Discussion:
More Stanley confusion ?
(too old to reply)
Leo van de Pas
2013-04-23 23:58:51 UTC
Permalink
From Terry Booth I understand that Sir John Stanley (husband of Elizabeth Weever) had an illegitimate son John who married Elizabeth Harrington.
According to Douglas Richardson (PA Ancestry 2004 edition, page 490) the same Sir John Stanley and Elizabeth Weever also had a son John. No further details are given about this son John.

In Burke's Peerage 1999 page 2691
Sir John Stanley who married Elizabeth We(e)ver was ancestor of
Sir Thomas Stanley, of Weever and Alderley who died in 1605. As this Sir Thomas is of Weever - BP 1938 states he is a descendant of this marriage to Elizabeth Weever - I can only presume he descends from one of the three legitimate sons mentioned by DR John, Thomas and George.

Sir John Stanley died before 1485 and his descendant in 1605, there are quite a few generations between them. Burke's Peerage 1899, 1938 nor 1999 give these generations. Does anyone know where to find these?

With many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
John Dobson
2013-04-24 17:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Hi Leo,

I'm not sure if this will completely address your concerns, but in a note I wrote several years ago on the Stanley family at
http://library.uwinnipeg.ca/people/Dobson/genealogy/ff/Mainwaring/#n_9-6 , there is a chart which seeks to distinguish between a Sir John Stanley of Lathom and Knowsley, d. 1437, who married Isobel Haryngton, and this couple's great-grandson John Stanley, who married his third cousin, Elizabeth Haryngton. Some writers have confused these two men despite the obvious difference in their dates of birth.

I should add that I have not worked on this material in quite some time, and while I hope the premise is sound, the bibliographic citations are badly out-of-date.

Best wishes,
John Blythe Dobson
From Terry Booth I understand that Sir John Stanley (husband of Elizabeth Weever) had an illegitimate son John who married Elizabeth Harrington.
According to Douglas Richardson (PA Ancestry 2004 edition, page 490) the same Sir John Stanley and Elizabeth Weever also had a son John. No further details are given about this son John.

In Burke's Peerage 1999 page 2691
Sir John Stanley who married Elizabeth We(e)ver was ancestor of
Sir Thomas Stanley, of Weever and Alderley who died in 1605. As this Sir Thomas is of Weever - BP 1938 states he is a descendant of this marriage to Elizabeth Weever - I can only presume he descends from one of the three legitimate sons mentioned by DR John, Thomas and George.

Sir John Stanley died before 1485 and his descendant in 1605, there are quite a few generations between them. Burke's Peerage 1899, 1938 nor 1999 give these generations. Does anyone know where to find these?

With many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia




-------------------------------
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
TJ Booth
2013-04-25 01:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Leo,

There is a fairly contemporary 'Stanley of Weever' pedigree in the 1580
Visitation of Cheshire @
http://www.scfhs.org.uk/scfhs/visitations/BookVC1580/p216.htm . Likely
Betham may have seen it in preparing his 'Stanleys of Alderley and Cheshire'
section in Baronetage; Vol 2 pp 84/85 which includes what is in the
pedigree, but misplaces some of the earlier family. See
http://books.google.com/books?id=QS8wAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA84 .

Additional information can be found on these generations in Ormerod's
History of Chester Vol II; London; Lackington Hughes; 1819; page 114 @
http://books.google.com/books?id=7kEjAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA114 . Ormerod traces the
descent of Alderley from Margaret Arderne of Alderley, sole heir of her
father Peter. She m. Richard de Weever, a ward of her father, and the Weever
and Alderley properties stayed in the family. The couple's gr-gr-granddau
Elizabeth Weever, m.(1) Sir John Stanley.

Gen 1. Sir John Stanley, of Weever and Aldbery in right of his wife, living
12 Edw. IV. m. Elizabeth, d. 1 Sep 1512, daughter and heir of Sir Thomas
Weever, Knt. [Betham erred in making Sir John the son of John Stanley Esq.
Sir John was instead the son of Sir Thomas 1st Lord Stanley, and grandson of
John Esq.] Elizabeth was ward of Henry VI, who in 1445/46 assigned her
wardship to Sir Thomas Stanley, Sir John's father. Elizabeth m.(2) Sir John
Done of Utkinton, d. bef 1498.

Gen 2. Thomas Stanley of Weever and Alderley, d. bef 1 Dec 1527, m. a dau of
Liversege of Wheelock

Gen 3. Thomas Stanley Esq. of Weever and Alderley had livery of his father's
lands 1 Dec 1527 [thus b. bef 1 Dec 1506], ipm dated 1554/55, m. [Joan]
Davenport of Henbury

Gen 4. Thomas Stanley Esq. of Weever and Alderley, High Sheriff of
Cheshire, b. perhaps 1530, his ipm indicates he d. 1 Aug 1591. He m. Ursula
Cholmondeley, his heir was Randle age 30 and upwards per his ipm.

Gen 5. Randle Stanley Esq. of Weever and Alderley, Capt of the Isle of Man,
b. bef 1561 and perhaps by 1555, d. 17 Jun 1595, m. perhaps 1575, Margaret
Maisterson d. 16 Jun 1625, she was dau and heir of John Esq. of Nantwich

Gen 6. Sir Thomas Stanley of Weever and Alderley, Sheriff of Cheshire, b.
1576 [age 4 in 1580 visitation of Cheshire], d. 21 Nov 1605, m. Elizabeth
Warburton of Grafton, Cheshire, dau of Sir Peter. She m.(2) Sir Richard
Grosvenor. Their son Thomas was named a baronet.

