Mary Tirrell, wife of John Church [? ancestor of Reade, Epps, etc. ?]

[John Brandon]

In the Visitation of Essex, we find an Edmond Tirrell who had a
daughter Mary, married to John Church:

http://books.google.com/books?id=hqwKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74&dq=saperton+marler&lr=#PPA111,M1

Another source shows this Edmond Tirrell died 1576 and had a grandson
EDMUND CHURCH by his daughter Mary:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ioYuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA660&dq=thomasine+playter+tyrrell&lr=#PPA660,M1

The 1577 will of John Church of Runwell Hall [Essex], Gent., mentions
his wife Margaret and William Reade who married his daughter Martha
and had three children (the will apparently does not mention a son
Edmund Church). However, the 1603 will of William Read who married
Martha Church DOES, IN FACT, mention a "brother Edmund Church" in two
places:

http://books.google.com/books?id=RVIBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA118&dq=reade+%22edmund+church%22&lr=#PPA116,M1

Note that William Reade had a son Edmund Reade, apparently named after
the uncle Edmund Church.

The will of John Church's widow Margaret also mentions an Edmund
Church: "The will of Margaret Church of Runwell, widow, was proved 29
Oct 1585: to Mother (not named); to
sister Wisman of Hanningfield; to sisters READ and Younge; to Evered;
to EDMUND CHURCH; to Bartell, English, and King; to Bartell's wife; to
goodwife Garrold, and to widow Barrones; to maid Margaret Wallet; to
Mr. Lucas and his wife; to godson John Everard; to Parnell Everard;
the residue of my estate to my son John Everard, who is to be
executor; overseer to be brother READ ..."

I'm not sure about Margaret's "brother" and "sister" Read, but this
may be a customary usage based on her daughter [actually, step-
daughter] Martha Church having married the son of said "brother" and
"sister" Read. The other persons named in Margaret's will show she is
likely to have been the Margaret Wiseman who married (1) --- Everard;
and (2) --- Church, as shown in this pedigree:

http://books.google.com/books?id=hqwKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA87&dq=owen+wingfield+barrett#PPA129,M1

Eland's _At the Courts of Great Canfield_ discusses this same Margaret
Wiseman, showing she married Thomas Everard in 1542 and John Church
(apparently as a second wife) in 1559:

http://books.google.com/books?id=90EjAAAAMAAJ&q=%22john+everard%22+1543+canfield&dq=%22john+everard%22+1543+canfield&pgis=1

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22john+everard%22+1543+canfield&btnG=Search+Books

Martha (Church) Reade was a daughter of John Church's first wife --
who might have been this Mary Tirrell shown in the pedigree first
mentioned.

[John Brandon]

The proof that Thomas Everard married Margaret Wiseman in 1542 ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=90EjAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22john+everard%22+1543+canfield&q=wiseman+everard&pgis=1#search

[m***@mac.com]

On Sep 2, 5:48 pm, John Brandon <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In the Visitation of Essex, we find an Edmond Tirrell who had a
> daughter Mary, married to John Church:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=hqwKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74&dq=saperton+mar...
>
> Another source shows this Edmond Tirrell died 1576 and had a grandson
> EDMUND CHURCH by his daughter Mary:

Edmund Tirrell (or Tyrell, etc.), the son of Jasper and Anne (Goring)
was born about 1510 and died in 1576 at Rawreth, Essex, England. His
sister Joan was the wife of Edmund Lewkenor and ancestors of Rose
(Stoughton) Otis of Dover, NH. See “The Tyrells of England” by Oliver
F. Brown (Phillimore, Chicester, Sussex, 1982). Anne Goring was a
great-great granddaughter of Sir Richard Camoys and Joan Poynings (and
thus royally-descended).

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear John ~

Great post as usual.

The weblink below indicates that "Edmund Churche, late of New Inn,
gentleman, the second son of John Churche, of Malden, Essex,
gentleman, deceased" was admitted to Middle Temple in 1573:

http://books.google.com/books?id=RWMJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA193&dq=%22edmund+Churche%22

I assume this is the same Edmund Church who you are discussing in your
post. However, you state that Edmund Church's likely father, John
Church, left a will proved in 1577, whereas if this is the same
family, John Church would necessarily have to have died before 9 June
1573.

It's entirely possible, however, that we are looking at two different
John Churchs, both of whom lived in Essex, who were contemporaries to
one another. I note that the John Church you mention whose will was
proved in 1577 resided at Runwell Hall, Essex. I believe Runwell Hall
is located in the parish of Wickford, Essex. If so, perhaps the
Edmund Church you are seeking derives from Malden, Essex, rather than
Wickford, Essex. If so, this could explain why Edmund Church is not
named as a child in the will of John Church, of Runwell Hall (in
Wickford). If so, it seems likely that it was John Church of Malden
who was married to Mary Tyrrell, whereas you show that John Church of
Runwell Hall was married after 1542 to Margaret (Wiseman) Everard.

For what it is worth, below is a weblink to an unsourced genealogical
database which refers to John Church of Malden and his possible wife,
Mary Tyrrell:

http://fabpedigree.com/s099/f453186.htm

Here is another weblink to an unsourced database referring to the same
man:

http://www.royerconnections.com/ReynoldChurch.html

Without further information, my guess is that you have two different
John Churchs, one who resided in Malden and one who resided in
Wickford.

Lastly, here is a weblink to a reference to Jasper Tyrrell, esquire of
the king's household, in 1531. I assume he is the man whose daughter,
Mary Tyrrell, married John Church.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/browser.asp?CATLN=3&CATID=2240&POSCATLN=7&POSCATID=7000*-5083288&j=1

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Two more quick references:

Below is a weblink which refers to an Edmund Church, a recusant, who
resided in Wakes Colne, Essex in 1590:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=15198&strquery=%22Edmund%20Church%22

Also, I note that an Edmund Church, also a recusant, died in 1649,
leaving two daughters:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=22019

I assume they are two different men. However, the first individual
could be the man you seek.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[John Brandon]

> Great post as usual.

"Great post," and yet you seem to be showing it's all wrong. You are
apparently very eager for it to be wrong.

> The weblink below indicates that "Edmund Churche, late of New Inn,
> gentleman, the second son of John Churche, of Malden, Essex,
> gentleman, deceased" was admitted to Middle Temple in 1573:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=RWMJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA193&dq=%22edmund+C...
>
> I assume this is the same Edmund Church who you are discussing in your
> post.  However,  you state that Edmund Church's likely father, John
> Church, left a will  proved in 1577, whereas if this is the same
> family, John Church would necessarily have to have died before 9 June
> 1573.
>
> It's entirely possible, however, that we are looking at two different
> John Churchs, both of whom lived in Essex, who were contemporaries to
> one another.  I note that the John Church you mention whose will was
> proved in 1577 resided at Runwell Hall, Essex.  I believe Runwell Hall
> is located in the parish of Wickford, Essex.  If so, perhaps the
> Edmund Church you are seeking derives from Malden, Essex, rather than
> Wickford, Essex.  If so, this could explain why Edmund Church is not
> named as a child in the will of John Church, of Runwell Hall (in
> Wickford).  If so, it seems likely that it was John Church of Malden
> who was married to Mary Tyrrell, whereas you show that John Church of
> Runwell Hall was married after 1542 to Margaret (Wiseman) Everard.
>
> For what it is worth, below is a weblink to an unsourced genealogical
> database which refers to John Church of Malden and his possible wife,
> Mary Tyrrell:
>
> http://fabpedigree.com/s099/f453186.htm
>
> Here is another weblink to an unsourced database referring to the same
> man:
>
> http://www.royerconnections.com/ReynoldChurch.html
>
> Without further information, my guess is that you have two different
> John Churchs, one who resided in Malden and one who resided in
> Wickford.
>
> Lastly, here is a weblink to a reference to Jasper Tyrrell, esquire of
> the king's household, in 1531.  I assume he is the man whose daughter,
> Mary Tyrrell, married John Church.
>
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/browser.asp?CATLN=3&CATI...
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

First, let me say those webpages you linked to are quite awful,
Douglas.

You may be right that there are two John Churchs, one of Runwell and
one of Malden; I'm only pointing out that this _could_ be a connection
for the Runwell branch.

Edmund Church is not named in the 1577 will of John Church of Runwell,
yet he (John) clearly had a son Edmund as the will of William Reade,
known to have married John Church's daughter Martha, named "brother
Edmund Church" in two places. (The 1577 will of John Church mentions
specifically "my son in law Reade who married my daughter Martha and
had Edmund, John and Margaret Reade.")

Correction, Douglas: John Church was married to Margaret Wiseman
Everard on a specific date in 1559, not merely "after 1542." Hence,
his daughter Martha, whose first child, Edmund Reade, was born in
1563, was certainly by an earlier wife than Margaret Wiseman.

Mary Tirrell who married John Church was the daughter of Edmond, not
Jasper, Tirrell, Doug. It helps to read things carefully.

Notice that William Reade's will gave to the poor of Rawreth, which
was the parish where Edmund Tirrell was buried.

http://books.google.com/books?id=05USAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA159&dq=rawreth+tyrrell

Rawreth is very close to Wickford and Runwell:

http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=rawreth&countryCode=GB

Bears looking into/ checking out further.

Meanwhile, you and Fradd might want to revise your findings on Mr.
Percival Lowell in light of my posting of last week.

[John Brandon]

> I assume they are two different men.  However, the first individual
> could be the man you seek.

Yes, indeed he could, as Edmond Tirrell the grandfather was a Catholic
recusant as well. The Catholicism may be the reason John Church's
will did not name his son Edmond.

[t***@clearwire.net]

On Sep 2, 9:52 pm, John Brandon <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I assume they are two different men.  However, the first individual
> > could be the man you seek.
>
> Yes, indeed he could, as Edmond Tirrell the grandfather was a Catholic
> recusant as well.  The Catholicism may be the reason John Church's
> will did not name his son Edmond.

I note that History of Rochford Hundred (unfortunately unreferenced)
shows Plumberow passing from Jasper Tyrell to Edmund Tyrell to Edmund
Church, son of Mary Tyrell, Edmund's daughter.

http://books.google.com/books?id=P2suAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA279

taf

[John Brandon]

> I note that History of Rochford Hundred (unfortunately unreferenced)
> shows Plumberow passing from Jasper Tyrell to Edmund Tyrell to Edmund
> Church, son of Mary Tyrell, Edmund's daughter.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=P2suAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA279
>
> taf

Thanks, Todd, that is helpful in showing this line of descent could be
correct.

I suspect Walter G. Davis knew of this possible descent, but did not
want to really get into it because of a number of hairy problems:

(1) Edmond Tirrell was a Catholic, and apparently delighted in
prosecuting Protestants, whereas the Reade-Cookes were certainly
Protestant, tending to Puritanism.

(2) The HOP biography of Edmond Tirrell notes that three daughters,
rather than four, are mentioned in his will. While his daughter Mary
Church certainly pre-deceased him, it's possible that there is no
mention whatsoever of the Church connection in his will.

(3) Martin Hollick says Edmond Tirrell was born ca. 1510, while the
HOP biography says "by 1513." This highlights a chronological
difficulty if his great-grandson Edmond Reade was born in 1563. It is
just possible if Edmond's daughter Mary, certainly shown first in the
pedigree, was born in 1530, when he was 20, and her possible daughter
Martha Church was born ca. 1546 or 1547, when she (Mary) was ca. 16.
Martha would then have to have her own first child (Edmond Reade) at
16 or 17 as well. However, I would just note that my ancestress Agnes
Master was stated to have married her first husband "nere the age of
xv yeres," and "being a widow at xxi yeres of age and richly left,"
married her second husband in 1536, per Faculty Office Records, and by
him (second husband) had a daughter (born probably 1537) whose first
child was certainly born in the year 1555. So these short generations
could happen (and perhaps were more likely to happen in well-off
families who had dowries to give).

