Is an Edward I line correct for Robert1 Gibbs of Massachusetts?

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

In June of last year, Brad Verity posted the following, as part of another person's royal descent:

Edward I had two daus A1 & G1 and a son N1 (see below)
A1) Elizabeth, Countess of Hereford (1282-1316), who had two daus A2 & F2 and a son E2 (see below)
A2) Lady Eleanor de Bohun (c.1310-1363) m. 1) James Butler, 1st Earl of Ormond (1305-1338), and had
A3) Lady Petronilla Butler (c.1335-1368) m. Gilbert, 3rd Lord Talbot (c.1332-1387), and had a son A4 & a dau D4 (see below)
A4) Richard, 4th Lord Talbot (by 1361-1396) m. Ankaret Lestrange (by 1361-1413), and had
A5) Alice Talbot (c.1393-1436) m. 1) Sir Thomas Barre (c.1390-by 1420), and had
A6) Elizabeth Barre (c.1414-1468) m. Sir Edmund Cornewall Heir of Burford (c.1382-1435), and had a dau A7 & a son C7 (see below)

C7) Thomas Cornewall of Burford (c.1431-aft.1472) m. Elizabeth Lenthall (d. 1489), and had
C8) Sir Edmund Cornewall of Burford (c.1450-1489) m. Margaret Horde (d. 1499), and had
C9) Anne Cornewall m. Peter Blount of Sodington Hall (c.1459-1527), and had
C10) Thomas Blount of Sodington Hall (d. 1562) m. 1) Katherine Stanford, and had
C11) Elizabeth Blount m. William Clifton of Barrington Court (d. 1564), and had
C12) Theophilia Clifton m. 1) Thomas Strode of Stoke under Hampton (c.1530-1595), and had ...


William Clifton of Barrington Court was a known ancestor of Robert1 Gibbs of Massachusetts, the nephew of Sir Thomas Temple, also sometime of Mass., as follows:

1. William Clifton = Elizabeth Blount

2. Hester Clifton = Miles Sandys of the Middle Temple, Latimers, Bucks., and Brimpsfield, Gloucs.

3. Hester Sandys = Sir Thomas Temple of Stowe, Bucks.

4. Elizabeth Temple = Sir Henry Gibbs of Hunnington, Warw.

5. Robert Gibbs, of Boston, Mass., specifically mentioned as an immigrant in the 1680 Visitation of London


In partial way of support, the 1613 Huntingdonshire Visitation shows William Clifton of London and Somerset, with a Blunt wife, and two daughters married to Strode and "Sandes."

https://books.google.com/books?id=AS1TAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22john+pickering%22+kaye&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjr4dmj3JXoAhVth-AKHfCGCB84ChDoATAJegQICRAC#v=onepage&q&f=false

I assume Brad Verity is sure about the parentage of the Blunt/Blount wife of William Clifton of Barrington Court.

[John Higgins]

I believe the question of the parentage of William Clifton's wife Elizabeth Blount was last discussed in Sept. 2012:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/william$20clifton$20barrington|sort:date/soc.genealogy.medieval/qt3UA_26_FU/yjK6YcoaAwAJ

I think the conclusion then was that the parentage of Elizabeth Blount as shown in subsequent posts (including the one cited above was possible or even probable, but not yet fully proven. But you can draw your own conclusions from the 2012 discussion....

[ravinma...@yahoo.com]

Interesting.

I think I've found the answer to the question of the identity of "Lady Tailboys":


BRAD VERITY wrote:

Hang on - Elizabeth Clifton [of Barrington Court] leaves her wedding ring to "Lady Talboys" in her will. Weren't the Lords Tailboys descended from Elizabeth
Blount, Henry VIII's mistress, in the Tudor era?

JOHN HIGGINS responded:

Yes, Elizabeth Blount, of the family of Kinlet, was married to
Gilbert, 1st Lord Tailboys. Their granddaughter Elizabeth Tailboys
was the last to hold the title of Tailboys. At her death (in or
before 1563) the title became extinct. Her heirs were were her four
Tailboys aunts, all of whom had married. So it's unclear who would be
referred to as "Lady Tailboys" in 1582 (or actually slightly earlier,
when the will was made).

William H. H. Rogers, in _Memorials of the West, Historical and Descriptive, Collected on the Borderland of Somerset, Dorset, and Devon_ (Exeter, 1888), points out:

"Anent this Sir John Clifton [son of William Clifton and Elizabeth], let us add a little bit of interesting family history, accidentally discovered in the Colyton church Register, as to his second marriage. We there read, dated 20 July 1579:

John Cleftown, of Barrenton, in the Countye of Som'sett, Knyghte, was wedded unto the Ryghte Honorable the Ladye Margarette Taylboyes, of Collocombe, wydo.

