Robert Pemberton's _Solihull and Its Church_ has seemed questionable in some of its information on the Hawes family, ancestral to Edmond Hawes, Jr., of New England. The Hawes chart on p. 42 names the father of the immigrant as "Edmund Hawes, of Hillfield, 43rd Lord of the Manor, 1604 (alive 1653)."

The date 1653 has seemed questionable, and there are slight errors in the maiden surnames of his mother and grandmother (Coles versus Colles, and Bourne versus Brome).

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Solihull_and_Its_Church/HqRIAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=edlicott+hawes+bourne&pg=PA42&printsec=frontcover

However, I now find that there is a good reference for the date of 1653.

Discussing a charity established at Solihull, _Further Report of the Commissioners for Inquiring Concerning Charities_ cites an "indenture of feoffment, made 8th September 1653, between John Huggeford, esquire, and Edmund Hawes, gentleman, described as surviving feoffees of the ... hereditaments given to charitable uses, and belonging the to Parish of Solihull ..."

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002135019q&view=1up&seq=292&skin=2021&q1=hawes

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 2:39:49 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> Robert Pemberton's _Solihull and Its Church_ has seemed questionable in some of its information on the Hawes family, ancestral to Edmond Hawes, Jr., of New England. The Hawes chart on p. 42 names the father of the immigrant as "Edmund Hawes, of Hillfield, 43rd Lord of the Manor, 1604 (alive 1653)."
>
> The date 1653 has seemed questionable, and there are slight errors in the maiden surnames of his mother and grandmother (Coles versus Colles, and Bourne versus Brome).
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Solihull_and_Its_Church/HqRIAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=edlicott+hawes+bourne&pg=PA42&printsec=frontcover
>
> However, I now find that there is a good reference for the date of 1653.
>
> Discussing a charity established at Solihull, _Further Report of the Commissioners for Inquiring Concerning Charities_ cites an "indenture of feoffment, made 8th September 1653, between John Huggeford, esquire, and Edmund Hawes, gentleman, described as surviving feoffees of the ... hereditaments given to charitable uses, and belonging the to Parish of Solihull ..."
>
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002135019q&view=1up&seq=292&skin=2021&q1=hawes

Edmund, Sr., may have been living in May 1656, when the undated will of his sister-in-law Susan Porter, "singlewoman and Spinster" of Lamberhurst, Kent, was proved, giving "unto my brother in law Mr Edmund Hawes also a golde ring of tenn shillinge price" [PROB 11/255/518].

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 12:11:18 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Edmund, Sr., may have been living in May 1656, when the undated will of his sister-in-law Susan
> Porter, "singlewoman and Spinster" of Lamberhurst, Kent, was proved, giving "unto my brother
> in law Mr Edmund Hawes also a golde ring of tenn shillinge price" [PROB 11/255/518].

Non-sequitur. That he was named in the will is only an indication he was living when it was written. I have seen numerous wills naming people who predeceased the testator, and hence were no longer living when the wills were proved.

taf

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:59:42 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 12:11:18 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Edmund, Sr., may have been living in May 1656, when the undated will of his sister-in-law Susan
> > Porter, "singlewoman and Spinster" of Lamberhurst, Kent, was proved, giving "unto my brother
> > in law Mr Edmund Hawes also a golde ring of tenn shillinge price" [PROB 11/255/518].
> Non-sequitur. That he was named in the will is only an indication he was living when it was written. I have seen numerous wills naming people who predeceased the testator, and hence were no longer living when the wills were proved.
>
> taf

True. But I did say "may have been" not "he was definitely living then."

From the latin note at end, it looks like there were a number of executors through whose hands the responsibility had already passed, so an abnormal amount of time may have elapsed between the writing and proving.

If we could find a record of the burial of Susan Porter, then I think we could say Edmund "may" have been alive shortly before that date.

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:18:19 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:59:42 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 12:11:18 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > Edmund, Sr., may have been living in May 1656, when the undated will of his sister-in-law Susan
> > > Porter, "singlewoman and Spinster" of Lamberhurst, Kent, was proved, giving "unto my brother
> > > in law Mr Edmund Hawes also a golde ring of tenn shillinge price" [PROB 11/255/518].
> > Non-sequitur. That he was named in the will is only an indication he was living when it was written. I have seen numerous wills naming people who predeceased the testator, and hence were no longer living when the wills were proved.
> >
> > taf
> True. But I did say "may have been" not "he was definitely living then."
>
> From the latin note at end, it looks like there were a number of executors through whose hands the responsibility had already passed, so an abnormal amount of time may have elapsed between the writing and proving.
>
> If we could find a record of the burial of Susan Porter, then I think we could say Edmund "may" have been alive shortly before that date.

