re Additional Edward III Descents for Anne Skipwith

[Leo]

Dear Brad,
We need to realise that Martin Hollick proved his point that Anne Skipwith descended from Thomas of Woodstock, but I wonder whether he realised that Anne has two lines to this Thomas?

In her ancestor list:
nr.562 Thomas of Woodstock
nr.754 Thomas of Woodstock
nr 10398 John of Gaunt
nr 20814 Lionel of Antwerp

Can you check your second line shown below. I understand from Gerald Paget's work that you may miss one generation.

6B Sir Robert Aske married Elizabeth Clifford
(John Aske, will proved 28 March 1544 GP P57759 married Ellen Ryther GP P57760)
7. Julian(a) Aske GP O28880

You give dates to Julian Ask (Gerald Paget doesn't) and the dates make it very difficult for Gerald Paget to be correct.
With many thanks for a very interesting message.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



Martin Hollick has done a great service laying out a descent from
Edward III for Quaker immigrant Anne Skipwith, wife first of William
Goforth, with whom she immigrated to Burlington, New Jersey. After his
death, she married William Oxley and settled with him in Philadelphia:
http://mhollick.typepad.com/slovakyankee/2010/01/the-royal-line-of-anne-skipwith-goforth-oxley-ca-16421723-part-ii.html

The descent shows she is 10 generations removed from Edward III
through his youngest son Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester. She
has two other descents from Edward III. In the first she is fourteen
generations removed from that monarch, through his second surviving
son, Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence. In the other she is
thirteen generations removed through his third son, John of Gaunt,
Duke of Lancaster:

Edward III had two sons, 1A & 1B:
1A) Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence (1338-1368), who had
2A) Philippa of Clarence, Countess of March (1355-1377), who had
3A) Elizabeth Mortimer (1371-1417) m. 1) Sir Henry 'Hotspur' Percy
(1364-1403), and had
4A) Elizabeth Percy (c.1395-1437) m. 1) John, 7th Lord Clifford
(1388-1422) (descended from Edw I), and had
5A) Thomas, 8th Lord Clifford (1414-1455) m. Joan Dacre (c.1417-c.
1452) (descended from Edw I), and had
6A) John, 9th Lord Clifford (1435-1461) m. Margaret Bromflete (c.
1436-1493), and had
7A) Elizabeth Clifford (c.1460-bef. 1529) m. Sir Robert Aske of
Aughton (see 6B below)

1B) John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (1340-1399), who had
2B) Joan Beaufort (c.1377-1440) m. 1) Sir Robert Ferrers of Wem (c.
1372-1396), and had
3B) Elizabeth Ferrers (1393-1434) m. John, 4th Lord Greystoke (c.
1390-1436), and had
4B) Anne Greystoke (c.1417-1477) m. Sir Ralph Bigod of Settrington
(1410-1461), and had
5B) Elizabeth Bigod m. 1462 Sir John Aske of Aughton (1443-1497), and
had
6B) Sir Robert Aske of Aughton (c.1463-1531) m. Elizabeth Clifford
(see 7A above), and had
7) Julian Aske (c.1490-bef. 1530) m. Thomas Portington of Portington
(c.1492-1540), and had
8) Henry Portington of Portington (c.1510-1560) m. Maud Tyrwhitt
(descended from Edw I), and had
9) John Portington of Portington (c.1535-1579) m. Anne Langton, and
had
10) Thomas Portington of Portington (1563-1612) m. Elizabeth Skipwith
(descended from EIII thru Thomas of Woodstock), and had
11) Anne Portington (d. aft. 1648) m. 1) William Skipwith of South
Ormsby (c.1567-1622) (descended from EIII thru Thomas of Woodstock),
and had
12) Willoughby Skipwith (1613-1658) m. Honora Sanders (c.1616-1679),
and had
13) Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley of Philadelphia (c.1643-1723)

Cheers, --------Brad

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

[Brad Verity]

On May 16, 12:40 am, "Leo" <can2...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
> Dear Brad,
> We need to realise that Martin Hollick proved his point that Anne Skipwith descended from Thomas of Woodstock, but I wonder whether he realised that Anne has two lines to this Thomas?
>
> In her ancestor list:
> nr.562 Thomas of Woodstock
> nr.754 Thomas of Woodstock
> nr 10398 John of Gaunt
> nr 20814 Lionel of Antwerp

Yes, in his blog post on Anne Skipwith's ten generation descent from
Edward III thru Thomas of Woodstock, Martin Hollick pointed out both
lines from Thomas. Her paternal grandparents William Skipwith of
South Ormsby (c.1567-1622) & Anne Portington (d. aft. 1648), were
first cousins, so each has a descent from Thomas of Woodstock through
their shared grandmother Elizabeth Page (c.1518-1573), wife of Sir
William Skipwith of South Ormsby (c.1510-1586).

> Can you check your second line shown below. I understand from Gerald Paget's work that you may miss one generation.
>
> 6B Sir Robert Aske married Elizabeth Clifford
> (John Aske, will proved 28 March 1544 GP P57759 married Ellen Ryther GP P57760)
> 7. Julian(a) Aske    GP  O28880

There were actually two Julian Askes, Leo. The Julian who was the
daughter of John Aske & Ellen Ryther was married to John Vavasour of
Spaldington. She was not yet married, though, when her father John
Aske made out his will in 1543. In the same will, he also refers to
his "nephew" Henry Portington.

The Julian Aske who married Thomas Portington of Portington, was the
sister, not daughter, of John Aske (d. 1544). She is not named among
the children of Sir Robert Aske & Elizabeth Clifford set forth in the
Aske pedigree taken by herald Thomas Tonge at the 1530 Visitation of
Yorkshire, probably because she had died well before that date. She
is mentioned in the 1507 will of her aunt, Katherine Aske, widow of
Sir John Hastings. Katherine bequeaths: "To my nece Julian a kirtell
of tawny worstett and my best smok." I also want to thank genealogist
Chris Cox (whose wife is a Portington descendant) for making me aware
early last year of the IPM of Julian, widow of Richard Portington of
Portington and the paternal grandmother of Thomas Portington of
Portington (c.1492-1540). Her IPM was taken in January 1510, and one
of the findings was: "And that the aforesaid Thomas Portington is of
the age of seventeen years and more. And that he has been married to
Juliana Ask, daughter of Robert Ask, knight, for the space of twelve
years last elapsed." Also the Portington pedigree from the 1612
Visitation of Yorkshire correctly identifies the father of Julian,
wife of Thomas Portington as "Sir Robert Aske".

The original Aske manor of Owsthorpe is in the parish of Eastrington
in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The manor of Portington lies in the
same parish, making the Askes and the Portingtons close neighbours.
Given that there were no ladies named 'Julian' in the immediate
ancestry of either Sir Robert Aske (c.1463-1531) or his wife Elizabeth
Clifford, it's very likely they gave this name to their eldest
daughter because widowed neighbour Julian Portington (d. 1510) served
as godmother. And no doubt that lady oversaw the arrangements for the
marriage of her grandson and heir Thomas Portington to her goddaughter
Julian Aske, apparently in 1497, while both were still children.

> You give dates to Julian Ask (Gerald Paget doesn't) and the dates make it very difficult for Gerald Paget to be correct.
> With many thanks for a very interesting message.

Thanks, Leo. There's one last point I overlooked in my original post:

On May 15, 10:46 pm, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 12) Willoughby Skipwith (1613-1658) m. Honora Sanders (c.1616-1679),
> and had
> 13) Anne Skipwith Goforth Oxley of Philadelphia (c.1643-1723)

Anne Skipwith's mother Honora Sanders (c.1616-1679) is a descendant of
Edward I thru her mother Sarah Smith (d. 1632), wife of Patrick
Sanders of St Helen Bishopsgate, London (d. 1638).

Cheers, --------Brad

[John]

This discussion of Thomas Portington and Julian Aske seems to confirm
that Gerald Paget erred in his identification of Julian Aske. Looking
further, I think there's another Paget error here (which does not
affect Martin Hollick's line).

Leo presently gives only one child to Thomas Portington and Julian
Aske: a daughter Elizabeth who mar. Hugh Cressy of Letwell,
Yorkshire. But it appears that Paget misplaced this daughter
Elizabeth - she probably belongs to another Portington family branch,
and she may have been sister, not daughter, to a different Thomas
Portington.

In Clay's edition of Dugdale's visitation of Yorkshire as well as vol.
2 of Hunter's Familiae Minorum Gentium, Elizabeth is identified as
daughter of Thomas Portingdon of Barnby Don, Yorkshire, and widow of
Nicholas Mauleverer of Letwell (d. 1533). The family of Portington of
Barnby Don is connected to the Portingtons of Portington (covered in
Maddison's Lincolnshire Pedigrees) of which Thomas who married Julian
Aske is a member. (Maddison does not show Elizabeth as a daughter of
this couple)

The Portingtons of Barnby Don are also covered in Clay's edition of
Dugdale. The pedigree does not show an Elizabeth who married both a
Mauleverer and a Cressy. But there is an Elizabeth in possibly the
proper time frame who married Robert (not Nicholas) Mauleverer in
1518. This Elizabeth is shown as sister of a Thomas who mar. but has
no children listed. She is daughter of John Portington of Barnby (d.
1521) and Mary Copley of Batley.

None of this yet firmly places Elizabeth Portington, wife of Hugh
Cressy, in particular place in this family of Portington of Barnby
Don. But it certainly seems clear that she belongs here rather than
in the family of Portington of Portington where Paget has placed her.
It's possible that investigation of the family of Mauleverer of
Letwell might shed light on this question.

[John Watson]

On May 16, 10:22 pm, Brad Verity <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The original Aske manor of Owsthorpe is in the parish of Eastrington
> in the East Riding of Yorkshire.  The manor of Portington lies in the
> same parish, making the Askes and the Portingtons close neighbours.
> Given that there were no ladies named 'Julian' in the immediate
> ancestry of either Sir Robert Aske (c.1463-1531) or his wife Elizabeth
> Clifford, it's very likely they gave this name to their eldest
> daughter because widowed neighbour Julian Portington (d. 1510) served
> as godmother.  And no doubt that lady oversaw the arrangements for the
> marriage of her grandson and heir Thomas Portington to her goddaughter
> Julian Aske, apparently in 1497, while both were still children.
>

Brad,
You are no doubt correct that Julian was named after her godmother,
but there was an earlier Julian in the Aske family.

John Aske of Ousthorpe (died 2 June 1429) married firstly (and not
shown in the family pedigrees) Julian de Erghum, daughter of Sir
William de Erghum (died after 1405) and Katherine Cressy. She was the
sister of Sybil de Erghum who married Robert de Cumberworth. John Aske
married secondly Elizabeth Gascoigne, daughter of William Gascoigne of
Gawthorpe, who was the mother of his son and heir Richard Aske (born
about 1419).

Regards,

John

[Brad Verity]

On May 16, 12:14 pm, John <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Portingtons of Barnby Don are also covered in Clay's edition of
> Dugdale.  The pedigree does not show an Elizabeth who married both a
> Mauleverer and a Cressy.  But there is an Elizabeth in possibly the
> proper time frame who married Robert (not Nicholas) Mauleverer in
> 1518.  This Elizabeth is shown as sister of a Thomas who mar. but has
> no children listed.  She is daughter of John Portington of Barnby (d.
> 1521) and Mary Copley of Batley.

Very interesting, John. Per the pedigree of Maleverer of Letwell
taken at the 1612 Visitation of Yorkshire (published by Joseph Foster
in 1875, p. 550), the generations go:

1) "John Maleverer, of Letwell, temp.H.VII. = Alice", parents of
2) "Robert Maleverer, of Letwell, ob. 25 H. VIII. = Elizabeth",
parents of
3) "Nicholas Maleverer, 2 years old at the death of his father. =
[blank]", parents of
4) "John Maleverer, of Letwell, anno 1612 [presumably the informant of
the pedigree, though it does not appear to have been signed] =
Margaret, dau. of John Lewis, of Marr", parents of
5A) "Thomas" and 5B) "John Maleverer, aet. 1 1/2, anno 1612".

Foster in footnotes adds the following information: Robert Maleverer
(#2 above) was "Son of Hugh"; his wife Elizabeth was "Dau. of John
Portington, of Barnby Don"; and the wife of Nicholas Maleverer (#3
above), left blank in the pedigree, was ".... dau. of Mr. James
Rolston". If the dates provided in the 1612 pedigree were close to
being accurate, then the Robert Mauleverer of Letwell who married
Elizabeth Portington died in 1533/34, and their son Nicholas
Mauleverer of Letwell was born 1531/32, with a son John Mauleverer of
Letwell alive in 1612, and a grandson John Mauleverer born in 1610.

Foster also published the 1612 Visitation pedigrees of Portington of
Portington (p. 561) and of Portington of Barnby Don (p. 562), neither
one of which assigns any daughter married to a Mauleverer. As you
point out, Rev. Clay, in his pedigree of Portington of Barnby-super-
Dun in 'Additions to Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire', keeps
Foster's assignment of Elizabeth, wife of Robert Mauleverer of Letwell
(d. 1533/34), as a daughter of John Portington of Barnby Don
(1480-1521) and his wife, Mary Copley of Batley. It should be noted
that with these earlier Portington generations, Clay was not working
from Dugdale's original Visitation pedigree of September 1665, as that
begins three generations after John Portington of Barnby Don. Clay
does add the fact that a marriage covenant between Robert Mauleverer
of Letwell (d. 1533/34) and Elizabeth Portington was dated "10 Hen.
VIII (1518)".

Finally, Foster published the 1612 Visitation pedigree of Cressey of
Birkin (p. 509), which begins with "Hugh Cressey, of Letwell, or
Barnby Don", but leaves his wife blank. It was Rev. Clay, in his
pedigree of Cressy of Birkin in 'Additions to Dugdale's Visitation of
Yorkshire', who said the wife of Hugh Cressy of Letwell and Barnby Don
was "Elizabeth, dau. of Thomas Portington, of Barnby Don (widow of
Nicholas Mauleverer, of Letwell, who d. 1533)". Again, Clay was on his
own in these earlier Cressy generations, as Dugdale's original
pedigree taken in April 1666 begins two generations after Hugh Cressy
of Letwell. Clay adds the fact that William Cressy of Holme, whom he
numbers as the eldest son of Hugh Cressy & Elizabeth Portington, was
aged 34 in 1575, so born 1541. Clay's statements in his pedigrees of
Portington of Barnby-super-Dun and Cressy of Birkin contradict each
other, but the 1612 Visitation pedigree of Maleverer of Letwell clears
up Clay's error: it was Robert Mauleverer, not his son Nicholas, who
died in 1533/34, and who was married to an Elizabeth. Also, Clay
showed that Thomas Portington of Barnby Don (1497-1523), the son and
heir of John Portington of Barnby Don (1480-1521), died without issue.

> None of this yet firmly places Elizabeth Portington, wife of Hugh
> Cressy, in particular place in this family of Portington of Barnby
> Don.

True. Some questions that need clearing up:
1) Elizabeth, wife of Robert Mauleverer of Letwell (d. 1533/34): what
was the evidence that caused Joseph Foster in 1875 to state that she
was a daughter of John Portington of Barnby Don (since it certainly
wasn't the original 1612 Visitation pedigrees)?

2) Wife of Hugh Cressy of Letwell & Barnby Don: what was the evidence
that caused Rev. Clay in 1917 to state that she was a daughter of
'Thomas' [sic-he meant 'John'] Portington of Barnby Don, and widow of
'Nicholas' [sic-he meant 'Robert'] Mauleverer of Letwell (since it
certainly wasn't Dugdale's original pedigrees from 1665/66)?
The fact that Hugh Cressy was described in the 1612 Visitation
pedigree as "of Letwell, or Barnby Don" would certainly tie him in
geographically to the two families of Mauleverer of Letwell and
Portington of Barnby Don, but could there have been a specific
document that Clay worked from to assign the widowed Elizabeth
Portington Mauleverer as the wife of Hugh Cressy?

3) What was the source that caused Rev. Clay to make the statement
that there was a "mar. cov. 10 Hen. VIII (1518)" between Elizabeth
Portington and Robert Mauleverer of Letwell?
If the 1518 date is accurate it suggests that Elizabeth Portington was
under age when this marriage covenant was made, as she did not bear a
son and heir to Robert Mauleverer until 1531/32, almost fifteen years
later. Her eldest brother Thomas Portington was born in 1497 (when
their father was only age 17) but she could not have been born soon
after, as (if she was indeed also the wife of Hugh Cressy) she had
seven children with her second husband, at least three of which had to
have been born after 1541.

> But it certainly seems clear that she belongs here rather than
> in the family of Portington of Portington where Paget has placed her.

Yes, though, chronologically at least, it is equally as plausible for
Elizabeth, the wife of Robert Mauleverer of Letwell (d. 1533/34) &
mother of Nicholas Mauleverer of Letwell (b. 1531/32), to have been a
daughter of Thomas Portington of Portington (c.1492-1540) & Julian
Aske, who would have started to have children in about 1510.

> It's possible that investigation of the family of Mauleverer of
> Letwell might shed light on this question.

Hopefully the above helps a little.

Cheers, ---------Brad

[Brad Verity]

On May 16, 2:37 pm, John Watson <watsonjo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> John Aske of Ousthorpe (died 2 June 1429) married firstly (and not
> shown in the family pedigrees) Julian de Erghum, daughter of Sir
> William de Erghum (died after 1405) and Katherine Cressy. She was the
> sister of Sybil de Erghum who married Robert de Cumberworth.

Thank you, John - I didn't know of this earlier marriage.

Cheers, -----Brad

[John]

This is a useful analysis of the situation. I do think that Elizabeth
Portington who married Hugh Cressy of Letwell is more likely to be of
the family of Portington of Barnby Don rather than the one of
Portington. The visitation evidence, incomplete and sketchy as it is,
points in that direction - and we have only Paget's statement
(unsupported by documentation) in favor of the other alternative.

I've seen a reference that there's a pedigree of Mauleverer of Letwell
in Ralph Thoresby's 1816 work Ducatus Leodiensis. I'll see if I can
locate a copy (hopefully in a library that's willing to share it via
interlibrary loan) - it doesn't seem to be available online. (Perhaps
the FHL could be persuaded to scan it - hint, hint!)

[Brad Verity]

On May 16, 5:50 pm, John <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This is a useful analysis of the situation.  I do think that Elizabeth
> Portington who married Hugh Cressy of Letwell is more likely to be of
> the family of Portington of Barnby Don rather than the one of
> Portington.  The visitation evidence, incomplete and sketchy as it is,
> points in that direction - and we have only Paget's statement
> (unsupported by documentation) in favor of the other alternative.

I fully agree, John. Hopefully the Mauleverer of Letwell pedigree
that was given to Ralph Thoresby by the family will clear it all up.

There are a couple more points that make the connection of the three
families (Portington of Barnby Don/Mauleverer of Letwell/Cressy)
stronger, though more muddled than ever. Rev. Clay in his Cressy of
Birkin pedigree in 'Additions to Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire',
says of Susan Cressy: "mar. first James Rolston, of Tanshelf; mar.
secondly Christopher Copley, of Wadworth, bur. at Wadworth 23 Sept.
1612". We also know, from Joseph Foster's 1875 notes to the 1612
Maleverer of Letwell Visitation pedigree, that the wife of Nicholas
Mauleverer of Letwell (b. 1531/32), was a "dau. of Mr. James Rolston".

