Thomas Norton of Guilford
Kay Allen AG
why would he go off to NE? And wouldn't his eldest son have been the
heir to the properties? Or were these properties left elsewhere?
K
Todd A. Farmerie
Well, Sharpenhoe is known to have ended up in Gravely Norton's
hands, so it looks like it was alienated to kin. Certainly Robert
departs from Streatley (Sharpenhoe) after the baptism of the
second Thomas, and before those of his younger children. I don't
know about Robert's other lands.
taf
Douglas Richardson
Dear Todd ~
What evidence do you have to link Thomas Norton of Guilford,
Connecticut to the Norton family of Sharpenhoe, co. Bedford? Please
cite your sources.
DR
Cristopher Nash
> > Well, Sharpenhoe is known to have ended up in Gravely Norton's
>> hands, so it looks like it was alienated to kin. Certainly Robert
>> departs from Streatley (Sharpenhoe) after the baptism of the
>> second Thomas, and before those of his younger children. I don't
>> know about Robert's other lands.
>>
>> taf
>
>Dear Todd ~
>
>What evidence do you have to link Thomas Norton of Guilford,
>Connecticut to the Norton family of Sharpenhoe, co. Bedford? Please
>cite your sources.
Douglas (and Todd), PMJI -- this is a 'work-in-progress' (of which
the last week's dialogue under <Re: Biography of Thomas Norton of
Sharpenhoe> is the best but, I'm afraid, pretty lengthy record to
date), and probably shouldn't be set down (yet, anyway) as a
definitive 'claim'. Among the points made so far is what I felt was
your intelligent restraint in declining to presume a link in your
1978-80 TAG articles. The link does hang around in a lot of current
'accounts', though, and some of us are trying to test it. Todd's
view may of course be different.
Cheers,
Cris
--
Kay Allen AG
disinherited, or
Thomas of Guilford is not the Thomas of Streatley.
K
Cristopher Nash
>
>>If Thomas the 3rd son of Robert and Anne was the eldest son with issue,
>>why would he go off to NE? And wouldn't his eldest son have been the
>>heir to the properties? Or were these properties left elsewhere?
>
>Well, Sharpenhoe is known to have ended up in Gravely Norton's
>hands, so it looks like it was alienated to kin.
Just to clarify, based on notes rec'd in 1999 from William Norton:
"Summarizing the pertinent portions of the pedigree from Whitmore's
article, a Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe married three times. His
first marriage, to an Elizabeth Merry, produced three offspring, one
of whom was a Thomas Norton. His second marriage was to an
Elizabeth, daughter of Marshall, widow of Ralph Radcliff. From this
second marriage, the only offspring is a Luke Norton. His third
marriage was to the widow of a Mr. Osborne. There were three
offspring from this third marriage."
[SNIP - (the first Thomas Norton above is the fa. of Thomas Norton
who married [--] Cranmer).]
"Luke Norton, the offspring from the Norton - Marshall/Radcliff
marriage, married Lettice, daughter of George Gravely, and had nine
offspring, the first of whom was a son, Gravely. Two of the
remaining eight offspring are recorded as 'illegible'. At this point
an article published in Visitations of Bedfordshire, Annis Domimi
1566, 1582, & 1634, by William Harvey, Esq., et al, Clarencieulx King
of Arms, London 1884, at page 128 and titled Norton [of Sharpenhoe in
Streatley], provides some missing information and clarifies some of
the relationships. The 'Visitation' is signed by Graueley (Gravely)
Norton, and details the children of Luke Norton. It shows that Luke
is the son of ....Norton of Sharpenhoe, County Bedford, and the
brother (actually half brother) of Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe,
County Bedford, Esquire, Counsellor at Law. The 'Visitation'
identifies Luke as 'one of the mrs of the Chauncery dwelt at Offley
in com. Hertford, Esquire and Councellor of the Law of the Inner
Temple'. It gives that Luke married Lettice, 'dau. and sole heire of
George Graueley of Hitchin com. Hertford, a younger brother of
Graueley of Graueley com. Hertford'. The children of Luke and
Lettice are then identified as:
1. Graueley Norton of Sharpenhoe in the parish of Stretley, county
Bedford and of the Inner Temple, Esquire, liueing Anno 1634, eldest
son. Married to Ellen, dau'r of Willím Angell, Sergeant of the
Acatery to King James. One child: Lettice Norton, onely child Anno
1634 aged about 7 years." [Etc]
Bill Norton gives further documentation for this sequence.