Thomas Stanley (Gen 4) has a memorial in Alderley Church confirming his, his
father's and his son and heir's generations, as follows : "Here lieth the
body of Thomas Stanley, Esq. eldest son of Thos. Stanley. Esq. and Joan,
daughter of Thomas Davenport, of Henbury, Esq. He married Ursula, daughter
of Richard, and sister of Sir Hugh Cholmondeley, Knt. and had issue Thomas,
who died young, and Randle, his heir and successor; also Dorothy, who died
unmarried; Elizabeth married to Roger Downes. Esq. of Shrigley; and Frances
married to Henry Delves, of Doddington, Esq. He rebuilt the houses of
Alderley and Wever, and died August 1st. 1591.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <***@netspeed.com.au>
To: "Gen-Med" <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:58 PM
Subject: More Stanley confusion ?
Post by Leo van de Pas
From Terry Booth I understand that Sir John Stanley (husband of Elizabeth
Weever) had an illegitimate son John who married Elizabeth Harrington.
According to Douglas Richardson (PA Ancestry 2004 edition, page 490) the
same Sir John Stanley and Elizabeth Weever also had a son John. No further
details are given about this son John.
In Burke's Peerage 1999 page 2691
Sir John Stanley who married Elizabeth We(e)ver was ancestor of
Sir Thomas Stanley, of Weever and Alderley who died in 1605. As this Sir
Thomas is of Weever - BP 1938 states he is a descendant of this marriage
to Elizabeth Weever - I can only presume he descends from one of the three
legitimate sons mentioned by DR John, Thomas and George.
Sir John Stanley died before 1485 and his descendant in 1605, there are
quite a few generations between them. Burke's Peerage 1899, 1938 nor 1999
give these generations. Does anyone know where to find these?
With many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Brad Verity
2013-04-25 20:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Many thanks for this Stanley of Weever & Alderley pedigree, Terry. I
didn't have this line, and will now add it into my database.

Cheers, ----Brad
John Higgins
2013-04-25 22:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by TJ Booth
Leo,
There is a fairly contemporary 'Stanley of Weever' pedigree in the 1580
Betham may have seen it in preparing his 'Stanleys of Alderley and Cheshire'
section in Baronetage; Vol 2 pp 84/85 which includes what is in the
pedigree, but misplaces some of the earlier family. Seehttp://books.google.com/books?id=QS8wAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA84.
Additional information can be found on these generations in Ormerod's
descent of Alderley from Margaret Arderne of Alderley, sole heir of her
father Peter. She m. Richard de Weever, a ward of her father, and the Weever
and Alderley properties stayed in the family. The couple's gr-gr-granddau
Elizabeth Weever, m.(1) Sir John  Stanley.
Gen 1. Sir John Stanley, of Weever and Aldbery in right of his wife, living
12 Edw. IV. m. Elizabeth, d. 1 Sep 1512, daughter and heir of Sir Thomas
Weever, Knt. [Betham erred in making Sir John the son of John Stanley Esq.
Sir John was instead the son of Sir Thomas 1st Lord Stanley, and grandson of
John Esq.] Elizabeth was ward of Henry VI, who in 1445/46 assigned her
wardship to Sir Thomas Stanley, Sir John's father. Elizabeth m.(2) Sir John
Done of Utkinton, d. bef 1498.
Gen 2. Thomas Stanley of Weever and Alderley, d. bef 1 Dec 1527, m. a dau of
Liversege of Wheelock
Gen 3. Thomas Stanley Esq. of Weever and Alderley had livery of his father's
lands 1 Dec 1527 [thus b. bef 1 Dec 1506], ipm dated 1554/55, m. [Joan]
Davenport of Henbury
Gen 4. Thomas Stanley Esq. of Weever and Alderley, High Sheriff of
Cheshire, b. perhaps 1530, his ipm indicates he d. 1 Aug 1591. He m. Ursula
Cholmondeley, his heir was Randle age 30 and upwards per his ipm.
Gen 5. Randle Stanley Esq. of Weever and Alderley, Capt of the Isle of Man,
b. bef 1561 and perhaps by 1555, d. 17 Jun 1595, m. perhaps 1575, Margaret
Maisterson d. 16 Jun 1625, she was dau and heir of John Esq. of Nantwich
Gen 6. Sir Thomas Stanley of Weever and Alderley, Sheriff of Cheshire, b.
1576 [age 4 in 1580 visitation of Cheshire], d. 21 Nov 1605, m. Elizabeth
Warburton of Grafton, Cheshire, dau of Sir Peter. She m.(2) Sir Richard
Grosvenor. Their son Thomas was named a baronet.
Thomas Stanley (Gen 4) has a memorial in Alderley Church confirming his, his
father's and his son and heir's generations, as follows : "Here lieth the
body of Thomas Stanley, Esq. eldest son of Thos. Stanley. Esq. and Joan,
daughter of Thomas Davenport, of Henbury, Esq. He married Ursula, daughter
of Richard, and sister of Sir Hugh Cholmondeley, Knt. and had issue Thomas,
who died young, and Randle, his heir and successor; also Dorothy, who died
unmarried; Elizabeth married to Roger Downes. Esq. of Shrigley; and Frances
married to Henry Delves, of Doddington, Esq. He rebuilt the houses of
Alderley and Wever, and died August 1st. 1591.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
Leo and I have been having some discussion offline about the Thomas
Stanley in gen. 4 above who married Ursula Cholmondeley. All the
relevant pedigrees apparently say that Ursula was the daughter of
Richard and sister of Sir Hugh Cholmondeley, but this seems difficult
chronologically.

