Additonal Evidence for New Walton Descent from Edward III

[Shawn]

Reference the discussion on this topic mostly last month. I’m posting
the following additional evidence for this new royal descent as a
separate thread because of the significance of the discovery. Today I
received from The National Archives, UK, a Nineteenth Century Copy of
a Letter from Sir Simon Weston of Lichfield to Richard Weston, Esq. of
Rugeley, dated December 9, 1631, D(W)1885/4/6/1. The letter is
important because Sir Simon Weston stated that his grandmother was
Cecily the daughter of Ralph Neville, son of the Earl of Westmorland
(see a more complete quote under Generations 7-8 below). In fact, Sir
Simon said Cecily was the mother of all five of John Weston’s sons.
Sir Simon didn’t name Cecily’s daughters, but other sources place them
in the family.

This letter provides persuasive evidence that Sir William Segar,
Garter King of Arms, was correct in showing this Weston family to be
descended from Ralph Neville, Lord Neville. Sir Simon Weston, who was
his father’s heir and lived in Lichfield, surely knew the identity of
his grandmother. Sir Simon had no apparent motive to fabricate
information about his grandmother, especially since he was writing in
response to an inquiry by his cousin who was not a descendant of
Cecily. Also, Sir Simon apparently was not providing this information
in an attempt to acquire any benefit for himself. Perhaps most
importantly, Sir Simon made these statements about his grandmother at
a time and in an environment where deception about the identity of his
grandmother would have been immediately apparent to all around him.
He also encouraged his cousin to examine his own family records since
“the pefecting of our pedigree ... cannot be done without sight of
your ansient residence remaining with you at Ridgley where you may
find the names of all our anncestours ...”

Further evidence, especially from Neville family probate records and
deeds, are welcome and should be sought; but I think Sir Simon’s
letter, taken together with the contemporary deed cited by Waters (see
Generations 7-8 below), is convincing. We welcome comments.

PS: I wonder what Sir Simon meant when he wrote: “... my grandfather
John Weston who whilest he lived in England lived in the Citty of
Lichfield ...” This sounds as if Sir Simon implied that his
grandfather lived abroad.

1. Edward III, King of England = Philippe of Hainault
2. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster = Blanche of Lancaster
3. Elizabeth of Lancaster = John de Holand, 1st Duke of Exeter
4. John de Holand, 2nd Duke of Exeter = Anne de Stafford
5. Anne de Holand = Sir John Neville, 1st Baron Neville
6. Ralph Neville, 3rd Earl of Westmorland = Isabel Booth
7. Ralph Neville, Lord Neville = Edith Sandys
8. Cecilia Neville = John Weston of Lichfield
9. Alice Weston = John Ball of Lichfield
10. Isabel Ball = John White of Stanton
11. Martha White = Rev. William Cooke
12. Elizabeth Cooke = Rev. William Walton

Sources
Generations 1-2. Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in
Colonial and Medieval Families (Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.,
2004), 26-28. “Children of Edward III of England, by Philippe of
Hainault: … vi. John of Gaunt, K.G., Duke of Aquitaine and Lancaster,
Earl of Derby, Lincoln, and Leicester …”

Generations 2-3. Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in
Colonial and Medieval Families (Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.,
2004), 429. “Children of John of Gaunt, K.G., by Blanche of
Lancaster: … iii. Elizabeth Lancaster …”

Generations 3-4. Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in
Colonial and Medieval Families (Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.,
2004), 299-301. “Children of John Holand, K.G., by Elizabeth
Lancaster: … i. John Holand, Knt., K.G.”

Generations 4-5. Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in
Colonial and Medieval Families (Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.,
2004), 299-301. “Children of John Holand, Knt., K.G., by Anne
Stafford: … ii. Anne Holand …”

Generations 5-6. Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in
Colonial and Medieval Families (Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.,
2004), 544. “They [John Neville, Knt., and Anne Holand] had one son,
Ralph, K.B. [3rd Earl of Westmorland].”

Generations 6-7. Douglas Richardson, Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in
Colonial and Medieval Families (Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.,
2004), 545. “They [Ralph Neville, K.B., 3rd Earl of Westmorland, and
Isabel Booth] had one son, Ralph [Lord Neville] …”

Generations 7-8. Nineteenth Century Copy of a Letter from Sir Simon
Weston of Lichfield to Richard Weston, Esq. of Rugeley, Dated December
9, 1631, D(W)1885/4/6/1, The National Archives, UK. “(From Sir Simon
Weston Knt) To my rt wort. cozen Richard Weston Esq at his home in
Ridgley Cosen Weston to satisfie your desire in answer of your lter
for the pefecting of our pedigree which I know cannot be done without
sight of your ansient residence remaining with you at Ridgley where
you may find the names of all our anncestours and especially of my
grandsire [great-grandfather] who was your anncestour and of my
grandfather John Weston who whilest he lived in England lived in the
Citty of Lichfield and had to wife Cecely the daughter of Ralph
Neville that died in the life time of the Erle of Westmorland his
father who had five [sons] by the said Cicely Edmund Weston his oldest
soune Richard Weston the Judge his second soune and grandfather to the
now Lord Treasurer Robert Weston Chancellor of Ireland his third soun
James Weston of the place where I now live in the City of Lichfield
his fourth soune Christopher Weston his fifth son; James Weston my
father ...” See also Robert Edmond Chester Waters, Genealogical
Memoirs of the Extinct Family of Chester of Chicheley, Their Ancestors
and Descendants (London: Robson and Sons, 1878), 1:110. Waters quotes
Sir William Segar, King of Arms, citing a 1526 deed as follows:
“Sciant omnes &c. quod ego Johannes Weston de Rugeley Senior, gen.
dedi &c. ad usum Johis. Weston junioris filii mei et Cecilie uxoris
ejus, sororis Radi Com. Westmoreland, &c. Dat Lichfield 15 July, 18
Hen. VIII [1526]. (15 [Add. MSS. 18667, in Brit. Mus.])” In part,
this deed says Cecilia, wife of John Weston of Lichfield, was a sister
of Ralph, [4th] Earl of Westmorland.

Generation 8-9. Cecilia Neville and John Weston were the parents of
Alice (Weston) Ball. Sir William Segar, Garter King of Arms
(1607-1633), Weston genealogical lineage cited in Thomas Harwood, A
Survey of Staffordshire: Containing the Antiquities of that County by
Sampson Erdeswick, Esq. (Westminster: John Nichols and Sons, 1820),
pages 3 and 4 of 4-page lineage facing page 126. “Johannes Weston de
Lichfield, 4 fil. 18 Hen. VIII [1527]. ... = Cecilia, soror Radulphi,
comitis Westmorlandiae, filia Radulphi, domini Freville [sic.
Neville]” ... [were the parents of] “Alicia Weston, nupta Johanni
Ball, de Lichfield.” See also Will of Robert Weston, Lord Chancellor
of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland, dated 2 May 1573, proved 18 Jul 1573,
PROB 11/55, The National Archives, UK. “Item I give and bequeth to my
Sister Ball my Lease of a tenement in Brentwood in the holdings of
Agnes White with the seveall assignments to it belonging. I give also
to my said Sister my Lease of Helsmore … Item I give and bequeth to my
cozen [nephew] John Ball all my books.” John Ball also witnessed the
will.

