Parentage of Christian Sothill Babthorpe
Brad Verity
>So more research needs to be done to identify the exact parentage of
>Christina Sothill Babthorpe, but it can be ruled out that she was a
>daughter of Henry Sothill and Joan Empson.
In her book "Plumpton Letters and Papers" (Camden Soc. 5th Ser. 8,
1996), Joan W. Kirby identifies (p. 16 n.87) the father of Christian
Sothill (d. 1504), wife first of Sir William Babthorpe, of Osgodby,
Yorkshire (d. 10 February 1501), then of William Bedell (d. 1540), as
Henry Sothill of Stockerston, Leicestershire.
This would make Christian's parents Henry Sothill and Anne Boyville,
and make her a sister of John Sothill of Stockerston (d. 1494), instead
of his daughter, which is the father HOP erroneously gives her in its
bio of her son Sir William Babthorpe (1489/90-1555).
Conclusive evidence that John Sothill of Stockerston and his wife
Elizabeth Plumpton were not the parents of Christian can be found
through a description of their memorial brass.
Thomas Stapleton (ed.), "Plumpton Correspondence" (Camden Soc. 4,
1839), p. 121 n. c: "She and her husband were buried at Stockerston, in
the south aisle of the church, the chapel of the Lords of Stockerston.
'On the floor of the south aisle,' says Mr. Smith, writing in the year
1747, 'close by the last (monument) towards the south wall, inlaid in
brass, were the figures of two persons, the man in armour, and both in
a position of prayer; at his feet the figures of eight sons, at hers of
two daughters.'..."
Per the will of Elizabeth Plumpton, Dame Sothill, written in 1506
(after the death of her eldest son and heir Henry), and printed in
'North Country Wills', Vol. 1 (1908), pp. 65-66, her two daughters were
Anne, wife of --------- "Heselryge", and Elizabeth, as yet unmarried.
Only 5 sons are named in Dame Elizabeth's will, implying that two of
the 8 sons had died, in addition to eldest son Henry, by the time the
will was written.
So Joan Kirby is correct in making Christian Sothill Babthorpe a
daughter of Henry Sothill of Stockerston & Anne Boyville.
Cheers, ----------Brad
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
Brad Verity wrote:
(snip)
> Per the will of Elizabeth Plumpton, Dame Sothill, written in 1506
> (after the death of her eldest son and heir Henry), and printed in
> 'North Country Wills', Vol. 1 (1908), pp. 65-66, her two daughters were
> Anne, wife of --------- "Heselryge", and Elizabeth, as yet unmarried.
That would be Bartine Hazlerigg (or any variant of spelling) of
Noseley, Leics. (d.1565)- good to have that confirmed too.
-Matthew
Brad Verity
> Great work Brad- also, see below:
> That would be Bartine Hazlerigg (or any variant of spelling) of
> Noseley, Leics. (d.1565)- good to have that confirmed too.
Thanks, Matthew. And thank you for identifying the family that Anne
Sothill married into - the Hesilriges of Noseley. I couldn't find
Bartine on the Hesilrige pedigree on Stirnet. Would he be the same as
the Robert Hesilrige below, son of Thomas Hesilrige & Lucy Enstwill?
Robert Hesilrige (a 1563)
m. Anne Southill (dau of Sir Henry Southill of Stoberston)
(a) Miles Hesilrige of Noseley
m. Bridget Griffin (dau of Thomas Griffin of Braybroke, she m2.
William Lane)
((1)) Thomas Hesilrige of Noseley Hall - continued below
m. Ursula Andrews (dau of Sir Thomas Andrews of Charwelton)
((2)) Edward Hesilrige (a 1605)
m. Anne Nicolls (dau of Thomas Nicolls of Hardwick) - issue
((3)) Maria Hesilrige
m. Edward Rouse of Wygorne
The pedigree above incorrectly identifies Anne as daughter of Henry
Sothill of Stockerston - from her mother's will it is clear Anne was
daughter of John Sothill & Elizabeth Plumpton. The pedigree gives the
Hesilrige/Sothill union only one child, son and heir Miles Hesilrige.
