More Additions for Complete Peerage: Margaret Whetehill, wife of Sir John Radcliffe, Lord Fitzwalter
Douglas Richardson
The authoritative Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 486-487 (sub FitzWalter)
gives the following information regarding the wives of Sir John
Radcliffe:
"He married, 1stly (it is said), Anne sister of Richard Whetehill, of
Calais. He married, 2ndly, Margaret." END OF QUOTE.
No further information is given about these wives. Nor, is any
documentation offered to support either marriage. Wedgwood's History
of Parliament, 1 (1936): 706 (biog. of John Radcliffe) published about
the same time similarly states that John Radcliffe "married (1) by 12
Mar. 1476, Anne Whetehill, sis. of Richard Whetehill of Calais, and
(2) Margaret." END OF QUOTE.
In truth, there was but one wife, Margaret Whetehill, which Margaret
was the daughter (not sister) of Richard Whetehill, Esq., of Earl's
Barton and Sywell, Northamptonshire, London, Calais, and Guines,
Merchant of the Staple of Calais, Mayor of Calais, Lieutenant of the
Castle of Guines, by his wife, Joan.
Surviving records indicate that Sir John Radcliffe and his wife,
Margaret, were married before 6 July 1475, when the manor of
Attleborough, Norfolk and other lands in Norfolk were settled on them
and the heirs of their bodies by a deed of that date [Reference:
FitzWalter Peerage Case, Minutes of Evidence, 1842-1843, pp.
350-365]. At the time of her marriage, Margaret Whetehill was the
widow of Thomas Walden, Gent. (will proved 25 June 1474), of London,
Walden, Essex, and Deptford, Kent, Citizen of London, Merchant of the
Staple of Calais. By her first marriage, Margaret Whetehill had three
children, namely Richard, John, and Jane. Sir John Radcliffe and
Margaret Whetehill in turn had six children in all, namely one son,
Robert, K.B., K.G. [1st Earl of Sussex], and five daughters, Mary
(wife of Edward Darrell, Knt.), Bridget, Ursula, Jane (nun), and Anne
(wife of Walter Hobart, Knt.).
Following Sir John Radcliffe's execution for high treason in 1496, his
estates were confiscated. His attainder, however, was reversed in
1504, for the benefit of his son and heir, Robert Radcliffe,
afterwards Earl of Sussex. In 1505 there were five fines levied by
which his lands were conveyed to Richard, Bishop of Winchester, Thomas
Lovell, Knt., and other trustees, who settled the whole on his son,
Robert, excepting the manors of Southmere, Docking, Billingford, and
East Ruston, Norfolk, which were settled on Sir John Radcliffe's
widow, Margaret, for life [Reference: Blomefield, Hist. of Norfolk 1
(1739): 343-352].
In 1516 Sir John's widow, Margaret, then styled "widow of Lord
Fitzwalter," presented her nephew, George Poley, son of her sister,
Agnes Whetehill, as rector of the church of Attleborough Major Part,
Norfolk [Reference: Barrett, Memorials of the parochial church, the
collegiate chantry, & the chapel of St. Mary in the parish of
Attleborough (1848): 226. This record may be found at the following
weblink:
For George Poley's parentage, see Harvey Vis. of Suffolk 1561 1
(H.S.P. n.s. 2) (1981): 37-38 (Poley pedigree).
Margaret, Lady Fitz Walter, was living as late as 6 July 1518, as
indicated by an indenture of agreement of that date between "Robert
Radclyff, lord Fytzwauter, and Margaret Radclyff, lady Fytzwauter, his
mother, of the one part, and sir James Hubert kt., of the other, being
a marriage settlement on the marriage of Anne Radcliffe, sister of the
said lorde, to sir Walter Hubert, eldest son of the said James, before
the feast of All Saints next ensuing." [Reference: Turner, Cal. of
Charters & Rolls Preserved in the Bodleian Library (1878): 196].
This record may be viewed at the following weblink:
Reviewing the literature, as best I can determine, it appears that
Margaret Whetehill's name was confused as Anne Whetehill solely due to
an error in published 1623 Visitation of Shropshire, which reads as
follows:
"Sir John Ratcliff Knt. Lord Fitzwalter Burnell & Egremont. = Anne da.
of Sir Richd Wheathill of Callais Knight." [Reference: Tresswell &
Vincent Vis. of Shropshire 1623, 1569 & 1584 1 (H.S.P. 28) (1889): 92-
93].
