Sir David Owen (c.1459-1535), bastard son of Owen Tudor and uncle of King Henry VII of England
Douglas Richardson
I recently researched the family of Sir David Owen (c.1459-1535), the
bastard son of Owen Tudor (husband of Katherine of France, widow of
King Henry V of England). Sir David Owen was the paternal uncle of
King Henry VII of England.
In the process of my research, I've found many discrepancies and
errors in the published literature regarding Sir David Owen and his
immediate family. Among other things, most sources state that Sir
David Owen died in 1542, the date when his will was probated.
However, my research clearly indicates that Sir David Owen actually
died shortly before about 27 Sept. 1535, seven years previously. I
have no explanation for why the probate of his will was delayed for
such a long time.
As for Sir David Owen's three marriages, contemporary records indicate
that he married (1st) Mary Bohun; (2nd) Anne Blount; and (3rd) Anne
Devereux. There seems to be some confusion, however, as to which of
his children belonged to which marriage. At the present time, I
believe he had three sons, Henry, Knt., Jasper, and Roger, and one
daughter, Anne (wife of Arthur Hopton, Esq.) by his 1st wife, Mary
Bohun. It likewise appears that he had two sons, Henry (or Harry)
and John, Esq., and one daughter, Elizabeth (wife of Thomas Burgh,
Knt.) by his 3rd wife, Anne Devereux. I'm not aware that he had any
children by his second wife, Anne Blount.
I've found that following Sir David's death, his widow, Anne Devereux,
married (2nd) Nicholas Gaynesford and (3rd) John Harman, Gent.
Neither of these marriages are mentioned in any published account of
the Owen or Devereux families that I've consulted. I have no
particulars on Nicholas Gaynesford, although I assume he is the man
mentioned in online databases who died in 1542. I also have no death
date for Anne Devereux, although she appears to have been living in
1548.
Sir David Owen's grandchildren are a bit of a muddle. As best I can
tell, his eldest son, Sir Henry Owen, left a daughter and heiress, as
did his youngest son, John Owen, Esq. I haven't been able to tell if
either granddaughter has living descendants. John Owen, Esq. also had
a son, Henry Owen, who survived him but he apparently left no issue.
As for Sir David Owen's daughters, I've found that his eldest
daughter, Anne Owen, married Arthur Hopton, Esq., and she left a large
family which is well documented in records. There are many proven
descendants of the Hopton marriage. As for Sir David's youngest
daughter, Elizabeth Owen, I've found that she married Thomas Burgh,
Knt., and had issue, but her children were subsequently bastardized by
act of Parliament. I haven't been able to learn what became of the
Burgh children.
If anyone has additional particulars or corrections for the
information below, I'd appreciate having them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
FAMILY OF SIR DAVID OWEN
I. DAVID (or DAVY) OWEN, Knt., of Westminster, Middlesex, Old,
Northamptonshire, Lagham (in Godstone) and Wotton, Surrey, Oxhill,
Warwickshire, and Southwick (in North Bradley), Wiltshire, King’s
carver, Knight of the Body to King Henry VIII, and, in right of his
1st wife, of Cowdray (in Midhurst), Clemping, Easebourne, Ford, and
Newtimber, Sussex, born in Pembrokeshire, Wales about 1459 (aged 70 in
1529). He was granted the manor of Oxhill, Warwickshire following the
forfeiture of John Catesby of Lapworth in 1485. He was one of the
twelve knight bachelors who held the canopy at the Coronation of Queen
Elizabeth of York in 1487. In 1489 he was granted the manors of
Little Creaton and Old, Northamptonshire, forfeited by William
Catesby. He was probably made a knight banneret in 1493. He married
(1st) MARY BOHUN, daughter and co-heiress of John Bohun, of Midhurst,
Sussex, Kelvedon, Essex, etc. They had three sons, Henry, Knt.,
Jasper, and Roger, and one daughter, Anne (wife of Arthur Hopton,
Esq.). In 1495 he and Robert Southwell presented to the church of
North Crawley, Buckinghamshire in right of their respective wives,
Mary and Ursula Bohun. David married (2nd) before 1500 ANNE BLOUNT,
widow of Thomas Oxenbridge, and daughter of William Blount, Esq., of
Derbyshire, by Margaret, daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Echingham,
Knt. (descendant of King Henry III) [see ECHINGHAM 13.i.a for her
ancestry]. She was co-heiress in 1475 to her brother, Edward Blount,
2nd Lord Mountjoy. They had no issue. In the period, 1493–1500, he
and his wife, Anne, together with Andrew Windsor, Esq. and his wife,
Elizabeth, as “sisters and heirs of Edward Blownte, Lord Mountjoye,
daughters and heirs of William Blounte, esquire, father of the said
Edward, and cousins and heirs of Walter Blownte, late Lord Mountjoy”
sued William Dreyton, clerk, and Thomas Hunte, feoffees to uses, and
others in Chancery regarding the detention of deeds relating to the
manors of Barton, Sutton, and Sapperton and other manors and lands
late of Anne, Duchess of Buckingham, and of the said Walter, Lord
Mountjoy in cos. Derby, Stafford, Worcester, Rutland, Leicester, and
Hants. In the period, 1502–1503, the same parties sued Robert
Tykhyll, Thomas Corneby, and Thomas Lathome, executors of Harry
Tykhyll in Chancery regarding the detention of deeds relating to the
inheritance and possessions of the said Anne and Elizabeth. His wife,
Anne, was living 20 July [?1510]. David served as chief carver to the
king on St. George’s Day, 1517. In the period, 1518–1529, he sued
John Bower, late under-steward of complainant’s manors of Midhurst and
Easebourne, Sussex regarding the detention of deeds relating to the
said manors. In 1519 he purchased the manor of Isenhampstead Latimer,
Buckinghamshire from Robert Willoughby, Lord Brook. He married (3rd)
before 1525 ANNE DEVEREUX, daughter of John Devereux, Knt., 2nd Lord
Ferrers of Chartley, by Cecily, daughter of William Bourgchier, Knt.
They had two sons, Henry (or Harry) and John, Esq., and one daughter,
Elizabeth (wife of Thomas Burgh, Knt.). By an unknown mistress (or
mistresses), he also had one illegitimate son, William, and one
illegitimate daughter, Barbara. In 1526 he was among those who
escorted the king to Petworth. In 1530 he brought an action against
Fulk Greville and Francis Dawtrey, husbands respectively of Elizabeth
and Blanche, granddaughters and heirs of Robert Willoughby, who had
entered the manor of Isenhampstead Latimer (in Chesham),
Buckinghamshire “with Bucklers, Daggers, Bowes and Arrowes'”and turned
out his tenant, Robert Durrant. SIR DAVID OWEN was buried about 27
Sept. 1535. Following his death, his widow, Anne, petitioned in 1535
for the money and household stuff which her husband had at his death,
and for the custody of her son, John. He left a will dated 20 Feb.
1529, proved 13 May 1542 (P.C.C. 6 Spert). He was buried in
Easebourne Priory, Sussex. His widow, Anne, married (2nd) before 1538
NICHOLAS GAYNESFORD. In the period, 1533–1538, Nicholas and Anne, his
wife, and [her son] John Owen, sued Simon Harecourt, Knt., in Chancery
regarding the manor of Lagham (in Godstone), Surrey, late of Davy
Owen, Knt., former husband of the said Anne, and father of the said
John. In the period, 1544–1551, John, son of David Owen, Knt., and of
Anne his last wife, sued Roger Dennys, an executor of the said Sir
David, regarding the manors of Southwick (in North Bradley),
Wiltshire, Wotton, Surrey, Oxhill, Warwickshire, and Isenhampstead
Latimer, Buckinghamshire, etc. His widow, Anne, married (3rd) before
1549 (as his 3rd wife) JOHN HARMAN, Gent., of Rendlesham, Suffolk,
Gentleman Usher of the Household, 1540–1558, Burgess (M.P.) for
Orford, ?1536, ?1539, 1545, 1547, 1554, Burgess (M.P.) for
Bletchingley, 1554, son and heir of Christopher Harman, of Tunstall,
by his 1st wife, Cecily, daughter of Robert Fitz Ralph. In the
period, 1532–1538, Thomas Cunnyngham, of Winston, husbandman sued him
in Chancery regarding the manor of Bocking Hall, Suffolk, held on
lease of the abbess of Bruisyard. In 1544 he served in the French
campaign, where he had charge of the gunners. In 1548 her son, John
Owen, sold the reversion of the manor of Little Creaton,
Northamptonshire to be had following the death of his mother, Anne.
JOHN HARMAN, Gent., was living in Dec. 1558, when he attended the
funeral of Queen Mary I.
References:
Testamenta Vetusta, 2 (1826): 700–702 (will of David Owen). Le
Marchant, Report of the Procs. of the House of Lords on the Claims to
the Barony of Gardner (1828): 472 (re. the bastardized children of
Elizabeth Owen, wife of Thomas Burgh). Nicolas, Treatise on the Law
of Adulterine Bastardy (1836): 60–61, 577 (re. the bastardized
children of Elizabeth Owen, wife of Thomas Burgh). Banks, Dormant &
Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 378–380 (“It seems that Owen
Tudor had a natural son, called sir David Owen, who married three
wives; viz. first, Anne, daughter and heir of William Blount, who died
S.P.; second, Mary, daughter and co-heir of John de Bohun, of
Midhurst, by whom he had three sons; viz. Henry, Jasper, and Roger;
also a daughter Anne, who married Arthur Hopton, esq. His third wife
was Anne, sister to Walter Devereux, lord Ferrers, of Chartley.”).
Jerdan, Rutland Papers. Original Docs. Ill. of the Courts & Times of
Henry VII & Henry VIII (Camden Soc. 21) (1842): 101. Banks, Baronies
in Fee 1 (1844): 126–127 (Blount), 128–129 (Bohun). Halliwell,
Letters of the Kings of England 1 (1848): 202–204. Sussex Arch.
Colls. 7 (1854): 22–43. Arch. Jour. 12 (1855): 99–100 (“Mr. Blaauw …
has furnished four papers. One is on the effigy of Sir David Owen, in
Easeborne Church, near Midhurst …. the illegitimate son of Owen Tudor,
who, by his marriage with Katherine, the widowed queen of Henry V.,
became the stepfather of Henry VI., and was the grandfather of Henry
VII. It had seemed so improbable that a son of this Owen Tudor should
have died in 1542, that Nicolas, Baker, and some other genealogists,
had supposed a generation had been overlooked, and that Sir David was
Owen Tudor’s grandson. He had even been mistaken for a son of Henry
VIII. Mr. Blaauw has explained this most satisfactorily, by means of
the deposition made by Sir David himself as a witness at the time of
the divorce of Henry VIII. from his Queen Katherine of Arragon was in
agitation; which shows that he was born in 1459, about two years
before the execution of Owen Tudor, and consequently was only eighty-
three years of age at his own death in 1542.”). Antiquary, 3 (1873):
305; 37 (1901): 253. St. George & Lennard, Vis. of Somerset 1623
(H.S.P. 11) (1876): 56–57 (Hopton pedigree). Lennard & Vincent, Vis.
of Warwick 1619 (H.S.P. 12) (1877): 124–127 (Catesby pedigree: “Elizb.
[Catesby] ux. John Owen de Wotton in Surey, 2 to John Prestolfe.”).
Notes & Queries, 6th Ser. 6 (1882): 289–290. Harvey et al., Vis. of
Bedfordshire 1566, 1582, 1634 & 1669 (H.S.P. 19) (1884): 187–188
(Addl. Pedigrees) (Owen pedigree: Sr David Owen of Medhurste in com.
