Evidence of descent in Early Maryland to Leonard Halliday, knt. and Lord Mayor of London

[Brian Hessick]

Links provided give supporting evidence that Thomas Hollyday gent. of Billingsley's Point, Prince George's County, Maryland (d. 1703), was a direct descendant of Leonard Halliday, knt. and Lord Mayor of London (d. 1612).

Arms confirmed to Sir Leonard 23 Sept. 1605: Sable, three helms Argent, garnished Or, within a bordure engrailed


Portrait of Leonard Halliday, knt. and Lord Mayor of London, with arms:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Sir_Leonard_Halliday.jpg



Seal ring of Thomas Hollyday of Prince George's County, Maryland, found within the Testamentary Papers in Annapolis. Take note of the engrailed border:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Seal_ring_of_Thomas_Hollyday_%281703%29.png



Visitation of Middx. 1663 (Holliday of Bromley)

https://books.google.com/books?id=qE5bAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA38&dq=%22john+holliday%22+%22sir+leonard+holliday%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE_7zsl4_TAhWEwiYKHfwlBIkQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22john%20holliday%22%20%22sir%20leonard%20holliday%22&f=false



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

Arms of William Halliday (d. 1624), cousin to Leonard Halliday, knt., via portrait of his daughter Margaret. Take note of the border, non-engrailed:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Margaret_Hungerford_%281596-1648%29_by_Cornelis_Jonson_van_Ceulen.jpg

[taf]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 11:31:37 PM UTC-7, Brian Hessick wrote:
> Links provided give supporting evidence that Thomas Hollyday gent. of
> Billingsley's Point, Prince George's County, Maryland (d. 1703), was a
> direct descendant of Leonard Halliday, knt. and Lord Mayor of London (d.
> 1612).
>
> Arms confirmed to Sir Leonard 23 Sept. 1605: Sable, three helms Argent,
> garnished Or, within a bordure engrailed

> Seal ring of Thomas Hollyday of Prince George's County, Maryland, found
> within the Testamentary Papers in Annapolis. Take note of the engrailed
> border:

First, it is unclear to me that this border is intended to be engrailed, and not wavy or indented. Even if it was engrailed, it only means Thomas was claiming a connection to the Mayor's family, not that he had one - even in England there are cases of families mimicking arms of of well-known people who just happened to have the same surname,, and Maryland was a long way from the College of Arms.

> Visitation of Middx. 1663 (Holliday of Bromley)

Given the birthdate usually assigned to Thomas, one might have expected him in this pedigree.

taf

[Brian Hessick]

On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 7:02:29 AM UTC-4, taf wrote:
>
> First, it is unclear to me that this border is intended to be engrailed, and not wavy or indented. Even if it was engrailed, it only means Thomas was claiming a connection to the Mayor's family, not that he had one - even in England there are cases of families mimicking arms of of well-known people who just happened to have the same surname,, and Maryland was a long way from the College of Arms.
>
>
> > Visitation of Middx. 1663 (Holliday of Bromley)
>
> Given the birthdate usually assigned to Thomas, one might have expected him in this pedigree.

I guess it is fair to say that when I don't give any other information about Thomas Hollyday. Also worth noting, Leonard's arms was an alteration of the arms he already bore, the same found in Margaret Hungerford's portrait.

A few things:
1) There are no examples or grantings of Halliday arms with a changed border other than the engrailed version assigned to Leonard.
2) Besides being literate, Thomas was elected to lower house in Maryland, justice of Calvert county, and Chief Justice of PG county.
3) He was a lieutenant colonel under the new administration (post Glorious Rev.).
4) He was very Protestant.
5) Married well (a Plantagenet descendant)
6) Titled in proceedings as gentleman and/or merchant.
7) One of his sons was named Leonard.
8) His son James named his manor Redbourne, the ancestral home of Leonard Halliday.


I could understand someone wrongfully fashioning arms that is either ancient or of prominence, ie. Marshall or Mortimer, but I have serious doubts about someone using the arms of another as their own within 100 years time of the confirming. Not that I am an authority on the subject, but I have yet to see anyone of gentry knowingly falsifying their arms; nothing, to the contrary, suggests that Thomas was an imposter, scoundrel, or charlatan. Denying the design of arms on a seal ring as proof during this era, particularly one as ornate as this one, might be a bit too skeptical.

[taf]

On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 10:00:51 PM UTC-7, Brian Hessick wrote:

> > > Visitation of Middx. 1663 (Holliday of Bromley)
> >
> > Given the birthdate usually assigned to Thomas, one might have expected
> him in this pedigree.
>
>
> I guess it is fair to say that when I don't give any other information about
> Thomas Hollyday.

Which doesn't really answer the question. Given his birthdate seems to have been was before the date of the pedigree, wouldn't you have expected him to be there?