Generations 9-10. The Publications of The Harleian Society, vol.
LXIV, for the year MDCCCXIII, Pedigrees from the Visitation of
Hampshire Made by Thomas Benolt, Clarenceaulx, ao 1530, Enlarged with
the Visitation of the Same County Made by Robert Cooke, Clarenceulx
anno 1575 (London: 1913), 64:229. White lineage, citing MS. Harl.
1544, fo. 197, 198, shows “John White of Stanton St John in ye County
of Oxford” married to “Isabell the da. of John Bawle of Litchfield in
the County of ...,” parents of “John White of Dorcet in the County of
Dorcet” who married “Anne the da. of John Burges of Peterborough,”
“Martha” who married “Will. Cooke of Straton,” and “Mary” who married
“John Tery of Stokton.” See also James Charles Blomfield, History of
Ardley, Bucknell, Caversfield, and Stoke Lyne (London: Elliot Stock,
1894), 8:54. “Indenture made 7 Sept. 8 James 1st [1611] between
Robert Ball of Estington co. Gloster of the one part and George Ryves
of the univy of Oxford D.D. and Josyas White and Robert Pinke of the
university of Oxford aforesaid Maisters of arts of the other part
Witnesseth that the said Robert has granted to those of the 2nd part
the right of patronage of the rectory of Buknell als Buckenhull. To
hold the same for ever, reserving the right of next presentation
provided the same should fall during the lifetime of the said Robert,
of one of the Scholars of New Coll., and the said parties to the 2nd
part to always nominate a Scholar of New Coll., preference to be made
of one of the kindred of the said Geo. Ball. Indenture made 11 Feby.
12 James 1st [1615] Between Josyas White of Hornchurch co. Essex B.D.,
and Robert Pinke of the Univ. of Oxon., B.M., of the one part and the
warden and scholars of New Coll. of the other being an absolute grant
of the advowson of Bucknell with right of patronage, etc. Subject to
the covenant of putting in one of their fellows of the same blood or
kindred of Robert Ball late of Estington co. Gloster (if such a one be
fellow). Witness, etc.”

Generations 10-11. Harold F. Porter, Jr., “Mr. William Cooke, Father-
in-Law of Mr. William Walton of Marblehead, Massachusetts” in The New
England Historic Genealogical Register, (Oct1988), 361, 367. William
Cooke, clerk [clergyman], and Martha White, daughter of John White of
Stanton St. John, county Oxford, gentleman, were married 27 April,
1597. “1597: Guilielmus Cooke cler. et Martha White filia Joh’is White
de Stanton St. Joh’is i com. Oxon. gen. solemn. m’ronio coniucti sunt
27 April.” (Stockton, Wiltshire, England, Marriages). William Cooke
wrote his will on February 7, 1614/5. It was proved in the
Prerogative Court of Canterbury on June 26, 1615. “I ... Devise and
bequeath unto my well-beloved wife Martha Cooke ... those ... lands I
lately purchased of Sir Robert Chichester, knight, being that
howse ... wherein I nowe ... Dwell, which performing all the severall
legacies and bequests aforesaid shee maye either sell or keepe at her
owne pleasure ... to my wife that hundred pounds which remayneth in
the hands of Mr. John White, my father-in-law, and was promised me in
marriage with her, as parte of her marriage porcion … My brother-in-
law Mr. John White, preacher of Gods word at Dorchester.” See also
Will of John White of Staunton, signed September 30, 1616 and proved
at Oxford on September 26, 1618 (Oxford Wills, series ii, vol. iv, p.
224) Extract: “… to my daughter Martha Cooke 20 pounds.”

Generations 11-12. Harold F. Porter, Jr., “Mr. William Cooke, Father-
in-Law of Mr. William Walton of Marblehead, Massachusetts” in The New
England Historic Genealogical Register, (Oct1988), 368. “Children of
William Cooke and Martha White, probably all born at Crediton, Devon;
surname Cooke: … ii. Elizabeth, b. probably ca. 1602; recorded as
‘Elizabeth Cake’ when she m. at Holy Trinity, Dorchester, Dorset, 10
April 1627, William Walton.”

[Wjhonson]

Actually to me, the most obvious place to look for more on Cecily, would be in the records of the life of Thomas Lord Darcy, her stepfather

-------------------------------
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

[John]

> Cooke, clerk [clergyman], and Martha White, daughter of John White of...
>
> read more »

Congratulations, Shawn!

I think you may have found the "smoking gun" - at least insofar as
supporting a connection between Sir Richard Weston the judge and the
Westons of Lichfield. The question of Cecily Neville perhaps needs
further study before the descent from Edward III can be finalized, but
failing that I think there is still a royal descent for the Westons of
Lichfield from Henry II. And, assuming the letter you cite holds up
as evidence, that would aplly also now to Sir Richard the judge and
his descendants.

[Brad Verity]

On Dec 6, 7:01 pm, Shawn <shpx...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Reference the discussion on this topic mostly last month.  I’m posting
> the following additional evidence for this new royal descent as a
> separate thread because of the significance of the discovery.  Today I
> received from The National Archives, UK, a Nineteenth Century Copy of
> a Letter from Sir Simon Weston of Lichfield to Richard Weston, Esq. of
> Rugeley, dated December 9, 1631, D(W)1885/4/6/1.

This (copy of) Sir Simon's letter is archived in the Staffordshire
Record Office amongst the papers of the Landor family, who apparently
married into the family of Weston of Rugeley, Staffs. Also archived
with this copied letter are "Copies of certificates given by Henry
Lily, Rouge Rose re antiquity of Weston family in 1632" and "Copy of
Pedigree of Westons of Roxwell from the Essex Visitation of 1612".
Since Henry Lily was the herald who produced the inaccurate pedigree
of the Westons in the following year, 1632, it seems this letter was
part of the material provided to that herald.

> The letter is
> important because Sir Simon Weston stated that his grandmother was
> Cecily the daughter of Ralph Neville, son of the Earl of Westmorland
> (see a more complete quote under Generations 7-8 below).

Yes, so it would seem Sir Simon is now the only source for the
existence of Cecily Neville Weston, about 100 years after she would've
existed.

> In fact, Sir
> Simon said Cecily was the mother of all five of John Weston’s sons.
> Sir Simon didn’t name Cecily’s daughters, but other sources place them
> in the family.
>
> This letter provides persuasive evidence that Sir William Segar,
> Garter King of Arms, was correct in showing this Weston family to be
> descended from Ralph Neville, Lord Neville.

This letter proves nothing more than Sir Simon stated he was the great-
grandson of Ralph Lord Neville in 1631.

> Sir Simon Weston, who was
> his father’s heir and lived in Lichfield, surely knew the identity of
> his grandmother.

Yes, and we have only his word for it.

> Sir Simon had no apparent motive to fabricate
> information about his grandmother,

He may not have been the origin of the fabrication, but simply
repeating what he had been told by other family members. He could
very well have believed he was of noble descent. He was a knight.
Other members of his family had risen to positions of eminence and
authority. How could they possibly be merely of yeoman stock from
Essex? This was 1631 after all, when your bloodline held ten times
the importance than it does today. In the early 19th-century no less
a person than Sir Egerton Brydges, Baronet, the antiquary and editor
of 'Collins' Peerage of England', spearheaded the effort of his elder
brother to prove their descent from the Brydges Lords Chandos. Turns
out Sir Egerton emphasized certain evidence, outright ignored &
suppressed other evidence and went so far as to deface original parish
registers, all to obscure the fact that their paternal ancestry
was ... yeoman stock from Kent.

> especially since he was writing in
> response to an inquiry by his cousin who was not a descendant of
> Cecily.

