New Royal Lineage: Rose (Stoughton) Otis's descent from King Henry III of England
Douglas Richardson
Below is an all new royal descent for the New World immigrant, Rose
Stoughton (died c.1677), wife of Richard Otis, blacksmith, of Boston,
Massachusetts and Dover, New Hampshire. Documentation for this
lineage can be found in the forthcoming 2nd edition of my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry, which is scheduled for publication in
approximately one month.
I wish to acknowledge Martin Hollick and James L. and Loretta-Marie
Dimond for their assistance and help in developing this new line.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
1. HENRY III OF ENGLAND, King of England, married ELEANOR OF PROVENCE.
2. EDMUND OF ENGLAND, Knt., Earl of Lancaster, Leicester, and Derby,
married BLANCHE OF ARTOIS.
3. HENRY OF LANCASTER, Knt., Earl of Lancaster and Leicester, married
MAUD DE CHAWORTH.
4. JOAN OF LANCASTER, married JOHN DE MOWBRAY, Knt., 3rd Lord Mowbray.
5. ELEANOR DE MOWBRAY, married ROGER LA WARRE, Knt., 3rd Lord La
Warre.
6. JOAN LA WARRE, married THOMAS WEST, Knt., 1st Lord West.
7. REYNOLD WEST, Knt., 6th Lord la Warre, married MARGARET THORLEY.
8. MARY WEST, married ROGER LEWKNOR, Knt., of Trotton, Sussex.
9. ROGER LEWKNOR, Esq., of Tangmere, Sussex, married ANNE _____.
10. EDMUND LEWKNOR, Esq., of Tangmere, Sussex, married JOAN TYRRELL.
11. ELIZABETH LEWKNOR, married THOMAS STOUGHTON, of Stoke (in
Stoughton), Surrey.
12. LAWRENCE STOUGHTON, Knt., of Stoke (in Stoughton), Surrey, married
ROSE IVE.
13. ANTHONY STOUGHTON, married AGNES PIERCE.
14. ROSE STOUGHTON, married RICHARD OTIS, of Boston, Massachusetts &
Dover, New Hampshire.
wjhonson
is still the same person as Roger Lewknor of Broadhurst who was the
heir of his mother Philippa Dallynridge ? Roger "aged 30" in 1450,
"aged 50" in 1471
medieval genealogy
Besides the cost (including shipping), could you give me address to
send the funds to? Do you have a more definite publication date?
Douglas Richardson
Will ~
Mary West is the previously unnoticed second wife of Roger Lewknor,
Knt. (died 1478), of Trotton and Broadhurst, Sussex. Mary was born no
later than 1433. She occurs as his wife in 1468–9, and died in 1473.
His other two wives were Eleanor Camoys (living in 1433, who allegedly
died in 1445) and Katherine Chidiock (died 1479). Sir Roger Lewknor
had a large flock of children by his first two wives. Mary West was
the mother of his younger son, Roger Lewknor, Esq. (died 1510), of
Tangmere, Sussex.
wjhonson
>
> Mary West is the previously unnoticed second wife of Roger Lewknor,
> Knt. (died 1478), of Trotton and Broadhurst, Sussex. Mary was born no
> later than 1433. She occurs as his wife in 1468–9, and died in 1473.
> His other two wives were Eleanor Camoys (living in 1433, who allegedly
> died in 1445) and Katherine Chidiock (died 1479). Sir Roger Lewknor
> had a large flock of children by his first two wives. Mary West was
> the mother of his younger son, Roger Lewknor, Esq. (died 1510), of
> Tangmere, Sussex.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Thank you for the clarification. I have the line now entered as you
state above.
Merilyn Pedrick
I have your #10 Edmund Lewknor, husband of Joan Tyrrell, as the son of Sir
Roger Lewknor of Broadhurst, Horsted Keynes and Eleanor de Camoys. Then I
have Sir Roger's parents as Sir Thomas Lewknor of Bradhurst, Sussex and
Philippa de Dallingridge.