This was the Lady Margaret Tailboys' 'third venter' [i.e., marriage]. She had been married twice previously ... "

Boiling this down, she was apparently nee Margaret Skipwith; and m. (1) George, 2nd Lord Tailboys, d. 1540; m. (2) Sir Peter Carew, d. 1575; m. (3) Sir John Clifton of Barrington Court.

https://books.google.com/books?id=JhMFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA214&dq=%22must+have+had+just+ideas+of+precedency%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj68tKVqpjoAhURT98KHQxQBuoQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22must%20have%20had%20just%20ideas%20of%20precedency%22&f=false

Thus, Elizabeth (? Blount) Clifton was naming her own daughter-in-law in her 1582 will, but calling her by her "best" title.

Would there have been some relationship between George, Lord Tailboys, who died in 1540, and Bessie Blount, mistress of Henry VIII?

[Brad Verity]

On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 1:58:42 PM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Interesting.
> I think I've found the answer to the question of the identity of "Lady Tailboys":

[snip]

> Boiling this down, she was apparently nee Margaret Skipwith; and m. (1) George, 2nd Lord Tailboys, d. 1540; m. (2) Sir Peter Carew, d. 1575; m. (3) Sir John Clifton of Barrington Court.
> https://books.google.com/books?id=JhMFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA214&dq=%22must+have+had+just+ideas+of+precedency%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj68tKVqpjoAhURT98KHQxQBuoQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=%22must%20have%20had%20just%20ideas%20of%20precedency%22&f=false
>
> Thus, Elizabeth (? Blount) Clifton was naming her own daughter-in-law in her 1582 will, but calling her by her "best" title.

Nice work John.

> Would there have been some relationship between George, Lord Tailboys, who died in 1540, and Bessie Blount, mistress of Henry VIII?

Yes, George Lord Tailboys was Bessie Blount's son by her husband Gilbert Lord Tailboys, and so George was half-brother to the Duke of Richmond, acknowledged illegitimate son of Henry VIII.

Margaret (Skipwith) Lady Tailboys thus had two different mothers-in-law who were born Elizabeth Blount!

I don't have any further evidence of Elizabeth (Blount) Clifton's parentage further to the 2012 discussion that John Higgins linked. I continue to show her in my database as a daughter of Thomas Blount of Sodington Hall & his 1st wife Katherine Stanford.

Sorry I'm not of more help with this.

Cheers, -----Brad

[John Higgins]

Interesting...

I see now that the CP biography of George, 2nd Lord Tailboys (vol. 12 pt. 2, p. 604) mentions the three marriages of Margaret Skipwith - and cites the Rogers work that you note above. I'm not aware of any other mention of a second wife for Sir John Clifton of Barrington. Perhaps the Rogers work is the only mention of this marriage.

The CP bio also includes an interesting footnote suggesting confusion between the 4 different women known as "Lady Tailboys" during this period. They are:
1) Elizabeth Gascoigne, mother of the 1st Lord Tailboys
2) Elizabeth Blount, wife of the 1st Lord Tailboys [and mistress of Henry VIII]
3) Margaret Skipwith, with of the 2nd Lord Tailboys
4) Elizabeth, suo jure lady Tailboys, daughter of the 1st Lord and sister of the 2nd Lord

[JBrand]

And both Elizabeths had a Barre-Cornwall descent from Edward I, at least per Genealogics.org ...

[celticp...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 12, 2020 at 2:20:42 PM UTC-6, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:

< A3) Lady Petronilla Butler (c.1335-1368) m. Gilbert, 3rd Lord Talbot

< (c.1332-1387), and had a son A4 & a dau D4 (see below).

Dear John ~

The name Petronilla cited in your post is merely the Latin form of Pernel/Parnel. This woman, however, occurs in two contemporary crown records not as Pernel (or Parnel), but as Perina as indicated below:

1. Cal. of Patent Rolls, 1350–1354 (1907): 327 (license dated 8 Sept. 1352 to enfeoff Gilbert Talbot and Perina la Boteller and the heirs of their bodies.

2. Cal. of Close Rolls, 1364–1368 (1910): 18 (grant to Gilbert Talbot and Perina his wife dated 1 June 1364).

Online sources suggest that Perina is a alternative form of the given names, Pernel or Parnel. I presently have no opinion as to whether Perina is an alternative or a distinct name form.

I'm aware, however, that there was a contemporary woman who had this same given name. She was Peryn Clanvowe (or Clanbowe), of Yazor, Herefordshire, who left a PCC will proved in 1422.

This same woman occurs in a contemporary Chancery record as Peryne:

Reference: C 1/16/78
Short title: Clanvowe v Hergest.

Plaintiffs: Peryne, late the wife of Thomas Clanvowe, knt.

