Additional Edward III Descents for Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley

[Brad Verity]

Martin Hollick has done a great service laying out a descent from
Edward III for Quaker immigrant Anne Skipwith, wife first of William
Goforth, with whom she immigrated to Burlington, New Jersey. After his
death, she married William Oxley and settled with him in Philadelphia:
http://mhollick.typepad.com/slovakyankee/2010/01/the-royal-line-of-anne-skipwith-goforth-oxley-ca-16421723-part-ii.html

The descent shows she is 10 generations removed from Edward III
through his youngest son Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester. She
has two other descents from Edward III. In the first she is fourteen
generations removed from that monarch, through his second surviving
son, Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence. In the other she is
thirteen generations removed through his third son, John of Gaunt,
Duke of Lancaster:

Edward III had two sons, 1A & 1B:
1A) Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence (1338-1368), who had
2A) Philippa of Clarence, Countess of March (1355-1377), who had
3A) Elizabeth Mortimer (1371-1417) m. 1) Sir Henry 'Hotspur' Percy
(1364-1403), and had
4A) Elizabeth Percy (c.1395-1437) m. 1) John, 7th Lord Clifford
(1388-1422) (descended from Edw I), and had
5A) Thomas, 8th Lord Clifford (1414-1455) m. Joan Dacre (c.1417-c.
1452) (descended from Edw I), and had
6A) John, 9th Lord Clifford (1435-1461) m. Margaret Bromflete (c.
1436-1493), and had
7A) Elizabeth Clifford (c.1460-bef. 1529) m. Sir Robert Aske of
Aughton (see 6B below)

1B) John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (1340-1399), who had
2B) Joan Beaufort (c.1377-1440) m. 1) Sir Robert Ferrers of Wem (c.
1372-1396), and had
3B) Elizabeth Ferrers (1393-1434) m. John, 4th Lord Greystoke (c.
1390-1436), and had
4B) Anne Greystoke (c.1417-1477) m. Sir Ralph Bigod of Settrington
(1410-1461), and had
5B) Elizabeth Bigod m. 1462 Sir John Aske of Aughton (1443-1497), and
had
6B) Sir Robert Aske of Aughton (c.1463-1531) m. Elizabeth Clifford
(see 7A above), and had
7) Julian Aske (c.1490-bef. 1530) m. Thomas Portington of Portington
(c.1492-1540), and had
8) Henry Portington of Portington (c.1510-1560) m. Maud Tyrwhitt
(descended from Edw I), and had
9) John Portington of Portington (c.1535-1579) m. Anne Langton, and
had
10) Thomas Portington of Portington (1563-1612) m. Elizabeth Skipwith
(descended from EIII thru Thomas of Woodstock), and had
11) Anne Portington (d. aft. 1648) m. 1) William Skipwith of South
Ormsby (c.1567-1622) (descended from EIII thru Thomas of Woodstock),
and had
12) Willoughby Skipwith (1613-1658) m. Honora Sanders (c.1616-1679),
and had
13) Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley of Philadelphia (c.1643-1723)

Cheers, --------Brad

[John]

On May 15, 10:46 pm, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Martin Hollick has done a great service laying out a descent from
> Edward III for Quaker immigrant Anne Skipwith, wife first of William
> Goforth, with whom she immigrated to Burlington, New Jersey. After his

> death, she married William Oxley and settled with him in Philadelphia:http://mhollick.typepad.com/slovakyankee/2010/01/the-royal-line-of-an...

Martin Hollick's excellent write-up, which Brad cites at the top of
this thread, has this to say to say about one of the persons in the
descent:

"6. Elizabeth Bourgchier, born ca. 1475, died 8 August 1557. She
married as her last husband, Sir Richard Page, of unknown origins who
died in 1548. Elizabeth's second husband was Edward Stanhope, by whom
she was the mother of Anne, wife of Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset
and Lord Protector in the reign of Edward VI. [Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography (2004), 42:330, and Gerald Paget, The Lineage and
Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (Edinburgh, 1977),
Reference: O 29476.]"

Two points on this:

1) If Sir Richard Page was the last husband of Elizabeth Bourgchier
and her second husband was Edward Stanhope, who was her first husband?

2) Sir Richard Page, who acquired the manor of Beechwood,
Hertfordshire, during the Tudor dissolution of the religious houses,
appears to have a connection to the Burgh (or Borough) family who were
Lords Burgh of Gainsborough. A pedigree of the Burgh family in
Foster's edition of the visitations of Yorkshire says that Sir Richard
Page was son of Sir Henry page and his wife Margaret Daniell. Sir
Henry in turn was son of another Richard whose wife was beatrix,
sister of Thomas, 1st Lord Burgh. I don't know how reliable this
visitation pedigree is, but it's worth considering.

[Hal Bradley]

John,
Elizabeth may have been married four times. Edward Stanhope was possibly her
third husband. Vivian's Vis. of Devon, p. 106 enumerates her husbands as:
(1) ____ Beaumont; (2) ____ Verney; (3) Edward Stanhope; (4) Nicholas Pigot
[sic] (The fourth husband was Richard Page which calls into question the
identity of the first two husbands). The Visitations of Nottingham, 1569 &
1614 (London, 1871), p. 7 identifies Elizabeth's first husband as Henry
Beaumont, though I have not delved into the identification of Henry to see
if this is a real possibility, nor who he is.
Hal Bradley
May 16, 2012 02:20:26 PM, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:

snip

Martin Hollick's excellent write-up, which Brad cites at the top of
this thread, has this to say to say about one of the persons in the
descent:
"6. Elizabeth Bourgchier, born ca. 1475, died 8 August 1557. She
married as her last husband, Sir Richard Page, of unknown origins who
died in 1548. Elizabeth's second husband was Edward Stanhope, by whom
she was the mother of Anne, wife of Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset
and Lord Protector in the reign of Edward VI. [Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography (2004), 42:330, and Gerald Paget, The Lineage and
Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (Edinburgh, 1977),
Reference: O 29476.]"
Two points on this:
1) If Sir Richard Page was the last husband of Elizabeth Bourgchier
and her second husband was Edward Stanhope, who was her first husband?
2) Sir Richard Page, who acquired the manor of Beechwood,
Hertfordshire, during the Tudor dissolution of the religious houses,
appears to have a connection to the Burgh (or Borough) family who were
Lords Burgh of Gainsborough. A pedigree of the Burgh family in
Foster's edition of the visitations of Yorkshire says that Sir Richard
Page was son of Sir Henry page and his wife Margaret Daniell. Sir
Henry in turn was son of another Richard whose wife was beatrix,
sister of Thomas, 1st Lord Burgh. I don't know how reliable this
visitation pedigree is, but it's worth considering.

-------------------------------
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]

The parentage of Elizabeth (--) Page who was living in 1549, is suspect.
Fulk had a known daughter Elizabeth who married Edward Stanhope of Rampton and of Shelford, co Nott; Knt. He was "aged 24 and more" 9H7 and died 6 Jun 1511. She predeceased him leaving a daughter Anne who married Edward Seymour 1st Duke of Somerset

I'm fairly suspicious that a connection to some rather obscure heires of Beechwood Manor can fit into this family without being noticed.

[Wjhonson]

This is an error.

