co-heiresses of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk

[Wjhonson]

http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00003590&tree=LEO

Upon the death of Lady Jane Grey, this Miss Gournay (called both elizabeth and mary) became "one of the co-heiresses of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk")

She married John Trye of Hardwicke; esq

How is she connected with Charles Brandon?

[John Higgins]

She is a first cousin of the Duke of Suffolk.

[Wjhonson]

That would not explain how she could be a co-heiress of him

-------------------------------
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

[John Higgins]

On May 8, 10:06 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> That would not explain how she could be a co-heiress of him
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Higgins <jhiggins...@yahoo.com>
> To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Wed, May 8, 2013 9:57 am
> Subject: Re: co-heiresses of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk
>
> On May 8, 7:38 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> >http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00003590&tree=LEO
>
> > Upon the death of Lady Jane Grey, this Miss Gournay (called both elizabeth and
> mary) became "one of the co-heiresses of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk")
>
> > She married John Trye of Hardwicke; esq
>
> > How is she connected with Charles Brandon?
>
> She is a first cousin of the Duke of Suffolk.
>

You asked "how is she connected with Charles Brandon", not how she was
his co-heiress. You didn't identify the source that said she was a co-
heiress - did you consider that perhaps that source is just wrong or
inspecific?

OTOH, check out the article in BEP on the Brandon family which says
"In the 2nd of Elizabeth, the extensive possessions of this celebrated
Duke of Suffolk were shared amongst the descendants of Sir William
Suffolk, his grandfather" and itemizes who these recipients were.
Perhaps your source, whatever it is, should have said that she was an
"eventual" co-heiress of the Duke.

So...what WAS your source that prompted this question?

[sangreel]

I have this in my database and I also forwarded a copy to Leo:

Proposed Change: Brandon, of Wangford William (I00004224)
Tree: Leo

Description: Based upon the will of Sir. William Brandon, he had another daughter that is not cited in your list of children.
Sir William Brandon's will was composed in 1475, before the marriage of his youngest daughters. He mentions Mary, Anne, Margaret the elder, Margaret the younger, and Katherine. Daughters Eleanor and Elizabeth are not mentioned as they were already married. The will of Elizabeth (Wingfield) Brandon mentions daughters Elizabeth Leventhorp, Anne Sydney, Eleanor Glemham, Margaret Lovel, Katherine Gourney. The younger Margaret is not mentioned, possibly because she was already deceased. Hugh Manning and his wife only had two sons and no other children, possibly indicating that she died shortly after the birth of her second son, c. 1480. (cf. NEHGR 51:3, p. 404).
Further,The Brandons, in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1949, Vol. Cill,ps. 102-107, communicated by the Committee on English and Foreign Research, G. Andrews Moriarty, AM., LL.B., F.AS.G., F.S.A, gives "an account of the immediate descendants of Sir William Brandon". I include an entry on page 104, "He (Sir William Brandon) married, prior to January 1462, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Robert Wingfield of Lethringham, co. Suffolk, and died in 1491 (WedgwoodHist. of the ParI. Biog. 1439-1509, pp. 102-103).

Evidently, Sir William Brandon had recorded two wills in the P.C.C. (I don't know what is the P.C.C., or P.P.C.)
The first, located in P.P.C. 46 Milles, was dated 10 June 1475, was proved 13 July 1491. On page 104, Moriarty writes, "Sir William Brandon. ..Wishes my place in Southwark to be sold and the money divided among my daughters, Mary, Anne, Margaret the elder, Margaret the younger and Katherine, if they do marry." The executors were wife Elizabeth and Sir Robert Wingfield The second will, located in P. C. C. 7 Dogett, was dated 09 April 1491 and proved 17 Nov. 1491.

In Sir William Brandon's second will, he speaks to where he wanted to be buried, to the High Altar of St. George the Martyr at Southwark, personalty to wife Elizabeth, to nuns at Bungay, to church of St. Thomas at Bungay, to pray for the souls of his father and mother,and to land and manor rights.
The executors were Elizabeth and Robert Mosley. Named in the probate are: John Ryding; John Gurney; John Leventhorpe; John Hardy; and Hugh John. Could this Hugh John be Hugh, or Hugo Manning who was supposed to have married a daughter of Sir Knight William and Elizabeth (Wingfield) Brandon? Hugh or Hugo's father was supposed to be John. Maybe Hugh John is this person?

The will of Dame Elizabeth Brandon was proved 08 May 1497, and located in Testa. Vetusta, vol. n, p. 432. In it, Elizabeth speaks to where she wants to be buried, land and manor rights; and, names her children: son, Sir Robert Brandon; son, Sir Thomas Brandon; daughter, Elizabeth Leventhorp; daughter, Eleanor Glemham; daughter, Anne Sydney; daughter, Dame Margaret Lovell; daughter, Katherine Gourney; remainder to the right heirs of Sir William Brandon."

The two youngest daughters, Mary and Margaret, as mentioned in Sir Knight William Brandon's first will, are not specifically mentioned.

On page 106, the author further reports, "Dugdale in the Baronage (vol. n, p.300) gives inq. p.m. taken 2 Elizabeth (1559/1560) after the failure of the issue male, by his third wife, Katherine Willoughby, of Charles Brandon,
Duke of Suffolk It was found that his heirs were the descendants of his grandfather, Sir William Brandon, as, by doctrine of possessio fratris, his daughters by his other wives were excluded.
Sir William Brandon and Elizabeth Wingfield, his wife, had issue:
i. Sir William;
ii. Sir Robert;
iii. Sir Thomas;
iv. Elizabeth;
v. Anna;
vi. Margaret "The Elder";
vii. Eleanor;
viii. Katherine;
ix. Mary;
x. Margaret "The Younger";
and xi. Anne."

[Wjhonson]

Wonderful! Thank you!

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Michael,

I have read your message carefully and it seems I am missing two daughters,
not one, Mary and Margaret the Younger.

I encountered a few more questionable aspects in regards to these children.
William Brandon married _prior_ to January 1462 Elizabeth Wingfield. Yet a
respected member of this group gave me that Margaret the Elder was born
about 1455. This marrying _prior_ could that be prior by some seven or eight
years?

Another problem I have are the order in which the children were born.

The tradition of mentioning sons before daughters makes it all the more
difficult. According to Burke's Extinct Peerage 1866, the sons are William,
Thomas and Robert, and the daughters are placed in this order
Margaret (the Elder), Anne, Eleanor, Katherine and Elizabeth.

In his will of 1475 he does not mention Eleanor and Elizabeth "as they were
already married". This seems to me that they were among the earlier born,
not the later ones. If we think he married, say, 1460, both girls were
younger than 15, if the sons were among the earlier born children, that
would make them even younger. But if married before 1455 then those two
daughters would be of a little more acceptable age.

What do you think? Are there better sources in regards to the aspect of
these children?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra,
Australia

[Brad Verity]

On May 8, 2:45 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <can2...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
> I have read your message carefully and it seems I am missing two daughters,
> not one, Mary and Margaret the Younger.

There is a detailed pedigree of the Wingfields in the Visitation of
the North Part III (Surtees Society Vol. 144, 1930), pp. 120-123. It
lists the children of Sir William Brandon & Elizabeth Wingfield as
four sons - William, Robert, James, Thomas - and five daughters -
Elizabeth, Eleanor, Margaret, Anne, Katherine. No Mary or Margaret
the Younger. The pedigree was drawn up about 1485, and it states that
the son James died young. It's odd that a son who died young would be
included, but not two daughters who were alive ten years previous when
Sir William made his first will.

It's also odd that two different wills were proved in the Prerogative
Court of Canterbury (P.C.C.) for the same individual. Is it certain
that there were not two different Sir William Brandons?

> I encountered a few more questionable aspects in regards to these children.
> William Brandon married _prior_ to January 1462 Elizabeth Wingfield. Yet a
> respected member of this group gave me that Margaret the Elder was born
> about 1455. This marrying _prior_ could that be prior by some seven or eight
> years?

