MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
John Higgins
Both RPA and the newly published MCA describe Walter Newdigate as married to Isabel, dau. of Sir Thomas Hampden of Baddesley, Hertfordshire, for whom no wife is given by either RPA or MCA. Both RPA and MCA cite, among other sources, Ronny Bodine's 'Ancestry of Dorothea Poyntz'. Separately MCA discusses Thomas Hampden [not SIR Thomas] of Great Hampden, Bucks, who mar. Margery Popham and d. in 1485, leaving one child, a son John.
I've been advised by the always helpful Leo van de Pas that Ronny Bodine's (impossible to locate!) volume gives the latter Thomas Hampden and Margeryn Popham as the parents of Isabel who mar. Walter Newdigate; i.e., equating Sir Thomas of Baddesley with Thomas of Great Hampden. If so, this might be a Magna Carta descent which has been overlooked by MCA.
Can anyone help to clarify whether there are one or two Thomas Hampdens here - and, if two, what's the ancestry and marriage of Sir Thomas of Baddesley?
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> [re-posted due to gateway failure - never got to SGM]
>
> Both RPA and the newly published MCA describe Walter Newdigate as
> married to Isabel, dau. of Sir Thomas Hampden of Baddesley,
> Hertfordshire, for whom no wife is given by either RPA or MCA. Both
> RPA and MCA cite, among other sources, Ronny Bodine's 'Ancestry of
> Dorothea Poyntz'. Separately MCA discusses Thomas Hampden [not SIR
> Thomas] of Great Hampden, Bucks, who mar. Margery Popham and d. in
> 1485, leaving one child, a son John.
>
> I've been advised by the always helpful Leo van de Pas that Ronny
> Bodine's (impossible to locate!)
www.owsleyfamily.com though the site is down currently. You may be
able to get it through a Google search and then using the cached copy.
> volume gives the latter Thomas Hampden and Margeryn Popham as the
> parents of Isabel who mar. Walter Newdigate; i.e., equating Sir
> Thomas of Baddesley with Thomas of Great Hampden.
These Hampdens are a pain, far too many of them, even though they died
up. The Bucks 1634 Visitation gives John as heir and Edmund of
Woodstock as sons to Thomas Hampden and Margery Popham; no sign of
Isabel.
There are many pages on the Hampdens in Lipscomb's "Bucks", Vol II, pp.
227 to 293 plus odd snippets elsewhere. These four volumes are
available on one CD.
> Can anyone help to clarify whether there are one or two Thomas
> Hampdens here - and, if two, what's the ancestry and marriage of Sir
> Thomas of Baddesley?
I'm not confident enough of the evidence at my disposal to make such
clarifications!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for your post. You've asked a good question.
I recommend you examine the PCC wills of Thomas Hampden (died 1485) and
of his widow, Margery Popham (died 1506) [Margery married (2nd) Richard
Godfrey]. The specific references for these two wills are:
Thomas Hampden, PCC, 27 Logge
Margery Godfrey, PCC, 1 Adeane
One of these wills should indicate if Thomas and Margery had other
issue besides their son, John Hampden.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
John Higgins
what you've published in MCA. They don't appear to address my question, but
they do seem to indicate that Thomas Hampden and Margery Popham had more
children than the single son John that you ascribe to them.
Perhaps an MCA correction is in order??
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
"John Higgins" wrote:
> Perhaps you should check out these wills yourself, to ensure the accuracy of
> what you've published in MCA. They don't appear to address my question, but
> they do seem to indicate that Thomas Hampden and Margery Popham had more
> children than the single son John that you ascribe to them.
So you've seen the two Hampden wills already. Do you really expect
newsgroup members to go on a goose hunt for you, when you already know
the answer before you posted? Geez.
> Perhaps an MCA correction is in order??
Perhaps?? ... but I doubt it.
Better luck next time, John.
John Higgins
hunts"....looks more like a case of "constant misrepresentations"....who's
the goose?
As it happens, I took your suggestion regarding the wills at face value
(thank you for posting the information on them) and downloaded them from the
UK National Archives site this afternoon AFTER you posted the references.
Such a quick result IS possible, you know, in this age of technology...:-)
After reading the wills, my position is the same: MCA is WRONG in saying
that this couple had only a single child. And, NO, I certainly won't share
the details with you - especially after this response. You can do your own
research - if you have any interest at all in accuracy.
I think an apology is in order here....and an MCA correction.....
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I just checked your database and see that you have listed Isabella
Hampden, wife of Walter Newdigate, as the daughter of Sir Thomas
Hampden (died 1485), of Hampden, Buckinghamshire, by his wife, Margery
Popham.
I wonder if the always helpful Mr. van de Pas can supply us the
evidence to prove this connection? Primary evidence, that is. I've
checked various sources on the Hampden family and find no daughter
named Isabella for this couple. I suspect you've bollixed two
different Thomas Hampden's and rolled them into one person.
One other thing: I see that you have identified Thomas Hampden of
Hampden (died 1485) as a knight. My research indicates Thomas of
Hampden was an esquire, never a knight.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
for them today. Well and good. And they showed this couple had a
daughter named Isabella? Right?
Well, don't keep us in suspense. We all want to know what you found.
The accuracy of Leo van de Pas' website is hinging on your answer!
Also, Ronny Bodine's book. Also, tell us you found evidence that
Thomas Hampden was knighted. We have to know the answer.
