
in these related families?
Also: procedural question, if it were you doing this on your own behalf,
what process would you pursue with these hundreds of citations? Is there
an advanced search procedure I should use? Are there more detailed citations
I am missing? Or is this the only info A2A offers?
Lastly: have you a BEST online map of the area of Suffolk and Yorkshire which
would clarify the geography as it relates to A2A citations?
Bill
PS
interesting you found that UMass-Amherst item: I did not know it existed:
try:
__________________
--- WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
WJho...@aol.com
<<In a message dated 10/24/2007 9:17:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
billar...@yahoo.com writes:
Also: procedural question, if it were you doing this on your own behalf,
what process would you pursue with these hundreds of citations? Is there
an advanced search procedure I should use? Are there more detailed citations
I am missing? Or is this the only info A2A offers? >>
--------------------------------------
The ones to review first are the ones that confound the pedigree in some
way, or clarify it greatly. Pick three, see how to order copies.
Bill Arnold
Will do.
Bill aka Will
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
******************************
--- WJho...@aol.com wrote:
Bill Arnold
Peck, gateway ancestor to America, b.1587, immigrant of 1638 from England,
and his grandfather, Robert Peck, the Elder,d.Nov 1556, see gen-medieval archives,
Middleton pedigree: 1100-1600 and addenda.]
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Peck,d.Nov 1556=1st, dau.of Norton?,2nd, Johan(Joan) Waters,d. Oct 1556
[source: *English Ancestry of Joseph Peck,* NEHGSR, 1930s]
________________________________________________________________________________
The authors of the above serialization created a can of worms in Peck genealogy,
and the serialized articles need to be revisited: the crux of the Peck pedigree segment
under scrutiny begins with the search for the immediate ancestors of Robert Peck,
the Elder, so-called of Beccles. All previous assumptions and declarations are set aside
in favor of establishing the IDENTITY FACTS of Robert Peck, the Elder, d.Nov 1556.
IDENTITY FACT 1: Contrary to the appelation "of Beccles" and its implications, Robert
Peck, the Elder,d.Nov 1556, was not born in Beccles. He arrived in Beccles from places
unknown c.1525, inasmuch as it was stated clearly in a deposition of 1537 that he
had lived in Beccles about 12 years. His name did not "appear under Beccles in the
subsidy of 1524, for he was not then a resident of Beccles. Since, however he was living
in Beccles as early as 1525 and in 1529 was one of the executors of the will of John
Leek..." [authors comment in quotes: Oct 1939, page 361].
The authors investigate, to their satisfaction, not mine, and allege the following:
"That the first Robert Peck of Beccles, one of the two executors of the will of John Leek
of Beccles, was not a native of Beccles, but had taken up his residence there about 1525,
is proved by his deposition dated 23 May 1537, in a case concerning the testament of
John Coke, late of Beccles, deceased." [authors comment in quotes: Oct 1939, page 360].
In the deposition, the authors found "Robert Pecke, of Beccles, where he had resided
for 12 years, of free condition, saith he has known testator and executor for seven years.
Duly sworn and examined he saith that the Testament then exhibited agrees in everything
with the Testament read to him." (Causes Ecclesiastical, Diocese of Norwich, year 1537,
folio 150)." [authors citation in quotes: Oct 1939, page 360].
Obviously, there is conflict of conclusions in the above commentary by the authors about
their citations in the texts. Based on these and other alleged facts, the authors proport to
draw proper conclusions based on whether or not this Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles,
could or could not have been the Robert Peck of Beccles, son of John Peck in the Peck
pedigree in the British Museum created by the College of Heralds, dated 1620, and published
in 1936 in this serialization of articles of Joseph Peck, whose grandfather is now under
investigation. The authors draw conclusions on age of participants, places of residence,
interpretation of the word "neve" in texts which often are interpreted either as "nephew"
or "grandson," by them and others, without redressing the entire text with this questionable
translation, and dismiss a pedigree in the British Museum in its totality as "fraudulent"
when it fact it is based on two previous and accepted *Visitations.*
The authors herein allege this Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles, married twice, first, a
daughter
of Walter Norton of Halesworth, Suffolk. They state that a Richard Pek and Maryon Pek
were found in a lay subsidy in Suffolk in 1524. A William Pek is identified as an associate.
