Wentworth, Beaumont
Cristopher Nash
>As I understand it (not that I have seen all of them) the pedigrees
>that show John who m. Dranfield as son of John who m. Tyas leave out
>a Bisset marriage altogether. Yet Elmsall is supposed to have come
>to the Wentworths from the Bissets.. If Elmsall can be shown to have
>been a Bisset property before the Wentworth ownership, that would
>support the marriage.
-- I agree and this is looking very helpful.
>The most plausible explanation seems to be that some pedigrees have
>omitted a generation and that Tyas was grandmother of Wentworth who
>m. Dransfield.
Ya know what? I think there may an antique hint of this kink in the
weave, dating back at least to Burke's Extinct & Otherwise Bent
Peerage (R.I.P.) which, sub 'Wentworth', 575, says
William de Wentworth and Dyonisia da. of Peter de Rotherfield
|
William, his successor, who "s[ucceeded] his father in 1295,
and m. Isabel, dau. and co-heir of William Pollington" [etc]
John who "m. the dau. and heir of Elmsall, of Elmsall,
in Yorkshire, by whom he acquired that estate,
and dying s. p., left it to his nephew, John [evidently
bro. William's son] ... who inherited Elmsall from his
uncle, and marrying Joan, dau. of Richard le Tyas, of
Burgh-Walleys, co. York, [and who] was ancestor of the
Wentworths of Elmsall" etc.
I've no interest in giving this great cred., but it does suggest a
'dog-leg' in the line (the jog from heir to uncle) that might leave
room -- if no useful data -- for both your Bisset-kind of scheme and
for (if anyone remains interested) an extra John who m. Eliz Beaumont.
Again, I know that Paul Reed has looked into the generations
affecting e.g. Wentworth/Rotherfield/Pollington connections, but....
>Yes, John who m. Beaumont seems to be "surplus" to the Nettlstead
>line, though not to the Elmshall line. But I don't see that that
>causes any problem.
None at all! I aimed just to support your seeming to've simplified
things for us here.
Best,
Cris
--