Discussion:
Henry II descent for the Washburn brothers
Add Reply
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-06 22:24:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Back in 2018, D.E. Mitchel posted a supposed Edward I descent for immigrants John Washburn and, though he wasn't named, William Washburn. As Brad Verity showed, it failed because Joyce la Zouche was not Eleanor de Clare's daughter. However, there's still a Henry II descent via her husband John Botetourt.

Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn

Yes, I know this entire descent depends on the Washburn brothers' geeatgreatgrandfather John Washburn of Bengeworth being the same as the second son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mytton. However, Angela Bristow made a very convincing argument that they, really, were the same. She's deleted most of her posts but they are still available in Narkive, read https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/RUQrqohk/medieval-royal-line-for-john-washburn-immigrant-to-plymouth-colony-mass and
https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/ikDzAfbs/significance-of-finding-the-wichenford-washbourne-crest-at-bengeworth. There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept this one?
Thoughts?
p***@panix.com
2020-05-07 22:54:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are
much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept
this one?Thoughts?
My "Thoughts?" are: Which experts? Which "approved royal descents"? Be
specific or stop wasting everybody's attention and time.
P J Evans
2020-05-07 23:04:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@panix.com
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are
much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept
this one?Thoughts?
My "Thoughts?" are: Which experts? Which "approved royal descents"? Be
specific or stop wasting everybody's attention and time.
My thoughts are that Paulo wants to find royal ancestors for himself or someone he knows, and thinks that we're here to validate him, if not to do the work for him.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-07 23:07:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by P J Evans
Post by p***@panix.com
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are
much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept
this one?Thoughts?
My "Thoughts?" are: Which experts? Which "approved royal descents"? Be
specific or stop wasting everybody's attention and time.
My thoughts are that Paulo wants to find royal ancestors for himself or someone he knows, and thinks that we're here to validate him, if not to do the work for him.
I feel offended by this. I'm not descended from the Washburns. I'm not even American. I simply find this question intriguing.
Peter Stewart
2020-05-07 23:30:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by P J Evans
Post by p***@panix.com
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are
much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept
this one?Thoughts?
My "Thoughts?" are: Which experts? Which "approved royal descents"? Be
specific or stop wasting everybody's attention and time.
My thoughts are that Paulo wants to find royal ancestors for himself or someone he knows, and thinks that we're here to validate him, if not to do the work for him.
I don't think this is fair - Paulo has been raising questions here over
a few years now (I think) about widely diverse families and individuals
that are not tied to modern descents.

Often he does not appear to take quite as much trouble over his posts as
others usually do, and occasionally he seems to be throwing off ideas
that have not been carefully thought out, but we know nothing of the
time and resource constraints he may be working under. As a student, his
interest in researching medieval genealogy may be a sideline for which
he can spare only limited attention.

For me his participation here has been positive and helpful.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-07 23:05:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@panix.com
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are
much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept
this one?Thoughts?
My "Thoughts?" are: Which experts? Which "approved royal descents"? Be
specific or stop wasting everybody's attention and time.
By experts, I mean Douglas Richardson and Gary Boyd Roberts.
As for approved royal descents, for example, Richard Palgrave, read https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/4pFgoB_Mzk0/1lHhLOOzLAAJ. At least for me the case for John Washburn of Bengeworth's identity is as good as that of Richard Palgrave.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-07 23:20:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Back in 2018, D.E. Mitchel posted a supposed Edward I descent for immigrants John Washburn and, though he wasn't named, William Washburn. As Brad Verity showed, it failed because Joyce la Zouche was not Eleanor de Clare's daughter. However, there's still a Henry II descent via her husband John Botetourt.
Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn
Yes, I know this entire descent depends on the Washburn brothers' geeatgreatgrandfather John Washburn of Bengeworth being the same as the second son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mytton. However, Angela Bristow made a very convincing argument that they, really, were the same. She's deleted most of her posts but they are still available in Narkive, read https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/RUQrqohk/medieval-royal-line-for-john-washburn-immigrant-to-plymouth-colony-mass and
https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/ikDzAfbs/significance-of-finding-the-wichenford-washbourne-crest-at-bengeworth. There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept this one?
Thoughts?
Apologies for a mistake. I accidentally added a John Washburn. John Washburn od Bengeworth was, actually, the immigrants' great-grandfather.
John Higgins
2020-05-08 00:07:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Back in 2018, D.E. Mitchel posted a supposed Edward I descent for immigrants John Washburn and, though he wasn't named, William Washburn. As Brad Verity showed, it failed because Joyce la Zouche was not Eleanor de Clare's daughter. However, there's still a Henry II descent via her husband John Botetourt.
Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn
Yes, I know this entire descent depends on the Washburn brothers' geeatgreatgrandfather John Washburn of Bengeworth being the same as the second son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mytton. However, Angela Bristow made a very convincing argument that they, really, were the same. She's deleted most of her posts but they are still available in Narkive, read https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/RUQrqohk/medieval-royal-line-for-john-washburn-immigrant-to-plymouth-colony-mass and
https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/ikDzAfbs/significance-of-finding-the-wichenford-washbourne-crest-at-bengeworth. There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept this one?
Thoughts?
This matter was discussed at length in 2018 and 2019. I doubt that other participants in those discussions would agree that "a very convincing argument" was made for the desired conclusion. In fact, as I recall, serious logical flaws were asserted - and hotly contested. I see no reason to rehash this matter again, unless you have new evidence to present or you can give new reasons (i.e., not already presented) for your judgment that this was "a very convincing argument".