Land, of three acres, and pasture was in the tenure of a Robert Pecke and Anne Carre,
a widow, in 1549-50. [Oct 1939, page 360]
However, the identity of all these Pecks, and their relationships is not discussed nor fixed.
The authors make assumptions and draw conclusions about the parentage of Robert Peck
of Beccles and his birthplace. The authors state "The surname is common both to Norfolk
and to Suffolk from a very early date...It is evident, nevertheless, that the Pecks in that
section
of Norfolk, near Beccles, were not very prolific, as no testators of the name have been
found there in the records of the Norfolk probate records." [authors comment in quotes:
oct 1939, page 361]
The authors assume and dismiss conclusions without a factual basis of the true and
certain birthplace of Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles. One identity fact is true and
certain from this record and commentary by the authors: Robert Peck, the Elder,
was not born in Beccles nor had he lived there until c.1525 according to a recorded
deposition to which he was a signed party.
Bill
PS
I believe I had made a true and certain record of my sources and if anyone finds I err,
I will gladly correct this *Peck pedigree* in gen-medieval in the interest of scholarship.
***************
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<...>
> The authors of the above serialization created a can of worms in Peck
> genealogy,
> and the serialized articles need to be revisited:
The 'need' for revisitation is nothing other than your refusal to accept
the obvious conclusions of Miss Peck's careful work.
For the record, the article in question is:
S[hirley] Allyn Peck: "The English Ancestry of Joseph Peck, of Hingham,
Mass., in 1638," _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_ 89
(1935):327-39; 90 (1936):58-67, 194-198, 263-68, 371-73 [and plates
I-IVa]; 91 (1937):7-15, 282-86, 355-63; 92 (1938):71-73; 93 (1939),
176-78, 359-61; 94 (1940):71-73.
The article also indicates that it was 'compiled' by Miss Peck and
'communicated' or 'contributed' by Frederick Stanhope Peck of
Barrington, Rhode Island. But I take this to mean that FS Peck simply
transmitted Miss Peck's to the society.
At this last page it is stated that it is "to be continued," but no
further parts are found in the NEHGR by searching the online index for
Miss Peck's or Mr. FS Peck's names.
> the crux of the Peck
> pedigree segment
> under scrutiny begins with the search for the immediate ancestors of Robert
> Peck,
> the Elder, so-called of Beccles. All previous assumptions and declarations
> are set aside
> in favor of establishing the IDENTITY FACTS of Robert Peck, the Elder, d.Nov
> 1556.
>
> IDENTITY FACT 1: Contrary to the appelation "of Beccles" and its
> implications, ...
"of Beccles" is used not to claim he was a native of a place, but--as is
perfectly common usage in such discussions--to indicate that he lived
much of his adult life there. Miss Peck was aware that this Robert Peck
was not born at Beccles.
> ... Robert
> Peck, the Elder,d.Nov 1556, was not born in Beccles. He arrived in Beccles
> from places
> unknown c.1525, inasmuch as it was stated clearly in a deposition of 1537
> that he
> had lived in Beccles about 12 years. His name did not "appear under Beccles
> in the
> subsidy of 1524, for he was not then a resident of Beccles. Since, however
> he was living
> in Beccles as early as 1525 and in 1529 was one of the executors of the will
> of John
> Leek..." [authors comment in quotes: Oct 1939, page 361].
>
> The authors investigate, to their satisfaction, not mine, and allege the
> following:
> "That the first Robert Peck of Beccles, one of the two executors of the will
> of John Leek
> of Beccles, was not a native of Beccles, but had taken up his residence there
> about 1525,
> is proved by his deposition dated 23 May 1537, in a case concerning the
> testament of
> John Coke, late of Beccles, deceased." [authors comment in quotes: Oct 1939,
> page 360].
I'm sorry: what part of Miss Peck's interpretation are you seeking to
disparage here?