Thomas Stanley is said to have been born ca. 1530-2 (depending on the
source) and was married ca. 1558/9. But Richard Cholmondeley d. ca.
1517/8 (9 Henry VIII - his IPM was in the following year). Even if
Ursula was born posthumously, she would be anywhere from 12 to 14
years older than her husband - and not married until she was 40 or
more. This seems unlikely on both points.

If Ursula was in fact a Cholmondeley, she was more likely from a
different branch of the family - although it's interesting that the MI
mentioned above by Terry is so specific in indicating her position in
the family. Any thoughts on this?

FWIW pedigrees of both the Stanley and Cholmondeley families in
Ormerod's Cheshire (Helsby ed.) do place Ursula as indicated in the MI
- and document the dates mentioned that make this difficult.
TJ Booth
2013-04-26 00:32:12 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:01 PM, "John Higgins" <jhigginsgen@ . . wrote

<Snip>

Leo and I have been having some discussion offline about the Thomas
Stanley in gen. 4 above who married Ursula Cholmondeley. All the
relevant pedigrees apparently say that Ursula was the daughter of
Richard and sister of Sir Hugh Cholmondeley, but this seems difficult
chronologically.

Thomas Stanley is said to have been born ca. 1530-2 (depending on the
source) and was married ca. 1558/9. But Richard Cholmondeley d. ca.
1517/8 (9 Henry VIII - his IPM was in the following year). Even if
Ursula was born posthumously, she would be anywhere from 12 to 14
years older than her husband - and not married until she was 40 or
more. This seems unlikely on both points.

If Ursula was in fact a Cholmondeley, she was more likely from a
different branch of the family - although it's interesting that the MI
mentioned above by Terry is so specific in indicating her position in
the family. Any thoughts on this?

FWIW pedigrees of both the Stanley and Cholmondeley families in
Ormerod's Cheshire (Helsby ed.) do place Ursula as indicated in the MI
- and document the dates mentioned that make this difficult.

<Snip>

Are you absolutely sure the 1518 IPM is for the correct Richard Cholmley - I
agree the date doesn't seem right. There was a junior line of Richard
Cholmleys in the same time period, and Leo has 2 Richard Cholmleys d. in
1487 and 1488.

Not noted above, it is difficult to quarrel with the 1598 "Cholmondeleigh
vulgo Cholmley of Chomley" pedigree in the same Visitation of Chester as
cited in my prior post regarding Stanley - See
http://www.scfhs.org.uk/scfhs/visitations/BookVC1580/p063.htm . It is
clearly contemporary, and is quite thorough in identifying Ursula and her 8
siblings. The respondent was Ursula's nephew, Sir Hugh II Cholmley, living
1598, and the pedigree notes that his father Sir Hugh I d. 1596 [Leo shows
it as 6 Jan 1597 - i.e. 1596/97]. Neither Hugh II nor his siblings are shown
with children, the pedigree thus giving the appearance that Hugh II's
generation were b. in the 1570/75 time period. It is of course possible it
was a 1580 pedigree with small incomplete additions in 1598. The pedigree
clearly shows Hugh I's sister as "Vrsula mar. to Thos Stanley".

The Cheshire visitation pedigree agrees with Leo's generations :

William Cholmondleigh m. Maud dau of Sir John Cheney by his wife heir of
Capenhurst [Leo has this couple @
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00269518&tree=LEO but
does not show Richard as a son]

Richard Cholmley m. Ellin dau of John Damport [Leo's entry for the couple @
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00525585&tree=LEO]

Richard Cholmley m. Elenor dau & heir of sir Thomas Dutton

Richard Cholmley m. Elizabeth dau of Sir Randall Brereton of Mallpas. Their
children :

1. Sir High Cholmley d. 1596 m.(1) Amy dau of George Darman by sister to Sir
Rowland Hill, m.(2) Mary widow of Sir Randall Brereton
2. Richard s.p.
3. Randall s.p.
4. Randall Recorder of London
5. George s.prole
6. Ursula m. Thomas Stanley
7. Agnes m. Randall Mainwaring
8. Katherine m. Richard Prestland