Do you know if there were any others?
Cheers, --------Brad
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/1/2006 9:09:18 AM Pacific Standard Time,
royald...@hotmail.com writes:
I couldn't find
Bartine on the Hesilrige pedigree on Stirnet.
The name "Bartine" is highly unusual. A search in A2A just for "Bartine"
only turns up four documents. None for a Haselring or variant. But if
something can be found to confirm this name, it might lead to new discoveries.
Will
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
Brad Verity wrote:
> Thanks, Matthew. And thank you for identifying the family that Anne
> Sothill married into - the Hesilriges of Noseley. I couldn't find
> Bartine on the Hesilrige pedigree on Stirnet. Would he be the same as
> the Robert Hesilrige below, son of Thomas Hesilrige & Lucy Enstwill?
>
> Robert Hesilrige (a 1563)
> m. Anne Southill (dau of Sir Henry Southill of Stoberston)
> (a) Miles Hesilrige of Noseley
> m. Bridget Griffin (dau of Thomas Griffin of Braybroke, she m2.
> William Lane)
> ((1)) Thomas Hesilrige of Noseley Hall - continued below
> m. Ursula Andrews (dau of Sir Thomas Andrews of Charwelton)
> ((2)) Edward Hesilrige (a 1605)
> m. Anne Nicolls (dau of Thomas Nicolls of Hardwick) - issue
> ((3)) Maria Hesilrige
> m. Edward Rouse of Wygorne
>
> The pedigree above incorrectly identifies Anne as daughter of Henry
> Sothill of Stockerston - from her mother's will it is clear Anne was
> daughter of John Sothill & Elizabeth Plumpton. The pedigree gives the
> Hesilrige/Sothill union only one child, son and heir Miles Hesilrige.
> Do you know if there were any others?
Dear Brad and Will,
I got the mysterious name Bartine at that generation from George F
Farnham's 'Leicestershire Medieval Pedigrees' (1925), generally a
pretty good, but obviously not flawless, source. I don't have the page
ref on my photocopy of the pedigree, but it's the
Martival/Sadington/Hastings/Hesilrige one. The Farnham account goes:
Thomas Hazlerigg, b. 1461, d. 24 May 1541=Lucy Entwisell
Bartine Hazlerigg d. 30 July 1565=Anne dau John Southill
Miles Hazlerigg dvp 28 Nov 1544=Bridget dau Thos Griffin, kt
Thomas b.1543 (etc); & Edward b.1544
No other children are given in that section.
I believe the family are also included in a volume called
'Leicestershire Pedigrees and Royal Descents' by William G D Fletcher
(London, 1887), which I think calls him Bertine, so maybe it's a
diminutive of Robert. That may have been partly Farnham's source,
although some of the dates differ. If I'm differentiating my old
researches correctly, it gives the wife as Anne, daughter of John
Southill of Stockerston.
The Stirnet account seems to differ wildly in the earlier generations,
too, from Farnham's version (and others); their sources, a visitation
and old Burke's, aren't confidence-inspiring. I can add a bit more
about Mary, daughter of Miles Hesilrige and Bridget Griffin; she was
born posthumously, so in 1544 or 1545, and married Edward Rous
(1540-1611) of Rous Lench , Worcs., as his second wife; she died in
1580. Her grandson Thomas Rous (1608-1676) was a Parliamentarian, and
was created a baronet in 1641; the family has an entry in the ODNB.
-Matthew
WJho...@aol.com
royald...@hotmail.com writes:
<< (a) Miles Hesilrige of Noseley
m. Bridget Griffin (dau of Thomas Griffin of Braybroke, she m2.
