Family of John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire (died c.1550)

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Reviewing the evidence of the 1532-3 Census of Lichfield, Staffordshire, we find that there was but one John Weston listed in this census, with wives Margaret (deceased) and Elizabeth (living). John Weston is assigned a grand total of 18 children, which children were presumably born from his two marriages. Given that we know that John Weston lived until c.1550 and given that his children were probably born over a span of some 36 years, it seems highly likely that his youngest child was very young in 1532-3 and that his eldest child was over 30.

Just using simple math and assigning a child every two years, we come to the following arrangement of the family:

Elizabeth, born c.1498.
Agnes, born c.1500.
John, born c.1502.
Joan, born c.1504.
Edmund, born c.1506.
Nicholas, born c.1508.
†William, born c.1510.
†Richard, born c.1512.
†John,born c. 1514.
Robert, born c.1516.
Ellen, born c.1518.
Alice, born c.1520.
John, born c.1522.
Agnes, born c.1524.
Katherine, born c.1526.
James, born c.1528.
Christopher, born c.1530.
Joan, born c. 1532.

Two question are: Do the names and birth dates of the children above match what we know of the family of John Weston, of Lichfield, who is alleged to have married Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland?

In answer to the first question, we have evidence from a family letter that John Weston, of Lichfield, had "many Children sones and daughters." The letter further states that John Weston had five sons, Edmund (thought to be the eldest), Richard, Robert, Christopher, and James, and daughters, Alice and Katherine. The above family fits this family grouping perfectly, in the birth order of both the sons and the daughters.

The only glitch I see is that the printed census indicates the the son Richard died young, whereas family letters state that Richard lived to be a judge.

We are told by the family letter that John Weston "was about 80 yeares old and blind when he died." I believe that Matt Tompkins has shown that John Weston of Lichfield lived until c.1550. Deducting 80 years from c.1550, we arrive at an approximate birth date for him of c.1470. Does that fit the man on the census? It fits fine. Assuming that John Weston on the census was 25 when he married his first wife, it would place his birth as c.1472.

From other evidence, we know that John Weston, of Lichfield, had a brother, Master Robert Weston, clerk, sub-dean of Exeter, who had a nephew, Nicholas Weston, clerk, who succeeded him as sub-dean of Exeter. Does a Nicholas Weston occur in the list of John Weston's children on the census? Yes, it does.

Does the known career of Nicholas Weston fit for him to be born c.1508, as estimated above?

My private correspondant has sent me the following particulars regarding Nicholas Weston, clerk, who was sub-dean of Exeter.

[1] Chaplain of Ashwater, Dev
Instituted 10 Nov 1528
Source: Melhuish, Notes on the History of Ashwater Parish and Church (transcription: http://www.holsworthy.zig-d.co.uk/history/?cat=rm&cat1=rm-13)
Incumbent at the time of the Valor Ecclesiasticus, 1535-38.
Source: History of Totnes Priory and Medieval Town, vol 1., p. 609 (http://www.forgottenbooks.org/readbook/The_History_of_Totnes_Priory_Medieval_Town_Devonshire_Together_With_v1_1000850688#617)
Vacated by death, bef 12 Apr 1547
Source: The Clergy Database (http://db.theclergydatabase.org.uk/jsp/DisplayVacancy.jsp?CDBAppRedID=81507)

[2] Sub-dean of Exeter
Coll. 6 Oct. 1539 (Reg. Veysey 1 f. 98b). Instal. 3 Nov. (D. & C. Ex. 3552 f. 12). D. by 7 March 1547 (Reg. Veysey 1 f. 124b).
Source: Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300-1541: volume 9: Exeter diocese (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=32239)
"Appointee was Chaplain to the Bishop."
Source: The Clergy Database (http://db.theclergydatabase.org.uk/jsp/DisplayVacancy.jsp?CDBAppRedID=81497)

[3] C 1/1170/48
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C7495509
Plaintiffs: Nicholas WESTON, clerk.
Defendants: John VYVYAN.
Subject: Rent of the vicarage of Egloshayle, farmed by John Fortescu, brother-in-law of defendant. Cornwall
1544 April 22 - 1547 Feb 15

Assuming Nicholas Weston was born c.1508, he would have been aged 20 when he was appointed chaplain of Ashwater, Devon and aged 31 when he was appointed sub-dean of Exeter in succession to his uncle. I believe he is the Nicholas Weston who obtained a B.A. degree at Oxford 28 Jan. 1529/30, and a M.A. degree, 13 May 1533. B.A. degrees were usually obtained at age 20. This would mean he was born c.1510. A good match.

What else do we know? Assuming the family letter is correct that Richard Weston, son of John Weston of Lichfield, did not die young and became the judge in Essex, we know from the judge's will that he had an unnamed sister who was the wife of John Slade, of Coventry, Warwickshire. Since John Weston's daughters, Alice and Katherine, have contrary histories, this means there must have been another Weston daughter in this family. The 1532-3 census indicates that there were seven daughters in this family, all of whom were living in that year. So yes the census confirms that there was a third daughter available to have married John Slade.

Next, Bindoff estimates that Richard Weston the Judge was born by 1527, judging from his first appearance in the records. Does that fit? Yes, it does. Richard Weston in the census would have been born c.1512.