(4) The fourth wrench is Davis' statement that Mary Tyrrell was John
Church's _second_ wife. We know Martha Church could not be Church's
daughter by Margaret Wiseman (i.e., the _third_ wife?), but could she
be by a putative _first_ wife?

In all, this would probably take exhaustive (and exhausting) work to
prove.

[John Brandon]

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=a6FbAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22martha+church%22+essex&q=%22rogers+in+runwell%22&pgis=1#search

[John Brandon]

Records relating to Martha Church's brother Charles Church:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xTIEAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA96&dq=%22charles+church%22+essex&lr=

http://books.google.com/books?id=CVUJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA102&dq=%22charles+church%22+essex&lr=

[John Brandon]

> Records relating to Martha Church's brother Charles Church:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=xTIEAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA96&dq=%22charl...
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=CVUJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA102&dq=%22charles+...


http://books.google.com/books?id=xTIEAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA233&dq=runwell+churche&lr=

[John Brandon]

Thomas, heir of John Church of Runwell, gent., was admitted to the
Middle Temple in 1562. What age would he have been?

http://books.google.com/books?id=RWMJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA135&dq=runwell+churche&lr=

[John Brandon]

I have always wondered if there wasn't some gentry connection in the
ancestry of the Reades based on the prominent marriages of some of the
women a couple of generations later:

(1) Col. Edmond Reade's daughter Martha married (1) Daniel Epes
(almost certainly from a gentry family in Kent) and (2) Deputy Gov.
Samuel Symonds, from another Essex gentry family.

(2) her sister, Elizabeth Reade, married John Winthrop, Jr., of
Connecticut.

(3) their mother, Elizabeth, married (2), as his first wife, the
Regicide Rev. Hugh Peters, from a gentry family in Cornwall (a man at
least fifteen or twenty years her junior).

[John Brandon]

http://books.google.com/books?id=e25GAAAAMAAJ&q=%22edmund+church%22+maldon&dq=%22edmund+church%22+maldon&lr=&pgis=1

[John Brandon]

On Sep 3, 10:58 am, John Brandon <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=e25GAAAAMAAJ&q=%22edmund+church%22+m...

http://books.google.com/books?id=s7hRAAAAMAAJ&q=%22john+church%22+maldon&dq=%22john+church%22+maldon&lr=&pgis=1

[John Brandon]

http://books.google.com/books?id=ut4OaULgYUgC&pg=PA5&dq=%22christiana+lowle&lr=&sig=ACfU3U0Pp3GCJQ6P1CdQftcaYrLJ-5bXjA

[John Brandon]

from A2A, "Cornwall Record Office: Grylls of Helston" --

Reference: GR/743
Creation dates: 15th, June, 1581

Scope and Content

(1) Charles Cutler, of Eye, co. Suffolk, Esq.

(2) Edmund Churche, of Pebmarsh, co. Essex, gent.

Farm & tenement called Bakers in Horkley and Woodham Smith.

Mortgage by way of Bargain & Sale. Consideration: £80.

* * * *

Charles Cutler was married to one of Edmond Tirrell's four daughters.

[John Brandon]

W.G. Davis wrote in _NEHGR_ 84:113:

Mr. Appleton examined the parish registers of Wickford and found many
items therein relating to Edmund and Elizabeth (Cooke) Reade, the
parents of the four emigrants; but between the years 1595 and 1604 no
entries pertaining to this family appeared. This lack has now been
explained through a search, made for another purpose, in the registers
of the parish of North Benfleet, co. Essex, now deposited in the
Bodleian Library at Oxford. North Benfleet lies a few miles southeast
from Wickford, and at the period in question the lord of the principal
manor was Edmund Church, who had inherited it from his Tyrrell
ancestors. Church was twice mentioned as "brother" in the will of
William Reade of Wickford (1603), the father of Edmund Reade; and it
was doubtless as Church's tenant at the manor house, which is still
standing and is now the rectory, that Edmund Reade resided in North
Benfleet.

* * * *
Then a list of Edmund Reade's children baptised at North Benfleet:
Mary (1597), Margaret (1598), William (1599), Martha (1602), Thomas
(1605), Samuel (1609), Thomas (again--1612). Burials of their children
there include Edmond in 1600, Mary in 1602, and Thomas in 1607.

[t***@clearwire.net]

On Sep 3, 7:43 am, John Brandon <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have always wondered if there wasn't some gentry connection in the
> ancestry of the Reades based on the prominent marriages of some of the
> women a couple of generations later:
>
> (1) Col. Edmond Reade's daughter Martha married (1) Daniel Epes
> (almost certainly from a gentry family in Kent) and (2) Deputy Gov.
> Samuel Symonds, from another Essex gentry family.
>
> (2) her sister, Elizabeth Reade, married John Winthrop, Jr., of
> Connecticut.
>
> (3) their mother, Elizabeth, married (2), as his first wife, the
> Regicide Rev. Hugh Peters, from a gentry family in Cornwall (a man at
> least fifteen or twenty years her junior).

You could add that Elizabeth's nephew (Martha's first cousin) Col.
Thomas Cooke was MP for Essex in 1654. He was brother of immigrants
George and Joseph. The latter arrived in NE as servants of Roger
Harlakenden, first cousin of Symonds' first wife.

I wonder if there isn't something to be learned on this Cooke family
as well. Glenn (Welsh Founders of Pa) traces this family back to the
reign of Edward III, citing a fine, an ipm, and a half-dozen wills.
The specific details are not given, but it looks like there is further
potential. Morant is said to have given particulars on these Cookes.

taf

[John Brandon]

> You could add that Elizabeth's nephew (Martha's first cousin) Col.
> Thomas Cooke was MP for Essex in 1654. He was brother of immigrants
> George and Joseph.   The latter arrived in NE as servants of Roger
> Harlakenden, first cousin of Symonds' first wife.
>
> I wonder if there isn't something to be learned on this Cooke family
> as well. Glenn (Welsh Founders of Pa) traces this family back to the
> reign of Edward III, citing a fine, an ipm, and a half-dozen wills.
> The specific details are not given, but it looks like there is further
> potential. Morant is said to have given particulars on these Cookes.

Also remember that the M.P.'s brother George Cooke of Pebmarsh and New
England is said by John Burke's _A General and Heraldic Dictionary of
the Peerages of England, Ireland, and Scotland_, sub "Annesley, Earls
of Anglesey," to have married Anne, daughter of Francis [Annesley],
Viscount Valentia, by his first wife Dorothy daughter of Sir John
Phillips:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aB0IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA7&dq=annesley+pebmarsh+cooke&lr=#PPA7,M1

This is supported, at least in part, by a letter from England written
by George Cooke's daughter Mary, then the wife of Samuel Annesley of
Westminster: "she, Mary Annesley, formerly Mary Cooke, wrote a letter
to Edward Collins [in New England], that she had lately married a
younger brother of her mother, Sept. 12, 1681 (court files)" [this is
also mentioned in Savage's _Genealogical Dictionary_].

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZPePzTEEhsYC&pg=PA8&dq=%22george+cooke%22+annesley

Now, since Mary can't literally have married her own uncle, and George
Cooke is shown in New England sometimes with a wife named Alice and
other times with a wife named Anne [see Great Migration sketch], I
think the statement by Mary shows George Cooke must have had two
wives. Mary Cooke must have married her *step-mother's* brother, not
her own blood uncle.

[John Brandon]

I've located Walter G. Davis's discussion of the Church family in
_Maine and Massachusetts Families in the Ancestry etc._. It is
perplexing in some regards, but I'll post the whole thing (2+ pages of
small type) this weekend, when I get a chance to type it all up (ugh).

In Davis's abstract, the will of John Church of Runwell (d. 1577) does
in fact mention a second son Edmund. I don't know why John A.
Brayton's abstract (from _The Ancestry of Tennessee Williams_), which
I was following, omits this Edmund. Edmund married an Ann Sapcott,
sister of the wife of his brother Charles Church, according to W. G.
Davis.

Since the _Middle Temple Records_ show the 1562 admission of Thomas,
SON AND HEIR of John Church of Runwell, gent, and the 1573 admission
of Edmund, SECOND son of John Church of Malden, gent., deceased [sic],
doesn't this show John Church of Runwell is the same person as John
Church of Malden?

http://books.google.com/books?id=RWMJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA135&dq=runwell+churche&lr=

http://books.google.com/books?id=RWMJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA135&dq=runwell+churche&lr=#PPA193,M1

Apparently anticipating DR's reservations, Walter Davis's account of
the Churches doesn't seem to accept that John of Runwell was the same
person as John of Malden.

[John Brandon]

> Since the _Middle Temple Records_ show the 1562 admission of
Thomas,
> SON AND HEIR of John Church of Runwell, gent, and the 1573 admission
> of Edmund, SECOND son of John Church of Malden, gent., deceased [sic],
> doesn't this show John Church of Runwell is the same person as John
> Church of Malden?
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=RWMJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA135&dq=runwell+chu...
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=RWMJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA135&dq=runwell+chu...


John Brayton's abstract of John Church's will (showing the eldest son
Thomas, but leaving out Edmund):

F.G. Emmison, ed. _Essex Wills, The Archdeaconry Courts, 1577-1584_
(Chelmsford: The Essex Record Office, 1987_, p. 20. Will #82, John
Church of Runwell Hall, Gent., dated 26 Feb. 1577/8, proved 10 June
1578; to wife Margaret, lands purchased of William Rogers in Runwell
St; to son THOMAS; to son CHARLES; to son-in-law READE who married my
daughter MARTHA and to their children EDMUND, JOHN, and MARGARET; to
Francis Grene, to cousin FRANCIS CHURCHE.

[John Brandon]

If John Church "of Malden" was the one who married Mary Tirrell,
apparently Gary Boyd Roberts did not know it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6VJnAAAAMAAJ&q=%22john+church%22+malden&dq=%22john+church%22+malden&lr=&pgis=1

http://books.google.com/books?id=7dYKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA65&dq=%22john+church%22+vesey&lr=

[John Brandon]

I just don't have time to type up Davis's discussion of the Churches,
but if anyone it interested it is pp. 266-69 in _Massachusetts and
Maine Families in the Ancestry of Walter Goodwin Davis_, originally in
the _Bethia Harris_ volume from 1934.

Interesting additional facts:

Charles Church (m. Constance Sapcott) had a second son Edmond (buried
1584 at Runwell). His will from the Commissary Court of London
mentions his "brother William Reade."

Davis does not cite a lot of documents, but clearly decided that the
Churches of Runwell were not descendants of Mary Tyrell, even though
his brief article in _NEHGR_ 84:113, certainly mentioned "the Tyrrell
ancestors of Edmond Church."

It seems counter-intuitive to me, as Runwell is literally within yards
of Edmond Tirrell's main seat (Rawreth), and there was clearly an
obsession among the Runwell Churches (and their descendants, the
Reades) with the names "Edmond" and "Mary" (to a lesser degree). I
still think it needs to be looked into in greater depth--if only to
spell out more exactly why it is incorrect.

Someone may want to inform GBR about the presidential ancestor "John
Church of Malden" having a wife of possible royal descent.

