Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Correction to History of Parliament: Henry Fisher of Boxley
104 views
Skip to first unread message
taf
Jul 16, 2021, 11:03:29 AM7/16/21
to
In the HOP article:
FISHER, Henry, of Maidstone; later of Boxley, Kent. (MAIDSTONE 1563)
The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1558-1603, ed. P.W. Hasler, 1981
It is reported that the subject was " 1st s. of Robert Fisher of Maidstone by Joan, da. and h. of Simon Warnecourt of Faversham"
This appears to be doubly mistaken, as his mother was either named Joan, nor daughter of Simon, if the testimony of her sons is to be believed.
As to the name Joan, this derives from an unfortunate editorial error in the visitation, or at least in all of the copies available when the published version was printed. This showed Henry as both husband of "Joane, dau. . . . . Herenden", but likewise showed his mother as "Joane, dau. . . . . Herenden". In the published edition, to this is added in the nature of a correction the information given in the 1574 visitation, that Henry was son of the 'daughter and heiress of Simon Warnecourt of Feversham'. HOP then has taken these two alternatives and combined them to create Joan, daughter of Simon Warnecourt, even though it is more likely that the name Joane, like her surname Herenden, was part of the same editorial slip that saw Henry given the same mother as his wife.
Robert actually has three documented wives, none named Joan:
In the 1526 will of his mother Elizabeth (PCC) she makes reference to Maude, wife of her son Robert.
In Court of Recovery suit, dated 1546|1547, William Fysher and Dorothy Fysher sue Lettice Fysher, gentlewoman, for the recovery of deeds, etc. belonging to the estate of their late father, Robert Fysher, whose one-time husband of Lettice.
In a Chancery case of 1538|1544 Henry and William, sons of Robert Fissher and of Magdalen his wife, daughter and Heir of Nicholas Warmecot, sue Lettice, late wife of the same Robert.
Lettice also appears in a 1544|1551 suit, in which Robert Clerk sues Robert Stint 'son-in-law' of Lettice Fyssher of Maidstone, deceased.
This gives us Robert Fisher married as follows:
1) say 1515, Magdalen Warmecot (Warnecourt) daughter and heiress of Nicholas, perhaps also heiress of Simon (alias Symond) Warnecourt, brewer, of Faversham who died testate in 1496 (I do not currently have access to his Consistory Court will). mother of Henry, William (absent from visitations), possibly Dorothy (else daughter of Maude, absent from visitations, if she never married perhaps the 'aunt Fisher' named in the will of Henry's son Robert, else that was William's widow).
2) before 1526, Maude. child: possibly Dorothy (as above)
3) Lettice, 'mother-in-law' of Robert Stort, widowed by 1546, dead by 1551
taf
FISHER, Henry, of Maidstone; later of Boxley, Kent. (MAIDSTONE 1563)
The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1558-1603, ed. P.W. Hasler, 1981
It is reported that the subject was " 1st s. of Robert Fisher of Maidstone by Joan, da. and h. of Simon Warnecourt of Faversham"
This appears to be doubly mistaken, as his mother was either named Joan, nor daughter of Simon, if the testimony of her sons is to be believed.
As to the name Joan, this derives from an unfortunate editorial error in the visitation, or at least in all of the copies available when the published version was printed. This showed Henry as both husband of "Joane, dau. . . . . Herenden", but likewise showed his mother as "Joane, dau. . . . . Herenden". In the published edition, to this is added in the nature of a correction the information given in the 1574 visitation, that Henry was son of the 'daughter and heiress of Simon Warnecourt of Feversham'. HOP then has taken these two alternatives and combined them to create Joan, daughter of Simon Warnecourt, even though it is more likely that the name Joane, like her surname Herenden, was part of the same editorial slip that saw Henry given the same mother as his wife.
Robert actually has three documented wives, none named Joan:
In the 1526 will of his mother Elizabeth (PCC) she makes reference to Maude, wife of her son Robert.
In Court of Recovery suit, dated 1546|1547, William Fysher and Dorothy Fysher sue Lettice Fysher, gentlewoman, for the recovery of deeds, etc. belonging to the estate of their late father, Robert Fysher, whose one-time husband of Lettice.
In a Chancery case of 1538|1544 Henry and William, sons of Robert Fissher and of Magdalen his wife, daughter and Heir of Nicholas Warmecot, sue Lettice, late wife of the same Robert.
Lettice also appears in a 1544|1551 suit, in which Robert Clerk sues Robert Stint 'son-in-law' of Lettice Fyssher of Maidstone, deceased.
This gives us Robert Fisher married as follows:
1) say 1515, Magdalen Warmecot (Warnecourt) daughter and heiress of Nicholas, perhaps also heiress of Simon (alias Symond) Warnecourt, brewer, of Faversham who died testate in 1496 (I do not currently have access to his Consistory Court will). mother of Henry, William (absent from visitations), possibly Dorothy (else daughter of Maude, absent from visitations, if she never married perhaps the 'aunt Fisher' named in the will of Henry's son Robert, else that was William's widow).
2) before 1526, Maude. child: possibly Dorothy (as above)
3) Lettice, 'mother-in-law' of Robert Stort, widowed by 1546, dead by 1551
taf
taf
Jul 16, 2021, 11:42:27 AM7/16/21
to
On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 8:03:29 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> 3) Lettice, 'mother-in-law' of Robert Stort, widowed by 1546, dead by 1551
Oops - mother-in-law of Robert Stint
> 3) Lettice, 'mother-in-law' of Robert Stort, widowed by 1546, dead by 1551
taf
Peter Stewart
Jul 16, 2021, 7:56:49 PM7/16/21
to
wife? Maude is usually presumed to represent the name Matilda, but
Magdalen was pronounced 'Maudlin' in the 16th century (and still is for
Oxford and Cambridge colleges).
Peter Stewart
taf
Jul 16, 2021, 8:19:19 PM7/16/21
to
On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 4:56:49 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> Are you certain that Magdalen and Maude were not variants for the same
> wife? Maude is usually presumed to represent the name Matilda, but
> Magdalen was pronounced 'Maudlin' in the 16th century (and still is for
> Oxford and Cambridge colleges).
No, I am not.
> Are you certain that Magdalen and Maude were not variants for the same
> wife? Maude is usually presumed to represent the name Matilda, but
> Magdalen was pronounced 'Maudlin' in the 16th century (and still is for
> Oxford and Cambridge colleges).
taf
Jul 16, 2021, 9:17:20 PM7/16/21
to
taf
0 new messages