Sussex Knt. [1] = Mary d. & heire of John Bohun of Medhurste vide
Sussex 1 wife, [2] = Anne d. & coheire of Will’m Blount sonn and heire
of Walter Blount 1 Lord Mountjoy 2 wiffe.”) (Owen arms: [Gules], a
chevron [ermine] between three esquires’ helmets argent). Gairdner,
Letters & Papers, Foreign & Domestic, Henry VIII 9 (1886): 143–165,
367–402. Metcalfe, Vis. of Northamptonshire 1564 & 1618–9 (1887): 10
(1564 Vis.) (Catesby pedigree: “Isabel [Catesby], mar. to John Owen of
Wootton, co. Surrey, Esq.”). Desc. Cat. of Ancient Deeds, 1 (1890):
75–76; 3 (1900): 74–85. Misc. Gen. et Heraldica, 3rd Ser. 3 (1900): 9–
12 (Hopton pedigree), 49–53.. Benolte et al., Vis. of Sussex 1530,
1633–4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905): 122 (Owen pedigree: “Sr David Owen of
Medhurst in com. Sussex knt. naturall sonn. [1] = [left blank], [2] =
Anne d. & coheire of Willm. Blount sonn & heire the 1 Lord Mountjoye 2
wiffe widdow of Thom. Oxenbridge.”). D.N.B. 19 (1909): 1217–1218
(biog. of Owen Tudor) (author states that “a natural son of Owen,
called Dafydd, is said to have been knighted by Henry VII, who gave
him in marriage Mary, daughter and heiress of John Bohun of Midhurst
in Sussex.”). Williams, Llyfr Baglan, or, Book of Baglan (1910): 36
(“The mothere of Edmont ap Owene and Jaspar ap Owen was Caterin,
Queene of England, da. to Charles k. of ffaunce. The wief of Sr dauid
ap Owene, the 3 sone to Owen Tudyr, was Joyes, the da. of Sr Edward
Crofte.”). VCH Surrey 3 (1911): 154–164, 290–293; 4 (1912): 283–291.
Burke, Gen. & Heraldic Hist. of the Peerage & Baronetage (1914): 1000–
1002 (sub Hereford). Griffith Peds. of Anglesey & Carnarvonshire
Fams. (1914): 106 (Plas Penmynydd pedigree) (Sir David Owen identified
as an illegitimate son of Owen Tudor). Salzman, Feet of Fines Rel.
Sussex 3 (Sussex Rec. Soc. 23) (1916): 296–301. Brewer, Letters &
Papers, Foreign & Domestic, Henry VIII 1 (1920): 815–833, 869–887 (Sir
David Owen styled “cousin” by Lord Herbert in 1513). VCH Buckingham 3
(1925): 203–218; 4 (1927): 327–338. C.P. 5 (1926): 325–326 (sub
Ferrers); 9 (1936): 336–337 (sub Mountjoy). Wedgwood, Hist. of
Parliament 1 (1936): 654–655 (biog. of Sir David Owen). VCH
Northampton 4 (1937): 100–107, 200–204. VCH Warwick 5 (1949): 125.
Dibben, Cowdray Archives 2 (1964): 326–327, 329, 334. VCH Wiltshire 8
(1965): 218–234. VCH Sussex 2 (1973): 84–85; 4 (1953): 47–53, 74–80;
7 (1940): 204–208. Williams, Religion, Language & Nationality in
Wales ( 1979): 178. Bindoff, House of Commons 1509–1558 2 (1982): 302
(biog. of John Harman). MacCulloch, Reign of Henry VIII (1995): 64.
Siddons, Visitations by the Heralds in Wales (H.S.P. n.s. 14) (1996):
89 (1531 Visitation) (Croft of Croft pedigree: “Joyce [Croft] married
Sir Harry Oweyne, in Sussex.”). National Archives, C 1/217/19; C
1/268/24; C 1/551/72; C 1/767/35; C 1/804/16; C 1/1148/40 (abstract of
documents available online at http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
M.Sjostrom
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00326754&tree=LEO
or,
rendered as: knight Dafydd Owain
also great-uncle of king Henry VIII
who was the ruler in Dafydd's last decades
wjhonson
Firstly we can narrow significantly the possible death date of David.
"Shortly before Sep 1535" might seem a bit vague to those who aren't
comfortable with such phrases. Therefore we can recognize, which you
didn't yet point out, that David, other than just leaving a will dated
20 Feb 1529, also wrote a codicil to that will. The codicil is dated
16 Jul 27H8. So we can say that David died between July and Sep in
1535.
Secondly, Sir Henry Owen, his eldest son, apparently by his first
wife, had a son himself. You did not mention this, but it's mentioned
several times in David's will. We can know that this son of Henry is
not the same person as a possible son of "Harry" because of the order
of the reversions mentioned in that will. It's clear from David's
will that his eldest son is now dead, while "Harry", who is apparently
a son by Anne Devereux, is yet living in that will.
Thirdly, John Owen, apparently David's last son, was a minor in 1535.
This is helpful to create a chronology for the family. In addition, I
would suspect that "Harry Owen" John's full brother probably died
young. When Anne requests custody of her own son John, she does not
mention Harry. It's alternatively possible that somebody else already
had custody of Harry, her son. (Not to be confused with Sir Henry
Owen, her step-son.)
Will Johnson
Cherryexile
It would help if I read the whole of the post before posting.
Sorry.
royala...@msn.com
On Aug 7, 3:25 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
< Yes I can add a few tiny bits.
<
< Firstly we can narrow significantly the possible death date of
David.
< "Shortly before Sep 1535" might seem a bit vague to those who aren't
< comfortable with such phrases. Therefore we can recognize, which
you
< didn't yet point out, that David, other than just leaving a will
dated
< 20 Feb 1529, also wrote a codicil to that will. The codicil is
dated
< 16 Jul 27H8. So we can say that David died between July and Sep in
< 1535.
When I stated that Sir David (or Davy) Owen was buried about 27 Sept.
1535, I should have said more specifically "on or about" 27 Sept.
1535. There is a letter written on or about that date by Cromwell
stating that he was then on his way to Sir David Owen's burial. The
letter was published in Letters & Papers, Foreign & Domestic, Henry
VIII which I have cited as a source in my numerous references. Sir
David Owen was buried in Easebourne Priory, Sussex as stated in my
post.
< Secondly, Sir Henry Owen, his eldest son, apparently by his first
< wife, had a son himself.
Sir David Owen's eldest son, Sir Henry Owen, was not "apparently" a
child of Sir David Owen's first wife, Mary Bohun. Rather, he was
DEFINITELY the son of Mary Bohun. And, yes, you are correct that
Sir Henry Owen had a son, David Owen, who is named in his
grandfather's will. This David Owen reportedly died in Flanders
without issue as indicated by the published Visitation of Bedfordshire
which can be found at the following weblink:
The younger David Owen reportedly had two sisters and co-heirs, namely
_____, wife of _____ Tingleton of Surrey, and Elizabeth, wife of
Nicholas Dering, of Petworth, Sussex. I haven't confirmed the
existence of the first sister, but Elizabeth Owen, wife of Nicholas
Dering, certainly was a real person and left issue as indicated by the
Dering pedigree found in the published Visitation of Sussex available
at this weblink:
An abstract of the will of Nicholas Dering, Esq., of Stansted, Sussex
dated 7 Jan. 1556, proved 13 Feb. 1556 [recte 1556/7] (PCC, 5
Wrastley) is published in Archaeologia Cantiana, 10 (1876): 347. His
will names his eldest two sons, Thomas and William Dering, who the
visitation of Sussex attributes as the children of Nicholas Dering's
1st marriage to Elizabeth Owen. This will abstract may be viewed at
the following weblink:
Nicholas Dering and his 1st wife, Elizabeth Owen, are also discussed
in passing in Notes and Queries, 9th ser. volume 8 (1901): 450, which
information may be viewed at the following weblink:
Sad to say, the Dering descendants of Sir David Owen are overlooked by
Leo van de Pas' database. Hopefully Leo can add this branch of the
Owen family to his records when he has time.
For what it is worth, the following weblink traces descendants of
Nicholas Dering and Elizabeth Owen down to Mary Faunteroy, wife of
Gregory Glasscock (died c.1668), of Virginia. Warning: There are no
primary or secondary sources cited for this information.
http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=DESC&db=iajames&id=I48677
Returning to the will of Sir David Owen (died 1535), I might point
out that there is a draft copy of his will is found in the A2A
Catalogue at the following weblink:
The A2A Catalogue indicates that there are some variations between the
draft copy of the will and the actual will which was probated in
1542. There is also a published abstract of the will by Nicolas
which is printed in Testamenta Vetusta 2 (1826): 700–702. It may be
found at the following weblink:
Nicolas' abstract states that Sir David Owen had two daughters by his
last wife, Anne Devereux, but the draft copy names only one daughter,
Elizabeth, she being then unmarried. I don't know if the defect
here is in the probated will, or in Nicolas' abstract, as Sir David
Owen had only one known daughter, Elizabeth, by his marriage to Anne
Devereux.
<You did not mention this, but it's mentioned several times in David's
will. We can know that this son of Henry is
< not the same person as a possible son of "Harry" because of the
order
< of the reversions mentioned in that will. It's clear from David's
< will that his eldest son is now dead, while "Harry", who is
apparently
< a son by Anne Devereux, is yet living in that will.
This point is already discussed above.
< Thirdly, John Owen, apparently David's last son, was a minor in
1535.
Yes, he was aged ten years old in 1535 as stated in his mother's
petition which I've copied below.
Source: Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 9
Author James Gairdner (editor) Year published1886 Pages367-402
Citation'Henry VIII: Miscellaneous, 1535', Letters and Papers, Foreign
and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 9: August-December 1535 (1886), pp.
367-402.
R. O.1135. Anne Owen, widow of Sir David Owen. Her petition desiring
to have the money her husband left at his decease, 4,800l., besides
plate and jewels. Trusts the King will see that the executors make her
no worse in money or goods than at her marriage, when he and the lord
her brother (fn. 20) gave her 1,000l. in angelettes and royals,
besides apparel; that she may have the custody of her son John, who
was 10 years of age last Allhallowtide, with a reasonable sum yearly
to educate him for the King's service; that the residue of his rents
may be levied by the executors, and these sums, with all evidences,
recoveries, obligations, writings concerning her jointure, with the
inventory taken at her marriage, and all other "escrippes and
scrowes," some of which were at Cowtherey and some here in London, may
be put into the hands of some indifferent man for her son's profit.
Her deceased son, Henry Owen, on his deathbed, made her a free gift of
all goods, rents, &c. which his father bequeathed him. While he was in
the King's service she spent 113l. 19s. 8d. on his apparel, &c. She
asks also for all the timber, iron, lead, glass, &c. of the house of
Cowtherey, which her husband gave to her in his lifetime to build her
house at Bodyngton, and for one part of his will which was in his
custody in a casket until his decease. Signed. P. 1. Endd.:
Supplication to my maister by Anne Oen. END OF QUOTE.
As we can see above, Anne Devereux, the widow of Sir David Owen,
specifically states that £1,000 in angelettes and royals was given to
her by her husband and "the lord her brother" [i.e., Walter Devereux,
Lord Ferrers of Chartley] at the time of her marriage. The wording
suggests that this was Anne Devereux's first marriage.