Anne Stanhope who married Edward Seymour 1st Duke of Somerset, herslf died 16 Apr 1587 "aged 90"

It's certainly *possible* this age is a mistake but if not, then Elizbeth Bourchier the wife of Edward Stanhope, her mother, was a prior wife to this Edward who married Avelina Clifton by whom he had his heir male Sir Richard Stanhope. So Anne Stanhope was his ELDER half sister, not younger.

Which means of course that *this* Elizabeth Bourchier had no other husband

The other Elizabeth Bourchier, whom I claim we do not know the parents for, was herself twice married, firstly to an Unknown Mr Verney by whom a daughter Catherine who appears in her step-father Richard Page's will *yet unmarried* in 1547 (!!) And then this Elizabeth married Richard Page knighted in 1529 by whom *his* heiress Elizabeth who took Beechwood Manor

[John]

CP 12.1:65 notes that Anne Stanhope is "alleged to be aged 90" at her
death in 1587, but points out that she had children known to have been
born in 1548 and (probably) 1551, at which point Anne would have been
over 50 - highly unlikely. So the "aged 90" idea can be quickly
discarded.

And what is your source for the statement in your last post that
Elizabeth Bourchier predeceased her husband Edward Stanhope (who d.
1512, not 1511)? Perhaps you're confusing her with Edward Stanhope's
other wife (the first wife) who DID predecease him.

[Wjhonson]

That she was not the mother of his heir, and that she died aged 90
what's your source that his *other wife* predeceased him?

[Wjhonson]

That her daugther died "aged 90" is what I meant to say, not that she did.

-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, May 16, 2012 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: Additional Edward III Descents for Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley

[John]

On May 16, 10:21 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> That she was not the mother of his heir, and that she died aged 90
> what's your source that his *other wife* predeceased him?
>
>
>

I gather that you mean this to say that you think Elizabeth Bourchier
predeceased Edward Stanhope because (a) she was not the mother of his
heir, and (b) because her daughter is alleged to have died aged 90.
The first point is irrelevant because she had no sons that would have
been heirs in preference to Edward's son by Adeliza Clinton (if
Elizabeth were in fact the first wife). And I already cited evidence
in CP that the allegation that her daughter was aged 90 at death is
baseless and impossible.

For the order of the two wives of Edward Stanhope, see Collins'
Peerage (brydes ed.) vol. 3 sub Chesterfield and Thoroton's Notss vol.
3 sub Rampton. Both give Adeliza Clinton as 1st wife and Elizabeth
Bourchier as 2nd wife.

[Brad Verity]

On May 16, 3:19 pm, Hal Bradley <hw.brad...@verizon.net> wrote:
>    John,
>    Elizabeth may have been married four times. Edward Stanhope was possibly her
>    third husband. Vivian's Vis. of Devon, p. 106 enumerates her husbands as:
>    (1) ____ Beaumont; (2) ____ Verney; (3) Edward Stanhope; (4) Nicholas Pigot
>    [sic] (The fourth husband was Richard Page which calls into question the
>    identity of the first two husbands). The Visitations of Nottingham, 1569 &
>    1614 (London, 1871), p. 7 identifies Elizabeth's first husband as Henry
>    Beaumont, though I have not delved into the identification of Henry to see
>    if this is a real possibility, nor who he is.

Dear Hal & John,

I also have Elizabeth Bourchier with four husbands:

1) Hugh Beaumont of Gittisham (b. c.1450, d. 25 March 1507). He was
son of Sir Thomas Beaumont of Yolston & Gittisham (b. 21 Sep. 1401, d.
17 Nov. 1450) & his 2nd wife Alice Stucley. I have Hugh & Elizabeth
Bourchier married by 1497. Hugh's first wife was Thomasine Wise, by
whom he had a daughter Margaret Beaumont, wife of Sir John Chichester
of Raleigh (c.1475-1537).

2) John Verney of Fairfield (d. 1507). I have a note that this
husband needs further research (obviously, since he died the same year
as Hugh Beaumont above). Still, it would just be possible for
Elizabeth Bourchier to have lost two husbands in the same year. By
this second husband she had a daughter, Katherine Verney.

3) Sir Edward Stanhope of Rampton (b. 1469, d. 6 June 1511), son of
Thomas Stanhope of Rampton (d. aft. 1475) & Mary Jerningham. Sir
Edward had a first wife, Adelina Clifton, by whom he had a son, Sir
Michael Stanhope of Shelford, whose bio in HOP says he was born by
1508. By 2nd wife Elizabeth Bourchier, Sir Edward had a daughter Anne
Stanhope, whose bio in ODNB says she was born about 1510.

4) Sir Richard Page of Beechwood (b. 1474, d. 3 Feb. 1549), by whom
she had a daughter Elizabeth Page, born 1516. According to his bio in
HOP, Sir Richard's parentage is unknown, and he probably came from
Surrey or Middlesex. But the Burgh pedigree from the 1575 Visitation
of Yorkshire which John Higgins brought up is very interesting, and
may well be the answer to his parentage. If true, Sir Richard was
likely a descendant of Edward I thru Page/Burgh/Percy/Strathbogie/
Ferrers of Groby/Vernon/Clare.

Martin Hollick gives Elizabeth Bourchier an estimated birthdate of
1475, the bio of her daughter Anne Stanhope in ODNB says she was born
"before 1473", and I have her as born about 1476/78, judging from the
facts that she bore her final child in 1516, and died in 1557. As her
father did not die until 1479, she could have been born at any point
in the 1470s, though the latter half of that decade seems likeliest.
Agreed that it is certainly unusual for Elizabeth Bourchier to have
borne three daughters by three different husbands in a span of 8 years
(Katherine Verney in 1507/08, Anne Stanhope about 1510, and Elizabeth
Page in 1516), it's not impossible either. Elizabeth de Clare,
daughter of Joan of Acre, bore son William de Burgh, Earl of Ulster in
1312, daughter Isabel Verdon, Lady Ferrers of Groby in 1317, and
daughter Elizabeth Damory, Lady Bardolf in 1318.

Cheers, -------Brad

[Wjhonson]

The first point is relevant in placing her as the first or second wife.

-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, May 16, 2012 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: Additional Edward III Descents for Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley

On May 16, 10:21 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
That she was not the mother of his heir, and that she died aged 90
what's your source that his *other wife* predeceased him?



I gather that you mean this to say that you think Elizabeth Bourchier

redeceased Edward Stanhope because (a) she was not the mother of his

eir, and (b) because her daughter is alleged to have died aged 90.

he first point is irrelevant because she had no sons that would have

een heirs in preference to Edward's son by Adeliza Clinton (if

lizabeth were in fact the first wife). And I already cited evidence

n CP that the allegation that her daughter was aged 90 at death is

aseless and impossible.
For the order of the two wives of Edward Stanhope, see Collins'

eerage (brydes ed.) vol. 3 sub Chesterfield and Thoroton's Notss vol.

sub Rampton. Both give Adeliza Clinton as 1st wife and Elizabeth

ourchier as 2nd wife.

------------------------------

o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of

he message

[John]

On May 17, 11:09 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> The first point is relevant in placing her as the first or second wife.
>

How exactly? Elizabeth Bourchier had no sons by Edward Stanhope - his
heir was by his other wife. So that gives no information to place her
as either first or second wife - and thus no basis for saying, as you
have, that she predeceased him.

[Wjhonson]

The basis is to place each of his children in a chronologic position and then decide which wife had which child.
>From that you can determine which wife came first.