William Lane)
((1)) Thomas Hesilrige of Noseley Hall - continued below
m. Ursula Andrews (dau of Sir Thomas Andrews of Charwelton) >>
There's another one of those step-sibling marriages going on here I think (or
something like it)
http://www.southfarm.plus.com/pl_tree/wc19/wc19_214.htm
states that Thomas Andrews of Charwelton married Mary Heneage. He died about
1568 and was her second husband.
After him she married Sir Robert Lane b 7 Jan 1527 Hogshaw, Bucks. and son
of Ralph Lane by Maud Parr daughter of William Baron Parr of Horton
It would seem likely that the above William Lane, who married the mother of
Thomas Andrew's son-in-law, is somehow connected to this Robert Lane because of
this.
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
<< I got the mysterious name Bartine at that generation from George F
Farnham's 'Leicestershire Medieval Pedigrees' (1925), generally a
pretty good, but obviously not flawless, source. I don't have the page
ref on my photocopy of the pedigree, but it's the >>
Isn't it odd how serendipity allows me to state that I only *yesterday* first
found this source. I had posted a link in one of my messages today on
another family. And I've added the book as "Leicestershire Pedigrees" to my
jump-page at
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wjhonson/Census.htm
On this particular question the link directly to "Bartine" is page 11 here
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04885724&id=VpnC3wgof6gC&pg=PP48&lpg=PP4
8&dq=Bartram+Noseley
which tells us "Bertine (or Bartram)" and cites Inq P M 7 Eliz Court of
[cutoff here] vol X no 87
Will Johnson
John Higgins
which definitely seems to lead to more certainty about her parentage.
Does Joan Kirby's work [or anything else] give any evidence for the death
date of 1504 for her? The date which appears in a couple of the generally
unreliable Sothill pedigrees is 8 Apr 1540 [which was mentioned in earlier
posts on Christina]. I note that the HOP article on her son Sir Anthony
Babthorpe says that his wardship was purchased by his stepfather William
Bedell three years after the death of Sir Anthony's father (i.e., 1504).
Does this transaction necessarily imply that Christina was also dead by
1504?
Also, with respect to Elizabeth Plumpton, despite the information from
Thomas Stapleton regarding her memorial brass, I wonder if she was actually
buried at Stockerston. A snippet of her will included in a Sothill pedigree
in "Yorkshire Pedigrees" (HSP 95) says that she asked "to be bur. at Grey
Friars with my son Henry, my heart at Stockfaston by my husband". Does the
text of her will you cite include this? It's a small point, and perhaps her
wishes wer simply ignored, but it's curious....
> -------------------------------
> 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
WJho...@aol.com
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
<< Thomas Hazlerigg, b. 1461, d. 24 May 1541=Lucy Entwisell
Bartine Hazlerigg d. 30 July 1565=Anne dau John Southill
Miles Hazlerigg dvp 28 Nov 1544=Bridget dau Thos Griffin, kt
Thomas b.1543 (etc); & Edward b.1544 >>
Are you certain about the "dvp 1544" above?
The link I pasted says that Thomas was "aged 22 at his father's death"
unless they've mistaken the IPM of his father for his grandfather.
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
states. Fletcher I think gives the death of Miles as 1566, but as I
said there are several date discrepancies with the Farnham version.
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk
later in the post) rather than Farnham's 1925 one- not that it makes
much difference here, but just to clarify.
'Bertine' certainly finds more favour in a web search, eg this page:
http://kinnexions.com/smlawson.hesilrig.htm
which states "Bertine Hesilrige... Name also appears as Bertinus,
Bartram and Bartholomew." So there are several variants of both names
(Farnham gives a couple of generations as Hesilrigge, one as
Hasilrigge, and then changes to Hazlerigg). That page also says Miles
dvp; his will was proved in PCC 3 Feb 1544/5, so that does seem certain.
Brad Verity
Comments interspersed.