"Whitmore's article" has been referred to earlier in this discussion,
and I've copied Bill's summary of a portion of it here simply because
it's the most compact.
>Certainly Robert departs from Streatley (Sharpenhoe) after the
>baptism of the second Thomas, and before those of his younger
>children.
Whether (and why) hasn't yet been accounted for, I think. He ends
up, as mentioned, as 'of Market-Cell [Herts]', likely to be (and
regarded by Seversmith as) modern Markyate, some 6 mi. south of
Streatley (Sharpenhoe).
>I don't know about Robert's other lands.
It's conceivable he swapped (what was left of any inheritance) for a
holding in Markyate.
Part-answering Kay, whether or not Thomas of Shelton is Robert's son,
the shift from Streatley/Sharpenhoe has in any case happened in
Robert's generation. The economic status of this and the
known-related Norton branches is extraordinarily volatile. (Richard
Norton, who married Gravely's sister Lettice, is at first appearance
called 'fishmonger', subsequently as yeoman, and as 'gentleman' and
holder of the manor of Barton by the time of his death.) Quoting
Bill Norton:
"Thomas Norton leased the manor from Sir J. Huddylston, 1 Dec 1554.
Thomas Norton, junior, of London, gent, purchased the manor 1578-9,
Peter & John Osborn presumably acting as trustees, from Edmond
Mordaunt of Oakley. Gravely Norton, grandson of the purchasor,
sold the manor in 1646."
Whether Thomas Norton _of Guilford_ is/is not Robert's son, he
appears in New England just 5 years after Robert's death, ae. say 30.
I'm not confident that Robert's move to Herts hadn't already been a
result of a financial decline in this line. It's no full answer, but
maybe a start.
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
Thomas of Shelton/Dean. I think that's right - unless (3) there was
nothing substantive to be inherited. As of now I'm not clear that
Robert 'of Market-Cell' actually _held_ any land there or anywhere.
His troubling to enter arms and a pedigree the year before he died
(and pay for it) doesn't tell me whether he held a castle or -
precisely - this one last lingering air-castle.
Unless s/o does before, I'm checking Robert's will in P.C.C. (19 Feb
1634/5 - my b'day give or take 300-odd yrs) next week.
Cris
--
Kay Allen AG
cadet, i.e. by a later wife. Therefore, Robert should have inherited, by
primogeniture. So it strikes me, we need to see his father's will and check for
any deeds or other conveyances or writings which would have deprived Robert of
his "rights".
K
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3E4B3D88...@interfold.com>...
>
>>Kay Allen AG wrote:
>>
>>>If Thomas the 3rd son of Robert and Anne was the eldest son with issue,
>>>why would he go off to NE? And wouldn't his eldest son have been the
>>>heir to the properties? Or were these properties left elsewhere?
>>
>>Well, Sharpenhoe is known to have ended up in Gravely Norton's
>>hands, so it looks like it was alienated to kin. Certainly Robert
>>departs from Streatley (Sharpenhoe) after the baptism of the
>>second Thomas, and before those of his younger children. I don't
>>know about Robert's other lands.
>
> Connecticut to the Norton family of Sharpenhoe, co. Bedford? Please
> cite your sources.
Doug, that is the claim (dating back to Seversmith, at least),
that we are trying to evaluate. Nothing more. I recommend that
you consult Seversmith TAG's article, which is the best
presentation of the question that I have seen, if you wish to
know what the evidence is for his speculation (having published
an article yourself on the immigrant, perhaps you are already
familiar with it?).
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> If I understand correctly Robert was a senior descendant, while Luke was a
> cadet, i.e. by a later wife.