-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, May 17, 2012 12:50 pm
Subject: Re: Additional Edward III Descents for Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley

On May 17, 11:09 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
The first point is relevant in placing her as the first or second wife.

ow exactly? Elizabeth Bourchier had no sons by Edward Stanhope - his

eir was by his other wife. So that gives no information to place her

s either first or second wife - and thus no basis for saying, as you

ave, that she predeceased him.

[John]

On May 17, 1:04 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> The basis is to place each of his children in a chronologic position and then decide which wife had which child.
>
>

You're going in circles, and muddling up your two arguments.

You said before that you believed that Elizabeth Bourchier predeceased
her husband Edward Stanhope because (1) she was not the mother of his
heir, and (b) because her daughter is alleged to have died aged 90
(and thus was born ca. 1497).

I asked you why the first argument (producing the heir) was relevant,
and you now say it's because of the chronological placement of the
children - which is basically your second argument.

But you no longer have a basis for saying that Elizabeth's daughter by
Edward was born in 1497 and thus before Edward's first son by his
other wife. CP noted that this would mean that Anne Stanhope was
delivering children into her early fifties. And also, since her
eldest son by Edward Seymour was born in 1537, this means she had nine
children in her forties and early fifties - VERY unlikely.

So - is there any remaining argument in favor of your position that
Elizabeth Bourchier predeceased her husband Edward Stanhope?

[Hal Bradley]

Brad,
Thanks for the info on the identity of Elizabeth Bourchier's first two
husbands.
I have a marriage date for Alice Stukeley's parents, Hugh & Katherine
(Affeton) Stukeley, in late 1437. As such, she would be too young to be the
mother of Thomas Beaumont's younger sons, Thomas, Hugh and John. (Also, as
John was the youngest son and his father died in 1450, it would seem that
Hugh was born a little earlier than 1450.) Of course, another possibility
(if I do not have the marriage date of Hugh & Katherine incorrect) is that
Alice is from an earlier (unidentified) marriage. Hugh was certainly old
enough to have had an earlier marriage.
Vivian's Vis. of Devon, p. 65 cites Harl. MS. 889 in asserting that Thomas
Beaumont had a second wife, Elizabeth Monke. She is possibly the mother of
Thomas Beaumont's (d. 1450) younger sons. Harl. MS. 889 also asserts that
Alice Stukeley was the mother of a daughter named Maude by Thomas Beaumont.
Hal Bradley
May 17, 2012 12:06:29 AM, royald...@hotmail.com wrote:

<snip>

Dear Hal & John,
I also have Elizabeth Bourchier with four husbands:
1) Hugh Beaumont of Gittisham (b. c.1450, d. 25 March 1507). He was
son of Sir Thomas Beaumont of Yolston & Gittisham (b. 21 Sep. 1401, d.
17 Nov. 1450) & his 2nd wife Alice Stucley. I have Hugh & Elizabeth
Bourchier married by 1497. Hugh's first wife was Thomasine Wise, by
whom he had a daughter Margaret Beaumont, wife of Sir John Chichester
of Raleigh (c.1475-1537).

<snip>
Cheers, -------Brad
-------------------------------
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

[Steve Riggan]

Question for the group. I recently read a blog I found by Brad Verity Feb. 12, 2010 on the the lineage of Lady Jane Seymour, 3rd wife of Henry VIII and her royal descent from King Edward III via Mary Clifford, daughter of Elizabeth Percy and John, 7th Lord Clifford. I also descend from this union through Mary Clifford's daughter Elizabeth Wentworth and her husband Martin de la See of Barmston down to Christopher Kelke of Barnetby-le-Wold and his wife Isabel Girlington (desc. of Edward I in 2 lines). Their granddaughter Cecily Kelke, wife of John Farrar of Croxton, Lincolnshire, was the mother of my immigrant ancestor Col. William Farrar of Virginia. Brad did a great job of weighing the evidence proving Mary Clifford's existence and placement as wife of Philip Wentworth from family records even though contemporary sources of her time did not say much, if anything at all, about her. Brad, in his blog, points out that there was no mention of Mary in the Visitations of the 16th C. for Yorkshire and the first claims of her existence and marriage to Philip Wentworth were by the Seymours in the 1530's as well as Lady Anne Clifford, Countess of Pembroke in the early 1600's. The information came from family records. Does anyone know if any other information has come to light on Mary Clifford? I have seen some information online that she died 4 Oct. 1478 and was buried at the Friars Minor at Ipswich, Suffolk. This information is in some personal genealogies I've seen online, but I haven't been able to support it with any reputable sources. Does anyone have more information on Mary Clifford and the validity of death date, etc.? Thank you.
Steve Riggan

[Wjhonson]

I think your argument is too strenous for the known facts.
It's either or, I don't see *more* evidence for one or the other.
The number of sources hasn't changed.

-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, May 17, 2012 1:50 pm
Subject: Re: Additional Edward III Descents for Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley

On May 17, 1:04 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
The basis is to place each of his children in a chronologic position and then

ecide which wife had which child.


You're going in circles, and muddling up your two arguments.
You said before that you believed that Elizabeth Bourchier predeceased

er husband Edward Stanhope because (1) she was not the mother of his

eir, and (b) because her daughter is alleged to have died aged 90

and thus was born ca. 1497).
I asked you why the first argument (producing the heir) was relevant,

nd you now say it's because of the chronological placement of the

hildren - which is basically your second argument.
But you no longer have a basis for saying that Elizabeth's daughter by

dward was born in 1497 and thus before Edward's first son by his

ther wife. CP noted that this would mean that Anne Stanhope was

elivering children into her early fifties. And also, since her

ldest son by Edward Seymour was born in 1537, this means she had nine

hildren in her forties and early fifties - VERY unlikely.
So - is there any remaining argument in favor of your position that

lizabeth Bourchier predeceased her husband Edward Stanhope?

[John]

OK, let's try again....

Since you say that "I don't see *more* evidence for one or the other",
what exactly IS the "evidence" that Elizabeth Bourchier was the 1st
wife of Edward Stanhope and predeceased him? And what are the sources
that provide this "evidence"?

Or are you still just relying on the supposed age of her daughter at
death (which is very doubtful)? What other evidence do you have?

[Brad Verity]

On May 17, 4:06 pm, Steve Riggan <srig...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Question for the group.  I recently read a blog I found by Brad Verity Feb. 12, 2010 on the the lineage of Lady Jane Seymour, 3rd wife of Henry VIII and her royal descent from King Edward III via Mary Clifford, daughter of Elizabeth Percy and John, 7th Lord Clifford.

Dear Steve,

I'm glad to hear you found my blog post. I haven't blogged in a
couple years but hope to return to it after my database is online.

> I also descend from this union through Mary Clifford's daughter Elizabeth Wentworth and her husband Martin de la See of Barmston down to Christopher Kelke of Barnetby-le-Wold and his wife Isabel Girlington (desc. of Edward I in 2 lines).  Their granddaughter Cecily Kelke, wife of John Farrar of Croxton, Lincolnshire, was the mother of my immigrant ancestor Col. William Farrar of Virginia.  Brad did a great job of weighing the evidence proving Mary Clifford's existence and placement as wife of Philip Wentworth from family records even though contemporary sources of her time did not say much, if anything at all, about her.