> Also worth noting, Leonard's arms was an alteration of the arms he already
> bore, the same found in Margaret Hungerford's portrait.

If one scion can difference a bordure, why can't another adopt a similar but slightly different bordure?

> A few things:
> 1) There are no examples or grantings of Halliday arms with a changed border
> other than the engrailed version assigned to Leonard.

Based on . . . . ? How about examples of younger sons adopting differences without a formal grant?

> 7) One of his sons was named Leonard.
> 8) His son James named his manor Redbourne, the ancestral home of Leonard
> Halliday.

And it is impossible that he descended from a brother of Leonard?

> I could understand someone wrongfully fashioning arms that is either ancient
> or of prominence, ie. Marshall or Mortimer, but I have serious doubts about
> someone using the arms of another as their own within 100 years time of the
> confirming.

Well let's see. You have a Hallyday in London who wants to be perceived as coming from a better background than he can prove. Is he going to pick Mortimer, which everyone will know is not his, or will he pick the one of the Lord Mayor 100 years before with the same surname as he has? Which will be more believable. I would suggest it isn't Mortimer. The Spencers didn't steal a random coat to difference, they chose that of the similarly named Despencers.

> Not that I am an authority on the subject, but I have yet to see anyone of
> gentry knowingly falsifying their arms;

This is precisely why the heralds did their visitations. Many of the published volumes contain lists of arms that were rejected (that were being used fraudulently).

> nothing, to the contrary, suggests that Thomas was an imposter, scoundrel,
> or charlatan.

This is a bit too black and white. Given all of the bogus connections and rejected arms in the visitation pedigrees, it seems a good proportion of the gentry were what you call impostors, scoundrels and charlatans.

> Denying the design of arms on a seal ring as proof during this era,
> particularly one as ornate as this one, might be a bit too skeptical.

Deciding that it is overly-skeptical for anyone to question your interpretation might be begging the question.

taf

[wjhonson]

Who did this Thomas Hollyday marry?

[taf]

On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 10:53:26 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 10:00:51 PM UTC-7, Brian Hessick wrote:
>
> > > > Visitation of Middx. 1663 (Holliday of Bromley)
> > >
> > > Given the birthdate usually assigned to Thomas, one might have expected
> > him in this pedigree.
> >
> >
> > I guess it is fair to say that when I don't give any other information
> > about
> > Thomas Hollyday.
>
> Which doesn't really answer the question. Given his birthdate seems to have
> been was before the date of the pedigree, wouldn't you have expected him to
> be there?

In case it is unclear what exactly I am asking, The pedigree shows Leonard with an only son and heir, John. He is given two children, John and Elizabeth, while his widow is shown remarrying. Are these the only Hallyday grandchildren of Leonard? It would seem so. Leonard's will leaves one with the impression that son John was dead - he leaves a legacy to daughter-in-law Alice Hallydaye half of the silver that he had given to John and Alice at the time of their marriage, but no legacy to John himself. He did however leave legacies to grandson John Hallydaye (L1000 when 21) and granddaughter Elizabeth Hallydaye (L1000 when 21 or married) if his mother Alice and other friends of John and Elizabeth allow him to be brought up by Anne Hallydaye, Leonard's wife. It does not seem reasonable then to posit additional Hallydaye grandchildren, and it also seems the pedigree is correct in making John the only son.

The will of Arthur Ingram, who married Leonard's widowed daughter-in-law, is not helpful. Elizabeth Hallyday, Leonard's granddaughter, married John Jacob, and his will names several relatives, but doesn't move the story forward. Among these are Sir Thomas Ingram (his wife's half-brother), his niece Margaret Rolt (Elizabeth's brother John married Mary Rolt, so there seems to be a web of intermarriages, and his "brother and sister Holliday".

This brings us to John Hallyday, the grandson. Given the typical format of these entries, he was the informant for the pedigree, still living. We are told he had a sole son and heir, John, aged 23 (b. ca. 1641), and no marriage or child is shown. This represents reasonable chronology, given that the marriage license of his parents dates to 1607. (A possible marriage for the parents is at St. Ann Blackfriars, where one version of the registers has Jhon Hallida married Mary Colt [sic] in 1639/40, the other John Holliday and Mary Bolt[sic], by license)

I haven't been able to find anything that can be definitively related to him or his sister Elizabeth (b. ca. 1662). However, as "only son now living" in 1664, it severely limits the possibilities.

OK, then, that is our framework. Leonard m. Anne Wincoll in 1578 and had an only son John (I), b. ca. 1582. John (I) married Alice Ferrers in 1607 and had an only son John (II), b. ca. 1609. John (II) married Mary Rolt (? 1639/40) and had an only son surviving son John (III), b. ca. 1641, by all appearances still unmarried in 1664. Given that Thomas is recorded in Maryland in 1679, where do you propose putting him in this pedigree?