Yet strangely I find that Leo van de Pas' database alleges that Anne
Devereux married (1st) Henry Clifford, the son of Richard Clifford and
Anne Stafford. Leo's source for this information is the wholly
unreliable secondary French work, Cahiers de Saint Louis, by Jacques
Dupont and Jacques Saillot.
Fortunately, Brydges Collins’ Peerage of England, 7 (1812): 422
discusses the marriage of this very Henry Clifford. Brydges states
that Henry Clifford "married Anne, daughter of Sir Richard Devereux,
Knt. by whom he had Sir Nicholas Clifford , who left an only daughter
and heir."
This material may be found at the following weblink:
Thus, it would seem that Leo has carelessly confused two different
women named Anne Devereux, one who married Sir David Owen (uncle of
King Henry VII), the other of far lesser rank who married Henry
Clifford. The two Anne Devereux'es had different fathers, different
marital histories, and different children.
< This is helpful to create a chronology for the family. In addition,
I
< would suspect that "Harry Owen" John's full brother probably died
< young. When Anne requests custody of her own son John, she does not
< mention Harry. It's alternatively possible that somebody else
already
< had custody of Harry, her son. (Not to be confused with Sir Henry
< Owen, her step-son.)
As you can see from the 1535 petition given above of Anne (Devereux)
Owen, it appears her son, Henry Owen, had died sometime in or before
1535. At the date of her petition, her only surviving son appears to
have been John Owen, then ten years of age, for whom she requested
custody.
royala...@msn.com
I find that there is a pedigree of the Mortimer and Dering families in
the published Visitation of Kent which gives additional details on the
children and grandchildren of Elizabeth Owen, wife of Nicholas Dering,
Esq. (died 1557), of Stansted, Sussex. This pedigree may be found at
the following weblink:
The pedigree shows that Elizabeth (Owen) Dering 's son, Thomas Dering,
was born about1528 (he being aged 60 in 1588). Thomas Dering married
Winfred Cotton, and had several children, including three married
daughters, Barbara Dering (wife of William Gold), Mary Dering (wife of
Solomon Cole), and Elizabeth Dering (wife of Richard Craneley).
If the above information is correct, it would seem that Sir David Owen
(uncle of King Henry VII) was a great-grandfather at his death at
advanced age in 1535.
I might add that Winifred (Cotton) Dering was the grant aunt of the
New England immigrant, Robert Abell, of Massachusetts.
The above mentioned Dering and Mortimer pedigree likewise shows that
Mary Owen, sister of Elizabeth (Owen) Dering, married John Warnett.
The other visitation I mentioned in earlier post had this sister
married to _____ Tingleton.
As for Mary Dering, wife of Solomon Cole, there is extensive
information on her seven children and numerous grandchildren in book,
The Genealogy of the Family of Cole: of the county of Devon by James
Edwin-Cole, published 1867, pg. 29-30, which may be viewed at the
following weblink:
The above material refers to Mary (Dering) Cole as an heiress. This
material confirms that Mary (Dering) Cole had a granddaughter, Dorothy
Cole, wife of More Fauntleroy. Dorothy (Cole) Fauntleroy is allegedly
the mother of Mary Fauntleroy, wife of Gregory Glasscock, of Virginia.
I find there is a will for a Moore Fauntleroy probated in Virginia in
1758, so it is entirely possible that there are descendants of Dorothy
(Cole) Fauntleroy in the New World. For the 1758 will of Moore
Fauntleroy, see William and Mary Quarterly, 17 (1909): 190, which may
be viewed at the following weblink:
As far as Nicholas Dering, Esq., husband of Elizabeth Owen, I've found
the following record of him in the National Archives catalog:
C 1/1342/1-2
Record Summary
Scope and content
Richard CAGER and Agnes his wife v. Nicholas DERING, esquire.:
Messuage and land in Hawkley, held of defendant's manor of Newton
Valence.: HANTS.
Covering dates 1553-1555. END OF QUOTE.
Thus, a preliminary review of published sources would suggest that Sir
David Owen's granddaughter, Elizabeth (Owen) Dering, has many modern
descendants.
royala...@msn.com
One last item on the descendants of Elizabeth Owen, wife of Nicholas
Dering, Esq.
I find there is a biography of her great-grandson, Richard Dering, a
musician, in the Dictionary of National Biography, 14 (1888), pg.,398,
which may be viewed at the following weblink:
The biography states that Richard Dering left an undated PCC will, in
which he names his aunt, Barbara Bold. The will was proven 27 April
1630 by his first cousin, Edward Bold, presumably son of his aunt,
Barbara Bold.
Barbara Bold was Barbara Dering, wife of William Bold, who was a
granddaughter of Elizabeth (Owen) Dering. In a previous post, I
mistakenly spelled the name of Barbara Dering's husband as William
Gold. Bold is the correct spelling.
royala...@msn.com
One other Dering item.
I find there is a biography of Nicholas Dering (died 1557), of
Stansted, Sussex and Liss, Hampshire published in Bindoff, House of
Commons 1509–1558, 2 (1982): 39–40. The biography may be viewed at
the following weblink:
The biography confirms that Nicholas Dering's 1st wife was Elizabeth
Owen, daughter and co-heiress of Sir Henry Owen, son and heir of Sir
David Owen. Bindoff indicates that Nicholas Dering and Elizabeth Owen
had two sons, which statement agrees with the visitation pedigrees for
this family.
royala...@msn.com
It appears that Sir Henry Owen, eldest son of Sir David Owen, had
three daughters, not two daughters. These daughters are named in
Banks, Baronies in Fees, 1 (1844): 129 (sub Bohun), which may be
viewed at the following weblink:
According to Banks, Sir Henry Owen's heirs in 1554 were the following:
1. [Grandson:] Thomas Dering, aged 24 in 1554, son of Elizabeth Owen,
wife of Nicholas Dering.
2. [Daughter:] Mary Owen, aged 38 n 1554, wife of John Warnet, of
Hemsted, co. Sussex.
3. [Daughter:] Anne Owen, aged 36 in 1554, wife of James Gage.
Banks does not explain what document he used to list these heirs and
their ages in 1554. However, this information is surely derived from
the inquisition post mortem of Thomas West, Lord la Warre, who died
childless in 1554. Sir Henry Owen's 2nd wife was Dorothy West, who
was a full sister of Thomas West, Lord la Warre. Similar
information as provided by Banks is presented in a chart published in
Complete Peerage, 4 (1916): 157, footnote a. Yet, once again, no
contemporary source is cited for this information.
I find that all three of these individuals are named in the 1554 will
of Sir Thomas West, Lord la Warre, which will may be viewed on page
184 at the following weblink:
According to a biography of Thomas Dering, one of the co-heirs of Lord
la Warre in 1554, published by Hasler, Thomas Dering and his two
aunts, Mary Warnet and Anne Gage, jointly inherited a half share of
the manors of Stratford Toney, Wiltshire, Oakhanger, Hampshire, and
Blatchington, Sussex as co-heirs of Thomas West, Lord la Warre. This
information may be viewed in snippet view at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-N-HAAAAMAAJ&q=John+Warnet+Owen&dq=John+Warnet+Owen&lr=
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=-N-HAAAAMAAJ&dq=John+Warnet+Owen&q=Warnet#search_anchor
According to Notes & Queries, 10th ser., 7 (1907): 102, Anne Owen was
the second wife of James Gage, of Bentley, Framfield, Sussex. James
Gage died12 Jan. 1572/3, leaving a widow, Urith, and four sons,
Edward, John, James, and Robert.
This information may be viewed at the following weblink:
The above Gage source does not indicate if Anne (Owen) Gage was the
mother of any of these children. However, I assume she left issue, as
there is a snippet view of what appears to be a Gage will in the
following weblink in which reference is made to the manors of
Stratford Tony, Wiltshire, and Blatchington, Sussex, which manors were
part of the West inheritance:
Last item listed:
http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=Blatchington+Gage&btnG=Search+Books
As for Mary Owen, wife of John Warnet, the following weblink indicates
she had a daughter, but the name of this child is not given.
http://www.mandywillard.co.uk/surnames/warnett/family.htm
Finally, I note that neither Dorothy West, wife of Sir Henry Owen, nor
any of her children or grandchildren are included in Leo van de Pas'
genealogical database.
royala...@msn.com
The bastardization of the children of Elizabeth Owen, wife of Thomas
Burgh, Knt. by Act of Parliament dated 1542 is discussed in Le
Marchant, Report of the Proceedings of the House of Lords on the
Claims to the Barony of Gardner (1828): 472. This source may be
viewed at the following weblink:
The children of Elizabeth Owen are named in this record as: Humphrey,
Arthur, and Margaret.
I note that the marriage of Elizabeth Owen and Thomas Burgh are
included in Leo van de Pas' database. Sadly, the three children are
not included. Hopefully Mr. van de Pas can remedy this situation and
retrieve these lost babes from genealogical oblivion.
royala...@msn.com
The legitimacy of the children of Elizabeth Owen, wife of Sir Thomas
Burgh, is discussed in the recent book, English Aristocratic Women,
1450-1550: Marriage & Family, Property and Careers, by Barbara Jean
Harris, published 2002, pages 84-85.
According to Harris, Elizabeth Owen gave birth to her first child,
Margaret, in 1537. Elizabeth evidently claimed that Margaret was
legitimately fathered by her husband, Sir Thomas Burgh. Harris notes
some credence was given to Elizabeth Owen's claim, as when Elizabeth
Owen's father-in-law, Thomas Burgh, Lord Burgh, died in 1550, he left
Margaret a sizeable bequest of 700 marks in his will.
The information on the children of Elizabeth Owen, wife of Sir Thomas
Burgh, may be viewed at the following weblink:
royala...@msn.com
The historian Harris must be in error regarding the birth year of
Margaret, the "eldest" child of Elizabeth Owen as being in the year
1537; either that, or else Margaret was not the eldest child.
Another book, History of the Manor and Township of Doddington, by
R.E.G. Cole, published 1897, pages 41–42 discusses the matter of the
bastardization of the children of Elizabeth Owen in detail. Cole
reveals that as early as 1535, Elizabeth Owen's father-in-law, Lord
Burgh, was taking steps to bastardize her children. He relates that
among "the State Papers of 1535-37 are several letters from this
Elizabeth, Lady Burgh to Thomas Cromwell, begging for his protection
and asserting her innocence. He [Cromwell] seems to have used his
influence in her behalf while he lived, after after his execution in
1540 and the death of young Sir Thomas Burgh an Act of Parliament was
obtained by Lord Burgh, 34 and 35 Hen. VIII, declaring these children
illegitimate and barring their succession to his title and estates,
though, as will be seen, he provided for one of the daughters in his
will."
The above material may be viewed at the following weblink:
The 700 mark bequest to Margaret, daughter of Elizabeth Owen, in the
1550 will of Thomas Burgh, Lord Burgh is mentioned on pages 43-44 of
the same book. Margaret was under 14 years of age at the time the
will was made, but the author leaves it unclear exactly when the will
was made. Regardless, Margaret can have been born no later than 1536,
as the will was probated in 1550. So Harris is wrong to assign a
birth date of 1537 for Margaret.
Simon Fairthorne
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
[mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of
royala...@msn.com
>Margaret was under 14 years of age at the time the
>will was made, but the author leaves it unclear exactly when the will
>was made. Regardless, Margaret can have been born no later than 1536,
>as the will was probated in 1550. So Harris is wrong to assign a
>birth date of 1537 for Margaret.
>Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Sorry but I cannot follow the logic of this.
