Tempest and Hudleston
mj...@btinternet.com
second wife, Katherine Tempest, said to be the daughter of Sir Richard
Tempest of Bowling, Yorkshire (e.g. Cumberland Families and Heraldry,
Hudleston & Boumphrey, p 333 sub Tempest; Nicholson & Burns, vol ii).
The only alleged primary reference to Katherine that I have seen is to
a Feet of Fine from 1388, but I have not yet tracked this down.
There is a problem with this identification, however, in that Bowling
appears not to have come into the Tempest family until the end of the
15th century (the earliest reference I have seen is to the will of Sir
Richard Temple of Bowling dated 1535 - it appears to have been he who
married the Bolling (sic) heiress in 1497 and thus acquired Bowling,
according to the website for the Bolling Hall Museum.
Before their removal to Bowling, the Tempests had been seated at
Bracewell and Waddington, Yorkshire.
HoP 1386-1422 Vol IV details the career of Sir Richard Tempest
(c1356-1427/8) of Bracewell, who is said to be "probably the son and
heir of Sir John Tempest (ff 1349) of Bracewell and Waddington by
Margaret, daughter of Sir Robert Holand."
Roskell et al warn that there has been much conflation between this Sir
Richard and his apparently older namesake, Sir Richard Temple of
Studley, Yorkshire "who died at some point before 1390 leaving a widow,
Isabel, and a son William, MP", the latter being a member of a junior
branch of the Tempests. According to HoP, Surtees' Durham (vol ii p
329) details this division of the Tempest family during the early 14th
century, although it is said that the author has also confused the two
Sir Richards.
Chronologically, given that her son Richard Hudleston was born about
1380, Katherine Tempest cannot have been Sir Richard's daughter.
Burke's Family Records shows a Sir John Tempest of Bracewell as born 24
August 1283 and having livery in 1304 [presumably a Proof of Age exists
and is the source for this]; he is stated to have been Lord of
Bracewell, Stock and Waddington, to have been Knight of the Shire for
Yorkshire in 1324, and to have died in 1359. He appears too old to
have been Sir Richard's father, and indeed Burke's Landed Gentry
(Tempest) states that he was his great grandfather, the intervening
generations being Sir John the younger and an elder Sir Richard (at
variance with HoP). Burke assigns to the elder Sir John a daughter of
Robert Holand as wife, and to the younger Sir John, Katherine, daughter
of Sir Robert Sherburn, but I am suspicious of this as Katherine
Sherburn appears to have been the granddaughter of Margaret Holand by
her first marriage to Sir John de Blackburn, which would have made her
closely consanginous to her husband Sir John Tempest if he were the son
of a Holand. There are also chronological difficulties with the line
as presented in Burke's
Katherine Tempest and Sir John Hudleston's son and heir, Sir Richard
Hudleston likewise married a woman of Holand descent - the daughter of
Sir Nicholas Harington, whose grandmother Katherine Banastre was
Margaret Holand's daughter by her second marriage. If Katherine
Tempest was the daughter of Sir John the younger of Bracewell then Sir
Richard Hudleston and his Harington wife would also have been within
the prohibited degrees - third cousins; I have seen to dispensation for
this marriage. This would lead me to believe that Katherine came not
from the Bracewell branch of the Tempests, but possibly from those of
Studley.
For what it is worth, Burke's says that Sir Richard Tempest of Studley
was dead by October 1379 and by his second wife Isabel (d 1421),
daughter of Sir Thomas Bourne of Studley, fathered two sons, John (dsp
by 1390) and Sir William Tempest; Sir Richard is said to be the younger
brother of Sir John of Bracewell the younger. It is interesting to
note that Katherine Hudleston's two sons were named Richard and
William.
Hudleston and Boumphrey assign to Katherine: argent, a bend between six
martlets sable, "as displayed on a shield at Hutton John".
