Henry Carey
Visna1
\Susan
Alex Maxwell Findlater
> Are there any direct male descendents of Henry Cary?
>
> \Susan
Which Henry Cary?
Hovite
>
Brad Verity
> On Mar 19, 8:06 am, Visna1 <s.ran...@usa.net> wrote:> Are there any direct male descendents of Henry Cary?
>
> Extinct 12 June 1765.
Yes, on the death of 8th Baron Hunsdon in 1765, the legitimate male
line of Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon, is believed to have become
extinct, according to CP, and no male Carey stepped forward to claim
the Barony afterwards.
Valentine Carey, Bishop of Exeter (d. 1626), is presumed to have been
the 1st Baron Hunsdon's illegitimate son. The bishop died without
issue, but left a bequest to an Ernestus Carey, who was a minor in the
bishop's household and whose relationship to the family is not clear.
So there's a very slim possibility that illegitimate direct male
descendants of the 1st Baron Hunsdon survived beyond the legitimate
direct male line.
William Carey, legal and presumed father of the 1st Baron Hunsdon, was
of the male line of the Cary family of Cockington, Devon, and I
believe there are living direct male line descendants of that family,
so it may be possible to extract the male-line DNA for William Carey,
which could be useful in any future Hunsdon Careys DNA study.
Cheers, ---Brad
WJho...@aol.com
for William Carey legal father of Henry.
Given: Both have *living* descendants
Test: Would it be scientifically possible (I'm not saying simple or easy or
direct, just possible) to exclude H8 from the line merely based on this?
Leo
In total on genealogics there are 15,455 descendants of Henry Carey and, no doubt, the actual number is much larger. Add to these his sister's descendants and the number of possible/likeley descendants of Henry VIII is enormous.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas,
Canberra, Australia
Leo
Visna1
Yes but Leo are any of them a direct male descendant through Henry
Carey? There seem to be lots of daughters, but all the male lines seem
to peter out.
\Susan
Leo
\Susan
Susan you removed the first line which gave the answer to your question. What you kept was just additional information. The male line after four generations did peter out as you put it.
Leo van de Pas
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
WJho...@aol.com
s.ra...@usa.net writes:
> Yes but Leo are any of them a direct male descendant through Henry
> Carey? There seem to be lots of daughters, but all the male lines seem
> to peter out.
>
The answer is no. There are no direct male line descents.
Which is why I posted my follow up question.
Jwc...@aol.com
children he couldn`t afford to acknowledge them due to the simple chronology.
Henry Carey is supposed to have been born in 1524 prior to his creating his
already acknowledged son Henry Fitzroy Duke of Richmond which son was born
in 1519. One you might elevate but not two natural sons by different
women.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Isabelle
Ernestus Carey appears to have been the Bishop's grand nephew. He was
the son of Sir Robert Carey and grandson of Sir Edmund Carey of
Moulton Park. Edmund was the legitimate son of Henry Carey and Anne
Morgan and would have been the Bishop's half-brother.
Sir Robert Carey was Captain of the Horse in the Netherlands, and he
had 3 sons with his Dutch wife - Horatio, Ernestus and Ferdinand. As a
second son, Ernestus may have been intended to pursue a career in the
church, which would explain his presence in the Bishop's household,
but he was eventually a Colonel instead.
Horatio Carey's son Robert became the 6th Baron Hunsdon in 1677,
following the death of the 2nd Earl of Dover, but he died without
issue in 1692. The 7th Baron was another Robert Carey, son of Colonel
Ernestus Carey and his wife St. John Salveyn.
The 7th Baron died in 1702, also without surviving issue.
The 8th and last Baron Hunsdon was William Ferdinand Carey, the
grandson of Ferdinand Carey mentioned above. His father had been born
in Holland and had apparently remained there, since William Ferdinand
became a naturalized British citizen between 1689-1691. He had to
petition to claim the barony of Hunsdon, which would have required
proof of lineage. His claim succeeded and he became Lord Hunsdon in
1707/08, but he died without surviving issue in 1765, and thus the
direct line of the 1st Lord Hunsdon ended.
