A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?
Terry J Booth
I subsequently have found that this line - in its entirety - is shown on Leo van de Paz' great Genealogics website. But the only source cited for generations 9-12 is Nat Taylor's 'Ancestors of Cassandra Elizabeth Taylor 2003'. It is now unclear what Nat's sources were, since his website shows a 2004 revision without this line (the revision is restricted to lines 'in contemporary literature' like RD600). Without doubting Nat's always careful work, Leo's citations might benefit from some added sources.
Before posting this I searched the archives to see if this topic was discussed before. The one item found was a 20 Dec 2002 Paul Reed posting Re: Soothill of Redbourne "My research concerns Sir Gerard and his other wife, the daughter of Lyon Percehay, and that Gerard's father Gerard and his Salvain wife. It should be published next year in the Register." While Paul Reed's Wentworth articles will surely prove the definitive Wentworth reference, other priorities have clearly interfered with their publication since at least 1998. This topic's obvious interest to Wentworth descendants and the availability of the below cited sources thus recommend it for current discussion. If it proves valid, Paul Reed surely deserves the credit for finding it many years ago.
Using the RD600 format, here is the descent :
1. Henry II, King of England, d. 1189 = Eleanor of Aquitane.
2. (illegitimate by Ida, prob de Toeni, later wife of Roger Bigod, 2nd Earl of Norfolk) William Longespee, Earl of Salisbury = Ela, Countess of Salisbury
3. Ida Longespee = William de Beauchamp
4. Ela de Beauchamp = Sir Baldwin Wake
5. Ida Wake = Sir John Stonegrave
6. Isabel de Stonegrave = Simon de Pateshulle
7. Sir John de Pateshulle = Mabel de Grandison
8. Maud de Pateshulle = Walter de Fauconberge
The above 8 generations are shown on page 304 of PA.
9. Roger de Fauconberge = Margaret Darcy
10. Walter de Fauconberge = Maud ---------
11. Isabel de Fauconberge = Edmund Percehay
12. Sir Lionel Percehay = Margaret Babthorpe
The balance of the descent matches that found in RD600 (2006), page 823, and in MCA on page 113.
13. [was 11 on page 823] ------ Percehay/Pereshay = Sir Gerard Sotehill.
14. [was 12]. Richard Sotehill = Agnes ------
15. [was 13]. Isabel Sotehill = Oliver Wentworth
16. [was 14]. William Wentworth = Ellen Gilby
17. [was 15] Christopher Wentworth = Catherine Marbury
18. William Wentworth = Susanna Carter
19. William Wentworth of NH
19. Ann Wentworth = John Lawson
20. Christopher Lawson of MA
Terry Booth
Illinois
P.S. There are at least two other possible Plantagenet ancestries for William Wentworth of NH discussed by this group, but both currently lack convincing evidence of a critical link. One possibility, discussed just last December, is that Henry II's gr-dau Mary Longespee was both wife of Sir Robert de Roos of Wark, Northumberland and mother of Sir Robert's son Robert who m. Agnes de Brus (generation 3 of the RD600 (2006) page 823 line). A second possibility is that the wife of Sir Robert de Ros' grandson was Laura/Lora de Baliol (generation 5 of the RD600 (2006) page line), a suggestion from John Ravilious and others that would lead to a descent - via the Baliols and Douvres of Chilham Castle - from John I. But neither of these suggestions seems widely accepted, nor are either of these wive's names shown on Leo's Genealogics website.
Notes/Sources
**********
1. Generation 8, page 304 of PA, states Walter de Fauconberge, 4th Lord Fauconberge, had a son named Roger. It also notes that Walter "had no issue" by his 2nd wife Isabel Le Bigod, thus making Roger a son of 1st wife Maud. CP Vol. V pages 272-76 discuss Walter, 4th Lord Fauconberge, and pages 276-80 discuss Thomas de Faucomberge, 5th Lord Faucomberge, son and heir of Walter 4th Lord. The CP entry for Thomas notes he had a bro Roger who took custody of Thomas when Thomas was released from imprisonment in Gloucester Castle in 1391, but it does not name Roger's wife or mother.