> In the deposition, the authors found "Robert Pecke, of Beccles, where he had
> resided
> for 12 years, of free condition, saith he has known testator and executor for
> seven years.
> Duly sworn and examined he saith that the Testament then exhibited agrees in
> everything
> with the Testament read to him." (Causes Ecclesiastical, Diocese of Norwich,
> year 1537,
> folio 150)." [authors citation in quotes: Oct 1939, page 360].
>
> Obviously, there is conflict of conclusions in the above commentary by the
> authors about
> their citations in the texts.
I fail to see any "conflict of conclusions" here.
> Based on these and other alleged facts, the
> authors proport to
> draw proper conclusions based on whether or not this Robert Peck, the Elder,
> of Beccles,
> could or could not have been the Robert Peck of Beccles, son of John Peck in
> the Peck
> pedigree in the British Museum created by the College of Heralds, dated 1620,
> and published
> in 1936 in this serialization of articles of Joseph Peck, whose grandfather
> is now under
> investigation. The authors draw conclusions on age of participants, places
> of residence,
> interpretation of the word "neve" in texts which often are interpreted either
> as "nephew"
> or "grandson," by them and others, without redressing the entire text with
> this questionable
> translation, and dismiss a pedigree in the British Museum in its totality as
> "fraudulent"
> when it fact it is based on two previous and accepted *Visitations.*
It is misleading to say that the MS pedigree presented in Miss Peck's
article is "based on" two visitations. Certainly, two extant visitation
pedigrees were apparently used to concoct the pedigree, as it
incorporates their information. But to those of us who look at it
experienced and disinterested eyes, it *looks like a rank forgery*: and
such forgeries almost always were "based on" authentic material. The
usual modus operandi of such endeavors was to copy and conflate known
sources, then add new material, without contradicting known data, to
achieve the desired result (usually either linking some later individual
to an visitation family, or adding a lengthy pre-visitation ancestry to
a known family, or both). Even before focusing on elements in it which
can be explicitly disproved, one has to begin with the assumption that
it is a forgery, based on the reputation of the pedigree's 'finder',
Somerby.
In the event, this careful article by Miss Peck shows quite convincingly
that Robert Peck (Sr.) of Beccles, Suffolk, could not have been a son or
grandson of John Peck, son of Richard Peck of Wakefield, Yorkshire. See
especially on this NEHGR 90 (1936):372. Similarly, Richard Peck of
Wakefield had no known younger son Henry who could be identified with
the Carlton Colville Henry Peck who you offered as a possible father of
Robert Peck of Beccles. Both Richard's own will (see NEHRG 90
[1936]:63-4), and son John's pedigree in Tonge's visitation, mention
only girls apart from John.
> The authors make assumptions and draw conclusions about the parentage of
> Robert Peck
> of Beccles and his birthplace. The authors state "The surname is common both
> to Norfolk
> and to Suffolk from a very early date...It is evident, nevertheless, that the
> Pecks in that
> section
> of Norfolk, near Beccles, were not very prolific, as no testators of the name
> have been
> found there in the records of the Norfolk probate records." [authors comment
> in quotes:
> oct 1939, page 361]
This seems a perfectly reasonable statement of useful background
material on the distribution of the surname. Without a trustworthy
primary source or compelling name matches, pointing to a distant locale,
one should always first look near an individual's residence for his or
her ancestors.
> The authors assume and dismiss conclusions without a factual basis of the
> true and
> certain birthplace of Robert Peck, the Elder, of Beccles.
What does Miss Peck assume without factual basis? What does she dismiss
prematurely?
It seems to me as if you are setting out, rather inexpertly, to prove
the forged pedigree, in the face of the contradictory evidence carefully
laid out by Miss Peck seventy years ago. Save your breath.
Don't be too disappointed in the exposure of the forgery: a forgery is
an interesting and noteworthy thing in itself. I would be glad to have
such a curiosity in my own family tree. I am tempted--unrelated as I am
to any of these Pecks--to get someone to consult the original in the BL
and request digital photographs.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net