The cousin probably sent the initial inquiry to Sir Simon in response
to herald Henry Lily looking into the origins of the Westons. It
can't just be coincidence that the letter was written a year before
the fabricated pedigree.

> Also, Sir Simon apparently was not providing this information
> in an attempt to acquire any benefit for himself.

Elevating the family origins from yeoman stock to noble blood benefits
not only Sir Simon himself but his entire Weston family.

> Perhaps most
> importantly, Sir Simon made these statements about his grandmother at
> a time and in an environment where deception about the identity of his
> grandmother would have been immediately apparent to all around him.

How so? This is 1631, before records were computerized, or even
centralized in many cases. The average Englishman, and indeed the
baronage, would look to the College of Arms as the authority on family
origins and pedigree, and their records were not published and
available to the general public. By 1630 the Westons were a powerful
and wealthy family and the heralds probably hoped to accommodate them
and authenticate their presented pedigree. What was needed to make
the heralds (the experts of their time) sign off on it was a record
from the lifetime of John and Cecily Weston that stated her
parentage. Well, she wasn't in the Neville pedigrees that were
available to the heralds (particularly the pedigree of the 4th Earl of
Westmorland taken by herald Thomas Tonge in 1530) in 1630. Uh oh.
But, no, wait, head herald Sir William Segar abstracted a deed from
1526 that stated John Weston of Rugeley made a grant to his son John
and daughter-in-law Cecily, sister of the Earl of Westmorland, so,
whew, all is well. The Westons can now officially have their
pedigree, and the arms of the Westons of Rugeley, to boot.

Complete Peerage is full of the story of how Sir William Dugdale, head
of the College of Arms later in the 17th century, fabricated an entire
list of summonses to one of Henry VIII's Parliaments. It wasn't until
the 1800s, when many of the records began to be published and
distributed, that errors emerged. And a respected genealogist and
antiquarian like Robert Edmond Chester Waters, when he examined the
Weston pedigree in detail, immediately saw the same red flags in it
that we're discussing today.

> He also encouraged his cousin to examine his own family records since
> “the pefecting  of our pedigree ... cannot be done without sight of
> your ansient residence remaining with you at Ridgley where you may
> find the names of all our anncestours ...”

What an interesting choice of words from Sir Simon: "perfecting" of
the pedigree. As Waters pointed out in 1878, the root of the Weston
pedigree (the descent from Reginald de Baliol) that was produced the
following year is false.

> Further evidence, especially from Neville family probate records and
> deeds, are welcome and should be sought;

I'm afraid they are going to be needed for the pedigree to be accepted
as authentic.

> but I think Sir Simon’s
> letter, taken together with the contemporary deed cited by Waters (see
> Generations 7-8 below), is convincing.  We welcome comments.

The deed cited by Waters needs to be located, which means that Add.
MSS. 18667 in the British Museum is going to have to be looked at, in
case Segar mentioned where he found this deed.

> PS: I wonder what Sir Simon meant when he wrote: “... my grandfather
> John Weston who whilest he lived in England lived in the Citty of
> Lichfield ...”  This sounds as if Sir Simon implied that his
> grandfather lived abroad.

Yes. Where else could he have lived - Ireland, like one of his sons?
Was he an evangelical Protestant who fled to the continent when Mary
Tudor took the throne? What, exactly, is known of John Weston of
Lichfield? But, anyways, how convenient that he lived abroad,
especially if you're trying to convince distant Cousin Weston of
Rugeley that, yes, you are indeed related, you know, through John, the
son from Lichfield, well, when he was in England.

> Generations 7-8.  Nineteenth Century Copy of a Letter from Sir Simon
> Weston of Lichfield to Richard Weston, Esq. of Rugeley, Dated December
> 9, 1631, D(W)1885/4/6/1, The National Archives, UK.  “(From Sir Simon
> Weston Knt) To my rt wort. cozen Richard Weston Esq at his home in
> Ridgley Cosen Weston to satisfie your desire in answer of your lter
> for the pefecting  of our pedigree which I know cannot be done without
> sight of your ansient residence remaining with you at Ridgley

The wording is a little confusing, but I read this as Sir Simon
telling Richard Weston of Rugeley that he needs Richard's assistance
to "perfect" a pedigree already formed (by Sir Simon & his family)
that ties them into the Westons of Rugeley.

> where
> you may find the names of all our anncestours and especially of my
> grandsire [great-grandfather] who was your anncestour and of my
> grandfather John Weston who whilest he lived in England lived in the
> Citty of Lichfield

This implies that Richard Weston of Rugeley had no previous idea how
(or if?) he was related to Sir Simon.

> and had to wife Cecely the daughter of Ralph
> Neville that died in the life time of the Erle of Westmorland his
> father who had five [sons] by the said Cicely Edmund Weston his oldest
> soune Richard Weston the Judge his second soune and grandfather to the
> now Lord Treasurer Robert Weston Chancellor of Ireland his third soun
> James Weston of the place where I now live in the City of Lichfield
> his fourth soune Christopher Weston his fifth son;

Five sons for John Weston & Cecily Neville, and not one named
'Ralph'? I don't know why Sir Simon said his grandmother Cecily was
the daughter of Ralph Lord Neville. He either cynically knew it
wasn't true but would go unchallenged, or over the past century what
had been some type of relationship to the Nevilles of Westmorland was
exaggerated in family lore and she became Lord Neville's daughter.
There's little to no chance that she was a legitimate daughter, as the
Westons of Rugeley were not of a social level to marry into the
peerage. I suppose its possible that she was a bastard daughter or a
step-daughter. Were any of the daughters of John and Cecily Weston
given the name 'Edith'?

Another hurdle to this line of descent is the Weston pedigree in the
1612 Visitation of Essex. Richard Weston of Skreens, Justice of the
Common Pleas, is simply said to spring from "Weston descended from the
Auntient desente of Westons" and the only sibling given to him is an
unnamed sister "mar. to Slade of Staffordsh." Now if the family had
been able to produce evidence to the herald in 1612 that Richard of
Skreens was the grandson of Ralph Lord Neville and/or brother to the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland in the 1570s, they would certainly have
done so. That's precisely what visitations were for: to prove your
right to bear arms and identify your relationships to notable
individuals.

Sorry, Shawn, but I'm not at all convinced that the Westons are
descended from the Nevilles of Westmorland. I'm not even convinced
that Richard Weston the Judge was the brother of Sir Simon's father
James Weston of Lichfield.

Cheers, ------Brad

[Wjhonson]

The Launder pedigree behind this man

http://books.google.com/books?id=vCSYCHEq4iUC&pg=PA55

[Douglas Richardson]

Shawn ~

From what you say above, you have a 19th Century copy of an "original"
letter allegedly written in 1631. While I'm not as quick as some to
suspect fraud, it surely has happened over the course of time.
Because fraud has been alleged to have occurred in the preparation of
the Weston family pedigree, you have to consider that any evidence
generated by Weston family archives may be tainted.

In short, to verify the existence of Cecily, wife of John Weston, you
need to go outside Weston family sources. As I've also pointed out,
Cecily Weston is not mentioned in two Neville family pedigrees, nor
for that matter is her other alleged sister, Isabel, wife of Sir
Robert Plumpton and Laurence Keighley. This is almost certainly fatal
to both girls being a member of the Neville family. In the case of
Isabel, it was a modern historian who made the identification of her
parentage based on a faulty reading of a letter. No fraud was
intended there. Cecily Weston is a different matter altogether.

