Discussion:
Further to the Topic of the List´s Coverage
Add Reply
Paul Bulkley
2017-12-07 09:47:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I note that Richard Carruthers has astutely avoided the cause of declining
interest in Gen Med with his unnecessary desire to get the rest of the
world involved.

It would appear that I am to blame for my very amateur requests of data
relating to my ancestors!

Actually I used to submit questions regarding valuable historical documents
BUT there was always a DEATHLY HUSH. Rightly or wrongly I concluded that
few in Gen Med had undertaken any research.

Anyhow the many years have passed by Mr Carruthers, and you have had the
opportunity to make good your lack of research. For that reason I refer to
the 700 odd pages of the Whalley Coucher. What was your conclusion
regarding the Lasceys and the Bulkleys?

Might I emphasise Mr Carruthers that numerous Lancashire families are
mentioned. However none are landed gentry which you apparently have a
fascination. Perhaps you should understand that most of us humble creatures
are not fascinated with your landed gentry BUT are fascinated with the
humble who created and made Great Britain GREAT (alas no longer)

It would resolve the List Coverage if you devoted your efforts to something
of real interest.

Sincerely Yours,

Paul Bulkley
Richard Carruthers
2017-12-08 00:46:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Actually, Paul (or Mr Bulkley, if you prefer), I am interested in lots
of mediaeval people (and others) who are not gentlefolk. My Wiltshire
CARTER ancestors from Purton were manorial serfs from nearby
Malmesbury Abbey whose struggles to become and remain free are the
subject of some coverage in a book I was fortunate enough to pick up
at a local bazaar: "Medieval Village, Manor and Monastery", G. G.
Coulton, 1960 paperback edition (originally Cambridge University
Press, 1925), p. 486 ff. Appendix on "Freemen reduced to Bondage".

That is because I am interested in all the families of people from
Purton, Wiltshire, most of whom, from the high to the low, are related
or connected to me somehow, sometimes in multiple ways I find, thanks
to my mother's maternal grandfather, James LARGE (1835-1912), who was
born in Lambourn, Berks., to parents of Purton stock for many
generations. A search of the archives of this list will demonstrate
that if you care to explore.

In my ERNLE study, which grew out of my Purton research when I
stumbled on the tie to them some 15, or so, years ago, there are
plenty of gentry families mentioned, but also many lines, including my
own, which eventually led to the yeomanry, and, thence, to me.

I trace all my lines, laborious as that may seem. It's just that one
generally has a better chance (on average) of gaining results with
gentlefolk than with yeomen, husbandmen, etc.

In my case, to adapt a phrase from my Anglican upbringing, I take more
pleasure in one obscure person saved from the darkness of oblivion
than from all the royal descents I may be able to discover.

What motivates me is the thrill of a hunt for details of the lives and
family identities and relationship networks of deceased people. I
chose the ERNLEs not so much because they were gentry, at least, in
many instances (though many fell from that status by some measures),
but because, as gentry, they had had a lot published about them, which
I discovered needed a lot of sorting out as there was a great deal of
misinformation and garbling of their story.

Also, in terms of the gentry, the ERNLEs were originally very small
potatoes being listed among those who barely qualified as such,
holding as they did but one manor, originally.

No I am interested in the vicissitudes of families of all types, and
when I get stuck into research that is when I find I begin to find
they begin to come alive to me and encourage my interest which leads
to further delving. Then, like you, I suspect, I become like a dog
worrying at a bone until I get to all the marrow that can be
retrieved.

Good luck with your research. I hope to help many, including you,
where I can, time and other other responsibilities (such as caring for
my 92-year-old legally blind, rather deaf, mother, and only living
ancestor) allowing.

I remain, yours cordially and sincerely,

Richard

Richard Carruthers(-Zurowski)

On 07/12/2017, Paul Bulkley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> I note that Richard Carruthers has astutely avoided the cause of declining
> interest in Gen Med with his unnecessary desire to get the rest of the
> world involved.
>
> It would appear that I am to blame for my very amateur requests of data
> relating to my ancestors!
>
> Actually I used to submit questions regarding valuable historical documents
> BUT there was always a DEATHLY HUSH. Rightly or wrongly I concluded that
> few in Gen Med had undertaken any research.
>
> Anyhow the many years have passed by Mr Carruthers, and you have had the
> opportunity to make good your lack of research. For that reason I refer to
> the 700 odd pages of the Whalley Coucher. What was your conclusion
> regarding the Lasceys and the Bulkleys?
>
> Might I emphasise Mr Carruthers that numerous Lancashire families are
> mentioned. However none are landed gentry which you apparently have a
> fascination. Perhaps you should understand that most of us humble creatures
> are not fascinated with your landed gentry BUT are fascinated with the
> humble who created and made Great Britain GREAT (alas no longer)
>
> It would resolve the List Coverage if you devoted your efforts to something
> of real interest.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Paul Bulkley
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
2017-12-08 11:39:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
________________________________
From: Richard Carruthers
Sent: 08 December 2017 00:46
>>
>> Actually, Paul (or Mr Bulkley, if you prefer), I am interested in lots
of mediaeval people (and others) who are not gentlefolk. My Wiltshire
CARTER ancestors from Purton were manorial serfs from nearby
Malmesbury Abbey whose struggles to become and remain free are the
subject of some coverage in a book I was fortunate enough to pick up
at a local bazaar: "Medieval Village, Manor and Monastery", G. G.
Coulton, 1960 paperback edition (originally Cambridge University
Press, 1925), p. 486 ff. Appendix on "Freemen reduced to Bondage".
>>
>> That is because I am interested in all the families of people from
Purton, Wiltshire, most of whom, from the high to the low, are related
or connected to me somehow, sometimes in multiple ways I find, thanks
to my mother's maternal grandfather, James LARGE (1835-1912), who was
born in Lambourn, Berks., to parents of Purton stock for many
generations. A search of the archives of this list will demonstrate
that if you care to explore.
>>

How interesting, Richard. How far back have you been able to trace the Carters or any other Purton families back into the middle ages? Were you able to find them in any records of the manor of Purton? There don't seem to be any surviving court rolls from the principal manor of Purton, but the Manorial Documents Register lists some from a Purton Wootton manor from 1398-1449 (SC 2/209/48), and some other later records), and also rentals of the principal Purton manor from 1390-1391 and 1439-40 (TNA SC 12/1/1, fos. 13, 14, 17). And a rental of Purton Paynel and Purton Keynes manors from 1412-13 (SC 12/16/62).


Here is a tiny piece of grist for your Purton mill which I came across recently while compiling a database of ordinary late medieval rural people and their material possessions: TNA E 357/7, rot. 13 and E 136/6/13, m. 9 (the account of the escheator of Hants, Wilts, Oxon and Berks for Feb 1374 - Feb 1375) records that 21s. were received by the exchequer for the value of the forfeited goods and chattels of two felons recently hanged in Wiltshire, John Drapere of Mere and Nicholas Sherman of Purton. Not ancestors of yours, I hope?


>> In my ERNLE study, which grew out of my Purton research when I
stumbled on the tie to them some 15, or so, years ago, there are
plenty of gentry families mentioned, but also many lines, including my
own, which eventually led to the yeomanry, and, thence, to me.
>>
>> I trace all my lines, laborious as that may seem. It's just that one
generally has a better chance (on average) of gaining results with
gentlefolk than with yeomen, husbandmen, etc.
>>
>> In my case, to adapt a phrase from my Anglican upbringing, I take more
pleasure in one obscure person saved from the darkness of oblivion
than from all the royal descents I may be able to discover.
>>

My point of view precisely - the ordinary people at the bottom of the social pyramid are much more interesting than the aristocratic parasites maintained by their labour and enterprise.

Matt Tompkins


>> What motivates me is the thrill of a hunt for details of the lives and
family identities and relationship networks of deceased people. I
chose the ERNLEs not so much because they were gentry, at least, in
many instances (though many fell from that status by some measures),
but because, as gentry, they had had a lot published about them, which
I discovered needed a lot of sorting out as there was a great deal of
misinformation and garbling of their story.
>>
>> Also, in terms of the gentry, the ERNLEs were originally very small
potatoes being listed among those who barely qualified as such,
holding as they did but one manor, originally.
>>
>> No I am interested in the vicissitudes of families of all types, and
when I get stuck into research that is when I find I begin to find
they begin to come alive to me and encourage my interest which leads
to further delving. Then, like you, I suspect, I become like a dog
worrying at a bone until I get to all the marrow that can be
retrieved.
>>




-------------------------------
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
Ian Goddard
2017-12-09 15:50:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 08/12/17 11:39, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:
> My point of view precisely - the ordinary people at the bottom of the social pyramid are much more interesting than the aristocratic parasites maintained by their labour and enterprise.

