For the record, Cecilia (Ciceley) then married Rowland Barker in 1588 and made her will in 1612. It contains no evidence for any descendants, but plenty of other relatives.

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 12:45:34 PM UTC+1, John Watson wrote: > On Friday, 5 May 2017 23:15:50 UTC+1, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 10:27:42 AM UTC+2, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:48:59 PM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote: > > > > According to John Ravilious ("Domesday Descent from Walter the Deacon to Martin de la See* 26 Nov 2003), Walter the Deacon had a son Robert Fitz Walter whose son William (d bef 1167) married Juliana, dau of John Fitz Valerian. > > > > > > > > If this is the case, who is the father of Robert Fitz Walter who married Hawise de Guerres? They apparently also had a son William (d 1162/66). > > > > > > > > Keats-Rohan is not clear on this or I have misread something somewhere. > > > > > > John may not be right about this, and I wonder if that is still his position. Keats-Rohan seems fairly clear to me about this, and I am not aware of any arguments that have been made against what she says. Domesday Descendants pp.507-8 says that the William who married Juliana is the son of Robert de Hastings of Sussex. She cites the Pipe Rolls for 31 Henry I in Essex and Sussex. > > > > I later remembered that Rev. Eyton made a footnote on this subject in his Antiquities of Shropshire. https://books.google.be/books?id=uEpNAAAAMAAJ&vq=waleran&pg=PA134 > > > > I should say I have not looked into the topic of Juliana much, but another source to keep in mind is the definitive pair of articles by J A Clarence Smith in Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, concerning the Hastings of Little Easton, the other family you are mentioning, and I did spend time on them. See my webpage which summarizes conclusions which are the same on most points as his, and I understand other people such as Rosie Bevan have come to similar conclusions over the years. http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Hastings%20of%20the%2012th%20century.html > > > > I think a very basic point to make about the surname Hastings is that it not only was it an early one, and therefore difficult to trace, but also that it probably had more than one origin, perhaps all gravitating towards the spelling of a place very important to the Normans. In Little Easton it may well even come from the placename now spelled as Easton (this judging from the spellings they really used at first). The several midlands families, one of which ended up more commonly spelled as Hasteng, may have another origin. > > Dear Andrew, > > You have obviously done a great deal of research into the early Hastings families, so I would like to ask you a question. In your opinion, are William fitz Robert de Hastings and William de Hastings, king's dispenser and steward of Bury St. Edmunds, the same person? > > Regards, > John Dear All I am delighted that interest has rekindled in the early Hastings families. I spent over 15 years struggling with them particularly from the angle of the Sussex based family. I worked from the postings of John Ravilious and followed the various arguments referred to by Andrew Lancaster above before scouring the available primary sources. In terminal despair of producing a descent that would be acceptable, some months ago I posted a synopsis of my findings [Robert fitz Ralph, March 9th] some of which I repeat below. I have added to the original, and clarified some of the points. I said at the time that firstly, I hoped I could suggest to your satisfaction that the entry below for two Roberts of Hastings from Mediaeval Lands could be amalgamated. These two entries are: 2.ROBERT FitzRalph de Hastings(-after 1086).“Appropriations of the King[‘s land] in Essex” in Domesday Book includes “in Colchester...a certain church of St. Peter...of the king’s alms” of which “Robert fitzRalph of Hastings claims 3 parts and Eudo the steward holds the fourth”. It is not known whether Robert’s father was Ralph de Hastings who is named above.  [Ralf de Hastings DB. It seems that he in fact had two holdings in Ardleigh Essex, of Roger de Raimes. For the larger one, of 30 acres he is named as Ralf of Hastings, but further down is the mention that ' In Ardleigh Roger holds in demesne 6 free men with 1 hide and 2 ploughs ...of this, Ralph holds 10 acres'. There is no other Ralph listed as holding of Roger, and DB convention frequently assumes the reader will make the connection to the last named holder of that Christian name. Neither of these are particularly large; perhaps that is why there has been such coyness at taking the face-value nomenclature and considering that Robert fitzRalf of Hastings is the son of this Ralf de Hastings]. And: 3.ROBERT de Hastings Domesday Book records Rye “land of the Church of Fecamp, in Guestling Hundred” in Essex, held by “the Abbot of Fecamp”, in which manor “Robert de Hastings” held land of the abbot m ---. The name of Robert’s wife is not known. Robert & his wife had one child: [This is somewhat obscure. DB for Hastings Rape in Sussex, not Essex,, records that Robert of Hastings held 'a new quarter' in Guestling Hundred of the Count of Eu, as well as 2 1/2 hides from the Abbot of Fecamp in the manor of Rameslie [usually equated with Rye] also in Guestling Hundred. The interposition of 'Essex' in the record by the author creates a confusion.] a)WILLIAM de Hastings(-after 1131). The 1130 Pipe Roll records "Wills fil Robti de Hasting" in Sussex in respect of "de Lestagio de Hasting et de Ria". The reference to his father suggests that William may only recently have inherited the property.m JULIANA, daughter of JOHN FitzWaleran & his wife ---.The 1130 Pipe Roll records "Juliana uxor Willi de Hasting" in Essex "de veti aux militu de fedo Waleri Avi sui". We find that a Wiliam de Hastings gave land and churches in Colchester: RRAN1821 [1128-31]Westminster Precept by Henry 1 to G[ilbert] Bp of London and Hamo St Clare and all the burgesses of Colchester: That the Canons of [SS Julian and Botolph] Colchester hold the lands and churches which W[illiam] de Hastings gave them at Colchester well and honourably with all the liberties with which any one ever held them. Witness G. de Clinton In the Domesday Book, none of the other claimants to the Hastings name held lands or churches in Colchester, only Robert fitz Ralph de Hastings as detailed above in the Mediaeval Lands entry; therefore it would seem reasonable to equate Robert fitzRalph de Hastings with Robert, father of William de Hastings who married Juliana fitz Waleran. Keats Rohan does not include the full list of mentions of Robert son of Ralph of Hastings: He appears in official capacity as the addressee in four charters of Henry 1: RRAN 619, to Rembert and Robert of Hastings [1107, 1109 or 