> Brad, in his blog, points out that there was no mention of Mary in the Visitations of the 16th C. for Yorkshire and the first claims of her existence and marriage to Philip Wentworth were by the Seymours in the 1530's as well as Lady Anne Clifford, Countess of Pembroke in the early 1600's.  The information came from family records.  Does anyone know if any other information has come to light on Mary Clifford?

I feel that because Anne Clifford did include her in her account of
the Clifford family, it's safe to say that she existed. The earliest
source we have (so far) for her first name having been 'Mary' is the
Wentworth pedigree taken in the 1561 Visitation of Suffolk, and
apparently the name 'Marye' was added into the pedigree by a second
(though still contemporary to the 1560s) hand than in which the bulk
of the pedigree is written.

> I have seen some information online that she died 4 Oct. 1478 and was buried at the Friars Minor at Ipswich, Suffolk.  This information is in some personal genealogies I've seen online, but I haven't been able to support it with any reputable sources.  Does anyone have more information on Mary Clifford and the validity of death date, etc.?  Thank you.

That date is incorrect. It is the death date for Margery Despenser,
the mother of Sir Philip Wentworth and mother-in-law of Mary
Clifford. In her will, dated 30 August 1477, she directs her grandson
Sir Henry Wentworth to lay a marble stone over the body of his mother
in the Friars Minors church in Ipswich ("et eciam causabit unum
lapidem marmoreum poni super corpus matris sue in ecclesia ordinis
sancti Francisci Gibwic’").

But Mary Clifford had died by 1458, for in August of that year, Sir
Philip Wentworth and his mother Margery received a papal indult [CPapR
1455-1464: 170-171.]:

"1458. 13 Kal. May. St. Peter’s, Rome. To Philip Wenteworth, knight,
nobleman, of the diocese of Norwich, and Marjory (Marione rectius
Mariorie) baroness de Roos, lady of the castle (castelli) de Hamelake,
his mother, and their children of both sexes. Indult that the
confessor of their choice may absolve them from all their vows, except
only irregularly professed vows of chastity and vows of Jerusalem, St.
James in Compostela and the shrines of the apostles [Peter and Paul,
Rome]; may, after hearing their confessions, grant them absolution for
their crimes, sins and excesses, in cases reserved to the apostolic
see once only, in other cases as often as opportune, and enjoin
penance; may commute the said vows into other works of piety; and may
grant them, being contrite and having confessed, plenary remission of
all their sins, likewise once only, in the hour of death, with the
usual clauses requiring the making of satisfaction to whom it is due,
against abuse of the present indult, requiring either fasting on
Friday or other day of the week or the giving of a meal to five poor
persons, etc. Devocionis vestre sinceritas. (M. Ferrarii. | xv.
Constantinus. A. de Hirspaco.) [In the margin: Aprilis. 1 p.] (f.
113d.)”

If their spouses were alive at that time, they would certainly have
been included in the indult. We know Sir Philip's father Roger
Wentworth died in 1452, so his wife also died at some point before
1458. Roger Wentworth and his daughter-in-law Mary Clifford were both
buried in the Friars Minors church at Ipswich.

I have three children in my database for Sir Philip Wentworth & Mary
Clifford:

1) Margaret Wentworth (b. about 1446; died 28 April 1476) m., as his
first wife, Sir Thomas Cotton of Landwade (b. 1439, d. 30 July 1499),
and had two daughters.

2) Sir Henry Wentworth of Nettlestead (b. 1448; died August 1499) m.
1st, by 1478, Anne Say (b. c.1448, d. after 1489), and had two sons
and four daughters. Sir Henry m. 2nd, 22 October 1594, Lady Elizabeth
Neville (b. 1464; died 7 September 1517). They were the maternal
grandparents of Queen Jane Seymour.

3) Elizabeth Wentworth (b. about 1457; died 22 March 1492) m. (? 1st,
Ralph Hawley of North Langton); m. 2nd 10 April 1480, as his second
wife, Sir Martin at See of Barmston (b. about 1420, d. November 1494),
and had one son and two daughters. Sir Martin's third wife, Margery
Clifford (born about 1458; died after 1495), whom he married in
1492/93, was the first cousin of Elizabeth Wentworth.

Thanks and Cheers, -------Brad

[Steve Riggan]

Thank you for clearing that up! I didn't know about the third wife for Martin de la See or the will of Lady Margery regarding the stone slab for Mary Clifford Wentworth's grave. This will be good information for my records. Also, I'm enjoying the info on Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley. I was unaware of this line, but, through my mother, I descend from her distant cousin Diana Skipwith Dale (through youngest daughter Elizabeth Dale Rogers) immigrant to Virginia and daughter of Sir Henry Skipwith, 1st baronet of Prestwold and his wife Amy Kempe (both descendants of Edward I in several lines). I look forward to reading more from the group and appreciate you answering my questions.
Steve Riggan

> -------------------------------
> 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

[Douglas Richardson]

On May 17, 8:03 pm, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

< But Mary Clifford had died by 1458, for in August of that year, Sir
< Philip Wentworth and his mother Margery received a papal indult
[CPapR
< 1455-1464: 170-171.]:
<

< If their spouses were alive at that time, they would certainly have
< been included in the indult.  We know Sir Philip's father Roger
< Wentworth died in 1452, so his wife also died at some point before
< 1458.  Roger Wentworth and his daughter-in-law Mary Clifford were
both
< buried in the Friars Minors church at Ipswich.

I've seen many instances of both men and women obtaining papal indults
without reference to their living spouses. As such, this indult may
not be used as evidence that Mary Clifford died by 1458.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Brad Verity]

On May 17, 7:33 pm, Steve Riggan <srig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I look forward to reading more from the group and appreciate you answering my questions.

Absolutely! Welcome to the newsgroup, keep on enjoying, and jump in
anytime with questions & contributions!

Cheers, -------Brad

[Steve Riggan]

Thank you. I just learned of it from a Skipwith relation. I also see John Ravilious (one of my Farrar relations) is a contributor. We have him to thank for presenting the Wentworth royal lineage to our family genealogy. Previously, the only lineages we had were through Isabel Girlington back to Edward I through her grandparents John, 9th Lord Hastings and Anne Morley. He has done some excellent research on these lines.
Steve

From: royald...@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Mary Clifford, daughter of 7th Lord Clifford and wife of Philip Wentworth

[Wjhonson]

Same as before.
Anne Stanhope who has an M.I at Westminster Abbey was "aged 90" when she died in 1587
This means that her mother was Edward Stanhopes first wife and therefore predeceased him because she was not the mother of his heir

Now whats your evidence.

[Wjhonson]

We have little to no evidence on the year margaret was born
She was Thomas' first wife and HE was "aged 30 and more" in 1474

<<1) Margaret Wentworth (b. about 1446; died 28 April 1476) m., as his
first wife, Sir Thomas Cotton of Landwade (b. 1439, d. 30 July 1499),
and had two daughters.>>

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Verity <royald...@hotmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Thu, May 17, 2012 7:10 pm
Subject: Re: Mary Clifford, daughter of 7th Lord Clifford and wife of Philip Wentworth

-------------------------------
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

[John]

I give up....you just don't listen.

I've said it several times now - Anne Stanhope was NOT aged 90 when
she died. And being "the mother of the heir" or not has nothing to do
with the issue.

[Brad Verity]

On May 17, 7:46 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

> I've seen many instances of both men and women obtaining papal indults
> without reference to their living spouses.