By the way, the next time you follow my recommendations, please show at
least a little gratitude. Otherwise people will think you are just
another newsgroup sponger with an imaginary ax to grind.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1120970175....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Leo ~
>
> I just checked your database and see that you have listed Isabella
> Hampden, wife of Walter Newdigate, as the daughter of Sir Thomas
> Hampden (died 1485), of Hampden, Buckinghamshire, by his wife, Margery
> Popham.
>
> I wonder if the always helpful Mr. van de Pas can supply us the
> evidence to prove this connection? Primary evidence, that is.
Yes, of course - Richardson is very big on "primary" evidence, as far as he
can understand it ("duxtaxat", or dumtaxat...indeed Tweedledumtaxat).
Peter Stewart
John Higgins
and RPA cite for both Thomas Hampdens - Ronny Bodine's 'Ancestry of Dorothea
Poyntz', mentioned in my first post. Leo has informed me that Bodine
provided sources, but I don't have access to most of them.
As it happens I believe that MCA and RPA are probably right in saying that
Isabel Hampden was the dau. of one Thomas Hampden and John Hampden was the
son of another Thomas Hampden. But I haven't seen evidence that confirms
this - or the ancestry or marriage of the first Thomas.
And even if Isabel was not the daughter of Thomas Hampden and Margery Popham
(as Leo following Bodine indicates), this couple apparently did have more
children than just John...so MCA is still wrong.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
>
> Yes, of course - Richardson is very big on "primary" evidence, as far as he
> can understand it ("duxtaxat", or dumtaxat...indeed Tweedledumtaxat).
>
> Peter Stewart
Dear Peter ~
As a matter of fact, I'm very big on primary evidence. I might suggest
you read the book, Evidence!, by Elizabeth Shown Mills, FASG. The book
is excellent.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
the wills of Thomas Hampden and his widow, Margery, named a daughter
Isabella. Right? Also, you found evidence that Thomas Hampden was
knighted. Right?
Well? Tell us true. I'm holding my breath.
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1120972379.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Yes, of course - Richardson is very big on "primary" evidence, as far as
>> he
>> can understand it ("duxtaxat", or dumtaxat...indeed Tweedledumtaxat).
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> Dear Peter ~
>
> As a matter of fact, I'm very big on primary evidence.
Then why on earth won't you take the trouble to learn Latin and French (NB
not "franqais") so that you can begin to study the primary evidence in your
chosen field?
Pretending that the registers of Urban V are your favourite light reading
doesn't cut any mustard here.
While you are at it, you might try to substantiate the various charges you
have laid against me over some recent threads. We all know you have the
motive, in spades, and you claim to have the opportunity. Exactly what is
lacking then?
Gumption? Or are you just blowing smoke at us all, yet again....
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
>
> Pretending that the registers of Urban V are your favourite light reading
> doesn't cut any mustard here.
>
My, you're being silly goose today. Mustard has nothing to do with it.
Actually, Peter, I have the registers of Urbain V right by my bedside.
I read a few lines in them every night before I go to sleep.
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1120973380.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Pretending that the registers of Urban V are your favourite light reading
>> doesn't cut any mustard here.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> My, you're being silly goose today. Mustard has nothing to do with it.
> Actually, Peter, I have the registers of Urbain V right by my bedside.
> I read a few lines in them every night before I go to sleep.
Then simply tell us what is the gist of "duxtaxat" in your understanding of
the passage you favoured Tony with?
Your smarmy attempts at humour don't help to dig you out of these holes any
more than your ignoring the points at issue.
Peter Stewart
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Leo ~
>
> I just checked your database
Do we have to have this again?
> and see that you have listed Isabella Hampden, wife of Walter
> Newdigate, as the daughter of Sir Thomas Hampden (died 1485), of
> Hampden, Buckinghamshire, by his wife, Margery Popham.
>
> I wonder if the always helpful Mr. van de Pas
I am beginning to think you are jealous and this is blinding your
perceptions. Leo is genuinely helpful, he gives people information for
free, he does not hold out the begging bowl; everyone respects that.
> can supply us the evidence to prove this connection? Primary
> evidence, that is.
This is obtuse. Leo has said on many occasions that he has a limited
set of sources and that they are, if I understand rightly, mostly
secondary and most being good (i.e. reasonably reliable) collections of
genealogical data. You have heard his say the same thing. And you are
thus now choosing to ignore what you have heard. I have never heard Leo
say that he worked from primary sources; he does not have to, so why
are you asking him to do so?
More demands that are made to sound oh-so-reasonable but which are
totally inappropriate for the circumstances. A bit of bullying again?
> I've checked various sources on the Hampden family and find no
> daughter named Isabella for this couple. I suspect you've bollixed
"bollixed" - what sort of word is this? I wonder if it is intended
to be polite? I wonder also if it is the sort of language that you ask
others not to use?
> two different Thomas Hampden's and rolled them into one person.
>
> One other thing: I see that you have identified Thomas Hampden of
> Hampden (died 1485) as a knight. My research indicates Thomas of
> Hampden was an esquire, never a knight.
I wish I knew what esquires were. Knights are easy, they got knighted
by a Big Cheese. But esquires?
ADRIANC...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
Douglas Richardson
<snip>
One other thing: I see that you have identified Thomas Hampden of
Hampden (died 1485) as a knight. My research indicates Thomas of
Hampden was an esquire, never a knight.
