When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)

"Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890], claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9 has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."

There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.

The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.

There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.

In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.

In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
…..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn

The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)

(1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
(2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
(3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
(4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
(5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
(6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
(7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol.. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
(8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)
>
> "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890], claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9 has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."
>
>
> There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.
>
> The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.
>
> There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.
>
> In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.
>
> In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
> ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
> …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
> ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
> ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn
>
> The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)
>
>
> (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
> (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
> (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
> (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
> (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
> (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
> (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
> (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.

I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.

William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
and he was a great-grandfather.

Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:14:27 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:

> I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.
>
> William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
> we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
> and he was a great-grandfather.
>
> Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century

By the way when you say "their son William stated in 1634" that you are referring to the Vis Buck 1634

However in that item which is online

https://archive.org/details/visitationofcoun5859byuphil/page/93/mode/1up?q=malthous

we see a curious thing
No evidence for who is speaking
No signature or indication that it might not be George or another child who is speaking to the Herald

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:19:04 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:14:27 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
>
> > I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.
> >
> > William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
> > we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
> > and he was a great-grandfather.
> >
> > Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
> By the way when you say "their son William stated in 1634" that you are referring to the Vis Buck 1634
>
> However in that item which is online
>
> https://archive.org/details/visitationofcoun5859byuphil/page/93/mode/1up?q=malthous
>
> we see a curious thing
> No evidence for who is speaking
> No signature or indication that it might not be George or another child who is speaking to the Herald

The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, does clearly give the parentage of Margaret Bullock who married John Malthouse of Binfield -- Thomas and Alice (Kingsmill) Bullock:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogist/sNY6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=malthouse

There is an Edward I descent that comes in through the mother of Thomas Bullock (who was a Norreys, not Morryce, as shown incorrectly in the 1566 Berks. Vis.)

However, I thought there was some problem with this line ...

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:37:29 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:19:04 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:14:27 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> >
> > > I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.
> > >
> > > William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
> > > we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
> > > and he was a great-grandfather.
> > >
> > > Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
> > By the way when you say "their son William stated in 1634" that you are referring to the Vis Buck 1634
> >
> > However in that item which is online
> >
> > https://archive.org/details/visitationofcoun5859byuphil/page/93/mode/1up?q=malthous
> >
> > we see a curious thing
> > No evidence for who is speaking
> > No signature or indication that it might not be George or another child who is speaking to the Herald
> The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, does clearly give the parentage of Margaret Bullock who married John Malthouse of Binfield -- Thomas and Alice (Kingsmill) Bullock:
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogist/sNY6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=malthouse
>
> There is an Edward I descent that comes in through the mother of Thomas Bullock (who was a Norreys, not Morryce, as shown incorrectly in the 1566 Berks. Vis.)
>
> However, I thought there was some problem with this line ...

Not just Edward I, but she is equally well descended (9 generations in each case) from Richard of England, /HR Emperor/ 1256

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:37:29 PM UTC-5, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:19:04 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 1:14:27 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> >
> > > I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.
> > >
> > > William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
> > > we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
> > > and he was a great-grandfather.
> > >
> > > Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
> > By the way when you say "their son William stated in 1634" that you are referring to the Vis Buck 1634
> >
> > However in that item which is online
> >
> > https://archive.org/details/visitationofcoun5859byuphil/page/93/mode/1up?q=malthous
> >
> > we see a curious thing
> > No evidence for who is speaking
> > No signature or indication that it might not be George or another child who is speaking to the Herald
> The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, does clearly give the parentage of Margaret Bullock who married John Malthouse of Binfield -- Thomas and Alice (Kingsmill) Bullock:
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Genealogist/sNY6AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=malthouse
>
> There is an Edward I descent that comes in through the mother of Thomas Bullock (who was a Norreys, not Morryce, as shown incorrectly in the 1566 Berks. Vis.)
>
> However, I thought there was some problem with this line ...

I'm not sure about any potential problem with royal lines through Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse's father Thomas Bullock. However, it seems to me that an alternate line exists through Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse's mother, Alice (Kingsmill) Bullock. The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, as you indicated, states that Alice (Kingsmill) Bullock was "da. to John Kingsmill, one of the Justices of the Com'on Place[sic; Common Pleas], in co. South'ton, Esq."

The Victoria County History of Berkshire for Barkham gives a few additional details:
"The Kingsmill family appears frequently in records of Barkham. John Kingsmill (de Kyngesmalle) was resident in the parish in 1327, (fn. 8) and the names of John Kingsmill and Adam his son and Elizabeth wife of Adam occur in 1337. (fn. 9) Thomas Kingsmill and Richard his brother, living in 1476, are called sons of William Kingsmill of Barkham, deceased. (fn. 10) Richard Kingsmill of Barkham was father of John Kingsmill, justice of the Common Pleas, who died in 1504 and whose daughter Alice married Thomas Bullock of Arborfield. (fn. 11) His son Sir John Kingsmill was of Sydmonton, Hants, and was the ancestor of Elizabeth Brice (see manor), whose husband Robert Brice took the name and arms of Kingsmill in 1766 and was created a baronet in 1800. (fn 12)
....
8. Subs. R. printed in Berks. Bucks. and Oxon. Arch. Journ. v, 80.
9. Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xv, App. x, 173.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.; Betham, Baronetage of Engl. iv, 409; Visit. of Berks. (Harl. Soc..), i, 19. William Kingsmill appears as trustee in a settlement of Arborfield and Barkham Manors in 1585.
12. Betham, loc. cit."
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/berks/vol3/pp238-241

I distinctly remember this branch of the Kingsmill family being given a brief footnote, giving an additional, more distant royal descent, in Paul Reed's excellent article "The Royal Descent of the Bernard, Corderoy, and Ironmonger Families of Virginia through the Seymour Family," The American Genealogist, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Jul. 1998):181-192; Vol. 73, No. 4 (Oct. 1998):294-311. Unfortunately I don't have access to my physical copy of this article, so I can't provide the specifics.

When referring to any statement that was supposedly made by William in 1634, I did so based upon two references made to that fact in the NEHGR article by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. I apologize for doing so if that fact was incorrect, but based upon information supplied by some family member in the 1634 Visitation. “William Montague of Boveney = Margaret da.of John Malthous of Bynfield in Com. Bucks (Berks).”

When trying to establish a timeline…..