At the time of his father's death, the heir was Robert's older
son Henry, aged 13 years, 8 mos., and 20 days. Henry, in turn,
appears to have had at least two children (probably more), Samuel
bap. & bur. Streatley, 1613, (followed by his first wife). He
then remarried Sarah Lawton, and is identified by Seversmith with
the Henry and Sarah who had Henry, bap. Stepney 1617, in turn
identified with the York, Maine immigrant of this name.
> Therefore, Robert should have inherited, by
> primogeniture.
I should add that Seversmith dates Luke's tenure at Sharpenhoe
("by reversion" - without citation) from 1610 - exactly when
Robert's children quit being baptized at Streatley. We know that
Robert survived this date by 24 years, and at that time Thomas
was still living, so whatever happened (and it is an interesting
puzzle), it does not appear to affect the Thomas of Streatley/
Thomas of Shelton hypothesis, since (assuming Seversmith didn't
pull this date put of thin air) we know that Thomas of Streatley
himself did did not stand to inherit Sharpenhoe, it having
already been alienated a quarter century earlier.
(I note that the H&G article places Luke in control of Sharpenhoe
from at least 1613, and expresses the same puzzlement as others
over this transfer.)
> So it strikes me, we need to see his father's will and check for
> any deeds or other conveyances or writings which would have deprived Robert of
> his "rights".
Waters provides the following text as being his noncupative will
(this was proved P.C.C. 15 Apr. 1584):
"In the name of God, Amen. Thomas Norton of Shapnoll in the
Countie of Bedford, Esquier, A daye or twoo before his deathe or
thereaboutes, beinge sicke and weake of boddy, But yet of good
and perfect remembraunce, made his last Will and Testamente
noncupatiue, And thereof made his brother Thomas Cranmer his
Executor. To whome hee commytted the ordering and disposing of
all his goods to be ymployed to the vse and behoofe of his wiffe
and childrenn. Theise beinge witness, William Horne, vicar of
Luton in the saide Countie of Bedford, the saide Maister Norton's
Phisition, and divers others."
There was also an i.p.m. (26 Eliz., 27 June) which may prove useful.
taf
Kay Allen AG
K
Douglas Richardson
Thanks for the complement. I happen to descend from Thomas Norton, of
Guilford, Connecticut. While I have an open mind, I have my doubts
that Thomas of Guilford is a member of the Norton family of
Sharpenhoe, co. Bedford.
It's interesting that Thomas Norton would appear as a topic here on
the medieval genealogy newsgroup. Years ago, when I first started out
in genealogy, I encountered various sources which claimed Thomas
Norton of Guilford had royal ancestry. Eventually, in time, I
disproved the royal connections in the Norton ancestry. As such
things go, however, eventually I replaced the lost ancestry with three
other gateway royal links. All the same, I still miss my Norton royal
ancestry. It was my first connection to the mists of time. It
evaporated much too soon to suit me. If you and Todd can prove Thomas
Norton's parentage and provide him royal ancestry to boot, I shall be
very grateful indeed. Please keep me posted of your progress.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
c...@windsong.u-net.com (Cristopher Nash) wrote in message news:<a05100301ba714dc623aa@[195.102.200.54]>...
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
attractive than staying in his native land, for one or more of the
reasons that caused quite a number of English "Heirs" to throw away, or
more likely trade, their inheritance for enough money for passage and a
new start in the New World.
Thanks for your understanding and help.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Todd A. Farmerie
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
> Kay Allen AG wrote:
>
>> If I understand correctly Robert was a senior descendant, while Luke
>> was a
>> cadet, i.e. by a later wife.
>
>
> At the time of his father's death, the heir was Robert's older son
> Henry, aged 13 years, 8 mos., and 20 days.
Thomas' older son, Robert's older brother.
> Henry, in turn, appears to
> have had at least two children (probably more), Samuel bap. & bur.
> Streatley, 1613, (followed by his first wife). He then remarried Sarah
> Lawton, and is identified by Seversmith with the Henry and Sarah who had
> Henry, bap. Stepney 1617, in turn identified with the York, Maine
> immigrant of this name.