If Margaret was born in 1537 then she would be under 14 when the will was
probated in 1550 and hence would have been under 14 when the will was
written
Cheers
Simon
royala...@msn.com
Thank you for your good post.
I can't follow my logic either.
My point about Margaret not being born in 1537 still stands, unless of
course Margaret was the eldest surviving child.
If Elizabeth Owen already had children in 1535, Margaret can't have
been born in 1537, unless an older child (or children) predeceased
her. So Harris might still be right.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Aug 8, 4:49 pm, "Simon Fairthorne" <fairtho...@breathe.com> wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com
>
> [mailto:gen-medieval-boun...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of
> royalances...@msn.com
royala...@msn.com
Here are two letters written by Elizabeth Owen, wife of Sir Thomas
Burgh, written to Cromwell, as Lord Privy Seal, which letters were
dated or received on 27 April 1535. The editor states that the
letters are wrongly endorsed "the lady Burgh." But, if her husband
was a knight, I believe the correct address for her would be "the lady
Burgh."
Source: James Gairdner, Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic,
Henry VIII, Volume 8, published 1885, pages 218-241:
27 April
R. O. 597. Elizabeth Burgh (fn. 5) to Cromwell.
I am informed by Mr. Treasurer (fn. 6) how much I have been bound to
your goodness in my late business, which I regret that I am unable to
recompense, but I trust you will take the will for the deed. 27 April.
Signed.
P. 1. Add.: Secretary. Endd.
R. O. 598. Elizabeth Burgh to Cromwell.
I am bound to you for life by your goodness at divers times, and pray
God I may be able to do you service before I die. But I beg to know
when I may wait upon you to learn effectually whereto I may trust for
my living.
Hol., (fn. 7) p. 1. Add. Secretary. Sealed. Endd.
Footnote 5 There are letters of hers to Cromwell as lord Privy Seal,
endorsed, but wrongly, "the lady Burgh."She was not the wife of Thos.
lord Burgh, but of his son Thomas. After her husband's death her
father-in-law procured an Act of Parliament (34 Hen.VIII. c. 31.)
declaring her children to be bastards.
Footnote 6. Sir W. Fitzwilliam, treasurer of the Household.
Footnote 7. That is to say, the document is entirely in one hand,
and, moreover, the subscription is "scribbled by the hand of me, your
poor, humble, and hearty servant and daily orator while life remains
in me, Elsabethe Burgh."The signature, however, bears no resemblance
to that of the preceding letter, and the natural inference would be
that it was that of another lady of the same name. The handwriting,
however, notwithstanding the subscription, is that of an amanuensis,
as appears by a later letter written in the same hand and bearing
Elizabeth Burgh's true signature.
And, here are more two letters written by Elizabeth Owen, wife of Sir
Thomas Burgh, written to Cromwell, which letters were dated or
received on 12 and 13 November 1537.
Source: James Gairdner, Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic,
Henry VIII, Volume 12 Part 2 (1891), pages 370-386:
12 Nov. 1073. Elizabeth Burgh (fn. 5) to Cromwell.
R. O. Is prematurely delivered of a child, and in danger of losing it
after her great travail. The gentleman and his wife, with whom she
stays, who is a kinsman of her husband, wrote to him of her own and
the child's danger, desiring him to come and see it, that he might
have no cause of jealousy against her, seeing that the child, by the
proportions of his body, was born long before the time. Has many
witnesses who have seen the child, yet my lord his father says it is
none of her husband's, and makes him absent himself from her. Begs
Cromwell's mediation. Signed.
P. 1. Add.: Lord Privy Seal. Endd.: The lady Burgh.
13 Nov. 1074. Elizabeth Burgh* to Cromwell.
R. O. Complains of the trouble she is put to by lord Burgh, who always
lies in wait to put her to shame. Is not yet out of danger from her
travail, being still as a prisoner, comfortless. Hears that lord Burgh
has complained of her to the Council, declaring that her child is not
his son's. Nothing but the power of God has preserved his life; begs
Cromwell will prevent it being disinherited. Her husband dare do
nothing but as his father will have him. Langley Lodge, 13 Nov.
Hol., pp. 2. Add.: Lord Privy Seal.
I assume that the historian, Barbara Jean Harris, assumed that
Elizabeth Burgh's first child was born in 1537, as no child or
children are mentioned in the earlier letters dated 1535. But the
letters do not say that. In any event, the child born in 1537 was
certainly NOT female as Harris claim, as reference is made by lady
Burgh to "his body" indicating that the child was male.
All in all, it sounds like Elizabeth (Owen) Burgh was in a very
disagreeable situation with her husband's father-in-law. It is
personal letters like these that reveal the difficult cultural
problems of that age, even for women of high birth. It would appear
that being near related to King Henry VIII did not shield Elizabeth
Owen from her unhappy plight.
royala...@msn.com
The book, A Treatise on the Law of Adulterine Bastardy, by Sir
Nicholas Harris Nicolas, published 1836, page 60 indicates that the
bill to disinherit the children of Elizabeth Lady Burgh was "read a
first time on the 8th March 1543." The source cited is: Lords'
Journals, I , 215, 217, 218. The subsequent act in Parliament
declared her three children to be bastards.
This information may be found at the following weblink:
Nicolas refers to her "Lady Burgh," just as her letters to Cromwell
are endorsed.
John
> Dear Newsgroup ~
[snip]
>
> I note that the marriage of Elizabeth Owen and Thomas Burgh are
> included in Leo van de Pas' database. Sadly, the three children are
> not included. Hopefully Mr. van de Pas can remedy this situation and
> retrieve these lost babes from genealogical oblivion.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
It's not clear why Leo should feel obligated to "remedy this
situation" or "to retrieve these lost babies from genealogical
oblivion". As to the second (rather maudlin) point, you presumably
have already accomplished that goal and no doubt will take credit for
it when it suits you. As to the first point, I'm sure Leo would be
the first to say that his database is far from comprehensive and is
not intended to be so. My experience has been that Leo includes
persons that are of interest to him (and fortunately he has broad
interests), just as your weighty books include only persons of
interest to you for the purpose of the books, It's petty and narrow-
minded of you to find fault with Leo, as you have now done at least
twice in this thread alone, when he fails to keep up with every new
"discovery" turned up by you - especially when the details of these
"discoveries" seem to keep changing as the thread progresses. This
attitude simply detracts from whatever value there may in these
"discoveries" and portrays the writer as more interested in fault-
finding and "gotcha" genealogy than in serious genealogical research.
Leo is perhaps too polite to say this so bluntly, so I'll speak on his
behalf and in his defense.
Best always.....
royala...@msn.com
<This attitude simply detracts from whatever value there may in these
< "discoveries" and portrays the writer as more interested in fault-
< finding and "gotcha" genealogy than in serious genealogical
research.
< Leo is perhaps too polite to say this so bluntly, so I'll speak on
his
< behalf and in his defense.
Always the drama queen, John?
royala...@msn.com
I found the item below in Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic,
Henry VIII. The item is dated June 1537.
It appears to be a settlement of jointure by Sir Thomas Burgh, Lord
Burgh, on his then daughter-in-law, Elizabeth Owen, who presumably is
"young lady Burgh" and a settlement of additional lands on his son,
Thomas Burgh (husband of Elizabeth Owen), who is styled "young Sir
Thomas Burgh."
My first thought was that these arrangements might have signaled the
approximate marriage date of Elizabeth Owen and the younger Sir Thomas
Burgh. However, as noted in an earlier post, Elizabeth Owen wrote
Cromwell as Elizabeth Burgh as early as 27 April 1535, a full two
years previously.
Does anyone know what happened to the jointure properties?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Source:
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
James Gairdner (editor),
Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 12 Part
2, published 1891, pages 47-85.
Date: June 1537
6. Rental of Lands of Hussey and Lord Borough.
R. O. i. "The manors, lands, and tenements of the lord Husseys in
Lincolnshire." Valor of Woodhed, Brigeasterton, Pykeworth, Corby,
Gunwardby, Blankeney, Braunston in Bosco, Burton Husse, Knights Hall,
sometime the duke of Buckingham's, Aunby, Grauntham, Old Slefford,
West Welowby, Sapton, Boston, and Whaplod Hall in Holand, Total, 265l.
7s. 8d. "Also be hath Holywell, Bytham Park, Little Bytham, and
Stratton, which he had in exchange of the King for a lordship in
Essex, and the true value of them I cannot know as yet." Farms that he
hath by lease:—Marom and Maid[s]house, belonging to Semp[ring] ham,
very good farms upon the [Heythe]; Hamby Grange; and Ling grange on
the Heythe belonging to Haverholme.
"It may please your Lordship to obtain the site of the monastery of
Berlings, with as much demesne lands as ye can."
ii. Manors of lord Burghe's in cos. Surr., Suss., and Kent.
Oxted, Westeliff, and Alington Cobham in jointure to lady Latimer;
Northey and Southey, Shelfeobham [and?] Burdvile in jointure to young
lady Burgh; Sterburgh Castle, Sherdermarshe, Cokesden, and Iltesbery
in jointure to the same after lord Burgh's death; Newgare, Denehill,
Chedynstone, and Tyherst entailed to young Sir Thomas Burgh. Total,
238l.
Pp. 3. Mutilated.
John
This is, of course, the usual "collegial" response from DR and is to
be expected.
Leo said it best: "If Douglas can't refute the allegation he will
(most of the time) attack the
person. Don't shoot the messenger Douglas, address the message. It is
the
message that counts."
There is clearly no chance for any improvement in this troll-ish
behavior, but that doesn't mean we should sit quietly and accept it -
especially when DR continues to trash a valued contributor like Leo.
Best always......yeah, right.....enough said.
royala...@msn.com
< All in all, it sounds like Elizabeth (Owen) Burgh was in a very
< disagreeable situation with her husband's father-in-law. It is
< personal letters like these that reveal the difficult cultural
< problems of that age, even for women of high birth. It would appear
< that being near related to King Henry VIII did not shield Elizabeth
< Owen from her unhappy plight.
I meant to say "it sounds like Elizabeth (Owen) Burgh was in a very
disagreeable situation with her father-in-law."
Thanks, Leo, for pointing out my typo. Much appreciated.
M.Sjostrom
somebody pontificated:
".....the marriage of Elizabeth Owen and Thomas Burgh are included in Leo van de Pas' database. Sadly, the three children are not included. Hopefully Mr. van de Pas can remedy this situation ...."
* I think that -unfortunately- Leo has a lot of other things to do, a big backlog of lineages of far greater interest.
It should be remembered that these British petty nobles are not that important. And their negligible prominence does not increase from the fact that piles of non-prominent people are descended from their siblings or cousins.
There are many many really important lineages which Leo has not yet had enough time to include into his database.
Lineages which are ancestral to important people, as opposed to insignificancies in transatlantic colonization of some prairies and salt lakes.
w
Monsieur Sjostromcracker ignores sensibility in his insensitive nitty,
as all ancestral lists are important, and all people are important,
not just the senseless inane souls such as himself.
WC
Renia
What strange and unkind comments to make.
It shows you do not understand the nature of Leo's database, which has
been described as the largest private genealogical database in the world.
Leo is originally from The Netherlands and lives in Australia so
"transatlantic colonization" is the one thing which is not so prominent
in his database as it is in others.
Instead, his database is gathered (he describes himself as a
genealogical "gatherer") from pedigrees found in European and British
secondary sources in a variety of languages. If children are not
mentioned in those sources, then, at least inititally, they won't be in
Leo's database.
