Discussion:
Medieval royal line for John Washburn, immigrant to Plymouth Colony, Mass.?
(too old to reply)
D.E. Mitchel
2018-10-07 00:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Would kind readers critique the following proposed line? In each succeeding generation the child is listed first, followed by the person they married. Washburn is the current American spelling, but English clerks used Washbourn, Washborn or Washbourne. I am uncertain whether to modernize Jone Whithead to Joan.

1. EDWARD I "Longshanks" (1239-1307) & ELEANOR of CASTILLE "Leonor de Castilla" (House of Borgoña) (1241-1290) Married 1254

2. JOAN of ACRE (1272-1307) & Gilbert de CLARE, 9th Lord of Clare (1243-1295)

3. Eleanor de CLARE, 6th Lady of Glamorgan (1292-1337) & William la ZOUCHE, 1st Baron Zouche of Mortimer (1269-1336)

4. Joyce la ZOUCHE (-1372) & John de BOTETOURT, 2nd Lord Botetourt (1318-1386)

5. Joyce de BOTETOURT (1350-1420) & Sir Adam de PERSHALL, Knt. ( -1419)

6. Margaret de PERSHALL (1393-1420) & Sir Richard MITTON, Knt. (1379-1418)

7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )

8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)

9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)

10. John WASHBOURNE (1544-1593) & Jone WHITHEAD (1540-1567)

11. John WASHBOURNE (1566-1624) & MARTHA TIMBRELL (1573-1626)

12. John WASHBURN (1597-1671) & Margery [ Moore ?] (1588-1662)

13. John WASHBURN (1620-1686) & Elizabeth Mitchell (Abt. 1629-5 Dec 1684). She is the grand-daughter of Mayflower passenger and Plymouth colonist Francis Cooke.

Thank you, and any suggestions for further research will be followed.

D. E. Mitchel
Vance Mead
2018-10-07 08:56:13 UTC
Permalink
In this generation, Emma would have been 65 years old when John junior was born.


9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)

10. John WASHBOURNE (1544-1593) & Jone WHITHEAD (1540-1567)
taf
2018-10-07 15:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.E. Mitchel
7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )
8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)
9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)
Well, sort of. The visitation gives John and Joan a son John, but only his bare name is given, not a marriage, and thus it is unclear where the marriage and dates come from.
I am not so sure. It could be John, son of Robert, son of John and Joan.
Post by D.E. Mitchel
In this generation, Emma would have been 65 years old when John junior was born.
9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)
10. John WASHBOURNE (1544-1593) & Jone WHITHEAD (1540-1567)
The chronological displacement can be seen by comparing to the visitation:

A. John Washbourne m. Joan Mytton
B. Robert Washbourne m. Eleanor Stapylls
C. John Washbourne m. Margaret Tracy
D. Anthony Washbourne m. Anne Read
E. John Washbourne ae 21 in 1569 (b.~1548)

A. John Washbourne m. Joan Mytton
B. John Washbourne m. Emma
C. John Washbourne b. 1544 m. Joan Whithead

So a 2-generation temporal displacement.

This looks to me like an all-too-common scenario, just finding someone in a visitation pedigree whose fate is unknown but who happens to have the same name as the earliest person to whom one can trace, and deciding they must be the same person because 'parentage unknown' is too unsatisfying.

taf
D.E. Mitchel
2018-10-07 15:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by D.E. Mitchel
7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )
8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)
9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)
Well, sort of. The visitation gives John and Joan a son John, but only his bare name is given, not a marriage, and thus it is unclear where the marriage and dates come from.
I am not so sure. It could be John, son of Robert, son of John and Joan.
Post by D.E. Mitchel
In this generation, Emma would have been 65 years old when John junior was born.
9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)
10. John WASHBOURNE (1544-1593) & Jone WHITHEAD (1540-1567)
A. John Washbourne m. Joan Mytton
B. Robert Washbourne m. Eleanor Stapylls
C. John Washbourne m. Margaret Tracy
D. Anthony Washbourne m. Anne Read
E. John Washbourne ae 21 in 1569 (b.~1548)
A. John Washbourne m. Joan Mytton
B. John Washbourne m. Emma
C. John Washbourne b. 1544 m. Joan Whithead
So a 2-generation temporal displacement.
This looks to me like an all-too-common scenario, just finding someone in a visitation pedigree whose fate is unknown but who happens to have the same name as the earliest person to whom one can trace, and deciding they must be the same person because 'parentage unknown' is too unsatisfying.
taf
Thank you, TAF, this is a useful cautionary note. The visitation record, alone, will not suffice. DEM
lmahler@att.net
2018-10-08 22:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by D.E. Mitchel
7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )
8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)
9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)
Well, sort of. The visitation gives John and Joan a son John, but only his bare name is given, not a marriage, and thus it is unclear where the marriage and dates come from.
I am not so sure. It could be John, son of Robert, son of John and Joan.
Post by D.E. Mitchel
In this generation, Emma would have been 65 years old when John junior was born.
9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)
10. John WASHBOURNE (1544-1593) & Jone WHITHEAD (1540-1567)
A. John Washbourne m. Joan Mytton
B. Robert Washbourne m. Eleanor Stapylls
C. John Washbourne m. Margaret Tracy
D. Anthony Washbourne m. Anne Read
E. John Washbourne ae 21 in 1569 (b.~1548)
A. John Washbourne m. Joan Mytton
B. John Washbourne m. Emma
C. John Washbourne b. 1544 m. Joan Whithead
So a 2-generation temporal displacement.
This looks to me like an all-too-common scenario, just finding someone in a visitation pedigree whose fate is unknown but who happens to have the same name as the earliest person to whom one can trace, and deciding they must be the same person because 'parentage unknown' is too unsatisfying.
taf
This supposed Washburn descent was also analyzed in Eugene Stratton's
1988 publication, "Applied Genealogy":

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=john+washburn+noble+ancestry+wichenford+worcestershire