Next, what about Edmund Weston? The above estimate places the birth of Edmund Weston on the census at c.1506. Is he the same person as Edmund Weston known to be the son of John Weston, of Lichfield? I believe he is the Edmund Weston who obtained a B.Can.L. and B.C.L. degree at Oxford 19 Nov. 1532. I find another individual who obtained a B.A. degree in 1532 (presumably being about aged 20) and B.Can.L. and B.C.L. degree in 1535. There is also another individual who obtained a B.A. degree in 1524, and a B.Can.L. degree in 1529. This would suggest that Edmund Weston was approximately aged 23-25 in 1532, or born c.1507-c.1509. Again this is a good match.

What about Robert Weston, known son of John Weston, of Lichfield. We know that Robert Weston was a fellow at All Souls' College in 1536, and obtained a B.C.L. degree in 1538. Assuming he was aged 23 or 25 when he obtained the B.C.L. degree, that would place his birth at c.1513-1515. Robert Weston's estimated birth date from the census would be c.1516. Again very close in agreement.

In summary, the names and dates match the known family of John Weston, of Lichfield (died c.1550). Moreover, the birth order of both the sons and daughters on the census matches the birth order of the John Weston's known children from family letters. John Weston on the census also has an extra son, Nicholas, who fits to be Nicholas Weston, clerk, the known nephew of John Weston's brother, Master Robert Weston, sub-dean of Exeter. The dates of Nicholas Weston, clerk, fit for him to be the Nicholas Weston listed on the 1532-3 census.

I conclude therefore that John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire, a highly skilled craftsman (died c.1550) is the same individual as John Weston on the 1532-3 census of Lichfield. I also firmly conclude he had wives Margaret and Elizabeth and that there was no wife named Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland. The Cecily Neville business is a total fiction.

Once again I wish to thank and acknowledge my private correspondant for his assistance.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[npicc...@cox.net]

Hello Douglas,
Thank you so much for the outline of the John Weston family. I was having trouble straightening out all the information that has been posted. Now, is this John Weston ancestral to the Rev. William Walton? Thanks again.
Nancy

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

On Friday, 14 March 2014 14:21:32 UTC, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Reviewing the evidence of the 1532-3 Census of Lichfield, Staffordshire, we find that there was but one John Weston listed in this census, with wives Margaret (deceased) and Elizabeth (living). John Weston is assigned a grand total of 18 children, which children were presumably born from his two marriages. Given that we know that John Weston lived until c.1550 and given that his children were probably born over a span of some 36 years, it seems highly likely that his youngest child was very young in 1532-3 and that his eldest child was over 30.
>
> Just using simple math and assigning a child every two years, we come to the following arrangement of the family:
>
> Elizabeth, born c.1498.
> Agnes, born c.1500.
> John, born c.1502.
> Joan, born c.1504.
> Edmund, born c.1506.
> Nicholas, born c.1508.
> †William, born c.1510.
> †Richard, born c.1512.
> †John,born c. 1514.
> Robert, born c.1516.
> Ellen, born c.1518.
> Alice, born c.1520.
> John, born c.1522.
> Agnes, born c.1524.
> Katherine, born c.1526.
> James, born c.1528.
> Christopher, born c.1530.
> Joan, born c. 1532.
>

<snip>

An ingenious analysis, Douglas, but one needs to be a little careful with this document.

To start with, the one thing it definitely is not is a census (in the usual meaning of that word, ie a list of all the inhabitants of a place). The fact is that we don't really know what it is. Robert Swanson, who has spent his academic life working in late medieval ecclesiastical records, thought it 'a highly enigmatic list' and suggested that the people in it were listed 'presumably to receive prayers in recompense for donations to an unknown cause'. Ann Kettle, who transcribed the list, considered the point at length in her introduction to the text and, with some hesitation, advanced the hypothesis that it was 'a list of families entitled to prayers or other benefits in return for a contribution towards the fabric fund of [Lichfield] cathedral'.

Her introduction should be read before the list is used for genealogical purposes. It also contains a careful analysis of the family groups in the list. Although the entries look to be nuclear families, ie parents and their children, it is clear that many include other relatives - most commonly the parents of the family head or his wife (usually appearing in pairs and usually at the end of the entry), but also grandchildren and siblings, and sometimes cousins, god-children and even servants. In about 10% of the entries these relationships are stated explicitly, but it is probable that other entries also list relatives without saying so explicitly (the list appears to have been composed by several different clerks, not all applying the same rules for inclusion or style of entry). She came to the conclusion that 'all that can be safely concluded is that those listed are likely to be connected with the head of the family in some relationship which justified the purchase of prayers or the remission of sins.'

Matt Tompkins

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Friday, March 14, 2014 10:21:32 AM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> I also firmly conclude he had wives Margaret and Elizabeth and that there
> was no wife named Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, Earl of
> Westmorland. The Cecily Neville business is a total fiction.
>

I have mentioned elsewhere that the presence of the same witnesses on both Sir Simon Weston's 1631 letter and his 1637 will provides strong evidence that Sir Simon's letter is authentic. Sir Simon would have known whether his grandmother was a sister of an earl, and, in fact, he said his grandmother was a sister of the Earl of Westmorland. So, either Sir Simon's grandmother was a sister of the Earl of Westmorland, or Sir Simon was a participant in an elaborate conspiracy. Why do I use the word elaborate? Consider who else must have been in involved if this statement in the Weston pedigree was a fabrication.

