Thomas Warren's royal ancestry
douglasr...@hotmail.com
My good friend, Gary Boyd Roberts, of New England Historic Genealogical
Society in Boston is here this week in Salt Lake City. We're
discussing various royal lines which he plans to use in his upcoming
Royal Descents 600 book, or in Dr. Faris and my forthcoming Magna Carta
Ancestry book.
One line under discussion is that of Thomas Warren, of Virginia, whose
ancestry allegedly includes a royal/Magna Carta descent through the
Crisp and Harcourt families. If someone has any information on that
lineage, I'd very much appreciate your comments.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
E_mail: royala...@msn.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jon Meltzer
news:8tml7c$nt6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> My good friend, Gary Boyd Roberts, of New England Historic Genealogical
> Society in Boston is here this week in Salt Lake City. We're
> discussing various royal lines which he plans to use in his upcoming
> Royal Descents 600 book, or in Dr. Faris and my forthcoming Magna Carta
> Ancestry book.
Suggestion for both of you: an appendix listing disproved royal lines with
references to the books or articles showing their spuriousness. Possible?
Jon Meltzer (descendant of John Drake; one down)
Dave Hinz
: Suggestion for both of you: an appendix listing disproved royal lines with
: references to the books or articles showing their spuriousness. Possible?
I agree whole-heartedly. Knowing that a line has been disproven is
at least as valuable as knowing which ones are accepted as true.
It takes a "Well, I can't find anything to the contrary" argument
back to reality. I'd buy that book! (put me on the list, pls.)
Dave Hinz
R. Battle
While it would certainly be useful to have such a resource, it wouldn't
really tell the whole story. Two points -- First, GBR has probably seen
most (if not all) of the claimed RDs of American immigrants that have been
published, so the mere fact that a published line didn't make it into the
book is in itself indicative of probable problems. Second, many claimed
RDs have never been "disproved" in print, even though no knowledgeable
genealogist takes them seriously. There are a number of such claims that
don't really need to be disproved, due either to their inherent
improbability or lack of positive proof.
That being said, some sort of resource which listed every *claimed*
immigrant of royal descent, together with (1) where that claim was made,
(2) whether that claim was proved (and where), (3) whether that claim was
disproved (and where), and (4) its status in general, would be *very*
useful. I believe that something like that is intended for the APSG site
sometime in the future.
-Robert Battle
John Steele Gordon
You rang?
"Colonial Americans of Royal and Noble Descent: Alleged, Proven and
Disproven" by Patricia Ann Scherzinger. Bowie, Maryland: Heritage Books,
1996.
From the back cover:
"This new work is a master index to colonial Americans of royal descent
whose pedigrees have been published in about one hundred
English-language books and periodicals. The objective was to identify
those Americans born during the colonial period (prior to 1776) who
descend from an immigrant of royal ancestry, as shown in the published
works cited, and especially to pick up all lines with surnames different
from that of the "royal" immigrant."
It does include references to such highly dubious works as Browning's
Americans of Royal Descent. For instance it gives six references to the
royal ancestry of Dr. John Greene, progenitor of the Greenes of Rhode
Island. Not one of them, as far as I'm concerned, is worth the powder to
blow it up. But the author redeems herself by noting that "sufficient
proof of alleged royal ancestry is lacking." That's putting it mildly,
as Dr. Greene's ancestry is unknown beyond his parents, but it's nice to
have the warning flag, however genteelly expressed.
JSG
--
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jsggenealogy/Jsgordon
Jon Meltzer
"R. Battle" <bat...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.21.001031...@dante51.u.washington.edu...
> While it would certainly be useful to have such a resource, it wouldn't
> really tell the whole story. Two points -- First, GBR has probably seen
> most (if not all) of the claimed RDs of American immigrants that have been
> published, so the mere fact that a published line didn't make it into the
> book is in itself indicative of probable problems.
I agree. However, there are too many credulous people out there that believe
everything that they see in print or on the Internet. They might not find a
reference to their line in Roberts or Faris, but that makes no difference
... on they go.
R. Battle
True. My point (or one of them) was that the *disproved* RDs only make up
a portion of the "bad" RD claims out there. Most "disproving" efforts are
directed at lines which either appeared in otherwise-reputable
publications or which have gained some sort of notoriety. However, there
are lines (like many in the various Wurts volumes) which receive no such
attention, simply because most serious genealogists wouldn't be looking
through them (except, perhaps, for their entertainment value)--in any
case, they would not take them seriously enough to warrant serious,
published responses. The problem is that there are indeed a lot of
credulous people out there who take "sources" like Wurts to be
authoritative, especially if their particular lines were never publically
disproved.
BTW, thanks for the reference, JSG. I'm curious--are the Wurts Magna
Carta books among the 100+ books referenced (and, if so, what does it say
about the Scott family of Rattlesden, Suffolk (and Ipswich, MA))?