Do you have a couple examples?

> As such, this indult may
> not be used as evidence that Mary Clifford died by 1458.

It seems like a pretty comprehensive indulgence to me. It covers Sir
Philip and all of his children, and his mother the dowager baroness de
Ros and all of her children, and is actually a four-indulgences-in-one
package. This was a very expensive item. Do you really think they
would leave out Sir Philip's wife if she were alive? Let her buy her
own? His Clifford wife to boot? Did you notice the date this was
granted - April 1458. It would've taken time to process so would've
been requested some months previous, probably the latter half of
1457. Sir Philip's brother-in-law, the Lord Clifford, had been
slaughtered two years previous at the first battle of St. Albans, his
body left in the streets by the Duke of York and the Nevilles. The
current Lord Clifford was chomping at the bit for vengeance. This
Lord Clifford's godmother had been his great-aunt Maud, the dowager
countess of Cambridge (d. 1446). She had been a formidable woman who
controlled Conisbrough Castle in South Yorkshire for just over thirty
years as a widow. Countess Maud had no doubt been the driving force
in arranging the marriage of Sir Philip Wentworth to her niece, Mary
Clifford. Sir Philip's uncle Richard Wentworth of West Bretton was
one of the chief officers of Maud's household, probably her
chamberlain, certainly her right arm, and possibly her lover (Tudor-
era heralds even had the two married in several pedigrees).

Another Northern castle was Helmsley in North Yorshire. This is where
Margery Wentworth, the dowager baroness de Ros was based. She had
been born a Despenser, and in 1458 was the last of that family line.
Her first marriage, to the baron de Ros, had been arranged when she
was about four years old, and had left her a childless widow in
Helmsley Castle at the age of about twenty. She still had her father
Philip, Lord Despenser, luckily, and he saw to it that she was married
two years later, in 1423, to Roger Wentworth, a man who clearly was
thought able to protect & defend young Margery's dower of Helmsley
Castle, plus the Despenser inheritance that came to them when her
father died within the year following their marriage. They named
their firstborn son after Margery's father Lord Despenser. Countess
Maud was of the blood of de Ros through her mother, and so had an
interest in insuring that Helmsley Castle, their chief seat, was in
good administrative hands. That Countess Maud maintained close ties
with her maternal de Ros family as well as her paternal Clifford one
is evidenced by the fact that the first child of the young baron de
Ros was born at her castle of Conisbrough in 1427. It was these two
noble widows, Maud, dowager countess of Cambridge, and Margery,
dowager baroness de Ros, that the Wentworths served administratively,
and were rewarded for their loyalty and service with marriage into the
family.

Sorry, I don't think the dowager baroness Margery and her son Sir
Philip Wentworth would have left out Sir Philip's Clifford wife from
this comprehensive papal indulgence in 1457/58 if she had still been
alive at that date.

Cheers, -------Brad

[Brad Verity]

On May 17, 8:36 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>  We have little to no evidence on the year margaret was born
> She was Thomas' first wife and HE was "aged 30 and more"  in 1474

I just guess-timated that she was about age 30 when she died a mother
of two in 1476. There's no evidence for it, and it's easily
adjustable if evidence surfaces that will firm up her birthdate.

Cheers, ----Brad

[Wjhonson]

I like to reserve oddly estimated years for items where we know at least an age of someone at a time.
So If a person in 1620 was "aged 14" then they were born 1605/7 which for me, covers both situations where they were "14 and more" and "in their 14th year" giving me room for people who aren't comprehending that these two things mean something quite different. I see that quite a lot, even here.

It does not of course give me room, John H will promptly point out with a sneer, for people who are really 16 or 20 and only "called 14 and more", however that is what it is.

To guesstimate an exact year like "about 1607" tells me there is a reason for 1607 as opposed to 1606 or 1608 and that adds to the general confusion of sources. In cases where we have really no clue about what year out of ten a person may have been born it's much more clear to say 1610/20 or nothing.

For those who are still using software which doesn't allow ranges (sacre bleu!), it's better to use decennial years "about 1600" "about 1610" "about 1620" as these don't tend to be as misleading

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Verity <royald...@hotmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, May 18, 2012 12:13 am
Subject: Re: Mary Clifford, daughter of 7th Lord Clifford and wife of Philip Wentworth

[Wjhonson]

I give up as well John.
You and I are not on the same page.
You "saying" that she was not "aged 90" is not material.
You are not a source for anything.
If you have a source which *states* (not conjectures) that she was not aged 90, then provide it.
But you don't.

Without that you have conjecture and other hand-waving which you don't even want to outline :)
I know the argument, I just don't accept the argument. So twiddle that one about.

That she was mother of the heir has everything to do with it.
IF she was the mother of the heir then he may have had one wife, if she was not then he had to have two didn't he? And then we have to place them in order don't we? And so to do that we have to try to provide a chronologic framework don't we? You just have one different from mine.

So you will have to deal with that issue in your own eye rolling fashion won't you :)

-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Thu, May 17, 2012 10:15 pm
Subject: Re: Additional Edward III Descents for Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley

-------------------------------
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

[Brad Verity]

On May 18, 7:34 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>  I give up as well John.
> You and I are not on the same page.
> You "saying" that she was not "aged 90" is not material.
> You are not a source for anything.
> If you have a source which *states* (not conjectures) that she was not aged 90, then provide it.
> But you don't.

Here's a source for her children's birthdates, Retha M. Warnicke's bio
of her in ODNB: "Anne Seymour gave birth to ten children: Edward (b.
1537), who died in infancy; Anne (b. 1538); a second Edward (b. 1539);
Henry (b. 1540); Margaret (b. 1540); Jane (b. 1541); then Mary and
Catherine; in 1548 a third Edward, godchild of Edward VI, who died in
1574; and Elizabeth (b. 1550).

Here's the Stanhope pedigree from the Visitation of Nottinghamshire:
http://www.archive.org/stream/visitationscoun01britgoog#page/n20/mode/2up

The dates of death for Sir Edward Stanhope and Sir Richard Page prove
that Stanhope preceded Page as Elizabeth Bourchier's husband, thus she
had to have survived Stanhope and so was the second of his wives. The
Duchess of Somerset's half-brother Sir Michael Stanhope's bio in HOP
is here:
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/stanhope-michael-1508-52

His date of birth of "by 1508" was "estimated from age at brother’s
i.p.m., C142/47/17." Given that fact, plus the death of Sir Edward
Stanhope in 1511, plus the fact that Anne Stanhope bore her final
child in 1550, I don't think the birthdate of "about 1510" that
Warnicke assigned her is off the mark by more than a year or two.

> Without that you have conjecture and other hand-waving which you don't even want to outline :)
> I know the argument, I just don't accept the argument.  So twiddle that one about.

Well, one of your original reasons for not accepting the argument is
that Sir Richard Page was a relative nobody and wouldn't have married
into the family. But the Visitation pedigree includes him, his
daughter Elizabeth and her husband William Skipwith, which shows that
the Stanhopes did consider them as family. Page was the chamberlain
of Cardinal Wolsey when he married the widowed Elizabeth Stanhope, so
he had a great job, as it were. By 1516 (the year their daughter was
born) he had moved to the King's household as a gentleman of the privy
chamber, a position that would put him in regular contact with the
monarch. No doubt his marriage to a Bourchier kinswoman of the King
helped to get him into that circle. Catharine Davies, the author of
Page's bio in ODNB, was clearly unaware of the pedigree that John
Higgins shared upthread, which shows that Page did not come out of
nowhere, but rather that his father, Sir Henry Page, was a knight with
blood ties to the Lords Burgh of Gainsborough in Lincolnshire.