The introduction to ADD74251A, Illuminated Genealogy of the Family of Weston of Weston-under-Lizard, co. Stafford, 25 Nov 1633, with accompanying documentation, says the heralds made copies for (1) Sir Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland (grandson of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas), (2) Sir Simon Weston of Lichfield (son of James Weston of Lichfield), (3) Sir James Weston, Baron of the Exchequer (a second son of James Weston of Lichfield), (4) Dr John Weston of Christ Church (son of Robert Weston, Lord Chancellor of Ireland), (5) Edward Mytton of Weston under Luzers (son-in-law of James Weston of Lichfield), and (6) Sir Richard Weston of Rugeley (first cousin, once removed of Richard Weston, Justice of the Common Pleas, and his brothers). ADD74251A appears to be the copy made for Edward Mytton of Weston under Luzers, and ADD18667 appears to be the copy made for Sir Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland. Presumably the other copies are yet to be discovered or have not survived.

ADD74251A contains an endorsement by Sir William Segar, Garter King of Arms, dated November 25, 1634 [nineth year of the reign of King Charles]. So, the heralds probably delivered this copy of the pedigree to Edward Mytton of Weston under Luzers shortly after that date. Edward Mytton died three years later on February 19, 1638.

The introduction of ADD18667 bears the year 1632. But, the pedigree includes a document dated January 23, 1633 [1633/4]. So, the heralds probably completed the pedigree and delivered it to Sir Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland, shortly after January 23, 1633/4. The Earl of Portland died one year later on March 13, 1634/5.

Although we have not found the copy of the Weston pedigree produced for Sir Richard Weston of Rugeley, we may assume, from the above information, that the heralds delivered Sir Richard's copy of the pedigree to him in about 1634. Sir Richard died sixteen years later on March 18, 1651/2.

Since Sir James Weston, Baron of the Exchequer, died on December 10, 1633, he may not have received his copy of the Weston pedigree before his death. But, his son-in-law, Nicholas Bacon, testified on January 23, 1633/4 that Sir James' grandmother was Cecily, "daughter of Rafe Neuile, Lo: Neuile, and sister of Rafe E of Westmerland."

Since Dr John Weston of Christ Church died on July 20, 1632, he probably did not receive his copy of the Weston pedigree before his death.

Harley 5816, Working papers of Henry Lily, Rouge Rose Herald of the College of Arms, contains a copy of the July 15, 1526 deed from John Weston of Rugeley to "John Weston, Junior, my son, and Cecily, his wife, sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland."

Staffordshire historian Sampson Erdeswick (c. 1525 - 1603) was a ward of Sir John Giffard of Chillington in the mid 1530s. The heading of the 1526 deed from John Weston of Rugeley to "John Weston, Junior, my son, and Cecily, his wife, sister of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland," states that it was found at Chillington; and Sir John Giffard is named in the deed. Sampson Erdeswick apparently endorsed the identity of John Weston of Lichfield's wife as Cecily, daughter of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, in the Weston pedigree, since he included the Weston pedigree in his Survey of Staffordshire.

Even if we assume that (1) Dr John Weston did not indirectly endorse the pedigree's statements about Cecily by not objecting because he died before receiving the pedigree, (2) Sir William Segar, Garter King of Arms, endorsed the pedigree on the basis of his confidence in the work of Henry Lily, and (3) Henry Chitting, Chester Herald, merely endorsed Nicholas Bacon's statement about Cecily, it still seems likely that all the following people, who should have known the truth of the matter, either explicitly or tacitly (by not objecting) endorsed the Weston pedigree's statements about Cecily, daughter of Ralph Neville, Lord Neville, sister of the Earl of Westmorland.

- Sir Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland
- Sir Simon Weston of Lichfield
- Sir James Weston, Baron of the Exchequer
- Edward Mytton of Weston under Luzers
- Nicholas Bacon of Gillingham
- Sir Richard Weston of Rugeley
- Henry Lily, Rouge Rose Herald of the College of Arms
- Sampson Erdeswick, contemporary Staffordshire historian

Is there any compelling reason to believe that all eight of the above individuals conspired to give the Weston family an erroneous Neville descent? I haven't seen one. Those who assert such a theory must present evidence to support their claim, and then that evidence should be weighed against the direct and indirect testimonies of the above individuals in support of Cecily's identity.

Shawn

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In an earlier message, I posted evidence that John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire (born c.1470, died c.1550) was a tanner by trade. Here is that evidence again:

Date: 1533
Plaintiff: John Grasbroke and Ellen Ruddyng, widow, executors of the will of John Ruddyng alias John Grasbroke, of Shenston, Staffordshire,

Defendants: John Weston, of Lytchefeld [Lichfield], Staffordshire, tanner; Humphrey Stafford, of Wyforth, Staffordshire, gentleman; John Butler, of Wolverhampton, Staffordshire, mercer; John Bathe, of Womburne, Staffordshire, yeoman; and John Smalwode, of Peryhall, Staffordshire, yeoman

Regarding a debt of 40 shillings.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/1076, image 3974f, which is available at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H8/CP40no1076/aCP40no1076fronts/IMG_3974.htm

My private correspondant has since sent me another lawsuit dated 1531 which refers to a John Weston, of Lichfield, Staffordshire, who was a fishmonger.

