Descent from King Edward IV of England to George Home, of Virginia, died 1760

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

The Scottish immigrant, George Home (died c.1760), of Essex and Culpeper Counties, Virginia has a valid descent from King Edward IV of England through the established Lumley-Lambton connection. The line comes through George Home's great-grandmother, Isabel Liddell, whose English ancestry appears to have been overlooked by genealogists.

George Home's line of descent from King Edward IV goes as follows:

1) King Edward IV, by his mistress, Elizabeth Waite, widow of _____ Lucy:

2) Elizabeth [Plantagenet] m. before 1477 Sir Thomas Lumley, living 1502, died before 13 Nov. 1507 (descended from Edward III), and had

3) Roger Lumley of Ludworth, Durham m. Isabel Ratcliffe (descended from Edward I), and had

4) Anne or Agnes Lumley (d. 1564) m. John Lambton of Lambton Castle (c.1505-1549), and had

5) Helen Lambton, d. 1611, m. George Tonge, Esq., of Denton and Thickley, co. Durham, d. 1593 (descended from Edward III), and had

6) Henry Tonge, of Denton and Thickley, co. Durham, b. c.1550, d. 1615 m. Mary Holt, living 1615, and had

7) George Tonge, of Denton and Thickley, co. Durham, living 1646, m. Elizabeth Blakiston, living 1646 (descended from Edward III), and had

8) Elizabeth Tonge, b. c.1612, d. 1643, m. (as his 1st wife) Sir Francis Liddell, of Redheugh, d. 1680, and had

9) Isabel Liddell, bp. 1638, m. 1664 George Home, of Wedderburn, d. before 1715 (descended from Edward III), and had

10) George Home, of Wedderburn, d. 1720, m. Margaret Home (descended from James V of Scotland), and had

11) George Home, of Essex and Culpeper Cos., Virginia, b. 1698, d. 1760, m. Elizabeth Procter

Elsewhere Gary Boyd Roberts includes a descent for the immigrant, George Home, from King James V of Scotland in his book, Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants (2008): 40-41. See Mr. Roberts' sources cited for the Home family.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In my post earlier today, I stated that Isabel Liddell was the great-grandmother of the immigrant, George Home, of Virginia.

She was actually his paternal grandmother.

DR

[Leo van de Pas]

-----Original Message-----
From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, 22 October 2013 3:53 AM
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Descent from King Edward IV of England to George Home, of Virginia,
died 1760

Dear Newsgroup ~

The Scottish immigrant, George Home (died c.1760), of Essex and Culpeper
Counties, Virginia has a valid descent from King Edward IV of England
through the established Lumley-Lambton connection. The line comes through
George Home's great-grandmother, Isabel Liddell, whose English ancestry
appears to have been overlooked by genealogists.

George Home's line of descent from King Edward IV goes as follows:

1) King Edward IV, by his mistress, Elizabeth Waite, widow of _____ Lucy:

2) Elizabeth [Plantagenet] m. before 1477 Sir Thomas Lumley, living 1502,
died before 13 Nov. 1507 (descended from Edward III), and had

------------- Dear Douglas,
By this Elizabeth I have a note : "The Complete Peerage Vol VIII page 274
questions which Thomas Lumley was married to Elizabeth. Cahiers de Saint
Louis, page 880, records that she was mentioned only in a genealogy in the
16th century and that her link is still not certain." Do you have sources
which would establish beyond doubt that this link is correct? It would be
great if you can dispel the uncertainty expressed in the Complete Peerage.

Regards.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

[Louise Gibson]

Leo and Douglas

This George Home, son of the 10th laird and 3rd Bt of Wedderburn, married in Virginia.
However, his paternal uncle Francis Home of Quixwood was banished to the Americas in June
1716 for the same reasons as his nephew George; both were Jacobite supporters.
Francis had married, Elizabeth Home, one of the daughters of Patrick Hume of Lumsden and
Margaret Baird (History of Dunbar Hume and Dundas from Drummond's Noble British Families,
William Pickering, London 1846) and had two sons, but it appears none of his family
followed him to Virginia. Is anyone able to confirm this ?


Leo:

I note that you have, in your database, this above George Home, son of the 10th laird and
3rd Bt of Wedderburn, that died in Culpepper, c1760 with a maternal grandmother, Jean
Dalmahoy.
Admittedly SP and CB both state that Patrick Home of Lumsden married Jean Dalmahoy,
daughter of William Dalmahoy of Ravelrig. There was discussion on the list last year about
this marriage.
A "Home of Rentoun" did marry Jean Dalmahoy, but it was not Patrick, it was his nephew
Robert, 2nd Bt of Rentoun, son of Patrick's older brother Alexander Home, 1st Bt of Rentoun.
This couple, Robert Home and Jean Dalmahoy had their first child baptised Margaret on the
23 August 1711, with the baptismal entry for the 26th August 1711, Edinburgh reading:

Sir Robert Hume of Renton Dame Jean Dalmahoy his Lady A.D.N. Margaret: w: Sir William
Drummond of Hathorndale Mr William Scott Advocat and Captain Charles Milne - was born on
the 23rd Instant.