This was my original statement about the will of Susan Porter in relation to the vital dates of E. Hawes:

Although not named in his son William Hawes's will of 1652, it is likely that EdmondA survived at least to the middle or late 1640s. James W. Hawes is somewhat skeptical of the claim of Robert Pemberton in _Solihull and Its Church_ that EdmondA was alive in 1653, stating both that Pemberton “gives no authority” and “[i]t is possible the authority [for Pemberton's statement] was the will of John Porter [of Lamberhurst] and that 1653 is a misprint for 1643” (Hawes, _Edmond Hawes_, p. 42 and note ff).
Recently, however, I discovered that the will of EdmondA's sister-in-law, Susan Porter of Lamberhurst, Kent, “singlewoman and Spinster,” bequeaths “unto my brother in law Mr Edmund Hawes also a gold ringe of tenn shillinge price” (Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills, 14 Berkeley, PROB 11/255, ultimately proved, after a number of delays and the deaths of a series of executors, on 22 May 1656). This will was apparently not checked by James W. Hawes in the process of researching his book.
Unfortunately, Susan Porter’s will is undated, but it was probably made in the late 1640s (1645-1649 ?). Susan Porter was mentioned as living in the 1643 will of her brother John Porter, Esq., of Lamberhurst (Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills, 1 Rivers, PROB 11/192), as well as in the 1652 will of John’s eldest son Richard Porter (Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills, 110 Brent, PROB 11/227). Her own will mentions her “brother John Porter of Lamberhurst Esquire[,] late deceased,” so it was clearly made after John's death circa 1645. She takes the slightly unusual step of setting out a “contingency” plan for the execution of her will, making her nephew John Porter Jr. (second son of John Porter of Lamberhurst) executor, but naming his younger brother Arthur Porter as a replacement “if the said my Nephew John Porter shall refuse to take upon him the execution of this my will.” A contemporary history of the Bramstons -- the family of John Porter Jr.’s wife -- hints at the possible reason for this, mentioning John Porter Jr.’s “weeke [weak] consumptive bodie” (Sir John Bramson, _The Autobiography of Sir John Bramston, K.B., of Skreens ..._, ed. Lord Braybrooke [Camden Society, vol. 32 (1845)], p. 25). For further details of John Porter Jr.’s life, see Joseph Foster, ed., _Alumni Oxonienses : The Members of the University of Oxford, 1500-1714_, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1891), 3:1183, which states that John Porter Jr. died in December 1652.
Susan's secondary choice of executor, John Jr.'s brother Arthur Porter, “younger Sonne of John Porter of Lamberhurst in the County of Kent Esquire deceased[,] Now outward bound for the Island of Assada in Africa in the Shipp Lyoness,” made his own will in February 1649 [probably 1649/50], naming his brother-in-law Thomas Springett (husband of his late sister Mary Porter) executor. Although, in the absence of a firm death date for Arthur, it is possible that Susan Porter made her will at any time up to the death of her nephew John Porter in December 1652, I suspect she made it before Arthur left for Africa. Arthur Porter was still living outside England when he wrote to the East India Company in January 1651/2 from Surat concerning the settlement at Assada (Alison Games, _The Web of Empire: English Cosmopolitans in An Age of Expansion, 1560-1660_ [New York, 2008], p. 350, note 150).
In any event, Susan Porter's will was proved immediately after Arthur Porter’s, in May 1656, by Herbert Springett, brother of Arthur's executor Thomas Springett (John Porter, Arthur Porter, and Thomas Springett all having died in the meantime).
It is probably sensible to assume that Susan Porter made Arthur Porter the contingent executor of her will before she knew of his plans to leave England (and it is apparent she never changed her will after learning of his intended absence in Africa and the East Indies). I would therefore guess that her will was made between 1645 and early 1649.
______

I'm uncertain about all my complex reasoning in the above. If Susan is mentioned as living in the 1652 will of her nephew John Porter, and Edmund Hawes was clearly alive in September 1653, then perhaps Susan's own will was made 1652-53. Once again, finding a burial record for Susan could help a bit with the dates.