_____

I will, however, type up RCA's comments from vol. 2 of the Great
Migration (1634-35) series on George Cooke's wife (or wives):

MARRIAGE: By 1640 Anne ____. On 25 June 1653, the Council of State
considered "the petition of Anne, widow of Col. George Cook, Governor
of Wexford," and referred it "to the Irish and Scotch Committee, to
take a view of the order of Parliament therein mentioned, confer with
Mrs. Cooke, and report" [CSPD 1652-1653, p. 439]. On 2 July 1653, the
Council of State decided to "write to the Commissioners of Parliament
in Ireland that the L200 a year settled upon Mrs. Cook, widow of Col.
Cook, is not to be charged with assessments" [CSPD 1653-1654, p. 3].
(In the Cambridge [Mass.] vital records, the mother of the first two
children of George Cooke, born in 1640 and 1642, was Anne [NEHGR
4:55]. The mother of the next two children, born in 1644 [Elizabeth
Cooke, wife of Rev. John Quick] and 1646 [Mary Cooke, wife of Samuel
Annesley, Esq.], was given as Alice [NEHGR 8:345, 9:167]. Then, as we
see above, his widow in 1653 was named Anne. This might suggest three
wives, but there is no evidence in Cambridge records for the death of
the first wife, as there should have been, and in the absence of
further evidence we assume that the records naming his wife as Alice
are in error.]

Thus we see from Cal. State Papers, Domestic Series, that George and
his last wife Anne had dealings in Ireland possibly consistent with
her being a daughter of Viscount Valentia, and that the mother of Mary
Cooke in the birth record is clearly named as Alice.

[John Brandon]

> I will, however, type up RCA's comments from vol. 2 of the Great
> Migration (1634-35) series on George Cooke's wife (or wives):
>
> MARRIAGE:  By 1640 Anne ____.  On 25 June 1653, the Council of State
> considered "the petition of Anne, widow of Col. George Cook, Governor
> of Wexford," and referred it "to the Irish and Scotch Committee, to
> take a view of the order of Parliament therein mentioned, confer with
> Mrs. Cooke, and report" [CSPD 1652-1653, p. 439].  On 2 July 1653, the
> Council of State decided to "write to the Commissioners of Parliament
> in Ireland that the L200 a year settled upon Mrs. Cook, widow of Col.
> Cook, is not to be charged with assessments" [CSPD 1653-1654, p. 3].
> (In the Cambridge [Mass.] vital records, the mother of the first two
> children of George Cooke, born in 1640 and 1642, was Anne [NEHGR
> 4:55].  The mother of the next two children, born in 1644 [Elizabeth
> Cooke, wife of Rev. John Quick] and 1646 [Mary Cooke, wife of Samuel
> Annesley, Esq.], was given as Alice [NEHGR 8:345, 9:167]. Then, as we
> see above, his widow in 1653 was named Anne.  This might suggest three
> wives, but there is no evidence in Cambridge records for the death of
> the first wife, as there should have been, and in the absence of
> further evidence we assume that the records naming his wife as Alice
> are in error.]
>
> Thus we see from Cal. State Papers, Domestic Series, that George and
> his last wife Anne had dealings in Ireland possibly consistent with
> her being a daughter of Viscount Valentia, and that the mother of Mary
> Cooke in the birth record is clearly named as Alice.

Just to play devil's advocate a bit (and mess with Doug's mind), I
might point out that DR's main evidence that his ancestor Joseph Cooke
(George's brother) married a daughter of Governor John Haynes was in
the form of a letter:

"That Governor Haynes had a son-in-law named Cooke is proven by a
letter the Governor wrote on 24 July 1653, to John Winthrop, Jr., then
of New London, Connecticut, in which he [Haynes] stated: 'My sonne
Cooke writt to me yt came last night yt he had procured an old servant
A widow woman of about forty, came from Ireland, but was brought upp
with ye English & can spake English. He commends her highly.'"

As George Cooke now seems to have had three wives, and as his widow
petitioned the Council of State in June 1653 (apparently from
Ireland), perhaps George--not Joseph--was the son-in-law of John
Haynes (via one of his wives) and had written to his father-in-law
from Ireland (hence the letter only arrived in New England after his
death).

[John Brandon]

And, as I noted a while back, Elizabeth (? Haynes), wife of Joseph
Cooke, in her spiritual autobiography among the Cambridge Church
records, wrote of her life in England ... "We lived in a very ignorant
place, with little means, and hence I desired to come to New
England ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=-lrTLAizQSwC&pg=RA1-PA224&lpg=PA222&dq=%22thomas+shepard%22+elizabeth+cooke&lr=&sig=ACfU3U0dxdOBg6VVWNlrf8kIZ3J-uKtfDQ#PRA1-PA222,M1

This doesn't exactly sound like the daughter of John Haynes, Esquire,
later a Governor in New England.

[John Brandon]

> Just to play devil's advocate a bit (and mess with Doug's mind), I
> might point out that DR's main evidence that his ancestor Joseph Cooke
> (George's brother) married a daughter of Governor John Haynes was in
> the form of a letter:
>
> "That Governor Haynes had a son-in-law named Cooke is proven by a
> letter the Governor wrote on 24 July 1653, to John Winthrop, Jr., then
> of New London, Connecticut, in which he [Haynes] stated: 'My sonne
> Cooke writt to me yt came last night yt he had procured an old servant
> A widow woman of about forty, came from Ireland, but was brought upp
> with ye English & can spake English. He commends her highly.'"
>
> As George Cooke now seems to have had three wives, and as his widow
> petitioned the Council of State in June 1653 (apparently from
> Ireland), perhaps George--not Joseph--was the son-in-law of John
> Haynes (via one of his wives) and had written to his father-in-law
> from Ireland (hence the letter only arrived in New England after his
> death).

Okay, Doug, you're off the hook if George Cooke was known to be dead
by October 1652:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ezsVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA513&dq=%22to+improve+the+estate+of+col+george+cooke%22&lr=

[Douglas Richardson]

On Sep 5, 10:33 am, John Brandon <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

< Okay, Doug, you're off the hook if George Cooke was known to be dead
< by October 1652:
<
< http://books.google.com/books?id=ezsVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA513&dq=%22to+impro...

I was never on the hook.

DR

[John Brandon]

> I was never on the hook.
>
> DR

No, you never are, are you.

Except in your Percival Lowell article.

[John Brandon]

http://books.google.com/books?id=ut4OaULgYUgC&pg=PA5&dq=%22christiana+lowle&lr=&sig=ACfU3U0Pp3GCJQ6P1CdQftcaYrLJ-5bXjA

[Douglas Richardson]

On Sep 5, 12:14 pm, John Brandon <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
< > I was never on the hook.
<
< > DR
<
< No, you never are, are you.
<
< Except in your Percival Lowell article.

Why is that? Please explain yourself.

Best always, Douglas Richardson

[John Brandon]

> < Except in your Percival Lowell article.
>
> Why is that?  Please explain yourself.

Huh?

Christiana Lowle was already a widow in 1570? An older Percival Lowle
with wife Margaret living at Portbury in 1573? Doesn't that sort of
mess up the arguments you and Brandon Fraudd made in your article in
the December 2003 _Register_?

Someone clearly needs to go through the Portbury records in the
muniment room at Berkeley Castle and extract all the Lowle references
so we can get a clearer picture what was going on.

[John Brandon]

On Sep 5, 8:23 am, John Brandon <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I just don't have time to type up Davis's discussion of the Churches,
> but if anyone it interested it is pp. 266-69 in _Massachusetts and
> Maine Families in the Ancestry of Walter Goodwin Davis_, originally in
> the _Bethia Harris_ volume from 1934.
>
> Interesting additional facts:
>
> Charles Church (m. Constance Sapcott) had a second son Edmond (buried
> 1584 at Runwell).  His will from the Commissary Court of London
> mentions his "brother William Reade."
>
> Davis does not cite a lot of documents, but clearly decided that the
> Churches of Runwell were not descendants of Mary Tyrell, even though
> his brief article in _NEHGR_ 84:113, certainly mentioned "the Tyrrell
> ancestors of Edmond Church."
>
> It seems counter-intuitive to me, as Runwell is literally within yards
> of Edmond Tirrell's main seat (Rawreth), and there was clearly an
> obsession among the Runwell Churches (and their descendants, the
> Reades) with the names "Edmond" and "Mary" (to a lesser degree).  I
> still think it needs to be looked into in greater depth--if only to
> spell out more exactly why it is incorrect.
>
> Someone may want to inform GBR about the presidential ancestor "John
> Church of Malden" having a wife of possible royal descent.
>
> _____
>
> I will, however, type up RCA's comments from vol. 2 of the Great
> Migration (1634-35) series on George Cooke's wife (or wives):
>
> MARRIAGE:  By 1640 Anne ____.  On 25 June 1653, the Council of State
> considered "the petition of Anne, widow of Col. George Cook, Governor
> of Wexford," and referred it "to the Irish and Scotch Committee, to
> take a view of the order of Parliament therein mentioned, confer with
> Mrs. Cooke, and report" [CSPD 1652-1653, p. 439].  On 2 July 1653, the
> Council of State decided to "write to the Commissioners of Parliament
> in Ireland that the L200 a year settled upon Mrs. Cook, widow of Col.
> Cook, is not to be charged with assessments" [CSPD 1653-1654, p. 3].
> (In the Cambridge [Mass.] vital records, the mother of the first two
> children of George Cooke, born in 1640 and 1642, was Anne [NEHGR
> 4:55].  The mother of the next two children, born in 1644 [Elizabeth
> Cooke, wife of Rev. John Quick] and 1646 [Mary Cooke, wife of Samuel
> Annesley, Esq.], was given as Alice [NEHGR 8:345, 9:167]. Then, as we
> see above, his widow in 1653 was named Anne.  This might suggest three
> wives, but there is no evidence in Cambridge records for the death of
> the first wife, as there should have been, and in the absence of
> further evidence we assume that the records naming his wife as Alice
> are in error.]
>
> Thus we see from Cal. State Papers, Domestic Series, that George and
> his last wife Anne had dealings in Ireland possibly consistent with
> her being a daughter of Viscount Valentia, and that the mother of Mary
> Cooke in the birth record is clearly named as Alice.

Lodge's _Peerage of Ireland_ shows this Samuel Annesley who married
Mary Cooke:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YIoUAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA121&dq=%22colonel+george+cooke%22+ireland&lr=

http://books.google.com/books?id=YIoUAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA121&dq=%22colonel+george+cooke%22+ireland&lr=#PRA1-PA120,M1

[John Brandon]

http://books.google.com/books?id=sFo1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA459&dq=%22samuel+annesley%22+cooke&lr=

[John Brandon]

> http://books.google.com/books?id=sFo1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA459&dq=%22samuel+a...

"We find produced an instrument constituting Mr. Edward Collins as
Attorney to make sale of the lands belonging to Col. George Cooke,
which said instrument is subscribed with the name of Mary Cooke, with
a seal, and with the names of Ann Baker and Mary Kettleby ..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=sFo1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA459&dq=%22samuel+annesley%22+cooke&lr=#PPA460,M1

Presumably this Ann Baker was Mary's stepmother, Anne (Annesley)
(Cooke) Baker.

[John Brandon]

> It seems counter-intuitive to me, as Runwell is literally within yards
> of Edmond Tirrell's main seat (Rawreth), and there was clearly an
> obsession among the Runwell Churches (and their descendants, the
> Reades) with the names "Edmond" and "Mary" (to a lesser degree).  I
> still think it needs to be looked into in greater depth--if only to
> spell out more exactly why it is incorrect.

One other possible angle to explore: was Edmond Tirrell's daughter
Mary illegitimate? This might allow for a tighter chronology, if
indeed there is a connection to the Churches of Runwell.