The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, states that Margaret Bullock, Daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married John Malthouse of Binfield
In both the Visitation of Berkshire in 1532 and in 1566, the sons of Thomas and Alice are listed in order by age. The daughters are listed in the same sequence in both the visitations, and if they are listed, by age as the sons are listed, then Margaret would have been the oldest daughter or possibly the oldest child, indicating a birth abt 1510.
From the will (file attached) of Margaret Bullock’s father, Thomas, dated 1557, there are several references with the Malthouse name, two of which are:
…… Daughter Malthouse
…….son-in-law John Malthouse co-overseer of his will with son George

There are five individuals in the Binfield area who can be identified as John Malthouse in the period from the late 1400’s to the mid 1500’s.
From an Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield dated 24 Henry VII, two are identified
John Malthouse died 19 Henry VII
John Malthouse son of (a) who was 18 in 24 Henry VII
2) From a will dated 1558 attributed to (b), he (wife Anne) has a son, John (birth abt 1510)
3) Baptismal records show a John being baptized 1551 and father John (abt 1530)

The Inquisition concerns taxes due on properties granted by the King.

When looking at son-in-law John Malthouse as a co-overseer to the will of Thomas Bullock, it would seem to indicate that he was someone who had a trusted relationship over a period of time with the Bullock family. It is much more likely that this person would have been John (1510), who would have married into the Bullock family in abt 1530 and who would have been about 47 at the time of Thomas Bullocks death, as opposed to John (1530) who would have married into the family abt 1550 and would have been 27 at the time of his father-in-law’s death.

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 9:36:27 AM UTC-5, Bob N wrote:
> When referring to any statement that was supposedly made by William in 1634, I did so based upon two references made to that fact in the NEHGR article by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. I apologize for doing so if that fact was incorrect, but based upon information supplied by some family member in the 1634 Visitation. “William Montague of Boveney = Margaret da.of John Malthous of Bynfield in Com. Bucks (Berks).”
>
>
> When trying to establish a timeline…..
>
> The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, states that Margaret Bullock, Daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married John Malthouse of Binfield
> In both the Visitation of Berkshire in 1532 and in 1566, the sons of Thomas and Alice are listed in order by age. The daughters are listed in the same sequence in both the visitations, and if they are listed, by age as the sons are listed, then Margaret would have been the oldest daughter or possibly the oldest child, indicating a birth abt 1510.
> From the will (file attached) of Margaret Bullock’s father, Thomas, dated 1557, there are several references with the Malthouse name, two of which are:
> …… Daughter Malthouse
> …….son-in-law John Malthouse co-overseer of his will with son George
>
> There are five individuals in the Binfield area who can be identified as John Malthouse in the period from the late 1400’s to the mid 1500’s.
> From an Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield dated 24 Henry VII, two are identified
> John Malthouse died 19 Henry VII
> John Malthouse son of (a) who was 18 in 24 Henry VII
> 2) From a will dated 1558 attributed to (b), he (wife Anne) has a son, John (birth abt 1510)
> 3) Baptismal records show a John being baptized 1551 and father John (abt 1530)
>
>
> The Inquisition concerns taxes due on properties granted by the King.
>
> When looking at son-in-law John Malthouse as a co-overseer to the will of Thomas Bullock, it would seem to indicate that he was someone who had a trusted relationship over a period of time with the Bullock family. It is much more likely that this person would have been John (1510), who would have married into the Bullock family in abt 1530 and who would have been about 47 at the time of Thomas Bullocks death, as opposed to John (1530) who would have married into the family abt 1550 and would have been 27 at the time of his father-in-law’s death.

I think it is Myrtle Hyde's position that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 is specifically identical to the daughter of John Malthouse and wife Margaret Bullock. There's not much elaboration in her article on why she is 100% sure of that. Accepting it as true, however, means that the Margaret Malthouse ancestral to these immigrants (who first married in 1552) cannot be the daughter of Margaret (Bullock) Malthouse and thus lacks the RD.

I wonder if it is possible that it was Margaret Bullock who married (1) John Malthouse; (2) 1552 Thomas Grove; (3) 1560 William Mountague?

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 6:36:27 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> When referring to any statement that was supposedly made by William in 1634, I did so based upon two references made to that fact in the NEHGR article by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. I apologize for doing so if that fact was incorrect, but based upon information supplied by some family member in the 1634 Visitation. “William Montague of Boveney = Margaret da.of John Malthous of Bynfield in Com. Bucks (Berks).”
>
>
> When trying to establish a timeline…..
>
> The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, states that Margaret Bullock, Daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married John Malthouse of Binfield
> In both the Visitation of Berkshire in 1532 and in 1566, the sons of Thomas and Alice are listed in order by age. The daughters are listed in the same sequence in both the visitations, and if they are listed, by age as the sons are listed, then Margaret would have been the oldest daughter or possibly the oldest child, indicating a birth abt 1510.
> From the will (file attached) of Margaret Bullock’s father, Thomas, dated 1557, there are several references with the Malthouse name, two of which are:
> …… Daughter Malthouse
> …….son-in-law John Malthouse co-overseer of his will with son George
>
> There are five individuals in the Binfield area who can be identified as John Malthouse in the period from the late 1400’s to the mid 1500’s.
> From an Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield dated 24 Henry VII, two are identified
> John Malthouse died 19 Henry VII
> John Malthouse son of (a) who was 18 in 24 Henry VII
> 2) From a will dated 1558 attributed to (b), he (wife Anne) has a son, John (birth abt 1510)
> 3) Baptismal records show a John being baptized 1551 and father John (abt 1530)
>
>
> The Inquisition concerns taxes due on properties granted by the King.
>
> When looking at son-in-law John Malthouse as a co-overseer to the will of Thomas Bullock, it would seem to indicate that he was someone who had a trusted relationship over a period of time with the Bullock family. It is much more likely that this person would have been John (1510), who would have married into the Bullock family in abt 1530 and who would have been about 47 at the time of Thomas Bullocks death, as opposed to John (1530) who would have married into the family abt 1550 and would have been 27 at the time of his father-in-law’s death.

You again say that Margaret was born "About 1510"
Why not "About 1520" or "About 1530" or "About 1500"

You are giving a too specific date to something about which we know almost nothing.