This Jean Dalmahoy was baptised 19 April 1688 in the Canongate.

Sir Patrick had a lease of the lands of Rentoun before the death of his father Sir John
Home of Rentoun in 1671. Patrick did not return the lands to his older brother Alexander
following their father's death. Alexander died in May 1698, and still Patrick did not
return the lands to his nephew. Sir Robert eventually gained the lands of Rentoun back
from his uncle in 1716, after many years of legal wrangling amongst the family.

Sir Patrick Home 1st Bt of Lumsden was styled as Sir Patrick Home of Rentoun even when he
was buried in the kirk-yard in Coldingham in February 1723/24, but he had married Margaret
Baird of Saughton Hall, Edinburgh in April 1676 and they then had 19 children from 1677 to
1702. His wife Dame Margaret Baird survived him and her Testament is dated the 16 January
1746/47, and she is called Dame Margaret Baird, Relict of Sir Patrick Home of Rentoun,
Advocate.


Louise Gibson
Burnie
Tasmania, Australia

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Leo ~

The following sources identify Elizabeth, wife of Sir Thomas Lumley, as a bastard daughter of King Edward IV. The third source is dated c.1505 and thus is contemporary to Sir Thomas Lumley who died about that date.

1. Surtees, History and Antiquities of Durham 2 (1820): 139 (Lumley monument in Chester-le-Street, co. Durham church: “… inde pater efficitur illius Thomæ qui ex magni Regis Edovardi quarti filia naturali, Richardum susceperat…”), 140 (monumental inscription at Chester-le-Street: “Sir Thomas Lumley, Knight, sonne of George Lord Lumley, maried Elizabeth, daughter naturel to Kinge Edwarde the fourth, and he died in the life of his father, and had issue Richard Lord Lumley”) (Elizabeth’s arms: 1. France and England; 2. a plain cross of Ulster; 3. as 2; 4. barry of six, on a chief three pallets, between two esquires’ bastions, dexter and sinister, an inescutcheon Argent, Mortimer, over all a bar sinister).

2. Hodgson, History of Northumberland 2(1) (1827): 316 (Ped. of Thornton and Trevelyan: “Thomas Lumley which claymed the land by his mother did wed Kinge Edwards bastard dawghter.”).

3. Collectanea Top. et Gen. 1 (1834): 304 (Neville ped. dated c.1505: states “Thomas Lumley wedded bastard daughter of Edward IVth.”).

4. Tonge, Vis. of Northern Counties 1530 (Surtees Soc. 41) (1862): 27 (Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lumley, son and heyre to George, maried Elisabeth, bastard doughter to Kyng Edward the iiijth”).

5. Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563–4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 189–190 (Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lord Lomley son & heyr to George = Elsabeth bastard doughter to Kyng Edward the Fourth”).

6. Flower et al., Peds. Rec. at the Vis. of Durham (1887): 216 (Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lumley, son and heire = Elizabeth, bastard dau. of Edward IV”). Stratford Edward the Fourth (1910): 319.

You might also wish to consult Given-Wilson, Royal Bastards of Medieval England (1984): 160–161, 179.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Leo van de Pas]

Douglas Richardson wrote :

Dear Leo ~

The following sources identify Elizabeth, wife of Sir Thomas Lumley, as a
bastard daughter of King Edward IV. The third source is dated c.1505 and
thus is contemporary to Sir Thomas Lumley who died about that date.

1. Surtees, History and Antiquities of Durham 2 (1820): 139 (Lumley monument
in Chester-le-Street, co. Durham church: “… inde pater efficitur illius
Thomæ qui ex magni Regis Edovardi quarti filia naturali, Richardum
susceperat…”), 140 (monumental inscription at Chester-le-Street: “Sir Thomas
Lumley, Knight, sonne of George Lord Lumley, maried Elizabeth, daughter
naturel to Kinge Edwarde the fourth, and he died in the life of his father,
and had issue Richard Lord Lumley”) (Elizabeth’s arms: 1. France and
England; 2. a plain cross of Ulster; 3. as 2; 4. barry of six, on a chief
three pallets, between two esquires’ bastions, dexter and sinister, an
inescutcheon Argent, Mortimer, over all a bar sinister).