Over the years, Leo and others have looked further into certain
pedigrees and "missing" children and their descendants (or even
ancestors) have been discovered, and then entered into the database.
Sometimes, children can be found in a different pedigree and be shown to
be connected to another pedigree. Sometimes this is via secondary
sources and sometimes as a result of genealogical discoveries in primary
sources.
A database, such as this, has to be compiled systematically. Indeed, all
genealogical discovery has to be compiled systematically.
You are not systematic. You are all over the place, second-guessing
here, pondering there, and creating people who never existed from the
flimsiest of ideas.
And you have the gall to criticise people for lack of genealogical
know-how, when it is you who hasn't a clue how to go about genealogical
research and compilation and bombards Leo and this newsgroup with
irrelevancies.
Merilyn Pedrick
You're a breath of fresh air - that was very well put.
I am SO sick of M. Sjostrom and the way he SPEWS all over our Gen-Med site.
However, I agree with Todd that by replying, we're only giving him oxygen.
To target Leo like that is despicable. No one is kinder or more generous
with his information, giving it without stinting.
To anyone thinking of pulling out because of all this garbage from M.
Sjostrom, please don't. Hopefully he'll leave at some stage and we can get
back to normal.
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: Renia
Date: 10/08/2009 3:45:27 PM
Subject: Re: Bastardized children of Elizabeth Owen, wife of Sir Thomas
Burgh
M.Sjostrom wrote:
> somebody pontificated:
> ".....the marriage of Elizabeth Owen and Thomas Burgh are included in Leo
van de Pas' database. Sadly, the three children are not included. Hopefully
Mr. Van de Pas can remedy this situation ...."
>
>
> * I think that -unfortunately- Leo has a lot of other things to do, a big
backlog of lineages of far greater interest.
>
> It should be remembered that these British petty nobles are not that
important. And their negligible prominence does not increase from the fact
that piles of non-prominent people are descended from their siblings or
cousins.
>
> There are many many really important lineages which Leo has not yet had
enough time to include into his database.
> Lineages which are ancestral to important people, as opposed to
insignificancies in transatlantic colonization of some prairies and salt
lakes.
What strange and unkind comments to make.
It shows you do not understand the nature of Leo's database, which has
Been described as the largest private genealogical database in the world.
Leo is originally from The Netherlands and lives in Australia so
"transatlantic colonization" is the one thing which is not so prominent
In his database as it is in others.
Instead, his database is gathered (he describes himself as a
Genealogical "gatherer") from pedigrees found in European and British
Secondary sources in a variety of languages. If children are not
Mentioned in those sources, then, at least inititally, they won't be in
Leo's database.
Over the years, Leo and others have looked further into certain
Pedigrees and "missing" children and their descendants (or even
Ancestors) have been discovered, and then entered into the database.
Sometimes, children can be found in a different pedigree and be shown to
Be connected to another pedigree. Sometimes this is via secondary
Sources and sometimes as a result of genealogical discoveries in primary
Sources.
A database, such as this, has to be compiled systematically. Indeed, all
Genealogical discovery has to be compiled systematically.
You are not systematic. You are all over the place, second-guessing
Here, pondering there, and creating people who never existed from the
Flimsiest of ideas.
And you have the gall to criticise people for lack of genealogical
Know-how, when it is you who hasn't a clue how to go about genealogical
Research and compilation and bombards Leo and this newsgroup with
Irrelevancies.
-------------------------------
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
.
Renia
> Renia
>
> You're a breath of fresh air - that was very well put.
>
> I am SO sick of M. Sjostrom and the way he SPEWS all over our Gen-Med site.
> However, I agree with Todd that by replying, we're only giving him oxygen.
>
> To target Leo like that is despicable. No one is kinder or more generous
> with his information, giving it without stinting.
>
> To anyone thinking of pulling out because of all this garbage from M.
> Sjostrom, please don't. Hopefully he'll leave at some stage and we can get
> back to normal.
>
> Merilyn
Thank you, Merilyn. Mostly, I ignore his garbage, but it gets beyond the
pale when he starts criticising some of the best genealogists in this
newsgroup.
> ..
>
>
M.Sjostrom
allegations from Renia Simmonds only show how out of touch from reality she is.
Of course that is not surprising. Renia Simmonds generally makes no contribution to genealogy, instead she just posts here and there her useless retorts - which generally have nothing to do with genealogy.
Renia
> allegations from Renia Simmonds only show how out of touch from reality she is.
>
> Of course that is not surprising. Renia Simmonds generally makes no contribution to genealogy, instead she just posts here and there her useless retorts - which generally have nothing to do with genealogy.
As I said previously:
Not much to comment on at the moment because Mr Sjostrom's deluges of
posts are too far removed from my own research. Plus, genealogy is on
the back burner for a bit while I get on with other projects.
And as I said previous to that, I have been on this newsgroup for about
10 years and you are too new here to know what posts I have made on
genealogy.
M.Sjostrom
this reminds me that there actually are people who are as out of touch from reality that they do not realize there are archives of this group - going well from the 1990s and having recorded everything from the past ten years.
emerges a pattern: Remia Simmonds generally spews useless retorts, usually nothing evenb to do with genealogy. contributions of Renia Simmonds to genealogy: minuscule. Delusions of competence present in writings of Renia Simmonds.
It is obvious that genealogy is on back burner.
M.Sjostrom
the unfortunate delusion-sufferers Merilyn Pedrick and Renia Simmonds have obviously lost touch with reality. Unfortunate. Particularly unfortunate that they still spew their stupidities.
delusional Merilyn Pedrick accuses: "To target Leo like that is despicable."
delusional Renia Simmonds accuses: "criticising some of the best genealogists in this newsgroup."
These, Merilyn Pedrick & Renia Simmonds, somehow got an irrational, delusional idea to their (obviously disturbed) heads that I somehow criticised Leo.
Of course, both of them have a difficult time to prove any such criticism. Because their spews are untrue. Figments of their delusional imagination.
Renia
No more oxygen for you.
royala...@msn.com
There is a reference to the act of Parliament dated 1543 by which the
three children of Elizabeth Owen, widow of Sir Thomas Burgh, were
bastardized in the published series, Letter and Papers of King Henry
VIII, as follows:
Gairdner & Brodie, Letters & Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII 18(1)
(1901): 46:
"III. Acts not on the Parliament Roll and not printed in the Statutes
at Large.
Cap. xl. [o. n. 32]. “That, whereas Eliz. Burgh, late wife of Sir
Thos. Burgh, dec., son and heir apparent of Thos. lord Burgh, lived in
adultery during her husband's lifetime, and had children, Margaret,
Humfrey, and Arthur by other persons than her husband, as she has
partly confessed, these children are to be taken for bastards.” END
OF QUOTE.
The above information may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=76723
According to this record, he three children are named in order of
Margaret, Humphrey, and Arthur. This explains why the historian
Harris thought Margaret was the eldest child. Harris believed that
Margaret was the child of Elizabeth Burgh born in 1537, but a close
examination of the 1537 letter mentioning that child's birth indicates
that that child was male, not female. So, Margaret can not be the
child born in 1537.
Elsewhere, I've found a brief biography of Elizabeth Owen, wife of Sir
Thomas Burgh, on the website, A Who's Who of Tudor Women, compiled by
Kathy Lynn Emerson, which may be viewed at the following weblink sub
Elizabeth Owen:
http://www.kateemersonhistoricals.com/TudorWomen5.htm
Ms. Emerson indicates that Queen Katherine Parr, who was also,
briefly, one of Lord Burgh's daughter-in-laws, paid Elizabeth Owen a
pension from her own chamber accounts during her tenure as queen
(1543-1547).
What an odd twist of fate that Elizabeth Owen and Katherine Parr
should both have been been married into the Burgh family, and that
Katherine Parr would subsequently become Queen of England as wife of
King Henry VIII of England.
M. Sjostrom should know that Queen Katherine Parr is hardly "a petty
noble."
M.Sjostrom
here, all can see that Renia Simmonds is in 'discussions' which show clearly to what sort of people she associates with:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2009-08/1249919092
I say that there, Renia Simmonds is precisely in companionship which she deserves, and which matches her mental state.
Additionally, that series of blurbs from Renia Simmonds is a testimony how remote her 'contributions' to Gen-Med usually are from medieval genealogy.
-----
the following about a month ago, and her other posts in that thread
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2009-07/1247665999
show clearly that Renia Simmonds has already long been among the insane..... she appears to suffer from some sort of paranoia, and there are signs of pathological anxiety. Renia is pathologically anxious about wider discussions about genealogical details, since she has not sufficient mental ability to follow such - and this means she somehow (in her insanity) feels threatened. Her retorts to genealogical discussions are her weapon to try to stifle analyses she is not capable of handling.
Will Johnson there criticized fairly well those Renia-opinions which come from Renia's symptoms.
----------------------
Renia's faulty comprehension of history came quite obvious in her utterances about Mahalda regina, when she held all sorts of obsessions, such as: any lady from England who was a queen, should have been wife of a king of England
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2009-05/1241492798
All in all, those things show how useless her retorts are.
M.Sjostrom
to use Bronwen's words and her logic,
"There really does seem to be something wrong with" Renia Simmonds,
because she now and then makes personal attacks against other listers.
Not that such comes as any sort of surprise - I have seen from her meandering commentaries, and failures of logic in those, how unbalanced Renia is.
WJho...@aol.com
misplaced enthusiasm.
Sjostrom was pointing out that since Leo's database does not include some
even admittedly more important personages, that it would not necessarily
include every minor person and their deceased infants either.
That isn't a criticism of Leo. It was a criticism directed at Douglas'
pointing out that Leo doesn't have so-and-so and then Douglas' adding a bit
more smarmily something like "perhaps he will correct this oversight" or
whatever he said.
Hopefully that is more clear for those who haven't been reading each
message.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 8/9/2009 11:49:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
merilyn...@internode.on.net writes:
Renia
You're a breath of fresh air - that was very well put.
I am SO sick of M. Sjostrom and the way he SPEWS all over our Gen-Med
site.
However, I agree with Todd that by replying, we're only giving him oxygen.
To target Leo like that is despicable. No one is kinder or more generous
with his information, giving it without stinting.
To anyone thinking of pulling out because of all this garbage from M.
Sjostrom, please don't. Hopefully he'll leave at some stage and we can get
back to normal.
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
Renia
> However M. Sjostrom was not criticizing Leo. So to castigate him is
> misplaced enthusiasm.
>
> Sjostrom was pointing out that since Leo's database does not include some
> even admittedly more important personages, that it would not necessarily
> include every minor person and their deceased infants either.
>
> That isn't a criticism of Leo. It was a criticism directed at Douglas'
> pointing out that Leo doesn't have so-and-so and then Douglas' adding a bit
> more smarmily something like "perhaps he will correct this oversight" or
> whatever he said.
>
> Hopefully that is more clear for those who haven't been reading each
> message.
>
> Will Johnson
>
I don't buy that. Read his post again, Will (below).
> ..
royala...@msn.com
According to an online database available at Ancestry World Tree
Project, it is claimed that George Washington, 1st President of the
United States, is a descendant of Sir Henry Owen, the son and heir of
Sir David (or Davy) Owen. I've copied below the alleged descent which
be viewed at the following weblink:
http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=DESC&db=jintorcio&id=I05403
George Washington is listed in Generation 8 below.