The existing direct male line Careys can be found most prominently in
the Viscounts Falkland, who are descended from Sir John Carey of
Plashey, elder brother of Sir William Carey who married Mary Boleyn.
The current holder of this title is Lucius Edward William Plantagenet
Carey, 15th Viscount Falkland. His heir is his eldest son, Lucius
Alexander Plantagenet Carey (known as Alexander), Master of Falkland,
who was born in 1963.
The Master of Falkland has at least two sons with his former wife, the
American actress Linda Purl. He has since remarried, but I am unaware
of any further children.
Isabelle
Technically, I would say yes it is possible.
If you compare the DNA of the current Viscount Falkland or his heir
with the DNA of a living male descendant of Henry Carey, you may be
able to determine if they had a common ancestor and how far into the
past that ancestor lived.
If a common ancestor existed during William Carey's lifetime, we could
assume that he was the father of Henry Carey. But if no common
ancestor is determined through such a test, we could assume that
William was not Henry's father, increasing the probability that Henry
VIII was.
I am no expert on DNA testing, so I could not begin to imagine the
parameters for such a test.
However, if we had Henry VIII's complete DNA, testing Carey
descendants would determine whether there was a Tudor link or not..
and perhaps give us the final definitive answer to this burning
question.
Hovite
Charles II happily acknowledged numerous bastards.
A bigger flaw is that Henry Carey's descendents did not claim royal
ancestry. On the contrary, they claimed the Earldom of Ormond, through
Mary Boleyn, eldest daughter of Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Ormond and Earl
of Wiltshire.
E. Hopkins
Anne Boleyn apparently thought Henry Carey was Henry VIII's bastard
and saw him as a distinct threat to her own dynastic ambitions. When
Henry Carey's "father" died of the "sweats" Anne made her nephew Henry
Carey her ward, even though he had no assets to speak of. Also, Anne's
sister Mary Boleyn Carey, as well as other Carey and Boleyn male
relatives, were still living. I may be wrong, but think it was pretty
common knowledge at the time that Henry Carey was most likely Henry
VIII's bastard son. For one thing, Mary Boleyn was having a notorious
affair with Henry VIII when Henry Carey was conceived. Henry Carey was
named "Henry" and apparently not only looked like Henry VIII, but also
shared his love of sports. Of course we will never know for sure, but
I would say it's more likely than not that Henry Carey was Henry
VIII's son. After the Boleyns' downfall, Henry Carey was definitely
"tainted" by his Boleyn connections, so it's not surprising that his
putative relationship to Henry VIII was better forgotten by his heirs.
Isabelle
The time period and reign of Charles II was vastly different than that
of Henry VIII. So while Charles had the luxury and audacity of
recognizing and elevating his bastards with impunity, the same cannot
be said of Henry, who had to walk a precarious line after breaking
ties with Rome and creating an entirely new church just to divorce his
wife and marry someone else.
As far as claiming the Earldom of Ormond.. there was no claim to this
title by Henry Carey or his descendants. Piers Butler had always
retained the higher claim to the earldom as a male-line descendant of
the 7th Earl, while Thomas Boleyn's claim was through his mother.
Henry VIII persuaded Piers Butler to relinquish his claim to Ormond in
favor of Thomas Boleyn, whose daughter would be queen. In return,
Piers was created Earl of Ossory. But Piers Butler was restored to
Ormond in February 1538, and there were 2 Earls of Ormond until March
1539, when Thomas Boleyn died. Piers followed him in death in August
of the same year. James Butler, his eldest son then became the 9th
earl, followed by his descendants.
The Earldom of Wiltshire, on the other hand, was claimed by Henry
Carey as the only male descendant of Thomas Boleyn. He was famously
offered the title on his death bed by Queen Elizabeth, but refused the
honor.
His sons did not pursue the claim - nor had they a need to as the
lords of Hunsdon, with his younger son Robert being created Earl of
Monmouth in 1626. Among Henry's daughters were the Countess of
Nottingham and Lady Scrope of Bolton, and his grandson was created
Earl of Dover in 1628.
