Discussion:
Haselden & Peck Family of Wakefield 1300s and 1400s help please with quartering and an uncertain pedigree
Add Reply
Peter Cockerill
2019-07-27 19:44:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear Friends

JW Walker in his Wakefield Its History and People 1934 and 1939 editions has a somewhat confused account of the Wakefield Haselden pedigree and family - the dates and people simply don't fit.

The Visitations show Margaret Haselden as 'heir of Haselden' married to Richard Peck of Wakefield. Her arms are quartered by Peck.

Their third son Thomas was a priest/chaplian in 1401 per a deed and will. Since you have to be 25 years or more to be a priest he must have been born in 1376 or before.

Assuming two years between each child their eldest son was born in or before 1372. Margaret and Ricahrd would have married in or before 1371 and born in or before 1350 - say!

These 'facts' make most of Walkers pedigree impossible howver he does source the exisitence of male Haseldens living in Wakefield up to 1443 and possibly beyond. It seems a bit of a stretch to believe all these younger male Haseldens were wiped out thus allowing Margaret Haselden's arms to be quartered.

Help with this pedigree and the quartering of arms most welcome

Thank you.

Peter
Peter Howarth
2019-07-31 18:46:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Cockerill
Dear Friends
JW Walker in his Wakefield Its History and People 1934 and 1939 editions has a somewhat confused account of the Wakefield Haselden pedigree and family - the dates and people simply don't fit.
The Visitations show Margaret Haselden as 'heir of Haselden' married to Richard Peck of Wakefield. Her arms are quartered by Peck.
Their third son Thomas was a priest/chaplian in 1401 per a deed and will. Since you have to be 25 years or more to be a priest he must have been born in 1376 or before.
Assuming two years between each child their eldest son was born in or before 1372. Margaret and Ricahrd would have married in or before 1371 and born in or before 1350 - say!
These 'facts' make most of Walkers pedigree impossible howver he does source the exisitence of male Haseldens living in Wakefield up to 1443 and possibly beyond. It seems a bit of a stretch to believe all these younger male Haseldens were wiped out thus allowing Margaret Haselden's arms to be quartered.
Help with this pedigree and the quartering of arms most welcome
Thank you.
Peter
I have at last managed to find copies of both editions of Walker's book on Wakefield.

The first problem is with the different versions of the Haselden arms:
1. 1563/4 Visitation 236 (presumably from the Rychard who married Anne Hothom): argent, on a bend sable three ewers argent.
2. 1584/5 Visitation 347 (presumably from the Richard who married Katherine Vavasour): gules, a cross patonce or, on a chief or, three buckles sable.
3. Walker 1934 491 (no source given): argent, a cross patonce sable (I have updated Walker's blazon).
4. Walker 1939 577 (still no source given): gules, a cross patonce or, on a chief azure, three buckles or.

We do not trust the genealogy of Visitations for more than two generations before the informant, and look for confirmation from elsewhere for anything earlier. If we don't trust the genealogy, I don't see any reason to trust the heraldry either, especially as here the two different generations can't agree. The first coat appears in Creswick's Roll (BL Add MS 62541) c.1510 CRK 1322, but only as an anonymous impalement added to a John Harington's arms. (Harrington is included in a description of some heraldic stained glass in Haselden Hall, see Walker 1939 581, again with no sources.) The second coat looks a bit more likely, since it appears on a seal of 1365 for Thomas de Haseldene (Birch 10517), but of course without any tinctures. The third coat appears frequently for Banaster from the early 14th century and into the 16th, but I haven't found it anywhere for Haselden. The fourth coat is similar to the second one, but with different tinctures. It is possible (but no stronger than that) that Walker 1939 describes the Haselden of Goldington Bury arms, and he says at 577 that this branch continued 'throughout the seventeenth century'. The quarter given in the 1584/5 visitation might therefore represent a different branch of the family, say that of Guildern Morden. But since Walker doesn't give any sources for either of his versions, I'm not convinced.