Terry Booth
Chicago IL
John Higgins
2013-04-27 00:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by TJ Booth
<Snip>
Leo and I have been having some discussion offline about the Thomas
Stanley in gen. 4 above who married Ursula Cholmondeley.  All the
relevant pedigrees apparently say that Ursula was the daughter of
Richard and sister of Sir Hugh Cholmondeley, but this seems difficult
chronologically.
Thomas Stanley is said to have been born ca. 1530-2 (depending on the
source) and was married ca. 1558/9.  But Richard Cholmondeley d. ca.
1517/8 (9 Henry VIII - his IPM was in the following year).  Even if
Ursula was born posthumously, she would be anywhere from 12 to 14
years older than her husband - and not married until she was 40 or
more.  This seems unlikely on both points.
If Ursula was in fact a Cholmondeley, she was more likely from a
different branch of the family - although it's interesting that the MI
mentioned above by Terry is so specific in indicating her position in
the family.  Any thoughts on this?
FWIW pedigrees of both the Stanley and Cholmondeley families in
Ormerod's Cheshire (Helsby ed.) do place Ursula as indicated in the MI
- and document the dates mentioned that make this difficult.
<Snip>
Are you absolutely sure the 1518 IPM is for the correct Richard Cholmley - I
agree the date doesn't seem right. There was a junior line of Richard
Cholmleys in the same time period, and Leo has 2 Richard Cholmleys d. in
1487 and 1488.
Not noted above, it is difficult to quarrel with the 1598 "Cholmondeleigh
vulgo Cholmley of Chomley" pedigree in the same Visitation of Chester as
cited in my prior post regarding Stanley - Seehttp://www.scfhs.org.uk/scfhs/visitations/BookVC1580/p063.htm. It is
clearly contemporary, and is quite thorough in identifying Ursula and her 8
siblings.  The respondent was Ursula's nephew, Sir Hugh II Cholmley, living
1598, and the pedigree notes that his father Sir Hugh I d. 1596 [Leo shows
it as 6 Jan 1597 - i.e. 1596/97]. Neither Hugh II nor his siblings are shown
with children, the pedigree thus giving the appearance that Hugh II's
generation were b. in the 1570/75 time period. It is of course possible it
was a 1580 pedigree with small incomplete additions in 1598. The pedigree
clearly shows Hugh I's sister as "Vrsula mar. to Thos Stanley".
William Cholmondleigh m. Maud dau of Sir John Cheney by his wife heir of
does not show Richard as a son]
Richard Cholmley m. Elenor dau & heir of sir Thomas Dutton
Richard Cholmley m. Elizabeth dau of Sir Randall Brereton of Mallpas. Their
1. Sir High Cholmley d. 1596 m.(1) Amy dau of George Darman by sister to Sir
Rowland Hill, m.(2) Mary widow of Sir Randall Brereton
2. Richard s.p.
3. Randall s.p.
4. Randall Recorder of London
5. George s.prole
6. Ursula m. Thomas Stanley
7. Agnes m. Randall Mainwaring
8. Katherine m. Richard Prestland
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
I think the pedigree of Cholmondeley in the 1580 Visitation of
Cheshire (apparently with additions to 1598) needs to be considered in
conjunction with later research on the family – specifically by George
Ormerod for the 1st edition of his history of Cheshire (1819) and by
Thomas Helsby for his 2nd edition of Ormerod’s work (1882). Both
Ormerod and Helsby quote extensively from the IPMs of three Richard
Cholmondeleys in the 15th and 16th centuries, as well as other
contemporary documents. In doing so they add valuable date
information to the visitation pedigree – and also revise some of the
relationships shown there.

With respect to the IPMs, I’m relying on what’s reported by Ormerod
and Helsby, as I haven’t yet been able to verify (or even locate) the
IPMs in question. So it’s entirely possible that their readings and
conclusions were wrong, or that my interpretation of what they wrote
is wrong. And Helsby reached slightly different conclusions from the
IPMs than Ormerod did. But their work (particularly Helsby’s) is
quite detailed and seems to be the basis for the currently accepted
pedigree of the Cholmondeley family – at least as published in BP and
essentially as shown in Leo’s database – and I think it holds together
well.

There are three IPMs for Richard Cholmondeleys of this family in this
period:
4 Henry VII – Richard, whose heir was his grandson Richard (son of his
son Richard), aged 14 at the IPM
10 Henry VIII – Richard (d. Wed. after the feast of the Assumption, 9
Henry VIII), whose heir was his son Richard, aged 7 at the IPM
30 Henry VIII – Richard (d 9 Feb 30 Henry VIII), whose heir was his
brother Hugh, aged 25 and more at the IPM

So there were four Richard Cholmondeleys in a row (not three as in the
visitation pedigree), with the last Richard being the brother of the
first Sir Hugh Cholmondeley. Based on this, Helsby shows the
following pedigree, which is the one shown in BP and (with one
exception) in Leo’s data:

Richard Cholmondeley (d. ca. 1488), m. Ellen, dau. of John Davenport
Richard Cholmondeley (d. vp), m. Alianor, dau. of Sir Thoms Dutton
Richard Cholmondeley (b. ca. 1474, d. 1518), m. Elizabeth NN [not
Brereton]
Richard Cholmondeley (b. ca. 1511, d. ca. 1539), m. Elizabeth Brereton
of Malpas

Sir Hugh Cholmondeley was brother, not son, of the last Richard
Cholmondeley. Although Sir Hugh’s mother’s name was Elizabeth, she
was not Elizabeth Brereton of Malpas, as in the visitation pedigree,
who was his sister-in-law. The placement here of Elizabeth Brereton
(who subsequently m. Sir Randle Mainwaring of Over Peover) by Ormerod
and Helsby seems to be supported by the chronology of the families of
both Brereton and Mainwaring.

So this does seem to support the conclusion that Richard Cholmondeley,
the father of Sir Hugh, did die in 1518 – and thus he is unlikely to
be the father of Ursula, the wife of Thomas Stanley of Weever and
Alderley. One possibility (perhaps remote) is that Ursula was a
daughter (not noted by Ormerod or Helsby) of the last Richard (d.
1539) and thus “dau. of Richard and niece [not sister] of Sir Hugh”.
But this may be a stretch….

