Keene/Gosnold
Burgin
discussion of this subject and possibly bring more facts to light. The
immigrant Thomas Keene (to Kent Island, Maryland ca. 1638, then to
Northumberland County, Virginia ca. 1652), was born ca. 1593, married
Mary, probably the daughter of Edward and Mary Thorley, and died in
Northumberland County Jan. 16, 1652/3. Thomas the immigrant has
frequently been identified as the son of Thomas Keene of Otley, Suffolk,
who married before 1593 Elizabeth Gosnold, daughter of Robert Gosnold
III (died 1615 in Earlshall, Suffolk) and his wife Ursula Naunton (died
before 1616 in Otley). Ursula Naunton Gosnold was the daughter of
William Naunton of Alderton, Suffolk and his wife Elizabeth Wingfield
(died 1592). Elizabeth Wingfield Naunton's parents were Sir Anthony
Wingfield of Lethringham, Suffolk, K.G., and Elizabeth de Vere, daughter
of Sir George de Vere and Margaret Stafford. Sir Anthony's mother was
Anne Touchet, daughter of John Touchet, Baron Audley, and Anne
Echingham. If this identification is correct, Thomas Keene the
immigrant was a descendant, through the Wingfield, Vere, Touchet, and
related lines, from many of the noble and royal families of England and
Europe, so the question of his parentage is very relevant to this list.
Both Terri Smith and I have corresponded off-list with Douglas
Richardson, and he has advised us both, without citing any specific
problems, that the identification was shaky and the line flawed. In a
recent e-mail to her Douglas mentioned a "chronology problem", again
without being specific.
Robert Gosnold III's will, proved in 1615, left an annuity of eight
pounds to "Elizabeth Keene, my daughter, the wife of Thomas Keene", and
also left 20 pounds to "Thomas Keene my grandchild". I have not been
able to find any chronological problem with the commonly accepted line.
Terri and I both appreciate the advice Douglas has given us, and we
would not presume to distract him any further from the important work on
his book. At the same time, we are reluctant to abandon all those
great noble/royal ancestors without some specific evidence against
them. We want to get it right. The evidence is admittedly scarce,
but it seems to me to support the generally accepted line.
Any comments or suggestions would be very welcome.
Ramond Burgin
Big Stone Gap, Virginia
Sources:
Fleet, Beverley, _Virginia Colonial Abstracts_, Vol. 2, _Northumberland
County Records 1652-1655_ (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1961).
Gookin, Warner F., The Ancestry of Bartholomew Gosnold, _NEHGR_ 105:5-22
(1951).
Gookin, Warner F., Notes on the Gosnold Family, _Virginia Magazine_
57:307-315 (1949).
Lea, J. Henry, Genealogical Gleanings Among the English Archives,
_NEHGR_ 56:402-407 (1902).
Metcalfe, Walter C. (ed.), _The Visitations of Suffolk. . .[1612]_
(Exeter: William Pollard, 1882).
Ritchie, Ruth, and Wood, Sudie Rucker, _Garner-Keene Families of
Northern Neck Virginia_ (Charlottesville, VA: Jarman, 1952).
Withington, Lothrop, Virginia Gleanings in England, _Virginia Magazine_
14:87 (1907).
Sutliff
of mine), but the problem as I recall it is that we have a man in England
and a man in America with the same name, but nothing to document that they
were the same person. This is the crux of the problem and why there is a
reluctance to accept it. There just doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence
to link the two which is why it seems to fail and why it is not accepted.
This is frequently the problem with many American gateway immigrants where a
person of the same name was found in England and the gateway immigrant was
assumed to be the same person without sufficient evidence.
