Discussion:
Alice Nevill
(too old to reply)
Degs
2011-05-21 07:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Oxford DNB artcle on Robert Neville:-

This biography was published in the DNB in 1894
Neville, Robert (1404–1457), bishop of Salisbury and Durham, by H. E.
D. Blakiston
Published 1894


"Neville died 8 or 9 July 1457, and was buried in the south aisle of
the cathedral,
where the marble slab, despoiled of his brass effigy by the Scottish
prisoners
after the battle of Dunbar, may be seen near the second pillar from
the cloister
door (cf. SURTEES, Durham, vol. iv., cathedral plates, No. 3). In his
will, dated 8 July 1457,
but ‘nunquam approbatum,’ and presumably invalid (it is printed in
RAINE, op. cit. App. cclv.),
he had desired burial near the Venerable Bede in the galilee.
Sequestration of his goods was
granted to Sir John Neville, afterwards marquis of Montagu [q.v.] ,
his nephew by the half-blood.
He intended to leave a hundred marks to Thomas Neville, ‘scolari in
tenera ætate constituto ad exhibicionem suam,’
the same to Ralph, and the same to their sister Alice for her
portion; these three can hardly be
the children of the Earl of Salisbury, and, as they do not occur
elsewhere in the Neville pedigree,
may possibly be offspring of his own."



The only and oldest place I can find Alice Neville refered to by name.

I have a copy of the above Will plus Flowers & Dougdales Visitations
where they mention Alice.
If anyone wants a copy,please let me have your email address & I will
send.
Derek
John
2011-05-21 16:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 21, 12:32 am, Degs <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Oxford DNB artcle on Robert Neville:-
>
> This biography was published in the DNB in 1894
> Neville, Robert (1404–1457), bishop of Salisbury and Durham, by H. E.
> D. Blakiston
> Published 1894
>
> "Neville died 8 or 9 July 1457, and was buried in the south aisle of
> the cathedral,
>  where the marble slab, despoiled of his brass effigy by the Scottish
> prisoners
> after the battle of Dunbar, may be seen near the second pillar from
> the cloister
>  door (cf. SURTEES, Durham, vol. iv., cathedral plates, No. 3). In his
> will, dated 8 July 1457,
>  but ‘nunquam approbatum,’ and presumably invalid (it is printed in
> RAINE, op. cit. App. cclv.),
>  he had desired burial near the Venerable Bede in the galilee.
> Sequestration of his goods was
>  granted to Sir John Neville, afterwards marquis of Montagu [q.v.] ,
> his nephew by the half-blood.
>  He intended to leave a hundred marks to Thomas Neville, ‘scolari in
> tenera ætate constituto ad exhibicionem suam,’
>  the same to Ralph, and the same to their sister Alice for her
> portion; these three can hardly be
>  the children of the Earl of Salisbury, and, as they do not occur
> elsewhere in the Neville pedigree,
>  may possibly be offspring of his own."
>
> The only and oldest place I can find Alice Neville refered to by name.
>
> I have a copy of the above Will plus Flowers & Dougdales Visitations
> where they mention Alice.
> If anyone wants a copy,please let me have your email address & I will
> send.
> Derek

Although Alice Neville is mentioned in the Tunstall pedigrees in the
Yorkshire visitations carried out by Flower and Dugdale (J.W. Clay's
edition of the latter, not the version in Surtees Society vol. 36),
neither reference connects her to Robert Neville. Flower simply calls
her a daughter of (an unspecified) Bishop Nevill, while Clay's edition
of Dugdale adds a footnote saying that she is "said to be a natural
daughter of George Nevile, Archbishop of York (Surtees' Durham, i,
lxvi").

It appears that the only connection between Alce Neville, wife of
Thomas Tunstall, and Robert Neville, Bishop of Durham, is the fact
(per DNB and ODNB) that the bishop mentions an apparently illegitimate
daughter Alice in his will - without identifying her husband. I can't
rule out the possibility of this parentage, but it doesn't seem at
present that there is "strong evidence" to support it.
TJ Booth_aol
2011-05-21 16:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thank you (and John Watson) for noting and posting the DNB bio of Robert
Neville, Bishop of Durham, and for raising this interesting question.

In agreement with John's last post, the likeliest explanations are there
were either 2 illegitimate Alice Nevilles born a generation apart, or that
Bishop Robert simply named his nephews and niece in his will.

There is a reasonably good and longstanding case (summarized below) that
Alice Neville, mistress and later wife of Thomas Tunstall, was the
illegitimate dau of George Neville Archbishop of York. While Bishop Robert
Neville's will and the posted DNB/ODNB bios note Robert also had a possible
illegitimate dau named Alice, the only evidence it was she who became wife
of Thomas Tunstall is Flower's 1563 Tunstall pedigree noted by John - which
is contradicted by Dugdale. Robert's will is also suggestive that all
legatees were adult or near adult in 1457, thus b. bef 1440, making her a
bit old to be Tunstall's mistress/wife.

The Earl of Salisbury, mentioned in the DNB bio, was Sir Richard, brother of
Bishop Robert and father of Archbishop George. Since the Earl (m. bef Feb
1420/21 to Alice Montagu) did have children named Ralph, Thomas and Alice,
it is unclear why the DNB dismisses him as the father of the legatees, who
would be the Bishop's nephews and niece - perhaps political considerations?

As noted above, the two clergymen were a generation apart (Robert 1404-1457,
George 1432-1476). My rough chronology for Tunstall's wife has Alice (which
was the name of the Archbishop's mother as well as his sister, so is an
easily explained name choice) b. say 1450/55 and first mistress then later
m. say 1470/75 to Thomas Tunstall. The one near solid recorded date for
their offspring is that Cuthbert (also a Bishop of Durham) was b. 1474 (or
1476), supposedly before Tunstall and Alice were married (his short bio is
in Walter Farquhar Hook; Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury: Anglo-Saxon
period; page 212 @ http://books.google.com/books?id=zZAsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA212 -
also see Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuthbert_Tunstall).

The parentage of Tunstall's wife was discussed back in 1999 - see the
respected Leslie Maher's post @
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/1999-02/0918524478 ,
citing WH Chippindall [1928] 'History of the Parish of Tunstall' (not seen)
that Alice's father was the Archbishop.

As John noted, Dugdale, citing Surtees' Durham, also identifies Alice's
father as Archbishop George Neville in a footnote to the Tunstall pedigree @
http://books.google.com/books?id=FqJCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA295.

See also Rosemary Horrox; 'Richard III: a Study of Service'; Cambridge;
1991, page 50 "Conversely, Gloucester [Richard Duke of Gloucester, brother
of Edw IV, became Richard III in 1483] inherited the services of the
Tunstalls of Thurland (Lancs) from Warwick, although the first formal record
of fee is apparently that granted by Gloucester to Thomas Tunstall in 1471.
Thomas had received a royal pardon in the previous April, just one week
after Barnet, which implies a Neville connection. So, probably, does the
fact that his concubine of several years standing, whom he subsequently
married, was the illegitimate daughter of archbishop George Neville.[83] His
two brothers, Richard and William, followed him into Gloucester's service.
Sir Richard, the eldest, was probably the 'master Tunstall' who was one of
the duke's councillors and William was one of Gloucester's feoffees."
[The critical footnote cites : "[83] Cal Papal Regis XIII pt II page 524;
CPR 1467-77 p. 258; Chippindall 1928, pedigree facing p. 304." Once again,
Chippindall is cited. The CPR entry is @
http://books.google.com/books?id=b8hGAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA258 , which links the
archbishop and Tunstall to shared political intrigues and related pardons
but does state their relationship. Have not seen the Papal Registry to note
what it says.]

One should thus be hesitant to identify Tunstall's wife as dau of Bishop
Robert, given that 1) it is uncertain that the Alice in his will was indeed
an illegitimate dau; 2) there is nothing in the record beyond Flower's
contradicted pedigree to connect her with Thomas Tunstall other than 'names
the same'; 3) the chronology would seem to favor Tunstall's wife being of
the next generation; and 4) there is reasonable evidence in the record that
Tunstall's wife was Archbishop George's dau.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL

----- Original Message -----
From: "Degs" <***@yahoo.co.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 2:32 AM
Subject: Alice Nevill


Oxford DNB artcle on Robert Neville:-

This biography was published in the DNB in 1894
Neville, Robert (1404–1457), bishop of Salisbury and Durham, by H. E.
D. Blakiston
Published 1894


"Neville died 8 or 9 July 1457, and was buried in the south aisle of
the cathedral,
where the marble slab, despoiled of his brass effigy by the Scottish
prisoners
after the battle of Dunbar, may be seen near the second pillar from
the cloister
door (cf. SURTEES, Durham, vol. iv., cathedral plates, No. 3). In his
will, dated 8 July 1457,
but ‘nunquam approbatum,’ and presumably invalid (it is printed in
RAINE, op. cit. App. cclv.),
he had desired burial near the Venerable Bede in the galilee.
Sequestration of his goods was
granted to Sir John Neville, afterwards marquis of Montagu [q.v.] ,
his nephew by the half-blood.
He intended to leave a hundred marks to Thomas Neville, ‘scolari in
tenera ætate constituto ad exhibicionem suam,’
the same to Ralph, and the same to their sister Alice for her
portion; these three can hardly be
the children of the Earl of Salisbury, and, as they do not occur
elsewhere in the Neville pedigree,
may possibly be offspring of his own."



The only and oldest place I can find Alice Neville refered to by name.

I have a copy of the above Will plus Flowers & Dougdales Visitations
where they mention Alice.
If anyone wants a copy,please let me have your email address & I will
send.
Derek

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
John
2011-05-21 22:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 21, 9:43 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> Thank you (and John Watson) for noting and posting the DNB bio of Robert
> Neville, Bishop of Durham, and for raising this interesting question.
>
> In agreement with John's last post, the likeliest explanations are there
> were either 2 illegitimate Alice Nevilles born a generation apart, or that
> Bishop Robert simply named his nephews and niece in his will.
>
> There is a reasonably good and longstanding case (summarized below) that
> Alice Neville, mistress and later wife of Thomas Tunstall, was the
> illegitimate dau of George Neville Archbishop of York. While Bishop Robert
> Neville's will and the posted DNB/ODNB bios note Robert also had a possible
> illegitimate dau named Alice, the only evidence it was she who became wife
> of Thomas Tunstall is Flower's 1563 Tunstall pedigree noted by John - which
> is contradicted by Dugdale. Robert's will is also suggestive that all
> legatees were adult or near adult in 1457, thus b. bef 1440, making her a
> bit old to be Tunstall's mistress/wife.
>
> The Earl of Salisbury, mentioned in the DNB bio, was Sir Richard, brother of
> Bishop Robert and father of Archbishop George. Since the Earl (m. bef Feb
> 1420/21 to Alice Montagu) did have children named Ralph, Thomas and Alice,
> it is unclear why the DNB dismisses him as the father of the legatees, who
> would be the Bishop's nephews and niece - perhaps political considerations?
>
> As noted above, the two clergymen were a generation apart (Robert 1404-1457,
> George 1432-1476). My rough chronology for Tunstall's wife has Alice (which
> was the name of the Archbishop's mother as well as his sister, so is an
> easily explained name choice) b. say 1450/55 and first mistress then later
> m. say 1470/75 to Thomas Tunstall. The one near solid recorded date for
> their offspring is that Cuthbert (also a Bishop of Durham) was b. 1474 (or
> 1476), supposedly before Tunstall and Alice were married (his short bio is
> in Walter Farquhar Hook; Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury: Anglo-Saxon
> period; page 212 @http://books.google.com/books?id=zZAsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA212-
> also see Wikipedia @http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuthbert_Tunstall).
>
> The parentage of Tunstall's wife was discussed back in 1999 - see the
> respected Leslie Maher's post @http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/1999-02/09...,
> citing WH Chippindall [1928] 'History of the Parish of Tunstall' (not seen)
> that Alice's father was the Archbishop.
>
> As John noted, Dugdale, citing Surtees' Durham, also identifies Alice's
> father as Archbishop George Neville in a footnote to the Tunstall pedigree @http://books.google.com/books?id=FqJCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA295.
>
> See also Rosemary Horrox; 'Richard III: a Study of Service'; Cambridge;
> 1991, page 50 "Conversely, Gloucester [Richard Duke of Gloucester, brother
> of Edw IV, became Richard III in 1483] inherited the services of the
> Tunstalls of Thurland (Lancs) from Warwick, although the first formal record
> of fee is apparently that granted by Gloucester to Thomas Tunstall in 1471.
> Thomas had received a royal pardon in the previous April, just one week
> after Barnet, which implies a Neville connection. So, probably, does the
> fact that his concubine of several years standing, whom he subsequently
> married, was the illegitimate daughter of archbishop George Neville.[83] His
> two brothers, Richard and William, followed him into Gloucester's service.
> Sir Richard, the eldest, was probably the 'master Tunstall' who was one of
> the duke's councillors and William was one of Gloucester's feoffees."
>    [The critical footnote cites : "[83] Cal Papal Regis XIII pt II page 524;
> CPR 1467-77 p. 258; Chippindall 1928, pedigree facing p. 304." Once again,
> Chippindall is cited. The CPR entry is @http://books.google.com/books?id=b8hGAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA258, which links the
> archbishop and Tunstall to shared political intrigues and related pardons
> but does state their relationship. Have not seen the Papal Registry to note
> what it says.]
>
> One should thus be hesitant to identify Tunstall's wife as dau of Bishop
> Robert, given that 1) it is uncertain that the Alice in his will was indeed
> an illegitimate dau; 2) there is nothing in the record beyond Flower's
> contradicted pedigree to connect her with Thomas Tunstall other than 'names
> the same'; 3) the chronology would seem to favor Tunstall's wife being of
> the next generation; and 4) there is reasonable evidence in the record that
> Tunstall's wife was Archbishop George's dau.
>
> Terry Booth
> Chicago IL
>
>
>

I have several points to add to this useful discussion:

1) I have a copy of the pertinent section of Chippindall's "History of
the Parish of Tunstall", which was published in 1940, not 1928 as
stated above. Chippindall's 1928 publication was the TWCAAS article
that I cited in an earlier post, of which I also have a copy. The two
publications are virtually identical in the pertinent sections. See
my earlier post for their citation regarding George Neville.

2) Flower's visitation does not state that Alice Neville was the
daughter of Bishop ROBERT Neville, only that she was "doughter [sic]
of Bishop Nevill". I suppose you could argue that, if she was the
daughter of Archbishop George Neville, she would have been called
"daughter of Archbishop [not Bishop} Nevill", but this may be
expecting too much accuracy from the visitation -particularly those of
Yorkshire, which were notoriously inaccurate.

3) Dugdale's visitation (Clay ed.) does not say that Alce Neville IS
the daughter of George Neville - only that she "is said to be" his
daughter, citing Surtees. But I believe that Surtees also says that
Cuthbert Tunstall was legitimate, which may cast some doubt on his
credibility regarding the Tunstalls.

4) I think the chronology is not definitive in ruling out or
supporting either Robert or George as the father of Alice. If Alice
was in fact born ca. 1450, either man could have been her father -
although George would have been quite young (only about 18). If she
was born any earlier than that, Robert would seem to be the more
likely candidate.

5) Unless Robert Neville's will itself is examined, I don't see why
it should be considered "uncertain that the Alice in his will was
indeed an illegitimate dau." I suppose it's possible that earlier
writers misread the will, but this seems a bit of a stretch.

So far it seems the Dugdale and Chppindall references seems to be the
only evidence in support of George Neville as the father, while the
DNB/ODNB bio of Robert Neville seems to be the only evidence in
support of Robert as the father. The evidence doesn't really seem
conclusive in either case.
W***@aol.com
2011-05-21 17:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I have to dispute a few things raised here.

That we have any notion of when Thomas Tunstall of Thurland was born is
only resident upon knowing that his mother Alianor daughter of Henry 4th Lord
FitzHugh had been previously married to Philip 6th Lord Darcy of Knath who
died 2 Aug 1418

And subsequent to her married to Thomas, she married Henry Bromflete Baron
Vesey *by* 1439 by which year their daughter Margaret had to have been born.

So her marriage to Thomas Tunstall must occur from 1418 to 1437.

Their second son Thomas who is the one who married Alice Neville was
therefore born 1420/1438

For Alice to be the daughter of Robert Neville Bishop of Durham, she would
need to be born 1422/1457 (in which later year he died)

I dispute that we know the year in which Robert was born

With such chronology, I dispute that we have an accurate picture of whether
or not Cuthbert was legitimate or no.
If he were born in 1474 as has been stated in this thread, he could
certainly still be their third legitimate son (after Thomas who d.s.p. 1503 and
Brian slain at Flodden)
John
2011-05-21 21:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 21, 10:10 am, ***@aol.com wrote:
> I have to dispute a few things raised here.
>
> That we have any notion of when Thomas Tunstall of Thurland was born is
> only resident upon knowing that his mother Alianor daughter of Henry 4th Lord
> FitzHugh had been previously married to Philip 6th Lord Darcy of Knath who
> died 2 Aug 1418
>
> And subsequent to her married to Thomas, she married Henry Bromflete Baron
> Vesey *by* 1439 by which year their daughter Margaret had to have been born.
>
> So her marriage to Thomas Tunstall must occur from 1418 to 1437.
>
> Their second son Thomas who is the one who married Alice Neville was
> therefore born 1420/1438
>
> For Alice to be the daughter of Robert Neville Bishop of Durham, she would
> need to be born 1422/1457 (in which later year he died)
>
> I dispute that we know the year in which Robert was born
>
> With such chronology, I dispute that we have an accurate picture of whether
> or not Cuthbert was legitimate or no.
> If he were born in 1474 as has been stated in this thread, he could
> certainly still be their third legitimate son (after Thomas who d.s.p. 1503 and
> Brian slain at Flodden)

We can pinpoint the marriage of the elder Thomas Tunstall and Eleanor
Fitzhugh a little closer, because they were married "without the
king's license" and received a pardon for this in 1427. So they were
certainly married no later than 1427 and probably only shortly before
that. The elder Thomas was knighted in 1426 - it seems doubtful that
he would have been secretly married (and in need of a pardon for that)
at the time he was knighted.

