Aylesbury and Impossible Dates
Rex Hotchkiss
from the Aylesbury line which has been discussed so much on this list.
I came to this conclusion after finding virtually the entire line laid
out on ancestry.com, and at http://www.juch.org/. However, those
lines, as currently listed, become impossible beginning at Roger being
born at 1359, 10 years before his father Thomas' birth in 1369.
Clearly, something is amiss. In this list, Colin Bevan on Dec 12 2000,
at 4:46 pm wrote regarding Thomas,
"From previous discussions on this list, it was deemed not necessary to
be of full age to become a knight, so assuming he was about 18 when
this occurred, this would put his date of birth at about 1360."
>From this it would appear that Thomas could actually have been
considerably older than 18 when he was knighted, and if this is what we
are basing his age on, then I would suggest that if Thomas' birthdate
were assumed to be 1341, then it would work out that both he and his
son could have been born when their fathers were 18, which is much more
possible.
Sir John Aylesbury=Isabell le Strange Lawrence Pebenham = Elizabeth
Engaine
May 1334 - 1410 abt 1350 abt 1334/1343-1399
abt 1345-?
(was b:1345) | |
| |
| |
Thomas Aylesbury = Katherine Pebenham
became bef 1361-1418 abt 1372-1436
(was b:1369) |
suggest (abt 1341-1418) |
Roger Aylesbury
1359-?
|
|
Robert Aylesbury
1386-?
This being the case, I am wondering what basis we have for the
following birthdates being as listed, rather than values that would
work better with the facts which I know so far:
Name Listed Better
Sir John Aylesbury 1345 May 1334
Thomas Aylesbury 1369 1341
Isabell le Strange abt 1350 abt 1334
Katherine Pebenham abt 1372 abt 1341
Lawrence Pebenham abt 1334/1343 abt 1320
Elizabeth Engaine abt 1345 abt 1322
Perhaps this might have some impact on the discussion regarding Eubolo
as well? We apparently know an Eubolo was alive and killed a man in
1411, yet he is listed as living abt 1286-1335 and being a possible
parent of Isabell le Strange, (previously listed as born abt 1350). If
she were born in 1334, then his original dates might just become
possible as well.
I guess I should mention that in the older records there are quite a
few more impossibilites, which need to be discussed as well.
Rex Hotchkiss
to split the difference his father and he would have each needed to be
about 13 when their son was born. This is at least possible. Here's
another try.
Name Listed Better
Sir John Aylesbury 1345 May 1334
Thomas Aylesbury 1369 1347
Roger Aylesbury 1359 1359 (no change)
Isabell le Strange abt 1350 abt 1334
Katherine Pebenham abt 1372 abt 1346
Lawrence Pebenham abt 1334/1343 abt 1320
Elizabeth Engaine abt 1345 abt 1325
Douglas Richardson
I know of no contemporary evidence that Sir John de Aylesbury's wife,
Isabel, was a le Strange. If you know any such evidence, please post
it.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< > Thomas Aylesbury = Katherine Pebenham
> became bef 1361-1418 abt 1372-1436
> (was b:1369) |
> suggest (abt 1341-1418) |
> Roger Aylesbury
> 1359-? >>
So now Roger was born 13 years before his own mother?
Maybe what we really have is that Roger was *not* the child of Thomas and
Katherine whatsoever.
Will Johnson
Rex Hotchkiss
I'm suggesting that if the names portion of the data was good, the
only solution is that the approximate dates weren't. As children were
married off by their parents at that time, perhaps having children at
13 was a possibility, and the estimate didn't take that into account.
Otherwise, this couple generations in the middle, about the
Aylesbury's, don't make sense.
I have only seen what's on the websites I named, and what is on this
list. I only found this on ancestry.com's OneWorldTree,and other
websites including this one, this weekend. The earlier records, which
match my grandmother's line, check out. The older records, I don't
know the source for. What I think I am seeing is a lot of "about" date
estimates, which may be very far off. What I am asking is, if anyone
knows what the evidence was for those dates. Without knowing better,
it sort of sounds like the people in this genealogy came from a list in
a visitation document, and someone penned approximate dates on them,
and they weren't correct, but have stuck anyway. Isn't that one of the
possibilities for "about" on dates - that someone knows some of the
information, like grand-parents and children, and their dates, but just
has the names in the middle, so they write down their best guess for
the unknown dates and say "about"? These couple generations of records
sound like they might come in between contemporary records and say a
visitation record, so I am thinking that might be what they are.
Thank you Douglas. If I figure out what the sources are, I'll try to
find them, and let you know. As yet I'm unsure where this information
came from. Actually one of the biggest sources at the moment is the
postings on this site, so I am hoping the folks here might tell us
where the information came from.
WJho...@aol.com
rexjho...@comcast.net writes:
<< The earlier records, which
match my grandmother's line, check out. The older records, I don't
know the source for. What I think I am seeing is a lot of "about" date
estimates, which may be very far off. What I am asking is, if anyone
knows what the evidence was for those dates. >>
OneWorldTree is for-the-most-part derived directly from the seperate tree
submitted by me, you, and your crazy aunt to the Ancestral World Tree. They just
took all those and tried to smush them together. Smushing is a very
technical procedure.
