Re: Ancestry of Catherine Middleton
Jwc...@aol.com
You state in one of your posts that the
Fairfax / Gascoigne marriage is good and that the royal line passes through
this alliance. So William Gascoigne and Margaret Percy were in fact the
parents of Agnes, wife of Thomas Fairfax.
However, You
conclude with the statement that the Fairfax line is bogus. Would that be
the line showing the before mentioned Thomas Fairfax as son of Thomas
Fairfax and Elizabeth , daughter of Robert and Joan (Radcliffe) Sherburne in
Richardson`s Magna Carta Ancestry [ 1st edition] pp 314-15 and 826 ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA
Brad Verity
> You state in one of your posts that the
> Fairfax / Gascoigne marriage is good and that the royal line passes through
> this alliance. So William Gascoigne and Margaret Percy were in fact the
> parents of Agnes, wife of Thomas Fairfax.
There is documented, 15th & early 16th century evidence for the
descent of Anne Gascoigne Fairfax from Edward III thru her mother
Margaret Percy.
> However, You
> conclude with the statement that the Fairfax line is bogus. Would that be
> the line showing the before mentioned Thomas Fairfax as son of Thomas
> Fairfax and Elizabeth , daughter of Robert and Joan (Radcliffe) Sherburne in
> Richardson`s Magna Carta Ancestry [ 1st edition] pp 314-15 and 826 ?
Dear James,
I don't know about the Thomas Fairfax line above, but I think Kate
Middleton's line of descent from Anne/Agnes Gascoigne Fairfax is
poorly documented and far from certain. The only piece of supporting
evidence that the late William Adams Reitweisner provides (at least at
his online site) for the next generation is:
"William Fairfax, b. ... , d. ... [Suffolk Bartholomeans 65]
m. "
I've never heard of Suffolk Bartholomeans, but the fact that no wife
or dates is assigned to William Fairfax above raises a red flag. What
is the evidence that Sir Thomas and Anne/Agnes Fairfax had a younger
son named William? What is the evidence that this William Fairfax in
Suffolk was their son? Suffolk seems an unusual county for a younger
son of well-established Yorkshire gentry parents with royal
connections, to end up in as his residence. Did the Fairfaxes and/or
Gascoignes even have any properties or influence in Suffolk to
establish a younger son there? There is a plethora of East Anglian
and Yorkshire wills, deeds, documents, etc., that have survived. Can
a William Fairfax be placed in any of them?
I understand the desire to find a Plantagenet descent for the
potential future Queen Consort of England, but this Fairfax line
unfortunately seems to be a sketchy and uncertain, so far. A shame,
since the media recently picked up on this line as it's apparently how
Ellen DeGeneres is related to Kate Middleton (thru Sir Thomas Fairfax
& Anne/Agnes Gascoigne).
Cheers, ----Brad
WJho...@aol.com
nephew William Fairfax was born at Robert's house and he desires to know the
date of his birth.
I agree that the letter seems odd were William and Nicholas twins. I
didn't have that previously and I wonder what the primary source for that is.
Tony Hoskins
The work in question:
Best,
Tony
Dear James,
Cheers, ----Brad
-------------------------------
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
thos...@sonoma.lib.ca.us writes:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=LqkzAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&
> dq=suffolk+bartholomeans&source=bl&ots=yGRQaneS0B&sig=awhYBIyxx5o_UblY-3M0rAGDEgE&
> hl=en&ei=L3GoTebQHIiWsgOktMD6DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&
> ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
>
Tony and Brad and others,
You don't need all that gobbly-gook, the URL is just
http://books.google.com/books?id=LqkzAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA64-IA2
The rest of that mess is just related to how Tony found the book, etc.
Remember for Full View books you ONLY need the id field, and the pg field
that's all.
Dubya
Brad Verity
> The work in question:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=LqkzAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=...
Thanks very much for this, Tony. Here is the evidence that the book
provides for this line of descent.
The Fairfax Pedigree in the book begins with: "William Fairfax of Bury
and Walsingham, descended from Sir Thomas Fairfax of Walton and Anne
Gascoigne."
OK, what is this exact descent? The Fairfax family in East Anglia
apparently didn't know for certain, nor did the Yorkshire branch:
"From William, Sir Richard Fairfax's eldest son, came two successive
Sir Thomases, the second of whom had for his eldest son Sir Nicholas
Fairfax, from whom sprang the house of the Viscounts Fairfax of Elmly
(an Irish honour); another son of the second Sir Thomas was William,
whose family settled in Norfolk, and whose grandson John was, in 1609,
master of the Great Hospital in Norwich."
There is pedigree proof of the successive Fairfax generations in East
Anglia after this John Fairfax of Norwich: "There is another pedigree
of Fairfax in MSS. Harl. 6071, compiled in 1655 or 57, beginning with
John of Norwich; and I have had the benefit of another, compiled about
1659 by an Edward Fairfax, communicated by the Reverend Joseph Hunter,
F.S.A."