The Carey family would not have claimed royal ancestry during the life
of Queen Elizabeth, in any case, because of the favor shown to them
and because of the political problems it would have created for their
queen and benefactor. Upon her death and the accession of the Stuarts,
they had no more direct ties to the throne so it may have also seemed
a moot point to claim royal ancestry of a dynasty that no longer
existed.
Brad Verity
> The Carey family would not have claimed royal ancestry during the life
> of Queen Elizabeth, in any case, because of the favor shown to them
> and because of the political problems it would have created for their
> queen and benefactor. Upon her death and the accession of the Stuarts,
> they had no more direct ties to the throne so it may have also seemed
> a moot point to claim royal ancestry of a dynasty that no longer
> existed
Dear Isabelle,
First of all, thank you, for your very detailed posts on the Carey
family - they're very helpful. I also am enjoying your reasoning. I
still fall on the side of the Carey siblings being William Carey's,
not Henry VIII's, but concede there is some reason to entertain the
latter possibility.
One of the last of the Hunsdon Carey direct male-line descendants was
Charlotte Carey (d. 1709), daughter of Sir Edmund, son of Sir
Ferdinando, son of Sir Edmund, 3rd son of the 1st Baron Hunsdon. She
married Brian Fairfax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Fairfax),
brother of the 4th Lord Fairfax. He was educated at Cambridge and was
a historian and antiquarian. At some point before his death, he wrote
a genealogical account of the family for his sons. This was a private
document, not written for publication, that did end up getting
published in 1885 in Clements R. Markham's book 'Life of Robert
Fairfax of Steeton':
Here is what Brian Fairfax told his son about their maternal ancestry:
"Your mother is descended of Honorable Parentage but had the
unhappiness to loose her father and mother in childhood. Her father
was Sir Edmund Cary, descended from the same stock as the renowned
Queen Elizabeth, vizt. from mary Bullen, daughter of Thomas Bullen
Earl of Wiltshire, sister to Anne 2d wife of King Hen. 8 and mother of
Queen Elizabeth.
"Sir Edmund Cary is descended from Thomas Cary of chilton Foliot Esqr
and Margaret, whose mother was Elenor Beaufort da. of Edmond Beaufort,
Duke of Somerset, Regent of France, slaine at St. Albans 1455, and
sister of Edmond, ye last Duke of yt name of Beaufort, whose naturall
son was Charles Somerset Earl of Worcester, from whom is descended the
Marquis, now created Duke of Beaufort by King Charles 1682, and
Charles Gerard, Earl of Macclesfield.
"Sir Edmond's father was Sir Ferdinando, a famous soldier in the low
country wars, and a goodly person. His grandfather was Sir Edmund, 3d
son of Henry Lord Hunsdon, cousin german to Queen Elizabeth."
This indicates that, at least by the 17th-century, there was no belief
among the Hunsdon Carey family that they were descended from Henry
VIII.
Cheers, ------Brad
Hovite
> The time period and reign of Charles II was vastly different than that
> of Henry VIII. So while Charles had the luxury and audacity of
> recognizing and elevating his bastards with impunity, the same cannot
wife and marry someone else.
There were plenty of papal bastards during this period and they got
dukedoms.
Alessandro de' Medici, bastard son of Clement VII, was made Duke of
Florence.
Pierluigi Farnese, bastard son of Paul III, was created Duke of Parma.
Pope Alexander VI had some nine children, including Juan Borgia, Duke
of Gandia, and Cesare Borgia, made Duke of Romagna.
> be said of Henry, who had to walk a precarious line after breaking
> ties with Rome and creating an entirely new church just to divorce his wife
Why on Earth would he need a new church? Divorce was commonplace.
Henry's sister Margaret had divorced and remarried, and his other
sister, Mary, married a divorced man.
> As far as claiming the Earldom of Ormond.. there was no claim to this
> title by Henry Carey or his descendants.
Please refer to The Complete Peerage, 2nd ed., vol. 6, page 628.