BTW you mention that there was a junior line of Richard Cholmleys in
the same time period. I can’t locate them – can you provide further
information?
TJ Booth
2013-04-27 17:37:14 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
John Higgins
2013-04-27 19:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by TJ Booth
John,
Thanks for keeping this thread alive - not my line, but solving the puzzle
is interesting. See below.
As noted below, a preponderance of the evidence supports your suggestion
that Ursula was niece not sister of Sir Hugh - as was her sister Anne and
perhaps her other sister also.
If Eliz Brereton 'widow of Richard Cholmley' m.(2) Randal Mainwaring of Over
Peover and had several children by him, the ages of Mainwarrings's children
by her indicate they were b. bef 1539. So while I agree with you there were
4 Richard Cholmleys, I'd reverse the last 2 wives. Evidence supporting this
is found in a 2 Aug 1523 will for Sir Randall Brereton in which he bequeaths
Malpas and his other estates to himself and wife Eleanor, then to his sons,
then to his brother Bartholomew, and lastly to what are surely 3 of his
daughters' families, including "Richard son and heir of Richard
Cholmondley". [1] This indicates that Richard d. 1539 was an underage heir
of his mother Elizabeth Brereton in 1523, his father then d. The 1518 ipm
makes him then age 7 (b. 1511), consistent with a 1521 grant of his estate
and marriage to Molyneux, Hassal and Williamson - one suspects his wife
Elizabeth NN was from one of these 3 families.[2]
Notwithstanding the pedigrees, [3] I agree with you that Orderod's 1539 ipm
transcription should be relied on. That is, it was Richard Esq.'s brother
(not son) Hugh who was his heir in 1539. This could only happen if Richard
d. 1539 had no issue - or only had surviving daughters.
A 1557 marriage record has been found for Ursula's sister, Anne, who m.
Randall Brereton of Cuddington as shown in the pedigrees.[4] She - like
Ursula - was unlikely to be b. bef 1518, and the marriage date strengthens
the case that both her and Ursula's father d. 1539.
Three Cholmley sons were b. bef 1518 - Richard b. 1511, Sir Hugh b. 1513 per
his MI, and Randal recorder of London. His name Randal suggests a Brereton
indicating he was b. 1517, so he would be a younger son of Richard d. 1518,
not of Richard d. 1539 who was clearly underage in 1523.
Lodge's Peerage of Ireland Vol 5 has several pages on the Cholmley family. A
bio of Hugh
d. 6 Jan 1596 [/1597] at age 83 (thus b. abt 1513). The 'age 83' comes from
an MI in Malpas Church.[5] The bio incorrectly states "he was age 25 at his
father's death", which would mean his father d. abt 1538/39. That he was 25
in 1538/39 is valid based on his MI, but he could not be son of Richard d.
1539 who was underage in 1518.
Lodge states that Richard Cholmondley Esq. d. 30 Hen VIII [1538/39] age 43,
but if age 7 in the 1518 ipm he could only be age 28. Nor is any source for
'age 43' noted by Lodge. Lodge does cite the Cholmondeley Chapel MI for
Richard Cholmley and his wife Elizabeth (no last name) dated 1540, but the
MI has no ages. Lodge's description of their children and descendants is
[Richard Chomley's] first wife was Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Roger Corbet
of Morton-Corbet in Shropshire, by whom he had an only daughter Maud,
married to Sir Peter Newton of Beverly by whom she had John, Charles, and
Arthurs By his second wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Randal Brereton of
Malpas, chamberlain of Chester, who remarried with Sir Randal Manwaring of
Over-Pever, he had several children, whereof . . .  the sons were, Hugh his
[eventual] heir ; and Randal (or Ranulph) Cholmondeley, who being educated
in the study of the laws at Lincoln's-Inn, was elected 5 Edw. VI, autumn
reader of that society, but did not read because of the pestilence ; the
next year he was lent-reader, and in 1553 (1 and 2 Phil, and Mary) being one
of the judges of the sheriffs court of London, was made recorder of that
city." To this list must be added eldest son Richard d. 1539, who the
pedigrees incorrectly show d.s.p. but only because his daughters were
misplaced.
Based on the chronology problems you noted and other items noted above, at
least 2 of the 3 daughters the pedigrees and Lodge assigned to Richard d.
1518 now seem best assigned to Richard d. 1539. Their description of all 3
are "Catharine was married to Richard Prestland of Prestland and Wardhill in
Cheshire, Esq.; Agnes [Ann] to Randal Manwaring of Carington, Esq. by whom
she had Henry of Kilingham, living in 1566, ancestor by Eleanor, daughter of
George Venables, Esq. to the family of that place ; and Ursula, to Thomas
Stanley of Wever, Esq. living 1580,'great-grandson of John Stanley, brother
to Thomas, the first Earl of Derby, by Elizabeth, daughter 3nd heir to
Thomas Wever of Wever, Esq. and by him had Thomas, who died without issue ;
Ralph, who left posterity by Margaret, daughter of John Masterson of
Nantwich ; Elizabeth, married to Roger Downes of Shrigley ; Frances, to
Henry Delves of Dodington ; and Dorothy."
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
Footnotes
---------
[1] House of Commons Papers; Vol 45; page 29 [sub Welsh Papers for Brereton]
@http://books.google.com/books?id=oEgTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA29. The list of heirs
in the will matches to the sons and sons-in-law of Sir Randall Brereton of
Malpas m. Eleanor Dutton on page 43/44 of Glover's visitation of Cheshire.
[2] On page 69, same source, "1 Jul 1521. Grant to Edward Molyneux clerk,
Richard Hassal gentleman, and Richard Williamson clerk of the custody of the
manors &c. which were of Richard Cholmondley, during the minority of Richard
his son and heir, together with the marriage of the said son."
[3] There are two very similar pedigrees by Glover, the 1580 visitation for
Cheshire previously noted with Sir Hugh Cgolmley as likely respondent (see
visitation for Staffordshire with Edward Cholmley of Copenhall the
likely the 1583 visitation borrowed the Cholmley line from the 1580
visitation. It is also quite possible that whoever recorded the Chomley
line - since it didn't affect the rights to the family arms - misplaced the
daus of Sir Hugh's brother Richard.
[4] UK National Archives; DCH/C/918; 12 Feb 1556/7. MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT
between Randle Brereton of Cudynton, gentleman, and Sir Hugh Cholmeley Kt.,
Thomas Wilbraham of Woodhay esq, Reginald Corbet esq. and Thomas Bulkeley,
gentleman --- the said Randle Brereton's messuages, lands etc: in WYLLEY are
settled to the use of himself for life, remainder to Anne his wife for life,
remainder to his right heirs. Seal: green, a garb. Parchment.
[5] The MI is independently described in Richard Pocock's 'Travels through
Cholmondley Senior . . mortem obiit anno aetatis 83 anna domini 1596 . . "
An MI dated 1540 for his father (founder of the Cholmondeley chapel), is
also there and was noted by Pocock "Orate pro bono statu [Richardi
Cholmondeley et Elizabeth Uxoris ejus], Sacelli factores. Anno domini
millesimo quingentisimo quarto decimo." No last name for his wife is shown.
Thanks, Terry, for this additional information and analysis - it is
indeed an interesting puzzle.