I would think at least 7 or 8 years. I have Sir William Brandon and
Elizabeth Wingfield as married about 1445. Elizabeth was the eldest
daughter of her parents, who were married by 1423, and her mother
Elizabeth Goushill was born in 1402, so a birthdate of about 1425 for
Elizabeth Wingfield seems reasonable.

> Another problem I have are the order in which the children were born.
>
> The tradition of mentioning sons before daughters makes it all the more
> difficult. According to Burke's Extinct Peerage 1866, the sons are William,
> Thomas and Robert, and the daughters are placed in this order
> Margaret (the Elder), Anne, Eleanor, Katherine  and Elizabeth.

Burke's here matches well to the c.1485 Wingfield pedigree, only
omitting the son James who died young.

> In his will of 1475 he does not mention Eleanor and Elizabeth "as they were
> already married". This seems to me that they were among the earlier born,
> not the later ones.

I have a death date for Eleanor Brandon Glemham of 30 June 1480.
Unfortunately, I don't know what my source is for it. The c.1485
Wingfield pedigree makes her a mother of five children. If her date of
death is accurate, she had to have been married by 1475.

Elizabeth Brandon was married twice, first to Augustine Cavendish of
Grimston Hall (died 1468), then to John Leventhorpe. She had five
children with her first husband, so had to have been married by 1464.
I have her as the eldest daughter of her parents, and also as the
eldest child, born about 1445.

>If we think he married, say, 1460, both girls were
> younger than 15, if the sons were among the earlier born children, that
> would make them even younger. But if married before 1455 then those two
> daughters would be of a little more acceptable age.
>
> What do you think? Are there better sources in regards to the aspect of
> these children?

Per his bio in ODNB, Sir William Sidney was born about 1482, so his
mother Anne Brandon was married to his father Nicholas Sidney by that
date. Katherine Brandon is unmarried in the c.1485 Wingfield
pedigree, so she definitely was the youngest daughter. Here is what I
have in my database for the children of Sir William Brandon (c.
1425-1491) & Elizabeth Wingfield (c.1425-1497). I'm fairly confidant
I have the birth order of the 4 sons and the birth order of the 5
daughters correct, but determining birthdates & a birth order for the
combination of the sons & the daughters is simply guesswork on my
part.

1) Elizabeth Brandon, born about 1445. Married 1st, Augustine
Cavendish of Grimston Hall (d. 1468). Married 2nd, John Leventhorpe.
2) Eleanor Brandon, born about 1448, died 30 June 1480. Married John
Glemham of Glemham Parva.
3) Sir William Brandon, born about 1453, died 22 August 1485,
Bosworth. Married by 1475, Elizabeth Bruyn (died 26 March 1494).
4) Sir Robert Brandon of Henham, born about 1455, died 28 Feb 1524.
Married 1st Anne Ingels (d. 1494). Married 2nd, Katherine Zouche.
5) Margaret Brandon, born about 1457. Married Sir Gregory Lovell of
Barton Bendish (1451-1505).
6) James Brandon, born about 1459, died young.
7) Sir Thomas Brandon of Southwark, born about 1460, died 27 Jan 1510.
Married 1st, by May 1496, Anne Fiennes (c.1470-1497), dowager
marchioness of Berkeley. Married 2nd, by 1507, Elizabeth Dinham (c.
1450-1516), dowager Lady FitzWarin.
8) Anne Brandon, born about 1462. Married Nicholas Sidney of Penshurst
(c.1451-1515).
9) Katherine Brandon, born about 1465. Married John Gournay of
Levington.

Cheers, -----Brad

[Wjhonson]

http://books.google.com/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA302#v=onepage&q&f=true

<<I have a death date for Eleanor Brandon Glemham of 30 June 1480.
Unfortunately, I don't know what my source is for it.>>

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Verity <royald...@hotmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 1:22 am
Subject: Re: co-heiresses of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk

[. .]

I have downloaded a copy of Sir. williams will, ie:They are both P.C.C., which is the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. The National Archives lists the wills as:Will of Sir William Brandon of Wangford, SuffolkPrerogative Court of Canterbury and related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers. Will of Sir William Brandon of Wangford, Suffolk.Collection: Records of the Prerogative Court of CanterburyDate range: 13 July 1491 - 13 July 1491Reference:PROB 11/8/629Subjects:Wills and probate
Sir. william Brandon clearly names both "Margaret the elder" and "Margaret the younger". This is located on page 2 at the bottom of the page, 7 lines from the bottom.I will defer to others as to the amount of children on most subjects unless i have proof that a person lived. In this case I stand by the fact that Sir. William had two children named Margaret, or any other name, as this was common in these years. One can not pick and chose what they want in terms of a will. If the person making out his/her will names as a child a person, we must in fact accept that that person existed. I for one as a researcher depend on primary documents whenever I can.If anyone disputes the naming order of these children I suggest they download the will for themselves and take the time and effort to see for themselves.
If other researches wish to ignore a person named in a will, so be it. I for one will not pick and chose who existed and who did not as we did not live during these times. All we can rely upon is what proof we may have.... and in this case it is a will given by the father of said children. I for one accept that these two children existed. What we do not at present have is proof that this Margaret the younger married Hugh Manning, except for the Visitation pedigrees, this statement being spread across several pedigrees. I will continue to pursue and dig for proof that Hugh Manning did in fact marry Margaret "The younger" Brandon.
- Michael D Allen-Warner



> From: can...@netspeed.com.au
> To: sang...@msn.com; gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: RE: co-heiresses of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk
> Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 07:45:08 +1000
>
> Dear Michael,

>
> I have read your message carefully and it seems I am missing two daughters,
> not one, Mary and Margaret the Younger.
>

> I encountered a few more questionable aspects in regards to these children.
> William Brandon married _prior_ to January 1462 Elizabeth Wingfield. Yet a
> respected member of this group gave me that Margaret the Elder was born
> about 1455. This marrying _prior_ could that be prior by some seven or eight
> years?
>

> Another problem I have are the order in which the children were born.
>
> The tradition of mentioning sons before daughters makes it all the more
> difficult. According to Burke's Extinct Peerage 1866, the sons are William,
> Thomas and Robert, and the daughters are placed in this order
> Margaret (the Elder), Anne, Eleanor, Katherine and Elizabeth.
>

> In his will of 1475 he does not mention Eleanor and Elizabeth "as they were
> already married". This seems to me that they were among the earlier born,

> not the later ones. If we think he married, say, 1460, both girls were

> younger than 15, if the sons were among the earlier born children, that
> would make them even younger. But if married before 1455 then those two
> daughters would be of a little more acceptable age.
>
> What do you think? Are there better sources in regards to the aspect of
> these children?
>

> With best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
> Canberra,
> Australia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of sangreel
> Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013 6:51 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com

[Brad Verity]

On May 9, 10:18 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA302#v=onepage&q&f=...

Thanks, Will. Of all of the sources that Douglas lists for Eleanor
Brandon & John Glemham, I would guess that the late Joan Corder's
pedigree of Glemham in her edition of the Visitation of Suffolk
(1984), is the best researched account and is the source for Eleanor's
date of death. Unfortunately, I don't have ready access to her book
to verify.

On May 9, 5:20 pm, ". ." <sangr...@msn.com> wrote:
> I have downloaded a copy of Sir. williams will, ie:They are both P.C.C., which is the Prerogative Court of Canterbury.   The National Archives lists the wills as:Will of Sir William Brandon of Wangford, SuffolkPrerogative Court of Canterbury and related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers. Will of Sir William Brandon of Wangford, Suffolk.Collection: Records of the Prerogative Court of CanterburyDate range: 13 July 1491 - 13 July 1491Reference:PROB 11/8/629Subjects:Wills and probate
> Sir. william Brandon clearly names both "Margaret the elder" and "Margaret the younger". This is located  on page 2 at the bottom of the page, 7 lines from the bottom.I will defer to others as to the amount of children on most subjects unless i have proof that a person lived. In this case I stand by the fact that Sir. William had two children named Margaret, or any other name, as this was common in these years.

I don't know that it was very common, but, yes, there are instances in
the 15th century where parents gave two different children the same
first name.

> One can not pick and chose what they want in terms of a will. If the person making out his/her will names as a child a person, we must in fact accept that that person existed.

Yes.

> I for one as a researcher depend on primary documents whenever I can.

Very smart.

> If anyone disputes the naming order of these children I suggest they download the will for themselves and take the time and effort to see for themselves.

I don't have the time at the moment to download Sir William's will,
nor am I any good at deciphering the handwritten script of these
original documents. But I do trust your reading of the will and that
Sir William mentions the daughters you say he does.

> If other researches wish to ignore a person named in a will, so be it. I for one will not pick and chose who existed and who did not as we did not live during these times. All we can rely upon is what proof we may have.... and in this case it is a will given by the father of said children.

I'm not trying to ignore these daughters. I pointed out that it was
odd that 1) Two different wills were proved in the P.C.C. for the same
individual (Sir William Brandon), and 2) That two daughters (Mary and
one of the two Margarets) who were mentioned by Sir William in his
1475 will do not appear on a pedigree of the family drawn up about ten
years later.

Two explanations spring to mind that could explain the second point:
A) Mary and one of the Margarets died young & unmarried between 1475
and the time that the pedigree was drawn up, and the family did not
feel the need to include them in their account to the herald. If this
was the case, it's odd that a son who died young (James Brandon) was
reported to the herald and appears in the pedigree. But back then,
sons were given more weight than daughters, so it could explain how a
dead son was included but two dead daughters left off.
B) Since the Brandons appear in about 1485 as part of a greater
Wingfield pedigree, the two daughters (Mary & the extra Margaret) who
are named by Sir William in his 1475 will but who do not appear on the
Wingfield pedigree, were Sir William Brandon's daughters by a woman
other than his wife Elizabeth Wingfield. This could also explain why
there were two daughters with the first name 'Margaret': they were
from different mothers.

> I for one accept that these two children existed. What we do not at present have is proof that this Margaret the younger married Hugh Manning, except for the Visitation pedigrees, this statement being spread across several pedigrees. I will continue to pursue and dig for proof that Hugh Manning did in fact marry Margaret  "The younger" Brandon.

I'm not clear which Visitation pedigrees show this Manning/Brandon
marriage? But the fact that no such marriage is given in the c.1485
Wingfield pedigree (drawn up while Sir William Brandon was still
alive) is cause for concern. Even if the Manning marriage occurred
after the pedigree was drawn up, the second Margaret should appear on
the pedigree, just as her sister Katherine does, whose marriage to
John Gournay occurred after the pedigree was made.

Also, if there were descendants of the Manning/Brandon marriage alive
during the reign of Elizabeth I, they would be listed as co-heirs to
the Brandon/Suffolk inheritance, alongside the descendants of the
other daughters of Sir William Brandon. But if this second Margaret
was an illegitimate daughter of Sir William, her descendants would be
barred from inheritance and it would also explain the second
Margaret's omission from the c.1485 pedigree.

It's an interesting question. I hope further research leads you to
the answer, Michael.

Cheers, -----Brad

[John Higgins]

On May 10, 9:23 am, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 9, 10:18 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA302#v=onepage&q&f=...
>
> Thanks, Will.  Of all of the sources that Douglas lists for Eleanor
> Brandon & John Glemham, I would guess that the late Joan Corder's
> pedigree of Glemham in her edition of the Visitation of Suffolk
> (1984), is the best researched account and is the source for Eleanor's
> date of death.  Unfortunately, I don't have ready access to her book
> to verify.
>

Joan Corder's edition of the Suffolk visitation, on p. 243, does show
Eleanor Brandon's death date as 30 June 1480. The source for the date
is a memorial brass for the couple in the church of Glemham Parva
(Little Glemham) as recorded in MacCulloch's Chorography of Suffolk.

[Chris Dickinson]

sang...@msn.com wrote:
 
 
<snip>

> Sir. william Brandon clearly names both "Margaret the elder" and "Margaret the younger". This is located on page 2 at the bottom of the page, 7 lines from the bottom.I will defer to others as to the amount of children on most subjects unless i have proof that a person lived.

<snip>
 
 
Possible explanations:
 
one Margaret is illegitimate;
one Margaret (the younger) is the daughter of a second wife by an earlier marriage;
one Margaret is a daughter-in-law;
if the context allows one of the Margarets to be dead, then one Margaret died as an legal entity (heiress, mother, etc) before the other was born;
one Margaret was adopted/fostered/godchild.
 
 
So I would be cautious about assuming that the two Margarets were full sisters, or indeed any blood relation at all.
 
 
Chris

[CE Wood]

The use of "Amita" in the Kent pedigree means she was the paternal aunt of Charles, a sister to Charles' father, William.


CE Wood


On Friday, May 10, 2013 11:50:26 AM UTC-7, Johnny Brananas wrote:

>
> The Kent 1619 shows "Hugo Manning de Cray" married to "....
> filia ..... Brandon Amita Charoli Brandon Ducis Suffolciae."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Xq1zM7rt9LkC&pg=PA165&dq=amita+brandon+manning&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BD2NUbuyDoX-9QSYjIDwDQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=amita%20brandon%20manning&f=false
>
>skip
>
> Although ... perhaps she was the daughter of one of the married aunts
> of the Duke of Suffolk, and so had a different surname than Brandon?
> Or if she was an illegitimate daughter of an aunt, born before that
> aunt's marriage, I suppose she could have had the Brandon name.

[Hal Bradley]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com [mailto:gen-medieval-
> bou...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brad Verity
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:24 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: co-heiresses of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk
>

snip

>
> I'm not clear which Visitation pedigrees show this Manning/Brandon
> marriage? But the fact that no such marriage is given in the c.1485
> Wingfield pedigree (drawn up while Sir William Brandon was still
> alive) is cause for concern. Even if the Manning marriage occurred
> after the pedigree was drawn up, the second Margaret should appear on
> the pedigree, just as her sister Katherine does, whose marriage to John
> Gournay occurred after the pedigree was made.
>
> Also, if there were descendants of the Manning/Brandon marriage alive
> during the reign of Elizabeth I, they would be listed as co-heirs to
> the Brandon/Suffolk inheritance, alongside the descendants of the other
> daughters of Sir William Brandon. But if this second Margaret was an
> illegitimate daughter of Sir William, her descendants would be barred
> from inheritance and it would also explain the second Margaret's
> omission from the c.1485 pedigree.
>

Philipot's "Visitation of Kent Taken in the Years 1619-1621"(London: 1898.),
p. 165 states, "Hugo Manning de Cray m. .... filia.... Brandon Amita Charoli
Brandon Ducis Suffolciae." If correct, this places the wife of Hugh Manning
as a kinswoman of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk.

Moriarty's article "The Brandons," NEHGR 103:2 (Apr 1949) names Sir William
Brandon's daughters as follows:

Elizabeth m. (1) John Cavendish and (2) John Leventhorpe Anna m. John Sydney
Margaret (the elder) m. Sir Thomas Lovel Eleanor m. John Glemham Katherine
m. John Gourney Mary m. John Riding Margaret (the younger)

Edward Hasted, "History of Kent" (1778) 1:141, states, "Hugh Manning, who
was of St. Mary Cray, married the daughter of Sir William Brandon, Knight."

As the younger Margaret is the only daughter unaccounted for, she is the
likeliest candidate to be the unnamed wife of Hugh Manning. However, no
contemporary record has been found to support this assertion. It revolves
around the acceptance of the Visitation pedigree. Hasted accepted the
identity. Others are more cautious. Henry Waters seemed to accept the
identification. John Threlfall ["Ancestry of My Children" (Madison, 1970)]
reasons that if the wife of Hugh Manning is a daughter of William Brandon,
then the younger Margaret is the likely candidate, but shies away from
acceptance of the statement cautioning that a contemporary record should be
found to support the Visitation account.