[t***@clearwire.net]

On Sep 5, 10:02 am, John Brandon <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems counter-intuitive to me, as Runwell is literally within yards
> > of Edmond Tirrell's main seat (Rawreth), and there was clearly an
> > obsession among the Runwell Churches (and their descendants, the
> > Reades) with the names "Edmond" and "Mary" (to a lesser degree). I
> > still think it needs to be looked into in greater depth--if only to
> > spell out more exactly why it is incorrect.
>
> One other possible angle to explore: was Edmond Tirrell's daughter
> Mary illegitimate? This might allow for a tighter chronology, if
> indeed there is a connection to the Churches of Runwell.

Not if Edmund Church inherited Plumbebow from Edmund Tirrell, although
we need more details on this property transfer to know that it was
indeed inheritance and not simple transfer.

taf

[John Brandon]

> Not if Edmund Church inherited Plumbebow from Edmund Tirrell, although
> we need more details on this property transfer to know that it was
> indeed inheritance and not simple transfer.
>
> taf

Oh, right, I forgot about that.

[[e-mail]]

On Friday, September 5, 2008 at 12:52:59 PM UTC-7, ***@clearwire.net wrote:
> On Sep 5, 10:02 am, John Brandon <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > It seems counter-intuitive to me, as Runwell is literally within yards
> > > of Edmond Tirrell's main seat (Rawreth), and there was clearly an
> > > obsession among the Runwell Churches (and their descendants, the
> > > Reades) with the names "Edmond" and "Mary" (to a lesser degree). I
> > > still think it needs to be looked into in greater depth--if only to
> > > spell out more exactly why it is incorrect.
> >
> > One other possible angle to explore: was Edmond Tirrell's daughter
> > Mary illegitimate? This might allow for a tighter chronology, if
> > indeed there is a connection to the Churches of Runwell.
>
> Not if Edmund Church inherited Plumbebow from Edmund Tirrell, although
> we need more details on this property transfer to know that it was
> indeed inheritance and not simple transfer.
>
> taf



Here is your answer regarding John Church and Mary Tirrell:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Zr02AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA53&dq=%22JOhn+Church%22+Margery+Henkyn&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiuqrBr7bPAhVHSyYKHWGaAkQQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=%22JOhn%20Church%22%20Margery%20Henkyn&f=false


Leslie

[r***@yahoo.com]

On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 1:43:14 AM UTC-4, ***@att.net wrote:
> On Friday, September 5, 2008 at 12:52:59 PM UTC-7, ***@clearwire.net wrote:
> > On Sep 5, 10:02 am, John Brandon <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It seems counter-intuitive to me, as Runwell is literally within yards
> > > > of Edmond Tirrell's main seat (Rawreth), and there was clearly an
> > > > obsession among the Runwell Churches (and their descendants, the
> > > > Reades) with the names "Edmond" and "Mary" (to a lesser degree). I
> > > > still think it needs to be looked into in greater depth--if only to
> > > > spell out more exactly why it is incorrect.
> > >
> > > One other possible angle to explore: was Edmond Tirrell's daughter
> > > Mary illegitimate? This might allow for a tighter chronology, if
> > > indeed there is a connection to the Churches of Runwell.
> >
> > Not if Edmund Church inherited Plumbebow from Edmund Tirrell, although
> > we need more details on this property transfer to know that it was
> > indeed inheritance and not simple transfer.
> >
> > taf
>
>
>
> Here is your answer regarding John Church and Mary Tirrell:
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=Zr02AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA53&dq=%22JOhn+Church%22+Margery+Henkyn&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiuqrBr7bPAhVHSyYKHWGaAkQQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=%22JOhn%20Church%22%20Margery%20Henkyn&f=false
>
>
> Leslie

I can't remember what the question was at this point ... :-(

[g***@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 4, 2008 at 1:37:20 AM UTC-6, ***@clearwire.net wrote:
> On Sep 3, 7:43 am, John Brandon <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I have always wondered if there wasn't some gentry connection in the
> > ancestry of the Reades based on the prominent marriages of some of the
> > women a couple of generations later:
> >
> > (1) Col. Edmond Reade's daughter Martha married (1) Daniel Epes
> > (almost certainly from a gentry family in Kent) and (2) Deputy Gov.
> > Samuel Symonds, from another Essex gentry family.
> >
> > (2) her sister, Elizabeth Reade, married John Winthrop, Jr., of
> > Connecticut.
> >
> > (3) their mother, Elizabeth, married (2), as his first wife, the
> > Regicide Rev. Hugh Peters, from a gentry family in Cornwall (a man at
> > least fifteen or twenty years her junior).
>
> You could add that Elizabeth's nephew (Martha's first cousin) Col.
> Thomas Cooke was MP for Essex in 1654. He was brother of immigrants
> George and Joseph. The latter arrived in NE as servants of Roger
> Harlakenden, first cousin of Symonds' first wife.
>
> I wonder if there isn't something to be learned on this Cooke family
> as well. Glenn (Welsh Founders of Pa) traces this family back to the
> reign of Edward III, citing a fine, an ipm, and a half-dozen wills.
> The specific details are not given, but it looks like there is further
> potential. Morant is said to have given particulars on these Cookes.
>
> taf

Re: the Church ancestry of Reade, Eppes, etc.
Walter Davis, in _Anc of Bethia Harris_, transcribed a will of John Church of Runwell, d. 1577, father of Martha (Church) Reade, and three sons, Charles, Edmund, & Thomas. The will mentions lands at Takeley, and Davis suggests that's where this Church fam originated.

Does anyone know the ancestry of this Church fam and if there are connections to John Church/Mary Tirell?

If interested, Davis' piece on John Church has been transcribed on FamilySearch:
https://familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/6276080

Thanks,

Greg Cooke

[taf]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:44:32 AM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:

> Re: the Church ancestry of Reade, Eppes, etc.
> Walter Davis, in _Anc of Bethia Harris_, transcribed a will of John Church
> of Runwell, d. 1577, father of Martha (Church) Reade, and three sons,
> Charles, Edmund, & Thomas. The will mentions lands at Takeley, and Davis
> suggests that's where this Church fam originated.
>
> Does anyone know the ancestry of this Church fam and if there are
> connections to John Church/Mary Tirell?

Don't see anything that even hints that would be the case.

taf

[taf]

On Thursday, September 4, 2008 at 12:37:20 AM UTC-7, ***@clearwire.net wrote:


Looking into the Reades a little more, I am finding a conflict with regard to their Cooke connection.

In _Evidences of the Winthrops of Groton, co. Suffolk, England, (etc)_ it is explicitly stated that a pedigree in the Visitation of Essex reports that Thomas Cooke, father in law of Edmund Reade, married thrice, to Susan Brand of Boxford, Suff., the mother of his children, to Elizabeth North of Colchester, and to Margaret Rice of Bures St. Mary, Suff. However, when I look at the published Visitation of Essex, it shows Thomas Cooke to have married first to Margaret Rice, who is mother of his children, then to Elizabeth North, and finally to Susan Brand. Has anyone looked into this and know which order is correct?
https://books.google.com/books?id=XPc7AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA160
https://books.google.com/books?id=0m1KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA383

Of particular interest, immigrant Edmund Rice was married in Bury St. Mary in 1618, being of the generation of Elizabeth (Cooke) Reade.

taf

[g***@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 4:31:48 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, September 4, 2008 at 12:37:20 AM UTC-7, ***@clearwire.net wrote:
>
>
> Looking into the Reades a little more, I am finding a conflict with regard to their Cooke connection.
>
> In _Evidences of the Winthrops of Groton, co. Suffolk, England, (etc)_ it is explicitly stated that a pedigree in the Visitation of Essex reports that Thomas Cooke, father in law of Edmund Reade, married thrice, to Susan Brand of Boxford, Suff., the mother of his children, to Elizabeth North of Colchester, and to Margaret Rice of Bures St. Mary, Suff. However, when I look at the published Visitation of Essex, it shows Thomas Cooke to have married first to Margaret Rice, who is mother of his children, then to Elizabeth North, and finally to Susan Brand. Has anyone looked into this and know which order is correct?
> https://books.google.com/books?id=XPc7AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA160
> https://books.google.com/books?id=0m1KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA383
>
> Of particular interest, immigrant Edmund Rice was married in Bury St. Mary in 1618, being of the generation of Elizabeth (Cooke) Reade.
>
> taf

Davis follows the pedigree order of marriages: (1) Margret Rice, (2) Eliz. North, (3) Susan Brand. The 3rd m. was found at Bures St. Mary (not Boxford), in 1558, and if the pedigree order is correct, the 1st two wives died in a seven yr period between 1551-1558. Davis estimates Thomas was b. about 1541, though in 1559 "he fined for a tenement called Crossehouse, late the property of his father" citing Duchy of Lancaster, court rolls, bundle 123, No 1859, fo. 88b. Thomas was named as executor in his mother's will, made 17 Nov 1561.

Greg

[taf]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 4:40:10 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 4:31:48 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:

> Davis follows the pedigree order of marriages: (1) Margret Rice, (2) Eliz.
> North, (3) Susan Brand. The 3rd m. was found at Bures St. Mary (not
> Boxford), in 1558, and if the pedigree order is correct, the 1st two wives
> died in a seven yr period between 1551-1558. Davis estimates Thomas was b.
> about 1541, though in 1559 "he fined for a tenement called Crossehouse,
> late the property of his father" citing Duchy of Lancaster, court rolls,
> bundle 123, No 1859, fo. 88b. Thomas was named as executor in his mother's
> will, made 17 Nov 1561.


I am not comfortable with the chronology here. If Elizabeth (Cooke) Reade was born to Margaret Rice before 1551 (where does the 1551 date come from, not that it matters that much), she would have been impossibly old when daughter Elizabeth (Reade) Winthrop was born in 1617 (as per Evidences of the Winthrops). Even if this date is off by a decade, it still doesn't work. For that matter, Edmund's first wife died at the end of 1592 (again, assuming Evidences hasn't bulloxed it up). That would make Elizabeth no younger than 34 were she born before Thomas Cooke married Susan Brand, and Elizabeth then had 8 children. I don't think this holds together. There has to be some confusion in terms of the Cooke wives, their order and which is the mother of Elizabeth.

The published Visitation of Essex cannot be taken as face value - this was drawn from Harleian mss 1542, a copy of the visitation, while the version given by Evidences is supposedly from Harleian mss 1083, a copy of the visitation, 1137 (don't know what this is), and 1432 (a collection of Essex pedigrees). I don't see why one Harleian copy of the visitation should be taken as preferable to another.

If the marriage of Thomas Cooke to Susan is firmly places in 1558, yet Elizabeth was still having children in 1617 (or even 1623, the date given for her second son, again, I don't know the source), then maybe the both of them are a little right, that Susan was the first wife, but Elizabeth was daughter of a later marriage to Margaret.

Unfortunately, I am awash in dates of unknown origin and don't know what to trust, but there is definitely a problem.