-Robert Battle
Leo van de Pas
> >
> > I agree. However, there are too many credulous people out there that
believe
> > everything that they see in print or on the Internet. They might not
find a
> > reference to their line in Roberts or Faris, but that makes no
difference
> > ... on they go.
>
> True. My point (or one of them) was that the *disproved* RDs only make up
> a portion of the "bad" RD claims out there. Most "disproving" efforts are
> directed at lines which either appeared in otherwise-reputable
> publications or which have gained some sort of notoriety. However, there
> are lines (like many in the various Wurts volumes) which receive no such
> attention, simply because most serious genealogists wouldn't be looking
> through them (except, perhaps, for their entertainment value)
====I think they would be of value to serious genealogists, they would be a
quick touch-stone for when they receive a line, then they can immediately
eliminate that line without wasting much time. As otherwise they may have to
check laboriously generation after generation.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Nathaniel Taylor
<JSGGen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Colonial Americans of Royal and Noble Descent: Alleged, Proven and
> Disproven" by Patricia Ann Scherzinger. Bowie, Maryland: Heritage Books,
> 1996.
>
> From the back cover:
>
> "This new work is a master index to colonial Americans of royal descent
> whose pedigrees have been published in about one hundred
> English-language books and periodicals. The objective was to identify
> those Americans born during the colonial period (prior to 1776) who
> descend from an immigrant of royal ancestry, as shown in the published
> works cited, and especially to pick up all lines with surnames different
> from that of the "royal" immigrant."
This cited book doesn't use (just) the 'gateway' model: it seeks to list
all descendants of gateway ancestors through 1776; this dilutes its value
for the purpose discussed here.
> It does include references to such highly dubious works as Browning's
> Americans of Royal Descent. For instance it gives six references to the
> royal ancestry of Dr. John Greene, progenitor of the Greenes of Rhode
> Island. Not one of them, as far as I'm concerned, is worth the powder to
> blow it up. But the author redeems herself by noting that "sufficient
> proof of alleged royal ancestry is lacking." That's putting it mildly,
> as Dr. Greene's ancestry is unknown beyond his parents, but it's nice to
> have the warning flag, however genteelly expressed.
What's needed is a handlist with franker detailing of the obvious flaws,
particularly the 'name's-the-same' fallacy, for 'alleged' lines.
I've been advocating such a reference for a long time (and have talked to
Gary Roberts about it; Gary wasn't interested at the time, though he'd be
in a good position to help compile such a list). Paul and I have talked
about this idea in connection with his plan for the APSG site, too; Paul's
hoping to do very intensive capsules (ą la _Great Migration_, and more)
for gateway immigrants. What's needed--either on the web or as a book,
or both--is a handlist of alleged gateways, with citations to the *first*
appearance of a specific descent (if possible: this would make the book
useful for publicizing patterns of origin of spurious royal lines, beyond
the obvious forgers like Anjou), and citations either to published
disproof or an annotation that the line is unsupported (usually at or near
the immigrant/alleged parent link). The book should also point out that,
just because a line--even a formally disproved one--may be repeated in
later published works, if there's no discussion of the flaw or disproof in
the source, then the source is not 'correcting' the status of that line,
only rehashing bad information. This will cut down on the recirculation
of explicitly disproven lines, and hopefully increase a standard of
systematic skepticism about 'name's-the-same' lines and credulous copycat
scholarship.
Nat Taylor
John Steele Gordon
> BTW, thanks for the reference, JSG. I'm curious--are the Wurts Magna
> Carta books among the 100+ books referenced (and, if so, what does it say
> about the Scott family of Rattlesden, Suffolk (and Ipswich, MA))?
Yes, Wurtz is one of works referenced. There are several pages of
Scotts, most of them from Rhode Island and descendants of Katherine
Marbury. One of them, however, is Ursula Scott of Massachusetts who
married Richard Kimball abt 1615. She is referenced to Wurtz 1762, 1832,
and 1870. "Sufficient proof of alleged royal ancestry is lacking." Is
that whom you're looking for?
I agree entirely with Nathaniel Taylor that a book or website that dealt
only with the immigrants, not with their descendants, and was franker in
its appraisals would be very useful indeed. Of course, there will always
be those who, having found a royal descent, would cling to it if the
archangel Gabriel came before them in a flaming chariot and told them of
the error of their ways.
JSG
--
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jsggenealogy/Jsgordon
R. Battle
> "R. Battle" wrote:
>
> > BTW, thanks for the reference, JSG. I'm curious--are the Wurts Magna
> > Carta books among the 100+ books referenced (and, if so, what does it say
> > about the Scott family of Rattlesden, Suffolk (and Ipswich, MA))?