Hal Bradley

[Hal Bradley]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com [mailto:gen-medieval-

> bou...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Johnny Brananas
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:50 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: co-heiresses of Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk
>

> > I'm not clear which Visitation pedigrees show this Manning/Brandon
> > marriage? �But the fact that no such marriage is given in the c.1485
> > Wingfield pedigree (drawn up while Sir William Brandon was still
> > alive) is cause for concern. Even if the Manning marriage occurred
> > after the pedigree was drawn up, the second Margaret should appear on
> > the pedigree, just as her sister Katherine does, whose marriage to
> > John Gournay occurred after the pedigree was made.
>

> The London 1634/5 shows "Hugh Manning of Cray in Com. Kent" married to
> "..... da. of ..... Brandon aunt to Charles Duke of Suffolk."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=NvwUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA74&dq=london+1634+ma
> nning&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Hj2NUef9Ko6G9QTbuoHoDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onep
> age&q=london%201634%20manning&f=false

>
> The Kent 1619 shows "Hugo Manning de Cray" married to "....

> filia ..... Brandon Amita Charoli Brandon Ducis Suffolciae."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Xq1zM7rt9LkC&pg=PA165&dq=amita+brandon
> +manning&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BD2NUbuyDoX-
> 9QSYjIDwDQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=amita%20brandon%20manning&f=fals
> e

Two Herald's Visitation's make the same assertion. Were these two accounts
derived independently of each other, it would lend more support to the
validity of the claim. However, it is unclear as to the underlying source
used in the Kent Visitation.

Hal Bradley

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Below are five records from the A2A Catalogue and the National
Archives Discovery Catalogue which appear to pertain to various co-
heirs involved in the 1552 division of the estates of Henry Brandon,
Duke of Suffolk, and his father, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.

In the first record, John Trye was to receive a third part of a fifth
part of certain lands. This suggests that the Brandon estates were
divided among the representatives [i..e, heirs] of five Brandon
sisters.

The second through fifth records below concern William Candishe,
grandson and heir of Elizabeth Brandon (wife successively of John
Candishe and John Leventhorpe), and Christian[a] Darnell, one of the
daughters and co-heirs of Katherine (Brandon) Gurney. The surname
Candishe is sometimes rendered Caundishe in contemporary records, and
on rare occasions, Cavendish. There is a pedigree of the Sidney
family published in Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica, 2 (1876):
161-167, which identifies some of the Brandon co-heirs, including the
members of the Candishe family. This pedigree may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PSQFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA164

In the sixth item below, reference is made to the manor of Weston-by-
Cherington (in Long Compton), Warwickshire, which was held in 1469 by
reversion only on the deaths of William Brandon, his wife Elizabeth,
and their daughter, Eleanor. VCH Warwick indicates that this William
Brandon was a knight. As such, I assume this record involves Sir
William Brandon [died 1491], his wife, Elizabeth, and their daughter,
Eleanor (who married John Glemham, Esq.).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + +

1. Lincolnshire Archives: Manuscripts of the Earl of Ancaster, 2ANC3/
B/25

Counterpart Indenture of demise

Date: 20th March, 1553

Contents:

Wm. Marquis of Winchester, one of the executors of Chas. Duke of
Suffolk, Rd. Bartye esq. and the lady Katherine his wife, widow of the
Duke of Suffolk to John Trye, esq.

Property: a third part of a fifth part of the site of Revesby Abbey,
with the abbey's Lincolnshire possessions, the priory of Thornholm,
the granges of Canwick, Coltham, St. Thos., Hanby and Hundleby, lands
in Burwell Calceby and Sausethorp, the demesnes of Stonely and Erbury
priories (Warwick), the commanderies of Temple Bruer, Maltby and
Skirbeck, the east and west granges in Scampton and N. Carlton, the
granges of Rearsby, Swinthorpe, Snelland, Sturton Sheepwash and
Lindwood, the parsonage of Billinghay, and the houses of the Black
Friars in Boston and the Grey Friars in Stamford (annual value
excluding annuities, £620).

Term: until 20th March, 1559/60.

Considerations:

1. Trye is to pay to the Treasurer of the augmentations £203 19s.7d.
at next Michaelmas as the fifteenth of £3059 13s.6d. due to the Crown
from the Duke's estate.
2. He is to pay £99 7s.1¼d. to Rd. Bertie and the Duchess as the 15th
of £1490 6s.6d. which will remain from the profits.

Attached to the lower margin: schedule of annuities and pensions
charged on the properties to Rd. Cowper, Wm. Watson, John Polle,
Nicholas Slefeld, Robt. Bridges and Margaret his wife, Mary Clyfton,
Wm. Rooper esq., Anne Kyng (late nurse of the lady Frances), Edmond
Hall esq., John Clover, Francis Grevyn physician, Thos. Musket. Hy.
Layton, Thos. Longbottom, Geo. Sayntpoll esq.

Signature and seal of Trye.

+ + + + + + + + + +

2. Shakespeare Centre Library and Archive: Leigh of Stoneleigh, DR
18/17/11/2

Date: 1561

Contents:

Draft/copy grant by William Ca[ve]ndish, Trymley St. Michael, Suffolk,
esq., (son and heir of Sir Richard Ca[ve]ndish, Knight, one of the
cousins and co-heirs of Charles, late Duke of Suffolk) to Sir Rowland
Hill and Sir Thomas Leigh, Knights and Alderman of the City of London:
reciting grant of even date, in consideration of £1950 from Cavendish
to Leigh and Hill of Abbey, site and lands (specified) of former
monastery of Stoneleigh (including Cryfield and Millburn Granges) and
charging by present grant, the house and farm at Crafts, Lincolnshire,
of which grantor is seised, with any loss suffered by any future claim
against the title of Hill and Leigh.

+ + + + + + + + + +

3. Shakespeare Centre Library and Archive: Leigh of Stoneleigh, DR
18/17/7/2

Date: 24 February 1559/60

Contents:

Bond in penal sum 1000 marks from Christiana Darnell, widow to
William Caundishe, Esq. in re assurance covenants in a proposed
partition of the estates of Henry, Duke of Suffolk.

+ + + + + + + + + +
4. Chancery: Inquisitions Post Mortem, Series II, and other
Inquisitions, Henry VII to Charles I.

Darnell, Christiana: Lincoln.

Date range: 17 November 1576 - 16 November 1577
Reference:C 142/178/28
Subjects:Landed estates

5. Court of Wards and Liveries: Inquisitions Post Mortem.

Darnell, Christiana: Lincoln.

Collection: Records of the Court of Wards and Liveries
Date range: 17 November 1576 - 16 November 1577
Reference:WARD 7/18/73
Subjects:Landed estates

+ + + + + + + + + +

6. East Sussex Record Office: Archive of the Nevill Family of Eridge
Castle in Frant, Marquesses of Abergavenny, ABE/74.1/14

Grant

Date: 2 Sept. 1469

Contents:

By Thomas Hoo, Esq, to Thomas Charles, Esq of an annuity of £9 charged
on Hoo's manors in Sussex, Surrey, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire and
Hertfordshire, to compensate Charles for the difference in value
between the manor of Kettleborough in Suffolk, in which Charles has
recently enfeoffed John [Mowbray] Duke of Norfolk, and the manors of
Bromes in Chilgrove, Bryggelond, Croftelond, Redelond, Iselham Haket,
Colstaple, Eroneshede, Ryarsh (Ryhersshe), Stratton and Weston by
Cheriton and the manor or tenement of Stratton in Street in Surrey,
Sussex and Kent (of which Hoo is feoffee) received in exchange, on
account of the manor of Cheriton by Weston [i.e., Weston-by-Cherington
in Long Compton, Warwickshire] being held in reversion only on the
deaths of William Brandon, his wife Elizabeth and daughter Eleanor,
the annuity to be void on their deaths.

VCH Warwick 5 (1949): 52-58.

Parish: Long Compton
The manor of WESTON-BY-CHERINGTON ...

