Re: William the Conqueror _______________________ Hello John and everyone, Wednesday 11 February 1998 First, John, I know we have disagreed on the William the Conqueror issue (early Washburn royalty) and I agree with you entirely...this is strictly a "friendly disagreement" and PLEASE excuse the negative tone that I may have relayed to you in the past concerning this subject. There were "no" personal references to be made...please accept my sincere appologies.... Yes, there are "two" sides to this story and thank you, John, for your kind comments of Canon James Davenport's research. My brother, William, is currently living in Malvern, England for the last two years. For those who are not aware, Malvern is about 20 or 30 miles from Wichenford (where the historical Washburn residence and parish church are located). He has met several of the "local" Washburn cousins. Being close to those people...living with them....one senses a "closeness" to historical accounts more than we do here in the U.S. (speaking for myself, of course). He was the one who was able to get a copy of Canon Davenport's Washburn family book for me. There are people there who (now quite elderly) knew Rev. Davenport and hold his research "quite highly" in accountability. He was able to gather many "detailed" family accounts of Habingdon (who was a family friend and a local province historian during that early period). There is more of a history about Habingdon that I could talk about here...but, I'll save that for another time. John, if you can get your hands on Habingdon's documents that were published by Nash, I am sure it would shed more light to this "colorful" and "fasinating" subject about the "royalty" of our family. Nash was another historian/researacher that Canon Davenport followed up with as a reference in his book in using Habingdon's research. Besides performing his own research. And because of the elapse of time and years, many of those "early" records are no longer available...but, stated in researched publications. John, when you say "by today's genealogical standards, he (Davenport) did not prove the connection." By what authority are you defining "today's genealogical standards?" As an example, the Mayflower Society utilizes many pubished author's publications for authoritive accuracy. Who is to say that Canon Davenport didn't have a "high" genealogical standard when he published his Washburn Family work??...because you say (implied) there is no current "documented" proof to rely on. Canon Davenport, I am convinced, had a scope of understanding of "proof" of what future family generations would hold to his work. As I reference below, you will see that he had a sense of thought of how to present an important and accurate written historical account of the Washburn Family. John, as I present to you many historical references for you to investigate below, also, as you will note towards the end of Canon Davenport's reference below, there was a land controversy going on between John Salwey (who inherited Standford) and the Washburn family. Below, I offer the "accurate" transcribed pages 6 thru 9 from Canon Davenport's "The Washburn Family" book: (As you read Canon Davenport's written account below, please note the thoroughness of his writing and his references. He goes on to say....with a 'clear' and 'accurate' genealogical statement he makes: "in Habingdon's own words, which the genealogical table already given makes clear: "Sir Roger de Washborn, sonne of Sir John de Washborn, had towe sonnes, bothe christened John.") ============================================================================== AS STATED BY CANON JAMES DAVENPORT (The Washburn Family): The two following extracts of interest as corroborating the testimony of Habingdon and of the 1280 roll as to the connection of the earliest Washbournes with Stanford and its neighbourhood:- i. "Calender of Close Rolls, 3 Ed. II., 1310, Mem. 3, Schedule. "April 29. (Woodstock) To the Justices of the Bench. Order not to put John de Wasseburne in default for not appearing in a suit before them by the king's writ between Robert Lestourmy, demandant, and the said John and Isabella his wife, tenants, of a messuage two acres of meadow, two acres of wood, 6s 8d of rent and two virgates of land, except one acre in Overton near Stanford, as he was engaged in the king's service on Wednesday the morrow of St. Martin so that he could not appear." ii. "Calendar of Close Rolls, 8 Ed. II., 1315, Mem. 10. "April 1. (Windsor) To Master John Waleweyn, escheator this side Trent. Order to deliver to said Matilda a knight's fee in Olreton in the county of Worcester which John de Wassheburn holds, of the yearly value of L4 assigned to her as above." Isabella presented to the living of Stanford, 9 Kal. September, 1316 (Nash), "Petrus de Wassebourn," and the fact that she did so, and not her husband, points to the probability that she acted in the exercise of her own right, though of course it is possible that her husband had recently died. A litter later, in 1322, she presented to Clyvelode, attached in later days to Madresfield, being described as "Isabella de Wassebourn domina ejusdem villae" (Nash). As Isabella de Wassebourn she appears in the Lay Subsidy Roll, 1327, along with Roger, among those assessed under Wassebourne and Standford, and in the 1332-3 roll under Standford she appears as "Isabella de Stanforde," again along with Roger, doubtless her son. SIR ROGER (3) Sir Roger, son of Sir John, married his wife Margaret as early as 1316. He "Roger Washborne Lord of Washborne, knight, did confirm to John his son in A.E. 3.9." (C.A.) Nash seems to imply in his list of incumbents that he presented three times to Stanford and was living in 1353. (Later presentations also are here given for the sake of reference.) "Patrons" "Incumbents" Isabella de Wasseboune. . . Petrus de Wasseborn 9Kal. Sept. 1316 Rogerus de Wasseborne. . . Thomas de Wasseborne Accol. . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Maii 1349 Johannes Arches . . . . . . .16 Julii 1349 Will'us de Edynghull . . . . 