Date: 1531
Plaintiff: John Pellesworth

Defendants: Thomas Pyllesworth of Elmehurst, Staffordshire, husbandman, and John Weston of Lychefeld, fishmonger

Re. an assault (vi et armes) at Elmehurst, Streteley, and Lychefeld, Staffordshire

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/1068, image 1650d, available at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H8/CP40no1068/bCP40no1068dorses/IMG_1650.htm

My private correspondant added the following statement:

"Note that Elmhurst is the location of one of the properties conveyed in the fraudulent charter. It seems that there are at least two possible explanations for these two records: (1) John Weston was engaged in multiple trades, including tanning and fishmongering; or (2) one of these records refers to an adult son of John Weston [recall that the List of Families shows two sons named John living]. I would lean toward explanation #1. Regardless, later references to property along the Lichfield Conduit in John Weston's tenure suggest that he was primarily a tanner." END OF QUOTE.

Myself I lean towards explanation #2. In my previous message, I estimated that John Weston's eldest son, John, who was living in 1532-3, was born c.1502. As such, he would have been of adult age and alive at the date of both the 1531 and 1533 lawsuits.

However, whether the elder John Weston be a tanner or fishmonger, it's safe to say that John Weston (born c.1470, died c.1550) was not married to a sister of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Joe ~

It is claimed in Stapleton, Plumpton Correspondence (Camden Soc. 4) (1839): cxiv-cxvi, 196-197 that Ralph Neville and his wife, Edith Sandys, had a daughter, Isabel, who married (1st) Robert Plumpton, Knt., and (2nd) Lawrence Kighley, Esq. The evidence for the existence of such a daughter is taken from an undated letter written by "Edith Nevill" which is addressed to "Myn own good Lady Plumpton." Edith begins the letter by saying, "I recommende me unto you and to your gud husband." The address and opening are hardly those of a mother writing to her daughter. A mother would not need to "recommend" herself to her own daughter. In fact, no where does Edith Neville refer to Lady Plumpton as her daughter. The letter may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wZcKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA196

That Edith Sandys is the mother of Isabel Plumpton is inferred by the editor from a statement in the letter which reads: "Written in hast with the hand of your mother, the 28 day of April."

This could mean that it was Lady Plumpton's mother who wrote the letter for Edith Neville. Or, equally possible, it may be that Edith Sandys was the godmother of Isabel Plumpton. If godmother, it would explain the wording of the initial salutation in the letter to "Myn own good Lady Plumpton," with no reference to Lady Plumpton being Edith Sandys's daughter.

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:38:10 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Edith begins the letter by saying, "I recommende me unto you and to your
gud husband." The address and opening are hardly those of a mother writing to her daughter. A mother would not need to "recommend" herself to her own daughter.

Henry Stafford, Lord Stafford, began his 1546 letter to his sister, the Countess of Westmorland, with the following words: "Madame after most hertye recomendacions from me and my bedfellowe to youe and to my good Lord yor husband ..." [Page 34 of D(W)1721/1/10/1-432, section b, Copy out-letters of Henry, Lord Stafford (432 folios, a few of which are blank), at the Staffordshire Record Office]. Your interpretation of the implication of this salutation does not seem to be correct.

Shawn

[Douglas Richardson]

On Sunday, March 16, 2014 12:42:04 AM UTC-6, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:

> An ingenious analysis, Douglas, but one needs to be a little careful with this document.

> Matt Tompkins

Dear Matt ~

Thank you for your good post.

I appreciate your words of caution on the use of the 1532-3 "list" of Staffordshire households.

In this case, I analyzed the likely chronology of the 1532-3 Weston family unit and found that it was a near perfect match in every detail, both in names and chronology, to the known immediate family of John Weston (born c.1470, died c.1550), of Lichfield, Staffordshire. As such, I have every confidence that I have set forth the correct birth order and approximate birth dates of the 18 children of John Weston.

I did make one error in my original post. I stated the following:

"The letter further states that John Weston had five sons, Edmund (thought to be the eldest), Richard, Robert, Christopher, and James, and daughters, Alice and Katherine."

I inadvertedly reversed the order of Christopher and James in my statement. My statement should actually read as follows:

"The letter further states that John Weston had five sons, Edmund (thought to be the eldest), Richard, Robert, James, and Christopher, and daughters, Alice and Katherine."

As for James Weston (died 1589), younger son of John Weston (b. c.1470, died c.1550), of Lichfield, since my original post, I've discovered that Hasler, House of Commons 1558-1603 places James Weston's birth as "c.1525." Hasler's biography of James Weston may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/weston-james-1525-89

Hasler does not explain how he estimated James Weston's birthdate, but he does state that James Weston was Bailiff of Lichfield, 1562-3, and registrar and later chancellor, diocese of Coventry and Lichfield by 1562. This information would certainly support a birthdate of "about 1525" for James Weston.

