Sir Thomas Kynaston, ancestor of Gov. Thomas Lloyd

[Brad Verity]

On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:49:45 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Even if the 2nd descent fails, there appears to be another royal descent from King John for the immigrant, Thomas Lloyd, Gent., of Pennsylvania. This new descent comes through Thomas Lloyd's paternal grandfather, Thomas Stanley, Esq., of Knockin, Shropshire, whose ancestral line from Elizabeth Cobham (descendant of King John), 1st wife of Sir Roger Kynaston, is presented at the following weblink:
> https://histfam.familysearch.org//pedigree.php?personID=I125373&tree=Welsh&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=8
>
> As with all such pedigrees, this descent needed to be vetted, but it is probably correct.

The descent from King John for Gov. Thomas Lloyd thru his mother Elizabeth Stanley of Knockin, which Douglas linked to above, relies on Sir Thomas Kynaston of Hordley as an ancestor. Sir Thomas has an HOP bio, here:
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/kynaston-thomas-145054-151520

The bio states that Sir Thomas Kynaston "m. Mary, da. of Sir Robert Corbet of Moreton Corbet, Salop, d.s.p.; 1s. illegit." The source for this appears to have been the Kynaston pedigree in the Visitation of Shropshire, which states:
"Thomas Kynaston de Horley in com. Salop mil. fil. et haeres Rogeri obijt sine prole legitima [Sheriff of Salop 1507]. = Maria fil. Rob't Corbett de Morton in com. Salopiae militis", with an illegitimate son (from an unidentified mother) "Thomas Kynaston fil. nothus.":
https://archive.org/stream/visitationshrop01grazgoog#page/n22/mode/2up

The pedigree of the Stanleys of Knockin in the Welsh medieval database which Douglas linked to claims that one Fulk Stanley of Knockin (with Peter Bartrum, Vol. 10, p. 1619 as its source) married Jane Kynaston, illegitimate daughter of Sir Thomas Kynaston (with Joseph Morris, Shropshire Genealogies, vol. 4, p. 1978, as its source for Jane).

The following Grant from 1520 in the Shropshire Archives helps confirm the marriage of Sir Thomas Kynaston's daughter Joan to the Stanleys:
"Grant. 1. Thomas Kenaston, Knt 2. Thomas Hanmer, Knt.; Thomas Kenaston of Lynches, gent.; Richard Twifford, clerk; Edward Stanley, gent. Of 1m. called the lee near Cokshote within the hundred of Ellesmer, and all rents, reversions, etc. in lee. For term of life of 1., to use of Francis Stanley and his wife Joan, and heirs, with reversion to Roger Kenaston, bastard son of 1., and heirs; then to Thomas Kenaston the younger, bastard son of 1.; then to Roger Kenaston of Walford. Appoints Gruff' ap John and Dd' Goughe his attorneys. 7 May 1520":
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/5faea40c-4662-4900-bf76-89161ed01e19

I'm trying to identify Mary Corbet, the childless wife of Sir Thomas Kynaston. It would appear chronologically difficult for her to have been the daughter of Sir Robert Corbet of Moreton Corbet (c.1477-1513) & Elizabeth Vernon (d. 1563). Their eldest son and heir, Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet was born 24 June 1501. I do have in my database a daughter Mary Corbet for Sir Robert, but I have her with a death date of 1586, and a husband Thomas Powell of Park (buried 20 September 1588 at St John the Baptist Church, Whittington, Shropshire).

That Sir Robert Corbet's daughter Mary was the wife of Thomas Powell, not Sir Thomas Kynaston, is confirmed by Corbet in her book 'The Family of Corbet', where she states, "His [Sir Robert Corbet's] daughters all married subsequently, Jane became the wife of Thomas Lee, of Langley, Co. Salop; Johanna or Anna married Thomas Newport; Maria was the wife of Thos. Powell, of Oswaldestre; and Dorothea married Richard Mainwaring, of Ightfield":
https://archive.org/stream/familyofcorbetit02corb#page/n153/mode/2up

In his will, written 23 April 1509, and proved 16 November 1513, Sir Robert Corbet bequeathes, "To evdy of my Daughters, that is to say, Anne, Dorothe, and Jane the some of C mis for their marriage":
https://archive.org/stream/familyofcorbetit02corb#page/n151/mode/2up

So Sir Robert Corbet's daughter Mary wasn't even born yet when he made his will in 1509. She clearly was his youngest daughter, born between 1509 and 1513, which fits with a death date for her of 1586.

