Thomas Holcombe's parentage

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Thomas Holcombe's parentage as son of Gilbert Holcombe and Anne Courtenay is believed to have been debunked by McCracken. However, I think he may have been wrong.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/HOLCOMB/2002-05/1021081340 is no longer available but it's been copied elsewhere in the web. It was: "Rodd,

Royal Ancestors of some American Families, compiled by Michael L Call states that the line of Thomas Holcombe was refuted in The American Genealogist (TAG) 26:109-08, 57:65-67. I have not seen these articles.

About 5 years ago I copied a note (see below) that states that Thomas was the son of Gilbert and Ann. I have not idea which one is correct. I hope that some one will be able to furnish proof, one way or the other. I have lost contact with Lorin Synder

Earl in VA

04-02-97 From: Lorin A. Snyder 01:43 PM

Date: Wednesday, 02-Apr-97 01:43 PM
From: Lorin A. Snyder \ Internet:(sny...@acadl.stvincent.edu)
To:Messenger Family Genealogy List \ Internet:
(mess...@rmgate.pop.indiana.edu)
Subject: MESSENGER-related families
Hello,

On a side-note, dealing with MESSENGER-related families, there is news. I know a bunch of us on this list descend from the Connecticut HOLCOMBE family, via Catherine HOLCOMBE, wife of Joseph MESSENGER and Experience HOLCOMBE, wife of Nathaniel ALFORD. Catherine and Experience were first cousins once removed.

The progenitor of said HOLCOMBE family was Thomas HOLCOMBE, who married Mrs. Elizabeth FERGUSON. For some time, it had been said that Thomas was *likely* the son of Gilbert and Anne (Courtenay) HOLCOMBE, both of incredible royal lineage. However, one problem with that claim was the plaque of HOLCOMBE ancestry above the tomb of Sir John de HOLCOMBE, Knight of the Third Crusade and ancestor of Gilbert HOLCOMBE. Thomas was not included on that plaque (although neither were some others who claimed descent).

Well, I have been informed by a HOLCOMBE researcher, to my complete surprise, that the missing part of that plaque has been found. A brother of Gilbert emigrated from England, (eventually his ancestors ended up in Australia), and had taken part with them. In 1995, that plaque was discovered and did, in fact, have Thomas Holcombe as the son of Gilbert and Anne (COURTENAY) HOLCOMBE.

I have a *monstrous* file on the ancestors of Gilbert and Anne, and am still in the process of putting it all together. As it goes through Charlemagne, among those in many other royal houses, some of the ancestry goes back to the first couple centuries A.D. King Alfred the Great's ancestry, from a book written in the 900's, goes back to B.C. time.

I have tons of ancestors of my MESSENGERS and related colonial families (including some not on your page, Debbie). I could see what I can do about posting lineages.

Lorin Snyder sny...@acadl.stvincent.edu"

I know this mention of an anonymous researcher may not be very convincing but there's also https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/421529/gilbert-holcombe-courtenay-parents-thomas-holcombe-windsor?show=482409#a482409, that casts doubts on the question of Gilbert Holcombe's inheritance ruling out him having had children.

IMO, this may show that Thomas Holcombe's parentage as son of Gilbert Holcombe and Anne Courtenay was not impossible, like McCracken believed it to be. What do you think?

[taf]

I think it is a mess. What is this plaque that supposedly carried an account of the descendants of a 12th century knight down to the 17th century? What _exactly_ does it say about Thomas? Does it explicitly refer to the New England man, or just to _a person_ named Thomas Holcombe who was son of Gilbert? When was it made? Is it a contemporary record of some sort or might it have been made after Americans became convinced of the identification? Without knowing what exactly this antipodean discovery contains, who can say what it means.