2. Generations 8-11. (Fauconberge) An extended pedigree can be found in Burke 'Dormant and Extinct Peerages' page 397. It is available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=1ysWkXKSrpIC&pg=PA397 . The Burke pedigree also shows Roger as the son of Maud, disagreeing with PA only by adding an additional Lord Fauconberge (i.e. PA and CP identify generation 8 Sir Walter as 4th Lord, while Burke has him as 5th Lord). The added Lord Fauconberge is the Sir Walter who m. Anastasia de Percy. According to CP, that Sir Walter dsp in the Battle of Bannockburn (24 Jun 1314), bef the 1318 death of his father, and was NOT the father of John (as shown in Burke) but his brother. The confusion no doubt relates to there being an extra Walter Lord Fauconberge created as a 'baron by writ' than the inheritance laws would justify - see page 225 of Nicolas' 'Synopsis of the Peerage of England' online at http://books.google.com/books?id=7zIEAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA227 .This same Fauconberge line is also discussed on pages 44-47 of Vol. II of the Duchess of Cleveland's 'Battle Abbey Roll' (available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=Y18JAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA46) - she perhaps relied on Burke, since she also makes Sir Walter the 5th Lord Fauconberge. For some unknown reason the Duchess also states that Gen. 9 Roger was Walter's son by his second wife Isabel Bigod, disagreeing with both Burke and PA. If she is right it would prove fatal to a Plantagenet link. Since PA p. 304 notes 2nd wife Isabel Bigod d. testate, presumably her will (not seen) resolved this to PA's satisfaction. Lastly, a pedigree limited to Roger and his descendants is on page 120 of Flowers' 'Visitations of Yorkshire' (as 'Fauconbridge'), available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=pjMEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA120.
3. Generations 11-13 (Percehay pedigree) can be found on page 238/9 of Flowers' Yorkshire Visitation pedigree for Percehay, available online at http://books.google.com/books?&id=pjMEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA238 . Edmund Percehay's wife is clearly identified as 'Izabel doughter & on of theyres of Sir Walter Fauconbrydge of Whytton in Lyncolnshyre' (the other dau and heiress was Margaret who m. Sir John Constable of Holme on Spalding Moor). His son is identified as 'Sir Lyon Percehay of Ryton', but no female children or grandchildren are listed (the pedigree appears restricted to male descendants if they exist). There is a Percehay of Ryton pedigree in Surtees Society, Vol xxxvi, page 114, but it is too late. Last but not least, the Duchess of Cleveland's 'Battle Abbey Roll' has several pages in Vol. III on the Percehays at http://books.google.com/books?id=FF8JAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA31 . On page 32 she succinctly ties generations 8 through 11 above together by stating "Matilda [AKA Isabel] Fauconberge, who brought Whitton in Lincolnshire to Edmund Percehaie, was the great grand-daughter of Walter, fifth [i.e. 4th by CP and PA count] Lord Fauconberge. Her father had been the son of another country heiress, Margaret D'Arcy of Flixburgh."
4. Generations 13-15 (Sothill pedigree), are found on page 915 of Maddison's Lincolnshire pedigree for 'Southill of Redbourn', available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=IPcMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA915 . This source identifies Sir Gerard's wife as 'dau of Sir Lyon Percy, Knt' - Percy is acknowledged to be a variant spelling of Percehay, as can be seen in the footnote at the bottom of the Percehay pedigree. This pedigree also shows Richard Sothill's child "mar. ----- Wentworth of Goxhill". RD600 p. 823 notes several other Sothill sources.