<snip>
He was knighted June 1483
Adrian
Jwc...@aol.com
Esquires or Squires were chosen by knights to aid them in
taking care of them and their weapons from the nobility /gentry just as the
knights were. They probably had been pages attached to other gentle houses and were
basically in " knight school". If the Opportunity arose and They were
courageous enough in a great enough battle or just connected to powerful enough
persons. They would be knighted.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Leo
Thanks for this. I will change my DATA BASE but can you give me a source
(secondary will do) for this event?
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANC...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
Leo van de Pas
more likely. You maintain you found in "my database" , I would like to point
out that only I have access to "my data base", not even Ian Fettes has
access to "my data base".
You do need glasses, or do you have typing trouble? Where did you find
Isabella's father is a Sir? Not in my data base nor on my website.
You tell people to do their homewerk themselves before expecting others to
do it for them, well go ahead and do your own work. On the file in my
WEBSITE I quote my source, a source I expect to be available in Salt Lake
City. Have your venemous eyes overlooked my source? Or were you so delighted
of seeing my error of calling her father Sir, which I actually do not do,
not in my WEBSITE nor in my DATA BASE.
If anybody bollixed as you so gently put it, it is someone in the USA,
someone with a better reputation than you have. You are hectoring and
bullying again, I am still waiting for an apology for your last attempt. I
know, I can wait till the cows come home, that is collegiality for you.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Dear Tim,
> Esquires or Squires were chosen by knights to aid them in
> taking care of them and their weapons from the nobility /gentry just
> as the knights were. They probably had been pages attached to other
> gentle houses and were basically in " knight school".
I wish it was that easy. While this is reported to be a meaning of
"esquire", it is not a unique meaning. There were, particularly later
on, all sorts of people who were called esquires. I am not sure we know
exactly what was meant when people were called esquire. I have never
heard of any records of people becoming esquires. Is is a legitimate
term that we can give anyone, knowing fairly accurately what we mean by
it? Or is it, as it later became, some mumbo-jumbo that was given to
anyone, as it once was to my gt-gt-grandfather who looked after the
horses in a wayside inn.
> If the Opportunity arose and They were courageous enough in a great
> enough battle or just connected to powerful enough persons. They
> would be knighted.
Some knights were made such rather before that, viz Edward V who was
made a knight in 1475 at the tender age of five.
D. Spencer Hines
Hilarious!
Leo has slipped his tether again.
Pace, Pace...
DSH
""Leo van de Pas"" <leov...@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:005501c5853f$85cbffa0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
"Have your venemous [sic] eyes overlooked my source?"
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> [re-posted due to gateway failure - never got to SGM]
>
> Both RPA and the newly published MCA describe Walter Newdigate as
> married to Isabel, dau. of Sir Thomas Hampden of Baddesley,
> Hertfordshire, for whom no wife is given by either RPA or MCA. Both
> RPA and MCA cite, among other sources, Ronny Bodine's 'Ancestry of
> Dorothea Poyntz'. Separately MCA discusses Thomas Hampden [not SIR
> Thomas] of Great Hampden, Bucks, who mar. Margery Popham and d. in
> 1485, leaving one child, a son John.
There is an abstract of his will in Testamenta Vetusta:
"Thomas Hampden, of Hampden, Esquire, on the Feast of St Luke the
Evangelist, 1482. My body to be buried before the image of St Mary
Magdalen, in the Chancel of the Church at Hampden. To the parson of
Hampden XIIIs IVd.; to a priest to sing for my soul XXXs.; to Margery
my wife, whom of youth I have known well conscienced, and to me a true
and loving wife; John my father; to my cousin John Wroughton; to Mr
William Colet, Parson, of Hampden; to John my son, and Elizabeth his
wife, my manor of Hampden; with remainder to Edmund, my second son,
Edward my third son, Francis, my fourth son, Alexander my fifth son and
to Henry my sixth son; remainder to my daughters Alice, Katherine, Jane
and Eleanor, until my daughters be married; my manors of Bledlowe,
Chilton, and Elsyngton, Upton, Wales and Waldrege, in the county of
Bucks. And I appoint my sons John and Edmund my executors.
"Proved November 22d, 1486."
Sounds like a little more than one child.
John Higgins
in MCA. The will itself is quite a bit longer than the abstract would
suggest, but the abstract has captured the core of the relationships
mentioned in the will. Sounds like a correction for MCA....
Interestingly, the will and the abstract make no mention of a daughter
Isabel. This doesn't conclusively answer my original question about the
parrentage of Isabel who mar. Walter Newdigate (since the will discussed his
unmarried daughters, and she conceivably could have been omitted if she were
married before the will - although this seems unlikely). But it does seems
to support the idea that Sir Thomas Hampden of Baddesley, the father of
Isabel, is a different individual from the Thomas Hampden who mar. Margery
Popham. So the question remains; who was this Sir Thomas of Baddesley?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
Leo
How many Thomas Hampden would there have been at that time? I think Adrian
Channing's list is interesting but I wonder, being nominted to become a
knight at the coronation of Edward V, a coronation that did not take
place----did these knights still become knights? Are there examples of
others on this "quite long list" that they were regarded as knights
afterwards? If not, then we could have two plain Thomas Hampden who may turn
out to be one person after all.
Leo
John Higgins
enough branches of the Hampdens that it would be unwise to assume that there
was only a single Thomas Hampden at this time.