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 6:36:27 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > When referring to any statement that was supposedly made by William in 1634, I did so based upon two references made to that fact in the NEHGR article by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. I apologize for doing so if that fact was incorrect, but based upon information supplied by some family member in the 1634 Visitation. “William Montague of Boveney = Margaret da.of John Malthous of Bynfield in Com. Bucks (Berks).”
> >
> >
> > When trying to establish a timeline…..
> >
> > The Visitation of Berkshire, 1566, states that Margaret Bullock, Daughter of Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill, married John Malthouse of Binfield
> > In both the Visitation of Berkshire in 1532 and in 1566, the sons of Thomas and Alice are listed in order by age. The daughters are listed in the same sequence in both the visitations, and if they are listed, by age as the sons are listed, then Margaret would have been the oldest daughter or possibly the oldest child, indicating a birth abt 1510.
> > From the will (file attached) of Margaret Bullock’s father, Thomas, dated 1557, there are several references with the Malthouse name, two of which are:
> > …… Daughter Malthouse
> > …….son-in-law John Malthouse co-overseer of his will with son George
> >
> > There are five individuals in the Binfield area who can be identified as John Malthouse in the period from the late 1400’s to the mid 1500’s.
> > From an Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield dated 24 Henry VII, two are identified
> > John Malthouse died 19 Henry VII
> > John Malthouse son of (a) who was 18 in 24 Henry VII
> > 2) From a will dated 1558 attributed to (b), he (wife Anne) has a son, John (birth abt 1510)
> > 3) Baptismal records show a John being baptized 1551 and father John (abt 1530)
> >
> >
> > The Inquisition concerns taxes due on properties granted by the King.
> >
> > When looking at son-in-law John Malthouse as a co-overseer to the will of Thomas Bullock, it would seem to indicate that he was someone who had a trusted relationship over a period of time with the Bullock family. It is much more likely that this person would have been John (1510), who would have married into the Bullock family in abt 1530 and who would have been about 47 at the time of Thomas Bullocks death, as opposed to John (1530) who would have married into the family abt 1550 and would have been 27 at the time of his father-in-law’s death.
> You again say that Margaret was born "About 1510"
> Why not "About 1520" or "About 1530" or "About 1500"
>
> You are giving a too specific date to something about which we know almost nothing.

reasons for giving Margaret a birth year that is close to 1510:

1) the listing for the sons for Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill in both the Visitations are done in order of age, as explained in the visitation. Their daughters are listed in the same order in both Visitations, and if they were done as the sons were, then Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest child.

2) The 1557 will of Margaret's father, Thomas Bullock, mentions his son-in-law John Malthouse several times, including once as a co-overseer to the will. This would indicate that he was someone who had a trusted relationship over a period of time with the Bullock family. It is much more likely that Jon would have married into the Bullock family in abt 1530 by marrying an elder daughter, thus being about 45 at the time of Thomas Bullock's death in 1558, as opposed to marrying into the family at a later date, say 1550, and being much younger, in his 20's, at the time of his father-in-law’s death.

3) There is a reference stating that the Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague in 1560 was the daughter of John Malthouse of Binfield. When studying the Malthouse line in Binfield, the first John that appears died in 19 Henry VII (Inquisition 24 Henry VII), and is an unacceptable candidate as the father of the Margaret in question. In the same Inquisition, a second John Malthose is mentioned as the son of the deceased John, and this son was 18 at the time of the inquisition in 1509, giving him a birth year of 1491. In the will in 1558 of John (1491), he refers to his wife Anne and included among his children a John Malthouse, without any mention of a Margaret. The John Malthouse mentioned in the will as a son is estimated to have been born in 1510. The next John Malthouse (born abt 1530) is the one referred to by Payne in his book and the NEHGR. Among the children of John (1530) was the Margaret who was baptized in Binfield in 1558 and thought by Payne, in error, to be the wife of William Montague and daughter of Margaret Bullock . The John (1530) also had a son John who was baptized in 1551. So the only John Malthouse of Binfield eligible to be the father of the Margaret who married William is the one born in abt 1510, who is mentioned in the 1557 will of Thomas Bullock and who was married to Margaret Bullock. Their daughter, Margaret, married Thomas Grove and William Montague was born abt 1532, so her mother, Margaret Bullock, would have been born in the early 1510’s.

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)
> >
> > "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890], claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9 has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."
> >
> >
> > There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.
> >
> > The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.
> >
> > There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.
> >
> > In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.
> >
> > In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
> > ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
> > …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
> > ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
> > ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn
> >
> > The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)
> >
> >
> > (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
> > (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
> > (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
> > (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
> > (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
> > (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
> > (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
> > (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
> I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.
>
> William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
> we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
> and he was a great-grandfather.
>
> Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century

I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)
> > >
> > > "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890], claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9 has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."
> > >
> > >
> > > There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.
> > >
> > > The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.
> > >
> > > There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.
> > >
> > > In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.
> > >
> > > In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
> > > ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
> > > …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
> > > ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
> > > ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn
> > >
> > > The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)
> > >
> > >
> > > (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
> > > (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
> > > (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
> > > (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
> > > (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
> > > (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
> > > (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
> > > (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
> > I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.
> >
> > William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
> > we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
> > and he was a great-grandfather.
> >
> > Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
> I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's

My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.

Thomas Bullock as "eldest son" could have been born in the range 1474/1503

For his wife Alice Kingsmill she could have been born in the range 1485/1507 since we know her eldest son Richard had his own eldest son Thomas about 1546

However all the surviving daughters could have all clustered at the front, or at the back for all we know today
Margaret could have born as early as 1500, or as late as 1544.
The daughters in the Visitation do not have to be all the daughters they had

The idea that "John Malthouse" was "estimated" to have been born in 1510 is equally on quite shaky grounds and should not be relied upon

It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:08:50 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > > When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)
> > > >
> > > > "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890], claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9 has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.
> > > >
> > > > The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.
> > > >
> > > > There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.
> > > >
> > > > In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.
> > > >
> > > > In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
> > > > ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
> > > > …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
> > > > ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown..
> > > > ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn
> > > >
> > > > The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks..), (3)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
> > > > (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
> > > > (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no.. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
> > > > (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
> > > > (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
> > > > (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index).... unpaid fees to the king
> > > > (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
> > > > (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
> > > I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.
> > >
> > > William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
> > > we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
> > > and he was a great-grandfather.
> > >
> > > Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
> > I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's
> My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.
>
> Thomas Bullock as "eldest son" could have been born in the range 1474/1503
>
> For his wife Alice Kingsmill she could have been born in the range 1485/1507 since we know her eldest son Richard had his own eldest son Thomas about 1546
>
> However all the surviving daughters could have all clustered at the front, or at the back for all we know today
> Margaret could have born as early as 1500, or as late as 1544.
> The daughters in the Visitation do not have to be all the daughters they had
>
> The idea that "John Malthouse" was "estimated" to have been born in 1510 is equally on quite shaky grounds and should not be relied upon
>
> It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection

Right, and you need to be able to disprove Myrtle Hyde's plain statement that Margaret, daughter of John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock, was the baptism from 1558.