"John Mowbray, Earl Marshal, ... or his son John, Duke of Norfolk (d.
1461), apparently granted the manor to Richard Waller, whose son
Richard in 1461 conveyed his estate therein, subject to the life
interest of Eleanor, Duchess of Norfolk, to Sir William Brandon and
Elizabeth his wife and their daughter Eleanor. (fn. 67) From them it
came into the hands of Henry Keble, alderman of London (Lord Mayor in
1510), who inclosed all the arable, except 80 acres attached to the
manor-house, amounting to about 300 acres, destroying 7 houses and
leaving 38 persons homeless and destitute." END OF QUOTE.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Additional information on the immediate family of Charles Brandon,
Duke of Suffolk, can be gleaned from the 1510 will of his uncle, Sir
Thomas Brandon, K.G., of Southwark, Surrey, Duddington,
Northamptonshire, etc., Marshal of the King’s Bench.

There are two slightly different accounts of the will in print as
follows:

1. Nicolas, Testamenta Vetusta 2 (1826): 496–497 (will of Sir Thomas
Brandon, Knt.). This may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ivsUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA496

2. Berks, Bucks & Oxon Arch. Jour. 1 (1895): 51–52 (will of Sir Thomas
Brandon, knyght). This may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VDcNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA51

From these items, we learn that Sir Thomas Brandon had three siblings
living in 1510, namely his brother, Sir Robert Brandon, and his
sisters, [Mary] Redinge and Catherine Gorney [Gurney].

Sir Thomas' will also mentions his nephews, Charles Brandon and
William Sidney; his niece Yaxley; his niece Dorothy; and his niece,
Katherine. The will was witnessed by several parties, including "Mr.
Yaxley, doctor in phisicke."

The witness "Mr. Yaxley, doctor in phisicke" is surely Robert Yaxley,
Doctor of Physic, of Saint Michael Cornhill, City of London, who was
one of the co-founders of the Royal College of Physicians in 1518. He
left a PCC will proved 4 December 1540. See the following weblink for
the will:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=D949656

Dr. Yaxley's wife, Margaret, also left a will proved on the same date:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=D949655

There is some helpful information on Dr. Robert Yaxley and his wife,
Margaret, in the book by Walton & Walton entitled Medical
Practitioners and Law in Fifteenth Century London (2007): 138-139.

This may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yN5Leaxut94C&pg=PA138

The authors were unaware that Dr. Robert Yaxley's wife, Margaret, was
a niece of Sir Thomas Brandon. Even so, their remarks make it likely
that Margaret, wife of Dr. Yaxley, was almost certainly near related
to Sir William Sidney, the son of Sir Thomas Brandon's sister, Anne
(Brandon) Sidney.

"A very close friendship existed between Robert Yaxley, M.D. and Sir
William Sidney. Yaxley made his 'welbeloved Sir William Sydney knight
overseer' of his estate. The will of Robert's widow Margaret also
mentions the Sidneys. Sir William is named her executor and she
leaves bequests to him, his son, Henry, Lady Sidney, and Molly Sidney,
her (Margaret's) goddaughter. Among her other bequests were "a payr
of sawnder beds gawdyd with gold whiche was King Henry the
VIIths.' .... The Yaxley wills show quite clearly the extent to
which a relationship between the lesser nobility and a medical family
could grow." END OF QUOTE.

There is an online abstract of a recent article on Dr. Robert Yaxley
by Phyllis Johnson Walton published in Jan. 2011 in Quidditas, Vol.
32, pg. 253. The abstract reads as follows:

"The article presents information regarding the English physician
Robert Yaxley, which the author derived from historical documents
containing Yaxley's last will and testament, written on October 22,
1540. Facts provided include the gifts Yaxley bequeathed to his
church, his servants, and his wife's niece, Ann Hamond. More specific
information is offered with respect to Yaxley's wife, Margaret, who
wrote her own will two days after her husband's was completed. The
author reflects on Margaret's love of jewelry in addition to the
prosperity indicated by both Yaxley's wills." END OF QUOTE.

So it would seem that Margaret Yaxley had a niece named Ann Hamond.
If we assume that Margaret Yaxley was the daughter of Anne (Brandon)
Sidney, then Margaret's niece could be the daughter of her possible
sister, Anne (Sidney) Loveday. Further research is needed to prove
the exact connection between Margaret Yaxley and the Brandon-Sidney
families.

One last comment: Following the death of Sir Thomas Brandon, his
surviving sister, Mary Redyng, "executrix and late the wife of John
Redyng" sued William Paston, Knt., John Carelton, and Francis Lovell,
Esq., surviving executors of Thomas Lovell, Knt., executor of Thomas
Brandon, Knt., in Chancery in the period, 1529–32, regarding a debt
due from the said Sir Thomas Brandon to her said late husband for
boarding Lady Berkeley, then wife of the said Sir Thomas (sic) and
sixteen of her servants and family for 32 weeks at 40s. Reference:
National Archives, C 1/671/18, available at the followintg weblink:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C7478197

[Brad Verity]

On May 10, 10:06 am, John Higgins <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Joan Corder's edition of the Suffolk visitation, on p. 243, does show
> Eleanor Brandon's death date as 30 June 1480.  The source for the date
> is a memorial brass for the couple in the church of Glemham Parva
> (Little Glemham) as recorded in MacCulloch's Chorography of Suffolk.

Thanks, John. But either the brass itself is wrong, or it was misread
by MacCulloch. Here is the IPM for Elizabeth Wingfield Brandon, taken
3 November 1497:
http://archive.org/stream/calendarofinquis02grea#page/36/mode/2up

It quotes from Elizabeth's will, which was dated in 1496, and is
abstracted in Testamenta Vetusta, here:
http://archive.org/stream/testamentavetus01nicogoog#page/n55/mode/2up

She mentions her daughters in the remainder of her manor of Burneville
in Nacton: "Elizabeth Leventhorp, her daughter...Eleanor Glemham, Mary
Redyng, Anne Sydney, Dame Margaret Lovell and Katherine Gurney, her
daughters..."

So Eleanor Brandon Glemham did not die in 1480, but was alive as late
as 1496. I would think, given the chronology we have, that Elizabeth
Brandon named her daughters in her will in their birth order:
Elizabeth, Eleanor, Mary, Anne, Margaret, Katherine.

I was fairly accurate in my guesswork. I had them as: Elizabeth,
Eleanor, Margaret, Anne, Katherine. I didn't have Mary, as I was
working off of the c.1485 Wingfield pedigree, which doesn't include
her. Her omission has to be error on the herald's part, as Elizabeth
Brandon's will makes it clear that Mary was a full-blooded legitimate
daughter of Sir William Brandon & Elizabeth Wingfield.

Sir William Brandon, in his 1475 will, names his unmarried daughters:
"Mary, Anne, Margaret the elder, Margaret the younger and Katherine".
I would think this is also their birth order, as it matches the order
that their mother names them in 1496, with the addition of a second
Margaret. We don't yet have firm evidence that makes the second
Margaret Sir William's legitimate daughter by Elizabeth Wingfield. But
if she was, and she survived childhood and went on to marry Hugh
Manning, it's odd that she would've been left off of the very thorough
remainder Elizabeth Brandon made in 1496.

I think John Brandon may be on to something when he suggested that
Hugh Manning married a granddaughter of Sir William Brandon (a
daughter of one of the six Brandon sisters).

On May 11, 1:37 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> So it would seem that Margaret Yaxley had a niece named Ann Hamond.
> If we assume that Margaret Yaxley was the daughter of Anne (Brandon)
> Sidney, then Margaret's niece could be the daughter of her possible
> sister, Anne (Sidney) Loveday.

Though the abstract of her will in Testamenta Vetusta has Elizabeth
Wingfield Brandon call Anne Loveday "my daughter", her IPM states that
Elizabeth Brandon called Anne Loveday "her cousin". In actuality, Anne
Loveday was her granddaughter, the eldest daughter of her eldest
daughter Elizabeth Brandon Cavendish Leventhorpe. Per the c.1485
Wingfield pedigree:
“Anna [dau of ‘Elizabeth Brandon = Iohannes Candishe’] nupta Iohanni
Loveday.”