The inscription dates from the time of John, 6th lord Lumley (1547-1609), so
this is a secondary source that for all we know may rely on legend rather
than any primary document.

2. Hodgson, History of Northumberland 2(1) (1827): 316 (Ped. of Thornton and
Trevelyan: “Thomas Lumley which claymed the land by his mother did wed Kinge
Edwards bastard dawghter.”).

This is supposed to have been "copied by W.C.T. of Wallington, esq. from
papers at Netherwilton" - we don't have enough information to assess this
further.

3. Collectanea Top. et Gen. 1 (1834): 304 (Neville ped. dated c.1505: states
“Thomas Lumley wedded bastard daughter of Edward IVth.”).

This citation is again to a secondary source, a modern tabulation from a
document reportedly compiled ca 1505, Harleian MS 1074. The information is
taken from folio 306r (one of 15 leafs tracing the descendants of of Sir
John Nevill, lord of Raby). The quotation may reflect accurately what was
written in the early 16th century, assuming that the estimated dating is
correct in the first place, but of course there can't be certainty without
sighting the original. Douglas Richardson would probably find it worthwhile
to do this, as on folios 84v-87r there is a account of the earls of Arundel
that perhaps gives the surname of the family as understood by heralds in the
early Tudor period.

4. Tonge, Vis. of Northern Counties 1530 (Surtees Soc. 41) (1862): 27
(Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lumley, son and heyre to George, maried Elisabeth,

bastard doughter to Kyng Edward the iiijth”).

5. Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563–4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 189–190 (Lumley
ped.: “Thomas Lord Lomley son & heyr to George = Elsabeth bastard doughter
to Kyng Edward the Fourth”).

6. Flower et al., Peds. Rec. at the Vis. of Durham (1887): 216 (Lumley ped.:
“Thomas Lumley, son and heire = Elizabeth, bastard dau. of Edward IV”).
Stratford Edward the Fourth (1910): 319.

Visitations are mainly useful for establishing what was said, but very often
not satisfactorily documented, when a family wanted to cement (or invent)
its hereditary prestige with officialdom.

By the way, the remarks in CP about the marriage of Thomas Lumley to
Elizabeth are not logically compelling: "No evidence has been found as to
his marriage. When Dugdale wrote his Baronage this marriage had already been
recorded for many years in the exhaustive "pedigree" that Lord Lumley set up
in the church of Chester-le-Street; but Dugdale assigns this daughter of
Edward IV to Thomas, Lord Lumley, who d. 1485, and says this marriage
procured his summons to Parhament, referring as his authority to
Leland, Itin., vol. vi, fo. 63. But Leland says only: "The Advanciment of
Lumeley to be Lord was by Mariage, of a Bastard Doughter of King Edwarde 4."
If Thomas, Lord Lumley, m. a daughter of Edward IV, there must have been at
least 50 years' difference in age between them; if, on the other hand, this
Thomas, who d. v.p., married the bastard, the marriage had no influence on
the peerage." But what if the elder Thomas was advanced because he married
his namesake grandson to a bastard daughter of the king? Peerages have been
awarded for less, even without the background strife of late-Plantagenet
England.

Where to go from here?

[Brad Verity]

On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:53:17 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> 1) King Edward IV, by his mistress, Elizabeth Waite, widow of _____ Lucy:

Douglas, historian Michael Hicks, in his 2003 book 'Edward V: The Prince in the Tower', states that no Elizabeth Waite Lucy existed,
"Not having read Titulus Regius, Sir Thomas More presumed that the lady of the precontract was the Dame Elizabeth Lucy, 'a proud high-minded woman' of dubious loyalty, of whom he had heard. More reported that Edward had seduced her and had already fathered a child by her before his marriage, when the King's mother the Duchess Cecily claimed that Edward 'was sure' to her and 'her husband before God'... More's story is rather vague. For a start, who was she? Was Lucy her birth-name or her marital name? She cannot have been the Dame Elizabeth Lucy around in More's day, who was married three times before dying in 1536 and was still bearing children in the 1510s, fifty years after the supposed contract. The Elizabeth Lucy (née Wayte), who was perhaps the daughter of the Hampshire squire Thomas Wayte, does not appear to exist. Nor can she have been the daughter of the childless Sir William Lucy of Richards Castle in Herefordshire and Dallington (Northants.) (d. 1460). ... Most probably our problem arises because she was not called Elizabeth - this was a mistake of More's, a natural confusion with the notorious lady around in his own day - but Margaret."

Hicks then goes on to make the compelling case that Edward IV's mistress (before his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville) was Margaret Fitzlewis, who had married Sir William Lucy in 1453, and was widowed in 1460. Her subsequent history is checkered, with rejected suitors and a murdered second husband, Thomas Wake.