> Thanks for this useful bit of information on Christina Sothill Babthorpe,
> which definitely seems to lead to more certainty about her parentage.
It's nice when evidence turns up that can lead to an answer.
> Does Joan Kirby's work [or anything else] give any evidence for the death
> date of 1504 for her?
Joan Kirby's work doesn't provide a date of death for Christina (aka
Christian). It does provide a date of death for her second husband
William Bedell - 1540, but doesn't provide a source for that. Kirby
may have found it amongst many of the legal documents surrounding the
long-standing dispute between the Plumptons of Plumpton (William
Plumpton had married in 1496, Isabel Babthorpe, the heir general) and
the Babthorpes of Osgodby (the heir male) over Babthorpe and other
manors.
> The date which appears in a couple of the generally
> unreliable Sothill pedigrees is 8 Apr 1540 [which was mentioned in earlier
> posts on Christina].
I've stumbled across the source for that date. John Gough Nichols,
'Register of the Sepulchral Inscriptions Existing Temp. Hen. VIII. in
the Church of the Grey Friars, London' in "Collectanea Topographica and
Genealogica" Vol. 5 (1838), p. 289: "Christine Bedell uxr Willi Bedell
armig et filia Henrici Suttel de Stokfaston de com Lecestre armig; ob.
8 Apr. 1540."
However Nichols dates the manuscript listing the burials to the 1530s,
and Christina is the only death that occurs on the list after the year
1531.
> I note that the HOP article on her son Sir Anthony
> Babthorpe says that his wardship was purchased by his stepfather William
> Bedell three years after the death of Sir Anthony's father (i.e., 1504).
I think you meant Sir "William" Babthorpe? Who is Anthony?
> Does this transaction necessarily imply that Christina was also dead by
> 1504?
No, but the following from the IPM of her first husband William
Babthorpe (died 10 February 1501), taken on 16 November 1504, does:
"The said Christina made William Bedell, her husband, her executor, to
perform the will of the said William Babthorp, late her husband, and
died."
So Christina was dead by November 1504, which means the year of death
"1540" from the Grey Friars Church list above was a mistranscription of
"1504", either on the tomb itself, or from the maker of the original
list in the 1530s (he mistranscribed a couple of other death dates, as
Nichols points out), or from Nichols.
So Christina died 8 April 1504, which fits in with the IPM taken in
November.
> Also, with respect to Elizabeth Plumpton, despite the information from
> Thomas Stapleton regarding her memorial brass, I wonder if she was actually
> buried at Stockerston.
It appears so.
> A snippet of her will included in a Sothill pedigree
> in "Yorkshire Pedigrees" (HSP 95) says that she asked "to be bur. at Grey
> Friars with my son Henry, my heart at Stockfaston by my husband". Does the
> text of her will you cite include this?
Yes - "My body to be buryed at the Gray Freeres at London in that same
place that my sone Henry Sotehill is buryed, and my hert to be take out
of my body and buryed at Stokfaston by my housbande."
> It's a small point, and perhaps her
> wishes wer simply ignored, but it's curious....
The Grey Friars Church tomb list cited above includes, right before the
entry for Christina, "Henricus Suttell armig et Joha uxr eius: Henr.
ob. 1505." No mention of Dame Elizabeth, and it would follow that if
she had been buried with (or next to) her son, there would have been an
inscription of some kind. Douglas Richardson's PA3 provides no death
date for Henry Sothill's widow Joan Empson, but from her burial next to
him and mention in the Grey Friars list, she would had to have died by
1531.
I don't know why Dame Elizabeth's wishes weren't honored - her
executors were her sons Gerard and John Sothill. Perhaps the burial in
London was determined to be too expensive and/or inconvenient?
It was great to reply to this, John, for looking through the Grey
Friars list for Henry Sothill led me to stumble on Christina and the
source of her death date. Unexpected synchronicity!