Can anyone confirm this line of descent? It should be convered by
Gary Roberts' Presidents book.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
1 Henry Owen b: BET 1519 AND 1548 d: BET 1573 AND 1633
2 Jane Owen b: 1570 d: BET 1628 AND 1666
+ William Gostwick , Sir b: 2 DEC 1565 d: 19 SEP 1615
3 Edward Gostwick b: 1588 d: 20 SEP 1630
4 Mary Gostwick b: 1606
+ Nicholas Spencer , Sr. b: 1611
5 Mary Spencer b: 1630
+ William Clack
6 Nickolas Clack
6 James Clack
5 William Spencer b: 1632
5 Nicholas Spencer b: 19 SEP 1633 d: 23 SEP 1689
+ Frances Mottram b: 1645 d: 1720
6 Mottram Spencer
6 Mary Spencer d: JUN 1721
+ Johnson
7 Eliza Johnson
7 John Johnson
+ Joseph Ball
7 Mary Ball b: 1702 d: BET 1725 AND 1741
+ Augustine Washington b: 1694 d: 1743
8 George Washington b: 1732 d: 1799
+ Martha Danbridge Custis
8 Samual Washington b: 1734
8 John Augustine Washington b: 1736
8 Charles Washington b: 1738
8 Betty Washington b: 1738
8 Mildred Washington b: 1739
royala...@msn.com
In my previous post, for "alleged descent which be viewed," read
"alleged descent which can be viewed"
M.Sjostrom
that the obviously unbalanced and paranoid Renia Simmonds does 'not buy' something, is no surprising thing.
It only shows how detached Renia Simmonds is from reality.
I am guessing that it is no coincidence that Renia Simmonds does not work steadily in any responsible work, but instead lives with some sort of pensioned life in Greece. Insanity usually correlates with incapability to steady work.
And, of course, Renia Simmonds has got the obviously equally delusion-suffering Merilyn Pedrick with her spewings.
Of course, both of them have a difficult time to prove any such (that I criticized Leo). Because their spews are untrue. Figments of their delusional imagination.
royala...@msn.com
There is a pedigree of the Spencer family published in Magazine of
History and Biography, Vol. 2 (1895), pg. 33. This pedigree indicates
that George Washington's great-grandfather, Nicholas Spencer, the
immigrant to Virginia, was the son of Nicholas Spencer, of Cople,
Bedfordshire, by his wife, Mary Gostwick.
This pedigree may be viewed at the following weblink:
If this information is accurate, then I think George Washington's
alleged descent from Sir David (or Davy) Owen is most probably
correct. What an interesting twist of genealogy that President George
Washington should be near related to King Henry VIII of England by
common descent from the Tudor family.
M.Sjostrom
that the obviously unbalanced and paranoid Renia Simmonds does 'not buy' something, is no surprising thing.
It only shows how detached Renia Simmonds is from reality.
I am guessing that it is no coincidence that Renia Simmonds does not work steadily in any responsible work, but instead lives with some sort of pensioned life in Greece. Insanity usually correlates with incapability to steady work.
And, of course, Renia Simmonds has got the obviously equally delusion-suffering Merilyn Pedrick with her spewings.
Of course, both of them have a difficult time to prove any such (= their allegation that I criticized Leo). Because their spews are untrue. Figments of their delusional imagination.
WJho...@aol.com
Without including Douglas' original comments, you *might* have assumed that
Sjostrom was criticizing Leo, but he was not. His criticism was directed
at Douglas' prior response. Douglas had lobbed a comment at Leo that might
have been taken as criticism and it was that to which Sjostrom was
responding. It's all in the archives.
Will
In a message dated 8/10/2009 11:05:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
royala...@msn.com
I found the post below in a Google Search.
If the statements by Mr. Gamble are correct , then George Washington
would not be a Spencer descendant.
However, it seems to be commonly accepted that Nicholas Spencer, the
immigrant to Virginia, derives from Cople, Bedfordshire. If true,
then he at least would have a descent from Sir David (or Davy) Owen.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
Re: President George Washington's Spencer ancestor's
Posted by: Rick Gamble, Virginia Date: January 27, 2002 at 19:47:51
In Reply to: President George Washington's Spencer ancestor's by
Stacie Sorters of 1662
Your information about George Washington's maternal grandparents is
wrong on both counts. His grandmother was neither a Spencer nor a
Bennett, she was a Johnson (of unknown lineage.) George Washington's
mother was Mary Ball of Westmoreland County Virginia, second wife of
Augustine "Gus" Washington. Mary was the only daughter of Joseph Ball
and one Mary Johnson. At the time Ball married her, probably 1708,
Mary J. appears to have been a widow with two small children and she
was employed as a housekeeper in Ball's home. Nothing is known about
this Mary J prior to 1700. Years ago, there was a scholarly opinion
that this Mary Johnson might have been born "Mary Bennett" and took,
as her first husband, one "William Johnson" in Middlesex County
Virginia in 1689 (based on a marriage record to that effect.) However,
more in-depth research has revealed that this Mary Bennett Johnson of
1689, was definitely NOT the Mary Johnson who later married Joseph
Ball in/about 1708. Same names, but different, unrelated women. My
information comes from the recent book, FIELDING LEWIS AND THE
WASHINGTONS (1998), by historian Paula S. FELDER of Fredericksburg
(Felder is the leading expert on Mary Ball.)
lostcopper
You know, I think the way our Finny Friend spews out psychiatric terms
may be because they have been applied to him by his doctors. His
thought processes are garbled much like those of a schizophrenic or a
bipolar who has forgotten to take his medication. I've seen this in
students and others many times; that would also account for his
incessant projection, accusing others of displaying his own faults,
and his parroting of criticism leveled against him as if he had just
thought of it and decided to aim it at someone else. You know what
they say about *empty* buckets: they make the most noise.
lostcopper
Now wait a minute, M. That was about you, not Renia. Bronwen.
John
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> There is a pedigree of the Spencer family published in Magazine of
> History and Biography, Vol. 2 (1895), pg. 33. This pedigree indicates
> that George Washington's great-grandfather, Nicholas Spencer, the
> immigrant to Virginia, was the son of Nicholas Spencer, of Cople,
> Bedfordshire, by his wife, Mary Gostwick.
>
> This pedigree may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
>
> If this information is accurate, then I think George Washington's
> alleged descent from Sir David (or Davy) Owen is most probably
> correct. What an interesting twist of genealogy that President George
> Washington should be near related to King Henry VIII of England by
> common descent from the Tudor family.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Here's another correction to your hasty posts today: The correct
title of the periodical in question is The VIRGINIA Magazine of
History and Biography.
Cherryexile
comical; almost surreal.
There is Douglas ploughing ahead while all 'n' sundry rain insults and
accusations at one another.
Monty Python couldn't do better.
lostcopper
He did MUCH better. He got paid for it.
Christine Czarnecki
I have Gary Boyd Roberts' newest edition, 2009, of Ancestors of American Presidents.
He shows Mary Ball's parents to be Joseph Ball and Mrs. Mary (-----) Johnson, but does not think she is Mary Spencer.
Here's what he says, p. 1:
"6.� Joseph Ball, England.� 24 May 1649 - Epping Forest, Lancaster Co. between 25 June and 11 July 1711, c. 1707-8 (post 6 Feb. 1707)
7.� Mrs. Mary (----) Johnson, d. 1721, m. (3) RIchard Hewes; very likely she was the Mary Bennett of West Chester, England who m. William Johnson of Norwich, Middlesex Co., Va.�10 Feb. 1688/9 and was prob. a near kinswoman of a Thomas Bennett of Westmoreland Co., living 1738/9"
(The Lancaster Co. referred to is in Virginia)
GBR�shows no further ancestry for her.
For his bibliography for George Washington's ancestry, he cites the Rev. Horace Edwin Hayden's _Virginia Genealogies_ (1891, reprint 1959), 47-53, 56-59, 79-82, and _Genealogies of Virginia Families from the William and Mary College Quarterly Magazine, (1982), 3:194-95 (Ball, Mrs. Mary Bennett Johnson).
Douglas, he has your _Magna Carta Ancestry_� in his bibliography list.� You�might want a copy of his book for your library.
Dear Newsgroup ~
http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=DESC&db=jintorcio&id=I05403
-------------------------------
wjhonson
Jasper was a son by Mary Bohun, but we see in the Vis Bed linked above
that it gives Jasper as a son of Anne Blount.
Whether or not Anne also had a son Jasper, we can give firm and
perhaps pointed confirmation that Mary had a son Jasper. This
confirmation comes from the documents related to place called Fillol
Hall (and variants).
Evidently, and I propose this tentatively, Mary Bohun was dead by 1508
when, that year, her brother-in-law Robert Southwell, Knt, then
living, released a claim to this manor which had apparently been based
j.u. on his wife Ursula, Mary's sister. I presume Ursula d.s.p.
At this time I believe Henry Owen was yet a minor. And I state this
because it was not until several years later that the feofees granted
or released the manor to Henry himself. This occurred in 1513-4.
Interesting that it did not go to Davy j.u. but perhaps there was some
purpose in that.
At any rate, Henry Owen, the eldest son must have then been an adult,
which allows us to push his birth range back a bit further.
In the direction, they state specifically that the reversion is to be
held by Jasper his brother, and *then* by Anne the wife of Arthur
Hopton and *then* by the right heirs of Henry.
So this certainly and specifically excludes any other then-living
siblings of these three siblings, who are all siblings of each other,
and none other. If there had been any other males, they would stand
before Anne Hopton in the reversion.
Will Johnson
royala...@msn.com
wrote:
< I have Gary Boyd Roberts' newest edition, 2009, of Ancestors of
American Presidents.
<
< He shows Mary Ball's parents to be Joseph Ball and Mrs. Mary (-----)
Johnson, but does not think she is Mary Spencer.
Christine ~
Thank you for checking Gary Roberts' book for me. Much appreciated.
Even though George Washington's grandmother is not a Spencer, it
appears that the immigrant, Nicholas Spencer, of Virginia is a
definitely descendant of Sir David (or Davy) Owen, the uncle of King
Henry VII of England.
I see Gary Roberts outlines a line of descent for the immigrant,
Nicholas Spencer, from King Edward III of England in his book, Royal
Descents of 600 Immigrants, page 169.
He ctes the following source for Spencer: VM 2 (1894-5): 32-34.
Does anyone know of modern descendants for Nicholas Spencer?
M.Sjostrom
in 2008, Will Johnson presented a good question about Renia Simmonds:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2008-11/1227757677
not answered yet by Renia Simmonds.
gryphon801
foremost expert on these immigrants of royal descent has not already
studied every family in Gary's book intimately, and would already know
the answer. There are many 'modern' descendants. This was one of the
most prominent families in Virginia in its time, and the reason Cople
Parish received its name in Westmoreland County, Virginia. You might
start with Wikipedia and go from there (or use your Virginia sources
at the FHL to do actual research).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Spencer
Renia
Do you have Kentucky ancestry?
M.Sjostrom
Renia's reply this time is proof to the point:
Kentucky has next to nothing to do with MEDIEVAL genealogy.
QED: Renia Simmonds habitually utters here anything but on-topic
royala...@msn.com
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Spencer
Thanks for sharing the weblink. I already found it. I just hadn't
posted it yet.
royala...@msn.com
I, for one, appreciate Renia's contributions to the newsgroup, even
though we don't always agree with one another.
Regardless, if you wish to have a private discussion with Renia,
perhaps it would be better to do it offline by e-mail.
wjho...@aol.com
reference that can resolve this issue?
http://books.google.com/books?id=DqkTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA224
Calling him William Spencer
http://books.google.com/books?id=yygEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA34
Calling him Nicholas Spencer
Will Johnson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Spencer
Renia
If you had Kentucky ancestry, I could probably get you back to William
the Bastard. Perfectly on-topic.