The will doesn't address the question of whether Thomas Hampden of Hampden
was knighted because the will was dated 1482 and he reportedly was knighted
in 1483. So it seems we may have two SIR Thomas Hampdens rather than ttwo
"plain" Thomas Hampdens.
Based on the absence of Isabel being mentioned in the will of Thomas Hampden
of Hampden, I think that the conservative approach (pending further
evidence) would be to assume that her father Sir Thomas of Baddesley is not
the same as Thomas H. of Hampden.
Leo
mentioned the unmarried daughters----there is still a reasonable possibility
that Ronnie Bodine is correct. Maybe someone can double check the sources
quoted by him?
John Higgins
traditional assignment of Isabel's father, Sir Thomas Hampden, as being of
Baddesley, Hertfordshire. I can't find any reference to a Baddesley in
Herts (aside from genealogies referencing this Sir Thomas). There are
estates of Badddesley Clinton and Baddesley Ensor in what historically was
the northern edge of Warwickshire, and North Baddesley and South Baddesley
are in Hampshire near Southampton. But no Baddesley that I can find in
Hertsfordshire....
Any thoughts on this point?
Jwc...@aol.com
There remains the possibly that Isabel was
already married when Thomas Hampden Esq of Hampden made his will. He did name
daughters, true, but apparently unmarried daughters as no husbands appear to
have been mentioned. If Isabel were in fact married and her portion settled
She probably would not be mentioned in the will.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thomas Hampden (died 1485), of Great Hampden, Buckinghamshire, was
never knighted. This comes from primary evidence, not secondary
sources. Among other things, his inquisition post mortem refers to him
simply as "esquire," not "knight." There are other records which can
be cited as well.
I believe this is a correction for your database.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I think my request was rather simple. If you have no primary evidence,
just admit it and move on. There's certainly no need to fly off the
handle.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> In a message dated 10/07/2005 05:50:49 GMT Standard Time,
> royala...@msn.com writes:
>
> Douglas Richardson
>
> <snip>
>
> One other thing: I see that you have identified Thomas Hampden of
> Hampden (died 1485) as a knight. My research indicates Thomas of
> Hampden was an esquire, never a knight.
>
>
> Adrian
No, he wasn't. Check your primary sources.
DR
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> Yes indeed, quite a number of children beyond the single son John mentioned
> in MCA. The will itself is quite a bit longer than the abstract would
> suggest, but the abstract has captured the core of the relationships
> mentioned in the will. Sounds like a correction for MCA....
Dear John ~
I think you mean an addition to MCA, not a correction. Be that as it
may, I certainly appreciate you bringing this to my attention.
You are wrong, though, about Thomas Hampden being a knight, or that he
lived at Baddesley, Hertfordshire, or that he had a daughter, Isabella.
As far as I know, all of these statements are incorrect. When you
have evidence to prove these points, by all means, please post them.
John Higgins
evidence, they'd be much thinner than they are now - even considering the
padded references they now contain. Why hold Leo to a higher standard than
you yourself follow?
And Leo is right - the database accessible through his website does NOT show
Thomas Hampden of Great Hampden as a knight. You should either document
your assertion or submit (yet another) apology to Leo.
(And some readers still wonder why so many of us are skeptical of
Richardson's work....a continuing string of misrepresentations)
John Higgins
that Thomas Hampden of Great Hampden and Margery Popham had a single son.
When something is wrong you correct it. But this is pointless to pursue....
And you mis-state my position. I agree that the evidence currently does not
support that Thomas Hampden of Great Hampden was of Baddesley, or that he
had a daughter Isabel/Isabella - I'll leave the issue of his possible
knighthood for Adrian Channing to address. My point all along has been that
MCA and RPA (among others) say that there were two distinct Thomas Hampdens,
while Ronnie Bodine says they were one and the same. At present, I think
the case for a single Thomas Hampden in this situation is not strong enough.
[BTW: What PRIMARY sources do you recommend checking to confirm his
knighthood? Should we apply these sources for ALL knights?)
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I believe you were the one who alleged Thomas Hampden was might have
been knighted. You said Leo's website included Isabella, daughter of
Sir Thomas Hampden of Baddesley, Hertfordshire, as a child of Thomas
Hampden of Great Hampden, Buckinghamshire. Right? You stated Leo got
this from Ronny Bodine. Right?
I in turn recommended you that you should look at the will of Thomas
Hampden of Great Hampden, Buckinghamshire. That's a reasonable thing
to do.
You followed my recommendation, looked at the will, and then refused to
tell anyone what it said. Geez, John, talk about drama!
Then Adrian Channing told Leo van de Pas that Thomas Hampden of Great
Hampden was knighted. I said no, he wasn't. Is everyone confused yet?
I've consistently stated that Thomas Hampden of Great Hampden wasn't
knighted. I also have found no evidence that he had a daughter
named Isabella. I've asked Leo and you to provide proof of these
statements. Something, anything. Instead you're both running for the
tall grasses, complaining along the way.
Why don't we start with the list of Ronny Bodine's sources which Leo
and you both have in your possession. Is there some reason why you and
Leo won't post Ronny's sources? Let me guess - they'll show Leo has
made yet another blooper in including Isabella Hampden as the daughter
of Thomas Hampden, Esquire, of Great Hampden.
Why do I have this strange sinking feeling of deja vu again?
