Spiller of Laleham
WJho...@aol.com
conflicting information online, or at least a vacuum in the question of how
their manor of Billets in Laleham, or just Laleham descended.
What I have so far is
1. Henry Spiller of Billets in Laleham, co Mdx; Knt (?) living Sep 1627;
adult by 1569; married Dorothy Decons adult by 1573, she buried 14 Jul 1624 at
Shepperton.
1.1 Sir Robert Spiller of Laleham, co Mdx; adult by 1588; Knt 1622; "of
Laleham" (apparently as joint "lord" with his father) 1626; probably outlived
his father and was sole lord of Laleham until his death; buried at Shepperton
21 May 1637 married 11 Nov 1615 at St Mary le Strand, London Dorothy
Dormer, daughter of Sir John Dormer of Crendon by his wife Jane Giffard
1.1.1. [possibly sole heiress] Jane Spiller of Haddenham, Kingsey and
Tythrop (as heiress ? or as maritagium ?); apparently born in or about 1625, died
in 1695, married 3 Aug 1646 St Peter Paul's Wharf, London (Batch M001371
wj) James Herbert of Kingsley and of Shurland and of Milton (is this a Manor
?) "sixth son" of Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of /Pembroke/ 1630- by his wife
Susan de Vere; James apparently born in or about 1623 buried 13 Apr 1677
St.Mary's Thame, Oxfordshire
1.1.1.1. Mary Herbert married Robert /Worsley/ of Appuldercombe; Knt and
3rd Bnt with issue
1.1.1.2 Thomas /Herbert/ eldest son of his father but d.s.p. unknown date
1.1.1.3 James /Herbert/ of Milton and of Kingsley, co Buck younger of two
sons married unknown wife and issue James /Herbert/ of Tythorpe, co Oxon,
and of Milton; esq
1.2 Henry /Spiller/ of Laleham, co Mdx 1637-49; Knt 1618 apparently brother
of Sir Robert of Laleham, Henry was active on Laleham property by the
1640s, probably as heir of his brother Robert; living Dec 1648, dead by Jun 1653;
testate; wife Anne Unknown living 1653 as widow of Sir Henry
1.2.1. Katherine /Spiller/ of Laleham and Billets (as heiress) "Sole
heiress of her father" living 1653; married 11 Sep 1621 (where ?) Thomas
/Reynell/ of Laleham j.u. -1651-1656-; Knt 1625; he died at Laleham; "aged 77"
buried 29 May 1665 Shepperton; issue ??
Will Johnson
John
The entries for (some of) these Spillers in Leo's database reference a
source (of which I have a copy) which indicates some differences from
this account. The source is not necessarily authoritative, but the
issues it raises are worth noting.
1) For Dorothy Spiller bur. 14 July 1624, can it be confirmed that she
was the wife of Sir Henry Spiller and not the Dorothy (Dormer) Spiller
who married his son Sir Robert?
2) Aside from the burial record, is there other evidence of the
Christian name of the wife of Sir Henry Spiller? Leo's source doesn't
give her a Christian name.
3) What evidence indicates that Sir Robert was an adult as of 1588?
Leo's source says he was born ca. 1591. Per Alumni Oxonienses 4;1400
Sir Robert matriculated at Oxford 25 Jan 1609/10 aged 18 indicating a
birth date of ca. 1591.
4) It's possible that there was only one Henry Spiller rather than
two. The dates and marriages for Sir Henry in Leo's suggest this
possibility, but it is a stretch chronologically and requires Sir
Robert to have d. vp. It also muddies the descent of Laleham to sir
Henry's daughter Catjherine rather than to Sir Robert's daughter Jane.
FWIW pedigrees of the Dormer family in Lipscomb's Bucks and elsewhere
say that Sir Robert Spiller's wife was named Elizabeth, not Dorothy
(who is shown as an unmarried sister of Elizabeth). But this is
almost certainly wrong since they also say that Elizabeth was
previously married to Sir John Dynham of Boarstall, who subsequently
married Penelope Wenham. Since there is apparently a specific
marriage record for Dorothy Dormer and Sir Robert Spiller, the
compilers of the Dormer pedigrees apparently assigned the marriages of
two separate Dormer sisters to a single one.