Leslie
D.E. Mitchel
2018-10-10 22:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@att.net
Post by taf
Post by D.E. Mitchel
7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )
8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)
9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)
Well, sort of. The visitation gives John and Joan a son John, but only his bare name is given, not a marriage, and thus it is unclear where the marriage and dates come from.
I am not so sure. It could be John, son of Robert, son of John and Joan.
Post by D.E. Mitchel
In this generation, Emma would have been 65 years old when John junior was born.
9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)
10. John WASHBOURNE (1544-1593) & Jone WHITHEAD (1540-1567)
A. John Washbourne m. Joan Mytton
B. Robert Washbourne m. Eleanor Stapylls
C. John Washbourne m. Margaret Tracy
D. Anthony Washbourne m. Anne Read
E. John Washbourne ae 21 in 1569 (b.~1548)
A. John Washbourne m. Joan Mytton
B. John Washbourne m. Emma
C. John Washbourne b. 1544 m. Joan Whithead
So a 2-generation temporal displacement.
This looks to me like an all-too-common scenario, just finding someone in a visitation pedigree whose fate is unknown but who happens to have the same name as the earliest person to whom one can trace, and deciding they must be the same person because 'parentage unknown' is too unsatisfying.
taf
This supposed Washburn descent was also analyzed in Eugene Stratton's
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=john+washburn+noble+ancestry+wichenford+worcestershire
Leslie
Thank you for finding this and bringing it to my attention. DEM
AJB
2019-06-12 05:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@att.net
Post by taf
Post by D.E. Mitchel
7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )
8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)
9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)
Well, sort of. The visitation gives John and Joan a son John, but only his bare name is given, not a marriage, and thus it is unclear where the marriage and dates come from.
I am not so sure. It could be John, son of Robert, son of John and Joan.
Post by D.E. Mitchel
In this generation, Emma would have been 65 years old when John junior was born.
9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)
10. John WASHBOURNE (1544-1593) & Jone WHITHEAD (1540-1567)
A. John Washbourne m. Joan Mytton
B. Robert Washbourne m. Eleanor Stapylls
C. John Washbourne m. Margaret Tracy
D. Anthony Washbourne m. Anne Read
E. John Washbourne ae 21 in 1569 (b.~1548)
A. John Washbourne m. Joan Mytton
B. John Washbourne m. Emma
C. John Washbourne b. 1544 m. Joan Whithead
So a 2-generation temporal displacement.
This looks to me like an all-too-common scenario, just finding someone in a visitation pedigree whose fate is unknown but who happens to have the same name as the earliest person to whom one can trace, and deciding they must be the same person because 'parentage unknown' is too unsatisfying.
taf
This supposed Washburn descent was also analyzed in Eugene Stratton's
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=john+washburn+noble+ancestry+wichenford+worcestershire
Leslie
In an attempt to firmly quash the notion that the John Washbourne, who died in 1546 in Bengeworth, Worcestershire, England was identical with the John Washbourne designated in the 1569 Visitation of Worcestershire as the second son of John Washbourne of Wichenford, Eugene Stratton, in his book Applied Genealogy, quoted another author, E.A.B. Barnard. Stratton wrote: “E.A.B. Barnard, however, completely demolishes the claim by showing that there were Washburn families in the neighborhood of Bengeworth for centuries prior to this time and therefore it is superfluous and unreasonable to have to look outside Bengeworth for the origins of the John Washburne in question unless there are other compelling reasons for it.”

What Barnard said was: "Other Washbournes may have lived in these Parishes before this time, but there is no direct evidence that such was the case. However the name had long existed in the neighborhood of Evesham, the earliest mention of it appearing in the Lay Subsidy Roll for the county of Worcester (c 1280) where, under the village of Bretforton-some three miles away-we find a payment for land de Johanne Wasburn..." Barnard also cites the Lay Subsidy Roll of 1327 under Bretforton - de Roberto de Wasseborne; then again in 1332.

The argument is that because we have evidence of Washbournes paying tax in the Bengeworth area in the 1200s and 1300s then the John Washbourne who dies at Bengeworth in 1546 has to have descended from a family established by one of those men and not from the senior line of the Washbournes which was at this time John Washbourne of Wichenford who died in 1517.

Trouble is that these early Washbournes paying tax in the area appear to have been part of the senior line seated at Stanford-on-Teme - which leads directly to John Washbourne of Wichenford who dies 1517. The Roberto de Wasseborne on the Lay subsidy Rolls in the early 1300s was almost certainly Roger de Washbourne, whose name was subjected to a scribal change from Roger to Robert. More evidence of this scribal license is seen in the taxation records of 1340 at Overbury (Little Washbourne), 12 miles from Bretforton, where, his proper name restored, he appears as Rogeri Wasshebourn.

The name Roger was very often stated as Robert during the medieval period depending upon individual scribal proclivities. Davenport observed that, in Weavers Visitation of Herefordshire 1569, a man who is very clearly Roger of Stanford, is named Robert Waseborne. Roger is named Robert on one of the College of Arms pedigrees as well.

We find another example of this change from Roger to Robert in the Beauchamp Cartulary, #79 dated to between 1236 x 1269. Here, the man, sealing on behalf of all of the people of Stanford on Teme, is identified as Robertus de Wasseburn’. In the 1240s and 1250s, the Washbourne dealing with land at Stanford-on-Teme was William de Washbourne. According to the 1255 Eyre Court records from Worcestershire, this William died prior to 1255 when his widow Lucy and son and heir Roger assumed control of the Washbourne properties at Stanford. So the only possible person who could have been sealing an accord on behalf of Stanford at this time would have been either William or his son Roger, called Robert in the Charter.

The evidence presents a very strong case that the Washbournes holding land in Bretforton were those of the senior line seated at Stanford and not stray sons of sons; thus, entirely deflating both Stratton and Barnard's arguments.

The second problem is one of continuity. There are no continual established families of Washbournes in the area from which John of Bengeworth could ultimately have emerged.

Untying John of Bengeworth from a senior line at Stanford requires that one explain the presence of the Washbourne Crest in a window at old St. Peter’s Church at Bengeworth. Untying Evesham and Bretforton from Wichenford requires explaining why the family’s coat of arms – was blazoned on a heraldic tile found in the ruins of Evesham Abbey.


If John of Bengeworth was not the second son of John of Wichenford, then whose son was he? A viable alternative paternal candidate has not yet been identified. AJB
D.E. Mitchel
2018-10-07 15:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vance Mead
In this generation, Emma would have been 65 years old when John junior was born.
9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)
10. John WASHBOURNE (1544-1593) & Jone WHITHEAD (1540-1567)
Thank you, I appreciate the note. Either I am missing a generation of the many John Washbournes, or Emme / Emma was younger and married John (1479-1546) later in his life. I have been following James Davenport, The Washbourne family of Little Washbourne and Wichenford in the county of Worcester, (London: Methuen, 1907), especially pp. 35-58. The Plymouth immigrant is treated briefly in Anderson, Robert C., The Great Migration Begins, Boston: NEHGS, 1995, Vol 3, pp. 1937-1939.
Vance Mead
2018-10-07 11:26:58 UTC
Permalink
These generations are in the Visitation of Worcestershire, 1569, page 143:


7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )

8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)

9. John WASHBOURNE (1479-1546) & Emme unknown (1479-1547)

https://archive.org/details/visitcowor00phil/page/142

The younger John Washborne must be this guy in Common Pleas in 1525:

Third entry:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT3/H8/CP40no1046/bCP40no1046dorses/IMG_0309.htm