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:08:50 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > > When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)
> > > >
> > > > "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890], claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9 has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.
> > > >
> > > > The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.
> > > >
> > > > There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.
> > > >
> > > > In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.
> > > >
> > > > In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
> > > > ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
> > > > …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
> > > > ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown..
> > > > ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn
> > > >
> > > > The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks..), (3)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
> > > > (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
> > > > (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no.. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
> > > > (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
> > > > (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
> > > > (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index).... unpaid fees to the king
> > > > (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
> > > > (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
> > > I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.
> > >
> > > William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
> > > we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
> > > and he was a great-grandfather.
> > >
> > > Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
> > I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's
> My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.
>
> Thomas Bullock as "eldest son" could have been born in the range 1474/1503
>
> For his wife Alice Kingsmill she could have been born in the range 1485/1507 since we know her eldest son Richard had his own eldest son Thomas about 1546
>
> However all the surviving daughters could have all clustered at the front, or at the back for all we know today
> Margaret could have born as early as 1500, or as late as 1544.
> The daughters in the Visitation do not have to be all the daughters they had
>
> The idea that "John Malthouse" was "estimated" to have been born in 1510 is equally on quite shaky grounds and should not be relied upon
>
> It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection
Ok .... Who was the Malthouse in Thomas Bullock's will without 1510 or 1491...... Very unlikely John 1530 as overseer of Thomas' will being 27 at the time and only being a member of the Bullock family for 7 years? John 1491 or John 1510 was married to Margaret Bullock and the other made the will in 1558 having a wife Anne.

You need A john Malthouse 1510..... Either as 1) son of 1491 and husband of Margaret Bullock. Then the will of John Malthouse 1558 was for John 1491 with wife Anne or 2) 1491 had two wives with first giving him a son John 1510, with the first wife having died bef 1530, and then his second wife was Margaret Bullock who gave him the daughter Margaret, wife of William Montague. Son John 1510 had the will in 1558 with wife Anne.

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:42:48 AM UTC-5, JBrand wrote:
> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:08:50 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > > > When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890], claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9 has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt.. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
> > > > > ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
> > > > > …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
> > > > > ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
> > > > > ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn
> > > > >
> > > > > The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
> > > > > (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
> > > > > (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
> > > > > (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
> > > > > (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
> > > > > (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
> > > > > (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
> > > > > (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
> > > > I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.
> > > >
> > > > William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
> > > > we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
> > > > and he was a great-grandfather.
> > > >
> > > > Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
> > > I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's
> > My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.
> >
> > Thomas Bullock as "eldest son" could have been born in the range 1474/1503
> >
> > For his wife Alice Kingsmill she could have been born in the range 1485/1507 since we know her eldest son Richard had his own eldest son Thomas about 1546
> >
> > However all the surviving daughters could have all clustered at the front, or at the back for all we know today
> > Margaret could have born as early as 1500, or as late as 1544.
> > The daughters in the Visitation do not have to be all the daughters they had
> >
> > The idea that "John Malthouse" was "estimated" to have been born in 1510 is equally on quite shaky grounds and should not be relied upon
> >
> > It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection
> Right, and you need to be able to disprove Myrtle Hyde's plain statement that Margaret, daughter of John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock, was the baptism from 1558.
The statement was Payne's, and all Hyde did was disprove that margaret 1558 was the wife of william montague ..... About which all agree

On Saturday, February
> > It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection
> Right, and you need to be able to disprove Myrtle Hyde's plain statement that Margaret, daughter of John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock, was the baptism from 1558.

While I agree that more documentation would be necessary to state with certainty that William Montague's wife, Margaret Malthouse, was indeed the daughter of the John Malthouse who was married to Margaret Bullock, in rereading Hyde's article, I can't see that she provides any documentation proving that the Margaret Malthouse baptized on 15 February 1558/9 was the daughter of Margaret Bullock, either. Reading it now, I'd say she assumes this to be fact, but I'm not sure why. I don't know how common it was to list the maiden name of the mother in the parish records of mid-16th century Tudor England, but short of that I'm not sure we can know that for certain. As this discussion demonstrates, I don't think we have enough concrete dates to prove the case, either way. Clearly the Margaret Malthouse, I presume we know was the daughter of a John Malthouse of Binfield baptized in 1558/9 cannot be the Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John Malthouse of Binfield, who was first married in 1552 and second in 1560, but I think more documentation is necessary to prove if either of them was the daughter of Margaret Bullock. That being said, I at least find it worth reconsidering whether or not some Hyde's views which have more or less been accepted as settled fact aren't in need of review. I do have one question on the new material on the Malthouse family that's been discussed earlier in this string of messages: Does the will of John Malthouse (d. ca. 1558) provide any information on the "married daughter?" I think I've remembered correctly that you stated that the will noted the existence of a married daughter.
Jeff Duvall

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 5:48:27 PM UTC-5, jeffery...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February
> > > It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection
> > Right, and you need to be able to disprove Myrtle Hyde's plain statement that Margaret, daughter of John Malthouse and Margaret Bullock, was the baptism from 1558.
> While I agree that more documentation would be necessary to state with certainty that William Montague's wife, Margaret Malthouse, was indeed the daughter of the John Malthouse who was married to Margaret Bullock, in rereading Hyde's article, I can't see that she provides any documentation proving that the Margaret Malthouse baptized on 15 February 1558/9 was the daughter of Margaret Bullock, either. Reading it now, I'd say she assumes this to be fact, but I'm not sure why. I don't know how common it was to list the maiden name of the mother in the parish records of mid-16th century Tudor England, but short of that I'm not sure we can know that for certain. As this discussion demonstrates, I don't think we have enough concrete dates to prove the case, either way. Clearly the Margaret Malthouse, I presume we know was the daughter of a John Malthouse of Binfield baptized in 1558/9 cannot be the Margaret Malthouse, daughter of a John Malthouse of Binfield, who was first married in 1552 and second in 1560, but I think more documentation is necessary to prove if either of them was the daughter of Margaret Bullock. That being said, I at least find it worth reconsidering whether or not some Hyde's views which have more or less been accepted as settled fact aren't in need of review. I do have one question on the new material on the Malthouse family that's been discussed earlier in this string of messages: Does the will of John Malthouse (d. ca. 1558) provide any information on the "married daughter?" I think I've remembered correctly that you stated that the will noted the existence of a married daughter.
>
> Jeff Duvall
the Payne book takes a baptismal record in Binfield from 1558 that says Margaret malthouse was the Daughter of John Malthouse without a wife mentioned and made the assumption that this margaret was the wife of William Montague. Hyde disproved that assumption and then seemed to move on since her investigation concerned the Montague family. She leaves Payne's second assumption alone that this Margaret was the daughter of Margaret Bullock and lets it stand since it ceased to be a concern for the Montague line.