Careful, there, Matt. You know what the peasants thought about lawyers ;)

--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk
Peter G. M. Dale
2020-07-14 19:13:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hi Matt,

I trust you are keeping well and safe in these strange Covid-19 times! I have a brief request for advice if you don’t mind. I posted it elsewhere here but am uncertain whether you will see it.

I’m curious if there is a way to identify whether an IPM exists for the following entry in the Calendar of the Fine Rolls, Volume XXI, p. 261, dated February 10, 1484:

"Writs of diem clausit extremum, after the death of the following persons, directed to the escheators in the counties named: - ... [Membrane 2. 739] ... Feb. 10, 1484 - Margaret late the wife of Nicholas Parker (late the wife of Robert Pakenham); Norfolk."
(https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293400201293&view=1up&seq=277)

Any assistance would be much appreciated!

Cheers,

Pete Dale
pdale (at) peterdale (dot) com
taf
2020-07-14 19:48:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 12:13:21 PM UTC-7, Peter G. M. Dale wrote:

> I’m curious if there is a way to identify whether an IPM exists for the following entry in the Calendar of the Fine Rolls, Volume XXI, p. 261, dated February 10, 1484:
>
> "Writs of diem clausit extremum, after the death of the following persons, directed to the escheators in the counties named: - ... [Membrane 2. 739] ... Feb. 10, 1484 - Margaret late the wife of Nicholas Parker (late the wife of Robert Pakenham); Norfolk."
> (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293400201293&view=1up&seq=277)

I turned up nothing on The National Archives Discovery catalogue, and no such ipm listed in the Calendarium Inquisitionum Post Mortem.

taf
Peter G. M. Dale
2020-07-14 20:45:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 3:48:02 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 12:13:21 PM UTC-7, Peter G. M. Dale wrote:
>
> > I’m curious if there is a way to identify whether an IPM exists for the following entry in the Calendar of the Fine Rolls, Volume XXI, p. 261, dated February 10, 1484:
> >
> > "Writs of diem clausit extremum, after the death of the following persons, directed to the escheators in the counties named: - ... [Membrane 2. 739] ... Feb. 10, 1484 - Margaret late the wife of Nicholas Parker (late the wife of Robert Pakenham); Norfolk."
> > (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293400201293&view=1up&seq=277)
>
> I turned up nothing on The National Archives Discovery catalogue, and no such ipm listed in the Calendarium Inquisitionum Post Mortem.
>
> taf

Thank you sir. I appreciate your assistance.
Peter Stewart
2017-12-08 12:11:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 08-Dec-17 10:39 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:

<snip>

>> My point of view precisely - the ordinary people at the bottom of the social pyramid are much more interesting than the aristocratic parasites maintained by their labour and enterprise.

I take your point, but I find the extraordinary more interesting than
the ordinary at any level of the social pyramid - and the trouble with a
preferential focus on the toiling people is that they come to be treated
only as types, since we can know so little about individual lives and
characters. Perhaps at the end of the medieval era there are more
opportunities than earlier on.

Also I'm not sure that doing the military heavy-lifting in belligerent
feudal societies was exactly parasitic: for European aristocracies the
worst degeneration came about later.

Peter Stewart
Ian Goddard
2017-12-09 15:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 08/12/17 12:11, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 08-Dec-17 10:39 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> My point of view precisely -  the ordinary people at the bottom of
>>> the social pyramid are much more interesting than the aristocratic
>>> parasites maintained by their labour and enterprise.
>
> I take your point, but I find the extraordinary more interesting than
> the ordinary at any level of the social pyramid - and the trouble with a
> preferential focus on the toiling people is that they come to be treated
> only as types, since we can know so little about individual lives and
> characters.

It depends. From my window I could, if it wasn't snowing, see the
stretch of hillside which is believed to have given its name to my
Littlewood ancestors. On my way to the shop this morning I drove
through the area which gave its name to my Hinchliffe ancestors and
fairly near the place which I suspect gave its name to my Broadhead
ancestors. I also drove over the culvert which replaced the ford where
one of my Littlewoods was killed falling off of his horse.