Defendants: Hugh Hergest, esq.

Subject: Lands, etc (unspecified): sureties for the peace: Herefordshire.

Date: 1407-1456

+ + + + + +

I checked the original Chancery record just now. The above woman is styled Peryne in the original record written in French. The original can be viewed at the following weblink:

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no16/C1no16%20nos%201-400/IMG_0091.htm

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Here is another record of Peryn/Peryne/Perina Clanvowe:

In 1415 Perina widow of Thomas Clanbowe, Knt., sued William Balle, of Foxley, Herefordshire, tiler, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding the theft of two cows at Yazor, Herefordshire.

Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/618, image 2049d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/H5/CP40no618/bCP40no618dorses/IMG_2049.htm).

DR

[JBrand]

This Perine was a Whitney ...

http://www.histparl.ac.uk/volume/1386-1421/member/clanvowe-thomas-1410

[celticp...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 10:43:13 AM UTC-6, JBrand wrote:

> This Perine was a Whitney ...
>
> http://www.histparl.ac.uk/volume/1386-1421/member/clanvowe-thomas-1410

Thanks John for posting this information regarding Peryn Whitney, wife of Sir Thomas Clanvowe. Much appreciated.

I descend from Elizabeth Clanvowe, wife of John Poyntz, Knt., of Iron Acton, Gloucestershire, who was the aunt of Sir Thomas Clanvowe. As you can see, Sir Thomas Clanvow had a most interesting career. He was one of the famous Lollard knights in the reign of King Richard II.

I note that there was a second Whitney woman who had this same usual given name. Roskell identifies her as "Perryne, da. of Sir Thomas Whitney of Whitney, Herefs." She was the third surviving wife of John Abrahall (b. at least 1389-d.1443), of Dewchurch and 'Gillow' in Archenfield, Herefordshire.

Roskell's biography of John Abrahall can be found at the following weblink:

https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/abrahall-john-1389-1443

She is styled "Peryna" in her husband's inquisition post mortem dated 1443. This inquisition can be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/26-074/

Roskell uses the spelling Perryne for both Whitney women. As for why he refers to Thomas Clanvowe's wife as Perryne, I see that Roskell quotes from Thomas' will and states that his executors included his wife Perryne. So I assume she is called Perryne in his will.

In my earlier post, I showed that the first Whitney woman occurs as Peryn in her will and Peryne in a Chancery record. She also occurs as Perina [Latin form] in a Common Pleas record. She is evidently Perryne in her husband's will.

Here she is as Perrin:

Oct. 2, 1392, Woodstock Manor. Grant, for their lives in survivorship, to Thomas Clanvowe, esquire of the king, and Perrin Wytteneye, his wife, one of the damsels of the queen's chamber, of the 10l. a year from the manor of Tydderley, co. Southampton. Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1391–1396 (1905): 185, which can be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=-P81AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA185

She occurs as Perrin in Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1388–1392 (1902): 496, which can be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008969282&view=1up&seq=508&size=125

And here she is as Perrine Whetteneye in 1390. Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1388–1392 (1902): 185, which can be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008969282&view=1up&seq=262

As noted above, the second Whitney woman occurs as Peryna in her husband's inquisition. Peryna would be the Latin form of her name, as the inquisition was in Latin.

The consistent use of the name forms, Peryn/Peryne/Perrin/Perrine/ Perina/Peryna, instead of Pernel or Parnel makes me think that this given name was separate and distinct from Pernel or Parnel.

If so, this would suggest that Sir Gilbert Talbot's wife was actually named Peryn/Peryne le Boteler. I suspect she was the namesake for the two Whitney women.

I might add that Sir Thomas Clanvowe's father, John Clanvowe, claimed to be the nephew of Sir Richard Talbot in a papal petition dated 1354. See Papal Regs.: Petitions 1 (1896): 261, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=O9ELAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA261

Sir Richard Talbot was the father of Sir Gilbert Talbot, husband of Peryn/Peryne le Boteler. So there was a family tie between the Clanvowe and Talbot families.

Douglas Richardson, Historian & Genealogist

[celticp...@gmail.com]

I continue to find the two Whitney women called Peryn/Peryne/Perina, etc. in contemporary records, not Pernel/Parnel/Petronell.

Below is evidence which proves that Peryn Whitney, widow of John Abrahall, married (2nd) John Cheyne. I assume this record is in Latin, hence she is Perina which is the Latin form of her name in this record.