>
> Yes, Wurtz is one of works referenced. There are several pages of
> Scotts, most of them from Rhode Island and descendants of Katherine
> Marbury. One of them, however, is Ursula Scott of Massachusetts who
> married Richard Kimball abt 1615. She is referenced to Wurtz 1762, 1832,
> and 1870. "Sufficient proof of alleged royal ancestry is lacking." Is
> that whom you're looking for?
Yup, that's the one. I ran across her in that work when I was a
genealogical babe in arms, got all excited, and immediately added several
hundred new ancestors :). To call the proof "lacking" is an
understatement. I agree with Nat that it may be a bit misleading
to republish obviously flawed connections, even with the "evidence
lacking" caveat. Something more along the lines of "evidence nonexistent,
made up out of whole cloth, entirely fictional" might be more
appropriate. In this particular case, it's even worse than your average
"name's-the-same" scenario -- it's "last name's the same" (which, given
the abundance of Scott families, is extremely questionable at best).
-Robert Battle
Reedpcgen
>"Colonial Americans of Royal and Noble Descent: Alleged, Proven and
>Disproven" by Patricia Ann Scherzinger. Bowie, Maryland: Heritage Books,
>1996.
>
A problem with this book is that the author had no knowledge of how to test the
lines (well, perhaps little knowledge would be a fairer assessment). She has
gone through Blood Royal, Michel Call's, stuff, etc., as well as the standard
MCS, AR, etc.
But she seems to be a copiler of secondary information. I have made sure ALL
immigrants listed in all standards sources (including the sources she sites)
are included in the list that will preview on the APSG web site for Gateway
Immigrants (hopefully before the end of the year). [This is a free site, and
always will be, but because of that, I have to work on it when I can afford
to.]
In most cases it will take very little space to state why the identification is
wrong--just time.
Paul
Barbara Bennett
> While it would certainly be useful to have such a
> resource, it wouldn't
> really tell the whole story. Two points -- First,
> GBR has probably seen
> most (if not all) of the claimed RDs of American
> immigrants that have been
> published, so the mere fact that a published line
> didn't make it into the
> book is in itself indicative of probable problems.
I was under the impression that Gary's book only
contains 1 royal line for each immigrant, the one he
considers the "best" line. If so, then there could be
many valid royal lines that are not in his book.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer.
http://experts.yahoo.com/
Nathaniel Taylor
bab...@yahoo.com (Barbara Bennett) wrote:
> --- "R. Battle" <bat...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > While it would certainly be useful to have such a
> > resource, it wouldn't
> > really tell the whole story. Two points -- First,
> > GBR has probably seen
> > most (if not all) of the claimed RDs of American
> > immigrants that have been
> > published, so the mere fact that a published line
> > didn't make it into the
> > book is in itself indicative of probable problems.
>
> I was under the impression that Gary's book only
> contains 1 royal line for each immigrant, the one he
> considers the "best" line. If so, then there could be
> many valid royal lines that are not in his book.
True. Anyone descended from one king is virtually assured to be descended
from dozens. But the vast majority of *spurious* royal descents are
flawed at or near the generation of the immigrant, so severing one lines
severs all of them.
Nat Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor
This doesn't mean that there aren't flaws further back in any of these
lines such as seen in Roberts: but corrections made farther back in a
gentry or noble pedigree may just as often result in the substitution of
one royal line for another, as in the severing of all royal descent.
Either way, it's important to have a consultable handlist of the
correction and rejection of all such lines as are in print.
Nat Taylor
douglasr...@hotmail.com
Gary Roberts' book has some serious limitations (no places, no dates)
and relies exclusively on secondary sources. All the same, the book is
useful in that it shows which immigrants currently have probable or
proven royal links. I skimmed through the next revised edition of his
book, RD 500, yesterday and advised him to throw out or change only a
handful of lines. So, I think there is a lot to glean from Mr.
Roberts' hard work and effort. Gary is continually adding new lines to
his books and deleting old ones which have been disproved. That in
itself is worth a great deal, as each subsequent edition reflects how
things are changing in the field. I believe he plans to re-issue the
current edition of RD 500 with updates this coming year.
Speaking of Gary, I've been friends with him for many years. As anyone
who knows him can attest, he can be quite tempermental and moody at
times. Regardless, his knowledge of printed materials is breathtaking,
and his passion for developing new royal lines is unbounded. His
contribution to the field of medieval genealogy has been enormous. In
my opinion, he is one of the best genealogists of this generation. He
has assisted me at many turns in my career, including pointing out the
likely royal ancestry lying behind the Beauchamp ancestry of the
immigrant, Agnes (Harris) (Spencer) Edwards, of Connecticut.
Should anyone wish to contact Gary about a particular royal line, feel
free to call him at NEHGS in Boston. As I recall, he works the
reference desk there on Thursday nights from 6 to 9 and welcomes calls
from private individuals during that time.
