Children of Sancha de Ayala

42 views
Skip to first unread message

Leo van de Pas

unread,
Nov 10, 2005, 5:04:55 PM11/10/05
to
I do not have access to the source mentioned by John Higgins, but a guide could be Burke's Extinct Peerage, 1866, page 55.

Here are mentioned
1.Sir John Blount
2.Sir Thomas Blount
3.Sir James Blount
4.Peter Blount
5.Constantia
6.Anne

John specifically mentions Anne, she was married toThomas Griffith of Wichnor. I have been told they had a son Sir John Griffith who married (who ?) and had a daughter Elizabeth who married Thomas ap Griffith.

This Elizabeth has some very interesting descendants :
John Price who moved in 1611 to Jamestown, Virginia
Lucy Walter mistress of King Charles II
Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Prime Minister of G-B
Lady Diana Spencer
_the_ Lord Lucan
the Duke of Marlborough
the Duke of Westminster
the Duke of Northumberland
Sarah Ferguson

Hope this is of interest.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pa

WJho...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 10, 2005, 6:23:27 PM11/10/05
to
In a message dated 11/10/05 2:07:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leov...@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< John specifically mentions Anne, she was married toThomas Griffith of
Wichnor. I have been told they had a son Sir John Griffith who married (who ?) and
had a daughter Elizabeth who married Thomas ap Griffith. >>

Leo, this missing wife is said to be Catherine (or Anne) Tyrwhitt
she is said to have died on "a feast day of Saint John in 1457"
and her father is said to be Sir Robert Tyrwhitt, Knt

There was a post identifying her, here, on 2 Nov.

Will Johnson

John Higgins

unread,
Nov 10, 2005, 8:35:11 PM11/10/05
to
Sir John Griffith of Wichnor and his wife Catherine Tyrwhit appear to have
had at least 4 children (perhaps others can add more?). In addition to the
Elizabeth mentioned by Leo who mar. Thomas ap Griffith, the lengthy thread
on Griffith of Burton Agnes has also mentioned the 1st Sir Walter of Burton
Agnes and his brother Sir Rhys (or Richard) of Stickford (whose daughter m.
Lionel Dymoke). Finally there was another daughter Margaret (or Margred)
who mar. Sir Robert Willoughby of Wollaton and is by him an ancestor of
Princess Diana and probably lots of other notable folks.

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 1:00:39 AM11/11/05
to

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthi...@sbcglobal.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: Children of Sancha de Ayala


> Sir John Griffith of Wichnor and his wife Catherine Tyrwhit appear to have
> had at least 4 children (perhaps others can add more?). In addition to
the
> Elizabeth mentioned by Leo who mar. Thomas ap Griffith, the lengthy thread
> on Griffith of Burton Agnes has also mentioned the 1st Sir Walter of
Burton
> Agnes and his brother Sir Rhys (or Richard) of Stickford (whose daughter
m.
> Lionel Dymoke).


I have not my notes handy, right now; but didn't the Dymokes feature among
the ancestors of one Geo. Washington of Mount Vernon, Virginia?

WJho...@aol.com

unread,
Nov 11, 2005, 1:47:04 PM11/11/05
to
In a message dated 11/10/05 5:35:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jthi...@sbcglobal.net writes:

<< Finally there was another daughter Margaret (or Margred)
who mar. Sir Robert Willoughby of Wollaton and is by him an ancestor of
Princess Diana and probably lots of other notable folks. >>

Yes for example, anyone who traces their line through Thomas Percy, 7th Earl
of Northumberland (d 1572)

or Thomas, 1st Baron Arundel of Waldour (d 1639)

or William, 2nd Lord Spencer of Wormleighton (d 1636)

Will Johnson

jeffchip9

unread,
Nov 14, 2005, 7:28:02 PM11/14/05
to
I stand corrected on the Blount/de Ayala children. For those who
haven't seen it, this website:

http://www.lamartin.com/genealogy/complete_peerage_blount.htm

has an interesting article on the Blount family.

Jeff Chipman

Nathaniel Taylor

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 1:27:59 AM11/15/05
to
In article <1132014482.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"jeffchip9" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jeff, thanks for this. This is the 'Complete Peerage' entry on the
Blounts, lords Mountjoy, enhanced with scans of arms as engraved in
Croke's _Blount_ (1823). The site as a whole is an excellent collection
of material on the apparent ancestry of colonial immigrant James Blount
of North Carolina.

This James (d. 1686) may well be the nephew ["my cozen James Blount one
of the Sonnes of my late brother James Blount Esquire deceased"]
referred to as "beyond the seas", in the 1655 PCC will of Charles
Blount, gent., of Astley, Worcestershire. The Blounts of Astley are a
traceable branch of the Blounts of Kinlet, Shropshire. If we accept the
North Carolina James Blount's place in the Astley family (and its place
below the Blounts of Kinlet), we can tease out royal descents via
Richard, Earl of Cornwall, and elsewhere. This one is notable for
having only one female link:

1. King John = Isabel of Angouleme
2. Richard, Earl of Cornwall
3. (illegitimate) Richard de Cornwall = Joan
4. Sir Edmund de Cornwall = Elizabeth de Brampton
5 Sir Brian de Cornwall of Kinlet, Shropshire = Maud ___ [?Strange]
6. Isabel = Sir John Blount of Kinlet (d. 1424)
7. John Blount of Kinlet (d. 1442) = Alicia de la Bere
8. Humphery Blount of Kinlet (d.1477) = Elizabeth Winnington, widow of
John Delves of Cheshire (her will dated 1502)
9. Sir Thomas Blount of Kinlet (d. 1524) = Anne, dau Sir Richard Croft
of Croft Castle (who d. 1509)
10. Walter Blount of Astley, Worcs. (d. 1561) = Isabel, daughter of
?Walter Acton (d. 1562)
11. Robert Blount, Esq. of Astley (will 1573) = Anne Fisher, widow of
___ Davis
12. Thomas Blount of Astley (will 1624) = Bridgett ___
13. James Blount = (wife unknown)
14. James Blouunt of North Carolina (d. 1686)

There is a similar Cornwall descent behind Sir Richard Croft of Croft
Castle (gen. 9), not to mention his interesting (real and false)
ancestry via prince Owain Glyndwr.

Unfortunately this line misses Sancha de Ayala, since it descends from
her husband's elder brother, Sir John Blount.

Back to heraldry (which got us here in the first place): there has been
a lot of curiosity about the armorial plate, said to have been handed
down in the family of James of North Carolina, showing Blount impaling
three chevrons (with two crests, no less--something which was discussed
here a year or so ago). See here for a drawing of the arms, which was
lost in the 19th c.:

http://www.lamartin.com/genealogy/james_blount_arms.htm

The origin of the impaling may be insoluble. I think Brom Nichol's and
Gillian Palmer's discussion of the arms is interesting, but I would not
bet the farm on it, without more expert heraldists' commentary on the
arms from the plate (likely vintage according to style, etc.):

http://www.lamartin.com/genealogy/blount_clare_lewkenor.htm

At any rate, the male-line ancestry and connection to Kinlet & Cornwall
seems unobjectionable. The Astley - Kinlet link seems supported by the
fact that the Astley Blounts quartered Cornwall, as did apparently the
Kinlet Blounts. One photo of the arms of generation 10, Walter Blount
of Astley, shows an interesting variant on the familiar barry
nebuly--two triangles in the top of the Blount coats:

http://www.lamartin.com/images/astley/blount_arms.jpg

The weak point is gen. 6. Isabel Cornwall is not found in Robert
Battle's excellent, conservative Cornwall page --

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~battle/cornwall.htm

and even if she is who other people say she is (e.g. Croke, etc.), she
wasn't a heraldic heiress, since she had a brother who left heirs. Oh
well; there's another descent from the same Cornwalls to Sir Richard
Croft (gen. 9), which makes the whole thing one generation longer, but
seems fine.

It's a pity the seal of James Blount of North Carolina appears to have
been excised from his will:

http://www.lamartin.com/images/documents/james bount will page 2.jpg

[manually cut and paste URL to preserve white spaces]

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/immigrantsa.htm

R. Battle

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 3:19:50 AM11/15/05
to
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

<snip>


> The weak point is gen. 6. Isabel Cornwall is not found in Robert
> Battle's excellent, conservative Cornwall page --
>
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~battle/cornwall.htm

<snip>

Thanks for the compliment, Nat. However, I would like to point out that
the fact that Isabel does not appear on the page in question does not mean
that she is not correctly placed as you have it. My account of the
Cornwall family is self-admittedly incomplete, particularly with respect
to family members who would not be expected to appear in IPMs and major
land transactions (as is the case with Isabel). However, you are of
course correct that she would not be an heraldic heiress (or at least not
immediately--perhaps if her brother's descendants died out?).

-Robert Battle

mj...@btinternet.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 11:10:08 AM11/15/05
to

R. Battle wrote:

> However, you are of
> course correct that she would not be an heraldic heiress (or at least not
> immediately--perhaps if her brother's descendants died out?).

As I think has been touched upon in the group recently, there are other
examples of arms being quartered and passed down to commemorate a
'memorable match' where the woman concerned was not an heiress - a
quick google in the archives under Milbourne of Tillington Court would
probably bring an example or two to light (I think of the Devereux
arms).

MAR

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 12:26:15 PM11/15/05
to

And it appears that the English College of Arms recognizes these as
legitimate quarterings. The trouble is that it is impossible to find
out what rules they are following as I think they change them for
post-medieval quarterings. The point here is that the heralds don't
appear to engage in public debate about any eccentricities of their
practices.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          t...@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

mj...@btinternet.com

unread,
Nov 15, 2005, 2:19:07 PM11/15/05
to

Tim Powys-Lybbe schrieb:

> And it appears that the English College of Arms recognizes these as
> legitimate quarterings. The trouble is that it is impossible to find
> out what rules they are following as I think they change them for
> post-medieval quarterings. The point here is that the heralds don't
> appear to engage in public debate about any eccentricities of their
> practices.

I believe the official practice is to acknowledge even the most dubious
quarterings on the strength of Visitation records (which, as you have
noted, have the force of legal records) unless their legitimacy can be
otherwise disproved - again, this disproof is presumably subject to the
College's usual legal standards, so it cannot be assumed.

There is no doubt some unease about this position, with an admission
that in some case it is little more than a legal fiction, but the
alternative (dismissing the Visitation records) is clearly more
unpalatable - and, in my opinion, rightly so. Where the Visitation
record is the only record, and is not otherwise discredited, it stands
as the legal position.

MAR

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages