Aske-Lightfoot Update...
larry cates
I simply wanted to update everyone concerning a matter which I brought
before you two years ago, namely the ancestry of the Virginia Lightfoots,
Philip of Gloucester Co. and John of New Kent Co. and the potential
connection of their grandfather, Rev. Richard Lightfoot of Stoke Bruern,
Northamptonshire, to the Aske family of Aughton, Yorkshire. If you will
remember, various wills in this family prove that the Lightfoots were
cousins of the Thomas Jones family of Lewisham, Kent and the heraldry on
Rev. Lightfoot's tomb impales Lightfoot with Aske. Thomas Jones' monument
in Lewisham explicitly states that he married the daughter of Robert Aske,
Priscilla, and claims that Robert was lineally descended from the Askes of
Aughton. Since that time, working directly and through the offices of
hired researchers in London and the United States, I have:
(1) confirmed the marriage records of Priscilla Aske to Thomas Jones and
Mary Aske to Richard Lightfoot, both in London.
(2) found the will of Robert Aske of Lewisham, Kent(1604), warden of the
London goldsmith's company and warden of London Bridge for a time,
explicitly mentioning the Jones family.
(3) discovered a manuscript pedigree written by Richard Mundy (MSS 1571)
and cited in Joseph Foster's THE VISITATION OF YORKSHIRE (London, 1875)
that states flatly that Robert Aske, goldsmith, of London,
was an illegitimate son of Robert Aske of Aughton, Yorkshire, the son and
heir of John Aske, esquire, and his wife Ellinor Ryther, daughter and
coheiress of Ralph Ryther. (This was in addition to a legitimate son of
Robert, also named Robert.)
(4) discovered a mention of James Aske of London (son of the goldsmith
Robert) in the will of John Aske (heir of Aughton, legitimate grandson of
the goldsmith's natural father) in 1605, which calls James "cousin." Also
discovered that the widow of John Aske requested that James be made her
co-executor. So this is proof of Mundy's contention.
(5) discovered the pedigree of the London Lightfoot family in the
recently published 1687 Herald's Visitation, which states that Rev.
Richard Lightfoot and Jane [sic] Aske were the parents of John Lightfoot,
Esq., barrister at law and that John, who married Elizabeth Phillips was
the father of, among many others: (a) "John Lightfoot a Capt. of one of
his Maties. Ships died at Sea A o. 1682 aetat. circa 55 an. sine prole
[married] Elizabeth dar. of John Tailor of Maidstone in Com. Cantii" (b)
"Philip Lightfoot now in Virginia circ. 41 An."
Now, the only thing that is out of kilter here is the given name of Mrs.
Richard Lightfoot, who was definitely named Mary in her marriage record.
Jane, who was Richard's widow, was probably a second wife, and stepmother
of most of the children, though sometimes referring to them as her
children or grandchildren. There is no record of Mary Aske Lightfoot's
death in London or of Richard's remarriage. In any case, the pedigree
states flatly that the grandmother of the Virginia Lightfoots was an Aske,
not a Jones, as has been stated elsewhere for many years.
The most exciting part is that Philip of Gloucester Co., VA, is explicitly
identified as a son. This leaves John of New Kent somewhat up in the air,
but I believe that he was the son of Capt. John Lightfoot of the above
pedigree despite the "sine prole" notation. As we all know, the Heralds
were not infallible. I have been able to confirm, through my agents, Dr.
Tyler's contention about a record in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury
granting administration of Captain Lightfoot's estate. The entry in the
P.C.C. index of administrations [manuscript on microfilm] is the only one
for Lightfoot recorded from 1682 to 1688 and states that administration
for John Lightfoote who died in parts beyond the seas, was granted 31
March 1688. A marginal note in Latin records that on 7 Mar [1686/7]
William Lightfoot, father's brother ("Patruo") of John Lightfoote and
Philip Lightfoote, in parts across the seas, sons of John Lightfoote, late
of Surinam, widower, deceased, was granted admnistration of the goods of
the deceased during the sons' absence. I feel certain that John of this
list is John Lightfoot of New Kent, as he had close ties to Phillip of
Gloucester. He actually made Philip the trustee of his wife, Ann
Goodrich's, dower property from her father in 1681. Philip was probably
John's uncle.
All of this amounts to exciting news for the Virginia Lightfoot
descendants, who now have a verified English origin and a verified
Plantagenet descent.
Larry W. Cates
Charlotte, NC
larry cates
Jonesgen...@aol.com
College Quarterly, Vol. II, p. 93 - 95. This is a lengthy will, and I make the
following clips:
"In the name of God Amen, I Richard Lightfoot Clerke, person of Stoke
Brewen in the
County of Northton being in helth of bodie but of pafitt memory...
" The rest of all my good debts and estate not bequethed I give to my
wellbeloved
wife Jane Liftfoote whome I make sole Exectrix of this my last
Will and I desire
my dearly beloved brother Thomas Jones Esqr to be overseer hereof
to see the
same pformed in all things accodinge to my true meaninge...."
" Sealed published and declard by the said Richard Lightfoote as and
for his last
Will & Testamt in the presence of us Thomas Jones, John Winterborne,
Thomas
Marshe."
Proved 6th
December, 1625
In this document, the name Aske does not appear. It would seem
unusal that if the wife of Richard was an Aske, the family would not be mentioned.
Richard Lightfoot, describes Thomas Jones as his "dearly beloved
brother". The most common usage at this time was; 1st= biological brother, 2nd=
brother-in-law", and 3rd= fellow believer in the Christian faith. It is
possible that the third meaning is intended, but the most likely is brother-in-law.
Thomas Jones is given the responsibility of "overseer". This was not
always a family member, but in many cases a family was given this
responsibility.
Thomas Jones was listed as a witness.
The will of John Lightfoot is found 1 Jan 1647.
In this he list, "....To my loving cousin, Mr. Thomas Jones 5
marks."
No Aske are listed.
John Lightfoot also describes a chamber lodging at Gray's Inn as
such:
"My friend Edward Bing, Esq: to have chamber lodging at
Gray's Inne,
wherein testator has an estate for life, & the life of
his cousin, Mr. John Jones,
at such reasonable price as shall be agreed upon."
Will was proved at London 24 March, 1648-49.
The will of Thomas Jones of Grayes Inn, in Co. Middlesex, esqure
(P.C.C. 117, Clarke)
gives all of his property in trust for the benefit of his wife and
children,
"to my dear and loving wife Priscilla Jones, Sir Richard
Yonge, knight, and
John Lightfoote",...."in trust that my said cousins Sir
Richard Younge and
John Lightfoote, etc...."
A moument of alabaster and black marble is erected to the memory of
Thomas Jones: A full description of this is found in The Monumental
Inscriptions of St. Mary, Lewisham. The base of the is written "....Sir Richard
Younge, Knight and Bart.; William Boswell, Thomas Jones, and John Lightfoote, Esq.
have erected this monument that the just might be had in
everlasting rememberance."
If one were to assume that Jane Lightfoote was an Aske, and not a
JONES, it would be extremely difficult to explain the above primary documents.
It would be more likely that the pedigree published 1687 was in error if it
listed the wife of Richard Lightfoot as "Jane (sic) ASKE, arising from the
confusion of Mary Aske, first wife of Richard Lightfoote?
How could Jane LIGHTFOOT not be Jane JONES, sister of Thomas JONES?
Jerry E. Jones, MD, MS
The Jones Genealogist
Brad
Dear Dr. Jones,
Comments interspersed.
> " The rest of all my good debts and estate not bequethed I give to my
> wellbeloved
> wife Jane Liftfoote whome I make sole Exectrix of this my last
> Will and I desire
> my dearly beloved brother Thomas Jones Esqr to be overseer hereof
> to see the
> same pformed in all things accodinge to my true meaninge...."
Thomas Jones and Richard Lightfoot had been brothers-in-law (each
married to an Aske sister). Even after his first (Aske) wife's death,
Lightfoot still apparently remained close to Jones.
> In this document, the name Aske does not appear. It would seem
> unusal that if the wife of Richard was an Aske, the family would not be mentioned.
I don't know how many siblings were in the family of Mary Aske
Lightfoot and Priscilla Aske Jones, but if they were the only surviving
ones, it's not unusual that more distant Aske kin weren't mentioned in
Lightfoot's will.