So far so good. Now can John Fairfax of Norwich be firmly connected
to Sir Thomas Fairfax of Walton? No: "There is in the British Museum
a curious document, evidencing the pedigree of the Yorkshire
Fairfaxes, and the derivation from it of the Suffolk branch. This
pedigree was drawn up by Charles Fairfax the antiquary (between 1650
and 1660), and states itself to be 'sent into Suffolk, by Charles
Fairfax, esq., son of Sir Thomas Fairfax, first Baron of Cameron, to
be presented to his much honoured cousins, branches of this family, in
Norfolk and Suffolk; more particularly to his cousin Fairfax, the
reverend pastor of the church of Barking in Suffolk, to be by him
communicated.' From this and the other authorities which have been
consulted, the annexed abstract of the descent is taken."
So as it stands today, Kate Middleton's descent from Edward III rests
on the mid 17th-century belief among the Fairfaxes of Yorkshire and
the Fairfaxes of East Anglia, that they were related, and their
attempts to establish how. Yet apparently even they weren't able to
give William Fairfax, the younger son of Sir Thomas Fairfax of Walton
and Anne Gascoigne, a wife or any birth or death dates, nor any other
details other than that "his family settled in Norfolk".
I wonder if the College of Arms has signed off on this descent for
Kate Middleton, and, if so, if they have any further details on these
suspect generations? If the William Fairfax who established the
branch of the family in Norfolk, was just one generation further back
in the Fairfaxes of Walton, or was illegitimate, the Edward III
descent goes out the window.
Cheers, ------Brad
WJho...@aol.com
royald...@hotmail.com writes:
> So as it stands today, Kate Middleton's descent from Edward III rests
> on the mid 17th-century belief among the Fairfaxes of Yorkshire and
> the Fairfaxes of East Anglia, that they were related, and their
> attempts to establish how. Yet apparently even they weren't able to
> give William Fairfax, the younger son of Sir Thomas Fairfax of Walton
> and Anne Gascoigne, a wife or any birth or death dates, nor any other
> details other than that "his family settled in Norfolk".
>
>
But Brad, this work was not written to show the line of descent, that was
only an addendum to the main point. We don't know what exactly the MS'
state, only what this author extracted or was told about perhaps.
Brad Verity
Dear Will,
I think that Sir William Gascoigne's letter proves that Sir Nicholas
Fairfax had a younger brother named William, born at Plumpton in
Yorkshire, who was definitely not a twin. I don't know what the
source is for the statement that Sir Thomas Fairfax and Anne (I think
there is enough surviving documents to prove that her first name was
'Anne' not 'Agnes') Gascoigne had twin sons, Nicholas and William.
It's possible they did and that the twin William died in infancy, and
they then gave the same name to a subsequent son.
At any rate, at least there's proof that there was a legitimate
younger son of Sir Thomas Fairfax of Walton and his wife Anne
Gascoigne, named William. These were established northern dynasties,
and we're now in the reign of Henry VIII, the Tudor era, which has
extensive documentation that survives. So this William Fairfax can't
just disappear from record, even if he did move to Norfolk. I feel
his subsequent history needs to be researched before anyone, even Kate
Middleton, can claim descent from him.
Cheers, -----Brad
Brad Verity
> But Brad, this work was not written to show the line of descent, that was
> only an addendum to the main point. We don't know what exactly the MS'
> state, only what this author extracted or was told about perhaps.
I'm in full agreement with your point, Will. And the descent may very
well be valid and have been well established by the Fairfaxes of
Suffolk in the unpublished manuscript from the 1650s in the British
Museum. But this book, 'Suffolk Bartholomeans', does not establish or
prove the line of descent, only points to the possibility of it.
Further research needs to be done before it can be stated with any
certainty that Kate Middleton is descended from Anne Gascoigne Fairfax
(and thru her, from Edward III), or related to Ellen DeGeneres.
Cheers, ---Brad
WJho...@aol.com
vicar of Ousedon, co Suff; clerk; ejected.
He is said to have several children by his second wife Sarah Meadows, who
is said to have been born in 1654 and died in 1687 (or 1688). His third and
last marriage is said to have been s.p.
However there are daughters of his who are then said to have died at a
young age, and beyond the point where they could be daughters of a mother who
died in 1687 or 1688.
I've just uncovered the documentation for the marriage of his daughter
Sarah to Kervin Wright by the way. I don't think the time frame for their
marriage has yet been exhumed previously.
John
WAR gives the generations of the Fairfax descent as follows:
1. Sir Thomas Fairfax; m. Agnes Gascoigne
2. William Fairfax [no wife given]
3. William Fairfax, of Bury and Walsingham; m. Lucy, daughter of John
Goodman
4. John Fairfax; m. Mary, daughter of George Birch
5. Benjamin Fairfax; m. Sarah, daughter of Roger Gaillard
6. Benjamin Fairfax; m. Bridget, daughter of Walter Stringer
7. Sarah Fairfax; m. John Meadows
WAR gives no source for the 1st generation and cites "The Suffolk
Bartholomeans" for the remaining generations. As Brad has suggested,
it appears that the main source for this publication was likely the
work of the 17th century antiquary Charles Fairfax, although Fairfax's
most noted work Analecta Fairfaxiana is not directly cited in this
publication.