That brings us to the quartered arms in the 1584/5 visitation and what we can deduce from them. The answer is not a lot. Whatever 'rules' may have been written down by nineteenth-century writers, the sixteenth-century Pecks had never read them. They did whatever they fancied doing. Originally, in the middle of the fourteenth century, quartering was a way of displaying two titles at once. Richard 'Copped Hat', earl of Arundel and Surrey, quartered Fitzalan and Warenne to represent his two earldoms. By the early fifteenth century, quarters were, by extension, used to represent two (or more) lots of land. Later on in that century, the connection with land was often abandoned, sometimes, but not always, with the excuse that a wife had no brothers. When Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville in 1464 he wanted to make her look less gentry and more nobility. He therefore gave her five extra quarters derived from the ancestors of her mother, Jacquetta of Luxemburg, and relegated the Woodville quarter to last place. None of the quarters represented any land, or even any so-called heraldic heiresses. They were simply an unsuccessful attempt to boost her social standing amongst the aristocracy at court.

Looking at the Peck-Haselden quarters, the best we can take from them is that in the second half of the 1500s Richard Peck believed, perhaps correctly, that an ancestor of his married a Haselden, quite possibly one who brought some land with her. We cannot tell which branch she might have belonged to.

Regarding your comment about the younger male Haseldens being wiped out, they need not have died before their sister; if she was in fact an heiress, it could well have been in her issue rather than during her lifetime. In addition, younger sons of gentry families, with little or no land, were not a particularly attractive prospect for those looking to marry off their daughters. Many younger sons died without (legitimate) issue.

Peter Howarth
Peter Cockerill
2019-08-01 20:30:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Cockerill
Dear Friends
JW Walker in his Wakefield Its History and People 1934 and 1939 editions has a somewhat confused account of the Wakefield Haselden pedigree and family - the dates and people simply don't fit.
The Visitations show Margaret Haselden as 'heir of Haselden' married to Richard Peck of Wakefield. Her arms are quartered by Peck.
Their third son Thomas was a priest/chaplian in 1401 per a deed and will. Since you have to be 25 years or more to be a priest he must have been born in 1376 or before.
Assuming two years between each child their eldest son was born in or before 1372. Margaret and Ricahrd would have married in or before 1371 and born in or before 1350 - say!
These 'facts' make most of Walkers pedigree impossible howver he does source the exisitence of male Haseldens living in Wakefield up to 1443 and possibly beyond. It seems a bit of a stretch to believe all these younger male Haseldens were wiped out thus allowing Margaret Haselden's arms to be quartered.
Help with this pedigree and the quartering of arms most welcome
Thank you.
Peter
Dear Peter it is enormously generous of you to go to such lengths to answer my question. Thank you so much. A cloud of unknowing seems to hangs over my endeavours.

There is little or no corroborating 'evidence' to link the Pecks and Haseldens only some hints in the Wakefield Manor Court Rolls,Yorkshire Deeds and similar. I rather assumed that the Heraldry, if not the pedigrees, was reliable given this was the purpose of the Heralds endeavours.

There is a Savile IPM that gives 5 generations of Peck back to Richard who married Margaret Haselden though of course she is not mentioned.This follows the Peck pedigree per the Visitations so perhaps one can be a little hopeful about the Haselden connection as well??

Thank you again for yor help I will continue digging around.

Best wishes Peter
Peter Cockerill
2019-08-02 16:21:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Cockerill
Post by Peter Cockerill
Dear Friends
JW Walker in his Wakefield Its History and People 1934 and 1939 editions has a somewhat confused account of the Wakefield Haselden pedigree and family - the dates and people simply don't fit.
The Visitations show Margaret Haselden as 'heir of Haselden' married to Richard Peck of Wakefield. Her arms are quartered by Peck.
Their third son Thomas was a priest/chaplian in 1401 per a deed and will. Since you have to be 25 years or more to be a priest he must have been born in 1376 or before.
Assuming two years between each child their eldest son was born in or before 1372. Margaret and Ricahrd would have married in or before 1371 and born in or before 1350 - say!
These 'facts' make most of Walkers pedigree impossible howver he does source the exisitence of male Haseldens living in Wakefield up to 1443 and possibly beyond. It seems a bit of a stretch to believe all these younger male Haseldens were wiped out thus allowing Margaret Haselden's arms to be quartered.
Help with this pedigree and the quartering of arms most welcome
Thank you.
Peter
Dear Peter it is enormously generous of you to go to such lengths to answer my question. Thank you so much. A cloud of unknowing seems to hangs over my endeavours.
There is little or no corroborating 'evidence' to link the Pecks and Haseldens only some hints in the Wakefield Manor Court Rolls,Yorkshire Deeds and similar. I rather assumed that the Heraldry, if not the pedigrees, was reliable given this was the purpose of the Heralds endeavours.
There is a Savile IPM that gives 5 generations of Peck back to Richard who married Margaret Haselden though of course she is not mentioned.This follows the Peck pedigree per the Visitations so perhaps one can be a little hopeful about the Haselden connection as well??
Thank you again for yor help I will continue digging around.
Best wishes Peter
Peter a few extra items for the record;