Source: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/common-pleas/1399-1500/hilary-term-1445

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/736, rot. 336d
Term: Hilary 1445
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Bond
Pleading: Joan, former wife and executor of Richard Bokeland, and Richard Quatermayns, John Melbourne, Thomas Rothewell, John Kempley, Thomas Pounde and John Coggeshale, her co-executors, state that on 8 July 1420 John Aberhale, now deceased, made bond with RB in £30. JA did not pay this before his death, and nor has his wife Perina, either before or after her marriage to John Cheyne, either to RB himself or his executors. This is to their damage of £40. They show the bond in court, along with the testamentary letters of RB by which the plaintiffs, together with John Tirell, now deceased, and Richard Caudray, who is not prosecuting, had executry.

Pleading: John and Perina Cheyne granted licence to imparl to quindene of Easter.

Postea text: 11 further licences to imparl, to quindene of Hilary 1448.


Events
Type Place Date
Bond All Hallows the Great < Dowgate Ward < London < England (initial) 08/07/1420
(due) 01/11/1420 < All Saints
Individuals
Individual Status Occupation Place Role
Joan Bokeland (f) Executor, Plaintiff
John Aberhale (m) dec. Gentleman Herefordshire < England Testator
John Cheyne (m) Esquire Chesham < Buckinghamshire < England Defendant
John Coggeshale (m) Executor, Plaintiff
John Huet (m) Attorney of defendant
John Kempley (m) Executor, Plaintiff
John Melbourne (m) Executor, Plaintiff
John Tirell (m) dec. Executor
Perina Aberhale alias Perina Cheyne (f) Defendant, Executor
Richard Bokeland (m) dec. Citizen, Esquire Fishmonger London < England Testator
Richard Caudray (m) Clerk Executor
Richard Pyttes (m) Attorney of plaintiff
Richard Quatermayns (m) Executor, Plaintiff
Thomas Pounde (m) Executor, Plaintiff
Thomas Rothewell (m) Executor, Plaintiff

+ + + + + + + + +

And here is evidence from a Chancery Proceeding that Peryn Whitney, widow of John Abrahall and John Cheyne, married (3rd) Richard Riley. I assume this record is in English, hence she is called Peryn which is the vernacular form of her name.

Source: Chancery Proceeding, Discovery catalogue

Short title: Riley v Cheyne. Plaintiffs: Robert Riley and Peryn, his wife, previously...
Ordering and viewing options

Reference: C 1/73/72
Description:
Short title: Riley v Cheyne.

Plaintiffs: Robert Riley and Peryn, his wife, previously the wife of John, son of Sir Thomas Cheyne, deceased, knight.

Defendants: Thomas Cheyne, feoffee to uses.

Subject: The manors of Blakwels and Mourdevauns under the will of the said Sir Thomas.

Buckinghamshire.

3 documents

Date: 1386-1486
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Legal status: Public Record(s)
Closure status: Open Document, Open Description

+ + + + + + + + + +

Douglas Richardson

[JBrand]

I believe Perine (Whitney) (Abrahall) (Cheyney) Riley is an ancestress of the Izard family of South Carolina as well as Governor Samuel Symmonds of Mass.

[taf]

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 5:06:57 PM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:
> I believe Perine (Whitney) (Abrahall) (Cheyney) Riley is an ancestress of the Izard family of South Carolina as well as Governor Samuel Symmonds of Mass.

I assume you mean Deputy Gov. Samuel Symonds. How do you see that line running?

taf

[taf]

Wait . . . Whitney, Cheyney, gotcha, . . . I think . . . where did I put that notebook?

taf

[JBrand]

Or, rather, Sam. Symonds's wife Dorothy Harlakenden, whose mother was Dorothy Cheyney/ Cheney of Drayton Beauchamp and Chesham Bois. This was the Cheney family descended from Peryn's second marriage to John Cheyne/ Cheney.

https://books.google.com/books?id=CTgQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA130&dq=cheyne+chesham+sylam&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3pOOR26_oAhUMd98KHRE0D1EQ6AEwBXoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22baptised%208th%20august%22&f=false

The Izard connection is through Mary Cheney of Chesham Bois who married John Newdigate.

[leslie...@gmail.com]

Genealogics has Robert Cheyne, died 1554, as a descendant of King John of England, through the families of Whitney, Cromwell & Bernake.

https://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00639197&tree=LEO


I'm not sure of how well documented the Whitney lineage is. Robert was
an ancestor of Dorothy Cheyne, wife of Thomas Harlakenden.
Dorothy & Thomas were the parents of Dorothy Harlakenden, first wife of
Samuel Symonds.

Leslie

[JBrand]

Here called "Perinda, daughter of Sir Robert Whitney."

https://books.google.com/books?id=CTgQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA128&dq=%22by+perinda+daughter+of+sir%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwic5qHy3a_oAhXNSt8KHd3LA1cQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22by%20perinda%20daughter%20of%20sir%22&f=false

[taf]

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 9:12:46 PM UTC-7, lma...@att.net wrote:

> Genealogics has Robert Cheyne, died 1554, as a descendant of King John of England, through the families of Whitney, Cromwell & Bernake.
>
> https://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00639197&tree=LEO
>
> I'm not sure of how well documented the Whitney lineage is. Robert was
> an ancestor of Dorothy Cheyne, wife of Thomas Harlakenden.
> Dorothy & Thomas were the parents of Dorothy Harlakenden, first wife of
> Samuel Symonds.

Unfortunately, I don't think I ever got the end of the Whitney thread to follow it.

taf

[JBrand]

Notice that _History of Parliament_ doesn't name the wife of Sir Robert Whitney (d. 1402), which could be a bad sign:

http://www.histparl.ac.uk/volume/1386-1421/member/whitney-sir-robert-i-1402

[JBrand]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:23:52 AM UTC-4, JBrand wrote:
> Notice that _History of Parliament_ doesn't name the wife of Sir Robert Whitney (d. 1402), which could be a bad sign:
>
> http://www.histparl.ac.uk/volume/1386-1421/member/whitney-sir-robert-i-1402

On the other hand, two other HOP sketches show Wenlian/ Gwentilan Oldcaste's mother as "Alice (d.c. Apr. 1415), da. and h. of Sir John Pembridge of Pembridge, Herefs. [by Elizabeth __], wid. of Edmund de la Bere and Thomas Oldcastle."

http://www.histparl.ac.uk/volume/1386-1421/member/oldcastle-thomas-13989

http://www.histparl.ac.uk/volume/1386-1421/member/merbury-john-1438

[taf]

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 9:15:04 PM UTC-7, JBrand wrote:

> Here called "Perinda, daughter of Sir Robert Whitney."
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=CTgQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA128&dq=%22by+perinda+daughter+of+sir%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwic5qHy3a_oAhXNSt8KHd3LA1cQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22by%20perinda%20daughter%20of%20sir%22&f=false

It is all starting to come back to me now. An extended Cheyney pedigree was added to the 1634 Buckinghamshire visitation volume owned by le Neve. It says Cheyney married "Perin, da. of Sir Robert Whitney knight" with arms "B. a plain cross cheq. O.G." - that is all I knew of her, I think, and there were enough other lines to track down that I don't never put much effort into figuring out these Whitneys.

https://archive.org/stream/visitationofcoun58phil#page/152/mode/2up

taf

[JBrand]

The will of Peryne "Clanbowe," i.e., Clanvowe, mentions her nieces Jane and Peryne.

https://books.google.com/books?id=x5EUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA49&dq=peryne+whitney+-pyrene&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimj8C15K_oAhUDYKwKHRJ7Ct0Q6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=peryne%20whitney%20-pyrene&f=false

[taf]

On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 9:39:09 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>
> It is all starting to come back to me now. An extended Cheyney pedigree was added to the 1634 Buckinghamshire visitation volume owned by le Neve. It says Cheyney married "Perin, da. of Sir Robert Whitney knight" with arms "B. a plain cross cheq. O.G." - that is all I knew of her, I think, and there were

These arms match those of the Whitney of Whitney pedigree in the Visitation of Herefordshire, 1569, but the original visitation didn't trace back far enough, and though manuscript additions appear to go far enough back, it appears to be botched.

https://archive.org/stream/visitationofhere00cookrich#page/74/mode/2up

taf

[taf]

And just to to be explicit, it does say that Robert Whitney the younger did marry Wentelan Oldcastle:

http://www.histparl.ac.uk/volume/1386-1421/member/whitney-sir-robert-ii-1443

taf

[JBrand]

Bradney's edition of _Llyfr Baglan_ identifies the issue of Dame Wenlian Oldcaste as "[sons] S. Robert Whitney and Eustaunce Whittney, and she had a da called Alson who was the wief of Harrie Gru' of newcourt;3 Peryn Whitney ma. Abrall;4 Jaen Whitney ma. walwyn of Longford; and Eliza' Whitney ma. Roger Blwntt."

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1536&bih=738&tbm=bks&ei=qj94XsStOsS8ggeA64eYCw&q=peryn+whitney+-pyrene&oq=peryn+whitney+-pyrene&gs_l=psy-ab.3...6485.6485.0.6827.1.1.0.0.0.0.16.16.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.oLvAlyCNV1A

[taf]

"Perryne" Whitney Clanvowe and the Ocastle connection are briefly mentioned in the following scholarly study, but I can only see snippets:

Image, Text and Church, 1380-1600: Essays for Margaret Aston
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ir1BAQAAIAAJ

taf

[taf]

I am only seeing snippets there, so here is HathiTrust (which also might not be available to everyone):

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112086070007&view=1up&seq=49

I note that this shows the paternal grandmother of Peryn Whitney as Julian Trussel, daughter of Sir Wm Trussel and Margerie Ludlow, daughter of Sir John Ludlow by Eliza daughter of Ralph Lyngell. No Cromwell marriage (as per genealogics) in sight. It isn't exactly contemporary, though.

taf

[JBrand]

It think it has something to do with lollardy, to which the Whitneys and Clanvowes were sympathetic (and also remember that Sir John Oldcastle led a lollard revolt about this period).