In my analysis of the Weston family on the 1532-3 Staffordshire list, I placed James Weston's birthdate as "c.1528." Again, this is almost exactly on the mark.

Whether c.1525 or c.1528, either date would harmonize well with the estimated birthdate of James Weston's 2nd but 1st surviving son and heir, Sir Simon Weston, as "c.1565" made by History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1604-1629, ed. Andrew Thrush and John P. Ferris, 2010. Sir Simon Weston's biography may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/weston-sir-simon-1565-1637

For what it is worth, Thrush and Ferris give the following source for Sir Simon Weston's birthdate:

C142/226/169.

When you add the statistical odds that you would have two different John Weston's in Lichfield in 1532-3 with the same children's names, the math simply goes off the charts against such a scenario.

The only concern that I presently have is that the 1532-3 list indicates that John Weston's son, Richard, died before 1532-3, whereas family letters indicate that Richard Weston survived to adulthood and became a judge. I consider that a minor point, particularly when one considers that the 1532-3 list maker had to record no less than 18 children for John Weston, both living and deceased. Such an error would be easy to make when dealing with such a large family.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

The

[Douglas Richardson]

On Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:15:26 PM UTC-6, shp...@comcast.net wrote:

< I have mentioned elsewhere that the presence of the same witnesses on both <Sir Simon Weston's 1631 letter and his 1637 will provides strong evidence that <Sir Simon's letter is authentic. Sir Simon would have known whether his <grandmother was a sister of an earl, and, in fact, he said his grandmother was <a sister of the Earl of Westmorland.

When I was quite younger, I asked my step-grandfather for the names of his maternal grandparents. He said their names were "Grandpa" and "Grandma." He honestly didn't know their given names.

Later I contacted the brother of my grandmother Richardson. I asked him for the names of his paternal grandparents. He didn't know their names. But he promised to help me find them. He kept his word.

I think Shawn is being very naive to think that people automatically know the names of their grandparents. Both my step-father and my great-uncle were intelligent individuals and quite knowledgeable about other details of their immediate family. But when it came to providing me the names of their grandparents, they were at a loss.

Perhaps the easiest explanation behind Sir Simon Weston's claim that his grandmother was Cecily Neville is that someone in the family told him that his Weston grandmother was a Neville, related to the Earl of Westmorland. Perhaps that person was the one responsible for the 1526 fraudulent deed.

In any case, the odds against John Weston (born c.1470, died c.1550), a skilled tradesman, neither a gentleman or esquire, marrying the earl's sister are overwhelming.

Lastly, I should raise an issue that Joe and Shawn have carefully avoided bringing up. I've read for years in more than one place that there were many fraudulent pedigrees generated by the heralds of the Tudor-Stuart period. Until now, I hadn't seen an actual case. Joe and Shawn seem to presume that ANY pedigree signed by ANY herald is absolute truth. That is ignoring the fact that some heralds are definitely known to have generated fraudulent pedigrees.

The issue of the heralds withstanding, ANY statement of late date evidence such as Sir Simon Weston's letter MUST ALWAYS be examined against contemporary records of the actual period. In this instance, the 1532-3 list of Staffordshire inhabitants completely demolishes Sir Simon Weston's claim that his grandmother was Cecily Neville, sister of Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland.

[Douglas Richardson]

On Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:59:22 PM UTC-6, shp...@comcast.net wrote:

< Henry Stafford, Lord Stafford, began his 1546 letter to his sister, the
< Countess of Westmorland, with the following words: "Madame after most hertye < recomendacions from me and my bedfellowe to youe and to my good Lord yor
< husband ..." [Page 34 of D(W)1721/1/10/1-432, section b, Copy out-letters of < Henry, Lord Stafford (432 folios, a few of which are blank), at the
< Staffordshire Record Office]. Your interpretation of the implication of this < salutation does not seem to be correct.

< Shawn

You're quite correct, Shawn. I should have studied other letters from this time period before I assumed that Edith Sandys would not "recommend" herself to a daughter.

It's easy for people engaged in medieval research to project one's own social values and customs onto our medieval predecessors.

DR

[Brad Verity]

On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:53:43 PM UTC-8, pj.evans wrote:
> One thing I haven't seen is any explanation as to why it's so important to you that Weston has a descent from Neville, especially since there's so little evidence to back up that claim.

Since this was never answered, P.J., I'll provide the explanation. Shawn and Joe need Cecily Neville to have been the wife of John Weston of Lichfield in order to give John Weston's daughter Alice, and her descendants, ancestors which trace back to Edward III and earlier monarchs. Otherwise, there is no royal ancestry for Alice Weston Ball.

On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:16:40 PM UTC-7, shp...@comcast.net wrote:
> I don't recall if anyone has described the scope of this prominence. In only four generations, descendants of John Weston of Lichfield and his wife included seven earls, nine knights, a head of England's treasury, a justice of England's supreme court for matters of equity, a justice of England's supreme court for matters of common law, two heads of Ireland's treasury, a head of Ireland's judiciary, and a head of Ireland's legislative affairs.