I think the frustration reflected in some of the other responses to this current post is due to the point that Peter Stewart has made: "Often he does not appear to take quite as much trouble over his posts as others usually do, and occasionally he seems to be throwing off ideas that have not been carefully thought out". There may be reasons for this, but this group is, by its very nature, is very contentious and can be very disputatious in its arguments. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
taf
2020-05-08 00:39:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
This matter was discussed at length in 2018 and 2019. I doubt that other
participants in those discussions would agree that "a very convincing
argument" was made for the desired conclusion.
Oh, right. Now I remember it. I came away thinking that it was possible but not likely.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-08 11:46:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Back in 2018, D.E. Mitchel posted a supposed Edward I descent for immigrants John Washburn and, though he wasn't named, William Washburn. As Brad Verity showed, it failed because Joyce la Zouche was not Eleanor de Clare's daughter. However, there's still a Henry II descent via her husband John Botetourt.
Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn
Yes, I know this entire descent depends on the Washburn brothers' geeatgreatgrandfather John Washburn of Bengeworth being the same as the second son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mytton. However, Angela Bristow made a very convincing argument that they, really, were the same. She's deleted most of her posts but they are still available in Narkive, read https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/RUQrqohk/medieval-royal-line-for-john-washburn-immigrant-to-plymouth-colony-mass and
https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/ikDzAfbs/significance-of-finding-the-wichenford-washbourne-crest-at-bengeworth. There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept this one?
Thoughts?
This matter was discussed at length in 2018 and 2019. I doubt that other participants in those discussions would agree that "a very convincing argument" was made for the desired conclusion. In fact, as I recall, serious logical flaws were asserted - and hotly contested. I see no reason to rehash this matter again, unless you have new evidence to present or you can give new reasons (i.e., not already presented) for your judgment that this was "a very convincing argument".
I think the frustration reflected in some of the other responses to this current post is due to the point that Peter Stewart has made: "Often he does not appear to take quite as much trouble over his posts as others usually do, and occasionally he seems to be throwing off ideas that have not been carefully thought out". There may be reasons for this, but this group is, by its very nature, is very contentious and can be very disputatious in its arguments. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I did hesitate on posting this. I decided to post it because the 2018 and 2019 debates had started with an Edward I descent, which, as Brad Verity showed, failed several generations before the Washburns. This, however, is a completely documented Henry II descent for John Washburn of Wichenford.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-08 11:57:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Call me credulous if you want, but I consider the Washburn link extremely likely. As the Narkive archives are somewhat disorganized, I'll sum up the evidence: Wichenford and Bengeworth are close, there's no other candidate for identifying with John Washburn of Bengeworth other than the namesake second son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mytton (Any undocumented member of a younger line probably would have been much poorer than John Washburn of Bengeworth was. The Washburns of Wichenford were gentry but not prosperous.), the Washburns of Bengeworth had a tradition of being descended from royalty and they used the same crest as those of Wichenford.
Angela Bristow also defeated the argument that Washburns owning property and paying taxes in Bengeworth a couple of centuries earlier meant that John Washburn of Bengeworth was descended from them. In fact, they appear to have been members of the senior line, that owned property in Bengeworth, but did not live there.
I think that the Washburns are one of the very few cases where the experts are wrong and the amateurs are right.
taf
2020-05-08 12:32:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Wichenford and Bengeworth are close, there's no other candidate for
identifying with John Washburn of Bengeworth other than the namesake
second son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mytton (Any
undocumented member of a younger line probably would have been much
poorer than John Washburn of Bengeworth was. The Washburns of
Wichenford were gentry but not prosperous.)
These minor gentry families spun off lines from the 13th century down to the 16th century that frequently pass below they radar until they suddenly make an appearance in later visitations or other sources of the 16th and 17th century, using the same arms as the senior line. We are seeing exactly that in the ongoing Cuerten discussion, and have seen it time and again in other discussions here. In such a context, saying there is 'no other candidate' gives a false sense of the degree to which we all the possible candidates can be identified.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-08 13:07:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Wichenford and Bengeworth are close, there's no other candidate for
identifying with John Washburn of Bengeworth other than the namesake
second son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mytton (Any
undocumented member of a younger line probably would have been much
poorer than John Washburn of Bengeworth was. The Washburns of
Wichenford were gentry but not prosperous.)
These minor gentry families spun off lines from the 13th century down to the 16th century that frequently pass below they radar until they suddenly make an appearance in later visitations or other sources of the 16th and 17th century, using the same arms as the senior line. We are seeing exactly that in the ongoing Cuerten discussion, and have seen it time and again in other discussions here. In such a context, saying there is 'no other candidate' gives a false sense of the degree to which we all the possible candidates can be identified.
taf
I addressed that in the parenthesis. If John Washburn of Bengeworth was member of an undocumented younger line, he almost certainly wouldn't have owned as much property as he did. John Washburn of Wichenford literally had to kidnap a bride for his oldest son Robert and his third son depended on his relatives' charity. A younger line would have been even poorer.
Peter D. A. Warwick
2020-05-08 17:07:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
We've gone over all of this before and currently there is no direct or strong circumstantial evidence linking John Washburn of Bengeworth with the Washburns of Wichenford. Personally I wish there was, but that simply isn't the case at present.
taf
2020-05-08 20:23:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I addressed that in the parenthesis. If John Washburn of Bengeworth was
member of an undocumented younger line, he almost certainly wouldn't have
owned as much property as he did.
Sorry, but did I miss some limitation on the amount of property a scion of a younger branch could hold? One good marriage or act of feudal favor and the scion could easily have acquired more property than the senior line.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
John Washburn of Wichenford literally had to kidnap a bride for his oldest
son Robert and his third son depended on his relatives' charity. A younger
line would have been even poorer.
Doesn't really work that way. There is not a linear relationship that correlates property owned with proximity to the senior line. Many a junior line became filthy rich.

taf
John Higgins
2020-05-08 17:08:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Back in 2018, D.E. Mitchel posted a supposed Edward I descent for immigrants John Washburn and, though he wasn't named, William Washburn. As Brad Verity showed, it failed because Joyce la Zouche was not Eleanor de Clare's daughter. However, there's still a Henry II descent via her husband John Botetourt.
Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn
Yes, I know this entire descent depends on the Washburn brothers' geeatgreatgrandfather John Washburn of Bengeworth being the same as the second son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mytton. However, Angela Bristow made a very convincing argument that they, really, were the same. She's deleted most of her posts but they are still available in Narkive, read https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/RUQrqohk/medieval-royal-line-for-john-washburn-immigrant-to-plymouth-colony-mass and
https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/ikDzAfbs/significance-of-finding-the-wichenford-washbourne-crest-at-bengeworth. There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept this one?
Thoughts?
This matter was discussed at length in 2018 and 2019. I doubt that other participants in those discussions would agree that "a very convincing argument" was made for the desired conclusion. In fact, as I recall, serious logical flaws were asserted - and hotly contested. I see no reason to rehash this matter again, unless you have new evidence to present or you can give new reasons (i.e., not already presented) for your judgment that this was "a very convincing argument".
I think the frustration reflected in some of the other responses to this current post is due to the point that Peter Stewart has made: "Often he does not appear to take quite as much trouble over his posts as others usually do, and occasionally he seems to be throwing off ideas that have not been carefully thought out". There may be reasons for this, but this group is, by its very nature, is very contentious and can be very disputatious in its arguments. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I did hesitate on posting this. I decided to post it because the 2018 and 2019 debates had started with an Edward I descent, which, as Brad Verity showed, failed several generations before the Washburns. This, however, is a completely documented Henry II descent for John Washburn of Wichenford.
"Completely documented"? That's a pretty strong position to take under the circumstances, and in light of the previous discussions. What exactly is the "complete documentation" (not conjecture or hypothesis) that John Washburn of Bengeworth (whose wife was Emma) was the son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton? Perhaps you should reconsider your choice of words...