Based on other sources, I suspect that the author of "The Suffolk
Bartholomeans" may havfe misinterpreted or misquoted whatever work of
Fairfax he saw. In vol. 6 of "The Herald and Genealogist", there is
an extensive and detailed pedigree of the various Fairfax branches
prepared by the antiquary Clements Markham and based on Charles
Fairfax's Analecta Fairfaxiana. A revised and extended version of the
pedigree was published in vol. 7 of H&G - although the revisions are
generally minor in the section of interest to us here.
One point of difference between the pedigrees in vol. 6 and vol. 7 is
the question of which son of Sir Thomas Fairfax and Agnes Gascoigne
was the twin of the eldest son and heir Nicholas. Vol. 6 says it was
Thomas and calls WIlliam the 4th son, while vol. 7 says in was William
and calls Thomas the 3rd son. In any event, the accounts in both
pedigrees are in agreement with respect to William and give the
following account:
"William settled at Bary St. Edmund's. On Oct. 26, 1542, he married
Anne baker. He married, secondly, Kate, daughter of Robert Tanfield.
he was buried at Walsingham, in Norfolk, on Dec. 12, 1588. He left
four children." [end quote]
The two children pertinent here are:
1) William, in Holy Orders. Vicar of Holkham. He died at Walsingham on
feb. 27, 1598; his wife Lucy on March 23, 1610.
2) John, master of the hospital in Holme St. Mary, in the city of
Norwich, in 1609. He married Mary, daughter of John Birch, of
Norwich, and died in 1614. [This descent continues for two or three
more generations, in agreement with The Suffolk Bartholomeans]
From this it appears that The Suffolk Bartholomeans, followed by WAR,
confused the two Williams and made the younger William father, rather
than brother, of John. More important, it provides more information
on the elder William who is the key link in this proposed descent.
Charles Fairfax the antiquary (1597-1673) has a biography in ODNB (and
in the old DNB). ODNB says the following about his major work:
"Between 1652 and 1660 he wrote the ‘Analecta Fairfaxiana’, containing
detailed pedigrees of all branches of the Fairfax family, with about
fifty anagrams, epigrams, and elegies in Latin concerning different
members of the family. The work was never printed and only two
manuscript copies are thought to exist, one of which is held by the
Brotherton Library at Leeds."
In 1652-1660 Charles Fairfax was contemporaneous with the later
generations of the descent in question here and was removed by only a
generation or two from the elder William. Barring evidence to the
contrary, it's not unreasonable to assume that his reporting of the
family relationships (as published by Markham at least) is likely
reliable. And thus WAR's descent, with some corrections, is likely
valid.
BTW, although about half of the volumes of H&G are available on-line
(mainly at the Internet Archive, not at Google Books), volumes 6 and 7
are not among them unfortunately.
Brad Verity
Dear John,
Thank you so much for resolving this - great work!
> One point of difference between the pedigrees in vol. 6 and vol. 7 is
> the question of which son of Sir Thomas Fairfax and Agnes Gascoigne
> was the twin of the eldest son and heir Nicholas. Vol. 6 says it was
> Thomas and calls WIlliam the 4th son, while vol. 7 says in was William
> and calls Thomas the 3rd son.
I think with the letter from Sir William Gascoigne in the Plumpton
Correspondence (which the Fairfaxes likely had no access to in the
17th-19th centuries), it can be safely said that Thomas, not William,
was the twin brother of Sir Nicholas Fairfax. Given the date of 1542
below for his marriage, William as the 4th son would make sense.
> In any event, the accounts in both
> pedigrees are in agreement with respect to William and give the
> following account:
>
> "William settled at Bary St. Edmund's. On Oct. 26, 1542, he married
> Anne baker. He married, secondly, Kate, daughter of Robert Tanfield.
> he was buried at Walsingham, in Norfolk, on Dec. 12, 1588. He left
> four children." [end quote]
>
> The two children pertinent here are:
> 1) William, in Holy Orders. Vicar of Holkham. He died at Walsingham on
> feb. 27, 1598; his wife Lucy on March 23, 1610.
> 2) John, master of the hospital in Holme St. Mary, in the city of
> Norwich, in 1609. He married Mary, daughter of John Birch, of
> Norwich, and died in 1614. [This descent continues for two or three
> more generations, in agreement with The Suffolk Bartholomeans]
>
> From this it appears that The Suffolk Bartholomeans, followed by WAR,
> confused the two Williams and made the younger William father, rather
> than brother, of John. More important, it provides more information
> on the elder William who is the key link in this proposed descent.
This cements the descent and I'm happy to see that Kate Middleton has
a solid Edward III descent from the Northern dynasties of Percy,
Gascoigne and Fairfax, in addition to the ones she has through
Beaufort, Carey & Knollys (assuming that William Carey, and not Henry
VIII, was the father of Mary Boleyn's children).
> In 1652-1660 Charles Fairfax was contemporaneous with the later
> generations of the descent in question here and was removed by only a
> generation or two from the elder William. Barring evidence to the
> contrary, it's not unreasonable to assume that his reporting of the
> family relationships (as published by Markham at least) is likely
> reliable. And thus WAR's descent, with some corrections, is likely
> valid.
Thank you, John! It's unfortunate this didn't come to light before
WAR's book was published. Is it too late to get a correction in?