[JBrand]

There might be a Longespee-Henry II descent if that alternate connection is correct:

https://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00058669&tree=LEO

[leslie...@gmail.com]

The Whitney / Trussell marriage belongs to a later generation
(not ancestral to Peryne):

https://books.google.com/books?id=kjme027UeagC&pg=PA265&dq=eustace+whitney+trussell&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZi6qlhbDoAhURT6wKHX9oB1YQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=eustace%20whitney%20trussell&f=false


However, there is a more distant royal descent for these Whitneys,
through Elizabeth Freville, wife of Eustace Whitney:


http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.php/Family:Whitney,_Eustace_de_(b1283-c1352)


The ancestry of Elizabeth Freville is here:

https://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00199668&tree=LEO


About 4 years ago, Douglas Richardson located a record which confirms
the Whitney family's kinship to these Cromwells:

Papal Registers: Letters 2 (1895): 144 indicates that John de Cromuel [Cromwell], constable of the Tower, was styled “uncle” of Baldwin de Wyeteney [Whitney], a cleric, in 1317. How were the two men related? Sir John de Cromwell's had an older half-sister, Joan de Cromwell, who married Sir Alexander de Freville, which couple in turn were the parents of Elizabeth de Freville, who married in 1301 Eustace de Whitney. It would appear that Baldwin de Whitney was a child of Elizabeth (de Freville) de Whitney. If so, it would make Sir John de Cromwell the great-uncle to Baldwin de Whitney.

https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/JwjwZaPa/c-p-addition-correction-sir-john-de-cromwell-lord-cromwell-died-1335-and-his-wife-idoine-de-vipont


Leslie

[Brad Verity]

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 12:05:37 PM UTC-7, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
> As noted above, the second Whitney woman occurs as Peryna in her husband's inquisition. Peryna would be the Latin form of her name, as the inquisition was in Latin.
> The consistent use of the name forms, Peryn/Peryne/Perrin/Perrine/ Perina/Peryna, instead of Pernel or Parnel makes me think that this given name was separate and distinct from Pernel or Parnel.
> If so, this would suggest that Sir Gilbert Talbot's wife was actually named Peryn/Peryne le Boteler. I suspect she was the namesake for the two Whitney women.

In a 2016 online article 'Kilpeck Castle and the Countess of Ormond' which I wrote for FMG, I stated,
"So after her father’s death, King Edward II entrusted his niece Eleanor [de Bohun, later countess of Ormond] to the care of her aunt, his sister the nun-princess Mary (1279-1332), at Amesbury Priory in Wiltshire. The priory was a daughter house of Fontevraud Abbey, a Benedictine institution in Anjou, France, which had been founded by Petronilla of Chemillé (d. 1149), its first abbess, whose feast day on April 24th was celebrated in both Fontevraud and Amesbury. That Amesbury Priory, the Order of Fontevraud, and the education received from her aunt the nun-princess Mary all had a life-long impact on Lady Eleanor, is reflected by her giving her firstborn daughter the name Petronilla, after Fontevraud’s founder, and in her 1363 will, in which she made a bequest for the soul of her aunt Mary (one of only two deceased relations whom Eleanor remembered in her last testament)."

Since a Google search of 'Petronilla of Chemillé (d. 1149)' reveals 'Petronilla' or 'Petronille' as the forms used today to identify her, not 'Perina' or 'Parnel' or 'Peryn', I would suggest that either Petronilla or Petronille be used today as the first name of the countess of Ormond's daughter Lady Talbot.

Douglas, you keep trying to authoritatively establish how we (SocGenMed members) should use the first names of medieval figures, claiming one version is Latin, another the Anglo-Norman (presumably) version of the Latin, etc. I for one don't want to follow you into the weeds on this. As I've said before, this all smacks of 'you say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe' to me.

