Crispins in England

[Reg Hall]

I have been doing research on my family back to 1013.I have been told that my relation Arthur Fitzwilliam ,who apparently fell out with his father, went to live at the Hall, and when questioned said he lived at the Hall.Later he married into the Crispin family.However I cannot find any of the Crispins in England.They were supposed to live in Cheshire.Later he moved into Scotland and became a doctor to King Robert.
So, where there any of the Crispins living in England?.

[taf]

On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 4:28:39 PM UTC-7, Reg Hall wrote:
> I have been doing research on my family back to 1013.I have been told that my relation Arthur Fitzwilliam ,who apparently fell out with his father, went to live at the Hall, and when questioned said he lived at the Hall.Later he married into the Crispin family.However I cannot find any of the Crispins in England.They were supposed to live in Cheshire.Later he moved into Scotland and became a doctor to King Robert.
> So, where there any of the Crispins living in England?.

In what time period did this Arthur Fitzwilliam live?

One has to be careful with the Crispins. For some reason, certain families attract an inordinate amount of genealogical fantasy, and the Crispins are one of them.

[Will Johnson]

This appears to be from here

https://www.tartans.com/clans/Hall/hall.html

which actually states

"Upon entering England with the Norman Conquest, the Hall's were actually "FITZ WILLIAM'S", they being settled in Greatford Hall in Lincolnshire, and being directly descended from Wentworth, Earl FitzWilliam. The younger son of this noble house, Arthur FitzWilliam, was called "Hall", to distinguish him from his senior brother. Hence Arthur Hall would be the first on record about the year 1090 AD. The line continued in Lincolnshire, and intermarried with the Crispins, and the Earls of Chester. In Cheshire [England], the Hall's were a cadet branch of the Kingsley Hall's of that county. By 1340 AD, the name had moved northward at the invitation of Earl David of Huntingdon, later to become King David of Scotland. In Scotland, they were granted lands in Berwickshire, specifically the lands of Glenryg in the barony of Lesmahagow. "

[mike davis]

Is any of this true? it sounds more dubious than some stuff from Burkes. In particular the bit about King David
seems confused; David I [1124-53] certainly held the honour of Huntingdon, but I did David II [1329-71]
as he was only 5 when he became king? Surely the Wentworths are a much later family from about 1300 onwards,
so how Arthur Hall [is this a joke?] could descend from them c1090 seems odd. And the 1st Earl Fitzwilliam is
later still if the irish peer is meant.

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

The whole screed is preposterous tripe, as bogus as the misplaced
apostrophes in plurals. Note that at the end it falsely and
nonsensically claims "The wife of Sir William Shakespeare was a Hall",
as if the bard of Avon had been secretly knighted. One of the sources
listed, all without bibliographic details of course, is a romantic
fiction in verse, '"The Lay of the Last Minstrel" by Sir Walter Scott'.

Peter Stewart



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

[taf]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 2:19:15 PM UTC-7, mike davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:45:26 PM UTC+1, Will Johnson wrote:
>> "Upon entering England with the Norman Conquest, the Hall's were actually "FITZ WILLIAM'S", they being settled in Greatford Hall in Lincolnshire, and being directly descended from Wentworth, Earl FitzWilliam.

This is at best confusing and at worst absurd. The implication is that they adopted the name Hall from their possession of Greatford Hall, but that would be very uncommon (that the family owning Greatford Hall would call themselves Hall, rather than, for example, Greatford). It also seems to be stating that the Conquest FitzWilliams descended from Wentworth, Earl FitzWilliam, but that is a non-starter as there were no such pre-Conquest earls.

>> The younger son of this noble house, Arthur FitzWilliam, was called "Hall", to distinguish him from his senior brother. Hence Arthur Hall would be the first on record about the year 1090 AD.

And again, this doesn't pass the smell test. I don't have my sources handy right now, but I don't think Arthur was a very common name among Domesday-era Anglo-Normans.

>>The line continued in Lincolnshire, and intermarried with the Crispins, and the Earls of Chester. In Cheshire [England], the Hall's were a cadet branch of the Kingsley Hall's of that county.

This seems to be following the 'everyone named X is related' trope, but a generic name like Hall is not going to be indicative of a shared origin.

> Is any of this true?

Doesn't look it.

taf