His number is: (617) 536-5740
Dial "O" for the operator, and ask for Mr. Roberts.
Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
In article <2000110119144...@web9304.mail.yahoo.com>,
bab...@yahoo.com (Barbara Bennett) wrote:
Nathan Murphy
> free to call him at NEHGS in Boston. As I recall, he works the
> reference desk there on Thursday nights from 6 to 9 and welcomes calls
> from private individuals during that time.
>
> His number is: (617) 536-5740
>
> Dial "O" for the operator, and ask for Mr. Roberts.
Thomas Warren (1621-1670), a seventeenth-century burgess in Surry County, Virginia, has long been thought to be a son of William Warren, Gentleman, of Ripple, Kent, England by his wife Catherine Gookin.[1] William Warren did indeed have a son christened Thomas at Ripple on 30 January 1624[/5].[2] In Virginia, Thomas gave his age as 40 in a deposition dated 1661, calculating an approximate year of 1621 for his birth.[3] It would fit chronologically for him to be the Thomas Warren whose headright Capt. Daniel Gookin [Jr.] claimed in Virginia in the 1640s.[4] Daniel was Catherine (Gookin) Warren’s first cousin.[5] In this scenario, Thomas would have been a first cousin once removed to Daniel Gookin. But that is not the case.
William Warren’s youngest son, Thomas Warren, was in line to inherit half of his father’s lands in Kent “in the nature and tenure of gavelkind.” William died a lunatic, intestate, in about 1636.[6] In 1647, William’s younger brother, John Warren, Gentleman, of Gray’s Inn, Middlesex sued William’s eldest son and heir, Albertus Warren, over a bond, in chancery. In this suit, it is recorded that William’s only other son was Thomas Warren and that “About a year and a half ago the said Thomas Warren departed this life without any issue of his body lawfully begotten.”[7] In 1658, Albertus Warren again informs the Lord Chancellor of England that he is the “brother and heir of Thomas Warren, late the other son and co-heir of the said William Warren.”[8]
The Virginia burgess possibly fits elsewhere in the Warren family of Ripple, Kent. For the royal descent in RD900 to hold,[9] however, it would be necessary for Thomas Warren to be the son of one of his presumed uncles: (1) Thomas Warren (bp. 1603/4),[2] whose residence as an adult is unknown, or (2) John Warren, of Gray's Inn, Middlesex (bp. 1609/10,[2] PCC sentence dated 1662).[10] This Thomas would have been 17 and John would have been 11 at about the time of the Virginian’s birth.
References
[1] Arthur Adams and H.H. d’Angerville, Living Descendants of Blood Royal 1 (1959):186-189; J.O. Buck, A.E. Langston, and T.F. Beard, eds., Pedigrees of Some of the Emperor Charlemagne’s Descendants 3 (1978):308-311.
[2] Ripple, Kent, England, parish registers, images, www.findmypast.co.uk.
[3] John Frederick Dorman, Adventurers of Purse and Person 3 (2007):227, who cites Surry Co. Deeds, Wills &c. 1 (1652-72):169.
[4] Virginia Land Office Patents 1 pt2, p. 847.
[5] C 8/125/201; 1619 Visitation of Kent, pp. 38, 48; Richard N. Gookins, A History and Genealogy of the Gookin Family of England, Ireland, and America (rev. ed., 1991).
[6] C 8/126/240; C 8/125/201; C 5/34/65; no PCC or ACC will.
[7] C 8/125/201.
[8] C 5/34/65.
[9] Gary Boyd Roberts, The Royal Descents of 900 Immigrants 2 (2018):778-79.
[10] PCC 74 Laud (1662) f. 169, https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/5111/40611_310351-00314/719800 (indexed John Warrer): John has a PCC sentence, but I have not been able to locate the corresponding nuncupative will. In the sentence, his wife Elizabeth, and daughter Elinor Grimes are mentioned. London St Mary Mounthaw, parish registers, images, www.ancestry.co.uk : Richard Grimes married Ellinor Warren in 1655, https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/1624/31281_a102016-00003 .
With special thanks to Simon Neal for retrieving and abstracting these chancery records.
C 6/138/217
Documents:
Bill of complaint.
Writ
Abbreviated copy of bill of complaint.
The answer of Edward Boys.
Date: 1634.
Parties: John Warren, one of the younger sons of John Warren, late of the parish of Ripple, Kent, gentleman, deceased, v Edward Boys of Bonnington in the parish of Godonstone, Kent, gentleman.
Selected details: The said John Warren, the orator’s father has or had by Anne his wife, eldest daughter of Sir William Crayfford of Wingham, Kent, knight, eight children, viz William, Thomas, the orator and Edward Warren, his sons, and Anne, Elizabeth, Alice and Afra, his four daughters.