There is a long history in tracing the origins of New England immigrants of simply finding someone in England with the same given name and proclaiming them identical, and then putting the burden onto critics to prove it is wrong. I am not sure how this identification ever came to be viewed as 'probable', before it was 'disproved', but I suspect there isn't any actual evidence for it to begin with. If your person was named something unusual, like Gamaliel Beamont, Lazarus Manley, Jasper More, Ephraim Tinckecombe or Thankthelord Sheppard, then a name's-the-same identification might have a reasonable chance of being correct, all other things being equal, but with Thomas being one of the most common English names at this time, finding a Thomas Holcombe about whom it is 'not impossible' he was the immigrant leaves me decidedly underwhelmed.

taf

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Dear Todd, read https://www.holcombegenealogy.com/g0/p3.htm#i111 for more on the idea that Thomas Holcombe was son of Gilbert Holcombe and Anne Courtenay. It was simply listed by two writers, without any sources. However, McCracken showed in 1950 that a visitation shows Gilbert to have died without issue. However, decades later, a missing piece of a plate was supposedly found showing a Thomas as son of Gilbert Holcombe and Anne Courtenay. There's, thus, a contradiction as to whether Gilbert and Anne had children or not. Also, as I noted, the Wikitree answer that I linked to shows that there are problems with the visitation showing Gilbert as having died without issue. What do you think of that answer?

[taf]

On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 4:38:42 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> Dear Todd, read https://www.holcombegenealogy.com/g0/p3.htm#i111
> for more on the idea that Thomas Holcombe was son of Gilbert
> Holcombe and Anne Courtenay. It was simply listed by two writers,
> without any sources.

That's what I thought. There was a whole lot of this going on in the 19th century and early 20th centuries. We have an immigrant, we have no idea where he came from so let's look for anyone with the same name in English records and that must be our person. And since parish registers were not readily accessible, the source of choice was the visitations. You find someone with the same surname in the visitations, and, particularly if they had a royal descent or married someone with a famous surname, they must be the parents of the immigrant. Time after time you see these slipshod identifications, that are treated as if they have a basis.

> However, McCracken showed in 1950 that a visitation shows Gilbert
> to have died without issue. However, decades later, a missing piece
> of a plate was supposedly found showing a Thomas as son of Gilbert
> Holcombe and Anne Courtenay. There's, thus, a contradiction as to
> whether Gilbert and Anne had children or not. Also, as I noted, the
> Wikitree answer that I linked to shows that there are problems with
> the visitation showing Gilbert as having died without issue. What
> do you think of that answer?

The author of the wikitree essay does not believe it is wishful thinking to take a will that names a brother-in-law as heir and come up with a scenario involving a young teen leaving home and being disinherited to explain it away. It is wishful thinking. In all probability, someone looking for the immigrant found the Holcombe pedigree in Vivian's book, and simply decided that is where the immigrant must belong, because it is the only Holcombe family they found and genealogy abhors a vacuum. Rather than trying to come up with explanations why Thomas could be son of Gilbert in spite of the evidence, we should be going at it from the other end - is there any reason to think that immigrant Thomas was son of Gilbert. Even if Gilbert did have a son Thomas, we need evidence he was _the_ Thomas - again, Thomas was one of the most popular names in England, so the immigrant was unlikely to be the only contemporary with that name.

THere is an issue with the visitation. I am not convince that the Visitation of Devon actually names Gilbert. One has to understand that Vivian's work is not just a transcript of the visitations, it is a collection of Devonshire pedigrees based on the visitations and whatever else Vivian could find. He _says_ that Gilbert's name is taken from the 1564 visitation of Devon, and lists three Harleian manuscripts from which he took the information. The problem is, the 1564 visitation of Devon has been separately published by Colby, and he shows no Holcombe pedigree in it. Unfortunately Colby doesn't identify the source for his volume. The Harleian manuscripts used for all these volumes were mostly copies by later antiquarians who each added information to the pedigrees. Either Colby accidentally skipped it, or it was an addition to one of the manuscripts Vivian used, not found in the original visitation. If it was an addition, who knows when it was added or by whom - one would have to track down the manuscript histories of the visitation documents cited by Vivian (maybe as simple as looking at Vivian's forward, but I can't be bothered right now). I think based on its seeming correspondence to baptismal records as shown by Vivian, that it was probably there, that Colby (or the manuscript he was publishing from) somehow lost it.