With Sir Robert Corbet (c.1477-1513) eliminated as a father of Mary Corbet, wife of Sir Thomas Kynaston of Hordley (c.1451-c.1520), how does she fit into the family?

Going one generation further back, Sir Richard Corbet of Moreton Corbet (1451-1493) had a daughter named Mary. Her first husband was John Ludlow, heir of Stokesay Castle. I don't have a death date for him, but she was having children with her second husband Sir Thomas Lacon of Willey (d. 1536) by about 1505, so she couldn't have married Sir Thomas Kynaston of Hordley, who was living in 1520, between those two husbands.

The likeliest candidate for the wife of Sir Thomas Kynaston is a generation further back. Sir Roger Corbet of Moreton Corbet (c.1415-1467) and his wife Elizabeth Hopton (later countess of Worcester) also had a daughter Mary Corbet, who was the wife of Thomas Thornes of Shelvock. Their son Roger Thornes has a bio in HOP, here:
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/thornes-roger-1469-153132

The bio estimates a 1469 date of birth for Roger Thornes based on his first reference in record. It also states that his father Thomas Thornes was dead by 1503. Thomas Thornes was Bailiff of Shrewsbury in 1476, 1481, 1485, and 1489. His brother Robert Thornes was bailiff in 1490, and his son Roger Thornes (the future MP) was first bailiff in 1497:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=MPpAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA529&lpg=PA529&dq=Thomas+Thornes+1491&source=bl&ots=iSCW0Kv6lV&sig=jyFxmlwb8tuZxYzYZFIsFkltNbs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aw9UVMO8GdHloATiu4DgBA&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Thomas%20Thornes%201491&f=false

This suggests a death for Thomas Thornes of 1489/90, certainly no later than 1497.

The 2011 blog post by David Hamilton, 'Pursuing an Outlaw - The Real Wild Humphrey Kynaston', quotes an Inquisition taken in January 1493, which shows that Sir Thomas Kynaston and his brother Humphrey Kynaston had a relationship with the Thornes family of Shrewsbury, specifically Robert Thornes, the brother of Thomas Thornes,
"Humphrey [Kynaston] riding upon a horse with a certain lance worth 12 pence, which he had in his right hand, rode at Heughes and struck him on the right side of his breast which killed him. Thomas Kynaston with a sword worth 40 pence, then struck the dead Heughes on the left side of his head. Hopton then struck him with a bill worth 10 pence, on the calf of his leg. The jurors also say under oath that Robert Thornes late of Shrewsbury, in Salop, aided and abetted":
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/90467/sec_id/90467

It works chronologically for Mary Corbet to have married Sir Thomas Kynaston after the death of her husband Thomas Thornes. Given the close association of the two families - her son Roger Thornes the MP would marry Anne, the younger half-sister of Sir Thomas Kynaston - she would be the likeliest candidate for the wife of Sir Thomas Kynaston.

Cheers, -----Brad

[Patricia A. Junkin via]

All,
I notice the mention of Thomas Hanmer in this post and have been attempting to ascertain whether Nicholas Hamner who died in 1703 James Cittie, VA was the son of Humphrey Hanmer (Hammore) of New Poquoson. Some are linking Humphrey to the William Hanmer and Eleanor Dymock. I believe this William's mother was Margaret Kynaston. Has anyone research this line to a credible conclusion?
Thank you.
Pat

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

[jhigg...@yahoo.com]

Brad:

FWIW your hypothesis that Mary the wife of Sir Thomas Kynaston was the daughter of Sir Roger Corbet is supported by Bartrum's pedigree of the relevant portion of the Kynaston family in table Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 38(A3):
http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/5590/BLEDDYN%20AP%20CYNFYN%2038%28A3%29_131.png?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

Here her father is called Roger (although not SIR Roger), rather than Richard or Robert, the heads of the family in the next two generations. As you point out, the chronology works more effectively for Mary to be here rather than elsewhere in the Corbet family.