MA-R
WJho...@aol.com
mj...@btinternet.com writes:
<< Katherine Tempest and Sir John Hudleston's son and heir, Sir Richard
Hudleston likewise married a woman of Holand descent - the daughter of
Sir Nicholas Harington, whose grandmother Katherine Banastre was
Margaret Holand's daughter by her second marriage. >>
I'm hoping you can solve this chronologic problem I'm having with this
reconstruction.
Was Nicholas Harington of Farleton the son of Katherine Banastre ?
Leo has this Nicholas b 1345
The Sir John Tempest of Bracewell b 24 Aug 1283 d 1359 must then be
Margaret's father-in-law
I can't fit another generation in there.
Thanks
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
WJho...@aol.com schrieb:
> In a message dated 6/16/06 2:54:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> mj...@btinternet.com writes:
>
> << Katherine Tempest and Sir John Hudleston's son and heir, Sir Richard
> Hudleston likewise married a woman of Holand descent - the daughter of
> Sir Nicholas Harington, whose grandmother Katherine Banastre was
> Margaret Holand's daughter by her second marriage. >>
>
> I'm hoping you can solve this chronologic problem I'm having with this
> reconstruction.
>
> Was Nicholas Harington of Farleton the son of Katherine Banastre ?
> Leo has this Nicholas b 1345
Yes, that's right.
> The Sir John Tempest of Bracewell b 24 Aug 1283 d 1359 must then be
> Margaret's father-in-law
Not sure I follow the logic here. Burke's says that this Sir John
Tempest (the elder) married a daughter of Robert Holand - this would
appear to make him Margaret Holand's brother-in-law rather than
father-in-law.
Additionally, Burke's says that Sir John Tempest the younger married
Katherine Sherburn, apparently Margaret Holand's granddaughter; if this
reconstruction (and the alleged facts behind it) are correct, then Sir
John the younger and his wife would have been first cousins once
removed - closely consanginous - assuming that the younger Sir John is
said to have been the son of Margaret Holand's sister. I note that
Burke's Extinct Peerage says the elder Sir John married a daughter of
Hugh Clitheroe and also drops a generation, making the younger Sir John
and the first Sir Richard brothers - which would make more sense
chronologically.
Sir Nicholas Harington was the son of Katherine Banastre and the
grandson of Margaret Holand. Thus, Sir Richard Hudleston married
Margaret's great granddaughter.
Is this any clearer?
WJho...@aol.com
mj...@btinternet.com writes:
<< Not sure I follow the logic here. Burke's says that this Sir John
Tempest (the elder) married a daughter of Robert Holand - this would
appear to make him Margaret Holand's brother-in-law rather than
father-in-law. >>
I'm following the line that John Tempest b 24 Aug 1283 had a son John who dvp
and it was this latter John who married Margaret Holland dau of Robert
Holland.
This last couple John Tempest and Margaret Holland, then also had a son John
who had a son Robert d 1427/8
Thus the generations are 20 to 30 years apart which makes a lot more sense to
me.
WJho...@aol.com
mj...@btinternet.com writes:
<< Sir Nicholas Harington was the son of Katherine Banastre and the
grandson of Margaret Holand. Thus, Sir Richard Hudleston married
Margaret's great granddaughter. >>
Then the Nicholas Harrington who married Isabel English is the same Nicholas
who married Joan Venables ?
mj...@btinternet.com
Sorry - away from my copy of HoP which would confirm this - will let
you know asap.
mj...@btinternet.com
WJho...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/17/06 12:09:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> mj...@btinternet.com writes:
>
> << Not sure I follow the logic here. Burke's says that this Sir John
> Tempest (the elder) married a daughter of Robert Holand - this would
> appear to make him Margaret Holand's brother-in-law rather than
> father-in-law. >>
>
> I'm following the line that John Tempest b 24 Aug 1283 had a son John who dvp
> and it was this latter John who married Margaret Holland dau of Robert
> Holland.