BTW back on Oct. 7, 2018, Todd Farmerie showed how this supposed connection of Washburn of Bengeworth to John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton was chronologically difficult. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/Cl2bhK-1Hf4/a-OKQbduBAAJ
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-08 17:35:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Back in 2018, D.E. Mitchel posted a supposed Edward I descent for immigrants John Washburn and, though he wasn't named, William Washburn. As Brad Verity showed, it failed because Joyce la Zouche was not Eleanor de Clare's daughter. However, there's still a Henry II descent via her husband John Botetourt.
Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn
Yes, I know this entire descent depends on the Washburn brothers' geeatgreatgrandfather John Washburn of Bengeworth being the same as the second son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mytton. However, Angela Bristow made a very convincing argument that they, really, were the same. She's deleted most of her posts but they are still available in Narkive, read https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/RUQrqohk/medieval-royal-line-for-john-washburn-immigrant-to-plymouth-colony-mass and
https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/ikDzAfbs/significance-of-finding-the-wichenford-washbourne-crest-at-bengeworth. There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept this one?
Thoughts?
This matter was discussed at length in 2018 and 2019. I doubt that other participants in those discussions would agree that "a very convincing argument" was made for the desired conclusion. In fact, as I recall, serious logical flaws were asserted - and hotly contested. I see no reason to rehash this matter again, unless you have new evidence to present or you can give new reasons (i.e., not already presented) for your judgment that this was "a very convincing argument".
I think the frustration reflected in some of the other responses to this current post is due to the point that Peter Stewart has made: "Often he does not appear to take quite as much trouble over his posts as others usually do, and occasionally he seems to be throwing off ideas that have not been carefully thought out". There may be reasons for this, but this group is, by its very nature, is very contentious and can be very disputatious in its arguments. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I did hesitate on posting this. I decided to post it because the 2018 and 2019 debates had started with an Edward I descent, which, as Brad Verity showed, failed several generations before the Washburns. This, however, is a completely documented Henry II descent for John Washburn of Wichenford.
"Completely documented"? That's a pretty strong position to take under the circumstances, and in light of the previous discussions. What exactly is the "complete documentation" (not conjecture or hypothesis) that John Washburn of Bengeworth (whose wife was Emma) was the son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton? Perhaps you should reconsider your choice of words...
BTW back on Oct. 7, 2018, Todd Farmerie showed how this supposed connection of Washburn of Bengeworth to John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton was chronologically difficult. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/Cl2bhK-1Hf4/a-OKQbduBAAJ
You misread. I wrote "John Washburn of Wichenford", not "of Bengeworth". Of course, even then, I made a mistake, the Henry II descent was for Joan Mytton, not for her husband.
Regardless, Todd noted that the dates, themselves, were undocumented.
John Higgins
2020-05-08 18:15:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Back in 2018, D.E. Mitchel posted a supposed Edward I descent for immigrants John Washburn and, though he wasn't named, William Washburn. As Brad Verity showed, it failed because Joyce la Zouche was not Eleanor de Clare's daughter. However, there's still a Henry II descent via her husband John Botetourt.
Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn
Yes, I know this entire descent depends on the Washburn brothers' geeatgreatgrandfather John Washburn of Bengeworth being the same as the second son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mytton. However, Angela Bristow made a very convincing argument that they, really, were the same. She's deleted most of her posts but they are still available in Narkive, read https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/RUQrqohk/medieval-royal-line-for-john-washburn-immigrant-to-plymouth-colony-mass and
https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/ikDzAfbs/significance-of-finding-the-wichenford-washbourne-crest-at-bengeworth. There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept this one?
Thoughts?
This matter was discussed at length in 2018 and 2019. I doubt that other participants in those discussions would agree that "a very convincing argument" was made for the desired conclusion. In fact, as I recall, serious logical flaws were asserted - and hotly contested. I see no reason to rehash this matter again, unless you have new evidence to present or you can give new reasons (i.e., not already presented) for your judgment that this was "a very convincing argument".
I think the frustration reflected in some of the other responses to this current post is due to the point that Peter Stewart has made: "Often he does not appear to take quite as much trouble over his posts as others usually do, and occasionally he seems to be throwing off ideas that have not been carefully thought out". There may be reasons for this, but this group is, by its very nature, is very contentious and can be very disputatious in its arguments. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I did hesitate on posting this. I decided to post it because the 2018 and 2019 debates had started with an Edward I descent, which, as Brad Verity showed, failed several generations before the Washburns. This, however, is a completely documented Henry II descent for John Washburn of Wichenford.
"Completely documented"? That's a pretty strong position to take under the circumstances, and in light of the previous discussions. What exactly is the "complete documentation" (not conjecture or hypothesis) that John Washburn of Bengeworth (whose wife was Emma) was the son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton? Perhaps you should reconsider your choice of words...
BTW back on Oct. 7, 2018, Todd Farmerie showed how this supposed connection of Washburn of Bengeworth to John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton was chronologically difficult. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/Cl2bhK-1Hf4/a-OKQbduBAAJ
You misread. I wrote "John Washburn of Wichenford", not "of Bengeworth". Of course, even then, I made a mistake, the Henry II descent was for Joan Mytton, not for her husband.
Regardless, Todd noted that the dates, themselves, were undocumented.
You're conveniently missing the point here. Yes, Joan Mitton has a Henry II descent. But your contention in this thread is that the Washburn brothers John and William have that descent. And that depends on whether John Washburn of Bengeworth was the son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton. I still see no "documentation" (as opposed to hypothesis or conjecture) for this connection.