You note that the Cholmondeley article in Lodge's Peerage of Ireland
says that the last Richard Cholmondeley (d. 1539) had two wives
(Elizabeth Corbet and Elizabeth Brereton) and that the daughter by the
1st marriage, Maud, married Sir Peter Newton. The 1st edition of
Ormerod's Cheshire agrees with this, but Helsby in the 2nd edition
points out that it is chronologically impossible for Maud the wife of
Sir Peter Newton to be a daughter of this Richard - because Sir Peter
Newton was Sheriff of Shropshire several times between 1503 and 1523,
when the 4th Richard was not yet born or just an infant. Helsby
assigns the Corbet marriage and the daughter Maud to the 2nd Richard
Cholmondeley (who d. vp), probably as his 1st marriage. This makes
much better sense chronologically. (For the sake of clarity and
simplicity, I had omitted the other marriage of the 2nd Richard in my
earlier post)

I agree now that Elizabeth Brereton of Malpas is more likely to be the
wife of the 3rd Richard rather than the 4th one. This however leaves
us with no identified wife for the 4th Richard (after Elizabeth Corbet
is moved to the 2nd Richard). This doesn't mean that he couldn't have
had a wife and children unknown to us, but it is a definite gap.

With respect to the supposed sisters of Ursula, wife of Thomas
Stanley, it may be premature to move them from the 3rd to the 4th
Richard. Helsby describes a land transaction of 5 Henry VIII
involving the 3rd Richard in which he referes to marriage portions
"for each of his unmarried daughters Ann and Katherine" (note no
mention of Ursula). Katherine is presumably the daughter who married
Richard Prestland. I don't see a pedigree reference to an Anne who
married Randle Brereton of Cuddington as you mentioned, but Helsby
suggests that there is confusion between Anen and the Agnes who
married Randle Mainwaring of Carington [or Carrincham). It's not
clear to me whether there were two or three daughters other than
Ursula, but at least two of them seem to belong to the 3rd Richard
rather than the 4th.
TJ Booth
2013-04-28 17:54:27 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:12 PM, "John Higgins" ***@ya . . wrote

I agree now that Elizabeth Brereton of Malpas is more likely to be the
wife of the 3rd Richard rather than the 4th one. This however leaves
us with no identified wife for the 4th Richard (after Elizabeth Corbet
is moved to the 2nd Richard). This doesn't mean that he couldn't have
had a wife and children unknown to us, but it is a definite gap.

[Response}. The 1540 MI previoiusly cited for Richard in Malpas Church is
for him and his wife 'Elizabeth'. While we don't know her last name, Richard
d. 1539 was clearly married. That her name was Elizabeth has no doubt
contributed to some conflating her with her mother-in-law]

With respect to the supposed sisters of Ursula, wife of Thomas
Stanley, it may be premature to move them from the 3rd to the 4th
Richard. Helsby describes a land transaction of 5 Henry VIII
involving the 3rd Richard in which he referes to marriage portions
"for each of his unmarried daughters Ann and Katherine" (note no
mention of Ursula). Katherine is presumably the daughter who married
Richard Prestland. I don't see a pedigree reference to an Anne who
married Randle Brereton of Cuddington as you mentioned, but Helsby
suggests that there is confusion between Anen and the Agnes who
married Randle Mainwaring of Carington [or Carrincham). It's not
clear to me whether there were two or three daughters other than
Ursula, but at least two of them seem to belong to the 3rd Richard
rather than the 4th.

[Response. The pedigree calls her Agnes, while the 1557 marriage settlement
calls her Ann. The fact that the pedigree misnames her is evidence that the
identity (as well as placement) of the daughters in the pedigree is not
totally reliable, and as you noted in your early comments about her sister
Margaret, the chronology is otherwise awkward if she had to be b. bef 1519.