The next (and final) person Elizabeth Wingfield Brandon names in the
1496 remainder, immediately after Anne Loveday, is "Eleanor Sydney,
daughter of Anne Sydney".

So Anne Brandon & Nicholas Sidney had at least one daughter, Eleanor,
in addition to their son Sir William Sidney.

>Further research is needed to prove
> the exact connection between Margaret Yaxley and the Brandon-Sidney
> families.

I have a daughter Margaret Lovell, for Margaret Brandon & Sir Gregory
Lovell, with no further information. Perhaps she was Margaret Yaxley?

Cheers, -------Brad

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In my previous post, I stated the following:

> So it would seem that Margaret Yaxley had a niece named Ann Hamond.
> If we assume that Margaret Yaxley was the daughter of Anne (Brandon)
> Sidney, then Margaret's niece could be the daughter of her possible
> sister, Anne (Sidney) Loveday. Further research is needed to prove
> the exact connection between Margaret Yaxley and the Brandon-Sidney
> families.

I should have said that Margaret Yaxley's niece, Ann Hamond, could be
the daughter of her possible sister, Eleanor Sidney, NOT Anne (Sidney)
Loveday. Anne Loveday existed alright but she was the daughter of
Elizabeth (Brandon) Candishe, not Anne (Brandon) Sidney.

For Anne (Cavendish) Loveday's placement in the Brandon family
pedigree, see the following weblink:

pg. 121:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030149a/northern/surtees144text.pdf

My statement other still stands: Further research is needed to prove

the exact connection between Margaret Yaxley and the Brandon-Sidney
families.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In a previous post, I discussed evidence that Margaret, wife of Dr.
Robert Yaxley, co-founder of the College of Physicians, was the niece
of Sir Thomas Brandon, K.G., and thus first cousin of Charles Brandon,
Duke of Suffolk. I theorized that Margaret Yaxley might be the
daughter of Sir Thomas Brandon's sister, Anne (Brandon) Sidney.

As it turns out, Margaret Yaxley was instead the daughter of another
of Sir Thomas Brandon's sisters, Elizabeth Brandon, wife successively
of John Caundishe and John Leventhorpe. Margaret Yaxley's niece, Anne
Hamond, turns out to be the daughter of Margaret Yaxley's sister,
Katherine Leventhorpe, wife of Robert Brograve.

The evidence for Margaret Yaxley's parentage and that of her niece,
Anne Hamond, is drawn from several sources, namely four Brandon family
wills, two local histories, and a visitation record.

The first will is that of Mary Brandon, widow of John Reading (or
Redyng), which will is dated 19 Nov. 1531, proved 27 Feb. 1534/5
(P.C.C. 22 Hogen) [FHL Microfilm 91916]. Mary (Brandon) Reading was
another one of Sir Thomas Brandon's sisters and aunt of Sir Charles
Brandon, Duke of Suffolk [brother-in-law of King Henry VIII]. The
will of Mary (Brandon) Reading makes it clear that she left no
surviving issue.

Mary Reading's will names various people as follows:

Margaret Brogreve, Edith, Alice her maid, ffolorence, her priest, her
servants Roger and Edward, her lord of Suffolk (presumably Charles
Brandon), her nephew (not named but presumably either Charles Brandon
or Sir William Sidney), master [St?]uker; Sir John Waller, John
Caundish, Katherine Brogreve (to reward her children [not named]),
lady Sydney, Mistress Pagnam, Edmond Brogreve, ffraunces Sidney.
Executors: Sir William Sidneye and Robert Brogreve. Witnesses: Sir
Edmund Brogreve clerk, William Brograve, Sir William Kindall, Roger
Pod'yan. A codicil is dated 18 Dec. 1531 and mentions Robert
Brogreve.

The second will is that of Margaret Yaxley, widow, of St. Michael
parish, Cornhill in London. This will is dated 24 October 1540,
proved 4 Dec. 1540 (P.C.C. 18 Alenger) [FHL Microfilm 91918]. Her
will names various people:

Margaret Brograve, her nephew Richard Yaxlie, her niece Anne Hamond,
Margaret Brigges, Elyn Campion daughter of John Campion, her servant
Peter, her sister Verney, Margaret Tran[or?], Elizabeth Pagenam, her
goddaughter Malle Sydney, Sir William Sydney knight, lady Sydney,
James Mowmford, Mr. Edward Cept'ham parson of Saint Michael's in
Cornhill, Rose Campion wife to John Campion, Alice ffitzharris,
Elizabeth Cole, Mary Atkynson, Alyce Symons, Mother Katherine, unnamed
wife of James Mowmford, Anne Yaxlee, mistress Cheseman, Jane Barkley,
Alice Tran[or?] widow, Elizabeth Lodge, Henry Sydney son and heir to
Sir William Sydney knight, my two nieces [not named]. Executors:
Richard Yaxlie and Sir William Sydney knight. Overseer: James
Mumford. No witnesses.

Interestingly many of the same people in Margaret Yaxley's will are
named in Mary Reading's will, which is not surprising as the two women
were niece and aunt respectively. The two wills are similar in
another respect, in that both women were childless and various people
are mentioned in their wills, but virtually no one is identified as a
relative. In Margaret Yaxley's will, she mentions her niece, Anne
Hamond, her sister Verney, and nephew Richard Yaxley. There is a
reference in two places to her "two nieces" who are not named, but
which I believe refers to Anne Hamond and her sister, Margaret
Bridges, both of whom are named elsewhere in the will.

The third will is that of Dr. Robert Yaxley, of St. Michael in
Cornhill, London. He is the husband of Margaret Yaxley above. This
will is dated 22 October 1540, proved 4 Dec. 1540 (P.C.C. 18 Alenger)
[FHL Microfilm 91918]. His will names the following persons:

His servants (not named), Anne Hamond niece to his wife, and Margaret
Briggis. Executors: his wife Margaret and Richard Yaxley gentleman.
Overseer: Sir William Sydney knight. Witnesses: Robert Harryson
clerk, James Monford, John Stampyn.

Dr. Yaxley must have died almost immediately after making this will,
as his widow Margaret's will is dated two days later and he was
already deceased.

Inasmuch as members of the Brograve family figure in the wills of both
Mary (Brandon) Reading and Margaret Yaxley, I decided to examine the
1546 will of Robert Brograve, Esquire, of Beckenham, Kent. A slightly
flawed abstract of this will is available online at the following
weblink:

http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Libr/Wills/Bk10/393.htm

Source: Medieval & Tudor Kent P.C.C. Wills Transcriptions by L. L.
Duncan - Book 10 page 393