It's a shame that the material is going out without your more solid,
additional research and dates.
> BTW, although about half of the volumes of H&G are available on-line
> (mainly at the Internet Archive, not at Google Books), volumes 6 and 7
> are not among them unfortunately.
I now live in Canada and am daily thankful for Internet Archive, since
more than half of what's available in the States online through Google
Books, is unavailable for view up here.
Cheers, --------Brad
John
> On Apr 15, 12:03 pm, John <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear John,
>
> Thank you so much for resolving this - great work!
>
> > One point of difference between the pedigrees in vol. 6 and vol. 7 is
> > the question of which son of Sir Thomas Fairfax and Agnes Gascoigne
> > was the twin of the eldest son and heir Nicholas. Vol. 6 says it was
> > Thomas and calls WIlliam the 4th son, while vol. 7 says in was William
> > and calls Thomas the 3rd son.
>
> I think with the letter from Sir William Gascoigne in the Plumpton
> Correspondence (which the Fairfaxes likely had no access to in the
> 17th-19th centuries), it can be safely said that Thomas, not William,
> was the twin brother of Sir Nicholas Fairfax. Given the date of 1542
> below for his marriage, William as the 4th son would make sense.
>
One small note on the issue of which Fairfax son was the twin of
Nicholas:
The pedigree in vol. 6 of H&G, which is Markham's work based on
Charles Fairfax's Analecta Fairfaxiana, says that Thomas, not William,
was the twin. The pedigree in vol. 7 whcih says the opposite is
apparently based on contributions from an author named Robert H.
Skaife, about whom I know nothing except that he published or edited a
few works on Yorkshire records. At the moment I'm inclined to support
the Markham version in vol. 6.
Jwc...@aol.com
The late David Faris in the 2nd edition of
Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth Century Colonists on page 134
Fairfax Generation 6 mentions that Sir Nicholas Fairfax had a twin brother
William citing Clay (1913) p. 65. Nicholas Fairfax is said to have died testate
at Gilling Castle in Ryedale, North Riding , York on 30 March 1571.
unsure if He mentioned that brother in his will.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
TJ Booth_aol
Denton, etc.' [Joseph Foster; Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire;
1874; London; Wilfred Head]. It shows the children of Sir Thomas who m.
'Agnes dau of Sir William Gascoigne of Gawthorpe by Lady Margaret Percy, dau
of the earl of Northumberland' as Sir Nicholas, 3. Thomas of Caldbeck
Cumberland, clerk in H.G., m. dau of John Orbell of Shenfield, co. co.
Suffolk; 4. Miles of Gilling b. ca 1506; 5. Guy; 6. Robert; [7.] Thomas
d.s.p.; Anne wife of William Harrington; Margaret wife of William Sayer of
Worsall; Isabel married and had issue; Elizabeth m. and had issue; Dorothy;
Catherine; Dorothy (again) wife of Dawtrey. Last but not least is "William
Fairfax, a twin with Nicholas, settled at Bury St. Edmunds, buried at
Walsingham co Norfolk, 12 Dec 1588." His 2 wives were 'Anne Baker 1st wife,
married 26 Oct 1642' and 'Kate (2nd wife) dau of Robert Tanfield'. The 4
children by Tanfield are 'John, Master of the hospital in Holme St. Mary,
city of Norwich in 1609, died in 1614, Will dated 18 Feb 1614, proved 17 Mar
following at Norwich = Mary dau of John Birch of Norwich, wid. 13 Apr 1615
and p. 10 Jun following at Norwich.'; 'William Fairfax in H.G., vicar of
Holkham, His wife Lucy died 23 Mar 1610. He died at Walsingham 27 Feb 1598',
Thomas and Stephen. Four children are shown for John master of the hospital,
as are later generations.
Foster, dating to 1874, perhaps used the same source as H&G or H&G itself.
Once again William is shown as a twin of Nicholas. The late date of marriage
for William if he were indeed b. 1499 like his brother is suggestive of an
intervening generation, especially given he d. 1588 over 17 years after his
twin.
However! Glover's 1585 Visitation of Yorkshire (Fairfax of Walton and
Gilling, p 39) adds a different perspective. It shows 6 sons for Sir Thomas
and 'Ann dau of Sir William Gascoigne, of Gawthorpe'. The sons are Sir
Nicholas (not numbered but clearly eldest), '2. Thomas', '3. Myles', '4.
William', '5. Guy', '6. Robert'. But to the left of Nicholas' name, the name
William is repeated, identified as 'William Fairfax, 4th son', but as if he
preceded Nicholas. Since Sir Nicholas (b. 1499) d. in 1571, it is likely
that grandson Sir William of Gilling (m.(2) Jane Stapleton) was the
respondent in 1585. One presumes that Sir William not only knew several of
his father's brothers, but personally knew his uncle William since he was
still alive in 1588. One possible explanation for the two Williams in
Glover's pedigree is that Nicholas' twin was named William but d.s.p. young,
at which time the family named a second son William. As he would have been
b. later - perhaps aft 1510 - a 1542 marriage at age 30 or less - would
still be chronologically reasonable.