And you're misrepresenting Todd's argument. It was not based on dates but rather on the differing numbers of generations in two supposed related branches of the family for persons who had roughly equivalent dates.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-08 20:48:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Back in 2018, D.E. Mitchel posted a supposed Edward I descent for immigrants John Washburn and, though he wasn't named, William Washburn. As Brad Verity showed, it failed because Joyce la Zouche was not Eleanor de Clare's daughter. However, there's still a Henry II descent via her husband John Botetourt.
Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn
Yes, I know this entire descent depends on the Washburn brothers' geeatgreatgrandfather John Washburn of Bengeworth being the same as the second son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mytton. However, Angela Bristow made a very convincing argument that they, really, were the same. She's deleted most of her posts but they are still available in Narkive, read https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/RUQrqohk/medieval-royal-line-for-john-washburn-immigrant-to-plymouth-colony-mass and
https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/ikDzAfbs/significance-of-finding-the-wichenford-washbourne-crest-at-bengeworth. There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept this one?
Thoughts?
This matter was discussed at length in 2018 and 2019. I doubt that other participants in those discussions would agree that "a very convincing argument" was made for the desired conclusion. In fact, as I recall, serious logical flaws were asserted - and hotly contested. I see no reason to rehash this matter again, unless you have new evidence to present or you can give new reasons (i.e., not already presented) for your judgment that this was "a very convincing argument".
I think the frustration reflected in some of the other responses to this current post is due to the point that Peter Stewart has made: "Often he does not appear to take quite as much trouble over his posts as others usually do, and occasionally he seems to be throwing off ideas that have not been carefully thought out". There may be reasons for this, but this group is, by its very nature, is very contentious and can be very disputatious in its arguments. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I did hesitate on posting this. I decided to post it because the 2018 and 2019 debates had started with an Edward I descent, which, as Brad Verity showed, failed several generations before the Washburns. This, however, is a completely documented Henry II descent for John Washburn of Wichenford.
"Completely documented"? That's a pretty strong position to take under the circumstances, and in light of the previous discussions. What exactly is the "complete documentation" (not conjecture or hypothesis) that John Washburn of Bengeworth (whose wife was Emma) was the son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton? Perhaps you should reconsider your choice of words...
BTW back on Oct. 7, 2018, Todd Farmerie showed how this supposed connection of Washburn of Bengeworth to John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton was chronologically difficult. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/Cl2bhK-1Hf4/a-OKQbduBAAJ
You misread. I wrote "John Washburn of Wichenford", not "of Bengeworth". Of course, even then, I made a mistake, the Henry II descent was for Joan Mytton, not for her husband.
Regardless, Todd noted that the dates, themselves, were undocumented.
You're conveniently missing the point here. Yes, Joan Mitton has a Henry II descent. But your contention in this thread is that the Washburn brothers John and William have that descent. And that depends on whether John Washburn of Bengeworth was the son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton. I still see no "documentation" (as opposed to hypothesis or conjecture) for this connection.
And you're misrepresenting Todd's argument. It was not based on dates but rather on the differing numbers of generations in two supposed related branches of the family for persons who had roughly equivalent dates.
I simply regard the Washburn link as extremely likely.
John Higgins
2020-05-09 03:02:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Back in 2018, D.E. Mitchel posted a supposed Edward I descent for immigrants John Washburn and, though he wasn't named, William Washburn. As Brad Verity showed, it failed because Joyce la Zouche was not Eleanor de Clare's daughter. However, there's still a Henry II descent via her husband John Botetourt.
Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn
Yes, I know this entire descent depends on the Washburn brothers' geeatgreatgrandfather John Washburn of Bengeworth being the same as the second son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mytton. However, Angela Bristow made a very convincing argument that they, really, were the same. She's deleted most of her posts but they are still available in Narkive, read https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/RUQrqohk/medieval-royal-line-for-john-washburn-immigrant-to-plymouth-colony-mass and
https://soc.genealogy.medieval.narkive.com/ikDzAfbs/significance-of-finding-the-wichenford-washbourne-crest-at-bengeworth. There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept this one?
Thoughts?
This matter was discussed at length in 2018 and 2019. I doubt that other participants in those discussions would agree that "a very convincing argument" was made for the desired conclusion. In fact, as I recall, serious logical flaws were asserted - and hotly contested. I see no reason to rehash this matter again, unless you have new evidence to present or you can give new reasons (i.e., not already presented) for your judgment that this was "a very convincing argument".
I think the frustration reflected in some of the other responses to this current post is due to the point that Peter Stewart has made: "Often he does not appear to take quite as much trouble over his posts as others usually do, and occasionally he seems to be throwing off ideas that have not been carefully thought out". There may be reasons for this, but this group is, by its very nature, is very contentious and can be very disputatious in its arguments. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I did hesitate on posting this. I decided to post it because the 2018 and 2019 debates had started with an Edward I descent, which, as Brad Verity showed, failed several generations before the Washburns. This, however, is a completely documented Henry II descent for John Washburn of Wichenford.
"Completely documented"? That's a pretty strong position to take under the circumstances, and in light of the previous discussions. What exactly is the "complete documentation" (not conjecture or hypothesis) that John Washburn of Bengeworth (whose wife was Emma) was the son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton? Perhaps you should reconsider your choice of words...
BTW back on Oct. 7, 2018, Todd Farmerie showed how this supposed connection of Washburn of Bengeworth to John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton was chronologically difficult. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/Cl2bhK-1Hf4/a-OKQbduBAAJ
You misread. I wrote "John Washburn of Wichenford", not "of Bengeworth". Of course, even then, I made a mistake, the Henry II descent was for Joan Mytton, not for her husband.
Regardless, Todd noted that the dates, themselves, were undocumented.
You're conveniently missing the point here. Yes, Joan Mitton has a Henry II descent. But your contention in this thread is that the Washburn brothers John and William have that descent. And that depends on whether John Washburn of Bengeworth was the son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton. I still see no "documentation" (as opposed to hypothesis or conjecture) for this connection.
And you're misrepresenting Todd's argument. It was not based on dates but rather on the differing numbers of generations in two supposed related branches of the family for persons who had roughly equivalent dates.
I simply regard the Washburn link as extremely likely.
Well, "extremely likely" is a small step down from "completely documented". Perhaps there's hope for you yet, Paulo! :-)
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-09 20:25:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
We should note the following: It's known from a visitation that John Washburn of Wichenford had a second son also named John. However, he's not named in his will. The theory that he was John Washburn of Bengeworth explains that. It's claimed that he got upset at his father over his second marriage and moved to Bengeworth.
taf
2020-05-09 21:51:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We should note the following: It's known from a visitation that John
Washburn of Wichenford had a second son also named John. However, he's
not named in his will. The theory that he was John Washburn of Bengeworth
explains that.
The theory that he died without issue also explains that.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
It's claimed that he got upset at his father over his second marriage
and moved to Bengeworth.
And the evidence John the younger was upset with his father? Or that the Bengeworth resident moved there? This is just hand-waving.

It is never a good approach to start with a desired conclusion and then try to rationalize inconvenient evidence in this way.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-18 11:26:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We should note the following: It's known from a visitation that John
Washburn of Wichenford had a second son also named John. However, he's
not named in his will. The theory that he was John Washburn of Bengeworth
explains that.
The theory that he died without issue also explains that.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
It's claimed that he got upset at his father over his second marriage
and moved to Bengeworth.
And the evidence John the younger was upset with his father? Or that the Bengeworth resident moved there? This is just hand-waving.
It is never a good approach to start with a desired conclusion and then try to rationalize inconvenient evidence in this way.
taf
Remember what I previously said: Angela Bristow showed that the Washburns owning property in Bengeworth before John appear to have been members of the senior line in Wichenford. They owned property in Bengeworth but did not live there. This completely crushes the notion that there was an unknown cadet line in Bengeworth.
No offense, but I suggest you ask yourself what's more likely: 1. A cadet line in Bengeworth somehow evades any documents.
2. John Washburn Jr. of Wichenford, who, actually, is found in a visitation, moved to his family's properties in Bengeworth.
taf
2020-05-18 13:03:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We should note the following: It's known from a visitation that John
Washburn of Wichenford had a second son also named John. However, he's
not named in his will. The theory that he was John Washburn of Bengeworth
explains that.
The theory that he died without issue also explains that.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
It's claimed that he got upset at his father over his second marriage
and moved to Bengeworth.
And the evidence John the younger was upset with his father? Or that the Bengeworth resident moved there? This is just hand-waving.
It is never a good approach to start with a desired conclusion and then try to rationalize inconvenient evidence in this way.
taf
Remember what I previously said: Angela Bristow showed that the Washburns owning property in Bengeworth before John appear to have been members of the senior line in Wichenford. They owned property in Bengeworth but did not live there. This completely crushes the notion that there was an unknown cadet line in Bengeworth.
No offense, but I suggest you ask yourself what's more likely: 1. A cadet line in Bengeworth somehow evades any documents.
2. John Washburn Jr. of Wichenford, who, actually, is found in a visitation, moved to his family's properties in Bengeworth.
Let me ask you which is more likely -
1. a John found in a visitation went somewhere else and gave rise to an entirely new branch of the family while somehow evading leaving any documentation of his connection to the other family, both where he came from and where he went or
2. given how common it was for a child to die without producing heirs, that this younger son found in the visitation left no record of his fate because he just died.