There are many of these similar identity problems and why some are accepted
and others not is uncertain and confusing to most. For example, Gary Boyd
Roberts in RD500:163 has published the descent from Edward III to Margaret
Davis of Bucks Co, Pennsylvania. This is based on a book by Arthur Edwin Bye
which does not include a single citation of support to this claim (the book
has no specific citations and only some generalized lists of sources
consulted). Mardi Carter and I have found other problematic descents and
wrong placements in the Bye book, yet for some unfathomable reason, this
line has not been dropped. IMHO this line should never have been included in
the first place as Bye's medieval scholarship and lack of citation was
insufficient to warrant inclusion. However, there it is still in print while
the Keene line (which if documented would descend from Edward I) is not. Go
figure.
Some of those presenting these ancestries were not genealogical scholars,
but those trying to sell books and they were able to hook subscribers by
selling them Royal ancestries (my Beckwith and Lyon ancestry and their false
Royal Descents fall into this category). This was the usual appeal to one's
vanity of being better than others by virtue of their bloodline. This tactic
was almost irresistible and too tempting for most to pass up. Some of the
genealogists for pay may have also needed these claims for their own vanity
which is why certain scholars have better reputations and why others' work
has not stood the test of time or scrutiny. It is regrettable that too many
seem to find Royal Descents as some sort of validation of themselves. That
is why so many cannot give up false descents and why there is so much really
bad genealogy on the internet.
Sadly false and manufactured ancestries have worked too well as many of
these are still with us. The inability to relinquish undocumented or
adequately documented lines are one of the greatest problems faced in
medieval and gateway research and cause probably more hostility and
disappointment than any other factor.
From personal experience I have lost all my "descents" from Edward III (plus
the false Beckwith and Lyon ancestries mentioned above) from faulty sources.
However, this was only temporarily disappointing as research is all about
finding out who our ancestors were not who we might have wanted them to be.
Please do not infer from my comments that I am suggesting you are trying to
force a solution or claim an ancestry that is not yours. It is clear you are
trying to understand where the identification fails. In this instance it
would seem to be whether there are one or two Thomas Keenes. What is needed
is proof that both are the same man. Absent that, it unfortunately fails.
Good luck in your research,
Henry Sutliff
(who has actually been to Big Stone Gap)
"Burgin" <bur...@mounet.com> wrote in message
news:3DDC054E...@mounet.com...
Reedpcgen
Robert Gosnald, the 1615 testator of Earlsham, Suffolk, married Ursula Naunton
about 1560, as he had one son, Robert, born by the time the Visitation was
drawn up in 1562. He had three more sons and two daughters born by 20 Oct.
1572, when they were mentioned in the will of Robert Gosnold the elder of
Otley, the sons being Robert, John, Richard and Edmond, the daughters being
Elizabeth and Dorothy.
Elizabeth was the eldest daughter, and thus would have been born some time
between 1562 and 1570, possibly closer to 1562. That might mean a marriage to
Thomas Keene by about 1590. As eldest daughter (more children followed after
1572), her marriage would have been well looked after and arranged before she
was too old.
This would bode well for her sons Henry and Thomas being born before 1600. But
as Hap pointed out, though we have the same names, is there any reason to
conlcude this Thomas Keene was the immigrant?
I have already pointed out that his cousin Bartholomew Gosnold was a chief
organizer of the Virginia Company, discovered Martha's Vineyard (named after
his daughter), and died at Jamestown in 1607. There was another cousin,
Anthony Gosnold, who was in Virginia in 1615 (mentioned in his grandfather
Robert's will). Anthony would therefore be cousin of this Thomas Keene.
But the IGI shows quite a number of boys named Thomas Keene born 1590-1600.
I did not have a chance to check Crozier's Virginia Heraldica. Is there
evidence the Virginia Keene's bore a certain coat-of-arms?
Also, no Keene was listed at Otley in the 1636 list of Able Men of Suffolk.
What evidence is there concerning the family of Thomas Keene, husband of
Elizabeth Gosnold? This is what needs to be scrutinized.
I glanced at the indexes to wills in the PCC 1615-1652, Archdeaconries of
Sudbury and Suffolk and Consistory of Norwich (indexes all in print), but saw
nothing that looked helpful.