WJho...@aol.com
paulv...@gmail.com writes:
> Why on Earth would he need a new church? Divorce was commonplace.
> Henry's sister Margaret had divorced and remarried, and his other
> sister, Mary, married a divorced man.
>
>
The Pope refused to grant his annulment so Henry declared not that he was
starting a *new* church, but merely that he was the head of THE Church in
England.
lostcopper
Although, of course, Ormond was restored to the Butlers.
lostcopper
> earl, followed by his descendants.
As an aside, it is interesting to note that Elizabeth I & Piers
Butler's grandson, Thomas (10th Earl of Ormond), were raised together
& remained lifelong friends - according to some, very, very good
friends. There is circumstantial evidence that she had his son, Piers
FitzThomas Butler, ancestor of the Viscount of Galmoye. Circumstantial
evidence & court gossip, of course, is far from proof.
Hovite
> The Pope refused to grant his annulment so Henry declared not that he was
> starting a *new* church, but merely that he was the head of THE Church in
> England.
Although reform was inevitable, the real reason for it was indignation
at Italian interference in English internal affairs. The pope who
refused Henry VIII a divorce was Clement VII (Giulio de’ Medici), who
was the son of an unmarried uncle of Leo X (Giovanni de’ Medici). Once
Leo X became pope, he quickly bestowed offices upon his cousin,
including Cardinal, Archbishop of Florence, and Bishop of Worcester
(the papal granting of English bishoprics to absentee Italians was
another grievance).
The divorce from Catherine of Aragon was opposed by her nephew,
Emperor Charles V, not because he had any real interest in his aunt’s
welfare, but because so long as Henry VIII lacked a son, his daughter
Mary was heiress presumptive, which meant that England could be added
to the Hapsburg domains by marriage. The plan was that Mary’s Hapsburg
descendents would rule a vast empire, across both Europe and America,
but though Mary did became queen, and did marry the Emperor’s son, the
marriage proved childless.
Following the fall of Rome to the Emperor’s army, Charles V was able
to impose terms on the Pope. Under the Treaty of Barcelona, Clement
VII promised to refuse a divorce. The pact was sealed by the
traditional marriage alliance: the Emperor’s illegitimate daughter was
married to the Pope’s equally illegitimate son, Alessandro de’ Medici,
and the republic of Florence was converted into a dukedom for them.
Consequently there was never any chance of Henry receiving the same
sort of routine Roman divorce that had been granted to his sister
Margaret and his brother in law Charles Brandon. His marriages
illustrate the common customs of the time. Charles Brandon was
apparently married three times: firstly about 1505 to Anne Browne,
secondly in 1507 to her aunt Margaret Neville (widow of Sir John
Mortimer), the second marriage was declared void by an English court
later in 1507, and he remarried Anne Browne in 1508, but she died in
1511 or 1512 and in 1515 he married Mary Tudor (widow of Louis XII).
His second wife married thirdly Robert Downes in 1512 and died on 31
January 1528. Then, on 12 May 1528 the pope issued a bull declaring
his second marriage void due to an invalid dispensation. He married
fourthly Katherine Willoughby in 1534. Clearly Charles didn’t think
that he needed papal permission before making his third marriage.