The Fairfax arms link the two family lines, tho not to a generation. Glover
shows the Fairfax arms as : Argent, a lion rampant gules, debruised by 3
bars gemelles sable. RPA p. 302 makes this (apparently quoting Clay Extinct
Peerages 1913) 'Argent, three bars gemelles gules, overall a lion rampant
sable'. The 1585 Visitation of Norfolk (Fairfax @
http://books.google.com/books?id=HS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA118) shows the arms for
the Bury St. Edmunds (Suffolk)/ Walsingham (Norfolk)line as : Argent, 3 bars
gemelles gules, over all a lion rampant sable, a martlet for a difference.
The arms thus confirm the Norfolk line was descended from the Gilling line,
bearing the martlet as a difference to show it was a junior line.
The Norfolk visitation -from Harl 1552, apparently a composite of several
visitations so don't know the date - states that the father of William
Fairfax of Walsingham who m. Lucy dau of John Goodman was "William Fairfax
of . . . co Suffolk", no wife shown. This is supportive that the first
William of this line was of Bury St. Edmunds Suffolk. Given the absence of
names found elsewhere, it would appear to come from a different source and
respondents.
My personal view is that there were likely 2 Williams, the twin who d.
young, and the 4th (actually 5th counting the twin) son who keeps getting
conflated with the twin. The Glover visitation does show 2 Williams which is
what the respondent likely told him, the first placed as if a twin, but when
it was reproduced it somehow got renumbered as if a repeat of the second
William.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <royald...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: Ancestry of Catherine Middleton
Dear John,
Cheers, --------Brad
WJho...@aol.com
tjb...@aol.com writes:
> My personal view is that there were likely 2 Williams, the twin who d.
> young, and the 4th (actually 5th counting the twin) son who keeps getting
> conflated with the twin. The Glover visitation does show 2 Williams which
> is
> what the respondent likely told him, the first placed as if a twin, but
> when
> it was reproduced it somehow got renumbered as if a repeat of the second
> William.
>
I like this solution much.
Will
Derek Howard
> the Bury St. Edmunds (Suffolk)/ Walsingham (Norfolk)line as : Argent, 3 bars
> gemelles gules, over all a lion rampant sable, a martlet for a difference.
> The arms thus confirm the Norfolk line was descended from the Gilling line,
> bearing the martlet as a difference to show it was a junior line.
>
> The Norfolk visitation -from Harl 1552, apparently a composite of several
> visitations so don't know the date - states that the father of William
> Fairfax of Walsingham who m. Lucy dau of John Goodman was "William Fairfax
> of . . . co Suffolk", no wife shown. This is supportive that the first
> William of this line was of Bury St. Edmunds Suffolk. Given the absence of
> names found elsewhere, it would appear to come from a different source and
> respondents.
>
> My personal view is that there were likely 2 Williams, the twin who d.
> young, and the 4th (actually 5th counting the twin) son who keeps getting
> conflated with the twin. The Glover visitation does show 2 Williams which is
> what the respondent likely told him, the first placed as if a twin, but when
> it was reproduced it somehow got renumbered as if a repeat of the second
> William.
>
> Terry Booth
> Chicago IL
When it comes to the sons and their order, we should I think give most
greatest credence to the 1530 visitation record from which later
visitaion write ups may have copied with more or less error:
“Sir Thomas Fairefax son and herire of Thomas, maried Anne, doughter
of Syr Willyam Gascoign of Galthrop : and by her he had yssue,
Nicholas, son and heyre ; Thomas, ijde son ; Miles, iijde son :
Willyam, iiijth son ; Gye, vth son ; Robert, vjth son”. [Thomas Tonge:
“Heraldic visitation of the northern counties in 1530”, ed Longstaffe,
Surtees Society 1863, 57 – available on Goggle books]. Note this was
given as the pedigree of Sir Nicholas Fayrefax of Walton, knight who
was presumably the informant and knew the names and order of his
siblings.
Apart from his wife and executrix Anne (_not_ Agnes), Sir Thomas’ 1520
will mentions his son, heir apparent and executor Nicholas, his
“yonger sons” unnamed and unnumbered, his apparently unmarried four
daughters “Anne [no doubt named after her mother], Elisabeth, Isabell
and Dorothe”; and also Robert Fairfax the testator’s brother who had
been enfeoffed of the manor of Scalton to the use of the will for the
benefit of the younger sons equally for the terms of their lives. Anne
[not Agnes] was granted probate.
<http://www.archive.org/stream/selectionwillsyo05surtuoft#page/122/
mode/2up>
Derek Howard
Alex Maxwell Findlater
The Norfolk visitation -from Harl 1552, apparently a composite of
several visitations so don't know the date - states that the father of
William Fairfax of Walsingham who m. Lucy dau of John Goodman was
"William Fairfax of . . . co Suffolk", no wife shown. This is
supportive that the first William of this line was of Bury St. Edmunds
Suffolk. Given the absence of names found elsewhere, it would appear
to come from a different source and respondents.
QUOTE
When it comes to the sons and their order, we should I think give most
greatest credence to the 1530 visitation record from which later
visitaion write ups may have copied with more or less error.