Even back in the medieval we can, if we have good manorial records,
glean a good deal about what you call the toiling people.

We know that the whole people of the vill of Littlewood denounced their
grave (or maybe it was the constable - I can't remember off-hand) for
negligence (interesting in itself because Littlewood wasn't a vill in
the sense of being a township and thus didn't have specific officers
according to what we normally read in the rolls). We know that land was
taken in from the waste at Hinchliffe in the early C14th and that
shortly afterwards the surname is used in the rolls. We know that the
Broadheads were frequently mentioned as foresters in the medieval period
and seem to have been the leading family of their township for longer
than that.

The difficulty is often relating ourselves to specific ancestors because
of gaps in the record and these gaps aren't always medieval.

>
> Also I'm not sure that doing the military heavy-lifting in belligerent
> feudal societies was exactly parasitic

I don't think those whose role was simply to do or die considered they'd
been given light work, especially as they accomplished the latter in
great numbers. Just because we number them exponentially by counting
the zeroes on the end of the death toll doesn't mean they were zeroes
themselves. They were all somebody's sons and, with luck, somebody's
husbands and fathers.

It was they who built the churches and castles, not those who paid for
them or commissioned them. It was they who created whole industries
from scratch.

They were all individual human beings like ourselves, all with their
individual stories and all worthy of our attention.

--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk
Peter Stewart
2017-12-09 21:11:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 10-Dec-17 2:53 AM, Ian Goddard wrote:
> On 08/12/17 12:11, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 08-Dec-17 10:39 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> My point of view precisely -  the ordinary people at the bottom of
>>>> the social pyramid are much more interesting than the aristocratic
>>>> parasites maintained by their labour and enterprise.
>>
>> I take your point, but I find the extraordinary more interesting than
>> the ordinary at any level of the social pyramid - and the trouble
>> with a preferential focus on the toiling people is that they come to
>> be treated only as types, since we can know so little about
>> individual lives and characters.
>
> It depends.  From my window I could, if it wasn't snowing, see the
> stretch of hillside which is believed to have given its name to my
> Littlewood ancestors.  On my way to the shop this morning I drove
> through the area which gave its name to my Hinchliffe ancestors and
> fairly near the place which I suspect gave its name to my Broadhead
> ancestors.  I also drove over the culvert which replaced the ford
> where one of my Littlewoods was killed falling off of his horse.
>
> Even back in the medieval we can, if we have good manorial records,
> glean a good deal about what you call the toiling people.
>
> We know that the whole people of the vill of Littlewood denounced
> their grave (or maybe it was the constable - I can't remember
> off-hand) for negligence (interesting in itself because Littlewood
> wasn't a vill in the sense of being a township and thus didn't have
> specific officers according to what we normally read in the rolls). 
> We know that land was taken in from the waste at Hinchliffe in the
> early C14th and that shortly afterwards the surname is used in the
> rolls.  We know that the Broadheads were frequently mentioned as
> foresters in the medieval period and seem to have been the leading
> family of their township for longer than that.
>
> The difficulty is often relating ourselves to specific ancestors
> because of gaps in the record and these gaps aren't always medieval.
>
>>
>> Also I'm not sure that doing the military heavy-lifting in
>> belligerent feudal societies was exactly parasitic
>
> I don't think those whose role was simply to do or die considered
> they'd been given light work, especially as they accomplished the
> latter in great numbers.  Just because we number them exponentially by
> counting the zeroes on the end of the death toll doesn't mean they
> were zeroes themselves.  They were all somebody's sons and, with luck,
> somebody's husbands and fathers.
>
> It was they who built the churches and castles, not those who paid for
> them or commissioned them.  It was they who created whole industries
> from scratch.
>
> They were all individual human beings like ourselves, all with their
> individual stories and all worthy of our attention.

The trouble I was pointing out is that we can't know their individual
stories, not that these don't matter.

"Those whose role was simply to do or die" is a modern take on medieval
warfare - the rate at which families lost sons in battle before the use
of gunpowder was probably in inverse proportion to their socio-economic
status, or at least comparatively so. Local petty strife also cost
lives, of course, and may have begun with disputes at the "lower"
levels, but if the result was any kind of pitched battle then the
"higher-ups" were usually expected to take over. That was the basic
feudal bargain.

My view is that the medieval aristocracy, in the broadest of terms, were
predatory rather than parasitic.