1115, Westminster dates; the Regesta suggests 1102, but the petitioner was Abbot Ralph, 1107-24] RRAN 752 Raibert de Hastings and Robert filio Radulfi [1106, Marlborough]; RRAN 859, to Henry Count of Eu and R the son of R de Hastings [1102-7, Westminster] RRAN1670 to R. son of R. de Hastings, and D. de Pevensel [the latter being Drew de Pevensey, heir to Reinbert the sheriff]. And he is also listed as a witness to a charter at Vaudreuil, dated as ?1128 [RRAN 1550] The suggestion that William had only recently inherited in 1130 seems quite probable. He appears as William de Hastings as witness to two charters [RRAN 1689, 1690] from Rouen, dated 1131 Feb? concerning Fecamp abbey, overlords of Robert de Hastings' holding in the manor of Rameslie [Rye], along with other local Sussex lords, Anselm de Freauville, Geoffrey de Courville, W. de Saint-Martin and G. de Saint-Leger. William and Juliana both appear in the Pipe roll for Essex for 31 HI; William owed 70s for his debt [de deb.] to Jocelyn of London [Goisl. Lond. ]. His debt 'poni i Sudsexa', which confirms the descent from the Sussex-holding branch of the family. In the next entry, Juliana wife of William de Hastings owed £7 of the old military aid [de veti. aux. ilitu] of the fee of Waleran her grandfather. Henry 1's confirmation of the gift of the Colchester churches, with a last proposed date of 1131, may be seen as either exactly contemporaneous with the grant, or a hurried confirmation of a recent grant following the death of the grantor. Mediaeval Lands shows 'after 1131' for William's death, but it may have been that very year. There is no sign of him in later charters, and I can't help feeling that it may have been a sudden, and for the Hastings of Sussex family, disastrous death. It is noticeable that the inheritance that went to the Monceux family though William's wife Juliana daughter of John fitz Waleran does not appear to include any holdings that might have been William's patrimony; conversely, I am not sure that the Sussex Hastings inherited anything from John fitz Waleran. It has been assumed that the descent to Herst and Warbleton was from one or two daughters of William and Juliana and there is no evidence that they had any sons, The next appearance of a fee-holding Hastings in Sussex is Robert son of Harald of Hastings, who spends three years scrabbling to find £20, pledged by Simon de Criol in 1158; he pays £15 in 1159, and the final 100s in 1160.[Pipe Rolls] Simon de Criol is hardly likely to have funded an illegitimate claim, so the inference is that Robert was the heir to William. 1158–1162. Robert de Hastingues witnessed a charter of Henry 11 at Foucarmont with his wife Isabel, her mother Avelina and Thomas and Reinald de St Leger, sons of William; Avelina was probably the wife of their brother William He is shown in Red Book of the Exchequer in 1166 on the carta of John Count of Eu as 'Robertus de Hastinges, dimidium militem' [of the old feoffment] It may be that as with all the other claimants to the Hastings name, Robert de Hastingues came to it through marriage. DB shows that the holder TRE of Cortesley, the large manor on the sea edge west of the Norman town of Hastings [location number two, as longshore drift had driven the settlement east from Bulverhythe to the Priory valley, whence it would later remove again eastwards to the Bourne valley, the present 'Hastings Old Town' ] was one Godwin, who continued to hold under the St Leger overlordship in 1086. It is not unlikely that one of the family of Godwin might have married into the family of Robert Fitz Ralf de Hastings and called the resulting son Harald. I hope this is adequate to establish that William de Hastings who married Juliana fitz Waleran is from a different branch from those based in Essex and Suffolk. As for the name 'Hastings', all of the forms recorded in the Place Names of Sussex have the 'H', which precludes it from being a differential,of 'Aistan' or any of the other Eston/Easton place names. I refer to the conflation of Hesdin and Hastings in a reference to Ernulf de Hesdin in my previous post, and as Andrew Lancaster points out there is also the family of Hasteng,who seem to have no relationship. The other branches he refers to do may well have the same filial relationship to the ur- Hastings family as the descendants of Walter the Deacon. It may be of interest to quote at length from the introduction to The Place Names of Sussex' Mawer and Stenton, Cambridge 1929] p. xxiiv – xxiv: “..evidence which proves that in the eighth, and indeed the eleventh century, the eastern part of the county was regarded as distinct from Sussex in the strict sense of the word. An eighth century chronicle, written in Northumbria as a sequel to the work of Bede, records that in 771 Offa king of the Mercians 'Haestingorum gentum armis subegerat'. The Haestingorum gens of this passage can be no other than the Hastingas whose name is still preserved in Hastings, and the fact that their subjugation is recorded by a Northumbriam annalist who was very incurious about southern affairs shows that they were an important people. Despite all the forces which were tending to obliterate the ancient tribal divisions of southern England, the Haestingas were still considered to be a separate people in the time of Aethelred ll. Under the date 1011 the Anglo- Saxon Chronicle states that the Danes by that year had harried, south of the Thames 'all of the Centigas and the South Saxons and the Haestingas and Surrey and Berkshire and Hampshire and great part of Wiltshire'. A people whose individuality was so long remembered cannot have been a mere fragment of a larger kingdom, and it is highly probable that at an early date the Haestingas possessed a dynasty of their own. More than this cannot safely be said, for the territory of the Haestingas cannot be defined with any certainty and their relationshilp to the true South Saxons, the men of Aelle and his sons, is uncertain. It is suggestive that the Chronicle does not attribute any fighting to Aelle in the country east of Pevernsey [c477- 491 AD], and it would seem that the territory of the Haestingas coincided roughly with the Rape which still bears their name. That it was somewhat larger than this is probable, for the name Hastingford in Hadlow down in Pevensey Rape certainly means the ford of the Haestingas, and may well have denoted the point at which a traveller from the north-west first entered their country.” Andrew Lancaster suggests that the Hastings name was of importance to the Normans, which I too have commented on previously. Perhaps the importance was to both Normans and Saxons, and lay in the antiquity of the denomination. I hope that the questions I raised in my previous post and the brief references I made to subsequent Sussex Hastings family members might encourage others to look further into their descent. With all best wishes Janette Gallini