5 Generations 15-19 (Wentworth pedigree). This is the standard Wentworth line from John Wentworth's 1878 'The Wentworth Genealogy' that earlier appeared in NEHGR in Apr 1868 (by genealogist Joseph Lemuel Chester), found online at http://books.google.com/books?id=eyocy7cBriYC&pg=PA120 . This closely matches a little cited and perhaps independently developed 'Wentworth of Clee and Waltham' pedigree on page 1062 of Maddison's Lincolnshire pedigree, available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=IPcMAAAAIAAJ&jtp=1062 . The page 399 RD600 Wentworth descent, starting at generation 13, is referenced in MCA on page 113 in a footnote, thus indicating MCA's acceptance of these later generations. The key link in the pedigree is the generation 15 identification of Isabel Sotehill as wife of Oliver Wentworth - see the Sothill of Redbourne pedigree above and 3 chancery suits noted in MichaelAnne Guido's 15 Oct 2001 SGM posting 'Oliver Wentworth of Goxhill, Lincolnshire' that identify Oliver's wife as Isabel dau of Richard Sotehill. Paul Reed later acknowledged that posting, noting that they matched copies previously in his possession.
mhol...@mac.com
Wentworth line given is by Paul C. Reed and in the pedigree Oliver
Wentworth's wife is given as Jane (---). The descent is from John
through his illegimate son Richard Fitzroy.
Nathaniel Taylor
"Terry J Booth" <terry...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> While working on the Percehay and Fauconberge ancestry of my Wentworths, I
> found a little discussed possible descent from Henry II which may merit
> consideration for the next RD600 and Douglas Richardson's next edition of PA.
> While credible secondary sources seem to support it, this newsgroup is far
> better able than me to identify/document any fatal flaws or - more hopefully
> - add enough other sources to make it more credible.
>
> I subsequently have found that this line - in its entirety - is shown on Leo
> van de Paz' great Genealogics website. But the only source cited for
> generations 9-12 is Nat Taylor's 'Ancestors of Cassandra Elizabeth Taylor
> 2003'. It is now unclear what Nat's sources were, since his website shows a
> 2004 revision without this line (the revision is restricted to lines 'in
> contemporary literature' like RD600). Without doubting Nat's always careful
> work, Leo's citations might benefit from some added sources.
Terry,
Thank you for this splendid display of the growing power of Google
books, and for posting efforts to further investigate and strengthen the
known Wentworth ancestry. This line did indeed appear for a time on my
earlier website (at earthlink), among Gary-style brief sketches
illustrating various gateways in my childrens' ancestry, in this case
based entirely on correspondence with Paul Reed back in the 1990s, when
he was kind enough to mention this line to me. It was among a series of
notated pages (Gary-style) of gateway descents of my children, which all
went up on my fledgling site briefly in 2003 (crediting Paul); I took it
down because details were not available in published form and I never
took the time to investigate or corroborate it myself. But it was up
long enough for Leo to gather it for his db. Of course I expect the
line checks out--I believe Paul has investigated it very thoroughly in
primary sources.
This was among a number of lines in the Wentworth ancestry I discussed
with Gary briefly last year before he published his revised RD600. In
the revised book Gary included only the Salvayn-Ros-William the Lion
line because of his rule of descent from the most recent monarch, and
also because support for it was already available in print (or in print
plus on sgm), while the Henry II line depended on the more obscure
Percehay connection which had not yet been discussed in print. The
irony is that there are not one but two bogus earlier Wentworth lines
published in earlier versions of Gary's _RD_ series, and yet a third
which had been published and debunked prior to that.
Wentworth doesn't connect to the first-rank Wars-of-the-Roses types, but
he has an interesting, very bushy and old provincial gentry ancestry
which still hasn't been fully plumbed. I do look forward to seeing some
of Paul's careful work on this put into print.
As for the suggestions, both floated here before, of Longespee and
Baliol wives for two of those Rooses of Wark, I'm not sure how
compelling the onomastic signposts are--I think that's why they've been
left alone.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Nathaniel Taylor
mhol...@mac.com wrote:
Well, I know from his correspondence to me that Paul knew the correct
wife of Oliver Wentworth well before 1997, and had already developed her
ancestry quite extensively. And the line Gary printed in 2004
definitely fails (look at the various stuff posted here in the last
couple of years on the FitzWilliams and Sothills, and the chronological
flaw should be obvious). Paul knew that before 2001, when he mentioned,
here, having pointed this out to Gary when Gary had published the line
in one of his notable kin or RD update pieces in the Nexus or NEA:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/6afd1707c739aac
2
It's just an irony that Gary's 2004 book attributes a line to Paul which
Paul had actually already told him was flawed. Surely not intended as
nose-thumbing, just an oversight.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 11/3/2006 4:53:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
terry...@sbcglobal.net writes:
14. [was 12]. Richard Sotehill = Agnes ------
15. [was 13]. Isabel Sotehill = Oliver Wentworth
16. [was 14]. William Wentworth = Ellen Gilby
The back of my mind is saying there's a flaw in this section, but all my
notes are at my office. I was just today working on Oliver Wentworth too.
