Wife/Son of Richard Norton Chief Justice d.1420

[TJ Booth_aol]

This post corrects the name of Chief Justice Richard Norton's wife, mother
of Margaret (Norton) Stapleton. It also documents a Tempest ancestry for
Barton of Whenby, and removes one for Margaret Stapleton that is shown in
many sources but was (correctly) never claimed by Eliz Blanche Tempest in
'Tempest Pedigrees'.

Dugdale's 'Norton of Sawley' Pedigree (w Clay's 1901 additions,
http://books.google.com/books?id=FqJCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA72 ) shows the Norton IV.
and V. generations below. Paget - perhaps relying on it - also shows
Margaret [Norton] Stapleton's mother as 'Elizabeth Tempest dau of Sir John'.
Relying on Paget, genealogics's repeats Paget @
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00248710&tree=LEO . Old RPA
p.683 shows the chief Justice's wife as 'Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John
Tempest' as well, and the old DNB bio of Chief Justice Norton
(http://books.google.com/books?id=pxpbAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA662 , citing Surtees'
'Durham' pedigree i:clx) does so also. (have not checked ODNB to see if it
restates this identity).

IV. SIR RICHARD NORTON, KNT., Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, 26 June
1413, d. 20 Dec. 1420, bur. at
Wath, mar. Elizabeth, dau. of Sir John Tempest, of Studley (Glover 156,
319), d. 20 Sept. 1438, bur. at Wath. They had issue-
John (V).
Elizabeth, mar. Richard Goldesborough, of Goldesborough (Glover 369).
Margaret, mar. Sir John Stapleton, of Wighill (Glover 333).

V. SIR JOHN NORTON, KNT., of Norton and Sawley, d. 4 Dec. 1489, bur. at
Wath, Inq. P.M. 6 Apr. 5 Hen. VII, 1490, mar. Jane, dau. of Sir Randolph
Pigot, d. 6 Aug. 1488, bur. at Wath. They had issue-
&tc.

Four different errors can be noted in the above two generation pedigree:

1. The Chief Justice's wife was Katherine [Manningham], who d. 20 May 1418
and was buried at Wath next to her husband. This from a memorial in
Dodsworth's Church Notes for 17 Oct 1622 (also with Clay's additions, but
published a year after Clay's Dugdale - see
http://books.google.com/books?id=NmsKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA222 ). While Glover's
page 244 'Norton als Conyers' pedigree states this (but transposing
Katherine's 1418 death date as 1481), Clay/Dugdale curiously never cite this
page in stating the Justice's wife was 'Elizabeth'.

2. Per Elizabeth Blanche Townley's 'Tempest Pedigrees', there never was a
Sir John Tempest of Studley.[1] Nor do any of Glover's visitation pages
cited in Clay/Dugdale's Norton pedigree show a Sir John Tempest of Studley
as a father. The p 156 'Mallory of Studley' pedigree that is cited calls
Norton's father-in-law 'Richard or William', and the p 319 'Tempest of
Bracewell' pedigree that is cited correctly calls him 'Sir William Tempest'
who m. 'Helen, dau and heir of Wm Washington'. Glover's p. 244 'Norton als
Conyers' pedigree - curiously uncited by Clay - calls him Sir Thomas or
Robert Tempest, but not Sir John.

3. The Sir John Norton of Norton Conyers who d. 4 Dec 1489 was indeed the
son and heir of a Tempest dau., her father being Sir William Tempest of
Studley. But Dugdale's identification of his father as the Chief Justice is
chronologically flawed, since John who d. 1489 was b. shortly bef Jan 1426
(age 26 in Jan 1451/52 per IPM of his grandmother), [EBT i:67] and was
highly unlikely to be son of someone d. 1420.

