Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson
WJhonson
John was born c. 1447; by 1468 a member of Lincoln's Inn; 1491-2 MP for the Borough of Southwark.; c.1498 married Margaret White, dau. of Robert White and his wife, Margaret Gainsford (or Gaynsford), of South Warneborough, co. >>
----------------------
What is the source for "c 1498" ? Thanks.
Will Johnson
WJhonson
Ruskyn),
quartering: 1. Bellers, 2. als. Howby, 3. Ruskyn, 4. Bellers.
(City of London Archives, Image No. 31369) >>
--------------------------
Am I right that this must come down from the marriage of John Bellers of Eye-Kettleby to Elizabeth Houby ? This marriage must have taken place near the end of the 14th or beginning of the 15th century. They had at least two children a Joan and a Marina Bellers, both of whom married fairly well, but I don't know how to connect this family into the family of the Sir James Bellers m Margaret Bernake who are the great-grandparents of this Anne (Ruskyn) m1 Leeke m2 Kirton.
How?
Thanks
Will Johnson
al...@mindspring.com
I think there was another heiress named Ellen married to William
Ruskyn (Roskyn) of Melton Mowbray, father of Anne and at least one
other daughter. See:
Rev. William George Dimock Fletcher, Leicestershire Pedigrees and
Royal Descents, Leicester, (1887), pps 23-24.
Doug Smith
WJhonson
I think there was another heiress named Ellen married to William
Ruskyn (Roskyn) of Melton Mowbray, father of Anne and at least one
other daughter.>>
Yes that's right Anne's immediate parents were Ellen Bellars and William Ruskyn.
But my question is, where does the Houby heiress come in?
Evidently, it seems at least possible that the marriage I mentioned fits in there, but I'm just not sure exactly how yet.
Will
al...@mindspring.com
Ellen was co-heiress with her two sisters Marina and Joan. Another
sister, Margaret was Prioress of Langley.
Doug Smith
WJhonson
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22062&strquery=Roskyn%20(Ruskyn)
where they appear to lay out how the Houby's interconnect.
Will
WJhonson
Anne Ruskyn "co-heiress of her father" married John Leeke of Wyer Hall, Edmonton
she was daughter of
William Ruskyn of Melton Mowbray, co Leics who m Ellen Bellers sometime in the early to mid 15th century
Ellen Bellers was co-heiress to her brother John who d.s.p. in 1476. He had four sisters, I'm not clear if his sister Joan was living at the time of his death, or if her inheritence was "in her issue" which she did have.
At any rate Ellen (and John) were children of John Bellers of Eye Kettleby (also called "of Kirkby Bellers) who was dead by 1420, he was the only son of Sir James Bellers by his wife Margaret Bernake
Meanwhile the wife of John Bellers was Elizabeth Houby, daughter of Anthony Houby (d 1422). Anthony is turn was grandson, or apparent grandson at any rate, of another Anthony Houby, who was heir in his issue of his elder brother Gilbert whose line went extinct.
Gilbert and Anthony Houby in turn were sons of Walter de Houby "40 years old and more at IPM of his mother 5E2" who died in 1349. And then Walter de Houby's mother was that Matilda (Maud) de Kirkby, heiress of Kirkby Bellers.
Will Johnson
jonathan kirton
Thank you for your queries and comments yesterday. My identification
of the marriage of John Kirton and his first wife Margaret White as
being circa 1498, form my posting of 29 Sept., 2007,
was an estimate by me, based on known facts from a number of sources.
From Wedgewood it is evident that John Kirton by 7 May, 1515 was
resident in Edmonton, Middlesex, because he was on that day appointed
as a Justice of the Peace for Middlesex.
From my transcript of his two wills, both written in Nov., 1529,
just before his death the following month, a number of things become
clear:-
His second wife, Anne Leek (nee Ruskyn) has already died, and his
will calls for requiem masses to be said for both his wives.
It is apparent that John had a very close relationship with his step-
son and son-in-law Jasper Leek, who is actually named as his first
executor; his own oldest son, William Kirton being the second
executor. From the way he describes the items that he bequeaths to
Jasper and his wife Margaret(1) (nee Kirton) (his best bed, best
mattress, best covers, etc.), and the descriptions of all the
hangings in the Hall, etc., I believe that they were all living at
Wyer Hall, Edmonton which had been Anne's home during her first
marriage; furthermore, John states in his will that he had already
turned over to Jasper, before he had written his wills, all the
property in Edmonton. His own son William Kirton, married to
Elizabeth (nee Leek)(John's step-daughter, and his own daughter-in-
law) received all the "second best " bed, mattress, covers, etc., and
the contents of
William's "own chamber in the east wing". William also was bequeathed
a "hatchment" of John's coat of arms that had been hanging in the
Hall, and "pertained to him and his wife Elizabeth", and received all
the lands in Surrey, Middlesex, London and Essex which had come from
the Kirtons.
As to the timing: by mid November, 1529 four of John's children by
his first marriage to Margaret White are still alive (William,
Stephen, Margaret(1) & Agnes (Elizabeth, his eldest daughter, who had
married ? of Wyburne, is not mentioned, so had presumably already
died)), his two step-children, Jasper and Elizabeth Leek, are both
still alive; and even his last child Margaret(2), the daughter that
he had with his second wife, Anne Leek (nee Ruskyn) is already
married to her husband, William Moreton of Deckling, Kent. (This
couple had a son, William Moreton(2), who during his lifetime
acquired the Manor of Whitehorse, at Croydon, co. Surrey.) If Margaret
(2) was old enough to be married by Nov., 1529, she had most probably
been born before 1513, so John Kirton's marriage to Mrs. Anne Leek
(nee Ruskyn) had probably occurred by about 1512.
This probably means that John Kirton's first wife, Margaret (nee
White), allowing for a mourning period, had died about 1510 or 1511.
Since John and his first wife had at least five children who survived
until adulthood, and maybe others that died in infancy, I had
estimated the year of their marriage at 1498.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
To continue with the Leek Pedigree which you have been discussing in
subsequent postings, i believe you need to look at Middlesex
Pedigrees, pages 12 & 13 (Harleian MS 1551, fo. 7) as referenced in
my 29 Sept. posting. On page 12 you will see all the "Leeke", "Sutton
alias Howby" and "Ruskyn" blazons very clearly identified, and on
page 13 you will see all the connections going back to Sir James
Bellers, Knt., and to Sir Anthony Howby, Knt..
There would seem to be one discrepancy in the referenced British
History Online website, with regard to the Manor of Medbourne in
Leicestershire, taken from "A History of the County of
Leicestershire", vol. 5 by J. M. Lee. On page 3, and 4 of 24, under
"MANORS.(fn.41)", at the end of the sixth paragraph, where it
identifies that:- "Jasper Roskyn or Ruskyn died in 1486 and his
share was by 1505 divided between two of his daughters. (fn63) The
interest of Anne Leeke, the elder daughter, has left no trace. The
interest of Margaret Lacy (d.1529), the younger
daughter... ........." I believe, according to p.13 above,
that in these sentences all the words "daughter" should instead
actually be read as: "sister".
Page 13 is specific that "Jasper Ruskyn ob. s.p.", evidently in the
stated year of 1486, which would seem to be about right, and that
he had had three sisters:- Anne, the eldest, who married John Leek of
Wyer Hall in the Parish of Edmonton, Middlesex; Margarett, co-heir
with her sister Anne, who was the wife of Richard Lacy of Melton
Mowbray, co. Leics.; and thirdly: Catherin, a nun at Powlesworth
Abbey. My guess is that that Anne Leek (nee Ruskyns)'s interest in
the Manor of Medbourne passed to her son Jasper after her death, if
it had not previously been sold.
It is the arrangement of this pedigree chart on page 13 which may
have lead to the error in "Magna Carta Ancestry" which stated that
"Anne Leek was the first wife of John Kirton", whereas it actually
does state that Margaret White was John Kirton's "1 wife."
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Douglas Richardson
wrote:
> There would seem to be one discrepancy in the referenced British
> History Online website, with regard to the Manor of Medbourne in
> Leicestershire, taken from "A History of the County of
> Leicestershire", vol. 5 by J. M. Lee. On page 3, and 4 of 24, under
> "MANORS.(fn.41)", at the end of the sixth paragraph, where it
> identifies that:- "Jasper Roskyn or Ruskyn died in 1486 and his
> share was by 1505 divided between two of his daughters. (fn63) The
> interest of Anne Leeke, the elder daughter, has left no trace. The
> interest of Margaret Lacy (d.1529), the younger
> daughter... ........." I believe, according to p.13 above,
> that in these sentences all the words "daughter" should instead
> actually be read as: "sister".
I believe that you're wrong about this, Jonathan. Here's why:
C 1/56/236: Jasper, son and heir of Elyn, late the wife of William
Roskyn, and sister of John Bellers, esquire. v. Richard Sapcote and
William Sutton, knights, and William Neele, justice of the Common
Pleas, and others, feoffee to uses.: Manors of Ketylby alias Eketylby
and Sistonby alias Syxtonby. Date: 1475-1480, or 1483-1485.
E 150/1115 Part X/5: Roskyn, Jaspar, Katharine, late the wife:
Leicester. 21 Henry VII.
E 150/1115 Part X/6: Roskyn, Jaspar, Roskyn, Katharine, one of the
daughters and heirs of: Leicester 21 Henry VII.
C 1/86/15: Date: 1486-1493-Robert Bowley v. The mayor and sheriffs of
London re. an action by Charles Mountcler, of London, merchant,
concerning the wardship of Anne, daughter and heir of Jasper Ruskyn.
Corpus cum causa.: London.
C 1/652/10: Seth Lacy. v. William Jenkynson of Harborough.: Detention
of deeds relating to messuages, land and rent in Melton Mowbray,
Medbourne, Holt, Blaston, Somerby, `Ruskynland' and Drayton, sometime
of Thomas Lacy of Spridlington, and Jasper, his son.: Leicester,
Lincoln. Date: 1529-1532.
As we can see above, Jasper Ruskin definitely left a daughter and heir
named Anne Ruskin, who was a minor in the period, 1486-1493.
As for the order of John Kirton's marriages, you could be right that
he married (1st) Margaret White and (2nd) Anne Ruskin. However, the
Visitation of Northamptonshire indicates that Anne Ruskin was the
first wife of John Kirton, not his second. I quote the visitation
below as follows:
"John Kirton of Edmonton, co. Midd'x. [1] = Anne, da. and coheir of
Jasper Ruskin of Melton Mowbray, co. Leicester, widow of John Leeke of
Edmonton, 1 ux., [2] = Margerett, da. of Robert White of South
Warnborow, co. Southampton, 2 ux." [Reference: Metcalfe Vis. of
Northamptonshire 1564 & 1618-9 (1887): 183-184 (Appendix) (Kirton
pedigree].
You can find the above cited information at the following weblink:
Anne Ruskin is correctly called the daughter, not sister, of Jasper
Ruskin in the above cited visitation record.
One other matter: In your last post, you indicated that John Kirton's
daughter by Anne Ruskin, namely Margaret Kirton, was already married
by the date of John Kirton's will (1529), whereas I show his son,
Stephen, by his wife, Margaret White was married c.1532 to his wife,
Margaret Offley. If nothing else, the chronology suggests that
Margaret Kirton (daughter of Anne Ruskin) was older than her half-
brother, Stephen Kirton (son of Margaret White). If correct, then
Anne Ruskin would be the first wife of John Kirton, not his second as
you have alleged to be the case.
If you have solid evidence that John Kirton married Anne Ruskin as his
first wife, please set it on the table and cite your sources. John
Kirton's move to Edmonton later in life is suggestive that Anne Ruskin
was his second wife. However, it is not actual evidence of the order
of his marriages. If neither of his wives is named as living in John
Kirton's will, then you have to find other evidence to prove the order
of his marriages.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
jonathan kirton
Thank you very much for straightening me out on the father of Anne
Leek Kirton (nee Ruskyn).
It is evident from all your sources that she was the eldest daughter
of Jasper Ruskyn (Roskyn, Ruskan, etc.), and his evident wife
Katherine (E 150/1115 Part X/5), and the British History Online entry
which I mentioned in my posting of 27 Oct. was also correct.
The error appears to lie only in "Middlesex Pedigrees", page 13,
where Jasper is shown as the brother of Anne, Margaret and Catherine,
who were in fact all his daughters. (Katherine the youngest daughter
from your reference E 150 1115 Part X/6, although there she is shown
also as an heir in 1506; perhaps she afterwards lost that inheritance
as a result of having taken an oath or vow of poverty as a nun?) (I
wonder if the Harleian MS quoted has the same error ?)
Even in "Middlesex Pedigrees", page 106, Ann(e) is shown as the
daughter and coheire of Jesper Ruskan of Melton Mowbray in Com.
Lester (sic).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
On the question of which of John Kirton's two wives was the first
wife, I would refer back to the Harleian Manuscript 1551, fo. 73,
(actually pages 73 & 74) which shows an identical arrangement to that
shown in "Middlesex Pedigrees" pages 106 & 107, with "Margarett . d.
of Robert White of South Warnborough in Com. Southton. (sic.
Southampton; i.e. Hampshire) 1 wife." with children:-1)
William Kirton = Elizabeth d. of John Leek of Wyer Hall in
Edmonton; 2) Elizabeth ux. .... Wyburn; 3) Stephen Kirton of
London Alderman & of Edmonton = Margarett d. of William Offley of
Chester; 4) Margarett(1) ux. Jesper Leek brother of Elizabeth; 5)
Agnes 1 m. to ........Pleasance of London, Ale brewer 2 to John
Mountney.
To the left of John Kirton on the MS is shown "Ann d. & coheire of
Jesper Ruskan of Melton Mowbray in Com. Lester (sic) & widow of
John Leek of Edmonton on Com. Midlesex. (sic) 2 wife."
In John Kirton's first will, written 9 Nov., 1529 (P.C.C. 15 Jankyn)
- "And I bequeath unto my sonne Jasper Leeke and to my doughter
Margaret (1) his wife my two best Saltes with a Couer gilte, thre
goblettes of siluer with the couer parcell gilte......."
"Item I bequeathe to the said Jasper my eight draught Oxen / with
their yokes and cheynes to them b[e]longing." "Item I bequeath to my
sonne William Kyrton & Elizabeth his wife my bason and Ewer of siluer
[parcell] gilte...."
"Item I bequeathe to my son Moreton and to my doughter Margaret (2)
his wife my two saltes parcell gilt with a couer." (Children were
commonly named after a god-parent, so duplication of names in the
same family is unusual, but not unknown.)
"Item I bequeath unto my doughter Agnes Mountney a standing Cupp
gilt,....." (Agnes, his youngest daughter by his first wife, Margaret
White, by 1529 was not only married to her second husband John
Mountney, but had already given him three sons, all named in the will.)
"Item I bequeath unto my sonne Stevyn (sic) Kyrketon my standing Cupp
Colombyne faccion (Columbine means 'dovelike', so perhaps a cup
fashioned like, or decorated with a dove?) for which my lady Jenyns
gave me." (Lady Jennings is probably his own sister, also Margaret,
who was the wife of Sir Stephen Jennings, another Alderman of the
City of London.) (There is no mention in the wills that Stephen had a
wife at this time; but it is apparent that by probably early in the
next year, 1530, he had married Mrs. Margaret Nicholls (nee Offley)
because their eldest daughter, Jane Kirton is stated by Boyd, for
one, as having married Richard Whethill in 1546, at the age of 16.)
"And to this my present testament and last wille I make and ordain
myn executours Jasper Leek and William Kyrton my
sonne...................."
In his second will, written 16 Nov., 1529 - "I will that Jasper
Leeke, my wyfes sonne have my tenement in Harborowe (sic. Market
Harborough) in the countie of Leicestr' called the Swan And also all
my londes and tenements in Halstede in the Countie of Essex called
Pychard And also all suche londes and tenements as I purchased of
Thomas Combysley in Edelmeton in the Countie of Middlesex To haue and
to holde..........unto the said Jasper and to his heirs foreuer."
"And to this my present testament & last will I ordeyn and make myn
executours Jasper Leek and William Kyrketon my two sonnes........ "
I cannot see any possibility at all that John Kirton could have had
five children who had to have been born before 1510, two of which had
reached an age to marry John and Anne Leek's two children well
before 1529 (because John had five named grandchildren before he
died) unless Margaret White was the first wife, and the widow Mrs.
Anne Leek (nee Ruskyn) was the second wife. To reverse these two
wives seems to me to be a complete impossibility.
(It is fascinating to see how his spelling of the name "Kirton"
changes in the two documents; he uses Kyrketon, Kirketon, Kirton and
Kyrton completely indiscriminately.)
Sincerely, Jonathan
Douglas Richardson
You've lost me again. Why is it that you say that John Kirton had to
have his children by Margaret White before 1510? If it is because
John Kirton was living at Edmonton, Middlesex after 1510. If so, that
seems like rather inadequate evidence to me.
As I pointed out in my earlier post, the visitation of
Northamptonshire clearly states that John Kirton married (1st) Anne
Ruskin, and (2nd) Margaret White in that order. All we know for
certain is that Anne Ruskin was a minor sometme in the period,
1486-1493. As best I can tell, there is sufficient time for Anne
Ruskin to come of age, marry John Leeke and John Kirton in rapid
succession, and die before 1500. Provided John Kirton married
Margaret White in or before 1500, it should fit the evidence as we
know it. As such, I don't see any problem with the order of John
Kirton's marriages as set forth by the visitation.
Moreover, you already have a second indication that Margaret White was
the 2nd wife, as we know that all three of Anne Ruskin's children were
married by 1529, whereas Margaret White's son, Stephen Kirton, appears
to have still been unmarried at that date.
Reviewing the matter, it seems to me that you need better evidence
before you declare the visitation of Northamptonshire in error
regarding the order of John Kirton's marriages. If you have that
better evidence, by all means, please post it.
By any chance, do you have John Leeke's death date? Or, his will?
The index to PCC wills indicates that a John Leeke left a will proved
in 1492, and that another John Leeke left a will proved in 1508. No
place of residence is given for either man. As far as I can tell,
either man could be Anne Ruskin's husband. The 1508 man would fit
your scenario better, however.
You can order a copy of either of these wills direct from the PRO at
the following weblink:
Good luck!
jonathan kirton
Dear Douglas and the News Group,
Please disregard and delete this email that was sent 24 hours ago,
but only surfaced at 9.31am EST today ?
I was under the impression that it had failed to send, and therefore
replaced it with another sent at 6.19 am this morning.
Thanks,
Jonathan
wjho...@aol.com
From: jonathan kirton <jonatha...@sympatico.ca>
To: WJhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Cc: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 1:21 pm
Subject: Re: "Magna Carta Ancestry" by Douglas Richardson
This probably means that John Kirton's first wife, Margaret (nee
White), allowing for a mourning period, had died about 1510 or 1511.
Since John and his first wife had at least five children who survived
until adulthood, and maybe others that died in infancy, I had
estimated the year of their marriage at 1498.
-------------------------------
Personally, not that you have to adhere to my belief, I find this sort of thing dangerous.
Other people will simply pick up your est 1498, citing it, *without* the accompanying argument
and then it will stick into a hundred online trees with a simple gloss of "Gen-Med Oct 2007"
giving a seeming authority to something which is actually without.
So allowing the argument to stand, we can as well say that Margaret White and John Kirton were
were married as early as 1473 (he was after all admit to Lincoln's Inn in 1468, while her
chronology, not well established could have her born as early as 1459).
They commence having children in rapid fashion and *could* leave off as early as 1480 for
all we know now. None of the five children we know from this union has a firm chronology
and using averages for specific individuals is always bound to create a fictitious
situation.
We can say their children were all born sometime in the period 1473 to 1510, perhaps allowing
Margaret Kirton to be born as late as 1515. We know that her half-sister, the other
Margaret Kirton was married by Nov 1529, but a girl can marry at a young age, we should not
assume it was 16.