One of the main arguments that the essayists makes is that Gilbert leaving things to his brother-in-law is anomalous, because no sisters appear in the visitation pedigree, and he would have had nephews by the two listed brothers to whom he would preferentially have given money. However, we have no idea that those brothers survived beyond childhood, married and had children. Further, since the pedigree is supposedly from the 1564 visitation, there could have been any number of children born after that date, plus, since they were cranking out children, there may have been daughters already, that the visitor did not list - the Cornwall pedigree of Anne's family didn't name her - the was added by Vivian, perhaps based on the will of her father that Vivian seems to have consulted (but would now be lost). Finally, who are we to conclude that a childless Gilbert 'should have' left his property to nephews, if they existed, in preference to a brother-in-law?

Then there is chronology. Gilbert was the oldest of three sons born to parents who married in June 1559. His younger brother was baptized in Jan 1560/1, so unless the bride was already pregnant, we just have room for two 9-month gestations, meaning Gilbert was born in March 1559/60, or maybe early April. That would make him 45-49 at the time (1605-1609) that the wikitree essay puts the birth of immigrant Thomas. Not impossible, but for an only known son, rather late. Immigrant Thomas seems to belong an extra generation down the pedigree.

So no, I find this argument entirely unconvincing.

And just to be pedantic, Vivian should not have written that Peter d.s.p. That he left his property to a brother-in-law is strong evidence he had no progeny at that time, but he would have been 64 years old, and may well have had a son Thomas, like on the plaque, who was already dead (but not if that son were the immigrant, as he lived much longer)

So, I am not going to give this the benefit of the doubt and enter it in my pedigree unless/until some _actual evidence_ surfaces.

taf

[Vance Mead]

There is a pedigree of Holcombe in the 1620 Visitation of Devon showing Gilbert Holcombe of Hull, son of Thomas Holcombe and Margaret Trethurfe of Cornwall. But it doesn't give any children for Gilbert.

Page 345
https://archive.org/details/visitationcount02camdgoog/page/n363/mode/2up

[taf]

Ah. This pedigree was not a part of the visitation of 1620. If I am reading the preface correctly, this pedigree is from a group of supplementary pedigrees added to a copy of the 1620 visitation made by John Withie, painter-stainer of London (Harleian 1080), with the additional pedigrees coming from Harvey's visitation of 1565. This is one of the mss Vivian claims as a source for his own information, though there are differences, perhaps due to copying errors. That would appear to be one mystery solved - this does appear to be authentic visitation data, as I suspected from the seeming correlation with marriage and baptismal records.

taf

[taf]

Just to explicitly address Vance's last point. Since the pedigree is actually from 1565, when Gilbert was 5 years old, the absence of a marriage or children has no probative value.

taf

[Vance Mead]

This has additional information "from Pole and Westcote", including his marriage to Anne Courtenay, his death without issue at Milor, Cornwall, and his nuncupative will of 1623, probate 1624.

Page 474:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002002213917&view=1up&seq=488

[taf]

The copy of Colby's 1564 visitation I was looking at was missing the preface. Finding a better copy, there he explains that his volume is derived from the 1564 visitation, with additional pedigrees from the 1535 visitation (actually just Devon-related pedigrees extracted from Benolte's broader visitation of the Southwest, covering Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset). This 1564 visitation collection is derived from a group of later manuscript copies, distinct from the manuscript that had the '1565 visitation' as a supplement (except he did take one pedigree from the 1565 ms for his 1564 volume, presumably one he realized he had omitted).

Vivian says he is basing this part of his Holcombe pedigree on the 1564 visitation, and cites three manuscripts, but one of these is listed by Colby as a source for his 1564 visitation, while another is the basis for the supplementary pedigrees in the 1620 visitation that includes the Holcombe pedigree. Given that Vivian is citing exact pages in the manuscripts, it would seem that the Holcombe pedigree was in both, and Colby did not include it in his 1564 volume drawn from one of them because he had already included it in his earlier 1620 volume drawn from the other - these manuscripts are derived from the same original visitation, but due to a quirk in the way Colby harvested his material from different manuscript copies ended up split between his two volumes.

taf

[taf]

I don't think any of this actually comes from Pole or Westcote. I only find passing mention of Holcombe in Westcote (an heiress of Huish married a Holcombe, and a Donne heiress married a Holcombe, and someone else married a Holcombe daughter). I don't have a link to check Pole (when last I made a concerted effort to find it online, I could only find a Google listing that allowed no view).