I note that some accounts say that Leonard had his arms "confirmed" and was granted a new crest, suggesting that he was already using the arms as a differenced paternal arms. That opens the possibility that this particular variant of the arms dates to an earlier generation. Leonard is given two brothers in one account I have seen. Perhaps their descendants used the same heraldic variant and Col. Thomas descends from one of them? It would not have been odd for them to use the name Leonard after their prominent uncle, and they would likewise have had links to the family holdings. Likewise you have to go back to Leonard's grandfather to get to someone who was a younger son, and hence would have had to difference the family arms, so a connection could be even more distant.

taf

[taf]

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 11:30:12 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> This brings us to John Hallyday, the grandson. Given the typical format of
> these entries, he was the informant for the pedigree, still living. We are
> told he had a sole son and heir, John, aged 23 (b. ca. 1641), and no
> marriage or child is shown. This represents reasonable chronology, given
> that the marriage license of his parents dates to 1607. (A possible
> marriage for the parents is at St. Ann Blackfriars, where one version of the > registers has Jhon Hallida married Mary Colt [sic] in 1639/40, the other
> John Holliday and Mary Bolt[sic], by license)
>
> I haven't been able to find anything that can be definitively related to him
> or his sister Elizabeth (b. ca. 1662). However, as "only son now living" in
> 1664, it severely limits the possibilities.

I found this family at St Mary, Bromley St Leonard

John Hallyda, son of John and Mary, bap. 4 Nov. 1641
Robert Haliday, son of John, bap. 30 Jun. 1652
Elizabeth Halliday, dau John and Mary, bap 23 Oct. 1662

Mr. John Holiday, bur. 24 Jun. 1691


My source does not include the early burial records, but in a Halliday book I can see snippets that report additional burials:

Robert, 24 Sep. 1652
John, 21 Sep. 1665

Since the will of John Jacob, naming "brother and sister" Halliday, is dated 16 Feb. 1665/6, then the 1665 burial must be that of the son, John (III), and given that he was unmarried the year before, there is every reason to think that John (III) d.s.p., and Leonard's entire male line became extinct with the death of his grandson John (II) in 1691.

I note that Burke's Landed Gentry showed Andrew Halliday, K.G.H., as bearing the same arms attributed to Leonard, with the engrailed bordure. The arms appear to have been used by multiple branches. Starting with Henry Halliday of Minchin Hampton, who married Payne of Payne's Court (again, according to Burke), we have Margaret Halliday, descended from the eldest son, Henry, used a standard bordure, but now we have Leonard, a descendant of second son Edward, and Andrew, descended from third son William, both using the engrailed bordure.

I think you need to cast your net much wider.

taf

[taf]

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 2:54:49 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> I think you need to cast your net much wider.

And even wider yet.

First, the difference between the engrailed border and the standard, non-engrailed one, seems not as significant as has been suggested. Leonard was confirmed to use the engrailed form, while his distant cousin Margaret did not, and this was being used to narrow down which branch was represented by this engrailed coat. However, Leonard had a heraldic stamp made for the books in his library, and it shows a non-engrailed border. This was not borrowed or inherited from the other branch - it had his initials on it as well.

https://armorial.library.utoronto.ca/stamps/IHOL007_s1

So, engrailed or not engrailed seems not to be diagnostic, given that Leonard used both, and one has to wonder if the arms of Margaret that do not have the engrailed border aren't a 'simplification', intentional or accidental, as it appears to have been on Leonard's stamp.

Also, though, the non-engrailed version was used by a much earlier branch of the family, early enough that I have to think it may have been the original coat of the ancient gentry family. The 1562-4 Visitation of Lincs shows Robert Massingberd marrying Agnes, daughter of Robert Hollyday (elsewhere identified as being of Burgh, Lincs).

https://archive.org/stream/visitationofcoun00cook#page/n185/mode/2up

It is hard to find dates on this Robert Hollyday, but he would seem to fall about 6 generations before Leonard, and he since his daughter was an heiress, his line may have branched from Leonard's earlier than that, earlier than I can find Leonard's line traced. Robert Massingberd's father Thomas fl. 1410-1434, so Robert was probably of similar age. Why is this important? Christopher Massingberd, a grandson of Agnes is buried at Lincoln Cathedral, and his monumental brass includes arms that quarter, among others, "three helmets in a border engrailed".

https://books.google.com/books?id=8QBeAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA14

His brother's marble monument at Gunby has the same. Now, neither of these has tinctures, but then neither does the seal of Thomas Hollyday of Maryland.

Thus the use of the engrailed border by the Hollydays dates at least from the 14th century, with branches all across England. It does seem that the Maryland family felt some kind of affinity to the London Mayor, given the combined onomastic and toponymic repetition, but any attempt at using these arms to narrow down where to look for Thomas, even assuming his family had a rightful claim to some version of these arms, seems unlikely to be productive.

taf