The said John, on or about the 27th September in the 10th year of the reign of James I, made his last will and testament in writing, and thereby gave to his sons the said Thomas, the orator and Edward £300 each at their several ages of 24 years. Provided that, if any of his said younger sons should depart this life before their said ages of 24 years, then their portions should be equally divided between the survivors. And in performance of the said last will and for payment of his debts and discharges of some of the legacies by him bequeathed, he made his said wife Anne his sole and only executrix, and gave and bequeathed to her all his moveable goods, except some particular parcels of household stuff and plate given to William his eldest son. And he also bequeathed to her the mean profits of all his lands and houses, wherein he had any estate of inheritance or any estate by lease until the said William should come to the age of 24 years. And he did particularly assign that the portions, which the said Anne his wife should pay, should be unto his two eldest daughters Anne and Elizabeth and to his said son Thomas and to the said orator, being £300 to each of them, in all £1,200, making other provision in and by the said last will for the payment of £300 to each of his said other younger children.
Shortly after making the said will the orator’s said father died, and at the time of his death was possessed of a great and plentiful personal estate, amounting to the sum of £1,500, being sufficient to pay all the debts of the said John Warren the orator’s father and all the legacies contained in his will, including the said portion of £300 bequeathed to the said orator, and the £300 bequeathed to the said Thomas Warren, the orator’s brother. The orator’s mother proved the said will and possessed herself of all her late husband’s goods and personal estate. Soon after in about May 19 Jas. I the said Anne married Edward Boys of Bonnington in the parish of Godonstone, Kent, gentleman. Upon which marriage it was agreed that, as the said Edward should have the greatest part of the personal estate of the orator’s father, he should pay the legacies in the will, and that Anne should take the profits of the orator’s father’s lands.
However, the said Edward Boys has taken away the said money and refused to pay the legacies.
[Further details given].
C 8/126/240
Document: The answer of John Browne to the bill of complaint of Albert Warren.
Date: 1645.
Selected details: The defendant says that John Warren was lawfully seised in his demesne as of fee of and in the manor of Alkham alias Malmand Alkham with its rights and members, and with about 47 acres of land and pasture in the parish of Alkham, Kent. Being so seised, the said John Warren by his deed dated about 12th January 10 Jas. I [1613], for a valuable consideration in money paid to the said John by Robert Broome, clerk, granted and sold the said manor to the said Robert Browne and his heirs, which said deed was executed in due form of law and livery and seisin had and taken, and so Robert Broome was lawfully seised of the said manor and lands.
John Warren, by deed dated about 20th January in the said 10th year, released all his right, title, claim and demand to the said manor to the said Robert Broome. The said Robert did peaceably and quietly possess and enjoy the said manor and lands for diverse years after his said purchase. Afterwards the said Robert, by his deed dated on about 2 Oct 22 Jas. I [1624], for a valuable consideration paid by Thomas Browne and John Browne, son of Robert Broome, granted, enfeoffed and confirmed to the said John Browne and Thomas Browne and their heirs the said manor. And the said John and Thomas were lawfully seised thereof. Then, by another deed dated 4 Oct 22 Jas. I [1624], he released all the right to the premises to the said John and Thomas. And the said John and Thomas always afterwards enjoyed the said manor and lands.
The said Thomas Browne about 10 years ago died, and the said John Browne was lawfully seised in his demesne of the premises, and he held the lands in free and common socage of the nature and tenure of gavelkind. The said John Browne, by his will, devised two third parts of the premises to the defendant and his heirs, this defendant being the son of the said John Browne, and the third part thereof the said John Browne devised to John Browne, son of the said Thomas Browne, and his heirs.
Shortly after the making of the said will, viz in about the month of March now last past, the said John Browne, the defendant’s said father, died, and the defendant entered into two parts of the premises and was lawfully seised thereof, and has held the same ever since and taken the profits thereof.
The manor and lands are of the yearly value of £20 or thereabouts. He says that he does not know that the said John Warren was in his lifetime seised of the premises, as is pretended in the bill, or that the same were of the yearly sum of £40; or that the said John Warren, when he conveyed the premises to the said Robert Browne was weak of body or mind, or that the same was about three or four days before his death, or that the same was conveyed to the said Robert Broome by way of mortgage or for any trust or for little or no consideration, or whether the said John Warren made the said Robert Broome his executor, or that the said Robert Broome by that means or otherwise got into his hands all the deeds and evidences concerning the said manor and premises.
The defendant does not know that the complainant was the son of William Warren or that the said William Warren was the son of John Warren or that the complainants or the said William Warren have or ever had any just right or title to the said manor and premises or to any part thereof, or that the said William Warren was a lunatic, or that his body and lands were committed to some friends. Nor does he know that the said Robert Broome did fear any sleeping title of the complainants.
[Further details given].