Peter Stewart
Ian Goddard
2017-12-09 21:29:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 09/12/17 21:11, Peter Stewart wrote:
> The trouble I was pointing out is that we can't know their individual
> stories, not that these don't matter.

Here's one attempt: http://familytree.dearnley.com/

There's still scope for some gap-filling and corrections; in particular,
at time of writing I think there's a tree merge pending. But AFAICS
Mark has done a stupendous job. What we really lack is the connection
between the 1444 case and the early Glossop families.

--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk
Peter Stewart
2017-12-09 21:44:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 10-Dec-17 8:29 AM, Ian Goddard wrote:
> On 09/12/17 21:11, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> The trouble I was pointing out is that we can't know their individual
>> stories, not that these don't matter.
>
> Here's one attempt: http://familytree.dearnley.com/
>
> There's still scope for some gap-filling and corrections; in
> particular, at time of writing I think there's a tree merge pending. 
> But AFAICS Mark has done a stupendous job.  What we really lack is the
> connection between the 1444 case and the early Glossop families.

Did you mean this page? http://familytree.dearnley.com/pre_1500.html

If so, I don't find what I mean by individual stories there (unless you
consider property transactions to be the stuff of life).

Peter Stewart
Richard Carruthers
2017-12-09 00:57:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 08/12/2017, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) <***@leicester.ac.uk> wrote:
> ________________________________
> From: Richard Carruthers
> Sent: 08 December 2017 00:46
>>>
>>> Actually, Paul (or Mr Bulkley, if you prefer), I am interested in lots
> of mediaeval people (and others) who are not gentlefolk. My Wiltshire
> CARTER ancestors from Purton were manorial serfs from nearby
> Malmesbury Abbey whose struggles to become and remain free are the
> subject of some coverage in a book I was fortunate enough to pick up
> at a local bazaar: "Medieval Village, Manor and Monastery", G. G.
> Coulton, 1960 paperback edition (originally Cambridge University
> Press, 1925), p. 486 ff. Appendix on "Freemen reduced to Bondage".
>>>
>>> That is because I am interested in all the families of people from
> Purton, Wiltshire, most of whom, from the high to the low, are related
> or connected to me somehow, sometimes in multiple ways I find, thanks
> to my mother's maternal grandfather, James LARGE (1835-1912), who was
> born in Lambourn, Berks., to parents of Purton stock for many
> generations. A search of the archives of this list will demonstrate
> that if you care to explore.
>>>
>
> How interesting, Richard. How far back have you been able to trace the
> Carters or any other Purton families back into the middle ages? Were you
> able to find them in any records of the manor of Purton? There don't seem
> to be any surviving court rolls from the principal manor of Purton, but the
> Manorial Documents Register lists some from a Purton Wootton manor from
> 1398-1449 (SC 2/209/48), and some other later records), and also rentals of
> the principal Purton manor from 1390-1391 and 1439-40 (TNA SC 12/1/1, fos.
> 13, 14, 17). And a rental of Purton Paynel and Purton Keynes manors from
> 1412-13 (SC 12/16/62).
>
>
> Here is a tiny piece of grist for your Purton mill which I came across
> recently while compiling a database of ordinary late medieval rural people
> and their material possessions: TNA E 357/7, rot. 13 and E 136/6/13, m. 9
> (the account of the escheator of Hants, Wilts, Oxon and Berks for Feb 1374
> - Feb 1375) records that 21s. were received by the exchequer for the value
> of the forfeited goods and chattels of two felons recently hanged in
> Wiltshire, John Drapere of Mere and Nicholas Sherman of Purton. Not
> ancestors of yours, I hope?

Thank you Matt. I discovered my Purton CARTER descent via my Purton
research. Later, reading Sir Anthony Wagner's "Pedigree and Progress",
I came across his tree of the Eton schoolmaster and Anglican clerical
family of CARTER founded by a member of the Purton family who became
agent to the Earl of Suffolk (if memory serves). An undergraduate at
Balliol at the time, Sir A.'s old college, I wrote to him at the
College of Arms, and received a reply indicating whence he had gained
his knowledge (a member of the Eton CARTER family).