The ODNB bio of Robert Neville gives enough details about his early
life to justify 1404 as at least a good estimate for his birth date.
Similarly, Cuthbert Tunstall is stated to have been admitted to oxford
in 1491, so 1474 is also at least a good estimate of his birth date.
Cuthbert was certainly not born after the first two legitimate sons
Thomas and Brian, since a 1500 IPM for his uncle William states that
the younger Thomas was 20 years old (his father Thomas already being
dead) - and NOT "20 years and more", in case you're wondering. So
Thomas Tunstall and Anne Neville were probably married around 1479 or
shortly before - i.e., after the birth of Thomas' two illegitimate
sons.
W***@aol.com
2011-05-22 18:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In a message dated 5/21/2011 2:20:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@yahoo.com writes:


> Cuthbert was certainly not born after the first two legitimate sons
> Thomas and Brian, since a 1500 IPM for his uncle William states that
> the younger Thomas was 20 years old (his father Thomas already being
> dead) - and NOT "20 years and more", in case you're wondering.

Since there is yet controversy over this very point in the secondary
material, perhaps you could share with us your exact source where this IPM may be
found ?
John
2011-05-22 19:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 22, 11:14 am, ***@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/21/2011 2:20:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> ***@yahoo.com writes:
> > Cuthbert was certainly not born after the first two legitimate sons
> > Thomas and Brian, since a 1500 IPM for his uncle William states that
> > the younger Thomas was 20 years old (his father Thomas already being
> > dead) - and NOT "20 years and more", in case you're wondering.
>
> Since there is yet controversy over this very point in the secondary
> material, perhaps you could share with us your exact source where this IPM may be
> found ?

The 1500 IPM is cited in the two Chippindall works already mentioned
in this thread. Both of these works derive the age of the younger
Thomas from the IPM, which is discussed in considerable detail.

Where exactly do you see "controversy over this very point in the
secondary material"? Which secondary material, and which point - the
birth date of Cuthbert or the age of the younger Thomas?
TJ Booth_aol
2011-05-23 21:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks for noting that Alice's eldest legitimate son Thomas was age 20 in 1500 - I'd initially skipped over that.

Looking back at the citation to Chippindall, the source cited for the paragraph identifying Tunstall's wife as dau of the Archbishop was "B.M. Add. MS. 12477, fo. 120 937". A footnote in Flower's notes that "the collection of pedigrees made by Colborne for Dalton in 1560-1561, [is] now known as B .M. Add . MS . 12,477". Dalton's Visitation is found in 'Visitations of the North' Part I available in pdf form on the Univ of Iowa website. The Thurland pedigree by Dalton (known to Flowers since he wrote on the MS) states " THOMAS TUNSTALL, hevre male to his brother, Sir Rychard, wedyd Alyce, doughtre to [blank] Nevill, and hadde issue Thomas sine exitu, Bryan, John and Cutberte, nowe busshoppe of Durham 1528, [corrected to 1558 in a footnote] and Agnes, wiefe fyrst to [blank] Kyrkbryde, and aftre to Covyle sine exitu, Margaret, sine exitu, Alyce wiefe to John Baynes of Lancashere, and Johan, a nune." The entry thus does not appear to be particularly helpful nor semm to have helped Flowers unless an arms were found - but maybe the original is different.

Since Thomas b. 1580 was the eldest legitimate son, there were 2 other sons per Dalton (Brian and John), and another son William who was one of the executors of Sir Brian's 1513 will - "also that my wyff be myne executrix, my broder Wm. Tunstall, Wm. Redmayne aud Edm. Prkynsone be myne exors." and several daughters. Given all those children, several born after 1580 with the first (Cuthbert) born 1474, the chronology would certainly favor Alice b. cir 1450/55 rather than bef 1440 (making her several times a mother after age 40 and perhaps a first time mother at age 34).

Might someone post the 1457 will of Bishop Robert Neville. Does it anywhere therein call the three Neville legatees his children? Although Thomas is called a "scholar of tender years" (suggesting he was enrolled in college), is there anything to indicate the other two legatees were not adult in 1457? If they were not adult, there is then the question of who saw to their upbringing - was that addressed in the will? There is also an alternate * possible * identity for the legatees in Bishop Robert's will; namely, the children of Bishop Robert's brother William. William m. Joan Fauconberge (called 'an idiot from birth') and one of their 3 daus was Alice b. abt 1437 and likely m. after Bishop Robert's death (eldest son b. 1468). William also had several illegitimate children including Thomas 'the bastard of Fauconberg' and 'at least' one other son per MCA p.317 sub Fauconberg. Though I don't know his dates, Thomas 'the bastard' could have been the student in 1457, and Ralph of the will could have been another of William's bastard sons.

Rosemary Horrox had cited "Cal Papal Regis XIII pt II page 524" as an additional source for the Archbishop Neville and Thomas Tunstall relationship. Does anyone have access to that source to note what it states and if it is at all on point?

In terms of Alice's ancestry, this is one of those times (similar to Douglas Hickling's 'Which John de Mowbray . .' @ http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sources/mowbray/christiana3.shtml) where the use of what I've termed a 'No Harm' link proves useful. That is, there is no question that both Bishop Robert and Archbishop George were descendants of Edward III via Ralph Neville's wife Joan Beaufort. Since Bishop Robert's mistress is unknown and thus provides no added ancestry, there is 'no harm' in choosing Bishop Robert as her father if the objective is to recognize Alice's Edw III ancestry - even though there is a reasonable case it was Archbishop George who was her father. The 'No Harm' relationship sacrifices any added ancestry via the alternate possible choice (in this case the ancestry of Alice Montagu, the Archbishop's mother) in return for connecting to the earliest shared ancestry. It isn't traditional genealogy, but it does recognize an important valid relationship that would otherwise be lost.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL

----- Original Message -----
From: "John" <***@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Alice Nevill


On May 22, 11:14 am, ***@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/21/2011 2:20:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> ***@yahoo.com writes:
> > Cuthbert was certainly not born after the first two legitimate sons
> > Thomas and Brian, since a 1500 IPM for his uncle William states that
> > the younger Thomas was 20 years old (his father Thomas already being
> > dead) - and NOT "20 years and more", in case you're wondering.
>
> Since there is yet controversy over this very point in the secondary
> material, perhaps you could share with us your exact source where this IPM may be
> found ?

The 1500 IPM is cited in the two Chippindall works already mentioned
in this thread. Both of these works derive the age of the younger
Thomas from the IPM, which is discussed in considerable detail.

Where exactly do you see "controversy over this very point in the
secondary material"? Which secondary material, and which point - the
birth date of Cuthbert or the age of the younger Thomas?

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
John Watson
2011-05-24 04:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 24, 4:50 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:

>
> Rosemary Horrox had cited "Cal Papal Regis XIII pt II page 524" as an additional source for the Archbishop Neville and Thomas Tunstall relationship. Does anyone have access to that source to note what it states and if it is at all on point?

>

Terry,
You can access the Calendar of Papal Registers online at BHO:
1475. Kal. Nov. (1 Nov.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 5r.) To Thomas
Tunstall, layman, and Alice Neowill, mulier, of the diocese of York.
Indult, as below. Their recent petition contained that the custom of
their country requires that marriage be not contracted unless it be
previously published for three Sundays or feast days in the parish
church, in order that if any impediment arise, it can be at once
answered; that, having cohabited for many years and had three
children, they desire to contract marriage; and that, inasmuch as they
have lived in the said concubinage publicly, the said Thomas is
unwilling to contract such marriage openly and in accordance with the
said custom. The pope therefore grants them indult to contract such
marriage, without incurring any penalty or censure, provided that, as
they allege, there be no canonical impediment, and without regard to
the said custom, and provided that it be contracted lawfully and
before some priest of the diocese of York, of their choice. (fn. 2)
Sincere deuotionis affectus. [1 p.]
'Lateran Regesta 767: 1475-1476', Calendar of Papal Registers Relating
to Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 13: 1471-1484 (1955), pp.
524-531.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=105139

Regards,

John
Wjhonson
2011-05-24 05:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Stunning.
Thanks John for this quote!










-----Original Message-----
From: John Watson <***@gmail.com>
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Sent: Mon, May 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Subject: Re: Alice Nevill


On May 24, 4:50 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:

>
> Rosemary Horrox had cited "Cal Papal Regis XIII pt II page 524" as an
additional source for the Archbishop Neville and Thomas Tunstall relationship.
Does anyone have access to that source to note what it states and if it is at
all on point?

>

Terry,
You can access the Calendar of Papal Registers online at BHO:
1475. Kal. Nov. (1 Nov.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 5r.) To Thomas
Tunstall, layman, and Alice Neowill, mulier, of the diocese of York.
Indult, as below. Their recent petition contained that the custom of
their country requires that marriage be not contracted unless it be
previously published for three Sundays or feast days in the parish
church, in order that if any impediment arise, it can be at once
answered; that, having cohabited for many years and had three
children, they desire to contract marriage; and that, inasmuch as they
have lived in the said concubinage publicly, the said Thomas is
unwilling to contract such marriage openly and in accordance with the
said custom. The pope therefore grants them indult to contract such
marriage, without incurring any penalty or censure, provided that, as
they allege, there be no canonical impediment, and without regard to
the said custom, and provided that it be contracted lawfully and
before some priest of the diocese of York, of their choice. (fn. 2)
Sincere deuotionis affectus. [1 p.]
'Lateran Regesta 767: 1475-1476', Calendar of Papal Registers Relating
to Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 13: 1471-1484 (1955), pp.
524-531.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=105139

Regards,

John

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message
John Watson
2011-05-24 08:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 24, 12:01 pm, Wjhonson <***@aol.com> wrote:
> Stunning.
> Thanks John for this quote!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Watson <***@gmail.com>
> To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
> Sent: Mon, May 23, 2011 9:53 pm
> Subject: Re: Alice Nevill
>
> On May 24, 4:50 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Rosemary Horrox had cited "Cal Papal Regis XIII pt II page 524" as an
> additional source for the Archbishop Neville and Thomas Tunstall relationship.
> Does anyone have access to that source to note what it states and if it is at
> all on point?
>
> Terry,
> You can access the Calendar of Papal Registers online at BHO:
> 1475. Kal. Nov. (1 Nov.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 5r.) To Thomas
> Tunstall, layman, and Alice Neowill, mulier, of the diocese of York.
> Indult, as below. Their recent petition contained that the custom of
> their country requires that marriage be not contracted unless it be
> previously published for three Sundays or feast days in the parish
> church, in order that if any impediment arise, it can be at once
> answered; that, having cohabited for many years and had three
> children, they desire to contract marriage; and that, inasmuch as they
> have lived in the said concubinage publicly, the said Thomas is
> unwilling to contract such marriage openly and in accordance with the
> said custom. The pope therefore grants them indult to contract such
> marriage, without incurring any penalty or censure, provided that, as
> they allege, there be no canonical impediment, and without regard to
> the said custom, and provided that it be contracted lawfully and
> before some priest of the diocese of York, of their choice. (fn. 2)
> Sincere deuotionis affectus. [1 p.]
> 'Lateran Regesta 767: 1475-1476', Calendar of Papal Registers Relating
> to Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 13: 1471-1484 (1955), pp.
> 524-531.
> URL:http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=105139
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
> the message

Hi Will,
I just had a look at the original Latin, given in footnote 2 at the
bottom of the BHO webpage which says that Thomas and Alice had "tres
filios procreastis"; i.e. three sons not three children. I suppose
that Cuthbert Tunstall, later bishop of London and Durham was the last
of these, since he was said to have been illegitimate and born about
1474.
Regards,

John
John
2011-05-24 16:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 23, 9:53 pm, John Watson <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 4:50 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Rosemary Horrox had cited "Cal Papal Regis XIII pt II page 524" as an additional source for the Archbishop Neville and Thomas Tunstall relationship. Does anyone have access to that source to note what it states and if it is at all on point?
>
> Terry,
> You can access the Calendar of Papal Registers online at BHO:
> 1475. Kal. Nov. (1 Nov.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 5r.) To Thomas
> Tunstall, layman, and Alice Neowill, mulier, of the diocese of York.
> Indult, as below. Their recent petition contained that the custom of
> their country requires that marriage be not contracted unless it be
> previously published for three Sundays or feast days in the parish
> church, in order that if any impediment arise, it can be at once
> answered; that, having cohabited for many years and had three
> children, they desire to contract marriage; and that, inasmuch as they
> have lived in the said concubinage publicly, the said Thomas is
> unwilling to contract such marriage openly and in accordance with the
> said custom. The pope therefore grants them indult to contract such
> marriage, without incurring any penalty or censure, provided that, as
> they allege, there be no canonical impediment, and without regard to
> the said custom, and provided that it be contracted lawfully and
> before some priest of the diocese of York, of their choice. (fn. 2)
> Sincere deuotionis affectus. [1 p.]
> 'Lateran Regesta 767: 1475-1476', Calendar of Papal Registers Relating
> to Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 13: 1471-1484 (1955), pp.
> 524-531.
> URL:http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=105139
>
> Regards,
>
> John

This item was originally mentioned in this thread on the assumption
that it related to the connection between Thomas Tunstall and george
Neville, Archbishop of York. Obviously the Archbishop is not
mentioned here, and thus this does not help to answer the original
question of whether Alice Neville was the daughter of George or Robert
Neville.

The footnote that says Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville had 3 sons
presumably refers to their illegitimate sons, given the context and
the date of the item - they also had three sons (and three daughters)
following the marriage. If Cuthbert Tunstall was one of these three
illegitimate sons (he clearly was NOT legitimate, given the dates),
this contradicts the conclusion in his ODNB bio that he was
illegitimate by a different mistress of his father. The latter woman
is said to be a daughter of Sir John Conyers of Hornby who was
subsequently the second wife of Thomas Tunstall (after Alice
Neville). I am dubious about the latter point (the second wife) since
I've seen no other evidence of this, and thus I tend to be skeptical
about the first point (her supposed maternity of Cuthbert).

The bottom line here is that we still have no good support for the
paternity of Alice Neville, with the strongest point perhaps being the
mention of a daughter Alice in the will of Robert, Bishop of Durham.
The peripheral question of Cuthbert Tunstall's birth date and whether
he was legitimate (highly doubtful) doesn't seem to add much to the
question. If anything, it may tend to tilt the question slightly in
favor of Robert as the father, since it may be chronologically more
likely for him to be Alice's father rather than George (who would have
been quite young when he fathered her - if he did).

At any rate, it makes little difefrence, as Terry has mentioned -
Alice has an Edward II descent either way.

BTW here's a citation for the 1500 IPM of William Tunstall (brother of
Thomas): PRO, Chancery IPM, series 2, vol. 14, no. 96. The TCWAAS
article by Chippindall cited earier the thread apparently has a full
account of the IPM in an appendix (which I don't have a copy of).
It's clear that it contains a considerable amount of genealogical
information, which is described in detail in the Chippindall articles.
Brad Verity
2011-05-24 23:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 24, 9:40 am, John <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If Cuthbert Tunstall was one of these three
> illegitimate sons (he clearly was NOT legitimate, given the dates),
> this contradicts the conclusion in his ODNB bio that he was
> illegitimate by a different mistress of his father.  The latter woman
> is said to be a daughter of Sir John Conyers of Hornby who was
> subsequently the second wife of Thomas Tunstall (after Alice
> Neville).  

Here is the relevant excerpt from the 2004 Cuthbert Tunstall biography
by D.G. Newcombe in ODNB:

"Tunstal [Tunstall], Cuthbert (1474–1559), bishop of Durham and
diplomat, was born near Hornby Castle in Hackforth, Yorkshire, the son
of Thomas Tunstal, later a squire of the body to Richard III, and of
his future second wife, a daughter of Sir John Conyers of Hornby
Castle [see under Conyers family]. The circumstances of his birth were
never held against him as his parents' subsequent marriage legitimated
him under canon and civil law, if not under common law. He had three
brothers and three sisters, some of whom may have been the children of
his father's first wife, Alice Neville. One brother was Brian Tunstal,
the so-called ‘stainless knight’, killed at the battle of Flodden in
1513; Cuthbert became supervisor of his will and guardian of his son
Marmaduke."

> I am dubious about the latter point (the second wife) since
> I've seen no other evidence of this, and thus I tend to be skeptical
> about the first point (her supposed maternity of Cuthbert).

Either Newcombe never saw the Calendar of Papal Registers entry
regarding the marriage of Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville, or he
misread it, for it is clear from that that the couple had three
illegitimate children (apparently sons) before they wed. What needs
to be determined is what Newcombe's source was for 1) Thomas Tunstall
having had two wives; and 2) that one of the wives was the daughter of
Sir John Conyers of Hornby. It seems likely that there was only one
mistress/wife, Alice Neville, and that she was the mother of all of
Tunstall's children.