This visitation may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=CZ4TAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR14&dq=Visitations+Shropshire#PPA93,M1
Folliowing the publication of the Fitz Walter account in Complete
Peerage in 1926 and Wedgwood's History of Parliament in 1936, the
esteemed genealogist, Walter Goodwin Davis, F.A.S.G., published an
able account of the Whetehill family in an article published in New
England Historic Genealogical Register [NEHGR], 102 (1948): 5-9, 241-
254. The good Mr. Davis, however, fared no better with Margaret
Whetehill in his article. As with Complete Peerage and Wedgwood, he
split Margaret Whetehill into two separate people who he placed in
separate generations of the Whetehill family. One he called Margaret
Whetehill and stated she married Thomas Walden, Gent. The second lady
he named Anne Whetehill, and stated she married Sir John Radcliffe,
Lord Fitzwalter. Of Anne Whetehill, he says only that she "must have
died s.p. within a few years of her marriage."
Following the publication of his NEHGR article on the Whetehill
family, Mr. Davis prepared a fresh account of this family for
inclusion in his book, The Ancestry of Mary Isaac, published in 1955.
On pages 263-272 of this important work is found a revised account of
the the Whetehill family, in which Mr. Davis correctly identified
Margaret Whetehill, widow of Thomas Walden, Gentleman, as being the
same person as Margaret, the wife of Sir John Radcliffe, Lord Fitz
Walter. Mr. Davis makes no indication that he had previously split
Margaret Whetehill into two people in his Register article.
At this point, Mr. Davis contacted the editor of Complete Peerage,
which series was still in the process of being published. Davis
kindly forwarded the results of his extensive Whetehill research onto
the editor, who included the chief items in a footnote in the account
of Margaret Whetehill's son, Sir Robert Radcliffe, 1st Earl of Sussex
[see Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 517-520 (sub Sussex)]. Even
though Mr. Davis had assembled sufficient evidence to prove that
Margaret Whetehill had in fact married both Thomas Walden, Gent., and
Sir John Radcliffe, Lord Fitz Walter, the editor of Complete Peerage
in his note on the matter said only that "Mr. Davis' theory may well
be correct."
Even though Complete Peerage left Margaret Whetehill's identification
on a rather indefinite note, it appears the historian, Ian Arthurson,
in his recent account of Sir John Radcliffe in the new Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography has correctly identified Margaret's
maiden name and parentage:
"John [Radcliffe] led a retinue to fight in France in 1475, and, in
that year or early 1476, married Margaret, the daughter of the
lieutenant of Guînes Castle, Sir Richard Whetehill. The couple
returned to England in the summer of 1476." [Reference: Ian
Arthurson, 'Ratcliffe , John, sixth Baron Fitzwalter (1452-1496)',
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept
2004; online edn, Jan 2008, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/22984].
Curiously, while Mr. Arthurson cites Walter Goodwin Davis' Whetehill
article in NEHGR, he fails to mention Davis' landmark book, The
Ancestry of Mary Isaac. He likewise cites the Fitzwater account in
Volume 5 of Complete Peerage, but overlooks the editor's long note
regarding the identity of Margaret Whetehill in the Sussex account in
Complete Peerage in Volume 12, Part I. Moreover, he ignores or
overlooks the available records of Margaret Whetehill as Sir John
Radcliffe's widow found in Blomefield, Barrett, and Turner. Mr.
Arthurson also makes no mention whatsoever of Margaret Whetehill's
first Walden marriage. While these various lapses are indeed
unfortunate, at least Mr. Arthurson has correctly identified Sir John
Radcliffe's wife as Margaret Whetehill, daughter (not sister) of
Richard Whetehill. Richard Whetehill was not knighted, however, as he
says. So that error will need to be corrected.