However, although AWT allows dates like BEF 1600 and AFT 1600 and 1600/1630,
OWT doesn't allow those dates yet. I submitted a suggestion to allow them,
but so far they don't :)
So, the short version is, you can check out the underlying databases
directly. Just go into OWT, go to a person's individual record, click on EDIT this
person and you will see, on the right side of the details a little snip that
says something like "19 user submitted trees". You can then click over there and
view each tree one-by-one.
This way you can see if they have notes, sources, ABT or AFT dates or
whatever, and try to see if you can make better sense out of the details than what
OWT is giving you.
Will Johnson
Rex Hotchkiss
18G-grandfathers. Part of the reason I got excited about this was that
I previously had this particular line out only to my GG-grandparents.
I decided to check them out, again, on ancestry.com, and immediately
found the references up to my 5G-grandparents, followed by an
excellent, huge, 1000 plus page book on that 5G-grandfather's
ancesters, and all these tree entries on that 5G-grandmother's
ancesters, leading up to this Roger Aylesbury (abt 1369). This was on
Friday, and I ended up spending the weekend reviewing this new
material, including previous discussions on this list.
I have now gone back looking for notes, and reviewed the 157
OneWorldTree entries and skimmed through the 399 Ancestry World tree
entries which contain a reference to Roger Aylesbury. Of those, most
were duplicating the entry which I have already mentioned for this
individual. The most usual reference was to:
Weis, Frederick Lewis, "Ancestral Roots of Certain American
Colonists Who Came to America before 1760", 7th ed
Genealogical Publishing, Baltimore 1992, line 187 p 160.
I learned that Roger was known to be the King's minstrel.
I also learned that Inventor Thomas Edison is claimed as a descendant.
The entries were unanimous in that Roger's birthdate was about 1359 or
60, and his birthplace was Oterarsfee, Buckinghamshire, England. Most
of those who showed his parents, showed them as Thomas Aylesbury (abt
1369) and Katherine De Pabenham (abt 1372). A small handful showed his
parents as Thomas Aylesbury (abt 1314) and Joan Basset (abt 1326), the
grandparents of the other Thomas (abt 1369). This would actually make
a great deal more sense given the dates involve, if there is any
evidence for it.
By the way, on the records for Thomas (abt 1369) there were numerous
source references. These included:
Leo van de Pas, "The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles,
Prince of Wales Edinburgh, 1977".
Gerald Paget, Reference: Q 116508.
and
Leo van de Pas' Web Site, "Leo's Genealogics Website", Url:
http://www.genealogics.org/index.php.
Which I enjoyed browsing, as well as such standards as:
Burke's Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited & Extinct Peerages, p. 26.
In all of this I found no references to true primary sources. I would
truly appreciate if anyone with access to such sources regarding this
material would check them, and let me know what they find.
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 1/17/2006 1:27:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rexjho...@comcast.net writes:
Leo van de Pas, "The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles,
Prince of Wales Edinburgh, 1977".
Gerald Paget, Reference: Q 116508.
and
Leo van de Pas' Web Site, "Leo's Genealogics Website", Url:
http://www.genealogics.org/index.php.
Which I enjoyed browsing, as well as such standards as:
Burke's Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited & Extinct Peerages, p. 26.
In all of this I found no references to true primary sources. I would
truly appreciate if anyone with access to such sources regarding this
material would check them, and let me know what they find.
It is unlikely that you will. What these are telling you is what secondary
sources to follow up with.
Now you have to actually *consult* those secondary sources to see what
sources *they* used.
Which tells you, in part, why we have such colorful discussions here.
Once you find the list of underlying sources, you then have to consult
*those* sources.
And so on, and so on.
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
Rex Hotchkiss schrieb:
Roskell's History of Parliament 1386-1422 Vol II sub Aylesbury notes
the following:
(1) Sir John Aylesbury was born 6 May 1334, according to his Proof of
Age (Cal IPMs x 262)
(2) the surname of his first wife, Isabel, is apparently unknown
(3) Sir Thomas Aylesbury was knighted in 1378, at which time he was
"serving at sea in the retinue of Thomas of Woodstock in [a] naval
force"; his first marriage was to Isabel d'Oddingseles, between 1380
and February 1384; his second marriage, to Katherine Pabenham, took
place before December 1399 - her first husband, Sir William Cheyne,
having died circa 1397. Clearly she could not have borne a son by
Aylesbury in 1359, regardless of how the chronology is rejigged.
Roskell states that Katherine was born circa 1372 [I haven't got my
papers, including Chris Phillips's wonderful research, with me at
present, but I presume as an heiress, this date is also based on IPMs].
MAR
Rex Hotchkiss
references from mj...@btinternet.com were particularly helpful, and
thank you Will Johnson for getting me to go through every one of those
hundreds of tree entries looking for source references. From what
you've said, and what I have seen so far, it appears that Roger
Aylesbury, King's Minstrel (abt 1359)'s parents cannot possibly be
Thomas Aylesbury (abt 1369) and Katherine De Pabenham (abt 1372), as
they were not born early enough to be his parents.
Since Roger's is the line I appear to be following, I am now wondering
if anyone has access to materials which might contain information about
him, beyond what has already been discussed in this thread? I have
actually ordered a copy of the "Ancestral Roots..." book which was
listed as a source on most of the ancestry.com entries for him, but
otherwise I am not sure where he is actually referenced. I am also
going to try to contact the couple of folks who posted trees with
information about him that wasn't just duplicates of the same wrong
information. Maybe they might be able to tell me more.