The 1558 will mentions a married daughter to Thomas Watlington. The will has a wife Anne, with Children John, Richard, Julian and daughter married (Watlington).

So there is a John Malthouse of Binfield born 1491 (inquisition 24 Henry VII) and John Malthouse of Binfield (abt 1530) with a son John Malthouse of Binfield (1551) (Binfield baptismal records). To make sence of the will for Thomas Bullock in 1557 and the will for John Malthouse of Binfield in 1558, there should be a John Malthouse of Binfield born in 1510, son of 1491 and father of 1530. one or the other of John 1491 and John 1510 would have been married to Margaret Bullock and the other had the will of 1558 with wife Anne.

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:08:50 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > > When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)
> > > >
> > > > "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890], claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9 has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.
> > > >
> > > > The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.
> > > >
> > > > There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.
> > > >
> > > > In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.
> > > >
> > > > In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
> > > > ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
> > > > …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
> > > > ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown..
> > > > ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn
> > > >
> > > > The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks..), (3)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
> > > > (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
> > > > (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no.. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
> > > > (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
> > > > (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
> > > > (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index).... unpaid fees to the king
> > > > (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
> > > > (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
> > > I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.
> > >
> > > William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
> > > we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
> > > and he was a great-grandfather.
> > >
> > > Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
> > I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's
> My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.
>
> Thomas Bullock as "eldest son" could have been born in the range 1474/1503
>
> For his wife Alice Kingsmill she could have been born in the range 1485/1507 since we know her eldest son Richard had his own eldest son Thomas about 1546
>
> However all the surviving daughters could have all clustered at the front, or at the back for all we know today
> Margaret could have born as early as 1500, or as late as 1544.
> The daughters in the Visitation do not have to be all the daughters they had
>
> The idea that "John Malthouse" was "estimated" to have been born in 1510 is equally on quite shaky grounds and should not be relied upon
>
> It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection
the will of Thomas Bullock mentions a godson Thomas Malthouse and the children from the Baptismal records who could have been siblings of Margaret Malthouse 1558, supposed daughter of Margaret, are John (1551) and Richard (1552) both with father shown as John Malthouse, and William (1554), Gilbert (1556), (Margaret (1558)), Robert (1561) and Francis (1563) all with father Malthouse, so without a godson Thomas Malthouse born before the 1557 will, when looking among these siblings. very unlikely that the Margaret of 1558 was the daughter of Margaret Bullock.

