Homesites for peopleRelationships agreements do commonly mean the timeframe from inside the and that amarriage need to have taken set

Relationships agreements do commonly mean the timeframe from inside the and that amarriage need to have taken set

Relationships agreements do commonly mean the timeframe from inside the and that amarriage need to have taken set

1. Yet ,, into the family history, everyone knowthat for every single code you will find a difference. A good vexing area ofgenealogy is that not one person very understands just how to put on brand new exclusions orrules that have one definitive adjective such always, maybe, probably,probably, etc. It will be fascinating if the truth be told there most other advice ofjointures are produced annually otherwise a few immediately after a well-known wedding go out.

dos. Can there be a keen extant dispensation to your relationship from ElizabethClifford and you can Sir Ralph Bowes who had been 3rd cousins thru Henry Fitzhugh,3rd Lord Fitzhugh otherwise last cousins, shortly after taken from the fifth LordClifford? Who narrow down the matrimony big date.


Presumably, in the event the an effective dispensation is actually looked for and offered, it could havebeen from the among the pursuing the, and will can be found in brand new correspondingregister book, whether or not it endures:

Thomas Savage, Archbishop regarding York 1501-1507Christopher Bainbridge, Bishop of Durham 1507-1508, Archbishop off York1508-1514William Senhouse, Bishop out-of Durham 1502-1505Thomas Ruthall, Bishop out-of Durham 1509-1523Richard Leyburn, Bishop out of Carlisle 1502-1508John Penny, Bishop regarding Carlisle 1509-1520

5. In case the tenth Lord Clifford do wed at the beginning of 1487 [state January] andhas Elizabeth later because season, do the fresh new chronology perhaps not performs?

John fingers?

Age created inside later 1487, Henry born for the 1488/9, Joan in ,etcetera. filling in the new brands of the posting out of . In the event that (a) thechronology still performs; and you will (b) her relationships piece was not reasonable; thenwe just have the new 1505 pedigree away from Henry VII’s that’s inside the oppositionto the fresh conjecture you to she is a valid child.

6. Regarding your 1505 pedigree: Are the Clifford daughters the onlyknown Henry VII relations omitted? Have there been other people? In this case,would not you to definitely reflect improperly with this document given that a resource?

Out of comparisons I’ve created from new c.1505 Henry VII Interactions pedigreeswith the fresh 1480-1500 Visitation of your Northern pedigrees, being

From the c.1505 Relations pedigrees, the latest Clifford youngsters are perhaps not listedin a great Clifford pedigree, but alternatively on St. John pedigree. While the I’mnot regularly the St. Scottsdale, AZ in USA women John family members, adopting the is the recommendations asit seems in the c.1505 pedigree, since the extracted from new 1834 Coll. Top. etGen. article. The latest phrasing for the quotations is exactly whilst seems inthe 1834 blog post (pp. 310-311).

«Zero. XII.»Out of my personal Lord Welles child, Sir Richard Rod, Domme Verney, SirJohn St. John, with other.»f.288, 296, 317, 318.»Margaret Duchess out of Somerset had three husbands.» Of the «John Duke ofSomerset» she got «My personal Lady the latest King’s Mommy.» who’d «Brand new Queen.» whohad «Prince «By «Sir Oliver Saint John, first partner.» she had step 3 daus & dos sons:

An excellent. «Edith, married so you’re able to Geoffrey Pole out-of Buckinghamshire.» That they had:A1. «Sir Richard Rod, Knt. married for the Woman Margaret, dau. from theDuke out-of Clarence.» They had: «Harry. «A2. «Alianor, wedded so you can Ralph Verney, Esq.» They’d: «John Verney.—– [child, unnamed]. ——-[a unique youngster, unnamed].»

B. «John Ssint John, esq.» He’d five college students:B1. «Sir John Saint John, Knight.» who’d «Four daughters and you may oneson.»B2. «Anne, wedd. in order to Harry Lord Clifford.» They had «Jane. Mabill.Henry, son and you can heir. Anne. Thomas. Alianor.»B3. «Age, wedded in order to Thomas Kent, Esq. out-of Lincolnshire.»B4. «Good Nun off Shaftesbury.»B5. «Oliver Saint John.»

C. «Dame Mary, wedded so you can Sir Richard Frognall.» They had:C1. «Edmond Frognall and his awesome brethren and sistren.» Which have issueindicated, yet not called.C2. «Age, married so you’re able to Sir William Gascoigne, Knt.»

D. «Elizabeth, married first to your Lord Zouche; once on the LordScrope regarding Bolton.» Issue:D1. [by Zouche] » Catesby.» That they had:»E. George. John. William.»D2. [because of the Scrope] » Conyers.» Having issueindicated but not titled.

Margaret Duchess out-of Somerset, of the «Lionel Lord Welles, past spouse.»had: «John Viscount Welles, married Cecily, dau. away from K. Edward IV.» andthey had «Elizabeth.»

Leave a comment