2Julii 1353 Katherina de Stanford . . . .Johnannes Roggeres . . . . . 27 Apr. 1363 Katerina Musard . . . . . . . .Henricus Wodewarde cap . .26 Sept. 1398 Isolda Salwey . . . . . . . . . . Will'us Walker cap . . . . . . 16 Sept. 1423 Thomas Harwell et Isolda consors . . . . . . . . . . . . .Johannes Driver cap . . . . . .21 Jan. 1428 Thomas Combay cap. . . . . .22 Jun. 1433 Humfridus Salway, arm . . Ricardus Simkins cap . . . . 18 Jun. 1473 In the roll of 1327 he appears under Washbourne and Stanford; in the roll of 1332-3 under Stanford; in the "Nonarum Inquisitiones" (1340) he joins in the delaration as to the church of Overbury. His name is given as Robert in Weaver's "Visitation of Herefordshire" (1569), and in one of the two College of Arms pedigrees, a fact which points to his identity with the Robert de Wassebourne given in the 1327 roll under Aldington and Bretforton in the 1332-3 roll. In the rolls of 1346 and 1358 he is given as Roger de Washborne under Stanford Washborne and Washborne, paying in respect of land formerly held by John. The next three generations are best taken together. Of JOHN (4) married Isolde, daughter of Thomas Hanley, of Hanley-William, in 29 Ed. III. [Reference Note #1] Both the College of Arms pedigrees show this, but Habingdon, Nash, and Phillimore all give the father's name as John Hanley. "Peter Washborne and Isolde his wife did confirme in A.E.3.28." They had two sons, William the younger, not traced, and their heir JOHN(6) the husband of Joan Musard and Margaret Poher. But, now we come to the family complications of his time, best set forth in Habingdon's own words, which the genealogical table already given makes clear:- Sir Roger de Washborn, sonne of Sir John de Washborn, had towe sonnes, bothe christened John. John Washborn, the ealdest of theyse, maryed Katherin Thromwin, who, after her husbande's deathe, was the wyfe of Sir John Musard, Knight, by whome shee had one daughter, named Jane Musard, wedded to John Washborn, the sonne of Peter de Washborn, the sonne of John Washborn, the youngest sonne of Sir Roger de Washborn, before mentioned; and John de Washborne, the ealdest sonne of Sir Roger de Washborn, dyinge without isswe, thys John Washborn, his nephew's sonne, became hys heyre, and was Lord of Washborn and Stanford. . . . John Washborn had, by hys fyrst wyfe Jane Musard, hys onely daughter, named Isold Washborne, maryed to John Salwey, the sonne of John Salwey, of Canc, Co. Staff., by hys wyfe Elizabeth, daughter and heyre of Sir William Thromwine . . . John Washborn, after the deathe of hys fyrst wyfe, Jane Musard, tooke to wyfe Margery, daughter and coheyre of John Poher, commonly called Powre of Wicheneford, and had by her Norman Washborn, from whome decended the Washborns of Wicheneford. Nowe, weare it by covenantes at the maryage of John Salwey with Isold Washborn, or otherwise, I knowe not, but thys I knowe, John Salwey and his issewe have eaver synce inioyed Stanford, and, as I have heard, dyd lounge contest in lawe for Knighte's Washborn itsealfe; and in the end, as it is sayd, the controversy was so composed as the Washborns should hould Knigtes Washborn, and the Salweys only Stanford . . . (under Standford, pp. 379-81). and, again, (under Knight's Washborne,) John Washborne, taking wyfe Joane, daughter of Sir John Musard, a Knight who in the raygne of Edward the thyrd flourished in our shyre, and havinge by her one onely daughter named Isolda, and not lokinge into future eventes, maryed her to John Salwey of Kancke, a gentellman in Staffordshyre of an approved discent; and with them passed away Stanford Stormy, Washborne's lande . . . but John Washborne surviuinge thys wyfe and weddinge afterwards [Reference Note #2] Margaret, daughter and coheyre of John Poher, Lord of Winhenford, had by her Norman Washborne, who losynge thus a share of hys inheritance, and incombred with suytes of lawe against hys maternall lyne in Wichenford, wheare they remayned six discentes in good reputation.... REFERENCE NOTE: (1) "Hanley, of Hanley-William, in Eastham. Thomas de Hanley held lands in Hanley-William in the 13th of Edward I. 'Several branches,' says Nash, i. 365, 'proceeded from this stock of the Hanleys: the first was by a marriage between Peter de Washborne and Isold, daughter of John de Hanley, 29 Edward III.: from this marriage sprang the family of the Washbornes.'" (Grazebrook.) "This marriage took place 29 E. III. Peter de Washburne mar. Isold. d. of John de Hanley of Hanley William in the parish of Eastham, co. Worc. See Nash's Worcestershire, i. 365." (Note in Weaver's "Visitation of Herefordshire" under Washbourne.) "Thys family runninge to theyre peryod of tyme in this place, 29 Ed. 3 by the marriage of Isolde, the daughter of John Hanley to Peter Washborn. . . (Habingdon ii. 64.) REFERENCE NOTE: (2) In Mrs. J.C. Washburn's "Notes of Washburn Genealogy," on pp. 6, 9, the date of John's marriage with Margaret Poher is given as 1397, but the auhority is not given for that date, which is no doubt approximately correct. ========================================================================== John Maltby's reply of 10 February 1998: Yes, there are two sides to the story. You can certainly believe whatever you wish. Rev. James Davenport did a fine job digging through Worcester County records uncovering baptisms, marriages, wills, and etc. He may have even uncovered some uncited records that led him to believe that the Bengeworth Washburns were descended from those of Wichenford, but by today's genealogical standards, he did not prove the connection. .................(other paragraphs omitted here).................. I'm sorry if my skeptical attitude offends any of you, but my choice is not to believe it unless there is substantial and documented proof. Chuck Washburn and I have disagreed on this point for several months, and I hope we can keep this a "friendly disagreement" in the interests of better genealogy. John A. Maltby Redwood City, CA [email protected]