4. The name of John (V)'s mother was not 'Elizabeth', but 'Isabel'
Tempest.[EBT i:66] Her first name so stated in Dodsworth's previously cited
Church notes : "Another marble adyoining [the Chief Justice's]. Ricardus
Norton, qui xxij die mensis Septembris, et Isabella, uxor ejus, que xx die
ejusdem mensis, anno Domini Millesimo cccc° xxxviij°, obierunt, jacent hic
sepulti, quorum animabus propitietur Deus. Amen." This generation of
Nortons - missing from Dugdale - is present in Glover's p. 244 Norton
pedigree along with their dates of death. Glover inexplicably there shows
her name as 'Elizabeth' not 'Isabel', but his p. 319 Tempest pedigree
correctly identifies her as 'Isabel'. Whitaker's Richmondshire (ii:184 per
the footnote to the above cited church notes) apparently also mentions the
Wath church memorials, since 'Monumental Brasses' quotes Whitaker for the
same inscription (http://books.google.com/books?id=dr_4T6jul9QC&pg=PA330 ).

Glover's 'Norton' pedigree correctly includes an added generation of Richard
Norton (b. say 1400/05), who both Dodsworth and Glover state d. 22 Sep 1438.
Glover also shows the names and death dates for the Chief Justice, his wife
Katherine [Manningham], and 3 more generations of Nortons, all likely from
the memorials in Wath Church as reported by Dodsworth. It is difficult to
explain Clay's omission of this generation, given these additional records
and Clay's knowledge of Dodsworth, even if Dugdale missed it.

The dates of death in Dodsworth are consistent with EBT's independent
research that Isabel Tempest was b. 'say 1408' and its citation that
Isabel's husband d. bef Oct 1439 "when Sir William Tempest of Studley knt,
was summoned by the Bishop of Durham for the abduction of John, son and heir
of Richard Norton, the Bishop's ward and under age, from Norton Conyers (De
Banco Ro: 715 Mich. 18 Henry vj, m.671 dorso)" [EBT i:68]. As neither the
death dates nor place of burial for Isabel Tempest or her husband are noted,
EBT was likely unaware of the Tempest/Norton references in Whitaker's work,
of Dodsworth's Church Notes or of Glover's pedigree of Norton. But her
citation of several IPM's and other evidence makes clear that the Sir John
Norton who m. Jane Pigot [Dugdale's 'V.'] was the son of Isabel Tempest and
Richard Norton d. 1438.

Glover's extra generation of Norton is consistent with the 7 Jan 1465 [/66?]
will (pr. 8 Jan 1465/66) of Margaret Norton, dau of the Chief Justice who m.
John Stapleton of Wighill [Testamenta Eboracensia, Vol 1 Part II; Surtees
Soc; Vol 30 (1855) page 270 @
http://books.google.com/books?id=Eq4DAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA270 ]. In it she leaves
bequests to her brother William and his heir John, and to "Johanni Norton
militi consanguineo meo". This indicates that Sir John Norton's father was
indeed then d., and is consistent with Sir John being the heir of Norton
Conyers as well as being the nephew rather than brother of Margaret.

Further confirmation of this extra generation of Richard Norton is found in
a short bio of John Norton, prebend of Ripon. The bio first cites clear
evidence the prebend was son of the chief justice, and then notes that one
of the executors of the prebend's will (pr. 23 Feb 1435/36) was 'his brother
Richard Norton' (who did not d. until 3 years later) [Joseph Thomas Fowler;
"Memorials of the Church of SS. Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon'; Vol 78; page 203
@ http://books.google.com/books?id=aEcJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA203 ]. Having d. bef
his sister Margaret, this explains why the prebend is not noted in Margaret
Stapleton's 1465 will.

Dugdale's pedigree (also Paget &tc) should thus read something like as
follows for these generations:

IV. SIR RICHARD NORTON, KNT., Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, 26 June
1413, d. 20 Dec. 1420, bur. at
Wath (Dodsworth 222), mar. Katherine (perhaps Manningham), d. 20 May 1418
(Glover 156, 319), bur. at Wath (Dodsworth 222). They had issue-
Richard (IV-a, Added Generation).
William, d. aft 7 Jan 1465/66, his son and heir John living 7 Jan
1465/66.
John, prebend of Ripon, d. bef 23 Feb 1435/36
Elizabeth, mar. Richard Goldesborough, of Goldesborough (Glover 369).
Margaret, d. bef 8 Jan 1465, mar. Sir John Stapleton, of Wighill (Glover
333).