Strange how that works.
You'll probably get an answer before I can get back to my notes, but perhaps
if you try to assign some dates to these people you might see something
amiss.
Will Johnson
Nathaniel Taylor
WJho...@aol.com wrote:
We're all ears.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
mhol...@mac.com
revised his theory. Of course, once he publishes his results, we'll
all know and get the definitive word. Thanks Nat.
On Nov 3, 10:33 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltay...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> In article <1162606552.574660.195...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> mholl...@mac.com wrote:
> > However, in the 2004 edition of RD600 by Gary Boyd Roberts, the
> > Wentworth line given is by Paul C. Reed and in the pedigree Oliver
> > Wentworth's wife is given as Jane (---). The descent is from John
> > through his illegimate son Richard Fitzroy.Well, I know from his correspondence to me that Paul knew the correct
> wife of Oliver Wentworth well before 1997, and had already developed her
> ancestry quite extensively. And the line Gary printed in 2004
> definitely fails (look at the various stuff posted here in the last
> couple of years on the FitzWilliams and Sothills, and the chronological
> flaw should be obvious). Paul knew that before 2001, when he mentioned,
> here, having pointed this out to Gary when Gary had published the line
> in one of his notable kin or RD update pieces in the Nexus or NEA:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/6afd1707c73...
Terry J Booth
Thank you for the supportive comments and providing some prior history
regarding this line. Having found your name earlier associated with the
line, I suspected a depth of research and thought beyond the obvious.
I have great respect for RD600 and the concept, but one suspects GBR may
have too many things to do and inadequate staff assistance to tie up all the
loose ends. It is indeed too bad that Paul Reed's name somehow became
associated with the erroneous descent from John I in the first edition.
Terry Booth
Illinois
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.25/515 - Release Date: 11/3/2006
>
>
Terry J Booth
It is great to hear you are working on the Wentworths and that we can expect
you to provide more of your always valuable research and comments.
The generations you note are actually after the interim generations 9-12
bridge my posting added to the existing PA and RD600 genealogy. In this
instance it is a potential RD600 problem. I would suggest adding generation
13 (------ Percehay/Pereshay = Sir Gerard Sotehill) to your list as well,
since I suspect there may be a missing Sotehill generation between Sir
Gerard and Isabel based on the chronology. That may perhaps be your
chronology problem as well. As you know, the Sotehill pedigrees are
notoriously misleading and often incomplete, one major reason being they
reuse the same names (Henry, Gerard etc) so much it is difficult to tell if
the persons referenced are of the same or a different generation.
You are no doubt aware of Weis' MCS comment on page 95 (online in
ancestry.com library,
http://content.ancestry.com/browse/bookview.aspx?dbid=49232&iid=FLHG_MagnaChartaSureties-0119)
which has always baffled me. While MCS shows generation 17 William as the
son of generation 16 Oliver Wentworth, there is this odd comment between
them "The parentage of William [Wentworth] . . . has not been determined."
This despite the existence of a will for Oliver. Why show a line if it is
questionable?
I expect your involvement in checking into these critical generations will
prove invaluable either to suggest a change is needed to existing views, or
to improve upon those views. While the Wentworths will still have some
royalty via the Marburys (I tentatively show Henry I, William the Conqueror,
Alfred the Great and of course Charlemagne), it greatly reduces their
involvement with many interesting landed gentry in between.
Terry Booth
Illinois
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJho...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?