Such 'which is more likely' scenarios can be spun out all day, and the answers all depend on the assumptions built into the questions being asked, because we have no evidence.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-31 21:13:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We should note the following: It's known from a visitation that John
Washburn of Wichenford had a second son also named John. However, he's
not named in his will. The theory that he was John Washburn of Bengeworth
explains that.
The theory that he died without issue also explains that.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
It's claimed that he got upset at his father over his second marriage
and moved to Bengeworth.
And the evidence John the younger was upset with his father? Or that the Bengeworth resident moved there? This is just hand-waving.
It is never a good approach to start with a desired conclusion and then try to rationalize inconvenient evidence in this way.
taf
Remember what I previously said: Angela Bristow showed that the Washburns owning property in Bengeworth before John appear to have been members of the senior line in Wichenford. They owned property in Bengeworth but did not live there. This completely crushes the notion that there was an unknown cadet line in Bengeworth.
No offense, but I suggest you ask yourself what's more likely: 1. A cadet line in Bengeworth somehow evades any documents.
2. John Washburn Jr. of Wichenford, who, actually, is found in a visitation, moved to his family's properties in Bengeworth.
Let me ask you which is more likely -
1. a John found in a visitation went somewhere else and gave rise to an entirely new branch of the family while somehow evading leaving any documentation of his connection to the other family, both where he came from and where he went or
2. given how common it was for a child to die without producing heirs, that this younger son found in the visitation left no record of his fate because he just died.
Such 'which is more likely' scenarios can be spun out all day, and the answers all depend on the assumptions built into the questions being asked, because we have no evidence.
taf
There's still my other point: No cadet line is found in any documents and the Washburns that owned land
land in Bengeworth appear to have been members of the senior line in Wichenford. They owned property in Bengeworth but did not live there.
As AJB has noted before, no other candidate for the father of John Washburn of Bengeworth has been identified. Thus, it's logical to identify John Washburn of Bengeworth with the namesake documented son of John Washburn of Wichenford.
taf
2020-05-31 21:46:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
There's still my other point: No cadet line is found in any documents
The argument from absence. While one can never prove a negative, one can only make a reasonable deduction from the absence of evidence when the general level of evidence survival is such that there is a reasonable presumption that it would be included among the surviving records. I don't think we can say that.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
As AJB has noted before, no other candidate for the father of John
Washburn of Bengeworth has been identified.
And again, the same kind of argument from absence. When the surviving record is grossly incomplete, one has to be extremely careful what conclusions one draws from what is not abong the surviving record.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Thus, it's logical to identify John Washburn of Bengeworth with the
namesake documented son of John Washburn of Wichenford.
With certain unstated assumptions, yes, but with other possible assumptions, no such conclusion can be reached. My choosing the permissive assumptions, one is essentially begging the question.