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 3:35:49 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:08:50 AM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:17:17 PM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 11:32:48 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > > > > When reviewing the web page, “The Hissem-Montague Family(1)”, created by Steven Hissem, it has an entry for William Montague, born 1536, that includes the following statement which contains information from John Orlebar Payne’s book Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus(2) and from the NEHGR article "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde. (3)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Margaret's son William stated that her father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.)," and William undoubtedly knew his grandfather's name (3). John Orlebar Payne (Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890], claims that the Margaret baptized 15 February 1558/9 at Binfield, daughter of John Malthous, was the wife of William Montague. Payne's source was not a Malthous document, but rather the 1634 visitation pedigree of Mountague. Margaret Malthous born 1558/9 has a royal descent through her mother (see Register 141 [1987]:106-107). The Margaret Malthous who married William Montague, however, was married first in 1552, long before another Margaret, daughter of a John, was baptized in 1559. Malthous wills have been read in an effort to identify John, the father-in-law of William Montague, but the quest has been unsuccessful."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There was a Margaret Malthouse who was baptized on 15 Feb 1558, who was the daughter of a John Malthouse, and Payne states on Page 47 of his book, “Margaret, the da. of John and Margaret Malthus who was bapt.. at Binfield in 1558, afterwards married William Montagu, of Boveney, in the parish of Burnham, co. Bucks.”(2) With additional information provided by the NEHGR article (3) stating that the Margaret Malthouse had first married Thomas Grove on 3 July 1552 and then married William Montague on 27 May 1560 (as Margaret Grove), it becomes clear that the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558 was NOT the Matrgaret Malthouse who married to William Montague.in 1560.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Hissim website and the NEHGR article correctly revised an incorrect assumption made by Payne, but research by both sources on the Malthouse line appears to have ceased, since their primary emphasis was the Montague family tree.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are several items needed to better understand the Malthouse family tree, which include the will of Thomas Bullock in its entirety (available from The National Archives)(4), the will of John Malthouse of Binfield in its entirety (available from The Berkshire Record Office)(5), and the Inquisition for John Malthouse of Bynfield (24 Henry VII)(6). These, along with other documents such as visitations and baptismal records, can help to untangle previously incorrect deductions.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the Inquisition of John Malthouse of Bynfield, information is provided concerning his death in 19 Henry VII (1504) and that his son John was age 18 in 24 Henry VII (born about 1491). In the 1558 will for John Malthouse, born 1491, he mentions his wife Anne, son John, son Richard, Julian and married daughter. This son John is estimated to have been born about 1510.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the Visitations of Berkshire in 1532 and 1566 (7), Thomas Bullock and Alice Kingsmill are shown to have ten children, and based upon how these children are listed, Margaret would have been the oldest daughter and possibly the oldest of their children, estimated to have been born about 1510. In the will from 1557 for Thomas Bullock, the references he made to Malthouse include the following
> > > > > ….And I do make my son George Bullock and my son John Malthouse to be my overseers to see that this is my will be observed and done in all things as my singular trust is in them.
> > > > > …..And I will that the bills obligatory wherein Thomas Noke and John Malthouse my sons in law do stand severally bounden to me shall be to them cancelled and delivered
> > > > > ….And to John Malthouse my son in law one other Damask gown.
> > > > > ….to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold with a horn
> > > > >
> > > > > The Margaret Malthouse who married William Montague (Visitation of Buckinghamshire 1634 (8)) was the daughter of John Malthouse (1510) and Margaret Bullock, (1510), and she was born about 1532. Their son William, baptized on 18 Apr 1562, stated at the time of the Visitation in 1634 that his mother’s father was "John Malthous of Bynfield in Com Bucks. (Berks.), (3)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (1)http://shissem.com/Hissem_Boveney.html
> > > > > (2) John Orlebar Payne Collections for a History of the Family of Malthus [London, 1890]
> > > > > (3) New England Historical and Genealogical Register, volume 142 no. 2 (April 1988): pages 149-164. "The English Origin of Peter and Richard Montague," by Myrtle Stevens Hyde.
> > > > > (4) The National Archives - Will of Thomas Bullocke of Erburghfelde, Berkshire (1557)
> > > > > (5) Berkshire Record Office - Will of John Malthus of Binfield (1558)
> > > > > (6) Inquisition John Malthouse on 24 Henry VII (#508 in the index)... unpaid fees to the king
> > > > > (7) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Four Visitations of Berkshire taken in 1532, 1566, 1623 and 1665-6, vol. I. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 56, 1907): page 4; page 19.
> > > > > (8) Rylands, W. Harry ed. Visitation of the County of Buckingham made in 1634. (London: Harleian Society Visitation Series, vol. 58, 1909): pages 92-93.
> > > > I would say it's not helpful to assign a particular birth year, or even decade (about 1510) to a person about which we have no date anchors at all, even back to grandparents on either side. We have nothing.
> > > >
> > > > William /Norreys/ of Yatterden , Knt 1458
> > > > we have "aged 25" 1466 in which year his father died
> > > > and he was a great-grandfather.
> > > >
> > > > Margaret could have been born anytime in the early 16th century
> > > I am trying to understand your concern that Margaret Bullock's great grandfather William Norreys was born in 1441...... Then her grandmother, Margaret Norreys about 1460, her father, Thomas Bullock about 1485 and Margaret in the early 1510's
> > My concern is that you are somewhat arbitrarily fixing her birthdate in the "early 1510s" based on quite scant chronological pegs.
> >
> > Thomas Bullock as "eldest son" could have been born in the range 1474/1503
> >
> > For his wife Alice Kingsmill she could have been born in the range 1485/1507 since we know her eldest son Richard had his own eldest son Thomas about 1546
> >
> > However all the surviving daughters could have all clustered at the front, or at the back for all we know today
> > Margaret could have born as early as 1500, or as late as 1544.
> > The daughters in the Visitation do not have to be all the daughters they had
> >
> > The idea that "John Malthouse" was "estimated" to have been born in 1510 is equally on quite shaky grounds and should not be relied upon
> >
> > It just very clear that you need more documentation to make this connection
> the will of Thomas Bullock mentions a godson Thomas Malthouse and the children from the Baptismal records who could have been siblings of Margaret Malthouse 1558, supposed daughter of Margaret, are John (1551) and Richard (1552) both with father shown as John Malthouse, and William (1554), Gilbert (1556), (Margaret (1558)), Robert (1561) and Francis (1563) all with father Malthouse, so without a godson Thomas Malthouse born before the 1557 will, when looking among these siblings. very unlikely that the Margaret of 1558 was the daughter of Margaret Bullock.

Will you please stop stating as a fact that John Malthouse was born IN 1510
We have exactly *zero* evidence of what year he was born

Stating as if we have some fact that he was born IN 1510 or even NEAR 1510 is unsupported
If your software cannot contemplate the idea that people can have birth RANGES than you need to discard that software for more modern software that can.

You then use this unsupported claim of *exactly* 1510 to also claim his wife was born IN (or near) 1510
We have examples from this time period of a husband marrying (as her first husband) when the man was OVER 50 and the woman was 12 !!

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:12:51 PM UTC-5, jeffery...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 6:35:
>
> For what it's worth, Payne also mentions the burial of a Margaret Malthouse of Binfield recorded in the parish register as taking place on March 19 (I think it's the 19th, sorry sometimes I can't read my own handwriting) 1542. Of course there is no way to prove one way or the other, at least based on this alone, that this was Margaret Bullock Malthouse, but I would venture to say to that it is in the realm of possibility, at least or until we are firmer ground vis-a-vis the dates for all these people. I guess one question to ask is whether or not there are any other Margaret Malthouses who might "fit the bill" as it were, for the woman buried in March 1542?

The Margaret Malthouse buried in 1542 can be eliminated as possibly being Margaret Bullock since she was bequeathed a gold hoop in her father's will in 1557.......

"..........Also, I give and bequeath to my daughter Malthouse one hoop of gold and to Thomas Malthouse my godson one brooch of gold........... "

You seem hupset on my failure to put about and I appologize. I thought I made it more clear that what I was saying was an estimate, but I try to be more careful to always include that in my writing. Maybe you could please help me explain the following 3 documents without a John Malthouse of Binfield born about1510:

inquisition for John Malthouse of Binfield 24Henry VII
will Thomas Bullock 1557
will John Malthouse of Binfield 1557

using only
John Malthouse of Binfield died 1504
John Malthouse of Binfield born 1491 (son of d. 1504)
??????????
John Malthouse of Binfield born about 1530
John Malthouse of Binfield baptized 1551

First of all there is a natural gap there for a John born about 1510 in that progression.

John 1504 and 1551 are obviously eliminated as a husband of Margaret Bullock.
John about 1530 is highly unlikely as a husband for Margaret Bullock since:
1) She was likely the eldest daughter and more than likely was born before 1920
2) He would have been 27 at the time of his father-in-law's will and only a member of the Bullock
family for about 7 years, therefore being a very unlikely candidate to be co-overseer of the will.
3) The lack of a son Thomas among his children baptized in Binfield and the will for Thomas Bullock
mentions a Godson Thomas Malthouse.

That leaves either John (1491) or John (about 1510). One was the husband of Margaret and one made the will in 1558. The evidence that there was an additional John Malthouse of Binfield comes from these documents which can only be explained by his presence and the obvious omission in about that year of a John Malthouse of Binfield, shown in the sequence above.