D. Spencer Hines
Well he is certainly no virgin in that respect.
Leo sorely needs a spiced hot toddy and a long nap to clear his brain.
DSH
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1121045478....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Leo
Again buy some glasses, you haven't read what Tim Powys-Lybbe had to say.
You haven't read Adrian Channings message.
You haven't read my message........
At least none seem to have sunk in. Goodness gracious what is this reseacher
coming to?
Tragic!
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
> Dear John ~
<snip>
>
> Then Adrian Channing told Leo van de Pas that Thomas Hampden of Great
> Hampden was knighted. I said no, he wasn't. Is everyone confused yet?
You are such a dishonest liar. What did Adrian Channing say?
W.A. Shaw's...The Knights of England...Viol I Page 140 (incorrectly indexed
as Vol II) "Th. Hamde, of Hamden" June 1483- writs dated 5 June 1483, one of
quite a long list to be knighted on Coronation of Ed V - the coronation did
not take plasce, but PRESUMABLY the knighhoods did, or they would not be
listed by Shaw.
Are you still confused?
>
> I've consistently stated that Thomas Hampden of Great Hampden wasn't
> knighted. I also have found no evidence that he had a daughter
> named Isabella. I've asked Leo and you to provide proof of these
> statements. Something, anything. Instead you're both running for the
> tall grasses, complaining along the way.
-----We do not owe you anything. You can graciously ask and we can
graciously decline. Taking into account your harranging and bullying, how
can you possibly expect co-operatgion? Especially when you are so DUMB you
haven't digested my website's mainpage where any one can see what I rely on.
I offer apples but you want oranges, stiff get them yourself.
>
> Why don't we start with the list of Ronny Bodine's sources which Leo
> and you both have in your possession. Is there some reason why you and
> Leo won't post Ronny's sources? Let me guess - they'll show Leo has
> made yet another blooper in including Isabella Hampden as the daughter
> of Thomas Hampden, Esquire, of Great Hampden.
--------What a waste of time, we could give you the sources (do your work, I
am sure you have access to Ronny Bodine's work) and all you could do is to
APOLOGIES AGAIN as I did not make a blooper but presented Ronny Bodine's
finding correctly.
>
> Why do I have this strange sinking feeling of deja vu again?
------You wouldn't if you bought yourself a pair of glasses and read AND
DIGESTED what people say. Now be a good boy, do your own home work, and not
a word out of you until you digested this message.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> Leo has made another blooper?
>
> Well he is certainly no virgin in that respect.
>
> Leo sorely needs a spiced hot toddy and a long nap to clear his brain.
>
> DSH
Dear Spencer ~
Yes, I'm afraid Leo has in fact made yet another blooper. Only this
time he has John Higgins trying to cover for him. Neither man will
fess up to their error. It's the case of the blind leading the blind.
They both fall in the ditch. It's so sad.
D. Spencer Hines
Leo really does need to learn how to spell the word VENOMOUS and also
learn how to use it properly -- if he is going to keep throwing it
around so casually.
Leo actually thinks he sees "VENEMOUS EYES"....
Hilarious!
After that he needs to teach Pogue Stewart how to spell WESTMORELAND.
Hilarious!
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bFoAe.664$4H2....@eagle.america.net...
> Hmmmmmmmm...
>
> Leo really does need to learn how to spell the word VENOMOUS and also
> learn how to use it properly -- if he is going to keep throwing it
> around so casually.
>
> Leo actually thinks he sees "VENEMOUS EYES"....
>
> Hilarious!
>
> After that he needs to teach Pogue Stewart how to spell WESTMORELAND.
No Hines, you are flatly wrong - in England and in Shakespeare's play
rendered into modern spelling it's correctly "Westmorland". Ask the present
earl.
This is a proper noun, not subject to U.S. variants.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
"Leo" wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <royala...@msn.com>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 11:31 AM
> Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
>
>
> > Dear John ~
> <snip>
> >
> > Then Adrian Channing told Leo van de Pas that Thomas Hampden of Great
> > Hampden was knighted. I said no, he wasn't. Is everyone confused yet?
>
> You are such a dishonest liar. What did Adrian Channing say?
>
> W.A. Shaw's...The Knights of England...Viol I Page 140 (incorrectly indexed
> as Vol II) "Th. Hamde, of Hamden" June 1483- writs dated 5 June 1483, one of
> quite a long list to be knighted on Coronation of Ed V - the coronation did
> not take plasce, but PRESUMABLY the knighhoods did, or they would not be
> listed by Shaw.
> Are you still confused?
No, Leo, you are the one who is confused and lying. Neither the
coronation or the knighthoods took place. Your huge ego has trapped
you into making yet another astonishing blooper. This is so sad.
> > I've consistently stated that Thomas Hampden of Great Hampden wasn't
> > knighted. I also have found no evidence that he had a daughter
> > named Isabella. I've asked Leo and you to provide proof of these
> > statements. Something, anything. Instead you're both running for the
> > tall grasses, complaining along the way.
>
> -----We do not owe you anything. You can graciously ask and we can
> graciously decline. Taking into account your harranging and bullying, how
> can you possibly expect co-operatgion? Especially when you are so DUMB you
> haven't digested my website's mainpage where any one can see what I rely on.
> I offer apples but you want oranges, stiff get them yourself.