Cheers, -------Brad
John Higgins
lot of sense. Perhaps the erroneous 1540 date is what caused her to be
wrongly assigned as a child of a later Henry Sothill in some pedigrees.
And, yes, I did mis-type when I said her son was Sir Anthony Babthorpe - it
was clearly Sir William.
Great job of research on all this!! It helps to further straighten out the
always confusing Sothills.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royald...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
WJho...@aol.com
mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
What it *must* be then I suppose is that the "Inq P M 7 Eliz Court of [cutoff
here] vol X no 87" must be actually for Bartram and not Miles and Fletcher
got it wrong or at least published it wrong.
By the way, does anyone have an idea what this "Court of [lacuna] Vol X no
87" refers to? Which Court ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
royald...@hotmail.com writes:
<< I've stumbled across the source for that date. John Gough Nichols,
'Register of the Sepulchral Inscriptions Existing Temp. Hen. VIII. in
the Church of the Grey Friars, London' in "Collectanea Topographica and
Genealogica" Vol. 5 (1838), p. 289: "Christine Bedell uxr Willi Bedell
armig et filia Henrici Suttel de Stokfaston de com Lecestre armig; ob.
8 Apr. 1540."
However Nichols dates the manuscript listing the burials to the 1530s,
and Christina is the only death that occurs on the list after the year
1531. >>
So you're saying (I think) that its' likely this is a misreading and maybe
(my thought here) that it should be 1504 not 1540 which would be a simple
mistake either in the register itself, the transcribing of it, or the publication.
Will
John Higgins
notice that "Plantagenet Ancestry" [2004], sub Sothill, says she had three
daughters, not two - Elizabeth, Anne, and Joan - but gives no details on
spouses for any of them. It's not clear how RPA reaches this conclusion,
since at least four of its cited sources give answers which are different
than this and which conflict with one another. RPA doesn't mention the
conflicts of its sources nor does it explain how it got to its conclusion of
three daughters.
Here are four alternative lists of her daughters:
1) 1583/4 and 1612 Visitation of Yorkshire (J. Foster ed.): one unnamed
daughter mar. to Killingworth.
2) 1563/4 Visitation of Yorkshire (HSP 16): Susan, Elizabeth, and Anne [no
spouses] in one pedigree, and an unnamed daughter mar. "Kyllyngworth" in
another pedigree on the same page.
3) Yorkshire Pedigrees (HSP 95): one daughter Anne [no spouse named].
4) North County Wills [quoted by Brad below]: two daughters Anne (m.
Hesilryge) and Elizabeth (unm.).
I don't presently have access to the remaining sources cited by RPA, but it
appears that most of them relate to the Plumpton family and not the
Sothills. Two possibilities in the list, however, might be worth checking
out: Dugdale's 1665/6 Visitation of Yorkshire, and Joan Kirby's "Plumpton
Letters" which Brad cited in his first post.
FWIW, RPA also says that Elizabeth [Plumpton] Sothill had seven sons (not
eight, as Brad says her memorail indicates - from a Plumpton source not
cited by RPA), but the sources above give numbers of anywhere from five to
seven sons...not much help.
More mysteries in the confusing Sothill family....
----- Original Message -----
From: <mvernon...@yahoo.co.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Parentage of Christian Sothill Babthorpe
Brad Verity
I just returned from a trip to Tucson and am catching up on emails.
Comments interspersed.
John Higgins wrote:
> With respect to the daughters of Elizabeth [Plumpton] Sothill, I happened to
> notice that "Plantagenet Ancestry" [2004], sub Sothill, says she had three
> daughters, not two - Elizabeth, Anne, and Joan - but gives no details on
> spouses for any of them. It's not clear how RPA reaches this conclusion,
> since at least four of its cited sources give answers which are different
> than this and which conflict with one another. RPA doesn't mention the
> conflicts of its sources nor does it explain how it got to its conclusion of
> three daughters.