C 8/125/201
Documents:
Bill of complaint.
The joint answers of George Waller and Albert Warren.
Date: 1647.
Parties: John Warren of Grays Inn, Midd, gentleman, v George Waller and Albert Warren.
Selected details: Whereas William Warren, late of the parish of Riple, Kent, in his lifetime was justly and truly indebted to the orator in the sum of £300, and being so indebted, by his deed, dated on or about 24th April in the fourth year of the reign of the now king, did bind himself to the orator in the penal sum of £600 to be paid to the orator or his executors or administrators, upon condition that, if the said William Warren or his heirs paid to the orator £300 on 3rd September 1636, if the orator be then living, then the said deed obligatory was to be void. In his lifetime, the said William Warren married with Katherine Gookin, daughter of Thomas Gookin, esquire. And the said William Warren was in his lifetime lawfully seised in his demesne as of fee of a parcel of land called or known by the name of the Millfeild alias the Great Mill Field, containing about 20 acres, in Riple. And of and in one capital messuage, a barn, dwelling house, orchard, cottage and 82 acres of land, meadow and pasture or thereabouts. The said William Warren, being so seised of all the premises, several years before the said £300 became due, viz in or about the 11th year of the king’s reign, died so seised of the premises having issue, two only sons, viz Albert Warren, his eldest son, and Thomas Warren, his youngest son, both begotten of the body of the said Katherine, and both being infants at the time of the death of the said William Warren.
From and after whose death the said Albert, being son and heir of the said William as to the said Millfeild, the said Albert or his guardian entered into the Millfeild took the issues and profits of the said Millfeild, until the said Albert attained the age of 21 years. And Albert did not attain the said age of 21 until after the first day of April in the 21st year of the reign of the now king. And from the death of the said William Warren the said Albert and Thomas his sons or some other on their behalf entered into the said messuage and the rest of the premises, and took the profits thereof, the premises being of the nature and tenure of gavelkind.
About a year and a half ago the said Thomas Warren departed this life without any issue of his body lawfully begotten, the said Albert being his sole brother of the whole blood by father and mother. After whose death the said Albert or some other for his behalf did receive the profits of the said messuage and premises. The said sum of £300 mentioned in the condition of the said deed obligatory was not paid to the orator or his assigns on the 3rd day of September 1636 according to the tenor of the said condition, nor at any time before or since, although it has been several times demanded. Whereby the said deed obligatory became forfeited. Notwithstanding which by reason of the respective minorities of the said Albert and Thomas the orator could not effectually proceed at the law for recovery of his just debt with damages for the forbearance of the same until of late.
On the 21st day of February in the said 21st year of the now king, the said Thomas Warren being dead, the orator caused an original writ in an action of debt of £600 upon the said deed obligatory to be sued forth the high court of Chancery against the said Albert as son and heir of the said William Warren, returnable in his majesty’s Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, although the orator used the uttermost of his endeavours by a legal compulsory course to enforce the said Albert’s appearance to answer to the orator upon the said action. Notwithstanding by means of the said Albert his delays the orator could not gain an appearance from him upon the said action.
[Further details given].
C 5/34/65
Documents:
Bill of complaint.
The answer of John Warren.
The replication of Albert Warren.
Date: 1658.
Parties: Albert Warren of Riple, Kent, gentleman, v John Warren.
Selected details: Whereas John Warren does pretend that William Warren, the orator’s father, did, in April 4 Chas. I [1628], enter into a bond to the said John Warren of the penalty of £600, conditioned to pay the said John Warren the sum of £300 on 3rd September 1636, if the said John Warren should be then living, which is now about 22 years ago, which bond the said John Warren has lately put in suit against the orator as one of the sons and co-heirs of the said William Warren and brother and heir of Thomas Warren, late the other son and co-heir of the said William Warren, concerning lands held in gavelkind in Kent, whereas in truth, if there be any such bond, the same was obtained from the said William Warren, when he was a man of no disposing or understanding. And if there be any such bond, the same was gotten and obtained from the said William Warren without any just or valuable consideration, and by combination between the said John Warren and some other person or persons as yet unknown to the orator. And if there be any such bond and that the same was obtained when the said William was of a disposing memory and understanding and for good and valuable consideration, the said £300 or a great part thereof has been long since paid or satisfied by some person or persons unknown to the orator, or there has been some security or agreement given or made concerning the same, if your orator could discover the truth thereof, and there is no just cause why the orator should in equity be charged with the said bond, if any such there be, in case your orator could discover the truth of the premises. The said William Warren left a personal estate behind him sufficient to satisfy the said bond and all his just debts, which came to the disposal of his executors or administrators, whom the said John Warren did, would or might have sued and questioned in case the said bond had been just to be paid. But the said bond is now put in suit against the orator by the instigation, procurement and at the costs and charges of some person or persons, to whom the said John Warren is indebted, or is to have some of the money or land to be recovered, if any shall be, and without such recovery such person or persons have no expectation or little hope of being paid, and there has been some agreement in writing or otherwise between the said John Warren and some person or persons concerning the same, and the said bond, if any such be, has been delivered into the hands or custody of some person or persons, who is sure to have some benefit by the said bond or recovery thereupon.