Thus:
Thomas
+---------+ +-------+
Thomas Luke
+--------+-------+ |
Henry Robert Graveley
| |
Henry Thomas
? of Maine ? of Ct
taf
Cristopher Nash
>It's interesting that Thomas Norton would appear as a topic here on
>the medieval genealogy newsgroup. Years ago, when I first started out
>in genealogy, I encountered various sources which claimed Thomas
>Norton of Guilford had royal ancestry. Eventually, in time, I
>disproved the royal connections in the Norton ancestry. As such
>things go, however, eventually I replaced the lost ancestry with three
>other gateway royal links. All the same, I still miss my Norton royal
>ancestry. It was my first connection to the mists of time. It
>evaporated much too soon to suit me. If you and Todd can prove Thomas
>Norton's parentage and provide him royal ancestry to boot, I shall be
>very grateful indeed. Please keep me posted of your progress.
Thanks Douglas for the encouragement. We'll keep poking at it till
it rolls over and goes back to sleep - or at least stops snoring.
Your mists-of-time Norton experience is so familiar. I still shrink
recalling the Friday 30 years ago when I rushed home from the British
Museum certain I was descended from the Hoos of Hoo. Two things
dashed my delusion. (1) Monday I proved I was wrong, & (2) people
kept saying "_Who_?"
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
>if, as I say, Robert really wanted to record his connection with
>Cranmer in the Laudian period (just 3 years before Prynne was
>branded and had his ears lopped off), and if he had a son disposed
>to quit England for life in a Congregationalist/ Independent
>community, here's a branch that may be coming off the family tree --
>did they fall or were they snapped?)
I'd just like to declare my embarrassment for not having until today
realized that Thomas Norton of Sharpenhoe (1532-84) is the same as
Thomas Norton who, with Sir Thomas Sackville, was the co-author of
_Gorboduc_, which as any English literature undergrad knows is the
first play in blank verse and the first surviving 5-act tragedy in
the language, and the structural model for virtually all English and
American tragic drama down to the start of the 20th century. More
important re Norton family history, Norton was a devout Calvinist and
not only a Parliamentarian and one of the most prolific authors of
his time, but among the most powerful figures in the English
Reformation. A conventional, 5-page biography of him appears in DNB,
and a separate article appears there for his son Robert, the
immediate subject of our discussion and considered by some to be the
father of Thomas Norton of Guilford, CT.
Thomas Norton corresponded with Calvin, was the English translator of
Calvin's enormously influential chief work ('Institutions'),
"realised his ambition of becoming an official censor of the queen's
catholic subjects", was appointed licenser of the press, became know
as 'Rackmaster-General' for inquisition and torture under his
jurisdiction, was vehemently opposed to the establishment of the
bishops and to High Church tradition - themes that, arising again
with a vengeance in the 1630s, led to Independent/Calvinist
sympathizers' emigration to America.
In addition to a number of perceptive remarks about Thomas Norton of
Sharpenhoe (1532-84) in D MacCulloch, _Thomas Cranmer_ (1996), I'd
like to point out that a modern full-length biography has been
devoted to him, viz. M.A.R. Graves, _Thomas Norton the
Parliamentarian_ (1994).
>"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
>
> > Kay Allen AG wrote:
> > > If Thomas the 3rd son of Robert and Anne was the eldest son with issue,
>> > why would he go off to NE? And wouldn't his eldest son have been the
> > > heir to the properties? Or were these properties left elsewhere?
> >
>> Well, Sharpenhoe is known to have ended up in Gravely Norton's
>> hands, so it looks like it was alienated to kin. Certainly Robert
>> departs from Streatley (Sharpenhoe) after the baptism of the
>> second Thomas, and before those of his younger children. I don't
> > know about Robert's other lands.