All the same, you're asking the right questions, Shawn. I admire your
perserverance.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Brad Verity]

On Dec 7, 2:59 am, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I don't know why Sir Simon said his grandmother Cecily was
> the daughter of Ralph Lord Neville.  He either cynically knew it
> wasn't true but would go unchallenged, or over the past century what
> had been some type of relationship to the Nevilles of Westmorland was
> exaggerated in family lore and she became Lord Neville's daughter.
> There's little to no chance that she was a legitimate daughter, as the
> Westons of Rugeley were not of a social level to marry into the
> peerage.

I want to be clearer than I was above. If Cecily, wife of John
Weston, had been a legitimate daughter of Ralph Lord Neville and Edith
Sandys, one would expect her husband John Weston (of Weeford?) to have
had a career similar to Sir Richard Weston of Sutton Place and his
father Sir Edmund Weston, who were long-time servants of Henry VII and
Henry VIII rewarded with offices, and who appear throughout the
records of those two monarchs. Sir Richard even married a Sandys lady
- Anne, the daughter of Oliver Sandys (d. 1515). Was Oliver a brother
of Edith Lady Neville, and so Anne Weston her niece? That may be the
origin of the later Westons c.1630 trying to claim a descent from Lord
Neville. At any rate, Anne Sandys Weston was a lady-in-waiting first
to Elizabeth of York, and then to Katherine of Aragon.

John and Cecily Weston should appear in more records from the early
1500s than the single fine that Segar either abstracted or invented in
the 1632 Weston pedigree. Especially as it could be argued that Cecily
Weston (if daughter of Ralph Lord Neville) was even better connected
than Anne Sandys Weston. But instead the only evidence of the
existence of a John and Cecily Weston at all is in instances that have
been shown to be fabricated: a memorial brass in Rugeley Church (where
the Cecily Weston is identified as a Ford by birth, not a Neville),
and the 1632 Weston pedigree. And now in a 1631 letter written by Sir
Simon Weston, who appears to be tied to another pedigree giving him a
different Neville descent:

"In Harleian M.S. 6128 is also found the following descent, which has
some interest as connected with the Mytton Pedigree:--William Weston,
of Prested Hall [Essex], by Margaret his wife, temp. Hy. viij, had
issue John or Thomas Weston, who, marrying a daughter of Nevill, Lord
Abergavenny, had issue James, the husband of Margery, elder daughter
of Humphrey Low of Lichfield, by whom he had issue Sir Simon
Weston ..."

So Sir Simon seemed determined to give himself a Neville descent and
can't be considered an objective informant.

Cheers, ----Brad

[Wjhonson]

I also have to say I think Brad had it right when he stated that she was either illegitimate, or that the Westons had somehow hoisted themselves up, through a false memory of some other type of office.

Shawn I would suggest you start trawling through the Access to Archives website, which has hundreds probably thousands of original documents, from this very time period, looking for various of the names that have been thrown about in this thread.

I happened to hit a glancing blow, while I was looking for something else, and noticed a Weston, Darcy, Neville connection from this time period, but it was only in the offices of things like witnesses and feoffees without naming a specific relationship. It does however prove that the families stated here (not some other Nevilles, Westons, and Darcy) did have some kind of dealings together. But it is not good evidence from a relationship.

It is good evidence, that a person a hundred years later, interested in promoting their family connections, might then *claim* that these prove a relationship...

Which is in general I think (if I read it correctly) at what Brad was getting as well.

So while I don't think this is good evidence from a descent from the Lord Neville, I *do* think it's a curious case and worth while to explore to see what was the true story. And to do that, you're going to have to sleuth deeper and also wider.

[John]

See notes interleaved below:

On Dec 7, 9:28 am, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2:59 am, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know why Sir Simon said his grandmother Cecily was
> > the daughter of Ralph Lord Neville.  He either cynically knew it
> > wasn't true but would go unchallenged, or over the past century what
> > had been some type of relationship to the Nevilles of Westmorland was
> > exaggerated in family lore and she became Lord Neville's daughter.
> > There's little to no chance that she was a legitimate daughter, as the
> > Westons of Rugeley were not of a social level to marry into the
> > peerage.
>
> I want to be clearer than I was above.  If Cecily, wife of John
> Weston, had been a legitimate daughter of Ralph Lord Neville and Edith
> Sandys, one would expect her husband John Weston (of Weeford?) to have
> had a career similar to Sir Richard Weston of Sutton Place and his
> father Sir Edmund Weston, who were long-time servants of Henry VII and
> Henry VIII rewarded with offices, and who appear throughout the
> records of those two monarchs.  Sir Richard even married a Sandys lady
> - Anne, the daughter of Oliver Sandys (d. 1515).  Was Oliver a brother
> of Edith Lady Neville, and so Anne Weston her niece?  That may be the
> origin of the later Westons c.1630 trying to claim a descent from Lord
> Neville.  At any rate, Anne Sandys Weston was a lady-in-waiting first
> to Elizabeth of York, and then to Katherine of Aragon.

These various families of Weston can be quite confusing. The Westons
of Sutton Place (including Sir Richard and Sir Edmund above) are said
to be connected to the Westons of Roxwell and Prested, but I'm not
sure if the connection is well defined. The latter Westons, including
Sir Richard the justice (who is not Sir Richard of Sutton Place) and
his descendant the Weston Earl of Portland, are the ones who are said
to be involved in the apparent concoction of the fraudulent pedigree,
to link them (via Weston of Lichfield) to the Nevilles. But I've
haven't seen any indication that the Westons of Sutton Place also
claimed the Neville connection.

>
> John and Cecily Weston should appear in more records from the early
> 1500s than the single fine that Segar either abstracted or invented in
> the 1632 Weston pedigree. Especially as it could be argued that Cecily
> Weston (if daughter of Ralph Lord Neville) was even better connected
> than Anne Sandys Weston.  But instead the only evidence of the
> existence of a John and Cecily Weston at all is in instances that have
> been shown to be fabricated: a memorial brass in Rugeley Church (where
> the Cecily Weston is identified as a Ford by birth, not a Neville),
> and the 1632 Weston pedigree.

As I read the Weston pedigrees, the John Weston who married Cecily
Ford is a separate individual from the John Weston (of Lichfield) who
supposedly married Cecily Neville - the first being a nephew of the
second. The memorial brass may well be legitimate, but may have been
confused (intentionally or otherwise) by those attempting to construct
a Neville connection.

> And now in a 1631 letter written by Sir
> Simon Weston, who appears to be tied to another pedigree giving him a
> different Neville descent:
>
> "In Harleian M.S. 6128 is also found the following descent, which has
> some interest as connected with the Mytton Pedigree:--William Weston,
> of Prested Hall [Essex], by Margaret his wife, temp. Hy. viij, had
> issue John or Thomas Weston, who, marrying a daughter of Nevill, Lord
> Abergavenny, had issue James, the husband of Margery, elder daughter
> of Humphrey Low of Lichfield, by whom he had issue Sir Simon
> Weston ..."

This last piece of pedigree certainly seems to be dubious, as it
doesn't match ANY of the other versions of the Weston pedigrees.