Indeed, the English Parliament did not recognize foreign
jurisdictions, and papal authority had been explicitly rejected by
Parliaments of Edward III and Richard II:
“all persons of the king's allegiance, of whatever condition they may
be, who take any one out of the kingdom in a plea of which the
cognizance pertains to the king's court or in matters regarding which
judgments have been rendered in the king's court, or who bring suit in
the court of another to undo or impede the judgments rendered in the
king's court, shall be given a day ... to appear before the king and
his council, or in his chancery, or before the king's justices in
their courts, either the one bench or the other, or before other
justices of the king who may be deputed for the purpose, there to
answer to the king in proper person regarding the contempt involved in
such action.” (Ordinance and Statute of Praemunire, 1353)
“if any one purchases or pursues, or causes to be purchased or
pursued, in the court of Rome or elsewhere, any such translations,
processes, sentences of excommunication, bulls, instruments, or
anything else touching our lord the king that is inimical to him, his
crown, his regality, or his aforesaid kingdom, as aforesaid; or if any
one brings them into the kingdom, receives them, or thereof makes
notification or any other execution, either within the said kingdom or
outside it; such persons, their notaries, procurators, partisans,
supporters, abettors, and counsellors are to be put outside the
protection of our said lord the king, and their lands, tenements,
goods, and chattels are to be forfeit to our lord the king.” (Second
Statute of Praemunire, 1393)
WJho...@aol.com
paulv...@gmail.com writes:
> The divorce from Catherine of Aragon was opposed by her nephew,
> Emperor Charles V, not because he had any real interest in his aunt’s
> welfare, but because so long as Henry VIII lacked a son, his daughter
> Mary was heiress presumptive, which meant that England could be added
> to the Hapsburg domains by marriage. The plan was that Mary’s Hapsburg
> descendents would rule a vast empire, across both Europe and America,
> but though Mary did became queen, and did marry the Emperor’s son, the
> marriage proved childless.
>
I think the problem with this idea is the promotion of Henry FitzRoy and
the failure of a solid matrimonial contract for Mary.
Isabelle
> In a message dated 3/26/2011 6:50:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
You seem to forget that Charles V had been betrothed to Mary himself.
It was not for lack of trying that Henry VIII didn't marry her off..
He betrothed her to the Dauphin of France, son of Francois I, when she
was two years old. But because perhaps of the animosity between Henry
and Francois at the time, the arrangement was abandoned several years
later, around 1520-1521.
In 1522, she was betrothed to Charles V, at the age of eight. He was
22 years old at the time, and this betrothal lasted around three
years.. until Charles decided he couldn't wait for her to grow up to
get his own heir. He broke the engagement by marrying Isabella of
Portugal in 1526. Philip of Spain was born the following year.
After that betrothal was voided, a marriage treaty was signed between
Henry and Francois, again for Mary's hand. Only this time she would
either marry the widowed King of France himself, or his second son
Henri, Duc de Orleans. This treaty was part of a political alliance,
but the aims of the English were accomplished without the marriage..
and by this time there was trouble in the marriage of Henry VIII and
Catherine of Aragon.
Henry had his own marital problems and did not pursue any further
plans for his daughter, because his intention was to divorce her
mother. And all marriage plans were abandoned by 1533 when Mary was
declared illegitimate. At that point, Henry had no interest in finding
a husband for her and she was not the commodity she had been before to
the rest of Europe.. so no one was asking for her hand.
But it is true that Charles V believed her valuable as long as Henry
VIII had no son.. and I agree with the above entry in that regard.
Hovite
The suggestion of to marrying Mary to “the natural son of the King”
was never taken seriously, because, as Campeggio pointed out “I do not
believe this plan would be sufficient to remove the chief desire of
the King”.
On the other hand, the proposed marriage of Mary to Charles V seems to
have been regarded as an accomplished fact: Henry called Charles
“son”, Charles called Henry “father in law”, and Wolsey referred to
Charles as “heir to the throne of England”, and said that hoped to
live long enough to see Henry’s grandson ruling “as Europe had not
been ruled since Roman days”.
WJho...@aol.com
paulv...@gmail.com writes:
> On the other hand, the proposed marriage of Mary to Charles V seems to
> have been regarded as an accomplished fact: Henry called Charles
> “son”, Charles called Henry “father in law”, and Wolsey referred to
> Charles as “heir to the throne of England”, and said that hoped to
> live long enough to see Henry’s grandson ruling “as Europe had not
> been ruled since Roman days”.
>
Could you cite this source you are quoting please?
I would like to add that to my article on the succession problem.
leslie...@gmail.com
and Francis Knollys, down to the present day.
The first 5 generations are given in John Burke, The Royal Families
of England, Scotland & Wales:
https://books.google.com/books?id=48tKAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR196&dq=william+byam+dorothy+knollys&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0w-2RyJvcAhWi1IMKHdldBBIQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=william%20byam%20dorothy%20knollys&f=false
Francis & Catherine had son Richard Knollys, 1552-1596,
who was married to Jane Heigham.