The notes I have under Edmund Lewknor say: - "I should add that the
above-named Margaret Radmylde was the daughter of Ralph Radmlyde who d. 3
Aug 1443 and was married to Margaret Camoys, b. 1402, daughter of Sir
Richard Camoys and Joan Poynings. This last couple are also the parents of
Eleanor Camoys, b. 1408, wife of Sir Roger Lewkenor, the paternal
grandparents of Edmund Lewkenor. Thus, Edmund Lewkenor and Joan Tyrell were
second cousins, twice removed through the Camoys family. Martin Hollick
(Gen-Med 18/10/07)"
Is this relationship now not correct?
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
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
.
wjhonson
<merilyn.pedr...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> Dear Douglas
> I have your #10 Edmund Lewknor, husband of Joan Tyrrell, as the son of Sir
> Roger Lewknor of Broadhurst, Horsted Keynes and Eleanor de Camoys. Then I
> have Sir Roger's parents as Sir Thomas Lewknor of Bradhurst, Sussex and
> Philippa de Dallingridge.
> The notes I have under Edmund Lewknor say: - "I should add that the
> above-named Margaret Radmylde was the daughter of Ralph Radmlyde who d. 3
> Aug 1443 and was married to Margaret Camoys, b. 1402, daughter of Sir
> Richard Camoys and Joan Poynings. This last couple are also the parents of
> Eleanor Camoys, b. 1408, wife of Sir Roger Lewkenor, the paternal
> grandparents of Edmund Lewkenor. Thus, Edmund Lewkenor and Joan Tyrell were
> second cousins, twice removed through the Camoys family. Martin Hollick
> (Gen-Med 18/10/07)"
> Is this relationship now not correct?
> Best wishes
> Merilyn Pedrick
>
Here is a secondary source, citing a primary source, for you and Leo
to ponder.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yxIpAAAAYAAJ&dq=boxgraue&lr=&as_brr=1&pg=PA60#v=onepage&q&f=false
Will Johnson
holl...@gmail.com
http://mhollick.typepad.com/slovakyankee/2010/02/the-royal-line-of-rose-stoughton-otis-part-ii.html
Leo: some of the sources you need are on Google Books.
Merilyn Pedrick
snippet view with the word "boxgraur" highlighted.
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: wjhonson
Date: 9/04/2010 9:45:06 AM
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: New Royal Lineage: Rose (Stoughton) Otis's descent from King
Henry III of England
Will Johnson
wjhonson
<merilyn.pedr...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> What am I supposed to be looking at in this link? All I can see is a
> snippet view with the word "boxgraur" highlighted.
> Merilyn
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
>
> Here is a secondary source, citing a primary source, for you and Leo
> to ponder.
>
> http://books.google
> com/books?id=yxIpAAAAYAAJ&dq=boxgraue&lr=&as_brr=1&pg=PA60#v=onepage&q&f=fals
>
> Will Johnson
>
If you are not in the U.S. possibly you will need to use an open proxy
server (Super proxy) to view the book page.
This is the Journal of the British Archaeological Association Vol 30
It carries a pub year of 1874 I can't imagine why it would be
suppressed.
Or try this shorter link perhaps you're mail reader is cutting the
line
http://books.google.com/books?id=yxIpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA60
Merilyn Pedrick
well served by these Google Books. But I'm now looking at Martin Hollick's
stuff which is very informative.
-------Original Message-------
From: wjhonson
Date: 9/04/2010 10:05:16 AM
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: New Royal Lineage: Rose (Stoughton) Otis's descent from King
Henry III of England
wjhonson
> I wrote this all out on my blog with sources:
>
>
> Leo: some of the sources you need are on Google Books.