As an aside, the Brands, though a Suffolk family, appear in the Essex visitation. If the 1558 marriage of Susan is solid, she would appear to be of the same generation as the first John Brand in that pedigree.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0m1KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA357

taf

[g***@gmail.com]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 7:06:30 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 4:40:10 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 4:31:48 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:
>
> > Davis follows the pedigree order of marriages: (1) Margret Rice, (2) Eliz.
> > North, (3) Susan Brand. The 3rd m. was found at Bures St. Mary (not
> > Boxford), in 1558, and if the pedigree order is correct, the 1st two wives
> > died in a seven yr period between 1551-1558. Davis estimates Thomas was b.
> > about 1541, though in 1559 "he fined for a tenement called Crossehouse,
> > late the property of his father" citing Duchy of Lancaster, court rolls,
> > bundle 123, No 1859, fo. 88b. Thomas was named as executor in his mother's
> > will, made 17 Nov 1561.
>
>
> I am not comfortable with the chronology here. If Elizabeth (Cooke) Reade was born to Margaret Rice before 1551 (where does the 1551 date come from, not that it matters that much), she would have been impossibly old when daughter Elizabeth (Reade) Winthrop was born in 1617 (as per Evidences of the Winthrops). Even if this date is off by a decade, it still doesn't work. For that matter, Edmund's first wife died at the end of 1592 (again, assuming Evidences hasn't bulloxed it up). That would make Elizabeth no younger than 34 were she born before Thomas Cooke married Susan Brand, and Elizabeth then had 8 children. I don't think this holds together. There has to be some confusion in terms of the Cooke wives, their order and which is the mother of Elizabeth.
>
> The published Visitation of Essex cannot be taken as face value - this was drawn from Harleian mss 1542, a copy of the visitation, while the version given by Evidences is supposedly from Harleian mss 1083, a copy of the visitation, 1137 (don't know what this is), and 1432 (a collection of Essex pedigrees). I don't see why one Harleian copy of the visitation should be taken as preferable to another.
>
> If the marriage of Thomas Cooke to Susan is firmly places in 1558, yet Elizabeth was still having children in 1617 (or even 1623, the date given for her second son, again, I don't know the source), then maybe the both of them are a little right, that Susan was the first wife, but Elizabeth was daughter of a later marriage to Margaret.
>
> Unfortunately, I am awash in dates of unknown origin and don't know what to trust, but there is definitely a problem.
>
> As an aside, the Brands, though a Suffolk family, appear in the Essex visitation. If the 1558 marriage of Susan is solid, she would appear to be of the same generation as the first John Brand in that pedigree.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=0m1KAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA357
>
> taf

oopsie, typed too fast and made a 10y error: the seven yr period is 1561-1568, and the m. to Susan Brand is 1568. Sorry.

per Davis again: "The pedigree credits his son Thomas to his first wife, but it would seem that the mother of his daughter Elizabeth was either the second or third, inasmuch as Elizabeth was m. abt 1594 and had a child born as late as 1614." Given that last date, it would seem Elizabeth is the d. of Susan, if Susan was the 3rd and last wife.

Greg

[taf]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 6:58:04 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:

> per Davis again: "The pedigree credits his son Thomas to his first wife,
> but it would seem that the mother of his daughter Elizabeth was either the
> second or third, inasmuch as Elizabeth was m. abt 1594 and had a child born
> as late as 1614." Given that last date, it would seem Elizabeth is the d.
> of Susan, if Susan was the 3rd and last wife.

I think Davis is wrong here. We have two conflicting versions of the pedigree, one deriving the one child shown from the first wife, Margaret Rice, with Susan Brand as the third, the other showing the children as belonging to first wife Susan Brand, with Margaret Rice as the third. Davis has taken a mix and match approach, making Margret the first wife and mother of heir Thomas, while making Elizabeth daughter of third wife Susan. However, if the form of the pedigree reported by Evidences is taken as the authentic version, then the problem evaporates - Elizabeth and Thomas could be children of first wife Susan Brand, with Elizabeth North and Margaret Rice following.

Along these lines, looking at familysearch I find a marriage in 1574 at Colchester between Thomas Cooke and Elizabeth Northye, which I think has to be that of Thomas and "Elizabeth North of Colchester" described in the visitation as the second wife. This would set up a chronology of Thomas Cooke m.1 1568, Susan Brand, with children b. 1569-1573, m.2 1574, Elizabeth Northy, and sometime after that m.3 Margaret Rice.

I note there was a George Northye who was Town Lecturer of Colchester in 1580, but would be suspended in 1583 by the Bishop of London for refusing to subscribe to the articles. He died in 1593.

Regarding the Brand family, there are two handy time points. Sir John Brand was admitted to Gray's Inn 1608. His heir was his uncle John, whose son, also named John, married in 1618. That puts this generation b. ca. 1590, and the previous generation, Robert and John Brand of Boxford, born in the 1560s, hence of the generation after Susan Brand of Boxford. As usual, such back-of-the-envelope estimations can be off.

taf

[taf]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 9:42:19 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> Regarding the Brand family, there are two handy time points. Sir John
> Brand was admitted to Gray's Inn 1608. His heir was his uncle John, whose
> son, also named John, married in 1618. That puts this generation b. ca.
> 1590, and the previous generation, Robert and John Brand of Boxford, born
> in the 1560s, hence of the generation after Susan Brand of Boxford. As
> usual, such back-of-the-envelope estimations can be off.

A followup to this last: Joseph Brand, younger brother of the John who married in 1618, was an MP. According to his account in HOP, he was born ca. 1605, and "was the grandson of a local clothier who acquired Edmondstone, five miles from Sudbury, towards the close of the 16th century."

http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/brand-joseph-1605-74

He left a pedigree in the 1633/4/5 visitation of London:
https://books.google.com/books?id=HPwUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA108

Copinger gives a brief account, indicating that in first raising the family, Robert Brand, Prior of Norwich, d. 1542, could be viewed as its founder. This seems to intend the Robert Brand/Brond als. Catton, Prior of Norwich, who d. 1552, and left PCC will, but I see nothing that suggests a connection with the Suffolk/Essex family. Copinger reports John Brand buying Edwardstone in 1598, dying in 1610.

He also reports that Newstead was held by Richard Brand of Boxford, from whom it was inherited by his son John, who died in 1610, his heir being his son John of Edwardstone.

For Polstead he reports that John Brond purchased it in 1598, and that he was a clothier, son of Richard of Boxford, and John died in 1610, aged 76 (so b. ca. 1634). This last comes from a monumental inscription at Boxford.

These accounts of the Brands are somewhat confused regarding the heirs of the individual properties given by Copinger, but (as much as Copinger can be trusted) it seems that Richard Brand of Boxford was the head of the family in the generation before Susan, but Boxford Churchwardens' Accounts, 1530-1561, by Peter Northeast, shows several Bronds living at that time, though at least two of them appear to have left surviving wills at Bury.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZvC_S8HeJaIC&pg=PA84


taf

[Hal Bradley]

The will of John Brond of Ewardstone, father of John, Joseph (the M.P.),
and Benjamin, as well the daughters named in the Visitation, was probated
27 Oct 1642. [The National Archives; Kew, England; *Prerogative Court of
Canterbury and Related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers*; Class: *PROB
11*; Piece: *190*]

Hal Bradley

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:16 PM, taf <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 9:42:19 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>
> > Regarding the Brand family, there are two handy time points. Sir John
> > Brand was admitted to Gray's Inn 1608. His heir was his uncle John, whose
> > son, also named John, married in 1618. That puts this generation b. ca.
> > 1590, and the previous generation, Robert and John Brand of Boxford, born
> > in the 1560s, hence of the generation after Susan Brand of Boxford. As
> > usual, such back-of-the-envelope estimations can be off.
>
> A followup to this last: Joseph Brand, younger brother of the John who
> married in 1618, was an MP. According to his account in HOP, he was born
> ca. 1605, and "was the grandson of a local clothier who acquired
> Edmondstone, five miles from Sudbury, towards the close of the 16th
> century."
>
> http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/brand-
> joseph-1605-74
>
> He left a pedigree in the 1633/4/5 visitation of London:
> https://books.google.com/books?id=HPwUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA108
>
> Copinger gives a brief account, indicating that in first raising the
> family, Robert Brand, Prior of Norwich, d. 1542, could be viewed as its
> founder. This seems to intend the Robert Brand/Brond als. Catton, Prior of
> Norwich, who d. 1552, and left PCC will, but I see nothing that suggests a
> connection with the Suffolk/Essex family. Copinger reports John Brand
> buying Edwardstone in 1598, dying in 1610.
>
> He also reports that Newstead was held by Richard Brand of Boxford, from
> whom it was inherited by his son John, who died in 1610, his heir being his
> son John of Edwardstone.
>
> For Polstead he reports that John Brond purchased it in 1598, and that he
> was a clothier, son of Richard of Boxford, and John died in 1610, aged 76
> (so b. ca. 1634). This last comes from a monumental inscription at Boxford.
>
> These accounts of the Brands are somewhat confused regarding the heirs of
> the individual properties given by Copinger, but (as much as Copinger can
> be trusted) it seems that Richard Brand of Boxford was the head of the
> family in the generation before Susan, but Boxford Churchwardens' Accounts,
> 1530-1561, by Peter Northeast, shows several Bronds living at that time,
> though at least two of them appear to have left surviving wills at Bury.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=ZvC_S8HeJaIC&pg=PA84
>
>
> taf
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>

[taf]

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 12:52:20 PM UTC-7, Hal Bradley wrote:
> The will of John Brond of Ewardstone, father of John, Joseph (the M.P.),
> and Benjamin, as well the daughters named in the Visitation, was probated
> 27 Oct 1642. [The National Archives; Kew, England; *Prerogative Court of
> Canterbury and Related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers*; Class: *PROB
> 11*; Piece: *190*]

There are actually a lot of relevant wills:

John, 1487
. . .
Richard Brond, 1590 (not PCC)
William, 1600
John, 1611
John 1642
James 1625
Benjamin 1637
Jacob 1630

taf

[taf]

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> There are actually a lot of relevant wills:
>
> John, 1487
> . . .
> Richard Brond, 1590 (not PCC)
> William, 1600
> John, 1611
> John 1642
> James 1625
> Benjamin 1637
> Jacob 1630

Missed two. There is a 1622 will of Benjamin Brande of Edwardstone, nephew of John (1642), James (1625), Benjamin (1637), Jacob (1630) and Robert (father of Sir John), probably son of Richard d. 1601, son of John (1611).

And one of Peter Brande of Bildeston, 1622, who names John (1642) in his will, but was old enough to have married grandchildren, perhaps the brother of John (1611) or even of Richard (1590). His widow Bridgett likewise died testate, 1633.

taf

[taf]

I also overlooked a visitation. In addition to the Essex and London ones, a branch of the family of Brond of Boxford appears in a published Norfolk visitation.

https://books.google.com/books?id=HS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA55

Unfortunately, the version reproduced combines pedigrees from 1563, 1589 and 1613, plus additional pedigrees, and no dates whatsoever are given. However, it ends with Edmund Brond married to Agnes Pory/Pery. An Agnes, wife of Edmund Brond was buried in North Elmham in 1573, so I tentatively assign this pedigree as coming from the 1563 visitation, or at least being of similar age (it does not appear in the Dashwood edition of the 1563). This would be consistent with the Thomas Rookewode of the pedigree being the Thomas who married the daughter of John Clopton, who died 12 Henry VIII.

https://books.google.com/books?id=KrP8I621o0gC&

This would make William Brond of Boxford who heads the pedigree belong to the generation before the Richard Brond, sen of Boxford, perhaps his uncle.

If anyone is familiar with one of the other listed families that would help nail down the chronology, please weigh in.

taf

[taf]

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 7:17:16 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> This would make William Brond of Boxford who heads the pedigree belong to
> the generation before the Richard Brond, sen of Boxford, perhaps his uncle.