>
> This last couple John Tempest and Margaret Holland, then also had a son John
> who had a son Robert d 1427/8
Part of the problem here is "which Robert Holand"? Do you have a
reference source for your comments? All I have seen is Burke's which
is (as usual) flawed and unreliable.
mj...@btinternet.com
WJho...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/17/06 12:09:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> mj...@btinternet.com writes:
>
> << Not sure I follow the logic here. Burke's says that this Sir John
> Tempest (the elder) married a daughter of Robert Holand - this would
> appear to make him Margaret Holand's brother-in-law rather than
> father-in-law. >>
>
> I'm following the line that John Tempest b 24 Aug 1283 had a son John who dvp
> and it was this latter John who married Margaret Holland dau of Robert
> Holland.
Ah, I think there are two different Margaret Holands.
The first married twice, and by her second husband (Adam Banastre) was
mother of Katherine Harington nee Banastre; by her first marriage (to
John Blackburn) she was maternal grandmother of Katherine Sherburne,
who is alleged to have married a Tempest.
The second (who is elsewhere variously described Joan, Mary or unnamed)
presents more of a problem, as she seems to be relatively undocumented.
There were some posts here a couple of years ago about this problem,
which remained unresolved; HoP does seem less tentative about her
marriage to the younger John Tempest, but I am not sure what sources
were relied on for this; this also leaves the question of how factual
the alleged Sherburn-Tempest marriage is, and where it fits in.
> This last couple John Tempest and Margaret Holland, then also had a son John
> who had a son Robert d 1427/8
Do you mean "Richard" rather than Robert - i.e. Sir Richard Tempest of
Bracewell?
> Thus the generations are 20 to 30 years apart which makes a lot more sense to
> me.
Except that the elder Sir John was born in 1283, and his apparent
grandson Sir Richard (d 1427/8) is said by HoP to have been born circa
1356 - that would allow enough room for at least one more generation -
ie for Sir Richard to be the elder Sir John's great grandson.
MA-R
WJho...@aol.com
mj...@btinternet.com writes:
<< Part of the problem here is "which Robert Holand"? Do you have a
reference source for your comments? All I have seen is Burke's which
is (as usual) flawed and unreliable. >>
My reference that the wife of (some) John Tempest was a Katherine Holland,
dau of some Sir Robert Holland is the HoP article which you cited recently on
Sir Richard Tempest :)
It does say that. It calls this particular John Tempest the one who fl 1349
but maybe that's the sole mistake. Maybe this is the wrong John Tempest, and
the one who fl 1349 is the son of the one who Katherine Holland married.
I'm just taking the various snippets and trying to make them all fit together
in some form, so it's a bit of conjecture and a bit of documentation, and
then once we have some sort of framework (big grin) to try to find primary
documents to support it.
And please note, that unlike others, I'm not claiming to be a major online
resource reconstructing families from scratch ! (Give me another year before I
make that claim)
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
mj...@btinternet.com writes:
<< Except that the elder Sir John was born in 1283, and his apparent
grandson Sir Richard (d 1427/8) is said by HoP to have been born circa
1356 - that would allow enough room for at least one more generation -
ie for Sir Richard to be the elder Sir John's great grandson. >>
Yes I'm agreeing.
Sir John Tempest 24 Aug 1283-1359
father of
Sir John Tempest dvp before 1333
father of
John Tempest
father of
Richard Tempest of Bracewell ~1356 - 1427/8
The third John above with no dates can be variously born from say 1317 to say
1332 (father d bef 1333) and so its safe to allow this extra generation :)
The tricky part is to assign the various documents to these generations in
such a way that they all make sense.
Of course I don't envy someone trying to sort out "John Tempest" in the
perhaps 100 or more citations that that name probably has.
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
WJho...@aol.com schrieb:
> In a message dated 6/19/06 2:09:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> mj...@btinternet.com writes:
>
> << Part of the problem here is "which Robert Holand"? Do you have a
> reference source for your comments? All I have seen is Burke's which
> is (as usual) flawed and unreliable. >>
>
> My reference that the wife of (some) John Tempest was a Katherine Holland,
> dau of some Sir Robert Holland is the HoP article which you cited recently on
> Sir Richard Tempest :)
>
> It does say that. It calls this particular John Tempest the one who fl 1349
> but maybe that's the sole mistake. Maybe this is the wrong John Tempest, and
> the one who fl 1349 is the son of the one who Katherine Holland married.