Worcs. John Hornyhold versus John Washborne, of Wychynford, gentleman, and others. Trespass: breach of close at Wychynford.
Brad Verity
2018-10-07 18:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.E. Mitchel
Would kind readers critique the following proposed line? In each succeeding generation the child is listed first, followed by the person they married. Washburn is the current American spelling, but English clerks used Washbourn, Washborn or Washbourne. I am uncertain whether to modernize Jone Whithead to Joan.
1. EDWARD I "Longshanks" (1239-1307) & ELEANOR of CASTILLE "Leonor de Castilla" (House of Borgoña) (1241-1290) Married 1254
2. JOAN of ACRE (1272-1307) & Gilbert de CLARE, 9th Lord of Clare (1243-1295)
3. Eleanor de CLARE, 6th Lady of Glamorgan (1292-1337) & William la ZOUCHE, 1st Baron Zouche of Mortimer (1269-1336)
These three initial generations are correct, but the line fails at the next generation.
Post by D.E. Mitchel
4. Joyce la ZOUCHE (-1372) & John de BOTETOURT, 2nd Lord Botetourt (1318-1386)
William, 1st Lord Zouche of Mortimer was the second husband of Eleanor de Clare. Zouche abducted her in 1329, and they had only one child together, a son William la Zouche, who became a monk at Glastonbury Abbey. See Frances Underhill, 'For Her Good Estate: The Life of Elizabeth de Burgh' (1999), p. 87:
"Meanwhile, Eleanor and William la Zouche began a family. One son survived, choosing to become a monk at Glastonbury since he had few prospects for secular fortune. William's motives for joining the monastery perhaps lacked a strong religious impulse, as Glastonbury was more noted for its comfortable style than its zeal or piety in the late Middle Ages. Elizabeth's accounts confirm that William's thoughts ranged beyond the monastery, for in 1355-56 he leased her estate at Bletchingdon."

Per the 15th-century Tewkesbury Chronicle, Eleanor de Clare's son by William la Zouche was named 'Hugh' la Zouche:
"Obiit domina Eleanora uxor ejusdem ij. kal. Julii. anno Domini mcccxxxvij. Ista erat mater Hugonis tertii, et Edwardi primi, et Gilberti le Despencer per conjugem suam Hugonem secundum. Post mortem ejus maritata fuit domino Willielmo le Sowch, de quo genuit Hugonem Souch.”

But presumably Underhill got the first name 'William' [not 'Hugh'] from the household accounts of the gentleman's aunt Lady Elizabeth de Burgh, which are primary 14th-century documents, and should be regarded as definitive over a chronicle a century later.

The 1st Lord Zouche's first wife was Alice de Toeni (1284-1325), the widowed countess of Warwick. Joyce (la Zouche), Lady Botetourt (d. 1372) may have been his daughter by Countess Alice. She was not the daughter of Eleanor de Clare.
Post by D.E. Mitchel
5. Joyce de BOTETOURT (1350-1420) & Sir Adam de PERSHALL, Knt. ( -1419)
6. Margaret de PERSHALL (1393-1420) & Sir Richard MITTON, Knt. (1379-1418)
7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )
8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)
[snip]

Sorry, I'm not any help with the later generations.

Cheers, -----Brad
D.E. Mitchel
2018-10-07 20:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Verity
Post by D.E. Mitchel
Would kind readers critique the following proposed line? In each succeeding generation the child is listed first, followed by the person they married. Washburn is the current American spelling, but English clerks used Washbourn, Washborn or Washbourne. I am uncertain whether to modernize Jone Whithead to Joan.
1. EDWARD I "Longshanks" (1239-1307) & ELEANOR of CASTILLE "Leonor de Castilla" (House of Borgoña) (1241-1290) Married 1254
2. JOAN of ACRE (1272-1307) & Gilbert de CLARE, 9th Lord of Clare (1243-1295)
3. Eleanor de CLARE, 6th Lady of Glamorgan (1292-1337) & William la ZOUCHE, 1st Baron Zouche of Mortimer (1269-1336)
These three initial generations are correct, but the line fails at the next generation.
Post by D.E. Mitchel
4. Joyce la ZOUCHE (-1372) & John de BOTETOURT, 2nd Lord Botetourt (1318-1386)
"Meanwhile, Eleanor and William la Zouche began a family. One son survived, choosing to become a monk at Glastonbury since he had few prospects for secular fortune. William's motives for joining the monastery perhaps lacked a strong religious impulse, as Glastonbury was more noted for its comfortable style than its zeal or piety in the late Middle Ages. Elizabeth's accounts confirm that William's thoughts ranged beyond the monastery, for in 1355-56 he leased her estate at Bletchingdon."
"Obiit domina Eleanora uxor ejusdem ij. kal. Julii. anno Domini mcccxxxvij. Ista erat mater Hugonis tertii, et Edwardi primi, et Gilberti le Despencer per conjugem suam Hugonem secundum. Post mortem ejus maritata fuit domino Willielmo le Sowch, de quo genuit Hugonem Souch.”
But presumably Underhill got the first name 'William' [not 'Hugh'] from the household accounts of the gentleman's aunt Lady Elizabeth de Burgh, which are primary 14th-century documents, and should be regarded as definitive over a chronicle a century later.
The 1st Lord Zouche's first wife was Alice de Toeni (1284-1325), the widowed countess of Warwick. Joyce (la Zouche), Lady Botetourt (d. 1372) may have been his daughter by Countess Alice. She was not the daughter of Eleanor de Clare.
Post by D.E. Mitchel
5. Joyce de BOTETOURT (1350-1420) & Sir Adam de PERSHALL, Knt. ( -1419)
6. Margaret de PERSHALL (1393-1420) & Sir Richard MITTON, Knt. (1379-1418)
7. William MITTON (1415-1489) & Margaret (Margaretha) Corbett ( - )
8. Joan MITTON (1454-) & John WASHBOURNE (1454-1517)
[snip]
Sorry, I'm not any help with the later generations.
Cheers, -----Brad
Thank you, another assumption pulled into the light of evidence. Much appreciated. DEM
p***@yahoo.ca
2018-10-07 19:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Here is a link to a well researched and well sourced genealogy, which starts with John and Emme: http://www.maltbyfamily.net/genealogies/washburn/washburn_england.html
D.E. Mitchel
2018-10-07 20:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yahoo.ca
Here is a link to a well researched and well sourced genealogy, which starts with John and Emme: http://www.maltbyfamily.net/genealogies/washburn/washburn_england.html
Thank you. This is very useful. The link between John W. of Bengeworth and a previous John W. of Wichenford is not supported by the evidence presented. Very much appreciate you pointing to this online source. DEM
John Higgins
2018-10-07 20:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by D.E. Mitchel
Post by p***@yahoo.ca
Here is a link to a well researched and well sourced genealogy, which starts with John and Emme: http://www.maltbyfamily.net/genealogies/washburn/washburn_england.html
Thank you. This is very useful. The link between John W. of Bengeworth and a previous John W. of Wichenford is not supported by the evidence presented. Very much appreciate you pointing to this online source. DEM
Most (although not all) of the information at this website can also be found in the James Davenport book on the Washbournes cited earlier in this thread. Davenport cites parish registers and probate registers for most of this information. I think there is good support for generations 9 through 13, starting with John (d. 1546) and his wife Emme (d. 1647). The difficulty is with the parentage of #9 John, which appears to be largely conjectural in both the website and the Davenport book - more so in the Davenport book. I think more evidence is needed before this connection can be accepted.