>
> So Sir Simon seemed determined to give himself a Neville descent and
> can't be considered an objective informant.
>
> Cheers,                ----Brad

It's worth keeping in mind that there are two distinct problems in the
walton descent that Shawn is attempting to prove:
1) the connection of Weston of Roxwell (Sir Richard the justice) to
Weston of Lichfield
2) the connection of Weston of Lichfield to the supposed Neville
daughter

It's possible that both problems are results of the concoction of the
fraudulent pedigree under the direction of the grandson of Sir Richard
the justice, but it's possible that they may have had separate origins.

[John]

On Dec 7, 9:41 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> I happened to hit a glancing blow, while I was looking for something else, and noticed a Weston, Darcy, Neville connection from this time period, but it was only in the offices of things like witnesses and feoffees without naming a specific relationship.  It does however prove that the families stated here (not some other Nevilles, Westons, and Darcy) did have some kind of dealings together.  But it is not good evidence from a relationship.
>
> It is good evidence, that a person a hundred years later, interested in promoting their family connections, might then *claim* that these prove a relationship...
>

This point is worth emphasizing: The fact the certain families had
"some kind of dealings together" is not good (or at least not
sufficient) evidence to prove (or even "claim") that they had a
genealogical relationship.

And it's not just "a person a hundred years later" doing this. We see
it often even today - notably from a certain genealogist is a frequent
poster to this group.

[Shawn]

Thank you all for your thought-provoking responses. Those who express
skepticism about the reliability of Sir Simon’s letter raise questions
that should be addressed. Those who offer encouragement and advice
inspire further effort. I appreciate all the comments; and I agree
that more evidence must be sought and discovered in order to be
confident that this lineage is correct.

With respect to the much repeated accusation that Henry Lily
fabricated and Sir William Segar erroneously certified the Weston
lineage, I believe those charges are, at best, premature. What
evidence has been put forth to support such harsh statements? In
1878, almost 250 years after the publication of the lineage, Waters
wrote that he doubted the accuracy of the lineage, saying the deed
Segar cited “is in the silence of all other authorities a very
unsatisfactory proof of Cecily’s parentage.” I wonder how extensively
Waters searched for evidence regarding the lineage (see my questions
about this below). Then, twenty years later, Lee (ODNB) cited Waters
as evidence for his own statement that the lineage is “an elaborate
pedigree fabricated for Portland’s benefit in 1632 by Henry Lilly,
then rouge croix, certified by Sir William Segar ...” It is circular
logic to say, as some seem to suggest, that the lineage was fabricated
because there is no evidence to support the lineage, so Sir Simon’s
letter, which supports the lineage, must be part of a conspiracy.

With respect to Waters’ scholarship, he said, in effect, that he knew
of no other evidence, besides the Segar deed, that supports the claim
that Cecily’s father was Ralph Neville, Lord Neville. If Waters did
not know about Sir Simon’s letter, then he didn’t have all the facts.
If he knew about Sir Simon’s letter and chose not to mention it, then
he failed to reveal and address an important piece of evidence. In
either case, Waters does not appear to be the most reliable source to
assess the work of Henry Lily and Sir William Segar almost 250 years
earlier.

The idea that Sir Simon Weston, Richard Weston of Rugeley, Sir Richard
Weston, 1st Earl of Portland, Sir William Segar, Henry Lily, and who
knows who else conspired to fabricate a false pedigree during the
lifetime of the grandchildren of the person in question (Cecily
Neville) and that this lineage was accepted by Lichfield scholars
Sampson Erdeswick, Thomas Harwood, and all of the English nobility for
over 250 years until Waters discovered the conspiracy seems too
fantastic to believe.

Shawn

> Cooke, clerk [clergyman], and Martha White, daughter of John White of ...
>
> read more »

[Wjhonson]

You are creating an extreme case which no such extreme case exists.
To say that a situation is "accepted" by the nobility doesn't mean anything.
There was nothing for this man to inherit by this claim, so making the claim didn't actually impact anyone.
If there had been something like a title, or land or something, then certainly people would have come forward to contest it.
That's all.

We are used today, to being able to gain access to wide amount of knowledge quickly, but that was hardly the case in an age when there were no real public libraries and manuscripts like these were written in the single copies but private use. It's not like lineages of this sort were trumpted all about for people to contest.

Instead of trying to make an extreme case, you should be spending your time in dragging out new documents, of which there are some, not yet brought forward, to make or break your case.

-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn <shp...@comcast.net>

To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: Additonal Evidence for New Walton Descent from Edward III

[Brad Verity]

On Dec 7, 10:53 am, John <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> These various families of Weston can be quite confusing.  The Westons
> of Sutton Place (including Sir Richard and Sir Edmund above) are said
> to be connected to the Westons of Roxwell and Prested, but I'm not
> sure if the connection is well defined.  The latter Westons, including
> Sir Richard the justice (who is not Sir Richard of Sutton Place) and
> his descendant the Weston Earl of Portland, are the ones who are said
> to be involved in the apparent concoction of the fraudulent pedigree,
> to link them (via Weston of Lichfield) to the Nevilles.  But I've
> haven't seen any indication that the Westons of Sutton Place also
> claimed the Neville connection.

I didn't mean to imply that the Westons of Sutton Place claimed to
descend from the Nevilles. I just believe that John Weston of Weeford
should appear in the records from the late 15th & early 16th centuries
as frequently as Sir Edmund Weston & his son Sir Richard Weston appear
in those records. A look at Sir Richard Weston's bios in The History
of Parliament 1509-1558 and in ODNB provides a long list of the
offices he held under the first two Tudor kings. If John Weston of
Weeford existed and married a sister of the young earl of Westmorland,
he must have been quite accomplished and have achieved much to warrant
being granted the privilege of such a match. Afterwards, he would be
considered a leading magnate in the northern counties, on track to be
a justice of the peace, sheriff, even returned to Parliament. He was
entitled to be viewed as an older brother by the 4th Earl of
Westmorland, and could expect a role in the earl's household and
entrusted as a feoffee in Neville of Westmorland family land
transactions. This is what Waters meant in 1878 when he referred to
"the silence of all other authorities." Even if Cecily & John Weston's
absence from the 4th Earl of Westmorland's pedigree taken by the
herald in 1530 could be explained as sisters being excluded, there is
a whole swath of records available from c.1490-1550 where one would
expect to find them. So much more is easily available & searchable
today than it was in 1878 - maybe they will turn up in some. They
need to - if they existed at the status level claimed by the Westons
in 1630-32 - appear in other records, or their absence from record
becomes difficult to explain.

> As I read the Weston pedigrees, the John Weston who married Cecily
> Ford is a separate individual from the John Weston (of Lichfield) who
> supposedly married Cecily Neville - the first being a nephew of the
> second.

Has the Weston pedigree from 1632 been printed in any form? I could
not find it a page 126 in Harwood's 'A Survey of Staffordshire:

Containing the Antiquities of that County by Sampson Erdeswick,

Esq.'

> The memorial brass may well be legitimate, but may have been
> confused (intentionally or otherwise) by those attempting to construct
> a Neville connection.

It is apparently in a 1992 article: "The Weston Brass at Rugeley,
Staffordshire," in The Antiquaries Journal, that author Jerome Bertram
makes the claim that the brass, dated 1566, looks to have been forged
c.1620-30. I haven't read the article so I don't know what made
Bertram arrive at that conclusion. I just find it noteworthy that
even in this record (the memorial brass) of a John and Cecily Weston
(and apparently not even the same ones in question, according to the
pedigree), a cloud of fraud hangs in the air.