Martin in your writeup you state that Elizabeth Lewknor was born in
1533, but the book you cite, actually states 1538
m ccccc xxx viij
Will Johnson
wjho...@aol.com
Go to the top of the book itself by cutting the whole URL down to its nub
http://books.google.com/books?id=yxIpAAAAYAAJ
See, just the Id nothing else.
Then select READ the book. Then go to page 60 manually
-----Original Message-----
From: Merilyn Pedrick <merilyn...@internode.on.net>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com; wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 8, 2010 5:41 pm
Subject: Re: New Royal Lineage: Rose (Stoughton) Otis's descent from King Henry III of England
Nope! Sorry, this doesn't work either. We in the colonies don't seem to be
well served by these Google Books. But I'm now looking at Martin Hollick's
stuff which is very informative.
Merilyn
-------Original Message-------
From: wjhonson
Date: 9/04/2010 10:05:16 AM
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: New Royal Lineage: Rose (Stoughton) Otis's descent from King
Henry III of England
wjhonson
>
>
> Leo: some of the sources you need are on Google Books.
It's true that the Vis just calls the wife of Lawrence Stoughton ...
Coombes.
But the House of Commons biography calls her Anne
http://books.google.com/books?id=u_eIrJpc_T0C&pg=RA1-PA388
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hi8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA86
Will
holl...@gmail.com
That is probably an error in that record. Note that her birth is
given as March 1538 and Thomas's birth is January 1539, which would be
impossible. The transcriber added an "v."
Martin
holl...@gmail.com
Also, before Douglas discovered this new listing of Lewkenor births, I
had transcribed the Tangmere Parish records and they start in 1538
and Elizabeth is the only child not listed.
Martin
Renia
> Go to the top of the book itself by cutting the whole URL down to its nub
> http://books.google.com/books?id=yxIpAAAAYAAJ
>
> See, just the Id nothing else.
> Then select READ the book. Then go to page 60 manually
There is no option to READ the book, at least, not from here in Greece.
> ..
wjhonson
Yes... but.
Thomas was born in January. At that time, the year number did not
roll over until the end of March. So "1539" there really means
1539/40 and so it's not impossible that Elizabeth was born nine months
earlier.
Also note that all the children come like clockwork quickly and
often. For Elizabeth to be 6 years older then her next sibling would
itself be too odd.
It is not unknown for the first pages of a bound transcript set to be
missing, so I wouldn't necessarily put a lot of faith in the idea that
that along explains why she might not be listed.
The parish register for Tangmere is extant in the extracted IGI. The
only entry for 1538 is this same Thomas, who I suggest is a data entry
error for 1539 which is an easy error to make.
In 1539, we see four baptisms, which makes more sense. In 1540
another four.
So the Thomas entry in the IGI is an error for 1539/40 and the
register actually begins in 1539. That's why Elizabeth 1538 is not
listed.
Will
John
Rather than "previously unnoticed", it would be more accurate to say
that Mary West was erroneously assigned by older sources as the wife
of Sir Roger Lewknor the younger rather than his father Sir Roger
Lewknor. For example, at least three of the sources cited in the
Stoughton descent in the 2005 edition of Magna Carta Ancestry say that
the younger Sir Roger married Mary West. MCA does not explain why the
author chose to disregard these sources - although the dates now
provided for Mary West make the decision clear.
What is not so clear is why the younger Sir Roger is now identified as
the son of Mary West rather than of Eleanor Camoys, as in MCA (not to
mention the more general question of the allocation of all of the
children of the elder Sir Roger to his two wives). Could this have
something to do with the death date of Eleanor Camoys, which is said
by MCA to be 1464 but is now said by Martin Hollick to possibly be
1445? Or is there other evidence regarding the maternity of the elder
Sir Roger's children?
Denis Beauregard
<holl...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>That is probably an error in that record. Note that her birth is
>given as March 1538 and Thomas's birth is January 1539, which would be
>impossible. The transcriber added an "v."