As evidence, I submitted already, and continue to do so, the Petre family, who rose to prominence in the same century (the 16th), as descendants of a wealthy farmer and tanner of Devon.

On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:15:26 PM UTC-7, shp...@comcast.net wrote:
> I have mentioned elsewhere that the presence of the same witnesses on both Sir Simon Weston's 1631 letter and his 1637 will provides strong evidence that Sir Simon's letter is authentic.

No, it is evidence he had the same trusted circle around him whom he used for his official transactions.

> Sir Simon would have known whether his grandmother was a sister of an earl, and, in fact, he said his grandmother was a sister of the Earl of Westmorland. So, either Sir Simon's grandmother was a sister of the Earl of Westmorland, or Sir Simon was a participant in an elaborate conspiracy. Why do I use the word elaborate? Consider who else must have been in involved if this statement in the Weston pedigree was a fabrication.

Sir Simon Weston never personally knew his paternal grandparents. He would only have known about them what he was told (and states so indirectly in his 1631 letter). Maybe he loved hearing stories of knights, battles and the War of the Roses when he was a child, and one of his parents told him his grandmother was a Neville of Westmorland. We will never know whether he was purposefully padding his ancestry with 15th-century nobility, or was merely misinformed.

In either case, there is no elaborate conspiracy here. All of his relatives and witnesses would have simply taken him at his word. Why would they have had any reason not to? None of them were alive when John Weston of Lichfield was.

> - Henry Lily, Rouge Rose Herald of the College of Arms

If Henry Lily wanted to validate the identity of his paternal grandmother that Sir Simon Weston had put forward, then he needed to make up a fraudulent piece of convincing evidence. And apparently he did. So you have a conspiracy of one. Why would anyone else on the list you provided take the trouble to travel up to Chillingham and look for a 1526 deed? Why would any of them doubt what the College of Arms was presenting about ancestors who married a hundred years previous?

> Is there any compelling reason to believe that all eight of the above individuals conspired to give the Weston family an erroneous Neville descent?

No.

> I haven't seen one. Those who assert such a theory must present evidence to support their claim,

We have been doing just that. It's not our fault you aren't happy with the result: that no Cecily Neville, wife of John Weston of Lichfield, can be found in any records from the early 1500s, except for the one deed allegedly from 1526, that is no longer where the 1632 Weston pedigree stated it had been (Chillingham in Staffordshire).

> and then that evidence should be weighed against the direct and indirect testimonies of the above individuals in support of Cecily's identity.

None of whom were alive when her alleged husband, John Weston of Lichfield, was.

Cheers, ----Brad

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Sunday, March 16, 2014 9:59:03 PM UTC-4, Brad Verity wrote:
> Since this was never answered, P.J., I'll provide the explanation...

No Brad, PJ's question was rhetorical, so not worth answering.

> On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:15:26 PM UTC-7, shp...@comcast.net wrote:
> > I have mentioned elsewhere that the presence of the same witnesses on both Sir Simon Weston's 1631 letter and his 1637 will provides strong evidence that Sir Simon's letter is authentic.

> No, it is evidence he had the same trusted circle around him whom he used for his official transactions.

Yes, Brad, as I said, these witnesses, who also witnessed Sir Simon's will six years later, demonstrate that Henry Lily almost certainly did not fabricate this letter.

> Sir Simon Weston never personally knew his paternal grandparents. He would only have known about them what he was told (and states so indirectly in his 1631 letter) ... All of his relatives and witnesses would have simply taken him at his word.

Why do you now assume everyone learned about Cecily from Sir Simon? Before reading about Sir Simon's letter, the popular theory was that the Earl of Portland conspired with Henry Lily to create a Neville descent. Your new theory doesn't sound any more convincing to me.

Shawn

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Does anyone have a chronological fix on Alice and Katherine, the daughters of John Weston (born c.1470, died c.1550), of Lichfield, Staffordshire?

I've estimated Alice Weston's birth as c.1520. I assume her husband is the John Ball, cappar, who was Bailiff of Lichfield, Staffordshire in 1550 and 1556. See Harwood, History and Antiquities of the Church and City of Lichfield (1806): 419-420, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=N3tbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA419

Murray, Enforcing the English Reformation in Ireland (2011): 280, footnote 56 indicates that Alice (Weston) Ball had a grown son, John Ball, who was an adult in 1568.

See the following weblink for that source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kvFpuRoiL24C&pg=PA280

As for Katherine Weston, I estimate that she was born c.1526. Her husband is the John Dyott, civilian and proctor, who was Bailiff of Lichfield in 1558, 1561, and 1572. See Harwood, History and Antiquities of the Church and City of Lichfield (1806): 420-421, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=N3tbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA420

Harwood identifies John Dyott, Bailiff of Lichfield, as the son of John Dyott and Katherine Weston, but the chronology would suggest the bailiff was Katherine Weston's husband. Katherine Weston's husband is evidently the John Dyott, of Lichfield, yeoman, who occurs in a deed dated 1545. He occurs as John Dyott, of Stichbrook, gentleman in 1562. See Erdeswicke, Survey of Staffordshire (1820): 230, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=WZPRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA230

I note that Burke (who is not always reliable) also identifies the bailiff as Katherine Weston's son. But he states that John Dyott the son died in 1580, aged 61 (or born c.1519). If the bailiff was truly born c.1519, he would surely be the husband of Katherine Weston, born c.1526.