In review, we see that the process of developing accurate information
regarding historic people can at times be a lengthy one. If an error
is made in one record, it is often copied again and again into
subsequent secondary publications. And, even when the error has long
been corrected, the error can pop up again and again, albeit in
altered form. Here on the newsgroup as late as 2001, I note that one
enthusiastic poster referred to Sir John Radcliffe's wife as "Anne-
Margaret" Whetehill. Hopefully, with this post, the matter of
Margaret Whetehill's true identify and her marriages can be resolved
once and for all.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
mj...@btinternet.com
> The authoritative Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 486-487 (sub FitzWalter)
> gives the following information regarding the wives of Sir John
> Radcliffe:
(snip)
> Surviving records indicate that Sir John Radcliffe and his wife,
(snip)
> Sir John Radcliffe and Margaret Whetehill in turn had six children
(snip)
> Following Sir John Radcliffe's execution for high treason in 1496
(snip)
> which were settled on Sir John Radcliffe's widow
(snip)
> Sir John's widow, Margaret, then styled "widow of Lord Fitzwalter,"
(snip)
> in his recent account of Sir John Radcliffe
(snip)
> correctly identified Sir John Radcliffe's wife as Margaret Whetehill
(snip)
> referred to Sir John Radcliffe's wife as "Anne- Margaret"
The unenthusiastic poster who brought us the above has strangely
refrained from referring to his subject by the name he is known to
history, possibly because he has had his fingers burnt in the course
of earlier fumblings with the ordinal system for British peers.
For the sake both of correctness and ease of identification, the
person referred to as "Sir John Radcliffe" in this post is actually
the 9th Lord Fitzwalter. Curiously, ODNB calls him the "6th Lord",
having erroneously omitted his predecessors who variously suffered
under the limitations of (a) not having received a writ of summons,
(b) having died a minor, and (c) being female. A quick review of the
relevant genealogy in Burke's Peerage, or counting the entries in the
ODNB article on the Fitzwalter family by Christopher Starr, shows the
true reckoning.
Regards, Michael
al...@mindspring.com
FYI from oriignal post:
"For George Poley's parentage, see Harvey Vis. of Suffolk 1561 1
(H.S.P. n.s. 2) (1981): 37-38 (Poley pedigree)".
Version i am looking at has pages 57-58 for Poley.
Doug Smith
Douglas Richardson
wrote:
< "For George Poley's parentage, see Harvey Vis. of Suffolk 1561 1
< (H.S.P. n.s. 2) (1981): 37-38 (Poley pedigree)".
<
< Version i am looking at has pages 57-58 for Poley.
<
< Doug Smith
Dear Other Doug ~
H.S.P. n.s. 2 (which I cited) stands for Harleian Society
Publications, new series, volume 2. This volume has the Poley
pedigree on pages 37 and 38. This pedigree specifically names George
Poley, who was presented as rector of the church of Attleborough Major
Part, Norfolk in 1516 by his aunt, Margaret Whetehill, Lady Fitz
Walter. If your pages number don't match, I assume you must be using
a different version of this visitation.
See the following weblink for the source I cited:
http://fmg.ac/Harleian/VolsNS.htm
Best always, Douglas Richardson
Douglas Richardson
As a followup to my original post earlier today, I've re-read the
current biography of Sir John Radcliffe authored by the historian, Ian
Arthurson, in the new Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB).
I specifically checked the new biography to see if Mr. Arthurson
mentioned whether or not John Radcliffe was ever knighted. After
reading the biography over again a second time, I find no reference to
Sir John Radcliffe ever being knighted, which I find puzzling indeed.
This is yet another lapse in this all new biography by Ian Arthurson.
References to Sir John Radcliffe being a knight can be found in
various sources. One of them is an abstract of a document found
online at Don Aitken's great website. This document is dated 1503/4
and it concerns the reversal of the attainder of Sir John Radcliffe,
Lord Fitz Walter, in favor of his son and heir, Robert Radcliffe.
I've copied the abstract of this record below. In the online
transcript, Robert Radcliffe is specifically styled "son to John
Ratclyff knight, late Lord Fytzwalter." That's obviously a very clear
reference that John Radcliffe was knighted.
Another contemporary record which mentions John Radcliffe being a
knight can be found in the online National Archives catalogue. This
record is dated 1490-1491, during John Radcliffe's own lifetime.
I''ve copied that item below as well.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
1. Source: Don Aitken's Website
http://home.freeuk.com/don-aitken/ast/r3.html
139. Reversal of Attainders
(1503/4. 19 Henry VII. c. 28. 2 S. R. 669.)