The difference is 10 months, which is quite possible. Why writting
this would be impossible ?
Denis
Douglas Richardson
>
> What is not so clear is why the younger Sir Roger is now identified as
> the son of Mary West rather than of Eleanor Camoys, as in MCA (not to
> mention the more general question of the allocation of all of the
> children of the elder Sir Roger to his two wives). Could this have
> something to do with the death date of Eleanor Camoys, which is said
> by MCA to be 1464 but is now said by Martin Hollick to possibly be
> 1445? Or is there other evidence regarding the maternity of the elder
> Sir Roger's children?
John ~
The documentation contain in my two forthcoming books should fully
answer your questions. And, yes, there is additional evidence
regarding the maternity of the elder Sir Roger Lewknor's children.
David Robert
> Mary West is the previously unnoticed second wife of Roger Lewknor,
> Knt. (died 1478), of Trotton and Broadhurst, Sussex. Mary was born no
> later than 1433. She occurs as his wife in 1468–9, and died in 1473.
> His other two wives were Eleanor Camoys (living in 1433, who allegedly
> died in 1445) and Katherine Chidiock (died 1479). Sir Roger Lewknor
> had a large flock of children by his first two wives. Mary West was
> the mother of his younger son, Roger Lewknor, Esq. (died 1510), of
> Tangmere, Sussex.
So the following entry in Comber, Sussex Genealogies: Lewes Centre, p
153 makes more sense now as combining two Roger's into one.
See http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/FHMedieval,108562
Entry repeated for those who can't access the url
IX. ROGER LEWKNOR of Tangmer and of West Dean.
Named as "the elder"in fine 1473/4. Will dt. 6 Nov.
1509 prd 23 Feb 1509/10 (P.C.C. 26 Bennett). Md Anne
or Mary, dau. of Reginald West, Ld. De la Warr. Had
issue:
Roger LEWKNOR. Named in fr's will
? William LEWKNOR.
? George LEWKNOR.
EDMUND LEWKNOR (X)
JONE. Named in fr's will.
CLEMENCE. " "
DOROTHY. " "
ELIZABETH. " "
holl...@gmail.com
francogene....@fr.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:52:40 -0700 (PDT), "mholl...@mac.com"
> <hollic...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>
> >That is probably an error in that record. Note that her birth is
> >given as March 1538 and Thomas's birth is January 1539, which would be
> >impossible. The transcriber added an "v."
>
> The difference is 10 months, which is quite possible. Why writting
> this would be impossible ?
>
> Denis
I have never in 30 years of genealogy seen a case of one woman having
two children ten months apart [before the year say 1960]. Even using
wet nurses, it was almost always more than a year, if not 18 months.
In this case, however, I'm still confused. the dates are: March 1538,
January 1539/40, if so, what is Anne?, then March 1541, November 1542
and December 1543. Going back to the Tangmere records on the IGI,
they, like myself, say Anne is May 1540, and therefore Thomas is
January 1539 and that makes Elizabeth probably March 1537. Thomas
cannot be January 1539/40 and Anne May 1540 and Elizabeth cannot be
March 1538 if Thomas is January 1539. My opinion.
Martin
wjhonson
Here's my new solution, after seeing the IGI extracts also
Elizabeth Mar 1538
Thomas Jan 1538/9 (10 1/2 months)
Anne May 1540
Richard Mar 1541 (10 months)
George Nov 1542
Edmund Dec 1543 (12 1/2 months)
Clearly Jane was a productive mother.
Will Johnson
John
That's an obvious, and not helpful, response: "if you want the answer
to your question, buy my books". At $145 each (including shipping)?
Not very likely, particularly since the volumes they replace are only
5 or 6 years old. I'll wait to see if my local libraries consider the
volumes worth purchasing. Or until they turn up used (i.e.,
discarded) on the Internet.