[IV-a, Added Generation.] RICHARD NORTON, of Norton and Sawley, b. say 1405,
m. bef 29 Jan 1425/26 (EBT i:62 shows a son and heir age 26 29 Jan 1451/52),
d. 22 Sep, 1438, bur. at Wath [Glover 156, Dodsworth 222], m. Isabel
Tempest, b. say 1408 (EBT i:66) dau of Sir William Tempest of Studley by
Eleanor Washington (EBT i:61), Isabel d. 20 Sep 1438, bur. at Wath
[Dodsworth 222]. They had issue-
John (V.)
Isabel, d. aft 29 Oct 1450, mar. bef that date ... Borton/Barton. [EBT
i:67]

V. SIR JOHN NORTON, KNT., of Norton and Sawley, b. shortly bef 29 Jan
1425/26 [EBT i:67], d. 4 Dec. 1489, bur. at Wath, Inq. P.M. 6 Apr. 5 Hen.
VII, 1490, mar. Jane, dau. of Sir Randolph Pigot, d. 6 Aug. 1488, bur. at
Wath. They had issue-
&tc.

One can also now identify the spouse of the added generation's dau Isabel.
Both Flowers' and Glover's 'Barton of Whenby' state that Richard Barton of
Whenby m. Isabel dau of John Norton of Norton. Richard Barton was the son of
Conan who m. Joan Strangeways - Joan Strangeways m.(2) Christopher Boynton.
If one identifies 'John Norton of Norton' as Isabel's brother instead of her
father, these names and relationships match those stated in Richard Barton's
10 Aug 1455 will [Testamenta Eboracensia, Vol 1 Part II; Surtees Soc; Vol 30
(1855) page 215 @ http://books.google.com/books?id=Eq4DAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA215 .],
where 'My broder John of Norton' is named as an executor. Per a footnote to
that will, 'John Norton, knyght' was also an executor for Richard Barton's
son Christopher. As Richard Barton's wife Isabel (Tempest) is not named in
his will, she was most likely d. bef 10 Aug 1455.

Glover's Barton pedigree (portions in [2] below) shows the couple's
gr-gr-grandson was Edward Barton of Whenby Esq., d. 1610, who m. Eliz Norton
of Norton Conyers (genealogics has their descendants @
www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00503599&tree=LEO ). Elizabeth
was dau of Francis and granddau of Richard 'Old Norton' of Pilgrimage of
Grace fame whose fictional dau Emily became Wordsworth's famous 'White Doe
of Rylstone'. She was also the gr-gr-gr-gr-granddau of chief Justice Richard
Norton.

In 1450, Isabella [Norton] Barton was named as heir of her bro John if he
had no issue.[3] This seems final evidence neither were children of Chief
Justice Richard Norton, whose dau Margaret was still alive.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL
Copyright 2011

Notes
-----
[1] [Hereinafter 'EBT'] Eleanor Blanche Tempest (1853-1928); 'Tempest
Pedigrees'; Handwritten MSS 1878-1922; Transcribed by Canon C.E. Foster in 3
Volumes; Digitized by John R Schuerman (Stonyhurst Copy); Medieval English
Genealogy website. Vol. I @
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/families/ebt/Volume1.doc
[2] Robert Glover; Visitation of Yorkshire 1584/85 (edited by Joseph
Foster); London; Foster; 1875 [sub 'Barton of Whenby', page 5]. The descent
is as follows :
Richard Barton of Whenby m. Isabel Norton [grand-dau of the chief
Justice] and had issue including
Christopher Barton, d. bef 17 Apr 1480 [per footnote to his father's
will] m. Margaret dau of Robert Danby Justice, and had issue including
John Barton of Whenby ob 21 Hen VII [1505/06] m. Margaret dau of Sir Jno
Pickering and had issue incl
Thomas Barton 2nd son 34 Hen VIII [1542/43] m. Barbara dau of Christopher
Lassells of Brackenburgh and had issue including
Edward Barton of Whenby Esg. d. 1610 m. Elizabeth dau of Francis Norton
of Norton Conyers
[3] EBT i:67, citing Feet of Fines; Divers Countries 28-34 Henry vi; File 72
No. 369, levy date of 29 Oct 1450, which states that Isabel [Tempest]
Norton's share of her father Sir William Tempest's estate "were settled on
her son John Norton Esq. and his heirs and for default on Isabel Borton
[Barton] his sister."