Points that Hicks doesn't bring up, but which add to his case for Margaret Fitzlewis as Edward IV's pre-marriage mistress and mother of his daughter who was married to Sir Thomas Lumley, are 1) Margaret Fitzlewis was a cousin of Warwick the Kingmaker thru their Montagu mothers, and Warwick was very influential with Edward in the first years of his kingship, and would have encouraged, perhaps even orchestrated, the affair, similar to how the Duke of Norfolk encouraged his nieces, Anne Boleyn & Catherine Howard, with Henry VIII. 2) Margaret Fitzlewis's death in 1466 would have left the responsibility for her daughter in the hands of the king himself. And it does seem to be Edward IV who arranged the marriage of his illegitimate daughter with the Lumleys.

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:12:16 PM UTC-7, Leo van de Pas wrote:
> The inscription dates from the time of John, 6th lord Lumley (1547-1609), so
> this is a secondary source that for all we know may rely on legend rather
> than any primary document.

I'm not clear whether or not the Chester-le-Street Lumley monument specifically names Thomas's wife as 'Elizabeth', or whether it just states she was a bastard daughter of Edward IV?

> This citation is again to a secondary source, a modern tabulation from a
> document reportedly compiled ca 1505, Harleian MS 1074. The information is
> taken from folio 306r (one of 15 leafs tracing the descendants of of Sir
> John Nevill, lord of Raby). The quotation may reflect accurately what was
> written in the early 16th century, assuming that the estimated dating is
> correct in the first place, but of course there can't be certainty without
> sighting the original. Douglas Richardson would probably find it worthwhile
> to do this, as on folios 84v-87r there is a account of the earls of Arundel
> that perhaps gives the surname of the family as understood by heralds in the
> early Tudor period.

I feel this pedigree drawn up by the heralds at the orders of Henry VII and his mother the formidable Margaret Beaufort, is very solid evidence for the marriage of Thomas Lumley to Edward IV's daughter. The point of the pedigree was to show how the nobility was related to the king - a mistake or assumption of a bastard daughter of the late Edward IV (and so a half-sister to the current queen Elizabeth of York) wouldn't have been tolerated.

Unfortunately, the pedigree doesn't give us the first name of Edward IV's bastard daughter.

> 4. Tonge, Vis. of Northern Counties 1530 (Surtees Soc. 41) (1862): 27
> (Lumley ped.: Thomas Lumley, son and heyre to George, maried Elisabeth,
> bastard doughter to Kyng Edward the iiijth ).

> Visitations are mainly useful for establishing what was said, but very often
> not satisfactorily documented, when a family wanted to cement (or invent)
> its hereditary prestige with officialdom.

Herald Thomas Tonge's 1530 Lumley pedigree is the earliest known source to give the first name 'Elizabeth' to Edward IV's daughter who married Thomas Lumley. Tonge's informant was her grandson John, 5th Lord Lumley (c.1492-1545), who may not have known his grandmother, as she may have died before he was born. Either the herald or Lord Lumley could have been in error as to her first name.

Michael Hicks says that her first name was actually 'Margaret', not 'Elizabeth', and cites a document in the National Archives as his source.
"And the Margaret (not Elizabeth, as wrongly reported from the 1530s on), natural daughter of Edward IV, who was married to Sir Thomas Lumley by 1480, when 'our most excellent and dread prince and lord King Edward IV' induced Bishop Dudley to grant them a licence (PRO DURH3/54/22 m.8; John Leland's Itinerary, ed. J. Chandler (Stroud, 1993), 337; R. Surtees, History & Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, 4 vols (1816-40), ii. 141; Byrne, Lisle Letters, 140n, 141n. They had eight children. As Richard Lord Lumley (d. 1510), married in 1489, was thirty and more in 1508 and his own son John Lord Lumley was eighteen in 1510, Richard must have been born in the mid 1470s to a teenaged bride conceived very early in the 1460s, GEC viii. 271-3; J.W. Clay, Extinct & Dormant Peerages of the Northern Counties of England (1913), 130; Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem, Henry VII, iii, nos. 360, 432; Testamenta Eboracensia, ed. J. Raine, iii, Surtees Soc. lv (1864), 355; Forty-Fourth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Record Office (1883), 45; see also Biographies, 563). The King's involvement and her forename suggest that she was his bastard by Margaret Lucy, problematically short though the generations are."

> Where to go from here?

I think there is very strong evidence that Edward IV married his bastard daughter to Thomas Lumley. I find Hicks's argument that it was really Margaret Fitzlewis, Lady Lucy, and not 'Dame Elizabeth Lucy' as More reported many years later, who was Edward IV's pre-marriage mistress, is very compelling, and have reflected that in my database. Hicks's argument that Lumley's wife was the daughter of this union makes sense chronologically, though it is only a supposition and likely can never be definitively proved. I have the mother of Lumley's wife as Margaret Fitzlewis in my database, with a cautionary note.