Paul
L Mahler
> It has been a few years since I have worked on this line (which is not one
> of mine), but the problem as I recall it is that we have a man in England
> and a man in America with the same name, but nothing to document that they
> were the same person. This is the crux of the problem and why there is a
> reluctance to accept it. There just doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence
> to link the two which is why it seems to fail and why it is not accepted.
> This is frequently the problem with many American gateway immigrants where a
> person of the same name was found in England and the gateway immigrant was
> assumed to be the same person without sufficient evidence.
Its been stated before: The accepted royal descents for colonists can
be found in the following sources: Roberts, Royal Descents of 500
Immigrants (some of which have since been eliminated); Weiss,
Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists; Faris, Plantagenet
Ancestry; and recently published royal descents
in the noted periodicals.
Everything outside of these sources has failed.
> There are many of these similar identity problems and why some are accepted
> and others not is uncertain and confusing to most. For example, Gary Boyd
> Roberts in RD500:163 has published the descent from Edward III to Margaret
> Davis of Bucks Co, Pennsylvania. This is based on a book by Arthur Edwin Bye
> which does not include a single citation of support to this claim (the book
> has no specific citations and only some generalized lists of sources
> consulted). Mardi Carter and I have found other problematic descents and
> wrong placements in the Bye book, yet for some unfathomable reason, this
> line has not been dropped. IMHO this line should never have been included in
> the first place as Bye's medieval scholarship and lack of citation was
> insufficient to warrant inclusion. However, there it is still in print while
> the Keene line (which if documented would descend from Edward I) is not. Go
> figure.
I do believe that in one of his online columns, Gary said the Bye /
Davis descent would be deleted.
> Some of those presenting these ancestries were not genealogical scholars,
> but those trying to sell books and they were able to hook subscribers by
> selling them Royal ancestries (my Beckwith and Lyon ancestry and their false
> Royal Descents fall into this category). This was the usual appeal to one's
> vanity of being better than others by virtue of their bloodline. This tactic
> was almost irresistible and too tempting for most to pass up. Some of the
> genealogists for pay may have also needed these claims for their own vanity
> which is why certain scholars have better reputations and why others' work
> has not stood the test of time or scrutiny. It is regrettable that too many
> seem to find Royal Descents as some sort of validation of themselves. That
> is why so many cannot give up false descents and why there is so much really
> bad genealogy on the internet.
>
> Sadly false and manufactured ancestries have worked too well as many of
> these are still with us. The inability to relinquish undocumented or
> adequately documented lines are one of the greatest problems faced in
> medieval and gateway research and cause probably more hostility and
> disappointment than any other factor.
Good examples: Mary, wife of William Brewster of the Mayflower, is of
unknown parentage.
The same is true for Edward Southworth, father of Constant and Thomas
of
Plymouth, Mass.
> From personal experience I have lost all my "descents" from Edward III (plus
> the false Beckwith and Lyon ancestries mentioned above) from faulty sources.
> However, this was only temporarily disappointing as research is all about
> finding out who our ancestors were not who we might have wanted them to be.
But I think you have a descent via Oliver Mainwaring.
Leslie
John Steele Gordon
"L Mahler" <lma...@att.net> wrote in message
news:9bb1d741.0211...@posting.google.com...
> "Sutliff" <ss...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > From personal experience I have lost all my "descents" from Edward III
(plus
> > the false Beckwith and Lyon ancestries mentioned above) from faulty
sources.
> > However, this was only temporarily disappointing as research is all
about
> > finding out who our ancestors were not who we might have wanted them to
be.
>
> But I think you have a descent via Oliver Mainwaring.
Has there been a development on this since Todd Farmerie's article on the
subject in TAG (76:1, Jan. 2001)?