> That she was mother of the heir has everything to do with it.

Elizabeth Bourchier wasn't the mother of Sir Edward's heir, Richard
Stanhope of Shelford. See the Visitation pedigree. If Richard had an
IPM that gave an estimated date of birth for his younger brother
Michael, it's likely that their father Sir Edward also had one and you
can get Richard's birthdate from it.

> IF she was the mother of the heir then he may have had one wife, if she was not then he had to have two didn't he?  And then we have to place them  in order don't we?  And so to do that we have to try to provide a chronologic framework don't we?  You just have one different from mine.

Well now you have the Visitation pedigree which lays out Sir Edward
Stanhope, Elizabeth Bourchier, all of their spouses, and their
children from each, so you can work it out and see if you come up with
something different.

Cheers, -------Brad

[John]

On May 18, 8:45 am, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 7:34 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >  I give up as well John.
> > You and I are not on the same page.
> > You "saying" that she was not "aged 90" is not material.
> > You are not a source for anything.
> > If you have a source which *states* (not conjectures) that she was not aged 90, then provide it.
> > But you don't.
>
> Here's a source for her children's birthdates, Retha M. Warnicke's bio
> of her in ODNB: "Anne Seymour gave birth to ten children: Edward (b.
> 1537), who died in infancy; Anne (b. 1538); a second Edward (b. 1539);
> Henry (b. 1540); Margaret (b. 1540); Jane (b. 1541); then Mary and
> Catherine; in 1548 a third Edward, godchild of Edward VI, who died in
> 1574; and Elizabeth (b. 1550).
>

> Here's the Stanhope pedigree from the Visitation of Nottinghamshire:http://www.archive.org/stream/visitationscoun01britgoog#page/n20/mode...

>
> The dates of death for Sir Edward Stanhope and Sir Richard Page prove
> that Stanhope preceded Page as Elizabeth Bourchier's husband, thus she
> had to have survived Stanhope and so was the second of his wives.  The
> Duchess of Somerset's half-brother Sir Michael Stanhope's bio in HOP

> is here:http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/stan...

The itemization that Brad provides above (from ODNB) of the birth
years of the children of Anne (Stanhope) Seymour agrees with the
information I cited earlier (twice) from CP 12.1 sub Somerset with
respect to two of the children. The dates make it clear that the
allegation that she was aged 90 at her death in 1587 is obviously
erroneous, and thus she was NOT born before the sons of her father
Edward Stanhope by Avelina Clinton.

In addition to the visitation pedigree of the Stanhopes, I previously
cited two other pedigrees that show the same order of Edward
Stanhope's marriages: Brydges' edition of Collins' Peerage, and
Thoroton's Notts (see earlier in this thread).

Setting aside the spurious assertion that Anne Stanhope was born in
1497 because she allegedly was aged 90 at her death, there is no
evidence that Elizabeth Bourchier predeceased her husband Edward
Stanhope - and plenty of evidence to the contrary. It's hard to see
how anyone could rationally continue to support such a claim.

[Wjhonson]

So a deduction from a monumental inscription is idential to a "spurious assertion" ?
That's an amazing manner of doing research.
Are you not even going to give credit to the source from which this claim is made?
Misleading readers into thinking it was made up or something?
That's not really the way I lay out my own sources. Ignoring those that dispute my preconceptions.
And by the way, the sources you have cited are all secondary aren't they

-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, May 18, 2012 10:06 am
Subject: Re: Additional Edward III Descents for Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley

On May 18, 8:45 am, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 18, 7:34 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

The dates of death for Sir Edward Stanhope and Sir Richard Page prove
that Stanhope preceded Page as Elizabeth Bourchier's husband, thus she
had to have survived Stanhope and so was the second of his wives. The
Duchess of Somerset's half-brother Sir Michael Stanhope's bio in HOP
is here:http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/stan...

His date of birth of "by 1508" was "estimated from age at brother’s
i.p.m., C142/47/17." Given that fact, plus the death of Sir Edward
Stanhope in 1511, plus the fact that Anne Stanhope bore her final
child in 1550, I don't think the birthdate of "about 1510" that
Warnicke assigned her is off the mark by more than a year or two.

> Without that you have conjecture and other hand-waving which you don't even

ant to outline :)
> I know the argument, I just don't accept the argument. So twiddle that one

bout.

Well, one of your original reasons for not accepting the argument is
that Sir Richard Page was a relative nobody and wouldn't have married
into the family. But the Visitation pedigree includes him, his
daughter Elizabeth and her husband William Skipwith, which shows that
the Stanhopes did consider them as family. Page was the chamberlain
of Cardinal Wolsey when he married the widowed Elizabeth Stanhope, so
he had a great job, as it were. By 1516 (the year their daughter was
born) he had moved to the King's household as a gentleman of the privy
chamber, a position that would put him in regular contact with the
monarch. No doubt his marriage to a Bourchier kinswoman of the King
helped to get him into that circle. Catharine Davies, the author of
Page's bio in ODNB, was clearly unaware of the pedigree that John
Higgins shared upthread, which shows that Page did not come out of
nowhere, but rather that his father, Sir Henry Page, was a knight with
blood ties to the Lords Burgh of Gainsborough in Lincolnshire.

> That she was mother of the heir has everything to do with it.

Elizabeth Bourchier wasn't the mother of Sir Edward's heir, Richard
Stanhope of Shelford. See the Visitation pedigree. If Richard had an
IPM that gave an estimated date of birth for his younger brother
Michael, it's likely that their father Sir Edward also had one and you
can get Richard's birthdate from it.

> IF she was the mother of the heir then he may have had one wife, if she was

ot then he had to have two didn't he? And then we have to place them in order

on't we? And so to do that we have to try to provide a chronologic framework

on't we? You just have one different from mine.

Well now you have the Visitation pedigree which lays out Sir Edward
Stanhope, Elizabeth Bourchier, all of their spouses, and their
children from each, so you can work it out and see if you come up with
something different.

Cheers, -------Brad
The itemization that Brad provides above (from ODNB) of the birth

ears of the children of Anne (Stanhope) Seymour agrees with the

nformation I cited earlier (twice) from CP 12.1 sub Somerset with

espect to two of the children. The dates make it clear that the

llegation that she was aged 90 at her death in 1587 is obviously

rroneous, and thus she was NOT born before the sons of her father

dward Stanhope by Avelina Clinton.
In addition to the visitation pedigree of the Stanhopes, I previously

ited two other pedigrees that show the same order of Edward

tanhope's marriages: Brydges' edition of Collins' Peerage, and

horoton's Notts (see earlier in this thread).
Setting aside the spurious assertion that Anne Stanhope was born in

497 because she allegedly was aged 90 at her death, there is no

vidence that Elizabeth Bourchier predeceased her husband Edward

tanhope - and plenty of evidence to the contrary. It's hard to see

ow anyone could rationally continue to support such a claim.

------------------------------

o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of

he message

[John]

Okay, so "spurious" was perhaps too strong a word. Would you be more
comfortable with "inaccurate" or "erroneous"?