Hicks's discovery that Lumley's wife was actually named 'Margaret', not 'Elizabeth', is interesting and a document from 1480 that mentions the couple is a great find. The document should be examined to confirm that it does indeed refer to Thomas Lumley and his Plantagenet wife, and not to, say, Thomas, 2nd Lord Lumley (who lived until 1485) and his wife Margaret. I will try and have a look at the document (PRO DURH3/54/22 m.8) the next time I make it out to the National Archives.

Cheers, -----Brad

[jhigg...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 2:20:39 PM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:

> On Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:12:16 PM UTC-7, Leo van de Pas wrote:
>
> > The inscription dates from the time of John, 6th lord Lumley (1547-1609), so
>
> > this is a secondary source that for all we know may rely on legend rather
>
> > than any primary document.
>
>
>
> I'm not clear whether or not the Chester-le-Street Lumley monument specifically names Thomas's wife as 'Elizabeth', or whether it just states she was a bastard daughter of Edward IV?

FWIW the monument in the church of Chester-le-Street, at least as documented in Surtees' Durham, 2:139, does say that the bastard daughter of Edward IV in question was named Elizabeth, not Margaret. See here:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=76306

[snip]

> Michael Hicks says that her first name was actually 'Margaret', not 'Elizabeth', and cites a document in the National Archives as his source.
>
> "And the Margaret (not Elizabeth, as wrongly reported from the 1530s on), natural daughter of Edward IV, who was married to Sir Thomas Lumley by 1480, when 'our most excellent and dread prince and lord King Edward IV' induced Bishop Dudley to grant them a licence (PRO DURH3/54/22 m.8; John Leland's Itinerary, ed. J. Chandler (Stroud, 1993), 337; R. Surtees, History & Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, 4 vols (1816-40), ii. 141; Byrne, Lisle Letters, 140n, 141n. They had eight children. As Richard Lord Lumley (d. 1510), married in 1489, was thirty and more in 1508 and his own son John Lord Lumley was eighteen in 1510, Richard must have been born in the mid 1470s to a teenaged bride conceived very early in the 1460s, GEC viii. 271-3; J.W. Clay, Extinct & Dormant Peerages of the Northern Counties of England (1913), 130; Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem, Henry VII, iii, nos. 360, 432; Testamenta Eboracensia, ed. J. Raine, iii, Surtees Soc. lv (1864), 355; Forty-Fourth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Record Office (1883), 45; see also Biographies, 563). The King's involvement and her forename suggest that she was his bastard by Margaret Lucy, problematically short though the generations are."
>
>
>
> > Where to go from here?
>
>
>
> I think there is very strong evidence that Edward IV married his bastard daughter to Thomas Lumley. I find Hicks's argument that it was really Margaret Fitzlewis, Lady Lucy, and not 'Dame Elizabeth Lucy' as More reported many years later, who was Edward IV's pre-marriage mistress, is very compelling, and have reflected that in my database. Hicks's argument that Lumley's wife was the daughter of this union makes sense chronologically, though it is only a supposition and likely can never be definitively proved. I have the mother of Lumley's wife as Margaret Fitzlewis in my database, with a cautionary note.
>
>
>
> Hicks's discovery that Lumley's wife was actually named 'Margaret', not 'Elizabeth', is interesting and a document from 1480 that mentions the couple is a great find. The document should be examined to confirm that it does indeed refer to Thomas Lumley and his Plantagenet wife, and not to, say, Thomas, 2nd Lord Lumley (who lived until 1485) and his wife Margaret. I will try and have a look at the document (PRO DURH3/54/22 m.8) the next time I make it out to the National Archives.
>
>
>
> Cheers, -----Brad

Although Hicks does conclude that the bastard daughter of Edward IV in question here was named Margaret, not Elizabeth, it should be noted that his conclusion has been received with some skepticism by a subsequent publication, "Royal Bastards", by Peter Beauclerk-Dewar and Roger Powell (2006). They point out that Hicks does not identify the license of 1480 specifically as a marriage license, and they suggest that it might be a license for a private altar - and granted to Thomas Lumley's grandfather Sir Thomas Lumley and his wife Margaret. (This latter possibility is mentioned by Brad at the end of his post above.) They also point out the "near contemporary evidence" already mentioned in this thread (i.e., the Chester-le-Street monument and the visitation pedigrees) which say that the daughter was Elizabeth, not Margaret.