The orator requests that the said John Warren sets forth on his oath whether the said William Warren did enter into such bond unto the said John Warren or not, and what money or other consideration was given or paid for the same. [Further details given].
Nathan
Nathan Murphy
The given name “Albertus” is so uncommon, it could represent a naming-pattern. The references below apply to multiple people named Albertus Warren. Albertus of Epping, Essex (1640s-1650) could be the same Albertus baptized at Ripple, Kent in 1622. Albertus doesn’t appear in Ripple, Kent parish register entries as an adult, but we know from the chancery proceedings that he reached adulthood. There were no Warrens at Ripple at the time of the 1664 hearth tax.
Currer-Briggs argued that Albertus’s mother Katherine remarried John Sewall at London St Mary at Hill in 1632, and settled in Halstead, Essex.[1] He found that John Sewall, gent., of Halstead left a PCC will in 1640, which includes the following bequest: £100 unto Marie Warren daughter unto Katherine Sewall my late wife deceased at age 18. I would add that an Albertus Warren, gent., refused to do highway work in Halstead in 1663. The name Albertus Warren is also recorded on the 1670 hearth tax in Halstead. (see below)
1622 Apr 22, Parish Register, Ripple, Kent, Albertus the sonne of William Warren gent[leman] was baptised Aprill 22th 1622
1641 May 09, Parish Register, London St Mary Ludgate, Albertus Warren m. Lucey Waller, license Faculties - there was a George Waller in chancery suit
1642, Parish Register, Sawbridgeworth, Herts, Luce Warren d/o Alberte & Luce bp.
1643, Parish Register, Epping, Essex, Albertus Warren s/o Albertus & Lucy bp.
1645, Parish Register, Epping, Essex, Albertus Warren s/o Albertus bur.
1645, Chancery, C8/126/240, Albertus Warren vs. John Browne, property in Alkham, Kent. Browne states he was not aware that John Warren who was seised of this land in 1613, had a son William Warren, nor that William Warren was a lunatic.
1646 Jun 03, Parish Register, Epping, Essex, Albertus Warren s/o Albertus & Lucye bp. (born 1 Jun 1646)
1646 Jun 03, Parish Register, Epping, Essex, John Warren s/o Albertus & Lucye bp. (born 1 Jun 1646)
1647, Chancery, C8/125/201, John Warren, of Gray’s Inn, Mdx, gent. vs. Albert Warren and George Waller, property in Ripple, Kent; William Warren,late of Riple, Kent, in his lifetime was indebted to s’d John Warren. William Warren in his lifetime married Katherine Gookin, daughter of Thomas Gookin Esq. William died about 11th year Chas I., had only two sons at time of his death: Albert Warren, eldest, and Thomas Warren, youngest. Albert turned 21 after 1 Apr 21 Chas I. A year-and-a-half ago Thomas Warren died without issue.
1647, Author, A just vindication of the armie wherein all that doubt may have large satisfaction, in relation to their late proceedings. As touching the cause, beginning, continuance, and their end therein. Or, a book entituled, The examination of the late passages of the armie (especially of the grounds laid down for their justification in their declaration, June 14. 1647). / Examined, refuted, by A. Warren
1650 Oct 12, Parish Register, London St Mary Woolnoth, lawfully married Albertus Warren and Dorothy Barton both of the parishe of Eppinge in the County of Essex
1650, Author, The Royalist Reform’d (London, 1650)
1653, Author, Eight reasons categorical: wherein is examined and proved, that it's probable, the law-common will stand. And continue at London & Westminster: humbly tendred to the consideration of all ingenuous men; and for the incouragement of students. By Albertus Warren Gent. (London: Printed by E. Cotes, for John Place at Furnivals Inne-Gate in Holborn, 1653).
1654, Author, A New Plea for the Old Law by Albertus Warren (London 1654)
1657, Chancery, C7/443/126, Albertus Warren vs. Sir Robert Crawford, kt., money, Kent
1658, Chancery, Bundle 34, No. 65, Albertus Warren vs. John Warren, 1658, money, Kent. Albertus son of William Warren. William also had a son Thomas Warren “late the other son and co-heir.” Albertus was Thomas’s heir. Regarding a bond between William Warren and John Warren dated 1628.
1663, Sessions Rolls, Essex, Return of all such persons as have refused to work in the highways of Halstead this year 1663 … Albert Warren gent.