Thanks, Will. Actually, HoP calls the wife of John Tempest (ff 1349)
*Margaret* Holand; the references cited are:
Harl. 6136 f 18; Scrope v Grosvenor, i 198, ii 474-4; Yorks Arch Soc
Rec Ser cxx 136-7.
I believe the first was referred to a year or two ago on the list on a
discussion about the Holands (Douglas Richardson stated that her
placement in the family was uncertain).
MA-R
John
women in the late medieval period, which Chris Phillips has kindly
consented to post on his Medieval Genealogy website. We understand it
will appear in his next update. Our article touches on some issues
raised in this thread.
Our article takes as its framework a manuscript written by Eleanor
Blanche Tempest (hereafter "EBT") in the 1910s and early 1920s. The
manuscript Tempest Pedigrees is in the British Library (Add. MS
40,670). It is a large folio document of 22 sheets, each about 24 by
20 inches, with dense small script. It begins with Roger Tempest in
the early 12th Century. It is meticulously documented with many
references to primary sources in the Public Record office, the British
Museum, the Bodleian, and public and private collections in Yorkshire
and Lancashire. We have consulted many of these sources for the
individuals we were concerned with, but not all. Her work is
invaluable, but it is clearly not infallible, as I note below. It is
quite evident that Roskell, the various Burke's volumes (e.g., Landed
Gentry, Family Records, and Peerage and Baronetage), the Genealogics
website, Whitaker's Whalley and Craven, and other authorities are
deficient in their treatment of the Tempests.
We have not studied EBT's materials on the Bowling (Bolling)
connection. However, she shows Bowling as entering the Tempest family
no earlier than the late 15th Century when Sir Richard Tempest (b.
1474) married Rosamund, d & h of Tristram Bolling of Bolling. Sir
Richard was son of Nicholas Tempest and Margaret Pilkington and
Nicholas was the son of John Tempest and Alice Sherburne. EBT shows
Catherine Tempest, daughter of Sir Richard Tempest and Mary Talbot (see
below) as the wife of John Huddleston of Millum, co. Cumberland,
married about 1391, giving as a reference Bentham's [? she may be
referring to Betham, which I have not consulted] Baronetage, v. 1, p.
673, note. Evidently this reference refers to Sir Richard Tempest as
of "Bolling" and EBT corrects this to "Bracewell." She also cites a
writ of assize of novel disseisin in May 1377 involving Sir John
Huddleston and Catherine his wife in 32 Dep. Keeper's Rep., p. 348 [?
page number not clear].
With regard to other issues raised in this exchange, EBT shows the
following sequence:
Richard Tempest d.1297
Sir John Tempest, b. 1283 d. shortly after 1356 m. Margaret Holand
Sir John Tempest b. ca 1313 m. Katherine Sherburne
Sir Richard Tempest b. ca 1334, d. 1390 m. Mary Talbot
Sir Richard Tempest b. 1356, d. 1428 m. Margaret Stainforth
We believe this is correct, except as noted below. As has been
observed in this thread, it is difficult to keep the Tempest Johns and
Richards straight during this period. Note that there are only two
Johns in this sequence, the second John did not have a son John.
Evidence of the first John's birth date, 24 August 1283, is a proof of
age in Cal. of Inq. P.M., v. 4, p. 171 (see also Yorkshire Inquisitions
III in Yorkshire Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser., v. 37 pp. 92-93). The last
evidence EBT or we have found for him is a grant of land in Elsack to
which he was a witness 25 June 1356 (Coll. Top. et Gen. v. 6, p. 143).
EBT believes he died shortly after that.
The only other birth date we know with relative certainty in the above
sequence is that of Sir Richard, b. 1356, from his testimony in the
Scrope and Grosvenor trial (Nicholas, v. 1, pp. 198-99, v. 2, pp.