Todd has pointed out that Thomas's heir was his son Henry. Graves
adds that Henry, having inherited in 1584, "20 years later settled it
on his younger brother Robert" [406, citing VCH Beds, II, 382]. He
adds:
"Why Henry should have parted with his inheritance is not known. An
entry in the diary of John Manningham, a barrister of the Inner
Temple, in February 1602, may provide a clue:
Cosen [Robert] Norton told me that one Mr Cokayne of
Hertfordshire gott his brother H[enry] by a wile to his house,
and their married him upon a pushe to a kinswoman of his, and
made a serveingman serve the purpose insted of a preist."
[Manningham's Diary, p. 19]
The episode [Graves continues] suggests a certain gullibility on
Henry's part. But the same cannot be said of his brother Robert, who
obtained Sharpenhoe from him, acquired Markyate Cell near Dunstable
and married into a minor Lincolnshire family. By 1630 he was styled
'gentleman'" [406].
Graves endorses the Nichiols _Herald and Genealogist_ genealogy cited
by Todd (including the assignment of Robert's parentage to Thomas
Norton and Alice, da. of Edmund Cranmer). While he shows a deep
familiarity with contemporaneous Norton materials I've not had time
to search his work for any special argument in support of this,
though for example in his footnote to the passage above, citing H&G,
he adds: "Chorus Vatum", BL Add. MS. 24488, fo. 386.
If it's not clear what Henry's reasons were for abandoning Sharpenhoe
to Robert, it is plain how Robert himself came to leave it behind.
Per Graves: "Whether or not [Thomas] Norton's benign ghost served
the interests of his daughters, his second son certainly made his own
way in the world unaided. Robert opted for a career in royal service
as a gunner and engineer and, despite the acquisition of landed
estates, he did not retire to them and assume the lifestyle of a
cuntry gentleman" [407]. From DNB: "He studied engineering and
gunnery under John Reinolds, master-gunner of England, and through
his influence was made a gunner in the royal service. On 11 March
1624 he received the grant of a gunner's room in the Tower....and in
...[1627] he was granted the post of engineer of the Tower of London
for life." DNB lists some 9 works by Robert, largely on artillery,
beginning with 'A Mathematicall Apendix' published in London 1603 --
and including ('probably') verses by Robert Norton printed at the
beginning of Captain John Smith's 'Generall Historie of Virginia,'
1626.
This doesn't establish the parents of Thomas Norton of Guilford, CT,
though it can contribute to our understanding of why Robert Norton's
descendants have no visible connection with Sharpenhoe. And perhaps
why one of these might have abandoned any birthright to go to New
England - as the child of a fiercely Calvinist family at the
inception (at the moment of Robert's death) of the Laudian repression
second only to the Marian repression of reformationists that had led
to the burning of Robert's great uncle Archbp Cranmer.
Speaking 'professionally', of all people I should have recognized
years ago who this Thomas Norton was (apologies to Todd for having
misread his private reference to the 'archcarnifex' -- i.e. Thos.
Norton himself -- in a message to me), and cringe at having been so
slow on the uptake! I'd like to repeat again - I'm sure tiresomely
for some - my appeal that we do all we can to avoid not knowing, as
'the right hand', what the left hand is doing -- that (as I was
suggesting last week) we please keep an eye on the contemporaneous
history and consequently what's being done by our cousins in
historical studies. Even if we don't that way find out the facts, we
can at least spare ourselves some of that nasty embarrassment as
researchers. d;-|>
I'll be looking at the Page-Turner tomorrow.
Cris
--
D. Spencer Hines
have roots in New England, descended from this chap ----Thomas Norton of
Sharpenhoe (1532-84)?
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
"Cristopher Nash" <c...@windsong.u-net.com> wrote in message
news:a05100300ba7867c8c670@[195.102.195.217]...
Cristopher Nash
Seversmith says [TAG 15:203] that "a careful study of the Norton
entries extracted from the parish registers and published in
Page-Turner's _Genealogia Bedfordiensis_ shows us that the Thomas who
married Grace Wells was of the vicinity of Dunstable" -- i.e. with
which, along with nearby Streatley and Sharpenhoe, Robert is
associated.