Answering my own question, the William heading the pedigree in the Norfolk Visitation volume who married Emma Barhowe, a coheiress to Bardwell Hall, is certainly the William Brond, holding no land, whose 1495 ipm reports his heir to be William, aged 2. The elder William's wife Emma also had a 1495 ipm, again reporting William aged 2 as heir to Bardwell Hall. If he truly was father of George in the next generation (if a generation hasn't been dropped from the pedigree) then George must have been born in the narrow window between the birth of son William in 1493 and the deaths of the parents by 1495

I would also tentatively identify him with the William whose executors, John Brond and Rose Brond, sued for debt in 1498. He may then be the William named in the will of John Brond pf Boxford whose will (prob 1488) names his widow Rose, his sons John and William and his daughter Alice. If so, it looks like John then would be the prospective grandfather of the Richard, sen, who died 1590.

taf

[taf]

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 7:17:16 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> I also overlooked a visitation. In addition to the Essex and London ones,
> a branch of the family of Brond of Boxford appears in a published Norfolk
> visitation.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=HS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA55

Another note on this visitation. It shows:

1. William Brond of Boxford, Suffolk, m. Emma, daughter of Barhowe by a coheiress of Bardwell of Bardwell Hall, Suffolk.

2. Alice m. William Wystow (alt. Wistraw) of Sudbury.

2. George Brond of Bardwell, Suffolk, m. Elizabeth dau. Thomas Rookewood of Stanfeild, Suffolk.

3. Thomazin m. Edmund Cullen of Dunmow, Essex.

3. Margaret, m. Thomas Reynowe of Bernam Brome, Norfolk.

3. Edmund Brond of Gryston, Norfolk, m. Agnes dau. of Peter Pory (or Pery) of Thomson, Norfolk.

4. Elizabeth Brond


I find in TNA catalog the following, that includes several of these families:

C 1/1291/53-54
Description:
Short title: Bronde v Wystowe.
Plaintiffs: George BRONDE, gentleman.
Defendants: Jasper WYSTOWE of Sudbury, fletcher, and Peter PORYE, gentleman.
Subject: Manor of Waterhouse, lands in Thompson and Griston, and rent charged on the manor of Beadwell.
Date: 1551-1553

If born to William and Emma ca. 1493, that would make George Brond about 50 when this sit was executed, and his son Edmund a young adult. It would not be long after this that Edmund, son of George Brond(e), would marry Agnes, daughter of Peter Pory(e).

Peter Porye/Pory, gent., was the grandfather of John Pory, Speaker of the Virginia Assembly, and Virginia immigrants Peter Pory, gent., and Robert Pory were likely of this family.

taf

[taf]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:01:21 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> > https://books.google.com/books?id=HS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA55
>
> Another note on this visitation. It shows:
>
> 1. William Brond of Boxford, Suffolk, m. Emma, daughter of Barhowe by a coheiress of Bardwell of Bardwell Hall, Suffolk.
>
> 2. Alice m. William Wystow (alt. Wistraw) of Sudbury.
>
> 2. George Brond of Bardwell, Suffolk, m. Elizabeth dau. Thomas Rookewood of Stanfeild, Suffolk.
>
> 3. Thomazin m. Edmund Cullen of Dunmow, Essex.
>
> 3. Margaret, m. Thomas Reynowe of Bernam Brome, Norfolk.
>
> 3. Edmund Brond of Gryston, Norfolk, m. Agnes dau. of Peter Pory (or Pery) of Thomson, Norfolk.

Alice (Brond) Wystowe apparently had an earlier husband. William Wystowe of Sudbury died testate, his 1549 will naming, with non-relatives:

His wife Alice

His son Jasper
Jasper's son Thomas
Jasper's second son
Jasper's daughter Elizabeth

His daughter Agnes Garlyng
Thomas Garlyng, eldest son of Agnes
Thomas's younger brother
Thomas's eldest sister
The children of Agnes; their brothers and sisters

Richard and Margaret Goldyng, "my wifs daughter"
Richard's sons Thomas and Edward Goldyng, Wystowe's godsons

It refers to an annuity "that I have of Sir Thomas Jermyn out of his Manor of Bardwell late of George Bronde"

In 1551, Alice Wystowe wrote her own, naming:

Her deceased husband, William Wystowe
The children of Richard Goldyng and "my daughter" Margaret Goldyng
brother George Bronde
cousin (i.e. nephew) Edmonde Bronde
cousin (i.e. niece) Thomasyn Cullyn
cousin (i.e. niece) Margaret Bronde

Given that Margaret Goldyng is called daughter by Alice, and wife's daughter by William, while William's children are not named by Alice, I think it likely that both William and Alice brought children into their marriage.

taf

[taf]

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 2:17:43 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>
> > There are actually a lot of relevant wills:
> >
> > John, 1487
> > . . .
> > Richard Brond, 1590 (not PCC)
> > William, 1600
> > John, 1611
> > John 1642
> > James 1625
> > Benjamin 1637
> > Jacob 1630
>
> Missed two. There is a 1622 will of Benjamin Brande of Edwardstone, nephew of John (1642), James (1625), Benjamin (1637), Jacob (1630) and Robert (father of Sir John), probably son of Richard d. 1601, son of John (1611).
>
> And one of Peter Brande of Bildeston, 1622, who names John (1642) in his will, but was old enough to have married grandchildren, perhaps the brother of John (1611) or even of Richard (1590). His widow Bridgett likewise died testate, 1633.
>


And one more, the will of Sir John Brand. He does not associate himself with any location (i.e. rather than saying "I John Brande of . . . " he just gives his name. He doesn't call himself knight, although it is recorded int he margin as belonging to Johannes Brand militis. He leaves legacies to his brother Benjamin (under 22), sister Mary (under 21), sister Martha (under 21), uncle John Brande, Master Sands preacher of Boxford, friend Mr Robert Woolrich, & the parish of Boxford. Uncle John is executor, and reports having left "all my bonds" with Woolrich "of Grays Inne". It is undated, probated in April 1625.

This is the son of Robert, son of John (1611).

taf

[g***@gmail.com]

re: Davis
Davis recognized that John Church of Runwell was not the same man as John Church of Maldon. The full opening paragraph of his Church article in _Bethia Harris_ explains it far better than than the limited abstract on FamilySearch:
"Much time and money have been spent in trying to identify the wife of that William Reade of Wickford who in his will made in 1603 named his brother Edmund Church. In the parish of North Benfleet, which adjoins Wickford, an Edmund Church was lord of the principal manor, and it seemed probable that William Reade's wife was one of the four sisters of this man, who was the son of a wealthy lawyer, John Church of Maldon, by his second wife, Mary Tyrrell. The records of this Church family were carefully searched over a period of years, without finding proof of a Church-Reade marriage. The chance examination of a will at Somerset House, however, has produced another John Church with a son Edmund and also definite proof of his daughter's marriage to William Reade."

Thanks
Greg

[James Nathan]

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:42:19 PM UTC-6, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 6:58:04 PM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > per Davis again: "The pedigree credits his son Thomas to his first wife,
> > but it would seem that the mother of his daughter Elizabeth was either the
> > second or third, inasmuch as Elizabeth was m. abt 1594 and had a child born
> > as late as 1614." Given that last date, it would seem Elizabeth is the d.
> > of Susan, if Susan was the 3rd and last wife.
> I think Davis is wrong here. We have two conflicting versions of the pedigree, one deriving the one child shown from the first wife, Margaret Rice, with Susan Brand as the third, the other showing the children as belonging to first wife Susan Brand, with Margaret Rice as the third. Davis has taken a mix and match approach, making Margret the first wife and mother of heir Thomas, while making Elizabeth daughter of third wife Susan. However, if the form of the pedigree reported by Evidences is taken as the authentic version, then the problem evaporates - Elizabeth and Thomas could be children of first wife Susan Brand, with Elizabeth North and Margaret Rice following.
>
> Along these lines, looking at familysearch I find a marriage in 1574 at Colchester between Thomas Cooke and Elizabeth Northye, which I think has to be that of Thomas and "Elizabeth North of Colchester" described in the visitation as the second wife. This would set up a chronology of Thomas Cooke m.1 1568, Susan Brand, with children b. 1569-1573, m.2 1574, Elizabeth Northy, and sometime after that m.3 Margaret Rice.
>
> I note there was a George Northye who was Town Lecturer of Colchester in 1580, but would be suspended in 1583 by the Bishop of London for refusing to subscribe to the articles. He died in 1593.
>
> Regarding the Brand family, there are two handy time points. Sir John Brand was admitted to Gray's Inn 1608. His heir was his uncle John, whose son, also named John, married in 1618. That puts this generation b. ca. 1590, and the previous generation, Robert and John Brand of Boxford, born in the 1560s, hence of the generation after Susan Brand of Boxford. As usual, such back-of-the-envelope estimations can be off.
>
> taf


This assessment seems correct. There are Suffolk feet of fines which mention Thomas Cooke and his wife Margaret beginning in 1579. That fine certainly appears to be for the correct Thomas Cooke, since it involved as plaintiffs Thomas Cooke and Henry Syday (with wife Anne) vs. Geoffrey Syday for properties in Alphamstone, Bures St. Mary, and Lamarshe.

From John Syday's 1539 will, it would seem Henry could be Thomas Cooke's brother-in-law. Based on John Syday calling John Wyncoll of Bures his nephew, and a visitation of that family, it might appear John Syday's father was named William (John did name a son William). The Quedwell(Codwell) connection seems possible to determine since the 1591 will of John Quedwell makes Thomas Cooke of Pedmershe, his cousin, the executor and notes Thomas Cooke's children are Thomas (his godson) and Elizabeth (i.e., the one who would marry Edmund Reade a few years after); John Quedwell also states his father was named John. Feet of fines help identify wives names of this Quedwell family.

Regarding the Brand(Bronde) family, there is an extensive pedigree of this family that I obtained from the Suffolk RO, though unfortunately does not mention a Cooke marriage. It lists the children of Ann and Richard Bronde of Boxford (w.p. 1590) as: John Bronde (b. 1534, m. Mary Luffkey 28 Oct 1559), Peter Bronde of Bildeston (obit. 1615, m. Johann Sadler 26 Sep 1562), William Bronde of Boxford (w.p. 1600, m. Susan Chaplyn 10 Oct 1563), and Richard Bronde (obit. 1595/7, m. Rose Veysey 3 Nov 1563). It is peculiar no daughters are mentioned, but since the 1590 will is available at the Suffolk RO, it might be worth investigating, as the chronology would work. Also, several of these Bronde sons named daughters Susan. John Bronde's 1611 will is extensive and perhaps might mention the Cooke family somewhere.

[taf]

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:35:53 AM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> > Along these lines, looking at familysearch I find a marriage in 1574 at Colchester between Thomas Cooke and Elizabeth Northye, which I think has to be that of Thomas and "Elizabeth North of Colchester" described in the visitation as the second wife. This would set up a chronology of Thomas Cooke m.1 1568, Susan Brand, with children b. 1569-1573, m.2 1574, Elizabeth Northy, and sometime after that m.3 Margaret Rice.

> This assessment seems correct. There are Suffolk feet of fines which mention Thomas Cooke and his wife Margaret beginning in 1579. That fine certainly appears to be for the correct Thomas Cooke, since it involved as plaintiffs Thomas Cooke and Henry Syday (with wife Anne) vs. Geoffrey Syday for properties in Alphamstone, Bures St. Mary, and Lamarshe.
>

Thanks for this. It is always good to have speculation replaced with data. (Plus it is good to see one's instincts weren't leading them astray).

> Regarding the Brand(Bronde) family, there is an extensive pedigree of this family that I obtained from the Suffolk RO, though unfortunately does not mention a Cooke marriage. It lists the children of Ann and Richard Bronde of Boxford (w.p. 1590) as: John Bronde (b. 1534, m. Mary Luffkey 28 Oct 1559), Peter Bronde of Bildeston (obit. 1615, m. Johann Sadler 26 Sep 1562), William Bronde of Boxford (w.p. 1600, m. Susan Chaplyn 10 Oct 1563), and Richard Bronde (obit. 1595/7, m. Rose Veysey 3 Nov 1563). It is peculiar no daughters are mentioned, but since the 1590 will is available at the Suffolk RO, it might be worth investigating, as the chronology would work. Also, several of these Bronde sons named daughters Susan. John Bronde's 1611 will is extensive and perhaps might mention the Cooke family somewhere.