Waters in 1878 found the will of an Essex yeoman, John Weston of
Stanford le Hope, who died in 1521 and had a wife named Cecily. If a
yeoman and his wife of the same name can turn up in a record in 1521,
it could be expected that the sister and brother-in-law of an earl
would as well.

> > "In Harleian M.S. 6128 is also found the following descent, which has
> > some interest as connected with the Mytton Pedigree:--William Weston,
> > of Prested Hall [Essex], by Margaret his wife, temp. Hy. viij, had
> > issue John or Thomas Weston, who, marrying a daughter of Nevill, Lord
> > Abergavenny, had issue James, the husband of Margery, elder daughter
> > of Humphrey Low of Lichfield, by whom he had issue Sir Simon
> > Weston ..."
>
> This last piece of pedigree certainly seems to be dubious, as it
> doesn't match ANY of the other versions of the Weston pedigrees.

H. Sydney Grazebrook in 1882, in his Introduction to his edition of
'The Visitacion of Staffordschire made by Robert Glover, al's Somerset
herald Anno D'ni 1583', has this to say about the manuscript in which
the above pedigree appears (p. xvii): "Harl. MS. 6128. A very valuable
collection of pedigrees of Staffordshire families, which has been
largely used by genealogists and almost invariably quoted as 'The
Visitation of 1583' - which it certainly is not. Its date is circa
1620."

So the pedigree above for the Westons of Lichfield has a date of circa
1620. Presumably it was compiled by a herald from information
provided by Sir Simon Weston or a member of his immediate family,
since there was no pedigree taken of the Westons of Rugeley or the
Westons of Lichfield in the actual Staffordshire visitation of 1583,
which a herald could have worked from in 1620.

Then, 10 to 12 years later in 1631, Sir Simon writes to the head of
the Weston of Rugeley family claiming that his grandfather's father
was a Weston of Rugeley, not William Weston of Prested Hall in Essex
as in the earlier pedigree above. It looks to me that something
happened in those 10-12 years between the pedigree & Simon's letter
that changed his (or his immediate family's) lineage story.

Another interesting point that emerges from Grazebrook's edition of
the 1583 Staffordshire Visitation is that, though "Ric'us Weston, de
Rudgeley, gen." was summoned to appear before the herald and provide
his pedigree & evidences, James Weston of Lichfield, who would be
elected to Parliament for Lichfield in the following year (1584), was
not so summoned. Another one of the over 100 county gentleman
summoned to appear before the herald was "Rob'tus Welles, de
Horecrosse, ar." Sadly, Richard Weston of Rugeley did not meet the
herald's summons, denying posterity a snapshot of his family in 1583.
It was Humphrey Welles, the nephew and heir of the childless Robert
Welles of Horecross, who answered the summons sent to his uncle and
who provided the pedigree of Welles to the herald (pp. 145-146).
Humphrey is interesting because his second wife was Katherine Weston,
the daughter of James Weston and the sister of Sir Simon Weston of the
1631 letter. In the Welles pedigree, Humphrey's second wife is given
as "Katherina, filia Jacobi Weston de Lechfeilde". Now, according to
the letter Sir Simon wrote in 1631, his father James Weston of
Lichfield was a grandson of Lord Neville and so could claim close
kinship to the earls of Westmorland, Rutland and Oxford, and to Lord
Dacre. Sir Simon even said that his grandfather John Weston - the
husband of Lord Neville's daughter - was seated at Lichfield when he
was in England. Yet in 1583 his father did not even receive a summons
to appear before the herald, which implies that James Weston - the
representative of his own father in the original family seat,
Lichfield - was not even claiming, or perceived to be entitled to, the
right to bear arms at all at that point.

A final point before leaving Grazebrook's work on the 1583
Staffordshire Visitation. He includes in it a list of 'The Doubtful
Arms of Staffordshire', which he took from Harl. MS. 1570 ("Written
and tricked by divers hands; more especially by Mr. Nicholas Charles
and Mr. Richard Mundy." It contains "a very good copy" of Glover's
Visitation, but with "very many enlargements and continuations by
Richard Mundy and others,' and 'some descents entered by Mr. Mundy
which were either not at all registered at the Visitation of the
County in 1583, or at least not in so ample a manner"). At the end of
this list is "Sir Symond Weston, of Lichfield. Ermine, on a chief
azure five bezants, a martlet gules for difference." Grazebrook
acknowledges that Sir Simon's appearance on this list had to be a
later interpolation as he was not a knight in 1583, and not the head
of his family as his father James was still living at the time. Also
other MS copies of the 1563 Visitation do not have Sir Simon's name &
arms at the end of this Doubtful Arms List. But it does demonstrate
that at least one herald (Richard Mundy?) had doubts as to whether or
not Sir Simon had the right to bear the arms he was claiming.

> It's worth keeping in mind that there are two distinct problems in the
> walton descent that Shawn is attempting to prove:
> 1) the connection of Weston of Roxwell (Sir Richard the justice) to
> Weston of Lichfield

On the surface it would seem natural to take Sir Simon at his word in
his 1631 letter that Sir Richard the Justice was his father's
brother. It seems plausible that two brothers (three if you count
James Weston of Lichfield) could rise together in the world and become
a Chancellor of Ireland, a Judge seated in Essex, and a M.P. elected
by their hometown of Lichfield. If this were so in 1631, it was also
so in 1612. So why didn't the Westons of Prasted Hall (the family of
Richard the Judge) not make such a claim to the herald when they
appeared before him that year for the Essex Visitation? Why was the
only sibling given to Richard the Justice in that pedigree, an unnamed
sister married to a Slade of Staffordshire, if he truly had such
eminent men as his brothers?

Again, a claim Sir Simon makes in 1631 (and ratified by the College of
Arms the following year in an elaborate Weston pedigree) is not
supported - even contradicted - by evidence from an earlier date.

> It's possible that both problems are results of the concoction of the
> fraudulent pedigree under the direction of the grandson of Sir Richard
> the justice, but it's possible that they may have had separate origins.

Very true.

On Dec 7, 7:01 pm, Shawn <shpx...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Thank you all for your thought-provoking responses. Those who express
> skepticism about the reliability of Sir Simon’s letter raise questions
> that should be addressed. Those who offer encouragement and advice
> inspire further effort. I appreciate all the comments; and I agree
> that more evidence must be sought and discovered in order to be

> confident that this lineage is correct.

We wouldn't be able to have this discussion if you hadn't taken the
time and made the effort to gather all of the information. I hope
you're finding the process enjoyable, Shawn!

> With respect to the much repeated accusation that Henry Lily
> fabricated and Sir William Segar erroneously certified the Weston
> lineage, I believe those charges are, at best, premature. What
> evidence has been put forth to support such harsh statements?

I just put forward some more evidence in my response to John's post
above.

> In
> 1878, almost 250 years after the publication of the lineage, Waters
> wrote that he doubted the accuracy of the lineage, saying the deed
> Segar cited “is in the silence of all other authorities a very
> unsatisfactory proof of Cecily’s parentage.” I wonder how extensively
> Waters searched for evidence regarding the lineage (see my questions
> about this below).

He seems to have searched enough to locate a John and Cecily Weston in
Essex in a 1521 document. But certainly Waters had only a fraction of
the material available to him in 1878 that we have today.

> Then, twenty years later, Lee (ODNB) cited Waters
> as evidence for his own statement that the lineage is “an elaborate
> pedigree fabricated for Portland’s benefit in 1632 by Henry Lilly,
> then rouge croix, certified by Sir William Segar ...”