473-74) in which he said in October 1386 that he was 30 years old
(Nicholas suggests two possibilities for Richard's father, both of
which are clearly wrong). Richard made his will 26 August 1427 and it
was proved by his son Roger 30 September 1430 (Test. Ebor., v. 1, pp.
412-13). EBT believes he died in 1428, citing non-payment of an
annuity due to him "because he is dead" (quoting Duchy of Lancaster
Minister's accounts No. 8352, bdl. 524 and accounts of the Priory of
Finchale for May 1429 to May 1430, Surtees Soc. Pub., v. 6, p. cciii).
As noted in this thread, many authorities, including EBT, show Margaret
Holand, daughter of Sir Robert Holand and Maud la Zouche, as the wife
of the first John Tempest. Richardson in Plantagenet Ancestry (pp.
400-01) shows Margaret's husband as John la Warre but notes the
possibility that Margaret was also married to John Tempest. The
sources of this alleged marriage appear to be a manuscript by Roger
Dodsworth (Dodsw. 6, f. 54 in the Bodleian Library, this is the source
for a pedigree in Harleian 6136, f. 53 in the British Library, see also
Harleian 4630, f. 388) and the Visitation of Devon 1562 (Harleian 5185
and the printed version of this by Frederick Thomas Colby, 1881).
We believe that we have shown that John Tempest could not have been
married to Margaret Holand or to any other daughter of Robert and Maud.
Our full argument may be found in the above referenced article, but
the basic ideas are as follows. The marriage of Sir Robert Holand and
Maud la Zouche and Maud's birth in about 1290 are established by the
inquests at the death of her father, Alan la Zouche (Cal. Inq. P.M. v.
5, pp. 255-59) the first dated 27 March 1314 in which Maud is
identified as the wife of Sir Robert Holand and as age 24. Complete
Peerage (v. 6, p. 530) says that Robert and Maud were married in 1311.
The marriage could have taken place earlier, say as early as 1305,
although that is unlikely. We do not know the exact dates of birth of
the second John Tempest or his son Richard, but we do know the birth
date of Richard b. 1356 and it appears impossible that Maud could have
been his great great grandmother. There is also the problem noted in
this thread that a marriage of John Tempest and Margaret Holand would
lead to an impermissible consanguinity in the next generation: the
marriage of Sir John with Katherine Sherburne, since Katherine was the
great granddaughter of Robert Holand and Elizabeth de Samlesbury, the
parents of the Robert Holand who married Maud la Zouche, leading to a
relationship in the second and third degree. We have not found a
permission for such a marriage in the Calendar of Papal Registers or in
the published registers of the Archbishop of York, William Melton
(Canterbury and York Soc., vols. 70, 71, 76, 85, 93, but note that not
all of Melton's registers have been published, they are at the
Borthwick Institute of the University of York). Finally, there is the
matter of a Papal Indult in June 1344 to John Tempest, knight, and
Isabel his wife to select their confessors at the hour of their deaths
(Cal. Papal Registers, Papal Letters, v. 3, p. 179). We know of no one
who has adequately accounted for this Isabel. Of course, it might be
useful to examine the original of this Papal indult to determine if it
has been accurately transcribed, if it can be found.
A marriage between the first Sir John Tempest and a daughter of Robert
Holand and Elizabeth de Samlesbury would fit better on chronological
grounds. Robert and Elizabeth appear to have had two daughters, Joan
and Margaret. However, this Margaret is known to have had three
marriages, to John de Blackburn, Robert de Hepdale, and Adam Banester.
And Joan was also married three times, to Edmund Talbot, Hugh Dutton,
and John Radcliffe. So it appears unlikely that Sir John Tempest was
married to a Holand daughter, at least in this line. We conclude that
the identity of his wife is yet unknown.
There remains, however, another consanguinity problem, that of the
marriage of Richard Tempest and Mary Talbot. Mary Talbot was the
granddaughter of Edmund Talbot and Joan Holand and the great
granddaughter of Robert Holand and Elizabeth de Samlesbury. Richard
Tempest was the great grandson of Robert and Elizabeth, so they are
related in the third and third degrees. We have not found a
dispensation for this marriage in the Cal. of Papal Registers or in
Melton's published registers. However, as noted above, not all of
Melton's registers have been published and failure to find a
dispensation is not definitive evidence, although it would be nice if
it could be found.