The marriage seems to be sourced to his Cornwall visitation volume, and based on the description there, it is probably from the will of Peter Courtenay (probated locally). All of the other details in Gilbert's entry relate to his own PCC will, so there is nothing there that would need to come from an antiquarian source.

taf

[taf]

On Monday, April 13, 2020 at 8:30:39 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> I don't think any of this actually comes from Pole or Westcote. I only find passing mention of Holcombe in Westcote (an heiress of Huish married a Holcombe, and a Donne heiress married a Holcombe, and someone else married a Holcombe daughter). I don't have a link to check Pole (when last I made a concerted effort to find it online, I could only find a Google listing that allowed no view).
>

OK, Pole can now be viewed on Google - in describing Hole (Hull) he mentions Gilbert, but nothing Vivian uses. "HOLE. Hole lieth in Branscomb, & was some tyme thenheritance [sic] of the name of De la Hole; but after it came unto the name of Holcomb, wch contynewed their 7 discents, & the last Gilbert Holcomb sold it unto Ellis Bartlett." Pole died in 1635, so this is near-contemporary testimony.

taf

[taf]

Following up on the Hole/Branscombe connection, I note that the parish registers of Branscombe name several 16th and 17th century Holcombs not present in Vivian's pedigree, but nothing all that illuminating.

I also found an account of Hole House that, after it provides a ridiculous 'Saxon bowman who fought at Hastings' origin story for the Holcombes says two interesting things. One is something I had speculated about myself, that the surname probably arose at this location - Hole combe. The second is that "Evidence of this continued occupation can still be found on a stone mantelpiece lintel in one of the front bedrooms where, in 1577, three of the Holcomb children carved their names." Too bad the author didn't provide the names.

https://books.google.com/books?id=d8afjNvnJbQC&pg=PA197

taf

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Thing is, the Wikitree answer does bring up an interesting question: Who was Gilbert Holcombe's brother-in-law Richard Bonithon? Gilbert doesn't appear to have had any sisters. Richard could have been a brother-in-law of Anne but it looks unlikely that Gilbert would have left him his inheritance considering that he had brothers and nephews. What do you think of that?

[taf]

On Monday, April 13, 2020 at 12:00:07 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> Thing is, the Wikitree answer does bring up an interesting question: Who was
> Gilbert Holcombe's brother-in-law Richard Bonithon? Gilbert doesn't appear to
> have had any sisters.

Based on a record from 1565, just 6 years after the parents were married. On what basis do we conclude there were no children born thereafter? We know that Gilbert's father died before 1685, so there could even be half-sisters who are not even Holcombes. Then there is the possibility that Anne died and Gilbert remarried to a Bonython.

> Richard could have been a brother-in-law of Anne but it looks unlikely that
> Gilbert would have left him his inheritance considering that he had brothers
> and nephews. What do you think of that?

Why do we think we get to decide whom Gilbert would have left his land to? He had moved away from Branscombe perhaps as early as the time of his marriage. And was geographically separated from his family. I have seen a number of wills where a childless person left their entire estate to someone who took care of them in their later years, rather than a non-immediate family member.

For what it's worth, Josias married at Branscombe in 1693, and is presumably the man having a daughter the same year at Heavitree, but that is all I have been able to find about him, so there may not be a nephew there. Christopher had a daughter in Branscombe in 1590 by wife Barbara, and then disappears from Devon, but a Christopher had children in Cornwall from 1596 to 1604, including a son Josias. He could be the Josias Holcome married in Plymouth in 1627, having three daughters. A Christopher had a son in London in 1609. So, probably one nephew, maybe two, but if Gilbert and Christopher fell out, then there would be no legacy.

You are right though. The key is Bonython - that name, shared by an immigrant to Maine, is the only thing that suggests this was the family from which immigrant Thomas derived, rather than the Bridgewater or Symondsborough Holcombe families using the name Thomas in the 1570s, or the Rye Holcombe family using the name Nathaniel, like the immigrant, in 1650. That Richard Bonython was a full 20 years younger than Gilbert, and there is a much better candidate: Richard Bonython of what Vivian calls the Bonython of Carclew.