BTW I think the birth dates before generation 10 are simply guesses and should probably be discarded.
D.E. Mitchel
2018-10-08 01:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by D.E. Mitchel
Post by p***@yahoo.ca
Here is a link to a well researched and well sourced genealogy, which starts with John and Emme: http://www.maltbyfamily.net/genealogies/washburn/washburn_england.html
Thank you. This is very useful. The link between John W. of Bengeworth and a previous John W. of Wichenford is not supported by the evidence presented. Very much appreciate you pointing to this online source. DEM
Most (although not all) of the information at this website can also be found in the James Davenport book on the Washbournes cited earlier in this thread. Davenport cites parish registers and probate registers for most of this information. I think there is good support for generations 9 through 13, starting with John (d. 1546) and his wife Emme (d. 1647). The difficulty is with the parentage of #9 John, which appears to be largely conjectural in both the website and the Davenport book - more so in the Davenport book. I think more evidence is needed before this connection can be accepted.
BTW I think the birth dates before generation 10 are simply guesses and should probably be discarded.
Thank you, useful advice, and I agree with the need for better evidence. A Y-DNA group of Washbourne males would be illuminating.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2018-10-08 15:04:06 UTC
Permalink
The link between genetations 8 and 9 does have some support. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Washbourne-3, DNA tests have showed a relation between the descendants of the John Washbourne who died in 1546 and the descendants of Robert Washbourne who was a son of the John Washbourne who died in 1517 and Joan Mitton. Of course, it's not conclusive about the exact link but it's a piece of evidence.
taf
2018-10-08 15:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
The link between genetations 8 and 9 does have some support. See
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Washbourne-3, DNA tests have showed a
relation between the descendants of the John Washbourne who died in
1546 and the descendants of Robert Washbourne who was a son of the
John Washbourne who died in 1517 and Joan Mitton. Of course, it's
not conclusive about the exact link but it's a piece of evidence.
The problem with such conclusions is two-fold. First, as pointed out on the page, this would mean the two families are related in the male line, but their most recent common ancestor could be the John who married Joan Mitton, or it could be all the way back at Domesday. The lower Anglo-Norman gentry spawned younger sons in generation after generation, and without direct evidence there is no reason to believe the connection was recent as opposed to distant. The second problem is that, based on the summary, it is hard to tell the nature of the evidence. They claim to have compared with the haplotype of a descendant of Robert, eldest son of John and Joan, but I suspect that descent was self-reported, and it may not be based on any stronger evidence than that of the Bengeworth line. Could this be a descendant of the Bengeford line who is basing their claim on an inaccurate pedigree?

taf
taf
2018-10-08 15:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Could this be a descendant of the Bengeford line who is basing their
claim on an inaccurate pedigree?
Sorry, I meant to ask, Could this be a descendant of the Bengeworth line? What I mean is if someone descended from John and Emma of Bengeworth convinced themselves that they descend from the senior line instead and that is the pedigree they self-reported when comparing the tests, their yDNA would match another descendant of the Bengeworth line but due to their misreported pedigree it would make it look as if it confirmed a relationship between the branches.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2018-10-08 18:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
The link between genetations 8 and 9 does have some support. See
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Washbourne-3, DNA tests have showed a
relation between the descendants of the John Washbourne who died in
1546 and the descendants of Robert Washbourne who was a son of the
John Washbourne who died in 1517 and Joan Mitton. Of course, it's
not conclusive about the exact link but it's a piece of evidence.
The problem with such conclusions is two-fold. First, as pointed out on the page, this would mean the two families are related in the male line, but their most recent common ancestor could be the John who married Joan Mitton, or it could be all the way back at Domesday. The lower Anglo-Norman gentry spawned younger sons in generation after generation, and without direct evidence there is no reason to believe the connection was recent as opposed to distant. The second problem is that, based on the summary, it is hard to tell the nature of the evidence. They claim to have compared with the haplotype of a descendant of Robert, eldest son of John and Joan, but I suspect that descent was self-reported, and it may not be based on any stronger evidence than that of the Bengeworth line. Could this be a descendant of the Bengeford line who is basing their claim on an inaccurate pedigree?
taf
On your first point, I know that, that's why I said it wasn't conclusive about the exact link. The exact link between the families could be more distant.
D.E. Mitchel
2018-10-08 18:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
The link between genetations 8 and 9 does have some support. See
https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Washbourne-3, DNA tests have showed a
relation between the descendants of the John Washbourne who died in
1546 and the descendants of Robert Washbourne who was a son of the
John Washbourne who died in 1517 and Joan Mitton. Of course, it's
not conclusive about the exact link but it's a piece of evidence.
The problem with such conclusions is two-fold. First, as pointed out on the page, this would mean the two families are related in the male line, but their most recent common ancestor could be the John who married Joan Mitton, or it could be all the way back at Domesday. The lower Anglo-Norman gentry spawned younger sons in generation after generation, and without direct evidence there is no reason to believe the connection was recent as opposed to distant. The second problem is that, based on the summary, it is hard to tell the nature of the evidence. They claim to have compared with the haplotype of a descendant of Robert, eldest son of John and Joan, but I suspect that descent was self-reported, and it may not be based on any stronger evidence than that of the Bengeworth line. Could this be a descendant of the Bengeford line who is basing their claim on an inaccurate pedigree?
taf
TAF, useful clarification for the y-DNA genealogist. The Washburn y-DNA project is in its infancy. It does present another way to look at the families involved, but will require careful disambiguation to make sure the two lines are accurate to the "paper" record. DEM
John Higgins
2018-10-08 17:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
The link between genetations 8 and 9 does have some support. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Washbourne-3, DNA tests have showed a relation between the descendants of the John Washbourne who died in 1546 and the descendants of Robert Washbourne who was a son of the John Washbourne who died in 1517 and Joan Mitton. Of course, it's not conclusive about the exact link but it's a piece of evidence.
Setting aside the DNA question, there are many problems with the Wikitree account that you cite. No evidence is provided to support the assertion that the John born in Wichenford supposedly in 1479 (the date is noted to be an estimate) is the same John who shows up in Bengeworth years later. The narrative simply repeats the conjecture from the James Davenport book that some sort of family disagreement triggered by his supposed father's 2nd marriage caused the younger John to move from Winchenford to Bengeworth.

Also no evidence is provided to support the supposed marriage date of 1516 for John and his wife Emme. And John's supposed father is promoted to be SIR John, a title I've seen in no other source - including the 1569 Visitation of Worcestershire, which is actually shown next to the narrative.