The Clitheroe connection, found in Whitaker and other places, is
completely specious, as is the claimed de Gras connection with this
branch of the Tempests. Richard, b. 1356, had an uncle Richard who was
married to Isabel, daughter of Sir John le Gras of Studley, and these
Richards are often confused.
I might note that our concern has been with the ancestry of Isabel
Tempest who married Laurence Hamerton. Isabel's parentage is often
confused in the literature, often shown as a daughter of a John
Tempest. EBT shows Isabel as the daughter of Sir Richard, b. 1356, and
in our article we conclude that she was right. For reasons we detail
there, we cannot be sure that her mother was Margaret Stainforth.
One more point: I have as the wives of Nicholas Harrington Isabel
English and Margaret Latham d. of Thomas Latham. The sources I have
for Margaret Latham are Whitaker's History of Richmondshire (1823,
chart fol. p. 250), Baines History of Lancaster (1888, v. 5, chart p.
74), and Ian Grimble, Harington Family (1957, p. 27), but I have not
examined these recently. I do not have primary sources for this part
of the Harrington line.
We are grateful to Chris Phillips for his assistance in locating,
translating, and interpreting original documents at the National
Archives, British Library, and College of Arms. We thank the Borthwick
Institute and the College of Arms for locating and translation services
and the British Library and Bodleian Library for providing us with
photocopies of various documents.
John Schuerman
Chicago
mj...@btinternet.com
John schrieb:
> Douglas Hickling and I have written a piece concerning the Tempest
> women in the late medieval period, which Chris Phillips has kindly
> consented to post on his Medieval Genealogy website. We understand it
> will appear in his next update. Our article touches on some issues
> raised in this thread.
Wow - first class. Many thanks.
MA-R
WJho...@aol.com
j-sch...@uchicago.edu writes:
<< EBT shows
Catherine Tempest, daughter of Sir Richard Tempest and Mary Talbot (see
below) as the wife of John Huddleston of Millum, co. Cumberland,
married about 1391, giving as a reference Bentham's [? she may be
referring to Betham, which I have not consulted] Baronetage, v. 1, p.
673, note. Evidently this reference refers to Sir Richard Tempest as
of "Bolling" and EBT corrects this to "Bracewell." She also cites a
writ of assize of novel disseisin in May 1377 involving Sir John
Huddleston and Catherine his wife in 32 Dep. Keeper's Rep., p. 348 [?
page number not clear]. >>
The "bef May 1377" date should be preferable to the "about 1391" date also
stated above, as in 1398 Richard was a minor but evidently old enough to
participate in a raid at that time. Seven years old would be a little precocious to
be in a raiding party, in my opinion.
Will Johnson
John
recorded a papal indult to Sir John Tempest and his wife, Isabel, 3
June 1344 and that it might be useful to check the original of the
register to verify the wife's name, given the controversy about John's
wife. Doug Hickling and I have now done so, or at least we have
consulted an image of the original. It turns out that the Vatican
Secret Archives has produced a series of CDs with images of the
registers, see:
http://asv.vatican.va/en/stud/cd_dvd_inform.html
There are over 500 of these CDs, covering John VIII (872-882) to Paul
II (1464-1471) each available for sale at 120 euros. At least some of
these CDs are held by university libraries in the US, including Notre
Dame and the University of California-Berkeley. They are also held by
the British Library. The title, for purposes of looking them up in
library catalogues is Archivum Secretum Vaticanum, Reg. Vat. The entry
for John Tempest and his wife is on Reg. Vat. 166 (CD number 166) for 3
Clement VI. It is found at f. 347v and is number clxv. It does
clearly identify Isabel as John's wife. We appreciate the assistance
of Chris Phillips in interpreting the entry.
The article on the Tempest wives by Doug Hickling and me may be found
on Chris's website at:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/families/tempest/index.shtml
John Schuerman