The allusion to Sir John Conyers of Hornby is interesting. For he had
a daughter-in-law, Alice Neville, the widow of his son and heir John
Conyers, who had died in 1469/70. The papal petition mentions that
the couple had cohabited for "many years" and already had three sons.
Five years is certainly enough time for Alice to have fathered three
sons. If the Alice Neville who became Thomas Tunstall's mistress was
indeed the Alice Neville who was the widowed daughter-in-law of Sir
John Conyers of Hornby, it could explain how the couple met: for
Thomas Tunstall was the half-brother (through his mother Eleanor
Fitzhugh) of Margery Darcy, the late wife of Sir John Conyers, and
thus the uncle of Alice Neville's late husband. A very cozy
relationship like this could well explain why Thomas Tunstall received
permission from the Pope to contract a private marriage and NOT have
public marriage banns.

The Alice Neville who married John Conyers the heir of Hornby was the
daughter of William Neville, Earl of Kent and Joan Fauconberg. This
was a very dysfunctional family: William and Joan had been contracted
in matrimony as children in order for William to obtain her
substantial Fauconberg inheritance. She is stated by CP to have been
an idiot, though what the evidence for this is from the 15th century I
don't know. At any rate, the fact that William fathered plenty of
bastard sons shows that he was certainly finding his romantic needs
met elsewhere. He was a career soldier, and if his wife truly was an
idiot, she was not capable of raising their three daughters while he
was continually away on campaigns. Since two of them, Elizabeth and
Alice, married grandsons of Eleanor, Lady Darcy, they may well have
been placed in that lady's household. She was a formidable and well-
connected woman: a Fitzhugh by birth, as a child she was arranged in
marriage to Philip Darcy, who died while they were still minors. She
then took two subsequent husbands of her own choice, each more
powerful than the last, before dying in 1457. It may well have been
this lady, not their mentally impaired mother, who was the predominant
influence on the Earl of Kent's daughters, and if so, the youngest
one, Alice, could have formed an attachment to Thomas Tunstall, one of
the lady's younger sons, even though arranged in marriage to the
lady's grandson.

> The bottom line here is that we still have no good support for the
> paternity of Alice Neville, with the strongest point perhaps being the
> mention of a daughter Alice in the will of Robert, Bishop of Durham.

Cuthbert of course was the patron saint of Durham, and Alice naming a
son for him would point to her being a daughter of a bishop of Durham,
not an archbishop of York.

> The peripheral question of Cuthbert Tunstall's birth date and whether
> he was legitimate (highly doubtful) doesn't seem to add much to the
> question.  

The question of his birthdate may not add much, but details from his
childhood certainly would. From Newcombe's ODNB bio of him:

"Nothing is known of Tunstal's childhood except that (apparently on
his own relation) he spent two years as a kitchen boy in the household
of Sir Thomas Holland, possibly at Lynn, Norfolk, before ‘being
knowne, he was sent home to Sir Richard [sic] Tunstall his
father’ (Blomefield, 1.232). Perhaps he returned to his father's
household on his parents' marriage. In any case his father appears to
have provided for his education, though the suggestion that he was at
St Anthony's School in Threadneedle Street, London, and first met
Thomas More there, is entirely speculative. About 1491 Tunstal was
admitted to Balliol College, Oxford."

How and why Cuthbert Tunstall, a lad with very northern lineage, ended
up in Norfolk, could shed some light on his family connections.

Cheers, ------Brad
John
2011-05-25 03:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 24, 4:55 pm, Brad Verity <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 9:40 am, John <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If Cuthbert Tunstall was one of these three
> > illegitimate sons (he clearly was NOT legitimate, given the dates),
> > this contradicts the conclusion in his ODNB bio that he was
> > illegitimate by a different mistress of his father.  The latter woman
> > is said to be a daughter of Sir John Conyers of Hornby who was
> > subsequently the second wife of Thomas Tunstall (after Alice
> > Neville).  
>
> Here is the relevant excerpt from the 2004 Cuthbert Tunstall biography
> by D.G. Newcombe in ODNB:
>
> "Tunstal [Tunstall], Cuthbert (1474–1559), bishop of Durham and
> diplomat, was born near Hornby Castle in Hackforth, Yorkshire, the son
> of Thomas Tunstal, later a squire of the body to Richard III, and of
> his future second wife, a daughter of Sir John Conyers of Hornby
> Castle [see under Conyers family]. The circumstances of his birth were
> never held against him as his parents' subsequent marriage legitimated
> him under canon and civil law, if not under common law. He had three
> brothers and three sisters, some of whom may have been the children of
> his father's first wife, Alice Neville. One brother was Brian Tunstal,
> the so-called ‘stainless knight’, killed at the battle of Flodden in
> 1513; Cuthbert became supervisor of his will and guardian of his son
> Marmaduke."
>
> > I am dubious about the latter point (the second wife) since
> > I've seen no other evidence of this, and thus I tend to be skeptical
> > about the first point (her supposed maternity of Cuthbert).
>
> Either Newcombe never saw the Calendar of Papal Registers entry
> regarding the marriage of Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville, or he
> misread it, for it is clear from that that the couple had three
> illegitimate children (apparently sons) before they wed.  What needs
> to be determined is what Newcombe's source was for 1) Thomas Tunstall
> having had two wives; and 2) that one of the wives was the daughter of
> Sir John Conyers of Hornby.  It seems likely that there was only one
> mistress/wife, Alice Neville, and that she was the mother of all of
> Tunstall's children.
>
> The allusion to Sir John Conyers of Hornby is interesting.  For he had
> a daughter-in-law, Alice Neville, the widow of his son and heir John
> Conyers, who had died in 1469/70.  The papal petition mentions that
> the couple had cohabited for "many years" and already had three sons.
> Five years is certainly enough time for Alice to have fathered three
> sons.  If the Alice Neville who became Thomas Tunstall's mistress was
> indeed the Alice Neville who was the widowed daughter-in-law of Sir
> John Conyers of Hornby, it could explain how the couple met: for
> Thomas Tunstall was the half-brother (through his mother Eleanor
> Fitzhugh) of Margery Darcy, the late wife of Sir John Conyers, and
> thus the uncle of Alice Neville's late husband.  A very cozy
> relationship like this could well explain why Thomas Tunstall received
> permission from the Pope to contract a private marriage and NOT have
> public marriage banns.
>
> The Alice Neville who married John Conyers the heir of Hornby was the
> daughter of William Neville, Earl of Kent and Joan Fauconberg.  This
> was a very dysfunctional family: William and Joan had been contracted
> in matrimony as children in order for William to obtain her
> substantial Fauconberg inheritance.  She is stated by CP to have been
> an idiot, though what the evidence for this is from the 15th century I
> don't know.  At any rate, the fact that William fathered plenty of
> bastard sons shows that he was certainly finding his romantic needs
> met elsewhere.  He was a career soldier, and if his wife truly was an
> idiot, she was not capable of raising their three daughters while he
> was continually away on campaigns.  Since two of them, Elizabeth and
> Alice, married grandsons of Eleanor, Lady Darcy, they may well have
> been placed in that lady's household.  She was a formidable and well-
> connected woman: a Fitzhugh by birth, as a child she was arranged in
> marriage to Philip Darcy, who died while they were still minors.  She
> then took two subsequent husbands of her own choice, each more
> powerful than the last, before dying in 1457.  It may well have been
> this lady, not their mentally impaired mother, who was the predominant
> influence on the Earl of Kent's daughters, and if so, the youngest
> one, Alice, could have formed an attachment to Thomas Tunstall, one of
> the lady's younger sons, even though arranged in marriage to the
> lady's grandson.
>
> > The bottom line here is that we still have no good support for the
> > paternity of Alice Neville, with the strongest point perhaps being the
> > mention of a daughter Alice in the will of Robert, Bishop of Durham.
>
> Cuthbert of course was the patron saint of Durham, and Alice naming a
> son for him would point to her being a daughter of a bishop of Durham,
> not an archbishop of York.
>
> > The peripheral question of Cuthbert Tunstall's birth date and whether
> > he was legitimate (highly doubtful) doesn't seem to add much to the
> > question.  
>
> The question of his birthdate may not add much, but details from his
> childhood certainly would.  From Newcombe's ODNB bio of him:
>
> "Nothing is known of Tunstal's childhood except that (apparently on
> his own relation) he spent two years as a kitchen boy in the household
> of Sir Thomas Holland, possibly at Lynn, Norfolk, before ‘being
> knowne, he was sent home to Sir Richard [sic] Tunstall his
> father’ (Blomefield, 1.232). Perhaps he returned to his father's
> household on his parents' marriage. In any case his father appears to
> have provided for his education, though the suggestion that he was at
> St Anthony's School in Threadneedle Street, London, and first met
> Thomas More there, is entirely speculative. About 1491 Tunstal was
> admitted to Balliol College, Oxford."
>
> How and why Cuthbert Tunstall, a lad with very northern lineage, ended
> up in Norfolk, could shed some light on his family connections.
>
> Cheers,                           ------Brad

If I'm reading this correctly (and in conjunction with Terry Booth's
latest post slightly earlier), this makes a reasonable case for the
possibility (to say the least) that Alice Neville, mistress and later
wife of Thomas Tunstall, was the niece, not the daughter, of Robert
Neville, Bishop of Durham. If so, she was likely daughter of his
brother Sir William Neville, Lord Fauconberg and Earl of Kent, and
widow of Sir John Conyers [the younger] of Hornby.

Her identity has certainly been confused over the centuries if this is
the case - but the confusion is perhaps explainable. The statement in
the DNB and ODNB bios of her apparent son Cuthbert Tunstall, that she
was a daughter of Sir John Conyers of Hornby may not be too far off -
by this hypothesis she was a daughter-in-law, not daughter, of Sir
John Conyers the elder. A loose reading of the will of Robert
Neville, Bishop of Durham, could have suggested that she was his
daughter (illegitimate, of course). And then, for unknown reasons
(perhaps because he was more prominent than his uncle - or simply more
contemporaneous?), George Neville, Archbishop of York, was substituted
for his uncle Robert as her supposed father.

I don't know how (or if) this hypothesis can be proved, but at least
there now seems to be substantial doubt as to whether either Robert
Neville or George Neville could be the father of Alice - and Sir
William seems to be the most logical alternative.

Any further thoughts on this matter?
Brad Verity
2011-05-25 07:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 24, 8:57 pm, John <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If I'm reading this correctly (and in conjunction with Terry Booth's
> latest post slightly earlier), this makes a reasonable case for the
> possibility (to say the least) that Alice Neville, mistress and later
> wife of Thomas Tunstall, was the niece, not the daughter, of Robert
> Neville, Bishop of Durham.  If so, she was likely daughter of his
> brother Sir William Neville, Lord Fauconberg and Earl of Kent, and
> widow of Sir John Conyers [the younger] of Hornby.

Yes, I'm starting to think this is a strong possibility.

> Her identity has certainly been confused over the centuries if this is
> the case - but the confusion is perhaps explainable.  The statement in
> the DNB and ODNB bios of her apparent son Cuthbert Tunstall, that she
> was a daughter of Sir John Conyers of Hornby may not be too far off -
> by this hypothesis she was a daughter-in-law, not daughter, of Sir
> John Conyers the elder.  A loose reading of the will of Robert
> Neville, Bishop of Durham, could have suggested that she was his
> daughter (illegitimate, of course).  And then, for unknown reasons
> (perhaps because he was more prominent than his uncle - or simply more
> contemporaneous?), George Neville, Archbishop of York, was substituted
> for his uncle Robert as her supposed father.

This sounds reasonable. Especially as the closer we get to the actual
pedigrees from the 16th century (as opposed to the 19th-century edited
versions), we seem to find Alice wife of Thomas Tunstall merely given
the surname Neville, with no indication of specific paternity.

> I don't know how (or if) this hypothesis can be proved, but at least
> there now seems to be substantial doubt as to whether either Robert
> Neville or George Neville could be the father of Alice - and Sir
> William seems to be the most logical alternative.
>
> Any further thoughts on this matter?

From Anthony Pollard's bio of William Neville, Earl of Kent, in the
2004 ODNB:

"He married, before 28 April 1422, Joan (1406–1490), the heir to the
barony of Fauconberg of Skelton in Cleveland, in whose right he was
first summoned to parliament in 1429. She was mentally handicapped,
being described in 1463 as an imbecile (fatua) and idiot from birth.
Her father, Sir John Fauconberg, who was probably also insane, had
died in 1407 when she was a year old, and it is likely that her
wardship had been granted to Westmorland, who used her inheritance to
provide for his second son."

So there is specific 15th-century evidence of Joan Fauconberg's mental
impairment. Joan Fauconberg's mother was Joan Bromflete, who died
when the girl was only age 3. But in addition to her in-laws Ralph
Neville and Joan Beaufort, Earl and Countess of Westmorland, another
relation who likely took an interest in the impaired young heiress was
her maternal uncle, Henry Bromflete. He became a powerful northern
magnate, was created Lord Vessy in 1449, and in 1435 took for his
second wife Eleanor Fitzhugh, widow of Philip Lord Darcy and of Sir
Thomas Tunstall. They were married for 22 years, until her death in
1457. As William Neville's mother Joan Beaufort died in 1440, Eleanor
Fitzhugh Darcy Tunstall Bromflete could well have stepped in to act as
a surrogate mother and noble lady role model for the young daughters
of her husband's mentally impaired niece as they grew up in the 1440s
and 1450s. And has been pointed out, two of these girls, Elizabeth
and Alice, were arranged in marriage to the two grandsons and
(eventual) heirs of Eleanor Darcy Bromflete.

Further from Pollard's bio of William Neville Earl of Kent in the
ODNB:

"William Neville did not return to France for five years. His services
were needed elsewhere. Already, in March 1443, he had been appointed
captain of Roxburgh. Since 1441, too, he had not only been the steward
of Durham, but had also held the military command of the bishopric on
behalf of his brother, Robert Neville. In the autumn of 1443 he took
up these posts in person, even presiding over the Durham halmote
courts in October. For the most part, however, he was absent from
Durham; how much time he devoted to Roxburgh is unknown. In 1448,
however, as the truce came under strain, he returned to France, but
was seriously wounded and captured in May 1449 when Charles VII seized
Pont de l'Arche. He was a prisoner for over three years."

So William Neville was active in Durham in the 1440s and played a
large role in the administration of his brother Robert Neville, bishop
of Durham. It may well be that the siblings Thomas, Ralph and Alice
Neville mentioned in the bishop's 1557 will were William's children
rather than the bishop's own. Especially with William a prisoner in
France in the early 1450s, the bishop would've felt a responsibility
to look after the welfare of his brother's children. Again, Alice
Neville Tunstall naming a son 'Cuthbert' is indication that she felt a
strong spiritual association with Durham. She also named a son
'Brian' - rather unusual and not one occurring in the Neville family,
though curiously it does occur in the Conyers family. Sir John
Conyers of Hornby the elder (the father-in-law of Alice, daughter of
William Neville Earl of Kent) had a half-brother Brian Conyers of
Pinchingthorpe.

Sir John Conyers of Hornby remained a loyal retainer of the Neville
family throughout the War of the Roses, and played a leading
administrative role in their lordship of Middleham. When Richard duke
of Gloucester married Anne Neville the Kingmaker's daughter, he became
the overlord to Sir John Conyers and rewarded him when he usurped the
throne in 1483 by making him a knight of the body and a knight of the
Garter. Conyers's brother-in-law Thomas Tunstall at the same time was
made an esquire of the body, and it may have been the trusted Conyers
who helped draw Tunstall into Richard III's household.

Nothing definitive or conclusive, but interesting connections
nonetheless.

Cheers, -------Brad
TJ Booth_aol
2011-05-25 17:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:57 PM, "John" <***@yahoo.com> wrote

I don't know how (or if) this hypothesis can be proved, but at least
there now seems to be substantial doubt as to whether either Robert
Neville or George Neville could be the father of Alice - and Sir
William seems to be the most logical alternative.

Any further thoughts on this matter?

---

It would seem a bit early to drop Archbishop George as Alice's likely
father. DNB's error was in not translating all of Bishop Robert's will (i.e.
failing to notice that Thomas Neville was called his nephew). Making niece
Alice the wife of Tunstall is still a 'names the same' assignment. That is,
since Bishop Robert can be excluded as Alice Tunstall's father, both Flowers
and Dugdale (citing Surtees) now agree Alice's father was bishop and/or
archbishop (and George was both).

The biggest problem to the 'Sir William as father' view would seem to be the
indulgence, which as cited calls her "Alice Neowill, mulier" (question, is
the google latin translation that mulier means 'the woman' correct?).
Shouldn't she have been identified as 'Alice Conyers, widow' if she was
indeed Sir John's widow - that was certainly the name of Conyer's widow at
the time. Or at least for the Pope to have called her Conyers or a widow
somewhere in the indult? Is there not some sort of misrepresentation if one
requests an indulgence, but does not provide the correct name? The
indulgence doesn't even say 'dau of William Neville' which would seem a
better way to obscure her widowhood if that was intended.

The chronology is a bit awkward as well, since per Sir William Neville's IPM
his dau was b. abt 1437. This would make her age 43 when eldest legitimate
son Thomas Tunstall was b. in 1580, and even older for sons Brian and
William. (question - does someone have Sir William's 1460 IPM - if his dau
was identified as Alice Conyers it would date her m. to betw Bishop Robert's
1457 will and the date of the IPM, otherwise the marriage is after the date
of the IPM).

Another question is why the Fauconberge arms were not previously associated
with the Tunstalls.