Todd proved that Manwaring's ancestor, Robert Holand, Bastard of Exeter,
can't be the son of Henry Holand, 3rd Duke of Exeter, from whom he received
land, but that the grant of land itself indicated that there was a
relationship between the two. If Robert were the son of Henry's father, the
2nd Duke, he would have an Edward III descent through his grandmother
Elizabeth, daughter of John of Gaunt. If he was the bastard of the 1st Duke,
however, he would have an Edward I but no Edward III.
Has his paternity now been clarified and I somehow missed it?
JSG
Burgin
Thank you very much for your comments on this problem. I really
appreciate your taking the time and trouble to share your expertise.
I guess we'll keep looking.
Ramond
PS: Henry, the next time you're in Big Stone Gap, look me up.
Sutliff
"L Mahler" <lma...@att.net> wrote in message
news:9bb1d741.0211...@posting.google.com...
Glad to hear this as I had recomended this some time ago. Without citation
it is just not any more valid than the Keene descent which is not accepted.
Ugh! She is one of mine. A while back I checked out the IGI and found that
more than 100 people had submitted Mary Wentworth or Mary Wyrall as wife of
William Brewster. There are also an extraordinary number of submissions of
Constance Dudley as wife of Stephen Hopkins and William White is found to
have four sets of parents.
>
> The same is true for Edward Southworth, father of Constant and Thomas
> of
> Plymouth, Mass.
>
>
> > From personal experience I have lost all my "descents" from Edward III
(plus
> > the false Beckwith and Lyon ancestries mentioned above) from faulty
sources.
> > However, this was only temporarily disappointing as research is all
about
> > finding out who our ancestors were not who we might have wanted them to
be.
>
> But I think you have a descent via Oliver Mainwaring.
It is conceivable that Oliver's ancestor Robert Holand, Bastard of Exeter
might be a son of John Holand, 3rd Duke of Exeter, but until this is
resolved with prooof, it is only a possibility.
The ancestry of Oliver's ancestor Petronell Chudleigh, wife of Anthony
Pollard is found in Weis and RD500. Private correspondence suggests that
they are sufficiently problematic that they should be dropped as well. These
days it is all subtractions, but better than having faulty data.
Thanks for your comments.
>
> Leslie
>
Sutliff
the Welsh properties he held have given any further certainty.
HS
"John Steele Gordon" <ance...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:OWuD9.17006$op6....@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Sutliff
find the missing piece. One door may close, but another might open. That's
what this quest is all about. There are a lot of disappointments along the
way, but once in a while you can hit the mother lode and that more than
makes up for it.
Henry
"Burgin" <bur...@mounet.com> wrote in message
news:3DDEA650...@mounet.com...
L Mahler
> > Good examples: Mary, wife of William Brewster of the Mayflower, is of
> > unknown parentage.
>
> Ugh! She is one of mine. A while back I checked out the IGI and found that
> more than 100 people had submitted Mary Wentworth or Mary Wyrall as wife of
> William Brewster. There are also an extraordinary number of submissions of
> Constance Dudley as wife of Stephen Hopkins and William White is found to
> have four sets of parents.
Yes, I had to bring that one up, as its a very good example.
It would have been nice if John Hunt had left her origin as a blank,
instead
of making up various theories.
> > But I think you have a descent via Oliver Mainwaring.
>
> It is conceivable that Oliver's ancestor Robert Holand, Bastard of Exeter
> might be a son of John Holand, 3rd Duke of Exeter, but until this is
> resolved with prooof, it is only a possibility.
Well, at least you have a descent from Edward I, but I guess some will
accept nothing less than a descent from Edward III.
> The ancestry of Oliver's ancestor Petronell Chudleigh, wife of Anthony
> Pollard is found in Weis and RD500. Private correspondence suggests that
> they are sufficiently problematic that they should be dropped as well. These
> days it is all subtractions, but better than having faulty data.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
I hope the Chudleigh problem has been addressed in print somewhere.
Difficulties like this need to be made known to a wider audience.
Leslie