This Richard had close familial ties with Mylor, where Gilbert was living when he wrote his will. This Richard's mother was buried at Mylor in 1601, his brother John left a legacy to the poor there in 1628, and his sister Katherine was married there in 1615. There is a strong possibility this is the Richard named by Gilbert, and if so, this family was only distantly related to the immigrant's family, too far back to be remembered. That would mean that the one and only thing that at least hinted at a connection between Thomas and Gilbert, that Gilbert had a kinsman who was also an immigrant, disappears.

taf

[taf]

On Monday, April 13, 2020 at 2:36:18 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> there is a much better candidate: Richard Bonython of what Vivian calls the Bonython of Carclew.
>
> This Richard had close familial ties with Mylor, where Gilbert was living when he wrote his will. This Richard's mother was buried at Mylor in 1601, his brother John left a legacy to the poor there in 1628, and his sister Katherine was married there in 1615. There is a strong possibility this is the Richard named by Gilbert, and if so, this family was only distantly related to the immigrant's family, too far back to be remembered. That would mean that the one and only thing that at least hinted at a connection between Thomas and Gilbert, that Gilbert had a kinsman who was also an immigrant, disappears.
>

Just as a followup, this Richard of Carclew is certainly the brother-in-law in question. Carclew is in Mylor, and Richard was its heir. He is named in the will of his grandfather (Vivian, 44), and that of his mother names three of Richard's children, including John (Olivey, Notes on the Parish of Mylor, 233). Richard and heir John executed a release in 1629 [Roy. Inst. Corn. HU/7/31], while in 1607 a life lease was executed to Richard, Alice his wife, and John their sons [Corn Stud Serv ME/1197]. Much later, in 1663, someone launched a suit against the estate of Gilbert Holcombe, and the defendants were Peter Courtney and John Bonythorn, esq (i.e. the heir of Richard) [TNA C 5/498/69].

Another relevant document - in 1596, a lease was executed for three lives, to Gilbert, his wife Anne, and his brother Josias, of 70 acres in Branscombe that had been in the tenure of Elizabeth Holcombe, widow (i.e. Gilbert's grandmother) [Devon Arch. 123M/L1282].

taf

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

What do you think of the Thomas Holcombe profile that I like to mentioning that a writer argued that the immigrant Thomas Holcombe was, actually, son of Christopher Holcombe and, thus, nephew of Gilbert Holcombe? He argues that the dates and the marriage attributed to Christopher's son were, actually, of the London actor, who is mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Men_personnel. Frankly, like you mentioned before, I think this is a mess.

[taf]

I can only see Snippets, but there is a privately printed work by Eric Glenie Bonython, "History of the Families of Bonython and Bonython of Carclew", 1966. It begins CHapter IV, on page 169, with "Richard Bonython, brother of Hannibal and the others, was baptised on 27 February 1581. He married Alice, daughter of Peter Courtney, of Trethurfe, in Landrake".

This is the Richard of Carclew I have been talking about, son of John Bonython and Katherine (Vivian). There doesn't seem to be any source cited for the marriage, but later (p. 171) he reports that Richard was named in a 1661 case between his son John Bonython and Peter Courtney.

Another couple of tidbits - the Will of Peter Courtney, 1605, names Gilbert Holcombe as one of the overseers, and was witnessed by Josias Holcombe.
An index of Proceeding in the Court of Requests, James I, includes an entry, 411/64, for Gilbert Holcombe, Josias Holcombe, and Katherine (Lowman), wife of Josias Holcombe and sometime wife of John Ducke. This record is also indexed unter 'Ireland: persons of, journeying or escaping into", and Sir Francis Godolphin. It has a second, 405/74, for just Gilbert and Katherine. a third, 301/80, also has an entry for John Lowman (mentioning his daughter Katherine Holcombe), and for Heavitree, Devon.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WP7fAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA176
(Vivian has this dual marriage under a Thomas Lowman)

taf

[taf]

On Monday, April 13, 2020 at 6:05:15 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> What do you think of the Thomas Holcombe profile that I like to mentioning that a writer argued that the immigrant Thomas Holcombe was, actually, son of Christopher Holcombe and, thus, nephew of Gilbert Holcombe? He argues that the dates and the marriage attributed to Christopher's son were, actually, of the London actor, who is mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Men_personnel. Frankly, like you mentioned before, I think this is a mess.