Rev. Clay also provided a pedigree of Wombwell of Wombwell in his
'Additions to Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire'. In the section on
the younger branch, the Wombwells of Thundercliffe, he has the
marriage of Nicholas Wombwell of Tickhill: "mar. Elizabeth, dau. of
James Rolston, rel. of Nicholas Mauleverer, Esq., of Letwell, at
Ecclesfield, 15 May 1573". So we now know that Nicholas Mauleverer of
Letwell was dead by 1573, and that the full name of his wife was
Elizabeth Rolston.

The family of Rolston (also spelled Rolleston) of Tanshelf (near
Pontefract) are fairly obscure minor gentry. Luckily Rev. Clay also
took a stab at them in his 'Familiae Minorum Gentium' Vol. 4 (1896),
providing a sketchy pedigree on p. 1280:
http://archive.org/stream/publicationsofha40harluoft#page/1280/mode/2up

In it, he has ".... wife of Nichs Maleverer" as a daughter of "James
R[olston] of Tanshelf = Susan, dau. of Hugh Cressy of Letwell." If
this is accurate, Elizabeth Portington could not have been the mother
of both Nicholas Mauleverer of Letwell (1531/32-by 1573) and Susan
Cressy (d. 1612), as that would have Nicholas married to his own
niece, the daughter of his half-sister.

But it's far likelier that Elizabeth Rolston Mauleverer Wombwell was
the daughter of James Rolston of Tanshelf by a previous wife. James
Rolston may have taken Susan Cressy as a much younger second wife at
the same time that his daughter Elizabeth was married to Susan's elder
half-brother Nicholas Mauleverer?

Since Susan Cressy is apparently an ancestress of the late Queen
Mother, it would be nice to get her details sorted out.

> I've seen a reference that there's a pedigree of Mauleverer of Letwell
> in Ralph Thoresby's 1816 work Ducatus Leodiensis.  I'll see if I can
> locate a copy (hopefully in a library that's willing to share it via
> interlibrary loan) - it doesn't seem to be available online.  (Perhaps
> the FHL could be persuaded to scan it - hint, hint!)

I've used 'Ducatus Leodiensis' briefly at the FHL in SLC. It's an
amazing work, full of details & pedigrees and would be a perfect
choice for the FHL to digitize. Fingers crossed!

Cheers, --------Brad

[John Higgins]

On May 16, 5:50 pm, John <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> in RalphThoresby's1816 work DucatusLeodiensis.  I'll see if I can

> locate a copy (hopefully in a library that's willing to share it via
> interlibrary loan) - it doesn't seem to be available online.  (Perhaps
> the FHL could be persuaded to scan it - hint, hint!)

I've now been able to gain access to a copy of Thoresby's Ducatus
Leodiensis via ILL. Unfortunately it doesn't do anything to resolve
our questions on Mauleverer of Letwell. The two Mauleverer pedigrees
in the volume are of Mauleverer of Allerton and Mauleverer of
Arncliffe and Wothersome. Both of these are essentially based on the
published visitation pedigrees for these families. There is no clue
in either as to a connection to Mauleverer of Letwell, at least as
that latter family is given in Foster's edition of the Yorkshire
visitations (previously cited by Brad).

So....I guess we'll have to look elsewhere for answers to our
questions on Mauleverer of Letwell.

[Brad Verity]

On Jun 1, 1:47 pm, John Higgins <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I've now been able to gain access to a copy of Thoresby's Ducatus
> Leodiensis via ILL.  Unfortunately it doesn't do anything to resolve
> our questions on Mauleverer of Letwell.  The two Mauleverer pedigrees
> in the volume are of Mauleverer of Allerton and Mauleverer of
> Arncliffe and Wothersome.  Both of these are essentially based on the
> published visitation pedigrees for these families.  There is no clue
> in either as to a connection to Mauleverer of Letwell, at least as
> that latter family is given in Foster's edition of the Yorkshire
> visitations (previously cited by Brad).
>
> So....I guess we'll have to look elsewhere for answers to our
> questions on Mauleverer of Letwell.

Thank you for checking this, John. I'm sorry it wasn't a useful
source.

Cheers, ---------Brad