This represents a correction (or probably several corrections) to the Richardson books Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry (and probably also Royal ancestry, although I haven't seen that particular work).

[Brad Verity]

On Friday, October 31, 2014 8:55:26 PM UTC-7, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> FWIW your hypothesis that Mary the wife of Sir Thomas Kynaston was the daughter of Sir Roger Corbet is supported by Bartrum's pedigree of the relevant portion of the Kynaston family in table Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 38(A3):
>http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/5590/BLEDDYN%20AP%20CYNFYN%2038%28A3%29_131.png?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

Thank you for the link to Bartrum's Kynaston pedigree, John. I know this has been covered in the newsgroup before, but I can't remember - Are these pedigrees Bartrum's working copies, or photocopies of pages from the actual published books?

The reason I'm asking is that I notice handwritten notes on this pedigree as well, and I want to be certain the notes are from Bartrum himself, not from someone adding to or correcting their book by Bartrum.

> Here her father is called Roger (although not SIR Roger), rather than Richard or Robert, the heads of the family in the next two generations. As you point out, the chronology works more effectively for Mary to be here rather than elsewhere in the Corbet family.

Yes, I'm relieved to see that Peter Bartrum came to the same conclusion on Mary Corbet's identity.

> This represents a correction (or probably several corrections) to the Richardson books Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry (and probably also Royal ancestry, although I haven't seen that particular work).

In Bartrum's Kynaston pedigree you linked to above, which pedigree Douglas cites as a source for Humphrey Kynaston in both the 2004 & 2011 editions of Plantagenet & Magna Carta Ancestry (so I'm presuming he's read it himself), I see that Bartrum has assigned two daughters to Humphrey Kynaston - Elen, wife of John Tanat, and Jane, wife of Owain ap M'dd - that Douglas has omitted from his own list of Humphrey's children. Bartrum doesn't assign a mother to either of these two daughters, so apparently wasn't certain which marriage of Humphrey's they were from, but I wonder why Douglas has completely eliminated them as Humphrey Kynaston's daughters?

On Friday, October 31, 2014 8:21:00 PM UTC-7, Patricia A. Junkin via wrote:
> All,
> I notice the mention of Thomas Hanmer in this post and have been attempting to ascertain whether Nicholas Hamner who died in 1703 James Cittie, VA was the son of Humphrey Hanmer (Hammore) of New Poquoson. Some are linking Humphrey to the William Hanmer and Eleanor Dymock. I believe this William's mother was Margaret Kynaston. Has anyone research this line to a credible conclusion?
> Thank you.

Dear Pat,

I believe that the Sir Thomas Hanmer whom Sir Thomas Kynaston appointed one of his feoffees in the May 1520 grant was his nephew, Sir Thomas Hanmer of Hanmer (d. 1545), son of Sir Richard Hanmer of Hanmer and Margaret Kynaston, Sir Thomas's younger half-sister.

I don't have a date of death for Sir Richard Hanmer, but it was probably before October 1493, for by that date Margaret had taken up with one Jevan ap David Lloyd, who was killed in a dispute involving his apparent appointment as constable of Oswestry Castle. David Hamilton in his 2011 blog post 'Pursuing an Outlaw - The Real Wild Humphrey Kynaston', quotes from two Star Chamber documents:

"In STAC2/23/180 the plaintiff Margaret claims to be Jevan's widow, but is revealed as Humphrey's sister. She claims that her late husband departed from his home in Abertanat on the 22nd of October in the 8th year of the King's reign (1493) for Oswestry Castle where he had been appointed constable and deputy by the Lord. He was waylaid by Meredudd ap Hywl ap Morys, gentleman and rebel, and his followers accompanied by John Puleston and misruled persons. She claims that there were 1500 misruled persons arrayed in manner of war with bows, arrows, longe spears, swords of prepensed malice without ground or cause laid wait for her late husband. They murdered him, slew one of his assistants and hurt many more.