I looked at Suffolk Bronde wills a few months after this was discussed back in 2016, and found absolutely nothing useful to divining the Cooke connection. Those I consulted were:

John Bronde 1468
John Bronde 1480
Peter Bronde 1552
Richard Bronde 1590
Richard Bronde 1595
(John Bronde 1611 - I am not finding the details of this, but I have a note on a Bronde summary file of him having named his 'kinsman John Pootyer' so I must have seen it, and it must not have named Cooke)
Mary Brand 1617
Martha Bronde 1619
Richard Brand 1639
John Brand 1677
Elisabeth Brond 1681

Based on my notes, Richard's 1590 will named no daughters, which need not mean he didn't have any. I had tentatively placed Susan as his daughter, along with Joan m. Roger Lungley.

taf

[James Nathan]

Those I consulted were:
>
> John Bronde 1468
> John Bronde 1480
> Peter Bronde 1552
> Richard Bronde 1590
> Richard Bronde 1595
> (John Bronde 1611 - I am not finding the details of this, but I have a note on a Bronde summary file of him having named his 'kinsman John Pootyer' so I must have seen it, and it must not have named Cooke)
> Mary Brand 1617
> Martha Bronde 1619
> Richard Brand 1639
> John Brand 1677
> Elisabeth Brond 1681
>
> Based on my notes, Richard's 1590 will named no daughters, which need not mean he didn't have any. I had tentatively placed Susan as his daughter, along with Joan m. Roger Lungley.
>
> taf

Thanks for this, as it saves me time. I only scanned the 1611 will quickly, but thought I caught and Edmund Cooke at the end, though again this could be wrong and I wouldn't be able to place that name anyway.

I also thought it might be worthwhile mentioning why the 1561 will of Joan (Syday) Cooke of Pebmarsh possibly had Sewells witness it. Also her father John Syday left things to Sewalls and his will was witnessed by one, so I thought looking into a little. Those families were associated with another beginning in 1456 (449/2/673).

My conclusion was Joan's son Robert Cooke [Jr.], which Davis had limited information on, married a Sewell, since he is called a "brother" in John Sewell's will:

http://www.thekingscandlesticks.com/webs/pedigrees/11586.html

https://archive.org/details/ancestryofbethia00davi/page/86/mode/2up


It does not seem there were many Sewell's at Pembarsh in 1523 to get confused on their ancestry.

Document reference: E 179/108/163
Date: 1523

Location: Pedmarsh
[Selected people and tax paid]
John Syday 26s 4d
Robert Coke 4d
John Cooke 5s
John Sewalle 12d
Robert Syday 2s
Katherine Sydaye widow 12d
John Syday junior 4d

Location: Alphamstone
Thomas Syday 6s
John Sewall 4s
John Syday 4s

[taf]

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:57:50 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> Those I consulted were:
> >
> > John Bronde 1468
> > John Bronde 1480
> > Peter Bronde 1552
> > Richard Bronde 1590
> > Richard Bronde 1595
> > (John Bronde 1611 - I am not finding the details of this, but I have a note on a Bronde summary file of him having named his 'kinsman John Pootyer' so I must have seen it, and it must not have named Cooke)
> > Mary Brand 1617
> > Martha Bronde 1619
> > Richard Brand 1639
> > John Brand 1677
> > Elisabeth Brond 1681
> >
> > Based on my notes, Richard's 1590 will named no daughters, which need not mean he didn't have any. I had tentatively placed Susan as his daughter, along with Joan m. Roger Lungley.

> Thanks for this, as it saves me time. I only scanned the 1611 will quickly, but thought I caught and Edmund Cooke at the end, though again this could be wrong and I wouldn't be able to place that name anyway.
>
I left out of my list Anne Brand, 1617

I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.

taf

[JBrand]

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 12:10:43 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:57:50 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> > Those I consulted were:
> > >
> > > John Bronde 1468
> > > John Bronde 1480
> > > Peter Bronde 1552
> > > Richard Bronde 1590
> > > Richard Bronde 1595
> > > (John Bronde 1611 - I am not finding the details of this, but I have a note on a Bronde summary file of him having named his 'kinsman John Pootyer' so I must have seen it, and it must not have named Cooke)
> > > Mary Brand 1617
> > > Martha Bronde 1619
> > > Richard Brand 1639
> > > John Brand 1677
> > > Elisabeth Brond 1681
> > >
> > > Based on my notes, Richard's 1590 will named no daughters, which need not mean he didn't have any. I had tentatively placed Susan as his daughter, along with Joan m. Roger Lungley.
> > Thanks for this, as it saves me time. I only scanned the 1611 will quickly, but thought I caught and Edmund Cooke at the end, though again this could be wrong and I wouldn't be able to place that name anyway.
> >
> I left out of my list Anne Brand, 1617
>
> I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.
>
> taf

I guess you are saying this son-in-law is someone else, as there were no Edmunds in the Cooke of Pebmarsh family. Or could it be the Cooke of Pebmarsh man?

[taf]

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:08:31 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 12:10:43 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:57:50 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> > > Those I consulted were:
> > > >
> > > > John Bronde 1468
> > > > John Bronde 1480
> > > > Peter Bronde 1552
> > > > Richard Bronde 1590
> > > > Richard Bronde 1595
> > > > (John Bronde 1611 - I am not finding the details of this, but I have a note on a Bronde summary file of him having named his 'kinsman John Pootyer' so I must have seen it, and it must not have named Cooke)
> > > > Mary Brand 1617
> > > > Martha Bronde 1619
> > > > Richard Brand 1639
> > > > John Brand 1677
> > > > Elisabeth Brond 1681
> > > >
> > > > Based on my notes, Richard's 1590 will named no daughters, which need not mean he didn't have any. I had tentatively placed Susan as his daughter, along with Joan m. Roger Lungley.
> > > Thanks for this, as it saves me time. I only scanned the 1611 will quickly, but thought I caught and Edmund Cooke at the end, though again this could be wrong and I wouldn't be able to place that name anyway.
> > >
> > I left out of my list Anne Brand, 1617
> >
> > I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.
> >
> > taf
> I guess you are saying this son-in-law is someone else, as there were no Edmunds in the Cooke of Pebmarsh family. Or could it be the Cooke of Pebmarsh man?

Unclear what you are asking. If you mean whether this 'Edmund' is Thomas of Pedmarch, that seems unlikely as we have two separate wills referring to a (the same?) man of this name. If you mean whether I view Edmund as of the Pedmarch family or a different Cooke family, there is no way to tell.

taf

[JBrand]

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 12:24:26 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:08:31 AM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 12:10:43 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 12:57:50 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> > > > Those I consulted were:
> > > > >
> > > > > John Bronde 1468
> > > > > John Bronde 1480
> > > > > Peter Bronde 1552
> > > > > Richard Bronde 1590
> > > > > Richard Bronde 1595
> > > > > (John Bronde 1611 - I am not finding the details of this, but I have a note on a Bronde summary file of him having named his 'kinsman John Pootyer' so I must have seen it, and it must not have named Cooke)
> > > > > Mary Brand 1617
> > > > > Martha Bronde 1619
> > > > > Richard Brand 1639
> > > > > John Brand 1677
> > > > > Elisabeth Brond 1681
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on my notes, Richard's 1590 will named no daughters, which need not mean he didn't have any. I had tentatively placed Susan as his daughter, along with Joan m. Roger Lungley.
> > > > Thanks for this, as it saves me time. I only scanned the 1611 will quickly, but thought I caught and Edmund Cooke at the end, though again this could be wrong and I wouldn't be able to place that name anyway.
> > > >
> > > I left out of my list Anne Brand, 1617
> > >
> > > I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.
> > >
> > > taf
> > I guess you are saying this son-in-law is someone else, as there were no Edmunds in the Cooke of Pebmarsh family. Or could it be the Cooke of Pebmarsh man?
> Unclear what you are asking. If you mean whether this 'Edmund' is Thomas of Pedmarch, that seems unlikely as we have two separate wills referring to a (the same?) man of this name. If you mean whether I view Edmund as of the Pedmarch family or a different Cooke family, there is no way to tell.
>
> taf

I thought Edmund in the Bronde will might be a mistake for Thomas, but, as you say, the name is Edmund in two wills, so not likely.

[James Nathan]

>
> I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.
>
> taf


From the chronology and onomastics, it would seem Elizabeth Northey as the mother of Elizabeth (Cooke)(Reade) Peter is the better fit. It doesn't seem the Northey family was too large. Richard Northey, the alderman bur. 6 Nov 1572, does have a will (Essex RO, D/ACR 6/328/2), but if he had an unmarried daughter Elizabeth mentioned, it unfortunately would not provide anything concrete.

[taf]

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 1:33:13 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> >
> > I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.
> >
> > taf
> From the chronology and onomastics, it would seem Elizabeth Northey as the mother of Elizabeth (Cooke)(Reade) Peter is the better fit. It doesn't seem the Northey family was too large. Richard Northey, the alderman bur. 6 Nov 1572, does have a will (Essex RO, D/ACR 6/328/2), but if he had an unmarried daughter Elizabeth mentioned, it unfortunately would not provide anything concrete.

Hmmm. It never sits well to pick as the true mother the only wife not attributed any children by our sources, but with so few and those contradictory, anything is possible I guess.

I found an abstract of the will (1593) of Rev George Northey of Colchester buried in a Google Books preview. It says he left legacies to his wife's children by a former husband, Mary and Anne Challenor, and to his own children by her, Thomas, Nathanial and Sarah, with residual legatees being the children of his brothers-in-law Ricahrd Byrde and John Clere. Nothing of seeming value here.

taf

[James Nathan]

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 4:25:32 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 1:33:13 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> > >
> > > I should have specified nothing useful for the Thomas Cooke and Susan Bronde connection. There are a number of Susans, but nothing to deduce any of them was the wife of Thomas Cooke. The will of Richard Bronde of Boxford, probate 1595, also names Edmund Cooke as 'my son in law'. He names wife Joan, sons Richard (eldest), Thomas, and Abraham (youngest), 'those of my four daughters who are married at the time of my death', specifically names daughters Abigail, Mary and Judith to be paid at age 21 money left them by his father. Cooke is current occupant of property left to Abraham.
> > >
> > > taf
> > From the chronology and onomastics, it would seem Elizabeth Northey as the mother of Elizabeth (Cooke)(Reade) Peter is the better fit. It doesn't seem the Northey family was too large. Richard Northey, the alderman bur. 6 Nov 1572, does have a will (Essex RO, D/ACR 6/328/2), but if he had an unmarried daughter Elizabeth mentioned, it unfortunately would not provide anything concrete.
> Hmmm. It never sits well to pick as the true mother the only wife not attributed any children by our sources, but with so few and those contradictory, anything is possible I guess.
>
> I found an abstract of the will (1593) of Rev George Northey of Colchester buried in a Google Books preview. It says he left legacies to his wife's children by a former husband, Mary and Anne Challenor, and to his own children by her, Thomas, Nathanial and Sarah, with residual legatees being the children of his brothers-in-law Ricahrd Byrde and John Clere. Nothing of seeming value here.
>
> taf

I understand what you mean. All I meant was I know Elizabeth (Cooke)(Reade) Peter was unmarried in 1592. Davis attributes her marriage in 1594, probably based on baptism of first child. Just assuming she would have been around aged 20, thus born c1574, makes either Brand or Northey seem possible.