Even by the pretty lax standards of Wikitree, this is a very poor example of a genealogy.
AJB
2018-10-14 04:24:13 UTC
Permalink
In an attempt to firmly quash the notion that the John Washbourne, who died in 1546 in Bengeworth, Worcestershire, England was identical with the John Washbourne designated in the 1569 Visitation of Worcestershire as the second son of John Washbourne of Wichenford, Eugene Stratton, in his book Applied Genealogy, quoted another author, E.A.B. Barnard. Stratton wrote: “E.A.B. Barnard, however, completely demolishes the claim by showing that there were Washburn families in the neighborhood of Bengeworth for centuries prior to this time and therefore it is superfluous and unreasonable to have to look outside Bengeworth for the origins of the John Washburne in question unless there are other compelling reasons for it.”

What Barnard said was: "Other Washbournes may have lived in these Parishes before this time, but there is no direct evidence that such was the case. However the name had long existed in the neighborhood of Evesham, the earliest mention of it appearing in the Lay Subsidy Roll for the county of Worcester (c 1280) where, under the village of Bretforton-some three miles away-we find a payment for land de Johanne Wasburn..." Barnard also cites the Lay Subsidy Roll of 1327 under Bretforton - de Roberto de Wasseborne; then again in 1332.

The argument is that because we have evidence of Washbournes paying tax in the Bengeworth area in the 1200s and 1300s then the John Washbourne who dies at Bengeworth in 1546 has to have descended from a family established by one of those men and not from the senior line of the Washbournes which was at this time John Washbourne of Wichenford who died in 1517.

There are two problems with this argument: The first is that the Washbournes paying tax in the area were actually the senior line seated at Stanford-on-Teme. The Roberto de Wasseborne on the Lay subsidy Rolls in the early 1300s was almost certainly Roger de Washbourne, Knight whose name was subjected to a scribal change from Roger to Robert. More evidence of this is seen in the taxation records of 1340 at Overbury (Little Washbourne), 12 miles from Bretforton, where, his proper name restored, he appears as Rogeri Wasshebourn.

The name Roger was very often stated as Robert during the medieval period depending upon individual scribal proclivities. Davenport observed that, in Weavers Visitation of Herefordshire 1569, a man who is very clearly Roger of Stanford, is named Robert Waseborne. Roger is named Robert on one of the College of Arms pedigrees as well.

We find another example of this change from Roger to Robert in the Beauchamp Cartulary, #79 dated to between 1236 x 1269. Here, the man, sealing on behalf of all of the people of Stanford on Teme, is identified as Robertus de Wasseburn’. In the 1240s and 1250s, the Washbourne dealing with land at Stanford-on-Teme was William de Washbourne. According to the 1255 Eyre Court records from Worcestershire, this William died prior to 1255 when his widow Lucy and son and heir Roger assumed control of the Washbourne properties at Stanford. So the only possible person who could have been sealing an accord on behalf of Stanford would have been either William or his son Roger, called Robert in the Charter.

The evidence presents a very strong case that the Washbournes holding land in Bretforton were those of the senior line seated at Stanford and not stray sons of sons; thus, entirely deflating both Stratton and Barnard's arguments.

The second problem is one of continuity. There are no continual established families of Washbournes in the area from which John of Bengeworth could ultimately have emerged.

In an interesting aside, William, one of the sons of John Washbourne of Bengeworth, settled at Bretforton, possibly on land long associated with the senior line of the family.

Yes there were many younger Washbourne sons down the generations. Most of them, both legitimate and not, were priests. Some of them left sons, others died of the plague or sweating sickness. Most of these sons have been documented and their sons traced. None of them left a trail to Bengeworth. Conversely, after John Washbourne settled in Bengeworth, the Washbourne name continued in the area until the 1800s.

John of Bengeworth’s descendants married into families very closely tied into the senior line at Wichenford. We prove this by tracing land transactions between the various generations.

Untying John of Bengeworth from a senior line at Stanford requires that one explain the presence of the Washbourne Crest in a window at old St. Peter’s Church at Bengeworth. Untying him from Wichenford requires explaining why the family’s coat of arms – charged with cinquefoils - was blazoned on a heraldic tile found in the ruins of Evesham Abbey.

Finally, if John of Bengeworth was simply a stray son of one of many younger sons’ sons from a very early generation of the senior line, how did he come to hold more than a hide and a half of valuable arable land in Bengeworth which he was free to lease to others and pass on to his heirs “forever.” Land, or sufficient money to buy land in the middle ages came from one’s family or one’s marriage – which was dictated by one’s pedigree. Even the proven third son of John of Wichenford, Walter, was unable to garner enough money to acquire land of his own and was left to live on the charity of his nephew until he died on Washbourne land in the Slaughters. The youngest son of John and Joan, Francis, appears to have become a priest.

If John of Bengeworth was not the second son of John of Wichenford, then whose son was he? A viable alternative paternal candidate has not yet been identified. AJB
p***@yahoo.ca
2019-06-13 14:58:07 UTC
Permalink
AJB seems to have made a pretty good case. What do others think? I do agree with TAF that visitations have linked two unrelated families basically out of wishful thinking. Two examples from my lines are the Fones of London and the Skipwiths of St. Albans. However, I have a visitation linking the Broughtons of Bedfordshire with the Broughtons of Buckinghamshire for which I have VERY strong documentation that indeed this is the case. The visitation genealogy does some missing generations and one wrong name, but about two thirds of it is correct.

I agree that because you have a person paying taxes in one place does not necessarily mean the person lived there. I have medieval ancestors who lived in one place and had property elsewhere.

Another claim made against linking the Washbournes of Bengeworth with those in Wichenford is that the John of Wichenford does not mention a son named John in his will. I have wills of proven ancestors where not all the children for whatever reason are named.

On the other hand one person used a family tradition that said that their Washbourne ancestors descended from royalty as evidence that the Bengeworth Washbournes are the Wichenford Washbournes. Family tradition can also be wrong.

In weighing the evidence pro and con one must be very careful not to let your emotions get in the way. Your emotions can blind you to evidence that points in a direction opposite to what you believe.

Initially I agreed with those who say that the John of Bengeworth was not the son of the John of Wichenford. However, after reviewing the evidence I've so far seen I now conclude the opposite as it seems to make far more sense.
p***@yahoo.ca
2019-06-14 03:15:27 UTC
Permalink
What is the source for the presence of the Washbourne Crest in a window at St. Peter's Church at Bengeworth and what evidence is there for it being the Washbourne Crest of the Washbournes of Wichenford?
p***@yahoo.ca
2019-06-15 14:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Here’s my review of the evidence against and for the Washbournes of Bengeworth being connected to the Washbournes of Wichenford. Some, like TAF for example, argue that this is a simple case of basically wishful thinking. One family tacks on their genealogy to a more illustrious family’s genealogy. Another argument is that the will of John of Wichenford does not mention a son named John. Still another argument against is that there were men of the same name paying taxes in the Bengeworth area about 200 years earlier and therefore the Bengeworth Washbournes of the late 1400s descend from them.