You and I have been active on the newsgroup for enough years to know
that Douglas's "PA3" has many unsupported conclusions, and rarely makes
note of, or attempts to explain, conflicting sources. This is yet
another of many examples that have previously been pointed out.
Since Douglas is too busy blundering about in continental descendants
of Charlemagne to bother responding, I'll attempt an explanation.
> Here are four alternative lists of her daughters:
> 1) 1583/4 and 1612 Visitation of Yorkshire (J. Foster ed.): one unnamed
> daughter mar. to Killingworth.
A Visitation from 1583/4 is fairly late, by about a century, to be
relied on as an accurate accounting of the daughters of John Sothill
and Elizabeth Plumpton.
> 2) 1563/4 Visitation of Yorkshire (HSP 16): Susan, Elizabeth, and Anne [no
> spouses] in one pedigree, and an unnamed daughter mar. "Kyllyngworth" in
> another pedigree on the same page.
This Visitation, published by the Harleian Society, is fraught with
error and is far less reliable than the series of Visitations of the
North published later by the Surtees Society. Not so much through the
fault of its editor, but rather through the manuscript used as its
source, which was a copy of various Heralds' visitations with many
additions by later hands.
> 3) Yorkshire Pedigrees (HSP 95): one daughter Anne [no spouse named].
This of course is not a Visitation, but the work of a 20th-century
genealogist, J.W. Walker, and has several errors in its Sothill
pedigree, including giving Henry Sothill and Joan Empson a son "Robert,
ancestor of the Soothills of North Deighton.".
> 4) North County Wills [quoted by Brad below]: two daughters Anne (m.
> Hesilryge) and Elizabeth (unm.).
>
> I don't presently have access to the remaining sources cited by RPA, but it
> appears that most of them relate to the Plumpton family and not the
> Sothills.
The list of sources for Elizabeth Plumpton and John Sothill, provided
by PA3, is:
1) William Dugdale "Visitation of York 1665-6" (Surtees Soc. 36, 1859),
p. 191. -- This is a carryover from David Faris's PA1. It is a
Plumpton pedigree, and merely gives the marriage of Elizabeth Plumpton
and John Sothill, without ascribing any issue.
2) 'Testamenta Eboracensia' 4 (Surtees Soc. 53, 1869), pp. 168-171. --
This is also a carryover from Faris's PA1. This is the 1500 will of
John Sothill of Dewsbury, which doesn't mention any of the Sothills of
Stockerston, though the editor has a long footnote about them, quoting
the wills of John Sothill, Elizabeth Plumpton Sothill, and their son
Henry Sothill.
3) R. Glover, 'Visitation of Yorkshire 1584-5, 1612' (1875), p. 275. --
Another carryover from Faris's PA1. As you say, it is a Sothill
pedigree.
4) W. Flower, 'Visitation of Yorkshire 1563-4' (H.S.P. 16, 1881), pp.
252-254 (Plumpton pedigree), 290-291 (Sothill pedigree). Not carried
over from Faris, so a source newly compiled by Douglas. Discussed
above.
5) 'North Country Wills' 1 (Surtees Soc. 116, 1908), pp. 64-66. --
Carried over from Faris's PA1. These are the wills of John Sothill and
Dame Elizabeth Sothill.
6) W. Harvey et al., 'Visitation of the North' 3 (Surtees Soc. 144,
1930), pp. 82-84. -- Again, carried over from Faris's PA1. It is a
Plumpton pedigree, with the marriages and issue of Margaret Plumpton to
John Rocliffe and Elizabeth Plumpton to John Sothill added in later by
Glover, as stated by the editor. The children given to John and
Elizabeth are: Henry, John, Gerard, Anne, Robert, Thomas, Elizabeth,
Arthur.
7) J.W. Walker, 'Yorkshire Pedigrees' 2 (H.S.P. 95, 1943), pp. 341-345.
-- The final source carried over from Faris's PA1. It is a Sothill
pedigree, compiled by Walker, discussed above.