On Friday, 5 May 2017 23:15:50 UTC+1, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 10:27:42 AM UTC+2, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:48:59 PM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote: > > > According to John Ravilious ("Domesday Descent from Walter the Deacon to Martin de la See* 26 Nov 2003), Walter the Deacon had a son Robert Fitz Walter whose son William (d bef 1167) married Juliana, dau of John Fitz Valerian. > > > > > > If this is the case, who is the father of Robert Fitz Walter who married Hawise de Guerres? They apparently also had a son William (d 1162/66). > > > > > > Keats-Rohan is not clear on this or I have misread something somewhere. > > > > John may not be right about this, and I wonder if that is still his position. Keats-Rohan seems fairly clear to me about this, and I am not aware of any arguments that have been made against what she says. Domesday Descendants pp.507-8 says that the William who married Juliana is the son of Robert de Hastings of Sussex. She cites the Pipe Rolls for 31 Henry I in Essex and Sussex. > > I later remembered that Rev. Eyton made a footnote on this subject in his Antiquities of Shropshire. https://books.google.be/books?id=uEpNAAAAMAAJ&vq=waleran&pg=PA134 > > I should say I have not looked into the topic of Juliana much, but another source to keep in mind is the definitive pair of articles by J A Clarence Smith in Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, concerning the Hastings of Little Easton, the other family you are mentioning, and I did spend time on them. See my webpage which summarizes conclusions which are the same on most points as his, and I understand other people such as Rosie Bevan have come to similar conclusions over the years. http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Hastings%20of%20the%2012th%20century.html > > I think a very basic point to make about the surname Hastings is that it not only was it an early one, and therefore difficult to trace, but also that it probably had more than one origin, perhaps all gravitating towards the spelling of a place very important to the Normans. In Little Easton it may well even come from the placename now spelled as Easton (this judging from the spellings they really used at first). The several midlands families, one of which ended up more commonly spelled as Hasteng, may have another origin. Dear Andrew, You have obviously done a great deal of research into the early Hastings families, so I would like to ask you a question. In your opinion, are William fitz Robert de Hastings and William de Hastings, king's dispenser and steward of Bury St. Edmunds, the same person? Regards, John

On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 10:27:42 AM UTC+2, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:48:59 PM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote: > > According to John Ravilious ("Domesday Descent from Walter the Deacon to Martin de la See* 26 Nov 2003), Walter the Deacon had a son Robert Fitz Walter whose son William (d bef 1167) married Juliana, dau of John Fitz Valerian. > > > > If this is the case, who is the father of Robert Fitz Walter who married Hawise de Guerres? They apparently also had a son William (d 1162/66). > > > > Keats-Rohan is not clear on this or I have misread something somewhere. > > John may not be right about this, and I wonder if that is still his position. Keats-Rohan seems fairly clear to me about this, and I am not aware of any arguments that have been made against what she says. Domesday Descendants pp.507-8 says that the William who married Juliana is the son of Robert de Hastings of Sussex. She cites the Pipe Rolls for 31 Henry I in Essex and Sussex. I later remembered that Rev. Eyton made a footnote on this subject in his Antiquities of Shropshire. https://books.google.be/books?id=uEpNAAAAMAAJ&vq=waleran&pg=PA134 I should say I have not looked into the topic of Juliana much, but another source to keep in mind is the definitive pair of articles by J A Clarence Smith in Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, concerning the Hastings of Little Easton, the other family you are mentioning, and I did spend time on them. See my webpage which summarizes conclusions which are the same on most points as his, and I understand other people such as Rosie Bevan have come to similar conclusions over the years. http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Hastings%20of%20the%2012th%20century.html I think a very basic point to make about the surname Hastings is that it not only was it an early one, and therefore difficult to trace, but also that it probably had more than one origin, perhaps all gravitating towards the spelling of a place very important to the Normans. In Little Easton it may well even come from the placename now spelled as Easton (this judging from the spellings they really used at first). The several midlands families, one of which ended up more commonly spelled as Hasteng, may have another origin.