As to the children of Jane Spiller and James Herbert of Kingsey, in
addition to Mary, Thomas and James named above, there were at least 5
others. The eldest son Thomas was bur. 21 Jan 1711/2, and the next
son James (who was like his father MP for Malmesbury - both are in
HOP) was married to Catherine Osborne, dau. of the 1st Duke of Leeds.
Finally, the descendants of Catherine Spiller and Sir Thomas Reynell,
who inherited Laleham, are covered in vol. 4 of Burke's Commoners.
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> 1) For Dorothy Spiller bur. 14 July 1624, can it be confirmed that she
> was the wife of Sir Henry Spiller and not the Dorothy (Dormer) Spiller
> who married his son Sir Robert?
>
> 2) Aside from the burial record, is there other evidence of the
> Christian name of the wife of Sir Henry Spiller? Leo's source doesn't
> give her a Christian name.
--------------------------------
http://books.google.com/books?id=kUwuAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA224
Extracts from the Register: "Dorothy, wife of Sir Henry Spiller, buried
July 14, 1624"
Will
John
> In a message dated 8/16/2010 3:05:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> > 1) For Dorothy Spiller bur. 14 July 1624, can it be confirmed that she
> > was the wife of Sir Henry Spiller and not the Dorothy (Dormer) Spiller
> > who married his son Sir Robert?
>
> > 2) Aside from the burial record, is there other evidence of the
> > Christian name of the wife of Sir Henry Spiller? Leo's source doesn't
> > give her a Christian name.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=kUwuAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA224
> Extracts from the Register: "Dorothy, wife of Sir Henry Spiller, buried
> July 14, 1624"
>
> Will
This record also says that Katherine (Spiller) Reynell was buried 8
Apr 1667 in Shepperton and that she and her husband were married there
on 11 Sept 1721 (you had noted the date as 21 Sept - presumably New
Style - but were uncertain as to the place).
If Katherine was married in 1621 and the suggested birth date of 1591
is correct for Sir Robert Spiller, Katherine is unlikely to be a
daughter of a brother of Sir Robert as originally suggested, but was
instead more likely his sister - thus supporting the hypothesis that
there was one Sir Henry, not two.
Ian Goddard
> 1.1 Sir Robert Spiller of Laleham, co Mdx; adult by 1588; Knt 1622; "of
> Laleham" (apparently as joint "lord" with his father) 1626; probably outlived
> his father and was sole lord of Laleham until his death; buried at Shepperton
> 21 May 1637 married 11 Nov 1615 at St Mary le Strand, London Dorothy
> Dormer, daughter of Sir John Dormer of Crendon by his wife Jane Giffard
>
> 1.1.1. [possibly sole heiress] Jane Spiller of Haddenham, Kingsey and
> Tythrop (as heiress ? or as maritagium ?); apparently born in or about 1625, died
> in 1695, married 3 Aug 1646 St Peter Paul's Wharf, London (Batch M001371
> wj) James Herbert of Kingsley and of Shurland and of Milton (is this a Manor
> ?) "sixth son" of Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of /Pembroke/ 1630- by his wife
> Susan de Vere; James apparently born in or about 1623 buried 13 Apr 1677
> St.Mary's Thame, Oxfordshire
As Kingsley is subsequently given as Bucks it sounds as if Kingsley and
Kingsey are one and the same and close to Haddenham and Tythrop - see
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=474395&Y=206820&A=Y&Z=120
These in turn are near Thame, in fact Thame & Haddenham share a railway
station. Given the proximity of all these places to each other Great
Milton, Oxfordshire ( http://www.genuki.weald.org.uk/OXF/GreatMilton )
sounds a possible candidate for this Milton.
However the only candidate I can find for Shurland is on the Isle of
Sheppey which may be a warning that James's lands were more widely
scattered and Milton is a common placename - in fact there's one just
along the coast from Shurland
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=565850&Y=174165&A=Y&Z=120
--
Ian
The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk
WJho...@aol.com
there was another Henry Spiller "cousin" of another Henry Spiller.