On the other hand AJB, whom I believe is probably Angela Bristow argues that the visitation of 1569 has a John as the son of John Washbourne and Joan Mytton of Wichenford. Also that the absence of someone from a will does not prove that the person was not a son or daughter or the person who made the will. There is the presence of Washboure crest in a window at old St. Peter’s Church in Bengeworth and the family’s coat of arms on a tile found in the ruins of Evesham Abbey.

Let’s examine the evidence more closely. At first glance TAF seems to be right that this may be a simple case of wishful thinking. Two families that I descend from, Fones and Skipwith, linked their families to more illustrious families of the same name, which has been shown not to be the case. On the other hand I descend from the Broughtons. The visitations link the Broughtons of Bedfordshire with those of Buckinghamshire who were of the lesser aristocracy. Well I have solid documentary evidence taken from, among many places, the patent and the close rolls, that clearly show the two families are one in the same.

As for someone not being named in the will of another who is believed to be the parent showing no connection that is not necessarily the case. I have wills in which not all the children for which I have documentary evidence for not being named in the will.

Owning property and paying taxes on it does not show residency. The Broughtons had previously owned property in several areas and payed taxes on it, but did not live there.

The claim that the presence of the Washbourne crest and arms in the area of Bengeworth does not show a link between this family and those in Wichenford unless one can come up with photographs, drawings or detailed descriptions of these to compare with those known to be of Wichenford Washbournes.

One more thing I’ll throw out which I’ve just come across mention in Julia Chase Washburn's Genealogical Notes Of The Washburn Family, 1898, that Burke says the the Evesham and Wichenford branches of the Washbournes come from the same stock. So far I haven’t found the Burke book in question. However, even if that is indeed the case, which I think is probably true, it still begs the question as to what basis did Burke base this on?

So what can we make of all of this? The evidence is clearly inconclusive one way or the other to say that the John Washbourne of Bengeworth was the son of John Washbourne and Joan Mytton of Wichenford or that the two families descend from the same stock. It gets down to a matter of opinion until further evidence can be discovered to lead to a firmer conclusion.

My personal view is that I think the two families are connected, which may or may not be through John and Joan. It may be some 200 years earlier.
AJB
2019-07-09 16:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Evidence that the Crest of the senior line of the Washbourne family of Wichenford et al was once displayed in a glass window in old St. Peter’s Church in Bengeworth, Worcestershire can be found in Barnard’s book on the family, a link to which is here:

https://archive.org/details/somenotesonevesh00barn/page/80

Barnard: “This could scarcely be anything else but a portion of the Washbourne crest…”

It was quite common for armigers to detach the crest and wreath from the coat of arms and use them in the manner of a badge, displayed on carriage doors, stationery and, as we see at St. Peter’s, in church windows. As benefactors to the Church, the Washbournes of Bengeworth were probably determined to remind the village that a direct male descendant of the armigerous family seated at Wichenford was also present in the pews at Bengeworth. Importantly, while the presence of the Crest at Bengeworth does not prove that John Washbourne 1546 was the son of John 1517; it does prove a common tail male ancestor for the Washbourne family at Bengeworth and those seated at Wichenford. AJB
AJB
2019-07-09 16:46:09 UTC
Permalink
The published Visitation of Worcestershire 1569 and Harleian MS no. 1566 and Harleian MS no. 1043 all tell us that John Washbourne Esq. Lord of Wichenford, dead in 1517 (hereinafter referred to as 1517), had 4 sons with Joan Mytton: Robert, John, Walter and Francis.

What evidence exists to prove or disprove the existence of these purported sons?

We can be absolutely certain that Robert was 1517’s son and that he died before his father as he is mentioned in both 1517’s will and IPM. We can also be certain of Walter as he is mentioned in both his father's and his nephew's wills. We know that this Walter lived until at least 1522 as he was listed on the Gloucestershire Military Muster of that year living on documented Washbourne land in Lower Slaughter, Gloucestershire. The Muster and other tax rolls also tell us that this Walter, although the son of the Lord of Wichenford,was relatively poor and living on the charity of his family.

The name Francis is exceedingly rare in the Washbourne family so we can be quite certain that the Francis we find in the Journal of Prior William More in 1521 is a reference to Francis the son of 1517 listed in the Visitations: “In rewards to fraunces Wassheburne and to a grey fryur 20d” In 1526 we find in Prior More’s journal notation of a payment identical to that made in 1521 to Francis, this time payable to a Norman who was almost certainly the brother of John the new Lord of Wichenford (see the Visitation Pedigrees) who seems to have taken the place formerly occupied by his uncle Francis: “Item rewards....to Norman Wassheburne 20d.”

Having shown evidence for the existence of Robert, Walter and Francis, we now look for evidence of the second son, John. 1517 placed one of his sons (Walter) on Washbourne lands, do we find any evidence that he might have done the same for another? Yes!

In 1502 a list of tenants in the Alstone/Teddington area of Worcestershire was published. Among the tenants at Alstone was a John Washbourne. Alstone had been held, in tail male, by the Worcestershire Washbournes ever since Roger de Washbourne made a Covenant with the Prior and Convent of Worcester in 1258. This land was still held by 1517 and would have presented a convenient location to place his second son from his first marriage as 1517 turned his attention to a new wife and the new sons he was then having by her. The possibility that the John Washbourne on the tenant list was 1517 himself certainly comes up; however, the observation that, on subsequent tenancy lists at Alstone, no further Washbournes appear, calls this idea into question. It is more likely that the Washbournes ordinarily farmed out Alstone to various tenants as we see them doing at Little Washbourne and other family properties over the years. But in 1502, John is there and, given no other visible Washbourne families in the area to whom he might reasonably be attached, we must seriously consider the possibility that he is the second son of 1517.

Another 1502 resident at Alstone/Teddington was a John Rutter. When John Washbourne of Bengeworth’s widow wrote her will in 1547, one of her bequests was to an Emme Rutter. We might think this a mere coincidence, and it may be. However it is intriguing as we find no other Rutters living in the Bengeworth/Evesham region at the time. Did Emme make acquaintance with the Rutter family while she and John were living on the Washbourne lands in Alstone?

We must not rest our genealogical conclusions upon mere “wishful thinking.” Alternatively, we must not dismiss, out of hand, the probability of a relationship between two individuals when diligent research reveals a compelling and consistent collection of data points in support of such a relationship. AJB
















.
taf
2019-07-09 17:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
The published Visitation of Worcestershire 1569 and Harleian MS no. 1566 and
Harleian MS no. 1043 all tell us that John Washbourne Esq. Lord of
Wichenford, dead in 1517 (hereinafter referred to as 1517), had 4 sons with
Joan Mytton: Robert, John, Walter and Francis.
What evidence exists to prove or disprove the existence of these purported sons?
Has anyone questioned their existence?
Post by AJB
Another 1502 resident at Alstone/Teddington was a John Rutter. When John
Washbourne of Bengeworth’s widow wrote her will in 1547, one of her bequests
was to an Emme Rutter. We might think this a mere coincidence, and it may
be.
Yes, it might.
Post by AJB
We must not rest our genealogical conclusions upon mere “wishful thinking.”
Alternatively, we must not dismiss, out of hand, the probability of a
relationship between two individuals when diligent research reveals a
compelling and consistent collection of data points in support of such a
relationship. AJB
And when there is a 'compelling and consistent collection of data points' it will be a different story, but that is not what I am seeing here. Proving that John and Joan really did have a younger son John doesn't really move the question forward, nor does finding two different people named Rutter.

taf
AJB
2019-07-09 22:59:27 UTC
Permalink
TAF: Anyone who spends more than five minutes reading various sources on the Washbournes will find arguments posited against the existence of these sons of 1517; some Visitations leave them out entirely. This is most especially the case for John because he was not mentioned in 1517’s will.