On 5/05/2017 11:28 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > On 5/4/2017 6:25 PM, Peter Stewart wrote: >> On 5/05/2017 1:46 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote: >>> Another year that would make sense for Gisela to have born is 989. >> >> What evidence or reasoning gives sense to this conjecture? And for >> that matter, why not 988 or earlier? > > If the error was one of simple arithmetic based on a calculation from > her age, then this ten year error (forgetting to subtract the digit) > would be one of the more likely explanations. Of course, that does > not necessarily mean that it is the correct date. This would not be a likely explanation in my view - firstly it would be the mistake of whoever wrote the text, not of the engraver. They were presumably not the same person, as if so it would have been a waste of his time to scratch the text onto the plaque. The writer gave another full date, that of Gisela's death, and included the indiction - this makes Rieckenberg's suggested emendation to include the indiction in the dating of her birth fairly persuasive. The writer also calculated durations for Gisela's widowhood and imperial consortship. The duration of 3 years, 8 months and 10 days for her widowhood is arguably correct (actually 12 days, though 10 if only whole days are counted excluding the days on which both deaths happened). However, the duration of 14 years 9 months and 17 days for her consortship is not accurate by any reckoning: the span from Konrad's coronation as emperor on 26 March 1027 to his death on 4 June 1039 was only 12 years, 2 months and 10 days; from his coronation as king on 8 September 1024 it was 14 years, 8 months and 28 days; and from her own coronation as queen on 21 September 1024 it was 14 years, 8 months and 15 days. In both cases the calculations were made between two known dates, and the easier way to do this is by counting on from the earlier date rather than subtracting from the later. If by some chance the writer knew only the day and month of Gisela's birth and had to work out the year from her known age, an error of 10 years would be fairly striking - knowing her to have passed her 53rd or 54th birthday and yet coming up with a year only 44 years before the present would have twigged even my poor brain for arithmetic. Peter Stewart

On 5/05/2017 1:46 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Another year that would make sense for Gisela to have born is 989. What evidence or reasoning gives sense to this conjecture? And for that matter, why not 988 or earlier? Peter Stewart

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:48:59 PM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote: > According to John Ravilious ("Domesday Descent from Walter the Deacon to Martin de la See* 26 Nov 2003), Walter the Deacon had a son Robert Fitz Walter whose son William (d bef 1167) married Juliana, dau of John Fitz Valerian. > > If this is the case, who is the father of Robert Fitz Walter who married Hawise de Guerres? They apparently also had a son William (d 1162/66). > > Keats-Rohan is not clear on this or I have misread something somewhere. John may not be right about this, and I wonder if that is still his position. Keats-Rohan seems fairly clear to me about this, and I am not aware of any arguments that have been made against what she says. Domesday Descendants pp.507-8 says that the William who married Juliana is the son of Robert de Hastings of Sussex. She cites the Pipe Rolls for 31 Henry I in Essex and Sussex.

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 11:02:02 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > This is one of the many reasons I am skeptical of Tacy's parentage. I knew that Thomas Cooper/Sarah Slye had been shoehorned into several trees inappropriately (and unbelievably), and suspected the same of Thomas Cooper/Mary Raynor. I am tempted to write off all claims of Tacy's origin entirely, but for the specificity of the baptism date (sometimes called a birth date) of 12 Feb 1608/09 in Mendlesham. I can find no one able to give me a solid source for this datum, so perhaps it really must be relegated to some sloppy genealogist's fantasy. I, too, am looking for Tacy's lineage. I am a direct maternal descendant from Tacy's daughter Bethiah, to her daughter to her daughter, down to my mother. Therefore, her mtDNA would match my group, J2a2e. So far only 3 people have been found with this DNA which orginates in the Middle East and my particular version had a variation about 2,000 years ago setting us apart. The SDB church (which, to correct comments on this page, Tacy was more founder than her husband as she would not let him accept Puritan customs like infant baptism and is documented as ADAMANT about it, Hubbard caved 6 months later) this church had a very unusual story about their origins. Working with a well known geneticist, he posits that this DNA was brought by Roman auxiliary soldiers recruited to guard the Welsh frontier, from Syria (and their wives). Wales is where many of my other family members originate from and are well documented, also Scots borders. Tacy is the big mystery. We are looking for other female descendants with the same exact DNA group, women who are cousins to me who would be interested in a discussion group/ DNA comparison group. The geneticist doubts Tacy was from Mendlesham, as others with her DNA would have shown up there. Please contact me if you have further information, or would like to discuss: [email protected]