Incidentally, Hicks in his endnotes cites the section of Surtees' Durham mentioned above as supporting his discussion of the license of 1480 - but Surtees does not mention the license at all in the section cited. It may be premature to say that Hicks has proven that the daughter's name was Margaret rather than Elizabeth It's probably necessary to see the actual PRO document in question.

Brad and I had some discussion of this point earlier this year offline, and he kindly pointed me to both the Hicks book and the "Royal Bastards" book and provided copies of the some of the pertinent pages in the books. I subsequently obtained copies of both books, and in re-reading them as a result of this thread, I'm now not so sure that Hicks' conclusion is necessarily accurate, as I mention above - although it definitely should be considered.

[wjhonson]

Brad et al, Sir William Lucy had married evidently secondly to Elizabeth Percy. Her IPM is 34H6 No 16, she died in 1455. His married to Margaret FitzLewis occurred in 1456

I wonder where you get 1460 as his death year?
He was dead by 29 Nov 1466 at any rate, when his heirs were his two sisters and their issue

[Matt Tompkins]

On Saturday, 26 October 2013 22:20:39 UTC+1, Brad Verity wrote:
> Michael Hicks says that her first name was actually 'Margaret', not 'Elizabeth', and cites a document in the National Archives as his source.
>
> "And the Margaret (not Elizabeth, as wrongly reported from the 1530s on), natural daughter of Edward IV, who was married to Sir Thomas Lumley by 1480, when 'our most excellent and dread prince and lord King Edward IV' induced Bishop Dudley to grant them a licence (PRO DURH3/54/22 m.8; John Leland's Itinerary, ed. J. Chandler (Stroud, 1993), 337; R. Surtees, History & Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, 4 vols (1816-40), ii. 141; Byrne, Lisle Letters, 140n, 141n. They had eight children. As Richard Lord Lumley (d. 1510), married in 1489, was thirty and more in 1508 and his own son John Lord Lumley was eighteen in 1510, Richard must have been born in the mid 1470s to a teenaged bride conceived very early in the 1460s, GEC viii. 271-3; J.W. Clay, Extinct & Dormant Peerages of the Northern Counties of England (1913), 130; Calendar of Inquisitions post mortem, Henry VII, iii, nos. 360, 432; Testamenta Eboracensia, ed. J. Raine, iii, Surtees Soc. lv (1864), 355; Forty-Fourth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Record Office (1883), 45; see also Biographies, 563). The King's involvement and her forename suggest that she was his bastard by Margaret Lucy, problematically short though the generations are."
>

That "DURH 3/54/22, m. 8" reference doesn't seem quite right. The PRO:TNA catalogue contains an entry for DURH 3/54, which is the Palatinate's Patent Roll for 1476-83, but not one for DURH 3/54/22. However DURH 3/54 consists of 22 membranes, so perhaps what is meant is DURH 3/54, m. 22 (and the m. 8 part might be explained if m. 22 is technically a rotulet comprising 8 or more membranes sewn together head-to-foot - or possibly the reference should be just DURH 3/54, m. 8).

Anyway, entry for DURH 3/54 says it has been calendared in the 35th Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, pp. 134-45, so perhaps the precise nature of the licence can be found there.

Matt Tompkins

[Brad Verity]

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 9:30:15 AM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote:
> Brad et al, Sir William Lucy had married evidently secondly to Elizabeth Percy. Her IPM is 34H6 No 16, she died in 1455. His married to Margaret FitzLewis occurred in 1456

Correct, Will. Good catch. So Michael Hicks's date of 1453 for the marriage of Margaret Fitzlewis to Sir William Lucy is an error. Hicks also states that Margaret Fitzlewis was the eldest daughter of her parents, Sir Lewis John & Anne Montagu, born shortly after their 1432 marriage. This is also an error. It's clear from Anne Montagu's IPMs in 1458 that Margaret was born in 1440, and was the younger surviving daughter of her parents.

> I wonder where you get 1460 as his death year?
> He was dead by 29 Nov 1466 at any rate, when his heirs were his two sisters and their issue

Sir William Lucy was killed at the battle of Northampton on 10 July 1460. See CP Vol. 8 pp. 262-263 (sub Lucy of Newington), and the entry for Sir William in Wedgwood's History of Parliament, pp. 559-560.

On Monday, October 28, 2013 4:27:55 AM UTC-7, Matt Tompkins wrote:
> Anyway, entry for DURH 3/54 says it has been calendared in the 35th Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, pp. 134-45, so perhaps the precise nature of the licence can be found there.

Thanks Matt. Unfortunately, the Thirty-Fifth Report is not a title available either through Google Books or Internet Archive. though the Thirty-Sixth Report is available through both. Neither major library in the Vancouver area holds it, so I'll have to put it on my list of books to track down when I'm in LA, DC, SLC or London.