UNQUOTE
These so-called Visitations records in the BL are the bane of
Visitations. They were published by the Harleian Society in the C19
as if they were gold-dust, but unfortunately they are mere house
dust. They are compilations of pedigrees, often by herald painters
and amateur (perjorative sense) genealogists. To obtain the historic
evidence you have to go back to the unvarnished original visitation
record. In many cases there are two copies of this, one is that
prepared by the herald as he went around the county, which is signed
by the person recording the pedigree, the other the fair copy which is
generally still held in the College of Arms. If it is possible to
compare them, and they agree, even better, but one can be tolerably
sure that the entry is what was believed at the time. If there are
very old descents (not applicable here), then these need to be
examined and verified by evidence which is contemporary with the
persons recorded. If, as here, the evidence of the visitation is of
comtemporary persons, then it seems reasonable that it is correct.
Derek Howard
<snip>
> The pedigree in vol. 6 of H&G, which is Markham's work based on
> Charles Fairfax's Analecta Fairfaxiana, says that Thomas, not William,
> was the twin. The pedigree in vol. 7 whcih says the opposite is
> apparently based on contributions from an author named Robert H.
> Skaife, about whom I know nothing except that he published or edited a
>
> - Show quoted text -
Skaife published in 1867 "The survey of the county of York ...
commonly called Kirkby's Inquest" and in 1896 "Domesday Book for
Yorkshire". His papers are at the Yorkshire Archaeological Society in
Leeds (MS 206-228 - for the history of the Ainsty; and MS 371-372). MS
223 covers Walton eg on p 4-5 a grant of the manor of Walton in 1349
to an earlier Thomas Fairfax and his wife Elizabeth. MS 371 includes 3
quarto volumes of collections ralting to the Fairfax family "with
elaborate pedigrees"(Catalogue of Manuscripts and Deeds in the Library
of the Yorkshire Archaeological Society" 1931, pp 29 & 43; "West
Yorkshire: An Archaeological Survey to AD 1500", ed Faull and
Moorhouse 1981, v2, 550-1).
Derek Howard
John
> publication.
>
> Based on other sources, I suspect that the author of "The Suffolk
> Bartholomeans" may havfe misinterpreted or misquoted whatever work of
> Fairfax he saw. In vol. 6 of "The Herald and Genealogist", there is
> an extensive and detailed pedigree of the various Fairfax branches
> prepared by the antiquary Clements Markham and based on Charles
> detailed pedigrees of all branches of the Fairfax family, with about
> fifty anagrams, epigrams, and elegies in Latin concerning different
> members of the family. The work was never printed and only two
> manuscript copies are thought to exist, one of which is held by the
> Brotherton Library at Leeds."
>
> In 1652-1660 Charles Fairfax was contemporaneous with the later
> generations of the descent in question here and was removed by only a
> generation or two from the elder William. Barring evidence to the
> contrary, it's not unreasonable to assume that his reporting of the
> family relationships (as published by Markham at least) is likely
> reliable. And thus WAR's descent, with some corrections, is likely
> valid.
>
> BTW, although about half of the volumes of H&G are available on-line
> (mainly at the Internet Archive, not at Google Books), volumes 6 and 7
> are not among them unfortunately.
Today I received a copy of WAR's newly published book on the Kate
Middleton ancestry - just as the ballyhoo over "the wedding of the
century" is settling down. The book incorporates a correction to the
Fairfax descent from that shown on WAR's website, eliminating one
generation as explained in the note above. So the line now goes as
follows (as suggested above):
1. Sir Thomas Fairfax; m. Agnes Gascoigne
2. William Fairfax; m. twice as above [maternity of son uncertain]
3. John Fairfax; m. Mary, daughter of George Birch
4. Benjamin Fairfax; m. Sarah, daughter of Roger Gaillard
5. Benjamin Fairfax; m. Bridget, daughter of Walter Stringer
6. Sarah Fairfax; m. John Meadows
The correction is documented in a footnote to the detailed ancestry
and cites Joseph Foster's "Pedigrees of the County Families of
Yorkshire". However, it does not mention, and appears to have
overlooked, the Fairfax pedigrees in H&G mentioned above. At any
rate, the Fairfax descent, which appears to provide the new Duchess of
Cambridge with her shortest link to English royalty, is still valid -
and it is apparently the only path now documented for all of her links
to royalty.
Sholom Simon
>At any rate, the Fairfax descent, which appears to provide the new
>Duchess of Cambridge with her shortest link to English royalty, is
>still valid - and it is apparently the only path now documented for
>all of her links to royalty.
I'm confused -- shortest link to royalty, or only documented link to royalty?
-- Sholom
John
Both - she has numerous paths to royalty, all of which seem to go
through the Fairfax connection....which by definition means that the
shortest one also goes that way.
WJho...@aol.com
through the Davenport family, back to Talbot and Slingsby
I'm still working on the details.
In a message dated 4/30/2011 11:30:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
John
> She has a connection which does not seem to go through Fairfax, but rather
> through the Davenport family, back to Talbot and Slingsby
> I'm still working on the details.
>
> In a message dated 4/30/2011 11:30:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>
>
> Both - she has numerous paths to royalty, all of which seem to go
> through the Fairfax connection....which by definition means that the
> shortest one also goes that way.