For example: "Phillimore's Visitation of Worcestershire indicated that John Washbourne of Wichenford had a son named John, but the will of John Washbourne of Wichenford did not name a son John, nor did the Inquisition Post Mortem. So this is a classic case of conflicting evidence." John Maltby 2005

Any genuine clue to this John’s existence, which I believe the tenancy at Alstone to be, does in fact "move the ball forward".

Simply finding two people named Rutter would in fact add no value, in isolation. But, finding two people named Rutter - in close association with the people in question - in two different geographies – one closely associated with the Wichenford Washbournes (Alstone) and one with those of Bengeworth - most certainly does; especially when the number of Rutter families living in Worcestershire at the time were severely limited in number.

Medieval genealogy requires rigorous analysis of obscure records and the ability to link seemingly disparate fragments together into what may eventually emerge as a meaningful whole. It is not for the weak or narrow of mind or mean of spirit. When we are lucky, we find clear, primary records which we can use to prove or debunk our ideas. But, very often, such records are not forthcoming. In those cases we must pull the disparate threads we do find and postulate potential relationships which we then follow to see if they can be substantiated. In the future with respect to my postings: Legitimate, well-grounded questions and criticism are always welcome. But, if you persist in simply sitting by the side of the road throwing rocks at the workers you will just end up with a sunburn and a sore arm. AJB
p***@yahoo.ca
2019-07-09 23:26:21 UTC
Permalink
I agree with TAF. There is not enough evidence to link the John Washburn of Bengeworth with the John Washburn of Wichenford. Add to this John Maltby has found another John Washburn living at the same time in Broadway, Worcester. Maybe this John was the son of the John of Wichenford. Is there documented evidence of the Washburns of Bengeworth marrying into the Washburns of Wichenford? Is there other documented evidence of regular contact between the two families? Another question what is the original source of May 6, 1516 being the marriage date of John and Emme? At present the best we can say, based on available evidence, is that the Washburns of Bengeworth are probably related to the Washburns of Wichenford. However was that relation to the John Washburn who died in 1517 or was it two centuries earlier? Right now we can't say.
taf
2019-07-10 02:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
Simply finding two people named Rutter would in fact add no value, in
isolation. But, finding two people named Rutter - in close association with
the people in question - in two different geographies – one closely
associated with the Wichenford Washbournes (Alstone) and one with those of
Bengeworth - most certainly does;
No, it doesn't, not much at least. It is like putting significance on finding two people with the same birthdate. In a room of 40 people, you are more likely to find it than not. Given the way surnames spread and cluster, there is bound to be overlap, occurrences of two surnames in each of two towns, entirely by chance.
Post by AJB
Medieval genealogy requires rigorous analysis of obscure records and the
ability to link seemingly disparate fragments together into what may
eventually emerge as a meaningful whole.
The problem is that linking seemingly disparate fragments together is also the hallmark of connect-the-dots pseudo-genealogy.
Post by AJB
It is not for the weak or narrow of mind or mean of spirit.
Nor is it for the zealot, who reaches a conclusion and then over-interprets every piece of evidence they find to fit that conclusion.
Post by AJB
When we are lucky, we find clear, primary records which we can use to prove
or debunk our ideas.
And when we are unlucky, it may never be possible to make the connection we wish to draw. And that's alright.
Post by AJB
In the future with respect to my postings: Legitimate, well-grounded
questions and criticism are always welcome. But, if you persist in
simply sitting by the side of the road throwing rocks at the workers
you will just end up with a sunburn and a sore arm. AJB
Only cheerleaders welcome? It amuses me how frequently people post here claiming to want feedback but actually just wanting affirmation.

taf
wjhonson
2019-07-10 19:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
TAF: Anyone who spends more than five minutes reading various sources on the Washbournes will find arguments posited against the existence of these sons of 1517; some Visitations leave them out entirely. This is most especially the case for John because he was not mentioned in 1517’s will.
For example: "Phillimore's Visitation of Worcestershire indicated that John Washbourne of Wichenford had a son named John, but the will of John Washbourne of Wichenford did not name a son John, nor did the Inquisition Post Mortem. So this is a classic case of conflicting evidence." John Maltby 2005
just on this point, are you suggesting that an IPM would name a younger son ?

The heir of John 1517 was his grandson John, son of his eldest (dead) son Robert, as it should be. There would be no reason to name any other of his children
AJB
2019-07-10 02:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Peter wrote: “Add to this John Maltby has found another John Washburn living at the same time in Broadway, Worcester. Maybe this John was the son of the John of Wichenford.”

AJB Answered: No Peter. I am familiar with every John Washbourne of record who lived in Worcestershire and elsewhere in England, from 1190 forward, including the one who briefly resided at Broadway, from 1575 to 1580 in or near his wife’s brothers’ home there. This John was born in 1548. Therefore this John cannot possibly have been the second son of John Washbourne Esq. of Wichenford who died in 1517. Hard Stop

Peter wrote: “Another question what is the original source of May 6, 1516 being the marriage date of John and Emme?”

AJB, astounded, responded: Why in the world would you ask me that? The short answer is, “Who knows!” It appears to be a spurious date that some idiot has made up, submitted to the IGI database and which now circulates mindlessly on the internet. The Parish Registers for Bengeworth do not come into existence until 1538.

Peter – What is your relationship to the Washbourne family?
AJB
2019-07-10 03:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Unable to actually engage in serious discussions of the facts at hand, TAF resorts to a vicious ad hominem attack.

TAF Insults AJB accusing him of “connect-the-dots pseudo-genealogy.”

AJB Responds: Not in this case.

TAF Calls AJB a “Zealot” just because he disagrees with him. TAF says “Only cheerleaders welcome? It amuses me how frequently people post here claiming to want feedback but actually just wanting affirmation”.