taf
John Higgins
2020-05-31 23:02:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We should note the following: It's known from a visitation that John
Washburn of Wichenford had a second son also named John. However, he's
not named in his will. The theory that he was John Washburn of Bengeworth
explains that.
The theory that he died without issue also explains that.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
It's claimed that he got upset at his father over his second marriage
and moved to Bengeworth.
And the evidence John the younger was upset with his father? Or that the Bengeworth resident moved there? This is just hand-waving.
It is never a good approach to start with a desired conclusion and then try to rationalize inconvenient evidence in this way.
taf
Remember what I previously said: Angela Bristow showed that the Washburns owning property in Bengeworth before John appear to have been members of the senior line in Wichenford. They owned property in Bengeworth but did not live there. This completely crushes the notion that there was an unknown cadet line in Bengeworth.
No offense, but I suggest you ask yourself what's more likely: 1. A cadet line in Bengeworth somehow evades any documents.
2. John Washburn Jr. of Wichenford, who, actually, is found in a visitation, moved to his family's properties in Bengeworth.
Let me ask you which is more likely -
1. a John found in a visitation went somewhere else and gave rise to an entirely new branch of the family while somehow evading leaving any documentation of his connection to the other family, both where he came from and where he went or
2. given how common it was for a child to die without producing heirs, that this younger son found in the visitation left no record of his fate because he just died.
Such 'which is more likely' scenarios can be spun out all day, and the answers all depend on the assumptions built into the questions being asked, because we have no evidence.
taf
There's still my other point: No cadet line is found in any documents and the Washburns that owned land
land in Bengeworth appear to have been members of the senior line in Wichenford. They owned property in Bengeworth but did not live there.
As AJB has noted before, no other candidate for the father of John Washburn of Bengeworth has been identified. Thus, it's logical to identify John Washburn of Bengeworth with the namesake documented son of John Washburn of Wichenford.
Give it up, Paulo - you've repeated this argument ad nauseam. It still continues to be just a conjecture - and not a very good one. From her recent posts, even "AJB" appears to have backed off from this idea.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-31 23:29:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We should note the following: It's known from a visitation that John
Washburn of Wichenford had a second son also named John. However, he's
not named in his will. The theory that he was John Washburn of Bengeworth
explains that.
The theory that he died without issue also explains that.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
It's claimed that he got upset at his father over his second marriage
and moved to Bengeworth.
And the evidence John the younger was upset with his father? Or that the Bengeworth resident moved there? This is just hand-waving.
It is never a good approach to start with a desired conclusion and then try to rationalize inconvenient evidence in this way.
taf
Remember what I previously said: Angela Bristow showed that the Washburns owning property in Bengeworth before John appear to have been members of the senior line in Wichenford. They owned property in Bengeworth but did not live there. This completely crushes the notion that there was an unknown cadet line in Bengeworth.
No offense, but I suggest you ask yourself what's more likely: 1. A cadet line in Bengeworth somehow evades any documents.
2. John Washburn Jr. of Wichenford, who, actually, is found in a visitation, moved to his family's properties in Bengeworth.
Let me ask you which is more likely -
1. a John found in a visitation went somewhere else and gave rise to an entirely new branch of the family while somehow evading leaving any documentation of his connection to the other family, both where he came from and where he went or
2. given how common it was for a child to die without producing heirs, that this younger son found in the visitation left no record of his fate because he just died.
Such 'which is more likely' scenarios can be spun out all day, and the answers all depend on the assumptions built into the questions being asked, because we have no evidence.
taf
There's still my other point: No cadet line is found in any documents and the Washburns that owned land
land in Bengeworth appear to have been members of the senior line in Wichenford. They owned property in Bengeworth but did not live there.
As AJB has noted before, no other candidate for the father of John Washburn of Bengeworth has been identified. Thus, it's logical to identify John Washburn of Bengeworth with the namesake documented son of John Washburn of Wichenford.
Give it up, Paulo - you've repeated this argument ad nauseam. It still continues to be just a conjecture - and not a very good one. From her recent posts, even "AJB" appears to have backed off from this idea.
Apologies for having bothered you with that argument. Still, AJB's recently posts were focused on other Washburn generations. No offense, but what leads you think she has backed off this idea? Are you refering to the fact that she disproved another James Davenport identification?
John Higgins
2020-06-01 03:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We should note the following: It's known from a visitation that John
Washburn of Wichenford had a second son also named John. However, he's
not named in his will. The theory that he was John Washburn of Bengeworth
explains that.
The theory that he died without issue also explains that.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
It's claimed that he got upset at his father over his second marriage
and moved to Bengeworth.
And the evidence John the younger was upset with his father? Or that the Bengeworth resident moved there? This is just hand-waving.
It is never a good approach to start with a desired conclusion and then try to rationalize inconvenient evidence in this way.
taf
Remember what I previously said: Angela Bristow showed that the Washburns owning property in Bengeworth before John appear to have been members of the senior line in Wichenford. They owned property in Bengeworth but did not live there. This completely crushes the notion that there was an unknown cadet line in Bengeworth.
No offense, but I suggest you ask yourself what's more likely: 1. A cadet line in Bengeworth somehow evades any documents.
2. John Washburn Jr. of Wichenford, who, actually, is found in a visitation, moved to his family's properties in Bengeworth.
Let me ask you which is more likely -
1. a John found in a visitation went somewhere else and gave rise to an entirely new branch of the family while somehow evading leaving any documentation of his connection to the other family, both where he came from and where he went or
2. given how common it was for a child to die without producing heirs, that this younger son found in the visitation left no record of his fate because he just died.
Such 'which is more likely' scenarios can be spun out all day, and the answers all depend on the assumptions built into the questions being asked, because we have no evidence.
taf
There's still my other point: No cadet line is found in any documents and the Washburns that owned land
land in Bengeworth appear to have been members of the senior line in Wichenford. They owned property in Bengeworth but did not live there.
As AJB has noted before, no other candidate for the father of John Washburn of Bengeworth has been identified. Thus, it's logical to identify John Washburn of Bengeworth with the namesake documented son of John Washburn of Wichenford.
Give it up, Paulo - you've repeated this argument ad nauseam. It still continues to be just a conjecture - and not a very good one. From her recent posts, even "AJB" appears to have backed off from this idea.
Apologies for having bothered you with that argument. Still, AJB's recently posts were focused on other Washburn generations. No offense, but what leads you think she has backed off this idea? Are you refering to the fact that she disproved another James Davenport identification?
NO, it's because AJB did not, in her recent posts, continue to assert the specific connection between the Washburns of Bengeworth with those of Wichenford that you are pushing so hard. Given her strong advocacy of this in the past, the absence of further comment now may be an indicator of her current position - or it may not be. And of course, as you may recall, she deleted all of her old posts on this topic - perhaps another telling indicator.

If, as Peter Warwick suggests, some further evidence surfaces in the future, perhaps the matter should be re-visited then. But there's no point in beating this dead horse any further now.
John Higgins
2020-05-10 19:02:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We should note the following: It's known from a visitation that John Washburn of Wichenford had a second son also named John. However, he's not named in his will. The theory that he was John Washburn of Bengeworth explains that. It's claimed that he got upset at his father over his second marriage and moved to Bengeworth.
[yawn]... This idea has been around since at least 1907, when it appeared in James Davenport's book on the Washbourne family. The book has been mentioned in earlier threads, and the idea has been discussed at length here, as it's the only slender thread by which the Washburn brothers get a royal descent. No one has yet presented satisfactory evidence to support it, despite AJB's valiant efforts to do so. Unless there's new evidence or better arguments, there's no point in bringing this up again. Don't dredge up conjectures or hypotheses - stick to the facts.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-18 11:17:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We should note the following: It's known from a visitation that John Washburn of Wichenford had a second son also named John. However, he's not named in his will. The theory that he was John Washburn of Bengeworth explains that. It's claimed that he got upset at his father over his second marriage and moved to Bengeworth.
[yawn]... This idea has been around since at least 1907, when it appeared in James Davenport's book on the Washbourne family. The book has been mentioned in earlier threads, and the idea has been discussed at length here, as it's the only slender thread by which the Washburn brothers get a royal descent. No one has yet presented satisfactory evidence to support it, despite AJB's valiant efforts to do so. Unless there's new evidence or better arguments, there's no point in bringing this up again. Don't dredge up conjectures or hypotheses - stick to the facts.
Thing is, it fits with the evidence and I believe it may have come from a family tradition. The Washburns of Bengeworth had a tradition of being descended from royalty. As far as we know, the first time a royal descent got into the Washburns of Wichenford was with the Joan Mytton marriage. That suggests the identification is correct.
taf
2020-05-18 12:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Thing is, it fits with the evidence and I believe it may have come from
a family tradition. The Washburns of Bengeworth had a tradition of being
descended from royalty. As far as we know, the first time a royal descent
got into the Washburns of Wichenford was with the Joan Mytton marriage.
That suggests the identification is correct.
Not really. It is unsound to take family traditions of royal ancestry, and under the assumption of authenticity use them as evidence for one specific relationship. Such vague connections to royalty, along with male-line descent from someone who fought at Hastings and a coat of arms, were things every card-carrying member of the English early-modern gentry used to prove their bona fides, and outright invention often played a role in the acquisition of all three.