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 2:18:19 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:59:42 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 12:11:18 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > Edmund, Sr., may have been living in May 1656, when the undated will of his sister-in-law Susan
> > > Porter, "singlewoman and Spinster" of Lamberhurst, Kent, was proved, giving "unto my brother
> > > in law Mr Edmund Hawes also a golde ring of tenn shillinge price" [PROB 11/255/518].
> > Non-sequitur. That he was named in the will is only an indication he was living when it was written. I have seen numerous wills naming people who predeceased the testator, and hence were no longer living when the wills were proved.
> >
> True. But I did say "may have been" not "he was definitely living then."

And you could have said he 'may have been' living in 1680 or 1669 and had just as much basis for the supposition. All this evidence tells you is that he was living at the time Susan Porter wrote her will, which was some time (anywhere from days to years) before May 1656.

> If we could find a record of the burial of Susan Porter, then I think we could say Edmund
> "may" have been alive shortly before that date.

Same flawed reasoning. We have nothing on which to ballance probabilities, because we ahve no basis for determining how long before she died Susan Porter wrote her will, and no particular reason to suppose Edmund survived her.. Thus he 'MAY OR MAY NOT have been' living when she died. 'We have no basis for knowing' is technically equivalent to both 'he may have been' and 'he may not have been', and there is little benefit to spinning it one way or the other since the same is true about any other point in time within decades of the last actual evidence we have of him being alive.

taf

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 3:24:54 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm uncertain about all my complex reasoning in the above. If Susan is mentioned as living
> in the 1652 will of her nephew John Porter, and Edmund Hawes was clearly alive in September
> 1653, then perhaps Susan's own will was made 1652-53.

I don't see how this follows at all. Susan being mentioned in the will of her nephew provides no constraint on when she could have written her own, and likewise having a solid date when Edmund was still alive has no bearing (if you knew when Edmund was dead, that would be a different story), because it likewise bears no linkage to him being named by her in her will.

If I (quickly) read your summary correctly, she refers to her deceased brother so the will has to have been written after 1643 (when he wrote his will, since you give his death as the uncertain ca.1645), and she names her nephew John, who you said died in December 1652. I don't think one can safely assume how she would have responded to Arthur's plans. That leaves us with a date range for the will of 1643-1652, and hence Edmund was living some time in that period. However, given that you already have him in September 1653, there is nothing new learned here.

taf

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:00:19 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 2:18:19 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:59:42 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 12:11:18 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo..com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Edmund, Sr., may have been living in May 1656, when the undated will of his sister-in-law Susan
> > > > Porter, "singlewoman and Spinster" of Lamberhurst, Kent, was proved, giving "unto my brother
> > > > in law Mr Edmund Hawes also a golde ring of tenn shillinge price" [PROB 11/255/518].
> > > Non-sequitur. That he was named in the will is only an indication he was living when it was written. I have seen numerous wills naming people who predeceased the testator, and hence were no longer living when the wills were proved.
> > >
> > True. But I did say "may have been" not "he was definitely living then."
> And you could have said he 'may have been' living in 1680 or 1669 and had just as much basis for the supposition. All this evidence tells you is that he was living at the time Susan Porter wrote her will, which was some time (anywhere from days to years) before May 1656.
> > If we could find a record of the burial of Susan Porter, then I think we could say Edmund
> > "may" have been alive shortly before that date.
> Same flawed reasoning. We have nothing on which to ballance probabilities, because we ahve no basis for determining how long before she died Susan Porter wrote her will, and no particular reason to suppose Edmund survived her. Thus he 'MAY OR MAY NOT have been' living when she died. 'We have no basis for knowing' is technically equivalent to both 'he may have been' and 'he may not have been', and there is little benefit to spinning it one way or the other since the same is true about any other point in time within decades of the last actual evidence we have of him being alive.
>
> taf

Okay, so Edmund Hawes, Sr., was alive at some time shortly before May 1656 (a few days to a few years before).

And I was wrong about which nephew of Susan made a will in 1652 naming her -- it was Richard Porter, not John Porter.

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:32:16 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 3:24:54 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I'm uncertain about all my complex reasoning in the above. If Susan is mentioned as living
> > in the 1652 will of her nephew John Porter, and Edmund Hawes was clearly alive in September
> > 1653, then perhaps Susan's own will was made 1652-53.
> I don't see how this follows at all. Susan being mentioned in the will of her nephew provides no constraint on when she could have written her own, and likewise having a solid date when Edmund was still alive has no bearing (if you knew when Edmund was dead, that would be a different story), because it likewise bears no linkage to him being named by her in her will.
>
> If I (quickly) read your summary correctly, she refers to her deceased brother so the will has to have been written after 1643 (when he wrote his will, since you give his death as the uncertain ca.1645), and she names her nephew John, who you said died in December 1652. I don't think one can safely assume how she would have responded to Arthur's plans. That leaves us with a date range for the will of 1643-1652, and hence Edmund was living some time in that period. However, given that you already have him in September 1653, there is nothing new learned here.
>
> taf

Well, her will really has to have been written after the date of death of her brother John, who is called "Deceased" therein. I don't _know_ the date of death of John Porter (I assume I was aware his will was written in 1643 and proved in 1645). So, ... further research as to a death date for John would narrow things down a bit.