> Richard Lightfoot, describes Thomas Jones as his "dearly beloved
> brother". The most common usage at this time was; 1st= biological brother, 2nd=
> brother-in-law", and 3rd= fellow believer in the Christian faith. It is
> possible that the third meaning is intended, but the most likely is brother-in-law.
Yes, and they were brothers-in-law, having both been married to Aske
sisters.
> If one were to assume that Jane Lightfoote was an Aske, and not a
> JONES, it would be extremely difficult to explain the above primary documents.
It's possible Jane Lightfoot, widow of Richard, was a Jones - her
parentage was not mentioned in the initial post.
> It would be more likely that the pedigree published 1687 was in error if it
> listed the wife of Richard Lightfoot as "Jane (sic) ASKE, arising from the
> confusion of Mary Aske, first wife of Richard Lightfoote?
Clearly some confusion occured in 1687. It would appear from primary
documentation (marriage record and his will) that Richard Lightfoot had
two wives: first, Mary Aske, and second, Jane, who survived him.
> How could Jane LIGHTFOOT not be Jane JONES, sister of Thomas JONES?
It's certainly possible for her to have been so, but not necessary.
Lightfoot and Jones were already brothers-in-law through first wife
Mary. If Jane was Jones's sister, then that makes them doubly so.
Cheers, -----------Brad
Jonesgen...@aol.com
Thanks for the comments. My notes show that Priscilla Jones was a
daughter of Robert Aske, of Aughton, later of Lewisham in Kent, where he died.
His will is dated Sept. 14, 1604, proved Feb. 15, 1604-05. (P.C.C., 9 Hayes).
I do not have a copy in front of me, and if any one can located a copy or
have reference to a copy, it should be helpful to clarify the number of
daughters? Priscilla is clearly a daughter, but I do not have a Mary or Jane as
daughters of Robert Aske. If they were cousins of Priscilla Aske, then Thomas
Jones would have to be a "cousin-in-law" not brother? Does anyone have access
to the will of Robert Aske?
Kind Regards,
Jerry.
larry cates
Richard Lightfoot failed to mention his Aske kindred. He had been living
away from London for quite some time as parson of Stoke Bruern in
Northamptonshire (about 20 years). Also, at the time of his death, I am
not sure whether most of the Aske sons or daughters were still alive. He
was obviously closest to Thomas Jones and wife, Priscilla and their
children, probably because his wife (former or present) and Priscilla were
younger daughters, possibly by Robert's second wife. Priscilla was
definitely an Aske, as Thomas Jones' monument at Lewisham points out, as
Robert Aske's will mentions, as their marriage record states, and as at
least one other Heralds' Visitation proves. Thomas and Richard were
"brothers-in-law" because their wives, the mothers of most if not all
their children, had been sisters. The will of Robert Aske actually
favored Priscilla and Thomas Jones, such that James Aske, an older son
attempted to overthrow the will, so bad blood over inheritance could have
the split the older from the younger children.
But, if the mother of Richard's children was not an Aske, why would the
1587 pedigree specifically state that the mother of his two sons (John and
Richard) was the daughter of Robert Aske, goldsmith, of London? A slip of
a given name is understandable, but a slip on the added information
concerning the London Askes is not. Surely, the informant, William
Lightfoot of London, would have known his paternal grandmother's maiden
name. Also, it seems unlikely that Rev. Richard's monument in Stoke
Bruern would impale the arms of Aske of Aughton with those of Lightfoot if
the mother of most, if not all, of his children was not an Aske.
It is possible that the marriage record for Richard Lightfoot and Mary
Aske recorded in London is wrong and that the given name should have been
Jane, not Mary. It is also possible that Jane was a second wife of
Richard, and even, it is possible that Jane and Mary were sisters (the
given names of several of the younger daughters of Robert Aske can not be
divined from the damaged parish register, though sex and date of
christening can), both daughters of Robert Aske, and both married
successively to Richard. But there can be very little doubt that the
mother of Richard and John (who was one of the earliest children) of Rev.
Richard was an Aske. I do note as well that John Lightfoot, barrister,
(of Rev. Richard) named a son Robert, probably after his maternal
grandfather. This Robert became an apothecary for Catherine of Braganza,
Charles II's queen.
Larry
larry cates
"1587."
Also, Thomas Jones' will does not seem to mention his Aske kindred, if any
survived. So, I suppose that proves very little.