taf
John Higgins
2020-05-08 19:36:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Back in 2018, D.E. Mitchel posted a supposed Edward I descent for immigrants John Washburn and, though he wasn't named, William Washburn. As Brad Verity showed, it failed because Joyce la Zouche was not Eleanor de Clare's daughter. However, there's still a Henry II descent via her husband John Botetourt.
Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn
I did hesitate on posting this. I decided to post it because the 2018 and 2019 debates had started with an Edward I descent, which, as Brad Verity showed, failed several generations before the Washburns. This, however, is a completely documented Henry II descent for John Washburn of Wichenford.
"Completely documented"? That's a pretty strong position to take under the circumstances, and in light of the previous discussions. What exactly is the "complete documentation" (not conjecture or hypothesis) that John Washburn of Bengeworth (whose wife was Emma) was the son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton? Perhaps you should reconsider your choice of words...
BTW back on Oct. 7, 2018, Todd Farmerie showed how this supposed connection of Washburn of Bengeworth to John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton was chronologically difficult. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/Cl2bhK-1Hf4/a-OKQbduBAAJ
You misread. I wrote "John Washburn of Wichenford", not "of Bengeworth". Of course, even then, I made a mistake, the Henry II descent was for Joan Mytton, not for her husband.
Regardless, Todd noted that the dates, themselves, were undocumented.
I didn't "misread" you - I just assumed you had erred in saying "John Washburn of Wichenford" instead of "John Washburn of Bengeworth", since John W. of Wichenford certainly does not have a Henry II descent.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-05-08 20:48:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Back in 2018, D.E. Mitchel posted a supposed Edward I descent for immigrants John Washburn and, though he wasn't named, William Washburn. As Brad Verity showed, it failed because Joyce la Zouche was not Eleanor de Clare's daughter. However, there's still a Henry II descent via her husband John Botetourt.
Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn
I did hesitate on posting this. I decided to post it because the 2018 and 2019 debates had started with an Edward I descent, which, as Brad Verity showed, failed several generations before the Washburns. This, however, is a completely documented Henry II descent for John Washburn of Wichenford.
"Completely documented"? That's a pretty strong position to take under the circumstances, and in light of the previous discussions. What exactly is the "complete documentation" (not conjecture or hypothesis) that John Washburn of Bengeworth (whose wife was Emma) was the son of John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton? Perhaps you should reconsider your choice of words...
BTW back on Oct. 7, 2018, Todd Farmerie showed how this supposed connection of Washburn of Bengeworth to John Washburn of Wichenford and Joan Mitton was chronologically difficult. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/Cl2bhK-1Hf4/a-OKQbduBAAJ
You misread. I wrote "John Washburn of Wichenford", not "of Bengeworth". Of course, even then, I made a mistake, the Henry II descent was for Joan Mytton, not for her husband.
Regardless, Todd noted that the dates, themselves, were undocumented.
I didn't "misread" you - I just assumed you had erred in saying "John Washburn of Wichenford" instead of "John Washburn of Bengeworth", since John W. of Wichenford certainly does not have a Henry II descent.
As I said, I did make a mistake and, for that, I apologize.
taf
2020-05-08 00:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
There are expert approved royal descents that depend on links that are
much weaker than this one. If the experts accept those, why not accept
this one?
Just in general, this is a bad argument. If experts have accepted poorly-supported pedigrees, that is not a good reason to lessen standards across the board, it is only a reason to question their expertise, at least with regard to those other lines. Each line stands or falls on its own.

Part of the problem is the tendency to represent such things in binary - true/false, valid/invalid, approved/dismissed, when every line really falls along a spectrum depending on the cumulative effects of the variable quality of sourcing along the entire line.

taf
Peter D. A. Warwick
2020-05-08 02:13:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
As one of those who participated in the previous discussions about this I agree with the consensus reached that the evidence is simply not there as much I personally wished it were as I am a descendant of John Washburn of Bengeworth.
Peter D. A. Warwick
2020-06-01 01:06:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I agree with taf and John Higgins that the evidence is simply not there to connect the Washburns of Bengeworth with those of Wichenford. It would be great if some previous unknown document were to show up somewhere that resolved this question once and for all, but so far there is none. About 10 years ago Matthew Hovious came across documents that strongly appeared to connect John Hynkeley of Thurlow with the Hynkeleys of Staffordshire. If a similar something similar were to show up for the Washburns of Bengeworth appearing to connect them with Wichenford then there would be a case.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-01 08:50:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter D. A. Warwick
I agree with taf and John Higgins that the evidence is simply not there to connect the Washburns of Bengeworth with those of Wichenford. It would be great if some previous unknown document were to show up somewhere that resolved this question once and for all, but so far there is none. About 10 years ago Matthew Hovious came across documents that strongly appeared to connect John Hynkeley of Thurlow with the Hynkeleys of Staffordshire. If a similar something similar were to show up for the Washburns of Bengeworth appearing to connect them with Wichenford then there would be a case.
There's already proof that they are connected. Y DNA tests gave shown that. Unfortunately, they can't show the exact connection.
P J Evans
2020-06-01 16:55:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter D. A. Warwick
I agree with taf and John Higgins that the evidence is simply not there to connect the Washburns of Bengeworth with those of Wichenford. It would be great if some previous unknown document were to show up somewhere that resolved this question once and for all, but so far there is none. About 10 years ago Matthew Hovious came across documents that strongly appeared to connect John Hynkeley of Thurlow with the Hynkeleys of Staffordshire. If a similar something similar were to show up for the Washburns of Bengeworth appearing to connect them with Wichenford then there would be a case.
There's already proof that they are connected. Y DNA tests gave shown that. Unfortunately, they can't show the exact connection.
DNA tests also indicate that Samuel Pickering (died 1726/27) of Pennsylvania is connected somehow to the Pickerings of Yorkshire - but so far no one has been able to find his ancestry.

Sometimes you can't find connections even when you know they should exist. You make a note that there's a connection, and leave it at that.
AJB
2020-06-02 05:29:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Eugene Stratton (“Applied Genealogy”) attempted to firmly quash the notion that the John Washbourne, who died in 1546 in Bengeworth, Worcestershire, England (1546) was identical with the John Washbourne designated in the 1569 Visitation of Worcestershire as the second son of John Washbourne of Wichenford, Esq. by invoking E.A.B. Barnard (“Some Notes on the Evesham Branch of the Washbourne Family”). Stratton contended that Barnard “… completely demolishes the claim by showing that there were Washburn families in the neighborhood of Bengeworth for centuries prior to this time and therefore it is superfluous and unreasonable to have to look outside Bengeworth for the origins of the John Washburn in question…”.

Actual evidence (court records, tax records, manor records and the Washbourne arms displayed within Evesham Abbey) suggests that the Washbournes engaged in the Evesham/Bengeworth area in the 1200s, 1300s and later were the senior line of the gentry Washbournes and not some stray cadet family that remained in the Bengeworth area for generations, finally giving rise to the John Washbourne of Bengeworth who first appears there on the 1525 tax records, baptizes children in the parish and dies there in 1546.