I've now spent a day with _Genealogia Bedfordiensis_ (whose
author/compiler, incidentally, appears not only as Frederick Augustus
Page-Turner but also as F. A. Blaydes (as he signs himself in the
several holograph letters pasted into the Bodleian's copy).
This valuable work (though published in 100 copies, only, in 1890 and
certainly superseded in some cases by modern research) is exclusively
a concise summary of some 13,000 entries in Beds. par. records/BTs
(with notes and occasional but far from rationalized reference to a
few wills and published and MS pedigrees) for the period 1538-1700.
There is no concerted exposition.
Before going on, I am posting separately, today's date, material
relevant to the Nortons taken from VCH Beds, and would recommend that
these be taken into account in relation to what follows below,
particularly since they offer (a) some information relevant to the
question concerning Robert Norton and the inheritance of Sharpenhoe;
(b) an interesting suggestion of a _possible_ earlier connection
between the Nortons we're concerned with and Sharpenhoe; and (c)
possible reasons for Robert's association with Markyate (now Herts)
at the close of his life.
I need to say that - over the sea, here - I have not seen
Seversmith's follow-up article in TAG 16:101-115, which I presume
does - as he promises in 60:207 - 'set forth the pedigree of the
Nortons of Sharpenhoe'. It may be that he resolves the problem
intimated below - and I'd be extremely grateful to have the details,
if so.
Meanwhile, I can find no evidence in _Genealogia Bedfordiensis_ for
Seversmith's claim, cited above. That is, of its examinations'
proving any connection between Thomas Norton of Shelton/Dean who
married Grace Wells (and likely to be the same as Thomas Norton of
Guilford, CT), on one hand, and Dunstable - or indeed with any
Nortons of Streatley/Sharpenhoe - on the other.
There are some 10 Thomas Nortons in Bedfordshire in the period
1580-1650, and Seversmith may well have decided that by a process of
elimination, none of these except Thomas of Shelton/Dean would fit
the chronology appropriate to Thomas son of Robert Norton, and that
this would constitute proof that Thomas of Shelton/Dean was the son
of Robert of Streatley/Dunstable/Markyate. But no data cited by
Page-Turner/Blaydes affecting Thomas and Grace of Shelton/Dean shows
any connection to any other Norton or to any place associated with
other Nortons. If Seversmith believed that the sheer presence of
Thomas and Grace in Bedfordshire were in this way grounds for
presuming a relationship of that sort, he was seriously mistaken.
To be a bit clearer about this:
(1) Not only are the parishes of Shelton and Dean, as Todd's said,
far removed from those of Streatley (with Sharpenhoe), Dunstable and
Markyate. A study of the 19 parishes in which Page-Turner/Blaydes's
appx 100 cited Nortons appear shows that no two parishes are as
far-removed from one another as Shelton and Dean on one hand and
Streatley (with Sharpenhoe), Dunstable and Markyate on the other, at
opposite ends of the county. And on the scale concerned, no other
Nortons appear anywhere near Shelton and Dean. All Nortons cluster
around (a) Dunstable/Luton (south Beds) and (b) Bedford (mid-Beds)
and it's unclear what Seversmith could have had in mind in speaking
vaguely of Thomas and Grace Norton of Shelton and Dean as "of the
vicinity of Dunstable", since the vast majority of the Bedforshire
Nortons, few of them definitively related, appear in 8 or 9 different
parishes within 5 miles of Dunstable.
(2) With the exception of the record of births of children to Robert
in Streatley, I see no substantive reason for believing that either
Thomas Norton (d. 1584) or his son Robert (d. 1634-5) had any
significant relationship whatsoever in their adult lives with
Bedfordshire other than their maintaining some residence there - in
Thomas's case the manor of Sharpenhoe, and in Robert's case his
having been associated in his last years with some holding or other
(whose identification hasn't yet been found) in Dunstable and/or
Markyate. (Thomas had several other holdings, some significantly in
London. See my other message of today, indicated above, re Robert
and Markyate.) It's clear now from their biographies that -- while
they were both concerned to present themselves as associated with
country holdings, just as they were both keen to publish their
pedigrees -- they were both London men through-and-through, Thomas
having been of a London family, and both men having conducted all
their well-known vigorous careers in London or in connection with
London business.