In the interim, can anyone else - who's NOT just peddling books in
this forum - help with the question?
pj.evans
I have a case in my family: the older child was born 31 May and the
younger was born 2 Feb of the next year; both lived well into
adulthood.
(I also have several instances of children born twelve or 14 months
apart.)
holl...@gmail.com
And that would be when? In the age of formula? Or the 15th century?
The second child must have been a preemie. Even if the mother waited
an entire week to have sex after May 31st (and all the women who've
had children can chime in how likely that is) then child #2 was
conceived on June 7th and 9 mos/40 weeks later is March 7-15.
Children born either exactly 12 months have long been known as Irish
twins. I can accept 12 months. I was (and am still) arguing against
10 ten months.
Cochoit
http://www.archive.org/details/journalofbritish30brit
http://www.archive.org/stream/journalofbritish30brit#page/60/mode/2up/search/lewknor
Joe
On Apr 8, 6:09 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Denis Beauregard
<holl...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>twins. I can accept 12 months. I was (and am still) arguing against
>10 ten months.
Some close pregnancies, from Quebec old records, for siblings.
*1670-06-19, 1671-04-29
*1703-02-19, 1703-12-29
1744-07-08, 1745-06-19
1690-10-19 bp, 1691-09-22
1703-02-15, 1704-01-25 bp
1702-02-07, 1703-01-28
1702-05-22, 1703-04-19, 1704-04-22
1680-02-06, 1681-01-07
(this is a sample from less than 1600 children)
all birth dates except if bp (but catholic baptism is within 3 days
if there is a priest nearby).
So, while not frequent, there are many births with a gap close to
10 months, and much more with 11 months.
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur cédérom à 1775 - On CD-ROM to 1775
Renia
> Try the copy on archive.org:
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/journalofbritish30brit
Yep, that works!
Denis Beauregard
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>Below is an all new royal descent for the New World immigrant, Rose
>Stoughton (died c.1677), wife of Richard Otis, blacksmith, of Boston,
>Massachusetts and Dover, New Hampshire. Documentation for this
>lineage can be found in the forthcoming 2nd edition of my book,
>Plantagenet Ancestry, which is scheduled for publication in
>approximately one month.
>
>I wish to acknowledge Martin Hollick and James L. and Loretta-Marie
>Dimond for their assistance and help in developing this new line.
If you check the archives of that newsgroup, you will see that
this line is discussed here for a while. You even participated to
those debates.
In Feb. 2004, I already knew about this line. See my message
From: Denis Beauregard <n...@nospam.com.invalid>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Re: French-Canadian Gateways (was Is RD600 limited to USA ?)
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:50:27 -0500
And, as pointed by Leo, this was based on his own database. At most,
you corrected the line and I suggested years ago that the line was
suspicious because there were too many Roger Lewknor...
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - g�n�alogiste �m�rite (FQSG)
Les Fran�ais d'Am�rique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur c�d�rom � 1775 - On CD-ROM to 1775
Douglas Richardson
francogene....@fr.invalid> wrote:
> From: Denis Beauregard <n...@nospam.com.invalid>
> Subject: Re: French-Canadian Gateways (was Is RD600 limited to USA ?)
> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:50:27 -0500
>
> And, as pointed by Leo, this was based on his own database. At most,
> you corrected the line and I suggested years ago that the line was
> suspicious because there were too many Roger Lewknor...
>
> Denis
Actually Denis you have your facts wrong. This possible line was
first brought to my attention by Martin Hollick, who is a Stoughton
descendant. He consulted with me about the problem when he was here
on a visit several years ago. Martin Hollick and the Dimonds had
found evidence which indicated that the Lewknor family of Tangmere,
Sussex were related to the West family. However, neither he or I were
able to resolve the chronological problems with this line. Martin
posted several times on the newsgroup discussing this line, but no one
had anything helpful to add to the matter.