Anne Ruskyn must have been *significantly* younger than her last husband John Kirton, at least
20 years.
The reason Jasper Leeke got the best stuff in the will was most likely because it came to
the family through his mother or father, not his step-father. You can imagine what kind of
row it might have caused if John Kirton has married a wealthy widow then dispossessed her son.
Will Johnson
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
david11...@yahoo.fr
> Will, Jonathan Kirton has posted that the tomb of Anne (Ruskyn) Leeke has arms quartered with Bellars and Houby. Apparently the descent is as follows
>
> Anne Ruskyn "co-heiress of her father" married John Leeke of Wyer Hall, Edmonton
>
> she was daughter of
>
> EllenBellerswas co-heiress to her brother John who d.s.p. in 1476. He had four sisters, I'm not clear if his sister Joan was living at the time of his death, or if her inheritence was "in her issue" which she did have.
>
> At any rate Ellen (and John) were children of JohnBellersof Eye Kettleby (also called "of KirkbyBellers) who was dead by 1420, he was the only son of Sir JamesBellersby his wife Margaret Bernake
>
> Meanwhile the wife of JohnBellerswas Elizabeth Houby, daughter of Anthony Houby (d 1422). Anthony is turn was grandson, or apparent grandson at any rate, of another Anthony Houby, who was heir in his issue of his elder brother Gilbert whose line went extinct.
>
> Gilbert and Anthony Houby in turn were sons of Walter de Houby "40 years old and more at IPM of his mother 5E2" who died in 1349. And then Walter de Houby's mother was that Matilda (Maud) de Kirkby, heiress of KirkbyBellers.
>
> Will Johnson
Will mentioned that John Bellers was the only son of Sir James Bellers
and Margaret Bernake.
The helpful online National Archives catalogue, ref SC 8/23/1107A,
details two further sons of Sir James, William a Franciscan friar, and
James a man of law, who I assume to be younger brothers of John:
Petitioners: Robert Walron, executor of John Talbot of Swannington,
knight.
Addressees: King and lords and commons of parliament.
Date: Dated on the guard to? 1406, with reference to the following
writ and CPR 1405-8, pp.230, 234, both of which are dated at
Westminster, 1 April 1406. This petition must have been presented at
the parliament of March 1406.
Places mentioned: Swannington, [Leicestershire]; Snypston (Snibston),
[Leicestershire]; Sixynby (Sysonby), [Leicestershire].
Other people mentioned: John Talbot of Swannington, knight; Alan le
Souche (Zouche); James Belers, knight; John Belers, son of James
Belers; William Belers, Dominican friar, son of James Belers; James
Belers, man of law, son of James Belers.
Nature of request: Robert Walron, one of the executors of John Talbot
of Swannington, states that when he, with his co-executor Alan le
Zouche, sued a writ of debt against James Belers, knight, for £200, on
a bond made to John Talbot, James' son John came with a body of armed
men, dragged him, a sick man of eighty, away half-naked, and took him
to John Belers' manor of Sysonby, and there he and his brothers kept
him for twelve days, maltreating him until he had made an acquittance
for their father's debt, and an oath and a bond that he would not
prosecute them for what they had done. He requests a remedy, so that
he can sue the malefactors, and prosecute his action of debt, and that
they might be severely punished, as an example to others.
Endorsement: It is agreed by the king and lords in parliament that
several writs should be sent to John and James Belers, that they
should appear before the king and council in parliament on the Monday
after the feast of St Benedict next, on pain of a penalty of £100
each. And another writ is to be sent to the sheriff of Leicester, to
summon them on the same day, if they are at their houses; and if they
are not there, the writs are to be left with the inhabitants, to
deliver to them. And if they do not appear on the day, they are to
incur the penalty of £100. And this is to be good for this case only,
and not a precedent.
A number of online trees (best taken with large pinches of salt) show
Jane Belers, wife of John de St Liz, as being the daughter of William
Belers, son of Sir James Belers. Did Franciscan friars often have
(documented) children?
David