Robert Brograve, Esquire, - Will dated 16 August 1546

Reference: P.C.C., 22 Alen

16 August 1546. Robert Brograve of Bekenham (Beckenham) in the
County of Kent Esquier being sick etc. If it please God to call me at
this present tyme to be buryed within the paryshe churche of Sainct
Elen in London.
Unto my doughter Mary the house and lands belonging in Bekenham
that Leonard Machell nowe dwelleth in after the decease of the sayd
Leonard and Jane his wife who hath estates therin duryng their lyves.
John Hamond my sonne in lawe and to other my executors the
house and lands that Harry Staynsmore dwelleth in in the paryshe of
Bekingham during the terme of 7 yeres and after to remayne to my
doughter Mary for ever. If she dye without issue then said house etc.
that Leonard Machyll dwelleth in shall remayne to my doughters Anne
and Margarett and their heyres.
Said John Hamond and my executors to make unto Henry Staynsmore
a newe lease of the house and lands he now dwelleth in for 20 yeres
without any fyne takyng of hym. The sayd Harry to bere no reparacyons
but dawbing and thacking and to pay the old accustomed rents.
My executors doo pay yerely 66/8 to the ?muiorns for the
bequeste of Mres Reding duryng certen yeres yet to com. Unto high
aulter of Bekenham 20s. To the new buylding of the churche of Sainct
Ellyns in London 20s. Unto the Kings Benche the Marshalsey Newgate and
Ludgate every of them 20s.
Unto suster in lawe Custaunce Evans 20s.
I will my wif shalhave all the houshold stuff now in my house
at London. My brother Sr Edmond one of my gowns. My sonne in lawe
Robert Bridges my gowne faced wyth damaske. All goodes etc.
unbequethed to my executors towardes the payment of my debts. I will
Harry Staynsmore and ----- Rychbell have their bargayne in the woodes
which they bought of me. My brother Sr Edmound yerely 4 lodes of
Talwood and 12 qrs of coles duryng his liff naturall. My sonne in lawe
John Hamond my gowne furred wyth foynes. My sonne in lawe John Hamond
and my brother Sr Edmound my extours.
To my wif one bedd of downe withall that belongeth therunto.
Unto Willyam Browne my servunt 6/8. My doughter Mary two fetherbeddes.
Robert my servunt 6/8. By me Robert Brograve.
To this my will berith witnes Robert Ferond clerke curat,
Willyam Sherborne, Rychard Triggs.
To my sonne in lawe John Hamond all my fee symple landes woodes
and tenements in Bekenham not bequethed for ever. My doughter Mary to
be payde when she is maryed 20 mrks. Robert Bridges my sonne in lawe
and Margaret his wife 20 mrks as well in full contentacon of suche
legacys as he may clayme by the will of Mres Reding by the right of
his wife as also his sayd wiffs thirde parte to be paide when my detts
be payd. Unto Mawde my servant 20s. Unto ----- Hokell the miller of
Lewsham 7s. Unto ----- Ruffyn 40s.
Witnes Robert Body scryvener by me Robert Brograve.
Proved 4 Oct. 1546 at London by John Hamond executor. Power
reserved to Edmund Brograve cu venerit.

In August 1546 Robert Brograve of Bekenham Esq. adding to the
same his testament did bequeeth to Margaret his wife all his leases
and termes of yeres that he hath or do enjoy by his sayd wif by
mariage and all the landes his father hath entayled in no wise broken.
In putia Johannis Hamond exortoris func pnts facente et non reclamante
neqz contradicente. Present Robert Ferond clerke, Willyam Sherborne,
Rychard Triggs, Robert Fowbery, Agnes Crouche, Robert Vilat, Robert
Body. END OF QUOTE.

As we can see above, the will of Robert Brograve, Esq. specifically
mentions the earlier will or bequests of "Mistress Redyng" in two
places in his will, she being the same person as Mary (Brandon)
Reading whose will is first given above. So there can be no question
that the right Brograve family has been located.

Robert Brograve names three daughters in his will, namely Mary, Anne,
and Margaret (wife of Robert Bridges), as well as a son-in-law, John
Hamond. Although he does not say so directly, I presume John Hamond
is the husband of his daughter, Anne Brograve. Anne Hamond and
Margaret Bridges were both legatees in the 1540 will of Margaret
Yaxley given above. Anne Hamond is called Margaret Yaxley's niece. I
assume Anne and her sister, Margaret, are the two unnnamed nieces that
are mentioned twice in Margaret Yaxley's will.

Robert Brograve doesn't mention a wife in his will, but she is
presumably the Katherine Brograve who was bequeathed household stuff
in the 1531 will of Mary (Brandon) Reading in order to "reward her
children." In the next post, we will see the evidence that Robert
Brograve's wife was Katherine Leventhorpe, the niece of Mary (Brandon)
Reading.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In an earlier post, I mentioned that there is a recent article on Dr.
Robert Yaxley (husband of Margaret Leventhorpe) by Phyllis Johnson
Walton published in Jan. 2011 in Quidditas, Vol. 32, pg. 253-262. The
article is entitled "Robert Yaxley, Tudor Physician."

I've located an online copy of the actual article, which is available
at the following weblink:

http://humanities.byu.edu/rmmra/pdfs/32.pdf

The author details that Dr. Yaxley treated Princess Mary Tudor (sister
of King Henry VIII) before her marriage to Charles Brandon.

The author was evidently not aware that Dr. Yaxley's wife, Margaret,
was a first cousin of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In a previous post, I discussed evidence that Margaret, wife of Dr.
Robert Yaxley, co-founder of the College of Physicians, was the niece
of Sir Thomas Brandon, K.G., and thus first cousin of Charles Brandon,

Duke of Suffolk.   I initially theorized that Margaret Yaxley might be

the daughter of Sir Thomas Brandon's sister, Anne (Brandon) Sidney.
As it turns out, Margaret Yaxley was instead the daughter of another
of Sir Thomas Brandon's sisters, Elizabeth Brandon, wife successively

of Augustine Caundishe and John Leventhorpe.  Margaret Yaxley's niece,

Anne Hamond, turns out to be the daughter of Margaret Yaxley's sister,
Katherine Leventhorpe, wife of Robert Brograve.

I previously misidentified Elizabeth Brandon's first husband as John
Caundishe (or Cavendish) rather than Augustine Caundish (or
Cavendish). The misdirection came a garbled pedigree of the Caundish
family taken from the 1561 Visitation of Suffolk. Here are four
successive generations from that pedigree as published in Visitation
of Suffolk 1561 Volume 2 (H.S.P. n.s. 3) (1984): 207-211:

1. "John Gernon al[ia]s Caundyshe second sonne to John & brother &
heyr to Roger maryed Elizabeth Daughtr & after heyr to Sr Wyllm
Brandon knyght & by her had yssue Thomas sonne and heyr."

2. Thomas Garnon al[ia]s Caundyshe son[n]e & heyr to John maryed Agnes
Daughtr of & by her had yssye John sonne & heyre Wyllm second sonne
Awgustin third Thomas fourth Elizabeth Anne & Jane.

3. Awgustin Garnon al[ia]s Caundishe third son[n]e & heyr to Thomas
maryed Elizabeth Daughtr to [left blank] and by her had yssue Rychard
sonne & heyr Edward second sonne Anne Elizabeth and kateryn.

4. Sir Rychard Garnon al[ia]s Caundyshe of Grymston in the counte of
Suff knyght sonne & heyre to Awgustin maryed Elizabeth Daughtr to
Edward Grymston esquyre & by her had yssue Rychard Caundyshe sonne &
heyre John second sonne Elizabeth maryed to Bryghtley Anne maryed
to Sands Marye maryed to Thorne," END OF QUOTE.

As we can see above, the marriage of Elizabeth Brandon is assigned to
John Caundish in Generation 1, whereas as I will show below that she
actually married Augustine Caundish in Generation 3.

The following fine gives the correct chronological placement for
Augustine Caundish. This fine is found in Reaney & Fitch, Feet of
Fines for Essex, Volume 4 (1964): 54. It concerns land holdings of
the Caundish family in Suffolk, Essex, and London.

Date: 1459.
"438. Hil. [term]. Agnes Caundyssh, pl. William Caundyssh, def. The
manors of Grymston, Blofeld, Burnevyles and Moston Hall, 6 messuages,
200 acres of land and 10 marks rent in Brytewell, Walton, Faltenham,
Morston, Fylstowe and Ipswich and the advowson of the churches of
Tremley St. Martin and Tremley St. Mary, co. Suffolk, the manor of
Stretehall in Stretehall and the advowson of the church of the manor,
co. Essex, and 26s. 8d. rent in the parish of St. Mary Organ, London.
Pl. to hold for life without impeachment of waste of def. and his
heirs, rendering 1 rose, etc., with successive remainders to Augustin
Caundyssh son of Thomas Caundyssh and George Caundyssh his brother and
the heirs male of their bodies, rendering 100s. to def. for his life,
in moieties at Easter and Michaelmas, and 1 rose to his heirs, with
power of distraint on the manors and tenements in Suffolk; with
reversion to def. and his heirs." END OF QUOTE.

Augustine Caundish is thus identified in the 1459 fine above as the
son of Thomas Caundish. This agrees with the Visitation pedigree. I
presume Agnes Caundish the plaintiff in the above fine was Augustine's
widowed mother.