OK, so Lee agreed with Waters' conclusion, though he worded it more
extremely.

> It is circular
> logic to say, as some seem to suggest, that the lineage was fabricated
> because there is no evidence to support the lineage, so Sir Simon’s
> letter, which supports the lineage, must be part of a conspiracy.

I don't know about circular logic. But if Sir Simon in 1631 and Segar/
Lilly in 1632 were providing an accurate pedigree of the Weston family
as it existed in c.1490-1575 (the approximate lifespans of Cecily and
John Weston if she was the daughter of Ralph Lord Neville), then
evidence from c.1490-1575 (NOT from 1631-32) should exist that
reflects that pedigree.

So far the only piece of evidence that does so in that timeframe is
the deed of 1526 cited by Segar in 1632. So that 1526 deed needs to
be brought forward and examined. Meanwhile three pieces of evidence
(the 1530 Visitation pedigree of the 4th Earl of Westmorland, the
apparent lack of any arms borne by James Weston of Lichfield at the
time of the 1583 Staffordshire Visitation, and the pedigree presented
to the herald by the Westons of Prasted Hall at the 1612 Essex
Visitation) do not support the 1631-32 Weston pedigree claims of Sir
Simon and Lilly/Segar.

> With respect to Waters’ scholarship, he said, in effect, that he knew
> of no other evidence, besides the Segar deed, that supports the claim
> that Cecily’s father was Ralph Neville, Lord Neville. If Waters did
> not know about Sir Simon’s letter, then he didn’t have all the facts.

OK.

> If he knew about Sir Simon’s letter and chose not to mention it, then
> he failed to reveal and address an important piece of evidence.

Since it was the A2A Catalogue which led you to Sir Simon's letter,
and since neither A2A nor anything like it existed in 1878, and the
letter was in the hands of a private family at that time, I feel
confident that Waters had no knowledge of the letter.

> In
> either case, Waters does not appear to be the most reliable source to
> assess the work of Henry Lily and Sir William Segar almost 250 years
> earlier.

On the contrary, Waters, a thorough and expert genealogist in 1878,
was even more qualified to evaluate a pedigree than any herald working
at the College of Arms in 1632, because of the vastly greater amounts
of records and material available to him 250 years later.

> The idea that Sir Simon Weston, Richard Weston of Rugeley, Sir Richard
> Weston, 1st Earl of Portland, Sir William Segar, Henry Lily, and who
> knows who else conspired to fabricate a false pedigree during the
> lifetime of the grandchildren of the person in question (Cecily
> Neville)

We have no way of knowing whether or not Richard Weston of Rugeley
believed Sir Simon in 1631, so you can remove him from the circle of
conspirators. On this, however, it may be noteworthy that the Weston
of Rugeley pedigree presented by the family to herald Sir William
Dugdale at his 1665-66 Visitation of Staffordshire makes no mention of
the Westons of Lichfield, or the Earl of Portland, but begins only two
generations back from the then-living head of the family.

> and that this lineage was accepted by Lichfield scholars
> Sampson Erdeswick, Thomas Harwood,

In what year did Erdeswick publish his work presenting the lineage?
Harwood published in 1820. Was his purpose to fact-check Erdeswick,
or merely re-publish his work?

> and all of the English nobility for
> over 250 years

How can we possibly know how much, if any, of the English nobility
ever even saw the 1632 Weston pedigree produced by Lilly & Segar? It
was made by them for the 1st Earl of Portland. It wasn't distributed
to the peerage.

> until Waters discovered the conspiracy seems too
> fantastic to believe.

The only Weston that we know of who made the claim to be descended
from the Nevilles of Westmorland was Sir Simon. A pedigree matching
the claim Sir Simon made was produced by Lilly & Segar the following
year and presented to the Earl of Portland. We don't know if Portland
provided Lilly & Segar the information in the pedigree, or they
gathered it themselves. Segar as head of the College of Arms, could
have signed off on a pedigree that stated the Westons were descended
from a Yorkshire shepherd, and his word would stand as the official
reality because of his position, until when and if it was legally
challenged. Which in at least one case it was (but not the Weston
case).

Cheers, ---Brad

[Wjhonson]

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZT_QAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA199
Collections for a history of Staffordshire, Volume 12, p199
"On the Morrow of Holy Trinity 1 E VI Between Thomas Fynderne and William Dethyck complainants and John Weston gentleman and Cecilia his wife deforciants of the manors of Haglay sic and Lyngr and Horton and of 12 messuages 400 acres of land 200 acres of meadow 3tX acres of pasture 40 acres of wood and 53s 4d of rent in Ryglay Horton Brewarton Tymover Whyttyngton and Fyssherwyok John and Cecilia remitted all right to the complainants for which they gave them 800 marks of silver "

[Tony Hoskins]

Weston, Richard (d. 1572), judge
by J. H. Baker
(c) Oxford University Press 2004-11 All rights reserved

Weston, Richard (d. 1572), judge, was probably a grandson of William Weston (d. 1513/14) of Essex and London, mercer, and lived in Essex until his death. The arms on his monument were the same as William's but differenced by a martlet charged with a molet, indicating that he was the third son of a fourth son. To judge from his standing in the Middle Temple, he was probably admitted in the mid-1530s, in which case he would have been born in the 1510s. That makes it difficult to identify him with the youngest son of Richard Weston of Colchester, Essex, who (together with two elder brothers) was under age at his father's death in 1541-2. Some pedigrees make him the second son of John Weston of Lichfield, Staffordshire, who was the fourth son of John Weston of Rugeley, and whose descendants included two judges in the reign of Charles I. Nothing is known of the lawyer before 1548, when he was counsel to Admiral Seymour. In 1553 he was returned to parliament by Lostwithiel, and he served for three other constituencies in the 1550s. About 1554, the year in which he became a justice of the peace for Essex, he succeeded Anthony Browne (another Essex Middle Templar) as clerk of assize on the home circuit. That was also the year in which he delivered his only reading in the Middle Temple, on a statute of 1539 concerning joint tenants and tenants in common. Now well established in his profession, he purchased in January 1555 the manor of Skreens in Roxwell, near Writtle, Essex, which he made his principal seat. He acquired various other lands in Essex, from Tilbury in the south to Dunmow in the north.

On 20 November 1557 Weston was appointed solicitor-general, an office that ended on the demise of the queen one year later. However, on 26 January 1559 he was created serjeant-at-law at a single call, the first of its kind for a serjeant who was not being appointed a chief justice. It seems that he was already marked to fill the vacancy in the common pleas created by Catlin's promotion on 22 January, but he was made to serve at the bar for most of the year as one of the queen's serjeants before he received his judicial patent in October 1559. He remained a puisne justice of the common pleas until his death on 6 July 1572, when he was buried at Writtle, Essex, near the body of his second wife. There is a tomb chest in the church with three brass shields of arms, but no inscription or effigy, in accordance with his testamentary wish that it should be 'made withoute curiositie'. The impalements on the shields record his three marriages. His first wife was Wyburgh (d. 1553), daughter of Anthony Catesby of Whiston, Northamptonshire, and widow of Richard Jenour (d. 1548) of Great Dunmow, Essex, clerk of the court of surveyors. Their only son, Jerome, was the father of Richard Weston, first earl of Portland. They also had a daughter. The judge's second wife was Margaret, daughter of Eustace Burneby and widow of Thomas Addington. They had one son, Nicholas, still under age in 1572, and two daughters. His third wife, whom he married in 1566, was Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Lovett of Astwell, Northamptonshire, widow of Anthony Cave and of John Newdegate. Elizabeth died in 1577.