Conversely, so far, we have been unable to discover any record (including from an exhaustive review of wills from the traditional tenants of the Abbey) of a cadet family of Washbourne living in the Bengeworth area. Other than the appearance of the Washbourne arms on an encaustic tile at Evesham Abbey (the tile appears to have been made by monk craftsmen in the workshops and kilns of Great Malvern Priory between 1450 and 1500 or by the Malvern Chase tilers who worked well into the 16th century), subsequent to the 1300s, no Washbournes of any kind have yet been found in Bengeworth/Evesham until 1546 suddenly shows up there on the 1525 tax record. And I would refer readers to an excellent essay by Peter Franklin found within the introduction to "The Taxpayers of Medieval Gloucestershire, An Analysis of the 1327 Lay Subsidy Roll with a New Edition of its Text" published 1993. As Dr. Franklin says: "...it was hard to carry on peasant agriculture for long without committing some minor offense..." and thus showing up in the court records.

What we do find are records showing that the Bengeworth Washbournes walked paths long associated with the gentry Washbournes at Tewkesbury, Little Washbourne and in the Cotswalds.

In the early 1200s, Abel de Washbourne traveled from Little Washbourne to Dixton, Worcestershire to marry the sister of the Lord of Dixton. The Abbot of Tewkesbury granted land to him. 140 years later, apparent descendants of this Abel contested the ownership of Abel’s Tewkesbury property with the then Abbot.

From the 1200s on, the gentry Washbournes held land in Beckford, Tewkesbury and had legal dealings in the area.

When the John Washbourne, Esq. of Wichenford who died there in 1633 married his first wife, he traveled to the Cotswolds, baptising his first three babies in the Parish of Broadway, 7 miles from Evesham.

In 1574 the grandson of the John Washbourne who died in 1546 appears to have traveled from Bengeworth back to the Beckford/Ashchurch/Tewkesbury area to marry (his third wife). This journey alone, back to an area long familiar with the gentry family, is an important clue on its own and is added evidence of possible connections. Further, the Roberts girl he married there appears to have come from a family with whom the Wichenford Washbournes had extensive dealings, so extensive in fact that one descendant, Giles Roberts, ultimately held property in the manor of Little Washbourne.

These are only a few of the many connections we have collected and are analyzing in context as possible evidence supporting the possibility that the Washbourne family of Bengeworth was closely related to the family at Wichenford.

“…one can only make a reasonable deduction from the absence of evidence when the general level of evidence survival is such that there is a reasonable presumption that it would be included among the surviving records.” TAF

The idea that the John Washbourne who died in Bengeworth in 1546 was probably closely related to the Washbournes at Wichenford is moving closer to substantiation. However, at this time, we cannot say with certainty that 1546 was the son of John Washbourne, Esq. who died at Wichenford in 1517. He may have been, or he may have simply been a cousin. Further research may or may not eventually settle this matter definitively.

However, contrary to Stratton’s dismissive assertion, the claim is not demolished. The question remains: If John of Bengeworth, dead 1546, was not the second son of John Washbourne, Esq. of Wichenford, then whose son was he?

We have no idea if a “family tradition” of royal descent was maintained by the Bengeworth Washbournes. We have noted previously that a fragment of heraldic glass, appearing to possibly represent part of the Washbourne arms was salvaged when the old St. Peters church was demolished in 1870. Later generations of Washbournes, descended from the Bengeworth line, did use the Washbourne arms, but we do not know why they thought that they were entitled to use them or if they were entitled to use them. AJB
Richard Smith
2020-06-02 10:40:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn
Can I make a request, Paulo? You quite often post lines like this, and
they can be useful way of putting a discussion in some sort of context.
But please can you include dates, places and, where appropriate, titles
and sobriquets? For example,

1. Henry II, King of England (1133-1189)
x. Ida de Tosny, later Countess of Norfolk
2. William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury jure uxoris (c1176-1226)
m. Ela, Countess of Salisbury suo jure
3. Ida Longespée (fl. early C13)
m. William de Beauchamp of Bedfordshire
4. Beatrice de Beauchamp (d. bef. 1285),
m. Thomas FitzOtes of Mendlesham, Suffolk
5. Matilda FitzThomas (fl. 1320s)
m. John de Botetourt, Baron Botetourt
6. Thomas Botetourt (d.v.p. c1322)
m. Joan, dau. of Roger de Somery of Dudley
7. John Botetourt, Baron Botetourt (c1318-1386)
m. Joyce, dau. of William de la Zouche, Baron Zouche of Mortimer

... and so on. It makes it much easier for readers to understand who
you're talking about, especially when there are multiple people of the
same name as with the various John Washburns. It also provides
necessary context about the time period and area being discussed.

Richard
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-03 14:16:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Smith
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Henry II
William Longespee
Ida Longespee
Beatrice Beauchamp
Maud FitzThomas
Thomas Botetourt
John Botetourt
Joyce Botetourt
Margaret Peshall
William Mytton
Joan Mytton
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn
John Washburn and William Washburn
Can I make a request, Paulo? You quite often post lines like this, and
they can be useful way of putting a discussion in some sort of context.
But please can you include dates, places and, where appropriate, titles
and sobriquets? For example,
1. Henry II, King of England (1133-1189)
x. Ida de Tosny, later Countess of Norfolk
2. William Longespée, Earl of Salisbury jure uxoris (c1176-1226)
m. Ela, Countess of Salisbury suo jure
3. Ida Longespée (fl. early C13)
m. William de Beauchamp of Bedfordshire
4. Beatrice de Beauchamp (d. bef. 1285),
m. Thomas FitzOtes of Mendlesham, Suffolk
5. Matilda FitzThomas (fl. 1320s)
m. John de Botetourt, Baron Botetourt
6. Thomas Botetourt (d.v.p. c1322)
m. Joan, dau. of Roger de Somery of Dudley
7. John Botetourt, Baron Botetourt (c1318-1386)
m. Joyce, dau. of William de la Zouche, Baron Zouche of Mortimer
... and so on. It makes it much easier for readers to understand who
you're talking about, especially when there are multiple people of the
same name as with the various John Washburns. It also provides
necessary context about the time period and area being discussed.
Richard
I will, indeed, try to improve my lines.
wjhonson
2020-06-03 17:44:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
And in a similar vein *stop* adding birth years to people about whom we have NO INFORMATION when they were born. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

There is NO information about what year Joan Mytton was born. NONE.

What we have is the age of her father "aged 8 and more" on Sep 1420
The age of her GRANDSON John "17 and more" Nov 10H8

That's IT. There is NOTHING else :)

Have a mice day
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-03 18:24:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
And in a similar vein *stop* adding birth years to people about whom we have NO INFORMATION when they were born. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
There is NO information about what year Joan Mytton was born. NONE.
What we have is the age of her father "aged 8 and more" on Sep 1420
The age of her GRANDSON John "17 and more" Nov 10H8
That's IT. There is NOTHING else :)
Have a mice day
Were you refering to me? As Richard Smith, I, actually, don't include dates.
wjhonson
2020-06-04 22:57:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It's a general complaint, thrown out to the world at large.

Not to you specifically.

Adding specific "c" birth years only confuses most people who think those particular years have some informed weight.
Loading...