AJB Responds: I certainly don’t want your affirmation. You can’t even pose a decent fact based question, you simply excel at throwing rocks. Stop throwing rocks TAF

It’s disappointing really to encounter this level of discourse. I am part of an ongoing Washbourne research group with over 60 years of collective experience including PhDs and other individuals with advanced research skills. We find the Washbourne family fascinating, especially the two families we find in Bengeworth and Wichenford in the 1500s. I post for the group from time to time to correct clear inaccuracies on the internet. We know that the question of 1546’s origin is yet unanswered but we, unlike TAF, realize that this is not an unanswerable question. We have disciplined but open minds. We will not be responding to TAF again as his level of discourse is not collegial, not productive. AJB
taf
2019-07-10 04:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
Unable to actually engage in serious discussions of the facts at hand, TAF resorts to a vicious ad hominem attack.
TAF Insults AJB accusing him of “connect-the-dots pseudo-genealogy.”
No. I didn't. I simply indicated that the because the characteristic you were attributing to medieval genealogy is not exclusive to it, the act of linking up seemingly disparate fragments does not, in and of itself, imply that good genealogy is going to be the result. I never mentioned you.
Post by AJB
TAF Calls AJB a “Zealot” just because he disagrees with him.
No,. I didn't. You said that medieval genealogy was not for the weak or narrow of mind or mean of spirit. I said it was not for zealots. Again, I never mentioned you, I made an observation, just like you were making an observation. Then again, maybe you weren't just making an observation. Maybe you assumed I was talking about you precisely because you were calling me narrow-minded and mean-spirited, in which case your whine of 'How dare he insult me BACK!' lacks a certain philosophical consistency.
Post by AJB
TAF says “Only cheerleaders welcome? It amuses me how frequently people
post here claiming to want feedback but actually just wanting affirmation”.
AJB Responds: I certainly don’t want your affirmation. You can’t even
pose a decent fact based question, you simply excel at throwing rocks.
Stop throwing rocks TAF
Stop pretending you have something substantial, and I won't have to point it out.
Post by AJB
It’s disappointing really to encounter this level of discourse. I am part
of an ongoing Washbourne research group with over 60 years of collective
experience including PhDs and other individuals with advanced research
skills.
Yawn. Color me underwhelmed.
Post by AJB
I post for the group from time to time to correct clear inaccuracies on
the internet.
Bringing enlightenment to the great unwashed, eh?
Post by AJB
We know that the question of 1546’s origin is yet unanswered but we, unlike
TAF, realize that this is not an unanswerable question.
Except this itself is an assumption. To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you go into it with the preconception that the answer is there, every piece of evidence will look like a part of that answer. The problem is that sometimes the blind men who feel a a snake, a wall and a tree trunk are not actually all touching an elephant, they are in a walled garden and one is touching a snake, another a wall and the third a tree, and there is no bigger picture.

Humans inherently draw connections, even when there aren't any. This talent for detecting patterns is what allows for sparks of insight, but also leads to conspiracy theories and jumped conclusions. Not all questions are answerable, and if you go into research with the preconceived notion that there is an answer in the evidence, you will find one, but it may not match historical reality.
Post by AJB
We have disciplined but open minds.
Of course you do. I am sure that your children are all above average too.

taf
p***@yahoo.ca
2019-07-10 12:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Let me sum up what we've learned so far from both AJB and taf:


Well that's it. What I'm reading are both parties trading insults, which is not productive. Okay there is one thing we've learned that the John Washburn of Broadway may have been born too late to be the son of the John Washburn either Wichenford or Bengeworth. That doesn't exactly surprise me as John Maltby didn't specify the time frame.

One thing that would greatly help in dealing with this matter would be to find documented proof of regular contact between the two families or that Emme, wife of John of Bengeworth, was born in or around Wichenford.

The touchiness of this matter is illustrated by AJB asking me why I asked the question "Another question what is the original source of May 6, 1516 being the marriage date of John and Emme?" and assumed I was asking it of AJB. It was a general question posed to whomever could answer it. It's like this reply is directed not just at taf and AJB, but to all who are interested in the Washburns.

In summing up about the Washburns we do not have enough evidence to draw any conclusions one way or the other. Contrast this to another family I descend from, the Crannells of Warren County, NY, where I have my third great grandmother living in Queensbury in 1821 and her probable father listed on the 1820 census in Queensbury and having a presumed daughter of the same age of my ancestor, plus some other evidence.

So far I've investigated roughly 10 lines of mine for whom claims of royal or aristocratic descent has been claimed. So far only one line, the Lawrences, has held up. A few other lines right family, wrong branch.

I have done medieval genealogy using translated and transcribed records. It's been fun and challenging.
AJB
2019-07-10 21:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Responding to wjhonson who asks if, in an earlier post, I was suggesting that an IPM would name a younger son. The answer to that is no. If a younger son was not the legal heir (his elder brother(s) having died without issue) he would not be named in the IPM. I believe that there are very rare exceptions to this as when the living legal heir is being bypassed and the fee settled upon a younger son (or someone else entirely) who would, in those rare cases, then be named - usually via an excerpt from a will or an enfeoffment, quotes from which would then also be included in the IPM.

In my post I was quoting John Maltby who wrote in 2005: "Phillimore's Visitation of Worcestershire indicated that John Washbourne of Wichenford had a son named John, but the will of John Washbourne of Wichenford did not name a son John, nor did the Inquisition Post Mortem. So this is a classic case of conflicting evidence." I presented Maltby's quote in answer to TAF's question in which he asked me if anyone had ever questioned the existence of 1517's sons. Yes, people have questioned their existence and the Maltby quote was just one example of that. My "evidence of sons" post was simply to show evidence that four sons, by Joan Mytton, do seem to have existed. But it is not the only example. The 1569 Visitation of Herefordshire only names the eldest son Robert (by Mytton) and then names Anthony as the second son and Richard as the third (by Monington) - so providing an example of an official record in which the three younger sons of 1517 and Joan Mytton are erased entirely. AJB
taf
2019-07-10 23:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by AJB
Responding to wjhonson who asks if, in an earlier post, I was suggesting
that an IPM would name a younger son. The answer to that is no. If a
younger son was not the legal heir (his elder brother(s) having died without
issue) he would not be named in the IPM. I believe that there are very rare
exceptions to this as when the living legal heir is being bypassed and the
fee settled upon a younger son (or someone else entirely) who would, in
those rare cases, then be named - usually via an excerpt from a will or an
enfeoffment, quotes from which would then also be included in the IPM.
I have seen a number of examples of where a younger son was named in an ipm: as you mention in a will excerpt, where a younger son was named as an enfeofee, as heir to an entailment, or, in the case of multiple marriages, when a younger son was the heir to his mother, of whose inheritance the husband held a life interest. So, they can appear, but their absence from an ipm is of no disprobative value.

taf
p***@yahoo.ca
2019-07-10 23:59:33 UTC
Permalink
I don't think anyone is saying that John 1517 did not have a son named John and that includes John Maltby. And I made basically the same point on the Washburn Facebook group that a person's absence from a will does not mean that they were not the son or daughter of the person who made the will. But we're back to the starting point in that there is no evidence connecting the John of Bengeworth with the John of Wichenford. Personally I'd like very much to see at least some strong circumstantial evidence connecting the two, but alas there isn't and, as taf said, there may never be.
Loading...