As you explained above an older man could have married a younger woman (or girl), and this may have been the case with John Malthouse of Binfield (1491) marrying Margaret Bullock, but then you need a John Malthouse of Binfield (about 1510) to explain the will of 1558.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:52:58 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> You seem hupset on my failure to put about and I appologize. I thought I made it more clear that what I was saying was an estimate, but I try to be more careful to always include that in my writing. Maybe you could please help me explain the following 3 documents without a John Malthouse of Binfield born about1510:
>
> inquisition for John Malthouse of Binfield 24Henry VII
> will Thomas Bullock 1557
> will John Malthouse of Binfield 1557
>
> using only
> John Malthouse of Binfield died 1504
> John Malthouse of Binfield born 1491 (son of d. 1504)
> ??????????
> John Malthouse of Binfield born about 1530
> John Malthouse of Binfield baptized 1551
>
> First of all there is a natural gap there for a John born about 1510 in that progression.
>
> John 1504 and 1551 are obviously eliminated as a husband of Margaret Bullock.
> John about 1530 is highly unlikely as a husband for Margaret Bullock since:
> 1) She was likely the eldest daughter and more than likely was born before 1920
> 2) He would have been 27 at the time of his father-in-law's will and only a member of the Bullock
> family for about 7 years, therefore being a very unlikely candidate to be co-overseer of the will.
> 3) The lack of a son Thomas among his children baptized in Binfield and the will for Thomas Bullock
> mentions a Godson Thomas Malthouse.
>
> That leaves either John (1491) or John (about 1510). One was the husband of Margaret and one made the will in 1558. The evidence that there was an additional John Malthouse of Binfield comes from these documents which can only be explained by his presence and the obvious omission in about that year of a John Malthouse of Binfield, shown in the sequence above.
>
> As you explained above an older man could have married a younger woman (or girl), and this may have been the case with John Malthouse of Binfield (1491) marrying Margaret Bullock, but then you need a John Malthouse of Binfield (about 1510) to explain the will of 1558.

So your case rests upon assuming that three generations in a row had their heir while they were say 20 years old. And that doesn't seem like an enormous red flag to you?

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 4:10:07 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 9:52:58 AM UTC-8, Bob N wrote:
> > You seem hupset on my failure to put about and I appologize. I thought I made it more clear that what I was saying was an estimate, but I try to be more careful to always include that in my writing. Maybe you could please help me explain the following 3 documents without a John Malthouse of Binfield born about1510:
> >
> > inquisition for John Malthouse of Binfield 24Henry VII
> > will Thomas Bullock 1557
> > will John Malthouse of Binfield 1557
> >
> > using only
> > John Malthouse of Binfield died 1504
> > John Malthouse of Binfield born 1491 (son of d. 1504)
> > ??????????
> > John Malthouse of Binfield born about 1530
> > John Malthouse of Binfield baptized 1551
> >
> > First of all there is a natural gap there for a John born about 1510 in that progression.
> >
> > John 1504 and 1551 are obviously eliminated as a husband of Margaret Bullock.
> > John about 1530 is highly unlikely as a husband for Margaret Bullock since:
> > 1) She was likely the eldest daughter and more than likely was born before 1920
> > 2) He would have been 27 at the time of his father-in-law's will and only a member of the Bullock
> > family for about 7 years, therefore being a very unlikely candidate to be co-overseer of the will.
> > 3) The lack of a son Thomas among his children baptized in Binfield and the will for Thomas Bullock
> > mentions a Godson Thomas Malthouse.
> >
> > That leaves either John (1491) or John (about 1510). One was the husband of Margaret and one made the will in 1558. The evidence that there was an additional John Malthouse of Binfield comes from these documents which can only be explained by his presence and the obvious omission in about that year of a John Malthouse of Binfield, shown in the sequence above.
> >
> > As you explained above an older man could have married a younger woman (or girl), and this may have been the case with John Malthouse of Binfield (1491) marrying Margaret Bullock, but then you need a John Malthouse of Binfield (about 1510) to explain the will of 1558.
> So your case rests upon assuming that three generations in a row had their heir while they were say 20 years old. And that doesn't seem like an enormous red flag to you?
my case rests on the three documents that i have mentioned several times and you continually avoid

Perhaps another way to look at this is to focus on who the father of Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague could be, assuming we all can agree that her son, William Montague, would have known that his mother was indeed the daughter of a John Malthouse of Bynfield, as was reported in the 1634 Visitation of Buckinghamshire. Some of the few concrete dates that I think everyone can agree upon are the dates of her two marriages, and the births of at least some of her children. We know that she married Thomas Grove in 1552 (2 July, if I am reading my notes correctly), that she gave birth to her only child (Anne) by Grove in 1554 and was widowed in 1558. We also know that she married
her second husband, William Montague (b. ca. 1535'ish - d. 1594ish) on 27 May 1560. Finally, we also know that William and Margaret Malthouse Montague's seven children were baptized between 1560/1 and 1573. And that it was their second son, William (1562- aft. 1634), M.A. and fellow of King's College, Cambridge, who supplied the information for the 1634 Visitation.

Turning to what little we know about the Malthouse family of Binfield (a.k.a. Bynfield) I think we can all agree that Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague cannot be the daughter of the John Malthouse who died in 1504 (I'll call him John I). That moves us on to the next John Malthouse (John II) who died in 1558, who we know left behind a widow named Anne (and as was pointed out, and I apologize for mixing that up, we know that Margaret Bullock was married to a John Malthouse at the time her father wrote his will in 1557, so she can't have been married to John II, unless she died and he remarried Anne sometime between the time the two wills were recorded). It seems unlikely that he could be her father since the only children named in his will were his son and heir John (III), a second son name Roger, a daughter named Julian, and final and fourth child who is the unnamed daughter who was married to Thomas Watlington. So that next leaves the John I've referred to as John III, who it appears was the man married to Margaret Bullock. Clearly, Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague cannot be the Margaret Malthouse who was baptized in 1558, but is she also cannot be the daughter of John I (d. 1504) -- the known dates associated with her simply don't add up, even if she was born posthumously 1505, I don't believe she'd still be bearing children in 1573 -- and she also cannot be the daughter of John I (d. 1558), unless you want to also start speculating about the reasons her father wouldn't mention her in his will, wouldn't her most likely father be John III?

As was noted earlier in this string, if girls as young as 12 (although I'm not sure there were that many marriages of 12-year-old girls taking place in mid-16th century Tudor England, but that's another can of worms) could marry, then the latest we could place Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague's birth would be ca. 1540 (that would make her 14 at the time of Anne Grove's birth) and given her youngest known child, Peter Montague, was born ca. 1573, I don't think we can push her earliest birthdate much past the late 1520s, and I would think it is more likely to be sometime in the mid-1530s.