Whether her father was Archbishop George or Sir William, in either case
Alice still has Edw III ancestry, and her descendants ought not be denied
that ancestry. Which gets back to my willingness to use a 'No Harm' (or at
least 'least harm') parent. Both Sir William's wife (Joan Fauconberge) and
the Archbishop's mother (Alice Montagu) have impressive ancestries, but
Joan's would seem the lesser since Alice Montagu is several times an Edw I
descendant. Thus Sir William would seem the least harm choice.

Hopefully someone can find a Conyers record that might clarify just what
happened to Sir John's widow.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL
Brad Verity
2011-05-25 19:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 25, 10:59 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:

> It would seem a bit early to drop Archbishop George as Alice's likely
> father. DNB's error was in not translating all of Bishop Robert's will (i.e.
> failing to notice that Thomas Neville was called his nephew). Making niece
> Alice the wife of Tunstall is still a 'names the same' assignment. That is,
> since Bishop Robert can be excluded as Alice Tunstall's father, both Flowers
> and Dugdale (citing Surtees) now agree Alice's father was bishop and/or
> archbishop (and George was both).

We need to be careful here, as we're mixing up 19th-century editors
(Surtees and Clay) with 16th-17th century heralds (Flower & Dugdale).
From what I understand, Dugdale in the mid-17th century, makes no
mention of Alice Neville's father in his original Visitation
pedigree. It was John W. Clay, who edited Dugdale's visitation
pedigrees in the late 19th-century, who suggests that Alice's father
was George Neville, Archbishop of York, and cites Robert Surtees as
his source.

Robert Surtees was another antiquarian, writing in the early 19th
century. It seems he is the earliest source that has come to light,
to assign Archbishop George as Alice's father. He needs to be checked
to see why he came to this conclusion. And his monumental multi-
volume work on the History of the County of Durham is not available on
Google Books, so someone is going to have to track it down at a major
research library and report back to a very grateful newsgroup
audience.

William Flower made two visitations in Yorkshire, in 1563/4, and in
1567. One version (from the Harleian Society) purporting to be his
Visitations, is actually just the 19th-century editor trying to make
heads & tails out of a copy of a copy of Flower's visitation notes,
and is useless. The Surtees Society volume (#133, published in 1921)
of Flower's visitations is the one that needs to be checked to see
exactly what the Tudor-era herald Flower had to say about Alice
Neville.

> The biggest problem to the 'Sir William as father' view would seem to be the
> indulgence, which as cited calls her "Alice Neowill, mulier" (question, is
> the google latin translation that mulier means 'the woman' correct?).

I believe 'mulier' was a term to indicate an older woman, not a
virgin.

> Shouldn't she have been identified as 'Alice Conyers, widow' if she was
> indeed Sir John's widow - that was certainly the name of Conyer's widow at
> the time.

Probably, unless Thomas Tunstall and Alice were trying to hide the
fact that he was the blood uncle of her previous husband.

> Or at least for the Pope to have called her Conyers or a widow
> somewhere in the indult?

The Pope would simply go by what the petition in front of him said.
Remember the couple were asking for permission to keep their marriage
from being made public knowledge. They offered the excuse that it was
already public knowledge because they had been cohabiting for many
years and had three sons. If so, why should they care if banns were
publicly made? Were there folks in their community who could step
forward with impediments to it? Why, apparently by his own admission
(though we're getting it much later and secondhand) did Bishop
Cuthbert Tunstall say he was placed in the Holland kitchen household
until he was found out? Something's very strange about the whole
thing.

> Is there not some sort of misrepresentation if one
> requests an indulgence, but does not provide the correct name?

Yes, but again, someone who knew the truth would have to step forward
and challenge it. This is apparently what they were trying to prevent
by bypassing public banns.

> The
> indulgence doesn't even say 'dau of William Neville' which would seem a
> better way to obscure her widowhood if that was intended.

As both Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville were grown adults, no
further identification beyond the diocese where they were living was
necessary. It may be noteworthy that the diocese was York, especially
for the theory of Alice being the daughter of Archbishop George.

> The chronology is a bit awkward as well, since per Sir William Neville's IPM
> his dau was b. abt 1437. This would make her age 43 when eldest legitimate
> son Thomas Tunstall was b. in 1580, and even older for sons Brian and
> William.

What is the earliest Tunstall pedigree that exists which enumerates
the children of Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville? The 1530
Visitation of Yorkshire?

> (question - does someone have Sir William's 1460 IPM - if his dau
> was identified as Alice Conyers it would date her m. to betw Bishop Robert's
> 1457 will and the date of the IPM, otherwise the marriage is after the date
> of the IPM).

CP probably has a transcription of it (in Latin) in the footnotes in
the Fauconberg articles.

> Another question is why the Fauconberge arms were not previously associated
> with the Tunstalls.

Very good point.

> Whether her father was Archbishop George or Sir William, in either case
> Alice still has Edw III ancestry,

Correct.

> and her descendants ought not be denied
> that ancestry.

Unless Alice Neville Tunstall was a daughter of neither of those two
Neville men above.

> Which gets back to my willingness to use a 'No Harm' (or at
> least 'least harm') parent. Both Sir William's wife (Joan Fauconberge) and
> the Archbishop's mother (Alice Montagu) have impressive ancestries, but
> Joan's would seem the lesser since Alice Montagu is several times an Edw I
> descendant. Thus Sir William would seem the least harm choice.

What seems to be the case so far is this:

1) Thomas Tunstall received permission from the Pope in late 1475 to
privately contract a marriage with "Alice Neowill, mulier, of the
diocese of York", with whom he had cohabited "many years" and had
three "filios".

2) Bishop Robert Neville of Durham left a bequest in his 1457 for the
marriage portion of "Alice", sister of Thomas Neville, a scholar of
tender years, and his younger brother Ralph Neville. Alice is not
given a surname in the Bishop's will, so we can't be certain if she
was a full sister, half sister, married already with her marriage
portion still unpaid, or unmarried and building up her marriage
portion.

3) The young scholar Thomas Neville who was the brother of Alice in
the Bishop's will would not be the same Thomas Neville "militis" who
was named as an executor of it by the Bishop.

4) Thomas Tunstall could not have married a legitimate daughter of Sir
John Conyers of Hornby, as stated in the ODNB bio of Cuthbert
Tunstall, as such a daughter would be his blood niece, a daughter of
his half-sister Margery Darcy Conyers. He could marry a bastard
daughter, or daughter-in-law, of Sir John Conyers of Hornby, as there
would be no blood tie.

> Hopefully someone can find a Conyers record that might clarify just what
> happened to Sir John's widow.

Yes, that would be great, and a timeline of all the children of Sir
John Conyers and Alice Neville of Fauconberg, as well all the children
of Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville.

I agree that chronology is the biggest issue in regards to Alice
Neville Conyers being the Alice Neville whom Thomas Tunstall asked to
marry privately in 1475. It would thus be helpful to try and
determine exactly how many children Tunstall is supposed to have had.

Cheers, ------Brad
Brad Verity
2011-05-25 21:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 25, 12:35 pm, Brad Verity <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The Pope would simply go by what the petition in front of him said.
> Remember the couple were asking for permission to keep their marriage
> from being made public knowledge.  They offered the excuse that it was
> already public knowledge because they had been cohabiting for many
> years and had three sons.  If so, why should they care if banns were
> publicly made?  Were there folks in their community who could step
> forward with impediments to it?

Among the well over 100 individuals who were admitted to the Guild of
Corpus Christi in the city of York in the year 1473:

"Tho. Tunstall, arm., de Hornby in com. Richmondiae." (Identified by
the editor as: "Thomas, second son, I believe, of Sir Thomas Tunstall,
of Thurland castle, by Eleanor, daughter of Henry, lord Fitzhugh. He
married Alice Neville, by whom he had a son and heir, Sir Brian
Tunstall, who was killed at Flodden in 1513").

"Ric. Tunstall, miles, et Elizabeth uxor ejus, de
Tunstall." (Identified by the editor as: "Sir Richard Tunstall, eldest
son of the above-mentioned Sir Thomas Tunstall, and Elizabeth his
wife, daughter of Sir William Frank. He was for several years one of
the standing counsel to the corporation of York, and frequently took
part in their deliberations. He was living in 1490").

"Dom. Joh. Bethom, filia comitis de Kent." (Identified by the editor
as "Joan, eldest daughter and co-heiress of William Neville, earl of
Kent, said (Dugd. Bar., i., 308) to have married Sir Edward
Bedhowring").

"Brian. Conyers et Eliz. uxor. ejus." (Identified by the editor as:
"Brian Conyers, merchant, a younger son of Christopher Conyers, esq.,
of Hornby, was one of the city chamberlains in 1475, and died in 1478.
He married Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Nelson, and was the founder
of a family which settled at Pinchinthorpe, in Cleveland").

So the Tunstalls of Thurland, Nevilles of Fauconberg & Conyers of
Hornby all had family members residing in the diocese of York during
the period when Thomas Tunstall & Alice Neville were unwed conjugal
partners having sons together.

Cheers, -----Brad
John
2011-05-25 22:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 25, 12:35 pm, Brad Verity <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 10:59 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > It would seem a bit early to drop Archbishop George as Alice's likely
> > father. DNB's error was in not translating all of Bishop Robert's will (i.e.
> > failing to notice that Thomas Neville was called his nephew). Making niece
> > Alice the wife of Tunstall is still a 'names the same' assignment. That is,
> > since Bishop Robert can be excluded as Alice Tunstall's father, both Flowers
> > and Dugdale (citing Surtees) now agree Alice's father was bishop and/or
> > archbishop (and George was both).
>
> We need to be careful here, as we're mixing up 19th-century editors
> (Surtees and Clay) with 16th-17th century heralds (Flower & Dugdale).
> From what I understand, Dugdale in the mid-17th century, makes no
> mention of Alice Neville's father in his original Visitation
> pedigree.  It was John W. Clay, who edited Dugdale's visitation
> pedigrees in the late 19th-century, who suggests that Alice's father
> was George Neville, Archbishop of York, and cites Robert Surtees as
> his source.
>
> Robert Surtees was another antiquarian, writing in the early 19th
> century.  It seems he is the earliest source that has come to light,
> to assign Archbishop George as Alice's father.  He needs to be checked
> to see why he came to this conclusion.  And his monumental multi-
> volume work on the History of the County of Durham is not available on
> Google Books, so someone is going to have to track it down at a major
> research library and report back to a very grateful newsgroup
> audience.

I've requested the appropriate volume of Surtees' Durham through my
library. With luck it should be here in the next week or so.

>
> William Flower made two visitations in Yorkshire, in 1563/4, and in
> 1567.  One version (from the Harleian Society) purporting to be his
> Visitations, is actually just the 19th-century editor trying to make
> heads & tails out of a copy of a copy of Flower's visitation notes,
> and is useless.  The Surtees Society volume (#133, published in 1921)
> of Flower's visitations is the one that needs to be checked to see
> exactly what the Tudor-era herald Flower had to say about Alice
> Neville.

The Tunstall pedigree in the Surtees Society edition of Flower's
visitation appears in vol. 122, not v. 133. Essentially it says the
same thing as the Harleian Society version - with one perhaps notable
difference: "Thomas Tunstall, heyre male to his brother, Sir Richard,
wedyd Alyce, doughtre to [blank] Nevill". It does NOT identify the
Nevill in question as a bishop, which could cast doubt on the naming
of the father as "Bishop Nevill" in the Harleian Society edition of
the same visitation.

[snip]

> What is the earliest Tunstall pedigree that exists which enumerates
> the children of Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville?  The 1530
> Visitation of Yorkshire?

The 1530 Visitation (Tonge, published as Surtees Society vol. 41) does
not contain a pedigree of the Tunstalls. I think the 1563/64
Visitation (Flower) appears to be the earliest to show the children of
this couple - and the two versions of the visitation are at some
variance with one another with respect to the children - see below.
As to earlier visitations, Surtees Society vol. 144 is the publication
of an MS described by its editor as "a copy made by Robert Glover...of
an old manuscript, now lost, which may have been the official record
of an heraldic visitation of the northern counties made in the latter
part of the fifteenth century" (identified by the editor to be ca.
1480-1500). This visitation, if that's what it is, does not give wife
or children to our Thomas Tunstall.

[snip]

> What seems to be the case so far is this:
>
> 1) Thomas Tunstall received permission from the Pope in late 1475 to
> privately contract a marriage with "Alice Neowill, mulier, of the
> diocese of York", with whom he had cohabited "many years" and had
> three "filios".
>
> 2) Bishop Robert Neville of Durham left a bequest in his 1457 for the
> marriage portion of "Alice", sister of Thomas Neville, a scholar of
> tender years, and his younger brother Ralph Neville.  Alice is not
> given a surname in the Bishop's will, so we can't be certain if she
> was a full sister, half sister, married already with her marriage
> portion still unpaid, or unmarried and building up her marriage
> portion.
>
> 3) The young scholar Thomas Neville who was the brother of Alice in
> the Bishop's will would not be the same Thomas Neville "militis" who
> was named as an executor of it by the Bishop.
>
> 4) Thomas Tunstall could not have married a legitimate daughter of Sir
> John Conyers of Hornby, as stated in the ODNB bio of Cuthbert
> Tunstall, as such a daughter would be his blood niece, a daughter of
> his half-sister Margery Darcy Conyers.  He could marry a bastard
> daughter, or daughter-in-law, of Sir John Conyers of Hornby, as there
> would be no blood tie.
>
> > Hopefully someone can find a Conyers record that might clarify just what
> > happened to Sir John's widow.
>
> Yes, that would be great, and a timeline of all the children of Sir
> John Conyers and Alice Neville of Fauconberg, as well all the children
> of Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville.
>
> I agree that chronology is the biggest issue in regards to Alice
> Neville Conyers being the Alice Neville whom Thomas Tunstall asked to
> marry privately in 1475.  It would thus be helpful to try and
> determine exactly how many children Tunstall is supposed to have had.
>
> Cheers,                                       ------Brad

With respect to the children of Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville, I
can find three different versions at the moment:

1) 1563/4 Visitation (Surtees Society vol. 122): sons Thomas, Bryan,
John, and Cuthbert [the Bishop of Durham]; daughters Agnes (m.
Kyrkbryde and Colvyle, no issue), Alice (m. John Baynes of
Lancashire), and Johan [sic] a nun.

2) 1563/64 Visittaion (Harleian Society vol. 16): sons Thomas,
Bryan, Cuthbert [bishop], and John; daughters Margaret (no issue),
Ales (m. John Baynes of Lancashire, Margery (m. William Redmayne of
Twisleton), Ales (m. Richard Hodelston [sic]), Agnes (m. Kyrkbryde and
Colvyle, no issue), and Joan a nun.

[neither of the above identify any children as illegitimate]

Chippindall (cited earlier in the thread) identifies two illegitimate
sons (not three as in the papal indult): Cuthbert the bishop and
John. Also six legitimate children: sons Thomas (d. sp), Bryan
(eventual heir), and William (of Aldcliffe); and daughters Alice (m.
Richard Huddleston of Westhall), unnamed daughter (m. William Layton
of Dalemain), and Margaret (m. William Redmayne of Twisleton).

What a mess....
Brad Verity
2011-05-26 16:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 25, 3:03 pm, John <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I've requested the appropriate volume of Surtees' Durham through my
> library.  With luck it should be here in the next week or so.

That's great, John. Surtees seems to be the source for Alice being
daughter of George Neville, Archbishop of York. As he wrote before
the Yorkshire Visitations were published, I'm curious to find out why
he came to that conclusion.

> The Tunstall pedigree in the Surtees Society edition of Flower's
> visitation appears in vol. 122, not v. 133.  

No wonder I couldn't find it!

> Essentially it says the
> same thing as the Harleian Society version - with one perhaps notable
> difference:  "Thomas Tunstall, heyre male to his brother, Sir Richard,
> wedyd Alyce, doughtre to [blank] Nevill".  It does NOT identify the
> Nevill in question as a bishop, which could cast doubt on the naming
> of the father as "Bishop Nevill" in the Harleian Society edition of
> the same visitation.

Wow, this completely opens the field. I don't trust the Harleian
Society edition one bit, as I've said before. The editor meant well,
but he went and combined pedigrees from various visitations to make
one comprehensive pedigree for each family. It cannot be viewed as a
reliable source of 16th-century evidence. For all we know, the editor
of the Harleian version could've read Surtees and filled in "Bishop
Nevill" himself.

What we do know is that the herald William Flower left blank the name
of Alice Neville Tunstall's father in 1563-4, which indicates that
neither he nor his Tunstall family source knew who the man had been.
If she had been the daughter of the Archbishop of York, you would
think that fact would have been remembered by the family, even almost
100 years later.

When I was browsing through the Register of the Guild of Corpus
Christi yesterday, I saw a number of Nevilles in the city of York in
the 1460s and 1470s, including the Nevilles of Thornton Bridge. There
is no real reason to think that Alice's father was a descendant of the
1st Earl of Westmorland. All we know is that her name was Alice
Neville in 1475 and she was residing in the diocese of York.

> As to earlier visitations, Surtees Society vol. 144 is the publication
> of an MS described by its editor as "a copy made by Robert Glover...of
> an old manuscript, now lost, which may have been the official record
> of an heraldic visitation of the northern counties made in the latter
> part of the fifteenth century" (identified by the editor to be ca.
> 1480-1500).  This visitation, if that's what it is, does not give wife
> or children to our Thomas Tunstall.

That's unfortunate.

> With respect to the children of Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville, I
> can find three different versions at the moment:
>
> 1)  1563/4 Visitation (Surtees Society vol. 122):  sons Thomas, Bryan,
> John, and Cuthbert [the Bishop of Durham]; daughters Agnes (m.
> Kyrkbryde and Colvyle, no issue), Alice (m. John Baynes of
> Lancashire), and Johan [sic] a nun.