It's not at all uncommon for a person's age at death, as stated by his/
her survivors based on their recollections, to be erroneous, even
wildly so. At the very least, it should be questioned and not taken
as gospel truth - especially, as in this case, when other data
suggests otherwise. You will probably disagree...

As to "giving credit to the source from which this claim is made", you
haven't yet identified any source for this. In fact, this is the
first time that you've said it's based on a "monumental inscription".
For others who may be interested, the monument to Anne (Stanhope)
Seymour, Duchess of Somerset, in Westminster Abbey is described in
Edward Wedlake Brayley, The History and Antiquities of the Abbey
Church of St. Peter, Westminster (1823, 2:170-1 (available at the
Internet Archive). It's worth noting that this source makes at least
one major mistake in this case, as it identifies Anne Stanhope as the
mother of Jane Seymour, 3rd queen of Henry VIII, but she was of course
Jane's sister-in-law instead.

BTW the ODNB biography of Anne's first husband, Edward Seeymour the
Lord Protector and Duke of Somerset, also says that she was b. ca.
1510.

[Wjhonson]

By now I would have hoped you realize that I never take something as "Gospel truth".
That is why I like to see all the evidence which is available.
And where sources disagree, I prefer to list all the claims and then provide the argument as well to show which is probably more correct, at least at the moment and with the sources at hand.

http://books.google.com/books?id=djMQAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA36

-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Fri, May 18, 2012 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: Additional Edward III Descents for Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley

On May 18, 10:25 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
So a deduction from a monumental inscription is idential to a "spurious

ssertion" ?
That's an amazing manner of doing research.
Are you not even going to give credit to the source from which this claim is

ade?
Misleading readers into thinking it was made up or something?
That's not really the way I lay out my own sources. Ignoring those that

ispute my preconceptions.
And by the way, the sources you have cited are all secondary aren't they

kay, so "spurious" was perhaps too strong a word. Would you be more

omfortable with "inaccurate" or "erroneous"?
It's not at all uncommon for a person's age at death, as stated by his/

er survivors based on their recollections, to be erroneous, even

ildly so. At the very least, it should be questioned and not taken

s gospel truth - especially, as in this case, when other data

uggests otherwise. You will probably disagree...
As to "giving credit to the source from which this claim is made", you

aven't yet identified any source for this. In fact, this is the

irst time that you've said it's based on a "monumental inscription".

or others who may be interested, the monument to Anne (Stanhope)

eymour, Duchess of Somerset, in Westminster Abbey is described in

dward Wedlake Brayley, The History and Antiquities of the Abbey

hurch of St. Peter, Westminster (1823, 2:170-1 (available at the

nternet Archive). It's worth noting that this source makes at least

ne major mistake in this case, as it identifies Anne Stanhope as the

other of Jane Seymour, 3rd queen of Henry VIII, but she was of course

ane's sister-in-law instead.
BTW the ODNB biography of Anne's first husband, Edward Seeymour the

ord Protector and Duke of Somerset, also says that she was b. ca.

510.

[John H]

Hey Will,

re Will's statement "John H will promptly point out with a sneer,".....etc

Why would I "point out with a sneer" anything made on the list?
Havent done so in the past!
Well to my knowledge anyway!

Are you confusing me with another John who posts?

You have me wondering how I got a reputation I dont believe I deserve!
I guesstimate lots of things, if one didnt one would be left wondering,
about many things, a lot of times.

regards
John H.

"Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2.133734953...@rootsweb.com...

[John H]

Hi Will,

Oh I see!!! (from a different posting by John Higgins) you are actually
referring to John HIGGINS
who posts as JOHN whereas I post as JOHN H.

Perhaps you should have said John Higgins not John H causing me to wonder
what the hell have I done wrong!

regards
John H

"John H" <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jp6ror$aoj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

[John]

> o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com

> ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> he message

So...what is the argument that this particular source "is probably
more correct"? And what other sources are among "all the evidence
which is available" that you've examined and considered?

[Wjhonson]

I never said I had an argument that this source is probably more correct.
I was speaking in general of *sources* and *arguments* and so on.
I don't believe in ignoring sources in favor of others.

I don't believe in relying on sources to the exclusion of others.
If you have an *argument* that we should blindly believe what some author has written for ODNB that's your perspective. I like to see, on what, such claims are based. I don't believe people just because ODNB allowed them to write an article. I don't believe the birthyears just because some one stated them. I want to see the evidence for how they came to those conclusions.

-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>

-------------------------------
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

[John]

On May 18, 6:20 pm, "John H" <johnh4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> Oh I see!!!  (from a different posting by John Higgins) you are actually
> referring to John HIGGINS
> who posts as JOHN whereas I post as JOHN H.
>
> Perhaps you should have said John Higgins not John H causing me to wonder
> what the hell have I done wrong!
>
> regards
> John H
>

> "John H" <johnh4...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jp6ror$aoj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>

For the record, the account (email address) under which I post to SGM
is set up (under yahoo.com) with my full name (surname included). It's
Google Groups that somehow drops the surname when setting up posts.
I'm not aware of any way that I can control this. My apologies to
"John H" for any angst that he is caused by being confused with
me. :-)

[John]

On May 18, 8:02 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> I never said I had an argument that this source is probably more correct.
> I was speaking in general of *sources* and *arguments* and so on.
> I don't believe in ignoring sources in favor of others.
>
>  I don't  believe in relying on sources to the exclusion of others.
> If you have an *argument* that we should blindly believe what some author has written for ODNB that's your perspective.  I like to see, on what, such claims are based.  I don't believe people just because ODNB allowed them to write an article.  I don't believe the birthyears just because some one stated them.  I want to see the evidence for how they came to those conclusions.
>
>
>

> So...what is the argument that this particular source "is probably
> more correct"?  And what other sources are among "all the evidence
> which is available" that you've examined and considered?

I understand your perspective about evaluating multiple sources, and I
don't disagree with it. But in the specific context of the present
discussion, I'm still trying to understand the basis for your position
(assuming it still is your position) that Elizabeth Bourchier's
daughter Anne Stanhope was born in 1497, since this seems to be the
linchpin in your conclusion that Elizabeth Bourchier predeceased
Edward Stanhope. (and even if you disagree that it's the linchpin,
it's certainly the major issue in this discussion.)

Since the monumental inscription that you've now cited above in this
thread is so far the only evidence we've seen in support of a 1497
birth date, it's fair to ask why you believe this particular evidence
outweighs the other evidence presented which suggests that Anne
Stanhope was NOT born in 1497. That was the point of my last post.

If the 1497 birth date of Anne Stanhope is no longer your position,
that's perfectly fine also.

[John H]

Hi John Higgins,
No big deal, just wondered what I had done wrong.
regards
John H

"John" <jhigg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:32833368-0454-452b...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com...

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

The immigrant, Anne (Skipwith) (Goforth) Oxley, of New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, has been identified as the daughter of Willoughly
Skipwith, Esq. (died 1658), of South Ormesby, Lincolnshire, by his
wife, Honora, daughter of Dr. Patrick Saunders, of London.

The following record appears to concern Anne Skipwith's parents,
Willoughby Skipwith and "Dame Honora Skipwith," and a certain Patrick
Sanders, here styled "of Newpoirt Pagnell [Buckinghamshire], Doctor of
Phisick."