I'm not sure where this leaves us, vis-a-vis the probable (or not) existence of a John Malthouse between John III (mentioned in the 1558 will of John II) and the John baptized in 1551, and I may be getting a bit lost in my own head here, but at the very least I think we have to consider the possibility, that John III and Margaret Bullock might be the parents of Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague, if we accept William Montague's identification of his maternal grandfather as John Malthouse of Binfield. And that the father of the Malthouse children being baptized from 1551-1563 (including the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558, which started all this) might in fact be a John IV who was the brother and contemporary of Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague.

I don't know if this helps or not...

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 5:25:44 PM UTC-5, jeffery...@gmail.com wrote:
> Perhaps another way to look at this is to focus on who the father of Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague could be, assuming we all can agree that her son, William Montague, would have known that his mother was indeed the daughter of a John Malthouse of Bynfield, as was reported in the 1634 Visitation of Buckinghamshire. Some of the few concrete dates that I think everyone can agree upon are the dates of her two marriages, and the births of at least some of her children. We know that she married Thomas Grove in 1552 (2 July, if I am reading my notes correctly), that she gave birth to her only child (Anne) by Grove in 1554 and was widowed in 1558. We also know that she married
> her second husband, William Montague (b. ca. 1535'ish - d. 1594ish) on 27 May 1560. Finally, we also know that William and Margaret Malthouse Montague's seven children were baptized between 1560/1 and 1573. And that it was their second son, William (1562- aft. 1634), M.A. and fellow of King's College, Cambridge, who supplied the information for the 1634 Visitation.
>
> Turning to what little we know about the Malthouse family of Binfield (a.k.a. Bynfield) I think we can all agree that Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague cannot be the daughter of the John Malthouse who died in 1504 (I'll call him John I). That moves us on to the next John Malthouse (John II) who died in 1558, who we know left behind a widow named Anne (and as was pointed out, and I apologize for mixing that up, we know that Margaret Bullock was married to a John Malthouse at the time her father wrote his will in 1557, so she can't have been married to John II, unless she died and he remarried Anne sometime between the time the two wills were recorded). It seems unlikely that he could be her father since the only children named in his will were his son and heir John (III), a second son name Roger, a daughter named Julian, and final and fourth child who is the unnamed daughter who was married to Thomas Watlington. So that next leaves the John I've referred to as John III, who it appears was the man married to Margaret Bullock. Clearly, Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague cannot be the Margaret Malthouse who was baptized in 1558, but is she also cannot be the daughter of John I (d. 1504) -- the known dates associated with her simply don't add up, even if she was born posthumously 1505, I don't believe she'd still be bearing children in 1573 -- and she also cannot be the daughter of John I (d. 1558), unless you want to also start speculating about the reasons her father wouldn't mention her in his will, wouldn't her most likely father be John III?
>
> As was noted earlier in this string, if girls as young as 12 (although I'm not sure there were that many marriages of 12-year-old girls taking place in mid-16th century Tudor England, but that's another can of worms) could marry, then the latest we could place Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague's birth would be ca. 1540 (that would make her 14 at the time of Anne Grove's birth) and given her youngest known child, Peter Montague, was born ca. 1573, I don't think we can push her earliest birthdate much past the late 1520s, and I would think it is more likely to be sometime in the mid-1530s.
>
> I'm not sure where this leaves us, vis-a-vis the probable (or not) existence of a John Malthouse between John III (mentioned in the 1558 will of John II) and the John baptized in 1551, and I may be getting a bit lost in my own head here, but at the very least I think we have to consider the possibility, that John III and Margaret Bullock might be the parents of Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague, if we accept William Montague's identification of his maternal grandfather as John Malthouse of Binfield. And that the father of the Malthouse children being baptized from 1551-1563 (including the Margaret Malthouse baptized in 1558, which started all this) might in fact be a John IV who was the brother and contemporary of Margaret Malthouse Grove Montague.
>
> I don't know if this helps or not...

We have John I (1504) who had a son, John II, born 1491/92. ( both from the inquisition 24 Henry VII)

Then we have John III who was the father of John IV. John IV was baptized in Binfield in 1551 and was the brother of Margaret (1558). A reasonable estimate for a birth year for John III would be about 1530, looking at the succession of his children who were baptized in the 1550's and early 1560's..

John Malthouse of Binfield died 1504
John Malthouse of Binfield born 1491 (son of d. 1504)
?????????? (1510)
John Malthouse of Binfield born about 1530
John Malthouse of Binfield baptized 1551

The other 4 events that we have for the Johns of Binfield are:
!) The will of 1558 and you have listed the names involved with that will
2) The will of 1557 for Thomas Bullock that has various references to the Malthouse name
3) The Visitation of Berkshire showing that Margaret Bullock married John Malthouse
4) The Visitation of Buckinghamshire showing William Montague married Margaret Malthouse daughter of John

The 1558 will and the marriage to Margaret involve 2 different Johns, and as it stands now John II is assigned the will and John III was married to Margaret.

Some issues concerning the marriage of Margaret Bullock to John III
1) Margaret Bullock appears to be the oldest daughter for Thomas Bullock and Alice Kinsmill based upon the listing for their 10 children (5 boys, 5 girls) in the Visitation. If she was the eldest of their children she would have been born about 1510, and and more than likely was born in the 1910's. Based upon the succession of children assigned to John III, he was born in the late 1520’s or about 1530.

2) In Thomas Bullock’s will, he names John Malthouse, his son-in-law, as a co-overseer of his will. John III would have been about 27 at the time of his father-in-law's will and only a member of the Bullock family for about 7 years, therefore being a very unlikely candidate to be co-overseer of the will, especially since some of Thomas’ children would have been in their 40’s.

3) In Thomas Bullock’s will, he bequeaths a gold bracelet to his godson Thomas Malthouse, and in list of children assigned to John III, we are unable to find a Thomas. We find John IV (1551), Richard (1552), William (1554), Gilbert (1556), Margaret (1558), Robert (1561) and Francis (1563)

Thus what I am saying is that there was a John born about 1510, in the gap shown above. That would make either John (1491) or John (about 1510) the husband of Margaret and the other would have made the will in 1558. It is too big a stretch that John III was Margaret Bullock’s husband and a natural gap about 1510 that would make sense.