This is the version that needs to be considered the true snapshot of
the Tunstalls in 1563/4. All they gave the herald was the four sons &
three daughters above. I'm still fond of the theory that Alice
Neville Tunstall was the daughter of William, Earl of Kent & widow of
Sir John Conyers the younger of Hornby. But given her birthdate of
about 1436, I don't know if its chronologically feasible for her to
have had 7 children with Tunstall after 1470.

> 2)  1563/64 Visittaion (Harleian Society vol. 16):  sons Thomas,
> Bryan, Cuthbert [bishop], and John; daughters Margaret (no issue),
> Ales (m. John Baynes of Lancashire, Margery (m. William Redmayne of
> Twisleton), Ales (m. Richard Hodelston [sic]), Agnes (m. Kyrkbryde and
> Colvyle, no issue), and Joan a nun.

IIRC there is enough Tunstall family evidence to show there was a
daughter Alice Tunstall who married Richard Huddleston of Westhall in
Lancashire. It's likely though she had another husband, John Baynes
of Lancashire, rather than there being two separate daughters named
Alice, one married to Huddleston and the other to Baynes.

Since Agnes Tunstall Kyrkbryde Colvyle and Joan Tunstall the nun come
from the original 1563/4 Flower Visitation, they are valid. But
Margaret and Margery, wife of William Redmayne of Twisleton, should be
viewed with a large amount of skepticism as daughters of Thomas
Tunstall & Alice Neville until other corroborating evidence is found.

> [neither of the above identify any children as illegitimate]

Their parents' marriage legitimated any children, even the ones born
before it, in the eyes of the church. Apparently it didn't apply to
land inheritance.

> Chippindall (cited earlier in the thread) identifies two illegitimate
> sons (not three as in the papal indult): Cuthbert the bishop and
> John.  Also six legitimate children:  sons Thomas (d. sp), Bryan
> (eventual heir), and William (of Aldcliffe); and daughters Alice (m.
> Richard Huddleston of Westhall), unnamed daughter (m. William Layton
> of Dalemain), and Margaret (m. William Redmayne of Twisleton).

Since the family didn't bother to include William Tunstall of
Aldcliffe among the children of Thomas Tunstall & Alice Neville in
1563/4, why should we?

By this point (the 1490s/1500s, reign of Henry VII), when the
daughters of Thomas Tunstall & Alice Neville were growing up and
marrying, plenty of documentation survives. So I'm very wary of any
pedigree that can't provide a first name or spouse to a generation.
Thus, I'm going to disagree with Chippindall about a daughter married
to a William Layton of Dalemain, especially as no such marriage was
mentioned by the Tunstalls in 1563/4. And here Margaret (aka
Margery?) Tunstall, wife of William Redmayne of Twisleton, pops up
again. But for all we know, Chippindall could've plopped her in
because he was using that Harleian Society Yorkshire Visitation volume
as his source - the one that can't be viwed as authoritative of
anything. If there was such a Tunstall daughter married to Redmayne
of Twisleton, why did the family not include her in 1563/4?

Of course that's not to say ommissions in Visitation pedigrees never
happened. I have come across a case where a family informant left a
sister off a Visitation. In 1530, Sir John Aske of Aughton did not
name his eldest sister Julian Aske Portington in the list of his
siblings. She, who is verified by family wills and other sources, had
died before the Visitation, which could be why he omitted her. So its
possible both William Tunstall of Aldcliffe & Margaret/Margery
Tunstall Redmayne were omitted by the family in 1563/4 due to
oversight or because they left no issue. But as daughters who left no
issue and became a nun were included, it becomes very curious why
William and Margaret/Margery (if they ever existed) were omitted.

> What a mess....

Yes!!

On May 25, 10:47 pm, ***@aol.com wrote:

> No no I don't read that at all.
> What I read is that he didn't want banns *because* they had been
> cohabitating.
> That is, HE didn't want it publicly known that they were NOT married.
> That's why he wanted to keep it private.
> It was public knowledge that they had been living together and had
> children.
> What was not public knowledge was that they were not married.

I had not looked at it from this angle at all! I really like it - it
fits the evidence.

On May 26, 3:37 am, Matt Tompkins <***@le.ac.uk> wrote:

> 'Mulier' generally meant a woman of any sort, including virgins - nuns
> were often termed 'mulieres religiose', for example.

Thank you for the clarification.

Cheers, ------Brad
John
2011-05-26 20:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 26, 9:53 am, Brad Verity <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> > Chippindall (cited earlier in the thread) identifies two illegitimate
> > sons (not three as in the papal indult): Cuthbert the bishop and
> > John.  Also six legitimate children:  sons Thomas (d. sp), Bryan
> > (eventual heir), and William (of Aldcliffe); and daughters Alice (m.
> > Richard Huddleston of Westhall), unnamed daughter (m. William Layton
> > of Dalemain), and Margaret (m. William Redmayne of Twisleton).
>
> Since the family didn't bother to include William Tunstall of
> Aldcliffe among the children of Thomas Tunstall & Alice Neville in
> 1563/4, why should we?
>
> By this point (the 1490s/1500s, reign of Henry VII), when the
> daughters of Thomas Tunstall & Alice Neville were growing up and
> marrying, plenty of documentation survives.  So I'm very wary of any
> pedigree that can't provide a first name or spouse to a generation.
> Thus, I'm going to disagree with Chippindall about a daughter married
> to a William Layton of Dalemain, especially as no such marriage was
> mentioned by the Tunstalls in 1563/4.  And here Margaret (aka
> Margery?) Tunstall, wife of William Redmayne of Twisleton, pops up
> again.  But for all we know, Chippindall could've plopped her in
> because he was using that Harleian Society Yorkshire Visitation volume
> as his source - the one that can't be viwed as authoritative of
> anything.  If there was such a Tunstall daughter married to Redmayne
> of Twisleton, why did the family not include her in 1563/4?
>

It may be premature to dismiss the four children of Thomas Tunstall
and Alice Neville identified by Chpindall who do not appear in the
Surtees version of the 1563/4 Visitation by Flower (two of them - the
Huddleston and Redmayne spouses - do appear in the Harleian version of
the Visitation). Chippindall gives details on all four indicating
that they or their children are mentioned in the will of Bryan
Tunstall, their supposed brother who died at Flodden in 1513. There
are also further details provided regarding the connections of William
Tunstall of Aldcliffe with (his illegitimate brother?) Bishop
Cuthbert. Obviously these references should be checked if possible,
but Chippindall seems to have been very careful in his research - and
I would be inclined to trust him over ANY of the visitation pedigrees!

In addition, with respect to one of the spouses, William Redmayne of
Twisleton, this discussion of that family identifies him as brother-in-
law of Cuthbert and Bryan (his wife being their sister Margaret) and
gives further details about his connections with both men:
http://books.google.com/books?id=cR9oHxhkhLcC
Brad Verity
2011-05-26 22:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 26, 1:11 pm, John <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In addition, with respect to one of the spouses, William Redmayne of
> Twisleton, this discussion of that family identifies him as brother-in-
> law of Cuthbert and Bryan (his wife being their sister Margaret) and
> gives further details about his connections with both men:http://books.google.com/books?id=cR9oHxhkhLcC-

John,

Just a quick reply at the moment, as I am at work. I hope to respond
in full later tonight to both you & Terry. The only piece of primary
evidence provided by W. Greenwood, the author of 'The Redmans of
Levens and Harewood' book that you linked to above, is the following
snippet from Sir Brian Tunstall's will:

"Item to my Brother Redmayne for my syster marryage XXIIIs ... also
that my wyff be myne executrix, my broder Wm. Tunstall, Wm. Redmayne
and Edm. PrKynsone be myne exors." (p. 224).

William Redmayne's grandson and heir was born in 1522, so William had
to be married to the mother of his children by 1500 at the latest. It
seems rather a late date (What is the date of Brian Tunstall's will?
I'm assuming it was close to 1513, when he was killed at Flodden) for
Sir Brian to be making a (small) payment towards the marriage of
William Redmayne and the mother of his children. Though a natural
assumption would be that William Redmayne of Twisleton married a full
blood sister of Sir Brian Tunstall, there are other possibilities that
the one piece of evidence above can support:

1) The "Brother Redmayne" referred to in Sir Brian's will was not
William Redmayne of Twisleton.

2) "Brother Redmayne" was the husband of a sister-in-law of Sir Brian
(either a widow of one of his brothers, or a sister of his wife).

3) "Brother Redmayne" was married to a half-sister (and thus not
ennumerated among the children of Thomas Tunstall & Alice Neville in
1563/4, since she was the daughter of one not the other) of Sir Brian.

4) "Brother Redmayne" was himself a half-brother (since we know
nothing of the previous or subsequent history of his mother Alice
Neville) of Sir Brian.

Another interesting mention in the above snippet from Sir Brian's will
is "my broder Wm. Tunstall". Has Sir Brian's will been published in
full?

Cheers, -------Brad
John
2011-05-30 04:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 25, 3:03 pm, John <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 12:35 pm, Brad Verity <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Surtees was another antiquarian, writing in the early 19th
> > century.  It seems he is the earliest source that has come to light,
> > to assign Archbishop George as Alice's father.  He needs to be checked
> > to see why he came to this conclusion.  And his monumental multi-
> > volume work on the History of the County of Durham is not available on
> > Google Books, so someone is going to have to track it down at a major
> > research library and report back to a very grateful newsgroup
> > audience.
>
> I've requested the appropriate volume of Surtees' Durham through my
> library.  With luck it should be here in the next week or so.
>

Surtees' Durham, 1:lxvi-lxxii, has a fairly long narrative on Bishop
Cuthbert Tunstall in a section on the bishops of Durham.
Unfortunately I don't think it adds much to our discussion of the
maternity of Bishop Cuthbert or the maternity of his father Thomas'
wife Alice Neville.

The narrative begins as follows:
Bishop Tunstall is generally stated to have been the illegitimate son
of Sir Richard Tunstall, K.G. of Thurland Castle in Lancashire. He
was rather perhaps the son of Thomas Tunstall, brother and heir of Sir
Richard, and was consequently brother of Sir Brian Tunstall, who fell
at Flodden. [end of quote]

At this point a footnote is referenced which contains the following
statements [next 3 paragraphs are quoted]:
Leland mentions Tunstall's illegitimate birth as a report, without
affirming it of his own knowledge: "Hacforth in Richemontshire wher
as Cuthebert Tunstale, Bishop of London, was borne, base son to
Tunstal, as I hard [sic] by one of the Coniers doughters." Itin. IV.
19. He has been followed by Wood (Athen. I.127) and subsequent
writers; and Miss Conyers, who was at least a gentlewoman, has been
metamorphosed into a kitchen wench.

17 Jan. 1537, Grant of lands forfeited by Sir John Bulmer, &c. to
berian Tunstall, filio fratris nostri. 19 June 1549, patent of the
office of Constable of the Castle to Marmaduke Tunstall, Miles,
carissimus neptos noster, et Franc. Tunstall, fel. ejus, &c. The
above evidence establishes Bishop Tunstall's descent as stated in the
text, and throws considerable doubt on the truth of the assertion
regarding his illegitimacy.

The following statement is taken from a Pedigree of Tunstall amongst
the collections of the late laborious antiquary, J. Beckwith, of
York. The Pedigrees of Tunstall, in the College of Arms, are
unusually meagre and unsatisfactory.
[end of quote]

I won't retype in full the pedigree following at this point which
extends over the four generations from Sir Thomas Tunstall and his
wife Eleanor FitzHugh to the two sons of Sir Brian Tunstall who fell
at Flodden. A couple of key points are worth noting, however:
1) The children of Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville are listed as
being two sons, Bishop Cuther and Sir Brian, and two daughters, Agnes
(m. (1) Kirkby of Kirkby, (2) Copley; and Joan, Abbess of St. Mary's
Priory in York, 1507-1521.
2) Alice Neville is "said to be a natural daughter of George Neville,
Archbp. of York". The text in quotes here is in italics in Surtees
(unlike the rest of the pedigree) - which might indicate that this is
an addition by Surtees and not from his Beckwith source.

My conclusions from all of this are as follows - comments are welcome:

1) Surtees provides no evidence for the new (to us) assertion that
Cuthbert was a son of Sir Richard, brother of Thomas. He discards
this idea, and I think we should too. And we can certainly agree with
his statement that the Tunstall pedigrees are "meagre and
unsatisfactory"!

2) I don't think Surtees adequately supports his claim that Cuthbert
was legitimate rather than illegitimate, basing it solely on
Cuthbert's statement that Brian was his brother rather than his half-
brother. At the least Surtees was unaware of the papal indult we've
discussed - so, having discarded the Conyers mistress, he had no
choice but to assume the two men were by the same mother and thus
Cuthbert was legitimate.

3) At this point I'm agnostic about whether Leland's story of the
Conyers daughter as a mistress of Thomas Tunstall is valid, but the
existence of the papal indult indicating that Thomas and Alice Neville
had children before their marriage casts some doubt on the story.

4) Most important, Surtees doesn't really provide any support for the
assertion that Alice Neville was the base daughter of Archbishop
George - especially if it's based just on a comment added by him and
not by material from his Beckwith source (which we probably can't
verify anyway).

Bottom line: I think that the discussion in this thread has managed
to at least cast considerable doubt on (if not disprove) three
possibilities for the father of Alice Neville: Bishop Robert Neville,
Archbishop George Neville, and William Neville the Earl of Kent. As
Brad has suggested, Alice may well be from an entirely different
branch of the Nevilles (perhaps of Thornton Bridge?) and thus deprived
of the desirable ancestry she is usually thought to have had. Perhaps
the best that be said now is that her paternity is unknown and there
is inadequate support for any of the "usual suspects".
Matt Tompkins
2011-05-26 10:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> On May 25, 10:59 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> > The biggest problem to the 'Sir William as father' view would seem to be the
> > indulgence, which as cited calls her "Alice Neowill, mulier" (question, is
> > the google latin translation that mulier means 'the woman' correct?).
>

On May 25, 8:35 pm, Brad Verity <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I believe 'mulier' was a term to indicate an older woman, not a
> virgin.


'Mulier' generally meant a woman of any sort, including virgins - nuns
were often termed 'mulieres religiose', for example.

Matt Tompkins
TJ Booth_aol
2011-05-26 18:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks Brad for your comments as well as others in this thread. As you,
John Higgins, John Watson and others note, this exercise is demonstrating
the problems with Visitations. But it is also revealing about 16th century
practices, much of it related to the Neville family.

The indult certainly documents that Tunstall's mistress/wife was named
Alice Neville, so confirms that part of the pedigree. Making her a Conyers
widow seems a bit inconsistent with the indult, but as you point out they
were trying to hide things . .

I agree there is likely significance in the fact that the indult came
through York, although Archbishop George had earlier forfeited the
Archbishopric in 1472 when Edw IV regained the monarchy, and George was
perhaps imprisoned in France at the time.

One thing to ponder is the motivation associated with the indult. One
reason might be inheritance, since Cuthbert as well as all the other
illegitimate sons would be excluded. But at the time, Sir Richard (d.
1492? - verify Richard d.?) was the Tunstall heir so Thomas' children were
not expected to inherit the Tunstall lands, while Archbishop Neville's
properties had been forfeited to Edw IV in 1472.

Mr. Johnson's interpretation that the reason for the indult was the
couple had been 'acting as married' all along but just hadn't completed a
technicality of a church's blessing is interesting, but is inconsistent with
George Neville's 1563 statement that Cuthbert had been 'hidden' in the
kitchen of another Neville family. (Possible question to pursue - it was
George Neville's 1563 statement that Cuthbert was hidden - what family line
was George from?)

There is also the complication that if Alice were Sir John Conyer's
widow, she had several previous children of her own to raise who most likely
would be still living with her. Her son was only age 1 were Sir John Conyers
d. in 1469 so was not adult until 1489, and there was also a dau Margery.
Conyers' widow was d. by 1491 as she was not noted when Joan Fauconberge in
1491 (was there a Joan Fauconberge IPM to help here?).

Another question, was papal authority really needed for an indulgence at
the time? That is, didn't the York ministry possess authority? If it did,
then it might be needed because of a question of self interest (i.e. if it
was the archbishop's daughter mightn't a higher authority be required to
pardon him?).

Do not recall if this was noted before, but Tong's 1530 visitation has an
entry for Cuthbert p.26
http://books.google.com/books?id=2KUwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA26 as well as the
Tunstall pedigree p. 95 I recall being mentioned by John Higgins (which
identifies no wife for Sir Thomas). Significantly, Cuthbert was alive in
1530. The entry for Cuthbert and related footnotes are revealing, suggesting
the 'Conier's dau' story was of early origin and tied to the English
antiquary Leland [1503-1552 and thus a contemporary of Cuthbert] - given its
date, it likely deserves some sort of precedence over later statements.
Perhaps one of the heraldry scholars in this newsgroup can find significance
in the impalement, although I shudder to think if it instead adds yet
another family to the mix.