>
> In a message dated 11/3/2006 4:53:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> terry...@sbcglobal.net writes:
>
> 14. [was 12]. Richard Sotehill = Agnes ------
>
> 15. [was 13]. Isabel Sotehill = Oliver Wentworth
>
> 16. [was 14]. William Wentworth = Ellen Gilby
>
>
> The back of my mind is saying there's a flaw in this section, but all my
> notes are at my office. I was just today working on Oliver Wentworth
> too.
> Strange how that works.
>
> You'll probably get an answer before I can get back to my notes, but
> perhaps
> if you try to assign some dates to these people you might see something
> amiss.
>
> Will Johnson
Terry J Booth
Thanks for joining in - and thanks for the nice addition which I had not spotted before. It looks good to me.
This additional Wentworth descent is of course only valid if the remainder of the line can be accepted.
The William the Lion ancestry raises an interesting question - which descent would RD600 choose to show as between Henry II or William. It claims to select the "best" royal descents, by which it means (as Nat pointed out) "from the most recent king" (page xiv). This means William should be preferred to Henry II.
But the RD600 Wentworth addendum contradicts of its own definition of 'best' (as a retired CPA I like to see definitions - once adopted - consistently applied). Their new William the Lion descent on page 823 is only 17 generations to William Wentworth of NH. This is SHORTER by 2 generations than the erroneous 19 generation descent from John I as shown on page 399 of the 2004 edition. The 'shorter is best' definition would conclude the new Wentworth line is an improvement. But on page 818, GBR states "Slightly 'lesser' royal descents are presented for William Wentworth of NH . . " The logic in this statement contradicts RD600's own definition of 'best', suggesting instead that shorter is NOT an improvement if a Plantagenet descent is involved.
I tend to prefer the page 818 definition of 'best', but no doubt many would disagree.
Terry Booth
Illinois
----- Original Message -----
From: Jwc...@aol.com
To: terry...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: Jwc1870@AOL..com
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?
Dear Terry,
Richardson`s Magna Carta Ancestry indicates under Fauconberge (p 316) that Walter de Fauconberge, 4th Lord Fauconberge who married Maud Pateshall was the son of John, 3rd Lord Fauconberge by his wife Eve (?Bulmer) and grandson by Isabel de Roos of Walter, 2nd Lord Fauconberge.Isabel was a daughter of Robert de Roos of Hamlake by Isabel Aubenay of Belvoir Castle and She was a great granddaughter of King William the Lion (known to Scots of around his time as William the Rash)
Sincerely,
James William Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: 11/3/2006
Jwc...@aol.com
True, William the Lion`s reign began 10 years after that of
Henry II and He died 24 years Henry but He did bend the knee to him,
acknowledging him his overlord in 1174 after defeating him in battle. Henry`s consort
Eleanor of Aquitaine was as powerful a personality as He was, unlike Ermengarde
de Beaumont, William the Lion`s wife. Henry II rose above that unfortunate
comment which triggered the murder of Thomas A` Becket, Archbishop of
Canterbury " Shall none rid me of that damn preist ?" and got the Holy See`s blessing
in conquering the usually pious country of Ireland. the Plantagenets for all
their slightly demonic qualities were favorites of the Church. What`s more most
people One ask might say : Scotland had Kings?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Nathaniel Taylor
"Terry J Booth" <terry...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The William the Lion ancestry raises an interesting question - which descent
> would RD600 choose to show as between Henry II or William. It claims to
> select the "best" royal descents, by which it means (as Nat pointed out)
> "from the most recent king" (page xiv). This means William should be
> preferred to Henry II.
>
> But the RD600 Wentworth addendum contradicts of its own definition of 'best'
> (as a retired CPA I like to see definitions - once adopted - consistently
> applied). Their new William the Lion descent on page 823 is only 17
> generations to William Wentworth of NH. This is SHORTER by 2 generations than
> the erroneous 19 generation descent from John I as shown on page 399 of the
> 2004 edition. The 'shorter is best' definition would conclude the new
> Wentworth line is an improvement. But on page 818, GBR states "Slightly
> 'lesser' royal descents are presented for William Wentworth of NH . . " The
> logic in this statement contradicts RD600's own definition of 'best',
> suggesting instead that shorter is NOT an improvement if a Plantagenet
> descent is involved.