I merely asked for your evidence, Leo. If you have no evidence, then
your database is worthless. Do you never verify your secondary sources
against primary records? Or, do you just copy willy-nilly everything
you find in print? Don't answer that question. We already know the
answer.
> > Why don't we start with the list of Ronny Bodine's sources which Leo
> > and you both have in your possession. Is there some reason why you and
> > Leo won't post Ronny's sources? Let me guess - they'll show Leo has
> > made yet another blooper in including Isabella Hampden as the daughter
> > of Thomas Hampden, Esquire, of Great Hampden.
>
>
> --------What a waste of time, we could give you the sources (do your work, I
> am sure you have access to Ronny Bodine's work) and all you could do is to
> APOLOGIES AGAIN as I did not make a blooper but presented Ronny Bodine's
> finding correctly.
I feel sorry for Ronny Bodine that you have dragged his good name into
this ugly mess. Poor Ronny.
> > Why do I have this strange sinking feeling of deja vu again?
> ------You wouldn't if you bought yourself a pair of glasses and read AND
> DIGESTED what people say. Now be a good boy, do your own home work, and not
> a word out of you until you digested this message.
No, Leo, you still need to post Ronny Bodine's sources. Once you have
posted Ronny's sources, then the newsgroup members can examine them to
see for themselves if they merit Isabella Hampden being included as a
child of Thomas Hampden, Esquire, of Great Hampden, Buckinghamshire.
If the evidence is sufficient, then she will remain. If not, then you
will need to correct your database. So far, the lack of evidence tells
the whole story. Isabella isn't mentioned as a child in the will of
either Thomas Hampden, Esquire, or his widow, Margery.
Peter Stewart
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bFoAe.664$4H2....@eagle.america.net...
>
> Leo really does need to learn how to spell the word VENOMOUS and also
> learn how to use it properly -- if he is going to keep throwing it
> around so casually.
>
> Leo actually thinks he sees "VENEMOUS EYES"....
>
> Hilarious!
And before you spout off again so ignorantly regarding the use of a word,
look up your Shakespeare: "the venom of such looks" for starters, and "thy
tears are...venom to thine eyes".
Peter Stewart
Leo
You are such a shameless f... or i.... you fill in these words. What do
you regard a blooper is? Tell me as my Chambers's 20th century Dictionary
does not give an explantion for this word.
I presume you mean an error? Error comes from the word ERR. "To wander, to
wander from the right way etc.....".
Where did I wander? When I correctly copy Ronny Bodine.....Who is wandering?
When people copy Richardson and get it wrong, who is wandering? Who made the
mistake, In this kind of cases we know about the chicken or the egg which
one comes first.
In this case you are not the chicken but the Turkey who makes
mistakes........
You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself...........but then you are
showing your true colours, those of yet another ugly American. Thank
goodness there are so many decent ones......
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Leo
knighting happened? No I even asked if it was possible to see whether the
other on the list were regarded Sir afterwards.
You wriggle and you squirm, but you are still a dishonest liar.
You do not need to ask me for MY evidence. I do not have evidence. The
source of my information is on my WEBSITE. To ask for the obvious is part of
your hectoring and bullying.
I did not drag Ronny Bodine into it-----you did. You did not have to send
the message where you asked for the obvious, and still got it wrong. No I do
not have a Sir as father for Isabel.......
You keep on digging and digging and it becomes quite hilarious to see what a
dishonest fool you are.SIGH I have said it again, but then is becoming more
obvious with every new message from you on the subject.
Please explain why do I NEED TO POST RONNY BODINE'S SOURCES?
You mean to say you have no access to his work? In Salt Lake City? The Mecca
for genealogists? What the only available copy is in Australia with me?
Dreadful!!!
As I said before I do not owe you any assistance, you can do your own
research.
Leo
quite an educated presumption. I do not know the Shaw source he mentions,
but by the sound of what Adrian says, it sounds like a reliable source. Now
APOLOGISE TO ADRIAN
My God, if you tried to undo the damage you have been doing lately, there
won't be much time for research left.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: "Leo" <l...@home.netspeed.com.au>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
> Adrian was wrong.
>
> DR
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leo" <l...@home.netspeed.com.au>
> To: <royala...@msn.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:14 AM
> Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
>
>
>> When are you buying glasses? How many times do I have to say he is NOT a
>> Sir in my WEBSITE nor DATA BASE.
>>
>> You haven't read what Adrian Channing had to say either. You call
>> yourself a researcher when you can't even read simple English messages?
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <royala...@msn.com>
>> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
>> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 10:09 AM
>> Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
>>
>>
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> I agree. However, we should still keep in mind that the will may only
> have mentioned the unmarried daughters----there is still a reasonable
> possibility that Ronnie Bodine is correct. Maybe someone can double
> check the sources quoted by him?
There are none.
And this relationship is looking even more unlikely when it is
considered that this Isabella Hampden's son, Thomas Newdigate, married a
Katherine Hampden, great-granddaughter of Thomas H. and Margery Popham.
Moving on to related matter, Margery Popham's mother is given in the
Bucks 1634 visitation, as part of a very wordy account of her family,
as Bettrys Gowen, dau. of Sir John Gowen. This sir John also is said
ot have had a son Vmfree whose son John had a daughter Mary who m. Sir
David Owen. I wonder if sir John Gowen was not Sir John Bohun, 2nd
baron Bohun as he did have a son Humphrey who had a son John who had a
daughter Mary who married Sir David Owen, son of Owen Tudor?