"CUTHBERT THUNSTALL, BYSSHOP OF DURESME. ARMS. Azure, a cross patonce or,
between four lions rampant argent. IMPALEMENT. Azure, three combs argent.
These be the armes of the Reuerend father in God CUTHBERT THUNSTALL,[1]
BYSSHOP OF DURESME, President of the Counsaill from the Trente northwarde
[2] to our Souverain Lord Kyng Henri the viijth.[3]
[1] The impalement of his personal coat has a difference of tincture, the
main line of Tunstal bearing the field sable. He used cocks as his
supporters or badges, as did others of his race. Leland says he was born at
Hackforth, in Richmondshire, and was "base sunne to Tunstal, as I hard, by
one of the Coniers' daughters." The badge of Conyers of Hornby was a dipped
trefoil, and it perhaps deserves attention that on the castle of Durham the
weather-moulding round his arms is decorated with single trefoil leaves on
stalks, but not on the running stalk common to Perpendicular work. He is
omitted in the pedigree of Tunstal, in this Visitation, which is another
strong support of the general truth of Leland's story. The coat given for
the see is that called the arms of St. Cuthbert, in distinction to those of
St. Oswald.
[2] In 1857, Mr. Davies of York very satisfactorily showed that the
establishment of this iron court preceded the Pilgrimage of Grace, which has
generally been considered to have been the reason of its foundation. His
paper was read before the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, and proved that
the court was connected with the residence at Sheriff Hutton of the King's
illegitimate son, the Duke of Richmond. In the archives of the Corporation
of York the Bishop of Durham is named as chief of the King's Council in
these North parts on 12 July 1530, the year of Tonge's Visitation.
[3] Fo. 47, b.

However one cuts it, Alice Neville clearly possesses an Edw III ancestry.
If her parentage remains unclear, the larger question - at least for me - is
how one presents her in a family tree so that her descendants can recognize
that fact. In addition to 'no harm' or 'least harm' links I've suggested,
this may be a situation for two 'bridge' persons named 'Son of Sir Ralph
Neville' and 'Wife of Son of Sir Ralph' to be added to the pedigree to act
as surrogate parents of Alice. This sacrifices both of the attractive
Montagu and Fauconberge maternal ancestries, but permits recognition of the
Edward III ancestry. While outside genealogy's standards of proof, it does
reflect the apparent reality.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Verity" <***@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Alice Nevill


On May 25, 10:59 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:

> It would seem a bit early to drop Archbishop George as Alice's likely
> father. DNB's error was in not translating all of Bishop Robert's will
> (i.e.
> failing to notice that Thomas Neville was called his nephew). Making niece
> Alice the wife of Tunstall is still a 'names the same' assignment. That
> is,
> since Bishop Robert can be excluded as Alice Tunstall's father, both
> Flowers
> and Dugdale (citing Surtees) now agree Alice's father was bishop and/or
> archbishop (and George was both).

We need to be careful here, as we're mixing up 19th-century editors
(Surtees and Clay) with 16th-17th century heralds (Flower & Dugdale).
>From what I understand, Dugdale in the mid-17th century, makes no
mention of Alice Neville's father in his original Visitation
pedigree. It was John W. Clay, who edited Dugdale's visitation
pedigrees in the late 19th-century, who suggests that Alice's father
was George Neville, Archbishop of York, and cites Robert Surtees as
his source.

Robert Surtees was another antiquarian, writing in the early 19th
century. It seems he is the earliest source that has come to light,
to assign Archbishop George as Alice's father. He needs to be checked
to see why he came to this conclusion. And his monumental multi-
volume work on the History of the County of Durham is not available on
Google Books, so someone is going to have to track it down at a major
research library and report back to a very grateful newsgroup
audience.

William Flower made two visitations in Yorkshire, in 1563/4, and in
1567. One version (from the Harleian Society) purporting to be his
Visitations, is actually just the 19th-century editor trying to make
heads & tails out of a copy of a copy of Flower's visitation notes,
and is useless. The Surtees Society volume (#133, published in 1921)
of Flower's visitations is the one that needs to be checked to see
exactly what the Tudor-era herald Flower had to say about Alice
Neville.

> The biggest problem to the 'Sir William as father' view would seem to be
> the
> indulgence, which as cited calls her "Alice Neowill, mulier" (question, is
> the google latin translation that mulier means 'the woman' correct?).

I believe 'mulier' was a term to indicate an older woman, not a
virgin.

> Shouldn't she have been identified as 'Alice Conyers, widow' if she was
> indeed Sir John's widow - that was certainly the name of Conyer's widow at
> the time.

Probably, unless Thomas Tunstall and Alice were trying to hide the
fact that he was the blood uncle of her previous husband.

> Or at least for the Pope to have called her Conyers or a widow
> somewhere in the indult?

The Pope would simply go by what the petition in front of him said.
Remember the couple were asking for permission to keep their marriage
from being made public knowledge. They offered the excuse that it was
already public knowledge because they had been cohabiting for many
years and had three sons. If so, why should they care if banns were
publicly made? Were there folks in their community who could step
forward with impediments to it? Why, apparently by his own admission
(though we're getting it much later and secondhand) did Bishop
Cuthbert Tunstall say he was placed in the Holland kitchen household
until he was found out? Something's very strange about the whole
thing.

> Is there not some sort of misrepresentation if one
> requests an indulgence, but does not provide the correct name?

Yes, but again, someone who knew the truth would have to step forward
and challenge it. This is apparently what they were trying to prevent
by bypassing public banns.

> The
> indulgence doesn't even say 'dau of William Neville' which would seem a
> better way to obscure her widowhood if that was intended.

As both Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville were grown adults, no
further identification beyond the diocese where they were living was
necessary. It may be noteworthy that the diocese was York, especially
for the theory of Alice being the daughter of Archbishop George.

> The chronology is a bit awkward as well, since per Sir William Neville's
> IPM
> his dau was b. abt 1437. This would make her age 43 when eldest legitimate
> son Thomas Tunstall was b. in 1580, and even older for sons Brian and
> William.

What is the earliest Tunstall pedigree that exists which enumerates
the children of Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville? The 1530
Visitation of Yorkshire?

> (question - does someone have Sir William's 1460 IPM - if his dau
> was identified as Alice Conyers it would date her m. to betw Bishop
> Robert's
> 1457 will and the date of the IPM, otherwise the marriage is after the
> date
> of the IPM).

CP probably has a transcription of it (in Latin) in the footnotes in
the Fauconberg articles.

> Another question is why the Fauconberge arms were not previously
> associated
> with the Tunstalls.

Very good point.

> Whether her father was Archbishop George or Sir William, in either case
> Alice still has Edw III ancestry,

Correct.

> and her descendants ought not be denied
> that ancestry.

Unless Alice Neville Tunstall was a daughter of neither of those two
Neville men above.

> Which gets back to my willingness to use a 'No Harm' (or at
> least 'least harm') parent. Both Sir William's wife (Joan Fauconberge) and
> the Archbishop's mother (Alice Montagu) have impressive ancestries, but
> Joan's would seem the lesser since Alice Montagu is several times an Edw I
> descendant. Thus Sir William would seem the least harm choice.

What seems to be the case so far is this:

1) Thomas Tunstall received permission from the Pope in late 1475 to
privately contract a marriage with "Alice Neowill, mulier, of the
diocese of York", with whom he had cohabited "many years" and had
three "filios".

2) Bishop Robert Neville of Durham left a bequest in his 1457 for the
marriage portion of "Alice", sister of Thomas Neville, a scholar of
tender years, and his younger brother Ralph Neville. Alice is not
given a surname in the Bishop's will, so we can't be certain if she
was a full sister, half sister, married already with her marriage
portion still unpaid, or unmarried and building up her marriage
portion.

3) The young scholar Thomas Neville who was the brother of Alice in
the Bishop's will would not be the same Thomas Neville "militis" who
was named as an executor of it by the Bishop.

4) Thomas Tunstall could not have married a legitimate daughter of Sir
John Conyers of Hornby, as stated in the ODNB bio of Cuthbert
Tunstall, as such a daughter would be his blood niece, a daughter of
his half-sister Margery Darcy Conyers. He could marry a bastard
daughter, or daughter-in-law, of Sir John Conyers of Hornby, as there
would be no blood tie.

> Hopefully someone can find a Conyers record that might clarify just what
> happened to Sir John's widow.

Yes, that would be great, and a timeline of all the children of Sir
John Conyers and Alice Neville of Fauconberg, as well all the children
of Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville.

I agree that chronology is the biggest issue in regards to Alice
Neville Conyers being the Alice Neville whom Thomas Tunstall asked to
marry privately in 1475. It would thus be helpful to try and
determine exactly how many children Tunstall is supposed to have had.

Cheers, ------Brad

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Derek Howard
2011-05-26 21:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 26, 8:13 pm, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> Do not recall if this was noted before, but Tong's 1530 visitation has an
> entry for Cuthbert p.26http://books.google.com/books?id=2KUwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA26as well as the
> Tunstall pedigree p. 95 I recall being mentioned by John Higgins (which
> identifies no wife for Sir Thomas). Significantly, Cuthbert was alive in
> 1530. The entry for Cuthbert and related footnotes are revealing, suggesting
> the 'Conier's dau' story was of early origin and tied to the English
> antiquary Leland [1503-1552 and thus a contemporary of Cuthbert] - given its
> date, it likely deserves some sort of precedence over later statements.
> Perhaps one of the heraldry scholars in this newsgroup can find significance
> in the impalement, although I shudder to think if it instead adds yet
> another family to the mix.
>
>    "CUTHBERT THUNSTALL, BYSSHOP OF DURESME. ARMS. Azure, a cross patonce or,
> between four lions rampant argent. IMPALEMENT. Azure, three combs argent.
> These be the armes of the Reuerend father in God CUTHBERT THUNSTALL,[1]
> BYSSHOP OF DURESME, President of the Counsaill from the Trente northwarde
> [2] to our Souverain Lord Kyng Henri the viijth.[3]
>    [1] The impalement of his personal coat has a difference of tincture, the
> main line of Tunstal bearing the field sable. He used cocks as his
> supporters or badges, as did others of his race. Leland says he was born at
> Hackforth, in Richmondshire, and was "base sunne to Tunstal, as I hard, by
> one of the Coniers' daughters." The badge of Conyers of Hornby was a dipped
> trefoil, and it perhaps deserves attention that on the castle of Durham the
> weather-moulding round his arms is decorated with single trefoil leaves on
> stalks, but not on the running stalk common to Perpendicular work. He is
> omitted in the pedigree of Tunstal, in this Visitation, which is another
> strong support of the general truth of Leland's story. The coat given for
> the see is that called the arms of St. Cuthbert, in distinction to those of
> St. Oswald.
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Tunstall family arms were given in a great many records, including
the Garter stall plate of Sir Richard Tunstal KG, as 'Sable three
cocks Argent' ("Dictionary of British Arms, Medieval Ordinary", v3, ed
Woodcock and Flower, 2009, 77).

_If_ the personal (sinister) arms in Cuthbert Tunstall’s impalement
with the arms of the bishopric of Durham were indeed 'Azure three
combs Argent' then this could reflect the previous illegitimacy as
heraldically he would not have inherited his father’s arms.

However, DBA informs us that not only do untinctured sculpture
(outside the upper part of the east oriel window at Bishop Aukland
Castle) and seal evidence (as Bishop of London 1522-30 (Birch 1936)
and as Bishop of Durham (Durham seals)) exist but also ms with
tinctured evidence. This includes Bishop of Durham, in College of Arms
ms D4 29, and as Bishop of London, in College of Arms ms L10 73,9 -
showing that the bishop in fact used 'Sable three cocks Argent' for
his personal arms.

CoA L10 is said in DBA to date to c.1520, while CoA D4 is the Thomas
Tong Visitation of the North of 1530 [sic. in DBA, though Wagner dates
the first entry to 1550]. Indeed D4 is Tong’s own general book of
record (Wagner: "The Records and Collections of the College of Arms",
77-78). This seems to indicate that a published visitation text may
(yet again) be in error in assigning Azure instead of Sable.

Derek Howard
Brad Verity
2011-05-27 08:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 26, 11:13 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:

>    Thanks Brad for your comments as well as others in this thread. As you,
> John Higgins, John Watson and others note, this exercise is demonstrating
> the problems with Visitations. But it is also revealing about 16th century
> practices, much of it related to the Neville family.

Yes. It's always good to try and develop a solid chronology for each
of these families. The Nevilles are historically significant, and I
know that the historian Michael Hicks has laid a lot of groundwork on
the dates, birth order, etc., of the siblings of Warwick the
Kingmaker. But I don't know that any particular modern-day focus has
been put on the family circles of the Fauconberg, Latimer and
Abergavenny Nevilles of the 15th century. So this is a useful
exercise no matter who Alice Neville's father turns out to be.

>    The indult certainly documents that Tunstall's mistress/wife was named
> Alice Neville, so confirms that part of the pedigree. Making her a Conyers
> widow seems a bit inconsistent with the indult, but as you point out they
> were trying to hide things . .

Though I like the theory of Alice Neville Conyers as Thomas Tunstall's
mistress, I'm not so convinced anymore. We have a much wider net now
- the earlier the sources we get to, the wider it gets. Basically,
herald William Flower said "Alice, daughter of [Blank] Nevill" in
1563/4, and John Leland said "one of the Coniers' daughters" somewhat
earlier.

>    I agree there is likely significance in the fact that the indult came
> through York, although Archbishop George had earlier forfeited the
> Archbishopric in 1472 when Edw IV regained the monarchy, and George was
> perhaps imprisoned in France at the time.

The Archbishop was a two-time member of the Guild of Corpus Christi at
York by 1473, when Thomas Tunstall was accepted. When I was browsing
thru the transcript of their Reigister Book, I noticed several other
Nevills who were admitted in the 1460s and 1470s (but no Alice).

>    One thing to ponder is the motivation associated with the indult. One
> reason might be inheritance, since Cuthbert as well as all the other
> illegitimate sons would be excluded. But at the time, Sir Richard (d.
> 1492? - verify Richard d.?) was the Tunstall heir so Thomas' children were
> not expected to inherit the Tunstall lands, while Archbishop Neville's
> properties had been forfeited to Edw IV in 1472.

Richard Tunstall and his wife Elizabeth were admitted to the Guild of
Corpus Christi in 1473, the same year as Thomas Tunstall. Richard was
involved in the governance of the city later in that decade. As their
parents were married in 1427, and their mother re-married in 1435, the
two Tunstall brothers were in their early forties in 1475, when
Thomas's petition to marry without banns was granted. It may have
been obvious to them at that point that Richard Tunstall and his wife
would have no children and Thomas would have to continue the family
line. So I think inheritance was a huge factor in Thomas making an
honest woman of Alice Neville.

>    Mr. Johnson's interpretation that the reason for the indult was the
> couple had been 'acting as married' all along but just hadn't completed a
> technicality of a church's blessing is interesting, but is inconsistent with
> George Neville's 1563 statement that Cuthbert had been 'hidden' in the
> kitchen of another Neville family. (Possible question to pursue - it was
> George Neville's 1563 statement that Cuthbert was hidden - what family line
> was George from?)

Cuthbert was supposedly hidden in the kitchen of the Holland, not
Neville, family until he was discovered and sent home. There was a
Holland family in Lancashire, and as the Tunstalls were Lancashire
landowners, there may be a kernel of truth to the secondhand story
passed down through the Holland family.

>    There is also the complication that if Alice were Sir John Conyer's
> widow, she had several previous children of her own to raise who most likely
> would be still living with her. Her son was only age 1 were Sir John Conyers
> d. in 1469 so was not adult until 1489, and there was also a dau Margery.

There were three children who survived infancy: son and heir William
Conyers, who became the 1st Baron Conyers; elder daughter Margery
Conyers married into a prominent local family, the Bulmers of Wilton
Castle, less than four miles east of Skelton Castle, held by her
grandmother, the mentally impaired Joan, Countess of Kent; younger
daughter Anne Conyers married into the baronial Lumley family.

> Conyers' widow was d. by 1491 as she was not noted when Joan Fauconberge in
> 1491 (was there a Joan Fauconberge IPM to help here?).

Here is CP's transcription of the IPM of Joan Fauconberg, Countess of
Kent: "Inq., cos. York, Northants, 21 Apr., 14 May 1491. ‘Et quod
obiit in vigilia sancte Lucie virginis [Saturday 11 Dec.] ultimo
preterito et quod Jacobus Straungeways miles et Willelmus Conyers sunt
heredes propinquiores predicte Comitisse videlicet predictus Jacobus
filius et heres Elisabethe filie et unius heredis predicte Comitisse
et predictus Willelmus filius Alicie filie et alterius heredis
predicte Comitisse. Et quod predictus Jacobus est etatis xxx annorum
et amplius. Et predictus Willelmus est etatis viginti duorum annorum
et amplius’ (Ch. ‘Inq.p.m.’, II, vol. 6, nos. 21, 22)."

So Alice Neville Conyers was dead by 1491, as it was her 22-year-old
son William Conyers who was returned as an heir of the elderly
Countess Joan.

And, this is CP's transcription of the IPM of William Neville, Earl of
Kent: "Inq., co. York, Monday 28 Mar. 1463. ‘...dicta Johanna fatua et
ydeota est a nativitate sua semper fuit. Ita quod se terras et
tenementa sua neque alia bona sua regere scit aut aliquo tempore
scivit. Et dicunt quod nulla terras aut tenementa alicui alienavit
post mortem Willelmi nuper Comitis de Kent nuper mariti sui...Et
dicunt quod Johanna uxor Edwardi Bethom militis Elizabetha uxor
Ricardi Strangways armigeri et Alesia uxor Johannis Conyers armigeri
sunt filie et heredes tam dicti Willelmi nuper Comitis quam dicte
Johanne nuper Comitisse. Et quod dicta Johanna uxor dicti Edwardi est
etatis xxx annorum et amplius et dicta Elizabetha est etatis xxviij
annorum et amplius et dicta Alesia est etatis xxvj annorum et
amplius’ (Ch. ‘Inq.p.m.’, Edw. IV, file 11, no. 33).