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear TJ ~

Thank you for the good post. Much appreciated.

It is clear from the records which you've presented that there were
two successive generations of Richard Norton's, and that it was the
second Richard Norton (died 1438) who was the father of Sir John
Norton (died 1489), of Norton Conyers, Yorkshire. You're also correct
that the 2nd Richard Norton's wife was Isabel Tempest, not Elizabeth
Tempest.

I have one additional piece of evidence which supports your
conclusions. There is a pedigree of the Norton family which is found
in Harvey et al., Visitations of the North, 1 (Surtees Soc. 122)
(1912): 64–65. This visitation is one of the earliest on record and
is usually very reliable. This pedigree starts with the following two
generations:

Gen. 1: "Sir Rychard Norton maryed Ysabell, one of the dowghters and
heyres of Syr William Tempest of Studeley, and had yssu Syr John
Norton."

Gen. 2: “Syr John Norton, [married] Jonne, dowghter of Sir Randoll
Pygot." END OF QUOTE.

The visitation itself may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030149a/northern/surtees122text.pdf

The only corrections I see for the above visitation is Richard Norton
[Generation 1] was not knighted, nor was Ranulph Pigot, the father of
Joan (Pigot) Norton. Elsewhere in the same visitation, there is a
Pigot pedigree. In that pedigree, Ranulph Pigot is not presented as a
knight.

As for the name of the wife of Sir John Norton, you show her as "Jane,
dau. of Sir Randolph Pigot." I think Joan would be more correct,
although Joan and Jane are often interchangeable in this time period.
As noted above, she is called "Jonne" in the visitation above. Her
father, Ranulph Pigot, Esquire left a will dated dated 20 April 1466,
proved 9 May 1467, a copy of which is published in Testamenta
Eboracensia, 3 (Surtees Soc. 45) (1865): 156–158. In this will,
Ranulph Pigot refers to "Johannae Norton ... filiae meae" [that is,
Joan Norton, my daughter].

Ranulph Pigot's will can be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z6rRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA156

There are two other visitations which mention Joan Pigot, both of
which are much later productions. In one of them, she is called
"Jane, or Joane," and in the other she is called "Jane."

Glover & St. George, Vis. of Yorkshire 1584–5, 1612 (1875): 244–245
(Norton ped.: “Sir John Norton, knt., d. Oct., 1489, and is buried at
Wath. = Jane, or Joane, daughter of Sir Randolph, or Ralph, Pigott, d.
6 Aug., 1488, buried at Wath.”).

Flower, Vis. of Yorkshire 1563–4 (H.S.P. 16) (1881): 231–232 (Norton
ped.: “Sir John Norton son & heyr to Sir Rychard. = Jane doughter to
Randolff Pygot.”).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[taf]

On Nov 16, 7:21 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <tjbo...@aol.com> wrote:
> 4. The name of John (V)'s mother was not 'Elizabeth', but 'Isabel'
> Tempest.[EBT i:66] Her first name so stated in Dodsworth's previously cited
> Church notes : "Another marble adyoining [the Chief Justice's]. Ricardus
> Norton, qui xxij die mensis Septembris, et Isabella, uxor ejus, que xx die
> ejusdem mensis, anno Domini Millesimo cccc° xxxviij°, obierunt, jacent hic
> sepulti, quorum animabus propitietur Deus. Amen." This generation of
> Nortons - missing from Dugdale - is present in Glover's p. 244 Norton
> pedigree along with their dates of death. Glover inexplicably there shows
> her name as 'Elizabeth' not 'Isabel', but his p. 319 Tempest pedigree
> correctly identifies her as 'Isabel'.

This is sort of like arguing whether someone was named Joan or Jane.
Isabel and Elizabeth are alternative forms of the same name,
represented in Latin as Helisabet or something similar. The grave
marker does likely indicate the form she used, but it's not like
different people are calling her AElfgifu vs Ximena.

taf

[Wjhonson]

I agree with Todd, and how DR is not going to go on another naming rampage :)

E/I - Z/S - B - L
had variant spellings in this time period, including Elizabeth, and Isabel.