Had Helsby been aware of this marriage record, noted last time, I don't
think he would have said what he said : UK National Archives; DCH/C/918; 12
Feb 1556/7. MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT between Randle Brereton of Cudynton,
gentleman, and Sir Hugh Cholmeley Kt., Thomas Wilbraham of Woodhay esq,
Reginald Corbet esq. and Thomas Bulkeley, gentleman --- the said Randle
Brereton's messuages, lands etc: in WYLLEY are settled to the use of himself
for life, remainder to Anne his wife for life, remainder to his right heirs.
Seal: green, a garb. Parchment.

Have found a 1580 will for Ann Brereton 'widow' of Stretley in Lancashire
and Cheshire Wills, page 35 @
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ol1VAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA35. Sir Hugh Chomondley -
likely once her guardian since he was involved in her 1557 marriage
settlement - is the first Chomley mentioned, but is not called father or
brother. She mentions her cousins including Richard Chomley (likely Hugh's
son) and Frances Wilbramson, (surely Hugh's daughter), both identified in
the 1580/96 Cheshire visitation pedigree. If Anne was Hugh's sister, she
would call his children nephews/nieces. No doubt more relations can be
identified in the will]

I continue to believe that the preponderance of the evidence - some unknown
to Orderod and Helsby - makes at least Margaret m. Thomas Stanley and Ann m.
Randle Brereton the nieces of Sir Hugh Cholmley., daus of Richard Cholmley
d. 1539 m. Eliz NN, and granddaus of Richard Cholmley m. Elizabeth Brereton.

Genealogically, whether Margaret and Ann are grand-daus or daus of Richard
Cholmley m. Elizabeth Brereton, either way they possess that couple's
ancestry. It would be a shame not to accord them that ancestry because of an
awkward visitation pedigree. Since it was you who brought up the
chronological problem with Leo, I leave it to you to advise him on the best
placement. I have no problem if you think it should be Orderod and Helsby's
placement.

Off on vacation now.

Terry Booth
Chicago IL
John Higgins
2013-04-28 20:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
I agree now that Elizabeth Brereton of Malpas is more likely to be the
wife of the 3rd Richard rather than the 4th one.  This however leaves
us with no identified wife for the 4th Richard (after Elizabeth Corbet
is moved to the 2nd Richard).  This doesn't mean that he couldn't have
had a wife and children unknown to us, but it is a definite gap.
[Response}. The 1540 MI previoiusly cited for Richard in Malpas Church is
for him and his wife 'Elizabeth'. While we don't know her last name, Richard
d. 1539 was clearly married. That her name was Elizabeth has no doubt
contributed to some conflating her with her mother-in-law]
With respect to the supposed sisters of Ursula, wife of Thomas
Stanley, it may be premature to move them from the 3rd to the 4th
Richard.  Helsby describes a land transaction of 5 Henry VIII
involving the 3rd Richard in which he referes to marriage portions
"for each of his unmarried daughters Ann and Katherine" (note no
mention of Ursula).  Katherine is presumably the daughter who married
Richard Prestland.  I don't see a pedigree reference to an Anne who
married Randle Brereton of Cuddington as you mentioned, but Helsby
suggests that there is confusion between Anen and the Agnes who
married Randle Mainwaring of Carington [or Carrincham).  It's not
clear to me whether there were two or three daughters other than
Ursula, but at least two of them seem to belong to the 3rd Richard
rather than the 4th.
[Response. The pedigree calls her Agnes, while the 1557 marriage settlement
calls her Ann. The fact that the pedigree misnames her is evidence that the
identity (as well as placement) of the daughters in the pedigree is not
totally reliable, and as you noted in your early comments about her sister
Margaret, the chronology is otherwise awkward if she had to be b. bef 1519.
Had Helsby been aware of this marriage record, noted last time, I don't
think he would have said what he said : UK National Archives; DCH/C/918; 12
Feb 1556/7. MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT between Randle Brereton of Cudynton,
gentleman, and Sir Hugh Cholmeley Kt., Thomas Wilbraham of Woodhay esq,
Reginald Corbet esq. and Thomas Bulkeley, gentleman --- the said Randle
Brereton's messuages, lands etc: in WYLLEY are settled to the use of himself
for life, remainder to Anne his wife for life, remainder to his right heirs.
Seal: green, a garb. Parchment.
Have found a 1580 will for Ann Brereton 'widow' of Stretley in Lancashire
likely once her guardian since he was involved in her 1557 marriage
settlement - is the first Chomley mentioned, but is not called father or
brother. She mentions her cousins including Richard Chomley (likely Hugh's
son) and Frances Wilbramson, (surely Hugh's daughter), both identified in
the 1580/96 Cheshire visitation pedigree. If Anne was Hugh's sister, she
would call his children nephews/nieces. No doubt more relations can be
identified in the will]
I continue to believe that the preponderance of the evidence - some  unknown
to Orderod and Helsby - makes at least Margaret m. Thomas Stanley and Ann m.
Randle Brereton the nieces of Sir Hugh Cholmley., daus of Richard Cholmley
d. 1539 m. Eliz NN, and granddaus of Richard Cholmley m. Elizabeth Brereton.
Genealogically, whether Margaret and Ann are grand-daus or daus of Richard
Cholmley m. Elizabeth Brereton, either way they possess that couple's
ancestry. It would be a shame not to accord them that ancestry because of an
awkward visitation pedigree. Since it was you who brought up the
chronological problem with Leo, I leave it to you to advise him on the best
placement. I have no problem if you think it should be Orderod and Helsby's
placement.
Off on vacation now.
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
Thanks for reminding me of the 1540 MI of the 4th Richard Cholmondeley
which states that his wife's name was Elizabeth and thus indicates
that he was married.