Copinger, Manors of Suffolk, 3 (1909): 97 sub Grimston Hall with
Morston Manor in Trimley, Suffolk add the following information
regarding Augustine Caundish:

"This manor passed to .... Austin Candish or Cavendish, son of Thomas
Cavendish and Agnes his wife, which Thomas was son of John, brother of
Roger, and of Elizabeth, John's wife. Austin Cavendish made his will
dated 17th June 1467, and died in 1468, when the manor passed to his
son and heir, Sir Richard Cavendish. He brought a Chancery suit
against Sir John Wyngefeld, Knt., William Brandon, Knt., John Sulyard,
and Edward Grymston, as to this manor, and the advowsons of the
Churches of St. Martin (Trimley), and St. John of Alneston, and lands
in Trimley St. Mary, and St. Martin, Walton, Felixstowe, Kirketon, and
Falkenham [Reference: E.P.P., Bundle 50, 212]. Sir Richard Cavendish
died seised 7th Jan. 1515, when the manor passed to his son and heir,
Sir Richard Cavendish. [Reference: I.P.M. 9 Henry VIII. 90]." END OF
QUOTE.

The Chancery lawsuit by Richard son of Augustine Caundish cited above
by Copinger is itemized in the National Archives Catalogue. The
Catalogue dates the lawsuit as being 1475-1480, or 1483-1485. This
date range can be narrowed by the fact that Edward Grimston, Esquire,
one of the defendants, died in 1478. Thus, the correct date range for
this lawsuit in 1475-1478.

C 1/50/212

Date: 1475-1480, or 1483-1485

Description:

Short title: Caundyssh v Wyngfeld.

Plaintiffs: Richard, son of Austin Caundyssh, esquire.

Defendants: John Wyngfeld, knight, William Brandon, knight, John
Sulyard and Edward Grymston, esquire.

Subject: Manors of Grymston Halle, Blowfeld Hall, Burnebills in
Lestanton, and Morston Hall with advowsons of the churches ofSt Martin
and St John of Atneston in the hundred of Colnesse, and land in
Trymley St Mary and St Martin, Walton, Fylstowe, Kirketon and
Falcenham. Suffolk

Summarizing the above, we find that Augustine Caundish, son of Thomas
Caundish, was living in 1459, and left a will dated 1467, proved
1468. He left a son and heir, Richard Caundish, who was an adult by
1475-78, the date of the lawsuit.

In 1488 yet another lawsuit sprung up which engaged Augustine
Caundish's widow, Elizabeth Brandon, then wife of John Leventhorpe,
concerning the manor of Stretehall, Essex. Stretehall, Essex is one
of the Caundish family properties mentioned in the 1459 fine copied
above. This lawsuit proves that Elizabeth Brandon married (2nd) John
Leventhorpe before 12 April 1488.

The 1488 lawsuit is cited in "Pedigrees from the De Banco Rolls, temp.
Henry VII" published in The Genealogist, pg. 223.

The following information is provided:

Date: Easter term 3 Henry VII. [1488] m. 159.

Essex. - Writ to sheriff to issue a precept to John Leventhorp and
Elizabeth his wife to give John Scrope of Bolton Knt., John Scrope
arm. and Henry Wentworth Knt. the manor of Stretehall which Radulf
Spyrgurnell Knt. gave to John Tybetot and Margaret his wife and the
heirs of their bodies. END OF QUOTE.

An abstract of the actual lawsuit has been provided below courtesy of
Matt Tompkins. The original record may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H7/CP40no904/aCP40no904fronts/IMG_0302.htm

"On 16 April in Easter term [1488] the justices delivered to Thomas
Glantham, deputy sheriff of Essex, a writ close ordering him to
command John Leuenthorp and Elizabeth his wife to render to John
Scrope of Bolton, knight, John Scrope, esquire, and Henry Wentworth,
knight, the manor of Stretehall which Ralph Spygurnell, knight, gave
to John Tybetot and Margaret his wife and the heirs of their bodies
and which after the deaths of John Tybetot and Margaret and Robert
their son and heir and Margaret, one of Robert's daughters and heirs,
and Richard, Margaret's son and heir, and Henry, Richard's son and
heir, and Milicent, another daughter and heir of Robert, and Stephen,
Milicent's son and heir, and Elizabeth, Robert's third daughter and
heir, and Margery, that Elizabeth's daughter and heir, and Philip,
Margery's daughter and heir, ought to descend to John Scrope of
Bolton, knight, as son of the aforesaid Henry son of Richard, to John
Scrope, esquire, as son of the aforesaid Stephen, and to Henry
Wentworth, as son of the aforesaid Philip, kinsmen and heirs of John
Tybetot and Margaret his wife by the form of the aforesaid gift, as
they say. And if the Scropes and Wentworth give security for the
prosecution of their claim, to summon John and Elizabeth Leuenthorp to
appear at Westminster in the Quindene of Trinity to show why they
should not do so. Dated 12 April 3 Henry VII [1488]."

Following the 1488 litigation, the matter was continued in an action
dated 1489-1490. Once again the abstract of the lawsuit is provided
below courtesy of Matt Tompkins. A copy of the original may be viewed
at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H7/CP40no911/bCP40no911dorses/IMG_0603.htm

"It records that on 10 February in Hilary term [1490] the justices
delivered to Thomas May, deputy sheriff of Surrey, a writ close
ordering him to summon Richard Caundissh, son and heir of Austin
Caundissh, to appear in the Court of Common Pleas in Westminster in
the Quindene of Easter to warrant to John Leuenthorp and Elizabeth his
wife the manor of Stretehall in Essex which John Scrope of Bolton,
knight, John Scrope, esquire, and Henry Wentworth, knight, have
claimed against John and Elizabeth by a writ of formedon in the
descender, and which John and Elizabeth have called Richard to warrant
to them. Dated 6 November 5 Henry VII [1489]." END OF QUOTE

As we can see above, John and Elizabeth Leventhorpe called Richard
Caundish, son and heir of Austin Caundissh, to warrant the manor of
Stretehall, Essex to them.

Following these legal actions, I find that Calendar of Close Rolls,
1500-1509 (1963): 14 includes an item dated 1501 which indicates that
Elizabeth Leventhorpe, widow, released and quitclaimed to Christopher
Elyot and John Mundy, their heirs and assigns, "the manor and advowson
of Stretehall and 340 acres in Elmedon, Walden and Littelbury, co.
Essex, which they recovered against her and her son Richard Caundysshe
of Trymeley." END OF QUOTE.

On page 20 following, there is a second entry which indicates that
Richard Caundissh of Trymley, co. Suffolk, esquire released and
quitclaimed to Christopher Elyot and John Mundy, their heirs and
assigns, the manor and advowson of Stretehall, Essex.

The fine for this conveyance is published in Reaney and Fitch, Feet of
Fines for Essex, Volume 4 (1964), pg. 103 as follows:

"Christopher Elyot and John Monde, dem. Elizabeth Leventhorp, widow,
and Richard Caundyssh, esquire, defendants. The manor of Stretehall,
the advowson of the church of Stretehall, and 340 acres of land, 15
acres of meadow, 60 acres of pasture, 50 acres of wood and 46s. 8d.
rent in Elmedon, Walden and Littelbury. Plea of warranty of charter.
Def. quitclaimed to pl. and the heirs of Christopher. Cons. 200
marks." END OF QUOTE.

In summary, we find that Augustine Caundish was mentioned in a fine
dated 1459, and left a will dated 1467, proved 1468. His widow,
Elizabeth Brandon, married (2nd) before 1488 John Leventhorpe. In
1490 John and Elizabeth called her son Richard Caundish to warrant the
manor of Stretehall, Essex to them. John Leventhorpe died before
1501, when his widow, Elizabeth, and her son, Richard Caundish,
released and quitclaimed the manor of Stretehall, Essex to Christopher
Elyot and another.

The above discussion makes use of contemporary sources to prove the
two marriages of Elizabeth Brandon, aunt of Charles Brandon, Duke of
Suffolk.