I'm now of the impression that the descent of Billets in Laleham is more
complicated and that could explain why both Katherine Spiller and Jane Spiller
are called "heiress" of their fathers.
Katherine as daughter of Henry is bap
7 Mar 1602
Saint Anne Blackfriars, London (Batch C022092 wj)
and m 11 Sep 1621 at Shepperton (as you stated)
Katherine was yet living in 1653 as the wife of Sir Thomas Reynell
However Sir Robert and his father Sir Henry are given in 1626 as joint
Lords of Laleham
Anne Spiller is given Aug 1615 as "eldest daughter" of her father Henry
Spiller (at her marriage contract)
In 1653 an Anne is given as the widow of Henry, in a transaction involving
this Katherine and Sir Thomas Reynell.
Perhaps Sir Henry married twice, first to Dorothy and secondly to Anne.
That would not explain how Katherine could get her hands on Laleham,
*unless* Laleham was made up of many manors and she only received a part perhaps
in her maritagium, while Jane, heiress of Robert inherited the majority.
Otherwise, there must be two Henry's not directly related, but perhaps
uncle and nephew or something of that sort, and the property entailed on the
male heir.
So a few possibilites there to track forward.
Will
Leo
1591 NN Dicons (2) Anne NN
This source is a wonderful production of the Koninklijk Nederlandsch
Genootschap voor Geslacht- en Wapenkunde "Kwartierstatenboek 1883-1983" page
71 is a complete English ancestor list. Nr.1 is Frances Herbert who came to
the Netherlands with the Princess Royal Anna who married Willem IV prince of
Orange. Frances married a Dutchman (?) Jacques Adrien Isaac Bigot de
Villandry who in turn has his own page which shows he is descended from
Emilia van Nassau, daughter of William the Silent, prince of Orange.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
> -------------------------------
> 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
Henry Spiller esq INFANT UNDER 21 (so said in June 1653)
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=021-ph&cid=1-25&
kw=spiller laleham#1-25
WJho...@aol.com
She was Elizabeth Martin
20 Jun 1652 Saint Margaret, Westminster, London (Batch M001601 wj)
I *suppose* that Henry esq might be the son of wife Anne.
That doesn't explain how Katherine could be "sole heiress" unless that's
just simply a mistake, that somehow she got a major potion of Laleham and
somebody decided that must mean she was an "heiress".
Certainly Sir Thomas Reynell had his finger in a lot of these transactions.
This marriage by the way, explains why there is a Martin suddenly getting
involved in Laleham around 1650 ish. Probably this Elizabeth's father, or
brother I suppose.
Will
John
This section from VCH Middlesex, vol. 2, in the section titled
'Spelthorne Hundred: Laleham', may be of use (on-line at
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22215#n33):
"In 1612 James I granted the manor [Laleham] to Henry Spiller, (fn.
29) who was knighted in 1608. (fn. 30) He leased the site of the manor
to a widow, Jane Thompson, and to Thomas Stapley, and litigation took
place in 1630 touching the arrears of twelve years of rent and waste
and spoil on the part of the defendants, Jane Thompson and others,
(fn. 31) when it was alleged that the latter had neglected to give
entertainment to the steward and surveyor of the manor and their
servants, and had not provided 'fitt and competent meat drink and
lodging for them.' Amongst other charges they were accused of not
holding the manor courts, and of taking a new toll of 2d. for every
team of large horses passing through the land of the Old Farm
adjoining the river. (fn. 32)
"In 1640 proceedings for recusancy were instituted against Sir Henry's
wife, Lady Anne Spiller, and she was pronounced guilty on 5 May of
that year. (fn. 33) Sir Henry took the king's side in the Civil War,
and after being taken prisoner and confined in the Tower, (fn. 34) he
proposed to compound for his estates for the sum of £8,611. (fn. 35)
He died, however, in the early part of 1650, leaving half the fine
unpaid, and James Herbert, who had married Jane Spiller, the
granddaughter and heirat-law of Sir Henry, and Sir Thomas Reynell of
Weybridge, who had married Sir Henry's daughter Katherine, between
them paid the remainder of the composition, and were admitted to the
lands on 12 March 1652. Laleham was apparently assigned to Reynell,
and was inherited by his son, also named Thomas. (fn. 36) It passed to
the latter's daughter and heiress Elizabeth, (fn. 37) who, as her
second husband, married Sir Richard Reynell, son of Sir Richard
Reynell of East Ogwell, Devon. (fn. 38) The manor was held jointly by
Richard and Elizabeth, and by Richard after his wife's death. (fn. 39)
On his own death in 1723 it was inherited by his son Sir Thomas
Reynell. (fn. 40) The latter's son died unmarried in 1735, (fn. 41)
and in the following year Sir Thomas conveyed the reversion to Sir
Robert Lowther of Whitehaven, (fn. 42) sometime governor of Barbados.