1670, Hearth Tax, Halstead, Essex, Albertus Warren [Sewall, whom Currer-Briggs thought married William Warren’s widow; lived at Halstead when he left his will.]
1676, Town Depositions, Albertus Warren
1676, Town Depositions, Albertus Warren
1677 Aug 02, Gunmaker’s Company apprenticeships, Charles Warren son of Albert Warren, of London, gent. to Robert Brookes, Gunmakers’ Co. Free 1684. Active 1690-1694. Gunmaker to Ordnance, 1697.
1680, Town Depositions, Albertus Warren
1680, Town Depositions, Albertus Warren
1680, Author, An Apology for the Discovery of Humane Reason, Written by Mr. Clifford, Esq. by Albertus Warren (London, 1680). [Albertus described as a radical protestant]
1686, Author, A panegyrick to His Excellency Richard Earl of Tirconnell by Albertus Warren (Dublin, 1686)
1703 Apr 25, Parish Register, Bruton Par., Va., Albertus Warren dec’d ye twenty fifth Apr bur.
1709[/10?], Order for Arrest, Bruton Par., Va., Angola peter at the plantac[i]on late of Albertus Warren Pamba his wife [ordered to be arrested]
I haven’t been able to access this article to see if biographical information is provided:
Albertus Warren on Milton and toleration: An unnoticed allusion, Notes and Queries, Vol. 46, No. 3 (1999):335-356.
[1] Currer-Briggs conclusions discussed in J.O. Buck, A.E. Langston, and T.F. Beard, eds., Pedigrees of Some of the Emperor Charlemagne’s Descendants 3 (1978):308-311.
Edward Brown
Nathan Murphy
"Surry County May ye 28th 1680. A list of Tithables taken by Capt. Cha: Barham being p[ar]te of ye parish of Lawnes Creeke
"Cha. Amry, Albertas Warren, Wm. Cockram, Jno. Mathison, Tho: Beck, Jno. Tuckwell, 6 tithes."
Source: Edgar MacDonald and Richard Slatten, "Surry County Tithables 1680, 1681, 1682," Magazine of Virginia Genealogy 22:4 (Nov. 1984), 47 https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/6131/images/VGS_1984_01_01_0227?pId=515933411
Thomas Warren's sons Thomas and Allen were in a different tithe district that year:
"A List of Tithables taken by order of Cort May ye 22th 1680
"Samll. Plow, Tho: & Alling [Allen?] Warring [Warren?], 3 tithes.
Source: ditto, 49.
Interpretation: Albertas Warren was working for Charles Amry in 1680. Because he was a tithe, Albertas was age 16 or older, born no later than 1664. Albertas was living in the same county as Thomas's children, but in differing tithe districts. I haven't seen a source that states Albertas was Thomas's son. Edward what is your evidence for that conclusion?
Nathan
Edward Brown
Major Robert Sheppard and Captain William Cockerham of the colonial militia appear to have inherited William Spencer's land because they were his sons-in-law and married to Elizabeth and Anne.
William Cockerham died May 13, 1669, Robert Sheppard was appointed guardian for his two orphan sons, after the death of their mother (1669)
Mrs. Elizabeth Shepherd wrote a letter to her brother- William Cockerham, Surry Co. 1654 noted to be now in Va. Court Records
Robert Sheppard married Elizabeth Spencer. He is noted to have died in 1653. She was later Thomas Warren.
Ann Spencer William Cockerham's widow later remarried Charles Amry. We can find William Cockerham Jr. in the tithable’s with Charles.
An Albertus Warren appears in the tithable’s in 1680 in Surry with Charles Amry and William Cockerham as well.
Since we know that Charles Amry was married to Ann Spencer and her sister Elizabeth was married to Thomas Warren it is likely that Albertus is the child of Thomas and Elizabeth Spencer.
Thomas and Elizabeth Warren's known child was Elizabeth Warren who married John Honeycut. It is likely Albertus was her full brother.
Albertus disappears from Surry records in 1680. An Albertus Warren is later noted to have a plantation in James City County.
An Albertus died in Bruton Parish in 1703. This is likely the same man. It is possible Albertus inherited some of the said land held by William Spencer and panted land elsewhere are the records are lost.
William Cockerham and William Warren Connection
On 17 September 1639, Robert Eley was granted 600 acres in Isle of Wight County; 50 for his personal adventure and 550 for the transport of 11 persons including William Cockerham and William Warren.
William Warren arrived in Virginia in 1639 and disappears from history.
I would suggest this William Warren is the same man who is noted as the father of Thomas and Albertus in England and that Albertus of Surry and later Bruton Parish is named after his uncle.
The later marriage of William Cockerham's sister-in-law to Thomas Warren would suggest that the two families knew each other previously in the New World.
Edward Brown
Edward Brown
>
> I would suggest that William Warren is a close relative of Thomas Warren. Likely a son of John