With respect to the daughters at issue here, as you say it is
basically a question of whether they are daughters or granddaughters
of the 3rd Richard and Elizabeth Brereton. My feeling at this point
is as follows:

1) Ursula (not Margaret), wife of Thomas Stanley, as daughter of the
4th Richard and Elizabeth NN - based on chronology
2) Katherine, wife of Richard Prestland, as daughter of the 3rd
Richard and Elizabeth Brereton - based on the land transaction of 5
Henry VIII mentioning her
3) Anne, wife of Randle Brereton of Cuddington, as daughter of the 4th
Richard and Elizabeth NN - based on the 1556/7 marriage settlement and
her 1580 will (I haven't found any pedigree mentioning her in
conjunction with her husband)
4) Anne (perhaps misnamed Agnes in the pedigrees), wife of Randle
Mainwaring of Carmincham, as daughter of the 3rd Richard and Elizabeth
Brereton - based on her mention in the land transaction of 5 Henry
VIII (perhaps the pedigree comnpilers misnamed her Agnes when they
combined the four daughters under one set of parents and had to deal
with two Annes)

Thanks, Terry, for all your input on this matter. Leo should have
more than enough information to draw his own conclusion regarding this
problem which he first noted.

BTW the Cheshire historian is George Ormerod, not Orderod. :-)
Brad Verity
2013-04-29 18:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
You note that the Cholmondeley article in Lodge's Peerage of Ireland
says that the last Richard Cholmondeley (d. 1539) had two wives
(Elizabeth Corbet and Elizabeth Brereton) and that the daughter by the
1st marriage, Maud, married Sir Peter Newton.  The 1st edition of
Ormerod's Cheshire agrees with this, but Helsby in the 2nd edition
points out that it is chronologically impossible for Maud the wife of
Sir Peter Newton to be a daughter of this Richard - because Sir Peter
Newton was Sheriff of Shropshire several times between 1503 and 1523,
when the 4th Richard was not yet born or just an infant.  Helsby
assigns the Corbet marriage and the daughter Maud to the 2nd Richard
Cholmondeley (who d. vp), probably as his 1st marriage.  This makes
much better sense chronologically.  (For the sake of clarity and
simplicity, I had omitted the other marriage of the 2nd Richard in my
earlier post)
I haven't yet looked into the Cholmondeleys of Cholmondeley Hall in
much detail, and only have a few of them in my database. FWIW, here's
what I have.

1) Richard Cholmondeley I of Cholmondeley Hall, died 1488. He married
Ellen Davenport, and had at least two sons:
1A) Richard Cholmondeley II (see below)
1B) Randall Cholmondeley, married 1490 at St Chad Church, Wybunbury,
Cheshire, Elizabeth Done (born about 1462), widow of John Egerton of
Egerton (1459-1483), and only dau & heiress of Hugh Done of Oulton, by
his wife Anne Tuchet (c.1427-1503, descended from Edward I).

2) Richard Cholmondeley II, Heir of Cholmondeley Hall, died by 20
December 1487 (date will was proved). He married 1st, Elizabeth Corbet
(born about 1450; died by 1470), second daughter of Sir Roger Corbet
of Moreton Corbet & Elizabeth Hopton (1427-1498, descended from Edward
I), and had issue, one daughter:

2A) Maud Cholmondeley, born by 1470. She married 1st, Sir Peter Newton
of Heightley (died 1524), son of Richard Newton of Beverley & Jane
Newton, and had issue. She married 2ndly, as his second wife, Sir
Thomas Hanmer of Hanmer (died 10 February 1545, descended from Henry
IV), with no further issue.

Richard Cholmondeley II married 2ndly, 1470, Eleanor Dutton (born
about 1455), half-sister of his brother Randall's wife Elizabeth Done
(see above), and dau of Sir Thomas Dutton of Dutton (1421-1459), by
his wife Anne Tuchet (c.1427-1503, descended from Edward I), and had
further issue, at least one son:
2B) Richard Cholmondeley III (see below)

3) Richard Cholmondeley III of Cholmondeley Hall, born about 1473,
died 1518. He married, by 1509, Elizabeth Brereton (she married 2ndly,
by 1519, Sir Randall Mainwaring of Over Peover (c.1495-1557, descended
from Edward I), dau of Sir Randall Brereton of Malpas (c.1455-1530) &
Eleanor Dutton, and had issue, at least one son:

3A) Sir Hugh Cholmondeley of Cholmondeley Hall, born about 1513, died
at Cholmondeley Hall, Cheshire 6 January 1597; buried 31 January 1597,
St Oswald Church, Malpas, Cheshire. He married 1st, 1540, Anne Dorman
(buried 18 April 1571, St Oswald Church, Malpas), dau of George Dorman
of Malpas & Joan Hill, and had issue. Sir Hugh married 2ndly, Mary
Griffith (buried 21 October 1588, St Oswald Church, Malpas), widow of
Sir Randall Brereton of Malpas (b. 1521, descended from Edward I), and
dau of Sir William Griffith of Penrhyn (c.1480-1531, descended from
Edward I), by his 2nd wife Joan Puleston, without further issue. Sir
Hugh has a bio in HOP, here:
http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/cholmley-%28cholmondeley%29-sir-hugh-1513-97

Sorry I'm of no help with Richard Cholmondeley IV or the daughters of
Richard III and Richard IV.

Cheers, -----Brad

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...