[davi...@yahoo.com]

On Nov 16, 7:21 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <tjbo...@aol.com> wrote:

> This post corrects the name of Chief Justice Richard Norton's wife, mother
> of Margaret (Norton) Stapleton. It also documents a Tempest ancestry for
> Barton of Whenby, and removes one for Margaret Stapleton that is shown in
> many sources but was (correctly) never claimed by Eliz Blanche Tempest in
> 'Tempest Pedigrees'.
>

> Dugdale's 'Norton of Sawley' Pedigree (w Clay's 1901 additions,http://books.google.com/books?id=FqJCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA72) shows the Norton IV.

> and V. generations below. Paget - perhaps relying on it - also shows
> Margaret [Norton] Stapleton's mother as 'Elizabeth Tempest dau of Sir John'.

> Relying on Paget, genealogics's repeats Paget @http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00248710&tree=LEO. Old RPA

> p.683 shows the chief Justice's wife as 'Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John
> Tempest' as well, and the old DNB bio of Chief Justice Norton

> (http://books.google.com/books?id=pxpbAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA662, citing Surtees'

> 'Durham' pedigree i:clx) does so also. (have not checked ODNB to see if it
> restates this identity).

ODNB repeats the identification of the wife of Sir Richard the judge
as Elizabeth [not Isabel], dau of Sir John Tempest of Studley. It
also cites Surtees' Durham but without citing any page numbers. The
Norton pedigrees in vol. 1 of Surtees' Durham do not address the issue
of the wife of Sir Richard the judge (at least in the pedigrees), as
they start with Sir John Norton who married Margaret Warde and mention
in a footnote that this Sir John was a grandson of Sir Richard the
judge (actually great-grandson in the adjusted pedigree that Terry has
provided here).

>
> IV. SIR RICHARD NORTON, KNT., Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, 26 June
> 1413, d. 20 Dec. 1420, bur. at
> Wath, mar. Elizabeth, dau. of Sir John Tempest, of Studley (Glover 156,
> 319), d. 20 Sept. 1438, bur. at Wath. They had issue-
>    John (V).
>    Elizabeth, mar. Richard Goldesborough, of Goldesborough (Glover 369).
>    Margaret, mar. Sir John Stapleton, of Wighill (Glover 333).
>
> V. SIR JOHN NORTON, KNT., of Norton and Sawley, d. 4 Dec. 1489, bur. at
> Wath, Inq. P.M. 6 Apr. 5 Hen. VII, 1490, mar. Jane, dau. of Sir Randolph
> Pigot, d. 6 Aug. 1488, bur. at Wath. They had issue-
>    &tc.
>
> Four different errors can be noted in the above two generation pedigree:
>
> 1. The Chief Justice's wife was Katherine [Manningham], who d. 20 May 1418
> and was buried at Wath next to her husband. This from a memorial in
> Dodsworth's Church Notes for 17 Oct 1622 (also with Clay's additions, but

> published a year after Clay's Dugdale - seehttp://books.google.com/books?id=NmsKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA222). While Glover's

> page 244 'Norton als Conyers' pedigree states this (but transposing
> Katherine's 1418 death date as 1481), Clay/Dugdale curiously never cite this
> page in stating the Justice's wife was 'Elizabeth'.
>

It's interesting to note that this version of Dodsworth's Church
Notes, although it is well outside copyright and thus in the public
domain, is available to read in full on Google Books but is not
downloadable from Google. It's always been unclear how Google
determines which items are not viewable at all, which are viewable in
snippets only, and which are fully viewable - even if they're all out
of copyright. It seems we now have a further category - viewable but
not not downloadable. Moral: downlaod what you can find while you
can - it may not be there forever, for download or for free reading.

As it happens this items is available for download at the Internet
Archive, under the title of the series in which it was published:
http://www.archive.org/details/recordseriesyor01socigoog
Don't click on "PDF (Google.com" but instead on "All Files (HTTP)" and
then select the PDF version from the list there.

[John]

Ignore the address that this was sent from - somebody else was using
my computer!!

John Higgins

[Wjhonson]

The reason being that Isabel and Elizabeth were interchangeable names.