So Alice Neville was married to John Conyers, heir of Hornby Castle,
by 1463.

>    Another question, was papal authority really needed for an indulgence at
> the time? That is, didn't the York ministry possess authority?

I don't know about ecclesiastical law.

> If it did,
> then it might be needed because of a question of self interest (i.e. if it
> was the archbishop's daughter mightn't a higher authority be required to
> pardon him?).

It's an interesting idea, but it's probably likelier that only the
Pope could grant them the OK for a private marriage without banns.

>    Do not recall if this was noted before, but Tong's 1530 visitation has an
> entry for Cuthbert p.26http://books.google.com/books?id=2KUwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA26as well as the
> Tunstall pedigree p. 95 I recall being mentioned by John Higgins (which
> identifies no wife for Sir Thomas). Significantly, Cuthbert was alive in
> 1530. The entry for Cuthbert and related footnotes are revealing, suggesting
> the 'Conier's dau' story was of early origin and tied to the English
> antiquary Leland [1503-1552 and thus a contemporary of Cuthbert] - given its
> date, it likely deserves some sort of precedence over later statements.

This is great, Terry. You've uncovered the source for the statement
by Newcombe in the ODNB bio of Bishop Cuthbert, that his mother was a
daughter of Sir John Conyers of Hornby.

> Perhaps one of the heraldry scholars in this newsgroup can find significance
> in the impalement, although I shudder to think if it instead adds yet
> another family to the mix.

Derek Howard brought his expertise to this in an earlier post.

[snip]
> Leland says he was born at
> Hackforth, in Richmondshire, and was "base sunne to Tunstal, as I hard, by
> one of the Coniers' daughters."

This is key: all the original source, Leland, said in the Bishop's
lifetime was that he heard the Bishop's mother was one of the Conyers'
daughters. Leland does not mention Hornby, to say nothing of the even
more specific Sir John Conyers of Hornby. There were so many Conyers
men in the 15th-century that its not even funny. Leland says nothing
more than he heard the Bishop's mother was a daughter of one of
them.

Now, we know that in 1473 when he was admitted to the Guild of Corpus
Christi, Thomas Tunstall was said to be "of Hornby". But we also know
from the 1475 papal petition and from the 1563/4 Tunstall Visitation
pedigree that the name of Thomas Tunstall's mistress and the mother of
the Bishop was Alice Neville. If Alice came to York with Thomas from
Hornby, where they had been cohabiting previous, a reason for her
morphing through word of mouth into a 'Conyers' (the lords of Hornby
Castle and manor) from a 'Neville' is easily understood.

We also know that Thomas Tunstall had his own connection to Hornby
Castle: he was the younger half-brother of the lady of the castle,
Margery Darcy Conyers. She died in 1469, but by then Thomas was
probably firmly established in the household of the lord of the
castle, Sir John Conyers, himself one of the most prominent
administrative officers in the household first of Richard Neville,
Earl of Salisbury, then of his son Warwick the Kingmaker, then of
Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III).

> He is
> omitted in the pedigree of Tunstal, in this Visitation, which is another
> strong support of the general truth of Leland's story.

Not only is the Bishop omitted in the 1530 Tunstall Visitation
pedigree, so is the wife of Thomas Tunstall. If Alice had been the
daughter of the Archbishop of York, or of one of the sons or grandsons
of the 1st Earl of Westmorland, you would think the Tunstalls would
have been proud to emphasize the fact in 1530, while at least one of
her children was still alive.

>    However one cuts it, Alice Neville clearly possesses an Edw III ancestry.

Why? I don't see anything in the evidence so far that favours this
conclusion. It's possible she was descended from the 1st Earl of
Westmorland, but far from clear.

> If her parentage remains unclear, the larger question - at least for me - is
> how one presents her in a family tree so that her descendants can recognize
> that fact. In addition to 'no harm' or 'least harm' links I've suggested,
> this may be a situation for two 'bridge' persons named 'Son of Sir Ralph
> Neville' and 'Wife of Son of Sir Ralph' to be added to the pedigree to act
> as surrogate parents of Alice. This sacrifices both of the attractive
> Montagu and Fauconberge maternal ancestries, but permits recognition of the
> Edward III ancestry. While outside genealogy's standards of proof, it does
> reflect the apparent reality.

I would leave her without ancestors in the family tree for now. We
don't even have a first name yet for her father in 15th & 16th century
evidence, though she was plopped down as Neville bishop's daughter by
19th-century antiquarian Surtees, though we don't yet know why or with
what evidence he did so.

On May 26, 1:11 pm, John <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It may be premature to dismiss the four children of Thomas Tunstall
> and Alice Neville identified by Chpindall

Apologies for sounding too dismissive of them. I just feel because
they are left out of the original family pedigree in 1563/4, we need
to very closely examine any documentation from their lifetimes that
supports them being placed there by Chippindall.

> who do not appear in the
> Surtees version of the 1563/4 Visitation by Flower (two of them - the
> Huddleston and Redmayne spouses - do appear in the Harleian version of
> the Visitation).  

That's curious, but again we don't know why they were added in later
when we know they certainly weren't given to Flower by the family in
1563/4.

> Chippindall gives details on all four indicating
> that they or their children are mentioned in the will of Bryan
> Tunstall, their supposed brother who died at Flodden in 1513.  

What exactly is the evidence from Bryan Tunstall's will?

> There
> are also further details provided regarding the connections of William
> Tunstall of Aldcliffe with (his illegitimate brother?) Bishop
> Cuthbert.  Obviously these references should be checked if possible,
> but Chippindall seems to have been very careful in his research - and
> I would be inclined to trust him over ANY of the visitation pedigrees!

Sometimes even careful researchers make leaps that the evidence they
are working from does not entirely support. My next step of course
needs to be to track down and read Chippindalls work on the Tunstalls.

> In addition, with respect to one of the spouses, William Redmayne of
> Twisleton, this discussion of that family identifies him as brother-in-
> law of Cuthbert and Bryan (his wife being their sister Margaret) and
> gives further details about his connections with both men:http://books.google.com/books?id=cR9oHxhkhLcC

As I pointed out in my previous post, there could be other
explanations for Brian Tunstall to have named a "Brother Redmayne" in
his will, without it having to be because he had a sister Margaret
married to William Redmayne of Twisleton, even if it seemed the
likeliest to the book's author.

Thanks to all participating in this interesting discussion.

Cheers, ----Brad
TJ Booth_aol
2011-05-24 23:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks John.

The Calendar of Papal Registers link is most helpful in essentially
proving (at least for me) that Cuthbert was illegitimate (i.e. b. 1474,
parents m. 1475). It is also interesting that there were two other
illegitimate brothers (who likewise could not participate in the Tunstall
inheritance).

Derek French privately emailed me today with several items that add
insight. The first is Bishop Robert's will, in Latin, which Derek authorized
me to share. It was a pdf file, most of which I had transcribed to a
textfile, only to find (in a google search for one of the sentences) that it
is online in 'Historiae dunelmensis scriptores tres'; Surtees Society (1839)
page 341 @ http://books.google.com/books?id=qf4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR341 and thus
can be copied in plain text format.

Below is the google translation of the Latin, which is clearly in need of
much correction should anyone be a latin scholar. Neville's will indicates
that the legatees were 'familiar friends' and members of his household but
were 'each his own'. The last phrase is ambiguous as translated, since it
might mean they were Bishop Robert's (i.e. 'his')- more likely it would seem
to mean something like 'each their own' like they were children of other
people. Certainly he does not call the three Neville's 'my children', and
two of the bequests are not to Nevilles. The bequest to his nephew 'Humphrey
Dacre esquire' is especially revealing, since in all likelihood he was the
son of Sir Thomas by Phillipe Neville, the Bishop's half sister - his
presence suggests the Bishop was in the habit of having children of his
siblings as 'familiar friends' in his house. Humphrey later m. Mabel Parr,
dau of Sir Thomas and Alice Tunstall, Alice being the aunt of Sir Thomas who
m. Alice Neville. The will is also clear that Alice Neville was then unm.,
and her bequest - the same amount as for Humphrey Dacre - was towards her
marriage.

[The latin just before the Bishop's bequests - for any newsgroup
scholars - is 'Item volo et ordino quod familiares mei hospicii omnes at
singuli habeant at percipiant sua feoda integra eis et eorum cuilibet antea
debita et ex mea speciali gracia eisdem ad festum sancti Martini in hieme
jam proxime futurum concessa. Ita quod iiden [idem?] familiares mei, si
voluerint, in hospicio meo de Aukland usque in festum praedictum insimal
permaneant, mutuo diligentes, edentes eciam et bibentes sumptibus meis et
expensis. Item volo et concedo quod iidem familiares mei, ultra sua feoda
debita et concessa, juxta discreciones executorum et supervisorum meorum per
modum remuneracionis aliquid percipiant; si et quatenus bona mea, debitis
meis solutis, et deductis oneribus necessariis, ad hoc sufficiant.']

According to the google translation, the Bishop names his 'grandsons'
Thomas Neville Knight and Humphrey Dacre esquire as supervisors of his will.
I believe a better translation is 'precious nephews' and that they are the
same two persons who received large bequests earlier in the will. The Latin
text reads 'Hujus autem testamenti mei, sive ultimae voluntatis, ordino,
facio et constituo Supervisores, videlicet praecarissimos nepotes meos
dominum Thomaim Nevill militatem et Humfridum Dacre armigerem'.

Derek also sent on Cuthbert's DNB bio which I've also now found online @
http://books.google.com/books?id=HBVbAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1237 , and the ODNB bio
not available online. The DNB adds further insight about Cuthbert's
illegitimacy which might even satisfy the devil's advocate overlooking this
thread (which is a bio which John Higgins had earlier suggested we all
read). The bio notes that "Cuthbert was said by George Holland in 1563 to
have been 'in his youth near two years brought up in my great-grandfather
Sir Thomas Holland's kitchen unknown, 'till being known he was sent home to
Sir Richard Tunstall his father [sic], and so kept at school, as he himself
declared in manner the same to me.' [Holland's identification of Cuthbert's
father as Sir Richard likely confuses the 2 Sir Tunstalls of this
generation, as Surtees Durham i:lxvi makes a strong case it was Sir Thomas].
If this is the way that illegitimacies were handled at the time - i.e. the
children were placed in other people's homes - it would seem quite plausible
that Bishop Robert might make a home for several such family relations.
Though why Humphrey Dacre would be a member of his household isn't very
obvious.

One must again raise the question of whether the Thomas and Ralph Neville
in the will were not the illegitimate sons of Bishop Robert's brother, Sir
William, and the unmarried Alice Sir William's legitimate dau. Humphrey
Dacre clearly wasn't Bishop Robert's child yet received the same bequest as
Alice Neville. Thomas and his illegitimate bro Ralph might well have needed
a foster home within the family. One also does not normally refer to one's
own children as 'familiar friends' (if indeed google's translation of the
Latin is appropriate). Last but not least, Bishop Robert makes Sir Thomas
Neville (surely the same as the 'scholar of tender years' legatee) and
Humphrey Dacre his supervisors, calling them nephews.

If the Alice Neville in Bishop Robert's will was the dau of Sir William,
she soon thereafter m. Sir John Conyers of Hornby. John Higgin's last post
mentions & dismisses statements that Sir Thomas Tunstall had a 2nd wife
Alice, who was supposedly the dau of Sir John Conyers of Hornby. That sounds
suspiciously like someone later conflating and confusing two persons named
Alice Neville.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL

[Google translation of Robert Neville will]
-----------------

255. Covenant of the Lord of Robert Nevill, late bishop of Durham, but
will never was approved; after that, it is apparent. [Reg. Boothe archbishop
of York. f. 352.]

In the name of the supreme and of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father
and of the Son but the Holy Ghost, Amen. I, Robert Nevil, Bishop of Durham,
permisione the Divine, no matter how unworthy he was taken up, but the
possession of his senses of sound of memory, of the body of my infirmity,
however, in many ways, being wearied with, considering that at me, weighing
with many disadvantages, of the weakness of my body through the deversimode
be exposed to human, while considering also attending to at my strength to
corporal from day to day disolvi lessen and, to the danger of death, as
being no more securely, threaten the semblance of the truth to me, do not,
therefore, not foreseen, or a sudden death, of which the incercius the hour
of nothing, to be preceded at subtrali from this light happen to me, my
covenant I decreed that the to dispose this form.
In the first place, I commend my soul of an infinite mercy of Almighty
God,. . .

Also I will and ordain that the familiar friends, all of my household,
but each one of them his own, but may receive fees entirely sound to them,
and to each of them before, the result of my debts and by the grace of a
special to the same at the feast of St Martin in the winter now granted to
the next to come. So that the same of my friends, if they want, in the inn
as far as my out of the Aukland in the the feast of the aforesaid insimal
continue, even them that love one another, eating and drinking, also my
expense and expense.

Also I will and grant that the same familiar friends, me, no more his own
fees due and has been granted, according to the discretion of my executors
and overseers of the remuneration by way of something may receive, if and as
far as my goods, paid my debts, and to draw off the burdens necessary
things, to this end are sufficient.

Also I give and bequeath to Thomas Nevil, the scholars on the tender in
years, he, to the showing of his own, a hundred marks.

Also I give and bequeath to Ralph Nevill, the junior to his brother, to
the showing of his, a hundred marks.

Also I give and bequeath to her sister, Alice of the same, to his [her]
marriage portion, forty marks; as long as my goods to make this kind has
been bequeathed to be paid and other burdens, to draw off the loose, and as
above, of itself, suffice.

Also I give and bequeath to the same terms under the Robert Marley, for
his own use and his wife, twenty pounds, in the event of the same as his
father, Robert, for its part to fulfill all the conditions and emnimodas in
process of time the contract of marriage between them, and otherwise not.

Also I give and bequeath to my nephew, my dearly beloved; Humphrey Dacre,
esquire, proposition of its own good to me so far service expenses, and to
pray for my soul, forty pounds in money, and / or in their equivalents of
the Supreme gernysshz.

Also I give to Sir Richard, but I bequeath to Duffield, the late vicar of
Straunton, for their own at great cost to me, at the instance of my
weakness, printed for, one gernyssh blodii color with a hood to the same
belonging.

Also I give But I bequeath to the Segden to master John, Sacred Theology,
bachelor. .
Also I give and bequeath to the priests of the four out of my house, to
say mass, and some other sacred altar of the holy to the said Bedd for the
salvation of my soul for a year, the whole is celebrated, forty marks to
each other to be equally divided.

Also I give and bequeath to my secretary William Gisburn one book called
the Willialmum in a mirror. But the remainder of my goods not bequeathed I
give and bequeath to my executors whatsoever, of the testament of this by
the supervisor of the underwritten to be named, whom we have any of the
executors in this part of the nomination to their discretion, by these
presents and preserves. Yet so, that they named them by the executors of the
administration to the onusd of this kind, receiving an in itself, with
advice and counsel to overseers of the of this sort, my own will in the
premises who has the faculties of my goods to fulfill, and due and has been
bequeathed to pay, and sinks back again of this sort,, if they should
remain, in the other works of piety for the salvation of my soul arrange
faithfully, just as at the end of the judgment of God before him, willing to
answer to God in the outcome.

Of this of the covenant of me, or to the last of the will, ordain, make
and constitute supervisor, to wit, my grandsons praecarissimos [believe this
should read 'my precious nephews', these being earlier named as legatees]
Thomaim lord Nevill, military and Humphrey Dacre, armor-bearer; as well as
the venerable and circumspect a man the master of William Scrope, the clergy
praediclectosque my master John Lounde meom the chancellor of Durham and the
master of John Segden, bachelor of Sacred Theology, them, too humbly
pleading with every one of praeoptatum to receive to the effect of they want
to, by way of charity and the love of God; making promise to me, ratified,
thanks to which, and the firm to hold, all for ever and whatever by them to
supervisors, And one, the renowned executoesve or to be nominated by the
same, the act of , it came to pass, it was said, a fact, it has been
conducted with supervision of or in the premises, or any of them.

In testimony of which, indeed, of the testament of the will or to the
last of my witness and faith the seal of my arms at the command of my
special to these presents. Given Aukland in the manor of the aforesaid, in
the eight day of the month of July, in the year was three hundred and fifty
the Lord one thousand seventh, and the Translation of in the twentieth year
of my. These being witnesses, Geoffrey Mydelton the sheriff of Durham, Sir
Robert Brerey the priest, Henry Strangeways esquire, Robert Ellis,
gentleman, by the witnesses to the aforementioned specially called and
needful.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Watson" <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: Alice Nevill


On May 24, 4:50 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:

>
> Rosemary Horrox had cited "Cal Papal Regis XIII pt II page 524" as an
> additional source for the Archbishop Neville and Thomas Tunstall
> relationship. Does anyone have access to that source to note what it
> states and if it is at all on point?