Hi Beth, I'm also searching for the mother of Rev John Norcott and was wondering if you have found anything since this post? Rgds Ann > > Does anyone know whether there is a good source for the identity of the mother of Rev. John Norcott of Ballygarrett? > > Beth Shannon

On 5/4/2017 6:25 PM, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 5/05/2017 1:46 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote: >> Another year that would make sense for Gisela to have born is 989. > > What evidence or reasoning gives sense to this conjecture? And for > that matter, why not 988 or earlier? If the error was one of simple arithmetic based on a calculation from her age, then this ten year error (forgetting to subtract the digit) would be one of the more likely explanations. Of course, that does not necessarily mean that it is the correct date. Stewart Baldwin

On 4/05/2017 8:47 AM, Peter Stewart wrote: > > > Even if the plaque was made in a hurry, that does not necessarily > account for changing 'IND' into 'VIIII' if that is what happened. > This was sloppy on my part - I should have written "changing 'IND III' into 'VIIII' if that is what happened". Peter Stewart

Does anyone have, or know where to locate online a copy of the will of Henry Sapcote, Mayor of Lincoln who died in 1553? I am hoping it will reveal more about him. It is listed on the Lincs to the Past website, but it would be something that would have to be ordered. I thought I would check to see if anyone had a copy or knew if it was online before I ordered it. I know a number of Lincolnshire wills are in publications (such as Early Lincoln Wills) that are online, but haven't been able to find this will within any, but perhaps I it is online and I am unaware. The particulars for the will on the Lincs to the Past website are: Will - Sapcote, Henry (1553)  Reference Name VARIOUS WILLS/51v-53 Name: Sapcote, Henry Profession: Alderman Place: Lincoln, Lincolnshire Date: 1553 Repository: Lincolnshire Archives [057] Thanks, Jordan Vandenberg. On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:20:50 AM UTC-5, Yahoo!Inc wrote: > Dear Jordan, Rodd, Douglas, Jor , Will et als, > I have read the Nicholas Robertson thread with some interest. Lionel Goodricke appears to have been a most unusual man for the time to declare that his daughter Anne not marry before she was eighteen. It seems all but certain that She was born in 1552 at the very earliest given it seems she married between 1570 - 1576 and so more likely than not Winifred ( Sapcote) Borton, Lionel`s third wife was her mother. Henry Sapcote her father was a notary public in the City of Lincoln by 1513, by 1526 he was an alderman and elected Mayor of Lincoln in 1535 and 1544. He was also Registrar General of Lincoln Cathedral. He marred 1st Jane, daughter and heir of Robert Smyth and had John d 1574 who held the manor of Tharfield, Edward who was like his father a notary and Registrar General for Lincoln Cathedral and 3 times married d July, 1578. There was also a Henry and daughters Jane, wife of John Dowson / Dolson of Newnham, Amy d 1610 m Martin Hollingsworth d 1589 /90, Dorothy m ________ Wallis and Winifred who married ____ Borton, 2nd Lionel Goodricke Esq d 1561, Humphrey Littlebury Esq d 1568 and Thomas Mahewe. Jane (Smyth) Sapcote died in May 1546 and was buried under a slab in Lincoln Cathedral. Henry Sacote purchased the manor of Bracebridge, Lincoln in 1546 and married Alice d after 1578 who may have had Jerome, George, Mary and Anne. Henry Sapcote, formerly Mayor of Lincoln died Jun 28, 1553 and was buried beside his wife Jane in Lincoln Cathedral, their son Edward requesting burial beside them. According to a pedigree dated to about 1564, Henry Sapcote had two brothers, William Sapcote who was Rector of Blechford in 1558 and Robert Sapcote possibly the same who was sub Prior at the monastary of St Mary of the Meadows, Leicester 1528 -1538. the three are given as sons of a unidentified Sapcottes of Leicester town, brother of Sir John Sapcottes who married Elizabeth Denham ( most likely Elizabeth (Dinham) (Bourchier) Sapcottes) and son of John Sapcottes, Esq of Elton / Aylton, Huntington. Walter Metcalfe included a pedigree of Sapcote of Tharlfied in Vol XXII Visitations of Hertfordshire p 162 available online at https://archive.org/stream/visitationsofher222732cook#page/n179/mode/2up. See also Tudor and Stuart Lincoln p 28.