Unless TAG 16:101-115 proves otherwise, Seversmith - while he offers
much valuable information - in his energetically sceptical argument
regarding the ancestry of George Norton muffles the fact he makes
seriously undocumented claims about the ancestry of Thomas Norton of
Guilford (TAG 60:203-04).
But this is certainly not the end of the road. The will of Robert
Norton must be seen, and I'm in the process of chasing it down.
Unfortunately there is no P.C.C. index of wills for the period
1629-45. Todd, I assume that Waters saw the original. It would be
helpful to know whether, when you said that he reports that Robert,
son of Thomas left a "will [] dated 28th Jan. 1634-5, and [] proved
in C.P.C. on 19th Feb. following", I would be wrong - as I may well
be - in thinking that what was meant was 'P.C.C'?
On the subject of wills: I note that along with the nuncupative will
of Thomas Norton (1584), there exist wills of a William Norton,
"gent., Sharpenhoe, par. of Stretley, Bedford, 1622" [96 Savile], and
of a Thomas Norton, "gent., Great Gaddesden, Herts, 1659 [1659, Folio
336] which should also be seen. The former may be of special
interest since in Henry's settlement of Sharpenhoe on Robert Norton,
the manor was to revert to William and Walter Norton and their heirs
male. (See my other posting, this date, for acts of administration
affecting Nortons d. overseas in this time-frame.)
I do feel that Bill Norton's file of Deeds relating to Sharpenhoe
should be reviewed, and am hoping that Bill can help us along this
line.
Obviously I need to say that there seems increasingly to be reason, in fact -
(a) for those interested in Thomas Norton of Guilford:
To verify that the records of Northamptonshire and Hunting-
donshire/Cambridgeshire (both within 1 mile of Shelton and Dean)
don't show his origins there. And
(b) for those interest in the children of Robert Norton:
To seek them in London. To exclude the distinct possibility
that they were in-and-of London from 1624-7 when Robert took
up his permanent post there.
Meantime, especially since they've each an interest in Thomas of
Guilford, I'm half sorry to have to support Kay's and Douglas's
intuitive scepticism at this point! But then I've certainly not
established anything definitive, and Seversmith may redeem his claims
in that later article?
I'd be happy to send to anyone interested - as an attachment (6pp,
48K) - a copy of my transcription of Page-Turner/Blaydes's Norton
entries. Someone here may well find something crucial that I've
missed.
Cheers to all!
Cris
--
Cristopher Nash
_Genealogia Bedfordiensis_, here are VCH (Beds) and PCC notes
relating to Bedfordshire Nortons.
Nortons in Sharpenhoe (par. of Streatley), from VCH Beds vol 2, p. 382:
"Roger Townshend transferred it to Sir John Huddleston before the
latter's death in 1557, when he left a son William as heir; [39] and
he before 1578 alienated Sharpenhoe manor to Edmund Mordaunt, who at
that date sold it to Thomas Norton. [40] The latter died in 1584
seised of this manor, leaving a son Henry Norton, then aged 13, [41]
who in 1604 settled the manor on his brother Robert Norton and his
heirs male, with reversion to William and Walter Norton and their
heirs male,[42] and they, in 1610, sold Sharpenhoe manor to their
uncle Luke Norton, who held it at his death in 1630. [43] Gravely
Norton succeeded his father Luke, and in 1646 [44] sold the
Sharpenhoe estate for £3,050 to William Wheeler of Silsoe, [45] whose
son in 1673 alienated the manor to Hugh Smythe. [46]
[39] Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), iii, No. 15.
[40] Feet of F. Beds. Hil. 21 Eliz. Recov. R. Hil. 21 Eliz.; Com.
Pleas D. Enr. Hi. 21 Eliz.
[41] Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cciii, No. 38.
[42] Feet of F. Beds. East. 2 Jas. I; Hil. 4 Jas. I.
[43] Ibid. Trin. 8 Jas. I; Mich. 8 Jas. I; Harl. Soc. Publ. xix.