Cheers, ---Brad

[taf]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 12:40:16 AM UTC-7, lma...@att.net wrote:
> On Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 9:27:39 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 1:20:45 AM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> > > I note that this shows the paternal grandmother of Peryn Whitney as Julian Trussel, daughter of Sir Wm Trussel and Margerie Ludlow, daughter of Sir John Ludlow by Eliza daughter of Ralph Lyngell. No Cromwell marriage (as per genealogics) in sight. It isn't exactly contemporary, though.
> >

> > There might be a Longespee-Henry II descent if that alternate connection is correct:
> >
> > https://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00058669&tree=LEO
>
> The Whitney / Trussell marriage belongs to a later generation
> (not ancestral to Peryne):
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=kjme027UeagC&pg=PA265&dq=eustace+whitney+trussell&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZi6qlhbDoAhURT6wKHX9oB1YQ6AEwAHoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=eustace%20whitney%20trussell&f=false
>
>
> However, there is a more distant royal descent for these Whitneys,
> through Elizabeth Freville, wife of Eustace Whitney:
>
>
> http://wiki.whitneygen.org/wrg/index.php/Family:Whitney,_Eustace_de_(b1283-c1352)
>

Curiously, this site shows a Trussel marriage in the same generation as in the Llyfr Baglan, but as step-mother rather than mother of Peryn's father. It cites primary records, but it will take a bit of digging to see if they actually support the claim. "Foedera ed. Rymer (Hague edn.), iii. 842; SC8/107/5303; PPC, i. 88; E101/32/20." If this was the case, maybe Llyfr Baglan has confused/combined two different Trussel marriages.

taf

[JBrand]

I think I'm gathering that where some traditional pedigrees of Whitney show a "Russell" wife it is actually this Trussell marriage that is being indicated.

I also vaguely remember something about a Freville connection.

[taf]

I sort of buried the lead there. It also gives sourcing for the other marriage of Robert Whitney, Peryn's grandfather, being Maud Cromwell: "Reg. Trefnant, 235-7, 245, 252-3, 256-7, 271-5; K.B. McFarlane, Wycliffe, 130; C. Kightly, ‘Early Lollards’ (York Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1975), chap. 3."

Unfortunately, for Maud Cromwell being mother of the younger Robert, the source given is "Source for relationship between Robert and Robert Whitney."

taf

[taf]

On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:02:51 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> I sort of buried the lead there. It also gives sourcing for the other marriage of Robert Whitney, Peryn's grandfather, being Maud Cromwell: "Reg. Trefnant, 235-7, 245, 252-3, 256-7, 271-5; K.B. McFarlane, Wycliffe, 130; C. Kightly, ‘Early Lollards’ (York Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1975), chap. 3."
>

Well, that is disappointing. I looked at the published edition of the Registrum Johannes Trefnant, and didn't find anything relevant on any of the cited pages. Page 235, for example, named the church of 'Whiteney', but not any persons named Whitney. The only Whitney person in the whole volume: Robert de Whitney acts as patron, nominating the successor to the parish in 1394 (p. 178).

taf

[Peter Stewart]

A double negative is appropriate here: this kind of disappointment in
checking a primary source from citations in secondary works is not an
uncommon experience.

Unfortunately some readers are lulled into placing a false confidence in
studies that appear scholarly, just as some appear to believe that any
information (for instance in Medieval Lands) can be accepted as reliable
if they have not been told it is wrong.

But no matter how lavish the footnotes, where only citations are given -
without quotations of the relevant text in a primary source or analysis
in another secondary work - this is often an illusion.

This should be the main benefit of the internet for medieval genealogy -
when publishers cannot or will not allow the print space for such
quotations, a supplementary scholarly apparatus can be placed online
without any duplication or copyright worries. Very few researchers have
bothered to do this so far, but shame on them.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

The last sentence is messed up - I mean shame on the many who don't
bother, not on the few who do.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 4:11:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 25-Mar-20 12:52 AM, taf wrote:
> > On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:02:51 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> >
> >> I sort of buried the lead there. It also gives sourcing for the other marriage of Robert Whitney, Peryn's grandfather, being Maud Cromwell: "Reg. Trefnant, 235-7, 245, 252-3, 256-7, 271-5; K.B. McFarlane, Wycliffe, 130; C. Kightly, ‘Early Lollards’ (York Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1975), chap. 3."
> >>
> >
> > Well, that is disappointing. I looked at the published edition of the Registrum Johannes Trefnant, and didn't find anything relevant on any of the cited pages. Page 235, for example, named the church of 'Whiteney', but not any persons named Whitney. The only Whitney person in the whole volume: Robert de Whitney acts as patron, nominating the successor to the parish in 1394 (p. 178).
>

<snip>

> But no matter how lavish the footnotes, where only citations are given -
> without quotations of the relevant text in a primary source or analysis
> in another secondary work - this is often an illusion.

I have tracked down what happened, at least in part. On a hunch I did a Google search for the exact text of the citation, and sure enough I found it in another text, the HOP article on Robert de Whitney (I). It is used to reference a paragraph that begins by stating that Robert supported William Swynderby, a lollard preacher accused of heresy. The paragraph then gives a long description (not naming Whitney at all) of the legal difficulties Swynderby faced, including his conviction by the bishops, and that a letter survives in which he appeals to the unnamed recipient, requesting that he explain his position to Parliament. HOP then speculates that since Robert de Whitney was about to head to Parliament, he might have been the recipient, and that this along with the connections of his children suggest that the Whitneys may have had lollard sympathies. The Reg. Trefnant pages cited all referred to the investigation and trial of Swynderby, which is why HOP cited them, but they are not at all relevant to the Whitneys.