Upon further research it seems that in addition to William Smyth, Bishop of Lincoln, there was not only one Archdeacon named William Smyth, but two. One was William Smyth, Archdeacon of Lincoln who was the brother of Anthony Smyth, Esquire and appears to be the son of Richard Smyth (who was the son of Robert Smyth of Peel Hall, and the brother of the Bishop). The other was William Smyth, Archdeacon of Stowe, who was the son of Robert Smyth (who was also a brother to the Bishop). The lines from Robert Smyth of Peel Hall appear to be: Robert Smyth of Peel Hall | V Richard Smyth (brother of William Smyth, Bishop of Lincoln) | V Anthony Smyth, Esquire and William Smyth, Archdeacon of Lincoln | V (from Anthony Smyth, Esquire) Jane (Joan) Smyth = Henry Sapcote, Mayor of Lincoln and Emma Smyth = Edward Watson of Liddington Robert Smyth of Peel Hall | V Robert Smyth of Cuerdley (brother of William Smyth, Bishop of Lincoln) | V William Smyth, Archdeacon of Stowe On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:20:50 AM UTC-5, Yahoo!Inc wrote: > Dear Jordan, Rodd, Douglas, Jor , Will et als, > I have read the Nicholas Robertson thread with some interest. Lionel Goodricke appears to have been a most unusual man for the time to declare that his daughter Anne not marry before she was eighteen. It seems all but certain that She was born in 1552 at the very earliest given it seems she married between 1570 - 1576 and so more likely than not Winifred ( Sapcote) Borton, Lionel`s third wife was her mother. Henry Sapcote her father was a notary public in the City of Lincoln by 1513, by 1526 he was an alderman and elected Mayor of Lincoln in 1535 and 1544. He was also Registrar General of Lincoln Cathedral. He marred 1st Jane, daughter and heir of Robert Smyth and had John d 1574 who held the manor of Tharfield, Edward who was like his father a notary and Registrar General for Lincoln Cathedral and 3 times married d July, 1578. There was also a Henry and daughters Jane, wife of John Dowson / Dolson of Newnham, Amy d 1610 m Martin Hollingsworth d 1589 /90, Dorothy m ________ Wallis and Winifred who married ____ Borton, 2nd Lionel Goodricke Esq d 1561, Humphrey Littlebury Esq d 1568 and Thomas Mahewe. Jane (Smyth) Sapcote died in May 1546 and was buried under a slab in Lincoln Cathedral. Henry Sacote purchased the manor of Bracebridge, Lincoln in 1546 and married Alice d after 1578 who may have had Jerome, George, Mary and Anne. Henry Sapcote, formerly Mayor of Lincoln died Jun 28, 1553 and was buried beside his wife Jane in Lincoln Cathedral, their son Edward requesting burial beside them. According to a pedigree dated to about 1564, Henry Sapcote had two brothers, William Sapcote who was Rector of Blechford in 1558 and Robert Sapcote possibly the same who was sub Prior at the monastary of St Mary of the Meadows, Leicester 1528 -1538. the three are given as sons of a unidentified Sapcottes of Leicester town, brother of Sir John Sapcottes who married Elizabeth Denham ( most likely Elizabeth (Dinham) (Bourchier) Sapcottes) and son of John Sapcottes, Esq of Elton / Aylton, Huntington. Walter Metcalfe included a pedigree of Sapcote of Tharlfied in Vol XXII Visitations of Hertfordshire p 162 available online at https://archive.org/stream/visitationsofher222732cook#page/n179/mode/2up. See also Tudor and Stuart Lincoln p 28.

Joe, Thanks Joe for the kind words about the research. I am not sure at this point if the William Wolston in the Feet of Fines is the same William Wolston as the one who is the father of Joan and Katherine (Katryn). I posted it to see if there was anything that anyone knew about this particular William Wolston. I am curious about it for a few reasons. Them being the time period seems to fit that of William Wolston the father of Joan and Katharine, the name of his spouse (even though Katherine is an extremely common name), his being from Wollaston, Northamptonshire, and I located a pedigree that I believe has this particular William Wolston on it and identifies him as "Held the Manor Hall Fees 1429-1447," which was a manor connected with Elton which he is associated with and the exact same period he held it for. There do appear to be a couple of issues with the pedigree from what I can tell. This William Wolston is identified as having two wives. The first being Joan Wollaston who it says he married in 1399 and the second being Katherine _________. One thing that jumped out to me right away was that the wives names were the same as his daughters. But a problem with this is that the first marriage to Joan seems much to early. I think that the author of the pedigree has lumped two consecuative William Wolston's into one. Part of what makes me think this is also the fact that it identifies four children for this William Wolston, none of which are Joan or Katherine, which leads me to believe that they are possibly of the first William Wolston and Joan and Katherine of the second one who would be married to Katherine. It fits better chronologically. In addition one of the children was named William. At this point it is far from concrete, so I was seeing if anyone knew anything about the William Wolston married to Katherine in the Feet of Fines in hope of trying to ascertain more concretely that the William Wolston in the pedigree was one in the same as the one identified as the father of Joan and Katherine, and whether there could have been two separate William Wolston's rather than one as the pedigree suggests. The pedigree is found in the publication: From Now to Domesday with the Wollastons by Donovan H. Wollaston, and is linked below. http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/ivorjackson/donovan/011-northants.html Any thoughts in regards to this woudl be most welcome. Jordan Vandenberg. On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 6:02:35 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: > The detangling of two Smith families, one of which ancestral to a American gateway immigrant is delightful. I think the methods used and the solution may be of sufficient interest to, with some more details, be nice to see published. > > That aside, I have a question on the Wolstons. How do you know this is the Same William references below and not a relative? > > Joe c

The detangling of two Smith families, one of which ancestral to a American gateway immigrant is delightful. I think the methods used and the solution may be of sufficient interest to, with some more details, be nice to see published. That aside, I have a question on the Wolstons. How do you know this is the Same William references below and not a relative? Joe c