John Higgins
1) In my original post I said that the Thomas Hampden who was knighted was
Sir Thomas of Baddesley, father of Isabella who mar. Walter Newdigate. This
is noted in, among other places, both RPA and MCA.
"Both RPA and the newly published MCA describe Walter Newdigate as married
to Isabel, dau. of Sir Thomas Hampden of Baddesley, Hertfordshire, for whom
no wife is given by either RPA or MCA."
2) In the same post I specifically said that the Thomas Hampden of Great
Hampden who mar. Margery Popham was NOT a Sir Thomas - although this was
subsequently questioned by Adrian Channing.
"Separately MCA discusses Thomas Hampden [not SIR Thomas] of Great Hampden,
Bucks, who mar. Margery Popham and d. in 1485, leaving one child, a son
John."
3) I pointed out that Ronnie Bodine (Leo's source - and also cited by at
least RPA) had stated that the two Thomas Hampdens were the same man, and I
asked for input as to whether this was accurate. (But neither Ronnie nor
Leo calls him SIR Thomas - as repeatedly claimed by Richardson)
"Can anyone help to clarify whether there are one or two Thomas Hampdens
here - and, if two, what's the ancestry and marriage of Sir Thomas of
Baddesley?"
I've said before that, based on the evidence we have now, the conservative
approach would be to assume there were two Thomas Hampdens - there is not
enough support for the conclusion in Bodine that Thomas Hampden of Great
Hampden is the same as Sir Thomas Hampden of Baddesley. But on the other
hand we know very little about the latter Thomas - which is why I raised the
question.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
ADRIANC...@aol.com
A)
I imagine the original source for Sir Thomas Hampden of Baddesley is from
Sir John Maclenan's _Family of Poyntz..._ 1st published in 1886, the recent
reprint has:
"
Poyntz (3nd son of John Poyntz of Alderley), of Woodhatch, Reigate, Surrey.
Died 1601, intestate Admo. to his relict 25 April 1601.
=
Elizabeth, da. and coh. of Thomas Newdigate of Wivelsfield, Sussex (son of
Walter Newdigate by Isabella, dau of Sir Thomas Hampden of Baddesley, co.
Herts), mar (fn. 1). 23 May 1569. Admd. to her husband's effects. Died 1602.
Will dated 5 May 1601. Prob. 17 June 1602 (55 Montague).
1. - At Reigate.
"
As another poster noted, there is no Baddesley in Hertfordshire, also I can
find no other Hampden connected with any Baddesley, nor is he in Shaw's
knights. I think this is therefore an errer.
B)
As for the list of people served with writs on 5th June 1483 for knighthood
(K.B.) on the intended coronation of Ed V on 22nd of June, I now see that most
of them also appear in the list of those knighted on the coronation of Rd
III on July 6 1483. For instance George Nevill later Lord Abergavenny appears
on both lists and CP states he was knighted on the coronation of Rd III,
whereas Edward Lord Dudley (of Sutton) appears only on the first list, and CP
does not record him as a knight. Thomas Hamden of Hamden (not Great Hamden)
only appears on the first list. Thus, I now conclude, the first list were not
knighted on 22 June.
Adrian
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Thank you for posting this information. Good job.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Adrian posted:
"He was knighted June 1483."
This sounds like a factual statement to me.
Adrian has since posted a correction to his statement above. Adrian
has done a good job.
Leo
W.A. Shaw's _The Knights of England_ Vol I page 140 (incorrectly indexed as
Vol II) "The. Hamden, of Hamden" June 1483 - writs dated 5 June 1483, one of
a quite long list to be kn ighted on Coronation of Ed V - the coronation did
not take place, but PRESUMABLY the knighthoods did, or they would not be
listed by Shaw.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:24 AM
Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
DR
Leo
system? You made him one by proclaiming I had Isabella as a daughter of Sir
Thomas.
You are a worry, perhaps you should go and see a doctor, I still believe
glasses could do a lot for you.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I have consistently and I believe correctly stated that Thomas Hampden
was an esquire, not a knight; that he did not lived at Baddlesley,
Hertfordshire; and that he had no daughter named Isabella.
Is that good enough for you?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
John Higgins
necessarily Sir Thomas) who was the father of Isabella the wife of Walter
Newdigate and who is described (probably wrongly) as being of Baddesley,
Herts?
It's clear that there is not (yet) any evidence to support Ronnie Bodine's
conclusion that he is the Thomas Hampden (apparently not Sir Thomas) who
mar. Margery Popham. This latter Thomas is, of course, the one in whom Doug
Richardson is showing a sudden interest as he scurries to correct an
omission in RPA and MCA [dare one call it a blooper? Naahh - only Leo makes
bloopers... :-)] and to seek out previously unknown descendants of these
newly found children of the latter Thomas Hampden [of Great Hampden].
The methodogy here is interesting:
1) Find a reference in an Internet database with limited (or no)
documentation.
2) Encourage others to do the heavy lifting of real research for you.
3) Collect the results and loudly trumpet a newly discovered descent.
I guess we'll see how this plays out.....too bad that the original question
has gotten lost in the tumult...it might have led to some interesting new
discoveries.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ADRIANC...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
Peter Stewart
""John Higgins"" <jthi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:002801c58686$b19b93f0$6562...@labs.agilent.com...