The possible Davenport connection was mentioned, with considerable
skepticism, by WAR on his website - he had serious doubts about the
credibility of the source that alleged this connection. The published
version of WAR's work on Kate Middleton's ancestry shows a revised,
and much truncated, version of the Davenport (or Danport) ancestry
which does NOT have any royal ancestry behind it - and very little
ancestry at all. The citations indicate that this is based on recent
(Feb 2011 - and presumably unpublished) research by John Wintrip after
WAR died.
The earlier and incorrect Davenport connection is the one in Leo's
database which gives royal lines to Harriet Albina Davis, as Leo
suggested in another thread. It seems that the connection should be
severed now.
As to the Temple ancestry for which Will expressed hope in another
thread, the details of the earliest Temples as shown in WAR's book
suggest that this will not lead anywhere at all, much less to royal
ancestry. The earliest Temples in Kate's ancestry were miners or
laborers, for whom we're lucky to have any records at all - to say
nothing of connections to any of the more famous Temple families.
I think my earlier statement still stands - that all of the royal
descents for the new Duchess of Cambridge come via the Fairfax
connection, and specifically via either Sir Thomas Fairfax or his wife
Agnes Gascoigne. Kate Middleton is in the 15th generation (if I'm
counting right) from this couple, and it's quite unusual in my
experience to see no royal descents added by any of the marriages in
the intervening generations.. This of course is largely due to the
fact that so much of Kate's ancestry is undiscovered (and perhaps will
remain so) - but it's curious.
Brad Verity
> Today I received a copy of WAR's newly published book on the Kate
> Middleton ancestry - just as the ballyhoo over "the wedding of the
> century" is settling down. The book incorporates a correction to the
> Fairfax descent from that shown on WAR's website, eliminating one
> generation as explained in the note above. So the line now goes as
> follows (as suggested above):
> 1. Sir Thomas Fairfax; m. Agnes Gascoigne
> 2. William Fairfax; m. twice as above [maternity of son uncertain]
> 3. John Fairfax; m. Mary, daughter of George Birch
[snip of rest of descent]
> The correction is documented in a footnote to the detailed ancestry
> and cites Joseph Foster's "Pedigrees of the County Families of
> Yorkshire".
Good news, John! I'm glad the corrected descent made it into the
book. If the mother of John Fairfax (#3 above), was William Fairfax's
second wife Katherine Tanfield, there may be a further Edward III
descent thru her. IIRC, a Neville of Bergavenny daughter (descended
from Edward III thru Joan Beaufort) married into the Tanfield family
in the 15th century.
Cheers, ----Brad
John
You're right, Brad, and the Tanfield connection had piqued my
curiosity as well. Robert Tanfield who married Catherine Neville of
Abergavenny was a son of Robert Tanfield who married Elizabeth Brooke
of Cobham. So there are at least Plantagenet descents for both wives.
In fact, a Tanfield pedigree in Metcalfe's edition of the visitations
of Northamptonshire shows a Katherine Tanfield who married an unnamed
Fairfax as a half-sister of the Robert Tanfield (the elder) who
married Elizabeth Brooke of Cobham. But this seems chronologically
very unlikely to be our Katherine Tanfield whose husband William
Fairfax died 1588, since Robert Tanfield who married Elizabeth brooke
died 1483/4 - more than a century earlier. And anyway this wouldn't
give our Katherine any Plantagenet descents. But I think it's at
least possible that our Katherine does belong in this family - with
her place yet to be found.
steven perkins
in June 2012 by Anthony Adolph that says this Fairfax ancestry is
incorrect. Does anyone have the article or know his argument?
Regards,
Steven C Perkins
> 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
Steven C. Perkins SCPe...@gmail.com http://stevencperkins.com/
Indigenous Peoples' Rights http://intelligent-internet.info/law/ipr2.html
Indigenous & Ethnic Minority Legal News http://iemlnews.blogspot.com/
Online Journal of Genetics and Genealogy http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Page http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html
S.C. Perkins' Genealogy Blog http://scpgen.blogspot.com/
John Higgins
> Evidently there was an article published in the Genealogist's Magazine
> in June 2012 by Anthony Adolph that says this Fairfax ancestry is
> incorrect. Does anyone have the article or know his argument?
>
> Steven C. Perkins
The full citation for Anthony Adolph's latest article on this subject
is "The Fairfax ancestry of the Duchess of Cambridge – a correction",
The Genealogists' Magazine, vol. 30, no. 12, June 2012, pp. 407-411.
Mr. Adolph apparently has published several previous articles on the
same topic, listed at his website (http://anthonyadolph.co.uk/my-
published-work/ - scroll down to a section titled Perry Nursey). An
early version is still online here: http://www.walter9.info/Society/html/kate_middleton.html
- but the link at the bottom of this website no longer works. The
earlier version seems to agree with the discussion in this thread from
April 2011.
I'm going to request a copy of his latest article via ILL. If anyone
has quicker access to it, I too would be interested in what it has to
say - and getting a copy if possible.