For Burke, see the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YdIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA367

Elsewhere I note that Hasler states that Katherine (Weston) Dyott's grandson, Anthony Dyott, was born c.1560. But if Katherine Weston was the wife of the bailiff, it would place her as the mother of Anthony, not the grandmother. For Hasler's biography of Anthony Dyott, see the following weblink:

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1558-1603/member/dyott-anthony-1560-1622

Checking further I find that the Dyot family pedigree in the published Visitation of Staffordshire proves conclusively that Anthony Dyott (born c.1560, died 1622) was in fact the son and heir (not grandson) of John Dyott and his wife, Katherine Weston. This means the bailiff of Lichfield was Katherine Weston's husband, not her son.

I might note that the published Dyott pedigree thus corrects statements made about the Dyott family by Harwood, Burke, and Hasler. This is a good example of why one must ALWAYS check other available evidences before accepting statements by secondary sources.

For the Dyot pedigree, see St. George, Vis. of Staffordshire 1614, 1663-4 (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 5(2)) (1885): 117-119, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gfwcAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA119

I might add that the Dyot pedigree states that Katherine (Weston) Dyott was the daughter of "John Weston of Lichfield, 4th son to John Weston of Rugeley, co. Stafford." No mention is made that Katherine Weston's mother was the sister of the Earl of Westmorland. Had Katherine's mother had a high born Neville connection, it surely would have been noted by the herald.

I've estimated that Alice and Katherine Weston's brother, James Weston, was born c.1528. As "James Weston, gentleman and register," he occurs as Bailiff of Lichfield in 1562. See Harwood, History and Antiquities of the Church and City of Lichfield (1806): 421, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=N3tbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA421

I've estimated James Weston's birth as c.1528, which would place him as being a bit younger than his two sisters, Alice and Katherine Weston. This information indicates that James Weston followed John Ball and John Dyott, the known husbands of his older sisters as bailiff. That would support the estimated chronology that I've set forth for the Weston family.

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Monday, March 17, 2014 12:05:58 AM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> I might add that the Dyot pedigree states that Katherine (Weston) Dyott was the daughter of "John Weston of Lichfield, 4th son to John Weston of Rugeley, co. Stafford." No mention is made that Katherine Weston's mother was the sister of the Earl of Westmorland. Had Katherine's mother had a high born Neville connection, it surely would have been noted by the herald.
>

Douglas, when it supported your argument, your position was that we cannot expect a person to know that their grandmother was a sister of an earl. In this case, the informant, Richard Dyot (b.c. 1622), was a great-grandson of John Weston of Lichfield and his wife. Why have you changed your expectation with regard to a person's knowledge about their ancestors? More importantly, in this pedigree, the herald named only fathers of wives. So, your assumption is not valid.

Shawn

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

From: Of Douglas Richardson, 17 March 2014 00:36

A fascinating find - congratulations again to your anonymous correspondent. I think explanation #2 is unlikely to be correct - the various tax etc records from 1523-1550 which I posted before, which always list just one John Weston in Lichfield and never add any distinguishing epithet (such as 'the elder' or an occupation or place of residence), make it improbable that there were two adult John Westons living and trading in Lichfield from 1523 onwards.

I think your determination that John Weston was born c1470 is also doubtful. Partly because the nature of the c1532 list makes it unlikely that he had 18 children (an unknown number of the 18 names in the entry were probably related to him in other ways), partly because the nature of the references to him in various Lichfield records suggest a younger man. For example, he first appears in the town's records as economically active in 1519, but is still paying fairly high levels of tax (suggesting that he is not yet retired) in the early 1550s. He appears in the 1539 Muster Roll as an able man able to serve on horseback and in a suit of armour - if he had been born c1470 he would have been c69 years old at this point. A birthdate in the late 1480s or 1490s seems more probable to me.

Matt

[pj.evans]

I might buy that, except that I know from my own experience that what people know of their great-grandparents is not necessarily true, particularly if there was very little contact between, for example, grandparent and grandchild.

[Douglas Richardson]

On Monday, March 17, 2014 4:34:19 AM UTC-6, shp...@comcast.net wrote:

< Douglas, when it supported your argument, your position was that we cannot
< expect a person to know that their grandmother was a sister of an earl. In
< this case, the informant, Richard Dyot (b.c. 1622), was a great-grandson of
< John Weston of Lichfield and his wife. Why have you changed your expectation < with regard to a person's knowledge about their ancestors? More importantly, < in this pedigree, the herald named only fathers of wives. So, your
< assumption is not valid.

< Shawn

If Katherine (Weston) Dyott's mother was a high born Neville, the herald would almost certainly have recorded that fact in the Dyot family pedigree.

In this time period, people kept close watch on their high born relatives. I've even found instances of people keeping track of their living near relatives with properties, in case the relative's issue failed, and they were found to be the heir to the estates.