<snip>
> The methodogy here is interesting:
> 1) Find a reference in an Internet database with limited (or no)
> documentation.
> 2) Encourage others to do the heavy lifting of real research for you.
> 3) Collect the results and loudly trumpet a newly discovered descent.
>
> I guess we'll see how this plays out.....too bad that the original
> question
> has gotten lost in the tumult...it might have led to some interesting new
> discoveries.
As Spencere Hines might say, from Honoluelue or wherevere (omitting every
the superfluous "e" that this master of misplaced pedantry would insert):
Yep, Bingo!
Hang on....this is of course what D.S. Hines DID say, in November 2003. Not
as quite as accurately as John today, but at least he saw through the sham
once, when it suited him.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> So, we're back to my original question: Who WAS the Thomas Hampden (not
> necessarily Sir Thomas) who was the father of Isabella the wife of Walter
> Newdigate and who is described (probably wrongly) as being of Baddesley,
> Herts?
We never left your original question, John. You labelled the thread
yourself: It says: "MCA Addition?"
The question you asked was if Isabella wife of Walter Newdigate should
be assigned as a daughter of Thomas Hampden, Esq., of Great Hampden,
Buckinghamshire, which Thomas Hampden is in my Magna Carta Ancestry
book. I said no, no, no. What part of no don't you get?
Now you're trying to change the question "MCA Addition?" into something
else. Geez, John, admit your mistake and get on with it. This is one
van de Pas blooper that won't be added to my database!
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> This is one van de Pas blooper that won't be added to my database!
What can this mean? Apart from one specific point, Richardson (who is
so notoriously "big" on primary sources although he can't read these
for himself) will be copying from Leo's website (explicitly derived
from secondary works) into his own database? Even "bloopers" on other
matters that were found in Leo's identified sources may be included?
Such a man as Richardson cannot be defamed in any professional sense,
as his only fame is that he abides by no standards.
Peter Stewart
John Higgins
ruffle (to use one of your favorite phrases).
I repeat again the question that I started this thread with:
"Can anyone help to clarify whether there are one or two Thomas Hampdens
here - and, if two, what's the ancestry and marriage of Sir Thomas of
Baddesley?"
And I helpfully mentioned that IF [note emphasis] there was only one Thomas
Hampden, "this MIGHT [emphasis added] be a Magna Carta descent which has
been overlooked by MCA". That's why the thread was captioned in part "MCA
Addition?" - note the question mark. It certainly got your attention - but
not very productively so.
Now that you've busted a gut (unnecessarily) over the question of one or two
Thomas Hampdens (and indirectly slamming Ronnie Bodine as well as Leo),
perhaps you could focus on the more interesting question of the other Thomas
Hampden [said to be of Baddesley]. There's the potential for a real
discovery....
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: MCA addition?: Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> "John Higgins" wrote:
> > So, we're back to my original question: Who WAS the Thomas Hampden
> > (not necessarily Sir Thomas) who was the father of Isabella the
> > wife of Walter Newdigate and who is described (probably wrongly) as
> > being of Baddesley, Herts?
>
> We never left your original question, John. You labelled the thread
> yourself: It says: "MCA Addition?"
And he put after it "Hampden of Baddesley [or Great Hampden?]" showing
that there was an uncertainty which he was enquiring about.
> The question you asked was if Isabella wife of Walter Newdigate should
> be assigned as a daughter of Thomas Hampden, Esq., of Great Hampden,
> Buckinghamshire, which Thomas Hampden is in my Magna Carta Ancestry
> book. I said no, no, no. What part of no don't you get?
There is a lack of scholarship here, not to mention also a taste of
vindictiveness.
JH was asking (above) who was the Thomas Hampden who was the father of
the Isabella who married Walt Newdigate. DR has chosen to ignore that
question and merely say that Isabella was not the daughter of Thomas H.
of Hampden; he has not considered the question that is now asked (and
a very cogent question it is too).
DR asserts that JH "asked was if Isabella wife of Walter Newdigate
should be assigned as a daughter of Thomas Hampden, Esq.". But his
actual words were "Can anyone help to clarify whether there are one or
two Thomas Hampdens here - and, if two, what's the ancestry and
marriage of Sir Thomas of Baddesley?". JH asked an open ended question.
> Now you're trying to change the question "MCA Addition?" into something
> else.
I don't think this is in any way justified. An open ended question was
asked; much the same question is still being asked. DR has seen fit to
ignore the full question and just concentrate on denying a proposal
that was only under consideration; DR has not answered the interesting
question about the probable father of Isabella Hampden. I do not think
that anyone can say that JH has been trying to change the question.
(Looks like another soc.gen.med apology should be demanded.)
> Geez, John, admit your mistake and get on with it.
What mistake has he made? If anything JH has been a model of care in
not jumping to conclusions but merely asking for clarification of
alternative scenarios. That request to "admit your mistake" should be
withdrawn, it is completely unwarranted.
> This is one van de Pas blooper that won't be added to my database!
There is no mistake that JH has made, so why bring LvdP into it? Let's
muse on the reasons:
1. It might be a smokespreen to hide that DR does not know the answers
to JH's questions.
2. It might be a smokescreen to hide that DR has (or maybe hasn't, I do
not know what was in the book) made a modest mistake in saying the
Thos Hampden and Margery Popham only had one child.
3. It is merely another occasion when his jealousy at the high
regard with which we all (well, mostly all) view LvdP gets the
better of him.