(fn. 43) Sir Thomas Reynell seems to have continued to hold the manor
at any rate until 1741, (fn. 44) but by 1768 it was in the hands of
Sir James Lowther, (fn. 45) who was the second son of Sir Robert, and
was created Earl of Lonsdale in 1784. The year after his death in 1802
(fn. 46) it was bought by the Earl of Lucan, in whose family it
remains at the present day. (fn. 46a)" [end of quote]
If the writer of this VCH section is correct, there was in fact one
Sir Henry Spiller (apparently married twice, from other sources) who
had a son Sir Robert and a daughter Katherine - but no mention of an
infant son Henry in 1653. At least it's more grist for the mill....
WJho...@aol.com
for a few years, as an adult.
So it looks like a VCH correction will be upcoming, as soon as I'm able to
go through all the documents.. or at least some more of them.
In fact it seems like, he was both under-21 and then acting as a principal
in the same year, so he must have just turned 21 or else had a special
livery of his lands. I suppose he d.s.p.
In a message dated 8/16/2010 6:55:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
-------------------------------
John
> Not only was there this young Henry in 1653, but he was acting on the lands
> for a few years, as an adult.
> So it looks like a VCH correction will be upcoming, as soon as I'm able to
> go through all the documents.. or at least some more of them.
>
> In fact it seems like, he was both under-21 and then acting as a principal
> in the same year, so he must have just turned 21 or else had a special
> livery of his lands. I suppose he d.s.p.
>
It's not necessarily a VCH correction - unless there's some documented
role that the younger Henry played in the ownership of the Laleham
property that VCH missed. If not, there would have been no reason for
VCH to mention him. And the property certainly did descend to the
Reynell family - we just don't know quite why or how right now.
WJho...@aol.com
next few years.
So he definitely owned the property, if only for a few years.
But like I said, it might have been already divided up into shares or
something. Who knows what complicated arrangement they had.
In a message dated 8/16/2010 9:20:08 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
WJho...@aol.com
principal on the Spiller lands, that same year. So apparently he just came of age
in 1653.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=021-ph&
cid=1-26#1-26
John
This transaction does not pertain to Laleham, of course, but to some
of the other Spiller properties, in Worcestershire and
Gloucestershire. Based on the VCH account, the disposition of the
Laleham property was apparently determined a year earlier in 1652, and
for some reason yet to be determined Laleham did not go to the younger
Henry.
The genealogical relationships seem pretty clear at this point (or at
least as clear as we're likely to get them). The elder Sir Henry had
at least a son Robert and a daughter Katherine by his first wife and
then much later had a second (and much younger) son Henry, presumably
by his 2nd wife. The children of the first wife certainly have living
descendants - whether the younger son had children or further
descendants is yet to be determined. (And, at least for me, it's of
little interest....)
WJho...@aol.com
jhigg...@yahoo.com writes:
> This transaction does not pertain to Laleham, of course, but to some
> of the other Spiller properties, in Worcestershire and
> Gloucestershire. Based on the VCH account, the disposition of the
> Laleham property was apparently determined a year earlier in 1652, and
> for some reason yet to be determined Laleham did not go to the younger
> Henry.
The in-laws if you will, paid a fine .... attaching the property and then
foreclosed. Or something similar to that.
The young Henry had to sell off the properties in order to raise the money.
In 1656 which is the last I see of him, he calls himself of Ellesfield.