Cheers, ----Brad

[ronchid...@gmail.com]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 8 (1932): 274 (sub Lumley) contains rather meager information regarding Thomas Lumley, husband of Elizabeth Plantagenet, bastard daughter of King Edward IV. Below is the brief information provided regarding Thomas Lumley:

"Thomas Lumley, son and heir, is said to have married Elizabeth, bastard daughter of Edward IV, and to have died v.p. in 1487." END OF QUOTE.

The footnote reference for this statement reads as follows:

"Surtees, Hist. of co. Durham, vol. ii, p. 163, quoting no evidence for the date." END OF QUOTE.

The source cited by Complete Peerage, namely Surtees, History & Antiquities of Durham, alleges in volume 2 (1820): 140 that Thomas Lumley was a knight. But reviewing my notes, I see none of the surviving visitation records which mention Thomas Lumley refer to him as a knight, which is surely a red flag. I've since double checked various primary records of Thomas Lumley's life and it appears that he was always known as Thomas Lumley (or Lomley), esquire. He so styled in the inquisition taken following his own death, a reference to which is published in Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper 36 (1875): 72. This reference may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011698704;view=1up;seq=88

The inquisition indicates that Thomas Lumley, esquire, was of Beutroby, Durham, which place is surely Beautrove, Durham, which manor was possessed by Thomas Lumley's grandfather, Sir Thomas Lumley, 2nd Lord Lumley, at the time of his death in 1485.

The inquisition of Thomas Lumley, esquire is dated in the 1st year of William Severs, Bishop of Durham, who was appointed to that position in June 1502. Thus, it would appear that Thomas Lumley, esquire, died in 1502 or 1503, not in 1487 as alleged by Surtees.

I might note that Thomas Lumley is elsewhere styled esquire in three inquisitions taken in 1508, following the death of his father, Sir George Lumley, 3rd Lord Lumley. For the father's inquisitions, see Calendar of IPM Henry VII 3 (1955): 219–220, 262–263, 326–327, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://archive.org/stream/calendarofinquis03great#page/n5/mode/2up

Thomas Lumley was not his father's son and heir as claimed by Complete Peerage. Rather, Thomas Lumley was his father's son and heir apparent. In the very next paragraph in Complete Peerage 8(1932): 274, the author correctly states that Thomas Lumley's father, George Lumley, Lord Lumley, was succeeded at his death by Thomas' son and heir, Richard Lumley, not by Thomas Lumley.

As to the date of Thomas Lumley's marriage to Elizabeth Plantagenet, the three inquisitions cited above for Thomas Lumley's father, George Lumley, indicates that Thomas Lumley's son and heir, Richard Lumley, was born about 1478, he being aged 30 in 1508. Thus it would appear that Thomas Lumley and Elizabeth Plantagenet were married in or before 1478.

With regard to Thomas Lumley's marriage to Elizabeth Plantagenet and her parentage, the following information is given in Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 3 (1812): 693–720 (sub Lumley, Earl of Scarborough), esp. 703:

“Thomas Lumley ... appeared on behalf of the clergy and commonalty of the diocese of Durham, in 11 Hen. VII. when the three estates of the kingdom were summoned to meet at Westminster, October 27th, 1495; and dying in the lifetime of his father, left issue by Elizabeth Plantagenet, his wife, (natural) daughter of Edward IV. (by the Lady Elizabeth Lucy.).” END OF QUOTE.

The author cites as his source: Ms. E.6, f.5, b. in Offic. Arm.

Below is my current file account of Thomas Lumley, Esquire, and his wife, Elizabeth Plantagenet.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + +

THOMAS LUMLEY (or LOMLEY), Esq., of Beautrove, Durham, Knight of the Shire for Northumberland, 1495, Governor of Scarborough, 1502, Justice of the Peace for Durham and Sedbergh, 1502, son and heir apparent of George Lumley, Knt., 3rd Lord Lumley, of Lumley, Durham, by Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Roger Thornton, Esq., of Newcastle. He was born in 1462. He married ELIZABETH PLANTAGENET, illegitimate daughter of Edward IV, King of England, allegedly by his mistress, Elizabeth Waite (alias Elizabeth Lucy). They had four sons, Richard [4th Lord Lumley], John, George, and Roger, Esq., and three daughters, Anne (wife of Robert Ogle, 4th Lord Ogle), Sibyl (wife of William Hilton, Knt., de jure 9th Lord Hylton), and Elizabeth (wife of Robert Cresswell, Esq.). In 1486, as “Thomas Lomley, Esq.,” he and his father, George Lomley, Knt., lord of Lomley, witnessed a quitclaim of Robert Tempest to Thomas Haugyrston [Haggerston], Esq. He was appointed a commissioner of array for Easington Ward, Durham in 1491 and 1494, as “Thomas Lomley, esq.” In 1493 he and his father witnessed a feoffment by Ralph, Earl of Westmorland. In 1500, as “noble man Thomas Lumley,” he and his father, George, were granted letters of fraternity by the Prior and Convent of Durham. THOMAS LUMLEY, Esq., died in 1502–3 (date of writ of diem clausit extremum).