After the murder Meredudd with his company went to the castle and with great riot and force broke and entered and took certain goods of Jevan ap David Lloyd and hers which she claims was worth £100. She asks for the murderers and felons have such punishment as other like offenders may take example thereby.

John Puleston's response to Margaret's complaint is Stac 2/24/213. He states that Margaret is really sister to Humphrey and Thomas and that Jevan was married to Maud who is still alive.

"It had been shown to many of the King's subjets that Humphrey and Thomas had long been proclaimed outlaws and rebels for many offences and never obedient to the King and that they were coming to Oswestry with a great company of outlaws and rebels to destroy the town and country around.

"Humphrey and Thomas had committed many felonies and murders in the town. The people living in the area were in great dread of them coming and sent for many of their friends and kinsmen to help them defend themselves. John claims that they also sent for him and that he and his company went to Oswestry thinking that he would deserve thanks from both God and King."

When Humphrey and Thomas "came towards Oswestry to the town's end with outlaws and evil disposed persons to the number of 1500. A hundred were in white harness (armour for men and horses) with weapons to murder and slay many of your subjects as they had done before. Jevan was in their company but this was unknown to John." John declared that he and about 2,000 of the King's faithful subjects gathered to defend the town and this force fought and put them to flight. It was then he said that Jevan was killed but he knew nothing of it. He added that Jevan was close kin and that he owed him great favours and would have taken his part for the office of constable if he had come himself and not in the company of Humphrey and Thomas. Even so he had nothing to do with the murder. He also denied breaking into the castle or taking goods therefrom and had only helped the King's subjects to withstand the attack and that Margaret bears him malice. He asks that this be dismissed with reasonable costs and damages sustained by this wrongful vexation":
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/90467/sec_id/90467

I have three children in my database (so far) for Sir Richard Hanmer of Hanmer & Margaret Kynaston: 1) Sir Thomas Hanmer, the heir; 2) David Hanmer of Ebnal; 3) Ermine Hanmer, wife of Sir Edward Puleston of Emral Hall (d. 1567). No William Hanmer. But I haven't looked at the family in detail yet, and there may have been more.

Thanks & Cheers, ----Brad

[Brad Verity]

On Saturday, November 1, 2014 10:32:36 AM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
> I have three children in my database (so far) for Sir Richard Hanmer of Hanmer & Margaret Kynaston: 1) Sir Thomas Hanmer, the heir; 2) David Hanmer of Ebnal; 3) Ermine Hanmer, wife of Sir Edward Puleston of Emral Hall (d. 1567). No William Hanmer. But I haven't looked at the family in detail yet, and there may have been more.

Dear Pat,

Whoops! I see I do have the William Hanmer & Eleanor Dymock you are looking for in my database. He was Sir William Hanmer of Fens Hall, baptized 20 March 1563, died 24 September 1620. Married 24 September 1581, Eleanor Dymock (buried 12 July 1599). I only have one child in my database for them - son and heir Thomas Hanmer of Fens Hall (born May 1590; died 10 March 1624), but this is a skeletal line with no detail, so there may well have been more children.

Sir William Hanmer of Fens Hall was descended from Henry IV thru his father, William Hanmer of Fens Hall (died 18 July 1589), whose maternal grandfather was Sir Thomas Hanmer of Hanmer (d. 1545), nephew of Sir Thomas Kynaston and a feoffee in his May 1520 grant.

Margaret Kynaston (died by 1592), the wife of William Hanmer of Fens Hall (d. 1589), and the mother of your Sir William Hanmer (1563-1620), was the daughter of David Kynaston of Cricketh & Mawd Bryd. The Kynastons of Cricketh were a different branch of the family, not descended from Henry IV thru the Kynastons of Hordley.