[44] Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cccclxv, No. 38. In 1626 a
settlement was made of the manor on the occasion of the marriage of
Gravely Norton, son and heir of Luke Norton, with Helen Angell (Feet
of F. Beds. Hil. 2 Chas. I). Lettice, sister of Gravely, and wife of
Richard Norton, was receiving an annual rent of £40 out of the manor
in 1647 (ibid. Trin. 23 Chas I), in which year she renounced her
claim to William Wheeler, who had bought the manor."
[45] pertaining to post-Norton occupation, not copied
[46] pertaining to post-Norton occupation, not copied
----------------------------------------------
Note, p. 383:
Land held in Streatley, situated in the hamlet of Sharpenhoe, became
part of the barony of Cainhoe. "In 1302 William de Norton and
Isabella his wife held of this barony in Sharpenhoe, [50] and in 1346
their land had passed into the hands of Peter de St. Croix. No
further mention, however, has been found subsequent to the fourteenth
century." [51]
[50] Feud. Aids, i, 14.
[51] Ibid. 33.
No other mention of a Robert Norton appears in the VCH Beds index
(covering vols 1-3).
----------------------------------------------
MANORS of PULLOXHILL & GREENFIELD (VCH 376):
"After the Dissolution the manors were taken into the king's hand and
were leased out to Roger Lee in 1539. [23] In the same year Thomas
Norton, by a false statement, acquired possession of the premise,
[24] and the matter came up for settlement before the Privy Council,
by whom Norton was fined for misrepresentation. [25]" [The abbey
would be Woburn Abbey.]
[23] Pat. 31 Hen. VIII, pt. 1, m. 26. He also received with the
manor Monk's Close, Cranford Mead and a water-mill, probably the one
formerly rented by the abbey from Dunstable Priory and lands in
Harlington belonging to the grange. These lands were always included
in the grant of the manor.
[24] Pat. 31 Hen. VIII, pt. 4, m. 37.
[25] L. and P. Hen. VIII, xvi, 124, 129.
----------------------------------------------
MARKYATE/"MARKET CELL" - background
Caddington was formerly partly in Beds, partly in Herts. At the time
of VCH (1908) it was wholly in Beds - but Markyate, SE of Caddington,
had by this time been 'withdrawn' from Caddington and made a parish
in 1897. Markyate Cell, formerly in Caddington par., Beds (Flitt
Hundred): per VCH Beds II, 316-17 is the name of the mansion house a
little north of the hamlet of Markyate Street. It contains the
remains of Markyate Priory. It was held for about 100 years (fol.
the Dissol.) by the Ferrers fam., and then passed to Sir Thomas
Fanshawe, who with others sold in 1657 to Thomas Coppin of Markyate
Cell, son of Sir George Coppin.
I give this in some detail because, per Gen. Bedfordiensis , p. 59 &
note p. 358, the latter Thomas Coppin is explicitly given as the
Thomas who m. Martha, d. of Luke Norton, of Sharpenhoe.
As seen in earlier postings, Luke Norton was clearly closely involved
in transactions with Robert Norton who, at the time of filing his
pedigree in the year before his death, calls himself 'of Market
Cell'. It may be that at the close of his life in London Robert
settled with or near or on a holding belonging to Luke Norton in
Markyate (though it should be noted that Luke is largely associated
with Herts places).
----------------------------------------------
MISC NOTES -- PCC-indexed Acts of Administration relating to Norton -
incomplete (1631-54 only):
Those interested in the possibility of other Norton/America
connections may find it worthwhile to look into the following:
*1646 Norton, Francis, bach., d. overseas. To Jn. N., LLD., K., 28
July 1646, p. 91
*1647 Norton, geo., bach„, d. overseas. To Thomas West, cred., 18
Feb 1647, p. 27
[Both per PCC Acts of Admon, 1631-48 (pub'd 1986)]
* 1650 Norton, Martin, bach., died beyond seas
[Per PCC Acts of Admon,1449-54 (pub'd 1944)]
--