Same problem. Why does everyone insist on trying to force immigrant Thomas into this family? If you start with the assumption that if he wasn't Gilbert's son he must have been his nephew, you are already leaving objectivity behind. If the wild guess was groundless to begin with, there is no validity to slightly modify the wild guess and trying to make it work - groundless is groundless.

taf

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

According to https://www.holcombegenealogy.com/g0/p72.htm#i3588, Deanna Holcombe Browman concluded that in her book's second volume after years of research. Her first volume, as shown in my other link, concluded that he may have been from Bridgewater. Who were the Bridgewater Holcombes that you previously refered to? I searched and all mentions of Holcombes in Bridgwater appear to be connected to the Holcombes from Devon and Cornwall.

[taf]

On Saturday, April 18, 2020 at 4:35:46 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> terça-feira, 14 de Abril de 2020 às 02:33:44 UTC+1, taf escreveu:

> > Why does everyone insist on trying to force immigrant Thomas into this family?
>

> According to https://www.holcombegenealogy.com/g0/p72.htm#i3588, Deanna
> Holcombe Browman concluded that in her book's second volume after years
> of research.

You don't get credit for trying. If she spent years of effort trying to find where in Gilbert's family Thomas fit, then the effort was hopelessly biased from the start.

> Her first volume, as shown in my other link, concluded that he may have
> been from Bridgewater. Who were the Bridgewater Holcombes that you
> previously refered to? I searched and all mentions of Holcombes in
> Bridgwater appear to be connected to the Holcombes from Devon and Cornwall.

I was just looking at the identifying locations given in PCC wills. I am not saying there isn't a connection if you go back far enough, just that this targeted effort to find him in Gilbert's immediate family has no basis - He is son of Gilbert, just because in the 1800s someone apparently saw that Gilbert made a prominent marriage and decided that placing immigrant Thomas there would give him important ancestors. If we now conclude he was not son of Gilbert, there is no reason whatsoever to limit our search, to look for ways to tweak this 'hypothesis' that was completely groundless to begin with.

If Beanna Holcombe Browman actually looked at every single Thomas in the country she could find record of and decided that of all of them, Gilbert's nephew seemed the best match, that still falls short of proving his origin, but at least it is systematic approach. If as I suspect, however, she went about it by asking 'He wasn't son of Gilbert, so let's see if one of his brothers had a Thomas we can connect the immigrant to' then she was doing the kind of genealogy that often results in flawed pedigrees, going into it with the conclusion already set in her mind and then just trying to 'make it work'. We see this again and again with name's-the-same identifications of colonists, when the old groundless conclusion proves impossible, people just look at that person's immediate family for someone of the same name, notwithstanding the fact that there was never any evidence to link the immigrant to this family to begin with. It has been done with the Nortons, and it has been done with the Baldwins, just to name two that immediately come to mind, and it looks to me like the same pattern is playing out with the Holcombes.

taf

[Vance Mead]

Here is some information about Holcombe in Bridgwater.

Thomas Holcombe, of Bridgwater, dead by 1561, executor John Holcombe
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/Eliz/KB27no1198/aKB27no1198fronts/IMG_0397.htm

John Holcombe, of Bridgwater, yeoman, 1572 (PCC)
Wife Grace
Sons Thomas, Edward, William

William Holcombe, of Bridgwater, merchant, 1617 (PCC)
Daughters Mary, Grace
Son William
Wife Mary

William Holcombe, of Bridgwater, merchant, 1622 (PCC)
Mother Mary
Sisters Mary, Grace

Thomas, son of John Holcombe, born before 1572, would be too old to be the immigrant to Connecticut.

Unfortunately there are few wills surviving for Somerset.

[Vance Mead]

There are two baptisms of a Thomas Holcombe recorded in Bridgwater St Mary:

1 November 1567
13 June 1574

The first one is probably the son of John, the second one I don't know.