Re the 'three ewers' arms;

These arms were used by Sewer (sometimes recorded as Lewer) see Dodsworth Church Notes for Doncaster, the Harrington Window and Sewer monument.

Fosters Church notes for 1585 Visitation for Wakefield church records in the Peck window an impalement with the Sewer arms as does Dodsworth.

It is not clear how or indeed if Sewer and Joan Harington wife to Richard Peck are connected.

Re Hasilden Arms with 'three buckles'

The Bunny family monument in Normanton church Yorkshire has these arms quartered by Bunny dated 1586. Their pedigree begins five generations earlier in about the early 1400s with a marriage to a 'daughter and heir of Haselden.

Re Hasilden Arms 'a cross patonce' only ie no buckles

See Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family Of Chester of Chicheley London 1878 Volume I page 217 for blazon of arms and pedigree.

Also Visitation of Cambridge 1575 by Cooke & 1619 by St George
Published in Harleian Society Volume 41 1897 Ed JW Clay but the arms although blazoned are not attributed to Haselden.

Thomas Haselden b. c. 1322 was a senior officer in the household of John of Gaunt and a witness at the Scrope Grosvenor arms controversy of 1385. He had an illegitimate (per a court case) brother Roger who Walker records as an ancestor to Margaret Haselden who married Richard Peck of Wakefield.The Hasilden cousins in Cambridge 'gave' their property in Yorkshire to their cousin Hugh haselden who had lands in both Cambridge and Yorkshire [British History on line and History of Parliament online]


Re Peck Pedigree

In addition to the IPM we have wills referencing offspring for all the generations to 1585 except the first viz Peck/Haselden.


None of this really lifts the cloud of unknowing but I hope it may help others.

Thank you again for all your help.
Peter
Peter Cockerill
2019-08-02 16:48:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Cockerill
Post by Peter Cockerill
Post by Peter Cockerill
Dear Friends
JW Walker in his Wakefield Its History and People 1934 and 1939 editions has a somewhat confused account of the Wakefield Haselden pedigree and family - the dates and people simply don't fit.
The Visitations show Margaret Haselden as 'heir of Haselden' married to Richard Peck of Wakefield. Her arms are quartered by Peck.
Their third son Thomas was a priest/chaplian in 1401 per a deed and will. Since you have to be 25 years or more to be a priest he must have been born in 1376 or before.
Assuming two years between each child their eldest son was born in or before 1372. Margaret and Ricahrd would have married in or before 1371 and born in or before 1350 - say!
These 'facts' make most of Walkers pedigree impossible howver he does source the exisitence of male Haseldens living in Wakefield up to 1443 and possibly beyond. It seems a bit of a stretch to believe all these younger male Haseldens were wiped out thus allowing Margaret Haselden's arms to be quartered.
Help with this pedigree and the quartering of arms most welcome
Thank you.
Peter
Dear Peter it is enormously generous of you to go to such lengths to answer my question. Thank you so much. A cloud of unknowing seems to hangs over my endeavours.
There is little or no corroborating 'evidence' to link the Pecks and Haseldens only some hints in the Wakefield Manor Court Rolls,Yorkshire Deeds and similar. I rather assumed that the Heraldry, if not the pedigrees, was reliable given this was the purpose of the Heralds endeavours.
There is a Savile IPM that gives 5 generations of Peck back to Richard who married Margaret Haselden though of course she is not mentioned.This follows the Peck pedigree per the Visitations so perhaps one can be a little hopeful about the Haselden connection as well??
Thank you again for yor help I will continue digging around.
Best wishes Peter
Peter a few extra items for the record;
Re the 'three ewers' arms;
These arms were used by Sewer (sometimes recorded as Lewer) see Dodsworth Church Notes for Doncaster, the Harrington Window and Sewer monument.
Fosters Church notes for 1585 Visitation for Wakefield church records in the Peck window an impalement with the Sewer arms as does Dodsworth.
It is not clear how or indeed if Sewer and Joan Harington wife to Richard Peck are connected.
Re Hasilden Arms with 'three buckles'
The Bunny family monument in Normanton church Yorkshire has these arms quartered by Bunny dated 1586. Their pedigree begins five generations earlier in about the early 1400s with a marriage to a 'daughter and heir of Haselden.
Re Hasilden Arms 'a cross patonce' only ie no buckles
See Genealogical Memoirs of the Extinct Family Of Chester of Chicheley London 1878 Volume I page 217 for blazon of arms and pedigree.
Also Visitation of Cambridge 1575 by Cooke & 1619 by St George
Published in Harleian Society Volume 41 1897 Ed JW Clay but the arms although blazoned are not attributed to Haselden.
Thomas Haselden b. c. 1322 was a senior officer in the household of John of Gaunt and a witness at the Scrope Grosvenor arms controversy of 1385. He had an illegitimate (per a court case) brother Roger who Walker records as an ancestor to Margaret Haselden who married Richard Peck of Wakefield.The Hasilden cousins in Cambridge 'gave' their property in Yorkshire to their cousin Hugh haselden who had lands in both Cambridge and Yorkshire [British History on line and History of Parliament online]
Re Peck Pedigree
In addition to the IPM we have wills referencing offspring for all the generations to 1585 except the first viz Peck/Haselden.
None of this really lifts the cloud of unknowing but I hope it may help others.
Thank you again for all your help.
Peter
Further notes:

The Pecks sold Haselden Hall to the Savilles in late 1500s which strengthens the liklihood of the Haselden marriage whence the propertypossibly came into their possession.

Re Haselden Arms Visitation of Bedfordshire by Harvey 1566, 1582, 1634 attributes the cross patonce (no buckles) to Haselden and there are two latin texts quoted which seem to connect Haselden with Yorkshire.
Peter
Peter Howarth
2019-08-02 18:37:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Cockerill
Post by Peter Cockerill
Dear Friends
JW Walker in his Wakefield Its History and People 1934 and 1939 editions has a somewhat confused account of the Wakefield Haselden pedigree and family - the dates and people simply don't fit.
The Visitations show Margaret Haselden as 'heir of Haselden' married to Richard Peck of Wakefield. Her arms are quartered by Peck.
Their third son Thomas was a priest/chaplian in 1401 per a deed and will. Since you have to be 25 years or more to be a priest he must have been born in 1376 or before.
Assuming two years between each child their eldest son was born in or before 1372. Margaret and Ricahrd would have married in or before 1371 and born in or before 1350 - say!
These 'facts' make most of Walkers pedigree impossible howver he does source the exisitence of male Haseldens living in Wakefield up to 1443 and possibly beyond. It seems a bit of a stretch to believe all these younger male Haseldens were wiped out thus allowing Margaret Haselden's arms to be quartered.
Help with this pedigree and the quartering of arms most welcome
Thank you.
Peter
Dear Peter it is enormously generous of you to go to such lengths to answer my question. Thank you so much. A cloud of unknowing seems to hangs over my endeavours.
There is little or no corroborating 'evidence' to link the Pecks and Haseldens only some hints in the Wakefield Manor Court Rolls,Yorkshire Deeds and similar. I rather assumed that the Heraldry, if not the pedigrees, was reliable given this was the purpose of the Heralds endeavours.
There is a Savile IPM that gives 5 generations of Peck back to Richard who married Margaret Haselden though of course she is not mentioned.This follows the Peck pedigree per the Visitations so perhaps one can be a little hopeful about the Haselden connection as well??
Thank you again for yor help I will continue digging around.
Best wishes Peter
Thank you for your additional points. Going back a little: a small point but I think an important one.
Post by Peter Cockerill
I rather assumed that the Heraldry, if not the pedigrees, was reliable
given this was the purpose of the Heralds endeavours.
There is unfortunately a common but mistaken belief that the Visitations were to check on people’s heraldry. In fact, their main purpose was to root out all those who were not entitled to bear arms. Too many of the common herd were apeing their betters by assuming coats of arms. This had to be stopped.