If you wouldn't mind, taf, you stated:
The published Visitation of Essex cannot be taken as face value - this was drawn from Harleian mss 1542, a copy of the visitation, while the version given by Evidences is supposedly from Harleian mss 1083, a copy of the visitation, 1137 (don't know what this is), and 1432 (a collection of Essex pedigrees). I don't see why one Harleian copy of the visitation should be taken as preferable to another.

Based on a nice summary/lesson you gave me in the Epes post (thank you!), do you think it might be worthwhile for me to obtain exactly what the College of Arms has on file? I am a Daniel Epes/Elizabeth Symonds descendant, so I do not mind dishing out some money if there is even a possibility (albeit low) that it could steer me in the right direction. From that post, you did seem to agree with Mr. Tuck that what he would obtain could be more reliable.

[taf]

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 3:53:46 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:

> If you wouldn't mind, taf, you stated:
> The published Visitation of Essex cannot be taken as face value - this was drawn from Harleian mss 1542, a copy of the visitation, while the version given by Evidences is supposedly from Harleian mss 1083, a copy of the visitation, 1137 (don't know what this is), and 1432 (a collection of Essex pedigrees). I don't see why one Harleian copy of the visitation should be taken as preferable to another.
> Based on a nice summary/lesson you gave me in the Epes post (thank you!), do you think it might be worthwhile for me to obtain exactly what the College of Arms has on file? I am a Daniel Epes/Elizabeth Symonds descendant, so I do not mind dishing out some money if there is even a possibility (albeit low) that it could steer me in the right direction. From that post, you did seem to agree with Mr. Tuck that what he would obtain could be more reliable.

We have one source reporting a pedigree based on one copy of the 1634 visitiation made by "Mr. Richard Mundy"(no further details). We have a second source reporting a different pedigree based on three sources: a different copy of the 1634 visitation (no further details), plus a copy of the 1558 visitation, apparently copied by Jacob Chaloner who brought some of the pedigrees down to 1614, and then added to by later owned "Mr John Gough, the Painter-Stainer", fl. 1638, in part from the 1634 visitation, and another copy of the 1634 visitation, either copied by or subsequently owned by John Saunders, painter-stainer.

All of the source manuscripts contain copies or extracts from the same 1634 visitation, yet the resulting reconstructions differ. Getting the original from the College of Arms would specifically answer two questions: In the original vistitation, taken about 60 years after the relevant events, what order of marriages was given (we think we know this), and which wife was given as the mother of the heir, apparently the only child named. It may also include details left out of copies, incidences of copy errors, or information in the copies that were not in the original record.

This is what you will get. I can't tell you whether this is worthwhile, because that is entirely subjective, and would involve weighing personal factors such as your personal financial circumstances and degree of interest in the fine detailsto know whether the cost is worth the likely (and potential) harvest.

taf

[Johnny Brananas]

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:20:42 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 3:53:46 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
>
> > If you wouldn't mind, taf, you stated:
> > The published Visitation of Essex cannot be taken as face value - this was drawn from Harleian mss 1542, a copy of the visitation, while the version given by Evidences is supposedly from Harleian mss 1083, a copy of the visitation, 1137 (don't know what this is), and 1432 (a collection of Essex pedigrees). I don't see why one Harleian copy of the visitation should be taken as preferable to another.
> > Based on a nice summary/lesson you gave me in the Epes post (thank you!), do you think it might be worthwhile for me to obtain exactly what the College of Arms has on file? I am a Daniel Epes/Elizabeth Symonds descendant, so I do not mind dishing out some money if there is even a possibility (albeit low) that it could steer me in the right direction. From that post, you did seem to agree with Mr. Tuck that what he would obtain could be more reliable.
> We have one source reporting a pedigree based on one copy of the 1634 visitiation made by "Mr. Richard Mundy"(no further details). We have a second source reporting a different pedigree based on three sources: a different copy of the 1634 visitation (no further details), plus a copy of the 1558 visitation, apparently copied by Jacob Chaloner who brought some of the pedigrees down to 1614, and then added to by later owned "Mr John Gough, the Painter-Stainer", fl. 1638, in part from the 1634 visitation, and another copy of the 1634 visitation, either copied by or subsequently owned by John Saunders, painter-stainer.
>
> All of the source manuscripts contain copies or extracts from the same 1634 visitation, yet the resulting reconstructions differ. Getting the original from the College of Arms would specifically answer two questions: In the original vistitation, taken about 60 years after the relevant events, what order of marriages was given (we think we know this), and which wife was given as the mother of the heir, apparently the only child named. It may also include details left out of copies, incidences of copy errors, or information in the copies that were not in the original record.
>
> This is what you will get. I can't tell you whether this is worthwhile, because that is entirely subjective, and would involve weighing personal factors such as your personal financial circumstances and degree of interest in the fine detailsto know whether the cost is worth the likely (and potential) harvest.
>
> taf

Returning to the original point of this thread, who are the following persons mentioned in Newport's _Repertorium ecclesiasticum parochiale londinense_?

[concerning Woodham Mortimer, Essex] "In 1567, William Twytton or Twydid preſented twice, in right of Margaret his Wife, late Wife of John Church Gent. to which John Church and Margaret, I find in 6 Eliz. by the Queens Licence, this Mannor of Wodeham-Mortimer was alienated by Leonard Sandell ..."

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433003000647&view=1up&seq=700&q1=twytton

The Church family ancestral to the Reades who intermarried with Epes included a John Church with a (second) wife Margaret at Runwell, not too far (maybe 5 or 6 miles) from Woodham Mortimer.

Anyone have ideas about the actual surname of Margaret's second husband? I'm not finding other Twyttons or Twydid in Essex, though there are some Twytts and Tweeds.

[Johnny Brananas]

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 3:12:23 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 9:20:42 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 3:53:46 PM UTC-8, James Nathan wrote:
> >
> > > If you wouldn't mind, taf, you stated:
> > > The published Visitation of Essex cannot be taken as face value - this was drawn from Harleian mss 1542, a copy of the visitation, while the version given by Evidences is supposedly from Harleian mss 1083, a copy of the visitation, 1137 (don't know what this is), and 1432 (a collection of Essex pedigrees). I don't see why one Harleian copy of the visitation should be taken as preferable to another.
> > > Based on a nice summary/lesson you gave me in the Epes post (thank you!), do you think it might be worthwhile for me to obtain exactly what the College of Arms has on file? I am a Daniel Epes/Elizabeth Symonds descendant, so I do not mind dishing out some money if there is even a possibility (albeit low) that it could steer me in the right direction. From that post, you did seem to agree with Mr. Tuck that what he would obtain could be more reliable.
> > We have one source reporting a pedigree based on one copy of the 1634 visitiation made by "Mr. Richard Mundy"(no further details). We have a second source reporting a different pedigree based on three sources: a different copy of the 1634 visitation (no further details), plus a copy of the 1558 visitation, apparently copied by Jacob Chaloner who brought some of the pedigrees down to 1614, and then added to by later owned "Mr John Gough, the Painter-Stainer", fl. 1638, in part from the 1634 visitation, and another copy of the 1634 visitation, either copied by or subsequently owned by John Saunders, painter-stainer.
> >
> > All of the source manuscripts contain copies or extracts from the same 1634 visitation, yet the resulting reconstructions differ. Getting the original from the College of Arms would specifically answer two questions: In the original vistitation, taken about 60 years after the relevant events, what order of marriages was given (we think we know this), and which wife was given as the mother of the heir, apparently the only child named. It may also include details left out of copies, incidences of copy errors, or information in the copies that were not in the original record.
> >
> > This is what you will get. I can't tell you whether this is worthwhile, because that is entirely subjective, and would involve weighing personal factors such as your personal financial circumstances and degree of interest in the fine detailsto know whether the cost is worth the likely (and potential) harvest.
> >
> > taf
> Returning to the original point of this thread, who are the following persons mentioned in Newport's _Repertorium ecclesiasticum parochiale londinense_?
>
> [concerning Woodham Mortimer, Essex] "In 1567, William Twytton or Twydid preſented twice, in right of Margaret his Wife, late Wife of John Church Gent. to which John Church and Margaret, I find in 6 Eliz. by the Queens Licence, this Mannor of Wodeham-Mortimer was alienated by Leonard Sandell ..."
>
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433003000647&view=1up&seq=700&q1=twytton
>
> The Church family ancestral to the Reades who intermarried with Epes included a John Church with a (second) wife Margaret at Runwell, not too far (maybe 5 or 6 miles) from Woodham Mortimer.
>
> Anyone have ideas about the actual surname of Margaret's second husband? I'm not finding other Twyttons or Twydid in Essex, though there are some Twytts and Tweeds.

Walter Goodwin Davis speculated that Leonard Sandell was a connection of the Sandells who intermarried with Lakes behind the John Lake who married Margaret Reade:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89066158148&view=1up&seq=81&q1=leonard%20sandell

[JBrand]

--Thomas Legat.
-- Edmund Churche of Northants.
--The manor of Runwell Hall , leased by Colet , dean , and the chapter , of St. Paul's , to William Ailoffe and assigned by John Gaynsford , knight , and Alice , his wife , late the wife of the said William, to complainant.
--Essex.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lists_and_Indexes/-fMMAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edmund+churche+of%22+northants+runwell&pg=PA406&printsec=frontco

[JBrand]

On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 2:48:37 AM UTC-4, JBrand wrote:
> --Thomas Legat.
> -- Edmund Churche of Northants.
> --The manor of Runwell Hall , leased by Colet , dean , and the chapter , of St. Paul's , to William Ailoffe and assigned by John Gaynsford , knight , and Alice , his wife , late the wife of the said William, to complainant.
> --Essex.
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lists_and_Indexes/-fMMAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edmund+churche+of%22+northants+runwell&pg=PA406&printsec=frontco

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lists_and_Indexes/bB4RAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22edmund+churche%22+-edmund%27s&pg=PA173&printsec=frontcover

[John Brandon]

Okay, I went back to the HOP biography of Edmund Tyrrell, which states
he "suc.[eeded] g[ran]d.-fa.[ther] 28 Sept. 1543." Then the footnote
to this says, "Date of birth estimated from age at grandfather's
i.p.m., C142/71/98."

From this we can deduce that his age was probably given as "thirty and
more" in the 1543 i.p.m. Would it be quite possible that he was
actually, say, 35 when this inquisition was taken? If so, this could
get us back to 1508, and every little bit helps.

The sketch also mentions "Thomas Tyrrell, his eldest daughter
Thomasine Tyrrell's son who was to succeed to the inheritance." So,
by this account, Mary was not the eldest daughter.

It also seems there were two wills, PCC 33 Carew and PCC 30 Bakon,
"the discrepancies between [them] ... being the subject of a court
sentence" (C142/176/48).

[Tony Hoskins]

""We lived in a very ignorant place, with little means, and hence I
desired to come to New England ...." This doesn't exactly sound like
the daughter of John Haynes, Esquire, later a Governor in New England."

I don't necessarily agree. Early 17th century English rural gentry of
the Puritan stamp could easily find themselves in "very ignorant places"
- places populated by those seen as being ill-informed and uninspired by
the Word, as construed by the unusually Bible-centered and learned
Puritans. It is important to remember that, relatively speaking,
Puritans were much more scripturally-learned in those days than
non-Puritans, whom Puritans would frequently find to be "ignorant".

Tony


Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
Sonoma County Archivist
Sonoma County History and Genealogy Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404

707/545-0831, ext. 562