Eleanor Dymock (d. 1599), the wife of your Sir William Hanmer of Fens Hall (1563-1620), descends from Edward III thru her mother Katherine Mostyn: Cardinal Beaufort/Stradling/Griffith/Mostyn.

I can send you an ahnentafel, if it would be useful to you.

Hope this helps.

Cheers, ----Brad

[jhigg...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, November 1, 2014 10:32:36 AM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:

> On Friday, October 31, 2014 8:55:26 PM UTC-7, jhigg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > FWIW your hypothesis that Mary the wife of Sir Thomas Kynaston was the daughter of Sir Roger Corbet is supported by Bartrum's pedigree of the relevant portion of the Kynaston family in table Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 38(A3):
> >http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/handle/2160/5590/BLEDDYN%20AP%20CYNFYN%2038%28A3%29_131.png?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
>
> Thank you for the link to Bartrum's Kynaston pedigree, John. I know this has been covered in the newsgroup before, but I can't remember - Are these pedigrees Bartrum's working copies, or photocopies of pages from the actual published books?
>
> The reason I'm asking is that I notice handwritten notes on this pedigree as well, and I want to be certain the notes are from Bartrum himself, not from someone adding to or correcting their book by Bartrum.
>
> > Here her father is called Roger (although not SIR Roger), rather than Richard or Robert, the heads of the family in the next two generations. As you point out, the chronology works more effectively for Mary to be here rather than elsewhere in the Corbet family.
>
> Yes, I'm relieved to see that Peter Bartrum came to the same conclusion on Mary Corbet's identity.
>
> > This represents a correction (or probably several corrections) to the Richardson books Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Carta Ancestry (and probably also Royal ancestry, although I haven't seen that particular work).
>
> In Bartrum's Kynaston pedigree you linked to above, which pedigree Douglas cites as a source for Humphrey Kynaston in both the 2004 & 2011 editions of Plantagenet & Magna Carta Ancestry (so I'm presuming he's read it himself), I see that Bartrum has assigned two daughters to Humphrey Kynaston - Elen, wife of John Tanat, and Jane, wife of Owain ap M'dd - that Douglas has omitted from his own list of Humphrey's children. Bartrum doesn't assign a mother to either of these two daughters, so apparently wasn't certain which marriage of Humphrey's they were from, but I wonder why Douglas has completely eliminated them as Humphrey Kynaston's daughters?
>

AFAIK the scanned versions of the Bartrum pedigrees now available online are those actually drawn by Bartrum himself, not scanned pages of the published books. This is based on the description at the home page for the project, which says that the pedigrees online contain "significant amendments and corrections" made by Bartrum after the publication of the work. So I think it's fair to say that the notations on these versions are the work of Bartrum himself.
http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2160/4026

BTW I've noticed that some of the pedigrees appear to have not yet been scanned (or, if they're scanned, they're not indexed). See, for example, the table Rhirid Flaidd 6(G) which is referenced in the family of Humphrey Kynaston in the pedigree mentioned earlier, but which doesn't seem to appear in the search index to the project. This is apparently still a work in progress, but nonetheless it's still quite valuable - if you have the patience to work with its quirks. It will be a great step forward when they complete the searchable index of all individuals in the tables.

As to DR's handling of Humphrey Kynaston's family in PA and MCA, one can only speculate about DR's reasons. But you may have hit upon the answer when you note that Bartrum is uncertain about the maternity of the two children you mention. In addition DR has omitted two other children by a third woman who was either a mistress or a third wife of Humphrey Kynaston (Elsbeth ferch Edward ap Jenkin ab Ieuan - Bartrum seems to be unclear about her marital status). My guess is that DR didn't want to deal with the uncertainties here and chose to avoid the problem by simply eliminating them. Not a wise decision in my view - genealogy is not always neat and clean. A fuller account of Humphrey Kynaston's family can be found here in the FHL's Welsh Genealogy database:
https://histfam.familysearch.org/getperson.php?personID=I16891&tree=Welsh