I would have thought (though I don't have either edition of RD600 in
front of me), that Gary meant 'lesser than the disproved King John
descent from the 2004 edition' (though Wm the Lion died only two years
before John), not necessarily lesser than the apparent descent from
Henry II of which Gary is also aware. I think the chronological
definition has been used pretty consistently in Gary's compilations, to
'rank' these descents.
On these lines in general, my understanding was that Paul Reed has
carefully established that (1) the immigrant is the Alford man people
have presumed him to be; and (2) the immediate ancestry, including the
Sothill heiress married to Oliver Wentworth being mother of his children
(as opposed to his later wife Jane, relict in his will), has now been
well established. It is unfortunate that this excellent work has not
yet been published, but I look forward to it when it does appear.
Knowing that the work has been done is one of the reasons I have not
pored over the descent myself, impatient though I may be about it. If
Will Johnson has particular reason to doubt any part of the Wentworth
ancestry which has been discussed here or published, I'd be interested
to hear it.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Terry J Booth
Thank you for the update and added comments, which provide further
encouragement concerning the Wentworth/Sothill/Percehay/Faucomberge linkage
which you first outlined on your website in 2003 (based on Paul's as yet
unseen work) and that I independently found searching through some secondary
sources.
As you and James both noted, I was also mistaken about RD600's definition of
'most recent king' since I obviously was not paying attention to the dates
of death for any of the kings.
Given the SGM community's obvious respect for Paul's work and apparent
shared continuing anticipation of the publication of his Wentworth research,
your advice not to spend a lot of added time on this family makes much
sense. The downside being that there is no assurance of when - or if - it
may be published.
Terry Booth
Illinois
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
> -------------------------------
> 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
terry...@sbcglobal.net writes:
<< 15. [was 13]. Isabel Sotehill = Oliver Wentworth
16. [was 14]. William Wentworth = Ellen Gilby
17. [was 15] Christopher Wentworth = Catherine Marbury >>
Now I am back in my office and can look at my notes on this.
The line from Oliver Wentworth + Isabel Sothill "heir of her father" to
William Wentworth, "Gent" of Waltham, Lincs is given here, courtesy of a link
posted last week by John Brandon from which I've lately been extracting. While
this is not *new*, I would suggest it's a better source for the line.
The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, by Henry Fritz-Gilbert
Waters <a href =
"http://books.google.com/books?vid=0U0dwQYWFU7XUo1OYr&id=eyocy7cBriYC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA132&dq=%22john+lawson%22+priscilla">page 128</a>
WJho...@aol.com
It appears that the article the link points to is actually by Joseph Lemuel
Chester. When you go to the link, it states quite clearly on the right of the
window "by Henry Fritz-Gilbert Waters". So either this is the editor of the
whole volume in which this article appears, or google books can't figure out
how to correctly assign authors in a compiled work.
The link I gave is also verbose, it turns out the ending portion (the search
criteria) can be cut off and it still works fine.
And thirdly, I didn't give the article it's own proper heading within the
compilation
The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, "A Genealogical Memoir
of the Wentworth family of England From its Saxon Origin...." by Joseph Lemuel
Chester <a href =
"http://books.google.com/books?vid=0U0dwQYWFU7XUo1OYr&id=eyocy7cBriYC&pg=PA129">page 129</a>
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
nathani...@earthlink.net writes:
<< > However, in the 2004 edition of RD600 by Gary Boyd Roberts, the
> Wentworth line given is by Paul C. Reed and in the pedigree Oliver
> Wentworth's wife is given as Jane (---). The descent is from John
> through his illegimate son Richard Fitzroy. >>
That Oliver Wentworth was married twice.