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:26:43 PM UTC-4, Vance Mead wrote: > I suppose Simon Elryngton, of Hackney, gent, must be the father of John and the grandfather of Robert Elryngton, of Hackney? > > This is from 1486: > > Middx. Jury between John Elryngton, gentleman; and Richard Elryngton, of London, draper, executors of Simon Elryngton, of Hakeney, gentleman; and Richard Malpas, of London, stainer, for trespass. > > First entry: > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H7/CP40no895/bCP40no895dorses/IMG_1058.htm She wasn't the wife of Richard Elrington either. The will of Richard Elrington of St. Mary Bothaw, London, written 3 April 1493, and proven 14 May 1493. PROB 11/9/326 In Dei Nomine, Amen. The 3rd day of April, the year of our Lord 1493, and the 8th year of the reign of King Henry VII, I, Richard ELRINGTON citizen and draper of London, being whole of mind and in good memory, thanked be Almighty God, make and ordain this my present testament containing my last will in the manner and form following, that is to say, first and principally I bequeath and recommend my soul to Almighty God, my maker and savior, and to our Lady St. Mary the Virgin (his glorious mother), and to all the holy company of heaven; and my body to be buried in the church or churchyard in the parish of St. Mary Bothaw beside Candlewick Street of London, or elsewhere there as it please God to suffer me to decease in such place as my exec underwritten shall seem convenient. Item: I give and bequeath to the high alter of the said church for my tithes obligations and duties by me forgotten or negligently withholden in discharging of my soul, 3s 4p. Item: I bequeath to the works of the body of the said church to have my soul there remembered and prayed for, 26s 8p. Item: I bequeath to the Brotherhood of our Lady within the same church, 6s 8p. Item: I bequeath to Elizabeth ERYK, my wife’s daughter, my great goblet with a cover of silver gilt with scriptures and roses about the same to be delivered to her at such time as my said wife, her mother, shall seem convenient. Item: I bequeath to my well beloved cousin John ELRINGTON gentleman, dwelling in Hackney, for a poor remembrance, my plain cup called the Fonte Cup with a cover of silver gilt with a rose in the bottom, willing and requiring the said John ELRINGTON, if it please him so to do, to leave the same cup to his eldest son or next heir as for a poor token to remembrance. Item: I bequeath to Jane, my goddaughter, the daughter of the said John ELRINGTON, my hope of gold set with a sapphire and with a scripture and an Anthony Cross within the same to be delivered to her anon after my decease. The residue of all and singular my goods, debts, chattel (after my debts paid, my burying made, and this my present testament fulfilled), I give and bequeath wholly and clearly unto Elizabeth, my wife, she thereof to do and dispose [at] her own free will. And of this my present testament, I make and ordain the same Elizabeth my sole exex, praying her to do for me as she would I should do for her incase like. In witness whereof to this my present testament containing my last will I have put my seal the day and year above-specified. The above-written testament was proven etc. at Lambeth the 14th day of May Anno Domini 1493, by the oaths of Thomas BLISSETT and John ELRINGTON in the testament etc., and administration was granted of all the goods etc. of Isabel [sic], relic and appointed exex in the same testament, to well etc., and a full inventory etc. before the next feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist etc., and also to render a plain and true account etc., sworn etc.

> - to be buried in St. Augustine in Hackney next to husband. > - marriage money for her daughter Isabel to be levied from plate and jewels > - items to son Richard Elrington > - items to daughter Margaret Coughurste > - execs to be Master Urswyke and Master Heron > Witnesses Sir Arthur Wode, vicar of Hackney, Sir James Leyson, Richard Dene, and John Skyll, 1510. > > [no probate] Regarding "daughter Margaret Conghurst", there is a possible answer in the Kent Visitation of 1530 and/or 1574, which it appears I do not have access to either. Margaret [Elrington] married (1st) Nicholas Chedworth Esq., of Hackney (d. 1501), and married (2nd) George Conghurst Esq., attorney in the Common Pleas, of Hawkhurst, Kent. Had issue: 2 daughters, Barbara, married Richard Bishopp of Cranbrook, Kent; and Mildred, married (1st) Thomas Scott of Halden, Kent, and married (2nd) John Eston of Southwark, Surr. ------------------------------------------------ PROB 11/12/273 (Nicholas Chedworth); C 1/459/6 Audley v Conghurst; C 1/1203/38-40 Bysshopp v Scott; Kent Vis. (HPS 42), p 91-2 (Scott pedigree); Hist. of Parl. 1558-1602, (Eston, John).

I suppose Simon Elryngton, of Hackney, gent, must be the father of John and the grandfather of Robert Elryngton, of Hackney? This is from 1486: Middx. Jury between John Elryngton, gentleman; and Richard Elryngton, of London, draper, executors of Simon Elryngton, of Hakeney, gentleman; and Richard Malpas, of London, stainer, for trespass. First entry: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H7/CP40no895/bCP40no895dorses/IMG_1058.htm