I agree that I was overthinking the information about Arthur Porter and that his aunt Susan may not have been aware of his plans and trips, and that it may not have mattered to her anyway.

I found images of the parish register of St Mary's, Lamberhurst, Kent, on FindMyPast. In it I found burials from 1650-1657. I did not see a Susan Porter listed in any of those years.

Thanks for posting the link to the mention of Edmund Hawes in 1653. That's a useful find.

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 11:22:23 PM UTC-5, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> I found images of the parish register of St Mary's, Lamberhurst, Kent, on FindMyPast. In it I found burials from 1650-1657. I did not see a Susan Porter listed in any of those years.
>
> Thanks for posting the link to the mention of Edmund Hawes in 1653. That's a useful find.

Okay, thanks for checking. I would have thought she would be in those records.

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 7:39:24 AM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 11:22:23 PM UTC-5, Jan Wolfe wrote:
> > I found images of the parish register of St Mary's, Lamberhurst, Kent, on FindMyPast. In it I found burials from 1650-1657. I did not see a Susan Porter listed in any of those years.
> >
> > Thanks for posting the link to the mention of Edmund Hawes in 1653. That's a useful find.
> Okay, thanks for checking. I would have thought she would be in those records.

I guess we can say that Susan made her will no later than Dec. 1652, when she mentions as living her nephew John Porter, known to have died Dec. 1652. Another nephew Richard, brother of John, made a will in 1652 bequeathing to her.

Disregard my earlier statements about Susan's third nephew Arthur Porter, whose will was proved very close in time to her own (9 May 1656).

Edmund Hawes was definitely alive in December 1652, as he's mentioned in an indenture from September of the next year.

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 6:58:22 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Edmund Hawes was definitely alive in December 1652, as he's mentioned in an indenture from September of the next year.

And this is the crux - the most recent date the will could have been written (Dec 1652, but as much as 7+ years earlier) predates the last date you have Edmund alive (Sep 1653). While dating the will more precisely may be interesting for its own sake, it offers no insight with regard to Edmund Hawes' death.

taf

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 6:58:22 AM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Edmund Hawes was definitely alive in December 1652, as he's mentioned in an indenture from September of the next year.
> And this is the crux - the most recent date the will could have been written (Dec 1652, but as much as 7+ years earlier) predates the last date you have Edmund alive (Sep 1653). While dating the will more precisely may be interesting for its own sake, it offers no insight with regard to Edmund Hawes' death.
>
> taf

Yes, it's "useless" as far as indicating the death date of Edmund.

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 6:38:43 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:

> Okay, so Edmund Hawes, Sr., was alive at some time shortly before May 1656 (a few days to a few years before).

I am new to this question, but if I read the summary correctly, the most recent we have evidence he was alive is September 1653. I don't understand why, then, it would be preferable to express it in terms of 1656, which requires both imprecision and a level of uncertainty ('some time shortly before' - 'a few days to a few years') rather than the precise, accurate statement that he was alive in September 1653.

Am I missing something that makes May 1656 a desirable enough frame of reference such that one would rather use it, in spite of needing to extrapolate imprecisely from a datum 2-and-a-half years earlier, rather than to use September 1653 when we actually know he was living?

taf

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 11:44:24 AM UTC-5, taf wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 6:38:43 PM UTC-8, JBrand wrote:
>
> > Okay, so Edmund Hawes, Sr., was alive at some time shortly before May 1656 (a few days to a few years before).
> I am new to this question, but if I read the summary correctly, the most recent we have evidence he was alive is September 1653. I don't understand why, then, it would be preferable to express it in terms of 1656, which requires both imprecision and a level of uncertainty ('some time shortly before' - 'a few days to a few years') rather than the precise, accurate statement that he was alive in September 1653.
>
> Am I missing something that makes May 1656 a desirable enough frame of reference such that one would rather use it, in spite of needing to extrapolate imprecisely from a datum 2-and-a-half years earlier, rather than to use September 1653 when we actually know he was living?
>
> taf

No, 1656 is really not preferable or desirable.