8) 'VCH Leicester' 5 (1964), p. 304. This is another source newly
compiled by Douglas. It is an account of the manor of Stockerston, and
mentions John Sothill (d. 1493), and his son and heir Henry, but not
Elizabeth Plumpton Sothill. If Douglas actually read this source, it's
curious that he uses the archaic spelling of "Stoke Faston" in PA3,
rather than the modern, accepted "Stockerston".
9) Eric Acheson, "A Gentry Community: Leicestershire in the Fifteenth
Century c.1422-c.1485", pp. 250-251. This is a well-researched book
that I've used before for other families. I don't know what Acheson
has to say about the Sothills on pp. 250-251.
10) Joan Kirby, 'Plumpton Letters and Papers' (Camden Soc. 5th Series
8, 1996), pp. 338-339. Another well-researched book, but the copy of
it at the UCLA Library has gone missing, and I've only had limited
access to it through Google Books. However, I can determine that pp.
338-339 is the biography of John Sothill (the author includes in
Appendix III biographies of individuals who appear in the
correspondence). Again, if Douglas had actually read this source, it's
curious that he does not cite pp. 230-233 within it, which is the
author's transcription of the actual 1464 marriage contract pertaining
to John Sothill and Elizabeth Plumpton. One would think this a very
important piece of primary documentation regarding the couple -
certainly much more valid and important than a 1665 pedigree?
Long-time readers of the newsgroup know that the above list of sources
is redundant (why cite any Visitation pedigree other than the earliest
one - earliest taken by the herald, not earliest published - unless the
editor is providing added information), chiefly secondary (only the
published wills and the c.1480 Visitation of the North were
contemporary to the lives of John Sothill and Elizabeth Plumpton, and
the Visitation doesn't work because the marriage and issue were added
in by a later hand), and largely (6 out of 10 cited sources) carried
over from Faris's PA1.
> Two possibilities in the list, however, might be worth checking
> out: Dugdale's 1665/6 Visitation of Yorkshire, and Joan Kirby's "Plumpton
> Letters" which Brad cited in his first post.
>From what I can tell, neither provides a full list of the children of
John Sothill and Elizabeth Plumpton.
> FWIW, RPA also says that Elizabeth [Plumpton] Sothill had seven sons (not
> eight, as Brad says her memorail indicates - from a Plumpton source not
> cited by RPA), but the sources above give numbers of anywhere from five to
> seven sons...not much help.
PA3 isn't much help beyond being a bibliography for the various lines
covered in it. I don't know why Douglas chose to list 7 sons and 3
daughters for John and Elizabeth, except that he probably needed to
show that he did something, as the line had long been in print (at
least since PA1). From Dame Elizabeth's will, we know the name of six
of her sons (Henry, John, Gerard, Robert, Thomas, Arthur), and this is
supported by the earliest known Herald (Robert Glover, who added into
the c.1480 Visitation pedigree). Presumably the other two sons implied
by the memorial brass to John and Elizabeth Sothill died young.
Douglas gives them a seventh son, Leonard, but his source for this had
to have been J.W. Walker's 1943 pedigree, which can't be considered too
reliable.
As for Douglas giving the couple 3 daughters - Elizabeth, Anne and Joan
- this is an error stemming from his misreading of Dame Elizabeth's
will: "I desire my doughter Johan Sotehill, for all love and kyndenes
that have been betwix hur and me, to take the disposicon of my doughter
Annes joynter." Now a trained historian - heck, even an amateur
genealogist - taking more than a cursory glance at this family, might
wonder why Dame Elizabeth would refer to her other daughters by their
first names only in her will, and refer to this one "doughter" with a
surname. Then, seeing from the various pedigrees that there was no
daughter Joan Sothill, but there was a daughter-in-law Joan Empson
Sothill, a trained historian/amateur genealogist might conclude that
Dame Elizabeth was referring to her daughter-in-law in her will, not to
a previously overlooked or 'extra' daughter.