>

Terry,
You can access the Calendar of Papal Registers online at BHO:
1475. Kal. Nov. (1 Nov.) St. Peter's, Rome. (f. 5r.) To Thomas
Tunstall, layman, and Alice Neowill, mulier, of the diocese of York.
Indult, as below. Their recent petition contained that the custom of
their country requires that marriage be not contracted unless it be
previously published for three Sundays or feast days in the parish
church, in order that if any impediment arise, it can be at once
answered; that, having cohabited for many years and had three
children, they desire to contract marriage; and that, inasmuch as they
have lived in the said concubinage publicly, the said Thomas is
unwilling to contract such marriage openly and in accordance with the
said custom. The pope therefore grants them indult to contract such
marriage, without incurring any penalty or censure, provided that, as
they allege, there be no canonical impediment, and without regard to
the said custom, and provided that it be contracted lawfully and
before some priest of the diocese of York, of their choice. (fn. 2)
Sincere deuotionis affectus. [1 p.]
'Lateran Regesta 767: 1475-1476', Calendar of Papal Registers Relating
to Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 13: 1471-1484 (1955), pp.
524-531.
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=105139

Regards,

John

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Matt Tompkins
2011-05-26 12:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 25, 12:20 am, "TJ Booth_aol" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> Below is the google translation of the Latin, which is clearly in need of
> much correction should anyone be a latin scholar. Neville's will indicates
> that the legatees were 'familiar friends' and members of his household but
> were 'each his own'. The last phrase is ambiguous as translated, since it
> might mean they were Bishop Robert's (i.e. 'his')- more likely it would seem
> to mean something like 'each their own' like they were children of other
> people. Certainly he does not call the three Neville's 'my children', and
> two of the bequests are not to Nevilles.
<snip>
> [The latin just before the Bishop's bequests - for any newsgroup
> scholars - is 'Item volo et ordino quod familiares mei hospicii omnes at
> singuli habeant at percipiant sua feoda integra eis et eorum cuilibet antea
> debita et ex mea speciali gracia eisdem ad festum sancti Martini in hieme
> jam proxime futurum concessa. Ita quod iiden [idem?] familiares mei, si
> voluerint, in hospicio meo de Aukland usque in festum praedictum insimal
> permaneant, mutuo diligentes, edentes eciam et bibentes sumptibus meis et
> expensis. Item volo et concedo quod iidem familiares mei, ultra sua feoda
> debita et concessa, juxta discreciones executorum et supervisorum meorum per
> modum remuneracionis aliquid percipiant; si et quatenus bona mea, debitis
> meis solutis, et deductis oneribus necessariis, ad hoc sufficiant.']
<snip>
> [Google translation of Robert Neville will]
<snip>
> Also I will and ordain that the familiar friends, all of my household,
> but each one of them his own, but may receive fees entirely sound to them,
> and to each of them before, the result of my debts and by the grace of a
> special to the same at the feast of St Martin in the winter now granted to
> the next to come. So that the same of my friends, if they want, in the inn
> as far as my out of the Aukland in the the feast of the aforesaid insimal
> continue, even them that love one another, eating and drinking, also my
> expense and expense.

Terry, familiares means 'household members' including employees, and
'omnes ac singuli' means 'all and singular' ('ac' seems to have been
misread as 'at'). The passage could be translated as:

'Item I will and ordain that all of my household staff should have and
receive the entire fee [ie salary] previously owed to them and each of
them and by my special grace paid to them at the feast of St Martin in
Winter next to come hereafter [11 November]. So that the same staff,
if they wish, may remain together [insimul] in my house at Auckland
until the aforesaid feast, behaving amicably, eating and drinking at
my cost and expense. Item, I will and grant that my same staff should
receive something by way of reward beyond their due and granted fee,
at my executors' and overseers' discretion; if and so far as my goods
suffice after payment of my debts and necessary expenses

Matt Tompkins
W***@aol.com
2011-05-24 02:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I think you're assuming a few things here.

That Cuthbert was the "first" child is not known. That he was
illegitimate rides on showing that the IPM identifies the persons named clearly and as
stated in this thread. That the heir male is so named and so on and so
forth.

That the mother of the legitimate children was *also* the mother of the
illegitimate children is not known afaik. "Uncle" "Nephew" and so on are
used indiscrimiately to include right and left handed relationships.

If Cuthbert is not Alice's son, then the chronology again loosens up.
John
2011-05-24 03:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 23, 7:59 pm, ***@aol.com wrote:
> I think you're assuming a few things here.
>
> That Cuthbert was the "first" child is not known.  That he was  
> illegitimate rides on showing that the IPM identifies the persons named clearly  and as
> stated in this thread.  That the heir male is so named and so on and  so
> forth.
>
> That the mother of the legitimate children was *also* the mother of the  
> illegitimate children is not known afaik.  "Uncle" "Nephew" and so on are  
> used indiscrimiately to include right and left handed relationships.
>
> If Cuthbert is not Alice's son, then the chronology again loosens up.

Most of your questions and/or doubts would be resolved (or at least
assuaged) by reading the sources that have been cited in this thread:
either of the Chippindall publications, as well as the bio of Cuthbert
Tunstall in ODNB.
W***@aol.com
2011-05-24 15:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In a message dated 5/24/2011 1:19:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@gmail.com writes:


> I just had a look at the original Latin, given in footnote 2 at the
> bottom of the BHO webpage which says that Thomas and Alice had "tres
> filios procreastis"; i.e. three sons not three children. I suppose
> that Cuthbert Tunstall, later bishop of London and Durham was the last
> of these, since he was said to have been illegitimate and born about
> 1474.
>

All of which makes me suspicious that it should not be "born BY 1475... or
even 1476" since a papal dispensation did not necessarily mean that the
parties acted on it immediately. I noted one secondary source claiming 1476
without citation, but then others claim 1474 without adequate citation. (At
least not INLINE citation.)

The list of sources at the end of his DNB bio is daunting to try to wade
through to figure out which one might justify such a birthyear claim.
W***@aol.com
2011-05-25 06:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I also came to the same conclusion, that someone in the past, on partial
information, decided that he had had two spouses in trying to figure out why
Cuthbert did not inherit. A later idea was that he had had a mistress then
a wife, since Cuthbert was evidently older than Thomas or Brian who
actually did inherit while Cuthbert yet lived.

With the publication of the papal register it becomes clear that Cuthbert
must have been one of the three sons already born before the marriage, and
Thomas and Brian born after the marriage. Of course Thomas the father was
too shy to proclaim that he had been living in fornication and so it makes
one wonder what anybody thought of this arrangement when he finally kicked
the bucket and his "eldest son" was not his heir. The truth came out then,
if not earlier that he had been trying to avoid.
W***@aol.com
2011-05-25 06:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I like very much the idea that Alice was the widow of John Hornby.
That would be smacking excellent. It would explain the confusion of her
as a daughter of John (her father-in-law), AND would fit in with the idea
that in 1475 she had three sons by a man to whom she wasn't married.

Her first husband John Hornby was slain at the Battle of Edgecote 26 Jul
1469. They had five children, so I suppose if any of those children
referred to her other children by Tunstall as their "sisters and brothers" that
would clinch it.
John
2011-05-25 15:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On May 24, 11:27 pm, ***@aol.com wrote:
> I like very much the idea that Alice was the widow of John  Hornby.
> That would be smacking excellent.  It would explain the confusion of  her
> as a daughter of John (her father-in-law), AND would fit in with the idea  
> that in 1475 she had three sons by a man to whom she wasn't married.
>
> Her first husband John Hornby was slain at the Battle of Edgecote 26 Jul  
> 1469.  They had five children, so I suppose if any of those children  
> referred to her other children by Tunstall as their "sisters and brothers" that  
> would clinch it.

John's surname, of course, is Conyers, not Hornby - he was "of" Hornby.
W***@aol.com
2011-05-26 05:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
No no I don't read that at all.
What I read is that he didn't want banns *because* they had been
cohabitating.
That is, HE didn't want it publicly known that they were NOT married.
That's why he wanted to keep it private.
It was public knowledge that they had been living together and had
children.
What was not public knowledge was that they were not married.


In a message dated 5/25/2011 12:36:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
***@hotmail.com writes:

They offered the excuse that it was
already public knowledge because they had been cohabiting for many
years and had three sons. If so, why should they care if banns were
publicly made? Were there folks in their community who could step
forward with impediments to it?
W***@aol.com
2011-05-26 05:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I had had a note that Alice died before 1490.
Now I see that her mother died in 1490. Could there be some notation on
the Fauconberg inheritence that might help here?



In a message dated 5/25/2011 12:36:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
***@hotmail.com writes:

Yes, that would be great, and a timeline of all the children of Sir
John Conyers and Alice Neville of Fauconberg, as well all the children
of Thomas Tunstall and Alice Neville.
J***@aol.com
2011-05-27 00:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear Fellow List Members,
Joan Fauconberge died 1491,
wife of William Neville, Earl of Kent would have almost definitely have not
had an IPM as William survived her he was the legal owner of all her property
apart from which she had been publicly called an imbecile and a idiot by
her husband which would have been the perfect way to deal with a woman who
could have been someone who spoke a contrary thought to those of her
husband. However He could have telling the truth. We`ll never really know.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
Douglas Richardson
2015-03-09 20:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear Newsgroup ~

Regarding the matter of the identity of Alice Neville, mistress and later wife of Thomas Tunstall, of Hornby, Yorkshire, redently I checked various sources to see if any kinfolk of their son, Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, can be identified in printed sources.

The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (1838) pp. 221-222 contains a biography of Bernard Gilpin (1517-1583) which states that "his mother was related to Cuthbert Tunstall, one of the most enlightened churchmen of his time." It further states that Cuthbert Tunstall "being bishop of Durham had the means of placing his relation in the valuable rectory of Houghton-le-Spring ..."

The above biography may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=wYDnj2ZpUksC&pg=PA221

Checking further, I find that Bernard Gilpin's mother, Margaret Layton, wife of Edwin Gilpin, was in fact a niece of Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall. Bindoff, House of Commons 1509-1558 2 (1982): 502-504 has a lengthy biography of Bernard Gilpin's uncle, William Layton (born by 1514, died 1552), of Harrow, Middlesex. Bindoff itentifies William Layton as a "younger son of William Layton, of Dalemain, Cumberland, by a daughter of Thomas Tunstall."

The identification of William Layton's parentage is made by William Layton's own will, in which he "described himself of Harrow but mentioned both a Staffordshire lease and a debt owing to him in Yorkshire which he bequeathed to his brother Cuthbert and his sister 'Gilpynge." William Layton of the Daleman family had a brother named Cuthbert .... and their sister Margaret became the wife of Edwin Gilpin and the mother of Bernard Gilpin the 'Apostle of the North.'"

Bindoff refers to William Layton's uncle, Bishop Cuthbert Layton, although he does not directly state how he determined their kinship. He does refer in his citations to C. Sturge, Cuthbert Tunstal, app. 1.

Interested parties may view the biography of William Layton at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=u_eIrJpc_T0C&pg=PA502

Foster, Pedigrees Recorded at the Heralds' Visitations of the Counties of Cumberland and Westmorland (1891): 78 includes a visitation pedigree of the Layton family of Dalemain, Cumberland. It reads in part as follows:

"William Layton of Delmayne, in com. Cumberland = .... dau. of .... Tunstall, of Thurland."

The Layton-Tunstall marriage is further supported by the fact that a Grace and an Anthony Layton are included as legatees in the 1513 will of Brian Tunstall, of Thurland, which Brian was a known brother of Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall. Presumably Grace and Anthony Layton were niece and nephew of Brian Tunstall.

Elsewhere I see that C. Sturge, Cuthbert Tunstal (1938): 348 specifically refers to Bernard Gilpin as "Great-nephew of Bishop Tunstal." And, on page 201, Sturge likewise refers to Dr. Richard Layton as Bishop Tunstal's nephew.

In summary, the evidence appears to be good that Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall had a sister who married William Layton, of Dalemain, Cumberland.

Next, I find that Rex, The Theology of John Fisher (2003): 170 refers to Robert Ridley as "cousin and secretary" to Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of Durham. No documentation is provided for this statement.

Elsewhere I note that there is a biography of Robert Ridley's brother, Nicholas Ridley (c.1502-1555), published in Mayer & Walters, Corr. of Reginald Pole 4 (2008): 444. This account states that Nicholas Ridley was born near Willimontswick, Northumberland, being the son of Christopher Ridley. The author notes that Nicholas Ridley was related to Cuthbert Tunstall. Again no documentation is provided for this statement.

Elsewhere there is a pedigree of the Ridley family in Hodgson, History of Northumberland Part II, Vol. II (1832): 323, which pedigree places that Robert Ridley and his brother, Nicholas, as the sons of Nicholas Ridley, of Willimoteswick, and his wife, Mary Curwen, of Workington. Online genealogical databases indicate that Mary (Curwen) Ridley was the grand-daughter of Katherine (Tunstall) Pennington, which Katherine was a great-aunt of Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall. If correct, that would explain the kinship between Bishop Tunstall and the Ridley family.

Lastly, I find that the book, Roger Ascham, by Laurence V. Ryan, published in 1963 includes biographical material on Roger Ascham.

On page 8-9, Ryan states the following:

"Roger's mother, according to Grant, was named Margaret, and was 'related in descent and blood to many gently-born men' (III, 307). Who these relations were Grant does not tell, nor does Ascham anywhere identify them. They may have been a family named Conyers, since for a time Ascham shared his rooms at Cambridge with a well-born relation of that name. But whether his mother was herself a Conyers is not certain, for nowhere is there mention of her maiden name. Only once does Ascham give any clue that he had important family connections. Early in his career he wrote a note of thanks for a benefaction to an unnamed kinsman; the language and tone of the letter, though it ends on a note of familiarity, suggests he was addressing someone who was not only a benefactor but also his social superior." END OF QUOTE.

On page 296, Ryan further relates the following: "The unnamed kinsman may have been Cuthbert Tunstall, respected humanist and Bishop of Durham, who was related to the Conyers and hence, possibly to Ascham (see Hatch, 'The Ascham Letters: An Annotated Translation of the Latin Correspondence,' p. 61n, for tentative identification of the correspondant as Tunstall)." END OF QUOTE.

On page 296, Ryan also discusses Roger Ascham's cousin named Conyers:

"See I, 34, 286, where he refers, respectively, to "our Thomas Conyers' and 'my good cousin Coniers.' This is almost certainly Thomas Conyers of Marske, who matriculated at St. John's about 1535 and later became a vicar of a country parish in Suffolk (John Venn and J.A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, Cambridge, 1922-27, Part I: i, 382). If Ascham's mother did belong to this family, then it is also possible that she was distantly related through marriage to the Scropes. According to the Dictionary of National Biography (LI, 141), Mary le Scrope, daughter of the fifth Baron Scrope of Bolton, was the wife of Sir William Conyers of Hornby. Such a connection, if it did exist, would help account for John Ascham's position in the Scrope household." END OF QUOTE.

There is a pedigree of the Conyers family of Marske published in Archaeologia Aeliana, n.s. 5 (1861): 36-39. It appears Thomas Conyers, of Marske, the identified cousin of Roger Ascham, was a younger son of Christopher Conyers, Esq., of Marske, by Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Metcalfe, Esq. Christopher Conyers' father, William Conyers, Esq., in turn was fifth son of John Conyers, Knt., of Hornby, Yorkshire [died 1490], who married Margery Darcy.

Thus, Thomas Conyers, of Marske, was the grandson of a brother of the John Conyers, Knt., of Hornby, Yorkshire [died 1469], who married Alice Neville.

The above mentioned Conyers pedigree may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=3UhRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA36

In summary, we see that Roger Ascham was related to a certain Thomas Conyers, of Marske, and also that at some point Roger Ascham wrote to an unidentified kinsman who a modern editor thought might be Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall. It's not much, but possibly a good lead.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Janelle Swearingen via
2015-03-16 14:11:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear Douglas Richardson,

Is the only line you have found for Obadiah Bruen to KIng John through Gwladus Ddu of Wales?

Janelle Swearingen

>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
anitambatty@hotmail.co.uk
2017-06-05 17:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Derek
I was interested to see this item as I am researching this Alice Neville who is a direct ancestor of my husband. I have seen so many things on the internet, where this Alice is mistaken for Alice Neville, daughter of Ralph Neville and married a Fitzhugh. She cannot possibly be "my" Alice Neville, and I believe the one you talk about below is most probably the one. Do you have any further information about her marrying Thomas Tunstall.
If you don't mind me having a copy of the will plus the Flowers and Dougdales Visitation (which I have no knowledge of) and any other information you know of, I would be extremely grateful as I have been looking for some evidence of her for a long time.

Many thanks

Anita Batty


On Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 8:32:31 AM UTC+1, Degs wrote:
> Oxford DNB artcle on Robert Neville:-
>
> This biography was published in the DNB in 1894
> Neville, Robert (1404–1457), bishop of Salisbury and Durham, by H. E.
> D. Blakiston
> Published 1894
>
>
> "Neville died 8 or 9 July 1457, and was buried in the south aisle of
> the cathedral,
> where the marble slab, despoiled of his brass effigy by the Scottish
> prisoners
> after the battle of Dunbar, may be seen near the second pillar from
> the cloister
> door (cf. SURTEES, Durham, vol. iv., cathedral plates, No. 3). In his
> will, dated 8 July 1457,
> but ‘nunquam approbatum,’ and presumably invalid (it is printed in
> RAINE, op. cit. App. cclv.),
> he had desired burial near the Venerable Bede in the galilee.
> Sequestration of his goods was
> granted to Sir John Neville, afterwards marquis of Montagu [q.v.] ,
> his nephew by the half-blood.
> He intended to leave a hundred marks to Thomas Neville, ‘scolari in
> tenera ætate constituto ad exhibicionem suam,’
> the same to Ralph, and the same to their sister Alice for her
> portion; these three can hardly be
> the children of the Earl of Salisbury, and, as they do not occur
> elsewhere in the Neville pedigree,
> may possibly be offspring of his own."
>
>
>
> The only and oldest place I can find Alice Neville refered to by name.
>
> I have a copy of the above Will plus Flowers & Dougdales Visitations
> where they mention Alice.
> If anyone wants a copy,please let me have your email address & I will
> send.
> Derek
Loading...