Matt, Thank you so much for the transcription and for providing context to the earlier part of the document. Although it does not outright state that Katryn was a daughter of William Wolston, it certainly appears that way. This coupled with the fact that Sir Richard Sapcote assumed tenancy of Elton after William Wolston in 1451 seems to make a pretty strong case for him being the father of Joan and Katryn. I came across a Feet of Fines entry that may include the same William Wolston and mentions a wife Katherine. The description is below. CP 25/1/91/110, number 25. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Hertfordshire. Place: Westminster. Date: One week from St Michael, 5 Henry VI [6 October 1426]. Parties: Henry Lyndeby of Watford' in the county of Hertford and Margaret, his wife, querents, and William Wolston' of Wollaston' in the county of Northampton, gentleman, and Katherine, his wife, deforciants. Property: 1 messuage, 3 tofts, 100 acres of land and 1 acre of meadow in Watford' and Busshe. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: William and Katherine have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of Henry, as those which Henry and Margaret have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Katherine to Henry and Margaret and the heirs of Henry for ever. For this:Henry and Margaret have given them 20 marks of silver. Persons:Henry Lindby, Margaret Lindby, William Wolston, Katherine Wolston Places: Watford, Wollaston (in Northamptonshire), Bushey Does anyone know anything about the William Wolston mentioned here? I haven't had a chance yet to look over the image to see if there is something in there that identifies him as the same William Wolston that appears to be the father of Joan and Katherine Wolston. Thanks, Jordan. On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 5:19:24 AM UTC-4, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > From: Jordan Vandenberg [[email protected]] > Sent: 04 May 2017 02:15 > > > The second image C 1/15/340 (linked below) regarding a marriage contract concerning lands, etc, is quite soiled and very difficult to make out, but I believe that I can make out on the 7th line from the bottom reference to "said Katryn _____________________ money of the ______ William Wolleston in the _____." It appears as though he is identified as her father here, but I cannot make out the script to confirm. > > If this is the case it would confirm William Wolleston as the father of Joan Wolston wife of Sir Richard Sapcote. > I would be greatful if anyone can make out the missing script on the line. > > > > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no15/IMG_0496.htm > > > > Thanks, > > Jordan Vandenberg. > > ------------------------------- > It says: And as touchyng that the seid Lyonell compleyneth hym that the seid Richard promysed hym | ... ... ..yth the seid Katerin to haue the iiijth part of the money of the lyflode of William Wolleston' in the Counte | of ?York ... ..lde be solde. Therto the \seid Richard/ seith by protestacion that this article nother by lawe nor conscience ys | insufficiente ... ... hym to answere to Nevertheless for the playn declaracion of the trought in the seid | article the seid Richard for answere seith that he hadde neuer [?ri]ght in the seid lyflode nor neuer none other men to his | use nor neuer made non suche promyse in maner and forme as he hath declared. > > The earlier part recites that at ?Aylynge in Northants Lyonell and Katerin agreed to marry on condition that before the marriage Lyonell should convey his lands in Sawtre in Hunts to them jointly, and when that was done Richard would pay £40 to Lyonell, £10 on the day of the marriage and the rest at some illegible later date. It seems Lyonell's complaint alleged that the payment was to have been made before the marriage, but Richard denies this. Richard then complains that Lyonell has not conveyed the lands to him as promised. Then the bit quoted above follows: it seems Lyonell's complaint also alleged that Richard also promised that Katerin should have a quarter share in the 'livelihood' of William Wolleston, possibly once it has been sold (that bit is partly illegible). Richard denies that he ever made such a promise, and says he has no rights in the livelihood. > > Matt Tompkins

From: Jordan Vandenberg [[email protected]] Sent: 04 May 2017 02:15 > The second image C 1/15/340 (linked below) regarding a marriage contract concerning lands, etc, is quite soiled and very difficult to make out, but I believe that I can make out on the 7th line from the bottom reference to "said Katryn _____________________ money of the ______ William Wolleston in the _____." It appears as though he is identified as her father here, but I cannot make out the script to confirm. > If this is the case it would confirm William Wolleston as the father of Joan Wolston wife of Sir Richard Sapcote. I would be greatful if anyone can make out the missing script on the line. > > http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no15/IMG_0496.htm > > Thanks, > Jordan Vandenberg. ------------------------------- It says: And as touchyng that the seid Lyonell compleyneth hym that the seid Richard promysed hym | ... ... ..yth the seid Katerin to haue the iiijth part of the money of the lyflode of William Wolleston' in the Counte | of ?York ... ..lde be solde. Therto the \seid Richard/ seith by protestacion that this article nother by lawe nor conscience ys | insufficiente ... ... hym to answere to Nevertheless for the playn declaracion of the trought in the seid | article the seid Richard for answere seith that he hadde neuer [?ri]ght in the seid lyflode nor neuer none other men to his | use nor neuer made non suche promyse in maner and forme as he hath declared. The earlier part recites that at ?Aylynge in Northants Lyonell and Katerin agreed to marry on condition that before the marriage Lyonell should convey his lands in Sawtre in Hunts to them jointly, and when that was done Richard would pay £40 to Lyonell, £10 on the day of the marriage and the rest at some illegible later date. It seems Lyonell's complaint alleged that the payment was to have been made before the marriage, but Richard denies this. Richard then complains that Lyonell has not conveyed the lands to him as promised. Then the bit quoted above follows: it seems Lyonell's complaint also alleged that Richard also promised that Katerin should have a quarter share in the 'livelihood' of William Wolleston, possibly once it has been sold (that bit is partly illegible). Richard denies that he ever made such a promise, and says he has no rights in the livelihood. Matt Tompkins