Clearly, then, the web page was through-citing, simply copying the citations given by another source without looking (and in this case, without citing the intermediate source from which they took them).

Hanlon's razor tells us not to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, but it is hard to not to see fraudulent intent in the way these lifted sources were cited to document a genealogical factoid that is not even addressed by HOP.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Filching of citations without bothering to check them probably explains
a lot of the worthless references found in "scholarly" literature.

Surely any researcher ought to be capable of transcribing at least the
gist of whatever they think worth foot- or end-noting.

The HOP website itself would be a good example of an online resource
which can readily be made far more informative in this respect than the
print version.

The worst offenders to my mind are those who provide only an archival
reference for unpublished material that they are using in evidence. This
is usually just from professional arrogance - whether competent or
otherwise - based on the presumption that readers will all either take
it on trust or, if especially interested, visit the archive and verify
the text for themselves. As if every reader must benefit from the same
research grants and travel allowances as the complacent author ....

Peter Stewart

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 6:11:58 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 25-Mar-20 5:21 PM, taf wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 4:11:43 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> >> On 25-Mar-20 12:52 AM, taf wrote:
> >>> On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:02:51 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I sort of buried the lead there. It also gives sourcing for the other marriage of Robert Whitney, Peryn's grandfather, being Maud Cromwell: "Reg. Trefnant, 235-7, 245, 252-3, 256-7, 271-5; K.B. McFarlane, Wycliffe, 130; C. Kightly, ‘Early Lollards’ (York Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1975), chap. 3."
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Well, that is disappointing. I looked at the published edition of the Registrum Johannes Trefnant, and didn't find anything relevant on any of the cited pages. Page 235, for example, named the church of 'Whiteney', but not any persons named Whitney. The only Whitney person in the whole volume: Robert de Whitney acts as patron, nominating the successor to the parish in 1394 (p. 178).
> >>
> > <snip>
> >
> >> But no matter how lavish the footnotes, where only citations are given -
> >> without quotations of the relevant text in a primary source or analysis
> >> in another secondary work - this is often an illusion.
> >
> > I have tracked down what happened, at least in part. On a hunch I did a Google search for the exact text of the citation, and sure enough I found it in another text, the HOP article on Robert de Whitney (I). It is used to reference a paragraph that begins by stating that Robert supported William Swynderby, a lollard preacher accused of heresy. The paragraph then gives a long description (not naming Whitney at all) of the legal difficulties Swynderby faced, including his conviction by the bishops, and that a letter survives in which he appeals to the unnamed recipient, requesting that he explain his position to Parliament. HOP then speculates that since Robert de Whitney was about to head to Parliament, he might have been the recipient, and that this along with the connections of his children suggest that the Whitneys may have had lollard sympathies. The Reg. Trefnant pages cited all referred to the investigation and trial of Swynderby, which is why HOP cited them, but they are not at all relevant to the Whitneys.
> >
> > Clearly, then, the web page was through-citing, simply copying the citations given by another source without looking (and in this case, without citing the intermediate source from which they took them).
> >
> > Hanlon's razor tells us not to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, but it is hard to not to see fraudulent intent in the way these lifted sources were cited to document a genealogical factoid that is not even addressed by HOP.

It may be incompetence, but it should be emphasized at all levels of schooling that these should be cited at a minimum as "Source X which cites '..' " if at all. I can't stand this sort of stealing sources...it is so dirty, like you are trying to cover up your tracks, or look more knowledgeable than you are.

[Peter Stewart]

"Source X which cites ..." is a bare minimum, but only satisfactory if
you entirely trust the author to interpret the source (literally and in
context) fully and correctly.

I don't even trust myself absolutely for this - hence my preference for
posting to SGM for discussion rather than publishing articles - and I'm
certainly not prepared to trust anyone who can't or won't simply prove
their points with direct quotation from the cited source/s.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

There are levels to the incompetence and fraud here. It is completely inappropriate, even fraudulent (though unfortunately all too common) to cite a source one did not personally consult, because a source you did consult and have cited referenced them to document the same fact. It is worse to cite those sources without citing the intermediate source, to disguise the fact that it is someone else's research you are appropriating (and to use their precise citation text verbatim adds a level of further larceny). Here, though, we have yet a further level of ineptitude or fraud, since the cited material is being used to document something entirely distinct than what the original source used them to prove. It is this last that is particularly damning - it suggests that the sources were not lifted out of simple laziness, but with the intention to deceive.

taf