Renia
> On Aug 14, 1:07 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> < Renia's reply this time is proof to the point:
> < Kentucky has next to nothing to do with MEDIEVAL genealogy.
> < QED: Renia Simmonds habitually utters here anything but on-topic
>
> I, for one, appreciate Renia's contributions to the newsgroup, even
> though we don't always agree with one another.
Thank you, Douglas.
> Regardless, if you wish to have a private discussion with Renia,
> perhaps it would be better to do it offline by e-mail.
No thanks.
wjho...@aol.com
probably get you back to William the bastard..."
Are you claiming that you have the family ascents for all Kentuckians?
Renia
I'll leave you to think about it.
Renia
And not seens sinc. I suppose he's gone on his holidays, but it's
interesting that he posts from the Pacific . . .
Richard Carruthers a.k.a. Carruthers-Zurowski
Hello Douglas,
I came at this question from another point of departure.
When I was in England in 2007, I obtained a copy an ERNLE pedigree chart deposited (when and by whom I know not) at the Society of Genealogists in London as part of my work on tracing all members of that family (and variants such as ERNELE, ERNELEY, EARNLEY, etc.).
The tree is strongest for the Sussex branch of the family, and gives a fairly exhaustive list of the descendants of Sir John ERNLE or ERNLEY (see ODNB) (ca 1465-1520), Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Commons Pleas (1519-1520), and his wife Margaret (d. 1519), daughter of Edmund DAWTREY, of Petworth, Sussex.
Sir John and Dame Margaret had one son, William ERNLE (1501-1545), who married twice, first to Elizabeth LEGG, and secondly to Bridget daughter of Thomas SPRING (ODNB) of Lavenham, Suffolk, later wife of Sir Henry HUSSEY, of Slinfold, Sussex.
By his second wife, William had five children (Catherine [m. Richard COVERT, of Hascombe, Sussex, and had issue]; Richard ERNLE [m. (1) Barbara dau. of Sir Henry GORING, of Burton, Sussex and (2) Elizabeth, daughter and co-heir, with her sister, Constance wife of Sir Geoffrey POLE, son of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, of Edmund PAKENHAM], Alice, of whom more later; Mary; and John ERNLE [m. and had issue, who did not survive him).
Of these children, it is daughter Alice ERNLE (bt. 7 Aug. 1542, West Wittering, Sussex, bur. 1614, West Wittering), who is relevant to your research.
She married twice. Her first husband was John WARNET or WARNETT, of Hemsted, Framfield, Sussex (bur. 1580, Framfield), widower of Mary OWEN, daughter of Sir Henry OWEN, and niece of Thomas WEST, 9th Lord de La Warre.
The chart I have shows that Mary was aged 38 and wife of John WARNETT in 1554/5 according to the IPM of her uncle Thomas West, Lord de La Warre (so your supposition of where her age was derived from is apparently correct).
Alice ERNLE married secondly as his second wife, Francis CHALLONER or CHALONER, of Kenwards (otherwise Kennards) in Lindfield, Sussex, who died in 1592. He was the widower of Mary LEIRST [this last name I am unsure of, and it doesn't on the face of it seem a very likely one. Perhaps it was BIRSTY, another Sussex gentry family].
Added to this is the note "See Warnett pedigree". Alas, I did not make a copy of this at the time, but it may help trace the descendants of John WARNETT and his first wife Mary OWEN, who, you say, had one daughter.
Best,
Richard
seeking all references to the surname ERNLE and variants in England, and now, in the U.S.A., and Canada (but not the ones in Germany as yet, unless that was founded by some scion of this Sussex, Hampshire, and Wiltshire family).
Richard H.B. Carruthers, a.k.a. Carruthers-Zurowski, M.A., Oxon.
West Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive email from all of your webmail accounts.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9671356
Patricia A. Junkin
Bisse/etc) ancestors held prorperty in Surrey and Sussex. There are
so many interconnecting families here.
Johanne Warnett sister of Richard married John Bysshe. (Brass at
Framfield, possibly)
C 1/386/48
Johane Bysse, of Uckfield, widow, sister and heir of Richard Warnett.
v. John Warnett, gentleman, bastard brother of the said Richard.:
Detention of deeds relating to the manor of Easton, and a messuage and
land in [Little] Horsted.: Sussex.
Covering dates 1515-1518
C 1/316/91
John Goryng, husband of [Custance], daughter of Henry Dyke, son and
heir of Elizabeth Massey, of London, widow. v. John Ernly, William
Tysted, esquires, John Warnet, and John Nicoll, gentlemen, executors
of the said Elizabeth.: Money promised to complainant by the said
Elizabeth for redemption of her lease to him and others of the manors
of Barlavington, Marden, Warningcamp, Lurgashall, Egdon, and Cotes,
and other lands.: Sussex
Covering dates 1504-1515
The Challoners married into this family---Challoner Bysshe.
Item ref: 2680/15/25
Conveyance
1) Richard Infield
2) Thomas Challoner and Thomas Wood
Manor of Burstow.
Date(s): 1 Jan 1624
Also, Gage, Shelley, Courthope connections.
The Will of John Bysshe of Burstowe who died in 1568 reflects
ownership in Cranleigh, Hascombe, Guilford, Fittleworth and Coates.
Grant by (a) John Dawtrey of Petworth, esq., to (b) Thomas West, kt.,
Richard Sherle, William Shelley, esq., William Ernele, Thomas Sherle,
John Bartelott and Richard Belingham - ref. Add Mss 12329-date: 26 May
1524
[from Scope and Content] All manors, lands and tenements, rents,
reversions
and services of (a) in Petworth, Moore in Petworth, Up Waltham,
Pulborough,
Kirdford, Duncton, Alfold co. Surrey, Angmeryng, Angmering, Easebourne,
Eartham, Elsted, Lurgashall, Selham, Sutton and Fletching, or
elsewhere in Susse.x.
[from Scope and Content] Of the lands, tenements, rents and services
of John Dawtre
of Up Waltham, of (b) Andrew Dawtre, son of the said John, as attorney
of
(a) To take possession in safe custody of lands and tenements called
Rothelond in Fittleworth, with the animals and corn thereon.
Have quite a bit of information.
Pat
On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Richard Carruthers a.k.a. Carruthers-
Zurowski wrote:
Paul Mackenzie
> This is an interesting post. Since "time out of mind" my Bysshe
It is certainly an interesting post. I am in there somewhere.
I have the following interests
George Holland of Angmering married Mary dau Thomas Chaloner of
Lindfield [according to sussex visitations]. Thomas having married Alice
Shirley dau of Sir Richard Shirley and Anne Shelley {the later being the
dau of John Shelley and Elizabeth de Michaelgrove.
I am trying to find any evidence of the marriage of George to Mary
[other than the visitation].
Regards
Paul
Leanda de Lisle
s3v3n...@gmail.com
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> I recently researched the family of Sir David Owen (c.1459-1535), the
> bastard son of Owen Tudor (husband of Katherine of France, widow of
> King Henry V of England). Sir David Owen was the paternal uncle of
>
> errors in the published literature regarding Sir David Owen and his
> immediate family. Among other things, most sources state that Sir
> David Owen died in 1542, the date when his will was probated.
> However, my research clearly indicates that Sir David Owen actually
> died shortly before about 27 Sept. 1535, seven years previously. I
> have no explanation for why the probate of his will was delayed for
> such a long time.
>
> As for Sir David Owen's three marriages, contemporary records indicate
> that he married (1st) Mary Bohun; (2nd) Anne Blount; and (3rd) Anne
> Devereux. There seems to be some confusion, however, as to which of
> his children belonged to which marriage. At the present time, I
> believe he had three sons, Henry, Knt., Jasper, and Roger, and one
> daughter, Anne (wife of Arthur Hopton, Esq.) by his 1st wife, Mary
> Bohun. It likewise appears that he had two sons, Henry (or Harry)
> and John, Esq., and one daughter, Elizabeth (wife of Thomas Burgh,
> Knt.) by his 3rd wife, Anne Devereux. I'm not aware that he had any
> children by his second wife, Anne Blount.
>
> I've found that following Sir David's death, his widow, Anne Devereux,
> married (2nd) Nicholas Gaynesford and (3rd) John Harman, Gent.
> Neither of these marriages are mentioned in any published account of
> the Owen or Devereux families that I've consulted. I have no
> particulars on Nicholas Gaynesford, although I assume he is the man
> mentioned in online databases who died in 1542. I also have no death
> date for Anne Devereux, although she appears to have been living in
> 1548.
>
> Sir David Owen's grandchildren are a bit of a muddle. As best I can
> tell, his eldest son, Sir Henry Owen, left a daughter and heiress, as
> did his youngest son, John Owen, Esq. I haven't been able to tell if
> either granddaughter has living descendants. John Owen, Esq. also had
> a son, Henry Owen, who survived him but he apparently left no issue.
>
> As for Sir David Owen's daughters, I've found that his eldest
> daughter, Anne Owen, married Arthur Hopton, Esq., and she left a large
> family which is well documented in records. There are many proven
> descendants of the Hopton marriage. As for Sir David's youngest
> daughter, Elizabeth Owen, I've found that she married Thomas Burgh,
> Knt., and had issue, but her children were subsequently bastardized by
> act of Parliament. I haven't been able to learn what became of the
> Burgh children.
>
> If anyone has additional particulars or corrections for the
> information below, I'd appreciate having them.
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>
> I. DAVID (or DAVY) OWEN, Knt., of Westminster, Middlesex, Old,
> Northamptonshire, Lagham (in Godstone) and Wotton, Surrey, Oxhill,
> Warwickshire, and Southwick (in North Bradley), Wiltshire, King's
> carver, Knight of the Body to King Henry VIII, and, in right of his
> 1st wife, of Cowdray (in Midhurst), Clemping, Easebourne, Ford, and
> Newtimber, Sussex, born in Pembrokeshire, Wales about 1459 (aged 70 in
> 1529). He was granted the manor of Oxhill, Warwickshire following the
> forfeiture of John Catesby of Lapworth in 1485. He was one of the
> twelve knight bachelors who held the canopy at the Coronation of Queen
> Elizabeth of York in 1487. In 1489 he was granted the manors of
> Little Creaton and Old, Northamptonshire, forfeited by William
> Catesby. He was probably made a knight banneret in 1493. He married
> (1st) MARY BOHUN, daughter and co-heiress of John Bohun, of Midhurst,
> Sussex, Kelvedon, Essex, etc. They had three sons, Henry, Knt.,
> Jasper, and Roger, and one daughter, Anne (wife of Arthur Hopton,
> Esq.). In 1495 he and Robert Southwell presented to the church of
> North Crawley, Buckinghamshire in right of their respective wives,
> Mary and Ursula Bohun. David married (2nd) before 1500 ANNE BLOUNT,
> widow of Thomas Oxenbridge, and daughter of William Blount, Esq., of
> Derbyshire, by Margaret, daughter and co-heiress of Thomas Echingham,
> Knt. (descendant of King Henry III) [see ECHINGHAM 13.i.a for her
> ancestry]. She was co-heiress in 1475 to her brother, Edward Blount,
> 2nd Lord Mountjoy. They had no issue. In the period, 1493-1500, he
> and his wife, Anne, together with Andrew Windsor, Esq. and his wife,
> Elizabeth, as "sisters and heirs of Edward Blownte, Lord Mountjoye,
> daughters and heirs of William Blounte, esquire, father of the said
> Edward, and cousins and heirs of Walter Blownte, late Lord Mountjoy"
> sued William Dreyton, clerk, and Thomas Hunte, feoffees to uses, and
> others in Chancery regarding the detention of deeds relating to the
> manors of Barton, Sutton, and Sapperton and other manors and lands
> late of Anne, Duchess of Buckingham, and of the said Walter, Lord
> Mountjoy in cos. Derby, Stafford, Worcester, Rutland, Leicester, and
> Hants. In the period, 1502-1503, the same parties sued Robert
> Tykhyll, Thomas Corneby, and Thomas Lathome, executors of Harry
> Tykhyll in Chancery regarding the detention of deeds relating to the
> inheritance and possessions of the said Anne and Elizabeth. His wife,
> Anne, was living 20 July [?1510]. David served as chief carver to the
> king on St. George's Day, 1517. In the period, 1518-1529, he sued
> John Bower, late under-steward of complainant's manors of Midhurst and
> Easebourne, Sussex regarding the detention of deeds relating to the
> said manors. In 1519 he purchased the manor of Isenhampstead Latimer,
> Buckinghamshire from Robert Willoughby, Lord Brook. He married (3rd)
> before 1525 ANNE DEVEREUX, daughter of John Devereux, Knt., 2nd Lord
> Ferrers of Chartley, by Cecily, daughter of William Bourgchier, Knt.