More recently, in 2004, I visited an Eton CARTER in London, and saw
the massive tree compiled by some of his forebears taking the family
back to the Middle Ages in North Wilts. It was only by chance that I
discovered the servile origins of the tribe when I read Coulton. The
bondsman status of the family was left off the tree, possibly for
reasons one can well imagine, though times changing, they might be
prouder to lay claim to them now.
Certainly their inclusion would have made Sir Anthony's point even
more strongly.

So, in answer, I haven't obtained all the manorial records for Purton,
though I did manage to find some of them at TNA when I was last there
in 2007, and at WSRO in Trowbridge on its last ever public research
day in April 2007.

What I should really like to obtain are all the historic taxation
records with reference to names of the members of the local population
over the centuries along with the remaining manorial records in the
E-class collections of TNA. Alas, I am not well situated to do that
here in Vancouver.


>>> In my case, to adapt a phrase from my Anglican upbringing, I take more
> pleasure in one obscure person saved from the darkness of oblivion
> than from all the royal descents I may be able to discover.
>>>
>
> My point of view precisely - the ordinary people at the bottom of the
> social pyramid are much more interesting than the aristocratic parasites
> maintained by their labour and enterprise.
>
> Matt Tompkins
>

I am not quite on the same wavelength about the role of aristocrats,
being something of an old High Tory myself, despite the reputation of
my old college for spawning Marxist historians such as our old master,
Christopher Hill.;)

What I meant was that I like to concentrate my research on attempts to
rescue the more obscure from undeserved perdition rather than simply
cursorily going over ground that so many have trodden en route from
the gentry through the nobility to royalty. That doesn't mean that I
don't occasionally look into some of them, but too often I find that
there is almost too much about them to come to grips with that subject
properly.

I was gratified on some level to find that I had royal descents via my
Wiltshire RICHMOND alias WEBB ancestry but, without doing all the work
on their ancestry myself, I cannot say that I relate very closely to
them on a personal level. Our late lamented colleague Leo van de Pas
had collected them all for me (and for everyone else) very nicely, but
I find that it is only through the process of researching an
individual and his or her connexions and doings painstakingly that
they begin to come alive to me.

This could happen with some rotten old (or good) king or princeling,
but more often than not someone has done that already.

I did take some genealogical pleasure for instance in discovering that
via my ERNLE descent from Constantine DARELL, of Collingbourne Abbas,
Wilts. (one of the Sessay DARELL family) that my forebear, Thomas
ERNLE (d. 1595), a rather obscure Wilts. gent., and founder of my
cadet branch of the family, was a 4th cousin of KING EDWARD VI. As
someone with somewhat High Church tendencies myself, I was gratified
to note the link to the original Book of Common Prayer, and to the
origins of what later became such a conflict within both the nation
and the ERNLE family itself a century later.

Meanwhile, I am happy to beaver away on somewhat humbler folk,
establishing the nice distinctions between the parish and county
gentry, decayed gentry, rich, poor, and middling yeomanry, husbandmen,
cottars, merchants, lower and higher clergy and all the great mass of
English folk at the local level, in an attempt to build up a better
picture of the wider Wiltshire (or wherever) community and its
genealogical (and other) ramifications.

Occasionally this leads me to happy discoveries of where the micro and
macro parts of national history intersect. I am still working on
aspects of the long term ties between the ERNLEs and the courtier
DUDLEYs, and court service in general by various members of the ERNLE
sib. Last year, I discovered the origins of Dorothy ERNLE a member of
the household of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, and ties which lead
to Erasmian circles.

I am working on an article for the Society of Genealogists on that and
another ERNLE puzzle which involves errors in the published Glos.
POYNTZ and allied Hants. BULKELEY pedigree which I have managed to
sort out yielding a spouse for an ERNLE MP, and a better understanding
of his role as a feoffee for Glos. interests of my lord of Arundel in
the 15th century.

I particularly enjoy it when my research throws light on matters of
wider national interest, and I am a firm believer in the importance of
careful prosopographical genealogical research for solving some of the
puzzles underlying our national history. That may seem tritely
obvious, but I am sorry not to see more evidence in my day to day
reading of this list of a process which is probably taking place very
regularly in the studies and libraries of many a worthy scholar. It
would be wonderful for their to be something of a central
clearinghouse for genealogical and historical projects in general so
that one could have a better idea of what was going on across the
wider genealogical community. Theoretically, this list could serve as
just such a venue (as I expect I am not alone in imagining).

All the best,

Richard
(back to work!)
Loading...