Richard & Jane were the parents of Francis Knollys, esquire,
1592-1640,
married to Alice Beecher.
Francis and Alice had a daughter Dorothy, b. 1633,
married in Barbados in 1651, to William Byam,
Governor of Antigua, d. 1670.
William & Dorothy's son, Willoughby Byam,
left a will dated 1690, and proved in 1692.
Willoughby's son William Byam esq, of Antigua,
had a will dated 1727, and proved 1729.
He was married to Mary Yeamans of Antigua.
William Byam & Mary Yeamans had a daughter
Rebecca wife of Thomas Freeman.
Details are in books about the History of Antigua:
https://books.google.com/books?id=uCJf-KAdBy8C&pg=PA323&dq=thomas+freeman+rebecca+byam&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit-6GMypvcAhUJXK0KHdPGCvEQ6AEIPjAE#v=onepage&q=thomas%20freeman%20rebecca%20byam&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=tEUIAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA262&dq=%22Byam+Freeman%22+Rebecca+Byam&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOudyqzJvcAhXl8YMKHZmAAWcQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Byam%20Freeman%22%20Rebecca%20Byam&f=false
Thomas Freeman of Antigua left a will dated 1733, and proved in 1736,
mentioning wife Rebecca, son Byam Freeman, and wife's brother
Edward Byam, along with many others.
Their son Byam Freeman of Antigua, esq., had a will dated 1770,
proved 1771.
Byam was married to Ann, daughter of Thomas Watkins:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=8V1IW9T1NYnAsAWK7YyYDw&q=byam+freeman+ann+thomas+watkins&oq=byam+freeman+ann+thomas+watkins&gs_l=psy-ab.3...5196.8414.0.8632.15.9.0.0.0.0.964.2422.0j2j1j6-2.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..11.0.0....0.7T9zKfE1t3Y
Byam Freeman had an only daughter, Harriet Freeman.
Harriet was married in 1781 to Thomas Oliver esq.,
born in Antigua, Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts,
died in 1815.
There are monumental inscriptions for Thomas & Harriet in Bristol.
https://books.google.com/books?id=NoVIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA346&dq=Harriet+only+child+Hon.+Byam+Freeman&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_2-qVz5vcAhUEVK0KHXiADH4Q6AEITzAH#v=onepage&q=Harriet%20only%20child%20Hon.%20Byam%20Freeman&f=false
Thomas & Harriet had a daughter Harriet Watkins Oliver,
1785-1826.
She was married to Captain Henry Haynes, died 1838.
https://books.google.com/books?id=NoVIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA347&dq=harriet+watkins+oliver+haynes&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihydWa0ZvcAhVMgK0KHSZBBoQQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=harriet%20watkins%20oliver%20haynes&f=false
Henry & Harriet were the parents of Freeman Oliver Haynes,
graduate of Caius College, who was married to Emily Child;
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/person/view/2146640409
https://books.google.com/books?id=pNs8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=freeman+oliver+haynes+caius+college&source=bl&ots=UjNiAwHuf6&sig=ogWToKkQiWfrEqMrZBMI9eIFCaU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy09ji0ZvcAhUO-6wKHb6OCAkQ6AEISTAM#v=onepage&q=freeman%20oliver%20haynes%20caius%20college&f=false
Freeman Oliver Haynes, his wife Emily, and their children,
were living in Wimbledon, Surrey, in the census returns for
1861 and 1871.
Their daughter Ellen Louise Haynes was married in Wimbledon in
1873 to Frederick Walter Atkey.
Frederick & Ellen's daughter Mildred Atkey, 1880-1975,
was the mother of theoretical physicist & mathematician
Freeman Dyson, born Crowthorne, Berkshire, 1923:
https://books.google.com/books?id=z2e1V3IrQGoC&pg=PA16&dq=frederick+walter+atkey+haynes&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHvOfY0pvcAhVSPK0KHfloDpcQ6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=frederick%20walter%20atkey%20haynes&f=false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
Leslie