J. H. BAKER
Sources HoP, Commons, 1509-58, 3.589-90 * Baker, Serjeants, 171, 543 * will, TNA: PRO, PROB 11/54, sig. 26 * C. H. Hopwood, ed., Middle Temple records, 1: 1501-1603 (1904) * BL, Harley MS 5156, fols. 38v-40 * W. C. Metcalfe, ed., The visitations of Essex, 1, Harleian Society, 13 (1878), 319 * S. Erdeswick, A survey of Staffordshire, ed. T. Harwood, new edn (1844), facing p. 164 [pedigree] * CPR, 1553-4, 32; 1554-5, 104 * inquisition post mortem, TNA: PRO, C142/160/35 * BL, Harley MS 1137, fol. 60



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Oxford University Press 2004-11 All rights reserved

J. H. Baker, 'Weston, Richard (d. 1572)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/29125, accessed 7 Dec 2011]

Richard Weston (d. 1572): doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/29125

[Blood Royal1964]

A very good read about the Weston family...of Sutton:
Annals of an old manor-house: Sutton Place, Guildford
By Frederic Harrison
http://books.google.com/books?id=VrwuAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22Weston%20pedigree%22&pg=PR15#v=onepage&q=Neville&f=false
Wills, pedigrees and more information on the Weston family, even a bit
on the coats of arms including Neville p.191 ans 210.
BUT as we all know, a bit of stained glass a true pedigree does not
make if one can not support the claim with peer reviewed
documents. I am sorry, but I must put my Weston family line on the
back burner as this Neville connection seems shadowed
at best. Anyway, here is the notations from this book that refer to
the Neville family.

P. 191
Window on Eastern Staircase, south
The two large six-light windows with stone mullions on the staircases
east and west of the great hall were placed on the south or
garden side of the house by F. H. Salvin in 1857. They had in them
painted glass coats of arms from the designs of C. A. Buckler.
They give, with names and dates, the coats of the Westons and their
wives from Sir R. Weston the second, died 1611, to
Melior Mary, died 1782. In each case but the last the arms of Weston
impale those of the wife. They are as follows—
1. Weston, ermine on a chief azure, five bezants, impaling Dister,
gules, a chevron ermine between three eagles displayed argent; for Sir
Richard Weston, died 1611, married Jane Dister of Bergholt, Essex.
2. Weston impaling Harper, sable, a chevron and canton ermine; for Sir
R. Weston, the agriculturist, married Grace Harper of Cheshunt, Herts,
died 1652.
3. Weston impaling Copley, argent, a cross moline sable; for John
Weston, died 1690, married Mary Copley of Gatton.
4. Weston impaling Nevill of Holt, gules, a saltire argent; for
Richard Weston, married Melior Nevill of Holt.
5. Weston impaling Gage, per saltire azure and argent, a saltire
gules; for John Weston, died 1730, married Elizabeth, sister of
Thomas, Viscount Gage.
6. Melior Mary Weston, died 1782, the last lineal descendant of the
founder.
Window on Western Staircase, south
The window on the south-western staircase, feeing garden, has also six
coats for the owners of the WebbeWeston family.
1. Weston impaling Lawson, argent, a chevron between three martlets
sable; for John Webbe-Weston, married (1778) Elizabeth Lawson.
2. Weston impaling Constable, quarterly gules and vaire, over all a
bend or; for John Webbe - Weston, married (1795) Mary Constable.
3. Weston impaling Graham, or on a bend sable, three escallops of the
first; for John Joshua Webbe-Weston, married (1811) Caroline Graham.
4. Weston impaling Waldegrave, per pale argent and gules; for John J.
Webbe-Weston, married (1847) Lady Horatia Waldegrave.
5. Weston impaling Wright, azure, two bars argent, in chief a
leopard's head or; for Thomas Donnington Webbe-Weston, married (1854)
Mary Wright.
6. Salvin, argent on a chief sable, two mullets of the first, a mullet
for difference; for Francis Henry Salvin of Croxdale, County Durham,
succeeded 1857; present owner.

P: 210
There is also T. C, doubtless for Sir Thomas Copley, and I. P., both
with string ornaments in the Henri II. French manner (1550).
There are also, apparently of later date, two small shields of eight
quarterings. These are (A) apparently for William Cecil, second Earl
of Exeter,
1613, married Lady Elizabeth Manners, Baroness Roos, only daughter of
Edward, third Earl of Rutland.—See J. Doyle, Official Baronage of
England, i. 716, and iii. 190. These coats are (A) Cec1l impaling
Manners.
(A) 1. Barry of ten, argent and azure, over all six escutcheons, 3, 2,
1, sable, each charged with a lioncel rampant of the first, Cec1l.
2. Per pale gules and azure, a lion rampant argent, holding a tree
eradicated vert, Wynston of Hereford.
p
3. Or, two bars azure, a chief quarterly azure and gules, 1 and 4
charged with two fleurs de lys, 2 and 3 with a lion passant guardant,
all or, Manners.
4. Gules, three water bougets argent, De Roos.
5. (Broken) ? gules, a saltire argent, Nev1ll.
6. Or, fretty gules, on a canton argent, a ship sable, Nev1ll of
Bulmer.
7. Gules, a lion passant guardant argent, crowned or.
8. Gules, three lions passant guardant or, a bordure argent. (B)
Quarterly of eight—
1 and 6. Ermine, on a pale three martlets argent, N1cholson.
2 and 5. Gules, a chevron cottised between three trefoils, slipped or.
3. Argent, on a bend sable (or azure), between two eagles' heads
erased, a rose argent, a bordure engrailed sable (or
4. Gules, on a bend wavy argent, three martlets W/f.
7. Argent, a fesse between three boars' heads erased sable.
8. Argent, a chevron engrailed between three bugle horns sable,
stringed or, Pet1t.

P: 221 has a pedigree that includes Nevill. But, it is NOT a
connection of a Weston and a Nevill.
P: 138 has the only Weston / Neville connection: "John's son by Mary
Copley was Richard, fifth and last of that name, of whom we know even
less than of John, his father. He married Melior, daughter of William
Nevill of Holt, Leicestershire; and dying in 1701, after a tenure of
only eleven years, was buried at Guildford, 25th April. He left the
estate to his only son, John." This would account for the Neville
Arms in the windows.

Michael D. Warner

On Dec 8, 1:23 am, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 10:53 am, John <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > These various families of Weston can be quite confusing.  The Westons

> > ofSuttonPlace(including Sir Richard and Sir Edmund above) are said

> > to be connected to the Westons of Roxwell and Prested, but I'm not
> > sure if the connection is well defined.  The latter Westons, including

> > Sir Richard the justice (who is not Sir Richard ofSuttonPlace) and

> > his descendant the Weston Earl of Portland, are the ones who are said
> > to be involved in the apparent concoction of the fraudulent pedigree,
> > to link them (via Weston of Lichfield) to the Nevilles.  But I've
> > haven't seen any indication that the Westons ofSuttonPlacealso
> > claimed the Neville connection.
>

> I didn't mean to imply that the Westons ofSuttonPlaceclaimed to

> ...
>
> read more »

[Wjhonson]

Oh... now I see why, when Elizabeth Weston and Edward Mytton had a post nuptial settlement dated 1598 that her *brother* Simon was named in it instead of her father. He was dead already.