> They had two sons, Henry (or Harry) and John, Esq., and one daughter,
> Elizabeth (wife of Thomas Burgh, Knt.). By an unknown mistress (or
> mistresses), he also had one illegitimate son, William, and one
> illegitimate daughter, Barbara. In 1526 he was among those who
> escorted the king to Petworth. In 1530 he brought an action against
> Fulk Greville and Francis Dawtrey, husbands respectively of Elizabeth
> and Blanche, granddaughters and heirs of Robert Willoughby, who had
> entered the manor of Isenhampstead Latimer (in Chesham),
> Buckinghamshire "with Bucklers, Daggers, Bowes and Arrowes'"and turned
> out his tenant, Robert Durrant. SIR DAVID OWEN was buried about 27
> Sept. 1535. Following his death, his widow, Anne, petitioned in 1535
> for the money and household stuff which her husband had at his death,
> and for the custody of her son, John. He left a will dated 20 Feb.
> 1529, proved 13 May 1542 (P.C.C. 6 Spert). He was buried in
> Easebourne Priory, Sussex. His widow, Anne, married (2nd) before 1538
> NICHOLAS GAYNESFORD. In the period, 1533-1538, Nicholas and Anne, his
> wife, and [her son] John Owen, sued Simon Harecourt, Knt., in Chancery
> regarding the manor of Lagham (in Godstone), Surrey, late of Davy
> Owen, Knt., former husband of the said Anne, and father of the said
> John. In the period, 1544-1551, John, son of David Owen, Knt., and of
> Anne his last wife, sued Roger Dennys, an executor of the said Sir
> David, regarding the manors of Southwick (in North Bradley),
> Wiltshire, Wotton, Surrey, Oxhill, Warwickshire, and Isenhampstead
> Latimer, Buckinghamshire, etc. His widow, Anne, married (3rd) before
> 1549 (as his 3rd wife) JOHN HARMAN, Gent., of Rendlesham, Suffolk,
> Gentleman Usher of the Household, 1540-1558, Burgess (M.P.) for
> Orford, ?1536, ?1539, 1545, 1547, 1554, Burgess (M.P.) for
> Bletchingley, 1554, son and heir of Christopher Harman, of Tunstall,
> by his 1st wife, Cecily, daughter of Robert Fitz Ralph. In the
> period, 1532-1538, Thomas Cunnyngham, of Winston, husbandman sued him
> in Chancery regarding the manor of Bocking Hall, Suffolk, held on
> lease of the abbess of Bruisyard. In 1544 he served in the French
> campaign, where he had charge of the gunners. In 1548 her son, John
> Owen, sold the reversion of the manor of Little Creaton,
> Northamptonshire to be had following the death of his mother, Anne.
> JOHN HARMAN, Gent., was living in Dec. 1558, when he attended the
> funeral of Queen Mary I.
>
> References:
>
> Testamenta Vetusta, 2 (1826): 700-702 (will of David Owen). Le
> Marchant, Report of the Procs. of the House of Lords on the Claims to
> the Barony of Gardner (1828): 472 (re. the bastardized children of
> Elizabeth Owen, wife of Thomas Burgh). Nicolas, Treatise on the Law
> of Adulterine Bastardy (1836): 60-61, 577 (re. the bastardized
> children of Elizabeth Owen, wife of Thomas Burgh). Banks, Dormant &
> Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 378-380 ("It seems that Owen
> Tudor had a natural son, called sir David Owen, who married three
> wives; viz. first, Anne, daughter and heir of William Blount, who died
> S.P.; second, Mary, daughter and co-heir of John de Bohun, of
> Midhurst, by whom he had three sons; viz. Henry, Jasper, and Roger;
> also a daughter Anne, who married Arthur Hopton, esq. His third wife
> was Anne, sister to Walter Devereux, lord Ferrers, of Chartley.").
> Jerdan, Rutland Papers. Original Docs. Ill. of the Courts & Times of
> Henry VII & Henry VIII (Camden Soc. 21) (1842): 101. Banks, Baronies
> in Fee 1 (1844): 126-127 (Blount), 128-129 (Bohun). Halliwell,
> Letters of the Kings of England 1 (1848): 202-204. Sussex Arch.
> Colls. 7 (1854): 22-43. Arch. Jour. 12 (1855): 99-100 ("Mr. Blaauw ...
> has furnished four papers. One is on the effigy of Sir David Owen, in
> Easeborne Church, near Midhurst .... the illegitimate son of Owen Tudor,
> who, by his marriage with Katherine, the widowed queen of Henry V.,
> became the stepfather of Henry VI., and was the grandfather of Henry
> VII. It had seemed so improbable that a son of this Owen Tudor should
> have died in 1542, that Nicolas, Baker, and some other genealogists,
> had supposed a generation had been overlooked, and that Sir David was
> Owen Tudor's grandson. He had even been mistaken for a son of Henry
> VIII. Mr. Blaauw has explained this most satisfactorily, by means of
> the deposition made by Sir David himself as a witness at the time of
> the divorce of Henry VIII. from his Queen Katherine of Arragon was in
> agitation; which shows that he was born in 1459, about two years
> before the execution of Owen Tudor, and consequently was only eighty-
> three years of age at his own death in 1542."). Antiquary, 3 (1873):
> 305; 37 (1901): 253. St. George & Lennard, Vis. of Somerset 1623
> (H.S.P. 11) (1876): 56-57 (Hopton pedigree). Lennard & Vincent, Vis.
> of Warwick 1619 (H.S.P. 12) (1877): 124-127 (Catesby pedigree: "Elizb.
> [Catesby] ux. John Owen de Wotton in Surey, 2 to John Prestolfe.").
> Notes & Queries, 6th Ser. 6 (1882): 289-290. Harvey et al., Vis. of
> Bedfordshire 1566, 1582, 1634 & 1669 (H.S.P. 19) (1884): 187-188
> (Addl. Pedigrees) (Owen pedigree: Sr David Owen of Medhurste in com.
> Sussex Knt. [1] = Mary d. & heire of John Bohun of Medhurste vide
> Sussex 1 wife, [2] = Anne d. & coheire of Will'm Blount sonn and heire
> of Walter Blount 1 Lord Mountjoy 2 wiffe.") (Owen arms: [Gules], a
> chevron [ermine] between three esquires' helmets argent). Gairdner,
> Letters & Papers, Foreign & Domestic, Henry VIII 9 (1886): 143-165,
> 367-402. Metcalfe, Vis. of Northamptonshire 1564 & 1618-9 (1887): 10
> (1564 Vis.) (Catesby pedigree: "Isabel [Catesby], mar. to John Owen of
> Wootton, co. Surrey, Esq."). Desc. Cat. of Ancient Deeds, 1 (1890):
> 75-76; 3 (1900): 74-85. Misc. Gen. et Heraldica, 3rd Ser. 3 (1900): 9-
> 12 (Hopton pedigree), 49-53.. Benolte et al., Vis. of Sussex 1530,
> 1633-4 (H.S.P. 53) (1905): 122 (Owen pedigree: "Sr David Owen of
> Medhurst in com. Sussex knt. naturall sonn. [1] = [left blank], [2] =
> Anne d. & coheire of Willm. Blount sonn & heire the 1 Lord Mountjoye 2
> wiffe widdow of Thom. Oxenbridge."). D.N.B. 19 (1909): 1217-1218
> (biog. of Owen Tudor) (author states that "a natural son of Owen,
> called Dafydd, is said to have been knighted by Henry VII, who gave
> him in marriage Mary, daughter and heiress of John Bohun of Midhurst
> in Sussex."). Williams, Llyfr Baglan, or, Book of Baglan (1910): 36
> ("The mothere of Edmont ap Owene and Jaspar ap Owen was Caterin,
> Queene of England, da. to Charles k. of ffaunce. The wief of Sr dauid
> ap Owene, the 3 sone to Owen Tudyr, was Joyes, the da. of Sr Edward
> Crofte."). VCH Surrey 3 (1911): 154-164, 290-293; 4 (1912): 283-291.
> Burke, Gen. & Heraldic Hist. of the Peerage & Baronetage (1914): 1000-
> 1002 (sub Hereford). Griffith Peds. of Anglesey & Carnarvonshire
> Fams. (1914): 106 (Plas Penmynydd pedigree) (Sir David Owen identified
> as an illegitimate son of Owen Tudor). Salzman, Feet of Fines Rel.
> Sussex 3 (Sussex Rec. Soc. 23) (1916): 296-301. Brewer, Letters &
> Papers, Foreign & Domestic, Henry VIII 1 (1920): 815-833, 869-887 (Sir
> David Owen styled "cousin" by Lord Herbert in 1513). VCH Buckingham 3
> (1925): 203-218; 4 (1927): 327-338. C.P. 5 (1926): 325-326 (sub
> Ferrers); 9 (1936): 336-337 (sub Mountjoy). Wedgwood, Hist. of
> Parliament 1 (1936): 654-655 (biog. of Sir David Owen). VCH
> Northampton 4 (1937): 100-107, 200-204. VCH Warwick 5 (1949): 125.
> Dibben, Cowdray Archives 2 (1964): 326-327, 329, 334. VCH Wiltshire 8
> (1965): 218-234. VCH Sussex 2 (1973): 84-85; 4 (1953): 47-53, 74-80;
> 7 (1940): 204-208. Williams, Religion, Language & Nationality in
> Wales ( 1979): 178. Bindoff, House of Commons 1509-1558 2 (1982): 302
> (biog. of John Harman). MacCulloch, Reign of Henry VIII (1995): 64.
> Siddons, Visitations by the Heralds in Wales (H.S.P. n.s. 14) (1996):
> 89 (1531 Visitation) (Croft of Croft pedigree: "Joyce [Croft] married
> Sir Harry Oweyne, in Sussex."). National Archives, C 1/217/19; C
> 1/268/24; C 1/551/72; C 1/767/35; C 1/804/16; C 1/1148/40 (abstract of
> documents available online at http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).
On Ancestry.com, it shows a daughter for Henry Owen of Jane Owen and that she married Sir William Gostwick.