That is why the heralds were interested in a family’s genealogy - to prove that they were not parvenus. They also noted heraldry in churches - this helped to demonstrate long user. Provided there was no blatant use of someone else’s undifferenced arms, it was up to a gentleman to decide for himself what arms he used. There were practically no rules to follow, such as those invented in the nineteenth century about quarterings. So once armigerous status had been established, there was little there against which to check the arms being used.

For details of the commissioning of the Visitations see A R Wagner, 'Heralds and Heraldry in the Middle Ages', 2nd edn., (London, 1956) pp 9-11, 100-105, and particularly Appendix E 'Instructions to be observed in the Visitation of Northamptonshire and Rutland [...] 1681'.

Peter Howarth
Peter Cockerill
2019-08-03 08:44:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Howarth
Post by Peter Cockerill
Post by Peter Cockerill
Dear Friends
JW Walker in his Wakefield Its History and People 1934 and 1939 editions has a somewhat confused account of the Wakefield Haselden pedigree and family - the dates and people simply don't fit.
The Visitations show Margaret Haselden as 'heir of Haselden' married to Richard Peck of Wakefield. Her arms are quartered by Peck.
Their third son Thomas was a priest/chaplian in 1401 per a deed and will. Since you have to be 25 years or more to be a priest he must have been born in 1376 or before.
Assuming two years between each child their eldest son was born in or before 1372. Margaret and Ricahrd would have married in or before 1371 and born in or before 1350 - say!
These 'facts' make most of Walkers pedigree impossible howver he does source the exisitence of male Haseldens living in Wakefield up to 1443 and possibly beyond. It seems a bit of a stretch to believe all these younger male Haseldens were wiped out thus allowing Margaret Haselden's arms to be quartered.
Help with this pedigree and the quartering of arms most welcome
Thank you.
Peter
Dear Peter it is enormously generous of you to go to such lengths to answer my question. Thank you so much. A cloud of unknowing seems to hangs over my endeavours.
There is little or no corroborating 'evidence' to link the Pecks and Haseldens only some hints in the Wakefield Manor Court Rolls,Yorkshire Deeds and similar. I rather assumed that the Heraldry, if not the pedigrees, was reliable given this was the purpose of the Heralds endeavours.
There is a Savile IPM that gives 5 generations of Peck back to Richard who married Margaret Haselden though of course she is not mentioned.This follows the Peck pedigree per the Visitations so perhaps one can be a little hopeful about the Haselden connection as well??
Thank you again for yor help I will continue digging around.
Best wishes Peter
Thank you for your additional points. Going back a little: a small point but I think an important one.
Post by Peter Cockerill
I rather assumed that the Heraldry, if not the pedigrees, was reliable
given this was the purpose of the Heralds endeavours.
There is unfortunately a common but mistaken belief that the Visitations were to check on people’s heraldry. In fact, their main purpose was to root out all those who were not entitled to bear arms. Too many of the common herd were apeing their betters by assuming coats of arms. This had to be stopped.
That is why the heralds were interested in a family’s genealogy - to prove that they were not parvenus. They also noted heraldry in churches - this helped to demonstrate long user. Provided there was no blatant use of someone else’s undifferenced arms, it was up to a gentleman to decide for himself what arms he used. There were practically no rules to follow, such as those invented in the nineteenth century about quarterings. So once armigerous status had been established, there was little there against which to check the arms being used.
For details of the commissioning of the Visitations see A R Wagner, 'Heralds and Heraldry in the Middle Ages', 2nd edn., (London, 1956) pp 9-11, 100-105, and particularly Appendix E 'Instructions to be observed in the Visitation of Northamptonshire and Rutland [...] 1681'.
Peter Howarth
I will get a copy of Wagner thank you Peter.

So it seems you can be a Gentleman without arms but you can't be armigorous without being a Gentleman. Objective: prove you are not a parvenu.

Today if you have £5,000 plus to spare you can be classed as a Gentleman?

Best wishes and thank you again. Peter

Loading...