John Higgins
current argument on the Fairfax ancestry of Kate Middleton:
http://anthonyadolph.co.uk/princess-catherine/
The key phrase here appears to be "highly probably....but still
looking for 100% proof".
MILLARD A.R.
> Sent: 31 December 2012 23:38
> Evidently there was an article published in the Genealogist's Magazine
> in June 2012 by Anthony Adolph that says this Fairfax ancestry is
> incorrect. Does anyone have the article or know his argument?
Reitwiesner and the nineteenth century genealogist Charles Markham both suggested that the solution was that John was a younger brother of William, omitted from the visitation as younger sons often were. Adolph analyses Markham's sources and in particular the work of Charles Fairfax in the late 17th century, published as "Analecta Fairfaxiana". Adolph's reading of Charles Fairfax's original notes (in the Brotherton Library, Leeds) show some of his assumptions and where the error may have come from.
Adolph then suggests the following line, but notes that although it fits the known facts it is not proven. The Norfolk Fairfaxes used the Yorkshire family's arms differenced by a mullet, indicating a fourth son. William Fairfax 'of co. Suff.' could plausibly be the William 4th son of Sir Thomas F. of Walton, Yorkshire and his wife Anne Gascoigne. He would have moved to Suffolk, appearing in a 1547 rental of Bury St Edmunds, not an unsurprising move as his father's family had Suffolk connections. He could also be the William who married Anne Baker at Bury in 1541/42, who fathered both John of Norwich and William of Walsingham.
Adolph concludes that this is "All quite plausible - but as yet, entirely without conclusive proof" and the Duchess of Cambridge's royal descent through the Fairfaxes is "at best 'probable'."
Best wishes
Andrew
--
Andrew Millard - A.R.M...@durham.ac.uk
Bodimeade genealogy:�� http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/
My family history:���� http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/
GenUKI Middx + London: http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/
jhigg...@yahoo.com
http://anthonyadolph.co.uk/princess-catherine/
Since he published his article in The Genealogists Magazine in June 2012, Mr. Adolph has apparently found additional evidence which, to him, proves this descent - based on a Harleian MS in the British Library. You'll find the details in the updated website above (skip past the fluff at the beginning of the website). I would be interested in opinions as the validity of the current finding.
There are also some other Fairfax connections which may be of interest to some - including one to the husband of the pop singer Madonna.
Brad Verity
> While pursuing a different question, I happened to revisit Anthony Adolph's discussion of the Fairfax ancestry of Kate Middleton (with a possible link to Edward III), which was discussed here last December. The link given above has now been updated, here:
> http://anthonyadolph.co.uk/princess-catherine/
> Since he published his article in The Genealogists Magazine in June 2012, Mr. Adolph has apparently found additional evidence which, to him, proves this descent - based on a Harleian MS in the British Library. You'll find the details in the updated website above (skip past the fluff at the beginning of the website). I would be interested in opinions as the validity of the current finding.
"In July 2013 I found a pedigree compiled by the Suffolk clergyman-genealogist Matthias Candler (1604-1663), preserved in Harleian Manuscript 6071 (p. 502/f. 249v) in the British Library. Taken straight from the family’s own knowledge, it confirmed the line as shown below, and dispelled any shadow of doubt."
And: "William Fairfax (d. 1588) = Anne Baker. William settled in Norfolk, at Bury and Walsingham. He married Anne in 1542. The genealogical manuscript of Matthias Candler (1604-1663), preserved in Harleian Manuscript 6071 (p. 502/f. 249v) in the British Library proves that this William was the son of Sir Thomas and that William’s son was John Fairfax (d. 1614) = Mary Birch."
Now Matthew Candler, born ten years before the death of John Fairfax of Norwich (d. 1614), presumably spoke to the family of John, possibly to his son Benjamin Fairfax (1592-1676), who is the ancestor of the Duchess of Cambridge & of Anthony Adolph, when he wrote his manuscript. This is promising.
But it's hard to comment further without a transcription of the relevant text of Candler's unpublished manuscript. The scholarly thing is to provide one, as Anthony Adolph, a published genealogist and author, must know. He seemed very caught up in the media circus surrounding the royal birth - perhaps he didn't have time to make one, what with being interviewed by the BBC and all. ;-)
Or, hopefully, he's saving the transcription for a follow-up article in 'Genealogist's Magazine'. Until then, we just have to have faith that Adolph read the Candler manuscript correctly.
Cheers, ----Brad
jhigg...@yahoo.com
William Fairfax (d. 1588) is known to have had two wives: Anne Baker and Katherine Tanfield. WAR's posthumous book on the ancestry of Kate Middleton left unsettled the question of which wife was the mother of William's son John. IIRC there was evidence earlier in this thread (from Foster's Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire?) that Katherine Tanfield was the mother. But Mr. Adolph is now saying that Anne Baker was instead the mother. It would be interesting to know what evidence supports this particular conclusion.
Matt A
I wouldn't be so quick to criticize Anthony Adolph on this point--wouldn't he have to go through the appropriate copyright permissions process before publishing? Or are transcriptions of manuscripts not subject to the same publication restrictions as other forms of reproduction, like photocopying, scanning, or picture-taking?
-Matt Ahlgren (who only knows about U.S. copyright law)