After checking further sources, such as the 'Catalogue of the Herald's Visitations; with references to many other valuable genealogical and topgraphical manuscripts in the British Museum', no author, second edition, published in 1825, I suspect that 'Armigerous Ancestors' was wrong in indicating a 1674 visitation for Buckinghamshire in BM Harleian manuscript 1533 - I think it should have been the 1574 visitation. Unfortunately it is known that 'Armigerous Ancestors' contains quite a few such errors . . . This makes no difference to the need to see the original Harleian manuscript 1533, since the Bucks 1574 Visitation has also not been published. Cheers, John John Addis-Smith Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, England

I am curious about your reply regarding the Herald's Visitations. I know that about a dozen +/- have been published. Are there many more still in existence? Do you know why the Bucks Visitation was not published? Not that I expect to find anyone in it, just interested. Liane

John, Thank your very much for the reply. <<This suggests that the Washington pedigree is in the 1674 Visitation, which has not been published.>> That would be typical ;-) Thanks again. Andrew John Addis-Smith wrote: >After checking further sources, such as the 'Catalogue of the Herald's >Visitations; with references to many other valuable genealogical and >topgraphical manuscripts in the British Museum', no author, second >edition, published in 1825, I suspect that 'Armigerous Ancestors' was >wrong in indicating a 1674 visitation for Buckinghamshire in BM >Harleian manuscript 1533 - I think it should have been the 1574 >visitation. Unfortunately it is known that 'Armigerous Ancestors' >contains quite a few such errors . . . This makes no difference to >the need to see the original Harleian manuscript 1533, since the Bucks >1574 Visitation has also not been published. > > >Cheers, John > >John Addis-Smith >Thurleigh, Bedfordshire, England > > > -- My genealogy page: http://w1.300.telia.com/~u30014342/gen.htm