In this case, we have other evidence to disprove the Neville connection. John Weston as a tanner or fishmonger would not be married to an earl's sister, unless that sister was illegitimate. More telling, however, is the 1532-3 list of Staffordshire inhabitants. The 1532-3 list proves that John Weston had two wives, Margaret and Elizabeth, and no wife named Cecily. So there was no Neville wife.

[Joe]

This is just not true. First, you are over stating who the Neville's of Westmorland were. They were a family of no consequence in national politics since mid-1400's when they were stripped of most of their lands and were decimated by the War of the Roses. It was highly unlikely that the family survived this time period, but they did continue through an infant son of an only son of the last male of the Westmorland branch. Second, the earldom of Westmorland had been forfeited in disgrace 100 years before the time of the Dyott Visitation. There were no relatives to be potential heirs of, no lands to inherit and no high born relatives to claim as near cousins. Third, as Shawn pointed out, it was not usual for the herald to name the mother, but rather only the father of a wife. This is especially true since Cicely was not the daughter of an earl but rather a granddaughter

Shawn and I have said that we think it likely that Simon Weston knew who his own grandmother was. You are trying to counter this by saying Richard Dyott would then surely have said his great-great grandmother was the granddaughter of a disgraced earl. This is just not true; there is zero expectation that Cicely Neville would have been named in the 1664 Dyott Visitation. You tell us that medieval people kept better track of their relations than we do today (agreed), but somehow:

- Sir Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland

- Sir James Weston, Baron of the Exchequer
- Edward Mytton of Weston under Luzers
- Nicholas Bacon of Gillingham
- Sir Richard Weston of Rugeley

- Henry Lily, Rouge Rose Herald of the College of Arms

- Sampson Erdeswick, contemporary Staffordshire historian

didn't know Sir Simon Weston of Lichfield was pulling a fast one by claiming his grandmother was Cecily Neville. It makes no sense.


I appreciate your analysis of the List of Families, and the fact you have included some of the Segar pedigree evidence in your analysis. The + symbols indicating a dead relative were so inconsistently applied between the 2 scribes, that I can concede the possibility that the +Richard in the list may be Richard of Skreens even though we know he was living in 1532. However, as Matt Tompkins has pointed out, your dates may be off by as much as 20 years raising extreme doubts about the relevance of your analysis. Shifting the dates by 10-20 years makes it impossible for this List of Families to represent a single family group. As such, it is more likely that this John Weston donated money not just for his family but also for other relatives. We know from the Simon Weston letter that John Weston spent time living outside of England; perhaps, the John Weston the tanner named the children of his relative John Weston since he was living currently out of the country.

Your various suits are suggestive and prove the existence of a John Weston, tanner or fishmonger, but none of them directly connect this John Weston to Richard of Skreens, James of Lichfield, Lord Chancellor Robert or Archdeacon Edmund Weston. Therefore, they certainly are not the conclusive evidence that Cecily Neville did not exist as you make them out to be. When weighed against the testimony of living relatives, charter evidence, funerary heraldic evidence and the large amount of circumstantial evidence, the List of Families and the suits you have presented is an extremely weak counter argument.

Joe

[Douglas Richardson]

On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 10:56:03 AM UTC-6, Joe wrote:
> On Monday, March 17, 2014 9:18:49 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
< This is just not true. First, you are over stating who the Neville's of
< Westmorland were. They were a family of no consequence in national politics < since mid-1400's when they were stripped of most of their lands and were
< decimated by the War of the Roses.

You continue to diminish the Nevilles of Westmorland, by implying that they were a family of no consequence. However, to be an earl, one must have sufficient income to support an earldom. This family were hardly the paupers as you make them out to be. While it is true the Nevilles forfeited their estates in 1461, Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmorland [died 1499], obtained the restoration of the greater part of his estates and the reversal of his father's attainder 6 October 1472. Did you miss that?

Furthermore, Edith Sandys, the woman you claim was the mother-in-law of John Weston, of Lichfield, was a near kinswoman of King Henry VII of England, she being the granddaughter of his great-aunt, Eleanor Shottesbrook. Her first husband, Sir Ralph Neville, was near related to both Kings Edward IV and King Henry VII, as well as Elizabeth, wife of King Henry VII. Edith Sandys married (2nd) before 1499 Thomas Darcy, K.G., who was summoned to Parliament, certainly from 17 October 1509 until 3 Nov. 1529, whereby he became Lord Darcy. Complete Peerage 4 (1916): 73-74 (sub Darcy) says of him: "[He] was a person of some distinction in the reign of Henry VII."

So far from being downtrodden, penniless, and of no importance, the Nevilles and the Darcys were both top drawn families in the very period you allege Edith Sandys' daughter was married to a simple tanner or fishmonger from Lichfield, who himself was the 4th son of his father.

Quite simply I find your theory impossible to accept.

[shp...@comcast.net]

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:23:02 AM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
> Quite simply I find your theory impossible to accept.
>

Your hyperbole is neither honest nor persuasive. We all would like to see more contemporary information about Cecily; but her existence is supported by contemporary and near contemporary evidence and witnesses, while you, more than 400 years later, assert fraud. So, it is your theory that hangs in the balance; and, as Joe said, "the List of Families and the suits you have presented is an extremely weak counter argument."

Shawn