> More mysteries in the confusing Sothill family....
Yes, who are English, with documents and sources written in English. I
shudder to think what will happen to the continental Charlemagne lines.
Reading some of Peter Stewart's reponses to Douglas's posts, assures
me that Douglas's misinterpretation and wacky Richardson Rules are not
confined to his native tongue.
Cheers, -------Brad
WJho...@aol.com
royald...@hotmail.com writes:
<< Again, if Douglas had actually read this source, it's
curious that he does not cite pp. 230-233 within it, which is the
author's transcription of the actual 1464 marriage contract pertaining
to John Sothill and Elizabeth Plumpton. >>
She was entered into a marraige contract.... at age 3 ?
WJho...@aol.com
royald...@hotmail.com writes:
<< Dame Elizabeth's [(Plumpton's) Sothill] will: "I desire my doughter
Johan Sotehill, for all love and kyndenes
that have been betwix hur and me, to take the disposicon of my doughter
Annes joynter." >>
What does this mean to "take the disposition" ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
John Higgins
mis-use] of sources by RPA/PA3. As you say, this is no great surprise (more
or less), since the newsgroup has seen many examples of this in the past.
But it doesn't hurt to bring up new examples, if only to re-emphasize the
caution with which these works should be used (if at all). The explanation
of why Joan shows up as a daughter of Elizabeth Plumpton Sothill is
particularly interesting - a clear mis-reading of a primary source, which
the author should readily acknowledge.
But as we all know, he's off "blundering about in continental descendants of
Charlemagne". This is particularly scary, since one of two promised future
volumes in the "Royal Ancestry Series" is supposed to be devoted to descents
from Charlemagne....[shudder].
I still think (reluctantly) that RPA/PA3 and its companion MCA have some
limited value as a "finding aid" but ONLY if you thoroughly check out their
references before depending on their conclusions. This is especially true
for material that has been added since the publication of PA1/PA2 on which
these later works largely depend. RPA/PA3 and MCA may be one step [barely]
above the Ancestral File and various on-line databases, but just barely.
There are so many discrepancies and misuses of sources that they simply
can't be trusted. Too bad....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royald...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Parentage of Christian Sothill Babthorpe
Brad Verity
> What does this mean to "take the disposition" ?
Will, I'm not sure. Perhaps it meant to oversee it. Joan Empson
Sothill was the widow and daughter of attorneys, so perhaps that helps
explain why Dame Elizabeth chose to involve her with the Hesilriges in
such a way.
Cheers, -------Brad
Brad Verity
> She was entered into a marraige contract.... at age 3 ?
Yep. Makes the "had to be at least age 7 at betrothal, 12 at marriage"
mantra inaccurate. She and her sister Margaret, older by a year,
became the heiresses to the many Plumpton estates after their father
William Plumpton the younger was killed at the battle of Towton in
1461. Their grandfather, the wily Sir William Plumpton, contracted in
1463 with counselor Brian Rocliff of Cowthorpe, Yorkshire (subsequently
baron of the Exchequer), for Margaret to marry Rocliff's son and heir
John. The following year, on 11 February 1464, Sir William contracted
with Henry Sothill of Stockerston, Leicestershire, for Elizabeth to
marry Sothill's son and heir John.
The young girls' mother, Elizabeth Clifford, had re-married, in the
autumn of 1461, the much older Sir Richard Hamerton, a widower whose
son and heir Stephen was married to Sir William Plumpton's daughter
Isabel. Sir Richard was one of the feoffees overseeing the interests
of his step-daughters in their marriage contracts.
Sir William Plumpton later entailed all of his estates on Robert
Plumpton, his son by his clandestine second wife, bypassing his two
married granddaughters, which caused a long-lasting dispute over the
Plumpton inheritance.
Cheers, ------Brad