Jane is named as executrix in her husband's will dated 7 dec 1558
Will Johnson
Nathaniel Taylor
WJho...@aol.com wrote:
The sentence you quoted above was by Martin Hollick (please be careful
about this; snipping and misattributing is more grievous than
top-posting to many). On Saturday, to clear up the confusion, I posted
(noting my understanding of the scope of Paul Reed's work):
"... the [immigrant's] immediate ancestry, including the Sothill heiress
married to Oliver Wentworth being mother of his children (as opposed to
his later wife Jane, relict in his will), has now been well established."
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Terry J Booth
Thank you for the added information. I think we agree with Nat and RD600
(2006) that Oliver Wentworth m.(1) Isabel Sothill, and m.(2) Jane ? the
executrix of his will. I think we all also agree that William was the son of
Isabel, not Jane. But if not, here is what I believe will constitute part of
Paul Reed's proof of it :
Extracted from the PRO website at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search
.
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Early Proceedings, Richard II to
Philip and Mary C 1/1186/18
Oliver WENTWORTHE of Goxhill, gentleman, and Isabel his wife, daughter
and heir of Richard Sothyll, v. Edmund SHEFFELDE, lord Sheffield.: Manor of
Whitthall in Flixburgh and messuages and land there and in Halton and
Conisby.: NORFOLK. . Detailed description
Date range: 1544 - 1551.
Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives
This is one of the 3 Chancery Suit summaries posted 15 Oct 2001 by Michael
Anne Guido that are referenced in RD600 page 824. Reviewing the 2001 SGM
posting, the dating of the suits was for some reason omitted, perhaps
because they encompassed a range of dates. Since the date of a suit
constitutes evidence of when Isabel was alive, an FASG grade genealogist
would either visit the UK National Archives or order a photocopy of this
particular record. I have instead settled for the above online summary,
since it does include a date range indicating the proceeding occurred no
earlier than 1544 (I am ignoring the other 2 suits, which have an earlier
date range of 1518-1529).
On page 130 of the NEHGR reference you noted below, it states that William
Wentworth d. 22 May 1574 leaving 2 sons 'in their minority', with the eldest
son Thomas shown as age 20 and upwards in William's 16 Aug 1574 IPM. Thus
William was a father by 1554, in which case he clearly had to be b. bef
1544, the earliest date on the chancery suit. Assuming the original record
of the suit conforms with the PRO summary, it proves that Isabel Sothill was
William's mother.
A further suggestion that William's younger son Christopher had a mother or
relative who was a Sothill/Southill can be found on page 131 of the same
NEHGR article, where it states that William's will names 'Garrett Southill,
Esq.' as guardian for Christopher. One presumes that Garrett (or perhaps the
name may be Gerard in the original of the will) was Isabel's uncle or cousin
since she was her father's heir well before 1544.
Terry Booth
Illinois
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJho...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: A Plantagenet Ancestry for William Wentworth of NH ?
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006
>
>
WJho...@aol.com
terry...@sbcglobal.net writes:
<< On page 130 of the NEHGR reference you noted below, it states that William
Wentworth d. 22 May 1574 leaving 2 sons 'in their minority', with the eldest
son Thomas shown as age 20 and upwards in William's 16 Aug 1574 IPM. Thus
William was a father by 1554, in which case he clearly had to be b. bef
1544, the earliest date on the chancery suit. Assuming the original record
of the suit conforms with the PRO summary, it proves that Isabel Sothill was
William's mother. >>
You can even knock a year off that, or two.
Thomas is specifically stated to be "20years and 3 months" at his fathers IPM
in Aug 1574, so I put his birth at May 1554.
Then it is stated that the eldest son Oliver, is mentioned in his
grandfather's will. Evidently died before the IPM as he is not mentioned again. So this
Oliver had to be born no later than June 1553, so William was born himself no
later than 1536.
But I take your point that if Isabel is named in a document which cannot be
earlier than 1544 than obviously she is the mother of William.
For his brother Francis Wentworth, Gent of Waltham I have no good dates to
pin him down. His daughter Barbara was certainly born by 1578 as her twins are
baptised 2 Sep 1592.
So Francis could still be by Jane perhaps.
Will