Source: Online Catalogue, National Archives
E 134/6&7Anne/Hil7

Date: 6 & 7 Anne
Bernard Spelder and his wife Anne. v. Anthony Chapman, Thomas
Chapman.: Messuages or tenements in Newport Pagnell (Bucks). Touching
a messuage called "The Bull Inn," formerly belonging to Pat. Sanders,
&c., &c. Mortgage, &c. [The names and possessions ofPatrick Sanders,
heretofore of Newport Pagnell, Doctor of Phisick, Henry Arnold,
heretofore of the parish of Saint Clement Danes (Middlesex), and his
wife Frances (formerly Frances Duncomb), Roger Chapman (defendant
Anthony's late father), Thomas Aspin, Thomas Duncomb, Dame Honorah
Skipwith, Patrick Sheppard (plaintiff's first husband), his mother
Sarah Sheppard, and Willoughby Skipwith, are mentioned.]: Bucks. END
OF QUOTE.

In the record above, reference is made to Sarah Sheppard and her son,
Patrick Sheppard. The relationship between Sarah Sheppard and
Patrick Sanders is not mentioned in this record.

Elsewhere I find that the book, Collection of the State Papers of John
Thurloe ...: 1657 to 1658 (1742): 569-570, includes the deposition
dated 1657 of Sarah Shepheard, wife of David Shepheard, of Newport
Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, in which Patrick Saunders is identified as
Sarah Shepheard's brother. The deposition may be viewed at the
folliowing weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=cJYjAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA569

I assume that Patrick Saunders of Newport Pagnell is the brother of
Honora (Saunders) Skipwith. I say that because Honora (Saunders)
Skipwith's father, Patrick Saunders, was presumably the man of that
name who resided at Great St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, London.

[John Higgins]

FWIW (not necessarily very much) there is a short pedigree of the
Sanders [sic] family, including Dr. Patrick and his daughter Honora
along with a son Patrick aged 5, in the Harleian Society edition of
the 1633-5 visitation of London (HSP 17:227).

[Wjhonson]

I thought I had already, but perhaps not, posted the baptisms for Honora's siblings: Sarah, Patrick, Anne and Underhill Sanders, all at Saint Helen Bishopsgate (Batch P001421 wj). They were 1621, 1623, 1634, 1637 respectively.

I can't explain why the long delay between 1623 and 1634, perhaps the family was elsewhere

Honora herself however must be older as she was married 20 Jul 1634 Barnet, Hertford (Batch M072131 wj)

[Wjhonson]

Letter of attorney 1MM/1/11/5 2 December 1634


These documents are held at Lincolnshire Archives



Paper.


Contents:
To receive all rents and money payable by Willoughby Skipwith his son in law.
Patrick Saunders M.D. appoints his cousin Samuel Pomphrett of S. Ormsby.

[Wjhonson]

I've now found two primary documents which elucidate why Dr Patrick Sanders was a "cousin" of Samuel Pomphrett... kinda. Still something slightly odd about that.

[Wjhonson]

Now we not only have four John's but two John H's
.....

-----Original Message-----
From: John H <john...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, May 18, 2012 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: Mary Clifford, daughter of 7th Lord Clifford and wife of PhilipWentworth

Hey Will,
re Will's statement "John H will promptly point out with a sneer,".....etc
Why would I "point out with a sneer" anything made on the list?

avent done so in the past!

ell to my knowledge anyway!
Are you confusing me with another John who posts?
You have me wondering how I got a reputation I dont believe I deserve!

guesstimate lots of things, if one didnt one would be left wondering,

bout many things, a lot of times.
regards

ohn H.
"Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote in message

ews:mailman.2.133734953...@rootsweb.com...
I like to reserve oddly estimated years for items where we know at least an

ge of someone at a time.

o If a person in 1620 was "aged 14" then they were born 1605/7 which for

e, covers both situations where they were "14 and more" and "in their 14th

ear" giving me room for people who aren't comprehending that these two

hings mean something quite different. I see that quite a lot, even here.
It does not of course give me room, John H will promptly point out with a

neer, for people who are really 16 or 20 and only "called 14 and more",

owever that is what it is.
To guesstimate an exact year like "about 1607" tells me there is a reason

or 1607 as opposed to 1606 or 1608 and that adds to the general confusion

f sources. In cases where we have really no clue about what year out of

en a person may have been born it's much more clear to say 1610/20 or

othing.
For those who are still using software which doesn't allow ranges (sacre

leu!), it's better to use decennial years "about 1600" "about 1610" "about

620" as these don't tend to be as misleading


-----Original Message-----
rom: Brad Verity <royald...@hotmail.com>
o: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
ent: Fri, May 18, 2012 12:13 am
ubject: Re: Mary Clifford, daughter of 7th Lord Clifford and wife of Philip
entworth

n May 17, 8:36 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
We have little to no evidence on the year margaret was born
She was Thomas' first wife and HE was "aged 30 and more" in 1474
I just guess-timated that she was about age 30 when she died a mother

f two in 1476. There's no evidence for it, and it's easily

djustable if evidence surfaces that will firm up her birthdate.
Cheers, ----Brad
-------------------------------

o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to

EN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body

f
he message


------------------------------

o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com

ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of

he message

[Wjhonson]

I didn't say it "outweighs" anything John.
I said this is primary evidence, and to counteract it, a person should present other *primary* evidence.
That is essentially my point on this point.

So far the only things cited against it, come from various secondary "claims" without specific primary citation.
OR they come from works which are not cited in such a way that anyone can look up the primary citation.

Regardless of the related point of how I *feel* about this source today, the *method* of reaching a conclusion, on contradictory sources, based upon mere *claims* of modern authors is not one in which I engage.

I want to see, with my own eyes, right here, the underlying primary details upon which those claims are based.

That rule applies IN the situation where secondary sources conflict with primary ones.
It doesn't apply in every case obviously, because I would spend my entire life on a single family group if that were so.

-----Original Message-----
From: John <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, May 18, 2012 8:55 pm
Subject: Re: Additional Edward III Descents for Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley

On May 18, 8:02 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
I never said I had an argument that this source is probably more correct.
I was speaking in general of *sources* and *arguments* and so on.
I don't believe in ignoring sources in favor of others.

I don't believe in relying on sources to the exclusion of others.
If you have an *argument* that we should blindly believe what some author has

ritten for ODNB that's your perspective. I like to see, on what, such claims

re based. I don't believe people just because ODNB allowed them to write an

rticle. I don't believe the birthyears just because some one stated them. I

ant to see the evidence for how they came to those conclusions.



So...what is the argument that this particular source "is probably
more correct"? And what other sources are among "all the evidence
which is available" that you've examined and considered?

understand your perspective about evaluating multiple sources, and I

on't disagree with it. But in the specific context of the present

iscussion, I'm still trying to understand the basis for your position

assuming it still is your position) that Elizabeth Bourchier's

aughter Anne Stanhope was born in 1497, since this seems to be the

inchpin in your conclusion that Elizabeth Bourchier predeceased

dward Stanhope. (and even if you disagree that it's the linchpin,

t's certainly the major issue in this discussion.)
Since the monumental inscription that you've now cited above in this

hread is so far the only evidence we've seen in support of a 1497

irth date, it's fair to ask why you believe this particular evidence

utweighs the other evidence presented which suggests that Anne

tanhope was NOT born in 1497. That was the point of my last post.
If the 1497 birth date of Anne Stanhope is no longer your position,

hat's perfectly fine also.

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com