In the past year I found two pieces of contemporary evidence which
resolved the matter and corrected the chronological difficulties. I
subsequently shared my findings with Martin Hollick. Taken together
with the earlier evidence found by Martin and the Dimonds, both Martin
and I felt that that the new revised line was now acceptable. Until
the discovery of these two pieces of evidence, this line was dead.
holl...@gmail.com
I can wholeheartedly concur with this timeline and what Douglas says.
I started working on this many, many, years ago. I gave this line to
Gary Boyd Roberts for some edition of RD600. In retrospect that was
an error. Although we had the visitation information and Comber's
Sussex Families, I noted and Douglas agreed that there was time line
problem (for the West family specifically). So the line is not in
the current edition of Plantagenet Ancestors. It appeared in Magna
Carta Ancestors, but only through the Lewkenors and not the Wests.
So, again, SGM, sinks into a morass over the definition or intent of
saying "this is new." Well, it is new to me. It solved a great
problem. It puts the Lewkenors in a much, much better chronological
position and that helps, not only the Stoughton descent but several
other North American descents. It also opens up the identity of Anne
(---) Lewkenor. Who was she?
To my best recollection, I found Edmund Lewkenor's will and
transcribed the Tangmere Parish records which proved that Edmund had
two daughters that do not appear in secondary sources (but those
modern ones that I had a hand in). The Dimonds then found the
documents that named Thomas Stoughton as a nephew of a Lewkenor, which
sealed that relationship. At that point we knew that Thomas Stoughton
had married Elizabeth Lewkenor, daughter of Edmund. Thereafter, we
had the problem of either accepting the existing visitation
information or not. Again, the Dimonds found heraldic evidence to
show the Lewkenors quartering the West/De La Warr family. I unearthed
Thomas West's will which named Edmund Lewkenor "my servant and
kinsman." So, lastly, Douglas brought it all together with his recent
discoveries. All in all, a complete team effort.
I can only wish other genealogists the great camaraderie I've enjoyed
with this project. Together, you know, we can solve many many more
problems.
Douglas Richardson
< I can only wish other genealogists the great camaraderie I've
enjoyed
< with this project. Together, you know, we can solve many many more
< problems.
I second your opinion, Martin. As I've said many times here,
collegiality is the key to solving many longstanding medieval
problems.
I have great respect for you, Martin. Your article on the Bradbury-
Fulnetby connection published in recent time in NEHGR is one of the
best written articles on a medieval problem that I've seen in print in
many years. I sincerely hope you publish many more articles in the
future (possibly one on the Lewknor-West descent?).
pj.evans
The second child might have been a little premature, but I suspect the
birthdate for the first is off. (For whatever it might be worth, the
first child's tombstone gives his death date as 18 Nov 1883, and age
as 79 years, 5 months and 17 days.)
However, I have cases of children born 12 months apart, including one
where the difference is 362 days. I can see 10 months, although it
certainly wouldn't be usual.
Christine Czarnecki
________________________________
From: "mhol...@mac.com" <holl...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Fri, April 9, 2010 5:14:34 AM
Subject: Re: New Royal Lineage: Rose (Stoughton) Otis's descent from King Henry III of England
On Apr 8, 11:56 pm, "pj.evans" <pj.evans....@usa.net> wrote:
-------------------------------
lmhan...@gmail.com
lmhan...@gmail.com
lmhan...@gmail.com
It is entirely possible to have children 10 or so months apart. My boyfriend's brother and wife had 2 children 9 months apart! Yep, she had just delivered a baby, they did the deed and she was pregnant.
adrianben...@gmail.com
Adrian Benjamin Burke
joe...@gmail.com
---jc
gjest...@gmail.com
joe...@gmail.com
> Joe, back then they certainly didn't know to wait 6 weeks after delivery to begin sexual activity again! I've seen several children born (in my family alone-I'm not a professional genealogist) within 9-10 months of each other, and for several years. Its far less common nowadays to see children born that close together, tho it can and does happen.