THE king our sovereign lord, considering that divers and many persons,
whereof some of them and some of their ancestors were and be attainted
of high treason for divers offences by them committed and done against
their natural duty of their allegiance, make and have made instant and
diligent pursuit in their most humble wise to His Highness of his
mercy and pity to have the said attainders reversed and the same
persons so attainted to be severally restored, that is to say Humphrey
Stafford son to Humphrey Stafford esquire, John Baynton son to Robert
Baynton late of Fallesdon in the county of Wiltes, Robert Ratclyff son
to John Ratclyff knight, late Lord Fytzwalter, Thomas Mountforde son
and heir to Simon Mountforde knight, Thomas Wyndham son to John
Wyndham knight, Thomas Tyrrell son to James Tyrrell knight, John
Charleton son to Richard Charleton knight, Charles Clyfforde son and
heir to Jane sister and heir to Thomas Courteney late Earl of
Devonshire, John Malory of Lynchebarowe in the county of Northampton
gentleman; the king's Highness of his especial grace, mercy and pity,
being sorry for any such untruth and fall of any of his subjects in
such case, is therefore inclined to hear and speed reasonably the said
petitioners, so if there were convenient time and space in this
present parliament, as yet is not, for the great and weighty matters
concerning the common weal of this land treated in the same, and that
the said parliament draweth so near to the end, and that after the
same His Highness is not minded for the ease of his subjects without
great, necessary and urgent causes of long time to call and summon a
new parliament, by which long tract of time the said suitors and
petitioners were and should be discomforted and in despair of
expedition of their suits, petitions and causes, unless convenient
remedy for them were purveyed in this behalf: wherefore and in
consideration of the premises the king's Highness is agreed and
contented that it be enacted by the lords spiritual and temporal and
the commons in this present parliament assembled and by authority of
the same, that the king's Highness, from henceforth during his life,
shall have plain and full authority and power by his letters patent
under his great seal, to reverse, annull, repeal and avoid all the
attainders of the said persons and every of them and the heirs of
every of them, and of all other persons and the heirs of such persons
and every of them as have been attainted of high treason by act of
parliament or by the common law, at any time from the xxii day of
August the first year of his most noble reign to the first day of this
present parliament; and also of all persons attainted in and by this
present parliament; and also of all other persons attainted of treason
at any time during the reign of King Richard the Third as well by the
course and order of the common law as by the authority of parliament
or otherwise: and furthermore the king's Grace by his letters patents
under his said great seal to have full authority and power to restore
the same persons so attainted and their heirs and every of them and to
enable them in name, blood and inheritance as if the said attainders
or any of them had never been had nor made; and that the said letters
patent rehearsing the said reversal, repeal, annullation and avoydance
of the said acts of attainder or any of them, and the restitutions and
enablements of the said persons or any of them, and the inheritance
contained in any of the king's said letters patent at any time
hereafter to be made according to the effect of this act, be as good,
effectual and available in the law to every of the same persons to
whom they shall be made according to the effect, tenor, purports,
grants and words in the same so made according to the effect of this
act, as if the same matters, words, tenors, and purports, contained in
any of the said letters patent so made. were fully enacted,
established, and authorized by authority of parliament.
2. Source: National Archives Catlogue (http://
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp)
DL 39/3/31
Record Summary
Scope and content
Roll and file of oyer and terminer proceedings relating to Chute
forest, against Sir Nicholas Lisle, held at Andover on 4 September
before Sir John Ratcliffe, Lord FitzWalter, and Sir Reginald Bray
Covering dates 5 Henry VII [1490-1491].
Douglas Richardson
< For the sake both of correctness and ease of identification, the
< person referred to as "Sir John Radcliffe" in this post is actually
< the 9th Lord Fitzwalter. Curiously, ODNB calls him the "6th Lord",
< having erroneously omitted his predecessors who variously suffered
< under the limitations of (a) not having received a writ of summons,
< (b) having died a minor, and (c) being female. A quick review of
the
< relevant genealogy in Burke's Peerage, or counting the entries in
the
< ODNB article on the Fitzwalter family by Christopher Starr, shows
the
< true reckoning.
<
< Regards, Michael
Either sixth Lord Fitz Walter or ninth Lord Fitz Walter is just fine.
Complete Peerage counts Sir John Radcliffe BOTH ways.
al...@mindspring.com
HI Douglas
You are correct the version i was looking at was Metclafe's 1882
edition (available via Google Books).
Doug Smith