References:

Sandford, Gen. Hist. of the Kings of England (1677): 399. Smollett, Complete Hist. of England 3 (1758): 452. Brydges, Collins’ Peerage of England 3 (1812): 693–720 (sub Lumley, Earl of Scarborough). Surtees, Hist. & Antiqs. of Durham 2 (1820): 139 (Lumley monument in Chester-le-Street, co. Durham church: “… inde pater efficitur illius Thomæ qui ex magni Regis Edovardi quarti filia naturali, Richardum susceperat…”), 140 (monumental inscription at Chester-le-Street: “Sir Thomas Lumley, Knight, sonne of George Lord Lumley, maried Elizabeth, daughter naturel to Kinge Edwarde the fourth, and he died in the life of his father, and had issue Richard Lord Lumley”) (Elizabeth’s arms: 1. France and England; 2. a plain cross of Ulster; 3. as 2; 4. barry of six, on a chief three pallets, between two esquires’ bastions, dexter and sinister, an inescutcheon Argent, Mortimer, over all a bar sinister), 162–164 (Lumley chart). Hodgson, Hist. of Northumberland 2(1) (1827): 316 (Ped. of Thornton and Trevelyan: “Thomas Lumley which claymed the land by his mother did wed Kinge Edwards bastard dawghter.”). Coll. Top. et Gen. 1 (1834): 304 (Neville ped. dated c.1505: states “Thomas Lumley wedded bastard daughter of Edward IVth.”). Banks, Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 386–389. Obituary Roll of William Ebchester & John Burnby (Surtees Soc. 31) (1856): 114. Fordyce, Hist. & Antiqs. of Durham 2 (1857): 628. Tonge, Vis. of Northern Counties 1530 (Surtees Soc. 41) (1862): 27 (Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lumley, son and heyre to George, maried Elisabeth, bastard doughter to Kyng Edward the iiijth”). Surrey Arch. Colls. 3 (1865): 324–336. Annual Rpt. of the Deputy Keeper 36 (1875): 22, 66, 72. Marshall, Vis. of Northumberland in 1615 (1878): 49–51 (Thornton ped.: “Thomas Lumley.”). Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563–4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 189–190 (Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lord Lomley son & heyr to George = Elsabeth bastard doughter to Kyng Edward the Fourth”). Flower et al., Peds. Rec. at the Vis. of Durham (1887): 216 (Lumley ped.: “Thomas Lumley, son and heire = Elizabeth, bastard dau. of Edward IV”). Milner, Recs. of the Lumleys of Lumley Castle (1904): 25. Stratford Edward the Fourth (1910): 319. C.P. 7 (1929): 30 (sub Hylton); 8 (1932): 274 (sub Lumley); 10 (1945): 33–34 (sub Ogle); 14 (1998): 457 (sub Lumley). Wedgwood, Hist. of Parl. 1 (1936): 562–563 (biog. of Sir George Lumley), 563 (biog. of Thomas Lumley). Cal. IPM Henry VII 3 (1955): 219–220, 262–263, 326–327. TAG 50 (1974): 81–86. Byrne, Lisle Letters (1981) [cites Harleian MSS 4033: f.21, (23)v; Leland Itinerary of John Leland 6 (1964): f. 63]. Given-Wilson, Royal Bastards of Medieval England (1984): 160–161, 179. Northumberland Rec. Office: Swinburne (Capheaton) Estate Recs., ZSW/4/65 (available at www.a2a.org.uk/search/index.asp).

[jhigg...@yahoo.com]

On Monday, October 28, 2013 6:31:50 PM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:

> On Monday, October 28, 2013 4:27:55 AM UTC-7, Matt Tompkins wrote:
>
> > Anyway, entry for DURH 3/54 says it has been calendared in the 35th Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, pp. 134-45, so perhaps the precise nature of the licence can be found there.
>
>
>
> Thanks Matt. Unfortunately, the Thirty-Fifth Report is not a title available either through Google Books or Internet Archive. though the Thirty-Sixth Report is available through both. Neither major library in the Vancouver area holds it, so I'll have to put it on my list of books to track down when I'm in LA, DC, SLC or London.
>
>
>
> Cheers, ----Brad

Brad: UCLA appears to have a copy of vol. 35. I may be able to get it through ILL.